What Should Have Been Done to Prevent this Mass Shooting?

a reply to: TrueBrit

Islam means to submit,the hegemony they want is theirs,they want total world domination.In the past total world domination meant bad,once this religion goes on the warpath a Richard the Lionheart can fight them to a draw,but it takes a Vlad Dracula or Ghenghis Khan to beat them ,all Im suggesting is to short circuit this movement with tough but smart measures

Man with known ties to Islamic terrorism commits a mass killing in our country

It's our fault for having scary guns

The left is disgusting

a reply to: khnum

Well...

TPTB have you nailed. Might as well join them eh?

If you don't stop swallowing that KoolAid, eventually you will drown in it.

a reply to: TrueBrit

I have been to Malaysia and Jordan both are progressive countries with Muslim populations, I have also been to Egypt and dealt with radicals,the ones with scarification on their foreheads,you cannot reason with them and unfortunately there are people in the world that have to be ruled with an iron fist,what happened when Mubarak,Hussein and Ghadafi were deposed it all went to hell- bar for a military stick save in Egypt.Kosovo is coming to Europe you can deny that all you want but its a fact,now we can either act to stop the snowball now or wait for the avalanche,whats your pick.

a reply to: khnum

My pick? Never be told what my options are until the day it is necessary to respond. Until or unless my land and my people are threatened, there simply is no threat. Unless we are invaded with bombs, tanks, planes and so on, there simply IS no real threat. There will be ants biting at the heels of dragons, and that is the best they will ever manage.

The threats to my country come from its own, not from without. We are in far more danger from those who bred the circumstances necessary to bring this situation about (that is the powerful scum at the head of my government and the government of the United States) than we ever are from a bunch of goons whose radical methods make them tactically inferior.

No, I would worry more about who formed and nurtured the first of these radical Muslim groups, the CIA, as an asset against the Russians, the organ grinders, so to speak. We are still funding them, still supplying them. There is no them and us in that respect. Saudi may have all manner of connection with this recent terror wave, but it's the wests baby. Our governments paid for it, so that the threat would look bad enough to have us all rally round in blind nationalism. Well I love my country, but the only response my government want to make to threats is to bomb people, creating more trouble, more terrorists than it kills. America is the same, except it just straight up drone kills anything that even gets close to a confirmed target, not caring that collateral damage creates terrorism faster than any recruiting video ever does.

The leaders of the "free" world have no wish to see this threat ended, because it cements their power base at home, and prevents people looking at them as harshly, which is why they keep sending guns and money to these bastards by the back door. Want it to be over? Unseat the powers that be from their thrones in the West, and watch the money fall out of ISIS like the blood out of a femoral artery wound.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Actually the commander of ISIS is General Paul Valleley ex NSA and US Psyops he wrote the book on all this with Satanist Michael Aquino back in 1980,yes I know the treason that has led to the decline and possible soon demise of the West,yes I know that a European civil war would be worth trillions to the MIC; hopefully when it hits the fan the real captains of the earth will stand and sweep these scum aside there are no Alexander the Greats in NATO, but even still radical islam is a threat and if there is anyone sane left in Western government that hasn't sold out to the house of Saud I would like something done about delaying the inevitable as long as possible.

a reply to: khnum

I understand you want to stave off whatever is coming next.

I simply disagree. There is no point. If it's going to happen, best it happen sooner, rather than later. The future is too precious to waste it on things we could get finished with now. If there is to be an overt assault, let it come.

The issue here is, there is no solution that does not involve creating more problems, except one. It will be hard, horrible, people we love will die, but it is the only solution that will actually WORK, without undoing itself like all the air raids and drone strikes do. We wait, and when they strike, we gut the attackers. We do not run from them, we do not cower, we do not hide, we stand, and the only direction we run in is toward them. We clog their assault rifles with our guts, and stab them in the eyes with our dying breaths. We catch them unawares from behind as they hose down the street ahead of them with lead, and we cut their throats and steal their rifles and grenades. We wait for night to fall, and we kill entire squads of them, silently under the noses of their night watchmen. We use their own weapons against the next squad we come across, and we fight like dogs for every single inch of this land we call home.

If we do that, we can win. If we do not, the war will never end.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Yes if you dont control the ground you don't control anything and it may not necessarily be conventional military that wins the day at a military show recently I enquired as to whether you would break the plastic gun if you smashed someone in the face with it,the response was'O no we never get that close in modern combat'
O Dear
O Dear
O Dear
In any event we now have a bed full of rattlesnakes we must expect to be bitten.

a reply to: khnum

I don't know what sort of military representative you bumped into, but they most certainly do get that close in modern combat, it's just less common.

It tends to be situations where narrow, walled in areas are being cleared, or moved through, highly built up urban areas, or caves of the sort familiar to Taliban fighters for example.

you can't stop suicide attackers.

that goes back centuries and will never change

a reply to: Krazysh0t

First he's American, so he isn't an immigrant or refugee from a war torn country in the Middle East.

His parents are immigrants from Afghanistan....

American-born children of immigrants proving fruitful recruiting ground for jihad in U.S.

Boston bombers are straight-up immigrants under political asylum...

Why is it that these types end up with permanent residence, when the honest, hard-working people with good will and potential get slapped across the face when requesting more than 3 months.... or god forbid a green card?!

Keep at it America....

Step 1: Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy.


Source

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

So anyways knowing these things (and I'm sure more info will come to light later), how could we, the US government, and namely Obama have done things differently here to prevent this tragedy? Trump has been calling for Obama's resignation over not calling this "Islamic Terrorism" as well as indirectly holding him accountable for being "weak against terrorism". Well, where is the weakness? All the answers I've thought of would either restrict American rights based on hearsay or would be just as ineffective as what we tried to do already.

The only thing that could have been done is to destroy ISIS and to destroy ISIS's public image so that ISIS cannot get anymore recruits and no more lone wolfs.

Miltary-wise, the Obama administration has failed to destroy ISIS and they haven't done anything to destroy ISIS's image so that there would be no more recruits. I'm not sure if anyone has the balls to do what is necessary.

If ISIS had bioweapons or chemical weapons, they would use them without hesitation on the United States. As it stands ISIS demands that its followers attack American fast food restaurants, dining places and shopping malls. So ISIS wants to attack unarmed men, women, and children THRU food and clothing (shopping malls).

I'm a firm believer of an EYE FOR AN EYE. Since ISIS demands that fast food, restaurants and malls (clothing) be attacked, innocent unarmed men, women and children, THEN TURN ABOUT IS FAIR PLAY. It is only fair to attack ISIS thru food and clothing, even if ISIS women and children might get in the way. And there is a way to destroy ISIS's public image at the same time.

The method: Lou Gehrig's Disease.

If all the ISIS leaders and trainers suddenly caught Lou Gehrig's disease and began losing motor control, it would destroy their public image. Not to mention the fact that the loss of motor control would mean a loss of ability in shooting a gun and the loss of ability of making bombs. And if ISIS leaders, trainers and recruiters all had Lou Gehrig's disease they be shaking uncontrollably in their internet videos. Baaaaaad public image.

So solution...the highest rates of Lou Gehrig's in the world is in the Faroe Islands and the Shetlands, where they use their own island sheep to make cheese and they eat every part of their sheep.

1. Gather the most likely Lou Gehrig's prion infected sheep. Gather sheep brains and head cheese from the Shetlands and the Faroes.

2. Isolate the prion that causes Lou Gehrig's from the highest infected sheep population.

3. Infect ISIS food supply, their lambs, with the Lou Gehrig's prion.

And an eye for an eye has been served. ISIS wants to attack American food places, malls for clothing, etc. IT'S ONLY FAIR TO DO THE SAME THING TO THEM.

And if 40 years down the road, experts examine the bodies and brains of ISIS deceased, then such an examination will only show that they had a NATURAL form of Lou Gehrig's.

In the mean time, politicians can hide behind HBO sports blaming head injuries, or doctors blaming genetic causes. Everyone can say "there's no known cause of Lou Gehrig's".

My solution is simple The Silence of the Lambs.

Maybe CIA can grow back their balls.

a reply to: MapMistress

Your method of "destroying" ISIS just leads to more terrorists. Also it is bio-warfare and EXTREMELY against the Geneva Conventions. I mean if you think the heat the US took for the interrogation fiasco during the Bush Presidency, the amount of # we'd get for using weaponized diseases would make that look like a traffic citation. Hell you might as well have just suggested we nuke them with your blatant disregard for the Geneva Conventions.

On top of all this, extreme aggression like this isn't going to kill terrorism. Sure we could destroy ISIS, but that isn't the core problem. The core problem is Wahhabism being a major component of Middle Eastern Muslim beliefs. So destroying ISIS will just result in a new terrorist organizations taking its place. Just like ISIS did when we destroyed Al Qaeda. We need to STOP radicalizing the next generation by blowing up their parents all the time. We also need to stop giving into fear here stateside. Terrorism is actually a rather minor threat to America's wellbeing.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: MapMistress

Your method of "destroying" ISIS just leads to more terrorists. Oh sure, you could destroy ISIS like we "destroyed" Al Qaeda, but once you do other terrorists will just step up into the vacuum. There is a never ending supply of them thanks to your "Eye for an Eye" mentality. I know it's hard for many people to accept, but blowing these people up or shooting them up (whatever you prefer) isn't doing much to stop the "terrorist threat". At some point we need to come together and talk our differences out. If not that, then maybe we can try not to radicalize the next generation by blowing up their parents.

I've often wondered how loving and understanding Americans would be toward a foreign power that came onto our soil and killed our families, including seniors and children, in so-called "collateral damage" while going after those they deemed dangerous.

I wonder how many Americans might become "radicalized' against that country and its people, after that happened ... in the millions.

a reply to: Gryphon66

We already know. Just look at the years 2002-2008 as well as their lasting repercussions.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Gryphon66

We already know. Just look at the years 2002-2008 as well as their lasting repercussions.

That seems to be a sad but true point.

What Should Have Been Done to Prevent this Mass Shooting?

Simple. No immigration from muslim countries. Parents of the killer would not have come from Afghanistan to US.

Western countries may adopt such a policy at a time in the future. Trump is already saying it, so are political parties in Europe.

Another 10 or 20 or 30 years of this stuff and such a policy may be virtually inevitable.

originally posted by: JimTSpock
What Should Have Been Done to Prevent this Mass Shooting?

Simple. No immigration from muslim countries. Parents of the killer would not have come from Afghanistan to US.

Western countries may adopt such a policy at a time in the future. Trump is already saying it, so are political parties in Europe.

Another 10 or 20 or 30 years of this stuff and such a policy may be virtually inevitable.

Erm this guy's parents immigrated here in the 70's when we were helping the Muslims keep USSR out of Afghanistan. Thanks for the useless response, Captain Hindsight.

a reply to: Gryphon66

It's a shame too. American's are too short term focused to stop, take a step back, and look at long term implications of things to recognize these trends. We tend to ignore history greater than 8 years and don't think about the future beyond 2 years. Then we sit and wonder why our kneejerk decisions always end up so disastrous and riddled with problems. Then we repeat the same damn mistakes we made originally to "fix" these new mistakes.