Two Terror Attacks could have been prevented if someone spoke up but we are too conditioned

The recent events in Orlando are tragic. The saddest part is that his wife could have reported him. His Imam or others at his mosque could have reported him. It is expressed by co-workers that he did and said things that should have been reported. No one did. Now 49 are dead and more than 50 others are scarred for life. We have not learned and it seems our memory is very short.

In December 2015 a terror attack occurred in California. His wife knew and was an accomplice. His mother knew. His friends, some, knew about the plot that was actually postponed based on other arrests. However, someone outside the circle could have reported him and it would not have happened...maybe.

www.dailymail.co.uk... acial-profiling.html

For fear of racial profiling, the neighbor did not report it. Why, because the current administration has made it an issue to even imply that a Muslim could be a terrorist. It started with Ft Hood.

Remember what he said?

www.theguardian.com...

Barack Obama today joined calls from across America for calm amid fears of a backlash in the wake of the shooting spree by a Muslim soldier at the Fort Hood that left 13 dead and 28 wounded. Obama, speaking in the White House Rose Garden after being briefed by the FBI, sought to dampen tensions, as did politicians from both the Democratic and Republican parties, the military, Muslim associations and the family of the alleged shooter, Major Nadil Malik Hasan. "I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we get all the facts," Obama said. The risk of a witchhunt rose today when the commander at the Fort Hood base, Lieutenant-General Robert Cone, disclosed that wounded soldiers said Hasan had shouted "Allahu Akbar" before opening fire on unarmed soldiers at the Texas base.

He told us not to criticize or jump to conclusions...and he has done that on each occasion there has been a Muslim attacking another. Did we already forget the officer shot in cold blood by a Muslim? Yes, because the government is telling you to.

www.cnn.com...

After San Bernadino, the AG stated they would not stand for Anti Muslim and Muslim hate speech. They did not talk about how to protect ourselves because they wanted to take our guns...and still do.

www.politico.com...

Are you waking up yet folks? I know that the pharma induced coma makes things foggy for the masses but folks, there are voices out there who are saying things that need to be listened to.

“We hear language that singles out immigrants and suggests entire religious communities are complicit in violence,” Mr. Obama said at the Treasury Department, without mentioning Mr. Trump by name. His statement, an extraordinary condemnation by a sitting president of a man who is to be the opposing party’s nominee for the White House, came after Mr. Obama met with his national security team on the status of the American effort against the Islamic State, a meeting that the president said had been dominated by discussion of the Orlando rampage. “Where does this stop?” Mr. Obama said of Mr. Trump’s approach, noting that Mr. Trump had proposed a ban on admitting Muslims into the United States, and that the Orlando assailant, like perpetrators of previous domestic terrorist attacks in San Bernardino, Calif., and Fort Hood, Tex., was an American citizen. “Are we going to start treating all Muslim-Americans differently? Are we going to start subjecting them to special surveillance? Are we going to start discriminating against them because of their faith?” Mr. Obama asked, his voice rising with frustration. “Do Republican officials actually agree with this? Because that’s not the America we want — it doesn’t reflect our democratic ideals. It won’t make us more safe. It will make us less safe.”

A dangerous mindset? To be vigilant? Inspired by ISIS and directed by ISIS are the same thing. The more they try to define it the easier it is to show there are not as many attacks.

If you do not admit you have an enemy you are securing your fate as a victim....

Yep , attacking a Presidential candidate instead of the enemy . The Obama way

The attack of the Philly cop

The shooting in Philadelphia is the fourth attack believed to have been inspired by ISIS on American soil, including the December 2015 shootings that left 14 dead in San Bernardino, California, the shootings outside a Prophet Mohammed cartoon contest in a Dallas suburb in May 2015, and a hatchet assault on four police officers in New York in October 2014. Officials said they did not know whether the latest attack was part of a broader conspiracy or whether Archer had contact with terrorists. Archer traveled to Saudi Arabia in 2011 and Egypt in 2012, FBI Special Agent Eric Ruona said. Ruona could not comment on whether investigators think Archer interacted with any terrorist groups during these trips. ISIS goes global: Mapping 50 attacks in 18 countries that killed 1,100 people ISIS goes global: Mapping ISIS attacks around the world Mayor Jim Kenney said the shooting had nothing to do with Islam. "It is abhorrent," he said. "It does not represent the religion in any shape or form or any of the teachings. This is a criminal with a stolen gun who tried to kill one of our officers, and it has nothing to do with being a Muslim or following the Islamic faith." Imam Asim Abdur-Rashid, head of a mosque one block away from an address associated with Archer, condemned the attack at a news conference. He said he did not know whether the alleged shooter attended his mosque.

He went to Saudi twice...

a reply to: matafuchs

I think ratting your neighbor out can be a fine line.. I mean how would you feel to see "suspicious" activity, only to find out that your call got them arrested for having a little pot plant or something else similar, harmless in nature?

Now obviously, if you are walking your dog, and you glance at a house and see a guy through the window screaming allah akbar while holding a (firearm of choice here) then that is a little different. I suppose it is situation dependent.


iTruthSeeker

We are being conditioned to blame ourselves. It is like telling an assault victim that it is their fault for provoking the aggressor into hitting them. This is insane.

No body in their right mind wants an Islamic State to succeed. Look at what that culture did to the middle east. It used to be the go to place for intellectual advancements and scientific break through.

So it is without a doubt necessary to label the enemy for what they are. It is fortunate that they have organized and given themselves a name, so we can more accurately target them and their associates. However, we are foolish if we don't profile Muslims. It is Muslims that they recruit and brainwash, even victimize to some extent. You aren't going to find a shark if you look in a tree.

With that said, most Muslims don't need to be investigated for connections to terrorism and they shouldn't be. But our investigative agencies need to be allowed to do their job, and that includes singling out Islamic places of influence that have proven connections to terrorist organizations.

a reply to: iTruthSeeker

It is a slippery slope..we do not want to become East Germany..which at one point was an entire society of informants. I can think of a few threads here that involved a citizen reporting something that ended in an innocent persons death.
Fact is sh#t happens and there is sometimes no fix/prevention.

Maybe if the authorities made it easier on us honest people without being made to feel like we are the ones doing wrong more people would call if they saw anything. But, the way it stands now, many feel uncomfortable calling for fear of being put through the wringer, or being called racist, islamaphobic, etc.

a reply to: matafuchs

If reported, someone else would just be "chosen" to be the patsy.

These things are manufactured to create fear and dissolve rights, that's all.

a reply to: matafuchs

I agree with your point but I dont think it would have made a difference in these cases.

This guy had a father who was politically connected and a possible CIA asset.

Now its coming out that he had FBI "informants" or handlers.

Then there are the usual oddities: lack of first responders, lack of bodies, no pictures or video from inside the club (not yet anyway), reports of multiple shooters, a pending arrest for an accomplice...

Unfortunately, the FBI's role in these attacks has also been questionable.

originally posted by: VivreLibre
We are being conditioned to blame ourselves. It is like telling an assault victim that it is their fault for provoking the aggressor into hitting them. This is insane.

No body in their right mind wants an Islamic State to succeed. Look at what that culture did to the middle east. It used to be the go to place for intellectual advancements and scientific break through.

So it is without a doubt necessary to label the enemy for what they are. It is fortunate that they have organized and given themselves a name, so we can more accurately target them and their associates. However, we are foolish if we don't profile Muslims. It is Muslims that they recruit and brainwash, even victimize to some extent. You aren't going to find a shark if you look in a tree.

With that said, most Muslims don't need to be investigated for connections to terrorism and they shouldn't be. But our investigative agencies need to be allowed to do their job, and that includes singling out Islamic places of influence that have proven connections to terrorist organizations.

The problem with this guy was he didn't know what to label himself. Someone DID call and report him. The FBI DID investigate him and determined he was full of # because he claimed a connection to both Hezbollah and Al Queda and obviously didn't know what he was talking about. They determined he liked to talk drama. I'm sure his wife and family felt the same way. He talked a big game but wasn't actually active doing anything. Should he have been on a watch list? YES. Should he have been kept from buying an assault rifle? YES. Should he have been jailed for talking? No.

Pretending like the event in Orlando was preventable is foolish. You are just going to incite more divisiveness and hostility by pointing fingers, but solve nothing going forward. Plus the only way it was preventable is if someone happened to be paying attention at the right moment to say or do something to stop him. In other words blind luck.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Blind luck. His wife drove him to case the places he went. All it takes is one phone call. More hostility? So, calling out Islamic terrorism will cause MORE attacks? So we should what, STFU and let our country take one into the toilet?

It is not foolish to think this could have been prevented. It is foolish to think it could not be. You can give up but I, for one, will never give up pointing fingers at those responsible.

originally posted by: VivreLibre
We are being conditioned to blame ourselves. It is like telling an assault victim that it is their fault for provoking the aggressor into hitting them. This is insane.

No body in their right mind wants an Islamic State to succeed. Look at what that culture did to the middle east. It used to be the go to place for intellectual advancements and scientific break through.

So it is without a doubt necessary to label the enemy for what they are. It is fortunate that they have organized and given themselves a name, so we can more accurately target them and their associates. However, we are foolish if we don't profile Muslims. It is Muslims that they recruit and brainwash, even victimize to some extent. You aren't going to find a shark if you look in a tree.

With that said, most Muslims don't need to be investigated for connections to terrorism and they shouldn't be. But our investigative agencies need to be allowed to do their job, and that includes singling out Islamic places of influence that have proven connections to terrorist organizations.

We're being conditioned, but perhaps it's for the right reasons. People are predominantly stupid and any profiling on an official level will fuel hatred towards those groups. The country would be responsible for fanning the flames.

The correct way to do it would be to secretly profile, but only when the situation warrants it. Only when they know a crime will be committed. But the question then becomes who's watching the watchers?

I think the value of profiling is limited. Extremism is many and varied. Most of those who practice extremism will not commit crimes. And since they cannot watch everyone they have to wait until a trail is visible.

a reply to: matafuchs

You are using hindsight to convict people. Regardless of what the wife knew, if no one else took the threat seriously or couldn't come up with anything to stick upon investigating him then what do you do?

You are really trying to push the narrative that we should strip American rights away to protect against Muslims, but I'm going to stand opposed to such nonsense until the day I die. Because I've learned my lesson with the Patriot Act and PRISM.

Besides I like Muslims. I have a plenty of co-workers that are great people and Muslims. They denounced these attacks too. I don't want to see them placed on watch lists because of xenophobes scared of being killed in an event that kills less people a year than toasters.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Strip rights? By reporting possible crimes? So you know and work with Muslims. So do I. I do not want to see them deported but just like I am opposed to Gang Violence(Chicago should have NG patrols) I am opposed to terrorism in my country.

This is not hate of Muslims. Muslims and others use that 'line' and it continues to allow these attacks to occur. CAIR is great at this.

A US citizens shoots up a church and since there was a Rebel Flag on his car all rebel flags must be banned as hate. (I am not defending this assh%$% either) I am making a point.

A US citizen shoots up a gay nightclub and we are told to be tolerant and not blame all Muslims.

Why is this the narrative. Please, if you can explain it to me....

how many people wound up dead after calling the police for help?
we the people want nothing to do with you, and the death you bring

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Krazysh0t
*snip*

A US citizens shoots up a church and since there was a Rebel Flag on his car all rebel flags must be banned as hate. (I am not defending this assh%$% either) I am making a point.

A US citizen shoots up a gay nightclub and we are told to be tolerant and not blame all Muslims.

Why is this the narrative. Please, if you can explain it to me....

I'll try. In review, you're saying if we can ban all rebel flags because some shooters used it then why can't we profile followers of islam if some of them are mass shooters? Am I right?

Well in both cases you have a base element, that being Islam and the rebel flag. Then you have the shooter who carries them. Guess what, all shooters wear shoes. Does that mean shoes should be banned? We have to examine the base element for faults and relevance. Shooes are incidental and not morally repugnant either. Islam, on its own, promotes peace, not violence. Only when it's radicalized can it be harmful. The rebel flag, conversely, is representative of the south during the civil war. The south supported slavery (racism). It wasn't a radical faction of the south which supported slavery, it was widely supported. Thus, the rebel flag cannot be said to be neutral or harmless, unlike Islam.

Agree or disagree?

The wife had a moral obligation to tell the police her husband was going to kill people, end of argument, if she knew and did nothing she is complicit in 49 murders. I feel sorry that she was conditioned to be a virtual slave by religion and culture, but that does not excuse allowing 49 innocent people to be murdered.

a reply to: jonnywhite

I should have clarified. I mean why is there an uproar for the rebel flag to be removed but we are told to be tolerant of Islam?

The base element in both is death, not a religion or symbol.

However, trying to say the rebel flag is more violent than Islam is, sorry, laughable. Islam does not promote peace. There are mosques and imams who are moderate and there are also many differences between Shia/Sunni actions which are the two largest groups but Islam, at conception, is an ideology and a set of rules. There is no separation of church and state with Islam.

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: jonnywhite

I should have clarified. I mean why is there an uproar for the rebel flag to be removed but we are told to be tolerant of Islam?

The base element in both is death, not a religion or symbol.
*snip*

Generally you're right that death is the base element of all shootings. But for sake of discussion, we're referencing the rebel flag and Islam. I explained the rebel flag is inherently bad because it symbolizes slavery. Islam, by contrast, is peaceful on its own. Only radicalized islam is dangerous. It was not a radicalized faction in the south which supported slavery, it was widely support. So there's no comparison between them. End result is it may be justifiable to ban the rebel flag, but not the same for islam.

Are you saying all Islam is radical?