Free Stylin'

The Threat We Live With

On this day, we must never forget the lives lost on 9/11. But we must also never forget the constant risk we live with and will live with for the longest time.

In July 2016, a terrorist took the lives of eighty-six people by driving a truck through a crowd in Nice, France. The French Prime Minister Manuel Valls took a lot of criticism for his response,

 “The times have changed, and France is going to have to live with terrorism”.

This was spoken about France, but also should be applied to The United States. Terrorism is not something we will be able to eliminate in the near future. It’s too easy for irrational people to cause terror and death in pursuit of elevating their agenda to an international stage.

This does not mean we should live in constant fear or that we are doomed. We cannot let fear win. It would be a deadly mistake for us to react in a knee-jerk way dividing groups against each other. Unity is vital in order for us to identify and combat those with hateful ideologies.

We must separate those who seek to hurt us from the groups they falsely identify as. We must permit our government to use the resources necessary to protect and prepare us. But most of all, we must keep a watchful eye and not be shushed when we sense that something is wrong.

13 replies »

    • There are many ideologies based on ignorance, fear mongering, and violence that I was writing about in general. I was eluding to radical Islamic terrorism. But my point remains that terrorism in this form or by the KKK or other fundamentalist groups are nearly impossible to prevent with a single policy.

      Liked by 1 person

    • I do not claim to know entirely what is in the minds of the people that support this ideology. Economic hardship, some Western intervention, political strife, war, cultural limitations, and fundamental/warped religious beliefs are some of the factors that contribute to the basis of this ideology.

      Like

      • I haven’t read the Koran for myself, but Islamic terrorists claim to be following its instructions, and many people have researched this and cited passages from the Koran calling for Muslims to eradicate “infidels.” I understand that the vast majority of Muslims have adopted their own peaceful interpretation, but I wonder what is the basis for claiming that the radicals, not the peaceful Muslims, are the ones falsely identifying with Islam?

        While it might be great that a majority of Muslims have apparently chosen to eschew the Koran’s instructions with respect to “infidels,” certainly you can appreciate that when we have two groups who both claim to be true followers of one religion and one of those groups is murderously violent and dangerous, it’s problematic for the rest of us to agree on a national policy towards Muslims. Thus when you say, “It would be a deadly mistake for us to react in a knee-jerk way dividing groups against each other,” that seems odd given the circumstances. Seems to me the more deadly mistake would be to react in a knee-jerk way and refuse to thoughtfully consider the problem at hand.

        Like

  1. The radicals are falsely identifying themselves with Islam as they are in the minority among 1 billion peaceful of Muslims. The prevailing interpretation of a religion best exemplifies what that religion stands for, in my opinion. The Bible has some less than ‘kind’ passages and past Christian beliefs/actions have been deplorable, however, I would not lump all Christians with those in the past or the few fundamentalists today.

    We do not need a “national policy towards Muslims”. We need common sense and human decency to not increase societal fractures by lumping such a large group to a smaller group. It is without a doubt dangerous to react in a knee-jerk way like banning all Muslims from entering our country, censoring holy texts, requiring some sort of scary registry, etc. I am glad we agree it is important to “thoughtfully consider the problem at hand.” Every topic with the slightest disagreement deserves dialogue and the necessary consideration

    Like

    • It just wouldn’t be a day if there wasn’t some liberal somewhere preaching to us about “human decency” while he gives nary a thought to the possibility that OTHER people are going to die, lose loved ones and pay a myriad of costs just so that he can pat himself on the back because his heart is so much bigger than everyone else’s.

      I hope you’ll forgive my sarcasm, Daniel, I really don’t like to be snarky, but sometimes it’s necessary to wake people out of their talking point trance. You pay lip service to thoughtfully considering the problem while actually doing no such thing. The liberals in Europe sounded just like you 10 or 20 years ago, and now their fellow Europeans are paying the price. People have been killed and injured in attacks by radicalized Muslims and others have forever lost people they loved. Cultures are being squeezed out and taxpayers are being abused. That’s the history being made right now. The history that we’re supposed to learn from, but never do.

      You want Americans to show “human decency” by turning a blind eye to the risks they face and opening our doors to the safe, prosperous country we’ve built, but you ask nothing of the Muslims in return. They don’t have to reject the Koran EVEN if it calls for our slaughter; they don’t have to assimilate; they aren’t expected to be thankful. Instead they’re encouraged to feel entitled. And then they can be supported by U.S. taxpayers, because nothing gratifies the ego of liberal like giving away the hard-earned money of strangers.

      I can’t afford to have a heart when I live in a nation full of sanctimonious liberals who don’t give a damn what anyone else has to sacrifice so that they can have some special claim on human decency.

      Oh and BTW, Muslims vote for Democrats. How’s that for a coincidence?

      Like

  2. You could not be more wrong. You just spewed some serious word vomit. Conservatives preach about free speech and religious liberty- why does this not apply to Muslims? Human decency is not meant to be a liberal chant. I’m simply calling for unity, sympathy for people, and thoughtful consideration.

    Europe has experienced terrible tragedies. You are correct. Much of that is due to their homogeneous populations that make it difficult for immigrants to assimilate.

    In NO way did I suggest that we turn “a blind eye to the risks” or open our doors. I acknowledge the threat of all terrorism- religious, political, etc. All people should reject violence and hate. It is a beautiful process how we as humans, along with our religions, have PROGRESSED and become more accepting.

    This is nonsense and irrelevant to our discussion- “nothing gratifies the ego of liberal like giving away the hard-earned money of strangers.”

    I appreciate your comments. I’d much rather talk about similarities on our sides and search for middle ground. It seems all you want to do is find ways to bash any remotely liberal idea and put conservatives on a pedestal.

    Like

    • >>” Conservatives preach about free speech and religious liberty- why does this not apply to Muslims?”

      Because their religion tells them to kill everyone else, and a growing number of them are taking that to heart, and because in many ways Islam is incompatible with the more liberal values of the west. Take a look at the polls asking Muslims where they stand on things like Sharia Law, women being subservient to men and homosexuality, Daniel. These aren’t insignificant percentages. There’s no such thing as thoughtful consideration if you’re unwilling to acknowledge the facts.
      I don’t know if your claim is true that the homogenous populations of Europe make it difficult for immigrants to assimilate. Homogenous in what sense? What is your basis for making such a claim?

      >>”… all you want to do is find ways to bash any remotely liberal idea…”

      I can’t separate the national debate we have about Muslim immigration from the way liberalism impacts that debate. As far as I am concerned anyone is welcome here who is willing to assimilate by embracing – in a broad sense – the American culture and values, honoring our laws, and being a productive, self-supporting member of the community. But these important steps that made immigration a success for others and for the U.S. in the past are being thwarted by liberals who now promote multi-culturalism, defend the practice of Sharia Law within Muslim communities and never met a welfare program they were willing to cut. How do I reconcile these things without talking about liberalism, you tell me.

      Like

  3. European countries are much more homogeneous than the US with regard to their population’s ethnicity. It is harder for immigrants to assimilate and become a part of their cultures.

    “Because their religion tells them to kill everyone else, and a growing number of them are taking that to heart”– this is incredibly ignorant. Similar claims could be made about Christianity. Show me the quote calling Muslims to kill everyone and show me the stat about more of them taking it to heart. That is a silly comment used to divide people and rachet up fears.

    “How do I reconcile these things without talking about liberalism, you tell me.” — I’m not going to win on this one. You refuse to recognize the beliefs of people outside of your political spectrum.

    This post was never meant to be a defense of Islam or some controversial commentary on terrorism. But you gave more word vomit about irrelevant items like welfare and this growing threat of Sharia Law in the US. Nonsense. I simply called for more watchfulness and consideration, while also stating terrorism will not be ‘defeated’ anytime soon.

    Like

    • “Show me the quote calling Muslims to kill everyone….”

      The passages from the Quran that call for violence against “infidels” can be found on any number of sites if you are SINCERELY interested in hearing the facts, Daniel, but I suspect that you aren’t sincere so I’m not going to waste my time cutting and pasting links for someone whose mind is already closed. If, in the midst of the years of controversy over whether or not Islam is a “religion of peace” you’ve never been curious enough to do a few minutes’ worth of research, this tells me that your mind is already made up and you will invent reasons to reject any information that doesn’t comport with what you’ve chosen to believe.

      “….and show me the stat about more of them taking it to heart.”

      Okay, I’ll bite, even though I’m guessing that you’ll find your reasons to dismiss anything that contradicts what you’re comfortable believing:

      “Research in the European microcosm nation of Denmark has found three-quarters of Muslims in the country register on an important measure for radicalisation – more now than a decade ago.”

      http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/10/15/myth-integration-muslims-europe-getting-radical-time-not-less/

      “The Mill of Muslim Radicalism in France”

      “U.K. Muslims Struggle With Cleric’s Radicalization”

      http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121880241

      “U.K. struggles to stop Islamic radicalization spike”

      Why don’t you ask some of the recent victims of terror attacks by Islamic radicals in Europe or here in the U.S. if it’s “silly” to suggest that the threat of radicalization is growing?

      >>” You refuse to recognize the beliefs of people outside of your political spectrum.”

      Actually quite the opposite is true. I am woefully cognizant of the beliefs outside my political spectrum, which is why I’m so concerned.

      >>” I simply called for more watchfulness and consideration, while also stating terrorism will not be ‘defeated’ anytime soon.”

      I agree with those sentiments, but you also warned against “dividing groups against each other,” which has become the Left’s mantra to shame people into not taking a hard look at what’s really going on inside the Muslim community. I agree that the majority of Muslims are peaceful in their behavior, but the extent to which this is due to a peaceful interpretation of Islam or out of fear of acting on extremist beliefs, this we don’t know. The Muslim population in the U.S. is expanding, just as it is in the world:

      http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/04/02/397042004/muslim-population-will-surpass-christians-this-century-pew-says

      Muslims are expected to overtake Christians as the dominant religion this century. It behooves us to understand these trends and to consider what it means for western values in the future, particularly in light of what we see unfolding as a consequence of Muslim immigration in Europe. You may think it’s all fine and dandy but there are those of us who see things a little differently.

      Like

  4. -I have actually studied the Quran and Islam quite a bit. There are some concerning passages, just as there are in The Bible. Times change and interpretations change.

    -Breitbart is in no way, shape, or form a reliable news source. The NYT piece is an Op-ed and gave no legitimate stats about the rise of radicalism. The NPR article is an interview that also does not give any facts other than some crazy professor who has been condemned. You still have not provided any decent evidence showing me “the stat about more of them taking it to heart.”

    -“You also warned against “dividing groups against each other”. I truly cannot comprehend why this warning is a bad thing. I favor reflection and examining all aspects of this group and all arguments. It’s scary to think that in our current polarized political environment we can’t even agree that division is bad. Very telling of the times we live in.

    Like

    • Just as I expected you find reasons to reject anything that doesn’t support the view you’ve already invested in. So much for examining “all arguments.” Just words not backed by actions. I assumed you would have a knee-jerk reaction to Breitbart, but hoped that since it’s based entirely on a DENMARK newspaper poll you might open your mind.

      Liberals always have the perfect defense: right-leaning news can’t be trusted and the so=called “mainstream news” (run by 80%+ self-described liberals and/or Democrats) will rarely cover anything that contradicts the Democrat agenda.

      >>”It’s scary to think that in our current polarized political environment we can’t even agree that division is bad.”

      I think group-think is the far bigger danger, Daniel. It really involves no thinking at all.

      Like

Please leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s