http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2015/11/armed_man_threatens_upstate_ny_islamic_community_report_says.html
And the response I saw on my Facebook page from one of the other people I quoted. Vulgar language censored by me.
"1 hrEdited
THIS MESSAGE IS FOR FACEBOOK ADMINS, THE FBI, CIA, ATF, AND ALL THE OTHER ALPHABET SOUP GROUPS........CAREFUL HOW YOU DEAL WITH JON RITZHIEMER ..........MAKE SURE THAT YOU HANDLE THINGS TO THE LETTER OF THE LAW (PUN INTENDED) BECAUSE YOU HAVE ABOUT 10.1 MILLION LICENSED DEER HUNTERS, 250 MILLION AMERICANS THAT OWN GUNS, THE NRA, NOT TO MENTION THE ONES THAT ARENT SO LAW BIDING ALL WATCHING...........YOU THINK JON IS A PROBLEM? TAKE YOUR A** TO DEERBOURNE MI. AND CHECK THAT OUT..........F*** WITH THIS PATRIOT AND SEE WHAT THAT SPARKS!!!!!!! I AM SURE THAT THIS WILL AT THE VERY LEAST GET ME IN FB JAIL BUT SOMEONE HAD TO SAY IT............. "
This is not exactly related to the facebook discussions and story above, but it relates to Raith's presentation and the lack of discussion of the Paris attacks. It is completely understandable that it was difficult to cover the Paris incidents in your presentation, but I just wanted to share some information about it. I have a really close friend who is from France and currently lives there. I skyped her a day after the terrorist attacks and she told me that she knew one of the hostages who was held in the concert hall. So, this incident was something that personally affected her. However, that was not the part of the conversation that struck me most. Instead, what has stuck with me most to this day is her attitude towards France's retaliation against ISIS. She was very upset that her government carried out air raids the next day. She thought this was completely counterproductive and was furthering all of the hate and violence in the world that has been in part spear headed by extremist groups carrying out these terrorist acts. I find it really interesting that my friend, someone who was personally affected by extremist group actions is not in favor of responding with more hostility while a lot of the people mentioned in the Facebook posts have such hostile responses. As my friend said fighting fire with fire often leads to more problems, death, and attacks, so I find it very concerning that the individuals in the stories mentioned above have these responses.
ReplyDeleteIt does seem like a cycle of violence doesn't it? When you consider that Al Qaeda's very existence was fueled by the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan in the 1980s and the United State's funding of Al Qaeda to thwart that very Soviet Invasion (because we hated Communism), you can see that this cycle has gone on for a long time (actually, much longer than the 80's, but you get the idea from this example). But the real problem now is, what do we do about it? Do you just passively let groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS do what they wish? The result could be a large extremist Islamic state in the middle east that still hates us and still wants to destroy us (while causing massive harm to their own people). But of course, by fighting them, we continue to stoke the fires of their hatred. This is the catch 22 we seem to find ourselves in right now.
DeleteI think this is an extremely powerful argument towards the point that ISIS (or, more accurately, ISIL) is not the only group with absurd radicals, and thus not the only people we need to be worried about.
ReplyDeleteThere's a few important things to note about these people quoted here threatening the government and other people who disagree with them. First, they have no sources of intelligence beyond their own very limited means, which means they have no advanced way of drawing out who might be a threat and who isn't. This leads to point two: that the only way they're going to be able to tell is by their own judgement, which we can all plainly see is very badly biased. Third, what they define as a "threat" is founded on ignorance, which ties in closely to the second point in what it ultimately means- that innocent people would be in danger- just like they are from ISIL- if these people act on their radical views.
This pretty plainly lays out that they're no more in the right than ISIL is.
One of the things I can't help but laugh at, is how these people cite their "sources" when they talk about a "threat" to the US. And they'll expect me, a former Intelligence Analyst, to believe they have reputable sources. Because government officials love giving anti government types intel. The degree of absurdity that they go to in order to "prove" that their side is "right" is astounding.
Delete