What Finally Becomes Of Our Fears - our response to terrorism

I agree wholeheartedly with this article. "...terrorism’s goal is fear. And I will no longer be an accomplice in spreading fear. Terrorism’s goal is to make us react.
Shameful."

F*** terrorism. I am disgusted at the politicians, presidential candidates no less, who call for restricting the rights of, and harassing, innocent American citizens for an act done in another country. For playing on the fears of people here for their own gain of power. That is not leadership, that is greed and short-sighted reactivity. For trying to drum up outrage that our President, who was in another country attempting to build a new relationship after years of being enemies, went about his trip as he should have. This attack didn't occur on American soil and there was nothing the president could've done should he have "rushed home." It would've sent the wrong message, in fact, that terrorists can make us dance to their song at a whim. That we must react to what they do, instead of assessing the situation, gathering facts, and then formulating a rational plan of action to bring those who did wrong to justice.

Until we hold our leaders to a higher standard and hold them accountable at the ballot box, we will continue to get the candidates we deserve and have fostered. We deserve better.

What Finally Becomes Of Our Fears
March 22, 2016

That’s why I no longer immediately post about any shootings, bombings, and the like. I don’t ignore them. But for about the past six months or so, I also don’t rush to post about them, as they are happening “in the moment.” It’s a part of my commitment to not be “reactive” at moments when the media wants me to be…to not be controlled by either them, or terrorists.

“Don’t give them what they want…”

Terrorism wants fear, division, hatred, and distrust. We beat terrorism by refusing to do (or be) any of those.

We need not give in to our fears. Honor the dead by going about your daily life. Honor them by not giving terrorists what they want. Always build bridges of hope, whenever you can, but especially when voices of hate tell you to build walls instead.

ramage wrote: I am somewhat confused by your post. Do you mean that if an attack does not occur on American soil, the administration should go about its regularly scheduled activities? Americans were killed in the blast. The American Airlines desk was targeted. What is the strategy of the Obama administration? Is it to slide 4000+ soldiers into Iraq with more to come as I noted in another thread?
Using the non-american soil rationale, then "What difference dies it really make?" Ask the families of those Americans murdered.
I do agree with you that we deserve better than the current administration.

In essence, yes, in the immediate aftermath of something like the Brussels attacks. When the blasts went off, none of us knew if there were Americans killed in the blasts or not. No one knew who exactly was targeted or who would claim responsibility. Explosions in a foreign country should not dictate that we, the U.S., immediately go off half-cocked blowing things up or sending in troops before stopping to allow the country affected to assess what's actually happened, who was responsible and moving forward with a well though out plan, and participate if we are asked to assist. This is for Belgium to handle, not us. What should the POTUS do? Hop a plane and get on the phone and bug those who need to be coordinating disaster response and addressing their own people? We are not their masters and we should not be the world police.

After more information is gathered and things like it confirmed that Americans were killed, then yes, it is incumbent upon the president to address the situation and take action. It seems that in this instant gratification world we expect immediate reaction; however, that almost always leads to more disaster. Proper action requires data, confirmation of information, and logical, prepared plans. There's nothing wrong with taking time to formulate something, only in not taking any action at all.

And I apply everything I just said to any administration in the White House, not just this one. I hope that helped clear up what I didn't convey so well in my first post.

Rick wrote: First of all SC, the president was having a good time with his host, a man with a long record of crimes against humanity including murder.

I doubt very seriously that terrorists hell bent on destroying western society give two shits about what Obama has to say after an attack... none of his words will change their ideology of genocide. But, as the man who holds the most powerful office on the face of the earth, his words and actions do matter to everybody else.The optics of having a good time with a man who deserves to be in jail or hanging from a rope, immediately after an ally is attacked just blows my mind.

But I agree that politicians shouldn't immediately use events like this for their own personal gain. I think they would all look better if they just opted to not comment until the dust settled and the majority of facts are known.

As for a response, would acting like nothing happened really be less of an incentive for more attacks by Islamic radicals? These people don't have conventional armies, but they do have the ability to completely shutdown large cities with just a few people. In my opinion, that is their goal and their numbers are increasing. So I'm still waiting for Obama's plan on how to keep this cancer from growing out of control... we are still ok for now, but I'm pretty sure Europe's open border policies and lack of Muslim assimilation has forever doomed them to receive many more attacks which will continue to crush their shaky economies.

And we do business with China every day, they own a great majority of our asses. How is that any different Rick? Isn't it better to improve life by diplomacy and cooperation, providing a better example by beneficial action, than by continued war and attempts at domination or manipulation?

We cannot control the actions of others, only our own. I will forever stand and say that injustices against us do not mean that we are morally or ethically permitted to return similar injustices. We will never evolve or better ourselves if we continue to live by an "eye for an eye" mentality, something Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr understood all too well. Even these ISIS terrorists are doing what they are doing for a reason, and that reason will almost always boil down to one of 3 emotions: fear, anger, or pain of loss/suffering. Isolate what is causing that and find a solution to that problem, and you eliminate the symptoms of terrorism.

Do the terrorists give a sh*t about how the President reacts? You bet your ass they do. I can guarantee you they were glued to their TV sets and computer screens the morning of 9/11 and days afterwards. Does not leaving the game for this attack make a statement? It certainly does, even though it wasn't perpetrated on our soil, or people wouldn't be so up in arms about it.

What troubles me is that of the Republican candidates running, I don't see patient, calculating, rational, greater-good-focused leaders in the mix. I see leaders that wouldn't hesitate to quickly escalate a situation without thinking of the consequences, both short- and long-term. And I have little faith in the Democratic candidates because while they may have better foreign policies, their bedmates/leash handlers and plans for the economy of the US seems atrocious. But that's for another discussion.

BlazerBob wrote: I just read the part you pasted. Does he advocate doing anything but nothing.

Quite the contrary: "Honor the dead by going about your daily life. Always build bridges of hope, whenever you can, but especially when voices of hate tell you to build walls instead."
The purpose of terrorism is to get you to disrupt your own life, to get you to choose to limit your freedoms, hand over your power to others to "protect you", to make you live a life always filled with fear and wondering what bad things are going to happen next. Live your life deliberately, defiantly, as you normally would. Do not change your routine, do not give away your power, do not let them dictate your life. Build bridges, help others, don't assume the worst or make judgements about someone you don't even know. Don't lump an entire group into one "label" based on what a few outliers of that group do.

Hi Ramage!

Well, if our Secretary of State has visited, then it sounds as if we are taking action and paying our respects, as we should be. Would you agree, and if not, why not? If there are other actions they are taking, perhaps we are not hearing about it so as to keep public worry down and security tighter?

As to what action to take, I'm not one to make policy but if I were in charge it would be to continue our vigilance with our transportation systems and visitor screenings, make infrastructure improvements to our energy grid so that it's less vulnerable to attack, and continuing surveillance of internet communication and those suspected of being involved in terrorist organizations due to credible evidence. I'm sure there are more ideas out there as to what to protect, this isn't meant to be a comprehensive list just the ideas off the top of my head that I think are important.

What would you do?