The Economist conjectured on the current decade of terrorism compared with previous decades. They had this to say:
Especially in America, it is all too easy to buy high-powered automatic weapons that can kill scores of people in moments. Neither great planning nor great intelligence is required to carry out such attacks. Even when the perpetrators are on the radar of the police and security services—and by no means all are—there is no guarantee they can be stopped, given the sheer number of potential jihadists.
Thus it seems likely that much of Europe and America will have to get used to acts of Islamist-inspired terrorism becoming, if not routine, at least fairly regular occurrences. The challenge for open, liberal societies is how they should respond to that threat, particularly at a time when popular confidence in traditional political elites has sunk so low. Above all, the danger is of over-reaction. (The Economist)
But the article makes these good points;
Last year General Michael Flynn, Donald Trump’s adviser on national-security issues and a former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, did just that. He described the terrorist enemy as “fuelled by a vision of worldwide domination achieved through violence and bloodshed” that was “committed to the destruction of freedom and the American way of life”. That may indeed be how IS thugs see themselves. But why should anyone sensible be so keen to validate their boasts?
To his credit, Mr Obama has consistently warned about the consequences of using hyperbolic language to describe the terrorist threat. In a TV address last December, after the San Bernardino shootings, he explained that success against IS and other terrorists “won’t depend on tough talk or abandoning our values, or giving in to fear”. Instead, he said, America would prevail by being strong and clever, resilient and relentless. Mr Obama is right. Defeating terrorism depends above all on good intelligence, a degree of stoicism and a refusal to allow it to undermine the principles that open societies are built on.
In other words, all this banning of Muslims entering the country is so ridiculously irrational and unhelpful that only Trump supporters are capable of thinking it’s a good idea.
If, indeed, you want to be safe from the greatest threats of violence, let’s consider the facts:
- Muslims commit terrorism.
- No, radical Muslims commit terrorism.
- But radical conservative Christians have killed as many in the US, some years they account for more and some years less than Muslims
- So maybe this is all a religion thing
- But wait, it’s not just religion. Despondent adolescents and angry workers have killed even more
- But wait…what connects EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE GROUPS?
- They’re all almost exclusively men
- Men are the greatest risk to our safety in this country and the world
Maybe it’s time to ban men. Not only are they nearly every single terrorist, they are also almost the entirety of the violent criminals, murderers, abusers, and rapists. If this post seems ridiculous to you, you need to really spend some time thinking about risk assessment, patriarchy, scapegoats, and red herrings.