Posted on 09/28/2016 9:18:28 PM PDT by Lorianne
Even as Hillary Clinton pushes a new scheme for defeating ISIS, the reality is that contradictory U.S. policies in the Mideast that she helped formulate are fueling the growth of jihadi extremism ___ Hillary Clinton has unveiled a two-part plan to defeat the Islamic State, and just as critics might expect, it’s a doozy. One part calls for an “intelligence surge” to combat the group both at home and abroad while the other urges that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Islamic State’s self-styled caliph, simply be knocked off.
Both are indicative of why the disaster in the Middle East can only get worse. The problem with an “intelligence surge” is twofold: (1) it’s not clear what it’s supposed to do beyond undermining civil liberties in the name of anti-terrorism and (2) whatever information it turns up will only be as good as the people who use it. Stalin had excellent sources warning him in 1941 that a German attack was imminent. But since some said the attack would occur in April, he was able to ignore them once April came and went and stick with his original conclusion that Hitler would not attack at all.
Since the U.S. is unwilling to examine how its policies have contributed to the growth of the Islamic State, stepped-up intelligence will undoubtedly do the same, i.e. confirm all of Washington’s preconceived notions and allow it to continue on the same disastrous course.
Moreover, considering that U.S. authorities received advanced warnings not only about Ahmad Khan Rahami, the 28-year-old Afghan-American charged with last week’s bombings in New York and New Jersey, but also about Boston Marathon bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev, “underwear bomber” Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, and Orlando shooter Omar Mateen, it would seem that what’s needed is not a super-sophisticated intelligence “surge” so much as old-fashioned police work like knocking on doors and following up leads.
Instead of “big data,” the FBI needs to do a better job with “little data” in the form of a concerned father phoning up the FBI to warn that his son has developed an unhealthy fascination with jihadi music, poetry, and videos.
As for part two of Clinton’s anti-Islamic State plan – knocking Al-Baghdadi off – it’s simply a medley of her greatest hits, i.e. the murder of Muammar Gaddafi (“We came, we saw, he died”) and the assassination of Osama bin Laden (“I was one of those who recommended the President launch what was a very risky raid”). Since Clinton seems to think her ratings go up every time she kills an Arab leader, she figures it can’t hurt to kill more. SNIP
That said, Obama and Clinton have made a bad situation worse ... and more to come if she wins.
Any intelligence surge is useless unless you can identify the enemy.
Intelligence in the hands of this woman is useless because it will be on sale to the highest bidder and anyone willing to “donate” to the Clinton Slush Fund Foundation.
And neither one will ever use the words “Islamic Terrorism”.
you fight the WWII way, to win, without tying soldiers’ hands.
Russia made some very fast inroads in Syria this way.
Putin is an assassin but he knows what war is.
I don’t doubt with the correct plan ISIS can be destroyed, but jihad is another matter.
One, ISIS is an organization, the other is part of the Islamic culture per that alleged religion’s operators manual the Koran conceived, and established by psychopathic pervert Mohammed in the sixth century BC.
Agree the worst is yet to come IF she is elected president of this country. Terrible thing to go to bed with that on my mind.
What bothers me .. Hillary is always so ready to KILL some leader .. as if that will stop anything.
The woman is just weird .. I don’t trust her. What would we do if she decided that some “leader” here in America needed to be taken out .. would she be willing to do that ..???
I BELIEVE SHE MIGHT ORDER IT (but probably never do it herself).
Isn’t bagdaddy dead?
Hillary would be a disaster as CIC. Not only is she evil, she is utterly incompetent. The woman has never done anything right in her life.
I’m just waiting for ISIS to publicly endorse Hillary.
Jihad is not just in Syria. The mindset is pervasive over nearly 25% of the entire globe’s population and over vast areas of the globe.
Right now the main manifestations of it are in Syria (and Libya) but that will not always be the case. It is already shifting to the Sinai and Yemen and across Africa.
There is little doubt that something has changed in the last few years. Some of the mass shootings are just due to mental illness cases such as Columbine. BUT Something else has been added to the baseline.
When you take into account the Trump/skittles factor, a few percent of the Muslims let in will kill Americans.
I think the rapid increase in mass shooting incidents is tied to the rapid increase of Muslims into the US. Why is that? Because America's FIRST Muslim President, has committed to changing America. Part of the way he is going to do that is to flood people who cannot accept our legal system as Muslims abide by Sharia Law, not our silly Constitution. The Muslims are commanded to change our legal system to Sharia Law. And some of them are going to kill Americans no matter who wins the battle.
I agree with you. It’s a question of math.
Let’s say 1% of Muslims who come to the West, either to study or visit or to immigrate have mal intentions. Just 1%.
So, in a case like Europe where you let in 1 million Muslims, that would be 100,000 people with mal intent. Even though its a tiny percentage, that’s enough people to overwhelm surveillance and preventative resources.
Especially as people (unlike say a poisoned skittle) gave agency. They are kinetic. They can plot and organize, share intelligence and resources, etc. So that creates a multiplier effect.
Even 100 well trained and disciplined people with mal intent and a common goal can be an almost unsurmountable security problem for a country. Almost impossible to identify and scoop up BEFORE they act. Somee of them will be able to achieve their goal ... as we have seen.
That is why keeping them out is more important than going over to Islamic countries and bombing them or whatever. Containment should be our policy.
It’s a question of math and probabilities.
Yes it is unfair to the 99% (in my example) who do not have mal intent. But that is not our problem. Our problem are the 1% intent on doing harm. We have to remain focused on that.
Even if the percentage is less, say .5%, the security risks are huge. The more you let in, the more in absolute numbers will be here plotting and planning. We do not have the resources to detect and apprehend once a certain number is reached.
Suni islam is the religion of spies, with imamas controled by bureaucrats and foreign governments. So long we do not understand that about islam, we will lose.
The other point is that islam works through secrecy and political correctness, and they are thus better than us at this game. If the government keeps giving away our positions as self defending citizens, creating this trust and doubt, violating our privacies while islam enjoys its secrecy and spy network, it is going to be a Turkey shoot for terrorists, and it is, in the manner of “sleeper cells”, which do not sleep at all (eg. CAIR, Dearborn mayor etc)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.