Author Topic: Suarez on the Manchester Terror Event  (Read 236 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

pop pop

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1158
  • Location: middle TN
Suarez on the Manchester Terror Event
« on: May 23, 2017, 02:33:11 PM »

 
 




 


 "I DON'T WANT TO LIVE LIKE THAT"

THE MANCHESTER TERROR EVENT   




It was the perfect target if you think about it...if you have studied the enemy's playbook.  A crowded event, in an unsecured location, attended by non-combatants, in an unarmed egalitarian western nation.  The stuff jihadist dreams are made of.  So 23-year-old Salman Abedi, son of Lybian refugees, set off a nail bomb at the conclusion of the concert as attendees were exiting the hall.  Thusfar, there are 22 dead and some 60 severely injured.  Having some knowledge on the nature of blast injuries, the death toll will likely increase, and the injured will likely never be the same.


The response is almost comical.  First there is collective horror and revulsion, then a call for tolerance from world leaders and media figures.  A reassurance that this was an isolated event, and that it has nothing to do with religion.  There will be flowers and candles and Union Jack icons on social media, and all of that.  And somewhere in Afghanistan or some other place far away from the site of the mass murders, a drone will blow up a hut in retaliation.  And in a few months, except for the families of the dead and injured, nobody will even remember the event.


It is astounding really.  A comparison would be if a farmer welcomed wolves into his farm (they are all God's creatures right).  Then when one wolf kills all his chickens, he publicly declares that this is not typical wolf behavior and we should not blame wolves.  Then he gets on a plane and shoots a wolf 1000 miles away so his chickens will feel safer.


What is the solution to events like Manchester, Westminster, Orlando, and San Bernardino?


One is to create and live in a nation free of wolves (or jihadists), but arriving at that end would require a total reorganization of the west's own self-image, and an abandonment of its liberal and egalitarian view of humanity.  Something I simply do not see happening.


The other options are more realistic.  I could be totally wrong, but I do not see the global solution considered by governments to provide a local solution.  In other words, eliminating ISIS in the middle east will not eliminate the ideology that causes otherwise normal people to suddenly become mass murderers.


One option is to have more police and soldiers everywhere...armed, and ready to preemptively eliminate threats like Abedi.  This goes on all the time in the west...secretly, but it goes on.  Apparently it doesn't go on enough.  The guys like in the image above make everyone feel safer after the echoes of the explosion fade, but they are there after the fact and their timing makes them powerless at anything but social reassurance.  I suppose if there were guys like this on every corner and at every school and concert hall, and restaurant, the Abedis of the world would not be as successful in their evil plans.  But we can almost hear the bleating of the snowflakes, "I don't want to live in an armed camp". 


You should have thought about that before inviting the wolves dearest special snowflakes.


Another option is to be armed all the time (not an option in England clearly).  But with that must come the realization and acceptance that the plan is not a defensive one, but a preemptive one.  You do not "defend" from a nail bomb...you prevent its explosion by shooting the man at the controls in the face multiple times. And even then...it is not a guarantee.  It would be better if Abedi would simply disappear one night, never to be heard from again, buried in an unmarked grave in the countryside after being interdicted by counter terror units.  An Abedi interdicted is not an Abedi that would kill 22 girls at a concert. 


His rights?  Ah, there is the kicker, but before we address the rights of Abedi and his cohorts, we should consider the rights of the 22 dead and the 60 dismembered.  At what point will Abedi's rights not matter?  How many more dead we wonder?


But we can still hear the politicians and the apologists (and you wonder what on earth they are thinking...and why) -


"You need to get used to this new normal",
"We cannot live in fear". 


A people that are accustomed to being culled every so often are already a dead people...a people only a fool would want to belong to.  And being powerless, if they are not afraid, they are either suicidal or stupid.   Because if you cannot fight, cannot accuse the wolf (lest you be seen as an anti-wolf social pariah), and are required to accept that at any point in your day you might be targeted by the jihadist for execution as "normal", you should be afraid.


We do have other options, specially here in America.  But we wonder how many Americans would have been armed had that event taken place in the USA?  And how many of them would have noticed Abedi and killed him before he set himself off?

We live in a time of war...and the war is getting more intense everyday.

M1911A1

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3695
  • Location: I'm at the far upper left-hand corner of the US.
Re: Suarez on the Manchester Terror Event
« Reply #1 on: May 23, 2017, 02:51:51 PM »
Suarez wrote: "...One option is to have more police and soldiers everywhere...armed, and ready to preemptively eliminate threats like Abedi.  This goes on all the time in the west...secretly, but it goes on.  Apparently it doesn't go on enough...But we can almost hear the bleating of the snowflakes, 'I don't want to live in an armed camp'..."

...And that's why I don't like Suarez, although I frequently agree with him.

People who "don't want to live in an armed camp" are not "snowflakes," in the modern meaning of the term. Instead, they are realists, who know from the study of history that having "more police and soldiers everywhere" leads only to tyranny, and that "preemptively eliminat[ing] threats like Abedi" will also eventually lead to preemptively eliminating people who merely disagree with the government.

Don't believe me? Study the rise of the Soviet government in Russia, East Germany, and Poland, and find out the truth about the police state and militarization.
Read up on how the government of North Korea keeps its citizens in thrall by instilling in them a constant fear of (non-existent) attack from (nebulously-defined) enemies. Read about how the government of Venezuela is now using the very same tactic to "explain" why people are starving there.
Steve,
retired leathersmith and practical shooter


"Qui desiderat pacem, pręparet bellum."

M1911A1

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3695
  • Location: I'm at the far upper left-hand corner of the US.
Re: Suarez on the Manchester Terror Event
« Reply #2 on: May 23, 2017, 06:08:02 PM »
A Further Thought:

The better solution to the terrorist problem seems to be better police research and vigilance. That is, instead of increased patrols in public spaces and preemptive police and military strikes, what is needed is targeted surveillance.
For instance, the Manchester bomber was already known to police as a potential troublemaker, and lived in a family, all of the members of which would speak only to fellow Muslims.
In my way of thinking, such a "double whammy" of incrimination would warrant very close scrutiny, and would warrant the expense of surveillance.

Political Correctness aside, there are obvious markers, all well known to the world's police agencies, which indicate a strong potential for anti-social behavior.
Among them are (obviously) the combination of: Islamic, school drop-out, socially insular and intolerant, and religiously insular and intolerant.
The Manchester bomber exhibited all of those predictive markers, yet nobody was watching him.
Steve,
retired leathersmith and practical shooter


"Qui desiderat pacem, pręparet bellum."

pop pop

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1158
  • Location: middle TN
Re: Suarez on the Manchester Terror Event
« Reply #3 on: May 24, 2017, 05:17:48 AM »
I agree with you on the quote from Suarez's letter. I am sure the Bomber was not walking around with an large object (inner tube) around his chest holding a sign that states I have a bomb. He, for sure, was discrete, and from news reports, was not actually inside the event, but intermingled with people exiting.

Consider the under ware bomber, and the shoe bomber. You could not see those bombs. Now how do you defend against this type of explosive device?  Suarez is unrealistic in his knee jerk reaction, IMO, but he does invoke thought.

My point is even if one had been standing 15' from the bomber, one most probably would have a hard time recognizing the danger to the point of doing something self defensively. One can not open fire on someone who has a small bulge in his clothing.

I sure don't know how to defend against this bomber, I will just leave it up to those in the know, and apparently they don't know either.  Like Steve says, this guy had red flags flashing all around him previously, and they(the gov police) did not catch/stop him. Let me say, in fairness, I am not sure how they (police) defend against this.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2017, 06:50:15 AM by pop pop »