Charles Krauthammer makes this interesting observation:  we are now in a new stage of the war on terror.  ( ; focusing not on his complaints about Obama, but on terror attacks )

Stage one:  terrorists from abroad come into the West to attack.  9/11.

Stage two:  lone-wolf terrorists within the West attack their countrymen.

Stage three:  linkup -- homegrown terrorists in the West coordinated and instructed from abroad.

Is this the beginning of something, or can France and others roll it back?

Meanwhile, in the Third World, we've gone from terror attacks to conquest of territory (Iraq, Syria, Nigeria).   

Also in the Third World, the newly conquered areas are under rule by terror (not to be confused with terrorism); that's a new development.  Maybe it'll be temporary, or end after all Christians, pagans, Yazidi, and Muslims of the wrong branch are exterminated.

There are also things that aren't new but are being noticed more.  [Edit: removing reference to French "no-go" zones -- I haven't had time to vet the story.] The terror of living Jewish in France.  What else?

So:  what else do we know, or can we infer, about general trends?  And what's next?

Ethnic cleansing in France is under way; maybe that's really stage 3.

Another idea comes from this video (link below).  I find it hard to believe, and would like confirmation (or better yet, refutation!).  But if it's true, I think we can see stage four being prepared:  homegrown terrorist cells organized, trained, and directed within the US.  I don't know how long it takes to lay the groundwork for attack, but surely it won't be too long before we see the outcome (again, if this is authentic).

Views: 4275

Replies to This Discussion

I think the point here is whether it could have been an accidental oversight, not whether it was technically possible for an ordinary person.  If it's something you do with equipment you buy at Walgreen's, as opposed to by stumbling over a cord or hitting "Y" when you meant "N" on a screen, this suggest that it was not merely a casual mistake.

Or maybe that's what you're saying, NS:  it wasn't a casual mistake, and it is possible for an ordinary person to do.

...and if the Syrian civil war ever settles, Hezbollah can use the inventory of bombs it's collected to shut down Israel, put the population in bomb shelters... thus provoking Israel to blow up the civilian houses they'll be launched from.  So that Israel can get the blame for a major humanitarian disaster.  And then Iran may be ready to intervene...

So warns Spengler.

More recent demonstration that Clinton and her State Department staff blew off some briefings.  She still maintains the misconception that every document containing classified material has a classification header.


I'm telling y'all, this kid is going to shoot up a place before he turns thirty.

3 new terror attempts this weekend.  (Contrary to di Blasio's speculation, the two explosive devices in the greater NYC area, wounding 29, weren't a prank.)  And so it continues.

Proxy war in Yemen?  (Or maybe the author misinterprets.)  Still sounds rough.

And did McCain really express concern about Yemen being at the Straits of Hormuz?

I do.  

Well, we see how that crap turned out in Libya. And Iraq.

How about instead of dicking up the Middle East even further, we just clean up after ourselves (ISIS) and leave Syria to its civil war? Is taking it from a dictator and giving it to more hand-choppers really worth going to war with the Soviets??
Are they really? Besides, that's neither here nor there. I don't want us to fight Russia. Neither does Trump. And hopefully the American people will realize that Hillary does.
If you are addressing something in that link, it seems to me she is saying the opposite, that we'll get away with it.

Her actions indicate she wants to fight Russia. I don't understand her motives, though. She sold uranium to them. I suppose now it's more financially advantageous to be their enemy.

I don't get this one.

Why does the author think ISIS is unbelievably stupid to attack Paris?

Is he right?

I think the argument is that European countries may follow Trump's lead (re: bombing instead of sanctions) - that they are making too many direct enemies, rather than broader threats. Especially on the eve of new elections, with Marine Le Pen a presumptive threat to rationality.

But I'm not really clear either. 


Latest Activity

R. Max 2.0 replied to Pale Horse's discussion The French Election in the group The Great Debate
2 hours ago
Pale Horse replied to Pale Horse's discussion The French Election in the group The Great Debate
"Indeed we have."
3 hours ago
Dustenious Treightonius updated their profile
3 hours ago
Liam Strain replied to Pale Horse's discussion The French Election in the group The Great Debate
"With the exception of Mélenchon - who is so far to the left that he's not really near anybody either, I suspect you are correct. It does not look good for LePen, but we've been surprised before."
4 hours ago
Carl Byrd replied to Carl Byrd's discussion Vacation ideas for a young family?
"Cherokee looks neat, and I see it's close to Gatlinburg which is somewhere I want to go, so I'll have to check both of those out."
6 hours ago
Sir replied to Pale Horse's discussion The French Election in the group The Great Debate
"Everybody says Macron is the favorite now that there's only him and Le Pen.  All those various non-FN candidates, I believe, are more Macron-like than Le Pen-like."
6 hours ago
Carl Byrd replied to Carl Byrd's discussion Vacation ideas for a young family?
"I just looked this place up in Google Maps, looks like a place I'd really enjoy. Thanks for  the tip."
6 hours ago
D. Adonis posted a status
"I just read "De-Cluttering Your Digital Life" and decided to make some needed changes to my smartphone use/routine[s]"
7 hours ago

© 2017   Created by Brett McKay.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service