know of no other life than one of bloodshed, killing, weapons of death, misery, hatred and ultimately suicide when they can't cope with it all.
This is one of the reasons why I am a firm believer in "prevention is better than the cure" philosophy. If the powers-that-be in the Anglo nations had not been so fuckingly politically correct when first immigrants from the other side of the world started coming to these shores and had not given funds and permits at the drop of hat to unknown "imams" for building mosques here, there, everywhere and had informed the would-be new citizens that religious education, especially religious instruction and beliefs that belittled people of other religions, would be a cause for deportation, it would have gone a long way to save us from many a mishap.
There were many of us who sounded the alarm on how Saudi Arabia was giving huge donations(bribes) to universities, colleges and schools and soon after making stealth requests to include wahabism teachings in the curriculum of Muslim students. Did anyone take note? NO .. of course not ... because people like moi are just bigots who hate, hate and hate. Is the suggestion now from a military nitwit calling for interment camps more tolerable than being politically incorrect from the very start in order not to come to where we are now at?
I hate to predict this, but take it for granted that the Chattanooga shooting is not going to be in any way the last of such tragic incidents. There will be many more and in a few years of such, people will start taking such mayhem in their stride just like the citizens of where the Anglo nations and their partners-in-crime have taken their own more lethal brand of terrorism.
Murtaza Hussain writing at FirstLook:
Wesley Clark Calls for Internment Camps for "Radicalized" Americans
Retired general and former Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark on Friday called for World War II-style internment camps to be revived for “disloyal Americans.” In an interview with MSNBC’s Thomas Roberts in the wake of the mass shooting in Chatanooga, Tennessee, Clark said that during World War II, “if someone supported Nazi Germany at the expense of the United States, we didn’t say that was freedom of speech, we put him in a camp, they were prisoners of war.”
He called for a revival of internment camps to help combat Muslim extremism, saying, “If these people are radicalized and they don’t support the United States and they are disloyal to the United States as a matter of principle, fine. It’s their right and it’s our right and obligation to segregate them from the normal community for the duration of the conflict.”
The comments were shockingly out of character for Clark, who after serving as supreme allied commander of NATO made a name for himself in progressive political circles. In 2004, his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination was highly critical of the Bush administration’s excessive response to the 9/11 terror attacks. Since then, he has been a critic of policies that violate the Geneva Convention, saying in 2006 that policies such as torture violate “the very values that [we] espouse.”
In a memoir written the following year, he also famously alleged that the White House under Bush had developed a massively imperialistic plan for the Middle East, which would see the administration attempt to “take out seven countries in five years,” beginning with the invasions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Earlier this year I spoke with Clark at the annual Lewis and Clark University Symposium on International Affairs in Portland, Oregon. The subject of our discussion was how to deal with the potential threat of foreign fighters returning from armed conflicts abroad. At the time, Clark spoke out strongly against “the politics of fear” and eroding democratic institutions and norms, while reiterating his criticism of the excesses committed by Bush-era neoconservatives under the banner of fighting terrorism.
But on Friday, he was advocating the revival of a policy widely considered to be among the most shameful chapters in American history: World War II domestic internment camps. Aside from the inherent problems in criminalizing people for their beliefs, Clark’s proposal (which his MSNBC interlocutor did not challenge him on) also appears to be based on the concept of targeting people for government scrutiny who are not even “radicalized,” but who the government decides may be subject to radicalization in the future. That radicalization itself is a highly amorphous and politically malleable concept only makes this proposal more troubling.
“We have got to identify the people who are ..........