After Brussels, There's Only ONE Logical Next Step In Combating Islamic Terrorism

The following AP article about the recent attack in Brussels appeared on the AP today (3/25/2016): http://www.apnewsarchive.com/2016/US-official-says-at-least-2-American-citizens-killed-in-attack-on-Brussels/id-2418968748694088b3195918603a481b. Here are some things that have been said.

"'We will not be deterred,' Kerry said. 'We will come back with greater resolve - with greater strength - and we will not rest until we have eliminated your nihilistic beliefs and cowardice from the face of the Earth.'" ...says the man that helped the current administration orchestrate a deal granting Iran around $150 million to advance a nuclear "energy" program on the grounds that they don't weaponize it. And the reason Iran can be trusted is... well, I'm still waiting on that.

Then there's this, from another part of the article: "...even when alerted to the presence of suspected radicals in their municipalities, they lacked the power to do anything about it." I don't know why people refuse to see or accept that the ONLY other thing that the U.S. and other nations can do to even potentially be more effective at preventing these kinds of attacks and fighting these terrorists outside of the Middle East amounts to more overt and intensive racial and cultural profiling. Sure, people cite rule of law, the need for evidence, due process, etc., but what it comes down to is, in this case, a misguided desire to protect nations' consciences even if it means not protecting its citizens. If nothing else, Brussels had already been on high alert and been warned about one of the attackers. If they're unable or unwilling to ACT on that warning, then what good is the warning? And as far as the laws go, the article suggests that Brussels' laws are on the verge of being changed already and, in America, our laws are DESIGNED to come, go, change and be changed based on the needs of the citizenry.

Since the early 1970's, at least, when serial killers and rapists, in particular, were being interviewed in American prisons, the GOAL of the FBI, in particular, was to establish PROFILES for these offenders which they could use to identify, if not predict and catch future offenders. Even though those statistics seem to be changing, a profile for the average serial killer in America based on statistics and, by extension, these interviews, said and probably still says that not only do most serial rapists and killers hone in on their own ethnic groups, but tend to be WHITE MALES between their mid 20's and early 40's with a middle or lower-middle class income and either live with a single parent (usually a mother - not saying this because of PSYCHO) or alone. This... profile... these statistics have been so heavily relied upon that I saw a story once about a case in Ohio, in 2002, I think, in which a number of white brunettes, all teachers of a certain age, were being murdered in or around a neighborhood and that TWO were murdered only because the police would not act on tips about an African American suspect, an alleged peeping tom, I think, because that did not conform to the statistics and profile of the "average" serial killer.

These kinds of measures do not represent some MINORITY REPORT scenario. Nobody is talking about arresting anyone based on probability. It's about KNOWING that something has happened, that it is likely to happen again, and who the perpetrator(s) is (are) so that he, she, or they can be apprehended and lives can be spared. What's more, when Kerry starts talking about eliminating their "nihilistic beliefs and cowardice," exactly what is he referring to if not Islam or, at the very least, certain versions of Islam (there are several)? I'm not in favor of even trying to eliminate Islam altogether (assuming it could actually be done - which I don't think it can), but once you've used this kind of rhetoric - and if you want people to see actual credibility in its use - the kind of racial and cultural profiling that would be employed to any extent in trying to prevent future attacks is almost like child's play. I mean, as a so-called "progressive" liberal, does Kerry even hear himself when he uses words like "eliminate?" Right now, the administration is employing a form of profiling in reverse when it does things like criticizing and even suing Arizona and its governor for stances and policies regarding immigration and the treatment of illegal immigrants from Mexico - trying, as I recall, to keep cops from asking HIspanics for their ID when pulled over, or trying to strike down the requirement for voters to show legal ID when voting because poor and non-whites are supposedly more likely to either forget to bring it or to not have it, at all. To me, THAT is profiling, but for different reasons - and not only is it profiling, but it's doing so in a very insulting manner. I'm not going to say that Donald Trump or even most of today's Republicans offer significantly better alternatives, but clearly, the political left that dominates President Obama's Democrat Party nowadays has little or no genuine faith in or respect for the very people they go out of their way to serve. To end on an even more personal note, when business owners are being fined as criminals for refusing to host or perform wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples on PRIVATE PROPERTY as part of a PRIVATELY OWNED BUSINESS, I could really care less if a few Arabs and Muslims are offended at the prospect of further profiling to prevent damage done by the "bad apples" in their community which, again, probably hurt them, too. To be clear, I don't recommend or condone people that, say, offer wedding services and then refuse them to gays - like a couple I saw a story about yesterday morning on the 700 Club - because one of the main reasons Jesus was so despised by the Jewish religious establishment of his time was because he associated with the "unclean." The very fact that Jesus did NOT discriminate against "sinners" is a big reason why so many wanted him crucified in the first place. He had lunch with tax collectors, who - in that day - were often corrupt in the pocketing of money collected for the Roman Empire, and one of his most ardent followers was Mary Magdalene, a reformed prostitute! On principle, however, it makes absolutely no sense to take any more or all racial and cultural profiling off the table as a potential and potentially effective tool for law enforcement under the circumstances when government and law enforcement are already doing similar things with other people - whether it's nearly bankrupting people like the couple on the 700 Club by fining them because they won't host gay weddings (they were entrapped by a lesbian on the phone that hung up on them before calling the cops) or allowing the IRS to specifically investigate and/or audit conservative, right-wing people and groups during Obama's time in office. Just as it makes no sense to refuse the presence of more ground troops to aggressively and potentially more effectively fight ISIS where it really lives and from where it is based, there is nothing to be gained by playing hot potato with what should or should not be done in the fight against terror over principles of morality which are, to some extent, already being broken or betrayed in other respects. And as a white Christian, myself, I must say that if we see a string of serious killings and crimes against blacks or gays in an area dominated by religious conservatives, I would NOT be against law enforcement being open about it and admitting that the most logical place to begin the investigation is in the lives of white Christians and their churches in said community - if only because someone would almost certainly be suspicious if not aware of potential suspects.

RE: Re-Established U.S. Relationship With Cuba - Good or Bad?

I would imagine that a lot of people with my kind of political inclinations are against what the Obama administration is doing to re-establish some kind of a civil relationship with Cuba. I, however, am not entirely against it. Obama is right when he says that U.S. policy has neither forced nor encouraged significant change in Cuba's Communist regime, and as a reasonably firm believer in the potential of capitalism, I fail to understand why ardent capitalists like Republican Congressmen and Senators would not at least want to try to expand international trade in this manner. Clearly, a number of big companies and their presumably "conservative" CEO's are chomping at the bit. If the goal is to sort of shame the Communist regime out of existence, if at all possible, then I, too, believe that the only potentially viable means of doing that is via a democratic and "capitalist" presence in Cuba (for lack of better terms). However large or small, that at least has the potential to not only show Cubans the benefits of democracy and of a regulated form of capitalism, but make them more acutely aware of what they miss and what they've given up in exchange for the "free" healthcare and education which probably comes with a number of logistical problems (which can probably only get worse without this alliance) and a healthy serving of propaganda to go with the reading, writing, and arithmetic.

What concerns me is what may or may not be motivating Cuba in the first place. From the standpoint of somehow encouraging change in Cuban policy, I see nothing to indicate an honestly cooperative or receptive attitude on the part of Raul Castro. Also, this scenario lacks the leverage that the U.S. had over the USSR of not only being able to guarantee mutual destruction via the nukes, but of clearly being the only one able to afford that leverage without forcing quite as many citizens to pay the price in the way of rampant poverty and blatant human rights violations. I frankly feel that this is a means to an end for the Cuban government, and that end is NOT a transition away from Communism or even a more honestly civil relationship with the United States. I suspect that it is a sly means of preserving and perhaps even strengthening Cuba's Communist system. I would imagine they see capitalism and democracy as a sort of big and incredibly stingy bear in the woods. If you can manage to get close to the bear without angering it, the bear might share a lot of honey, but doing so is extremely difficult and if you can't manage it, the bear is going to sit on you and make life miserable. Such was the case under Batista, when "trade" with Cuba took the form of blatant exploitation and corruption, much of which was perpetrated by U.S. based organized crime families that owned and operated hotels and casinos in Cuba. Literally everyone benefited... except for the Cubans. So I'm not at all convinced that Cuba's motivations are similar to Obama's or to that of anyone in the United States in any way, shape, or form. For them, I think this is a modified form of Lenin's strategic retreat - a brief period of cooperation that is going to strengthen the Cuban economy just enough to maybe placate some dissidents and, given Castro's regime is demanding to own 50% of pretty much any new business in the country (or so I've heard), generate enough wealth for the Cuban government to stay in power and, in its opinion, have even more resources with which to keep its own promises.

Even so, I think Congress should give this a chance - if only because any total and abrupt rejection of this course on which Obama has already set both nations (for better or worse) might only increase Cuba's ire towards the U.S. and conceivably convince it to team up with a nation like China, Russia, Iran, or even North Korea to actually BECOME a threat and also have the excuse of U.S. betrayal as justification. In so doing, however, I do think Congress needs to make it clear to Obama and then to Hillary or any other Democrat that might succeed Obama in the Oval office that they will not tolerate a situation in which Cuba is basically rewarded with wealth without having to do more than allow wireless Internet service, shared ownership of U.S. businesses in Cuba, and release four or five dissidents every time Cuba gets a cookie. This kind of thing is why people started saying, "Only Nixon could go to China" - because a Democrat would be seen as pandering to the nation's leftist policies. While I understand WHY Obama is doing what he is, I think he runs the risk of being dangerously presumptuous when it comes to more or less guaranteeing an eventual normalization of relations with the Cuban government and its people. We've gotten along just fine without doing business with Cuba for half of a century, so if this fails, then the U.S. has potentially far more to lose. Now, more than ever, the U.S. cannot afford to be so naive as to accept the morality of it all as the only reason anyone really needs to attempt something like this - and if you don't believe me, I suggest finding and re-watching the Q&A with Obama and Raul Castro that just ended a little while ago.