General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsA major terrorist attack in the US would probably be politically ugly.
Someone posted earlier today that it might fully revive the Patriot Act. I think Obama will have a hard time keeping regular military units out. It will also squeeze nuanced views like the difference between "radical islam" and "radical jihad", the acceptance of refugees, and how climate change caused Syria. All of these issues would go further into the wrong direction than they already have. It is encouraging that 78% oppose ground troops, but I think that's because we haven't been directly attacked.I also have to wonder what it would mean for the presidential race. Would republicans vote for a hard man like Trump or someone more experienced like Bush (3%)?
elfin
(6,262 posts)abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)Ghost Dog
(16,881 posts)A walkover. You are sitting ducks.
Orrex
(63,224 posts)The current refugee crisis has laid bare the hatred and xenophobia that poison so many minds, that the real horror is that they're totally unafraid to reveal their bigotry. They're proud of it, in fact, and they've conflated it with patriotism and American Values.
Given the chance and the slightest provocation, we'd be rounding up "undesirables" in a matter of weeks.
branford
(4,462 posts)due to unjustified bigotry it was the result of the actions of an admired Democratic President, FDR, approved by the Supreme Court, and very popular.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans
Nevertheless, restrictive asylum and resettlement policies are a long way from internment camps.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)The low-information, xenophobic and just-plain-stupid mass of sheeple would panic and stampede everyone else over the cliff, with the media relentlessly egging them on.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)of witch hunts in the US, and with that a tremendous erosion of privacy in the US. No doubt there would be tremendous pressure for back doors to encryption. Depending on the nature, it could lead to great support for Trump, as much as I hate to say it. People will be in a panic mode and not thinking clearly. It will be a very rocky ride.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)because it will be a referendum on President Obama.
Because Republican electorate is in an anti-establishment mood, I think it would be Trump.
msongs
(67,441 posts)Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)It has crossed their minds and the minds every candidate.
tblue37
(65,487 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)because of 911. It happened while he was POTUS. Funny how we acknowledge that double standard for them.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)murielm99
(30,761 posts)They stole it.
GummyBearz
(2,931 posts)When the supreme court stepped in. In 2004 he beat Kerry by 2.5% in the popular vote and 35 electoral votes
murielm99
(30,761 posts)There was widespread concern about voter suppression. There were a lot of questions about voting machines not counting accurately.
He stole it.
GummyBearz
(2,931 posts)If they have the capability to steal the presidential election at will, get away with it every time, and hate Obama (as they obviously do), why didn't they steal it in 2008?
murielm99
(30,761 posts)Remember Rove's meltdown on election night?
GummyBearz
(2,931 posts)Hardly proves the CT either way
brush
(53,847 posts)He was secretary of state and suppressed the votes in the cities enough to give bush the "win".
It was pretty blatant, as was shown later.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)It did not happen in his last term.
A major attack by ISIS makes this a national security election ad referendum on Obama.
Clinton's as so iation with Obama puts her at adisadvantage, and Noone will take Sanders national security credentials seriously because he has none.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)... and Conservatives never achieving a major clear cut victory, ever, Americans seem to think that Conservatives are better at national security.
So I agree that it isn't because of a "referendum on Obama," but it would still probably ensure a Republican victory because of this American blindness to history.
brush
(53,847 posts)and their operatives.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)earthside
(6,960 posts)Only three days after 129 people murdered in Paris and I see Democrats and liberals wrapped-up in a silly debate about Syrian refugees.
If there is an attack here, Democratic officeholders and candidates are going to look like wimps ... more worried about refugees than protecting the nation.
And, frankly, unless Pres. Obama makes some kind of bold, forthright statement about standing with France and Pres. Hollande, then he is going to look very weak also.
The politics are not good for Democrats, liberals and progressives at this point, unless they stop being all "love is the answer" in the face of Paris, Egypt, Lebanon, etc., appear out of touch with the concerns of most Americans.
One doesn't have to give in to fear mongering to be proposing some justice directed towards the Daesh murders.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)when Bill Laden was killed, over whichever of the sorry bunch the Republicans end up picking.
kairos12
(12,872 posts)RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)But that was a situation that was allowed to move ahead: because :
Obama and this administration would never allow such a thing. So yall can rest easy.
Our real problem is the one coming from Fukushima.
mainstreetonce
(4,178 posts)The reaction after 9/11 gave Bush a second term. Right after Paris,JEB started talking about ground troops and full scale war. That kind of fear rattling could affect this election.
One day Hillary is a Hawk,the next day onlyva crazy Bush can save us, SCARY.
Shandris
(3,447 posts)Do you have a good directed source I could learn more on this topic from, RD?
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Crops failed, people went hungry. Then the wars started. Of course, all the weapons we left in the 'hood helped them get their war on.
Shandris
(3,447 posts)pampango
(24,692 posts)However, in a nation where the mukhabarat (secret police informants/intelligence agents) have long infiltrated all segments of society and institutions, a general aura of fear, suspicion, and paranoia persisted well into Bashars reign. I witnessed this first-hand when I visited and stayed in Deraa for a few days with family friends several years before the uprising and recall the kind of vexing stares I received from some of those whom I attempted to raise the issue of Syrian politics with. I was a bit naïve and so I, more than anything, wanted to know if the stories I had heard about Syrian fears of the regime were legit. They were.
During the same year Bashar Al-Assad took power, ninety-nine Syrian intellectuals, writers, and critics crafted and signed the Statement of 99 calling for an end to emergency rule/martial law that had been in place since 1963, for the state to pardon political dissidents detained, imprisoned, deported, or exiled by his fathers regime, formal recognition and implementation of freedom of assembly, press, and expression, as well as an end to the surveillance of its citizens by the secret police and security forces. The movement behind the statement was composed of both anti-regime hardliners as well as moderates who collectively sought political reform. The result of long-festering political and economic dissent among Syrians, the Statement of 99 was a brow-raising announcement that, at minimum, made the regime slightly uncomfortable. The formation of various think-tanks, organizations, and social and political parties coincided with Bashars takeover of Syria- all of which were critical of the regimes political and economic monopolies on the country caused the regime to crack down on dissenters. The following year, in 2001, one thousand academics, critics, and activists launched the Statement of 1,000 which expanded on the previous statements tenets and called for a multi-party democracy to supplant the one-party Baathist state. This was met with another, albeit harsher, government crackdown.
All of these grievances began to fester when anti-regime protests began in early 2011. While initially limited to small demonstrations calling on the lifting of the Emergency Laws and better economic policies, the government was able to contain them with relative ease. When they grew as they did in Deraa in March of that year, the governments crackdowns intensified and greater numbers of Syrians became disillusioned by the regimes insincerity in addressing and implementing political, social, and economic reforms. The zero-tolerance policies of the Assad regime only sought to radicalize some already, economically and politically disenfranchised segments of the Syrian population, some of which had been subdued by his father in previous years and had since been boiling with discontent.
Moreover, the regimes disastrous mismanagement of water resources during a drought between 2006 and 2010 compounded Syrian economic woes and led to increased gaps between socioeconomic classes in Syria as farmers were unable to make a living due to the desertification of their agricultural lands. Agriculture made up 22% of Syrias economy before the uprising and subsequent war, and therefore had a wide-reaching impact on the country as a whole when farms began to vanish . This led to frustration with the regime, who then initiated the cancellation of important subsidies which facilitated farming as well as social unrest for the inhabitants of rural communities who had to leave and find work elsewhere primarily in cities in which demonstrations erupted in 2011, according to Dutch environmentalist Francesca de Châtel . 1.5 million Syrians (mainly from farming families) were forced to find work, at times, far away from home . While the drought was obviously not the fault of the regime, its past policies and lack of foresight contributed to the crumbling of one of its most viable economic sectors which led to major financial stress for millions of Syrians.
http://www.juancole.com/2014/09/maelstrom-repression-climate.html
There are several sources listed at the end of Cole's piece.
malaise
(269,157 posts)America safe? I don't remember that being politically ugly for Bush.
Maybe it was because the democrats did not use event to score political points.
malaise
(269,157 posts)when it comes to foreign policy and global ambition - as in empire building
Oneironaut
(5,524 posts)With one attack we might be fine. 10 or so small attacks would be devastating. There would be calls for martial law, internment camps, and killing all of the Muslims. Prominent Republicans, and even the President if a Republican won would support these measures.
If ISIS were smart, they would just use our own media against us. Cut a few heads off publicly. Kill at random, and threaten more attacks. Maybe a few car bombs at popular tourist destinations, scattered across the country. Then, start spreading paranoia. Turn neighbors against neighbors. We would rip ourselves apart from within and possibly disintegrate.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)Suddenly, the lights in Charlie's house come on and he panics as the crowd begins accusing him of being both a murderer and the monster responsible for the power outage, and even Steve can't defend Charlie, or what he has done. Charlie makes a run for his house while the other residents chase him, throwing stones, one of them hitting Charlie in the head, creating a bleeding rash. Terrified, Charlie attempts to deflect suspicion onto Tommy, the boy who had originally suggested alien infiltration. Several neighbors agree, as Tommy was the only one who knew about the aliens' plans.
Lights begin flashing on and off in houses throughout the neighborhood; lawn mower and car engines start and stop for no apparent reason. The mob becomes hysterical, with terrified residents smashing windows and taking up weapons as the situation devolves into an all-out riot. Some residents take up firearms and start shooting at anyone they can.
The scene cuts to a nearby hilltop, where it is revealed the mysterious meteor that had flown overhead is, indeed, an alien spaceship. Its inhabitants, two alien but humanoid observers, are watching the riot on Maple Street while using a device to manipulate the neighborhood's power. They comment on how easy it was to create paranoia and panic by turning off the electricity, and conclude that the easiest way to conquer the planet is to let the people become their own worst enemies. They also discuss the fact that there are many, many more Maple Streets on Earth.
Oneironaut
(5,524 posts)It's probably because it never stopped being so true. Fear and paranoia are powerful weapons - especially with a 24/7 news media that sells them as a commodity.
treestar
(82,383 posts)ever since 911. bin Laden wanted to draw us over there so he could fight us there. He was disappointed prior attacks didn't do it. He wanted us changed forever. How many times has the media used that phrase?
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)Armageddon. The Global Gordian Knot. Br'er Rabbit's Tar Baby is the ME and everyone who touches it gets stuck, then stuck further by trying to unstick itself.