06-15-2016, 04:56 PM
(06-14-2016, 02:00 PM)Mikebert Wrote: Robert Butler says "As for Iran and other states that might be interested in large scale killing..(getting a nuke) .... Different question on a different scale." (statement in parentheses added by me)
Is it really a different question? For example replace the state (Iran) with an NGO (al Qaeda). Does that really change the question?
Now take it to it logical conclusion and replace Iran with the smallest possible scale, an individual (terrorist. Does the question really change? Isn't it the same question regardless of the size of the entity wishing to acquire a powerful weapon?
I submit that the issues is the scale of the weapon that the problematic actor is attempting to acquire.
The size of the opposition, how they are armed, their legal standing, their tactics, their motivations...
Are you trying to find a one size fits all solution? I don't think this is expedient or wise. One should tune one's response to the nature of the threat. Orlando illustrates that spree shooters are a problem. That this one may or may not have been influenced by a foreign terrorist organization might not effect the tactics one might use to stop spree shooters generally. Do we start tracking down people who visit certain web pages? That might be a possible exception.
Still, even for one enemy like ISIL, there are often multiple approaches to nullifying them. One shuts down access to international banking. One bombs their oil producing infrastructure. One launches hellfire missiles from drones to kill their leadership. One monitors the international mayday guard frequencies as terrorists occasionally use them to communicate. One might monitor who visits their web pages as well. One puts a carrier in the Mediterranean and special forces on the ground. The hydra has many heads. One might use a different sort of weapon to deal with each head.
Iran is a different problem. We don't entirely trust them, but we're not doing to them what we're doing to ISIL. I don't think I should really have to tell you why we're not.
And your typical spree shooter isn't like either ISIL or Iran. In many ways, the spree shooter is a different beast, much harder to find, regardless of whether there is a political motivation.
You seem interested into plopping various problems into a limited number of buckets. The fewer buckets, the simpler the problem becomes, the easier it is to solve? If we call as many people as possible 'Radical Islam' with we be closer to solving the problem? I'd rather identify the real threats and address each one individually, independently of any other threats. This might be a perceptive - judger thing. I'd rather deal with the world as it is rather than build some arbitrary system for categorizing things. Others think differently.
That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.