What Should be Done to Defeat ISIS and Other Islamo-Terrorist Groups?

This post gives a more specific solution than I have given before to the Islamo-Terrorism problems that are affecting the entire world.

Neither ISIS nor al Qaeda could openly exist in the United States or many other countries. Why? Because we wouldn't put up with terrorists, or any group who tried to control our lives. Let 10,000 ISIS militants materialize in Texas and see how long they'd last. 

So here's the only real solution. The men in these predominantly Muslim countries must come together and beat ISIS and other terrorist groups.

As far as an organized group of fighting men goes, the Arab League, which is an organization that consists of about 22 Arabic-speaking countries, with a population of over 400 million (compare to the US population of 310 million) has plenty of men and natural resources. For more information about it, check out the Wikipedia page at Arab League. 

It did not have much of a military component until they voted in 2015 to have a military to fight terrorism. They will need time to form a well-organized, capable military, and the United States and other countries can help with this, but only at the request of the Arab League. 

We, and other countries, can provide advice, and air support with fighters and bombers in conjunction with the Arab League. But they need to provide the 'boots on the ground'.

I emphatically do not want the United States to become involved in another land war in the Middle East.

(We should have Special Operations forces and our intelligence agencies over in Middle East in order to find any terrorist groups who have attacked or who are planning to attack the United States. If any are found, we can eliminate their threat without going to war). 

Why is the solution of having the Arab League fight ISIS a good one? We have had wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and lost thousands of American military lives, and have had ten times as many severe injuries. And to what avail? None. We may actually have made matters worse. (This is not the fault of our military, but mostly of the Bush administration that got us involved in these wars). 

If the United States, even working with a coalition of other countries, defeats ISIS, another group will pop up and take its place. 

On the other hand, if the Arab League fought and defeated ISIS, al Qaeda, and other terrorist groups, that would mean that most of those in these predominantly Muslim countries will have said no to terrorism, and even to Sharia Law.

Those Muslims that support Sharia Law support laws that infringe on the individual rights of others, especially those of women. Sharia Law is not sustainable and it is only when the vast majority of Muslims reject it, that there will there be a lasting peace in the Middle East. 

I do not know what the chances are that the Arab League will form a military strong enough to defeat ISIS and other terrorist groups. But if they do, this would imply that most Muslims reject terrorism and Sharia Law from being enforced. And that is the only way to have peace in the Middle East. 

That is the end of my main thesis. 

------

Does this relate to whether or not the United States should accept thousands of Syrian refugees? Not directly, but very much so indirectly. 

Currently, Muslims in the United States have a lower murder rate than non-Muslims in the United States, even including Islamo-Terrorist attacks in our country. 

And I want to keep it that way. One reason is that if Muslim immigrants start committing more terrorist attacks, it will be bad for the vast majority of peaceful American Muslims. And it may lead an American land war in the Middle East.

Letting in Syrian refugees will likely lead to negative consequences for the United States, and for peaceful Muslims.

Here are some quotes from a site about Syrian refugees in Europe. The quotes are from:

Survey of Syrian Refugees in Europe

"As the United States moves forward in letting 10,000 Syrian refugees into the country, a survey says that 13 percent of the Syrian refugees in Europe sympathize with the Islamic State.

"The poll by the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies surveyed 900 refugees in what it called 'the largest public opinion poll conducted in the Arab region'.

"The survey also found that 10 percent of the displaced Syrian refugees have a mixed or lukewarm — but not entirely negative — view of the terror group. In response to the survey’s findings, Investors’ Business Daily pointed out, 'That means 23% — or almost 1 in 4 — could be susceptible to ISIS recruitment.'

"Asked about national security concerns over Syrian refugees, FBI Director James Comey told the House Judiciary Committee, 'The only thing we can query is information that we have. And so if we have no information on someone, they’ve never crossed our radar screen, never been a ripple in the pond, there will be no record of them there. And so it will be challenging.'

"And National Counterterrorism Center Director Nicholas Rasmussen added, 'The intelligence picture we have of this particular conflict zone is not as rich as we would like it to be'."

-------

This is a strong argument for not letting into our country Syrian refugees. There is little to gain and much to lose if we do.

-------

Tim Farage is a Senior Lecturer in the Computer Science Department at The University of Texas at Dallas. The views expressed herein are those of the author.

What should we do about the Islamic State?

On November 13, 2015, a series of coordinated terrorist attacks—consisting of mass shootings, suicide bombings, and hostage-taking—occurred in Paris, the capital of France, and its northern suburb, Saint-Denis. Over 120 people were murdered and over 400 injured.

France has temporarily closed its borders, and is reviewing its security procedures related to immigrants. It has also bombed many sites in Syria that they believe harbored terrorists.

How should the United States respond?

For months, the United States has been bombing ISIS and other Islamo-Terrorist targets, mainly using our Special Ops forces to identify targets for our drones.  It is not known how effective this has been. We have not been battling them with our soldiers.
Many in the United States think that we should put 'boots on the ground' to fight ISIS and other terrorists.

But we should learn from our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Former President Bush thought that removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and helping to install a constitutional democracy there, would lead to an Arab Spring. Not only did this not occur; a plausible argument can be made that it has made matters much worse in much of the Muslim world. ISIS and other terrorist groups can move from country to country, and so defeating them in a war may be virtually impossible to do.

Furthermore, I do not believe we ought to go to war with ISIS. Yes, they would like to destroy us, but they cannot do this from outside of our borders.

More importantly, I think that ISIS and other Islamo-Terrorist groups are able to exist in the countries that they operate in because a significant minority of the population support them. Many support having Sharia Law as the law of the land, as described in the Koran, and Sharia Law allows women virtually no rights. But ISIS is not able to get a foothold in countries like the United Arab Emirates, who will not put up with terrorists. 

And they would not be able to get a foothold in the United States, either, because we would not put up with them. And this is why I do not wish to risk American military lives battling ISIS.

I believe the only way to defeat ISIS and other such Islamo-Terrorist groups is for the MEN in those countries to fight against them. When enough of them decide to do so, ISIS will cease to exist.

------------------------------ 

What can the United States do to Protect Itself? 

First, it should be noted that attacks from terrorists in the United States have come from within our country. Terrorists do not have military jets or missiles that can reach us. Also, since 9/11/2001 terrorists attacks here have not killed that many Americans. And another 9/11 type of attack is unlikely just because we reinforced cockpit doors. A terrorist might be able to blow up a jet, but would not be able to take control of one.

At the same time, an internal attack here like the one in Paris would cause a great deal of fear, and our leaders might feel compelled to go to war. The cost in lives and money would be extremely high. And the peaceful Muslims who are here would suffer as well.

The main job of the Commander in Chief of the United States is to preserve and protect the people of the United States. It is not to bring democracy to the world, or to force our values upon other countries. And it is not to prove to the world how nice we are. With that, here are specific suggestions that will enhance our security:

1) As mentioned above, don't go to war with terrorists. 

(If our intelligence agencies find overseas groups who are planning
attacks in America, Special Ops can take them out).

2) We have troops in over 100 countries around the world. We still have tens of thousands in South Korea, and more in Japan, and England, and Turkey. Are these troops sent there to protect America? I don't see how. Let's bring most of them home where they can protect our borders and ports. (They would have to be in the National Guard or Border Patrol to do this).

This would help to prevent a worst-case scenario of a terrorist group sneaking in an atomic bomb.

3) We should build some sort of high-tech fence along our borders that are vulnerable. This, along with the increased protection afforded by an increase in the National Guard and Border Patrol, will help to make sure we let into our country those who we want to be in our country. If we brought home most of the troops we have stationed abroad, we'd save money doing this.

4) Become oil independent from Middle Eastern oil - and Russian oil. After 9/11, we could have gotten all the oil we need from Canada, Mexico, and from our own country within a decade. Sadly, there are some environmentalists here who don't want this. Somehow they think we can just transition out of using oil in a few years. They don't think of how much it would harm the poor in our country to have high gasoline prices. 

5) We have always had immigrants. There are many millions of people that would love to immigrate to the United States. And who can blame them? Where I teach at The University of Texas at Dallas, most of our graduate students in Computer Science and other technical areas, are foreign students, mostly from Asia, but some from almost every country. And there are quite a few Muslims. If they get a degree, and find a job, as most do, let's do a background check and then offer them a Green Card. They are young, talented, and will likely raise their children well, because most come from cultures that value caring for and educating their children.   

Many of the top officials in the FBI, Homeland Security, and the CIA, don't believe we have the ability to do the kinds of background checks needed to keep terrorists from getting in, when we have a large influx of immigrants from predominately Muslim countries, such as those trying to leave Syria. My grandparents are from Syria and Lebanon, and my family still has relatives there. Yet, it would be unwise to allow so many unfortunate immigrants into the United States, until we have a system in place that can minimize the chance of terrorists of getting in. 

And we KNOW they will try. The FBI already has a list of about a thousand immigrants who they are trying to watch carefully, because they are considered a terrorist threat. We don't want to add to this list.

What about the controversial idea of letting in Christians or Jews or those of other religions? I want every immigrant to be vetted, just as you would vett a stranger before you'd let them into your house. But less vetting would be needed for these other religions, because we wouldn't have to vett for ties to terrorist groups.

6) Keep expanding free trade with countries in the Middle East, Asia, and Africa. Free trade increases prosperity for all. And prosperity brings education, the desire for freedom, the desire to provide good things for one's family, and lessens the chances that a guy will wander off to join a terrorist group.

A Note to my Muslim Friends in America

If there was an ISIS attack in America as there just was in France, your life here as Muslims would be much more difficult. It would benefit all of us to carefully vett Muslim immigrants.
_____________________________
Tim Farage is a Senior Lecturer in the Computer Science Department at The  University of Texas at Dallas. The views expressed herein are those of  the author.

What Should We Do about the Islamo-Terrorists?

Introduction 

As of February, 2015, there are a number of Islamo-Terrorist groups, such as ISIL and Al Qaeda. These groups seemingly want the entire world to convert to their perverted view of Islam. Those that don't have frequently been murdered. Of course, on 9/11/2001, Al Qaeda murdered 3000 innocent Americans. Recently, ISIL burned alive a Jordanian pilot and recorded it so it could be posted on the Internet. And they just murdered a number of Coptic Orthodox Christians in Egypt. The Jordanian and Egyptian governments, along with the rest of the world, were horrified by this and are attempting to track down and kill the perpetrators, who have murdered tens of thousands of innocents.

These terrorists have even attacked schools and murdered school children in Chechnya, the Middle East, and North Africa. Their heinous murders of innocent men, women and children seem incomprehensible to us, especially since they believe they are doing this in God's name. 

What should the United States NOT do about this?

A recent CBS poll shows that a majority of Americans, about 57%,  now believe we should send ground troops into the Middle East and Northern Africa to defeat ISIL. (See http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/majority-of-americans-now-support-us-troops-on-the-ground-against-isis-10061247.html).

This would be a woeful mistake.

Since 9/11 our intelligence agencies and the FBI have thwarted most terrorist attacks in the United States. The ones that have succeeded were awful, yet resulted in relatively few deaths.

The job of the United States government is to protect the United States. It is NOT to be the policemen of the world.

While we all empathize with the tremendous suffering caused by these terrorists, dealing with them should be done by the countries whose citizens are murdered or controlled by them. After all, we did not ask Jordan, Syria, Great Britain or any other country to send troops to the United States after 9/11.

So what should the United States do?

“Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations but entangling alliances with none.” 

Thomas Jefferson

We should have cordial relations with all countries or groups who act peacefully.  No peaceful country ought to be afraid that the United States will ever attempt to conquer it or forcibly take away its natural resources.

To countries or groups that have ill intentions toward us, our firm message should be: It would be a grave mistake to attack us, because you will regret it.  “Speak softly and carry a big stick” was not bad advice from Teddy Roosevelt.

We ought not to preach to other countries about how they should behave, or what their economic or political systems should be.  This has frequently led to them resenting us, rather than appreciating our good intentions. 

Rather, we should be humble and set a good example for other countries to follow.  What this means politically is that our government should protect our right to be free to live our lives as we deem best, as long as we don’t interfere with the right of others to do the same.

And what this means individually is that each of us ought to love our Creator and love others, by treating others as children of our Creator, and by using our talents to help make the world a better place.

So what should the United States military do?

The United States military and intelligence agencies should defend the USA if it is attacked, and to attempt to prevent an attack against us. 

This also includes eliminating or incarcerating those who have already attacked us.

(A possible addition to this is that if a close ally of ours is attacked, and if they request our assistance, and if we are able to help, we should carefully consider whether to use our military to aid the ally). 

Specifically, we should not send ground troops to other countries unless we are at war because we were attacked.

Rather, we should use our intelligence-gathering capabilities and our Special Forces to attempt to locate threats to the United States. When threats are found, we should eliminate them. 

I approve of the current way the Obama administration is doing this, by directing drones to eliminate such targets, or to bomb them.

I am also in favor of bringing the troops home that we have stationed in over 100 bases in other countries.

Some of these troops can be used to protect our porous borders and ports, further enhancing our safety.
  
But when hunting down terrorists, who can move from place to place and country to country, using our ground troops to fight them puts our soldiers in harms' way, which I do not wish to happen to protect other countries. 

What should the countries whose citizens are attacked do? 

The Arab League consists of about twenty countries in the Middle East and North Africa. The population of these countries is almost 400 million, more than the US population. 

So they have the people to take on and eliminate the terrorists themselves, if they would cooperate with each other. And it they aren't willing to cooperate, that is none of our business.

Conclusion 

The United States military should protect the United States. Other countries have the right and duty to protect their own citizens.
______________________________________

Tim Farage is a Senior Lecturer in the Computer Science Department at The University of Texas at Dallas. The views expressed herein are those of the author. You are welcome to comment upon this blog entry and/or to contact him at tfarage@hotmail.com.
______________________________________

Government Based Upon Natural Law - (Part 5) - Border Security and Immigration Policy

Border and Port Security
A primary responsibility of the federal government is to secure our borders, and our borders are clearly not currently secure. Every effort should be made to secure them so that it would be virtually impossible to enter our country illegally. Our borders need not necessarily have a literal fence. Rather, we may be able to use technology in conjunction with the border patrol and/or military to monitor our borders.

Our ports should be secured using the troops that we bring home from overseas. In particular, incoming cargo should be checked for nuclear devices or other weapons that pose threats to our national security.

Immigration Policy

1) Immigration is very important to the U.S. Our immigration policy should welcome many of the best people from all over the world who wish to immigrate to the United States.

Each potential immigrant should be subject to a background check and a medical exam, and we should attempt to discern whether or not the potential immigrant has abilities that are needed by our country. We should also attempt to discern whether this individual believes in the value of properly raising and educating his or her children, as well as his or her belief in the brotherhood of mankind. Also, knowledge of the English language should be required before an immigrant becomes a permanent resident or a citizen. (A person in the U.S. that does not speak English is a considerable disadvantage to himself and to our country.)

Our goal should be to allow into our country only those immigrants who will become exemplary U.S. citizens.

2) There are many illegal immigrants currently in the U.S.; it would be untenable to deport all of these illegal immigrants. Thus, the first priority should be to secure our borders, before attempting to deal with those illegal immigrants already here.

While we are doing this, we can start issuing tamper-proof ID cards with biometric information to all of our current and future immigrants, as well as our citizens. These IDs would be used as we now use driver’s licenses, which are now the de facto ID cards. This would make it easier for the government to keep track of our immigrants. One secondary benefit is that it would make life easier for our legal immigrants. For example, individuals here on a student visa could use their ID card to easily prove their legal status to a university. Also, having such IDs gives the U.S. a better way to determine who is eligible for certain benefits, such as educational subsidies, health-care subsidies, and the previously-mentioned Natural-Resource Tax Dividend, as well as such things as improving airport security. Congress should pass laws that are explicit about when such IDs may be used, and that also state that these IDs cannot be used for any other purpose.

3) Current illegal immigrants who substantially violate our laws should be deported, after serving any incarceration time.

4) Once our borders are secure and the ID cards are in place, those illegal immigrants that have been here a reasonable amount of time, and have beneficially contributed to our country, may be granted a legal status and eventually a permanent status (such as by being given a green card). However, they should not be granted citizenship, since this would be unfair to those immigrants who came or will come here legally. This would serve as an additional disincentive to coming here illegally. It would also make politicians less likely to quickly legalize illegal immigrants in order to get more votes.

The current wave of illegal immigrants has its most harmful effects on our schools and on our public health care resources. Our schools must now deal with large numbers of students who do not speak English. This is very stressful to our educational system and expensive for our schools to deal with.

Illegal immigration has put a tremendous strain on our health care resources. For instance, in the first three months of 2006 at Parkland Hospital in Dallas, 70% of all births were babies born to illegal immigrants, and Parkland now has more than 16,000 births recorded there each year. Furthermore, the out-of-wedlock birthrate among illegal immigrants is substantially higher than that of our citizens and our legal immigrants.

Securing our borders will do much to decrease the number of individuals who enter our country illegally.


___________________________________________


Tim Farage is a Senior Lecturer in the Computer Science Department at The University of Texas at Dallas. You are welcome to comment upon this blog entry and/or to contact him at tfarage@hotmail.com.

___________________________________________