Nothing you say there seems to argue against them being like fire ants or organized crime.
They're nasty bits o' goods, and we'll never be rid of one group or another of them.
But they're not countries, they're just a bunch of criminals, pests, with goals they will not, and cannot, achieve, and need to be hammered down EXACTLY like we hammer down fire ants and organized crime: whenever they intrude upon us, we take care of them.
And make sure that they -- whose goal is terror -- see that we don't treat them with terror, but bored contempt. Put them on trial, put them in regular prisons. No political elements. No legitimizing of their grievances. No acknowledgement of them at all in our overall behavior.
I don't change my behavior because of criminals; I call the cops, have them taken away, and go back to business as usual.
If they happen to get to the point that they will come forward, and act as part of a legitimate government, AND they continue this even then, we will smash them in a real war. A short, decisive war.
Fire ants. Annoying creatures which can kill you, interfere with business, do all sorts of things that are very bad (they cost, I think, several billion). But we don't treat them as though they were a legitimate power or force people to hide in their homes from terror.
Organized crime. Responsible for VASTLY more deaths than the terrorists have managed. Destructive, insidious, all sorts of things. But in general we don't treat them any different from other criminals aside from the SCALE at which we sometimes have to operate. Arrest 'em, try 'em, lock 'em up.
Terrorists are no different, and there is nothing anyone has shown me that indicates they ARE different. Their GOALS are different, but that doesn't matter. What matters is what they do, and whether they are and should be treated as a legitimate power on which we make war. And they are not, and never will be unless they actually BECOME a country.
The Terrorists include states such as Iran and Syria. Your "treat them like criminals, not military enemies" argument ignores the existence of the Terrorist States.
When Iran and Syria attack us, or those which are our allies directly, then we should declare war on them, smash them, and go back to business as usual.
None of this requires any of the at-home measures that we have seen.
When Iran and Syria attack us, or those which are our allies directly, then we should declare war on them, smash them, and go back to business as usual.
You would then approve of going to war with both of them right now? Both have been attacking Iraq since 2005 at least ...
Or by "directly" do you mean a conventional invasion? If so, then you give them permission to serve as guerilla sanctuaries, thus making it impossible to ever finally beat the insurgency, for as long as they want to continue attacking. And if you allow them guerilla sanctuary, then they can also serve as terrorist sanctuaries, and that gives them the option of attacking our homeland.
The "at-home measures that we have seen" are why we've been able to hold off attacking Iran and Syria immediately. Otherwise, they would be hitting us with attack after attack, in our own cities.
Nothing you say there seems to argue against them being like fire ants or organized crime.
They're nasty bits o' goods, and we'll never be rid of one group or another of them.
But they're not countries, they're just a bunch of criminals, pests, with goals they will not, and cannot, achieve, and need to be hammered down EXACTLY like we hammer down fire ants and organized crime: whenever they intrude upon us, we take care of them.
And make sure that they -- whose goal is terror -- see that we don't treat them with terror, but bored contempt. Put them on trial, put them in regular prisons. No political elements. No legitimizing of their grievances. No acknowledgement of them at all in our overall behavior.
I don't change my behavior because of criminals; I call the cops, have them taken away, and go back to business as usual.
If they happen to get to the point that they will come forward, and act as part of a legitimate government, AND they continue this even then, we will smash them in a real war. A short, decisive war.
Fire ants. Annoying creatures which can kill you, interfere with business, do all sorts of things that are very bad (they cost, I think, several billion). But we don't treat them as though they were a legitimate power or force people to hide in their homes from terror.
Organized crime. Responsible for VASTLY more deaths than the terrorists have managed. Destructive, insidious, all sorts of things. But in general we don't treat them any different from other criminals aside from the SCALE at which we sometimes have to operate. Arrest 'em, try 'em, lock 'em up.
Terrorists are no different, and there is nothing anyone has shown me that indicates they ARE different. Their GOALS are different, but that doesn't matter. What matters is what they do, and whether they are and should be treated as a legitimate power on which we make war. And they are not, and never will be unless they actually BECOME a country.
Reply
Reply
None of this requires any of the at-home measures that we have seen.
Reply
You would then approve of going to war with both of them right now? Both have been attacking Iraq since 2005 at least ...
Or by "directly" do you mean a conventional invasion? If so, then you give them permission to serve as guerilla sanctuaries, thus making it impossible to ever finally beat the insurgency, for as long as they want to continue attacking. And if you allow them guerilla sanctuary, then they can also serve as terrorist sanctuaries, and that gives them the option of attacking our homeland.
The "at-home measures that we have seen" are why we've been able to hold off attacking Iran and Syria immediately. Otherwise, they would be hitting us with attack after attack, in our own cities.
Reply
Leave a comment