I Think the U.S. Military Should Kill Terrorists
An editorial by Frank J.
By Frank J. Posted in War — Comments (224) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
We're happy to welcome Frank J. of IMAO as guest editorialist on this very, very important topic. And, yes, at bottom this is a serious editorial. That's sort of the point, really.
I remember that back in the 80s when I was but a wee child there were a people called Communists. They were very bad, but we also had Rambo and he killed them. Thus we felt safe and happy and would say, "Yea, though there be Communists, verily there is John Rambo to kill them. Things are well in the world."
Today, there no longer are Communists since Rambo killed them all with explosive arrows, but there are terrorists. "Who will kill the terrorists?" we ask, and it is a good question. I think it is the responsibility of the government to kill terrorists. My reasoning on it is thusly: Terrorists live and plot in many different foreign countries with lots of different wacky laws. Thus, it's much easier for the U.S. government to stomp around ignoring those laws than it is for individuals. If I went into those countries to kill terrorists, those countries would say, "Hey, Frank. You are ignoring our laws. You go to prison now." And they would take me to wacky foreign prison, and I would not be able to resist because there would be many of them and they would be mean. But the U.S. government is even bigger and meaner and thus can ignore stupid foreign laws to kill the terrorists.
Read on . . .
Since it is resolved it's the government's job to kill terrorists, who in the government should kill them? The I.R.S? Congress? Those nine old people who tell us what the Constitution means? No, I don't think any of those people are properly equipped to kill terrorists. When I think of who in the government could be good at killing terrorists, I think of the military. They have guns and training at killing. They seem to be the perfect candidates for killing terrorists. Thus I say that our military should be tasked with killing terrorists.
Now that I've logically proved that the U.S. military should kill terrorists, it seems strange that some people would want to pull troops out of the Middle East. That's where the terrorists are! I guess eventually they'll come to us a few at a time, but it is so much more efficient to go over there and kill them en masse. When people say, "No! Bring the troops home!" I say, "But there aren't many terrorists at home. They are over there. You are being silly." Why would we move the troops? Who is more important to kill than the terrorists? The Swedes? Certainly not.
When someone tells you we should bring the troops back, ask him who does he think will then kill the terrorists. When he inevitably gives you a dumb answer, punch him in the face as should be the punishment for answers that are stupid. As is obvious, the U.S. military should kill terrorists.
Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us and is the author of such books as "The Police Should Arrest Criminals" and "Tax Collectors Should Collect Taxes (Or, Preferably, Drop Dead)."
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | So Now We Know — Comments (7) »
I Think the U.S. Military Should Kill Terrorists 224 Comments (0 topical, 224 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
it remains unclear whether killing terrorists actually achieves anything. It's not like they are running out of them.
Personally I'm not a fan of using our soldiers as a honeypot to draw terrorists to them.
Also I don't think anyone is advocating that we leave the middle east.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
Which is always a start.
The enemy never runs out of people until one day it does. That's how war is.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
But there is little evidence that terrorists can be beaten with attritional warfare unless you also wipe out their support base which I think it unlikely.
Palestine is a tiny country yet they've been churning out terrorists for 30 years.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
But if you feel that's the way to solve the problem...
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
And when they're done, move them to the West Bank.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
pink.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
------------
This kind of liberty is, indeed, but another name for justice; ascertained by wise laws, and secured by well-constructed institutions.
-Edmund Burke
Mocking a little twit with an invincibility complex is fairly low on that list.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
the saying, "De mortuis, nihil nisi bonum."
------------
This kind of liberty is, indeed, but another name for justice; ascertained by wise laws, and secured by well-constructed institutions.
-Edmund Burke
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
While you're there, would you pick up some cigarettes for me? Thanks.
We've traded our National Sovereignty for cheap roofing and yardwork.
I've sinned some, but nothing terrible, so I think I'm going to Heck.
to nip the "Well Stalin did it" argument in the bud but my wording was really poor.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Senior writer for The Hinzsight Report
Ok. You're right. It isn't a country. It is a territory that is harshly ruled over by the Israelis.
How does that change my point in any way?
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
It's actually a territory that is harshly ruled over by Palestinians. They'd be a hell of a lot better off if the Israelis did run things.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Israel occupies territory because if she doesn't then enemies use that same territory to attack. For proof look at Lebanon. That was a twenty year miserable occupation but an even more miserable war. Hezbollah used the very land once occupied by Israel to launch rockets at Israel. Hamas does the same thing in Gaza now.
People like you and propagandists are then always there to blame Israel for the "miserable occupation" but there is no other Choice. The protection of your citizenry is the most important role of government. Unfortunately Israel has no Choice but to undertake these long occupations or face never ending attacks from its enemies.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
Whenever the word Israel is used you guys feel some kneejerk need to defend them. I wasn't criticizing them. They are doing what they have to do.
But they have done nothing to eliminate terrorism.
How bout we stick to the point.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
A good start would be reducing the West Bank and Gaza to parking lots.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
"harshly ruled over" is freaking endearing!...you're right, you wern't criticizing them!
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
if we don't perform, they don't pay.
Seriously, Israel itself has conceded its long occupations were a failure. Trouble is, the various Palestinian factions and their Syrian/Iranian/Saudi patrons have failed at making peace and excel at making trouble.
Don't say you weren't criticizing Israel when you describe them as ruling "harshly" over the Palestinians.
Next step in your mind was surely: if there were no "occupation", there would be no suicide bombings and rocket launchings.
I've seen your views on Israel before in other diaries. You fly to the defense of men like Nasser while condemning men like Sharon.
How about you lay off Israel and we'll stick to the point.
it's Fun and Games with Flyerhawk! Boy, isn't it fun?..
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
true, true...
(actually, flyer sometimes makes good points on other questions. that's one reason why his views on israel are especially irritating.)
I love terrorism against the United States. Being 200 feet from the last major terrorist attack and nearly dying wasn't enough to deter my love of terrorism. And living and working here in New York certainly isn't enough either.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
The Israelis did rule harshly and still impose extremely harsh import economic restrictions on the region. I understand why they do this and I don't think they are wrong to do so, per se.
The occupation certainly doesn't help matters but the blood feud between the two is far too great to simply go away because Israel leaves the occupied lands.
I personally believe I have a pretty dispassionate view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I may come off as anti-Israel here because the overwhelming opinion of RS is that Israel shouldn't be criticized and Palestine shouldn't be defended in any way. That is far too extreme for. If I were to place blame for that crisis I would put it down at something like...
50% The Arab community along with the clerics of Iran. They have used this conflict for their own purposes for the past 50 years without offering a ounce of real support for Palestine.
30% Palestine - Their leaders have completely failed the people. They continue to ignore the fact that terrorism will never get them what they want.
20% Israel - Israel contributing this problem with their land grabs of the 4 big wars, particularly 56 and 67.
As for Nasser the only "good" thing I have ever said about him was that I don't think he would have EVER invaded Israel and that it was Amir that seemed to be the real antagonist.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
first you claim the Palestinians are mistreated by the Israelis and then say you have nothing against Israel. Boy, you certainly made the accusation though. As to your point, it is impossible for a country the size of Rhode Island with about ten million in population to ever rid the whole world of terrorism. That doesn't mean their methods are not effective in limiting. Terrorists were bombing Israeli cities weekly until Israel stopped tit of tat bombing and took out the entire refugee camp of Jenin. While roundly condemned by the Western world, the reality was that they destroyed and killed a major part of the terrorist base by doing it. Hamas has never been the same again.
Egypt and Jordan now have peace treaties with Israel and that was after humliating and devastating losses in wars. All throughout Israel's history it has been proven that capitulation and weakness spawn terrorism and wars against it and heavy handedness and strong counter attacks lessen attacks against it.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
first you claim the Palestinians are mistreated by the Israelis and then say you have nothing against Israel. Boy, you certainly made the accusation though
These 2 statements are, in no way, in conflict. I support the Israelis. I also recognize that they have acted harshly towards the Palestinian people. Bombing a refugee camp is more than just harsh. It may be necessary for them to do so but if you don't think that killing women and children is harsh I don't know what to tell you.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
the only thing the other post said was harsh there was no mention of necessary. You can be coy all you want, but when you only present one side of a two sided story, it is obvious where your biases lie. They didn't kill women and children. The terrorists hid among women and children and they were caught in the cross fire. If you blame Israel for women and children being killed that is again your right, but it will be met with skepticism at least here. If you want that idea held up go to Daily Kos.
Their heavy handed tactics unfortunately breed resentment however in that case it is a battle of wills. At some point the people will finally realize that it is not the Israelis that are creating the problem but the terrorists themselves. When they hide among civilians at some point the civilians will realize that the terrorists are responsible for deaths when soldiers shoot at them.
You are constantly making a three sided arguement and thus when one is clearly refuted you just go to another side. It gets tiresome chasing your arguement. I long ago pointed out that for Israel it is always a double edged sword...
http://redstate.com/blogs/mike_volpe/2007/aug/23/prime_minister_maliki_c...
however, unlike you, I pointed out that this is entirely the fault of the F$%ked up societies that surround Israel. You seem to want to blame, and deny blaming, Israel for everyone around them still being stuck in the stone ages, voting in terrorists, and blindly following vicious, evil imams that call for death and destruction.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
Flyer, if I may comment on Mike's comment, while I think some of the reaction to your comments on this thread have been excessive and unfair, there is a fair point that I think Mike is making, and a suggestion I would make a well: If you're going to say that the Israelis treat the Palestinians harshly, but you believe such treatment may be necessary and justified, acknowledge that possibility explicitly, and similarly, if you believe that Israel attacking a refugee camp is unjustified due to the predictable deaths of non-combatants, but realize that the non-combatants were not the Israeli's target and that the Israelis may have been left with the choice of either not going after terrorists or attacking them where there are non-combatants among whom the terrorists hide, then again, acknowledge that fact. Otherwise you may give the impression to some here that you are unfairly one-sided. While this suggestion probably means holding yourself to a higher standard than others on RS in terms of thoroughness, clarity, fairness, etc., that's my suggestion.
'harshly'...he did with intent to piss off or inflame.
He could have made the point without using it...by using it, he opened up the can...again, it's his MO.
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
You chose to infer that purely because I was the one who wrote it. If some accredited Righty said the same thing it would pass by without even a blip.
Some of you are so busy creating Flyerhawk, Man of Straw, that you see things in everything I write that simply aren't there.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
re read the thread...tell me again why using 'harshly' was necessary?...you even after call US 'predictable'...well then, I guess you knew what you were saying was going to get people upset, and you still used the term.....
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
Decided to break out the snark and "inform" me that Palestine is not a country. Of course his snark is completely acceptable because he's on your side.
That was the context of my comment. And if you thought about it for a second you would understand why I said it. I wasn't trying to incite people. I was responding to Steven's unnecessary comment.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
again...the thread is there...
You got what you wanted...hope you don't feel you're being treated harshly
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
It's quite common here for people to make comments containing points or arguments (e.g, Israel harshly treating Palestinians and effect it has) without acknowledging counterpoints (e.g., such harsh treatment may be necessary and justified). Yes, such an omission can sometimes make the comment more provocative, but that doesn't mean it's the intent of the poster. Personally, I think the best response is simply to ask if the person making that comment is overlooking the counterpoint, rather than presuming that that person is completely one-sided and launching into an attack based on that presumption. Sure, there are trolls who show up here and quickly reveal a sharply skewed worldview and/or "factual" assumptions that are incompatible with RS and generally not worth responding to here, but I don't think it's fair to put Flyer in that camp. From what I've seen he is quite willing to engage in rational debate, and while he's (I think) a liberal and I'm not (although on some social issues I'm libertarian), I don't find his assumptions of fact or his opinions to be similar to those of the aforementioned trolls.
Agreed, Flyer is a leftist, but he is no troll. I suspect that at least a few of us here at RS are praying for him to see the light, and renounce his leftism. :)
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
Leftists believe in all sorts of crazy things.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
See See See!!! Prayers work! He is already moving to the right. :)
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
And remember, you can't spell "leftish" without "fetish". I have no point, I just wanted to say that.
And if the point of this discussion was Israel I would explained my point in much greater detail.
But Israel wasn't the point of the thread. They were barely a factor. I made a passing comment in regards to terrorism in Palestine and how it continues to this day despite the best efforts of Israel to end it. The only reason I made the comment was to highlight one of the reasons WHY terrorism is still so prevalent in Palestine. Right or wrong the Palestinians believe that the Israelis have been an oppressive force that has treated them unfairly and, at times, brutally. Whether the Israelis have is beside the point.
Israel/Palestine is a complex topic in which I find most people are far too willing to pick a side and dig their heels in.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
the fact that terrorism continues to this day proves absolutely nothing. Everyone with any hint of knowledge realizes that defeating terrorism will be generational. Just because terrorists haven't been totally destroyed in Palestine doesn't mean that Israel's heavy handed strategy is not working. That is the point I made over and over. You claiming that Israel hasn't totally won yet, is a non starter. Israel's war with terrorism will last even longer than our own. That doesn't mean their tactics aren't working.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
I realize that might be difficult to do given the number of attempted threadjacks.
My point regarding Palestinian terrorism was that the theory that you can just kill off the terrorists is deeply flawed.
However I would like to hear more on this point...
Israel's war with terrorism will last even longer than our own. That doesn't mean their tactics aren't working.
What are their tactics trying to achieve?
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
I have already told you. Everytime Israel is heavy handed terrorism ultimately is lessened. Everytime they capitulate, terrorism ultimately increases. Their strategy is simple, do everything to protect your citizenry, kill and capture every enemy, and build a layer of protection between yourself and your enemy: the wall, the Golan Heights, and occupation.
Ultimately, their war with terrorists will be a test of will. At some point, just like the tribes in Anbar, the citizens of Palestine will realize that their own terrorists are causing their misery, and Israel must stand up to them until then. There is only so long that brain washing can work. My parent's applied for emigration from the Soviet Union the day after they invaded Afghanistan, despite the non stop propaganda that was thrown at them, their citizenry will take a lot longer.
As Golda Meier's character, in Golda's Balcony, once said,
"we will have peace as soon as the other side learns to love their own children more than they hate us"
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
And how does your comment support the general premise of this thread?
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
I understand. I'm not saying it should have been necessary for you to be more thorough per my suggestion, nor am I blaming you for the tone of the reaction you received; I'm just saying that including the acknowledgments I mentioned in your initial comment would have helped avoid some of the nastiness that transpired (and that detracted from a more useful and interesting discussion or debate), and if that reaction were predictable, acknowledging those points (even with just a few words) would have been a good idea IMHO.
I admit that sometimes I get peeved by the incessant ankle biting that goes on and react negatively. I try not to but we're all human.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
we're all human.
Speak for yourself ;>
first here is what you said,
"Otherwise you may give the impression to some here that you are unfairly one-sided. While this suggestion probably means holding yourself to a higher standard than others on RS in terms of thoroughness, clarity, fairness, etc., that's my suggestion."
all true, I will point out that if take any contrarian position anywhere you must be able to hold yourself to a higher standard since the mob never notices inconsistencies of its own. Thus, if you are going to criticize Israel here, dot your t's and cross your I's or be prepared, and the same goes for the opposite position at Daily Kos.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
Right. That's why I was suggesting it, even though it means abiding by a double standard.
I've spent a little time in Israel and in the "territories," and can say that you have no friggin idea about that of which you speak.
Good to know that you can quote the "ignoramus's handbook of righteous indignation" like any other barely aware Liberal. I thought that you of all lefties would actually be capable of engaging the brain and opening the eyes -- but nope, it's all clichés with no bearing on reality whatsoever.
BTW, google "Qassam rockets" some time. Or "land for peace." Or "Gilad Shalit." Or "Ehud Goldwasser" and "Eldad Regev." Or "Palestinian state TV" and "Farfur," among others.
Jeez.
I'm a little disappointed with you, Jeff. You aren't prone to hyperbole and projection, unlike many people here. What's up with this?
Just so I'm clear where was I indignant about anything? My point was in regards to Palestinian terrorism, not whether the Israelis are good or bad people. How bout we keep our eye on the ball and not try to threadjack into a pointless debate about Israel? As I said just upthread from your comment, I am not anti-Israel. I'm also not pro-Israel, although I do believe that we must defend Israel against the evil that it fighting against currently.
I have had several Arab coworkers and associates that have said, point blank, that they despise Israel. They have called me a Jew lover because I don't adhere to their virulent anti-semitism. And these are educated and moderate Arabs.
However I have also worked with Jews that have told me that they hate the Palestinians and Arabs in general. It was just as hateful as the Arabs.
I point this out simply to illustrate that the conflict is not as Good vs Evil as some here would suggest. The animosity runs deeply on both sides.
Oh and lastly, if you would like me to point out the various embargos and restrictions that Israel imposes on "territories" I will certainly do so.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
Invade it, perhaps? Start by knocking off its terror-supporting and -sympathizing and -propagandizing government? Then move to establish alternative institutions that don't do those things, while turning the population against them? Then, finally, systematically close down the sanctuaries they seek to establish within its borders?
Maybe we should try this with Iraq!
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
We know how to CREATE a support base.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
We let a strongman with pretensions to being the next Saladin remain in power instead of knocking him over while we have the chance.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
And we did so because he was killing Iranians.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
No, wait. He stopped killing them, started killing Kuwaitis, and then we didn't kill him when we had the chance.
You reading Turtledove again?
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
Read The Looming Tower
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
The way you so-called "Progressives" fight tooth and nail to keep from "progressing" out of living in the past and refighting dead-and-gone events over and over and over and over and over again is beyond the ridiculous, and has passed far beyond any measure of being worth anybody listening to it. Your "MoveOn" buddies who can't "MoveOn" from 2000 or from 2003 are so intellectually pathetic and reality-challenged that you need your own little bubble so that you can spew your crap and nobody ever has to hear (or upset) you again.
Yes, I'm being meaner than usual. Yes, I'm sick of stupid people with stupid answers, and their stupid crap.
The way you so-called "Progressives" fight tooth and nail to keep from "progressing" out of living in the past and refighting dead-and-gone events over and over and over and over and over again is beyond the ridiculous, and has passed far beyond any measure of being worth anybody listening to it. Your "MoveOn" buddies who can't "MoveOn" from 2000 or from 2003 are so intellectually pathetic and reality-challenged that you need your own little bubble so that you can spew your crap and nobody ever has to hear (or upset) you again.
Yes, I'm being meaner than usual. Yes, I'm sick of stupid people with stupid answers, and their stupid crap. What do you know about the situation over here? Oh, yeah, what your idols George Soros, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi told you -- and what's in the Liberal Idiots Book of Anti-Reality Clichés. For the love of God, grow up or open your eyes and at least try to recognize a fact when it kicks you in the shins, at least for once.
Just thought I'd point that out.
"Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first."
Ronald Reagan
Somebody else got there first - disregard the above post.
"Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first."
Ronald Reagan
flyerhawk,
Palestine is not a country. Never was a country. And never will be a country.
Murtha, Reid, Pelosi (most days), Babs, Durbin, etc. Or don't they count? Or maybe you're not counting them because they've decided that all of their rhetoric for the last four years or so is just a waste of time and they'll "talk" about it but not "do" anything now that they're in power.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
They advocate we leave Afghanistan? I wasn't aware of that.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
It is in Central Asia.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
of the Middle East that would suggest that Afghanistan is part of the Middle East. It certainly is pretty central in regards to Islamic fanaticism seeing as it is sandwiched between Pakistan and Iran.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
Nor is Turkmenistan, nor is Uzbekistan. The only things these places have in common with the Middle East is that "stan" has a particular meaning in the language of one of one of the Border States of the Middle East (which in fact straddles Middle Eastern and Central Asian culture) and that the overwhelming majority of their citizens are Muslim.
The cultures, languages, variants of Islam, histories, and a thousand other aspects of their existences are so different as to make the identity ridiculous.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
And the exact same thing can be said about Iran.
It doesn't change the fact that Afghanistan is still part of the Middle East particularly in the context of this discussion which is primarily about Islamic terrorism, correct?
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
First, culturally and religiously, there is a great deal that ties Iran/Persia to the Middle East. Much as the question of whether Russia is European or Asian, there is one heckuva good question as to whether it's more Asian or Middle Eastern.
Furthermore, given that we're not arguing about Islamic Terrorism, but rather "withdrawal from the Middle East," and given that Afghanistan is a Central Asian, not Middle Eastern, State by geography, I think we can all agree that your first non sequitur was utterly silly.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
If that is the criteria, than I guess Indonesia is a part of the Middle East as well.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
it is central to Islamist fanaticism?
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
You can't move past 2000 and 2003, but you sure can apply the lib staple of "fuzzy math" to geography now, and twist it to mean what you want! Wow, you're impressive!
How about you actually learn some reality instead of sticking to whatever source it is you're getting all of the abject crap that you're dropping in this thread?
What does 2000 or 2003 have to do with whether Afghanistan can or should be considered part of the Middle East?
If you would like to create arbitrary boundaries, go for it. If you think that Turkey isn't part of the Middle East, as well as Europe, that's your call.
Calling me an idiot or a dumba$$ may make you feel better but it certainly doesn't do much to help your image.
Clearly this week has upped the political temperature because nothing I said in this thread should honestly be viewed as particularly Lefty yet the name calling has been rather intense, even by generally sober and intelligent people as yourself.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
...no sleep for several days, and the fact that you have made clear in this thread that you have no problem ignoring, twisting, or otherwise altering facts and your own personal reality in order to be contrarian to every single statement made by anybody. Period.
Scroll up and down here. You tie and twist yourself and your own logic into knots so large that it boggles the mind, all, apparently, for the sake of being able to disagree with every statement made and to make what you apparently see as cleverly snide comments. If you can't even see that, then I sure can't help you.
But what I see here is a bunch of people that hold a single view that aren't willing to concede even minor points on it. There is a "You're either with us completely or you're against us completely" mindset here.
I'm not trying to be contrarian. I just don't hold the same absolute view that you and others do. You seem to believe that the only logical choice in Iraq is continuing the fight. All other options are so clearly wrong that you believe anyone who advocates them must OBVIOUSLY have ulterior motives. I do not agree with this view.
Pedantic gotchas were the name of the game in this thread. "Afghanistan isn't in the Middle East!". Ok. So what? How does the arbitrary definition of what is and what is not the Middle East materially change the discussion, other than allowing you and others to gleefully point out how little I know? I was also told that Palestine is not a country as a counter to the point that Palestine has been engaged in terrorism for 40 years. Again what does their political status have to do with the point?
In the Israel threadjack segment of this thread I was both taken to task for making the outlandish claim that Israel has acted harshly and I was told why it was necessary for them to act harshly. Of course those that decried my use of the word "harshly" didn't bother to criticize the other posters that justified Israel's actions.
And, as usual, any post I make that can be viewed as conciliatory towards the opposing view is largely ignored because it is much more enjoyable to attack Flyerhawk the Strawman than engage in adult debate. The only people who seemed to even bother reading those comments were BrooksRob and Mr. Hahn.
I understand that my views are not going to be well received on this subject. However I don't even advocate my actual views here because even slight opposition to the current party line is anathema on this site, at least regarding Iraq.
How bout you guys stop projecting views onto me and respond to what I actually say?
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
first, as everyone can see, even with maximum force victory is anything but probable. Thus, anything less is sure defeat. You can claim a middle ground but in fact, all supposed middle grounds are sure defeats.
As to Israel, again, you claim you weren't criticizing Israel and then ask why no one else criticized Israel. I responded to you why Israel does what it does. It is the only way to protect its citizenry. They are either completely heavy handed or bombs blow up in major cities. If you want to criticize Israel for protecting its citizenry, that is your choice, but you will be met with significant resistance here.
In fact, it is you that takes all sorts of straw man arguements. You criticize Israel and then claim you didn't. You claim their tactics don't cut down on terrorism even though in fact they already have. Israel faces enemies from all 360% degrees of its surroundings. This started and is rooted in things entirely separated from any heavy handed actions they have taken. You are basically taking the Steven Spielberb position that the violence is a vicious cycle, and that is only when it is tit for tat. When they went into Jenin and killed every single terrorist in the camp then suddenly homicide bombings were reduced to almost zero. Back on 2002 and 2003, they were weekly and now they happen a few times per year. You think that because a country the size of Rhode Island has not destroyed every enemy it faces, which is the rest of the desert many times the size of the U.S., that means they haven't slowed down terrorism. They have, but your standards are impossible.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
figured it was the start of the last letter you were ever going to write. Ever.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
do not recall many headlines about the USSR invading the Middle East.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
"The cultures, languages, variants of Islam, histories, and a thousand other aspects of their existences are so different as to make the identity ridiculous"
I disagree, the only thing that matters is Islam, Islam is a cultural creation of Arabia and indelibly bears its mark. Islam is also a totalitarian philosophy, it controls and permeates all aspects of the lives of its followers. So all of the culture and language differences pale into insignificance compared to the overwhelming influence of Islam in the people's lives.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
"So all of the culture and language differences pale into insignificance compared to the overwhelming influence of Islam in the people's lives."
I don't think that's quite correct. I've traveled in Indonesia (the largest Islamic country in the world), Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, & Kyrgyzstan), and the Arab Middle East (Jordan & Iraq). The three regions are completely different in cultural values, mores, politics, and social structures. Islam is an influence, sure, but the pressure of recent history and geopolitical circumstances is far greater.
Uzbekistan, for example, is essentially Russian -- a particularly illustrative story of mine involves tossing back vodka shots in a mosque with some workers there. Indonesia is a frenetic melting pot of cultures, with Malay and Chinese and Pac-islander and even some Australian influences.
What these three areas DO have in common are significant economic and political problems. Radical Islam provides an easy-to-follow script for the discontented in these societies, one that can simultaneously appeal to their nativist sympathies (i.e. be set up in opposition to The West) and provides encouragement in the form of a "universal", trans-national philosophy.
Even then, though, the role that radical Islam plays in these societies is very different. I would say that it is far more mainstream in the Middle East, or at least has popular sympathy, than, say, in Indonesia. There the society is so fragmented culturally into literally hundreds of languages and ethnic groups that most Muslims think of the radicals as being crazies who live on the outskirts of the archipelago (and are separated by barriers of language and culture).
In the 'stans they're mostly too drunk and maudlin to care. Most people want the Soviet Union back, not the Taliban.
Try this link. It will explain a lot.
http://www3.nationalgeographic.com/places/regions/region_middleeast.html
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
RFYoung
What nonsense, that they can make terrorists faster than we can kill them. We haven't even fielded two million men yet. We haven't used the big guns.
There is no more efficient killing machine in the history of the earth than an army of angry northern European/Americans. Ask the Apache or the Souix. Ask Atalnta or Gettysburg. Ask Dresden or Hamburg. Ask the Japanese.
Ask our closest ally, the British, about New Orleans.
These people have and do repeatedly say that they want to kill us. They are 1000 years behind civilization. They are the savage hords at the gate. They brought the fight to us, not we to them.
It is now time for them to pay the price.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
While Marines tend to make fun of Air Force guys (but they love the accomodations at AF bases and the women in the AF...) General LeMay arguably made Patton look like a Quaker.
The question being, does killing terrorists accomplish anything? The general equation is pretty simple. It does when you kill enough of them. Note that "enough" is not a fixed number. "Enough" happens when we've broken their will to come after us.
I don't give a tinkers dam about their "hearts and minds". I care about their feet. I would stop the arc light raids when their feet stopped marching off to fight us. And not an instant before. We've turned "war" from a killing field to a video game to our great detrement. We now worry about "collateral damage" instead of planning on it.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
But the question whether killing terrorists accomplishes anything or not strikes me like the question of whether imprisoning criminals reduces crime or not...
Clearly when a criminal is in jail he is not elsewhere at the same time committing crimes. Similarly, a dead terrorist is no longer able to plan or carry out terror attacks - thus killing terrorists must eventually reduce terrorism.
"Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first."
Ronald Reagan
We have the highest incarceration rate in the world and yet our crime rates are higher than most other western nations.
That's not to suggest that punishment crime is pointless. It is necessary. But crime is a part of human society. Are we now accepting terrorism as just part of the world and that we have no expectation of ever eliminating it?
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
We have the highest incarceration rate in the world and yet our crime rates are higher than most other western nations.
Apples to oranges. The real question is, what would our crime rate look like with higher/lower incarceration rates.
___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.
It would accomplish a whole lot more, if the terrorists that were subject to being killed, knew that the country that was killing them was not going to stop until the last one of them has gone to meet their virgins. The problem with this current fight is that a certain political group from the country that is presently killing the terrorists has promised the terrorists that they are not going to let them all be killed. That they are going to prevent the killing of as many of the terrorists as they can. In fact, the terrorists understand there is no deed that they can do, that will get the American leftist terrorist supporters mad enough to want to kill them. Witness the current fight in Washington by the Democrat politicians to try and prevent the killing of as many terrorists as possible.
It's all the Democrats fault. Heck the terrorists themselves aren't nearly as culpable for their acts as the Democrats are.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
Let's see, "holy warriors" who are willing to murder indiscriminately to protect a twisted ideology, or "activists" who are willing to sell out thier own country to them for political expediency and/or pork?
_________________________________
"You can't
It really is that simple.