 Quote:
Originally Posted by mytmouse57  Not when it involves foreign nationals and rises to the scale of 9/11. That sort of thing is akin to warfare and a direct attack on the country as a whole. It therefore DOES justify a military response. | What I meant by that comment is that it's inane to assume a military response against specifically a tactic. It's doomed to failure. It's even more absurd than the war on drugs.
There will always be terrorism insofar as those fighting use it as a tactic. If you attempt to provoke a military assault on 'terrorism', it will only appear more profusely as it is a tactic of war.
Al-Qaeda attacked us on 9/11; terrorism was just the means and tactic. War against Al-Qaeda and their supporters in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia makes a lot more sense than painting the broad picture of "terrorism", which cannot be defined as an entity, and citing a 'state of war' against 'terrorists' just means an indefinite war and an excuse to erode liberty. Quote: |
You can't really compare that directly to some Yay-hoo tossing a stink bomb at an abortion clinic because he thinks that's what Jesus wants.
| Agreed, but in the end what I was trying to point out is that the 'threat' of terrorism specifically from Muslim extremists has been inflated to absurd levels; especially when extremists of all creeds (Muslims, Christians, Jews, racists, and other even secular groups) can and have used terrorism as their tactic. "If you want to achieve peace of mind and happiness, then have faith; if you want to be a disciple of truth, then search" -- Friedrich Nietzsche
Economic Left/Right: -9.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.72 |