 Quote:
Originally Posted by Katczinsky  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.
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. | Kat, I agree with you pretty much down the line. The "war on terror" has been too vauge and focused in the wrong places. I know it's been said so many times already it's become cliche, but trying to tie the whole mess in Iraq in with our response to 9/11 makes about as much sense as it would have to declare war on Turkey after Pearl Harbor was bombed.
And yes, I think the "terrorist" threat specifically from foreign fanatics has been inflated to hysterical levels. There's been plenty of domestic terrorism here in the states from all sorts of political and religious groups -- dating back all the way to the earliest days of our nation. If at first you don’t succeed – try, try again and then quit. There’s no sense in making a damned fool of yourself. – W.C. Fields
|