Reply With Quote
... so the Bush administration, the intelligence experts that analyse the problem, and the US military are all wrong?
Have you actually read the declassified intelligence estimates?
Look at this way...suppose Al Qaeda had invaded us and was bombing the out of us etc., trying to install an Islamic Theocracy.
Suppose one day they came upon you and you just happened to be with some unmarked Republicans and because they did not know you were a Democrat, they accidentally arrested you...
Suppose during your incarceration they were convinced you were a Republican instead of someone who is no threat to them at all, and were actually closer to being an ally...but suppose because you look, talk and dress just like the Republicans...they put you in a tank with Bush and Rove etc.
Would you become a Republican?
And if you did, would it be their responsibility? Or the Republicans? Or yours?
As well...if you did, wouldn't that be kind of ing stupid on your part? I mean for that reason...would that make you someone who should be feared? Or a grade A idiot?
... so the Bush administration, the intelligence experts that analyse the problem, and the US military are all wrong?
Have you actually read the declassified intelligence estimates?
You avoided answering the question.
Please define "terrorist". Again, I'm not looking for a specific answer here, just a reasonable working defintion.
You're almost there. I can tell you're on the right track, but you are just a tad short of the final peice.
We are fighting an idea. The article in the OP shows that when you lump people with this idea in with people who don't believe in this idea, you get new believers in the idea.
The idea that you don't want to put words to:
"The United States is evil, Godless, and deserves to be destroyed."
This idea then allows people in Al Qaeda to rationalize all the violence in the name of "good" and what they think God wants.
We are, in essence, waging a battle of perception.
Sure we can and should kill the murderous s that don't see anything wrong in nail- ed bombs in crowded marketplaces, but there will always be a ready-made pool of new recruits.
The only way to really win is if you can kill faster than they can recruit.
Two ways to do this.
1) Kill really fast.
2) Cause them to have a harder time to recruit.
The problem is that if you do a LOT of killing, you end up making it easier for them to recruit.
We aren't fighting to win over the murderous s. They have made up their mind already. Kill 'em, capture 'em, neutralize them.
We are fighting to win over the pool of potential recruits, and the people who might tacitly look the other way.
If you look at the spectrum of opinion about the US, you have a range between "The USA is great" and "Let's kill everyone in the USA".
At some point towards the "kill" end an individual will make up his mind to do something about it, or look the other way. Do something about it could be as simple as giving money, or fake do ents, or whathave you. Looking the other way, could be as simple as a sympathetic landlord who suspects his tenants, but doesn't report them.
When you give up moral authority, you make it easier for the people with the "kill" at ude to convince others that they are right, and to help or look the other way, and make it easier for them to operate.
Good cop out when you don't have the answers.
You know what? It's just not worth it...believe what you wish.
Oh, I beg to differ.
To my knowledge battery technology hasn't progressed that far yet...
You might be thinking about RFID or something.
Any battery capable of powering a transmitting/tracking chip for very long AND for miles, is bulky enough to be noticed if implanted.
This guy gets it
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
