yes, that there is no special link between islam and terrorism.

proud state sponsors of terrorism should be as one jackass stated "wiped off the map."

i am completely sick of that prevents us from nuking several countries out of existence.
this is a very simple game. KILL THE ENEMY BEFORE THEY KILL YOU.

That sounds to me like saying that since blacks disproportionately commit murders in the US, we should kill (or at least imprison) all blacks. Nevermind the fact that most blacks lead perfecly legal lives and were not, are not, and will not be murderers.

I think the idea that we're justified in punishing tons of innocent people to get at the few guilty ones is not only severely unjust but counterproductive. To the extent it focuses on a particular group, it leads to increased polarization and the alienation of the very people who might be most useful in finding the ones truly responsible. Yes, by all means go after the ones bent on destruction and immune to reason. But punishing a group for the actions of a few ferments extremism and hatred that increases the number of people who are truly dangerous to us and so makes us less safe, not more.

It's not PC bullshit; it's looking at the practical consequences of our actions. And the practical consequences of group punishment are not good, no matter how angry we may feel about individual perpetrators.

proud state sponsors of terrorism should be as one jackass stated "wiped off the map."


It's not that simple. First, no one is wiping anyone "off the map." For instance, extremists on both the Israeli and Palestinian side think their only option is to destroy the other. That's fantasyland. It's not going to happen. And as long as they think it's a possibility, they'll continue to kill each other.

Some countries tolerate extremists in their midst because opposing them would lead to a revolt would put the extremists in power. Want to guess why we're not pushing hard for democracy in Saudi Arabia?

And if we really did go after states that provided resources, and wiped them off the map, what would the reaction be in the rest of the Muslim world? If we nuked Iraq, would that solve our terrorism problems, or would it provide the biggest recruiting tool in history for an entire new generation of extremists?

The biggest problem isn't countries; it's non-state actors. And if we don't come up with better strategies than nuking entire countries, I think the problem will only get worse.

good law abiding blacks do not keep quiet and allow their friends to fund ghetto trouble causing blacks to sneak into malls and churches and blow innocent people up.
nonstate actors? how do you call syria blatantly funding hamas nonstate?

how do you call syria blatantly funding hamas nonstate?

First, I think they're more Hezbollah funders, less soHamas funders.

Second, wouldn't blowing up Syria would be the best recruitment for Hezbollah anyone could dream up?

Third, Hezbollah started up as a response to Israel's invasion of Lebanon in the '80s. It existed before Syria saw it could be used to advance Syria's interests, and I doubt it would go away if Syria didn't exist.

good law abiding blacks do not keep quiet and allow their friends to fund ghetto trouble causing blacks to sneak into malls and churches and blow innocent people up.

So what's your plan? Arrest all of them? Anyone who doesn't take action gets put in jail? On what grounds? (Failure to disclose a criminal activity that one is not involved in is, to the best of my knowledge, not a crime.) And how can anyone prove he/she didn't know? The inability to prove a negative is what got us into Iraq--and we can see how much safer that's made us.

If you can describe how blowing up countries would make us safer, I'd be glad to read about it. But the practical consequences to me makes it sound like a strategy that is more likely to leave us worse off than one that would solve any real problems, for the reasons I've stated previously. I understand the anger, but I don't think it's helpful in any practical sense.

hizbollah hamas closeefuckinnough.

the wife just yelled at me to get back to the kid.
im out.

From today’s Morning Edition (NPR)
This was almost as good as Oenophores link / text.

Description:

Quote:

---

novelist Robert Harris speaks with Steve Inskeep about how the history of Rome is reflected in our modern-day world. Harris sees parallels between the time of Rome's transition from republican to imperial rule and the challenges the U.S. faces now.

---

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6523758

Wish they had provided text too, but I don't see it.

Novelist.

Antagonistic lines deleted.

I would have written an intelligent person who has read up on both recent history and their subject matter, and can compare them.