[t]he United States and its allies are winning some battles in the terrorism war, but may be losing the broader struggle against Islamic extremism that is terrorism's source....Ignore for the moment the blatant racism of saying that Islamic extremism is the source of terrorism (as opposed to any other kind of extremism, like, for example, the Christian fundamentalists who justify murdering doctors who perform abortions or the white supremacists who were caught with a chemical poison bomb in December). Now, maybe it's just me, I don't know, but doesn't it make mincemeat of all the TRAITOR Act "protections" and all the other intrusions into our private lives to say there is a continuing supply of new (and therefore unknown) terrorists? And doesn't it at least hint that maybe, just maybe, if all these brand-new terrorists are being generated, there's something, I don't know, wrong with our approach?
The troubling unknown, he said, is whether the extremists - whom he termed "zealots and despots" bent on destroying the global system of nation-states - are turning out newly trained terrorists faster than the United States can capture or kill them.
Rumplestiltskin also said that the real issue isn't terrorism, which he called "a technique ... a weapon" but the ideology that drives it.
Chances that focusing action on what generates terrorism will be more effective than violating civil rights at home and bombing the hell out of people abroad: 100%
Chances that Donald Rumsfeld or George Bush (or John Kerry) have a flaming clue what that action would consist of: 0%.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment