"Politics is the Art of Looking for Trouble, Finding it Everywhere, Diagnosing it Incorrectly, and Applying the Wrong Remedies"
If we believe that words and actions of radical islamists and they really want to attack America any way necessary, then it could be considered "a global assassination campaign that defends the rule of law and the Constitution."
International law is for countries that have the will and ability to oppose terrorism that originates from within their sovereign borders. Take care of your own internal problems and this won't be a problem for your country.
“I’m somewhat disappointed that more African Americans don’t think for themselves and just go with whatever they’re supposed to say and think."
- Dr. Benjamin Carson
Have any of you stopped to think that we are setting an awful precedent with all this? Would you feel any differently if Cuba decided to blast Cuban refugees in Miami with their own drones? One second you are enjoying a Cafe con Leche in Little Havana, and the next you are collateral damage to some foreign nation's witch hunt... How does that sound?
SELL THE DAMN TEAM GOOFBALL
Where does it stop? Good question. I guess when acts of terrorism stop.
While I agree with your assessment of Mexican Drug Lords, I don't believe "pedaling poison" (getting people to pay "you" to inflict harm on themselves) is quite the same level of evil as people actually trying to kill you. There's an unfortunate demand for their poison but there's not any similar demand to be randomly murdered. Of course, "getting people to pay to use your product to harm themselves" sounds eerily similar to alcohol and tobacco companies, and even junk food restaurants.
I suppose if Cuban refugees in the US are actively engaged in a terror campaign against Cuba then it would be hypocritical of the US to not do what we can to put a stop to it.
It's the randomness of terrorism that scares us, just like it's the apparent randomness of drone strikes that offends us. If we could be sure that every drone strike only affected known terrorists then there might be less opposition.
There are two problems here fundamentally 1) who and what defines what an act of terrorism is and how is it bounded? Do we the people control or vote on the definition or do a select few decide what is and isn't a terrorist act? Because if you cannot see the flaw in the latter may god or whoever you do or don't pray to help you. 2) as with the war on drugs the assumption is if you end the war on drugs and legalize it all, mass addiction is going to run rampant causing breakdown. Alcohol and tobacco proves this not to be true and not everyone chooses to drink or smoke or becomes addicted, addiction is based on the individual and must be treated as such. The same comparison can be drawn to terrorism, if you end the war on terror you assume some sort of massive counter offensive by terrorists when the likelihood of that is minimal at best. Dealing with terrorism needs to be done on the individual level, you need to understand why this person hates others so much that they could kill people.
Until you understand the cause of the addiction or the cause of the hate you will just give the people who are susceptible to those things more reasons to go that direction. In some ways you could even make the case that terrorism could be an addiction, an addiction to hate those who have been deemed an enemy to you. History as proved this is a losing battle, there is no sure way to stop it or define it or even know when it is coming, the only things you can do is try to reduce it by understanding it, contain it when it happens and be ready in the event that it does happen.
What Would a Redneck Do?
Is there a definition of "act of terrorism" that you agree with?
What is your understanding of the hatred behind terrorism?
I've never heard mass addiction as the main reason for anyone being against legalizing drugs.
So was the theater shooting in Colorado an "act of terrorism"? It fits the description and since it does, is the use of a drone legal by the terms laid forth by our President? The answer those questions right now is no and no. It was just a random act of violence by a sick man but who's to say the policy cannot be applied in a case like this because no one is overseeing the mechanize behind it. My point here is that this policy is way to open ended to be helpful in anyway and sets a horrible precedent for future policies of this nature.
My understanding of the hatred of terrorism is simple and maybe I'm wrong but terrorism or any large act of violence usually stems from a deep seeded fundamental value against something (of course some small portion of these acts are committed by the insane or ill). Whether that value is derived due to exposer to death, destruction, cultural immersion, lack of knowledge, lack of understanding or simply blind hate you need to understand it. I feel everyone should have a right to their way of life, a right that doesn't infringe upon others liberties. I know that is a noble statement and the world is far from that type of place. The US based on economic, social or even political agendas influences world policies to suit itself and that leads to resent and hate toward the country. We as a country could be doing more to curb that perception.
Oh and as to your last question, if there is no fear of wider addiction then why control the substance? Wouldn't you agree that would be a colossal waste of time and money?
Last edited by NY8123; 02-28-2013 at 11:27 AM.
Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life