Below are two questions which came up in a recent Facebook conversation, and my responses. Let me know what you think:
"I don't see the connection between hunting down international terrorist criminals and funding wars and keeping armies everywhere on the globe."
The connection is this: we are not confronting "terrorist criminals," we are confronting war criminals who use terrorist attacks. These are people who deliberately and indiscriminately cause massive civilian casualties; who use children and the mentally disabled as unwitting human delivery systems; who commit military actions not only using civilian populations as shields but without a uniform to distinguish them from the civilians.
All of these are war crimes, and war crimes are dealt with by the military. Personally, I would be just as happy if Obama whole-heartedly committed the American Armed Forces to this attack and just finished it, rather that sending half the troops he's asked for in order to prolong the crisis for his own political gain. But, I knew better than to vote for him. As for keeping forces around the world--who else is doing anything useful?
"Has it decreased radicalism?"
"Radicalism" isn't a problem. Firstly, because people should be free to believe whatever they want--we aren't the thought police. It is ACTION which must be answered with action. Second, because what the liberal imbeciles in our media and political circles refer to as "radicalism"--presumably to support the farcical oxymoron of "political correctness"-- is, in fact, the CORRECT interpretation of Islam. Mohammed really did direct his followers to murder and torture those who did not follow Islam, to take their lands and valuables (among which he included women), to marry girls as young as 9 (and mutilate their genitals)... It is the Muslims who respect the inherent human rights of freedom and dignity, who choose to live in America and embrace the values of the U. S. Constitution, who are "radical" Muslims.
New workout schedule
7 years ago