Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ziggytrix
OK, so what exactly would "absolutely and unequivocally reject and fight it everywhere" look like to you?
|
First you acknowledge that it's more than a collection of random, police incidents.
Then you accept the fact that it's essential to focus on the Islamic aspect of terrorism, and yes, this terrorism (something you have difficulty with).
Then you accept the fact that it's productive to do the above, b/c it allows you to confront (either militarily, economically, or diplomatically) the regimes and organizations that allow and often promote a radical form of Islam to breed and operate within their own borders. Muslims can be as angry, sexist, and regressive as they like. More power to them. But when they coordinate efforts to harm others who are non-believers, or attempt to topple regimes in order to expand Islamic law, then we have a problem. We need to confront this.
Quote:
|
Do we invade Pakistan if that is, as it would appear, the nation harboring this train bomber 'mastermind'?
|
We don't need to invade Pakistan, and I'm sorry that you think every form of suggested action = a bomb. But trying to stomp out a terrorist action here, and then a terrorist action there, won't fix the problem.
Quote:
|
And one last question: how much do you think it would have cost to put a bullet in Dawood Ibrahim's head 2 years ago when he was identified and how might that action have affected the situation today?
|
I think another petty thug with ties to Al Qaeda would be there to take his place. He's one ant, he isn't the Queen.
Hybrid Mode
