4 ms·

We have to remember that our founding fathers were terrorists in the eyes of the British. I think a big step towards stopping terrorism would be to stop sticki

We have to remember that our founding fathers were terrorists in the eyes of the British. I think a big step towards stopping terrorism would be to stop sticking our huge noses in everyone else's business. Whenever we take from one group and give to another, we create terrorists. This is a pattern we repeat over and over and instead of just minding our own fucking business we, as a country, feel this need to "save" the world from oppression (and hey, why not make some money while we're at it?) So then what do we do? Up surveillance and carpet bomb countries in the middle east with drones. What does this do? Kill all the terrorists?? I'm willing to bet for every one terrorist we kill in a drone strike, we create 10 more because we killed someone's father or brother (or hell, their dog). > One has to give credit to the US govt.'s efforts though: not a single case of terrorism on US soil after 9/11. That's pretty impressive. Boston bombing? A citizen bomb strike is a terrorist act, generally. And the US government didn't do shit about it because they are completely incompetent. Our government consists of a large number of baboons spending our own tax dollars to instigate, fund, and at the same time fight terrorism all while chipping away at our rights little by little. Yay, go team.

joyeuse6701 13y ago
Retaliation is a real problem, when you don't crush your enemy. U.S. foreign policy didn't have to punish Japan for it's Manchurian expansion, but it resulted in Pearl Harbor. Japan absolutely completely had to be destroyed brick by brick for that nation to yield. No Japanese terrorists since. Other incidences of unprovoked and unchallenged acts: see Crimea and Nazi annexations.
- darkarmani 13y ago
  > U.S. foreign policy didn't have to punish Japan for it's Manchurian expansion, but it resulted in Pearl Harbor. Japan absolutely completely had to be destroyed brick by brick for that nation to yield. No Japanese terrorists since. Other incidences of unprovoked and unchallenged acts: see Crimea and Nazi annexations. That's an insane conclusion. There have been plenty of border skirmishes that haven't resulted in greater aggression. Those are cherry picked data points.
- orthecreedence 13y ago
  Ok, assuming your points are correct, you can retaliate against a known, organized force (or person), but you cannot retaliate against a nebulous group of people who exist in different parts of the world, many of whom share completely different ideologies. You cannot "retaliate" against terrorism any more than you can retaliate against car crashes and deaths from cancer.

joyeuse6701 13y ago

Retaliation is a real problem, when you don't crush your enemy. U.S. foreign policy didn't have to punish Japan for it's Manchurian expansion, but it resulted in Pearl Harbor. Japan absolutely completely had to be destroyed brick by brick for that nation to yield. No Japanese terrorists since. Other incidences of unprovoked and unchallenged acts: see Crimea and Nazi annexations.

darkarmani 13y ago
> U.S. foreign policy didn't have to punish Japan for it's Manchurian expansion, but it resulted in Pearl Harbor. Japan absolutely completely had to be destroyed brick by brick for that nation to yield. No Japanese terrorists since. Other incidences of unprovoked and unchallenged acts: see Crimea and Nazi annexations. That's an insane conclusion. There have been plenty of border skirmishes that haven't resulted in greater aggression. Those are cherry picked data points.
orthecreedence 13y ago
Ok, assuming your points are correct, you can retaliate against a known, organized force (or person), but you cannot retaliate against a nebulous group of people who exist in different parts of the world, many of whom share completely different ideologies. You cannot "retaliate" against terrorism any more than you can retaliate against car crashes and deaths from cancer.