war on terrorists
that’s exactly it Sig
it is very difficult to kill a process, like terror, so why say that that is what you are fighting. You’ve capitulated already, because that deal is a very long hard slog. We did not declare war on Nazism, we killed every enemyman we could, you have to focus the force onto something. It can be done but it is difficult, to kill a process, which is the work that must follow the invasion. Connecting the state to the process is another affair altogether, which is why for what the Wolfman called “bureaucratic reasons”, actually I think he said that it had to do with reasons that were bureaucratic in nature, I’m not exactly sure, but anyway this is, given the so called connections, this is why Bush attacked Iraq, the State.
Your slogan would have been much better imo, it’s easier for the enemy to get the message. Any deviation from this base point, permits these thugs and scum, which is what we really think of them, which is why when we call them that we mean it, any elevation above this very base level, permits them an increase in status. Handing this to the enemy is no way to win a war.
Defining terrorist is difficult too but that’s what lawyers are for, but one this is for sure is that this is a tighter definition to beginning with than the WOT. |
