But they aren't looking to take any territory. They can't.
They are looking to cause chaos. But you know that. Or should.
Do you think for a minute that FDR would have taken such an absurd position?
If you knew anything about the subject you would know that "causing chaos" is not the objective of terrorism. And specifically, radical Islamic terrorism, which is focused, not on merely disrupting our way of life, but eliminating it.
We have heard innumerable times from you on the Left that religion is a primary cause of war, and it is. In this case, it is precisely the reason we were attacked.
There are MANY, MANY reasons for war that don't involve taking territory. Some are as simple as "I don't like you". Or, "You don't look like me", or "I want [insert item here, your gold, your pigs, your other property, which may or may NOT include your territory]", or "You attacked us 50 years ago and we're getting you back now", or 100 other reasons.
You're being hard-headed about this. You are clearly wrong and your rationale for your argument is completely arbitrary and ignorant.
Treating it like a war situation is just stupid.
Now, this is ignorant. Our country's decision to ignore the declaration of war and attacks on our government and civilians is what CAUSED 9/11. Clinton's hesitation to take bin Laden on multiple occasions over due process concerns was a foolish and unforgivable mistake.
The fundamentally untenable idea behind your position is that a nation, whose freedoms are under attack by a third party, should somehow find it necessary to afford the protections under those very freedoms to its attackers. Obviously, to thinking persons, this makes no sense whatsoever.
It is a war and until we return to a war footing as Bush had set us on, the nation is at risk from further attacks just like those Clinton didn't act to avoid. |
