| | | I should also point out the relative value of having won the argument ?
While they continue the tactic of lying... and bear all the risk of being proven as the obvious liars they are... note that it still isn't the true believers they, or you, care about convincing ?
Look at the link I included here: Message 29380514
It's a different subject... but, the same tactical issues in debate... do occur in other venue.
Note, Obama's approach to the war on terror includes ZERO effort to engage in or win any moral or religious debate... and, he's clearly not capable of presenting any argument that could succeed ?
By this time, of course, he's fully discredited himself even among those who were his core cadres of political supporters (again, discounting any and all the brain dead true believers)? Without any ability to engage in, much less claim victory in, a moral debate... ? How can he win others hearts and minds... when he's losing ours ?
Instead, the Obama war effort ignores what matters, and focuses ONLY on killing those few among the true believers on the other side of the debate, that he won't engage and cannot win, who take action... while still doing everything it is possible to do, to avoid being engaged in any debate ?
In Awlaki's case, it appears they killed him, first because he was an American citizen, and then because he WAS engaging in and convincingly winning the debates he engaged... among the cadres of those who weren't true believers, but might convert to supporting the true believers ?
Is that approach effective ? CAN it be effective ?
Will anyone recognize you as "winning the debate"... because you kill the guy who is winning the debate... while violating everything you PRETEND to represent in the process, thus proving yourself a lying pretender ?
Is there ANY potential for that approach to succeed, ever... if you won't FIRST engage in and prove able to win the debate... that they refuse to have ?
I think the answer is no.
America is wasting time, $, and lives while failing to succeed in the war on terror... ONLY because the commander in chief is an idiot.
He is an idiot... who is egotistical and deluded enough to believe that the tactical capability of the U.S. military that has been enabled by others... means that it “turns out I’m really good at killing people.”
It means he thinks that weapons developed by others, that enable him to hit targets on a shooting range... make him into a military genius... rather than a foolish pedant... ?
And, its also true, in that instance, that even when you are silent, your choices do make an argument even if your words do not. Obama's statements... made apparent through his actions... are ones that tacitly engage the debate... by surrendering every element of the moral high ground that America and American leaders should occupy...
Obama's proof to our opponents... that there is an obvious benefit in Constitutionally limited government ?
Obama's proof to our opponents... that there is a reason to believe ""rule of law" or a Constitution matters ?
Obama's proof to our opponents... that there is a superior benefit in our morality, that proves we value life and liberty whereas they do not ?
The most morally bankrupt leader in American history... believes he's "really good at killing people" ?
I don't think he's winning that argument, either...
Instead, I expect it's more likely that he'll be tried and convicted of war crimes, at some point...
Unfortunately, that wouldn't be a first... for the Nobel Committee ? |
|
