I've always found it appalling that Conservatives think that we can win on the terrorists' turf by trying to match them terror-for-terror. If we do win that way, which is highly unlikely, what does that say about us?
Tom is doing a remarkable job of avoiding any consideration of the goals of Islamic terrorists, and focusing instead on the "they jes wanna kill us!" fearmongering. Yet it's not a secret that al Qaeda has a definite goal in mind: They want to (re)establish the Caliphate, a pan-Islamic theocratic empire roughly encompassing the old Ottoman Empire. In other words, bin Laden has a political goal, and political goals, by definition, requiring winning hearts and minds to build support for the goal. If Obama uses political means to shift the loyalties of the Muslim world away from al Qaeda and its goals, we win. The whole world wins.
Nothing reveals the bankruptcy of the Right more clearly than their objection to winning through the aggressive pursuit of peace. It's a sickness, as if a victory with a minimum of bloodshed is somehow less satisfying than winning through slaughter.
Current Events » in reply to Let me repeat it again since you nissed it last time
The war against extremism can't be won by extremism
The whole thread (34 posts)
- Obama making America safer
- I asked some Arab friends about it
- His job is much, much more difficult since the Bush-Cheney "agenda".
- We're going to have to learn the hard way. Again.
- Please tell me what show I'm performing that "your" fact is supposed to stop. (n/t)
- Obama's Speech Is Another Example of "the Triumph of Hope Over Experience". (n/t)
- "while Bill Clinton was still president."
- Lesson learned
- If Obama wanted to give a speech to the "Islamic World"...