I read a post a while back by a blogger who professes to believe that people in America especially the "liberal left"" are more upset by Mike Vick's abuse of dogs than by terrorism against human beings.
This blogger seems to believe that the "liberal left" should be voicing more opposition to terrorism: that those who disagree with the Republican response to terrorism have not been vocal enough in our abhorance of terroristic acts. The blogger wonders why there are not protests againt terrorist acts.
I would not know where or when to protest against terrorism. I guess I could do it here on the Limb. I have never considered terrorists a likely part of my audience. But, fine. I'll say it again, just in case ---
Hey you terrorists, stop it!! I mean it! Right now!
That's ridiculous, of course. If there should be any terrorists in my vast readership, I cannot imagine that they are affected by my words -- other than, perhaps, to be pleased that their atrocities have goaded me into a response.
Why do terrorists terrorize?
They terrorize to cause terror, (duh!) hoping that in our fear we will do what they want us to do.
What do they want?
They've told us. They want radical Islam to rule the world
- Therefore they need to radicalize Islamic countries
- Therefore they need more Islamic people to become angry enough to join the radical Islamic cause
- Therefore they want western countries to make "crusades" on radical Islam, especially if there is lots of "collateral damage" among Islamic peoples
- Therefore they try to egg western countries into such a war by terrorist strikes
- Therefore they are thrilled when westerners rant against radical Islam -- especially when they lump all or most Muslims with the radicals
- Therefore the vilest among them will murder missionaries, saw off the heads of journalists, send young zealots into city squares with bombs strapped around their waists, fly airliners into tall buildings, and, if they can, detonate a suitcase nuke in downtown Peoria.
Here at the Limb, we have consistently voiced our belief that America should relentlessly, lethally, aggressively pursue terrorists. We should carry a very big stick. But we should speak very softly. Ranting about terrorism is about the most useless exercise I can imagine. It is worse than useless, actually, since ranting reinforces the terror. Elevating what Bin Laden wanted called a great war into the "Generational War on Terror" is exactly the wrong thing to do. Democrats and Republicans are both to blame for that - along with our sensational press. It should instead be a multifaceted, longterm, unceasing, multinational, and relatively quiet, police action.
Instead of ranting we should make it clear to the terrorists that , while we will beef up our defenses as much as we can, and strike the bad guys whenever possible:
- We will continue our lives as unaffected by the terror as we possibly can.
- We will not give up our freedoms in response to terrorism.
- We will not compromise our morals and ethics in response to terrorism.
- We will remain true to our founding documents.
By the way, if Vick is guilty -- and since I wrote this several weeks ago I've heard tell that he has acknowledged his guilt -- he is a cruel and disturbed human being. But he hasn't quite achieved terrorist status in my Book of Evils. Though I have always heard that animal abuse turns up in the life stories of psycopaths pretty frequently.