Originally posted by trumptman
When did war become the same as law enforcement?
Sigh. Go to the back of the class. As has been said a million times before and will have to be again owing to the difficulties of penetrating the dense matter the planet is currently passing through:Wars are against states
- terrorism is a methodology
of war (albeit one that the US, UK and Israel have all often used but they of course will not fight themselves) - therefore any 'war' against 'terrorism' is a non sequtur
, am oxymoron and a laughable absurdity that serves only to identify the user as incapable of independent (or possibly any other type) and certainly rational, thought.
As an example of this laughably redundant inexactitude, it would be as if Churchill when faced with the (real) threat of the Nazis were to witter on inanely about 'war on Blitzkrieg' or 'the threat of pincer movements' to the exclusion of any specific enemy.
Except Churchill never would have.
Because he lived in a real world, facing real threats and moreover, was a real leader.
[QUOTE]I seem to remember certain leftist elements swearing up and down that Kerry understood the difference between war and law enforcement and that he would fight terrorism as a war.
Great, that's nice for you - but who gives a flying F*** about Kerry ? I mean really ?
Now as an aside, we can debate whether these actions are right as war actions, but don't hit us with the law enforcement angle. We tried prosecuting terrorism for years and it didn't work.
The winger intellectual cogs in glorious action:
We tried making a law against murder - it didn't work, people kept doing it.
This is the reductionist mindset in full flight - an awesome thing. Observe and be humbled.
For centuries, all civilized societies knew, absolutely knew
that they could never stop crime and lawbreaking. So they invented laws which were punitive
rather than preventative
. It worked well too, justice was often served and sometimes it even acted as a deterrent.
But then human intellectual faculties atrophied and degenerated to the point that one fine day, some bright spark said 'duh, hold on ...these laws don't work - people are committing crimes (grunt, simper)'.
Of course there was no one with enough brain-power to contradict him and those that could see clearer were operating on a spectrum and wavelength that the dullards couldn't perceive (like we can't hear the sounds that dogs do I guess) - and in a way, this loser was
the most intelligent of them all - he could sometimes string sentences together and so on.
So they made him King.
And of course, he had to change the law against murder because otherwise the plebs wouldn't be happy - so they locked everybody up before
they had a chance to do it.
You would have thought that maybe the occasional person would see through the stupidity but no, they all agreed - it was a most satisfactory system.
There were rumours that not everyone felt like this of course, but strangely, no one could ever find anyone who did and those whop sometimes suggested something similar just kind of .....disappeared.
But generally, everyone was happy.....in their own limited way.