In fairness to the author, he was right about Muslims in Patterson, Brooklyn and Dearborn handing out candy to celebrate 9/11. Sure, they waited a month and twenty days to try and lull us into complacency first, but still…
Huh. Musta been that Rammy-Dan thing…
Hm, looks like the author used a full colon to pump out that shit.
Indonesians are not brown, they’re yellow, they’re kept in a different hate-box.
Ours are peaceful and loving citizens.
Which is a shame, because they’re really a cool publisher as far as e-books go.
This reminds me of that Colorado radio pastor’s disgusting “The First Five Days” story. Bob Enyart, that was it.
Putting aside the morality of nuking everyone into submission, the author still naively assumes that the destruction of Mecca would cause all Muslims to say that they were wrong and convert to (supposedly) Christianity. It just doesn’t happen that way. If Jerusalem, for example, was destroyed, would Jews and Christians give up their face or somehow say that it will be recreated one day or redouble their efforts as the “end time is near.”
I have to admit that I did like his “alternate reality” where TSA screeners grope airport passengers and government listens in on Americans. That part is where we really did go off into craziness instead of focusing our efforts elsewhere. I would have liked to see Bush issue an ultimatum to every nation:
-
Shut down all terrorist training camps.
-
If you are unable, let us come in and do it.
-
Immediately hand over terror suspects that we name.
-
If you can’t find them, let us come in and do it.
-
If you refuse, then we will vigorously fund and arm an opposition group to overthrow your government, so long as they pledge to ground out terrorism and do 1-4 above.
Rinse and repeat for every country.
We should have left women’s rights and opium elimination for another day. Let’s get rid of terrorism today. I think that we would be far better off having done that, and we might have actually got some UN support for that proposition.
Of course in practice that amounts to “destroy any group that we declare to be terrorist whether or not they actually are, or we’ll fund our own terrorists in your country.” We’ve never actually been against terrorism.
Yes, it can. Just neither stealth bomber currently in the USAF inventory.
Could that prose possibly be any more purple??
We should have cleaned up the site of the towers quickly. Then we should have rebuilt the towers just like they were. That would have shown we were not changed by terrorism.
But we over- reacted and slashed our rights and started 2 stupid wars. We showed them that a terrorist attack will work. They can change us. Bad message.
Since terrorism is a tool used by weaker enemies, it has no home. It is a tactic. Lots of organizations have used it in the past, like in Oklahoma City. There have been terrorist attacks in lots of countries. You can not bomb it away. You have to have an international police force rooting it out across the globe. Attacking Iran has obviously not impacted terrorism.
I am so regretting clicking on that link. Now when I go to look at recommendations on Amazon, am I going to see even more tripe like this? How did this guy even find a publisher?
If you’re thinking of the F-117 as the other stealth bomber, it was shitcanned a while ago.
This post has been …
aww, damn.
Yeeees, you do realize there’s this annoying little thing called sovereignty ? Think it through: say the UK sent the US a list of American citizens whom they say are terror suspects running with the IRA and said “Send these people over, kthxbye. If you can’t capture them yourself, let us send in the SAS. If you don’t do either, we’ll just send in the SAS boys covertly to fuck shit up anyway as well as fund and arm kooks and cranks in your backyard until you do what we say. RSVP”.
What do you think America’s response to such a request would be ?
If the U.S. was giving sanctuary to known IRA terrorists, allowing them to train for future terrorist attacks, and concealing them from harm, then the UK would have every right to demand that we stop doing that.
It is, in essence, an act of war. Sovereignty is great and all, but when other countries purposely do things that gets 3,000 of our citizens killed, then they should start helping out a bit if they want to stay on our good side.
Look at how Pakistan jerked us around for 10 years AND we gave them billions. Not exactly a cowboy foreign policy.
Your problem is you’re violating sovereignty on a whim. We did it with Iraq by mistake. Asking the world to be with us or against us like some idiot cowboy is not going to be supported by anyone unless both of us are certain of guilt and punishment. The US still have the death penalty which a lot of countries don’t. It may violate THEIR laws to give us people who they know we’ll sentence to death
If the UK wanted the US to turn over some terrorists that the US didn’t consider terrorists, who do you think should cave first? Its only an act of war if the people are actualy guilty and represent the government. France has kept murderers on their shores without extraditing them and it wasn’t an act of war even though American citizens died. And do you think that the US has the power to go after every single country that has a guy or two? If I were Al-Qaeda, I’d start sending in small cells to countries and telling them to go into hiding, daring the US to attack the countries. In a year, you’d have a dozen wars with everyone from Switzerland to Indonesia
Ok. I could compromise on that. We can agree to take the death penalty off of the table if the country insists on it. They can even imprison the terrorists in their own country, under their own laws, provided that it is not some faux imprisonment a la Pablo Escobar in a palatial estate.
And I’m not talking about individual murderers or isolated criminals. For example, we shouldn’t throw down against Switzerland or France over Roman Polanski.
I’m talking about regimes which allow terrorists to operate on a large enough scale to complete a 9/11, a Madrid bombing, or a London attack. I was encouraged by Bush’s “You are either with us or with the terrorists” remark after 9/11. Unfortunately he didn’t follow through.
I would work with the UN to come up with an acceptable definition of terrorism to address the concern that we are going after common criminals that other countries* legitimately *don’t consider threats. But also, if the UN would prove themselves impotent, I would go at it alone.
That would certainly be a better alternative than the loss of civil liberties over the last 10 years.
Well, to be fair, I believe the U.S. stopped doing that a while ago, and even fundraising for the IRA is far less popular than before.
No, my sovereignty is more important than your civil liberties. If the price of the US not violating the sovereignty of other nations is a loss of civil liberties for Americans, I’m okay with that. I don’t believe that really is the price, but if it is, that’s fine.
I’m not sure what country you live in, but if you are not harboring terrorists, then no harm to your sovereignty. If your country is doing so, then the government is evil and has no moral authority to govern.