sound awake wrote:
> so the 21 Christians murdered on the beach and their blood in the
> water under the banner "a message signed with blood to the nation
> of the cross" is just a sideline, a diversion, "collateral
> damage", something they do in their spare time when theyre not
> killing each other?
> what about charlie hebdo, the attacks in canada, australia,
> africa, spain, u.k., the u.s.?
> i dont care what you say...they have declared war on us, they are
> attacking us, it doesnt matter if the numbers do or dont match
> some magical figure that you insist upon
> when you say there is no war against the west by islam that puts
> you on the same ideological footing as barack "i love me some
> muslim brotherhood" obama, who is either the dumbest and dangerous
> man ever elected president, or is purposefully allowing and
> hastening the demise of the u.s.
When you start talking about blood you're getting very emotional.
There was a lot of blood when the IRA bombed Protestants, but
it wasn't called a "Catholic War Against the West."
This is a very emotional definition of a war. You're referring to
terrorist attacks by different people and groups. 9/11/2011 was by
al-Qaeda, which is struggling to survive. Charlie Hebdo was lone wolf
inspired by ISIS. Fort Hood was a lone wolf inspired by al Qaeda.
Boston Marathon was disaffect Chechens inspired by al-Qaeda. Last
weekend's attack was by Ansar al-Sharia, which has conducted other
attacks in Libya, including the murder of the US ambassador. This is
not a war in any meaningful sense. It's a collection of vaguely
related terrorist attacks.
Here's another "magical figure": From 2006 to 2012, more than 60,000
people were killed by Mexican drug cartels, and the dead are almost
all Catholic, and there's blood all over the place, on the streets, on
the beach, in the water, etc., which is over ten times as many
Christians killed by Mexican Catholics than by Muslim jihadists. By
your reasoning, it's Catholicism, not Islam, that's at war with the
West.
The problem with calling something a war when it isn't is that you
waste resources fighting the wrong the thing. If we take what you're
saying literally, then we would already be fully embroiled fighting
the current Mideast war. We're going to be involved at some point,
and it will be very unpleasant, but not yet. In the meantime, we're
spending a lot of resources to prevent new terrorist attacks. That's
the right thing to do at this point. I've been as critical of Obama's
policies as anyone, but to characterize this as "purposefully allowing
and hastening the demise of the u.s." is silly.