Tried and True

Let’s review. From the first WTC attack (1993) to the last (2001), the US was attacked by Al Qaeda (counting the Towers) at least six times. Except for the last time, after each attack, our response was non-existent to perfunctory. And, again, except for the last response, each response only served to embolden Al Qaeda to make another, ever more spectacular attack. Its leader even said so.

However, in all fairness, it seems that Al Qaeda attacks when there is a response and when there isn’t; when the response is large-scale or small; when they have “provocation” and when they don’t. Why? Because their religion commands them to convert the infidel by the “sword.” The only time they don’t attack is when their numbers have been diminished, by whatever means that they become so.

But why ask why? Since we know that these people will attack the infidel regardless of what we do, the only question we should be asking ourselves is what we should be doing to keep Al Qaeda from attacking us unrepentant infidels, assuming that both converting and dying are off of the negotiation table.

We should go with what works.

Comments

[Dodd]

But why ask why?

That's the smartest thing anyone's said in the bloviosphere in a long time.

When Japan attacked us, did we sink into a funk wondering why they attacked us? No. We got down the dirty business of killing the bastards.

Same thing here. Who cares what the terrorists' goddamn reasons are. Pundits say we should "know the enemy" -- as if one had to understand Nazis Jew-hatred in order to defeat Germany. Sorry, doesn't matter. The only thing I want to know about terrorists is how to dispose of their bodies.

[Susan K]

It is always a temptation to a rich and lazy nation,
To puff and look important and to say:
Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
We will therefore pay you cash to go away.

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we've proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.

It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray,
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to says:

We never pay any one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost,
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that plays it is lost!

KIPLING

[DANEgerus]

Terrorism targets civilians for death to advance a political goal.

Is there ever a 'reason' to justify this tactic?
(Answer no or F.O.A.D.)

So what 'reasoning' can one use to deal with terrorists who commit such unreasonable acts?