I say I'm sickened by this act and you take it as an opportunity to condescend to me? I'm happy the murder of 140 children gives you some relief. I'm sure it will give many people great comfort.
Only a monster would take comfort in the willful killing of children. I can't tell you what causes politics to separate people on a personal level but it does. Don't feel bad. I'm a non partisan and I get that treatment from both sides from time to time.
My comment was actually more the result of a certain frustration with liberals in general than you personally, but I can see how you might take offense to it. Anyway, I was being sincere when I saw you describe yourself as a liberal and then use the word "evil" in the present context. So often I hear rationalizations about why this group or that group does what it does, whether it's the Palestinians, ISIS, al-Qaeda, the Russians, or whatever. Or maybe I hear righteous indignation for a moment and then... nothing. Rarely do they articulate any sort of response that demonstrates an unwavering resolve or willingness to engage in any activity that proves to be, shall I say, unpleasant? So I was hoping you would go beyond being sickened and tell us what you think the Pakistanis should do about it, if anything.
I can't really help you there because I don't know the extent of the Pakistani government's powers (obviously not too much, as the Taliban is allowed to exist at all). It seems to me that the American government and Pakistan are locked in a horrible relationship with each other that absolutely nobody enjoys. We need to be there to fight terrorists and to keep Pakistan from becoming a failed state, which could potentially allow their nukes to fall into the Taliban's and Al Qaeda's hands; and Pakistan almost certainly resents the ever loving bejeezus for us on their soil, defying their laws, killing their people with drones, yet need us for the aforementioned keeping them from being a failed state. And even if I were to take a Colonel Kilgore approach to the war (or Patton, if you prefer), I'm not aware of the strategic difficulties in taking the Taliban head-on.
In any case, I'm more than capable of identifying evil without having the qualifications to know how to counter it.
Again you responded to me. My comment had nothing to do with the Taliban other than stating they kill people. It also had nothing to do with my point. Your comment had literally nothing to do with anything I said. Next time actually read what the person said and respond in kind. Otherwise your post is pretty much pointless... which in the end it was.
You claim to be non-partisan, that you receive partisan (presumably) mistreatment from "both sides," and yet, instead of having the gumption to address me directly, you mischaracterize my comment and then hypocritically toss in an epithet to boot. You're priceless.
Anything I say at this point would be repetitive - please look back to my earlier posts to YOU.
Only complete and total victory works, as we saw with Germany, Italy and Japan. These potshots at the enemy and the eagerness to appease only emboldens them.Offhand, I'd say once you identity evil you take the Churchill approach: no negotiating. You apply force, and you don't stop until you eradicate it. We know insurgencies can be defeated. It's just a question of whether a government has the time and patience to accomplish it, as well as a willingness to not always play by Marquess of Queensberry rules because you can bet that your opponent is going to hit below the belt. The U.S.'s drone campaign is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. So are special forces night raids against Taliban/al-Qaeda leadership targets. We've taken a lot of flak from the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan for these tactics because they're tended to inflame the populace, but this is just the sort of effective pressure against these groups that we need to keep applying, preferably in cooperation with the governments of these two countries. The Pakistanis also need to address the "Talibanization" of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas and the use of Madrasas to perpetuate this cycle of hatred and work to reassert government and tribal authority over these areas. Exactly how they should go about it I can't say, but it needs to involve the pacification or, if necessary, destruction of these schools and their leadership.
Better this problem is resolved sooner than later because nukes will soon be entering the picture.
Take Mrs. Clinton's advice and "empathize" with the guys doing this. Maybe they went to that school and were picked on.
Yeah! alright! starting off the thread about one of the most gruesome events of the past year with a joke! nicely done! way to elevate the discussion.
Yeah, it was tasteless.[/url]
i mean...i am drunk, but my point is that it's ****ing ridiculous to make jokes and have that kind of attitude all the time. be a human being. have some compassion. understand that we are all in this together and you won't make jokes about 100 children being murdered a day after it happened.
i mean...i am drunk, but my point is that it's ****ing ridiculous to make jokes and have that kind of attitude all the time. be a human being. have some compassion. understand that we are all in this together and you won't make jokes about 100 children being murdered a day after it happened.
The real joke is that anyone would attempt to empathize with people who willingly slaughter innocent school kids. And when a person who has White House ambitions rationalizes the behavior of an enemy as brutal as the Taliban or ISIS or whomever, the sooner she's called on the carpet for it the better.
like bible and extreme christians arent the same ,think this wayThere seems to be a vital connection.
"Empathizing" is not "sympathizing," nor is it "rationalizing."
Notice in the text you quoted I didn't use the word "sympathizing." And when Hillary uses a word like "understanding" the only way you get to that point is to dismiss or rationalize away behavior that is unforgivable. Basically, she's rejecting the logic of Churchill or Truman and saying that we're smarter now; you seek to "understand" your enemy so that you can find common ground for compromise. Well, some people are just evil and don't deserve any such understanding, empathy, sympathy, or whatever the **** one wants to call it. "Smart Power" in the 21st Century should mean that instead of loading B-17s or B-29s with incendiaries you pack MQ-9 Reapers with as many JDAMs or Hellfires as you can get on them.
Nobody, Hillary Clinton included, has discussed compromising with ISIS. That said, you don't think it's important to know your enemy and understand why they think and act the way they do? Ever read Sun Tzu?
No, I've never read Sun Tzu, but I presume that in the The Art of War he wasn't discussing knowing your enemy so you can engage in diplomacy and make nice, was he? Or was he saying you should know your enemy so you could destroy it?
Did Hillary say anything about "engaging in diplomacy and making nice" with ISIS?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?