i have a minor pet peeve. Ever since this War on Terror started, i've heard the same stupid phrase over and over:
When the terrorists win, they will pack up their suicide belts and their scimitars and stop killing people. Until then, they will not have won.
My point is that if we were to "give in to fear," for instance, the terrorists wouldn't consider it a victory because, contrary to what the government and the media want us to believe, they don't give a crap if we're afraid or not. They want us all to either convert, redraw every map to 14th Century borders, or die. So unless you fill in the blank with one of those three things, the statement will invariably be incorrect.
1
my pet peeve, since the war on terror began, is the stupid phrase:
"If we do _______, we will be just like the terrorists."
we will never be just like "them".
who are "them"?
yes.
i'll not bore you with the history lesson.
we have our words in our history.
antitum.
gettysburg.
how many high schools in atlanta, ga. are named william tecumseh sherman?
were the beaches at normandy or iwo jima pleasant?
no.
we do not have words like bataan.
don't give me that gitmo crap. they should have been thrown out the back of the plane on the way there.
we do have words like dresden, hiroshima, and nagaski. we knew full well that the way home was through berlin and tokyo. that is why we gave as good or better than we got. we did it for one reason, to go/get home; and when we came home we had and have the nightmares.
but we will never be like "them".
theirs' is a death ethos.
i hope we choose life.
Posted by: louielouie at July 22, 2005 06:27 PM (xKfMm)
2
Just for "fun," let's enter that alternative universe where Al Qaeda successfully converts the entire world (even Turkey) to their "special" brand of Islam, and I grow a long beard, and Annika wears a veil. What would Al Qaeda do then? Do they believe that the world would then become some type of utopia?
The one thing that could help us battle Al Qaeda is their current decentralized structure. Let's say that the Birmingham, England branch of Al Qaeda attacks a croissant shop, and the Lyon, France branch of Al Qaeda takes offense at this. Then all the little Al Qaedas would start fighting each other, and they wouldn't have any time to bomb subways or tourist attractions.
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at July 22, 2005 11:53 PM (sjjQ2)
3
If we stop drinking Scotch, the terrorists win.
Posted by: Kyle at July 23, 2005 03:45 AM (7Re84)
Posted by: MarkD at July 23, 2005 08:25 AM (nQAo8)
5
If she will not let me hit it, the terrorists will have won.
Posted by: Mark at July 23, 2005 08:33 PM (haZw+)
6
Hear Hear! I've also had that same pet peeve. Glad you posted it.
Posted by: Housewife at July 24, 2005 08:54 PM (c6KJC)
7
That phrase only makes sense in a classic guerilla war, where the government's bloddy overreactions drive uncomitted fence-sitters into the guerillas camp. Here, it's truly us versus them. No one wants what they want to happen to the US to actually happen here. At most, they and their leftist enableres want us to leave the middle east. But as for the bag searches, civil liberties invasions, etc., if those things prevent terrorism WE WIN. They could care less about whether this inconveniences or annoys us, other than to the extent it makes us want to do their foreign policy bidding. Since it has little effect on that, we WIN insofar as we become tougher and prevent terrorism.
Posted by: Roach at July 25, 2005 08:55 AM (MRlvg)
8
Why do you think that's what the terrorists want? Do you think their methods are consistent with the goal you ascribe to them?
Posted by: Preston at July 25, 2005 09:33 AM (wkfsI)
9
Ontario: Yes, that's exactly what they believe. Worldwide Islamic rule under a new Caliph, fulfilling Allah's wishes, and all that rot.
Me, I say, "if we lose, then the terrorists win!"
Posted by: Sigivald at July 26, 2005 02:43 PM (4JnZM)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
