Is very true Gugi,both were never declared wars.
Printable View
Is very true Gugi,both were never declared wars.
I believe the politicians write the laws to give them more control over the people not for the people. I think eventually the US will be no different that Europe. With out the rights we enjoy today. I think at some point in time we here in the US will not have the right to defend our selves & will have no say in the governing of this country that our fathers and for fathers created for us. I know that at my age I want have to worry about it much longer and am glad I have no kids to leave with this mess. If I go into some things I believe in a lot of folks want agree with me, I believe in equal rights not preferred rights. I believe when people protest and loot and burn and the police are afraid to stop it because of the political part of it is wrong. A lot of what I am against is because of politicians and lawyers who a lot of are politicians. I guess you might say that I'm just an angry old man who remembers how this country use to be and wish it could go back to when it was better. now there are things that was wrong then as it is now but then again there was a lot of things right. The bad thing about it is even though the US has it's problems to me it's still better than a lot of other places in the world I've been. As I'm sure they think the same of there country. I guess you have to love your country to be up set when there's something wrong or at least to your thinking. All in all I'm still proud to be an American. I've had fun with this discussion thanks.
I doubt that any "terrorist group" has ever been a signatory to the Geneva Convention and don't feel the least bit bound by it. Nor do they generally represent a recognized geographical area, country, but an ideal for lack of a better word. Pretty hard to pin down the "proper" way to deal with them.
Add to that if you do invade a country to "liberate" that country from "terrorists" you are automatically disliked as foreign invaders. The longer you stay after "mission accomplished" the greater the anger and resentment becomes. You win the war but loose the peace. That is the trouble with applying conventional warfare in fighting terrorism. There has to be a better method that does not create more problems than it solves.
Bob
I just hope the folks in our government realize the scope of the situation in the middle east as these dudes sweep across the region and take over. If they don't do something rite quick in a few years we will have ground troops in Israel fighting off the onslaught. That will be WWlll.
Well we have tried the "Let them have it all back" after we invest $Billions$ in propping them up system a couple of times now and failed :(
So I vote for the "Let's actually invade and take over everything" routine and give it back after we take all the oil it takes to pay us back for our costs, and if they want our help after that they have to pay us for keeping the peace...
Let's give that a try and see what happens :)
That way we are not leaving a "Power Vacuum" :)
Much as I sympathise with the sentiment Glen, your argument supposes that the vanquished are of one mind. Unfortunately, the countries in question are so fractured that minorities will always be able to take liberties and power at the same time so that the enemy you are fighting keeps changing.
I suppose there's that but Bush wasn't impeached over it, and whether the US congress declared a war or didn't the fact remains that what US conducted with these two countries was war.
It seems to me any blurring of lines falls squarely on US, starting with invading countries and toppling their governments without officially declaring a war.
Plenty of countries have had terrorist attacks, US isn't special. The only thing special is that it has enormous military power and on occasion acts outside of the established norms. Russia just did similar thing with Ukraine this past year - they wouldn't do anything like that with China for example.
The thing is that they do not operate in no-man's land - typically there's a government in charge of an area that is supposed to control it. In the case of Afganistan the government wasn't overly cooperative with the US government on handing over Bin Laden (as is the right of every government). There was some proposal to extradite him in Pakistan and that becomes Pakistan's problem, but Musharaf ultimately declined.
So, it was a problem between two countries - Afganistan and USA and US decided it has no more patience for negotiations and will start a war with Afganistan over that. Won the war, and then what? Put a new government in place that was more cooperative on Bin Laden but that government couldn't control the country even with the help of US and Bin Laden went somewhere else (apparently Pakistan). Meanwhile all that destabilisation and lack of control led to more ill will towards US and more terrorists willing to fight it.
Seems to me somebody is seriously fumbling on the wold stage and keeps biting way more than they can chew.
Again in the US system when the people don't like how the politicians do their job they get to replace them. You'd think that with reelection rate of about 90% in congress the voters think the politicians are doing an outstanding job.
Are you familiar with European Convention on Human Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia?
Yes most people love their country and sometimes that is exploited by the rulers to make them kill other people who love their own country just as much. Historically it seems we're doing a lot better job of getting along and resolving our conflicts peacefully.
Of course, the TV makes up for the decrease in overall conflicts violence by focusing on the existing one and creating a narrative that sells better.
Some how managed not to leave a "power vacuum" in Germany after WWII. Unfortunately the current war on terrorism is not conventional in any sense of the word. The old recipes don't seem to have the desired effect.
Maybe the current attempt at getting the regional players to sort their own problems out, with support, will have longer lasting success or not.
Bob
After WW2 both Germany and Japan had Allied Occupational armies left in place... we (the Allies) also decimated their warfighting capabilities so the threat was pretty low.. By then the civilian populations were ready for the end of hostilities
Now leaving the whole region alone is definitely an option I can get behind but somehow I do believe that TBS's scenario of defending Israel and WW3 will be the outcome and things might be too far gone after that...
We also need to remember that simply trying to blame the US for invading Iraq like a few here are leaning on, is basically being blind to who we knocked out of power.. He was after all called the Butcher of Baghdad for a reason , he did after all invade Kuwait and also gassed over 200000 Kurds .. we should have taken him out in 1991 that was a mistake
A convenient lapse of memory,
Much like ISIS and Boko Harum, and many others practicing Genocide in the Dark corners of the world, I feel that is what we "The Western World" agreed to never let that happen again after 1945, yet we seem to forget so much..
Perhaps the answer is actually a International Warfighting Force / Merc's that instead of a UN peacekeeping mission, they are deployed by the UN to go in and hunt down and kill groups like ISIS and Boko then leave ???? If the UN can't handle that responsibility perhaps Nato,
I don't know the answer but we (The Western World) tend to sit way to long while people die, I don't think that is right or moral
I think it stats by figuring out what's your objective and if it's even achievable by war; secondly with the potential consequences and whether they would create far bigger problem than the one you're trying to solve.
For example the war in Afganistan was to destroy Bin Laden's organization - utter failure. In Iraq it was about getting rid of that country's WMD's.
Perhaps the lesson for US is that a 'war on terror' is unwinnable, at least not in the way of conan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAdzBaPDmJk
That sounds like doubling down on what keeps failing. Just think about it - the dictators in these countries hold them together by terrorizing the people and when the government oppression is weakened you get violence and chaos. What would US do differently when it's in charge?
Colonialism ended over half a century ago, do you really think US can do better than the past failures and build a colonial empire that will work? What would you do differently from England, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy... ?
Well, as you found with Iraq jumping the gun can be just as bad if not worse. Fighting to win starts with knowing what you want to win and what it takes to win it. The fact is that the western world does not have the resources to take over and rule the whole world i.e. you can't stop the genocides and people die. So second best option is the United Nations - you negotiate with the others of what should be done. Compromise means that you can only do less than what you want to do, but at least it can be ensured that it gets done (cf. Iran sanctions).
Of course that goes against that caricature of 'american exceptionalism' that is popular in some circles, but chasing one's tail is just dumb.
For example US has not been fighting China or Saudi Arabia despite their oppressive governments which have been killing their citizens, instead it's partnered with them in the hope that over time they will improve. To claim moral superiority one has to be consistent, and have a relatively clear line when a dictatorship should be treated with cooperation and when with war.
Bottom line as far as I am concernd,if your going to attack a country,make a declaration of war,than get it done.
No reason to dick around,just do it.
I would agree if only in part..
WWII and the occupation was done after a conventional war with a defined enemy in uniform from a defined and recognized geographical area Germany/Japan. I do not think that method is wholly applicable when you are fighting ghosts like modern terrorism.
I don't think anyone in the west cared much what the Butcher of Baghdad did until he invaded Kuwait and tried to upset the oil cart. That is regardless of who or how many he gassed or otherwise misbehaved. No lapse of memory there on my part and I don't blame the US for invading to protect oil sources. Just call it what it was and don't fancy it up is all.
Yes, we in the west sit back and ring our hands far too long in the face of genocide in the dark corners of the world. Not right or moral.
NATO is for the protection of it's member states by it's charter and it may be a stretch to push that protection so far from it's members physical borders. OTH even though the main area of operation for ISIS is physically far away there have been attacks within the borders of NATO member states so it might not be that far a stretch. Hard to make that stretch for BOKO though.
Yes, the UN could do more if it were to have a standing army of it's own made up from member nations large enough and well equipped to do serious peace keeping. No need to hire Mercs. That would take a quantum leap in world mentality on relinquishing sovereign power and special interests. I do not think most regions in the world would want to do that.
I think getting multi national forces from the surrounding area to handle their own problems with outside support when needed and requested may be an alternative if it could be made to work. There are more than enough countries that view Boko and ISIS as a common threat to their region. Would make some pretty interesting and strange bed fellows.
Bob
The more I think about it the more I like a Mercenary force paid for by a Group of nations (yet to be defined) maybe not the UN since it is pretty non-functional...
We are like you say fighting a non-conventional war perhaps it is time to change the dynamics and be much more reactive, with fast and decisive action against groups like this without the cumbersome mantel of statecraft...
Sanctions and Discussions seem to only hurt the innocent citizens and lengthen the time of suffering..
I know this is heretical, but there may be something in there. I mean with increased globalisation the country boundaries are becoming less meaningful. The other piece is that with growing economic disparity a country's politics is shaped more by the economic power at the top than by the large numbers at the bottom (I mean that's probably always been the case). So decreased sovereign power and increased role of the special interest doesn't strike me as all too improbable future, though getting there wouldn't be by quantum leap but gradual transition.
I mean mercenaries used to be around in the past, but then the wars became between conscript armies, then we moved towards all volunteer army, and Iraq saw pretty dramatic outsourcing to private companies, i.e. mercenaries (it boggled my mind at the time).
I believe that's been one of the components for quite some time, just not the most prominent.
We all hate it when innocent people die and suffer and that's the tragedy. The way I see it even as a 'collateral damage' and not 'victims' dead people are still dead. I know I have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz may have genuinely believed that it will be a quick campaign where the Iraqi people greet US as liberators and rebuilding the country into a free and democratic Iraq would be simple and easy. I mean that's what they sold, but while I've never been in war I really think that's a fictionalized story of how wars work, and they should've known better.
EVERYBODY has Rights . . . as to trying them as Spies/Subversives, I would be fine with that, but MAKE A DECISION !!! That is the extent of my objection. Your Government needs to follow it's Laws, rather than enact some BS Presidential edict allowing them to do whatever the hell they want to.
Call me a cynic but I believe they did know better. When a decision is made to invade a foreign country there are usually two reasons to do so. They are the real one and the window dressing that sells the deal to the public. It is an added bonus if you can build a coalition of other like minded countries to go along as it adds an air of legitimacy to the venture. You really can't take much at face value.
Bob
Yeah, but in historical timescale that's a comparatively recent worldview. One of the most celebrated cases in the history of free thought is of a guy named Giordano Bruno - he was burned alive in 1600 and as recently as 2000 the position of the Roman Church was that while it was 'sad episode' the inquisitors 'had the desire to serve freedom and promote the common good and did everything possible to save his life.'
We didn't get here by killing off all the bloodthirsty 'do gooders' among our ancestors, we changed by overtime starting to value the lives of our fellow humans over the differences we have with them.
No not really, not only our laws apply here...
I was doing some reading about the Geneva Conventions, and honestly you have two distinctions Combatant and Civilian there is some wording in there about Non-Uniformed Combatant but the real telling line is that "If you fight at night and become a civilian in the day " you basically fall into a Limbo status when captured and can be Executed / Held without a Trial..
They are pretty harsh about endangering Civilians by confusing the opposing army and putting non-combatants in danger that is a big no no...
Basically by fighting as a terrorist and hiding among the Civilian population you give up your rights to any protections under the laws because you are endangering Non- Combatants.. So regardless of what anyone "Thinks" is right, by International Law it seems as though if you are captured on the Battlefield without a uniform you are without rights...
To be sure it seems that the entire section is a little grey, but that whole deal about endangering Civilians is pretty clear...
I can also understand why most people would not want to stand and fight against the US Military (and Allies) toe to toe, that is basically suicide.. so wearing a uniform is tantamount to wearing a big target... That however does not change the laws
The only argument here is that they do not abide by the Geneva Convention, but on that note we knew that when they attacked on 9/11 ... so the way I am reading it the only "Rights" they have are the ones we choose to give them...
ps; Keep in mind that we released all the Iraqi army regulars that we captured as soon as Hostilities ended
pss: reading a bit more about the only thing they are protected from is Torture like what was discovered at Abu Ghraib
The gray area comes not from the terrorists but by the way US conducts its wars. It fought the Afganistan and Iraq armies and defeated them, at that point there is no longer the excuse of 'these terrorists are confusing us and endangering civilians'. At this point US is an occupier of a foreign country and as such is responsible for the population's safety. If it chooses to not afford lawful process it is on US, but at this point terror attacks and insurgency are not a war they are criminal acts from the population against the ruling government.
Just like 9/11 is not some sovereign country invading US. It's a lot more like Tim McVeigh bombing Oklahoma City than Perl Harbor.
I think this whole 'war on terror' language is just pulling the wool over people to confuse things.
We both are so far apart from the point in my post Gugi. Don't cloud or read into my very simple, yet precise statement that you quoted by injecting history. History made by individuals who were as incompetent as many we have in charge today.
Evil has not a single element (and you are familiar with elements, I do believe) in common with sin. History is documented with examples of both. I would not have called your example of Giordano Bruno as evil. "Bloodthirsty" is a tossed about term,,,, usually tossed out by the losing side of a battle or the spectators from afar.
Your statement : "We didn't get here by killing off all the bloodthirsty 'do gooders' among our ancestors, we changed by overtime starting to value the lives of our fellow humans over the differences we have with them." is a great topic for discussion, but again off point from my original statement you quoted. We got here by killing more of them, than they were able to do to us. How many examples in this past 120 years do I need to give you.
Again, we are talking about two different things Gugi.
The beheadings , burning of human beings we have recently seen & all the ones we have not, staking of children,,, has not a thing to do with politics, ideology, frustration of economic conditions, it is the result of men who have entered that dark room, that we all have possessed from birth. That room that most of us never see & most don't know it exists. Evil resides there,, sin which can be forgiven, dares not enter either.
I have seen evil in person, you can't give it a lawyer, call it a priest,, you can't change it, because it is in us all & beyond our understanding/science.
When seen in it's physical form, man it has to be put down.
This can not be Described or Explained you either know it or you don't it is that simple... until somebody faces it they will never understand it...
Well put
When I hear people say things like Sanctions and Talks when people are being burned alive and worse, I realize there is no reasoning with them we are way to far apart.. We will never understand each other..
Yes, thank God most don't have to see it
Honestly ?? I mean both
Obviously you cannot reason with ISIS and Boko Harum that is a given or at least it is to me, so once you realize that, then talking about sanctions, and diplomatic solutions with them become an exercise in futility...
Which brings us back to our early discussion about who is sent there to simply hunt them down and kill them ????
I am familiar enough with medieval history to know that beheadings and live burnings used to be essentially what TV is nowadays.
Were our ancestors evil and if they were how did we get from taking our children to watch quarterings on sunday morning to considering those same acts as the most despicable thing a human being can do?
Or perhaps we all have that inside of us and certain conditions make it come out? Perhaps trying to exterminate that evil by killing others only makes it grow in ourselves?
I know of the shows, feeding of the lions, beheadings,,,,,,we got to this point in time simply by surviving,,, but I know that is not what you are asking me.
I do believe that not all the people in the medieval times, were on board with the "torture of the week". I also know that your knowledge of the books, on most all subjects, far exceeds mine.
Evil is not something that you "progress" from,,,, we don't learn it, understand it, then prevent it or control it. Are there certain conditions that lead us into that dark room, of course. What these conditions are & how to control them, I feel is still far beyond our best minds.
This statement "Perhaps trying to exterminate that evil by killing others only makes it grow in ourselves?" You don't exterminate evil, unless all mankind is removed. But you can limit it's spread by removing the individuals overcome with it.
Everyday I battle with sin, I want to & try to walk a better path in life. I visit places that are morally wrong & bad for my soul, but I know there is help for me on this path, it reaches out to me from many good sources, I just have not fallen hard enough yet.
But,,, I know there is a door at the far end of my path that I do not want to open & I know that sin is not what is waiting for me behind it.
But what good is removing those individuals if your removal process creates ten times more to take their place? I think that's the question here - not whether beheading people is evil, but how to stop it.
I think we've had a good run with the strategy of 'just start a war kill a bunch of them, capture and torture a bunch'. I'd say we're in a worse place today than when we were at 9/11.
A couple of weeks ago three young men in Mississippi were sentenced from 7 to 50 years in prison for beating to death a black man. That was caught on video so the truth came out, but they were characterized by their friends as good and compassionate people, good mannered, loving, kind-hearted etc. even going as far as explicitly stating that they are not criminals who should be incarcerated. It took almost 4 years to be brought to justice.
In my mind their actions are worse than a beheading, but apparently a lot of the people who know them personally do not think so.
I believe that a reasonable legal process is crucial in defeating evil and resorting to vengeance and rhetoric of the type 'these animals do not have any rights' is counter productive, and I think our recent experience supports that.
For example at a certain point in the Iraq War AlQaeda lost the support of the local population and they were driven out. ISIS is strong only because they offer protection of the sunni population from the atrocities and the violence that they used to suffer from the shia militias because the shia dominated government did not protect them.
We see an image on the TV, hear the story somebody tells us, and our first reaction is to cry 'kill those animals'. Perhaps it's time to stop, take a second look and try to understand what is going on, whether that story is superficial and does not really explain what is happening. Because unless we do the chances that we'll help a positive outcome are slim.
Earlier in the thread Jericho was brought up and with the help of somebody I found what that is about. The exact quote is from the book of Joshua Chapter 7, verse 21
I mean if that is supposed to be the solution how is it any better than what we're supposedly getting rid of?Quote:
They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.
I don't know what you have seen or not seen in life, I can see that you have accomplished goals in your life, that allow you to feed yourself & family,, help others in with your chosen knowledge,,, you have friends,,,,,
Because I have taken a path that conflicts with ideals that you have been raised on, does not make me any less of a man or any more violent a man. We both carry tool boxes around with us in life, I would not be able to use your tools, I doubt that my tool would be of use to you.
I have to be up at 8am,,,,,
Well I'm not going to bed for the next 20 hours, so I'll write another post
Of course, I've also head the one that when you're in a hole you need to stop digging. Seems to me we keep digging ourselves deeper and deeper with this 'war on terror' thing and I don't really care if people call it leftist, rightist or any other label as I do not identify with labels but with the substance of my thoughts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hirlau
I do not see why would you think I assume you are seeing it differently than me. I am simply making a parallel between the heinous acts that ISIS people commit in the middle east and those that americans commit in US right now. And there were witnesses, so somebody's first thought most definitely wasn't "let's save that poor guy".Quote:
What offends me with this statement is that you assume that I would see this situation any different than you do. His friends & anybody who tried to justify beating any color man to death, are no better than the beaters. just because I have walked a different path in life than you or other members here who advocate diplomacy with evil men, does not mean that I hunger for violence. There are some men in this world Gugi that even the most college educated men cannot reach.
Perhaps due to my lack of direct encounters with violence unlike you I see those bystanders, as well as the church leader who characterized one of the young men as 'not a criminal' not as evil people.
But the question on my mind is if the US legal system started with the Constitution can cope with these criminals, what makes the crimes of islamic terrorists such that they need to be handled differently?
At the end of the legal process none of these young men were sentenced to death, or to suffer the same suffering as the one inflicted on their victim. And to conclude the parallel, somehow I do not believe all those people who are fighting for ISIS are the scum of the earth that is beyond redemption.
Counter-productive to reducing evil. You, know star-wars the emperor & luke type of thing.Quote:
Evil does not give a hoot about your legal process. Counter productive to what, your conscious?
Of course, we all do, but I try to not form my view based only on the sensationalist news in the american media which is becoming more and more entertainment and less and less news. I read several european newspapers (I'm including russian there as well), translations from the xinhua as well as from the arabic world.Quote:
You & everyone else reads the retoric of what is fed to us from media, talking heads of political parties,,,none of us have any idea on the interaction between these groups.
That's why I engage in these discussions here with people who have different experiences and viewpoints than me.
I seriously doubt that the ideals I was raised on are different from those you were raised on because I know that our top values overlap.
From what I've read when you've posted about your work as a police officer it seems that you have been extremely professional, compassionate and generally seeing the good and bad in people and trying to bring out the good in them. I certainly admire those things and I do consider you (well the image that I have, since I really don't know you that well) as a role model.
Yeah no problem except the US is also torturing and imprisoning INNOCENTS without recourse.
Yeah I think that is wrong.
Don 't complain about the constitution being violated when you agree with half the violations.
Either the constitution is important in all cases, or it isn't. That is why a constitution and a bill of rights exists.
If you're happy with violating it for other people but you expect it's protection when it concerns you, it becomes meaningless.
Interesting thread, and I am guessing that most people now think that more severe measures against groups like ISIS and BOKO have to be taken. The how and when that happens is out of anyone's control in the general public. When the retribution is over it has to be tempered with a good dose of justice for those that survive the retribution or it all turns to crap in the long run.
Bob
yes. A deposit it is interesting that someone brought up Hitler. Because he was just the figurehead expressing very much what everyone agreed with . What caused the rise of nazism and ww2 was the continued and despicable plundering of Germany by the allies after ww1 . Hitler didn't just wake up one day and decided that total war was fabulous. Come 1935 the allies had it coming to them
So don't think that killing him would have made it better. The real solution would have been not bending Germany over the barrel to rape it.
The Constitution of the United States of America provides protection to the citizens of the United States. Based on what you keep saying, I get the impression that you feel it applies to all people, everywhere. So to me not all people deserve the rights that I have as an american. I'm a second generation american, my grandfather is Russian born who fled from country to country his entire life. He ended up speaking 5 languages by the time he was 15, living in France at the end of WW2. He assisted in helping the Allied forces relocate the many thousands of displaced people in Europe at the end of the war. He then worked for the US government, doing top secret things we will never know. My grandmother was German, and also survived the war. Her father was a German officer, but his passion in life was being a classical music teacher. Many of his students were jewish, and he helped many survive the war. The Russians took over the town she lived in, and the only reason her friends were raped and she was not, was not because my great grandfather was a nazi officer. It was because he was a POW during WW1 in russia, and he spoke fluent russian. She was a member of the Hitler youth, where everything they learned was along the lines of brainwashing. She still remembers hearing the stories at the end of the war about the atrocities that were committed, and it was her belief that the normal, everyday germans, had no idea what was happening to the Jewish people. My family has enjoyed the benefits that America has to offer. They worked very hard to obtain this oppertunity, and had to endure hardships in life that people in today's time can not imagine in their worst nightmares. This brings me back to the constitution, it only applies to US citizens. If you are an illegal immigrant, you have no constitutional rights. If you are a member of a terrorist organization who actively seeks to harm americans, you have no constitutional rights. Do I agree with GITMO, and the tactics and policies used in the last 10+ years, not really. Is it in violation of anyone's rights under the constitution, definitely not.
Really no need to tie the US constitution in with the treatment of terrorist prisoners. Could not The Permanent Court of International Justice handle the prosecution of captured terrorists and hand out sentences? Hopefully that would see that justice is done fairly or at the very least the appearance of justice being done with respect to the rights every human being should have regardless of their origin.
Bob
I don't think government is going to do anything to fix itself. The constitution was not written so things would work that way. It was drawn up so that YOU could change things. To understand this you have to study and understand the words of the men who drafted, and signed it. In those words are what is implied.
Many believe the system is working and to some extent it is. You get to vote for pre picked candidates. They are presented to you by those with money who have power over these individuals. You get to pick between what you think to be the lessor of 2 evils. You still get evil :<0)
I hear words like "the majority of the people think" and I snicker because I don't believe this to be the case at all. A majority of the people don't even vote. If you start talking to people about that you will be surprised at how many actually wish they had something to vote for.
Go on talking about this issue or that, content with a system that breeds greed, prejudice, war, unlawful acts of violence, depression and the like. In the background is a growing desire to change things in a completely different way. The exact way is undetermined only because of the fact that it will be scary, violent, and a hard time, full of sacrifices. Keep pushing the silent majority and the fuse will get lit. Push people to a point where they can't let things continue they way they are and there will be trouble. This is how this country was formed in the first place. This is the background of the document we all discuss with such confidence of understanding.
Smart doesn't fix anything. Yes, there is something in the Constitution that gives you the inalienable right to correct the situation. Not in writing, not spelled out as simple as "now is the time". It is, so drastic, so unthinkable in today's vocal society, that I don't see it happening. Unless of course the powers to be screw up and finally piss off the real majority of well armed citizens. Armed by the Constitution and justified by the Supreme court. The rest is up to the people. Not the people in charge.
I have read much on here as to what the US in particular should do and the Western World included but at a much lesser extent
But what I have not seen proposed by anyone yet is
What are the rules for the Jihadists, I mean so far you all are quite comfortable sitting in your chairs on your computers explaining what "We" should do to solve the problem..
Yet not one of you has proposed what the Jihadists should do... After all we have seen first hand as to how "Warmly" inviting they are to listening to the thoughts in people's "Heads" that disagree with them...
Well ????
Talk