Some people - some Americans - have forgotten about 9/11.So there you have it. Even the lead editor in the NY Post thinks Iraq had something to do with 9/11. An American civilian who was over there trying to make some money got beheaded by nutcases. It's a horrible thing and I was sickened by it, so now the NY Post proclaims we must pursue total "annihilation of those who practice butchery and barbarism" and "not stop until every last one of the savage thugs is dead." "If that means a resumption of major combat in Iraq, so be it."
That attack should have been enough to justify all-out war. But the hand-wringing over the war in Iraq - and over even the modest steps America took to defend itself, like the Patriot Act - suggests that folks truly have lost sight of what the war is about.
Yesterday they got a shocking reminder. And now they know: This war cannot be waged with half-measures.
It can end only with the total annihilation of those who practice butchery and barbarism. Those who have set as their goal the destruction of America.
There is no negotiating with such people. There can be no compromise with those who mean to destroy us.
Yesterday, the White House promised to "pursue those responsible and bring them to justice." That's the least of it.
America has to come out swinging.
And not stop until every last one of the savage thugs is dead.
If that means a resumption of major combat in Iraq, so be it.
To hell with political sensitivities in the region.
To hell with negotiating with radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr in Najaf and the Sunni insurgents in Fallujah.
To hell with handing Saddam Hussein over to Iraqis, as some want to do, and risking some reverse - perverse - kangaroo trial that results in his survival.
Evil, cutthroat terrorists need to be eradicated.
Let's face it: This is a job that's going to take overwhelming - yes, brutal - force. There is simply no "nice" or painless way to accomplish this.
As yesterday's slaughter showed (yet again), the enemy is bound by no moral compunctions.
America won't go that far.
But it had better steel it's backbone and get ready to fight like it means it.
It's the only way to win this war.
Is it wrong for me to read between the lines? Is it wrong for me to pay close attention to this rhetoric (and I use the term loosely)? He is suggesting, if I may take the liberty of interpreting this, that we resume aggressive combat to annihilate those savage thugs who practice butchery and barbarism. It's quite clear that he doesn't give a shit if innocent Iraqi's get killed in the crossfire and he even seems to intimate that they all (Iraqi's) fall in the category of savage thugs because he doesn't include a sentence in there to say otherwise.
Now this comes from the very same editor who said that we shouldn't get all excited over a handful of American's who committed atrocities in Iraq... yet if a handful of radical nutcase extremists beheaded an American, we should fucking annihilate all of them? Are you with me? I am really trying to be logical here.
We invaded them first. We took out their military last year. We got Saddam. Now we are dealing with insurgents who are pissed. Why? Because thousands and thousands of innocent Iraqi's got killed and they are fucking pissed at the occupation of their country. Even Bush said he understood how people would feel if their country was occupied. We aren't dealing with military over there. We are dealing with civilians who are really really pissed at us.
Here is the Kicker: We knew before we went to Iraq that the Muslim factions didn't exactly get along. Somehow Saddam kept them under control though. Yeah it was a lousy way of doing it and now Mr NY Post Editor is suggesting we do the same. Oh Boy. Is our collective face red.