Skip to main content

View Diary: On the Lethal Use of Drones (112 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Bingo. With the leadership killed, does the (9+ / 0-)

    remaining "war" on a concept (terrorism), not a state, authorize POTUS to invade every other nation (and possibly ours) in order to take out any two-bit thug who espouses ideas, strategies, and beliefs that we don't like or find threatening? And in the process create a dozen new anti-American terrorists for every one the drones evaporate. Where does it end—conceptually, geographically, hierarchically?

    stay together / learn the flowers / go light - Gary Snyder

    by Mother Mags on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 08:27:57 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  I think terrorism is a practice (7+ / 0-)

      more than a concept. But I agree, you can't declare a "war" on terrorism any more than you can declare a "war" on drugs, or a "war" on masturbation,
       or a "war" on poverty, for that matter.

      The terminology is absurd. Orwellian in fact. It makes no rational sense whatsoever, yet we have all these TV talking heads, all these well-groomed pundits, using the words as if they were perfectly understandable to everyone. It's enough to drive a sane person crazy.

      Bottom line, Americans have very little to fear from acts of terrorism. "Terror-ism" is a hyped-up artificial threat for the most part, a manufactured word for a manufactured threat that is being deliberately used to justify expanded police and military power. It astounds me that most people can't see this, it is so obvious.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site