War On Terror
The family that shoots together…
Given the number of times I have made passive references to the futility of gun control in a few of my last posts, I thought it was interesting to come across the following:
The Second Amendment tells us that ‘a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.’ Two hundred years later, in 1999, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives estimated that there are about 215 million guns in America–at least one firearm in half the households in the country. The anti-gun Brady Campaign, however, puts that number at 192 million guns, owned by 39 percent of the population. – [MSNBC]
Now I found this article interesting because I find that I have been ranting a lot lately about how folks like to blame everything but themselves or their society for the problems of the world. The Brady Campaign is one such organization. They have taken it one step further and decided to make an inanimate object the focus of their efforts.
Their site expresses their “outrage” at the increase of “gun violence in America” and whatnot. However, they do not seem to care much about what causes that violence. Their only concern seems to be that firearms ought not be involved. I find that an incredibly narrow minded, tunnel visioned way of thinking.
Ironically, the Brady Campaigns gun ownership statistics were highly skewed when compared to the figures the BATF estimates. Now given that the BATF is a government agency that works with these cases first hand, on a daily basis, and the Brady Bunch would rather not see any guns in existence at all, I’m inclined to think that the BATFs numbers would be more accurate. An unrealistic view of reality, in my opinion, is generally the result of a campaign based on emotion, rather than logic.
It’s a cliched phrase, but it bears repeating. Guns don’t kill people. Ignorant / Unimaginative /Badly raised people with guns kill people. The Brady campaign is focusing all of it’s efforts on reducing the overall number of guns in the hope that this will reduce gun violence. But I believe that only a fool wages war on an inanimate object. They are only tilting at windmills. I’m not going to go over the arguments why this is a waste of time, because you’ve probably all heard them.
However I will say that this is yet another, particularly ludicrous, crutch. According to the BATF, over half the households in the country own at least one firearm. This means that gun owners are not a minority, nor are they limited to criminals, or gun crazed nut jobs.
There has to be another reason for the increase in gun violence. I would submit that it is an overall increase in violence in general. The Brady campaign doesn’t seem to want to even acknowledge that possibility. And they have wasted who knows how much money campaigning to reduce the symptoms of the problem without, as far as I can see, spending a dime trying to diagnose and cure the disease.
Our society needs revamping. Our parenting skills need improvement. Our culture is breeding a new kind of angst. And the victims of this form of self/world hate are not particular about how the decide to get the message across. If there are no guns, they will use improvised explosives. If there are no explosives, they will use knives. If knives are outlawed (heh) Some could decide to go on a vehicular manslaughter rampage. If cars get outlawed, they will simply poison the water supply. There is no end to it.
The presence of any weapon, is at best only a means to an end. And the means are many. in order to solve the problem, we have to identify and solve the root causes, not blindly chase after the symptoms.
One nation, under gun – [MSNBC]
The often hidden psychological effects of war…
I just read a very sad story about the brutal assault of an civilian Iraqi family in their own home.
A military jury on Friday found a soldier guilty of rape and murder in the slayings of a 14-year-old Iraqi girl and her family.
Jurors deliberated much of Friday evening before convicting Army Pfc. Jesse Spielman, 22, of conspiracy to commit rape, rape, housebreaking with intent to commit rape and four counts of felony murder.
Military prosecutors did not say Spielman took part in the rape or murders, but alleged he went to the house knowing what the others intended to do and served as a lookout. Spielman had pleaded guilty on Monday to lesser charges of conspiracy to obstructing justice, arson, wrongfully touching a corpse and drinking.
Spielman’s sister, Paige Gerlach, screamed: “I hate the government. You people put him (in Iraq) and now, this happened.” [Yahoo/AP]
It is hard to know exactly what was going on in this soldiers head while all of this was going on, but we know for sure that at the end of the incident, an Iraqi girl had been raped, and her family murdered in cold blood. The most important point about this incident is not that the brutality and heartlessness of the crime is unusual, but rather the opposite. The ability to kill without hesitation is a requirement in order to be a good soldier. In times of war this is a necessary ability. In a theater where your combatants are just as likely to be women and children, as men, you learn to kill each with the same level of efficiency. The problem however, lies in the other less salient side effects that occur as a result of this kind of conditioning.
What happens when you reach the point where you can look at someone, a race, or a demographic, and no longer see a human being? Just a soft target? Well, in war, it makes you a better soldier. But once you learn to kill people without guilt, what else might you be capable of? And will you have to moral fiber to discern the right from the wrong and act on it? We may never know the reasons Pfc. Spielman went along with all of this. But I can understand Paige Gerlachs’ hatred of the government. She and her family will be forever emotionally scarred by this incident.
But the sad fact is, though the government may have put them in Iraq and trained them to kill Iraqi men, women and children without guilt, it was not the government who made them murder that family. They were not ordered to do so. The did this of their own free will. And I’m sure they are not the only ones to have committed such war crimes. But the actions of few such out-of-control soldiers, if any, will ever be publicized, even if they are caught. And yet they will return to our soil, with this black mark upon their psyche. And that is the ultimate problem with war.
At the end of any war, you will have not only damaged your enemies population, but your own as well, both physically and psychologically. A war of any kind comes at great cost. To both sides. And unfortunately the rewards are sometimes not worth the sacrifices. It is not something to be entered easily or lightly, no matter how strong you may think you are.
Soldier found guilty of rape, murder – [Yahoo/AP]
Anonymous on Fox11… It’s Lulzeriffic…
I just saw a video on YouTube that kinda made me LOL… I know that the topic is probably one of great emotional pain for some, and I’m not a big fan of some of the emotional damage that some of the more malevolent hackers cause, but Fox news’ portrayal of the whole thing was rather… off-base.
I mean, the bomb threat was taken entirely out of context, and yet they had to show some random van blowing up… twice no less… As if to display one of the heinous terrorist acts of malicious hackers. And LOLS “Corrupted” (by evil hackers I assume) = LULZ? Seriously? Either nobody did any real homework for this piece or they intentionally skewed the facts in order to maximize the sensationalism of the story. What happened to unbiased and objective reporting? They have elevated a group of Internet pranksters to the level of violent international terrorists.
The modus operandi of pretty much every hacker I have come across has been to demonstrate their intellectual superiority, not execute hits on people. Unfortunately they do so by messing with peoples heads. Griefing, and other miscellaneous on-line harassment, especially in on-line games and social networking sites are usually their favorite haunts. They do not, as a rule, go out and physically assault people. I mean honestly, how many times has any of you heard of any hacker group killing anyone?
The poor schlub who got his MySpace account hacked in the piece was an easy and unfortunate target. And I’m willing to bet he (or his mom), teed someone off, because in general, that subsequent level of harassment is more work than the average sporadic prankster would be willing to put into it. One more question popped into my head while watching… how many of you honestly believe that this guy lost his girlfriend simply because she believed that he was cheating on her with guys? Yeah… I had to ask…
Fox News 11 covers Anonymous – [YouTube]
Obamas’ flameless firestorm…
Presidential hopeful Barack Obama apparently ignited a “firestorm” of controversy by responding to a YouTubers video questioner that he would, “without precondition”, meet with leaders of renegade regimes:
In Monday’s debate from Charleston, S.C., Obama was asked by a questioner via YouTube if he would be willing to meet — without precondition — in the first year of his presidency with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea.
“I would,” he responded.
Clinton said she would not. “I don’t want to be used for propaganda purposes,” she said. Clinton said she would first use envoys to test the waters. – [Yahoo/AP]
Now I’m no political expert, so my opinion may hold little value. But Hilary Clintons rebuttal makes no sense either. At least not to my admittedly politically intolerant mind. What exactly does the phrase “I don’t want to be used for propaganda purposes” mean? And why is the possibility of being a propaganda item more important than establishing peaceful relationships? And why has this possible method of establishing a peaceful resolution been equated to pandering to rogue nations?
If a police officer tries to get a criminal to cooperate in an investigation, does that mean he/she is pandering to the criminal element? Is plea bargaining pandering? It’s done all the time. How is this concept any different? It seems some folks are more concerned with the appearance of impropriety than actually solving problems. This is why I hate politics.
I am a big fan of the “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” school of thought, but our current international policy is broken. Severely. It just ain’t workin’ out too well for us. And we can’t honestly just sit here and say we don’t care what other countries think. It should have become apparent by now that our ability to solve our international problems is seriously affected by other nations relationship with us.
Perhaps we need to try something new. And at least Obama is willing to give it a shot, even if he is a newbie. I certainly don’t think he can do much worse than we are doing right now, especially if we continue with our current, and in my humble opinion, seriously jacked-up policies. So why not?
Obama debate comments set off firestorm – [Yahoo/AP]
Hey it’s a Bank Robber! BOMB THE BANK!!!
Our esteemed President has taken up the bull horn, yet again, to warn us of the dangers that Iraq poses to the security of the mighty U.S. of A.:
“The merger between al-Qaida and its Iraqi affiliate is an alliance of killers and that is why the finest military in the world is on their trail,” Bush said. …
… “That’s like watching a man walk into a bank with a mask and a gun and saying, ‘He’s probably just there to cash a check,’” Bush told troops at Charleston Air Force Base. – [Yahoo/AP]
Even if we were in the position of seeing “a man walk into a bank with a mask and a gun” which I still have am not convinced were were, I would point out that our current actions are more akin to blowing up the bank in an attempt to thwart a possible robbery. It’s a no win. At the very least, I can take some small solace in the fact that a good many rational American people have realized the illogical nature of our current predicament. Might does not make right.
That is not to say that we should be doormats. I am by no means a pacifist. Strength and power is a tool, much like any other. And I mean no disrespect or slight to those who have suffered as a result of terrorist attacks, but I believe strength should be used to defend innocence. Not as a tool of retribution, or even control.
Contrary to what many seem to believe, terrorists do not spawn in a vacuum. Nor are they simple lunatics. They are generally themselves recipients of terrorist acts, that have learned to respond in kind. But responding in anger only fuels more anger, and violence only breeds more violence. And right now we are wreaking untold levels of violence upon both the innocent as well as the guilty, and breeding anger like freakin’ rabbits, where there was none.
We are performing the mythological equivalent of attacking a hydra by cutting off each of it’s heads, one by one. And as each head falls, two more grow in it’s place. And even if we eventually kill the beast, and eliminate all of the true terrorists, the survivors of the innocents shall remain, bearing us so much hatred that, much like Heracles, if we don’t wise up, the blood of the hydra will eventually poison us to death…
Bush warns anew of al-Qaida threat – [Yahoo/AP]
Terrorist Profiling at it’s best. Or Worst. You Decide.
A poorly packaged college application prompted a call to the bomb squad at Eastern Illinois University. …… “There was no return address, it was poorly written, poorly addressed to the university, there were misspellings,” school spokeswoman Vicki Woodard said Saturday. “There was some tape over it. Just the overall appearance was rather strange.” – [USA Today]
OK, I have a question. Is a disheveled package with a poorly written address, equally poor spelling, and no return address the current modus operandi for bombers these days? I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that you had to be at least half-way intelligent to package explosives for delivery without blowing yourself up, or having the package blow up in transit.
By the same token I would think that any semi-intelligent person who wanted to ensure that an explosive package reached it’s destination would take pains to ensure that it did not exhibit traits that would attract attention, such as the said lack of a return address, poor spelling and rather conspicuous packaging. Or are we all supposed to believe that bombers and/or terrorists are, in general, of limited education and intelligence?
It may make you feel better to believe this to be the case, but as much as I hate to break it to ya, at least so far as terrorist activities are concerned, you are sorely mistaken if you do. Regardless of whether or not we believe our presidents “War on Terror” is justified, make no mistake; we are in it now, and must heed this all important rule of war: Know thy enemy…
Disheveled college application causes bomb scare – [USA Today]
Terrorist Tactics On The Home Front…
Former NY mayor Rudy Giuliani, in response to the recent reports of terrorist acts in the UK, made an interesting statement connecting illegal immigration with terrorist activity, which I thought was rather dubious in nature:
“This is the United Kingdom”, he said. “They have security that is at least equal to ours; they have intelligence services that have even had more experience with terrorism than ours has, you know, they have to be subjected to this. We’re in an era in which we need to know everyone who’s in the United States.”
“We need to end illegal immigration,” he said. “If we do, a lot of things can happen, in terms of how you resolve everything here. But if you don’t end illegal immigration, almost nothing is possible, because no matter what you do, things are going to get worse.” – [Yahoo/AP]
Now given Mr. Giulianis great track record as mayor of NY, I found this a little disappointing. It almost seemed to me like he was attempting to use the terrorist acts in the UK as an opportunity to bolster his political position on illegal immigration ( and perhaps his candidacy for president). Now don’t get me wrong. I believe there needs to be a reform on illegal immigration, however the exact details on how to approach the problem are not as clear cut as everyone wants to believe. But I’m not sure that things like a “Universal ID” or a “tracking database” will actually do much more than give “big brother” more tools to in which to spy on citizens with.
I don’t believe there has ever been any link between illegal immigration and terrorism. All of the terrorists involved in 9/11 for instance, where here legally, on either student or tourist visas. In fact, any terrorist organization worth their salt would go to great lengths to stay under the radar and beyond reproach, including being here legally, having a normal job, normal life, even avoid speeding tickets, i.e. be a model citizen, until they are ready to strike. That’s just common sense. So to say that without ending illegal immigration, “nothing is possible” is pure conjecture, and simply a manipulation of peoples fears in order to achieve his goals.
Sadly, statements like these illustrate a common, subconscious misconception possessed by many Americans. That we have control over everything, and that with enough resources thrown at something, we can prevent anything. Sadly, this is far from the truth. Even if we could monitor every hushed bar room conversation, every phone call, every email, every IM, and know where every single individual was in the country at any given time, we still would not be able to guarantee that a terrorist act would not occur. None of us are omnipresent or omnipotent beings. I love this country. We are a great people, and I think that in many, many, ways, we are the greatest country in the world. But we are just people. No matter how hard we try, there are some things we will not be able to prevent or avoid.
Now I’m not saying we shouldn’t do everything in our power to prevent terrorist attacks from occurring. But I do believe that there is a point of diminishing returns on our efforts. A point where our actions will cross the line from over-protection to oppression. I do not wish to be a member of a bar coded society of sheep. I don’t want everything I say and do to be monitored 24/7/365, and have to worry that some little insignificant action or word will brand me a threat to national security. I’ve heard people say that things like this are necessary in the war on terror, and that we are fighting for our freedom, and that we have to make sacrifices in order to maintain our way of life. But if, in the process of protecting them, we give up our personal freedoms and our way of life, then what are we fighting for? The terrorists will have already won.
Giuliani links terror, border security – [Yahoo/AP]
Log In
My Thoughts…
Blogroll
General Info
Phyreblades Blogs
Famous Last Words
The Time Machine
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Feb | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
| 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | |||
Issues
Pick your Poison:
Easy Eavesdropping.
- Phyreblade on Objective vs Subjective Reporting
- dreadrocksean on Objective vs Subjective Reporting
- phyreblade on Giving relevance to the irrelevant…
- phyreblade on Giving relevance to the irrelevant…
- shamelesslyatheist on Giving relevance to the irrelevant…