Saturday, November 14, 2015


Was what happened in Paris last night an act of terror or an act of war? In my opinion, the way you answer that question tells a lot about your basic political philosophy. I remember thinking how stupid it was after 9/11 when the now-infamous President George W. Bush declaring “war on terrorism”. It made no logical sense to declare war on a technique or method. The consequences of calling it a war soon became clear in Iraq. A small group of men organized what the media called an “attack on America”. In Paris, an even smaller group organized an “attack on France”. Now we have eight dead people to attack and a multi-million man military led by a heroic President of France ready to attack them. The proper thing to do against a war attack is to organize a military response. We visualize armies, air forces, and navies heroically engaged in pitch battles, guided by the hand of “God”, doing the right thing to protect our families and our homeland against the forces of evil. We can exemplify this kind of thinking by the expression, “the glories of war.” Oh my God, how bestial can we become? Of course, we cannot ignore the fact that humankind harbors evil. This means that we have to have police as a force of good to act on our behalf in protecting us. At one time in my life, I remember talking to a group of semi-automatic rifle carrying military as they came out of the jungle of Belize. They were Belize Defense Force, all dressed in camouflage. They had been tracking down, capturing, and sometimes killing, Guatemalans who had been entered the forests of Belize to steal natural resources such as timber and xate. One fellow among them stood out because he was dressed in blue. When I asked, why he was there he responded that he was the police. He went on to explain he could arrest and search the people the soldiers captured meaning that was something the army could not do. That simple exchange explained to me the difference between the military versus police. A soldier can kill an enemy, but he cannot search him. We, as a civilization, have drawn lines of behavior such as this. Of course, military and police behavior overlaps; nevertheless, there is an ingrained difference in the manner we as a society treat group conflict versus the manner we treat individual conflict. Eight people in Paris attacked several restaurants. It was not at all like Germany attacking France or Japan attacking the United States. The attack in Paris and against the World Trade Centers attack were acts of terrorism and not acts of war and we, as a nation, should respond accordingly. Police can do the things that we have to do that the military cannot do. For example, Osama bin Laden was a Saudi living in Afghanistan and was following an Egyptian cleric who was preaching radical beliefs practiced by a very small minority of the 1.2 billion Muslim people from around the world. The Paris attack involves French-born citizens, with religious roots in many different sovereign nations in the Middle East. Whom and what exactly do we attack with the air force, army, and navy that the certain political leaders such as Lindsey Graham and John McCain want to build spending money we do not have? Following the attacks in Paris, what we hear on the media is that the president of France called the attacks “an act of war”. What he is saying is that the world’s armed forces have to attack a techniques use by eight people following an ideology. Just as we should have asked Bush, we should ask President Hollande, precisely whom do we attack and where do we carry out this attack? Maybe he can make up a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction somewhere. Don’t we have to do a lot of international police work to find out? Isn’t it obvious Interpol is better equipped to do this than the military? URL: Comments Invited and not moderated


  1. Your who:
    |sis claims attack on Paris, members already identifying attackers, who they were, where they were from, who they represented.

    Your president backs the claim that it was the Islamic State (IS) though he refers to them as ISIL.

    Your where:
    Your military already conducts drone strikes against IS in middle east... Lybia, Syria, Pakistan, supposedly eliminating Abu Nabil, Jihadi John, but the US news never shows these strikes. Although your strikes are hitting civilian establishments where they believe ISIS leaders operate. Maybe you choose not to see what your president does as you hold him as an idol.

    Rather then making up "weapons of mass destruction" I assume it's better to "hide from your own people"

    1. Yes, I do idolize out President. As for the President, backing the claim that it was “IS” or ISIL, which you seem to object too, makes no sense without further elucidation. “IS” stands for a group of people who created what they aggrandize by calling themselves an “Islamic State”. Radical members of Islam have joined this group to turn it into the transnational group or “ISIL”, which is what they are today. ISIL is not the sovereign state they want it to be.

      As for drones hitting civilian targets, a car with a terrorist in it on a highway is not a “civilian establishment”. It is a targeted strike on a murderer. Our news reporters fill the media with reports of what happened and where it happened. The reports contain collateral damage assessment, including “innocent” people killed or wounded, which is not hiding it from our (your) own people. Often these reporters write the reports as critism of President Obama. As for my using the word ‘innocent’, is a supporter of a terrorist innocent? Would we judge a supporter of the killers in Paris to be innocent?

    2. Does this not contradict your last paragraph? You say that the drones are attackers the murderer's and it is okay to kill the supporters.

      You asked who and where they attack but you then describe exactly who to attack. As your rebuttal on drone attacks, October 21, the pentagon launched operation "Tidal Wave II" which includes a more focused attack strictly on oil. You understanding that Oil being a needed resource during times of war, winters. Increase in prices which in return be affecting the ability to purchase oil in their nation?

      In the past seven days, a barrel [of heating oil] goes from 20,000 to 65,000 Syrian pounds," an increase of roughly $50 to $170 at the market exchange rate.

      Up until now I'll agree that the US was not attacking Oil infrastructure but once the change with "Tidal Wave II" their has been over 175 strikes on "IS, ISIL, ISIS" controlled oil infrastructure, which has been rendered ineffective since they have been continually repairing and are still making money from Oil which I thought was how ISIS was to be contained in the first place...