Reckless Disregard
Reason Magazine commenters are discussing an up and coming star in the Republican Party. Who also happens to be a sane libertarian. Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.). Naturally the topic of the discussion was Campbell's views on the war since there was general agreement on other topics. Like government spending. The question that keeps getting asked on these forums is what is the point of putting all this effort into fighting terrorism when the risks of an attack and the risks from an attack are so low? I have an answer for that.
People crashing airplanes into buildings, murdering people for their beliefs, and other such stuff is bad for business. Which is why it needs to be dealt with more sternly than auto accidents.
Evil result is not the only consideration. Intent counts. Mens rea. Because it raises the cost of doing business.
In geopolitics one must be wary of those who have publicly stated their bad (from our point of view) intentions. True - most of it is hot air. Occasionally it is not. An error on the side of caution has a small price. Reckless disregard can be somewhat more expensive.
H/T Instapundit
Posts
5 comments:
When people say they're going to kill you, you'd best believe them.
From an Israeli blog, link lost.
These realist deniers, if that's the group to whom they belong, have their heads in rectal defilade. If your group don't call themselves realists, they still have their heads up their asses.
Mens rea indeed. Evils acts are in principal preventable. Accidents just happen. We still try to figure out how to reduce the probability.
And who was it who said "all it take for evil to prevail is for men of good will to do nothing."?
Tolerating evil means it gets worse.
Check out Glenn Beck's feature "Radical Islam Exposed" on YouTube. Pay special attention to segment 4.
You'll see how Islamist clerics and parents of very young children collaborate in teaching the cute little tykes to hate Jews and America--and to crave martyrdom.
Islam cannot coexist with other cultures and civilisation. The bloody borders of Islam shout the intention of blood-conquest and universal Sharia. Ignore it at your own peril.
More complete post at alfin2200.blogspot and ibloga.blogspot.com
The risks of a terrorist attacks from the followers of Islam is not low nor are consequences of such an attack small. Given our current strategies of trying to appease our enemies, the chances of a terrorist attack by Islamists occurring the next five years are more likely than not. Also, it is more likely than not that the next attack will involver either a radiological bomb, a suitcase nuclear war head, or both. In addition to this it is more likely than not, that major urban areas will be completely destroyed and it is more likely than not that millions of Americans will die. This is not something that should be taken lightly and tremendous efforts should go into trying to prevent this from happening.
I have serious reservations about our current strategies. I think we would do better than we are doing now if we would get all troops out of Iraq, secure the borders, develop our own oil and gas reserves, and build more refineries.
b.poster,
I think your idea of letting our enemies prepare their attacks unfettered and trying to repel them at the borders is a good one.
All that is required to make it work is a perfect defense.
Attacks might get more frequent and serious under such a regime, but at least no one could doubt our motives.
I kind of like our current strategy. Piss America off and you lose your cushy government job. Possibly your life. It tends to focus the mind. Think Kdaffy's nuke program. Given up by just prompting.
Isolationists fail to get the the value of:
pour l'encourager les autres
*
Post a Comment