Not If We Kill You First (=-P)

In the most recent example of American mishap on foreign land, a US soldier decided to go Rambo on some Afghan citizens in the middle of the night.  Reports suggest he may have had brain trauma, but this is irrelevant, because that individual is not to blame for the surge of anger coming from Afghanistan.  If you believe this,  you’ve probably been watching too much msnbc.  And you probably wouldn’t even see the truth if it slapped you in the face and called you a liberal.

Truth is, they hate us because we are free.  That’s right.  These Arabs are angry and disenchanted not because of our decades-long occupation, not because we support despotism when our interests are served, not because hundreds of thousands of civilians have died as a result of our wayward policies (this is just collateral damage anyways), not because we overthrow governments (democratic ones to boot) when they no longer serve our needs; they hate us because I chose to drink a Coca-Cola instead of a Pepsi; because you ordered a double-down super-cheezy double-fake patty with extra pink slime at the drive-thru the other day; because I go to college and because you drive a hybrid; because I can go to a beach and see scantily clad females begging for a large dose of skin cancer (with a side of vitamin D); because I went to the voting booth and checked the box next to the name of the person who I think will best serve this country as our next president.

Open your eyes reader: the truth is obvious.  And there is only one way to keep the Muslims from getting materials so they can transport them secretly into Venezuela where they will build a bomb to smuggle up through Central America and down into tunnels and across our border to blow up all our cities and impose evil Sharia law on everyone that is left: we have to kill them first.

Nevermind that this directly violates our Constitution, Christian just war theory, and the natural law. YOU DON’T WANT TO GET BLOWN UP DO YOU?  Seriously.  Disregard everything our intelligence agencies say, because they don’t know anything anyways.  Nevermind that the suicide rate of US soldiers is increasing.  They are increasing because of people like you, who don’t support the wars we are fighting for our freedom.  Nevermind crazy people like the 22-year head of the bid Laden unit of the CIA saying that our policies in the Middle East lead to the attacks of 9/11, and that we should respect the sovereignty of other nations and only use force when we have exhausted every other possible option. We don’t have a choice here people.  We have to kill them before they kill us.

“No matter how obvious you make a satire, someone will think you are being serious.” – Tom Woods Law #3


3 thoughts on “Not If We Kill You First (=-P)

  1. A Fellow Techie. Please do not seek out or share my identity or futher publish my response on facebook or other media- I like to keep politics private. 03/26/2012 / 11:54 pm

    As a fellow Catholic techie who also appeals to Libertarian ideals, I contest your arguments as they are immoral, unfeasible, and simplistic. Before I begin, I must congratulate you on your writing prowess and the response posted to the Catholic philosopher above. Both are worthy of praise. However, I sincerely hope that the above article was a mere attempt at humor and not a disclosure of you honest opinion. Your anger is justified, though there are other, more appropriate, courses of action besides total war.

    The immorality of your argument stems from your focus upon the entirety of all Arabs. As a libertarian, you should believe in principles, such as the Libertarian belief that humans are free to live as they ought, so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of another. There are Arabs who live peaceful lives, who are more in tune with God than many of the Catholics and Christians inhabiting the civilized world, and wish no fault upon Americans. Yet under your principle, they would be eradicated! Do not throw away the principles of “Constitution, Christian just war theory, and the natural law” – principles exist to be followed in even the most trying of situations! Did God himself not spare the city of Sodom because but 10 righteous people lived within its walls? Would we be any better than the Arabs that you demonize if we ourselves created a genocide of the Muslim peoples? Now, in the case of self defense, which is the backbone of your article, the above actions could possibly be justified. Numerous debates could transgress about whether the United States is in a danger imminent enough where an American Jihad on Muslims is justified. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that the danger is present, which very possibly could be the case in the modern world. If our attempts at turning the Middle East into a lake after rigorous carpet bombing were successful, according to your logic America would be saved in the name freedom and liberty! Which brings up the next topic—

    Libertarians are champions of the Constitution due to its timeless values. The principles of Right and Wrong do not change over time, just as human nature (excluding evolution) remains constant throughout all ages. History repeats itself and shows that a course of action such as trying to violently extinguish the radical Muslim fire throughout the world may only fan it higher. For instance, recall the anger toward the Germans after WWI. Oppression of Germans created the fuel of hate that would allow WWII to run its course. Like the Germans, a Muslim backlash would be strong and somewhat justified. (If you wish, I will provide sources of oppression to Germans but this counter argument is already long enough. This statement of providing sources goes for the entire article, as if you believe I am misinformed I will provide adequate sources.)
    According to Newton’s Laws, every action is equated with an equal and opposite reaction. Can you imagine the Muslim reaction to possible extinction? The Arabic countries cannot support a war as we do- with armies and brute force – but can attack individually through terrorism. 9/11 was not the result of a multitude of men but instead the carefully planned actions of few. It is far easier to destroy than to build (entropy!), and only takes a small force to destroy the work of many men. Full war against the Arabs will result in a flourishing of anti-Americanism the likes of which has never been seen in the Middle East. Do not give them martyrs for their cause, as they will become motivated against the American people. Wars are no longer fought as before- now too much power can be held in the palm of individual men, making it far more dangerous, especially if the opposition believes that death is their only other option. With the advantages of suicide bombers, dirty warfare, and modern terrorist technology, the action that you proposed would (quite literally) blow up in America’s face.

    It is getting late, so I will shorten my response and attempt to express my points with little elaboration. -Other countries will not agree with our course of action. -Serious action against innocent civilians could cause the involvement of other countries against us. -You cannot demonize all Arabs.

    Correct course of action
    Unfortunately, there is no easy answer to ending the violence between America and the middle east. Do I believe that war was wrong? No. It is necessary, but we have the power to save innocent lives. Yes, these lives are not all American, but they are still innocent. War is a necessary evil and should be carefully guarded, as unintended consequences can quickly arise. Even without the question of right and wrong, total war would likely lead to our demise. As hard as it is, we must work to help Arabs rebuild, to have the same sense of freedom that we enjoy, and develop. No, I do not agree with many, many of their ideals, but I do believe that they have contributed greatly to the world (creation of algebra, sciences, etc) just as they have greatly wronged the world, and that Catholics have also participated in both actions (Crusades, Inquisition vs all the good that they have provided). I believe there is a great danger in the modern world stemming from terrorists that must be stopped, but the solution is different than that which you have proposed.

    I look forward to hearing your response! Remember, this is all in the spirit of debate and not an affront upon your article and way of thinking. Good luck with your blog!

  2. A Fellow Techie. Please do not seek out or share my identity or futher publish my response on facebook or other media- I like to keep politics private. 03/26/2012 / 11:56 pm

    ^^^^ Of couse, if your article is simply stating an all out war on the terrorists themselves that directly threaten our way of life, I find it much more agreeable.

    • Alex Sullivan 03/27/2012 / 6:01 am

      I’m really sorry to tell you this, because you put some good time into that response, but my original post was a complete joke. Satire. I was coming from the position of a war-mongering politician or something of that sort. Thanks for the response though!

Please feel free to leave your thoughts in the comment box below. Also, subscribe to my posts via email by clicking "Follow" in the top right corner. Thanks for reading!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s