Terrorists in India? Better stay the course in Iraq!

I should really stop going to Townhall.com. Because sometimes...I accidentally read something. And I am afraid the Oedipus method of coping with extreme duress has only gotten me so far in removing the horrible memories from my mind. So, I will instead have to settle for blindly prodding at the keyboard in order to express my impotent rage.

For two or three years running, it seems, all we've heard from the political left in the United States, concerning the war on terror, is: Aren't we awful?

Oh no! Not doubt! Not having standards to hold ourselves up to in order to assure that we do not become overzealous and turn into something worse than that which we self-righteously oppose! That way lies communism!

Blog and editorial commentary around presidential election time tilted heavily to the view that it was high time we restored constitutional liberties after their trashing by the George W. Bush administration. We needed to close the Guantanamo holding pen for terrorists, tighten the rules against spying on Americans, renounce disgusting forms of interrogational persuasion (usually labeled torture), and broaden the judicial rights of suspected or accused terrorists

Pffft. Having fair trials for randomly captured "enemies", protecting Americans' privacy, and abstaining from torture? That's stupid...

If the Mumbai bloodbath fails to refocus some American eyes on the complexity and immense risk involved in combating homicidal maniacs, what, frankly, will?

Considering that the Mumbai bloodbath is an illustration that they are willing to attack anywhere, and that many of them are coming from Pakistan...it refocuses completely away from where we are already. But saying that is inconvenient, isn't it? You want us to stay in Iraq, and your evidence for why we should do this is that terror cells enterred India from Pakistan and killed 100 people? It's complex alright. More complex than you people who think that we are fighting coherent military groups that we can "win" against are willing to admit.

I have grown fond of using the phrase "homicidal maniacs" when discussing terrorists. It's what they are

And you and I would agree on that issue. Thanks for that.

How you endeavor to stop mad dogs is the point: not shooting on sight, of course, unless they come foaming around the corner, but, rather, to begin with taking them as seriously as they take their potential victims.

Mad dogs are a good analogy to terrorists, even if you completely gave up on it with your conclusion. How the hell does "taking them seriously" work out, when, save under circumstances where they are "foaming around the corner", they are indistinguishable from regular dogs? And does it really matter if we "take them seriously" if there is not a damn thing we can do about them when the 17th dog on the left decides to start gnawing on the neighbor kid while you stare down the 23rd dog from the right without any actual plan about how to deal with it if it does the same?

Its legions would rather shred Bush. Not to mention Vice President Cheney, whom various left-wing types hope they can indict for God knows what after he leaves office, as punishment for helping keep us safe.

Which reminds me of a quote I just made up: "It doesn't matter who you beat, rape, torture, or kill, as long as you can call it self-defense and have a police force too cowardly to call bullshit on you".

It seems to have escaped general notice in recent years that the United States hasn't been subjected to a single terrorist attack since 9/11.

And what about all those terrorist attacks that we didn't experience up to 9/11? Huh? Now beg! Beg Bill Clinton for forgiveness! He worked so hard to protect us, enough so that you never experienced a terrorist attack at all during his terms, and yet you have not showered thanks upon him.

lack of a substantial radicalized domestic community into which terrorists can blend. We're not Baghdad. We're not even Mumbai or Jakarta. We're Dallas and Chicago and Casper, Wyo. You can't pull the stuff in places like this that you pull abroad.

You could have just simplified it by saying: "We're not the Middle East, we've got police and military forces up the ass, and if terrorists abroad are afraid, those who come here will inevitably shit their pants".

But surely much of the credit for our thus-far-clean record of public safety is owing to stringent federal measures to catch or head off terrorists: domestic surveillance included; Guantanamo included; the Patriot Act included; conceivably even water boarding

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Bitch.

We increased public safety just fine by increasing airport security measures to ridiculous levels and by going after al-Qaida. If our safety has been obtained by wiretapping, taking suspected terrorists as POW's, and then using whatever means necessary to make them talk, then I think we deserve to be attacked again. People like you are willing to sell our collective soul in order to protect your own hide. People like you are the ones who make us look selfish, arrogant; who makes the world hate us. It disgusts me. It's why I could never be patriotic. Because I could never blindly accept the actions of a nation that is so clearly guided by those who are willing to assure our nation's success at the expense of everyone else in the world. It is unbecoming.

(As if the momentary terrorizing of a terrorist, for the sake of prospectively vital information could offset the prospect of preserving American lives and property!)

1. They might not be terrorists. Hence the problems with holding them without fair trials.
2. Torture is rarely a good source for reliable information.
3. See above, you sick fuck.

Mumbai reminds us that terrorists aren't idealists, they're barely identifiable as human; it reminds us, further, that heading them off is a proposition more urgent than cleaning up after them.

"Barely identifiable as human"? Not going to Godwin...not going to Godwin...
Yes, "heading them off" would be ideal. Care to tell us how to do so without consulting horoscopes and crystal balls? I'm sure the militaries of the world would be very appreciative of this info.

That nation has a right anyway to snoop effectively in order to protect even ACLU members against threats of mayhem and massacre.

They already have previsions for "snooping" when they have sufficient evidence to be suspicious through means of obtaining warrants. It is the ability to begin this snooping legally without any of the above that raises peoples ire, because it is moving from the necessary level of surveillance needed to protect us into a foot-in-the-door provision to begin arbitrarily suspending the fourth amendment whenever they have a "feeling" that they might find something important and have no evidential reason to back this up.

The Western left gives lip service to the idea of self-defense without acknowledging the danger of defending too little or too lethargically -- the very danger that the Mumbai massacres exemplify.

9/11 also is evidence that defending too little or too lethargically can lead to tragedy. But, guess what? The kind of self-defense involved here is being vigilant and prepared for such attacks occuring within the confines of our own borders, and does not involve trudging around abroad, randomly capturing and killing people that might be terrorists, while simultaneously encouraging those who despise what you are doing in such a cavalier fashion to become a terrorist just to get a shot at you.

9/11 happened because of nearly a dozen hijackers. The Mumbai attack was performed by 25 or so performing a rough military-type strike. We just need to be on guard, not overthrow governments and strip us of rights to see the attacks more clearly. You are using flamethrowers to fight mice.

One thing's sure: No such neighborhoods can remain safe unless constantly and efficiently patrolled by the forces of law and order so as to exclude the entrepreneurial mass murderer.

And when those forces of law and order are corrupt, or shouldn't have any authority there?

We're the good guys, comparatively speaking

Not for very long, if you and your ilk have your way. (Which is hopefully not going to be the case).

Why do so many Western liberals have so hard a time with that simple, undeniable proposition?

You meant "simplistic, untenable presumption" right?