If we're fighting a concept, then we can't violate the concepts rights to advocate for their citizens. By letting Bush declare war against a concept, everything broke. You can win a war againt a concept unless the concept no longer exists.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
If you get to declare war against that concept, you will forever have permission to wage war, as long as the concept is in opposition to you. A concept can't tell you what their grievances are or send diplomats. And what if you play with the definition of the concept you declared war against?
Terrorism is causing great harm to non-combatants in order to break the will of an opponent. What's harm? Yeah, blowing up a plane and killing people is harm, but maybe messing with the US economy is also causing harm. What about economic terrorism?
And what do you need to be afraid of? Do you need to be afraid to die, or do you just need to be afraid of noticeable change? What if someone tries to use trade to convince the US that they aren't the greatest nation in the world? That's using fear to threaten us, isn't it?
The fear of mass death on American soil didn't need to remain to fundamentally change everything. Everyone felt like there was a change in the status quo due to 9/11. What if the real thing to be scared of was changing what you thought couldn't be changed.
What happens if the status quo is challenged when it comes to working in person, sending kids to school, wearing masks in public? Its rediculous to blame a disease, to declare war on a disease. Its not a country. Or a concept. The disease isn't making us stay home, wear masks, get vaccines . . .
The people telling us that life has to fundamentally change are the enemies. They're the ones using fear to challenge the status quo. They want America to change. That's terrorism. We're at war with them. We've had two decades of America being at war with the concept that change is scary.
Comments