There's no reason to moan and groan about the world. It's time to acknowledge that George Bush was right, and that all of the vituperation heaped upon him by clueless leftist Amercan dupes, was unwarranted.
It's "them" or "us." John Dewey also made this observation, and it stands the test of time. We have two sets of rules, that for our "in-group" and that for those in an "out-group." And we in the West have tried to make the entire world our in-group as evidenced in part by the insanity of extending "rights" to terrorists, which handicaps us in our efforts to thwart their actions.
Elements in nature engage in self-assembly. We are trying to devise models, which are contrary to what occurs in nature, and the consequence is that we are out of synch with what is occurring, and cannot respond reasonably since we are shackled by our misperceptions.
The West has promulgated a set of rules for war that is based on a model responsive to the circumstances of the last major conflict, WWII, one in which armed forces were identified and arrayed against each other in mass numbers, and in which the power of weapons was far more limited. The "rules" were issued in the expectation of "reciprocity."
We are operating as if the rules formulated are proper for the current landscape. One element lacking is the absence of reciprocity. There is no atrocity that is not within the playbook of those opposed to us. They are not identified or distinguished from their masses, "the sea" according to Mao, in which they operate, and which confers them protection.
We have distinguished "civilian populations" as if they are an entity that exists in the current conflict. Our civilians are targeted, but we attempt to be surgical and rather than attacking their civilian populations in reprisal and terrorizing them (as the Indians would be well-justified to do), we restrict our operations to avoid harming terrorists if there is a chance that the populations supporting and nurturing them, which provide them with cover, may be harmed.
We are far too circumspect. The doctrine of WWII, which recognized the idea of "A Nation In Arms," the commitment and involvement of civilian population as a performing necessary part in the conflict and being an essential element in its conduct, has again become the reality. The Islamic populations in their active and tacit support of terrorists and terrorism, have converted themselves into proper targets for retribution. There are no sanctuaries as the terrorist target everyone and everything. They should not be permitted anyplace in which to hide, or from which to operate. Bush was right. It's us or them. And let it be "them" who suffer as we avail ourselves of use of all our resources tof avoid harm to ourselves.
And fellows like Tosser, who gloat at our weakness, may rue the day that they pulled the tiger's tail. Tosser forgets that the reaon they survive is because we have limited our response due to internal weakness and psychological/sociological/
anthropological problems that have beset us. Circumstances, however, may eventually jolt us into reality, and we may "tranquilize" the Khyber Pass to the detriment of the savages, who dwell in that region, and many many others. We will undoubtedly also re-evaluate our "game plan" and adapt to reality if we are to survive. This may indeed necessitate that others suffer and perish. So be it.
