Quote:
Originally Posted by Dezzy
I'm just going to disregard the first sentence, you're literally just saying that in an effort to validate your opinion without offering any context and saying you 'have significant experience in the area' can't be taken seriously when you seemed to forget that we live in a democracy and that disagreeing with the government was tantamount to being a 'traitor'
I'm not worrying about what ifs that will never happen. IS's power base will not expand beyond what it is now. There's at least five countries that are currently attacking them and IS have no allies or resources to help them out.
Nobody is burying their head in the sand, unlike you we aren't losing our heads over an (im)possibility.
|
I knew you wouldn't answer the question because that requires responsibility to be taken and I don't say that to cause offence, I say it because it is a classic response from those that are pacifist in nature and not willing to commit or take a stand.
There is nothing wrong with advocating no action at this point in itself, but each and every one of us either has a threshold of acceptability, or they are not acknowledging the issue exists or prepared to act at any point which would be the action of a pacifist.
Even now, people are expecting those in the security services to protect them from serious harm as they go about their daily activities. That's not the expectation of pacifists, they want to be protected. If the security services had not taken action, many hundreds more would have died in Paris. Would that have been acceptable? People have to take a stand at some point or die in the face of such threats, so I repeat my question, where is your threshold