Well, I warned about this back in April here on Lew Rockwell. No, I don’t like being right about something about this. I’d rather be wrong. But when it comes to violence, it is very easy to see we are stuck in a cycle that is perpetrated by the fact our government indulges in it and basically brought it home to our doorstep. The government imagined they could contain it over where they don’t mind the loss of human life. As I said, these attacks will continue and, most likely, grow in scale.
Now the Orlando terrorist was born here. Again, as I said, you cannot defend against this. ISIS is the do-it-yourself Big Box store of terrorism. They don’t need to hire outside professional contractors when they’ve got plenty of “handymen”, so to speak, willing to tackle the jobs themselves at home. Not only that, but this dude was known to the FBI! I mean, if the FBI knew of this guy and couldn’t finger him as a threat they could justify locking up, then there truly is no method by which the government can assure safety. They might as well hand out bulletproof vests and Kevlar helmets as an ObamaCare program right now and avoid the rush later.
See, let’s not forget that it was the United States government that started this whole mess by playing footsies with these people in the first place. Why? Because they came up with this foolish idea that ousting Assad from the control of Syria would somehow manifest a democracy over there. To that end, they armed people without the decent background checks they insist on for American citizens that aren’t trying to topple a government. Now here goes the government saying we need more background checks on firearm purchases by American citizens over here. Excuse me, but where were the background checks when this same government was handing out TOW anti-tank missiles, anti-aircraft guns, and 12.7mm machine guns to these Syrian “moderates” that mutated into ISIS?
This government thinks it can go over there and do things like meddle in very complex religious and political issues and there not be any consequences. They like to instigate and encourage violence over there and think it cannot follow them back here. But they sit in their Obamabunkers safe while everyone else gets to pay the price for this foolishness. And what is the government’s answer going to be for this? Right. More violence over there. We kill them, they kill us, we kill more of them to retaliate, they kill us in revenge for that, then we kill more of them to show them killing is wrong, and this cycle goes on and on without end.
The other answer the government will have is taking away what little freedom we have left in order to defend freedom. Here’s a thought. How about pulling out of the Middle East and letting that region decide their own destiny for a change? Oh, right, that’s giving in to terrorism. Yeah, well, the people that say that are not the ones dying because of that stubborn dogma the government clings to. The people that die because of these “foreign policy” decisions are the people that had nothing to do with making them. That’s why the government continues doing this. Because if it was their butts on the line, they’d have pulled out of the Middle East decades ago.
Again, this is all over the United States government “plan” to bring “democracy” to Syria! When were we asked if we minded risking our lives so Syrians could live under a ruler the United States government picked instead of Assad? Were you asked? See, if we’re not in the United States military, the government has no right to gamble our lives on this foolishness. However, the reality is this: We have all been drafted into the de facto war effort of the United States government. Just like the Cold War, where our lives were risked willingly, the War On Terror and Regime Change does the same. And for what? Who runs the government of a foreign nation that we, at the most, get Aleppo Pepper and Latakia pipe tobacco from? Splendid.
At this point, would it not make more sense to find out what it is that ISIS wants? If that is the United States departing from the Middle East, then I suggest it is time to do so. I know, I know: “We can’t give in to terrorists!” Ok, what if it is YOU that will die for that tired, old belief? Or your kid? Or your wife? But let’s have a word from history on this. In Ye Olde Medieval Days, paying the ransom and giving in to demands was not just commonplace, it was well-established. The heraldry of knights wasn’t just to have cool raptorial birds on your shield, it was to advertise to the enemy who this knight was—and his relative cash value as a hostage. See, they didn’t capture knights because of chivalry and because Sir Geoffrey of Pickwickshire played a mean dulcimer. It was because Sir Geoffrey was worth a lot of money and his family would pay that money to get him back. Therefore, the West does have a historical precedent for finding out what it’s going to cost us to have ISIS go away.
Let me expand further on that. The entire premise of the West’s “code of war” came out of the Medieval Period, to some degree. Capturing prisoners of war was done because they were worth ransom money. That, as I said, is one of the progenitors of military heraldry that has continued into today with “division patches” and so on. The way it was done is as follows: Sir Geoffrey was captured because the two falcons and three red chevrons on his shield said he was Sir Geoffrey and he was worth around 5,000 gold pieces. So, his captor, Sir Reynard, sends a message through the Church (who acted as a mediator in these transactions) to Sir Geoffrey’s family that it’ll cost 5,000 gold pieces to get him back. They would then send the money through the Church and Sir Geoffrey went home and no one saw anything wrong with this. No dishonor, no humiliation, and no, “We can’t give in to the demands of Sir Reynard!” While waiting for the cash to arrive, Sir Geoffrey and Sir Reynard play chess and go hunting together. Then, later, when Sir Geoffrey captures Sir Reynard, he entertains him while awaiting Sir Reynard’s ransom money. There is nothing unusual about paying ransom or accepting terms of peace that include abandoning territory.
Look, it is time to try something different. Killing, killing, killing is obviously not working because guess what? The “other guy” is using that diplomacy model, too. I think it is time to stop senselessly risking the lives of ALL OF the US over who runs Syria—or anywhere else. If the government cares so much, then let us see them risk their own lives in it. Let us see them walk around without Secret Service details and limousines armored better than Bradley Fighting Vehicles. Because that’s where the rest of us are: Sitting out here with our keesters swinging in the wind with targets painted on our back. Sitting ducks. And for what? A region of the world that is telling us they do not want us there and our government stubbornly refuses to listen.
Violence cannot stop the violence. Violence only begets more violence. There is no sound reason why our interactions with the rest of the world must be military and violent. If you project that upon others, they will not disappoint you. You reap what you sow. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Those teachings hold their value over thousands of years because they are absolutely true. How about instead of insisting we are right, we start entertaining the idea that, hey, maybe we’re wrong. How about realizing we have a choice to make here. We can keep perpetuating this violence, or we can walk away from it.
In the days to come, there will be calls for “retaliation”. Against whom? ISIS? The government has been allegedly bombing them for well over a year now and they have not lost the ability to inspire the do-it-yourself terrorist attacks over here. Right, retaliation. Then they’ll need to score some payback and the cycle rolls merrily along with the government immune to the very real consequences of their actions. It is time to stop the cycle. It is time to pull out of the Middle East. It is time to remove ourselves from military “obligations” overseas. These are not “obligations”—these are suicide pacts. And we’re seeing that, aren’t we?