Mission Imperative

A comment [with some edits] I just wrote and threw up at this post talking about the causes and cures of terrorism:

"Certainly rational renaissance and its effect, wealth, will tend to diminish terrorist acts over time. But it’s really the belief system that’s key, the root cause.

"Still, it’s no excuse. I understand that most of them were just born into this sorry state. They were taught to be dirt-scratching primitives and so that’s what they are. And such change must come from within their own culture — seeded by the few with brains enough to independently reject their teachings and lead their world into an enlightenment.

"In the meantime, they must also understand that their behavior carries other risks, like being killed by a soldier or marine on the ground, or a — surprise! — 500-pounder from above (ooh-rah!). Yea, they’re glorious martyrs, but that’s a loosing strategy, since the more who aspire to such ends, the better off their enemy: us. Martyrdom is a silly notion that exposes just how bankrupt is their worldview.

"If, because of their sorry state of poverty, they vowed to come over
here and  break into our houses and financial centers to steal from us, nobody would
question our absolute right and obligation to take the security
measures necessary to render their chances of success very remote.

"But vowing to kill us at any opportunity, making it explicit that
they are willing to martyr themselves to do it, is an entirely different
matter. Their chance of success is virtually 1 because of their
willingness to kill randomly, arbitrarily, and without notice. The only defense, the only
viable defense is preemptive killing of as many of them as possible for
as long as it takes for them to sincerely renounce their oaths.

There’s no other proper apprehension of the reality of the matter in this regard. There just simply is not any other way to grapple it.

Seems like a good time to toss this up, but I suggest reading the whole post (or, read it again if you already did the first time I linked it last October). It’s for those of you who can’t understand the consistency in both loathing the U.S government at every level, soup-to-nuts, yet being supportive of the mission of this war:

"The matter of the state security apparat is fundamentally separate from the imperative to kill the bad guys.
Read that again, and understand the thirst for blood. I’m talking
rationally applied savagery here, kids, and I don’t apologize for it:
the thing to do is to summarily destroy those who have set out to
destroy us, with all the world-original American aptitude for
going to the extremity of the thing. Nobody who cannot or will not
grasp this imperative is fit for the discussion, because they’re simply
not coming to terms with reality, and I don’t attempt to discuss
anything with insane people. There’s just no percentage in it.

"None of this implies endorsement of this government. You bet: every
time I hear of a dead fourteenth-century throwback, shot down in the
streets of some shitty little pest-hole where actual and actualizing human beings would not live beyond the length of a desperation that would drive them out to something better, I cheer.  "Fuck ’em."  That’s my motto on the thing.  If they would attend their primitive dirt-scratching in peace, then my attitude would be exactly opposite — as it is
the opposite in the individual cases of people who are not interested
to blow me to pieces in order to get their ticket punched into
Paradise. And in a free country, I would hire people —
superbly trained killers, you bet — to get there first with the most
and just smash ’em on the spot, like bugs. I would hire them to do it
in the same way that I hire General Motors to build cars, along with
everyone else who hires them (unless they’re hiring, say, Ford, to do
the same thing).

Richard Nikoley

I'm Richard Nikoley. Free The Animal began in 2003 and as of 2021, contains 5,000 posts. I blog what I wish...from health, diet, and food to travel and lifestyle; to politics, social antagonism, expat-living location and time independent—while you sleep—income. I celebrate the audacity and hubris to live by your own exclusive authority and take your own chances. Read More


  1. Richard Nikoley on June 11, 2006 at 08:56

    "…they have to have very good reasons to blow themselves to bits."

    I won't argue that. They're welcome to do whatever they want with their life. I may not grok their values, but its their values and not mine.

    "The fact is that many people around the world live in absolute poverty, or in violence or in fear due in large part to Western policies and actions (take, for example, Iraq under Saddam)."

    Yea for the first phase, bullshit for the second. Western policies have for the most part involved either using a despot against another despot, or trying to create an atmosphere to have the despot overthrown by his own people. But the cause of the poverty is the despot, not the "evil" West.

    "They can't fight their enemy…"

    More bullshit. It gathers the premise from the second phrase above and implies that the West is the root cause and they are just defending themselves.

    It is indeed a problem that the West seems to believe that promoting democracy is a good thing, but they do so in a spirit of having these savages live in peace. It's a problem, but it's not the problem. The problem is that these savages are determined to kill innocent people with no justification whatsoever and they consider it a virtue — indeed, a divine command — to do so.

  2. Chris Phillips on June 11, 2006 at 08:10

    The cures are simple. See my post from yesterday.

    Chris (My Blog)

  3. Jamie Stern-Weiner on June 11, 2006 at 08:32

    "The only defense, the only viable defense is preemptive killing of as many of them as possible for as long as it takes for them to sincerely renounce their oaths."

    I disagree. People do not kill themselves for fun, or for light reasons – they have to have very good reasons to blow themselves to bits.

    The fact is that many people around the world live in absolute poverty, or in violence or in fear due in large part to Western policies and actions (take, for example, Iraq under Saddam).

    They can't fight their enemy by conventional means (so, for instance, dropping a "500 pounder" from above), which leaves guerilla warfare and/or terrorism.

    There are simple ways to combat terrorism. The simplest is to stop practising it. The next thing to do would be to try and understand why people hate us so much. We'll find out plenty of good reasons, such as our support for cruel oppressors (such as Saddam, Suharto, the Saudi regime, etc. etc.). Legitimate concerns should then be addressed (as they should with or without the threat of terrorism).

  4. T. J. Madison on June 12, 2006 at 19:48

    Let's talk about Suharto. His army killed about 200,000 East Timorese (~1/3 of the population) in an exceptionally brutal occupation enthusiatically backed by the US government with money and weapons.

    Note that the ultimately successful resistance to the occupation was conducted with essentially no terrorism. Also note that the Timorese, who suffered unimaginably, aren't strapping bombs to themselves and coming to the US to deliver some payback. Neither are the Vietnamese, Salvadorans, or 99.999% of Muslims, for that matter. Being brutalized by the USG is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for terrorism.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Follow by Email8k