Guns and Terrorism 3

SOME people will suggest that we have more guns. BUT the reality of a significant number of citizens carrrying guns into public places in the hope of stopping a massacre by either a terrorist or a mentally ill person is not exactly ideal. I, myself, do not own a gun. I do not think that my carrying a gun would help deter any terrorist or mentally ill person. I am actually horrified by what may happen if a great number of citizens started to carry guns. First of all, would people limit their use of guns to terrorists and madmen? Would this create vigilantes? How-well trained in the use of guns would be these gun users? 

I'm much more comfortable with the idea of well-trained armed guards. BUT where would you place these guards? Terrorists and madmen attack anywhere and at anytime.

With the gun laws being the way they are, the situation in America is not all that different from the situation in Europe. A terrorist can just go state to state, arming herself with all the weaponry necessary to massacre a great number of people. Once she gets to a big city or near one, she can carefully plan her attack.

Some of you may remember that the Boston bomber was on his way to New York after the Marathon bombing in order to gun down people in New York City before he was caught.

Undoubtedly, some Americans will call for war. But right now, the Kurds have been successful in pushing back Isis. The United States, France, England, Russia, and Germany are working together to stop Isis through aerial strikes and strategic targets. The truth about war, on a full scale, is that it will involve the destruction of a great number of Arab civilians. It will also involve the death of possibly more than 50,000 American soldiers. A more logical move would involve coalition forces from Europe and America, but it is hard to see this kind of thing really coming together. Germany, so far, has pledged no troops.

What we are militarily doing right now is working. Then we must see these terrorist acts as acts of desperation by Isis and their followers, again AS ACTS OF DESPERATION. At the same time, it shows the ferocity and the determinedness of Isis This is what makes me really question the use of ground troops.

Again, I want to stress that we must not look at the War in Syria as another Iraq War which is another Vietnam War. In some ways, it can be seen as the other side of the Arab Spring. Also, the Syrians are not the New Jews. Each War has its own unique context.

So if we are to seriously consider War, we must really look at what Isis is willing to do to extend its power and keep its property. It is willing to steal, cheat, lie, destroy, take, burn, bomb, and hack. Its followers are willing to bomb themselves, take 20 or 30 of others as they suicide-bomb themselves. Do we want to win as much as they do, and what kind of tactic would we use to do so? In such a case, is it really worth sacrificing ground troops? And if we do win the ground war, we would still have to either imperialize the region or country ourselves or choose a sect, tribe, a dictator or a coalition government to rule the land. 

BUT if the objective after after war is such, then I think we can do this without sacrificing ground troops.