November 1, 2001
Will the bombing end terrorism?
A logical Q & A
By Kevin P. Sullivan
Purport of the warmongers: We are bombing Afghanistan in a fight to end terrorism.
Q. Suppose we kill EVERYONE in Afghanistan, will that end terrorism or make it worse?
A. Worse. Because it will enrage and provide a sense of justification and desire for revenge in sympathizers in Georgia (why not Georgia, they could be anywhere, we're assuming they're in Afghanistan that's why we're bombing isn't it?) possibly encouraging them to commit acts of terror.
Q. If we kill EVERYONE in Georgia, will that end terrorism or make it worse?
A. Worse. Because it will enrage and provide a sense of justification and desire for revenge in sympathizers in S. Carolina and Florida possibly encouraging them to commit acts of terror.
Q. If we kill EVERYONE in S. Carolina and Florida, will that end terrorism or make it worse?
A. Worse. Because it will enrage and provide a sense of justification and desire for revenge in sympathizers in Mississippi, Tennesee and Utah (or fill in the blank with some other geographic, it doesn't matter, the point is the same) possibly encouraging them to commit acts of terror.
Q. If we kill EVERYONE in Mississippi, Tennesee and Utah, will that end terrorism or make it worse?
A. Worse. Because it will enrage and provide a sense of justification and desire for revenge in sympathizers in Missouri, Texas, Arizona and N. Carolina possibly encouraging them to commit acts of terror.
Q. If we kill EVERYONE in Missouri, Texas, Arizona and N. Carolina, will that end terrorism or make it worse?
A. Worse. Because it will enrage and provide a sense of justification and desire for revenge in sympathizers in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick possibly encouraging them to commit acts of terror.
Q. If we kill EVERYONE in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick will that end terrorism or make it worse?
A. Worse. Because it will enrage and provide a sense of justification and desire for revenge in sympathizers in Oregon, Montana, N. Dakota, Iowa, Illinois and Virginia possibly encouraging them to commit acts of terror. We're not sure what will happen in Quebec. Maybe we should bomb them for good measure. Just to be safe.
Q. Let's skip ahead to bush the lessor's second term. Pretty soon you'll have killed EVERYONE in the Northern Hemispher, will that end terrorism or make it worse?
A. Worse. Because it will enrage and provide a sense of justification and desire for revenge in sympathizers in Europe possibly encouraging them to commit acts of terror.
Q. If we kill EVERYONE in Europe, will that end terrorism or make it worse?
A. Worse. Because it will enrage and provide a sense of justification and desire for revenge in sympathizers in Asia possibly encouraging them to commit acts of terror.
Q. If we kill EVERYONE in Asia , will that end terrorism or make it worse?
A. Worse. Because it will enrage and provide a sense of justification and desire for revenge in sympathizers in S. America possibly encouraging them to commit acts of terror.
Q. If we kill EVERYONE in S. America, will that end terrorism or make it worse?
A. Worse. Because it will enrage and provide a sense of justification and desire for revenge in sympathizers in Australia possibly encouraging them to commit acts of terror.
Q. What's left? Pretty soon you'll have killed EVERYONE in the world, will that end terrorism or make it worse?
Congratulations genius, war over, terorrism has been defeated. An eye for an eye has made the whole world dead.
HUH?
Conclusion: This a stupid way to fight suicidal terrorism and worse it is doomed to fail.
