Ugh, terrible. Connecticut School Shooting
Posted 19 May 2013 - 03:46 PM
Posted 19 May 2013 - 08:37 PM
Posted 20 May 2013 - 01:30 AM
There were over 150,000 women and children killed in the middle east in NON-COMBAT zones just this year, and in OUR NAME. keyword:blowback. Did you cry for them? oh... wait... They are brown people, so that doesn't matter.
I'm not sure how this has anything to do with the Connecticut shooting, myself. Though I understand the general point you're making.
I used to buy into the whole "blowback" thing pretty heavily. And, though I don't doubt, especially regarding lower-rung actors, that there is truth to the idea, I've come to believe blowback is a convenient meme, used in order to hide more nefarious details. The problem with blowback is that it gives one the impression that the planners (for lack of a better word) just couldn't imagine retaliation for their actions. And like good ol' G.W. said
"There's an old saying in Tennessee..."I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee that says, 'Fool me once, shame on uh... shame on you. Fool me... You can't get fooled again!'"
How many times does it take before these people know full well the implications of what they are doing. When one is in the business of war, "blowback", isn't such a bad thing. Consider it part of operational cost - overhead, if you will.
I'd like to see less talk about blowback and more questions, about say, "Why are the people that call themselves the U.S. gov't, arming 'al-Qaeda' in Syria". "Did Al-Zawahiri really receive U.S. residence? Was it because he fought for the CIA in Bosnia? I think questions like these shed some light on the whole, 'we just couldn't see this coming', idea that is inherent when discussing "blowback".
But again, how exactly that relates to Connecticut, is a bit of a stretch for me.
Posted 20 May 2013 - 09:43 AM
When one is in the business of war, "blowback", isn't such a bad thing. Consider it part of operational cost - overhead, if you will.
'Employment insurance,' if you will.