If they decide that they can attack you, then you give it back a million times worse.
Right, just like the current US doctrine of massive retaliation, whereby any transgression by the hated enemy, however minor, is met with complete and total destruction by any and all means.
Oh, wait, that's right, they threw out that doctrine back in the 50's because it was completely
retarded. My bad.
Look at it this way: You're getting off a train, and a bloke bumps into you. You decide to punch the guy in the back of the head, because he totally deserves it. Yeah, way to go.
Look sir, its not my flag this time, and as long as all they do is burn flags and say they want us (all non-muslims) to die then there is not much of a problem. However, when they start killing people, action has to be taken.
Yes, killing some just pisses the rest off, but what are we suppose to do? just sit back and wait for them to attack and arrest them? Because you cant arrest a suicide bomber, and not going after them shows weakness and emboldens them so they can bolster their ranks, and recruit more people with no hope in life beyond blowing them selfs up so their families can have $10,000 (or less)
We sit back: Occasional suicide bombing or terrorist attack from splinter groups.
We take a unilateral action to stop those darn terry-rists: A living, breathing reason to attack the west is created, a spawning ground for extremist groups is generated, trillions of dollars and thousands of lives are spent.
Honestly? Sitting back looks pretty darn attractive. Hey, i'm still more likely to get struck by lightning than killed by a terrorist, so it's not like i'm taking a major risk here.
