“Violence begets violence” my ass.
I am sick to death of seeing and hearing this stupid statement. It may well be the stupidest grouping of three words in the English language. Think about what it says, for a minute:
violence begets violence
The base implication here is that absent violence, there is no violence. Circular reasoning, to say the least.
But in the land of the lefty peacenik, for whom all problems can be magically talked away, it means that if you resort to violence, then those that are against you will be violent right back.
But what do you do when the opening strike from your enemy is violence? Do you try to talk them out of it? We have seen throughout history what happens to those sort of people: they die, often badly (although I’m not certain there’s a good way to die, being shot in the face is probably not among the preferred ways to go).
I’ll tell you what you do: You respond with more violence. Of course, the argument that the lefties who so love this phrase will tell you that if you do that, you’ll only make them madder, and they’ll hit you harder, and it never ends until everyone is dead.
Bullshit.
Japan hit us on December 7, 1941. Was there an escalation of violence? Certainly. Until we reached a point where we had had enough. August 6, 1945. We hit Japan with a single strike so powerful that they finally realized that they could not prevail, and they capitulated.
There is one, and only one answer to the problem of Islamic Jihadism. We must hit them with such force that they are no longer willing to follow their twisted belief system into battle with us. Absent that, we must annihilate them and prevent their ideology from ever gaining power again. There is no non-violent way to resolve this issue.