It is a war on terror and a long one

YouGov, an innovative polling company in the UK, surveys people in Britain after the foiled airline terror plot and finds:

* 73 percent believe we are in a war on terror: “Do you think that the West is in a global war against Islamic terrorists who threaten our way of life, or do you think that Islamic terrorism is a regional problem that poses no real threat to the West?” A vast majority goes for option 1.

* But 79 percent say we are not winning the war on terror. (No way to know whether the first person plural refers to the UK or the West, of course.)

* 14 percent say that Britain “should continue to align herself closely with the USA” on foreign policy; 45 percent say it should be closer to the EU; 27 percent say neither. Before you analyze this to mean that we should have a nicer foreign policy so those nasty terrorists don’t get mad at us and kill us, see this: Only 12 percent said that Britain should “change its foreign policy in response to the terrorist threat” by being “softer/ more conciliatory.” 53 percent said it should be “tougher/ more aggressive.” I leave it to you to define tough.

* A majority — 55 percent — favor profiling:” Passenger profiling is a recent term used to describe the process of selecting passengers based on their background or appearance. Would you like to see ‘passenger profiling’ introduced?” Only 29 percent said no.

* 69 percent want to detain terror suspects without charges for up to 90 days (a new law allows that there but only for 28 days).

* Do they think that Britis politicians “generally exaggerate the terrorist threat?” A plurality — 49 percent — said no. 12 percent said yes “because they are ill informed themselves” and 23 percent said yes “and they know that the truth is not as they portray it.”

* Do they feel safer than they did before 9/11? A tie: 46 percent yes and an equal number no.

* 86 percent believe it is fairly or very likely Britain will suffer another terrorist attack in the next year.

* 50 percent believe British Muslims are moderate; 28 percent believe they are not; the rest don’t know.

* 60 percent believe attacks from al Qaeda will get worse.

* Finally, how long do they believe the “conflict against Islamic terrorists such as Al-Q’aeda” will last? Less than a year: zero. 1-2 years: 2 percent. 3-5 years: 4 percent. 5-10 years: 12 percent. 10-20 years: 16 percent. More than 20 years: 44 percent.

[via The Guardian]

  • http://robertdfeinman.com/society Robert Feinman

    I guess fearmongering is working as well in the UK as in the US.

    George Soros had an WSJ op ed about this the other day.

    Soros asked people to forward it, so I did. Here’s a link to a copy:
    http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2006/8/15/181942/865

    This will serve to give the gist:

    The war on terror is a false metaphor that has led to counterproductive and self-defeating policies. Five years after 9/11, a misleading figure of speech applied literally has unleashed a real war fought on several fronts — Iraq, Gaza, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Somalia — a war that has killed thousands of innocent civilians and enraged millions around the world. Yet al Qaeda has not been subdued; a plot that could have claimed more victims than 9/11 has just been foiled by the vigilance of British intelligence.

  • Kat

    George Soros is right up there with Jimmy Carter as being a superb terrorist tool.

  • Kat

    When children are taught since birth that they should seek to suicide and kill, what does one expect? ‘In Hamas-run kindergartens, signs on the walls read: ‘The children of the kindergarten are the shaeeds (holy martyrs) of tomorrow’.” Sick.
    The least we can do is tell our children the truth: Over 10 million dead by muslim genocide—-and counting. Or is it just fearmongering–islam means peace because Soros says so?
    http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/

  • http://robertdfeinman.com/society Robert Feinman

    Here you are Kat a report of a program following your preferred approach:

    http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/15289315.htm

    A U.S.-backed plan to defeat Islamist militants in Pakistan’s autonomous tribal areas has backfired badly, and the Bush administration is working with Pakistan to come up with a new strategy to defuse the insurrection.

    Isn’t just too bad when our opponents just don’t behave the way we wish they would.

  • http://nichola24.blogspot.com Nichola

    “Introducing passenger profiling?” The West has been doing that since even before Sept. 11 in so-called “random” searches, in which they stop every person who doesn’t fit the stereotypical description of “American” or “British” or whatever. Not necessarily a bad thing, but let’s not pretend that it hasn’t already been happening for many, many years.

  • penny

    even before Sept. 11 in so-called “random” searches…

    Nichola, get real, before 9/11 there was no practice of random searches at US airports. The need wasn’t there. If it occured at all, it was an aberration.

  • penny

    Isn’t just too bad when our opponents just don’t behave the way we wish they would.

    Robert, are you rooting for these people or what? They aren’t “opponents” as in some status of political symmetry just as the Nazis were not “opponents” by any standard of English usage in their time. They were just frigging evil. Your choice of wording is fascinating.

    George Soros funds all of the leftist moonbats that decent Americans ignore in significant numbers. That you are on his mailing list makes sense.

  • http://robertdfeinman.com/society Robert Feinman

    Penny (and Kat) I don’t know how old you are, or how much history you have studied or lived through, but apparently not enough.

    I said:

    Isn’t just too bad when our opponents just don’t behave the way we wish they would.

    and you turn it into ad hominem attack on me:

    Robert, are you rooting for these people or what?

    then you go on to repeat the same theme that I have been arguing against for several days now:

    They were just frigging evil.

    They think we are frigging evil. Those on either side who see things in such stark terms can never be part of the solution.

    I’m not apologizing for anyone who commits attacks against other people whether civilians or soldiers, but to say they are evil rather than trying to find out what they really are interested in achieving means that we will misjudge them just as they misjudge us.

    My last chance to anyone to respond to my challenge posted in Jeff’s prior diary on this topic. How do you intend to combat this evil? Please give specific military or other plans. As the article I cited above indicates the present ideas aren’t working.

  • http://kalipuna.blogspot.com Dr. Mathews

    14 percent say that Britain “should continue to align herself closely with the USA” on foreign policy; 45 percent say it should be closer to the EU; 27 percent say neither.

    The Telegraph puts it this way:

    …by a margin of more than five to one – the public wants Tony Blair to split from President George W Bush and either go it alone in the “war on terror”, or work more closely with Europe.

    While there was strong support for a hard line on terrorism at home, the survey exposed deep-seated distrust of the foreign policies championed by Mr Bush since September 11, 2001. Only 14 per cent believed Britain should continue to align itself with America.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/Content/displayPrintable.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/08/17/nterror17.xml&site=5&page=0

    As for those so called “terrorist bombers”, some people raise serious questions about the alleged plot.

    None of the alleged terrorists had made a bomb. None had bought a plane ticket. Many did not even have passports, which given the efficiency of the UK Passport Agency would mean they couldn’t be a plane bomber for quite some time.

    In the absence of bombs and airline tickets, and in many cases passports, it could be pretty difficult to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt that individuals intended to go through with suicide bombings, whatever rash stuff they may have bragged in internet chat rooms.

    http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2006/08/the_uk_terror_p.html

    Instead of jumping to conclusions, why don’t we let the investigation take its course. Some people seem overly anxious to prejudge and condemn.

  • Kat

    {her than trying to find out what they really are interested in achieving means that we will misjudge } A CALIPHATE you blind bat. You tell me how you propose we appease them. Will you be their dhimmi? Agree to kill all the Jews? Help them cleanse Africa of those nasty Blacks so pure Arabs can rule? Turn your back as muslims genocide all non muslims so they can muslimize the land? Replace the Bible with the Koran? Agree to sharia? Sell your soul to the islamnic devil? What would you do?

  • Kat

    Prior to 911, they new about Atta and the rest of the garbage–they ignored a flying instructor’s fears, they ignored everything because they did not want to prejudge and condemn—-and 3000 people paid. Would you be happier if they were tried after the fact?

  • http://kalipuna.blogspot.com Dr. Mathews

    If you end up accusing, arresting and punishing the wrong people (ie. the innocent) you run the risk of creating more “terrorists”. That is probably why the British poll showed a deep-seated distrust of the foreign policies championed by Mr Bush since September 11, 2001.

  • Kat

    And if you do nothing and cover terrorist acts like Clinton did, you create more terrorists–that’s why Clinton is so trusted by terrorists. They even presented him with a special koran. Then they went out and continued planning 911….after failing the first time.

  • http://kalipuna.blogspot.com Dr. Mathews

    Iraq under Saddam Hussein had lots of nasty problems, but it was not a center for terrorist activities directed against the United States. Now, however, Iraq is such a battleground, and real terrorists exploit the US occupation as a tool for recruitment and fundraising.
    http://www.mideasti.org/articles/doc305.html

  • Kat

    Iraq was paying suicide bombers’ families. Iraq was a supporter of terrorists. And you were OK with the atrocities under saddam and his demented sons? Did you want to wait till he formally conducted a terrorist act against he US?
    {“Saddam Hussein was also the first leader to use chemical weapons against his own population, silencing more than 60 villages and 30,000 citizens with poisonous gas. Between 1983 and 1988 alone, he murdered more than 30,000 Iraqi citizens with mustard gas and nerve agents. Several international organizations claim that he killed more than 60,000 Iraqi citizens with chemicals, including large numbers of women and children.” }
    The following were routine under saddam.
    * Medical experimentation
    * Beatings
    * Crucifixion
    * Hammering nails into the fingers and hands
    * Amputating sex organs or breasts with an electric carving knife
    * Spraying insecticides into a victim’s eyes
    * Branding with a hot iron
    * Committing rape while the victim’s spouse is forced to watch
    * Pouring boiling water into the victim’s rectum
    * Nailing the tongue to a wooden board
    * Extracting teeth with pliers
    * Using bees and scorpions to sting naked children in front of their parents
    Does this sound familiar to you? Medical experimentation? Routine torture for the fun of it? Does it remind you of Nazi Germany.
    {I was curious just how many people Saddam and his buddies had killed during their 25 year reign. After a lot of digging, I found State Department reports that showed the following:

    From IRAQ: CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY – Leaders as Executioners

    2040 deaths

    Executed opponents and suspected potential rivals, including scores of high-level government officials and thousands of political prisoners.

    1070000 deaths

    The 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war left 150,000 to 340,000 Iraqis and 450,000 to 730,000 Iranians dead.

    1000 deaths

    Ordered the invasion and destruction of Kuwait in 1990-91 with 1,000 Kuwaitis killed.

    60000 deaths

    Directed the 1991 bloody suppression of Kurdish and Shi’a insurgencies in northern and southern Iraq with at least 30,000 to 60,000 killed.

    7000 deaths

    Periodically ordered during 1988-99 mass prison executions of several thousand inmates (“prison cleansing”).

    20000 deaths

    Known as Saddam’s “Shi’a thug”, he violently suppressed the 1991 Shi’a uprisings after the Gulf War with tens of thousands killed.

    From Saddam’s Brutality Against the Iraqi People

    100000 deaths

    The campaign resulted in the death of at least 50,000 to 100,000 Iraqi Kurds, according to Human Rights Watch reports.

    2000 deaths

    During the 1991 Iraqi repression of the post-Gulf war Kurdish insurrection, thousands of Iraqi Kurds died, 500,000 became refugees along northern Iraq’s “no-fly zone” bordering Turkey, and 1.2 to 1.4 million other refugees fled to Iran.

    For good measure, I checked for data on refugees as well:

    From War Crimes

    900000 refugees

    The Iraqi government’s campaign of forced deportations of Kurdish and Turkomen families to southern Iraq has created approximately 900,000 internally displaced citizens throughout the country.

    From Saddam’s Brutality Against the Iraqi People

    1900000 refugees

    During the 1991 Iraqi repression of the post-Gulf war Kurdish insurrection, thousands of Iraqi Kurds died, 500,000 became refugees along northern Iraq’s “no-fly zone” bordering Turkey, and 1.2 to 1.4 million other refugees fled to Iran.

    From Destroying the Marshes

    240000 refugees

    By 1993 the marshes sheltered 200,000 to 250,000 inhabitants — more than half Marsh Arabs; the rest various internally displaced persons and oppositionists. Today, nearly all are displaced — less than 10,000 Marsh Arabs still survive the regime’s systematic destruction, bulldozing, and artillery bombardments, while thousands were secretly executed by Iraqi forces, including women and children.

    From Invading Kuwait

    1,500,000 refugees

    It is estimated that 1.5 million people were displaced abroad by Iraq’s occupation of Kuwait, while the remaining 750,000 endured brutalities, rape, oppression, torture, and more than 1,000 were killed.

    So a reasonable read of these numbers shows that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was responsible for the deaths of 1.26 million Iraqis and other Arabs, and for the creation of 4.54 million refugees. That is what we’re stopping in Iraq.

    Next, the mathematician in me said, “Those numbers are too big to grasp. Let’s break them down to something I can comprehend.” Finally, I decided to turn them into daily averages. The result: 138 Iraqis and other Arabs killed per day, and 497 refugees created. That is what we’re stopping in Iraq.

    And that, finally, led me to this calculation: on average, how many Iraqi and Arab lives have we saved so far? With an average of 138 lives saved per day since March 20, 2003, the answer today is 39744. I call this The NoBody Count, for two reasons:

    1. Thanks to our brave troops, there are no new bodies in The Mass Graves.

    2. If you listen to the partisan hacks, these lives saved don’t count. They’re NoBodies.

    But you know, I’ll bet they think they’re not NoBodies. Their families don’t think they’re NoBodies. So let’s keep counting those NoBodies. They’re important.
    Blog o’RAM }

  • penny

    Dr. Mathews – Dream on. The terrorists and their savage behavior has been have been increasing over four decades, taking advantage of the period when they escaped judgement and no one confronted their murder and mayhem directly. The Munich Olympics serve as a starting point in aiding and abetting them. Like your buddy, Feinman, you are pathetic. Nothing furthers their goals better than the demeanor of amoral slobs like yourselves. It’s past the point, like in the 1930′s, where Useful Idiot isn’t an appropriate description of you both.

    Equivocate, appease, rationalize, loathe America all you want. Most of us see you for what you are.

  • bittorent

    The Americans and their savage behavior has been increasing over four decades, taking advantage of the period when they escaped judgement and no one confronted their murder and mayhem directly.

    Vietnam anyone? Now Iraq.

    Now some people ARE confronting you.

    The problem is we have made a balls up of Iraq. Bush and Blair wouldn’t listen to people who knew better (like the British Foreign Office with hundreds of years of experience dealing with that region).

    And what is ‘al Qaeda’ anyway? According to the BBC series by Adam Curtis The Power of Nightmares (available at archive.org), the American Government came up with the name al Qaeda because they needed an umbrella name for Osama and friends. So a bogeyman invented by the US Government to scare people with.

  • Kat

    Gawd–no al queda–they just get stupider and stupider. I bet you believe there was no holocaust and that the US planned 911 and it was Jews disguised as muslims.

  • Eileen

    Nah, Kat, bittorent thinks It’s doing It’s jihadi duty to Allah – spit be upon him and his IT warrior, too.

    If you want to know the mind of a terrorist or it’s f/tools, just visit here daily. The apologists of evil all find succor in their mutual depravity. What a grand club, indeed! Keep talkin’, slimeballs. I’m sure all the right men/women are listening in and know exactly how to find you.

    [And thanks, Kat, for your well wishes. That lake is still the most beautiful in the world. It's a place where you can walk by a rabbit nibbling on greenery within only a few feet and it doesn't run away... where deer come to drink...where butterflies roam. It is truly appaling what one finds when one returns to 'reality'.]

    Mathews? You need to start reading LGF, where NEWS of plenty of evidence of bomb making materials have already been uncovered in the Kings Woods. LGF = LittleGreenFootballs.com. Oh, and Mathews and your ilk, did you hear about the Pakistani woman caught trying to board a plane with explosives in water bottles today in West Virginia? Keep napping, keep yapping, while Islam mows you down.

    Islam is the enemy.

    Repeat.

  • Eileen

    Here’s something else that’s appalling. The Mghty MSM somehow managed to turn on a dime and produce a timely piece on Jon Benet Ramsey on ABC tonight. But ever since 9/11 they have not managed to even Once produce a ‘timely piece’ on the plague of Islam….an up to the minute report of all the genocide, murder and mayhem being perpetrated in the name of Muhammed which is occuring globally…an educational piece on the true aims of the Religion of Bombers and Beheaders.

    Wonder what the poll results would be if they ever did THAT??

    Apologists, enablers, tools, all.

  • Eileen

    A question.

    Is anyone aware of a web site which tracks ALLLLLLLLLLL the names/derivations thereof of IslamicFASCIST groups which are operational (such a kind term), country by country, day by day, minute by minute….and their web sites, and their Imams’ names…and their ‘charities’…and their bankers and supporters…and to which muslamic countries they’re tied…and to which branch of Islam they’re alligned?

    It’s too big a job, you say? [Of course it's too big a job for the MSM, don't we know.]

    If that doesn’t give you pause, I doubt you’re anything other than a jihadist or an enabler of Satanic Islam.

  • http://oxfordalliance.blogspot.com/2006/08/slightly-off-topic.html Tom

    Eileen writes:Mathews? You need to start reading LGF, where NEWS of plenty of evidence of bomb making materials have already been uncovered in the Kings Woods. LGF = LittleGreenFootballs.com. Oh, and Mathews and your ilk, did you hear about the Pakistani woman caught trying to board a plane with explosives in water bottles today in West Virginia? Keep napping, keep yapping, while Islam mows you down.

    Eileen,

    I heard about a US citizen of Pakistani origins who was accused of trying to board a plane with explosives. As it’s being reported in the UK, she was actually trying to board a plane with a bottle of water and a container of hand lotion. Is this an example of the bbc’s biased reporting? Do you have some better information about the incident?

    Tom
    (US citizen posting from the UK)

  • http://oxfordalliance.blogspot.com/2006/08/slightly-off-topic.html Tom

    Eileen writes: The apologists of evil all find succor in their mutual depravity. What a grand club, indeed! Keep talkin’, slimeballs. I’m sure all the right men/women are listening in and know exactly how to find you.

    Eileen,

    I don’t think there has been any post in these discussions that defends terror or terrorism. I’ve seen post that disagree with your analysis, but unless you are claiming to be omniscient and infallible (and I don’t think you are) your reports and opinions (e.g West Virginia) are as subject to mistake as anyone’s. To disagree with you isn’t to support terror.

    I think we disagree on the import of the KLA problem. You seem to think it irrelevant. I don’t. However, I think it would be too great a leap for me to claim, on the basis of your uninformed opinion, that you are an apologist for bin-Laden’s KLA, and support its genocidal acts in the Balkans.

    Tom
    (US citizen in the UK)

  • http://oxfordalliance.blogspot.com/2006/08/slightly-off-topic.html Tom

    Eileen writes: If that doesn’t give you pause, I doubt you’re anything other than a jihadist or an enabler of Satanic Islam.

    Eileen, If you support the Clinton/Bush policy in the Balkans, you are supporting the very jihadist you claim to abhor.

    Numbers game in Kosovo, Washington Times, Nov 19
    Phyllis Schlafly

    The embarrassing truth is starting to come out that the Clinton administration lied to us about Kosovo atrocities, which were supposed to justify the bombing of Yugoslavia. In five months of investigation, and exhumation of the dead in Kosovo, U.N. war crimes investigators have found only 2,108 bodies.

    Before the bombing, Mr. Clinton and Defense Secretary William Cohen repeatedly tossed out figures of 100,000 dead, and the State Department even claimed that up to 500,000 Kosovars were feared dead. Mr. Clinton claimed that his bombing prevented Slobodan Milosevic from “deliberate, systematic efforts at ethnic cleansing and genocide.”

    Pathologist Emilio Perez Pujol, who led a Spanish forensic team looking for bodies, found only 187, mostly in individual graves. He calculated that “the final figure of dead in Kosovo will be 2,500 at the most. This includes lots of strange deaths that can’t be blamed on anyone in particular.”

    The British, who seem to be more interested in getting to the truth than Congress, are pressuring Foreign Secretary Robin Cook to answer claims that Tony Blair’s government misled the public over the scale of deaths in order to justify NATO’s bombing of Belgrade. Alice Mahon, the Labor member of Parliament who chairs the Balkans committee, said that the Kosovo deaths were tragic, but did not justify the killing of Belgrade civilians by NATO’s bombing.

    Lacking a constitutional or national security basis for his Yugoslav adventure, Mr. Clinton relied wholly on the humanitarian argument. That rationale has fallen apart because the numbers of Mr. Milosevic’s reported crimes in Kosovo were so grossly inflated, the indiscriminate damage done by the Clinton-NATO bombing raids was so vast and all the people he said he was helping are far worse off than before the bombing started. . . .

    The only people happy about the Yugoslavia debacle are the globalists who want America to be perpetually engaged in foreign conflicts. . . .
    http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a383733326c5a.htm

    I’m not a big fan of Schlafly, but perhaps she is a source you will accept as credible?

    Doesn’t it strike you as odd that Bush is holding to a Clinton policy that goes against the grain of his administration’s rhetoric on terror? Is there a hidden agenda?

    An editorial in yesterday’s Washington Times states:

    The West should stop blaming the Serbs for something they have not done — attempting to establish “Greater Serbia,” and the Israelis for something they cannot do — give up Jerusalem along with their future security and survival. Solutions to grave world problems cannot be achieved by willfully disregarding the historical and legitimate aspirations of nations and people. Moreover, democracy, tolerance, the rule of law and respect for human rights and for religious and cultural diversity cannot be secured and sustained by double standards.

    On August 16, 2006 the Washington Timesincluded the following:

    After Serbia was bombed to submission in a “humanitarian” war in 1999, Kosovo was given to the United Nations for administration — with catastrophic results. Quickly, the province was methodically and ethically cleansed. It is now monoethnic. More than 150 Christian churches and old monasteries have been destroyed, while some 200 new mosques and a number of schools for the young were feverishly built by Wahhabi funds.

    On August 15, 2006 edition of the Washington Times you will find:

    The Balkan realities also show a great adaptability of Islamists to present a worldly, democratic face. Readily accepted by the West, Bosnian leader and fundamentalist Islamist Alija Izetbegovic was tolerated and praised as a democrat. Nevertheless, in his book “The Islamic Declaration” Izetbegovic asserted absolute validity of dominance of Islam: “There can be neither peace nor coexistence between Islamic religion and non-Islamic social and political institutions,” he wrote. Later in the war, Mr. Izetbegovic was influenced and financially and militarily supported by fundamentalist Islamists (including Osama bin Laden).

    (I have left out the links to the passages above in order to avoid Jeff’s spam catcher. If you can’t find the text, I’ll include the links in a separate post.)

  • Jim Karna

    Turns out it was just a women of Pakistani origin boarding a plane rather than a Pakistani women carrying a bomb on a plane…”Tests on suspect liquids that led to the evacuation of an airport terminal in Huntington, West Virginia, have shown no explosives, officials say…The woman has now been cleared to travel as early as Friday morning, the BBC’s Nick Miles reports from the Tri-State airport. ”

    Excuse the scepticism about the current foiled plot… following the lack of convictions or evidence following the foiled ricin plot in north london and the shooting of an innocent man in forest gate i can understand craig murrays cynicism in the telegraph

    interesting to think Kat, that for most of the time sadam hussein (a secular rather than a theocratic dictator) was executing kurds and shia he was a pretty close friend of the US.
    (Here’s Donald with his good friend – http://www.injusticebusters.com/index.htg/00001/saddam_Rumsfeld.jpg)

    Do you not see any sense in what Soros says?

    The Power of Nightmares series was incredible – perhaps not to be taken as gospel but makes an interesting point

    Kat, Penny, Eileen as you see any political compromise as leftist pandering to the “gut busters” what do you see as the solution? More Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo’s? More intervention against islamic governments to promote democracy (is Saudi Arabia exempt as despite a strict theocratic sharia regime with a less than palatable human rights record they’re happy to help out in the war on terror)? Perhaps just put all the arab looking people in the US in camps to pre-emptively stop them blowing themselves up – worked with the Japanese Americans 60 years ago.

    You spend a lot of time railing against islamofacism and the liberal tools there of without suggesting any way for a better world. Maybe that’s the malady of the left that too much time is spent on idealism while the right gets on with looking after itself?

  • http://oxfordalliance.blogspot.com/2006/08/slightly-off-topic.html Tom

    Penny writes:Feinman, you are pathetic. Nothing furthers their goals better than the demeanor of amoral slobs like yourselves. It’s past the point, like in the 1930’s, where Useful Idiot isn’t an appropriate description of you both.

    Equivocate, appease, rationalize, loathe America all you want. Most of us see you for what you are.

    I honestly have not read anything by Feinman that suggests that he loathes America, or supports terrorism. It is fair to say that his analysis differs from your own, but disagreement isn’t evidence of amorality.
    Do you consider the following unpatriotic and amoral:

    The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim. . . .

    Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.
    http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm

    Guess who said that?

    Ans: George Washington

    Tom
    (US citizen in the UK)

  • http://oxfordalliance.blogspot.com/2006/08/slightly-off-topic.html Tom

    Jim Karna writes: Maybe that’s the malady of the left that too much time is spent on idealism while the right gets on with looking after itself?

    Jim,

    I don’t think either the left (Democrats) or the right (Republicans) spends ‘too much time on idealism.’ There is ample evidence that both left and right operate on the principle of self-interest.

    Tom

    I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

    This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

    The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

    . . . the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

    It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

    There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

    It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position.
    http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm

  • http://oxfordalliance.blogspot.com/2006/08/slightly-off-topic.html Tom

    Jim Karna asks: More intervention against islamic governments to promote democracy (is Saudi Arabia exempt as despite a strict theocratic sharia regime with a less than palatable human rights record they’re happy to help out in the war on terror)?

    I think that’s a pretty good question.

    If all true Muslims are committed to terrorism (as some imply), then the fundamentalist Saudi state, the birthplace of Islam, is a breeding ground for terrorism, and a threat to our existence.

  • http://robertdfeinman.com/society Robert Feinman

    Kat, Penny and fellow travelers:

    This should warm your morning coffee:
    http://civillibertarian.blogspot.com/

    Note: I don’t take any position on the author’s views. But I think you would have a much better time debating him on his site than clogging up Jeff’s with what is mostly a side issue here.

    All I have ever maintained is that there are two sides to every issue and one needs to understand both if realistic solutions are to be arrived at. Apparently that makes me a friend of “terrorists”. I hereby abdicate, I’m guessing that Jason Miller will be pleased to carry on the discussion in my stead.

  • http://www.downes.ca Stephen Downes

    I guess what makes YouGov an “innovative” polling company is their disregard for appropriate polling methodology.

    They ask, for example, “Should the Government have done more to make air travel safer BEFORE the alleged terrorist plot was uncovered on 10th August?”

    Guess what answer the poll expects?

    And another question is worded as follows: “Passenger profiling is a recent term used to describe the process of selecting passengers based on their background or appearance. Would you like to see ‘passenger profiling’ introduced?”

    This definition of ‘passenger profiling’ is debatable at best. And once again, the preferences of the pollster are apparent to the reader.

    A professional journalist would recognize this bias and dismiss the poll accordingly. A political hack will play it up as though it were news and in some way representative of the opinions and beliefs of Britons after the incident.

  • http://staticsquid.blogspot.com/ simonh

    Not for nothing is YouGov known as ‘Whatever you want, guv’ in the UK. Its reputation is for providing whatever results the sponsor requires. Its methodolgy has repeatedly been criticised and its polls should be taken with a giant pinch of salt.

  • http://www.opteamal.ch/blog/ Peter

    Robert Feinman, congratulations for your patience :-) Obviously Kat, Penny & Eileen do not want to or are not able to grasp the facts that there are always two sides to a conflict, that there are principles of cause and effect at play, that a solution can never be reached in one-sided blindness and hatred and that a solution can only be reached by eliminating the roots of the problem, not its symptoms. This is not the first such thread on this blog. They do not reply to any statements reflecting on these facts, they merely lash out at everybody being a “terrorist tool” (or add worse insults).

    Ponder on this, ladies:
    * But 79 percent say we are not winning the war on terror. (No way to know whether the first person plural refers to the UK or the West, of course.)
    * Finally, how long do they believe the “conflict against Islamic terrorists such as Al-Q’aeda” will last? More than 20 years: 44 percent.

    Too bad when you’re fighting a war you’re not winning that will last for a long time. I say it’s a war you cannot win no matter how long you try – unless you eliminate the roots of the problem. The USA, UK and Israel are currently doing exactly the opposite of that, they make the roots of the problem grow bigger and bigger.

    So please tell us how you think you are going to win this war that you seem to support so happily?

  • http://www.oxfordalliance.blogspot.com Tom

    Peter asks: So please tell us how you think you are going to win this war that you seem to support so happily?

    The first step is to eliminate strategies that play into the terrorists’ hands. That would include:

    1. Not invading regions directly; supply and support indigenous forces
    2. Avoid military and economic overextension
    3. Seek (not impose) political unity at home.

    The Bush administration has more or less struck out in the opposite direction.

    What you need to do is to remove the superpower’s influence from the region. Naji doesn’t have any delusions as to the relative strength of the jihadis versus the United States, but he does believe that you can make the United States withdraw its influence. And the model he points to is the Soviet Union and Afghanistan.

    Naji advises provoking the superpower into invading the region directly, and this does several things for the jihadi movement. It’s a major propaganda victory for the jihadis because by attacking the superpower directly, they’re seen as standing up to the crusader. But when they attack the local government, they’re seen as fighting other Muslims, which is a major public-relations problem for them. By forcing the United States to come in directly, they can be seen as standing up to the great worldwide oppressor.

    The second thing this tactic does is, if you can bog the United.States down in the region, it will remove its aura of invincibility that Naji says is supported by the media. And he says once you’ve dispelled this aura of invincibility, then you can persuade more and more people to join your cause and to agitate against local governments. And these local governments, if they’re allied with the superpower, will be put under a lot of pressure.

    And then finally, what you can achieve with the superpower invading directly is that they will be overextended militarily and economically the longer that they stay. And that, eventually, will cause a lot of social divisions at home, and the superpower will have to withdraw its forces. Its influence will be greatly diminished in the region. Iraq is the best example of this.
    http://www.ctc.usma.edu/naji.asp

  • http://www.oxfordalliance.blogspot.com Tom

    Correction: Point 1. in my previous comment should read: Invading regions directly; rather support and supply friendly indigenous forces.

  • penny

    supply and support indigenous forces

    Aside from the fact that is exactly what we are trying to facilitating in Iraq, good guy forces, a good thing, just how would that have come about with Saddam still in place? I can hardly point to any other forces of merit coming to our assistance in the WOT in the region. Saudis, Egyptians and Jordanians haven’t exactly stepped up to the plate with forces to put in place with us.

    Here’s sound strategy that won’t play into the terrorists hands: destroy them by every means possible with ever evolving and multiple strategies. Destroy the Taliban and most AQ bases in Afghanistan(done), create an enduring Arab democracy, if possible, in the heart of the ME(Iraq); use surveillance to monitor terrorist activities, funding and to foil their attacks(the Patriot Act), protect our citizens(Homeland Security), appeal to allies(done that and got nowhere with France, Russia, and the UN), support Israel in it’s war with Hezbollah(ongoing)……….those just a few of the things that Bush has been doing over the years. Perhaps, you haven’t noticed.

  • http://www.oxfordalliance.blogspot.com Tom

    Penny asks: Aside from the fact that is exactly what we are trying to facilitating in Iraq, good guy forces, a good thing, just how would that have come about with Saddam still in place?

    You question assumes that Iraq was the right target, but was it?

    Consider this, with Saddam in power the Shia’s in Iraq were held in control. If it becomes necessary to take action against Iran, that may indeed be significant.

    There are (and were) plenty of al-Qaida and Iranian targets (financial and military) within reach of indigenous forces in Bosnia, Albania and Kosovo. Unlike Iraq, the indigenous force in the region (the Serbian military) is an effective and disciplined fighting force. We, of course, did not support the Serbs. Bad decision.

    There are clear indications of the importance of the “Albanian Initiative”, i.e., the Iranian penetration into Albania. The meeting of the Iranian Supreme Economic Council at the beginning of 1998, dealt exclusively with the situation in Albania. The Council vice-chairman Bezavah Navabi, the new trustee for the coordination of the public social-economic initiative in Albania, took part in the meeting, along with other influential officials – Mohsen Nurbakan – governor of the Iranian Central Bank, as well as the prime figures of the relevant Iranian institutions and ministries. Furthermore, Navabi was instructed to coordinate the work and the activities with the Iranian intelligence structures. He suggested that a long term plan be drafted and launched to promote three Iranian long-term objectives in Albania:

    Forming a commercial operative base near the “heart of Europe” (Germany, France, Italy, Benelux, Switzerland).

    Reinforcing the strategic axis towards Sarajevo and Tirana, linked to intensified subversive Islamic political presence.

    Organizing advanced posts for the Iranian Intelligence Service, to allow it to carry out operations and perform assignments concerning the penetration into Italy, Austria, Greece and further on into the European continent.

    The implementation of the Teheran plans has already started. Operating through Iranian semi-official organizations and foundations, the Iranian Intelligence Service has created contacts with numerous Islamic and Iranian trade companies and businessmen in the major Albanian cities and established channels for making and financing new representative offices. Meanwhile, Teheran took comprehensive steps to secure economic support and strengthen the ties with Albania through Arab-Islamic banking institutions. This is almost the exclusive source of hard currency input into Albania, and by positioning loyal figures at the very top of the financial oligarchy, Teheran transformed most of the local banks and financial institutions ensuring an undisturbed and permanent Iranian presence and penetration in all segments of the Albanian society. These banks have established formal ties with several Iranian banks thus fully legalizing the Iranian presence in all spheres of financing. This resulted in the complete acceptance of the Iranian presence as a normal and even desirable situation. Mohsen Nurbakan instructed those banks to invest in Albania regardless of poor profit and business risk factors. Officials of the Iranian financial intelligence are deployed in all Teheran’s institutions in Albania and cooperate closely with the operatives of the Intelligence Affairs Ministry regarding the financing of terrorist training camps, purchase of arms and military equipment, “money laundering” and other activities.

    http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980000-kla-petkovic-terror.htm#_Toc425962837

  • http://www.oxfordalliance.blogspot.com Tom

    Penny writes: Here’s sound strategy that won’t play into the terrorists hands: . . . create an enduring Arab democracy, if possible, in the heart of the ME(Iraq) . . . .

    If we fail to create an enduring Arab democracy in Iraq (and there are more than a few senior commanders (US) and diplomats who acknowledge that failure is a real possibility), then we will have played into the terrorists’ hands.

    Note McCants’ observation: . . . finally, what you can achieve with the superpower invading directly is that they will be overextended militarily and economically the longer that they stay. And that, eventually, will cause a lot of social divisions at home, and the superpower will have to withdraw its forces. Its influence will be greatly diminished in the region. Iraq is the best example of this. (link provided in a previous post)

    Penny continues: (the Patriot Act)

    So in order to avoid living under Islamic tyranny all we need to do is work on creating a police state? That doesn’t sound like much of a win to me. Removing the obstacles to tyranny to fight tyranny is at best unfortunate.

    In the UK The Prevention of Terror Act has been used to outlaw political protest near Parliament and to prevent a member (an old man) of the Labour Party (Blair’s party) from voicing dissent. Of course the law was not intended to be used that way, but give an inch and . . . .

    Penny: appeal to allies(done that and got nowhere with France, Russia, and the UN)

    And you don’t think that played into our enemies hands?

    Penny: support Israel

    That’s been a feature of US policy for decades. It is hardly a Bush accomplishment.

    Penny: those just a few of the things that Bush has been doing over the years. Perhaps, you haven’t noticed.

    Yes, I have noticed.

    So you list one maybe (democracy in Iraq), one questionable (The Patriot Act), one failure (appeal to allies), and one continuation of an existing policy (Israel); and conclude Bush has been a busy boy, and pursued a strategy that won’t play into terrorist hands?

  • Kat

    To win this war, we can’t fight a politically correct war and be afraid to hurt the feelings of the terrorists. We must identify the enemy–musllim gutblowers. Then we do what we are doing. We do what Britain did. We profile muslim men and not apologize for that. We plant people in mosques and find out what goes on in there. We pay closer attention to the curriculum in muslim schools. We stop muslim immigration if we have to. We deport all muslims involved in terrorist activities without question. We pass a law that allows us to hold them for a minimum of 90 days without charges. We confront muslims and demand that they be accountable for the terrorists they are breeding. We do what we did to the Nazis. Destroy them. If they bomb another building in America, I’d be in favor of bombing the mosque in Mecca. We need to stop thinking we are the root cause and admit that this interpretation of the koran is. We need to send troops to Darfur to stop the genocide and STOP PANDERING TO ISLAMIC TERRORISTS.

  • http://oxfordalliance.blogspot.com/2006/08/slightly-off-topic.html Tom

    Kat writes: We need to send troops to Darfur to stop the genocide and STOP PANDERING TO ISLAMIC TERRORISTS.

    Kat,

    I agree with your sentiment, if not your strategy.

    Now for the broken record message. There is genocide against the Serbs by Islamic terrorist even as I write this. We are preventing the Serbs from dealing with the problem. Before we send more troops anywhere, let us first unleash the people who would be our fighting allies in this struggle.

    If our objective is to defeat AQ, then let us make that our priority. If we trapse into Darfur, we will once again become sidetracked. Focus on the mission. We need to get out of the world policeman role asap. That is exactly the role AQ wants us to take.

    There are lots of bad things happening in the world (Darfur, Zimbabwe . . .), but we do not have the resource to fight on all fronts. Let’s invest our energy where we can produce tangible and unequivocal results in the war against AQ and its minions.

  • http://kalipuna.blogspot.com D. Mathews

    Penny says:Destroy the Taliban and most AQ bases in Afghanistan(done),

    According to (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5437852), “Afghanistan is experiencing the worst fighting involving the Taliban since the fundamentalist Islamic movement was overthrown in late 2001.”

    Penny says:create an enduring Arab democracy, if possible, in the heart of the ME(Iraq)

    Hmmm… Maybe you should tell that to Bush as he has other plans (http://progressive.org/mag_wx081706): “Bush Contemplates Rebirth of Dictatorship for Iraq”

    Penny says:Support Israel in it’s war with Hezbollah(ongoing) I’ll say (http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2006/08/leaving_the_bat.html): “What is clear is that Hizbullah’s forces remain in place all over the disputed zone and that its command and control of its forces remains effective.”

    Kat says: We profile muslim men and not apologize for that

    The Timothy McVeighs and Terry Nichols will be very grateful for that I’m sure!

  • http://kalipuna.blogspot.com D. Mathews

    create an enduring Arab democracy, if possible, in the heart of the ME(Iraq)

    Bush seems to have abandoned that idea: Bush Contemplates Rebirth of Dictatorship for Iraq

    http://progressive.org/mag_wx081706

  • http://www.digitalstreetjournal.com Jonathan Trenn

    In reading all of what has been written here, I have to say that I can’t believe how much I disagree with so many of you.

    Robert -

    I agree that the metaphor “War of Terror” can be a bit of a misnomer, but what else can be used. Sure, are enemies – not opponents – are not monolithic and may have legitimate grievences, let’s not forget what we’ve seen over the past few years. There is a now a geopolitical battle between much of western society and radicalized Islamic forces – be it groups, religious figures, wealthy individuals, and millions of adherents.

    This battle to define concept of ‘evil’ has become a red herring. While I agree with the basic point of Robert – that there are two sides to every story and that it is not a matter of good vs. evil and that we must try to understand our ‘opponents’ (I’d use the term enemy), we can’t lose site of the fact that these opponents/enemies have shown that they have little regard for human life and innocent civilians. Blowing up airplanes. Riots of insulting cartoons. Potentially sentencing a Christian convert to death in Afghanistan.

    And I’ve just read this guy Jason Miller’s blog and he’s obviously viciously anti-American. He tries to play the ‘above it all’ academic/intellectual type, but he clearly has a viewpoint (that American is bad) and works it into practically every post. While he doesn’t defend Islamic terrorism – it’s indefensible – he always finds a way to criticize and condemn the United States. Regarding al Qeuda and bin Laden’s claims he, or another contributor to the blog writes “Osama bin Laden, the ‘face of terrorism’ in the minds of many Westerners, has repeatedly stated that Al Qaeda will end its violent actions if the United States withdraws its military from the Middle East and ends its support of Israel. Reasonable demands, actually, when one considers the millions of Arabs, Persians, and others indigenous to that region who have suffered or died as a result of Western intervention in the Middle East.

    REASONABLE DEMANDS? Horsehit on that! The entire site is written by people who, regardless of their citizenship, hate the US. They are the types who simply cannot discuss ANY political situation we are involved in without attacking us. They will not, can not, and choose not to even use a hint of objectivity because they are blinded by their hatred.
    These are the ‘blame America first’ types that have helped destroy the viablility of the American left.

    I know you wrote that you don’t take any position on the authors views, but I’m wondering why you chose to offer these arguments in your ‘stead’.

    All, Take a look at Jason Miller’s artwork:
    http://www.thefreespeechzone.net/politicalart.html

    Kat

    You wrote:
    “raq was paying suicide bombers’ families. Iraq was a supporter of terrorists. And you were OK with the atrocities under Saddam and his demented sons? Did you want to wait till he formally conducted a terrorist act against the US?”

    I find your reasoning faulty. After 9/11, our greatest threat came from a religious based group of extremists from al Queda, not from the secular government of Saddam Hussein. All of what you say is true regarding the tyrannical viciousness of Saddam, but that doesn’t mean he was going to attack us. And there are plenty more scum like he who are leading countries.

    You go on to say:
    “And that, finally, led me to this calculation: on average, how many Iraqi and Arab lives have we saved so far? With an average of 138 lives saved per day since March 20, 2003, the answer today is 39744. I call this The NoBody Count, for two reasons:
    1. Thanks to our brave troops, there are no new bodies in The Mass Graves.
    2. If you listen to the partisan hacks, these lives saved don’t count. They’re NoBodies.
    But you know, I’ll bet they think they’re not NoBodies. Their families don’t think they’re NoBodies. So let’s keep counting those NoBodies. They’re important.”

    I find this point to be absurd. Tell that to the innocent civilians who were buying groceries at a local market but were blown to bits by a suicide bomber. In case you haven’t noticed, the situation in Iraq right now completely sucks and is out of control. Our own military leaders admit as much.

    And finally you write:
    “If they bomb another building in America, I’d be in favor of bombing the mosque in Mecca.”

    Great idea Kat. Well thought out. Then we’ll have over a billion people after us.

    Bit Torrent

    You wrote:
    “And what is ‘al Qaeda’ anyway? According to the BBC series by Adam Curtis The Power of Nightmares (available at archive.org), the American Government came up with the name al Qaeda because they needed an umbrella name for Osama and friends. So a bogeyman invented by the US Government to scare people with.”

    Another absurd comment. We made al Queda up. A bogeyman. They themselves say they exist. Four planes, two towers, a government building, a grassy field, and thousands of deaths. What bullshit.

    Eileen

    You wrote:
    “If you want to know the mind of a terrorist or it’s f/tools, just visit here daily. The apologists of evil all find succor in their mutual depravity. What a grand club, indeed! Keep talkin’, slimeballs.”

    Eileen, I assume that I’m part of the group that you call ‘slimeballs’. Those that disagree with your view that Islam, itself, is the total problem. While I’m not insulted ( I’ve also been called a ‘creep’ because I expressed sympathy for Lebanese civilians during the battle between Israeli forces and Hezbollah insurgent), it amazes me that you can have such a harsh personality.

    The news you got from Little Green Footballs seems to be in error. You see, Eileen, if you seek out info from faulty biased forces – some of these sites LGF, Powerline, Captain’s Quarters on the right, Daily Kos, Atrios, AmericaBlog on the left, you’re bound to end up with egg on your face. Because all they are are forums in which everyone reaffirms each others strongly held beliefs.

    Hope you’re enjoying your vacation.

    Penny
    My sweet Galway girl. You wrote:
    “Like your buddy, Feinman, you are pathetic.” to Dr. Mathews. Sort of like Eileen’s ‘slimeballs’. Or Kat’s “you blind bat”.

    But then, it was:

    “Destroy the Taliban and most AQ bases in Afghanistan(done), create an enduring Arab democracy, if possible, in the heart of the ME(Iraq); use surveillance to monitor terrorist activities, funding and to foil their attacks(the Patriot Act), protect our citizens(Homeland Security), appeal to allies(done that and got nowhere with France, Russia, and the UN), support Israel in it’s war with Hezbollah(ongoing)……….those just a few of the things that Bush has been doing over the years. Perhaps, you haven’t noticed.”

    Penny, Ive noticed that the Taliban are now making a comeback in various regions of Afghanistan and still has backing from many throughout the Islamic world. Including support from Pakistan, which is causing problems between the two countries. In other words, the Taliban are not destroyed.

    I’ve also noticed that you can’t force (uh, create) an enduring democracy down people’s throats. That should be blatantly obvious. What has happened is that we have gotten rid of a horrendous dictator, but unleased a Sunni insurgency that has been led in part by ‘al Queda in Iraq’ that targeted Shia Muslims, and now we also have Shia death squads that are tied into the current Iraqi government. Death squads that are partially backed by Iran, the new power broker in the region…the one that is developing nuclear weapons. Our policy in Iraq, so far, is a failure – because Bush and co. failed to plan for the aftermath. Sure, schools are being built, and it was great to see people vote. It is also great that Saddam is on trial. But we have created an disaster that will resonate for years to come, a disaster that pits religious factions and ethnic groups against one another. And the leadership that we knocked out – as bad as it was – was secular, was not tied into 9/11, and was not a threat to us. They were the wrong people to go after. By now, that should be obvious. Our own military leaders in Iraq just told Congress that they’ve never seen it so bad. And they are saying that a full-blown civil war could be imminent. So much for and enduring Arab democracy.

    How can you not see that?

  • Kat

    Jonathan–I was not addressing your comment when I said blind bat. I may not agree with you, but I do respect your right to disagree with me. You’re just too nice for your own good. You can’t reason with these moonbats. I do believe Iraq was likely tied to 911 and it was about as secular as a muslim state can be. Sharia was being practised–how the hhell can you call that secular?? I also think they had WMD’s that are now hidden in Syria. Maybe Iraq was the wrong state to go after–they should have gone after Iran and Syria first. I am sick and tired of the world turning a blind eye to all the atrocities commited in the name of islam. We can’t be afraid to criticize them for fear of an attack. We can’t be afraid to fight back when they attack us because it will cause more terrorists. Maybe we need to make threats–bomb us and we bomb Mecca.

  • http://www.digitalstreetjournal.com Jonathan Trenn

    Kat

    I knew your comment wasn’t directed toward me…it was directed toward Dr. Mathews. Anyway, while I disagree with your belief that Iraq played a role in 9/11, and Islam as a whole is the problem, I’ll add this.

    The fanatical Islamists – especailly those with money – most are Saudis – are the ones that, to me, need to be eliminated. But they’re also in Pakistan and Afghanistan. And just about everywhere else. So to me, you, yes, need to find out the what the root causes are, but it is equally necessary to go after the sources.

    We need to get off oil so we won’t rely on countries that have key people who are tied to terrorism.

  • Kat

    I would like to see the day when we conduct no business deals with the Saudis or any other muslim states who harbor terrorists. I know the Saudis export that Wahabist garbage around the world by using oil money to build terror mosques. They are about to build one in Boston, I think. The root causes crap makes me see red. You tell me what the people in Ambon or Darfur did to deserve what they are getting. It is high time to stop blaming the US, the West, and put the blame where it belongs–on Islam. And it’s high time for the so called moderate muslims to crawl out of their holes and grow some backbones. Only muslims can clean up what they have spawned….shit like this.
    http://www.memritv.org/Search.asp?ACT=S5&P1=165

  • http://oxfordalliance.blogspot.com/2006/08/slightly-off-topic.html Tom

    Kat writes: If they bomb another building in America, I’d be in favor of bombing the mosque in Mecca.

    My Bible instructs me to do unto others as I would have them do unto me. I’ve found this instruction in the KJV, NASB, JB, NIV and Amplified versions. (Maybe I’ve been consulting unreliable versions?)

    I wouldn’t have terrorists committing war crimes and acts of terror against me and mine, so I’ll pass on endorsing war crimes and acts of terror against them. That doesn’t mean I’d be against a legitimate military response.

    (What you are advocating is a war crime under our laws and treaty obligations.) We do not need to become what we abhor to combat bin Landen and his minions effectively.

  • Lynchie

    The only way to go is half on half.What was it they used to tell us as young ones?If they hit you, turn to your other cheak……!

    If we as several nations do not come together to fight in this war on terror, or we do nothing. We will be atacked again, and again,

    and again!
    But I do not agree with Mr. President Bush of the United States, we can not atack without thinking. If we do too much as Mr. Bush has so adequently done, we will cause much anger.

    Half on half ‘IS’ the only way to go. We are in a war. Not a nuclear war