Yes, firing cruise missiles from 800 miles away is far more humane than cutting off someone's head. The people don't even bleed, as far as I know.

The cruise missile tends to prevent the head cutter from cutting off any more heads.

Yeah, but unfortunately, the friends and family of all the innocent people the cruise missile kills suddenly want to kill the people who fired the cruise missile.

Many Americans, including the Bush Administration, say 9/11 "changed everything." Seeing the slaughter of 3,000 innocent Americans made them view the world differently.

What do you think is happening to the friends/family/countrymen of the 13,000 innocent Iraqis who've been killed by American weapons? I bet the world is changing for them too.

And it's really too bad that the people of Iraq, including Saddam Hussein who deserves his own special place in HELL, had nothing to do with the 3,000 Americans who were murdered on 9/11/01. The Bush Administration has created all of this hostility, violence, pain and suffering for nothing. It's all based entirely on a lie/mistake.

I wish Bush had had the nuts to cause this kind of pain and suffering in the mountains of Tora Bora when Osama bin Laden was there, right in Bush's grasp.

this is not to justify it, but anything the Muslims are doing now, Christians have done at other times in history. it says nothing about the relative merits of either culture.

"the Muslims"?

Al Qaeda has, at most, a few thousand actual fighters and perhaps 10 times as many active supporters. In Iraq, there's perhaps 30,000 actual people up in arms - although a far larger proportion of the populace supports them. All up, let's say that there's, oh, 60-70,000 people worldwide at present attempting to kill Americans in the name of Islam.

There's 1.5 billion Muslims. 1,500,000,000.

Proportionally speaking, there's perhaps more members of the KKK in America that there are active anti-American terrorists in the Muslim population.

Have you taken down the Martin Kozloff letter about Arabs and Muslims from a few days ago? If so, why?

And what is your reaction to his subsequent statments that he didn't mean any of it, and doesn't have those attitudes expressed in the letter?

I'd like to think that the evil idiocy written by Professor Martin Kozloff has vanished from this site because you became embarrassed by it - would that be true?

Here in the USA terrorists use lynching... It accomplishes the same goal as beheading, but is a bit cleaner...

You rightwing wing-nuts are amazing, aren't you?

Michael Uman

To one commentator - may I suggest confronting evil is not quite the same as creating it?

And to all - it seems confusion and hostility is the order of the day which, given Warren's contention about the purpose of terrorism, strikes me as interesting.

Perhaps even the thoughtful Bernard may not thank me for it, but I'd recommend George Soros' comments made yesterday on the subject of confronting terrorism:

""... the President committed a fundamental error in thinking: the fact that the terrorists are manifestly evil does not make whatever
counter-actions we take automatically good. What we do to combat terrorism may also be wrong. Recognizing that we may be wrong is the
foundation of an open society. President Bush admits no doubt and does not base his decisions on a careful weighing of reality. For 18
months after 9/11 he managed to suppress all dissent. That is how he could lead the nation so far in the wrong direction.
President Bush inadvertently played right into the hands of bin Laden ... "

"President Bush admits no doubt and does not base his decisions on a careful weighing of reality. For 18
months after 9/11 he managed to suppress all dissent."

The first part of this assertion is at least arguable. The second part is patently false. But of course George Soros (despite his contention to the contrary) is and always has been - at least in this country - free to say most anything he wants. And you, of course, are privileged to parrot him.

At his prime-time press conference several months ago, when given the opportunity to voice any doubts or anything he would've done differently, Bush "ummmed" and "hmmmed" for a good couple of minutes, but couldn't come up with anything.

He believes that anything he does or will do is justified because he's the President of the United States, and he believes in God.

The Bush Administration didn't manage (or attempt) to suppress all dissent?

There are literally dozens of examples of people, like Ari Fleischer, insinuating that anyone who disagrees with the Bush Administration on issues related to national security is un-American. For example, when Bill Maher was fired for comparing the "courage" in firing cruise missiles from hundreds of miles away verses flying an airplane into a building, Ari said, "...they're reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do. This is not a time for remarks like that; there never is."

That's not suppressing dissent? The reaction by the anti-dissent folks got Bill Maher fired, and the Bush Administration fanned the flames.

I'm sorry JS, but that was a rather weak rebuttal. The President "does not base his decisions on a careful weighing of reality"? I suppose you really mean to criticize him for not sharing your omniscience, and would upbraid him for making decisions with which you do not agree. And as for suppressing dissent, you quoted a source that said the President had managed to suppress ALL dissent. That is, to repeat, patently false - as is your contention that the President had anything whatsoever to do with Bill Maher's career path.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: