[QUOTE]
Why are we wasting so many prison cells and dollars for tracking and trying and housing pot smokers when we have more important drugs to deal with and much bigger threats facing us....Nothing will keep us safer than protecting our borders and keeping up our immigration information.
[QUOTE]


Amen.

One of the most important aspects of the WOT is that we must be in it to win. Our history is riddled with examples of half-hearted battles and appeasement of the enemy that only by the grace of God we managed to overcome before it was too late.

The fact that most of those dangerous situations had to be cleaned up by our more conservative leaders should help us to feel more comfortable today.

Ronald Reagan ended the cold war, for example. Had he not come along Lord knows what socialist-style gov't we might be living under today.

Much like Reagan's era, Bush is facing an enemy that we failed to confront head-on in the past. Reagan's foe was communism, Bush's is the fanatic Islamists.

God willing, we will be as successful against this enemy as we were against the other. I think we are on the right path and have won the initial battles. There will be many more, but we have both might and right on our side so we won't fail.

Heck, we'll even be saving some of those who are silently praying for our failure.

Agreed. We don't want to do an Afghanistan from the 80's




You should be a speaker of some sort

The United States can't afford to back down from the WOT because if we do, it will be our destruction if we do

yes, i read a nice article in an army magazine about a tiny nation that has some muslims living in the bush. The government there requested u.s special forces to aid in flushing them out, that is like so cool. The article shows how these people are a danger to the christians there, i mean its great work that we do, i dont know how long it will take, but all of these terrorists deserve a foul death.

President Bush has the right Idea. Offense is more fruitful than defense in the terrorism game. We can post all the security guards and use the newest technology all we want, but without a leader willing to hit them at their source, abroad, its pointless.

Concerning our borders, the reason that we have not, in the past, been paranoid about them is that we do not expect to be attacked by Canada or Mexico. There are many, many countries around the world that do not enjoy that feeling of security. They have been attacked numerous times, their men killed, women raped, property stolen, etc.
The WOT needs to be attacked at its source, and we seem to be doing that. As long as there are millions of Arabs under dictatorships who are taught to hate Israel and the USA as a diversionary tactic against them dwelling on the abuse that they suffer at the hands of their own leaders, there will be terrorism from the Arab world. When they get to vote, have free press, access to news from the rest of the world, things will start to change. But it will be a long process. The culture of hate will not go away in a single generation.
Brutal dictatorships around the world need to be put on notice that even if they are not active participants or supporters of terror, they are potential targets in the WOT. It would be selfish of us to only target the terrorists that attack us. All of them need to go.

I agree. The United States can't just go to Afghanistan and take out Al-Queda and say "Woohoo! We beat the terrorists. We won!"...we need to keep going and go to Yemen & work with their intelligence agency to find who ever tucked tails and ran into Yemen or whoever is forming cells in the country. The same with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the others. We also need to keep encouraging other countries like the ones in the EU and Africa to keep on Al-Queda's tail.

Saudi Arabia really had to wake up and smell the coffee beans after the bombing in the capital. Because of the wake up call, they've been arresting more al-queda in a couple month span to break some sort of record.

Maybe you should ponder this quote then decide if the WOT is the right way to go.

Oh Boy...don't he know it

Just came across another quote that shows just how successful this WOT is, and will continue to be.



As an aside, isn't it a bit strange that these statements get so little play in the conservative media so many liberal-minded posters claim exists in the USA.

Libya has not been our target for decades. But the sudden way we attacked Iraq when we were done with Afghanistan was enough to make them remember when they were enemy number one. We had nothing new on Saddam in the last four years but that didn't matter. Iraq made it clear they did not want to go to war and that didn't matter either. We knew they couldn't defend themselves against us militarily and that didn't matter...we still called them an imminent threat. They didn't use their only defense, those WMD's, even to defend themselves but that didn't matter. We will continue to insist they are still there somewhere. We'll also pretend Bush has a grand strategic plan that's going smoothly because of our brilliant attack on Iraq. I'm sure any real enemies haven't caught on that we are so stretched that there would be no better time than now to have a war with America. Let's pretend they don't notice.

It's no surprise Libya wants to make it very clear they are leaving us alone and would like us to give them the same courtesy. I imagine they think the US has become some kind of vengeful monster that could attack anyone they want like a rabid dog. And sadly, they aren't too far off the mark.

We can put them on the terror list simply because of their location and our past animosity. Then start making all kinds of unproven allegations about ties to terror and elusive weapons, you know, spread a little fear among the American people who haven't caught on yet. Then we can set our Demonizing Propaganda Machine away from Saddam and back on Gadhafi and start churning out the over the top rhetoric about how eeevil he is. Rinse and repeat with Iran or Syria. It's all so easy to create an enemy whenever you want to now days. (Thanks bin Laden. You have done our neo cons and the US defense contractors a great favor. Of course the rest of us still want you dead.)

I'm glad to see Libya wants to do whatever they can to repair relations. But we won't respond to their attempts at all...better to let them sweat and fear because that's how we keep the world in line. I'm so proud. This war on terror is swell.

Are you saying Libya's current stance is bad for America or the world in general?

Well, this actually isn't bad the way that I see it. It is good to make our enemies or people who have in the past been enemy #1 and not done anything to improve relations nervous.



This quote shows it all. Power-wise, fear is a good thing to be able to spread, and not good to have in you, your country, or any other country that is your ally. Fear is a good and powerful thing when used correctly, ans if used correctly, can help us succeed in the war on terror.

I agree it has it's moments and it's uses. My problem is that it appears to be our primary way of dealing with others, even allies. Except in cases where we are trying to get something from them and when that's the case we usually prefer using demands, bribes, and threats to get what we want rather than beginning with subtle and skilled diplomacy. We are not using fear selectively enough, IMO which makes it a much less powerful tool. Everyone knows we're the strongest guy on the block so it seems kind of insecure and annoying that we have to constantly flex our muscles even when it's un-necessary. I guess I don't see the major benefit's or payoff. What exactly are we trying to prove? That we're unstable and liable to snap at any moment? Not exactly the kind of character befitting a superpower unless we want to give the whole world the impression that we're dangerous, unpredictable and heavily armed. In which case we will be deemed a threat to the whole world and will end up with more and not less to worry about.

I don't think it's weak or unwise to strengthen relations with other countries whenever possible and especially during those times we aren't asking something from them. A little courtesy and respect to key nations would do wonders to counter the arrogant reputation we've developed and it doesn't take much.

Again, I'm not saying we should run out and make Libya our new best friend but I think allowing them to sweat and worry about the threat of a US attack somewhere down the road is a bad idea and un-necessary at this time. A simple nod and civil response at their attempt to warm relations is such a small thing but helps to ease their obvious stress and fear which, left to fester, could easily manifest itself in unexpected ways down the road. We gain nothing by risking that and gain much by acknowledging their efforts.

We are much more likely to get good intelligence and increased cooperation which would only serve to strengthen a real war on terror. Constantly showing everyone our big stick is going to back fire and is un-necessary. True strength does not need the type of posturing we've come to embrace. Sometimes when you are trying to send a message hoping it will change the behaviors of others you get what you wish for...and it's not pleasant. It's by no means a sure way to cause positive changes in behavior around the world.

BTW, I absolutely love Amy Tan...and in context that quote is probably true. unfortunately it's too extreme for a superpower to use as a guideline in how they carry out their foreign relations.

Bush I and Clinton used your approach. Didn't work. We did an awful lot of appeasing and hand-holding and kicking the can down the road in hopes someone else would clean up.

Time to try something new. Taking charge. Laying down the rules. Our rules. No more sitting back waiting to see what happens next. No more doing nothing in fear that if we do anything to those who hate us and want to destroy us they just might....hate us and want to destroy us.

It's not about relishing our power, it's about knowing its value and how to use it. We're doing fine now, and hopefully we'll continue. With God in our corner, my money's on us.

Amen to that. I feel safer even after the iraq war because no matter how many new al-queda members are recruited, Al-Queda can never wage a massive attack like 9/11 because they have had their funding cut off & they have no permanent sanctuary to hide in

Absolutely, and the Bush administration is milking it for all its worth.

According to CNN.com,
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/Northeast/11/02...wtc.death.toll/
the death toll from the WTC bordered 2,700 deaths. So if the deaths due to terrorism in 2001 included the WTC deaths, I see the same number of assaults with one, really rare exception.

Honestly, how many people die from terrorist attacks? So few that nobody even thought about it before 9/11. Now the death toll for attacks is only 700? Wow, more people die from automobile accidents every week.

The Bush Administration is using some real faulty logic when they say that all of this extra national defense is making a difference in the number of (obviously rare) terrorist attacks. By that logic, I could say that this stone in my pocket keeps away lions. I don't see any lions around, so it must be true.

But, to be fair, Bush really doesn't have much else he can point to and say "elect me". I mean, the economy is down, the foreign situation with the UN etc. So, he'll try to milk the "war on terror" for all its worth.

You are basing our entire history on ONE day. That, incidentally didn't even happen under Bush I or Clinton. Their approach DID work and rather well as a matter of fact.

Looking back as far as the last six US administrations we've suffered terrorist attacks on our interests in foreign lands under every single one of them. Since our new methods have begun and the WOT has been firmly in place those attacks have continued proving this plan is no more effective than approaches used in the past but we are paying a heavy price using this approach. Can you justify that?

There have only been two terrorist attacks on our own soil coming from foreign terrorists. We've done much better than France, Britain, Russia, Israel, and others who have seen more than their share. It appears we must have been doing something right using the old fashioned approach or we would have fared as badly as they have.

For the first attack on the WTC Clinton was in charge and it's fair to say that means he holds the responsibility for allowing it to happen. But nothing unusual in the policies of Bush I or Clinton can be traced to what caused the attack. However if you want to explore policy as a factor you would have to focus on Reagan's which was the catalyst that created bin Laden. But Reagan was long out of power on 9/11/01.

Bush holds all of the responsibility for allowing the attack to occur as Clinton does for the first attack. However, Bush also failed to heed the warning of the first attack. No other president or policy can be blamed for that.

Terrorism is a phenomena that no one leader is ever going to be able to eliminate completely. We can either deal with it sensibly and not allow it to completely run our lives by focusing everything on the fear of it.

Or we can let it consume us and pretend we can totally eliminate it by following the same routine we tried with the War On Drugs. Guess what? Drugs are stronger than ever two decades later. As hard as America fights that war we have been no more successful than any other country, on the contrary, we have been less successful than many others. This policy of fighting a behavior as if it were an enemy that we can kill is pointless.

You can't kill the act of terrorism...you can only try to protect yourself from another attack. Concentrating on the group that attacked us is rational and smart and effective. Feel free to focus and fight Al Queada and you would have my full support. But searching the globe for evildoers that practice terrorism is absolutely ridiculous and will not make us safer. It is actually costing us even more lives every day.



I guess that's the difference between us...I think we're doing much worse now than ever before, at least going back through the three decades I've experienced.

I didn't know we had God in our corner...was he out of our corner on 9/11 but now he's back? And how can you tell one way or the other? I honestly don't put stock in God so you'll have to keep me posted on when he's here and when he's moved on to someone elses corner because I can't tell.

There is no comparison between the WOT and the war on drugs. None. That doesn't mean the war on drugs is lost or should be abandoned either, just that there's no comparing the two.

If we don't take the fight to the terrorists then we have to do more to prevent the next attack at home. Doing that requires even more restrictions on our freedoms here. You, and most other liberals, argue against both. Well, you can't have it both ways. Unless what you're proposing is that we concentrate all our efforts on the clean-up afterwards. That approach seems awful cowardly to me. And very inviting of other attacks. As a matter of fact, any government that took that approach woould be derelict in their duty to protect this nation.

And as for God, let's just hope He wasn't listening to your comments about Him.

I wonder if pro-bushites like Passion51 have ever bothered to study how the British dealt with the IRA for example?

Well, I'll tell you a few things:

Firstly, despite Northern Ireland being close to a warzone a times, we never called it a war, rather 'The Troubles'. That was your first mistake, calling it a "War on Terror", a abstract term which has multiple meanings. Instead you could have called it a "campaign against Al Quida" for example.

Secondly, the Brits although angry about the terrorist attacks, always rationally looked for the reasons behind the terrorism. In N. Ireland the Catholics supported the IRA because they were discriminated against, I see no evidence that Americans are rationally asking themselves why so many Muslims hate America.

Thirdly, we have a "buisness as usual" approach, understanding that the campaign aganist the IRA was the boring but essential task of working with the Irish, developing intelligence rather than high flowery tasks. You, after 9/11 made the mistake of not taking that attitude and the American people have failed to understand that fighting terrorism isn't through invading countries but through keeping track of Islamic terrorists and working with foreign intelligence agencies.

Just a few throughts...

Bush I: Invading Iraq, Setting up shop in Saudi Arabia



Obviously we are doing something right because we haven't been attacked. There is no reason to justify anything. this approach that we have been using has been succeessful because guess what....no terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11.

True Thomas,
Terrorism was nothing to the US when it was Britains train systems being blown up or Spains people being blown to bits, nor did we crack down on the groups in the US supporting the IRA. When we are actively schooling terrorists for South America in the US, its another story. Terrorists are only terrorists when you need to promote an altogther 'other' political agenda, like a war for resources.



True, and that is what has made them sheep to the initial agenda, which has little to do with terrorism, It is phenominal how easily manipulated we can be. A young nation and very bloodthirsy. Our Neo-Cons pegged us so rightly. Now explain to me, as a Brit, how did you all get sucked in? ( No sarcasm, I really want to know)

Ok, I wasn't going to get in this one, but Passion51, has drawn me in. I am absolutely dumbfounded that you would say:

If we are not defending our homeland but instead offending others' for this War on Terrorism then we have already lost. The Constitution provides for the COMMON DEFENSE, not OFFENSE. We should have and still should bring our soldiers home, fix the laws so they can defend our borders and STOP having them assault other nations on hunches.

We are losing this War on Terrorism because no one really knows what it is. Companies don't want to create jobs or expand because they don't know what the future holds; our Homeland Security/military spending is destroying us. We are in serious debt and this ephemeral and ever changing concept of war will never make it better.

And I would really leave God out of this, I doubt anyone here's a spokeperson for him/her/it

There is a comparison. They are both open ended long term campaigns and not wars in the true sense of the word. They are both intended to wipe out abstract things that can't be killed by using guns or tanks. They are both targeting things that will always exist everywhere no matter how hard you try to wipe them off the planet.

Just like the war on drugs you are proposing we chase down our target wherever it may be and seek to eliminate it before it get's here while doing nothing at home to keep prevent it from hurting us.

We send troops, weapons, and money to Columbia to fight drugs. We send troops money and weapons to Iraq to fight terrorism. The only difference being that at least there are drugs come into the US from Columbia. But there are no terrorists or weapons threating the US in Iraq from what I can see. IMO, targeting Iraq does absolutely nothing to protect us from a terror attack at home and it drains needed funds that could. It also is costing American lives which is what we are trying to prevent in the first place.

We have an enemy and we could wage a war on it but that enemy is Al Queada. I is possible to eliminate A TERRORIST GROUP. It's impossible to eliminate a WORLD WIDE TERRORIST THREAT. Besides the former is a true threat while the later is simply a perceived threat so which would be more logical to fight?

We haven't stopped drugs from coming in from Columbia and even if we ever did they would just flow in from someplace else. Or be replaced with some other drug that doesn't need to be imported. You can't stop drugs from existing you can only try to prevent them from hurting us. Just like attacks from terrorists.

Instead of sending guns and tanks to fight drugs maybe a less costly and possibly more effective idea would be to create treatment programs, education and awareness campaigns and programs. Like in the war on terror it may be more effective to concentrate on the demand side and fight our battle at home.

But no. We love our missions in Columbia and other places and having the ability to say we have to send military supplies somewhere to fight the war on drugs makes our defense contractors happy and rich so we will continue on the as we always have and the war on drugs will never be won. Eventually I predict this will be the outcome of the war on terror as well.

Regarding protecting ourselves at home being an irresponsible way to handle terror attacks I can just shake my head. To me the opposite is true. I am shocked and angry that we have no funds for increased airport security, for protecting things like power plants from being targeted and causing devastating effects, for securing our harbors and the shipment's coming into this country from outside....to me these things aren't only logical ways to protect ourselves they are absolute necessities. Unlike sending troops to Iraq to protect us at home from Al Queada which is costing us obscene and unsustainable amounts of money.

I honestly can't understand your logic as I guess you can't understand mine. I guess we will have to respectfully agree to disagree on the best way to prevent another tragedy.

But as long as we are on this planet, we have to deal with the terrorist threat because it is murder. And like a normal society, we can't let murderers just walk free after committing a barbaric act.

We are fighting Al-Queda to make it so it can't wage another barabric act like it did on 9/11



We may not be able to eliminate a worldwide terrorist threat but we can cripple it

Danya poses a good point: we don't want to use our fear too much. First of all, it can lose us valuable allies. Second, we're verging on Hitlerism if we constantly use fear to ensure that we reign supreme as a world power. Still, if we use it when we need to, and use it well, then we can keep our allies, and win the WOT.

I will agree with you there

You're not seriously suggesting that we just withdraw our troops from Iraq now are you? Or suggesting that Iraq was better off with Saddam at the helm? Or that if he were left to his own devices he didn't pose any threat to us or our allies?

Defending our homeland and securing our borders are not mutually exclusive. If you somehow took that as my position then I could not have made myself clear. My point was that many of those 'defensive' positions at home are the very things that are railed against by the left. They don't want profiling in airport security. They don't want our immigration laws strictly enforced. They don't want terrorist suspects held and questioned unless we have enough on them to prosecute them in criminal court. And on and on and on.

The best defense is often a good offense. There is a very clear message being sent to the terrrorist world and all who support it. America is no longer going to sit back and wait for the next attack. Just look at the most recent words coming out of Libya, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia. There is a sense in the world that America finally means business and intends to do exactly what we say we're going to do. No matter how long it takes, where it leads us, and yes, no matter what it costs.

And no Jaime, I will not leave God out of this. I beleive that a big part of this war is about God. Islamic fundamentalists are killing pure innocents in His name. There are some things and some people who are so inherently evil that they must be fought and eliminated. Saddam Hussein and his regime fit that category. I believe that it is with God's saddened approval that we have taken on that fight. And I believe that it is with His guidance that we will win it.

I am so sick of that particular strawman, and I know I'm not alone in that. Here's a clue: nobody thinks Saddam was a great guy, not even people who disagree with you.



On this part I actually agree. Offense and defense are hard to separate. You can't just hunker down and wait for someone to come at you; sometimes you just have to take the initiative for the sake of your own safety. I happen to disagree that our war in Iraq was such a case at the time the decision was made, but as the general principle is quite sound.



OK then, when we're talking about the reasons behind 9/11 that might be relevant, but not in this debate and in any case this quote



had no place whatsoever in any thread.

You may be tired of the question, but it still begs answering, since his dangerous and evil existence were the reasons for us going there in the first place.

Glad to see we agree on something..offense and defense.

No we're not just talking about 9/11. SH very publicly supported Palestinian terrorists and more than likely supported others as well, including al-Quaeda. And yes, I know the conclusive proof of that hasn't been shown. Not yet anyway.

As for the last item you quoted, all I can say is lighten up dude.....it was said in jest.

I think Platypus took care of your strawman quite well. Although, I would add that I rarely advocate immediate change on any issue. I’ve always been a supporter of slower, methodical changes. That would apply here, too.



I thought you were talking to me. I’m not on the left.


When we are discussing the security of our nation, I tend to shy away from sports analogies. This is not a competition…is it?


I don’t understand this. You seem to imply you are prepared to bankrupt us in order to fight terrorism. What happens when there is no more money to spend? When no one will lend us any and we can no longer build our weapons and feed our soldiers? How can we fight a war without a military?

Hey – that’s your call. I just chose to avoid speaking for any actual person much less any deities.

I don’t disagree with you there. It’s the methods and actions towards them that I do.

I mostly agree with you here (I'll spare you a discussion on the concept of evil). Again, it’s the methods. The US, alone, can not make that choice.

I wish I had something to lean on in that way. I don’t. I don’t have a god that justifies the murder of innocents in any country.

Edited for noun/verb agreement -J

Passion, most of the time i agree with you but not here. This is not a war over religion. If that were the case, we would have called this the War on Islam & we would have nuked Mecca and woudl be butchering the Sunnis & Shiites in Iraq.

Also, not all Islamic funderlmentalists are for the killing of innocents. Some Islamic Clerics see Osama Bin Laden as a complete psycho


Edited to add this:

This popped into my mind: Since 9/11, the intensity of attacks have been small because Al-Queda has had it's funding cut off and Islamic charities are thinking twice when they decide to fund al-queda, that al-queda has had to go after small targets where it won't do much damage and life lost (except for Bali) just so that it gets on the front page for awhile and to tell the American people that they are still there but weak

This is the success: we have weakened our enemy to the point where he can't hurt us as bad as they used to

GA, the battle isn't against Islam. It's against the fundamentalists who use that religion as an excuse to murder innocents in God's name. While that may be only a small portion of those who practice Islam, it is significant in its impact.

And must be eradicated!

I agree. Religion is a dangerous thing. Just look at the history of Christianity. Which is why I believe that government and religion have no business marrying. Look at what happens when it does in the Arab world. Use the Taliban if you need a reminder. When fudamentalism and government meet they poison each other. It doesn't matter which religion we are talking about either.

But if you think you could declare a War on Islam to solve everything you would be doing two things. A) Trying to deprive a person of their beliefs. and B ) Starting another bloody religious war that has been fought forever and cannot be won just to prove your sky daddy is better than their sky daddy.

I would be disappointed if after all we have learned and how far we have come the US turned out to be the ones responsible for starting the next religious crusade.

Noone is suggesting a war against Islam, Danya. So please don't try to make it look as if someone is.

Couldnt have said it better myself. But nobodys suggesting a war on Islam

Hate to disappoint you but it is not another religious crusade in the making....unless Bush is thinking about it

But that i doubt.

I read the post wrong and took the sentence, "And must be eradicated!" out of context and misunderstood. I think it was saying fundamentalist Islam and not Islam in general? If so I think I would take it one step further and say we need to discourage any kind of religious fundamentalism whenever possible. It never leads to good things.

And it seems I've taken this whole thing off topic again. I apologize and you can go back to the regularly scheduled program.

Now with my editing, how does this arguement seem oh so very familiar from our 'enemies' as it were? All this God this and God that and God is on OUR side? The God of Coca-cola, MacDonalds and throw away culture. The God of arms sales, chemical weapons sales, the God of use them until they are not useful then kill them, and bomb the civilian population too, God? Dont scare me , lest I begin to think all people are only praying to the God of conveinience.

I lie down in front of the God of all humanity and beg to differ. Humans are idiots. If you believe in God, the Creator of ALL people, allowed free will for us to screw up as much as we desire, no sides, erroneous thinking all around. Noone is excempt of wrongdoing, least of all We.
Unless we are believing that Americans are Gods chosen people over others? That would certainely be a spectacle. God created in Americas image! That would be the greatest joke, considering our history.

We certainly cant win a war of the Gods, so we'd best cut that crap right out of the conversation but also out of our reasons for war. Lets keep it real; economics and resources, politics and power, on earth, at least in political forums.

In order to fully understand the WOT and to evaluate its progress you must consider the religious aspect of it.

Its not a crusade against any particular religion. But it is a battle with the forces who kill and maim innocents in the name of God.

Although you may want to leave God out of the equation, that's impossible to do when the enemy claims to do battle in His name. Wanting to keep it 'real' doesn't mean keeping it 'Godless'. Actually, there is nothing more 'real' than God and the role He's allowing us to play. Trying to remove Him from the equation is fruitless.

Do you read? Or simply react?

The 'enemy' is not only the one to kill in Gods name as per your posts and the 'public' rhetoric of Bush and Co. Let me spell it out more clearly, your posts about God sound exactly like Jihad from the other side.

Trying to prove God is on one or another side is definately fruitless; theologically, politically and intellectually impossible since God is an unknown entity, believed only by the faithful. Even if so then, all, Islamic, Jew, Hindu and Christian alike, many others, are created in His image. Noone has preference, as all are human, with human frailties and no singular ideal or set of ideals above the other, in the grand scheme.
Are you saying Americans are closer to God than others?
You want to get into God? Lets take it to a religious forum. Lets start a topic: Are Americans Gods chosen people, that should get a good laugh.

The way I see it, if we were to remove God from this War, it would be over, wouldn't it? Maybe we're focusing on the wrong thing afterall...

I read quite well, thank you very much for asking. I just don't agree with what you write, which I read.

Noone is claiming any religion to be better than another. As a matter of fact, no country in the world is more tolerant of all religions, or lack thereof, than America.

But we're not so tolerant of those who want to kill us simply because we don't practice religion the same way they do. We're not so tolerant of those who kill innocents for no other reason than they don't believe in their God. We're not so tolerant of those who slaughter members of their own religion because they don't practice that religion in the exact same way that they do.

Islamic radicals are guilty of all those things. The vast majority of those practicing Islam are not. In fact, they themselves have fallen victim to the radical element, as noted above.

This is all world's away from the way you've chosen to frame this argument.

BRAVO!! That deserved a standing ovation. I feel exactly the same.

14 known dead, 149 injured in a bomb blast near a hotel in Jakarta, Indonesia: Hotel Blast in Indonesian Capital (CNN)

I suppose now would be a good time to again ask ourselves:

The War on Terrorism is the same as the War on Drugs. It's mostly a war of words and posturing, there simply isn't any way to actually win it, you just have to SAY you're fighting.

Like it or not, terrorism is going to be with us for a very long time. Attacking the terrorists won't help, you need to keep from raising their ire in the first place.

I just don't understand the pacifist blame-it-on-the-victim stance behind these words. When you closely examine the things that terrorists are aligned against you find that the driving force is hatred of the West and/or of any religion other than radical Islam. Period. Anything else is nothing but a smokescreen.

Every time I read of this 'it's our fault' crap I want to grab the writer by the throat and slowly cut off his air supply. While I'm doing that I want to ask him what he did to deserve this. And only if he gets the answer right, nothing, would I let him go.

How anyone can condone or excuse the intnetional slaughter of innocents is beyond my comprehension. There is a serious lack of humanity in that stance.

Two questions for you, Passion - why are you quoting me and mentioning pacifists in the same post? What did I say to indicate I advocated such a course of action? (Maybe just hitting "quote" isn't always the best idea when debating specific points).

Also - who said "it's our fault"? What are you rebutting? Your desire in dealing with them sounds a bit...um, like an Islamic zealot's response to the US

I was responding to cephus, sorry for any confusion.

I do advocate a violent response to the Islamic [/I]fundamentalists[I]. They don't seem to leave us much choice.

Tell that to the Taliban, and Saddam Husseing, and those being held in Guantonamo [sp?]. The War on Terror is working.

BTW, Cephus, how do we no raise there ire? They'll hate us no matter what.

CP