Fine post. As always.
Your friends and allies also remember--with a cold, implacable anger that no amount of weaselly rationalising from the idiot left will ever diminish.
Happy Anniversary indeed, America.Go well, and prosper.

I don't think I've ever heard a better description of the situation than the observation that a Muslim in America today is safer than a Jew in France. Sure wish I'd've thought of it. One of the countries in that comparison has a history of religious persecution, and the other one doesn't, PATRIOT Act notwithstanding.

Once again, I'll be wearing out my mouse this weekend, clicking "Refresh" until The Essay is posted. (But with no Bugs & Daffy Marathon to pass the time, damn the luck.)

--Dave

You nailed it on the head! All the yammering hordes need to learn that they will not soften the resolve of this nation...

Thanks Bill, for helping me start this most awkward of days off in a better frame of mind.

Godspeed Bill, wonderful as always!

Good again...as if there was any doubt.
Thank you and keep 'em coming.

9/11 wasn't the beginning of the war. But it was the beginning of our victory, with Flight 93.

Thanks, Bill, for helping us to focus on the good when so many want to see only the bad. In this great country, the glass is truly more than half full.

I had to reply to this posting. Once again you have summed up in a phrase what makes us the greatest country on earth. The phrase about a Muslim’s in our country and the Jews in France is a perfect description of why this is a great country. Unfortunately, that is not the only reason I am writing. These amazing nuggets of what makes America great are buried in such bombastic and ideological statements that they get lost with the propaganda. The paragraph before that great phrase is a perfect example.

You start by saying that anyone can criticize the president. The following sentence states if you do criticize the president must be “defeatists and self haters”. That is the problem today. If you criticize the president you are called a defeatist and self-hater, if you support him you are called a nazi and an enemy of freedom (or on this site the only “true Americans”). This type of rhetoric helps no one except the talking heads on the right vs. left screaming shows (and I guess blogers who get to attack each other on the net).

What is more disturbing in that same paragraph is statement that follows. It is more disturbing because you claim you are someone who prides himself on being a historian and an expert in common sense logic. Yet you make the claim “that even hypothetically you could not improve upon it (the presidents record defending this country against terrorism)”.

What is so disturbing about this claim is that is forces people who want to see truth and logic win over rhetoric to attack the statement, therefore appearing to be attacking America. Let me state hear that I love this country and believe without a doubt that it is the greatest place on the planet to live.

Having said that, how can you possibly make such a ludicrous claim? First of all, more Americans have died at the hands of terrorists under the Bush administration than any previous administration (and probably all administrations combined). That is a fact not an attack. Even if you hide behind the word “new” (as if the war on terrorism stated with 9/11 and an idea that is reminiscent of the infamous what is is) the claim is still unsupportable by facts. In the two years since the second attack on the World Trade Center there have been bombings in Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, the UN headquarters in Baghdad, and throughout Iraq. All of these bombings have been attributed (by the administration, not the press) to the same group that destroyed the World Trade Center. To try to claim that the accomplishment is that they haven’t struck on American soil would be to ignore the history of our adversaries. There was a gap of 8 ½ years between the last attack on American soil and the 9/11 attack. If you are going to base your claims on history and logic do so, if not just admit they are rants and raves designed to elicit reaction but are not based on any truth.

We will win this war against those that want to destroy us. We will not win it by claiming any who disagree with the president are “defeatists and self haters”. We will not win it by spewing rhetoric. We will win for a simple reason. Those willing to die to kill others will never beat those that are willing to die to save others. Never forget the difference between their so-called hero’s and our true hero’s. They trained and brainwashed (through rhetoric and twisting logic) their small group of terrorists for years so that they might be ready to die trying to kill thousands. Our hero’s sacrificed their lives on a seconds notice and ran (I repeat ran not walked) into a burning and collapsing building with the hope of saving even one person. That heroism is why we will win.

William provides a couple of fine points, and nice noises about American heroes, but within it all is one point I note.

"more Americans have died at the hands of terrorists under the Bush administration than any previous administration (and probably all administrations combined). That is a fact not an attack"

Sure looks like an attack. Why not point out that, given the years of planning that must have gone into September 11th, the biggest terror plot in history went right under President Clinton's nose? While Clinton's Justice Department was struggling to face off against one young Cuban boy, Bin Laden was amassing funding and writing plans to strike the US. Just a fact, man.
Our adversaries most fervant desire is to strike at American soil. We have denied them that ability, and taken the war to them. This is the first administration to do so, and deserves the credit for it.

Bless you, Bill. I started the day with an argument with a defeatist self-loather who just will not see that the light on the horizon is the sun, raising over our land yet again.

I really needed this. Thank you.

Regards,
Linda

Not all criticism of the President and of the way the war is being fought comes from defeatists and self-haters. Much is disagreement with this strategy or that tactic but much more IS from defeatists. To ignore that simple fact is folly.
No one, not least Bill, has claimed that all criticism comes from self-haters and defeatists. William does the very thing he indicts Bill (and by extension, us his readers and fans) of doing.
The important thing is that we're fighting back. I may disagree with some particular WAYS that we're fighting back, there ARE a HELL of a lot of people disagreeing with the FACT that we're fighting back. Those are the defeatists. Those are the self-haters.

Thanks, once more, Bill. Looking forward to the next essay.

Shell - thanks for this - "it was the beginning of our victory, with Flight 93."

Thank you Bill. You just managed to wipe the tears from my eyes.

That comment is also ignoring the point of Bill's statement. Bill sated, quite clearly, that the "President's record for defending this country from a new terrorist horror" is unmatched. This is true.

Before 9/11/01, there was no new terrorist horror. There WAS an old terrorist threat, but thanks to Clinton's time in office, the rest of the world seemed too far away to take such threats seriously.

You also bring up attacks in other countries, directed at people of other nationalities. That these attacks are tragic there is no doubt. But once again, Bills statement clearly has the phrase "this country" in it. Bill did not say that Bush ended terrorism. I wish that could happen, but it won't.

However, Bush is not resposible ofor the defense of the entire world. Countries have to help themselves. You cannot lay the deaths of thirty people in Saudi Arabia on Bush's doorstep--there is no logical connection. Saudi Arabia has to do that themselves, and now it seems like they are. I do give Bush credit for waking so much of the world up to these problems, even if half of Europe feels like ignoring the truth.

I could go on, but I feel like I'm ranting, and I have my own website for that . . .

JK

William says:

[i]...more Americans have died at the hands of terrorists under the Bush administration than any previous administration (and probably all administrations combined). That is a fact not an attack. Even if you hide behind the word “new” (as if the war on terrorism stated with 9/11 and an idea that is reminiscent of the infamous what is is) the claim is still unsupportable by facts. In the two years since the second attack on the World Trade Center there have been bombings in Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, the UN headquarters in Baghdad, and throughout Iraq. All of these bombings have been attributed (by the administration, not the press) to the same group that destroyed the World Trade Center. To try to claim that the accomplishment is that they haven’t struck on American soil would be to ignore the history of our adversaries. There was a gap of 8 ½ years between the last attack on American soil and the 9/11 attack. If you are going to base your claims on history and logic do so, if not just admit they are rants and raves designed to elicit reaction but are not based on any truth.[/i]

Well, it was fairly clear to me that Bill was in fact speaking specifically about attacks on American soil in the two years since 11sept01. Of which there have, as he says, been none. And this happy fact is likely attributable to the crushing defeat we handed to al Queada in Afganistan - its bases destroyed, its leadership driven into hiding, its international financing operations smashed. You are welcome to expand the frame of reference if you like (and therein find fault with the Bush administration's handling of affairs) but that doesn't amount to a valid criticism of Bill's point, because he clearly delimited his statement to concern attacks on US soil during the past two years. Many of us [B]were[/B] expecting more attacks here in the US after 11sept01 and such attacks [B]have not[/B] taken place.

On the other hand I do agree with William's point about calling [i]all[/i] of the anti-Bush crowd "defeatists and self-haters". Some of them - perhaps even most of them - are safely classifiable as such, but some are not. There are valid criticisms of President Bush (in Bills defense, he does say as much) and the folks making them need to be heard. Remember that there is not [B]a voice[/B] of dissent but actually many [B]voices[/B] of dissent; even if most of them are shrill and senseless drivel we have a responsibility to listen for those few who have valid concerns.

And for the record I'm not part of the aforementioned "anti-Bush crowd". I think he's doing a fine job and will be voting for him unless there are some dramatic candidate changes in the next year.

Oh, what I would give for America to have "President McCain".

A

Nuts. Why don't my italics and bolds work?

A

Thanks, Bill. Somehow, I knew that you would make a post on this day. I needed the little pick me up for my mood today.

"And keep your chins up. There has never been a better people, and don’t you forget it."

That last part is something, like 9/11, that I'll always remember.

William -

First of all, more Americans have died at the hands of terrorists under the Bush administration than any previous administration (and probably all administrations combined).

More terrorists too...

Thanks Bill.

That perspective is great to hear. There is much that I wish our leaders would be clear about. You should really be getting more hits from white house computers.

The Clinton Administration had a clear policy on terrorist bombers.

Pardon them.

The Bush administration has a clear policy too. It's different from the Clinton's.

Exactly! Enough said :)

I must apologize for not being clear.

Criticising the President does not make you, automatically, a defeatist and self-hater. I'm sorry if I gave that impression. Nevertheless, there are indeed armies of defeatists and self-haters out there, and criticising the record of the administration since 9/11/01 has been a full-time job for them. Those are the people I was referring to.

The point is simply this: in the days and weeks after 9/11, many people counseled sanctions, resolutions, and the whole tired bag of appeasement. This President rejected that option, and has been roundly and severely criticised for going after not only the terrorists, but the nations that breed and harbor them.

I feel that my point -- that this policy has had a perfect record -- is undeniable.

I may be a member of the Alliance, but Instapundit's trademark is appropriate to your last comment, Bill:

"Indeed."

I remember Pres. Bush, about a week after 9/11/01, throwing out the ceremonial first pitch at Yankee Stadium. At a time when Saddam had not been seen in public for years, squirreled away in underground caverns, and Osama could only send out video tapes from a tent, our President walked out to the middle of an open field.

In spite of all the security, I still felt a sense of apprehension: what would happen if someone took a shot at him? Instead he stood tall and set the example for all of us.

I knew I could count on you, Bill, to provide some of that good old fashioned American Optimism™.

You never disappoint.

CBK

William,

I will concede your point that more Americans have died due to terrorism under this president than under any other. But with all due respect to the intellectual honesty for which this website has a growing reputation, THIS PRESIDENT IS DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Unlike the previous president. (Not an attack; a mere fact. Do with it what you will.)

Aliestar: the reason your italics didn't work is because you used ['s instead of

--Dave

We are winning, really ?! Against who? The war on terror is like the war on drugs and the war on crime, both of which are unwinnable. You can not win a war on an ideology and to believe that you can wipe the ideology of terrorism from the entire world is PURE FOLLY.

Thanks Dave. Much appreciated.

On William's point that more Americans have died due to terrorism under this president than any other, I think it's important to note that this is due almost exclusively to 11sept01. And while those attacks did happen during the current administration they were planned and emplaced during the previous administration. If we're going to start lining folks up in front of the blaming squad now (something that I, like most Americans, have little stomach for at this point) than Teflon Bill is going to be the first one up against the wall.

The attacks took place in 2001 under Bush's watch, but the penetration of our security that initiated those attacks happened in 1998 - 2000.

A

Jeremy,

You mistake the forest for the trees. The war on terror is not a war on ideology. Any ideology is debatable and until expressed through physical means is simply rhetoric.

Terrorists expound their views through physical acts: through death, destruction, or any other method of terror. What we are engaging in is the physical battle. What our objective is, simply stated, is to remove the means required by the terrorists to prosecute their aims. This is done by eliminating the physical camps they use, their access to funding, limiting their freedom of movement, and jailing or extirpating any terrorist encountered.

Can we nab all sleepers likely residing in the U.S? Unlikely.

Can we prevent every act directed against us? Impossible.

Will we stop in our efforts to render these terrorist into paste?

NEVER!

Sapper Mike

You scare me sometimes Bill, because you are writing what I was feeling this morning as I watched some of the coverage...
Another under-reported but "obvious" reality is the reality disregarded by a performance review of the Islamanazi's: "So, Osama, on 9/10/2001, the Arab street seethed because of a couple of squadrons of severely restricted fighter jets sat in hangers on the "sacred lands" of Islam. Now 2 years later, 180,000 "fully cocked and loaded for bear" soldiers are operating without restraint looking for your skinny ass from Afghanistan to within a smelling distance of Mecca. Just how is that war to "drive out the infidels from the sacred sands going Osama?" UH-OH, a newly released video tape (from last spring, no less)threatens "The Great struggle hasn't begun yet!" which is the Arab streets version of a thousand Chicago Cubs fans yelling "Wait until next year"... In effect renewing the George Bush's terrorist hunting license for another couple of years. And yes, the media bleats out the "lost treasure count" on a daily basis without ever putting a face on the loss's suffered by the "believers", which I believe are pretty substantial and more significant than ours.
Thanks for reminding us we are doing OK, Bill.

Jeremy - is terrorism an ideology? I always thought it was a military tactic that (lately) has been used mostly by Muslim surpremacist paramilitary groups.

The ideology of these terrorists is a combination of fascism and the urge to create a perfect and pure state. Hamas, Hitler's Germany, the Khmer Rouge and the KKK all shared some form of this ideology, and you're right, it can never be eliminated. But it has to be fought, and defeated, whenever it appears.

Jeremy said:

We are winning, really ?! Against who? The war on terror is like the war on drugs and the war on crime, both of which are unwinnable. You can not win a war on an ideology and to believe that you can wipe the ideology of terrorism from the entire world is PURE FOLLY.

Indeed, any attempt to completely wipe out terrorism is folly. But wiping them out isn't necessarily the goal.

World War II didn't wipe out facsism. The Civil War didn't wipe out racism. Last year's Superbowl didn't wipe out the Oakland Raiders. All three, however, were decisive victories. Why? Because we destroyed our opponent's ability to continue the fight.

Terrorism probably can't be totally destroyed (and it's not really an ideology so much as it's a method of coersion towards ideology) but it can be reduced to an annoyance that claims dozens each year instead of thousands. As long as there are fanatics with weapons there will probably always be terrorism, but if we fight we can drastically reduce the amount and effectiveness of that terrorism.

Are we really winning? There are two liberated nations, dozens of smashed terrorist camps, hundreds of prisoners, and thousands of dead murderers that say "Yep".

And remember Jeremy, there is a difference between winning and won. No one said the situation is yet resolved.

A

"America: Only The Greatest Force For Good The World Has Ever Known; Keeping Up the Good Work, Whether You Want Us To Or Not!"

There will be no peace

Though mild clear weather
Smile again on the shore of your esteem
And its colours come back, the storm has changed you:
You will not forget, ever,
The darkness blotting out hope, the gale
Prophesying your downfall.

You must live with your knowledge.
Way back, beyond, outside of you are others,
In moonless absences you never heard of,
Who have certainly heard of you,
Beings of unknown number and gender:
And they do not like you.

What have you done to them?
Nothing? Nothing is not an answer:
You will come to believe - how can you help it? -
That you did, you did do something;
You will find yourself wishing you could make them laugh,
You will long for their friendship.

There will be no peace.
Fight back, then, with such courage as you have
And every unchivalrous dodge you know of,
Clear on your conscience on this:
Their cause, if they had one, is no thing to them now;
They hate for hate's sake.

- by W. H. Auden, 1956

William sez:

There was a gap of 8 ½ years between the last attack on American soil and the 9/11 attack.

The attacks on the USS Cole and our embassies in Africa were, technically speaking, attacks on US soil.

The Earth also came closest to Mars under the Bush administration.

So is that Bush's responsibility, too? To say that the greatest number of people died in terrorist attacks under the Bush administration implies that, but for the grace of Gore, we might have been spared these attacks.

Oh spare me.

The terrorists are responsible for 9/11, Jakarta, Bali, Jerusalem, Morocco, et al.

What a weasely comparison.

Couldn't have said it better. Thanks so much for being there. When's the book coming out?

Jeremy:

"You can not win a war on an ideology and to believe that you can wipe the ideology of terrorism from the entire world is PURE FOLLY."

We won the war against Nazi Germany and it's hate-filled ideology.

We won the war against Imperial Japan, and it's self-centered Emperor-worship ideology.

We won the war against the USSR. (If you call it a war - it was a battle against the ideology of monolithic communism - and we won.)

North Korea? Yeah, they're prospering and doing well these days.

Islamic terrorists - they've MAJORLY pissed us off. But they haven't SERIOUSLY pissed us off yet.

How can I tell?

Mecca and Medina are still intact. They REALLY piss us off, and the rubble will be glowing in the dark.

Mr. Whittle - an excellent essay, as usual. Thank you. Thank you from the bottom of my heart.

J.

Outstanding!

To hell with the whiners(and their little dogs too).

We won the war against Nazi Germany and it's hate-filled ideology.

We won the war against Imperial Japan, and it's self-centered Emperor-worship ideology.

We won the war against the USSR. (If you call it a war - it was a battle against the ideology of monolithic communism - and we won.)

North Korea? Yeah, they're prospering and doing well these days.

---

Nazi-ism and Neo Nazi-ism is still alive, so Nazi ideology is still alive, strike one.

Okay, we did win the war on Japan, as there are no large empires...

As for the Cold War, China and North Korea are still dictatrships running under a perverted form of "communism". Strike two.

So if the war on terrorism isn't about getting rid of terrorism, what is the point when you say you've won ? And experts and people like me who have studied terrorism know the answer is that this war will never end and there will be no winner.

Then surrender now, Jeremy, and get it over with. Other folk might have a different view on it.

mary said:

Jeremy - is terrorism an ideology? I always thought it was a military tactic that (lately) has been used mostly by Muslim surpremacist paramilitary groups.

---

Yes, terrorism is an ideology. Strategy is a military ideology on how to procede forward with actions...

As for defeating it, how can you ? You eliminate one cell, two more pop up... You eliminate those two, and you have new ones. Dealing with terrorism can not be done through force (military) or standard diplomatic channels. I've been studying terrorism for awhile, and I'll admit that I don't have THE answer... But a step in the right direction is a major change in foreign policy, especially with regard to backing out of Israel and letting them take care of their own problems.

Bill: Very nice. Your blog, along with VodkaPundit, Lileks, Sullivan, Instapundit and numerous others linked from those blogs have accomplished a great deal today in expressing the essence of the grief, rage, anger and resolve that I believe a majority of Americans hold within their hearts. And what of the major media today? How about the OpEd page of the New York Times, where I am confronted by a mealy mouthed lecture about patriotism printed above a reminder that the US really had this coming because it engineered the downfall of Allende in Chile over 30 years ago which resulted in the death of 3000 people. How could those editors draw such an outrageous comparison on this day? It's disgusting. This utter crap is balanced on the other page by Maureen Dowd, who titles her column, "We're Not Happy Campers" and delivers a completely embarassing, ugly and irrelevent screed about Amrican hubris. There is not one serious bit of serious reflection or intellectual effort in that piffle.

Again, thanks.

Terrorists are people who, for whatever reasons, attack targets without any declaration of hostilities, do not differentiate between civilian and military targets, and generally do not adhere to the Rules of War or Geneva Convention. This is not to be confused with Guerrila warfare, which is a tactically sound style of warfare when one side is severly out manned/gunned/etc . . . by their opponent.

Terrorists can be very powerful in their own right, because they cause fear and uncertainty. Where will they strike next?

However, terrorism has a downside. They tend to require some level of organization, the require funds, weapons, and new members to fill their ranks. Now, in any given country they MIGHT exist, but in countries that actively hunt down terrorists and criminals, they rarely can congregate in groups large enough to cause serious damage. Nor can they build huge arsenals of weapons, and they would certainly have a hard time seriously training in any true militaristic style.

However, where governments either turn a blind eye to their activities, or even actively support them, these groups can then build to become a major military force in their own right, and can house huge arms caches, and create a major central organization capable of coordinating complicated attacks.

We have all seen what this can result in.

By removing the dictators who allow these groups to operate freely, by installing governments that not only condone terrorism, but actively hunt them down, these organizations will lose any member that sticks his or her head out of their cave. They will have to continually move, resort to small groups of people, give up their arms caches, etc . . .

They will cease to exist as armies. They will cease to exist as organizations. They will merely be small teams of idiots running around attempting to cause trouble. By creating stable, defensive, defendable, open countries, we will crush terrorism. And it is working.

If Palestine would let our troops onto their soil, or would put their own military behind the Al Qeada/Taliban soldiers, we could wipe them out in a matter of weeks.

Will these actions end terrorism as a form of warfare for all time, in all manners? Of course not. It only takes one man, who is both suicidal and homicidal, to kill busloads of people. We cannot stop random acts.

But we can stop terrorism as we know it now, and I do believe that we are doing so.

JK

Just wanted to chip in my $0.02 worth of general agreement with Bill's theme here. But then I got going and the result is, as usual, probably longer than it is interesting. At least I haven't quoted Adam Smith in this one.

I remember vividly on 9/12/2001 feeling sure that more attacks would be forthcoming, and soon. At church on Christmas 2001 I had this unrelenting image of some lunatic lobbing a hand grenade through the door into the congregation just because we hadn't respectfully "paused" our prosecution of the Afghanistan war during Ramadan. (This overlooks the true workings of their thought processes, I know.) And I recall looking at the series of suicide bombings in Israel and was sure it was only a matter of time before I started hearing about similar attacks here stateside. Now we're two years out and no such attacks have followed. Naturally this is a good thing.

But I'm not sure it really means much. It's been pointed out that the time between the first and second WTC attacks was eight years. In that interim we disrupted one major intended attack (New Year's 2000) that I know of. That's about three major operations intended over a period of eight years (inclusive). So I'm not sure this two years we've had without a major attack on US soil is more than just the background rate of periods between atrocities. (I agree that the attacks on the USS Cole and the African embassies were technically American soil and all, but that isn't really illustrative of anything other than the ease of operateions which terrorists enjoy in African nations.) And it goes without saying that the Israelis would consider two years without an attack on their home soil to be a major improvement to their condition.

I don't mean any of this in a critical way, just cautionary. I'm proud of the way we have taken the fight to our enemies, and I think the campaigns in both Afghanistan and Iraq have been substantially successful in beginning to stamp out the long-term strategic problem. The armed forces have probably awed most of the rest of the earth with both their effectiveness and their conduct. And I think that fighting the main front of the War on Terror offensively in Iraq is far better than fighting it defensively here at home (though that element clearly plays its role also). The US military is the best-trained, best-equipped force on earth. I'd much rather have the Islamofacists fighting the 4th ID in Iraq than hitting shopping malls here in the US, because the 4th ID will hand the terrorists their asses over and over and over again. As will the 3rd ID, 101st Airborne, 82nd Airborne, etc.
I am somewhat concerned we may not stay the course though. I'm sure President Bush will, for at least another 16 months, and I hope he will through 2008. If he's not re-elected, we may retreat again in 2005, teaching the terrorists the lesson (again) that we as a nation have no stomach for a hard fight, and that ultimately we'll return to appeasement after our attention wanders and we want to go back to voting ourselves largesse from the public coffers. Or whatever the hell Dean/Kerry/Gephart (and those who would elect them) think we ought to be doing with our time and money instead of fighting an existential war against enemies hell-bent on our anihilation.

What exactly did the nation think when they heard Bush say that the war would be long and that many sacrifices would be required? That skipping dessert would be as far as they'd have to go in sacrifice? The nation sacrificed mightily the last time we were involved in an existential war. The workforce, which was almost entirely male, was almost entirely sent to war. Women had suddenly to go to work en masse. The economy was dedicated almost solely to supporting the war effort. There were price controls, rationing, war bonds, and Liberty Gardens. Is it possible that we as a nation have forgotten how to do that? Would anyone argue today that we shouldn't have fought Germany and Japan because it cost too much or the sacrifice would prove too high?

Yet already we're distracted and every liberal you hear or read about is suggesting that we do essentially that: bring our boys home, pull out of Iraq, and let the French and the UN persuade the bad guys to be nicer to us. The Neville Chamberlain "Peace in Our Time" crowd believes in this approach, which I think would work about as well this time around as it did for Neville. Some of the left say these things but probably don't believe them, and are saying them only for political gain. I believe John Kerry, who voted for the war resolution after all, is one like this. But bold statements made in primary season have a way of becoming policy just to avoid losing face by reversing one's self, and can be persuasive to one's adherents at any rate.

And I really don't think that even if Bush is re-elected, a second Bush term will necessarily see this war concluded. Remember the Thirty Years War? The Hundred Years War? Not all wars can be won so quickly as we hope, and the War on Terror may be one of those that takes a really long time. It's taken the better part of a whole presidential term to quash Afghanistan and Iraq. There are a lot of other nations that will have to be dealt with ultimately, some possibly refusing to mend their ways except after application of force. Which we won't be in a position to do any time soon.

Just my rambling, Bill-Whittle-Bandwidth-Consuming concerns about the overall strategic conflict. I am grateful to see that the President and his team seem able to grasp the importance of pressing the campaign. I do think we'll ultimately win, and yes, I think you could say we're "winning."

JK Saggese

I agree with Jeremy. We should back out of the Middle East and leave Israel to their own devices.

'Course, the result is the same--mushroom clouds over Mecca, Baghdad, Damascus, and Tehran.

Jeremy - How have you 'studied' terrorism? Are you working for a think tank? Are you researching it in a university? What do you know about al Qaeda, Wahhabism, Sayyed Qtub and jahiliyya. You've studied it - do you want to share what you know?

You're trying to convince us that we're already defeated, but you're not giving us much research or facts.

Islamist paramilitary groups have targeted Shiites in Iraq, they've slaughtered Hindus, Muslims in Morocco, Saudi Arabia and Indonesia.. how would our 'backing out of Israel' will have an effect on these attacks?

Islamists and their philosophy of jihad are responsible for the deaths and the enslavement of millions in the Sudan, for the deaths of thousands of Egyptian Copts, for the murder of thousands in New York, and hundreds in Bali. How would our 'backing out of Israel' will have an effect on those attacks?

Islamic fundamentalism and these paramilitary terror organizations are mostly funded by Saudi Arabia. Their jihad isn't just a threat to Americans, it's a threat to everyone who is targeted by it - Hindus, Jews, Muslims who aren't 'Islamic enough', Christians, Democrats, Republicans, Anarchists, Buddhists and the Falun Gong. We need to convince the world that the spread of this sort of fascism is a threat, and we need to show them that this threat can be defeated. And we need to break away from allies who want ot destroy us. Appeasement, in the form of backing out of Israel would be the worst thing we could do.

Just more proof that if we'd listened to the advice of the defeatists two years ago, the world would not be such a nice place.

Thank goodness for the blogosphere. While the mainstream media were colluding in their next phase of group amnesia we could read Lileks, Rantburg, Bill Whittle, Mr. and Mrs. du Toit, Powerline, Hugh Hewitt, Andrew Sullivan, Vodkapundit, and many others. I'm so grateful for the access to you and to all the other fine voices out there.

On the merits of who is winning or losing in the battle to save civilization, I give high marks to President Bush and to Secretary Rumsfeld along with our outstanding Generals and soldiers. My only complaint (wish?) is to ask that America give the same green light to Israel that we have given ourselves to destroy the bad guys.

"it is barely possible, mathematically, to tie the President’s record for defending this country from a new terrorist horror. You cannot – not even hypothetically – improve upon it. This is a fact that is undeniable and so obvious that only a few will see it."

Sorry Bill, most people can see it. It's just tough to tell listening to a media that is determined to lose this before we win it.

You took the words right out of my mouth Mary, good job demolishing Jeremy's defeatist logic.

The ongoing theme with the naysayers follows the leftist logic of zero-sum economics, they think zero-sum applies to American foreign policy as well. The end result is all the same...roll over, play dead, pretend there's nothing we can do to make anything better unless we make endless concessions to the other side.

My dear Jeremy:

Usually when I respond to someone on these pages, the words are my own. But in this case, your drivel has inspired me to quote from The Master Himself, one J. Lileks, Esq., and his description of what he calls, and what you so brilliantly display, "Virtuous Defeatism":

I’ve written here before about people who believe that skepticism is not only an obligation - which it is - but a modus vivendi, the only possible option for a Thinking Person. The end result of this philosophy is intellectual paralysis. The sufferers are unable to see some things for what they really are. Shown an elephant, their first instinct is to say that it might be the skin of an elephant stuffed with rabbits; just because it’s been an elephant before doesn’t mean it’s one now, and you have to look at who wants you to think its an elephant. When the elephant starts trampling people, and you want to round up villagers to drive the elephant away, the Virtuous Defeatists make fun of those who have accepted that this is, indeed, an elephant. But what of the dead people killed by the elephant today? Well, if it was an “elephant,” they’ll say, using mocking quotes, what drove it to stamp on the villagers? Who cares? It’s killing the villagers! Well, so you say - but look, here’s some evidence of poachers who killed elephants in Africa for their tusks. This is all just a war for ivory.

These people believe that skeptical minds will bring about Change - broadly defined in Utopian terms - but this sort of reflexive disbelief is usually a recipe for inaction. It cannot do anything without first convening a committee to draft a statement about the Elephant Situation, and they'll spend six hours arguing whether the statement from the People’s Front for Ibex Liberation will follow or preceed the Trisexual Orang-utan League’s call for free distribution of those tasty bananas, num num.

But sometimes it gets bloody; sometimes the failure to achieve Utopia does not discredit the idea, just the timidity of the methods used to secure it. The failure of Capitalism to address inequities is always depicted as a flaw of capitalism; the failure of Utopianism to bring about heaven on earth is always blamed on the insufficiencies of the people in the movement, or the means they use. Since the cause is supremely Just, human error and chance are criminalized; an inability to complete a Five Year Plan does not discredit the goals of the Plan - such a thing is not conceivable! - but can only be attributed to conscious efforts to thwart Utopia. And this is, by definition, a crime against humanity.

Hence the bloody basement of the Lubyanka.

No movement whose organizing principle is Opposition to Everything ever accomplishes heaven on earth. At its worst it cripples society and makes it vulnerable to the Jacobins eager to get down to the business of chopping heads for the greater good. This is why I find the American Revolution so astonishing - it managed to avoid that period of totalitarian tyranny that usually follows.

To further paraphrase Lileks (from a screed he delivered circa November, 2001), If Catholic Bishops formed a bucket brigade to put out a burning building, Jeremy would stand in the middle and drop the buckets to protest the Church’s refusal to ordain women.

Maybe you're right; maybe we'll never defeat terrorism. As you so rightly pointed out, 60 years after the (sneerquotes)"Victory"(/sneerquotes) over Nazism, we still have Nazis. So. Here's the overriding question for Jeremy: Are you or any of your loved ones more likely to die in the next 20 years from a "Nazi" or a "Terrorist"? As an addendum, is it more important to go after "Nazis" (all 154 of them currently operating in the world, Hollywood's version of "The Sum of All Fears" notwithstanding), or the "Terrorists"?

To quote Hobson (The butler from the movie "Arthur"), I await your next syllable with great eagerness.

--Dave (Unapologetic patriot, American, and supporter of the War! On! Terror!)

(Confidential to James Lileks: Hope you're not upset with my extensive quoting of your previous writings. I assure you that I didn't make a dime off it.)

Bill,

As always, right on and thank you. To quote the Budweiser commercials, "I love you man!" You are a blessing, and thanks for helping with this wonderful and yet sad anniversary. I know it is not a full fledged Whittle essay, but here is a link to something I submitted at Michele's Voices blog.

http://asmallvictory.net/photoblog/archives/004326.html

Enjoy! Just scroll close to the bottom and look for my name. I can't wait for the next essay, and get that book to us ASAP.

Sincerely,
Chris Whittaker

For all of this I am still SICKENED however by the opportunistic Democrats running for president, who would throw all of this away, and cause thousands more of us to die. Never has a political party been so traitorous to the country it claims to serve, never have there been people so vile gaining so much attention in the press.

And never have so many people so blindly followed such idiots, undoubtedly to their deaths. Too bad that they'll take the rest of us with them.

said by VRWCman:
To further paraphrase Lileks (from a screed he delivered circa November, 2001), If Catholic Bishops formed a bucket brigade to put out a burning building, Jeremy would stand in the middle and drop the buckets to protest the Church’s refusal to ordain women.

---

That is absolute and pure poppy cock. Its so amazing that you can make such a wide generalization based on one stance that your argument holds no water. Your statement fails because you are proposing an all or nothing statement and fall into the trap of most Americans, which is seeing only two sides: left and right, black and white. You miss those who are neither fully left or right. And such a statement as your proves that you see that believe the concept of left (or right) on issue, the same on the other. Pure folly.

I don't have time to respond to all of this, so let me just say thank you.

My personal favorite: "We are still here."

And might I add: We're NOT going away!

In response to Mary...

First, the "war on terrorism" is solely for the protection of America and its "interests." That is the sole reason that it was started. If in doubt, remember that Bush said so in his speeches. There is no altruistic goal to protect the whole world for terrorism, because if there were, we would have taken interest in terrorism long ago, but instead thousands of Israelis and Palestinians have died over the years... But if one America dies, hell fire rains on the world even though we have lost far less lives than Israel or the Palestinians. Hippocracy because no life is more valuable than any other.

I also double checked and these terrorist strikes against America coincided with the beginning of our involvement in the Middle East (placing bases, etc.) and in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. These are the root causes that brought these far right wing, reactionary Islamic terrorists against America as a whole, not that bull about our them hating our freedoms. That is the biggest lie perpetuated by the government and the media. They simply want to be left alone and they have every right to be left alone (several interviews as sources). Let Israel fight it out and let them blow each other up if they want to do it.

So, let's use logic, something often lacking today. If the root of the problem is our involvement in the Middle East (Kuwait/Iraq, building bases, supplying money and weapons to Israel, install facist dictators like Hussein), the only logical course is to STOP these activities. Any three year old knows after sticking his hand in fire that it harms you and that you should stop, you don't put out the fire every time to keep from being burned. The US foreign policy needs to mirror this natural protection.

And if it is defeatist to see the reality of this conflict (ie- that it is neverending and brought on by American foreign policy) and there are better ways of doing it, so be it. You can yell and call me a defeatist all you want, but it doesn't make it true.

Best regards,
Jeremy

It's oh so easy to belittle somebody's analogy when you do so anonymously. Jeremy is fully defeatist, and to deny that is to admit your inability to read. Just because there are many shades of gray does not mean that black and white do not exist.

Anyway, fantastic comments Bill! I eagerly await the next masterpiece (and the book!)

Shut up Jeremy. The 3000 who died on 9/11/2001 didn't place troops in Saudi Arabia, or Palestine, or Libya.

Neither did the 10,000 orphans from that day.

The terrorists themselves have stated that their goal is a world under Shari'a, and that all Americans are their targets, because we don't believe in their god, their book, etc etc.

You can paint it any way you like, but these are the stated goals. You can work the dates any way you like, but it's not going to be true.

Jeremy, I'd fact check your ass, but you don't post any facts. Just blind references. What did the Embassy explosions in Kenya coincide with? How about the Cole? Had to be the beginning of US involvement in Israel, cuz, you know, there wasn't any of that before 1980 or so, right?

You're embarassing yourself. Go back to Indymedia where the attention span is only marginally longer than the historical knowledge.

"They simply want to be left alone and they have every right to be left alone (several interviews as sources). Let Israel fight it out and let them blow each other up if they want to do it."

Absolutely disgusting regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq had every right to be left alone? You don't think the world is better for having destroyed these vile governments?

Israel is the only bastion of democracy in the region, and without American support I fear it will be swallowed up by the immense hatred that surrounds it.

Isolationism is the WORST possible response to terrorist attacks against the United States. Appeasement does not work, and has never worked, EVER. You claim to not be defeatist, but what else can possibly describe the position of "lets pack up and go home!"

Despite all those, even within our own country, who predicted defeat we have done quite well. I am actually surprised.

We have a long road ahead. We're in a marathon, not a fast sprint. But, if we don't give in to the defeatists we WILL win. We can ensure our children don't have to deal with those who would destroy us.

We have come this far by faith ... let's continue and go the distance.

From Shiva Archon to Jeremy:
You claim to not be defeatist, but what else can possibly describe the position of "lets pack up and go home!"
- - -
I may not know english well enought, as I'm Italian, but I can find other terms to describe Jeremy's position: COWARD, EGOIST, SELFISH...
... none of them I'd be proud to be.

Thanks America to keep up the lead of FREEDOM, with all the good and bad of it.

Roberto
Milano, Italy

Yes, by all means, let's use logic!

The war against death is even more pointless and hopeless than the wars against drugs, crime, poverty, and terrorism combined. Very few of us will even live a whole century, and all of us will die eventually, utterly without exception.

So, we should all stop breathing.

You go first, Jeremy.

We ARE learning.

We ARE squaring our shoulders, tasting our tears, transforming our anger and focusing our intent...

...on the Osamas, Fah'd bin-Abdul-Aziz's, Sleeper-Cell-leaders, Yasser Arafats and hate-filled killers of the world AND their Jeremys around the world, Jeremys and UmYeahs and QuietVoices who learn, quickly, that we have factual evidence on our side, in our armamentarium, to our benefit.

The Jeremys of western society STILL exclude themselves from the avowed, acknowledged targets of Islamo-fascism, 'ALL' non-believers... for whatever reasons, perhaps thinking to themselves, 'I'm on YOUR side, Osama...' even in face of 9/11 evidence that Osama does NOT CARE ONE WHIT that several of the Americans killed at his hand were MUSLIMS!

Jeremy, you're dirt, you're a lickspittle deserving of death... according to Osama. Your puerile, inchoate and poorly-reasoned apologias for him and his thugs does not and cannot save you from sharing the moral and spiritual reward accruing to Osama and his murderous ilk.

Well, I have to write SOMETHING, dang it.

I was on the road all day yesterday, when this mini-essay and all these great comments were hitting the photons, and didn't have access to a computer when I got to my destination. Now this morning I crack open the blog vault, and WHOA!

Great stuff! Great points! And not a single point that I wanted to make that wasn't already made by someone else, and made better as well. Beautiful. Thanks all.

JKS, your "big one" might have run long (and you're talking to an expert here), but it hit a lot of home runs along the way. Great stuff. Mary, girl, you are on a ROLL. Loved every one of yours. Shell, way back at the beginning, you had the best one-liner of the day... beautiful. And you're right, VRWCman, that quote from Lileks was perfect... as was the quoted 1956 poem from W.H. Auden, Mr. Riley. Great to hear from you too, Roberto from Milano, flawed English and all. And LabRat can always say in three sentences what it takes me three pages to over-describe, and be to-the-point and funny at the same time. Loved it.

Thanks also to JK, MarcV, Sapper Mike, aliestar, datarat, and Shiva Archon for all those nails hit so squarely on the head, and for points made that I hadn't even thought of.

What a great morning read.

And to Jeremy, "what THEY said!"

(sigh)

Like I said, I had to write SOMETHING.

GHS

Two observations, Jeremy:

1) You're using a straw man tactic in your arguements - refuting an opponent's weakest points (or attempting to, anyway) and ignoring their strongest points (which you know you are incapable of refuting). This won't fly here. If you're going to debate with someone you have a responsibility to respond to each point they make, otherwise you lose credibility ... yours is rapidly approaching zero.

2) You were asked - quite specifically - in what way you "study terrorism". Are you a CIA Consultant? A History Grad Student? A Military Intelligence Analyst? Beacuse so far all you've given us is that you have "several articles" as sources. This may come as a shock to you, Jeremy, but reading several articles - even reading lots of articles - doesn't grant one particularly good insight into terrorism. The real terrorism experts in this country (the CIA and military intelligence structures) have decades of experience with terrorism and access to the brightest minds in the nation, and they say fighting is the best option. And while those real-world credentials don't automatically mean our intelligence agencies are right every time, I do trust them over you and your "several articles".

So, Jeremy, we all await your refutaion of everyone's strongest arguements, and also for you to present your "terrorism expert" credentials. If you cannot acomplish both (we'll give you till the end of the day) then I urge you to stop embarassing yourself and go back to posting on alt.wesurrender or whereever it is you came from.

A

Dear Anonymous Moonbat:

You wrote:

That is absolute and pure poppy cock. Its so amazing that you can make such a wide generalization based on one stance that your argument holds no water. Your statement fails because you are proposing an all or nothing statement and fall into the trap of most Americans, which is seeing only two sides: left and right, black and white. You miss those who are neither fully left or right. And such a statement as your proves that you see that believe the concept of left (or right) on issue, the same on the other. Pure folly.

Pointe the Firste: When your enemies (and yes, they ARE our enemies) operate under the assumption that it's an all or nothing situation, that is to say "Accept Islam or die", it is folly to NOT be prepared for an all or nothing fight. I haven't been to church for years, and I have no intention of wrapping a smelly sheet around myself, prostrating myself five times a day in an easterly direction, and ululating on the high holy days just because that's what Mullah Omar wants. Further, to quote Charlie Daniels, "This ain't no rag, it's a flag, and we don't wear it on our heads." Get it?

Next point: I've written here before (I forget which essay it was) about my philosophy of left and right, and how it's an oversimplified version of politics. As I said then, it's less a matter of left and right than it is a matter of up or down. Either you believe in liberty, or you believe in tyranny. You can't have a little of the one or the other. Pick one; which side do you want to be on?

Another point: What's wrong with keeping it simple? George Orwell once said that there are some ideas so preposterous that only an intellectual can believe them. As a corollary, I suggest that some profound concepts are so simple that (self-proclaimed) intellectuals are incapable of believeing them.

And as for the people who, as you say, are neither left nor right: Screw 'em. The only things in the middle of the road are the dead armadillos. I'm not running for office here; I don't need "The Middle". I agreed with almost nothing that Paul Wellstone said or stood for, but I had respect for him, in that he said what he meant and meant what he said, and he didn't really concern himself with what anyone thought about it.

Neither do I.

--Dave

Because piling on is fun!

Jeremy (9/11/2003):
>>I also double checked and these terrorist strikes against America coincided with the beginning of our involvement in the Middle East (placing bases, etc.) and in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. These are the root causes that brought these far right wing, reactionary Islamic terrorists against America as a whole...

I can't help but recall with some amusement the often-repeated mantra of my statistics professor sophomore year in college: "Correlation does not prove causality." Hand in the fire results in a burn: you can demonstrate a causal event by way of a physiological explanation of the consequences. This is much stronger method than simply noting, and emphasizing, that the events happened at roughly the same time.

Basing your whole causal chain on "what every three year old knows," as you say (hand in fire argument), isn't the most compelling evidence I've been presented on the matter. If you have allowed yourself to be convinced on the basis of such flimsy evidence as a mere correlation in time, then I suggest you are too credible and not demanding enough in your proofs.

But of course, you have "several [unspecified] articles" and "several [unnamed] interviews as sources," so perhaps you could share with the rest of us what you've seen, so we can see the evidence which must be so convincing. Please do so in such a way that we can go look it up, as I really like to see raw data and source documents.

Seems this 9/11 anniversary has put me in a feisty mood...

JK Saggese.

Ok - First of all, terrorism is not an ideology, its a tactic. Carpet bombing and concentration camps are not ideologies, either, they are tactics.

In any "ideological" fight, both opponents utilize what they think are their most effective tactics to promote their ideology through a variety of means, including the use of force. The decisions about how force is employed are driven by ideology, but are not, in and of themselves, ideological.

A pretty reasonable analogy will be familiar to fans of TV detective shows: means, motives and opportunities.

The motive may or may not go away - but that's kind of the most intangible, and therefore hardest, of the three to fight. Opportunities - in the context of modern war - are an effective thing to pursue, since it doesn't necessarily require the use of force and thus doesn't engender as strong a reaction as does violence. The downside to this war is that limiting an opponent's opportunities can encroach on civil liberties or negatively affect the business of daily life.

All wars very directly attack an opponent's means of war fighting. From Sherman's March to the Sea, to the firebombing of Toyko, the US has a long history of applying violence to render impotent an opponent's means of prosecuting war.

At no point of which I am aware has an attack on warfighting motives resulted in a lasting peace more quickly, effectively or thouroughly than attacks on warfighting means.

Period.

While some of the points made above are cosmetically true, they seem to avoid the very ideological basis of this war announced by the combatants themselves. Iran feels that it has been fully engaged in a war with the U.S. since the 1982 invasion of Lebanon. Bin Laden is operating under the impression that he is ordained to defeat the two superpowers of the twentieth century the same way that Islam defeated the two superpowers of its day, the Turks and the Persians.

In both cases, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a rallying point (a strawman, if you will) which serves as an easily accessible emotional proxy for warfare, rather than the motive force behind the conflict itself. Not unlike the relationship between 9/11 and the Iraq War.

Finally, as far as root causes arguments go, I would caution those who focus on those to keep in mind that many folks feel that such arguments are an attempt to invalidate and trivialize the feelings of grief and violation experienced by so many during 9/11. I'm still waiting for the mayors of Nagasaki and Hiroshima to do some soul searching about root causes. Or waiting for the Jews to start discussing root causes of the Holocaust. Pray tell, if a female relative of yours is raped, then tell me about the root causes of rape and how they should get over it, how the response of rape victims will simply incite more violence or how they really deserved it.

You spend time telling me that. Me? I dont' have the time - I've got a war to fight.

Anticipatory Retaliation (9/12/2003):
>>At no point of which I am aware has an attack on warfighting motives resulted in a lasting peace more quickly, effectively or thouroughly than attacks on warfighting means.

Excellent point, Mr Retaliation. I should write so succinctly. Brevity...wit.

Mr Silverback, you are too kind with your compliments. Thanks.

And, (Steve Miller) "The Earth also came closest to Mars under the Bush administration. So is that Bush's responsibility, too?"

Very nice. I had to laugh at that one. It's been a punchline around my house here that any news story, no matter how unrelated to Bush, can and often is ended with "Kerry blamed the Bush administration for not preventing [whatever it was]." That also is another good example of my new motto, "Corellation does not prove causality."

Excellent work all. Carry on!

JKS.

Bill,

good perspective. I too, am impressed with our President's ability to remain firm in his convictions while many others doubt him. I first noticed that characteristic in his father. It is truly a difficult quality to maintain in that position, and during these times. I think the results you speak of are DIRECTLY linked to that single-mindedness.

thank you, jim

Its apparent that when debate a position against you all is like arguing with people like Rush Limbaugh. You are always wrong no matter what. You people twist words and concepts to fit your beliefs, most arguments are logical fallacious and there only appears to be one person here who knows anything about terrorism (who probably doesn't want to release his or her credentials for several reasons, who knows).

Ed

Jon and GreatHairySilverback (that's an excellent name) - thanks for the encouraging words

Jeremy -

You say that the idea that they hate us for our freedom is "the biggest lie perpetuated by the government and the media"

According to a book written by Yussuf al-Ayyeri, one of Osama bin Laden's closest associates, the greatest threat to the survival of fundamentalist Islam is American democracy. He believes that democracy could lead to economic prosperity, which, in turn, would make Muslims "reluctant to die in martyrdom" in defense of their faith.

Sayed Qtub believed that jihad should be waged against all states that exist in jahiliyya, (governments which wilfully chose to ignore God's word after it has been revealed.)

These extremists are very fussy about what they believe is "an Islamic state". Even the puritanical Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia aren't Islamic enough. Only Afghanistan under the Taliban was considered to be 'pure'.

One-time Hezbollah leader, Hussein Massawi, summed up the attitude of all Islamic terrorist groups towards the West with this: "We are not fighting so that you may offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you."

So, according to Qtub, Massawi and al-Ayyeri, they really don't just want to be left alone - and they do hate us for our freedoms. Do you beleive these men, or do you think they're working with our government and the media to perpetuate a 'big lie?'

If you want to understand terrorism, it's a good idea to learn something about the terrorists. You don't seem to know much about them, you only seem to be concerned with their attacks on Americans. How America-centric of you. Is that why you've come up with the strange idea that this all centers around our support of Israel?

Retreating into a Pat Buchanan/Dennis Kucinich-inspired isolationism in the face of this violent fascist movement would be a bad idea. We don't need any proof that the violence would eventually come to us - it did, on Sept. 11th. Running away doesn't discourage terrorism, it encourages it. If we'd followed the advice of the isolationists and the defeatists, our worst fears probably would have come true.

I didn't say that you were a defeatist - you were just intruding onto a day of remembrance, attempting to disprove Bill's very inspiring (and factual) essay, attempting to convince us that the terrorists will win and we will lose despite all evidence to the contrary.

Re: William's comment "More Americans have died due to terrorist attacks under this president than any other."

Up until two years ago, Bill Clinton had that distinction. What did he do? He publicly declared a War on Terror. That's it.

Did he mobilize our troops to fight this war? Did he ask Congress for funding to fight this war? Did he implement new policies designed to win this war? Hah! You must be joking.

I knew when he made that announcement that it was nothing more than hot air. I knew because I knew Clinton for what he was - a compulsive liar telling another whopper for his fawning legions to drool over. And events proved me right.

I also knew that President Bush's declaration of a War Against Terror was a lot more than hot air. I knew because I knew he is a politician who keeps his promises. And events have proved me right.

I am not fawning over George W. Bush. I find myself more and more disappointed with his policies and actions, and as it stands now, my vote for President next year is about 50-50 between him and the Libertarian candidate, whoever he/she may be.

But give the man his due. He is a strong leader who has set our nation on the road to Victory in this war. Clinton had his chance, but he couldn't be bothered.

Sapper Mike said
"Can we nab all sleepers likely residing in the U.S? Unlikely.

Can we prevent every act directed against us? Impossible.

Will we stop in our efforts to render these terrorist into paste?

NEVER!"

You couldn't have hit the nail on the head with a bigger hammer!

Excellent!

Bryan

By its very nature, terrorism is opportunistic. The attacks of 9/11--specifically the WTC, but also the Pentagon--occured because we allowed the opportunity to exist long enough for the terrorists to plan the attacks. In other words, for literally years such an attack could have occurred.

What Bush is doing right now is closing those windows of opportunity. Terrorists don't/won't have the luxury of planning for 8+ years to carry out the Next Big Thing. For the first time in this recent (last 20 years) terrorist era, we are taking the fight to them, thereby disrupting their ability to observe, analyze and exploit windows of opportunity.

For this Bush (and his team) deserve high praise and credit.

Jeremy said "But a step in the right direction is a major change in foreign policy..."

What the hell do you think we have been doing since we went into Afghanistan? Clinton's foreign policy is what made the 9/11 attacks possible. Bush has done a 180 on Clinton's appeasement policy and has taken the fight to the terrorists on the home soil.

Idiot.

Jeremy said "Any three year old knows after sticking his hand in fire that it harms you and that you should stop, you don't put out the fire every time to keep from being burned."

No you don't...if the fire is used for some serving purpose. But if that fire is there specifically to burn someone/anyone, you douse the flames, stir the coals, then douse them again to prevent the fire from ever rekindling.

Idiot.

Said by BKG: "What the hell do you think we have been doing since we went into Afghanistan?"

Let's see, we are still stick our noses in other people's wars, we still back Israel, we still have bases overseas where they are not wanted, etc. etc.

Nothing have changed. We have just started pushing that policy harder by fighting people against it...

BKG said: "No you don't...if the fire is used for some serving purpose. But if that fire is there specifically to burn someone/anyone, you douse the flames, stir the coals, then douse them again to prevent the fire from ever rekindling."

You miss what the statement meant entirely. Take it in the context of the fire being the Middle East, the Israeli/Palenstinian conflict, etc. Any further explanation would be me doing the thinking for you.

And I'll refrain from using ad-hominem attack...

Jeremy,
Speaking of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict...the US needs to let Israel fight its fight instead of tying its hands with our so-called "Road Map to Peace". The PLO is not interested in peace with the Israelis, only their destruction (which is evident by their constant attacks on innocent civilians by homicide bombers). As someone once quoted to me "two dynamically opposed forced cannot occupy the same space." By their own actions, the PLO is nothing more than another terrorist organization such as Hamas, Hezzbola, Islamic Jihad, take your pick.

And as far as you thinking for me...I'm not even going to justify that statement with a reply.

You're still an idiot.

Edward Carter says:

Its apparent that when debate a position against you all is like arguing with people like Rush Limbaugh. You are always wrong no matter what. You people twist words and concepts to fit your beliefs, most arguments are logical fallacious and there only appears to be one person here who knows anything about terrorism (who probably doesn't want to release his or her credentials for several reasons, who knows).

On the contrary, I've seen many people here have their opinions swayed one way or the other by a thoughful, well-stated arguement. I'm one of them, in fact. But Jeremy - who I'm pretty sure is your "one person here who knows something about terrorism" - has made no arguements of any substance (his "appeasement and appology" stance has been discredited time and time again and is respected by no terrorism experts that I've ever read). And he certainly hasn't responded to the strongest points made against his position by the posters here - in fact, he seems to be making a concerted effort to aviod them.

And few posters to Bill's site are old-school conservatives like Rush Limbaugh (who I personally despise). You should really learn more about the folks you're talking to before making inane statements like that.

Jeremy says:

You miss what the statement meant entirely. Take it in the context of the fire being the Middle East, the Israeli/Palenstinian conflict, etc. Any further explanation would be me doing the thinking for you.

What a pathetic dodge. We all got your analogy just fine Jeremy, and BKG's response was right on the money. But to extend and simplify it for you: If the middle east situation is a "fire" and the world is our "house" (and we got "burned" on 11sept01) than your brilliant solution amounts to running away and hiding in the closet! Unbelieveably short-sighted and foolish; the fire isn't going to put itself out, and if ignored it will only grow. The only sane choice is - as BKG said - to put the fire out, and make damn sure it's out for good.

Jeremy also said:

And I'll refrain from using ad-hominem attack...

Oooh, learn a big-boy debate term, did we? Well, here's another: Strawman Arguement. Look it up, and then stop doing it. Answer the dozen or so strongest arguemnts made against your position or be damned!

A

Jeremy,

I gotta hand it to you. You've had both arms and a leg chopped off and your still here yelling "Have at you!". Heh.

The gist of what you've said seems to be:

We brought the terrorism onto ourselves because we "got involved" with the Middle East. We have backed Israel (an ally for over 50 years no less) in their war agains the PLO and other terrorists. We put military bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. This pissed off certain people in the Arab world who now attack us.

Your solution seems to be:

Leave Israel (an ally for 50 years!) to work out it's problems on it's own. Get out now. Run back home. Then everything will be fine.

So (following your train of thought),

1) I guess we shouldn't have gotten involved in GW1. We should have just let Iraq rape, pillage and rule another country. It's none of our business.
2) We shouldn't have invaded Grenada. Those Americans there had it coming for just being there. They're on their own.
3) We shouldn't have bailed out the French and fought communism for 10 long years in Viet Nam. Just let communism take over (Everywhere). It's just easier and we wouldn't have lost 50K brave American soldiers either. We shouldn't have put bases in Britan, Germany, Italy et al to keep the Soviet Union at bay either. What a big waste of money!
4) We never should have helped out South Korea. "Don't take sides". Let South Korea handle it. I'm sure it would have worked out for the best. I hear things are going swimmingly in North Korea these days. What were we thinking!
5) We shouldn't have backed the British and the French back in 1941. They're on there own. They need to work it out "amongst themselves". After Pearl Harbor, we should have tried to understand why they (Japanese) would do such a thing.
6) Same goes for WWI.

If we follow your logic - it should apply to all these cases. Every damn one. And where would the world be now if we had.

You words and thoughts on this thread show you to be an imbecile - at least to me.

Have a nice day.

Not that this is even remotely related to the ongoing discussion(s) between most of the readers here and Jeremy/Edward, but I often wonder, when reading the comments of the (very few) dissenters and leftist/appeasers, just what their personal feelings would be if they had had a relative or loved one lose their live(s) as a result of any of these terrorist attacks.

I dunno, but I have to think they might have a different perpective if it ever hits that "close to home" for any of them.

And of course, excellent work once again Bill!

You nailed it. Fine piece of work.

If you are ever in our neighborhood again ( your last visit was w/Connie and Kim), stop on in for a piece of pie or other tasty treat.

Hey guys! Stop Pilling on Jeremy! He got one thing right!

Jeremy: "First, the "war on terrorism" is solely for the protection of America and its "interests." That is the sole reason that it was started."

And I would like to add, "and what's wrong with that!"

It has and always will be in America's best interest to have stable democratic governments in place in the middle east. Iraq and Afganistan are only the first and if American soldiers have to die in their hundreds over there to see that it happens it still better than American civilians dying in their thousands over here if it doesn't happen.

John Bouler

said by A:

Oooh, learn a big-boy debate term, did we? Well, here's another: Strawman Arguement. Look it up, and then stop doing it. Answer the dozen or so strongest arguemnts made against your position or be damned!

---

Actually, I've known that term longer than we've had the war on terror... *yawn* You can't even discuss something without belittling people. How typical of people like you.

As for the strawman argument... Actually, if anyone has used the strawman argument, its been many of you people. I post an issue and you distort the issue I present. Learn it properly, because strawman has nothing to do with not responding to arguments.

Strawman argument (not my words, but the best way of putting it):

Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

said by John:

It has and always will be in America's best interest to have stable democratic governments in place in the middle east.

---

Correct, absolutely correct. But the problem with that is trying to "install" democracy. The revolutions that occur from within and are not forced from the outside. The problem is when we go there and build nations, people's control over their nation and government is lost and many don't like it. The Iraqi's love the fact that we are there and Saddam is gone, but they want control of their country again. America doesn't think they are ready, but these people are and they have been itching for a long time. However, I would have rather seen them institute change on their own and this been their victory, not ours.

Its been said that the Middle East is one of the sleeping giants and its correct. The Middle East was getting to a point where it was ready to engage in massive cultural and ideological change and you can see it in other nations where women are becoming more and more educated and empowered.

Use the American revolution for example, it was partly successful because the was a the critical mass of people who wanted independence and it became the will of the people. France helped and we owe them a lot for that, but if they had come in and induced such a regime change or revolution, it is very likely that the outcome would be different.

The fact is, yes, regime change and government reforms are needed over there, but from the people themselves. And yes, democracy is in the best interest.

Said earlier:

Not that this is even remotely related to the ongoing discussion(s) between most of the readers here and Jeremy/Edward, but I often wonder, when reading the comments of the (very few) dissenters and leftist/appeasers, just what their personal feelings would be if they had had a relative or loved one lose their live(s) as a result of any of these terrorist attacks.

---

I would have likely ask that there be no more bloodshed, including the war, period. I'm not going to defend my spiritual beliefs against anyone's attacks, but that's where that is rooted.

"Let's see, we are still stick our noses in other people's wars,"

Not often enough, according to the left.

"we still back Israel,"

Which is bad because...uh, it has Jews in it? Here's some reading to brush up on: http://www.nicedoggie.net/archives/002714.html#002714

"we still have bases overseas where they are not wanted,"

Patently false. We have bases where they are not wanted by the POPULATIONS. The governments, for the most part, like them just fine.

"etc. etc."

No, please, give us more!

"Nothing have changed. We have just started pushing that policy harder by fighting people against it..."

That's exactly what's changed, we're fighting now. Once again, the people we're fighting are the people who want to kill us. Why they say they don't like us is completely irrelevant, they'll invent new reasons for as long as our society exists as it is.

Ed: Want some cheese with that whine? Plenty of dissenters have come here and earned respect despite an extremely deep central disagreement. Jeremy is under fire because of his Artful Dodger tactics- he's not giving us a debate, he's grousing with his fingers in his ears. That sometimes works in a moderated political debate, because there's NO WRITTEN RECORD and EVERYONE IS CONFINED TO A SHORT SPAN OF TIME. Here we can see a record of every point he's made and had refuted and then ignored. Dissent is not some sort of priceless commodity, it's just another opinion, and like any other it needs to be well-expressed to be taken seriously.

Remember folks: Even though the Middle Eastern conflicts have been going on literally since the dawn of civilization, with mostly the same players, and that they've been genuinely under the bootheel of at least three real-deal empires (the Roman, Ottoman and assorted European nations), and that Isreal was conceived and created by Britain back when America was still almost totally isolationist, it is ALL AMERICA'S FAULT and that's why we're getting attacked.

More twisting of the words:
Even though the Middle Eastern conflicts have been going on literally since the dawn of civilization, with mostly the same players, and that they've been genuinely under the bootheel of at least three real-deal empires (the Roman, Ottoman and assorted European nations), and that Isreal was conceived and created by Britain back when America was still almost totally isolationist, it is ALL AMERICA'S FAULT and that's why we're getting attacked.

---

Israel is not America's fault and everyone knows that, period. The problem is America's recent involvement with Israel through money and WEAPONS. Some of the weapons that are killing civilians (as well as the one's used by Al Qaeda) in Palestine and Israel have "Made in the USA" stamped on them... They don't like our recent backing and involvement and would likely have left us alone had we stayed neutral. Nice attempt to twist the Middle East involvment argument though, very artful.

OOppps. The above is MY comment.

Posted earlier:

Which is bad because...uh, it has Jews in it? Here's some reading to brush up on: http://www.nicedoggie.net/archives/002714.html#002714

---

That's all old news and history... And some of it is pure Pro-backing opinion masked as fact. There is nothing there I haven't heard before.

I wanted to take this opportunity to respond to and clarify some of the points that have been made. This is Bill’s site not mine so I promise not to make this a common occurrence. My point was not to attack George Bush’s policy on terrorism. It was intended to challenge the statement (and the belief) that Bush’s policies are impossible to improve upon. The point of my response was to try to get express my concern how everything is becoming so polarized and that it is important to understand that people can disagree with President Bush and not be anti American. Blind devotion and yelling down opponents does not help anyone. Yes there are extremists on the left (see Jeremy’s first post) as I hope everyone will agree there are extremists on the right (see those who have said that God allowed 9/11 to happen because we have taken God out of our schools, workplace and governments). But thankfully these people are the minority. Their warped beliefs should not be used to represent the opinions of all those who do not agree with the current administration (or those that do). To often the feeling I have gotten from this site, and in general, is that you are either with us or against us.

Before any one tries to interpret that as meaning for America (us) or for terrorism (them) let me clarify. One can believe that the force used in Afghanistan was a great idea (and thank god we had a republican administration that was able to take the time to plan and implement a plan of action, instead of a democratic one that would have felt the need to react instantly to prove they are “tough” and launched a few missiles). That same person can also believe that by attacking Iraq we diverted focus from completing the job in Afghanistan and that we sacrificed much of the good will internationally that was allowing us to go after terrorism cells throughout the region and the world. Not to mention the irreplaceable lives of our young men and women and a huge amount of tax payers money. One can even debate the motives behind the attack. Personally, I think the idea that we did it “for oil” is a joke. I do believe that a large part of the motive was that it allowed for the potential of a clear-cut victory. Unlike attacking cells, which while useful and productive, does not allow for the same victory speech (on a carrier maybe?) as defeating a visible and identifiable enemy. None of this makes someone defeatist or self-hating.

But what I have come to realize is that there is truth the fable of the frog and the scorpion. The frog hadn’t even left the riverbank before the first sting. Nowhere in my message did I say or imply that President Bush has done a worse job than President Clinton (I know this to be true because I believe that Clinton did a terrible job). But it only took the first post for someone to blame Clinton. I would have thought that to be a record but many other posts followed stating how it was Clinton’s fault. This goes back to the original problem of us versus them. If you blame terrorist acts that occurred after his administration on Clinton then why was it I saw no posts even mentioning the terrorists attacks that occurred under the first President Bush or even President Reagan. If Clinton is responsible for 9/11 then is the First President Bush responsible for the first attack on the World Trade Centers? Is Reagan responsible for the attack on the barracks in Lebanon? (the answer is no, things aren’t quite that simple no matter what party is in office).

The truly sad thing is that if I were to post something on a liberal site saying I supported the Afghanistan force and many aspects of the Patriot act the stings would be as swift and as venomous regarding Bush being evil. (I don’t go to those sites because I don’t have time and haven’t found one that has Bill’s skills. In almost every posting I have read, many of which I have had the same problems with that I state here, he is able to turn a phrase that is worth all the reading and disagreements). For those of you who first reaction is to blame Clinton, realize you are no different than those who claim President Bush is nothing but evil, you are two sides of the same coin.

America can and will survive the attacks from terrorists who fear what we have to offer to the world. The greater danger is to lose the ability to listen and reason behind the noise of rhetoric and blind reactions.

Sorry for the length, I will gladly give the site back to Bill and his fans (who deserve it and could never lose it anyway). Just remember to listen to all sides and think, not just react because Rush Limbaugh or Norm Chomsky or even Bill (forgive me Bill for putting you in such terrible company)said that thats the way it should be. I also must give credit to what I thought was the best response in defending President Bush from the implied attack. If I had been attacking him it would have been tough to argue his point. The others would have been fairly easy to defend. The one person who said it in the fewest number of words. To Rich and the response “and more terrorists too”…touché.

Jeremy,

You still haven't answered my post. If we follow what you say, we shouldn't have backed up ANY of out allies over the last 70 years.

You actually seem to think that the terrorists would NEVER have attacked us if we'd have just stayed out. Not backed an ally (Israel).

Which, BTW, would have resulted in Israel's destruction by this point (IMO).

Not many are going to buy that here without something to back it up - at least with something more than your OPINION.

Jeremy says:

Strawman argument (not my words, but the best way of putting it):

Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

No, that is simply incorrect (but close in an odd sort of way). Strawman (the working defenition of which can be found at http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/straw.php, and you should pay particular attention to example ii because it shows exactly what you've been doing) works like this:

Person A has position X, supported by arguements 1 (strongest), 2 (mediocre), and 3 (weakest).

Person B refutes arguement 3 only, ignoring arguements 1 and 2.

Person B declares position X flawed based solely on his refutation of arguement 3.

I can pick out at least three instances in this thread where you've done precisely this - more if I bother to look with any real effort. Hell, you just did it in your last response - you utterly ignored the "fire" analogy when it turned against you!

However I can't find a single instance where it's been done to you, and I'll call you a liar to your face (such as it is on the internet) for claiming that it has. Everyone here has gone to great pains to refute your arguements on a point-by-point basis, a courtesy you seem unable to return.

Away with you, Jeremy. You stand revealed as the fool you are.

"You can't even discuss something without belittling people. How typical of people like you."

I guess you're going to employ ad hominem after all. Man, when you fall off the wagon, you don't even bounce. As long as we're playing the logical fallacy game- I love that game- this is technically an ad hominem and a style-over-substance argument rolled into one.

"Actually, if anyone has used the strawman argument, its been many of you people."

I know you are but what am I. So THERE.

"I post an issue and you distort the issue I present. Learn it properly, because strawman has nothing to do with not responding to arguments."

Please provide precise examples of your sterling points and how we twisted them into unrecognizability and then dismissed them. What were you REALLY trying to say, if not that we brought the attacks on ourselves by going around meddling, that the war on terrorism is pointless because we can't change their minds? Now's your chance, say *exactly* what you mean, premises and conclusions and all. Make it untwistable.

"But the problem with that is trying to "install" democracy."

We should learn the lessons of history: look how badly it worked out for Germany and Japan when we forced democracy on them.

"The revolutions that occur from within and are not forced from the outside."

You mean like the one in Iraq that started in 1991 when they thought we weren't going to stop at the border and was subsequently put down with extreme prejudice by the Baathists, from which we are still finding mass graves? Or the Afghanis that were pressed to death with big rocks for sounding like they said something like "democracy" when they sneezed?

"The Iraqi's love the fact that we are there and Saddam is gone, but they want control of their country again."

And we're giving it to them. We're trying to turn as much control as possible over to local governments and police forces. The problem is that there isn't a living generation in Iraq that remembers how to run the country under a representative government instead of a dictatorship, and that we must prevent the Baathists from taking over again.

"America doesn't think they are ready, but these people are and they have been itching for a long time."

It took Germany and Japan each years and years to be ready, and once they were they joined the world as first-rate industrial powers. What makes you think the Iraqis are or will be any different?

"Its been said that the Middle East is one of the sleeping giants and its correct."

Actually, this was said shortly before the Afghan war (by Al-Qaeda no less), and shortly before the Iraq war, when in each instance they were predicting huge bloody involved conflicts and uprisings of the Arab street. You can STILL hear the crickets chirping.

"The Middle East was getting to a point where it was ready to engage in massive cultural and ideological change and you can see it in other nations where women are becoming more and more educated and empowered."

Which nations? Remember, Afghanistan went from a liberated and reasonably secular nation to an extremist regime. Women went from educated professionals to one cut below livestock there, until we intervened. How are we impeding this progress rather than abetting it, elsewhere, currently?

"Use the American revolution for example"

As long as we're still playing "spot the logical fallacy", this is an argument from an unrepresentative sample. The American revolution is of particular historical interest because it is one of the very few, possibly only totally internal democratic revolutions to produce a stable government. The French revolution was a disaster and they're currently on republic number five. The Australians and the Canadians didn't revolt, they got increasing independence by mutual agreement with their respective governments. The British helped India set up their democracy after a relatively bloodless revolution.

"I would have likely ask that there be no more bloodshed, including the war, period."

That's nice. I'd like that too. Doesn't make it feasible.

Point by point:
You still haven't answered my post. If we follow what you say, we shouldn't have backed up ANY of out allies over the last 70 years.
---

How is backing Israel, a country that is a terrorist country and does harbour terrorists and that uses terrorist like methods worth backing ? Backing Israel is nothing like backing a country like England who is on the verge of an invasion and virtually on the verge of collapse (Israel has nukes, so they have no problems according the to deterrence theory). No, we are actually giving them the tools by which Israel has made incursions illegally, destroyed homes and expanded its terrority.

The way we back Israel is by giving them weapons and money. Then we turn a blind eye and they buy weapons (with the money) or use it to do things that make the situation worse (bomb homes without regard for bystanders, etc.). Israel is currently working on building a road with American money which would take it though "Palestinian" terroritory. Believe me, if England had as bad of a rap sheet as Israel, I would have said "The hell with them."

You actually seem to think that the terrorists would NEVER have attacked us if we'd have just stayed out.
---

You ignore other factors and focus on Israel alone. I've stated other factors, but Israel is a HUGE flash point.

"They don't like our recent backing and involvement and would likely have left us alone had we stayed neutral. Nice attempt to twist the Middle East involvment argument though, very artful."

Oh, calm down. I wasn't trying to twist your argument to make it look like you were directly arguing that the Middle Eastern conflict is totally America's fault, I was pointing out a fallacy of exclusion: you are arguing that America has earned the ire of the Middle East through its own actions, yet you ignore that other nations and peoples have done far worse to the people of these nations and are NOT recieving terrorist "retribution", and other nations that have done absolutely nothing (like Norway) are. This implies that outrage over injustice done is not the "root cause" of terrorism, which I understand to be your argument.

"Some of the weapons that are killing civilians (as well as the one's used by Al Qaeda) in Palestine and Israel have "Made in the USA" stamped on them..."

In point of fact a lot more of the weapons that kill civilians in the Middle East are Soviet-made, and this is not a secret. Hell, many of them were used once and then dropped by bona fide Soviets in Afghanistan. By your logic, Russia should be taking the brunt of the attacks, but mysteriously they are not.

For the record, William, I wasn't blaming Clinton in my response to your post. I was merely trying to point out that your statement "more Americans have died due to terrorism under this president than any other" didn't really proove anything at all about George Bush; the events that set up 11sept01 happened before he was in office, so the abomanably high terrorism casualties on his watch is a skewed statistic.

And I agree with you that shouting people down doesn't do anyone any good. I think folks in this forum have tried hard to give sound and thoughtful responses to opposing viewpoints, even when those in opposition seem unwilling to return that simple courtesy.

I also once held your position on Afganistan and Iraq - but then I read extensively about Saddam and his blood-soaked regime. After that stomach-turning literary adventure my opinion became hunt down that inhuman son of a bitch and everyone who worked for him, and don't stop the artillery strikes or bombing missions until every last one of them is a body bag or a jail cell.

But your points are well-made and seem honest and thoughtful. I like to hear other viewpoints, and though I hold my opinions strongly they can certainly change when enough evidence is presented. I, for one, have found your input valuable.

Mmmmmmmm. Bandwidth.

A

Stated:
What a pathetic dodge. We all got your analogy just fine Jeremy, and BKG's response was right on the money. But to extend and simplify it for you: If the middle east situation is a "fire" and the world is our "house" (and we got "burned" on 11sept01) than your brilliant solution amounts to running away and hiding in the closet! Unbelieveably short-sighted and foolish; the fire isn't going to put itself out, and if ignored it will only grow. The only sane choice is - as BKG said - to put the fire out, and make damn sure it's out for good
---

Okay, let's look at this then.

The fire in this case in the Middle East and other conflicts. It is isolated and under control because it is in one area and confined to that. In essence, it is a fire on the stove burning.

Along comes America (or any other country) and sticks their nose in to the fire, let's say by installing some dictator. That country gets burned for going into a situation, just like a nose gets burned for going into the fire.

So, here's the problem. Did the burn happen because the fire is there or because the hand went in to the fire ? The only answer is, if the fire is isolated, as is the Middle East because they tend to be isolationist, then the only way to be burned is by going into the fire.
And the cause of the burn IS the fire (fire causes burns), but the CASUAL EVENT for the burn was going into the fire, not the fire being lit.

So how do you stop from being burned. Stay out of the fire. If the fire were spreading, you put it out, but here is where your analogy fails. They Middle East is not an expansionist empire like The Romans or The Greeks, the are staying put. Yes, these ultra right, reactionary groups are trying to combat American influence that has been both negative and positive for them, but the Middle East is not growing.

As well, putting them out is essentially kin to wiping out the Middle East. Sorry, no can do there and you know it. If America carpet bombed the Middle East, and many have said to do so, we would lose our backing.

So no, its NOT run and hide... Its keep a safe distance and keep the nose out of the fire.

"How is backing Israel, a country that is a terrorist country and does harbour terrorists and that uses terrorist like methods worth backing?"

I guess I'm done debating you. Blanket, (IMHO - stupid) opinions like that are ignorant, racist and aren't worth my time. Pheeouw!

BTW Bill, I never said great essay as always. Very upbeat for a depressing day. Thank you.

"How is backing Israel, a country that is a terrorist country and does harbour terrorists and that uses terrorist like methods"

Support this. Provide specific examples and your underlying logic. Then we'll talk.

"No, we are actually giving them the tools by which Israel has made incursions illegally, destroyed homes and expanded its terrority."

Israel claimed territory under recognized international law at the time during four seperate wars started by their neighbors, the intent of which was to wipe Isreal out as a country. Since then there have been "incursions" into designated Palestinian territory, consisting of settlements. How this breach of the worthless pieces of paper they still refer to as "treaties" than the prior breaches consisting of rocket attacks and nailbombs on schoolbuses on the part of the Palestinians, no one has yet explained.

Insisting Israel rigidly abide by a treaty concerning an imaginary line past which settlements are not allowable when Palestinians refuse to stop the siege of terrorist attacks- and if you read the statements by their leadership, it's not an inability to control the organizations, it's a blatant refusal- is absurd.

" Believe me, if England had as bad of a rap sheet as Israel, I would have said "The hell with them.""

No, it's much worse. At the times we came to their rescue, they were busily engaged in ruling about 20% of the earth by force in corrupt colonial governments, engaging in massive force buildup, and employing chemical weaponry (in WWI).

Stated earlier:
I was pointing out a fallacy of exclusion: you are arguing that America has earned the ire of the Middle East through its own actions, yet you ignore that other nations and peoples have done far worse to the people of these nations and are NOT recieving terrorist "retribution", and other nations that have done absolutely nothing (like Norway) are. This implies that outrage over injustice done is not the "root cause" of terrorism, which I understand to be your argument.
---

Good catch, but I've attempted to focus on America solely, after all we are attempting to argue (right now) the roots of strikes against America. I'm not trying to focus on the world for two reasons: One, because terrorism has to be looked at by several different levels because motivations are unique to country and circumstance. Two, to paint