i am against harming civilians, thus i think terrorists are morally inferior

[Edited on August 11, 2006 at 11:09 AM. Reason : nm]

8/11/2006 11:07:21 AM

Quote :

"HOWEVER, it is digusting for someone on our side to sympathize with the someone who has murdered > 3000 of our citizens and still plots to do so."

Who's sympathizing with him?

The guy's a rational actor. That is all. Many, many monsters throughout history have been rational players (Hey, remember Saddam?)



[Edited on August 11, 2006 at 11:09 AM. Reason : .]

8/11/2006 11:07:56 AM

Quote :

"Prawn Star: This is too easy."

An unfortunate consequence of a poorly worded question.

You will nonetheless find it infinitely more difficult to find any examples of terrorist organizations that claim to attack us because of our way of life.

Even in bin Laden's letter, which I'm glad you cited even though you totally ignored the more relevant portion where he explains in totally unambiguous terms why he attacks us, he cites our policies as his motivations to attack us, not our lifestyle, which he does call on us to change.

From your link:

Quote :

"(Q1) Why are we fighting and opposing you? ... As for the first question: Why are we fighting and opposing you? The answer is very simple: (1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us. a) You attacked us in Palestine: (i) Palestine, which has sunk under military occupation for more than 80 years. The British handed over Palestine, with your help and your support, to the Jews, who have occupied it for more than 50 years; years overflowing with oppression, tyranny, crimes, killing, expulsion, destruction and devastation. The creation and continuation of Israel is one of the greatest crimes, and you are the leaders of its criminals. And of course there is no need to explain and prove the degree of American support for Israel. The creation of Israel is a crime which must be erased. Each and every person whose hands have become polluted in the contribution towards this crime must pay its*price, and pay for it heavily. (ii) It brings us both laughter and tears to see that you have not yet tired of repeating your fabricated lies that the Jews have a historical right to Palestine, as it was promised to them in the Torah. Anyone who disputes with them on this alleged fact is accused of anti-semitism. This is one of the most fallacious, widely-circulated fabrications in history. The people of Palestine are pure Arabs and original Semites. It is the Muslims who are the inheritors of Moses (peace be upon him) and the inheritors of the real Torah that has not been changed. Muslims believe in all of the Prophets, including Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allah be upon them all. If the followers of Moses have been promised a right to Palestine in the Torah, then the Muslims are the most worthy nation of this. When the Muslims conquered Palestine and drove out the Romans, Palestine and Jerusalem returned to Islaam, the religion of all the Prophets peace be upon them. Therefore, the call to a historical right to Palestine cannot be raised against the Islamic Ummah that believes in all the Prophets of Allah (peace and blessings be upon them) - and we make no distinction between them. (iii) The blood pouring out of Palestine must be equally revenged. You must know that the Palestinians do not cry alone; their women are not widowed alone; their sons are not orphaned alone. (b) You attacked us in Somalia; you supported the Russian atrocities against us in Chechnya, the Indian oppression against us in Kashmir, and the Jewish aggression against us in Lebanon. (c) Under your supervision, consent and orders, the governments of our countries which act as your agents, attack us on a daily basis; (i) These governments prevent our people from establishing the Islamic Shariah, using violence and lies to do so. (ii) These governments give us a taste of humiliation, and places us in a large prison of fear and subdual. (iii) These governments steal our Ummah's wealth and sell them to you at a paltry price. (iv) These governments have surrendered to the Jews, and handed them most of Palestine, acknowledging the existence of their state over the dismembered limbs of their own people. (v) The removal of these governments is an obligation upon us, and a necessary step to free the Ummah, to make the Shariah the supreme law and to regain Palestine. And our fight against these governments is not separate from out fight against you. (d) You steal our wealth and oil at paltry prices because of you international influence and military threats. This theft is indeed the biggest theft ever witnessed by mankind in the history of the world. (e) Your forces occupy our countries; you spread your military bases throughout them; you corrupt our lands, and you besiege our sanctities, to protect the security of the Jews and to ensure the continuity of your pillage of our treasures. (f) You have starved the Muslims of Iraq, where children die every day. It is a wonder that more than 1.5 million Iraqi children have died as a result of your sanctions, and you did not show concern. Yet when 3000 of your people died, the entire world rises and has not yet sat down. (g) You have supported the Jews in their idea that Jerusalem is their eternal capital, and agreed to move your embassy there. With your help and under your protection, the Israelis are planning to destroy the Al-Aqsa mosque. Under the protection of your weapons, Sharon entered the Al-Aqsa mosque, to pollute it as a preparation to capture and destroy it."

You may let a semantic pwnt satisfy you, but I highly doubt you had any real substantive point beyond being argumentative. The mere fact that attacks have preceded "message[s] about our way of life" doesn't indicate that they attacked us because of it; unless that's what the message says. And in your example, your "pwnt," I'm afraid that the message says quite the opposite.

---

Quote :

"trikk311: it seems as though he hates us because of how we are....who would have thought that??"

I dunno, anyone with a culturally and historically informed opinion?

But then, hatred evidences itself in many ways, of which terrorism is only one. What's more likely to motivate an Arab to join a terrorist organization and attack the West more: hatred of gambling, interest, drug use, and promiscuity in the West; or its repeated spearheading of interventionalist foreign policies that ignore Arab nations' fundamental sovereignty?

---

Quote :

"bgmims: I mean, they don't like it, shouldn't we give in?"

Are you serious?

Is your philosophy of governance honestly that a Democratic government must resemble an autocratic, fascist regime in its steadfast adherence to older policies when it is attacked over the consequences of them?

According to your view, policy changes are impossible unless we aren't being attacked over the negative consequences of them. That sounds like an excellent way to halt progress on foreign matters, and guarantee that current and future policies that encourage foreigners to attack our country will become stalwarts of our nation's political identity. Of course, the other consequence is that we'll just be attacked more and more, but I suppose that's the end goal of such a philosophy.

Quote :

"bgmims: That was pwnt shortly after being uttered"

Anything you'd like to add or amend here?

Quote :

"bgmims: 1) Because that's part of being a decent human being"

Are you saying that part of being a decent human being is encouraging your government, whenever the purse allows, to single-handedly serve as judge, jury, and executioner of other nations when it comes to human rights violations in other countries?

Quote :

"bgmims: 2) ? Are you fucking serious?"

Yes, I'm serious.

When somebody's philosophy has a stranglehold on the way my country's foreign policy is operating, I absolutely want to know who.

Quote :

"bgmims: 3) I can appreciate the point that we only deal with those violations that are politically expedient, but is that better than not dealing with any at all, right? I mean, just because we haven't solved the problem in the Sudan, does that mean we are allowed to solve no other problems."

Sure, but what leads you to believe that we must rush to deal with them by ourselves?

Think about it practically. While we're handcuffed "stabilizing" Iraq and Afghanistan and Israel's pushing into Lebanon, other nations throughout the world (Sudan is only one example) are being destabilized, and will be adequate breeding grounds for terrorists by the time we're out of those two nations.

We can't be everywhere at once. Not even with Britain and Israel's help. Even with the staggering resources of those three nations, we'd still need the rest of the world's help. Otherwise, we'll be engaged in a multiple-trillion-dollar, centuries-long game of Whack-A-Mole; invading a nation, clearing its terrorist organizations as best as possible, re-stabilizing it, and moving on to another.

And that's where political expediency come into play. Al Qaeda declared war against the United States almost a decade ago, but it wasn't until they attacked us on our own soil that our leadership decided to launch a humanitarian mission to democratize the rest of world.

How much credibility does that mission have?

How much credibility would it have had if we'd begun it before 9/11?

I think you get my point.

Quote :

"bgmims: I mean, just because we haven't solved the problem in the Sudan, does that mean we are allowed to solve no other problems."

Of course not. But it does at least provide a basis for evaluating how the United States goes about priorizing which nation's human rights violations are worthy of our attention and which aren't...

[Edited on August 11, 2006 at 11:23 AM. Reason : ...]

8/11/2006 11:21:25 AM

IF YOU THINK HE IS A RATIONAL ACTOR, WHY DON'T YOU JUST MARRY HIM?

8/11/2006 11:22:42 AM

WHO?

OSAMA OR SADDAM? BECAUSE SADDAM'S MOUSTACHE TICKLES ME WHEN I KISS HIM

8/11/2006 11:27:49 AM

Quote :

"Excoriator: This is the crux of the matter: liberals think we are dealing with sane humanitarian people who merely have a different perspective on world affairs than we do. but actually we're dealing with andrea yates style nutjobs who feel called by allah to destroy all of mankind and usher in the [apocalypse] / [utopian islamic world] / [whatever makes u feel better about killing people]"

Stunning analysis of Al Qaeda's membership. Does your information come from scholarly studies done on the matter, or just your intuition?

For anyone who may be interested in reading the scholarship on this question...

Quote :

"The Face of the New Global Jihad In one of the first comprehensive non-governmental studies of its kind, Dr. Sageman collected data on 400 terrorists, focusing on those targeting the West as opposed to their own governments. He divided them into four large clusters: the old leadership of Al Qaeda; the Magreb Arabs (people from North Africa, Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria), including the second generation who grew up in Western Europe and whose parents come from those regions; the "core" Arabs (Egyptians, Saudis, Jordanians, Yemenis and Kuwatis); and Southeast Asians (Indonesians). The results, he says were surprising. "It turns out that the terrorists are very much like us," he says. "They're not really all that different." In a 2004 speech, Sageman explained, "Most people think that terrorism comes from poverty, broken families, ignorance, immaturity, lack of family or occupational responsibilities, weak minds susceptible to brainwashing -- the sociopath, the criminals, the religious fanatic, or, in this country, some believe they're just plain evil." But Sageman found that three quarters of his sample came from the upper or middle class. The vast majority -- 90 percent -- came from caring, intact families. 63 percent had gone to college, as compared with the five to six percent typical in the third world. "These are the best and brightest of their societies in many ways," he says. The terrorists he studied were not, for example, "the Palestinian 14-year-olds we see on the news," but they joined the jihad at an average age of 26. Three-quarters were professionals or semi-professionals. They are engineers, architects, and civil engineers. Bin Laden himself is a civil engineer, his right-hand man Ayman al-Zawahiri is a physician, and the 9/11 lead hijacker Mohammed Atta was an architect. + Absence of a "Profile" Whatever commonalities there might appear to be, Sageman says, there is no psychological common denominator among the terrorists he studied, aside from their link to the jihad. "There's really no profile, just similar trajectories to joining the jihad and that most of these men were upwardly and geographically mobile," he says. "Because they were the best and brightest, they were sent abroad to study. They came from moderately religious, caring, middle-class families. They're skilled in computer technology. They spoke three, four, five, six languages including three predominant Western languages: German, French and English." But according to Sageman, despite their intellectual acuity, his subjects were ultimately ill-prepared for life in the West. He traced their transition to radicalism back to a universal human motivation -- loneliness. "When they became homesick, they did what anyone would and tried to congregate with people like themselves, whom they would find at mosques," he explains. "They drifted towards the mosque, not because they were religious, but because they were seeking friends." These cliques often formed in the vicinity of mosques that had a militant script advocating violence to overthrow the corrupt regimes, thereby transforming these alienated young Muslims into terrorists. "It's all really group dynamics," he told an audience last year. "You cannot understand the 9/11 type of terrorism from individual characteristics." Sageman points to the Madrid bombers, who blew themselves up when the police surrounded their apartment, as a perfect example: "Seven terrorists sharing an apartment and one saying, 'Tonight we're all going to go, guys.' You can't betray your friends, and so you go along. Individually, they probably would not have done it.""

He goes into more detail about the profiles of Al Qaeda members in his speech delivered to the Foreign Policy Research Institute:

http://www.fpri.org/enotes/20041101.middleeast.sageman.understandingterrornetworks.html

But, I'm sure intuition and guessing are far better methods of collecting facts, though. You're probably better off just listening to Excoriator. And the news.

8/11/2006 11:43:57 AM

Quote :

"im not just talking to you...get past yourself"

You may want to take your own advice. You, Excoriator, and abonorio are absolutely refusing to listen to any other point of view or comment. Worse yet, you're responding to what you think people are saying and to what you think people believe. Not to what's actually being said.

8/11/2006 12:28:23 PM

Quote :

"Terrorism wasn't there before western involvement"

this is one of the most ignorant things i've ever read

8/11/2006 12:29:21 PM

^^ That represents about 80% of the volume of posts in TSB. It's like an instinct to arrogantly assume a meaning and aggressively respond to it, rather than to ask a person to clarify his or her position.

8/11/2006 12:34:56 PM

Brutality isn't a way to defeat them and won't work. In fact, sheer brutality has never worked in a historical context.

Everytime one of these guys is killed, more rise in their place. Every single time. Whats the ultimate solution then? Eradicate the entire region of Human life? Will that solve it?

8/11/2006 1:20:29 PM

Well it might, but it's obviously not an optimal solution.

Showing them they can get their way as long as they remain:

1) dedicated
2) violent towards civilians

is not exactly an optimal solution either.

8/11/2006 1:21:30 PM

Who wins when the terrorists force us to be as uncompromising and as brutal as them?

8/11/2006 1:23:42 PM

Technically we do

8/11/2006 1:24:10 PM

No we don't.

Terrorism continues to exist,

Millions die.

We thoroughly lose.

8/11/2006 1:27:57 PM

So what's the solution, Engin? Give in to their demands, so that the next time they have demands they know exactly how to do it?

8/11/2006 1:29:48 PM

they teach their children from an early age that americans and jews are pigs and devils

why does anybody think that you can reason with these people at all?

8/11/2006 1:30:53 PM

Thats not the solution at all.

I'm not going to sit here and play forum policy general when tons of better solutions have been proposed on middle eastern policy. You can't turn the radio or news on without someone somewhere saying how things should have been handled.

8/11/2006 1:31:42 PM

It's difficult to figure out what to do because ANY amount of compliance with the most extreme radicals of Islam will mean they'll make bolder pushes to get their agenda through.

Obviously, Israel's reaction doesn't help much either. We pretty much need an unprecedented amount of covert operations.

8/11/2006 1:34:23 PM

All the money gone to Iraq could have built a very very formidable global covert net for the United States. One that would have put us in excellent shape against rising superpower china as well.

8/11/2006 1:35:35 PM

Yeah I agree.

8/11/2006 1:37:38 PM

If I was president

8/11/2006 1:38:15 PM

but it didnt

8/11/2006 1:38:51 PM

Quote :

"ChknMcFaggot: Showing them they can get their way as long as they remain: 1) dedicated 2) violent towards civilians is not exactly an optimal solution either."

Ignoring them until they got to the point that they were willing to dedicate themselves to violence towards civilians wasn't an optimal solution either.

8/11/2006 1:52:59 PM

thanks for playing monday morning quarterback instead of gameplanning for next week

8/11/2006 1:54:54 PM

christ, you people are still wondering what we did wrong to cause 9/11... unbelievable.

8/11/2006 1:56:43 PM

christ, you people are still ignorant about what motivates terrorists to carry out 9/11 style attacks... unbelievable.

^^ like TreeTwista10, the bastion new and viable ideas?

Quote :

"TreeTwista10: they teach their children from an early age that americans and jews are pigs and devils why does anybody think that you can reason with these people at all?"

Who are "these people?" The terrorist organizations?

Because I don't see anybody suggesting we reason with them, and smile a little when you suggest something so incredibly stupid.

In fact, shut the fuck up.

[Edited on August 11, 2006 at 2:09 PM. Reason : .]

8/11/2006 1:58:31 PM

Quote :

"Because I don't see anybody suggesting we reason with them, and smile a little when you suggest something so incredibly stupid. In fact, shut the fuck up."

you dont see anybody suggesting we reason with them....not even the people who want to try and come up with cease fires and peaceful negotiation resolutions to the problem....no sorry you're very wrong

i will shut the fuck up though...its pointless arguing with pussy morons

8/11/2006 2:17:50 PM

Quote :

"pussy morons ------^liberal-----"

[Edited on August 11, 2006 at 2:22 PM. Reason : .]

8/11/2006 2:22:16 PM

I'm not arguing that they don't have legitimate anger towards the West.

But now that they're all worked up and pissed off, how do we deal with them? Making concessions for them is a shit idea, because it tells them that rampant acts of violence aimed at maximizing civilian deaths is a great way to achieve their goals.

8/11/2006 2:40:26 PM

here.

I don't see anybody here suggesting we reason with them.

But you've shut the fuck up, and that's all I really wanted.

---

Quote :

"ChknMcFaggot: I'm not arguing that they don't have legitimate anger towards the West. But now that they're all worked up and pissed off, how do we deal with them?"

How to Deal with Them

Step 1: Stop the momentum of a few decades worth of political indoctrination (USA #1! USA#1! USA#1!) within our society long enough for a majority people to (1) learn who "they" really are, and (2) admit that they have legitimate anger towards the West.

You can't underestimate the impact that this will have on solving the problem. In fact, this is probably the most critical part. Without a sustainably objective, historical knowledgebase to draw upon, which the vast majority of us do not have have the time or desire to find, it's impossible for us to even agree on the most fundamental issue: how to perceive the enemy.

It's the same concept in science. Without properly defining the problem (9/11? or the circumstances that motivate those who dedicate their lives to carrying it out?), your solutions tend to suck royally. And they can even inflame the problem.

If we can't even agree as a society whether or not they have legitimate anger toward us, we're open to the current situation: lesser debates about whether they're evil or just misguided, which lead to (mis?)underestimating them at practically every turn and inflaming them to accelerate their attacks against us.

That's why I honestly feel like additional steps are a waste of breath.

Believe me. I've wasted enough on it on this issue.

But once conventional wisdom about how to perceive our enemies shifts from simplistic, which is how most efforts portray them: as insane and murderous evil people (suspiciously how every side of every conflict in the history of man describes the other); to realistic, a wholly unpopular opinion at present: as normal humans, replete with varying intelligences, ranges of emotion, from varying backgrounds, who are affected by their environment and other circumstances, and can be understood in such terms; the rest of the steps will work themselves out through normal democratic means.

Step 1a: While doing so, finish up what we have started in Afghanistan and Iraq, but begin a slow but steady move away from playing up the threat of terrorism publicly, and move the real fight back into covert territory.

The cold hard fact of the matter is that you're more likely to die in an auto accident than in a terrorist act by a factor of 85 to 1. Terrorism is important, and we must address it seriously, but doing so should be a part of our government's job, not it's all-consuming obsession. It already has the democratic mechanics to efficiently fight terror without making a spectacle of itself, and should be able to do so with relative ease now that it has not one but two versions of the Patriot Act on the books.

Step 1b: Slowly begin a well-funded initiative to improve the distinction between Muslims and terrorists in the American mind.

Step 2: Hold Israel and its neighbors economically accountable for escalating the situation with one another, and use this policy change to signal a shift into a more neutral role in the conflict. There should be plenty of room for this seeing has how we've vetoed practically every UN resolution condemning Israel for anything (including killing UN soldiers) spanning back fifty-eight years.

Step 2a: Continue the policy of holding terrorist organizations and nations that deal arms and intelligence to them politically, economically, and militarily accountable in order to project strength, but at the same time, ease off on funneling arms to their enemies as well. This can be done by gradually reducing, not halting, the amount of American arms we sell to Israel.

The end goal after all is to have them negotiate a peace, not to eradicate one another.

The current environment just supports a perpetual fight as both sides know that compromise isn't necessary because weapons are available to them, and cooperation is impossible because no side will speak with the other.

Step 3 involves actively incenting Israel and its enemies to negotiate, instead of fight, with economic leverage. There are numerous tactics of how we could do this (increased aid or loan guarantees to Israel, similar measures to include Syria, Iran, and the Saudis), but none of them will work until Step 2a is accomplished, and even then their effective is tenuous without larger reforms within the UN.

The big idea is to make a sustainable peace the more attractive option to both sides.

8/11/2006 4:51:52 PM

Quote :

"here. I don't see anybody here suggesting we reason with them. But you've shut the fuck up, and that's all I really wanted"

good thing people on here determine our strategies

Quote :

"The end goal after all is to have them negotiate a peace"

so you're suggesting we reason with them

fucking dumbass

8/11/2006 4:55:16 PM

Quote :

"Continue the policy of holding terrorist organizations and nations that deal arms and intelligence to them politically, economically, and militarily accountable in order to project strength, but at the same time, ease off on funneling arms to their enemies as well."

8/11/2006 5:01:57 PM

Quote :

"The end goal after all is to have them negotiate a peace, not to eradicate one another."

8/11/2006 5:06:16 PM

The contradiction?

8/11/2006 5:07:20 PM

exactly

8/11/2006 5:08:17 PM

You haven't even articulated a point. I'm not responding until you do.

[Edited on August 11, 2006 at 5:09 PM. Reason : .]

8/11/2006 5:08:49 PM

no need

you contradict yourself enough where i dont need to

8/11/2006 5:12:06 PM

Fair enough. I'll wait for somebody with a pair of testicles who isn't posting from under a bridge.

[Edited on August 11, 2006 at 5:13 PM. Reason : .]

8/11/2006 5:12:57 PM

you're just jealous my 802.11g works under a bridge

also whats so bad about having testicles and posting from under a bridge?

better than you...posting from over a bridge with no testicles

8/11/2006 5:14:35 PM

Hey, I'm gonna pull a TreeTwista here.

Why didn't we hear this much about the massive plot foiled by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police? Oh, that's right, they're not in Iraq with us, they hate freedom.

This is fun!

8/11/2006 6:47:45 PM

this thread is a huge mess lol

8/11/2006 10:56:46 PM

I miss the days when the Soap Box's most prominent trolls weren't retards. nutsmackr and Excoriator at least didn't consistently lose to the people they were trolling, and were more often than not humorous.

TreeTwista10 is just a monkey slinging poop at the internet.

8/12/2006 2:01:57 AM

sorry I have lost a lot of my former passion for protracted arguments on tww

8/12/2006 8:55:49 AM

Hemogoblin
Solinari
Excoriator

well, you sure fought the good fight.

8/12/2006 1:55:05 PM

Here comes Chertoff to capitalize...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14344148/

Quote :

"Chertoff calls for stronger anti-terror laws Constitutional barriers could prevent wider police powers WASHINGTON - The nation's chief of homeland security said Sunday that the U.S. should consider reviewing its laws to allow for more electronic surveillance and detention of possible terror suspects, citing last week's foiled plot. Michael Chertoff, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, stopped short of calling for immediate changes, noting there might be constitutional barriers to the type of wide police powers the British had in apprehending suspects in the plot to blow up airliners headed to the U.S. But Chertoff made clear his belief that wider authority could thwart future attacks at a time when Congress is reviewing the proper scope of the Bush administration's executive powers for its warrantless eavesdropping program and military tribunals for detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. "What helped the British in this case is the ability to be nimble, to be fast, to be flexible, to operate based on fast-moving information," he said. "We have to make sure our legal system allows us to do that. It's not like the 20th century, where you had time to get warrants." Greater authority sought The Bush administration has pushed for greater executive authority in the war on terror, leading it to create a warrantless eavesdropping program, hold suspects who are deemed as "enemy combatants" for long periods and establish a military tribunal system for detainees that affords defendants fewer rights than traditional courts-martial. Congress is now reviewing some of the programs after lawmakers questioned the legality of the eavesdropping program and the Supreme Court ruled in June that the tribunals defied international law and had not been authorized by Congress. On Sunday, Chertoff said the U.S. is remaining vigilant for other attacks, citing concerns that terror groups may "think we are distracted" after last week's foiled plot. Attaining "maximum flexibility" in surveillance of transactions and communications will be critical in preventing future attacks, he said. "We've done a lot in our legal system the last few years, to move in the direction of that kind of efficiency," Chertoff said. "But we ought to constantly review our legal rules to make sure they're helping us, not hindering us." Heightened thret[sic] level remains He said he expects the Bush administration to keep the U.S. on its highest threat alert for flights headed to the U.S. from the United Kingdom and at its second-highest level for all other flights. "We haven't fully analyzed the evidence, and therefore, we're still concerned there may be some plotters who are out there," Chertoff said. "We also have to be concerned about other groups that may seize the opportunity to carry out attacks because they think we are distracted with this plot." Still, Chertoff said he believed that the nation's airline screeners were well-positioned to catch future terrorists. He did not anticipate greater restrictions beyond the current ban on carrying liquids and gels onto airliners, such as barring all carry-on luggage. "We don't want to inconvenience unnecessarily," he said. "I think we can do the job with our screening, screening training and our technology without banning all carry-on luggage." Chertoff made the comments on "Fox News Sunday" and ABC's "This Week." Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed."

Chertoff: "It's not like the 20th century, where you had time to get warrants [even retroactively]."

72 hours should be plenty of time.

I wonder what Chertoff's successor will say in the 22nd century, when terrorists can actually strike targets before they've even been born.

8/14/2006 12:23:24 PM

Quote :

"Step 2: Hold Israel and its neighbors economically accountable for escalating the situation with one another, and use this policy change to signal a shift into a more neutral role in the conflict. There should be plenty of room for this seeing has how we've vetoed practically every UN resolution condemning Israel for anything (including killing UN soldiers) spanning back fifty-eight years. Step 2a: Continue the policy of holding terrorist organizations and nations that deal arms and intelligence to them politically, economically, and militarily accountable in order to project strength, but at the same time, ease off on funneling arms to their enemies as well. This can be done by gradually reducing, not halting, the amount of American arms we sell to Israel."

yes

8/14/2006 12:46:36 PM