"War on Terror" a Stunning Success
The attacks that followed -- on Bali, Jakarta, Casablanca, Bombay, Mombassa, Najaf, Jerusalem, Riyadh, Baghdad, and Istanbul -- were not dreams. -- aWol, yesterday
No, dimwit, they are evidence that the so-called "war on terror" is a spectacular failure. (BTW, which attacks on Baghdad are you talking about--those recent ones by car bombers that killed dozens, or the ones by air bombers sent by you and your daddy that killed thousands?)
And if your speech were tonight, you could add in another bombing in Istanbul and one in Kirkuk as well.
Egyptian president Mubarek said before the war that "If there is one (Osama) bin Laden now, there will be 100 bin Ladens afterward." A commentary on Murphy's Law (Anything that can go wrong will go wrong) said that "Murphy was an optimist." I'm afraid the same might be said about Mubarek.
Is it really more important that we never be seen as giving in to terrorists than it is to actually address the root causes of terrorism? Bush says yes, I say no. Pre-emptive military strikes and brutal occupations will always anger tens of millions, and among those there will always be hundreds or thousands willing to fight back by any means necessary. Continuing to ignore the wishes and rights of the tens of millions so as to avoid the appearance of appeasing the hundreds or thousands is foolish and deadly.
The attacks that followed -- on Bali, Jakarta, Casablanca, Bombay, Mombassa, Najaf, Jerusalem, Riyadh, Baghdad, and Istanbul -- were not dreams. -- aWol, yesterday
No, dimwit, they are evidence that the so-called "war on terror" is a spectacular failure. (BTW, which attacks on Baghdad are you talking about--those recent ones by car bombers that killed dozens, or the ones by air bombers sent by you and your daddy that killed thousands?)
And if your speech were tonight, you could add in another bombing in Istanbul and one in Kirkuk as well.
Egyptian president Mubarek said before the war that "If there is one (Osama) bin Laden now, there will be 100 bin Ladens afterward." A commentary on Murphy's Law (Anything that can go wrong will go wrong) said that "Murphy was an optimist." I'm afraid the same might be said about Mubarek.
Is it really more important that we never be seen as giving in to terrorists than it is to actually address the root causes of terrorism? Bush says yes, I say no. Pre-emptive military strikes and brutal occupations will always anger tens of millions, and among those there will always be hundreds or thousands willing to fight back by any means necessary. Continuing to ignore the wishes and rights of the tens of millions so as to avoid the appearance of appeasing the hundreds or thousands is foolish and deadly.
<< Home