OT: The Mind of a Terrorist

[CamEdwards]

WorldTribune.com has an article (http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_2.html) quoting a "senior Al Queda leader" that was posted on an Islamic internet forum. I found one passage particularly interesting.

Al-Hijazi said that Al Qaida instructed its members not to confront the governments of Islamic countries and clarified that Americans are the main target of the organization, wherever they may be, in order to cause their disintegration and collapse, even if it takes a long time. "We are patient," he added, "our patience will only end with the collapse of America and its agents."

Al-Hijazi also said: "There is no doubt that the demise of America and its collapse will lead to the collapse of these fragile regimes that depend on it... We will not stop until we establish the Islamic Caliphate and until Allah's law is implemented in His land."


I've heard so many people take President Bush to task for his "you're either with us or against us" comment that I thought it might be pertinent to note that it's not President Bush that has decided that's the case.

The other interesting/scary quote:


In regard to rumors about a large-scale attack against the U.S. during the month of Ramadan, Al-Hijazi said that "a huge and very courageous strike" will take place and that the number of infidels expected to be killed in this attack, according to primary estimates, exceeds 100,000. He added that he "anticipates, but will not swear, that the attack will happen during Ramadan."


I don't even know what to say to that one, other than I hope he's speaking out of his ass.

[illinifan999]

When's Ramadan again?

[CamEdwards]

We're in it. I think it ends November 21.

[STK]

There would be nuclear winter if 100,000 Americans died in a terrorist attack.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Yippee. Way to start up either fear or an argument on the night that FOF 2004 is released. What's next? We'll hear that Viatech's eLicense servers will go down for the week in 15 minutes?

[CamEdwards]

Let the truth be known that I posted this before I knew that FOF2k4 was out. I had no desire to ruin such a great night with either fear or an argument.

And truth be known, almost nobody will read this anyway because everyone's talking about the game.

[Dutch]

Ahhhh, Cam Edwards....FOFC's own personalized mini Osama Bin Laden.

[wbonnell]

I've always wondered how committing suicide could be considered brave. Also, why would God/Allah favor one piece of land over another?

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by Dutch
Ahhhh, Cam Edwards....FOFC's own personalized mini Osama Bin Laden.

:( dude, that's just mean.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Yeah, no meanness here. This place is supposed to be Mr. Rogers Neighborhood.

Now where's Lady Elaine Fairchild givin' up the booty?

[Dutch]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
:( dude, that's just mean.

Cam! That's not to be mean spirited. You're my boy, Blue! :)

[Glengoyne]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
:( dude, that's just mean.

He said mini. Doesn't that count for something?

Is that like saying you just suck a little?

[Buccaneer]

Sorry to bring this up to the top but I can't stop thinking about 100,000 and college football stadiums. :(

Be safe and be alert, everyone.

[ice4277]

If I had a dollar for every time one of these terrorists threatened a big attack...

Nothing any of us can do about it, even if it is going to happen. Worrying just means they win.

[MrBug708]

I'm going to UCLA-Oregon, but we both suck so I'm expecting 30,000.

I'd be surprised if they were going to alert America before they did it

[Passacaglia]

As a Michigan student, having gone to several games with 100K audiences (all of them, in fact, including the first one held after 9/11), college football games were my first thought.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
I've heard so many people take President Bush to task for his "you're either with us or against us" comment that I thought it might be pertinent to note that it's not President Bush that has decided that's the case.

Come on Cam - that is just a bad argument. Just because members of Al Qaeda argue the "with us or against us" line doesn't mean Bush is right for saying the same thing. There are many other courses possible besides the one we are taking and because I disagree with Bush, I am not "against us/you." I also don't agree with Al Qaeda - see it is possible to be against "both" sides.

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by Dutch
Cam! That's not to be mean spirited. You're my boy, Blue! :)

Okay, that made me laugh. :)

[Dutch]

Okay, that made me laugh.

I got your back, brother. You want me to take care of Galt for you? I just stretched my typing fingers. :D

[CamEdwards]

nah, I'll get around to it. I'm trying to line up a very special guest for Monday morning (not Rush, but close to it) and I've been a little preoccupied. In fact, no time like the present.

Galt,

If both sides say you're with us or against us... then if you sit on the sidelines you're against both parties. That doesn't take great intelligence to see... it's just common sense.

My point was that Bush wasn't speaking rhetoric, he was simply stating a fact. Al Queda's spokesguy in Iraq just served to demonstrate the point that their goal is the death of America. Now, like it or not, if you're not going to stand with America in the war with Al Queda... you're not opposed to the destruction of this country. It's not really a matter of debate or policy... it's (once again) just using common sense.

[Glengoyne]

Originally posted by John Galt
Come on Cam - that is just a bad argument. Just because members of Al Qaeda argue the "with us or against us" line doesn't mean Bush is right for saying the same thing. There are many other courses possible besides the one we are taking and because I disagree with Bush, I am not "against us/you." I also don't agree with Al Qaeda - see it is possible to be against "both" sides.


What I don't understand is why people choose this statement "You are with us or you are with the terrorists" to be outraged at. It seems to be pretty clear to me, that he is demanding the assistance of every nation on earth to rid the world of terrorism. This doesn't seem like such a bad thing to me.

Why would a nation be against helping the United States defeat terrorism?

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
My point was that Bush wasn't speaking rhetoric, he was simply stating a fact. Al Queda's spokesguy in Iraq just served to demonstrate the point that their goal is the death of America. Now, like it or not, if you're not going to stand with America in the war with Al Queda... you're not opposed to the destruction of this country. It's not really a matter of debate or policy... it's (once again) just using common sense.

And here is some more common sense. There are more options to defend America in the war with Al Queda than those of the Bush Administration. Opposing the administration's policies does not mean that you are not standing with America, it means you don't like the particular policies of the current administration. I realize that Bush and company like to act like it is black and white us and them good and evil but just because Bush says something or adopts a particular policy does not make it above reproach.

[CamEdwards]

Maybe that's the problem. I don't see Bush's statement as saying "You're either with me and my administration or against me and my administration". I see it as saying "you are standing with this country or not."

As to "Bush and Company acting like it's black and white us and them good and evil"... that's exactly what it is. We're just defining "us" differently. If you can't see who's evil in this fight, you're blind to reality. Sorry to put it so bluntly.

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
As to "Bush and Company acting like it's black and white us and them good and evil"... that's exactly what it is. We're just defining "us" differently. If you can't see who's evil in this fight, you're blind to reality. Sorry to put it so bluntly.

While I completely agree that Al Queda is evil, I hesitate to say that America is entirely good either. I wouldn't call America evil, either, just that our country has plenty of evil in its history, with a lot of recent history.

[sabotai]

Now, like it or not, if you're not going to stand with America in the war with Al Queda... you're not opposed to the destruction of this country.

I have yet to see anyone on this board, or in fact anywhere, that opposes "dealing" with Al Queda. (It'd be really nice if someone would just say "This is how you spell it". I've seen so many...anyway). But, I have seen people opposed to how Bush is handling certain things.

As astral just said, just because you don't like what Bush is specifically doing, that does not mean you are against America. I'm sick of this "If you are against Bush, you are against America" attitude coming from the right. In fact, having that kind of attitude is against what America stands for.

(EDIT: I should post faster.... :) )

[CamEdwards]

I dunno, dude. "Evil" is a pretty strong word. I can accept that America isn't perfect, but I don't know that we've done things that would be considered "evil".

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by Glengoyne
Why would a nation be against helping the United States defeat terrorism?

Setting aside countries like Syria, Iran, North Korea, and etc who have their own questionable reasons for not helping us, I would doubt that any country in the world would be opposed to helping us defeat terrorism in principle.

But that begs some other questions. How do you define terrorism? Are Palestinian rock throwers terrorists? Are the forces in Venezuela who oppose Chavez terrorists? Were United States actions against Nicaragua in the 1980's terrorist acts? What terrorism is really needs to be defined.

Also, it is all well and good for nations to support us and say they will assist us, but that does not mean that they are always going to agree with our choice of action. The war in Iraq is a very good example. The Bush Administration has, especially recently, painted the war in Iraq as a war against terrorism. Much of the world does not agree with that and therefore is not helping.

That is another reason why the "with us or against us" rhetoric fails. A country can be "with us" in principle and be against terrorism, but that does not mean they will support every action we take simply because the administration says it is fighting terrorism.

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
I dunno, dude. "Evil" is a pretty strong word. I can accept that America isn't perfect, but I don't know that we've done things that would be considered "evil".

Slavery, the genocide of native americans, supporting, funding, and training the dictatorships in El Salavador, East Timor, Guatemala, etc...

Shall I continue?

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by astralhaze
Slavery, the genocide of native americans, supporting, funding, and training the dictatorships in El Salavador, East Timor, Guatemala, etc...

Shall I continue?

you absolutely have to read "What's So Great About America" by Dinesh D'Souza before we have this conversation. Otherwise I'll just be plagarizing his work because he says it so much better than I ever could.

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
you absolutely have to read "What's So Great About America" by Dinesh D'Souza before we have this conversation. Otherwise I'll just be plagarizing his work because he says it so much better than I ever could.

What does the positive things America has done (I assume that is what that book is about) have to do with whether the actions I listed are evil or not?

Would you not term slavery as evil?

[CamEdwards]

astral,

D'Souza actually talks about slavery, native americans, funding and training dictatorships, etc. I don't know if he talks about East Timor at all (it's been a little while).

His views on some subjects are fairly controversial, but I think you'd like the book because it's not based on emotion.

Just simple answers to those subjects you mentioned:

Slavery. No one would deny that slavery is evil, yet from the beginning of this country slavery was a contentious issue. Ultimately we chose to rid ourselves of slavery... other countries cannot say the same.

Genocide of American Indians: that's a pretty big subject, and a lot of nuances there, but I'm assuming you're talking about what the U.S. government did. The United States was at war with the Indian tribes, but at no time did the United States government attempt to eradicate Native Americans from this continent. I'd strongly oppose the term "genocide" when describing the actions of the U.S. government.

supporting, funding dictatorships, et al: that was a policy decision. how can that be evil? For most of our country's lifespan we've lived by the theory of the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". You also have to sometimes choose the best of a bad bunch. Yes, the United States has supported dictatorships, but what was the other option?

Like I said, D'Souza says it much better than I ever could.

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
supporting, funding dictatorships, et al: that was a policy decision. how can that be evil? For most of our country's lifespan we've lived by the theory of the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". You also have to sometimes choose the best of a bad bunch. Yes, the United States has supported dictatorships, but what was the other option?


The Nazi government made a policy decision to wipe out the Jews. Just because it is a policy decision does not mean it can't be evil. I'm not sure what D'Souza has to say about it, but the history of the U.S. Government backing dictatorships is something of a pet subject for me and I have read a great deal about it. If what he has to say boils down to fighting the commies then I would chuckle and not really take anything else he said seriously. Regardless, just choosing El Salvador as an example, this country had easily the worst human rights record in the world and displayed just a stunning level of cruelty and lack of regard for human life or decency. Mass-murder and torture were the norm. I don't think there is any rationale that can be offered for supporting that goverment that would lead me to term U.S. policy as anything other than evil.

As per my usage of the word genocide, there are several different definitions but my usage was "systematic killing of a racial or cultural group." It can, incidentaly, be argued that it was planned. That's not a can of worms I want to open right now, however the end result of, as you call them "the indian wars," was that the native american populace here was very nearly wiped out. I would tend to say that is systematic killing of a racial group.

[Samdari]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
Ultimately we chose to rid ourselves of slavery... other countries cannot say the same.

Please explain. Many countries abolished slavery before the US did.

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by Samdari
Please explain. Many countries abolished slavery before the US did.

I was simply referring to the fact that slavery still exists in many parts of the world.

[CamEdwards]

dola:

Here's a link (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-dsouza070203.asp) to one of D'Souza's columns in National Review. It's kind of a ultracondensed version of his book, but I'd really encourage you again to read the entire thing. I think his point of view (an immigrant from India), his experience (Ivy League college, Reagan White House, Stanford think tank), and his way with words make it an absolutely fascinating read.

[Dutch]

Originally posted by Samdari
Please explain. Many countries abolished slavery before the US did.

Child Slavery in Africa that has been rampant to this day. The Sex Slave Trade that is rampant in Eastern Europe, SE Asia and the Middle East (including one of the largest known sex slave trades in Israel...something I found surprising).

Astralhaze,

I think it's alright to question this administrations decisions but I don't think it's fair to blanketly refute every single action as the wrong one.

GW Bush made a decision and with so many options and choices, it's easy to say GW Bush should have chosen a different way. Afterall, all roads go from Point A to Point B. People were complaining about Bush from the beginning by saying, "You are going to hit a bump and I'm here to be the first to say that if you took this alternative route you would never had hit a bump." But the road, as stated numerous times, was going to be long and dangerous and difficult. And the reality is that no matter which road you chose, you were going to hit a bump. So obviously, to say that this road or that road would have been cruise control city is not fair. It's easy to sit back, not make a decision, and say, "See...I told you. You hit a bump."

But I think the point is, somebody has got to make a decision, and he did. Now, was it the best decision? Was it the 4th best decision? The 32nd best? Who knows, but at least we aren't still sitting at Point A getting our cities blown up and our people being killed by the thousands because some Islamic variation of the KKK in Afghanistan figured out how to hijack airplanes and those who support them are still investing huge sums of time, money, and resources into building better way to inflict more damage against the free societies of this Earth.

Well, who knows, maybe they are still building ways to kill 100,000 people or more, but at least were not going to go down without a fight.

[Qwikshot]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
I was simply referring to the fact that slavery still exists in many parts of the world.

Such as Muslim dominated African nations, or even, how women are treated in Muslim nations of radical Islamic fundamentalists, like the Taliban, etc.

Slavery in its past form is over in the U.S. though many individuals are still feeling its reverberations...

If America has roots that are evil, we could say the same of every nation in the world, very few do not have blood on their hands in one form or another.

Now if you disagree with the U.S. policy that's fine, that's why this nation is so great, but you cannot disuade me from believing that even as muddled as the foreign policy is, it was right to go into Afghanistan and it was right to go into Iraq, what is happening now in Iraq is because of that boneheaded U.S. foreign policy which now has no idea of how to extract itself from Iraq without looking weak, or staying much longer in Iraq and looking like an oppressor...

the only way to do this is to capture Saddam...I swear, if we do that, most Iraqis will breathe a sigh of relief, but he's the boogey man still lurking in the shadows, and this is why the Iraq action is a failure.

I think most of the genocide of native Americans occurred prior to the nation of U.S.A. though I believe one tribe was wiped out completely in the 1800s. But Spain, Portugal, England, France, Holland and others have all participated in subterfuge with the native tribes of not just North America, but South and Africa and Asia and Oceania. Don't forget Jamaica has no native Jamaicans, they were all wiped out...

I think that when you have such deranged and misguided cowards like these radical fundamentalists (be it Islam, Catholic/Christian, Hindu, cults) who hide behind scripture or moral superiority, that you have to stand up...these individuals are evil and feed off the poor and poverty stricken, the uneducated, and the weak...

The U.S. foreign policy forgets that you have to start with the people, and work your way up...they always do this the wrong way, if you get the backing of the people, you can topple any government...

I dislike George Bush as president, but I think any other person who could have won the office would be doing the same exact policy...

America is the black sheep, we have the power to be brokers of all policy, we have the power and do use it, to help nations build and rebuild, we've not always taken the high road, in fact, I would negate anything of our South American policies during the 80's that stuff is and should be negated due to the Cold War, Russia was more or less funding Cuba and any communism spreading to our South was just not going to be tolerated...

It is a shame we have the ability to be a great example for other nations to follow, we just keep shooting ourselves in the foot.

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
dola:

Here's a link (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-dsouza070203.asp) to one of D'Souza's columns in National Review. It's kind of a ultracondensed version of his book, but I'd really encourage you again to read the entire thing. I think his point of view (an immigrant from India), his experience (Ivy League college, Reagan White House, Stanford think tank), and his way with words make it an absolutely fascinating read.

"America has the kindest, gentlest foreign policy of any great power in world history"

While I would not react to that with, as he says, "sputtering outrage", I think it is certainly debatable. However, simple being the kindest and gentlest in history (if that is indeed true) does not mean the United States is perfect in this regard and there are any number of examples that can be presented which show the United States being less than kind and gentle.

Anyway, I agree with a lot of what he says, disagree with some things, note that some of the things he says simply aren't true ("the United States saved the world: first from the Nazi threat" - the Unites States helped save Europe and North Africa from the Nazi threat, but the largest contribution was from the Soviet Union"), but in general I don't need to be reasured how great America is. I live in America, I recognize the great things about it. It is the faults, the failings, the mistakes that interest me more because you have to recognize problems before you can fix them. I don't see how patting ourselves on the back about how great we are is going to help us as a country. I may read the book at some point, but judging from the National Review article it's not something I would be terribly interested in reading.

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by astralhaze
"America has the kindest, gentlest foreign policy of any great power in world history"

While I would not react to that with, as he says, "sputtering outrage", I think it is certainly debatable. However, simple being the kindest and gentlest in history (if that is indeed true) does not mean the United States is perfect in this regard and there are any number of examples that can be presented which show the United States being less than kind and gentle.

Anyway, I agree with a lot of what he says, disagree with some things, note that some of the things he says simply aren't true ("the United States saved the world: first from the Nazi threat" - the Unites States helped save Europe and North Africa from the Nazi threat, but the largest contribution was from the Soviet Union"), but in general I don't need to be reasured how great America is. I live in America, I recognize the great things about it. It is the faults, the failings, the mistakes that interest me more because you have to recognize problems before you can fix them. I don't see how patting ourselves on the back about how great we are is going to help us as a country. I may read the book at some point, but judging from the National Review article it's not something I would be terribly interested in reading.

Astralhaze,

I'd submit to you that no country can be perfect. No one has suggested (that I'm aware of) that America is perfect. Being the best is different than being perfect.

I also don't think we're "patting ourselves on the back". Just look at the venom that is spewed out about this country. Your attitude seems to be "let's focus on the failings so we can fix the problems" rather than "let's focus on the successes so we can try those again". I believe that the true patriot sees the value of doing both.

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
Astralhaze,

I'd submit to you that no country can be perfect. No one has suggested (that I'm aware of) that America is perfect. Being the best is different than being perfect.

I also don't think we're "patting ourselves on the back". Just look at the venom that is spewed out about this country. Your attitude seems to be "let's focus on the failings so we can fix the problems" rather than "let's focus on the successes so we can try those again". I believe that the true patriot sees the value of doing both.

Being perfect is not possible. However, I believe it should be what we constantly strive to be. That sounds like a contradiction but I don't think that it is.

I think the reason that I have such a strong distaste for the focus on our success is because it really is overdone already. I'm sure that some of the Canadians on this board would agree, as an outsider looking in, that America has a tendency to be extremely self-congratulatory, almost to the point of overkill. I don't think that we should dismiss our success, but I think we spend far too much time and energy congratulating ourselves rather than looking at what we need to be doing differently.

This is probably opening up a different can of worms, but let's take the reaction to September 11'th. Instead of seriously asking ourselves what made these people hate us, we fell back on, really, the excuse that they hate our freedom, resent that we are the greatest country on earth, etc.

Now, if you listen to what bin Laden and those like him have said, it is extremely consistent. They were upset with our treatment of Iraq, they view us as supporting Israel's occupation of the West Bank, and above all else they hate our placement of military bases in their holy land.

Rather than undergoing a serious analysis of whether our approach to the middle east was flawed, we just kept up the status quo on all of these issues (actually exacerbated it with the invasion of Iraq and the Bush record on Israel-Palestine has not exactly been popular with many in the middle east) and invaded Afghanistan.

Now, I'm not arguing against the invasion of Aghanistan nor am I saying that we should have done something specific to placate Al Quada, but I think the reaction should have been less of "we are the greatest country on earth and they hate us because of that" and more of "why do these people hate us so much? What can we do differently?"

In the end, I think any rational person should strive for balance between what the United States does right and what the United States does wrong. I just think, and I guess maybe my perception is incorrect, that we as a country spend an inordinate amount of time focusing on our successes (some of which I'm not sure are successes or are overblown ie our role in fighting Germany) and not nearly enough time looking at what we are doing wrong and what we can do differently.

[Glengoyne]

Originally posted by astralhaze
And here is some more common sense. There are more options to defend America in the war with Al Queda than those of the Bush Administration. Opposing the administration's policies does not mean that you are not standing with America, it means you don't like the particular policies of the current administration. I realize that Bush and company like to act like it is black and white us and them good and evil but just because Bush says something or adopts a particular policy does not make it above reproach.


Boy, a lot happened in this thread while I drove home. Go play your game, My coupon hasn't been processed with or I would be.

Regarding the above: Bush didn't say if you oppose this administration you are not standing with America. He said, loosely paraphrased in my own words, "There is an evil in the world, and the United States of America is declaring war on that evil. If you choose not to help the United States eliminate this evil, then you have sided with that evil." He was challenging every nation on the planet to stand up against terrorism. He wasn't calling you out. He was telling every regime in the world how the U.S. would regard a lack of action on their part.

I happen to agree with that position wholeheartedly.

[Glengoyne]

Dola,

Also while it is only semantics to some degree. I belive there is a reason he phrased it the way he did. He didn't say "you are with us or you are against us". Being against the United States isn't all that indefensible of a positoin. He said "You are with us, or you are with the Terrorists". Disagreeing with the United States is one thing, providing care and comfort to the wrong side in the war against Terrorism is another.

[Dutch]

I'm sure that some of the Canadians on this board would agree, as an outsider looking in, that America has a tendency to be extremely self-congratulatory.

It's not like we are drowning out those who would congratulate us. People are afraid to death to remind the world of our good standing because they almost always get called out as "puppets" the second they do.

This is probably opening up a different can of worms, but let's take the reaction to September 11'th. Instead of seriously asking ourselves what made these people hate us, we fell back on, really, the excuse that they hate our freedom, resent that we are the greatest country on earth, etc.

Actually, I think this administration has gone to great lengths to understand "why they hate us" more so than any administration before. Colin Powell was the first person at the highest levels of our government to ever say that the State of Palestine was a neccessity (and not just "peace in the middle east"). This was stated after the Chineese Recon Plane Crisis and just weeks before 9/11. I think this administration "gets it". The Middle East will not be happy until they get to win some battles. And why not make them the Diplomatic kind? Like creating the state of Palestine? The removal of American troops from Saudi Arabia?

Now, if you listen to what bin Laden and those like him have said, it is extremely consistent. They were upset with our treatment of Iraq, they view us as supporting Israel's occupation of the West Bank, and above all else they hate our placement of military bases in their holy land.

I would argue that Bin Laden did not remain consistant in his protests. His primary concern has always been Saudi Arabia. He never really was too terribly interested in the Palestinian issue until he realized he could "feed" off of it. But that has since gone away as the Hamas just recently came out and called Al Qaeda "un-religious". And BTW, now the Al Qaeda hates the fact that we are in Qatar....but I doubt many people are going to buy that, at least not the rich religious clerics that have so far funded Al Qaeda. They are hurting now for sure.

Rather than undergoing a serious analysis of whether our approach to the middle east was flawed, we just kept up the status quo on all of these issues (actually exacerbated it with the invasion of Iraq and the Bush record on Israel-Palestine has not exactly been popular with many in the middle east) and invaded Afghanistan.

Actually, the Bush record on Israel/Palestine has been about as miserable as any other President that has been willing to stick his neck out to try and figure it out. And just like Clinton before him, I applaud him for at least trying, knowing that failure was an almost certainty.

Now, I'm not arguing against the invasion of Aghanistan nor am I saying that we should have done something specific to placate Al Quada, but I think the reaction should have been less of "we are the greatest country on earth and they hate us because of that" and more of "why do these people hate us so much? What can we do differently?"

I think you want to believe that every decision this administration makes is made on the spur of the moment and without thought. But the idea of how to handle Iraq has been in the works for years and years and years. It was just a matter of somebody finally saying "Go." What would be a good ammount of time for the Bush administration to sit and wait and ponder what's already been pondered? 10 years? Well, that's not fair, Bush wouldn't be in office. 3 years? Then it would be, "Oh, Bush is having an election year war."

[Killebrew]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
I've heard so many people take President Bush to task for his "you're either with us or against us" comment that I thought it might be pertinent to note that it's not President Bush that has decided that's the case.

You're right on here Cam, in that it's an ignorant thing to say whether you are the leader of a terrorist group or a leader of a nation.

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by Killebrew
You're right on here Cam, in that it's an ignorant thing to say whether you are the leader of a terrorist group or a leader of a nation.

ignorance is in the mind of the beholder.