Quote:
| (...) It is beyond doubt that ... for more than three years after 9/11 things have generally been going (bin Laden's) way, and that he could not have achieved this huge, improbable victory without indispensable American help. |
This comment denies reality. Bin Laden's Taliban government in basically destroyed, the Muslim Terrorists who still exist there not withstanding. The fact is the have had an election which would have been impossible had it been "bin Laden's way."
Since the Muslim Terrorists made it clear they are trying to destroy the West, the USA and its loyal allies went ahead and dealt with the Muslim Terrorist supporter Saddam and have made it clear that other countries may be dealt with militarily. Pakistan probably should be invaded, but their leader is on good terms with the USA, so it is a little more difficult.
Muslim Terrorists have been exposed as to what they are and currently they are focusing their efforts in Iraq where they are killed by the dozen. That is not a victory for Mohammad Bin Laden.
Quote:
| (...) Certainly 9/11 required strong action including military measures against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, |
Actually there are numerous Muslim Terrorists organizations and they are all equally dangerous to civilization.
Quote:
| ..and the natural, inevitable war psychology pervading the country had to be reckoned with. Yet ... these needs required actions like those taken initially more than words. As far as the public rhetoric and justification was concerned, nothing hindered the administration from conceiving and explaining the undertaking differently both to the American public and the world, especially the Arab-Muslim world that was Osama bin Laden’s real target. |
What a convoluted bunch of sentences. The fact is Bush pandered way too much to the Muslims with his "religion of peace" nonsense. We all know now that one of the primary duties of Islam is the Jihad.
Quote:
| There is little point now in drafting the kind of address Bush should have delivered to Congress and the public. But one can readily imagine an American president (though not Bush) persuasively making the two cardinal points. First, the United States intended to pursue al-Qaeda with all the weapons at its command on grounds of legitimate self-defense and, while respecting the rights of other countries, would allow no one to interfere with these actions. It would not, however, dignify al-Qaeda’s atrocious crimes by calling them acts of war or give Osama bin Laden and his fellow criminals what they obviously wanted, a pretext to portray themselves as soldiers in a holy war against the United States. Instead, it would pursue them ruthlessly the way civilized nations had always pursued criminal organizations, as international outlaws and pirates, enemies of all governments and of civilization itself, and it expected other countries to co-operate in this struggle. |
Does the author of this idiocy realize that over half of the brainwashing ignorant Muslim masses think Bin Laden is a hero? Treating Mulsim Terrorists as "criminals" is ridiculous. Would this author think it would have been appropriate to treat Nazis or Communists as criminals? To ignore the Jihad is to ignore reality; which is insanity.
Quote:
| (...) The "War on Terror" in America is basically a sham, a charade. While great, even ultimate sacrifices have been demanded of relatively few, chiefly those in the armed forces, for the overwhelming majority of Americans having the country at war has meant massive tax cuts, exhortations to spend and consume, enormous deficits, politics and government spending as usual - in short, no wartime sacrifice at all. The rest of the world knows this and sees the hypocrisy, if we do not. (...) |
The left and rest of the world who deny Muslim Terrorism or think that being nice to Muslim Terrorists and their nations will make them safe are hypocritical fools.