Islam goes fundamentally against the open, democratic societies of the West and unless it is radically reformed there will be no end to terrorism in its name.

http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/islam_unbelievers.html

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

the enemy is islam plain and simple

McNut, are you advocating some sort of Crusade or Final Solution?

Nobody can stomach that nowadays, so there will be no end to this.

oh by the way
Al-Zawahiri predicts our doom in a fire side chat

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/07/04/zawahiri.video/index.html

okay buddy thanks for the heads up!!!

we are now faced with upper-middle class muslim dr’s trying to kill us
the enemy is islam plain and simple

those who have not realized this yet are clueless

Besides what Joshua said, we know for an unambigious fact Iraq was directly funding suicide bombings in Israel, and unless you want to argue Israel should mean much less in US foreign policy, particularly Middle Eastern policy, then that funding of the families of suicide bombers – and whatever other aid Iraq gave Hamas and Hezbollah — we know with 100% certainty that Iraq was in deed funding terrorism.

But but but Al Qaeda is not Hamas nor Hezbollah…..See…Bush just wanted….

If these are the depths we have to go to find a way to chip away at the stated basis for invading Iraq pre-war, we have fallen far. Well, not really fallen. We’ve been down in the gutter for a long time…

Iraq was a threat to the region and thus to the US due to the importance of that region to the direct well-being of the US.

It is absolutely clear Hussein wanted the world (including his own people) to believe he had WMDs on hand.

It is clear Iraq under Hussein was our enemy.

The no fly zones were a typical bullshit policy of politicians.

I do not regret the move into Iraq at all. I hope we end up successful. Regardless, we took a huge bite out of the threat that Iraq offered – WMD production, even if just capability, is gone as well as the ability of a solidified state to back terrorist cells and groups.

Goodie.

And we have not paid an overwhelming price in Iraq.

That is another bullshit creation of the press and intellectual community – and they have finally sold it to the American people.

I guess that is all fine for them since we no longer face a Soviet-type threat…

Because, there is no way in hell we could do something as meaningful as saving South Korea or making it through WWII.

Hitler’s people would still be in charge of a unified Germany had today’s generations been in charge….

(Just as we let Kim Jong Il sit on his throne)

The invasion of Afghanistan was justified. The ruling Taliban was aiding and abetting Al-Qaeda, which attacked us on our own soil.

“Since we’re now both making light of the idea that secular and fundamentalist Muslims could never join in murderous collaboration against us, would you have left him there? Had you been told what every intelligence agency in the West believed — what most Republicans and half the Democrats also believed — would you really have rejected that counsel, accepted that risk, and accepted the responsibility for it?”

That’s quite a presumptious statement. All but one Republican and half the Democrats did vote “yes” on the resolution supporting an invasion of Iraq, but that does not mean they all believed in or agreed with all of the intel put out by the administration. As I recall, one 2008 candidate, McCain? admitted he had not read the report to Congress before voting “yes.” I’m sure he’s not the only member of Congress who failed to do so.

“I think it’s a remarkable thing that we’ve not had a serious attack in this country, whereas AQ continues to go after certain states in Europe where they perceive political vulnerabilities. Clearly, one reason for that is the very different ways some Europeans react (ransom, appeasement, withdrawal, and “understanding”). Look no further than Cho Seung Hui for evidence of how easy it is for anyone to kill dozens of us. Why haven’t they? Probably because AQ knows how the American people would react. “

It seems remarkable, yet it really isn’t Al-Qaeda first struck in 1993 and then again in 2001, nine years later. The 2004 Madrid bombing and last year’s London transport bombings were the first major attacks by Al-Qaeda in those countries. Both of those attacks were horrifically successful. It is apparent that Al-Qaeda does not act hastily but rather takes its time in planning and executing attacks. Cho’s deadly rampage set a new awful record in mass shootings, but his 33 victims is a fraction of the numbers who died in Madrid and on 9/11 and still less than the London bombings.

And how would the American people react, Joshua? What is Al-Qaeda afraid we’re going to do?

Now, those are hard questions to which I don’t expect you to offer easy answers. But anything we do to try to prevent or respond to attacks against us — and even the terrorist attacks themselves — draws more recruits for a while, as long as the terrorists can point to or promise victory. Surely you don’t suggest that the answer to this is to let them attack us with impunity. If we hadn’t invaded Iraq, I posit that Afghanistan and 9/11 were still there to inspire these losers who are obsessed by the single goal of becoming the winners they will never be in life, through jihad. Those who went to Iraq would have gone to Afghanistan instead. Just as they would now if we withdraw from Iraq. And when we turn on the military and this-or-that politican, declare the war in Afghanistan lost, and demand the next retreat, where will they follow us next? It’s vividly obvious that our own country will be one of the battlefronts.

I think it’s a remarkable thing that we’ve not had a serious attack in this country, whereas AQ continues to go after certain states in Europe where they perceive political vulnerabilities. Clearly, one reason for that is the very different ways some Europeans react (ransom, appeasement, withdrawal, and “understanding”). Look no further than Cho Seung Hui for evidence of how easy it is for anyone to kill dozens of us.  Why haven’t they?  Probably because AQ knows how the American people would react.  This suggests that for AQ, our invasions of their havens were an unintended consequence, and that they thought they could attack us here with impunity.  AQ’s primary goal is to get us out of Iraq, which raises two questions: how and why? In response to the first, they win by using the media. It took only one attack to knock Spain out of the war, but with us, they have to use a daily drip of news coverage that feeds our own political short-sightedness (how desperately we need a president who can articulate a cogent response to that).  Why? Well, why indeed if Iraq is the best thing that ever happened to AQ? Because they need a new haven to be what Afghanistan was in 2000. Because the short-term boons of 9/11, Iraq, and Afghanistan will be lost, probably forever, if they lose the wars there, which we agree can only happen if Iraqis turn against them. Fortunately, Iraqis are turning against them, and the new plan shows signs of progress.

It’s up to us, now. The consequences of surrender couldn’t be greater. There is no way to mask this: our primary foe in Iraq is Al-Qaeda, and running away from Al-Qaeda means more war, more terror, and more genocide, not less. That’s why politicians who speak of “ending the war” are either unqualified for office or lying. You can’t compare the status quo to the halcyon days of 1999 that we all wish we could go back to. You have to compare the status quo to the spreading hell on earth would follow a retreat.

No problem, I was actually wondering what was causing a slight up tick in site traffic.