Replies

I don't think the Bush Doctrine really involves "taking on the source of terrorism," do you? If that were the case, the U.S. would be engaged in military operations in places like London, Rome, Hamburg, Marseilles . . . and, yes -- Jersey City, New Jersey.

Consider this little news item that showed up here on FR today:

The leader of Ohio’s largest mosque has been stripped of his citizenship as punishment for a terrorism-related conviction but can’t be deported until a federal court hears his appeal, which could take 18 months.

It doesn't sound to me like this guy is being treated as an enemy -- especially an enemy in a war on which "the very survival of this nation" hinges. He ought to be deported tomorrow -- and dropped on his country of origin from an altitude of 35,000 feet.

You would fight the war by demolishing mosques here in the US. Have I got that right?

Isn't that where the enemy lurks here in this country?

I don't think the Bush Doctrine really involves "taking on the source of terrorism," do you?

Yes, I do. I've seen countless reports of terrorists being arrested in places where no military action is occurring. The war doesn't have to be waged with tanks and bulldozers. It's being waged in Dallas and Portland and Munich and Rome. It's being waged in Manilla, Jakarta, and in London. And we're doing it in the terrorist magnet of Iraq, only with louder noises.

Whoever that Ohio guy you referred to is out of action for the other side. It's too bad our laws and court system can't give us a quicker and more emotionally satisfying result, but we do have to respect our own laws, even in wartime.

And that means we can't bulldoze mosques here in this country.

I was pleasantly surprised to hear a muslim call one of our local talk radio programs yesterday. She was very angry at the folks in Iraq conducting the kidnappings and beheadings. It's not enough, but it certainly was a refreshing call.