[demitall]

Appears to be missing Barf alert.

[popdonnelly]

Paid to write stupid stuff.

[Cyclopean Squid]

The drag bunt is not the enemy. It is our misunderstood ally. It is the DH rule that must be wiped off the face of the Earth! I'd be all for a War on the Designated Hitter.

[Plutarch]

We're at war with a considerable bunch of radical, fundamentalist Middle Eastern Islamic men who unfortunately draw comfort and support from a much larger mass of mewling Muslims...

Mewling Muslims. That's good. Descriptive and alliterative.

Mewl

intr.v. mewled, mewl·ing, mewls

To cry weakly; whimper.

[USNBandit]

We're at war with a bunch of wild-eyed Middle Eastern Mohammedans who hope to expel any remainder of post-15th-century cultural progress from their homelands, the better to lead their people back to a vicious 14th-century religious tyranny, complete with the stoning to death or beheading of rape victims, Christian missionaries and any woman who goes out in public with her forearms exposed.

Pretty accurate description except the part about their homelands. They are already spreading their evil into Europe and non muslim parts of Asia.

I would also take exception to describing the actions of the Colonial Navy to terrorism. Raiding an enemy coast under the flag of your nation is not terrorism. Dressing in civilian clothes plus a belt of explosives to blow up wedding, buses and churches is.

[LanaTurnerOverdrive]

"War on Terror" is a stupid misnomer. Terrorism is a tactic. It's like declaring war on attacking from the flanks. "War on Terrorists" would have actually made some sense. Like Ari's ill-fated attempt to change "Suicide Bomber" to "Homicide Bomber." Although some here desperately cling to every WH talking point, even if the WH itself gives up on it, ALL bombers are "Homicide Bombers." "Suicide Bomber" indicates that someone was willing to "martyr" themselves in the process.

[Cicero]

People really should read this article. The point has been made before, but needs to be made again, and V.S. makes it well.

Why all this misdirection? Is it all so we can avoid confronting the simple but politically incorrect act of naming our real enemy?

We're at war with a considerable bunch of radical, fundamentalist Middle Eastern Islamic men who unfortunately draw comfort and support from a much larger mass of mewling Muslims.

His point is that "War on terror" is confusing and meaningless. It's not a war on terror, its a war on terrorist Muslim men. Maybe even a war against Islam, to put it even more frankly, which private Americans are allowed to do even if politicians aren't.

[dangus]

What a damnedable idiot. Destroying a sailing fleet is a military objective, just like bombing railways, oil refineries, and factories. John Paul Jones' intent was not to terrorize the people of England; it was to disrupt the war economy.

[PerConPat]

..."The answer is to leave them alone behind really big fences, allowing those who wish to live in freedom to immigrate so long... as they embrace the separation of church and state..." Vin Suprynowicz

Vin isn't the sharpest pencil in the drawer, is he? Anybody who writes this has apparently forgot that Mohammed Atta al-Sayad and friends were immigrants. The answer is to make the general populations that spawn and support butchers, like Atta, very reluctant to do so.

[DJ Taylor]

"The answer is to leave them alone behind really big fences,..."

Yes, the solution to our problem with Muslims is to leave them alone behind really big fences. Of course these places behind fences are called concentration camps, and to leave them alone means not paying them for their oil but taking it instead.

But not for the petro dollars we give to the Muslim world, Muslim terrorists could not afford to come to our shores and make trouble for us, but would be forced to remain in their desert hovels abusing their women, loving their live stock and worshiping a God who has more in common with the Satan as found in the Old Testament than he does with the Father of Jesus.

[DoughtyOne]

Yes, bending over backwards to call our founding fathers terrorists, instead of admitting what the likes of Al-Zarkowi and company are up to, is what some think passes for productive commentary. I just consider it propaganda on behalf of Zarkowi.

What would this writer have us to do, congratulate Zarkowi on an honorable fight, the turn tail and run for the exits?

Would this resolve our dilema, what will the terrorists hit in the U.S. next? Of course no.

The terrorists must be resoundly defeated. You do that by making damned sure the Iraqi government remains stable. You do not do it by running for the exits.

Terrorists can continue to carry out their butchering ways. They will still have been defeated in their attempt to block a republic taking shape in their midst.

And as time goes by, they will tire and become a waste of time, when the U.S. can't be flogged by the MSM any longer.

Course lets think about that too. When we pull out, won't the MSM call the Iraqi government a puppet government, or an installed government or something to that effect? Why of course. They will never term Iraq a victory for freedom.

When CarVILE said this is war, he wasn't kidding. His party has joined the likes of Zarkowi and ANSWER. They have melted down and have no way back.

[Left2Right]

Definitely need to read the entire article!

"We're at war with a bunch of wild-eyed Middle Eastern Mohammedans"

Sounds about right to me...

"They're nuts, but there are a lot of them."

Anyone want to disagree with that?

"The answer is to leave them alone behind really big fences"

Or at least build one. It's about time to build a really, really BIG fence on our southern border and get serious about defneding it.

"Then we could and should have a sensible debate in Congress"

So he's off the mark there...

"For instance, the Constitution still allows the equipping of private warships under "letters of marque" to make war on selected foreign enemies -- just like John Paul Jones."

I like the "Letters of Marque" part. Probably never happen, though.

[sit-rep]

Okay then...these are revolution antagonists...fine. Playing by those rules and roles, we, I take it are the British. We will crush you this time...

What a moron to write something like this... Our fore fathers did not fly a plane full of innocent men and women into skyscrapers full of people.