[UnklGene]

*ping*

[Paladin2]

Stop Jihad Now!

[mtbopfuyn]

Thus, the net effect in both jurisdictions is to limit or defer public awareness of these men’s activities.

True.

[Windsong]

At one o’clock that afternoon, as the Pentagon still burned and after he’d helped pull the injured from the rubble, Donald Rumsfeld told the president, “This is not a criminal action. This is war.”

It don't get any better than this.

[ncountylee]

If the Koran permit, you must acquit.

Child rape and "Leb style" activities included but don't insult Islam with a cartoon or we will stone or behead you.

[McGavin999]

Yep, that pretty much explains it. They think we're fools because most ARE fools. We hand them a weapon and then act surprised when they use it against us.

[griswold3]

"Why aren’t the dead of September 11 and July 7 already enough? "
Wow!!
When I debate my liberal friends about whay we are in Iraq, I ask them for what they will sacrifice blood and treasure. I'm adding this phrase.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

The question is not “Why do they hate us?” but “Why do they despise us?” And putting Abu Hamza in the dock at the Old Bailey is a good example why.

[vimto]

Abu Hamza is innocent.

He had no hand in any of this.

(Private Eye)

warm regards,

[marron]

“This is not a criminal action. This is war.”

This can't be stressed enough. War is not a legal exercise. Your enemy is not your enemy for some legal infraction, in fact what he does is likely perfectly legal by his code of conduct, and if his legal advisors are sufficiently sharp, it may even emulate legality under your code.

He is not at war with you because of some legal infraction, he is at war with you because he wants to destroy or subjugate you, and he is prepared to use any means to do it.

War is the state of affairs that exists when law is insufficient to resolve a conflict, war is what exists when your opponent is outside the jurisdiction of your laws, or does not recognize your laws, or is prepared to use your laws to destroy and enslave you.

In the moment you recognize your mortal danger, you must act, you must be prepared to do whatever it takes, and "whatever it takes" means just that, whatever it takes. You aren't going to limit yourself to serving subpoenas on your enemies, you are going to round them up, you are going to deport them, imprison them for as long as seems prudent, you are going to target them and kill them and anyone standing near them, you are going to identify and destroy their supporters, and you are going to do it with as much grace or brute force as you deem necessary.

These guys should not be on trial. They should be in a holding camp, being sweated for information so you can find their pals and get them too.

[IrishCatholic]

The question is not "Why do they hate us?" but "Why do they despise us?"

Actually, that isn't the question at all. The question is why do they think they can attack us at all. It is not their viciousness but our mistaken tolerance. For example: If in 1979 when the embassy in Iran was taken we went in like Dessert Storm in Iran, there would be no middle east issue now. Iraq wouldn't think about Kuwait, Russia might not have dared go into Afghanistan, and militant islam might not be what it is today. Animals attack from behind. Facing the threat, then kicking the crap out of it so the threat never dares again, is the best course for peace.
Well, that's just my take on it.

[F16Fighter]

Part of the reason John Kerry lost in 2004 and why the Democrats will lose again this November is that they view this business [WoT] as a law-enforcement matter: all warrants and due process. And, as we see in almost every case that comes up, to fight the jihad in the courtroom means you’ll lose.

The only "war" the Dems are willing to fight no-holds-barred is against...the GOP.

[Capt. Tom]

The question is not “Why do they hate us?” but “Why do they despise us?”

I found the answer the same place Zarqawi and hundreds of millions of other people found it ....in the Koran. - tom

[Tall_Texan]

So would it be true to say that Hamza is the "Cleric of the Edward Fitzgerald"?

[oldbrowser]

Hmm. Hamza wants to see a Caliph installed in Downing Street and to have Muslims “control the whole Earth.”

If a foreign state was actively trying to conquer us we would consider it a declaration of war and fight back.

[Ramius]

Part of the reason John Kerry lost in 2004 and why the Democrats will lose again this November is that they view this business as a law-enforcement matter: all warrants and due process.

I was surprised during the election (and still am) that John Kerry's book was never made into a bigger deal, by both sides. His 1998 book "The New War" shows an appalling naivete on the subject of terrorism that still appears to guide him, and the democrats in general, even today. They continue to see it as a criminal matter, not a military matter.

[Logophile]

. . . . charged with the crime of “using words or behaviour likely to stir up racial hatred” . . . . The jury was sternly reminded that its role is not to consider the truth or otherwise of Griffin’s remarks: The criminality thereof is not mitigated by factual accuracy.

So there is no legal difference between telling a lie and telling the truth, if someone might object. What kind of law is that?

[Gritty]

Well, it’s ingenious, and who’s to say it won’t work? If the Koran permit, you must acquit.

Where does Steyn come up with these?

A court of law is not meant to be a field of battle, and the enemy should not be upgraded to a defendant.

The man is a genius!

[shield]

BTTT