'Koran permit, must acquit' [Mark Steyn]

Jerusalem Post ^ | Feb. 28, 2006 | Mark Steyn

[headsonpikes]

To crazed jihadis eager to die, we should say, like the Bug in MIB,

"Your proposal is acceptable."

[SerpentDove]

>>Marked for later reading. Does anyone know if there is a Mark Steyn ping list? I seem to be missing a lot of posts lately.<<

Pokey can hook you up.

:-)

[aculeus]

A court of law is not meant to be a field of battle, and the enemy should not be upgraded to a defendant. The question is not "Why do they hate us?" but "Why do they despise us?" Putting Abu Hamza in the dock at the Old Bailey is a good example why.

Another example: Carter's refusal to consider the seizure of our Iran Embassy as an act of war.

[willyboyishere]

"We WOULD be best served by executing some of the terrorists".
---At this point, it would be hard to disagree with that.
If Churchill were still in charge of Britain that is what
we would see. But in the West, it seems we would still rather have OUR blood on our hands than THEIRS.
The very brave Nick Griffin is in trouble for being RIGHT, basically, for proving himself to be a PROPHET.
That's a no-no---that is seen as the equivalent of "taking the law into your own hands". It's as though the belief from Authority in general is "ONLY WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE RIGHT"----when in fact they are willing to punish people like Griffin for proving them WRONG! When legitimate authority walks around its enemies on eggshells, NO ONE dare speak up, because words like Griffin's , which only seek to project into the future , and are the EFFECT of real experience, are seen as the CAUSE of the next round of Islamic terror.

[alwaysconservative]

Thanks for the ping!

[DCPatriot]

I was totally unaware there is a difference between "hate" and "despise".

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

[maica]

Look at what they are doing to Mr. Griffin (I don't know if he is extremist or not), but he on trial for speaking TRUTH, and the jury has been instructed to IGNORE the TRUTH.

####

If there ever was a case crying out for jury nullification, this is it. However, when ordinary folks, jurists for a brief while, see the power of govt to punish words, how can they say other than what the prosecutor (the govt) wants them to say.

The UK is is in serious trouble.

[To Hell With Poverty]

"Hooky" - he lost his hands in a, er, "accident" in Afghanistan in 1991"

Captain Hook must remember
Not to scratch his toes.
Captain Hook must watch out
And never pick his nose.
Captain Hook must be gentle
When he shakes your hand.
Captain Hook must be careful
Openin' sardine cans
And playing tag and pouring tea
And turnin' pages in his book.
Lots of folks I'm glad I ain't—
But mostly Captain Hook!

--Shel Silverstein

[hattend]

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

The main question is why are the terrorist leaders allowed to make it as far as the courtroom? "Saddam went for a gun, Sarge! I had to cut him in half!"

[Alouette]

he lost his hands in a, er, "accident" in Afghanistan in 1991

That's the "story" he put out. But what really happened I think he was caught shoplifting ladies underwear at a mall in Riyadh. Twice.

[Hetty_Fauxvert]

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."

That's still the distinction that matters: 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. And, as we see in almost every case that comes up, to fight the jihad in the courtroom means you'll lose.

"This is war." That's one of the very first things I said myself on September 11. I think these two 'graphs are the core of this article (another brilliant effort by Our Man Steyn, btw) -- the ability to distinguish between an act of war, or something to be referred to law enforcement. We are at war. We *are* at war. This is the fight of our lifetimes, just as WWII was the fight of our grandparents' generation. Chamberlain couldn't see that, but Churchill could. Bush sees it now, and most of our pundits ridicule him.

All our politically correctsters hate the idea that in this supposedly modern day and age, war can still be driven by religion and ideology (or in this case, a large subset of a religion -- militant radical Islam). They hate it so much that they refuse to admit it or see it. But refusing to see something doesn't mean it isn't so. Ignoring the pain in your gut because you don't want to deal with it may let a cancer grow that will eventually kill you.

Steyn has *his* eyes wide open.

[Redleg Duke]

Didn't Captain Hook die of jock itch?

[willyboyishere]

BTT

[irv]

More of the best of the great Steyn

[Watery Tart]

BTTT

[truth_seeker]

From the outset, there should have been no Guantanamo.

All captured should have been held secretly in Afghanitan, questioned to the fullest extent, and then disappeared.

The US should never admit to any of that, then, now or in the future.

War is different than crime. The enemy "tries" our side, and cuts off your head the same day.

But we have "jihad" John's lawyer daddy from northern California running around making speeches aimed at getting sympathy for his son, who was armed and at war with American soldiers.

[knighthawk]

Ping

[Bullish]

The surest way to lose a war is to bury your head in the sand and refuse to fight it.

Liberal, peacnik' chickenhearts are such pinheads. How many times will they have to be hit before they realize this is a real war?

[jebeier]

bump