[Oshkalaboomboom]

Boiled down to its essence this article tries to create moral equivalency between the actions of soldiers at war and terrorists, between the actions of a few genuine criminals and religious fanatics sent by allah to kill infidels with the bottom line that if we get more terror attacks like 9/11 on american soil it's because we earned it. File under Fifth Column.

[mainepatsfan]

So the NYTimes thinks it all our fault. What a surprise.

[YOUGOTIT]

Since the New York Times supports the terrorist I can understand why they would try and make a hero out of a scum terrorist.

[Dallas59]

The Slimes is desperate for readership. Terrorists are just like the people who want to get rid of them? Call me Dallas Abdul.

[DB]

Well Ms. Stern, what's the excuse for the Muslim attacks in the Sudan, Somalia, Indonesia, India - all over the world killing tens if not hundreds of thousands of people in just the last couple of years?

Your sense of "morality" is severely damaged. Actually you're sick.

[Berlin_Freeper]

"The new video tries to recruit ordinary American Muslims who might be offended, as many ordinary Americans are, by America’s mistakes and moral failings in carrying out the war on terrorism."

Name one mistake in carrying out the war on terrorism. Name one moral failing in carrying out the war on terrorism. It can't honestly be done because the fight against terrorism is crystal clear.

[68skylark]

Don't fight back against terrorists -- it just makes them stronger.

We've been hearing that kind of nonsense since 9/11.

[Darkwolf377]

America’s mistakes and moral failings in carrying out the war on terrorism.

This mindset is shockingly widespred: That there is such thing as the Perfect Way to fight a war. That way will result in no civilian casualties due to US actions (even though the terrorists live among non-terrorists, in neighborhoods full of civilians), every terrorist leader instantly killed painlessly (and ONLY the guilty ones i.e. the ones who aren't poor Muslims just looking for redress from decades of American blah blah blah), and the US stopping the WOT as soon as all those responsible for 9-11 are rounded up and given a fair trial. Anything beyond these scenarios is OBVIOUSLY proof that the US has no moral stature (even though when abuses have been found by the Pentagon before the judgmental press, the guilty have been punished), and thus we deserve what we get.

The NYT staff live under the protection of a military that will protect them no matter WHAT they say, and they know it. If somehow New York were to be left unprotected for 24 hours after any negative comment about the WOT, these "brave journalists" would be the biggest rally-'round-the-flag types you've ever seen. But if there is zero blowback for nonstop criticism no matter how unjustified, why bother taking an honest, realistic look at the situation? So much better to act brave, like there's an ounce of bravery needed to criticize the WOT.

[Hardastarboard]

“Allah willing, the streets of America will run red with blood.”

Jehovah willing, we'll pay you back.

[Darkwolf377]

Unlike in his previous performances, in last week’s video Gadahn is articulate, reasonable and troublingly persuasive. He accuses the United States of deliberately harming Muslim civilians in various conflicts around the world. If this were American policy, needless to say, it would violate not only Islamic teaching, but also the Judeo-Christian just war tradition.

Does the NYT offer a puke bag to new subscribers?