I hear what you are saying, but the founding fathers of this country did what they did, knowing full well they would swing if they were captured.
Our troops go into harms way to protect our rights. Their families are at risk of losing them.
Terrorism is a threat to civilization, not just western civilization, but all civilization. Until it becomes as taboo as incest or cannibalism, we will not be able to eradicate it.
People need to step up to the plate and do what is right, and that has to start with people taking sides in this. People ridicule President Bush for his black and white "with us or against us" stance, but that is what must be done. And it cannot be done with silence, and it cannot be done with statements like "I condemn the perpetrators of terrorism, but..."
The condemnation must be loud, it must be sustained, and it must be from all quarters. I appreciate the viewpoint of the gentleman who started this thread, as sincere as he seems to be. But he is a small voice in the wilderness.
Throughout history, people have had to take risky stands on issues, no matter the danger to their families or themselves. We can sit here safely, and be comfortably silent. But in time, and make no mistake, we will see car bombs going off on OUR cities, or worse if we do not act now.
Everyone always looks back after terrible events and says "I wish I had done such and such..." after the fact. After WWII, there were so many people who said "I wish I had actually listened to the rantings of that madman Hitler, instead of dismissing him as an inconsequental politician."
We have not had a nuclear device go off in an American city yet. No matter what we do, it may still happen. And let's not kid ourselves. I am not being hyperbolic here...if the 9/11 perpetrators had the capability, THEY would have used a nuclear device. But if people of good faith loudly and vocally condemn things that deserve that condemnation, then we can chip away at the pillars of support for those terrible things, and they may not come to pass.
A very good post you made. I have a brother-in-law who is unconditionally liberal along with his wife. He is a genius IQ even smarter than me (lol). 1600 SAT. Perfect score. Harvard, the works. He is now in his 60's. He challenged me to an e-mail debate. The issue was my daughter who had been at home alone with a friend - about age 12 - and thought she heard someone creeping downstairs. She shouted down: "I have a gun!".
In the e-mail debate I pointed out to my genius BIL that my daughter took the natural path, force. He said guns were bad. She should have said: "I'm a child, don't hurt me."
I responded: What if the bad guy had come into the house to rape the 12 year old, my daughter? What good would your response have done?
He never replied.
So, in relation to your black/white post, now that I have set this poor guy up as pitifully mis-informed, I will relate another incident.
While dining with the entire family (which is like a battalion) we were sitting together and they challenged me on something and I probably didn't give them a good backhand, but, then, he said: you have to understand, nothing is what it seems, nothing is black and white like Bush thinks, this table, for instance, if you put it under a microscope is not nearly as smooth as it seems. It would appear to be full of pockmarks and ridges.
I looked at the table and I looked at him.
"So let me get this straight, if your family is threatened by a piece of S((T with a pearl handled revolver, you want to call time out and x-ray the weapon."
Answer: "We don't care what you say. We don't have to listen to you. We are not interested in what you have to say."
Captured by the British, yes, they would have been tried and hung for treason. But their wives and children would not have been physically harmed. The Founders didn't have to worry about same crazy in their own midst shooting them in the back or cutting their kids heads off.
Comparing King George with Bin Laden is kind of simplistic.