[Clilmence]

If you don't have the time, then just shut up. No one is forcing you to answer.

[AngegepeM]

So in your opinion anyone who was arrested because of strong evidence pointing to their terrorist connection should be released immediately.

Cite the statement made that led you to this conclusion. Size doesn't matter here, so please be brief. Your long rants are tedious.

Your intolerance is what led to this. No need for me to comment on that little gem.

[Civilrecordzz]

Quote:
I am implying, Zippy, that anyone speaking out against the war on terror, is supporting terrorists

Does that mean that if I think my Muslims friends are being unlawfully treated and interogatted for up to 3 months without being formally charged with a terrorist crime makes me a supporter of terrorism? Does that mean that if I stand up to the rights of my fellow muslims I am supporting terrorism? This is one of the reasons my family choose to move to Canada. Here at least you aren't branded a traitor for simply speaking out for your fellow human beings.

[zithromaxlinks]

I also agree completely. Why would anyone speak out against a war that is to protect our country and stop mass murderers from killing us? They must be un-American and illogical. If someone spoke out against the court convicting another person of a crime(and he did it), you are supporting that criminal. If you don't support a war on terrorism then you support terrorism. Are you ignorant? There is no middle ground. You either support civilians being murdered or not. Thus, you either want to stop terrorists or not.

[aAaBecker]

The weapons may still be there. NYatNight, you are forgetting some basic facts.

Saddam had chemical and biological weapons in 1991, we are 100% sure of this because we actually gave him smallpox when he was fighting Iran because we weren't friendly with Iran. There is no doubt he has or at least at one point HAD the weapons. From then to now he has shown no proof of their destruction. Resolution 1441 which the UN agreed upon says that Saddam must prove the weapons are destroyed, or show them to the inspectors to be destroyed. He didnt do either, he just let the inspectors drive around looking. Obviously smallpox doesnt just dissapear from its container and vanish. The fact is Saddam showed no proof of destruction. He had to comply with weapons insspectors meaning actually show them the weapons or show proof of there being no weapons. It wasn't meant that we'd have thousands of inspectors searching every inch of the country. As you can see now, it's hard to find this stuff.

So, NYatNight, what would stop Saddam from hiding it and just claiming it doesn't exist? Nothing... because that is exactly what he did. And if we didn't go in there can you say 100% that he would have not given it to terrorists who would use it on us? Then you'd be complaining Bush didn't stop Saddam when he had the chance.

[jagxj12]

Here is someting on topic.

U.S. Arrests Muslim Activist in Terror Financing Probe
Monday , September 29, 2003

WASHINGTON — A Muslim activist whose Virginia home was searched as part of a federal investigation of terrorist financing was arrested shortly after arriving back in the United States, law enforcement officials said.

Abdul Rahman al-Amoudi (search) was taken into custody at Dulles International Airport on Sunday after a flight from London, officials said. The charges against al-Amoudi were expected to be unsealed following an initial court appearance Monday.

Al-Amoudi's home in Falls Church, Va., was among those searched in March 2002 by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (search) agents as part of a federal probe into financing of terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah.

Michael A. Mason, chief of the FBI's Washington field office, said authorities had developed a significant amount of information about al-Amoudi's activities and that the initial charges brought in the case might be only the beginning.

"He has been under investigation for some time," Mason said.

Al-Amoudi is a director of the American Muslim Council (search), an Islamic advocacy group, and is co-founder of the American Muslim Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Council.

The latter group helps the U.S. military select Muslim chaplains for the armed forces, a system that has recently drawn criticism from Congress following the arrests of a Muslim chaplain on suspicion of spying.

Capt. Yousef Yee (search) is being held without charge in the Navy brig in Charleston, S.C., amid an investigation into possible security breaches at the terrorist prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Mason said he knew of no connection between al-Amoudi and Yee "at this time," but he said the investigation is continuing.

Al-Amoudi has made frequent public statements, including appearances on television news programs, about treatment of Muslims after the Sept. 11 terror attacks. He also was active in politics.

Like I said, it is odd someone care so much more about Muslims than anyone else. Part of the fundamentalist ideaology is that they are better than all non-muslims. This guy arrested was someone who complained about prejudice against muslims after 911. Instead of complaining about terrorism, or the killing of inoccent people, he concluded the biggest problem was anti-muslim feelings, not the anti-american feelings that many muslims have. He turned out to be a terrorist himself. It makes you think... this is what I've been saying all along and now here is some proof.

[BrifsGefel]

You consider my anti-terrorist remarks un-American. And you consider remarks such as "Give more freedom to mass murdering terrorists" to be American. Well I obviously don't know your definition of American. It must not be the same as mine. Yes, we have freedom, but not the freedom to murder, or kill, or support those who do. We are not free to be or support a terrorist. See this is what liberals have wrong. You consider something I said against terrorists to be more un-American than those who don't want the terrorists to be stopped. Justice is also part of being an American. Justice must be done to these madmen. Again, I point out the hypocrisy in all of this. Democrats love freedom of speech until a conservative opens his or her mouth. When someone talks about giving more rights to a terrorist, that is considered protected by you liberals under the constitution. However, when a conservative talks out against people supporting terrorists then it is bad speech, must be banned. He must stop speaking, he is un-American. That is all nonsense.

[halfstreet]

Not confronting the issue of terrorism, and especially the critical talk about our President while he tries to protect us, supports terrorists. If they turn on an American news channel and hear about President Bush being bashed by democrats that improves their morale. President Bush really isn't that great of a president, he just thinks that he is. His cowboy attitude towards the rest of the world, and the non-elites in this country only contributes towards more anti-americanism abroad and a "liberal" backlash here at home. Your blind faith and trust in this guy (with no questions asked) has the familiar ring of several syndicated talk radio shows. They are grating on the nerves to say the least, while being wholly one-sided, misrepresentative, nonfactual at times, and misleading about the true facts most of the time. I tend to discount your argument because it is so in step with this format, which is consistently noninclusive of others' views and opinions.

[joe-salton]

May 16, 2003

Paths of Glory

By PAUL KRUGMAN

The central dogma of American politics right now is that George W. Bush, whatever his other failings, has been an effective leader in the fight against terrorism. But the more you know about the state of the world, the less you believe that dogma. The Iraq war, in particular, did nothing to make America safer — in fact, it did the terrorists a favor.

How is the war on terror going? You know about the Riyadh bombings. But something else happened this week: The International Institute for Strategic Studies, a respected British think tank with no discernible anti-Bush animus, declared that Al Qaeda is "more insidious and just as dangerous" as it was before Sept. 11. So much for claims that we had terrorists on the run.

Still, isn't the Bush administration doing its best to fight terrorism? No.

The administration's antiterror campaign makes me think of the way television studios really look. The fancy set usually sits in the middle of a shabby room, full of cardboard and duct tape. Networks take great care with what viewers see on their TV screens; they spend as little as possible on anything off camera.

And so it has been with the campaign against terrorism. Mr. Bush strikes heroic poses on TV, but his administration neglects anything that isn't photogenic.

I've written before about the Bush administration's amazing refusal to pay for even minimal measures to protect the nation against future attacks — measures that would secure ports, chemical plants, nuclear facilities and so on. (But the Department of Homeland Security isn't completely ineffectual: this week it helped Texas Republicans track down their Democratic colleagues, who had staged a walkout.)

The neglect of homeland security is mirrored by the Bush administration's failure to follow through on overseas efforts once the TV-friendly part of the operation has come to an end. The overthrow of the Taliban was a real victory — arguably our only important victory against terrorism. But as soon as Kabul fell, the administration lost interest. Now most of Afghanistan is under the control of warlords, the Karzai government is barely hanging on, and the Taliban are making a comeback.

Senator Bob Graham has made an even stronger charge: that Al Qaeda was "on the ropes" a year ago, but was able to recover because the administration diverted military and intelligence resources to Iraq. As former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, he's in a position to know. And before you dismiss him as a partisan Democrat, bear in mind that when he began raising this alarm last fall his Republican colleagues supported him: "He's absolutely right to be concerned," said Senator Richard Shelby, who has seen the same information.

Senator Graham also claims that a classified Congressional report reveals that "the lessons of Sept. 11 are not being applied today," and accuses the administration of a cover-up.

Still, we defeated Saddam. Doesn't that make us safer? Well, no.

Saddam wasn't a threat to America — he had no important links to terrorism, and the main U.S. team searching for weapons of mass destruction has packed up and gone home. Meanwhile, true to form, the Bush team lost focus as soon as the TV coverage slackened off. The first result was an orgy of looting — including looting of nuclear waste dumps that, incredibly, we failed to secure. Dirty bombs, anyone? Now, according to an article in The New Republic, armed Iraqi factions are preparing for civil war.

That leaves us facing exactly the dilemma war skeptics feared. If we leave Iraq quickly it may well turn into a bigger, more dangerous version of Afghanistan. But if we stay for an extended period we risk becoming, as one commentator put it, "an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land" — just the recruiting tool Al Qaeda needs. Who said that? President George H. W. Bush, explaining his decision not to go on to Baghdad back in 1991.

Massoud Barzani, the Kurdish leader, isn't afraid to use the "Q" word, worrying that because of America's failure to follow up, "this wonderful victory we have achieved will turn into a quagmire."

The truth is that the pursuit of televised glory — which led the Bush administration to turn its attention away from Al Qaeda, and to pick a fight with a regime that, however nasty, posed no threat — has made us much less safe than we should be.

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

[sabbixsweraco]

With that logic then why don't we attack all the countries who deal with terrorists, create and trade weapons, or have ruthless dictators?

And how convenient that there is no way to prove the success or failure of this Iraq War.