xtcian

"Would it be too predictable to say I believe today's bombings to be a result of the War on Terror, rather than why we're fighting it?"

If there are no bombings you say that's not because of the war and if they are you say it is. Sorry, but the target on London's back was there long before the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Maybe I'm wrong, but didn't you support the invasion of Afghanistan as a response to 9/11? The group claiming responsibility for yesterday's coordinated attacks on London are calling for the coalition's withdrawal from there, too. In other words, even if we had let Saddam continue doing his thing these people would still have wanted to kill infidels.

I know this doesn't add anything to the discussion, but I wanted to say I really enjoyed & was moved by today's entry.

Great entry. I lived in Wales as a child---from 1977-1979 and have many fond memories.

Aimee D.

I feel much of the same affinity you do for London. The graciousness of the Londoners was summed up very well by a story I heard this morning. They were interviewing a Londoner and asked where he thought they got their resilience. He replied that first of all, they learned much by the example of New Yorkers and second of all, they were a "spunky lot."

The US and UK's government reaction to 9/11 has demonstrably not made us any safer. The people who do the terrorist attacks are really outside civil society; they don't care about innocent lives, and in some cases, don't care about their own lives. The only rational, effective response to them is to find out who they are, find out what they're planning, and thwart them.

I opposed and continue to oppose both the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. Whatever the pretext or goals, neither war has made us any safer. What they have done is gobbled up money and innocent lives, and further solidified the low esteem in which the world holds the US and UK.

I just found out that a friend of ours was injured in the attack -- his wife knew he was on the circle line, and had to wait all day to find out that he'd been hospitalized. This guy is a professor at the University of Iowa, and one of the most articulate, cogent proponents of pacifism you'll find. Knowing him, I _know_ that this experience will only make his commitment to pacifism firmer.

Our governments have demonstrated amply that they have no compunction about taking the lives of thousands of innocent people, why should we expect better of the terrorists?

"The US and UK's government reaction to 9/11 has demonstrably not made us any safer."

I respectfully submit that's not true. And it's certainly not the feeling of most Americans (in respect to our efforts in Afghanistan, not just Iraq).

"Our governments have demonstrated amply that they have no compunction about taking the lives of thousands of innocent people, why should we expect better of the terrorists?"

You seem to engage in a bit of moral relativism here. Are accidental casualties among innocent civilians in war the same as the deliberate murder of them by our enemy as their primary method of warfare? I don't see it that way. Nor, I believe, do most others.

We'll see the British mettle soon. I predict it will be much unlike the Spanish kind.

If ever there were a "spunky lot" the English fit the bill. Churchill has been echoing in my mind since I saw the words "bombs" and "London" together again.

I think that the two sides to this "war" fundamentally so misunderstand each other that the slaughter will simply continue in perpetuity. Is the irony lost on the masses that the Statesmen for both sides proclaim that "our will and spirit will not be shaken, nor broken by violence and war." Then, in the next breath, proclaim and act with violence against the other for the purposes of breaking the others will? In essence, a pre-school fight until one side "Gives", only with deadly and tragic results and with no one yelling "Uncle". On 9/11 I watched the Pentagon burn from my window and channeled every ounce of hope in my heart, unsuccessfully, that a close friend was alive. I burned with homocidal rage that day and for months afterwards and I confess that a few times I uttered hate. Time has provided the soothing salve to the scars of rage but not enough to make me forget. I feel for London.

Is there a solution? Ian, maybe you are right about the cause of this attack on our ally and blood, but I think your statement it is a bit simplistic, Foxnewsish, if you will. This war has been going on for millenia, it only waxes periodically and then, rears it's ugly pimpled head again. Odd, that both sides worship the exact same God.... but then again that's the problem. So, rather than prattle on without saying a fucking thing, let me propose a solution. World....let's turn the Vatican into a very nice spa, flog and defrock the right wing wackoprotestant preachers and then outlaw Christianty. (circa 64 CE / Nero)(sorry to be offensive to the Christians here, I actually very much appreciate your posts and faith) Let the Islamic and Jewish religions have it all... they can argue/kill each other to their hearts content about which one is right and maybe one day they too will wake up and say.... "You know what... I'm tired of killing everyone......'Uncle'. It's all yours... after billions dead, your religion is right and mine was wrong, good night."

.... Next week... a against TV... (please throw yours out the door and into the trash)

wow, tregen, i'm befuddled and offended by your closing...

"Let the Islamic and Jewish religions have it all... they can argue/kill each other to their hearts content about which one is right and maybe one day they too will wake up and say.... "You know what... I'm tired of killing everyone......'Uncle'. It's all yours... after billions dead, your religion is right and mine was wrong, good night."

for the record, the jewish faith does not in any way saction, condone or even suggest killing anyone. and certainly not in the name of god. the jewish faith is one of live and let live. jews are not strapping on homemade bombs and walking into crowded cafes. the sophisticated military reponse from israel is absolutely on par, and actually more measured, than the western response to 9/11 and, perhaps, now london. this in contrast to the fundamentalist islamic translation, like the christian tradition of the crusades, which is activist and calls for spreading the word to the infidels or crushing the heretics. there is no parallel in judaism, buddhism, or various other world religions. so, i'm not sure where you drew your conclusion.

now, the issue of land rights and territory is more complicated, but i think it's ridiculous for smug americans to get into issues about re-drawing boundaries and "who was there first" arguments about israel and the middle east, when our founding fathers kicked out the native american indians and took over.

i think the biggest problem, as i've stated in this forum before and in many others, is a mis-understanding of terrorism and its attendant rules of engagement. this administration continues to attempt tactical military planning from a very narrow view of modern warfare. a much broader strategy is needed to root out and address the seeds of terrorism. indiscriminate bombing and unwelcome nation building simply adds fuel to the fire of poverty, anger, and disaffected masses in a handful of the islamic countries. we'd do better to give aid and jobs to those who will grow up to hate the west...

obviously, it's a complicated problem, but bombing isn't ever going to work.

The English have something called steak and kidney pie. I've never had it. Have you? Did you like it? Sometimes I wonder, do Islamic jihad terrorists have a favorite kind of pie? I'd try theirs because I really like pie. But there are so many different kinds of pie, that it gets a little confusing.

I was referring to the three monotheistic religions and probably should have just said, let's outlaw all religion.... Your post seems to imply that you believe that Islam provides for violence? Did I misread, I often do when reading blogs.... I'm not personally aware of any rational person in any of the three religions who believe that their religion actually supports violence, despite the texts of the relevant holy books. The Qur'an provides for no more violence against other than does the Torrah / Old Testiment.

"These are the statutes and judgments, which ye shall observe to do in the land, which the Lord God of thy fathers giveth thee to possess it, all the days that ye live upon the earth. Ye shall utterly destroy all the places, wherein the nations which ye shall possess served their gods, upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and under every green tree: And ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place." - Deuteronomy Chapt. 12: 1-3.

Clearly, outside influences have corrupted many of all faiths (see current situation in the White House) but I personally do not attribute the acts of those to all people of faith.

Nevertheless, my intent was not to be antisemitic or anti anything (despite the Nero comment)other than war. In other words, in the end the cause of this mess is religion which is ironic given the stated beliefs of all involved.

Matt...

Where to begin... When you say "not the feeling of most Americans" you obviously mean those in the Red states. Needless to say that may not be "most Americans" it also is those Americans who have yet to directly experience the horror that we here in NYC, and those in London (where I, too, have lived and been educated) have experienced. In case you missed the point of it all, Saddam has never taken responsibility for 9/11, and was never directly involved. So explain to me again how "even is Saddam continued doing his thing" because, in your own ommission, Iraq and 9/11 are not closely connected, even if the government wants to thwart the rest of the country into thinking they are. In addition, if capturing Saddam didn't make a difference one way or the other because they would still want to "kill infidels" than why support the war (and the killing of innocents, young soldiers, friends, sons, parents) at all? And it stands to reason that our involvement in the life of Afganistan and Iraq might actually make them a little bit more angry, vengeful, violent - and may instigate them to further violence. I mean, we are, killing their babies too.

tregen, thanks for clarifying. i'm on the same page with you if the core of your comments is that religion in the strictest sense is the root of these troubles. absolutely agreed.

also, i agree that no "rational" person believes that their religious teachings call for violence. but terrorism isn't the brainchild of rational minds. thus, my issue with any extremist interpretation of religious texts.

i do believe that the texts of the three monotheistic religions differ in their duties to "spread the word"...which, often, becomes a basis for violence. judaism makes it very difficult to join the faith, and my understanding is that typically christianity and islam call for conversion of non-believers. i don't think that this means religious followers are evil since they're "just trying to save their fellow man" in the way they know best....

but, yes, organized religion tends to get caught up in the more complicated cultural and political surges in history. and, thus, the tide of history ebbs and flows, and we're in a strange moment right now.

"When you say 'not the feeling of most Americans' you obviously mean those in the Red states."

No, I'm including all Americans.

"In case you missed the point of it all, Saddam has never taken responsibility for 9/11, and was never directly involved."

Nobady ever said he was, KC. Nobody ever said he was. But 9/11 did change the risk assessment. The bar has sionce been lowered. Dictators and despots everywhere should sit up and take notice.

If terrorists are irrational, as I would think is a reasonable statement, then isn't the concept of "the causes of terrorism" an oxymoron? Cause and effect refers to a rational analysis.

It's something, earlier this week the headlines were that Rove may have outed the names of CIA agents. And suddenly it is Friday and those headlines are nowhere to be found. What has replaced them is this London attack.

Being that Bush & Cheney and the CIA were able to invade Iraq and kill 100,000 for oil and lies, it would not surprise me in the least if Bush and the CIA were responsible for the attack in London yesterday, it got Rove's mess off the front page, and suddenly brings all this terrorism paranoia bull$hit back onto the front page with silly color-coded alerts being flashed on FoxNews and all the other right-wing outlets. Bush has been very quiet about yesterday's events, almost as if he refuses to talk in front of the cameras, he is hiding a lot, him and his CIA buddies either planned the attack or else they knew of the attack and did not alert the UK officials about what they knew. Bush had foreknowledge of 9/11 and did nothing, he made up lies to kill over 100,000 in Iraq, for him to kill another 50 yesterday in London just to help him politically would fit with his prior record on killing people just to gain political power. Who knows, Bush and Blair ( bLIAR) may even find a way to link yesterday's events to Iran, and this will be their green light to now invade Iran and steal more oil and install more puppet governments, Bush and Blair are the 2 biggest terrorists in the world right now.

Funny to read about your late 70's relationship with the tube. Sounds like I was simultaneously engaged in parallel activities with BART. I went out to the ends of every line and visited a lot of the stations in between. Cheap adventure for a pre-pube. BTW, I'm uploading my photos (URL above) from our own cross-country drive, which took Sophie and I past the same kudzu and through the same deserts just a few days behind you and the Prius.

"...earlier this week the headlines were that Rove may have outed the names of CIA agents. And suddenly it is Friday and those headlines are nowhere to be found."

Maybe because it's probably not true. Word now is that a reporter may have been the one who told Rove (after learning it elsewhere)! Ha, that would be funny. We'll know soon enough, though.

Does anyone else here share Joe C's views in his second paragraph? I sure hope not.

Actually, better to use this URL http://flickr.com/photos/olisoph/sets/561023/show/
to see our cross-country photos.

Waitaminit---YOU went to London in 1978?

Me too.

The coinkydinks between your life and mine are getting downright spooky, Ian.

I can see how many might share Joe C's words, but there are few in the USA. I do not believe that Cheney/Bush/CIA or any other US agency was complicit in this attack. I think if I were a third world person i could easy think that way.

Think about what he said.. who is going around the world killing people right now? Who has a long record of doing it for it's entire exsistance? Who has mislead it's own people (in the name of democracy) to advance agenda? US!!

It is easy to come to this conclusion from the outside i think..we deserve it.

"Think about what he said.. who is going around the world killing people right now?"

Islamic terrorists.

"Who has a long record of doing it for it's entire exsistance?"

Islamic terrorists.

"Who has mislead it's own people (in the name of democracy) to advance agenda? US!! It is easy to come to this conclusion from the outside i think..we deserve it."

Uh, Oooookay. Boy, that Karl Rove wasn't making stuff up.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/24/AR2005062400097.html

>> "The US and UK's government reaction to 9/11
>> has demonstrably not made us any safer."

> I respectfully submit that's not true. And
> it's certainly not the feeling of most
> Americans (in respect to our efforts
> in Afghanistan, not just Iraq).

I don't care how 'most' americans 'feel.' I care about the truth. Airport security is annoying to law-abiding travelers, and determined people still get weapons on planes past the new security. Our ports are still wide open, our borders are still porous. And we've spent 200+ billion dollars on a war that does nothing to address terrorism, was entered into on false pretenses, has killed 1700 americans, and uncounted Iraqis.

Terrorism is a shadowy foe to replace communism in order to justify military adventurism. I'm all for a tough, focused approach to stopping terrorism. What we have no is nothing like that.

>> "Our governments have demonstrated amply
>> that they have no compunction about taking
>> the lives of thousands of innocent people,
>> why should we expect better of the terrorists?"
>
> You seem to engage in a bit of moral
> relativism here. Are accidental casualties
> among innocent civilians in war the same as
> the deliberate murder of them by our enemy as
> their primary method of warfare? I don't see
> it that way. Nor, I believe, do most others.

Bullshit. No relativism. I see equivalence -- we have killed and maimed thousands. Is "I didn't mean to do it" a defense? You're talking about
the difference between murder and manslaughter.
They're both crimes. And the fact that we're at
war under false pretenses, with a constantly
changing rationale for being there, with an arrogant lack of planning for its aftermath isn't
just a mistake, it's criminal negligence.

> We'll see the British mettle soon. I predict
> it will be much unlike the Spanish kind.

We'll see British law enforcement do its job.
Are you _rooting_ for them to lash out militarily?
Or are you just saying they won't be swayed by the
bombings in pursuing their disastrous war with
the US?

Either way it means more lives lost, more money
wasted, more arrogant posturing by people far from
the fighting and suffering. If you're proud of
that, be my guest, but it just makes me sick.

"I don't care how 'most' americans 'feel.' I care about the truth."

Apparently not, considering your comments.

"[W]e've spent 200+ billion dollars on a war that does nothing to address terrorism..."

On the contrary, we've done more to address terrorism and its root causes in the last 4 years than western civilization has in the previous 20.

"...has killed 1700 americans, and uncounted Iraqis."

The UN estimates fewer than 30,000 Iraqis have died in the liberation of their country. That number includes combatants as well as civilians killed by the terrorists during the post-war occupation. Do you really want to compare death counts with Saddam's era?

"Terrorism is a shadowy foe to replace communism in order to justify military adventurism."

So you think terrorism is a manufactured threat? Ok. It's always good to know what people really think.

"I'm all for a tough, focused approach to stopping terrorism."

No you're not. A minute ago you were sneering at the very notion of it.

"Bullshit. No relativism. I see equivalence..."

What can I say about a person for whom there is no moral distinction between deliberately targeting civilians and accidentally killing them in a war of liberation? Not much.

"Is 'I didn't mean to do it' a defense?"

I don't know, what was Saddam's and Osama's excuse?

"You're talking about the difference between murder and manslaughter."

I'm talking about the difference between right and wrong, good and evil (scary concept, I know). "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." --Edmund Burke

"And the fact that we're at war under false pretenses..."

That's simply untrue.

"...with a constantly changing rationale for being there..."

Also not true. Read the Iraq War Resolution passed by Congress in 2002. Go back and read the 2003 State of the Union Address. The rationale for liberating Iraq has never changed.

"...with an arrogant lack of planning for its aftermath isn't just a mistake, it's criminal negligence."

I'm sure there were mistakes made, but no more than in any other war. Much fewer probably. Democratization is the plan for the Middle East. There was a time when liberals approved of such ideals.

"We'll see British law enforcement do its job.
Are you _rooting_ for them to lash out militarily?"

If the British want to send the right message they would double their troop numbers in both Iraq and Afghanistan immediately.

"Or are you just saying they won't be swayed by the bombings in pursuing their disastrous war with
the US?"

It's not often I get to quote a Frenchman approvingly, so here goes. "The guillotine is not neutral and does not permit one to remain neutral." --Victor Hugo

The same is true for Islamic terrorism. There are no sidelines. These people want to kill you and me and they cannot be talked back into reason.

"...more arrogant posturing by people far from
the fighting and suffering. If you're proud of
that, be my guest, but it just makes me sick."

You shouldn't presume to know things about me.

Matt,

It's tough to take your comments to Kent seriously when half of them are just comebacks that my little brother easily could have said to me yesterday. i.e. "Apparently not, considering your comments." and "That's simply untrue."

Well, he probably doesn't use the word 'untrue' in daily conversation.

I don't agree with most of the things you're saying and probably never will, but you'd be more likely to convince me if you used arguments instead of these answers that judge the previous commenter but give no new information.

I find it difficult to take you and Kent seriously as well, Emily. You picked two responses to generalize everything I've written. Nice try, darlin'. Tell me, what is it that you don't understand?

More to Emily:

Looking over it again, I wrote about moral relativism, casualty figures, democratization as a plan for the Middle East, where Kent could find the rational given for the war by the administration, what I think the British response to the London bombings should be.

I suppose I could've also gone over all of Saddam's transgressions that led up to the war and respond in detail to every silly charge Kent makes (Bush is a liar! Bush is a criminal! Yawn), but then you've probably already heard them. And if you haven't, then I'd probably be wasting my time anyway.

Matt -

You see fallacious moral equivalences: Opposing a bloody, interminable war does not mean that one supported Saddam Hussein.

I am a pacifist, and have been since I went door to door for Eugene McCarthy in 1968 at the age of eleven. I think war is wrong, and that pre-emptive wars against threats that _might_ come to pass is morally repugnant.

Now you probably disagree and have counter-arguments, which is your right. But the difference between your ideology and mine is that yours has always led to misery and suffering, whereas mine has never seriously been tried.

The US spends more on its military than the rest of the industrialized world. We build and export the majority of the military weaponry in the world. We're presently embarked on a war that will be perpetual, and never won, and used to justify a whole panoply of questionable policies and actions.

The facts on the ground have not changed: there is a small contingent of committed terrorists in the world, who at best can nibble around the edges of the civilisation they oppose -- they don't have the money or manpower to do more than cause sporadic suffering and fear.

The US and the UK went after these people with their full military might, the bluntest of blunt instruments. In the process many people have died or been maimed, including many bright, young, idealistic Americans. Obviously not you; you're comfortably at home cribbing your opinions from Fox News and Robert Novak.

There's a term of art for people like you: "Chicken Hawk."

Not that I believe it should matter in this discussion, Kent, but I am a veteran of the first Gulf War and Somalia Operations. I warned you about making presumptions about me.

You're a pacifist, which is fine, but you're wrong that "my way" has always led "to misery and suffering." It has led to many great things: The birth of this nation, emancipation of slaves, the defeat of the Japanese and Germans, the liberation of millions worldwide and about a thousand other things.

I'm curious as to how your pacifism will bring about an end to Islamic terrorism. Can you please explain it to me?

Our enemy can't be reasoned with. They want no quarter. They don't even want a shoulder to cry on, so you can stop offering them yours. What they want is to impose their twisted world onto the rest of us.

P.S. Tibetans are trying your way right now. How's that going, by the way?

Re: Tibet, note that Rome wasn't Christianized in a day. It looked pretty bad with all those lions in the beginning, but team Christianity won. Not every principle of political or physical cause and effect can be seen on the time scale of a human lifetime. If we were only to pursue our own immediate benefit either as individuals or as a society we'd destroy ourselves: e.g. as individuals we'd all be addicts and as a civilization we'd be perturbing the climate to the brink of a catastrophic shift. Whoops, that's sort of true already. Note I'm not actually responding to the thread, which I'm feeling too lazy to read. I just can't resist opportunities to sound smart, whether real or imagined.

None of us will be alive to find out who wins this war. We may declare "victory" in Iraq, but the war will not be over. We may think that Afghanistan is won, but the war has only just begun. This is not a winnable war for eitherside and until we decide that our ideas/religion are not any better than anyone elses, the stupidity will continue on and we will have no choice, despite knowing better, than to point that stupid gun at another guys head and pull the trigger. Our species as a whole has barely progressed beyond Carnack.

Then I guess Tibetans, who were fierce before Buddhism pacified them, should just wait a dozen generations or so, see how the whole China thing works out. Tibetan culture, and perhaps the Tibetan people, might be extinct by then, but hey, let's give peace a chance. It's both sad and ironic that a religion which promises a transcendence from suffering helps to ensure its perpetuation by forbidding physical resistance.

The Jews almost lost a similar bet 60 years ago on the other side of globe to another oppressor. Fortunately some warmongers came along to put a stop to it.

Matt - I was wrong to call you a chicken hawk. As far as military action goes, you put yourself on the line. But didn't that experience at all sour you on the idea of war? The 1st Gulf War didn't solve much of anything, and Somalia was a horrible experience all around.

And please, stop talking about Buddhism and Tibet, about which you know even less than you do about pacifism in this hemisphere. If Tibet ever became a foreign policy priority for the free world, things could be changed there without a single shot being fired.

And as for the great things that have come out of war, all I can say is that human history is one long war story. War is just diplomacy by other means; I don't think peace has ever really been, as they say, given a chance -- it's easy for old men to send the young off to slaughter.

And I know it makes conservatives see red when I say it but what would the United States be without the revolutionary war? Canada, but with better weather, and a lot fewer dead Indians.

"And please, stop talking about Buddhism and Tibet, about which you know even less than you do about pacifism in this hemisphere. If Tibet ever became a foreign policy priority for the free world, things could be changed there without a single shot being fired."

Ken please, directing one's opponent in debate to "stop talking about" a subject, especially a concrete example offered in support of his argument, is the same as your saying, "I have no argument so please shut up." That is especially lame coming from a self-proclaimed pacifist. Following that up with an ad hominem attack ("you don't know what you're talking about") is even worse, especially when it is *you* who does not know what Matt knows or does not know about Tibet or pacifism. Just like you didn't know Matt wasn't a "chicken hawk" but a veteran.

If you know something about Tibet that contradicts what Matt is saying, or if you have concrete examples of significant success of pacifism againsts ruthless tyrants, tell him (and us) all about it. If you don't have the time for that, please have a nice slice of pie and enjoy your weekend.

I don't think I necessarily know that much about Tibet, but I object to Matt's condescension to Buddhism. I do know that the Tibetan Buddhists, including monks and nuns did try some armed resistance to the Chinese, but that they decided that going to war with the Chinese would make the treatment of the Tibetan people even more brutal.

And in response to Matt's question "I'm curious as to how your pacifism will bring about an end to Islamic terrorism. Can you please explain it to me?"

I've said all along what I think ought to take place -- improving our intelligence, learning everything we can about who they are and how they operate, and do everything we can to apprehend them and thwart them.

Islamic terrorists are fanatics, but they don't exist in isolation. For many muslims in the Middle East, the Iraqi invasion makes the Jihaddis look good by comparison. So even people who would never commit a terrorist act are to some extent in sympathy with the terrorists.

Perhaps if we understood and respected Muslims, and didn't knock down their doors, hold their family members for months without charges, and abuse them in ways designed to maximally humiliate them, they might be more sympathetic and less likely to sympathize with the terrorists.

Perhaps if the US made a serious sustained effort to bring peace in Israel and Palestine, they'd be less likely to sympathize with terrorists.

And I'm sure Matt could go on and on, but I am done with this particular discussion. Go ahead, have the last word. And by the way, get your own blog.

If only the American government and its military could be as competant and diligent and all-knowing as it critics.

Why have a comments section on a blog if you don't want some back and forth, Ken? If you can't handle that, then why are you even doing this?

One of the pitfalls in online debates is that it's all too easy to delve into personal attacks. I was a bit rude to Emily and Kent, regretfully, and it doesn't matter what precipitated it. One of the reasons I'm here, other than to read Ian's splendid writing on non-political matters, is to hear the "other side." So let me try again.

Kent wrote: "[D]idn't that experience at all sour you on the idea of war?"

However hard the incidents of war may be (to borrow a phrase from my favorite speech), it is sometimes neccessary. With that understanding I'd like to think my judgement on such matters would be the same as if I'd never served at all. To be perfectly honest, other than the occasional scud attack I never took direct fire during the first Gulf War. The only enemy I encountered were surrendering. And for the 2 months I was in Somalia my unit was never engaged by any of the militias. Perhaps I'd see the war in Iraq another way if my experience had been worse. Can't say. But I do believe the liberation of Iraq was the right thing to do, and I'm certain Afghanistan was. Yet, only time will tell.

"The 1st Gulf War didn't solve much of anything..."

It was a mistake to leave Saddam in power, if that's what you mean, but it got him out of Kuwait, which was as important of a humanitarian goal as the geopolitical one.

"...and Somalia was a horrible experience all around."

Disasterous for the way it ended -- and it didn't have to end that way -- but it was a just cause.

"And please, stop talking about Buddhism and Tibet, about which you know even less than you do about pacifism in this hemisphere."

I see that Chris M. came to my defense here (thanks), so I'll let it pass.

"If Tibet ever became a foreign policy priority for the free world, things could be changed there without a single shot being fired."

I find that interesting. Seriously. No sarcasm. If you decide to return to the discussion I'd like to hear more on how that might happen.

"And as for the great things that have come out of war, all I can say is that human history is one long war story."

True. There's a lot of bad people out there. I'll spare you the John Stuart Mill and Winston Churchill quotes since you understand where I'm coming from anyway.

"And I know it makes conservatives see red when I say it but what would the United States be without the revolutionary war? Canada, but with better weather, and a lot fewer dead Indians."

And yet still without a better hockey team. In all seriousness though, I really find your view here difficult to comprehend. I don't know what color liberals might see when I say this, but I think the war our nation's founders fought was among the noblest ever, and the form of democracy and freedom born from it among the best things to happen to the planet since the dawn of civilization. If that's jingoistic, so be it.

In Kent's last post he writes: "I object to Matt's condescension to Buddhism."

I was under the impression that Buddhism taught non-violent resistance. I apologize if I'm mistaken.

"I do know that the Tibetan Buddhists, including monks and nuns did try some armed resistance to the Chinese, but that they decided that going to war with the Chinese would make the treatment of the Tibetan people even more brutal."

Temporarily, for sure. Freedom isn't without cost, and that's why I'm so thankful for the vets who gave their lives for us. Cuba might be a free country today if it had its George Washingtons, Alexander Hamiltons and Thomas Jeffersons.

"I've said all along what I think ought to take place -- improving our intelligence, learning everything we can about who they are and how they operate, and do everything we can to apprehend them and thwart them."

That's all well and good, but by itself it's pure defense. We'll forever be reacting to the terrorist's moves. That's not the way to win a war -- obviously this isn't a normal war with nation state participants, but I don't think it's enough to win this one. We need to address the root causes of terrorism by changing the diseased socio-political landscape of the Middle East. Iraq, for many reasons, was the perfect place to begin.

"Perhaps if we understood and respected Muslims, and didn't knock down their doors, hold their family members for months without charges, and abuse them in ways designed to maximally humiliate them, they might be more sympathetic and less likely to sympathize with the terrorists."

Iraqis are not sympathetic to the terrorist who are killing them by the score. They're fighting back. The great majority want the chance for a new government. The evidence for this is everywhere. I'll provide links to news sources if you need to ask.

"Perhaps if the US made a serious sustained effort to bring peace in Israel and Palestine, they'd be less likely to sympathize with terrorists."

This has nothing to do with Islamic fanatacism. Arab nations don't care about the plight of Palestinians except for how they can use it to demonize Jews. Palestinian leadership needs to get its house in order before any meaningful peace process can go forward. This is clearly a complex issue and worth more time than we're likely to devote to it here.

I cannot tell you if we are 'winning' the 'war on terror' in Afghanistan, but as a rocket attack woke me up this morning at 5am, I can tell you that without the presence of the International Military Forces enforcing some semblence of order, this country would quickly descend into yet another civil war and utter chaos.

The reason I'm bothering to reply to Matt is that he takes what I say seriously, and tries to be thoughtful in his replies. I feel like I love the US at it's best and hate it at it's worst. I feel that our government can do better, be more humane.

My crack about Canada is not entirely serious -- how can we know how the US would have turned out without a revolution against England, really? An empirical (if you'll pardon the pun) example of what the US without the revolution, is in fact Canada. The rise of democracy hasn't been an exclusively American phenomenon.

But the US has it's bloody and shameful history too, and the history of the revolution is mixed. You can admire what American is and still disagree with what it has become under George W. Bush.

I do believe Matt believes what he believes sincerely and that he loves his country. I really dislike it when the political discourse degenerates into thinking that people you disagree with are dishonest or evil.

"I knew the tube better than natives"

When did the Circle Line stop at Marble Arch?

Yeah, I figured that line might get me in trouble. Fudging details and all that.

Wow, how did I miss all of this back-and-forth, give-and-take? Your blog is keeping me up late tonight. I don't have much to add to this discussion, other than to say that my brother lives and works in downtown London, and I was relieved to hear from my parents that he is fine. Oh, and I noticed that the bus bomb exploded right outside of the Tavistock Hotel, where my husband and I honeymooned in 1994.

One other thing -- in the midst of all of this chatter, I read your friend Jiffer's comment, and I felt like crying. Please be safe and take care, Jiffer! It is so easy for all of us to spew our verbal diarrhea (I am sorry to be blunt, but that is what it is sometimes) from the comforts of our laptops and our work computers, while Jiffer is living a reality of which we know nothing. Sorry to bring God into Ian's blog, but my little girl and I will keep you in our prayers, Jiffer.

I have not the time to read all previous postings. So, I beg pardon if I duplicate other posts. I do, however, want to speak for the bulk of the True Christian community on the subject clashing religious ideologies. My statement will be revolting to the politically correct, but, is more than evident from history and the writings and teachings of Islams own books.

The battle is not between religions per se, but, cults and the powers that be. We see the cult, Islam, attempting world domination(research the origins of Islam. Mohammed's wife was a confused Christian and he derives much from perversions of a couple Christian ideas and perversions of Judaism. Therefore, Islam gets to be counted as a Christian and/or Judaic cult.). Their goal (mostly the fundamentalists and Arabic leaders working in the name of Islam) both current and historic has been to dominate the world through might and Islam. Fundamentalists dream of a domination or conquering of the world for the cause of Islam. I do not have time to cite various historians, but, this is a summation of Arabic history as primarily taught me by a Turkish Arab who was decidedly anti-Zionist at USC.

The fundamental wings of Islam have all rights by the writings in their Koran to take military or terrorist actions against ANYONE. The Koranic writings are even taught by mullahs to allow for the killing of other Muslims in the name of killing infidels or attackers. This is a good argument for the conclusion that like Hinduism, with a dispassionatte, impersonal god like Allah who does not care about anyone and a need for the purging of people for salvation not an actual rebirth or regenration, that the death and suffering of the innocent in Islam saves them with a common cultic theme just a different set of gods and daily rituals. I am referring to the need in Hinduism for the suffering of the person to purge out bad Karma before realizing nirvana or spiritual enlightenment or paradise. A good Hindu (in order to be consistent with their world view) should not do anything to stop the suffering of another as it interferes with their works-righteousness attempts at self-salvation.

But, I digress. Islam no matter how you slice it is historically founded on the killing of and robbing of non-Muslims. The early actions of Mohammed and his followers speak for themselves. Accordingly, their irrational world view provides them the horrible right of the sword to further their desires without regard for human decency or morality. This is in accordance with any ideallogy that allows for the death, murder, torture or mutilation of non-adherents. In not so many words, Islam will never be satisfied though it may be quenched by a world unwilling to yield to its terror.

Unlike Christianity, Islam serves its own end with absolute impunity. Christianity, on the other hand, is both tolerant and physically benign. The Christian is only granted the use of the sword in self-defense by Jesus, the Christ. The basic doctrines of Christianity teach that the power of the sword is granted the government by God to protect the innocent (not for acquisition of land or resources). The Christians are taught by their Lord to love their enemies and pray for those who hurt them. There is absolutely not Biblical provision for Christians to kill anyone over the Gospel of Christ.

A Christian must be loving and patient even with a Satanist urinating on a Bible in their presence. They CANNOT physically stop the Satanist or injure the Satanist. They are exhorted to plead with Him and share the Gospel of the Christ ONLY. Their only right to physical violence would be if the Satanist bodily attacked them. And, if they failed to walk away when warned by the Satanist of an impending attack, they have no excuse for violence whatsoever as they should have walked away when warned.

However, in answer to your statement that a true follower of God (maybe you didn't mean Christians)bowing down and lying about theology in order to have peace with an enemy is wrong. We are commanded by our God to share His Truth with everyone even when they do not want to hear it. We are commanded to hold fast to that Truth in the face of persecution and death. If an oppressed party (oppressed by a cult, government or aggressor) bows down and gives in to the other's ideology for the sake of peace, they open themselves to perpetual atacks and exploitation. That conclusion does not hold water spiritually, socially, or in matters of government diplomacy.

Israel has found that no matter what they offer the Palestinians, it is not enough. Arabs will not be happy until Israel is removed from the map. However, if we cede that victory to them, they will only want more. They will expect to take over any super power with the threat of terrorism and persecution.

I would say, therefore, that all people take a stand against immorality and injustice. I would say that Britian stand fast and resist the islamification that is occuring in France. That they maintain their national identity and state policy despite the persecution of a cult.

I would further say that Christians can never and True Christians will never lay down their faith to succor evil doers. We may not kill to further of God's Will, but, we will not lie about Him in order to pacify people who need to know that if they do not come to God and repent, they will be punished eternally for their deeds done on earth. If we as Christians lie about the Gospel and claim that all are "saved" or will inherit eternal life without God even while they reject the Son of God, Jesus, we would be demonstrating the greatest hatred and selfishness ever seen in the history of mankind.

What motivates True Christians is their love of God and their desire to tell everyone that Jesus died for them and that they, too, may have a personal relationship forever with God. Failing to warn a world of non-Christians about sin or hell or eternal punishment just because it is unpopular to have to give answer for your deeds or live a moral life, is an unconscionable act of disregard for the greater good of humanity. It would be a statement to the world that we do not care about you or your destiny and neither does God.

I know I have rambled and covered a lot of ground, but, I am willing to discourse with anyone on history and cults. I must first note that I do not regard the Roman Catholic Church as truly Christian (I am a Biblical Protestant) and therefore absolutely reject their claim of the right of the sword within the church AND their past exercise of the same in all inquisitions. A church that kills anyone is INDEFENSIBLE and by definiton NOT CHRISTIAN. So feel free to email me, attack my historical analysis, pat me on the back or just say "what"". I trust I can cite some references for you to verify all that I have stated.

At last, our empathy is with our friends, Great Britian, and our prayers with those injured by the attacks of the terrorists. Pardon me if I don't say, "God save the Queen", but, I will say with love and without hesitation, "God save Great Britian".