This is huge. Everything General Patraeus says flies in the face of the Bush administration and the pro-torture crowd. Will they now claim that the commanding general of US troops in Iraq is a traitor to his own country for choosing honor for America?

What sets us apart from our enemies in this fight, however, is how we behave. In everything we do, we must observe the standards and values that dictate that we treat noncombatants and detainees with dignity and respect.

Some may argue that we would be more effective if we sanctioned torture or other expedient methods to obtain information from the enemy. They would be wrong. Beyond the basic fact that such actions are illeg...

read more»

This is huge. Everything General Patraeus says flies in the face of the Bush administration and the pro-torture crowd. Will they now claim that the commanding general of US troops in Iraq is a traitor to his own country for choosing honor for America?

What sets us apart from our enemies in this fight, however, is how we behave. In everything we do, we must observe the standards and values that dictate that we treat noncombatants and detainees with dignity and respect.

Some may argue that we would be more effective if we sanctioned torture or other expedient methods to obtain information from the enemy. They would be wrong. Beyond the basic fact that such actions are illegal, history shows that they also are frequently neither useful nor necessary.

The entire original document can be seen here.

The Pentagon survey Patraeus references (uncovering US troop mistreatment of citizens and support for torture) was clipped here.

This perfectly illustrates the difference between political strategy in Washington, where the war is treated more like a neo-conservative gedankenexperiment, and the realistic strategy that is necessary on the ground in Iraq to save lives on both sides.

A lot of conservatives complain that politicians in Washington are interfering with the war (and by this they usually mean anti-war Democrats) and they often say we should stop interfering and let the troops do their job. However, it is the Bush administration and pro-war politicians who have been undermining this war and our troops with bad strategy, cronyism, and an unwillingness to commit money to the soldiers for essentials like weapons ...

This perfectly illustrates the difference between political strategy in Washington, where the war is treated more like a neo-conservative gedankenexperiment, and the realistic strategy that is necessary on the ground in Iraq to save lives on both sides.

A lot of conservatives complain that politicians in Washington are interfering with the war (and by this they usually mean anti-war Democrats) and they often say we should stop interfering and let the troops do their job. However, it is the Bush administration and pro-war politicians who have been undermining this war and our troops with bad strategy, cronyism, and an unwillingness to commit money to the soldiers for essentials like weapons and armor.

But above all else, they undermine our troops by destroying the credibility of America around the world. Even they must admit that the war has been harder because we are perceived by many as corrupt, immoral, and imperialistic. American soldiers would find much less resistance, and much more support if our policy represented the values everyone admires about America, and things like torture and brutality.

I would be very interested if you can even begin to make the case that Bush knows what he's doing at all. To say that our admiration of General Petraeus' humane and moral stance on torture (which by the way, directly contradicts Bush's publicly stated amoral position on torture.) does not mean that Bush deserves credit for choosing him. That implies that one of the reasons Bush chose him was his position against torture, which the public record makes clear is unlikely.

What is more, General Petraeus is a soldier, unlike Bush and the others in his administration, so it goes without saying that he will want to support his troops with more than just the empty rhetoric and inflammatory belliger...

I would be very interested if you can even begin to make the case that Bush knows what he's doing at all. To say that our admiration of General Petraeus' humane and moral stance on torture (which by the way, directly contradicts Bush's publicly stated amoral position on torture.) does not mean that Bush deserves credit for choosing him. That implies that one of the reasons Bush chose him was his position against torture, which the public record makes clear is unlikely.

What is more, General Petraeus is a soldier, unlike Bush and the others in his administration, so it goes without saying that he will want to support his troops with more than just the empty rhetoric and inflammatory belligerence. (Which seems to be all that the Bush Administration has to offer.)

Seriously, I challenge you to make the case, with evidence and analysis of policy and application, that Bush has anything remotely approaching the qualifications his job demands and you imply he has. I might be proven wrong, but it really does seem to me that your opinions on Bush, the war, and the Middle East are founded on emotions rather than information.

And in another point, I would be curious to know what you think we should be doing. Unless you can propose a solution to this problem, then you should refrain from criticizing the people who are at least trying.

If you can back up what you've said, then I will certainly have to revise at least some of my own positions. But I've heard other people say the same thing before, and it's never held up to scrutiny.

Bush did appoint the General, it's as simple as that. Basic logic would dictate that you appoint people with whom you can agree and who'll carry your principles accordingly. Obviously, that can't be always the case, but it's silly to pin all of the bad that happened on Bush, and anything positive to bypass him as if he wasn't involved. I would say that the generals on the ground have a heck of a lot more to say & do with how our end is orchestrated than Bush. I would also say that Bush has a lot more to do with whom he appoints to run operations down there then you give him credit.

As for your personal attack on Bush about his soldiering - he's no less soldier than Clinton ever was or m...

Bush did appoint the General, it's as simple as that. Basic logic would dictate that you appoint people with whom you can agree and who'll carry your principles accordingly. Obviously, that can't be always the case, but it's silly to pin all of the bad that happened on Bush, and anything positive to bypass him as if he wasn't involved. I would say that the generals on the ground have a heck of a lot more to say & do with how our end is orchestrated than Bush. I would also say that Bush has a lot more to do with whom he appoints to run operations down there then you give him credit.

As for your personal attack on Bush about his soldiering - he's no less soldier than Clinton ever was or many other people... after all he did serve in the military. You want to take Dan Rathers BS and go with that - that's your choice of course, but the bottom line was he did serve and you have no idea who poorly or how well, so since you don't know - attacking the guy on that area is nothing more than your left wing agenda spilling from your ears attached to the head trying to show supposed middle ground.

I've stated before what I think we should be doing. But my opinions have some baggage: a) I'm from the former USSR, so I have a somewhat different take on things than most Americans would; b) I don't have the details of what's going on in Iraq to be able to make an educated suggestion. One thing I'm very confident on, two actually, is that we're not fighting this war as wars are typically fought and we have lack of success because of that and your side of the isle has no clue or decent and meaningful proposals either. Pulling out of Iraq would be a disaster on many levels, for all involved. Anyone, even without military intelligence, but possesses human intelligence should be able to figure that out. If someone can't - just look to history and see what transpired in Vietnam when US pulled its tail in prematurely. This will be a worse disaster than that was.

To answer your question more directly, I certainly have ideas of how I'd do it...

a) Fight the war, don't screw around yelling you are and actually walk on eggshells instead. If you're fighting a war - then fight a war. That means civilian casualties will be there and as unfortunate as that is - if the main objective is not to have any then don't say you're fighting a war, that's not how it works. And I believe that things would improve so quickly that whatever casualties happen - they'll pale in numbers to how many Iraqis die daily right now.

b) Put some serious hurt into the people that produce the IEDs etc. I heard that supposedly Iran is behind making the kinds of IEDs that can destr...

To answer your question more directly, I certainly have ideas of how I'd do it...

a) Fight the war, don't screw around yelling you are and actually walk on eggshells instead. If you're fighting a war - then fight a war. That means civilian casualties will be there and as unfortunate as that is - if the main objective is not to have any then don't say you're fighting a war, that's not how it works. And I believe that things would improve so quickly that whatever casualties happen - they'll pale in numbers to how many Iraqis die daily right now.

b) Put some serious hurt into the people that produce the IEDs etc. I heard that supposedly Iran is behind making the kinds of IEDs that can destroy a Stryker vehicle, as one last week. So, tell Iran, publically, that this won't be tolerated... and then do it. One more stryker goes up in smoke using one of these - a government building in Tehran suffers the same fate. Another one - repeat the concept until it's learned and followed. The concept being a formula that simply equates as follows: you screw with us = you get screwed in the process.

c) seal the border... with some heavy duty air power. Anyone or anything coming from other countries gets destroyed right at the border. ANYTHING or ANYONE.

d) repeat a-c until the country is rebuilt and back on its feet with its own resources... then leave with clear understanding that this can be and will be repeated if not adhered to.

The fact that Americans are so divided on the war is totally useless for the effort, sends a totally wrong message to the enemy. Amazingly enough all of these divisions vanish on days like 9/11. What's not so amazing... tragic actually.. is how your half doesn't get it that having this kind of division and inaction will only lead to one thing - bigger and worse 9/11 and then we'll get united again... likely for a short time... until there's some spectacular event, where millions die and then nobody will dare to divide again... ever.

First, as to my criticism of Bush's soldiering, I am not saying he was a bad soldier, or criticizing his combat record. I'm saying two things: 1. that he doesn't appear to have a very good grasp of military strategey, especially when dealing with aesymetrical warfare and unconventional wars, as evidenced by his lack of direction when it comes to the fighting in Iraq. 2. His priorities do not favor the military, since he would rather give away government money with tax cuts than buy armor for the soldiers on the ground.

Second, you are right that my side of the aisle has nothing better, for now. But I don't feel many of the Democrats in congress actually represent the beliefs of the people o...

First, as to my criticism of Bush's soldiering, I am not saying he was a bad soldier, or criticizing his combat record. I'm saying two things: 1. that he doesn't appear to have a very good grasp of military strategey, especially when dealing with aesymetrical warfare and unconventional wars, as evidenced by his lack of direction when it comes to the fighting in Iraq. 2. His priorities do not favor the military, since he would rather give away government money with tax cuts than buy armor for the soldiers on the ground.

Second, you are right that my side of the aisle has nothing better, for now. But I don't feel many of the Democrats in congress actually represent the beliefs of the people on the left anyway. They are politicians.

Third, you say we should just fight the war and not mess around, but who will we fight? The problem with the Bush administration is that most of them have a very good grasp of how to conduct a conventional war between two oposing armies, probably in a European setting. I'm sure they all watch a lot of WWII movies like "Patton" or "A Bridge Too Far."

Their biggest strategic disadvantage is that they have no working definition of who our enemy is, or what will constitute a victory. Simply saying "terrorists" or "insurgents" is a propaganda characterization of little strategic value, and it's always dangerous when you start believing your own propaganda.

The harder we fight in Iraq, the worse the situation will become, because we are a foreign army. Imagine if a foreign army patrolled the streets of America? How many people do you know who would embrace them? Even if they did some good at first, it has always been insufferable to live under the yoke of foreign soldiers. The longer we are there, the more it will turn regular Iraqis against us. (The Real Napster, n2sooners and I had a very productive discussion which you may find interesting.)

But the most important question is this: you say that our goal should be to rebuild Iraq. Would you accept that as a victory? Would you really want democracy in Iraq?

When Iraqis vote, they will pick people that we don't like. Bush and others already rejected Ibrahim al-Jaafari, who was popularly elected from the Shi'i block to be Prime Minister. al-Jaafari was forced to step down in favor of a leader who agreed with us, undermining much of our credibility on the project of building a true democracy.

Iraq is a country that is Shi'i muslim, by a margin of 2-1. The only other country in the world that has a Shi'i majority is Iran, and historically there has been a certain degree of afinity b...

But the most important question is this: you say that our goal should be to rebuild Iraq. Would you accept that as a victory? Would you really want democracy in Iraq?

When Iraqis vote, they will pick people that we don't like. Bush and others already rejected Ibrahim al-Jaafari, who was popularly elected from the Shi'i block to be Prime Minister. al-Jaafari was forced to step down in favor of a leader who agreed with us, undermining much of our credibility on the project of building a true democracy.

Iraq is a country that is Shi'i muslim, by a margin of 2-1. The only other country in the world that has a Shi'i majority is Iran, and historically there has been a certain degree of afinity between the two nations. You might not like Iran or Muqtada al-Sadr, but you aren't an Iraqi. Although support for them is not universal it is wide spread.

If Iraq were to really vote, and vote freely, they would probably pick, by an overwhelming margin, a Shi'i leader who is hostile towards the US and friendly towards Iran, probably with socialist tendencies that may include nationalizing the oil industry and demanding a re-negotiation with all US companies operating in Iraq, probably on unfavorable terms. They would probably also be hostile towards our traditional Sunni Arab allies in the region, and would no doubt support Hezbollah and other Shi'i militias that we currently consider our enemies.

If, however, we can accept this, in the name of democracy, in the belief that the freedom of self-government should be extended even to those who disagree with us, then we can win the war. But until we decide which values we are committed to, there is no way out, and no end in sight.

You should read your own stuff... in one paragraph you criticize Bush for being unable to fight unconventional war and in another you excuse him for the very same reason.

And of course we know who the terrorists are. You sound like you may not, so here's a simple example for you - the guy who put a bomb that destroy our stryker vehicle the other day is a terrorist. The people who drive cars into civilians and blow themselves up qualify as well. You need another example - people, who strap on bombs on themselves and walk into a mall full of civilians and blow themselves up. Does that paint a picture for you?

Do I care about democracy in Iraq? To be totally honest - I couldn't care less...

You should read your own stuff... in one paragraph you criticize Bush for being unable to fight unconventional war and in another you excuse him for the very same reason.

And of course we know who the terrorists are. You sound like you may not, so here's a simple example for you - the guy who put a bomb that destroy our stryker vehicle the other day is a terrorist. The people who drive cars into civilians and blow themselves up qualify as well. You need another example - people, who strap on bombs on themselves and walk into a mall full of civilians and blow themselves up. Does that paint a picture for you?

Do I care about democracy in Iraq? To be totally honest - I couldn't care less. Why so cold? Because I don't believe you should be helping people who oppose the help in the first place. They kill their own for lunch, as a way of life. That's about as low as one can get, especially considering that they're suppose to be some of the most educated arabs in the region. So, I do care about US interests being protected and preserved, but not about democracy over there. If they think killing their own is the way to go - let them knock themselves out.

saddam was a potential threat - he's no longer such. We wanted to do the American thing and try to help them recover from years of his regime, from hundreds of thousands killed for no reason etc. They clearly don't get it - so that part was our miscalculation and thus our mistake. But at this stage we need to focus on what's important to the US and deal on that level with them, Iran and the rest of the countries in the region.

And if you think that us just letting them be, in the name of democracy as you say, and we can win the war - I got a great piece of land for you to buy in the sadr city. You don't understand that this fight has nothing to do with Iraq. You think al qaeda cares about the Iraqi people? Bush cares more about them. They're fighting jihad - there's only 1 way to win this kind of war.

Well, as per your suggestion, I have reviewed my own commentaries, and I stand by them. They may not be universally consistent, but I think that is because I am a reasonable person who is willing to reconsider his beliefs when provided with suitable counter evidence. I am actually proud of this. The situation is very complex, and the same answer isn't right all the time. I reserve the right to change my opinion.

As to your comments, I would first and foremost say that you clearly have very little understanding of Arab and Islamic culture, or the nature of the conflict over there. I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but when you talk about Arabs being as low as one can get because they...

Well, as per your suggestion, I have reviewed my own commentaries, and I stand by them. They may not be universally consistent, but I think that is because I am a reasonable person who is willing to reconsider his beliefs when provided with suitable counter evidence. I am actually proud of this. The situation is very complex, and the same answer isn't right all the time. I reserve the right to change my opinion.

As to your comments, I would first and foremost say that you clearly have very little understanding of Arab and Islamic culture, or the nature of the conflict over there. I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but when you talk about Arabs being as low as one can get because they "kill their own lunch" that sounds really really close to racism. If your opinions on this war are based on racial stereotyping, then I don't see any way for us to have a constructive dialog about it.

I'll presume that they aren't and that you are simply reacting, as many Americans did, out of shock, outrage, and uncertainty in the wake of the September 11th attacks.

You said I seemed unclear on what a terrorist is, bYou give some examples of "who a terrorist is" based on their actions against the US forces. You also maintain that this is a war between the US and Al Qaeda. Consider this:

1. The person using IEDs against US troops is probably not a member of Al Qaeda, and does not share Al Qaeda's goals.

2. Al Qaeda's central goal is not the destruction of the west, but the destruction of the Saudi monarchy and the establishment of a new Caliphate in the Dar al Islam.

3. Al Qaeda only opposes the US because the US is seen as supporting the Saudi monarchy, and medeling in the region.

4. Al Qaeda is a Sunni organization. Most of the Iraqis are Shi'i. Irani is also a Shi'i state. I can gaurantee to you that Iran provides no weapons

5. Although Al Qaeda does operate in Iraq, and some groups have adopted the name out of sensationalism, much of the violence in Iraq is generate

Uh, sorry, there was a posting problem with that...

The 4th point should read that Iran provides no weapons to Al Qaeda and the Sunni terrorists. They do arm Shi'i militias generaly don't care out suicide attacks.

The 5th point should read that much of the violence in Iraq is generated by Shi'i malitias.

In case you didn't already know, there's a quick breakdown:

Sunni:
Saddam, Hammas, Al Qaeda, the Islamic Brotherhood, Osama Bin Laden, Mullah Mohamad Omar, and Abu Mussab al Zarqawi.

Shi'i:
Muqtata Al Sadr, the Ayatollahs, Hezbollah, the Assassins.

You should understand that these two groups of people hate each other far more than they hate us. In fact, although we like to think we oc...

Uh, sorry, there was a posting problem with that...

The 4th point should read that Iran provides no weapons to Al Qaeda and the Sunni terrorists. They do arm Shi'i militias generaly don't care out suicide attacks.

The 5th point should read that much of the violence in Iraq is generated by Shi'i malitias.

In case you didn't already know, there's a quick breakdown:

Sunni:
Saddam, Hammas, Al Qaeda, the Islamic Brotherhood, Osama Bin Laden, Mullah Mohamad Omar, and Abu Mussab al Zarqawi.

Shi'i:
Muqtata Al Sadr, the Ayatollahs, Hezbollah, the Assassins.

You should understand that these two groups of people hate each other far more than they hate us. In fact, although we like to think we occupy a fairly important place in the hatreds of the Middle East, we are an afterthought. In Iran they actually tend to think that we are simply a puppet of the British, who are the true menace from the west.

This is important, because although they all may look the same to you, they fight for very different reasons. Some of these groups might respond to your overwhelming force argument, but others will only gain in power and influence.

If you are interested in learning a little more about the conflict and the people who are involved, you could go to Wikipedia, which is not a bad place to start, and most of the information on Islam is pretty sound.

On the other hand, if you have already made up your mind without being interested in learning the facts, I unfortunately would have to say that there is nothing more for us to talk about.

Sorry, I have to run, so it'll be brief on this one.

No, I have zero interest in learning about people who send their children to die by killing other people and think this is some sort of normal behavior. Same for people who crank up IEDs, kidnap people etc. They're criminals of the worst kind in my eyes... oops, almost forgot - the ones who behead others, people like Nick Berg & Daniel Pearl, are also on the list.

As for Iran supplying some high end explosive gear - I have to ask you? How do YOU know for a fact that they do not? Between you and the military intelligence, I'll have to side with the latter... unless of course you can point to some proof... just saying 'they don't' does...

Sorry, I have to run, so it'll be brief on this one.

No, I have zero interest in learning about people who send their children to die by killing other people and think this is some sort of normal behavior. Same for people who crank up IEDs, kidnap people etc. They're criminals of the worst kind in my eyes... oops, almost forgot - the ones who behead others, people like Nick Berg & Daniel Pearl, are also on the list.

As for Iran supplying some high end explosive gear - I have to ask you? How do YOU know for a fact that they do not? Between you and the military intelligence, I'll have to side with the latter... unless of course you can point to some proof... just saying 'they don't' doesn't cut it for me.

I would agree with you that the situation is complex and there are various cultures, clashing at that that are involved.

Getting back to disagreement - I think al qaeda is fighting for a totally different reason than you claim, I think it's a lot more prevalent in Iraq than you claim and I do believe that Iran has a lot more to say in this matter than you choose to believe.

I'm always interested about learning the facts, it's just there are only 24 hours in a day, I have 2 little kids, a job with multiple projects etc., so when it comes to facts I'm more into normal people, people who raise families, people who do something good & positive for others... not explanations about why someone walks into a mall and blows themselves up trying to kill as many man, women & children as possible. You could NEVER get me interested in understanding that kind of thinking - it's pure evil.

I understand how you feel, but since you say yourself that you are not interested in learning about these people or understanding them, then I don't find it persuasive.

Consider this: how do you suppose you would know why Al Qaeda is fighting when you have never made an attempt to understand the members of Al Qaeda? You wear your ignorance as a badge of honor, but then expect me to take you seriously when you proclaim to know why they are fighting?

I dismiss no facts because they are inconvenient, and I would really rather not believe many of the tragic things I have seen with my own eyes. Unlike you, I have done field research on and among Islamic terrorists, and I have the scars to prove...

I understand how you feel, but since you say yourself that you are not interested in learning about these people or understanding them, then I don't find it persuasive.

Consider this: how do you suppose you would know why Al Qaeda is fighting when you have never made an attempt to understand the members of Al Qaeda? You wear your ignorance as a badge of honor, but then expect me to take you seriously when you proclaim to know why they are fighting?

I dismiss no facts because they are inconvenient, and I would really rather not believe many of the tragic things I have seen with my own eyes. Unlike you, I have done field research on and among Islamic terrorists, and I have the scars to prove it.

In the case of Iran, you should consider carefully what I have said. I do believe that Iran supplies weapons to fuel the conflict in Iraq, but not to Al Qaeda, for the simple reason that Al Qaeda and Iran are the principle factions at war in this conflict. Military Intelligence never said that Iran was supplying Al Qaeda, they said they were supplying insurgents. (I have confirmed this with my friends in the military intelligence community before typing.) I can guarantee you these insurgents would be Shi'i, not Sunni members of Al Qaeda. Not that it makes them any better, but it does make them different.

I can appreciate your life, and your happiness, and understand your desire to focus on the normal people around you. I have no wish to disturb you from that any further. However, my life is different. I believe that without understanding it, we cannot hope to defeat it.

I hope you can appreciate that the world needs both kinds of people.

You can't appreciate my life, because you don't know my life and it's nowhere near as rosy as you paint it. When I said I concentrate on normal people, that doesn't mean people around me. As far as my ignorance on the whys - I think I made it fairly clear - I can't imagine any justification that would satisfy me why somewhat would grab a report, for example (Daniel Pearl in this case) and then behead him. There's absolutely nothing you can tell me that would make me think that this is somehow justified. It's not ignorance or inconvenience on my part, it's just my morals would never allow me to accept any justification for such event.

But even though we disagree on a number of issues, I ...

You can't appreciate my life, because you don't know my life and it's nowhere near as rosy as you paint it. When I said I concentrate on normal people, that doesn't mean people around me. As far as my ignorance on the whys - I think I made it fairly clear - I can't imagine any justification that would satisfy me why somewhat would grab a report, for example (Daniel Pearl in this case) and then behead him. There's absolutely nothing you can tell me that would make me think that this is somehow justified. It's not ignorance or inconvenience on my part, it's just my morals would never allow me to accept any justification for such event.

But even though we disagree on a number of issues, I certainly appreciate your civil tone and even some hints that you wouldn't mind seeing the terrorist movement defeated, unless I read you wrong, and that's certainly very positive in my view.

Then perhaps we can leave it at that.

To touch on your specific example, although I did not know Daniel Pearl personally, I knew many who did. His brutal and senseless death shocked us all.

We do share the common aim, the destruction of terrorism and others who use abominable violence as a way of spreading their opinions. I do not believe that anything will ever justify their actions to me. We can completely agree on that. What I am talking about is understanding how people justify these things to themselves.

You do not think of yourself as evil, and from what little I know, I don't think you are either. However, many terrorists, (and some regrettable liberals in America) would say that y...

Then perhaps we can leave it at that.

To touch on your specific example, although I did not know Daniel Pearl personally, I knew many who did. His brutal and senseless death shocked us all.

We do share the common aim, the destruction of terrorism and others who use abominable violence as a way of spreading their opinions. I do not believe that anything will ever justify their actions to me. We can completely agree on that. What I am talking about is understanding how people justify these things to themselves.

You do not think of yourself as evil, and from what little I know, I don't think you are either. However, many terrorists, (and some regrettable liberals in America) would say that you are, simply by the association of your political beliefs. By dismissing you, and me, and all other Americans as evil, they dehumanize us, and justify the isolation of their own point of view. This is an important part of how a family man in Iraq convinces himself to leave home one day, and become a monster.

Their actions surely are evil, and the justifications they give are little more than just deluding themselves. But if we say that they are evil people who cannot be reasoned with, we dehumanize them. If we assume that they truly are pure evil and insane, then it becomes easy to then say our only choice is to kill them all. (David Brooks, normally a reasonable man, said as much in a New York Times editorial after the Spanish train bombings) And then before we know it, we have justified in our minds a brutal and possibly genocidal strategy no better than that of our enemies.

It is my personal goal to eradicate terrorism, for sure, but it is even more important to me that we not allow ourselves to slip down the same path. I do not believe that you or I will ever become a terrorist, but the frightening question is: could we ever support anything just as terrible without realizing it?

I disagree... I may advocate violence in some instances, not so much with pure justification, but because it's a clear necessity. Example - hitler in WW2. If violence was not used - we'd all be speaking German today or worse. So, clearly history shows how it becomes a necessity at times, self-preservation, if you will. And typically humans, most of us anyway, are more into life than death... although a number of people on the opposite side clearly see more benefits in death than life.

That said, certainly anyone can call anyone anything... but you have to look at the deeds. I can guarantee you that if anyone came to me, without the intent of harming me or my family - they'd never get h...

I disagree... I may advocate violence in some instances, not so much with pure justification, but because it's a clear necessity. Example - hitler in WW2. If violence was not used - we'd all be speaking German today or worse. So, clearly history shows how it becomes a necessity at times, self-preservation, if you will. And typically humans, most of us anyway, are more into life than death... although a number of people on the opposite side clearly see more benefits in death than life.

That said, certainly anyone can call anyone anything... but you have to look at the deeds. I can guarantee you that if anyone came to me, without the intent of harming me or my family - they'd never get harmed. Looking at Daniel Pearl as just one example of many - obviously islamists handle it differently. Show me any American who sends their children to die intentionally... not sends them to war, mind you, but sends them to die... specifically going to kill other children as part of the deed.

These are just a few examples, but if you're a reasonable person - you know that there's a vast difference in approaches and there is no comparison between us and them. I'm not for a second saying that we're saints, but there's a huge difference in the ideology, approach and execution. Huge!

As for propaganda - again big difference. I've yet to find a child here, that can barely put sentences together that says that he/she dislikes the muslims... yet I've seen one of the palestinian children, a 3-yr old girl who knows without a doubt in her voice/mind that she doesn't like the Jews.

And as for your final question? The answer is very simple and adamant - definitely not! I could never support someone going out with the purpose of simply killing as many civilians as possible. I could never support anyone sending their children to die.