NationStates Jolt Archive

THE MILITARY’S RIGHT TO “NO!”

Opinion by Don Bendell

I am proud to say that I am a Vietnam veteran and finally have some degree of closure. It occurred on November 2nd, 2004. Like my fellow warriors, earlier this year, I was unexpectedly yanked from that deep dry well of dank dark collective shame, and thrust into the bright sunlight of political overview. Called to fight the great fight once again, we fought and indeed won, and we are now healed and strong.

And so, we issue a warning to our old antagonists: biased media outlets and liberal political strategists looking ahead already, please understand this: We Viet Nam veterans insured that President George W. Bush got re-elected (by making sure John Kerry was not elected), and now we will also insure that you will stop politicizing the War on Terrorism. You will not traumatize, bastardize, trivialize, or disparage a new generation of honored, fighting men and women in harm’s way like you did to so many of us, so long ago, and for so many years following. You may attack them with your obvious flanking and rear assault maneuvers, but you will not win. You have to go through all of us first. Get used to that idea.

Kevin Sites, freelance embedded photojournalist (ahem) for NBC NEWS, is an anti-war activist with many of his war photos displayed on a German-based anti-war site. Way to go Peacock Network News! Been feeding at the same trough as CBS News, huh?

As a paramilitary guerilla tactic, members of al Q’ueda and other terrorists will play dead, so they can get one last explosion or shot and take out more American GI’s before they go to their version of Paradise and their promised 72 virgin goats, or whatever it is those crazed zealots die for.

But in your more perfect world, please picture this: Terrorist snipers hide in a temple and fire at unsuspecting US soldiers and even newsmen. They do not care who they shoot as long as they are an infidel. Americans return fire and kill or wound most, and then American Marines enter the building to check and clear it. Once inside, an alert young Marine notices that one of the terrorists is still alive, hiding his breathing, and obviously playing dead. Not wanting to be politically-incorrect, un-newsworthy, or insult the sensibilities of those at home who are vehemently against the war, he carefully and slowly turns the wounded terrorist over to administer first aid and comfort.

The terrorist, however, has pulled the pin on a high explosive hand grenade hidden under his body. The last thing the young Marine sees is the terrorist’s eyes open wide as he smiles in perverted enthusiasm, yelling, “Allah Akbar!”

The Marine's two closest buddies die in the blast, as well as a third Marine, who being a US Marine, dives in front of the imbedded photojournalist and absorbs the shrapnel, saving the videographer’s life.

I don’t think so. I say, give the young Marine a medal and then shut up about it. I say start showing pictures of Marines and soldiers out-shooting, out-maneuvering, and out-fighting the bad guys, and then getting hugs and looks of true admiration from grateful Iraqi women and children. The way it really happens. I say show the young tough American GI tending to the flowers he planted outside his barracks, or the young bloody Marine later passing out clothes to kids he had his church ship to him, or the green berets, weary of fighting and killing, taking some time to use their expertise to help an Iraqi community rebuild a damaged mosque.

Instead of holding a news Woodstock over Abu Ghraib atrocities or My Lai atrocities, point out that both were actually stopped and reported by other American soldiers. Thanks to you, most Americans do not know that.

Al Jazeerah is an important weapon of our enemies attacking the minds of our citizens with bullets of doubt, mortars of mockery, and the explosive images of very selective horrors of war. Like mindless robotic slaves of conformity, some of you of the America news media, as well as anti-Republican self-serving political tacticians, are their witless ammo bearers.

Instead of patting each other on the back for your play to the self-annointed intelligentsia, you really should start looking at your fellow countrymen. They are deserting you in droves, as you have deserted our troops for your liberal cause. You have yet, to “get it” why FOX NEWS leaves you all in the rear with the gear. It is really simple, you see. They are Americans first and foremost, and then professionally, they are actual news people, reporting; not clouding, editorializing, or rewriting our nation’s and world’s history while it is being made.

If you don’t get it, we will help you understand. You see, contrary to the images you planted, we Vietnam veterans never lost one major battle. We won them all, and we will not lose now, nor will we ever retreat. We know that 9-1-1 means “Emergency” not “Complacency,” and we are all more than willing to answer that call.

I think this is a truly great piece, and one with which I heartily concur!

Well, I heartily disagree, but i'm sure you saw that coming...

Well, I heartily disagree, but i'm sure you saw that coming...
we all did

The terrorist, however, has pulled the pin on a high explosive hand grenade hidden under his body. The last thing the young Marine sees is the terrorist’s eyes open wide as he smiles in perverted enthusiasm, yelling, “Allah Akbar!”

So, since it's impossible to tell the freedom fighters/terrorists/insurgents (call them what you will) from the other residents of the city, it's time to get the nukes out, I suppose.

Like everything, it's a matter of degree - this soldier appears to have been way out of line and issuing a blanket justifiaction of any killing by any soldier at any time doesn't help anyone. Least of all the military.

Quite rightly, the Court Martial will decide.

"The terrorist, however, has pulled the pin on a high explosive hand grenade hidden under his body. The last thing the young Marine sees is the terrorist’s eyes open wide as he smiles in perverted enthusiasm, yelling, “Allah Akbar!”"

with that level of emotionally manipulative bs you should write books

"The terrorist, however, has pulled the pin on a high explosive hand grenade hidden under his body. The last thing the young Marine sees is the terrorist’s eyes open wide as he smiles in perverted enthusiasm, yelling, “Allah Akbar!”"

with that level of emotionally manipulative bs you should write books
Any more then the “Three year old crying in pain as blood flows from his arm, a casualty in this pointless war” bah both sides have their tripe

their promised 72 virgin goats, or whatever it is those crazed zealots die for.


Okay, so you're basicly saying Islamic people are perverts, right.

Okay, so you're basicly saying Islamic people are perverts, right.
Now you are assuming that wanting virgin goats = pervert

Now you are assuming that wanting virgin goats = pervert
Yes, but it's the context it's used in.

In some respects I agree with the sentiment of the writer, but I don't believe that the news should be reported one-sided. We should see the Iraqis cheering the marines, but we should also see them protesting, etc. Right now I don't think any of them (major US news sources) are doing a good job of being objective.

Any religion that promises eternally fresh boys as pretty as pearls to the dead is bound to be criticized for being perverted.

Good article from a soldiers point of view. I have personally never been in the military, and I'm the first to admit I probably wouldn't last ten minutes there. I value freedom of the press, and do believe all images should be shown. Any photojournalist with the slightest hint of ethics would also visit places where it's going well. And take equally well done pictures of the good.

The US does everything in it's power to minimize civilian casualties. We are better at doing so than any other nation in history. When they are killed it is a tragedy, but think about if we didn't try. Think about the firebombing of WWII. Think about the nuclear strikes against hiroshima and nagasaki. Think about the potential for the nuclear war between the US and USSR.

Good article from a soldiers point of view. I have personally never been in the military, and I'm the first to admit I probably wouldn't last ten minutes there. I value freedom of the press, and do believe all images should be shown. Any photojournalist with the slightest hint of ethics would also visit places where it's going well. And take equally well done pictures of the good.
Though to be fair that sort of “alls well” stories don’t sell papers

Not all bias … just a quest for sales and ratings(some not all)

Instead of holding a news Woodstock over Abu Ghraib atrocities or My Lai atrocities, point out that both were actually stopped and reported by other American soldiers. Thanks to you, most Americans do not know that.
Are you implying that the said atrocities are forgivable and ok because it was a fellow American that reported them? What if it was a British soldier? Is that also ok? An Australian?
Does it mean if it was a foreigner or a local that reported it, then the Media reporting would be justified. But not in these cases because it was an American soldier telling us about it.
So you're for a military policy of any and all atrocities that American soldiers may commit as being ok as long as they get another GI to tell a commanding officer about.
Great policy.

Perhaps you're just for the Media ignoring all the 'bad' things and focusing only on the 'good' stuff.
"American Soldier reports and stops appalling and degrading abuse in Abu Graib prisons!" Is that what you want to hear?
Goebbels would be proud.

Eutrusca, I didn't see the point of your article. One one hand it seemed to be a jab at liberals - the usual stuff, "anti-military", "traitors",etc - but on the other hand it is a eulogy to US soldiers.

What's the central point?
Okay, so you're basicly saying Islamic people are perverts, right.
You're saying that they're all fundamentalist terrorists.

So barring the "George Bush is so wonderful nananana" BS at the beginning, this was a really good article...

Right up until it made the claim that Fox News is "real" news that doesn't editorialize, etc. Making that claim is no more true than the idiots who claim that all soldiers are baby-killers, etc.

I am proud to say that I am a Vietnam veteran and finally have some degree of closure. It occurred on November 2nd, 2004. Like my fellow warriors, earlier this year, I was unexpectedly yanked from that deep dry well of dank dark collective shame, and thrust into the bright sunlight of political overview. Called to fight the great fight once again, we fought and indeed won, and we are now healed and strong.

Closure - To reach finalty any to finaly integrate past trauma with current environments. The ability to move on after a traumatic circumstance. To heal and to psychologicaly re-evaluate and modify your current life with changed forced on you by an event. (A.S. Luchins)

To get a degree of closure from one of the worst races, though certianly not the nastiest (see Andrew Jackson, Elections of 1820, 1824, 1828) of American history, is akin to suggesting that World War one veterans be treated for shellshock by being set on fire. Though far be it for me to try and discredit what can cause closure for this particular individual, though some suggest that public scrutiny hinders, rather than expediates or assists the process of gaining closure(Finkelhor).

-Sources-

Lushins, AS; Luschins, E.H. Comments on the Concept of Closure (http://gestalttheory.net/archive/closure.html)
Wilkepedia; Andrew Jacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Jackson)
Finkelhor, David; Child victims suffer doubly under public's scrutiny (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-06-17-opcom_x.htm)

And so, we issue a warning to our old antagonists: biased media outlets and liberal political strategists looking ahead already, please understand this: We Viet Nam veterans insured that President George W. Bush got re-elected (by making sure John Kerry was not elected), and now we will also insure that you will stop politicizing the War on Terrorism. You will not traumatize, bastardize, trivialize, or disparage a new generation of honored, fighting men and women in harm’s way like you did to so many of us, so long ago, and for so many years following. You may attack them with your obvious flanking and rear assault maneuvers, but you will not win. You have to go through all of us first. Get used to that idea.

The true effectiveness of the "Swiftboat" ads as well as the Vietnam issue in general is still debated, however exit polls have been fairly consistant in showing that the election was not taken by a single factor. Rather, a combination of factors such as morality, leadership, the War in Iraq, the Economy and to a lesser degree, healthcare, taxes and education were all deciding factors, swinging voters to both candidates. . . sometimes for the same issue, such as those who had differing viewpoints on the war in Iraq, the state of the economy, or moral issues. It should also be noted that the term "evangelical" was re-defined in this election. In 2000 it was worded "Do you consider yourself a member of the Religious Right", in 2004 the wording was changed to "Do you consider yourself a Fundamentalist or Evangelical Christian", thus assuring more affirmative answers.

CNN exit polls (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html)
Wilson, James Q; AEI, Why Did Kerry Lose? Answer: It Wasn't "Values" (http://www.aei.org/news/newsID.21512/news_detail.asp)

Kevin Sites, freelance embedded photojournalist (ahem) for NBC NEWS, is an anti-war activist with many of his war photos displayed on a German-based anti-war site. Way to go Peacock Network News! Been feeding at the same trough as CBS News, huh?

As a paramilitary guerilla tactic, members of al Q’ueda and other terrorists will play dead, so they can get one last explosion or shot and take out more American GI’s before they go to their version of Paradise and their promised 72 virgin goats, or whatever it is those crazed zealots die for.

But in your more perfect world, please picture this: Terrorist snipers hide in a temple and fire at unsuspecting US soldiers and even newsmen. They do not care who they shoot as long as they are an infidel. Americans return fire and kill or wound most, and then American Marines enter the building to check and clear it. Once inside, an alert young Marine notices that one of the terrorists is still alive, hiding his breathing, and obviously playing dead. Not wanting to be politically-incorrect, un-newsworthy, or insult the sensibilities of those at home who are vehemently against the war, he carefully and slowly turns the wounded terrorist over to administer first aid and comfort.

The terrorist, however, has pulled the pin on a high explosive hand grenade hidden under his body. The last thing the young Marine sees is the terrorist’s eyes open wide as he smiles in perverted enthusiasm, yelling, “Allah Akbar!”

The Marine's two closest buddies die in the blast, as well as a third Marine, who being a US Marine, dives in front of the imbedded photojournalist and absorbs the shrapnel, saving the videographer’s life.

I don’t think so. I say, give the young Marine a medal and then shut up about it. I say start showing pictures of Marines and soldiers out-shooting, out-maneuvering, and out-fighting the bad guys, and then getting hugs and looks of true admiration from grateful Iraqi women and children. The way it really happens. I say show the young tough American GI tending to the flowers he planted outside his barracks, or the young bloody Marine later passing out clothes to kids he had his church ship to him, or the green berets, weary of fighting and killing, taking some time to use their expertise to help an Iraqi community rebuild a damaged mosque.

Instead of holding a news Woodstock over Abu Ghraib atrocities or My Lai atrocities, point out that both were actually stopped and reported by other American soldiers. Thanks to you, most Americans do not know that.

This entire section has no logical purpose to it what so ever. Does the Author suggest that we should turn a blind eye to the inevitable autrocities of war? Much like the revisonist historians who wish to skirt away twelve million deaths at the hands of the nazis, I must question the true motives of the author at this time. If we do not learn from history and learn what autrocities and crimes against humanity are commited in war, then we are doomed to ever repeat them.

Al Jazeerah is an important weapon of our enemies attacking the minds of our citizens with bullets of doubt, mortars of mockery, and the explosive images of very selective horrors of war. Like mindless robotic slaves of conformity, some of you of the America news media, as well as anti-Republican self-serving political tacticians, are their witless ammo bearers.

The style a peice is writen in can not and should not be used to derive truth from falcity. With that said, the message of the peice has been rewritten for further analysis. "Al Jazeerah is a weapon of our enemies. It plants doubt, mocks the actions of the American government, and shows only selevtive images of war. Some members of the American news media as well as liberals with political ambitions serve to provide them with information against the agenda of the American Government." First and foremost, it should be pointed out that Al Jazeera can be viewed in the US on Dish Network, but only if an additional $22.99 a month is payed. As of last estimated, 150,000 people watch Al Jazeera, 0.05% of the population. Do I need to point back to Senator McCarthy's era to show the dangers of this line of thinking?

Curiel, Jonathan; Mideast news network has fans here
Al Jazeera's coverage uniquely uncensored (sic) (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2001/10/18/MN8417.DTL)

Instead of patting each other on the back for your play to the self-annointed intelligentsia, you really should start looking at your fellow countrymen. They are deserting you in droves, as you have deserted our troops for your liberal cause. You have yet, to “get it” why FOX NEWS leaves you all in the rear with the gear. It is really simple, you see. They are Americans first and foremost, and then professionally, they are actual news people, reporting; not clouding, editorializing, or rewriting our nation’s and world’s history while it is being made.

Returning to CNN exit polls, voter loyalty towards the democrats has accualy gone up, part of the deciding factor was increases in conservative voter turnout in states such as Ohio and Florida. Hardly the "deserting droves" he seems to imply. The majority of anti-war protestors want the troops to return home safely, rather than be put in harms way in the first place. . . hardely abandoning them. Finaly, it should be noted that Fox news is hardly unbiased, as it's target audience is conservatives. To this end, they "cloud, editorialize and rewrite our nation's and world's history as it happens."

If you don’t get it, we will help you understand. You see, contrary to the images you planted, we Vietnam veterans never lost one major battle. We won them all, and we will not lose now, nor will we ever retreat. We know that 9-1-1 means “Emergency” not “Complacency,” and we are all more than willing to answer that call.

Once again, nothing of substance here, what he is saying is technicaly correct, but has no meaning what so ever with the subject at hand.

But, that's my oppinion, take it as you will.

Personally, I loved the article, and I am hoping and praying that the Courts Martial will find that Marine not only innocent, but commend him on his foresight and quick thinking.

When the enemy is playing dead, that is not a surrender, that is a ploy, a diversion to attack later. That Marine probably saved his buddies lives with his actions.

Why can't we get one good opinion that isn't horribly biased. This individual makes several good points but he accuses democrats of politicizing the war, and then goes on to use several conservative talking points about the war and furthermore implies that Fox News is the only true American news program. BS, you hypocritical SOB.

I would also like to remind everyone of the chest thumping, America is awesome rhetoric we heard from every news program in the days leading up to the war, and in the days in which we were actually fighting Saddam.

News programs don't promote agendas, they only play to their base. If America wants to see patriotic news, the stations will play them.

Personally, I loved the article, and I am hoping and praying that the Courts Martial will find that Marine not only innocent, but commend him on his foresight and quick thinking.

When the enemy is playing dead, that is not a surrender, that is a ploy, a diversion to attack later. That Marine probably saved his buddies lives with his actions.

In fear of losing my temper and flaming, I'm simply going to say "I disagree" and leave it at that

I would also like to point out the hypocracy of all of the conservatives coming to the soldiers aid who tore down John Kerry for shooting that Vietcong in the back while he was running to a bunker.

Apparently shooting someone is justifiable when they are unarmed and injured, but not when they are armed and running to a better defensive position.

News programs don't promote agendas, they only play to their base. If America wants to see patriotic news, the stations will play them.

This really got kicked off in America with the Yellow Journalism of the early 20th century. Journalists like William Randolf Hearst (Recognize it? You should. The Hearst Company owns most news stations and papers.) made their fortunes by tabloid-izing the news, even provoking the Spanish-American War with their glamorized (and fictional) coverage.

After journalists saw the cash cow that was Yellow Journalism, there really was no turning back. At times, it lessened, but it never went away, and in the extremely competitive modern market, the outlets have swung to the tabloidizing again.

However, a government-controlled media is even worse, because it becomes a mouthpiece, with no attempt at even balancing news. So, we all have to wait for a new media outlet that makes its brand tied to "Just the Facts" journalism, and hope that enough people CARE about the truth to turn from their editorial Yellow Journalism.

I would also like to point out the hypocracy of all of the conservatives coming to the soldiers aid who tore down John Kerry for shooting that Vietcong in the back while he was running to a bunker.

If they protested that, then they've got their head in the sands. No sane conservative (and there's a lot of us) has ever opposed his shooting a combatant. The opposition comes from his post-war actions, which greatly damaged our other soldiers.

Jane Fonda apologized.
Kerry didn't.

This really got kicked off in America with the Yellow Journalism of the early 20th century. Journalists like William Randolf Hearst (Recognize it? You should. The Hearst Company owns most news stations and papers.) made their fortunes by tabloid-izing the news, even provoking the Spanish-American War with their glamorized (and fictional) coverage.

After journalists saw the cash cow that was Yellow Journalism, there really was no turning back. At times, it lessened, but it never went away, and in the extremely competitive modern market, the outlets have swung to the tabloidizing again.

However, a government-controlled media is even worse, because it becomes a mouthpiece, with no attempt at even balancing news. So, we all have to wait for a new media outlet that makes its brand tied to "Just the Facts" journalism, and hope that enough people CARE about the truth to turn from their editorial Yellow Journalism.

Yeah, I know who Hearst was. One of the most powerful men in our nation's history, if not the most. He should be the difinitive example of why our media is dangerous. He almost started a war single handedly and manipulated the views on an entire nation through the media. He is the single reason why marijuana is illegal today.

Shameful.
Either a wonded soldier was shot dead.
Or
An Insurgent failed to blow away a couple of invaders.

Poor dude.

If they protested that, then they've got their head in the sands. No sane conservative (and there's a lot of us) has ever opposed his shooting a combatant. The opposition comes from his post-war actions, which greatly damaged our other soldiers.

Jane Fonda apologized.
Kerry didn't.
jane fonda fraternized with the enemy, kerry protested the war

jane fonda fraternized with the enemy, kerry protested the war
Ay, but his false testimony before Congress broke moral, and it *supposedly* led to an increase in abuse to our POWS. That was more a cheap shot than anything, but he is a "Hero of Communist Party" in Vietnam, which still bothers me.

Do I think he was a Commie? Nah. Do his choices bother me? Yeah.

Anywho, my main point was my post about Hearst, which I'm glad to see the other side of the political gulf agrees with me on. There is common ground after all!

Bad news is good news. The news always overinflate things.

Good article from the other side. Cosgrach statement couldn't have put it better. :)

If they protested that, then they've got their head in the sands. No sane conservative (and there's a lot of us) has ever opposed his shooting a combatant. The opposition comes from his post-war actions, which greatly damaged our other soldiers.

Jane Fonda apologized.
Kerry didn't.

I wouldn't apologize either. I'll never apologize for my opposition to the Iraqi war. Kerry was and I am simply stating what we think think is a grave mistake being made by our country. It is those in power and perpetuating the mistake who manipulate our words and say that we are against the troops.

What I love is the fact that conservatives see a picture of a man with dirt and blood smeared all over his face and think "Now thats a real man", while a liberal sees it and thinks "That man is going through hell," and its the liberals who get labeled as not supporting our troops. I say that we can support our troops much better when they are back in their homes.

You can put your yellow ribbons on your cars and speak the patriotic jargon all you want. But until you do your best to take the troops out of harms way you are not supporting them whatsoever.

I wouldn't apologize either. I'll never apologize for my opposition to the Iraqi war. Kerry was and I am simply stating what we think think is a grave mistake being made by our country. It is those in power and perpetuating the mistake who manipulate our words and say that we are against the troops.

What I love is the fact that conservatives see a picture of a man with dirt and blood smeared all over his face and think "Now thats a real man", while a liberal sees it and thinks "That man is going through hell," and its the liberals who get labeled as not supporting our troops. I say that we can support our troops much better when they are back in their homes.

You can put your yellow ribbons on your cars and speak the patriotic jargon all you want. But until you do your best to take the troops out of harms way you are not supporting them whatsoever.

I'm with you all the way on this one.

If someone supported the troops, they would never use them for selfish reasons.

Ay, but his false testimony before Congress broke moral, and it *supposedly* led to an increase in abuse to our POWS. That was more a cheap shot than anything, but he is a "Hero of Communist Party" in Vietnam, which still bothers me.

Do I think he was a Commie? Nah. Do his choices bother me? Yeah.

Anywho, my main point was my post about Hearst, which I'm glad to see the other side of the political gulf agrees with me on. There is common ground after all!

Yes it's so horrible that gave the collected testimony of soldiers from the Winter Soldier Investigation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_Soldier_Investigation) in front of Congress, like they asked him to. What a bastard, listening to congressional requests. What he said was not in his own words, it was the collected testimony of soldiers, whatever damage it did is immaterial to John Kerry's character, shooting the messenger and all that.

Jane Fonda apologized.
Kerry didn't.

Jane Fonda maliciously and directly put men's lives in danger.

John Kerry spoke his opinion, something that he has every right to do, and some idiots used that as "justification" to do evil things.

Do you really not see the difference?

Ay, but his false testimony before Congress broke moral, and it *supposedly* led to an increase in abuse to our POWS. That was more a cheap shot than anything, but he is a "Hero of Communist Party" in Vietnam, which still bothers me.
what false testimony, what proof do you have it was false? the fact people didnt like it? alot of people despise the truth

Jane Fonda maliciously and directly put men's lives in danger.

John Kerry spoke his opinion, something that he has every right to do, and some idiots used that as "justification" to do evil things.

Do you really not see the difference?

The frightening thing is, many people don't :\

My (great) grand parent was in the vietnam war...he supported Kerry

If they protested that, then they've got their head in the sands. No sane conservative (and there's a lot of us) has ever opposed his shooting a combatant. The opposition comes from his post-war actions, which greatly damaged our other soldiers.
Heh. I've heard Kerry been called "war criminal" more times than you'd think.

My (great) grand parent was in the vietnam war...he supported Kerry

My boss was in vietnam and supports Kerry as well

-Snip-
But, that's my oppinion, take it as you will.

Wonderful, very well done Taka. I'm impressed with your writing and research both.

This is the kinf of right wing, propogandist drivel that has taken over this country.
The ability to think for yourself these days is actively repressed bythe media, and our (so-called) elected officials.


Lets look at some facts.

Did Iraq start this war?

No.

Have we found what we were looking for, or accomplished what we set out to do in the first place?

No.

Are we close to winning this war, or even accomplishing the task?

No.

Are our troops at least treating the people of Iraq well?

No.


So why then, would a person support this war?

Becuase you hate Terrorism, right?
So then, knowing that hate comes from fear, its safe to say that a person
might be afraid of Terrorism.

But aside from the fact that 9/11 occured, what makes a person so afraid of it?
How about becuase thats all thats been on the news since 9/11?

How about becuase Bush insists that we are fighting terrorists in Iraq, who just might build weapons of mass destruction (that dont exist), and comes to your neighborhood, and bomb your children in Allahs NAME!

This is the kind of mentality that America has become.
So out of touch with the rest of the world, that we dont want to think for ourselves anymore, and are willling to support whatever evil bastard can promise to protect us from the boogeymen, who are hiding everywhere, waiting to strike.

Half of my country is filled with gibbering idiots.

The military's roght to say "no".

I'm confused, "No" to what exactly?


Also, ... What makes anyone stupid enough to think that foreign soldiers have a better chance of catching terrorists in a given area than the indiginious police force?

I mean, infiltration of gangs and gathering evidence for a convition, that's kind of their job, isn't it?

I'm also wondering what possible purpose the terrorist blacklist could possibly serve, I mean, you want your enemy where you can secretly observe them and their lines of communications, how are you going to do that inconspicuously if they're somewhere else?

And whose bright idea was it to start locking people up without evidence? (I mean REAL evidence, NOT holiday snaps of a trip to disneyland)

I got to say, the US And UK administrations are doing things the stupid way, especially when it comes to the lowering of the standard of proof required to catch terrorists, all you'll get are innocent people imprisoned and tortured while the terrorists just point and laugh, then use it against us.

That's not 'Liberal propaganda', that's common sense (although evidently not common enough).