The al Qaeda distraction

The Washington Times ^ | February 9, 2003 | Paul Greenberg

[Indy Pendance]

I was impressed by the words of the judge who sentenced Richard Reid, the shoe bomber who couldn't manage to blow himself up aboard a trans-Atlantic flight. But not impressed in the way the judge doubtless intended.

"We are not afraid of any of your terrorist co-conspirators," His Honor told the would-be mass killer. "We are Americans. We have been through the fire before. You are not an enemy combatant

[facedown]

We're supposed to be a fat, weak, self-absorbed society that trembles before a few suicide bombers. After Afghanistan, that delusion was a little harder to sell.

After Iraq, it will be impossible.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Cicero]

Just so.

[Stefan Stackhouse]

What is needed is a new policy "doctrine": If another country sponsors, finances, facilitates, or otherwise aids and abets any terrorist attack or attempted terrorist attack against the United States, its overseas facilities, or its citizens, this will be considered the same as an overt act of war by that country against the United States. This will then result in the breaking of diplomatic relations with that country, the explusion of that country's nationals from the US, the impoundment of that country's financial and other assets residing within the US, and the embargo of all trade between the US and that country -- both imports and exports. All terrorists apprehended before, during, and after the incident will be treated as the wartime spies and saboteurs they are, and will be summarilly executed. Should any further terrorist actions be attempted by the offending nation, we will immediately commence military action against the offending nation -- with or without the aid and approval of other nations.

I see no reason why the above should not be our policy.

[theFIRMbss]

>What is needed is a new policy "doctrine": If another country sponsors, finances, facilitates, or otherwise aids and abets any terrorist attack or attempted terrorist attack against the United States, ...this will be considered the same as an overt act of war by that country against the United States. ... I see no reason why the above should not be our policy.

You don't? Policy
like this would take character,
and guts. The current

western world is run
by business men. Character
and guts don't get taught

in MBA school.
Such things are bad for business.
That's the "bottom line."