Is it wrong if it's true?

I think it was pretty low, though hardly untypical in politics, given that we have no control over what others say about us, after all. It wasn't like they were praising how he would support them, or how much like them he is, or how they think he will endorse or use their tactics.

I'm starting to wonder about the power of the 'negative endorsement', though. If I am of a group that I know someone's base won't like, and don't want him to win, just praising him might do it.

Can see it now. 'American Atheists likes McCain. Says he's a great guy!'

"If Senator Obama started talking about McCain making anti-American statements
at one time in his life, that would be true as well, but it would also
be reprehensible on Obama's part as the statements were made because McCain was being tortured in North Vietnam."

I'll both agree and disagree. It was both technically accurate, but lacking in context. The question remains, what is the context in which that Hamas advisor made the quote? Exactly which policies is he endorsing? It is possible that a fuller understanding of that context would simply deepen and broaden the point that McCain was making.

The truth is never wrong. In fact under threat of death and horror, McCain uttered some un-American statements. The Democrats did and do the same thing under the American flag on American soil with no gun to their heads. Obama and the sell-out party he represents is a welcoming weakness to terrorists. Terrorists see talk as an invitation to violence. History has proven this time and time and time again. But the history proclaimed by Liberals is a sick and twisted corruption of truth. Terrorists grew powerful and effective under Clinton, and Carter of course is the perfect example of how terrorists react to talk. Think about how many abortion doctors and providers rejoice at the death they can wreak on the innocent? Democrats talk about abortion too. All terroristst like weak people. Obama and the Left are weak people. It's just the truth. At least since the 1960's.

Two things. First, why do people assume terrorist organizations are stupid? The whole world watches our elections. Al-Qaeda clearly follows our politics and so does Hamas. Why should we take any public statement they make at face value? Sadat was a master at telling us one thing and then saying the opposite to his supporters. I have no idea why this spokesperson said what he did. No one else does either.

Second, Hamas is an anti-Israeli terrorist organization. Anyone who has read Samantha Powers book, about 10% of which is a eulogy to Raphael Lemkin, probably realizes that Obama is not anti-Israeli. Obama seems to understand that he will need to work WITH Israel to deal with Hamas. One hopes that McCain's statement is pure bluster. If he decides to become Hamas' worst nightmare with unilateral action I believe Israeli security is likely going to be compromised.

Steve

Were I a terrorist leader and concerned about Obama becoming President, the first thing I would do would be to praise him. People like Donny would run with it and, given the overall tone of the electorate these days, Obama would be damaged.

The Soviets used to do this with their propaganda operation, knowing that (as they called them) the useful idiots in this country would carry water for them.

RJohnson,
If this is really a case of reverse psychology from Hamas, why in the world would Hamas be scared of a candidate who proposes the policies that Obama proposes? I can't see it, but maybe you can be more specific.

I remember in the 2004 presidential election, that supposedly Osama bin Laden said something that sounded like an endorsement of Kerry. There was an Osama video shortly before the election, and he supposedly indicated he would not target states in the U.S. that voted for Kerry. (I heard conflicting accounts of this, and there was more than one interpretation of the video, so that's why I'm not being more definite.)

Of course, that was very helpful for Bush. That meant America's number one enemy wanted him to lose. I think this helped defeat Kerry (regardless of the accuracy of the video's meaning).

And as it was pointed out, Osama is not a stupid man. He knew very well that to endorse Kerry would be a help to Bush. So if that was the rationale, why would he want Bush? Because it fits Osama's paradigm of a war between Islam and the West. He wants a warmonger in the White House. He wants Iraq to continue.

I don't know near enough about Hamas to decipher what is going on here. But I certainly think it possible that leaders of Hamas consider it inevitable that Islam must war with the West (especially as the West is seen as pro-Israel). It's likely that Hamas is happy to see the war in Iraq go on indefinitely as a humiliation to the U.S. So if I had that mindset, I would endorse Obama, and allow McCain to get the benefit. That is, I would consider Obama to be the real threat, a man who would use his reason to avoid aggression, and whose election will be seen as a restoration of America's image, as opposed to McCain who will continue and even expand upon Bush's policies.

None of this is meant to be an endorsement of Hamas. I just think that we in the U.S. are too quick to assume that they don't know how to play a political game.

Steve,
That may be their motive. If so, it is up to us whether we die the death of a thousand cuts, destroy them, or hide in our own caves here in America. We have the ability to do any of the above and the reason we are vacillating between scenarios 1 and 2 is due to our own lack of clarity, not the terrorists inate strengths.

IOW, if the terrorists truly want a McCain presidency, then I agree that it would be because he would be the only one that would fight back. If they really truly want to draw us into a fight, then I also want a president who will fight back.

"If so, it is up to us whether we die the death of a thousand cuts, destroy them, or hide in our own caves here in America."

Actually, you overlook a myriad of other possibilities. One such possibility is to take a deep breath, look at our policies in the region in a light that, for once, considers what is in the best interests of ALL the people of that region, and then stop using these folks as foils for our political gaming.

But to do that we would have to set aside our macho bravado and actually consider the non-Jewish people of that region as something more than pawns in some grand apocalyptic passion play between The Chosen of God and Gog/Magog.

It's easier to react than to think, and the terrorists know this. They prod us, we react, and they attain their goals of destabilizing our currency, disrupting our economy, sowing racial and ethnic disharmony in our ranks, and effectively dividing our nation far more efficiently than any invading army could ever do.

And useful idiots here carry water by listening to every uttering made by a "leader" in that region and reacting to it instead of focusing on the larger, long-term picture.

Why does Hamas want McCain in office? A man with a short temper is easier to manipulate than a man with patience and an even temper. They know that to continue their policy of destabilizing our nation under a McCain administration all they need to do is send out cheaply made audio and video recordings that taunt our quick-tempered President and his supporters. No invasion, no bombs, no biological weaponry. Just misinformation and a basic understanding of conservative thought.

McCain's stupid remarks ("bomb, bomb, bomb Iran") play right into their hands. They know that to grow in influence in their region they need only push McCain's buttons and he will keep our military forces in the region as long as they, the terrorists, want them there.

So, back when they would attack us and we never responded, they were really, really, truly sad that we never fought back? Now that we are killing them and they haven't been able to attack our civilian populations, embassies, or random patrolling military vessels (ie the Cole) they are really, really, secretly happy about it?

Could be, I guess.

Rod,

Once again, you are asking the wrong question. In this case, and in most cases regading politics, it's not a matter of truth, it's a matter of implication.

For example, suppose you tell me that you enjoy buying/growing/eating organic produce, and I follow up with the statement: "The Nazis loved organic agriculture." Now, what I said about the Nazis was true (according to Jonah Goldberg), but you would have to be pretty thick in the head if you didn't take offense at the implication that your love of organic food somehow put you in league with the Nazis.

Or, what if you said, "I'm a Christian," and followed up with, "Chrstians

Similarly, McCain's implication behind this "true" statement is that Sen. Obama is somehow in league with--or is at least sympathetic to--an Islamic terrorist organization, or that to some degree his loyalty to his nation is suspect.

Really, Rod, you should be ashamed for even letting something this idiotic pass without comment. Feel free to criticize Sen. Obama's positions and policies, but atleast make an honest attempt to read between the lines of any criticism. But seven years after, Sept. 11, I think you and your fellow Republicans ought to put to rest the disgusting implication that people who disagree with you are traitors. And that's exactly what McCain's "true" statement was saying.

Hi, RJohnson. I disagree that there is nothing Obama could say that would satisfy me. If I really thought he was a lost cause, I wouldn't be posting here. I haven't decided who I'm going to vote for in the general election yet.

I would vote for Hillary Clinton, but she's not going to be the Democratic nominee. So, I'm torn between McCain and Obama. Most of my friends are for Obama. I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon, until I am satisfied that Obama will be a better choice for our country than McCain.

Refusing to listen to people who are raising concerns about a candidate or characterizing those concerns as unwarranted attacks isn't going to win any arguments, and it certainly doesn't persuade me to change my opinion. I think you are just "dissing" what I believe are legitimate concerns.

Matt,
Actually, I think the implication McCain's remark is that Hamas believes they would have a weaker enemy with Obama as president than McCain. I don't think he was trying to imply that Obama was some sort of double agent. Now, Hillary's remarks that implied he might sorta kinda be a Muslim could have been intended to leave that impression...

"The problem, though, is that the other option was to continue being attacked on military and civilian cites, including the US soil without ever retaliating. Oh, and living with the idea that we had enemies who daily threatened nuclear and biological attacks on our citizens while we hoped that our intelligence which showed WMD capabilities was wrong and the intelligence which cast doubt on that were right."

No Marc, that was not the other option. We invaded Afghanistan to go after those folks who attacked us. That was a smart thing to do. Had we stuck to the task we might well have been home by now, safer and certainly more stable.

I have no idea how old you are, so you may be too young to remember the 70s and 80s. If you are old enough then you remember the support we gave the Afghan freedom fighters (the Mujahadeen) in their battle with the Soviet Army. According to Carter's national security advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, we began aiding the Mujahadeen well before the USSR invaded that country in hopes that we could provoke such an invasion.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html

-------

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

-------

This interview was from 1998, some 3 years before the 9/11 attacks. In that USSR/Afghanistan war thousands of Afghan civilians died, pawns in our cold war chess game. After it was clear that the Soviets were losing and started to pull out, we dropped the Mujahadeen like hot rocks. We walked away. They had done the work we set them to do, and we no longer needed them. We disposed of them like a soiled tissue.

Is it any wonder that anti-American sentiment could find root in Afghanistan? Is it any wonder that anti-American sentiment and distrust could find root among the Islamic fundamentalists of that region?

Marc, how would you feel if a foreign power that claimed to be our friend was discovered to have only wanted to use us to bait another country into attacking us? How would you feel if the resulting war cost you your spouse, your children, your siblings and/or your own health or well-being? Would you be angry at that foreign power? Would you listen to religious leaders who told you that God was ready to exact revenge on the nation that abused America that way? Would you want to kill them?

Would you want the chickens they had released to come home to roost?

Marc,

You write: "I think the implication McCain's remark is that Hamas believes they would have a weaker enemy with Obama as president than McCain. I don't think he was trying to imply that Obama was some sort of double agent."

Good point, but I think the vagaries of the remark intentionally left a lot to the imaginations of the intended audience. For some, it could be interpreted as Obama's supposed weakness. For others, it's to make a connection between an Islamic organization and the candidate's middle name.

My larger point, however, was criticizing Dreher for lazily taking this "true" comment at face value without acknowledging the implication(s) behind it.

Let's suppose that the next time Dreher blogs on his Christian faith, I respond by writing, "Christianity has a long and bloody history of Jew-bashing." I doubt that five minutes would pass before other posters stormed this site, accusing me of accusing Rod of being an anti-semite. Why? I mean, my statement is true, isn't it? But the posters here aren't stupid. Common sense tells them to read between the lines. They would be right to be angry, and right to defend him.

The Apostles were conservative Christians: "Truth is never wrong."

Abortion is legal in the United States.

Married couples sometimes engage in adultery.

Josef Stalin committed acts of genocide.

On Sept. 11, 2001, 19 hijackers killed 3,000 people on U.S. soil.

When I was twelve, I stole two pieces of candy from a store.

All of these things are true. Does this fact not make them wrong?

I would shut up if I were John McCain. He is the worst of the worst.

While some spokesperson from Hamas might have said such a thing, Obama has not. And hence, the smear.

How many continents away is Hamas, while right here in the United States, John McCain is upclose and personal with the enemy, George W. Bush?

McCain said that he didn't vote for Bush, but now fervently denies it.

McCain says that if he were president when Katrina happened, he would have deployed immediate help to those in need.

But what was he doing during that period of time? Why, he was celebrating his birthday with Herr George Bush!

Country Club elitist do not have time for the "peasant barbarians" of this nation.

But they do have the time and the money to help victims in other lands and countries. They do have the time and the money to create such madmen as Saddam and Bin Laden.

McCain is trying to say that Obama is not one of us, when it is truly himself and the true barbarians in Washington who are not one of us.

"A very important reason that terrorists (Jihadists, a Muslim concept), want to kill us is that we refuse to become Muslims."

Yes...let's forget the years of colonial rule in that region, or the puppet dictators we propped up over the people to be friendly governments during the cold war. Let's forget that we divided up the countries over there after WWI and WWII for political reasons that benefitted the west while splitting tribes and ethnic groups.

Sure...they hate us because they want us to be Muslim. It has nothing to do with past acts.

And we hate them because we want them to be Christian. It has nothing to do with 9/11, or the Iranian Embassy kidnappings, or the USS Cole bombing, or the first attack on WTC, or the Munich Massacre, or anything else they have done. We hate them because we want them to be Christians.

Now, pick up your water, Apostles, and get back to work.

The problem isn't that it's unfair because it's not true, it's that it's unfair because it's a crude guilt by association smear. It would be like saying that John McCain is the favorite candidate of the Ku Klux Klan. Probably technically true, but would be a disgusting thing for his opponent to say.

"Refusing to listen to people who are raising concerns about a candidate or characterizing those concerns as unwarranted attacks isn't going to win any arguments, and it certainly doesn't persuade me to change my opinion. I think you are just "dissing" what I believe are legitimate concerns."

OK, Alicia. Earlier you stated: "I think Obama needs to make a much clearer statement than he has to date about where he stands in relation to American interests at home and abroad.

Is he going to be a President who "never met an anti-American dictator he didn't like"? I really want to know the answer to this question."

What specifically would you like Obama to clarify regarding where he stands in relation to American interests? What areas do you feel need clarification?

Obama stated: "The notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous." Explain how you disagree with this statement, especially in light of requests from Anti-Castro Cuban expatriates in Florida to relax some trade restrictions against Cuba in light of Raul Castro taking power there.

RJohnson: In some respects, you're right. It's not precisely true that they 'hate us for our freedoms.' As astonishing as it may sound, they hate us to the extent, and only to the extent, that we resist or impede their objective. And simply put, their objective is to impose islamic law on as much of the planet as possible as quickly as possible, using the most effective means possible, and nothing much is off the table in terms of tactics as long as it serves that purpose. Ultimately, they want to unify muslims under a totalitarian islamic state with the strategic ability to finish off the job of complete islamification, and they see the United States and the western world order as the primary obstacles to the fullfillment of those ends. I know it sounds crazy, but they've got very good theological and historical support for their agenda - far more convincing than the theological arguments of their opponents, I'm sorry to say.

Here's Hasan Butt, about his experience with Al Muhajiroun (please pardon me if you've read it before, but it's so very important to listen to what former members of these groups actually say):

"When I was still a member of what is probably best termed the British Jihadi Network, a series of semi-autonomous British Muslim terrorist groups linked by a single ideology, I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy. By blaming the government for our actions, those who pushed the 'Blair's bombs' line did our propaganda work for us. More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology."

I don't dare include a link. For the original, search Hassan Butt, Comment is Free in "The Guardian," "My Plea to Fellow Muslims: You Must Renouce Terror," 7/1/07

If we are going to listen to terrorists on who we should vote for in the Presidential election, why not listen to them when they tell us why they attack us?

english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=7382

----
He accused Bush of reacting slowly to the September 11 attacks, saying: "I never thought that the supreme leader would leave 50,000 of his people in the two towers to face the terrifying events alone at the time they were in need for him."

Referring to next week's elections, he told Americans: "Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or al-Qaida. Your security is in your own hands.

"We decided to destroy towers in America," because "we want to regain the freedom of our nation," Bin Ladin said.

Bin Ladin also said the US considers "killing innocent people including children in Iraq" a legitimate act.

He said the US has dropped millions of tonnes of bombs on Iraqi children just to replace an old agent with a new one to plunder Iraqi oil wealth.

Bin Ladin said the September 11 attacks was in response to the injustices by the US.
----

Looks to me like Bin Laden may be taking a page from the GOP playbook and using religion to inspire his underlings to do his dirty work, while having a more earthly motivation for his actions.

I will not say that religion has no part to play in this. The Christian religion was used in the past as justification for many atrocities, but those who preached such were more often in it for the political gain and using the religious angle to motivate people. So your argument that the Muslim religion is at work here makes some sense, but it clearly is not the primary motivator in the leadership of the terrorist organizations. To blame religion and then stop digging for other causes ignores a much more basic human factor, one that transcends theological definition.

Revenge.

RJohnson: [Bin Laden is] using religion to inspire his underlings to do his dirty work, while having a more earthly motivation for his actions.

I cut the "GOP playbook" part out, because it is pejorative and objectively false: those with ambitions of empire have used that tool throughout human history. Respectfully, your phrasing was gratuitous.

[I really like both your logic and your conclusions. ;-) ]

I do believe that "revenge" is simplistic. I would prefer to lump it into the motivational category with religion. It is true that wars can start from a desire from revenge, but I don't think it's a primary motive with Bin Laden. Mostly, I don't think it's just Bin Laden. I believe we are in a proxy war.

Franklin Evans: "I do believe that "revenge" is simplistic. I would prefer to lump it into the motivational category with religion. It is true that wars can start from a desire from revenge, but I don't think it's a primary motive with Bin Laden. Mostly, I don't think it's just Bin Laden. I believe we are in a proxy war."

Of course revenge is a simplistic idea. That is one reason it is so powerful. Look at our own reaction to 9/11. Revenge was the first thought that came to the mind of almost every person in the country old enough to understand what happened. "Let's get those bastards that did this" was a rallying cry for months. Revenge moved us to invade Afghanistan, in hopes not that we would capture bin Laden and bring him to trial, but in hopes that we would find his lifeless body buried under a few feet of rubble conveniently moved on top of him by one of our bunker-buster bombs.

Revenge certainly can be related to religion, and there is ample evidence that the terrorist leaders are marrying religion and revenge as they recruit jihadists to their cause. But absent the revenge motivation it is difficult to motivate folks to violence based solely on religion. The passages pointed to in the Quran that support such violence have been there for generations, but only in the past 50 or so years have we seen an increase in actions purportedly based on those passages.

For years Bin Laden has been providing the same message...we attack the West because of injustices they have done to the Muslim people. Prior to him, other violent Muslim leaders made similar statements. Religion supported the concept of revenge, but the revenge was deemed necessary because of actions taken (or perceived to have been taken) by the West.

"If Iran doesn't think we are serious, what incentive does Iran have to curb its nuclear ambitions?"

If Iran thinks we are serious, what better incentive do they need to continue their own nuclear ambitions? After all, it worked well for North Korea.

Franklin Evans: "RJohnson, I regret that I seem argumentative, but I submit that you are not distinguishing between motivation and action, between government and individual levels.

A person will enlist to get revenge for the loved one killed at WTC or the Pentagon. The US attacked Afghanistan because it was the right thing to do, strategically, politically and morally. It would be wrong, IMO, to project the soldier's desire for revenge on the national leadership decision to act."

And yet that idea of revenge was bolstered by remarks the President made to the nation in the days and weeks following the 9/11 attacks. I agree with you that the response we made in attacking the Taliban in Afghanistan was the right choice at the time, and I only wish we had focused on that instead of wandering afield into Iraq. But the idea of revenge most certainly came into play in the preparation of the American public to support that decision.

"Did US men go to Europe for WWII because they fervently believed that the geopolitical realities required it (with isolation resulting in a Nazi Empire with nuclear warhead V weapons), or because the Germans were evil aggressors pounding the crap out of our traditional French friends (Revolutionary War and all that) and the Brits were heroes about to be squashed? My father fought against former comrades in arms because they found the communist ideals better than honor and tradition in defending the Serbian royal hegemony in the nascent Yugoslavia."

I listened to many stories from my father and uncles about WWII. My father saw action at the Bulge, and one of my uncles was a POW for 4 years, 2 in Italy and 2 in Germany. Their conversations and remembrances from before and during the war were fascinating, and I am quite proud of their sacrifices for the sake of our nation, just as you are of your father's sacrifice and commitment.

In those conversations I heard much about President Roosevelt's speeches of the day. How he could motivate people with only the power of his voice. Both of my parents recalled listening to the "Day of Infamy" speech live, and they shared their feelings regarding it.

Revenge most certainly played a role in motivating a nation to support the declaration of war and respond in the millions to the call to arms.

"I pulled that analogy out of my butt, I know, but the principle is sound: countries go to war for practical reasons; soldiers need high ideals to put their lives on the line. I first saw that in the writing of Robert A. Heinlein, and I've seen nothing that refutes it. Bin Laden stands in for a country (hence my proxy war statement)."

And again, I do not necessarily dispute your core argument, that both religion and revenge, or to rephrase, practical considerations and high ideals, have a role in the actions of the terrorists. As I see it, the motivation (practical reason) for the actions was and remains their perception of US foreign policy. When Bin Laden makes references to military bases on holy ground he is summoning religious imagery as well as a concrete image. When he talks about our foreign policy resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in that region, he not only conjures up reminders of the Crusades, he also brings to mind images of mass graves...graves that we are still discovering...that were filled with victims of weapons provided to tyrants by western companies, often with the sanction of western governments.

It is entirely possible that we are actually more in agreement than disagreement. Message boards such as this are often not the best places for nuanced discussions to take place. I would not call you argumentative at all, merely desirous that I understand what you are wanting to say.

" Talking with Muslim Jihadists is never going to work UNLESS you become a Muslim Jihadist, or allow them to rule you (as a Muslim)."

Petraeus not only talked with the Muslims who were killing us, he hired them. (Makes me think of that old commercial "I liked the company so much I bought it").

" If they really truly want to draw us into a fight, then I also want a president who will fight back."

Marc-Sorry to take so long had to run to work, but will try to answer you briefly. Winning a war against an insurgency/terrorists, IMO, is not about revenge and reciprocity. It is primarily a political battle. Yes, kill the bad guys when you have a clean shot, but we really cannot kill our way to a good outcome here. We do not need to hide in caves either.

The Russians in Afghanistan tried killing everyone. The French and US tried it in VietNam. We did it when we first entered Iraq. Man, we were STRONG (responding to those who like that strong/weak dichotomy). We kicked ass. We locked up everyone. We knocked down doors. We tortured. We were badass. We were not doing so well. So, we bring in the guy from Princeton, an Ivy Leaguer named Petraeus. This guy brings in a bunch of really smart highly educated people including Harvard (gasp) intellectuals. We do better. We hired the Sunnis who were killing us. We treated Iraqis (Muslims) with respect. They started helping us kill the bad guys.

So, back to the original idea of do we let Hamas, or any terrorists, dictate the rules of engagement to us. I say no. I want to vote for a president who is able to look at the whole problem and respond in the way which most benefits my country. I think that will involve some (proportionate) killing and even more diplomacy, including foreign aid and investment.

BTW, I hope if this is a topic in which you are really interested you make some minimal effort to find out what the Muslims/Arabs are thinking. Some of these groups people do not want to legitimize are seen as pretty legitimate in the ME.

Steve

From the standpoint of the Jewish tradition (I think I've said this here before), saying something negative about another person is actually WORSE if it's true, unless there is a VERY good reason for saying. (If it's true, that makes it just about impossible to retract or apologize for.)

Of all the ways to lie, the most difficult -- and most effective -- is to tell the truth in such a way as to make it impossible for others to believe it.

Calling a person a wimp who in fact is a wimp succeeds on two fronts: it places a permanent "kick me" tag on the wimp's back, and blinds people to the fact that wimps tend to compensate by coming up with non-violent ways to resolve situations. Both are eminently satisfying to bullies and other non-wimps.

Or, as Isaac Asimov put it: "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."