Fanatics Who Blow Up Mosques Deserve Only A Violent End
Such people have to be either killed or captured and incarcerated for a long, indefinite period in a remote place, as U.S. and British forces are doing.
What these people are doing is so bad, they have put themselves beyond the pale and the war we are fighting is, I believe, the only appropriate response.
I think that all too many people have become so hardened to these unspeakable acts, suicide bombings and all the rest, attempts to create a world religious war, that they have lost their bearings and are looking for an easy way out that does not, in fact, exist.
So we have the L.A. Times editorial page, and others, who may mean well, but they don't see things in a realistic way.
Now, there is talk of a new, even bigger series of attacks. What these might be we can only imagine, but it is certainly not beyond possibility that exotic weapons could be used in the Iraqi theatre or elsewhere.
Would we we bound in such a case to continue to fight only with the conventional weapons we are using today? No we would not. Already, French President Jacques Chirac has said that a terror attack against France with nuclear weapons would bring a nuclear attack in return.
This ia grim threat, but it could come to that if out enemies raise the ante to a certain point.
That is why the U.S. must take steps to be as certain as possible that such an attack does not occur. That's why more than three quarters of those polled oppose letting Dubai Arabs take over American port security. They are aware of the potential for unspeakably evil attacks against the U.S.
This is not what a foolish L.A. Times editorial suggests today -- "globalization hesitation." This is a prudent policy that seeks to avert being forced into acts we do not wish to undertake.
It would be a tragedy if the U.S. was forced to destroy its enemies beyond any violence we ever hope to initiate. But the enemies we face today may be capable of pushing us that far. They are beginning to show their potential in Iraq.