The Most Ancient Enemy. “They have no faces...”

The
english system has been around for several hundred years longer then the US has existed,575 years to be exact.The delegates to the first continental congress used the magna carta and English common law as the starting point for our constitution.
My source for the Magna Carta info is here...http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/featured_documents/magna_carta/


Since 1848,Switzerland has been a federal state - one of 23 in the world and the second oldest after the United States of America.
source for this is...http://www.admin.ch/ch/e/schweiz/political.html

I hope that helps answer some questions about western governments.Every other European country has a younger system then the US,Except Iceland.
Iceland has had the same system of govt since 930AD.
source is ...http://www.iceland.org/foreign_policy.html

No thanks occom bill, I will just bow out semi -gracefully knowing when I licked with a stated disagreement.

Thanks mysteryman. 2 out of 3 aint bad right? Although, I'm not sure you can count the Magna Carta; as the first Prime ministers were nothing compared to the powers still wielded by the Kings. Do you happen to know when the PM received real authority? (Apologize for the morph T... we're almost done)

I don't buy it! I am never one to go against the crowd, but... This article is little more than simplistic drivel to justify an arrogant feeling of cultural superiority.

Let's look at the history of barbarians. The traits of barbarians are not as black and white as you all are portraying

Barbarians have always been always mythical creatures. They don't come from failed cultures. They come from the need of one culture to justify its military superiority based on a claim of "cultural superiority".

An aggressive society must have an enemy. These enemies are always exagerrated.

The Huns of the article are protrayed as "not having faces". This is a fine image to use when you are trying to rally public support for a military campaign. But I assure you they did have faces. The Huns undoubtably had normal faces, raised children, believed in justice, loved their wives.

The word "barbarian" was used by the Romans to refer to my Germanic anscestors. The word "barbarian" derives from the word for "foreign' and refered to the people who resisted being subjugated by the Roman Empire.

Theirs was a fight for freedom. They had a culture and beliefs. Their barbarism was a fight against the Empire. The Romans would brutally "decimate" subjugated culutures by forcing them to lie head to toe and killing every tenth pace. The "barbarians" ferocious resistance is understandable based on their situtation.

This making of "myths" as a way to demonize an enemy is common in history. Jews were said to have horns. Blacks are sexually agressive and so on and so on. What is happening to Arabs now is no different. This is convenient in that barbarians are somehow less human. We can mistreat them, subjugate them, imprison them since they aren't like us.

Other "barbarians" have included Native Americans and the defenders of Masada. Jesus himself was crucified because he was from a backwater province of rebellious barbarians.

I am not saying that terrorism is not horrible and properly called "barbaric". But I object to the simplistic division of black and white, civilized and barbaric.

This article is a simple-minded attempt to demonize an entire culture. It follows the human tendency to demonize a group in order to justify actions taken against it.

The wonderful thing about superiority is that you are able to close your mind. You don't need to question you own actions. You don't need to worry about the desires or complaints of others.

I hope that as a nation we can be more courageous than this. This seems the only chance for us to be "civilized".

It is largely the descendents of the nomadic, illiterate Northern European barbarian tribes that annihilated Hellenic culture in Europe and the Roman Empire that are now at the head of Western Civilization. Surely, barbarians can't be all that bad.

If Western culture and the American Empire are brought down by barbarians, judging by what occurred in Europe after Rome's downfall, there will be centuries of "darkness," followed by a reawakening and an enlightenment that will pale anything that the West has seen since, and it will be at the hands of the barbarians. Surely, barbarians can't be all that bad.

edit=replaced "ancestors" with "descendents"

Surely this is what the emperor Wen believed.

While this statement, no doubt, appeals to a great number of people's sensibilities, it is false on its face, and incredibly naive in its basic premise.

It is false because fighting is not by definition or in practice unending. There are any number of examples of wars that have been won, and in the lifetimes of many people alive today there is a perfect example of a war that was won and resulted in a better world: WWII.

It's naive premise is that both sides of any conflict have legitimate interests, and this, I think, is the point of the article. Humans are a flawed species and no one side of a conflict is absolutely virtuous, but there is often a marked distinction between their respective motivations.

Unfortunately, there are organizations, cults and even societies that have no desire to seek peaceful solutions. To them, the pursuit of peace is a weakness to be exploited. There is no real way to mollify them, but if there was, it would be total and utter surrender. These are the barbarians of history.

That they might love their children is meaningless unless someone should want to argue that they are not absolutely evil. No doubt the Rwandan population of Hutus that went on a killing spree of their Tutsi neighbors and associates loved their children.



And what are these legitimate issues that justify their actions? That infidels dared to roam the streets of the holy city of Mecca? That the US dares to support Israel in any way? And since you are not talking about the barbarian terrorists who are responsible for 9/11 or the beheading of Nick Berg, which ones do you mean? The poor benighted freedom fighters who recently gunned down a pregnant Israeli woman and her four daughters?

And since they will not give up, we must give in? Barbarians, and the modern barbarians of the Middle East will always have an excuse to go to war. Retaliation against their terrorism is reason enough for them.



You seem to suggest that poverty and oppression justifies barbaric behavior. This might be understandable if they danced in the streets over the charred bodies of Saddam and his sons but what would justify their celebrating the deaths of the people who have released them from the corrupt regimes that oppressed them?

On the face of it it seems a mystery that the Iraqis so hell bent on killing Americans, even if it means their own deaths were not in evidence during the reign of Saddam. A mystery that is until we realize that the people who are so hell bent on killing Americans now, were, in some, way either benefiting from Saddam's reign (Bathists) or cynically indifferent to it (Islamists).

What remains a mystery to me is how so many people will condemn America for helping to set up regimes like Saddam's, but then scream bloody murder when it tries to rectify the mistake.



And so if someone "sympathizes a little " with the lynching of a black man, we shouldn't presume to judge them? The rest of us are talking about those who relish the sight of the mutilated bodies of dead Americans, dead Israelis, dead Spaniards, dead Australians, dead Phillipinos etc., whether they are dancing in the street or watching the video on Al Jazeera. If you find it disdainful to pass judgement on such barbaric acts, then you are one of the morally blind of whom Derbyshire refers.

This morning I was watching a Middle East expert say that invasion of Iraq cannot be used as an 'excuse' for stirring up the Islamic terrorists. That had already been done. They know very well how we cut and ran in Vietnam, in Somalia, in Bosnia, in Haiti, and they are applying pressure now to ensure an Islamic victory in Iraq. If they succeed, and the only way they can is if the American will does not allow us to win, the world will never be safe for anyone ever again.

This person--I wish I could remember his name but I'll get it--said the terrorists were already mobilized to do their worse to us and anyone they needed to subject to create a one world government under Islam. 9/11 was the first attack of many planned.

I think the most tragic thing to come out of this whole messy business would be that those who know what the right thing is to do will fold up (again) and fail to do it because of the wailing and hand wringing by those who do not want us to do it.

The right thing of course is to win decisively and absolutely in Iraq and send a message to the remaining terrorists that they will not be safe anywhere.

To fail to do that will open us and free people everywhere to unrelenting terrorism.

Great Post Foxfyre------you see reality so clearly-----Did you hand wringers and wailers get that??????????

I've not run across perception enough to know if his/her posting was sincere or ironic.

If it was sincere, I second it.

If it was ironic, I'll come back to it

(Assuming perception will enlighten me)

Finn d'Abuzz

The Palestinians have been oppressed for a long time. Their homes have been razed, their homeland divided in such a way that it makes it difficult to go from place to place without having to go through those roadblocks making it difficult to find work and visit other family members or friends. They fight for their rights with the only weapons they have and they are called terrorist throughout the US. Yet Israel can go through Gaza Strip and kill lots of innocent women and children and tear down houses with handy excuse that they are looking weapons as though they are the only ones who are allowed to them. (I realize that Arafat signed a weapons agreement, but that was stupid)

As long as we, the US keep ignoring the humanity of the Palestinians the fight will never end.

WWWII was a justified war with a specific problem and a definite aggressor who was systematically killing all Jews and other people who he didn't like merely because of who they were. That was wrong and the world was right to fight for that cause.

Some of the leaders such as in Saudi Arabia oppress their ordinary citizens. We support their leaders while ignoring the human rights of their citizens.

When Bush gave one of famous speeches, he used words such as crusader and axis of evil. This was bound to upset the ordinary Muslim and Arabs. So when Bush invaded Iraq they saw it as a fight against Muslims and Arabs. Regardless of how they felt about Saddam Hussein, the bigger threat to them was a crusading President.

I could be wrong, but that is what I concluded as to the reason that most of the Arabs and Muslims in the world were against the Iraq war.

I know that you are going to disagree and come up with a lot of points as to what I think is naïve and wrong. However, I stand by what I think and I don't really feel like getting into another back and forth debate about it.

Ebrown, I couldn't agree more.

If we can also destroy Americanofascism then the wars will be over.

In the words of ILZ, that is a retarded idea.

Another Wilso one-liner, attacking the US as usual. I think there's only one person here who ever said anything bad about Australia.

Most of what most Americans know about Australia comes from Crocodile Dundee movies. My experience with Aussies has largely been quite positive however and most I know seem to think we are okay.

I do wonder though what some Aussies like Wilso read to get their impression of the United States?

Those who have been around longer know that I believe the current Australian government to be a pack of Nazi's also.

Re: The Most Ancient Enemy. "They have no faces..."
The problem with equating "Islamic terrorism" with historical barbarianism in order to declare any means necessary legit is that "Islamic terrorism" is so haplessly defined. Who are the Islamic terrorists we're fighting? Who's included in that category of global barbarianism? Who all does our Cause exactly target?

Initially, it was Al Qaeda, the perpetrators of September 11. But the cause quickly expanded to Islamic fundamentalistm, overall.

Therein already lies a first problem. Fundamentalism (or Islamism) is a real enough, dangerous enough problem in the Muslim world. One which both governments and civil groups there are fighting where they can, some by ways of repressive regimes (that tend to cause the problem to re-emerge later or elsewhere, strengthened by justified resentment) - and some with education, political activism and critical information. Their failure says something about a real enough "civilization" problem in the Arab world, in particular, it's true - in terms of lacking, low-quality education, lacking civic consciousness, lacking independent thought and media that arm a society against the simple solutions of hateful populism.

But like all brands of hateful populism, fundamentalism comes in all kinds of degrees and forms. Compare "Islamofascism" with regular, Western fascism. Mussolini was no Hitler. Not every racist is a Nazi. Not every Duke voter is a racist. Shades of wrongness apply everywhere. Underneath, behind or aside Osama or the Taliban are fundamentalists who do represent the same reactionary politics, but don't share the same blanket hate, medieval bigotism or plea for ruthless violence. And the fundamentalists, in their turn, appeal to a wider swathe of the population/electorate, which looks up to them as the only ones making a sincere community effort, setting up health centers and (Islamist) schools and handing out poverty relief - cause yes, they're clever that way.

Now how does the black and white of civilisation and barbarianism apply to that gliding scale? The beheaders of Berg are barbarians (or worse, ideologues who sincerely believe their cruelty serves a Just Cause). They need to be fought relentlessly. But how wide does the net fall? To all forms of fundamentalism? Granted that all of them are politically dangerous, do they all represent the kind of "faceless barbarians" that call for any means necessary? What about their political footsoldiers, their voters or supporters? All barbarians? Or is there a whole mass of regular Arabs with regular frustrations and angers, tempted up the wrong way by fundamentalist propaganda? They might be among those waving flags now, when they see Al-Manar screen another revenge attack against Israel - but barbarians, all? Do we need to fight them as if they were barbarians, or do we need to recognize them as humans and pry them apart from their (new) leaders?

In Iraq, we are now fighting insurgents of all kinds. Neither this article nor those about Iraqi prisoners seem to distinguish between Al Qaeda conspirators and native Iraqi insurgents anymore. Between those who'd plan another 9/11 and those who've joined the guerrillas to take a potshot at a lone American occupier. In visions like the author's here, they're all part of the "enemies without faces", the barbarianism we have to eradicate - if we are not to die ourselves. It's a dangerous collapse of categories, just to end up at an unambiguous phrasing of our fight. And it will work against us. After all, treat people like barbarians and they will react in kind. Like ebrown pointed out, many of the Germanic "barbarians" were simply fighting against what, far away from Rome's splendour, was a hated and at times cruel "occupation force". Osama's kind hated us already - nothing to do but get him out of the way. But how many of those newly flocking to the insurgents or Islamists would just a few months or years ago have cheered at the advance of democracy?

First, we were fighting Al-Qaeda. Now, the enemy includes Iraqi rebels of all stripes. And this article already slips down yet another step on the ladder, to where it is the purported moral standards of all "the Arab world" that constitute the "barbarism",0 in the "wars of civilization against barbarism" we are fighting. The problem here increasingly is that we have started fighting against Islam, Arabs, Iraqis - all in one jumbled-up vision of an overarching struggle against "barbarism".

Can I just add that ebrown made some very good points, wholly unrelated to mine, on the issue of "barbarians" in history - pointing at a fundamental flaw in the article as well? They seem to have been ignored ...

A Brief (But Creepy) History of America's Creeping Fascism

A BUZZFLASH READER COMMENTARY
by Maureen Farrell

* * *

"Public health officials want to shut down roads and airports, herd people into sports stadiums and, if needed, quarantine entire cities in the event of a smallpox attack".- the Boston Herald, Nov. 8, 2001
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/
americas_new_war/pox11082001.htm

"Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft's announced desire for camps for U.S. citizens he deems to be 'enemy combatants' has moved him from merely being a political embarrassment to being a constitutional menace." -the Los Angeles Times, Aug. 14, 2002 http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/08.15B.ashcr.camps.htm

The Bush administration is developing a parallel legal system in which terrorism suspects -- U.S. citizens and noncitizens alike -- may be investigated, jailed, interrogated, tried and punished without legal protections guaranteed by the ordinary system. . . . " - the Washington Post, Dec. 1, 2002
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58308-2002Nov30.html

* * *

These days, it's hard to read anything without thinking, "this can't be true." We're living in an age of secret bunker governments and stealth legislation, however, and unlikely scenarios are tempered with the realization our old reality is gone. This America differs drastically from the country we knew two years ago, when tales of felons ogling our e-mail would have been capped with a punch line. Yet here we are, scratching our heads, while guardians of the public trust shill for the state. When Chris Matthews responds to Christopher Hitchens' charges against Henry Kissinger by braying about how "our very free notion of the first amendment," allows Hitchens to say "anything he wants about somebody," (as if Hitchens were making things up), our airways are either populated by the misinformed or by those paid to propagandize.

Luckily, we can still count on some to deliver hard truths. In an October 2001 article entitled "Liberties Lost: Unintended Consequences of the Anti-Terror Law," for example, former White House counsel John Dean lamented that the "right to dissent" was in jeopardy. Charging that the USA PATRIOT Act twisted the definition of domestic terrorism to include "home-grown political activists," his concern was well-founded -- especially now that no-fly lists target peacenik clergymen and any act "that appears to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population," is considered terrorism. But though the Patriot Act's sunset clause assured temporary expanded powers, if our loss of liberty is unintended, why does Homeland Secretary legislation permanently authorize 'data-mining' ala John Poindexter's Total Information Awareness snoop shop? Is it unintentional? Or is it something else? Consider, if you will, the history of America's creeping fascism, from 1950 on:

1950: Congress approves the Security Act of 1950 which contains an emergency civilian detention plan that remains in effect for more than 20 years; the US government establishes the first program to develop human mind control techniques. Known under a variety of codenames (most notably MKULTRA) throughout its 23 year history, this program is designed to exert such control, according to declassified documents, that an individual will do another's bidding, "against his will and even against such fundamental laws of nature such as self-preservation." 25 years later, the Rockefeller Commission uncovers CIA plans for "programmed assassins" and says MKULTRA led to American citizens being drugged, kidnapped and tortured on American soil.

1954: The McCarthy hearings begin. Nearly 50 years later, McCarthyism is revisited as assorted professors appear on assorted lists. "The simple exercise of the First Amendment, of saying that we should be able to criticize our government, is enough to put you on Lynne Cheney's list," historian Howard Zinn remarks.

Jan. 17, 1961: Dwight D. Eisenhower delivers his farewell address. "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military/industrial complex," he warns. "The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

March 13, 1962: Defense Secretary Robert McNamara receives Operation Northwoods, a plan to wage terrorist attacks against American citizens and blame Fidel Castro as a pretext for war with Cuba. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/jointchiefs_010501.html "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," the document reads. "Casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation," it continues. All Joint Chiefs of Staff sign off on the plan, but it's nixed by the civilian leadership. "The whole point of a democracy is to have leaders responding to the public will," Body of Secrets author James Bamford tells ABC News in May, 2001, "and here this is the complete reverse, the military trying to trick the American people into a war that they want but that nobody else wants."

1967: President Johnson establishes the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, assisted by an Army task force and plans to use military force to squelch civil disturbances take root. On May 4, 1970, four students are killed at Kent State University when the Ohio National Guard fires at unarmed protesters.

1971: Sen. Sam Ervin's Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights uncovers a military intelligence surveillance system used against thousands of American citizens, and stumbles upon Operation Garden Plot, the United States Civil Disturbance Plan 55-2. According to information released under the Freedom of Information Act in 1990, Plan 55-2 gives federal forces power to "put down" "disruptive elements" and calls for "deadly force to be used against any extremist or dissident perpetrating any and all forms of civil disorder."

1975: Journalists Ron Ridenhour and Arthur Lublow investigate Operation Cable Splicer, a subplan of Operation Garden Plot, designed to control civilian populations and take over state and local governments. Bill Moyers later lists Operation Cable Splicer and Garden Plot among examples of ways "the secret government [has] waged war on the American people." Sen. Frank Church's Committee to Study Government Operations sheds light on government-sanctioned civil rights abuses, the CIA's Mafia connections and the Nixon administration's role in Chile's 1973 coup.

1977: In a Rolling Stone article, Carl Bernstein estimates that "400 American journalists [have] been tied to the CIA at one point or another," giving credence to former CIA director William Colby's boast that "the Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any major significance in the major media."

1982-84: Col. Oliver North helps draft secret wartime contingency plans, which, according to a 2002 report in the Sydney Morning Herald, provide for "the imposition of martial law, internment camps, and the turning over of government to the president and FEMA." Columnist Jack Anderson reports that FEMA's emergency "standby legislation" is meant to "suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, effectively eliminate private property, abolish free enterprise, and generally clamp Americans in a totalitarian vise."

1984: The Rex-84 "readiness exercise" program is conducted by 34 federal departments and agencies under Ronald Reagan's directive. Reportedly established to control illegal aliens crossing the Mexican/U.S. border, the exercise tests military readiness to round up and detain citizens in case of massive civil unrest.

1985: The Federal Communications Commission eliminates the Fairness Doctrine, which required broadcasters to present balanced coverage of controversial issues and kept their power to mold public opinion in check. In Dec. 2002, the Daily Howler http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh120402.shtml chronicles ways the Republican National Committee relied on media propaganda during the 2000 election, while a Dec. 3, 2002 Chicago Sun Times headline reads, "Talk radio key to GOP victory."

July 5, 1987: The Miami Herald reports that while deputy director, John Brinkerhoff modeled FEMA's martial law program after Louis Giuffrida's proposal to squelch black militant uprisings by placing "at least 21 million American Negroes" into "assembly centers or relocation camps." In Feb. 2002, Brinkerhoff writes a paper for the Anser Institute for Homeland Security defending the Pentagon's desire to deploy troops on American streets.

Aug. 1987: Though the Iran-Contra scandal involves criminal activity far more serious than 1974's Watergate burglary, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush emerge from the hearings virtually unscathed. Several Iran-Contra figures are awarded top jobs in George W. Bush's administration.

Summer, 1994: A memo leaked from the Director of Resource Management for the Department of the Army discusses plans to "establish civilian prison camps on [military] installations." Rep. Henry Gonzalez later admits that there are "standby provisions" and "statutory emergency plans. . . whereby you could, in the name of stopping terrorism, apprehend, invoke the military, and arrest Americans and hold them in detention camps."

Dec. 13, 2000: Al Gore concedes the presidential election after the Supreme Court installs George W. Bush President of the United States. Alan Dershowitz later writes that this unprecedented decision "threatens to undermine the moral authority of the high court for generations to come."

Sept. 11, 2001: President Bush activates a Cold-War era shadow government, installing cabinet members in underground bunkers. When this plan is uncovered months later, members of Congress claim they were not consulted.

Oct., 2001: The Patriot Act is railroaded through Congress and the Senate, without the benefit of committee hearings or extended debate, shortly after Democratic legislators are targeted in yet-to-be solved anthrax attacks.

Nov. 2001: The Bush administration issues executive orders allowing for the use of special military courts and empowering Atty. General John Ashcroft to detain non-citizens indefinitely; the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act (MEHPA) is introduced to governors of all 50 states. MEHPA calls for mandatory vaccinations and allows for confiscation of citizen's real estate, food, medicine and other private property; and outlines plans to herd afflicted citizens into stadiums.

Feb. 13, 2002: Iran-Contra criminal John Poindexter is chosen to head the Pentagon's Total Information Awareness Program, giving this five-time felon power to monitor citizens' internet use, e-mail, travel plans, credit-card purchases and other personal data. On Feb. 18, London's Guardian newspaper runs a story on the implications of Poindexter's appointment. The American media follows suit nine months later.

April, 2002: The US military creates a Northern Command to assist in homeland defense. Director of Homeland Security Tom Ridge encounters difficulties studying Reagan's national security plans for using the military for law enforcement, since Bush #43 sealed Reagan's presidential papers in Nov., 2001.

Summer, 2002: Former presidential counsel John Dean writes an article asking, "Could terrorism result in a constitutional dictator?" A month later, the Sydney Morning Herald reports that the Bush administration might employ Reagan-era security initiatives, installing "internment camps and martial law in the United States." The LA Times reports on Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft's "desire for [detention] camps."

Fall, 2002: During the midterm elections, Vietnam veteran and triple amputee Max Cleland is shamelessly depicted as "unpatriotic" for voicing concerns over homeland security legislation. Questions regarding Paul Wellstone's plane crash, voting machine irregularities or exit poll glitches remain taboo.

Nov. 25, 2002: After the 32 page Homeland Security Bill ballooned to nearly 500 pages overnight, and was railroaded through the Senate and Congress, it is signed into law. Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) says the bill "expands the federal police state," Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT) says it represents "the most severe weakening of the Freedom of Information Act" in 36 years and Sen. Robert Byrd worries amendments "expand the [administration's] culture of secrecy." Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) claims that "the ability of a special interest group to secretly insert provisions into law for its own narrow benefit and to the detriment of the public interest raises fundamental questions about the integrity of our government."

Nov. 27, 2002: Cover-up King Henry Kissinger is chosen to head the Sept. 11 independent Commission. Robert Sheer reports that "history puts credibility at zero in the 9/11 probe."

Dec. 4, 2002: Solicitor General Theodore Olsen goes before the Supreme Court in an attempt to overturn the Miranda decision, which has restrained police interrogations for decades. "This is a case to be concerned about,'' University of California law professor Charles Weisselberg says. "To see the solicitor general arguing that there's no right to be free from coercive interrogation is pretty aggressive."

Thomas Jefferson warned, "When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny." It's difficult to fathom what we're stuck with now, when we consider from whence we came. As the Constitutional Convention came to a close, a woman asked Benjamin Franklin what type of government had been formed. "A Republic, if you can keep it," he replied.

Given our free fall within the last two years, and the fact that the morning "news shows" are more concerned with J-Lo's wedding dress than with our evolving police state, one can only imagine our founding fathers' reactions to recent history -- and to the shaky condition of our Republic today.

Re: The Most Ancient Enemy. "They have no faces..."

You're making this whole thing way too hard. Who cares whether the barbarian is an Iraqi or an Al Qaeda foreigner? If he's pointing a gun at you, you shoot him. It's as simple as that. The true barbarians are the ones who are willing to strap on a bomb or set up an improvised explosive device. If someone is an Islamic fundamentalist sitting in his home grumbling about how the US is destroying the world, he's no threat. There are plenty of people like that right on this board. But if he grabs an RPG and aims it at people standing in line to get a job with the Iraqi Police, then he becomes a barbarian.

Islamofascists are also the teachers who tell youngsters that Israelis eat Muslim babies and wax poetic about the rewards of killing Israelis. You're right about the education - it's abysmal. Until some genuine Islamic leaders can put a stop to this practice, it will go on and on, and generation after generation of children will grow up to hate everything and everyone who is not Muslim.

I think we first have to destroy those who would try to reestablish a dictatorship in Iraq by force of arms. Then we have to convince the Muslims to reform the Islamofascists in their midst. These two things are already happening in Iraq. If we can promote them as a good example, maybe they will spread throughout the Middle East and beyond.