Do you mean you think BBC is not telling the truth? Do you mean if you and I hop a plane to Cairo this week we won't find the conference they reported? Or are you seeking to escape out the back door by saying "not where it matters" (which is lifted from your post)? I find it hard to imagine a place that matters more than one of the ancient and respected Islamic institutions located in Cairo? This is an international conference of Muslims and Christians, and you can bet safely that the Muslims mainly come from Mulsim countries. Your argument "not on a scale that will bring about the required changes in time to choke off the ugly head of terror" rings hollow: what WORDS spoken by anyone anywhere could do that? YOU are the one who called for such words. And such words will have impact - in the way words always do - over time - in individual lives. This sort of thing matters a lot in terms of what people think and how willing they are to listen to radicals. If the leaders of the faith in numbers gather to talk to Christians and to say they refuse to be classified with radicals who do things the don't believe can be sanctioned by God, it is a very different world than one in which there is this silence so many have been claiming there is. It matters even if it does not, all by itself, instantaneously, end all possiblity of radical action. This problem took a long time generating, and it has some dedicated followers: there is no way it will disappear fast. We are playing a long term game, one in which limiting the ability of the enemy to recruit and raise funds is a great startegic goal. It is time to stop being part of the problem and become part of the solution: support our President and our countries wartime policy.

He met Jesus once, that is recorded. He went to plead for someone else. Skipping to the bottom line, Jesus expressed the judgement that he had not encountered anyone with as much faith anywhere. Presumably including his diciples. He may be the same centurian that is later described as having built a church and giving shelter to traveling apostles - otherwise there was more than one such centurian. Being a soldier of Rome, in the active duty sense, did not mean one could not also be a Christian, centuries before Constintine promoted it in the ranks. And Constintine did that for military/political reasons, not because it would turn his men into ineffective soldiers. The idea that ancient Christians who knew Jesus and the deciples were political pacifists is not really consistent with what we know.

When Bill Clinton appointed Madeline Albright as the Secretary of State, I questioned his pragmatism appointing a female Jew to go deal with a society which is both masogonistic and anti-semetic. However, if we allow the Muslims (extremist) to dictate who our representatives are then we have succumbed to their culture. Likewise, changing how the U.S. Military operates based on the masogonistic religion (superstition) of the Muslims would betray the American principles of democracy and fair competition for life, liberty, and the pursuit of hapiness. Having said this, the sexual nature of the torture at Abu-Gharaib could not be more devastating. If someone had tied those prisoners hands down and pinched their pinky fingers with a pair of pliers, I believe that many in the Muslim world would have considered it fair play. But the sexual nature of the photographs and actions will only strengthen their resolve when they see what they believe is the Devil at work.

Everyone hopes that the present conflict will not turn into a conflict of cultures, but rather be a war of order versus terrorism. This is a pipe dream given the current state of Islamic society. Muslims are programed by fifty years of predictable criticism against Israel to explain every inconveinence in their daily lives. My point agreeing with you is that if we cannot break their will, just level the place if all else fails. I believe that the U.S. has received very little praise for fighting what anybody with any knowledge of military history will regard as a restrained war.

Why do you think that? Why do you think I don't care if a nuclear weapon is used on the USA? Why do you think I would disagree with you about OBL being willing to use a nw, or any other wmd, if only he could? Since the truth is quite the opposite of what you suppose - you are in fact turning someone who agrees with you into one who disagrees with you. If you can do that to me, why should we think you are not also doing it to others - for example Muslims who do not like radicals? So far, more Muslim's have died at the hands of OBL than Americans have. In fact, he appears to have killed a fellow radical Muslim who co-founded the organization before Al Qaida. In OBLs world, no one is safe, not even a radical Islamic terrorist! No sane person will support him, and certainly no rational Muslim - it is not safe to put your trust in one that radical. The fact is OBL and organizations affiliated with him are enemies of civiliation itself. And our civilization has a process it uses to decide policy. What justifies your disregard for our official policy in a time of war?

There are good reasons not to do this: First, it won't accomplish the objective. If we really did it, it would only insure the war goes on. Creating martyrs is a very counterproductive strategy. And strategic bombing has a long and dismal history of generating popular support even for horrible regimes - like that of Nazi Germany or Communist Vietnam. "They hurt my little girl - I volunteer to work overtime making ammunition" or whatever. Second, it will bring about the political fall of the administration that does it. There would be a broad spectrum of opposition, and there would be legal proceedings that are likely to be overwhelming as well. Wether elections or legal cases would end the administration first is hard to predit - but its demise is certain. So your idea is completely impractical, aside from wholly immoral and illegal. And you have to be willing even to kill Americans to execute it. There is no place our people, and our allies and genuine neutrals, do not live, work, study, visit, etc. It really is amazing to hear such a suggestion on a serious board. Even MacNamara - who was pretty close to certifiable re nw - proposing no less than 10,000 Minutemen - never would have gone for such a thing.

First of all, I do not suggest genocide or even indiscriminate destruction upon the muslim population in general, but I merely suggest that a proper perspective should be placed upon the capabilities of the American military versus what it has been willing to yield. You seem to have this view that things could never return to a style of warfare where truly scared opponents wouldn't mind wiping each other off the face of the earth. When we fought Germany and Japan, did we only go after soldiers and political leaders? I know you know the answer. I imagine that you believe that our conflict will string itself out into a low tempo conflict such as exists in Israel. You would probably be right, but I believe that the Muslim world loves to do business with the U.S., while simultaneously loving our pain and suffering at their hero jihadists. The war in Iraq is making one thing painfully clear: If the Muslim (especially arab) world cannot police itself, how will we? Also, if you think that harsh action against the arab world wouldn't be effective, you fail to understand the steps necessary to truly criple a society. Ports destroyed, crops destroyed, hospitals destroyed, power plants destroyed. We ain't talking about the most fertile place on the planet. You may think that my ideas are harsh, but I am an atheist, and I truly believe that a great deal of world progress will not commence untill man looks to reason before superstition.

ElCid, sometimes we agree, sometimes not. Ususally disputes between the two of us are over semantics and little more. But I've noticed you throw out a close variation on the following argument quite frequently: "What justifies your disregard for our official policy in a time of war" Are you trying to suggest that because the American government has a particular foreign policy in play, that an American should not question it? Who is the servant here, and who is the master? I don't recall any recent election for dictator being held. One recent post of yours elaborated a bit, when you talked about how during a time of war it used to be criminal to act contrary to our policy, or something similar--I'm not trying to quote you. When anyone on active duty receives a lawful order, he is to obey it. The rest of us are not under any such constraints. We are free to question, advocate, and even conduct courses of action that are alternative to what the president and military have laid out--any time we feel like it. The only constraint is what we are limited to by law. I haven't be made aware yet of the law that prevents, for example, an American from advocating flattening all of Iraq and killing every Iraqi--regardless of whether it's against formal U.S. policy. Displacedjim

The US is winning the military part of the war. Compare 1000 casualties to what you'ld get when fighting a better enemy who knows what he's doing. Consider the following assumptions (just to give and idea of what casualties could be like when fighting a better enemy): Take 400 enemies and equip them with sniper rifles. Each of these snipers fires a single shot a day. 25% of the shots hit their target. Each day 5% of the remaining snipers is captured. Day 1 100 casualties 400 snipers Day 2 195 casualties 380 snipers Day 5 370 casualties 325 snipers Day 10 739 casualties 252 snipers Day 20 1245 casualties 150 snipers Day 30 1548 casualties 90 snipers The real situation is much MUCH better than this. The US is not losing ±1500 soldiers A MONTH. The US is not even losing ±1500 soldiers A YEAR. The US army is doing what it's supposed. This is as close as you can get to winning. So why suddenly change strategy when you're winning? The only way the terrorists can win is through politics. What has been won by the army can be thrown away by the politicians. For instance: - Politicians deciding to seriously negotiate with Al Sadr and creating a situation where Al Sadr is internationally seen as a legitemate representative of the Iraqi people. (creating an "Iraqi Arafat") - Constantly screaming that you're losing, undermining US and international support for the war in Iraq and with that the war on terror. - Or some stupid kneejerk reaction giving in to some terrorists demands or an opposite reaction with targetting the wrong persons in anger. - Presidential candidates saying they will turn over Iraq to the UN as soon as possible (prematurely) and pull out us troops (you don't need to be a genius to have some idea of what will happen then). Which give the terrorists hope that they can win.

"The real situation is much MUCH better than this. The US is not losing ±1500 soldiers A MONTH. The US is not even losing ±1500 soldiers A YEAR." Those in the amputee wards would disagree with you. There is a misplaced belief here that because the death rate is so low, this war is more affordable and sustainable. Very wrong. I suppose on this board most are familiar with the argument for smaller bullets; that wounding an enemy soldier is better than killing him, as it takes more resources to care of the wounded than to bury the dead. Think of this as a strategy to defeat America. First, manipulate the political situation so America creates a debt so large that eventually it will have to cut back on its military spending (10 to 20 years). Then attack petroleum production and transportation. When the world oil supply reaches its critical point of demand, far outstripping supply (10 to 20 years), America will be less able to bring military power to bear on stabilizing the situation, thus creating a worldwide conflict as well as a simultaneous financial depression. Yep, OBL might turn out not be as stupid as we have assumed.