Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 09/06/06 1:19 pm:
Clete, need I remind you of your own words? Yes, I think I need to do just that...

There is only one answer to Islam. Sadly, a lot of people will die, but then a lot of people will die anyway, it's just a question of who; Islamic or non Islamic.

The only thing these people appear to understand is violence and terror, so the only way to speak to them is in the same terms. Sixty years ago there was a people who had a similar mindset, it took atomic bombs to shake them loose from that mindset, and I suspect it will take the same to shake the arabs loose from their mindset of violence. They need aproposition they cannot refuse.

Target's. start with Mecca and follow with each islamic capital Tehran, Damascus, Addis Ababa, it's doubtful you would need to go much further before they would turn their fury on the militants and clean house themselves

the jihadists dream on has they try to justify their carnage. In their scheme of things america has been asked to convert and non compliance makes every american fair game, they will now be considered infidels, (if they weren't already) and every muslims has a holy task to kill them. This is why I said all along, it is a problem of a small minority but a problem of a killer religion bent on destroying everything in its path. Every Muslim is a potential fifth column in western society because their allegience is first to their religion and second to their country. They have made their agenda known and it's time to take the fight to them on every level

Clarification/Follow-up by paraclete on 09/06/06 10:00 pm:
Yes Steve I do acknowledge the threat and I agree strong measures are needed, however, your state of emergency is like our government issuing fridge magnets, it just doesn't cut it. Surely you have the ability to legleslate the necessary measures without your President using emergency powers to get the job done.

We fight these people on every level so that means financially, trade, and militarily. It's it's going to be war then declare war, otherwise, find ways of circumventing their agenda. What is happening here is we are headed back into another cold war with it's dangers of military buildup.

George Bush has shown himself to be adventurist in his leadership style and the consequence is the mess in Iraq. Afganistan is little better. In niether place has the war been decisively won, the enemy disarmed and the population pacified.

Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 09/07/06 12:52 pm:
Clete, it is legislated, something called US Code, particularly this section and this section. For all the complaints among Bush critics of him circumventing the law it's rather silly to also criticize him for following the law.

As for declaring war you're talking semantics. What does a formal declaration of war mean anyway? Congress has authorized the use of force in our actions under the War Powers Resolution. Beyond that, just who should we formally declare war on now? Al-Qaeda? Hezbollah? Taliban?

We are fighting them on every front, and every time some moonbat liberal gets offended by the methods we're using they cry foul, publicize it and in so doing do great harm to the effort. And with all the whining the critics have done already, just imagine what would happen if we abandoned restraint and unleashed the full force of our military. We can take the fight to the terrorists and win, but are you really ready to do that? You'd better think hard about that Clete, consider what that would entail.

Steve