Online debates appear to be biased, extreme, unhelpful...

[Lester1/2Jr.]

I'm not as informed as many, but it seems to me that alot of the posts I read come from people who are not realistic at all!! It IS a complex issue, but not to the extent people are making it.  There are these sort of Chuck Norris guys who are all "kill the bastards" and these artsy fartsy types who are like "war is wrong, two wrongs don't make a right" . Both back up their claims with ridiculous biased political "facts" like Bin Laden is a saint or every arabic person is the devil.

[Chadzilla]

It is far more intelligent and articulate than I can be at this time, but it argues my side fairly well...better than I could at least.

Here is Ken -

While I don't agree with having fun with Arab names right now, appearing 'racist' at this juncture should be the least of our worries. This is all part of the base problem we have right now, which is that there comes a time in the life of every empire when its citizens begin to worry, more than anything else, about appearing uncivilized.

We used to be feared. That is the whole point of being a superpower. Then we inevitably hit that point of economic and political comfort that all superpowers do, and decided to pretend that because we no longer which to be violent that no one else really does either. We've begun to argue that all violence is equally bad, whatever the circumstances and motives behind it. This has been noteworthy particularly in the tendency of too many to acquait Israel's acts of defensive violence with those of its enemies.

Well, now we're in the same boat, and we have to realize that the only thing that protects a country is strength, not treaties or feel-good homilies about the brotherhood of mankind. Should we hate all Arabs or Muslims because of terrorists? No. Should we be afraid of judging harshly, in words and especially in deeds, those Arab countries and collectives who wish to see us destroyed, for fear of looking 'racist'? We must not.

Too many people here already, in my opinion, are worried about us 'overreacting.' There's no such thing in this case. Terrorist organization's like Bin Laden's -- and even if, somehow, he's not behind this, he and his organization should have been and must now be rooted out and killed for the attack on our embassy in Kenya, amongst over previous acts -- must no longer recieve the support of any government. These governments must be made to pay such a price that their own citizens would revolt, out of fear, were they to learn that their leaders were risking arousing our wrath.

Gary worries about 'universal condemnation'. From who? Europe? The French? Countries that have been winking at and coddling and harboring terrorists for decades in hopes of placating them? China? A government that is basically a terrorist organization to its own people?

On what basis should we be concerned with their condemnation? *Americans* were killed here. Thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of them. Our military headquarters was attacked, resulting in, at present count, some 800 casualties. Our seats of government were put at risk. Compared to these facts, what matters the condemnation of other countries?

Like Israel, we must now become an inherently peaceful people who ensures the safety of our own (although we don't literally face the destruction of our country, as Israel does) by exacting a price on our enemies that they dare not provoke again. We must no longer fear being labeled as 'jingoistic' for asserting, clearly, that American lives are more important to us than the lives of those that would conspire against us, and those that give them the resources to do so.

We have been barbarically attacked, our fellow citizens killed in a cowardly fashion with no warning. Any violence we commit against the countries that harbor these elements is entirely righteous. We must no longer fear our own strength. Others must fear it.

The fact is, if we had attacked more aggressively in the past, after Kenya, after the first World's Trade Center bombing, after Lockerbee, if we had been willing to risk 'comdemnation' by killing dozens or perhaps hundreds or even thousands (although that's quite unlikely) of innocents while raining destruction down on the governments supporting these terrorists, then the potentially tens of thousands of Americans who are dead today because of these attacks would still be alive. Every time we've used even limited force in the past, terrorism has come to a standstill. Now the amount of force we've told the world we'd be willing to use has become too limited, and our enemies no longer fear us.

This must change.

[Chadzilla]

Another excellent arguement....

here she is...


Ah, another day of no work here at the Federal Center. OK, my first and last comment on September 11th in this forum.

>If I harbour a murderer, am I guilty of murder? I've done something wrong, >but not murder.

Wrong.

In that regard, you're just as bad. If not worse, because the perps here are dead whereas the harborer (harbourer?) is still in business.

If it comes out that this wasn't the work of home-grown crazies, and was, in fact, the work the network of cockroaches associated with Middle Eastern terror, than we need to roll up our sleeves and start the killing with any means at our disposal, including strategic nuclear weapons. Regimes, and maybe entire countries, need to be exterminated.

In the end, any thuggish government which turned a blind eye to these animals in their midst needs to be obliterated from the face of this world and poured as gas into the atmosphere.

Over-reaction? By attacking our defense structure, financial structure, and our civil air network, are very way of life-our existance as civilized people; by murdering THOUSANDS of American civilians, they are indeed saying they want us, as Americans, dead. These terrorists, whoever they might be, and the powers which harbor them, feel the same way about us that the Nazis felt about the Jews or the Turks about the Armenians. Only we are not helpless, we are the United States of America, the most powerful nation the world has ever known, the titan of democracy and the chief defender of the freedom of man's mind and spirit. They, the terrorists and the terrorist pirate states that support them, represent the converse. The Taliban, in my eyes, represents a spectre of the world's dark ageas a voice beckoning us back to the crypt wherein lurks everything opposed to the use of the rational mind. And, in particular, imaging how a woman feels about these dreadfully misogynistic tyrants. I've made a life for myself by my own hands and mind, a life impossible under the thumb of these evil fanatics. I'll die before submitting to these worthless, human pieces of garbage. It is them or us, simple as that. I vote US. All opposed? The motion carries.

Are we to stand back and get all mealy-mouthed about this? Not if we want the Rights of Man to prevail against the forces of darkness. I'm not overstating this. Here, as a Scot, maybe you'll get this: are we to move on, onto broad, sunlit uplands, or are we to kowtow to these vermin and regress back to a new dark age.

This is war. This attack made the people who plotted Pearl Harbor look like paragons of honor. We must fight this as total war and not be particularly pleasant with our distinctions of who was actually in on this particular attack and who was just standing on the sidelines. It's time to clean house and speak to these people in the only language they understand: force and death. If the Taliban stood by and let this happen, Kabul needs to be flattened, perhaps with atomic weapons.

These people respect force and force only. You don't negotiate with alligators. You kill. And when their countries are obliterated, when their wretched cities are smashed, when these bandit regimes have been reduced to uninhabitable wastelands, then maybe, in their dim way, they'll see that we are a red hot stove burner and not to be touched. Did England try to talk to Hitler? Well, yes. History records the result of that in 1938. Aren't you glad your forebears rolled up their sleeves and got down to the work at hand, the utter destruction of the Nazi state? Now Germany comes to England as a rational partner, a friend who can be reasoned with and mutual deals made for the advancement of all.

Retaliation? It will come. Just make sure that each time it does, another avalanche of destruction and death awaits the perps and anyone around them.

Them or us.

E.V.

[Chadzilla]

Check out jabootu.com's message board for the rest...source, etc.

[Josh Leman]

Here's my two cents, if anybody cares for it.

Blaming everyone in the Middle East and targeting the Arabic peoples living in the U.S. is not only wrong but idiotic.  Just because they're Middle Eastern or Muslim doesn't mean they're evil, and those people in Palestine and Iraq we see celebrating in the streets are not representative of the entire cluster of nations in which they live.  Haven't we learned anything in the decades since the Japanese internment camps?  

That said, we need to find the specific individuals responsible for the attack and wipe them out in order to make it clear that this must never happen again.

The scary thing about this is that terrorism could become the standard means of warfare in the new millennium.  Who needs expensive nukes or dangerous chemical weapons when you can just get three guys with box cutters to hijack a plane and crash it into the White House?

[El Chupacabra]

Alright, now I'm p**sed off.  Chad, you're
probably a nice enough guy, but these
comments make me so f**king angry, I'll
probably never visit Jabootu again.
There is so much sickness in this way of
thinking, it borders on anti-life.
As what goes around comes around, I'll
be blasted too, but here are my views and
why I find your posts so abhorrent:



The one thing all humans share (animals too,
but I won't get into that) is subjective
consciousness.  We all have our unique,
individual points of view.  That doesn't
make all men brothers, but it gives us a
framework to relate to each other.
Sometimes that foundation crumbles, and it
is no longer possible to communicate.  But
communication, real mutual understanding,
is the only way to have any kind of
lasting social structure.  Without it,
chaos beckons.

Now the first thing that needs to be
communicated is selfhood; you are "I"
as I am "I".  Second, the fundamental
sameness of biology: we have the same
needs, to eat, drink, sleep and excrete.
Our experiences differ, but in these
fundamental aspects we are the same.
If you can get across these two things,
there's no reason why both parties
can't "live and let live"... if however,
the second party refuses to acknowledge
this commonality, you have a problem.
If you HAVE made every effort to communicate
your fundamental needs, and they are
ignored (power doesn't come into this),
violence occurs.  So what? you might
say; we're in that situation now with
Saddam/Bin Laden/ect.  For the moment,
yes.  But we didn't use the method above,
the method that gives us at least a 50%
chance.

So? you say again, we didn't respect the
terrorist's "selfhood"?  What kind of
touchy-feely crap is that!  Of course
we did; we're reasonable, live-and-let-live
people.

Oh really?  Then tell me, how many terrorist
attacks have we sanctioned?  How many more
lives were lost indirectly because of our
economic greed?  Because of our empire
building?  Not that America is alone in this
respect - other countries do it too, and
far worse - but they've never had as much
power to abuse.  Does the phrase "the
chickens coming home to roost" ring any
bells?  The mentality of blaming it all
on "the other" has a simple root - it's
subject/object consciousness.

Do you not see that all communication
needs to start on an equal footing?
Between subject and subject?  When you
treat people as objects they will respond
likewise.  You cannot communicate with
"the other party" any more than you can
kill the bogeyman - BECAUSE THEY DON'T
EXIST!  Violence is the result of a
failure to communicate between subjects.
That's ALL it is.  And the consequences
of this failure?  Why, that's what we
call "evil".  Handy little concept.
Too bad we made it a cause rather than
an effect, a philosophical abstraction
rather than clear-cut reality.  We
externalize evil, and try to wipe it
out with force.  But force will
not make the Talibans of the world
go away; rather, it will justify
their methods.  Because from their
*subjective* viewpoint, that's
exactly what they're doing.  The
comparative "righteousness" of their
actions is irrelevant.

Now, as for America: it is a great
empire.  No more, no less.  And the
problem with empires is that they are
built on a shoddy premise, that of
intra-species competition.
In all biological evolution, it is
the species that learn to work together
amongst themselves that survive and
thrive.  Yet Social Darwinists have
managed to justify man's neuroses as
survival instincts.  Make no mistake,
we possessed these bad habits already;
it just took longer for a sophisticated
re-inforcement mechanism to develop.

But I digress: the main thing to
remember about empires is that they
don't last.  They don't rule forever.
They make their contributions to the
world, and vanish.  America, though
perhaps the best of these empires, is
no different.  You people speak of
fighting for your country; I can
understand that.  You associate this
country with all that is good in
yourself, and perhaps other qualities
you are lacking.  But it is a mistake
to identify with one's country; it is
a construct, and does not speak for
the human race.  I'll never see
myself as "American"; furthermore, it
would be an insult to myself and my God
to insert the words "and country" after
His name.  And when you understand how
remote America looks to the dancing
Palestinians/Afghanis, and how remote
their deaths are to us, you will
realize how stupid it is to hate any part
of the world.  But if you don't get it,
how do you expect them to?  Oh, that's
right - you don't.  You just want to
bomb them back to the Stone Age.

Look past your nation's agenda.  Stop
pretending God's on your side.  Get this -
violence IS violence.  We bleed them dry,
they cut us deep.  Same amount of blood
loss either way.  If the US can stand
strong in this crisis and open up new
channels of communication, instead of
reacting with more violence, then more
power to it.  If not, then what happens
happens, and we citizens of America
(and Israel, and China, and everywhere)
must face the consequences.

[Ken Begg]

To start with, it's funny that us mean, warmongering types are often more respecting of opposing views than the peaceful, 'tolerant' ones.  It must be nice to be so self-righteous that you can afford to view us barbarians from your airy moral heights.  

El Chupacabra, you're wrong.  You're just utterly wrong.  'Violence is bad' might be true, but in an imperfect world you must make allowances for scale and motivation.  To that extent that you, or anyone, says "All violence is equally bad," that's a childish and ultimately dangerous remark made by someone uncomfortable with the fact that he's living in the world he is.  Well, guess what, so are the rest of us.  But some of us decide to look past comforting but inapplicable principles and decide to get some dirt and blood on our hands in order to minimize actual human suffering in the world.

One way you do it is with rules.  Even in war.  Especially in war.  That' s why those who break these rules must be quickly and severely punished.  And that includes countries, not individuals.  I'm sure some decent individual Germans were killed when we went into Europe and liberated the death camps.  But that's not something you can overly fret over, lest you put yourself in the position where you don't liberate them at all.

Have we, i.e., our government, condoned terrorism?  Undoubtedly, although much less than you're implying, and certainly less than any superpower in history would have done.  I should also note the obvious truth that no other country in history could have been trusted with being the sole owners of the A-bomb and not abuse the power this gave us.

Moreover, the condoning of terrorism you mention was in the context of a Cold War with an expansionist state that was the most murderous, to its own citizens, in human history.  (Except maybe for China, since records are so much harder to come by.)  We supported those who wanted to make their countries democracies, like Nicaragua.  Once the people there were allowed to hold free elections, and actually got the chance to oast the government that was oppressing them, we withdrew.  When the Soviets thought a country was feeling it's oats, it sent in tanks.  Think Prague of 1968.

Do you really want to make a contribution?  Then make yourself understand that **not everyone wants peace.**  

These terrorists attacked us for two reasons.  One is that we sorta-kinda make an effort to see that Israel remains a country on the map.  The other is more basic:  They fear not our military inclinations but rather our cultural might and our political and economic systems.   Americans are raised to accept defeat on what they in their hearts believe , as long as they can  feel they were able to participate in the Marketplace of Ideas.  We believe in letting the best ideas, the best systems win, even when this conflicts with what we believe in personally.  This is why no nation on Earth has spent as much effort worrying about the morality of its actions.  

These Islamic groups, the ones we're talking of here, including governments, don't subscripe to the concept of the Marketplace of Ideas.  They're not willing to test their ideas against ours, because they know in the long run they'll lose.  They know the citizen of their own countries will seek the freedoms we stand for.  And unlike us, these groups and governments are willing to initiate violence to avoid this competition.  

To do so they break the only rules that preserve the entire world from chaos.  And this is why they must be stopped, forcefully, before the countries disinclined to use violence are made to stop observing them as well.

Welcome to reality.

I apologize to Andrew if this is the sort of message he doesn't care for on his board.

[AndyC]

Ken, one of the things I've always enjoyed about your reviews is the thorough, rational approach to take. Your political commentary is even better.

I had hoped, with the severity of Tuesday's events, that even the bleeding hearts might get a clue. I suppose that was too much to expect.

Some people decided that spanking their children, even as a last resort, was wrong. It made them feel like bullies. Now they wonder why their stereos are being stolen and their dumpsters are catching fire. I write the crime reports for a community newspaper. I know what I'm talking about.

This is the same thing, only on a larger scale. It's time to take off the belt.

[Flangepart]

El Chup made the point that Evil Is the resault of lack of Communication. No. Evil is selfishness. And evil people will communicate the words the target wants to hear...to set them up for the killing stroke. How else could these pilots live among our prople, and not reconise their simple humanity.?  They are pathological killers, and have no compassion lurking in them. Attacking soldiers is what warriors do, but monsters target the helpless, BECAUSE they are Helpless. I said evil is selfishness. To steal, weather a T.V. set, or a life that in not trying to harm your life, is selfish. The "Me,Myself, and I". in its ultimate expression. The differance between the T.V. and the life is one of scale, and scale of effect, but same in principle. Jesus...(Yeah, He's important to me)...said "Do to others as you would want them to do to you". And, "Love others AS you love your self." Include the other as much as you can, and remember they are like you. Satan IS selfishness, and those like him, care for no one but themselves. Sorry if i'm pontificating, but it is the only way i know to explain it. Conciter this, though. Look how many people GIVE to those in need, and and compare their numbers to those that TAKE. Evil as a mere lack of communication is P.C., and so "ST, Next Gen."...but, sadly, it just ain't real.

[Abby]

Israel has not been defending itself against ruthless barbarians at the gate; they STOLE their country from the Palestinians -- with buttloads of help from the US. A hundred Palestinians have died for every Israeli scraped in a suicide bombing. Their moves have been offensive, not defensive. Is Israel's hyper violence working? Um -- NO!!! Israel has systematically stripped Palestine of its culture, its rights, its pride, and its land. And WE"VE helped. Even though the sight of dancing Palestinians makes me ill, I still can see the forest for the trees. It's rocks vs. rocket launchers over there, Ken. And the launchers all have stickers that read "Made in the USA."

The horrific events of Tuesday are not acts of war ... they are cruel acts of desperation and frustration commandeered by an upper class rich f**k who himself won't die for a cause. Gee, sounds a lot like our last few presidents, but I meant bin Laden.

I don't want to see our military blindly wiping out civilians over this ... like Sudan (an act that Bush's current buddies all denounced as cowardly at the time, if you recall). I want us to take out the people who backed Tuesday's attack ... and ONLY those people. I don't want to "send a message" because our typical "message" is the reason these people were willing to die and kill in our own aircraft in the first place. We've already sent enough messages -- Tuesday was the reply.

Get mad at the fact that our commercial airlines are so greedy that they couldn't implement proper security measures. Be p**sed at the fact our government is so lax, they allow "known bin Laden associates" to learn how to fly planes in Florida. Yes Ken, WE HARBOR KNOWN TERRORISTS, TOO!!!! Not only do we harbor them, we often train them to do a variety of unsavory things.

We CAN over-react to this, and if we do, we'll see another hideous tragedy like this in my lifetime. I'd rather be calm and cool, and kick the asses of the people who caused this ... not the asses of everyone surrounding them.

[AndyC]

Very true. I've been wrestling with the question of how these people could have lived among Americans for a time, and still want to do this to them. I think your answer is as good as any I can come up with.

I have a great respect for human life, which is why I think someone needs to suffer for taking it in this manner, and on this scale. I also believe that being human requires more than just the the right chromosomes. It requires at least a shred of humanity in your heart. Lose that, and you become an inhuman monster. Monsters should be caged or destroyed. Caging bin Laden would only invite more terrorism, so that leaves one option. I only fear that none of the methods available will allow him to suffer enough.

[Ken Begg]

At the risk of further alienating Abby, who runs a great website and whose work I highly respect, let me offer these contrasting opinions:

Israel was given their country by mandate, as I understand it, of the U.N.  Perhaps Palastinians have a legitmate gripe about this, just as, no doubt, American Indian tribes have over losing their lands.  But that wouldn't justify current-day terrorism on the part of American Indians, and it doesn't justify Palastinian terrorism.  If they want to make their case to the international community to dissolve Israel entirely, let them do so.  The fact is, few people would support them.  Otherwise, let them learn to live in peace with their new neighbors.  

Moreover, and this seems obvious, the Jews of Israel are more than ready to live peacefully with Muslims and/or Arabs, but the latter refuse to live peacefully with Jews.  This isn't a land issue, it's a religious issue, and thus seemingly not open to diplomatic solutions as we, a more or less secular nation, know them.

Abby, do you really believe that Israel is the instigator of violence?  Because this view, held by many people, always leaves me baffled.  Every time Israel has moved to capture more land, it's been to buffer themselves from specific attacks.  Then they historically offer to return it if their opponents will live there peacefully.  On this they have been rebuffed again and again.

Israel moves as a nation to use force, allowing their actions to be judged by the community of nations.  Rocks against rockets?   The terrorists go into crowded pizza joints and explode bombs.  Then Arafat throws up his hands and says, "Don't blame me."  Too often, we don't.

Your comments about the greed of the airlines are thoughtful, even if you don't express them that way.  Although the larger question, of course, isn't the greediness of Big Business, but of ourselves.  If consumers demanded increased security and offered to pay higher ticket prices, the airlines would have been happy to supply it.

But, seriously, are you asking us to place matters of laxness and 'greed' against those who cold-bloodedly come to this country to use our own citizens to destroy our infrastructure?  I can't agree with you there.

Your fears that the U.S. military will "blindly" wipe out civilians is unwarrented.  No country in the history of this planet has ever evinced the sort of concern over the lives of innocents, even in enemy countries, that ours does.  This includes your comments here.  But what if -- say -- the Taliban herds their own citizens onto military or governmental grounds in an attempt to deter us from attacking them.  Do we just turn our jets around and leave?  

I quote:  "Be p**sed at the fact our government is so lax, they allow "known bin Laden associates" to learn how to fly planes in Florida. Yes Ken, WE HARBOR KNOWN TERRORISTS, TOO!!!!"

Indeed.  I haven't heard that the government knew that these folks were known associates of bin Laden.  If that's true, it's horrifying, and someone should be held accountable.  But I'm not sure I get your larger point.  Is it that we knew *these exact guys* were terrorists, and knowingly harbored them in the belief that they would only commit acts of terrorism against other countries?  Because that's what we're talking about here.

I agree that we should, to the extent possible, only seek to kill those and destroy the infrastructure of those directly and indirectly responsible for Tuesday's attack.  By your remarks I assume you support the use of assassinations, which is another way of saying "We employ limited force to kill one guy rather than trying to get him through a mass strike that kills many others."  I agree.  After bombing military and government buildings to suppress resistance, we should send in troops and kill those we can identify as the ones behind this.

Many our people talk of how we should fear provoking further violence from our opponents.  Rather, let them fear us.  They violated the rules of nations, now let them pay the price.

[GaryB]

Is just about to be made illegal in Scotland. England is expected to follow shortly.

[AndyC]

There's talk about outlawing it here in Ontario, Canada as well. It shouldn't be overused, but I think it must be an option when the situation warrants.

My point was really that some people in the middle east are in need of a paddling, on a much larger scale.

[Chadzilla]

I am not a violent man, in fact I have never been in a phsyical confrontation in my entire life, something of which I am very proud of.

Yet I would gladly enlist in the armed forces and defend my country to the death.

I AM an "AMERICAN" and proud to call myself that.

I also harbor no ill will to those fearing that any violent response will be an overreaction to this atrocious and inhumane act.  I can understand a deep and very human need to keep an 'us' apart from a 'them.'  (i.e. we will not murder thousands of innocents like they do).  To me it is an understandable and in no way a poor reflection of these individuals heartfelt beliefs that turning the other cheek, that being civil and diplomatic will somehow stop this.

It will not, however.  History has shown that time and time again.  We need to understand that certain individuals hate us, want to see us gone, erased - not just as a world power, but from the map entirely.

We also need to understand that this is not a war of communication, nor politics, nor land rights, or even big business.  It is a war of ideology.  Everyone of us needs to understand that the Fundamentalist Jihad beliefs are that we are Evil Incarnate, we are devils, not even true human beings, and that we should be eradicated.  Any group of warriors that is willing to commit suicide for their cause are to be feared and respected.  If anyone thinks that inaction or diplmoacy will solve or end this needs to understand this...these people do not want to talk, they want to kill.  We cannot ignore, or underestimate, the level of their hatred of us.

Sadly I do not believe that the events of September 11th are in anyway shape or form the ending of this.  It is simply the first attack on United States soil, but it will not be that last - irregardless of the actions our government takes.  The battle to come will be very similiar to that in Vietnam, long and apparently pointless.  Terrorist activities, now that the line as been crossed, will NO DOUBT continue in the United States.  We may well begin to live in a country where you have to check your purse, backpack, or shopping bags when entering a store, movie theater, sporting event, church...the list goes on, for these are the targets they choose.  Not the communication centers, military installations, and weapons factories that we do.  They will car bomb churches, mosques, and synagogues; suicide bombers with stroll into sporting events, may well go into crowded theaters showing Spiderman or Star Wars Episode 2, or festivals and cultural events (Mardi Gras?  Thanksgiving Day Parade?).

Whether or no not you consider yourself an American or not 'America' as a country, as an ideal, as a concept, was attacked.  All the humanitarian beliefs (irregardless of our errors and short tem mistakes) has been assaulted.  If it does not somehow fight back it will fall, slowly, painfully.  The days of it being any kind of power, holding any kind of respect in the world will be gone.  Many want this day to come, even some of our citizens seem to think this may be a good thing.  It is not.   The lifestyle that all of us have taken for granted for so long, the privileges that are sometimes confused with freedoms or rights, will be gone.  And when some despot snaps his or her fingers we, as a collective, will only jump and shake and say "Just don't hurt us, we'll do anything you say to avoid that."  The entire cultural and political landscape will change.  For a minority it will, at first, seem to be a good thing, but in the end it will mean pain and suffering, exploitation and humiliation for us all.   Please, I do not exaggerate.  The history or our entire 'civilization' (which has always been very uncivilized) points this out.

And to the individual that does not 'consider myself "American"'.  May I ask what you DO consider yourself.  What cause, belief, ideology are you willing to believe in that you would willingly and without thought lay down your life for?  If the answer to that is "There is not one worthy of it" then you will loose this fight and be forced to live under whatever regime/government/country replaces the land you quite freely (as is your right) admit to not being a part of.  You can place yourself on a self-righteous pedestal if you wish, just know that you are alone there and there will always be those in the world that will kill you for that arrogance.  Just take comfort in the idea that the government attacked, that the government mobilizing its forces at this moment, allows you the freedom to say and believe that and, if we loose (which we very well might) the one that replaces it may not.

God be with you all (even the the atheists amongst us).

Chadwick H. "Chadzilla" Saxelid