Comments on: The Death of al Qaeda’s #2: Time to Wind Down the War on Terror

By: Hamiltan R. Dewey

Hamiltan R. Dewey — Thu, 07 Jun 2012 04:10:09 +0000

Human rights first? The right of national self-defense second? Or third? Or where?

If a warped interpretation of “human rights” includes the right to plot and execute terrorist acts – then there is no place for any other rights – like defense, security or national integrity or survival.

Whose “human rights” would you have first? Why can’t the “human rights” of Americans – including the right not to be killed by terrorists – be first?

Whose rights do you want to be first?

Which right would you have to take preeminence over life, freedom, self defense?

By the very definition of “first,” nothing else can be of equal importance. Only one set of values can be “first.” Anything else is logically subordinated.

By: Jackie McDougal-Paris

Jackie McDougal-Paris — Thu, 07 Jun 2012 03:54:03 +0000

The argument that we have “won” the war on terror and should, therefore, declare victory and stop attacking the terrorists is utter nonsense. The US just killed the number 2 terrorist in the world. What about numbers 3, 4, 5….? What’s the logic here? We are finally being successful against the militant jihidist terrorists who killed 2,300 Americans on 9-11 so it’s time to quit before we start enjoying too much success? Or, the last 15 attempts to attack the US were stopped before they could be carried out; therefore, the threat is gone? To what interest has it become repugnant to protect our people from terrorist attacks? I can see the idea of military action against terrorists being repugnant only to those who believe the United States is some evil imperialist monster waging war on poor helpless jihidists in violation of their human rights. But what “human right” is higher or purer than the right of a people to defend themselves against a murderous band of cuthroats who would fly airliners into civilian targets? Terrorists with “rights?” Really? Al Queda’s Number Two is no more, thank God. Let us turn all of our resources toward Number Three!

By: Dr. Adriane Fischer

Dr. Adriane Fischer — Thu, 07 Jun 2012 03:34:00 +0000

Thomas Hayden may be right when he says that not a nation on the plant agrees with the US rationale for the war on terror, except perhaps Afghanistan and Israel. We might paraphrase thus: No nation on the planet has suffered as much at the hands of the taliban terrorists, except perhaps Afghanistan and the US. The US and Israel are the most attractive targets of jihadists. This naturally gives them more in common. The sly implication that Israel agrees with the US because we support a mutual agenda is insulting. I believe Miss Evitar writes with the worldview of an isolated third-world observer who has never been in the crosshairs of radical Muslim jihadist terrorists. I’m afraid the unfortunate truth is that terrorism is like weeds – always with us. If you want to be weed free, you’d best get accustomed to pulling weeds! When you stop, guess what happens? The weeds return.

By: Charles Roster

Charles Roster — Thu, 07 Jun 2012 01:32:51 +0000

Ms. Eviatar seems to be living in the early Twentieth Century when wars had fronts, soldiers wore uniforms and unconditional surrender meant the end of war. Those times, of course, are gone. By its very nature, terrorism is unconventional bound by no space, people, nation or timetable. To say that Al Queda is gone is like saying that a virus has become extinct. Terrorism has a strange (or natural) way of mutating, shifting, adapting and returning. Al Queda may be less operative now than it was in 9-11 but, if it is, it is because US military force and intelligence has made it that way. The moment we turn our back, the knife comes out again. The surest way to avoid another 9-11, or something far worse, is to keep the terrorists of the world impuned. Be real.