disagreeing with war on terror != agree with bin ladin
Dear Philip Galanter,
you wrote:
> The combination of this phrase and quoting "war on terror" is
> an effective piece of deadly propaganda. It leaves the
> impression the writer agrees with bin Laden and company, and
> views the western claim of self-defense against terrorism as a lie.
The first statement, that the writer agrees with Bin Ladin because he puts the "war on terror" in quotes, is just laughable. If you were up on your history, you'd know that Bin Ladin is a CIA asset, used as a tool by the Bushies to terrorize US citizens and get justification to start the war on terror in the first place.
It is impossible to "defend" an entire nation against terrorism. This war is an occupation and a diversion, and if Bush was truly interested in bringing Bin Ladin to justice, he'd be in Guantanimo already.
The chances of being a personal victim in a terrorist attack is still miniscule compared to other more common threats, such as being hit by a bus when you cross the street. The freedoms we gave up so that Bush could fight an unwinnable war are not worth it.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
