First, liberals said there was no terrorism. then they said actually bush did it all. now they say by fighting terror we are letting bin laden win. Just like we let hitler win, too. Ever since the US was attacked by a group of non whites, non westerners, non liberals, western liberals have been racking their brains trying to justify the attacks, trying to excuse them, trying to make out that it is the west's fault, trying to make out that the enemy is progressive and liberal, even. if only we could respond in the right way, if only we could make them love us, if only we could give them what they want, if only, if only. maybe if we did not defend ourselves, they would stop and become peaceful. If the US had been attacked by a group of white neo nazis no one would think like this. but since they are not white not western and not judeo christian, all the liberal emphasis is on how we can somehow make them nice. one thing that liberals never consider is if the enemy is so superior to us, as liberals believe, why don't they take liberal advice and calmly negotiate. they could say look, all you have to do is wipe out israel and convert to islam. are you willing? then when we say not they will know where we stand. but if liberals have their way, we will say yes

So inexplicable was their suicidal behavior that observers thought they must be high on hashish -- hence their name, Assassins.

This doesn't match what I have read about this group. What I've read is that hashish was used along with some theatrical smoke and mirrors to make new recruits believe they'd been given a night in Paradise.

The recruits, once impressed by the high and the illusions created by the recruiters, were not allowed to use hashish again, otherwise they'd realize they'd been tricked, and hadn't really spent a night in Paradise

However, we could both be wrong. Here's what is says in Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hassan-i-Sabah

The theories of Hassan being associated with Hashish are, at best, debatable. Furthermore there have emerged traces that there was a name given to Alamut by the people with Nizarī leanings: al-Assas "the Base". It was the base for all operations that Hassan wished to effect. Members of al-Assas were known as al-Assasīn.

Nobody ever checks marijuana facts. I don't think the New York Times or LA Times would have bothered to check this fact either.

So you're probably wrong, but at least you're in good company!

The author, in analyzing the Islamo-fascist groups that enable the terrorists made a grave mistake in thinking that:

"Third, its purpose is not to defeat the enemy but to send a message."

The Islamo-fascists DO want to defeat us -- by either converting us to Islam or killing us. They will not negotiate. With these people it is simply kill or be killed. Total elimination of Islamo-fascists in this case is not unwarranted. Even if it results in a form of genocide.

Come back when you've read the article and have pulled your head out of your ass. I don't particularly want to be blown up by somebody with a backpack and an ideology, and I'm sure you don't either. The question becomes then, how can we stop terrorists now and how can we prevent more people from wanting to join them in the future? Bush has had four years now to try to answer that question, and his approach has failed miserably on all accounts. It's time for a change--as was noted in the article, the question is not who is "soft" on terrorism, but who is effective when it comes to combatting it.

Good grief. If accepting terms like Islamo-fascist, debates over historical marijuana facts and liberal labels are all that some readers got from this article, I think we have little chance of overcoming much of anything here. We aren't likely to prevail in the war on terror or any other conflict.

Hash in Arabic means to crush or smash. Hashem is a common name for a Muslim man. He will crush the enemies of Islam, I think that's the basic idea.

Hashish is so called because it consists of the resin glands of the cannabis plant, crushed or smashed into a ball or a slab or some other distinctive shape.

A hashishin in Afghanistan is a man who is skilled in the traditional ways of making hashish.

I don't see why the word hashishin would have evolved into assassin, since the name Hashem did not evolve into Assem.

Besides, even if the word assassin did come from the root hash, it would probably have referred to the crushing of the enemies of the sect, rather than the crushing of the resin glands of the cannabis plant.

The more I think about it, the more it seems doubtful that assassin has anything to do with hashish.

It makes a nice lurid myth, though, doesn't it?

Journalists and academics often don't check facts or think things through logically when cannabis is involved, I noticed. It's like society has placed cannabis into a category that's beyond mere fact.

The author says: "As the midterm elections approach, the Bush administration has launched its latest propaganda campaign, claiming that it is our Churchillian duty to fight the menace of 'Islamofascism'"

My question is- when do we take on the 'Christofascists' running our own country?

Of course we can't win the "War on Terror."

Only an idiot or someone who is extremely deluded (or in our president's case, both) would think this "war" could ever be "won."

The idea is so nonsensical on its face, there is no point even refuting it.

So now some genius wrote a book "explaining" this?

Give me a fucking break.

> Muslim rage, driven by U.S. policies ranging from

> coziness with autocratic Arab regimes to support for

> Israel, as well as by socioreligious frustrations that

> U.S. policies had nothing to do with, had been building

> for years.

This formulation is at least 60% misleading. Islamist rage at US coziness with Arab governments is not that they're autocratic, but that they're *jaaliya* apostate regimes which are not truly subordinated to Islam. Islamist rage over support for Israel is not that we approve of Sharon or expanding settlements, but that we support Israel's right to exist. Both points are explicitly, consistently made by Islamists, over and over again, but the author, along with Gary, once again engage in mirror-imaging in the hopes that apocalyptic nihilists can be, well, appeased.

Oh yeah, news flash: Al Qaeda just declared war on France:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060914/ap_on_re_eu/france_al_qaida_video

Maybe I should have just posted that link, seems like it would refute the whole book. And Gary's fawning over it.