I expect that this person would be easily persuaded to bomb an "abortion clinic", given the proper enticements. We are not talking about rational people, on either side. And, Bush fits into that same category: I do not consider him rational. And, he seems to be deteriorating before our eyes. The use of "mentally deranged assassins" is not reserved for the enemy.

peace,

st john

Don't bother: you're not dealing with a rational adult.

I'm guessin you look a lot like Cindy Sheehan, right?

I'm not a man. Do you assume that everyone who disagrees with you or who points out the errors in your arguements is gay? Or is just people at Salon that you think are gay Believe me, manly man, I have no crush on you. I save my crushes for men who make sense and aren't blithering idiots.

I think you may have a crush on me. You're kind of like the boy who pulls the girls pigtails because he really likes her. I don't mean to break your heart, but I am in a committed hetero relationship. Sorry, I don't swing that way. Don't worry, I'm sure you'll find that special man someday.

The sourcing still sucks. No one is saying that terrorists are not bad people. Try to fix on that one idea OK? Concentrate . . . got it? Good! My point, which you seem to be wilfully ignoring, was with your original post. Yes, terrorists are bad people but invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 (remember 9/11 - the day that started all this?) and bringing the terrorists where they weren't before is NOT the way to go about combatting those nasty terrorists. Also, perhaps you've heard this one, 2 wrongs don't make a right. We're supposed to be better than them, remember? People like you look at Abu Ghraib and think what happened there was just fine because the terrorists do worse. You have no sense of honor, no sense of what this country is supposed to stand for. People like you are what make other countries, countries that should be our allies, hesitant to help us. The US under the Chimp-in-Chief cannot be trusted. He had most of the country's and the world's support going into Aghanistan and he squandered it like it was worthless. Had we remained there and tried to succeed at that, think what a different place we would be in now. But no, the Shrub and his supporters like you, had to haul everyone into Iraq and completely fuck it up. Now that we have brought the terrorists to Iraq and given them a whole country to fight us in, people like you run around screaming about how horrible the terrorists are. What did you expect? Do you really think we have a snowball's chance in hell of winning a guerilla war? Did Vietnam teach you nothing? You can't scream about how terrible the terrorists are until you're ready to admit and rectify your own deeds of terrorism - like invading a sovereign nation and completely dismantling its society, traditions, and infrastructure. If someone did that here - how far would you go stop them? You can't say until you've experienced it. What the terrorists did with the 2 women suicide bombers was reprehensible, even if they weren't disabled, but still no one is saying we're worse than them. Yet you come into Salon and practically call everyone a traitor. Where do you get that? This is why you're a troll and not really worth anymore of my time today.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/02/01/iraq.main/index.html

Goes into more detail.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22945797/

This one says that they suffered from Down Syndrome.

Apparently the bombs were activated by remote control, so somebody strapped bombs to them, probably against their will, had them go in a crowd and blew them up.

These are the kind of people we are up against. What about the kid that had a vest full of explosives put on him and told to go in a crowd, but instead got it off and told US soldiers about it? How about the failed assassination attempt on Bhutto that was a BABY RIGGED WITH A BOMB???

This is the kind of stuff people should be railing against, not whether an enemy combatant got his toes stepped on. SOMEBODY has to fight these people, who are the epitomy of evil, and apparently the rest of the world is too pussyfooted to do it. So once again, the US is forced to.

We can't even get other countries to contribute enough soldiers to the fight in Afghanistan. Were we not justified going in there atleast?

Kind of mushy, don't you think? Kind of like hearsay? How do these people know these women were mentally disabled? What was the extent of their disability? Did they not know what they were doing? I'm not saying it couldn't be true - terrorists are nasty people. But, pretty slim sourcing and I would expect better reporting from the BBC. It certainly is not enough to go around shrilling "Who's the bad guy now? Huh? Huh?" Especially when the War Room article made no mention of the US invasion and occupation. Get a grip. If you really want to hear what Iraqi's think of what is going on and what their daily lives are like I refer you to McClatchy's blog "Inside Iraq." http://www.washingtonbureau.typepad.com/iraq/ And in the future, please try to wrap your little troll brain around the concept that criticism of the US and the moron heading it up does not automaticlly translate to a pro-terrorist stance.

Now, call upstairs to your mom and ask her to make you some hot cocoa to calm your nerves . . .

Boy, that's a new one. I guess the perfectly sane bombers have some competition. How about quasi-leaders that start preemptive wars based on lies and fear mongering? Where does that type of person fit in the sane/insane line-up of those running any country?

How about presidential candidates who sing "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" ? Like they have their ducks in a row? What kind of nation has leaders and wanna-be leaders that mentally disabled doing running the country here?