John McCain was oversold to the American people as the best choice for President based upon his status as hero during the Vietnam War.  Who would want to disparage that?  Indeed, virtually no one would.  On the other hand, voters have been looking away from entitlements and towards earned status, the type of earned status that develops apart from images and life stories without updates.  They have been asking for change to ideas not personality and for persons in politics who aren’t there just because daddy got there first, so the name is recognizable or a leg was lost in war, so government service is now guaranteed.

We must look at McCain as the tragic hero of old.  His campaign got stuck on the edge of entitlements in slogans that asked people to appreciate military victory and heroism by voting for an individual for President whose sacrifices earned that office.  The office of President, however, according to the American movement now, has to do with crisis management, charitable attitude and strength in the midst of personal and public attack.  John McCain has shown himself unable to get beyond personal ambition to examine the case for America, its need to get past the war and to manage the needs of the people, their healthcare and their economic needs.

McCain’s sense of entitlement was clearly visible on the world stage, in front of cameras, as he rolled his eyes and grimaced when his opponent, Barack Obama spoke.  He baited the extremes in America, those who suspected Barack Obama of associating with terrorists or of even being one himself.  He reached back as far as he could, to the 1960’s, to drag the names of people that have nothing to do with today’s events, names like Bill Ayers.  And he condoned the epithets and name-calling that went out over the airwaves from right-wing commentators and citizens alike, in decibels loud enough for him to hear above the adoring crowds.  How could he deny the hate he heard and allowed for the most part along the way to the final vote.  So he has been responsible for his own place in history, however that place turns out.

Entitlements was something Republicans fought against, yet during the 2008 election it was this sense of entitlement that seemed to drive McCain’s election vehicle.  Americans, however, have moved on.  People no longer believe in entitlement in quite the same way they did prior to America’s economic downturn.  They see the country in the midst of problems where everyone will have a share of the burden, just as everyone has a share of the blame.

John McCain’s candidacy came at a time when America had changed and was embracing it, and he was unaware, as were his close advisors, at how far in fact it had moved, from the days when name-calling and shrillness counted.  Voters have seen how divisions have caused government inertia and want no part of it anymore.  The person who seems centered, calm, and kind becomes the model.  The country has undergone change, even through its convulsion, a change that is unique to its history, and one that will likely make a difference in how it manages its problems, and its elections, from now on.

The revenge industry has now taken on a new dimension in that terror groups and activists will now use the news media to publish their intention to avenge. One of the headlines in the Jerusalem Post reads 'We'll soon avenge Mughniyeh's death' (Aug 22, 2008 11:23 ). Everyone knows that Hizbollah will avenge but it publishes these kinds of threats in order to keep up its image among their people as a strong advocate of the ‘downtrodden'. But in fact, who are they protecting, or indeed advocating for? To begin with Israel has denied involvement in the afore-mentioned slaying, but let's for a moment imagine that Israel did dispatch Mughniyeh. Firstly he was a valid target, since he was well known in his terror network and his death could well have prevented several bombings in Israel. If Israel was involved, their agents singled him out and surgically removed him from the picture with the only other casualties being his bodyguards.

However, Now that Hizbollah has announced that they will avenge his death, their response will most likely be against civilians in a crowded place where it is least expected. Heaven forbid that the ‘brave' Hizbollah should engage in fighting with actual soldiers! The lefty media loves to use terms like ‘disproportionate response' when writing about Israeli incursions in their hunt for terrorists, but are they going to now say that the murder of dozens of civilians out shopping is a ‘proportionate response' to the killing of one admitted terrorist and murderer. In a war neither side is going to act proportionately because they want to win the war. Germany used the Blitzkreig, and the allies flattened Hamburg not to mention the Atom Bomb on Japan.

Admittedly though, World War II was a different situation, with a lot more desperation. The League of Nations had collapsed and as yet there was no UN. Perhaps if there had been no UN in the previous Middle Eastern conflicts, then maybe the warring nations would have reached a lasting solution themselves. Instead, with the calling for ceasefires, rather than negotiating peace terms, there has just been a lull in the fighting which enables the sides to replenish supplies for their war effort. This raises yet another question, that of who makes war, and who is the international community going to recognize?

Previous wars in the Middle East were fought between Nations. Egypt, Syria, Jordan, etc attacked Israel, and Israel fought back and eventually, a ceasefire was called. Hizbollah and Hamas claim to be legitimate because the people voted for them but they have brought their people nothing but misery and bloodshed. Hizbollah started a war that they knew they couldn't win, and then they stored weapons among civilians, while hiding among their own population, and how brave is their supreme leader, he conducted the war in the Syrian Embassy Bunker. How gullible do they believe the Lebanese people are when they announced that they had defeated Israel, yet they had caused the deaths of thousands of their own people, and all they had succeeded in doing was kidnapping two Israelis and firing rockets. Everyone knows that you can bomb an enemy as much as you like but it is the infantry that wins a war.

In the light of all the news clips of terrorist training camps and facilities which show would-be terrorists going through their paces, there are some key points that are apparent. For instance in Al Qaeda stories, whenever someone is said to have been to a terrorist training camp in say Pakistan or Afghanistan, the clip always shows a boot camp kind of training regimen. What is this meant to do? Are we to believe that being in al Queda requires one to have skills like a soldier, like a Green Beret perhaps, or Delta Force? Not likely, whenever terrorist groups have come up against ‘real' soldiers they have always crumbled. Let's face it being a soldier takes more than doing a boot camp scenario in front of a willing lefty news camera. More proof that the training is for the media's consumption is clear when one imagines how difficult it is to strap on a bomb vest and pull the cord.

How many terrorist group actual members become suicide bombers? Had an Arafat, Mashaal, or Nasrallah ever lead their followers by example, there'd be much less bloodshed in the Middle East. It is one thing to tell people that they need to kill themselves and take as many of the enemy with them as possible, but it is another to do it yourself. It seems that as long as the Terrorist leaders can perpetuate the lie of oppression that they will have any number of willing saps ready to blow themselves up in this cause. The promise laid out to entice this action is the promise of 72 virgins in Paradise. But if we look at this reward it doesn't really hold any water on its own. First of all, Paradise or Heaven is a place where the elect will have sanctified bodies without the need for physical gratification or procreation. Secondly, what happens to the paradise after the martyr has had sex 72 times, there'd be no more virgins, oops! Thirdly, in the case of a female suicide bomber, is she going to get 72 male virgins, where will they find them, or will she be a pedophile? On the other hand women don't want male virgins because they lack experience. In the Bible it says "God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise" (1 Corinthians 1:27) but that is talking about shaming the unbeliever into belief. The 72 Virgins doctrine is so far off the believable, that it is approaching the ridiculous. The sad thing is that so many people will blindly believe this promise of martyrdom.

The usual catch-cry of the lefties is that when a person has no hope in the future they will resort to suicide as their only option. There is always an option. Those few, and I mean few Arabs who were living in the Biblical land of Israel when the Jews returned were offered citizenship. They instead chose treachery in an attempt to take back land that they had readily sold when it was useless desert and swampland. Therefore, the refugee problem was created by the Arabs themselves, and they refuse to reabsorb the ‘Palestinians' into their own countries. Tit for tat retribution has been the Middle Eastern way for millennia and the Semitic peoples have lived in a tenuous existence moving from war to peace to skirmish to escalation back to peace and maybe war again. Unfortunately, with the involvement of the West and mainly the bureaucratic UN in the negotiations, it tries to impose analytical Greek thought onto Middle Eastern problems which have always existed with holistic Semitic thought patterns.

Jews and Arabs of Semitic background have basically the same thought patterns, they both look at problems holistically. Jews will say, "We keep Kosher not because the food is healthier, but because it is in the Torah." Arabs will say, "Allah has willed it." Neither of these two peoples feel the need to analyze the Scripture that has just told them to do something, although many of them will do that analysis, it is not the central reason for doing. And so the failure of the West in handling the situation it has undertaken in the Middle East is apparent, in the many peace plans that have been put forward. The Road Map for one, was meant to implement concessions in parts. One side did one thing and the other side did something else, the one conceded one part and the other stopped stoning. This lead to recriminations about who was conceding more, or not conceding enough, or not keeping to the plan etc, until it became obvious that the Peace Plan, or should it be Piece Plan had failed.

This gets us back to the original subject of revenge. There would be no need for revenge attacks if there were no attacks. When I lived in Israel in 85/6 there were no attacks, no revenge. I am not a political analyst so I won't try to write about the reasons why, suffice to say that the Arab neighbors seemed happy. In fact, one Moshav I worked in leased land across the border in Jordan, and daily we would drive the tractor into Jordan to tend the fruit trees, without Passports. On the other side of Israel on Independence Day, or the Nakba as it is now called by Arabs, we ran, marathon-like from the Kibbutz ruins on the Egyptian border back to the new Kibbutz as part of the celebration while being watched and cheered by Arab residents of the Gaza Strip. Alas, that was back in the ‘good old days' and things are different now.

Now we have of terrorists who are self-styled leaders of the people. The population is told what they need, indeed what they want, or how they will achieve fulfillment. Revenge it seems is a never-ending cycle. No matter what act is perpetrated, be it shooting civilians, or blowing up buses or cafes, there is no end of murderers to be redeemed posthumously by having crimes committed in their name. The martyr being avenged is always the person who was killed while pursuing his terrorist agenda of bomb making or planning the next terror attack. The oil fortunes of the rich Arab states are a fleeting thing, and from the view of this outsider, for the Arabs to have peace and prosperity all they need to do is not more terror or weapons or bombing, but just to desire it.

Who is it then that gets to decide which groups are terrorists and what criteria are they using? This becomes increasingly confusing when you look at different militant groups from different regions and eras. For example, what differences are there between Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shi’a Islamic political and paramilitary organisation, and the French Resistance, which formed during the Second World War to fight against the Nazi occupation?

Both are or were national movements defending their sovereign territory from foreign occupation. Both used similar tactics of assassinations and bombings which are considered to be terrorist tactics of ‘unlawful violence’ as opposed to ‘lawful acts of war’ according to those who attempt to define it. The only real difference between the two is the use by Hezbollah of suicide attacks; a concept quite alien to European and American culture although they themselves have histories of human sacrifice for national causes.

Maybe then it is not such much what you do as who you know? Hezbollah is a sworn enemy of Israel, who in turn is a close ally of the USA and who in turn is a close ally of the UK. Strangely enough these three countries account for three of the six which consider it to be a terrorist organisation.

Hezbollah is also supported by Iran and Syria neither of which is likely to be invited to a White House garden party any time soon. It would seem an obvious conclusion that this more then anything helped Hezbollah achieve terrorist group status.

By labelling a group or organisation as terrorists you seek to undermine the legitimacy of their cause, depicting them as immoral or unjustified. Whoever uses the term is aligning themselves to a particular side. Quite simply in its modern day usage anyone who uses violence against you is a terrorist whatever their purpose or ideology. The Palestinians fire rockets or launch a suicide attack against Israel and are denounced by the Israelis as terrorists. The Israelis respond by bulldozing refugee’s homes and killing civilians in military attacks and are in return also denounced as terrorists by the Palestinians.

All acts of violence are intended to terrorise and intimidate people so surely anyone who engages in violence is a terrorist. Once terrorism was seen as an attack on Governments and society but now we have state-sponsored terrorism and entire countries condemned as terrorists. Where is the dividing line between ‘unlawful violence’ and ‘legitimate acts of war’ when civilians are killed in order to liberate them and governments indulge in kidnapping and torture, although now re-branded as extra-ordinary rendition, and detain people for years without trial.

Has a word that is liberally used to conduct wars and violate international law now lost all its meaning since it was first coined to describe the nineteenth century anarchists who embraced its label? It is easy to understand why the notion of a war on terror or terrorism is highly controversial to some people. There is no tangible enemy in a war on terrorism, when anyone who is an enemy is also a terrorist. It gives governments a license to attack anyone for any reason and then to use terrorism as an excuse to hide their truer hidden motives.

where is this country heading? Maybe in the phillipines, that is where the tech support guy was located for my internet.  we talk about being in the hole , well jobs that should be here are there. the owner of that companies pocket is getting fat, the unemployment line is getting fat the check getting skinny, Philippines getting our money.and how may other businesses doin the same thing? we don't want to forget all these companies being bailed out also.

lets go back eight years, bush was elected, yes the ecomy is crashing but who is to blame,how much did 9-11-01 cost? first and foremost the most valuable asset human lives,now figure the actual dollar amount , i couldn't tell you ,can you tell me , as we are still spending on it.and should be .how many attacks in one day,over the past 8 years can you tell me how many disasters, hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, fires, earthquakes, droughts?

I honestly don't remember ,when any president had so much to deal with in 8 years , all of the disasters above cost,and while that tab is going.the social security and welfare checks are still being paid, someone did something right at one point or round 2 would never have been.these are my thoughts.

First the Resources.  We aren't stopping at anything to provide power, no matter what it fuels.  Britain got what it needed no matter what, they didn't even stop when they saw that still buying resources from Colonists was fueling a rebelion.  Same with America, if we could just stop buying oil from the middle east we could cut off a big flow of money to terrorists but our oil is far to precious to do that.  Also not as much a problem for the British but we are destroying our planet with our consumption of resources and we continue, just to power our precious nation, giving not a thought to the rest of the world.

Although it is understandable and has been done thorugh history, we continue to wage war on threats.  It is not that big of a deal because it needed to be done but as soon as we see a threat and they dont cooperate we send out troops.  Britain did the same thing like in America and India and Africa, that was too keep territory.  America does it for self protection, which although it is a good reason, is a indication to bigger similarity.  Everybody hates us.  With a few exceptions, Britain and Ameica are widely hated because of how we are handling things.  This wouldn't be as big of a deal if Britain had been a democracy, but it was an empire, so we are obviously doing something the same.

The Last and biggest reason is that America has troops spread over the world protecting out interests.  In the middle east is the largest concentration of troops, and this is all about oil.  If we let terrorist go freely, they will either attack our supplies of oil or somehow shut it off and if that happens it's the end of the world, at least thats what are actions say we think.  Britain had troops in Africa, India and America all to protect their interests like territory, saltpeter and more territory.

If you look at the similarities it's pretty ahrd to deny that America isn't an Empire.  Even if you can deny it you can't say we're not headed in that direction.

Now fast-forward a few years. Why is it that I can turn on the television and see people whining about the conditions of the prisons were terrorists are being held? I am sorry, maybe I am a bad man for feeling this way, but the members of Bin Laden's little group can suffer for all that I care. Who is speaking up for the conditions that the innocent Americans suffered who were in the Twin Towers, aboard the planes, or inside the Pentagon? What about the families' that lost their husbands, wives, children, sons, and daughters in the horrible events of that one day.

When Bill Clinton wanted to take out Osama, he had opposition all over from people that “WE” elected, and then we want to give him hell for not taking action. G.W. may not have made all of the right decisions, but the man at least did “something”. I hear people criticizing the man for not causing a stir in that children's classroom when he got the news. Would people have been happier if he had shouted to those poor children that thousands of people were just murdered, now sleep tight and don't let the terrorists bit.

September 11th was an unprecedented attack on the United States of America. That attack should have brought us all together, but far too many people have used the events for fame and profit. Thousands of people were murdered that day, THOUSANDS. And if you think I am going to care if a suspected terrorist gets to watch TV in his cell, you're out of your damned mind. Those in the prisons, suspected of being terrorists, are not burning to death or being crushed to death as a building collapses on them, so I think they are doing a lot better than their victims.

Look, War has never been a pretty thing, not in any sense of the word. You will never see the media enter the towns in Iraq where the people cheer them and are happy that the Americans are there. The fact is that “Suffering is ratings.” It is the truth. Now, a lot of people want us to pull out of the War on Terror and just walk away, to just bring the men and women of the military home. How about you just wrap the Middle East in a big red bow with a gift tag that say, “To Osama, From Santa.”

I am neither Pro-Bush nor Anti-War, but I believe that something has got to be done so that we continue to stay safe. George Bush is our President, and though so many people have nothing better than to complain about him, someone voted him into office. London has been attacked since we were, but we have not. You will never make me believe that those overseas have just given up on harming Americans.

I don't believe that every decision that has been made regarding the War on Terror has been the correct one. But if the Republicans and the Democrats would stop squabbling and work together, maybe this conflict would have been handled in a much better way. Maybe if there was less squabbling this damn war might just be over.

I don't know about you, but I have spoken with soldiers, male and female, and every one of those that I have spoken with believe in what they are doing in Iraq. Saddam murdered so many people, and I have to hear that we never should have gone there. When I hear that, all I hear is, “We should have let him go on killing thousands and thousands of innocent people.”

I believe that we should have finished the job in Afghanistan before Iraq, However, I do believe that we will never be able to totally pull out of that region and remain safe on our own soil. I am no expert, nor will I ever claim to be, but I am an American and that entitles me to an opinion. There are countries in this world that you could be murdered for having your own opinion, and that is sickening to me. Our boys and girls in uniform are out there fighting to keep us safe on our own soil. They are keeping us from ever having to live through another day like September 11, 2001.

How about we remember those victims from that day then next time we decide to worry about the conditions of the cells of terrorists? Do you really think that Osama Bin Laden would give a damn about the conditions that our American brothers and sisters had on that day of the worst attack against us?

War is not a pretty thing, nor is it an exact science. There is a reason for the War on Terror, and it is to keep us safe on our home soil. Our freedom is a gift, and if we wish to keep that freedom, and remain safe, we just might have to kick some ass.

If those and other catastrophes aren't enough to keep you up at night, try this one: we are living through the beginning of the “End of Western Civilization.” Did you ever wonder what the good intentioned Romans were doing during the “Fall” part of the “Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire?” They were probably mowing their lawns, going to games at the coliseum: Christians vs. the lions, and other activities Romans did in their spare time. They might even have spent time in local houses of worship, doing whatever they did to appease all the gods they needed to appease.

While the Roman's attention was on appeasement, the infidels were sneaking over the borders, making off with their chickens, geese and camels. Then when no resistance was offered, groups of infidels made off with their chariots, Gucci loafers, and more stuff that really counted. Soon hoards of infidels were destroying embassies, sinking ships and blowing up Marine barracks. By the time Roman authorities figured out what was going on they couldn't tell the good guys from the bad guys, they were surrounded and it was all over.

Let's say the U.S. has the mightiest armed force in the world, which arguably it has, so only a fool, or a fanatic who doesn't care, would try to take us head on. Some obscure group can declare war on us, as if we should even notice, blow-up a few embassies, a marine barracks, a naval vessel, and take out a few more Americans without much notice. The finale was, of course, the destruction of the World Trade Center with the most improbable and outlandish plan which could not have succeeded in a million years. Except it was successful and almost 3,000 people died horrible deaths because we were too arrogant to believe anyone could or would.

Our mighty intelligence services were awakened to the reality that there is a world wide “conspiracy” out there to “get us.” Several of our Western allies were awoken to find they are surrounded and infiltrated by millions of “moderate” cousins of the bomb throwers, who by the way, have a tendency to riot when they can't share the benefits of the Westerners. What then are we to do? After the Revolutionary War, we threw the Loyalists out of the country and sent them packing to Canada, as if that accomplished anything. In World War II, we locked up the Japanese in internment camps on the West Coast, and have been paying for it ever since. What can we do with all those “peace loving” Muslims out there whose interpretation of the Koran is benign, at least most of them, we think, hopefully.

In a free society like ours, enlightened, and respectful of the civil liberties of its' diverse population, we are seriously limited, almost to the point of self-emollition. Law enforcement can try to watch the obvious trouble-makers, but terrorists like those responsible for September 11th didn't attract much attention. Hopefully, things are different now.

Civil Libertarians object for good reason when in the name of national survival, our liberties are curtailed. In the midst of reacting to a national calamity like September 11th, it is understandable how actions deemed necessary for protection of the homeland against an unknown enemy, are considered necessary.

If the pendulum swings too far one way, then it is necessary to realign and find a new balance point, with national security as the fulcrum. If it means that some civil liberties must be redefined in view of new security concerns, it doesn't necessarily mean that the Republic is going to fail, but that it will survive if we are smart and quick enough. Civil libertarians must remain vigilant and when steps are taken that appear to violate our civil rights; they must bring them to attention of the populous. They must also recognize that some rights may have to be redefined and incorporated into the legal code to protect us from new kinds of threats.

1. Islam says that you should do no wars, jihad is only permit table in a situation where the other people are attacking you first, you can't just guess "Oh man! USA has nukes, they're gonna kill us." Same thing goes for the US, "Oh man, Iran has nukes! They're a threat!"
2. Do you really think all Muslims are terrorists? Well if you do you're wrong! There are a lot of Muslims in the US, so why aren't we in underground shelters right now?
3. Ok, there is an ayah in the Quran that says "Kill all kuffars(non-Muslims)", but to get the whole idea, you must actually read the whole thing. The whole ayah say "On the battlefield, kill all your enemies,but, if they surrender, give them security and teach them about Islam.If they want to become a Muslim, make them one. But, if they don't, take them to a place of peace and drop them off."Racists and Islam haters have cut off the" kill all your enemies part" and replaced "enemies" with "kuffars". Tall Tales!
4. We don't really care which religion you are, if you are a good person we will respect you. The coach of the Pakistan Cricket Team (who by the way stinks! now without him), was a Christian from UK. Unfortunately, he died of a heart attack. So yeah.
5. The hijab(the black veil Muslim women wear) Do you really think they wear that for no reason? It protects them from men(rape). If a man can't see a woman, why will he rape her?

That is pretty much all. I think you have a better view of Islam now!

The usual result of a terrorist hijacking was they had the plane flown somewhere, it sat out on the tarmac and they made their demands. Scores of television crews would arrive to cover the negotiations - a ruse played out only long enough to make it a newsworthy event for all involved - then the soldiers or commandos or whatever would swing into action, releasing all (or most) of the hostages (sometimes these things got nasty) and kill all the terrorists. This scenario worked rather well, for a while. The terrorists got to proclaim their grievances, the news media got to improve their ratings and the S.W.A.T. teams got to strut their stuff, and pretty well everybody got to live - except the terrorists, whose leaders were noticing that their ranks were diminishing somewhat. So they invented something new: the absentee terrorist! The object became not simply to hijack the plane, but to blow it out of the sky.

How do you prevent such a thing?

Sometimes the most effective solutions are those that are hidden in plain sight. You know those contraptions they send your luggage through - the stuff you intend to take on the plane with you? What they have to do is to make those things bigger - like the containers on the bomb disposal trucks. In fact, that's what we're talking about here. What happens is this: they send your belongings though this device, which would contain some ultra-high frequency signal, guaranteed to set off anything explosive. I'm pretty sure they must have that sort of thing. If they don't, then there is a huge incentive to invent one. We're talking millions of dollars worth of airplane, not to mention passengers with potential millions of dollars worth of lawsuits. All the big luggage and cargo should go through, also. In fact, you really can't tell about the passengers, either, so they should take a walk through, as well - single file, one at a time. You don't want to get the innocents, but it would be no loss if you blew up a bad guy. It would certainly guarantee his early departure. Kind of preferential treatment, if you will.

In the event that this method of bomb and weapon control is running ahead of modern sensibilities, there is a “Plan B”: all luggage - every last bit of it - is sent by another plane. Cargo only! That way, if anything blows up, collateral damage is kept to a minimum. Of course, it will create inconvenience and probably delays, but most airlines specialize in that already, so it's nothing new. If anything, it is, in fact, more efficient, because now you will know in advance that your luggage is headed for some place entirely different from where you are. And that could be Kingdom Come!