No one said they were not. Least of all me.

If they are, they're getting a lesson in how to get their ass handed to them and slink away. Recent dispatches have indicated that foreign fighters have had it... without the means or opportunity to off a few dozen infidels, they are going home disgusted.

Philosophy is not action.

Right, action produces results, philosophy produces hot air.

OHRLY... give us all a friggin break on that one already. 9/11 was philosophy in action and the perps have had their asses handed to them one at a time.

You're right, it was philosophy in action...

...and the only freedoms that it threatened were the freedoms Bush took away when it happened.

What about the close to 3,000 people that had their freedom permanently taken away on 9/11 due to philosophy in action?

We had a very limited presence in the 'holy land' (Saudi Arabia) prior to 9/11. Mostly a small squadron out of Prince Sultan Air Base. Very little interaction with local population. Although there was/is the presence of western businessmen and their families. Even if the US had removed the small military presence in Saudi, that would not have been enough. Furthermore, stated aims of al-Qaeda :
1. To drive Americans and American influence out of all Muslim nations (especially Saudi Arabia) - the US government cannot control the influence of American media and businessmen in the Middle East;
2. Destroy Israel - were not going to allow that to happen;
3. Topple pro-Western dictatorships around the Middle East - again, not going to allow this.
Osama Bin Laden has also said that he wishes to unite all Muslims and establish, by force if necessary, an Islamic nation adhering to the rule of the first Caliphs. At a minimum, he wants the 'traditional' Islamic nations (those that were under Islamic control in the 8th century) to become one - to include north Africa and portions of southern Europe, such as portions of Spain.

I do believe there will be some diminishment of their recruiting if we get the military out of the Middle East. But that still does not solve American influence (political, economic, social) on the region. They attacked us with a handful of faithful believers, causing immense damage, when our military presence was minimal. So how will removing our military presence now change the mindset of the extremists?

Why did they repeatedly attack the U.S. again? Did they really think we would let them attack us, especially here on our soil, and not respond?
It is very clear that they want everyone and anyone who is not "like them," dead and gone.

a) It is terribly obvious. Without any disrespect, this is not even worth asking, let alone answering.

b) Dana - You have got to be drunk, high or kidding.

In other words, no freedoms removed at all. I've been living right here, in these United States since September 2001, and can you say the same? Not one freedom have I lost, nor am I likely to lose one. Same thing for you, particularly once you come to man's estate. Even Bill Clinton, great friend of the Bill of Rights that he was, couldn't manage taking freedoms and rights away -- though not for want of effort.

I'm beginning to think that if DanaC is a fair example of European leftist opinion on the matter, then Dick Cheney was right about Old Europe: they really are exhausted, vitiated, and quite helpless in this clash, and we ought not to expect much help from that quarter winning the war against a lot of shitheaded antidemocratic bigots.

How about the freedom not to have a recession and a war simultaneously? He sure took that away for all Americans. Wars usually solve recessions, not trigger them.

BS. recessions are part of the economic cycle that is constantly in motion. concurrent existence is not evidence of cause and effect.

Fuck you UG, tell that to the many British soldiers who've lost their lives during this war and who continue to fight in Afghanistan. I might add that the action in Afghanistan is something I can genuinely see the point of, since that's where the terrorists who attacked America were/are based.

And I'm beginning to think that the 'Old America' thinking you seem to be promoting is going to get my son killed in the future.

I think it was very nice of the British to help out in Afghanistan and very stupid of them to help us in Iraq. Personally, if our positions were reversed, I would have had no problem with an American president contributing a small portion of the forces in Afghanistan. Heck, we did it in the Balkans. But if Blair had made the arguments that Bush had made and asked us to back a British invasion of Iraq, I'd like to think any US president other than GWB would have been smart enough to decline.

Sometimes I think there should be an IgNobel prize, a kind of anti-Nobel prize similar to the Razzies versus the Oscars. Someplace to recognize the truly worst accomplishments in politics, arts, science, etc.

I have a few suggestions for charter recipients.

Not all of Berkeley agrees with the city council.