pinions of buddy don: is our gummint larnin?

i been beatin the drum bout how the war name of gwot (rimes with snot) is really one bout cunvintsin folks not to use the tacktick of blowin up innocent folks to try to git yer point across, whutever it mite be.

that last clawz -- whutever it mite be -- is the one that matters. ifn we caint figger out the real reason a bidy wood sacrifice his or her own life in order to kill a bunch of innocent folk, then how kin we cunvints folks not to doot? ye mite say that tiz obveeus how ye orta not kill innocent folk, witch tiz purty clear ye orta not do that.

but folks keeps on a'doin it. seems to me lack we dont even try to understand whut kinda recrootment n motivayshun thar side is a'usin to cunvints folks to use that tacktick.

i red a cuple grate bits of ritin on that topick in the las few days. furstns a letter to the editor of the boston globe name of Heed Osama's specific goals writ by a feller frum knoxvull name of allan morgan (dont fergit that the author of a letter dont git to pick the hedline). mr morgan makes this mane point:

... although Osama bin Laden is undoubtedly offended by the gross materialism and decadence of Western secular capitalism, and although he skillfully uses the moral zealotry of Islam to forward his agenda, his agenda is quite straightforward and is not based on some categorical imperative to stamp out Western civilization and its freedoms.
...
The United States may not like his agenda, but if we are to deal successfully with bin Laden's aggression, we would do well to understand his agenda rather than, in our own self-righteousness, simply brand him as a terrorist wishing to do us all in.

he noted that osamas published agenda includes thangs lack:

• gittin u.s. military forces out of the arabian peninsula
• gittin all westurn armies outta arab cuntries includin iraq n afghanistan
• gittin the u.s. to quit supporting arab regimes that mistreats its own folks, lack we used to do with saddam is ownself whenever raygun wuz presdint or lack we dun with the shah of iran or even with them saudis>
• corse, they wonta destroy israel (thatn should be knowd by all)

mayhap we kin win this thang be pertendin they attack us on a counta how we are free n have demockrussy, but as ye could see on 7/7, folks born n bred to that verr same freedum n demockrussy, citizens of our number one ally, the u.k., even such folks kin be cunvintsed to use the tacktick of terrism.

seems to me lack the centrul frunt in the gwot is a lot biggern iraq!

but i caint say it no better this feller Charley Reese dun in a articull name of Nobody's Fault. heres a bit of whut he writ, witch ye orta read the hole thang:

... to avoid any share of responsibility whatsoever, both Bush and Blair propagate the line that terrorists are complete nut cases acting purely irrationally because of crazy hatred of our wealth and freedom. This is particularly clever political propaganda since it asserts that we are hated, not for our faults, but for our very virtues.

It's pure hogwash, of course. Anyone who knows anything about the Middle East and terrorism knows that nearly all of the terrorist leaders are university-educated and come from middle-class to upper-class families. Why would bin Laden, himself a multimillionaire, hate wealth? Why would a man who freely chose a life of hardship when he could have been a decadent playboy despise freedom? Bin Laden fought for the freedom of Afghanistan. For whose freedom have Bush and Blair ever fought?

Bin Laden is certainly one of terrorism's wordiest leaders, but in all his speeches and messages of which I'm aware, he's never criticized wealth or freedom. He has been quite specific. He wants the U.S. military presence in the Persian Gulf ended. He criticizes our support for Arab dictators and for Israeli abuses of Palestinians. He wants us out of the Persian Gulf, and he wants an end to Israel.

Now, acknowledging what he believes is not agreeing with him. You can agree or disagree, but it is both stupid and dishonest to deny that bin Laden believes what bin Laden says.

corse, we could jes ignore the reasons thar attackin n putt our soljers into impossibull situwayshuns, witch ye kin read all about that in todays l.a. times articull name of Shots to the Heart of Iraq; Innocent civilians, including people who are considered vital to building democracy, are increasingly being killed by U.S. troops writ by richard c. paddock:

U.S. officials have repeatedly declined requests to disclose the number of civilians killed in such incidents. Police in Baghdad say they have received reports that U.S. forces killed 33 unarmed civilians and injured 45 in the capital between May 1 and July 12 — an average of nearly one fatality every two days. This does not include incidents that occurred elsewhere in the country or were not reported to the police.

The continued shooting of civilians is fueling a growing dislike of the United States and undermining efforts to convince the public that American soldiers are here to help. The victims have included doctors, journalists, a professor — the kind of people the U.S. is counting on to help build an open and democratic society.

"Of course the shootings will increase support for the opposition," said Farraji, 49, who was named a police general with U.S. approval. "The hatred of the Americans has increased. I myself hate them."

Among the biggest threats U.S. forces face are suicide attacks. Soldiers are exposed as they stand watch at checkpoints or ride on patrol in the turrets of their Humvees. The willingness of the assailants to die makes the attacks difficult to guard against. By their nature, the bombings erode the troops' trust of the public; every civilian becomes suspect.

U.S. military officials say the troops must protect themselves by shooting the driver of any suspicious vehicle before it reaches them.

Heavily armed private security contractors, who number in the tens of thousands, also are authorized by the U.S. government to use deadly force to protect themselves.

One contractor who works for the U.S. government and saw a colleague killed in a suicide bombing said it was better to shoot an innocent person than to risk being killed.

"I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by six," said the contractor, who insisted that he not be identified by name because he was not authorized to speak to the media.

read the hole articull. tiz a scary place fer our troops to be. looks lack nuthin they kin do is a'gone be cunsidderd rite. taint fair to em.

speakin of unfair to em, heres a cuple more articulls bout the gwot, a war that dont need no sacrifice frum innybidy that dont volunteer fer it:

The Best Army We Can Buy.

Uniform Sacrifice