RoR: Forum

Orion,

Your authoritarianism is disturbing. And your attempt to wrap it around the Constitution reveals your ignorance of what the Constitution means. The First Amendment to the Bill of Rights specifically prohibits the government from outlawing any religious establishment or religious speech. To say that "Islam is unconstitutional" is to turn the Constitution upside down.

The U.S. is one of the only countries in the world where one can express his religious and political views freely (for the most part). In much of Europe, you can't express your views if they are too unpopular. You can't make racist remarks or anti-Islam remarks. In the U.S., the most unpopular and most despicable sorts of people are permitted to exist and express themselves. It's not illegal to join the Ku Klux Klan. Neo-Nazis are just as free to parade down main street as anyone else. And that's the way it should be in a free society.

Your desire to ban religions and your sympathy toward Hitleresque exterminations of entire populations of undesirable races makes me wonder whether you'd be more at home in a neo-Nazi forum. (Professor John Lewis suggestd the extermination of a particular variety of "beetle" for being beetles -- for being collectively guilty by virtue of race/ethnicity, regardless of whether as individuals most of them committed no harm. The Nazis compared the Jews to rats. It's the same sick mentality, but it's more utterly shocking to hear it being spewed from someone who claims some allegiance to an individualist philosophy.)

-Logan

Post 141

Tuesday, June 8, 2004 - 12:08pm

Logan,

You are false to equate racist remarks with anti-Islam remarks.

Race is biology... unchoosable, irrelevant to the character of a person. Islam is a philosophy, to be chosen and integrated into the life of an individual or a culture.

What you seek to do, is to "righteously" defend an ideology which desires only the most horrific annihilation of all other ideologies, and possibly even those which are adaptively advantageous. By defending the right of true Islam to practice in this country, you are against religious freedom, not for it. You ultimately work for an Islam-only country.

Islam is unconstitutional, as it is a religion which employs a Trojan Horse strategy of openly calling for the destruction of all other religions, in a nation that grants freedom of religion. Islam was never intentionally designed to sneak past the constitutional barriers of the United States and overtake the country from within, as the U.S. did not exist when it was created, yet through sheer coincidence, it has been doing the job perfectly all along.

You speak of those who advocate Nazism, authoritarianism, and totalitarianism. Well, unbeknownst to you, that person is you, not I. To try and cast me in that role is presumptuously hasty and perhaps other things, which are much worse.

By seeking to defend as "shining diversity" a religion whose true form is absolute tyranny and terror, you are knowingly or unknowingly aiding and abetting these people.

Under different circumstances, you might also have advocated that communism should have been allowed to operate within the United States, untouched. The only difference is that Islam calls itself a religion, and communism did not.

In light of present circumstances, perhaps the downfall of communism in the United States was that it did not declare itself a religion. Had it done so, we might never have been able to address it in this country.

And by your own inner logic, you would likely have been here in this forum, attacking and denouncing me as the "ultimate evil" for daring to want to deal with communism.

What do I suggest as an alternative to all of this? Revise the constitution, so that only those religions who honor the freedom of all other religions to exist, are allowed in this country. Now, THAT is the defense of freedom.

In terms of religions, I personally rebuke them in my own life. As far as I'm concerned, religions are dishonest institutions, who only appeal to people who desire to be treated as cattle, and those who desire to be cattle-ranchers. Maybe all their intentions are sinister or benevolent; I don't care. The point is, I have no desire to be on either end of that sad little dipole.

At any rate, however, beyond simply the range of vision that only extends to the length of my nose, I'm the one who's pinching my nose and truly advocating the conditions of religious freedom here, not you.

(Edited by Orion Reasoner on 6/08, 12:20pm)

Post 142

Tuesday, June 8, 2004 - 4:03pm

How was communism "dealt with" in the U.S.? (aside from the farcical HUAC hearings and the "McCarthy Era") As far as I know, you can be the most raging pinko on earth and live quite prosperously in America. Nazis likewise are tolerated, as were the Black Panthers and certainly the KKK. All of these "institutions" call for the downfall in one way or another of not just the American way of life, but the government itself. And they all are tolerated, so long as they don't raise an overt fist against the government or other people. Islam should be no different. If a particular Islamic organization takes up arms against America, within America, that organization should be dealt with, and harshly. But in no way should that lead to a stamping-out of Islam nationwide. Of course we don't agree with Islam. Of course we don't agree with Christianity, or Buddhism, or the occult, or Judaism. But tolerating their (non-forceful) existence does not equal advocation. When the hand is raised, cut it off. Only when they become violent, physically support violence or subversion, or directly incite violence should force be used to deal with the offenders. A free society tolerates all speech, including the speech of insanity and genocide. Words are not actions. Islam is not unique in that it fails to "respect others' beliefs". That's ridiculous. It just happens to be the particular ideology the West is in a ideological and actual war with. Whose rights do they violate by simply being Islamic? If no one's, then there has been no crime and can be no reprisals Leave them alone until they cease to do the same for you. Then kill or capture them. It's not rocket science. Unless you plan on preempting every "threat" until the world is, by force, home to only Objectivists, plants, and animals.

Post 143

Tuesday, June 8, 2004 - 5:46pm

Jeremy,

I completely agree with what you said, but, then you said this:

"... unless you plan on preempting every "threat" until the world is, by force, home to only Objectivists, plants, and animals."

I have to admit, if there was a button I could push that would turn the world into one that was, "home to only Objectivists, plants, and animals," I'd be sorely tempted to push it, however it was accomplished.

Regi

Post 144

Tuesday, June 8, 2004 - 6:10pm

Regi, if you pushed the button--let's say it's attached to a giant blender into which the entire non-Objectivist population would be transported--and cleansed the world, you would not be an Objectivist. Or anything remotely resembling an Objectivist. You may as well toss yourself in after pushing the button. It's a good thing temptation is a verifiable urge, isn't it?

Post 145

Tuesday, June 8, 2004 - 7:54pm

Jeremy,

It's a good thing temptation is a verifiable urge, isn't it?

Oh yes!

On the other hand:

"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it." --Oscar Wilde

"I never resist temptation, because I have found that things that are bad for me do not tempt me." --George Bernard Shaw

Post 146

Wednesday, June 9, 2004 - 12:52am

Jeremy,

Regarding your mention of the "farcical HUAC hearings and the 'McCarthy Era'", here's a very interesting trivia fact about those HUAC hearings.

Many people testified at them, reluctantly. But one person eagerly and enthusiastically, even urgently, testified at them, to inform the panel about the very real dangers of communism, which she had herself experienced firsthand...

This person was a certain lady by the name of Ayn Rand.

If Ms. Rand felt that pro-passionately about the importance of the HUAC hearings, and Objectivism places such emphasis on the wrongness of communism, then what sort of Objectivist would call the HUAC hearings "farcical"? Do you think she was in merely error for participating in them, or do you fundamentally disagree with her assertion that communism was invalid and destructive as a philosophy?

Am I missing something here? Are you contributing to these forums, as a non-Objectivist, or as an Objectivist with differing ideas? It's not verboten of course, but it would clear things up if you might clarify all this for me.

(Edited by Orion Reasoner on 6/09, 1:05am)

Post 147

Wednesday, June 9, 2004 - 8:34am

Ayn Rand regarded the HUAC hearings as dubious. She testified only because she was passionate about getting the truth about Communism out to the public. She was not in favor of government censorship. She did not call for Congress to outlaw the Communist Party. She strongly urged people to shun Communists and boycott their movies. She even wrote a guide for screenwriters featuring suggestions for avoiding words, phrases, and themes that aid the cause of collectivism. However, this was all to be voluntary.

Orion, you have difficulty grasping the fact that Objectivism is a philosophy, a system of ideas -- not a system of mandates to be enforced by a government.

-Logan

Sources: Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life (film), Journals of Ayn Rand, Letters of Ayn Rand

Post 148

Wednesday, June 9, 2004 - 8:54am

Orion,

I've been aware of Rand's testimony at HUAC for quite a long time, actually.

From http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/texts/huac-notes.html#I2 :

"...Asked years later about the hearings, Rand said that they were a "dubious undertaking" and "futile" because the government could not legitimately investigate the ideological penetration of Communism into the movies. It could only show that there were members of the Communist Party working in the industry. She did believe, however, that it was acceptable for the committee to ask people whether they had joined the Communist Party, because the Party supported the use of violence and other criminal activities to achieve its political goals, and investigating possible criminal activities was an appropriate role of government.¹
In any case, Rand was glad to have the opportunity to gain media exposure on the subject. She also supported the efforts of private employers to reduce the influence of Communists on the movies. As she put it in an earlier essay she had written on the subject, "The principle of free speech requires ... that we do not pass laws forbidding [Communists] to speak. But the principle of free speech ... does not imply that we owe them jobs and support to advocate our own destruction at our own expense..." (Bold-face mine)

-----------------

As for your questions,

If Ms. Rand felt that pro-passionately about the importance of the HUAC hearings, and Objectivism places such emphasis on the wrongness of communism, then what sort of Objectivist would call the HUAC hearings "farcical"?

The kind, I suppose, that doesn't base his value judgements on whatever Ms. Rand "felt"; though I think your estimation of her estimation is a bit off. The name of the entity should set off warning bells: "The House Un-American Activities Committee" ?? I have no problem with private employers wanting to get rid of Reds within their organizations, but the government's job is protecting people from force, not enforcing ideological purity. Do you think Objectivists would be welcomed with open arms by those people, who primarily rejected communism because it rejected Christ?

Am I missing something here?

Apparently. Is it really that strange that I object to the idea of a government body investigating "un-American" activities? It was "un-American" to not believe in God back then, and "un-American" to think people should be able to do whatever they want with their bodies, and "un-American" to think blacks were the equal of whites.

Are you contributing to these forums, as a non-Objectivist, or as an Objectivist with differing ideas?

I would hope we all have at least some differing ideas; not on the important stuff, like the fundamentals of Objectivism, but enough so that SOLO does not become simply an offshoot of ARI at its worst. I don't know exactly how others would label me, but I refer to myself as a "Sort-Of-Libertarian-Objectivist" at times.

It's not verboten of course, but it would clear things up if you might clarify all this for me.

It's unnecessary to point out what's forbidden; I know what's forbidden. : ) I'm not sure what you want me to clear up, but hopefully I've given you some idea of what I meant by "farcical". It was a joke. Just because I disagree with an ideology doesn't mean I want the government making certain nobody is "thinking bad thoughts". How many millions of people have been slaughtered simply for having the wrong beliefs?

At what point do you, Orion, decide an ideology is so harmful that the mere preaching of it requires governmental (read: forceful) action against the preacher? I'm not putting a bullet in anybody's brain just because they disagree with me. You?

(Edited by Jeremy Johnson on 6/09, 9:35am)

Post 149

Wednesday, June 9, 2004 - 12:56pm

Logan, Jeremy,

I guess, then, that I'm the odd man out here. I see no point in having a system of ideas if you don't put them into practice and defend them from destruction... And that I'm not prepared to make any apologies for.

And as far as "putting a bullet in anybody's brain just because they disagree with me", I think that any objective person would look at the world situation today and admit that we're past the point of our enemies merely disagreeing with us, or even tossing around different philosophical ideas, as we do here in this forum.

In case you hadn't noticed, the glaring difference here is that they have gone far beyond that civilized stage that Objectivism should rightly defend and protect -- the stage of logical discussion and analysis -- to actually working to kill us and even succeeding in enormous numbers.

This is where Objectivism says that they have abdicated reason in favor of force, and that once that choice is made, our compunction to reason and discuss with them is absolved, in favor of the employment of pure force.

That's what you're missing here. I am aghast that you both seem totally unaware or disinterested that they are no longer -- if indeed they ever truly were -- playing by these most admirable rules of conduct that we -- and yes, even I, despite your disappointing remarks to the contrary -- play by in here.

I'm inclined to believe that the greater, monstrous menace is not one who advocates going after a non-reasonable enemy using force, but those like yourselves who apparently chastise that person for not being a "good boy" and taking his possibly impending beheading like a "civilized" citizen.

I have no problem "making" enemies when I can see clearly that I'm likely dead anyways if I don't. I have no deep-seated illusions of unconditional security in life. You?

Post 150

Wednesday, June 9, 2004 - 2:18pm

Okay. So your answer to my question is, apparently, "as soon as they say they don't like me".

No one's forgetting the deaths at the hands of Islamists. That's a hard thing to forget, I'd say. But I dread your "solution" as much as their threats. An incapability to distinguish between those who kill and those who talk about killing, or those who merely preach of our absorption into an Islamic culture and those who fly planes into buildings, is as ghastly a form of collectivization as the Islamists' claim that because we were born in America, because we live in America, or because we are happy and believe in America, we deserve to die as much as whomever has pissed them off that particular year.

You write: ...the glaring difference here is that they have gone far beyond that civilized stage...

First of all, who is "they"? All Muslims, every last one? Or just the extremists? I would agree that Islam is a savage religion bent on a return to the Dark Ages, but most of its practitioners apparently will not kill to bring that about.

And: This is where Objectivism says that they have abdicated reason in favor of force...

And so will you, should you merge the concepts "speech", "thought", and "action" into one, all-encompassing fiat for mass annihilation, or mass deportation, or mass re-education, or whatever indiscrimate, forceful tactic you'd like to employ. The thought process for that might be something like: "This guy is a Muslim. Another guy who blew up that building a year ago was a Muslim. I'd better kill this guy just to be sure."

A very important tenet of an individualist philosophy is that one must be judged, and judge others, on an individual basis. You'll often see me calling Muslims "savages", or "beasts". I do that with just about everyone I disagree with. But it's rhetoric. I don't want them slaughtered like pigs; I don't care what they do or believe in, unless they're planning on killing me or mine.

Cont.: ...and that once that choice is made, our compunction to reason and discuss with them is absolved, in favor of the employment of pure force...

Let's go back to post 143. I said:

If a particular Islamic organization takes up arms against America, within America, that organization should be dealt with, and harshly.

and:

When the hand is raised, cut it off. Only when they become violent, physically support violence or subversion, or directly incite violence should force be used to deal with the offenders.

and:

Whose rights do they violate by simply being Islamic? If no one's, then there has been no crime and can be no reprisals Leave them alone until they cease to do the same for you. Then kill or capture them.

Sounds very similar to what you write: This is where Objectivism says that they have abdicated reason in favor of force, and that once that choice is made, our compunction to reason and discuss with them is absolved, in favor of the employment of pure force...

So. One of us is being inconsistent. Which is it? Do will get rid of all Muslims, even the ones who've never harmed another human being, or just the extremists who have killed, or are planning to kill, other people?

You also write: I'm inclined to believe that the greater, monstrous menace is not one who advocates going after a non-reasonable enemy using force, but those like yourselves who apparently chastise that person for not being a "good boy" and taking his possibly impending beheading like a "civilized" citizen

Once again, me: When the hand is raised, cut it off.

Who are you going after? Killers...or anyone who believes in God? Are they all the same to you?

You: I have no problem "making" enemies when I can see clearly that I'm likely dead anyways if I don't.

I don't think I've mentioned anything about "making enemies" or making friends. No, no I haven't....In fact, that's the least of my concerns--if it registers at all--and I'm slightly amused--though not surprised--that you bring that up. I don't make justified enemies because I don't go around stomping people's heads into the curb. No one should have any justifiable reason to hate me. But if they do, and I'm sure many in the Muslim world do hate me--simply because of where I live and what I believe, not because I, personally, have harmed them--then they are irrational savages bent on the violent destruction of all ideologies not in agreement with their own.

I want Islam to go away. I want all ideologies that preach violation of individual rights and freedoms to go away. But until the adherents of those ideologies step across the line and violate--or plan on violating--my rights or the rights of others, they do not deserve to die. I won't shed a tear if they do, but I also won't help the process.

I have no deep-seated illusions of unconditional security in life. You?

Of course I have no illusions about unconditional security. Doesn't mean Habib and his kids need to die, if they've harmed no one. This is why nations create intelligence agencies, so they don't have to go around indiscriminately killing whomever might disagree with them just to "be on the safe side". We investigate, we watch, we pay informants, but goddamn, we don't go around offing people because they are irrational!

I'd suggest you cease lumping the irrational god-fearing people in with the irrational god-fearing killers. It goes a long way towards improving your objectivity...lol. In the end it comes down to, Who do we kill and why do we kill them? I don't for one second believe Islam is a peaceful religion. Pretty much none of them are. But I'm not in, and won't be part of, the "cleansing for cleansing's sake" business. However, I understand you will believe what you like, no matter my suggestions.

Uhdoo!

Post 151

Wednesday, June 9, 2004 - 6:00pm

You gentlemen certainly know how to carry on a spirited discussion. I agree with Jeremy and Logan on the Constitution and the presumption of innocence, but nevertheless harbor great sympathy for Orion's outrage at the threat that Islamism poses to us.

I have some friendly recommendations for Orion, a tangential remark for Jeremy, and a question to pose to Logan and Jeremy.

The recommendations are to reconsider Rand's observation that, while the ordinary laws are government's check on the violence of individual citizens, the Constitution is the citizens' check on the power of government (i.e. that the Constitution is binding only on the government and on public officials acting in their official capacities, not on private citizens.) And to read Paterson's The God in the Machine.

The tangential remark is a response to Jeremy's comment

How was communism "dealt with" in the U.S.? (aside from the farcical HUAC hearings and the "McCarthy Era")

The U.S. did a great deal more than just the HUAC hearings. Communist cells were infiltrated, arrests were made, Party membership lists were seized, phones were tapped, radio frequencies were monitored, ciphers were broken, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were convicted of espionage, Alger Hiss was convicted of perjury, much later Christopher Boyce and Andrew Dalton Lee ("the Falcon and the Snowman") were convicted of espionage, and various double-agents fled to exile in the USSR. We stumbled badly in the early days of Soviet infiltration, but eventually developed some skill in countering it. Also, we and our allies attracted a number of Warsaw Pact intelligence officers to come over to our side. This is ably documented in books like John Barron's KGB: The Hidden Hand, Peter Wright's Spycatcher, and Viktor Suvorov's The Aquarium: Inside Soviet Military Intelligence. The vast majority of the guilty were not prosecuted for fear of disclosing secret evidence.

Now on to my question for Logan and Jeremy. In Medieval times, the Church controlled all learning and written works. One of the triumphs of the Enlightenment was the establishment of a liberal regime (in the good, true sense of liberal) in which ordinary citizens could speculate on religious matters and even publish works criticizing an established Church. Scholarly techniques were developed to analyze the Bible, to unravel the history of its authorship and compilation, and to hold up its historical and cultural evidence to the light produced by the science of archaeology. The same techniques can be used to analyze the Koran and criticize Islam. But now that we live in the aftermath of the Rushdie affair, they are not. No one bothers to use them, because everyone in the field knows that no publisher would touch a work resulting from such an effort. It is not safe to publish books publicly debating the merits of Islam from a perspective of analyzing its actual theological claims. (This may have abated somewhat temporarily post-9/11.) So my question is, now that we do have Muslims living amongst us, and have been victims of state-sponsored, theologically-inspired terror, whom do I see about getting my First Amendment back?

-Bill

Post 152

Wednesday, June 9, 2004 - 6:33pm

Wow, Bill. Nice post!

Yeah, I've read a little bit about the Venona Papers and Chambers and all that stuff--mostly in Coulter's Treason, which I found to be a decent read even if the subject doesn't terribly interest me. The kind of actions you cited make sense. The Communist Party back then was rather virulent, being supported as it was by the regime in Moscow...

As for your question...Well, I'd suggest writing whatever you feel like writing, or saying whatever you feel like saying, and dealing with the consequences. You're right, it's doubtful a publisher would touch a work like you describe--but the First Amendment guarantees that you can speak your mind, not that someone will pay you to do it.

As the world stands now, those consequences could include having a price put on your head (if I understand the Rushdie affair correctly...) or being maligned as some far-right wing intolerant fascist. I'm used to being called the latter and, stick and stones and all, it doesn't kill you. The former....I'd say the government would take a dim view of Islamists marking you for death. At least, the current government. In a few months, who knows?

Post 153

Wednesday, June 9, 2004 - 7:21pm

Bill, Jeremy,

Mr. Nevin does not post often, but they are always worth reading and first class, as was this latest. Thank you Bill.

I thought it was interesting you mentioned Ann Coulter's Treason, Jeremy, because I was also going to mention it. She's a staunch RC and, "conservative," (and does a nice job putting down the liberals), but I'm no fan, as apparently you are not either. However, on the McCarthy issue she definitely did her homework. And just for the record, McCarthy had nothing to do with the HUAC. He was a senator. If it were not for him we might never have known how deeply communist espionage had penetrated every aspect of the government.

Regi

Post 154

Wednesday, June 9, 2004 - 9:27pm

Jeremy,

I will repeat myself one last time, and then that's it... because I'm not sure how to interpret your "as soon as they say they don't like me" comment, but I'm pretty sure it was over the top.

Non-violent Muslims, if they truly are that and not just laying low, are violating their true religion by not advocating violence against non-believers. Therefore they are creating their own religion and calling it "Islam", whether or not they know it or wish to admit it. I am talking about true Muslims. Because they do not violate the "violence against non-believers" code of the Koran, the terrorists are the only true Muslims... therefore, to not be a true Muslim is a better thing than to be a true Muslim.

That's the last I will say on this. You can now choose to believe and/or investigate the truth behind what I say or not. But it's your choice, and I wash my hands of attempting to discuss this any further with you. So, unleash against me from your silos your choicest arsenal of venomous rhetoric; your basic perspective and what has been your attitude towards me from the very beginning invalidates your comments in my eyes from this point on.

(Edited by Orion Reasoner on 6/13, 11:26am)

Post 155

Wednesday, June 9, 2004 - 9:52pm

I think you're wrong. Apologies if you think that means I think you're dumb or that I dislike you. Frankly I'm astonished...I mean, really astonished; disagreements will happen, and we get over it. I don't know where the hurt feelings come from, but okay.

And I thought I was a being rather nice. : P

Post 156

Wednesday, June 9, 2004 - 10:17pm

Orion:

"Non-violent Muslims, if they truly are that and not just laying low, are violating their true religion by not advocating violence against non-believers.� Therefore they are creating their own religion and calling it "Islam", whether or not they know it or wish to admit it.� I am talking about�true Muslims.� Because they do not violate the "violence against non-believers" code of the Koran, the terrorists are�the only true Muslims."

this particular strictness of definition strikes me as pedantic. all ideological movements, religions included, have competing submovements with conflicting interpretatons in them, which include not just technical disputes, but often disagreements about what constitutes even the essentials of the ideology. there is often significant dispute in any ideology about which components of the "original text" are important and which are not. yet we still say that these are different subgroups within the same broad ideology, not different ideologies. why should islam be conceptualized differently if we see basically the same phenomena at work?

Post 157

Thursday, June 10, 2004 - 12:28am

Jeremy, Regi,

Thanks for the compliments. I am flattered.

I strongly disagree with Jeremy's remark to the effect that the First Amendment does not apply in this case. If a professor wants to write an expose of Islamic theology and I wish to purchase a copy of his work, but the market for such a transaction has been annihilated by the Muslim terror presence in this country, then a violation of freedom of the press has certainly occurred.

The use of either force or the threat of force to silence dissent is _censorship_. The institution in our society this is supposed to protect us from such force is the _government_. It would hardly affect matters if the actual censor in this instance were an employee of Uncle Sam or of Uncle Osama. Washington's reaction to the Rushdie affair represented a violation-by-omission of our First Amendment rights, and set a dangerous precedent. That much was pointed out at the time by Messrs. Peikoff and Schwartz, who are sometimes spot on when they are writing about an external threat rather than about the internals of the Objectivist movement.

Given the close ties between our government and the Saudi royal family on the one hand, and between the Saudi royal family and al-Queda on the other, if the public tolerates such a silence, then who signs the censor's paycheck will soon cease to matter.

------------

Now that I am home with my library, I see that I inadvertently conflated two of Suvorov's titles. One is simply _Inside Soviet Military Intelligence_. The other is _Inside the Aquarium: The Making of a Top Soviet Spy_. I have a copy of the latter in front of me, and used to own a copy of the former. I need to track down another to research a forthcoming essay.

Thanks again,

-Bill

Post 158

Thursday, June 10, 2004 - 8:06am

I may have been implying too much, Bill. I should have explicitly said It's the government's job to ensure terrorism doesn't afflict its citizens, in whatever manner.

However,what role can the government play if private publishers--or private anybody--doesn't wish to do certain work because they are afraid? Force them to do it? It's the government's job to protect us and pursue justice for us. What is it supposed to do other than that? The act of pursuing terrorists or killing terrorists will make it a gentler world to publish books critical of Islam; but it's a difficult thing to kill them all, being so roach-like. I don't know what the solution would be to a problem of this kind, beyond what the government already tries to do--kill and capture terrorists. Maybe you can clue me in, Bill?

Post 159

Thursday, June 10, 2004 - 11:30am