37 Comments

• 1. Moderate Voter  |  December 7th, 2007 at 11:32 pm

  Then why don’t we go capture bin Laden if you’re so worried about it? Or is he still “unimportant”?

• 2. Kahn  |  December 7th, 2007 at 11:37 pm

  Moderate - you pip, you act like we don’t want to.

  Pearl Harbor - did you know that outside the Arizona, which is forever on station the other ships were actually floated and salvaged? They were out of the early part of the war - but played an active part in the latter part. Several participated in the retaking of the Philippines. If they had been sunk at sea, it would have been different.

• 3. CallMeTeach  |  December 7th, 2007 at 11:42 pm

  Rhetoric propaganda BS. Come on Leo, the two events can’t even be compared. The enemies in WWII were defined, visible, and more or less fought by the rules of war. The “war on terrorism” is a war on an idea. You can’t fight something that is intangible and the best way to enforce an idea is by trying to destroy it. I’m not saying inaction is the answer but you can’t kill every last radical Muslim on the planet - there has to be another way. My wife recently wrote a very intelligent paper on how to reduce the impact of radical Islam. Basically it boiled down to removing the influence by alleviating the causes. Rather that be socio-economic issues, community involvement, strong leadership, etc. Just because they happen to be Muslim doesn’t mean they are indoctrinated to kill purely for their religion. I know that it is just a movie but Syriana shows one good example of what encourages terrorism. Also read Dying to Win by Robert Pape for a more intelligent and less propaganda influenced look at the motivations of suicide bombers.

• 4. liberalT  |  December 8th, 2007 at 12:14 am

  funny how we are spending all our time, money, and lives in Iraq which had nothing to do with 9/11 while Osama bin Laden is free and Al Queda is as strong as it was that day. So what was that again about fighting evil - or does that only apply to countries where we want to dominate their natural resources.

• 5. Albums of the 1970s &raqu&hellip  |  December 8th, 2007 at 12:22 am

  [...] Regarding Days That Will Live in Infamy…By Leo PusateriThis was their moment. Their cup of suffering did not pass, but neither did their sacrifices fail to bear the fruits of liberty for future generations; not only of the United States of America, but of the entire global community. …Blogs For Victory - http://blogsforvictory.com [...]

• 6. Cities and Towns of Vermo&hellip  |  December 8th, 2007 at 1:21 am

  [...] Regarding Days That Will Live in Infamy…By Leo PusateriIt was the decisive moment that provided Americans with the righteous indignation that would be required to sustain them in fueling their eventual victory over the then-axis of evil; Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan. …Blogs For Victory - http://blogsforvictory.com [...]

• 7. TiredofLibBullShit  |  December 8th, 2007 at 7:42 am

  liberalTwit -

  “funny how we are spending all our time, money, and lives in Iraq which had nothing to do with 9/11 while Osama bin Laden is free and Al Queda is as strong as it was that day. So what was that again about fighting evil - or does that only apply to countries where we want to dominate their natural resources.”

  Enough with the talking points already. Don’t write anything unless YOU can something intelligent.

  Useful Idiot indeed.

• 8. Hates Cows--Male  |  December 8th, 2007 at 8:27 am

  …but you can’t kill every last radical Muslim on the planet - there has to be another way.

  Another b/s talking point, CallMeIdiot–we are using other ways, as you so stupidly put it. We are helping terror-ravaged countries build up their own forces to fight these animals–in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and the Philippines, among others. And yes, we must do what we can to kill every radical Islamofascist on the planet, since most of our western allies don’t have the cajones to do it themselves.

  Here’s some light reading for you Donkaroach sycophants, written by someone who has been there, done that:

  SOME PRETTY ROUGH LANGUAGE IN THIS COMMAND SERGEANT MAJOR’s MESSAGE

  Prosecution of domestic enemies during wartime. What a novel idea! It
  took a patriotic retired Army enlisted man to suggest it. A Command
  Sergeant Major’s perspective: “The Axis of Idiots.”

  Too bad we don’t have more folks on Capitol Hill
  willing to speak out like this. J.D. Pendry is a retired Army Command Sergeant Major who writes for Random House. HE seldom beats around the bush !

  Jimmy Carter, you’re the father of the Islamic Nazi movement. You threw the Shah under the bus, welcomed the Ayatollah home, and then
  lacked the spine to confront the terrorists when they took our embassy and our people hostage. You’re the runner-in-chief.

  Bill Clinton, you played ring around the Lewinsky while the terrorists were at war with us. You got us into a fight with them in Somalia and then you ran from it. Your weak-willed responses to the U.S.S.Cole and the First Trade Center Bombing and Our Embassy Bombings
  emboldened the killers. Each time you failed to respond adequately, they grew bolder, until 9/11.

  John Kerry, dishonesty is your most prominent attribute. You lied about American Soldiers in Vietnam . Your military service, like your
  life, is more fiction than fact. You’ve accused our Soldiers of terrorizing women and children in Iraq .. You called Iraq the wrong war,
  wrong place, wrong time, the same words you used to describe Vietnam . You’re a fake. You want to run from Iraq and abandon the Iraqis to
  murderers just as you did the Vietnamese. Iraq, like Vietnam , is another war that you were for, before you were against it.

  John Murtha, you said our military was broken. You said we can’t win militarily in Iraq . You accused United States Marines of cold-blooded
  murder without proof. And said we should redeploy to Okinawa . Okinawa, John? And the Democrats call you their military expert!! Are you sure you didn’t suffer a traumatic brain injury while you were off building your
  war hero resume? You’re a sad, pitiable, corrupt and washed up politician. You’re not a Marine, sir. You wouldn’t amount to a good pimple on a real Marine’s ass. You’re a phony and a disgrace. Run away, John.

  Dick Durbin, you accused our Soldiers at Guantanamo of being Nazis, tenders of Soviet style gulags and as bad as the regime of Pol Pot, who murdered two million of his own people after your party abandoned South
  East Asia to the Communists. Now you want to abandon the Iraqis to the same fate. History was not a good teacher for you, was it? Lord help us!! See Dick run.

  Ted Kennedy, for days on end you held poster-sized pictures from Abu Ghraib in front of any available television camera. Al Jazeera quoted you saying that Iraqi’s torture chambers were open under new management. Did you see the news, Teddy? The Islamic Nazis demonstrate real torture for you again. If you truly supported our troops, you’d show the world
  poster-sized pictures of that atrocity and demand the annihilation of it. Your legislation stripping support from the South Vietnamese led to a communist victory there. You’re a bloated, drunken fool bent on repeating
  the same historical blunder that turned freedom-seeking people over to homicidal, genocidal maniacs. To paraphrase John Murtha , all while
  sitting on your wide, gin-soaked rear-end in Washington .

  Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Carl Levine, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Russ Feingold, Hillary Clinton, Pat Leahy, Chuck Schumer, et.al. ad nauseam. Every time you stand in front of television cameras and broadcast to the Islamic Nazis that we went to war because our President lied, that the war is wrong and our Soldiers are torturers, that we should leave Iraq, you give the Islamic butchers - the same ones that tortured and mutilated American Soldiers - cause to think that we’ll run away
  again, and all they have to do is hang on a little longer.

  American news media, the New York Times particularly: Each time you publish stories about national defense secrets and our intelligence
  gathering methods, you become one United with the sub-human pieces of camel dung that torture and mutilate the bodies of American Soldiers. You can’t strike up the courage to publish cartoons, but you can help Al
  Qaeda destroy my country. Actually, you are more dangerous to us than Al Qaeda is. Think about that each time you face Mecca to admire your Pulitzer.

  You are America ’s ‘AXIS OF IDIOTS’. Your Collective Stupidity will destroy us. Self-serving politics and terrorist-abetting news scoops are
  more important to you than our national security or the lives of innocent civilians and Soldiers. It bothers you that defending ourselves gets in the way of your elitist sport of politics and your ignorant editorializing.

  There is as much blood on your hands as is on the hands of murdering terrorists. Don’t ever doubt that. Your frolics will only serve to extend this war as they extended Vietnam . If you want our Soldiers home, as you claim, knock off the crap and try supporting your country
  ahead of supporting your silly political aims and aiding our enemies.

  Yes, I’m questioning your patriotism. Your loyalty ends with self. I’m also questioning why you’re stealing air that decent Americans could
  be breathing. You don’t deserve the protection of our men and women in uniform. You need to run away from this war, this country. Leave the war to the people who have the will to see it through and the country to people who are willing to defend it.

  No, Mr. President, you don’t get off the hook, either. Our country has two enemies: Those who want to destroy us from the outside and those who attempt it from within. Your Soldiers are dealing with the outside force. It’s your obligation to support them by confronting the AXIS OF IDIOTS.

  America must hear it from you that these Self-centered people are harming our country, abetting the enemy and endangering our safety. Well up a little anger, please, and channel it toward the appropriate target.
  You must prosecute those who leak national security secrets to the media. You must prosecute those in the media who knowingly publish those secrets. Our Soldiers need you to confront the enemy that they cannot. They need you to do it now.

  J. D. Pendry

  Now, you puke trolls, go ahead and demean this man. I know you’ll try, because he’s exposed your heroes for the cowards that they are. He’s even echoed many of our sentiments about our President, and the President’s weak-kneed stance regarding to dealing with these traitors.

  btw, those of you who always trot out the “you didn’t serve, so you can’t opine” b/s, you can’t use this on J.D. Pendry.

  I hate libs…

• 9. neocon  |  December 8th, 2007 at 8:30 am

  CallMeTeach and libT,

  It appears Bushs policy is working quite well to dampen the desires of militant Islams. The Sunnis have turned against the radicalism and are fighting back AQ themselves now. The is much more cooperation now between Shi’a and Sunni which will lead to further progress for that country. So your assertion that Bush is just trying to kill all of them, is just pure bullshit, now isn’t it?

  AQ is decimated and, other than pockets of Pakistan, have very little safe ground. We have tremendous allies in Bhutto and Mushareff in Pakistan who are very much opposed to AQ and will ultimately fight back against them and eny them sanctuary.

  As Iraq progresses, your talking points become less and less relevant.

• 10. searp  |  December 8th, 2007 at 8:57 am

  Republicans start the war, Democrats fight it while Republicans write blogs. Pathetic.

• 11. neocon  |  December 8th, 2007 at 9:17 am

  Democrats fight the war?????

  Which war would that be searp?

  The war against Bush?

• 12. liberalT  |  December 8th, 2007 at 9:31 am

  neocon - do you just ignore every intelligence report that you odn’t like? Like the one that came out saying that since 2003 terorism and the threat of terrorism has gotten worse? Like the one that said Al queda - far from being decimated is as strong as it was pre-911?
  Things are much better right now in Iraq - but thats just it - they are much better then unbelievably horrible. Still almost 1000 people die each month of horrible sectarian violence. Clearly that is much better than 2000 but it is no way some great rosey situation that you try to paint it.
  There is just no actual evidence for what you say.
  And no - you can’t just go kill every islamofacist in the world. And we know that it isn’t working - it isn’t hard to figure out why. If someone wanted to kill the “horrible liberal facists” in the US and started bombing and invading , destroying infrastructure, making it so that we didn’t have power or sanitation , do you think that would make people more or less willing to fight you?

• 13. neocon  |  December 8th, 2007 at 9:55 am

  You ignore reality libT, because of your myopic, agend drive, indoctrinated view point. But we all expect that.

  Libya, NK and supposedly Iran have abandoned their WMD programs because of Bush and his policies. Iraq has a new direction free from the oppression of Saddam. Shi’a and Sunnis are working together in Iraq and AQ is the outcast. The Taliban still suffer major defeats in Afghanistan and AQ has been relegated to the out reaches of Pakistan, and even that sanctuary will be short term in a strong woman by the name of Bhutto gets her way.

  If you consider a violent-free ME as the benchmark for success, than you’re more delusional than I think you are. Violence has been a way of life for centuries in that region and it wont stop any time soon. But Bushs strong policies and actions have started the ME on a new direction.

  That is undeniable.

  And you LIED AGAIN (I am growing very tired of your lies) I never said that we need to kill every Islamo-fascist.

  You are pathological liar.

• 14. liberalT  |  December 8th, 2007 at 10:01 am

  —————
  And you LIED AGAIN (I am growing very tired of your lies) I never said that we need to kill every Islamo-fascist.

  You are pathological liar.
  —-

  i never said you said this I was responding to #8
  And yes, we must do what we can to kill every radical Islamofascist on the planet, since most of our western allies don’t have the cajones to do it themselves.

  the world isn’t all about you neo con :)

• 15. neocon  |  December 8th, 2007 at 10:01 am

  libT,

  What I find deliciously ironic is that the Iraqi citizens themselves will be the ones to win this battle and reveal your ignorance, cowardice and lack of compassion. What will you say to them when they ask you why you wanted to abandon them?

  CAMP VICTORY, Iraq – Multi-National Division-Center recovered enough material from weapons caches in November to prevent 500 improvised explosive devices.

  A total of 94 caches were found across MND-C’s area of operations in the month of November.

  Forty of these caches were found by, or with the assistance of, Iraqi Concerned Local Citizens.

  They either led Coalition Forces to the site of the cache or actually brought the material to Coalition Forces stationed at nearby bases.

• 16. liberalT  |  December 8th, 2007 at 10:07 am

  the thing is neocon -
  (1) none of the things about NK or Libya happened BECAUSE of Bush. There is a difference between things happening around the same time and a causal relationship. In fact - all of the improvements that have been made here are because of detailed international relationships and discussions all of which Bush tried to block until it was so obvious that his policies failed that the international community ignored him
  (2) The fact of the matter is that there has been horrible violence in all parts of the world throughout history. The idea that it is somehow more acceptable in the middle east is fundementally flawed. The idea that 1000 people dying every month is acceptable because its not 2000 is just horrible and disgusting. There were millions who died in eurpoe in two world wars and for hundreds of years - indeed thousands - there has been many wars in europe as well. Does that mean it would be ok if a 1000 died every month in the UK or even the US? I am sorry - but think about that for a second. You are saying we did something so great in Iraq and yet 1000 people are still dying and you are calling it great and using some rediculous justification for it. Just as many people have had wars and died in the west.

• 17. neocon  |  December 8th, 2007 at 10:21 am

  1) None of those things happened because of international pressure, because there has benn NONE. Libya was a direct result of our going into Iraq, and NK was because of Bushs isolation, sanctions and because NK feared Bush, unlike Clinotn. Sheesh, you couldn’t have been more wrong on this one.

  2) You have very limited understanding of world history. If you don’t consider removing tyrants, and lifting oppression from our global neighbors an improvement, than I truly feel sad for you. Jack Kennedy and even Bill Clinton spoke vociferously about working towards a more free global community. And if you expected that to be accomplished without violence, well than……….you have achieved the next level of stupidity.

  WHAT WILL YOU TELL THE IRAQI PEOPLE WHEN THEY ASK YOU WHY YOU WOULDN’T HELP FIGHT FOR THEIR FREEDOM??????

• 18. liberalT  |  December 8th, 2007 at 10:26 am

  i am all for helping people out of oppression and tyrany. Invading their country with reckless disregard of the consequences leading to 10s if not 100s of thousands of deaths in sectarian violence just doesn’t seem a particular great way to do it. If I am so “uniformed” about history perhaps you can enlighten me as to what in history I am missing. After all apparently you understand something that I don’t which leads to “only” 1000 people dying each month in sectarian violence acceptable - even a great victory for us. Please do tell…

  Secondly - just go look at the historic record of the international negotiations. It was not until China became involved that there was any positive development. A move that Bush tried to block at every turn. Its just a simple matter of historic record and not rhetoric like yours

• 19. neocon  |  December 8th, 2007 at 10:49 am

  Again a revision of history made by you. Bush had always sought to bring pressure onto NK from their immeidate neighbors, specifically China and Japan. IT WORKED.

  And your concern over innocent death is very insincere and almost laughable. You don’t care one iota about innocent deaths. You’re more concerned about Americas international “image”, the international legalities as it pertains to deposing dictators, and not offending those who want to do us harm.

  Those are your concerns, not protecting the innocent.

• 20. Jay Gaultieri  |  December 8th, 2007 at 10:55 am

  Back in December 1941 the American peopl were asked to rise to the challenge and sacrifice. We did. In September 2001 we were told to go shopping. What the hell happened to this country?

• 21. neocon  |  December 8th, 2007 at 11:07 am

  What the hell happened to your memory? I recall someone saying that the GWOT would be a long, difficult, challengin struggle that will require sacrifice. I don’t remember the words “shopping” in there.

• 22. liberalT  |  December 8th, 2007 at 11:10 am

  care to point me to any evidence of that NK stuff neocon. I can’t find anything that supports it what so ever.

  I am glad that you can find ways to justify your own failures - but you didn’t answer my question - too afraid to discover your own ideology is broken?

• 23. neocon  |  December 8th, 2007 at 11:16 am

  You haven’t answered my question:

  WHAT WILL YOU TELL THE IRAQI PEOPLE WHEN THEY ASK YOU WHY YOU WOULDN’T HELP FIGHT FOR THEIR FREEDOM??????

  And I haven’t seen any question posed from you, just baseless assertions.

  >>>>>>”We’ve already made it abundantly clear on a number of occasions that if the North Koreans return to the six-party talks there would be a way forward. Obviously they are going to have to renounce their nuclear ambitions along the way.” - President Bush October 9, 2006<<<<<

  You do remember the “six party” talks right? The talks the Democrats opposed saying that we should engage NK unilaterally. Well guess what.

• 24. liberalT  |  December 8th, 2007 at 12:50 pm

  and you didn’t answer mine.

  –
  i am all for helping people out of oppression and tyrany. Invading their country with reckless disregard of the consequences leading to 10s if not 100s of thousands of deaths in sectarian violence just doesn’t seem a particular great way to do it. If I am so “uniformed” about history perhaps you can enlighten me as to what in history I am missing. After all apparently you understand something that I don’t which leads to “only” 1000 people dying each month in sectarian violence acceptable - even a great victory for us. Please do tell…
  ——

  what will you tell the iraqi people that 100 thousand deaths was worth it for your war on terror? I’m sorry but its not my burden its the people who overthrew the government to justify the actions

• 25. Almiranta  |  December 8th, 2007 at 1:33 pm

  I see that LT is still whining on about his imaginary “100s of thousands” of dead in Iraq. Sooooo tiresome, soooooo wrong, sooooo pathetically seeking as many ways as possible to loathe this country.

  Soooooo simpleminded.

  These simpletons cannot grasp any degree of complexity. They are still sniveling about Bin Laden, for chrissake! AS IF Bin Laden is the end all and be all of terrorism. AS IF his capture or death would really make much difference.

  This whole topic is so far beyond their limited capacity for understanding, it is too bad they still feel the compulsion to illustrate that for us at every opportunity.

  You are right, there is a correlation between Pearl Harbor and 9/11. You are right, there is a need to either fight for our freedom and our very lives or to simply roll over and let these things be taken from us.

  Fortunately for them, the craven cowards who try (unsuccessfully) to hide their cowardice behind claims of moral objections will also be saved by the courage and dedication —-and, yes, intelligence—-of those who do understand the reality of what we are facing.

  Sometimes I wish we could just divide the country, let the rabid radicals move to one side and let those with a grasp on reality live in the other, and let the Lemming Left bear the burdens of their own stupidity and their own cowardice and their own hate-driven insanity without endangering the rest of us. But the way it is is, we will fight the good fight in spite of them, kicking them off our ankles as they try desperately to stop us, and in the end their sorry hides will be saved as well.

  In the meantime, they do serve the purpose of illustrating the folly of blind adherence to a failed ideology, and the dangers posed by such pathologies.

• 26. liberalT  |  December 8th, 2007 at 1:48 pm

  so if Bin Laden’s death or capture doesn’t mean anything why did we invade Afganistan - after all that was the justification we gave no?
  I am not imagining 10s of thousands to 100s of thousands of deaths - all people who have seriously tried to estimate the deaths in Iraq come up with numbers on this order. In fact you can go find the names of many of them - the estimates very in magnitude but you are just deluded if you think it isn’t on this order. Not to mention the millions of refugees that other countries have taken in

• 27. neocon  |  December 8th, 2007 at 2:52 pm

  We did not invade Afghanistan to get Bin Laden. We went in to depose the Taliban, whom were giving sanctuary to Bin Laden.

  Sheesh, you’re so wrong, so often.

• 28. liberalT  |  December 8th, 2007 at 4:58 pm

  so now you are seriously telling me that we never intended to capture or kill Bin Laden when invading Afganistan. We just wanted to depose the Taliban for retribution?

• 29. Brian Gregory  |  December 8th, 2007 at 5:21 pm

  I said the EXACT same thing in my blog post yesterday (click on my name). Why don’t people get this?!

• 30. neocon  |  December 8th, 2007 at 5:38 pm

  Of course we would have loved to have captured Bin Laden, but that was not the stated goal. The goal was to depose the Taliban, period.

  Destroying the AQ network and eliminating safe havens is just as important, if not more so, than capturing Bin laden.

• 31. liberalT  |  December 8th, 2007 at 7:05 pm

  but we didn’t do that - our intelligence agencies say that AQ is as strong as it was pre 9/11. Further they say that we have lost focus in fighting AQ because of our excursion in Iraq. Its like you don’t read the news or something - or perhaps its that you just dismiss anything you don’t want to hear

• 32. neocon  |  December 8th, 2007 at 9:11 pm

  I hope you realize that you just lost one argument and switched to another, which is just another baseless assertion debated ad nauseum.

  The circular arguments of liberals can be exhausting.

• 33. Hates Cows--Male  |  December 9th, 2007 at 9:04 am

  i am all for helping people out of oppression and tyrany.

  I am all for helping people who can’t write. You need to get with mommy, libretatdTHC, and get her to buy you Hooked on Phonics for Christmas.

  btw, where was your outrage about “oppression and tyranny” when Saddam and his two thugs, Ebay and Cujo, were murdering hundreds of thousands of Iraqis? You are on stupid bastard; you put your foot in it every time you post. Lay off the weed, boy…

• 34. Hates Cows--Male  |  December 9th, 2007 at 9:14 am

  Back in December 1941 the American peopl were asked to rise to the challenge and sacrifice. We did. In September 2001 we were told to go shopping. What the hell happened to this country?

  Well, Gay Julieterry, people such as yourself happened, that’s what. We were told to continue living our lives, not to let the terrorists dictate how we live. And you and your fellow lemmings followed the DNC script, yet again, because the WH was occupied by a Republican. You took what was said, and totally misrepresented it, out of your BDS-driven hatred.

  Soooo, Jay Gutless, why don’t you sacrifice? I have a suggestion for you: go jump in front of a bus. That would be a sacrifice most free-thinkers could live with, and you wouldn’t be missed. Bye!

• 35. Mr. B  |  December 9th, 2007 at 10:20 am

  Ah, the I don’t come across many keyboard jingoists these days. So many people, with so many issues, out of the well of in insularity and fear they rise. They choose a world of black and white, of good and evil. Avoiding the one of complexity in the individual, diversity in thought, of the human element and the World at large.

  You are the resident evil. The ones who veer toward military fascism as a means of controlling the masses. Who sacrifice freedom for revenge. Those who would sacrfice truth for ideology.

  Yes, full of piss and vinegar until it’s time to enlist and grab a gun. Then there is something better to do. Woudn’t want to miss the game this Sunday, eh?

  Quick to poo-poo the death of 100’s of thousands, because it might actually only be 10’s of thousands, because none of you wants to actually know. Worse yet, you don’t care. What’s the death of a few ( your 000’s here ) Iranian civilians as long as we can “fight them over there insted of here”. As long as you can invade and control a segment of the mideast in lieu of actually trying to go out and destry and control a global threat.

  Remember, this is no war, this is an occupation. 9-11 has always been an excuse for the current administration’s power tripping. The dealer is fear and opportunity. The junkie is arrogance and ignorance. The enabler is apathy.

  Meanwhile, let’s make fun of the gentle games of spin the electrode going on in Guantanamo.
  Hey, they are from “there”, so they must be guilty, or at least not worthy of finding out if they are. as long as someone is paying a price, you feel better.

  You have been more like the enemy.

  If ignorance is bliss, conservatives have reached Nirvana.

• 36. searp  |  December 9th, 2007 at 4:13 pm

  Neocon:

  “Democrats fight the war?????

  Which war would that be searp?

  The war against Bush?”

  Uh, no, the folks who actually go to war, unlike the pathetic keyboard warriors here. I went, did you? I question your patriotism.

• 37. Diana Powe  |  December 10th, 2007 at 6:02 pm

  Both December 7th, 1941 and September 11th, 2001 were events that provoked nationwide reactions of fear and anger. However, beyond that, the events bear little similarity to each other. The attack on Pearl Harbor was a not-unexpected and meticulously planned military operation carried out by the navy of a sovereign nation that was already clearly in conflict with the United States. Japan employed 56 ships and 414 aircraft in an effort to cripple the U. S. Pacific Fleet so that Japan could continue its war of aggression in the Near East.

  The attacks of 09/11/01 were a not-unexpected and meticulously planned asymmetric warfare operation carried out by 15 Saudi Arabian nationals, 2 nationals of the United Arab Emirates, 1 Egyptian national and 1 Lebanese national with support from a transnational group, Al-Qaeda, and its nominal leader, Osama bin Laden. The motivation stemmed from a variety of complaints regarding American actions in the Middle East with the main planner, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), telling his later U.S. interrogators that:
  

  By his own account, KSM’s animus toward the United States stemmed not from his experiences there as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel.

  Source: Report of the 9/11 Commission, Section 5.1

  The attacks of 09/11/01 exploited a long-known vulnerability of commercial aircraft to hijacking and the use of aircraft as suicide weapons was well-known from its use as a tactic of warfare by the Japanese in World War 2. As such, the attacks were carried out using more dependable low-tech tactics rather than much more problematic possibilities such as nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. According to the 9-11 Commission Report, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed saw the planned attacks as “theater”:
  

  Indeed, KSM describes a grandiose original plan: a total of ten aircraft to be hijacked, nine of which would crash into targets on both coasts-they included those eventually hit on September 11 plus CIA and FBI headquarters, nuclear power plants, and the tallest buildings in California and the state of Washington. KSM himself was to land the tenth plane at a U.S. airport and, after killing all adult male passengers on board and alerting the media, deliver a speech excoriating U.S. support for Israel, the Philippines, and repressive governments in the Arab world. Beyond KSM’s rationalizations about targeting the U.S. economy, this vision gives a better glimpse of his true ambitions. This is theater, a spectacle of destruction with KSM as the self-cast star-the superterrorist.
  Source: Report of the 9/11 Commission, Section 5.2

  In fact, the vulnerability exploited by the 19 hijackers was so well known that it was the subject of multiple warnings in the months prior to the attacks:
  

  The reporting noted that operatives might opt to hijack an aircraft or storm a U.S. embassy. This report led to a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) information circular to airlines noting the potential for “an airline hijacking to free terrorists incarcerated in the United States.”
  Source: Report of the 9/11 Commission, Section 8.1

  and…
  

  On July 31, an FAA circular appeared alerting the aviation community to
  “reports of possible near-term terrorist operations . . . particularly on the Arabian Peninsula and/or Israel.” It stated that the FAA had no credible evidence of specific plans to attack U.S. civil aviation, though it noted that some of the “currently active” terrorist groups were known to “plan and train for hijackings” and were able to build and conceal sophisticated explosive devices in luggage and consumer products.
  Source: Report of the 9/11 Commission, Section 8.1

  and, from the Presidential Daily Brief of 08/06/01:
  

  We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a [—] service in 1998 saying that Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of “Blind Shaykh” ‘Umar ‘Abd al-Rahman and other US-held extremists.
  Source: Report of the 9/11 Commission, Section 8.1

  So, the most spectacular terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing carried out by domestic anti-government extremists, were low-tech, exploited a long-known vulnerability which was never closed and were intended not as part of a long-term plan of national conquest but as a form of political theater to highlight grievances against American foreign policy.

  Just as the attack on Pearl Harbor was utilized as an emotional icon to motivate Americans for the subsequent clear-cut national war effort, the attacks of 09/11/01 have been used as an icon to motivate Americans in a much more vague Global War on Terror. Because of its ready source of strong emotions, 9-11 has been utilized by many to justify a variety of activities, including the invasion of Iraq, and numerous political campaigns, most notably that of the former mayor of New York City, Rudy Giuliani.

  Unfortunately, this appeal to emotions has been routinely used to short-circuit any dispassionate analysis of why the attacks were carried out. Instead of a consideration of the complex results of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East over the last few decades, including periods of active American support for two of the great villains typically cited, Osama bin-Laden and Saddam Hussein, we are treated to simplistic formulations of “they hate our freedoms”:
  

  On September the 11th, enemies of freedom committed an act of war against our country. Americans have known wars — but for the past 136 years, they have been wars on foreign soil, except for one Sunday in 1941…Al Qaeda is to terror what the mafia is to crime. But its goal is not making money; its goal is remaking the world — and imposing its radical beliefs on people everywhere.…Americans are asking, why do they hate us? They hate what we see right here in this chamber — a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms — our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.
  Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html

  In fact, the nuanced sentiments of President Bush expressed nine days after the attacks in the same speech:
  

  I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world. We respect your faith. It’s practiced freely by many millions of Americans, and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends. Its teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah.

  have now been largely shouted down by a meaningless neologism Islamo-fascist:
  

  THE PRESIDENT: There’s no question that if we were to prematurely withdraw and the march to democracy were to fail, the al Qaeda would be emboldened; terrorist groups would be emboldened; the Islamo-fascists would be emboldened.
  Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060321-4.html

  So, rather than addressing the fact that terrorists are not a monolithic entity like the then-Empire of Japan in 1941, we substitute sloganeering for thought and embolden those who, in the words of former National Review writer, Joseph Sobran, want Americans not to think too closely about radical Islam:
  

  In other words, Islamofascism is nothing but an empty propaganda term. And wartime propaganda is usually, if not always, crafted to produce hysteria, the destruction of any sense of proportion. Such words, undefined and unmeasured, are used by people more interested in making us lose our heads than in keeping their own.
  Source: http://www.sobran.com/columns/2004/041111.shtml

  The point is made even more clearly by historian Niall Ferguson, who supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq:
  

  No, I think this is a really important point, because what we see at the moment is an attempt to interpret our present predicament in a rather caricatured World War II idiom. I mean, “Islamofascism” illustrates the point well, because it’s a completely misleading concept. In fact, there’s virtually no overlap between the ideology of al Qaeda and fascism. It’s just a way of making us feel that we’re the “greatest generation” fighting another World War, like the war our fathers and grandfathers fought. You’re translating a crisis symbolized by 9/11 into a sort of pseudo World War II. So, 9/11 becomes Pearl Harbor and then you go after the bad guys who are the fascists, and if you don’t support us, then you must be an appeaser.
  Source: http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people6/Ferguson/ferguson06-con5.html

  The blunt fact is that, just as the airliners were hijacked that day, the attacks of September 11th, 2001, have been emotionally hijacked. Hijacked to argue that America is in an existential struggle with radical Islam despite the fact that there is no more credible evidence of a real capacity for the much dreaded establishment of a “global Islamic empire, with a caliphate in Baghdad” (Source: http://www.terrorismawareness.org/news/76/why-islamo-fascism/) than there is evidence that Timothy McVeigh and his co-conspirators were going to be able to overthrow the United States government as described in the copy of The Turner Diaries that McVeigh had in his possession when he was arrested. There are numerous readers and admirers of The Turner Diaries living in the United States today and yet we aren’t urged to engage in a “National War on Terror”. Instead, we treat domestic terrorism as what it is - an ongoing problem that needs to be persistently and effectively addressed. In stark contrast, when it comes to those Muslims who actually believe in the fantasy notion of a “global Islamic empire” we are assured that we must see them in only the most simplistic comic book villain terms rather than as players in the reality of a world that is a complicated place with complicated human beings operating from complicated motivations.