Hmmmmm,

Okay, I just read your review, Merv. Honestly, I'd love to sit down for a few beers and talk with you about it but, since that's not an option, I'll stay away from a long post and just make a few comments.

In fact, he makes little to no mention of the enemy's substantial violations of the Geneva Conventions while at the same time devoting too much time to the yo-yos of Abu Ghraid.
Al-Queda hasn't signed the Geneva Conventions, nor are they likely to. Why should they play by our rules?

Leaving that aside for a sec., their whole goal is political, not military victory. Anything that they can do to show that the coalition forces cannot provide security and a stable, livable environment helps them meet that goal. The more that they can show the "immoral" nature of the "occupation by crusading forces", the better they are able to sell their "story" to the Muslim world. And who is going to disagree with that story when disagreement means death?

Quote Originally Posted by Tom Odom View Post
really Merv

this is counterspin that I would characterize as a 10 second sound bite analysis of an extremely complex issue. Do you adhere to the Attilla the Hun school of thought, kill 'em all and let God sort it out?
Arghhhh!!!!! Tom, I expected better historical accuracy . That wasn't Attila, that was the Papal Nuncio at the siege of Carcassone.

Marc