Logic and reasoned debate…like this…

"Our present conflict with the Islamo-fascists may not fit the template of a conventional war, but war it is."

The wingnut word "Islamo-fascists" is both illogical and unreasonable. Use of the word, "Islamo-fascists", is a prime example of why neo-conservatives cannot be taken seriously.

And I don't use the phrase, "cave-dwellers"…..yet.

You accuse me of "cafeteria thinking" because I agree with some, but not all, of the points expressed by Professor Huhn. And this is to be contrasted with your more nuanced thinking which substitutes sophmoric insults ("wingnuts", "cowardly" neo-cons, "cave dwellers", etc.) in place of logic and reasoned debate?

Ad hominem arguments are the arguments that one offers when he has nothing better to offer.

I wonder if our soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq would agree. I'm going to guess – NO.

I think your powers of observation are severely challenged, but have it your way. From now on, we'll call it the Afghanistan Overseas Holiday Vacation and the Iraq Happy Hour.

" If you really believe that it is only a "criminal enterprise" that wants to control the numbers racket or the drug trade, then you are more confused than I had thought."

Neo-cons are cowardly in their approach to Islamic extremists. That's why they must inflate the danger. Exaggerate it. Use stupid and meaningless labels like Islamofascist, etc. Al-Qaida has never been a threat to the sovereignty or independence of America. They aren't now. They are a small, stateless, band of anarchists without technological capability nor serious sophistication. They got lucky on 9-11 because our people were not doing their jobs.

The real confusion in our country is exhibited by those who mistake cave dwellers with the Third Reich. Scared and quivering scaremongers.

Is the al-Qaida network dangerous? Yes. Must we go after the al-Qaida network? Yes, because they attacked our country.

The rest of the blather consists of attempts to defend the indefensible. There is no war on terror and there never has been. Impossible stuff can't be made rational or understandable by sloganizing a few scare tactic words.

Quid agrees with Huhn…until he doesn't. Cafeteria thinking.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1998.html

Also, notice that Bin Laden's fatwa came way before the Iraq War, the Afghanistan War, the Gitmo prison, Abu Ghraib, EIT's, or any of the other reasons that are stated as primary causes of terrorism by Obama and company.

Your definition of war "as something we wage against nations, states" is absurd. Consider history. Was the near extermination of the indigenous peoples of America not an exercise in warfare because the Indian tribes were not organized into nation-states? Were the Roman legions protecting the northern border of the Empire from barbarian incursions not fighting wars? The heroes of the French Resistance did not fight under the flag of France, but they were engaged in warfare.

Consider Al Qaeda. It is at war with us (and declared itself to be so) even if you would rather approach the present conflict with police departments and courts. (Are terrorists captured on the battlefield to be read their "Miranda" rights?) Al Qaeda and the Taliban and their allies want to destroy us and the ideals for which we stand. If you really believe that it is only a "criminal enterprise" that wants to control the numbers racket or the drug trade, then you are more confused than I had thought.

Our present conflict with the Islamo-fascists may not fit the template of a conventional war, but war it is. Indeed, Al Qaeda is merely employing the classic techniques of guerilla warfare on an international scale. We cannot prevail in this conflict, if we do not grasp this fundamental point.