scare tactics
Reader comment on item: Analyst Calls for Redefinition of 'War on Terror'
in response to reader comment: War on Terrorism through the eyes of a soldier

Submitted by Mikey (Canada), Jan 28, 2006 at 10:41

I have great respect for anyone that would risk their life to go into a hostile environment and defend their fellow men and women, but the sad thing is that their were no biological and chemical weapons; there were no nuclear weapons.

In short, there were no weapons of mass destruction that you are referring to. You say that you can be attacked while you are sleeping sound in your beds, i ask you to question the difference between families eating at the table being wiped out by american military missles or even worse what about the slow destruction of a society through sanctions?

As i look over history i no way condone or sympathize with these terrorist buthchers but i do want to know one thing: When Saddam Hussein used chemical attacks on a village with no regard for life, how can it be justified that american military forces can use chemical agents against people in Iraq on the basis of redefinition? Thought of the day: maybe some of those protesting have family in a far off war, for which the basis of engaging in it are falling away everyday.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.