Stu Bykofsky | Readers weigh in on 'war on terror'
I had my say on the "global war on terror" last week. Some critics have their turn today. Most are animated by hatred of George W. Bush - or the word "war."
I had my say on the "global war on terror" last week. Some critics have their turn today. Most are animated by hatred of George W. Bush - or the word "war."
SO A half-dozen dimwits, who apparently didn't have enough common sense to buy a $49.95 VCR-DVD burner from Wal-Mart, get nabbed, and this is a sign of a radical, drastic war against America.
Meanwhile, 141 or so Philly residents have been murdered in four months, yet "terrorism" is our biggest threat. Please, spare the dramatics. Stop giving credence to the incredibly STUPID notion that "terrorism" is something you can go to war against.
It's a damned TACTIC, not an "enemy." This is the same crap that has our once-brave country ceding our freedoms, and hoping our criminally incompetent government will protect us from the bogeyman.
- Jim Lopardo, Lansdale
To me, terror IS a tactic, employed by a real enemy, Islamofascists.
* Send the article to the Bush Administration who have been trying to fight a war on a shoestring for the past five years. They call it a war, publicize it like a war, but don't send enough troops to fight the war, don't give the troops enough equipment to fight the war, and ignore important theaters of the war.
- Damon Valletti, Philadelphia
* Don't confuse criminal behavior with some political or religious overture.
These men are criminals, not terrorists: saying otherwise is politically self-serving and frankly, a scare tactic way too overemployed today. Put them on trial for conspiracy to commit murder, buy firearms, etc.; deport them, whatever, just don't give them the "martyrdom" play. The hell with that.
- Sam Porcelli, Wallingford
* When you have a "war," then you have "enemies." "Enemies" are seen as sub-human. And then all means to the end are justified. And that all devolves into an endless cycle of revenge and retribution. When are you guys going to get that? It's a dead-end.
Yes, there's a problem and, yes, the people directly affected can be forgiven for an emotional response. But it's up to the rest of us to craft a sane, logical answer.
How about using your highly visible soapbox for something constructive instead of acting like a face-painted, drunken Eagles fan?
- Eric Jurgensen, Boyertown
I'd use my soapbox to endorse a "sane, logical answer," Eric, but you didn't provide one.
* It is wise to step back from jingoism and appeals to raw emotion. How many of the administration's previous claims have proven to be incorrect, or worse, flat-out false? Weapons of mass destruction? None. Saddam's links to Osama? Imaginary.
If the Cherry Hill Six are everything you fear they are, why did MSNBC report that "one of the men, Tatar, called a Philadelphia police officer in November, saying that he had been approached by someone who was pressuring him to obtain a map of Fort Dix, and that he feared the incident was terrorist-related, according to court documents"?
Journalists are supposed to be skeptical, not hysterical.
- Brendan Skwire, Kingsessing
I read the court document itself - not MSNBC's account. It says Tatar suspected he was dealing with an undercover agent and may have hoped to trick cops into assuring him the guy asking for the map was one of theirs. Despite your understandable suspicion of the Bush Administration, two attacks on the World Trade Center were not imaginary.
* Nobody denies the ongoing threat of terrorism, but that doesn't mean we must blindly follow ineffective, reckless leaders like George W. Bush and his cronies.
- Steve Kusheloff, Sunbury, Pa.
I didn't say we should, Steve. *
E-mail stubyko@phillynews.com or call 215-854-5977. For recent columns: