Letters To The Editor


July 10, 2005

Attacks are part of a campaign for domination

The attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. All of the attacks before that time. The Bali nightclub bombing. The Madrid train bombings. The Beslan school massacre. Now the subway and bus bombings in London on Thursday ("Blasts shake London," July 8). And other attacks too numerous to mention.

The Islamists seek world domination. They are waging a religious war against the civilized world.

They wish to impose a new dark age upon the rest of the Earth. They are an enemy that must be wiped out by any means and at all costs.

We have the absolute moral right to kill them all in self-defense. We have done well to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, but we must press on further into the heart of the darkness.

We must invade Iran and probably Syria as well and any other nation in the Middle East which requires an American invasion.

Kurt A. Snavely

Hershey, Pa.

War in Iraq distracts from war on terror

When is someone going to have the guts to say this: If President Bush had spent half as much American blood, money and time fighting al-Qaida as he has wasted in Iraq, maybe the attacks on London could have been avoided ("Blasts shake London," July 8).

Osama bin Laden is still out there, planning attacks such as the one in London, and Mr. Bush has done little to stop him.

Thomas Brown


As I watched with dismay the news out of London on Thursday, it occurred to me, and not for the first time, that if the Bush administration had, in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, pursued al-Qaida as zealously as it has waged its misguided war in Iraq - and had finished the job in Afghanistan - the world might be a safer place today.

It seems instead that the terrorists have become stronger and bolder, and no place on Earth is safe today.

Our sympathy is with the British.

Velva Grebe


Bombing civilians is a form of terrorism

As I read The Sun's article about the civilians killed by the U.S. retaliation bombing in Afghanistan, I could not help thinking about the similarities between this bombing and the regular news from Israel ("Afghanistan criticizes U.S. in civilian deaths," July 6).

The Afghan rebels shot down a military helicopter and we retaliated by bombing a "military target," and killing as many as 17 innocent people.

Are we now going to enter into the sort of never-ending, tit-for-tat battles that have been going between Palestinian rebels and Israel?

And for those who support bombing villages with women and children I would like to ask the following question: If we engage in bombing that we know will result in "collateral damage" deaths, how are we any different from the terrorists?

They kill innocent people purposely but we kill innocent people knowingly.

Why not consider alternative military tactics that don't kill women and children?

Pat Sweeney


Overture to Hamas poses threat to Israel

The overture by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to the terrorist group Hamas to join his cabinet could represent a scenario for future violence against Israel ("Hamas wooed with talk of cabinet role," July 2).

Both Hamas and Mr. Abbas' Fatah faction in the past have launched suicide bombings against Israel and have repeatedly called for its destruction. There's no reason to believe that their goals have changed.

The modern state of Israel, however, knows its enemies all too well and realizes its future depends on remaining strong.

Thus Israel will continue to oppose the radical Arab elements arrayed against it, buoyed by the moral support of people the world over who are sympathetic to its aims and aspirations.

Albert E. Denny


Filibuster deal only boosts the right wing

Thank you, Jules Witcover, for making clear that Senate Democrats didn't win anything at all when they dropped opposition to some conservative nominees to the federal bench in exchange for retaining existing filibuster privileges ("`Extraordinary' filibuster deal puts the squeeze on Democrats," Opinion

Commentary, July 6).

What that deal amounted to was that the Republican right-wing won the confirmation of three federal judges who had long been thought to be too extreme by Democrats, while the Democrats got nothing except maintaining the status quo. Even the status quo is on precarious footing because Republicans made it clear that they would not hesitate to attack the filibuster privilege again if they felt Democrats were not limiting its use to "extraordinary circumstances," whatever that means.

For Democrats to call this deal a "victory" is an example of the self-delusion in which they have wallowed in recent years, and which has reduced them to minority status.

More "victories" like this one could result in our country becoming a one-party nation in all but name.

Howard Bluth


Energy bill serves powerful interests

The energy bill the Senate approved would actually do little to push the United States away from its dependence on foreign sources of energy ("Fiddling and burning," editorial, July 7).

Baltimore Sun Articles
Please note the green-lined linked article text has been applied commercially without any involvement from our newsroom editors, reporters or any other editorial staff.