``A country as resiliant as the USA ought to be able to face their fear with confidence and strength.`` Yah, yah...nothing but fear itself stuff. I know.

But, a country consists of its people, a large number of individuals with similar(?)(ok, somewhat similar)beliefs which act to define the collective. Voting is a selfless act, but subject to the weakness`of the individual. And who among us claims to not have a weakness or two. Self-preservation is a strong driving force, and how each of us see how it best applies to us, varies. And, that my friend, is where ``spin`` come into the picture.

I can offer no help on what defines an attack on democracy...other then this terrorist thing is much more then just one man. The death of OBL, which I asked for last Christmas on my list, will not solve this maniac philosophy of hate. It is a much bigger picture, centered mostly in the Middle East. What it is going to take to resolve it is nothing less then Muslim outrage over Muslim extremism and it`s subsequent Muslim extremist violence. That is a tall order, in my opinion. Anne Coulter has had several good talks about this very thing for those interested in reading of the perspective`` from the other side``.

See that I what I do not get. An attack from the inside is always worse than one from the outside - traitor is worse than nemisis. Does Anne Coulter have any links to "better the traitor" columns?

Maybe both can be defined as attacks on democracy. I do not disagree that democracy can be threatened in many ways. Perhaps equally damaging. But, I think, and think she would agree, that the one that tries to kill 50,000 and succeeded in killing 3,000, and wants to do it again is more pressing. Even lost-to-the-left Democrats, if they are dead, can`t protest for change. And hire lawyers. (Not that there is anything wrong with that)We cannot lose focus on the war on terror with diversions in the courtroom.

Here are some baiting points:<ul><li>You are not suggesting the war on terror takes precedence over the election are you? Who wins if that is the case?</li><li>Why are 100,000 civilian deaths in Iraqi a necessary evil for the imposition of democracy there? Does it matter who causes the killing? If living in a free society means terrorists will take out, say, 5000 a year, is that a cost of freedom? I think about 30000 a year die on US roads a year and it is chalked up to the lesser principle of efficient transportation.</ul></li>I don't necessarily believe in the rhetorical implications set out above but somebody has to frame the questions around here

The war on terror is important in that without taking the fight to the enemy, there will not be any more elections.
``Why are 100,000 civilian deaths in Iraqi a necessary evil for the imposition of democracy there?`` I might argue it may be a necessary evil if it prevents the previous admin. in Iraq from commiting 200,000 murders in his own county, invading his neighbours, promoting hatred of free societies, encouraging anti-sementic fervor and funding terrorism in Pizza parlours. And, with the proven ability to manufacture wmd`s and willing to use them, it may be considered in democracy`s best interest the world over now Saddam is gone.

There is the leap in logic, the emotional reaction that I do not get:<blockquote class="smalltext">The war on terror is important in that without taking the fight to the enemy, there will not be any more elections.</blockquote>What 40 million nazis and a billion communists could not achieve a handful of radical murderous cells will pull off. Never. Never. Never. How would elections stop? What fantasy of science fiction makes a few the overlords of millions? It is the loss of proportion that is amazing to me. Sure, keep our dogs of war busting down the doors and flashbang crouch spray. I guess the difference is that just don't fear for democracy - it is too strong.

I feel the threat comes from the terrorists ability to influence the political process...encouraging the electorate to vote for peace-at-all-costs parties, until, like in WWII, the world woke up far too late to prevent tragedies of untold perportion, by acting against, rather then appeasing the enemy. I do not see this as a leap of any kinbd, really.(re:Spain...was theirs really a "free" election?)My apologies,as I think I may have been down his road before. I hope you are right about the future of our way of life, and that future generations will not choose their vote based on some foreign threat of terrorism, or the video of a savage brute killing an innocent aid worker.

Is it "Know thy enemy" or "Know thine enemy"?

That is the saddest thing about the poor folk who are getting executed - their deaths have absolutely no sway. I think westerners are a lot harder lot than we and others take us for. I took as vacuous argument to keep we Canadians out of Iraq. Our recent work in the Gulf, Afghanistan and the former Yugoslavia should remind us of what the military can do when called. Sure we need a bigger military and sure we would use that bigger military in the face of a real threat to our actual sovereignty. But the democratic world is safe as long as we don't forget it is a democratic world we are trying to protect.

American democracy is more than strong enough to withstand such an attack. The US is not Spain, and, as one commentator has described it, the difference is the "American trait of retaliation for injury". But this strength requires leadership and resolve of the people, on this issue, not "nuance".

Of course a terrorist attack is meant to "benefit" the opposition, and "damage" the incumbent. It is meant to sow and nurture the "seeds of self doubt" in the subject population, and perhaps influence a close election against the incumbent. Otherwise, what's the point.

BTW, its been a while, hasn't it, since the terrorists (not "insurgents") captured a US hostage, or an Australian - probably because they know right now they might as well skip the "video pleas" and move straight to the beheading. No mileage in that. The terrorist prey on the weak and the vacillating.

Spoken too soon, sadly.

I read that they weren't taken without a fight.

Is it not "Love thy neighbour"..."thy" followed by a constanent, while "To thine own self be true"..."thine" followed by a vowel? Not a critique, just curious...any lurkers out there English majors?