wonderbuns is a loon. Hierarchy of responsibleness: what the hell is that? You meet weird people on the Internet. I once met a Prussian empire aristocracy loyalist who was devoted to the traditions of the church while being a lesbian atheist.

Traitor is often used in place of sedition, and the latter is rightly applied to certain members of the hard left. If you advocate for the victory of our enemy, celebrate the deaths of our forces, or willingly give out enemy propaganda, you are being seditious, although perhaps not in the legal sense. I don’t believe that makes a person a target, it just makes them an utter bastard.

I want us to win, not lose. If you think that we can improve our chances of success with a different strategy, please say so. (Although I heard a lot of fierce criticism of the Iraq Study Group, they were not called traitors.) Just remember that this your war and my war and all of our war, and a defeat in this will be a defeat for all of us.

Stewart, on the other hand, as a lawyer, knew perfectly well what she was doing when she broke court-ordered rules and passed messages from a terrorist suspect to his pals. The only thing that makes her case a wobbler is that we don’t know the contents of the message(s) she carried. They could have been Achmed’s recipe for hummus, in which case no problem; if they were instructions for a terrorist act, and she knew it (or had reason to suspect it), she’s a straight-up traitor in my book. Zealous representation of a client does not extend to breaking a court’s eminently sensible rule in that case.

Don’t strain yourself trying to find a quote of me calling anyone but Benedict Arnold a traitor, Chris. Be healthy.

First point, I did not submit the “wonderbuns” comment … as I trust Neo can confirm.

Second point, subsequent comments by Sally, Vince P, Sally, Gray, and Ymarsakar all confirm my opinions about the over the top, un-American, intolerant nature of self styled arbiters of patriotism. All seem more than willing to label anyone they disagree with a traitor and intimate if not out-right demand that such “traitors” should be eliminated. Are they all “sock puppets”?

Third point, to answer Occam’s Beard question regarding whom I might consider a traitor.

Jane Fonda – No
Adam Gadahn – Yes
Julius and Ethel Rosenberg – Yes
John Walker Lindh – Yes
Lynne Stewart – No
Axis Sally – Yes
Benedict Arnold – Yes

The Bush administration has quietly joined calls for Pakistan to allow international experts to join the probe into Bhutto’s Dec. 27 slaying. The officials said they expected an announcement soon that investigators from Britain’s Scotland Yard would be asked to play a significant role.

Islam and Muslims view?

Ymarsaka, is it the war between Islam and West?
Is it the war is Crusades war?

If thing so, then look the hatful sense here breath here in you soul.

Their pride said “can’t ask the Americans, foreign barbarians,

Most the report including US sources mentioning that “Alsahwa” are paid by American to fights AQI, your statement baseless and just lack of truth here,
Petraeus was very busy with US surge in Iraq to get them underway with US to fight AQI with one way of get them with him he rush them with money and some promises to recruit 20% of Alsahwa fighter in Iraqi military.

So in both “your comment has a taste of inevitability out of it

Jane Fonda
Adam Gadahn
Julius and Ethel Rosenberg
John Walker Lindh
Lynne Stewart
Axis Sally
Benedict Arnold

Anyone? Anyone at all?

For the record, I consider all of them traitors, but you probably knew that.

I suspect that the tribes could have thrown al qaida out without our help

A direct consequence of your beliefs concerning ruthlessness and the inevitability of terrorist tactics.

Your comment has a taste of inevitability out of it. Which reminds me of what I said about predestined outcomes and how that impacts how the war is seen.

In the past security has not been a prerequisite for a populace to rise up. The British colonists did not need security to rise up against King George.

The Crown Loyalists in America would make better analogies to the Sunni tribes of Al Anbar. They are the counter-insurgents to the terrorists’ insurgency. The counter-revolutionaries to the revolutionaries. The Crown Loyalists to the Colonial rebels.

While revolutionaries trade liberty and chaos for order and stability, counter-revolutionaries are forced to side with order against the instability that revolutionaries bring via their wars of rebellion and anarchy. It is too much stability, law, and order of the wrong type that brings rebels out the woodworks. If the British Monarchy was too much in chaos to enforce their laws and taxes, the Colonies wouldn’t have rebelled. Yet rebellion is also only possible because the British was not secure enough in their empire and policies.

In comparison to insurgents, counter-insurgents are created by the lack of security caused by the insurgents.

So to wrap things up, a sense that you will win is always a prerequisite for a populace to devote their lives to a fight. Security is only one indication that you can win to counter-insurgents.

The French did not need security to rise up against Louis XVI.

On a basic human nature basis, it is very hard to get anybody to fight when their families are held hostage to the blades of the enemy. Possible, but not practical.

People need a guarantee of victory, which includes a guarantee for safety for their families. Whether Palestinian bomber or American freedom fighter, people fight because they believe fighting and winning will guarantee the lives and health of their families. That is security and it is a very valuable commodity.

When self styled patriots argue for the elimination of anyone they consider “traitorous” I begin to fear for our own hold on democracy

It seems Chris has more faith in terrorists and enemies of humanity than his own countrymen. It’s indicative of something.

There goes factionalism and amoral familism on the field.