Blog powered by Typepad

News orgs

« Complete your post when blogging | Main | Summing up the mood of the country »

Jul 16, 2005

Comments

AL

These sorts of long-winded my-opinion-is-better-than-new-facts stories are why I don't read the Economist anymore.

Don't they do investigative journalism?

Small points:
- The bombers voluntarily chose their path, even if the younger ones had been brainwashed.
- Worldwide, my understanding is many suicide bombers are middle-class types.
- They all met in Pakistan, where some of the bombers trained at Islamist schools.
- One of the bombers was a Jamaican black man, so its not like they were in some self-contained nut group from one ethnic background, like participants in other Al Qaeda attacks.
- France now simply turfs out Muslims it doesn't like. Won't be long before the UK does the same.

The Economist reads like liberal crap these days. Which is probably why they came out for John Kerry, surely one of the most socialist (and useles, from a legislative point of view) Democratic candidates for yonks. But at least he had his special CIA hat given to him on a special mission into Cambodia, right?

Geniusnz

>psycho-bombers (they did not terrorise me - screw them)

Indeed we should stop calling them terrorists not because that is not what they aim to do but instead because it implies that they can suceed at what they are trying to do. We should not jsut tell them they are evil but concentrate more on that they dont stand a chance.

The comments to this entry are closed.