We should ignore "sweet talk" and "loony remarks" from such an accomplished terrorist as the Bali bomber Sawad, because it would constitute a "miserable arguement" (sic) and "cheap, cheesey commentary" (sic), but not equally loony remarks from General Clark about the US having "created chaos" in Iraq, as though life was so peaceful and orderly in Iraq before the Americans arrived on the scene. Why would criticizing or ignoring the likes of the General's remarks be an "invidious form of censorship" and stifling debate, while it is "contorted logic" to "give credibililty" to what a mass-murdering religious fanatic has to say? If anything, we should pay very close attention to what the Sawads of the world say, what nurtures, motivates and comforts them. And surely if "people have a right to speak, especially when the subject turns to matters of war and peace", this applies either equally to everyone including both Sawad and General Clark - or no one at all. Sawad felt for example "For all human beings to stop now in this world, destroy all of the destructive weapons . . . if there were no weapons then peace can be created", a pronouncement with which many of the participants in the anti-war demonstrations would agree 100%. They would not consider such a statement "loony" in the slightest.
Current Events » in reply to Exactly my point
A double standard