> I may not think that Nathan's provided his most lucid analysis as regards
> the recent terrorism, but I see no reason to viscously lampoon him.
A viscous lampoon! Chris, how could you?
But seriously: Nathan did say, again and again and again and in spite of all protestations, that contextualizing events is exactly the same thing as justifying them, and that anybody who sees any connection whatsoever between U.S. foreign policy and what happened is effectively celebrating the victims' deaths. I'd say that's pretty vicious (if not viscous).
Gary Ashwill