we "got involved" in the middle east therefore we have terrorist attacks coming our way, its only fair

8/10/2006 5:39:13 PM

Quote :

"(sure Carlos the Jackal bombed OPEC which is headquartered there, but he isn't muslim so this is not pertinent)"

How does Carlos being a mercenary make terrorists act performed by him as part of or behalf of a militant Islamic group "not pertinent"?

[Edited on August 10, 2006 at 5:41 PM. Reason : ]

8/10/2006 5:40:37 PM

hey OEP

Quote :
"im also interested as to why islamo-lunatics would attack so many other countries when they all mind thier own business??"


also...

Quote :
"I still want to know why the run of the mill westerner isn't innocent and if he dies in a terrorist attack its okay.

"

8/10/2006 5:41:01 PM

the issues not that we became involved in the middle East, the problem is we supported corrupt regimes (Shah, Hussein) and stopped by an impartial arbitrator and started to favor Israel.

8/10/2006 5:42:51 PM

well we cant change what we did in the past so why do we keep complaining about it

8/10/2006 5:43:52 PM

Because we can change what we do in the future.

8/10/2006 5:49:47 PM

if we pullout of there completely and isolate israel, they will still hate us


or israel would destroy the place

8/10/2006 5:53:54 PM

i do believe the next step is to not allow humans on the planes

8/10/2006 5:57:51 PM

Quote :

"Because we can change what we do in the future."

indeed....by bitching constantly about the past we can change the future. Coming up with solutions is nowhere near as important as pointing out past mistakes.

8/10/2006 6:05:31 PM

It's kinda tough to offer other solutions when the legislative doorways through which they'd have to pass are slammed shut.

8/10/2006 6:22:28 PM

And why are they slammed shut? That's right, because the people spoke on election day and told the pussy ass liberal french-looking democrats to keep their goddamned cowardly ass fingers out of our national security.

8/10/2006 7:33:56 PM

Great. I'm happy to hear that you understand the situation so thoroughly, you fucking ignorant prick.

Now the Soap Box won't have to listen to you bitch about liberals bitching about foreign policy ever, ever again. Because when the legislative means through which they could affect policy are shut, and speech is still free, there isn't much left for liberals to do than bitch.

Since you're obviously so intelligent to have finally understood, I'll trust that you'll not lose an IQ point or two and forget why so many liberals bitch so often about foreign policy...

---

Quote :

"bgmims: They hate our way of life and our countries policies."

Why do you conflate the two?

They most certainly do not when they attack us.

How many instances of Islamo-fascist terrorism have included a message about our way of life?

I will never understand how people can deny that these organizations are essentially foreign militias waging war against our country because of the consequences of our foreign policy. This isn't some group of randomly connected individuals who've found common ground on the fact that they hate the American lifestyle so much that they should dedicate their lives to destroying it.

Equally puzzling is how many like you suggest that those who "hate our way of life" will attack us because they envy it. Your capacity for self-contradiction on this matter is remarkable.

This type of reductionist depiction of the terrorists' motivations for political expediency ought to offend the minds of those interested in solving the terrorist dilemma. Part of why it remains such a persistent problem, and report after report echoes this, is that we continually fail to underestimate terrorists ingenuity. Perhaps believing they'd pick a fight with a giant over a simple disagreement in lifestyle differences, and not the emotionally charged images children killed by bombs paid for by our country's tax dollars that terrorist recruiters probably pass around daily, is one root of that problem.

Perhaps.

Quote :

"bgmims: Some of our policies can be changed, but others cannot."

Actually, they all can change. Every last one. I doubt we, the voting public, were ever intended to forget that fact.

Nonetheless, that gift is part of how Bin Laden justifies attacking American civilians. Since, we can affect our nation's policies and foreign policies through democratic processes, and we repeatedly ignored (i.e. didn't hear about or didn't care about) his public declarations of transgressions against the United States, he publicly declared war against us and attacked us repeatedly before 9/11. Then, he was inspired to orchestrate 9/11 by an image he saw in 1982, in an environment familiar to our own headlines.

In his own words, "as I was looking at those towers that were destroyed in Lebanon, it occurred to me that we have to punish the transgressor with the same -- and that we had to destroy the towers in America so that they taste what we tasted, and they stop killing our women and children."

We obviously see how well that prevented Lebanon from going to hell again. This time in the hands of Hezbollah and our allies.

But the point is that our policies can change.

You may say that the political reality is that they can't. But eventually voters tire of the consequences of that political reality. Consequences like terrorist plots aimed at them, terrorist plots that kill them and those they know, multi-billion dollar foreign adventures into terrorist-occupied countries that kill or endanger their friends and relatives for extended periods, Draconian foreign and domestic anti-terrorist measures that limit freedom and upset the world, and any other such consequences that spill over into actual reality.

I suggest that the results of the next election will represent this exhaustion.

Quote :

"bgmims: The whole idea that we should leave other countries alone is outdated."

True. As is the idea that there are political figures of relevance who feel that we should “leave other countries alone.”

I suspect more reductionism is behind this. Feel free to explain what you meant by that…

Quote :

"bgmims: If there are human rights violations in other countries (like the Taliban was perpetuating) we have to deal with them."

1) Why?
2) Says who?
3) Must we rush to deal with them by ourselves and only at politically expedient moments?

Mind, I’m not disagreeing that the United States shouldn’t involve itself in efforts to confront human rights violations in other countries. In fact, if you’d listen closely, few people actually do. I’m just not addicted to the idea that bombs and aggression are the one-size-fits-all solution to the problems of the world; after all, it was the first solution to them.

Quote :

"If it also means we have to make part of our budget used to protect us against terrorism, then I still think its worth it."

Great. But what if 51% of voting Americans in 270 EC votes worth of states don’t?

And even if they did in 2004 and continue to in 2006, what if they don’t in 2008? In 2012?

[Edited on August 10, 2006 at 7:48 PM. Reason : kode]

8/10/2006 7:46:00 PM

Quote :

"And why are they slammed shut? That's right, because the people spoke on election day and told the pussy ass liberal french-looking democrats to keep their goddamned cowardly ass fingers out of our national security."

LOL.

while GWB and Pals try to allow the sale of our nations' shipping terminals to Dubai.

For instance.

Matt youre such a tough talking hawk, its really cute.



[Edited on August 10, 2006 at 8:20 PM. Reason : ]

8/10/2006 7:52:22 PM

You forgot this one:

...while GWB and Pals emulated the previously rejected idea of the DHS as proposed by a prominent Senate Democrat.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14290815/

Quote :

"Most of the terrorist attacks since 9/11 were carried out by people who were or would be suicide bombers, and their numbers seem to be growing in number every day. Is this merely some contagious madness? When Al Qaeda plotters Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi Youssef plotted attacks on 11 American planes flying from Asia in 1995, their idea was to leave bombs on board hidden in life jackets after stopovers. The scanty information released thus far about the British plot suggests that teams of people, fully aware that they would die, were going to take components for the bombs on board separately, then assemble them to kill themselves and everybody traveling with them. There is no excuse for those who would carry out such atrocities, but there are reasons that keep pushing recruits to take up the suicidal cause of attacking the United States. To blame “Islamic fascism” that “wants to destroy those of us who love freedom” dodges responsibility for making those reasons more abundant, and making them worse, over the last five years. What’s at work in the heads of those who would kill themselves to slaughter Americans is less Al Qaeda’s ideology, such as it is, than a pervasive sense that Muslims are under attack: their lands occupied; their men, women and children victimized around the world. The Iraqi slaughterhouse, besieged Gaza, wasted Lebanon are all examples in the minds of those who convince themselves that suicidal terror is the only way to fight back. While partly blaming Israel, their frantic logic finds easier targets among the people who elected the invaders of Iraq, the backers of Israel, George Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair."

[Edited on August 10, 2006 at 8:09 PM. Reason : ...]

8/10/2006 7:55:26 PM

Quote :

"How many instances of Islamo-fascist terrorism have included a message about our way of life?"

This is too easy.

from OsamaBinLaden

Quote :

"(2) The second thing we call you to, is to stop your oppression, lies, immorality and debauchery that has spread among you. (a) We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest. We call you to all of this that you may be freed from that which you have become caught up in; that you may be freed from the deceptive lies that you are a great nation, that your leaders spread amongst you to conceal from you the despicable state to which you have reached. (b) It is saddening to tell you that you are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind: "

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html

8/10/2006 8:23:05 PM

hmm.

well dammit. i like alcohol and fornicatin.

i guess were gonna hafta go bomb some more brown people.

8/10/2006 8:26:32 PM

^^well now isnt that amazing...

it seems as though he hates us because of how we are....who would have thought that??

8/10/2006 8:38:27 PM

You don't think we should change our ways Joe? I mean, they don't like it, shouldn't we give in?


And hey, if 51% of the people don't want our policies the way they are, vote against the leaders.
It isn't that fucking difficult.

As to specific responses

Quote :

"How many instances of Islamo-fascist terrorism have included a message about our way of life?"

That was pwnt shortly after being uttered

Quote :

"Actually, they all can change. Every last one. I doubt we, the voting public, were ever intended to forget that fact. "

Ok, sure they all COULD change, and we also COULD be overtaken by a communist revolution. But it isn't likely.

Quote :

"1) Why? 2) Says who? 3) Must we rush to deal with them by ourselves and only at politically expedient moments? "

1) Because that's part of being a decent human being
2) ? Are you fucking serious?
3) I can appreciate the point that we only deal with those violations that are politically expedient, but is that better than not dealing with any at all, right?
I mean, just because we haven't solved the problem in the Sudan, does that mean we are allowed to solve no other problems.

8/10/2006 8:44:56 PM

The three reasons cited by bin Ladin in his Fatwah are:

Quote :

"First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples. If some people have formerly debated the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it. The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, still they are helpless. Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, in excess of 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation. So now they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors. Third, if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. "

His reasons (at least his direct reasons) are largely based on US involvement in Desert Storm I, particularly the locating of military bases in Saudi Arabia.

In case you had any doubt, Osama makes no distinction between civilians and soldiers:

Quote :

"The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies--civilians and military--is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty God, "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God." [...] We -- with God's help -- call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson."

http://www.ict.org.il/articles/fatwah.htm

8/10/2006 8:46:11 PM

Quote :

"His reasons (at least his direct reasons) excuses are largely based on US involvement in Desert Storm I, particularly the locating of military bases in Saudi Arabia."

This is the crux of the matter: liberals think we are dealing with sane humanitarian people who merely have a different perspective on world affairs than we do.

but actually we're dealing with andrea yates style nutjobs who feel called by allah to destroy all of mankind and usher in the [apocalypse] / [utopian islamic world] / [whatever makes u feel better about killing people]

8/10/2006 9:41:43 PM

^exactly...

you people are trying to establish some moral equivalence between us and them. but you cant. because there is not one.

these people are insane and want to kill us just because we are americans and not muslims. there is no moral equivalence. they are not sane people who just have a difference of opinion. they are insane religeous zealots who will would just as soon kill us as look at us.

8/10/2006 9:45:28 PM

Osama bin Laden is a new type of terrorist. He isn't really a revolutionary because he's not part of any revolution. His long term goal, if you can call it that, is to establish I guess what would be an Islamic empire ruled by Islamic law.

I mean really, there's no sanity to apply to his or any other religous extremist. They believe in their faith absolutely, and faith exists only in an absense of logic.

That being said, however, the way we've handled Iraq isn't helpful in reducing terrorism. Quite the contrary, the way we handled Iraq shows to even moderate muslims that America acts only in its own self interest and if that interest is contrary to that of another people, then we will bulldoze through them by God. This gives a sense of legitimacy to everything Bin Laden is saying in their eyes.

I know TWW isn't capable of any form of empathy, but imagine if you're a lebanese youth who three weeks ago went to school and dreamed of being a soccer player, and just yesterday your entire family died to an Isreali bombing. How would you rationalize it? How would you view Isreal, or the United States?

No, everything we've done in the middle east post 9/11 has weakened the United States militarily and polarized the nation politically and drove more middle eastern youth into the clutches of extremism. It couldn't have played out better for them.

8/10/2006 10:27:48 PM

that's the short-term outlook, to be sure.

8/10/2006 10:31:20 PM

Quote :

""His reasons (at least his direct reasons) excuses"

Not to be a grammar Nazi, but 'reason' is the correct word.

A reason is a motive for action.
An excuse is a justification for forgiveness. bin Ladin has no excuses.

Like it or not, those points are Osama's motivation and Gamecat has a perfectly valid point: know your enemy. It's certainly true that OBL abhors the west, but you have to give him more credit than "OMG he hates us! That's why he's trying to kill us!" Osama is motivated by more specific things than "the west sux. Down with Israel!" If you do not understand how your actions will affect the actions of others, you will never succeed. If you understand others' motivations, you can anticipate and head off your opponents actions. If you don't understand motivations, you will continuously be on the defensive, responding to others actions.

A great example of this is the insurgency/terrorists in Iraq, which we completely failed to anticipate. This isn't to say that we shouldn't be there--it's to say that we should've been prepared.

8/10/2006 10:59:26 PM

It seems like brutality is the only language the durka durks understand, unfortunately.

Seems like giving in at this point teaches them that brutality works in their favor, and brutality is the only way to defeat them. It's sad.

8/10/2006 11:01:21 PM

excuses excuses...there is no moral equivalency...period

these people believe that by killing american infidels they will gain a free pass to heaven.....they are insane and they should die before they can kill us...what is so hard to get??

8/10/2006 11:44:37 PM

Quote :

"bgmims: You don't think we should change our ways Joe?"

no, i dont think we should change our ways because OBL says so.

the surest way to defeat terrorism is to engage them. export McDonald's franchises, Captain Morgan's Spiced Rum, and softcore cable porn to arab countries -- within a few years they'd all be chasing the bling and will have forgotten all that "kill the infidel" bullshit.

but seriously, blind support of everythign Israel is bad policy. just about every single UN resolution critisizing Israel on their agression against the palastinians, has been vetoed by a single Security Council vote: The United States.

Intervention into arab goverments is bad policy. we propped up the corrupt shah of iran for decades against the will of the Iranian people, and look what it got us: the Iranian Revolution installed an anti-western islamic theocracy. so then we propped up saddam hussein, gave him chemical weapons to use against iran, and what did it get us? want to see the next Iran? look at Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

we're making enemies faster than we can kill them.




[Edited on August 11, 2006 at 12:30 AM. Reason : ]

8/11/2006 12:12:19 AM

Quote :

"Excoriator: This is the crux of the matter: liberals think we are dealing with sane humanitarian people who merely have a different perspective on world affairs than we do. but actually we're dealing with andrea yates style nutjobs who feel called by allah to destroy all of mankind and usher in the [apocalypse] / [utopian islamic world] / [whatever makes u feel better about killing people]"

you really dont get it do you?

yes, terrorist leaders like OBL are criminal bastards who dont deserve to walk free anywhere on this planet.

but we, the united states, by killing thousands in iraq, by blindly supporting anything Israel does in killing palastinians, by attempting to influence control over sovereign nations.... we are playing right into the terrorist leaders hand.

liberal and moderate muslims now have absolutely no voice in their countries. the Islamacists have been given complete control of the debate. and this is directly the result of shortsighted leadership of our current government.

you really want a global war? you think that will be fun? shake things up a bit huh? i guess i just dont get you man. i thought i knew you somewhat. did you change?




[Edited on August 11, 2006 at 12:28 AM. Reason : ]

8/11/2006 12:26:17 AM

^and ^^ ...all a bunch of words...and look where all this talking has gotten us

ok so they hate us because we support israel...they want to see every Jew who lives in Israel dead....we are opposed to that...for that reason (plus the fact that we are american infidels)...they want us dead too...

Quote :

"Those who reject Islam must be killed. If they turn back, take them and kill them wherever you find them..." reads Surah 4:89 from the Noble Quran. Surah 47:4 from the same book reads "So, when you meet those who disbelieve, smite necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (take captive)." Those who read the Quran and follow it fundamentally would be expected to deny aid and even if they accept it, never appreciate it, espeically if it comes from their sworn enemies."

and there ya have it....lets all kill the infidels and go to heaven

8/11/2006 12:46:49 AM

what's it like living in a world where everything is black and white?

8/11/2006 12:49:40 AM

this foiled terrorist plot is propoganda intended to save face for the current administration

8/11/2006 4:53:14 AM

you moron

Quote :

"Not to be a grammar Nazi, but 'reason' is the correct word. A reason is a motive for action. An excuse is a justification for forgiveness. bin Ladin has no excuses."

that's not grammar - that's your interpretation of bin laden's motivations. I still say all those "reasons" were nothing more than convenient justifications

8/11/2006 7:04:38 AM

Quote :

"this foiled terrorist plot is propoganda intended to save face for the current administration"

How cute, a little faggy anarchist conspiracy theorist. Are you sure it wasn't perpetrated by the zionists, emosalsbury?

8/11/2006 7:17:58 AM

there is no arguining with neo-conservative douchbages like^.

they refuse to support changing this countries policy and hegemony in the middle east, so as to insure more terrorist attacks. they want us to be attacked.

they think admitting fault is insane, even thought any individual would be judged certifiable if they proclaimed that they were perfect.

[Edited on August 11, 2006 at 7:28 AM. Reason : dfg]

8/11/2006 7:28:13 AM

Josh, go back in that thread about blaming the girl who got raped and talk about her personal responsibility for her attack.

Oh, wait...that would require you to have a consistent position about these kinds of things.

8/11/2006 7:39:58 AM

Please run to the nearest dictionary.

Quote :

"rea·son Audio pronunciation of "reason" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rzn) n. 1. The basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction."

Quote :

"ex·cuse Audio pronunciation of "excuse" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (k-skyz) n. (k-skys) 1. An explanation offered to justify or obtain forgiveness."

At no point did I or anyone else say, "Oh, here's what made poor little Osama do some of the terrible things he has done. As you can see, it's not really his fault. Oh, what a poor guy...." No one has said that because that would be an excuse and, as I explicitly said, there are no excuses for OBL. Please stop trying to put words into my mouth.

That being said, OBL is not an automaton programmed to kill, kill, kill. Something makes him get out of bed in the morning and it's probably worth knowing what that something is.

8/11/2006 7:41:24 AM

well...i know...lets talk to this perfectly normal sane person and see if we can get him to explain to us exactly why he killed 3000 innocent people in our country.



you got that? he killed 3000 innocent people. Now what do we call someone like jack the ripper or jeffrey dahlmer?? we call them crazy. we call them insane. they say they have thier "reasons" for killing a few people but ultimatly people go "man...that guy was sick in the head" ...people dont draw a moral equivalence between you and me and jeffrey dahlmer because there is no moral equivalency

so how in the world you liberals can try to justify what someone like OBL does is so far beyond me. to try to paint him as a normal person like you and me who just has a difference of opinion is disgusting. he killed 3000 innocent people, ok. he is insane. whatever his "reasons" are, are not relevant. he is an insane muslims fanatic who hates americans because they are infidels and infidels must die.


[Edited on August 11, 2006 at 8:31 AM. Reason : asdf]

8/11/2006 8:08:37 AM

Please point out where:

1) I've said that we should just go talk to the guy.

2) I've tried to justify his actions.

3) I've tried to draw moral equivalencies.

4) I've tried to paint him as a normal person.

5) I've said that OBL is not a monster.

8/11/2006 8:25:21 AM

geez..

1) im not just talking to you...get past yourself

2) im talking to any liberal who tries to justify in any way what OBL or any muslim terrorist does

3) you did in fact suggest that there are "reasons" for what OBL did...my response to that is who cares what his "reasons" are...he is a crazy person and as such, his "reasons" do not matter


back to the real topic...

hey OEP


"im also interested as to why islamo-lunatics would attack so many other countries when they all mind thier own business??"


also...


"I still want to know why the run of the mill westerner isn't innocent and if he dies in a terrorist attack its okay.

[Edited on August 11, 2006 at 8:34 AM. Reason : asdf]

8/11/2006 8:31:11 AM

our involvement in Gulf War I was not OBL's "reason" for terrorism. It was his excuse.

the reason for his terrorism is nutjobbery

[Edited on August 11, 2006 at 8:39 AM. Reason : s]

8/11/2006 8:39:29 AM

Christ, A Tanzarian, could you get your head any further up Osama bin Laden's ass? You're practically defending him and his fatwah.

[Edited on August 11, 2006 at 8:45 AM. Reason : .]

8/11/2006 8:44:46 AM

This thread illustrates the level of discourse that is typical, now, in this country. You can't even try to know your enemy without being called his best friend. While ignoramuses toss around epithets about knowing too much about bin laden, the people who are tasked to get intelligence on our enemies know better.

Bin laden isn't crazy -- he's religious. He is like a Crusader.

The evidence from both his words and his actions overwhelmingly shows that he is quite rational. Was OBL crazy when he fought the soviet invaders in afghanistan? It's on that same basis that he fights the US. Contrary to being called crazy, people who literally fight to defend their religious beliefs are admired. This is certainly what most muslims think, and this is much closer to the truth than the caricature of craziness.

However, it does make childish people feel warm in their loins to pretend that they are fighting someone who is irrational. It could be one of many pretend victories these people have created in their heads.

8/11/2006 10:31:56 AM

i saw someone drive around with an OBL sticker that looks like the OBX sticker

just kidding

8/11/2006 10:33:07 AM

Difference: bin Laden fought the Soviet invaders. If bin Laden fights our military in Afghanistan, that's his right. It's a war. We invaded.

But to call someone rational who orchestrates the mass murder of civillians, using civillian modes of transportations as missiles, pays families of suicide bombers who strap bombs to themselves and detonate them inside of pizza parlors and disco tecs... I'm sorry, but it is disgusting to even use the word rational with such irrational modes of warfare.

You sir, are a fucking idiot.


Every civilized nation tries to minimize collateral damage. But why doesn't bin laden? Because he not only hates our government, he hates our people and what we stand for. To him, the war is against not the American government, but the American people and the American way of life.


[Edited on August 11, 2006 at 10:36 AM. Reason : .]

8/11/2006 10:34:36 AM

^ i think there was a tape he released where he said that it wasn't the American people, but rather the American leaderhsip that he was angry at

but we were all too busy watching Bubba Sparx's Miss New Booty video

8/11/2006 10:39:05 AM

ok what he says and what he does are two different things. If you hate a government, but love the people, you don't kill the people (see both WTC disasters).

That is ridiculous. 3,000 CIVILLIANS died. Not GI's or Marines.

8/11/2006 10:44:10 AM

he never said he loved the people...i'm not really arguing a point here, i'm just saying what he said

btw, remember the bombing of Dresden?

8/11/2006 10:50:01 AM

Now you are arguing that terror is an irrational strategy against a much stronger opponent? Try reading a book about war tactics, some time. Also, try reading an american history book, too. Terror doesn't only need to be used against a much stronger enemy to be rational or effective.

I don't know where you get that bin laden draws a distinction between our government and our people. In fact, he has said as much. Only dumb westerners think people can wage wars without the consent of the governed. OBL does not ( and neither should we. )

[Edited on August 11, 2006 at 10:55 AM. Reason : 46sdf]

8/11/2006 10:53:17 AM

I'm arguing from the POV of us. Yes, it is disgusting, his tactics. To him, his tactics may be the only rational thing to do.

HOWEVER, it is digusting for someone on our side to sympathize with the someone who has murdered > 3000 of our citizens and still plots to do so.

8/11/2006 10:56:20 AM

Did you seriously just rationalize 9/11 as a defense of his religion? I think he moved onto offense around the same time he started bombing Americans in non-muslim countries.

You can't possibly call a massive attack, purposely orchestrated on civilians is defense.

Our nukes are not defensive weapons.

8/11/2006 11:01:02 AM