Posted on 09/06/2002 9:40:38 AM PDT by OldMetMan
No, we don't deserve one. However, if we do get one, we will improve and get stronger because there won't be many liberals left.
Of course, we're a LOT smarter then that, we would never fall into such an obvious trap, now would we? Of course not.
What was your point?
The liberals have the same goals that the muslims have, the total destruction of this nation, its form of government and the murder of all those who do not publicly convert to their views.
Because of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the suicidal mindset of so many fanatics, I believe we are in the final battle for civilization. Many of these crazy mass murderers have no demands or agenda. All they seek is the mass death of innocents. That is the primary clue the gates of hell are already opened. There is nothing to negotiate. We fight or we die.
WHat was your point?
Think with your head, don't get hysterical and let your emotions get the better of you. I am sure it is emotionally satisfying to post pictures of Mecca being nuked (see above), but it's also worth nothing that that's exactly what Bin Laden's goal was in the first place: to trigger a larger conflict between the US and the arab nations that would pour gasoline on global anti-American sentiment, destabilize moderate Muslim regimes, and, eventually, draw Israel into WWIII.
So far many here seem to think it's great - wonderful! - that Bush has been dancing to Osama's tune so skillfully. I will concur, of course - Bush does do a nice two-step and many of those Middle-Eastern melodies are indeed compelling, albeit a bit eerie.
Sometimes I wonder though if it wouldn't be a good idea to take a step back and think about *why* "Al Queda" thought it would be to their advantage to lure the US into fighting a multiple-front war in the Middle East.
You need to alter the code on that graphic so that it demolishes the place, and then stays like that until it is reloaded a few seconds later for another total destruction.
You make no sense at all AND you're giving Osama way too much credit.
This is about a maniacal religious fundamentalism....period. It needs to be burned into submission.
I am just a script-kiddie who collects OPJs (other peoples' jpegs). What you describe is far beyond my meager capabilities.
Wrong. They seek the mass death of infidels. An important distinction, at least from their point of view.
No it isn't. Japan is a state that (at that time) was part of an alliance called the Axis. The Pearl Harbor attack was a pre-emptive strike meant to reduce our naval strength, because the Japanese military knew that they were going to be fighting with us soon anyway. We are now bombing radar installations in Iraq right now for much the same reason.
The 9-11 attack, on the other hand, was not a military strike by a state but a terrorist attack by an unofficial and underground organization with members in no less than 60 different states. The purpose of terrorism is not to engage in frontal military clashes but to *provoke* a reaction for the purpose of destabilization, the more dramatic and polarizing the better. That is why terrorist attacks are usually aimed at civilians, not military. The terrorist cannot win in a standard military conflict, so he looks at the militaries of his opponenents - and their allies/enemies too - as pawns that he hopes to sucker into conflict with each other, towards whatever strategic goal.
So in your opinion a better response by Roosevelt would of been what.....sit back, fold his arms and smile content in the fact that he wouldn't be manipulated by the Japs?
If the attack on Pearl harbor had been launched by members of a Chinese terrorist cell who were trying to lure the US into attacking Japan in order to achieve some third goal from the resulting conflict, then yes, I would have wanted FDR not to take the bait.
As it so happens, Japan - the state itself - was preparing for war with us, and the attack was a simple first punch from an actual opponent, so I'm afraid your analogy doesn't hold
You make no sense at all AND you're giving Osama way too much credit.
This is about a maniacal religious fundamentalism....period. It needs to be burned into submission.
Osama has stated that he has three goals: get the US to stop backing Israel over the Palestinians, get the US out of Saudi Arabia, and stop the blockade of Iraq. Analysts say that he hoped to acheive this by provoking the US into using overwhelming force on certain arab countries so that the citizens of these countries become radicalized enough to topple their own nominally pro-western leaders. We are being used as a pawn, in other words.
"Things have to get worse before they get better" - that's a marxist idea, and springs from the hegelian dialectic, the idea that it is in the interest of the revolutionary to bring out the worst in the regimes he hopes to topple, because the misery and anger of the "masses" have to reach some sort of boiling point before they will be sufficiently motivated to rebel.
I agree that to see this stuff purely in terms of irrational religious fantasies is easier to wrap your mind around but I think the underlying situation is a bit more complex. Sure, religious fanaticism motivates the masses, but terrorists also see things in geopolitical terms, as do our own leaders. It's more like a chess game being fought out by proxy than a straight-up fist fight.
They don't seem to mind Muslims slaughtered as "collateral damage."
When you detonate a car bomb in a crowded street, or plow an airliner into a tall building, how do you insure the slaughter only of infidels?
I have a feeling Israel lies somewhere in your theories as to the root causes of these religious fanatics.
It's my "theory" and "speculation" that these people were "terrorists" - that is to say, they, or more accurately, the people directing them - had some sort of larger geo-political strategic goal. It's my "theory" and "speculation" that they were hoping to provoke us into responding in kind.
I'll go a step further and make a radical claim, my friend I think terrorists use different tactics and have differents strategies than conventional armies! That's my "theory." That's my "speculation." (Actually that is just the standard definition of "terrorism," but if you don't agree with it, then we can look at the other possibilities too).
So, what if I am wrong about this and you are right? What if it was not a terrorist attack at all, but a frontal assualt from some as-of-yet-unnamed-state which had no other goal beyond weakening our own ability to respond in kind?
It seems to me that there are good arguments against this position, which I will now enumarate for you:
1.the 9-11 attackers were not part of any country's military
2.nobody took credit for the attack right away
3.civilians were the targets of the attack, and not soldiers
So it really does seem to me that this was, indeed, a terrorist attack - that it's purpose was to spread "terror" and provoke us into doing something back, which is basically what terrorism is all about.
Time will tell which of us is right, I suppose.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.