Our Enemy is in the Sand

Toogood Reports ^ | 19 March 2003 | Nicholas Stix

[mrustow]

FYI

[mrustow]

FYI

[mrustow]

FYI

[mrustow]

FYI

[mrustow]

FYI

[mrustow]

FYI

[mrustow]

FYI

[mrustow]

FYI

[mrustow]

FYI

[aristeides]

Deniability regarding 911 is least plausible in the case of Saudi Arabia. It was their men, and their money, that took down the World Trade Center towers, a section of the Pentagon, and four airliners carrying Americans. Days after 911, a friend who was teaching in Saudi Arabia wrote that a local imam had argued in the newspaper, that suicide attacks were perfectly justified within Islam, as long as the suicide part was only a means to a greater end, and not an end in itself.

There was an article in the Wall Street Journal the other day about how records we seized in Bosnia last year show how three of the richest families in Saudi, including the Mahfouzes, had supported Al Qaeda.

[mrustow]

Thanks for the tip, ari.

[mrustow]

When are we going to attack Malaysia, Tunisia, Morocco, Indonesia, Egypt etc? It's frankly nutter city.

I think we're gonna chase radical muslims wherever they are. They will give up on their holy war against the infidels before we have to take it to all those countries. Just putting pressure on Saudi Arabia and Iran will go along way.

BTTT.

[boris]

I am notoriously bellicose. So I will say it plainly.

On 9/11/2001, a monstrous act of war was committed. It was worse than Pearl Harbor because it targeted women and children on our soil.

Every Arab or islamic nation is guilty in some degree for supporting and harboring terrorists. It is true we cannot find the individuals 'in the sand'. So be it.

The enemy has told us that there are no innocents, no non-combatants. So be it.

Eventually we will have to deal with them one by one, or all together. I have (quite seriously) advocated nuking every Arab capital; indeed I thought it should have been done on 9/12/2001. The argument is precise: it would not eliminate the terrorist threat, but it would certainly rock it. It would disrupt the governments and financial institutions that support it. AND IT WOULD SEND A MESSAGE. "Message received. No innocents; no exceptions. You wanna play with us? We shall play with all the tools at our disposal."

The United States is trying to explain the Marquis of Queensbury Rules--and trying to fight by them--while the other guy has brass knucks and a broken bottle. That is a good way to lose.

We are in a war for cultural and national survival. A billion people want us dead--or conquered. We may as well get it on now and get it over with.

--Boris

[Valin]

I recall reading something similar in Stephen Schwartz's Book "The two faces of Islam". That the Saudi/Wahhabi's were deeply involved in the balkans. On a positive note(according to Mr. Schwartz) there heavyhanded tactics offended many of the local muslims.

[mrustow]

Well, you make me sound like a pacifist. I sgree with you re us having to ditch Marquis of Queensbury rules, but I guess we define "ditch" differently.

[Betty Jo]

They are saying that the grenader in the camp in Kuwait is an American Muslim soldier.

Gafney was just on Fox saying how the Imans that preach in our armed services are mostly of the Wahabi sect.

The last I knew Abdurahman Alamoudi of Hillary fame,and a contributer to her and Bush,Bush returned the $$$$$$,was the person who chose the Imans.

This American Alamoudi is a relative of the above Al-Amoudi.

President Bush invited this Alamoudi to the White House many times even after 9/11.

And Freepers wonder why I hate Condi Rice?

[swarthyguy]

Perhaps they were donating in their capacity as private citizens and not officially the government. Though how you differentiate the two in a monarchist clerical despotic regime is beyond me. But that's the official party line the US is saying. I'm convinced.

[mrustow]

See also:

"We Few, We Happy Few, We Band of Brothers": In Honor of Mssrs. John Howard and Tony Blair