Suspected terrorist attacks in London

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@Jul 8 2005, 12:56 PM
Contrary to popular belief, Iraq was not a country where people were conditioned to hate the western way of life. In fact, it was one of the only Middle Eastern countries where the people had ample access to American TV and movies. They also had a thriving capitalist economy, and the 2nd highest percentage of educated females (next to Israel) for several years, until sanctions. I also read somewhere before that Saddam Hussein was a huge fan of the NFL and made it so that Iraqis could watch it. He was supposedly a New York Jets fan.

Of course, during sanctions there was more poverty and anti-Americanism, but I don't think it was anything like Saudi Arabia or even Kuwait. Right now though, after the invasion, it is probably higher than it has ever been in Iraq.

Yup, can't argue with that, Iraq was definetely more "liberal" in some ways than other Muslim countries (infact I have heard Iraq had the best educated general population in the Middle East). Still, 10+ years of sanctions, poverty, and a sense of abandonment by American forces after the first Gulf War is reason enough to breed anti-Americanism, but I guess dire situations tend to foster defeatist and vengeful emotions.

I agree, the problems lie in the political institutions of places like Saudi Arabia and numerous other countries - the Saudi Royal Family and their dealings come to mind. Corrupt police forces, shady business dealings within communities, and governmental money squandering are part of the problem too.

[transplant99]

There seems to be differing opinions as to what motivates Al-Qaeda and those of their ilk.

I guess that's why so much disagreement on a variety of issues when their name is attached to something.

I am of the very popular opinion that they couldnt care less what the actual target is/was, where it is /was, other than they are exterminating non-Muslims. Period.

There are a myriad of websites that deal with both sides of this equation.

here is one that seemingly is non-biased and more a watchdog of radical groups than anything else.

From an article that addresses the bombing in Riyahd, and that they were targeting their own. They apparently weren't.

"The November 8 bombing took place in a Lebanese Christian neighborhood of Riyadh, and of the seven publicly identified Lebanese victims, six were Christian. Lebanon's newspapers are replete with photographs of Maronite Catholic and Greek Orthodox victims. Daleel al Mojahid, an al Qaeda-linked webpage, praised the killing of 'non-Muslims.' The Middle East Media Research Institute quotes Abu Salma al Hijazi, reputed to be an al Qaeda commander, as saying that Saudi characterizations of the victims as Muslims were 'merely media deceit.'"

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/000239.php

[Looger]

anyone identifying middle-east struggles on a purely religious slant has a very limited understanding of what's going on.

tribal rivalries, going back centuries, play a HUGE part, especially when dealing with christian extremists like the phalange, maronites, etc.

in the arab world thinking strictly along muslim-christian lines is a big mistake.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Flame On+Jul 7 2005, 10:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flame On @ Jul 7 2005, 10:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Flame Of Liberty@Jul 7 2005, 11:42 AM

Absolutely sickening. Someone should tell us again that the war on terror shoulndt be fought and it will slowly go away. :angry:

I think it's the war in iraq that would be argued against, who'd argue against the war on terror? [/b][/quote]
There are plenty of opinions that war on Iraq causes (or is a major cause of) terrorism. European and Northamerican mainstream still doesn`t understand that terror does not have causes that could be rationally explained. In other words, many still don`t understand that terror is not caused by "americans poking their noses where they dont belong" or that "terrorism can be defeated by increasing foreign aid to eliminate poverty" etc. Terrorists operate under different "value" system where everyone who is not a fanatical religious nut like them is seen as a mortal enemy. Period.

PS Thanks transplant.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty+Jul 9 2005, 02:24 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flame Of Liberty @ Jul 9 2005, 02:24 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

I think it's the war in iraq that would be argued against, who'd argue against the war on terror?

There are plenty of opinions that war on Iraq causes (or is a major cause of) terrorism. European and Northamerican mainstream still doesn`t understand that terror does not have causes that could be rationally explained. In other words, many still don`t understand that terror is not caused by "americans poking their noses where they dont belong" or that "terrorism can be defeated by increasing foreign aid to eliminate poverty" etc. Terrorists operate under different "value" system where everyone who is not a fanatical religious nut like them is seen as a mortal enemy. Period.

PS Thanks transplant. [/b][/quote]
Oh for sure, I agree.

But why do they keep telling us all those made-up reasons for their loonery?

For example when some crazy says "I don't want an American military base in Saudi Arabia", why doesn't he just cut to the chase and say "Everyone who is not a fanatatical religious nut is my mortal enemy"?

Why beat around the bush?

[transplant99]

For example when some crazy says "I don't want an American military base in Saudi Arabia", why doesn't he just cut to the chase and say "Everyone who is not a fanatatical religious nut is my mortal enemy"?

He pretty much does. (Bin Laden)

On that basis, and in compliance with God's order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims



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."

This is in addition to the words of Almighty God "And why should ye not fight in the cause of God and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated and oppressed--women and children, whose cry is 'Our Lord, rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will help!'"

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.

From his declaration of war on the US. in 1998.

Almighty God also says "So lose no heart, nor fall into despair. For ye must gain mastery if ye are true in faith."



The entire thing, the whole basis for Al-Qaeda's existence...is to eliminate all non-Muslims.

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

[Mike F]

Originally posted by transplant99@Jul 9 2005, 03:41 AM

He pretty much does. (Bin Laden)

[snip]

The entire thing, the whole basis for Al-Qaeda's existence...is to eliminate all non-Muslims.

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

I don't know how you arrive at that conclusion from the link you provide.

Yes, he calls on all Muslims "to kill the Americans and their allies--civilians and military," but time and again he cites the American activities in "the Peninsula" as the reason for the attacks.

"First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula..."

"...the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region..."

"...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."

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Mike F+Jul 9 2005, 02:29 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mike F @ Jul 9 2005, 02:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-transplant99@Jul 9 2005, 03:41 AM

He pretty much does. (Bin Laden)

[snip]

The entire thing, the whole basis for Al-Qaeda's existence...is to eliminate all non-Muslims.

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

I don't know how you arrive at that conclusion from the link you provide.

Yes, he calls on all Muslims "to kill the Americans and their allies--civilians and military," but time and again he cites the American activities in "the Peninsula" as the reason for the attacks.

"First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula..."

"...the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region..."

"...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." [/b][/quote]
I am sorry but this is just rhetoric. So lets imagine Americans leave "the peninsula." What about Israelis? Should they all move to Madagascar too? Fanatics stated many times that the ultimate goal is not peace with Israel (they actually kill people with such views as "traitors." Its mindboggling that EU diplomants are having diplomatic talks with such murderes. But thats off topic). Their ultimate goal is total destruction of Israel. And finally, what about non muslim Arabs? Christian Lebanese and such? Are they occupying "holy muslim land" too?

It is very easy and misleading to point your finger at the US and say that fanatics only want to fight American "imperialism". Those lunatics hate everyone who dont belong to them equaly. Taliban killed muslim men if they refused to wear beards. Similar practices are appearing again in Iran with their new president. You dont fit their sick views about world - they will try to kill you. You are an infidel, you are an enemy. Its simple as that.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Jul 9 2005, 10:19 AM
Oh for sure, I agree.

But why do they keep telling us all those made-up reasons for their loonery?

For example when some crazy says "I don't want an American military base in Saudi Arabia", why doesn't he just cut to the chase and say "Everyone who is not a fanatatical religious nut is my mortal enemy"?

Why beat around the bush?

I would say they are pretty clear about their agenda. The Americans are being used as the most glaring example of the enemy. New recruits and supporters of terrorism can easily rally together against clear, present enemy, they see american forces every day with their own eyes. So for imams and such it is easier to fuel hate against real persons, rather than create vague images of infidels thousands miles away.

My 2 cents anyway, of course we cannot know for sure.

[Looger]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty@Jul 9 2005, 08:24 AM
There are plenty of opinions that war on Iraq causes (or is a major cause of) terrorism. European and Northamerican mainstream still doesn`t understand that terror does not have causes that could be rationally explained. In other words, many still don`t understand that terror is not caused by "americans poking their noses where they dont belong" or that "terrorism can be defeated by increasing foreign aid to eliminate poverty" etc. Terrorists operate under different "value" system where everyone who is not a fanatical religious nut like them is seen as a mortal enemy. Period.

PS Thanks transplant.

there are plenty of religious nuts, everywhere.

it's support that turns zealots into terrorists. amateurs into pros.

why bother worrying that a small percentage of muslims want to die sending you to your god?

we should be worrying aboot the infrastructure that keeps them going, and the people that tolerate their existence in their countries because of real hatreds towards us.

september 11, 2001, egyptian roads were clogged with people blaring their horns in celebration. start asking exactly why, and forget aboot the distraction of al-quaeda for ten straight seconds.

moderate arabs the world over are sick of western domination of their world and will put up with al-quaeda's BS to get us THE HELL OUT.

these wackos exist in every culture, even our own.

look at the guys that knock off abortion doctors, what would they be like if given government support, schools, weapons, cash?

what if sovereign countries started recruiting the weevil ludwigs of the world for a cause? sending them ammo? selling them the dream that they can defeat a superpower? what would happen then?

pretty much exactly what we have in the arab world.

start blaming all arabs for the existence of bin laden, well there just there may be a few characters we'll all be on the hook for.

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMD...open&of=ENG-BEL

[Claeren]

I think regardless of how you feel about Iraq in the moral/justified/legal/etc sense, the bigger question for people on both sides of the fence is the cost-benefit of America's 'War on Terror' in Iraq.

Britain and America combined have spent well over 200 BILLION dollars so far and could easily end up spending 300 or 400 BILLION USD by the time they withdraw from Iraq. While there may well be oil/energy benefits long term (although more likely a simple prolonging of the inevitable need for cuts in demand v. supply) one has to question if even a quarter of that 200 billion had been spent on extra domestic defence, intelligence, and pro-active initiatives if the bombings could have been at least partially prevented, and in the broader sense if each of us would not be that much safer.

You could employ thousands upon thousands of unemployed people to patrol virtually every public space in the first world. You could invest in, develop, and deploy an entire new generation of intelligence technology. And so on.

And incrediably those dollars would be spent at home and not abroad, reducing that 200 billion dollar burden relative to GDP significantly.


Regardless of whether you are for or against it, the war in Iraq is a HUGE waste of time and money. The same time and money that would have gone a long way to preventing this sort of attack.


I do not know the UK's numbers but since 9/11 America has spent
~200 Billion in Iraq
~20 Billion on patrolling airports
~0.25 Billion on patrolling public transit

Guess which more citizens depend on each day, need the most, and use the most by a large (many multipule's daily) margin?

Yet there is a 800:1 ratio in spending?

Guess which has the best lobby groups in Washington and the most connections to federal politicians on both sides:
1) Heavy arms, military support services, industrial complex's, oil companies
2) Airline security guards and concerned citizens
3) Transit users

It is not rocket science.

And it is our lives, normal tax paying citizens, who pay with our lives...

Claeren.

[Looger]

Originally posted by Claeren@Jul 9 2005, 03:54 PM
And incrediably those dollars would be spent at home and not abroad, reducing that 200 billion dollar burden relative to GDP significantly.

i've always been of the theory that defence spending is not the worst thing a government could do, especially if most of the weapons etc. are made in the same country.

the profits are not flying away to foreign nationals, as intelligence money for the most part would be. advanced intelligence would mean using arab allies, like jordan, to infiltrate terror groups, and fund jordan's own military industrial complex. their spies, their ministries, their translation / signal intelligence.

honestly though i see where you're going with that, it would be a better dollar per american life saved, no question.

money versus the youth of the nation, now that gets tricky.

the cost i'm thinking of is not $200 billion.

the cost i'm thing of is one thousand, seven hundred, and thirty-five, and mounting.

[Mike F]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty@Jul 9 2005, 06:56 AM
I am sorry but this is just rhetoric. So lets imagine Americans leave "the peninsula." What about Israelis? Should they all move to Madagascar too? Fanatics stated many times that the ultimate goal is not peace with Israel (they actually kill people with such views as "traitors." Its mindboggling that EU diplomants are having diplomatic talks with such murderes. But thats off topic). Their ultimate goal is total destruction of Israel. And finally, what about non muslim Arabs? Christian Lebanese and such? Are they occupying "holy muslim land" too?

It is very easy and misleading to point your finger at the US and say that fanatics only want to fight American "imperialism". Those lunatics hate everyone who dont belong to them equaly. Taliban killed muslim men if they refused to wear beards. Similar practices are appearing again in Iran with their new president. You dont fit their sick views about world - they will try to kill you. You are an infidel, you are an enemy. Its simple as that.

First, identifying a groups goals doesn't mean you necessarily agree that giving them what they want is a viable solution. Just because the US will likely never be forced out of the Arab peninsula doesn't mean that can't be Al Qaeda's goal.

Second, just because they use reprehensible tactics, don't make the mistake of writing them off as frothing-at-the-mouth lunatics. Bin Laden is a mass murderer and a religious fanatic, but he's not crazy.

There are a number of movements in the middle east that have some clearly defined, and sometimes overlapping, ideologies/goals/demands.

1. Israel/Palestine/Refugees -- whether or not you agree that the creation of Israel after WWII was the right/just thing to do, you have to admit that carving out a Jewish state in the middle of an Arab sub-continent and creating a million or so refugees was bound to set off some white hot murderous rage. This leads to plenty of terrorism in the region, and hatred of the US, but I'm not sure this alone would lead to any international terrorism.

2. Islamic State -- there is a movement in the region, including the Taliban, that desires to set up an Islamic state governed by the laws of Sharia. This is where you get things like some Muslims killing other Muslims but beyond that doesn't lead to any international terrorism; they just want the US to leave them alone.

3. Al Qaeda/US in Mid East -- Despite what T99 argues, Al Qaeda's main beef (in addition to their general hatred of Israel) has pretty consistently been the US presence in the Middle East; their long time CIA activities, and their more recent overt military actions, particularly in support of the Saudi Royal family. This has been the source of int'l terrorism against the US and anyone seen as their ally.

Now obviously most of these demands are realistic from an outside, objective viewpoint, but it doesn't make them lunatics.

[Claeren]

Loss of soldiers is absolutely valid, although they did chose to enter the armed forces. The tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi's are as much or more of a concern in the equation - if only because for every innocent dead there are 5 or 10 or 100 people who vow revenge. (Not to mention the human cost)


Defense spending has been shown time and time again to be a poor use of government funds in regards to stimulating the economy. It often creates more imblances then it could possibly correct and tends to just throw huge amounts of money at the industrialists running the companies and not the workers on the line. It is obviously not sustainable, creates entire communities who feel entitled to what amounts to government arms-sales-welfare, and results in stockpiles (like right now) that are so huge that the majority of the output will never be actually utilized (and is therefor waste).

There are far better ways to spend the money (and lives, as you point out) being thrown at this silly imperialist endeavor.


Claeren.

[Looger]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty@Jul 9 2005, 01:56 PM
It is very easy and misleading to point your finger at the US and say that fanatics only want to fight American "imperialism". Those lunatics hate everyone who dont belong to them equaly. Taliban killed muslim men if they refused to wear beards. Similar practices are appearing again in Iran with their new president. You dont fit their sick views about world - they will try to kill you. You are an infidel, you are an enemy. Its simple as that.

hmmmm...

who was helping the taliban again?

my memory is a little foggy.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Afghanis...IA_Taliban.html

The U.S. government was well aware of the Taliban's reactionary program, yet it chose to back their rise to power in the mid-1990s. The creation of the Taliban was "actively encouraged by the ISI and the CIA," according to Selig Harrison, an expert on U.S. relations with Asia. "The United States encouraged Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to support the Taliban, certainly right up to their advance on Kabul," adds respected journalist Ahmed Rashid. When the Taliban took power, State Department spokesperson Glyn Davies said that he saw "nothing objectionable" in the Taliban's plans to impose strict Islamic law, and Senator Hank Brown, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on the Near East and South Asia, welcomed the new regime: "The good part of what has happened is that one of the factions at last seems capable of developing a new government in Afghanistan." "The Taliban will probably develop like the Saudis. There will be Aramco [the consortium of oil companies that controlled Saudi oil], pipelines, an emir, no parliament and lots of Sharia law. We can live with that," said another U.S. diplomat in 1997.

blame the taliban,

BUT BLAME THEIR BACKERS!

groups like that bunch of nitwits don't get where they are by forming political parties and having morning tea.

they get there by complying with american energy interests.

and for the record, they had very little directly to do with the defeat of the soviets. that is quite a little myth, egged on by the CNN 'archive' clips of bin laden shooting an rpg at a training ground. little do most viewers know that the video was taken in saudi arabia, NOT afghanistan.

yes, bin laden was helping the mujahadeen. yes, the taliban had roots in the resistance.

the taliban took power because the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PUT THEM THERE.

this fact has yet to stick to the people that need to hear it.

unreal.

[transplant99]

First, identifying a groups goals doesn't mean you necessarily agree that giving them what they want is a viable solution. Just because the US will likely never be forced out of the Arab peninsula doesn't mean that can't be Al Qaeda's goal.

It can be their goal allright...but it can be classified as a completely crazy one.

Second, just because they use reprehensible tactics, don't make the mistake of writing them off as frothing-at-the-mouth lunatics. Bin Laden is a mass murderer and a religious fanatic, but he's not crazy.

he's not crazy? He is fighting a "war" which he will never and cannot win. Sounds like a lunatic to me.

3. Al Qaeda/US in Mid East -- Despite what T99 argues, Al Qaeda's main beef (in addition to their general hatred of Israel) has pretty consistently been the US presence in the Middle East; their long time CIA activities, and their more recent overt military actions, particularly in support of the Saudi Royal family. This has been the source of int'l terrorism against the US and anyone seen as their ally.

So the US pours BILIONS AND BILLIONS of dollars into the mid-east economy, all through freely negotiated contracts/deals by various countries in the region. They have every right to set up shop to protect those investments....and i would argue the governments of those countries agree since they have allowed US military bases to set up shop.

Here is the crux of the whole thing... Money and freedom of thought/reliogion.

The Taliban and their ilk, control people by keeping them oppressed. Individuals that are allowed to make money and decisions for themselves are seen as a threat to complete control...and that control comes in the form of religion. Period.

They want to take the area back to the 12th century way of doing things....I have a problem with that, as do most forward thinking people. Enough is enough with the whole defense of these guys...they are despicable.

Let people decide their own futures....and that only happens one way. By being able to choose their own leaders, and not through fear and murder as is the case in so many mid-east countries.

It has to start somewhere...and it has to be backed up by a large military presence to assure it has at least a chance to succeed. We wont know which way it goes for decades, but the first step has been taken...much to the chagrin of Islamic fundamentalists hell bent on retaining power through intimidation and poverty.

[Looger]

Originally posted by Claeren@Jul 9 2005, 06:22 PM
Loss of soldiers is absolutely valid, although they did chose to enter the armed forces. The tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi's are as much or more of a concern in the equation - if only because for every innocent dead there are 5 or 10 or 100 people who vow revenge. (Not to mention the human cost)


Defense spending has been shown time and time again to be a poor use of government funds in regards to stimulating the economy. It often creates more imblances then it could possibly correct and tends to just throw huge amounts of money at the industrialists running the companies and not the workers on the line. It is obviously not sustainable, creates entire communities who feel entitled to what amounts to government arms-sales-welfare, and results in stockpiles (like right now) that are so huge that the majority of the output will never be actually utilized (and is therefor waste).

There are far better ways to spend the money (and lives, as you point out) being thrown at this silly imperialist endeavor.


Claeren.

i'd wager that the sanctions regime was harsher on iraqi children, their future.

i guess it's debatable, the insurgents are really blasting away at infrastructure as fast as contractors can put it up.

didn't mean to write off the civilians or the effect of their deaths, saddam wasn't exactly kind to his people either.

meant to show the cost, directly, to the united states - body bags.

iraq may come out of this better, who knows.

for my money that is a non-factor in the equation, however.

to justify invasion and occupation by the end result sounds a lot like imperialism to me.

as for jobs, a lot of americans aren't as transitionable as canadians or europeans, factory workers that have been making assault rifles for 20 years aren't going to learn sql databases.

many americans are defense workers, and will always be.

and arms-sales of old stockpile equipment is going on in large quantities to goevernments that can't afford the newest stuff - like colombia, jordan, and the florida-based terrorists blowing up civilian infrastructure in cuba.

has no-one thought of the terrorists?

[Looger]

Originally posted by transplant99@Jul 9 2005, 06:27 PM
So the US pours BILIONS AND BILLIONS of dollars into the mid-east economy, all through freely negotiated contracts/deals by various countries in the region. They have every right to set up shop to protect those investments....and i would argue the governments of those countries agree since they have allowed US military bases to set up shop.

Here is the crux of the whole thing... Money and freedom of thought/reliogion.

The Taliban and their ilk, control people by keeping them oppressed. Individuals that are allowed to make money and decisions for themselves are seen as a threat to complete control...and that control comes in the form of religion. Period.

They want to take the area back to the 12th century way of doing things....I have a problem with that, as do most forward thinking people. Enough is enough with the whole defense of these guys...they are despicable.

Let people decide their own futures....and that only happens one way. By being able to choose their own leaders, and not through fear and murder as is the case in so many mid-east countries.

It has to start somewhere...and it has to be backed up by a large military presence to assure it has at least a chance to succeed. We wont know which way it goes for decades, but the first step has been taken...much to the chagrin of Islamic fundamentalists hell bent on retaining power through intimidation and poverty.

the united states seriously funds a couple of countries that aren't run by religion:

jordan and egypt.

israel, pakistan, and saudi arabia foment terror and have american military backing.

as well israel and saudi arabia could easily be described as theocracies.

[Mike F]

Originally posted by transplant99@Jul 9 2005, 11:27 AM
he's not crazy? He is fighting a "war" which he will never and cannot win. Sounds like a lunatic to me.

Isn't the "War on Terror" one which can never be won, but needs to be faught to stop the other side from winning completely?

They want to take the area back to the 12th century way of doing things....I have a problem with that, as do most forward thinking people. Enough is enough with the whole defense of these guys...they are despicable.

I'm not defending anyone. There's a difference between explaining someone's motives and endorsing or defending them.

What's that line out of The Art of War? Know your enemy? Just because I oppose virtually all of the reasoning behing fundamentalist Muslim's arguments doesn't mean I have to write them off as mindless lunatics.

[Looger]

http://antiwar.com/reese/

That's bosh and hokum, and it does a disservice to the people. The first step always in solving any problem is to define the problem correctly. There are no terrorists anywhere in the world whose goal is the destruction of civilization, Western or otherwise.