Topics Topics Edit Profile Profile Help/Instructions Help Member List Member List Edit Profile Register  
Search Last 1|3|7 Days Search Search Tree View Tree View  

Archive through August 8, 2003

Sepulchritude Forum » The Absinthe Forum » The Monkey Hole » La tour d'Eiffel est sur le feu!!!! » Archive through August 8, 2003 « Previous Next »

Author Message
Lordhobgoblin (Lordhobgoblin)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: Lordhobgoblin

Post Number: 835
Registered: 10-2000


Posted on Friday, August 8, 2003 - 11:27 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Of course China wants to become a more serious military power and extend its influence on the world (those with most weapons have more influence). China is well positioned to built an empire in the East. Is it reasonable to expect any less of the Chinese? Do we really think they should say "We'll just sit back and let the USA arm itself more and more, let the USA expand its empire and meddle in world affairs to protect/increase its interests, while we just sit in China and concern ourselves solely with what happens within our borders"? In this regard China is only behaving as any major power would.

This does not mean that they would have anything to gain from 9-11. There is not a scrap of evidence or even a motive to link China to 9-11. 9-11 was the work of a clever, radical, nut-case, Saudi billionaire with plenty of motive and plenty of military/terrorist know-how and experience along with CIA training. Bin Laden didn't need a super-power to back him to carry out 9-11. That actually makes it all the more worrying. At least during the Cold War world affairs were like a game of chess between 2 players, in virtually every conflict the USA backed one side the USSR backed the other. At least you knew who was backing your enemy, you knew were you stood. Now we're in a whole new world where you can't know for sure who is backing your enemy (probably one of your 'friends' in the case of 9-11). Our enemies no longer need super-power backing to reap havoc throughout our world.
Strom Thurmond (Mogan_david)
le Duc
Username: Mogan_david

Post Number: 333
Registered: 4-2002


Posted on Friday, August 8, 2003 - 6:57 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

BJ,

I wouldn't want to speculate as to China''s motivation for their aggressive stand against us. I simply noticed a series of events and put them together in a way that made sense to me.

Certain facts aren't in dispute in regards to China.

---
Johnny Chung and Charlie Trie conspired to funnel money from the Chinese Military into the Clinton/Gore campaign.
-
Clinton released secret rocket guidance information and hardware to the Chinese. (I believe the exchange was tit for tat, but I could be wrong)
-
China repositioned its ICBMs to better target the USA. Using the information Clinton released.
-
Chinese spies stole secrets from Los Alamos allowing them to build smaller more powerful nukes.
-
China is rapidly expanding its military expenditures.
---

Call me nuts, but when people start spying, pointing nukes and increasing spending on their military I don't think they have our best interests at heart.

I don't miss the cold war days, but I do remember them.

Carl is right. We'll help bring about our own destruction if China will just let us. We'll sell them the rope they use to hang us. (Resell the rope actually since it would be made cheaply with child labor)

Carl Guderian (Bjacques)
le Duc
Username: Bjacques

Post Number: 284
Registered: 4-2001
Posted on Friday, August 8, 2003 - 4:11 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

I think MD has a point about China. Their ICBMs don't have the range to any further than maybe the west coast. Their incentive for buying missile technology to improve their range (as North Korea are doing) is to demand the US back off while China puts the screws to Taiwan and that we finally shut up about Tibet :-)

But they're rarely, even during Cold War One, shown much interest beyond their immediate sphere of interest except to sell weapons.

But even if there were another Cold War a' brewin' between Americans and the Yellow Peril, I'd hope we wouldn't make the same mistakes, like cultivating dictators. When the first Cold War finally ended, we found we'd left ourselves a mess.

The bigger danger China represents in its "Asian values," capitalism without democracy; if China becomes a first-rate economic power with its government intact, it will encourage its neighbors to follow suit as well as make any western embargoes on, say, Burma useless. Also, western corporations, especially Anglo-American ones, will be attracted to the pool of slave and child labor and use "free trade" to beat competitors based in countries that respect human rights.
Lordhobgoblin (Lordhobgoblin)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: Lordhobgoblin

Post Number: 834
Registered: 10-2000


Posted on Friday, August 8, 2003 - 1:50 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Mogan David,

I think perhaps you are missing the Cold War and are finding it difficult coming to terms with the fact that the major threat to the West no longer comes from 'Commies'.

What exactly would China have to gain by the USA's destruction? The Chinese government will act according to what they perceive their best economic interests to be. Destroying the USA is not in the best interests of the Chinese government.
Jack Collins (_blackjack_)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: _blackjack_

Post Number: 1158
Registered: 11-2000


Posted on Thursday, August 7, 2003 - 3:48 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

If I lived in Taiwan, I'd be worried. But you've done nothing to dispute their economic need for the US. Why would they want to get MFN status and join the WTO if they didn't want our money? Why would they nuke the cash cow? The real motivation behind their recent aggression towards Taiwan is cupidity for Taiwan's industrial infrastructure, and even that is not enough for them to risk our wrath.

And you continue to ignore the obvious emnity between China and Islamist militants. If China is out to get us, they aren't going to be using al-Qa`ida to do it.
Strom Thurmond (Mogan_david)
le Duc
Username: Mogan_david

Post Number: 332
Registered: 4-2002


Posted on Wednesday, August 6, 2003 - 6:05 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

I misspoke a bit about a space based nuclear missile platform. What I should have said was a multiple warhead ICBM. Large difference I know, but it does create a platform in space from which multiple warheads rain down onto the earth.

Chinese defense budgets are projected to grow annually at a double-digit clip. They have the fastest growing military budget in the world. So says the pentagon, China denies this and says the increases are for the benefit of the soldiers. China is so very kind hearted.

You know, just because you are paranoid doesnít mean people arenít out to get you.
Jack Collins (_blackjack_)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: _blackjack_

Post Number: 1157
Registered: 11-2000


Posted on Wednesday, August 6, 2003 - 5:18 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post


quote:

In effect the Chinese paid Clinton for information on how to build a space based nuclear missile platform, which it later pointed at the US.




Wait, are you implying that China already HAS a space-based missile platform? You ARE nuts.
Jack Collins (_blackjack_)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: _blackjack_

Post Number: 1156
Registered: 11-2000


Posted on Wednesday, August 6, 2003 - 5:12 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

I'm not saying they love us, I'm saying they NEED us and they know it. I am no fan of the Chinese government. Our friendliness towards them belies any pretense of our opposing represive regimes. But they are surviving purely on the momentum of a billion people. They would have gone the way of the Soviets long ago had they not been phasing in limited capitalistic programs. They do not want anything to happen to their biggest customer.

And China's space program is about where we were in 1967. They won't be raining nukes down on us any time soon.

Seriously, you not only sound like a paranoid, you sound like an out-dated paranoid.
Strom Thurmond (Mogan_david)
le Duc
Username: Mogan_david

Post Number: 331
Registered: 4-2002


Posted on Wednesday, August 6, 2003 - 4:45 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

BJ,

Do you remember Johnny Chung?

Remember how he gave the Clinton campaign $100,000 from a "Chinese Military Aerospace and Intelligence Officer"? (This is money we know about, imagine what we donít know about)

Remember How Clinton repaid the Chinese by allowing Loral and Hughes to give secret US information on rocket guidance to the Chinese government.

In effect the Chinese paid Clinton for information on how to build a space based nuclear missile platform, which it later pointed at the US.

Yeah, they bear us no ill will.
Jack Collins (_blackjack_)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: _blackjack_

Post Number: 1155
Registered: 11-2000


Posted on Wednesday, August 6, 2003 - 3:44 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post


quote:

I personally believe it is China but I could be wrong.




You are. By a long shot, and here's why. The area of China which borders Pakistan and a tiny sliver of Afghanistan, Xinjiang, is the site of significant unrest roused by Uighur Islamic seperatists, and these extremists were recieving much of their support from the Taliban, al-Qa`ida and from factions within the Pakistani government. In fact, China used 9/11 as a pretense for asking for US assistance in cracking down on Uighur resistance.

Regardless, China has WAY too much to loose from bad things happening to the US. Why do you think they lobbied so hard to get into the WTO? They need Western money to survive.


quote:

How about our problems with North Korea? Do you find it strange that things seemed to boil over at exactly the same time we were trying to build support for the war with Iraq?




No, I think that our aggression towards Iraq made it clear to Kim that if he wanted to be taken seriously, he needed to wave WMD's around. It made it very clear that in order to be secure from US "pre-emptive liberation", he needed to have nukes NOW. You are mixing up causes and effects.
Strom Thurmond (Mogan_david)
le Duc
Username: Mogan_david

Post Number: 330
Registered: 4-2002


Posted on Wednesday, August 6, 2003 - 3:17 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Alpha,

I think I discussed more than motive. I also tried to show opportuinity.

I don't know if you would agree that the news media spoon feed us convienient lies about how the world works.

I personally believe this is the case, so I try to look at the world in the context of what is happening rather than what people say about what is happening. I could be all wrong, and I freely admit this possiblity, it's just that from what I've seen in the news my theory doesn't require that anyone be a psycho nut job.

In my theory each element is acting rationally in it's best interest. I personally feel more comfortable that I'm closer to the truth when this is the case.

Speaking of opportunity; If China were behind 9-11 then Bin-Laden's hijackers could have used China's intelligence network to travel between countries and find save harbor in the foreign countries they used as a base of operations in preparing for their attacks. I honestly don't think Bin Laden had the resources to pull off something like 9-11 on his own. The operation doesn't sound to big until you think about what is involved in supporting the people, languages, documents, flight school. You also have to take into account the anti terror/espionage services of the US and Germany and other countries the hijackers used. Though they were made to look foolish, the FBI are no fools. It takes quite a bit more than you or I would understand to slip by these people and do what the hijackers did.

You raise a good point about the PNAC. However to believe they were responsible for the 9-11 attacks means that not only are the people at the top of the PNAC monsters, they would also have to be able to keep their activities secret. The former is very unlikely, and the latter is impossible.
Alphasoixante (Alphasoixante)
le Duc
Username: Alphasoixante

Post Number: 134
Registered: 9-2001


Posted on Wednesday, August 6, 2003 - 9:40 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

"I personally believe it is China but I could be wrong."

you've admitted the possibility of error, but the only basis for your admitted belief in this theory is that there is a possible motive. i think that pretty much makes your view a "conspiracy theory" in the pejorative rather than literal sense. if you have more than a possible motive to justify your belief, or if you believe only that it's possible, then it might be a bit more reasonable.

e.g. PNAC proclaimed prior to 9-11 that a new pearl harbor would be just the thing to whip up support for their foreign policy goals. Voila, a motive for an administration closely intertwined with PNAC to orchestrate or allow 9-11. does this possible motive justify believing such a thing? obviously not.

"Hong Kong canít be doing much for peopleís faith in Communism."

the handy thing about totalitarian governments is that they don't need to rely on the people's faith. the type of motive you've attributed to China seems, ironically, to be appropriate only in democratic countries.

only if leaders are elected does it make sense to seek to manipulate public opinion in order to prop up a failing government. not that this has ever happened in any democratic country that i can think of, of course.
Strom Thurmond (Mogan_david)
le Duc
Username: Mogan_david

Post Number: 329
Registered: 4-2002


Posted on Wednesday, August 6, 2003 - 7:18 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

BJ
"If I'm reading you right (and you are being very vague) you are implying that some secret enemy of the US manipulated Usama into attacking the US to further their own political agenda, right? "

I didn't think I was being all that vague, but yes that is exactly what I believe. I personally believe it is China but I could be wrong.

Here is how I see the situation. China sits almost as a neighbor to Afghanistan. They could easily funnel money and Soviet arms to the Al-Qieda. Bin Laden could make a few concessions as to target planning in return for Chinese support. It would pretty much be the same sort of deal he had with the US.

What do the Chinese have to gain? Well their system is collapsing around them. People for the most part in the country are living in poverty. They have are constantly embarrassed by Taiwan. Hong Kong canít be doing much for peopleís faith in Communism. The Chinese have already had to implement reforms and we know from past history that communist reforms are a slippery slope. They try to stem the flow of information from the west but every day the technologies improve it's like the Dutch boy's problem.
They attack the US and western economies in hopes of evening out the differences between our two systems. If Chinese people see people in the west as bad off or worse than they are, then a case can be made once again for Communism and a totalitarian state.

How about our problems with North Korea? Do you find it strange that things seemed to boil over at exactly the same time we were trying to build support for the war with Iraq? Do you think China might have a little influence over North Korea?

You may believe the cold war is over, I don't see how that could be possible when nuclear missiles are still pointed at us.

When I said we fight wars by proxy this is exactly what I meant.
Alphasoixante (Alphasoixante)
le Duc
Username: Alphasoixante

Post Number: 133
Registered: 9-2001


Posted on Tuesday, August 5, 2003 - 4:46 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Take the tower of eiffel off of the fire!
Jack Collins (_blackjack_)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: _blackjack_

Post Number: 1152
Registered: 11-2000


Posted on Monday, August 4, 2003 - 6:01 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post


quote:

Fine, you know your near east religion and politics, then tell me why Bin Laden chose to attack the WTC.




Because it was a spectacular symbolic strike that could be accomplished cheaply and easily, as military attacks go. And because he's such a fanatic that he thinks that once the faithful saw that America was vulnerable, they would all rise up under him, and that God would punish America for its sinful ways, and that since America was so corrupt, it would fold and crumble under the weight of his Islamic revolution.

In other words, because he's a nut.


quote:

You donít think someone without a religious motive might be pulling the strings here?




If I'm reading you right (and you are being very vague) you are implying that some secret enemy of the US manipulated Usama into attacking the US to further their own political agenda, right? Well, the fact is I can't think of any country that would have much to gain from this. Unlike the Cold War, there is no superpower competing against us for world domination. While many countries might want us to stop mucking about in their affairs, none of them have much to gain from BRINGING DOWN the US, which is Usama's goal. Afghanistan just had nothing to LOOSE by supporting him.

Regardless, if you are looking to find a secret power behind Usama, Saddam is only slightly higher on the list than the Haliburton and the CIA. The most obvious culprit remains the Sa`udi, whose very nation was founded on the principles of Abd al-Wahhab, whose aristocracy has close ties to Usama, and whose people see him as a folk hero. Next would be Pakistan, whose secret police were responsible for creating and supporting the Taliban government in Afghanistan.

But quite honestly, you're sounding a little paranoid. There are enough people out there who hate us that we don't need to start looking for conspiracies to explain it.


quote:

Letís sort through the evidence a bit more before we make such bold statements as there were never any WMDs.




I'm not saying there never were any. I'm saying that they were destroyed by UNSCOM post-'91 (which is documented fact), and that there is not a speck of evidence to show that any more were made. It is not jumping the gun to demand evidence before believing a positive assertion. The burden of proof is yours, not mine. You can't prove _I_ don't have WMD's, but lacking any evidence to that effect, you'd look silly saying I did.
Jack Collins (_blackjack_)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: _blackjack_

Post Number: 1151
Registered: 11-2000


Posted on Monday, August 4, 2003 - 5:33 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post


quote:

That doesn't seem a little strange to you?




Um, no, since it was identified and isolated very quickly. It wasn't airborne, and responded to treatment. The places where it did the most damage were those where it had time to spread before it was identified, and those without access to sufficient medical care.

As a biological weapon, SARS would be a dud. An effective biological weapon needs to either be non-communicable, like anthrax, so it only kills those directly exposed, or highly communicable but kill so quickly that it tends to kill all its posible carriers before it can be spread beyond a contained area, like ebola.

The SARS outbreak was not unique or all that unusual. It got much more attention than various other recent epidemics (mostly influenza strains) because of the media's hightened interest after the anthrax attacks.
Jack Collins (_blackjack_)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: _blackjack_

Post Number: 1150
Registered: 11-2000


Posted on Monday, August 4, 2003 - 5:25 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post


quote:

No I'm saying that the war in Afghanistan would be as meaningless as the attack on the aspirin factory without the resolve to continue to combat terror and those who support it.




So, if I'm reading you correctly, there is no point in attacking countries that attacked you unless you show that you are willing to attack countries that DIDN'T attack you?

We have NOT demonstrated any resolve to stop those who support terror. We continue to support regimes that support terror against their own people, and even ones that have supported terror against US! (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc.)


quote:

Sadam was a justifiable target of opportunity.




You have yet to support that idea except by circular logic. We didn't need to attack anyone, and by attacking Iraq, we destroyed much of the sympathy and credibility we had in the region.


quote:

By attacking Iraq we effectively put a cop into the terrorists back yard.




A similar justification has been used for things like installing the Shah in Iran, Pinochet in Chile, and Suharto in Indonesia, not to mention supporting Israel without question. Except back then we called the bad guys "Communists".

We ALSO viewed Saddam as our ally and bulwark against the Islamist extremism of the Iranian revolution. See how well that worked out?

What we have installed in the terrorists back yards is a near-anarchy, unable to provide basic services to the people, and festering with resentment towards American occupation. We have installed a complete mess that we can't handle on our own, can't abandon for fear of making worse, and can't get help on because we insisted on going it alone.

By your logic, we could justify overthrowing ANY government on earth, regardless of whether it posed a direct threat to us, so long as we thought it might help us secure our interests. That's worse than imperialism.
Carl Guderian (Bjacques)
le Duc
Username: Bjacques

Post Number: 281
Registered: 4-2001
Posted on Monday, August 4, 2003 - 2:24 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

WMDs *as an immediate threat* and Hussein's strong support for al-Qaida are extraordinary claims (however much they fitted popular prejudice) unsupported even by ordinary proofs. Two dodgy claims don't equal a solid one. The US, UK and a few dozen hangers-on blew off the UN and knocked over a sovereign country on the basis of a lot of hot air (this is Italy's second offense--Mussolini blew off the League of Nations and invaded Ethiopia for no good reason).

If Blair and Bush had real but secret evidence (besides that which makes us and the Saudis look bad), that would at least be something, but they don't, and it's obvious they're praying for something to turn up. But even if it does, they didn't have that evidence in March, when they said they did.

MD, feel free to justify it while it's done by a government you like, in a cause of which you approve. But if Bush (you and I are from the US; Blair's actions likely won't affect you, but they might affect me) goes on to lock up your friends or family or--what the hell--cancels the 2004 elections on the basis of a similarly unsupported terrorist threat, well, you can say you gave him license way back when.

If I follow a leader, I'd like him or her to be worth following. Iraq is making G.W. Bush look like either a fool or liar, and probably both.
Strom Thurmond (Mogan_david)
le Duc
Username: Mogan_david

Post Number: 328
Registered: 4-2002


Posted on Monday, August 4, 2003 - 2:17 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

ďSaddam supporting a Muwahhidun (Wahhabist) like Usama would be the equivalent of the Soviets supporting the KKK. They are on totally different sides of the political spectrum.Ē


Be vewy vewy quiet, Iím hunting Wahhabist..

Fine, you know your near east religion and politics, then tell me why Bin Laden chose to attack the WTC. What on earth did he have to gain from such a foolish move? He knew the wrath of the world would be on him for this act of terror. Nothing here reminds you of the old cold war days? You donít think someone without a religious motive might be pulling the strings here?
Taken from that standpoint does it really matter very much what that dirty bastard (Bin Laden) believes?
Remember he worked for us once, we funded his activities and gave him aid. Whoís the sugar daddy now?

ďthe most logical explanation is that the thing DOES NOT EXIST.Ē

Arenít you jumping the gun a bit. We donít even have Sadam yet. Letís sort through the evidence a bit more before we make such bold statements as there were never any WMDs.
Strom Thurmond (Mogan_david)
le Duc
Username: Mogan_david

Post Number: 327
Registered: 4-2002


Posted on Monday, August 4, 2003 - 2:11 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

"I'm just glad it didn't spread too widely across the globe."

That doesn't seem a little strange to you? Who knows, I'll go check under my bed for communists now.
Strom Thurmond (Mogan_david)
le Duc
Username: Mogan_david

Post Number: 326
Registered: 4-2002


Posted on Monday, August 4, 2003 - 2:08 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

"What? Fisrt of all, Iraq had NOTHING to do with ANY of the attacks you named. You are basically saying that we had to attack SOMEBODY, even if they were innocent."

No I'm saying that the war in Afghanistan would be as meaningless as the attack on the aspirin factory without the resolve to continue to combat terror and those who support it. Sadam was a justifiable target of opportunity. We need a way to project power into the region and safeguard our interests. (Yes oil) . By attacking Iraq we effectively put a cop into the terrorists back yard.
Lordhobgoblin (Lordhobgoblin)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: Lordhobgoblin

Post Number: 831
Registered: 10-2000


Posted on Monday, August 4, 2003 - 1:30 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Mogan David,

I viewed SARS as a natural phenomena, but I admit I know very little about it. Tragic though it was for China and the other countries unfortunate enough to be infected, I'm just glad it didn't spread too widely across the globe.

As for Blair's motives I really don't know. Maybe oil money? I know Blair loves to expose himself to glamour and power, he gets a real buzz out of it. He's got a huge personal ego and an over-inflated sense of his own historical importance (and that of his 'New Labour'/'3rd Way' movement which in reality is all style and no substance and will be forgotten within a decade). I guess he really gets a personal kick out of being George Bush's No. 1 ally. I suppose deep down he knows Britain is not a major league military power and perhaps riding on the USAs coat-tails is the closest thing he can get to playing at being the leader of a major player. However I will admit that my views on Blair are very biased, I've seen at first hand how insidiously his cronies operate and what they've done to decent lifelong members of the Labour movement (and not just 'lefties').

As for card games, I don't think Blair has played any card games other than perhaps Bridge, I'd rather sit around a card table with Blair rather than Bush.
Jack Collins (_blackjack_)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: _blackjack_

Post Number: 1149
Registered: 11-2000


Posted on Monday, August 4, 2003 - 1:23 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post


quote:

We could just lie down and let the world rape our gaping sphincter, as we have in the past.




What? Fisrt of all, Iraq had NOTHING to do with ANY of the attacks you named. You are basically saying that we had to attack SOMEBODY, even if they were innocent. Which is sorta what we did after the embassy bombings, BTW. We blew up an aspirin factory.

And the idea that the world has been "rap[ing] our gaping sphincter" is absurd. Even with 9-11, our total losses to terrorism have been tiny compared to those suffered by much of the world. We continue to be the richest and most powerful nation on earth, and while I am not saying that those who are RESPONSIBLE for crimes committed against us should be let off scott free, we are hardly in such danger that it jusifies attacking people who HAVEN'T harmed us, just to prove how tough we are.

Speaking as somebody who has worked as a bouncer, the harder you try to convince people you're a bad-ass, the more likely it is that somebody is going to pick a fight with you.
Jack Collins (_blackjack_)
Absinthe Mafia
Username: _blackjack_

Post Number: 1148
Registered: 11-2000


Posted on Monday, August 4, 2003 - 1:15 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post


quote:

Who knows what happened to the WMDs. I can think of quite a few scenarios that would explain their disappearance.




Like my theory that Saddam reverse-engineered a Romulan cloaking device so that he could have INVISIBLE weapons of mass destruction. You can rationalize all sorts of explanations for a complete lack of evidence for something, but the most logical explanation is that the thing DOES NOT EXIST. Your position on the WMD's is the same one true-believers hold towards UFO's or Bigfoot. Since you beg the question of their existance (that doesn't mean what you think it means...Google on "petitio principii"), any conclusion you draw will assume that they exist.


quote:

I don't know that to be a fact and neither do you.




I know enough about Islam (more than you and more than anybody in the administration) and Near Eastern history to say that this is a fact within a great degree of certainty. Saddam supporting a Muwahhidun (Wahhabist) like Usama would be the equivalent of the Soviets supporting the KKK. They are on totally different sides of the political spectrum.


quote:

I do know that Sadam paid the families of suicide bombers.



And where did he do this? In ISRAEL. The Israeli/Palestinian struggle is primarily a secular nationalist struggle, not a religious one. Even the more religiously-oriented groups like Hammas (who were ENCOURAGED by the Israeli government in the '80's to draw power from the secular groups under the PLO) stem from a very different branch of Islam than al-Qa`ida. They have no interest in imposing Islam on the world or bringing down the West; they just want Israel's land. Their only beef with the US is that we continue to support Israel.

Not incidentally, the Saudi royal family have given money to the families of suicide bombers as well. A lot more than Saddam.

You see, MD, you are operating from some preconceptions which are not supported by the facts. The unfortunate thing is, the administration is doing the same thing.
Strom Thurmond (Mogan_david)
le Duc
Username: Mogan_david

Post Number: 325
Registered: 4-2002


Posted on Monday, August 4, 2003 - 12:54 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

"We could have not attacked ANYBODY."

Very true, we could have done that just as we did the first time the WTC was attacked. Just like we did when Bin Laden attacked our embassy or the USS Cole. We could just lie down and let the world rape our gaping sphincter, as we have in the past.

Of course we can expect the same results as we have gotten from our past inaction.

Administration Administration Log Out Log Out   Previous Page Previous Page Next Page Next Page