Terrorists hit hard

[Cynthia]

The difference being; One group was much more of an aggressor while the other was a defender of a particular "ideology".

When you put it this way, I'm not seeing a difference. Both are aggressors, both are defending a particular ideology.

Al Qaeda is very much like Juniorbush when he invaded Iraq.
The 9-11 terrorists were aggressors based on their ideology, yes true. They were not defending a nation that was under attack, however, as was Bush. When Bush decided to "fight back"...albeit not the best of ideas...it was in response to the aggressors. ...thus defending a nation under attack.

If Bush had made the logical choice to ONLY attack Al Quaeda based terrorist groups in Afghanistan, then we would be talking about the act as defensive not aggressive. 

 XO seems to put Bush and Al Queda in the same category. I just disagree. Sure, Bush was defending democracy, according to the members of government who allowed him to continue on with this war, but he did not attack a country defending an ideology just for the sure hell of it. ...just for the sake of hate.

[Xavier_Onassis]

JUniorbush attacked Iraq because he was trying to complete the job his Pappy didn't complete. It had nothing to do with 9-11 because Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11.


Saddam was no threat to democracy in the US, or any other American residing in the US.

Al Qaeda attacked the US because it was an ally of the corrupt absolute monarchy of Saudi Arabia, had stationed troops in Arabia against the dictates of the Koran, and the troops had tried to win converts to Christianity by passing out Arabic New Testaments.

My main point here was that both Juniorbush and Al Qaeda had no defined attainable goals, and no adequate contingency plans of what to do once Iraq was invaded, or the bomb destroyed the buildings.

[Plane]

JUniorbush attacked Iraq because he was trying to complete the job his Pappy didn't complete. It had nothing to do with 9-11 because Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11.

I agree with the first part of that , not the second.

The status quo in Iraq was not a good one Saddam had an ongoing program to stifle and reduce his opposition time was not on our side but on his , bringing the situation with Saddam to a close was a good idea.

Absent the motivation and mobilisation produced by the 9-11 attack there might not have been the same ability to attack Saddam , Bush might have been stuck with the ongoing low level war that Clinton was running.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Of course, Juniorbush USED the 9-11 attack and the ignorance of the American people to invade Iraq.

But no Iraqi had a thing to do with 9-11. There are lots and lots of really bad governments on the Earth, but none of them rules a country with as much oil as Iraq has.

[Cynthia]

Of course, Juniorbush USED the 9-11 attack and the ignorance of the American people to invade Iraq.

But no Iraqi had a thing to do with 9-11. There are lots and lots of really bad governments on the Earth, but none of them rules a country with as much oil as Iraq has.

Bush was mislead, stupid, if you will.

Al Qaeda was not mislead....but lead by pure hate.

I still can not see how you can put them both in the same category.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Bush was mislead, stupid, if you will.

Al Qaeda was not mislead....but lead by pure hate.

I still can not see how you can put them both in the same category.
===========================
Al Qaeda felt that they were doing what Allah wanted, punishing the US for blasphemy. It looks like "pure hate" to you, perhaps, but not to them.

Juniorbush's stupid decisions caused more people to die than anything Al Qaeda has done. So with regard to quantity of people who died, and surely quantity of innocent people who died, Juniorbush is ahead by a lot.

The one guy who should have died, bin Laden, is still around.

To us here in the US, Juniorbush wears a suit and looks like a middle class American. Bin Laden dresses funny, talks funny, takes his shoes off and sticks his but in the air when he prays. And they say he did it all out of hate. But that is a distortion caused by us looking through the lenses of our culture.

[BT]

The one guy who should have died, bin Laden, is still around.

How do you know that?

[Xavier_Onassis]

How do you know that?
=====================
He released a message recently on the US presidential election. If he were deceased, this would have been difficult.

There is a reward on his head, dead or alive. Do you really think he could die anonymously?
I don't.

The odds are that he is still alive and kicking, probably in Pakistan.

[BT]

He released a message recently on the US presidential election. If he were deceased, this would have been difficult.

How do you know it was him?

[Xavier_Onassis]

How do you know it was him?

=========================
Didn't trusted experts affirm this?
What evidence, if any, do you have that Bin Laden is dead?

[BT]

Didn't trusted experts affirm this?
What evidence, if any, do you have that Bin Laden is dead?

Who says they can be trusted?

And I have no evidence that Bin laden is dead, nor do I have evidence that he is alive.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Would it not be safe to assume that he is still around if voiceprints of his alleged recordings say they were made by him?

You have to figure in the benefits and disadvantages of the Al Qaeda leadership announcing his death (as a martyr) or his continued existence as a rallying point.

Also, there is a multimillion dollar reward for BL dead or alive.

I would probably not recognize him well enough to be sure myself, but someone could.

[BT]

Would it not be safe to assume that he is still around if voiceprints of his alleged recordings say they were made by him?

Not necessarily.

You have to figure in the benefits and disadvantages of the Al Qaeda leadership announcing his death (as a martyr) or his continued existence as a rallying point.

There are benefits and disadvantages to announcing his death on this side of the battleground as well.

WHat good is 25 million if you won't be around to collect it?

[Xavier_Onassis]

I suppose we will just have to leave Bin Ladin in limbo, neither dead nor alive.

but not funny enough to be a zombie or a vampire.

[Amianthus]

I suppose we will just have to leave Bin Ladin in limbo, neither dead nor alive.

A modern day version of Shroedinger's Cat.