straight news from the front

[Michael Tee]

<<They have invaded us.

<<Three attacks on US soil preceded 9-11 >>

There was ample provocation for those "invasions" which are minuscule in scale and duration compared to your interference in, exploitation of and invasion of their lands, both before and after 9-11.  You are only playing with words, counting any of that as an "invasion." 

<<and I am not copunting two embassys .>>

Good, because there is no sane person on the face of the earth who could consider an attack on an embassy to be an invasion.

<<You are entirely kidding yourself , they are not about "self " determination , they are about Sharia.>>
I don't give a shit how they govern themselves once they've achieved self-determination, it is absolutely none of my God-damn business and if they want to bury each other alive that is 100% THEIR problem.

<<If they win in Iraq they are not going to retire at that point.>>

And you know that because you can read their minds, right?  Oh, no, I forgot, some Jewish "expert" on the "Arab mind" has written a book that "proves" they want to invade Brooklyn.

<<Their attacks on the US were disapointing to them because we did not invade Afganistan , so the attacks escalated step wise untill we did invade Afganistan . . . >>

plane, this is just plane [pun intended] nuts - - they are intent on provoking a reaction, sure, but the reaction is geared to the popular overthrow of U.S. puppet dictators, again an illustration of how it is Western interference in THEIR affairs that is sparking this, not THEIR desire to take over the West.  The facts are so one-sided in evidence of Western takeovers of Arab lands, and governments, that it is just amazing how you can argue in the face of an overwhelming mass of uncontradicted facts that it is they who are aggressing against the West.  This goes way beyond projection, plane, this is really insane.


<<there we found arsenals piled up as though in preparation for a very long fight.>>

WHAT??  Stockpiles of WEAPONS??  Not in AFGHANISTAN, surely??  I am SHOCKED, plane, SHOCKED.  Who woulda thunk?


<<If they "win " now they will have a golden age of recruitment , worse for us than the golden age of recruitment they had during the Clinton Administration.>>

plane, this is so crazy that I can't believe I am seriously answering it, but look at it this way:  If they recruited every male above the age of ten in Afghanistan AND in Iraq, I don't believe the U.S. would have a thing to worry about.  It's notorious that the Republicans get their grip on the American levers of power through shameless fear-mongering, but this thing seems to have reached a new level.  I'm sorry, but it is really impossible to take this stuff seriously.  Get a grip, plane.

[BT]

So basically you are saying al-Queda has anger issues and simply needs a hug?

[Michael Tee]

<<So basically you are saying al-Queda has anger issues and simply needs a hug?>>

No, that's what YOU are saying.  I'm saying you have fucked with the wrong people for too long and they are starting to get their shit together now.  They've still got a long way to go, but they've started on the path of armed Resistance and they are on the right track.  Ultimately you will be forced out of their lives and their homes.

BTW, just so you know, "anger issues" are usually used to describe inappropriate anger, not well-justified outrage.  You might as well say of the European Resistance fighters of WWII that they had "anger issues" and "just needed a hug." 

[BT]

You might as well say of the European Resistance fighters of WWII that they had "anger issues" and "just needed a hug." 

To the Germans that might have been true. Perception is everything.

[Plane]

<<You are entirely kidding yourself , they are not about "self " determination , they are about Sharia.>>
I don't give a shit how they govern themselves once they've achieved self-determination,........

You have missed the entire point.
Their not going to have any self determination , they do not want andy self determination at all , they want Sharia globally and there is no reason to stop while there is a single person who is not under it.

[Plane]

<<They have invaded us.

<<Three attacks on US soil preceded 9-11 >>

There was ample provocation for those "invasions" which are minuscule in scale and duration compared to your interference in, exploitation of and invasion of their lands, both before and after 9-11.  You are only playing with words, counting any of that as an "invasion." 

Yes one of the invasions was simply one guy walking into the parking lot of the CIA and shooting people as they sat in their cars , you gotta call that miniscule.

They had a strong trend to escalate tho.

I beleive that if we had treated 9-11 as if it were a criminal incident , they would have tried another attack , bigger,hopeing to get the invasion of Afganistan that they WANTED.

[Plane]

"...they are intent on provoking a reaction, sure, but the reaction is geared to the popular overthrow of U.S. puppet dictators, again an illustration of how it is Western interference in THEIR affairs that is sparking this, not THEIR desire to take over the West. ..."

"They " have never said that they have this limitation on their ambition.

Why do they attack the USA at all , if their real aim is more local?

The Shah of Iran was deposed without burning down downtown New York , so why does such a thing help them take over Saudi Arabia?

[Plane]

WHAT??  Stockpiles of WEAPONS??  Not in AFGHANISTAN, surely??  I am SHOCKED, plane, SHOCKED.  Who woulda thunk?

Osama Bin Laden is who would have thunk that he could win a quagmire sort of war , that is who.

He wanted it and he was gonna do whatever it took to get it to happen.

OBL was a very wealthy guy , what does a very welthy guy buy a nation load of weapons for?

[Plane]

plane, this is so crazy that I can't believe I am seriously answering it, but look at it this way:  If they recruited every male above the age of ten in Afghanistan AND in Iraq, I don't believe the U.S. would have a thing to worry about.

Totally right , we are going to win.

The only question is how long will it take?

If we destroy Al Quieda , we are done , nothing less can be called finished.

If we do the job mostly and retire from the feild we will be forced to return in a few years when the Al Queda has healed up .

If this becomes cyclical , how many iterations of the cycle will we go thru before we get serious ?

Imagine the Allies decideing that driveing Facism form their own territorys was enough to do , and halting their advance at Germanys frounteirs.   That would have saved many, many lives , right?

[Plane]

<<So basically you are saying al-Queda has anger issues and simply needs a hug?>>

No, that's what YOU are saying.  I'm saying you have fucked with the wrong people for too long and they are starting to get their shit together now.  They've still got a long way to go, but they've started on the path of armed Resistance and they are on the right track.  Ultimately you will be forced out of their lives and their homes.

BTW, just so you know, "anger issues" are usually used to describe inappropriate anger, not well-justified outrage.  You might as well say of the European Resistance fighters of WWII that they had "anger issues" and "just needed a hug." 

No .
If they recruited every male above the age of ten in Afghanistan AND in Iraq, I don't believe the U.S. would have a thing to worry about. 
They cannot use force to acheive anything against the US.

[Amianthus]

Good, because there is no sane person on the face of the earth who could consider an attack on an embassy to be an invasion.

An embassy is considered sovereign territory of the sponsoring nation. As such, an attack on an embassy is an invasion.

[Michael Tee]

<<An embassy is considered sovereign territory of the sponsoring nation. As such, an attack on an embassy is an invasion.>>

This is EXACTLY what I mean by right-wing nitpicking and quibbling.  Technically, in some world of abstract legality, you would be correct.  In real life, the West has had boots on the ground in so many Arab and Muslim countries, always up to no damned good, that you would have to be a lunatic to try to draw any comparison between the two, and even if you did, you'd have to keep in mind that the Embassy attacks (or "invasions of U.S. soil" as you prefer to call them) happened IN RESPONSE TO years of provocation.

[Michael Tee]

<<To the Germans that [that the European Resistance fighters had "anger management" issues] might have been true. Perception is everything. >>

As most of us have already noticed, the Germans perceived a lot of things differently than the rest of the world.  "Perceptual" difficulties that profound can only be resolved by superior firepower.  When enough of the bastards were converted into charred bratwurst makins, that "perception" was invalidated.  Hopefully for good.  Even the Germans seem to have given up on it.

From my own observations, if there is any people on the face of the earth more in need of "anger management" lessons than the U.S.A., I have not seen any sign of them.  Although I am sure the Americans can justify every single one of their unprovoked aggressions with the most exquisitely refined reasoning.  Just ask Ami.

[Michael Tee]

<<You have missed the entire point.
<<Their not going to have any self determination , they do not want andy self determination at all , they want Sharia globally and there is no reason to stop while there is a single person who is not under it.>>

I think, (1) that you just don't understand self-determination, because you seem to be under the impression that it's inconsistent with Sharia and (2) you are just repeating the Zionist-inspired propaganda line that they all want the same thing and that thing is global Sharia.  The Zionists are in the business of manufacturing "the typical Arab terrorist" and you are one of their best customers.

I believe there are some Muslims who wish to impose global Sharia and if necessary by force.  Some of them are armed and violent, most are probably not.  Of those that are armed and violent, they partake in armed Resistance movements some of which have global Sharia as their goal, others of which are more focused on specific areas of grievance - - Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon, etc. - - and are not pursuing a path to global Sharia, even though the satisfaction of their immediate goal might be seen as bringing them one step closer to global Sharia. 

There are plenty of Christians who won't stop what they're doing till the whole world is brought to an acceptance of Jesus Christ as personal saviour, some of them in quite high places in the U.S. political and military fields, so I don't see anything unique or threatening in their Muslim counterparts.  One side kills with suicide bombs and one with JDAMs, but apart from the disparity in technology (which may be narrowing) I don't see any fundamental differences.

What is truly bizarre is this one-size-fits-all caricature you seem to have constructed (or which was constructed for you) to represent the other side in what is essentially a struggle for the control of other people's (with browner skins) lands and resources.  Weird beyond belief, actually.

[Michael Tee]

<<I beleive that if we had treated 9-11 as if it were a criminal incident , they would have tried another attack , bigger,hopeing to get the invasion of Afganistan that they WANTED.>>

My point exactly, or almost exactly, because I don't think they gave a shit which particular Muslim country the U.S. would attack.  It didn't HAVE to be Afghanistan, although Afghanistan is very attractive for a variety of reasons, one being the recent history of the Russian invasion.

So at least you'll admit that by attacking Afghanistan (and Iraq) the U.S. and Britain are doing exactly what al Qaeda wanted them (correctly or not) to do?