<<Al Queda declaired war on us twenty years ago, and never palced any limit on where or how many Americans it would kill. >>
I don't know about "declaring war," I suppose if you have such a document or declaration, I'd be interested to see it. Whether or not al Qaeda "declared war" on the USA is of minimal significance. I could declare war myself on the USA tomorrow, but my mere declaration could not possibly have the effect of creating a real war.
Regardless of what they declared, they commenced a series of attacks against U.S. installations, both military and civilian, in their little corner of the world. They also made two attacks on the WTC, the latter of which succeeded spectacularly. The attacks on American lives and property abroad leave America with some choices to make - - pull out of places where some folks don't think you should be, or defend yourselves by fortifying the properties and catching the attackers. The attacks on American soil obviously require a beefing up of security, and it seems this has been done.
The problem with the creation, for propaganda purposes, of a fake "war" to deal with (a) isolated attacks on your military bases and ships in the Third World, (b) isolated attacks on your Embassies and (c) one spectacular attack on the US homeland which took less than 3,000 lives, is that the rhetoric of "war" is used to silence or diminish free and open debate inside America, give powers to the President that the Constitution never intended for him to have and mainly to justify and cover for wars of unprovoked aggression in the Middle East and the totally unnecessary expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars in "defence" and "homeland security" which only a real war could ever justify.
<<I deny their right to kill Americans or Canadians for reason of having American or Canadian feet on Arabian dirt.>>
So what? They deny the rights of the owners of those feet to put them on Arabian dirt.
<<They also never had a right to kill Tanzineans or Kenyans or Arabians who happened to be passing by an American when the Al Quada bombs would blow up.>>
No, only Americans can blow up the innocent and say, "Oooops. Collateral damage."
<<Also your assertian that AlQueda couldn'tbe failing if they were real is lucridious , of course they could fail, I sincerey hope thay continue to fail.>>
There are failures and there are failures. It's ludicrous to suggest that the test of their being real is whether they can nuke the Capitol, assassinate the Joint Chiefs of Staff and occupy the White House, but it's not ludicrous at all to suggest that their failure to assassinate on American soil one neocon, one public figure etc. in nine long years of "war" is evidence, not of their alleged "failure," but of their non-existence. The "War on Terror" is sold on the threat to American lives in their home in the American homeland, not on what happened to the Kobar Towers or USS Cole. It's sold with the frantic assurance that "this threat is DIFFERENT," it's a threat from within. And it's used to jack hundreds of billions more from the American taxpayer.
<<We are the more powerfull contestant in the fight so we get to choose the venue. >>
That's the official line. The fact is, you are the ONLY contestant in the fight, but you can't very well bomb villages in America, so you HAVE to "choose the venue" to be in Iraq or Afghanistan.
<<If we choose to choose the venue. This is something that Bush got entirely right. >>
Wake up, plane. First he bamboozled you into agreeing that America was at war, THEN he told you that he was choosing the venue. That is hilarious. If you really were at war, the venue would be wherever al Qaeda decided it wanted to kill Americans. But what you are saying is that in nine years, the "enemy" couldn't (due to the brilliance of Bush) infiltrate one agent or team into the US to score even one hit? Ridiculous.
<<The Al Queda was a lot more effective when they go to pick where and when to strike and never needed to face Armed Americans. Americans who can shoot back tipicly kill Al Queda fighters at a rate that weakens them for future conflict >>
Yet strangely enough in nine years, shooting back and "weakening them for future conflict," it appears they are stronger than ever. Go figger.
<<this we cannot keep up forever because we will eventually run low on targets.>>
Sure plane, let us know when THAT happens. [jaw dropping in amazement at what a good fight you Americans can talk]