If we are creating more terrorists than we are killing, it becomes a very important question.
The ignorant footsoldiers can be disillusioned by defeat. Its the organization, the engineers, that we have to worry about - and their safe havens.
Kicking the tar out of a defenseless, innocent country isn't turning out to be such a good idea either. These are the only two choices?
I see, Saddam's Iraq was "innocently" making WMDs, gassing the Kurds, sponsoring terrorism, starving its people to build palaces, and btw killing at least 10,000 Iraqis a year? I can see why you feel for such defenseless lambs.
In the past, bin Laden's demands have been quite specific and involved the West freeing what he considered political prisoners and leaving the sacred lands, which, even if we are unable/unwilling to comply with, hardly seem an unreasonable request from any foe
Um, I don't think you read the whole list, SC. OBL's list of grievances include:
La Reconquista, which he calls the "Tragedy of Andalusia" (in case you forgot, this ended in 1492)
80 years of infidels attacking Muslims (meaning the entire post-Ottoman history of the Middle East)
The creation of Israel (natch)
East Timor
AND
Infidels on the holy land of SA
Infidels out of SA is only step one of infidels out of every Muslim country, which itself is only a prelude to the proper order of things, where Muslims conquer the west and convert it to Islam. OBL is working on the idea that if only he can kill enough infidels, the world will revert to its proper 7th century order. That's not really a neogotiable demand, don't you agree? |
