CultThought 101
Tweet
At Wizbang, someone named Kim Priestap writes about tomorrow’s Democratic national security announcement and ends with this bon mot:
Osama won’t be intimidated by this bunch.
Critiques of the Democrats aside (too much strategy not enough rhetoric, I say – more on that later but just think John Kerry redux), this just shows what the thought process is like inside the cult. In what way possible is Osama “intimidated” by Bush? In Bush he’s got the dream sap he’s always wanted. Bush does exactly what Osama would like him to do, and its driving up recruiting – not for the U.S. military, but for Al Qaeda.
And as we move towards the fifth anniversary of 9/11, Bin Laden remains alive and on the loose. If that’s “intimidated”, I’d hate to see his “perturbed” look.
69 Responses to “CultThought 101”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
The Rasmussen poll is interesting. Republicans are much more likely than Democrats or Independens to believe that capturing or killing Osama would help US national security. And very few people in either party believe Osama is dead. Yet the inability to nail Osama is one of the crowning failures in Bush’s War on Terror. I happen to agree with Republicans that getting Osama would be very important for national security if only for the propaganda value. The longer he survives, the more his legend grows. And the fact that the man who orchestrated the mass murder of 3,000 Americans is still free to taunt us makes my blood boil. So how is it that Republicans think Bush has done well in the War on Terror? I don’t mean better than some straw-man “Democrat Party” campaign, but in its own right. Because we haven’t been attacked on US soil since 9/11? Well, we weren’t attacked on US soil after February 1993 for the rest of Clinton’s regime. So what is it that makes Republicans, who rightly recognize the importance in capturing or killing Osama for American national security, so favorable toward Bush on the War on Terror?
Are you referring to Brer Osama?
It may just work- it’s good to remind Americans who the REAL enemy is- clue: it is not Iraq. It never was Iraq.
Cause if we stayed in Vietnam, 9/11 would never have happened… or something…
I’m sorry Frank, I missed something here. Does Vietnam have any connection with the topic at hand or are you just trying to redirect the conversation?
The fifth anniversary of 9/11 is 5 and one – half months away (my, how Oliver loves him some anniversaries!), but this thirty – third anniversary is today: “Even before the last American troops departed on March 29, the communists violated the cease-fire, and by early 1974 full-scale war had resumed.”
It is a fair criticism of the Democrats that they are weak on the WOT. They/you of course would protest this, but it is how most of us feel. Too much understanding of root causes, too much ‘wait till we get the Europeans involved’, too much hand wringing about pre-emptive action.
Sometimes you don’t do right by being passive and understanding why the other guy hates you.
Osama has not had a successful attack on the US homeland since 9-11. Credit goes to Bush. The terorist know that the response from Bush will be the US military, from the Democrats they at worst can expecta trial in US courts with the likes of some Kunstlerian lawyer explaining to a sympathetic jury (after all, one let OJ go) why this terrorist needs to be set free because of his “anti-imperialist rage.”
Dugger, Ain’t no Haint Gonna Run me Off
What were the hazards of withdrawal from Vietnam? The war was over, and the Vietnamese even did the favor to the world of overthrowing Pol Pot a few years later.
No, LB, just reminding one and all of the hazards of withdrawal.
“Hazards of withdrawal”
Ha! Maybe someone should warn you war-mongering dipsh-ts about the hazards of unlawful and unnecessary ‘entry.’
That’s true, Diamond; and while the Vietnamese didn’t overthrow him for altruistic reasons, at least they weren’t supporting him like you-know-who.
LeGrande: The “nationalist rebellion” was a Communist takeover. and Iraq is not in Asia. But other than that, your “analysis” is atrocious.
Yes, Alex, it’s real easy to talk about war – mongering, when you didn’t go!
It’s called rationalization…
Incidentally, the author of that “Pol Pot and Kissinger” piece also said this:
There’s an impartial historian for you.
“Certainly no sadder than when leftists call people who support the rule of law racist or xenophobe & ..but heck, I get over it.”
If you support the rule of law so much, why are you for warrantless wiretaps of Americans? Why do you support the unitary executive theory? Why do you support torture? Why do you support indefinite detention of Americans suspected of terrorism?
Just looking for a little consistency here.
“The most telling point is that when OBL makes his twice-a-year video pronouncement, he is using the same talking points about the war on terrorism that OW and the democrats do. Remember the old saying the enemy of my enemy is my friend ? Well the reverse is also true& ”
Pedro,
Please enlighten us as to what is “telling” about this and please provide example of the similarities between the two. It’s sad to see you using the same violent, eliminationist language as the sad and angry wingers who call us traitors. I’m not sure why you haven’t been banned yet for your repeated lies, but your apparent call for violent murder of liberals (which is what you’d do to Osama, and we’re his friends and by extension your enemy) should do it.
“No, LB, just reminding one and all of the hazards of withdrawal. ”
Vietnam is equally relevant to remind one and all of the hazards of waging a war in the first place.
But apparently it is working…..ALL my comments now require moderation it appears…
mjb says “It s sad to see you using the same violent, eliminationist language as the sad and angry wingers who call us traitors”
Certainly no sadder than when leftists call people who support the rule of law “racist” or “xenophobe”…..but heck, I get over it.
The best part of your post “I m not sure why you haven t been banned yet….” sort of sums up most of the lefties here….”We LOVE free speech….just not YOUR free speech….!”
F’ing hypocrite…..
I’d be curious to see how conservatives and liberals come out on this:
http://www.reincarnationstation.com/
OBL doesn’t need to go outside. He doesn’t want or need the same creature comforts or freedoms we do. Why? Because he’s convinced his reward is waiting for him in the afterlife.
Neither party “intimidates” OBL. Americans in general do not “intimidate” him. The only thing he fears is Allah, and he’s confident that he’s appeased Him. The same goes, in various degrees, for the entire Islamic extremist movement.
I sincerely hope neither party runs on the platform that they are going to “scare” the terrorists.
OW says….”In what way possible is Osama intimidated by Bush?”
How about in this way…..Bush overthrew the government of a sovereign nation that deigned to support OBL. OBL has’nt been able to go outside for more than ten minutes at a time in about 3 years, so calling him free is a bit generous.
The democrats idea of a response is to throw a couple of missiles in the general direction of the terrorists, then walking away congratulating themselves.
The most telling point is that when OBL makes his twice-a-year video pronouncement, he is using the same talking points about the war on terrorism that OW and the democrats do. Remember the old saying “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”? Well the reverse is also true…..
Nice link frank but liberals are much less prone than your kind to believing in supernatural fairytale nonsense.
mjb: That’s a truism. Any war is “relevant to remind one and all of the hazards of waging a war in the first place.” Of course, that cuts both ways: Whether you believe in just war, or you don’t.
and, ditto Dr. Pedro
Pedro, calling for violent retaliation against people who speak their mind is certainly more serious than me wondering why you haven’t been banned (but free to write and say whatever you want anywhere else) because of your patern of dishonesty and desire for harm to come to people who politically disagree with you. Calling you xenophobic is not the same as calling me equally evil as OBL, and presumably deserving the same fate. You are a scary person and you make the world worse. Keep lying for God.
I am an atheist…so if I lie it is for myself alone…
Please point out ANY statement I have made calling for violent action of any sort against anyone but a military enemy. It is the product of your drug-addled mind that I have done so. It is also a convenient rationalization for your brown-shirt tactics attempting to silence an opinion that you don’t agree with, and can’t find a cogent argument against…..
I am not sure that OBL actually buys the reincarnation stuff..I mean, if he REALLY believed it he would have blown himself up by now, right?
Same argument I have with uber-pro life christians about right to die issues…if they are going to heaven, why prolong their suffering on earth?
piddge you are truly a moron…
OBL is now nostradamus? It is like the kid saying to everyone “be nice to me, I could be an orphan…” then he kills his parents. Piddgy-widgy would be walking around saying…see, he was RIGHT!
I know some people in New York who agree with Bush on everything, but will not forgive him for not capturing Osama. He’s a six and half foot tall Arab living in South Asia who need dialysis. There is no excuse, so we must look for explanations.
As long as he’s not caught, the President can trot out the “On 9/11, blah blah blah.” anytime he wants, including, apparently, the resignation of his Chief of Staff. When bin laden is caught, many Americans will close the book on that attack – so what exactly is the incentive for this President to pursue him?
“Just looking for a little consistency here.”
Amen.
I’m alwasy amazed at how fast some conservatives are to put on their sack cloth and start playing the victim.
George W Bush is the best thing that could have happened for Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda.
DrPedro: Bush overthrew the government of a sovereign nation that deigned to support OBL.
DrDoper, that was exactly what bin Laden said would happen for years, and when it happened it just advanced bin Laden’s cause. It’s a victory for bin Laden and has been a disaster for the US.
FOR liberals are much less prone than your kind to believing in supernatural fairytale nonsense.
READ We have no sense of humor…
“We LOVE free speech& .just not YOUR free speech& .! F ing hypocrite& .. ”
Too classic. What an ass.
for one thing it would stop the incessant jabbering of lefties about OBL not being caught…though it would destroy a perfectly good conspiracy meme of OBL being Bush’s “White Whale”…..
The RNC jock huffers over at WizDumb! could’nt get a bagel right, let alone their story straight.
Yet the Wiztards don’t seem to mind sneering about the abstract idea of “soveriegnty” when it comes to suiting their New Hampshire bred crackerpolitik agenda (Iraq) while the real bad guys run free in a country where sovereignty does apply (Pakistan).
God forbid they would cite a competent source on that subject or on any subject for that matter. – like those who worked for the CIA (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/terrorism/july-dec04/osama_12-16.html ) which might light the lone christmas bulb above their collective. Wizbanged has to be “unique” with its truthiness when its not grinding it’s jackboot into Cindy Sheehans temple or trying to pull a Lazarus for Mary Jo Kopechne.
And when the intellectual heavy lifting gets to be a tad heavy for Kim and Jay they can always turn to the misfiring synapses of Malkin, Hannity, Limbaugh and Melhman -perish the MSM!!, they got dem’ journalists!
No one over there will come clean as to why Bin Laden evaded capture nor will they bother, that would implicate the Bush administrations’ abominable job in the war on terror.
“OBL is now nostradamus? It is like the kid saying to everyone be nice to me, I could be an orphan& then he kills his parents. Piddgy-widgy would be walking around saying& see, he was RIGHT”
This doesn’t even make sense. Is this your new way of lying for god?
The single sign of success in the war on terror that conservatives can point to is a logical fallacy: We haven’t had any Islamic attacks on US soil since 9-11 so that means we must be winning. Really? I have yet to hear a conservative extend the same praise to Clinton who “thwarted” an Islamic attack on US soil for seven years after the first World Trade Center bombing.
& ..Bush overthrew the government of a sovereign nation that deigned to support OBL
OBL and Saddam did not agree. OBL didn’t think Saddam was radical enough. There is very little that connects the two.
And there is the other quandry. If we catch him and imprison/try him, there is the potential for reprisal attacks, kidnappings, etc. by supporters who demand his release. If he is killed outright, he becomes a matyr for the cause of Islamic fundamentalism, thus enabling more attacks to avenge his death.
I’m glad and sickened at the same time that W “doesn’t think about him that much.”
And Dr., remember your oath.
The events of the last four years have been so surrealistically awful it’s almost hard to believe they are really happening. Sometimes I feel like I must be in some science fiction tale where I am in a coma and my subconscious mind has to create some bizarre reality in order to keep me sane because no way could any US President be as bad as Bush.
The day after Sept. 11, 2001 the entire world supported us. It took Bush no more than a few months to alienate everyone. His “My way or the highway” attitude towards the rest of the world has played into Al Qaeda’s hand. It is George Bush who has isolated us from the world.
After we were attacked the world stood united with us. Thanks to George Bush’s machismo we stand alone.
Go ahead, tell me OBL doesn’t love George Bush!
But that’s okay I guess because he obviously isn’t getting any blow jobs. I mean hell what’s really important?
Oh, and Frank nice link. Those polls are kind of silly but fun. According to that web page in my next life I’ll be a tiger. Which is funny cause in this life I was born in the year of the Tiger.
9-11. bin Laden not caught. I would say bin Laden should have been Bush’s White Whale since 9-11. Instead it has been Iraq.
DrDoper, it’s pretty early in the day and you are drunk already. Tsk Tsk.
BTW, wasn’t it Afghanistan that just tried to kill a Christian convert? What a bang-up job we did creating THAT government…
Frank- I’m gonna be a parrot! Sweet!
“Dr., remember your oath.”
Yeah, “Do no harm”. He’s already given that up for lent.
“The events of the last four years have been so surrealistically awful it s almost hard to believe they are really happening. Sometimes I feel like I must be in some science fiction tale where I am in a coma and my subconscious mind has to create some bizarre reality in order to keep me sane because no way could any US President be as bad as Bush.”
I feel the same way- if I thought GWB could have been THIS bad- that any president could be THIS bad, I would have been down in Washington contesting the election results even harder than I did.
Dr., remember your oath.
Yeah, Do no harm . He s already given that up for lent.
Q: What do you call the guy who graduates at the bottom of his class from medical school?
A: Doctor.
I still think DRDoper is a doctor of Mixology.
Wow, Osama Bin Laden singled out the most telling moment in Bush’s presidency: The long, long minutes he sat in stunned, paralyzed silence while America was under attack. Here’s something to think about pedro. In that moment we saw the president’s true nature: He is a dangerously incompetent coward. It is not surprising to find that Osama Bin Laden saw the same thing in that footage. It’s patently obvious for all to see and only the most willfully ignorant cult followers have suggested that the footage shows Bush in any kind of a positive light.
Osama Bin Laden recognized that moment for what it was and realized that he had nothing to fear in George Bush.
Those Americans who recognized that moment for what it was fought like hell to get a real leader elected in 2004 for the good of the nation and the good of the world. But we lost. And Osama Bin Laden is still free to spread his violence and hate around the world.
“But because it seemed to him that occupying himself by talking to the little girl about the goat and its butting was more important than occupying himself with the planes and their butting of the skyscrapers …….And it’s no secret to you that the thinkers and perceptive ones from among Americans warned Bush before the war and told him.”
Quiz:
Who made the aforementioned statement…? No fair googling…
Michael Moore
George Galloway
OBL
Oliver Willis
Pedro, you are not a true athiest because athiests have no allegiance but to the observable evidence.
And I count your tying liberals to OBL as a call for violent action against liberals. What else could you have meant by that? You said that the friend of your enemy is your enemy. You named that enemy as OBL. Where is the ambiguity you bully?
“OBL is now nostradamus? It is like the kid saying to everyone be nice to me, I could be an orphan& then he kills his parents. Piddgy-widgy would be walking around saying& see, he was RIGHT! ?”
Can someone translate this into English for me?
Pedro,
Where is the Michael Moore, Galloway, Willis comments calling for murder and the downfall of western society? That’s what matters. Pure sophistry. I won’t bore you with the myriad similarities between the current admin’s speech and Hitler’s or Mousollini’s. BTW, you still have never apologized for lying a while back about us finding Saddam’s WMD by citing an article which said explicitly that what was found was NOT possessed by Saddam, and was brought into Iraq by the foreign insurgents. I won’t let it go you fraud.
Thanks, Buma. But sadly, pedro et. al. are all too real.
Excellent post, frame.
Sometimes I think hedley and drpedro are just screen names OW uses when he types in the usual GOP talking points. After all, it gets the rest of us to repond to the sheer lunacy of Bush’s cult. Pedro is an invention of OW himself (just a theory)…
I wish I was that diabolical.
The far more likely reason we haven’t been attacked since 9-11 in any significant fashion (domestically, anyway) is that al-Qaeda simply wasn’t that formidable to begin with. The whole 9-11 effort took, what, 11 years or so to orchestrate and execute? It required flight training and intelligence on U.S. airports and their security procedures. It also cost a considerable sum of money, which essentially meant Osama’s purse. In the end, though, it really depended on one key element, incompetence (or something more sinister, depending on your point of view). The government had to effectively “look the other way” and stand down the strategic air defense, it had to shut down an already well established anti-terror program (Able Danger), and it had to ignore all the available intelligence (i.e. memos about Bin Laden being “determined” to strike in the U.S., along with studies showing the likelyhood that terrorists would eventually try to use airplanes as bombs…despite Bush claiming that no one could have forseen it…hey, that sounds familiar…). That all includes the lack of coordination between the FBI and the CIA and local law enforcement, along with the dismissal of warnings from field agents. The airlines had to essentially let multiple individuals on government watch lists buying 1 way tickets with cash slide through security check points with concealed weapons. So whether you care to label it incompetence or conspiracy, there are many unanswered questions the american government, the military, and the airlines need to answer.
So the likelyhood of another attack so soon after 9-11 is remote, if simply for the fact that logistically it is more difficult now then it was then. It should also be noted that the war in Iraq, which is now collapsing into civil war, will provide a big boost to terrorist ranks,pushing many radicalized muslims, fueled by rage over the U.S. occupation, over the line from angry rhetoric to violent action. That will most likely lead to further instability in the Middle East before it spreads here (if it ever does). Even with hundreds, even thousands, more terrorists in the region, that does little to empower them to acquire the necessary materials, people, and training to carry out anything as large as 9-11 anytime soon. Osama bin Laden may not even care to attack the U.S. at this point as he seems to have accomplished all of his goals in one fell swoop. G.W. has trampled all over the civil rights of americans and foreigners alike, he has boosted terrorist recruitment in ways that bin Laden could only dream about, he toppled the secularist Hussein government and put in motion events to replace it with either a theocratic one or, at the very least, a “democratic” one presiding over a civil war that will fuel further radicalism in the region. Nice work.
Seriously, how can anyone credit G.W. with stopping the terrorists? Recent security tests at airports and shipping ports all demonstrated quite clearly that security in Bushco land has been entirely about p.r. and little else. Which party has consistently blocked funding for airport and harbor security? The whole fabricated “war on terror” is just political posturing and fear mongering to spook the public into letting Bush piss all over the Constitution and international law.
“Sometimes I think hedley and drpedro are just screen names OW uses”
its vaguely amusing to me that so many at this site are so threatened by opinions that question their own that they revert to marginalizing them and pretending they aren’t real….
So in short;
1) Terrorist organizations are extremely patient and well-funded.
2) Government law enforcement agencies don’t play well together.
3)Even 5 and half years after the events of that Tuesday morning, there are huge enough gaps in our national security to drive a truck loaded with radiological stuff through.
4) The 9/11 Commission Report was a paper tiger.
5) Our Government isn’t really that concerned.
Okay, who feels safer? Anyone? At least I can keep my nail clippers on the plane now.
“its vaguely amusing to me that so many at this site are so threatened by opinions that question their own that they revert to marginalizing them and pretending they aren t real& .”
The funniest thing I have read all day. The self-aggrandizement and delusion is simply priceless.
We have to pretend they aren’t real, because the alternative is just too fucking scary to contemplate.
Nice summary, Duros.
It should also be said that, at the time of the Afghan invasion, al Qaeda was almost entirely contained within that country. So, had we actually sent in the marines, so to speak, at Tora Bora, we would have, in all likelyhood, captured or killed bin Laden and effectively wiped out al Qaeda. Now the terrorist network has decentralized and spread out its chain of command to avoid such a scenario in the future. Hence the constant nonsense about capturing or killing the “number 3″ al-Qaeda leader (the Daily Show had a great chart showing everyone under #2 in al-Qaeda was “#3″)
So what is now the “long” war could have been the “short” war, or even the “over” war, but that doesn’t get Patriot Acts passed, let you freely wiretap americans, gut the budget, or pass billions in no-bid contracts to the Halliburtons waiting in the shadows. Incompetence has its rewards.
pedro, nothing you say makes anyone here question their beliefs. You’d have to make a consistent, truthful argument to have any chance at that.
Bill L: “It should also be said that, at the time of the Afghan invasion, al Qaeda was almost entirely contained within that country”…
Classic liberal argument, start off on a premise that is complete and utter bullsh*t, then run with it.
“almost entirely contained within that country”….yea, except for the twenty or so flying airplanes into our buildings, or the thousands roaming indonesia and the phillipines, or Sudan or about a dozen other places….
This is why discussing these issues is so difficult with leftists. They make up the “facts” on which they base their arguments, and you have to spend so much time correcting those that you can never actually discuss the issue at hand, just the f*cked up premise they began their argument on.
drpedro–
Thanks for reminding me — the WTC bombing of early 1993 (30-something days after Clinton was sworn in) was the result of alQaida planning, reconnaisance, communication, and logistics mapped out during Bush Sr’s term. You’re right about alQaida operations occurring in places other than Afghanistan. So why was it that a presidential brief titled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US” caused so little concern for the vacationing Bush Jr? Why was he so utterly useless (watch the school video if you’ve conveniently forgotten) as CiC on the morning of 9/11/2001?
Oh, that DrPedro, all the insight and wit of a magic eightball dropped out an 11th story window.
I was referring to al-Qaeda’s operational capabilities, i.e. where all the major preparation and strategy took place and where most, if not all, of the leadership lived. No shit there are and were cells operating around the world, who do you think directed them? Had the U.S. concentrated on eliminating the al-Qaeda presence in Afghanistan, the group would have been splintered and directionless, not to mention demoralized since we would have captured/killed their figurehead. Would that have guaranteed success in eliminating the al Qaeda threat? No, but it would have gone a long way toward reducing the odds of a disastrous attack like 9-11. Effective use of intelligence and international cooperation would have handled the rest (accurate intelligence and international cooperation, Bush’s green and red kryponite…or maybe yellow…which is it that makes you stupid?). Invading Iraq has accomplished exactly the opposite. Now al-Qaeda has effectively decentralized and scattered, making them much harder to deal with. Of course, you could try taking a hard look at U.S. foreign policy and working to reduce those areas that help fuel anti-western sentiment, but that’s just crazy “appeasement” talk. Everyone knows that if it’s good for the U.S., it’s good for everyone. Besides, the terrorists just hate our freedom, which is why they attacked the WTC and the Pentagon rather than the Statue of Liberty or something. No military industrial subtext there. No sir.
Besides, the terrorists just hate our freedom, which is why they attacked the WTC and the Pentagon rather than the Statue of Liberty or something. ..
I always wondered about that. If they really wanted to scare the shit out of us, why didn’t they drop a plane on Hollywood Boulevard, right on Grumman’s Chinese Theatre?
If sheer number of casualties was their motive, there are (still) numerous targets which would guarantee a massive death toll.
1.)Sports event (World Series, Superbowl)
2.)New Year’s Eve in Times Square
3.)Macy’s parade on Thanksgiving
4.)4th of July (Washington, New York, Boston)
If you wanted to strike at American “decadence,” there are better targets, too.
1.)Hollywood/LAX (target of a foiled plot by…Clinton!…but I’m sure we’ll hear how he just got lucky, which he did, but not to the extent some people think)
2.)Las Vegas
3.)Times Square (okay, not so much now, but when I was a kid…whew!)
What about a purely symbolic attack on our “freedom?”
1.)Mount Rushmore
2.)Statue of Liberty (as has been pointed out)
3.)Pick any Washington monument
The WTC just offered the perfect symbolic target. It was easily the biggest and most garish building in the New York skyline, making for high visibility and clearing a path for jets barely kept aloft by half-trained terrorist pilots. The towers were gleaming symbols of America’s international monetary influence and, as many see it, economic imperialism.
The Pentagon is an obvious target as well. The world wide presence of hundreds (set to break the 1,000 mark in a few years) of American military bases is a source of considerable friction in many countries, but particularly in the Middle East, where they are seen as a religious insult. On top of that you can heap our military support for Israel and its ongoing conflict with the Palestinians, and you’d have to be a fool not to think some group might take a shot at the Pentagon if given the opportunity.
As for the likelyhood that the White House was also a target, well, duh. The center of power is always a target, that’s why its surrounded by a no-fly zone…that seems to routinely get penetrated (now I need a shower).
I haven’t even touched on our meddling in the Iranian elections and installing the Shah (that worked out well), or our continued support of oppressive regimes like the one in Saudi Arabia. Key-Rice-Tah, how could anyone be surprised that we had a major case of blowback coming our way? The families of the vitims of the WTC attack have every right to be pissed at the government for apparently doing everything it could over the past 50-60 years to build up a hornet’s nest in the Middle East and then repeatedly whack it with a stick while leaving the rest of us open to retribution. We created the Mujahadeen, funded bin Laden, supported Hussein (and gave him his old stash of chemical weapons), interfered with elections (the aforementioned Shah), continue to support nasty S.O.B.s like the Saudi royals, and now those ingredients have gelled into al-Qaeda.
So by all means, let’s bomb Iran next!
Bill it is obvious you don’t have a degree in foreign studies or any military experience, or for that matter an ability to put together a coherent consistent thought, so I am going give you the swiftest smack-down I can…
Make up your mind….either ..“the U.S. concentrated on eliminating the al-Qaeda presence in Afghanistan, the group would have been splintered and directionless,” or
“Now al-Qaeda has effectively decentralized and scattered, making them much harder to deal with”
Jesus…what a chucklehead…..but typical leftist tripe. Don’t fit the argument to the facts, just change the “facts” to suite your argument. Man, why do I bother….
To many people in the world, New York IS America. Striking the tallest buildings in New York that also housed some major financial entities, banks, transportation and telecommunication hubs, was not necessarily an attack on our freedoms. It was simply a major target. Also, Mohammed Atta, a failed architecture student, had a particular dislike for skyscrapers.
Man, is it really possible for Dr. Pedro to be that stunningly dense? Is there a giant sign over his bed that reads “pants first, then shoes?”(all credit to Gary Larson)
There is a world of difference between “scattered” and leaderless and “scattered and decentralized,” i.e. less concentration of authority in one area. One is the result of planning and restructuring while the other is a side effect of organizational collapse, get it? Maybe someone can find the time to put together a puppet show and explain it to the good “Dr.”
Holy crap what a dolt.
I agree, Buma, that New York carries a lot of symbolic weight worldwide as a representation of all things american. As for the “attack on our freedoms” thing, I never bought that overly simplistic GOP spin. The architechture angle would be amusing if not for the grisly results, but I would wager the size of the towers and their economic importance were more powerful contributing factors.
Bill they are called terrorist “cells” because they function in isolation…that is the whole idea….Like I said, I don’t have the time to go over every idiotic claim made in your extended posts….but it is obvious to any who follow military/intelligence tactics that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Hey bill? The slurpy machine is getting a little slimy back there, snap to it will ya?
Shorter Peedro: I can’t refute any of the claims in Bill’s post with logic and facts, so I’m going to attack him.
Good points, Bill, if we take it further, this also exonerates Bill Clinton from not stopping bin Laden, because as Peedro points out, OBL (the person who financed the murder of 3000 Americans) really doesn’t matter.
According to Pedro logic, there was no point in invading Afghanistan as all those terrorist cells didn’t need Osama or the al Qaeda leadership anyway, ditto Iraq. I guess it’s safe to say that this also puts the bullet to the administration propaganda regularly pumped out that they have, yet again, caught/killed the al Qaeda #3. As for Abu Musab al-Zarkawi? Forget him. Terrorist don’t need leaders. What am I saying? Bomb Iran!
I can’t imagine a more unintentional rebuke to the fake “war on terror” if I tried.