I think we've established that it's a complicated issue.
I think where we differ is that you feel the US military actions have
been successful at stopping terrorism. My point would be that it
cannot be stopped as long as we have something someone else wants and
they're will to use lethal force to get it.
If you look at Iraq, the US took a geographic region that had no US
terrorism deaths and created an area that averages 2 US terrorism
deaths per day. Is that progress? Further, Afghanistan is not yet
secure and if another country were to rattle sabres, say Iran, Syria,
North Korea, et al., we're out of troops to handle it.
We also disagree that Al Queda needs a leader - by that do you mean a
strategic leader? Or an operations leader?
Terrorists, almost by definition, don't need a strategic leader - look
to Northern Ireland. Islamic terrorists consider their leader
Muhammad. Some may choose to follow Mr. Bin Laden or Mr. Arafat, but
some follow Mr. Al Sadar. There's little coordination between them,
yet they're all deadly.
My point is, if those Muslims that were sympathetic to Mr. Bin Laden's
cause started organizing into small cells and attacking western
assets, nobody could stop them.
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
