Arabian government and once there is a country to
attack the world will join together as in Afghanistan.
If they remain in hiding and rely on terrorism, and I
believe that to be the case, then it will drag on and
we have something to agree on.
-sm
--- Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Sam,
>
> 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.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
