![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
"Most of all, we Americans need to keep a leash on our own radicals. They are not working in our interests any more than Bin Laden is working in the interests of ordinary Muslims. The extremists on both sides serve each other, not the people they claim to represent." -- "Pericles", "Terrorist Strategy 101: a quiz", 2004-11-09
(no subject)
1) assumes a majority of silent support. Does not include the design to creat more supporters.
2) ignores the power of the media, the media can cover things differently such that it does not work toward a forum by which it can rally supporters of the terrorest. Also it assumes the extremist are in charge ont he other side.. which isn't the case and I can show you who the extremist are.
3) Yes that is part of his goal. It ignores the influance of the Eastern Roman Empire that has "saved" much of the culture well prior to the raise of the Muslims how simple captured it. Secondly during this Calif they were in constant war with every one of their neighbors in a process of expanding Islam state by state.
4) That is true, but he wants to be the Calif. By the way Bush isn't pushing the most extreme responce to islam. I can list those who are true are. The word Crusade mean "commited goal of your life" and is only historically linked to religion. Clearly this person dislikes Bush. But he ignores clear practices in middle east the marginalizes and deamonize the west. He come from the school "if they are made at us we must be to blame" He forgets the terroristic attack of Isreal before all of this. I can go on with more about his ignorance.
5) Partly correct. Wrong on the second statement. The purpose was to rally those who thought the USA was beyond their reach. He also has not given a solution other then to give in to terrorists. Granted he gained some advantage in pictures. But As normal he solution to fix terrorism would have been to destory isreal, remove all non-muslims from the middle east (something Bin Ladin has also called for) and putting Bin Liden up as the new calif. A very ignorance fellow he is.
(no subject)
7) He he again touch on a half truth. He wanted 9-11 to show strength and yes to force a conflict. But he forgets that he had been tring to do this same thing for years as Clinton played with his fingers and girls. Secondly he need people of weak resolve on the other side to be shown as many bodies as he can be shown. He isn't killing the USA troops in enough numbers to "win by attrition". So he now must "win by resolve" and the best supporter for him as the people who scream vietnam and the sight of ANY foriegn war. The writter then as normal for his ilk doe not proved a solution. He also clearly dislikes the military. He also ingores the increase in the economy and history.
8) That does not surprise me that he supported Kerry clear bias here. He fails to account for the degree of training needed for 9-11 think of it has a simple project that didn't require thr training camps. He also "thinks" that the middle east hated Bush before 9-11. He forgets about the numerous terror attacks before 9-11 and forgets about the attacks on Clinton. He assumes that Kerry had a magic bullet. Which there is no evidance for and as normal "YET AGIAN" does not provide a hint or clue on howq he or Kerry would have won the "hearts" of the terrorist so they would put down their arms. He assumes that they don't want to attack us (stupid to the highest levels since it ignores attempts that were blocked) the shoe bomber etc.
9)Yes only a wider war would challenge our economy. Yet he again flip flops. Saying he need not attack the USA again then saying he has to attack the USA again. But assume the magic of Kerry would have saved the day. Forgetting that Kerry himself said he would stay in Iraq and that we must win that war.
10) He agains assumes that Kerry would have undermined the goals of Bin LAden. (Stupid bias) Bin Ladins plans didn't tremble at the concept of Kerry president. He knows as any one should that another 9-11 attack would result in a military responce. A huge number of people joined the military after 9-11 "to go to war". People were pissed and if Buhs had done what he seems to think was the right responce the "Moore Responce" a mob and the military itself would have walked up to the white house and dragged Bush out by his heals.
This man only get part of the facts correct. Some of his conclusions are just stupid. He also, like they always do, assume Bush is the problem and not Bin Ladin and that we are the bad guys. He , like always, does not provide a solution of his own. So he is like the back seat drive how keeps telling the driver what they are doing wrong with our offering any advice on how to fix the problem.