It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

TA-THREATS: Italian Deadline Expires. Al-Qaeda Launches Threats. Terror Groups Go to Quiet.

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 11:45 AM
link   
No, don, you get a clue.

So far George Bush, Sr, and 8 years of Bill Clinton, according to your argument, resulted in the almost 3000 deaths of 9/11. You can't have it both ways. If you're going to claim that George W. having troops in Iraq right now is going to lead to more terrorism-related deaths, then you're going to have to assign the terrorism related deaths so far to Clinton for the 8 years of leaving troops in Saudi Arabia.

Also, the 8 years of sanctions under Clinton....that was Osama's reason prior to the Iraqi war. The "millions" of deaths in Iraq caused by the sanctions - under Clinton. It should be noted that the Iraqi war has eliminated this reason - the sanctions are gone. But you're completely missing the point, Al Qaeda generates excuses as quickly as they do martyrs.

Just to prove my point, Osama was calling for Saddam's removal from power in 1988 - a full speech dedicated to how this non-Islamic leader needed to be removed even if it called for killing him. But I'm sure now that the evil U.S. did the same thing bin Laden wanted, it will be turned around to be the reason they are trying to kill us the next time. They'll actually have to speak against themselves to pull this one off. But I'm sure we'll watch them do it.

Now, to be clear, I agree with you that any U.S. military presence in any Arab country is the reason given behind us being a target - even on 9/11. Al Qaeda teaches its recruits that any U.S. military presence in any "Islamic" country is an attempt to permanently occupy that country and "de-Islamisize" it...thus the requirement for jihad to protect the Islamic believers.

But, what about Al-Qaeda's intentions to al khalifa? You are completely missing that there is a very pointed goal in mind as far as Al-Qaeda and bin Laden are concerned. Al-Qaeda is attempting to establish a single, united Muslim "nation" that eliminates the sovereignty of the countries it would engulf. And the goal of al Khalifa is to have that united Muslim nation under the control of a single man - Osama bin Laden. Now, let's pretend we pull out of Iraq completely. And, in fact, we pull out of Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan.

What if Qatar, or Kuwait says to us: Please remain in our country as we do not want to lose our sovereignty to al Khalifa...? Do you propose we abandon them and allow them to be swallowed up into al Khalifa, under the control of a man who will fly planes into buildings filled with civilians? Are you stating that it would be okay, to have the Islamic countries in the Arabian peninsula and the Horn of Africa assimilated into one nation under bin Laden, a man filled with hate again the entire western world? And do that when certain of those countries do not want it to happen?

Are you for isolationism and the ignoring of the latest empire-building effort? Because that is EXACTLY what Al Qaeda's goal is.

Trying to reduce this issue to a matter of black and white and a level of simplicity that calls for crayons is ludicrous. There is far more to be considered here than whether Iraq causes the next batch of deaths. This is a Catch-22. And the sad thing is, you'll realize that in the coming years, whether Bush is president or Kerry is president.




posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 12:36 PM
link   
That last post was spot on.

It is Osama bin Laden's admitted philosophy to conquer "muslim" lands by force and to impose a centralized, theocratic, and rigorously religious rule, combined with a virulent hatred out outsiders.

That's otherwise known as "a crusade". Various strains of Muslim rulers and thought has subscribed to this practically since the birth of Mohammed. The strength and virulence of these ideas has waxed and waned. The Christian crusades fortunately burned themselves out in the Middle Ages.

As always the lust for power and blood frequently overwhelmed the supposed religious moral motivation underlying it, in both the Christian and Muslim crusades.

The Muslim empires were typically aggressive and expansionist until they were conquered by superior outside forces. First were the Mongolians (whose sub-rulers eventually converted to Islam after a generation or two), and second was Napoleon's shock defeat of the Ottomans in Egypt in th early 1800's. (Why is there an Egyptian obelisk in the middle of la Place de la Concorde in Paris?) Napoleon's swift victory with a comparatively small force against one of the main ancient pillars of the muslim world showed them how far behind the times and technology they were.

During this period the muslim world was unusually quiet and pliable (by historical standards only)----until 1979, with the Iranian revolution and Ayatollah Khomeini.

(In the 21st century he will be viewed as influential, mostly for ill, as Karl Marx was in the 20th)

The difference is that Osama bin Laden's Caliphate will combine two modern inventions----the technological state and control over populations and media, and genocide. Any Christians and Jews remaining in the third Caliphate (Mohammed's was the first, the Ottomans the 2nd) will be efficiently exterminated, of course, unlike most of the previous ones. (previously Christians and Jews were not systematically eliminated. Some could prosper but did not have equivalent "civil rights" (a post-Enlightnment idea anyway) to Muslims. )

And then add suicide warriors combined with nuclear weapons.



posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Donguillermo,
Your post was incomplete in many ways.

o I missed the part where you explained why OSAMA BIN LADEN's wishes should be conceded to regarding the pullout of troops in S.A.. Did Osama become ruler of S.A.? Has he declared himself the Calyph, perhaps? My understanding is that the troops are there by invitation KING FAHD. Why should the KING or the U.S. bow to the demands of a terrorist?

o I missed the part where you also mentioned CLINTON's unilateral, and secret (failed) attack on SUDAN and AFGHANISTAN in an attempt to kill OSAMA BIN LADEN.

o I missed the part where you explain the better strategy of NOT invading IRAQ and keeping the troops at home, rather invading AFGHANISTAN and IRAQ to fight terrorism. It seems the invasion have done a good job so far of keeping the terrorists focused on our occupying troops in these easily accessed (by terrorist) countries, rather than waiting for them to fly here and crash into more buildings. If you are going to criticize a strategy such as invading a country, please provide an equally concrete alternative strategy to compare with. "Address the root causes of terrorism" does not qualify as equally concrete.

Since the question is open as to the "root cause of terrorism", I will offer my opinion, at least for OSAMA BIN LADEN and AL QAEDA, and that is this: This is a religious war, at least in the eyes of BIN LADEN followers, if not BIN LADEN. The U.S. is fighting against a cult leader and his followers. The "root cause" is simply that we are not also of the same particular faith that OSAMA can tolerate. If the U.S. were a theocracy that was led by an OSAMA approved religious leader, then U.S. troops in S.A. would be a non-issue for OSAMA. In other words, it is not that the U.S. has troops in S.A., it is that we are INFIDELS. That is the root. Religious intolerance.



posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by kogun

o I missed the part where you explained why OSAMA BIN LADEN's wishes should be conceded to regarding the pullout of troops in S.A.. Did Osama become ruler of S.A.? Has he declared himself the Calyph, perhaps? My understanding is that the troops are there by invitation KING FAHD. Why should the KING or the U.S. bow to the demands of a terrorist?



This is a VERY VERY good point, and one I was trying to make as well. Osama lost his mind and decided he was the Savior of all Islam the day the Saud Family brought in U.S. troops against the threat of a Saddam invasion instead of bringing in the mujahadeen and "Lord bin Laden" to do so.

Read the 911 series here to review the historical record:

www.terroranalysis.com...

According to don's argument we would say "not no but hell no" to requests such as this and allow the entire arabian region and horn of africa to be consumed by the bin Laden's grand empire.



posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
No, don, you get a clue.


I already have many more clues than Springer and muaddib. Their posts are nothing more than an elaborate strawman argument. Nothing in either of their posts addresses a single factual point in my original post.


So far George Bush, Sr, and 8 years of Bill Clinton, according to your argument, resulted in the almost 3000 deaths of 9/11. You can't have it both ways. If you're going to claim that George W. having troops in Iraq right now is going to lead to more terrorism-related deaths, then you're going to have to assign the terrorism related deaths so far to Clinton for the 8 years of leaving troops in Saudi Arabia.


Do you think I am not aware that the troops were in Saudi Arabia during the eight years of the Clinton Presidency??? Of course it is Clinton's fault. Jesus H. Christ, don't you people have anything but strawman arguments? It is also George Bush's fault, because he continued the Clinton policy.


Also, the 8 years of sanctions under Clinton....that was Osama's reason prior to the Iraqi war. The "millions" of deaths in Iraq caused by the sanctions - under Clinton. It should be noted that the Iraqi war has eliminated this reason - the sanctions are gone. But you're completely missing the point, Al Qaeda generates excuses as quickly as they do martyrs.


Could you please provide links for this? You may be right, but I don't see your point. The Iraq War also resulted in the removal of most of the troops from Saudi Arabia. So what? None of this affects my argument that American provocations were the cause of 9/11. Nor does it affect my argument that the presence of 140,000 troops in Iraq is a much greater irritant similar to the provocation which caused 9/11. Why don't you address the points I actually make, instead of bringing up irrelevant facts?


Just to prove my point, Osama was calling for Saddam's removal from power in 1988 - a full speech dedicated to how this non-Islamic leader needed to be removed even if it called for killing him. But I'm sure now that the evil U.S. did the same thing bin Laden wanted, it will be turned around to be the reason they are trying to kill us the next time. They'll actually have to speak against themselves to pull this one off. But I'm sure we'll watch them do it.


I don't believe Osama has any complaint about Saddam being removed from power. I believe his complaint is that there are 140,000 American troops occupying Iraq, and that we have installed a puppet government.


Now, to be clear, I agree with you that any U.S. military presence in any Arab country is the reason given behind us being a target - even on 9/11. Al Qaeda teaches its recruits that any U.S. military presence in any "Islamic" country is an attempt to permanently occupy that country and "de-Islamisize" it...thus the requirement for jihad to protect the Islamic believers.


Thank you for conceding that I am actually right about something.


But, what about Al-Qaeda's intentions to al khalifa? You are completely missing that there is a very pointed goal in mind as far as Al-Qaeda and bin Laden are concerned. Al-Qaeda is attempting to establish a single, united Muslim "nation" that eliminates the sovereignty of the countries it would engulf. And the goal of al Khalifa is to have that united Muslim nation under the control of a single man - Osama bin Laden.


Oh, great. Now the conspiracy theory that Osama bin Laden wants to take over the world, or at least a large part of it. Osama wants U.S imperialist warmongers and their running dogs out of all Arab and Muslim countries. End of story.


Now, let's pretend we pull out of Iraq completely. And, in fact, we pull out of Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan.

What if Qatar, or Kuwait says to us: Please remain in our country as we do not want to lose our sovereignty to al Khalifa...? Do you propose we abandon them and allow them to be swallowed up into al Khalifa, under the control of a man who will fly planes into buildings filled with civilians?


Qatar, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia are all ruled by corrupt, repressive dictatorships. Well, there are some reforms going on in Qatar, I believe. Who are we to decide that these countries would be better off under their current dictators, as opposed to new dictators? As far as Osama flying planes into buildings, I believe the evidence that Osama is responsible for 9/11 has been questioned, if not totally discredited.


Are you stating that it would be okay, to have the Islamic countries in the Arabian peninsula and the Horn of Africa assimilated into one nation under bin Laden, a man filled with hate again the entire western world?


He is filled with hate because of our provocations. I am stating that we should let history take its course, which it will, no matter what we do. We are on the losing side of history in our struggle against Al Qaeda.


And do that when certain of those countries do not want it to happen?


More accurately, when certain of those corrupt, repressive dictators do not want it to happen.


Are you for isolationism and the ignoring of the latest empire-building effort? Because that is EXACTLY what Al Qaeda's goal is.


I am for letting history take its course, and not interfering with the internal affairs of other countries by invading them, occupying them, and installing puppet governments. Call that isolationism if you want to.


Trying to reduce this issue to a matter of black and white and a level of simplicity that calls for crayons is ludicrous.


You accuse me of simplicity, and you are a conspiracy theorist who claims Osama wants to take over the world.


There is far more to be considered here than whether Iraq causes the next batch of deaths.


Will you still say that if the next batch of death is in the millions, because Al Qaeda manages to detonate a nuclear weapon in a major American city?


This is a Catch-22. And the sad thing is, you'll realize that in the coming years, whether Bush is president or Kerry is president.


There is no catch-22 here. Our current policy is not working and is creating a greater threat of terrorism. The obvious solution is to change the policy. You will realize that in coming years, no matter who is President.


[edit on 8/7/2004 by donguillermo]

[edit on 8/7/2004 by donguillermo]



posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by donguillermo Why don't you address the points I actually make, instead of bringing up irrelevant facts?
Perhaps because you make your points in an irritating confrontational manner. This is a cooperative discussion board community, not donguillermo's ideology pulpit. Please make an effort to make your point without overt tones of provocation.



posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by donguillermo

Oh, great. Now the conspiracy theory that Osama bin Laden wants to take over the world, or at least a large part of it. Osama wants U.S imperialist warmongers and their running dogs out of all Arab and Muslim countries. End of story.

You accuse me of simplicity, and you are a conspiracy theorist who claims Osama wants to take over the world.


You've just shown your lack of knowledge on this subject, and your inability to not jump to erroneous conclusions, by these two statements.

1. There is no conspiracy theory attached to Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda's self-stated goals toward al-Khalifah...this is historical fact.

2. I'm not a conspiracy theorist - I happen to be one of the skeptics on the board that has a real hard time with just about every conspiracy theory.

I will be posting a new Flight to 911 series in the near future. It will document the al-Khalifah goal of Al-Qaeda....then you can learn about what you speak of now, but currently have insufficient knowledge to be correct on.

Yes, I accuse you of having a simplistic approach to this. Based on your comments I now understand why. You've never really bothered to research the situation, have you? You've just swallowed the hateful political rhetoric intended to obfuscate the issue in the minds of people like yourself.



posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by donguillermo
Why don't you address the points I actually make, instead of bringing up irrelevant facts?


Perhaps because you make your points in an irritating confrontational manner. This is a cooperative discussion board community, not donguillermo's ideology pulpit. Please make an effort to make your point without overt tones of provocation.


Why didn't you quote the two sentences preceding the one you quoted?


None of this affects my argument that American provocations were the cause of 9/11. Nor does it affect my argument that the presence of 140,000 troops in Iraq is a much greater irritant similar to the provocation which caused 9/11.


Am I correct or not? The facts that Valhall brings up have nothing to do with my two main arguments. Why is it confrontational to reply to Valhall as follows?


Why don't you address the points I actually make, instead of bringing up irrelevant facts?


I would really like an answer to my last question. I am just calling a spade a spade, and you characterize it as confrontational.

It is clear to me what is going on here. The conservative contingent clearly holds the ultimate power here at ATS. Everything the conservative contingent posts is filled with some combination of lies, misrepresentations, strawman arguments, fallacies, and irrelevant facts. With all due modesty, I am one of the more effective debunkers of conservative posters. When I expose a lie, I call it a lie. When I expose a strawman argument, I call it a strawman argument. When I expose a fallacy, I call it a fallacy, etc. Then the conservative contingent starts whining that I am confrontational, after I have ripped apart one of their posts, line by line.

Another phenomenon is that I get accused of derailing posts with off-topic posts. I try to keep my posts on-topic. Once another poster makes off-topic comments, that opens the door for me to respond with off-topic comments of my own. Then I get blamed for derailing the thread with off-topic comments. An excellent example of this phenomenon is the following thread.

For those who say Badnarik does not stand a chance

That thread also contains an example of something else I am subjected to on this board, thread stalking. Please read through the entire thread, noting the many posts by intrepid addressed at me. These posts are the most blatant example of thread stalking, harassment, and badgering I have ever seen. Why wasn't intrepid banned for this? He only received a single warning. There is also at least one moderator and a staff person who thread stalks me. I won't name any names.

I consider your post to me in this thread a clear attempt to intimidate me and silence me. You have succeeded. I will only reply to Skeptic Overlord's posts for the rest of this thread. I have offered effective rebuttals to the posts of muaddib, Springer, and Valhall. I could easily rebut any future posts by these three.

It is clear to me that you are not concerned about my being confrontational. What you are concerned about is my effectively exposing the nonsense, lies, and fallacious arguments regularly posted by the conservative contingent. You are concerned about my effectively giving voice to liberal ideology and arguments.

You claim the motto of ATS is "Deny Ignorance." It is obvious to me the real motto is "Deny the Truth."


[edit on 8/7/2004 by donguillermo]



posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 02:42 PM
link   
My statements come from absolutely no political position. My statements come from a position of seeking the truth via the historical record on the global situation we have right now.

Do not insinuate that I am trying to correct your misconceptions because of political motivations. My point here has been to try to point out that your argument is weak.

Do you think you should have gotten an applause for pointing out the obvious (i.e. that the next great excuse by Al Qaeda to blow us up will be our troops in Iraq)? You are making political statements that mislead readers away from the true situation in the world. There's my accusation against you.

I was merely trying to bring fact to the discussion rather than let your mis-statements stand.

EDIT: fixed typo

[edit on 8-7-2004 by Valhall]



posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 03:42 PM
link   
I also am certainly not a political "conservative" in the voting sense.

But on the other hand to take the "US hating" position automatically---that
all ill in the world is the fault of the US---is ridiculous and really sick too.

Did al_Qaeda and religious fanatics bomb

a) the WTC, the first time
b) Tanzania + Kenya embassies?
c) USS Cole

yes yes yes. And yes, it was al-Qaeda and Osama who ordered 911. If not, then
where did all those people go?

The motivation behind 9/11 denial theories is exactly like Holocaust denial.
With Holocaust denial it is assertion of preposterous conspiracies---by Jews (naturally)---which are contrary to all sorts of logic and fact.

Deep down, the true motivation is identical. With Holocaust deniers, in their heart of hearts, they know that the Nazis really did do it----but what they believe and do not say was that it was a good idea, and the victims deserved it.

The motivation is the same with 9/11 deniers.


LL1

posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Perhaps this may be of help:


www.worldhistory.com...



posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by donguillermo

Originally posted by Valhall
No, don, you get a clue.


I already have many more clues than Springer and muaddib. Their posts are nothing more than an elaborate strawman argument. Nothing in either of their posts addresses a single factual point in my original post.


Oh I see...so when we present statements from Osama Bin Laden as to his true intentions, and we quote you to prove you are wrong in your statements, you call it a "strawman argument?

The only thing you have proved is that you can't accept when you are wrong and instead of realizing that perhaps you don't know everything that is going on, or the true reasons for Osama and other radicals to hate the US, you prefer to insinuate that you hold some sort of knowledge that noone else can see.

This is not the first time you have done this don, you keep falling back to your tactics of attacking those that present evidence against your arguments, and do not even present one solid fact to back up your claim.

You keep asking how I came to be a reporter, once again trying to attack the person instead of arguing the point by presenting facts. Perhaps when you start using some reliable information and present links that back up your claims you will see why any of the staff, not just me, are reporters. Or perhaps you will fall back to your tactics once again and continue making "ad hominem" attacks instead of concentrating on the topic.



posted on Aug, 8 2004 @ 02:23 AM
link   
Don,
Please don't clam up on this thread. There is miscommunication and you can still clarify much. Have a look at the following:


Rome and New York. That's just great. When are you people going to wake up and realize that George Bush is going to wind up getting us all killed?
From your original posting, this is your main point. Not a fact, but a possible future you foresee based on an extrapolation from the following statements that you offer.



Prior to 9/11, Osama bin Laden had been complaining for many years about the 5,000 American troops in Saudi Arabia. The Israel/Palestine situation was way down on his list of complaints. It was only after 9/11 that Osama started pushing the Israel/Palestine issue, in order to gain wider support in the Arab world.

This is factual.



But, despite repeated warnings from Osama and attacks by Al Qaeda, the USA kept its troops in Saudi Arabia...

And this too, is factual up to this point.


...long beyond the time when there was any reason to be there.
And this is a defensible assertion.


The result was 9/11. Please do not say that the 9/11 attack was a surprise attack or unprovoked. We provoked that attack by keeping our troops in Saudi Arabia. It was not a surprise attack because Osama had declared war against the USA in a fatwa, years before.

This is factual, as well.



So if 5,000 U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia provoked 9/11, what do you suppose attacking and occupying an entire Arab country with 140,000 American troops is going to provoke? If we continue to occupy Iraq with 140,000 troops, the eventual response will make 9/11 look like a minor bit of unpleasantness. Like I said, George Bush is going to wind up getting us all killed.
A rhetorical question/answer to provide conclusion to your original point.



The idea that you can fight terrorism by invading and occupying an Arab country is preposterous.

Another opinion that begins a new point you wish to make, built on the argument you have already presented and further statements that follow.


The fact is, before Bush invaded Iraq, there was no terrorism in Iraq. Whatever else you say about Saddam, he certainly kept a lid on things. Now, hundreds of civilians are killed with massive car bombs, and there are dozens of smaller terrorist attacks against U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians every day. Bush's Iraq War has greatly increased the level of terrorism in Iraq, and is a huge recruiting tool for terrorists.

All factual.

The only effective way to fight terrorism is to first withdraw all troops from Afghanistan and Iraq, then address the root causes of terrorism.

A conclusion that is your opinion presumably based on the facts and assertions you have already made as well as the many other facts, experiences, etc, that you have not iterated here.

Later in this thread, in a comment you directed to Muaddib, you build on your main theme:

Why do you refuse to accept the fact that it is our own actions which provoke these terrorist attacks?

This is a good, nut-shell encapsulation of your whole theme, really, and I think captures the essence of the misunderstanding between yourself and many of the responders to your posts. But before I elaborate on that, first I must say that I--if not Muaddib and others--I accept that it was U.S. actions that provoked these terrorist attacks. Casual readers, please parse that sentence closely and take it at face value as it is important to the points I will make shortly. Donguillermo, I know you are not a casual reader and need no special emphasis to get my meaning. But for the sake of clarity, I will state it again.

I accept that it was U.S. actions that provoked these terrorist attacks.

Indeed, other posters that have disagreed with you should probably consider the facts as presented, parse that bolded statement very carefully, and then clearly and unambiguously state their acceptance or rejection of it.

Donguillermo, your point seems to be that the U.S. has gone around beating on hornet's nests and now finds itself getting stung. We should not be surprised, no? Don't provoke the hornets and you won't get stung, right? Or, as you have stated:

He [Osama] is filled with hate because of our provocations. I am stating that we should let history take its course, which it will, no matter what we do.


But....You knew there was a "but" coming, right? There's always a "but".

But in spite of this acceptance of the facts you have presented, there remains an issue that is worth exploring further. There is an implication in your statements that needs explicit clarification that I think only you can provide.

When you write "Why do you refuse to accept the fact that it is our own actions which provoke these terrorist attacks? " there is a tendency to read this as an admission of responsibility on the U.S.' part for the terrorist attacks orchestrated by Osama bin Laden. But that is not what the statement says. But it is what many people think it says. Without clarification from you, many people will assume you believe that the U.S. is responsible for the attacks it receives from terrorists. That is what is not being clearly communicated, one way or the other. And that is why, on first reading, there would be hesitation on agreeing with the facts you have presented. Or knee-jerk disagreeing with your points as I initially did.

Still, I can accept the facts presented by you above and "accept that it is our own actions which provoke..." and yet I also reject the notion that the U.S. is responsible for those attacks. How can I do this? Because I reject the underlying premise that Osama bin Laden must behave according to some force of nature, like gravity or a hornet's nest. Osama bin Laden is just a human being, capable of thinking and making decisions. He has chosen to be provoked and he has chosen terrorism as the reaction to our provocations. Yes, this is my straw man, constructed with your straw simply because that is what is available.

That is what has been happening in this thread. Right? Your underlying beliefs about U.S. responsbility vs. Osama bin Laden's responsibility have been left for inference by the reader. Your provocative statments with only an implied underlying premise generate knee-jerk responses. And when a response begins to assert your unstated position, Y, it can automatically be labled a strawman argument because you have never stated Y, and you actually believe X, or Y', or Y''--we don't really know. Do not necessarily read my assertion as an indictment against you, it is simply my observation on what has occurred up to now in the thread. Now if this is an intentional tactic on your part, then it is very clever--especially your "declare victory, debate over" final message. If this was not an intentional tactic, then perhaps you can provide some clariifcation on whether you believe Osama bin Laden choices to attack the U.S. are justified. Straw man arguments will then be much easier for us to avoid. Who knows, maybe there is common ground among you and your other responders in this thread?

[edit on 8-8-2004 by kogun]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join