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.
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?
Originally posted by Valhall
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.
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.
Originally posted by donguillermo Why don't you address the points I actually make, instead of bringing up irrelevant facts?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
But, despite repeated warnings from Osama and attacks by Al Qaeda, the USA kept its troops in Saudi Arabia...
And this is a defensible assertion.
...long beyond the time when there was any reason to be there.
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.
A rhetorical question/answer to provide conclusion to your original point.
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.
The idea that you can fight terrorism by invading and occupying an Arab country is preposterous.
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.
The only effective way to fight terrorism is to first withdraw all troops from Afghanistan and Iraq, then address the root causes of terrorism.
Why do you refuse to accept the fact that it is our own actions which provoke these terrorist attacks?
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.