Who is going to die?
By Joesph Farah
Yossef Bodansky, the former director of the U.S. Congressional Task Force on
Terrorism and a man I respect immensely for his intelligence insights, says the
United States faces an "inevitable" al-Qaida attack with weapons of mass
destruction.
What would be the U.S. response to such an attack?
Now is the time to think about the unthinkable.
Contingency plans need to be made. And those plans, at least some of them, need
to be known to the whole world to serve as a deterrent against such an attack.
For more than 40 years, the idea of mutually assured destruction was enough to
prevent the Soviet Union from launching a nuclear attack against the United
States. It wasn't an ideal deterrent, but it worked.
It's not so easy to deter an attack from an enemy that doesn't have an address.
This is, in essence, on a smaller scale, the same problem Israel has faced with
conventional terrorist attacks over the last 40 years.
How would the United States respond if terrorists were able to detonate a
nuclear device in the United States? How should the United States respond if
the terrorist enemy we face were to attack us with weapons of mass destruction?
This is not a question that can wait for an answer. We need to have the public
debate now. And a policy of quick response needs to be established. The world
needs to know what it will mean if the United States is attacked with
unconventional weaponry.
Right now, there is no deterrent for the terrorists. There is no downside to
such an attack. If we don't know where to find those responsible, like Osama
bin Laden, there would be no cost to them.
But, as Bodansky makes clear, bin Laden will not be acting alone if such an
attack is launched.
Bin Laden sought the "blessing" of key Islamist clerics for such an attack.
Those clerics and the countries that harbor them need to be identified – now.
Following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, President Bush made clear the world
would be divided into two camps throughout the war we are now waging. It would
be divided, he said, into those who support the terrorists and those who
support us.
Since that dramatic speech, however, the lines dividing the world have been
permitted to become blurred. We have made it too easy for much of the world to
sit on the sidelines and claim neutrality. We have made it too easy for our
"friends" to do nothing to aid us. We have made it too easy for our adversaries
to oppose us with no cost.
It's time to redraw those lines.
It's time for a clear-cut plan of retribution to protect the people of the
United States from such a horrific attack.
We don't like to think about the necessity of inflicting innocent deaths. Ever
since the bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, many in the
United States have been wringing their hands over whether it was the right
thing to do. We've been second-guessing our parents and grandparents for that
life-and-death decision.
Now our generation has a more wrenching decision to make.
What will we do if we're attacked again – this time with weapons of mass
destruction?
We cannot afford to put off this discussion until it happens. It will be too
late. At that point, it will be pure vengeance. But making the plans now and
making them known to the world – as uncomfortable and unpopular as those
plans might be – may be the only way to deter the deaths of thousands, tens
of thousands, hundreds of thousands, maybe millions.
Here are my ideas:
It's long past time for the United States to begin empowering the American
people, particularly those most vulnerable in major cities, to protect
themselves through common-sense, civil-defense measures. That means tax credits
and other incentives for schools, businesses and private residences to provide
fallout shelters, stockpile medical supplies and store food and water.
Relocation of major population centers is not a viable option and will likely
result in more death and destruction and panic. We must minimize the loss of
life from such an attack, not maximize it.
The Islamist world and its allies need to know there will be an unprecedented
nuclear response to any attack on the United States with weapons of mass
destruction. We don't need to be specific about which major cities and
installations will be vaporized. But it needs to be clear that the response
will be overwhelming, resulting in far greater death and destruction than what
is inflicted upon the United States. We need to let the terrorists know that
addresses of response have been determined. Those counseling the terrorists
that such an attack on the United States is justified should be among the first
to experience the horror.
To those who say such a response is immoral, we need only point to the balance
of terror with which we lived throughout the Cold War. That balance of terror
helped us survive. It helped us prevent the need to destroy the lives of
millions, including many innocents.
But not preparing for such a possibility is the real immorality. By suggesting
tacitly the United States will simply absorb such an attack or respond to it as
we have responded to previous attacks is the real immorality. By having this
national debate now and putting the world on notice, we can give the terrorists
something to think about.
Do they really want to see their cities vaporized? Do they really want to see
their religious centers destroyed? Do they really want to see adherents to
their ideology and their faith killed in massive numbers as a direct result of
their actions?
It's time for our intelligence networks to get busy on identifying the targets
of retaliation. They should be numerous. They should be chosen wisely to ensure
that as many as possible of the Islamist ideologues and the false prophets of
death are killed. They should be chosen to ensure that, if the unthinkable
happens, at least it will mean an end to this war. The targets should be chosen
to inflict so much death and destruction that this evil ideology we face can
never recover.
That is the only moral course for us to follow.
.
|
|
| User: "Aidan" |
|
| Title: Re: Who is going to die? (Us or them?) |
01 Dec 2004 07:55:34 PM |
|
|
(Yes, I've removed you from my kill-file...)
Those clerics and the countries that harbor them need to be identified -
now.
We already know which nation the cleric who blessed Osama's plans came
from... the same nation that the majority of 9/11 hijackers came from -
Saudi Arabia... why haven't they been named as part of the axis of evil, or
even as a potential target for the war on terror?
why all this beating around the bush? (no pun intended)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Grantland" |
|
| Title: Re: Who is going to die? (Us or them?) |
01 Dec 2004 09:37:18 PM |
|
|
"Aidan" <nospam.aidan@linknet.com.au> wrote:
(Yes, I've removed you from my kill-file...)
Those clerics and the countries that harbor them need to be identified -
now.
We already know which nation the cleric who blessed Osama's plans came
from... the same nation that the majority of 9/11 hijackers came from -
Saudi Arabia... why haven't they been named as part of the axis of evil, or
even as a potential target for the war on terror?
why all this beating around the bush? (no pun intended)
We know no such thing. Unless you believe the glib Bushite CIA and
their glib, phony Bushite "lists". The crime has not been properly
investigated - I'd say it was "covered up"; .. and Binny denies it.
Grantland
.
|
|
|
| User: "Aidan" |
|
| Title: Re: Who is going to die? (Us or them?) |
01 Dec 2004 10:11:47 PM |
|
|
"Grantland" <mithril@iafrica.com> wrote in message
news:41ae8d02.48391563@ct-news.iafrica.com...
"Aidan" <nospam.aidan@linknet.com.au> wrote:
(Yes, I've removed you from my kill-file...)
Those clerics and the countries that harbor them need to be identified -
now.
We already know which nation the cleric who blessed Osama's plans came
from... the same nation that the majority of 9/11 hijackers came from -
Saudi Arabia... why haven't they been named as part of the axis of evil,
or
even as a potential target for the war on terror?
why all this beating around the bush? (no pun intended)
We know no such thing. Unless you believe the glib Bushite CIA and
their glib, phony Bushite "lists". The crime has not been properly
investigated - I'd say it was "covered up"; .. and Binny denies it.
Grantland
I'd say it's because the Bush Dynasty and the Saudi Royal family are in
'cahoots'
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Johnathan McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: Who is going to die? (Us or them?) |
02 Dec 2004 11:39:07 AM |
|
|
"Aidan" <nospam.aidan@linknet.com.au> wrote in message news:<newscache$rd038i$igm$1@titan.linknet.com.au>...
I'd say it's because the Bush Dynasty and the Saudi Royal family are in
'cahoots'
Saudi Royal family paid big money ( Construction costs) into the
Clinton library in Arkansas - explain please? Why? Why did Clinton
transfer the most 'combat military weapons' to the Saudi Royal family
than any other nation in his term? Or history of the US for that
matter? Why? Explain Mr. Brilliant ;)
Essshhhhh sssss 'cahoots' ;)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Who is going to die? (Us or them?) |
02 Dec 2004 07:38:30 PM |
|
|
In article <dd3256f0.0412020939.2e42c2a9@posting.google.com>, (Michael Johnathan McDonald) wrote:
"Aidan" <nospam.aidan@linknet.com.au> wrote in message
news:<newscache$rd038i$igm$1@titan.linknet.com.au>...
I'd say it's because the Bush Dynasty and the Saudi Royal family are in
'cahoots'
Saudi Royal family paid big money ( Construction costs) into the
Clinton library in Arkansas - explain please? Why? Why did Clinton
transfer the most 'combat military weapons' to the Saudi Royal family
than any other nation in his term? Or history of the US for that
matter? Why? Explain Mr. Brilliant ;)
Did Clinton vacation with them the way the Bushes did? I don't think so.
Also, keep in mind that Clinton had a Republican Congress, he didn't have the
amount of power and control that Bush does.
Woods
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: Who is going to die? (Us or them?) |
03 Dec 2004 09:36:14 AM |
|
|
Michael Johnathan McDonald a écrit:
"Aidan" <nospam.aidan@linknet.com.au> wrote in message news:<newscache$rd038i$igm$1@titan.linknet.com.au>...
I'd say it's because the Bush Dynasty and the Saudi Royal family are in
'cahoots'
Saudi Royal family paid big money ( Construction costs) into the
Clinton library in Arkansas - explain please? Why? Why did Clinton
transfer the most 'combat military weapons' to the Saudi Royal family
than any other nation in his term? Or history of the US for that
matter? Why? Explain Mr. Brilliant ;)
Essshhhhh sssss 'cahoots' ;)
They are in cahoots against Bin Laden, and this loser Aidan is very sad
about this. ;-)
J.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Aidan" |
|
| Title: Re: Who is going to die? (Us or them?) |
02 Dec 2004 04:56:06 PM |
|
|
Michael Johnathan McDonald wrote:
"Aidan" <nospam.aidan@linknet.com.au> wrote in message news:<newscache$rd038i$igm$1@titan.linknet.com.au>...
I'd say it's because the Bush Dynasty and the Saudi Royal family are in
'cahoots'
Saudi Royal family paid big money ( Construction costs) into the
Clinton library in Arkansas - explain please? Why? Why did Clinton
transfer the most 'combat military weapons' to the Saudi Royal family
than any other nation in his term? Or history of the US for that
matter? Why? Explain Mr. Brilliant ;)
Essshhhhh sssss 'cahoots' ;)
OK, I'll revise my statement: "The Saudi royals and *insert current US
administration* are in 'cahoots'"... that better? Do you think I
believe Clinton was much better than Bush? LOL!
So, why hasn't Bush targeted Saudi Arabia? It can be seen quite clearly
that they harbor a large number radical clerics and trained
terrorists... Osama himself hails from there, as well as 15 of the 19
9/11 hijackers. But if one were to listen to the "news", or government
reports, you'd never know that Saudi Arabia was a threat... why is this?
.
|
|
|
| User: "MonsieurStat" |
|
| Title: Re: Who is going to die? (Us or them?) |
02 Dec 2004 07:21:30 PM |
|
|
"Aidan" <nospam.aidan@linknet.com.au> wrote in message
news:newscache$ufg48i$41n$1@titan.linknet.com.au...
Michael Johnathan McDonald wrote:
"Aidan" <nospam.aidan@linknet.com.au> wrote in message
news:<newscache$rd038i$igm$1@titan.linknet.com.au>...
I'd say it's because the Bush Dynasty and the Saudi Royal family are in
'cahoots'
Saudi Royal family paid big money ( Construction costs) into the
Clinton library in Arkansas - explain please? Why? Why did Clinton
transfer the most 'combat military weapons' to the Saudi Royal family
than any other nation in his term? Or history of the US for that
matter? Why? Explain Mr. Brilliant ;)
Essshhhhh sssss 'cahoots' ;)
OK, I'll revise my statement: "The Saudi royals and *insert current US
administration* are in 'cahoots'"... that better? Do you think I believe
Clinton was much better than Bush? LOL!
So, why hasn't Bush targeted Saudi Arabia? It can be seen quite clearly
that they harbor a large number radical clerics and trained terrorists...
Osama himself hails from there, as well as 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers.
But if one were to listen to the "news", or government reports, you'd never
know that Saudi Arabia was a threat... why is this?
Because they are not a threat?
Saudi Arabia is FULLY under the US control. They don't drink a glass of water
without America's permission.
Stat.
.
|
|
|
| User: "R. Foreman" |
|
| Title: Re: Who is going to die? (Us or them?) |
02 Dec 2004 08:39:04 PM |
|
|
"MonsieurStat" <Monsieurstat@yahoo.com> Spat the Words
"Aidan" <nospam.aidan@linknet.com.au> wrote in message
news:newscache$ufg48i$41n$1@titan.linknet.com.au...
Michael Johnathan McDonald wrote:
"Aidan" <nospam.aidan@linknet.com.au> wrote in message
news:<newscache$rd038i$igm$1@titan.linknet.com.au>...
I'd say it's because the Bush Dynasty and the Saudi Royal family are
in 'cahoots'
Saudi Royal family paid big money ( Construction costs) into the
Clinton library in Arkansas - explain please? Why? Why did Clinton
transfer the most 'combat military weapons' to the Saudi Royal family
than any other nation in his term? Or history of the US for that
matter? Why? Explain Mr. Brilliant ;)
Essshhhhh sssss 'cahoots' ;)
OK, I'll revise my statement: "The Saudi royals and *insert current US
administration* are in 'cahoots'"... that better? Do you think I
believe Clinton was much better than Bush? LOL!
So, why hasn't Bush targeted Saudi Arabia? It can be seen quite
clearly that they harbor a large number radical clerics and trained
terrorists... Osama himself hails from there, as well as 15 of the 19
9/11 hijackers. But if one were to listen to the "news", or government
reports, you'd never know that Saudi Arabia was a threat... why is
this?
Because they are not a threat?
Saudi Arabia is FULLY under the US control. They don't drink a glass of
water without America's permission.
Besides, we need their oil, big time. They know it, and they
enjoy being the richest, and stupidest of all the arabs.
Stat.
.
|
|
|
| User: "MonsieurStat" |
|
| Title: Re: Who is going to die? (Us or them?) |
02 Dec 2004 09:01:22 PM |
|
|
"R. Foreman" <eidpers@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns95B3C7E6DF2BBrrfkwrantispamattbic@216.148.227.77...
"MonsieurStat" <Monsieurstat@yahoo.com> Spat the Words
"Aidan" <nospam.aidan@linknet.com.au> wrote in message
news:newscache$ufg48i$41n$1@titan.linknet.com.au...
Michael Johnathan McDonald wrote:
"Aidan" <nospam.aidan@linknet.com.au> wrote in message
news:<newscache$rd038i$igm$1@titan.linknet.com.au>...
I'd say it's because the Bush Dynasty and the Saudi Royal family are
in 'cahoots'
Saudi Royal family paid big money ( Construction costs) into the
Clinton library in Arkansas - explain please? Why? Why did Clinton
transfer the most 'combat military weapons' to the Saudi Royal family
than any other nation in his term? Or history of the US for that
matter? Why? Explain Mr. Brilliant ;)
Essshhhhh sssss 'cahoots' ;)
OK, I'll revise my statement: "The Saudi royals and *insert current US
administration* are in 'cahoots'"... that better? Do you think I
believe Clinton was much better than Bush? LOL!
So, why hasn't Bush targeted Saudi Arabia? It can be seen quite
clearly that they harbor a large number radical clerics and trained
terrorists... Osama himself hails from there, as well as 15 of the 19
9/11 hijackers. But if one were to listen to the "news", or government
reports, you'd never know that Saudi Arabia was a threat... why is
this?
Because they are not a threat?
Saudi Arabia is FULLY under the US control. They don't drink a glass of
water without America's permission.
Besides, we need their oil, big time. They know it, and they
enjoy being the richest, and stupidest of all the arabs.
Not sure how much US oil imports come from the Saudis. It's not more than
15%.
It's all about control and conformity. The Saudis are not only the stupidest
nation on earth; they're also the most conformist of them all.
Stat.
Stat.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Aidan" |
|
| Title: Re: Who is going to die? (Us or them?) |
02 Dec 2004 08:24:31 PM |
|
|
"MonsieurStat" <Monsieurstat@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eoPrd.23652$kI6.1375119@news20.bellglobal.com...
"Aidan" <nospam.aidan@linknet.com.au> wrote in message
news:newscache$ufg48i$41n$1@titan.linknet.com.au...
Michael Johnathan McDonald wrote:
"Aidan" <nospam.aidan@linknet.com.au> wrote in message
news:<newscache$rd038i$igm$1@titan.linknet.com.au>...
I'd say it's because the Bush Dynasty and the Saudi Royal family are in
'cahoots'
Saudi Royal family paid big money ( Construction costs) into the
Clinton library in Arkansas - explain please? Why? Why did Clinton
transfer the most 'combat military weapons' to the Saudi Royal family
than any other nation in his term? Or history of the US for that
matter? Why? Explain Mr. Brilliant ;)
Essshhhhh sssss 'cahoots' ;)
OK, I'll revise my statement: "The Saudi royals and *insert current US
administration* are in 'cahoots'"... that better? Do you think I believe
Clinton was much better than Bush? LOL!
So, why hasn't Bush targeted Saudi Arabia? It can be seen quite clearly
that they harbor a large number radical clerics and trained terrorists...
Osama himself hails from there, as well as 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers.
But if one were to listen to the "news", or government reports, you'd
never know that Saudi Arabia was a threat... why is this?
Because they are not a threat?
Saudi Arabia is FULLY under the US control. They don't drink a glass of
water without America's permission.
Stat.
That's not the point though.. I know that Saudi Arabia in and of itself is
no threat, but since the war on terror is being fought against countries
that harbor terrorists, and bearing in mind that 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers
came from Saudi Arabia, as well as many radical anti-American Clerics, they
seem like an obvious target...
There's an obvious (in my mind) "appeasment" of the Saudi's as far as the
characters that they allow to exist within their country...
I'd just like to point out, that I think the whole war on terror has been a
shamozzle, and I couldn't recommend that the USA pre-emptively invade any
country. Doing so would set in cement my image of them as "Team America:
World Police"...
.
|
|
|
| User: "R. Foreman" |
|
| Title: Re: Who is going to die? (Us or them?) |
02 Dec 2004 08:43:03 PM |
|
|
"Aidan" <nospam.aidan@linknet.com.au> Spat the Words
"MonsieurStat" <Monsieurstat@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eoPrd.23652$kI6.1375119@news20.bellglobal.com...
"Aidan" <nospam.aidan@linknet.com.au> wrote in message
news:newscache$ufg48i$41n$1@titan.linknet.com.au...
Michael Johnathan McDonald wrote:
"Aidan" <nospam.aidan@linknet.com.au> wrote in message
news:<newscache$rd038i$igm$1@titan.linknet.com.au>...
I'd say it's because the Bush Dynasty and the Saudi Royal family are
in 'cahoots'
Saudi Royal family paid big money ( Construction costs) into the
Clinton library in Arkansas - explain please? Why? Why did Clinton
transfer the most 'combat military weapons' to the Saudi Royal family
than any other nation in his term? Or history of the US for that
matter? Why? Explain Mr. Brilliant ;)
Essshhhhh sssss 'cahoots' ;)
OK, I'll revise my statement: "The Saudi royals and *insert current
US administration* are in 'cahoots'"... that better? Do you think I
believe Clinton was much better than Bush? LOL!
So, why hasn't Bush targeted Saudi Arabia? It can be seen quite
clearly that they harbor a large number radical clerics and trained
terrorists... Osama himself hails from there, as well as 15 of the 19
9/11 hijackers. But if one were to listen to the "news", or government
reports, you'd never know that Saudi Arabia was a threat... why is
this?
Because they are not a threat?
Saudi Arabia is FULLY under the US control. They don't drink a glass of
water without America's permission.
Stat.
That's not the point though.. I know that Saudi Arabia in and of itself
is no threat, but since the war on terror is being fought against
countries that harbor terrorists, and bearing in mind that 15 of the 19
9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, as well as many radical
anti-American Clerics, they seem like an obvious target...
Oh but the Saudis enjoy being rich, pompous arabs, and that's
something Americans can relate to, so we're not going to fight
with them.
There's an obvious (in my mind) "appeasment" of the Saudi's as far as
the characters that they allow to exist within their country...
I'd just like to point out, that I think the whole war on terror has
been a shamozzle, and I couldn't recommend that the USA pre-emptively
invade any country. Doing so would set in cement my image of them as
"Team America: World Police"...
Bush is going for his super g-man badge.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MonsieurStat" |
|
| Title: Re: Who is going to die? (Us or them?) |
02 Dec 2004 08:40:37 PM |
|
|
"Aidan" <nospam.aidan@linknet.com.au> wrote in message
news:newscache$93q48i$84n$1@titan.linknet.com.au...
"MonsieurStat" <Monsieurstat@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eoPrd.23652$kI6.1375119@news20.bellglobal.com...
"Aidan" <nospam.aidan@linknet.com.au> wrote in message
news:newscache$ufg48i$41n$1@titan.linknet.com.au...
Michael Johnathan McDonald wrote:
"Aidan" <nospam.aidan@linknet.com.au> wrote in message
news:<newscache$rd038i$igm$1@titan.linknet.com.au>...
I'd say it's because the Bush Dynasty and the Saudi Royal family are in
'cahoots'
Saudi Royal family paid big money ( Construction costs) into the
Clinton library in Arkansas - explain please? Why? Why did Clinton
transfer the most 'combat military weapons' to the Saudi Royal family
than any other nation in his term? Or history of the US for that
matter? Why? Explain Mr. Brilliant ;)
Essshhhhh sssss 'cahoots' ;)
OK, I'll revise my statement: "The Saudi royals and *insert current US
administration* are in 'cahoots'"... that better? Do you think I believe
Clinton was much better than Bush? LOL!
So, why hasn't Bush targeted Saudi Arabia? It can be seen quite clearly
that they harbor a large number radical clerics and trained terrorists...
Osama himself hails from there, as well as 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers.
But if one were to listen to the "news", or government reports, you'd
never know that Saudi Arabia was a threat... why is this?
Because they are not a threat?
Saudi Arabia is FULLY under the US control. They don't drink a glass of
water without America's permission.
Stat.
That's not the point though.. I know that Saudi Arabia in and of itself is
no threat, but since the war on terror is being fought against countries
that harbor terrorists, and bearing in mind that 15 of the 19 9/11
hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, as well as many radical anti-American
Clerics, they seem like an obvious target...
There's an obvious (in my mind) "appeasment" of the Saudi's as far as the
characters that they allow to exist within their country...
I'd just like to point out, that I think the whole war on terror has been a
shamozzle, and I couldn't recommend that the USA pre-emptively invade any
country. Doing so would set in cement my image of them as "Team America:
World Police"...
Now that was a GOOD movie ;-)
I see your point, but I don't think terroism has much to do with anything.
The real issue is conformity. Saudi leadership is as conform as they come, so
no reason to punish them.
Stat.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Aidan" |
|
| Title: Re: Who is going to die? (Us or them?) |
02 Dec 2004 09:58:40 PM |
|
|
"MonsieurStat" <Monsieurstat@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:SmQrd.23692$kI6.1398355@news20.bellglobal.com...
"Aidan" <nospam.aidan@linknet.com.au> wrote in message
news:newscache$93q48i$84n$1@titan.linknet.com.au...
"MonsieurStat" <Monsieurstat@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eoPrd.23652$kI6.1375119@news20.bellglobal.com...
"Aidan" <nospam.aidan@linknet.com.au> wrote in message
news:newscache$ufg48i$41n$1@titan.linknet.com.au...
Michael Johnathan McDonald wrote:
"Aidan" <nospam.aidan@linknet.com.au> wrote in message
news:<newscache$rd038i$igm$1@titan.linknet.com.au>...
I'd say it's because the Bush Dynasty and the Saudi Royal family are
in 'cahoots'
Saudi Royal family paid big money ( Construction costs) into the
Clinton library in Arkansas - explain please? Why? Why did Clinton
transfer the most 'combat military weapons' to the Saudi Royal family
than any other nation in his term? Or history of the US for that
matter? Why? Explain Mr. Brilliant ;)
Essshhhhh sssss 'cahoots' ;)
OK, I'll revise my statement: "The Saudi royals and *insert current US
administration* are in 'cahoots'"... that better? Do you think I
believe Clinton was much better than Bush? LOL!
So, why hasn't Bush targeted Saudi Arabia? It can be seen quite
clearly that they harbor a large number radical clerics and trained
terrorists... Osama himself hails from there, as well as 15 of the 19
9/11 hijackers. But if one were to listen to the "news", or government
reports, you'd never know that Saudi Arabia was a threat... why is
this?
Because they are not a threat?
Saudi Arabia is FULLY under the US control. They don't drink a glass of
water without America's permission.
Stat.
That's not the point though.. I know that Saudi Arabia in and of itself
is no threat, but since the war on terror is being fought against
countries that harbor terrorists, and bearing in mind that 15 of the 19
9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, as well as many radical
anti-American Clerics, they seem like an obvious target...
There's an obvious (in my mind) "appeasment" of the Saudi's as far as the
characters that they allow to exist within their country...
I'd just like to point out, that I think the whole war on terror has been
a shamozzle, and I couldn't recommend that the USA pre-emptively invade
any country. Doing so would set in cement my image of them as "Team
America: World Police"...
Now that was a GOOD movie ;-)
I see your point, but I don't think terroism has much to do with anything.
The real issue is conformity. Saudi leadership is as conform as they come,
so no reason to punish them.
Stat.
I guess you're right... if your government and/or heads of state are willing
close their eyes, open their mouths and swallow what America feeds them once
in a while, then there's no problem as far as the neo-cons see it...
And yet they say it's got nothing to do with extending the US hegemony...
didn't you know, it's about the terrorists!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
