Seriously. So much of what appears on this and other boards is just a series of one-offs.
bin Laden was kicked out of SA due to his dislike for its government. I understand why he
did that after seeing how corrupt SA's government is, mainly in the Biden interview. bin
Laden is killing innocent people so his views are heard. I understand, not condone,
that...just like the US making its views heard. I didn't think I had to make these points
explicitly like this and hoped for them to be implied, but I guess I should have.
So, essentially you're saying that bin Laden is in it for the publicity. That's fine; I
can buy that. However, you have to assume one other thing: that he's totally nuts. More
specifically, that he has Antisocial Personality Disorder, a Cluster B Axis II disorder.
However, once you've accepted that necessary requirement, the first suggestion becomes
superfluous. He could just as easily kill people because he had a bad day or found a bug
in his breakfast gruel.
There are many other countries with large terrorist groups within them, yet Afghanistan
and Iraq (the two that US never liked before) are at the top of the lists.
Ahem. The US used to like both Afghanistan and Iraq, the former when they were fighting
the Soviets and the latter when they were fighting Iran which, as you may or may not know,
kidnapped a bunch of Americans and held them for more than a year.
Now by attacks I don't mean drop bombs on Mecca. Attacks
where you inprison the terrorist groups like those in Afghanistan.
Yeah, you and about four other people on the planet would make such fine distinctions.
bin Laden doesn't, and neither will the clerics that claim to speak for Islam and the
people who listen to them.
And I would not say "How come Afghanistan hasn't been attacked?" if SA was attacked
It doesn't matter if you would. What matters is that you could. If you wouldn't do it,
someone else would, and there would be an article like that on K5 right now, and it would
read about the same as yours.
Despite your assumption, I do commend the US for trying to bring peace to the Middle
Well, I'm glad to hear it. Maybe it needs to be said more often, like maybe every once in
That was not my argument though. My argument was about how the US and bin
Laden deal with countries and/or governments they don't like. To me, yes a naive 20 year
old, they are not that different.
Not that different in what way? The US is a country, and bin Laden is a person. You'd
have to compare Bush with bin Laden. But, anyway, the difference is this. On September 11,
2001, every American citizen was driven nuts. You were. I was. Bush was. Maybe for some
people it was more of a short putt than a drive, but in any event, mass psychosis ensued.
Now, it doesn't matter
whether you want to call this conversion syndrome or hysteria or PTSD or situational disorder
or whatever, the point is that it is a temporary condition, though one you're lucky to get over
in 6 months. Come back next summer, and if the US is still flinging bombs all over and tromping
people's civil rights, then you'll have a point. I suspect you won't, that there will be a lot
of intelligence gathering and infiltration (yes, even into Saudi Arabia) but not much in the
way of fireworks. Anyway, without evidence of a permanent psychosis, the difference is this: bin Laden
is permanently nuts. He's always been nuts, and he'll always be nuts, henceforth now and forever.
(Before the bombing started, I only half jokingly suggested that the situation in Afghanistan
could far more easily be resolved by putting Haldol, an antipsychotic, in the water supply.)
The other difference, of course, is that, while you speculate that bin Laden blew up the WTC for the purpose of getting publicity, the US is blowing up Afghanistan for the purpose of getting rid of the Taliban.
It's more direct that way.
It needs to be pointed out that the war against Afghanistan started while everybody was still way nuts. Once the war started,
the question immediately and irrevocably changed from "should there be a war" to "given that
there is a war, how to conclude it and carry on." This is why I get so tired
of people saying that the war is bad or stupid or evil or misplaced or whatever.
Maybe it is; maybe it isn't; but it's already history. Now, it
even looks mostly to have ended--oh, there will be civil war for years,
but the time of lots of big things blowing up that say U.S. on them is pretty
much over, and overall, it seems to be that things in Afghanistan are better than before it started.
Frankly, I think there's more to this to you than bin Laden and the US. I think that you're starting
to see that simple moralism doesn't really work too well in the real world. I don't envy you;
it's not an easy lesson to learn under the best of circumstances, and through no fault
of your own, the timing stinks.
This point has been confused the most. I am not saying I can no longer voice my
opinions. That is obviously not the case after your read the "gazillions" of articles and/or
comments regarding them. I am saying that people are CRITICIZED for voicing such
Look, this is what you wrote, in plain English:
American citizens, of any descent, no longer feel they can voice their opinion unless it
is in line with the bleeding red, white, and blue.
No. Longer. Feel. They. Can. Voice. Their. Opinion. Your words, not mine. Your idea,
Guess what! You're going to be criticized for everything. That's just what happens
in free discourse. Now, I certainly don't believe that if someone criticizes me, it makes me
not feel I can voice my opinions. But, then again, I didn't write the above--you did. Please
at least have the honesty not to deny that you did.
This suggestion was not for the US. It was for the terrorists, especially based on the
sub-title "Dear Mr. bin Laden".
Mea maxima culpa. On the other hand, I think you overestimate just how far money
goes these days.
The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett
[ Parent ]