![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Feb. 17th, 2003 11:03 amYou know, I admire how George W Bush is validating Osama bin Laden's strategy of attacking the United States.
Now think about it: George W Bush is currently hell-bent on pre-emptively attacking Iraq because they might, accent on "might", be troublesome in the future and try to stop George Bush's vision of world unity under a heavily-fundie-Christian government if we don't. He's pushing war as a better alternative than diplomacy and a better tool than sanctions. But it doesn't matter that the US hasn't been attacked; it just matters that the US might be attacked.
Now take a good look at what Osama bin Laden's terrorist team did: they had previously announced that they wanted the USA to go down. They wanted the USA to go down because they view the USA as a threat that might, accent on 'might', be troublesome in the future and try to stop their vision of world unity under a religious Muslim government if they didn't.
Are there differences? Well, the US would saturation-bomb a city with military installations and lots of civilians. Bin Laden stole non-military equipment and hit a civilian target and a military target in two different places. Hmm, nope. Not much difference really except that the civilians have a little bit more warning with us. Not that this will do much good - bombs can't currently tell the difference between armed soldiers and civilians.
So in pursuing Saddam Hussein he is almost completely validating Osama bin Laden's tactics, or if not his tactics at least his reasons.
Oh, it has now been 518 days since President Bush said all we want is Osama brought to justice, dead or alive, and 317 days since American citizen Jose Padilla was placed in a military prison for an indefinite period of time without charge, trial or due process of law.
Now think about it: George W Bush is currently hell-bent on pre-emptively attacking Iraq because they might, accent on "might", be troublesome in the future and try to stop George Bush's vision of world unity under a heavily-fundie-Christian government if we don't. He's pushing war as a better alternative than diplomacy and a better tool than sanctions. But it doesn't matter that the US hasn't been attacked; it just matters that the US might be attacked.
Now take a good look at what Osama bin Laden's terrorist team did: they had previously announced that they wanted the USA to go down. They wanted the USA to go down because they view the USA as a threat that might, accent on 'might', be troublesome in the future and try to stop their vision of world unity under a religious Muslim government if they didn't.
Are there differences? Well, the US would saturation-bomb a city with military installations and lots of civilians. Bin Laden stole non-military equipment and hit a civilian target and a military target in two different places. Hmm, nope. Not much difference really except that the civilians have a little bit more warning with us. Not that this will do much good - bombs can't currently tell the difference between armed soldiers and civilians.
So in pursuing Saddam Hussein he is almost completely validating Osama bin Laden's tactics, or if not his tactics at least his reasons.
Oh, it has now been 518 days since President Bush said all we want is Osama brought to justice, dead or alive, and 317 days since American citizen Jose Padilla was placed in a military prison for an indefinite period of time without charge, trial or due process of law.
