Is this really a suitable term for the likes of Bin Laden?
I mean this is a guy who supposedly sent two planes into
one of the US's most significant landmarks at a time when
America was facing the possibility of the longest and most
severe recession in its history.
He handed the US the opportunity to protect their beloved
dollar and made his group international hate figures.
I think 'd**kheads' would be a better description.
Originally posted by Thequ1ckI would call them cowards because they send other people to fight for them, but won't fight for their own cause.
Is this really a suitable term for the likes of Bin Laden?
I mean this is a guy who supposedly sent two planes into
one of the US's most significant landmarks at a time when
America was facing the possibility of the longest and most
severe recession in its history.
He handed the US the opportunity to protect their beloved
dollar and made his group international hate figures.
I think 'd**kheads' would be a better description.
And to preempt, Bush is not a coward, because he is not military.
Originally posted by Derfel CadarnBizarre. Bin Laden went to Afghanistan and actually was involved in battles against the Soviets, but you call him a coward.
I would call them cowards because they send other people to fight for them, but won't fight for their own cause.
And to preempt, Bush is not a coward, because he is not military.
Bush avoided military service overseas during wartime but he's not a coward like someone who actually was involved in fighting.
You have some rather odd ideas.
Originally posted by no1marauderWe're talking about the present. Not the past.
Bizarre. Bin Laden went to Afghanistan and actually was involved in battles against the Soviets, but you call him a coward.
Bush avoided military service overseas during wartime but he's not a coward like someone who actually was involved in fighting.
You have some rather odd ideas.
Originally posted by Derfel CadarnI'm sure OBL realized that after 9/11 the US military, the strongest in the history of the world, would make every attempt to kill or capture him. So he put himself in serious harm's way by ordering the attacks (assuming he did which seems probable). That is not the action of a "coward".
We're talking about the present. Not the past.
1 edit
Originally posted by Derfel CadarnMy point is what were they hoping to achieve?
We're talking about the present. Not the past.
I say this very gingerly as I don't want to belittle or disrespect
the families of those that died on 9/11 but this event albeit
a tragedy on an enormous scale provided the US with the focus
it needed on the middle-east.
Are we really to believe that Al-Qaeda didn't think this through?
Originally posted by Thequ1ckAre you serious? The US government's "focus on the Middle East" since then has been an unmitigated disaster. I would imagine that OBL is quite pleased with how things have turned out.
My point is what were they hoping to achieve?
I say this very gingerly as I don't want to belittle or disrespect
the families of those that died on 9/11 but this event albeit
a tragedy on an enormous scale provided the US with the focus
they needed on the middle-east.
Are we really to believe that Al-Qaeda didn't think this through?
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderI won't argue that it hasn't been a total disaster but how many
Are you serious? The US government's "focus on the Middle East" since then has been an unmitigated disaster. I would imagine that OBL is quite pleased with how things have turned out.
lives would a 50 year recession have cost America?
America has now increased military spending, renewed its defences
and established a political and military foothold in the
middle-east. None of which might have happened if not for the
events of 911.
Originally posted by Derfel CadarnWell, Bush doesn't have to be a coward. I mean he's got a 3 trillion dollar a year miltary mechanism backing him up.
I would call them cowards because they send other people to fight for them, but won't fight for their own cause.
And to preempt, Bush is not a coward, because he is not military.
At least Bin Laden isn't an ex-coke-head though...eh?
1 edit
Originally posted by shavixmirI've always thought you were in favor of recreational drugs, Shav. Perhaps even using during exceptionally stressful chess games and forum posts.
Well, Bush doesn't have to be a coward. I mean he's got a 3 trillion dollar a year miltary mechanism backing him up.
At least Bin Laden isn't an ex-coke-head though...eh?
Originally posted by DelmerYa got me there Delmer.
I've always thought you were in favor of recreational drugs, Shav. Perhaps even using during exceptionally stressful chess games and forum posts.
Blatant hypocrisy on my part.
I do apologise.
However, if push came to shove and there was a dialisis machine close by, I'd rather snort coke with Bin than with George.
🙂
Originally posted by shavixmirAnd I'm sure that's exactly the way both would want it.
Ya got me there Delmer.
Blatant hypocrisy on my part.
I do apologise.
However, if push came to shove and there was a dialisis machine close by, I'd rather snort coke with Bin than with George.
🙂
2 edits
Originally posted by Thequ1ckA) There's no evidence that the US was going to enter a severe recession, much less a 50 year one. Such a thing has never occurred and the probability of it happening are zero. It is clear that the attacks severely hurt the US economy and the spike in oil prices since caused by the situation in the ME has done even more damage to the average American.
I won't argue that it hasn't been a total disaster but how many
lives would a 50 year recession have cost America?
America has now increased military spending, renewed its defences
and established a political and military foothold in the
middle-east. None of which might have happened if not for the
events of 911.
B) The US increasing its military spending is a bad thing not a good thing. It is also paying for it by saddling itself with immense amounts of debt. This is good news for the holders of the debt i.e. rich folks and institutions but bad news for future taxpayers who will have to pay the interest on it. Anyway, the Bush administration would certainly have increased military spending anyway; it was a central campaign promise of the Republicans in 2000.
C) The US has had a military foothold in the Middle East for decades.
OBL's ultimate goal is to overthrow pro-Western governments like the House of Saud by radicalizing the Muslim population of the Middle East. Do you think that population is A) More or B) Less pro-Western than it was on September 10, 2001?