A Theory...

[theburningliberal]

Alright... As everyone knows, I'm reading the 9/11 report. I just came across a passage I thought was interesting, and I began to think.

Here is my theory:

Bin Laden, in reference to other Islamic extremists who take on either local leaders or Israel, said that they weren't going far enough, and that they "weren't taking on the head of the snake": The United States.

He nurtured his organization for 10 years before making a declaration against the United States. He trained them, tought them his radical views, convinced them that death is better than a life w/ America in it, and so on and so forth. He spent a decade gathering followers and polarizing the Islamic world. Three years after he issued his fatwa against the United States, his group, Al Qaeda, was the perpetrator of one of the most massive national security failures in world history and the worst domestic disaster the United States had ever seen.

I think that 9/11 is the beginning of a new era. Many people already see it that way, but I think they are looking the wrong way. I see 9/11 as the beginning of an era that will define world history for centuries to come. How we respond to 9/11 and to the gathering threat that al Qaeda and groups like it present in the next 30 years will be a marker of how far our civilization has progressed.

If we are truly civilized, will we respond to each attack by invading sovereign nations, such as we did after 9/11? Is that the mark of a truly civilized society?

Or will we work to deter these attacks, by unifying not only Western society against terrorists, but the moderate Islamic world as well?

John Kerry's idea of fighting a 'sensitive' war on terror is actually a very good one. There are times when broad, sweeping unilateral force is necessary. But in order to defeat terrorism, or at the very least, stop terror attacks before they happen, we must be aware of the rest of the world. Working in coordination with other governments and other countries may very well be the only way we will survive, and a foreign policy that alienates our allies is not the way we rally the support of foreign countries.

Cooperation amongst members of agencies like the U.N. and NATO is essential if we are to shut down terror networks and protect not only American citizens and American interests, but the citizens and interests of countries all around the globe. If members of the free world cannot live amongst themselves, how do we expect to defeat the dangers of people like Osama bin Laden, who target not only America, but the American way of life?

I may expound upon this later. But comments, anyone?

[lapslf]

I think a new era is a bit of a big word. Just the US stirring up some shit for a few years, until it all blows off and everything is nice 'n happy again.

[hippoguy]

I used to live in NYC but did not lose a friend or relative to 9/11 so I am not sure how much (justice?) of a responce is appropiate but surely chit chat and a limpwristed tsk tsk form the inept UN is not enough

[witeshark]

It's a big change, no denying that. And Kerry's sensitive war is about the most asinine thing I have ever heard!

[theburningliberal]

At 8/13/04 10:02 PM, witeshark wrote: It's a big change, no denying that. And Kerry's sensitive war is about the most asinine thing I have ever heard!

So you think unilateral force and alienation of key allies is the way we're going to win the war on terror?

[Spookshow]

The movie "The Siege" comes heavily to mine. If they are here and start suicide attacks even all of our forces and our allies can protect us.

[hippoguy]

If you mean France and Germany you must remember at least two things:
#1 25% of the population of France is Muslim and some years ago muslim terrorists tried to fly a plane into the Eifel Tower so fear may be a factor.
#2 both countries broke the embargo of Iraq (not an ally move) and stand to lose big time if not repaid by Iraq who may not do so.

if you mean Saudi Arabis you mst consider that the royal family feels threatened mu extreme muslims who want a religously run state instead of a monarchy.

[xenocaster]

I agree. I have said it before, we need something different if we expect our country stay at the top.

[theburningliberal]

At 8/13/04 10:46 PM, xenocaster wrote: I agree. I have said it before, we need something different if we expect our country stay at the top.

Just for clarification, who are you agreeing with?