"John H." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:11:57 -0000, wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 20:19:48 -0500, Eisboch wrote:
Have you ever considered that bin Laden, as an individual, is *not*
important. What is important is the world-wide, religiously based
uprising against anything or anybody not believing in fundamental Islam.
Bin Laden may be a vocal centerpiece and symbol, but he by himself is
not that important.
If you are saying the jihad will go on without bin Laden, I wouldn't
disagree, but that doesn't make bin Laden unimportant. He's more than a
symbol. He's the man behind the murder of 3,000 Americans, and the fact
that he is still breathing free air says something quite profound about
us, doesn't it?
Yeah, it says we decided not to invade Pakistan.
I agree. The politics and logistics of the "hunt" is very complex. There's
always the danger of causing more chaos in the world than that already
existing. If GWB acted like the "cowboy" that his critics claim he is, he
would have ignored Pakistan's soveriency claims and sent the troops in to
capture or kill bin Laden. It may have accomplished a short term goal but
would have set off another major crisis.
Nope. Iraq is making more and more sense as being the focal point on the
war on terror. No surrounding nations liked Sadam; in fact they were
threatened by him. The people of Iraq were oppressed and treated to
terrorism from within. Rather than invade every country where members of
Al Qaeda reside, or the many terrorist organizations associated with Al
Qaeda (al Jihad, the National Islamic Front, Hezballah and others) all of
whom, BTW, share a common goal .... the defeat of western civilization and
freedom, particularly that represented by the United States, it makes more
sense to bring them to us. If that was the plan, it's working to a
degree.
Eisboch