[scandium]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

If Islamic terrorism is comparable to McVeigh, can you please point out the McVeighite churches in Christianity? Can you please show me where the global movement of Christian McVeighites can be found? Can you explain why there are no such churches or terrorist groups, while Islamic jihadists can be found in Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, Malaysia, India, Kashmir, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Chechnya, Bosnia, Nigeria, Liberia, the Netherlands, and elsewhere?

That's a bit of a strawman Avon, as your questions seem addressed at a comparison I never made. The only thing I said they had in common were that both were terrorist attacks aimed at targets on US soil. Beyond that I pointed out the dissimilarities between the two attacks and mentioned that in the case of the domestic attack it was perpetrated by white christians making it distinct from 9/11 which was perpetrated by radical Islamic terrorists. That doesn't mean I equated the two religions or even suggested that religious ideology was the motivation behind the domestic attack; again, my 3 points were to show some of the ways the two attacks differed from one another.

I tried to show my point of view that in the former case, the domestic attack, it was dealt with swiftly, completely, and that justice was served and society has reached closure on it which is why its a footnote in history rather than something that dominated the news for years afterward and significantly impacted the way people lived their lives. (Abraham's "FET" syndrome).

9/11 was nothing new: it was not the first incident of terrorism, not the first time Americans were the target, and not the first attack on American soil (another point of mine). The methods were somewhat novel, but it wasn't the first ever hijacking either. Had the terrorist possessed cruise missles they could have achieved the same ends, but being an assymetrical battle where they were severely technologically disadvantaged they instead made use of American technology (the aircraft hijacked) and converted it into a weapon.

I think in the domestic case things were handled well while in the latter its been largely one screw up after another going back before the attack and continuing on today.

Let's recall a few key historical points and maybe you'll understand why I feel as I do:


Both Bin Laden and al-Qaeda were already known entities. In fact they'd already unsuccesfully tried to blow up the WTC once before, so this was also a known target.

The incoming President's running mate and the new US VP is a former CEO of one of the world's largest oil companies from which he still receives deferred compensation . The newly appointed National Security Advisor (and the current Secretary of State), aside from being an expert on the non-existant Soviet Union, is also a former oil executive and even has an oil tanker named after her. The newly appointed Secretary of state is a former General who played a prominent role iin the 1991 Gulf War. Donald Rumsfeld, among other things, was a strong proponent of missle defence having, after the Republican requested 1995 National Intelligence Estimate determined an ICBM nuclear attack from a rogue state was unlikely within the next 15 years, chaired a second "independent panel" whose purpose was to undermine the NIE's findings and provide the desired findings to support a missle defence program (this is after the first independent panel agreed with the NIE's findings). Wolfowitz and Perle, two other prominent figures who were to play a role in later events were also strong proponents of missle defence.

Now with the actors out of the way, the events:

The new VP holds controversial secret energy meetings with executives from leading American oil companies. From these meetings its subsequently concluded that control of Iraqi oil fields would help fill what's forseen as increasing domestic demand with falling domsetic oil production.

The President goes on a one month vacation in August, what at that time is the longest vacation by an American President. While on vacation he receives an August 6th PDB titles "Bin Laden determined to strike the US." Just days before 9/11 some several billions of dollars are appropriated for a missle defence program while a 600 million dollar request for anti-terrorist funding is denied. 9/11 occurs, on the same day Rice is scheduled to give a speech on missle defence.

Immediately following 9/11, as in within days after it, plans are requested to launch an attack on Iraq. It becomes known that Bin Laden was behind it who is believed to be in Afganistan. With overwhelming support, domestically and internationally, the Taliban is routed and the hunt for Bin Laden begins. Kharzai is appointed "President" of Afghan. He previously served as an advisor to the US effort to negotiate a natural gas pipeline through Afghan. Negotiations broke down, the US offer was rejected, no pipeline is built. Subsequent to his new appointment, however, one of his first acts while in office is to sign a deal for the construction of a natural gas pipeline.

With Bin Laden still on the run and with no support (initially) at home or abroad, the US decides to set its sights on Iraq next which had no connection to 9/11.

Now I've laid enough foundation here that any reasonably open-minded person should be able to themselves connect the dots and see the pattern. For those unable to do so I will spell it out for you: the US "War on Terror" has never been about terrorism. Instead 9/11 simply served as an opportunity for the people in charge, with their backgrounds and ideological agenda, to use it as an excuse to push an agenda that has nothing to do with anti-terrorism and everything to do with increasing the profits to oil and arms companies. Why do you think Bin Laden is a low priority? Why did the US squander so much manpower, money, and good will attacking a country (Iraq) that had nothing to do with 9/11 while Bin Laden was still at large? Why is the US planning to spend 200+ billion on missle defence (which doesn't even work) while fighting a War on Terror and almost nothing securing its borders when terrorist are much likely to come ashore or cross its porous borders with a suitcase nuke or dirty bomb? All of this while telling Americans to buy duct tape and plastic sheeting and spinning the new terror alert wheel.