"Al Qaeda" does not exist

The OP might be a troll but it is an interesting topic nevertheless.

Actually there were a couple of programmes on UK TV the other week that put
forward this contention that 'Al Quaeda' is not all-encompassing
organisation and that the way it has been built up and used by governments
to pass laws limiting civil liberties is quite Orwellian.

There are groups of terrorists (obviously) but they act independently or, at
least, autonomously. The US and other governments handed certain terrorist
leaders a golden opportunity and now quite a few people claim to act on
behalf of this ubiquitous Al Quaeda.

Frankly, however much I am acutely aware of terrorism and its dangers I have
always had my doubts about this 'organisation'. The US and then the British
forces found absolutely nothing in Tora Bora (or wherever it was they were
looking in Afghanistan) and there was no evidence of some network of caves
in the Afghan hills.

In my opinion it would, in any case, have taken years of construction to
build such a thing, with great effort, since it was in the middle of
nowhere. Use of explosives would probably have been detected. Otherwise,
digging by hand would have taken even longer and perhaps large groups of
people and that would have been detected also.

Etc etc.

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

"Jeff Strickland" > wrote in message
...
>
> "tech27" > wrote in message
> o.verio.net...
>> Not exactly. The theory is that Al Qaeda does exist, but it is made up of
>> all those Holocaust "victims" that never really died.
>
>
> Wouldn't the youngest holocaust victims that never really died be
> approaching 70 years of age by now?
>
> Maybe it's just me, but I am not sure how much damage a person can do that
> can barely get out of bed in the morning.
>
>
>
>
>
>

"Dori A Schmetterling" > wrote in message
...
> The OP might be a troll but it is an interesting topic nevertheless.
>
> Actually there were a couple of programmes on UK TV the other week that
> put forward this contention that 'Al Quaeda' is not all-encompassing
> organisation and that the way it has been built up and used by governments
> to pass laws limiting civil liberties is quite Orwellian.

It's not built up that way in the US. Most people here understand quite well
that it is at most a loose conglomeration of independent groups working,
sometimes, to the same end. Some of these people draw nothing more from Al
Qaeda than enthusiam. I don't think many people in the US see Al Qaeda (The
Base), as a base of operations, but moreso a base for a running manifesto of
sorts. To me it isn't unlike the terror of the 70's and 80's in which cells
did not know about each other, though were obstensively working for the same
group and same end. Except that in this case one of Bin Laden's decree has
been that fighting for the same end doesn't translate into fighting
together.

It is a lot easier for our government and others to say "Al Qaeda" than it
is to explain the nuances of the organization each and every time they speak
to actions taken by groups related to Bin Ladens aims. One should not read
too much into this abbreviated reference to terror.

> There are groups of terrorists (obviously) but they act independently or,
> at least, autonomously. The US and other governments handed certain
> terrorist leaders a golden opportunity

I don't believe that for a second. The only opportunity we handed them is
the freedom with which people move enter and move about our country. It's
easy to bomb something here and it makes a big splash on the streets are
Arabia, people who for the most part have little idea just how easy it is to
operate in the US.

> and now quite a few people claim to act on behalf of this ubiquitous Al
> Quaeda.

I find it of little importance what they call themselves or who they
blame their actions on. One has to remember that these people don't want to
get caught and deception would seem to assist them in that aim.

> Frankly, however much I am acutely aware of terrorism and its dangers I
> have always had my doubts about this 'organisation'. The US and then the
> British forces found absolutely nothing in Tora Bora (or wherever it was
> they were looking in Afghanistan) and there was no evidence of some
> network of caves in the Afghan hills.

I have seen complete videos of networks of caves as well as munitions
stashes and living accoutrments left in them. I don't know what you are
talking about, but these caves are part of a long history of war in
Afghanistan. Read Soviet General Pushtan's book on that war to find out the
reality of these caves and how they were networked.

> In my opinion it would, in any case, have taken years of construction to
> build such a thing, with great effort, since it was in the middle of
> nowhere. Use of explosives would probably have been detected. Otherwise,
> digging by hand would have taken even longer and perhaps large groups of
> people and that would have been detected also.

Many of the caves are natural. Not unlike lava tubes found in Hawaii and
Galapagos.

I think it is all basically irrelevant though. The aim of these people is a
new world caliphate. How do you achieve that, well, you do it by beating the
biggest dog on the block first...bringing more and more fanatics to fold.
You don't activate the crazies by attacking France, you do it by attacking
the states. We are, after all, the devil incarnate.

What astounds me about most of this is that it appears some countries in
Europe don't understand that they are next on the list. This isn't about the
US in particular, but rather about the US because it is strategically,
though maybe not tactically, the best initial contact by which to energize
those who believe the world should live beneath Muslim law (though I always
find it funny that Muslim extremists think we are godless and Europeans, at
least some, think we lean to heavily on Christian belief).

I have never agreed with Bush's actions, but I have always marveled at how
far ahead his vision of the importance of the last 4 years and their bearing
on the future of the world is, than people like Chirac and Schroeder.

Remember, it was Europe, in the last 90 years, that was the genesis of two
horrific wars. And for the most part it was this same policy of
non-provocation that gave room for these wars to develop.

> In my opinion it would, in any case, have taken years of construction to
> build such a thing, with great effort, since it was in the middle of
> nowhere. Use of explosives would probably have been detected. Otherwise,
> digging by hand would have taken even longer and perhaps large groups of
> people and that would have been detected also.

Have you seen that hilarious clip of Rumsfeld on "Meet The Press" where he,
with the help of illustrations that seemed to be the blueprints for
something out of a Bond movie, described these underground caves, fortresses
even, with offices, bedrooms, hydro-electro power, air ventilation systems,
entrances large enough to drive in trucks and tanks, etc, etc. It was just
nuts.

IIRC they showed a bit of that.

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

"Erich" > wrote in message
...
[...]>
> Have you seen that hilarious clip of Rumsfeld on "Meet The Press" where
> he,
> with the help of illustrations that seemed to be the blueprints for
> something out of a Bond movie, described these underground caves,
> fortresses
> even, with offices, bedrooms, hydro-electro power, air ventilation
> systems,
> entrances large enough to drive in trucks and tanks, etc, etc. It was just
> nuts.
>
>

See below.

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

"Bradburn Fentress" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dori A Schmetterling" > wrote in message
> ...
>> The OP might be a troll but it is an interesting topic nevertheless.
>>
>> Actually there were a couple of programmes on UK TV the other week that
>> put forward this contention that 'Al Quaeda' is not all-encompassing
>> organisation and that the way it has been built up and used by
>> governments
>> to pass laws limiting civil liberties is quite Orwellian.
>
> It's not built up that way in the US. Most people here understand quite
> well
> that it is at most a loose conglomeration of independent groups working,
> sometimes, to the same end. Some of these people draw nothing more from Al
> Qaeda than enthusiam. I don't think many people in the US see Al Qaeda
> (The
> Base), as a base of operations, but moreso a base for a running manifesto
> of
> sorts. To me it isn't unlike the terror of the 70's and 80's in which
> cells
> did not know about each other, though were obstensively working for the
> same
> group and same end. Except that in this case one of Bin Laden's decree has
> been that fighting for the same end doesn't translate into fighting
> together.
>
> It is a lot easier for our government and others to say "Al Qaeda" than it
> is to explain the nuances of the organization each and every time they
> speak
> to actions taken by groups related to Bin Ladens aims. One should not read
> too much into this abbreviated reference to terror.

DAS: Oh no? The UK government passed a law which, thankfully, is now being
challenged in the courts, severely curtails the rights of individuals and
which allowed the government to detain people on merest suspicion.

>
>> There are groups of terrorists (obviously) but they act independently or,
>> at least, autonomously. The US and other governments handed certain
>> terrorist leaders a golden opportunity
>
> I don't believe that for a second. The only opportunity we handed them is
> the freedom with which people move enter and move about our country. It's
> easy to bomb something here and it makes a big splash on the streets are
> Arabia, people who for the most part have little idea just how easy it is
> to
> operate in the US.

DAS: Western governments (maybe not all) are creating a bogeyman like they
did in the fifities. There is no need for a climate of fear. Of course, it
suits other regimes (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the lot) to join in. These
terrorists are being given tremendous publicity and a status they don't
have; that's what I mean by golden opportunity. There was no such thing as
a far-reaching organisation (your comments about an 'alliance of ideas' not
withstanding) Al Qaeda until Donald Rumsfeld, Tony Blair et al kept going on
about it.

>
>> and now quite a few people claim to act on behalf of this ubiquitous Al
>> Quaeda.
>
> I find it of little importance what they call themselves or who they
> blame their actions on. One has to remember that these people don't want
> to
> get caught and deception would seem to assist them in that aim.
>
>> Frankly, however much I am acutely aware of terrorism and its dangers I
>> have always had my doubts about this 'organisation'. The US and then the
>> British forces found absolutely nothing in Tora Bora (or wherever it was
>> they were looking in Afghanistan) and there was no evidence of some
>> network of caves in the Afghan hills.
>
> I have seen complete videos of networks of caves as well as munitions
> stashes and living accoutrments left in them. I don't know what you are
> talking about, but these caves are part of a long history of war in
> Afghanistan. Read Soviet General Pushtan's book on that war to find out
> the
> reality of these caves and how they were networked.

DAS: The American forces found nothing, upon which the British army was
sent in who, in their snootiness thought they could do better. I saw the
interview with a senior British officer who admitted that nothing was found.
Not a shred of evidence for any conspiracy of any sort. No evidence for any
HQ of any organisation.


>
>> In my opinion it would, in any case, have taken years of construction to
>> build such a thing, with great effort, since it was in the middle of
>> nowhere. Use of explosives would probably have been detected.
>> Otherwise,
>> digging by hand would have taken even longer and perhaps large groups of
>> people and that would have been detected also.
>
> Many of the caves are natural. Not unlike lava tubes found in Hawaii and
> Galapagos.
>
DAS: The existence of a series of networked caves is of no consequence.


> I think it is all basically irrelevant though. The aim of these people is
> a
> new world caliphate. How do you achieve that, well, you do it by beating
> the
> biggest dog on the block first...bringing more and more fanatics to fold.
> You don't activate the crazies by attacking France, you do it by attacking
> the states. We are, after all, the devil incarnate.
>
> What astounds me about most of this is that it appears some countries in
> Europe don't understand that they are next on the list. This isn't about
> the
> US in particular, but rather about the US because it is strategically,
> though maybe not tactically, the best initial contact by which to energize
> those who believe the world should live beneath Muslim law (though I
> always find it funny that Muslim extremists think we are godless and
> Europeans, at least some, think we lean to heavily on Christian belief).
>
> I have never agreed with Bush's actions, but I have always marveled at how
> far ahead his vision of the importance of the last 4 years and their
> bearing
> on the future of the world is, than people like Chirac and Schroeder.
>
> Remember, it was Europe, in the last 90 years, that was the genesis of two
> horrific wars. And for the most part it was this same policy of
> non-provocation that gave room for these wars to develop.

DAS: Whilst appeasement of Hitler was a major error on the part of the
British government (no dispute about that anywhere, especially with 20:20
hindsight) I should like to know in what respect "non-provocation" played a
role in the start of WW I.
>

Quoth "Dori A Schmetterling" > in news:4218c635$0
:

> Actually there were a couple of programmes on UK TV the other
> week that put forward this contention that 'Al Quaeda' is not
> all-encompassing organisation and that the way it has been built
> up and used by governments to pass laws limiting civil liberties
> is quite Orwellian.

"The Power of Nightmares" -- a BBC2 three-parter documenting the
parallel rise of two similarly-driven terrorist movements: the
Straussian NeoCons and the Wahabi Jihadists.

Part 1 "Baby, It's Cold Outside"
<http://indypeer.org/show_file_page.php?file_id=363>
Part 2 "The Phantom Victory"
<http://indypeer.org/show_file_page.php?file_id=362>
Part 3 "The Shadows in the Cave"
<http://indypeer.org/show_file_page.php?file_id=361>

It's a very insightful series, and the thesis as presented does
explain a lot about how these two terrorist movements have been
packaged for US and UK consumption.

--
George Bush's War of Choice on Iraq is a totally unnecessary war.
Every life lost, every limb lost, every disfigurement, every
disability caused there is more blood on George W. Bush's hands,
and on the hands of everyone who voted for George W. Bush.
The more you know, the less likely you were to vote for Bush.
<http://shorterlink.com/?47TBP8>
Feeling a draft? <http://shorterlink.com/?930B5U>
For the facts on Iraq, see <http://optruth.org>.

'Al Qaeda' is Al CIA-Duh. A lot of people are waking up to that fact.

Name the place where Al Qaeda has struck that wasn't of immediate benefit
to Bush and the neo-cons who have taken over the US? 9/11 of course. The
Madrid bombings. The bombings in Turkey when Bush was in the UK. (btw, the
Madrid bombings produced the wrong outcome for the Bush administration: the
Socialists won. That enabled the Bush team to spin the tale that the
Socialists were behind the bombings.)

Scott
http://www.911Hoax.com


"Dori A Schmetterling" > wrote in message
...
> The OP might be a troll but it is an interesting topic nevertheless.
>
> Actually there were a couple of programmes on UK TV the other week that
put
> forward this contention that 'Al Quaeda' is not all-encompassing
> organisation and that the way it has been built up and used by governments
> to pass laws limiting civil liberties is quite Orwellian.
>
> There are groups of terrorists (obviously) but they act independently or,
at
> least, autonomously. The US and other governments handed certain
terrorist
> leaders a golden opportunity and now quite a few people claim to act on
> behalf of this ubiquitous Al Quaeda.
>
> Frankly, however much I am acutely aware of terrorism and its dangers I
have
> always had my doubts about this 'organisation'. The US and then the
British
> forces found absolutely nothing in Tora Bora (or wherever it was they were
> looking in Afghanistan) and there was no evidence of some network of caves
> in the Afghan hills.
>
> In my opinion it would, in any case, have taken years of construction to
> build such a thing, with great effort, since it was in the middle of
> nowhere. Use of explosives would probably have been detected. Otherwise,
> digging by hand would have taken even longer and perhaps large groups of
> people and that would have been detected also.
>
> Etc etc.
>
> DAS
>
> For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
> ---
>
> "Jeff Strickland" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "tech27" > wrote in message
> > o.verio.net...
> >> Not exactly. The theory is that Al Qaeda does exist, but it is made up
of
> >> all those Holocaust "victims" that never really died.
> >
> >
> > Wouldn't the youngest holocaust victims that never really died be
> > approaching 70 years of age by now?
> >
> > Maybe it's just me, but I am not sure how much damage a person can do
that
> > can barely get out of bed in the morning.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

"Dori A Schmetterling" > wrote in message
...

> DAS: Oh no? The UK government passed a law which, thankfully, is now
> being challenged in the courts, severely curtails the rights of
> individuals and which allowed the government to detain people on merest
> suspicion.

You misunderstand the purpose of my reply. It had nothing whatsoever to do
with laws passed or infringement of personal rights. If you read it again,
in
the context of your original statement I think you'll understand better.

> DAS: Western governments (maybe not all) are creating a bogeyman like
> they did in the fifities.

As I said somewhere else in my earlier reply, Bush was, and remains, way
ahead of most European governments, and now I see some citizens, in
recognizing the reality of the radical Islamic threat. Is it overstated? My
first reaction is "yes", though in a general sense I don't precisely know
how one explains the reality to those is denial. People the world over have
a tendency to forget crises in a matter of months. But what we have found
with Islamic fundamentalists, is that they have a longer gestation period
between desire and action. Hence I do think some governments keep the
experience alive in ways that could be called alarmist.

> There is no need for a climate of fear.

I can't speak for the rest of the world, but few here live in a climate of
fear, and if you think that is what the US is about, then you are quite a
bit off track. I would be the first to admit the US, as Hunter Thompson put
it, has a "dark, venal and undeniably violent" side to our individual and
national personality. We seldom react to pressure or attack with fear.
People here aren't afraid, instead they are angry...ready...good to go. It
is this reaction our government plays to, not one of fear. If you don't
understand that about us, then you really have a long way to go before
thinking you have any perspective on the US people at all.

If fear were the over-riding emotion in this country, then Bush could never
have been re-elected, nor would he have had a good portion a our population
to support his attack in Iraq. He got what he wanted because he, unlike you,
understands what drives Americans in times of death and destruction.

It is the difference between not wanting to die....and....wanting to live.

> Of course, it suits other regimes (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the lot) to
> join in. These terrorists are being given tremendous publicity and a
> status they don't have; that's what I mean by golden opportunity.

But you are wrong. They indeed, in the eyes of those who really matter, have
earned their moments of glory. They have played to the right sentiments and
have created their own acclaim. There isn't much the Western world has done
that accentuates this to any great degree.

> There was no such thing as a far-reaching organization (your comments
> about an 'alliance of ideas' not withstanding) Al Qaeda until Donald
> Rumsfeld, Tony Blair et al kept going on about it.

I guess we will see. I have not drawn complete conclusion on this point,
and frankly I don't know how you can. My suspicion is that the organization,
though limited in that sense by what it means to the Western man, does exist
and does work, but that it is neither as complicated as they suggest nor as
simple as you do. When I consider that much of the Middle East was tribal
and that much of the national borders that exist was established by Western
countries, it isn't difficult for me to see that Arab and Muslim alliances
will not be defined by our standards nor will they be active in ways we
might call organized. Though they may very well remain organized alliances
in tribal religious terms.

> DAS: The American forces found nothing, upon which the British army was
> sent in who, in their snootiness thought they could do better. I saw the
> interview with a senior British officer who admitted that nothing was
> found. Not a shred of evidence for any conspiracy of any sort. No
> evidence for any HQ of any organization.

My nephew was deployed with the 3rd ACR out of Fort Carson, returned and is
being deployed again, end of this month. Units of the 3rd were in Tora Bora
and they found tons of munitions, tons of documents, evidence of a
systematic defense, as well as organizational residence. I'm not certain
what your reference to "conspiracy" means, but it is without doubt the caves
were used much as typical buildings are used, to houses supplies, manpower
and leadership.

Now, was it some type of "headquarters"...nah, I don't think so. They were
in runaway mode so I doubt the caves were much more than the place to store
men and weapons which would be hardest for opposing forces to find and
investigate

I will take the word of the soldiers who were there long before I'd believe
anything you, Rummy or Blair ever had to say on this subject. I don't know
how much better info I could get than to speak with the men who were there.
Not men whose comments are shaped, muted and indeed censored, so as to
produce the desired effect. I generally have little belief in anything any
news agency publishes or distributes for our eyes and ears. Televised
interviews are almost always awash in the designs of the organization
broadcasting them. Simple editing almost makes this inevitable.

>>> In my opinion it would, in any case, have taken years of construction to
>>> build such a thing, with great effort, since it was in the middle of
>>> nowhere. Use of explosives would probably have been detected.
>>> Otherwise,
>>> digging by hand would have taken even longer and perhaps large groups of
>>> people and that would have been detected also.
>>
>> Many of the caves are natural. Not unlike lava tubes found in Hawaii and
>> Galapagos.
>>
> DAS: The existence of a series of networked caves is of no consequence.

Yes, it is of extreme consequence when your claim that it would have taken
years to build is rendered moot by their prior existence. Having spoken with
soldiers who were there it is clear to me the caves exist, they are
networked and they were used by remants of both the Taliban and Al Qaeda in
Afghanistan. At the bottom line, that is about all the US government ever
said about the caves. Nothing I have seen or heard indicates they thought it
was some type of headquarters.

> DAS: Whilst appeasement of Hitler was a major error on the part of the
> British government (no dispute about that anywhere, especially with 20:20
> hindsight) I should like to know in what respect "non-provocation" played
> a role in the start of WW I.

If you subscribe to the superficial view that Ferdinand's assassination
prompted WW1 (and that is evident by your reply) I don't think there is much
use in discussing this particular point with you.

I think the terms al-Qaida and asshole are completely interchangeable.

Well no, that isn't true, all al Qaida are assholes, but all assholes are
not al Qaida. I think there is an aversion to calling people assholes in the
media, so they call them al Qaida instead.




"Dori A Schmetterling" > wrote in message
...
> The OP might be a troll but it is an interesting topic nevertheless.
>
> Actually there were a couple of programmes on UK TV the other week that
put
> forward this contention that 'Al Quaeda' is not all-encompassing
> organisation and that the way it has been built up and used by governments
> to pass laws limiting civil liberties is quite Orwellian.
>
> There are groups of terrorists (obviously) but they act independently or,
at
> least, autonomously. The US and other governments handed certain
terrorist
> leaders a golden opportunity and now quite a few people claim to act on
> behalf of this ubiquitous Al Quaeda.
>
> Frankly, however much I am acutely aware of terrorism and its dangers I
have
> always had my doubts about this 'organisation'. The US and then the
British
> forces found absolutely nothing in Tora Bora (or wherever it was they were
> looking in Afghanistan) and there was no evidence of some network of caves
> in the Afghan hills.
>
> In my opinion it would, in any case, have taken years of construction to
> build such a thing, with great effort, since it was in the middle of
> nowhere. Use of explosives would probably have been detected. Otherwise,
> digging by hand would have taken even longer and perhaps large groups of
> people and that would have been detected also.
>
> Etc etc.
>
> DAS
>
> For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
> ---
>
> "Jeff Strickland" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "tech27" > wrote in message
> > o.verio.net...
> >> Not exactly. The theory is that Al Qaeda does exist, but it is made up
of
> >> all those Holocaust "victims" that never really died.
> >
> >
> > Wouldn't the youngest holocaust victims that never really died be
> > approaching 70 years of age by now?
> >
> > Maybe it's just me, but I am not sure how much damage a person can do
that
> > can barely get out of bed in the morning.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

"Bradburn Fentress" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dori A Schmetterling" > wrote in message
> ...
> > The OP might be a troll but it is an interesting topic nevertheless.
> >
> > Actually there were a couple of programmes on UK TV the other week that
> > put forward this contention that 'Al Quaeda' is not all-encompassing
> > organisation and that the way it has been built up and used by
governments
> > to pass laws limiting civil liberties is quite Orwellian.
>
> It's not built up that way in the US. Most people here understand quite
well
> that it is at most a loose conglomeration of independent groups working,
> sometimes, to the same end. Some of these people draw nothing more from Al
> Qaeda than enthusiam. I don't think many people in the US see Al Qaeda
(The
> Base), as a base of operations, but moreso a base for a running manifesto
of
> sorts. To me it isn't unlike the terror of the 70's and 80's in which
cells
> did not know about each other, though were obstensively working for the
same
> group and same end. Except that in this case one of Bin Laden's decree has
> been that fighting for the same end doesn't translate into fighting
> together.
>
> It is a lot easier for our government and others to say "Al Qaeda" than it
> is to explain the nuances of the organization each and every time they
speak
> to actions taken by groups related to Bin Ladens aims. One should not read
> too much into this abbreviated reference to terror.
>
> > There are groups of terrorists (obviously) but they act independently
or,
> > at least, autonomously. The US and other governments handed certain
> > terrorist leaders a golden opportunity
>
> I don't believe that for a second. The only opportunity we handed them is
> the freedom with which people move enter and move about our country. It's
> easy to bomb something here and it makes a big splash on the streets are
> Arabia, people who for the most part have little idea just how easy it is
to
> operate in the US.
>
> > and now quite a few people claim to act on behalf of this ubiquitous Al
> > Quaeda.
>
> I find it of little importance what they call themselves or who they
> blame their actions on. One has to remember that these people don't want
to
> get caught and deception would seem to assist them in that aim.
>
> > Frankly, however much I am acutely aware of terrorism and its dangers I
> > have always had my doubts about this 'organisation'. The US and then
the
> > British forces found absolutely nothing in Tora Bora (or wherever it was
> > they were looking in Afghanistan) and there was no evidence of some
> > network of caves in the Afghan hills.
>
> I have seen complete videos of networks of caves as well as munitions
> stashes and living accoutrments left in them. I don't know what you are
> talking about, but these caves are part of a long history of war in
> Afghanistan. Read Soviet General Pushtan's book on that war to find out
the
> reality of these caves and how they were networked.
>
> > In my opinion it would, in any case, have taken years of construction to
> > build such a thing, with great effort, since it was in the middle of
> > nowhere. Use of explosives would probably have been detected.
Otherwise,
> > digging by hand would have taken even longer and perhaps large groups of
> > people and that would have been detected also.
>
> Many of the caves are natural. Not unlike lava tubes found in Hawaii and
> Galapagos.
>
> I think it is all basically irrelevant though. The aim of these people is
a
> new world caliphate. How do you achieve that, well, you do it by beating
the
> biggest dog on the block first...bringing more and more fanatics to fold.
> You don't activate the crazies by attacking France, you do it by attacking
> the states. We are, after all, the devil incarnate.
>
> What astounds me about most of this is that it appears some countries in
> Europe don't understand that they are next on the list. This isn't about
the
> US in particular, but rather about the US because it is strategically,
> though maybe not tactically, the best initial contact by which to energize
> those who believe the world should live beneath Muslim law (though I
always
> find it funny that Muslim extremists think we are godless and Europeans,
at
> least some, think we lean to heavily on Christian belief).
>
> I have never agreed with Bush's actions, but I have always marveled at how
> far ahead his vision of the importance of the last 4 years and their
bearing
> on the future of the world is, than people like Chirac and Schroeder.
>
> Remember, it was Europe, in the last 90 years, that was the genesis of two
> horrific wars. And for the most part it was this same policy of
> non-provocation that gave room for these wars to develop.
>

Very insightful and to the point. Good job. You even managed to bash Bush
and look smart while doing it ;-)

I agree with you almost entirely. It isn't about Bush, its about the rest of
the world understanding that the USA is tops on the hit list, and everybody
else is next. I guess our only disagreement is that I agree with Bush's
actions because I get that everybody else is next if Bush doesn't do
something. Perhaps the specific action can be called into question, that's
certainly fair. But the idea of sitting on ones hands is simply untenable.