Terrorists: Leader is spoiled son of a powerful politician, from extremely wealthy oil family.

Spoiled son of a Prince. A prince is an hereditary title, supports class divisions and unaccountability.

Western government: Leader is spoiled son of a powerful politician, from extremely wealthy oil family.

Son of an ex-politician, who is an irrelevancy now. His fathers position has accountability and limitations, unlike that of a prince.
Also, he is in his fathers position now. Bin Laden is not in his fathers position.

Terrorists: Leader has declared holy war (Jihad) against his enemies, believes any nation not with him is against him, and god is on his side.

Jihad literally means "struggle". It is an overused word, and is designed to rise muslims in even the United States to create an Islam vs West scenario. Bin Laden and Hussein repeatedly use this word.

Western government: Leader has declared holy war (Crusade) against his enemies, believes any nation not with him is against him, and god is on his side.

Mentioned the word crusade once, then backed away from statement. Designed to prevent Islam vs the West scenario.


Terrorists: Operate through clandestine organisation (Al-qaida) with agents in many countries, uses bombing, assassination, and other terrorist tactics.

The Terrorists ARE a clanestine organisation whose only existance is to eventuate destruction.

Western government: Operate through clandestine organisation (CIA) with agents in many countries, uses bombing, assassination and other governmental tactics.

These clandestine forces are a tiny precentage of the nations population. It's existence is to prevent eventuations of destruction.


Terrorists: Leader was not elected by a majority of the people in a free and fair democratic election.

Who ever said a Terrorist organisation was democratic? It's like a private company. An Empire. His rule is normal for such organisations.

Western government..... you get the picture.......
This was a perversion of the usual method. An abberation. His rule is abnormal for such entities.

Oh yeah, and Bush runs a country. Considerably differnt to an organisation. Some would call a country a dis-organisation. ;)

Hmmm, this post is mostly made to respond to Neb's "We only need to kill one person..." idea. Not that I have anything against you Neb but I think it is falling into a bit of a trap.

Terrorism is not one person, Al-Queda (how do you spell that anyway? I seem to see a different spelling everywhere I look) is not one person. Osama Bin Laden is much more of a figurehead to the west than to the fundamentalists themselves. We have a tendancy to find a person and then demonise him. We know now that Saddam Hussein was not the only figure involved in the Gulf War, Hitler was not the only Nazi calling the shots, and Stalin was both proceeded and succeeded by murderers. I am not saying that we are being too hard on Bin Laden but I am saying that his death will not set back Al-Queda that much. They have a strong ideological backing that does not depend on a leader, it depends on global circumstances that the members do not agree with.

Also, why is it that when Sharon rolls tanks over Palestinians the world collectively thinks "Thats gonna cause trouble...", and the same for when Unionists blow up a Fish shop in Belfast. But when the US starts going after a terrorist organisation the response is instead "Well they have justification...". Years of terrorist conflict in other areas of the world have basically taught us that whatever the justification it still solves nothing. In Northern Ireland the vast majority of Nationalists supported the Good Friday Agreement even though it was arguably very unjust to them in favour of the Loyalists. After so many dead people they realised that the problem was not being solved.

In my personal view the west has the opportunity now to solve this conflict in another way. But that opportunity has not been taken and it doesn't take a genius to work out that "An eye for an eye" is probably going to come next.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:
Terrorism is not one person, Al-Queda (how do you spell that anyway? I seem to see a different spelling everywhere I look) is not one person. Osama Bin Laden is much more of a figurehead to the west than to the fundamentalists themselves. We have a tendancy to find a person and then demonise him. We know now that Saddam Hussein was not the only figure involved in the Gulf War, Hitler was not the only Nazi calling the shots, and Stalin was both proceeded and succeeded by murderers. I am not saying that we are being too hard on Bin Laden but I am saying that his death will not set back Al-Queda that much. They have a strong ideological backing that does not depend on a leader, it depends on global circumstances that the members do not agree with.

Also, why is it that when Sharon rolls tanks over Palestinians the world collectively thinks "Thats gonna cause trouble...", and the same for when Unionists blow up a Fish shop in Belfast. But when the US starts going after a terrorist organisation the response is instead "Well they have justification...". Years of terrorist conflict in other areas of the world have basically taught us that whatever the justification it still solves nothing. In Northern Ireland the vast majority of Nationalists supported the Good Friday Agreement even though it was arguably very unjust to them in favour of the Loyalists. After so many dead people they realised that the problem was not being solved.

<hr></blockquote>


I don't know about that view Barry. I think one man, especially at the head, can make all the difference. Historically movements and armies have often revolved around a central figure, that once removed collapses the entity they were supporting/founding/driving.

David Koresh? Hitler? Alexander the not-so-great?

Would Nazism have existed without Hitler?

Granted he ruled, as does any ruler with the sufferage and support (however that is gained/coerced), of those under him. Granted that circumstances allow a movement to birth and flourish, but I think the power of one person shouldn't be underestimated.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Neb:


Really? I thought the US was the mightiest and most undefeatable country in the world! You truly mean they can be defeated? *gasp* 'Tis impossible!

<hr></blockquote>


The whole point is to use land troops when you know that nothing can crawle down there. And troops will be invincible :D .
But this is one thing I dont understand - why anybody wants to send land troops there? War is not a place for fair-play.

Yorick is right, once again

Silver Cheetah, I hope your post is a joke

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Yorick:



Would Nazism have existed without Hitler?
<hr></blockquote>

Hugh, would you mind furthur demostrate this point? [img]smile.gif[/img]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by DM of FAoIW:
Yorick is right, once again

Silver Cheetah, I hope your post is a joke<hr></blockquote>

And if it wasn't?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by skywalker:


And if it wasn't?<hr></blockquote>

lets just see what she says

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by DM of FAoIW:


lets just see what she says<hr></blockquote>

I can see it as a joke and as not. If it's her opinion...what's the big deal?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by skywalker:


I can see it as a joke and as not. If it's her opinion...what's the big deal?<hr></blockquote>

Then there is no big deal, that is her opinion and she is entitled to it, we can have our own opinions, about both her and her opinions, but that should not interfere with her having her opinion.