http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/04/30/terrorism.state.dept/

Who's lying now????

__________________
The last time this country mixed politics with religion, people got burned at the stake.

Here's the WHOLE quote:

The claim is still valid today. The war on terror will not be won by spending all our effort to get one guy. It's a lot bigger than bin Laden.

Dang it...what was his name???

__________________
The last time this country mixed politics with religion, people got burned at the stake.

Ramzi Yousef... What's your point?

No..it was "dead or alive" Bin Laden...you know..the guy they had focussed too tightly on in 2000......

__________________
The last time this country mixed politics with religion, people got burned at the stake.

Actually, it was Ramzi Yousef who was believed to be the mastermind. He was convicted of "seditious conspiracy" to bomb the WTC. Eyad Ismail was also tried for the bombing. Bin Laden wasn't there, nor do I know of anyone other than you who ever thought that he was.

the WTC I was referring to happened on 9/11....

__________________
The last time this country mixed politics with religion, people got burned at the stake.

Oh, I see. So you're saying if we had focusing tightly on bin Laden and only bin Laden (part of the elephant) ... instead of concentrating on terrorism more broadly (the whole beast), we could have avoided 9/11?

Not sure I agree

It's just liberal obtfuscation. Everything must be taken at absolute face value; that is, unless liberals say it, then it was the thought that counted, it was the details, it was what was between the lines that mattered. The homework ate my dog, I didn't say that, I didn't mean it that way. Words become tricks to be used to prove whatever it is they stand for at any particular minute.

We wouldn't even be talking about this if Clinton had taken OBL when he was offered up...but you are right, it is the whole elephant we are interested in. We get OBL, and some other fool will take his place, no doubt about it.

Heh been watching the post, think you both have Valid points. Then you got the spinning word smith in on the post. I was wondering how long it would it take before someone tried to derail the point of you two and your conversation. I guess you got what you wanted.

I think you both are correct in many ways. I can see the original point that was the scape goating of OBL who did become the prime focus and legitimizer of our crusade into the middle east once the "actual" mastermind had been caught. We still wanted to invade and history shows that with our invasion itself. I wonder though why not have this same zeal on those that harbor terrorists. Why haven't we sent troops to Iran, Kuwait, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and everywhere else a terrorist has slept that means America as well... What was so important about this one nation and why did we attack It and none of the other equally culpable nations?

Terrorists suck, I just don't get how invading this one nation has really stopped anything. It would seem more of a rally point for future attacks against our country, since it is these questions that sit in the minds of our allies as well as our enemies. None the less I have only questions where what we need is answers. I just do not comprehend how destroying our enemies has eased our lives in any real manner since the idea of civilized conversation is to illuminate those whom dwell in darkness, not to silence them until another forms. We can keep playing whack-a-mole with the hammer of democracy whenever problems arise or we can invest in actual understanding. I can only hope that minds can be changed, since I haven't always thought what I now think. If we are truly the greatest and most progressive nation within our world. Perhaps we have a responsibility to others that would follow us to lead with more understanding and less terrorism of our own. For it is those that admire us the most that emulate us within their attacks and displays of force.