Presumably the goal of childish little men running around the desert subscribing to a literalist interpretation of an archaic scribe to make themselves feel important was to bring down the mighty west, particularly, America. And while they did manage to kill 3,000 people in two fell swoops, the overall results are, frankly, not in their favor.
For while they had an immediate and initial success, over the next few years, all they managed to do was kill their fellow countrymen in a spate of suicide bombings.
I do not wish to hear from the BAF (blame America first crowd) because if 9-11 never happened, I doubt we would have gone into Iraq, but I do wish to point out that basically Al Qaeda has more or less caused the opposite effect they were intending because, well frankly, they're disgusting evil people that nobody, even Muslims in the Mideast, don't like. And particularly so, since it's primarily been Muslims in the Mideast getting killed by all the terrorist attacks, and three times as many as in America.
If anything, this is a call for moderate Muslims to start fighting back and cause a reformation within the Islamic faith. I have no skin in the game one way or another as I largely detest all religions, but if you're going to go and get yourselves killed over something, you might want to purge from your ranks the radical nutjobs blowing up your fellow countrymen in the process.
I would also like to point out that, despite what brainwashed, non-thinking liberals would say, these charts are empirical proof of George Bush's success and why history will treat him kindly. Even I don't like GW that much, but you cannot deny (though some will concoct conspiracy theories as to why they might) George Bush has succeeded on the war on terror.
2 comments:
That's deaths by region, not nationality. They're not killing us over here because we went over there. US deaths in the middle east are represented on that graph as "Middle East".
Suicide bombers *are* killing far more Arabs than Americans, but that's kind of how it always is. I still think it's foolish to use body count as a measure of who's winning. Unless you're fighting a grinding war of attrition with genocide as your goal, people killed is not really a good measure of progress even in a conventional war.
Since our goal in Iraq is to stabilize the place not raze it to the ground, we should be aiming for *fewer* people that we have to kill, not more of them.
As you always are, correct. But my point is to point out to the moderate or even the radical muslims that all OBL has done is bring about more death to Muslims. Not that I'm some pacifist kind of poofy guy, but if you're going to randomly kill people and inspire idiot radicals to do the same, it's going to probably hurt your own more than your enemy.
Post a Comment