They do it slow first, then get worse. Americans don't, but most do.
Evidence? I recommend that you read the memoirs of the ex Israeli Mossad chief interrogator Michael Koubi. Until you do, you'll continue to spout rubbish on a subject you clearly know nothing about.
You did know that right? They got stopped because we forced them to stop.
If you genuinely think that's the case, you're more paranoid than I thought. That was one of the largest in scale and best executed terrorist plots ever conceived and it killed 3,000. For them to repeat that again and again. Well, you do the math. What's 2,000,000 divided by 3,000. You really think Al Qaeda have the organisational manpower, resources, or indeed the will to do so. The aim with these attacks isn't to inflict the maximum number of casualties, but to inflict a symbolic victory. That's why they went for the buildings they hit. They could have just rammed it into a sports stadium or train station if they wanted to kill more.
And the rest of Al Quaida? I don't think so. Power assumes from the top down. Hierarchies never work it a 'Cut off the head' fashion. You have to kill the whole body, not just the head
If we're using this analogy, then the Taliban and Al Qaeda have completely separate bodies. They are different groups. It's just US ignorance to think all Muslims from the Middle East who don't bend to the will of the US are lumped into the same group.
Get attacked = fight back. Simple as that.
The Afghan state did not attack you. It was carried out by Saudi Arabians, Lebanese and Egyptian terrorists, funded by Osama Bin Laden who was living in Afghanistan being sheltered by Pakistanis. The Afghan state had nothing to do with it.
To draw a parrallel, Northern Ireland. The IRA and other groups had been blowing up the British for years. The British however did not invade the Republic or Ireland. That's simply not how international law works. If a terrorist cell attacks your country, you do not get to invade the country they are hiding in. You gain the right to extradite them, and then send in a task force. You don't go about starting a new Vietnam by dismantling the government of that country.
We know who to kill, and when to do it. Our current methods are the best methods of warfare around, besides sitting around and waiting for attacks, which would kill us faster than them.
If our weapons are so precise, care to explain what we are still doing in Afghanistan 9 years on?
Seriously, go watch the news or read up about what's actually going on. The number of civilian casualties during the initial bombing of Afghanistan was horrendous at between 3,1000 and 3,6000. Precision weaponry indeed.
We, Americans didn't lose the war in Vietnam, the South Vietnamese did. The fall of Saigon was 4/30/75, two years after we, USA, pulled out.
Regardless of the technicality, the North Vietnamese victory was absolute, and the defeat of the US was abject. You lost
yourwar in Vietnam at any rate. You simply didn't have the bottle the North Vietnamese did, to sustain massive casualties.
Say what you want about GW Bush but he was correct in how he handled Afghanistan and Iraq as far as the UN is concerned and Pelosi may have been wearing ear plugs on the day she witnessed the Whitehouse briefing on interrogation tactics the President would sanction but make no mistake, she approved them too.
Don't even get me started on Iraq. In Afghanistan the US were disadvised to invade by all the international groups operating there and did so anyway. As for the UN 1) the US controls the UN, so it doesn't matter what the verdict actually was. 2) After asking for the extradition of Osama Bin Laden the Taliban government told them they would have an answer in 3 days. On the 2nd day the US invaded, a fragrant breach of international law. The US has no right to gaurantee an extradition, much less remove the right of a sovreign state to choose who it gives to other countries. If the Taliban had said,''No way in hell'' the situation would have been different. As it was they didn't even wait for an answer.
I am proud to be an American and considering the progress this young country has made, and led the rest of the world in making, you should be too.
This isn't about the technical progress the US has made since it was born, but the legitimacy of the Iraq and Afghan wars. If you resort to factually empty emotional appeals to some vague sense of patriotism to justify it, it's probably not a war you should be fighting.
Being a world leader in inflicting terror is not something to be proud of. You are bloody good at it though.
