[quote]
Originally posted by: blackballed
Hate to burst your bubble, but years of the US supporting oppressive ME leadership like the Sauds, Shah of Iran, Saddam and Israel's expansion for self-interest is what brought you the terrorist program. If you have any interest in the future for children, grandchildren, etc. and even a basic understanding of economics, I suggest you look at their financial options living under a siege mentality without civil liberties. Hopefully, you've amassed substantial personal wealth to pass on so they won't be affected by severe financial inconveniences the general population will face due to this era of blind patriotism.

People may not have left the US due to disagreement with current administration policy, but they've certainly exported their money. The smart ones with intent, the general populace unknowingly.

 

One could go entirely on the definitions in the dictionaries, but then pretty much all militaries would be considered terrorists. I'm not sure there's anything more terrifying than a nuclear weapon. Going conventional, anyone here want to be on the business end of an M1A1? How about an M2 or Barrett? No thanks. Alas, that's not really what we mean when we speak of a terrorist.

In my mind a terrorist is a non-government (but they may be government-backed and/or funded) organization that operates outside of the normal "rules" of war, who conducts (or threatens) attacks on innocent civilians (non-government), to affect some kind of political change.

By this very definitions, our forefathers would be labelled as terrorists. Though, for the most part I believe they didn't attack non-combatants.

Could it also include a group that attacks in a tank group? Just a hypothetical.

I believe most people don't include formal militaries, or militias as terrorist groups. Though it doesn't mean they aren't.

I don't have a comment for that one, probably would fall under my previous remarks above.

Good question. Could they afford old Migs? Maybe. IIRC, Larry Ellison, the billionaire head of Oracle, has a number of toys (he's known for free spending on toys) including a Mig, as well as other aircraft, boats, etc. As they say, "Money Talks."

Could they use them? And would they be effective. Hard to say. Operating an air force with high performance jet aircract is increadibly expensive. They would also need to maintain a ground crew (probably the easiest part) as well as pilots (probably the hardest part.) Though, I would assume for the right price you could get yourself a good pilot. Even Iraq had some modern aircraft. However, their training wasn't good and if they even attempted to fly, were promptly shot down.

So I would lean to the "Sell" side of this. They might be useful in a domestic situation, say within a country. Going outside of the country, good luck. Probably wouldn't be successful, especially in a country that operates an AWACs system.


Best Car Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote

 

440 you have way too much free time on your hands. My apologies for dragging this discussion in all sorts of directions.

Blackandred, I over simplified it for a reason. If you would like I will put in a whole disertaion on Fatwa's, Mufti's and sects of Islam ( Sunni's, Shi'ites, Wahabbi's, Sufi's, the list goes on although not as long as christianity). Why did I over simplify it? First to see if you would take my suggestion and look things up, bravo to you, you did. I hate when people do that to me to, so sorry. My point being is that all of us need to do more research on both things we believe and things we disagree with. Don't take any of this stuff on either side for fact, look for multiple sources, preferably in public source material not reporters or professors opinions.

And the fatwa's issued to Al Qaeda, or more likely by Al Qaeda, are not correct according to Islamic tradition or the Qu'ran. BinLaden issued these Fatwa's, which I don't believe he is a Mufti but hey he marches to the beat of his own drum, not sure form reporting if he obtained them from one either. So they are not truely fatwa's but merely statements made by Al Qaeda and here's the kicker, so many people think that they are rulings of Islam (both Islamics and non-Islamics) from inaccurate reporting saying it was from an extremist cleric or imam, which still would not qualify. Have to have the mufti in there for a fatwa according to tradition. Now I also have to point out that the Islamic faith has no central ruling body so there is wiggle room on either side of the whole fatwa thing as well as most of the other tennants of Islam. But in effect what was issued was a free hall pass to terroists of the Islamic faith, again over simplified but it's the best way I could express what it is without the history and traditions lesson.

Fact is a fact Islam has been hijacked by extremist, he who screams the most and the loudest is one people associate with something, which ties the two together. Much the way Catholicism was the face of Christianity in the middle ages, and they were a rough group if you disagreed. The question is, are the true Islamics of the world going to put their foot down and stop this garbage, or are they so oppressed in their own country (Yes I know we have supported some of their leaders, the enemy of my enemy is my friend thing) that they can't say anything or they agree with it. It is not our job to prove that their faith is a peacful on, it is theirs.

Once again I have steered this conversation into another direction, but it's like having a cold beer, sometimes you just can't stop.

 

Originally posted by: georged
"...Hate to burst your bubble, but years of the US supporting oppressive ME leadership like....Israel's <u>expansion</u> for self-interest; is what brought you the terrorist program..."

Uhhhh...."yeah" (rolling eyes)
Why I thought setting the record straight in this crowd was a good idea....I'll never know.(should've read this thread a little more closely before jumping in here, no doubt [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-sad.gif[/img] ).

 

I think this is one of our biggest issues. We support whoever the opposing camp is of our enemy. Hussein (vs. Iran), bin Laden (vs. Soviet Union in Afghanistan), various South and Central American groups. We tend to stick our hands in a lot of other people's cookie jars so to speak.

Usually someone gets tweaked over it.

bin Laden was a "friendly" until the first Gulf War when he got ticked off that the Saudis (his home country) let us set up bases, and then keep bases. The Saudis stripped him of his citizenship in '94 over his actions. I wouldn't doubt if the US had a hand in that. I wouldn't doubt that that is the real reason behind bin Laden being so tweaked with us. Being upset with the US standard of living (beyond our means, some say) is a non-starter. He was from a very successful and rich family. One estimate put his wealth at $250M.

Best Car Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote

 

Oh c'mon take your bat and ball and get back in here already!! [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

Not sure if anyone else noticed but the amount of real information has increased considerably over the first so many pages, and the propaganda and party line spin seems to finally be losing its place here.

We dont all have to agree or have similar opinion, but I have to say its been really refreshing to see the debate change more towards fact than opinion.

I doubt the answer to world peace or conquering the terror threats to the US will be solved in a ATV forum, but you have to admit openly discussing the real issues and what has happened in the past without predjudice or being politically correct etc is really bringing some usefull info to the table here.

 

"Too much free time" thats not right, and far from the truth too. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

Thankfully I type very fast, or then again if I didnt there would be a lot less in my posts if I didnt [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]

Anyhow interesting post, and it would seem you have a good understanding of the Muslim religion.

 

The funny thing is, I'm in a car group (Daewoo) on another site that ended up having a little fight over the Muslim religion and it's followers. One of the very active members posted about the, oh hell what country...Denmark? had the cartoon contest about the Muslim Profit. It's interesting to get another person's view of the Islamic Faith who actually is Muslim.

Best Car Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote

 

Terrorism is defined by the US Department of Defense as "the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."
It all depends on which side youre on, as to whos a terrorist. The british thought Patrick Henry and Paul Revere were terrorists...we knew them as patriots. The middle east thinks we are terrorists...and we do fit the definition.


Back to the topic which started this thread.

This was written yesterday, by Russ Fiengold, and gets to the heart of the matter. Are we a country of laws...or a country of men?

Pre-1776 Mentality
by Senator Russ Feingold
Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 08:58:01 AM PDT

I've seen some strange things in my life, but I cannot describe the feeling I had, sitting on the House floor during Tuesday's State of the Union speech, listening to the President assert that his executive power is, basically, absolute, and watching several members of Congress stand up and cheer him on. It was surreal and disrespectful to our system of government and to the oath that as elected officials we have all sworn to uphold. Cheering? Clapping? Applause? All for violating the law?

The President and his administration continue their spin and media blitz in attempts to defend the fact that they broke, and continue to break, the law. Their weak and shifting justifications for doing so continue. The latest from the President seems to be that basically the FISA law, passed in 1978, is out of date. His decision that he can apparently disregard "old law" fits the pattern with the President and his administration. He's decided to disregard a statute (FISA) and the Constitution (the 4th Amendment) by continuing to wiretap Americans' phone calls and emails without the required warrant, while at the same time claiming powers of the presidency that do not exist. (Perhaps he feels the Constitution is too "old," as well.) This administration reacts to any questions about spying on American citizens by saying that those of us who stand up for our rights and freedoms are somehow living in a "pre-September 11th, 2001 world."

In fact, the President is living in a pre-1776 world.

Our Founders lived in dangerous times, and they risked everything for freedom. Patrick Henry said, "Give me liberty or give me death." The President's pre-1776 mentality is hurting America and fracturing the foundation on which our country has stood for 230 years. The President can't just bypass two branches of government, and obey only those laws he wants to obey. Deciding unilaterally which of our freedoms still apply in the fight against terrorism is unacceptable and needs to be stopped immediately.

Many of you saw this week's story in the Washington Post on the exchange Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and I had during his confirmation hearing in January of last year. Mr. Gonzales misled me and the Senate Judiciary Committee under oath about whether the President could spy on Americans without a warrant. (Many of you blogged about it when the story first broke and I thank you for getting the word out.) That exchange is extremely telling about the depths to which this administration will go to grab power. I look forward to a little more honesty from the Attorney General when he testifies about the spying program before the Judiciary Committee on Monday.

I don't have to tell you how important this issue is. It gets to the core of what we as a country are all about. We all agree that we must defeat the terrorists who threaten the safety and security of our families and loved ones. Why does this President feel we must sacrifice our freedoms to fight terrorism? This is a gut check moment for members of Congress. Do we sacrifice our liberty? Do we bow to those who try to use security issues for political gain? Do we stand and applaud when the President places himself above the law? Or, do we say enough?

Stop the power grab, stop the politics, stop breaking the law.

It's time to stand up - not to cheer, but to fight back.


The issue that started this thread was the illegal acts this administration has committed against american citizens. What id like to know, is what has happened to all the 'law and order' republicans? What about the 'rule of law'? Was it all lip service when that was the battle cry against Clinton? Am i the last republican for law and order?

What does it mean to be a republican these days? Pro corruption? Pro cryonyism? Pro corporations at the expense of individuals?

Its easy to just follow the big dog, but it takes courage to fight the big dog. The laws were broken and are continueing to be broken, and theres no outrage? Wheres the liberal press when you need it.

Speaking of which, ...if the media really was liberal as so many claim...why isnt this a front page story in america, instead of front page in england. This is from the Guardian



Blair-Bush deal before Iraq war revealed in secret memo

PM promised to be 'solidly behind' US invasion with or without UN backing

Richard Norton-Taylor
Friday February 3, 2006


Tony Blair told President George Bush that he was "solidly" behind US plans to invade Iraq before he sought advice about the invasion's legality and despite the absence of a second UN resolution, according to a new account of the build-up to the war published today.

A memo of a two-hour meeting between the two leaders at the White House on January 31 2003 - nearly two months before the invasion - reveals that Mr Bush made it clear the US intended to invade whether or not there was a second UN resolution and even if UN inspectors found no evidence of a banned Iraqi weapons programme.

"The diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning", the president told Mr Blair. The prime minister is said to have raised no objection. He is quoted as saying he was "solidly with the president and ready to do whatever it took to disarm Saddam".

The disclosures come in a new edition of Lawless World, by Phillipe Sands, a QC and professor of international law at University College, London. Professor Sands last year exposed the doubts shared by Foreign Office lawyers about the legality of the invasion in disclosures which eventually forced the prime minister to publish the full legal advice given to him by the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith.

The memo seen by Prof Sands reveals:

· Mr Bush told Mr Blair that the US was so worried about the failure to find hard evidence against Saddam that it thought of "flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft planes with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours". Mr Bush added: "If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach [of UN resolutions]".

· Mr Bush even expressed the hope that a defector would be extracted from Iraq and give a "public presentation about Saddam's WMD". He is also said to have referred Mr Blair to a "small possibility" that Saddam would be "assassinated".

· Mr Blair told the US president that a second UN resolution would be an "insurance policy", providing "international cover, including with the Arabs" if anything went wrong with the military campaign, or if Saddam increased the stakes by burning oil wells, killing children, or fomenting internal divisions within Iraq.

· Mr Bush told the prime minister that he "thought it unlikely that there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups". Mr Blair did not demur, according to the book.

The revelation that Mr Blair had supported the US president's plans to go to war with Iraq even in the absence of a second UN resolution contrasts with the assurances the prime minister gave parliament shortly after. On February 25 2003 - three weeks after his trip to Washington - Mr Blair told the Commons that the government was giving "Saddam one further, final chance to disarm voluntarily".

He added: "Even now, today, we are offering Saddam the prospect of voluntary disarmament through the UN. I detest his regime - I hope most people do - but even now, he could save it by complying with the UN's demand. Even now, we are prepared to go the extra step to achieve disarmament peacefully."

On March 18, before the crucial vote on the war, he told MPs: "The UN should be the focus both of diplomacy and of action... [and that not to take military action] would do more damage in the long term to the UN than any other single course that we could pursue."

The meeting between Mr Bush and Mr Blair, attended by six close aides, came at a time of growing concern about the failure of any hard intelligence to back up claims that Saddam was producing weapons of mass destruction in breach of UN disarmament obligations. It took place a few days before the then US secretary Colin Powell made claims - since discredited - in a dramatic presentation at the UN about Iraq's weapons programme.

Earlier in January 2003, Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, expressed his private concerns about the absence of a smoking gun in a private note to Mr Blair, according to the book. He said he hoped that the UN's chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, would come up with enough evidence to report a breach by Iraq of is its UN obligations.

Downing Street did not deny the existence of the memo last night, but said: "The prime minister only committed UK forces to Iraq after securing the approval of the House of Commons in a vote on March 18, 2003." It added the decision to resort to military action to ensure Iraq fulfilled its obligations imposed by successive security council resolutions was taken only after attempts to disarm Iraq had failed. "Of course during this time there were frequent discussions between the UK and US governments about Iraq. We do not comment on the prime minister's conversations with other leaders."

Sir Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat acting leader, said last night: "The fact that consideration was apparently given to using American military aircraft in UN colours in the hope of provoking Saddam Hussein is a graphic illustration of the rush to war. It would also appear to be the case that the diplomatic efforts in New York after the meeting of January 31 were simply going through the motions.

"The prime minister's offer of February 25 to Saddam Hussein was about as empty as it could get. He has a lot of explaining to do."

Prof Sands says Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Britain's UN ambassador at the time, told a foreign colleague he was "clearly uncomfortable" about the failure to get a second resolution. Foreign Office lawyers consistently warned that an invasion would be regarded as unlawful. The book reveals that Elizabeth Wilmshurst, the FO's deputy chief legal adviser who resigned over the war, told the Butler inquiry into the use of intelligence during the run-up to the war, of her belief that Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, shared the FO view. According to private evidence to the Butler inquiry, Lord Goldsmith told FO lawyers in early 2003: "The prime minister has told me that I cannot give advice, but you know what my views are".

On March 7 2003 he advised the prime minister that the Bush administration believed that a case could be made for an invasion without a second UN resolution. But he warned that Britain could be challenged in the international criminal court. Ten days later, he said a second resolution was not necessary.

And of coase the reason we're in iraq is the oil. Bush and cheny planned on attacking as soon as they hit the office. The first big meeting with industry was the oil companies. They are both oil men, and they are surrounded by oil industry professionals. 8 of the first 12 white house lawyers were from Enron alone.

They know and so do the oil companies that the bottom of the barrel of oil is going to happen alot sooner than anyone had ever thought. And if we know the peak is over...so do the chinese and the indians, and our game plan is to take over those oil rich countries and hold them, before the chinese and indians do. Plain and simple. Money and power is all that drives these people, and they could care less about religion. But if they can use religion to get the masses behind them, then thats what theyll do.

Did President Bush Break The Law? Here are the facts.

* FISA Was Passed in 1978 to Prescribe Procedures for Physical and Electronic Surveillance.
o The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ( FISA) of 1978 prescribes procedures for the physical and electronic surveillance and collection of "foreign intelligence information" between or among "foreign powers." (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht..._50_10_36.html)
o The highly classified FISA court was set up in the 1970s to authorize secret surveillance of espionage and terrorism suspects within the United States. Under the law setting up the court, the Justice Department must show probable cause that its targets are foreign governments or their agents. The FISA law does include emergency provisions that allow warrant-less eavesdropping for up to 72 hours if the attorney general certifies there is no other way to get the information. (“Judges on Surveillance Court To Be Briefed on Spy Program,” Washington Post, 12/22/05)

* According to the New York Times, Bush Authorized a Secret Spying Program Outside the FISA Systems.
”Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others without the court-approved warrants required for domestic spying, according to government officials. . . Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the intelligence agency has monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the past three years.” (“Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts,” New York Times, 12/16/05)

* In January, the Non-Partisan Congressional Research Service Reported that Bush Broke Law
“A Congressional Research Service [CRS] report concludes that: ‘the Bush administration’s limited briefings for Congress on the National Security Agency’s domestic eavesdropping without warrants are ‘inconsistent with the law.’’” (“Report Questions Legality of Briefings on Surveillance,” New York Times, 1/19/06)

* Legal Experts Repudiated President Bush’s Claim that He has Inherent Power for Wiretaps as Commander-in-Chief. Congress has the authority to regulate electronic surveillance in the United States. Under FISA the President must seek court approval for electronic surveillance.
A letter to Congress from a group of legal experts including Lawrence Tribe, David Cole, Ronald Dworkin, and others concluded: “But even conceding that the President in his role as Commander in Chief may generally collect "signals intelligence" on the enemy abroad, Congress indisputably has authority to regulate electronic surveillance within the United States, as it has done in FISA. Where Congress has so regulated, the President can act in contravention of statute only if his authority is exclusive, that is, not subject to the check of statutory regulation.” (“On NSA Spying: A Letter to Congress,” The New York Review of Books, 2/9/06)

* The Non-Partisan Congressional Research Service Repudiated President Bush’s Claim that the NSA Program was Authorized after September 11th.
A Congressional Research Service [CRS] report concludes, “that Bush's assertion that Congress authorized such eavesdropping to detect and fight terrorists does not appear to be supported by the special resolution that Congress approved after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, which focused on authorizing the president to use military force. ” (“Report Rebuts Bush on Spying; Domestic Action’s Legality Challenged,” Washington Post, 1/7/06)

* Contrary to Administration Claims, Congress Was Not Informed of Wiretapping Program – Another Likely Infringement of the Law.
White House Counselor Dan Bartlett claimed: “We went to Congress. We talked to the chairman and the ranking member of the intelligence committee. We talked to the leadership, both Republican and Democrat, House and Senate. These very discussions happened three to four years ago… The fact of the matter is, everybody came to the same conclusion, that what the president was doing was legal and was necessary.” (CNN American Morning, 1/23/06, http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...23/ltm.08.html)
But Senator Jay Rockefeller released a sealed 7/03 letter that warned of “profound oversight issues” with warrant-less spying program: “For the last few days, I have witnessed the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of State, and the Attorney General repeatedly misrepresents the facts. The record needs to be set clear that the Administration never afforded members briefed on the program an opportunity to either approve or disapprove the NSA program. The limited members who were told of the program were prohibited by the Administration from sharing any information about it with our colleagues, including other members of the Intelligence Committees.” ( http://thinkprogress.org/wp-images/upload/Intell.pdf)
And in a separate report from the one described above, the Congressional Research Office concluded that “the Bush administration’s limited briefings for Congress on the National Security Agency’s domestic eavesdropping without warrants are ‘inconsistent with the law.’” (“Report Questions Legality of Briefings on Surveillance,” New York Times, 1/19/06)

* Contrary to Administration Claims, NSA Spying Uncovered “No Imminent Plots . . . Inside the United States.”
“The law enforcement and counterterrorism officials said the program had uncovered no active Qaeda networks inside the United States planning attacks. ‘There were no imminent plots - not inside the United States,’ the former F.B.I. official said.” (“Spy Agency Data after 9/11 Let F.B.I. to Dead Ends,” New York Times, 1/17/06)
Contrary to Administration Claims, NSA Spying Program was Broad and Unfocused. “In the anxious months after the Sept. 11 attacks, the National Security Agency began sending a steady stream of telephone numbers, e-mail addresses and names to the F.B.I. in search of terrorists. The stream soon became a flood, requiring hundreds of agents to check out thousands of tips a month.‘We’d chase a number, find it’s a schoolteacher with no indication they’ve ever been involved in international terrorism - case closed,’ said one former F.B.I. official…After you get a thousand numbers and not one is turning up anything, you get some frustration.’” (“Spy Agency Data after 9/11 Let F.B.I. to Dead Ends,” New York Times, 1/17/06)

* Numerous Legal Scholars and Republican Leaders say President Bush Broke the Law.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW SCHOLARS AND FORMER GOV. OFFICIALS: “Although the program’s secrecy prevents us from being privy to all of its details the Justice Department’s defense of what it concedes was secret and warrantless electronic surveillance of persons within the United States fails to identify any plausible legal authority for such surveillance. Accordingly the program appears on its face to violate existing law.” (“On NSA Spying: A Letter to Congress,” The New York Review of Books, 2/9/06)
SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM: “If he has the authority to go around the FISA court, which is a court to accommodate the law of the war of terror, the FISA Act was–created a court set up by the chief justice of the United States to allow a rapid response to requests for surveillance activity in the war on terror. I don’t know of any legal basis to go around that . There may be some, but I’m not aware of it.” (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/18/no-legal-basis/)
SENATOR ARLEN SPECTER: “‘There is no doubt that this is inappropriate,’ said Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), who favored the Patriot Act renewal but said the NSA issue provided valuable ammunition for its opponents.”(“On Hill, Anger and Calls for Hearings Greet News of Stateside Surveillance,” Washington Post, 12/17/05)
GROVER NORQUIST: “Referring to what some see as a conflict between fighting vicious terrorists and upholding all civil liberties, Norquist said: ‘It’s not either/or. If the president thinks he needs different tools, pass a law to get them. Don’t break the existing laws .’ ” (“Political opposites aligned against Bush wiretaps,” San Francisco Chronicle, 1/26/06)
JOHN MCCAIN : “Wallace: But you do not believe that currently he has the legal authority to engage in these warrant-less wiretaps. McCain: You know, I don’t think so, but why not come to Congress?” (Fox News Sunday, 12/22/05)
CHUCK HAGEL : “Chuck Hagel said he is looking forward to congressional hearings on the legal justification for the secretive National Security Agency program. He remains unconvinced that Bush could allow the program without fully consulting with the courts or Congress.” (“Hagel Urges Bush to Explain Spy Program,” Associated Press, 1/29/06) “If he needs more authority, he just can’t unilaterally decide that that 1978 law is out of date and he will be the guardian of America and he will violate that law.” (This Week, 1/29/06)
CONGRESSMAN BOB BARR: “It’s bad to be spying on Americans apparently in violation of federal laws against doing it without court order. So it's bad all around, and we need to get to the bottom of this. . . And if we're going to say, well, simply because some people think that this is a new threat, we're going to throw the constitution and specific laws out the window and let a president rule by the seat of his pants, is extremely dangerous, and it's uncalled for. The president had full authority to have done this under the law. He apparently chose not to, and we need to find out why? . . . Well, I am because the law provides very vast authority, and for the president, or Frank Gaffney to justify the president saying even though I have the authority under the law to do it, I have to take certain steps, I'm just going to ignore that, puts us in a situation where we've seen in decades past, with Mr. Nixon, with President Lincoln and others, President Truman, when they overstep their bounds, they need to be held accountable.

 

All good and valid information, but seemingly few Americans are prepared to stand up for their rights when promised false safety from a circumstance (terrorism) created by US foreign policy. Regardless of whether or not Bin Laden is just a bandit or spiritual leader, as long as the US supports oppressive governments such as the Sauds, facilitates Israeli expansion and continues to chase Iraq into Iran's arms, his followers, funding and franchises increase on a logarithmic manner. All we're doing is following Bin Laden's goals of pursuing fiscal insolvency while giving up our civil liberties.