Right, your pseudo-intellectualism is in full bloom.
No, I didn't see that section as a mandate that he had issued, nor was Western Christianity or secularism listed as a reason for the initiation of AQ aggression. Even if it was, I suspect that he'd find far fewer individuals willing to aid him in the task of forcible conversion of the inhabitants of Western countries to Islam, both because of the lack of feasibility of that approach and because of the aforementioned fact that polling indicates a higher degree of opposition to U.S. policy than U.S. principles of religious pluralism or governmental secularism. As noted, he didn't attack Sweden.
If you are choosing to remain ignorant of the contents of the letter I linked, there is no point in your pseudo-intellectual circle jerk.
No, you haven't "proved" anything. There are three factors that you've apparently chosen to desperately ignore at all costs:
1. The plane hijackings and crashings were acts of mass murder, but alone, they did not pose a threat to widespread U.S. civil rights or liberties as a whole. It's thus disingenuous to pretend that the mere right to speak and express sentiments freely was threatened by those actions.
How many should die before we view it as a threat? Perhaps they should start with your family first this time around.
2. There is little evidence that OBL or Al Qaeda were strongly opposed to civil rights or liberties in the U.S. alone, or that their interest in attacking U.S. targets was based on ardent opposition to such rights and liberties. Rather, the apparent reality is that they were opposed to U.S. government Middle Eastern policy, most significantly financial aid to the Israeli government and direct military presence and interventionism in other parts of the Middle East. Even if this were not the case, the populations that serve as their primary bases of recruitment indicate opposition to U.S. government foreign policy rather than domestic "principles."
Again, I am not interested in a pseudo-intelletual circle jerk, if you refuse to acknowledge the contents of the letter and the links I provided, there is no point.
3. Even if the first two points were untrue (and there's no compelling reason to believe they are), senior elements of the Taliban opposed the interventionism of Al Qaeda, and Mullah Omar was known to be a foe of the strategy of attacking the U.S. The forcible removal from governmental office and continued conflict with the Taliban thus cannot be conceptualized as a necessary defense of civil rights and liberties in the U.S. (especially in light of the fact that AQ themselves poses no substantial threat to those), though it is arguably justifiable on the grounds of the domestic repression of the Taliban.
yet he refused to hand him over. He chose poorly.
Matthew 10:34Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
As mentioned, this reality is certainly confirmed by opinion polling on the matter. Zogby International's Impressions of America 2004: A Six-Nation Survey (go to page 90), summarizes this well.
So it's certainly not a matter of mere opposition to "decadent" values, since foreign policy obviously occupies the far stronger role.When asked whether their overall attitude toward the US was shaped by their feelings about American values or US policies, in all six countries, an overwhelming percentage of respondents indicated that policy played a more important role.
The article doesn't say how many enemy kills were scored. If the Marines hold to the norm of a 20 to 1 kill ratio, then they probably smoked 30+ Tallies. I would say that's a good day.
Semper Fi and Happy hunting!
Hey Danarhea, here is some updates from CNN on the whole thing:
Marines targeting Taliban in Afghan push - CNN.com
I think the marines are doing a wonderful job. The strategy of pressuring the Taliban from both sides, that is with Pakistan hitting them as well, we can make-up the ground lost by diverting troops to Iraq. Semper Fi!!!!