[Vision2020] Bin Laden's Bait, Orwell's Logic

Tue, 11 May 2004 19:52:58 EDT

--part1_159.34d1c85c.2dd2c15a_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Visionaries:

It is rather amazing that even if you agree invading Iraq and toppling Sadda=
m=20
was the correct and moral thing to do, when you consider the chances for=20
creating a better Iraq than existed it was a very risky idea. Even if you as=
sume=20
the logic of the War on Terror, that we had to invade to protect America fro=
m=20
terrorism, there was a high possibility invading Iraq would increase the dan=
ger=20
to American's from terrorism, not decrease it. =A0 In fact a very good case=20=
can=20
be make that the US is playing right into the strategy of Osama Bin Laden,=20
who might have wanted to bait the US into taking brutal military action agai=
nst=20
the Muslim world, further polarizing Muslims against the US and into his=20
extremist Islamic camp!

Yet supporters of the Bush administrations approach to fighting terror keep=20
repeating how we must vanquish the enemy, an enemy that has over a billion=20
people in the Muslim world as potential allies to the "terrorists," Muslims=20
becoming more outraged by the US as the War on Terror continues. =20

But from an Orwellian point of view, this is perfect for maintaining the War=
=20
on Terror as a permanent state of war to be used to control the masses.  The=
=20
War on Terror is a self fulfilling prophecy that guarantees new terrorists w=
ill=20
be motivated to strike the US indefinitely into the future.

Ted Moffett

--part1_159.34d1c85c.2dd2c15a_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><HTML><FONT  SIZE=3D2 PTSIZE=3D10 FAMILY=
=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0">Visionaries:<BR>
<BR>
It is rather amazing that even if you agree invading Iraq and toppling Sadda=
m was the correct and moral thing to do, when you consider the chances for c=
reating a better Iraq than existed it was a very risky idea. Even if you ass=
ume the logic of the War on Terror, that we had to invade to protect America=
 from terrorism, there was a high possibility invading Iraq would increase t=
he danger to American's from terrorism, not decrease it. =A0 In fact a very=20=
good case can be make that the US is playing right into the strategy of Osam=
a Bin Laden, who might have wanted to bait the US into taking brutal militar=
y action against the Muslim world, further polarizing Muslims against the US=
 and into his extremist Islamic camp!<BR>
<BR>
Yet supporters of the Bush administrations approach to fighting terror keep=20=
repeating how we must vanquish the enemy, an enemy that has over a billion p=
eople in the Muslim world as potential allies to the "terrorists," Muslims b=
ecoming more outraged by the US as the War on Terror continues.&nbsp; <BR>
<BR>
But from an Orwellian point of view, this is perfect for maintaining the War=
 on Terror as a permanent state of war to be used to control the masses.&nbs=
p; The War on Terror is a self fulfilling prophecy that guarantees new terro=
rists will be motivated to strike the US indefinitely into the future.<BR>
<BR>
Ted Moffett<BR>
</FONT></HTML>
--part1_159.34d1c85c.2dd2c15a_boundary--