[The Good Reverend Roger]

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

Apparently nothing. If we just capture Bin Laden and stopthe Taliban, it'll all come to an end, right?

So wait, a war on a tactic is silly, but a war on two monolithic organizations will solve the whole problem? I want to catch Bin Laden and the gang just as bad as you do, but "Al Qaeda n Iraq" and "Al Qaeda in England" need Bin Laden at this point like Microsoft needs Bill Gates. Al Qaeda has become a franchise like Subway, and all you need to do now is kill infidels and hate Israel/America/the West in order to carry the banner. You have me all wrong. While I do believe there is a binding philosophy that makes them a potentially dangerous coordinated threat, it's there anarchic character that makes them so dangerous.

But there [i]are[/] sources. There are intellectual sources, as well as financial sources. And these actors are organized, well funded, and driven.

Bin Laden helped fortify Saudi Arabia's borders against Saddam during the Gulf War. Less than a decade later he was talking to agents from his country. Ya know, the enemy of my enemy, etc.

You put far too much faith in things you consider to be absolute, like alliances and clans. The story of the Middle East is full of strange bed fellows dealing with what were perceived as greater threats at the time.

Saddam was an opportunist and a mad man. The fact that he could care less in reality about Islam only enhances the likelihood that he'd exploit it for its violent potential in my mind.

See, here is where we differ. You want to "solve" the problem (good luck with that). I just want revenge. Hell, had we dealt with Afghanistan properly, the Muslims would have found someone else to play with.

Lord Kitchener said it best: "The Arab is at your feet or at your throat."