1iChangchun wrote:

As London recovers from the terrorist attack of July 7, nearly everyone has
fingered al Qaeda as the culprit. This is true, as far as it goes. Al Qaeda
itself has claimed responsibility for the attack, and has proved to everyone
why the War on Terror must continue until Osama bin Laden and his cohorts
are defeated.

However, those who are willing to leave it at al Qaeda do not nearly go far
enough. Although the attack in London was not nearly as sophisticated as
either the March 11, 2004 attack in Madrid or the September 11, 2001 attack
against New York and Washington, it did require organization, timing,
planning, and money. This could not be accomplished by an organization
scrambling for its own survival in Afghanistan or western Pakistan. With
this attack, al Qaeda has revealed that they have a new base of operations
from which it can continue to strike against the free world. Increasingly,
it is becoming clear that this base is in Iran, which means al Qaeda is
surviving, and recovering, at the behest of the Iranian mullahcracy’s
geopolitical ally and military benefactor: the Chinese Communist Party.

This illustrates a BIG error in Western thinking about terrorism: the
terrorists couldn't POSSIBLY accomplish what they accomplish without the
support of a state, the idea goes. Iran fits the bill, but they aren't
rich enough, so say the "experts", so China must be funding and
equipping the terrorists. In reality, Osama has the financial support of
many of the oil sheiks the US likes to think is on its side. They have
bottomless pockets, thanks to America's bottomless appetite for oil, and
they're funneling lots of that money to Osama. Plus, it doesn't take a
state to plan a terrorist attack. A small group of American men, maybe
as few as two, managed to pull off the bombing of the federal building
in Oklahoma City in 1995 without the support of any state. They used
ammonium nitrate fertilizer and gasoline to build a bomb that leveled
the building. It killed 168 people and at the time was the worst act of
terrorism ever on American soil. A terrorist attack can be carried out
by a small group of people who are simply inspired by Osama's fiery
rhetoric. Now 9-11 is a different story. Osama had a base in Afghanistan
from which to plan, deep pockets in the form of those oil sheiks, and
men willing to fly planes into buildings. It has been estimated that the
9-11 plot cost $100,000, an amount that would be a drop in the bucket
to, say, the Saudi royal family, known backers of terror. All the
elements were the safe haven in Afghanistan, financial backing from
the sheiks, and men willing to die for Allah. The rest could be
arranged. I've heard such assumptions about Al Qaeda such as the idea
that they couldn't afford purebred dogs for chemical weapons
experiments. Osama may live in a cave and ride around on a donkey, but
he's far from poor-his personal fortune is estimated at $30 million, and
he has those sheiks backing his terror campaign too. The notion that
they're too preoccupied with surviving to plan anything is fallacious
too. Remember Osama's last video, in which he "looks like he's been
hiding out in St. Tropez" as Newsweek put it? He's probably living in a
Pakistani city in relative comfort, still planning attacks. America
holds certain assumptions about Al Qaeda without realizing it. It does
so at its peril.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----