Irhabi Murderdom

[goesh]

Appropriate rhetoric aside, I don't see the American people having the will for any extended fight against any external threat no matter what said enemies do outside our borders. If I were a senior AQ strategist, I would not want any attacks made on American soil, unless said attacks could truly devastate the economy for many, many years. I would want the American people and the West in general to regard me and my kind as an aberration of Islam and not its core on which the progressives and moderates and those willing to separate religion and State affairs have evolved. The way it was in the days of Mohammed is the way it simply must be. Fundamentalist Islam can never implode but the West can and some say already is imploding. The expansion of the 'pure' Ummah is based on sacrifice, hardship and violent disruption. It can spread in no other way. Quranic transposition: "(when engaging) the stomach must be filled with 1/3 food, 1/3 water and 1/3 air." That simply equates to destabalization and attrition on the fringes of the West and the fringes of the Ummah can survive and endure that better than we can. Time and tactics are on their side and the only way they can be stopped is for the West to break its dependence on fossil fuels.

[MASON]

The conflict does not appear to be about oil from the enemys perspective.

I would not reccomend ignoring the rhetoric, their rhetoric or our own. The rhetoric is the articulated WHY. Such a course has not been particularly successful in this conflict or historically. Without rhetoric individual actions fail to gain unity of purpose and will falters and people and their energy pass into an abyss of questions --who (someone else) how (some other way) when (any other time but now) and where (any other place but where we find ourselves).

Aq rhetoric is getting people to act in the now, while we analyse our past and think about how we will act in the future given our own assumptions on how the present will turn out.