And this scenario is based on what? What previous actions by the US would lend itself to this scenario?
While we're on implausible scenarios, imagine this one: Aliens come to Earth, capture Mugaz, upgrade his brain to one that can make a coherent argument and suddenly he moves up from being community jester to serious intellectual.
Brad--that was a bit harsh, don't you think? Really, name calling should be beneath you. Last time I checked, this was Muggaz's blog and he can write whatever he'd like, whether plausbile or not. If you don't have something constructive to add, I might suggest looking elsewhere.
Muggaz--I'm confused as you why you are fearing US retribution after an attack by "retired US military perssonel." If you mean US retribution after al Queda chimes in with a response, maybe. But, projecting to 2008, Bush will definitely not be the President after Nov, 2008 (and hopefully not after Nov, 2004). Let's say Bush wins this election and therefore Hillary runs in 2008 as she is threatening to do. If she wins, I don't think you'd have to fear an immediate lash out--she'd most likely be cautious with a response. Or, she could try to prove the point that women are just as "war-like" as men, and go after them guns blazing. Yup, so my answer is--well, I guess it all depends.
Muggaz: Please listen carefully because words mean things:
There is a big difference between arguing that Americans do not deserve to be slaughtered wholesale and arguing that the United States doesn't deserve any hostility.
Let's not mention the fact that hunger strikes get you no where. Remember the '81 hunger strikes by IRA prisoners fighting to be recognized as political prisioners and not ordinary decent criminals? Of course not, you weren't even born, were you? Anyway, Thatcher let Bobby Sands and 9 other die refusing to negotiate. The lesson that was learned was that nonviolence doesn't get you any further than violence. No concessions were going to be made by the British Government, and in the meantime 10 "volunteers" perished. (On an aside: Everyone should read Nor Meekly Serve My Time. It's an incredible account from inside the H-Block during the strikes. Whether or not you agree with the IRA, the book certainly sheds light on their perspective and motives).
Muggaz, the double standard is stronger than you're stating. Look at the IRA again. Where do they get their funding from? Until 9/11 it was predominantly coming from the US. It's sad that we Americans had little problem throwing some money into a tip jar in a 'RA bar in NYC knowing full well that the money was not being added to the Republican Library Fund. So why, after supporting armed struggle elsewhere did we expect the world to mourn with us on 9/11. I was actually in Belfast on 9/11 and I can't tell you the number of times that I was greeted with, "yes, it's a very sad day, but now you know how we feel, what we've been going through." It was a startling wake up call.
It all just leads me back to the question: "who decides who is a terrorist?" I haven't got the answer, though I've attempted to answer it twice in blogs. The first met with bitter critism accusing me of "giving terrorists ideas." The other has been virtually ignored.
Muggaz: I think your weed habit has damaged too many brain cells so I'm going to be brief here and then not respond again since there's really no point trying to discuss this with you since you seem incapable of reading words people write and understanding them.
1) I didn't imply that you were happy that people died on 9/11.
2) I never implied that people don't have a reason or a right to have hostile feelings towards the United States.
My position is pretty simple: Being mad or politically opposed doesn't give you the right to murder someone. I don't agree with your political positions but not only do I choose not to have you killed, I tolerate them by giving you a vehicle to express them to thousands of other people.
The blame for people who murder other people lies with the ones doing the murdering.