USHIC, I'm not arguing your claim that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." In fact nothing I ever said even touched on it. How bin Laden and other Islamists view themselves is a matter of precisely 0 interest to me.
It is fairly obvious that he wants the Saudi monarchy overthrown. Everyone knows this. It is a logical prerequisite in establishing the pan-Islamic caliphate he's called for. That's not what I'm challenging you on.
I'm challenging you on the belief that such a caliphate would be any less brutal, repressive, or belligerent than the current regime. Your response to that was to post an article that didn't refute what I said, and then call me an idiot when I pointed out as much. And this in a thread where you insist you want to have a serious discussion.
You have acknowledged my point I wanted to make and now you are simply trying to make your point with suggesting that Osama is intent on a regime which is just as oppressive as what now exists in Saudi. It is your suggestion and thereby it's yours to prove, not mine to disprove. I also understand that you have to imagine the worst with Osama because of your American need to demonize him. And in fact you come off as sounding a little foolish in the first place to even suggest that you have any concerns about the plight of the Saudi people.
Why should he care about ethnic Jordanians if he is merely a Saudi nationalist, hmm? You edge towards incoherence.
Why should a nationalist not care about others when it is clear from the start that he has devoted his life to fighting for others and against first Soviet aggression and now US aggression. And for that matter it has about as much importance as you trying to prove what Hugo Chavez's motive is! It may matter to you but it doesn't matter to his people who are benefiting all that much.
His concern for the "Palestinians" is motivated by his religious nationalism and his division of the world into the house of Islam and the house of infidels. That's all.
Religious nationalism? That's amusing and you must tell me more. I recognize too that your continuing use of the word 'infidel' has a purpose but it is only serving your own purpose. And I'm not really sure what you even want me to believe about Osama's motive. Does it not suffice to say that he is fighting imperialist evil for a Muslim cause which he envisions as the choice of his people? And which incidentally makes him overwhelmingly popular in the Muslim world? And btw, who cares if Bush's motive is to advance christianity in the world as opposed to advancing US political and economic gain? LOL
(BTW, if I were a petty little man like you, I'd point out all the typos in that sentence and then attribute them to stupidity on your part, as you are wont to do with others).
You decided in the beginning to play a game of picking out typos and spelling mistakes. I merely saw an opportunity to pick up on it with you. But to try to say your mistakes were typos when some of them were obviously ignorance of proper spelling is a stretch. For example.
Woah, woah, woah from you when you were trying to say whoa, whoa, whoa. And then when I corrected you, you still didn't understand how you had made a mistake. Then when I gave you dictionary.com you still try to say it was a typo. You need to learn what a typo is my friend.
But more importantly, are you ready to stop that kind of behaviour on your part which started it all?
Do not call me a petty little man. It is against the rules! I have reported your post for that.
