> > Yeah. Especially seeing as the US has decided not to do anything about the IRA, ETA, FARC, Tamil Tigers, Aum Shirinko, or any other terrorist organisation that doesn't directly threaten them.
> >
> > winter"It would probably be best if they limited it it Al-Qaieda"mute
>
> Freezing the assets of several militant Irish terrorist groups doesn't count? Geez.

It probably would count. Did this happen? Why hasn't it been publicised? Has it reduced the arsenals of these groups?

I do know that Bush officially labelled the IRA and it's various splinter groups to be terrorist organisations about a month after he was elected, but I'm not aware of any other action taken against them.


> It's not like the US didn't go over and bomb the snot out of Afghanistan and say "Okay, we're all done." The US forces went after the terrorist groups based in Afghanistan because they're the ones that really pissed us off. They're the ones who killed thousands of people with the intention of killing tens of thousands. They're the ones who blew up crap in our back yard. They're the ones who killed Americans. Do you honestly think that the United States is going to stop fighing terrorism once they have Bin Laden's head on a pike?

Honestly? I wouldn't be suprised.

> Or would you rather the nation exhaust all of its resources battling every single terrorist organization worldwide during the same month?

No, I just think Americans should stop using the term "global terrorism" when they actually seem to mean "anti-American terrorism". I know that I'm perhaps tarring too many people with the same brush, but I'm sure you can live with that.

winter"Just my humble opinion"mute