Stand Up For Freedom

Today, I heard someone summarize the rational behind Bin-Laden's attacks on September 11 in this way: "He did not like the expansion of Western Culture into the rest of the world; we are infiltrating and "diffusing" into the world making everything a homogenized state. (Hmm....sensing any Anti-American sentiment here?) Therefore he attacked the United States' center of finance to cripple said expansion. He wants to put a stop to western expansion. And really, that's all it's about. We have wasted trillions of dollars that we could have used to build better schools and better the education system, etc. etc., on this so-called 'war'"

I'm going to give the guy some credit here, in that he is partially correct in saying that Bin-Laden would love nothing more than to see western influence come to a halt, but let us consider a few things:

Does the simple fact that any and every person NOT a proclaimed Muslim is considered an INFIDEL, have anything to do with what Bin-Laden planned out? I believe that it had EVERYTHING to do with the attacks, above and beyond any other reason! Can anyone give me a quick run-down on the Qu'ran's instructions on what to do with said infidels? EXACTLY.

Sure, western influence, "diffusion" and expansion are part of what Islam considers to be something worth exterminating, but the fact that one can walk down the streets in any given country and MOST LIKELY come across a McDonalds at SOME point during their walk had very little to do with the years upon years of planning the intricately, brilliantly laid out attacks that rained down upon us on that day. Bin Laden doesn't simply want to slow expansion down; in fact, if it were up to him, he would see each and every one of us "infidels" die. EVERY SINGLE ONE, mind you. Not some, not a couple of buildings in a big city, not a few targets here and there, but rather destruction of every square inch of this country.

Secondly, and more importantly, WHY Bin-Laden attacked us is IRRELEVANT in deciding whether or not this war is justified. I could safely say that even if he had attacked us simply because he didn't like the way we manufacture GUM, I would STILL support this war.
The fact of the matter is we got attacked! End of discussion; no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Thirdly, I would like to point something out. Taking into consideration the fact that the terrorist in question has made it perfectly clear even BEFORE the attacks that he wishes nothing but ill for the United States, I would say that it's a pretty safe bet that had we not used all those "billions and trillions of dollars" to beef up security, deploy troops to stabilize a terrorism-harboring country, and sent units out to keep Al-Qaeda at bay while we hunt Bin-Laden down, we would have been attacked YET AGAIN. So I asked this person who so bluntly stated that money used for war should have been used on bettering the U.S. on the "inside:"
Would you prefer to stand idly by, essentially "pleading the fifth" in the face of such disaster while you use that war money to build your schools and civic centers and places of higher education, only to watch THEM TOO fall to the evil hand of terrorism when Bin-Laden attacks AGAIN?
Something in me says I'd choose to LIVE rather then have my freedoms taken away from me as I sit in a brand new school building.

What about you?