Senators warned of terrorist attack on US by July

[Andrew, Jr.]

On one of my religious sites I came across today, there was a brief statement by Dennis C. Blair, the director of national intelligence. He made this statement yesterday in Washington, DC. Blair stated that within the next 6 months our terror alert has gone to severe because of information from both of what agents found in the field, and the terrorist from Xmas Day. Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, asked Mr. Blair if any other agencies agreed with his view. The CIA and FBI reaffirmed this terror attack on the US by July.

Let's chat about this.

Peace,
Andrew

[Toughy]

In the words of FDR:

there is nothing to fear except fear itself

Does this mean we need to get our duct tape and plastic sheeting out and ready?????

[wolfwalker]

did they recieve an invitation written with gold leaf. Is someone putting up signs, this way to the terrorist attack?

if not, we are fu*ked

[dreadgeek]

In the words of FDR:

there is nothing to fear except fear itself

Does this mean we need to get our duct tape and plastic sheeting out and ready?????

I agree with you here. Although I'm sure that there's a lot of 'chatter' that the folks at NSA are picking up on, my level of concern is predicated upon *who* is going to institute the attack. Here's what I mean:

Look at the attacks just since 2001. The one's that are from Al Qaeda 'regulars' (as it were) have been successful. Al Qaeda is competent, capable of pulling off very sophisticated, coordinated strikes and (most importantly) know how to maintain operational security. The other attacks (Richard Reed, this kid at Christmas, etc.) have been half-ass, half-baked attempts by wanna-be's. Now, I'm not saying that they weren't working for Al Qaeda but I suspect that they were thrown out in a "hey, what do we do with this kid who won't go away?" "Send him on this mission. He'll probably blow it but if he doesn't then we'll have struck another blow against the imperialist running-dogs..." The latter group don't keep me up at night. Al Qaeda keeps me up at night because when they strike, they're going to do everything they can to make certain they're successful.

I think we need to be mentally prepared for another attack although the attack I worry about (the one where we lose a major city) is something we cannot, by definition, be prepared for psychically.

Overall, I wouldn't worry too much about this. There's probably something to it but at present, without access, there's no way of knowing what is real and what is shadow-play.

Cheers
Aj

[Andrew, Jr.]

Personally, I am not too worried about the after it is said and done. I am just worried about those who will be severely hurt, injured, whatever. Nobody can ever forget people jumping out the skyscrappers on 9/11 to avoid being burned by the plane fuel. I am worried about children watching in horror. Plus you have to remember we have alot of our support systems in Haiti now.

Al-Qaeda is on a mission. I still don't get why we haven't caught the main man of that group - OB. And yes, we will loose a city. Just a matter of time.

Andrew

[dreadgeek]

did they recieve an invitation written with gold leaf. Is someone putting up signs, this way to the terrorist attack?



Well, in a manner of speaking, if they (the planners) have engaged in ANY electronic communications in the course of their planning then they've done the next best thing to sending a written invitation! There's a reason why OBL stopped using a cell phone. If you send a signal anywhere on this planet, the NSA can pick it up. The NSA's problem isn't so much picking up the signal as separating the signal (information you want to know about what the opposing force is doing/thinking/planning) from the noise (everything else).

I hope that Al Qaeda is being stupid enough to send electronic signals but a long time ago, when the OPFOR wasn't Al Qaeda but the Soviet Union, my commanding officer told me that the other guy didn't owe use the favor of being either stupid or insane.

Cheers
Aj

[Sachita]

It is what it is. I have come to this conclusion. If I cant drive there I probably wont go. I would not want to live in any metro area.

With Al Qaeda they have proven to be very calculating in their planning. If it takes years then it does. I think something will happen very soon. I'm not sure what but it will.

Its wise to be prepared just in case. At least to some extent or as best you can.

[Dominique]

Mounting evidence suggests female suicide bombers are the wave of the future.

[MsDemeanor]

There were several attempted attacks last year. For anyone in the know to state that there would not be attempts in the next six months would be the height of ignorance. Of course there will be attempts, it's an on-going thing now. This is nothing more than business as usual.

[Bit]

I think we need to be mentally prepared for another attack although the attack I worry about (the one where we lose a major city) is something we cannot, by definition, be prepared for psychically.

Did you mean psychologically? if you did, I agree; there is no way to prepare for a shock of that magnitude.

On the other hand, if you really meant psychically, well *smiles* yes those of us who are psychic can prepare. Not only that, those of us who are psychic very often do our best to prevent such things from happening, just as those who pray for safety do.

And yes, we will loose a city. Just a matter of time.

*gently* You don't actually know that, Andrew. You might believe it, like you believe in love or like you believe in God; but you don't know it for certain like you know that water is wet or fire is hot.

Can you see the difference here? It might be logical to assume that a major city will be lost, but it isn't guaranteed. We don't actually know it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~ * ~~~~~~~~~~~~ * ~~~~~~~~~~~~


My understanding of the way spiritual and psychic energy operate is this: every time someone insists that something bad or negative will happen, it cancels out the energy of their positive requests and/or efforts.

We get what we ask for. That means whatever we put our energy, attention, focus, or beliefs in is what we will get. The more careful we are to avoid insisting that the answer will be no (especially when we don't actually know what the answer will be!), the more we will get what we really want. The more careful we are to focus on positive outcomes and to avoid believing that bad things "have to" happen, the more good things will happen.

This doesn't mean that a person can necessarily avoid life challenges like accidents or illnesses by thinking happy thoughts--hey, sometimes shit happens--but it does mean people can make their lives better by not insisting that bad things have to happen.

And yanno... speaking as one of those psychics who sends a lot of energy towards safety, I appreciate not having to wade through fields of negativity to do my job. :cheesy:

[dreadgeek]

Bit:

I meant mentally prepared. If psychics can keep a nuclear device from exploding, more power to them. I was using psychic to mean mental/psychological and should probably have realized that using the term would cause confusion.

Cheers
Aj



Did you mean psychologically? if you did, I agree; there is no way to prepare for a shock of that magnitude.

On the other hand, if you really meant psychically, well *smiles* yes those of us who are psychic can prepare. Not only that, those of us who are psychic very often do our best to prevent such things from happening, just as those who pray for safety do.



*gently* You don't actually know that, Andrew. You might believe it, like you believe in love or like you believe in God; but you don't know it for certain like you know that water is wet or fire is hot.

Can you see the difference here? It might be logical to assume that a major city will be lost, but it isn't guaranteed. We don't actually know it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~ * ~~~~~~~~~~~~ * ~~~~~~~~~~~~


My understanding of the way spiritual and psychic energy operate is this: every time someone insists that something bad or negative will happen, it cancels out the energy of their positive requests and/or efforts.

We get what we ask for. That means whatever we put our energy, attention, focus, or beliefs in is what we will get. The more careful we are to avoid insisting that the answer will be no (especially when we don't actually know what the answer will be!), the more we will get what we really want. The more careful we are to focus on positive outcomes and to avoid believing that bad things "have to" happen, the more good things will happen.

This doesn't mean that a person can necessarily avoid life challenges like accidents or illnesses by thinking happy thoughts--hey, sometimes shit happens--but it does mean people can make their lives better by not insisting that bad things have to happen.

And yanno... speaking as one of those psychics who sends a lot of energy towards safety, I appreciate not having to wade through fields of negativity to do my job. :cheesy:

[suebee]

*Taking reservations for a lovely vacation in Canada.* :mountie:

[Bit]

Bit:

I meant mentally prepared. If psychics can keep a nuclear device from exploding, more power to them. I was using psychic to mean mental/psychological and should probably have realized that using the term would cause confusion.

Cheers
Aj

Well, Aj, maybe some psychics can; I've seen some pretty amazing things lately.

I personally cannot affect the physical world so directly. BUT what I can influence, what I'd like to think I DO influence, is the likelihood of it ever coming to that. You have to follow it backwards from the thing you wish to prevent; you have to think about all the causes of such a thing, layer by layer, and figure out what one small thing you can do that would switch the whole train of events onto some other, more benign, track.

Sometimes the most powerful thing a person can do is to ask those around her to hold onto hope. There is always power in numbers. If a large number of people is determined that safety should prevail, I believe it is more likely to prevail... and in the meantime, if it does nothing else, it creates more positive lives for those people, since hope breeds optimism and creativity.

[Curley]

Depends where in Canada...you should see all the security prep for the Olympics

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/22/AR2010012204634.html

[Words]

Mounting evidence suggests female suicide bombers are the wave of the future.

Do you have a link to this evidence?

[suebee]

Depends where in Canada...you should see all the security prep for the Olympics

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/22/AR2010012204634.html


While all the security forces are out west with you, I'm a gonna host a big freakin' party on the east coast! :)

Actually these threats may have a direct impact on me, as my partner and I live on opposite sides of the Canadian/U.S border and cross almost every day - sometimes several times in a day. Not looking forward to it.

[Toughy]

Personally, I am not too worried about the after it is said and done. I am just worried about those who will be severely hurt, injured, whatever. Nobody can ever forget people jumping out the skyscrappers on 9/11 to avoid being burned by the plane fuel. I am worried about children watching in horror. Plus you have to remember we have alot of our support systems in Haiti now.

Al-Qaeda is on a mission. I still don't get why we haven't caught the main man of that group - OB. And yes, we will loose a city. Just a matter of time.

Andrew

Do you worry about those who will be hurt injured whatever from a 7.0+ (I think it's actually and 8.0+) earthquake that is predicated to happen in my lifetime on the San Andreas Fault? Or from some home grown idiot like Tim McVey or whoever the homegrown anthrax person? Or from a Cat 5 hurricane hitting the Gulf Coast or running up the eastern seaboard to New York City? Or the Cat 5 tornado somewhere in tornado alley?

Do you worry about children watching all this violent war and sex crap on prime time TV and in video games and at the movies?

You have to remember the largest majority of our resources/assets are tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan. The large majority of assets on the ground in Haiti are from countries other than the US.

Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist Church are on a terrorist mission also. So is the KKK. So are many of the neo-nazi groups in Idaho and Washington and Michagan and other strongholds? So are those idiots on the Mexican border who are 'helping' the border patrol.....they used to be called vigilantists.

I remember the 'atomic bomb' scare of the 60's. Kids all over the US (esp the west coast) were terrorized by their own parents, school systems and government. Those godless communist Russians are gonna nuke us. Goldwater ran for President on this idea. We were in Vietnam to stop those red chinese from taking over southeast asia. Build a bomb shelter in your back yard (which became a storage area or rec room later). In case the siren goes off while at school, 'cover your head and get under your desk'. big ole fucking snort In NM we didn't have any of that shit.........my parents and every other adult knew NM would be blown off the face of the earth..........so why scare the children?

Again..............

There is nothing to fear but fear itself.

[Dominique]

Do you have a link to this evidence?


Yes, in fact I do.

Read on......

http://bit.ly/czAUMW

[Andrew, Jr.]

Toughy,

Let me try to respond to some of your comments.

Fred Phelps interrupted the funeral of a 20 yo soldier who's family was absolutely horrified at the signs, posters, and the hate filled screams that interrupted the funeral service. It happened up the street from my home. The family chose to have their son buried at Arlington (thank God). The father sued and won his case in Federal Court. But as we all know Fred Phelps is still going strong.

In my community, there is a very heavy involvement with the KKK. And I am leaving it at that.

I live less than an 90 min. drive from my home to DC. Plus I live inbetween 2 military bases that store chemical weapons. Once a month for the last 12 years we have had "practice sirens" going off to alert citizens of whatever event.

All of my schools did the drills of hiding under the desks, or going to the basements. In fact, alot of homes still have the cement basements and shelters.


Bit,

You are right about being the one person to show hope. I so learned that from you. There are no promises or guarantees in life. I live in the now.


Namaste,
Andrew

[Toughy]

Yes, in fact I do.

Read on......

http://bit.ly/czAUMW

the comments found after this article just reminded me how ignorant some people are.........and sadly they live in this country.........

If you want security on a plane..........do whatever the Israelis are doing..........nothing happens on their planes.

Say NO to body scans............ignorant crap in the same vein as take your shoes off and putting all your liquids in 3oz bottles in baggies......oh yeah and no bic lights but you can have up to 3 packs of matches.......

[AtLast]

Probably a very ideological take on this, but when do Western nations transform the basis of what we stand for to Muslim nations as a means to thwart terrorist attacks?

[Andrew, Jr.]

Toughy,

The one point you stated is that we should say no to the body scans. I don't understand how the avg. joe can have a body scan at any airport, but for medical reasons is denied. That to me is just wrong. I do understand that.

As for the 3 packs of matches being allowed on a plane? I had no idea that was now allowed.

Heck, anytime I fly, I literally have to strip, and have some guy in security wond me. So, being body scanned would be much faster for me compared to stripping in the airport, then redressing and running for a plane.

Most of the time now, I fed. express my luggage ahead. Carryon is the bare min. I have to have. And I know with fed. exp. nobody is going thru my luggage.

Andrew

[Bit]

Probably a very ideological take on this, but when do Western nations transform the basis of what we stand for to Muslim nations as a means to thwart terrorist attacks?

When we start electing common-sense people to all high offices.

[dreadgeek]

Probably a very ideological take on this, but when do Western nations transform the basis of what we stand for to Muslim nations as a means to thwart terrorist attacks?

Could you clarify what you mean here? There's a lot of different ways to read this and I'm not sure precisely what you mean. Specifically, what do you mean by "transform the basis of what we stand for..."

Cheers
Aj

[AtLast]

Could you clarify what you mean here? There's a lot of different ways to read this and I'm not sure precisely what you mean. Specifically, what do you mean by "transform the basis of what we stand for..."

Cheers
Aj

You bet!

In saying "transform the basis of what we stand for...", I am speaking to the long-term negative, anti-Muslim stance of western nations perceived (and, to me, often, rightly so) by the Muslim world. Our lack of knowledge and down right refusal to become educated about Muslim life and religious perspectives feeds into so much of what fundamentalist Muslim terrorist organizations use to promote strikes agains us and many other western nations.

I in no way can accept the sexist nature of Muslim findamentalism, but also know that we cannot (and should not) be involved in trying to change belief systems of others or their social and political systems.

I honestly feel that in order to get to a place in which we can in part, thwart attacks, respect, knowledge and diplomacy must be utilzed. Having world religion curriculum in our schools is essential in order to combat stereotyping and hatred of Muslims (and other groups, worldwide). Community outreach is essential.

I do believe that we live in a dangerous world concerning terrorism and that taking steps with technology and intelligence gathering is critical. I just don't believe this is the entire answer.

I am riminded of this almost daily as I shop and do other business with Muslim businesses around me (and those with Muslim employees) and witness the obvious hatred of some of the other customers.

[Bob]

Probably a very ideological take on this, but when do Western nations transform the basis of what we stand for to Muslim nations as a means to thwart terrorist attacks?

You bet!

In saying "transform the basis of what we stand for...", I am speaking to the long-term negative, anti-Muslim stance of western nations perceived (and, to me, often, rightly so) by the Muslim world. Our lack of knowledge and down right refusal to become educated about Muslim life and religious perspectives feeds into so much of what fundamentalist Muslim terrorist organizations use to promote strikes agains us and many other western nations.


This isn't the basis of what Al-Qaeda and other fundamentalist Muslims are angry about. The root cause is ultimately Israel and our inital and ongoing support of that state.

"In 1998, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri co-signed a fatwa in the name of the World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders which declared the killing of North Americans and their allies an "individual duty for every Muslim" to "liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque (in Jerusalem) and the holy mosque (in Mecca) from their grip"."

This, of course, is the Reason That We Dare Not Name. The creation of the state of Israel in 1947 left thousands of Palestinians homeless, stateless, wounded, and dead. This has continued to the present day. They (and many other Arabs/Muslims) are very very angry about the whole Israel thing, and they are very very angry with us for being their staunchest ally.

Of course, this is all terribly oversimplified. Since 9/11, our entry into Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, Abu Graib, Guantanamo, et al, has given the average Muslim any number of things to be outraged by, without even taking Israel into consideration.

[dreadgeek]

You bet!

In saying "transform the basis of what we stand for...", I am speaking to the long-term negative, anti-Muslim stance of western nations perceived (and, to me, often, rightly so) by the Muslim world. Our lack of knowledge and down right refusal to become educated about Muslim life and religious perspectives feeds into so much of what fundamentalist Muslim terrorist organizations use to promote strikes agains us and many other western nations.

I agree in part. Our ignorance of the Muslim world is disconcerting. However, I also think that there's a trap that we could unknowingly stumble upon. I read Salman Rushdie's "The Satanic Verses" because I was curious what he could have said that would make someone put out a fatwa on him. While the book is irreverent there was nothing in there worthy of him having a death sentence put on his head. I did not see the Van Gogh movie that got him murdered in the street but all he did was make a movie about honor killings. And then, of course, there's been the various rows about cartoons showing the Prophet Mohammed. We should be very careful that we do not let others cow us into abandoning a core value.


I in no way can accept the sexist nature of Muslim findamentalism, but also know that we cannot (and should not) be involved in trying to change belief systems of others or their social and political systems.

I have to split the difference with you here. I think we have to be prepared to say "this is wrong, I don't care that it's a different culture but mutilating the genitals of young girls is wrong, full-stop". I think we MUST be prepared to do this and it concerns me that perhaps, we are not and, quite honestly, it scares me and makes me a little sad. Can you imagine, for instance, someone saying that Jim Crow was just part of Southern Culture and that while they are glad they don't have to live under that system in, say, Boston we cannot and should not be involved in trying to change that belief system? I can. I can very well imagine it and imagine how different my life could have been. That is why, although I may be called a Western Imperialist for this, I believe that there ARE truly universal human rights and that HUMAN rights trump CULTURES every time. So if some culture X engages in some behavior Y that, if my own culture did the same thing I would be out screaming in the streets (think honor killing, think female genital mutilation), then to be at all consistent I must condemn it in that other culture and take the heat that someone may call me an imperialist. That doesn't mean we invade other nations over their cultural practices but it *does* mean that don't make apologies for it either.


I honestly feel that in order to get to a place in which we can in part, thwart attacks, respect, knowledge and diplomacy must be utilzed. Having world religion curriculum in our schools is essential in order to combat stereotyping and hatred of Muslims (and other groups, worldwide). Community outreach is essential.

I think that will work for the people who aren't interested in attacking us. I think it might even dissuade some people from joining the camp of those who want to attack us. I don't think it will do *anything* for the people who already want to attack us.


I do believe that we live in a dangerous world concerning terrorism and that taking steps with technology and intelligence gathering is critical. I just don't believe this is the entire answer.

Here I would agree. It's not the entire answer but we should be prepared for those situations where it *is* the answer and when it is, we should admit that it will be messy, ugly and painful.


I am riminded of this almost daily as I shop and do other business with Muslim businesses around me (and those with Muslim employees) and witness the obvious hatred of some of the other customers.

I would agree with you again although, honestly, I think that hatred of the West in the Muslim world has more to do with US foreign policy and with our rather libertine culture than with how individual Westerners treat individual Muslims in their midst.

Cheers
Aj

[Words]

Yes, in fact I do.

Read on......

http://bit.ly/czAUMW

Hardly a wave.

Anyways. There has indeed been an increase in the number of suicide attacks carried out by womyn. Perhaps the real question here though isn't how many but why.

Words

[wolfwalker]

the comments found after this article just reminded me how ignorant some people are.........and sadly they live in this country.........

If you want security on a plane..........do whatever the Israelis are doing..........nothing happens on their planes.

Say NO to body scans............ignorant crap in the same vein as take your shoes off and putting all your liquids in 3oz bottles in baggies......oh yeah and no bic lights but you can have up to 3 packs of matches.......

the israelis don't play around with bullshit. they know who you are before you get to the airport. you must be at their terminal 3 hours preflight. no exceptions. they check all baggage, loaded or carried on. they check you. ID and so on. they double check all information. If the slightest thing is not right.you do not get your ticket and you do not board that plane. and this is their philadelphia terminal. Once you land in Israel, you are checked again. there are armed soldiers everywhere. they are non threatening and quite friendly. however they are not to be fuked with.

add to that, every flight has security personal on board every plane. They take security very seriously.

once out of the airport. there are security check points and armed soldiers on the streets. again, non threatening and friendly but i would not play with them.

I spent 2 weeks in Israel. it was a wonderful trip. I had a very nice time but you become ever mindful of personal safety and security.


wolfwalker

[dreadgeek]

Hardly a wave.

Anyways. There has indeed been an increase in the number of suicide attacks carried out by womyn. Perhaps the real question here though isn't how many but why.

Words

The why is easy--we don't expect it. If you know your enemy expects you to come by land, drop in by air or come by sea. If you know your enemy expects you to come through the door, go in through a window. If you know your enemy is expecting a man, send a woman.

As my old commanding officer used to say "never assume that the other guy owes you the favor of being either stupid or insane". Having women carry out the attacks that men were carrying out is very good tactics on their part.
Always do that which your opponent isn't expecting you to do and which is within your capabilities to pull off.

Cheers
Aj

[Words]

once out of the airport. there are security check points and armed soldiers on the streets. again, non threatening and friendly but i would not play with them. wolfwalker

Unless you happen to be a Palestinian in which case expect to be stopped every 500 meters or so 'just because'. Blue (Jerusalem ID)? You might get away with a frisking and a lil' bit of taunting. Orange (West Bank) ID and no permit? God help you.

[Words]

The why is easy--we don't expect it. If you know your enemy expects you to come by land, drop in by air or come by sea. If you know your enemy expects you to come through the door, go in through a window. If you know your enemy is expecting a man, send a woman.

As my old commanding officer used to say "never assume that the other guy owes you the favor of being either stupid or insane". Having women carry out the attacks that men were carrying out is very good tactics on their part.
Always do that which your opponent isn't expecting you to do and which is within your capabilities to pull off.

Cheers
Aj


AJ,

With all due respect, that's too easy an answer. Yes, more womyn are being recruited to carry out attacks for strategic purposes, but surely you have to ask yourself not only why some womyn are agreeing to do it but also why some womyn are even volunteering to do it. No?

That's the 'why' I was talking about.

Words

[Selenay]

AJ,

With all due respect, that's too easy an answer. Yes, more womyn are being recruited to carry out attacks for strategic purposes, but surely you have to ask yourself not only why some womyn are agreeing to do it but also why some womyn are even volunteering to do it. No?

That's the 'why' I was talking about.

Words

Why does anyone agree to do it?

Why do our men and women sign up for the armed services?

Because they so firmly believe in something that they are willing to fight for it.

I was in a Violence and Terror class, once, and then a course on the Psychology of Terrorism. One of the most serious things I took away from that course was the following exchange.

We were asked to raise our hands if there was something we would kill for--a person, an idea, an object.

Then, we were asked if there was something we would die for, or to protect.

Then, we were asked if they were the same thing.

If what you are willing to kill for and what you are willing to die for are the same. . . You have the potential to be a suicide bomber.


It's all in how you look at things. . .

[Words]

Why does anyone agree to do it?

Why do our men and women sign up for the armed services?

Because they so firmly believe in something that they are willing to fight for it.

I was in a Violence and Terror class, once, and then a course on the Psychology of Terrorism. One of the most serious things I took away from that course was the following exchange.

We were asked to raise our hands if there was something we would kill for--a person, an idea, an object.

Then, we were asked if there was something we would die for, or to protect.

Then, we were asked if they were the same thing.

If what you are willing to kill for and what you are willing to die for are the same. . . You have the potential to be a suicide bomber.


It's all in how you look at things. . .



I agree. Add to the above the sheer desperation factor and you end up with stories like these...

http://www.aztlan.net/women_martyrs.htm

[apretty]

i think the only obvious answer is to start building bomb shelters.

[Queerasfck]

i think the only obvious answer is to start building bomb shelters.

It's definitely ELEVATED here.

[Words]

Dress,

What I'm getting at is that the West is treating the symptoms of the disease called terrorism not the cause. Which of course, it will never do because as someone has already pointed out, right at the center - amongst other things - you find the situation in Israel. And so the attacks continue.

I don't approve of suicide attacks. Hell, I don't approve of violence in any form. But I do understand, having lived amongst people who literally have nothing to live for, why they happen.

Words

[Dominique]

Read about a woman who tells the story of how her father tried to make her into a suicide bomber.

http://news.bbc.co.uk

Article is under features on front page.

[dreadgeek]

AJ,

With all due respect, that's too easy an answer. Yes, more womyn are being recruited to carry out attacks for strategic purposes, but surely you have to ask yourself not only why some womyn are agreeing to do it but also why some womyn are even volunteering to do it. No?

That's the 'why' I was talking about.

Words

Ahh, I thought you were asking the operational 'why' question and not the psychological 'why'. As you and a number of others have pointed out, the motivation appears to be identical to the motivation of male suicide bombers.

Cheers
Aj

[apretty]

I don't approve of suicide attacks. Hell, I don't approve of violence in any form. But I do understand, having lived amongst people who literally have nothing to live for, why they happen.

Words

agreed, the most dangerous man is one with nothing left to lose. (which i'm pretty sure is why we/any country gives just enough aid to not make much of a difference.)

[dreadgeek]

Dress,

What I'm getting at is that the West is treating the symptoms of the disease called terrorism not the cause. Which of course, it will never do because as someone has already pointed out, right at the center - amongst other things - you find the situation in Israel. And so the attacks continue.

I don't approve of suicide attacks. Hell, I don't approve of violence in any form. But I do understand, having lived amongst people who literally have nothing to live for, why they happen.

Words

I want to thank you for pointing this out. Too rarely do people try to think about this issue from the opposing forces side. When I responded to you yesterday I was coming from a place of having done a lot of research and then spent a lot of time (on my bike) thinking thoughts along these lines: "if I had to go up against the most nightmarishly lethal fighting machine the world has yet seen, what would *I* do". I've also done a lot of thinking along the lines of "if I were the leader of a Western nation, faced with a threat like that posed by Al Qaeda or Hamas what would *I* do".

If we're going to be effective at shaping policy, we have to be willing to see the world as it looks from both the power centers and from places like Gaza and NOT how we would *prefer* the world to look.

Cheers
Aj

[Bit]

This isn't the basis of what Al-Qaeda and other fundamentalist Muslims are angry about. The root cause is ultimately Israel and our inital and ongoing support of that state.

......... This, of course, is the Reason That We Dare Not Name.

..........Of course, this is all terribly oversimplified.

No dear; it's just plain wrong. That incident was not the cause, but only an effect of almost a hundred years of US political and military interference in the Arab countries themselves.

WE, for instance, destroyed democracy in Iran in 1953. US, the United States of America, WE destroyed it... to please an oil company.
Few Americans remembered that Iran had descended into dictatorship after the United States overthrew the most democratic government it had ever known. "Mr. President, do you think it was proper for the United States to restore the shah to the throne in 1953 against the popular will within Iran?" a reporter asked President Carter at a news conference during the hostage crisis. "That's ancient history," Carter replied.
Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-places/iran-fury.html#ixzz0egLX74Tu



Twenty-six years is hardly ancient in my personal history, but it exemplifies the US attitude toward the Middle East. Iran held elections and elected a democratic government; it governed; it chose to work in the interests of the Iranian people rather than the interests of the oil companies. WE destroyed it and put a hellacious dictator in charge of the country, one who supported foreign oil companies rather than his own people.

WE, the United States of America, proud upholder of freedom and democracy, WE "bombed Iran back to the stone age" in Ronald Reagan's words. WE have threatened to do so with other countries, notably Pakistan. http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2010/01/25/armitage-part-iii-a-neocon-for-all-seasons/

WE, the United States of America, proud upholders of Truth and Justice, FABRICATED reports that Iraq had "weapons of mass destruction" and invaded a country which had not attacked us. http://www.globalpolicy.org/iraq/invasion-and-war/invasion-of-iraq.html

Nobody bombed us for Guantanamo Bay, where we routinely tortured people without allowing them a fair trial.

We are the heinous bully of the modern world, and our favored targets are South America and the Middle East. We, the bringers of the American Way, have brought death and destruction all over the Middle East for sixty years.

Our being an ally of Israel is not the root cause of Arab hatred for us; our being an out-and-out warmongering enemy of Arab countries IS. Being an ally of Israel is only a last straw, not a primary cause.

I agree in part. Our ignorance of the Muslim world is disconcerting.

I think our ignorance of our own world is disconcerting!

[to AtLastHome]I think that will work for the people who aren't interested in attacking us. I think it might even dissuade some people from joining the camp of those who want to attack us. I don't think it will do *anything* for the people who already want to attack us.

Honesty and reparations might work. We don't know, since we're so arrogant we've never tried that approach... but then, bullies don't.

I would agree with you [AtLastHome] again although, honestly, I think that hatred of the West in the Muslim world has more to do with US foreign policy and with our rather libertine culture than with how individual Westerners treat individual Muslims in their midst.

I think it doesn't even have much to deal with our libertine culture... I think it has only to do with our complete untrustworthiness, our willingness to bring war to people who have not brought it to us. We are sooo quick to say "they started it!" like six year olds brawling over a bike, but the truth is WE started it, every time.

EVERY. Single. Damned. Time.

What I'm getting at is that the West is treating the symptoms of the disease called terrorism not the cause. Which of course, it will never do

We don't know this, Words. We honestly do NOT know with a guarantee that Western countries will forever continue their insane insistence on running the Middle East, and interfering with legitimate governments there.

There's always room for hope that some day those of us who speak up will be listened to.

There's always room for hope that some day US Foreign Policy will be determined by someone who does NOT need to fight bogus wars his father started.

There's always room for hope that some day the people of the US will pay attention to their own history.

I believe that when that happens, everything in the Middle East will change, including the pressures on Israel.

[dreadgeek]

WE, the United States of America, proud upholder of freedom and democracy, WE "bombed Iran back to the stone age" in Ronald Reagan's words. WE have threatened to do so with other countries, notably Pakistan. http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2010/01/25/armitage-part-iii-a-neocon-for-all-seasons/

Actually, we did not bomb Iran. Iraq and Iran went to war on their own. Now, as it turned out, both the United States and the Soviet Union had reasons of their own to provide material and 'technical assistance' (read satellite intelligence) to the belligerents but outside of an aborted attempt to rescue hostages held in our own embassy (which is, after all, considered part of your own nation) we did not, in the period we're discussing, attack Iran or bomb them back to the stone age.



Nobody bombed us for Guantanamo Bay, where we routinely tortured people without allowing them a fair trial.

I think this might need to be amended that no one, so far, has *succeeded* in doing so.



Our being an ally of Israel is not the root cause of Arab hatred for us; our being an out-and-out warmongering enemy of Arab countries IS. Being an ally of Israel is only a last straw, not a primary cause.

I would add that our being allied to any number of Arab dictatorships is a very important cause. What's interesting here is that this is an area of foreign policy we are utterly inept at. We prop up dictatorships in places like Egypt, talk about democracy in the region but help keep anti-democrats in power, and then are surprised when people call us hypocrites. What's worse is that these self-same dictatorships then use the existence of Israel and the plight of the Palestinians to inflame anti-Israel and anti-American sentiments as a means of distracting their populations from the fact that their *real* and most proximate problem isn't America or Israel but their own corrupt governments! I mean this is obvious stuff that the American foreign policy elite either doesn't understand or think we're too stupid to understand.


Honesty and reparations might work. We don't know, since we're so arrogant we've never tried that approach... but then, bullies don't.

Here I have to disagree. It would not change the mind of Al Qaeda nor would it change the mind of Hamas. In fact, it might actually *encourage* them. "Pay us or lose Kansas City". I'm not saying you don't negotiate with your opponents. If they are open to negotiation do so. But Al Qaeda has made it *abundantly* clear, in their own words, that they aren't interested in negotiation. Hamas has made it clear that they are not particularly interested in negotiations. (Well, at least the old Hamas did the new Hamas that has to actually *govern* seems a bit more pragmatic, funny that.)

But tell me, how many times do we pay reparations under threat of attack? At what point do we *stop* paying reparations? I'm not saying we shouldn't (although I think it sets a very bad precedent) but I'm saying that it's not quite as simple a solution as it sounds on paper. So we pay reparations to, say, Hamas. So then Al Qaeda threatens us so we pay *them* reparations. So then Hezbollah threatens us and we pay *them* reparations. At what point are we not paying reparations and are paying protection money?


[FONT=Verdana][SIZE=3][COLOR=Teal]I think it doesn't even have much to deal with our libertine culture... I think it has only to do with our complete untrustworthiness, our willingness to bring war to people who have not brought it to us. We are sooo quick to say "they started it!" like six year olds brawling over a bike, but the truth is WE started it, every time.



I think that if you read Sayeed Qutb or even Osama Bin Laden you'll find that our libertine culture DOES bother them. The threat is not that we have it here but that people in the Muslim world may want it *there* because we do make it look very, very nice (which in some ways it is) and seductive.



[FONT=Verdana][SIZE=3][COLOR=Teal]We don't know this, Words. We honestly do NOT know with a guarantee that Western countries will forever continue their insane insistence on running the Middle East, and interfering with legitimate governments there.

Like the legitimate government of Egypt? (Which, before you blame the United States for that situation recall that Egypt was originally a Soviet client state and then they switched sides.) Like the legitimate government of Saudi Arabia? We also need to recognize that we DO have interests in the area. We actually have a very vested interest in Pakistan remaining stable and I'll explain why.

Pakistan has the Bomb and so does India. Pakistan and India have fought three different wars in the 50-odd years those two nations have existed after British rule collapsed. If Pakistan were to fall into the hands of the Taliban, then India WILL nuke them. They would be insane *not* to do so. This is not like the United States having nukes and Canada having nukes or France having nukes and Britain having nukes. In the latter cases, these are nations that have not had recent hostilities and have no serious territorial disputes. India and Pakistan have *very recent* hostilities and an active territorial dispute that both sides take very, very seriously. So our choice is this: pull out of Afghanistan and Pakistan and then wait for the mushroom clouds to form over Islamabad OR stay on the ground and do what we can. As long as India has the Bomb Pakistan isn't giving theirs up and vice versa. Given the enmity between the two nations, one can hardly blame them.

So given the above what would you have the U.S. do? And if you were India, and a fanatical group took over the nation next door, that you've fought three wars with in 50 years, and that group had access to nuclear weapons what would your response be. Not you, Bit, the beautiful, kind and non-violent person but you the leader of a billion Indian national who are looking to you and your cabinet to take care of the national self-interest?

I know you don't like thinking like this. *I* don't like thinking like this! But to see the problem clearly we sometimes have to think like this.

Cheers
Aj

[Bob]

No dear; it's just plain wrong.


/derail
Really with the 'no, dear'? Uncalled for. If your argument(s) are sound, you don't need it, and if they're not, they'll be exposed as such. Prefacing your comments with this unnecessary piece of condescending tripe just makes you seem like a patronizing prat. Please stop. /end derail

[Bit]

Actually, we did not bomb Iran.

You're right; my mistake. That was Iraq. I remembered the threat being made to Iran, but I can't find documentation now, just commentary. We did, however, make the threat to Pakistan, however hard Bush might have tried to backpedal later.


Nobody bombed us for Guantanamo Bay, where we routinely tortured people without allowing them a fair trial.

I think this might need to be amended that no one, so far, has *succeeded* in doing so.

In my own self-interest, I sincerely hope they NEVER succeed *wry smile* but then, I hope that we never succeed again, too. Bombs do not belong on this earth. There are better ways.


Our being an ally of Israel is not the root cause of Arab hatred for us; our being an out-and-out warmongering enemy of Arab countries IS. Being an ally of Israel is only a last straw, not a primary cause.

I would add that our being allied to any number of Arab dictatorships is a very important cause. What's interesting here is that this is an area of foreign policy we are utterly inept at. We prop up dictatorships in places like Egypt, talk about democracy in the region but help keep anti-democrats in power, and then are surprised when people call us hypocrites.

Exactly! We--the US--we are hypocrites, and we--the citizens of the US--we are basically ignorant of our own history and policies, and what they actually mean to the rest of the world. It boggles my mind!

And aren't we just inept at this foreign policy business--I bolded that because it is so surprisingly true.

What's worse is that these self-same dictatorships then use the existence of Israel and the plight of the Palestinians to inflame anti-Israel and anti-American sentiments as a means of distracting their populations from the fact that their *real* and most proximate problem isn't America or Israel but their own corrupt governments! I mean this is obvious stuff that the American foreign policy elite either doesn't understand or think we're too stupid to understand.

I think a big part of it is willful blindness. Do you remember that old dictum, "What's good for GM is good for the country"? I believe it's the same attitude, only now it's "What's good for Big Oil is good for the country."

I believe that as blind as Clinton was to so many things--and don't get me wrong, I think he was a great President, it's just that no one is perfect--I believe his government would never have been so squarely in the pocket of Big Oil. It took someone whose family fortunes were tied up in the B.O. corporations to put Official Blindness Policies into place.

And then, yanno... just as some of the Arab dictatorships inflame their people against Israel to mask the fact that the dictatorships are the real problem, I believe our government inflames us against the Arab countries to mask the fact that it's in the pocket of the B.O. corporations.

I've never wanted solar power so much! I would give a LOT to no longer be part of this problem, to no longer be a captive direct customer of the B.O. corporations! But until a much higher percentage of our populations feels the same way, and is willing to invest in alternative energy, I think we'll all remain captives of the B.O.

Here I have to disagree. It would not change the mind of Al Qaeda nor would it change the mind of Hamas.

WHOA. Stop right there, pardner. I am talking about Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt--Arab countries.

In fact, it might actually *encourage* them. "Pay us or lose Kansas City". I'm not saying you don't negotiate with your opponents. If they are open to negotiation do so. But Al Qaeda has made it *abundantly* clear, in their own words, that they aren't interested in negotiation. Hamas has made it clear that they are not particularly interested in negotiations. (Well, at least the old Hamas did the new Hamas that has to actually *govern* seems a bit more pragmatic, funny that.)

But tell me, how many times do we pay reparations under threat of attack? At what point do we *stop* paying reparations? I'm not saying we shouldn't (although I think it sets a very bad precedent) but I'm saying that it's not quite as simple a solution as it sounds on paper. So we pay reparations to, say, Hamas. So then Al Qaeda threatens us so we pay *them* reparations. So then Hezbollah threatens us and we pay *them* reparations. At what point are we not paying reparations and are paying protection money?

At the point where we pay anything at ALL to a terrorist organization.

Face it, for all the rhetoric we've heard and all the dramatic scenes on the news, we have not gone to war against "terror." We have invaded COUNTRIES. We have toppled the legal governments of sovereign nations--not just in the Middle East, although that's what we're discussing here--and we have promoted the instability of those nations; our own "intelligence" agencies have trained the very people we now call terrorists because we wished to keep the countries "under control." *so much for THAT bright idea*

I repeat: we do not owe reparations to terrorists; we owe them to the legitimate countries.

What we owe most of all is an apology. We have been wrong for sixty-plus YEARS. We have behaved in incomprehensibly damaging and unethical ways. We, as a country, are without honor.

The only way to regain our honor is to stand up before the world and say, "We were wrong."

And then we need to do what we should have done in 1979, honestly examine the root causes of the problem and make reparation.

It's what adults do.

I think that if you read Sayeed Qutb or even Osama Bin Laden you'll find that our libertine culture DOES bother them. The threat is not that we have it here but that people in the Muslim world may want it *there* because we do make it look very, very nice (which in some ways it is) and seductive.

I don't believe it's the primary cause of hatred, Aj; it's what they use to bolster pre-existing hatred. FIRST they see that we are--to put it bluntly--demons who rain down death and destruction on innocent people; THEN they say that being libertine is wrong, because it's associated with such horrible demons. First they see that we are monsters who withhold the means of making a decent living from innocent people (economic sanctions), THEN they say being libertine is wrong because it's associated with such monsters.

It's our mess; we made it. It won't end until we clean it up, and as far as I can see, the only way to clean it up is to stop acting like some monstrous demon of destruction and start acting like an adult country which takes responsibility for its own actions--including those actions of previous administrations.

Like the legitimate government of Egypt? (Which, before you blame the United States for that situation recall that Egypt was originally a Soviet client state and then they switched sides.) Like the legitimate government of Saudi Arabia?

Daddy used his CIA influence to buy his son the Presidency of the United States of America. It was not legitimate, but did any of the countries in the world take it upon themselves to refuse to treat with us because of that? Could they make it stick? Did they even have the right to try?

Did the illegitimacy of the leader invalidate the entire rest of the government? And once there was a new election--not bought--was the illegitimate ruler STILL illegitimate?

Who are we to refuse to deal with the governments which are in place, Aj? That's how we CREATED this problem to begin with!! If we are to gain ANY credibility as a country with honor, a trustworthy ally, we MUST begin by refusing to interfere with the governments of sovereign nations.

We have to start somewhere, and the best place to start is right where we are, with the governments that are already in place.

We also need to recognize that we DO have interests in the area. We actually have a very vested interest in Pakistan remaining stable and I'll explain why.

Pakistan has the Bomb and so does India. Pakistan and India have fought three different wars in the 50-odd years those two nations have existed after British rule collapsed. If Pakistan were to fall into the hands of the Taliban, then India WILL nuke them. They would be insane *not* to do so.

By whose definition? Why is it insanity to REFRAIN from destroying the earth?

There are OTHER options. If the Taliban were to take over Pakistan, there would still be other options--including UN peacekeepers.

This is not like the United States having nukes and Canada having nukes or France having nukes and Britain having nukes. In the latter cases, these are nations that have not had recent hostilities and have no serious territorial disputes. India and Pakistan have *very recent* hostilities and an active territorial dispute that both sides take very, very seriously. So our choice is this: pull out of Afghanistan and Pakistan and then wait for the mushroom clouds to form over Islamabad OR stay on the ground and do what we can. As long as India has the Bomb Pakistan isn't giving theirs up and vice versa. Given the enmity between the two nations, one can hardly blame them.

So given the above what would you have the U.S. do?

Bring all our economic and diplomatic influence to bear on the UN, and get a massive force of UN peacekeepers from at least twenty other countries on the ground now.

WE cannot solve this problem, Aj, until we withdraw.

You see, the problem is this: we still think we are running on Manifest Destiny. We--the US government-- still think that we have the God-given right to invade other countries, just as we invaded the US. We won here; we decimated the hundreds of nations which already owned this land, and we've never gotten over ourselves.

We. Were. Wrong.

We. Are. Still. Wrong.

We do NOT have the right to put armies inside foreign countries, and only our own deliberate blindness allows us to pretend we do... but trust me, those countries are not blind, and terrorist groups have only arisen because the governments were too weak to thrust us out.

We. MUST. Leave.

There will be no peace until we do, because our presence alone is enough to keep the terrorists--and all the ordinary people who are sick, scared, tired to the bone of it all, and finally willing to support the terrorists--inflamed.

Bring in the UN. The US cannot solve this problem as long as we keep an army on the ground.

And if you were India, and a fanatical group took over the nation next door, that you've fought three wars with in 50 years, and that group had access to nuclear weapons what would your response be. Not you, Bit, the beautiful, kind and non-violent person but you the leader of a billion Indian national who are looking to you and your cabinet to take care of the national self-interest?

I dunno, Ghandi did pretty well for a non-violent person...

If I were the leader of India, the place where American corporations were headed in droves, I would use my new-found economic clout to convince the US to bring in the UN, bigtime.

You understand that I am not saying there will be no more violence, Aj. I'm not all butterflies and roses; I understand there will still be war. BUT as long as it is war with the US, there will NEVER be peace. War with all the countries of the world, as represented by the UN??? THEN there is a chance for peace; then there is even a chance for diplomacy.

I know you don't like thinking like this. *I* don't like thinking like this!

Then stop. Change the filter through which you view the world, and allow for other options. They ARE out there. You mentioned that the terrorist organizations stated they would never negotiate.

How shortsighted of our government to accept that at face value.

EVERYONE has a price. The question is, do we care enough to find out what it is? Maybe the answer would be startlingly simple. Maybe the answer would be hospitals, food, schools, roads--some of the terrorists actually DO care about their countries; it is, after all, what drove them to mount defensive actions, yes?

Maybe the answer would be crass and greedy; maybe it would be payoffs. Maybe it would be some combination.

But how would we know? We've not tried.

WHY have we not tried, Aj?

What do WE get from continuing these wars? How do WE benefit?

Where is the profit going?

There's your answer. There's the reason you've been carefully taught to look through your current filter.

It's not that I'm non-violent, darlin. It's that I question everything.... heh... guess the 60s are still with me.

But to see the problem clearly we sometimes have to think like this.

Cheers
Aj

No. To see any problem clearly, we have to stop thinking like the people who created it, and start thinking outside the box. We have to get up and move across the room, see things from a new perspective, reject what other people tell us is the-way-it-is... and never, never allow ourselves to be blind to our own history and our own hubris.

Thanks for the discussion. I've enjoyed it.

Cath

[Bit]

......Prefacing your comments with this unnecessary piece of condescending tripe just makes you seem like a patronizing prat. Please stop.

Wow, Bob, I wasn't feeling patronizing and I'm sorry it came across that way. I was actually feeling warmth and affection. My apologies to you.

[dreadgeek]

By whose definition? Why is it insanity to REFRAIN from destroying the earth?

There are OTHER options. If the Taliban were to take over Pakistan, there would still be other options--including UN peacekeepers.

By whose definition would it be insanity? Put yourself in India---not as a common citizen but as the national security adviser to the political leadership. Islamabad is now in the hands of the Taliban who have made it *abundantly* clear that they consider Kashmir to be part of Pakistan and expressed a willingness to use violence to keep your nation out of it. You know that Pakistan and your nation have gone to war three times in the last 50 years. The Pakistani Army has recognized the new Taliban government as the *legitimate* government of the nation and, as such, they have discretionary use of all of the nation's arsenal including nuclear weapons. Now from THAT seat do peacekeepers sound like a good idea? It sounds like national suicide because the flight times for missiles between India and Pakistan is too short for there to be any margin of error.

India would be in a 'forced move' of attack first or wait until they are attacked. That is why I think we have a vested interest in the region. UN peacekeepers can't help Pakistan prevent the Taliban from taking over the country because UN peacekeepers are typically hamstrung such that their rules of engagement do NOT allow offensive operations. The only time they can fire is if they are *directly* fired upon. They can't even fire to prevent the slaughter of innocents! (See Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo and Rawanda)


WHOA. Stop right there, pardner. I am talking about Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt--Arab countries.

My concern is more with non-state actors. State actors are not suicidal which is why I don't care about Iran developing a nuclear weapon.

Now, given your list:

Iran: Let 'em develop all the nukes they want. Make it clear to them that providing nukes to non-state actors will be treated as the use of a nuclear weapon with all that it entails.

Iraq: Do a *sane* phased withdrawal out of the country.

Saudi Arabia: Cut them loose. Let the house of Saud deal with their own problems and do NOT allow them to seek asylum in the United States.

Pakistan: Either we deal with that situation or I guarantee you that the Indians will.

Jordan: Leave them be.

Syria: Leave them be.

Egypt: Cut Mubarak loose. Let him win a democratic election or lose and deal with the consequences.

But, again, the threat I am talking about is not from states but from non-state actors. Iran isn't going to send suicide bombers to attack the United States. They *know* what the consequences would be and Iranian politicians are politicians first: what do all incumbent politicians want more than anything else? To *continue* to be incumbents.


Then stop. Change the filter through which you view the world, and allow for other options. They ARE out there. You mentioned that the terrorist organizations stated they would never negotiate.

You're missing my point, Bit. There is how we, as private citizens, who are NOT going to be shot at and who are NOT responsible for making these decisions, can afford to think about these things and then there's how folks in national capitals, military administrations or sitting out standing watch can afford to think about these things. I'm suggesting that it is more useful to look at this with cold-eyed realpolitik based upon how the world works from those latter perspectives.

Cheers
Aj

[Bit]

You're missing my point, Bit. There is how we, as private citizens, who are NOT going to be shot at and who are NOT responsible for making these decisions, can afford to think about these things and then there's how folks in national capitals, military administrations or sitting out standing watch can afford to think about these things. I'm suggesting that it is more useful to look at this with cold-eyed realpolitik based upon how the world works from those latter perspectives.


It doesn't work, Aj.

At what point does one finally say, "whoa... that doesn't work; it never has worked"? We are perpetually in a state of war. It crops up over and over, and looking at it the same old way doesn't solve the problem. Throwing more money and bombs at it doesn't solve the problem. Throwing away more people's lives on both sides doesn't solve the problem.

If the old way doesn't work, we have to seek a different way, a way that actually CAN solve the problem.

I say we have passed the point where we SHOULD HAVE been looking for that way, passed it by thirty years--and now we're reaping the consequences.

"If you keep on doing what you always did, you will keep on getting what you always got."

We, the US, are the most powerful and influential country on the face of this earth; we have unparalleled economic and diplomatic influence over the rest of the world. If the UN Peacekeepers are ineffective, we have the means to mount a political campaign to redraw their regulations and make them effective. We have the means at our disposal to do this in a matter of weeks.

What we have so far lacked is anyone with the vision and commitment to mount the campaign, to follow through and see it to the end. Instead, we prefer to pretend that we are somehow virtuous for being a country of war. We rename war; we say we are "pacifying" countries as if they were babies and we were the parent--but it remains war and it does not solve the problem. We barely get one place "pacified" and another crops up, enraged.

It doesn't work.

At what point will we finally stop in our tracks, look around, and say, "it doesn't work; let's find a better way"?

[AtLast]

I agree. Add to the above the sheer desperation factor and you end up with stories like these...

http://www.aztlan.net/women_martyrs.htm

This is so powerful to view, to think about.
Dress,

What I'm getting at is that the West is treating the symptoms of the disease called terrorism not the cause. Which of course, it will never do because as someone has already pointed out, right at the center - amongst other things - you find the situation in Israel. And so the attacks continue.

I don't approve of suicide attacks. Hell, I don't approve of violence in any form. But I do understand, having lived amongst people who literally have nothing to live for, why they happen.

Words

Nothing to live for and a root factor ignored with such countries as the US supporting overt oppression and violence.

I don't see much positive movement in any direction without what you refer to here. Not without going beyond the symptoms to the causes. That box must be opened.


I have often thought about how entirely foreign the fact of living under the threat of having my family destroyed each and every day is to someone like me. The idea of just going to have a coffee or browsing a bookstore with knowledge that it just might be the day I am blown-up is not part of my experience. And to think of people that do live this way is what hits me the most. As well as accepting this for any people, anywhere.

Terrorist attacks will never cease as long as this is accepted as the status quo.

[AtLast]

I have to split the difference with you here. I think we have to be prepared to say "this is wrong, I don't care that it's a different culture but mutilating the genitals of young girls is wrong, full-stop". I think we MUST be prepared to do this and it concerns me that perhaps, we are not and, quite honestly, it scares me and makes me a little sad. Can you imagine, for instance, someone saying that Jim Crow was just part of Southern Culture and that while they are glad they don't have to live under that system in, say, Boston we cannot and should not be involved in trying to change that belief system? I can. I can very well imagine it and imagine how different my life could have been. That is why, although I may be called a Western Imperialist for this, I believe that there ARE truly universal human rights and that HUMAN rights trump CULTURES every time. So if some culture X engages in some behavior Y that, if my own culture did the same thing I would be out screaming in the streets (think honor killing, think female genital mutilation), then to be at all consistent I must condemn it in that other culture and take the heat that someone may call me an imperialist. That doesn't mean we invade other nations over their cultural practices but it *does* mean that don't make apologies for it either.

This analogy (Jim Crow), does bring me to another level with this.

I think that will work for the people who aren't interested in attacking us. I think it might even dissuade some people from joining the camp of those who want to attack us. I don't think it will do *anything* for the people who already want to attack us.

And I think what you said earlier about no promises of an enemy (used loosly) being stupid or insane applies.



Here I would agree. It's not the entire answer but we should be prepared for those situations where it *is* the answer and when it is, we should admit that it will be messy, ugly and painful.



I would agree with you again although, honestly, I think that hatred of the West in the Muslim world has more to do with US foreign policy and with our rather libertine culture than with how individual Westerners treat individual Muslims in their midst.

Cheers
Aj

Yes, good distinction.

There are so many new posts that go at the subject, I need to go back over all of them. A lot to digest ... a multi-faceted subject. Complex, to say the least! I appreciate all of the views being expressed.

[Andrew, Jr.]

Well we saw the NYC car bomb stopped - thanks to the street vendor. Do you see an imminent attack coming in July?
:fudd: