Senators warned of terrorist attack on US by July

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by Bob

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.

Originally Posted by smithsonianmag.com

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...#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...r-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/inv...n-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.

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

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

I think our ignorance of our own world is disconcerting!

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

[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.

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

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.

Originally Posted by Words

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]

Originally Posted by Bit

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...r-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]

Originally Posted by Bit

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]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

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.

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

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.

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

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.

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

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.

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

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.

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

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.

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

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.

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

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.

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

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.

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

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.

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

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.

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

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.

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

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]

Originally Posted by Bob

......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]

Originally Posted by Bit

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]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

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]

Originally Posted by Words

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.

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

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?