I must say this at the risk of being either banned or flamed

[keithyboy]

Everything I am hearing from the both the 9/11 Commission and all of those being questioned is a sad, sad commentary on the depths to where this country has fallen and lost its moral fiber. No one except forer Sec. of Defense, Cohen has come even close to the core issues that threaten our security and our freedoms. Every suggestion and sought remedy for fighting terrorism is directed at more and more attacks, more war, more killing, more death, more hatered, more resources sapped up for military. Only Cohen has said so far that the fight against terrorism involves more than a military or diplomatic response. And I agree.

We need a human understanding response. Unless and until we address the root causes of the reasons why people (yes, I call the so-called "terrorists" people because everyone of them, suicide bombers included are or were human beings who felt the need to take drastic action to some reason) feel it is necessary to attack us and kill us and have come to hate us so. We simply ignore the compelling reasons that they themselves give for actions and have developed an entire catalog of reasons (they hate us for our freedoms, they hate us because we are Christians, they hate us because we are rich and powerful, they hate us because they are evil) none of which include or remotely mention the reasons that they give.

They have said over and over again: they want us out of their lands and they want us to stop supporting Israel in its actions against the Paelestinians. In short, they want us to leave them alone, get out of thier countries, and stop demeaning their culture and religion.
So the answers being given to the 9/11 Commission and the questions being asked by the Commission are meaningless. If we never address the foreign policy aspects of "terrorism" we will never be safe, we will never be at peace. There was a time when Americans were the most respected, honored, admired, and loved people in the world. This so-called hatered toward us by Muslims did not occur in a vacuum. We keep saying that it would be a big mistake to appease the terrorists.
Well WTF does that mean? If we trace history we will find that the seeds of this terrorism and the Islamic people's mistrust and dislike of America were planted in 1948 with the worst appeasment of all time...the establishing of the nation of Israel by TAKING LAND AWAY FROM PALESTINIAN AND ARAB INDIGINOUS PWOPLES. It's not that Jews should not have been able to have a homeland, but the way it was done and the way it continues to be sustained is the real problem. Since then, the soil of terrorism has been watered and nourished by our blind and hypocritical support of the continuing illegal, immoral, and inhumane treatment of the Palestinian people to this day. To ignore this truth is to seal our own fate. This Commission is useless. We are all missing the point.

[JohnLocke]

1. Absurd.

Yes, it's all Israel's fault... :eyes:

[Jacobin]

2. Right. Everyone knows we endear ourselves to Muslims

with our even handed response to the Middle East.

Even though my vision gets a little gritty, I still think the view with my head in the sand is grand.

[Beam Me Up]

3. I don't hear him saying THAT at all! What is absurd is your reading.

[keithyboy]

5. As you can see for yourself, thinking and misleading like this is the

source of most of the problems in the world today.

[ET Awful]

9. Hmmm, I don't see that anywhere in his post.

What I see is a statement that at it's base is true, that most anti-US sentiment from the muslim world stems from the undying US support of Israel regardless of what they do. The most they've ever gotten from the US in terms of reprimand for their own human rights violations and other acts is a stern talking to.

Nowhere did he say "it's all Israel's fault."

[thingfish]

22. Pretty much.

Hey, why'd you change your icon?

[John BigBootay]

34. "Getting out" of the ME will not end terror--

I don't believe that will stop them from coming after us for other reasons such as:

1. we are infidels
2. women's rights
3. permissive culture / spreading it / celebrating it
4. gay rights
5. they are a "culture of death"

and many other reasons...

Bush is rightly mocked for many things he says and it's easy to mock his infamous "they hate us for our freedoms.." but if you think about it, there is a fair amount of truth in that

Personally, I believe that this war is destined to play out to some sort of conclusion-- a surrender, presumably.

[IrateCitizen]

36. There's no truth in "They hate us for our freedoms"

If you want to know why we're hated, go to the area surrounding a US military base on Okinawa or in Korea. You'll find lots of 18-24 soldiers with no awareness of nor respect for the cultural norms of the host countries. You'll find US bases and posts on the best tracts of land. You'll see US servicemembers with state-of-the-art recreational facilities that are far and beyond what the locals have. You'll see strip clubs and prostitution galore.

If you stay, you'll also see soldiers involved in drunken driving accidents who go unpunished within local legal channels. You'll see massive environmental and noise pollution as a result of US military maneuvers. Hell, you might even see an incident like the one in which three US Marines raped an Okinawan schoolgirl just for the hell of it.

And then you'll see local populations that are filled with emotions toward these outsiders that range from general dislike to seething hatred. But it certainly isn't that they "hate us for our freedoms". Rather, they hate us for the conditions that our government imposes on them, out of our innate need to militarily straddle the globe like a modern-day Colossus.

Islamic fundamentalists hate FREEDOM, but they don't hate us specifically for OUR freedoms. Such analyses are useful for ignoring the true costs of US imperial ambitions, but they do little for addressing root causes of why a large part of the rest of the world views us in the way they do.

[JCMach1]

41. Absolute poppycock...

There is no truth to such views...

The Arab generation has a real hunger for Democracy like nothing I saw in the U.S.

It is only a question of WHEN it will happen.

And when it does, don't expect any bowing down to the U.S.

It will be Democracy on THEIR terms NOT OURS.

You are absolutely buying into the typical American stereotypes of the Middle East.

I might also point out that some of the young abaya wearing females I know are also some of the biggest feminists I have ever met...

[John BigBootay]

53. Then why do OBL's "demands" specifically list these?

I am NOT saying that there aren't more pressing issues for the terrorists, i.e. the bases and the monetary support of Israel.

What I AM saying is that, IMHO, if we were to pull out of the bases and stop supporting Israel, doing so would NOT end terrorist interest in the west.

They would simply seek out further grievances. That is ONLY my opinion.

[IrateCitizen]

56. But it WOULD help end any popular support for them

Do you think that our support for authoritarian regimes, our support of Israel's campaigns of ethnic cleansing against Palestinians (settlers and their supporters are crystal-clear on this issue), etc. helps us to engender support among the majority of Arabs and Muslims in the ME? Or would it tend to alienate them, possibly pushing them toward the terrorists?

Want to know how Islamic fundamentalism will be defeated? It will be defeated by removing its base of support among the general population. How do you do that? By ceasing to support policies that OPPRESS them, and instead looking to help them empower themselves on their terms.

They may not march to whatever tune we play, but they sure as hell won't support the extremists either. What these people really want is freedom and democracy ON THEIR TERMS. The extremists aren't offering them that -- but it's not like WE are offering them that either. In fact, we're quite often pulling it out of their reach, which only serves to turn them against us.

[John BigBootay]

62. Fine-- but even a Kerry WH will not get us "out" of the ME

And even if we did, we'd still be attacked by terrorists.

They DO "hate us for our freedoms" but you're probably right that they hate us more for our involvement in the ME-- and this involvement breeds more jihadists.

But if anyone believes we're going to walk away from the ME and Israel-- well, I'm afraid they're simply wrong.

[IrateCitizen]

67. You're right -- we won't simply walk away...

Rather, we will leave as the American Empire, over time, simply collapses beneath its own weight.

It's not an "if", but rather only a "when"....

[dpibel]

61. But Christians believe the same thing!

Ever been to the Chalcedon website? They want to govern America (and then the world) according to strict Biblical law -- the whole thing, inlcuding stoning disrespectful children and goodies like that.

Not to mention what Jerry Falwell thinks.

Thus, I feel very comfortable in saying that Christians have declared war on Islam and the whole world, and will not rest until they have succeeded.

Ya see how that oversized tar brush stuff works?

Seriously, where do you get off making statements about a billion plus people based on the statements of the leader of a tiny splinter group? It makes exactly as much sense as basing an opinion of Christianity on fundies or dominionists.

Islam is a violent religion? Checked your Old Testament lately? (And fundies and dominionists do include a wrathful and vengeful God as part of their religion -- vide: Falwell on 9/11.)

Ever heard of Indonesia? Biggest Muslim population in the world, and one of our good buds. How's that fit?

[bryant69]

4. Well

The counter punch is obvious; many of those who practice terrorism have ideologies that do not admit to any sort of compromise. Many of them have the goal of destroying Israel. What is the proper response to that proposal? Other groups have equally extreme goals; study what Al-Queda actually wants to accomplish and ask yourself if it would be a good thing if they accomplished their goals.

That said there are things we can and should do to both improve our image and help people decide not to become terrorists.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[keithyboy]

7. You lose sight of the main point.

Let me spell it out:

The main point is that we need more than just military and diplomatic proposed solutions. We need foreign policy changes and a serious look at how we ourselves contribute to the hardships facing the rest of the world IN ADDITION TO military and diplomatic focus.

[RainDog]

13. Agreed. Militarism is the weakest option

We, as a nation, must not allow ourselves to continue to act as an empire, or we will bear terrible consequences for this, not only from terrorism, but also from our own economic collapse.

We need to rejoin the rest of the world as a partner for peace and justice...something we seem to have lost sight of after WW2.

Even before that we've been less than perfect, but the illegal and unconstitutional and immoral secret actions of our nation are shameful to us all.

the 9-11 commission, unfortunately it seems, will not look into our actions in the region before 9-11...as usual the focus is on us, us, us.

And, yes, we could do so much to bring about peace in the middle east, like a refusal to support the war criminal, Sharon, who disgraces us as much as our relationship with the House of Saud disgraces Bush.

[JNelson6563]

6. Over-simplified

We have supported some pretty crappy regimes in the whole region. Regimes that oppress their people yet have vast wealth themselves. As long as they are willing to toe the line for the US agenda they are our "friends" and we'll help them to remain in power.

See: "Saddam Hussein" for when that tender relationship between a ME despot and the BFEE is disturbed.

I think maybe, just maybe, the people of that region are mighty tired of us meddling in their affairs. They'd probably also prefer we didn't bomb them and/or their neighbors anymore too. Just a thought.

Julie

[Beam Me Up]

I think keithyboy is essentially right.

I will not get into the whole "Israel's fault" distraction. There is a LOT of history there to be discussed, but that isn't the thrust of this initial post.

THE POINT IS: Why does terrorism exist? Whose purposes does it serve? Who funds it and how?

To speak as if our foreign policies have nothing to do with terrorism is implicit propaganda. It deliberately ignores, and forces the public attention to ignore, THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES facing us as a nation at the foreign policy level.

[mmm]

8. I applaud your post

seems everyone but Americans already knows this.
Travel to Europe or New Zealand or Canada
and you hear this story time and again.

[Cassandra]

10. Do you really think terrorism started in 1948?

There was terrorism, both in the Middle East and elsewhere, long before 1948.

edit: adding a comment about this:
"the establishing of the nation of Israel by TAKING LAND AWAY FROM PALESTINIAN AND ARAB INDIGINOUS PWOPLES. "

Does "taking land away" include the purchase of land from landowners (which was loudly denounced by the willing sellers)? Does it include the indiginous Jews who were living in Palestine when it was a territory and before for countless generations. Are you counting among the land-deprived Arab refugees, those who never owned or worked any land in the area but had moved from neighboring countries to take advantage of jobs generated by Jewish and Arab business opportunities?

[Beam Me Up]

14. Your point is what?

"Terrorism." Another black box onto which one can project anything one wants.

Was there terrorism by fundamentalist Muslims directed against citizens of the United States inside the United States BEFORE 1948?

[Cassandra]

26. And what's your point?

That you have a very narrow view of history? There was no terrorism against the US right AFTER 1948 either. There have actually been a few things that the US has been involved with in the Middle East since 1948 that don't involve Israel. Al Quaida (sp?) throws in the I/P issue as a popular extra for their cause and you lap that right up like a trained seal waiting for a fish, as though Bin Laden actually cares about the Palestinians that much.

[Beam Me Up]

29. No. Not at all.

I'm asking what you mean by that word. You say "terrorism" existed before 1948 and don't give and example or define what you mean. It is a ridiculous statement because "terrorism" has existed as long as human beings have used fear and violence to manipulate other human beings.

I don't appreciate your "trained seal" slap. You know nothing about what I know or what I think.

Do I think bin Laden cares about the Palestinians? So far as 9/11 is concerned I don't think bin Laden is anything much more than a patsy; al Qaida an invention to justify our empirical intentions.

[Cassandra]

30. Terrorism is usually defined as a ..

deliberate military attack on civilians, by either the state or a para-military group.
""terrorism" has existed as long as human beings have used fear and violence to manipulate other human beings. "

That was what I meant; that not only have attacks of civilians been going on since time immemorial, but there was deliberate targeting of indiginous Jewish civilians in Palestine decades before 1948.
The trained seal comment is for anyone who wishes to swallow Arab propaganda whole without checking the facts. If that doesn't describe you, I apologize.

[gWbush is Mabus]

11. I agree with you Keithyboy

they don't hate our freedoms, THEY WANT OUR GREEDY, EXPLOITIVE, PORNOGRAPHIC CULTURE OUT OF THEIR COUNTRIES.

unfortunately, our simpleton president can't think about complex issues.

THAT is why we shouldn't have elected a moron.

[LeahMira]

12. I don't think so...

If we trace history we will find that the seeds of this terrorism and the Islamic people's mistrust and dislike of America were planted in 1948 with the worst appeasment of all time...the establishing of the nation of Israel by TAKING LAND AWAY FROM PALESTINIAN AND ARAB INDIGENOUS PEOPLES.

Check history between, say 1900 and 1948. See how "happy" the Arab nations were back then.

True, the level of awareness in this country was less because we didn't have instantaneous news reports beamed down from satellites. Now, we know every time someone hiccups in Israel and Palestine. Still, things were NOT joy and peace and tranquility before the establishment of the state of Israel.

You also might want to check on how things were before 1967 between the Palestinian and Arab people and the Israelis... y'know back when the West Bank and Gaza were not occupied territory.

Also, you write as if the state of Israel exists only because the U.S. insists it exist. The state of Israel was created by the United Nations, not the United States. THAT is "the way it was done."

[Lindsey]

16. I agree with you on many aspects

Our foreign policy has been reprehensible. The commission sucks.

[IrateCitizen]

15. Don't allow yourself to be distracted by the I/P issue...

It is but one small piece in an overarching framework. By focusing in on this one singular issue, you not only lose sight of the broader picture, but you open yourself up to marginalization in the process.

The issue here is not Israel/Palestine -- the issue is really imperialism.

The Jewish people who have resettled Israel are not a "race" -- they are simply a religious identity. If you look at it more aptly from a racial context, you will notice that the Jewish people settling Israel are NOT like the Jewish people who originally inhabited the region -- who would have been indistinguishable from their Palestinian neighbors. The Jewish people settling Israel are largely WHITE and EUROPEAN, racially-speaking.

Given the history of white colonialism throughout recent history in the Middle East -- and the way in which Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza more closely resemble an imperialist "cleansing" campaign than anything else -- such a perspective allows you to view the scenario in a slightly more detached manner. What the Israeli government has been doing is really not much different than the actions of the British, Dutch and French in establishing their colonies of the 19th century, in which they would encourage massive emigration of their people to colonies in order to displace the native peoples.

We support Israel because they are part and parcel of American imperial ambitions. They provide a staunch ally in the region to act as a bulwark against uncivilized Arabs. Of course, the Arabs resisting this scenario don't do much to help their cause by adopting extremist rhetoric and strategy, either.

But like I said, the I/P situation is just one particular scenario in a much bigger picture. Perhaps it doesn't seem to fit because what Israel is doing more closely resembles old-fashioned imperialism in which the main goal was the actual seizure of territory and resources, while the greater "modern" imperialism currently pursued by the United States is more of an empire of bases in order to maintain hegemony and a certain degree of control.

THIS "empire of bases", of course, is the 800-lb gorilla in the middle of the living room that NOBODY will talk about. It will ALWAYS be a source of "blowback" upon the United States in various forms. The more visible source is, of course, Islamic fundamentalists exporting terrorism to the US. But "softer" (and probably more devastating) blowbacks are still yet to come, from the emerging blocs that we dominated throughout the Cold War who are now emerging as real powers in their own right.

For example, South Korea and Japan both exist as "satellites" of US foreign policy and host our troops there. However, the people of both countries are becoming more antagonistic toward this arrangement, especially as the trade-off of open US markets is being closed out of threat of these countries actually SURPASSING US economic output. As China emerges as a world power (which is inevitable), who do you think that SK and Japan will be more likely to cast their lot with? Should Japan, China, South Korea, Malaysia, Taiwan, Vietnam, etc. be able to unite into an economic bloc a la the EU -- it could be utterly DISASTROUS to the United States. We would suffer worse damage than Islamic radicals would EVER be able to perpetuate upon us.

Our leaders remain collectively blind to this reality, out of ambition and the hubris that goes along with it. But we will be forced to confront this reality at some point, and it won't be pretty when it happens.

[Cassandra]

20. Aside from the fact that...

Jews in Israel and elsewhere are genetically linked to Palestinian Arabs and other Arabs, I agree with your comments about imperialism. After decades of cleaning up messes created by multi-national companies and the CIA, as well as miscalculations about the reach of communism and support of anti-communist dictators, it's not really a surprise that many countries hate us. I suggest that the societies that hate us the most are the most rigid with the most controlled media and overarching religion. We can see that that combination is not doing our body politic any good.

edit: there are some spelling mistakes spellcheck doesn't catch.

[Beam Me Up]

21. Thank you for this analysis.

Do you really believe "Our leaders remain collectively blind to this reality, out of ambition and the hubris that goes along with it."

I don't. Or if they are, indeed, "blind," it is because they prefer to be kept in the dark.

[IrateCitizen]

23. Arrogance and hubris blinds one to reality like little else

Our leaders are blind because of their arrogance and hubris (as is, sadly, the majority of Americans who believe in the myth of "American exceptionalism"). To open their eyes would mean they would have to instantly renounce everything they have ever come to believe as true and right.

[Beam Me Up]

33. I'll give this some thought.

I don't disagree that arrogance and hubris can blind men. But, ultimately, this psychological explanation gets them off the hook. I want them squarely on that hook because I believe that is where they belong. If they are going to assume roles of power, then they should assume the responsibility that comes with that role.

I do not believe that 9/11 was simply an "intelligence failure" or a "communications failure" within the intelligence system. That may be the "plan B" reality they are trying to sell themselves and the American people, but I don't buy it any more than I bought the "plan A" reality--that they were totally taken by surprise. It is a lie.

Qui Bono? bin Laden? Islamic Fundamentalism? Who benefits NOW from this charade of questions and answers that keeps the public attention focused on particular issues in a particular way? What about all the other questions they aren't asking, aren't allowed to ask, aren't even allowed to pretend might have any relevance.

I have to go to work. Thanks for your dialogue.

[IrateCitizen]

45. Rationalizations are a part of human nature

Even the Nazis were able to 'rationalize' their behavior as being part of some greater good from the docks at Nurenberg. For some of the executed offenders, I believe their last words were even, "Heil Hitler."

Does this somehow let them off the hook for their transgressions? Hardly. But it is demonstrative as to how far rationalizations can convince people to disavow reality and basic decency.

Note that in no way am I comparing the US to Nazi Germany. I simply produced it as an extreme model of the dangers of rationalizaton borne out of hubris or arrogance.

WRT the questions you're asking, you are asking the most fundamental and important one -- WHO BENEFITS? Of course, for this reason, it is also the one most ignored in official channels -- because it has the capacity to cut to the heart of the matter.

[thingfish]

24. Distracted by it? It is the central issue of the entire apocalytic mess.

x

[IrateCitizen]

25. Did you even bother to read my post?

Or did you simply type off a quick response after just reading the heading?

On second thought, nevermind -- I already know the answer. :eyes:

[thingfish]

27. I read your post, disagreed with your pat, flip analysis, and offered...

...a pat, flip rebuttal. This is the internet. Deal with it.

[IrateCitizen]

28. OK, then. Moving right along....

:eyes:

[Quahog]

17. Remember what the Saudis said

Back in the days when it was common knowledge that the 9-11 hijackers were almost all Saudis (not Iraqis), I heard a "man in the street" report from Saudi Arabia, probably on NPR, where they were asking average Saudis why they thought the strike against the US might have happened. Two reasons were cited. One was the US's blind and unquestioning support of Israel. But more significant and frequent was the observation that the US openly supports the Saudi royal family. This is seen by Saudis as a corrupt and evil regime, which takes the nation's natural resources for its own enrichment and allows the people on the street to suffer in poverty. Further, the US facilitated this policy of protection partly through a military presence on Saudi soil, land which is considered holy to Islam and violated by the presence of non-believers. Add to this the insult to Islam that is the lifestyle of nominally Muslim Saudi princes, with their luxury palaces and yachts loaded up with alcohol, drugs and naked European supermodels, and you can understand why they are widely despised by the Saudi populace.

They don't hate our freedom. They don't hate our Christianity. They hate us because we prop up an oppressive regime, and it's proven easier for them to attack us (directly, and through attacking Israel) than it is for them to attack their oppressors inside their own country. We need to butt out of these countries, and the terror will stop.

Closing US military bases in Saudi Arabia is the one smart thing the bush administration has done... even if it was, as anyone can clearly see, "appeasing al-Qaeda."

[keithyboy]

32. I love your response...you said it much better than i.

Thank you!

[sushi]

18. Exactly what I'm thinking

They do want us out of their lands. They do want to be left alone. They do want us to stop demeaning their culture and religion.

I'm always amazed when I hear anyone wondering what "these people" want.

Why does the US feel the need to station troops in so many countries? Why meddle in other countries' affairs? Why support dictators, like the Shah of Iran and Saddam Hussein in the past, and Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan now? Why not even-handed in the Israel/Palestinian conflict?

To stop or reduce terrorism, changes need to be made in US foreign policy.

[mmonk]

19. terrorism is blowback

as well as the increasing disdain for the US. Not addressing the reasons means continuing the course. Blowback is caused by our increasing grip on other parts of the world for economic hegemony. In September of 2001, we had 474,312 military personnel all over the world (outside the US). That included Bahrain, Diego Garcia, Egypt, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and also Sub-Saharan Africa. We are continuing to add more including 14 "enduring" bases in Iraq (Operation Enduring Freedom).

[justsam]

31. 110% correct

[burythehatchet]

35. Very well stated Keith

Its the third rail of the debate though. Human understanding should be the primary response, but the economic interests simply cannot allow that to happen.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

37. Those are some strong points

but I think your focus is too narrow. The Palestinian issue is huge. However the arrogant and tyrannical way America and, moreover, the global corporate powers spawned in America are keeping people down worldwide. The problems in Latin America are part of the same global web of anti-American sentiment.

To your point about the foreign policy aspect of our anti-terrorist programs - that is THE crux of the issue, you're absolutely right.

After 9/11 I remember my close friends, family and politically like-minded colleagues saw this as a unique moment in time to spread real conscientious, righteous and kind foreign policies. It was an opportunity to foster true international unity. That was apparently squandered in the 1st 5 minutes after 9/11. That is becoming more and more obvious by the commission. So , in that respect, the commision is NOT useless. It is usefull and uselless to the degree that it backs up the forces for real progressive change or simply point some abstract blame on some person or group.

Not to say that those who were responsible shouldn't be held accountable but were they? Will they be? These are important questions.

[keithyboy]

38. Indiscriminately bombing, killing, and maiming women and children

is not the answer to making us safer. We keep talking about the stiff resistence that our troops are meeting in Iraq right now. No one gives a thought to the fact that these people have every right to now "hate" us. Of those thousands of bodies uncovered how many were from Saddam's regime and how many were from the Bush regime of Desert Storm? I still remember seeing retreating Iraqi military being scorched in their tracks as they tried to surrender. The invasion of Iraq by the current administration will only end in more hatered of the US. We have always squandered opportunities to live up to our best ideals.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

40. Absolutely, and we will continue to unless some real, RADICAl change

is made to way we, and the world interact. The honos is on us, however as we are the hyper-power.

I'm not going to pretend I know what the answer is, but you can't get people to stop killing by killing people, that's for sure.

[Trajan]

39. Equal Opportunity Atheist ...

" .. In short, they want us to leave them alone, get out of thier countries, and stop demeaning their culture and religion. ..."

However much I dislike Israeli policy, and the concordant and parallel US policy, I refuse to simply accept that Islamic theology and culture are above reproach ...

In my view: ALL faith-based theologies stand on very thin ice, and lead to cultures that are condescending towards non-believers ...

When 'infidels' and 'heretics' are directed to the gates of hell by religion ... then I have a problem which should not be silenced by platitudes of undeserved respect ...

Yes: ... The Arabs ARE being abused by US and Israeli policies, and yes: the Israelis AND americans ARE being abused by Muslim extremism, but these facts are relevent to the 'humanity' or 'inhumanity', as it were, of each culture, and do not promote a specific theological view as being above criticism ...

This includes Islam ...

Muslims MUST answer for the ingrained creedal perfection (IE demands for perfect theological adherence) of their theology as christians and jews must ...

I REFUSE to stand by, mute, as organized religion cuts the world into little pieces of orthodoxy (Saints), and heterodoxy (Sinners)... MOST the faith based belief systems are responsible for this segmentation of our societies ...

We ALL are weak and degenerate human beings ... and THAT is the point ...

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

43. It is possible to be very religious and very tolerant at the same time

The key is the word"infidel" or "heritic" as you say. once you startforcing yourself on others or abusing people for non-belief the world will no no peace. You are right but, as I said, it is possible for a person to be devoutly religious and leave others alone. Some people's religions have ingained intheir theology a need to prestelatize. That's a real problem.

[alarimer]

42. yes

I think you are essentially right. Foreign policy should be much more nuanced than the current "you are either with us or with the terrorists" idea. Also, our support of almost anything Israel does is a factor. We need to be much more even-handed there. I don't know what the answer is. The problem is that a lot of these "terrorist" groups are not willing to compromise with Israel at all. Israel will not compromise with the Palestinians. When you carve up a country out of land occupied by other peoples, it guarantees problems (unless of course you simply kill them all, as will native peoples during the colonial era). So to me there will never be a solution.

[Mustang22]

44. There is something very flawed with your argument.

Look at what this Islamic Terrorists have done. They have killed thousands of people. Are you saying we should simply let them get away with it and hope it doesnt happen again? Is that how we should handle all murders? Just give them what they want and hope?


"We need a human understanding response. Unless and until we address the root causes of the reasons why people (yes, I call the so-called "terrorists" people because everyone of them, suicide bombers included are or were human beings who felt the need to take drastic action to some reason) feel it is necessary to attack us and kill us and have come to hate us so."


Im sorry. But i really dont care how murders feel.



I know its one thing to declare war on a country that hasnt attacked us yet. But these terrorists have attacked us... Now its our turn

[IrateCitizen]

46. Bombs raining out of a clear blue sky

Actions do not occur out of nowhere. The are always based on cause and effect.

Now, we have a choice -- we can choose to truly investigate the real causes, and take action to avoid similar events from happening in the future. Or, we can ignore those true causes, instead bind ourselves to ideology, and lash out in anger.

You have clearly chosen the second path, as has the current administration. It is a very dangerous one.

The people who will lead to the defeat of Islamic fundamentalism are not those who are dropping bombs, or raiding homes, or anything of that nature. Rather, they are the vast majority of people who live in the areas from which these fundamentalists receive their support. But for every home bombed, every innocent person killed, every house bulldozed -- we only serve to push those moderates toward the extremists, and turn them against us.

Nobody here is advocating that you can reason with murderers. You can't. What you CAN do, however, is to behave in a way that removes all support from those crazed murderers. Of course, such a plan might involve seriously re-examining your own actions, something that we as Americans are often loathe to do because it punctures the myth of American exceptionalism that we so like to believe in.

[Mustang22]

47. and how would you go about doing that? nt

[IrateCitizen]

48. Several ways, actually...

1. Approach it for what it really is, which is a situation requiring massive international cooperation and intelligence sharing. You don't achieve cooperation by bullying others, but rather as approaching them as general partners. We blew the biggest surge in global goodwill toward us in the post-WWII era by the way we behaved since 9/11.

2. You aren't going to break up terrorist networks by dropping bombs (some of which hit innocent women and children) -- you attack them by cutting off their financing and through law-enforcement and inflitration efforts. People in Arab countries should be perfect for infiltrating these groups and informing on them -- but they aren't going to do so while we are raining bombs down on them and kicking in their front doors. Phil Gramm's opposition to cracking down on banking regulations that enable terrorists to hide funds is rather perplexing on this level as well -- but hey, you don't want to piss off Citigroup or UBS Warburg for something as trivial as preventing terrorism, do you?

3. Don't invade and occupy a country that had nothing to do with the attacks but happens to have lots of oil. Now we're constructing 14 PERMANENT bases in Iraq. How do you think this looks after OBL himself predicted that the US would invade and occupy and oil-rich country in the ME?

4. Support internal democracy in the ME. Our record in undermining democratic movements and propping up authoritarians is absolutely abysmal. We overthrew Mossadeq for the Shah, and ended up with Khomeni as a result. We are currently supporting people like Mubarak in Egypt, the current ruler of Uzbekistan (who boils people alive that oppose him), and the corrupt Saudi royal family. People who live in these regions and hunger for democracy in a way that we can never understand notice these things, and they notice who is behind it.

There's four points off the top of my head. If necessary, I could expand this list further in the future.

[Mustang22]

51. do you honestly think this is a law enforcment problem?

"1. Approach it for what it really is, which is a situation requiring massive international cooperation and intelligence sharing. You don't achieve cooperation by bullying others, but rather as approaching them as general partners. We blew the biggest surge in global goodwill toward us in the post-WWII era by the way we behaved since 9/11."

I agree that we should have as much internation support as possible. But i dont think that should be the basis of definding our own country.


"2. You aren't going to break up terrorist networks by dropping bombs (some of which hit innocent women and children) -- you attack them by cutting off their financing and through law-enforcement and inflitration efforts. People in Arab countries should be perfect for infiltrating these groups and informing on them -- but they aren't going to do so while we are raining bombs down on them and kicking in their front doors. Phil Gramm's opposition to cracking down on banking regulations that enable terrorists to hide funds is rather perplexing on this level as well -- but hey, you don't want to piss off Citigroup or UBS Warburg for something as trivial as preventing terrorism, do you?"

Great point.. I agree freezing funds is a very effective way to stop it. And i believe that is what we are doing. But.... (and i will probably get banned for saying this) I do believe that in conjuntion with freezing funds, military operations are also neccessary because it brings the fight to their turf and keeping it away from ours. Although im not saying we are tottaly safe from another attack, i do believe that since we are over there it will definaly make it harder.

"3. Don't invade and occupy a country that had nothing to do with the attacks but happens to have lots of oil. Now we're constructing 14 PERMANENT bases in Iraq. How do you think this looks after OBL himself predicted that the US would invade and occupy and oil-rich country in the ME?"

Ehhhhh, thats questionable so i will leave it alone.



And i agree with the 4th point... I know that i sound like a bush supporter.. But im not... But when it comes to matters of this country's saftey. I believe in action and not appeasement. If that gets me banned, then ohh well :spank:

[IrateCitizen]

54. In response...

I agree that we should have as much internation support as possible. But i dont think that should be the basis of definding our own country.

What do you think should be the basis of defending the country? I think it should be whatever strategies best prevent attacks against American citizens, whether it be at home or abroad. If that involves dismantling some of our massive military empire of bases, so be it. If that involves acting within the community of nation rather than in spite of them, so be it.

I do believe that in conjuntion with freezing funds, military operations are also neccessary because it brings the fight to their turf and keeping it away from ours. Although im not saying we are tottaly safe from another attack, i do believe that since we are over there it will definaly make it harder.

Exactly how? Are you fighting a foreign army? Or are you fighting a shadowy network of individual "cells"? If it is the latter, then how exactly are you hurting these groups by engaging in large-scale operations on their territory? What if they already have people on every continent on earth? What if they have people right here in the United States? Who exactly are you taking the fight to? Do you think that those innocents who see their homes destroyed and loved ones killed will be likely to help us in the future, or if they might tend to support the terrorists?

Have you ever heard the saying that for every innocent person you kill, you create ten future terrorists? It's in full effect here.

"3. Don't invade and occupy a country that had nothing to do with the attacks but happens to have lots of oil. Now we're constructing 14 PERMANENT bases in Iraq. How do you think this looks after OBL himself predicted that the US would invade and occupy and oil-rich country in the ME?"

Ehhhhh, thats questionable so i will leave it alone.

What's questionable about it? There WERE no links between SH and OBL. There weren't any WMD's. There IS lots of oil in Iraq, and we ARE currently constructing 14 new, permanent bases in the country. You can't just say that it's "questionable" and then back off, without your motives being called into question.

I know that i sound like a bush supporter.. But im not... But when it comes to matters of this country's saftey. I believe in action and not appeasement.

Would that be constructive action, or action just for the sake of action? Do you believe that safety can only be ultimately achieved through solely military means, or that intelligence-sharing and cooperation can have just as much of an effect in the long run?

BTW, you don't sound like a "Bush supporter". What you sound like is a person who is relatively unaware, like most Americans, of what your government does around the world and how that makes the rest of the world view us. For a primer, I would suggest the book Blowback by Chalmers Johnson. It doesn't deal with Middle East issues as much as Far-East ones -- but it helps make an excellent outline of why our actions during the latter half of the 20th century through to the present have contributed to alienating a good portion of the rest of the world. I can guarantee that you will not emerge from it with any illusions of "American exceptionalism" intact.

[Mustang22]

59. the only problem is...

Each country has its own agenda.... Obvisouly we are the most powerfull country in the world. And I think other countrys are Jealous and some will do anything to weaken us.

Im all for peace.. But if you look back into history. They has never ever been peace without a conflict first. Unfortunatly thats human nature.


"3. Don't invade and occupy a country that had nothing to do with the attacks but happens to have lots of oil. Now we're constructing 14 PERMANENT bases in Iraq. How do you think this looks after OBL himself predicted that the US would invade and occupy and oil-rich country in the ME?"

Ehhhhh, thats questionable so i will leave it alone.

What's questionable about it? There WERE no links between SH and OBL. There weren't any WMD's. There IS lots of oil in Iraq, and we ARE currently constructing 14 new, permanent bases in the country. You can't just say that it's "questionable" and then back off, without your motives being called into question."



Its questionable because there is no prof we are there of oil.. One can argue either way.. And the links to Al-queda. They supposedly found training camps there or whatever... So that can go either way. about the 14 permanant bases.. I havent heard anything about that, so i will just take your word for it. There are just soo many unkown factors that i really choose not to debate all those because there are no proven facts for either sides yet..


"BTW, you don't sound like a "Bush supporter". What you sound like is a person who is relatively unaware, like most Americans, of what your government does around the world and how that makes the rest of the world view us"



I dont see how im unaware.. Im fully aware of what goes on in the world... But its just I dont think it should matter what the rest of the world views us as when it comes to proctecting ourselves.


And as far as bringing the fight to their turf. Yea they have cells all over the world. But when we are chasing their leaders around in afgan, I think it gives them less time to plan their next attack. Instead they are planning how to stay alive..


Forgive me if i sound "unaware" or ignorant.. after all i am only 20 years old... Just now getting into the whole global events. But im just offering my opinions. Which im sure will change with time and wisdom :)

[IrateCitizen]

66. I hope you didn't take my "unaware" comment as condescension

It wasn't meant as such. In your reply, in acknowledging that you are only 20 years old and, "just now getting into the whole global events," you helped to highlight what I'm talking about.

I'm not talking about willful ignorance on your part, nor am I talking about any sort of stubborn refusal to listen. Rather, what I am referring to is that if you want to know about how things REALLY work in the world, you need to seek information out from "nonconventional" sources. IOW, don't believe what you see on TV or read in the papers at face value. An excellent model on how the mainstream media truly acts as a propaganda model rather than a free press is Manufacturing Consent by Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky. You can find a choice excerpt online by going here: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman%20/Manufac_Consent_Prop_Model.html

I would suggest that you look at the book I mentioned above by Chalmers Johnson. If you'd rather start out a little lighter, I could suggest a few alternative media news sites to get you started:
http://www.tompaine.com
http://www.alternet.org
http://www.truthout.org
http://www.thenation.com

There's even an excellent TV show you can check out that will give you the "news behind the news" -- NOW with Bill Moyers and David Brancaccio on PBS. It's on most areas at 8:30 Friday evenings, but you can check out your area listings at http://www.pbs.org/now.

BTW -- the 14 permanent bases in Iraq were revealed in a Chicago Tribune article two days ago. And considering that we, as 4% of the world's population consume 25% of the world's oil, it only stands to reason that petroleum is a big part of why we're over there. Just start out with the basic question, WHO BENEFITS?

But im just offering my opinions.

They are most certainly welcome. But don't offer them up expecting them to be unchallenged -- especially when you cannot back them up with solid facts. Over time, you may find that having your opinions challenged can both help you to strengthen your arguments, and see them change from other points of view you hear -- if you are willing to engage others with an open mind.

Oh -- welcome to DU! ;-)

[Karenina]

49. First, EDUCATE YOURSELF!!!

Read. Talk to those on the "front lines." You have the means. SHUT UP AND LISTEN WITH AN OPEN HEART. Examine your own biases. Are you even AWARE of those in Israel, Muslim and Jewish, who have "jumped over their shadows" at risk to life and limb, to join together for PEACE? THESE are people who have been DIRECTLY AFFECTED by the inane carnage. Ask yourself why you know so little of them OR the Israeli soldiers JAILED for refusing to cross the "Green Line."

[IrateCitizen]

50. Settle down, Karenina!

The poster asked a question. Give him/her an answer, not a tirade disparaging him/her.

Whether he/she chooses to listen to and absorb the points made is his/her decision. But one thing is certain -- launching a tirade at him/her as the object of your anger will do little to accomplish this aim -- and may lose him/her off in the process.

Statements like this do no more to help the situation than those who reflexively shout, "Let's bomb the bastards!" without even knowing who the perpetrators are, let alone WHY something happened in the first place.

[Karenina]

55. Sorry, Chris. You're correct.

I am truly at my wit's end. It was not my intent to disparage, I'm just SO frustrated by those who have the means at their fingertips, especially as those who are so personally affected and less endowed manage to seek out the truth and put their LIVES on the line. To see it all clearly one has to first actively research the breakup of the Ottoman Empire. Then one has to find some empathy for ALL INVOLVED, with an attempt to understand the positions of the players and how OUR COMMON INTERESTS have been so manipulated. Sound-bites don't cut it. Indoctrination, be it from Hebrew school or a Madrassah doesn't cut it.

Really Chris, the news of Yassin's assasination has me doing the elementary school "duck & cover" drill. I told my teacher I thought it was ridiculous and got in BIG TROUBLE for scaring my classmates. It's as ridiculous now as it was then... :cry: :cry: :cry:

[IrateCitizen]

57. Empathy is a two-way street, Karenina

It is just as important to express it toward those with whom you might not agree. It is not the sole right of the oppressed and downtrodden.

Try and use a little empathy toward those who would reflexively fall back on militarism, and figure out WHY they might think that way. Then seek to engage them, and help open their minds to the facts that might seem commonplace to you and I -- but they are hearing for the first time.

Shattering of illusions is not something most people welcome with open arms.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

52. IC I concur

[aprilgirl]

65. Good points, Iratecitizen

Very thoughtful and insightful.

[newyawker99]

58. Hi Mustang22!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Mustang22]

60. Thanks!

[aprilgirl]

63. Lot's discussion so I'll add my two cents.

I think Keith has raised some very valid points. All the violence, occupations, military actions, sanctions have thus far not stopped anything because the root of the problem goes unaddressed. I fear there are few who have the courage to raise the issue, especially among world leaders. If there are any to raise the issue, they will never be able to be leaders in any nation. We are paying blood guilt for something we had no part of and there is nothing in sight to change this since the focus is entirely on the war against terrorism and military actions and reactions and sanctions as the answers to all foreign policy matters.

[0rion]

64. Well said.

ibid.