Searching For The Roots Of 9/11

This was a program on the Discovery Times Channel this weekend. Did anyone see it?

Some of the interesting information contained it is was among other things.

Most middle easterns hatred towards the US it based on their hatred towards their own governments and the US's part in backing those governments. (They hate their own oppressive governments, and their hatred for the US is based on their belief that the US backs and provides assistance to keep these oppressive governments in power.)

over 50% of the people surveyed stated they would rather live in another country (out of those 50% over 50% stated they would rather live in the US)

When asking high school students and college students (who happen to be one of the most outspoken groups against the US) where they would like to go to college. They unanimously said the US. They stated they could get a better education in the US, because the colleges and universities were better.

Many arabian newspapers reported (FALSELY) that the reason Bush was elected was because the we (american citizens) didn't want a Jew (Al Gore) as president, when in fact Al Gore is a christian.

Arabian newspapers also reported that the 9/11 attack was an act of domestic terrorism masterminded by the CIA. And that 4,000 jews were notified the evening of 9/10 to not go to work at the WTC towers the next morning.

I thought is was a pretty interesting program, devulging the root opinions of middle easterns toward america.

If we interviewed a few hundred Americans, would we find Timothy McVeigh? What sample size do we need to find the terrorists in our midsts? I feel that this is one more small view on a large issue.

On the other hand, many of those points make sense. I don't think that our colleges are doing a terrific job in science education, but we certainly are a beacon for the third world.

While I don't doubt that the documentary makes good points, the roots of terrorism are not something that can be successfully and objectively analysed on television in a few hours.

//the roots of terrorism are not something that can be successfully and objectively analysed on television in a few hours.

That's nonsense. In a general sense, people employ terrorist tactics for a very, very simple reason.

THEY WORK.

If you have a political message that you want to get across, especially if this message is unpopular or unattractive to the media, a very effective way to get your message across is to fly a passenger jet into a tall office building. Another effective way is to drive a truckload of explosives into a government building. Suddenly your issue - the moral strength of which is notwithstanding - gains tremendous media focus and often political support. A natural reaction is, "Gosh, whoever did that must have had a really good reason."

When a sufficiently motivated person or persons manages to kill enough people, they gain attention to their issues that cannot be reasonably obtained through other means. They also can achieve "success" much, much, MUCH more easily by attacking soft targets (civilians and civilian assets) than they can by direct military engagement, which as recent history should tell anyone, is a losing proposition against a modernized and wealthy nation.

Terrorist tactics are simply very effective - and sadly, ACCEPTABLE - means of conducting your politics these days. The human race as a species has decided to ignore Mohandas K. Gandhi's brilliant example of peaceful resistance and instead have embraced casual bloodshed as a means of political expression.

While it may be that the grunts flying the planes into skyscrapers or driving the truckbombs into daycare centers are possessed of great conviction and truly believe that they are fighting and dying for a higher cause, I think it speaks volumes that their leaders, the ones who urge them to their deaths and the deaths of many non-combatants, chicken out when it's their turn. Witness Osama bin Laden's denial of responsibility for 9/11 once it was obvious that the US military was coming to smear him into toothpaste. Witness top Iraqi leadership's meek surrenders when only days before these same men were urging suicide attacks from their citizens.

The only, the ONLY sane response to an act like a suicide bombing of a children's schoolbus, or ricin gas attack in a Japanese subway, is to find the people responsible - and KILL THEM. Kill their leaders. Kill their financial backers. Kill their trainers. Kill their support personnel. Kill many people around them just for being nearby. You don't fight cancer by negotiating with it. Terrorist tactics - and here I mean intentionally causing death and destruction of civilians and their assets for the purpose of political gain - are simply a perfidious bad habit that mankind has picked up, and fingers need to be rapped until this habit is broken.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Memnoch1207
This was a program on the Discovery Times Channel this weekend. Did anyone see it?
:
:
Arabian newspapers also reported that the 9/11 attack was an act of domestic terrorism masterminded by the CIA. And that 4,000 jews were notified the evening of 9/10 to not go to work at the WTC towers the next morning.

---

From a few articles I've read it does appear that a number of intelligence services knew of some kind of attack but MOSAD (?) did something about it.
As for it being the work of the CIA or other shadowy body, total conspriacy theory, but do a search for operation Northwood regarding Cuba.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Da...fs_010501.html

Before 9/11, even if the CIA had a reasonable amount of proof that a terrorist attack of large scope was going to take place, the idea of it was so unheard of at the time that they likely would not have been taken seriously.

Regardless of how deeply the program did or didn't go into investigating the cause of 9/11, I think it is a step in the right direction. The only way to fight terrorism is to fight the cause...

We know that Americans as a whole are a bunch of really nice people, however in the middle east, that is not the image they see. They see the troops, Bush's speeches etc. It doesn't take much spin to "create" stories about atrocities etc. (after all, who is going to disprove them if the media is controlled). America's oversea's image is very poor, I'm not really sure why, because there is a lot of American relief work being done out there, but it is certainly an image problem.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Slow_Learner
...... The human race as a species has decided to ignore Mohandas K. Gandhi's brilliant example of peaceful resistance and instead have embraced casual bloodshed as a means of political expression.......

The only, the ONLY sane response to an act like a suicide bombing of a children's schoolbus, or ricin gas attack in a Japanese subway, is to find the people responsible - and KILL THEM. Kill their leaders. Kill their financial backers. Kill their trainers. Kill their support personnel. Kill many people around them just for being nearby. .......

---

Er, okay.

I disagree. If you start randomly killing people who are near terrorirsts and doing so without fair trial, then I'm afraid you are just another terrorist, and you will create even more terrorists by taking unjustifiable action.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Slow_Learner
You don't fight cancer by negotiating with it.

---

I assume your favourite therapy for cancer would be to kill the patient? :p

.

Quote:

---

You don't fight cancer by negotiating with it.

---

Any therapy for cancer must recognise that the cancer cells are part of the body and not some alien infestation therefore anything that kills the cancer will also do extraordinary damage to the body containing it. This can also be applied to the "destruction of terrorism" idea.
The best way to deal with cancer is to avoid cancer causing agents - and with terrorism the biggest causal agent is the wealth gap.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Slow_Learner
//the roots of terrorism are not something that can be successfully and objectively analysed on television in a few hours.

That's nonsense. In a general sense, people employ terrorist tactics for a very, very simple reason.

THEY WORK.

---

I stopped reading when I finished "THEY WORK."

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Shawn N
I stopped reading when I finished "THEY WORK."

---

You have a lot of patience ;)

.

Silly silly people. What, people use terror tactics because they DON'T work?

//The only way to fight terrorism is to fight the cause...

Ergo, encourage terrorism because it works. Because when you fight the cause, you reward the terrorist, since that's exactly what he wanted you to do. Why bother with politics when bombs cost less and work faster? Duh.

//Any therapy for cancer must recognise that the cancer cells are part of the body and not some alien infestation therefore anything that kills the cancer will also do extraordinary damage to the body containing it. This can also be applied to the "destruction of terrorism" idea.

Completely bogus. Chemotherapy basically poisons cancer cells (killing them). Radiotherapy basically irradiates cancer cells (killing them). Both of these techniques also do damage to the body, but for some reason doctors seem to like them. ^_^

Considering the fact that "infidels" are still occupying the Muslim's Holy Land and the Israelis are still fighting the Palestinians I'd say you're the one being rather silly in believing such outlandish methods of activism.

Fighting the cause (ergo) rewards the terrorists? Bombs cost less and work faster? Jeez, you really do know what you're talking about, don't you?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Slow_Learner
Completely bogus. Chemotherapy basically poisons cancer cells (killing them). Radiotherapy basically irradiates cancer cells (killing them). Both of these techniques also do damage to the body, but for some reason doctors seem to like them. ^_^

---

I don't really like this simile, but with respect to your "but for some reason doctors seem to like them" response, I now see why you've picked your user name. ;)

Gosh, maybe if we all hold hands and sing a happy song, folks will stop sneaking bombs into American embassies and expatriate compounds. Ya think?

Quote:

---

Completely bogus. Chemotherapy basically poisons cancer cells (killing them). Radiotherapy basically irradiates cancer cells (killing them). Both of these techniques also do damage to the body, but for some reason doctors seem to like them. ^_^

---

How do you know this?

Quote:

---

//The only way to fight terrorism is to fight the cause...

---

Retalliation is what they want, they want people to go after them.

Quote:

---

Fighting the cause (ergo) rewards the terrorists? Bombs cost less and work faster? Jeez, you really do know what you're talking about, don't you?

---

I agree withj what you are saying. SL so pay more attention to what people are saying.

Quote:

---

Gosh, maybe if we all hold hands and sing a happy song, folks will stop sneaking bombs into American embassies and expatriate compounds. Ya think?

---

What an incredibly fatuous response. Terrorism is endemic in countries where there is a large wealth gap and a closed political system. Unless you believe that terrorism is inherent in the human condition then it stands to reason that addressing these issues will reduce the attraction of the extremist/terrorist path.

re: cancer treatment (what a detour)
//How do you know this?

http://www.cairocure.com/FAQ.htm
"Chemotherapy is the application of chemical drugs to stop the growth and kill cancer cells."
Radiotherapy: "These are high energy radiation beams which are carefully focused on the tumor to kill the cancer cells."

//Retalliation is what they want, they want people to go after them.

How do you know this?

//Terrorism is endemic in countries where there is a large wealth gap and a closed political system.

Terrorism is also endemic in countries with democratic government and a fairly reasonable distribution of wealth (Ireland, the US [cf. T. McVeigh et al.]). On the other hand, there are countries with great rich-to-poor rifts and non-inclusive systems of government that do not suffer from comparable terrorist problems. It doesn't seem to me that poverty causes terrorism, nor does it seem that non-inclusive government causes it either.

Did I say that I believe terrorism is inherent in the human condition? No, I said I believe terrorism is employed by many because it is a proven effective AND efficient tactic. Seems to me that the key to fighting it is to demonstrate it to be ineffective (that is, do not allow it to achieve the results desired by those tossing the nerve gas or flying the planes) and inefficient (for every one of mine you kill, a thousand of yours will be killed in return). I don't imagine many people will like that last line.

But since terrorists are invariably committed to die for the cause, killing some of them doesn't act as a deterrent but rather makes martyrs which attracts more recruits (as in Ireland ~ 1916).

One of the main factors that has lead to a greater peace in Northern Ireland is that the social and power gap between the two sides of the community has been reduced and the general economic situation has improved....similarily a major factor that has kept the Palestinian terrorist problem going is the poverty and large scale unemployment in Palestine.

//But since terrorists are invariably committed to die for the cause, killing some of them doesn't act as a deterrent but rather makes martyrs which attracts more recruits (as in Ireland ~ 1916).

There is a slight flaw with what you say - terrorists are not invariably committed to die for the cause. Look at bin Laden and the recently-ousted Iraqi government. Unless you don't consider Osama bin Laden a terrorist... Hell, not even all of the September 11 hijackers knew they were going to die:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanista...618571,00.html

I suggest killing terrorist leaders is a much higher priority than going after a few grunts.

//One of the main factors that has lead to a greater peace in Northern Ireland ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/1768807.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/2555999.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/3020307.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/3003545.stm

What greater peace in Northern Ireland?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Slow_Learner

Completely bogus. Chemotherapy basically poisons cancer cells (killing them). Radiotherapy basically irradiates cancer cells (killing them). Both of these techniques also do damage to the body, but for some reason doctors seem to like them. ^_^

---

:rolleyes: I think you'll find that if there was a better way of fighting Cancer, then doctors would use. If they could prevent Cancer from happening in the first place, then that would be their first choice.

There are ways to prevent terrorism. We should be using these, not playing into the terrorists hands. Look at the amount of terrorist attacks in the last week alone around the world. I think you will find that most people on this site who were against the war were using the argument that this will only increase terrorism, not decrease it. I hate it when I'm right about ****e like this :(

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Slow_Learner

What greater peace in Northern Ireland?

---

Believe me. It's a lot better than it used to be.

//I think you'll find that if there was a better way of fighting Cancer, then doctors would use. If they could prevent Cancer from happening in the first place, then that would be their first choice.

(you guys sure are hung up on an analogy that was just eight words long - and it still stands) And since there is not a better way of fighting cancer, they employ methods that basically kill the cancer. When better technology makes chemotherapy, radiotherapy and excision of cancer cells obsolete, my analogy will cease to be valid. At this time it works fine.

This particular horse is definitely coughing up blood.

//We should be using these, not playing into the terrorists hands.

You think getting their organization's home base of operations pulverized, most of their leadership killed or captured, your finances confiscated wherever possible is "playing into the terrorists hands"?

//I think you will find that most people on this site who were against the war were using the argument that this will only increase terrorism, not decrease it.

And this should mean exactly what to me? A lot of people believe they've been abducted by aliens and anal-probed. A lot of people believe in the tooth fairy. Not to say that these things are not true, but simply because a lot of people believe them isn't enough to convince me. How about an explanation of WHY this won't work instead of just saying a lot of people think it won't.

[re: Ireland terrorism] //Believe me. It's a lot better than it used to be.

"a lot better than it used to be" is wonderful, but a terror incident every few months is a long damn way from peaceful. And believe me, England's preferred method of dealing with IRA bomb-makers isn't to hand them a big bag of money or give them special seats in the House of Commons.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Slow_Learner
//I think you'll find that if there was a better way of fighting Cancer, then doctors would use. If they could prevent Cancer from happening in the first place, then that would be their first choice.

(you guys sure are hung up on an analogy that was just eight words long - and it still stands) And since there is not a better way of fighting cancer, they employ methods that basically kill the cancer. When better technology makes chemotherapy, radiotherapy and excision of cancer cells obsolete, my analogy will cease to be valid. At this time it works fine.

This particular horse is definitely coughing up blood.

---

Ah yes, so this would be the defense of the indefensible. You were happy with this anolgy when it suited your purposes, but now that it is shown to be flawed you're more than happy to discard it?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Slow_Learner
//We should be using these, not playing into the terrorists hands.

You think getting their organization's home base of operations pulverized, most of their leadership killed or captured, your finances confiscated wherever possible is "playing into the terrorists hands"?

---

No, I would say that creating a massive recruiting ground for terrorists (as has effectively just been done in the middle east) is playing into the terrorists hands. I'll ask you this, do you think that getting rid of Saddam is going to upset Osama Bin Laden? You've just got rid of one of his enemies, and created a situation which is viewed even by friendly nations as legally dubious. He can now turn that around, create stories of attrocities by American troops etc., play on the deaths of loved one's and create an army of suicide bombers. Yes, I'd say Bush played right into his hands.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Slow_Learner
//I think you will find that most people on this site who were against the war were using the argument that this will only increase terrorism, not decrease it.

And this should mean exactly what to me? A lot of people believe they've been abducted by aliens and anal-probed. A lot of people believe in the tooth fairy. Not to say that these things are not true, but simply because a lot of people believe them isn't enough to convince me. How about an explanation of WHY this won't work instead of just saying a lot of people think it won't.

---

Er, okay. Why are you here again?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Slow_Learner

[re: Ireland terrorism] //Believe me. It's a lot better than it used to be.

"a lot better than it used to be" is wonderful, but a terror incident every few months is a long damn way from peaceful. And believe me, England's preferred method of dealing with IRA bomb-makers isn't to hand them a big bag of money or give them special seats in the House of Commons.

---

Er, okay, are we having the same conversation here? Who ever said anything about giving terrorists more money? Are you just making up statements now?

The whole point of fighting terrorism is to fight the perception of the terrorists recruiting ground. If the West is perceived to be an anti-Muslim force in the middle east, then that is a potential way that terrorists are recruited. To fight such a belief we have to be squeaky clean, and work extra hard at proving that we are the good guys, and that these Osama Bin laden types are wrong. Unfortunately, look at Iraq. You see a free nation and pat yourself on the back. I see parents who have lost their children, brothers who have lost brothers, children who have lost parents. I see a tinder box ready for the spark of ignition. The likes of Osama Bin Laden thrive off such an environment. It is easy to spread lies and falsehoods now about what happened, and many will be willing to die to avenge the slaughtered innocents. :(

Do you not see this?

//Ah yes, so this would be the defense of the indefensible. You were happy with this anolgy when it suited your purposes, but now that it is shown to be flawed you're more than happy to discard it?

"Defense of the indefensible"? What planet do you live on? The analogy works fine, I have shown that it works fine, and it has been successfully defended. How is the analogy flawed? If you interpret my preceeding text as some kind of acknowledgement of failure of my analogy simply because at some future point the analogy will cease to be valid, you are greatly in error. THE ANALOGY IS VALID TODAY. If you don't like this fact and choose to reject it, then conversation with you will be difficult.

Beat the horse some more why don't you.

//No, I would say that creating a massive recruiting ground for terrorists (as has effectively just been done in the middle east)...

Rather than adopt your tactic of just disputing a statement for the sake of disputing it, I'll ask on what basis you make it. How do dead terrorists in large numbers equate to larger numbers of live terrorists?

//I'll ask you this, do you think that getting rid of Saddam is going to upset Osama Bin Laden?

Well, personally I believe it highly probable that Osama bin Laden is toothpaste. Would it upset Generic Terrorist Leader X? A shrewd terrorist leader could use the Coalition's actions in Iraq to inspire more grunts to join his cause, possibly. If that shrewd terrorist leader is at some point turned into toothpaste, his level of upset as well as his application of propaganda ceases to be relevant.

//Er, okay. Why are you here again?

To talk. Not to collect my opinion from others who want to give it to me. Why are you here?

//Er, okay, are we having the same conversation here? Who ever said anything about giving terrorists more money? Are you just making up statements now?

Please try to keep up with the conversation.

Merrion: "One of the main factors that has lead to a greater peace in Northern Ireland is that the social and power gap between the two sides of the community has been reduced and the general economic situation has improved...."

//The whole point of fighting terrorism is to fight the perception of the terrorists recruiting ground.

That is your opinion, with which I disagree. To me, the whole point of fighting terrorim is to kill the terrorists. Dead terrorists can't fly planes into office buildings. Dead terrorist leaders can't plan terrorist operations. Dead terrorist bankrollers can't pay for terrorist training or equipment.

//You see a free nation and pat yourself on the back. I see parents who have lost their children, brothers who have lost brothers, children who have lost parents.

I didn't make any points about "a free nation" - actually I care little for Iraq - and I'm talking about terrorism in general, whereas you would seem to like to keep shoehorning my points into little pigeonholes that are no concern to me.

//It is easy to spread lies and falsehoods now about what happened, and many will be willing to die to avenge the slaughtered innocents.

What makes you think it was any more difficult before? September 11, 2001 was well before the US made a move on Iraq. Stop trying to put the cart before the horse.

I think I'll give up talking to you. You are putting other peoples words in my mouth (Merrion's??), contradicitong yourself (Cancer is a good analogy - up till the point where it's better to prevent it happening), failing to grasp the most basic concept of how terrorism flurishes (how does killing thousands of innocent people make it easier for terrorists to garner support etc., but the all time classic is here....

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Slow_Learner

//Er, okay. Why are you here again?

To talk. Not to collect my opinion from others who want to give it to me. Why are you here?

---

I am here to learn and gather other peoples opinions. If they differ from mine, I will try to persuade them that I am correct - after all, I will sit on the fence of a subject that I do not have an opinion on, but ultimately, I will also listen to the other persons point of view, and if valid, I might change my opinion. You on the other hand appear to be caught up in the high school debating system where it is about who wins the argument....... this isn't how it works in the real world. Most people that I know debate to either confirm their views or because they enjoy the intellectual stimulation of challenging their own perceptions. I can see the validity of most aspects of the argument (yes, there are far more than 2 sides to this), but I get the impression that you are of the mind set that you are right and everyone else is wrong. Has it ever occured to you that maybe there is more than one answer..... no, I don't suppose it has. :(

//I think I'll give up talking to you.

Doesn't look like it so far...

//You are putting other peoples words in my mouth (Merrion's??), ...

Sorry you feel that way, but that was not done. You may recall that you involved yourself in an exchange between myself and Merrion; it seems to me that you should be up to speed on what we were talking about if you saw fit to comment on it.

//contradicitong yourself (Cancer is a good analogy - up till the point where it's better to prevent it happening)...

Okay, following your logic, ALL analogies are invalid. Because of entropy, and the fact that the universe does not appear to be an open system, it follows that at some point the universe will end. Thus, any analogy will become invalid at that point - there being no universe for the analogy to exist in. ^_^ Whatever!

//failing to grasp the most basic concept of how terrorism flurishes (how does killing thousands of innocent people make it easier for terrorists to garner support etc...

Going back to the very first point I made in this thread, what causes terrorism to flourish is that it is demonstrably effective and efficient. If terrorism were made ineffective and inefficient, it would cease to flourish. One way terrorism can be rendered ineffective and inefficient is to kill large numbers of terrorists. You can try to turn what I've said into "killing thousands of innocent people" if you care to, but it isn't the case.

//I will try to persuade them that I am correct ...

Waiting for you to make the attempt...

What should be done about the wealth gap? I know of no practical solutions.

Quote:

---

The best way to deal with cancer is to avoid cancer causing agents - and with terrorism the biggest causal agent is the wealth gap.

---

Perhaps the US should impoverish itself to raise the standard of living in the third world? Perhaps the Arab world should try communism, hoping to even out the wealth gap in their own countries. Look how well that worked in the USSR. Perhaps they should allow the Western democracies to run their countries and straighten out the mess. We could help them and make a profit doing it. This latter idea would probably work, but there is no chance of it being done.

Perhaps some of the root causes of Arab/Islam inspired terrorism is that the Arab cultures are basically neurotic if not down right psychotic. Their treatment of women has got to result in a smoldering anti-male attitude. Boys raised by women who resent men has got to cause psychological problems. A child bonds with his mother at a very basic instinctual level. Seeing her mistreated by the father and by society creates emotional conflict. While mothers have an instinct for bonding with their children, I would expect most of their emotional support to be directed toward daughters. Young children are very perceptive when it comes to emotional issues. A son who feels that his mother favors the sisters, cannot be content and is prone to neurosis.

Some of the problem is likely due to the typical desire of politicians to maintain their positions of power and wealth. I do not think that Arafat ever wanted a peaceful settlement with Israel. If peace broke out, he could expect lees (if any support) from the other Arab countries. If he were responsible for running a government, he would be held to a stricter accounting of money spent and services rendered. He could easily end up losing his position to somebody else, which is unlikely in the midst of on ongoing conflict.

Some of the problem might be due to an inferiority complex pervading the Arab world. They are a third rate tenth century peasant culture with a small percentage of affluent and educated people. They produce little or no modern products. They have little or no research facilities. They do not have a highly ranked college. They have a vague awareness of past grandeur in a non-technological world which no longer exists. Prior to modern communications technology, they were not so aware of their inferiority. Now they know they are an inferior culture and it hurts.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Guv
What should be done about the wealth gap? I know of no practical solutions.Perhaps the US should impoverish itself to raise the standard of living in the third world? Perhaps the Arab world should try communism, hoping to even out the wealth gap in their own countries. Look how well that worked in the USSR. Perhaps they should allow the Western democracies to run their countries and straighten out the mess. We could help them and make a profit doing it. This latter idea would probably work, but there is no chance of it being done.

Perhaps some of the root causes of Arab/Islam inspired terrorism is that the Arab cultures are basically neurotic if not down right psychotic. Their treatment of women has got to result in a smoldering anti-male attitude. Boys raised by women who resent men has got to cause psychological problems. A child bonds with his mother at a very basic instinctual level. Seeing her mistreated by the father and by society creates emotional conflict. While mothers have an instinct for bonding with their children, I would expect most of their emotional support to be directed toward daughters. Young children are very perceptive when it comes to emotional issues. A son who feels that his mother favors the sisters, cannot be content and is prone to neurosis.

Some of the problem is likely due to the typical desire of politicians to maintain their positions of power and wealth. I do not think that Arafat ever wanted a peaceful settlement with Israel. If peace broke out, he could expect lees (if any support) from the other Arab countries. If he were responsible for running a government, he would be held to a stricter accounting of money spent and services rendered. He could easily end up losing his position to somebody else, which is unlikely in the midst of on ongoing conflict.

Some of the problem might be due to an inferiority complex pervading the Arab world. They are a third rate tenth century peasant culture with a small percentage of affluent and educated people. They produce little or no modern products. They have little or no research facilities. They do not have a highly ranked college. They have a vague awareness of past grandeur in a non-technological world which no longer exists. Prior to modern communications technology, they were not so aware of their inferiority. Now they know they are an inferior culture and it hurts.

---

Well all things are relative. According to Islam they are not inferior. Simply because they are not as technologically advanced or wealthy doesn't suggest otherwise. Besides it is a very small fraction of the Arab world that is against us.

Just because communism didn't work in the USSR doesn't mean it can't work.

There is an interesting book called Terror and Liberalism, anyone interested in this thread might be interested in it too. (BTW liberalism doesn't mean liberal as in left and right in this case).

One note on the chemotherapy: It doesn't kill cancer cells, it kills rapidly dividing cells. This does include cancer, but it includes a distressingly large number of other cells, as well (e.g. hair, marrow, etc). So the analogy is that some Islamist radicals used terror, so we should wipe out all of Islam. Yes it will kill the terrorists, but no it's not a good thing.

I doubt that all Islamic women are upset by their situation. I have no idea what percentage are unhappy and are not unhappy, but since there are two different strategies possible here (cooperate vs. oppose), it is safe to say that there will be some number that fall into each. Without knowing this, what Guv said in his second paragraph was doubtful. Otherwise, I agree with his statement.

Quote:

---

One note on the chemotherapy: It doesn't kill cancer cells, it kills rapidly dividing cells. This does include cancer, but it includes a distressingly large number of other cells, as well (e.g. hair, marrow, etc). So the analogy is that some Islamist radicals used terror, so we should wipe out all of Islam. Yes it will kill the terrorists, but no it's not a good thing.

---

I believe the original analogy was intended for it's philosophy and not it's underlying mechanics.

Only a programmer would be concerned with the internals :D

Going down the memory lane could help.

Which govt supported and financed bin laden in the war against USSR?
Which govt was the key supporter of the word "Jihad" against the USSR? What goes around comes around.
Which govt left behind masses of refugees after the fall down of USSR?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by XfoxX
Going down the memory lane could help.

Which govt supported and financed bin laden in the war against USSR?
Which govt was the key supporter of the word "Jihad" against the USSR? What goes around comes around.
Which govt left behind masses of refugees after the fall down of USSR?

---

yes, but things always change

Which govt was lead by the worst mass-murderer in history and is now an ally of the U.S.? (Germany)

Which govt was the archenemy of the U.S., but is now a close ally, even helping in international weapons stings? (Russia)

Which govt was an ally of the U.S. until it was over thrown by a religious zealot and his cronies? (Iran)

People try to place blame about this or that, without really understanding that things change. Leaders come and leaders go. Some were bad and some were good. Some started one way and ended another. The past doesn't really matter other than to remind us of our failures and triumphs, and the future doesn't matter because it will only depend on the choices and decisions we make in the present. The only thing that matters is right now.

Quote:

---

The only thing that matters is right now.

---

Let's not hear you talk about heritage, then.

You asked for the roots of 9/11.

No I didn't.

The roots of 9/11 stem from past associations. Here's the path to 9/11.

1991 - Iraq invades Kuwait and lines army up on Saudi Arabian border. Saudi Arabian King Fahd asks the U.S. for help and agrees to allow the U.S. to places bases and soldiers inside Saudi Arabia. The behavior of some of the soldiers (high tees, low 20's) ignites controversy. People begin to protest the saudi government for allowing the "Western Devils" to soil the Saudi holyland. For Bin Laden...this is how it all started.

The question is...What are we (meaning the world) going to do about it right now? It could have been any nation (UK, Austrailia, etc...) but it was the U.S., so therefore we are the target.

Terrorism is a global problem. It's no longer isolated to Northern Ireland or places unheard or unseen. Every country on this earth and every living person is a potential target. The question is what is the global community going to do to put an end to terrorism, or are we just going to live our lives, and have our children live their lives as potential targets. Nothing more than statistics in random acts of terroristic violence.

I for one have no desire to live the rest of my life knowing that where ever I travel terrorism could occur. I believe that terrorism should be stopped by any means necessary. I don't want my daughter to grow up in the world I grew up in.

What means are necessary? We don't seem to know, but we have a wonderful track record (we being governments of humans, pick any country) of bungling these things. We reach for a consensus which is a compromise between the wants of various competing factions. This is true in dictatorships as much as in democracies, the only difference is in the composition of the factions. What results is generally a half-hearted approach that doesn't necessarily go in the direction it was intended. One person making a decision and controlling the response would create more dramatic results. The results may be wrong, but they will be dramatically so.

I don't know what my point is, I think I'll go home now.