just because they're all probably islamic extremists doesn't mean they're all working towards the same goal or even the same direction. The egyptians might be trying the that old idea that if you cause the government to crack down hard enough, the people rise up or just hoping to kill israeli tourists, the british ones were probably just angry, the Iraqi ones want different things depending on which of the 100 odd groups you want to mention, the Indonesian ones seem to want a pan islamic state, or indpendence, or the government to fuck off or something, the Thai ones want independence from Thailand and the government to stop killing them, the Pakistani ones want the taliban back and to generally break out the oldschool fire and brimstone stuff on infidels, the indian ones want to kill hindus over disputed religious sites and shit, that's just off the top of my head.

BTW, let's not forget the IRA, Basque, and miscellaneous Marxist and seperatist terror groups.

London in the 1980's endured a wave of IRA bombings. The main difference is that, while fanatical, the IRA did not recruit suicide bombers.

This is similar to a 'progression' described by The Economist. Having gone through 'unholy' freedoms and then suddenly reversed - becoming an excessively devote muslim - the man is then ready for the next step. Seeking a destructive mission in life. Only but a few find a godfather type that would make them truly dangerous. But the story is classic of a minority - the lost soul looking for himself in religion.

Again, what makes this so difficult for law enforcement is that terrrorist groups do not do the recruiting. Future terrorists recruit themselves having discovered that religion must be imposed on the infidels. These people who could not handle life suddenly know what is better for everyone else. Religion doing even what the Catholic Church did - promote hate.

Where do I ever post a single hatred of people? For that matter, where do I post a hate for religion? I post criticism of religion that is not blunt enough. Religion that becomes more than a relationship between a man and his god is satanism - turning to the dark side - classic vampire propaganda - etc. But there is no hate there. Stated is what is best for religion. To come to grips with why they are the source of problems - be it stifling of stem cell research, the reason for suicide bombs on commuter trains, or the Spanish Inquisition. These are examples of religion gone bad.

I answered your question. A strong rebuking of those who post insults and never post supporting facts - in the tradition of Rush Limbaugh - is what I believe you have mistaken for hate. People are great - especially when not brainwashed using Rush Limbaugh logic: people who just know and need not know why they know.

Religion that goes beyond its boundaries - a relationship between a man and his god - also turns good people bad. It is not a hatred of people. It is a spanking of the institutions that want to turn good people against one another - for self serving agendas.

So where specifically is this example of 'people hate'? I don't see it. I did anwer your question. I defined, for example, why good people turn bad. Religion with a political agenda being a perfect example. An understanding who and what terrorists really are is also important. Others such as George Jr would promote hate rather than understand that he promotes hate with the Pearl Harboring of Iraq. That he - like religion - knows what is better for those people? What George Jr advocates is hatred of people - imposing George Jr's beliefs on a region as if only George Jr knows what is good for them. Sounds much like another failed institution - Imperialism.

Hatred of muslims principles is not a solution, as the George Jr administration implies. After all, they are infidels and therefore can be tortured? They don't even deserve fundamental human rights because they are in Guantanamo? That is bull. But that is an example of the hatred promoted by George Jr and his fundamentalist friends who find Guantanamo to be a good thing. Where does accurate ciriticism of myopic American government extremists, or of religious extremists constitute a hatred of people? That's like saying I hate people because I speak out against Nazism.

Meanwhile, do you see me protecting pedophiles. Banning "Voices of the Faithful" only because they are demanding reform? Do you see me imposing my religious beliefs on others? Where have I generalized all muslims? I defined some types of muslims and a religion that has remained in denial as to what they were creating. These different types of muslim that George Jr always calls Al Qaeda. I have defined both terrorist or insurgent that meet different criteria. A common factor (and not in every case) is some silly belief that religion - a spirital concept - should dominate and be imposed upon a pragmatic world. Just as a Catholic Church taught me to hate Jews because of what happened to Jesus. For being so critical of the Catholic Church, now I must hate people?

I have no idea what you are asking because I did answer your question AND because you don't provide specific examples. What (as best I can tell) is called a hatred of people is, instead, a pointed criticism of the institutions (and president) who would promote hate among people. If Christian fundamentalist were so loving, then there would be massive demonstrations by Christian fundamentalists against Guantanamo and those who created Abu Ghraid. Instead these 'so called' righteous people find Guantanamo to be a good thing. Is that a hatred of Christian fundamantalists. No. It is a damning example of why they have let themselves be decieved. Why their need to imposed their religious beliefs on this nation are also dangerous. They would even tacitally support torture because those in Guantanamo must be terrorists? It goes right back to the original question of what really is a terrorist. Clearly not Al Qaeda as promoted by our government.

So how does that criticism of our president and government constitute a hatred of people? It does get Lookout123 to only post insults in reply. Why does Lookout123 then not get accused of hating people since he will post something that is nothing but one big personal insult - AND not even justify his insults?

richlevy - and the IRA had demands and usually telephoned first.

I wouldn't -- and don't -- quibble about what the Gitmo guys are getting or not getting, be it the third degree twice before supper or steamed chicken for it. Whether they are in the precise letter of the law prisoners of war or not, they are getting POW treatment, and that is enough. There is no point in calling for any other sort of treatment except in the furtherance of an ulterior motive to lose America the war.

As an American, I resent that. If you want a good world, wars against tyranny (and GWB doesn't count as a tyrant, except among people who are willfully ignorant of tyranny) must be won, not lost. Here we are not only fighting tyranny but beating it, and a bunch of cryptofascists have the bloody nerve to complain? UP AGAINST THE WALL AND BACK UNDER YOUR ROCKS, YOU TERTIARY-SYPHILITIC FASCISTOCOMMUNIST SONS OF BACHELORS. Line up for forcible sterilization before you go. If the world is to become good, you must not breed.

when you manage the considerable task of extracting your cranium from your anus, please aim for the door you malignant moron.

Wasn't one of the hallmarks of an IRA bombing that they gave notice that it would occur ... minimum casualties, maximum political statement?

:joylove: You're not married or seeing anyone, are you?

I assume that you are putting your money where your ass is and will (hopefully) be leaving soon for your third tour in the war we are winning in Iraq? :eyebrow:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...5E2703,00.html

Background of one of the 7/7 bombers.

His worst venom went to Gitmo... actually, the Newsweek "un-story":

I want to reply to tw's latest post, but I simply do not know where to begin. I keep typing sentences and then deleting them. tw-I was brought up Catholic and I wasn't taught to hate the Jews nor was I molested. Abuses exsist in every single aspect of every single society or organization. You constantly pick and dwell on the negative of certain societies and ignore the negatives of others. You pick and choose your examples and declare them representative of the whole. For you the world seems to be split: good or bad, nothing in between. You consistently champion the muslims, which is fine, but you need to remember that there are good and bad factors in ALL things. You want me to understand the anger of the muslim? I do. I understand anger, oppression, prejudice, ecomonic butt-fuckery and more. I understand. Somehow, though, I manage not to kill innocent people over my frustrations and anger. YOU do not understand the cult of death that has gripped the muslim world. From what I read of your posts you feel it is an appropriate response. You also lump every christian with every right-wing freak and hang the lot. Christians, like muslims, are individuals. If you want me to consider individual muslims, you must consider individual right-wing christians. You appear to fuck your own cause by being the very thing you point your finger at in disgust. You've an agenda, like the right-wing christians, like the muslims, like the terrorists, like everyone. You'll not convince me of your brotherly love--you clearly have a "side" to win. You want me to feel sympathy and understanding for people who strap bombs to themselves and blow up children? While I would agree that people who resort to such things must be very desperate or very gullible, I don't wish to attempt to excuse those people. You want to blow me up for policies my government--whom I did not choose--enforces? Why don't they try blowing up the people who REALLY make the decisions? Because they are cowards. COWARDS!

:thumbsup: :notworthy

Yes you were, granted not by a priest but another person of power, authority, in an organization structured to teach you. And he did it so slickly you thought it was your ballgame. That's the danger.
Agreed.
Birds of a feather and all that, means people with similar feelings will drift together. That's fine, to seek out a group that agrees with your views. It's when people don't think and simply accept the views that are being promoted by the group that happenstance puts them in. Children are particularly susceptible when parents tell they aren't allowed to question, as is often the case with religion. :(

It explains why you don't understand what I have posted. I don't champion anyone - not even Muslims. To put it in terms of what you are looking for - I hate everyone with equal opportunity. One problem. I will post incendiary words so that when you see an emotional opinion, then you are only lying to yourself. There is no 'muslim world' as you have described. At least not in anything I have posted. There are 3 or 3 million factions. I champion none of them. Instead I ask some damning questions and state some contrarian facts - and for you - not so nicely so that you will ignore any emotion you might perceive. The only thing you should read are the facts. Any emotion you perceive is your own bias - which I encourage by sometimes selecting incendiary words. Stick to the facts. Emotions, if implied, are included so that your will make mistakes - and then have to accept you read looking for an emotional bias.

Most Muslims are not fanatical nor are they that religious. They are not disenfranchised. Furthermore I never once cited all Muslims in any paragraph. If at any time you did not repeatedly see discussions of unique subsets, then you have read out of context. I was discussing a few Muslims, Catholics, or Jews, or the institutions that tell them what they should do. If you think for a minute that I have posted with a broad brush, then you did not read those 300+ words as many times as I did when I wrote them. In fact another who made the 'broad brush' statement should have cited the specific paragraphs rather than just make 'broad brush' accusations.

Just tonight, I sat for a beer with another stranger who told me these 'people' all have suicidal hate in their hearts. He was advocating the president's agenda and said it was what George Jr both says and knows. That is the problem. I asked him if he had heard of the Muslim Brotherhood. Of course not. He just knew the president was right. I asked him if he understood that Bin Laden and Saddam were arch enemies. Of course they were not. They were both Muslims and therefore are united in their hate of Americans. I ask him how it was that Americans once could walk among all these people, even when they were fighting each other, and be greeted as a friend. I asked him why both bin Laden and Saddam were both allies of the US. This only confused him. What was I looking at? One who promotes "the cult of death that has gripped" too many American political mindsets. Classic of 'us always good verses them always bad' thinking that this White House promotes to justify an illegal 'Mission Accomplished' war.

Kennedy kept asking (and therefore we are all alive) questions such as, "But what does he see? What has he been told? Why would he think that?" Is that not what I have been posting repeatedly? Yes. I keep asking you to widen your horizons - especially learn how often this president lies by telling half truths about Al Qaeda. There is no solution to the quagmire of Iraq without answers first to those and other questions.

Most (I believe) here did not know of the Muslim Brotherhood OR of how and why terrorist are recruited. Outside of the propaganda from 'the powers that be', there is little fact that Al Qaeda performs all these terrorist acts. And yet to stop "them", we must first acknowledge who they are, why they act, what they know, and why we have suddenly made fanatical enemies of people who were once friends. These questions expose White House propaganda. Questions that can only be answered from THEIR perspective.

Good people ask these questions - and bluntly without any attempt to be 'politically correct'. Good people become even better when provided the full story and when forced to consider contrarian perspectives. That means text that, if read for emotional perspective, will never be understood. You have looked for an emotional bias. That means you are trying to find political correctness in what I post rather than reading using a yellow highlighter; ignoring anything that may indicate an emotion.

The ultimate question is how do we get out of this quagmire called Iraq? It starts by understanding why we are there. Why are they attacking us? Why are 'they' so many different people? Why are 'the enemies' increasing in numbers? Why are we making Americans less popular throughout the world? These are questions that good people ask and seek answers to. Those who hate people would attack the messenger - person who asks these questions. People who hate never ask for nor want contrarian perspectives; nor try to learn THEIR perspective (as the stranger in a bar who better meets your definition of hating people). Those who love people would routinely ask why so many people who would have rather been American friends no longer are. And ask that question with 'in your face' incorrectness.

These are the lessons of Vietnam when America attacked a nation who even asked to be a protectorate of the US. During Vietnam we (and I) did not ask these questions. Therefore America became a nation of not so nice people. Good people always ask the questions I have been asking. Questions such as why does America now love and approve of torture - as long it is not an American. Good people even seek, ask, or find truth in the statement "We have met the enemy and he is us". Until that statement can be debunked, good people must question themselves or their leaders. Those who seek emotional understanding would then accuse the good people of 'hating people'; for always looking for the bad things in life. Those who hate people always want to see only the good side; never ask politically incorrect questions; even fear blunt words such as penis.

Is there anything in this post that even implies an emotional bias or opinion on my part? If you think so, well, I may routinely use incendiary words just so that your emotions lie to you. And I don't care. Adults should never look for any emotion in posts. I am asking difficult questions - and will use incendiary words as you might use "thank you". IOW I am not politically correct. If you find any emotional bias in my post, it was put their so that you would lie to your self. I am asking damning questions that only "good" people would ask. People who don't hide their head like an ostrich.

Ask yourself, “Does he dislike Brianna?” The minute you find a single word to justify such an opinion, then you are lying to yourself. The only answer? You don’t know because he did not say so in a logical manner – complete with reasons why. Anything less would be looking for emotion where words are chosen to confuse the emotions – so don’t use emotional considerations to try and understand.

The only way you can make a claim that I hate people - quote specific paragraphs as examples. Trying to read into my biases? Not possible because of the perspective I use to write - to intentionally confuse your emotions. Meanwhile show by example how I lump every Christian with right wing freaks. Post those paragraphs as examples. Otherwise that would be a bias on your part. If I did not specifically state it, then you don't know of my thoughts.

Now I get it. TW is like Spock, but without the pon farr.

The 'without' part was not intentional. I just don't like internet sex.

A quick post. I hope to digest tw's info and be more informed to post a better answer later. Let me say this: as an echo of Thomas Friedman's article--tw is an excuse maker. He makes up excuses for the terrorists. Blowing up civilians is not ok. tw-- I still don't believe your olive branch.

Again, personal biases are being imposed upon what I wrote. Again, show me where I said once that blowing up civilians is ok.

However this is the point I made .... repeatedly. An enemy is not defeated and terrorism does not stop without first understanding what, who, and why they are AND without first learning their perspective. Force upon terrorism does not stop terrorism; as Israel, et al demonstrate. The death knell to terrorism begins by understanding why it exists and eliminating the reason for its existence.

Again, don't read what I did not specifically write. There was no olive branch. I don't do olive branches. That would be emotional nonsense. I simply have repeated what was posted previously. That is not an olive branch. That may be a restatement. But it is not an olive branch. I have nothing to apologize for. Others are simply reading into my post what I specifically did not say ... ie I never once said blowing up civilians is OK. Apparently you read something I did not write.

Learn why the terrorism exists - or be doomed to learn the Vietnam lessons all over again.

Marichiko, first get two awards of the Navy Expeditionary Medal, one of which awards I received for service in support of when the Iranian hostage rescue mission went flop back in 1980.

Then perhaps you can try twitting me.

This is a war that must be won. Marichiko outs herself as a stone fascist objecting to our fight against tyrannies in this quite uncalled-for snarky fashion. Being into human liberty, I am as far above the fascists, freedom-haters, and fellow travelers for unfree societies as the summit of Everest is above the abyssal plains. Saddam-loving, Western-civilization-hating hemipygian drool-punks f!ck off. Seventeen times. You are a pack of losers.

Thank you for your lucid and reasoned contributions to the debate. It must be quite satisfacory to sit up there on the Everest of ego while you watch the "losers" below slug it out. If you'll excuse me, I think they're calling me for goose step practice now. :rolleyes:

jesus with that level of understanding its no wonder that little mission went awry. which tyrannies exactly? the ones you prop up in egypt, uzbekistan and saudi? Maybe you're against the one in Iran, a direct result of US interference. Or it the liberty of white men to dominate the world's resources at the expense of everyone else that you care about so deeply? Guess what jackass, you, your lifestyle, your mindset and your career are part of the problem, not the solution, so why don't you pack your six-shooter and giddy on up the fuck over to afghanistan and bag yourself some towelheads, we haven't had a good on-air grovelling decapatitation for a while.

:beer: urbane guerrilla.

you know you aren't going to win this argument, though. your opponents don't accept any position that isn't anti-US. before opening your big mouth in the future, make sure your argument is based on the following suppositions:

(1) No religion is extreme except Christianity (as practiced by whitey)*

(2) All conflicts are, directly or indirectly, caused by the USA.

(3) Because of (2), if we are attacked, we are NOT to respond. We are to humbly cast our gaze upon the poor, pillaged Earth that our white people ruined, and try to understand why our enemies are so mad at us. Once we've determined our error, we must (humbly) beseech the United Nations to intervene on our behalf and determine what measures we must take to ensure that the offended party will no longer have reason to hate us.

(4) jaguar is a pinko, so even if you abide by points 1-3, you're still wrong. Your only recourse is to say 8 Hail Karls while masturbating furiously over a burning American flag.

* — Blacks are allowed by libs to be Christian, because they are better at singing gospel music (vocal ad-libs, matchy robes, swaying), and because Martin Luther King was a preacher.

Actually, Mr. Noodle, only poor black folks are allowed to be Christian. We concede this to them as part of our liberal guilt. Black folks who are part of the middle class we don't feel guilty over, and they are not allowed to be Christian, either.

All conflicts are completely the fault of the USA - no indirect about it. The US is wrong every time. It was even wrong to shoot back at Pearl Harbour since this was an example of prejudice against the Japanese. We should have been nicer to them.

We should never beg the UN for help. Its all our fault and we should accept the consequences of our evil Americaness.

Jag is a commie and so am I - oh no, wait - I'm the facist.

Just wanted to clarify for you before I start my daily morning flag burning. :p

marichiko - your writing style and tone is pretty different from the past. has there been some significant breakthrough in your condition?

I'm getting medical treatment and voc rehab, Lookout. I'm proving those doctors wrong and growing new neural passageways or synapses or something. Yea, me! I'm volunteering as an advocate for the disabled in my area and getting in some part time hours at a job through the Ticket to Work Program. I WILL get completely off SSDI! YES!

MrNoodle, thanks for the kind support.

Jaguar is simply incapable of winning an argument with me, anyway -- as a pinko, he is condemned to being half-bright at best. Any sympathy for collectivist totalitarianism is as wrong as it is inhuman, and to the degree Jag suffers from these, he is wrong, and inhuman. Note that he cannot make headway with me on the merits of the matter; it's instant ad hominem, the last resort of the debater with nothing left where his ideas should be. Something Jaguar forgets is that I do not accept anti-American views and will always torment those who hold them, for generally they hold them out of perversity, depravity, and a disregard for human liberty -- or a selfish view of it that will not willingly extend the blessings of human liberty to Iraqis. This view of liberty is usually to be found in persons who don't get that liberty is just as good for Yusuf al-Iraqi as it is for Joe Sixpack. There will be those who yell about how the Iraqis are all worse off now that Saddam's in the last residence he'll ever occupy and the Americans and Britons among others are there. To these yawpers I say: Hey, it's a war. Wars are occasionally less comfortably than tyrannies, but wars contain the seeds of a hope things will improve. Tyrannies don't have that.

Marichiko: yes, it is immensely satisfactory. Do things to bring you up here, rather than fooling around in some less happy place, and you can enjoy it too. Dress warm; it gets windy.

The largest socialist experiment in America today is the US military.

UG, I don't understand why Saddam isn't allowed to impose his way on people but you are? :confused:

It wouldn't be satisfactory if I was hanging out up there, too, believe me. I'll just stick around down here with the rest of the trailer trash. Thanks for the offer, though. :cool:

Oh, yes it would be -- we all aspire to greater-than-trailer-trashiness, at least in our heart of hearts, even if we fear we wouldn't be as politically correct to be the animals more equal than the others.

Nyah.

"My way" is the free way, the libertarian way. Study this way, and it will become your way also -- at least if you're not a fascist or other hidebound, slaveminded objectionabloid.

What I "impose" is the destruction of the tyrants. What the people do when the fallen tyrants' boot leaves their collective neck is not imposed. Do you imagine me to be so unsophisticated? Why? Maybe you gotta ask the dumb ones before you can get to the smart questions -- I do that myself.

I'd further remark that Jaguar's "level of understanding" remark suggests he believes his understanding of these matters to be better than mine.

Since his kind of "understanding" is actually a wispy disguise for rationalization for doing nothing at all against the evil that men have to do to work tyranny, totalitarianism, or indeed anything but democracy, it should not be called "understanding" at all, but instead called what it is.

OK, after you depose the "Tyrant" and another one takes his place, do you depose "Tyrant Jr" also? :confused:

American Islamic Scholars Issue Fatwa Against Terrorism

I'm not in the mood to find those posters who indignantly called for Muslims to forcefully denounce the actions of a vanishingly small minority done in the name of Islam. You know who you are. Perhaps this item will offer you comfort.

HOORAY! It is long overdue. :band:

They even did better than the Vatican by not blaming the victims.

Better than the Vatican by not suggesting that retaliation against terror is bad. "We were all set to denounce the terror attack, but the stupid Jews blew up the people responsible before we could say anything."

Of course! Why do you ask? -- would you do something different? Level with me: do you honestly prefer leaving tyrants unmolested?

Consider this: do not the people who would rather live free, and let others live the same way, not outnumber the slavemakers and the slave-minded?

When are you going to ask tougher questions?

So people are only free to choose what you want them to choose. That just makes you a tyrant with a bigger stick. Forcing pet rabbits out of their cage to die in the woods is not doing them any favor. :eyebrow:

On Wednesday night The Daily Show mocked the semantic shift in the administration because they have stopped calling it "The Global War on Terror" and have started calling it "The Global Struggle against Violent Extremism".

One can suppose that they don't reference Islam directly because it focuses too many people at Islam in general, reinforcing racism and intolerance and pissing off moderate Muslims.

This just in Chicago Trib. Another item inline with BigVs:

This sort of thing needs to spread to other muslim countries. Unfortunately, those guys over there don't recognize these guys over here as true islam followers. It's a start.

Perhaps, but the guys over here recognize the guys over there as criminals, not as martyrs. The mantle of religious justification has been removed, with authority. Unfortunately, like any legal system, the laws only restrain the law abiders, not the lawbreakers. This is not an Islamic phenomenon.

More relevantly, and also not an Islamic phenomenon, laws only restrain anybody within their jurisdiction. As Fareed Zacharia said on the Daily Show, (paraphrased) Islam has no Pope, so there's nobody to say [worldwide] that terrorism isn't kosher. A fatwa will only be observed by those who recognize the authority of the issuer.

Even if islam had a "Pope," it still wouldn't help. Look how many so called "Christian" religeons we have. Catholics have the Pope, but there were those who disagree with the Catholic church so they break away. Now you have Episcipalian. You got Protestant, Baptist, Lutheran, Mormon, all believing that they are right and the other is wrong. If there was a central islamic figurehead, the extermist would still do what they want, citing that their interest are a much better way for islam and would find and distort scripture to back it up.

Well, yeah. Zacharia's point was that Islam is organized more along protestant lines than Catholic. If there was a single hierarchy, as with the Catholics, the leadership would have much more influence, for good or ill. As it is, any one imam has no more influence than a random Baptist preacher.

Previously the enemy was bin Laden and his ally Saddam. They must be allies because WE must see everything in terms of a common enemy. Meanwhile, the Chechnyan insurgents who even murder Beslam children are described by Russia as Al Qaeda. Still Putin, et al think (and may just know) that Americans, et al are so ignorant as to insist a common enemy must exist. Chechnyan rebels are (often) Islamic. Does that mean it is Al Qaeda? Does that mean it is even Muslim Brotherhood? Of course not. For that matter, clearly the Bosnian were Al Qaeda - who were also victims of ethnic cleansing. We could take it even farther using administration logic. After all, a center for manufacturing counterfeit documents (ie passports) was discovered near Albania. Clearly that too must be Al Qaeda.

The example was posted weeks ago in this topic: So now we don't blame bin Laden? We blame fundamentalist Islam. Again, we are looking for a common enemy in symptoms that have little in common. Often the terrorist at one point finds his mission in life in fundamental Islamic beliefs. Or did he really find his mission in westernized bachelor whoring?

Too many blame Islamic leaders. As I noted weeks ago, the Islamic leaders in western countries have had a sort of epiphany. Therefore they recently decided that these distorted religious believers who pass through their mosques (leave as quickly as they arrive) should be warned about perverted interpretations of the Koran. Yes, they have finally decided (just as Catholic Church finally decided that pedophilia is a problem) to address the fundamentalist extremist recruiting that occurs in mosques.

But it not Islam alone that creates the problem - as so much simplistic Rush Limbaugh type propaganda would have us believe. As far as western nations are concerned, the problem did not exist until western nations decided to 'fix' the region; were not honest about leaving. It is these little details that America was warned about after 1 Aug 1990. And since we did not understand the region, we stayed.

It is those little details even lost in the translation of the Koran that can cause problems. The region should have been left to first fix itself. If we had done as we did when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan - left when it was over - then we would not have problems that we now blame exclusively and simplistically on Al Qaeda. Problems that we are now trying to blame on fundamentalist Islam.

To appreciate the problem, use a wider perspective. Don't fall for administration propaganda that now blames fundamentalist Islam. Quicksand is not just sand. We stay out of quicksand because there is no common enemy and no simple solution. However we have now decided to fix the quicksand. Now we are trying to blame its deceiving looks, trying to blame the water, then blame the muck, then the sand, then the geology, ..... instead of staying out until we really understood what it was.

Don't fall for the myth that Saddam was a threat to America - let alone even a threat to his neighbors. Don't fall for the myth that they are all Al Qaeda. Don't fall for the myth that is it fundamentalist Islam. Don't be so myopic. It is the Arab world. It is as complicated as the presidential politics of Lebanon. The minute that George Jr, Rumsfeld, or Rush Limbaugh try to define one common enemy, then they are lying.

Welcome to the quagmire that is the Middle East and Central Asia. We now suffer terrorism because for some silly reason, we decided at the presidential level to institute "prevention" of an enemy that did not exist rather than the well proven (by generations) policy of "containment". We got the problem we wanted. We have met the enemy and he is us. We couldn’t just let the region fix its own minor problems. We had to fix it rather than learn from the lessons of history. Deja Vue.

So now there is no common enemy. There is no pope to lead the Arabs against the infidels. And somehow, this thread continues to search for only one common factor - because of White House propaganda faxed daily to the Rush Limbaugh types?

The purpose of the thread was to try to UNDERSTAND terrorism. Personally, I have no desire to even TRY to understand these people. They belong to a cult of death and blow up innocent civilians--I've no more desire to 'understand' them than I do to understand the Klan. I don't need to understand them to know they, and their tactics, are WRONG. I don't blame fundie muslims, either. Who are you directing your comments to? Or are you just bored, tw? :)

Oh, and by the by--I don't see you offering any sort of solution to anything, you just drudge up what you've already told us. WHAT'S NEW, TW???

A new White House propaganda line is being tested. Stop blaming Al Qaeda. Now blame fundamentalist Islam. Neither is valid even though a large number of Americans tend to believe the propaganda.

I have defined some frameworks for ending the Iraq quagmire. None are politically correct - and yet are realistic.

How politically incorrect? For example, how do we end the Palestine - Israeli conflict? Make sure both sides cause equally high numbers of deaths on the other side. Suddenly being a centrist is acceptable - and peace occurs. What happened the last time a centrist solved a Middle East problem? Likud called for and got the assassination of Rabin. The best solutions are not politically correct. Dangerous because the solution disempowers extremists who may take revenge.

One of the possible scenarios I posted was credited to Brent Scowcroft. If seeking a soundbyte solution, then you never remembered any of those possible Iraq solutions. There is no soundbyte solution for Iraq as there was no soundbyte solution for the US defeat in Vietnam.

I'm not asking you for a soundbyte. I'm asking for your solutions since you know so much about the whole thing. Someone like yourself should be able to do more than point out the obvious, right? And are you advocating assasinations?

You in particular don't have to. But we have to hope that someone running the "Struggle Against Global Extremism" or whatever it is is trying to understand them, or we will never win. You can't cure a disease without understanding it.There's no need to understand the Klan. They're not a threat anymore. And the reason for that is that the level of understanding was raised enough to starve them of recruits.

I used the Klan as an example only.

Some possible solutions were posted elsewhere and previously. Search on Brent Scowcroft to maybe find those frameworks.

Clearly just trying to define the enemy is a topic too large already. Solutions? They were already defined elsewhere. Resurrect those threads if they really have 'religious like' significance.

Meanwhile I did not advocate assassinations. Please read again. Solutions that drive people back into the ranks of centrists are so dangerous that, for example, the Likud party called for and got the assassination of Rabin. You do know that history? The right wing extremist party of Netanyahu (educated near The Cellar) and Sharon called for and got the murder of their prime minister because he signed onto the Oslo Accords - peace with the Palestinians and a surrender of the occupied territories to the Palestinians. It is dangerous to actually solve such problems when not enough people on both sides have been killed. That should be well understood by anyone who learns from history.

Obviously I did not call for an assassination. But what I posted assumes basic knowledge of history. The things that Rush Limbaugh types hope we never learn so that their sound bytes can "lie by telling half truths".

And your Klan example only demonstrated why the enemy must be properly defined before it can be defeated. An idea that labeling someone as a murderer is sufficient to define an enemy is simply foolish. Some of the world's great leaders were once terrorists or muderers. How can it be? The answer lies first and foremost in understanding the person - the whys behind his motivation. Never make myopic conclusions based only upon his 'headline grabbing' actions. To defeat the enemy in Iraq or in western streets, first, understanding a person beyond just being a bomber maker is essential. What really is his strategic objective? If you cannot answer that, then you have not learned from history AND have no idea who really is the 'evil one'.

How to lie to yourself: know an actor is evil without first understanding the actor as defined above.

What did Sen. Mitchell do that so significantly broke a stalemate between the IRA and the British Government? Learn from history. Just because the IRA set off bombs means the IRA was all evil? Nonsense. As has been stated so many times before, there is no such thing as good and evil. There are many perspectives.

First ask, “What is his strategic objective?” The Klan was easily defeated once the people asked that simple question. If you cannot answer that first and simple question, then you have no idea who the enemy really is. Again, lessons from history. So boring that many of us are doomed to repeat it.

Me, too. An example of a former terrorist organization that has been defanged.

(sigh) We sure like to complicate stuff. But I guess that gives all those op ed writers and Rush Limbaugh something to do.

Why does the Middle East produce terrorists? Because the terrorists are terrified, bottom line. They fear encroachment by the West on their countries and their culture.

Great Britain, Palestine, T.E. Lawrence, WWI, the Turks and the Arabs. Broken promises starting almost a 100 years ago. Throw in the Holocaust and the Jews and the formation of Israel. More frightened people, land grabs and broken promises.

Throw in OPEC and the West's dependency on foreign oil reserves. More fear. Add a sprinkling of sociopathic leaders both East and West. Viola! Everyone on both sides of the equation is terrified and to soothe their fears they want to take that brand of valium called control and power.

The US has military might. The Middle East has a zillion crazed factions of killers. We fear and hate one another and the Saudi Royal Family and the Dick Cheney's and the George Jr.'s and the Bin Ladens move their chess pieces on the board, take a valium, and sleep soundly at night.

Everybody else debates arcane questions of faith and motive and sends their sons off to join the 3/3 ACR or the jihad.

Hatred is palmed off as the act of a patriot. To quote Samuel Adams, "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel."

Pleasant dreams.

Now a new twist in the K'stan drama. From the Washington Post of 30 July 2005

Why does Britain produce terrorists?

The Brits have PTSD from the Thatcher era? They hate the French? They're terrified of what Prince Andrew might do next?

I give up. Why?

You said "Why does the Middle East produce terrorists? Because the terrorists are terrified, bottom line. They fear encroachment by the West on their countries and their culture."

You seem to be the expert so why does Britain produce terrorists?