Where the West is wrong

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by Curios Mike

I think and this may already have been stated that their are far more greater powers behind this....Jihad,or crusade depending on which extremist group you look at. One question i have If Ben ladin was behind 9-11 does he really represent Islam as a whole or just a minute fraction. And second How do we know Pres Bush is actually a Christian? Or even representing Christ! I'm not saying we shouldnt defend ourselves, but again I mention I think their are greater powers at work here.

Although I agree that most of what drives these things are at root strategic & economic factors, and that public discourse is for the most part preoccupied with spin & diversion, I'm not at all a conspiracy buff. I think the biggest conspiracies, the ones that really matter, are in plain sight. So I leave this line to others who share your interests.

But I do agree about the founding fathers not being the orthodox Christians some would have us believe. Many were predominantly enlightenment figures check out the Jefferson Bible.

All the best, but I hope you don't drive yourself around the bend with conspiracies.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Kaspar

so does that mean If you travel fast enough you can enjoy an everlasting sunset?

That would be about 1003 mph traveling from East to west, with the sun @ 5* off the horizon (relative to your altitude). In short you would be chasing the sun.

v/r

Q

[Quahom1]

I'm sorry, the west did nothing wrong. They approached the "governments" of the area in the east and proposed a business transaction. That is called capitalism and good business. They secured deals with the eastern governments for lucrative assets, offered to help develop those assests, then negotiated a price and contractual agreements with said eastern governments, to make mutual proffits.

So far very legal and I suspect moral. Now, the West prosperred because of this contractual agreement, and because the west "spreads the wealth around" in order to maintain a profit margine. The governments of the east did not follow suit. Let me re-emphasise the governments of the east did not follow suit.
The masses were kept ignorant, the moneys and profits were not spread out, religion clashed with capitalism and that was just fine for the powers that be. They kept the money and became rich, while their respective peoples remained not so rich.

Only when the people figured out they were being taken for a ride, the governments blamed the west for the people of the east's plight. In the mean time, it was not the west's job to notify the people that they were being screwed by their own government...that would be interferring with a nation. (here I think the US screwed up, because as a Biblical nation, we are supposed to be our brother's keeper).

So, Corporations and Governments of the west are making money, as well as those in power in the east, while the masses suffer. Now you have a rebellion brewing. Throw in a radical perspective of religion plus the historical memories of being taken advantage of, or losing, combined with young people un-able to get a simple job that would decently support a family, and you have the ingrediants for a Jihad, suicide, warrior, with nothing to lose. Have a Cleric tell him that what he does guarantees a place in heaven...

Think about it, heaven has got to be better than the life he currently suffers in (while palaces are built around him, and the members of the government ride in cars he'll never own.

Now take a displaced people, that no one really cares about (figuratively speaking), who can't go back to their homeland of origin (because Jordan does not want them), and can't assume the land given them by the Romans 2000 years ago, (because Rome underestimated the tenacity of the original owners, and Britian gave the land back to the original owners...Israel and the Palistinians).

Three times the "neighbors" of Israel have tried to militarily remove the Israeli occupants of this strip of land, in recent history. Three times they failed miserably. In fact history shows that Irael "routed" the "enemy" despite all odds.

What makes you think that Palistinians are more powerful than the five or so nations that tried to remove the Israelis before?

The US backs Israel. No doubt. Will do it until the day the US no longer exists. Why? Don't know. But it seems to be in the blood.

Point is, the west did not go wrong. The east went wrong. The east decided to make money from the west, but never passed the wealth along, then blamed the west when the masses became disgruntled.

Greed is the culprit here.

v/r

Q

[capthowdy]

My take on what the "west" is doing wrong......and I say this as an american myself that is fed up with arrogant jaded culture we have, I think we are missing the point as far as this "liberate Iraq" crap goes. What I think america needs to figure out is that freedom is a broad term, it doesn't mean the same thing to some as it does to others, it's no wonder muslims disagree with western veiws, I mean come on. Saddam is out of power elections have taken place, it's time to leave the muslims alone, and we would if that "liberate Iraq" crap was the reason we were there. I've had recuiters try to enlist me for the cause, and my response is I'll fight for real freedom but what I wont do is fight for Haliburton. This is of course my opinion, I could be wrong.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by capthowdy

My take on what the "west" is doing wrong......and I say this as an american myself that is fed up with arrogant jaded culture we have, I think we are missing the point as far as this "liberate Iraq" crap goes. What I think america needs to figure out is that freedom is a broad term, it doesn't mean the same thing to some as it does to others, it's no wonder muslims disagree with western veiws, I mean come on. Saddam is out of power elections have taken place, it's time to leave the muslims alone, and we would if that "liberate Iraq" crap was the reason we were there. I've had recuiters try to enlist me for the cause, and my response is I'll fight for real freedom but what I wont do is fight for Haliburton. This is of course my opinion, I could be wrong.

You are right, and you are wrong. Take this from me (look up my profile).

If Iraq "fails", then the extremists win, and you will never be safe in your home town again. Aside from domestic violence, you will have to contend with he who will force you to his way of thinking in politics and religion.

This is no joke. We lose this "war", we lose our way of life. There is no more pacifism (they are the first to die in any conflict), as pacifists are forgotten. Peacemakers, start off as peace keepers (which means sometimes being warriors).

The most dangerous "animal on earth", is a man who want's peace...for he will go to any extreme to receive/obtain that "peace".

Something to seriously think about.

v/r

Q

[capthowdy]

You're a coastguard right on, my uncle is the coastguard represenative for homeland security, or at least he was, James Pitts, but I agree with you to a point. I'm not saying don't fight the war, just do it for the right reasons and don't replace one dictatorship with one masked by freedom, my point is let the iraqis choose there own type freedom let's not force our concept of freedom on them.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by capthowdy

You're a coastguard right on, my uncle is the coastguard represenative for homeland security, or at least he was, James Pitts, but I agree with you to a point. I'm not saying don't fight the war, just do it for the right reasons and don't replace one dictatorship with one masked by freedom, my point is let the iraqis choose there own type freedom let's not force our concept of freedom on them.

Point taken and agreed.

I know your uncle by name...

v/r

Q

[capthowdy]

You know him by name, right on. It's always good to meet a nice person, my hat is off to you.

[Vajradhara]

i still don't know what the term "the west" is actually meant to indicate.


conversely, i hear that, in the Muslim view, beings that live in Europe and America are called "orientalists" when they study or critique Islam.

naturally, i find this term to be quite confusing and ultimately, non-communicative.

metta,

~v

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

i still don't know what the term "the west" is actually meant to indicate.


conversely, i hear that, in the Muslim view, beings that live in Europe and America are called "orientalists" when they study or critique Islam.

naturally, i find this term to be quite confusing and ultimately, non-communicative.

metta,

~v

Well, again we're dealing with perception, but perception that lies at the basis of a lot of thinking.

And of course it's tricky. As a Buddhist I'm sure you're up on phenomena like optical illusions, figure & ground, etc. Looked at in one way Canada, the U.S., the U.K., Spain, etc. are all quite distinct countries; a slight shift in perspective and it's all one culture. I mean take a look at an average city dweller in New York, London, Madrid, Paris, and the trained eye will notice differences in style, but any outsider will see people dressing more or less the same, listening to the same music, eating the same fast food, having very similar views on what constututes worthwhile goals, what the word "society" means, and so on.

So again I agree that it's easy to deconstruct these umbrella terms of perception, and that this is the ultimate goal, but I also think there's no doubt that the minds of most of us are very much conditioned by these terms. I don't think there's any shortcut to dealing with their very real influence.

That said, I appreciate your raising the point again. We do well to bear in mind the provisional nature of these terms from the beginning, and only apply them when necessary.

Being specific about our own contexts may help. I'm Canadian, which means I'm a stick in the mud when it comes to all extreme views & a natural for compromise and the middle way in most things. It also means I know more about American politics than my own, and can sometimes slip into the sanctimonious of the mere observer. We Canadians are in no way morally superior than anyone else - we're just not in the position to cause much damage.

All the best.

[Curios Mike]

I'm not at all a conspiracy buff. I think the biggest conspiracies, the ones that really matter, are in plain sight. So I leave this line to others who share your interests.

Well I'm not really a conspiracy buff neither(more so now then I used to be), but more of a prophetic buff. If it has something to do with Prophecies and they appear to be coming true, especially when they are in plain sight. Like the veri chip. When I first heardof it I thought it was just a conspiracy theory but when the FDA approved of it.... Kinda cought my attention. But anyways back on topic.

I still pose the questions : Does Bush or Ben ladin actually represent their confessed relgions. And if they even appear that they do, how do we know they are not just using religion as a cover to gain support from the majority of their people?

[capthowdy]

Originally Posted by Curios Mike

I still pose the questions : Does Bush or Ben ladin actually represent their confessed relgions. And if they even appear that they do, how do we know they are not just using religion as a cover to gain support from the majority of their people?

Who says they aren't using religion as an exscuse? The real question is what can be done?




phrase of the day: "power corrupts, the most feeble minds blinded by their own glory" - P.R.

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

I'm sorry, the west did nothing wrong. They approached the "governments" of the area in the east and proposed a business transaction. That is called capitalism and good business. They secured deals with the eastern governments for lucrative assets, offered to help develop those assests, then negotiated a price and contractual agreements with said eastern governments, to make mutual proffits.

So far very legal and I suspect moral. Now, the West prosperred because of this contractual agreement, and because the west "spreads the wealth around" in order to maintain a profit margine. The governments of the east did not follow suit. Let me re-emphasise the governments of the east did not follow suit.
The masses were kept ignorant, the moneys and profits were not spread out, religion clashed with capitalism and that was just fine for the powers that be. They kept the money and became rich, while their respective peoples remained not so rich.

Only when the people figured out they were being taken for a ride, the governments blamed the west for the people of the east's plight. In the mean time, it was not the west's job to notify the people that they were being screwed by their own government...that would be interferring with a nation. (here I think the US screwed up, because as a Biblical nation, we are supposed to be our brother's keeper).

So, Corporations and Governments of the west are making money, as well as those in power in the east, while the masses suffer. Now you have a rebellion brewing. Throw in a radical perspective of religion plus the historical memories of being taken advantage of, or losing, combined with young people un-able to get a simple job that would decently support a family, and you have the ingrediants for a Jihad, suicide, warrior, with nothing to lose. Have a Cleric tell him that what he does guarantees a place in heaven...

Think about it, heaven has got to be better than the life he currently suffers in (while palaces are built around him, and the members of the government ride in cars he'll never own.

Now take a displaced people, that no one really cares about (figuratively speaking), who can't go back to their homeland of origin (because Jordan does not want them), and can't assume the land given them by the Romans 2000 years ago, (because Rome underestimated the tenacity of the original owners, and Britian gave the land back to the original owners...Israel and the Palistinians).

Three times the "neighbors" of Israel have tried to militarily remove the Israeli occupants of this strip of land, in recent history. Three times they failed miserably. In fact history shows that Irael "routed" the "enemy" despite all odds.

What makes you think that Palistinians are more powerful than the five or so nations that tried to remove the Israelis before?

The US backs Israel. No doubt. Will do it until the day the US no longer exists. Why? Don't know. But it seems to be in the blood.

Point is, the west did not go wrong. The east went wrong. The east decided to make money from the west, but never passed the wealth along, then blamed the west when the masses became disgruntled.

Greed is the culprit here.

Hi Q.

I think there’s no denying that your general thesis has merit. But in a way you’re offering here a kind of mirror image of what I’m getting from my friend Thipps and a few others. Leaving debate aside, I think if you look at these things in the round, you’ll find that the “fault” is not so simply distributed between East & West, whatever those words might mean.

First, you’ve painted a fairly ideal vision of the workings of capitalism in the region. I’m not anti-capitalist at all but I think things are little more complicated in the real world. For this sort of Ayn Rand/libertarian view of the purity of capitalism to truly obtain you need the basic condition of relatively equal partners. Only then can the ideal of true & noble exchange truly exist.

Since the fall of the Ottoman Empire nearly a century ago, economic relations in the Middle East have been filtered through the conditions of colonialism. Now, first I’ll dispense with the usual extreme views: colonialism is neither an unmitigated evil of pure exploitation nor the pure-hearted spreading of the benefits of civilization. It’s quite simply the result of the old rule about power always filling a vacuum. Peoples that undergo periods of foreign domination are those who are already in some disarray. In the process, colonialism brings benefits (say railroads & infrastructure) and harm (a royal screwing, economically). But in the end, they can only throw off that domination by putting their own houses in order. In that sense, I would agree with your broad point that primary responsibility begins with the people who live in the countries in question, not with foreign powers.

But again economically speaking the conditions of colonialism are not the conditions of an equal partnership, especially when you add to the mix a long history of military intervention and clandestine support and the installation of “friendly” governments, i.e., friendly to Western business interests. This hardly makes for an ideal world of free exchange. (Even to this day, Europe in particular is suppressing the price of agricultural products with its domestic subsidies. This is helping to kill agriculture in places like Africa. Once again, free exchange can be a cruel joke when it’s between unequal partners.)

You mention corrupt governments in the Middle East who use oil revenue to build kingdoms rather than economies, Saudi Arabia as the outstanding example. Indeed, much money has been returned to the Middle East in this way, especially after the anti-colonial creation of OPEC. But you yourself admit that we failed here as “our brother’s keeper”. Once again, the West was content to create or support whatever government served its economic interests. Franklin Roosevelt made a deal with the Saudi’s, guns for oil, which has essentially held up intact for the roughly 60 years since. So when the murderous Osama Bid Laden, in revolt against the corrupt Saudi family, views their Western partners in the same light, and directs his heartless cruelties against us, why are we so surprised?

But to wind this part up, there’s also the psychological aspect to decolonisation that needs to be born in mind. I agree, as I’ve made clear, that the fundamental responsibility for the peoples of the Middle East lies in their own hands. But for people struggling with the psychological effects of colonisation, the natural impulse is to point the finger back to the perceived oppressors, and sometimes to grant them powers they don’t really have. So while I think there’s a whole list of Western interventions in the Middle East that have resulted in evil consequences – take a dispassionate look at the histories of Iran and Iraq and their relations with the West, for illustration – I agree that the responsibility of the West for the present disarray in many Middle Eastern countries is exaggerated.

Again, I return to my theme of a hard look in the mirror on all sides, and some no-spin honesty.

As for Israel, I don’t completely share your biblical perspective, as you know, and would probably put the land ownership question differently.

As to the general question, I think here we have a textbook case of two contrasting perspectives. In the West we see Israel through the lens of the holocaust. We see Israel as the admirable story of a people’s survival & revival against the most hideous odds. But Arabs in general see Israel through the lens of the history of colonialism. Israel to them is just another long & painful chapter of that history.

As you say, emotionally it’s hard for most of us not to support Israel. Unfortunately, it means that to us the Palestinian case has been mostly invisible. One has to do one’s own research into the history to remotely understand the justice of the Palestinian cause. In fact, to seriously support the Palestinian cause will probably still mark you as a person on the margins, and even an anti-Semite (always a bit of irony there, since Arabs too are Semites).

But I won’t attempt to argue the case here. I'm hardly qualified to sort it out - but then who is?. I’m only pointing out how much we are prisoners of perception complexes like the “West” and the “Arab World”

All the best.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Devadatta

Hi Q.

Hi Dev.

I think there’s no denying that your general thesis has merit. But in a way you’re offering here a kind of mirror image of what I’m getting from my friend Thipps and a few others. Leaving debate aside, I think if you look at these things in the round, you’ll find that the “fault” is not so simply distributed between East & West, whatever those words might mean.

I wrote a thesis? My English teacher in high-school would be proud, since I could not figure out what a thesis was to save my life (math is my strong point, not english comprehension). I agree, in a "wal-green" world, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

First, you’ve painted a fairly ideal vision of the workings of capitalism in the region. I’m not anti-capitalist at all but I think things are little more complicated in the real world. For this sort of Ayn Rand/libertarian view of the purity of capitalism to truly obtain you need the basic condition of relatively equal partners. Only then can the ideal of true & noble exchange truly exist.

Ideal or not, these are the basic facts. I can not account for "side deals", and other underhanded practices that may have (most likely), occured.

Since the fall of the Ottoman Empire nearly a century ago, economic relations in the Middle East have been filtered through the conditions of colonialism. Now, first I’ll dispense with the usual extreme views: colonialism is neither an unmitigated evil of pure exploitation nor the pure-hearted spreading of the benefits of civilization. It’s quite simply the result of the old rule about power always filling a vacuum. Peoples that undergo periods of foreign domination are those who are already in some disarray. In the process, colonialism brings benefits (say railroads & infrastructure) and harm (a royal screwing, economically). But in the end, they can only throw off that domination by putting their own houses in order. In that sense, I would agree with your broad point that primary responsibility begins with the people who live in the countries in question, not with foreign powers.

Ok, but...(as the other shoe drops)

But again economically speaking the conditions of colonialism are not the conditions of an equal partnership, especially when you add to the mix a long history of military intervention and clandestine support and the installation of “friendly” governments, i.e., friendly to Western business interests. This hardly makes for an ideal world of free exchange. (Even to this day, Europe in particular is suppressing the price of agricultural products with its domestic subsidies. This is helping to kill agriculture in places like Africa. Once again, free exchange can be a cruel joke when it’s between unequal partners.)

I hope you notice that the US is systematically doing away with this "subsidising", and tarrif provoking concepts as of late. NAFTA, and CAFTA are coming into effect. Look, no body is perfect. But the idea is to fix the faults. And that is happening as we speak (write/read). Also, America as a whole, does not "colonize" anyone. And if we do show behaviors similar to "colonization", they are short lived. "Get 'em on their feet, get 'em moving, then back off. It is the American way. It is historically proven.

You mention corrupt governments in the Middle East who use oil revenue to build kingdoms rather than economies, Saudi Arabia as the outstanding example. Indeed, much money has been returned to the Middle East in this way, especially after the anti-colonial creation of OPEC. But you yourself admit that we failed here as “our brother’s keeper”. Once again, the West was content to create or support whatever government served its economic interests. Franklin Roosevelt made a deal with the Saudi’s, guns for oil, which has essentially held up intact for the roughly 60 years since. So when the murderous Osama Bid Laden, in revolt against the corrupt Saudi family, views their Western partners in the same light, and directs his heartless cruelties against us, why are we so surprised?

Point taken.

But to wind this part up, there’s also the psychological aspect to decolonisation that needs to be born in mind. I agree, as I’ve made clear, that the fundamental responsibility for the peoples of the Middle East lies in their own hands. But for people struggling with the psychological effects of colonisation, the natural impulse is to point the finger back to the perceived oppressors, and sometimes to grant them powers they don’t really have. So while I think there’s a whole list of Western interventions in the Middle East that have resulted in evil consequences – take a dispassionate look at the histories of Iran and Iraq and their relations with the West, for illustration – I agree that the responsibility of the West for the present disarray in many Middle Eastern countries is exaggerated.

Then the "blame" rests in the hands of Great Britan, and not the United States? Or do you mean we got slammed in New York, because of misconceived greivances about the west and colonialism? Look I could care less, about the grievances of a nation, or nations, after 9/11. These PEOPLE, took over 3000 lives, who had nothing personal to do with them. They claimed a specific cause as their reason and "right" to do so. They attempted to disrupt the economy of the entire world. They attempted to create economic anarchy. They claimed their actions in the name of God, as described or defined by them. And they assumed there would be no route. They made a serious mistake in their logic... and so does anyone else who thinks we should just let this go, and apologise for "percieved injustices". In short, the Middle East has our attention, Full attention.

Again, I return to my theme of a hard look in the mirror on all sides, and some no-spin honesty.

Government look in the mirror, or Joe Citizen look in the mirror?

As for Israel, I don’t completely share your biblical perspective, as you know, and would probably put the land ownership question differently.

We agree to disagree here. But try to tell the Israelis to leave...they seem to throw off such demands, pretty regularly. You can justify as you wish. No one has been able to remove them since 1948. I also submit, that in light of the current mind set of the Palistinians, they are not long for this world. And Israel will be more than happy to accomodate their suicide wishes. But I digress.

As to the general question, I think here we have a textbook case of two contrasting perspectives. In the West we see Israel through the lens of the holocaust. We see Israel as the admirable story of a people’s survival & revival against the most hideous odds. But Arabs in general see Israel through the lens of the history of colonialism. Israel to them is just another long & painful chapter of that history.

Disagree. Arabs see Israel as the brother that was favored by the father (Abraham), and that they were cast out. Arabs see Israel as a scourge to be eradicated. NOT ISLAM...Arabs, want Israel defunct. People love to mix the two concepts together.

As you say, emotionally it’s hard for most of us not to support Israel. Unfortunately, it means that to us the Palestinian case has been mostly invisible. One has to do one’s own research into the history to remotely understand the justice of the Palestinian cause. In fact, to seriously support the Palestinian cause will probably still mark you as a person on the margins, and even an anti-Semite (always a bit of irony there, since Arabs too are Semites).

Would you like to know how I personally feel? Palestinians...go home, back to your original land. Go back to Jordan. Make peace with your own kind. Or else stay, and accept the fact that your neighbor may be an Israeli, and learn to deal with that in a civil and acceptable social manner.

In studying Arab languages, I learned an interesting point. There is no word in Arabic, for "comprimise"...none. I submit, the Arab world better learn the meaning of such a concept...

In fact the Qu'ran warns the Arab Muslim, of the folly of his/her hard headedness. In the end, many will pay for such.

But I won’t attempt to argue the case here. I'm hardly qualified to sort it out - but then who is?. I’m only pointing out how much we are prisoners of perception complexes like the “West” and the “Arab World”

It would be hard to argue things that are not physically evident. I agree. I also know the "enemy" when approached by such. I suspect you will too, if in time you are brought to such a state and position. And you will then remember this dialogue.

All the best.

May you and yours be blessed and watched over, with zealousness.

v/r

Q

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

May you and yours be blessed and watched over, with zealousness.

Hi Q. Thanks for the blessing.

- I hadn’t intended to send another reply, but I’m inherently weak-willed.

- In my preceding post, I was trying to put a really complicated situation in a rounded perspective and that’s hard to do on the fly in this kind of format, without having to go back and forth forever clarifying points.

- My effort at giving perspective was not to provide excuses for any murderous ideology or suggest we should cut Osama some slack because he’s misunderstood. I was only trying to sum up the most basic background to all of this and suggest how this background conditions thinking on the respective sides.

- When I use the word “colonialism” it’s not as leftwing jargon, but simply a collective term for summing up a concrete situation. Since the break up of the Ottoman Empire in 1917 or thereabouts, the Middle East has been dominated by Western powers, by the French and English in the first half of the 20th century and by the U.S. ever since. And when I say “dominated”, I mean that Western powers, to protect their interests in the region, have repeatedly justified political and military intervention, which local governments are in general powerless to prevent. A country that is unable to secure its own borders, except through the acquiescence of a foreign power is at the very least not fully independent. So having colonies in a legal sense is not the point; foreign domination equivalent to colonialism is.

- Sure, the situation has been in constant evolution. The British operated in one way, the French in another, and the U.S. has its own style. (I appreciate what you said about the changing trade deals; for all the controversy, I give the U.S. credit whenever it makes progress in this direction.) Each dominant nation will claim its own virtues and tend to be blind to its own faults. But in the end many of these interventions have ended in disaster, making life worse not better for people in the Middle East.

- Take Iran, for example. British Petroleum had big interests there; a new government came in intent on nationalizing the oil industry, which the British were naturally not in favour of. Many complications later, the British were replaced by Americans; the CIA helped thwart the nationalist government, brought in the Shah and supported his U.S. business-friendly government until he was overthrown by a popular revolution in 1979. And ever since, we’ve had the rule of those charming Mullahs. (The optimistic point here is that if Iran had a popular revolution once they can have one again, hopefully soon, to put the Mullahs on a leash.)

- This is not pointing fingers. This is not blame America. This is not conspiracy theory. These are matters of public record. And it’s just one example out of many in the history of Western interventions in the Middle East over the past century.

- So yes, the fundamental problem for these countries is their own weakness & disarray, which invite interventions in the first place, but these interventions can have devastating consequences.

- A foreign intervention is a kind of jujitsu; a small pressure applied at a critical point can have a huge effect. And in the minds of the colonized it’s a kind of psychological jujitsu, creating a kind of demon out of the foreign power who can become the scapegoat for every failure.

- Speaking of failure, it may be that I’ve failed again in getting these points across, but let me try to be as frank as I can be.

- It’s not a matter of excuses for either side. It’s a matter of dropping the b.s.

- For any Muslim to claim that this whole phenomenon is simply a matter of U.S. foreign policy, as has been claimed, unfortunately, on this very forum, is frankly unacceptable, if not altogether incredible. And I think it’s an insult to every Muslim to imply that they are so bereft of the ability to manage their own affairs that they can only scapegoat foreign powers.

- On the other hand, for any Westerner, American or otherwise, to claim simple incomprehension and a status of complete innocence while refusing to even glance at the historical roots is at best a head-in-the-sand, and at worst a straight out hypocrite. (Note to Q: this is not directed at you, but at the extreme case.) Innocent people from all nations were murdered in New York on 9/11. These were indeed innocents. But governments, however well managed, are never innocent. How could they be, in this fallen world? And no Western government that has been involved up to its ears in the Middle East for decades can claim innocence in the face of terrorism arising from that region.

- It’s my view that unless we understand the underlying conditions & mindsets we may be doomed, as I’ve said, to a downward spiral.

- So yes, let’s hunt terrorists, violent ideologues, psychotics, Islamo-fascists to the ends of the Earth, but lets use our heads as well as our guns.

- Lynden Johnson famously said that Gerald Ford couldn’t chew gum and walk at the same time. But this is precisely what we have to do.

- Chasing bad guys with no understanding on the part of the public of where in blazes they’re coming from will only result in a hideous version of the Keystone Kops, ending in holocaust.

- We must act. But we must understand.

All the best. And a non-theistic blessing to you, if that carries any weight.

P.S. - I've stayed away from the Palestinian/Israeli issue; it's a can of worms of course and we may be operating from different planets on this. I thought I'd have a better chance of communicating my point of view on the broader issues.