Replies

I understand your point of view. All we can do is look to other nations who have successfully dealt with the terrorism problem. The problem is that we can't because none have eliminated terrorism. Britian tried many tactics with the IRA. The conservatives tried violence and it didn't work, it created irish catholic martyrs. The liberals gave them a seat of power in government, only to face splinter groups of the same people under a different name and a "former" terrorist named Gerry Adams who feins support for non-violence. Terrorist recruitment in Ireland was successful only because there was high unemployment and a depressed economy.
I don't believe the 911 terrorists were motivated by jihad. I believe it was all about control of Saudi Arabia's oil resources, given that the attackers came from wealthy families, and didn't exhibit Koranic moral behavior-what with lap dances and drinking and so forth.
These terrorists, I firmly believe are splinter IRA, and motivated by the G8.

Terrorism is designed to fight nations with mighty military power. The battle is PR and economics, while I understand those responsible must be dealt with swiftly and violently.
Terrorism thrives because it works. They instill fear and affect economies and create martyrs at the same time. The KLA sucessfully obtained Kosovo with this tactic. They assassinated, bombed and generally created havoc, claiming to be victims of oppression. When Milosevich retaliated, he became the bad guy. But if you carefully examine how he was defeated, you'd see the KLA took cover among civilians (even fired from populous areas) and they then became "collateral damage" when the Serbs fired back. If the WORLD could be fooled by this and rally against the Serbs, other terrorists can use the same strategy to gain recruits.
As for the Christian thing I know it is hard to be Christian about this. I don't feel one bit of sympathy for terrorists, but I can't find it in my heart to hate all Muslims. That's my point.
I fervently believe continental Europeans feel deep sympathy for Britain. They are cousins. They just have a different idea as to how to address the problem. The hard left way, which is as ineffective as the hard right way. It doesn't mean they don't care because they don't adopt U.S. strategy and jump on the bandwagon every time we decide to bomb some little country, which is quite often, actually. I disagree with U.S. strategy and our meddling, past and present, but I care enough to carefully examine all aspects
of the issue. Our policy is domination of middle east resources, and revenge. There are many layers to this, and I don't think the paternalistic, authoritarian approach is working.
Terrorism is like dealing with a bad kid. She's 16, on drugs, and sexually promiscuous. The authoritarian deals with it this way: he restricts her freedom and beats her. No love. I've seen this in many strict Christian families. It doesn't work, it makes her madder, and more determined. She seethes inside with anger, and learns to hate her parents. The liberal would buy her a car and give her condoms and birth control pills. A liberal would show love through capitulation to the little brat. I suggest a middle ground approach. Reasonable punishment and loss of freedom, and lots of love, but not the kind which convinces her that her tactics are effective. With terrorism, you can't just beat them up. It may work in old westerns, but this is real life. You've got to put in place a plan which addresses basic needs (not love) but economic security. We can no longer support oppressive regimes for American economic interests. Alternative energy is a must. Yes we need to root out terrorist cells, but not in a way that angers an entire region. That's the authoritarian approach, and it doesn't work. The authoritarian thinks there's a set number of terrorists and all we need to do is kill them all. They don't understand the nature of recruitment. You can't kill all the cockroaches in the world because there will always be more, and most importantly, they adapt and thrive even when full power is unleashed against them.
As for liberals praising Iraq (pre-sanctions)
as a wonderland under Sadaam, there are others who insist it was hell. I say it was somewhere in the middle. It was hell for Shiites and Kurds. But Sharia law was not possible under Hussein's secular Iraq. The laws regarding women were very liberal in comparison to other Arab nations. Resources were more evenly spread among the people in comparison with other Arab nations. It had the highest literacy rate and the economy was good. Now it is very possible that Sharia will be introduced. I am not saying Sadaam was a good guy, but that we must be careful of the devil we don't know. Shiites are the spiritual brothers of Islamic Jihadists, even if they are our friend in Iraq today. History has produced many examples of this. Time after time in third world countries (with no experience in democracy) we have intervened and tried to create a democratic civilization (or a base in a strategic area). Look at Haiti! In Kosovo we put terrorists in charge because we were under the mistaken impression Milosevich was a threat the world. There are other examples. We are looking at this through western eyes, but the problem is much, much more complicated than "they want to take our freedom." I don't think authoritarians, who can see only black and white, understand the muti-layer depth of the problem. And liberals, they are an open invitation to take over. We need free thinkers to deal with this.

Nice talking with yah but I've got to get to work soon so I can pay for the government to take more of my freedoms away
and so they can pay for our children to be taught oral sex as an alternative to intercourse and last but not least, so I can pay for more death row inmate appeals and new tvs and weight machines in prison.