Anyone who believes that Bush has done a good job with the War on Terror is ignoring some very basic principles on how these people work and why terrorism proliferates.

Although you won't hear it from any politician, terrorism is imposible to stop. Let's face it, without seriously altering our country and making it a police state, we won't be able to stop an individual willing to kill himself for a cause.

Think of the literal millions of ways somebody could deal a deadly blow to our country. If I was willing to die for my cause there would be very little anyone could do to stop me. If you are relatively smart and working alone, it's impossible to detect. (think fertilizer bombs and snipers)

So how do we stop terrorism then?

Bush and the necons have a plan to spread democracy throughout the middle east and eliminate WMD's in the hands of dictators. Based on the history of terrorism and what we know about them, this plan totally discounts our information of their ideology.

Terrorists are not the product of dictators. They exist because the Middle East is a very poor region that has been abused for their natural resources for the last 100 years or so. Their complaints range from the West setting up Israel to United States troops on Holy Land. These people exist because of a deep hatred of the United States based on our actions and policies throughout the world.

Given that, why does the president think that taking over Iraq and Aghanistan will make any difference. He has embarked on a plan that tries to STOP terrorism at the end of the equation and done almost nothing to attack the root causes of the problem. Terrorists don't hate the US because Saddam was a bad guy, or because Saudia Arabia has a royal family. So why do we think democracy imposed on them will work?

So far all Bush has done is create situations and reasons for terrorists to fight against the United States. Until the Muslim community feels that they are a part of the world community with an equal voice, we will continue to see terrorism. Our plan to stop terrorism will never work until we try and cure the root causes of the behaviour.

No plan to stop terrorism will ever work.

Translation = until we dissolve the Israeli state, allow Palestine to be a free oppressor of Israelis, withdraw from the Middle East completely, allow oil to be priced above 70 dollars a barrell, and revert our ways to 10th century Byzantine practices will the "Muslim community" stop committing terrorist attacks.

I love how you attribute terrorism to the Muslim community. Anyone who believes that terrorists are based in the overall Muslim community is ignoring some very basic principles on who these people work and why terrorism proliferates.

I'm sorry, but your post started well and failed miserably. Bush's doctrine will not be successful because of the hinderance it faces, rather than the implications it poses. Structuring democracy in the Middle East, I've acknowledged, is impossible, but rather, disrupting the flow of terrorist activities by dissolving terrorist supportive and empathetic governments in a de facto manner such that it appears we are acting on the token of democracy will ultimately result in a series of regime changes, good or bad. Hopefully, somewhere in the pending confusion of the Middle Eastern states, out of all the distruption and chaos, some sense of a new republic for the Middle East will prevail.

The fact is, the Middle East is impoverished because there is a Royal Family in Saudi Arabia; because the people allow themselves to be steered by a religion older than the sands they walk into a naive belief that the people in charge are part of that religion; they are poor and desolate because the world around them is sealed off by the evil that sits on their thrones; they're poor because the West is disallowed from entering their halls; they're poor because the people at the top have monopolized stability, with Roles Royces, Rolexes, Monet's, and prostitutes. These same men at the top tell the plebes towards the bottom the reason is the West, Christianity, even secular values. Europe is no more guilty than the United States in propogating some of these issues; the West in general should pay more attention to the people than the leaders. I think you'll see that in the years to come.

Look, Bush could be wrong. I've never said he was infallable. But to limit your scope of criticism to one man for the undoings and fallacies of an entire quarter of the planet is silly and, at worst, treacherous. Blame his doctrine of pre-emption, fine, but you need to go back 1000 years, to when the first Christian had his innerds pulled from his stomach by a Wahabbi in the Byzantine Empire and stuck to a stake, and that Christian was made to walk circles around that stake until he died. Most people believe the Crusades started because Christians wanted control of the Middle East; the truth is, the Anglos and Christian Semites were the majority until run down by the Moors. They were prosperous in merchantile industry.

This war is 1000 years old, dormant for just 200 years less than that time. The battle may not be Christ vs. Mohammed this time, but rather, Western ideals vs. the ideals of a civilization stooped in 10th century history.

It is winnable. It will not be an easy, nor a clean victory, but it is winnable.

I wish I could understand your post for it doesn't make much sense. Is your first parahraph your attempt at restating what I said? If so it is not an accurate representation of what I was getting at in the slightest. I do not feel that Isreal needs to be disolved. Nor do I think that Muslim countries represent a 10th century repressive society. Muslim countries or countries with large Muslim populations are just as varied as the United Sates. Some have repressive regimes and governments and others are much more like the US than most of us perceive.

The reason that I attribute terrorism to the Muslim community is because at present, that is the method of warfare an extremist group among them is using agaisnt their enemies. What would you like to call it and to whom would you attribute it to? I am confused as to your thoughts on some of these matters, you seem inconsistent.

CW has a point though,

This "war" is much older than the Bush Administration. It has much to do with policies of both the West and the Middle East.

It will take a LONG time to correct nearly CENTURIES of bad feelings and policies.

This will still be an issue in 08, 12, 16, 20,......etc.

Sarcasm. It was sarcasm.



But it is not innately Muslim. The Koran is taught to these people before they can read. Some of them can't even read by the time they're done, yet they know it in the skewed version in which it was taught like the back of their hand.

I get pretty pissed when people drop the terror bomb in the "Muslim Community". You've got Muslim seperatists, Sunnis, Shiites, Wahabbis... it's like saying all Native Americans dance around totem polls and scalp white men.

The psychology of this community offers insight to the acts of terror, not the opposite.

Careful.



I'm pretty consistent. You can't introduce democracy into the Middle East. You can't democratize a civilization who's main source of governance is God. You can, however, kill a terrorist.

You call it the Muslim Community, that is, the root of terror is Allah and the governments that support and follow Allah. Al Qaeda is not openly state-sponsored. Therefore, it is, in and of itself, a community separate from the Muslim Community. (I wish to GOD you guys would read Sleeping with the Devil by Robert Baer.) Al Qaeda is a mouthpiece for an umbrella network, called the Muslim Brotherhood, and under it lies all sorts of evil.

That's what I'm getting at. The only sense of community these men have is through oppression and violence. The Muslim Community you speak of suffers the nature these men exist in.

Nice! And the people in the southern states are any different from those fanatics? I think not. Same damn thing. Brainwashed by a book from before they can speak. And then they just follow for the ride. Right in your own backyard. What does your government do about? Zero. They raise the dreaded terror alert, and the herds follow. Your president is one of them. Shows how far evolution has come in that part of the world.

I don't think that Allah or the Muslim faith as it was intended to be taught supports terrorism, nor do I think that a majority of Muslims support terrorism. I hope we are both clear on that.

Excuse me, but I live in Texas, and I've never been brainwashed by anyone, even though I've been surrounded by hardcore christians and right wingers most of my life. Just because I live in the south does not mean that I, or other southerners, are automatically "herds". The south has some of the most intelligent people of this nation, and we do not all subscribe to one mode of thought. To say so is steretypical and ignorant.

Sorry, I didn't see you jump in to defend the Muslim nation all being the same.

Yes it is stereotyping but because it is in large part true. Is it not fair to state that those in the South are in large part right wing evangelical fundamentalists?

No, it's not.

To tell the truth, it really depends on what part of the south you're talking about. I'd say about 1/3 of southerners are right wing evangelical fundamentalists. You're exxagerating the extent to which the south leans to the right.

Not at all. This is like saying that all northerners or Californians are athesit liberals. It's simply not true. I live in small town Central Texas. My mother is a Christian, but remains undecided about the election. MY History teacher is a staunch Republican, my other History teacher is a libertarian, my Chemistry teacher is a Catholic Liberal, and so on. And this is just in the small confines of my school.

It's true that Bush will win Texas, but Texas has very liberal areas, such as Austin. And to say that the majority of people in Southern states are evangelical right wing christians is just as ignorant as the stereotypical rhetoric used by those same exact people. It's wrong, plain and simple.

Exactly Orpheus, you are taking your little part of Texas and drawing conclusions based on your small cosmos. I have also heard you say that Texas has very liberal areas like Austin, but that again is taking a small part and drawing large conclusions from it. You can't point to a few people or a town and say "see that doesn't fit the label and therefore the label is wrong." It would be as if I was to point to Orange County of California and say that "see California is not a liberal state."

I do believe that in the South evangelicals are the largest religious denomination and that considering the last few elections you could also say they are right wing supporting a fundamental policy.