The way I see it there are two possibilities concerning Arafat. Either he has control over the people who break the cease-fires, in which case he is untrustworthy and it would be foolish to deal with him, or he does not control these elements, in which case he is impotent and it would be pointless to deal with him. Eihter way, excluding him is not really a mistake.
Treeman says: They do not do what they do (suicide bombers) because of anything that we have actually done, but because of what they have been told that we have done. They do not do it because of our foreign policy, they do it because they have been told by their leaders that it's because of our foreign policy that they are having a bad hair day, or whatever they're angry about. That is out of our hands. So we're basically back to they hate us cause they are brain washed (evil) and it has nothing to do with our foreign policy. You'll have to excuse those of us who don't accept that it is all so simple.
A reporter from the BBC that many people in Saudi hate US foreign policy: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/from_our_own_correspondent/newsid_1647000/1647571.stm
<b>So we're basically back to they hate us cause they are brain washed (evil) and it has nothing to do with our foreign policy. You'll have to excuse those of us who don't accept that it is all so simple.</b> But you accept that it is simple to say that "evil" America's foreign policy is the reason for all the problems in the Middle East, and "Evil" America is picking on poor old Taliban, and "evil" America is picking on poor old Osama bin Laden. You may not have said bin Laden, but bin Laden is financing the Taliban, so they go hand in hand. A good deal of the people over there who are against the U.S. don't know a thing about foreign policy. You actually think that Osama bin Laden and the Taliban care about foreign policy? Actually glynch IS accusing the U.S. of terrorism. He is saying that the U.S. bombings are causing 7.5 million people to starve to death and compared it to the 5000 people that were killed 9-11. I seriously doubt that there are so many people with chemical imbalances going around strapping bombs to themselves and killing people and flying planes into a building. I seriously doubt that they all got together and formed Al-Qaeda because of the sickness. Evil or not, they're murderers. And Osama bin Laden is a multi-millionaire, there's nothing social that drove him to the point where he's brainwashing people to commit murder.
Haven, now I think it is you who are being simplistic. Modern psychology agrees on few things within its own ranks. And last time I checked there hadn't been a declared winner in the environment/genetic dispute pertaining to the way people develop. I think the fact that Osama and his ilk were NOT PALESTINIAN, WERE NOT POOR, WERE MIDDLE AND UPPER CLASS refutes the assumptions that these actions were because they "watched their mother and father starve" or "watched their sons and daughters slaughtered by the Israelis" as boy and others suggest. The emerging 'ism' movement that blames every undesirable action on a 'disease' or 'psychological trauma' or whatever leaves no room for good ol' personal responsibility. If every undesirable action of any magnitude is something out of the control of the actor, then is anyone ever responsible for anything? Where does it end? You say your not interested in culpability, but that is exactly what you are doing when you talk about Israeli and American actions, assigning culpability. Seems hypocritical to me.
Hayesstreet: Social solidarity does not require individual participation in specific endemic problems. "Leaders" often come from the elite ranks to that aim to amend the illf of the general population.
<B>I think the fact that Osama and his ilk were NOT PALESTINIAN, WERE NOT POOR, WERE MIDDLE AND UPPER CLASS refutes the assumptions that these actions were because they "watched their mother and father starve" or "watched their sons and daughters slaughtered by the Israelis" as boy and others suggest.</B> I'm trying to stay out of these debates , but this "not poor" thing is a mischaracterization. People who argue that hate is built from impoverty aren't saying Bin Laden is poor. They are saying that all it takes is one crazy person (poor or rich, but very bright) to rally poor people to believing in a psychotic cause. Poverty & oppression are the fertile grounds for anyone who's trying to gain power & influence. It worked the same in Post-WWI Germany. You had economic depression and all it took was one psychotic leader (Hitler) to rally the people around "the rest of the world did this to us". The long-term solution to this was to eliminate mass poverty in Germany (through massive post-WWII development). Bin Laden taps into the poor in the Middle East and Africa with the same basic message -- blaming their problems on America and the West. His method -- terrorism -- is different because leaders are going to pick what's effective. Germany was united and had the technology to conduct a regular war. The impoverished in the ME don't, so they rely on terror. Same goals, different methods -- some lunatic wants to have power. While I think we definitely have to bomb the hell out of Al Queda and the Taliban to stop them in the short-term (just like we had to defeat Germany), I don't think that will solve anything long-term. Leave the ME/Africa in poverty and someone else will eventually rise up and do the same thing again. There has to be some type of long-term economic development plan to fight the problem in the long-run. This is why isolationism is a policy that never has and never will work for us. It's also why the "foreign aid" that politicians (of both parties) like to blast & slowly eliminate when dealing with budgets really needs to be resurrected. I can't speak for haven & company, but I think this is the area that they are focusing on -- the long-term solutions that bombings aren't going to solve.
I'd tend to agree, but they don't seem to understand the implications of their own long-term goals. Bin Laden wants us out of Saudi Arabia - that's his only real beef with us, everything else is just propaganda. But if we leave Saudi then the Royal Family will fall (that's almost guaranteed) and either be replaced by islamic fundamentalists or Saddam. Either way the price of oil will skyrocket, we will finally switch to alternatives, and they will be totally broke. They don't seem to realize that our presence there is actually the only thing that gives them any ecomonic prosperity - instead, they hate us for it. The US getting out of the ME is not a long-term solution. The Arabs growing up and joining the world community by accepting their own faults is. And I find it ridiculous that the same people who are claiming that we should switch to alternative energy sources are constantly saying that we need to look at our foreign policy in the ME. The US switching to alternatives would be the most agressive foreign policy move we could possibly make regarding the ME. I totally support it.
First, you are making a huge assumption that Osama has genuine 'social solidarity' with those affected by these 'endemic problems." It is equally (if not more so) probable that these 'endemic problems' provide him a platform to obtain power, ala Che Guevera. Second, your "social solidarity" theory doesn't explain the suicide attackers. The plane crashers are not leaders but foot soldiers, and THOSE usually come from the ranks of the directly affected (ala almost any study you could find on the profile of a suicide bomber - undereducated, young, FROM AN AFFECTED AREA). Third, your point here also directly contradicts your assertion that these terrorists had the equivalent of a chemical imbalance because of social/political/economic factors that warped them. IF they acted out of 'social solidarity" then there is hardly room to cop out with a "social disease" argument post-action. Fourth, you ignore my argument that to write off these attackers as "diseased" blurs the lines of personal responsibility to non-existence. Who could we ever hold responsible for their actions if they could claim they were chemically imbalanced/socially diseased? Now, are poverty sticken areas breeding grounds for desperation? Yes. Are they fertile fields for the power hungry to pluck supporters? Yes. Should we address the poverty and famine both for self interest (no more terrorism) and more altruistic goals? Yes. Should we avoid placing responsibility for an individuals actions at their own feet? I don't know why, unless they are mentally r****ded, and have no concept of right or wrong. These attackers knew they were killing innocents, but they did it anyway because they made the JUDGEMENT CALL that the ends were justified by the means. That is not necessarily a characteristic of someone 'sick' but rather of someone who has assessed their action and found it desirable as a step toward their end goal. As such they should be held responsible for their actions.
Uh, sure Shanna. But the suicide bombers at the WTC were NOT poor or oppressed. They were upper and upper middle class. The point being that Osama DIDN'T recruit the stereotypical bombers (young, undereducated, FROM AN ENDEMIC PROBLEM AREA). He didn't pull some Jedi mind trick on the poor folk and convince them to join him. So it is hardly a mischaracterization to say that these guys knew what they were doing, that they made their own VALUE judgement, and so should be held responsible. Not written off as poor downtrodden figures who didn't know what they were doing. I think we agree on many of these points. Short term goals have to be to find and eliminate Osama and his ilk. He is a power seeker. And to write him off as 'mad' means you could not hold anyone responsible for these kinds of actions because to say they are 'mad' is to remove the expectation of personal responsibility. Long term do we need to address the breeding ground for terrorists and address poverty and famine that so often bring rise to these tragedies? Absolutely. Foreign aid/Marshall Plan type remedies I am all in favor of.
