Indeed. But so too, let's all remember that a patriot on one side is a terrorist (or at least a traitor) to the other.

It's all about perception.Here's my "problem".  Have we really learned from history? Look at how the British acted arrogantly towards and disrespected the Hindus in India and other people.  When we critisize or think of ourselves as "better" than another major religion or population with a different culture than ours, isn't that the same type of arrogance?

Ski,The mistake you are making is in thinking that the terrorist?s motivation should concern me.  I am arguing that we in the West are not at fault for conditions in the Middle East.  All of these states have been independent for at least 30 years.  I don?t buy the economic imperialism argument either, most, although not all of the economic exploitation of Middle Eastern peoples is done by their own leadership not the West or Western corporations. That is a myth that needs to be exploded.  AT what point do the former colonial peoples become responsible for their own condition.  I refuse to fall into the self-flagellating trap of blaming everything wrong with the world on the West, which so many in the West do.  The former colonial peoples are not children and nor should we treat them as such.  Blaming their problems on us is discounting their own responsibility for their fate.I am not talking of government disapproval of terrorist methods; I am speaking of their popular support.  There is little to no evidence of a popular backlash against either terrorist?s goals or methods.  A few prison programs are but a drop in the sea against the wide popular support enjoyed by the terrorists and their anti-Western rhetoric and actions.  It is only enlightened self-interest that leads the regimes in the region to combat extremist thought.  They see the writing on the wall, if the terrorists succeed in their present aims, the current regimes in the region are next.

The second mistake you are making, is you think the terrorists are concerned with your concern for their motives.  I assure you they are not concerned that people “listen” to them or “understand” why they do what they do.  They do it because they seek power.  They do it because they want to exploit the misery and suffering in that region as a platform for which to be their “saviors.”  They don't want to solve the problems, they don't want to dialogue with us, they want to rule pure and simple.  They don't want peace partners, they want subjects.  The only way to deal with terrorism is to defeat it, and the only way to defeat it is to show how weak it really is.  Once the would be followers of terrorists see that the enemy is overwhelmingly stronger than their side is, they will lose heart and only then will they begin to rethink their philosophies and life goals.  This may not be the academic way of dealing with it, but it's the practical way.

Power, glory, money, sense of belonging to something bigger than himself, fear, pressure, inner anger at the world, excitement…..probably the same reasons a 19 year old in America joins the Bloods or the Crips.

And let's do WHATEVER IT TAKES to stop terrorism.  Sometimes that “whetever it takes” may require a bit of humility, but it DEFINITELY requires a lot of cultural understanding on everyone's part.

You could go the opposite direction entirely and say that the Whatever it takes may require a lot of megatons.  I am not averse to turning the Middle East into a parking lot.  I don't care why the terrorists or Jihadists do what they do, I just want them to stop.  As far as I am concerned the easiest way to permanently end terrorism is to kill the terrorists, bullets are relatively cheap after all.  That is a simple and brutal way to put it.  The long and short of it is that Islamic terrorists, at least, despise our very way of life and desire to change it, by force if necessary.  They have made it abundantly clear that they don't want to talk.  They desire our death or conversion to Islam, it is that simple.  There are no socio-economic causes for terrorism, though these factors may contribute to the ease of recruitment.  Violent Islam is the problem.Notice I am not claiming all Islam is bad, there are moderate Muslims.  Just not many of them, and they are on the fringes of the Islamic mainstream.  This is a fact many in the west simply refuse to acknowledge, much like many Europeans refused to acknowledge the threat Nazism represented until Germany was well on the way to rearmament.  This is why many on the right liken liberals to appeasers.  They are willing to do anything except fight, even though fighting is the only thing that is effective.

😛I suppose I went too far being tongue in cheek. 😛  But you do bring up a good point and probably one that deserves its own thread maybe two, although I don't know exactly where it would fit.

Playing devils advocate, what is a war crime?  War crimes are a fairly new historical phenomenon dating only to the Napoleonic Wars.  This may be hedging, Napoleon was declared an outlaw, he was never tried.  Were the Romans then war criminals when they conquered Carthage, put it to the torch, sowed the ground with salt, killed all the men, and sold the women and children into slavery?  War crimes are touchy, who defines them, by what standards, and who has the authority to prosecute.  Nuremberg and the associated laws were created out of whole cloth at the end of WWI, by what right did the victors punish and execute the leadership of a sovereign state after they had been defeated.  Hitler and his gang were acting within their legally constituted authority after all.  They did nothing illegal under German law. Notice, I am not defending Hitler or the Nazis, I think what they did was unconscionable.  I do however have grave concerns over the precedent set.  A precedent that now will come back to haunt our own troops with the establishment of the international criminal court in The Hague.I am not actively advocating that we nuke the entirety of the Middle East.  I don't particularly hold with genocide as a rule.  However, the Jihadists would be perfectly happy f something of the sort were to happen in the west.

By what right do we attempt to change another culture?  I do not think we should change Islam.  I think we should make attacks on the west so painful to the people who commit them and their supporters that they will not do it anymore.  I am perfectly willing to buy their oil and let them live in their squalor provided they do not come to my house and attack me.  Sometimes it seems that it is forgotten who attacked who. I think I have said before that I don't buy the economic imperialism argument.  Here is why.  At what point in the last 232 years has the US forced anyone in the Middle East or anywhere else to buy our products or to sell us theirs?  The answer is never.  It is only natural that we intervene to prop up regimes friendly to us, they would do the same if they had the ability.  In the end the US can only look after American interests, if those are served by people we find distasteful then that is the nature of the beast.  The real world is not always pretty, though we would like it to be that way.I have said again and again.  People can live however they want and they will let them, within limits.  The Jihadists and terrorists made their way of life our business 30 years ago by attacking us, we only chose to take up the gauntlet after the grievous harm they did us on 9/11.  I can also see how Iraq fits into the larger war though I disagree with the entire premise for going to war.  I don't like the argument but I can understand where the administration was coming from in deciding for war.  Lastly, we are there now, we better finish it or it will come back to haunt us.  The Jihadists will not quit because we do, they have now made Iraq as much a part of the GWOT as we did.Finally, I see your point.  I just disagree that we should be attempting to change a society or culture.  Contain yes, change no.  I also did not mean to imply that I think you are an appeaser, I do not and apologize for the misunderstanding.  I was simply making a point, not trying to point fingers. 🙁Sorry for being so long-winded.

BTW, I see your point too.  I've been accused of being an appeaser on some other boards, but I wasn't trying to imply you said that.  To some, counterinsurgency looks like appeasement, and there are parts of it that make people cringe, but I know you enough from your posts to say you know better.At least I'm not like this guy who is an appeaser.

Ski,I will answer you point by point.

You believe this, but do not know it.  There are many examples where freedom is not all it is cracked up to be. In fact, throughout history freedom is the exception rather than the rule.  Recent examples of freedom being worse than what was before include, The Balkans, Russia, Iraq, many of the former Soviet Republics, Haiti, and many former African Colonies, you could even make the argument that South Africa is much worse off today than prior to the end of apartheid.  You enjoy freedom, but only by an accident of birth.  Many people in the world crave stability more than freedom, freedom means uncertainty, and possibly hunger, injury, or even death.  It is arrogant to assume that because we enjoy our freedom, everyone wants to be free.  Many people do desire freedom, it is good however to remember to old Chinese curse, ?be careful what you wish for, you just might get it?.

I will keep pounding on this one.  What is world law?  As the victors in World War II, we had the right to treat the enemy leaders however we wanted, that is an established historical principal.  Where the Allies erred in my opinion, was dressing it up in a legal robe.  We had the right to summarily shoot all the Nazi leaders and history says we were right.  Nuremberg set a dangerous precedent.  Germany could have, and should have been treated the same way as a town traditionally was when it resisted a siege.  There was no need to create laws out of whole cloth.It is much like the concept of hate crimes, isn?t their already a law for assault, rape, and murder?  Why create a different category of crime for basically the same offense?  In the same manner, crimes against humanity will come back to haunt those who created the laws.  They will and have been used against us.  Check this out: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/05/28/9263/, that is where that kind of thinking leads.  There has also been talk of charging GI?s at the International Criminal Court in the Hague.My main point is that heinous acts by governments or individuals should be handled on a case by case basis; they are all different and defy classification.  The current international law is so vague that almost anything is liable to be charged as a war crime, even legitimate combat operations.  The US has no business deferring to international law in criminal matter anyway, we have laws at home for that.

All I can say to this is that enlightened self interest leads us to follow international law.  Our power gives us the ability not to.  The US is not a rogue nation despite the voices on the left.  You are almost correct, our power and status demand respect, but there are some politicians in America who are embarrassed at our power.  Deferring to the UN can serve a purpose but American interests should always be paramount.  Why should we care about world opinion except to the extent that we benefit?  This one I do not understand either.In the end, everything America does should ultimately serve American interests.  This can be interpreted as broadly or as narrowly as you want.  Nevertheless, anything that hurts America or damages our legitimate interests is by its very nature antithetical to the government?s role in society.