[mikeh]

luke warm, on Oct 2 2006, 02:13 PM, said:

mike777, on Sep 28 2006, 09:06 PM, said:

The important thing is that they like us and we stop doing evil bad things that makes them hate us.

i agree... what exactly is it that we do that they want us to stop doing? i know we're the great satan and evil to the core, but i don't quite remember why that's true

The fact that you can post this in all sincerity is indicative of the problem.

Nothing the US does justifies terrorism, but much of what the US does explains terrorism. And the scariest thing, to a foreigner, about America is that it appears that the majority of Americans really have no idea what the fuss is about. Why, for example, Tony Blair, in his farewell political speech recognized that a majority of westerners view Bush as a greater threat to world peace than they do bin Laden. Why some Americans claim to be Canadian when travelling overseas.

Israel is one factor. The kneejerk protection and support given to the Israeli State is a key irritant: the US seems to behave as if it is faced with a choice: help Israel or help the Palestinians. What many would prefer would be for the US to help both.

Use half the money used for military assistance to Israel over the past 30 years (or more) to promote economic and political integrity for Palestinians and maybe the refugee communities would not be a prime source of recruits for Islamic fundamentalist terror groups.

But Israel is merely an obvious, and perennial, example.

Stop invading other countries, stop promoting coups d'etat in other countries, stop proclaiming moral superiority while acting in a morally reprehensible fashion, and so on. Stop funding and supplying unsavoury individuals and groups as surrogates on the discredited notion that the enemy of my enemy is my friend (Saddam Hussein and the Taliban being merely the two most obvious examples of the flaws in this approach)

Would that fix the problem? No, not entirely. As the wealthiest country in the owrld and the most powerful military nation, the US will attract resentment and even hatred from others, but there was a time when, despite claims to be both of these things, the US was looked to by oppressed peoples as a beacon of hope. Woodrow Wilson was imperfect, but his attitude and, by association, the attitude of the US in 1919 was idealistic not merely in words but, to some degree, in actions as well. Of course, the results were not always perhaps what he intended, but his heart was in the right place. Compare Bush to Wilson, and you have to shudder.

No rational person really thinks the US is the great satan, but many rational people do think that the US is, unfortunately, seeing the consequences of its own actions.

The saddest development is that the terrorists are winning. They have generated unprecedented change in the US society. A country that, for all of its faults, remained, bye and large, a free and open democracy, has surrendered its fundamental values out of fear... fear of terrorism. Now the President has the power to secretly wiretap, arrest, torture and imprison, without any access to the courts, anyone he doesn't like. He has only to define his victims appropriately and the Congress has told the courts to back off. Of course, he would never dream of doing that to a careful, conservative mainstream American citizen, so such a person lacks any concerns that the President has been given too much power. But repressive governments rarely directly take on the bulk of the population: they marginalize sectors of the population and the comfortably numb great majority lose both their empathy for the victims of executive repression and their moral outrage. Look at how racial profiling is now not merely tolerated but actively encouraged by many white commentators. Look at how domestic survelliance is now viewed by many.

I have a number of American friends: and, as individuals, I truly respect them, and there are facets of American society that are outstanding examples to the world. Every country has had and has problems and the US, in many ways, dealt with its problems with great courage. But that seems to be, temporarily I hope, a thing of the past.

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Oct 2 2006, 10:13 PM, said:

i agree... what exactly is it that we do that they want us to stop doing? i know we're the great satan and evil to the core, but i don't quite remember why that's true

Who is "they"

Its not like this is a war between a pair of monolithic entities. There's enormous diversity of opinion on both sides of the fence. Its not like you and I agree on much. It would be a mistake to believe that there is any more uniformity within the Islamic world.

If you restrict yourself to looking at Osama- bin Laden, most of his rhetoric originally focused on the US troop presence in Saudi Arabia as well as political/financial support for the Saudi monarchy. Cast your net a bit wider, the major grievances tend to be the following

1. There is a widespread perception that the US has abandoned its traditional role as a neutral intermediary in the Arab Israeli conflict and taken an aggressively pro-Israeli position. Political and financial support for Israeli settlements and military support for the Israeli army are major sources of friction. Those cluster bombs that the Israeli's were dropping on Lebanon were made here in the good old USA. The jet fuel that powers the Israeli fighters was expedited by the US at the start for the conflict. Those settlements that the Israelis continually expand in the occupied territories are funded by US tax papers. The security fence that Israel is using to chop Arab territory into a series of Bantustans has the tacit, if not active support of the White House and the American congress.

2. For many years, the US provided major military support for the Shah of Iran. The US and the British engineered the miltary coup that removed Mossadegh from power back in 1953. We continued to prop up the Shah until he was finally overthrown back in late 1978/early 1979. After the Shah fled Iran, he spent quite some time in the US in exile while undergoing treatment for cancer.

3. There is a fairly widespread belief that the US is fairly cynically manipulating Muslim for its own ends. We built up the mujahideen in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets then abandoned the country to collapse into a hell-hole as soon as the Ruskies withdrew. In a similar vein, we were the ones who gave Saddam all those weapons of mass destruction that he used to gas the Kurds and the Shia. Later on, Saddam turned into public enemy number 1. Back during the first Gulf War, we encouraged the Shia and the Kurds to rise up against Saddam, however, we allowed him to redeploy the Revolutionary Guard and his attack helicopters to crush the resistance. When we finally did over thrown Saddam, the only thing that we actually bothered to secure was Oil Ministry and the oil wells. I'm not claiming that our only reason for overthrowing Saddam's regime was to seize the Iraqi oil wealth, but we sure as hell gave that appearance.

In short we have a really shitty track record in that whole part of the world.

[luke warm]

mike, let's assume you're right... let's assume the u.s. does as you suggest... is this what they want? would we then be viewed as good and worthy of life?

there are some who think that the terrorists want nothing less than a complete conversion to their way of thinking... do you believe that's the case? if it is, does that mean it doesn't really matter what we do?

i don't buy your premise that much of what we do "explains" terrorism... if the u.s. used *all* of its foreign aid money to aid israel, or the sudan, or even canada, who's business is it but the american taxpayer? that's the problem, others thinking they can by terror bend the u.s. to their will... there's a difference between what should be done and what is done, but that difference in and of itself is not an explanation for violence

you admit that the things you want us to stop doing, which presumably the terrorists also want us to stop doing (since you listed them as 'explanations' of terrorism) wouldn't really fix the problem... as long as people hate, these things will continue to happen... and many different people hate many other people...

i personally think we are hated because we are free... i think they do not like the thought of a free u.s. .... and fwiw, america still has well over a million migrants per year coming to this country... so a whole lot of somebodys still view this as a safe haven

having said all of that, i would like to go on record as being against the recent laws passed, and those being contemplated, concerning terrorism... i happen to agree with you that the terrorists win when we give away our liberties in the name of security... franklin (i think) said “anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security”... the end does not justify the means

[Al_U_Card]

Taxation without representation......the Bill of Rights.......the Constitution......Life, liberty and the pursuit of......(Osama Bin Laden?) All things that have been worth fighting for and dying for in the history of the US.

Even criminals have their rights read to them before arrest. Seems like the people of the US are getting screwed (having their rights and freedoms removed) without a say in the matter and they are being intimidated and coerced into acquiessence.

"The times they sure are a-changin", and not for the better....

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Oct 2 2006, 11:49 PM, said:

i personally think we are hated because we are free... i think they do not like the thought of a free u.s.

The Swiss are free...
The Swedes are free...
Singapore is free...
Finland is free...
Hell, even the Danes are free...

I don't see many massive protests directed against these countries... Oh wait. There were some. There were massive protests against Denmark when some rightwing Danish newspapers decided that it would be a good idea to kick the hornet's nest.

This issue is not defined by "freedom" or "democracy", Bush's propaganda to the contrary. [Statistically speaking, I know that some folks out there are stupid enough to buy this horseshit, however, I'm still shocked every time I meet one]

We're hated for two reasons

1. The US is on top of the world so we're a natural target
2. For better or worse, the US decided that it wanted to be a "player" in the Middle East.

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on Oct 2 2006, 04:06 PM, said:

I don't see many massive protests directed against these countries...

give it time

Quote

Oh wait.  There were some.  There were massive protests against Denmark when some rightwing Danish newspapers decided that it would be a good idea to kick the hornet's nest.

this is the kind of attitude i find so disturbing... if by kick the hornets nest you mean they exercised free speech/press, so what? you act as if this is reason enough for what happened...

Quote

We're hated for two reasons

1.  The US is on top of the world so we're a natural target
2.  For better or worse, the US decided that it wanted to be a "player" in the Middle East.

maybe we should just withdraw from the world stage... a majority thought so at the beginning of wwII... who knows, maybe they were right then, also

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Oct 3 2006, 12:21 AM, said:

maybe we should just withdraw from the world stage... a majority thought so at the beginning of wwII... who knows, maybe they were right then, also

I'm am by no means an isolationist. For the record, historically US isolationists are typically conservatives in the Taft wing of the Republican party. My own political views are very far removed from this tradition...

I favor very active involvement US involvement with the rest of the world. However, I am most interested in exercising so-called "soft" power, leveraging our economic and social position rather than our military. Equally significant, whenever possible, I am a multilateralist. I prefer working within the context of established international bodies like the UN.

[keylime]

The UN is in itself delusional along with the argument that it can enace positive change (with maybe the exception of UNICEF) for the people they are overseeing.

[mikeh]

luke warm, on Oct 2 2006, 03:49 PM, said:

i personally think we are hated because we are free... i think they do not like the thought of a free u.s. ....

This is amazing. Bush uses this line, but I never actually thought that even he believed it!

Use of this bullshit is a handy way of 'framing' the issue. Of course, we like to view ourselves as 'free' and as thus being better than others and if we can tell ourselves that we are hated for this reason, well, then, there is nothing we can do about it. After all, we can't make ourselves 'not free' just to appease the terrorists, can we?

In fact, the US is doing just that... in the name of freedom, it is giving up its freedoms. But the point is that this loss of freedom is being sold by techniques that were preaged by George Orwell.... including doublespeak.. the Patriot Act... what a howler of a name... an abdication of power by frightened politicians, almost none of whom read the Bill.

Back to the 'frame': if the government can get people to believe that the reason for all that hatred is 'freedom', then the people can and will stop thinking. Forget the cheap political spin and look at actual history... read what others say about it... and apply the one thing that has made us the dominant animal species.. the ability to THINK! An ability that, unfortunately, most of us appear not to like to use.. it can make us uncomfortable, and we sure like our comfort.

[luke warm]

mikeh, on Oct 2 2006, 05:06 PM, said:

luke warm, on Oct 2 2006, 03:49 PM, said:

i personally think we are hated because we are free... i think they do not like the thought of a free u.s. ....

This is amazing. Bush uses this line, but I never actually thought that even he believed it!

it must be nice to have all the answers, mike... to be privy to all the intelligence available to western gov't agencies, to have such clear insight into the minds of those who hate us

you need to understand that when i say "free" i don't mean *just* that, i mean all the things that a free society stands for, and all the things a free society gains as a result of that freedom

in newsweek, fareed zakaria said, "To the question "Why do the terrorists hate us?" Americans could be pardoned for answering, "Why should we care?" The immediate reaction to the murder of 5,000 innocents is anger, not analysis. Yet anger will not be enough to get us through what is sure to be a long struggle. For that we will need answers. The ones we have heard so far have been comforting but familiar. We stand for freedom and they hate it. We are rich and they envy us. We are strong and they resent this. All of which is true."

so now there's bush, me, and zakaria who believe this "bullshit," at least in part, that we are hated because we are free... there are many who "think" and are comfortable doing so who come up with the same reasons... yes there are more reasons, but to deny that part of the equation is naive

besides, that isn't all i stated in the post from which you quote me... i also said, "there are some who think that the terrorists want nothing less than a complete conversion to their way of thinking... do you believe that's the case? if it is, does that mean it doesn't really matter what we do?" ... you ignored that part

who is this "we" you speak of who likes to view ourselves as better because of our freedom? separate opinions of forms of gov't from those of people... i personally think this form of gov't is better, but i also know that not everyone in the world is likely to share this belief

Quote

Forget the cheap political spin and look at actual history... read what others say about it... and apply the one thing that has made us the dominant animal species.. the ability to THINK!  An ability that, unfortunately, most of us appear not to like to use.. it can make us uncomfortable, and we sure like our comfort.

yes, it seems that the only reason a person can have for disagreeing with you is that he doesn't think... while it might be nice if everyone thought your thoughts (or mine), they don't... but not sharing your thoughts doesn't mean there are no thoughts...

i'll say a little more, while i'm not thinking... i don't honestly think (and i obviously use that word loosely) the terrorists (islamic fundamentalists) are true muslims (or at least they have perverted their own teachings)... for example, islam forbids the kidnapping of prisoners, it forbids the killing of unarmed soldiers, and it definitely forbids the killing of innocent civilians... to be fair, i feel the same about most fundamentalist christians... for mcvey or koresh to use christianity as any part of their justification for actions taken sickens me... for the kkk to speak of Jesus at their meetings is a perversion... but that's just me

Quote

I am most interested in exercising so-called "soft" power, leveraging our economic and social position rather than our military.

me too

Quote

Equally significant, whenever possible, I am a multilateralist. I prefer working within the context of established international bodies like the UN.

as long as such multilateral cooperation is not itself a violation of this country's sovreignty and constitution, me too

[Winstonm]

What is the one ultimate power of a government? It is the legal right to withdraw liberty from the individual. The U.S. was a land governed by law, with rights inherent to the accused. The Detainee Bill allows President Bush or Donald Rumsfield the power to declare anyone whom they chose, domestic or foreign, a enemy combattant, have them locked up with no proof, no habeus corpus, no search and seizure protections....actions taken also by Lenin and Mao of which we so loudly howlded.

We have done this under the guise of "fighting terrorism". I submit the terror is within our own government, with people of power who can corrupt elections and thus perpetualte the deceit, tyranny, and imperialistic goals.

[mikeh]

To Lukewarm

I apologize for suggesting that you do not 'think': it was not intended to be personal, altho I can see how it read that way. I am sure that if we were having this discussion ftf, it would be heated but not personal I respect you as sincere, even when I disagree with you.

As for the parts of your post I did not comment on, you make some valid points, and my lack of response was not a silent rejection....nor tacit approval, for that matter. I responded to the part I quoted because, yes, I do feel that Bush has skilfully created a 'frame' within which to discuss the motivation of terrorists in a manner that constrains critical thought.

Large numbers of educated, intelligent, western people believe that Bush is the major threat to world peace. Blair, one of Bush's staunchest allies is paying the political price for that alliance, and he explicitly recognized this wide-spread fear in his recent farewell address to the TUC.. the full text of which is an interesting read and readily available online.

Now, it may be that this attitude is misguided.... personally I am unsure of my view. But no-one would, I hope, claim that those who share that belief do so because they hate the US for being free. They themselves live in societies that approximate and may in some cases exceed the US in terms of personal freedoms.

I recognize (altho my postings would not usually reflect this recognition) that my thought processes are undoubtedly influenced by 'frames': by preconceptions that constrain my thinking on certain topics. I do sometimes try to think outside the 'frame', but it is difficult to do so until and unless I hear from someone who can point out those constraints to me. The truth appears to be (for me if no-one else) that the constraints are invisible from the inside.

Thus the power of the framing of the terrorists' motivation as being a hatred of a free nation: once in that frame, it constrains the debate. It comforts the thinker, because, as I said earlier, it tells us something good about ourselves (we are free) while eliminating any inclination to do anything to change those factors that gave rise to the hatred: after all, why on earth should we give up our freedom?

If the 'frame' were that the terrorists hate the US for the conduct of the US as a nation on the world stage, that would require thinking about that conduct and, more importantly, how that conduct impacts the disadvantaged in the world.

That is uncomfortable... whether it a Canadian having to confront the fact that we are a rich country that does very little to address global issues or an American having to confront the fact that there is a serious disconnect between the rhetoric used by US spokepeople and the reality of the use of power... the US has imposed and supported horrific dictatorships in the name of freedom for many decades, and has acted imperiously for more than a century while rejoicing in its anti-imperialist origins. I am sure that citizens of most, if not all, countries could face similar problems if they looked beyond the frame.

This approach is similar to the frame used immediately post 9/11 when the terrorists were called cowards.

Think what you will of them as individuals, and it is difficult to think any but the strongest of negative thoughts about them, but no way were they cowardly. The problem is that we associate bravery and determination as positive attributes, while cowardice is a negative. So to argue that they were not cowards runs the risk that one might be viewed as supporting or condoning their outrage. We shy away from using any 'positive' words when discussing their actions.

Do you remember the televison footage 9/11 of palestinians celebrating in the streets? They genuinely saw the heroism of the martyrs..... that was the frame in which they were thinking. We saw it differently: I can still recall the horror I experienced as I watched on television: my empathy was with the victims, not the terrorists, but that was my frame at work. Were I born and raised in a hope-less Gaza refugee camp, my frame would have been quite different, and so with you.

And unless we recognize this reality, how can we hope to persuade them to change their attitudes? Claiming that the terrorists and the populations from which they draw their recruits hate the US because the US is free prevents the US from being able to understand the root causes of terrorism.

Of course, this type of framing dominates many issues: the war on drugs, the illegal immigration issue, the tax cuts etc.

Illegal immigration: rather than build a wall, prosecute and severely punish all employers of illegal immigrants, and guess what? The jobs would disappear and the immigrants only come because of the jobs. Why not? Because too many rich americans have illegals working for them cheaply. And so on: the frame dictates the analysis. The problem is framed as illegal immigration: reframe it as illegal employment and a different answer materializes.

Finally, in closing, I apologize for the tone of my postings. I realize that I write as if it were all black or white, and that my way is the only way. Of course, I do not believe that, even in my most arrogant moments. I can only say that many of us on this part of the forum seem to have the same problem: I will try to be more appreciative of opposing views, no matter how irrational I may find them to be when composing my response

[Winstonm]

Does history repeat itself?


Hitler looked pretty good to the German people, with the help of the media. He was TIME Magazine's Man of the Year in 1938.

The German people assumed they were safe from a tyrant. They lived in a Republic, after all, with strict laws regarding what the government could, and more importantly, could not do.

Their leader was a devoutly religious man, and had even sung with the boy's choir of a monastery in his youth.

When the Reichstag burned down, most Germans simply refused to believe suggestions that the fire had been staged.

When Hitler requested temporary extraordinary powers, powers specifically banned under German law, but powers Hitler claimed he needed to have to deal with the "terrorists", the German people agreed.

When Hitler staged a phony invasion from Poland, the vast majority of the German people did not question why Poland would have done something so stupid, and found themselves in a war.

Finally, knowing that it takes courage to kill the enemy face to face, Hitler spent vast sums of money on his wonder weapons, airplanes, submarines, ultra-long range artillery, the world's first cruise missile and the world's first guided missile, weapons that could be used to kill at a distance so that those doing the killing need not have to face the reality of what they were doing.


Of course, this is America and we are so much wiser now - this could never happen here........

[Al_U_Card]

Americans, Russians, Germans, Chinese, Romans, Phoenicians, just people.....killing, enslaving, exploiting.....in the name of power and control....some things, like human nature, do not change no matter what the language or time.

[Winstonm]

Quote

QUOTE (winston)
I do not want to fight them but I support punishing the perpetrators for their actions.


how, exactly? thru the un

If you could find the orchestrator and prove that beyond a reasonable doubt, then the U.N. could be used - as the theatre to bring in his head on a bloody stick.

[mike777]

Come on guys has anyone actually read the bill. From what little I read today, comparing Germany's 1930's, Hitler and the USA in 2006 seems a bit desperate.

Is there something in the Bill you really dislike? Ya, ok me too but you do realize this is War not a police action? You do realize many more rights were forsaken in the Civil War or WW11 or most of Europe's war's. If you want to fight a war and not forsake any rights ok, just say so. Do we need a warrant before we kill someone? IF you just do not want to fight a full out war say so......

I just have my doubts we can buy our way out of this with American fancy blue jeans. Many in Israel feel their war will last forever.

Heck we Americans have our hands full protecting baby Amish girls from a madman.

Nuanced debates are not an American strongpoint but it does seem we are getting a little better discussing the strategic approach in Iraq since most Americans think we are losing or at the very least not winning there. If we all can agree we can never win, only Iraq can, that at least is a starting point.

On another point maybe now that Nato's quick reaction strike force is up and running, I hope, maybe they can go into Darfur? Heck I do not know how to solve Africa long term or even for 2 years but mass killing of dark skinned Black people must be wrong in someone's morals.
Is Europe/Canada willing to send in their young sons or do they need some court order?

[mikeh]

mike777, on Oct 2 2006, 10:06 PM, said:

On another point maybe now that Nato's quick reaction strike force is up and running, I hope, maybe they can go into Darfur? Heck I do not know how to solve Africa long term or even for 2 years but mass killing of dark skinned Black people must be wrong in someone's morals.
Is Europe/Canada willing to send in their young sons or do they need some court order?

Our sons, and daughters, are sort of busy right now, getting bombed and shot at in Afghanistan: where ironically the worst casualties have come from American 'friendly' fire incidents: Us pilots relatively safe in the air bombing Canadian soldiers engaged with the Taliban.

We also have peace-keepers in many other places and it was Canada, not the USA, that tried (inadequately and unsuccessfully) to prevent/minimize the Rwanda genocide.

[mike777]

LOl last time I checked Canada is too busy because they spend all their money on other things than the underfunded army.....all that free health care/education/legal lawyers I guess are more important than stopping 250000 dead black people in Darfur. But thanks to those few brave people in Canada who do join the armed forces. In Europe I am not sure what the heck they are spending on...not the armed forces that in some countries are just union job protection.

At least here in the USA we spend it on expensive wasteful weapon systems.... or send 100 of millions to the Palestine or Egypt/Jordan etc etc.... or spending billions on defending Belgium....

To be fair everyone else seems too busy spending all the money on that free education and medicine too... to stop genocide. God forbid someone in their family actually joins the armed forces.

BTW thanks to all those who are risking their lives in Afghanistan,... Canada, Poland, etc....and the Brits in Iraq. God Bless you and your families for protecting my love ones with your young sons and daughters.

[helene_t]

mike777, on Sep 29 2006, 04:06 AM, said:

Europe has abdicated, let Iran go nuclear, let Egypt, Saudi follow......so what if we lose a few cities to a few nukes? We have 10,000.

The important thing is that they like us and we stop doing evil bad things that makes them hate us.

I can certainly sympathise with this comment. But what kind of "evil bad things" do "we" have to stop doing in order not to make "them" hate us?

If adhering to the Geneva Convention in the way terrorist suspects are treated in U.S. prissons would solve all problems in the World then we might have a reasonable chance, at least after the next U.S. presidential election. But in the eyes of some very vocal people. the evil bad things include the fact that Danish press regulation is not based on a fundamentalist version of the sharia.

It's possible that certain aspects of the foreign policy of the Bush administration has accelerated terrorism, the fall of Kathami, insurgence on Sumatra and the general anti-Western sentiments in Arab countries and among Arab immigrants in Europe. But:
- In Afghanistan, the U.S. first supported moslems against the Soviets and later one moslem coalition against another
- In Bosnia and Kosova, the U.S. (and in a brief but crucial part of the war: Croatia) pushed for preventing cristian genocides on moslems, while Europe was only concerned with the welfare of its own soldiers and its relations with Russia.
- In Iraq, the U.S. fought a non-religious regime, originally to defend fundamentalist moslem states (Kuwait and Saudi Arabia), and ultimately ending a very destructive situation in which U.N. economic sanctions were only causing humanitarian disaster without any prospect of political changes. And replaced the non-reliious government with a religious one. Bush's decision to invade Iraq was extremely stupid, as was his "cruscade" retoric and his all-too-obvious nonsense about Iraq's mass destruction weapons and links with Bin Laden. But my point is that the war is not an anti-moslem thing at all, it's just stupid.
- The U.S. keeps pushing EU to let Turkey in. This could be explained by the fact that any real or perceived problems Turkey might cause in the EU would not be American problems, but still.
- We can't blame everything on Bush since the the roots of all this mess predate Bush. Khomeni's fatwa on Rushdie, for example. It's true that European colonial rule in Northern Africa is part of the root cause for the misserable cultural and politcal state of most Arabic countries. But the centralist Otoman government that prevented an Arabic political culture from evolving may be more significant, as may ecological conditions in the Middle East and certain aspects of Arabic culture, such as with respect to the role of women in society.
- I'm not so sure that appeasement would make "them" hate "us" any less. I know little about mass psychology and less about specific Arab mass psychology but my intuition says that appeasement is more likely just to make "them" despise "us" rather than like us.

If you want to know why Arabs hate Americans, it may be easier, as a Westerner with limited knowledge of Arab culture, first to ask why Europeans hate Americans. We hate Americans because we're jealous at their big cars and more succesfull businesses. Now it's easy to imagine that Arabs are even more jealous at Americans than we are.

[Gerben42]

Quote

If you want to know why Arabs hate Americans, it may be easier, as a Westerner with limited knowledge of Arab culture, first to ask why Europeans hate Americans. We hate Americans because we're jealous at their big cars and more succesfull businesses. Now it's easy to imagine that Arabs are even more jealous at Americans than we are.

Europeans don't hate "Americans", they hate the American government that acts first and thinks later, that is torturing people who are not proven guilty. And that same government that polices the world in their self-proclaimed "War" on terror.

Quote

Is there something in the Bill you really dislike? Ya, ok me too but you do realize this is War not a police action?

HELLO? There is no WAR on terror! You cannot beat terrorism by invading countries. The USA invaded Afghanistan, yet Al Qaeda moves on. The USA invaded Iraq, and the Sunnis and Shiites are still fighting 3 years after "victory" was proclaimed. Israel invaded Lebanon, and yet Hezbollah still exists.

Quote

It sounds like you want to fight American neo-fascism more than you want to fight terrorists? Or do you simply not want to fight them at all? Or do you believe that it is mostly the USA at fault and we need to change and if so how?

The USA should start looking at the principles on which is what founded, especially:
* Untangle church and state.
* Respect human rights.

Quote

Is Europe/Canada willing to send in their young sons or do they need some court order?

You'd need a court order to get me to one of these dangerous regions.

Quote

LOl last time I checked Canada is too busy because they spend all their money on other things than the underfunded army

On the other hand Canada does not seem to have much problems with terrorism. Maybe they are on to something!