Jim

I didn't come away reassured at all.

Some Muslims are born into authoritarian strucutures. I completely agree and have offered alternative labels for the enemy in the past. This is where we disagree. What is making the Muslim world extreme is their own history and how they are coming to grips with their relative economic, military and scientific failures in light of their prior dominant position. It all begs the question "what went wrong?' It is their answer to this question which divides Muslim culture. You didn't answer my question. What would you have done in Israel's place?

One of the things you are completely missing here is the very human ability to perform horrible acts when under the influence of an authority figure. You only have to look as far as the Milgram experiment or a cursory history of the 20th century to know that people will check their morals and even their own self interests at the door when they buy into an authoritarian structure. The Islamic Fascists (sorry, I still don't think we've come up with a better term to describe this subset of the entire Islamic population) use a tried and true combination of authoritarian techniques - suppression of dissent, appeal to the notion of by-gone days of glory (Pol Pot used this one to good effect), acceptance by a group and oppression of opposing view points. Islamic terrorism/facism/whateverism has all of these proven techniques coupled with the power of religion. If you have ever had a religious experience, or at least believed that you have, you'd understand the danger when religion is used to gain and maintain political power. This is not a theoretical concern. Human beings are most capable of manufacturing hell on earth when they think in their arrogance that we can bring heaven to this earth. These young people are seduced and groomed to be heroes and martyrs who will live in heaven. It is a way to become instantly a significant person and go to heaven. You mention poverty as part of the problem, so I’m sure you understand how much it has helped to eliminate Saddam’s reward of first $10K and then $25k was to the families of terrorists: Good thing Saddam is gone, eh? Yes, but you seem to be arguing that terrorism started because of our actions. I think that is wild speculation that ignores the last 1400 years or so of history. I also think that it treats the terrorists almost as subhuman, bereft of the moral responsibility to make their own decisions. You also ignore the comments I quoted from a recognized authority in the field and do not cite any contary authority. This dynamic comes from a conflict within Islam as much as from external forces. The conservative elements of Islam use their religion to suppress the voices of reform and, of course, these elements require a foreign enemy. Bin Laden or someone like him would have found another justification for their rage even if we had never been in Saudi Arabia (in which event, Saddam would no sit happily astride the Kuwaiti and Iraqi oil fields probably already having developed nuclear weapons). Heh, this discussion has become like the parable of the five blind men trying to describe an elephant after feeling different sections of the animal. Trying to get to the root causes of these issues just by perusing mass media reports of the last few years is a good way to go completely wrong. Frankly, I'm not too interested in conclusions made on the basis of media reports. To form my opinions, I would want to read someone who has spent their entire life studying the history, language and attitudes of Islam. I've asked before if there is a counterpart to B. Lewis and have had no response nor could I find one with my own research to find an opposing point of view. I was hoping to find someone similarly qualified so that I could see where their POVs diverged. I really could not find a counterpart; therefore, I am inclined to trust his judgments. I've presented you his views on this issue and I've seen no rebuttal or contrary authority. Bottom line: Islam has problems it must sort out or we all will suffer. It is wrongheaded, however comforting, for them or us to think that their problems derive from an external source. I assume you are talking perception, not reality, because I doubt you believe that Israel's recent actions "legitimize" terrorist attacks. What do you think Israel should have done?

Well of course Bush can't speak like an academic but the point is much deeper than merely saying "they hate us for freedom." Even without US "meddling," there would be a conflict inside of the Islamic world as to what has gone awry between conservative forces who believe that only a return to basic family values will return the Islamic world to its historic position and liberal reformers who believe that the cause, at least in part, of the Islamic world's decline is the tyrants who have failed in every measure except to perpetuate their own power. What I don't get is why liberals in this country assume that the radical militant conservatives of Islam are only acting because they were provoked in some way. Secular conservatives in this country who are far less radical certainly don't get that benefit of the doubt. The conservative, for want of a better word, "fascist" forces of Islam seek to gain and hold power as despots always do - repression, propaganda, the primitivistic appeal of a return to a day of by-gone glory, and by the generation of a galvanizing threat which requires drastic collective action. We worry about these kind of appeals in this country but in a country like Iran there is not a free press or a tradition of dissent to keep such appeals in check. The reassuring message from such despots is that it is not our fault but, instead, that of an external enemy who, through their meddling keep the natural value of our culture from rising to the top and, perhaps some day, dominating the world. Bin Laden used our presence in Saudi Arabia as a hot button to justify violence but we were invited into that country and, as it turned out, our presence helped rebuff a secular government's invasion of Kuwait. For the life of me, I do not know why we believe that this was an entirely sincere motivation. If we had not been in Saudi Arabia, Bin Laden would have sought his required enemy elsewhere. My point here is that in a despotic religious structure, you cannot assume that the terrorist attacks will cease if we only refrain from "meddling." That assumption gives the despots in these structures entirely too much benefit of the doubt. In any event, we have no choice but to meddle to some degree unless we are willing to let Israel be wiped off of the map and to sacrifice our strategic interests in this region.

Sorry, but it's a vast over simplification of Mooey's position to say this problem is all about an absence of freedom. In any event, I am certainly not aware of anyone, Bush included, who has said that they "really think that some group of people far away having a different lifestyle is enough" to make a "crazy radical militant." Bull's statement that such ridiculous people "may want to seek psychiatric evaluation" is pretty good evidence that he is making a gross oversimplification of an opposing POV. He makes other good points but the beginning and conclusion of his post over simplify. I posted from the leading Western academic on the history of the Middle East explaining in detail why there is tension between the West and Islam. I remember asking in one thread if any one had an opposing academic source on these issues and got no response. I think Bernard Lewis makes an incredibly persuasive case that the plate tectonics of this conflict were set grinding into motion long ago when Islamic culture began to believe that it was in decline on many fronts. This shift has everything to do with the history of a vast area of the globe and nothing to do with a mere “different lifestyle.” FWIW, I do not think it is any indication of moral failure that Muslims have difficulty in dealing with their relative military, scientific and economic decline. Half of my waking days are spent dealing with conflicts which have erupted after a business deal goes sour. We are dealing with deep seated human behavior which can cause sincere good people to go postal rather than engage in much needed introspection. With sincere religious beliefs mixed into this sense of decline it is a very dangerous mix.

I'm not even aware of anyone in the public discourse who said any such thing either. You might try dealing with the arguments people actually make. It is more challenging, I'll admit, but you also will find it ultimately more satisfying.

I think it is a mistake to focus only on recent history. Muslims are faced with the relative failure of their once dominant culture when measured against the West in terms of scientific progress, military success, cultural influence and the generation of wealth. Many Muslims look internally for the cause of these failures but others can not grant that our relative success has to do with cultural advantages such as separation of church and state, traditions of dissent and the empowerment and education of the 50% of the population who happen to be women. These conservative elements simply cannot accept that their own values have diminished their culture. How much more satisfying to blame the west at every turn. Although, no doubt, these tensions are heightened by having a successful western, non-Islamic, democracy in the Middle East, I seriously doubt the threat would evaporate even if we abandoned Israel. The seeds of these tensions predate the existence of Israel by a few hundred years.

You make a fair point and certainly "always in motion is the future." However, we can't ignore that the Islamic population in Europe has gone from 1 million to 18 million and is still growing. You are right that second and third generations have lower birth rates as they become integrated into society. This probably results from the increased education and affluence of the later, more integrated, generations. There is, however, a real question as to whether these groups are integrating into society. In any event, if we start to get more and more second generation home grown European terrorism, it won't take a majority to cause huge problems.

The complex answer requires an historical context of more than a few decades. As is illusrated in these excerpt from the NYT's review of B Lewis' "What Went Wrong?," there is a cultural divide within Islamic countries between conservatives and reformers contesting why, exactly, Islam was eclipsed by the forces of modernity.

B. Lewis is often quoted for having stated "Europe will be Islamic by the end of the century." Here is a translation of an excerpt from the oft quoted interview with the German magazine Die Welt: While we may be able to stop attacks by Islamic terrorists by the skin of our teeth today, I wonder what kind of success we will have as these trends continue to unfold over the next 10-20 years.

I’d hate to work for a major newspaper today. Editors of major newspapers around the world are probably frantically preparing a special insert to include all of the letters from Muslims outraged by this misuse of Islam. Hell, they may have to devote a special section just to all of the jihads that are going to be issued against the plotters. What worries me even more is how many deaths will occur tomorrow morning as Islamic countries erupt in protest tomorrow over this distortion of the teachings of Islam?

Time to start villifying Joe now that he's bolted the party. Here is the NYT saying that Lieberman is "seizing" on the plot to make a political point. As if these occurrences aren't relevant to the national debate. Lieberman: Here's Lamont hopefully being merely obtuse, not overtly dishonest: I'm thinking of moving to Connecticut so I can vote for Lieberman: Now, here is the vapid Lamont: Why, indeed.

Another successful defensive play by the good guys.

For me to enjoy freedom, men and women had to sacrifice their own lives and kill. The same remains true today. Kind of like Hezbollah demanding the release of 1,000 prisoners held by Israel in exchange for 2 Israeli captives held by Hezbollah. I'm with you so far... *thunks forehead with Black's Law Dictionary and then hands it to you, with the page open to the definition for "murder"* I'm sure Israel would have been delighted to face Hezbollah on an open field of battle and saved those civilians. *grits teeth and says for the 1,000th time on these boards:* No, we invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussein invaded a strategically important US ally, lost, agreed to disclose the destruction of his WMD programs as a condition for the ceasefire, violated his agreement, funded terrorist's families for about $25MM as I recall, attempted to assassinate a former US president, had used WMDs in the past, played games with his WMD programs even as the UN & EU dithered and as the US gathered its forces to strike. At any moment, he could have trotted out his videotapes showing the destruction of the WMDs and Bush would have been left without the ability to react. I don't mind coming up against opponents who are smart and aggressive. Aggressive and dumb, however, kills everyone. Saddam was dumb to invade Kuwait, attempt to assassinate Bush Sr and then not provide iron clad proof that he had destroyed his WMDs. He had to go. Not all forms of discrimination are racist or even wrong. You discriminate every day of your life but that doesn't make you a racist.

They need to let spammers rot in jail. It might not be so inevitable. Here's a company that literally gives me the creeps: http://www.Acxiom.com. http://businessweek.com/2000/00_12/b3673011.htm: Look at its capabilities even back in 1998:

It would not be a good thing if we completely lost the right to be left alone within certain geographic or decisional spheres of our personal lives.

From the 9/11 Commission report: This doctrine was contained in the classified National Security Presidential Directve 9 which called on the Secretary of Defense to plan for military options "against Taliban targets in Afghanistan, including leadership, command-control, air and air defense, ground forces, and logistics." The NSPD also called for plans "against al Qaeda and associated terrorist facilities in Afghanistan, including leadership, command-control-communications, training, and logistics facilities." Here's Rumsfeld's testimony before the 9/11 commission: These directives were focussed on 9/11 and "al-Qaeda and related terrorist networks." Although the policy makes complete sense and I've not heard you articulate a viable alternative, I don't think Bush is hemmed in on Hezbollah. He may take a more aggressive appraoch against terror networks that have already succeeded in attacking the US at home.

True, boiled down, Gulf War II was about enforcing the armistice agreed to by an aggressor defeated in battle. That is a hopeful distinction from the 1930s. Mainly, though, I think your post helps prove VDH's point.

I'd missed this story: Here's the VDH article I pulled this from with its beginning and conclusion: Finally, here's Father Coughlin speaking in 1937: Father Coughlin's listening audience was once estimated to be as much as one-third of the nation. His message might well find fertile soil in our day.

Well put. These war crimes against civilians started on 7/12 before any action by Israel. Fortunately, there were no civillians residents in the initial rocket attacks on Israeli border towns but it is often forgotten that the initial attacks against Israel were directed both against their soldiers and against their civilians. A proportionate, i.e. predictable response, makes this a winnable game for the terrorists. Launch rockets, invade Israel, kill and kidnap soldiers and let civilians pay the price from a raid or two and then do a deal whereby you get the release of 1,000 or so prisoners in return for the 2 captured soldiers. Declare victory. If Israel plays by those rules then the terrorists win and Lebanon has no incentive to get control of its borders. Who knows, if Hezbollah had not miscalculated by firing rockets at civilians initially, this may have been how it played out.

Is anyone watching David Gregory interviewing Condi? They guys is a frackin (yes, BG is my favorite TV show) idiot. He actually just asked her whether she REALLY knew what would happen in the future. For once, I wish she would drop her reserve and body slam the twerp. Yes, I've had a scotch this Friday night.