What do the terrorists want?

[crazymf]

I hear a one sided story of terrorism in north american media, how they are cold blooded killers and prey on 'innocent' civilians etc, etc. That is their tactic of choice, but under all that, what do they want and how did they get there? I found this article to be interesting reading and though it's only a slice, at least it states several key points.

http://members.aol.com/superogue/terintro.htm

The simplistic answer is: American Foreign Policy in the middle east and the undying support for Isreal.

As the war in Iraq continues, a crack appears in my belief in the righteousness of the American cause. They are over there promoting freedom and democracy and are very willing to shoot anyone who happens to disagree with them. Seems like a big contradiction to me.

comments??

[cybercoma]

I have only one comment.

If someone murdered your family (not held them hostage and threatened to, but actually murdered them in cold blood) would you give them whatever they asked for?

[crazymf]

I have only one comment.

If someone murdered your family (not held them hostage and threatened to, but actually murdered them in cold blood) would you give them whatever they asked for?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Of course not. This is bigger than that however.

I watched the movie 'The Fog of War' the other day. Documentary or snippets of interviews with Bob McNamera, whichever you prefer. He stated that during the Cuban missile crisis, they put themselves in the Russians perspective to make decisions regarding that matter. During Vietnam, however, they had no idea what the Vietnamese'

perspective was and made decisions based on American interests only. As a result, while the war was fight against the aggression of communism to the Americans, while to the Vietnamese, it was a civil war and a struggle against occupation and colonialism by the Americans.

McNamara hinted that the Vietnam conflict would have been handled very differently had the Americans listened to the right people.

I watch CNN and other news networks report the terrorism these days and I can't help but wonder if we should have been listening to these people years ago more closely. Instead, American foreign policy, which is structured to feed the ever oil hungry American public, bluntly pushes opposition out of the way.

Why is it that the very same people that America gave weapons to 25 years ago always seem to wind up shooting Americans with them.

Of course I am appalled by 911 and the London bombings, but I fear that you reap what you sow.

[cybercoma]

There is absolutely never any excuse for targeting innocent civilians with bombs, airplanes, gunfire, tanks, etc. I don't care what side of the fence you're on. Now you can sit back and say, "well the United States killed this many innocent civilians," but the United States didn't go into Afghanistan and Iraq to blow up apartment complexes or office buildings. They went in there with the specific purpose of overthrowing corrupt dictatorial governments.

I really could care less what their "purpose" is when they're targeting innocent people who most certainly did not sow what they were forced to reap. It is important not to give in to such blackmail by murderers. If they think targeting and killing innocent people lon their way to work is going to get them what they want, they are sadly mistaken. This type of fanaticism only serves to hurt their cause.

[Argus]

I hear a one sided story of terrorism in north american media, how they are cold blooded killers and prey on 'innocent' civilians etc, etc. That is their tactic of choice, but under all that, what do they want and how did they get there? I found this article to be interesting reading and though it's only a slice, at least it states several key points.

http://members.aol.com/superogue/terintro.htm

The simplistic answer is: American Foreign Policy in the middle east and the undying support for Isreal.

As the war in Iraq continues, a crack appears in my belief in the righteousness of the American cause. They are over there promoting freedom and democracy and are very willing to shoot anyone who happens to disagree with them. Seems like a big contradiction to me.

comments??

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So you're saying all the Americans have to do is abandon Israel and let the Arab hoardes slaughter them and all will be well with the world, with no more Islamic terorrism?

[crazymf]

So you're saying all the Americans have to do is abandon Israel and let the Arab hoardes slaughter them and all will be well with the world, with no more Islamic terorrism?

That's a heavily loaded question. If I had an answer to the Israel thing, I'd be master of the universe. I don't want to go there because I'm sure my intellect will get slaughtered here. I will say this much; It seems to me that Arab states can't get along with each other let alone Israel.

I am trying to understand the opposition point of view of world events these days and am coming up either empty or am finding a lack of info. I just can't believe the idea that people resort to killing civilians just because they oppose western civilization. Have they no forward view of what the world should be, or do they merely want to oppose and destroy with no hope of winning?

[cybercoma]

So you're saying all the Americans have to do is abandon Israel and let the Arab hoardes slaughter them and all will be well with the world, with no more Islamic terorrism?

That's a heavily loaded question. If I had an answer to the Israel thing, I'd be master of the universe. I don't want to go there because I'm sure my intellect will get slaughtered here. I will say this much; It seems to me that Arab states can't get along with each other let alone Israel.

I am trying to understand the opposition point of view of world events these days and am coming up either empty or am finding a lack of info. I just can't believe the idea that people resort to killing civilians just because they oppose western civilization. Have they no forward view of what the world should be, or do they merely want to oppose and destroy with no hope of winning?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There's things they want, of course. They want things like the United States to stop helping Israel, which would arguably result in what Argus said. Resorting to murdering civilians to get your point across is not going to get them what they want though.

[PocketRocket]

There is absolutely never any excuse for targeting innocent civilians with bombs, airplanes, gunfire, tanks, etc.  I don't care what side of the fence you're on.

Personally, I agree completely with this statement.

However, history shows exceptions to this, committed by many nations at many times.

When a cause is hopeless, when you're vastly outnumbered and out-armed, sometimes you must resort to extreme measures.

In rare occasions, even when a country KNOWS it is going to win a war, it will sometimes commit atrocities for the sake of expediency, ie; to haten an end to said war.

Example??? Sure. Hiroshima. Nagasaki.

Considering these two bombs killed hundreds of thousands of civilians, men, women and children in an instant, and left an equivalent number of people dying a slow and painful death from radiation poisoning, it puts a bit of a reverse spin on America's tirade against attacks on civilians.

America would have won that war. No question.

But they chose to kill innocent civilians to bring about a quicker surrender.

Now you can sit back and say, "well the United States killed this many innocent civilians," but the United States didn't go into Afghanistan and Iraq to blow up apartment complexes or office buildings.  They went in there with the specific purpose of overthrowing corrupt dictatorial governments. 

This has been argued many times, in many forums, and in the public eye via various media.

Why the USA went into these two countries will probably never be known.

But in the case of Afghanistan, the official reason was to go after Bin Laden and Al Queda, who were thought to be hidden inside it's borders.

Afghanistan itself did nothing to dissuade the USA of this idea, now, when given an ultimatum, did they budge an inch on their refusal to hand over any A.Q. operatives or figureheads.

Iraq was a completely different kettle of fish.

If you go back, and go over the reasons Bush and Company gave for invading Iraq, you will find that "bringing democracy" was a reason given only after they failed to find the much-vaunted WMD's.

For several months, it seemed that Bush changed the "reason" for invading Iraq each morning along with his underwear.

To synopsize, the USA went into both these countries to serve USA's interests as deemed "necessary" by BUSH & Co.

Overthrowing the "corrupt, dictatorial" governments was a convenient justification which was not even used until after the fact.

1)))  I really could care less what their "purpose" is when they're targeting innocent people who most certainly did not sow what they were forced to reap. 

2)))  It is important not to give in to such blackmail by murderers.  If they think targeting and killing innocent people lon their way to work is going to get them what they want, they are sadly mistaken. 

3)))  This type of fanaticism only serves to hurt their cause.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1))) I agree, wholeheartedly.

2))) Again, I agree.

3))) I hope you're right. It certainly hurts their cause in the eyes of most western countries and people. Unfortunately, it seems to glorify their cause in the eyes of those fanatically-twisted few who may not otherwise make a viable recruit for such a cause, but willing join to follow the same fotsteps.

[Argus]

I am trying to understand the opposition point of view of world events these days and am coming up either empty or am finding a lack of info. I just can't believe the idea that people resort to killing civilians just because they oppose western civilization.

How about kiling people because you don't like what they say about your religion? Do you understand that? If you understand that you are on the road to understanding how these people think. Religion is all. God is all. God is great. And God told the people how they should live their lives, and how governments should be run. Anyone who disagrees with the word of God or who insults God by disagreeing with his will should be killed.

That is simply their perspective. But when you add in the willingness of some of them to die in this cause, not to mention killing in this cause, which they believe is entirely justified by the Koran and sanctioned by God, well, you get people who are not about to listen to reason or logic.

Ie, you get this kind: Van Gogh Murder trial begins

[SirSpanky]

I would hope that somewhere there is "undying support" for a country who is surrounded by people who want their destruction.

I don't agree with many things the Americans do, but helping out a country like that is one that I do, be it Israel, or any other.

[cybercoma]

Personally, I agree completely with this statement.

However, history shows exceptions to this, committed by many nations at many times.

When a cause is hopeless, when you're vastly outnumbered and out-armed, sometimes you must resort to extreme measures.

In rare occasions, even when a country KNOWS it is going to win a war, it will sometimes commit atrocities for the sake of expediency, ie; to haten an end to said war.

Example??? Sure. Hiroshima. Nagasaki.

Considering these two bombs killed hundreds of thousands of civilians, men, women and children in an instant, and left an equivalent number of people dying a slow and painful death from radiation poisoning, it puts a bit of a reverse spin on America's tirade against attacks on civilians.

America would have won that war. No question.

But they chose to kill innocent civilians to bring about a quicker surrender.

I understand that it happens by even the most responsible nations in the world; however, I still disagree with it and think there is never a reason for it.

This has been argued many times, in many forums, and in the public eye via various media.

Why the USA went into these two countries will probably never be known.

But in the case of Afghanistan, the official reason was to go after Bin Laden and Al Queda, who were thought to be hidden inside it's borders.

Afghanistan itself did nothing to dissuade the USA of this idea, now, when given an ultimatum, did they budge an inch on their refusal to hand over any A.Q. operatives or figureheads.

Iraq was a completely different kettle of fish.

If you go back, and go over the reasons Bush and Company gave for invading Iraq, you will find that "bringing democracy" was a reason given only after they failed to find the much-vaunted WMD's.

For several months, it seemed that Bush changed the "reason" for invading Iraq each morning along with his underwear.

To synopsize, the USA went into both these countries to serve USA's interests as deemed "necessary" by BUSH & Co.

Overthrowing the "corrupt, dictatorial" governments was a convenient justification which was not even used until after the fact.

The point all along as to overthrow the dictatorial government of Saddam Hussein because as the leader of that country he refused to co-operate with weapons inspections past the zero hour. The reasons did not change, it was the explanation of the reasons that was changed.

For more than a decade inspectors had been fighting for access to Iraq to do their jobs and were being hampered at every turn. Yes Bush claimed he had them and intelligence reports were around telling Bush this. They were wrong, every one of them, but without overthrowing Saddam, to this day we wouldn't be able to confirm that. That's why I say toppling his government was always the goal here.

1))) I agree, wholeheartedly.

2))) Again, I agree.

3))) I hope you're right. It certainly hurts their cause in the eyes of most western countries and people. Unfortunately, it seems to glorify their cause in the eyes of those fanatically-twisted few who may not otherwise make a viable recruit for such a cause, but willing join to follow the same fotsteps.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hopefully those willing to follow in the footsteps of their predecessors and those governments who want to support them will remember what happened to the governments and pepole that supported terrorism during these times. Perhaps they will second guess their support knowing that the United States and other countries that work with the US can and will do anything to stop these supporters of terrorism.

[Black Dog]

The point all along as to overthrow the dictatorial government of Saddam Hussein because as the leader of that country he refused to co-operate with weapons inspections past the zero hour. The reasons did not change, it was the explanation of the reasons that was changed.

Nonsense. The evidence (including the Downing Street memo and statements from former administration officials) indicates the decision to invade Iraq was made irrespective of weapons inspections. Even if one chooses to disregard this information, weapons inspectors were working in Iraq right up to the final deadline and making progress.

[crazymf]

That is simply their perspective. But when you add in the willingness of some of them to die in this cause, not to mention killing in this cause, which they believe is entirely justified by the Koran and sanctioned by God, well, you get people who are not about to listen to reason or logic.

Ok, so that's the result, killing for God. Something caused them to get this way and so far the easy answer to me seems to be American foriegn policy. Clash of cultures, however you can slice it.

And Iraq? Simple, old Bush and young Bush around the campfire for a few years sipping whiskey and talking about life and regrets. Old Bush didn't finish it. Young Bush does. End of story.

That's as good a reason as I've heard.

[whofeelslove]

hello

if somebody chooses to forward thier cause by killing then they are not going to get to far! Bush can tell you that and so can the iraqi`s.people kill out of fear. fear of what you might ask? well to find out you must ask them what they fear in order to do what ever it is they are doing. everybody wants to be heard just ask any politician! everybody is right given thier model of the world.....now i will say that again in big type EVERYBODY IS RIGHT GIVEN THIER MODEL OF THE WORLD

now do you get that realy? most humans say that they are doing something in the name of god. bush claims in many speech`s that he,s getting rid of evil and that certain countries are "evil and full of tyranny" syria,iran north korea etc.....under what guide or yard stick does he base his statements on..mr bush claims that he is creating a free world of democracy. where justice and freedom and rightiousness prevail..all these 3 words are very prominent in the bible. yet this same leader of freedom and liberty and democracy also claims that for a human to want to choose to"murder/abort" a child is commiting a sin..in the same breath he stands up for killing people with injections or electricity or gas as it used to be. in this very same "nation under god" when you usually behave like your the best in the world then you usually behave like the worst. it means nothing to alot of iignorant americans that my country and thiers has been bombing iraq for over 10 years .fter the first gulf war over 800,000 human biengs have been killed by these right and just people. yes your country lost 3600 in 1 day many humans will tell you it was horiffic and in my model of the world it was....in the same breath just because 800,000 people where not killed in the same day does not lower the genocide....a massacre is a massacre weather its at wounded knee or auschwitz!!

the americans have gotten into such a fear state that its alost comical in a funny sort of way watching the wild west films where the guy looks scared with his liitle six shooter and wild look in his eyes and says "im a waitin fer then injuns, them injuns there a cummin" your president has got you where he wants you..if you can drum up enough fear in people then you can get them to do pretty much what you want them to do. you can feed them all sorts of propaganda and "news"(well fox news lol) and they will lap it up. get the nation into a frenzy and if they are not scared then they are not patriotic..this country has come to the "if you dont agree with the president -no matter what he says then you are unpatriotic" it doesnt matter what that man does he never seems to be wrong ever ever. you wonder why the press are always trying to catch him out(him and his cronies that is) well if you where leader of the most powerful( corporate wise)country in the world and you never seem to put a foot wrong then would you expect everyone to agree with you? no to look at something and say that what you are doing doesnt serve you and that you need to move through it is the sign of an extreemly evolved bieng. but to stand still and believe that what you choose is right and just no matter what or who it affects is the sign of of a bieng that is evolving but at a pace that is not beneficial to them!!

[whofeelslove]

"It seems to me that Arab states can't get along with each other let alone Israel".

thats an understatement .america doesnt get along with many arab nations either in fact less than eachother

[whofeelslove]

"It seems to me that Arab states can't get along with each other let alone Israel".

thats an understatement .america doesnt get along with many arab nations either in fact less than eachother

[August1991]

crazymf, let me ressurrect this thread because I think you ask a good question, it's timely, and it never was answered adequately.

I have read posters elsewhere who have suggested that we should withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq, stop propping up Israel, simply leave the Middle East to Middle Easterners, and we won't have any problem with any Islamic people. After all, this is ostensibly what they ask of the West. (The document on the aol site you linked to suggested we do this.)

If life could be so simple.

First, I'll give you Argus' response:

So you're saying all the Americans have to do is abandon Israel and let the Arab hoardes slaughter them and all will be well with the world, with no more Islamic terorrism?

If the US (West) "left" the Middle East, that would mean 6 million Jews driven literally into the Mediterranean, forced to flee, or forced to live as dhimmi.

And what about Qatar? The UAE? Bahrain? What about attempts at democracy in Kuwait? What about Lebanon? Very simply, this would mean the arrival of the Muslim Brotherhood, or men like them, in all these places. (I am surprised that wikipedia has such a short entry for the Muslim Brotherhood, and the entry has nothing critical. Who has the courage to post an opposing viewpoint?)

----

It is obvious that we are no longer a world of infrequent contacts. This is not the 19th century of newspaper reported ship landings but rather the 21st century of five minute airport landings. Jedda is on Arabia's coast and it is the traditional (18th century) arrival point for pilgrims to Mecca. Even today, Jedda passes for "cosmpolitan" in the Kingdom. Arabia (Islam) used to be able to insulate itself from the outside world. That is no longer possible.

In the future, more and more people will come into contact with one another. Christians, in increasing numbers, will travel to Saudi, the Kingdom of the Two Holy Cities. This is inevitable. In strictly practical terms, more young Arab women are going to realize they can disobey their fathers and brothers, and more young Arab men are going to realize that they can live openly (imagine!) as gays.

IMV, the terrorists are not Islamic, as much as they are fundamentalist Islamic. I have heard feminists talk of a "male backlash". Well, this is it. In the short run, Arabic, Islamic men have alot to lose. Western society, women free to chose, are a threat.

I watched the movie 'The Fog of War' the other day. Documentary or snippets of interviews with Bob McNamera, whichever you prefer. He stated that during the Cuban missile crisis, they put themselves in the Russians perspective to make decisions regarding that matter. During Vietnam, however, they had no idea what the Vietnamese' perspective was and made decisions based on American interests only. As a result, while the war was fight against the aggression of communism to the Americans, while to the Vietnamese, it was a civil war and a struggle against occupation and colonialism by the Americans.

I enjoyed that documentary although I wonder why McNamara agreed to do it. As an old man, he had written a book about Vietnam and maybe he was becoming doubtful in his old age. Towards the end of the documentary, while driving in Washington, the director turned to McNamara and tried to get him to make a confession. McNamara would have none of it.

IMV, McNamara's point, as was Tuchman's point in The Guns of August about WWI, is to ask "Was there a better way?" It's an obvious question for anyone who is an intelligent sceptic or has faith in the scientific method.

crazymf, there's no doubt the North Vietnamese saw the Vietnam War as a war of liberation. But the Soviets didn't, and IMV that's the key point. IOW, maybe the Americans should have done in Vietnam as they did in Cuba and Angola: accept defeat in one battle while thinking of the larger war.

Moving to modern times, the same point concerns whether Bush Jnr is prosecuting this battle against Islamofascism the right way. I don't know. (I agreed with getting rid of the Taliban but I didn't agree with the invasion of Iraq. My call. It's easy to sit on the sidelines and find error.)

Well, sitting on the sidelines, let's consider Bush Jnr's historic decision to negotiate directly with Iran, and how he arrived at it:

On a Tuesday afternoon two months ago, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice sat down to a small lunch in President Bush's private dining room behind the Oval Office and delivered grim news to her boss: Their coalition against Iran was at risk of falling apart.

A meeting she had attended in Berlin days earlier with European foreign ministers had been a disaster, she reported, according to participants in the discussion. Iran was neatly exploiting divisions among the Europeans and Russia, and speeding ahead with its enrichment of uranium. The president grimaced, one aide recalled, interpreting the look as one of exasperation "that said, 'O.K., team, what's the answer?' "

That body language touched off a closely held two-month effort to reach a drastically different strategy, one articulated two weeks later in a single sentence that Ms. Rice wrote in a private memorandum. It broached the idea that the United States end its nearly three-decade policy against direct talks with Iran.

Mr. Bush's aides rarely describe policy debates in the Oval Office in much detail. But in recounting his decisions in this case, they appeared eager to portray him as determined to rebuild a fractured coalition still bearing scars from Iraq and find a way out of a negotiating dynamic that, as one aide said recently, "the Iranians were winning."

Mr. Bush gradually grew more comfortable with offering talks to a country that he considers the No. 1 state sponsor of terrorism, and whose president has advocated wiping Israel off the map. Mr. Bush's own early misgivings about the path he was considering came in a flurry of phone calls to Ms. Rice and to Stephen J. Hadley, his national security adviser, that often began with questions like "What if the Iranians do this," gaming out loud a number of possible situations.

NYT

I think Bush Jnr is amenable to influence, and the journalist's game-theoretic fluorish joins McNamara's and yours, if it matters to you. To me, the math of game theory is simply too dumb to account for the sophistication of human games in the real world. Example?

Reagan was more stubborn. He refused to fly to the Soviet Union or indeed meet any Soviet leader for seven years. Between 1945 and 1988, the only American president to go to Moscow was Nixon. All other meetings occurred in third party countries.

So, why do I say all this? And what do the terrorists want? These Islamic terrorists want to restrict individual freedom. Our fight against Islamists is similar to our fight against Nazis, Communists and, dare I say it, the Catholic Church in its dogmatic form. This is a fight for the individual to be free to choose.

If the Islamists succeed, people under their control would be less free and our contacts with those people would be restricted. We would have further and continous friction. There is no way to avoid this.

How to conduct this fight against oppression?

On the sidelines, out of danger, it is easy to be a cheerleader and tell others to fight. Out of danger, it's also easy to rant on about the horrors of war and why the fight is wrong or misplaced. As to the fight itself, and those who took part, Bush Snr and Rene Levesque put on uniform against Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany. Gore and Kerry went to Vietnam, and even if the risk was negligible, they took it. Bush Jnr, Clinton, Trudeau avoided the risk entirely. Harper (fortunately maybe) never had to face the choice.

IOW, who knows how an individual will face this choice?

In general however, I think the US president is forced by circumstance to defend the right of an individual to choose freely. IMV, Bush Jnr has done a half-assed job of this task but he's accepted the challenge.

I think Kennedy understood the challenge better. He also understood better the role of a leader and admirably eschewed platitudes (or sheer nonsense) in his speeches:

My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.

JFK Inaugural

CQFD.

[betsy]

I hear a one sided story of terrorism in north american media, how they are cold blooded killers and prey on 'innocent' civilians etc, etc. That is their tactic of choice, but under all that, what do they want and how did they get there? I found this article to be interesting reading and though it's only a slice, at least it states several key points.

http://members.aol.com/superogue/terintro.htm

The simplistic answer is: American Foreign Policy in the middle east and the undying support for Isreal.

As the war in Iraq continues, a crack appears in my belief in the righteousness of the American cause. They are over there promoting freedom and democracy and are very willing to shoot anyone who happens to disagree with them. Seems like a big contradiction to me.

comments??

Terrorism is driven by fanatical fundamentalist Islamic extremists who believes that to get rid the world of infidels (non-believers) is a task they need to do for Allah.

They see US as the main threat largely because they see the USA as a big and powerful influence to the "wrong way of life" that goes against every aspect of their belief.

But of course they would not admit to that outright ...for that means admitting to the ultimate intent of global cleansing.

[betsy]

I would hope that somewhere there is "undying support" for a country who is surrounded by people who want their destruction.

I don't agree with many things the Americans do, but helping out a country like that is one that I do, be it Israel, or any other.

Very true. Just imagine how the world would be if there is no USA right now to wield its power....and if instead, fundamentalists like the Taliban is the world leader.

[mcqueen625]

Now let's skip to Saturday, June 2, 2006 when the arrest of 17 individuals of seemingly Arab decent were planning a terrorist attack on Canadian soil by obraining 3 times the Ammonium-Nitrate that was used to blow yp the US government building in Oklahoma City, OK. We Canadians just sat smuggly back and assumed we were ammune from such events.

What does it take for Canadians to finally wake up to the fact that we also are viewed as Infidels by extremeist Muslims. They believe there is only one true faith, and those who are not MUslim, should be or face enilation. Extremists believe it is their mission in life to destroys all those in this world who are not of their faith. According to Zak... Mussoui who was just tried and convicted for his part in 9/11 stated that ALL non-Muslim countries need to pay homage and bow down to Islam. If this is the way all of these nut-case extremists believe the way things should be then God help us all, because I for one will never convert to any religion that thinks it's okay to bomb and kill innocent people. It seems that this mindset is enjoyed, not by just a few radicals, but by whole countries and their governments. Itan is but one example of a government who believes the world should fall down at their feet.

[mcqueen625]

I would hope that somewhere there is "undying support" for a country who is surrounded by people who want their destruction.

I don't agree with many things the Americans do, but helping out a country like that is one that I do, be it Israel, or any other.

Very true. Just imagine how the world would be if there is no USA right now to wield its power....and if instead, fundamentalists like the Taliban is the world leader.

I fully support the right of Isrtael to defend their country and their citizens by any means possible and for some people to side with the Palistinians is asinine, considering under Hamas' only goal is the elimination of the Jewish State and their peoples

[Leafless]

Black Dog

You wrote:

"Nonsense. The evidence (including the Downing Street memo and statements from former administration officials) indicates the decision to invade Iraq was made irrespective of weapons inspections. Even if one chooses to disregard this information, weapons inspectors were working in Iraq right up to the final deadline and making progress."

No matter what your take is on that aspect Sadam was given the choice to surrender which he refused and the rest is history.

I really don't give a damn what anyone says on this issue as the world needs a 'top cop' like the U.S.

Only problem is they are bankrupting their own country in taking the 'long way ' to achieve what can be done in a rather rapid manner using alternative methods.

[theloniusfleabag]

How about kiling people because you don't like what they say about your religion? Do you understand that? If you understand that you are on the road to understanding how these people think. Religion is all. God is all. God is great. And God told the people how they should live their lives, and how governments should be run. Anyone who disagrees with the word of God or who insults God by disagreeing with his will should be killed.

Then it should be obvious that you have to kill their god.

[Rue]

My comment is simple, its irrelevant what they want. The moment someone chooses to use

violence and murder as a means to impose their views on others, its irrelevant. We only have

an obligation to engage in dialogue and find out what people want, when they are willingt to

discuss it without violence and killings. So me, I could care less what terrorists want. I know what they want-to kill until they have their way. I need not know anything else.

Your question attempts to humanize terrorists and suggest we should dialogue with them. Sorry I find

that to be very naive and quite frankly suicidal.

[KrustyKidd]

duplicate post