An excellent counterpoint from Time magazine. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1081384,00.html "As for the recruitment claim, when was the seminal period of al-Qaeda recruitment--indeed, the period during which it created its entire worldwide infrastructure? The 1990s. No invasion of Iraq. No invasion of Afghanistan. The Clinton years saw the most open, accommodating, apologetic U.S. foreign policy since World War II. In fact, the 1990s was the decade of Muslim rescue: the U.S. intervened militarily, and decisively, to save three Muslim peoples--the Bosnians, the Kosovars and the Kuwaitis--from conquest and catastrophe. Yet it was precisely during that era of good feeling that al-Qaeda not only recruited for but also conceived, planned and set in motion the worst massacre of Americans in history. So much for the connection between American perfidy and anti-American terrorism." --- CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER

> It was the presence of US forces in Saudi Arabia that > was used to rally the Jihadis against the "infidel" > that was on "holly ground". > > Therefore, the "rescue" operation that became a > permanent "protection" operation, on account of a > job not concluded in Iraq (and probably to maintain > the need for US presence), was the main drive of Bin > Laden and Al Qaeda. We just have to remember the > number of Saudi terrorists in 9/11. Whoa there Ed, There is no doubt Bin Laden uses the presence of the US in the "holy land" as a pretense, but it not because of "a job not concluded in Iraq." US presence long pre-dates the first Gulf War. I myself was deployed there in 1984 during the "Tanker Wars" between Iran and Iraq. The US responded to a request for assistance by the Saudi government. Wouldn't that mean Bin Laden's fight is with the Saudi royal family who invited the infidel into their holy land, not the US? IM

> And besides, Bin Laden’s argument IS with the > Governments of the Middle East, since they are mostly > secular and he would like to have an Islamic > Caliphate, but he cannot afford to alienate the > common Arab. So, the best tactic is to attack the US. > (Iraq may present an exception, but essentially there > is a religious reason for this) Eduardo, I see we are all on common ground here. I actually think we are not so far apart -- you and I and IM -- and that it is only a few disagreements and some semantics that separates us. On that last point, you protest that the U.S., and the West, is not always a "knight in white armor saving the world" or words to that effect. I've never said she was (though I always did like those early 20th-century posters of Columbia with sword raised aka Joan of Arc), and I suspect we are in agreement on the limitations of foreign policy for any country, even a superpower. Given some of the statements by Osama bin Laden and other jihadists, it really does seem like they have some irreconciliable differences with the West & with secular Arab governments. And that makes it a very difficult problem to "solve," one that will baffle all of us long after GWB retires in Jan 2009. Tim

Islamic terrorism has a long history and Bin Liner is merely the latest manifestation of it. People like Bin Liner and the jihadist in general have an almost simplistic view of the world, and a callous disregard for the sanctity of life. To understand them better you need to look at the writings of people like Sahyid Qutb, hanged by Nasser in the 1960s. It was from Qutb that they get this loathing of the West and its liberal values and our liberal ways. Qutb thought that when the people of the Middle East saw the error of their rulers they would rise up and overthrown them. They did not. Thus he concluded that they the people were so irredeemably corrupt that he felt murder was justified; the results we see everyday in Iraq. You can't negotiate with this nonsense, nor can you reason with it. All you can do is fight it and destroy it. Over the last few days it has rather amused me to hear Muslim leaders saying much of what I have said on this site and others for a number of years, and for which quite recently I was accused of being a 'racist' for saying. We need more integration of the Muslim communities in our society, not less and we certainly don't need the ghetto mentality we seem to have now. The simple fact is that the Islamic world created this terrorism and they must solve it. To blame the West at every verse end as many are seeking to do, and many do on here, is just arrant nonsense. I would partly agree with Eduardo that many of the governments of the Middle East do not represent their peoples. Personally I think we should allow the winds of change to blow and if it blows many of their houses down, then so be it. Bin Liner has been able to flourish because there is so little political descent within the Arab world, but it is a grave mistake to blame this on the West. May be President Bush is right to think that democracy is part of the answer. For those of you who think he is wrong I wonder what solution you have to offer, aside from the usual self-loathing of course.

I see you're still pathetic brolly.

henry_hart and owly, I see that you are both speaking your usual rubbish. Nothing can disabuse you both of the idiocy of your positions. Iraq is a prime example of success in bringing security and democracy to the Middle East.Thousands killed by 'shock and awe' US bombs ( 8,000 according to some figures out today) and anther 17,000 from other bombings, which are due to the sublime US policy of dividing and ruling the Shias and Sunnis. This is the ideal model for winning hearts and minds of the Arabs in the Middle East. Not even the village idiot could have devised a policy less likely to achieve the professed aims. Henry_hart and owly, of course, are unable to recognize absolute folly when it stares them in the face.

["I cannot speak for Owly, but I suspect that he, like I, does indeed recognize absolute folly when it stares us in the face. After all, have we not spent months reading the ridiculous, hackneyed, redundant tripe posted by our deliciously feeble-minded friend? If his senescent ramblings do not constitute absolute folly, then nothing does".] I am puzzled why both you and owly spend months reading what you assert to be ridiculous,hackneyed, redundant tripe. In as much as all these posts clearly bear the name of the deliciously feeble-minded friend you mention, I am surprised by your sheer lack of discernment, as it so easy for you to avoid reading them. Surely this is clear evidence of your compulsion to read the eminently sensible content of these posts. No doubt you will be embarressed by the revalation you have made of your compulsion to read the posts you refer to and will attempt to make light of this by saying that you read them for entertainment value, but this will fool nobody.Only people who have nothing else worthwhile to do would pursue such an empty course. If this is the case, as appears likely from what you have said, then both henry (and owly, according to henry) are to be truly pittied for having reached a stage in their lives when they have need to engage in such a futile waste of time, according to their own confession. I have long felt that I have given too much of my time in the service of supplying my OD followers, such as henry_hart (and owly, according to henry),with high grade commentary and have thought of slackening my endeavours but I have realized how much this would deprive henry of his sustenance and will now continue to make a sacrifice so that he will not be denied his one and only only channel to the truth. Message was edited by: brolly3

The Real Terrorists Are Identified 25,000 Civilians Killed Since Iraq Invasion, Says Report by Simon Jeffery The number of Iraqi civilians who met violent deaths in the two years after the US-led invasion was today put at 24,865 by an independent research team. The figures, compiled from Iraqi and international media reports, found US and coalition military forces were responsible for 37% of the deaths, with anti-occupation forces and insurgents responsible for 9%. A further 36% were blamed on criminal violence. http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5242694-10 [...] In the eyes of an Iraqi, who are the terrorists? By a 4-1 margin, they seem to be wearing US uniforms.

Interesting that your laziness and lack of concern about your writing (note the many misspellings and multple "edited by" tags) is so closely mirrored by the intellectual laziness so common in your ideas (countless examples of repetition, reliance on others to get your message across, toadying to your intellectual betters). And now, somehow, it's my fault for pointing it out. I'm complacent? Perhaps you should strive to do better and take some responsibility, rather than shoot the bearer of the bad news. But then, I forgot -- that just ain't the lefty way. HH