"Kevin S. Van Horn" wrote: > > John Kelsey wrote: > > > No policy toward anyone isn't possible once there's any kind of > > contact. There are terrorists who'd want to do nasty things to us for > > simply allowing global trade, or for allowing trade with repressive > > regimes like Saudi Arabia or Nigeria, or for selling weapons to > > countries with bad human rights records. Osama Bin Laden might not > > hate us, but *someone* would. > > Baloney. The terrorists have made it pretty clear what their gripe with > the U.S. Government is, and it has nothing to do with trade, the > American lifestyle, or the elusive freedoms that Americans supposedly > enjoy.
Right. THIS group of terrorists has made ITS beef plain. But one thing you learn about Terror with a capital T, which I've been studying since 1974, is that it has its own ideology completely separate from and independent of the nominal Cause. That is, a "Muslim" terrorist has more in common with a "Marxist" terrorist than with a rank-and-file Muslim, which explains the fact that diverse terrorist groups with seemingly irreconcilable ideological differences readily collaborate when it is to mutual advantage. By the same token, schisms in terrorist groups invariably occur based on disagreements over tactics and strategy - NOT ideology (though ideological justification is often found and proclaimed post facto). Appeasement definitely will not bring an end to terror - quite the opposite, in fact. So to the extent that Western governments pursue genuine anti-terrorist measures, they should be supported. When they implement the terrorists' own agenda by abridging the freedom of their own citizens, they must be opposed. Marc de Piolenc
