BAN: Photography on USA trains and buses

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 15:05:28 GMT, "FLY135" FLY_135(@hot not
not)notmail.com wrote:


"Rata Rioja" wrote in message
.. .
UBL's objective is to defend the muslim-world from
cultural and moral invasion from the west. Actually
he has got a long list of grudges against the west.
We have to find a solution in this, a common middle-
ground, because the violence will solve nothing.
If you kill or capture one leader, the next when
will rise, even before you have prepared your
press release.

it's just
the outcome of any particular approach is not that clear. The same people
who castigate the US for dealing with undesirables would now say that the
proper course is to do exactly that.

They will have learned that it was wrong to take up against America,
that's for sure. So, since I believe the war on terrorism is a lost
case, and terrorism itself is also a lost case (how many terrorist
groups have been successfull in recent years? zero AFAIK), maybe
both parties will settle somehow (or back off).

The idea of negotiating with a mass murderer who has a long list of grudges
that he has adopted against the west is not clearly a wise choice.

If you go from the view of "giving in to the terrorists", I can
understand. However, I think, as long as you talk, you don't kill each
other, and might find a solution on the way as well.

Anyone
with cash can find plenty of poor parts of the world to adopt causes and
build an army of terrorists. I don't think the western world or at least
the US is prepared to rubber stamp this as a legitimate course of action.

Here is were we agree and differ. I think that the US follows the same
course as the terrorists, but calls it "in the name of freedom". Both
sides are fighting for their power and trying to keep their own
values. I see no difference between what America and the terrorists
do. But as you repeatedly indicated, you do, but that's because we
both view this situation from a different starting-point.

The problem is that it is the Muslim people who bin Laden claims to
represent are suffering at his hands far more than the US.

That's not entirely true. If the US would take over the areas where
UBL is, they would take over an undeveloped country. There is no
industry of significance (well, except local industry, supplying local
markets), so no jobs, mainly agriculture, so you would have to develop
a lot too, and it will take a long time before people's situation will
significantly improve as when UBL (or whoever) would still rule there.
I believe this is an important factor, easily overlooked.

IMO, this suits
bin Laden just fine because as long as the Muslim people identify with the
West as the source of their pain, then he is accomplishing his goals. I
really don't see how terrorists are benefiting people in the ME in the
least.

I said before that one of the causes of UBL is, to keep the corrupted
western life-style outside their door, so they can live according to
their interpretation of their Quran. This is nothing new; throughout
the ages, religions have vigorously defended their turf, because if
they loose the people, they'll loose their powerbase, they'll loose
their money.

The other option is for the west to stand firm until the Muslim people
understand how much terrorism is hurting them. This may be too much to ask
depending on how propagandized you think people in the ME are.

That's imho the only way. if they see how bad it is for themselves,
they will sort out their own enemies, and are willing to adjust their
lifestyles. The current terrorist leaders might even show regret, you
never know. This would involve a massive campaign to educate these
people though.

But the more
the ME becomes democratized, or as some prefer... demonized by western
culture, the more it is likely that they will realize that people like bin
Laden are not acting their best interests.

Yep.

rr