# If Goanet stops reaching you, contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] # # Want to check the archives? http://www.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet/ # # Please keep your discussion/tone polite, to reflect respect to others #
##########################################################################
Samir Kelekar writes:
Samir,There are enough reports to indicate that the anti-American sentiments world-wide has increased massively after the unilateral attack on Iraq. Now if you are saying that none of this sentiment is going to turn people into taking up arms, then you must be assuming everyone the world over is like GoaNet subscribers: all talk only.
There is no dispute that anti-American sentiment is very strong around the world. In fact, some of the largest anti-Bush demonstrations have taken place in Australia and England. No matter how much the hatred, you can't blame Mr. Bush for encouraging the growth of terrorism. Only when the United States starts arresting masses of Finns, Swedes and Australians--in the same numbers as they've been rounding up Islamists--then, and only then, should America start the process of instrospection and wonder whether it really is the *cause* of terrorism. The civilised world cannot claim responsibility for creating terrorists, the hatemongers of this world who allow their pre-pubescent children to become suicide bombers are to blame.
My point exactly--17-year old who has been taught to hate will take up arms and conduct a suicide attack. Because of his upbringing he is more likely to commit an act of terror than, say, contemporary in Portugal who strongly opposes the American governement and its inaction in East Timor a few years ago (a situation as dear to Portugal as the Palestinian cause might be to the Saudis). Do you rememeber the sight of hundreds of Palestinian children dancing in the streets when the WTC fell? What makes pre-teen children rejoice at such at such evil? There was no talk of invading Iraq at the time, yet the sight of children dancing with glee leaves little doubt that these little fellows shared the joy of terrorists. Sorry, I'm not trying to score points in an argument--you're welcome to respond, but I won't be saying any more on the issue. P.S. Could you drop the word "unilateral"? It's getting a little stale, especially since many other nations have suffered casualties in this war.
We have seen it in Israel/Palestine. No 17 year old takes to arms and goes for a suicide attack just like that. The point is: terrorists are not born. [...] They happen due to one reason or the other. And Bush's unilateral unprovoked attack on Iraq sure would be one reason for more to turn to terrorism.
This is getting pointless. You've either got to study economics, or read the statements Mr. Bush made before the war, or both. I'd recommend _Basic Economics_ and _Applied Economics_ , both by Thomas Sowell; don't get put off by the title of the former, it is really a super book and a must-read for every policymaker.
I don't understand how spending a premium of $100 billion per year can make economic sense. Your argument seems to stem from skepticism more than reality.
It is not my argument; it is Bush's logic for attacking Iraq.
What I am saying is that people prefer to treat terrorism pre-emptively than to treat it the same way that prostitution or gambling are treated (Kerry's strategy). Most people in America have a hard time understanding how terrorism can be downgraded to the level of a "nuisance" (Kerry again).America. Why do we hear so little about the 19% of Americans for whom terrorism is the key issue and so much more about religion being the main factor?
That is an interesting point. What you are essentially saying is that people voted Bush because they feel that his so-called war on terrorism is making America a safer place.
Being an American (and I'm not one) does not guarantee one's safety around the world, but neither does being a Brit, Australian, Filipino, Indian or anybody else. "Christian Zionists" are sometimes targetted for attacks, but some of the Zarqawi crew show that they don't discriminate.My take on this point is that turning American into a fortress could make it safer; however, Americans would be more threatened once they leave America; of course, other issues such as respect for international law etc haven't been dealt here.
Sincerely, Peter D'Souza
