Now, if some extremists from the southern CA population decided to bomb > the Mexican military barracks. Then, after a while, some Mexican > embassies in the US and Canada were bombed. Then after a little longer, a > major business complex along with a major military complex in Mexico were > attacked (bombed, planes flown into them, whatever), then do you still > think the Mexican government was right in not considering the local > populations attitudes before establishing their base?

Scott en AztlГЎn wrote:>

If we're willing to ignore the sentiment of the people, then we get hit >by extremists.

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 15:34:52 GMT, Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.ed­u>>wrote:>

Uh, no.>

If the government doesn't represent the people, the people need to get>another government. Until such time as they do so, what the government>says is the way it goes.

No godd**n it, they should be bombing the non representative> government's buildings, not the mexicans, the problem is the> govenrment that allows the situation, not the situation.

As long as we remain wide open and unprepared, we will get hit by> mentally unstable extremists whether we ignore the sentiments or not.

Scott en AztlГЎn wrote:>

For some reason, most other countries don't have to worry about >hijackers flying planes into their buildings.

Why are we at risk when >most of the rest of the world is not (Europe, Asia, Russia, Africa, >South America, Japan, etc.)?

Why do we have terror alert levels when >other countries don't have to bother?>

Is it because we're "special," as some people have implied, or is it >because of something we did (or are still doing)?

Here's a hypothetical situation: Suppose the US government was an > absolute monarchy that didn't represent the people.

Let's suppose that > the Mexican government wanted to establish a military base in southern > California. Let's assume that a substantial portion of the population > living in southern CA really didn't like the fact that Mexicans were > living in US land.

Now, if some extremists from the southern CA population decided to bomb > the Mexican military barracks. Then, after a while, some Mexican > embassies in the US and Canada were bombed. Then after a little longer, > a major business complex along with a major military complex in Mexico > were attacked (bombed, planes flown into them, whatever), then do you > still think the Mexican government was right in not considering the > local populations attitudes before establishing their base?

For some reason, most other countries don't have to worry about > hijackers flying planes into their buildings. Why are we at risk when > most of the rest of the world is not (Europe, Asia, Russia, Africa, > South America, Japan, etc.)? Why do we have terror alert levels when > other countries don't have to bother?

Is it because we're "special," as some people have implied, or is it > because of something we did (or are still doing)?

South America has >it's own interal problems.

You've got the FARC and before that Pablo Escobar had a nasty habit of> blowing up judges and even once blew up a commercial airliner....

Russia has various problems.

Egypt has terrorist attacks etc.

Lybia > sponsored terrorism.

Elsewhere in africa people are being terrorized from > their farms.

The US government does a number of things that are bad. But in some > cases the US is just the scape goat.

Other than the Spanish train bombings, I'm not aware of any recent > terrorist attacks in Europe. Britian certainly doesn't have a history > of "appeasing" the IRA.

Because they're trying to hold on to a country that doesn't want to be a > part of them.

Repressive government, you speak out, you're jailed and tortured, end of > story.

I guess if another country started holding major naval exercises in the > Gulf of Mexico, our government would get pissed off too.

Too few people owning too much property from what I've read.

That is true enough, but a lot of people are loathe to admit that the US > government does anything but good internationally.

Britian is the exception. There are low level things fairly frequently.

But you were saying they were free of problems,

as if somehow the US > government was doing something 'special' to invite terrorism.

You mentioned africa being free of terror. It's strife with terrorism, > war, famine, and disease.

As I recall, that was a -reaction-.

It seems you want to make the US > government to be some special evil in the world.

It's not. it's ordinary run of the mill evil.

Still, the point is that the US government isn't doing anything > particularly special or shocking.

It's trying to control the population > at home while influence things overseas to it's own benefit.

And those same people argue love-it-or-leave-it­ and claim USDOT standards > are best in the world.

You're correct in that they do have problems (I did not think things > through before naming examples in my previous post). But the point of > Russia having done something that resulted in the terrorism directed > against them is a valid point. It's not as if the Chechens hate the > Russians just for the sake of it.

The point is that the US is doing something. A lot of people, including > government officials, assert that we're being attacked because we have > freedom and democracy. Maybe there is some truth in that statement, but > it certainly isn't the entire truth.

But international terrorist organizations aren't targetting Africa.

Most of the terrorism originates with the locals and tribal > fighting/wars. There are also corrupt governments that fuel the > situation. Though the result is the same, the cause isn't the same.

Not really. I'm just trying to convey the fact that US policies are the > source of many problems *we're* experiencing.

When someone proclaims > that we're attacked because we have freedom and democracy, it just > appears that they're sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "we > didn't do anything wrong, why are they doing this to us" repeatedly > until it becomes the truth. The US has and is still engaging in > questionable (if you can call it that) conduct around the world and > people are reacting to that.

I'll agree with that ­

I'm not saying that it's doing anything substantially different from > other governments around the world, but it is doing more of it in more > places.

Possibly the government's benefit, not ours. If we're not lucky, we'll > be the victims of some terrorist attack because of our self centered > policies.

No disagreement there. I begin to wonder if, in some aspects, they are > the *worst* in the world ;)

That would be equivalent to saying that people harrass you while driving >because you drive a car with 400 hp. It doesn't happen because you >don't do things that bring on other people's ire.

Brent P wrote:>> Please pay closer attention to the news. Europe appeases terrorists, then >> the terrorists strike again.>

Other than the Spanish train bombings, I'm not aware of any recent >terrorist attacks in Europe.

Britian certainly doesn't have a history >of "appeasing" the IRA.>

Because they're trying to hold on to a country that doesn't want to be a >part of them.

Possibly, but I do read the BBC news website on a daily basis and I >don't really recall seeing anything mentioning terrorist attacks on a >minor scale in the last 6 months.

Nobody 'hates for the sake of it'

Some people DO hate people who drive nicer cars than they will ever be> able to afford.

On Sun, 01 May 2005 23:10:11 GMT, Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.ed­u>> wrote:>

Easy - it is because we are superior, and they are jealous. We have> harder working people, better run companies, and we make more profit.> This enables our people to live better lives. The scum in the middle> east blame us because they are lazy worthless bastards.

Maybe the middle east doesn't have anything over on us, but there's lots > of countries full of people willing to work twice as hard for less money > than the average American. Until we realize that and do something about > it, our economy is going to continue to suffer.

Better run companies? More profit? *cough*GM*cough*

In article <sLOdndJhvJa2JevfRV­n-hA@comcast.com>, Nate Nagel wrote:>

<rantings I wasn't paying attention to deleted> >

There is no way we can compete with they are willing to work for. I'm sorry, but > there is no way I can live on $300 a month. I had more money as a graduate student.

The problem is, the products are made in some place like China and are priced in > the stores as if they were made in the USA. >

While such is true, the problem does in many cases lay with the people who see a > the made in china product for ten cents less and buy it over the made in the USA > product. >

6 months is nothing. There haven't been any terrrorist attacks here> in longer than that, and Britain most certainly IS worried about> terrorists striking there (or at least their politicians have been> giving it lip service).>

I don't recall anything specific happening in Britain in the last 6> months, but there have CERTAINLY been terrorist activity there since> 9/11

Oh, absolutely. I wasn't implying that we should all offer to go work > for beans. There's going to have to be some serious economic adjustment > for all parties before we will ever have a truly equitable "global > economy" to steal a phrase. It's gonna hurt, and unfortunately a lot of > the hurt is gonna happen in the richer countries like the US.

Nobody 'hates for the sake of it'. But often they are tought to hate, > without any action by the other nation.

Blackhawk down. They have/had found a home there, it's a place for them > to be because of the chaos.

But they hate each other to the point of extermination. The causes are > very much the same, control, and screwing over someone else for one's own > best interest. The scale is more local, but it's the same old thing.

The source of our problems is a government that has greatly exceeded the > bounds set for it. The problem from foreign terrorists themselves is > tiny, the bigger problem is the US government reaction to it.

I don't see that. After all, France has had it's hands in a great number > of places (recently).

One could say that some problems extend back to the > british empire too....

Nate Nagel wrote:>

One other factor that should be considered is the cost of living in > those countries. It's not nearly as expensive and $300 a month will get > you quite far. Therefore, unless the cost of living here drops to what > it is in China or India, then one cannot realistically work at those > salary levels.

On Mon, 02 May 2005 13:42:02 -0500, tetraethylleadREMOV­ETHIS@yahoo.com> (Brent P) wrote:>

Don't be too sure about that

Around 5/2/2005 1:50 PM, L Sternn wrote:>

Just look at Judy, for one example...

L Sternn wrote:>> On Mon, 02 May 2005 16:33:25 GMT, Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.ed­u>>> wrote:>

The reason I mentioned the BBC news website is that their articles are >centered on Europe as a whole rather than the UK itself. Many times, >they have front page headlines that are just side stories, if that, on >the CNN news website.

Just look at Judy, for one example...

For some reason, most other countries don't have to worry about >hijackers flying planes into their buildings. Why are we at risk when >most of the rest of the world is not (Europe, Asia, Russia, Africa, >South America, Japan, etc.)?

Why do we have terror alert levels when >other countries don't have to bother?

Europe -- particularly, but not exclusively, the UK -- had bigger> problems with terrorists than the US ever did before 9/11.

should use some critical thinking skills to figure out why. I would > certainly hope that the US government is smarter than the average dog.

Scott en AztlГЎn wrote:>

For some reason, most other countries don't have to worry about >hijackers flying planes into their buildings. Why are we at risk when >most of the rest of the world is not (Europe, Asia, Russia, Africa, >South America, Japan, etc.)? Why do we have terror alert levels when >other countries don't have to bother?>

Is it because we're "special," as some people have implied, or is it >because of something we did (or are still doing)?

That would be equivalent to saying that people harrass you while driving >because you drive a car with 400 hp. It doesn't happen because you >don't do things that bring on other people's ire.

Brent P wrote:>> In article <Pdqde.305$aq3.221@­news02.roc.ny>, Arif Khokar wrote:>

Possibly, but I do read the BBC news website on a daily basis and I >don't really recall seeing anything mentioning terrorist attacks on a >minor scale in the last 6 months.

I disagree. There are a number of costs associated with producing a> product. Productivity is far higher in America than anywhere else.> So Americans CAN be paid more and still make a more competitive> product.

Which, in the UK's case, was due to decisions made in the 19th centure >with regards to the government of Ireland.

Injustice breeds terrorism. Unless the source is dealt with, terrorism >will never go away.

DTJ wrote:>>

Ha! to all.

Maybe the middle east doesn't have anything over on us, but there's lots >of countries full of people willing to work twice as hard for less money >than the average American. Until we realize that and do something about >it, our economy is going to continue to suffer.

Better run companies? More profit? *cough*GM*cough*

In article <sLOdndJhvJa2JevfRV­n-hA@comcast.com>, Nate Nagel wrote:>

<rantings I wasn't paying attention to deleted>

There is no way we can compete with they are willing to work for. I'm sorry, but >there is no way I can live on $300 a month. I had more money as a graduate student.

The problem is, the products are made in some place like China and are priced in >the stores as if they were made in the USA.

By targetting, I mean attacking institutions having affiliation with >their host countries. The attacks on the US embassies don't fit under >that classification.

You assume the people had that choice. They didn't. Governments can be> and are maintained by force.

There will always be injustice and there will always be terrorism.> And terrorists will continue to claim they are simply reacting to injustice> -- but they may well be lying.

And they can be overthrown by force from within.

The same applies to the government that pleads ignorance.

With ill-advised outside encouragement. The sentiment should build up >from the inside. When the time is right, the revolt will succeed.

To believe (as you've claimed) that the destruction of the WTC was due> to the unjust actions of the United States in placing bases in Saudi> Arabia depends on a number of dubious assumptions

1) That the terrorists acted because of the bases in Saudi Arabia

2) That the placement of bases in Saudi Arabia was unjust

3) That the terrorists were the wronged parties or acting on their behalf

Provided those opposed to the government can accumulate and> effectively use sufficient force. Saddam Hussein's government was> quite good at preventing this.

"...and Saudi-born Osama bin Laden cites the U.S. military presence in >his homeland as a reason for his hatred of America."

"...the presence of American forces here has long been an irritant for >Saudi rulers facing strong anti-American sentiment among a growing and >increasingly restive population."

See above.

So is our government. Your point?

Assuming you believe bin Laden. I see no reason to. (He's cited OTHER> reasons, too, such as US support of Israel.)

Still looking for the _injustice_. Irritation of the Saudi rulers> doesn't equate to injustice.

No evidence of wrong to the terrorists. No evidence of wrong to> anyone. No evidence that the terrorists were acting on any but their> own behalf.

That the continual rule of the government of Saddam Hussein was NOT> the free choice of the people of Iraq; rather, it was imposed upon> them by Saddam's effective use of force against those who opposed him.

The only 3 countries that I know of that support Israel are the US, >American Samoa, and Micronesia. We supply Israel the majority of its >armaments which they regularly use in densly populated areas.

In any case, I'd be more inclined to believe Bin Laden over the US >government. Bin Laden has no motive or reason to lie at this point in >time. The US government on the other hand ...

So, only the rulers' opinions count, and not the people?

We really don't have a choice in who becomes President either. Either >you vote for someone you don't like, vote for a 3rd party candidate who >will never be elected, or just don't bother to vote.

In article <xyFee.584$8g.493@n­ews01.roc.ny>,>Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.ed­u> wrote:>>Matthew Russotto wrote:>>> Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.ed­u> wrote:>>

That the continual rule of the government of Saddam Hussein was NOT>the free choice of the people of Iraq; rather, it was imposed upon>them by Saddam's effective use of force against those who opposed him.

Matthew Russotto wrote:>

We really don't have a choice in who becomes President either. Either> you vote for someone you don't like, vote for a 3rd party candidate who> will never be elected, or just don't bother to vote.

You brought up the rulers' opinions. Again, I'm looking for the> INJUSTICE. Merely because a Klansman doesn't like black people> doesn't make it an injustice when one moves in next to him.

I drive a nice car, and I haven't had any of those problems.

There are >plenty of BMWs, Corvettes, Audis, Mercedes, etc. around here, and I >don't see any evidence of slashed tires, keyed paint or any of the other >stuff you mentioned.

So based on your anecdotal evidence, you conclude that nobody commits> acts of vandalism (or terrorism) for no good reason, and therefore the> US *must have* done something to deserve the 9/11 attacks.

I found an interesting article called the reasons behind terrorism. I > don't agree with everything he says about Muslims, but the rest of it > explains it far better than I can.

So the US should withdraw its bases from Saudi Arabia,

cease support of Israel

Bin Laden has lots of motives to lie. He's looking for support, and> he'll say anything to get it.

You brought up the rulers' opinions.

Again, I'm looking for the> INJUSTICE.

I drive a nice car, and I haven't had any of those problems. There are > plenty of BMWs, Corvettes, Audis, Mercedes, etc. around here, and I > don't see any evidence of slashed tires, keyed paint or any of the other > stuff you mentioned.

Any nice car or different car may get attacked.

Then why are we so worried about other countries that we are willing to >go to great lengths to impose democracy on them, but we're not willing >to change election laws to make democracy more effective here?

Again, you're trying to change the subject. You've now argued that> the US government and the Saudi government don't rule by the consent> of the people but Saddam's (by virtue of the fact that it had not been> successfully overthrown) did.

We already have.

Either we should take a more balanced approach, or get out.

I can lead you to the reason, but you're going to have to believe it for >yourself. Whether or not you believe it's a form of injustice is up to >you. The people living there felt it was and that's what actually matters.

Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.ed­u> wrote:

Let's see... on the OTHER side, there's a bunch of countries which want> to push Israel into the sea.

No, perceived injustice and real injustice are not the same thing.