Whoa dude. I'm not that political. Or emotionally invested.

I'm not a foreign affairs/relations specialist, any more than you are. But you're right, there aren't any clear cut answers. And the fact that our government changes every 4-8 years mean that policies change that quickly as well.

However, I don't see how saying that the US should look back on their policies and actions and possibly make changes in its future actions= It's the US's fault.

Same with Columbine. Teachers and students looked back and said "what could we have done differently. It's still the shooters faults. They are responsible. But could we, as peers, have encouraged different behavior?

There are almost always other options.

You've backed into a corner here, I think.

The concept of reflection that you're pushing really only gives two options:

1 - Was there something we could have done to prevent what happened?

2 - Was there something we did that caused what happened? (Note: this is akin to "is there something we could have NOT done to prevent what happened?" - this is important for logical consistency, I think)

#2, which is basically how I thought you'd phrased this earlier, is quite literally a 'blame' scenario - if you eliminate some action to prevent the undesirable response, we are left with no other choice but to determine that action was the 'cause' and thus they are at 'fault'.

#1, which is not nearly as direct in terms of 'blame', is much more important in something like Columbine, since it deals more directly with things like oversight, social interaction, etc - all malleable to an extent. I'm not sure that a nation's policies are comparable - the temporal nature of actions on this level means that the Monday Morning Quarterback implicitly acts with the benefit of hindsight and, most importantly, knows the action/response dynamic of uncontrolled, volitile and often chaotic groups, individuals and systems affected by policies.

Sitting around going "Where did we go wrong? Why do Arab extremists hate us? Why did they feel the need to perform one of the most awful acts of modern history?" seems inherently flawed. Even if a situation was handled somewhat poorly, do you think the response was justified?

If the response was above and beyond what was justified, can we really assume that other situations would not have led to the same unjustifiable response?

I'm not saying there shouldn't be an examination of policies post hoc, but rather that this examination should be rooted in overall utility for the nation - not in some sort of knee-jerk/reactionary "Why oh why did they take that particular harsh action!" paralysis (or worse, politics).

I don't really feel like I"m stuck in a corner, so whatever.

I don't know the answers to that. I was 17 when 9/11 occured. And though I feel like I'm rather well informed, I was certainly not an expert in US Foreign Policy then, or now.

Take a step back from this and look at it from a psychological or philosophical point of view. All actions are the result of an accumulation of causes. People don't just wake up one day to become a suicide bomber... there's a reason why. Maybe they lost their parents, maybe they were put in a conservative school, maybe their own livelihood was threatened.

Whether we like it or not, the US contributed to those causes.

Said bomber is still responsible for the choice he made to become a suicide bomber. Since we cannot control his choice directly, and we find being blown up to be bad, then it may be in our best interest to determine and adjust our contribution to the "causes" in his life.

We can also look back and say, yeah, what we did may have influenced him, but our other options would have put us worse off.

This is exactly my point. I think people like Shinerblock should read this post, then read it again and again until he calms down and digests this point. Shooting off the mouth doesn't help any exploration of ideas and the possibility that people, specifically Americans vs. other Americans can discuss issues that affect us all without resorting to insults and put downs. America's hands are not squeaky clean, never have been and I am no less patriotic or American for stating that and attempting to listen to others, whether they are American or not, who have various opinions about this country.

And your mindset is quite similar to those who felt that their cause was legitimate and were not going to "cower" to the American's who feel that their way of life is the only way to go. Its all about perspective.

So what's the point? This is EXACTLY what I'm getting at. None of your posts have addressed this issue at all - in fact, you seem content to punt it. That's not a discussion, that's go-nowhere proselytizing, isn't it?

How come nobody has the balls to say what it was specifically that we should be blamed for?

Here's my previous post for those that want to play dumb: Let's see, they want to spread Islam all over the world and destroy Western culture. Years of planning went into this. Yeah we caused that. Only an idiot would believe that.

Can we discuss why Americans are infidels and their Western culture is disgusting and deserves to be destroyed now? Or do the morons on here just want to accept that while enjoying the fruits of such inferior culture?

-Rudey
--I'm sorry that Canada has so many idiots but perhaps they can move to Mexico or something.

My point is that we should not only look at the actions of the terrorists and say "BOO THEY SUCK AND THEY DESERVE TO GET INVADED" blah blah etc.

We should also look at our own actions as they helped to cause the terrorists behavior. If upon review there was no other satisfactory option then fine, but still review them.

Face it, if the kids at Columbine hadn't been teased and tormented they wouldn't have snapped. That tragedy would not have occured. If that action had been changed, there probably would NOT have been a school shooting. Maybe the kids would be better adjusted, maybe not. We are terrible at predicting the future and much better at looking back at the past.

<sidetrack> What Ifs only get you so far anyway. What if in the Twin Towers was the mother of the next Hitler or something. And without the terrorist attack on 9/11, within 50 years America would be under martial law run by a facist dictator. </sidetrack>

And to answer your question: I do not think the response to US Foreign Policy was justified. But a response to a different policy would not necessarily be unjustified. Too many variables. No one here is saying the US deserved it. Only acknowledging that we helped to create the situations leading to it.

Phasad, yeah it is about perspective. MY perspective is from a country targeted by terrorism. Here, I'll just put it out there, I hope it doesn't harm the sensibilities of some on this board...

1) I don't really care how other countries feel America should protect her interests. The majority of them have little at stake in this battle, but will surely come calling when they're threatened. One day their calls will go unanswered.

2) I value American lives more than others. If it takes killing 1000 islamic militants to save one American soldier, I'd be happy to give the order.

3) Contrary to what some may believe, we all don't have the same interests. We're not "one big world," we're distinct nations who believe differently and don't always need to get along. Our core ideologies conflict with those of the countries we're up against. Sitting down to talk to them won't do any good, as they've given no indication that they can be trusted. Don't believe me? Ask Israel.

I think anyone who believes this is about religion is foolish and pretty much lied to. It just a smoke screen to mask the real issue here: Power, Profits and securing scarce resources. The root of all dirty politics.

Yeah^ thankfully we invaded Afghanistan and stripped their country of so many valuable resources. Similarly, we're getting such better oil production thanks to our taking of Iraqi oil fields. I'm sure halliburton contracts were the basis of going into Iraq. I'm sure Osama was power hungry and looking for those NYC scarce resources when he attacked America.

If you wanna say Iraq is a war for oil, despite evidence to the contrary, then go ahead. Its a stupid idea, but you could probably find some slightly reasonable support for it. But this war is about ideology, conflicting ways of life and security.

Rudey is very anti-Muslim. I can understand being anti-terrorist, but there's a big difference. I don't want people to assume that my Christianity means that I kill abortion doctors or try to get evolution removed from schools. I wouldn't want to assume that every Muslim is out to destroy America either.

As for spreading religion, both Christians and Muslims would prefer that their religion be the only one and will proselytize for it. Some Christians have also killed people for being NON-Christian. Currently some Muslims are doing the same. It's wrong no matter who's doing it, but my Pakistani friends aren't blowing things up so leave them alone.

/sorry, rantish

I think a reason for anti-muslim sentiment is the lack of outrage in the muslim community, among those who claim to be peaceful. You'll notice when a right wing extreme Christian does something wrong, Christians immediately damn the action (with the exception of other extremists, of course). I think people don't see that from the islamic community as much. For example, people in this country openly supporting hezbollah. Its just difficult for Americans to digest seeing muslims outraged over a cartoon, but silent on the violence in the name of their faith.

How about the nuturing and encouragement of Islamic fundamentalism as a way to combat "godless" communism in Afghanistan, and to a lesser extent in the Middle East? Or how about the funding of religious "resistant cells" within the former Soviet Union?

These may be more generally responsible for an increasingly armed niche market for militant Islam (in fact, they most likely contributed, no 'may' about it).

However, I can't fathom a direct link between "nurturing" and "worst attack on US soil" - in fact, these two points are directly antithetical by nature. This is exactly the MMQB issue. You can tie all sorts of actions to the eventual environment from which the action springs, but these are NOT directly causal, nor should they be considered the basis for 'fault' - to think otherwise really requires you to drink the Kool-Aid, not to mention piss on any notion of personal responsibility or appropriate response.