Why terrorists attack America

[azalea]

Originally posted by Lizra


Another line of thought seems to see the all out war approach as faning the flames of the fire....pouring fresh gasoline on an already raging blaze, and playing into the hands of the terrorists. They (Doves) see diplomatic and finacial strategies as the best (and sufficient) weapons. In the Doves eyes, militarty options seem to give credibilty to the terrorists, and invite the global escalation of death and destruction. This group feels that terroism can never be eliminated because of the nature of it (one angry guy, one bomb...too easy) and to try to fight "fire with fire" is reckless suicide.

I would add that this side also favors covert military/ gov't operations to track down the terrorist groups and their financial backers. Basically use trained spies/ undercover agents to infiltrate/obtain inside info, which would aid in the fight. I know they're trying to do this now, too, but the doves think this should be done instead of open war on governments. It's just hard to do (infiltrating the groups), and it's also difficult to find willing people and train them to be effective spies.

On another point: Our main goals now in Afghanistan and Iraq should be the following --accessable healthcare, universal education and women's rights. The economic stuff (and all those contracts) just aren't as crucial to the ultimate goal of eradicating terrorism. A major flaw in the US's thinking is that "if they only had the same wealth and prosperity as us, they wouldn't hate us." It's not about that, for the most part. They have a different way of thinking, and a different view of how the world should be. I have seen people who have been over there and written books or appeared on news shows on tv who emphasize this. There was one British guy who had been in Afghanistan before 9-11 doing a documentary of terrorist cells, and he was very emphatic that "they don't want our microwaves and our cable tv." It's important that the leaders realize this as they set their priorities in the rebuilding.
I think it's a huge conflict of interest that people here are getting lucrative contracts to do jobs over there. What, don't they have any native citizens who could do the work? It's bad enough that outsiders were the impetus of their "revolutions," (which I've said makes it less precious to the average citizen there), but now the rebuilding has to be done by us? They really need to make this THEIR project -- it will mean so much more to them. That's why Habitat for Humanity makes the new owner help build their own house.
Please don't get me wrong. I'm not saying the US shouldn't have deposed the Taliban (though I might not have done it that way), and I'm not saying they should have deposed Saddam and left immediately, but it's been a year, and we don't seem much closer to bringing our troops home.