Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 15:54:59 GMT, Arif Khokar >
> wrote:

> You're missing the point.
>
> Mentally ill people will use anything they like to "justify" their
> actions; that doesn't make their assignment of blame rational.

Our government keeps sticking its "nose" into their business. It's been
going on for at least 50 years. For instance, take Iran. The CIA
planned a coup to overthrow the the elected government and installed the
Shah back in the '50s. A little over 20 years later, mainly due to
oppression under the Shah, a revolution took place and everyone's
directing their hatred towards our country.

For some reason, your point of view appears to ignore the cause and
wonder why those people hate us for reasons you can't understand.

Similar interference lead to similar consequences and similar attitudes
throughout the Middle East and Latin America and some parts of Africa.

>>>Is the Oklahoma City bombing our fault, too, because our government
>>>burned down a Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas?

>>The government could have handled it much better than it did. Perhaps
>>they should have considered the consequences rather than saying "oh
>>well, **** happens."

> I'm sorry, I didn't see a "yes" or a "no" in there anywhere.

> Care to try again?

No.

>>>Killers are
>>>very good at rationalizing what they do - something which appears to
>>>have escaped our notice.

>>Unfortunately, we're not talking about individual killers. We're
>>talking about substantial organizations that are formed based on certain
>>ongoing events, policies, etc. These organizations do make an effort to
>>explain their rationale. Understanding their rationale along with
>>adjusting our tactics to take that into account will be far more
>>effective than just ignoring it or trying to address the symptom (not
>>the cause) and hoping they'll go away.

> Let me ask you a question: if some group of mentall ill people asked
> you to abandon your house because they believe it is the sacred
> landing ground for visitors from the planet Morongo, would you move
> out?

It depends on how many people. Besides, it's already happened in the
Middle East back in '48 and '67 and continues today.

> Why or why not? What if they blew up your car, killing your wife
> and son, because of their "religious" beliefs?

I suppose that if I were to go on a killing rampage as a result, taking
out civilians from that group whereever I go, then people from that
group who hold view that corresponds to what your views are with regards
to actual events would brand me a terrorist and say that I'm mentally
ill. They'll conclude this because they, for some reason, do not
understand why I "hate" them.

> Just because they have a reason doesn't make it a valid or rational
> reason.

Doesn't matter. The reason exists and we're not doing anything to
address it. Therefore the status quo remains and people get killed. If
that's the outcome you want, then so be it.

>>>They'll just trump up some other excuse and attack us again.

>>They don't have to trump up another excuse. They can use the same one
>>over and over since we really haven't changed anything.

> Tell me, if our presence offends so many peoples' "religious"
> sensibilities, why does the Saudi Government allow us to maintain a
> military base in their country?

Because, like may governments in the Middle East, they're more
interested in money than what the people want. The motives behind the
Saudi Government's decision to allow us to maintain military basis is no
different than Saddam's motive to embezzle from the oil-for-food program.

> Why don't they just ask us to leave?

Probably cause we were giving the government some substantial reward
(trade agreements, arms deals, aid money, etc.).

> Could it be that *rational* people are not offended by our presence?

I suppose we have no right to be offended by what the corporate
officials at Enron did since their rationale was to get a lot of money
out of the deal. Unlike corporations, there is no accountability for a
foreign government.