Not to try to get the last word in; (that never works and I've learned not to try with my wife), but here is some clarification organized around your response.
<br>
<br>>>My point was that several countries / governments perceive this as mutual exclusive because of their own instability due to having mixed peoples. My opinion in this matter is irrelevant. <<
<br>
<br>My statement still stands; those countries are wrong in their analysis.
<br>
<br>>>Pakistan CAN work with you in a coalition that takes in account the sensitivaties of that region. <<
<br>
<br>I think if you watch carefully, you will see the US taking these sensitivities into account. There is a lot of careful steps and language being used to not turn this into a western/Islamic dispute.
<br>
<br>>>And I'm in no way denying you this. I just underlined the need for a well balanced response. Besides it seems to be forgotten that we're not talking about 6000 US nationals here. It was the WORLD trade centre with many nationalities working there. Nearly every country has lost citizins in that attack.<<
<br>
<br>I think the US is crafting a well balanced response and everyone is aware that many foreign citizens were killed in this tragedy; most of them, however, were US citizens.
<br>
<br>>>This is just western propaganda. Just like everybody now is so concerned about the human rights abuses of the Taliban. We knew before the attack and couldn't care less. This is hypocracy. <<
<br>
<br>Here is where you are wrong and show a closed mindedness. I have read your posts for some time and thought, though very opinionated, you were a clear thinker. At this point of the dialogue, you try to dismiss a salient point that many scholars have already made (its not an original thought of mine) by lapsing into a dismissive slogan about "western propaganda". As to the second part of your statement, I have to inform you that a great body of US citizens have been concerned for some time about the Taliban. Both from a distance, and from personal interchange with refugees from their regime. You probably are unaware of that since you don't live in the US; but accept the fact that our concern predated this incident.
<br>
<br>>>No, I feel pretty secure that the next target will still be the USA. I have never seen any militant group scant "death to EU" or "Death to Europe" during protests. Even during the the hijjacks of the 70's and 80's nearly all planes where Isreali or American. The militants see these two countries as their enemies, I don't know why, but there is a clear trend. So a mere hatred for civilazation can't be their drive. It must be something else.<<
<br>
<br>Sadly, you are probably right that the next target may still be us, but that doesn't invalidate my point. It just accentuates my other point about the US being the focal point of all that these groups hate about the west. Such attention is really not new in the world; just more dangerous now.
<br>
<br>>>Then indite him ! Come with a founded charge.<<
<br>
<br>My example was individual in nature to make the point. Here we are dealing with a country that may be making itself an accomplice. We have already indited Bin Laden for the embassy bombings and probably will for this tragedy.
<br>
<br>>>That is what many countries are asking for now. Many are very willing to help but just saying that the evidence remains secret is not very encouraging to these countries.<<
<br>
<br>I agree, but I also understand the need not to reveal information that will clue the enemy in to our sources and to how we are getting our intelligence. The evidence is coming forth in little bits every day. Everyone just needs to pay attention to it. I think in the end, there will be substantial evidence to link Bin Laden to these acts of aggression.
<br>
<br>>> All I'm saying is that you are now putting several region under pressure and causing upheaval without any clear proof apart from your suspicion.<<
<br>
<br>Yes, everyone that is even relationally connected to this is under increased pressure. I wish it weren't so, but it is and the accumulating evidence may not relieve all the pressure.
<br>
<br>>> I m also certain that quite a few countries just publically give support because they fear US counter measures, not because they really want to give support.<<
<br>
<br>Pakistan may be an example of what you speak, or the leadership may actually feel they should stand against this act and help in finding and capturing Bin Ladin. We know that they may not be able to show this level of support because over the years many of their people have been radicalized to support this terriorist.
<br>
<br>>>I expect to see more cracks in the coalition later on. I say prevent and use the momentum now, give evidence and alot of voices will be silenced for the short term future. Use Islam agaist him, Proof will outcast Ossy in the Islamic world. Percecuting him without public proof will only fuel conspiracy theories that will eventually rally people to him.<<
<br>
<br>The proof is emerging. Those nations that are on the side of civility and law will rally to our position. Those nations that are essentially on the side of terriorism in their hate of the west and the US will not. No amount of evidence will pursuade them. We must pursuade who we can and, try, as you point out, to get as many people behind us in this fight.
<br>
<br>As another poster pointed out, we will fight against this evil and the groups that perpetuate and at the same time we will do our part to help the lives of those who are so desparate. I maintain that the problem is not just one of poverty and lack of opportunity, which leads me back to my central point that these groups are essentiall anti modern (as exampled by the West).
<br>
<br>I enjoyed the dialogue and will sign off for the weekend; I'm going camping with my boys. It is important overall to remember that this incident was evil and wrong and there is no moral equivalency to apply. How we proceed is a good topic. I think you will see the US being fairly careful.
<br>Good sailing,
<br>David
<br>
<br>
<br><br><br>