9/11: Ten Years Later

[Jek Jek Roo]

Even during WWII, simple Hans probably hasn't much common with nazi politics. Some people like to make stereotypes, mainly out of bad facts.

 

I know that pain well, when you can't do anything but accept the whole world. Just like the Combine in city 17. It's sad, but true.

[Doom Shepherd]

Nuke Palestine, and see the Americans party and dance.

I hate it when Americans make other countries out to be the bad guys, while they are not any better.

 

It's impossible to lose the moral high ground to the palestinian leadership.

 

What sad is that those same leaders have so thoroughly brainwashed the Palestinians (who if they had IGNORED those leaders, would have had their own state 60 years ago), as well as so many Europeans and even some of our more gullible Americans, into believeing that they do, in fact, hold it.

 

Here's how you can tell who has the moral high ground: The people who DON'T recruit minors to go on suicide bombing missions? THEY ALWAYS HAVE IT.

 

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2004/11/01/occupied-territories-stop-use-children-suicide-bombings

[Doom Shepherd]

Now that I'm done blasting other people, here's a little story for you, including something I wrote ON that day.

 

On 9/11, I lived and worked in Fayette County, PA, one county West of where Flight 93 went down. I first learned of the events of the day early in the morning, not long after the first plane hit. My folks saw the smoke coming out of the WTC, and thought from the early reports that a small plane had hit.

 

It wasn't until I was on my way to work when I heard more of the story, on, of all things, the Howard Stern show.

 

To this day I think I saw Flight 93 fly over, but I've never been sure. The maps all show it passing North of me instead.

 

I watched the towers fall with a bunch of scared librarians.

 

Later that evening, I wrote the following in my (long gone) computer journal. Sorry it's rather random, thoughts were still rather... disorganized.

 

*******

 

It is September 11th, 11:45 P.M., and the world is insane.

 

So am I.

 

What I have seen today is indescribable.

 

What I have felt today is intolerable.

 

I have to write these feelings down because I believe that writing them down will help me exorcize them, and I am afraid that if I don't cast them out, I really will go mad.

 

It has been a long time since I dared confront my emotions. Now is the worst possible time.

 

I am consumed by anger. By rage. By hatred, a hatred so burning that I can feel the temperature of my skin rise when I contemplate it.

 

I tell myself that hate is irrational, that it does more harm than good, but who of sound mind could witness what we have witnessed today, and NOT hate?

 

The trick, I know, is to confine the hatred to those responsible. Given what we already know about the nature of this event, though, makes that very tricky, indeed. These people lived here. For years. Plotting. Planning. Are there more? Waiting? Lying low until the heat is off, planning to attack the Sears Tower? Or the Super Bowl? or Disney World? Nobody knows.

 

And I keep thinking of "Survivors." A Star Trek episode in which the wife of a powerful, immortal being, along with an entire colony of people, is massacred by militant aliens called the Husnock. The immortal, powerful beyond imagining and driven briefly mad by his loss, explains his retaliation to the Enterprise crew with these words:

 

"You don't understand... I didn't kill just one Husnock, or a hundred, or a thousand... I killed them ALL... ALL Husnock, EVERYWHERE..."

 

I could do that. Right now. If I had the power. And part of me glories in the idea. That's terrifying, that I could hate that much.

 

Oh, I know it will pass, that eventually I'll settle down to just hating the hijackers and their backers and supporters... that may in itself end up being a whole lot of people, how many militant screwballs are there? In all of Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon?

 

But not today.

 

Today I want the Husnock dead.

 

I look around me, and everyone is scared. Our local loony Democratic politician is afraid they'll come after him personally, even though he's far too unimportant to rate even a spitball. (County Commisioners aren't real people.)

 

My co-workers are scared. My family is scared. My mother expects paratroopers any moment, even though father and I have explained to her that that couldn't happen.

 

I'm not scared. Perhaps Bugs Bunny is right... "I'll be scared LATER. Right now I'm too MAD."

 

But the dragon is still in me, screaming to me to let him out, let him rage, let him take revenge.

 

What nonsense. Sure, I could fight. I'm perfectly capable of a rather extreme level of violence. But what could I do, get on the next plane to the Middle East? Frag a bunch of people who had nothing to do with any part of it? Some of those countries lost people in the WTC, no doubt. The WTC was multinational. It was an attack on the PLANET.

 

(Image, footage of a streetful of Palestinians cheering. Despite my high talk, I wish to be in that scene... with a flamethrower.)

 

I can't go to New York and help. I have few skills useful in this sort of crisis, and it's just too far. Lucky me, I'd get lost and mugged anyway. Or they'd blow up my building too.

 

There saying now that many of the dead will be firefighters and cops and emergency personnel. Hundreds of them. Thousands of people, altogether. And it could have been worse. It was early, the buildings weren't full. It's insane to say we were lucky, but we were. And they managed to get most of the people who were in out... except the ones in the floors when the plane hit... and the ones trapped above. They never had a chance. Some jumped anyway, just to avoid dying in the fire. Banking, I suppose, on a one in a trillion chance of surviving a fall from 90-plus stories. Nobody won.

 

Maybe they'll find pockets of survivors. I hear they've already pulled a few from the rubble alive. I can only hope, because I can't DO a damned thing, but sit here and hate, and hope to stop.

 

I do not want to feel like this.

[The Giant Napkin]

I think we're still at war because of both war presidents' failure to recognize the identity of the enemy (e.g. Bush saying "Islam is peace", Obama saying "Bin Laden was not a Muslim leader") and their altruistic war policies (e.g. letting our boys needlessly die because god forbid we hurt civilians).

 

You're right that the terrorists will fight to the last man--but this is nothing new; Imperial Japan was about to arm every man, woman and child to die for their emperor despite their decisive defeat at Okinawa. Fortunately, President Truman gave the order and showed the Japanese what was the end result of their death-worshiping culture and just what happens when someone fucks with America. Not only did he show the impotency of their culture--thus destroying their ability to wage war--he showed the world that America's retaliation was a fact of nature: if you throw a ball, it will stay in motion until an unbalanced force acts on it; if you listen to music too loudly, you go deaf; if you touch America, you get vaporized.

 

I don't think evil is measured by quantity i.e. an act of war is an act of war, no matter how many lives were lost. Even if you don't agree, keep this in mind: the 9/11 attacks killed more Americans than the attack on Pearl Harbor.

 

What's the point of having nukes if you're not going to use them?

 

We need a war president like Lincoln or Truman.

 

Well... where to start? Let's start in a positive way. Fighting for peace is a paradox. Peace means an end to the fighting, which can be achieved in two ways: either kill everyone who is prepared to fight against you, or convince everyone to stop fighting. Since there are many cells and it is very hard to identify all terrorists, the first alternative would require a lot of people to die, including many civilians. For the second alternative, we must try to understand each other, because, to quote Dumbledore: understanding is the key to acceptance. (Yes, I just quoted Dumbledore...). I'm not saying I approve or anyone should approve of terrorist acts, just saying we should understand why this happens. Because, yes, there is a reason. As anyone who is prepared to look into it for more than 5 minutes should know. It's not just 'their culture commands them to massacre us'.

 

This is the serious topic discussion. Whereas there is more to it than just the following link, this should at least help you understand why terrorism happens. Again, I do not approve of terrorism, nor do I think anyone should. http://www.freearabvoice.org/articles/ConfessionsOfAHumanBombFromPalestine.htm

 

War will not win peace. We will not end the fighting by fighting.

 

And that was the positive response. As for your suggestion (the nuke) and

the 9/11 attacks killed more Americans than the attack on Pearl Harbor.

, I hope I can mention a few facts, without trying to euphemise 9/11 in any way.

 

Which do you think caused the most civilian casualties? The US occupation of Iraq, or all of the terroristic acts by arab/muslim extremists(most of which were a direct response to the presence of foreign armies in the own country) together? (A hint: the difference is quite big)

 

Which do you think causes more casualties? The traffic, or terrorist attacks, in Israel (which is probably the country that suffers the most casualties by terrorism per inhabitant)?

 

Which do you think is the more terroristic act? Destroying the twin towers (2977 civilian casualties, according to wikipedia), or the nuking of Hiroshima (90 000-166 000) and Nagasaki (60 000-80 000)? Keep in mind that according to the logic of the extremists, they too were in war with the US.

 

Please, if you want to nuke some people, because they do something that you disagree with, AT LEAST take the time to try to understand why they did it. Need I repeat once more that I DO NOT APPROVE OF TERRORISM, or any form of killing. But please don't pretend it's a one-sided argument, that the US or Europe never did anything wrong.

[Doom Shepherd]

Which do you think caused the most civilian casualties? The US occupation of Iraq, or all of the terroristic acts by arab/muslim extremists(most of which were a direct response to the presence of foreign armies in the own country) together? (A hint: the difference is quite big)

The right answer is: Saddam Hussein killed more Iraqis, through war and genocide and refusal to comply with sanctions, than anyone, terrorists or US occupation troops. 300,000 - 500,000 in the Iran/Iraq war, 50,000-100,00 Kurds, 60,000-100,000 Shiites, and the 100,000-200,000 infants who died while Iraq refused to comply with sanctions.

 

Which do you think causes more casualties? The traffic, or terrorist attacks, in Israel (which is probably the country that suffers the most casualties by terrorism per inhabitant)?

Falsest analogy since apples met oranges.

 

Which do you think is the more terroristic act? Destroying the twin towers (2977 civilian casualties, according to wikipedia), or the nuking of Hiroshima (90 000-166 000) and Nagasaki (60 000-80 000)? Keep in mind that according to the logic of the extremists, they too were in war with the US.

Since I actually know the definition of terrorism, the former.

[The Giant Napkin]

Since I actually know the definition of terrorism, the former.

 

Alright, you make a solid point, and that without outright telling me that I'm an arrogant prick (funny how soon after I wrote that it already annoys me when I read it again... I should keep that in mind next time I post, and I apologise). So perhaps I can learn from my mistakes, and join the debate instead of trying to start a forum war.

 

I can understand your first two points; though I still doubt the Iraq war was a good idea retrospectively, I won't deny Hussein was a tyrant. And the traffic to terrorism comparison was perhaps useful to show a numerical comparison, but I can't see how any conclusions were supposed to be drawn from it.

I hope you are willing, however, to clarify your last point for a stupid foreigner, because whereas the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not meant to instill terror, I found many definitions (in my dictionary and on the internet) to be 'the use of (threats of) violence (against civilians) for political or ideological purposes'.

 

I still think that terrorism is too easily condemned without trying to understand why it took place, or what western countries did that may not have been entirely ethical either. But I want to once again apologise for my previous post, which I find looking back at it now to be in bad taste. I would remove (most of) it, but I have seen people get angry about other people changing their previous posts in the middle of a discussion, so for now I won't.

[Ian]

In one day, 2,977 lives ceased to be. Forget where it happened or why. People died by incineration, jumping to their deaths, or being crushed by the collapse of the towers. On 9/11 every year, if you care enough, you should not remember it as a day the United States was attacked by al-Qaeda, but rather as a day where 2,977 innocent people died for reasons they had control over.

[Doom Shepherd]

Since I actually know the definition of terrorism, the former.

 

Alright, you make a solid point, and that without outright telling me that I'm an arrogant prick (funny how soon after I wrote that it already annoys me when I read it again... I should keep that in mind next time I post, and I apologise). So perhaps I can learn from my mistakes, and join the debate instead of trying to start a forum war.

 

It's okay. I AM an arrogant prick. So let that be a barometer for you: If I think you're being a jerk, you know you've gone too far.

 

I hope you are willing, however, to clarify your last point for a stupid foreigner, because whereas the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not meant to instill terror, I found many definitions (in my dictionary and on the internet) to be 'the use of (threats of) violence (against civilians) for political or ideological purposes'.

 

Okay, the line is properly drawn here: both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate targets: Among other things, 2 Japanese armies were located in Hiroshima, while Nagasaki was a major producer of munitions, ships, and other military equipment.

 

Civilians were not the primary target in the atomic bombings.

 

On the other hand, terrorists prefer to attack civilian targets of no military value.

 

So if you blow up a tank or a barracks full of soldiers, that does not make you a terrorist (the term is, however, often applied incorrently here.)

 

If, however, you avoid the tank and go blow up a busful of schoolchildren or a discotheque, (or a civilian airliner) THEN you are a terrorist.

[Michael Archer]

understanding is the key to acceptance.

 

It's true--however Islam is not a religion known for tolerance. Bush and Obama tried to convince them to understand us; too many Americans have died. There is no compromise between food and poison.

 

Since there are many cells and it is very hard to identify all terrorists, the first alternative would require a lot of people to die, including many civilians.

 

They started this war; any civilians caught in the crossfire will be their fault, not ours. We can't be expected to lay down in submission just because they hide behind civilians like cowards.

 

Which do you think caused the most civilian casualties? The US occupation of Iraq, or all of the terroristic acts by arab/muslim extremists(most of which were a direct response to the presence of foreign armies in the own country) together? (A hint: the difference is quite big)

 

Which do you think causes more casualties? The traffic, or terrorist attacks, in Israel (which is probably the country that suffers the most casualties by terrorism per inhabitant)?

 

Which do you think is the more terroristic act? Destroying the twin towers (2977 civilian casualties, according to wikipedia), or the nuking of Hiroshima (90 000-166 000) and Nagasaki (60 000-80 000)? Keep in mind that according to the logic of the extremists, they too were in war with the US.

 

You're guilty of massive context-dropping. Traffic is an accident; acts of war are made deliberately to destroy another country, like your example of Israel. You can't divorce the context and expect everything to remain the same.

 

Obviously, destroying the twin towers was the more terrorist act; the nuking Japan wasn't a terrorist act at all. America retaliated after they were attacked and completely destroyed the nihilistic culture of Japan; America was also showing the world what happens when someone initiates aggression on America.

 

The context is of crucial importance--which is why context-dropping is incredibly harmful. An act of retaliation is a moral requirement, terrorism is a moral evil--yet you equate the two.

[Kirkreng]

They started this war; any civilians caught in the crossfire will be their fault, not ours.

The civilians didn't start any war. Why should they suffer?

[Michael Archer]

Because the force-initiating terrorists hide behind them and the civilians put up with it. Remember what Thomas Jefferson said? "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. "

 

If civilians don't alter or abolish their government, then they have to pay the price if the government decides to initiate force; it's either our boys who pay that price, or their civilians. This should not be misconstrued as "WE WANT BLOOD" kind of thing--it's just a fact of nature. You have the right to establish a proper government, but if you don't, the government will screw you over. You also have the right to work and buy food: if you refuse to work and buy food, then you have to accept the consequences of not eating. If you don't secure your liberty and freedom, you pay the price of not doing so.

 

Also, what's the alternative? Do you suggest we put our boys in danger because the terrorists hide behind civilians? A proper moral war is a war of self-defense where the defending army obtains victory by the quickest way possible with the minimum deaths of their own boys. Civilians killed in a such an action is the fault of the force-initiating nation. If civilians die, it's because the terrorists willed it; not us. Why should we send our boys to get killed to protect their civilians when the entire war was their will?

[Husker]

I think the best approach should be to consider education to muslim countries on understanding western values and lifestyles. It seems that the problem isn't that we don't understand them but that they don't understand us. Make no mistake, I'm not saying that all muslims are not understanding or untolerant but I see no reason why this couldn't be preoperly enforced into a school system of accepting countries to quell any chance of terrorist formation in students. I understand that is subject to alot of variables and many muslim children can't afford schooling or parents may not accept the curriculum but it can't hurt to try.

Not to attack religion, but killing for your God in this age seems purely unintelligent and fanatical, especially when it's more of a misinterpretation or literal take on relgious readings, hence I think another approach would be for muslim religious leaders that are more modern in their approach to even be given higher levels of power so that proper messages are sent out. Although the ongoing fight against Israel is proof that people in general are idiots.

Russia also have a very brutal approach to terrorism, probably a good last resort.

 

Also I seem to be seeing alot of talk about nukes. I don't think they should exist at all but I do understand the bombing on Japan was an act of necessity. I just think people should understand that the actions of a few extremists in no way represent a people. I for example am from Australia, one of America's largest supporters, and we had a civilian join Al-Qaeda. Nuke us too while you're at it.

[The Giant Napkin]

Because the force-initiating terrorists hide behind them and the civilians put up with it.

 

And that is EXACTLY why I think we should try to understand terrorism and not start wars. This is not a 'war' you can win, because of the way it is fought (remember Vietnam?). It will only lead to civilian casualties and an increasingly bad relationship between East and West.

 

Your rightification for civilian casualties is remarkable, especially since it is the exact rightification terrorists use for 9/11 and other terroristic attacks. The US (but also other western countries) have invaded their countries, have been militarily active on their territory, have influences that could be considered colonial. 9/11 was their way of fighting a war they were losing. They believe that it is not possible to solve the conflict through diplomacy or classic warfare: therefore, they have decided to wage a 'war of attrition' by attacking the US' economy (the war in Iraq is an excellent example) and terrorism. Your comments on this forum seem to me typical of the western response: we should either fight a war against them (which, as I have said before, will lead to a lot of unnecessary deaths and probably not to a real victory), or, as I have seen other people mention, we should try to educate them on the West (which I don't think is a bad idea - it's just a very one-sided idea for a two-sided conflict, and therefore seems slightly naive or arrogant).

 

And don't even get me started on why Islam would be a 'bad' religion...

[Husker]

Because the force-initiating terrorists hide behind them and the civilians put up with it.

 

And that is EXACTLY why I think we should try to understand terrorism and not start wars. This is not a 'war' you can win, because of the way it is fought (remember Vietnam?). It will only lead to civilian casualties and an increasingly bad relationship between East and West.

 

Your rightification for civilian casualties is remarkable, especially since it is the exact rightification terrorists use for 9/11 and other terroristic attacks. The US (but also other western countries) have invaded their countries, have been militarily active on their territory, have influences that could be considered colonial. 9/11 was their way of fighting a war they were losing. They believe that it is not possible to solve the conflict through diplomacy or classic warfare: therefore, they have decided to wage a 'war of attrition' by attacking the US' economy (the war in Iraq is an excellent example) and terrorism. Your comments on this forum seem to me typical of the western response: we should either fight a war against them (which, as I have said before, will lead to a lot of unnecessary deaths and probably not to a real victory), or, as I have seen other people mention, we should try to educate them on the West (which I don't think is a bad idea - it's just a very one-sided idea for a two-sided conflict, and therefore seems slightly naive or arrogant).

 

And don't even get me started on why Islam would be a 'bad' religion...

I've got to agree with most that you wrote there. I didn't mean to come off as naive or arrogant though. I understand many of the issues associated with the education approach including even enhancing a negative attitude toward the west and I'm sure the odds of success are slim at best. I'm just saying, it's worth a shot.

Also, I don't agree that Islam is a bad religion but I won't get you started, hopefully.

[Doom Shepherd]

The US (but also other western countries) have invaded their countries,

 

In the US's case, all of those invasions occurred POST 9-11, with the exception of the invasion of Kuwait, which was to EXPEL an invading country.

 

OBL's stated beef was that we were staying in Saudi Arabia, where we'd been invited. If this beef had been legitimate, then his proper target was the Saudi government.

 

have been militarily active on their territory,

 

I feel compelled to point out that as an illegitimate agency, AQ has no territory for anyone to be active on. They have no more legitimacy than would a bunch of drunken rednecks who decided that "the South Must Rise Again!" and started hanging black people to prove it.

 

have influences that could be considered colonial.

Honestly, that reminds me of that scene in Monty Python's "The Life of Brian." You know, the one where the People's Front of Judea is complaining about the Romans.

 

"All right... all right... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us?"

"Brought peace!"

"Oh... (scornfully) Peace! shut up!"

 

The terrorist vermin speak for almost nobody. Their greatest strength until recently has been that the rest of their community has been afraid, or otherwise unwilling, to confront them. Fortunately, their abject failures, both militarily and socially (because it SUCKS to live under their kinds of rules) have largely dispelled their "defenders of the oppresed" bull**** image, and their overall popularity has plummeted to the point that only the truly fanatical, vicious, and/or stupid remain on their side.

[Michael Archer]

And that is EXACTLY why I think we should try to understand terrorism and not start wars.

 

That policy of appeasement hasn't worked.

 

"Understand terrorism"? What's to understand? They attacked the United States, murdered thousands of innocent people. Justice needs to be served.

 

I don't think we should start wars; I think we should retaliate against an act of war that was already committed.

 

Your rightification for civilian casualties is remarkable, especially since it is the exact rightification terrorists use for 9/11 and other terroristic attacks.

 

I don't know what that means, but it certainly sounds like you're using the Guilt by Association fallacy which almost always involves context-dropping.

 

The US (but also other western countries) have invaded their countries, have been militarily active on their territory, have influences that could be considered colonial.

 

A dictatorship has no right to exist; if it did, it would imply that it has the "right" to initiate force on people. A semi-free country, like the United States, is always just in invading a dictatorship.

 

They believe that it is not possible to solve the conflict through diplomacy or classic warfare: therefore, they have decided to wage a 'war of attrition' by attacking the US' economy (the war in Iraq is an excellent example) and terrorism.

 

Blaming the victim now, I see? By this logic, America SOMEHOW did SOMETHING that pissed the terrorists off similar to how a rape victim SOMEHOW did SOMETHING to get raped.

 

This fallacy won't get you far with many people, especially feminists.

 

Your comments on this forum seem to me typical of the western response: we should either fight a war against them (which, as I have said before, will lead to a lot of unnecessary deaths and probably not to a real victory), or, as I have seen other people mention, we should try to educate them on the West (which I don't think is a bad idea - it's just a very one-sided idea for a two-sided conflict, and therefore seems slightly naive or arrogant).

 

It's typical because I'm a Westerner. An act of war was committed against my country and a proper retaliation was taken resulting in more American deaths.

 

Unnecessary deaths is what happened in 9/11. If America retaliated, it would be for justice; any unnecessary deaths would be the fault of the terrorists, not America. America is simply defending herself. If there culture worships destruction and whims, they will see what that inevitably leads to. Why is it that when America bombed Afghanistan, they were given all the blame? Why don't the terrorists share at least SOME of the blame?

 

A victory, war-speaking, is when you destroy the enemies ability to wage war and crush their moral to prevent them from waging war in the future. Why would that not be possible? Simply wipe terrorism off the face of the planet with a few bombs and destroy their culture (possibly a bomb on Mecca or Mohammad's burial grounds) so that terrorists are scorned in their countries as opposed to celebrated as they are today.

 

I'm not a military strategist, but it seems like a good start.

[Michael Archer]

Saturday ponies is probably the only thing that's going to keep me sane through school.

[Husker]

Bombing Mecca is also a good way to piss off EVERY Muslim. That would only escalate the conflict

[The Giant Napkin]

Quoting and responding to all 3 of you would result in a large wall of text, I'll do this twitter style:

 

@Husker: When I wrote that, I knew there was a risk I was offending you: this was never my intention, but simply a consequence of my bad english, just as I DO think education is the way to go, both in Eastern and western countries. Lastly, I personally don't think Islam is a 'bad' religion, I was talking about the fact that so many are prejudiced against it nowadays, though they often don't know anything about it.

 

@Doom Shepherd: You are a good debater, and you get a +rep for quoting Monty Python. I was not trying to implicate that terrorists are representative for those countries or should be seen as such; I was just trying to explain why they act the way they do. Terrorist organisations such as AQ take issue with the power and economic influences of western countries in the countries that they live in. If you say our 'almost colonial influences' have been only for their good, I disagree. It's shameful how much of the oil and money that is or could be made there is in Western hands: even in Libya, in the middle of a war, western countries are lobbying for oil contracts. I think our countries could do more to help countries in the Middle-East to be less dependent on them, but economical and political power is still an important factor in western politics concerning this.

 

@Michael Archer: I am dissapointed that you so easily dismiss the suggestion of a peaceful, two-sided solution to the conflict, and you are quick to condemn all of the people there. I would be interested to hear some of your arguments for this, because I hope you have some: you shouldn't suggest to kill so many people so easily. I also hope you are willing to try to understand terrorism, because they actually do have reasons for this, just as I hope you have your reasons for wanting to bomb thousands of civilians. I still find it hard to see the difference, so I'll do my best to understand that as well.

Lastly, my remark was not 'guilt by association', and the fact that you didn't grasp my meaning is probably due to the fact that you have put so remarkably little effort into understanding terrorism and the culture in the Middle-East (which, once again, I think are not as related and in the same way as you suggest). Then again, it may also be due to my poor english, so I'll try to clarify a bit: Western countries have not always been very nice to the Middle-East, and because terrorists wanted to fight back, but knew that they couldn't win an ordinary war, they rightified (that doesn't sound as if it's a real word...) their killing civilians (which the Quran prohibits) by saying that American civilians had the power to stop the actions of their government, but didn't, and were therefore also responsible.

[Husker]

@Husker: When I wrote that, I knew there was a risk I was offending you: this was never my intention, but simply a consequence of my bad english, just as I DO think education is the way to go, both in Eastern and western countries. Lastly, I personally don't think Islam is a 'bad' religion, I was talking about the fact that so many are prejudiced against it nowadays, though they often don't know anything about it.

There was no offense taken. Obviously I misunderstood you in both circumstances although I think that your English is actually very strong