The West is the world's biggest terrorist, especially the USA. Capitalism is terrorism.

There are always doctors who will contribute to evil. Mengele in the Nazi camps, US doctors in Guantanamo and other US prisons assisting in torture, etc. Doctors are capable of evil too. US doctors assisting in torture are terrorists.

"Their attacks were not the result of some innate sickness in Islam, misreading the Koran, brainwashing, or hatred of Western shopping habits."

The MSM and this misadministration like to express these sentiments with the trusted..."THEY hate us for our freedom" mantra. This is completely absurd but the masses still cluelessly cling to it as if these so called terrorists only want to diminish our American freedoms.

The anticipated upcoming terror events will no doubt be triggered by the escalating violence brought forth in Afghanistan and Iraq by American coalition forces. That is if the neo-cons don't stage the next catastrophic event themselves. It seems very clear to me that if given the same circumstances now facing these Muslims, us Americans would react as well. This must be equally clear to the mass murderers on Capital Hill.

However, since their motivation is profit, this must be viewed by the cheerleader from Yale and his accomplices as self perpetuating cash flow. The perfect business plan.

America has been nurturing it's enemy base for decades by removing feedback from the economy on a global scale. Overthrowing democratically elected governments who won't "trade" by the elitist rules, and making it nearly impossible for workers or small business owners to make a living wage in their countries of origin.

Couple that with the fact that in this world, the poor man has no recourse, no venue to voice his concerns or make his voice heard, much less his problem addressed and you have contempt for government activity and interference on a dangerous scale. That America always seems to be involved when people worldwide are being oppressed and exploited is no mere coincidence. Some people sense that their only course of action, to get any attention or resolution to the larger problem, is violence. Since America is by definition, if not in reality, a democratic nation, we the people are held accountable.

But instead of identifying with the root causes of such rebellion, our government chooses to exasperate the problem, by murdering, occupying, terrorizing and further provoking more violence from those who seek an equitable, liveable situation. Then they claim to be protecting us from the same violence they created in the first place.

So President GW Hitler has it right when he says they hate us, but it's not for our freedom. What they hate is what this despot is doing in our names, and that we do nothing to stop him.

Until we do, expect the current brand of criminals in DC to disregard the safety of Americans and the world, as long as it makes them a profit.

Margolis wrote: "Muslim leaders must keep telling their people that attacks against civilians are immoral and self-defeating."

Re-write that sentence by changing only one word, et voila:

Western leaders must keep telling their people that attacks against civilians are immoral and self-defeating.

Too bad Westerners (including America, Canada, Australia, Europe, Israel) don't practice that which we are so fond of preaching to others!

----

Margolis makes some good points, though I also notice that he still buys the official 9/11 conspiracy theory. whateverr....

Delinking Islam and terrorism in the article is praise- worthy. However, the author characterises the Muslims involved in the violent acts against civilians as "criminals" but failed to use the same to the Americans and the NATO who are involved in the same violent acts against innocent civilians. Rather the author advises the West to change its policies in the ME since they are generating anti-West/US feelings and actions and also to the Muslim leaders to teach their flock that "attacks against civilians are immoral and self-defeating". But how do you perceive the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Somalia, and Lebanon? Aren't they criminal acts carried by Americans and the Europeans in the sovereign countries? What should the citizens of these countries teach their leaders, who are unleashing "terrorist acts" against and are the cause of the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians? This article appears to follow the same view as of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan, which Hamid Karzai, the Afghanistan president, had to strongly condemn with the statement: "Afghan life is not cheap and it should not be treated as such." So irrespective of nationality, race, and religion, those (including the leaders of the nations) who kill, or are cause to the killing of innocent people are CRIMINALS and TERRORISTS. Let us be fair in our characterisation.

Margolis' reasoning does not explain 9/11 nor many events before that. In addition, as is typical of many western pundits, it is totally self-absorbed in ignoring linked acts of terrorism occurring around the world. Many of the target countries have no troops in Iraq or Afghanistan.

In most conflicts where terror is used, the aims of the terrorists are crystal clear. The fact that we and Margolis have to guess in this case is extremely ominous and we are obligated to assume the worst.

Whether the religion of Islam is at the root is not too important. If it is, Islam will have to reform as have other religions. As many Muslims do not subscribe in any way to these heinous acts, we have to face that we are dealing with a cult that seeks to hijack the entire religion.

Underestimating the issue of suicide killing, along with his previously demonstrated ideological biases is what leads Margolis to the infantile reasoning he uses here.

One thing to remember when discussing the role of 'doctors'. Western medical doctors and psychiatrists are both involved in assisting with torture. Medical doctors help the torturers know what a victim can still tolerate, and psychiatrists are deeply involved in designing the torture of a victim.

Westerners should remember this when talking about these muslim doctors who participate in terror attacks.

Personally, I wish all doctors would hold all life as sacred and keep to the ancient oath of 'first, do no harm.' To me, the problem is the same in both cases. Both these muslim doctors involved in terror and the western doctors involved in torture let their political and religious ideologies override what should be their care and concern for the people they are helping to hurt.

When we look at each other as human beings, its very hard to do harm to another human being. When we see someone as another father who cares for his children, or another brother or sister trying to make their way in the world just like us, then its hard to do harm to them. So the goal of the people who want us to hate each other is to get us to stop thinking of each other as human beings. That's when you see lots of rhetoric that tries very hard to get us to that point. Because the leaders on all side who want the hatred all know that they must get people to that point before they can set off a bomb in a city (whether the bomb is in a car or a missile), or before they can get people to torture other people.

The first step towards any of that is to get us to stop thinking of each other as fellow human beings. We should all be very suspicious and opposed to any leader espousing any rhetoric that leads us down that path. Because down that path is only war, and death and destruction and torture and misery. As long as we keep seeing each other as fellow human beings with the same loves and desires and goals, then we can't be led down that path.

It seems to me that those who are attacking are only protecting themselves. If I were an Iraqi, Palestianian, etc. I would certainly be trying to my hold against the attacks that were made against me and mine. Why is it okay for the US/UK/Israel to attack but not okay to be attacked?

dlnelson7

The US, UK & allies went into Afghanistan and Iraq to free them from despotic leadership. The people killing Iraqis and Afghanis are other Muslims and your characterization of events is incorrect. (Same with the Palestinians if you follow the chains of events - hard to do just reading the MSM but possible with several sources.)

What needs an explanation because it impacts your point, is why Muslims may be killed in Darfur (& elsewhere) by Muslims and no other Muslims nor leftists in the west care. I also note that Christians are being persecuted in many places, notably Gaza, and no-one complains. Christians are not lining up to take revenge and the media barely reports it unless you go looking.

Brad, is it really your view that Western powers invaded Iraq to free the people? This surely wasn't the opinion of the Project for a New American Century: "While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

Australian Defense Minister Brendan Nelson said it even better: "Obviously the Middle East itself, not only Iraq ...is an important supplier of energy, oil in particular, to the rest of the world... Australians ... need to think what would happen if there were a premature withdrawal from Iraq."

At this point in history, Muslims are facing more persecution than any other religious group: Western powers are backing "democratic" puppet regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan; China is ruthlessly suppressing Uighur Muslims (and also, as you quite rightly say, hindering a resolution to the Darfur conflict); Russia has brought ruin to Chechen Muslims; the security services of Thailand have viciously repressed a Muslim separatist movement; and most obviously, Western powers try to thwart democracy by undermining election results in Algeria, Palestine, etc. and by aggressively propping up brutal dictators like Mubarak, Musharraf, and most recently Khaddafi. Even in their own countries, Muslims are held in bondage by foreign money and weapons.

Also, the Lancet survey of 2006, which estimated 665,000 excess deaths in the wake of the US invasion, noted that 30 per cent of those excess deaths were caused by Americans. Therefore it is inaccurate to say that all the killers in Iraq are "other Muslims."

peterw: Any higher level motives behind the Iraq War are speculation. The fact is that world interest in the Middle East is because of oil and this applies to everyone except Israel. Since 9/11, there is a new interest related to the possibility of autocratic countries and even terror groups acquiring WMD. What I said was in response to dlnelson7's implication that the US & UK are slaughtering Muslims. The Afghan and Iraqi insurgencies are designed to prevent democracy.

I accept your point about Muslim dictators but we already know about the Taliban as rulers of a country. It seems you're prepared any dictatorship as long as the US is uninvolved.

On the repression faced by Muslims, you didn't mention the UK which of course does not suppress them. The subject of Margolis' article was of course, the attacks on the UK and I still say his arguments are bogus.

They will take my freedom when they haul my cold stiff a__ away. Until then I am and I will remain free. And I will exercise my freedoms at all times and I sure hope that drives more than one in our mini roman capital insane.

No one is beaten until they give up. And that is why we have lost in Iraq and have bot a single prayer of winning. The media hypes the few who try to attack the wrong targets to avoid looking at the true patriots who are trying to defend their country.

I think it is time for all of our military personnel to head home on their own. What would anyone be able to do about it? That would put a crimp in future wars in a hurry.

"those who stage horrific bombings against Israelis, Europeans, Americans and fellow Muslim civilians are criminals"

Against israelis ?? And what about the horrific bombing israel uses against the Palestinians ? Far more Palestinians die every year as a result of these horrific bombings and missile attacks from helicopter gunships. Terrorism needs to be redefined to include 'state sponsored violence' in its fold.

For how many years did GB endure the campaign of terror carried out by the IRA until the situation was finally defused? An Irish brogue was not instant cause for suspicion of terrorist intent, and videocams on every corner were not deemed necessary.

Clearly, IRA terror was "blowback". It was dealt with as a political problem with political solutions.

In the US there is no official acknowledgement that Islamic terror could be explained as blowback. Not only did 911 inspire an attack on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, but there was never even a suggestion of a political solution and a resolution through diplomatic means.

911 was casus belli for a "long war" against an implacable enemy whose motive was hatred of freedom and our way of life. GHW Bush proclaimed Saddam Hussein as a clear and present danger to Our Way Of Life in '91, and Bushboy determined he would go his father one better and eradicate the hateful vermin and defend precious OWOL by pacifying an entire region, thus guaranteeing the continued supply of oil and the security of Israel.

Unlike the new regime in the UK under Gordon Brown, the Bush administration cannot embrace a blowblack explanation because it would introduce moral ambiguity, an acknowledgement that Islamic terror has a rational explanation as a response to bad policy by the US/Israel. One who is on a mission from God must be absolutely right and the enemy absolutely wrong. Good vs. Evil. Clash of Civilizations. Etc.

This has played well enough to the American people. The Congress felt sufficiently intimidated that it never challenged the official line and colluded with the Bush Admn in its attack on the Constitution, a sacrifice of freedom to preserve freedom, a war time necessity. Even as the public pressure grows to withdraw from this apocalyptic clash of civilizations, there is still no talk of the blowback theory and a political solution. The Baker/Hamilton proposal had the appearence of a political initiative, but it involved no admission that Islamic terror was a response to US/Israeli oppression that might be eliminated to reduce the terrorist threat.

These colors don't run. There can be no compromise with Evil. The US will not back down from the "war on terror" and when the next incident occurs, Bush will not respond in the rational way of a Gordon Brown. A "liberal" view of terrorism, that is, a blowback theory, is not current here.

To say: "Blaming every violent incident on the shadowy al-Qaida is a handy excuse for avoiding reality and responsibility." as Margolis does falls on deaf ears.

That is why the situation in the US is highly precarious. There is no understanding of terrorism here. The "blowback" explanation offered by Chalmers Johnson has not penetrated into official discourse.

And, what is worse, this blowback theory is not the whole story in relation to 911. A discussion of terrorism has not taken place since 2001. There has been sound and fury and strutting on the stage, but no thinking has taken place. We will therefore be unable to respond to the next incident in a reasoned way.

The public cannot defend against terrorism if it is not understood in two ways.

1. As blowback.
2. As political manipulation.

The US is still vulnerable to the kind of political manipulation that was the result of 911 because 911 has never been well and truly examined.

The situation is extremely precarious.

Yeah speedster ... and we MUST start telling our leaders to STOP committing murder in our names. Its immoral.

I think this is how civilization will die. We'll just keep firebombing each other.

I'm surprised it doesn't happen more with so many angry, desperate, and fearful people out there. And of course, the US, the UK, and Israel just keep shaking that beehive.

I think they want more terror. It gives them a boogeyman, a reason to perpetuate the "War On Terror/Freedom". So thusly they keep feeding the root of the problem. They'd like to ride this out for as long as they can. There's too much money to be made and too many people to frighten into voting them in power.

Then, like with the Cold War, some Ron Reagan heir will step and "smite" the foe, declaring the war won and himself the Great Machine.

I for one feel less safe with Bush in power. After all, he let 9/11 slip through his paws. Who knows what else he'll allow to occur?

Didn't read all the posts, but thought Margolis missed it in two places. First, like many here said, our acts are every bit as criminal as the "terrorists." Don't know if anybody actually pointed out that they are responding in kind, albeit on a shoestring (compared to daddy warbucks) budget , most bang for the buck kind of thing. You have to respect their effectiveness. Now just keep it to a small roar, all you conspiracy buffs.

But Eric didn't go far enough in explaining the why. One of the regular writers on CD several months ago(don't remember who)laid it out pretty neatly. Since oil was discovered there that region of the world has suffered the interference of the West, through a succession of nations: the Dutch, French, Germans, British, the Russians (well, they wanna be western) and Americans. It is much easier to control by proxy through a bunch of corrupted stooges (the Saudi Royal family, the Shah of Iran, just to name a few) than to deal with atonomous free nations.

So while the West got fat on cheap Persian Gulf oil, most except for a corrupt cadre of collaborators watched the world go by wearing poverty and neglect. Most dissent and unrest was and is met with brutal repression. Little remains to cling to, and their great wealth is their everlasting curse. It's only natural that the one thing they all have in common, their faith, has come to represent so much both to them and us in this conflict. It does not mean the same thing to both of us.

And it is a chimera, this vision of an ideological clash. It is purely an economic matter. The west interferes because we can, and now because America feels it must. For our economic survival. The affected lash out with violence because violence is what they have been treated with. What did the powerful leaders of the great westen nations ever do but arm them all to the teeth to be proxy cannon-fodder in our great western struggle.

We overthrew democratically elected Mosadegh in Iran to install a murderous despot. So they ran him out of town and us too and now they're crazed fanatics. The U.S. cultivated Bin Laden to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. Why do you think he understands us so well? And after we drove that nail in the coffin of the U.S.S.R. we abandoned those that fought our war. Part of the window of opportunity percieved by the Neocons in the collapse of the Soviet Union was the instability this caused her proxies and allies. Compare the American friend and foe lists there and I think you'll find the foes are all driving Russian equipment.

There will be peace there after every last drop of oil is pumped from the ground. The peace of the graveyard. We will have no peace. The bitter hatred we've engendered will slash at us and pierce us beyond our grandchildren's lives.

But we could stop. Admit to ourselves and the world that we can't continue to conduct trade negotiations through the barrel of a gun. Admit that our sickness for oil has caused us to abandon our humanity and our future, because by the time we make the entire region a mass grave, the oil will be dissipated.

I agree with the general theme: our elected leaders have prosecuted a War on Islam on our behalf; the responsibility is ours, and so is the backlash. And now "pants on fire" Blair is a peace emissary to the Middle East! We almost deserve to be bombed into oblivion for allowing it. :-( We must stop *all* of these lunatic murderers, and the terrorist bombers too. We have our votes; that's all we need to do the job.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

"Nothing ever excuses killing civilians. Those who stage horrific bombings against Israelis, Europeans, Americans and fellow Muslim civilians are criminals. Nothing excuses their behaviour."

They say history is written by the victors. How true about this article. I'm not against the use of the word "criminal" and other definitions describing hateful actions. Neither am I against the author's repeated use of the word criminal describing the action of the two would-be killers. But the author is a hypocrite. Never did he use the same word to describe the actions of the original "criminals" whose repeated crimes have given rise to retaliation. The real criminals, unlike the doctors who only attempted to fire bomb, have in the past, and are currently, killing innocent civilians by large numbers in Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan. The real criminals and terrorists such as Israel, European countries, and America need to be mentioned and exposed. The author describes a car laden with gasoline a horrific bombing. This hypocrite should be sent to Iraq, Palestine, and Afghanistan to see and experience first hand what a horrific bombing is.

I think understanding terrorism is a challenge that Yanks and Brits have avoided. On purpose. After all, is it not universally understood that mightiness makes rightiness ?

The inhabitants are waiting for the good guys to rise to the top. Tis true...Votes will get them there.

Cruxpuppy: Great point about the perils of moral ambiguity to a nation drunk on the sports nexus and the belief in winners and losers, discernible teams, and our supposed superiority (as a nation).
Vince Lawrence: Excellent points on the relationship between propping up convenient Middle East puppets and the mechanisms of inevitable blowback (also known as karma).

Years ago when I taught HS English, there was a story in our literature textbook about a brave young man who decided to break his tribe's taboo by venturing into a zone just beyond where the tribe lived that had been off-limits for generations. The implication is that this young man lives in our future because the place he finds in ruins is Washington, D.C. It was held to be off-limits because of its radioactive contamination. Fiction is often prophetic, although in this case, I hope this proves NOT the case. Evelyn Smith has gone to great lengths to apprise us of the remnants of DUI and how like fine dust, it is spreading. The US has needed a way to 'recycle' its nuclear waste from all those "green" nuclear power plants, and utilized some of this Pandora's Box contents In weaponry. IF it's spreading to the point we'll all harbor tiny particles in our lungs, and pass this on to future generations, we may be looking at a scenario like the one mentioned in the fiction just relayed. Another sci-fi theme might focus on the preponderance of deformities that future generations may be born with, live out their with, as radiation has a direct association with genetic flaws. We think we can see the trajectory of the costs of this war, but on biological planes we ain't seen nothing yet.
I have made it my life work to study mysticism and read MANY books on the afterlife. My favorite, sometimes available through private booksellers, is THE WHEEL OF REBIRTH by H.L. Chaloner. I love this book because it was written by a very educated Brit, and represents the continuum of the lives this individual lived starting in pre-Egyptian times when he had high authority and abused it. This led to others' suffering. I bring this up because the individual carried health issues into the present, that represented the working out of "that which was done unto others." Human beings have become (over the centuries) more and more ensconced in materiality, trusting in the limited worldview our senses can reflect. Even science is essentially an extension of those same senses and their rationales. We thus presume that justice will happen in one mortal lifespan. There is no way to prove or disprove karma, God, religious theses of those aspects of life that science has not the means to measure. It's like gravity, however, for belief is not required to experience effects! Justice IS... but it takes time...

And let's not forget that the 9/11 attack was almost certainly linked to the American knee-jerk support for Israeli policies, whether right or wrong. Israel keeps quiet on the American mess in Iraq, but we're there because the neo-cons thought we could gain control over a big oil supply, create another American base for influence - - and simultaneously remove a danger to our ally, Israel.

Why believe that this latest "terrorist" plot is real? I know I don't.

A while back Sandy Berger was caught stuffing secret documents down his pants. The secret documents were about the 12/31/1999 foiled terrorist attacks planned against the US, France and Jordan. Four of them were supposed to happen in the US while we were all celebrating the millinneum.

That is what happens to real discovered terrorist plots: They become secret and we hear almost nothing about them. I don't believe any of the "prime time" terrorist plots. If they were true, they would become secret.

The anthrax attacks were real and are still unsolved. Maybe that Richard Reed shoe bomb attack was real (he was outed by another passenger and not Homeland security). I think he would have probably only got a hot foot for all his troubles.

We cannot possibly understand the thinking behind these so called terrorists if they never did what they are accused of doing. We need to understand the thinking behind the folks who are trying to deceive us with these stories. It is very likely that setting up a bogus terrorist threat involving UK doctors was really about trying to discredit Sicko. Fox ran the crawler, "Universal health coverage a terroristic threat" or something just like that but in other words.

COMarc -

I must correct your info a bit -

You say: 'One thing to remember when discussing the role of 'doctors'. Western medical doctors and psychiatrists are both involved in assisting with torture. Medical doctors help the torturers know what a victim can still tolerate, and psychiatrists are deeply involved in designing the torture of a victim.'

A slight mistake here - years ago, the American Psychiatric Association stated strongly to its members that assisting in any way with designing or carrying out coercive methods of interrogation was not consistent with the practice of psychiatry. The American Psychological Association, on the other hand, did not state this position until very recently - just a few months ago. There's a difference. As for the American Medical Association, I don't know where they officially stand, but I'd bet they have some such standards too.

An individual practitioner can do as he or she likes, of course, but they risk being thrown out of the club - not good.

Sorry about the nit-picking, but blame should go where it belongs -