Absolutely nothing.

Well, the original poster explained that his concern for searching for it himself was that he would get tagged by the US government.

I offered a method by which he could search for this information more securely early on and consider my job done. (Use of the TOR network, incidentally). But his post also spawned an interesting debate about the rights or wrongs of government surveillance and power, which because it concerns us all, we have run with. I'm responsible for broadening it into roughly the causes of terrorism because the Freedom vs. Security option looks to me like two people with a burned out lightbulb debating different methods of avoiding the furniture. Hello? Change the lightbulb!

I guess because we all have something in common (SR) and we form a community of sorts, it's interesting to see what our peers think of various matters.

I took that as black humour. If by some remote chance you mean it then let me know and I will give my opinion on the usefulness of being able to kill everyone on the planet six times over. Seeing as we can only die once and all...

Incidentally, has it been considered that the USSR helped keep the USA in check?

Now I've said quite a lot in this thread and feel that I have made my point clearly. Much of what has been raised has been addressed. I'd like to comment two things, though:

This philosophy is exactly that of the Islamic radical that wants to have a war with the "West". The vast majority of Islam does not want a war. The vast majority of Islam wants to carry on living normally and peacefully. But it appears that there is 'someone wanting to destroy them.' And with each new threat from the US and the UK, the peaceful are forced a little more towards a "with us or against us" attitude which you describe as the proper response. And the rooting out of supporters which you also describe as proper, equates to the condeming of US and UK "apologists" that try to seek diplomatic solutions with the US. Presumably, you do not see this as a good thing, so how can this radicalisation be proper for one party but not the other? The best response in the muslim community is to attempt to remain peaceful and to remember that the "enemy" is not really all that different to themselves. And I believe the best response in the US and the UK populace is the same.

The second thing I want to respond to is Nikoli's post:

I appreciate your comments about Jerusalem. I've never been there. Although it has great historical significance, I personally don't regard any place as more holy than any other. Any connection to God that we have is something we carry with us whereever we go. But I do recognise that it is a symbol for many people and it is good to remember that it was once a peaceful place, too holy to be the scene of fighting. The film Kingdom of Heaven whilst being pretty daft, does have a good depiction of this at the beginning. I particularly like the newly arrived Christian knight's confusion when confronted with a bustling multi-faith city having expected some great war.

However, although so far as I know you might be historically accurate on the Hassassin, I don't think you can attribute all modern islamic extremism to them as you have done. I can't imagine that extremism would not have occured to anyone without this historical organisation. And I can't imagine knowledge of this organisation would have brought about extremism independent of the modern-day circumstances we find it in. You may well be right that many modern groups are aware of it or refer to it ( I don't move in those circles, thankfully), but I don't think it can really be considered a cause, maybe just a part of the pattern.

You're entirely right that the US and the UK have a hot potato with Saddam Hussein. Can't shoot him, can't prove him guilty, can't find him innocent. It's been a complete disaster so far. We all see pictures of him harranging the judges and denouncing the occupation (or maybe in the US you don't? ). Given what a truly nasty piece of work the man is, it's amazing what a bang-up job the Americans are doing of portraying him as a hero. The only thing they could do worse would be to have a live debate between him and Bush on network. Now that would be fun.

Ah, but they were just looking for some decent cooking. Hadn't discovered curries back in the 1400's.

I replied to this once allready, but I've been thinking about it and it just annoys me more and more. But I will also hold off on my outrage until Smokeskin has had time to say if it is indeed an attempt at humour.

1,000 years and counting.

Now we're getting food criticism from the country that invented "American Cheese".

This really is too much.

EDIT: By the way, isn't it nice how in the same thread we can discuss English cooking and the deaths of thousands, seamlessly. I have no idea if that says something positive or negative about us.

EDIT EDIT: I am in no way drawing a connection between English cooking and the deaths of thousands, either. Before SL James leaps in.

Welcome to DS.

All is possible here

Given the average US opinion of our cooking, I would say the connection is not hard to see.

Considering just how little I enjoy American fast-food though... (with the exception of Taco-Bell, though that may just be for the novelty)

Oh well, if we're allowed to use average worldwide opinion as a barometer of validity, then that brings us full circle back to US foreign policy.

Truly all things are connected.

One day, Michael Bay will direct a movie about Drop Bears, and then my Hell will be complete.

Whatever gave you that idea?

Which is why we should all watch Rambo 3 again, where they're trying to portray Al Quaida as the good guys since at that time they're messing with the soviets. Cine-owned!


Incidental middle east related thought:

Why is it that whenever there's collateral damage and a Western power is involved everyone goes and blames the Western power? In a lot of cases it's the local guerillas who brought the firepower down on the civilians in the first place by hiding among the civilians, so shouldn't it be their fault?

For example, if a firefight broke out on the street while I was walking there and one of the combatants grabbed me and used me for cover while firing across the street, wouldn't it be his fault if I'm hit moreso than the fault of the guy who tried really hard to shoot past my head? The guy trying to shoot past me is forced to fire in self defense if the hostage taker opens fire on him, so if I were in that situation I'd place my blame squarely on the man who grabbed me and used me as a human shield.

Likewise, if Hezbollah is hiding among the Lebanese civilians why do those civilians then flip out and blame Israel when they get 'sploded? Isn't it obvious that the only reason they're getting 'sploded at that time because someone's choosing to use them as human shields to fire from behind?

Because you can sue them.

Way to fart fallacy. "Falling out of a building while on fire sucks, therefore we shouldn't actually worry about the government abusing its power or doing things which are very much against the spirit of the constitution."

Because when you fire the shot, you're responsible for where it hits. Regardless, responsibility is not a dichotomy, and to simply blame Hezbollah or the Israelis fails to critically analyze what is happening over there.

Maybe. Maybe we'll make a handful of Trilogies. Drop Bears offer stories for more than one

But first we have to wait and look how our Musical makes.

Could it be because the western power is the attacker in all of the cases you refer too?

Sure, most of these guerillas use very ugly terrorist methods and it's hard to justify their methods, but even if they didn't—even if they were the good old kind of guerilla, who only uses hit and run tactics to take out enemy soldiers—they would still hide among civilians. Saying they are responsible for civilian deaths, unless it is a situation were they very specificly put them up as shields and prevent them from leaving after being warned (and yes I know it happens), is sort of like saying they are at fault for trying to stay alive.

Maybe we can get the Drop Bear trillogy funded by the same people who fun Uwe Boll's films.

He should have gotten a doctorate in film.

He's saving Cracker Jack UPC's to send in for that one next

In some cases it is. NPR had some interviews yesterday and the day before with some people from a village in Southern Lebanon. They described being forced to stay in their homes and hezbollah militiamen putting rockets with timers in civilian neighborhoods then running away. There was almost a riot this weekend because some people wanted to put up posters of Nasrallah and the people that live in the village told them they couldn't.

So what you're saying is that either a) Israel is a Western power or b) Israel is the U.S.?

Wow. Just wow. If you hide amongst civilians you are using them as shields. That means you are at fault. Sugar coating it with "he wanted to stay alive" doesn't change the fact that you actions cause deaths.

I disagree. Perhaps you're not legally responsible, but that doesn't mean a lot in the grand scheme of things. Obviously I can't convince you, but that's cool.

You wouldn't win that argument with me. But I think you already knew that.

I don't need to hear your opinion on the usefulness of being able kill everyone six times over. It happened, they actually built all those nukes, whether you think it was ridicolous or not.

You're also apparently not aware of what happened in the Soviet. On one front, the cold war was about classic power, who controlled what countries, who had more guns etc. But what most westerners forget is that the Soviets had politics and ideology too. It is for some reason so popular to view the rest of the world as something that just reacts to the west, and that is of course wrong. The Soviets had their marxist ideology, claiming they would eventually defeat the capitalists. Most believed it would be in a some violent event, a combination of the western populations revolting and a large-scale military conflict. By the 80s, it was becoming apparent that this wasn't working out as intended. The US was overtaking the russians in the arms race. Their weapons were becoming much better. It became increasingly difficult for the Soviet hardliners to realistically claim that they would be able to defeat the capitalists - capitalism was getting stronger and spreading. They could no longer claim they were stronger, and also their ideology were being defeated. After the fall, several Party members have pointed at the Star Wars programme as the final nail in the coffin. This weakening of the hardliners was what let the reformists get to power and that eventually led to the fall of USSR.

Let's use that logic on Nazi Germany. The vast majority of Germans probably didn't want war. They didn't want to get bombed to bits and invaded. The majority probably just wanted to live normally and peacefully. Unfortunately, a minority chose to pose a threat to the world around them and so the majority got war and bombs. That's unfortunate, but it couldn't really happen any other way (well, the rest of Europe could've been free from arguments like yours, skipped the Appeasement policy, attacked Germany early and saved millions upon millions of lives).

Our enemies (which doesn't include the average Muslim or the vast majority of Islam or whatever you call it, I'm talking about the leaders of rogue states, terrorist organisations etc.) get their very power from the conflict with the West. This makes diplomacy impossible, because we don't have anything to offer them that won't mean they lose their power. The Mujahedin are only of any use if there is an enemy to fight - making peace means they lose their power, their positions of leadership, their respect from the people. Hezbollah only exists to destroy Israel, if they make peace with Israel Nasrallah stops being the head of a powerful organisation - he gets to be a normal man, at best a regular member of Parliament (or whatever they have in Lebanon). Arafat held his position of power because of the conflict with Israel, a 2-state solution would mean he lost his power and influence, that he had had to establish a regular government where he wouldn't be the dictator and where he couldn't siphon billions to his personal accounts. On top of that, most of them probably really, truly hate our guts.

I'm not really sure what you're saying about supporters and apologists - in my definition supporters are people who actively support terrorism, terrorist organisations, fundamentalists etc.. People trying to reach diplomatic solutions or who think that the war on terror is going to far are not supporters. They have different political opinions, and some of them are IMO indirectly causing a lot of harm, but there's a lot of difference between me thinking someone is wrong and someone actually doing wrong.

You ask how the radicalisation can be proper for one party and not another - that is something you brought up, this idea that I have to define their actions as wrong to justify going against them, and because of that moral stand I can't choose to respond with the same actions. If someone tries to shoot me, I shoot back. I do it in the interest of self preservation - morality doesn't figure into it.

That's more like it. If this is what you meant by "thwarting", I give you right. Though I think you should have mentioned the reformists from the beginning. What I don't understand is why you mentioned rooting out sympatizers and fostering a "us and them mentality" as a proper reaction to Sovjet's challange. I think that most of the communists that lost their jobs were just regular marxists with no real connection to Sovjet. And the reformists could never have brought about the fall of the union if relations with USA were not as good as they were in the end. I don't see how hatemongering helped what was ultimately a reconciliation (combined with an ideological and technological victory like you say).