🚀 go-pugleaf

"Harold Covington" <haroldcovington@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<rD6A7.76081$WW.3732198@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> Why Do They Want to Kill Us?
> by Jacob G. Hornberger, October 2001
> 
> Ever since the September 11 attacks, it has almost been taboo, within
> both the U.S. government and the mainstream press, to openly examine and
> analyze the three specific reasons that Osama bin Laden has given for
> his holy war against the U.S. government and the American people.
> 
> Suppose someone has told me that he intends to kill me. Even though I
> intend to defend myself by meeting force with force, I'm going to ask
> him an important question: "Why do you want to kill me?"
> 
> Suppose the answer is, "Because I hate you for believing that Jesus
> Christ is Lord." My response will be to defend myself because I'm not
> about to give up that belief even if it might cost me my life.
> 
> But suppose my enemy says, "I want to kill you because you are having an
> affair with my wife." The affair would not justify his murder of me,
> either legally or morally, but it certainly might explain why he's so
> angry and why he wants to kill me. It would behoove me to have this
> information because I might decide that continuing the affair is no
> longer worth it and because altering my conduct might cause my enemy to
> alter his.
> 
> But the only way I can get to that point is by asking, "Why do you want
> to kill me?"
> 
> Osama bin Laden and his coterie of terrorists have given three reasons
> for their terrorist acts: (1) The stationing of U.S. military personnel
> in Saudi Arabia, which they say encompasses the Islamic holy cities of
> Mecca and Medina; (2) The 10-year embargo against Iraq, which, it is
> reported, has caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi
> children; and (3) U.S. economic and military aid to Israel.
> 
> One response might be: "We shouldn't care about their motives for
> killing -- all that matters is that our government officials kill them
> before they kill us." But that position is problematic for two big
> reasons: (1) Even if current terrorists are killed first, wouldn't new
> ones, driven by the same motives, surface to take their place? and (2)
> Isn't it possible that the terrorists might kill many of us before our
> government officials find and kill all of them?
> 
> A second possible response is: "The terrorists hate us so much that it
> doesn't matter what our government's foreign policy is and therefore
> there's no sense in reexamining it." Even if it is true that the
> terrorists are motivated by blind hatred, however, is it not always a
> good idea to periodically reexamine government policies, especially with
> the thought of terminating those that are not achieving their goals and
> that are actually producing perverse consequences?
> 
> What would be wrong with a reevaluation of the U.S. government's Middle
> East policy, even while efforts are being made to bring the people who
> committed the September 11 attacks to justice? Couldn't this result in a
> better direction for our country -- one that might also alter the
> mindset and behavior of people who want to kill us? The following
> questions could be asked in such an inquiry:
> 
> (1) Why are U.S. troops still stationed in Saudi Arabia, especially
> given that the Persian Gulf War ended some 10 years ago? Are the troops
> really based on Islamic holy lands, and is that really an important
> religious issue for Muslims? What would be the downside to immediately
> pulling U.S. troops out of Saudi Arabia?
> 
> (2) Has the embargo against Iraq succeeded in altering Saddam Hussein's
> cruel and brutal treatment of Iraqi citizens? Has it prevented him from
> producing weapons of mass destruction, and might there be a better way
> to address that problem? Has the embargo really caused the deaths of
> hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children, as UN officials contend and, if
> so, why doesn't that alone dictate its immediate termination? What would
> be the downside to immediately ending the embargo against Iraq?
> 
> (3) Why should the U.S. government continue giving economic and military
> aid to Israel? Why shouldn't all foreign aid be privatized, which would
> mean that American citizens would no longer be taxed for the purpose of
> providing foreign aid to anyone but would be free to privately donate
> their own money to anyone they wish, including Israel? What would be the
> downside to depoliticizing foreign aid?
> 
> Some might suggest that a reevaluation of our government's Middle East
> policy would be "appeasing" the terrorists. But wouldn't that be a
> short-sighted excuse for continuing what is possibly a failed or
> bankrupt policy and for not trying to find what might be a better course
> of action for the future?
> 
> Some might say that it's not patriotic to question the policies of one's
> own government during wartime. I say that genuine patriotism involves
> not a blind allegiance to one's government even in war but rather a love
> of country that sometimes entails trying to move one's government in a
> more positive, constructive direction.

How long before Joe Sixpack starts to question our aid policy to Israel?

John