A Lesson From 9/11

[Archangel M]

The role of gvt pretty much IS to deal with other nations and to work out the best result for THEIR nation.

 

[Makalakumu]

The role of gvt pretty much IS to deal with other nations and to work out the best result for THEIR nation.

Is the government working in the best interests of the nation or of the multi-corporations who run the government? That is the salient question.

Throughout my life as a "taxpayer" I have had thousands and thousands of dollars extracted from my standard or living to fund a MIC and I haven't really benefited from it. In fact, no one has, our collective standard of living has gone DOWN despite the empire building. Imagine what I could have done with that money? I've ran two successful businesses and worked a full time job as a school teacher. I could have grown and produced way more wealth if it wasn't hijacked from me in order to fund some corporate hijacking overseas. I don't even want to think of how the government/corporation is going to foist the cost of these wars on me and my children in the future.

The thing to remember is that these corporations that run the government aren't beholden to any one country anymore. They operate in a quasi-sovereign state existing in many places at once and holding allegiance to no one. Our government is a tool and our military another tool. Our people could stand up and change things if we chose, but we are willing to let the corporations steal our wealth via the government.

The controlled left/right paradigm is part of this problem. The Left points only at the corporations and demands more government. the Right points at the government and gives the corporations more power. Until we realize that the two have merged and that big corporations need big government (and vice versa) in order to exist, it's not going to change.

It's a rigged system that is parasitic to the lives of normal people for the benefit of the few. The Muslims live in this system and are pawns...and they can see damn clear what is going on. Imagine if we just let them live their own lives and develop their own businesses and industries, letting them compete with ours? Would we have anywhere near the problems we have now?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Perhaps war accomplishes nothing but to sharpen the edges and extend them. Maybe the best way to avoid this so called "clash of cultures" is to live up to our values and trade without fraud.

No, that's not the clash of cultures that we're experiencing in the Middle East. The clash is because our Western values and the goods and services that support them are destroying the traditional ultra-rural Islamic culture. We cannot co-exist with this culture as it stands. We either withdraw entirely from all trade with the Middle East or we finish the task of introducing Modernity to the Middle East. This is 'Westernization' and it is what we were doing by selling our goods and services there.

Islamists are not going to become complacent because we become more fair and open in our trading practices. They don't want their culture destroyed, and our very presence does that.

I don't think we need to have big government intervening overseas any more then we need it intervening in our day to day lives. The simple fact of the matter is that the government and the corporations have merged. They serve one another and allow each to grow. At the heart of all of our military actions is a general looting of other people's resources and livelihoods. The people who run our fascist system can't compete on an even playing field in a real free market, so they just grab whatever they can with their guns and trick the public into supporting it. Our foreign policy is nothing but the bludgeon in a rigged system.

I don't care.

And you should care about that, because eventually that bludgeon will get turned back on you.

Perhaps. Still don't care.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I told him that I agree however... maybe they have the RIGHT to say it... but is it the RIGHT thing to say?

Just what is right and what is wrong? Agreed that the long range harm to not only U.S. troops but to American citizens in general (which these people -- sadly-- represent, albeit a tiny, hopefully tiny fraction of the populace).

Right and wrong only have value as applied to our own populace in this situation. Behave in such as way as to positively affect our own self-interests. This is often the same as being 'morally correct', but I'm not interested in being morally correct. I'm interested in our troops not being killed over some stunt pulled by some hate-monger in the USA to get some publicity.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Imagine if we just let them live their own lives and develop their own businesses and industries, letting them compete with ours? Would we have anywhere near the problems we have now?

Yes. Granted that our military bases in countries like Saudi Arabia and Yemen accelerated the recognition by Islamists of the problem, but it would have happened anyway.

As we developed friendly trade with the nations that comprise the Middle East, they began to adopt our values, if not our religion. They began to wear suits and dresses, to follow fashion, to listen to Western music and watch Western TV, to speak English, to desire a 'Western' lifestyle. And most of them did this while retaining their Islamic faith; albeit a more moderate version. To them, the commandments to kill infidels were about as literal as the Bible's commandment to kill witches; we read it but we don't do it literally.

This caused great consternation among the more fundamentalist Muslims, and between the intrusion of Western values and the ongoing issues with Israel, they managed to carve out a niche where they could build both political and NGO military power.

There is NOTHING we could ever do to placate these people while still trading with them. They want their culture as it was before the West began to trade with them and inculcate our values into their cultures. They want Islam as political as well as spiritual leader of their various nations.

As long as we trade with the Middle East, we will continue to impact their culture; just by existing. Our choices are to withdraw entirely from all contact with the Middle East (which would include abandoning Israel entirely) or destroying the Islamists and encouraging the continued Westernization of Islam and the Middle East.

We can do the latter by embracing moderate Islam in the USA, not rejecting it. Enlightened self-interest. Give them boobies and booze and MTV. Sell them cheeseburgers and blue jeans. Turn them into wage slaves and taxpayers like the rest of us. The Islamists cannot convert these people once they've turned to the dark side (us).

 

[Makalakumu]

After having traveled extensively, I can tell you for sure that nobody flips out and wants to kill other people because of cheeseburgers and women in pants. Granted, you have a small segment of extremists that get upset about these things, but in major population centers and throughout the bulk of society people are perfectly willing to amalgamate. These people are very much like us and the thing to try to understand is what would get YOU to get up out of your seat and blow yourself up.

Essentially, we have middle class people who supposedly should be moderate, but are choosing to take extreme measures and we are being told that this is because of the so called "clash of cultures" ie..."they hate us for our freedoms" or "they are upset about cheeseburgers and pants."

Another explanation that makes more sense is that these people are sick of having their elected governments overthrown, having multi-national corporations rape and pillage the economy, having vicious dictators installed to oppress the people, and then having their homes and livelihoods blown up when these dictators don't do what they are told.

Instead of the obvious, Americans choose to believe in the so called "culture war." This is the product of manipulation and it should be noted that to a great extent, the major events that get so much air time are completely contrived.

Take for instance, the ground zero mosque that has everyone up and ready bomb some more Muslims.

http://www.observer.com/2010/politics/untangling-new-intrigue-behind-ground-zero-mosqueThe CIA, secretive defense contractors, and the media have conspired to fund the creation of this thing...and then they turn around to demonize it in order fan hatred and support a general war against Muslims.

And then we have the so called "underwear bomber" that was used to install more police state tactics in our airports like dehumanizing naked body scanners. By the way, the company that makes these scanners is run by none other then former Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/01/01-2

Apparently, the underwear bomber was led on the plane by a government agent without any form of ID or passport. This was witnessed by Detroit attorneys Kurt and Lori Haskell and eventually confirmed by journalists who actually did their jobs. The FBI tried to deny this at first, but now that cat is out of the bag.

http://haskellfamily.blogspot.com/2010/01/truth-about-flight-253-has-been.html

Lastly, we have 9/11 itself.

We have whistleblowers coming out saying that the government maintained a close relationship to Bin Laden and Al Qaeda right up to 9/11 and we have whistleblowers who have direct evidence that shows that they deliberately thwarted investigations that would have outed "operatives" in the "plot".

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/07/31/whistleblower-bin-laden-was-us-proxy-until-911/

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/5/27/203251.shtml

Like I said above, maybe it's time we check our premises. Events are being manipulated to further and agenda and convince Americans to surrender their standard of living, allowing the "taxpayer" to construct a war machine for the corporations and construct the police state machines for their own oppression.

Now, I'm not saying that there aren't real terrorists out there who would like to see Americans dead, but I am saying that you would have no idea as to their motive or to who they really were or who created them, based on the propaganda we are fed on a daily basis. You simply don't know and you can't trust the media or the government to tell you what to think. That is another lesson of 9/11.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

After having traveled extensively, I can tell you for sure that nobody flips out and wants to kill other people because of cheeseburgers and women in pants.

Yes, they do. And I've 'traveled extensively' too.

Granted, you have a small segment of extremists that get upset about these things, but in major population centers and throughout the bulk of society people are perfectly willing to amalgamate.

This is quite correct. It is the Islamists, as I have stated, that see their society and their culture as being under attack.

These people are very much like us and the thing to try to understand is what would get YOU to get up out of your seat and blow yourself up.

Essentially, we have middle class people who supposedly should be moderate, but are choosing to take extreme measures and we are being told that this is because of the so called "clash of cultures" ie..."they hate us for our freedoms" or "they are upset about cheeseburgers and pants."

I'm not disagreeing with you.

What I'm saying is that there is a battle for the hearts and minds of the moderate Muslim, especially the emerging upper and middle class, educated, Muslim.

When an extremist tells them that they should side with them (Islamists), they would tend to reject that. After all, they have embraced Western culture themselves, why would they want to go back to wearing long beards and dressing their women in burkas?

However, when *we* tell those same moderate, modern, middle-class Muslims that they are NOT WELCOME in the USA, that we don't believe that they are not terrorists, that we think they're all alike, then we push them into the arms of the terrorists, the Islamists. Whether they see burning a Koran as the act of a lone idiot or endemic of the current culture of the USA, they feel excluded, left out, and rejected from US society. This makes them targets of extremists.

Another explanation that makes more sense is that these people are sick of having their elected governments overthrown, having multi-national corporations rape and pillage the economy, having vicious dictators installed to oppress the people, and then having their homes and livelihoods blown up when these dictators don't do what they are told.

Well, that's another explanation, but it's wrong.

Instead of the obvious, Americans choose to believe in the so called "culture war." This is the product of manipulation and it should be noted that to a great extent, the major events that get so much air time are completely contrived.

That doesn't even make sense. My explanation is the distinct minority belief in the US; most bigots have no idea of what I'm even talking about; they haven't gotten past the "all dem dere Muslims is bad, right?" stage.

Culture war? I think so, but most people in the USA can't spell it. So no, I don't think 'most Americans choose to believe' in it. Most of them are booger-eatin' morons who could not think their way out of a paper bag.

Take for instance, the ground zero mosque that has everyone up and ready bomb some more Muslims.

Sorry, I snipped all the loony-tunes conspiracy theory junk. Good lord man, you believe every crackpot theory that comes down the pike. You really need to think about that. I'm sure not going to defile my mind with that kind of garbage, let alone trying to pick it apart logically.

 

[CanuckMA]

Maunakumu,

It is a culture war. I see it in varying degrees in my extended community. I'm an Orthodox Jew, mostly at the left side of the Orthodox spectrum, what many call Modern Orthodox. There are many things I see around me that I don't agree with. I do my best to avoid them, and I shielded my kids from them as much as possible. The Ultra-Orthodox react to that by getting more insular. But because half of the Jews in the world live in the Diaspora, we tend to accept it more. You can see some of that culture clash in Israel, but again, Israel was created out of Western culture and a large segment of Israelis are secular, so the State is pushing back.

Now move the same influences to entire countries that are more religious, where the government is more eligious, and it's easy to see states pushing back against Western culture.

Bill is right. Every bone headed move we make to alienate Muslims will be seized upon by the Islamists to point out "see, they're against us, you will never fit with them. Join us"

 

[Makalakumu]

Sorry, I snipped all the loony-tunes conspiracy theory junk. Good lord man, you believe every crackpot theory that comes down the pike. You really need to think about that. I'm sure not going to defile my mind with that kind of garbage, let alone trying to pick it apart logically.

Good lord, man, you can't even look at this information and acknowledge that there might be contradictory information here. When push comes to shove, if I didn't see it, I don't know what happened. You, on the other hand, have this long string of unchecked premises and you haven't even bothered to think about what this edifice is built upon.

Also Crimestop, Bob should make a smiley for this for conversations in the study.

Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity.

Just read the stupid articles, I'm sure you'll have some way to fit this into this convoluted world view, but who knows, you may surprise me and be just a little bit less certain of the things your being told. I think the biggest reason I keep throwing this out is to throw some mud in the eye of some people's so called "clear" sight.

Also, for the love of Cthulu will some of you who are so certain, please consider that some of what the world experiences is blowback. Yeah, I know that this gets bandied about the controlled Left, but it's at least a plausible explanation that doesn't completely absolve the US of responsibility for some of the things that could rightly be called terrorism.

Lastly, consider this.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/...ticles/a-hidden-world-growing-beyond-control/

This is the controlled Washington Post, so take it for what it is, however, I will say because of this, you can't be so sure of anything you read about in regards to foreign policy, terrorism, and probably the government in general. IMO, the Post gets it right when they say it's out of control.

What is the point of voting in our Republic if everything is secret and manipulated?

 

[Makalakumu]

It is a culture war.

I don't buy it. Most people that I have met just want the same things I do and are willing to look at new things and possibly accept them. A very small percentage may get upset, but it's not enough to start shooting or blowing themselves up.

At the very least, I think it's being blown out of proportion on purpose to manipulate public opinion. Look at this whole Koran Burning story. You get some two bit kooky preacher with a flock of 30, who tells the media that he's going to burn some Korans and suddenly the story spreads around the world. Then video floods in of some idiots in foreign countries beating up Christians and burning Bibles.

Meanwhile enthusiasm for the wars is flagging and people are really starting to rethink paying for these wars.

At some point, people are going to have to start considering whether or not they can trust the fascist corporate/government media. Especially when we have a "secret state" that the public really has no clue about. Read the article I posted above on this and ask yourself some questions about what this implies.

 

[Archangel M]

Of course you don't buy it. You buy stuff like controled demo of the WTC.

Not that I want to turn this into a personal attack mauna...I truely don't..but people who have a history of buying into odd stuff have to realize that people will then take everything they say as being in the same vein.

 

[Makalakumu]

Of course you don't buy it. You buy stuff like controlled demo of the WTC.

Not that I want to turn this into a personal attack mauna...I truely don't..but people who have a history of buying into odd stuff have to realize that people will then take everything they say as being in the same vein.

That's a fair criticism, but I'm sticking to my guns on this one, I don't think we should be so certain about what everyone accepts as true. Especially when we consider the secrecy and the proven involvement in many cases. This doesn't mean that Islamic militants don't exist, it just means that we can't be so sure who is who and what is what.

Here's another example...

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10341.htm

Some of these "terrorists" may surprise people.

 

[CanuckMA]

I don't buy it. Most people that I have met just want the same things I do and are willing to look at new things and possibly accept them. A very small percentage may get upset, but it's not enough to start

Well we've never met, so I guess that counts, But I can tell you I don't want the same things you do, and I actively reject a portion of Western 'culture'. And I'm the moderate amongst my greater group.

 

[Bruno@MT]

Yes. Granted that our military bases in countries like Saudi Arabia and Yemen accelerated the recognition by Islamists of the problem, but it would have happened anyway.

As we developed friendly trade with the nations that comprise the Middle East, they began to adopt our values, if not our religion. They began to wear suits and dresses, to follow fashion, to listen to Western music and watch Western TV, to speak English, to desire a 'Western' lifestyle. And most of them did this while retaining their Islamic faith; albeit a more moderate version. To them, the commandments to kill infidels were about as literal as the Bible's commandment to kill witches; we read it but we don't do it literally.

That is a good point. However, change over a longer time is less likely to trigger violent counter reactions. Fast change is more likely to trigger counter reactions, especially if the fast change happen by force.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

That is a good point. However, change over a longer time is less likely to trigger violent counter reactions. Fast change is more likely to trigger counter reactions, especially if the fast change happen by force.

Yes, I agree. It's like that old story about boiling a frog by slowly turning up the heat. During the 1970's, the Islamic world was by and large becoming Westernized and more-or-less without strife. Yes, you still had the Israeli-Palestine conflict, but Islam was (pardon the expression) moving into the 20th century and moderating. It was a series of jarring intrusions that made the reactionaries take notice and begin to pull in the opposite direction.

However, what's done is done. We must complete the Westernization of the Islamic world. Unfortunately, the trend at the moment is the opposite direction. Bellwethers are countries like Turkey, once the most moderate of Islamic nations. If Turkey falls to extremists, the we really have serious problems. In the meantime, we also are ignoring (to some extent) the creeping Islamization (and by that I mean Islamist, not regular Islam) of places like Somalia, the Philippines, and so on. We ignore these at our own peril.

As an aside, that is one of the major reasons I cannot be a capital-L Libertarian anymore. I do not believe in a policy of isolationism; we must engage and defeat Islamists (while reaching out to moderate Muslims, which the bone-heads and bigots can't seem to figure out) or we'll all pay the price eventually.

 

[Empty Hands]

As an aside, that is one of the major reasons I cannot be a capital-L Libertarian anymore. I do not believe in a policy of isolationism; we must engage and defeat Islamists (while reaching out to moderate Muslims, which the bone-heads and bigots can't seem to figure out) or we'll all pay the price eventually.

I agree; however I have some sympathy for the isolationist view at a practical level because we are just so terrible at effectively engaging with the world at large. Nothing seems to go like it should, and we all endure the blowback later. Perhaps isolationism would cause less harm in the long run? The ideal of course would be for the United States to actually figure out how to engage the world to complete our goals without making a mess of it at every turn. Unlikely, I know.

 

[CoryKS]

I agree; however I have some sympathy for the isolationist view at a practical level because we are just so terrible at effectively engaging with the world at large. Nothing seems to go like it should, and we all endure the blowback later. Perhaps isolationism would cause less harm in the long run? The ideal of course would be for the United States to actually figure out how to engage the world to complete our goals without making a mess of it at every turn. Unlikely, I know.

The problem is that if you're strong enough to affect global events, you will be held responsible whether you do something or not. Now we are blamed for the crises we get involved in. If we go isolationist, we will be blamed for the crises we don't get involved in because hey - we could have prevented it.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

The problem is that if you're strong enough to affect global events, you will be held responsible whether you do something or not. Now we are blamed for the crises we get involved in. If we go isolationist, we will be blamed for the crises we don't get involved in because hey - we could have prevented it.

Isolationism also means no trade with the outside world, not just no intervention. Because ultimately, trading with the outside world affects the outside world, for good or for ill. That means we would neither import nor export anything.

In the first place, that's basically impossible at this point; most of our debt is held by foreign governments. Without external trade, there is no means by which to pay for that.

And what does the West (not just the USA) export more than its own culture? No one buys rap music if they don't enjoy it (as an example). They don't enjoy it unless they've been exposed to the culture that values it. Exposure to that culture changes one's own culture. Some will see that a good thing; others will see that as a bad thing.

Doesn't matter if it's McDonalds or rap music or blue jeans or whatever; we want to sell it; in order to sell it, we must entice others to want to buy it. That means reaching into their world and making them prefer ours to some extent. Unless all we sell in Muslim nations is Korans and prayer rugs, we're not going to be able to trade in those countries without affecting their culture. All such things have consequences.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

I have been trying to stay out of the Islamic debates lately. I have heard differing opinions on these issues, from Terrorism experts (those I have met have expressed a moderate opinion of Islam), to those growing up in Muslim countries, to haters of Islam, to Muslims.

I have formed the opinion that, as I don't make policy on any issue relating to it, that I will reserve an opinion. I choose to regard those Muslims that I meet as individuals.

However, on occasion, I will take some issue, if only for clarifications sake, with the things that some say. So, here goes...

But we don't win by stopping the building of Mosques and burning Korans in the USA. We stop it by embracing our Muslim immigrants, and enveloping them in our culture as quickly as possible....

Estrange them instead of embracing them, and you give them nothing to hold onto in our nation. They find themselves unable to succeed in our culture, which leaves nothing but (TADA) their own culture. And the terrorists will gladly embrace them and welcome them back to the (from our point of view) Stone Age. And give them an AK at the same time.

I'm just curious as to how much embracing we need to do.

I posit this as an example of what is being done in one nation, in direct defiance of the local laws, and with the tacit protection of the local police being forced to allow it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5SfJACxS2s&feature=related

Are these extremists? Or are they so-called moderates violating France's laws and inconviencing non-Muslims from going about their daily routine, perhaps several times per day (as devout Muslims are supposed to pray five times daily)?

Are these the people that we are supposed to embrace?

Now, what I find interesting in the argument that I quoted above was this: You say the only way to stop the violence is to to embrace them into our culture. Now, we're talking about the Muslim culture, not the Arab culture, Philipean culture, Pakistani culture, etc., but that of Muslims as a whole.

You suggest that if we don't allow them to succeed in our culture (and the only reasonable way that they can do that is to adopt aspects of our culture), then that "leaves nothing but (TADA) their own culture." Well, if Islam is not inherently a destructive and violent religion, as you and they say, what is the problem with that? As you said, if they keep to their culture, the terrorists will embrace that, using it to cause death and destruction. So, by your statement therefore, it is their (religious) culture that gives them the permission to perform such acts, because that is what they will exploit.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I'm just curious as to how much embracing we need to do.

I posit this as an example of what is being done in one nation, in direct defiance of the local laws, and with the tacit protection of the local police being forced to allow it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5SfJACxS2s&feature=related

Are these extremists? Or are they so-called moderates violating France's laws and inconviencing non-Muslims from going about their daily routine, perhaps several times per day (as devout Muslims are supposed to pray five times daily)?

I don't know if they are extremists or not. They're engaging in what we would call civil disobedience to protest (apparently) not having enough prayer space set aside for them. I would not attempt to assign a religious component (extremist, moderate, etc) to their actions. I've certainly seen religious people block access to abortion clinics. I don't know if they are extremists or not either. I don't approve of either action. However, civil disobedience is a time-honored tradition in the USA. The point of it is that it should end up with the protesters being ticketed or arrested and in any case, forced to clear the streets.

I can't imagine why the French police are tolerating this behavior. I'd expect the police in the USA not to.

Are these the people that we are supposed to embrace?

Embrace the people? Yes. Accept that kind of activity? No. But not because it is religious; not because it is Muslim. Because it's an impediment to traffic. I can't do it, you can't do it, the people doing it should not be able to do it. Make them move; if they don't, start taking up the blankets and issuing police citations. Tolerance does not mean 'do nothing while our laws are broken', and I hope I've never suggested that it does.l

Now, what I find interesting in the argument that I quoted above was this: You say the only way to stop the violence is to to embrace them into our culture. Now, we're talking about the Muslim culture, not the Arab culture, Philipean culture, Pakistani culture, etc., but that of Muslims as a whole.

No, I did NOT say that the only way to stop the violence is to embrace them into our culture. I said that there is a battle for hearts and minds going on right now, and refusing to embrace moderate Muslims into our culture is to shove them in the direction of the extremists and the terrorists. That's not the same thing at all.

You suggest that if we don't allow them to succeed in our culture (and the only reasonable way that they can do that is to adopt aspects of our culture), then that "leaves nothing but (TADA) their own culture."

Once again, no, I did NOT say that. I said that if we do not embrace them, meaning accept them, then they have nowhere to go. I said nothing about rigging the game so that they have an advantage or succeed over others. All they deserve is what all Americans deserve; an equal chance.

The people to which I am referring are those (and I believe I said this) who are Muslim and have either been born in this country or have moved here and obtained citizenship. These are people who WANT to be here; they have embraced OUR culture to the extent that they are willing to live under our secular laws, to work, pay taxes, to try to achieve and better themselves. They may keep many aspects of their own culture, such as their religion, but they don't embrace the parts of the Koran, for example, that might urge them to kill infidels (just as we no longer obey similar commands in the Bible). They are the farthest thing from extremists. However, if they cannot be accepted in the USA, if they are rejected and not allowed to take part in the society of America because of their religious beliefs and practices, then they will be outcast and more open to the siren call of the Islamists. The Islamists tell them over and over that no matter what they do, they will always be hated and not accepted by the West. If we prove them right, then which direction do you suppose they will turn?

Well, if Islam is not inherently a destructive and violent religion, as you and they say, what is the problem with that? As you said, if they keep to their culture, the terrorists will embrace that, using it to cause death and destruction. So, by your statement therefore, it is their (religious) culture that gives them the permission to perform such acts, because that is what they will exploit.

The terrorists are a distinct minority. They need converts to give them power. I don't mean converts to Islam, I mean converts to their way of thinking. In addition to their extreme view of Islam, they also believe that the West is destroying their traditional culture. They use this as a key point in trying to gain converts. It is not essentially different from any politician or salesman's spiel; they try to identify with their target audience, create a bond, and then build on it.

When terrorists reach out to an ignorant and relatively primitive (by our standards) people such as the tribes-people in places like Pakistan or Afghanistan or rural Iraq, they don't have a huge task in front of them. They can control the media, they can control the message. They can sway opinions by simply being the only voice that the people who live there hear.

When they reach out to the Muslims who live in more modern circumstances, they have to compete with other messages. In Islamic countries, they can try to control this if they can gain political leadership positions; taking over governments by fair means or foul, and controlling the media, public education, and so on.

However, when they reach out to the Muslims who live in Western nations under modern circumstances, they have to employ an entirely different set of tools. They cannot control the media or the access that Muslims who live in places like Europe and the USA have to it. They cannot tell the average Muslim who works in Dearborn, Michigan putting fenders on Fords that Americans hate him and want to kill him if the Muslim who lives in Dearborn knows that is not true. Does that make sense?

So he has to convince these moderate Muslims, somehow, that they will never fit in to American (or European) society. That they will not be permitted to succeed no matter how hard they try. That their religion will be hated, that their sacred symbols will be desecrated, that their Mosques will be burned down and that they'll be personally subject to violence and even murder if they stay.

They cannot do this if it's simply not true. The Muslim guy who works in Dearborn at Ford is not interested in blowing up buildings or taking up arms against the USA; he lives here, he has a house, a mortgage, his kids are in college, he has to buy groceries! He would be against the terrorists; they make trouble for him, they make his life more difficult; they hate the things he prefers. The only thing they share is a religion; but that's like saying my religion is like Fred Phelp's religion. They might be both called 'Christianity', but that's about as far as it goes.

If anti-Muslim sentiment continues to grow, if we begin to see more and more violent incidents against Muslims in the USA, then the terrorists will begin to be able to make headway with their message and their recruiting. If the Muslim guy who lives in Dearborn and works at Ford starts getting people driving by his house at night and firing shotguns in the air, if his local Mosque gets burned down, if people throw burned Korans on his yard, he might start to believe that no matter how much he WANTS to be an American, he'll never be allowed to be one. Then what is he supposed to do?