Where does the fear come from?

[Wiseone]

The US Naval Institute says roughly 16 billion dollars, but they say that may be an exaggeration. That is the estimated cost to the industries affect, it does not include the cost of the anti-piracy operations under weigh by several national navies.

The Overstated Threat - U.S. Naval Institute

 

[Catawba]

The US Naval Institute says roughly 16 billion dollars, but they say that may be an exaggeration. That is the estimated cost to the industries affect, it does not include the cost of the anti-piracy operations under weigh by several national navies.

The Overstated Threat - U.S. Naval Institute

Compared to the couple trillion our "war on terror" has cost that sounds like pocket change. And Obama just requested $708 billion more for our military to fight our wars next year.

 

[Wiseone]

Compared to the couple trillion our "war on terror" has cost that sounds like pocket change. And Obama just requested $708 billion more for our military to fight our wars next year.

Thats good right?

 

[Coronado]

So Libertarians have no moral outrage over our killing of innocent civilians and they do not see our invasion and occupation of countries that never attacked us as being counter productive and actually spurring the growth of terrorism world wide?

Interesting opinion. I have not heard that in my discussions with Libertarians. Perhaps some of them may address this here.

The libertarians with whom I converse certainly hold that it is morally wrong to attack countries that have not attacked us. I don't know how one could think otherwise and still logically claim the title of libertarian.

In answer to the OP, the fear comes from the media, but the government is more than happy to exploit it. Easy example: The terror alert level has never fallen below "elevated".

 

[Tsunami]

Earlier tonight my 4 year old neice wanted to stay up and watch TV while we were playing a card game. I knew that if she disrupted the card game enough they would put a show on for her. So I told her to learn terrorism.

This made me realize: children already know how to use terrorism. Temper tantrums have the same effect. They can't actually get what they want that way, unless they force a response and you give in to their demands.

And child rearing experts say the best thing to do is to ignore them. I feel we should ignore the terrorists as well. I mean, certainly arrest or kill them, but don't respond with fear, "evil" rhetoric, and especially don't use it as an excuse to curtail liberty. That just feeds into their plan.

 

[Catawba]

Thats good right?

You should add some smilies to let me know when you are kidding.

 

[Catawba]

The libertarians with whom I converse certainly hold that it is morally wrong to attack countries that have not attacked us. I don't know how one could think otherwise and still logically claim the title of libertarian.

That's what I thought, but I didn't think he would believe it coming from a liberal.

Thanks for your contribution here!

In answer to the OP, the fear comes from the media, but the government is more than happy to exploit it. Easy example: The terror alert level has never fallen below "elevated".

You mean like this?

 

[Ethereal]

Can anyone explain why so many Americans are as frightened as little school children of al Qaeda?

Assuming I agree with your characterization of Americans (which I don't), I'd say their fear comes from the knowledge that AQ is willing and able to kill several thousands of innocents at any given moment and are determined to destroy our country and way of life.

 

[Rassales]

Willing, sure. But able? Why haven't they done it? And is our offensive strategy outside our borders an effective part of stopping them?

 

[Wiseone]

You should add some smilies to let me know when you are kidding.

Emoticons are the devil.

 

[B L Zeebub]

Time zones are a bastard, at the ripe old age of 59yrs on monday I have lived through quite a lot of the "troubles", pre 1972 the IRA was virtually finished in Northern Ireland, their own records show that they had 2 active gunmen and very little public support.

I have never understood why the British Government sent a cutting edge regiment (the Para's) to NI, I have never understood why they were deployed to police a Civil rights march.

Sunday Bloody Sunday was the best recruiting advert for the IRA that they could have wished for, as was Iraq for AQ.

To wards the end of the troubles, the IRA learned that the British publics "blitz spirit" could not be broken by fear, but they realized that the British government would have to respond.

Spaghetti Junction a motorway intersection in the midlands became with other motorway's the target, official bomb warnings(an agreed code word, agreed between the security forces and the IRA) was given, the motorways in the UK became car parks for days, millions of £ in revenue was lost, from memory no bombs were found.

Certain groups that are part of the "big tent" that is Al'Q understand this and strike against tourist destinations in Egypt for instance, ETA also use this method.

 

[Catawba]

Assuming I agree with your characterization of Americans (which I don't), I'd say their fear comes from the knowledge that AQ is willing and able to kill several thousands of innocents at any given moment and are determined to destroy our country and way of life.

Only if we continue to let them use our planes. They don't have any of their own don't you know!

I suggest we don't let them.

 

[Catawba]

Emoticons are the devil.

LOL! Only some of them. :devil:

 

[Catawba]

Time zones are a bastard, at the ripe old age of 59yrs on monday I have lived through quite a lot of the "troubles", pre 1972 the IRA was virtually finished in Northern Ireland, their own records show that they had 2 active gunmen and very little public support.

I have never understood why the British Government sent a cutting edge regiment (the Para's) to NI, I have never understood why they were deployed to police a Civil rights march.

Sunday Bloody Sunday was the best recruiting advert for the IRA that they could have wished for, as was Iraq for AQ.

To wards the end of the troubles, the IRA learned that the British publics "blitz spirit" could not be broken by fear, but they realized that the British government would have to respond.

Spaghetti Junction a motorway intersection in the midlands became with other motorway's the target, official bomb warnings(an agreed code word, agreed between the security forces and the IRA) was given, the motorways in the UK became car parks for days, millions of £ in revenue was lost, from memory no bombs were found.

Certain groups that are part of the "big tent" that is Al'Q understand this and strike against tourist destinations in Egypt for instance, ETA also use this method.

A very important, if tragic, lesson. It is my sincere hope that we have the capacity to learn from it.

Thanks for your contribution BL. BTW, I hope you have a grand Birthday Monday! Don't do anything I wouldn't do! :joke:

 

[B L Zeebub]

it is also an important fact that government ministers seek one position in the UK, to be PM, they also all want a bigger slice of the budgets to increase their power and profile.

Historically in some cases, in both main parties they became consumed by the grandiose politic of power, rather than the publics needs, Aitken is a good example.

Another example of some politicians mental corruption by their desire for power is, the desire to have a meaningful position in history, and fill the pages of their biography.

 

[cpwill]

Provide me with a more accurate count then.

try a significant percentage of the Muslim population residing currently in the west. it is no coincidence that the underwear bomber had british ties; her school system breeds such individuals. remember that what we are fighting here is not Al-Quada; they are simply one organization. what we are fighting is a violent near-nihilistic ideology.

How much have they slowed it down?

far out of proportion to their relative numbers and strength, by increasing significantly the price of oil, which undergirds the world economy.

 

[cpwill]

Sunday Bloody Sunday was the best recruiting advert for the IRA that they could have wished for, as was Iraq for AQ.

for a time period yes, but Iraq was also (thus far) their greatest propaganda loss in the Muslim world.

 

[Rassales]

try a significant percentage of the Muslim population residing currently in the west.

What does that even mean? Ten percent? Three percent? One half of one percent? How are our actions likely to counter these people?

it is no coincidence that the underwear bomber had british ties; her school system breeds such individuals.

So what is it about British schools that encourages people to be terrorists?

remember that what we are fighting here is not Al-Quada; they are simply one organization. what we are fighting is a violent near-nihilistic ideology.

I don't think anyone is suggesting we give up, but we'd do better to study the actual nature of that ideology and the means its leaders use to spread it. One thing about nihilistic philosophies--they are inherently very weak, as they run counter to our essential nature as living creatures. Anything we do to FEED that ideology is counter-productive. Much of our current policy, which concentrates on the extra-civil and the extra-judicial use of force, suggests that we believe our Western philosophy is weak or morally suspect--this does more to strengthen AQ and others because is suggests we don't really believe in our own ideas.

 

[cpwill]

What does that even mean? Ten percent? Three percent? One half of one percent?

oh the really exciting thing is that at the end of the day nobody knows. trying to find out (or even discuss the problem), you see, is "racist"

however, polling in various Western nations indicate that the numbers are, shall we say, higher than 5,000.

One in four younger American Muslims find suicide bombings in defense of Islam “acceptable at least in some circumstances.” About 29 percent of those surveyed had either favorable views about al Qaeda or did not express an opinion.

...Muslim Americans reject Islamic extremism by larger margins than do Muslim minorities in Western European countries. However, there is somewhat more acceptance of Islamic extremism in some segments of the U.S. Muslim public than others. Fewer native-born African American Muslims than others completely condemn al Qaeda. In addition, younger Muslims in the U.S. are much more likely than older Muslim Americans to say that suicide bombing in the defense of Islam can be at least sometimes justified.

...The poll comes on the heels of the Fort Dix jihadi terror bust involving young, American-raised Muslims and the conviction this week of Muslim doctor Rafiq Abdus Sabir — born in Harlem, based in Florida — who had pledged loyalty to al Qaeda and vowed to treat injured al Qaeda fighters so they could return to Iraq to kill Americans. A Brooklyn bookstore owner and a Washington, D.C., cab driver also pleaded guilty and were sentenced to prison in the case. The tiny minority of jihadi sympathizers aren’t just sitting around stewing harmlessly about their beliefs. They are recruiting, proselytizing, plotting, and growing.

I’m reminded of a similar poll conducted in Indonesia last fall. One in ten Indonesian Muslims was found to support bombings in defense of Islam. They took the news a little more seriously in “moderate” Indonesia. One in 10 in Indonesia, you see, equals 19 million Muslims for violent jihad. That’s just Indonesia.

Recent polling in Britain found that 13 percent of British Muslims believe the London subway bombers are righteous “martyrs,” and 7 percent approve of suicide bombing attacks on civilians in Britain in some circumstances.

Now, add that to the 16 percent of French Muslims, 16 percent of Spanish Muslims, 7 percent of German Muslims, 28 percent of Egyptian Muslims, 14 percent of Pakistani Muslims, and 46 percent of Nigerian Muslims who told Pew last summer that “violence against civilian targets in order to defend Islam” can be justified “often/sometimes.”

So what is it about British schools that encourages people to be terrorists?

in their desire no to be too culturally insensitive, british school systems put into place "muslim student organizations", religious on-campus groups, and assorted other associations. then they do not monitor them. they turn into natural (publicly funded!) recruiting grounds for the more aggressive, Islamist elements.

What did the Pantybomber have a membership card in? Well, he was president of the Islamic Society of University College, London. Kafeel Ahmed, who died after driving a burning jeep into the concourse of Glasgow Airport, had been president of the Islamic Society of Queen’s University, Belfast. Yassin Nassari, serving three years in jail for terrorism, was president of the Islamic Society of the University of Westminster. Waheed Arafat Khan, arrested in the 2006 Heathrow terror plots that led to Americans having to put their liquids and gels in those little plastic bags, was president of the Islamic Society of London Metropolitan University.

I don't think anyone is suggesting we give up, but we'd do better to study the actual nature of that ideology and the means its leaders use to spread it.

you don't think we've been doing this?

if we were smart we'd also be capturing and then interrogating it's leaders, when we can find them.

but we decided that was mean, so we're not going to do it anymore. :roll:

One thing about nihilistic philosophies--they are inherently very weak, as they run counter to our essential nature as living creatures.

except of course when they are used to appeal to a demographic engaged in cultural rejection, general chaos, or experiencing a general feeling of "not belonging". sure maybe they'd reject it later on if they integrate into a successful society, just as our protester baby boomers became yuppies. but if you can convince a 24 year old to get on a train with a backpack full of C4, then it really doesn't matter what he might or might not have done when he's 40.

Anything we do to FEED that ideology is counter-productive. Much of our current policy, which concentrates on the extra-civil and the extra-judicial use of force, suggests that we believe our Western philosophy is weak or morally suspect--this does more to strengthen AQ and others because is suggests we don't really believe in our own ideas.

you're wrong for two reasons: 1. they see themselves at war with society in the role of insurgents and 2. they see our refusal to recognize that we are at war with them as weakness. this encourages them both by increasing the disgust they can feel at the society that they feel they must reject, and lowering the cost of entry.

 

[Rassales]

Well, first of all CP, I think it's difficult to debate when the facts are not really in evidence. For example, you base your argument here on a link to an opinion piece, which is itself based on a survey the writer does not link to. So we are dependent on that writer's spin rather than the poll itself for the basis of the argument. One of the things I notice about Malkin's article is that the small support she cites in the Muslim community for support of violence includes the words "at least rarely." "Rarely" is a key term here, because--frankly--I doubt whether you or I could fail to answer that we believe violence is at least occasionally justifiable to accomplish political goals. I say that because we both venerate the Founders of the US, who reserved the right to "alter or abolish" governments, and who did so through violent means. Every strong supporter of the 2nd amendment, who justifies access to weapons based on the right of the people to be more powerful than the government also believes this. Could you really answer a poll truthfully and say you think there is NEVER time when violent action against government is appropriate? Would you say the same thing if you lived in Iran or North Korea--in those places we not only support violent resistance by the people, we long for it.

Part of the problem with your argument is that you're suggesting we act in contravention of our own values. We both believe, do we not, in freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, and limited prior restraint? I'm not suggesting there is never a time when such values must be fudged in the name of political stability, but we hardly see such a time today. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, but only in the face of a conflict that killed 2% of the US population. I don't think we look back on the Palmer Raids and the other extremities of action taken during the Red Scare with any pride, do we?

One more thing about extremism among Muslims in the US and oversees--the main reason Muslims in the US are less extreme is that they are more prosperous. It's interesting that Malkin decided to concentrate on African-American Muslims. I wonder if their antipathy is based on Islam or on their longstanding problems in participating fully in American economic life? The greatest weapon against extremism is prosperity. People who see their prospects improving rarely think about blowing stuff up.

As for your claims about extremism the Muslim world, I suspect you could get 10% of any population to say almost anything in a poll. Pretending that this translates into violent action by 19 million poeople is a bit silly. Even if we count the number of jihadists worldwide at 30,000 (a hugely inflated figure), it still doesn't make sense to try to kill them all, for two reasons.

First, that policy can't help but create massive collateral damage, which tends to make more people mad and even justify their anger against us. If SWAT teams did their work not by sniping criminals but blowing up the buildings they occupy (sometimes damaging nearby buildings and killing innocent people), it wouldn't be long before the police would be seen as more dangerous than the criminals. The number of jihadists is not finite. Every time we kill innocent people going after them, we JUSTIFY the anger that makes people think terrorism is okay.

There is actually a lot of admiration in the Muslim world for Americans, American culture, and American political values--particularly in places like Iran where the government demonizes us. When we act against our own values, we look like hypocrites. That can't be in our best interests. If we believe in our values (and they are attractive to Muslims all over the world) then our greatest asset in this war is acting according to those values.

Second, its not cost effective. If someone wants to hurt me, I can either try to eliminate them or I can try to insulate myself from them. Insulation makes more sense than elimination in this case, even if I'm really mad at them and think that eliminating them is morally justified. Insulating ourselves against terrorism is inconvenient, but so is carrying an umbrella on a rainy day.

 

[cpwill]

Well, first of all CP, I think it's difficult to debate when the facts are not really in evidence. For example, you base your argument here on a link to an opinion piece, which is itself based on a survey the writer does not link to.

ah. back to the old standby of ad-sourcinem, eh? very well, if you have evidence that in fact these numbers are significantly off, i'd like to see them. I think you should note that I pretty clearly stated "at the end of the day nobody knows", and offered up this discussion of polls as an indication of where the ballpark was.

so your evidence disproving the article cited? put up or shut up

One of the things I notice about Malkin's article is that the small support she cites in the Muslim community for support of violence includes the words "at least rarely."

no, not bland and general "violence". "suicide bomber attacks against civilians". the 7/7 terrorists were "righteous martyrs".

Part of the problem with your argument is that you're suggesting we act in contravention of our own values.

quite the contrary; i fail to see how anything i have suggested is in contravention to my value system.

We both believe, do we not, in freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, and limited prior restraint?

within restraints; yes. freedom of religion does not extend to any action you choose to take under the rubric of "religion"; just as freedom of assembly is curtailed by the need to have permission on public land.

I'm not suggesting there is never a time when such values must be fudged in the name of political stability, but we hardly see such a time today. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, but only in the face of a conflict that killed 2% of the US population. I don't think we look back on the Palmer Raids and the other extremities of action taken during the Red Scare with any pride, do we?

:shrug: i don't have any problem with them. when you are faced with a fifth column, not to root it out is not merely foolishness, but an immoral abdication of responsibility on the part of the leadership. government's first duty is protection of the governed from attack.

One more thing about extremism among Muslims in the US and oversees--the main reason Muslims in the US are less extreme is that they are more prosperous.

no. the main reason Muslims in the US are less extreme is because they are more integrated. it's perhaps a subtle, but vital point.

It's interesting that Malkin decided to concentrate on African-American Muslims. I wonder if their antipathy is based on Islam or on their longstanding problems in participating fully in American economic life? The greatest weapon against extremism is prosperity.

really. so, say, if a kid was the son of a wealthy nigerian who could afford for him to study abroad, then he wouldn't be tempted to kill himself for Islamist Jihad?

remember, this is nihilism; it equally attracts the wealthy and well-to-do, who are looking for spiritual meaning.

People who see their prospects improving rarely think about blowing stuff up.

actually the ranks of Jihadists are stuffed with Doctors and Engineers; people who could easily see their "prospects improving".

As for your claims about extremism the Muslim world, I suspect you could get 10% of any population to say almost anything in a poll. Pretending that this translates into violent action by 19 million poeople is a bit silly.

i didn't say that that was the number of Jihadists; I say that the number of Islamists, the pool from which the organizations draw and the population that can without warning give forth jihadists is large. a fish needs to swim through water, and these populaces give them a big stream.

Even if we count the number of jihadists worldwide at 30,000 (a hugely inflated figure), it still doesn't make sense to try to kill them all

you think that is US strategy?

its not cost effective. If someone wants to hurt me, I can either try to eliminate them or I can try to insulate myself from them. Insulation makes more sense than elimination in this case, even if I'm really mad at them and think that eliminating them is morally justified. Insulating ourselves against terrorism is inconvenient, but so is carrying an umbrella on a rainy day.

you are incorrect on your cost analysis. 1. you cannot insulate yourself in a globalized world 2. attempts to insulate as much as possible directly benefit from aggressive action, this isn't an either/or question on resource allocation, but a fusion of efforts. 3. as I have pointed out, a good part of this problem is already within our borders. if we (as Boo Radley suggests) "seal off Pakistan", that ultimately does nothing for us, security wise. 4. seeking to protect ourselves alone rather than taking the fight to them reinforces in their minds the impression that the West is morally weak and unwilling to fight them; it encourages attack.

 

[Catawba]

try a significant percentage of the Muslim population residing currently in the west. it is no coincidence that the underwear bomber had british ties; her school system breeds such individuals. remember that what we are fighting here is not Al-Quada; they are simply one organization. what we are fighting is a violent near-nihilistic ideology.

What portion of the 1.3 billion Muslims world wide are part of al Qaeda? And please cite your sources.

far out of proportion to their relative numbers and strength, by increasing significantly the price of oil, which undergirds the world economy.

Can you provide tangible numbers to back up your claim? Please cite your sources. Thanks!

 

[Catawba]

for a time period yes, but Iraq was also (thus far) their greatest propaganda loss in the Muslim world.

Can you cite your sources that back up your claim? Thanks!

 

[Catawba]

Well, first of all CP, I think it's difficult to debate when the facts are not really in evidence. For example, you base your argument here on a link to an opinion piece, which is itself based on a survey the writer does not link to. So we are dependent on that writer's spin rather than the poll itself for the basis of the argument. One of the things I notice about Malkin's article is that the small support she cites in the Muslim community for support of violence includes the words "at least rarely." "Rarely" is a key term here, because--frankly--I doubt whether you or I could fail to answer that we believe violence is at least occasionally justifiable to accomplish political goals. I say that because we both venerate the Founders of the US, who reserved the right to "alter or abolish" governments, and who did so through violent means. Every strong supporter of the 2nd amendment, who justifies access to weapons based on the right of the people to be more powerful than the government also believes this. Could you really answer a poll truthfully and say you think there is NEVER time when violent action against government is appropriate? Would you say the same thing if you lived in Iran or North Korea--in those places we not only support violent resistance by the people, we long for it.

Part of the problem with your argument is that you're suggesting we act in contravention of our own values. We both believe, do we not, in freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, and limited prior restraint? I'm not suggesting there is never a time when such values must be fudged in the name of political stability, but we hardly see such a time today. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, but only in the face of a conflict that killed 2% of the US population. I don't think we look back on the Palmer Raids and the other extremities of action taken during the Red Scare with any pride, do we?

One more thing about extremism among Muslims in the US and oversees--the main reason Muslims in the US are less extreme is that they are more prosperous. It's interesting that Malkin decided to concentrate on African-American Muslims. I wonder if their antipathy is based on Islam or on their longstanding problems in participating fully in American economic life? The greatest weapon against extremism is prosperity. People who see their prospects improving rarely think about blowing stuff up.

As for your claims about extremism the Muslim world, I suspect you could get 10% of any population to say almost anything in a poll. Pretending that this translates into violent action by 19 million poeople is a bit silly. Even if we count the number of jihadists worldwide at 30,000 (a hugely inflated figure), it still doesn't make sense to try to kill them all, for two reasons.

First, that policy can't help but create massive collateral damage, which tends to make more people mad and even justify their anger against us. If SWAT teams did their work not by sniping criminals but blowing up the buildings they occupy (sometimes damaging nearby buildings and killing innocent people), it wouldn't be long before the police would be seen as more dangerous than the criminals. The number of jihadists is not finite. Every time we kill innocent people going after them, we JUSTIFY the anger that makes people think terrorism is okay.

There is actually a lot of admiration in the Muslim world for Americans, American culture, and American political values--particularly in places like Iran where the government demonizes us. When we act against our own values, we look like hypocrites. That can't be in our best interests. If we believe in our values (and they are attractive to Muslims all over the world) then our greatest asset in this war is acting according to those values.

Second, its not cost effective. If someone wants to hurt me, I can either try to eliminate them or I can try to insulate myself from them. Insulation makes more sense than elimination in this case, even if I'm really mad at them and think that eliminating them is morally justified. Insulating ourselves against terrorism is inconvenient, but so is carrying an umbrella on a rainy day.

Excellent post!!! Thanks for your contribution!

 

[Rassales]

ah. back to the old standby of ad-sourcinem, eh? very well, if you have evidence that in fact these numbers are significantly off, i'd like to see them. I think you should note that I pretty clearly stated "at the end of the day nobody knows", and offered up this discussion of polls as an indication of where the ballpark was.

so your evidence disproving the article cited? put up or shut up

I did. I'm not disputing her numbers, I'm disputing the way she's explained what the numbers mean. This isn't an "ad-sourcinem" fallacy, as I wasn't trying to discredit Malkin specifically. . I'm just object to basing an opinion on an opinion rather than on a fact. She's made it rather difficult to disprove evidence because...well...she hasn't provided any. There's no link to her source, so we can't investigate how the questions were asked, the methodology of the poll, etc. She can make claims about it using her own language rather than the language of the poll (which she never actually quotes, I notice).

no, not bland and general "violence". "suicide bomber attacks against civilians". the 7/7 terrorists were "righteous martyrs".

Why is the nature of the violence important, other than to increase the emotional import of the issue?

quite the contrary; i fail to see how anything i have suggested is in contravention to my value system.

You suggested that its wrong for us not to investigate specific groups based on their religion or ethnicity because it's "racist" (your quotes). The arguments over our policies in this area often revolve around profiling, for example, which violates the need for equal protection. They revolve around whether to provide access to our ordinary criminal justice system (again, equal protection). They involve whether to investigate an organization based on its religious affiliations. They involve whether to make pre-emptive war. These are all questions of values, and those questions are the REASON for disputes over policy in these areas.

within restraints; yes. freedom of religion does not extend to any action you choose to take under the rubric of "religion"; just as freedom of assembly is curtailed by the need to have permission on public land.

And if people actually take actions, prosecute them without regard to their religion. If they want to use public land, examine their application for a permit. But we aren't talking about use of public property or about prosecuting people after the fact.

:shrug: i don't have any problem with them. when you are faced with a fifth column, not to root it out is not merely foolishness, but an immoral abdication of responsibility on the part of the leadership. government's first duty is protection of the governed from attack.

The government has a long history of acting against American values in the pursuit of supposed enemies, from the Alien and Sedition Act to the FBI's investigation of Martin Luther King. Sorry you don't have a problem with that.

How about when Iran does it? Got a problem with that?

no. the main reason Muslims in the US are less extreme is because they are more integrated. it's perhaps a subtle, but vital point.

That's an interesting claim, but hard to prove. The fact that they are more prosperous is easily proven.

really. so, say, if a kid was the son of a wealthy nigerian who could afford for him to study abroad, then he wouldn't be tempted to kill himself for Islamist Jihad?

No, but I'd rather invest more resources in tracking Nigerian students who've been reported by their own parents than in suspecting all Nigerians

remember, this is nihilism; it equally attracts the wealthy and well-to-do, who are looking for spiritual meaning.

actually the ranks of Jihadists are stuffed with Doctors and Engineers; people who could easily see their "prospects improving".

But now were are conflating two groups--American citizens and Jihadists outside the US. One of the most effect sort of fallacious arguments is to conflate different sorts of opponents so we can make the characteristics of one portion appear to the characteristics of all. That's how some people (not you, CP) end up condemning all of Islam for the actions of a small minority, for example.

i didn't say that that was the number of Jihadists; I say that the number of Islamists, the pool from which the organizations draw and the population that can without warning give forth jihadists is large. a fish needs to swim through water, and these populaces give them a big stream.

Again, it's cheaper to strain the water that gets near Americans than to blow up all the fish.

you think that is US strategy?

This is the justification for pretty much all GWOT actions outside the US--kill them somewhere else to they can't make trouble here.

you are incorrect on your cost analysis. 1. you cannot insulate yourself in a globalized world 2. attempts to insulate as much as possible directly benefit from aggressive action, this isn't an either/or question on resource allocation, but a fusion of efforts. 3. as I have pointed out, a good part of this problem is already within our borders. if we (as Boo Radley suggests) "seal off Pakistan", that ultimately does nothing for us, security wise. 4. seeking to protect ourselves alone rather than taking the fight to them reinforces in their minds the impression that the West is morally weak and unwilling to fight them; it encourages attack.

First, the problem is that Muslims all over the world are treated regularly to video of families and children suffering because of Western actions. THAT'S what makes us look morally weak--that and the fact that our lofty idealistic rhetoric doesn't match our actions.

As for the rest--sometimes the perfect is the enemy of the good. We live in a dangerous world--it's always been dangerous. When we try to eradicate the danger, we often just feed it. That's what we do with our War on Drugs and its always what we do with the GWOT. These policies enable wrong-doing even as they punish some of the wrongdoers. And returning to my original point--a pragmatic rather than emotional view (with its concentration on righteous indignation) would be better.