The USA wants to kill terrorists!

In 1940 the Zionists were “terrorists” and the Arabs were “defending their land”.

By 1948 the USA decided to feel sorry for Jews, help create Israel, and reverse the meaning of “terrorist”.

The Zionists became “Israeli pioneers” or “settlers” who are “defending their land” against Arab “terrorists”.

Today President Bush is trying to convince the world to fight “terrorism”. However, the nations that use the 1940 definition consider the Zionists to be terrorists, and we Americans are “supporters of terrorism”.

How can the world fight terrorism when the USA changes its meaning in order to justify the killings by Israel? How can there peace in Palestine when we disagree on who the land belongs to?

To complicate this further, if SOA Watch is correct, the USA has a “terrorist training camp” in Georgia.

It is easier to destroy than to create

• It takes a lot of effort to feed, care for, and educate a child; it takes only a moment to kill one.
  
  
• It takes a lot of effort to design and build a home; it takes only a moment to burn one down.
  
  
• It required lots of engineers, machinists, and others to design and build airplanes; it took only a few Arabs with razors to destroy four of them.

Technology makes terrorism easier; it cannot stop it

“Technology didn't get this into this mess, but it will definitely help us get out.”

The typical attitude is that technology will give us better security systems and better weapons, and that those security systems and weapons will keep the terrorists under control.

Unfortunately, the opposite is true. Technology makes it easier for people to destroy. Technology makes us more susceptible to terrorism.

To understand this better, imagine that Osama was alive during the Middle Ages, and imagine that he and a group of Arabs decided to attack London in an effort to stop the Crusades. The only weapons at their disposal were sharp sticks, crude metal knives, and rocks. Fire could be used as a weapon to some extent. Therefore, if a couple dozen Arabs had attacked London, they would have done less damage than a bad winter storm. Compare that situation to today in which a couple dozen Arabs can destroy hundreds of millions of dollars worth of property and kill thousands of people.

As technology improves, small group of Arabs will be able to kill more Americans and destroy more American property, and with less effort. Rather than get us out of this mess, technology makes easier for our enemies to destroy us. Therefore, it is foolish for America to continue to create enemies around the world. We risk having our society destroyed by small groups of people.

Technology will not solve "terrorism". A better policy is to create a happier world in which people enjoy life rather than try to kill one another. Unfortunately, it will not be easy to figure out how to make happier world when no nation is willing to accept the possibility that they are behaving in a selfish, arrogant, violent, or destructive manner. We have to be able look critically at our own nation and our policies, but that means putting aside that attitude we refer to as “Patriotism”.

Can brain-scan technology identify terrorists?

Steve Kirsch (a wealthy, successful entrepreneur) wrote an article "Identifying terrorists before they strike":
http://www.skirsch.com/politics/plane/ultimate.htm

He writes:

To summarize his proposal, he wants to have our brain scanned by a special machine so that we can figure out who among us is a terrorist.

This got me to thinking...

First of all, the definition of a "terrorist" is different to different people. What would happen if we installed the brain scanners at airports and then discovered that Israelis and CIA agents were setting the machine off while the Arabs were getting through? Whose definition of "terrorist" would the machines use?

Any company that made these machines would have to provide a dial to allow each nation to set it to the terrorist of their choice. For example, the airlines of the USA could set the dial to "Arabs", whereas the Arab airlines could set the dial to "Jews" and "CIA agents". The South American airlines would set it for "graduates of the terrorist training camp in Georgia".

Second, if brain scans can identify something as vague as a “terrorist”, they would certainly be able to identify all sorts of other vague concepts, such as "incompetent politicians", "hypocrites", and even "nutty American entrepreneurs".

Third, perhaps we should have scanned the brains of Gore and Bush before the election to determine if either was presidential material.

Our attempts to control the Arabs creates more of a mess

In 1991 we slaughtered the Iraqi people on the grounds that Saddam Hussein is evil, and we are still trying to hurt Libya with economic sanctions on the grounds that Khadafy is evil. Will we soon bomb Saudi Arabia on the grounds that they have a primitive monarchy instead of “modern, democratic government”?

Iran is another example of how we hurt ourselves and others when we try to help the world. When the CIA tried to control the Iranian government, Ayatollah Khomeini became a hero for standing up to the USA. Unfortunately, Khomeini caused Iran to go backwards to a more primitive existence. This hurt Iran, and the USA is to blame. Without the USA to stir up hatred, Khomeini would have remained a religious leader, and the Iranian people would not be so full of anger towards the USA.

The USA decided to undo the Khomeini mess by encouraging and supporting a war between Iran and Iraq. We gave weapons, advice, and encouragement to Saddam Hussein. We also gave him chemical and biological weapons. The USA hoped that Iraq would defeat Khomeini. But Iraq is a tiny, poor nation, so even with our help Iraq did nothing but ruin their economy and create a lot of crippled and dead Iraqis.

After a few years of fighting with Iran, most Iraqi people were tired of war. Saddam quit fighting with Iran and eventually decided to attack Kuwait. Few Americans asked why he wanted to attack Kuwait, or why he thought the USA would allow it.

George Bush, who was losing in the election to Bill Clinton, decided to use the attack of Kuwait to make himself look like a hero. After Iraq attacked Kuwait, the US government spewed endless nonsense that Iraq was a dangerous nation with powerful military weapons, and that Iraq was on the verge of conquering the world.

We were told that Saddam was the Hitler of the Mideast. We were told that Saddam had dangerous Scud missiles, lots of American and Russian weapons, and American-made Anthrax. We were told that only the brave and courageous Americans could save the world from such a powerful monster. We Americans must save the world! We are great people! And George Bush is our great leader who will help us fight this monster!

We asked for the assistance of Britain and other nations because Iraq was such a dangerous nation that we did not want to face Iraq by ourselves. Then we bombed Iraq and boasted that we are heroes for saving the world from evil.

Our bombing of Iraq caused many Iraqi people to support Saddam and hate the USA. It also made the Americans look like ignorant fools for believing that Iraq was a serious military threat to the world.

Many Americans insult the Arab governments, but the USA is helping maintain those governments and/or is the reason those governments came into existence.

If the USA hadn't been messing with the Mideast, the Arab nations would be happier and more modern today. I found an article that lists some of America's policies that made the situation worse:
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0930-09.htm

Our CIA and military have the attitude that they can fix the the world's problems with bombs and assassinations, but so far all they have done is spread anger. When do we look for alternative policies?

People fight to the death for their homes

The Americans and Israelis expect the Arabs to pack their bags, move off the land, and let the Israelis have it for free. The Arabs are expected to do something that no other group of people has ever done or would be expected to do.

Imagine this situation happening with America. For example, imagine the Native Americans announcing that Nebraska is now their nation. Would the Americans in Nebraska walk off their land and let the Native Americans have it for free? No. Even if the Native Americans offered to buy the land, the American people would not give it to them.

Or imagine the Jews demanding a portion of America for their own nation. Would the Americans give it to them? Of course not. Or imagine the natives of Hawaii demanding that a portion of Hawaii be given to them for their own nation.

Americans are generous when it comes to giving Arab land to Jews, but they would never give up any of their own land.

Many Americans believe that the Jews have a right to Palestine because thousands of years ago some of their ancestors lived in the area. Imagine applying the same reasoning to Europe or America. For example, imagine a group of people saying that because their ancestors lived in southern France a few thousand years ago, they now deserve that land for their own nation.

David Horowitz is one of many Americans who do not want the USA to feel guilty for slavery or do anything for the descendants of the slaves. One of their reasons is that slavery was in the past, and another reason is that nobody can be held accountable for it since it was not the decision of a person or group. But many of these same people will justify the support of Israel and use the same reasons they said were invalid in regards to the slavery issue.

Here is a site that has four articles on Horowitz's slavery opinions.
http://www.zmag.org/horowitz_flap.htm

The USA is like John Bobbit, and Osama is Lorena Bobbit

The USA is like John Bobbit, and Osama is like Lorena. The USA has been abusing Arabs for decades, and it finally reached the point at which some Arabs decided to cut off America's weenie. You might find it interesting to imagine John Bobbit and other men reacting the way the American people reacted:

Imagine John Bobbit and several other men in his neighborhood are abusing their wives. Lorena Bobbit and the other wives make plans to cut off their husband's weenies on September 11.

On September 11 these women carry through with their plans. The men accuse Lorena of being “The Evil One” because she was the leader of the group, and they accuse the women of being “terrorists”. These men wave flags and insist the tragedy has brought them closer together. They hold candlelight vigils.

The men insist that they have done nothing to create the anger that their wives are showing. They insist that their wives are evil; that their wives hate them because the men love freedom and democracy.

Next imagine these men get together and start a violent bombing frenzy of women' shelters and police departments because they know their wives are being protected by the police and the women's shelters. Since they don't know where their wives are, they just bomb any building that is convenient.

Finally, they toss packs of food to homeless people to show that they love people and are not trying to hurt anybody except their wives.

But wait! Before you think this analogy is finished, imagine these men getting Tony Blair of Britain and lots of British citizens to provide military aid and emotional support for their bombings.

Osama bin Laden is the Saudi version of George Washington

President Bush describes Osama as The Evil One, but he is more like the founders of the United States who rebelled against Britain. Of course, the USA is much more abusive to the Arabs than Britain was to the colonists. The colonists merely complained about trivial issues, such as taxation without representation. Osama is complaining about our support of monarchies, our slaughters of Arabs, and our struggle to help the Zionists create Israel.

According to this article:
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1117-05.htm

...President Reagan welcomed Osama bin Laden's Mujahadeen allies to the White House as “the moral equivalent of our founding fathers”...

So you cannot accuse me of being the only one who feels this way! Another interesting part of that article is:

At the Nuremburg Trials, Hermann Goering said, “people can always be brought to do the bidding of the leaders...All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce (opponents) pacifists for lack of patriotism.”

When the Taliban is gone, will the corruption return?

“The World's Most Dangerous Places”

You can find the book at many bookstores, or at this web site:
http://www.comebackalive.com/df/dplaces/afghanis/index.htm

Religion increases during bad times

• After the World Trade Center attack, many Americans went to church and prayed, even though they had not done so a long time.


• When the USA meddled in the affairs of Iran, many Iranians turned to Ayatollah Khomeini for guidance and advice.


• The Taliban was a reaction to corruption and abuse.


• Religion tends to increase as people get old and realize they will soon die.

In a happy society, religious leaders remain in churches, and the religious groups spend their time on happy activities. When we find religious leaders and their supporters buying weapons and fighting their government for control of the nation, it is a sign that something is seriously wrong with that nation. Bombing a nation that is having such troubles might make the situation worse.

Of course, it is possible that the only reason President Bush and Dick Cheney want to bomb Afghanistan is that they are hoping to install a new government that will allow the USA to build an oil pipeline through Afghanistan. They may be using Osama as an excuse to bomb Afghanistan.

The Crusades, again!

How many more of these Crusades do we need before we agree to let the Arabs live in Palestine in peace? The Arabs have been there for at least 2000 years; how long do they have to live there before they can claim it as their home? By comparison, the Americans claim Hawaii as their own after just a few years.

The Arabs are not likely to give up the land they live on, and the Israelis are not likely to give up the concept of Israel. Since America is determined to remain involved in the conflict and support Israel, America will remain a target for Arabs. In other words, there will be more attacks by Arabs. America will react to the attacks by killing more Arabs, and bombing more Arab nations. The Arabs will then retaliate again, and then the Americans will retaliate, and so on.

Soon nobody will know why the fighting started

Actually, that point has already arrived, at least in the USA were ignorance of the Mideast is incredible. If we look at the American generation that is approximately 20 years old we can see that most of them do not know how Israel got established or why the Arabs are so angry at Israel and America. These young Americans believe that the Arabs are attacking us because they are evil, or because we love freedom.

I frequently hear the Arabs referred to as “Sand Niggers.” Many Americans believe (privately, not publicly) that the Arabs are an inferior, violent race, and that the Americans are the superior, peaceful, loving race. I also hear Americans criticize the Muslim religion as being an evil religion that encourages killings, whereas the Christian and Jewish religions encourage love and peace.

This attitude of superiority is likely to encourage the killing of more Sand Niggers rather than encourage discussions.

We behave like the people we condemn

Tim McVeigh also wanted to help improve the world, and his solution was to bomb a building in Oklahoma.

Most Americans condemn McVeigh and the Unabomber, but American foreign policy appears to have been designed by those two guys. Specifically, the attitude in America is that randomly killing Arabs will improve the world. However, instead of mailing small bombs to individual Arabs, we drop large, expensive bombs on groups of Arabs and Afghans.

If the U.S. government were to mail small bombs to individual Arabs, many Americans might complain that those bombs are not a solution. But if it is stupid to mail small bombs, why is it intelligent to drop large bombs? The effect is the same in either case; namely, the victims get mad at the people who are bombing them.

America's Final Solution to terrorism

Most nations support our bombings even though we never explained how it will stop terrorism or help Afghanistan. The US courts need a lot of justification to kill our own criminals, but only a few people want justification for a bombing of Afghanistan.

It would make a bit more sense for us to kill only the terrorists rather than randomly toss bombs on a nation, but how do we figure out who is a terrorist?

Our government has warned us that this war on terrorism will last a long time. Of course it will; many of the terrorists are children, and some of them have not been born yet.

Furthermore, there is the possibility that our killing of terrorists and our bombing of other nations will create more terrorists. Our war on terrorism could get worse and worse through the years. In other words, as we kill terrorists, we may create more of them, which means we then have to kill even more, and so on, until most of the world hates us.

Did we win the 1991 "Desert Storm" war?

We didn't win anything in Iraq. Rather, we are only making Arabs angry at us, and we are wasting our money.

Desert Storm also created disgust and apathy among some white Americans. For just one example, in the interview Tim McVeigh gave on TV, he said he was one of the Desert Storm Troopers who were sent to Iraq in 1991. After a while he was asking himself why he was killing the Iraqi people. He came to the conclusion that the US government, not the Iraqis, were the real problem. The killings at Wako, Texas further convinced him that our problem is the US government.

I say the USA did not win the Desert Storm war. Rather, we wasted (and are still wasting) lots of money and resources; we killed lots of Arabs; and we are creating lots of hatred and disgust of the USA.

Is Caspian oil influencing US policy?

"...a route through Afghanistan appears to be the best option with the fewest technical obstacles."

"...CentGas cannot begin construction until an internationally recognized Afghanistan government is in place."

The transcript is here:
http://www.house.gov/international_relations/105th/ap/wsap212982.htm

Here is one article about the oil pipeline:
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1023-10.htm

Are the US and British government officials influenced by oil companies?

We want other nations to approve of our killings

Britain supports any bombing the Americans propose. Ever since the 1940's the Brits have been like puppy dogs who follow Americans and struggle to get our attention. I wonder how absurd a bombing would have to be before Britain refused. What if we proposed bombing Ireland in order to stop the fighting in Ireland? What if we proposed bombing the Bermuda Triangle (ie, that location in the ocean where aliens from other planets cause planes to crash)?

Other nations should ask themselves if they want to get dragged into America's problems, and if they want to encourage military attacks as a solution to social problems.

The USA is becoming a battleground over Israel

Now that a few Arabs destroyed the World Trade Centers, millions of Americans want to escalate the fight with the Arabs.

This is making America into a battleground over Israel, which in turn will make life unpleasant for Americans. We will hurt our economy and put ourselves though absurd security procedures.

What can the USA possibly gain by fighting with the Arabs? Nothing; only Israel has something to gain, and there is no guarantee that Israel will gain anything.

The patriotic Americans who want to fight with the Arabs may as well be waving Israeli flags, not American flags. They are not helping me or other Americans; rather, they are dragging us into the Israeli-Arab fight.

Americans are risking their lives for Israel, not America

I would say the Americans who die in Arab bombings are giving their lives to Israel, not America. The WCOTC describe it as: Israel uses America as a shield.

What good does it to do bomb Afghanistan?

Bombing Afghanistan is waste of time and money, and it makes the USA look like violent maniacs. Furthermore, the fighting in Afghanistan during the 1980's between Russia and the USA may be part of the reason the Afghans are so violent. Supposedly, (according to the people that claim to know such things), Afghanistan has lots of orphans, and many of the orphan boys were raised by religious men in primitive, all-male "orphanages". These orphans never knew their mother, did not have much contact with women, and never got much of an education. They were raised in an environment of war, death, and misery, not of families, friends, or peace.

The Americans want to bomb whatever is remaining in Afghanistan. This will create more orphans and more refugees. This in turn will create more children who grow up in miserable conditions. Who benefits from this?

The orphans and refugees will not thank the Americans for bombing Afghanistan. Also, the nations in the area will not thank the Americans for the flood of refugees. Rather, it will make the Arabs even more angry than before, and it will cause most of Afghanistan to hate us, and soon most of Pakistan may hate us, also.

I often hear Americans justify killing Afghans because they mistreat their women, but do the Afghan men abuse their women more than the American men?

We have shelters for beaten women all over our nation; we have knife and gunshot victims everywhere; and we have racial fights. Are the Afghan really worse than American men? Or are they just different?

Here is one site where American women (and a few from other nations) talk about their rapes... are Taliban men really worse than these guys?
http://www.angelicate.net/novisiblescars/others.htm

We just helped the Russians and the Northern Alliance get control of Afghanistan!

While we're spending billions of dollars to bomb Afghanistan and then rebuilt it, here in our own nation we find our cities are disorganized, our public transportation is inferior to that of our European relatives, and we are slowly losing our industries. Americans are willing to spend billions to kill people around the world, but they will not spend much money to make the USA a nicer place.

What have we won in Afghanistan? Who benefits from our bombings?

The Northern Alliance did not like us before the bombings, so what makes us so sure they will like us in the future? What will happen if the Northern Alliance turns against America, as Osama did?

What if the American oil companies cannot build an oil pipeline through Afghanistan? What if the Russians get to build a pipeline? Will the Americans decide to once again give billions of dollars to Osama in attempt to defeat the Northern Alliance? Will the fighting that occurred during the 1980's resume once again?

Will the world quit feeling sorry for the USA?

Who wants to invest in Northern Ireland? Likewise, how many people will want to invest in America if it becomes a battleground over Israel?

At the moment most of the people in the world are sending sympathy to America. Only a few people in other nations are telling the Americans that this is their own fault for using bombs and assassinations to control other nations; only a few people are telling us to quit playing World's Policeman. However, if the Americans and Arabs escalate their retaliation against each other, more people will turn their back on America in disgust.

New York City is currently a major center for the world's financial transactions, but if these attacks continue there will be a point at which other nations move their offices to a more peaceful country. New York City is not the world's most attractive city in the first place. It has a lot of crime, ugly architecture, and transportation problems. There are many cities on this planet that are more visually attractive and which are safer to live in. When you add bombings to New York, it becomes especially unattractive.

Will the South Americans rebel against America, also?

The biggest problem that South America and Mexico face over this drug problem is that it allows groups of criminals to form. These organized criminals are a problem because they have enormous amounts of money for the control of both businesses and government officials.

It would make more sense for the South Americans to legalize drugs and allow legitimate businesses to produce drugs for the American market. This would eliminate a lot of the criminal activity, as well as provide an income for some people.

The South Americans should also tell the American military to get out of their nation, quit smuggling weapons into their nations, and quit killing their citizens.

However, no South American nation stands up to America. Why do they put up with this abuse?

When America first got involved with Israel, the Arabs did not attack America. It took many decades of anger before the World Trade Center was bombed. Maybe it will take many decades before the South Americans are that angry at us.

Perhaps anger is slowly growing in South America right now. Perhaps after another few decades there will be so many angry South Americans that some of them start attacking Americans both in South America and in America.

What does the future hold for America? Will America soon be waging war with the South Americans also? What about the Chinese? The Chinese are not happy with American policies either; will we start fighting with them soon? How many nations will the American military be in by the year 2020? How many different groups of people will we be killing?

Will there ever be a point at which we stop using violence to solve social problems?

Is America really a “SuperPower”?

Prior to 1940, America was like Australia. Both America and Australia tended to keep to themselves and let the world do as it pleased. Neither nation was cocky. Actually, most Americans and Australians were (and still are!) suffering from low self-esteem. Most of the Australians and Americans were well aware that their nations were full of people who were considered misfits, criminals, and mentally ill by their relatives who remained in Europe.

After 1940 the Americans found themselves with a lot of advanced European technology, such as nuclear weapons, jet engines, radar, and rockets. Millions of Americans jumped on a pedestal, beat their chest, and proclaimed that they are a SuperPower. America has since become amazingly arrogant. By 1991 we had appointed ourselves to the position of the World's Policeman. But we are still the same misfits, criminals, and mentally ill people. Nuclear bombs did not transform any of us into a superior race.

Arrogance is a problem with all people

The important difference between Britain and America is that the British were willing to back off when another nation put up a fight. For example, when the Indians started to fight with the British, the British backed off before the fight became anywhere near as extreme as between the Arabs and the Americans.

When the American colonists rebelled against the British, the British backed off rather quickly. The British could easily have sent a larger military force to the colonies and beaten the colonists, but the British decided to let it go. The British could have taken the War of 1812 to the point of conquering America, also, but they didn't.

There is still some resentment to Britain among the Chinese and a few other nations. However, the resentment is mild compared to the anger towards America. This is not due to the passage of time. If we look back in history we cannot find a level of hatred towards Britain that we find towards America.

The British “took control” of India with a very small number of troops simply because there was not very much hatred towards the British. The British were not so abusive that large numbers of Indians wanted to rebel. The British were abusive, but at the same time they were helping India in many ways. Many of the Indians were glad to have the British.

The Indians who wanted to drive the British out had the first convince other Indian citizens to join the resistance movement. Many of the Indians did not see any reason to join the movement; they did not see the British as being enough of a problem. Most of the Indian citizens had more important things to worry about.

It would have been very easy for the Indian people to drive the British out because the Indians outnumbered the British by an enormous number, and the weapons in those days were too primitive to give Britain enough of an advantage. Furthermore, the British would have had trouble supplying troops to India because the transportation devices in those days were primitive.

When the fights became serious, the British backed off. The British did not cry that their pride had been hurt and they must remain in India to get revenge on the Indian “terrorists”.

Also, Britain did not try to get revenge on the American “terrorists” in 1776, or the Chinese “terrorists”. The British were willing to forget the incident.

By comparison, the Americans are willing to fight the Arabs regardless of the cost to themselves and other nations. Furthermore, the anger the Arabs have towards America is extreme. There was never a nation that had this much anger towards Britain. This implies the fighting could become worse than anything Britain experienced. (Actually, it already has!)

Imagine the American police behaving like the US military and the CIA

Or imagine the American police doing such things as:

• Supplying weapons to some people and training them to kill so that they can take over sections of the city (as the Americans helped Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, etc.). The police do this on the assumption that these people will be puppets of the police forever.


• Conducting random bombings of their city while avoiding the person they accuse of being the criminal (as the Americans bombed Iraq while avoiding Saddam) after they decided that the person they helped get control of the city should not be in control.


• Referring to their slaughtering of people as “sending a message” to the criminals (as the Americans referred to our slaughtering of Iraqis)


• Assassinating, or helping others to assassinate, their own local political officials, and helping revolutions within their city (as the CIA does with other nations).

Is Arab oil one of America's “national interests”?

The Americans believe we have the right to restrict trade with other nations. For example, for many decades America has refused to deal with Cuba. At the same time, America refuses to allow the Arab nations to decide who they want to trade with.

The oil belongs to the Arabs, and they should be able to decide what price to sell it for, how much to sell, and who to sell it to. If it is acceptable for America to torment Cuba, then it is acceptable for the Arabs to refuse to sell oil to America.

Imagine the nuclear weapon situation reversed. Imagine that the Arab nations have weapons rather than America, and imagine the Arabs announcing to us that our farmland is their “national interest” because they lack such resources, and that we must sell them as much as they want for a price they approve of. Imagine the Arabs refusing to sell oil to certain nations, while not permitting us to refuse selling food. Or imagine the Japanese telling us that our forests are their national interests because they do not have much wood.

The Americans claim to be loving, generous people, but if any nation behaved like America, we would declare war on them. Why is it strange that the Arabs dislike our attitudes when you and I would dislike our attitudes if the situation was reversed?

We are the problem, not Osama

There is so much patriotism in America right now that some people who have criticized Bush or our foreign-policy have been visited by the FBI after somebody people complained about their anti-American remarks. One article about this:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0108-02.htm

How idiotic would President Bush have to be before the flag waving patriots allow criticism of him? What if President Bush announced that the Arabs are angry with America because many Americans have two cars? What if Bush announced that the Arabs hate America because American men have bigger penises than Arab men?

How many more bombs and dollars will we waste on the Mideast?

Israel is like an open wound on the planet earth, not a happy place. Americans believe that pouring money and bombs into the area will eventually solve the problem and turn the Mideast into a happy place. But when has money or bombs solved social problems?

Want can you do to help?

All I can suggest is to copy and paste these links into email and send them to people you know. This might inspire some thinking:

The World Trade Center and terrorist issues:
http://scams.darktech.org

A list of America's policies that backfired:
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0930-09.htm

Can you handle more? It gets worse! Be prepared, and then try Part 2: