Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lebell
Unfortunately you would have to undo all past events to get to this point.
Some extremists are still invoking the crusades as reason to go to war.
Others are talking about things the British did a hundred years ago.
I agree that the picture is complicated, which is why I think that particular view point is as simplistic as "they're all terrorists, kill them!".
|
Not true Lebell. While it's easy to make people dislike one another it's allot harder to get them to act on those feelings. I feel a state simply needs to reach a nutral point. Most of the time simply ceasing certain activities which are degratory to one's reputation is enough. Obviously continuing to safeguard against terrorism and any crime will continue to be necesary but it certainly won't cost as much as a constant conflict.
An intresting case come from Iraq. I believe that had our govenment been a little more humble and co-operated with the EU (by sharing future profits from Iraq) thus gaining their support; they would have prevented much of the insurgent activity and possible terrorist activity that is happening in Iraq today. Instead the administration waged a personal crusade, combinded with the already growing anti-American sentiment in the region this did nothing but add fuel to the fire. So in executing the operation in Iraq as they did our govenement showed once again that terrorism is not a priority.