I am heartily tired of this silly-ass "you're with us or with the terrorists" crap. Terrorists should face the full fury of the law, whatever that law is in whatever jurisdiction. Very few people whould contest that, and those few are, I think, way off-base. But to pretend that terrorists, especially those like bin Laden or the leaders of Hamas have no political agenda worth analyzing and understanding is nuts. They absolutely do. It is because their political aspirations appeal to so many that they are not easily isolated and destroyed. Hamas wants Palestine back. Bin Laden wants to eliminte the pro-Western Arab regimes and to install a whacked-out version of Sunni Wahabism on every Molsem in sight. The individual motivation of the human tools they employ towards those ends is important on the level of the social psychology of alienation and displacement but not essential to the leaders of these ideological movements.

Britain's problems are uniquely her own. Decades of assault on the political community (remember Thatcher's chilling: "There are no communities; their are only individuals"?) and the obvious hatred Thatcher and Blair had for thier own country have not helped. The failure of the broader society to embrace immigrants, and of the immigrants to assimilate, hurt more. The fact that British political elites slavishly follows America's diktats, no matter what the majority of the British people think, makes a bad situation worse. That indivudials act out in murdurous ways means that they must be punished. But the creation and perpetuation of the conditions that convinces some to act and others to tolerate their murderous ideas is a bad policy. To not reconsider the environment is exactly the policy the "don't think, just condemn and kill" types want, and it is exaclty what we can't afford.

Sorry, Shooter, I'm a New Yorker, and beleive it or not, after 42 years I have yet to be killed, wounded, or otherwise assaulted by my fellow citizens. You live in fear, man, and should remember that "home of the brave" stuff. Being treated like a man, at least around here, isn't ambiguous. It's about neither kissing ass or blustering and bullying. It means acting like an adult, male or female (it doesn't really matter here much anymore). It means talking with some tact, hearing what others say, compromising when you can, and sticking up for yourself when you can't. You know, like treating foreign dignitaries and leaders like they were white guys at your country club, not peons. Why you can't imagine any interactions with people not exactly like yourself as either hostile or threatening is beyond me. Try and talk to someone not of the same race and class as you are. You may discover that they are not all out to kill you.

to actually engage in a discussion. The answer to your query is no. However, the people I know, both foreign and domestic, and the places I've worked, both foreign and domestic, have not been motivated primarily, or even in large part, by the false dichotomy you pose. Most human interactions are negotiations, like in our market economy which I assume you approve of. If you look to the writings of a Washington or a Jefferson or an Adams, you will notice that Americans did not revel in or seek to dominate other (white) people, and would not accept being dominated by others, but expected to treat others LIKE MEN while demanding to be treated LIKE MEN. This is the healthy relationship one has to others. You give respect and expect respect. Not dominance, not control, just plain old fashioned adult interactions. Since we are the stongest and richest and most isolated of all the Great Powers, we need not be dominated and should not allow ourselves to be dominated. On the other hand, instead of being frightened or haughty or bullies, we should set a good example and treat others fairly and with respect.

They long for the false sense of inviolable power that they had before 9/11. They feel "violated" by even the threat of outsiders (hence thier current immigration hysteria). They are burdened with an unhealthy need to dominate and control. And if American men can't dominate women, how are they going to dominate the world?

The whole pathology culminates in the desire to be hard and pitiless, to torture, bomb, and kill without remorse. Remember the scene in "Apocalpse Now" where Brando is talking about the Viet Cong? The envy and respect he has for them as he describes how they chopped off the arms of the kids the GIs had innoculated. "The Will!" he blurts out. Well, the 9/11 hijackers showed that kind of crazy, perverted will, and a whole lotta American men were, I think, impressed, just below the conscious level. They got rattled, and have more and more tried to steel themselves against pity, mercy, and justice, so that they, too, can "do what it takes to win." So when we aks the question, where is the real anger over this war, over Abu Ghraib, over Bagram and Special Rendition, we have to understand that alot of people, mostly men but some women, see these things as a welcome sign that we, too, have the pitiless will to put the threatening darkies back in their place and defend our right to unlimited safety and absolute control.