I actually agree with you on this, but there is an entire generation or more that is already set on a way of thinking and a course of action. Their own countries should have pulled them out of poverty long ago. At one time, all they had was their faith and the even the public schools in Egypt were promoting terrorism to the poor.



>Nice.
>
>Yes I'll withdraw misguided. By their own logic they are responding to their circumstances perfectly rationally.
>
>We need to change their circumstances or we will forever be tryng to catch up.
>
>
>
>>You said, just a reply ago, that they come because they are young and misguided. Do you retract your own words?
>>
>>>People end up in those camps for a reason. Treat that not the symptom.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I am glad that we agree about Osama, in the sense that person like him will exist anyway regardless to social conditions.
>>>>There are two ways to exclude 'young misguided recruits' from coming: either eliminate place where they are coming in, i.e. terrorist cells/camps (unfortunately, for bleeding-heart ilk, it will essentially require eliminating everyone who already came in), or eliminating every young person on this planet, because under certain circumstances any youngster could become misguided.
>>>>I don't think that second plan is sufficiently feasible, so criticizing people who try to implement the first plan is not very fair, imho.
>>>>
>>>>>I was about to update my reply Edward.
>>>>>
>>>>>Osama isn't strapping on the bombs and walking into the markets. Where do the young misguided recruits come from that he uses. Thts what has to be solved and as always the military solution doesn't cut it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Every morning I ask myself "Why are we losing men and women in Afghanistan" and every morning I fail to come up with a good answer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I asked you direct question to figure out where you stand. As I see now, you don't know it yourself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>BTW what Osama got to do with this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It has direct relation to your previous reply. You said essentially that terrorists behave badly because they 'have nothing to lose'. Using your logics one should deduct that the main terrorist, Osama, had nothing to lose when he plotted his ways. Would you agree with that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>If I understand correctly, you are also "solidly behind the invasion of Afghanistan"?
>>>>>>>>By the way, I see another interesting place in your logics to ask a question. Did Osama B.Laden have something to lose?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Its not ridiculous Alan its a tragedy.These things are being done in "our" name and then we wonder why some of these countries produce terrorists.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Give a people nothing to lose and thats what you get.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>The whole thing is ridiculous anyway. How many people here have said that they would be quite happy to shoot anyone invading their homes. Well, soldiers invaded his home. He threw a grenade, and now they're charging him with murder. It's not as if he came to the U.S. and threw a grenade, for Pete's sake. The U.S. is pretty much saying that if U.S. soldiers invade someone's country, the citizens can be charged with murder for defending themselves.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Now, don't get me wrong, while I disagreed with the invasion of Iraq, I was solidly behind the invasion of Afghanistan. But to charge those who are being invaded with murder for fighting back is really stretching it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>OK, since you like to play with words and have the empathy of a lobster, I will stop loosing my time with you.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>I wonder if any criminal experiences this kind of 'torture' at the point of arresting. For example, handcuffing could qualify in both 'physical' and 'mental' categories. Also, it seems that any 'punishment' is a 'torture'. Advocating for centencing by Canadian court to incarceration in Canadian jail could mean supporting another kind of the torture. The only way, you and your ilk would be happy is an unconditional freedom for any terrosist suspect.