Maybe. I think a lot of the left-wing "it's our fault" crowd might change their tune when faced with the incineration of a few thousand more americans. This isn't to say I hope such a thing happens, more that a)they may change their minds in the face of carnage and b)they are terrible people because of this.

Totally disagree with Lileks. I do not think Americans blame America for the 9/11 attack; they blame Bin-Ladden and his network. While they may not agree with the war in Iraq (and I think more do than don't support the war), they remain pretty supportive of punishing Bin Laden and Al-Queda.

If America is attacked again, the American people won't blame America. They will blame whoever is in charge of homeland security. George W. Bush or John Kerry will have a lot of explaining to do on why the troops liberating Iraq help American national security more in Bagdad than they would if they were posted at every airport, every seaport and along the borders. If an another attack occurs, two words will be heard across this nation, America First. I think most American cares more about their own security than the status of people of other nations and faiths. It may be harsh but I think it to be true.

Frankly, the idea that any Americans, other than perhaps a VERY tiny percentage of extremists (and al-quaida sympathizers), blame America, or American policy for 9/11 or any future attacks is a silly notion that is only propigated by our sound bite society and media that wants everything in terms of black and white.

On the other hand, there were a number of outspoken right wing mouth pieces, the Ann Coulter's of the world and it sounds like Mr. Lileks (though this is a short quote so I don't want to presume), who claimed that people were "blaming America" when they noted that there were American policies that helped to fuel the hatred that led to 9/11 and that it might be intelligent to consider whether or not American foreign policy encouraged the terrorist movements. But those people were not blaming America, or being anti-American, they were expressing the view point that following Policy X led more people to hate America than Policy Y and that by following Policy X and causing more people to hate America this increased the likelihood that Islamic terrorist groups would be able to get more people, more funding and, thus, be more likely to launch a successful attack.

We can debate whether or not invading Iraq and many of Bush's other policy decisions have made America safer or not. But let's debate these questions on the merits. Claiming that people are "blaming" America, because they criticize American policy because, among other things, they believe it causes more people to hate us, is not a reasoned discussion, but simple mudslinging. A wise and reasoned leadership will consider, before it acts, to what degree its actions are likely to piss off others and consider those consequences when deciding whether or not the policy decision is a good one. There is good reason to believe that the Bush administration did not objectively consider the degree to which invading Iraq would piss off the world in considering whether invasion was a good policy decision.

Wait, I don't understand. First Ferrari writes that only a small percentage of lunatic Americans blame American policy on 9/11.
But then Ferrari writes that 'it might be intelligent to consider whether or not American foreign policy encouraged the terrorist movements.'

So, which is it? Is it kooks or intelligent people who think American policy was to blame? Also, is not blaming American policy blaming America? What's the difference?

I'm so sick of the argument in general that any cause has a single effect, and it's the one we got. Sorry, but people have choice. "They feel desperate," they say. "They've been driven to desperation." Well, poverty makes people desperate for food -- but how do you explain that not all poor people steal, and the ones who don't often find their character can help them get out of poverty? What about that? How do the sympathizers of Palestinian terrorists construct an argument that Palestine has just "been driven to desperation" but Israel (whose actions are bad, very bad) isn't in the same position? Why aren't those desperate, helpless Israelis killing their children for the cause?

All this discussion came out of an argument that the terrorists are "just so desperate, that's how come they can saw people's heads off," not because of any perverted ideology or view of white human life.

It seems to me that the left eliminates personal responsibility for everyone but the people who think personal responsibility matters. In fact, that's the biggest gripe about Bush around here. I wish that more people could acknowledge the significance of choice and morality in world affairs. But then, they'd have to take responsibility for their own lives, and I think the left is too busy exploiting Daddy Right's checkbook for their perpetual teenage misadventures to take that step, or to grow up at all.

I disagree with Von Bek about slodiers at the airports. Americans don't seem to be the kind of people who wants to be on the defensive. While another attack may change tactics that people will consider for fighting the war - and have more troops at home as a result - overall, those who wanted to fight jihadis will remain at least as determined as before to win the war. Americans will want to win as long as they are Americans.

And I disagree with Lilek's "Nothing will make them understand" logic. "A third of the country" that Lilek is so disappointed with is not a homogenous segment. Yes, there are quite a few people in this country who have no love for it. Howeverm there are many more people who do love it, but whose desire to be "good" and "progressive" and "intellectual" mutes any voice of love that might be coming from their souls. As events unfold, we will see who they are, but I have confidence that, while a number of various Dr.Chomskies in this country are in fact treacherous, low scum, they don't constitue as much as a third of this country, and there are many enough people here who are decent enough to defend it.

In other words, not all Michael Moore's fans are as ugly as Mr. Moore himself.

Karol, I cannot believe that I have to explain this in such a pedestrian fashion. I am honestly on the fence about whether you really don't get it, and are like the Coulter's of the world, or whether you are just fucking with me. For your sake, I sincerely hope it is the latter, but here goes.

Let's say that there is a particular neighborhood in a particular town that is a known hangout for muggers and low life thieves. Let's say this neighborhood is between points A and B.

A rich man, wearing an Armani suit, a gold watch and other things that scream "I am rich," needs to go from point A to point B. He could avoid this sketchy neighborhood, and his friends encourage him to do so, unless he has an armed escort, but it would take him longer to get to point B, so he decideds to stroll through the sketchy neighborhood late one night. He gets mugged.

Now, is it his fault that he got mugged? Of course not. Should we blame him for being mugged? Of course not. However, is he an idiot for not avoiding the neighborhood? Of course he is.

That is the point. No one out there is blaming the U.S. for the terrorists. There is no justification for 9/11 or beheading civilians, etc. However, when people criticize American policy and say (rightly or wrongly, that is not the point here) that American policy X helps the terrorists recruit followers, that is not shifting the blame. Nevertheless, many far right media mouths and the man whom you quoted, rather than debate whether or not the policy itself is good/bad/wise/stupid, attack the critic as one who is "blaming America." The critics are not blaming America anymore than I am blaming the rich man for being mugged. It is not his fault he got mugged, but he could have avoided it and he made a stupid decision.

9/11 is the by product of many different things and there is no one simple policy America would have had to change in order to diffuse anti-American hatred to the point where 9/11 (or something like it wouldn't have happened). But it is fair for people to legitimately question, especially in the wake of 9/11, whether or not a given policy will cause more people to hate us or like us and to factor that into the decision making. Anyone who suggests otherwise, or has blinders on about whether certain actions will create more hatred, is just as stupid as the rich man above. And anyone who labels the critics as "blamers" rather than engaging the substance of their message, is doing a diservice to the product of discourse in this country.

The critics are not blaming America anymore than I am blaming the rich man for being mugged.
There are different kinds of critics. There are more than enough of those who call jihadis "freedom fighters". There are more than enough of those who think that American capitalism and imperialism are the "root cause" of all evil. There are more than enough of those who think that "anyone who suggests otherwise" is stupid and "uninformed".

Sure, obviously the jihadis themselves, and many in the Arab world may believe that. But please point me to a mainstream American voice that seriously advocates that. I can point you to numberous right wing speakers who claim that "all these liberals think that way," but show me where they are and who they are.

And you had better back up a name with a quote or a cite.

Signor,
I don't know if you consider Noam Chomsky a mainstream voice, but the New York Times does. This "arguably most important intellectual's" reaction to 9/11 is rather infamous. In case it was something that you missed, here's a little quote:

"We should recognize that in much of the world the U.S. is regarded as a leading terrorist state, and with good reason."

The time it took me to find it here
http://www.fair.org/media-beat/011206.html
was so short, that it gave me the impression that, by challenging me to give you a quote, you were trying to fuck with me ;)

generally, ivan, people who insist on quotations for what is verifiably common knowledge ARE trying to fuck with you. at parties, they will start arguing politics, and then if you say "grass is green" go red in the face with screaming if you can't point to a scene in a Michael Moore film where he says so. or if you do something crazy like say, "why, in the june 3rd economist" or "as gorbachev himself wrote the next day" or "in the january/february issue of foreign affairs, pp. 81-98" they will go on foaming at the mouth anyway, something about you misinterpreting the text or using a completely incredible source like the washington post.

not that i can blame them. if you don't have a case in the big picture, where else have you to go than to the minutiae? as i noticed again today, bounded equations have different maxes and mins than whole equations. if they can set the parameters such that the debate effectively reflects no greater reality, they feel like they can win on the tiny points.

either that, or accuse you of being like ann coulter. ooh, i'm shaking in karol's boots on her behalf.

by the way, it's sort of absurd to talk about the american government as if it should just "avoid the neighborhood." last time i checked, we "got mugged" and then some in our own neighborhood, senor.

The absurdity of what you quoted Ivan is that it was from an article discussing how the mainstream media ignores Chomsky generally and only reports him when they can typecast him into a particularly extremist point of view based on a quote taken out of context. Go check your link.

Also, the quote does not demonstrate Chomsky "blaming America." He is not acting as an apologist for the terrorists. He is not saying that what they did was justified. But he is suggesting that the root cause of things are more complex than that there are just "evil people" in the arab nationalist world.

As for why the attack happened, Chomsky writes that "this question is rarely raised in a serious way." And he adds, "To refuse to face this question is to choose to increase significantly the probability of further crimes of this kind." from http://store.globalexchange.org/911.html

This is exactly my point. Too much we stick our head in the ground and refuse to examine why it is that America is hated. In some contexts, it is unfair, it is the expansion of Western freedoms in areas where those in power don't want freedom. There, we have to just "power through" and live our lives. But there is a history of American intervention, aggression, military action around the world and instances where America helped to install or supported tyranists who later bit the hand that helped them.

Republicans and conservatives are the ones who are supposed to distrust government and fight hard for our freedoms. Yet, when a Republican is in charge, they seem to get a free ride to build up the military, interfere in the affairs of other nations, pass laws that restrict our personal freedoms and lead us down the path to Big Brother type corporations.

I am not some flaming liberal. I am John Stuart Mill type libertarian who recognizes that there is a very important role for goverment to play, but is cynical and distrustful of government when it caters to special interest corporations (that contribute to campaigns) in ways that create inefficiencies, that questions whether giving unprecedented power to our "police" will only be used against evil terrorists, who wonders why we spend billions to invade a country when the entire world tells us to slow down and when that country was not a threat to us (and when there are many worse examples of tyranny...see Africa...where we do nothing) and who is scared by a President who claims that he is doing God's bidding and refuses to acknowledge the possibility that he might be wrong.

republicans need to start to separeate iraq from al-queda. bush did a good job hoodwinking the country.

If the attack comes before the election, the left and the media will do everything in their power to tear this country apart.

After the election they will not care and the attack will bring Americans together.

a thread about who's going to blame who without one mention of jihadism, pan-arabism, militant islamism, muslim reformation or arab cultural failure.

gak.

and yes, we all know, even the lefties, that should there be another significant attack on u.s. soil, your chomskys, moores, sontags, and garafalos will be tripping over each other on their way to the editorial offices of salon, znet, and the new york times. if there's one thing i love about the far left and its hatred of america, its the irony. only a culture as tolerant, free-thinking, and self-reflective as america's could produce this kind of bile. no opinion too stupid, no declaration too fantastic, no perception too unmoored from reality. welcome to the land where truly anything goes.

god bless america!

btw, jd2b, you took a wrong turn at idiotsville. the website you were actually looking for is atrios.blogspot.com - you're welcome!

Welcome to free online poker games
, your source for the most important information regarding the online
poker games . Here you can find reviews to the most popular, most reliable free
poker rooms online on the net. Go visit free
online poker tournaments.

Tens of thousands of players play online poker daily on
Online Poker Free, and there are
many good reasons why! Here are the largest
Online Poker Rooms in the world
and we offer a variety of Free Online
Poker Games and Tournaments, including Texas Holdem, Seven Card Stud and
Omaha high/low .With thousands of players
Online Poker Free provides the
best in live, multi-player online poker, offering a wide variety of
free online poker games and
daily, weekly, and monthly free poker
tournaments with generous cash prizes. Guaranteed security and fairness !

Got here Fioricet most likely reduces heart attack risk by irreversibly blocking the enzyme COX-1 online fioricet, thereby impairing the ability of platelets in the blood to form clots, Dr. Tobias Kurth of Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, and others explain in the American Heart Association's journal, fioricet Circulation. NSAIDs buy fioricet also lock on to COX-1, but the effect is reversible. Cheap Generic Fioricet or visit this site: http://www.x-fioricet.com

Ultram Generic Fioricet most likely reduces heart attack risk by irreversibly blocking the enzyme COX-1 online fioricet, thereby impairing the ability fioricet of platelets in the blood to form clots, Dr. Tobias Kurth of Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, and others explain in the American Heart Association's journal, fioricet Circulation. NSAIDs buy fioricet also lock on to COX-1, but the effect is reversible. Cheap Generic Fioricet or visit this site: http://www.top-fioricet.com

Welcome to our Online Blackjack guide. At this site you will find information about Blackjack and the best Online Blackjack Casinos to play Blackjack on the Internet. The rules for Online Blackjack, the history of the games, Blackjack basic strategy and more. The best free bonus promotions from safe casinos, Online Blackjack Casino reviews and links to other games like video poker, baccarat, roulette, craps and more.Join one of our internet casinos for playing Online Blackjack and take advantage of the best Online Blackjack Casino bonuses. Play Blackjack and Enjoy it !

Use
fioricet for depression. Best
buy fioricet at online stores.
Cheapest
online fioricet can be found at
USA only. Buy
cheap fioricet buy read
fioricet side effects before
treatment.
http://www.buy-fioricet-here.us