> > Hmmm... So if we take ETA as an example (fighting to make the Basque region of Spain a separate country), taking away their reason to fight would mean what? Nuking the territory they're fighting for?

> The problem with those people might be the centralistic organization of Spain (AFAIK), but I'll need to get more information on this to respond properly.

Well, they are rather upset that Spain isn't a communist nation, if that's what you mean. And that ETA don't control the government. So they're trying to carve off a small chunk of territory where they can make the rules.

And as with all terrorist organisations trying to create a country of their own, the majoriy of the people living in the Basque region want to remain a part of Spain. If you have popular support there are far more effective means of gaining independance.

> > And, of course, we would only need to destroy America to take away bin Laden's reason.
> >
> Bin Laden isn't the only terrorist there is. He's merely the most important person in one of the most important terrorist organizations. He belongs to those people who take advantage of other people's anger (which is directed at the Western industrialized world, which in turn is seen as led by the US) and fanaticism. These people have, as Julian said, a reason to be angry. The reason is, quite simply, being poor. Bin Laden isn't poor, but he's (I suppose) seen as one of the "good" rich people who help out the poor people against the "bad" rich people. What is important here is education. People are *brought up* to hate the US because they're the world's economic leader, and because they support Israel.

Yes, people in the Middle East are brought up to hate Israel, but not for either of those reasons. It's mostly becuase the US is very good at agressivly marketing its culture. These people see their children becoming more westernised, leading to a lapse in traditional Islamic morality (people chewing gum, or having their limbs uncovered, for example).

And I was just using bin Laden as another example.

> I support Israel, but not everything they do. Defending themselves with the weapons they get from the US would not be a problem (to me) at all, but what has been overlooked in what I've read of this thread so far is that they're not keeping to that. They're breaking international contracts by continuing to settle in Palestinian territory, which leads to the Palestinians hating them even more and attacking them (because they simply aren't brought up to be peaceful), which in turn leads to the Israelis hating the Palestinians even more, and that can be continued ad infinitum. Another thing is that Arafat's organization has less and less power left, and hasn't got virtually no power over the terrorists at all.

Entirely beside the point, but accurate.

> > These people are not interested in compromise, or settlement and (believe it or not) offering such a settlement is only taken as proof that terrorism works. Then they redouble their efforts.

> You can't treat with terrorists. But you can take away their sources. Terrorists rarely come out of nothing, just because there happen to be a lot of evil people somewhere who like killing innocent human beings.

> There is no justification for terrorism, but there are always reasons.

Hmmm... Accepted, though I don't like the word "reasons" there. I would be more comfortable with "explanations".

winter"'reason' is the wrong connotation"mute