When taking the oath of office in January, President Obama declared to "those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents...that, 'Our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken. You cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.'" His commitment to resisting extremism reflects the continuation of his predecessor's war paradigm in confronting international terrorism.

But as the Obama Administration crafts its approach to combating extremism, it enjoys a series of opportunities to engage the counter-terrorism mission more seriously than did the Bush Administration. For eight years, our nation has been presented a false choice between liberty and security. But the choice is simply false: we can better wage the struggle against militants by ending corporate subsidies that fan the flames of violence abroad.

If policymakers recognized how these instances of corporate welfare facilitate terrorism at its root, several debates (including those around civil liberties, agricultural subsidies, import tariffs, the war on drugs and foreign policy) would shift dramatically. We need not sacrifice our nation's fundamental constitutional freedoms to address extremist violence. Rather, we need merely stop pursuing corporate subsidies that - while seemingly unrelated to terrorism - inadvertently encourage it.

U.S. Support for Dictators Abroad

Oceans of ink, and too little sweat, has been spilled exposing the simple reality that U.S. military aggression in Iraq has encouraged and strengthened militant extremists by enraging and mobilizing their recruits. Bush Administration officials (e.g., Rumsfeld, Cheney, Yoo, Addington and sitting Ninth Circuit Judge Jay Bybee) did the same by condoning torture. And U.S. military support for Israel, unmitigated even by flagrant human rights violations and the mass slaughter of civilians, further inflames this tension.

While these policies have proven contentious, many others have not even gotten a public hearing - despite offering a slimmer political target, greater promise in preventing terror, and greater support for Rule of Law principles violated by the Bush Administration.

The U.S. gives billions of dollars each year to proxy powers across the globe governed by dictators. This "aid" largely takes the form of U.S. taxpayer-funded purchases from U.S. corporate weapons dealers to supply arms ultimately used to oppress freedom-seeking people abroad. Our willingness to place corporate welfare above democracy abroad at once both reveals our nation's hypocrisy and antagonizes the very same populations whose hearts & minds we need to win.

The three countries in which established U.S. foreign policy continues to most undermine our long-term security interests are not Iraq, Afghanistan, or Israel -- but rather Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. While the U.S. maintains a more subtle military presence in the latter three countries, our support for authoritarian regimes there has supported militants by undermining U.S. claims to support democracy abroad.

We have given over $25 billion in military aid to Egypt since 1979. Washington has pledged $20 billion for Saudi Arabia over the next 10 years. And $10 billion sent to Pakistan's former dictator since 2001 ultimately disappeared. These subsidies for U.S. corporate weapons manufacturers are even more expensive in terms of their costs to our international legitimacy. In sharp contrast, freedom is, after all, free.

Put simply, while the U.S. claims to its own citizens to support democracy abroad, that claim is a charade transparent to people in other countries. It's not "our freedoms" that "they hate," but rather our weapons - and our longstanding penchant of giving them to regimes that deny freedoms and oppress their own people. Even conservative foreign policy experts have argued that, well before 9-11, the "presence [of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia] was known to contribute to anti-American sentiment."

The U.S. has somehow managed to get on the wrong side of the inexorable march towards democracy that it once helped start. And we have betrayed that value for crass economic reasons. Even the Federal Reserve Chairman conceded that invading Iraq was driven by ambitions to capture Middle East oil resources. The variety of corporate interests driving militarism - those of weapons dealers, military contractors or outright mercenaries seeking corporate welfare - are well documented.

Princeton economist Alan Krueger argues that poverty and economic deprivation can not, by itself, explain violent extremism. He is accurate, as is the implication that fixing poverty alone would not fix the problem. After all, the 9-11 hijackers were middle class; Saudi Arabia (where they came from) is a rich country; and poor sub-Saharan African countries have never exported terror to the U.S.

Be that as it may, poverty - especially when combined with the political deprivation implicit in supporting dictatorships - doesn't help. And militants themselves have shared a recurring message explaining their motivation: it is political deprivation, at root, fueling escalating global dissent against U.S. foreign policy.

Rather than support dictatorships, we should support democracy. It is our strongest, most significant and most honored export. For 50 years, confused and counter-productive "aid" from Washington has entrenched autocrats perceived as friendly to our short-term interests. We need to set aside subsidies for weapons dealers in favor of investing instead in our international goodwill.

Agricultural Subsidies

Agricultural subsidies play a key role in facilitating terrorism, while also failing to achieve the benefits claimed by supporters. In the short term, humanitarian assistance in the wake of major disasters can in the short-term help build pro-U.S. sentiment in areas torn by crisis, as it did in Pakistan after a major earthquake in 2005. But "development assistance" over the longer-term often takes the form of food aid, which can destabilize local food production capacity, predisposing recipient countries to discontent that militants leverage in their outreach and recruitment efforts.

When U.S. grain is dumped on foreign markets at less than the cost of local production, the ultimate effect is to drive small farmers in those countries out of the market, leaving their countries dependent on U.S. grain. When it becomes scarce (like when we squander it on ethanol), they suffer price shocks. Less supply increases the cost, which quickly grows out of reach, leaving millions hungry.

Pakistan is a classic example. When Benazir Bhutto was assassinated last year, the country was roiling from shortages and resulting price shocks affecting everything from milk to wheat. If ever there were a recipe for uncontained violence, a starving population would be it.

Moreover, while systematically encouraging the overproduction driving food aid, farm subsidies don't even help their intended recipients. According to the conservative Heritage Foundation, "although farm subsidies are promoted as being necessary to provide income maintenance for poor farmers, they . . . function as the largest corporate welfare program maintained by the federal government. . . . [F]ar from saving America's family farms, the current farm subsidy system is destroying them." Data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture indicates that "10% of recipients receive 66% of the payments," while "80% of producers get just 16% of all subsidies."

The next time corporate farm enterprises lobby Congress to maintain subsidies through which they fleece the American people of billions of dollars, they should face tough questions. They should address how subsidies displace small farmers, and by encouraging overproduction, fuel an outmoded industrial production paradigm risking catastrophic environmental costs. And international development and counter-terrorism experts should explain how the uses of that overproduction abroad undermines international stability and lays a foundation for militant recruitment.

Textile Tariffs

Tasneem Noorani, the former Secretary of several federal agencies in Pakistan, including the Departments of Commerce and Interior, said in an interview last year that "the single most effective thing that Washington could do to stop terrorism" would be to lift textile tariffs. Doing so would let people from Central Asia make a decent living under the free trade principles long championed in DC.

Market theorists counsel developing countries to focus development efforts on their comparative advantages: products in which they are most uniquely suited to fill global demand. For Afghanistan, Morocco, or Pakistan artisans, the local comparative advantages would include textiles, which account for nearly half of Pakistan's manufacturing base.

But U.S. markets -- as advocates for global justice have long noted -- are not free. In sharp contrast, tariffs on textile imports place developing countries at an enormous economic disadvantage. Despite pursuing Washington's advice to build capacity to fill western demand for cheap fabrics and clothes, they are largely excluded from the U.S. market. Nor is the observation recent; diplomatic proposals to allow Pakistan access to the U.S. textile market have been steadily rejected for years in order to protect the vestigial remains of an industry once powerful in the American south.

Many Carribbean countries, and some in Africa, receive preferential status for their textile imports. But why limit the supposed benefits of free trade to these countries? To whatever extent tariffs and other import protections help domestic textile manufacturers (which is itself limited for several reasons), any potential competition impedes those benefits. The source is arbitrary. Is the U.S. interest in economic stability really greater in, say, Jamaica, than in Afghanistan or Pakistan?

The War on Drugs

Perhaps the strongest step we could take in the short-term would be to cut militant networks off from one of their primary sources of fundraising: the poppy trade in Afghanistan. I will not here reiterate the overwhelming arguments against the failed War on Drugs: that it has led to institutional racism throughout our criminal justice system; that it has enriched domestic smugglers who have taken advantage of black markets that inevitably emerge to fill unabated demand; that it violates the fundamental principle that individual behavior in a democratic society should be regulated only to the extent it imposes concrete harms on third parties; or that it forms a legal subsidy for alternative industries left unregulated, like alcohol and beverages.

The salient point for now is that poppy cultivation in Afghanistan continues to climb, and that the Taliban and al-Qaeda have largely captured the industry's profits in return for protecting shipments. The poppy trade has become a vital financing vehicle for militants. Senior U.S. government officials testified as long as five years ago that "profits from the production of illegal narcotics flow into the coffers of warlord militias, corrupt government officials and extremist forces."

Unfortunately, the trend is in the wrong direction. After dropping dramatically under Taliban control, it is the only sector of the global drug trade expanding in recent years, with the crop doubling in size since 2000 under NATO stewardship. Afghanistan now accounts for 92% of the global heroine supply, worth over $3 billion (nearly half the country's GDP) per year.

The current U.S. strategy -- unsupported by our NATO allies -- is to try eradicating the poppy crop. That strategy is even more futile than it is expensive: last June, DEA agents arrested an Afghan police chief with 30 kilos of heroine worth over $1.5 million. There is no reason to presume that his participation in the drug trade was any more the exception than the rule. Noting the economic pressures facing Afghan farmers, several U.S. agencies and the British and Canadian governments have agreed with the conclusion, written in a report by the State Department's Inspector General in 2007, that eradication efforts are "not realistic." Eradication can succeed only in further inflaming anti-U.S. sentiment.

Proposing an alternative policy, former U.S. National Security Advisor Brent Scrowcroft has gone so far as to suggest that "NATO should buy the whole poppy production" to keep it from falling into terrorist hands. Getting the poppy trade out of militant hands is absolutely crucial. However, this may be an arena in which markets can do more effectively what we might otherwise leave to the government. A response taking into account the free market principles championed by Scowcroft's allies would suggest letting end users (like medical patients in India, or heroin users in Europe, rather than U.S. taxpayers) purchase Afghanistan's poppies.

Either approach would save the $420 million spent on eradication in 2006 alone, and a market-based solution would further save the $3 billion annual cost of buying the crop wholesale in Afghanistan. Moreover, end users buying at retail would generate nearly $40 billion, over 10 times as much as a wholesale purchase by the U.S. government. Letting that money go to Afghan farmers -- with the beleagured central government taxing it -- would both support the resurgence of Afghan civil society while also striking a vital financial blow against violent extremists.

bLose Subsidies, not Liberty

Despite the bluster and supposed focus of the Bush Administration, it did shockingly little that actually helped advance national security and, in fact, a great deal to actively undermine it. Like port security issues highlighted by Democrats in the 2006 mid-term elections, these policies represent the Obama Administration's opportunities to address security needs unmet by the "muscular" flailing of the last eight years.

They also represent policy choices that persist due only to political inertia and special interests. The President last month criticized "our collective failure to make hard]http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/20/us/politics/20text-obama.html?em=&pagewanted=all]hard choices[/url] and prepare the nation for a new age." Unfortunately, those hard choices that we failed to make have yet to receive the attention they deserve.

Three sets of interests have long been patronized in Washington, largely because their counter-terrorism implications are widely overlooked or ignored. Weapons dealers and mercenaries seeking military contracts; corporate farms clamoring for agricultural subsidies; textile producers pressuring their Senators to preserve tariffs on foreign competition; and police departments seeking federal largesse for a discriminatory War on Drugs would all meet a very different reception on Capitol Hill if policymakers recognized how their policy aims encourage international terrorism.

We have proven willing to sacrifice liberty on the altar of national security. But this choice is inapt. Domestic spying, torture and preventive detention have shattered bedrock liberty principles, while doing little to actually help the struggle against extremism. In sharp contrast, our national security could be vastly enhanced by ending corporate subsidies that drive recruits into the arms of our enemies by denying economic and political opportunity abroad.

(Photo: Ray Witlin via flickr under a Creative Commons license)

As Gen. Colin Powell and several other well-wishers of Barack "Hussein" Obama mentioned that he will be tested (by his AIPAC Lobby mentors) and some even feared that if he went against the "King-makers'" wishes - Obama could meet the fate of JF. Kennedy.

Obama, like Bush, Clinton and other earlier US predidents, knows who pull the strings behind the White House Throne. That's why he is side-steping most of his election promises - from pumping more $$$ into Wall Street's Zionist thugs' pockets to sending more US forces to Afghanistan - from blind support to Zionazi state to his intention to keep 35,000 US forces in Iraq even after 2010 - to guard the enlarged pipeline from Kirkuk to Haifa - to steal 2.5 million barrel daily of Iraqi oil for the benefit of Israel - the BIG reason to invade Iraq in the first place.

http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2009/03/02/obamas-iraq-strategy-oil-bonus-for-israel/

I conditionally agree with most of Mr Buttar's points. However, where I think we need further discussion is on Afghanistan's opium crop. We have a minor inconvenience in that narcotics are haram, as is their growing, their processing, their transport and any income derived from said activities. I'm not sure facilitating end-users' access (perhaps a euphemism for "Additcs"?) to narcotics is a very Muslim thing to do, even if the so-called end users are non-Muslims. However, medical use of opiates is an open question for those more knowledgeable about it, both doctors and legal scholars, to tackle.

>>> This "aid" largely takes the form of U.S. taxpayer-funded purchases from U.S. corporate weapons dealers...

Not just the weapons trade, but medicinal, agricultural and technology trade too! This article does not even give an over view of 5% of the worlds challenges or the American contribution to it! Its very disappointing that such a lengthy article ignores the obvious conflagarations of the banking and automobile bailouts or the role of American influence on institutions like the WTO and the World Bank.

Empire has always been a matter of economics and no generation has been more subject to it than ours. This war against the poor and poor nations, are NOT the machinations of Bono and a few other tree hugging left wing liberals, but a reality of death and destruction in the wake of American and other Western profiteers. It is not that the behaviour is unique to these countries, but that rather they are these are the ones who exercise most of the influence over this situation, purely by those countries sheer greed for profit and resources.

You can call people marxist, third-world communist trolls all you like, but global collaborations like oxfam, amnesty, world workers unions, wwf etc. are actually struggling against institutional injustice on the ground in its trenches. People who believe they are fighting for some or other cause by taking up arms in foreign lands are actually wholly ignorant of the nature of oppression and ignorance. But it does seem easier to pick up a gun than it does to pick up a shovel. And it does seem easier to criticise a poor poppy seed farmer than it does the cycle of poverty (and invasion) that leaves him with few other choices.

From farmer suicides in India who used subsidised GM crops, to cases of drought and malaria in Central Africa, through to the rights of workers in Indonesia and Arabia .. It is patently obvious to anyone with an ounce of humanity and knowledge that western governments and western institution are not morally capable of relieving the situation; especially when they are so heavily incriminated in so much destruction. But since the destruction doesn't include a bomb or a 3rd world terrorist we are then forced by the media to swallow the story that Americas dependence on arab oil, Hamas and female circumcision are the causes of so global strife.

The real struggle is not in the petty politics of lower and upper house, or policing or leaving Iraq as we are constantly hammered to believe .. but right at the core of the structure of global society. Its up to us as Muslims to organise and mobilise against these major ills. Its even more disappointing that our defence of Islam and Muslims ignores these major ills that are at play. We are instead to believe that we must outdo the west in economic/military/politcal imperialism if we are to be successful and blessed as an Ummah.

I think this all goes to the point that the Muslim citizenry needs to be empowered and mobilised, and not just the clergy.

Always an excellent place to start. http://www.oxfam.org/

A large swathe of the American public is now engaged in an involuntary boycott of many of the products these corporations produce. Unfortunately these corporations don't care because the emerging markets are racing in gleefully to fill the gap and biy htese products. Now, with the global economic crisis, they too may enjoy this enforced boycott. Folks like Jalal al-e Ahmad had the ideas right with their "Occidentosis" concept. But the idea that Muslim nations should reject economic enslavement because America and its corporations and its goods are "satan" is naive and only captures the imagination of the provincially minded. Rejection of economic enslavement by foreign nations should be rejected through a unilateral and educated boycott, reliance on nationally produced goods and industry and a concerted effort to develop those industries. To do otherwise is to allow oneself to be vampirized and turned into a host body for predatorial being. Nations who reject colonialism through outmoded forms will only invite increased unchallenged military intervention in their sovereign economic national policies. Reject "free market" expansion and social and econimic remodeling and get branded a "terrorist" nation.

@Akenanubis: Meh, even Iraq insurgents drank Coca-Cola...

Meh, even Iraq insurgents drank Coca-Cola...
>>>>

Sure, undoubtedly because they thought it was cool and a symbol of a global hipster un-nation. Same thing with the jeans. But all of these things mean much much more than the essence of their component ingredients. And don't get me wrong. Empire building is as old as humanity. What methods did the Mamluk, Seljuk, Ottoman, Persian empire builders use? That's a rhetorical question. I know the answer. But today, many people believe in racial, national and ethnic soverignty and self determination. The thing is, for every soverign nation seeking and end of colonialism, how many of them do and will continue to propegate racial and ethnic infighting and subjugation within their borders among co-nations they deem to be the inferior "other." It's almost like it was a human nature or something, ya know. But we also collectively seem to have this collective fantasy that we can rise above our clay and live up to our Creator's demands for human betterment.

>>> A large swathe of the American public is now engaged in an involuntary boycott of many of the products these corporations produce.

Large swathes of the American population? Highly unlikely. Just because developing nations have begun increasing their consumption to levels that make them viable markets for consuming goods, does not make them even vaguely as culpable as those minority populated weatlhy nations that continue to consume resources irresponsibly and disproportionately.

>>> Rejection of economic enslavement by foreign nations should be rejected through a unilateral and educated boycott, reliance on nationally produced goods and industry and a concerted effort to develop those industries.

While that may be true, the reality is that no society can produce its goods as equally as well as every other. However, the problem isn't bad modes of production in developing nations that can't afford a social network but rather the problem arises from subsidies and intellectual property rights exercised in Europe, Japan and the US. The market will develop those industries independently if protectionism is not in place. Currently, free market expansion would actually be beneficial!

American citizenry needs to wake up to how their capital owning classes manipulate other societies that can't afford the costly administrative governments that they have. And they must stop holdiong themselves accountable only to the stars and stripes but rather see themselves as part of a global citizenry.

>>> Sure, undoubtedly because they thought it was cool and a symbol of a global hipster un-nation.

No .. because its a refreshing source of liquids with loads of carbohydrates, a well developed supply chain, and that can be stored for longer periods of time than other drinks. Its cheaper than most, lasts longer and provides energy for everyone from labourer to schoolchild. Its not healthy, but the cost differential negates the benefits for most people. The problem is not the American developed product or American innovation. If people choose it, its generally because they prefer it. The problem is the imperialist imposition of that culture, politics and economic establishment. People may be equal in law, but not necessarily so at a bank. Coca Cola provides work and investment in other countries. If they aren't exercising monopolistic actions or damaging the environment, they would generally be welcomed.

Large swathes of the American population? Highly unlikely>>>>>

Ghulam ... I said INVOLUNTARY boycott. With millions unemployed, the unemployment rate reaching close to 10%, I assure you there is a vast number of people undergoing involuntary boycott. It was a play on words. I live here, I read the newspapers and talk to people. My own income is down 80% in the last 6 months. I myself am enmeshed in an involuntary boycott of a lot of things. And as far as the continuation to consume, perhaps some are out of some kind of "Last Days of Pompeii" sort of mind space, but I don't know anyone who hasn't had to cut back to almost nothing. I am also not talking about the past, the mythic heyday of American consumerism that the rest of the world looks at like Sodom and Gemorrah. Fine. Those days are over. Smile and smirk, but as the US falls off the table it will make damn sure a lot of other people go with it. As these corporations collapse, they will no longer be able to support a global presence. Take a look at the rubber boom in south America in the 19th century. Vast plantations, mansions, refineries, all overgrown and collapsed in the jungle. I think we have crested some sort of economic wave and will begin to recede. Unfortunately, some good stuff we all like may go with that. And I am not referring to X-boxes and other entertainment media crap.

American citizenry needs to wake up to how their capital owning classes manipulate other societies that can't afford the costly administrative governments that they have. And they must stop holdiong themselves accountable only to the stars and stripes but rather see themselves as part of a global citizenry.>>>>

Agreed 100%. The problem there is that the education level of the average American, and certainly the more rural US population, has dwindled to the point where a) they cannot even read well enough to educate themselves on these topics and don't have the attention span to follow a time line back farther than a few months, and b) the provincial mindset is being manipulated into a Middle Ages dichotomy where the super rich are programming a vast American peasantry to become the fodder for the next and perpetual wave of crusades designed to perpetuate US and western held production. China is the interesting ticket in a way. They are big enough that the US is forced to play by their rules pretty much. And yet, they have no protection for intellectual property. Interesting that China pas produced many more Harry Potter novels than its author did. Of course no one here cares about Harry Potter, it was just one clear example.

>>> Ghulam ... I said INVOLUNTARY boycott. With millions unemployed, the unemployment rate reaching close to 10%, I assure you there is a vast number of people undergoing involuntary boycott.

Oh .. lol .. that's actually wickedly funny. Allah make it easy for you. This is not an easy time to be a worker or a small business owner.

>>> I think we have crested some sort of economic wave and will begin to recede.

I think the rest of the world is slowly catching up with what was the rapid rate of American industrialisation in the early twentieth century. The difficulties you're referring to isn't necessarily a shrinking in the actual industrial capacity of the economy, but rather the nature of the distribution in the wealth of the economy. The mega wealthy still hold quite a sizeable global industrial capacity and have secured their profits for quite a long time.

Ordinary citizens held alot of debt and other over-valued notional assets. Where other nations were made to suffer for the oversized American capacity (through importing of US inflationary pressures ~ I think), for the first time ordinary American citizens are beginning to feel the pinch of that abusive and rampant capitalism. Though i doubt seriously that Americans oppose their Corporations and Government using artificial methods to prevent other countries from developing the technological and industrial capacity they need to survive.

>>> The problem there is that the education level of the average American, and certainly the more rural US population, has dwindled ...

I don't think its necessarily an issue of secular education. I still believe Americans have very high levels of education and its something they should be proud of. I think its the values based education that doesn't allow people to see themselves in a greater view than their national identity that is an issue. Why not have a national identity to be celebrated within the context of your international humanity? I think that because of the Cold War, the idea of sharing economic benefit and curtailing consumption were practically tagged Communist ideas by the US government. And its the reason that amongst nations like the US and Pakistan, public dissent and conscientuous objection is considered unpatriotic. YET ... I still cannot understand how the citizenry could impeach President Clinton for his sexual behaviour but would not do the same against President Bush who lied about much more serious matters.

>>> They are big enough that the US is forced to play by their rules pretty much.

I honestly still think this is a matter of the wealthy and powerful pursuing better options for economic gain. China doesn't dictate to the United States where to invest. They have to offer better profits to big companies to get that investment. The English themselves never ever viewed their colonial outposts as anything more than Imperial trading ports. Even India was colonised through factories and mines and farms .. and tax.

Though i doubt seriously that Americans oppose their Corporations and Government using artificial methods to prevent other countries from developing the technological and industrial capacity they need to survive.>>>>

No, not at all. Nor using military intervention to ensure those same goals. I don't know how many times I have read angry bubbas ranting ... "Let's go get out oil!" ... "Our" oil. Gee, do they make that same charge at the supermarkets that hold "their" tomatoes and all other foodstuffs? I agree with all of your post though. We shall see. There are tides that are flowing in many directions and backing up at the same time. I do challenge the impression that the US has high standards of education. Global ratings over the last years have shown it declining. I taught briefly at a small community college in California and was appaled at the lack of awareness and reading and writing skills of the majority of the students in my classes. All Americans born and raised. And the overal superiority of those same skills in immigrant students from the former USSR and other places. Education is not considered "cool" among the masses of young people. It's a drag, an infringement on their precious time which could be better spent hanging out with their friends and chatting in chatrooms or playing games. I have heard them say this to me. "Why should I bother with this stuff? I have a life." Meaning hanging out and flirting and trying to securing romantic relationships and early pregnancies that ensure minimum wage jobs for life. Or, the rich kids who go into business colleges and need remedial reading refresher courses. I know many people in the publishing industry with degrees from good schools where they confined their studies to "English literature" or other nebulous out-of-context programs and consequently, though they have these fine educations, they can't discuss anything other than arcane literary references or their true loves in life, TV shows and entertainment or catching the big ring of a second house and early retirement. I wonder how all that's working out now?

>>> Education is not considered "cool" among the masses of young people. It's a drag, an infringement on their precious time which could be better spent hanging out with their friends and chatting in chatrooms or playing games. I have heard them say this to me.

Lol... I've grown up surrounded by teachers. American or not, teachers around the world seem to have been lamenting lazy students since the beginning of time..

>>> "English literature" or other nebulous out-of-context programs and consequently, though they have these fine educations, they can't discuss anything other than arcane literary references or their true loves in life, TV shows and entertainment or catching the big ring of a second house and early retirement.

I think its a fundamental thing about humanity though. People would rather relax and enjoy life than pursue difficulty. Someone said that they're no sure if the most universal human value was fear or laziness. But we need to give credit to people as well. They can't work in technically complex positions, maintain their families, exercise their judgement for big firms .. and then be told that their personal interests are shallow. Maybe they just desperately need to relax sometimes.

I think its a fundamental thing about humanity though. People would rather relax and enjoy life than pursue difficulty. >>>

I guess I am the consumate nerd with no life. I have always found education, in my topics of history and anthropology, supremely fascinating and entertaining. As well as developing the discernment skills to separate out the PR blurbs from sincere and as unbiased as possible research. The bottom line now is I understand completely, I believe, what is going on around the world. Makes perfect sense, I see no big mysteries, it all pretty much represents the culmination and results of prior events. Unlike the majority of people I speak to who are swept away in a Chicken Little hysteria. Something bad may happen, but understanding why and how and what it is, makes it a lot easier.

>>> The bottom line now is I understand completely, I believe, what is going on around the world.

Oh no don't say that. It would be a sad day you turned into DrM and believed wholeheartedly that you couldn't learn anything new from other people .. especially the people who disagree with you. I'm only certain about what I know and that's always open to criticism. I don't want to pretend that I understand things completely, only that I can get a fuller understanding of the world.

Though I don't think being sincere makes you a nerd. Collecting star wars figurines and constantly posting imaginative comments on this site makes you a nerd ;-)

>>> Chicken Little hysteria..

That has always been a serious concern for me. The emotional, defensive outbursts. End of days obsession and all. Though to detract a little, I think that Sahabah may have expected the day of judgement in their own lifetime. I've noticed that when things with the Ummah are uncertain and we feel threatened as a community, more talk of the Mehdi and the signs of Qiyamat surfaces. What constitutes only a small fraction of the hadeeth can become the communities whole political position that carries forward indefinitely. Its probable that most of the terrorists feed of that paranoia in a more complete way. More and more, as humanity becomes co-dependent, do we need to break inter-community divides and start focusing on saving the world rather than pre-empting its destruction.

Oh no don't say that. It would be a sad day you turned into DrM and believed wholeheartedly that you couldn't learn anything new from other people .. >>>

No, no, I knew that was a ridiculous blanket statement the minute I fired it off. But like some people, I can say, ooops, yeah, that was a litte grand and I'm not really the omnipotent being. I guess what I meant was, I talk to a lot of people who who have never lifted an eyelash to learn about the world they live in and they are really in meltdown mode right now. And a lot of what they are freaking out about is because they have no understanding of world events, history, or even current events. for a lot of these people, the world began on September 11, 2001. Before that, to hear them, they must have been wandering around in some kind of an amniotic haze of bliss and security where all was well in the world and everyone spent their days holding hands and singing kumbaya. I have a lot to learn, let there be no mistake. Besides, I hate that song. :)

>>> And a lot of what they are freaking out about is because they have no understanding of world events, history, or even current events. for a lot of these people, the world began on September 11, 2001.

Maybe. Its a generic issue. I don't think that terrorists themselves understand our own Islamic history let alone current events. A blanket human issue and not a specific American one. But in regards to the article and the new post on Pakistan, Obama has apparently said "We've been thinking very militarily, but we haven't been as effective in thinking diplomatically – we haven't been thinking effectively around the development side of the equation.". This shows at least a respect for an alternative approach if not an alternative view.

But I honestly don't think that economic issues alone will stop the divisive and inhumane ideologues from spoutting nonsense, I think that a full stomach and happy childhood can take alot of steam out of the polemic. This missing moral majority needs to find a voice and a means, because most of the issues here can be resolved more easily by an emboldened and liberated Muslim public than by a few activists isolated from view of the currently ill-informed public.