To: abstract who wrote (53811 ) 9/4/2006 8:06:55 AM From: altair19 Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 104155 abstract, <Maybe I’m just naive> I don't think you are. There's a confluence of events that led up to 9/11 leading back to the 1940's when the British surveyed and staked out the borders of Palestine infuriating the Arab world. Since that point, there has been an aggregation of events that divided the middle east from the "west". The bombing of the Suez canal by the British, support for the Shah of Iran by the U.S., support for Israel, support for Iraq against Iran by the U.S., the 7 -Day war, oil interests (US, France and England), the French occupying Algeria, bockade of Iraq (US), support of warlords in Afganistan against the Russians, Gulf War,and the latest Iraq debacle.... I have left out a lot,but those are some of the highlights. Then if you overlay the tribal differences that so back ten centuries you certainly can see building up of pressure. It was only Jimmy Carter and later Bill Clinton who at least tried to reach out and work some solutions (Carter, Begin and Sadat). Then, if you look at our intelligence network and the absence of arabic language speaking agents on the ground in the middle east, the recipe is for a disaster. It also has been thoroughly pointed out that our domestic intelligence networks were all in silos and had no designed-in capability to share intelligence even if they wanted to..which they didn't. And finally, 9/11, like any ambush is intended to do, creates total chaos and happens when you least expect it. The aftermath of an ambush always has volumes of blame to go around on all sides. Then you have an administration who have never heard a live round zipping by their heads thinking they can fight a conventional war rather than a counterinsurgent operation. Enough has been said about Bush and his band of dangerous little men, so I won't bother. Abstract, you indeed are not naive. That's the end of the lecture for today..... Altair19