Temporary Archive: Suzanne Brockmann's Message Board

I think that there is great benefit in looking for similiarities between different stratta of "terrorism" fully aknowledging and agreeing with Marie-anne's objections. What does the bully get from terrorizing his prey? What drives the Columbine shooters? Suicide bomber? Husband abuser? The common thread is going to be lack of hope, lack of control, lack of oppurtunity---(yes I am aware that Brnda is going to shred me on this) I don't think it is any secret that terrorism is used because the perception is there is no other meaningful way that they can pursue their cause--COlumbine was very similiar--the only way they could get control over their lives. But, equally, you would have to look at all of similiar cases that don't end violently--the vast majority of people living hopeless lives perfectly happily

I have spent a lot of time thinking about your second question. The simple answer---somebody needs to do it. Sooner or later, it is real important that the job gets done regardless of the cost. And I want to be the person to do it. Lets just make an assumption that Iraq was stupid and one man's foible---and a bunch of people followed orders and did it--and a bunch of them died and a bunch got wounded and maimed--that isn't their/our faul. I think Afghanistan was worth doing--in order to do Afghanistan you have to have people willing to do Iraq. In order to do D-Day June 6 1941, you've got to be willing to do Iraq. And the awful truth, is that I would rather go into battle with my brothers than do just about anything else. When I went to Iraq--wehn I volunteered and begged to go, at a certain level I felt I was betraying a higher self and people--professors--who needed more--but it was beyond me. At yet another level, I have always felt that anyone can lead a good op---I always felt the best able to lead a bad one--