I am not going to argue these facts because it is very difficult to do so without all of the relevant data in hand. The fact that someone like Bin Laden was actually being sheltered by Pakistan does not give that country much to stand on.

The key question here might be more about the genesis of these problems rather than what is going on now that we all stepped into this collective cesspool. Who threw the first rock, if you will. Who knows. More on this later.

Here's the reality I think we live in. Note I am saying "I think", because we really don't know:

There are a number of people around the world who would gladly detonate a nuclear bomb in the middle of any American city if they could do so. Barring that, they'd gladly detonate a building full of high explosives or anything else that could cause mass casualties and extreme economic damage.

If this is, in fact, true, then we are forced into an extreme offensive position that is unfortunate but necessary at some level. I am not justifying anything here. I am simply going through the scenario to try to make some sense out of it, if that's even possible.

In any escalation there are at least two parties involved. If nobody backs down things devolve until the stronger takes out the weaker and a new opponent shows up (or not). If reason prevails then everybody settles and things calm down.

Affairs in the Middle East show us that feuds can go on for thousands of years. Perhaps this is a failing in the human condition. I don't know. Are we ever going to evolve away from this crap? I hope so.

Going back to the question of the first stone.

I'd like to twist Voltaire's "With great power..." quote and apply it to someone considering acting violently against another with whom they might have a grievance. In this case, the decision by Bin Laden and his group to mount a massive unconventional attack against the US. Regardless of the validity of their grievance it is obvious they did not consider the potential consequences. This is a case of "great power" --meaning the fact that such an unconventional attack would produce devastating results with relatively little effort-- not being tempered with the "great responsibility" part. The move had absolutely no upside. None. I find myself actually thinking highly of President Bush because he had a window of perhaps 30 to 90 days where he could have done just about anything and few would have questioned it. This, of course, included nuking half the arab world out of existence. That was a case of tempering great power with the idea that one must be responsible when exercising it.

So these kinds of things cut both ways. However, if the more powerful force does not regulate its actions the weaker can suffer greatly. In this sense, I tend to think that the US has exercised far more restraints than our enemies would. I am absolutely certain that, if they could, our enemies would flatten US cities en-masse, men, women, children, dogs and cats. Everything. We actually have the ability to do that, today and back in September 11th, but do not and did not.

Did we throw the first stone? Fifty, a hundred or two hundred years ago? Well the US did not exist much beyond that. The entire arab world goes back thousands of years. The British empire had a hand in some of the grievances in that region and the US probably pissed off some people as well. As Chomsky points out this is a NORMAL state. The more powerful actor tends to, historically, behave badly in the eyes of the less powerful. He points out that this goes back to Rome and even before. It's human nature. I am not justifying it, just saying that they'd do it to us if they could because, well, that's the shitty animal we humans seem to be.

I had a micro example of this over the weekend, yesterday as a matter of fact. We went out to the local lake for an afternoon of relaxation and fishing. We took the boat out to a nice secluded cove normally frequented by families. Kids running around, dogs, people hanging out. A good scene. Then three boats showed up full of 20 to 30 year olds and no kids. As soon as they beached the boats they turned on their multi-hundred-watt stereos to physically painful and certainly unhealthy levels for anyone close to the source and the kids running around. Astounding, I thought.

I am one to believe that people are fundamentally good but every so often I run into something like this. I gave them a few minutes to see if they'd realize what they were doing. They started drinking and things were going to get out of hand. I walked over to one of them and, very politely, asked if they would consider lowering their volume --not turning things off-- in order to coexist with the other eight or nine groups at the cove. He pretty much ignored me. I approached another boat owner with the same request. He said "Dude, this is what we do at the lake". Then, he actually turned it up.

What to do? Had I been a violent person with a gun I could see shooting a hole right through the boats and forcefully making them behave or leave. Seriously, these people were inconsiderate scum. They wanted to "own" this cove and their weapon was insanely loud music and not-apt-for-children behavior with half naked young women. This is how wars can start.

What happened? The families left, of course. One by one everyone packed-up and left. We did, too. I was there for my kids, not to pick a fight with assholes. We went somewhere else in the lake and had a wonderful afternoon. I did note their boat registration numbers, took a few pictures and videos and called police this morning. In other words, I am using what power is available to me in order to, if possible, squash them as hard as possible (these offenses are serious misdemeanors in Los Angeles).

I don't fully understand the art of conflict resolution. I know it isn't easy. And you can't always win. When faced with an unreasonable party a conflict can only be resolved through superior force. This is the case for my lake "friends", with the superior force being laws being enforced by authorities, not in-situ physical violence.

The arab world is a difficult place for me to judge. I know quite a bit about the various cultures involved through discussions with friends who emigrated to the US from various countries in the region. I've had very interesting in-depth conversations with people from Israel to Saudi Arabia and nearly every country in between. The fact that I've done business internationally for many years, have travelled extensively and have socialized with people outside the US in their native countries also gives me a different perspective. I won't get into the details at this point because I have to go and this would require a fairly extensive write-up. I'll just say that there's a certain element of the arab world that really needs to think about joining the ranks of civilized society. They are living eight-hundred years behind everyone else. And it shows. And this causes all kinds of problems. And their leaders want them to live in that mental state because it is easier to control them through force and the totalitarian regimes in place there. Regrettably anyone who's tried to bring their people out of the caves invariably seems to meet extreme consequences, and things don't change.

To circle back, I think humans, in general, seem to have the ability and proclivity to become "terrorists" in many ways and in many circumstances, from the bully at the lake to a suicide bomber. Who threw the first rock? I don't know.