new york stock exchange

Yeah. Think we've beaten this one to death now.

Which is pretty much how it is over here, or anywhere for that matter.

Islamic fundamentalists are basically the street gangs of the Middle East. Think South Central. So you're right that 9/11 was in a lot of ways retaliation for perceived past offenses -- just like a gang shooting is often in retaliation for perceived past offenses. But just like a gang shooting, there's a sort of inheirent criminality to it: the people you're talking about are criminals, and they do immoral and illegal things for a living. They may have specific motivation for a particular act but at the same time it runs a lot deeper than that. thx .

Again you're ascribing logic to what is clearly not a logical thought process. Obviously America has the biggest target on its back; it's the largest and most obviously intrusive representative of perceived western values. And, as I admitted, it has singled itself out by intruding the most on the Arab world via its foreign policy. But what I mean to say is that if America were somehow gone -- magically destroyed by a series of terrorist strikes -- Islamic fundamentalists would not be satisfied. Al-Qaeda would not just lay down their arms and say mission accomplished. Generally speaking, their thought process isn't "X did Y to me so I will do Z to them". Their thought process is basically nihilistic loathing towards anything other than what they know, a complete right-wing nutjob xenophobic reaction. If that weren't true, their tactics wouldn't be suicidal and counterproductive. Rationalizing the terrorist thought process in terms that you or I find reasonable is foolish because there is no reasonable justification for flying planes into buildings, no matter where you go to church. 9/11 didn't help the cause of Muslims who find American foreign policy objectionable, and it didn't even help the cause of those who would like to see America destroyed. All it did was bring comfort to those who take pleasure in the suffering of people halfway around the world. If their only grief with America were its foreign policy, and they were acting in a rational manner, then their objective would be to change that foreign policy. But 9/11 was not an event that could have changed American foreign policy. It had no rational goal. It was an act of hatred. And if you think that foreign policy alone could inspire that kind of hatred, you're crazy. 9/11 wasn't a strike at America's government, it was a strike at everyday people. That alone should make it clear: they don't just hate Bush, or Rumsfeld, or Wolfowitz. They hate western society in general, and they get their rocks off by taking shots at it. That doesn't justify American foreign policy that has been narcissistic, greedy and myopic. But I think it should make people think twice about either empathizing with the concerns of militant Islam or confusing militant Islam with the Islamic world at large. Because if you think that if the United States' cutting out the neoconservative bullshit would make terrorism disappear, you may one day be sorely disappointed. And I would argue that there is more to hating a country than hating their foreign policy -- particularly when "hate" is actually a code word for "brutally slaughter anyone from that nation you can get your hands on". There has to be a loathing that goes beyond government officials and policy direction in order to make that kind of cold-blooded evil seem like a viable option.

That's a typical left-wing reaction in the post-9/11 era. Reading that statement over and over I can't help but feel my fellow liberals have lost sight of something in their rush to oppose the "kill 'em all" neo-conservative approach as vigorously as possible: that you are attempting to ascribe rational motives to totally irrational acts. Flying a plane into a building is not a logical act carried out by intelligent people hoping to effect policy change; it's illogical, desperate, frustrated, suicidal, nihilistic, self-destructive, and ultimately actually detrimental to the cause of those performing the act. To say it occured because of a few particularly instances of offensive American foreign policy is silly because terrorist actions actually do very little to change those policies. So no, Islamic extremists don't hate America for "its freedom". They hate it, partially because of its foreign policy, but also because it is an abomination in their eyes. You are talking about people who in many cases do not feel that women should be allowed to so much as show their faces, who feel that homosexuality is a monstrosity and sex in general is offensive. One look at American television is enough to fuel their hatred. These aren't people who want America to change its foreign policy. They aren't interested in coexisting peacefully with America. They don't want to share the planet with the United States -- or any other country that doesn't follow their particular code of ethics. America isn't the only country being targetted, it's just the one with the biggest bullseye on its back. If you think militant Islamists only hate America, then consider how much they actually have in common with the extreme right in the Bible Belt region -- and how liberal Europe is in comparison. If they hate New York, imagine how Amsterdam or Paris would look to them. Some liberals, in their push for tolerance, feel that generalizing anti-American hatred in militant Islam as caused by something other than foreign policy is bigotry against Islam. But you have to draw a distinction between Islamic men and women of faith and militant Islam. We aren't talking about your average joe in Indonesia griping about American troops in Iraq, we're talking about someone who is part of a radical faction whose tenets basically equate to the absolute destruction of anything that doesn't adhere strictly to the Qu'ran and Hadith. There are millions of Muslims who would be happy to live in a pluralistic society, or at least a pluralistic world, and don't care what anyone does as long as it doesn't effect them. But Islamic extremists are not those people. They want to kill you, and almost none of their reasons are actually justifiable.

Euthenasia is not the same thing as assisted suicide. Assisted suicide is when a doctor helps you take your life; euthenasia is when a doctor takes your life for you.

They're too different to warrant direct comparison. If you're a fan of Matt Good's stripped down, up-tempo pop-rock ditties, you will obviously enjoy White Light. If you prefer Matt's sprawling, mid-tempo songs laced with complex songwriting and careful sonic layering -- the ones that last 6 or 7 minutes, or more -- you'll prefer Avalanche.

The Music is about as far from fucking "exotic" as it gets. Start with a riff and that braindead weirdo wailing overtop, and throw in a dance beat from time to time. Occasionally rip off Zeppelin. Just because it's from Britain doesn't mean it's original.

This seems like it will mean two times the music. This is good.

Uh. k. thx.

Slipknot sounds just like every other nu-metal/grunge shit band trying to play off of the lame teenaged angst of alienated kids to me. Maybe it's just me though.

Yanni: $23.99 http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000...9659444-2372315 Abba: $13.99 http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000...9659444-2372315 Matthew Good: $0.99?