9/11 a failure of empathy?

I'm glad you responded to the article and not the blogger's comments. I agree that poverty is not the main catalyst for the violence that inspires terrorists. I don't see any third world countries sending bands of terrorists over here to blow up our stuff. It is the radical Islamic faction that is responsible for the terrorism.

Hi evans' thanks for the explanation it makes sense what you are saying but still am a loss for words as I really dont understand politics-but will also re=read your message again...littlelowl

Obama's article is a bit of a curate's egg. There is both good and bad in it. I think he is right to say that we must try to understand what lies behind this terrorism. This is a key point: some terrorists you cannot negotiate with as their demands will always be unacceptable. Others however may have goals that are acceptable or can be negotiated upon: ie they want independence for their region or country. Of course, a number of people will say never negotiate with terrorists, ever. Problem with this though is that if you don't engage with your enemies, you can't find out what they want, you can't try to establish if it is possible to have common ground, and thus there will never be peace. It is therefore critical to identify what lies behind the terrorism. Is it a genuine grievance (ie groups resisting occupation) or is it a madcap ideology which is impossible to negotiate with (ie Al-Quaida). Where I disagree with Obama is where he talks about the terrorism growing out of a climate of ignorance and despair. It is certainly true that the Al-quaida zealots mostly come from middle class stock. I think Obama would have been better saying that we do have to keep in mind whether people are embittered and angry, as this pool of anger can lead to new terrorist recruits. His point about us being careful how we respond by minimizing the loss of civilian life abroad is perfectly reasonable. That is why the Iraq war was such a disaster: there was no link to Al-Quaida and Iraq was run by a tin-pot dictator who we now know was of no real threat to us. But many Iraqis have been killed and the arabs see the deaths and injuries constantly on their TV screens and they grow angry and hate America. Hence from that pool of anger, more terrorists have emerged, supported by at least a number of their local populations.

Maybe the "speak softly and carry a big stick" diplomacy of Teddy Roosevelt should make a comeback. Obama needs to understand we can't speak softly to many of those nations without carrying a big stick, because they are the bullies who want to do harm to the USA. The USA just can't leave our "big stick" at home for fear of looking like bullies, for we may need the protection it provides.