[joeclarke]

This is an interesting topic Aurel.

I expect that (as with all things human) many situations defy such ready classification of cause and effect. I also expect that such defiance is further complicated by the fact that conditions and factors are constantly changing and evolving.

So as the example of how Jews went from being the scapegoats for the financial disenfranchisement of the german people to being something much more significant, so have other situations probably evolved from simple downtrodden Davids vs. tyrant Goliaths to debates of good vs. evil.

It's always much simpler to rally people around concepts of good and evil than to debate the validity of individual actions. People also embrace these concepts easily because they remove burdens of guilt or rational accountability for our actions. This concept is seen here on this board where people are physically revolted by some violent action against an American yet feel no such revulsion about thousands of Iraqis meeting a similar fate at our hands. The latent "goodness" of our actions excuses us the need to feel any real guilt.

So, as we rally support for "war" against terror or against Iraqis on the basis of good vs. evil, the terrorists use a similar tactic to rally against us. So the tangible, pragmatic reasons to take umbrage with each other that have exisited easily become twisted into epic idealogical struggles. Terrorism rooted in your type (1) becomes type (2) or even (3).

The cure in the minds of many is to eliminate the cause. Stop abusing people and the skilled leaders out there (and they are legion and endless) can get no traction to foment hatred against us. Invading a Iraq is probably as far from that approach to problem solving as you can get...