London is correct in saying that "the situation becomes a lot clearer when you listen to the stated intentions and motivations of the terrorists and take them at face value," yet London does not do so. London dismisses the stated intentions and motivations of the terrorists as "propaganda that clouds contemporary analysis."

Anyone who reads or listens to exactly what the terrorists are saying and exactly how they are saying it sees that they view themselves as the defenders of the world's weak and oppressed people against what they see as the world's greatest oppressor--the US--and its allies. London needs to make up his mind whether we should "listen to the stated intentions and motivations of the terrorists and take them at face value," or not. Which is it?
Aisha | 02.20.06 - 12:28 pm | #