An origional topic on which to blog

As the century draws on, I become more and more weary of those curious indescresions, most colloquially refered to as `the terrorist`. I can't say I'm sure as to what causes such people to cause destruction as seen in London today, Bali a few years back, and Manhattan some time before that, but f there's one thing of which I am sure, is that despite my relativist-humanitarian-liberalism, these fetters on civilized society should not escape the agglomerated force of the West, (as opposed to the coi enmity we show them right now, which, has made no move to capitulate their hostilities - much to the chagrin of the west, as we see today!)
However, despite the severe reservations I hold towards these [insert euphanism for `wankers` here], I cannot help but feel, these perennial emotions they bear towards the west can only be appeased by two ways:
1-
``The cheap prices of its [the bourgeois'] commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down the Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians' intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilization into their midst, i.e to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image``.
- Karl Marx & Friedrich engels - from `The Communist Manifesto`.
What any self-respecting Marxist would argue is that by trade comes competition (leading to better, more efficient production) leading to a form of civilization in which, due to the nature of the all encompasing teamwork of production, draws in all peoples to itself. Therefore, from global trade and hard-core capitolism, all peoples can be translated into a form of civility which we can only witness around us by virtue of `the West`.
Are these terrorists beyond the invitations of the west into a relationship of trade and amiable ecconomics? All the spices, oil and perfumes, not to mention tourism the East can offer the West, and all the capitol the West can offer the East? I think there's a much deeper, saturnine side supporting the hostilities a handful of cultish members bear towards the West (and I don't think that's a result of religion!), which, actually, through a marvelous issue of serendepity, draws me into my next point... (I love the word serendepity).
2-
The sapient dictum of the Great mister George W. Bush (against whom, I have no hang-ups) is of treating symptoms rather than causes of issues of great weight. As the great Carl said, Mister Bush, in the G8 mettings is only interested in treating the symptoms of the greenhouse effects, and slow to react to their causes. Also, in the just as pressing of global terrorism, one but cannot think he applies the same approach.
I began this post by saying I cannot understand what drives people to the lengths to which these `terrorists` go, but I definately think this (my second point) is of more worth than the tried and failed method of global capitolism to reach a means of peace on earth. (I've no intention of exploring what `peace` means in this post incidently). If we could, perhaps, understand what drives people to such measures, then, we are perhaps on the right line. My second year GCSE teacher of geography (by no means a man of great diplomacy) said this,
``A student I once had was tried for the army ground-technical support unit. At the recruitment/open day he asked the army representative whether he should study RE or electronics at higher education - to which the army guy replied `we will teach you all the electronics we need you to know, but we cannot teach you what drives a man to strap himself with explosives and walk into a foreign embasy` ``.
Okay, maybe that had more impact when I heard it, but in so many walks of life and professions, that holds true, not least for all the soigne diplomacy of mister Bush, and the rest of the Western intellegentsia united in this `war on terrorism`.

Hmm, actually, in retrospect, it would appear I am somewhat a hypocrite. My editorial in this issue? I think `terrorists` (per se) are, too stupid for ecconomics, too blinkered for empathy and too arrogant to restrict their distain within their own communities. Moreover, after all my time of musing, I'm slowly beginning to resign to the unoptimistic view that the West and the East (that is to say the West and the `terrorist`) are internecine - they are muturally destructive, not by their cultures, but by the very fabric of the thinkings woven into each society - the hedonistic self richeousness of the West and the patriotic trigger-happy approach of the East. These can only serve to anhiallate each other, which I think is why we cannot fight the issue on traditional thinking. As to the philosophy of `war-neuvelle` - I'm afraid, just right now, I'm somewhat clueless.
p.s - I'm aware that what i said in my first point isn't what Marxists believe, I just thought it was an interesting observation Marx and Engels documented.