Thanks Melo.  Boy this thing is really long, and it covers a very wide range of topics, with references to writings that one should really understand better than I do, before commenting.  It would probably take me a week to put together an organized response.

I'm half way through it, and being called away in a few minutes, but will come back and finish it.  One thought I have had that is common throughout my read, is how there is such a different view of the world held by various factions--perhaps it's always been so.  And a second thought is that dialogue between the groups, even in the same country like America, that superciliously belittles the alternate points of view, make it difficult to discuss and reconcile the views--or perhaps find common ground.

Example of different points of view:

Critics of the regime, who seem intent upon discrediting it in every way possible, barely address the question of U.S. vulnerability to retaliation as a result of the regime's seemingly bizarre, and sociopathic, policies.  As a result, the average citizen might well feel assured (however horrified s/he may be by the regime's actions) that in the wake of 9/11, further concern about blowback from U.S. enemies appears to be unfounded.

(Actually I didn't mean to use this as an example of the belittleing, but en passent, "the regime's seemingly bizarre, and sociopathic, policies", this language is a little beyond the pale for me.)  But on to my point on differing world views.  If I interpret this comment correctly, and it's in a context that I think supports my interpretation, this is the view that America is the aggressor; that the US has basically started this whole thing, or at least made it far, far worse than it should be by her actions.

But obviously there is another very legitimate point of view:  America didn't start this "war on terror".  The attacks have been many, and have killed many Americans.  This view lists the attacks, the Cole, the fact that 9/11 was after all the 2nd attack on the World Trade Center.  America tried an approach that viewed these events, like the 1rst WTC attack as "criminal actions".  And the attacks just continued to build.

This was the example of belittling that I was going to use:

With every act of blatant, arrogant dishonesty (the invasion of Iraq),  of open disdain for criticism (the handling of Katrina), of intentionally demonstrative illegality (presidential eavesdropping),  of brutality and ruthlessness (Guantanamo and other institutions of torture),  of disdain for Democratic traditions ( the suspension of habeas corpus under the Patriot Act),  the current regime provides a steady flow of reassurance that it is the worlds toughest gang and can do whatever it likes with impunity.  Daily it proclaims its competence to brutally dominate in a world run by nation-gangs (Huntington's "tribes").

Sorry, I've got to run, I may come back to this.  and I certainly will finish the article.