<B>Let me ask you this: Why weren't those planes crashed into a skyscraper in Tel-Aviv if they only hate the Jews? Why New York and the Pentagon? Yeah, it was just a few crazy extremists... </B> These are two separate sets of extremists we're talking about here. al Queda hates the U.S. -- there's no doubt about that. The other terror groups (Hamas, Hezbollah, etc) have constrained their operations to Israeli targets. The polls show the people support the Hamas-type groups, NOT al Queda. <B>Anyway, that's irrelevant. Based on that poll, you cannot deny the majority of them dislike us intensely. The large majority believes that we should be attacked, the poll clearly shows that. </B> Where do the polls show that the majority think we should be attacked? They may not like us, but there are lots of people we don't like but don't think should be attacked. They want to attack Israel because they feel that's the best way to get progress. I don't think they feel that attacking the US would help achieve any progress in statehood or independence.
11. Do you support or oppose military attacks against American targets in the region? Support 72.9 Oppose 21.7 Not sure 5.4 Right there. The question says "in the region", but that makes sense since that is the easiest way to do it. It says "military attacks" as well, but that also makes sense since they consider suicide bombers to be soldiers. They do not distinguish between civilian and military targets. And "separate sets of extremists"? You sound as if you think that Hamas and Hizbollah are more legitemate than Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is actually a parent organization for these two (and many other) terrorist organizations; many members of Al Qaeda claim membership in both of these groups (Islamic Jihad makes up the third major party). And the claim that these two groups limit their activities to Israel is simply false. Virtually all of the hostage situations we experienced in the '80s were at the hands of Hizbollah, as was the bombing of the Marine barracks and the murder of Buckley. Hamas is also notorious for killing the Americans and Jews first when it hijacks a plane... You can go on believing that the Arabic muslims are our best buddies and just wuv us to bits if you want, but I choose not to decieve myself. I think more of them would like to blow us to bits, and not with wuv.
How do you target terrorism without going after Hamas and Hizbullah? Or is the US simply going to call it a day after Al Qaeda?
If so then we have lost the war on terrorism. It's like removing a tumor from your brain when the cancer's already spread through your body. Pretty pointless gesture, and you're still going to die.
Yet to 'justify' the pursuit of Hamas and Hizbullah, what does the US have to tie those groups to the 9-11 attacks?
To the 911 attacks? I don't know, as the FBI hasn't released all of their info on the investigation, but I would highly suspect that since the perps were Al Qaeda members it is highly likely that they also belonged to one of those groups. As I said, Al Qaeda ("The Base", so named for a reason) is really an umbrella organization whose members are also usually members of another group. But in my opinion we don't need to justify going after those groups to anyone. They have killed Americans in previous attacks and have vowed to continue killing Americans, and that is enough for me. I frankly don't care what any other nations think in this matter - they're killing Americans, and we are going to put an end to it.
I saw a report (on CNN or NBC) that tied members of Hizbullah to the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996 that killed 19 US servicemen. The reason I ask what connects Hamas and Hizbullah to 9-11 is that I feel that the moment that the US expands its operations in the Middle East and looks to settle scores other than 9-11, it is going to lose a number of allies in the region. Not that I don't believe the US should pursue its interests...but the consequences should be considered, IMO...and those consequences include both the reaction in the Middle East -including future terrorist acts caused by such action, as well as the possible terrorist groups/activities neutralized by such action. Bush43 has declared a "war on terrorism"...so my guess is that the US will address these other groups that have attacked American citizens and interests before.
hizbullah and hamas have legitamate reasons. and hizbullah hasn't from what i know carried out attacks against civilians. hamas i believe generally hasn't either. plus hamas has branches that are legit from all viewpoints. you have three generations living in UN refugee camps and not be allowed to go to your home and tell me how you grow up. until you face it don't condemn it.
the mossad has killed innocent WHITE people in europe on 'accident' i don't see how they aren't terrorists. russians have butchered and raped innocent chechens. i don't see how they're any better. putin himself was a kgb spy...he's at least killed as many people as osama bin laden has. lets chop his head off too please.
I thought one of those groups bombed the US embassy in Lebanon in the early 80s. And another hijacked an airliner in '85 and murdered an American.
Isn't the US handling terrorist threats to itself? If a Palestinian state will end the violence...good. I'm not convinced it would though. Both parties are used to the tension and new troubles would probably arise.
Glynch, There acyually is a Jewish diasporism movement. It basically states that those placed in Israel are Europeans, not Mid Easterners. The placement of them there, then, would of course cause problems as it is -- not even considering religious differences. This is a kind of "reverse exodus" theory, in which Jews should be moved back to their respective homelands, giving Israel back to its previous "owners." The problem with this, of course, is that suddenly re-placing Jews in various cities/countires, some of which have grown more nationalistic/xenophobic/racist, etc...could open some more problems. It is still interesting, though. I see that nobody will play my wondefully stupid game, though.
