Three Bomb Blasts hit Egypt - Carlyle group suspected

if anybody doesn't think that us foreign policy is the driving force/primary cause for what the us considers terrorism in the middle east and north africa, then you're just fooling yourself.....main causes are the us military presence in the region, us support and sponsorship of dictatorships and illegitamate regimes in the middle east and north africa, and unquestioned support for israel

saddam hussein also committed most of his egregious human rights violations and mass murder while he was being supported by the west in general and the us in particular

 

When you have two terrorist organizations, Hamas and Hezbollah, saying that Israel needs to be wiped off the map - what does that have to do with US support? If their objective is to wipe Israel off the map then their actions would continue whether or not the US supported Israel.

 

Creepy doesn't consider those terrorist organizations, so that doesn't really count.

 

we're paying for the crap that happened in the 70s with supporting Iraq against Iran and supporting Bin Laden against the Soviets in Afghanistan.

you know, we should never trust dudes with beards or mustaches.

 

Hamas and Hezbollah are not your average organizations....both have legitimacy and both are members of their governments.

Hamas has not committed one act against Israel since coming into power and have said that they are ready to recognize Israel and willing to negotiate with them as well.

Hezbollah liberated south Lebanon in May of 2000 from over 20 years of Israeli occupation and has not committed an act against Israel since, except for resistance operations in the occupied Sheba'a Farms area (which both Lebanon and Syria say belongs to Lebanon) against Israeli occupation soldiers.

Thus, their actions do not point to wanting to "wipe Israel off the map," despite what the rhetoric may be.

Now the fact of the matter is that the US supports Israel in an unflagging manner, which rightfully leads to an association of the US with Israeli actions...as I've said before, if America is genuinely interested in reducing and eliminating armed resistance, violence, terrorism, or whatever you want to call it in the Middle East and North Africa it needs to do the following things:

Stop supporting illegitamate regimes

Find a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, which gives security to Israel and justice to the Palestinians (all Arabs states have on two occassions at Arab League Summit meetings offered to recognize Israel and the US, which gives Israel $6 billion a year definitely has leverage to provide this solution)

and end their military presence in the region

 

I dont consider Hezbollah a terrorist organization, because I've never seen a shred of evidence connecting them to a terrorist attack....if anything they are a political party and national liberation movement.

We should all also remember that Israel helped found Hamas and funded the organization during its inception in the late 1980s

Sound similar to what the US did in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion???

 

But I think the issue is whether US interventional (I don't think its a word but what they hey) foreign policy has made the World a better place or just safer for us. That should include lessening terrorism, especially terrorism directed at us. What we are seeing though is terrorism directed at us because we have injected ourselves into others issues. At the same time as you note though terrorism exists whether we act are not. I think its a fair debate to consider then whether an interventionist foreign policy on the part of the US is making the World much safer.

You know we don't think in lockstep and I'm guessing that Deckard would disagree with me in regard to the amount of intervention that the US should be engaged in since I opposed the US Balkans mission on the basis that while horrible it wasn't the US' business to clean up Europe's mess.

 

What do you define as terrorist attacks?

 

Absolutely agree.

You're right, we disagree on that. It points out just how complicated this discussion is (or the topic, I should say) Creepy would say, and probably not the only one, that Hezbollah and Hamas are not terrorist organizations, because they are now forming part of a legitimate government.

I would counter that they were and are, both political and terrorist organizations, that would be far more effective if they renounced terrorism, especially Hamas. I think Hezbollah is a pawn of Syria and Iran, funded and armed by them, and that Hamas has morphed into more of a genuine political movement, and is now out of the fringes, and poised to enter the mainstream of Arab political movements, if they will just denounce terrorism, and begin a dialogue with Israel... and, goddammit, stop blowing up civilians. Israel could start doing the same. The reckless way they target terrorists, causing needless civilian casualties, produces more terrorism, not less, in my opinion.

I responded to you, instead of Hayes, because I agreed with your point, and I don't want to make mc mark nuts.


Keep D&D Civil.

 

Yeah, I know. I wasn't talking to him. He also thinks Iran's regime is progressive and that bin laden is legit.

I think that was the 80s.

I agree that its definitely something to consider.

Sure. I was just pokin' the bar with a stick.

 

surprisingly accurate for this forum.

 

No question about it!

Clutch? Are we out of Cheetos????

 

Yeah, by the same logic all those against the war should be camped out on the white house lawn protesting.

 

Hayes dont put words in my mouth

I said OBL has legitimate grievances

Unlike you I dont lie and fabricate information and use other people's opinions to back-up my argument...you're a joke

 

I think we all have a clear idea of what terrorism is, but my point is that Hezbollah isn't a terrorist organization...it's just been repeated so many times by the media and government that they are a terrorist organization, that people believe it without scrutinizing the categorization...i've never seen any evidence or proof of them being responsible for a single terrorist act

 

I never said that about Hamas...they have attacked civilians and have been guily of acts of terrorism, but so has Israel and they've sponsored terrorist groups as well such as the SLA (Shlomo Ben-Ami, foreign minister under Barak, acknowledged the former and the latter is common knowledge)

Now Hezbollah I do not consider a terrorist organization and if they are funded by Iran & Syria as you claim (although I've never seen any evidence of this), that funding pales in comparison to what the US gives Israel

 

yet I wouldn't be surprised if a large portion of those who regularly engage in debate against the war in Iraq have taken part in some demonstrations.

I have not statistics, but just from the folks that I know, and have read about on this board.

 

Nor would I be suprised to find out that pro-interventionists have been to the airport to greet returning troops, or otherwise expressed their support. That's not the comparison the cartoon draws, which is that if you're for the intervention you're supposed to join the military. And I'd be very suprised if 'a large portion' of the anti crowd had demonstrated.

 

Creepy, Hayes is far from a joke. He took information from the same source you used, and it did in fact help illustrate the point he was trying to make. You took the statistics from that source, and Hayes took the context.

You (and I some of the time) disagree with the conclusions Hayes reaches or the approaches he advocates to certain problems. But he doesn't fabricate, and has evidence to support his claims.

Calling him a joke is not in the spirit of good debate. Hayes is one of the few war supporters on this sight that bothers to argue about the merits of the war rather than resort to personal attacks , etc. I find myself agreeing with some of the evidence you provide and points you make, but your hostile reaction to Hayes makes it tiresome to read discussions between you two.

You try and support your positions, and Hayes does as well. There is no reason why the discussions shouldn't be enlightening, and well thought out. Yet you seem to be more concerened with playing 'gotcha' because Hayes responded after claiming he wasn't going to, and putting the 'one upsmanship' factor ahead of the discussion factor.

Now that that is out of the way, I had previously believed Hezbollah to be a terrorist organization. I have read, and gone over some of the books I had, and done a brief internet search, and I have to admit that I haven't found any evidence of Hezbollah intentionally targeting and going after civilians in their clashses with Israel.

There was one incident when one shell hit an Israeli teenager, but that collateral damage pales in comparison with attacks carried out regularly by the Israelis.

I certainly don't agree with Hezbollah blowing up hundreds of U.S. marines. However, I don't believe that constitutes terrorism, as it was an attack on military personel.

I am open to the possiblity that they have committed acts of terrorism, but haven't seen any reliable reports of terrorist acts by Hezbollah. However, that doesn't preclude them from being 'bad guys' by any means.

 

I think the cartoon doesn't necessarily target those that are pro-war, but rather those that are pro-war AND believe anyone opposed is pro terror.

I made a distinction as well between the anti-war crowd which is currently about 2/3 of the population, and those that discuss it regularly, such as the people on this site.

I would agree that all 2/3 of the country who now believe invading Iraq was a bad idea have been out demonstrating. But I would bet that a majority of those who spend time debating it, and discussing it have been involved in protests.

I don't know if there is any way to prove it, so it isn't an argument either of us can win. I just want to make sure that it is understood who I am talking about, and who the cartoon is talking about.