Marching against Al Qaeda - what a joke

An Fear Aniar

They'll be laughing their sandals off at thousands of left wing pantywaists waving banners saying inane stuff like "arms are for hugging, not for fighting" and "Bu$h = Hitler".

Unfortunately, these guys have to be dealt with the old fashioned mediaeval way, as their speech and actions indicate.

mr_angry

Is there a point to this thread?

And how could you march against an organisation without a centralised command or responsibility to the puclic?

An Fear Aniar

Originally posted by mr_angry
Is there a point to this thread?

Yes. My point is that the anti-war Left are oppsoing everyting the POTUS is doing.

So, over to them. How would they deal with Al Qaeda.

If you're going to go around telling people "war is always wrong" - which I think is a stpid thing to say - then you have a duty to have some alternative to offer people who are clearly frightened by the threat of massacre by Al Qaeda.

So, how would the trendy left deal with OBL and his minions?

ShaneHogan

Ah - I've seen the error of my ways - Given that Bush's 'war on terror' has been so effective against Al Qaeda over the past three years, us lefties were really wrong all along.

simu

Marching is useless. It gives people the illusion they have some control over these events. Also, some of the ppl at those marches were laughing and smiling - what the hell is that about?

What the US should do is to get its act together and find a way of infiltrating Al Quaeda cells instead of wasting time on pointless airport security checks. Also, fix the situation in Iraq up quickly before you get a generation growing up that hastes America and is willing toeat up Al Quaeda's ideas.

mike65

The marches are about mutual support really. It makes them feel a (bit) better when they need to. Of course Al
Queda and Ozzy Bin Liner wont care one way or the other assuming they have an involvement which seems likely.

Mike.

An Fear Aniar

Originally posted by ShaneHogan
Ah - I've seen the error of my ways - Given that Bush's 'war on terror' has been so effective against Al Qaeda over the past three years, us lefties were really wrong all along.

Yes, it has been highly effective. Guantanamo Bay is full of people who may have killed thousands by now.

Sparks

Originally posted by An Fear Aniar
Yes, it has been highly effective. Guantanamo Bay is full of people who may have killed thousands by now.

Ah, the ignore list Like pepto=bismal for the eyes...

An Fear Aniar

Originally posted by Sparks
Ah, the ignore list Like pepto=bismal for the eyes...

Fine, stick your head in the sand.

In a combat situation you don't hold a trial before taking prisoners, you sort out the combatants after you've got them to stop trying to kill you.

bonkey

Originally posted by An Fear Aniar
In a combat situation you don't hold a trial before taking prisoners, you sort out the combatants after you've got them to stop trying to kill you.

Yeah. And as the released British have so well illustrated in teh last week, not only do you do that, but you lump in the people you didn't catch in combat situations, and still take several years to figure out that you don't have a case against them.

But of course, I'm guessing that an untrendy rightist like yourself would...what was that term....stick his head in the sand when it came to issues like observing Human Rights.

jc

The Corinthian

Originally posted by simu
Marching is useless. It gives people the illusion they have some control over these events.

I agree, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. Such marches can give an outlet for expressing grief and solidarity when there is frankly nothing else that can be realistically done.

Originally posted by An Fear Aniar
So, how would the trendy left deal with OBL and his minions?

The left tends to spend most of its time finding fault in the actions of the US, which I would agree is a pointless and reactionary occupation. Long before 9-11 the same tired activists were coming out with the same tired arguments, and regardless of what happens, this is unlikely to change.

However, this is not a black and white situation where one side must be right because the other is wrong. The right is equally blinkered in this regard, with many pro-US pundits (such as yourself Fear Aniar) happily going along with any US action regardless of European interests.

And unless you’re under any delusion Fear Aniar, we’re Europeans, not Americans; and while our interests may often overlap with the US you should not be so naive as to believe that they are the same thing.

And so European interests are really the issue, because a year ago Spain, Italy and Poland were not targets of Islamic terrorism and today they are. And along with the UK, all they have gained is a few scraps from the Iraqi table.

In a combat situation you don't hold a trial before taking prisoners, you sort out the combatants after you've got them to stop trying to kill you.

Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoset :rolleyes:

Zombrex

Originally posted by An Fear Aniar
So, over to them. How would they deal with Al Qaeda.

Who said Bush is dealing with Al Qaeda?? Since 9-11 Al Qaeda has been able to pull of a series devastating attacks. The war against Afghanistan and Iraq seems to have done absolutely nothing to stop Al Qaeda. It just gives the stupid right-wing Bush supporters a (very) false sense of security that they have a strong and effective ruler, and that killing people in a far away land will actually protect them from men with box cutters and the will to kill and die.

It is a very American, or Western, idea that things like terrorism can be over come with military might. They can't. Pure and simple.

The idea of the marches has nothing to do with defeating Al Qaeda. It is about support and solidarity. These things are going to happen. It is how we as a society come together, instead of hiding away in our homes behind a re-enforced door and sub-machine gun (hoping that Al Qaeda form a country we can invade), that is important.

ShaneHogan

Originally posted by An Fear Aniar
Guantanamo Bay is full of people who may have killed thousands by now.

So is Dublin city centre. In fact, I may have killed someone by now. Your anti-lefty sentiments may have driven you to killing some trendy lefty anti-Bush protestor.

Interment without trial is the best way to encourage terrorism. It happened in the North in the 70's and in Israel/Palestine more recently. If we are going to start imprisoning those who may be thinking about doing something wrong, we may as well just give up now and hand back the keys of the world.

Victor

Originally posted by An Fear Aniar
Yes, it has been highly effective. Guantanamo Bay is full of people who may have killed thousands by now.

Just as well all those US Marines are kept occupied then.

Senor_Fudge

lol

chill

At a time when so many have been brutally murdered this is a contemptable comment in my opinion and I admire the Spanish people tremendously for their incredible solidarity and willingness to get out on the streets and tell those murdering scum that they will not be beaten by terrorism.
Sadly we in Ireland do not have any of this kind of steel and it seems the same in Europe. We had better wake up to this attack on our freedom and our way of life and realise that it's not just America that is being targetted. We need to get together militarily and security wise and attack these terrorists with covert and deadly operations.

bonkey

Originally posted by chill
I admire the Spanish people tremendously for their incredible solidarity and willingness to get out on the streets and tell those murdering scum that they will not be beaten by terrorism.

I admire it as well. I admire any nation who takes a stance to say that brutal, unwanton violence of this nature is simply not acceptable.

We need to get together militarily and security wise and attack these terrorists with covert and deadly operations.

Oh. Guess brutal, unwanton violence isn't all that unacceptable then...its just a question of who does it, where and to whom.

jc

sovtek

Originally posted by chill
At a time when so many have been brutally murdered this is a contemptable comment in my opinion and I admire the Spanish people tremendously for their incredible solidarity and willingness to get out on the streets and tell those murdering scum that they will not be beaten by terrorism.

But I guess when 2 million people got out in Spain to protest another somewhat recent spate of killing they were all "unemployed derilicts".
Eight million of 'em this time around.
I assume you shared that same sentiment at the time?

gandalf

Well if I remember correctly one of the countries that had some of the largests turnouts in March's against the war was Spain. The vast majority of people did not want to take part in the war, their government ignored them and now the ordinary people have paid the price.

Personally I think if you feel strongly about any particular issue you have a right to express that in any peaceful manner that is available to you. And if alot of your peers feel the same then Mass Demonstrations are the way to go.

I love the way people come on here saying that these guys have to be dealt with etc. If only life was that simple. So far The Axis of Diesel has dealt with alot of people. Unfortunately alot of them are "collateral damage" who have sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, aunts, uncles, husbands, wives and they will want to avenge those that have been taken from them. Then we have the illegal combatents in Cuba, how can a country that claims to respect freedom & democracy actually take part in such a Orwellian urdertaking? This is not a war against terrorism it's a war to grab more power and remove the freedoms from the ordinary man in the US.

BTW I love when people talk about defending your freedom and way of life by restricting your freedoms and changing your way of life. I guess that means the terrorists have already won.

Gandalf.

An Fear Aniar

[ This is not a war against terrorism it's a war to grab more power and remove the freedoms from the ordinary man in the US.

:rolleyes:

Tsk tsk, so cynical. How little you know the American people.

An Fear Aniar

[

However, this is not a black and white situation where one side must be right because the other is wrong. The right is equally blinkered in this regard, with many pro-US pundits (such as yourself Fear Aniar) happily going along with any US action regardless of European interests.

And unless you’re under any delusion Fear Aniar, we’re Europeans, not Americans; and while our interests may often overlap with the US you should not be so naive as to believe that they are the same thing.

Yes, I am Pro-US. I don't go along with "any" US action (e.g. Chile 74) but I think Bush has done absolutely the right thing.

I certainly don't feel European. To me, Ireland is more an American state, culturally and in spirit; we just get our funding from the the European former-colonial powers.

BlitzKrieg

Originally posted by An Fear Aniar
:rolleyes:

Tsk tsk, so cynical. How little you know the American people.

-but this the american government...not the people. Whom it seems to have failed in representing...

BlitzKrieg

question: We are dealing with terrorism. Tell me when has full on military action solved a terorist situation?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by An Fear Aniar
Yes, I am Pro-US. I don't go along with "any" US action (e.g. Chile 74) but I think Bush has done absolutely the right thing.

So what’s your recourse if you don't go along with a US action?

I certainly don't feel European. To me, Ireland is more an American state, culturally and in spirit; we just get our funding from the the European former-colonial powers.

You did strike me as someone who wanted us all to become new Puerto Ricans, all right...

Your analysis is rather deluded (probably because, like many, you have relatives in the US). Ireland’s economic system is more in tune with the Keynesian models of the other European states. We are represented politically (and some may say inordinately so), through our elected representatives and appointees. Our trade is heavily Euro-centric.

So essentially, like it or not, or political and economic interests are more closely aligned to Europe than to the US. Not always, but more often than not by a long stretch.

And so I would have felt that we are more a European state, culturally and in spirit; we just get our tourists from the neo-colonial power.

Zombrex

Originally posted by An Fear Aniar
:rolleyes:

Tsk tsk, so cynical. How little you know the American people.

Yeah because Iraq has soooo much to do with fighting Al Queda.

Tsk tsk, so naive :rolleyes:

seamus

Originally posted by BlitzKrieg
question: We are dealing with terrorism. Tell me when has full on military action solved a terorist situation?

Well, there was a little terrorist action around this time in 1916 which had a battleship firing shots from the Liffey........
That "terrorist situation" was rather quickly crushed, but if you're actually asking "When has full-on military action completely eliminated a terrorist threat?", I can't say. I would believe that it can't. Terrorist organisations such as Al-Queda and the IRA have no lands to invade, no cities to bomb, and the more force you use against them, the more 'freedom fighters' join their opressed cause.....

sovtek

Originally posted by An Fear Aniar
I certainly don't feel European. To me, Ireland is more an American state, culturally and in spirit; we just get our funding from the the European former-colonial powers.

When's the last time America pumped billions of €'s to build infrastructure and when did you last vote in an American election or referendum?

monument

Originally posted by An Fear Aniar
So, over to them. How would they deal with Al Qaeda.

I for one would not have caused the problems which resulted in their cause.

monument

Originally posted by An Fear Aniar

---

[ This is not a war against terrorism it's a war to grab more power and remove the freedoms from the ordinary man in the US.

---

:rolleyes:

Tsk tsk, so cynical. How little you know the American people.

There freedoms being removed is how the people I've talked to in the US feel.

Victor

Originally posted by seamus
Well, there was a little terrorist action around this time in 1916 which had a battleship firing shots from the Liffey........

Well, it was only a gun boat and well it made more of a problem than it solved.

bug

Oh. Guess brutal, unwanton violence isn't all that unacceptable then...its just a question of who does it, where and to whom.

yes that seems to be the general western government consensus, we can cluster bomb the f*k out of you, but dont you dare retaliate...

to answer the original posters question, I definitley wouldnt call myself a leftist, but I would have to say there isnt much we can do unless the americans/brits suddenly, miraculously stopped meddling in middleastern affairs and pulled out. But thats not going to happen, so we can sit by and watch it all unfold, the cycle of violence that it is, and.. dodge the bombs.

gandalf

Originally posted by An Fear Aniar
:rolleyes:

Tsk tsk, so cynical. How little you know the American people.

Care to elaborate on that comment please. We are not all obviously as enlightened as you!

Gandalf.

ronano

Originally posted by sovtek
When's the last time America pumped billions of €'s to build infrastructure and when did you last vote in an American election or referendum?

Erm explain to me what you're truly trying to get at here because i fail to see how your post relates to what he said

sovtek

Originally posted by ronano
Erm explain to me what you're truly trying to get at here because i fail to see how your post relates to what he said

I'd think it's fairly obvious.

An Fear Aniar

Originally posted by bug


to answer the original posters question, I definitley wouldnt call myself a leftist, but I would have to say there isnt much we can do unless the americans/brits suddenly, miraculously stopped meddling in middleastern affairs and pulled out. But thats not going to happen, so we can sit by and watch it all unfold, the cycle of violence that it is, and.. dodge the bombs.

Well done, Bug. You're the only one so far who has tried to give me an alternative rather than just supplying the usual Student's-Union-type AmeriKKKa-bashing.

So, you feel that the best way to put an end to atrocities like 9/11 and Madrid is for the US and Brits to stop meddling in Middle Eastern affairs?

What exactly were these countries doing there pre-9/11 which was so awful that it warranted a deliberately targeted slaughter of innocent civilians on 9/11??

Are you thinking of Israel?? Because it seem to me that helping Israel to survive in hostile region is a good thing.

Anyway, let's hear some constructive alternatives rather than this negative "Bu$h is Hitler" nonsense.

MrPinK

Originally posted by An Fear Aniar
Are you thinking of Israel?? Because it seem to me that helping Israel to survive in hostile region is a good thing.

The Israelis are armed to the teeth, including with WMD's. They don't need help surviving. What they do need is international pressure to fully commit to establishing a Palestinian state and bringing peace to the region.

dathi1

What exactly were these countries doing there pre-9/11 which was so awful that it warranted a deliberately targeted slaughter of innocent civilians on 9/11??

You mean one country?? USA: Not much besides backing IDF slaughter, SLA in Lebanon, supporting the occupation against UN 242, Regan's forte in Beirut, Feeding both sides of the Iran/ Iraq war. Iran Contra / Oliver North, Backing Sadam, Backing the Saudis. Backing the Kuwaiti "Royal" family, Backing every despotic oil rich regime that was to hand to the detriment of their populalations. Its just been Kill kill, rape rape, Oil oil and occupying Zionists good / Arabs bad, good guys / bad guys etc. I could go on.

seriously ..besides the hideousness of the crime..when the first plane when into tower 1...where you surprised?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by An Fear Aniar
Are you thinking of Israel?? Because it seem to me that helping Israel to survive in hostile region is a good thing.

Why?

xm15e3

Originally posted by An Fear Aniar

What exactly were these countries doing there pre-9/11 which was so awful that it warranted a deliberately targeted slaughter of innocent civilians on 9/11??

We developed their oil fields and allow them to be nationalized

We supply Egypt with $2B annually in foreign aid, for not being as terminally F'd as their neighbors.

We supply defense systems to the Saudis, we buy their oil providing them with their ONLY source of wealth, and until recently defended Saudis with our blood and treasure while imposing in-human restrictions on our military (no beer) so as not to offend the locals Mufdies.

We continually demand restraint from Israel for attacks we would retaliate for in a genocidal fashion.

Lets face it, we're pure evil.

BTW, Pinochet was the only good dictator we supported. Alande got what he deserved.

mr_angry

You're the only one so far who has tried to give me an alternative rather than just supplying the usual Student's-Union-type AmeriKKKa-bashing.

Well, to be honest, it doesn't look from your original post as if you were really looking for a debate on rational solutions to the problem:

Originally posted by An Fear Aniar
They'll be laughing their sandals off at thousands of left wing pantywaists waving banners saying inane stuff like "arms are for hugging, not for fighting" and "Bu$h = Hitler".

Unfortunately, these guys have to be dealt with the old fashioned mediaeval way, as their speech and actions indicate.

And besides, when has anyone on this thread equated Bush with Hitler? From what I can see, there are a lot of people criticising his military and foreign policies. I would go as far as to say legitimately criticising his policies, but then again, that is a matter of opinion. Thats a far cry from calling him Hitler though.

As for Israel - I'm happy to see the state of Israel survive and prosper... as long as it is not at the expense of another legitimate community of people, be they another state, or Israel's own population.

[Edit]
Is there an English / sane translation for the above post?
[/Edit]

sceptre

Originally posted by xm15e3
BTW, Pinochet was the only good dictator we supported.

And for various economic reasons that led to people starving if they didn't manage to get shot first you get no points there either:p

therecklessone

Originally posted by xm15e3
and until recently defended Saudis with our blood and treasure while imposing in-human restrictions on our military (no beer) so as not to offend the locals Mufdies.

My God you're right. I demand the Security Council of the UN be convened immeadiately!

:rolleyes:

xm15e3

Originally posted by sceptre
And for various economic reasons that led to people starving if they didn't manage to get shot first you get no points there either:p

Chile has a market-oriented economy characterized by a high level of foreign trade. During the early 1990s, Chile's reputation as a role model for economic reform was strengthened when the democratic government of Patricio AYLWIN - which took over from the military in 1990 - deepened the economic reform initiated by the military government. Growth in real GDP averaged 8% during 1991-97, but fell to half that level in 1998 because of tight monetary policies implemented to keep the current account deficit in check and because of lower export earnings - the latter a product of the global financial crisis. A severe drought exacerbated the recession in 1999, reducing crop yields and causing hydroelectric shortfalls and electricity rationing, and Chile experienced negative economic growth for the first time in more than 15 years. Despite the effects of the recession, Chile maintained its reputation for strong financial institutions and sound policy that have given it the strongest sovereign bond rating in South America. By the end of 1999, exports and economic activity had begun to recover, and growth rebounded to 4.4% in 2000. Growth fell back to 2.8% in 2001 and 1.8% in 2002, largely due to lackluster global growth and the devaluation of the Argentine peso. Unemployment remains stubbornly high, putting pressure on President LAGOS to improve living standards. One bright spot was the signing of a free trade agreement with the US, which will take effect on 1 January 2004.

xm15e3

Originally posted by therecklessone
My God you're right. I demand the Security Council of the UN be convened immeadiately!

:rolleyes:

SAVAGES!

therecklessone

Originally posted by xm15e3
Chile has a market-oriented economy characterized by a high level of foreign trade. During the early 1990s, Chile's reputation as a role model for economic reform was strengthened when the democratic government of Patricio AYLWIN - which took over from the military in 1990 - deepened the economic reform initiated by the military government. Growth in real GDP averaged 8% during 1991-97, but fell to half that level in 1998 because of tight monetary policies implemented to keep the current account deficit in check and because of lower export earnings - the latter a product of the global financial crisis. A severe drought exacerbated the recession in 1999, reducing crop yields and causing hydroelectric shortfalls and electricity rationing, and Chile experienced negative economic growth for the first time in more than 15 years. Despite the effects of the recession, Chile maintained its reputation for strong financial institutions and sound policy that have given it the strongest sovereign bond rating in South America. By the end of 1999, exports and economic activity had begun to recover, and growth rebounded to 4.4% in 2000. Growth fell back to 2.8% in 2001 and 1.8% in 2002, largely due to lackluster global growth and the devaluation of the Argentine peso. Unemployment remains stubbornly high, putting pressure on President LAGOS to improve living standards. One bright spot was the signing of a free trade agreement with the US, which will take effect on 1 January 2004.

All of this makes excuses the behaviour of Pinochet and his cronies after they seized power?

At what point would you suggest the US stops supporting murderous dictators and their regimes? When economic performance dips below a certain level? Or are human rights and democratic principles not for sale?

the_syco

Hehehe.

Damn hippies. March against Al Qaeda? And what will that do?

Nothing.

If they wanted to be liked by you sponge heads, they wouldn't have blown up the trains in spain, the planes in America, or the cars, trucks, etc in Iraq.

I'm pro-US. Not pro-Bush. Just pro-US. I want US to kick the sh*t out of every country that has Al Qaeda in it.
Do I care about all these starving people? Not much.
Were the Iraq's starving before the US came along? Dunno. No-one was allowed to check.
If America gets out of Iraq, will it become self sufficent? No f****in way.

shotamoose

Originally posted by the_syco
I want US to kick the sh*t out of every country that has Al Qaeda in it.

Countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and, probably, Spain and the UK? Great idea!

mr_angry

America itself springs to mind. The assumptions seems to be that all Al Qaeda members are living in caves, and only come out to attack us poor Western folk. The fact is, most of these people are well-educated people living comfortably in major cities around the world. They just happen to share the vision that the world needs changing, and lots of bloodshed is the best way to go about achieving their aims.

Much like several people on this thread. You should really ask yourselves how far removed you are from the likes of Al Qaeda, albeit on the other side of the 'fence'.

sceptre

Originally posted by xm15e3 quoting someone else
<snip>During the early 1990s, Chile's reputation as a role model for economic reform

I haven't time to write yet another critique of the experiment of Friedman's minions (especially since you just appear to have cut and pasted your entire post from somewhere (I suspect the CIA World Factbook from last year) without attributing your source - without cutting the last line of your post about a future event on 1 January 2004) so I'll offer this link as a reasonable rant about the Chicago School's shenannigans in Chile. It seeks to explain (and in my view does a reasonable job) in explaining why the economics was bollocks.

You can call me a pinko socialist if you like but I couldn't give a crap about Chile's sovereign bond rating while most of the people who live there can't afford sandwiches with meat in them.

If you come up with your own arguments (and words) I'll be happy to explain why Chile exposed the fundamental weaknesses in Friedman's economic theory at some future date. In the meantime, we've a policy of source attribution here - if you get a paragraph from someone else, say it isn't yours.

An Fear Aniar

Originally posted by dathi1
You mean one country?? USA: Not much besides backing IDF slaughter, SLA in Lebanon, supporting the occupation against UN 242, Regan's forte in Beirut, Feeding both sides of the Iran/ Iraq war. Iran Contra / Oliver North, Backing Sadam, Backing the Saudis. Backing the Kuwaiti "Royal" family, Backing every despotic oil rich regime that was to hand to the detriment of their populalations. Its just been Kill kill, rape rape, Oil oil and occupying Zionists good / Arabs bad, good guys / bad guys etc. I could go on.

seriously ..besides the hideousness of the crime..when the first plane when into tower 1...where you surprised?

In all of those instances you mention, the Soviets were just as active in the region. The Americans were 100% right to get in there and get involved, the world is a much better place now that the Soviet menace is gone.


So all those incidents you mention are 1980's vintage or earlier except the supporting of Israel which happen to believe is a good and justified cause. Israel is the only democaracy in the entire region and has been subject to repeated unprovoked attacks since 1949. These attacks, in the form of terrorist atrocities are continuing to this day. You see, the Arabs wanted to drive the entire Jewsih nation into the sea, but they're slowly starting to learn that Israel is here to stay. The Palestinians have no legitimate claim to a state of their own, most are refugees from Egypt, Syria and Jordan. Yasser Arafat himself is Egyptian.

But I digress. So did anything happen say, between 1990 and 2001 which might be seen to justify the 9/11 atrocity??

bonkey

Originally posted by An Fear Aniar
the world is a much better place now that the Soviet menace is gone.

What menace? You mean the menace of an alternate political system?

Do you realise, for example, that not a single emergence of socialism and/or communism has managed to fall of its own accord in teh 20th century? That - without exception - every single one's demise involved the US.

Or do you mean the stupid arms-race that the US and the USSR egged each other into, and that US-apologists would now have us believe was entirely not their fault, despite the fact that they were the ones who started it? That menace?

Or maybe it was the Western expansion of the USSR where they annexed several post-war nations by deciding to instill communist governments? Lets not forget that this only occurred after the US had done the same in Greece, so here, the menace would seem to be one that the US initiated.

So all those incidents you mention are 1980's vintage or earlier except the supporting of Israel which happen to believe is a good and justified cause.

Ahh. I see. So the people in the ME are just going to look at it and say "well, my grandfather lived through hell, and my father, and now me, and its all because of the games your nations played out on our soil....but hey - thats ok. You say you've stopped now, so I should just suffer these despotic regimes that you support (or put in power and now no longer support) and hold no grudge against you, because you say its in the past?"

That makes a load of sense. Just like the argument you seem to be making that because Israel is - in your eyes - a good cause, it is not one of the reasons for strife. The english occupied Ireland for hundreds of years, after which we gained independance. Do you think those fighting what they saw as the occupation of their land gave a flying fsck whether or not someone thought the occupation "was a good cause". If a foreign nation were to suport the English in Ireland, we didn't say "oh well, thats ok...they think the English have a good cause". We said "they're helping those who have stolen our land."

And before someone gets up on their high horse by misunderstanding what I'm saying......I'm not saying you shouldn't support Israel. Whether you do or not is not relevant to the point I'm making. I'm saying that saying "its a good cause" does not mean that it is not a source of contention for those in the area who disagree with the existence of teh Israeli state, and right or wrong is a reason for much of the anti-US sentiment in the region.

Israel is the only democaracy in the entire region

Albeit one which denies the vote to certain groups of citizens for no reason other than their religious belief.

Tell me...would you call it democratic if the Irish government declared in teh morning that only Catholics could vote in Ireland?

But let me guess? Its ok for Israel to be called democratic whilst not really having full democracy, because its a good reason to support it?

Also, should we bring up the list of democratically elected governments that the US has helped overthrow to show how shallow this line of argument is ?

and has been subject to repeated unprovoked attacks since 1949.

Just like the Irish subjected the English to unprovoked attacks for several hundred years after they decided they owned our land, yes?

The Palestinians have no legitimate claim to a state of their own, most are refugees from Egypt, Syria and Jordan. Yasser Arafat himself is Egyptian.

I see. And how many Israelis were born in Israel? The Palestinians have as much of a right to a state fo their own as the Israelis. The very agreement which brought the Israeli nation into existence also recognised the right of a Palestinian state to exist. Are you saying that this agreement should not be honoured? Or that it is right to only honour the convenient part of it?

But I digress. So did anything happen say, between 1990 and 2001 which might be seen to justify the 9/11 atrocity??

Lets see....

US sanctions, bombing, etc. on Iraq. The vast number of military bases created by the US during the Gulf War which remained in the region. The US support of the Saud regime - one of the most oppressive in the world, apparently - including the location of a US base on Saudi land. Increased US presence, and influence in the ME region.

These are the main factors - particularly those related to Saudi Arabia - which apparently turned OBL against the US, and he had the (US-Supplied) training, along with the money (from a rich Saudi family) and the conviction (whether you believe it to be religious or not makes no odds) to actually go and do something about it.

Does it justify 9/11? No, it doesn't. Nothing can justify an action like that. Does that mean we should just write 9/11 off as an inexplicable act by maniacs? No - not if we ever wish to understand what is happening, which is essential to being able to resolve the issue.

There were reasons. There were provocations. Whether we agree with them or not, or like them or not, they exist. Saying "but its in the past" is worthless if your opponent disagrees.

jc