Scary

[yeat182]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114760,00.html

[venus/bacchus]

I don't think this is a shock at all, but yes, it's very scary

[hXc_pwnage]

I guess this proves we should have spent more time on them then the war on Iraq.

[yeat182]

yeah, if anything this proves that Europe's appeasment may be more deadly than previously imagined.

[FarPastGone]

Im not sure I really believe them, but that is scary if it is true.

[Trainsaw]

I don't believe it. I think if they had them, We woulda known about it long ago

[hXc_pwnage]

:drunk:

In no way. Why do you think a lot of terrorist hate us? Our support for Israel is a main reason, and Saddam supported terrorism in Israel and other terrorist groups as well. Also changing Iraq into some form of democracy is a big step for the middle east where many people are oppressed. Seeing actions in Iraq through and making sure they are successful brings hope to people in countries like Iran, and can help their cause.

There is more to it than just, "Saddam and Osama werent friends so Saddam doesnt support terrorism."
I would agree more that it is a bluff. They just want to "scare" us.

I never mentioned that we didn't need to do something about Iraq. Of course we did. But, we didn't need this.

What does your quote have to do with anything?

[hXc_pwnage]

What do you think was needed? No one did anything for 12 years.

It's not an actual quote, but many people who are against the war dont believe Saddam had any terror ties. They feel just because Osama wasnt funding him or vice versa that he was not part of the war on terror.
There are two things:

We should have taken him out when we had the chance BEFORE Bush Jr. was even in office.

Or, put intel inside and snipe him and his sons. Then have men on the outside ready to run in.

I believe he did have terror ties. But I believe we should have focused more on Osama then on Iraq.

[hXc_pwnage]

Why would you be for taking him out before and not now?

Fair enough but if we hadnt focused on him we'd have to worry about him having a nuke also in years to come.
I'm not against taking him out, because I wanted him out. By no way did I support him in anything. I'm just saying, it would have been so much easier before. You can't disagree, but there's no worth living in the past.

Yes, but, who is more dangerous? Saddam or Al Queda(sp)? Who killed 3,000+ people?

[open mind]

:drunk:

In no way. Why do you think a lot of terrorist hate us? Our support for Israel is a main reason, and Saddam supported terrorism in Israel and other terrorist groups as well. Also changing Iraq into some form of democracy is a big step for the middle east where many people are oppressed. Seeing actions in Iraq through and making sure they are successful brings hope to people in countries like Iran, and can help their cause.

There is more to it than just, "Saddam and Osama werent friends so Saddam doesnt support terrorism."
first i'll adress the article at the start of this thread,yeah it's no suprise but it's kinda scary to think about.
now al queda's biggest reason for hating us is and always has been our refusal to leave saudi arabia,not because we support israel.
for years they said leave our holy lands or we'll blow you up,we didn't leave so after a few years they started blowing us up.

[hXc_pwnage]

first i'll adress the article at the start of this thread,yeah it's no suprise but it's kinda scary to think about.
now al queda's biggest reason for hating us is and always has been our refusal to leave saudi arabia,not because we support israel.
for years they said leave our holy lands or we'll blow you up,we didn't leave so after a few years they started blowing us up.
Ahhh, that made me laugh. "for years they said leave our holy lands or we'll blow you up,we didn't leave so after a few years they started blowing us up."

:chinese:

[open mind]

it's not all that funny but that's pretty much how it went.

[hXc_pwnage]

I'm not saying the event is funny. Just how you worded it.

[xnotedgex]

:drunk:

In no way. Why do you think a lot of terrorist hate us? Our support for Israel is a main reason, and Saddam supported terrorism in Israel and other terrorist groups as well. Also changing Iraq into some form of democracy is a big step for the middle east where many people are oppressed. Seeing actions in Iraq through and making sure they are successful brings hope to people in countries like Iran, and can help their cause.

There is more to it than just, "Saddam and Osama werent friends so Saddam doesnt support terrorism."

yea, its not like a preemptive strike in the middle east is going to breed more terrorists or anything, right

[xnotedgex]

it's not like not having a preemptive stike in the middle east is going to not breed more terroristst or anything right. (basically stirke or not strike they'll breed terrorists.)

continue to blind yourself...idiot

[xnotedgex]

so you think not having a preemptive strike would stop the breeding of terrorism?

the preemptive strike in iraq accelerates the recruitment process and persuades people who otherwise would not join the terrorists to do so...i think the post-war attacks in iraq is pretty evident of that

[yeat182]

continue to blind yourself...idiot

where was the pre-emptive strike that caused the 9/11 attacks?

[xnotedgex]

What evidence do you have to prove that the post-war attacks accelearated the recruitment process?

You didnt answer my question either. You think not having a preemptive strike would stop the breeding of terrorism?

the attacks in iraq...the cooperation of iraqis with terrorist groups who have traveled to iraq to attack the occupiers...go pick up basically any time magazine from the past 6 months

and your question is irrelevant...of course more terrorists will continue to emerge...who cares...that wasnt the point

[xnotedgex]

where was the pre-emptive strike that caused the 9/11 attacks?

woah...slow down, turn around, and go back in search of the point that you missed

[yeat182]

the attacks in iraq...the cooperation of iraqis with terrorist groups who have traveled to iraq to attack the occupiers...go pick up basically any time magazine from the past 6 months

and your question is irrelevant...of course more terrorists will continue to emerge...who cares...that wasnt the point

weren't the iraqis that are helping the terrorists already against the americans? aren't they largely ex-military and party loyalists? they already hated the americans, they've just continued the fight they already were involved in.

[yeat182]

woah...slow down, turn around, and go back in search of the point that you missed


what exactly is your point? that our premptive strike created more terrorists? what created the terrorists that attacked on 9/11? there was no pre-emptive strike to cause that? so maybe it is reasonable to assume that with or with out a pre-emptive strike, people are going to join terrorists groups and carry out attacks?

i look at it this way. the middle east is like a hornets nest. they are already stinging things, and you decide its time to get rid of the nest. so yeah, you're going to get more stings trying to remove the nest than you would if you left it alone, but either way, you're going to get stung. and in the long run, you might be able to either get rid of the hornets or at least calm them down.

[xnotedgex]

weren't the iraqis that are helping the terrorists already against the americans? aren't they largely ex-military and party loyalists? they already hated the americans, they've just continued the fight they already were involved in.

someone who was a member of the iraqi army is automatically anti-american? can you explain how you came to this conclusion?

please show me any instance where members of the iraqi army or party loyalists targeted mosques for their attacks?

[xnotedgex]

what exactly is your point? that our premptive strike created more terrorists? what created the terrorists that attacked on 9/11? there was no pre-emptive strike to cause that? so maybe it is reasonable to assume that with or with out a pre-emptive strike, people are going to join terrorists groups and carry out attacks?

i look at it this way. the middle east is like a hornets nest. they are already stinging things, and you decide its time to get rid of the nest. so yeah, you're going to get more stings trying to remove the nest than you would if you left it alone, but either way, you're going to get stung. and in the long run, you might be able to either get rid of the hornets or at least calm them down.

yea, you go punch a hole in a hornets nest and leave your hand there....see if they go away or calm down and then come back and report on what actually happens

and don't you and cal hate looking foolish when you try to make it appear that i said all terrorists join because of preemptive attacks...if its reasonable to assume that other things push people towards terrorism, how is it not reasonable to assume that a preemptive attack won't do the same thing to others?

[yeat182]

yea, you go punch a hole in a hornets nest and leave your hand there....see if they go away or calm down and then come back and report on what actually happens

and don't you and cal hate looking foolish when you try to make it appear that i said all terrorists join because of preemptive attacks...if its reasonable to assume that other things push people towards terrorism, how is it not reasonable to assume that a preemptive attack won't do the same thing to others?

i didn't say that a preemptive attack wouldn't cause more people to become terrorists, i just don't see it as a reason for inaction, when doing nothing brought about the worst terrorist attack in american history. it shouldn't keep us from trying to make our country safe, we should make policy regarding terrorists based on whether or not it will upset the terrorists and create more. killing them will balance out the numbers that join.

[yeat182]

someone who was a member of the iraqi army is automatically anti-american? can you explain how you came to this conclusion?

please show me any instance where members of the iraqi army or party loyalists targeted mosques for their attacks?

first i didn't say that all iraqi army members were anit-american, i said that most of the iraqis that are supporting the terrorists were former members of the Iraqi army, and who are obviously anti-american.

[hXc_pwnage]

They just want us out. They don't want us to help rule their countries. That's the only reason we are being attacked. They want us out of the Middle East, plain and simple.

[hXc_pwnage]

If there is nothing for terrorsits to fight, there would be no terrorists.

[venus/bacchus]

If there is nothing for terrorsits to fight, there would be no terrorists.
wow, and I'm sure all terrorists solely defend themselves, they've never struck first...

that argument holds no water. terrorists will attack whatever they feel is wrong or against their beliefs, it has nothing to do with being attacked or any sort of physical defense

[Justin_stacy]

If there is nothing for terrorsits to fight, there would be no terrorists.

once a terrorist always a terrorist, they will not stop just because someone appeased them, they will just come up with something new to demand....the Isriaeli/POL conflict has proven this time and time again....

[hXc_pwnage]

All that Al Quada wants is for us to get out so they can set up their own government.

[Justin_stacy]

All that Al Quada wants is for us to get out so they can set up their own government.

well if that was the case, why did they attack us on 9/11? When they had Afganastan, which was the perfect example of islamic facsism and brutality that these things wanted......


Lets just use an historical example to show what exactly appeasement leads too....Hitler came to power and one of his first actions was to remilitarize the RhienLand, which was prohibited in the treaty signed following the WWI. What did Europe do? Nothing. So what did hitler do? He invaded Austria. And what did Europe do? Nothing. So what did hitler do? He invaded Checkoslovia, and what did Europe do? Nothing. So what did hitler do??? He invaded Poland, France, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, Romania, Russia, Luxembourg, Greece, Estonia, Macedonian, Bosnia, Croatia, and Bulgaria........

The point being is that appeasement of brutalty leads to one of two things, 1. More appeasement or 2.War….and appeasing Al Queda, which you seem to want to do, will lead to the exact same thing it did in 30's.....

[xnotedgex]

So the people running attacks in Iraq werent terrorists before the preemptive attack?

The question does pertain because you're arguing that a preemptive strikes breeds more terrorist. Might point is the terrorists are going to be made anyway. By your logic we should not fight our war on terror at all so we dont breed more terrorists.

some were terrorists...most were not...like i said...go pick up a time magazine from the past 6 months....they've had numerous articles detailing how members of the iraqi army, which was disbanded by the united states...have since joined forces with foreign terrorists to attack the invaders/occipiers

and my point had nothing to do with the war on terror...it had to do with the war on iraq....obviously the war on terror was provoked by 9/11....stop confusing yourself and others

[xnotedgex]

first i didn't say that all iraqi army members were anit-american, i said that most of the iraqis that are supporting the terrorists were former members of the Iraqi army, and who are obviously anti-american.

so if you're a member of the american army, you're obviously anti-iraqi? that's poor reasoning...many of the iraqi soldiers who are taking part in the terrorism in iraq did not previously have any connections to terrorism

[xnotedgex]

i didn't say that a preemptive attack wouldn't cause more people to become terrorists, i just don't see it as a reason for inaction, when doing nothing brought about the worst terrorist attack in american history. it shouldn't keep us from trying to make our country safe, we should make policy regarding terrorists based on whether or not it will upset the terrorists and create more. killing them will balance out the numbers that join.

you and cal both like to include iraq in the war on terror and that simply is not the case...way to utilize bush's false truths

[yeat182]

so if you're a member of the american army, you're obviously anti-iraqi? that's poor reasoning...many of the iraqi soldiers who are taking part in the terrorism in iraq did not previously have any connections to terrorism

let me clarify one last time, if you were a member of the iraqi army and joined the terrorists to fight the US, then you are obviously anti-american. being in the army in the first place doesn't mean you are anti-american. sorry for the confusion.

[yeat182]

you and cal both like to include iraq in the war on terror and that simply is not the case...way to utilize bush's false truths


saddam supported terrorists. thus war on iraq=war on terror.

the defeat of saddam has also forced terrorist nations (Iran and Lybia) to cooperate with international inspections, thus fighting the war on terror.

[hXc_pwnage]

well if that was the case, why did they attack us on 9/11? When they had Afganastan, which was the perfect example of islamic facsism and brutality that these things wanted......


Lets just use an historical example to show what exactly appeasement leads too....Hitler came to power and one of his first actions was to remilitarize the RhienLand, which was prohibited in the treaty signed following the WWI. What did Europe do? Nothing. So what did hitler do? He invaded Austria. And what did Europe do? Nothing. So what did hitler do? He invaded Checkoslovia, and what did Europe do? Nothing. So what did hitler do??? He invaded Poland, France, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, Romania, Russia, Luxembourg, Greece, Estonia, Macedonian, Bosnia, Croatia, and Bulgaria........

The point being is that appeasement of brutalty leads to one of two things, 1. More appeasement or 2.War….and appeasing Al Queda, which you seem to want to do, will lead to the exact same thing it did in 30's.....
They attacked us on 9/11 because we were still in the Middle East. They bombed us in Saudia Arabia because they wanted us out, but we stayed. That upset them.

I am in no way trying to defend them, just stating it. I believe if we would have taken a different route, things could have been prevented.

[hXc_pwnage]

If you dont believe he didnt support any terrorism you are an idiot. You might not think Al Qaeda because the evidence isnt conclusive (hasnt been proven a false either), but if you dont think he supported terrorist groups that were against Israel you are an idiot.
Sure, he harbored terrorsists. But what does that have to do with 9/11? Was it Saddam who attacked us? No! It was bin Laden!

[yeat182]

Sure, he harbored terrorsists. But what does that have to do with 9/11? Was it Saddam who attacked us? No! It was bin Laden!


no one has said anything about saddam and 9/11...

[hXc_pwnage]

Wow.....Let's all think back and remember what happend to the Taliban for harboring the terrorists. Now be real and realize as well that there are many countries that have harbored terrorists. Iran, Saudi, Syria but obviously we can't apply the same formula to each.

Also 9-11 is not the end all be all of terrorism. There's more to it than just Bin Laden which is what you seem to believe.
So they've all harbored terrorists, why aren't we starting wars on them? This is the war on terror, isn't it?

[yeat182]

So they've all harbored terrorists, why aren't we starting wars on them? This is the war on terror, isn't it?


that is possibly the stupidest arguement ever. first of all, people who use this arguement are generally the same people the demand the US use diplomacy when we were dealing with Iraq, so that in and of itself is contradictory. secondly, everyone knows you don't go around starting wars all over the world, fighting on multiple fronts and spreading your resources so thin that you are destined to fail. The US has the most powerful military in the world, but it can't be everywhere at once, and we need to finish one job before we start others. Thirdly, the fact that Iraq will be free and there are hundreds of thousands of American troops on Iran's doorstep will make them a little more eager to negotiate and clamp down on their sponsorship of terrorism, the same can be said for Syria and other middle east nations. Finally, if you can make these terrrorist nations change their attitudes without firing a shot, would that be preferable to starting another war?

[Justin_stacy]

I believe if we would have taken a different route, things could have been prevented.

What different actions would those be? Pulling out of all the places you stated above with out reason would be appeasement, which, and i can not stress this enough, has never worked and will only lead to more and more terrorism....because these monsters will see that you are weak and that through terror they can dictate our foreign policy....

[open mind]

i didn't say that a preemptive attack wouldn't cause more people to become terrorists, i just don't see it as a reason for inaction, when doing nothing brought about the worst terrorist attack in american history. it shouldn't keep us from trying to make our country safe, we should make policy regarding terrorists based on whether or not it will upset the terrorists and create more. killing them will balance out the numbers that join.
did any of the funding or people responsible for 9/11 auctually come from iraq?

[open mind]

saddam supported terrorists. thus war on iraq=war on terror.

the defeat of saddam has also forced terrorist nations (Iran and Lybia) to cooperate with international inspections, thus fighting the war on terror.
terrorism is defined as acts commited by groups of people not governments,when governments kill people it's called war.
saddam did not fund terrorists groups that i know of,he did give money to the families of suicide bombers.

[open mind]

once a terrorist always a terrorist, they will not stop just because someone appeased them, they will just come up with something new to demand....the Isriaeli/POL conflict has proven this time and time again....
what exactly has the plo gotten that you would consider appeasement?

[open mind]

well if that was the case, why did they attack us on 9/11? When they had Afganastan, which was the perfect example of islamic facsism and brutality that these things wanted......


Lets just use an historical example to show what exactly appeasement leads too....Hitler came to power and one of his first actions was to remilitarize the RhienLand, which was prohibited in the treaty signed following the WWI. What did Europe do? Nothing. So what did hitler do? He invaded Austria. And what did Europe do? Nothing. So what did hitler do? He invaded Checkoslovia, and what did Europe do? Nothing. So what did hitler do??? He invaded Poland, France, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, Romania, Russia, Luxembourg, Greece, Estonia, Macedonian, Bosnia, Croatia, and Bulgaria........

The point being is that appeasement of brutalty leads to one of two things, 1. More appeasement or 2.War….and appeasing Al Queda, which you seem to want to do, will lead to the exact same thing it did in 30's.....
there is a difference between a group of people that want you off your land and a countries that tries to swallow up the globe.
al queda isn't fighting for a country they are fighting to get us out of saudi arabia and the other holy lands of islam.

[Justin_stacy]

what exactly has the plo gotten that you would consider appeasement?


you've over looked the "something new to demand" which directly fits what the PLO does at every peace talk...israel offers them 90% of what they want, the PLO's response we want 95%....israel offers them 95%, the PLO's response we wants 100%......it will never be enough, these terrorist will never stop killing no matter what they are given because they feel they know how to get more....

[open mind]

you've over looked the "something new to demand" which directly fits what the PLO does at every peace talk...israel offers them 90% of what they want, the PLO's response we want 95%....israel offers them 95%, the PLO's response we wants 100%......it will never be enough, these terrorist will never stop killing no matter what they are given because they feel they know how to get more....
israel turns around and takes more land, goes on more raids that destroy more homes goes after kids with rocks with automatic weapons and tanks.....

[open mind]

Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Cuba, North Korea, and Sudan continue to be the seven governments that the US Secretary of State has designated as state sponsors of international terrorism. Iran remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism in 2000. It provided increasing support to numerous terrorist groups, including the Lebanese Hizballah, HAMAS, and the Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ), which seek to undermine the Middle East peace negotiations through the use of terrorism. Iraq continued to provide safehaven and support to a variety of Palestinian rejectionist groups, as well as bases, weapons, and protection to the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), an Iranian terrorist group that opposes the current Iranian regime. Syria continued to provide safehaven and support to several terrorist groups, some of which oppose the Middle East peace negotiations. Libya at the end of 2000 was attempting to mend its international image following its surrender in 1999 of two Libyan suspects for trial in the Pan Am 103 bombing. (In early 2001, one of the suspects was convicted of murder. The judges in the case found that he acted "in furtherance of the purposes of...Libyan Intelligence Services.") Cuba continued to provide safehaven to several terrorists and US fugitives and maintained ties to state sponsors and Latin American insurgents. North Korea harbored several hijackers of a Japanese Airlines flight to North Korea in the 1970s and maintained links to other terrorist groups. Finally, Sudan continued to serve as a safehaven for members of al-Qaida, the Lebanese Hizballah, al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the PIJ, and HAMAS, but it has been engaged in a counterterrorism dialogue with the United States since mid-2000.

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2000/2441.htm
since the whole wmds we were told saddam had didn't exist i take all of our intelligence reports with a grain of salt lately....still find some independent sources and i'll believe it.
and shit that happened in 92 doesn't illustrate what was going on a decade later.....

[yeat182]

israel turns around and takes more land, goes on more raids that destroy more homes goes after kids with rocks with automatic weapons and tanks.....


i don't think Israel "goes after" kids with rocks. and lets not be ridculous here, those kid throwing rocks bare some responsiblity as well. first, throwing a rock at a man with a gun is asking for trouble. secondly, why would you throw rocks when you know what the consequences might be?

on the other hand, you can definetivley say that the terrorists "go after" kids on busses and in cafeterias. but we wouldn't want to blame the terrorists for anything, would we?

[UndefinedBoy]

i don't think Israel "goes after" kids with rocks. and lets not be ridculous here, those kid throwing rocks bare some responsiblity as well. first, throwing a rock at a man with a gun is asking for trouble. secondly, why would you throw rocks when you know what the consequences might be?

So it's okay for them to shoot kids because they had rocks thrown at them? Come on, they're kids. What do kids do when they're pissed? They throw shit. That doesn't give anyone a right to SHOOT them. So you're right, let's NOT be ridiculous here.

[yeat182]

So it's okay for them to shoot kids because they had rocks thrown at them? Come on, they're kids. What do kids do when they're pissed? They throw shit. That doesn't give anyone a right to SHOOT them. So you're right, let's NOT be ridiculous here.

why is it ok for kids to throw rocks at soldiers? they don't have any right to try and stone someone to death.


and they are normally (not always) shooting rubber bullets.

[Justin_stacy]

israel turns around and takes more land, goes on more raids that destroy more homes goes after kids with rocks with automatic weapons and tanks.....

This will be fun....
The land is land the Palestinians lost in a war they prompted, supported and personally caused.... In history those that have won a war, especially those that were wrongly attacked, have always taken land as a reparation and a buffer between them and their attackers....You can call it the reality of waging war…..A good question would be do you think the Palestinians would give back land to the Israelis if they had won the war, or would there even be a Israel if they had won?


And your right destroying the homes of ruthless murders is wrong...what Israel should do is respond in a similar manner to the Palestinians own actions and this means strapping a bomb on a child and sending him/her to a school populated with children, or a mall populated by shoppers, or a bus stop populated with innocent people getting off work or school, or a restaurant populated with families eating......so I see your point destroying the home(s) of mass murders is very wrong and is really uncalled for....

Although I don't out right support all of the military actions that the Israeli has taken, one must remember that it is the bystander’s choice whether or not to chuck a rock at an armed official.....I ask what would happen here if a group of adults started violently chucking rocks at our armed officials and wouldn't stop, even after tear gas and smoke bombs, due you not think they would return fire if they felt endangered?

[Justin_stacy]

and they are normally (not always) shooting rubber bullets.
on top of that there is always tear gas and smoke bombs released prior to forceful action....

[yeat182]

wouldn't it be nice if the terrorists tried to disperse the crowd before they started blowing people up?

[Justin_stacy]

al queda isn't fighting for a country they are fighting to get us out of saudi arabia and the other holy lands of islam.
No they are fighting to stop the spread of western culture, which promotes free though, democracy, voting, personal rights, empowerment of womyn, freedom of religion and separation of state and religion.... And countless other things animals don't support....


The reason they want us out of the islamic world is because with us there people are able to see and hear about something other then what they are being force feed in "church" and schools.... And much like the communist in the old USSR, these fundamentalist know what will happen when the people they control see how the other half of the world lives and the freedoms they have, and so they (the fundamentalist) are willing to do anything to keep this from happening….including murder….

[Justin_stacy]

wouldn't it be nice if the terrorists tried to disperse the crowd before they started blowing people up?

would almost make them human wouldn't it?

[xnotedgex]

still find some independent sources and i'll believe it.


this is my stance as well...of course state-run websites are going to post such things to make it appear that their cause is just...i believe the bush administration will tell any lies necessary to get their goals accomplished...i see no evidence of anything posted......simply saying iraq has sheltered a certain group is not evidence of anything...they could post that iraq shelters fundamentalist mormons...would you believe that?

and as i stated in a thread awhile back, in my opinions, giving money to the family of suicide bombers does not constitute support for terrorism except perhaps on the spiritual level

[xnotedgex]

the defeat of saddam has also forced terrorist nations (Iran and Lybia) to cooperate with international inspections, thus fighting the war on terror.

yea, im sorry but this corrolation cannot be supported and you know it

[xnotedgex]

[QUOTE=cal1082]. You might not think Al Qaeda because the evidence isnt conclusive (hasnt been proven a false either), QUOTE]

yea, it hasnt been proven a false that bush doesnt secretly funnel money to al-queda either...who cares....its not true either way

[xnotedgex]

you've over looked the "something new to demand" which directly fits what the PLO does at every peace talk...israel offers them 90% of what they want, the PLO's response we want 95%....israel offers them 95%, the PLO's response we wants 100%......it will never be enough, these terrorist will never stop killing no matter what they are given because they feel they know how to get more....

im sorry but calling every palestinian a terrorist is going a little bit far...i see nothing wrong with palestinians wanting a homeland....the methods of some qualify as terrorism but not every palestinian is a terrorist

[xnotedgex]

Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Cuba, North Korea, and Sudan continue to be the seven governments that the US Secretary of State has designated as state sponsors of international terrorism. Iran remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism in 2000. It provided increasing support to numerous terrorist groups, including the Lebanese Hizballah, HAMAS, and the Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ), which seek to undermine the Middle East peace negotiations through the use of terrorism. Iraq continued to provide safehaven and support to a variety of Palestinian rejectionist groups, as well as bases, weapons, and protection to the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), an Iranian terrorist group that opposes the current Iranian regime. Syria continued to provide safehaven and support to several terrorist groups, some of which oppose the Middle East peace negotiations. Libya at the end of 2000 was attempting to mend its international image following its surrender in 1999 of two Libyan suspects for trial in the Pan Am 103 bombing. (In early 2001, one of the suspects was convicted of murder. The judges in the case found that he acted "in furtherance of the purposes of...Libyan Intelligence Services.") Cuba continued to provide safehaven to several terrorists and US fugitives and maintained ties to state sponsors and Latin American insurgents. North Korea harbored several hijackers of a Japanese Airlines flight to North Korea in the 1970s and maintained links to other terrorist groups. Finally, Sudan continued to serve as a safehaven for members of al-Qaida, the Lebanese Hizballah, al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the PIJ, and HAMAS, but it has been engaged in a counterterrorism dialogue with the United States since mid-2000.

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2000/2441.htm

interesting isnt it that a report published just a few months prior to 9/11 does not include afghanistan on its list of states which support terrorism....but i think everyone already knows the intelligence community dropped the ball on that one

[xnotedgex]

on the other hand, you can definetivley say that the terrorists "go after" kids on busses and in cafeterias. but we wouldn't want to blame the terrorists for anything, would we?

yea...that's what everyone is saying here...terrorists aren't responsible for anything... :rolleyes:

[Justin_stacy]

im sorry but calling every palestinian a terrorist is going a little bit far...
the PLO is the government not the people....

[xnotedgex]

the PLO is the government not the people....

oooh, sorry...calling every member of the plo a terrorist is just as ridiculous

[yeat182]

yea, im sorry but this corrolation cannot be supported and you know it


actually, i think its failry obvious.

[Justin_stacy]

oooh, sorry...calling every member of the plo a terrorist is just as ridiculous


It might be a tad of an exaggeration, but it is not ridiculous with the way arafat and his cabinet have carried themselves over the years.....

[open mind]

No they are fighting to stop the spread of western culture, which promotes free though, democracy, voting, personal rights, empowerment of womyn, freedom of religion and separation of state and religion.... And countless other things animals don't support....


The reason they want us out of the islamic world is because with us there people are able to see and hear about something other then what they are being force feed in "church" and schools.... And much like the communist in the old USSR, these fundamentalist know what will happen when the people they control see how the other half of the world lives and the freedoms they have, and so they (the fundamentalist) are willing to do anything to keep this from happening….including murder….

that's not what they've said they're fighting for,although us not being where they don't want us would shelter them from western culture......
we started alot of this fundamentalism,the text books in schools that we've made such a big thing about cause they call for holy war were made by us, alot of them were printed in michigan,and sent to afganistan with our tax dollars to help drum up support for fighting against the soviet union back in the day,really we are the country that enabled the fundamentalists to become such a power in the middle east.

[yeat182]

did any of the funding or people responsible for 9/11 auctually come from iraq?


according to Hillary Clinton : "Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missle delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al-qaeda members"

[Justin_stacy]

that's not what they've said they're fighting for,although us not being where they don't want us would shelter them from western culture......
.

they've spoken out numoruos times about their hatred for western culture and beliefs, which is one of the main reasons for their dislike of us and europeans....although i do realize that i did narrow my post to one issue, which was wrong of me and i personally retrack making it sound like this was the only reason they hate us, instead of one of the main issues...