Muslims are a group of people and just because certain countries are muslim doesn't make them terrists.

I do agree with you on that. The people DO need to stop living in the past. That includes stopping the "blame game". Incidentally that also includes changing the archaic perspective that the jewish people and Israel are "victims". In TODAY'S world Israel is one of the foremost intelligence gathering countries in the WORLD. Israel has a stable economy. Israel has more military might than all the Arab nations put together. And most importantly, Israel has the ultimate defensive weapon in the shape of a nuke that GUARANTEES that ANY nation that threatens their survivial will pay DEARLY.

Israel is NO LONGER a VICTIM. And it is NO LONGER in danger of extinction. This must be accepted as reality. The paranoia that the arab nations, Iran or Palestine could threaten Israel's survival is ridiculous and completely unrealistic.

In fact the ABOVE is the PRIME reason for Hamas to recognize Israel. However as long as Israel continues to pretend that the Palestinians really are a threat to their survivial, do you think the phallic policies of Hamas are likely to change?

Anyhow you mention that the Palestinian people did a grievious wrong in electing Hamas and deserve the misery they are in. How can you say that? As far as i understand, DEMOCRACY is the ultimate ideal. Hamas won a FREE and FAIR election. The fact that it did so should be a reason for the world community to ENGAGE, rather than DISENGAGE. I say this because, whether you like it or not, the PEOPLE have chosen whom they wish to speak for them. If it had been a rigged election, it would be fair to not speak to Hamas. However they have the mandate of the people. That means that if you wish to include the Palestinian PEOPLE in a solution, then you must speak to their chosen representative. It is complete lunacy to boycott an entire people simply because the chosen representative is unacceptable to you.

That said it is just as unrealistic to think that ALL the concessions have to be made on the Israeli side. NO DOUBT the violence from the palestinian side has to stop ALSO. However there is a difference. For Israel to stop the violence, they need to give a few orders and they will be followed. For the Palestinians to stop the violence, a major shift in the social circumstances of the nation has to occurr. That requires that they get the ooportunity to buld up their infrastructure, that they can do so without danger of having it destroyed, that their borders and ports are handed back to them, that their commerce gets a chance to reestablish itself.

Palestine MUST recognize Israel. Palestine MUST cease the violence (but it's harder for the PA to make that happen given the fragmented nature of their social structure and the lack of central leadership). Apart from that, the Palestinians have nothing else to offer as they really have nothing.

Jeff, what you are suggesting is ALREADY perfectly clear. It is a REALITY that any nation initiating a nuclear war is going to pay the DEAREST PRICE for doing so.

We are in agreement over the issue, but why must your way of communicating it be filled with insults and anger. What the hell did the Iranians ever do to you? What makes you think you are better than them? What makes you beleive they are not living, breathing, thinking and LOVING human beings?

Like i said we DO agree here, but you speak as if you are almost WISHING they try something so you have an excuse to nuke the shit out of them. You sound jsut as rabid as ahmedinejad.

For the love of god preacher. WW3?? Who started the war? Can you define that? Can you define who the enemy is? Can you define WHERE they are? Can you define what they are fighting against? Can you define where you must fight them?Can you define WHO is fighting this war? Can you define ANY tactic that will actually CURE the problem?

Terrorism is a social phenomena/problem. It is NOT a conventional war, and to term it so is completely missing the point. In fact that is why ALL US TACTICS TO DEAL WITH IT have progressively INCREASED the danger to american citizens, reduced international goodwill for the US, INCREASED the number fo disgruntled people willing to engage in terrorism, INCREASED passive support for AQ and other terrorist organizations, INCREASED the influence of these organizations, INCREASED the strain on the US budget, REDUCED civil liberties within the nation and in every way possible had NEGATIVE EFFECTS.

However if the problem was to be viewed for what it TRULY is ( a reaction to biased US policies and perceived injustices perpetrated by the US ) then the US could go ahead and deal with THAT. ANd i can ASSURE you that it will yield BETTER results with LESS destruction, with LESS money than the "cowboy foreign policies". However this would require that the current US admin put their "testosterone fuelled policies on the shelf , and THAT is EXCEPTIONALLY hard for an admin that consistently refuses to accept its own mistakes.

That is a completely incorrect prejudicial view of members of a religion. Incidentally this is also a religion fragmented into 73 sects AND innimerable smaller denominations.

SOME feel that way just as SOME americans feel that way. The biggest threat to world peace today is policies that are based on the pure prejudice and perceived 'evil" intentions of a religious denomination.

I am a muslim and i do NOT feel as you claim i do on account of my religion. Neither do anybody i know, so why are you ascribing motives to 1.2 BILLION people, when you have no basis of doing so other than your prejudice?

There is one major difference though. For the Christians, there is also no room for guns, bombs, suiside vests, wmd's, ect ect.

Thats true. But it doesnt help there cause by not saying anything. In fact, most "modern muslims" show full support for many terrorist org's. Talk to Hkb, right on this very message board. He calls Hezbolla a freedom fighter. Yea, thats the same guy who unprovoked, killed over 200 us marines in a bombing. Its also the same guy who trains children to kill them selfs.

,

Well there you go misrepresenting and/or misunderstanding what i am saying.

The point i have been trying to make is that the label of "terrorist" is a very subjective thing. The same action is viewed differently by different people depending on who they are, where they are, what they are, what their culture is and what side of the conflict they are on.

That is why i went through a painstaking process of trying to illustrate the circumstances a palestinian lives under. If you could put yourself inhis place for a second you would see that to HIM, according to everything he sees and feels, the "terrorists" are the Israelis and Americans. THEY are the ones that are holding his nation hostage, destroying his home, ruining his economy and killing his family and friends. For HIM an organization that REACTS to that is CERTAINLY a "freedom fighter". Just as they would be to YOU if you were on the receiving end of Israeli violence.

I am attempting to explain to you that YOUR definition of a "terrorist" has no basis other than the side that you are on. This is something YOU and your nation needs to understand if you wish to fix anything. You cannot expect a palestinian to call Hamas or Hezbollah "terrorist", and as long as you expect him to do so, you are automatically excluding a solution.

Get this straight. I am NOT endorsing violence. Not by Hamas and NOt by the US. You give your soldiers the degfinition of "heroes". Well if you were and Iraqi or a Palestinian, a US soldier is NOT a hero, he is an INVADER and a KILLER. How can you expect him to condemn the party that is fighting FOR him in favor of the party that is KILLING him.This is one of those unrealistic expectations that US hubris has created. And this is a MAJOR stumbling block for any peace process.

NO ENDORSEMENT OF VIOLENCE SHOULD BE MADE.

Don't ascribe motives or opinions to me that i have not expressed. I hav NEVER endorsed violence and i have NEVER suggested that the solution to any problem lies in superior violence.

What i am trying to explain to you is that i happen to be able to see the misconception and porpoganda that exists on BOTH sides of this conflict that are excluding a solution. If there were any palestinians on this forum i would be explaining them the destructiveness of Hamas' propogation of violence. However there are none so that point is moot.

MY definition of "terrorism" is any action that kills or injures people and creates fear in a population. By this definition Hamas, Hezbollah and the US ARMED FORCES are EQUALLY guilty of terrorism. Hamas does it by blowing themselves up. The US does it by launching "smart" bombs, tanks, airstrikes etc etc. The ONLY difference here is that the US has better equipment at their disposal. The end result is destuction, civilian deaths and a fearful population.

Do NOT start on the "spreading freedom and democracy" crap. As long as the US supports tyrannical dictatorships (Sausi Arabia), unilaterally invades NON-THREATENING nations (Iraq), and refuses to accept the results of DEMOCRATIC ELECTIONS (Palestine), it has no right to don the "cape of righteousness" to justify its violence.

Violence is NEVER righteous.

,