posted on April 16, 2003 08:08:04 AM new
Where do you get this "syria has been cooperating" stuff ? Syria has been on the list of states that support terrorism for quite awhile. Stria also openly called for individuals to go to Iraq to oppose our forces.
The US is in the process of radically changing the culture of the middle east. If you have not realized in the last few decades that these changes must occur, then it doesn't make any difference what reasons are provided, they will not be enough.
posted on April 16, 2003 08:10:01 AM new
:: The most serious FACT is that their people have gone to the aid of Saddam's regime and were doing their best to kill our soldiers.::
OK, once again you are scaring me, are you REALLY advocating invading a country because of the independent acts of less than 1% of their citizens? How do you justify that in your mind?
::You must have a different defination of the word 'bully' than I do. A bully picks on people FOR NO REASON. We aren't picking on anyone for no reason. ::
SYRIA has not done anything to us. Some Syrian extremists have. There is a HUGE difference. If I go to Japan and kill someone, America did not attack Japan. If an Syrian extremeist goes to Iraq and joins the fight, Syria did not join the fight,
:: Obviously, your right. But those people are NEVER going to 'respect' us. They hate us, they hate everything we stand for.::
Do you know why most of them hate us? Have you ever examined that issue or do you go on the assumption that it is based on religion? Fact is most arabs don't hate americans, those that do,do so because they think we hate them. They don't hate everything we stand for, they fear that we are out to take that which is theirs, including their freedom. True, they are begging to be our friends, they would much rather simply be left alone. They want to protect their sovernenty, to be a nation independent of outside interference. In other words, if we were to simply do what we say we are going to do in Iraq: help them to install a government of their choosing, get their wells and social services back up to grade, help restore order and then leave then we prove all of those that claimed we were waging a "war against islam" wrong. If we continue on into Syria, we only strengthen the arguement of the exrememist.
There is a basic fact that is being ignored here. Terrorism is NEVER going to be eliminated. Since it is the act of indivuals you will never be able to wipe it out. If that is the goal your desire to fight our way thru the middle east is working towards, it is not an attainable one.
posted on April 16, 2003 08:16:54 AM new
WGM - that is an easy solution.....
::"We demand the United States release Abu Abbas. It has no right to imprison him," Palestinian cabinet minister Saeb Erekat told Reuters. ::
He is correct. We do not have a right to imprison him. We did not try him and we have no jurisdiction over where his crimes were committed. On point of lw, their demands are correct and we should release him immediately.....
Of course we should release him into the hands of the Italians that tried him in abstentia and sentenced him to five life sentences
posted on April 16, 2003 08:26:17 AM new
We are in Iraq, and the opportunity arose to arrest him - and we did. If I am not mistaken, this is a war on terrorism - and he is a known terrorist...
In addition to being tried absentia in Italy, he has also been wanted by the United States.
A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist - and Palestine supports them.
"Be kind. Remember everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle." - Harry Thompson
"I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it." - A Few Good Men
posted on April 16, 2003 08:36:40 AM new
"Terrorism is NEVER going to be eliminated. Since it is the act of indivuals
Completely true, except that these "individuals" need support, training, equipment and a haven.
For 30 years, Syria has been part of "negotiations" toward the peace process in the Middle East, all the while ACTIVELY undermining anything that gets accomplished. They've started all of the Arab/Israeli Wars. They are THE support for most Middle Eastern terror organizations based and trained in Lebanon and Palestine. They supply them. All of this makes the newest left-wing "we have no proof that..." mantra totally absurd.
But given all that, I doubt we will ever need to attack Syria. The biggest change in Mid East history is/will be brought about by the fact that Iraq has given us the opportunity to have American military might in the region.
In a blink of an eye we have:
1) closed off the illegal pipeline to Syria that was supplying them with oil at thievery rates plus earnings on the excess they allowed to be exported.
2) closed off Iraq as a base for terrorist training and support.
3) declaring Iraq to still be part of OPEC, yet not governed by their decisions, we have stabilized the world's oil supply.
Having a big stick is useless unless you are in a position to use it as leverage.
I'd predict a significant decline in terrorism in Palestine and real progress on a negotiated settlement is coming.
posted on April 16, 2003 08:43:52 AM new
Oh good lord. So we should go back on our word and negate our treaties so that we can hold and try someone for something he has ALREADY BEEN TRIED FOR?
Why, if he is a fugitive of Italy, and he is on our list because of the very act that Italy tried him for, are you opposed to handing him over to the Italians? Are the five life sentences not enough?
Are we going to toss our integrity straight out the window? Over one man?
posted on April 16, 2003 08:55:03 AM new
::Completely true, except that these "individuals" need support, training, equipment and a haven. ::
No they don't. All a terrorist needs is desire and opportunity. The fact that some have more and are more organized does not make organization neccessary. I can make make small fire bombs here in my apartment by myself, get on a train and kill a dozen commuters. Does my lack of support, training or haven make me any less a terrorist?
::3) declaring Iraq to still be part of OPEC, yet not governed by their decisions, we have stabilized the world's oil supply.::
I was not aware it was unstable - BTW - do you really think that Iraq will ignore OPECs decisions? They are made in the best interest of the the countries as a whole. In fact, ignoring OPECs decision would destabilize the supply.
::I'd predict a significant decline in terrorism in Palestine and real progress on a negotiated settlement is coming.::
I disagree because if you look at the basics reccomendations being made, they require Isreal to back off and pull out of area they have shown be unwilling to relinquish in the past. Isreal is not big on backing down. I would love to see the whole thing come to an end, I just honestly don't have a lot of faith in the posibility.
posted on April 16, 2003 09:25:42 AM newWhy, if he is a fugitive of Italy, and he is on our list because of the very act that Italy tried him for, are you opposed to handing him over to the Italians? Are the five life sentences not enough? For me, we gave him to Italy once.....they let him go. Now we have him and can be sure he stays, if this is what the administration wants to do. And I hope it is.
You speak to 'one' man. He and his crew took the WHOLE SHIP hostage. If his demands hadn't been met, they might all have suffered the same way the one disabled man did. Get shot and throw off the side of this cruise ship in his wheelchair. This isn't just about one man.
The question is not what a man can scorn, or disparage, or find fault with, but what he can love, and value, and appreciate. J. Ruskin
posted on April 16, 2003 09:33:13 AM new
Linda, you provided my answer before I got to post it
Interesting article....
THE MORAL CASE FOR ISRAEL
by Devin Sper
II Israel's case vs. Palestinian claims
"Israel is responsible for the plight of the Palestinian refugees"
The Palestinian refuge problem is a result of the 1948 War. This war began when the Palestinian militia together with the armies of 12 Arab states launched a war of annihilation against Israel the day after she became a state. It is the Arabs, not Israel who bear responsibility for the consequences of the war they instigated, including the Palestinian refugee problem. Had the Arabs won, they would have unquestionably fulfilled their promise to annihilate Israel. Israel does not have to apologize for it's survival, for defending itself against their genocidal schemes, or for the consequences of a war it did not seek and did not start.
"The PLO represents a genuine movement of national liberation"
The leadership of the PLO is made up of the scions of the ruling Arab aristocracy of pre-Zionist Palestine, specifically the Husseni clan. Prior to WWII the Palestinians were led by Haj Amin al Husseini Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. Husseini spent the war years as an advisor to Adolf Hitler on the 'Final Solution.' He was sent by Himmler to the Balkans were he established the pro-Nazi "Handzar SS division made up of Bosnian Muslims and committed terrible atrocities in Hungary and Serbia. Theirs is not a progressive but a truly reactionary movement that seeks a restoration of the status quo ante. That is, a situation in which once again the "Dhimmi" Jews are second class citizens under Moslem domination, and the Muslims again under the heel of the old Arab aristocracy.
"Arafat is our partner in peace"
Yassir Arafat is Haj Amin Husseini's nephew, the father of modern international terrorism, and it's most deadly practitioner to date. Thousands of innocents have been murdered under his direct orders. These atrocities include an Israeli baby girl in Nahariya, who was stolen from her parents, swung by her feet and her head smashed against a rock; the hacking to death with axes of Israeli civilians in Beit Shean; the targeting and murder of school children in Maalot; and the singling out and murder of Leon Klinghoffer, a paraplegic American Jew on the cruise ship Achilles Laurel. Such a man is nobody's "partner in peace".
During the decades when communism seemed to be ascendant, Arafat styled himself a "Marxist Leninist", but abandoned this facade immediately upon the collapse of his Soviet patrons. After the PLO was thrown out of the West Bank by Israel in 1967, King Hussein provided a safe haven for Arafat's organization in Jordan. The King's hospitality was repaid with an attempt by the PLO to forcefully take over his country in September 1970. Lebanon was the next country to make the mistake of trying to help Arafat. Within a short time the PLO had turned southern Lebanon into its private fiefdom ("Fatahland", dragged Lebanon into a series of wars with Israel and provoked a brutal 10 year civil war between Muslims and Christians, ultimately leading to the de facto loss of Lebanese independence to Syria. For decades Saudi Arabia bankrolled Arafat to the tune of $2 billion a year. This didn't prevent Arafat from turning on his Saudi benefactors, literally overnight, when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia. During the Gulf War, Israel suffered 39 Iraqi scud missile attacks in silence for the sake of George Bush's Arab coalition while Arafat aligned himself with America's enemy, Saddam. As soon as Saddam was defeated Arafat abandoned him, embraced America and demanded and received American pressure on her faithful ally, Israel.
Clearly Arafat is a man who will do anything, say anything, promise anything and align himself with anyone whom he feels will further his ultimate goal; the replacement of Israel with Palestine. He has betrayed everyone who has ever put any faith in him. Such a man is nobody's "partner" in anything. There is no reason to believe that he will not also betray Israel, the country he has spent his life trying to destroy. Future agreements with Arafat will surely be as worthless as all of his past promises have proven to be.
"The Palestinians are building a nation"
While the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) neglects to pay Palestinian teachers (claiming lack of funds), they pay twice as many soldiers as they are entitled to under Oslo. While garbage piles up in the streets of Gaza and basic services are neglected the PA presses for permission to build a second airport and a seaport. The PA does not appear to be building a nation but rather a huge military base. And why should they build a country when it is so much easier to steal one from the Jews who have already invested 100 years of blood, sweat and tears.
"Arafat is better positioned to protect Israelis from Palestinian terror than the IDF"
Maybe so, but there is no evidence that he has any intention of doing so. His speeches in Arabic consistently portray Hamas & Islamic Jihad members as Palestinian patriots with whom the PLO stands shoulder to shoulder in common struggle against the enemy, Israel. Newly printed school books issued by the P.A., as well as its children's TV broadcasts, repeat this and other anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic messages of the most primitive and vulgar type. In short the PA uses Hamas and Islamic Jihad terror as deniable tools against Israel just as the PLO used Black September in the 1970s while talking "peace" on the world stage.
"The Palestinian problem lies at the heart of the Arab-Israeli conflict"
Let us say for arguments sake that we were able to satisfy all of the demands of the myriad Palestinian factions, including even the most radical ones. How does that protect Israel from the real threat posed by 9,000 Syrian and Iraqi tanks ? How does that protect Israel from terror sponsored by Libya or Iran ? How does that protect Israel from Saddam again raining missiles down upon its cities as he did without provocation during the Gulf War? Iran's fanatical hatred of Israel is clearly based on religion, and adjusting Israel's borders will not assuage it. The Arabs states attacked Israel repeatedly prior to the existence of the PLO without even the pretext of a Palestinian issue. It makes no sense for us to solve a fictitious problem while ignoring an existential one.
"The P.A. is a Democracy in the making"
The P.A. is a terrorist organization on steroids. A single election in which no serious opposition parties fielded candidates does not make a democracy. What is Arafat's term of office? When is the next election? Who is the opposition candidate ? Where is the free press ?
"The process is unstoppable and a Palestinian State inevitable"
When Yassir Arafat and a few other students got together at Cairo University in the 1960s and hatched the scheme to replace Israel with Palestine, there was nothing inevitable about their success. Nothing in human affairs is inevitable. As intelligent beings with free will we are not powerlessly adrift on the tide of history but are ourselves the creators of those tides. Zionism was a true revolution in its reversal of 20 centuries of Jewish powerlessness. The essence of the Zionist revolution was the realization that we had the power to determine our own fate.
At the start of the Oslo process, Arafat was further from his goal than when he began over 30 years earlier. Following a long series of military defeats, he was retired in Tunis, in exile, not only from Israel, but from every country bordering Israel as well. That Israel chose to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and fish Arafat out of the dustbin of history, is inexplicable. That the Oslo negotiations have been entirely conducted as if Arafat were in a position of power vis a vis Israel is absurd and a strategic error. Today, thanks not to a single military victory, but to Israeli naiveté, Arafat has been endowed with a modicum of actual power. Yet, even now, the balance of forces still vastly favors Israel and a Palestinian State is not yet inevitable. Israel's hard won advantage is being given away daily, and there will come a point at which the ratio of force will favor our enemies and Israel's options will be closed off.
"Be kind. Remember everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle." - Harry Thompson
"I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it." - A Few Good Men
posted on April 16, 2003 09:42:04 AM newOK, once again you are scaring me, are you REALLY advocating invading a country because of the independent acts of less than 1% of their citizens? How do you justify that in your mind? If necessary yes. But as others have stated, the other actions may just work by themselves. They have been give a chance to 'heed the warning'. Their choice. Justify this? Our country has declared a war on terrorism. You don't get results by excusing nations that support these terrorists.
SYRIA has not done anything to us. Some Syrian extremists have. There is a HUGE difference. If I go to Japan and kill someone, America did not attack Japan. If an Syrian extremeist goes to Iraq and joins the fight, Syria did not join the fight. Are you saying it's your belief that Syria does NOT harbor terrorists? That they do not support other terrorists?? A country CAN choose to deal with their extremists. Do you think they're not capable of doing this? If so why not? A country can choose not to support terrorism. They can choose to actively pursue the extremists in their country...or supoort them.
Do you know why most of them hate us? Have you ever examined that issue or do you go on the assumption that it is based on religion? Fact is most arabs don't hate americans, those that do,do so because they think we hate them. They don't hate everything we stand for, they fear that we are out to take that which is theirs, including their freedom. True, they are begging to be our friends, they would much rather simply be left alone. They want to protect their sovernenty, to be a nation independent of outside interference. In other words, if we were to simply do what we say we are going to do in Iraq: help them to install a government of their choosing, get their wells and social services back up to grade, help restore order and then leave then we prove all of those that claimed we were waging a "war against islam" wrong. If we continue on into Syria, we only strengthen the arguement of the exrememist. You and I just completely part company here, by your above statements. They just want to be left alone? They will be WHEN they stop supporting terrorism. And yes, after all I've read I do believe most of the extremist behavior comes from THEIR interruption of their religion. You and I've discussed this before. Whe their cleric leaders call for these actions, I believe them and it validates my beliefs.
There is a basic fact that is being ignored here. Terrorism is NEVER going to be eliminated. Since it is the act of indivuals you will never be able to wipe it out. If that is the goal your desire to fight our way thru the middle east is working towards, it is not an attainable one. I believe our actions will bring about GREAT change in how these ME countries do business. As others have stated, we can do much about the nations that openly support these terrorists.
The question is not what a man can scorn, or disparage, or find fault with, but what he can love, and value, and appreciate. J. Ruskin
posted on April 16, 2003 09:44:24 AM new
::Now we have him and can be sure he stays, if this is what the administration wants to do. And I hope it is. ::
Where is our jurisdiction? It was not n american ship and neither thei hijacking nor the murder took place in American waters. Yes, the victim was an American but WE DO NOT HAVE JURISDICTION.
You can be as morally outraged, and horrified as your want but don't ignore law, and don't throw out the integrity of every treaty we have ever signed based on ONE MAN.
Italy wants him and has requested extradition. We can do that without violating any treaty. We are you so opposed?
posted on April 16, 2003 09:49:44 AM newI disagree because if you look at the basics reccomendations being made, they require Isreal to back off and pull out of area they have shown be unwilling to relinquish in the past. Isreal is not big on backing down. I would love to see the whole thing come to an end, I just honestly don't have a lot of faith in the posibility.
I agree, requiring Israel to back off is not a good decision in my view. Let them decide what they want to do themselves....aren't you professing that for all the Arab/Muslim nations. They are not being the aggressors, they are retaliating to what is done to them. I see no reason for them to back down. And in my heart of hearts I believe no matter how much land were to be 'given' to them in the name of peace, it will NEVER be enough. They want them totally OUT of the region. That's why I agree with you in not having a lot of faith in that happening. I just don't blame it on Israel.
The question is not what a man can scorn, or disparage, or find fault with, but what he can love, and value, and appreciate. J. Ruskin
posted on April 16, 2003 09:51:26 AM new
wgm - didn't see your post before.
The question is not what a man can scorn, or disparage, or find fault with, but what he can love, and value, and appreciate. J. Ruskin
posted on April 16, 2003 11:20:13 AM new
:K, once again you are scaring me, are you REALLY advocating invading a country because of the independent acts of less than 1% of their citizens? How do you justify that in your mind?
If necessary yes. ::
Then there is truly no point in continueing the discussion. Your responses are not coming from a place of logic or legalities - they are entrenced firmly in fear and and that makes you as dangerous as any terrorist could ever hope to be.
posted on April 16, 2003 11:34:53 AM new
neonmania
you seem to equate all things being equal. They are not. It is the President of the US job to protect the citizens of the US. It is the job of the leader of country X to control the illegal activities of it's citizens.
If, in order to protect 1000 Americans, the US has to kill 10000 citizens of Country X, that is what you do.
posted on April 16, 2003 11:35:54 AM new"Then there is truly no point in continueing the discussion. Your responses are not coming from a place of logic or legalities - they are entrenced firmly in fear and and that makes you as dangerous as any terrorist could ever hope to be."
WOW - guess we are all crazy for not agreeing with you and/or thinking the same way you do, neon....now THAT is scarey
"Be kind. Remember everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle." - Harry Thompson
"I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it." - A Few Good Men
posted on April 16, 2003 11:47:16 AM new
Neon- you don't know what the h*ll you're talking about. Logic and legalities ? You gotta be kidding.
Can tell me what criminal precedure law or treaty states the the US can not take custody and set to trial anyone that has committed a criminal act against an American or the US government? And are you aware that a federal statute passed after a treaty is ratified can override the treaty ?
The Supreme Court has already ruled the US can go into Mexico and apprehend a narco conspirator and bring into the US and try him for a conspiracy completely committed in Mexico and do it against the will of the Mexican government. The guy conspired to and caused the murder of a DEA agent in Mexico. US agents went into Mexico and kidnapped the person, returned him to the US, and tried him in the US all with the blessing of the Supreme Court of the United States.
Any person that commits a crime against a US citizen or US interests is subject to jurisdiction in the US.
posted on April 16, 2003 12:18:18 PM new
::WOW - guess we are all crazy for not agreeing with you and/or thinking the same way you do, neon....now THAT is scarey ::
That's a hell of a leap you've made there. Please show me where I said she was crazy? I simply stated that I believe her feeling that it is OK to invade a country based on the actions of less than 1% of its citizens is based more on fear than logic. Nothing about crazy in there and absolutely nothing about you or any other poster.
posted on April 16, 2003 12:22:05 PM new
DeSquirrel - where is the clear and present danger that Syria as a nation is presenting to our nation and at what point in time did it suddenly appear that we will start discussing actions not discussed even as recently as a month ago?
I don't know where you've been, but Syria has been classed as a TOP terrorist haven and trouble maker by everybody from the CIA to the Good Humour Co. for FORTY YEARS.
posted on April 16, 2003 01:47:17 PM newI simply stated that I believe her feeling that it is OK to invade a country based on the actions of less than 1% of its citizens is based more on fear than logic.
Yes, wgm if you don't agree with neon....you're not using logic....AND you're acting out of fear. Could you please get that straight?
neonmania - Forming my opinions on what I'd like to see this administration do does NOT come from fear....even if you say it does. You don't know me personally enough to be able to make that assumption. And since I've never stated that, you are assuming.
It comes from being FED UP....that as each terrorist event has taken place against our country, we have let it slide. We've let this tumor [terrorism] grow. That doesn't come from fear. It comes from anger. Enough is enough. Let them know they're going to be held accountable for their actions.
The question is not what a man can scorn, or disparage, or find fault with, but what he can love, and value, and appreciate. J. Ruskin
neon, YOU typed the words, not me - so please don't look to me to explain them.
Because someone chooses to believe differently than you does not mean they are without logic or reasoning; and it certainly does not mean that their beliefs are fear-based.
Linda is definitely not a minority in her feelings and beliefs - there are a lot of people here that feel the same way. I do.
"Be kind. Remember everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle." - Harry Thompson
"I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it." - A Few Good Men
posted on April 16, 2003 02:08:37 PM new
Article on Yahoo - Political section today [I can't like it's too long] says:
WASHINGTON (AFP) -
Radical Palestinian leader Abu Abbas is not covered by an immunity clause in a 1995 peace accord, a US official said, rejecting Palestinian arguments for his immediate release.
The clause in question, contained an interim peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians, deals only with the detention and prosecution of certain people in the jurisdiction of the Jewish state and the Palestinian Authority (news - web sites), the official told AFP on condition of anonymity. "It does not apply to the legal status of persons detained in a third country," the official said of Abbas, the mastermind of the 1985 hijacking of the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro who was capture by US forces in Baghdad on Monday.
But the agreement, signed in Washington on September 28, 1995, is a bilateral Israeli-Palestinian accord and does not set out any US specific commitment to immunity for acts against US citizens.
The question is not what a man can scorn, or disparage, or find fault with, but what he can love, and value, and appreciate. J. Ruskin
posted on April 16, 2003 02:30:43 PM new
::Forming my opinions on what I'd like to see this administration do does NOT come from fear....even if you say it does. You don't know me personally enough to be able to make that assumption. And since I've never stated that, you are assuming. ::
Are you saying that it is completely logical to wage war against an entire nation based on the action of less than 1% of it's citizens? Not it's government, but it's citizens.
You are stating that there is no fear, no anger, no moral outrage behind your statement that war against Syria is justified because some of it's CITIZENS, not military but citizens, crossed the border into to fight coalition forces.
None of this has anything to do with fears or terroirsm or the like. It's purely a matter of those damn Syrians didn't lock up their citizen as so we must invade.
Just for reference - this stems from your statement Linda that the most serious justification of a Syrian invasion was that some Syrians crossed over to fight coalition forces
posted on April 16, 2003 02:35:03 PM new
::neon, YOU typed the words, not me - so please don't look to me to explain them. ::
Don't try and twist it sweetie - I'm not asking for an explination. You used the word crazy, not me.
You can play all the games you want and try for the condensation card but the fact remains - you are reading accusations (again) where they do not exist.
posted on April 16, 2003 02:38:27 PM new
:: "It does not apply to the legal status of persons detained in a third country," ::
I guess that means we get to make another bed at GITMO where laws do not apply.
So how do explain to Italy that we are not going to honor our extradition treaty with them? Is it really worth ll of this? Split hair on one treaty, ignore another....... who cares, I guess if anyone calls us to the mat we'll just invade them too.
posted on April 16, 2003 02:39:11 PM newAre you saying that it is completely logical to wage war against an entire nation based on the action of less than 1% of it's citizens? Not it's government, but it's citizens
It is not only logical but moral. The situation is not just that the terrorists and criminals are present in the country, it is because the host government is unwilling to police these individuals or is covertly supporting these terrorists activlely or passively.
We have a military/police operations in several South American countries under the same premise.
If I hide a criminal in my home and do not report him/her to the police or do not take other actions to to disassocite the criminal from my home and myself, I am not only inviting the police into my home, but could also be found guilty of a crime myself myself.
"Be kind. Remember everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle." - Harry Thompson
"I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it." - A Few Good Men
posted on April 16, 2003 03:09:41 PM new
Reamond - you keep associating my arguements with the wrong situations.
(I'm not going to bother argueing your "It's moral" statement, we will NEVER come anywhere near an agreement on that.)
I was not talking about the "harboring of terrorists". I was referring to a statement made that the most important justification in her eyes was that some Syian citizens crossed over into Iraq to fight coalition forces.
- Harry Thompson
K, once again you are scaring me, are you REALLY advocating invading a country because of the independent acts of less than 1% of their citizens? How do you justify that in your mind?