So then you need to ask why those Muslims posed a threat in the first place to put it into perspective. Do you know or are you just throwing it out there to prove a point.

 

If you read the site I listed, the missed shots on bin Laden were in 99. That is near the bottom of the first list. I think if you didn't feel they were a threat by then, you are ignoring history.

 

Why quote something I said if you're not going to actually address what you quoted.

 

Then you might read this.

http://www.policyreview.org/jun04/bar.html

 

No offense there Kingfish, but the fact that you just tried to answer my question with an article by a former member of the Israeli intelligence service pretty much confirms the fact that you really don't know much about the history of the region. Besides that, you still didn't answer the question, you do realize the context in which it was asked don't you?

 

And You stated:

So now Bush is responsible for the actions of the government 20 years before he was in the office? You blame Bush because he didn't order the strengthening of the doors in his eight months in office or the 20 years before he was in office. So yes I can see your point. You opinions are obviously well thought out and formed with no outside help.

 

As Israel has been dealing with terrorist far longer we have, yes I do think they know what the are talking about.

As for some of the starts for modern (it is not new by any means) terrorism, maybe you would like to read about Sayyid Qutb or the Kharijites or should we go all the way back to the Crusades.

 

Any more thoughts on the ABC docudrama, or it's controversy?

Aren't the roots of the controversy an example of partianship?

 

I'm just surprised that ABC is producing a show that is capable of upsetting a Democrat. That's the job of the evil FOX network. For being honest, ABC will now be referred to, by liberals, as the mouthpiece of the Right.

 

I find it interesting that the dems found it appalling that "The Reagans" was dropped by CBS (although picked up by Showtime) but that the ABC show should be dropped.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/CA334711.html

 

Actually ABC admits it embellished it and that some parts conflict with the official findings.

Which again, is why any made for TV movie shouldn't even be remotely considered accurate.

But partisanship is definitely the reason behind the uproar, just as it was with Farenheit etc.

When you have a country split down the middle with each side trying to splinter off enough from the other to gain the slightest majority, it perpetuates itself.

 

First, there is no way to assess exactly why terrorist want us dead as they have yet to make a logical case for killing us other then they hate our way of life, our freedoms, and how open our western societies are.

Good points, and even terrorist have yet to make any kind of a half way decent and logical case that would perhaps get the general population to listen. They have tried the typical child screaming in the middle of the store routine in the hopes of actually getting their way and for the past 40 – 50 years have not had any success with it.

I am going to try and be brief with my assessment of the root cause and bear in mind I may have some mistakes in this assessment but believe generally it’s the outline of the root cause.

1. Puritan religious belief since the 16th Century of returning the Jew’s to the promise land.

2. Sometime in the 19th Century the British politicians thought it would be a good idea to return the Jew’s to the Middle East as it would be beneficial to them since the British were ruling most of the Middle East.

3. The European nationalism at the time basically excluded the Jew’s which was good reason for the Jew’s to believe due to large massacres of Jews in Europe.

4. Since Europe hated Jews with a passion Jews began to settle in Palestine some time in the 1800’s I believe very late 1800’s and I believe Palestine was ruled by the Turks (not positive on that one).

5. During WW1 the British needed, or wanted badly, the support of the Jews and in doing so declared that Palestine would be a national home for the Jews, or basically fulfilling the dream or promise of “Jews returning to the promise land”.

6. During WW1 the British defeated the Turks who were ruling Palestine and thus the British were the rulers of Palestine.

7. Once the British began to rule Palestine they made good on their promise of letting the Jews “return to the promise land”.

8. This did not sit well with the Palestine’s or other Arab nations because they felt they were being invaded by a smarter group of people, technologically speaking, and of a different religion.

9. This happen approx. in the 1920’s and the first thing that happen was Arabs began to slaughter Jews and in return Jews began to slaughter Arabs, all kinds including elder people and children.

10. The Arabs were really upset with Britain and tried to rise against them but lost since they couldn’t fight worth a crap as is still the case today.

11. Britain handed the problem to the United Nations. On November 29, 1947, the UN General Assembly voted to partition Palestine into Jewish and Arab sectors.

12. 1948 Jews in Palestine established their own state which is called Israel.

13. Israel became a state on May 15, 1948, and was recognized by the United States and the Soviet Union that same day.

FOLLOW UP BELOW:

 

So, basically what we have are some radicals that are pissed off about a change that happen during war. That’s what happens in war one side wins and the other side loses. The United Nations (the voice of the world) decided to split Palestine into two sectors, one for the Jews and one for Arabs.

This is nothing different then Germany, East and West, or Korea, North and South. We have many Arabs here in America who have a different religion then the majority and have different beliefs and practices.

So one can not argue this problem as a religious problem of which terrorist tend to do. The issue is there is a state in the Middle East called Israel and they are recognized and one of our allies.

Some believe the solution is to just completely move all Jews out of the Middle East. It’s a very stupid solution and argument. I am still trying to figure out just who the Jews pissed off so much that it appears nobody wants them.

Europe didn’t want them as was evident by decades of past practices. I always thought America was for standing up for the little guy, the ones that nobody gave a crap about or wanted.

So what happens to the Jews? Do we succumb to the terrorist wishes and take the Jews out of their current home land? Israel is the main reason for terrorism as proclaimed by many terrorist so do we take their word for it that is their reason for acting like animals and cowards fighting behind shadows?

I submit that the solution is to leave Israel right were it’s at and step up our support for them. Perhaps we hold a summit to explain exactly how it’s going to be in that either the Middle East accepts the fact Israel is there to stay or we will take more Middle East land away from Arabs until they accept the facts that Israel is not going anywhere.

We keep taking land until we have peace and not some stupid policy like Clinton had of giving land for peace.

Again, Clinton played a HUGE role in 911 and the stepped up terrorist activities because he was so very WEAK and he showed his hand at his weakness when he tried like hell to make Israel give back MUCH MORE then they should have to try and gain peace with animals.

Terrorist saw the weakness of American during Clinton’s time in office because he did little to nothing against terrorist and then he basically backed them in their claims to remove Israel or that at least he might be open to just moving Israel out of the Middle East if pushed hard enough. Clinton OPENED the doors to the terrorist wants and they made much progress in Clinton’s time towards their agenda. While we would still have the terrorist problems we have today they are much greater problems with greater intensity due directly to Clinton and him being weak…

 

Dramatization and embellishment are not the same thing. I'd like to see where ABC admits making embellishments in regards to Clinton. Can you provide that for us; since, you've seen it. (Heard or read it.)

 

Unfortunately the main contention that the Clinton admin stopped an operation to go after bin Laden (denied by Clarke) is in the 9/11 report. Section 4, page 114.

Now if this isn't the operation that Clinton officials are saying is not true, please show me which one it is, as everything I read talks about denying stopping a plan to capture bin Laden.

You can view the whole report here.