While I don't hold any great disagreement with some of the perhaps controversial views in this post, some specific views are rather disgustingly glib, along the lines of what is wrong with "white liberal guilt" if any of you know what that is.
7. "We don't want to piss off the people that control 90% of the world's oil reserves and thus control whether we get to continue our extravegant American lifestyle's". What? Well let's just go to your later post condemning U.S./UN for what we did to Palestinians...hmm...well, what if they pissed us off by just being there? Well, they shouldn't have obviously since we have a much bigger military than them. Gee, that's a pretty indefensable stand, isn't it? It's strange...the Palestinian question isn't as simple as you made it out (though your point isn't completely invalid), yet the issue of the U.S. bowing to Middleast countries simply because they control so much is very simple...we shouldn't. It is simply a clearly bad reason, perhaps the worst, for us to not "piss off" a country when the issue is terrorism. Take a look at yourself...you're a poster child for what the terrorists would love to turn every American into (assuming a MiddleEast bent, as the news seems to confirm quite strongly, thank you) as a result of these actions. Again, I say this not for your views on Palestine, but on your reply to 7.
15. "What exactly is cowardly about this attack? They sacrificed their lives for a cause they believed in, and they did so in a very direct manner (I'm not sure how you could get any more direct, short of trench warfare.)"
Hmm...brave, cowardly, or insane? Good or evil? If someone gives no notice to their own life and saves another, that is brave. If they give no notice to their life to drag race down a highway, they are insane (perhaps stupid is more accurate). If they give no notice to their lives to kill others (on purpose), they are cowardly. Hmmm...why do I say this? Well, because..is suicide brave? No, that's not the first word to come to mind is it? Though it can be for certain reasons. Killing thousands of people you don't know, and who aren't trying to kill you, isn't one of those reasons....why? Because dealing with issues this way is COWARDLY. Why wasn't it soldiers? Because it is too hard to kill soldiers. Civilians are much easier to kill in quantities. Never mind that the people who have to live in the world the suicide bomber leaves behind at his choice pretty uniformly live a worse life...including the people he presumably wanted to die for. Hmm...actually, wait...aren't many of these people doing this for religious beliefs, convinced (I mean CONVINCED) by some corrupt interpretation of their religion that they'll be rewarded in the afterlife (I mean above and beyond "just" living a good and decent life, and I mean the kind of good and decent life that can be lived in abject poverty, and is much harder than simply dying for anyone)...what's brave about that?
"Dropping a missile out of the back of a plane that's going faster than the speed of sound, now THAT's cowardly and believe it or not we do it every other day somewhere in the Middle East (of course, this isn't news so you never hear about it.)"
Wow, never served in the military, have we? Never been subject to being ordered into harm's way? Never trained years to perform well once there? Perhaps you have done all this...and you still wouldn't have the right to uniformly condemn men and women who do the duty you so casually dimiss with contempt. You do realize that some of them don't come back, right? Putting yourself in that situation, especially when you have family you want to go back to, is not cowardly. I wish you would consider your positions on the US side of this issue with more than the stupid (sorry, it really fits) callousness you display here.
"Also, you seem to be jumping the gun here. ..."
Didn't read the post...he/she almost definitely was, but so are you by dismissing them...and the reasons you give don't sound too well reasoned either. You basically sound like someone who sees people making an extreme argument on one side of the issue, go ahead and make points, mostly valid, criticizing them, and then merrily go on your way making foolish statements on the OTHER extreme of the issue. Pretty common on the internet, because you don't get immediate feedback. Hopefully you'll give my points some honest thought instead of sticking to your guns blindly in order to defend your ego (even more common on the internet).
"Right now the only people you can blame are the men and women that run the United States government, without them the middle east would not even be in this volitile situation and, if they are indeed responsible, this situation could have been easily avoided.... Hell, a year ago at this time we were on the verge of peace in the middle east"
Oh really...when was the last time YOU tried to avoid a situation like this? A former ambassador, are we? On the Counter-Terrorist Task Force, are we, or should we just ignore the many attempts that have gone before this on your say so, "just because"? Or are you talking out your ass about an issue you don't really know about? Hey, you're probably responding to some people who did the same thing, but it doesn't excuse you, now, does it? Perhaps it isn't so easy to solve the world's problems as you think. That's not to say that wrong hasn't been done, but that isn't to say wrong hasn't been done on BOTH sides...or are you really DEFENDING terrorism as a valid practice of statecraft? BTW, I do not heartily approve of our side of the "Palestinian question". I also think that there are many horrified Palestinians who aren't on videotapes, in contrast to the jubilant dancing Palestinians broadcast today...but it doesn't excuse it, does it? I feel the same way when I've seen some Americans act just as contemptibly, with perhaps a bit more specific shame. But I didn't think anyone should have gone out and shot the disgusting Americans, just as I don't think similar should happen to those Palestinians. But those people, and the terrorists they celebrate, represent the worst in humanity, present in all countries, not because of the reasons for their dissatisfaction with the US, but the method of addressing that dissatisfaction that they executed in one case, and are celebrating in the other.
37. "The US's missiles have missed: hit schools, hospitals and other such innocent buildings. This is known as collateral damage and is considered common place in most American air strikes, missile bombardments, and other military operations, who are the cowards now (we've even coined a phrase)?"
Yep, collateral damage is pretty horrible...yet, I'm sure our cowardly serviceman just love it when it happens. I'm sure they're glad they get the excuse to INTEND to kill civilians, just like terrorists. I think you are a bit confused in that cowardly label you throw around...or do you really mean that NOT intending to kill civilians is more cowardly? You know what is pretty horrible, too? Putting civilians in military targets, and putting military targets INTENTIONALLY near to schools and hospitals. Hmm...strange how in the U.S., the government tries to DEFEND it's people, not USE their lives in such a fashion in hopes of political leverage. BTW, I make it clear I'm talking about Sadam only here...I can't even picture Palestinians doing this...the difference being that I think the Palestinian leadership actually cares about it's people, although I don't think they are doing the best job they can, even considering their side of the issue. Well, I think they are doing a horribly job...but I can't say I would have done much better, since I've never been in their shoes, though history shows it is possible. I wouldn't have started using terrorism, certainly...perhaps that's what civilization is really about? You know, if certain Palestinians had been suicide bombing just Isreali military installations instead of just easily accessible random civilians, perhaps things would be a lot different in the world's outlook on Palestine. Perhaps if there were no people like you who consider it brave, we wouldn't have terrorism at all. Hmmm...I think EVERYONE would be better off now, including the people of the nations associated with terrorists.
Anyways, that's most of the disagreement I had with you. Please read it with an open mind and your ego tucked away.
Pardon me for not identifying myself, I'm on limited Internet access due to my extended hospital stay.