There were two claims in Spisefisken's post.
The first, that the US may be (is?) about to do something that would make them a terrorist organization by that definition. I think this was to make the point that your definition of terrorist was overbroad, and your response made sense.
The second claim was that Israel engages in what amount to terrorist practices, and that Hamas is merely responding in kind to an attack. Israel since its inception has repeatedly gone beyond the bounds of the US resolutions which established. They have continually pushed Palistinians out of their homes by threat and actual force. They have killed innocent families for refusing to leave their home, which the UN resolutions establishing Israel specifically said shall remain the property of the original owners. This has been a consistent, methodical practice, both inside the geographical bounds established by the UN as well as beyond those bounds. When Hamas and other terrorist organizations respond by killing Israeli civilians in an attemt to persuade Israel to back off, I see that as a perfectly legitimate response to a despicable attack.
The next problem is that, while the US does not directly engage in these activities, Israel only survives because of the constant heavy funding which we provide. As such, many people and organizations in the middle east perceive the US as being as much a part of the problem as Israel itself, and I would tend to agree.
IMHO, we would go a long way towards reducing the threat of terrorist attacks on the US by simply ceasing to provide economic support for Israel, and let them sink or swim on their own. At this point I don't believe they would stand a chance of survival under those conditions, but I also believe it's their own fault at this point, and have no problem letting them suffer the consequences of their actions.
As for Saddam, I'm leaning towards supporting taking military action against him, although setting a precedent of preventative first strikes is troubling. I think WWII is a very good example of why appeasment doesn't work. I think years since the Gulf War have in many ways another form of appeasment. Saddam overstepped his bounds, and the world went in, pushed him back, and set down some rules he had to follow as a result. But instead of holding him to those rules, we have consistently allowed him to dodge, hinder, and obstruct the enforcement procedure. The world has been trying the ask nicely approach for years, and it's just not happening. I think Saddam is a problem, and I expect that at this point, the only thing which is going to solve that problem is another military action. |
