Political Crossfire Forums

[Faisal]

The ''Islamic'' extremist’s uttered aim is to liberate the Muslim world from foreign transgressors, bring down the un-Islamic governments in the region and re-establish the caliphate. This all sounds good to the Muslim, but do we really care about the means these people are applying in order to achieve these goals?

There can be no sympathy with the regressive extremists who attack and kill civilians. Islam is not about blowing yourself up or killing innocent civilians. This is a fact that cannot be reiterated enough. Muslims have a moral obligation to propagate the true and unvarnished picture of Islam to the world, and at the same time repel the twisted interpretations of the Islamic texts.

There is nothing wrong in actively resisting occupation or aggression, but a Muslim is bound by the directives of Islam and cannot transgress his limits and still claim that he is fighting for Islam. The Qur’an states:

…let not the hatred of others to you make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be just: that is next to piety: and fear Allah. For Allah is well-acquainted with all that ye do.(5:8)

The Qur’an also states that killing a person, unless it is for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, is like killing the whole of humanity (5:32).

We need to take a clear stance against extremist forces whose actions are damaging and harming the name of the very religion they claim to be fighting for. These people are driven by blind emotion and hatred, and must therefore be fought every inch of the way.

These people need to ask themselves what have they achieved by their outrageous conduct? How have they benefited the Muslim world? How have their actions facilitated the spread of Islam? How can they repeatedly break the rules Islam has set for warfare, and still call their struggle a jihad?

Their actions don’t seem to have brought them anywhere near achieving their goals. The factual truth is that they have done nothing to improve and advance the political or economic situation of Muslims. Extremists have long been wrecking havoc in the Muslim world; they have only brought misery and despair upon the Muslim.

We have a duty to combat any force that threatens the security and stability of our Muslim nation(ummah). It complies with the interests of the Muslim community to eradicate these militants and prevent them from harming other people. We are in dire need of peace and stability- two prerequisites for political and economic development and progress.

Our struggle(jihad) should be towards developing the Muslim community and enlightening the Muslim mind. We must strive to improve the general living conditions of people and make every effort towards spiritual progress. We are not going to get anywhere unless we change our way of thinking.


…Allah will never change the grace which He hath bestowed on a people until they change what is in their (own) souls: and verily Allah is He Who heareth and knoweth (all things). (8:53)

[Janis]

Thank you for your letter. There are not alot of Muslims coming out and speaking to other Muslims and the world. Not everyone believes the fundamentalists are what Islam is all about. The trouble is the word is not coming from all of you as directly. We all can argue about how the Muslim problem can be fixed, but how can all of us really do the job without you.

You see us agrue over Arafat, over Saddam, over all of it. Who is responsible and who can take action. I believe the US has done more for the Muslim community than anyone has in the past. No one wants to admit that the US and Israel are not "the" problem. We all can argue about past alliances. How can anyone say that no other country in the world is not also responsible for past aggressions or alliances? Why is this become a US problem? Why have other countries in the world ignored their responsibilities in their past actions? Saddam killed more Muslims than anyone. Bush did more for Muslims than anyone on this planet. How could anyone defend his regime? How can anyone condone the homicide bombings? I am not saying everything has been handled in the right way at all times, but the Muslim community holds the key to the future for every peace loving Muslim.

Instead of sticking together we have people in America and around the world so willing again to ignore the war in progress. Some in America and other nations in the world hate Bush so much, they lost thier humanity in what was done for Muslims in Iraq. We need to continue the offensive. You have the most to lose in this. I hope more people from this forum and beyond begin to hear this more of this from the Muslim community. War is not pretty or easy. I'm sure you understand. America cannot do this alone. We are getting from all sides now. It is becoming more difficult by the minute.

[jawsome]

it's really depressing how these extremists, which are such a small, small majority of islam, are what islam has been perceived as by so many thousands, if not MILLIONS, of people.

it's like saying the KKK is the representation of christianity.


good letter, i appreciate it thoroughly.

[Logic]

Assalamu 'Alaikum

One of the biggest benefits and at the same times one of the biggest problem in our muslim ummah is that we do not have a united front and no "Pope" to represent us. This is often seen by the western world as that we don't fight the extremists. But that isn't true. Most of us fight the extremists and the enemies of Islam every day. But we do it in our way and not like the western world wants to. We do it in our mosque's, we do it by speaking to other muslims about it and we do it by teaching the true word of Islam. But we do need a more united front against this "threat from within" and to deal with it in a effective way. One of the problems in doing so is that in many muslim countries our muslim brethren are led by despots and regimes that are propped up by the western world. They do not care about Islam, they only care about keeping their power intact. That is one of the reasons for all the hate and anger we see in the muslim ummah today. The best thing we can do to fight this is to keep teaching the true word(without western "modifications");
keep our politicians aware of the effects their decisions have on our muslim brethren around the world, and to keep enlightening the kuffar about our religion. That is the only way we can fight this war, because going the traditional way of actually fighting a war will never fix the root of the problem. It will only treat the symptoms.

Bismillah Hir Rehman Nir Rahim

Allahu Akbar

[pwbayon]

When a religion gets caught up into government the result is always oppresion and violence. A good reason to separate chruch and state. This does not mean that society is voif od religion.

[Kindred]

pwbayon wrote: voif od religion.

I'm sorry, I don't speak German, what does that mean??? :wink:

[Preusser]

Thanks for your considered suggestions and admonitions to Muslims. A similar expression should be sent to certain American Christians, i.e., to those who believe a primary tenet of American Christianity is an obligation to force "truth, justice, and the American way" down the throats of Iraqis or other Islamic peoples, whether they want it or not. They equate the Judeo-Christian tradition with the American flag and a foreign policy which affirms "Israel - right or wrong." It allows and provides the "wherewithall" to Israel to do whatever it chooses, with impunity. It abhors the death of Israelis at the hand of suicide bombers, but totally acquiesces in the brutal killing of Palestinians and destruction of their homes done by Israel. This brand of American Christianity has turned a blind eye for decades on the horrendous maltreatment of Palestinians by Israel. As we result, we have a war of "world-wide radical islamic fundamentalism" vs. "American radical evangelical fundamentalism." Mr. Bush strongly adheres to the latter - so much so that he was willing to start an unnecessary war in Iraq and strongly supports American and international Zionism in their quest to expand into Judea and Sumaria (a "land grab" for the West Bank.) Indeed, Mr. Bush can be said to have a "Messianic complex." Unhappily, the consequence is much of the world seeing Mr. Bush, himself, as a major terrorist and, by extension, the American people, as well. What a shame!

[Janis]

Preusser wrote: Thanks for your considered suggestions and admonitions to Muslims. A similar expression should be sent to certain American Christians, i.e., to those who believe a primary tenet of American Christianity is an obligation to force "truth, justice, and the American way" down the throats of Iraqis or other Islamic peoples, whether they want it or not. They equate the Judeo-Christian tradition with the American flag and a foreign policy which affirms "Israel - right or wrong." It allows and provides the "wherewithall" to Israel to do whatever it chooses, with impunity. It abhors the death of Israelis at the hand of suicide bombers, but totally acquiesces in the brutal killing of Palestinians and destruction of their homes done by Israel. This brand of American Christianity has turned a blind eye for decades on the horrendous maltreatment of Palestinians by Israel. As we result, we have a war of "world-wide radical islamic fundamentalism" vs. "American radical evangelical fundamentalism." Mr. Bush strongly adheres to the latter - so much so that he was willing to start an unnecessary war in Iraq and strongly supports American and international Zionism in their quest to expand into Judea and Sumaria (a "land grab" for the West Bank.) Indeed, Mr. Bush can be said to have a "Messianic complex." Unhappily, the consequence is much of the world seeing Mr. Bush, himself, as a major terrorist and, by extension, the American people, as well. What a shame!

You cant' equate Palestinians terrorists with the actions of Israel. I don't believe all Palestinians are terrorists, but it's time they cleaned their own house before blaming Israel for taking offensive actions. It's all up to them. Nobody to blame but themselves.

President Bush is religious. He believes all people have the right to freedom. If you don't like what we did you must want the Mideast to continue as it had in the past. I can't believe you would wish that on anyone. To hate Bush for giving millions of people hope for the future is rather ugly... I don't think you should speak for the Iraqis, your mind is filled with the lies. We had every right to go into Iraq. You don't leave a man in power who defied the world for so long. He was not only a threat to us, but to the entire Mideast. The whole reason we flew the No-fly zones was BECAUSE he used and made WMD's. The world had the same info and it was real. End of story. Terrorists don't have a country, this is the nature of this War on Terror. Any state that either aids or harbors terrorists are terrorists themselves. No matter how much you would like to believe Saddam was no threat, the facts are he was.

In the end we will do whats right, whether or not everybodys wishes to see it. If you wold open your eyes, it's not hard to understand. We can never go back. We will go forward, with diplomacy (i.e. Libya) or with bombs. You fail to acknowledge the good influence Iraq had in Libya's decision to disarm. That is all we wanted Saddam to do. He choose war. Blaming America is very easy when you need someone to blame other than the guily parties. We will do whatever it takes... No more appeasing dictators, despots and the like..

[Preusser]

In her message of May 25,, Janis suggests "You can't equate Palestinian terrorists with the actions of Israel.... They have nobody to blame but themselves." Oh, my! Well, in a sense, she's correct., for how can one compare individual suicide bombers with tanks, helicoptors, jet planes, bulldozers, etc. Indeed, there is no comparison. For sure, David and Goliath can't be compared in terms of destructive power. But, for that tremendous discrepancy in terms of power, the Palestinians are not themselves to blame. Rather, Israel and not the Palestinians have been the recipients for decades of billions of dollars worth of deadly weaponry from the U.S., and the Israelis with great regularity have used it against the Palestinians. This reality is known around the world, but, for the most part, has been kept a secret from the American public. And ultimately, ignorance will prove not to have been bliss. In the big picture of history, the Palestinians are to Israel as the American Indians are to the white man. In both cases, the weaker has been the victim of the ancient policy of "might makes right." And so today, Mr. Sharon goes to whatever length this Bush administration will allow in his efforts to maintain Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories. No wonder more than half the world opposes Mr. Bush!

Janis also suggests "We had every right to go into Iraq." In fact, we had no right to go into Iraq, the second time. Under international law, a nation may go to war: 1) if it has been attacked by another nation; or 2) if a treaty ally has been attacked. Neither of these applied in the 2nd Iraq War. Rather, Mr. Bush STARTED this war! And you can't legally start a war against another nation-state simply because you're "afraid" or "concerned" or "worried" that that other state might in the future start a war against someone, somewhere, sometime. To permit that is to return to the "law of the jungle." Moreover, brutal dictator that Saddam was, what he did internally to his own people does not justify starting a war against him -- otherwise, we would have even more war around the world because some country didn't like what another country was doing WITHIN its own borders

Janis also says that Saddam "was not only a threat to us, but to the entire Mideast." That old canard has been thoroughly disproven and rejected world-wide. None of the nations contiguous to Iraq felt the threat of a possible invasion or attack by Iraq. Even Israel, possessing possibly the finest intelligence gathering agency in the world and whose agents had infiltrated Iraq, did not conclude that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destructuon just prior to the war. For sure, Iraq once had them - they had been either given or sold to Iraq by the U.S. at the time of the Iran-Iraq War back in the 1980s. Saddam used some of them (biological and chemical) against the Kurds at that time, and in response the U.S. only "winked." Indeed, we then took no exception to his using our weapons in that way. Moreover, Saddam was no threat to the U.S. What few missles he may have had could go no further than 170 kilometers - and the U.S. is 3500 miles distant from Iraq!

Prior to our starting this war, cells of terrorists were in Europe, Afganistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. Because they are, in part, also religious zealots, there were VERY few in Iraq because Saddam was and is an Islamic secularist, who identied with, and whose hero was, Joseph Stalin. Consequently, Saddam had nothing to do with Bin-Laden, the religious fanatic. They were antagonists. And yet, following 9/11, Bush doesn't attack Saudi Arabia, home to Bin Laden and the majority of the airplane hijackers. Rather, he attacked Iraq. And that's because Messrs. Wolfowicz, Perle, Kristol, et al. had drawn up the plans to do so long before 9/11. Oh, how Mr. Bush deceived the American people. It was criminal, and deserving of impeachment! Too much American blood already has been shed in pursuit of Mr. Bush's pursuit of American hegemony in the Middle East. No, Mr Hussein didn't choose war the second time; Mr Bush did, all to the painful and deadly consequnce of innocent American and Iraqi lives.

Lastly, Janis says the U.S. shouldn't appease dictators. C'mon, we do it continually all over the world (Central and South America and elsewhere);
as long as they do our bidding! We would, however, attempt to oust them from power and take over their goverments, if their countries were sitting on lots of oil. And that's the difference!

Just as I oppose Mr. Bush's policy of "Isreal - right or wrong", so do I oppose Janis' position of "America - right or wrong" - simply because BOTH are wrong. Wrongdoing cannot be overlooked or condoned simply because one is partial in favor of the wrongdoer.

[Janis]

Preusser wrote: In her message of May 25,, Janis suggests "You can't equate Palestinian terrorists with the actions of Israel.... They have nobody to blame but themselves." Oh, my! Well, in a sense, she's correct., for how can one compare individual suicide bombers with tanks, helicoptors, jet planes, bulldozers, etc. Indeed, there is no comparison. For sure, David and Goliath can't be compared in terms of destructive power. But, for that tremendous discrepancy in terms of power, the Palestinians are not themselves to blame. Rather, Israel and not the Palestinians have been the recipients for decades of billions of dollars worth of deadly weaponry from the U.S., and the Israelis with great regularity have used it against the Palestinians. This reality is known around the world, but, for the most part, has been kept a secret from the American public. And ultimately, ignorance will prove not to have been bliss. In the big picture of history, the Palestinians are to Israel as the American Indians are to the white man. In both cases, the weaker has been the victim of the ancient policy of "might makes right." And so today, Mr. Sharon goes to whatever length this Bush administration will allow in his efforts to maintain Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories. No wonder more than half the world opposes Mr. Bush!

Janis also suggests "We had every right to go into Iraq." In fact, we had no right to go into Iraq, the second time. Under international law, a nation may go to war: 1) if it has been attacked by another nation; or 2) if a treaty ally has been attacked. Neither of these applied in the 2nd Iraq War. Rather, Mr. Bush STARTED this war! And you can't legally start a war against another nation-state simply because you're "afraid" or "concerned" or "worried" that that other state might in the future start a war against someone, somewhere, sometime. To permit that is to return to the "law of the jungle." Moreover, brutal dictator that Saddam was, what he did internally to his own people does not justify starting a war against him -- otherwise, we would have even more war around the world because some country didn't like what another country was doing WITHIN its own borders

Janis also says that Saddam "was not only a threat to us, but to the entire Mideast." That old canard has been thoroughly disproven and rejected world-wide. None of the nations contiguous to Iraq felt the threat of a possible invasion or attack by Iraq. Even Israel, possessing possibly the finest intelligence gathering agency in the world and whose agents had infiltrated Iraq, did not conclude that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destructuon just prior to the war. For sure, Iraq once had them - they had been either given or sold to Iraq by the U.S. at the time of the Iran-Iraq War back in the 1980s. Saddam used some of them (biological and chemical) against the Kurds at that time, and in response the U.S. only "winked." Indeed, we then took no exception to his using our weapons in that way. Moreover, Saddam was no threat to the U.S. What few missles he may have had could go no further than 170 kilometers - and the U.S. is 3500 miles distant from Iraq!

Prior to our starting this war, cells of terrorists were in Europe, Afganistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. Because they are, in part, also religious zealots, there were VERY few in Iraq because Saddam was and is an Islamic secularist, who identied with, and whose hero was, Joseph Stalin. Consequently, Saddam had nothing to do with Bin-Laden, the religious fanatic. They were antagonists. And yet, following 9/11, Bush doesn't attack Saudi Arabia, home to Bin Laden and the majority of the airplane hijackers. Rather, he attacked Iraq. And that's because Messrs. Wolfowicz, Perle, Kristol, et al. had drawn up the plans to do so long before 9/11. Oh, how Mr. Bush deceived the American people. It was criminal, and deserving of impeachment! Too much American blood already has been shed in pursuit of Mr. Bush's pursuit of American hegemony in the Middle East. No, Mr Hussein didn't choose war the second time; Mr Bush did, all to the painful and deadly consequnce of innocent American and Iraqi lives.

Lastly, Janis says the U.S. shouldn't appease dictators. C'mon, we do it continually all over the world (Central and South America and elsewhere);
as long as they do our bidding! We would, however, attempt to oust them from power and take over their goverments, if their countries were sitting on lots of oil. And that's the difference!

Just as I oppose Mr. Bush's policy of "Isreal - right or wrong", so do I oppose Janis' position of "America - right or wrong" - simply because BOTH are wrong. Wrongdoing cannot be overlooked or condoned simply because one is partial in favor of the wrongdoer.

You poor thing. Yes, I agree, us and the world have turned blind eyes to terror states and dictators. This situation will be corrected. I am sorry you feel so much hatred for our country and our President. It's all Bushs' fault. Right! All I can say is how lucky we are that people like you don't make foreign policy. God Bless America!

[Preusser]

Janis' "reply" to mine of yesterday was a reply in name only, for it had no content other than obvious emoting frustration. If only she had said something - anything - which attempted to contradict the points I made. But nothing other than "You poor thing." Boy, isn't that powerful argumentation!. Oh, well.... She did, however, say that "us (sic) and the world have turned blind eyes to terror states and dictators. This situation will be corrected." Well, not only have we turned blind eyes to them, we have financed them and provided them with the the tools they need to to keep themselves in power and control, and to subjugate their population - much as Saddam did in Iraq. In one place it's wrong, but in many others it's o.k.? I don't get it. And that's much of the duplicity of our foreign policy. Janis assures us that "this situation will be corrected." Based on what can she make that assertion? Our prior history? Hardly!! It's just wishful thinking. And I join her in that wish, but there's absolutely nothing she can point to that indicates that that happy day will soon come - and certainly not under Mr. Bush.

Janis suggests that my observations (shared by many - most recently Messrs. Woodward and Bernstein, and General Zinni) speak "so much hatred for our country and Mr. Bush." To disagree is not a synonym for to hate. (Check any dictionary, Janis.) I have no personal feelings one way or another for Mr. Bush. I don't know him. But I do love our country, and I hate to see it, as a result of Mr. Bush's ill-conceived policies, be changed from the world's most respected country to the world's most despised country. And, yes, although I voted for Mr. Bush in 2000 because I was and remain today a loyal Republican, I, and many other Republicans, will not vote for him this coming November because, as Janis correctly stated, "It's all Bush's fault." On that point Janis, you got it right! God Bless America? You bet! And may He do it by sparing this nation from the additional horrible grief Mr. Bush's re-election would likely bring us!

[Janis]

Preusser wrote: Janis' "reply" to mine of yesterday was a reply in name only, for it had no content other than obvious emoting frustration. If only she had said something - anything - which attempted to contradict the points I made. But nothing other than "You poor thing." Boy, isn't that powerful argumentation!. Oh, well.... She did, however, say that "us (sic) and the world have turned blind eyes to terror states and dictators. This situation will be corrected." Well, not only have we turned blind eyes to them, we have financed them and provided them with the the tools they need to to keep themselves in power and control, and to subjugate their population - much as Saddam did in Iraq. In one place it's wrong, but in many others it's o.k.? I don't get it. And that's much of the duplicity of our foreign policy. Janis assures us that "this situation will be corrected." Based on what can she make that assertion? Our prior history? Hardly!! It's just wishful thinking. And I join her in that wish, but there's absolutely nothing she can point to that indicates that that happy day will soon come - and certainly not under Mr. Bush.

Janis suggests that my observations (shared by many - most recently Messrs. Woodward and Bernstein, and General Zinni) speak "so much hatred for our country and Mr. Bush." To disagree is not a synonym for to hate. (Check any dictionary, Janis.) I have no personal feelings one way or another for Mr. Bush. I don't know him. But I do love our country, and I hate to see it, as a result of Mr. Bush's ill-conceived policies, be changed from the world's most respected country to the world's most despised country. And, yes, although I voted for Mr. Bush in 2000 because I was and remain today a loyal Republican, I, and many other Republicans, will not vote for him this coming November because, as Janis correctly stated, "It's all Bush's fault." On that point Janis, you got it right! God Bless America? You bet! And may He do it by sparing this nation from the additional horrible grief Mr. Bush's re-election would likely bring us!

That's funny, I voted for Clinton and then Gore! I just realized, woke up, that your view of the world is not mine. President Bush is the first real leader I've seen in a long, time. 2 terms exactly. All the problems in the world did not get better with the Dems in power. It just grew and got stronger. I was there at the 1st WTC bombing. I thought my country was doing everthing it could to keep us safe. I was so wrong. Thank God, Gore didn't win.

I'll bet your still upset Bush won. Anything that happens is his fault, right? Well, I didn't vote for him and thought the "Chad" crap was embarressing. Whether you want to believe it or not, our Administration is not the enemy. I cannot believe you would be so against everything our President does. You really belive Michael Moore, he knew and didn't do anything about 9-11, right? It is insane. He does care about you and your family. To believe other countries have a better idea of what America should be doing is Yes, unpatriotic. How in you right mind could think, Bush does not care about your security and your right to live without fear for the rest of you life? It is just so mindless to think everything is a conspiracy...

Even now, the alerts going out gives you a chance to criticize. If he doesn't say enough, he's wrong. Alerts go out you accuse him of trying to make everone afraid... You should be afraid, but it's you that will see something out of the ordinary. It comes down to us, we are the ones who can make a difference. You can't depend on Gov't to be everywhere, at all times. That is still up to us, it's not wrong for the gov't to inform us. Isn't that what the 9-11 commission and all the inquiries are about? How to insure this doesn't happen again? Stop looking everyone in authority as the bad guys.. They are not..It's not helping anyone. We should be listening to what is said. This is real, not a war between us. To ignore the real enemy is to endanger our troops. This is all playing into the guys who laugh at your hate for your own gov't. The only thing I've heard from you is America is wrong. Whether it's Israel or Iraq. We've been backing Israel throughout Democratic and Republican Administrations, so I guess you don't belong to either.. Your interpretation of the history of the world seems incredibly pesamistic. You should start looking at the bright side of things!

[Preusser]

Janis writes: "I bet your (sic) still upset Bush won." Originally I wasn't. As I said, I voted for the man! How I wish I hadn't, however. But who would have thought that, as a result of what some 20 or so extremists did to the WTC, i.e., Bin-Laden's crowd, Mr. Bush would have started a war against Iraq??!! There wasn't an Iraqi among those 20! As a result of Mr. Bush's irresponsible response, I do now wish he had been defeated by Mr. Gore, for at least Mr. Gore wouldn't have started this insane, illegal, and unnecessary war. No doubt, he would have kept use of America's might against the real terrorists - Bin Laden and company. Yet today, because of this terrible distraction in Iraq, we hardly hear about Bin-Laden, other than that the number of his terrorists are growing in number and appeal because of what Bush and company have done to Iraq.

"I can't believe you would be so against everything our President does." Janis writes. Well, I.m NOT against everything he does. But, this war is one of them! He listened to the wrong people. He got s*cked into the "concerns" of men like Wolfowicz, Perle, Kristol et al., who had been hoping to get us into a war with Iraq since 1994 - long before 9/11! And the other major objection to his policies is his unwavering backing of Israel under whatever circumstances. When an ally does the wrong thing(s);
you don't automatically acquiesce just because he's an ally. Doing that only adds to the fire the terrorist want to keep going. Israel's longstanding abusive policy toward the Palestiinians is atrocious. And it is wrong for an American president to turn a blind eye toward it in an effort not to offend, and win the votes of, a certain small percentage of the voting public at home. This U.S. policy of "Israel - right or wrong!" has got to stop! It is the underlying cause of so much hatred toward the U.S. all around the world, including Europe and South America. But as long as Wolfowicz, Perle, et al. remain at the helm, I'm afraid we're in for more of the same. Having a balanced policy in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict would go a long way toward reducing terrorism around the world, particularly that which is directed toward us. When Janis writes: "We've been backing Israel throughout Democratic and Republican administrations.", she's absolutely right. And THAT'S the problem. To back Israel in its right to exist is one thing and is to be commended. But to let Mr. Sharon and others maltreat the Palestinians the way he and others do and have done FOR DECADES is inexcusable, And THIS country pays a terrible price in terms of its blood and treasure as a result. Mr Sharon (the terrorist!) does whatever he can to prevent the creation of a Palestinian state, and unfortunately for THIS country, Mr. Bush just goes along. Now that ISN'T leadership!

[Preusser]

Janis writes: "I bet your (sic) still upset Bush won." Originally I wasn't. As I said, I voted for the man! How I wish I hadn't, however. But who would have thought that, as a result of what some 20 or so extremists did to the WTC, i.e., Bin-Laden's crowd, Mr. Bush would have started a war against Iraq??!! There wasn't an Iraqi among those 20! As a result of Mr. Bush's irresponsible response, I do now wish he had been defeated by Mr. Gore, for at least Mr. Gore wouldn't have started this insane, illegal, and unnecessary war. No doubt, he would have kept use of America's might against the real terrorists - Bin Laden and company. Yet today, because of this terrible distraction in Iraq, we hardly hear about Bin-Laden, other than that the number of his terrorists are growing in number and appeal because of what Bush and company have done to Iraq.

"I can't believe you would be so against everything our President does." Janis writes. Well, I.m NOT against everything he does. But, this war is one of them! He listened to the wrong people. He got s*cked into the "concerns" of men like Wolfowicz, Perle, Kristol et al., who had been hoping to get us into a war with Iraq since 1994 - long before 9/11! And the other major objection to his policies is his unwavering backing of Israel under whatever circumstances. When an ally does the wrong thing(s);
you don't automatically acquiesce just because he's an ally. Doing that only adds to the fire the terrorist want to keep going. Israel's longstanding abusive policy toward the Palestiinians is atrocious. And it is wrong for an American president to turn a blind eye toward it in an effort not to offend, and win the votes of, a certain small percentage of the voting public at home. This U.S. policy of "Israel - right or wrong!" has got to stop! It is the underlying cause of so much hatred toward the U.S. all around the world, including Europe and South America. But as long as Wolfowicz, Perle, et al. remain at the helm, I'm afraid we're in for more of the same. Having a balanced policy in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict would go a long way toward reducing terrorism around the world, particularly that which is directed toward us. When Janis writes: "We've been backing Israel throughout Democratic and Republican administrations.", she's absolutely right. And THAT'S the problem. To back Israel in its right to exist is one thing and is to be commended. But to let Mr. Sharon and others maltreat the Palestinians the way he and others do and have done FOR DECADES is inexcusable, And THIS country pays a terrible price in terms of its blood and treasure as a result. Mr Sharon (the terrorist!) does whatever he can to prevent the creation of a Palestinian state, and unfortunately for THIS country, Mr. Bush just goes along. Now that ISN'T leadership!

[Janis]

Preusser wrote: Janis writes: "I bet your (sic) still upset Bush won." Originally I wasn't. As I said, I voted for the man! How I wish I hadn't, however. But who would have thought that, as a result of what some 20 or so extremists did to the WTC, i.e., Bin-Laden's crowd, Mr. Bush would have started a war against Iraq??!! There wasn't an Iraqi among those 20! As a result of Mr. Bush's irresponsible response, I do now wish he had been defeated by Mr. Gore, for at least Mr. Gore wouldn't have started this insane, illegal, and unnecessary war. No doubt, he would have kept use of America's might against the real terrorists - Bin Laden and company. Yet today, because of this terrible distraction in Iraq, we hardly hear about Bin-Laden, other than that the number of his terrorists are growing in number and appeal because of what Bush and company have done to Iraq.

"I can't believe you would be so against everything our President does." Janis writes. Well, I.m NOT against everything he does. But, this war is one of them! He listened to the wrong people. He got s*cked into the "concerns" of men like Wolfowicz, Perle, Kristol et al., who had been hoping to get us into a war with Iraq since 1994 - long before 9/11! And the other major objection to his policies is his unwavering backing of Israel under whatever circumstances. When an ally does the wrong thing(s);
you don't automatically acquiesce just because he's an ally. Doing that only adds to the fire the terrorist want to keep going. Israel's longstanding abusive policy toward the Palestiinians is atrocious. And it is wrong for an American president to turn a blind eye toward it in an effort not to offend, and win the votes of, a certain small percentage of the voting public at home. This U.S. policy of "Israel - right or wrong!" has got to stop! It is the underlying cause of so much hatred toward the U.S. all around the world, including Europe and South America. But as long as Wolfowicz, Perle, et al. remain at the helm, I'm afraid we're in for more of the same. Having a balanced policy in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict would go a long way toward reducing terrorism around the world, particularly that which is directed toward us. When Janis writes: "We've been backing Israel throughout Democratic and Republican administrations.", she's absolutely right. And THAT'S the problem. To back Israel in its right to exist is one thing and is to be commended. But to let Mr. Sharon and others maltreat the Palestinians the way he and others do and have done FOR DECADES is inexcusable, And THIS country pays a terrible price in terms of its blood and treasure as a result. Mr Sharon (the terrorist!) does whatever he can to prevent the creation of a Palestinian state, and unfortunately for THIS country, Mr. Bush just goes along. Now that ISN'T leadership!

I know you voted for him. I suppose the moment your opinion turned was because of Iraq. I just thought that as far as your feelings now, you probably believe he was not elected in the first place..

I do understand you, in your heart, believe peace with the Palestinian terrorists could somehow be "worked" out. Until they acknowledge the right for Israel to exist there's a BIG setback right from the start! I have family who was in Israel, teaching Palestinians trades in preparation for a free Palestine. I know they can work together with the Israelis and Americans on the basics. They put aside the extremists way of thinking and appreciate the assistance. Your blame America, blame Israel is getting old. It's not enough to just say to Israel, stop it. It has to begin with the extremists.. They are holding down any sane, constructive talks that could happen. Believe me, Israel does not like all this. They are willing to accept a free Palesine.. You should put more of your energy into convincing the ones who don't condemn the homicide bombings as much as the Israels bulldozing. You have trememdous energy!!! I know you want peace as much as the next guy. I just think there is not enough pressure put on the extremists shoulders. Too much, we're the bad guys.

I'm sorry we're so far apart on these things. As a country we should be focusing on the ones who don't care about women, children getting killed. The terrorists and extremists are our enemy. We do care about women and children getting killed. They are not our targets. It is unfortunate when we cause their deaths. We would rather not have all that happen. I think your not giving America a fair shake... Please try to see, it don't feel that any of us like war. And Bush makes up his own mind... How little respect you seem to have for him. I don't think it's truly fair! Escpecially since you voted for him. Leadership is making the tough decisions. I think in 5 - 10 years if all goes right you will see a good change for the Mideast. I am crossing my fingers though, we can do so much. It's up to them to keep the peace. It true we can't force anything on them, but I do think they all do want the chance.

[Preusser]

Janis writes: "You probably believe he (Bush) was not elected in the first place." Where do you get this from? Of course he was elected! Not only did I vote for him but, more importantly, the Electoral College voted him in. So, case closed. This can't be an "isue."

Janis writes: "Until they acknowledge the right of Israel to exist.... (there can be no peace.) The right of Israel to exist is not an issue among the vast majority of Palestinians. Their efforts and desires are not directed at the non-existence of Israel but at the creation of their own state and the return to them of their lands (illegally occupied by Israel since the l967 War.) Just as the majority of Iraqis hate our occupation, so does the majority of the Palestinians hate Israel's occupation. Who wouldn't? The difference is, however, we, at least, don't intend to keep the Iraqis land and claim it as our own, but the Israelis do! And that's the "rub" and what causes so many of the countries of the world (most of them non-Islamic) to be in disagreement with Israeli policies and to believe them to be illegal. And yet Israel claims to be the victim here. Geeesh!

"It has to begin with the extremists." Janis, you have this one right! But Mr. Sharon is every bit as much an extremist as is Mr. Arafat. The big difference is that Mr. Sharaon has so much (American) weaponry to carry it out. Just look at the number of officers in the Israeli Air Force who refused to continue to implement his killing and destruction. Look at the number of Israei soldiers in Gaza who refused to continue any longer to kill civilians there. Much of that did not make it into the American press, but it sure did in the international press and on the BBC. "The terrorists and extremists are our enemy." Again, you're right. But as much as any other in the Middle East now, Sharon has to be among them. We do not hear in this country about the great opposition to him that exists WITHIN Israel. Neither do we hear about the many within Israel who are just as opposed to the creation of a Palestinian state as is Sharon, i.e., a Palestinian state created AFTER the return of their lands to them.

"How little respect you have for him (Bush.)" True. I have great respect for the Office of the President of the U.S., but have little respect for the man who now holds that seat, just as I lost respect for his predecessor, Clinton. What I don't like is the ABUSE of the office and the demeaning of it. He initiated a war illegally, and has "thumbed his nose" arrogantly and ignorantly at other world leaders - most of whom, prior to him, were STRONG allies of the U.S. and respected its leadership. His treatment of and attitude toward the United Nations has been horrendous! Witness his having referred to it as "irrelevant" if it didn't go along with his invasion of Iraq. Well, it didn't. And after having reduced by bombings much of Iraq to rubble and created a mess, he now has forced the U.S. into a position of having to approach the U.N. with our tails between our legs and "beg" them to come in and help clean up our mess! This is degrading to the American public and to our proper place in the world.

Let's hope it doesn't get much worse before it gets better. But Bush, Jr. is a stubborn man. Some try to turn this into a virtue by saying he has "resolve." Others laud him because they believe him to be "sincere." Well, maybe he is, but he is SINCERELY wrong! And history won't excuse him because he "meant well." That won't cut it. It will take YEARS for the good reputation of the United States to be regained worldwide. And that unhappy reality is directly attributable to the actions of GWB while in office. May God Bless America this fall before GWB gets us into any more "trouble!"

[Janis]

Preusser wrote: Janis writes: "You probably believe he (Bush) was not elected in the first place." Where do you get this from? Of course he was elected! Not only did I vote for him but, more importantly, the Electoral College voted him in. So, case closed. This can't be an "isue."

Janis writes: "Until they acknowledge the right of Israel to exist.... (there can be no peace.) The right of Israel to exist is not an issue among the vast majority of Palestinians. Their efforts and desires are not directed at the non-existence of Israel but at the creation of their own state and the return to them of their lands (illegally occupied by Israel since the l967 War.) Just as the majority of Iraqis hate our occupation, so does the majority of the Palestinians hate Israel's occupation. Who wouldn't? The difference is, however, we, at least, don't intend to keep the Iraqis land and claim it as our own, but the Israelis do! And that's the "rub" and what causes so many of the countries of the world (most of them non-Islamic) to be in disagreement with Israeli policies and to believe them to be illegal. And yet Israel claims to be the victim here. Geeesh!

"It has to begin with the extremists." Janis, you have this one right! But Mr. Sharon is every bit as much an extremist as is Mr. Arafat. The big difference is that Mr. Sharaon has so much (American) weaponry to carry it out. Just look at the number of officers in the Israeli Air Force who refused to continue to implement his killing and destruction. Look at the number of Israei soldiers in Gaza who refused to continue any longer to kill civilians there. Much of that did not make it into the American press, but it sure did in the international press and on the BBC. "The terrorists and extremists are our enemy." Again, you're right. But as much as any other in the Middle East now, Sharon has to be among them. We do not hear in this country about the great opposition to him that exists WITHIN Israel. Neither do we hear about the many within Israel who are just as opposed to the creation of a Palestinian state as is Sharon, i.e., a Palestinian state created AFTER the return of their lands to them.

"How little respect you have for him (Bush.)" True. I have great respect for the Office of the President of the U.S., but have little respect for the man who now holds that seat, just as I lost respect for his predecessor, Clinton. What I don't like is the ABUSE of the office and the demeaning of it. He initiated a war illegally, and has "thumbed his nose" arrogantly and ignorantly at other world leaders - most of whom, prior to him, were STRONG allies of the U.S. and respected its leadership. His treatment of and attitude toward the United Nations has been horrendous! Witness his having referred to it as "irrelevant" if it didn't go along with his invasion of Iraq. Well, it didn't. And after having reduced by bombings much of Iraq to rubble and created a mess, he now has forced the U.S. into a position of having to approach the U.N. with our tails between our legs and "beg" them to come in and help clean up our mess! This is degrading to the American public and to our proper place in the world.

Let's hope it doesn't get much worse before it gets better. But Bush, Jr. is a stubborn man. Some try to turn this into a virtue by saying he has "resolve." Others laud him because they believe him to be "sincere." Well, maybe he is, but he is SINCERELY wrong! And history won't excuse him because he "meant well." That won't cut it. It will take YEARS for the good reputation of the United States to be regained worldwide. And that unhappy reality is directly attributable to the actions of GWB while in office. May God Bless America this fall before GWB gets us into any more "trouble!"

It will get worse before it gets better. This is the thing you have to accept. There is no magic that's going to happen. It is not because of Bush that things are messed up. He doesn't just mean well, it was our only option. You can't see it, that's obvious. We cannot accept deception as a "status quo" from dictators. Saddam was the master of deceit and one of the worst dictators alive. You have legitimate worries and arguements, but your arguements don't work to gain real peace in the world. Only if we all denounce terrorism and terrorist acts will we finally be on the road to real peace in the world. People like you are legitimatly worried about the rest of the world. You wish we were viewed like we should be in the worlds eyes. If you do your research, you will find all kinds of reasons why the "rest of the world" would like the US to be a docile, limp entity on this earth. It is not in your best interest to belive the rest of the world cares about you and your family. You shouldn't care about what every one thinks of you. You give into the negative about us and don't defend the positive. We don't want to dominate Iraq. We don't wish to occupy Iraq. This is the point you seem to miss.

You also forget your gov't is doing more to help the Palestinians than you realize. I told you I have family working towards a free, democratic Palesine. This is our gov't working toward a peaceful solution in a very real and dangerous way. The State Dept is working toward the solution by giving Palestinians hope for the future by learning trades. He goes to work in an armored car. So, before you trash America, I want you to know there are very brave, people working behind the scenes. If you cared enough you could find this stuff out yourself. I said it before, you are very good. You do your homework, but I'm sorry if I disagree that we aren't doing everything we can to fix the problems of the world around us.