ZOA Deeply Concerned: Bush Omitted Israel From List of Countries Hit by Islamist Terrorists

IMRA ^ | 12-4-05

[SJackson]

If you'd like to be on or off this middle east/political ping list, please FR mail me.

[jeremiah]

In politics, and political speeches, nothing is by accident.

[msnimje]

The president was seeking the support of Arab Countries in the WOT in this particular speech.

Can't the thousand OTHER times the president has mentioned Israel as a victim of terror bring a little tolerance for the one speech when he does not?

[carton253]

The list was exclusive to Al-Qaeda... It was not a comprehensive list by any means.

[stocksthatgoup]

This is an old saw brought up again and again. Yet so often it turns out to be untrue.

[carton253]

What's an old saw?

[PAR35]

yet Israel was conspicuously absent.

Looking at the list given, lets name off some of the others who are "conspicuously absent" from countries where Islamic terrorists have hit since 9-11. The story lists the US, the UK, Spain, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Iraq.

A quick additional 7: Russia, China, India, the Philippines, Sudan, Nigeria, Serbia.

You could easily add another 7. Lebanon, Serbia, Germany, France, Egypt, Algeria (it should probably be in bold - how do their numbers compare with Israel?), Nigeria.

You can supply the next 7.

[SJackson]

I think the ZOA's sensitivity stems from the fact that amongst all those victims of Islamic terrorism, in only one instance is the case made that it's not terrorism, Israel.

[Iscool]

I have an old saw...

[carton253]

No thanks... I'm not really looking for an old saw... LOL!

[carton253]

I think you are more right than wrong. Yes, it's terrorism, yes it's not considered islamic but nationalistic, but it could be easily solved if Israel would just do what is necessary to appease the Palestinians. So, it's not the same..

It's a dangerous misdiagnosis...

[SJackson]

Nationalistic? If they thought it could be used to advantage, the Democrats would declare al Qaida in Iraq nationalistic in a heartbeat. And they wouldn't be far from wrong. Freeing Islamic lands from infidels is inherently nationalistic, whether it's Iraq, Israel, or Spain. As is instituting Islamic governments, whether Afghanistan, Egypt, or Saudi Arabia. And the tactic of murdering civilians is terrorism.

[Sabramerican]

Does Bush have to put on a Kefiya for people to understand?

[carton253]

Under the different motives for terror, nationalism is one... think the Basques or the IRA. Palestinian terror (even ones with names like Islamic Jihad) are considered nationalistic.

That makes the conflict local and readily solved through diplomacy.

You are right about the dems... except Al Qaida has already declared that it is not nationalistic but Islamic...

So, where are we agree what terrorism is, many experts make a difference between the types of terrorist organizations.

Think Baader Meinhoff group in the late 1970's. They, along with PFLP hi-jacked the plane to Entebbe. Baader Meinhoff group would be considered anarchists, PFLP a nationalistic group. Personally, I think they are all murdering thugs and the scum of the earth, and death is the only solution.

[Sender]

Israel: the victim whose name must not be spoken (diplomatically).

[carton253]

Why don't you stop with the overwrought hysterical rhetoric... it gets in the way of any clear analysis that you might want to bring to the thread.

The President had a specific subject in his speech, hilighting terror attacks that were specifically done by Al-Qaida since 9/11....

[Sabramerican]

Don't you get tired of excusing the inexcusable?

Defending the President means twisting into odd configurations explaining why one murderous Islamic terrorism gang is different then the next Islamic terrorists murderers.

If they bomb a bus in London, or murder Americans in Iraq, or bomb a hotel in Jordan, it's Al-Qaida, and evil.

If they bomb a bus in Tel Aviv, it's just Hamas, and they are misunderstood statesmen who would reform if allowed to run for office.

[carton253]

No, what I get tired of is those who see insult and slight in every thing. And you do it so well.

If you can stay on topic long enough to realize that speech he gave was specific. It was specific in context... specific in why he listed the countries he did. Israel wasn't mentioned because Israel didn't fit the criteria for this particular speech.

That's not excusing... that's stating a fact.

That's the first part of your post...

Now for the second part...

If you've read any of my posts you know that I believe that those who blow up a bus in Tel Aviv are the purest of evil... I have never heard the President say differently.

As for Hamas... how do you equate Hamas with Begin or Shamir? Same or differently...

[Sabramerican]

The speech does not come in a vacuum.

It comes in a long series of Administration policies and pronouncements hostile and dangerous to Israel but favorable to her enemies.