asearching1,

I noticed two assertions in your fifth post:


“The action was taken by a handful of extremists ...”

Are you restricting the events of September 11th to only those actors who were on the aircraft? If so, then I must say that that seems to be unrealistic, as that excludes the organization which recruited, trained and financed them. If you are referring to the Al Qaeda organization which has operated in Afghanistan, England, France, Germany, Indonesia, Italy, Kenya, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sudan, the United States, and Yemen, then that hand must be very large indeed to hold all those extremists.


“… they view our country as a large, unstoppable juggarnaut that regularly stomps on their own lives, freedoms, etc. History, even recent, proves that they are justified in their feelings.”

While I lived in the Middle East, I did get the sense that the general opinion was that American Foreign Policy was tilted decidedly, and inappropriately, towards the Israeli position. That is (was – it has been 16 years now) however, decidedly different from one which regularly stomps on their lives, freedoms, or any thing else. To what are you referring when you say this, and what Arab/Muslim history which involves the United States proves that they are justified in those feelings?


Now, I happen to agree that American Foreign Policy is limited by the degree to which it parallels that of Israel’s. The current resident of 10 Downing Street has probably regretted his decision to so closely associate HM’s Iraq policy with the one issued from Pennsylvania Avenue.

Irish’s allusions to warfare have value in the sense that a well funded organization can, and has, directed attacks against American civilians and military around the world. At what point is a sovereign nation entitled to act on the behalf of its overseas interests, and, given the record of Al Qaeda, what would you consider appropriate?

__________________
Eudaimonia