>>>Do you deny that a substantial source of anti-American hatred among many Muslims is the support the U.S. gives to Israel?

Of course I don't deny it. That would be crazy. I would no more deny that, than you would imply that 9/11 was the fault of Israel and its friends in the US. Why, we'd have to be a couple of loonies to suggest such things, right?

1. Al Qaeda, though it has attacked a number of countries, has never attacked Israel.

2. Al Qaeda has no Palestinians in its membership.

3. Al Qaeda exists to battle Israel on behalf of the Palestinians.

Doesn't really compute, does it?

But hey, Bin Laden SAYS he's really mad about Israel and the Palestinians, and he's totally trustworthy. Whatever he says, goes.

>>>Or maybe the Israelis are in...naw can't say it...oh alright I will...that the Israelis are in league with al Qeada?

At last!! Someone sees!!

>>>I'll ask again: since you reject the Pulitzer Prize winning expert on Al Qaeda, a NYT reporter who spent years in Afghanistan and Pakistan, a Professor on Mideast studies, and the repeated statements of Al Qaeda itself, what would constitute valid evidence for you as to what motivates Islamic radicals?

Sorry I took a while to respond. I have twin babies, which is my excuse for everything and anything. (Well, that, and the Holocaust.)

I didn't "reject" any of the things you list above. I questioned your unquestioning reliance on anecdotal evidence from an anonymous person about a dead person.

While you apparently take Al Qaeda's statements at face value (and why not -- if you can't trust Al Qaeda, who can you trust?), I think its actions are more significant. Given that AQ is in the business of carrying out terrorist attacks, and given that it has carried out attacks against a variety of countries, it just seems logical that AQ would have gotten around to attacking Israel at some point if Israel were in fact its big enemy. That AQ has not bothered to do this leads me to suspect that its alleged passion for the Palestinian cause is less than entirely sincere.

>>>Gee, that's an easy one. Other countries (the US, Britain, Spain, Indonesia) are a lot easier to attack.

So AQ's logic is, Israel is our biggest enemy, but their security is pretty good, so fuck it, let's just blow up a Spanish train. That'll show those Zio-bastards.

You do make a great point, though. Pulling off a terrorist attack against Israel is flat-out impossible. Why, I bet if you googled "terrorist attacks against Israel," nothing at all would come up.

Do you include yourself in that category? :-)

>>>How about I go do that in Alabama

Given that gay men have in the recent past been imprisoned and executed by government authorities in countries like Iran and Egypt, for the so-called crime of being gay, your suggestion that hostility to gays in Alahama compares to that found in the Arab/Muslim world is either (a) ill-considered hyperbole, or (b) really ignorant.

Alabama is not the most tolerant place in America, but it has openly gay people, gay bars, etc., and it is just a leeeeeetle bit ahead of most Middle Eastern countries (except perhaps Israel) in terms of accepting gay people or, at the least, refraining from persecution of them.

Sigh.

>>>Are you trying to claim that there are no places in Alabama where it would be dangerous for a gay couple to walk in public holding hands? Is that what you're trying to claim?

No, I'm just saying it's absurd to suggest that intolerance of gays in Alabama is even remotely comparable to intolerance of gays in countries where they are subject to imprisonment, torture and execution as a matter of state/church policy. Are you trying to claim that your comparison was apt? Is that what you're trying to claim?

Meanwhile, Norman Podhoretz strives to figure out why most Jews are liberal.

Ah, those clever Jews -- able to confound drooling morons at both ends of the political spectrum.

>>>Like insisting that everyone learn in grade school to say "Never Again" while ignoring the fact that Israel is now doing, effectively, the same thing to the Palestinians.

You are, effectively, the same thing as a goatfucker.

>>>Shouldn't you be watching Football?

I wish I could, but sadly, football is seldom played on Wednesday.

If you were a real American, you'd know that.

Nah, terrorism's a good word that (like "freedom," "morality" and many many others) is often misused. If we got rid of all such words, we'd have a deeply impoverished language.

Glenn in this thread has provided a clear, morally consistent definition, together with salient examples:

"Killing civilians either purposely or recklessly for political gain is wrong -- regardless of whether done by government-organized armies or individuals on suicide missions or whether it takes place in Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel or Gaza."

Works for me. The best approach is not to abolish the word, but rather to encourage its proper use, as Glenn does here.

>>>I have never-NEVER--addressed an individual on this forum with some filthy vulgarity

When Zepgirl said "Fuck you," it was vulgar.

When you suggested that people concerned about the media coverage don't care about the victims of this tragedy, it was obscene.

BDR: During Israel's assault on Gaza, Glenn was a passionate critic of Israel's actions, but he nevertheless made a point of saying that Hamas' attacks on Israel were (if memory serves) "objectionable and wrong." He took some heat for it, too.

GG: There is a lot of room for nuance between having "blinding affection" for Israel and seeing it as "just another country." One may have feel affection for Israel without necessarily being blinded by it, and disagreeing with you does not necessarily mean that a person is "blind." (Also, great post... We live in a country where "liberal" pundits regard aggressive war as "therapeutic," and yet it is only those fanatical Muslims who fail to respect the humanity of others...)