What does winning against al Qa’eda mean to you?

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Can you define what a win would be for either side?

In my -- ever -- humble opinion, that's a really good question. And, to me, there are (at least) two questions embedded in there:

(1) what does it mean “to win” from an analytical perspective?

and ...

(2) what does it mean “to win” from the perspective of the average American, the average citizen of an allied/NATO nation-state, or the average citizen of a non-aligned nation-state? The range of answers for all is likely to have some variation both intra- and inter-nationally.

What are the ‘right’ or ‘best’ metrics to assess winning against al Qa'eda?

Is the fact that the US has not been attacked since 2001 evidence that we are winning against al Qa’eda?

One of my favorite liberal arts PhD’s asserted yesterday in a speech he gave at an event held at the National Press Club in DC that Al Qa’eda’s influence and abilities to execute attacks have been significantly decreased from the eastern end of the Mediterranean through southeast Asia since 2007.

What would it mean to win against al Qa’eda for you? Usama bin Laden & Ayman al Zawahiri's dead bodies? What?

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

(1) what does it mean “to win” from an analytical perspective?

Even more basic, what is meant by al Qaeda? The organization or the popular movement, or both? Which al Qaeda are we fighting against?

Quote

(2) what does it mean “to win” from the perspective of the average American, the average citizen of an allied/NATO nation-state, or the average citizen of a non-aligned nation-state? The range of answers for all is likely to have some variation both intra- and inter-nationally.

A win would require the elimination of al Qaeda's desire to harm the USA, either by changing the hearts and minds of al Qaeda members or by completely eliminating al Qaeda without creating another enemy to take their place. The latter is extremely unlikely to happen or even be possible. The former isn't likely to happen without the USA taking actions that coincide with al Qaeda's primary objectives, creating a win-win scenario (sunken costs notwithstanding).

Quote

What are the ‘right’ or ‘best’ metrics to assess winning against al Qa'eda?

Are there still members of al Qaeda that wish to do harm to the USA? If yes, the USA have not won.

Quote

Is the fact that the US has not been attacked since 2001 evidence that we are winning against al Qa’eda?

No. That would require incorrectly assuming that al Qaeda's goal is to carry out further attacks on American soil. Such attacks are merely tactics in their war against the USA, not a primary objective.

Quote

What would it mean to win against al Qa’eda for you? Usama bin Laden & Ayman al Zawahiri's dead bodies? What?

When no al Qaeda members wish to do harm to the USA, the USA will have won. Simply killing al Qaeda leaders won't accomplish that. It might have a decade or two ago, but that time is long gone. Now, the leaders would be replaced and the organization and movement would move on.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[billvon 3,120]

The day that we don't talk about Al Quaeda constantly, when we don't see them as our biggest threat, when we don't change our strategies to deal with them (beyond the changes needed to meet the threat of any random terrorist group), when we don't use them as justification for wars, erosions of liberty and huge expenditures, when we don't post polls about them on DZ.com, when we basically stop caring about what they do - that will be the day they lose.

[StreetScooby 5]

This is pretty simple. This issue will be resolved when:

1) When those 60 year old Saudi princess who are never going to be King and who are funding the terrorism have been decapitated,
2) When the first Southern Baptist church opens in Saudi Arabia.

Things will definitely be for the better, then.

We are all engines of karma

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

2) When the first Southern Baptist church opens in Saudi Arabia.

Things will definitely be for the better, then.

Interesting & perhaps novel metric. I like that.
/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[quade 4]

The only way either side "wins" is by the complete annihilation of the other. As long as one side still has an ounce of fight left in them, they will continue. Further, both sides seem to "need" the fight to give their people something to rally around and in the case of the US, it provides jobs in the military industrial complex.

The metric for the US is the management of how often US lives are lost on American soil, since the US seems more than willing to kill as many AQ members as they can find with little regard for the amount of collateral damage to civilian populations. That's in large part to the way AQ operates and hides itself within civilian populations and uses them as meat shields. So, there's more than enough blame to go around on that score.

The metric for the US would be an extremely long term one and can't be looked at in terms of quarters, years or even decades without an attack since AQ has proven it's more than willing to wait decades to pull off a major terrorist attack. I for one do not see the eight years since 9/11 as proof of anything in terms of victory over AQ.

I think a sub-set of "win" for AQ would be to see Israel rolled back as far as possible, including its complete elimination. I do not believe for a second that would be the end of it.

Quote

What does it mean “to win” from the perspective of the average American . . . ?

Honestly, I don't know. I actually think most Americans are "happy" to know we're making an "effort" and continue to "support" it, but I really don't think most of them give it much thought toward it as long as buildings are not being blown up today. I think the vast majority are too busy watching "American Idol" or any one of a number of other diverting pieces of entertainment.

I think American is caught somewhere between the Turn Off Your Television speech from Network and the "War is Peace" section section of 1984 while factions are being influenced by "Lonesome Rhodes" from A Face in the Crowd.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

The only way either side "wins" is by the complete annihilation of the other.

So you too have recognized that there are no shared interests in this issue. That is the crux of this issue.

Are you a US citizen?
Are you proud to be a US citizen?

We are all engines of karma

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

The only way either side "wins" is by the complete annihilation of the other.

So you too have recognized that there are no shared interests in this issue. That is the crux of this issue.

Are you a US citizen?
Are you proud to be a US citizen?

Did you read the entire original post or just the subject line?

The thread is specifically about the US.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

The thread is specifically about the US.

Although I have no hesitancy to ask pointedly American-directed question, as the OP I have some level of authority on what I originally wrote & intended, if nothing else (unless your psychic powers are working these days? ) ... otoh, to where & what topics any thread goes in tangents is totally out of my control.

Quote

(2) what does it mean “to win” from the perspective of the average American, the average citizen of an allied/NATO nation-state, or the average citizen of a non-aligned nation-state? The range of answers for all is likely to have some variation both intra- and inter-nationally.

What one might infer from that ... & would be accurate in this case ... is that imo, “winning” against al Qa’eda is not something that is solely dependent on one nation-state. Imo, the US alone cannot singly defeat al Qa’eda. You and others might disagree. Central al Qa’eda, i.e., the estimated 300-500 irreconcilable individuals in NW Pakistan most closely affiliated with UBL and al Zawahiri, are part of a much larger decentralized, transnational network.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

The only way either side "wins" is by the complete annihilation of the other.

On what do you base that or how did you come to that conclusion?

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[jcd11235 0]

Marg, what does winning against al Qaeda mean to you?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Can you define what a win would be for either side?

Win for AQ - western civilization comes to an end, or at least stops interfering outside its own borders. Very unlikely based on 2500 years of history.

Win for US and its allies: All AQ members go home and rear livestock or live off their oil royalties. Very unlikely based on human nature.

I'm more likely to be the first man on Mars than either side "wins".

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Marg, what does winning against al Qaeda mean to you?

Analytically, reducing their capability, reducing the motivation of tacit and explicit supporters (i.e., effective deterrence), and reducing the vulnerability of US and allies (physical, psychological, and financial) to the point at which al Qa’eda is no longer a strategic threat. Threat = F[C, M, V].

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[shropshire 0]

One could also try to reduce their reason to exist. Not, as has been tried way too often in the past, to try to create a duplicate of America in their lands but rather to assist the population to advance and improve on their terms.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

Marg, what does winning against al Qaeda mean to you?

Analytically, reducing their capability, reducing the motivation of tacit and explicit supporters (i.e., effective deterrence), and reducing the vulnerability of US and allies (physical, psychological, and financial) to the point at which al Qa’eda is no longer a strategic threat. Threat = F[C, M, V].

/Marg

Thanks for the concise reply.

I generally agree, with the caveat that reducing al Qaeda's motivation will require the USA to take steps that coincide with the overall objectives and goal of al Qaeda, producing a win-win (again, sunken costs notwithstanding).

Unfortunately, I do not believe the USA will take such steps, making USA defeat and/or a protracted stalemate nearly inevitable. Our leadership (civilian and military) does not seem to have learned well the lessons of history.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

One could also try to reduce their reason to exist. Not, as has been tried way too often in the past, to try to create a duplicate of America in their lands but rather to assist the population to advance and improve on their terms.

Ironically, that's what the Soviet Union was trying to do in the 80's. We enabled the mujahideen (i.e. terrorists) to fight against that effort. We're now dealing with the blowback.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Marg, what does winning against al Qaeda mean to you?

Analytically, reducing their capability, reducing the motivation of tacit and explicit supporters (i.e., effective deterrence), and reducing the vulnerability of US and allies (physical, psychological, and financial) to the point at which al Qa’eda is no longer a strategic threat. Threat = F[C, M, V].

I generally agree, with the caveat that reducing al Qaeda's motivation will require the USA to take steps that coincide with the overall objectives and goal of al Qaeda, producing a win-win (again, sunken costs notwithstanding).

As a clarification, nothing in my response cited above is inherently in concurrence or implied by your caveat.

Al Qa'eda's objectives and methods are anathematic to me and in direct opposition to liberal societies (& that’s “liberal” in the Enlightenment meaning not that of late 20th/early 21st American politics).

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

One could also try to reduce their reason to exist. Not, as has been tried way too often in the past, to try to create a duplicate of America in their lands but rather to assist the population to advance and improve on their terms.

Ironically, that's what the Soviet Union was trying to do in the 80's.

Ummm ... the Soviet Union relied on conventional military strategies and tactics. It's a tremendous over-simplication (to put it diplomatically) to compare the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan to international development or reconstruction or to compare the Afghanistan resistance in the late 1970s to al Qa'eda, nevermind the vastly different balance of power internationally, i.e., there is no more USSR. While this might not apply to all, I'm confident that you recognize that al Qa'eda does not equal the Taliban.

/Marh

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

As a clarification, nothing in my response cited above is inherently in concurrence or implied by your caveat.

That would indicate (to me) that we disagree about al Qaeda's motivations.

Quote

Al Qa'eda's objectives and methods are anathematic to me and in direct opposition to liberal societies (& that’s “liberal” in the Enlightenment meaning not that of late 20th/early 21st American politics).

Agreed. I believe US foreign policy, post WWII, generally is, also.

How many innocent civilians in Afghanistan have been killed due to military actions of the USA? Are those lives somehow inferior to the innocents who died in the WTC attacks? In my opinion, they are not.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

One could also try to reduce their reason to exist.

I'm of the opinion, others may disagree, that the core of al Qa'eda (300-500 individuals in NW Pakistan) are irreconciable. They need to be removed from society, which includes capture and detention.

What you suggest is part of the reducing motivation of tacit and explicit supporters. Historically, it's worked with other non-state actors, including but not limited to Provisional IRA.

Quote

Not, as has been tried way too often in the past, to try to create a duplicate of America in their lands but rather to assist the population to advance and improve on their terms.

At this point, there's not anyone I can identify in the military, DoD, the USG, or NATO whose goal is to create a duplicate of America, which is not to say that there have not been some glaring attempts in the past. E.g., trying to implement and enforce a direct adaptation of Maryland's traffic code in Baghdad in 2004-2006. Really.

The overwhelming thrust of strategy (US OEF-Afghanistan and NATO ISAF) today is focused on counterinsurgency, which prioritizes the population and a population-centric approach, i.e., what is sometimes called "Clear [insurgents], hold [make an area secure and stable], and build [reconstruction]." How strategy translates operationally and tactically to individual deployed soldiers and Marines on the ground may be something else.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

That would indicate (to me) that we disagree about al Qaeda's motivations.

What do you think are al Qa'eda's motivations and goals? And on what do you base those conclusions? Primary documents?

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

That would indicate (to me) that we disagree about al Qaeda's motivations.

What do you think are al Qa'eda's motivations and goals? And on what do you base those conclusions? Primary documents?

/Marg

I believe the primary goal of al Qaeda is to motivate the USA towards a just foreign policy, one that promotes human rights over capitalist interests wherever the two conflict. They want a US foreign policy that doesn't unfairly support Israel over the rights of Palestinians. They want a US foreign policy that does not justify killing civilians by the USA and their allies while hypocritically denouncing civilian US casualties as victims of terrorism.

From an October 2001 interview with Osama Bin Laden, by Tayseer Alouni:

BIN LADEN: This battle is not between al Qaeda and the U.S. This is a battle of Muslims against the global crusaders. In the past when al Qaeda fought with the mujahedeen, we were told, "Wow, can you defeat the Soviet Union?" The Soviet Union scared the whole world then. NATO used to tremble of fear of the Soviet Union. Where is that power now? We barely remember it. It broke down into many small states and Russia remained.
…

Q: How about the killing of innocent civilians?

BIN LADEN: The killing of innocent civilians, as America and some intellectuals claim, is really very strange talk. Who said that our children and civilians are not innocent and that shedding their blood is justified? That it is lesser in degree? When we kill their innocents, the entire world from east to west screams at us, and America rallies its allies, agents, and the sons of its agents. Who said that our blood is not blood, but theirs is? Who made this pronouncement? Who has been getting killed in our countries for decades? More than 1 million children, more than 1 million children died in Iraq and others are still dying. Why do we not hear someone screaming or condemning, or even someone's words of consolation or condolence?
…

BIN LADEN: The men that God helped [attack, on September 11] did not intend to kill babies; they intended to destroy the strongest military power in the world, to attack the Pentagon that houses more than 64,000 employees, a military center that houses the strength and the military intelligence.

Q: How about the twin towers?

BIN LADEN: The towers are an economic power and not a children's school. Those that were there are men that supported the biggest economic power in the world. They have to review their books. We will do as they do. If they kill our women and our innocent people, we will kill their women and their innocent people until they stop.
…

BIN LADEN: We swore that America wouldn't live in security until we live it truly in Palestine. This showed the reality of America, which puts Israel's interest above its own people's interest. America won't get out of this crisis until it gets out of the Arabian Peninsula, and until it stops its support of Israel.

Like most everyone else, I've heard the rhetoric about al Qaeda attacking the USA because they despise our freedoms. Since actions have been inconsistent with such rhetorical accusations, I've been left with no choice but to dismiss the rhetoric as propaganda. Instead, I've chosen to entertain the possibility that the leaders of al Qaeda have acted, in large part, rationally. It is while entertaining that possibility that I've seen the most probable and consistent cause and effect relationships.

From the transcript of a Bin Laden tape from November 1, 2004:

Before I begin, I say to you that security is an indispensable pillar of human life and that free men do not forfeit their security, contrary to Bush's claim that we hate freedom. If so, then let him explain to us why we don't strike for example – Sweden? And we know that freedom-haters don't possess defiant spirits like those of the 19 – may Allah have mercy on them.

No, we fight because we are free men who don't sleep under oppression. We want to restore freedom to our nation, just as you lay waste to our nation. So shall we lay waste to yours.

No-one except a dumb thief plays with the security of others and then makes himself believe he will be secure. Whereas thinking people, when disaster strikes, make it their priority to look for its causes, in order to prevent it happening again.

But I am amazed at you. Even though we are in the fourth year after the events of September 11th, Bush is still engaged in distortion, deception and hiding from you the real causes. And thus, the reasons are still there for a repeat of what occurred.

So I shall talk to you about the story behind those events and shall tell you truthfully about the moments in which the decision was taken, for you to consider.

I say to you, Allah knows that it had never occurred to us to strike the towers. But after it became unbearable and we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the American/Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind.

The events that affected my soul in a direct way started in 1982 when America permitted the Israelis to invade Lebanon and the American Sixth Fleet helped them in that. This bombardment began and many were killed and injured and others were terrorized and displaced.

I couldn't forget those moving scenes, blood and severed limbs, women and children sprawled everywhere. Houses destroyed along with their occupants and high rises demolished over their residents, rockets raining down on our home without mercy.
…

So I say to you, over 15 000 of our people have been killed and tens of thousands injured, while more than a thousand of you have been killed and more than 10 000 injured. And Bush's hands are stained with the blood of all those killed from both sides, all for the sake of oil and keeping their private companies in business.

Be aware that it is the nation who punishes the weak man when he causes the killing of one of its citizens for money, while letting the powerful one get off, when he causes the killing of more than 1000 of its sons, also for money.

And the same goes for your allies in Palestine. They terrorize the women and children, and kill and capture the men as they lie sleeping with their families on the mattresses, that you may recall that for every action, there is a reaction.

So, I return the question to you:

What do you think are al Qaeda's motivations and goals? And on what do you base those conclusions?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[PLFXpert 0]

I agree, but...

this morning I was frolicking on the beach--as usual--with my hunny and my dog. I felt something bite the back of my neck and it hurt! I asked Bill if he saw a bug on me, and he did not. Soon after, a bug was nearly on my eyeball--then my sunglasses. I took off my sunglasses and did not see him. Finally we found it--a big fire ant--and flicked him to the sand.

What an annoying bug. He bit me on my neck and it hurt.

I agree, however, otherwise I would not have given that ant the time of day and simply ignored him.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

I believe the primary goal of al Qaeda is to motivate the USA towards a just foreign policy, one that promotes human rights over capitalist interests wherever the two conflict. They want a US foreign policy that doesn't unfairly support Israel over the rights of Palestinians. They want a US foreign policy that does not justify killing civilians by the USA and their allies while hypocritically denouncing civilian US casualties as victims of terrorism.

Per Usama bin Laden’s fatwas “Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places,” (1996) and “International Fatwa” (1998), al Qa’eda’s strategic goals are to gain territory for a base to export conflict; to provoke a clash between Muslims and non-Muslims; to force United States forces to withdraw from Muslim lands; to eliminate of US and western support for Israel, both a long-standing and more recently reiterated goal, and to establish a new caliphate with Sharia governance.

Imposition of a new Muslim caliphate with Shari’a based legal system entails eliminating all civil liberties as well as most basic human rights for women. The Salafi ideology is the desire to establish and govern based solely on the Quran and Sunna. Specific goals include the rejection of pluralism and secular governance, the legitimization of violence including against Muslims, and the need for revolutionary transformation to Islamic fundamentalism, for more/primary docs see the Militant Ideology Atlas.

The radical Islamists/global Salafists want to regress all the way back to a twisted version of 7th century CE caliphate. “Twisted” not as a normative judgement but in recognition of the selective exceptionalism, i.e., cell/sat phones, RPGs, AK-47s, internet marketing – okay; everything else that *they* don’t want – not okay.

USB also recognizes the importance of oil:

“The presence of the USA Crusader military forces on land, sea and air of the states of the Islamic Gulf is the greatest danger threatening the largest oil reserve in the world”

and explicitly calls on Jihadis to *not* destroy oil infrastructure:

“I would like here to alert my brothers, the Mujahideen, the sons of the nation, to protect this (oil) wealth and not to include it in the battle as it is a great Islamic wealth and a large economical power essential for the soon to be established Islamic state.”

To try to conceive of al Qa'eda as being purely ideological and divorced from baser or more traditional incentives is overly idealistic (nevermind the 72-virgins incentivization). E.g., it's difficult to argue that he's any less interested in oil than other states.


Al Qa’eda’s operational goals and methods to achieve those aims include but are not limited to:

Terrorism against civilians throughout the world per from the 1998 fatwa:

“The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it ….

“We -- with God's help -- call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson.”

Economic collapse of the US and western economy, reiterated from more recently.

Acquisition and use of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, e.g., discussion of how to acquire nuclear materials here:

“Acquiring weapons [of mass destruction] for the defense of Muslims is a religious duty. If I have indeed acquired these weapons [nuclear, biological, chemical], then I thank God for enabling me to do so.” – UBL, Jamal Isma’il, December 1998

“We have the right to kill four million Americans, two million of them children.” – Abu Ghaith, “Why We Fight America,” 2002

“If a bomb was dropped on them that would annihilate 10 million and burn their lands … this is permissible.” – Sheihk Nasir bin Hamid al-Fahd, “A Treatise on the Legal Status of Using Weapons of Mass Destruction Against Infidels,” 2003

“If those engaged in jihad establish that the evil of the infidels can be repelled only by attacking them with weapons of mass destruction, they may be used even if they annihilate all the infidels.” – Mustafa Setmariam Nasar (a.k.a. Abu Mus’ab al-Suri)

That pretty well illustrates, at least for me, that human rights aren't at the forefront of al Qa'eda's goals. Al-Suri's writing skirt a very fine line just to side of advocating genocide against anyone who he deems an infidel.

Among the best open-sources to understand the goals and motives of al Qa’eda and the global Salafists are 3 short books that contain translations of the primary documents, many predating 9-11:
Jihadists’ strategy: The Canons of Jihad,
Strategy and Operational views: The Terrorist Perspectives Project, and
Abu Mus’ab al-Suri’s Jihad Manifesto: A Terrorist’s Call to Global Jihad He’s the Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and George Mason of global Salafism all rolled up into one vitriolic human.

Al Qa’eda are *not* nationalist-separatist terrorists. They’re not freedom-fighters sticking up for the common man, whether he is ‘brown, black, or yellow.’ They certainly don’t care about the common woman: “pious female companions …; they should adopt the life style (Seerah)” (basically give up all autonomy of personhood – nerdgirl). Trying to portray them as freedom fighters, as the second quoted sleection in your post does, disregards much. That excerpt that you selected to illustrate your view of al Qa’eda’s goals also favorably characterizes the 19 hijackers of 9-11: “freedom-haters don't possess defiant spirits like those of the 19.” Reading that excerpt requires some critical analysis. Don’t get me wrong: it’s an incredibly interesting excerpt! More importantly: to what audience do you think it’s directed? It’s not a basic strategy statement, it’s political rhetoric to be heard by tacit and explicit supporters, predominantly in the Muslim world.

I could write and cite lots more … but suspect most have stopped reading.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[1969912 0]

Quote

I believe the primary goal of al Qaeda is to motivate the USA towards a just foreign policy, one that promotes human rights over capitalist interests wherever the two conflict. They want a US foreign policy that doesn't unfairly support Israel over the rights of Palestinians. They want a US foreign policy that does not justify killing civilians by the USA and their allies while hypocritically denouncing civilian US casualties as victims of terrorism.....

Wanna buy some acetone and H2O2?

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG