<sigh>
The author of the piece, of course, was attempting to answer why 'Terrorists' have sprouted in the late 20th century as enemies.
That Obama might have expanded upon the Bush program of Israeli support et al is not actually relevant. You can continue to try OR at least drift further and further from the initial words, concepts and ideas, but it will not actually make it relevant to the piece.
Regard$,
--MJ
"Republicans hate Obama, but it's said one most hates those like oneself." -- Sheldon Richman
At 01:30 PM 2/16/2012, you wrote:
According to the worthy post starter and terrorist cite, its because
we support Israel.
Romney and Santorum would ramp that up, and that would be bad.
The fact Obama has ramped it up more than anyone yet, it just
irrelevant, and shalt not be spoken
On Feb 16, 10:00 am, studio <tl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 16, 8:07 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:> Mitt Romney's Superficial View of TerrorismPosted byMichael S. Rozeffon February 15, 2012 07:37 PM
> > There is no doubt that the terrorists we are talking about here (which are only a portion of all terrorists on earth) are violent, radical Islamic fundamentalists. But does that explain much? It does not explain why they have sprouted in the late 20th century as enemies. Why not earlier? They have had centuries to blossom. Why now? Their old enemies were in Europe.
>
> Why have they now chosen America as an enemy?
>
> That's actually a simple question to answer; they see liberalization,
> progress and modernization as a threat to their way of conservative
> beliefs.
> And they are correct, it is.
> But to that, I say, too bad.
> Going backwards is not an option, and never will be.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment