>>specific resolutions : SCR 237, 242, 252, 446, 452, 462 + others, most recently 1402
>
>Starting most recently with 1402, why is it that Israel is expected to follow the resolution while the Palestinians are not ?

In that case, why is Iraq expected to follow resolutions while Israel is not ?

>Ever notice how Israel doesn't respond until after the Palestinians start the violence again?

Have you considered the fact that Israel still hasn't stopped encroaching onto Palestinian territory, this is an ongoing thing. Tends to wind the Palestinians up a bit. If they had stayed where they were after 1967, still in violation of resolution 237, things would have been bad enough. But the expansion is still growing - the Israelis appear to be taking the non-enforcement of the resolutions is tacit agreement with what they are doing. Not suprisingly the Palestinians respond - not unlike the US over Iraq.

>
>Are you saying that you support suicide bombers?

This is where life starts to get difficult. In pressurising Saddam Hussein, I am expected to support British & American bombers dropping lots of bombs from a great height & killing tens, maybe hundreds, of thousands of innocent civilians. As smart as your bombs are, they still cause a large amount of "collateral damage". The stated aim of the first wave of bombing is to terrorise the Iraq people into submission, this will inevitably lead to innocent deaths. On the other hand, I am expected to condemn an individual making a stand by killing a few people.

I find both methods abhorrent.


>
>>the WMDs were developed in defiance of other international treaties, not UN resolutions
>What international treaties are you talking about? Please be specific.

I must give way to you on this one. There was some debate when Israel was first revealed to have nuclear weapons, I thought that the UN mandated that member states developing nuclear weapons should be signatories to one of international treaties on nuclear weapons, all I can find is a single reference to the debate, which concluded that it probably wasn't illegal. Thank you for getting me to look further.


>
>>the actions Israel takes are essentially terrorist actions - eg indiscriminate destroying of homes of family member related to terrorist suspects (also contravenes several international laws)
>
>You define that as terrorism? You are equating the destroying of homes with going into the middle of a marketplace and blowing up yourself and the civilians around you? And what internation laws does it contravene?

Imagine this situation, your brother, who does not live with you, goes out & commits a terrorist act - which you are personally opposed to - is it acceptable for your government to make a midnight call on your house, drag you & your family out at gunpoint & blow your house up, leaving you homeless. If they're in a really bad mood, they might even do the same to your neighbours houses as well. This is the type of action the Israeli government takes - they hold an entire family responsible for the actions of an individual.

The occupied territories of Palestine are covered by various Geneva protocols. These make collective punishments (such as the above situation) for acts of individuals illegal.

>
>>>How exactly are they suppressing the Kurds? Are you saying that the Turkish government is a terrorist organization?
>>
>>Use Google : "Turkey Kurds Suppressing"
>>it's not hard to find these things out.
>
>I don't know all the details about Kurds in Turkey, but I guess that neither do you. I will point out that the northern no-fly zone in Iraq, which has helped the Kurds set up their own state within Iraq, is run from bases in Turkey.
>
>And you did not answer my question: Are you saying that the Turkish government is a terrorist organization?

All depends on your point of view of terrorist. If you are taking the simplistic view of small groups of people doing nasty things to get there own way, then they are not a terrorist organisation. If you take a larger view of a large controlling group of people, holding a small minority of people in fear for there own live, then yes I would.

Isn't that the current aim of the US government in Iraq ? The stated aim of the first wave of bombing in Iraq is to
"Shock & Awe" - the idea is to "physically, emotionally & psychologically exhaust" the Iraqi's over a very short period
ie. to terrorise them. If one group uses tactics to instil fear & terror into another group, surely that is the definition of terrorist.

>
>>>What U.S. support of terrorism are you talking about?
>>
>>Just do a search on "School of the Americas" (SOA) and/or "Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation" (WHISC), I'm sure you'll find something.
>
>The U.S. has never supported terrorism and never will. You are blaming the U.S. for things out of its control. We did not train these people to be terrorists. It's like blaming the government because they trained a police officer who became corrupt.

I guess that's OK then. You train people in various techniques that violate human rights & democratric standards, but it's not your fault if they go out & use those techniques to kill people. Just as it's not your fault that Saddam Hussain gassed the Kurdish people, you only sold him the gas, it's not your responsibility if he uses it.


>>In addition, I could mention training of Al-Qaida, but they were freedom fighters for Afghanistan then, unfortunately they changed allegiance & became terrorists.
>
>Did the freedom fighters in Afghanistan deliberately target civilians, as the Palestinian terrorists do? Are you blaming the US for the fact that Al-Qaeda? As anti-American as your posts are, it would not surprise me.

Much of the early training of Al-Qaida was by the US with the aid of the UK, I wouldn't say we jointly share all responsibility, but at least part of it.

Should I point out here, that these freedom fighters that you supported in the 1980's, were the ones who got the Taliban into power in the first place, there is much more direct responsibility for that situation & the years of Afghan suffering, than for later Al-Qaida actions.

For all of your government's high ideals & all the good that it aims to do, it seems very short-sighted in it's policies. Many of them now appear to be backfiring at you. With a bit of forethought, they might find there are much better ways to achieve their aims, come out looking good & for the American people not to need to be constantly looking over their shoulders for who might be out to get them.

And you really shouldn't make the mistake about my views on American government policies for being anti-American. The mass of opinion in the US may slowly be drifting towards Bush & his policies, but according to this mornings news - there are still around 52% of American who have anti-American views, opposing the current situation.