jemeinc said:
Fair and decent points. I believe it is a fundamental responsibility of citizens/voters to research their candidates thoroughly, even if there is some stuff you don't enjoy reading (ie cognitive dissonance).
As for your point about terrorist funding, I would point out (somewhat rhetorically):
- that the definition of "terrorist" is somewhat in the eye of the beholder. One man's "freedom fighter" is another man's terrorist.
- Since terrorism is really a tactic and one closely intertwined with guerilla-warfare, any people, in uniform or otherwise, on either side, can be seen as "terrorists". People fund, train and equip both. Both think what they are doing is "right" and "justified".
- terrorism, as we are discussing it, is often a reactionary and desperate tactic. Used, most notably, against Isreal and lately the US, two well-funded and militarily-superior nations who are considered "interlopers". When you discuss solutions to terrorism, I feel this should be a consideration. BTW, this often has nothing to do with the "average" citizen of any side.
- it is common in the Arab and/or Islamic world, to fund Islamic causes, including armed-resistance or sacrifice in the name of Islam. In Saddam's case, as ruler of a relatively unpopular secular country, it does not hurt to curry favor.
- the US (and other countries) have supplied "freedom fighters" with money, supplies, weapons and logistics (ie Contras) that have often been put to questionable ends. We supply these same things to many governments whose tactics/policy either support or are terrorist in nature.
- Saudi Arabia and Iran are bigger sponsors of terrorists. No action was taken, even if the former had a more concrete link to 9/11 (nationalities of highjackers, Bin Laden money).
This has all been in the interest of fairness...
