Both the Sudan and Israel governments are following tactics that are bordering on genocide. I find it difficult to understand why Bush talks with one rebel group but not the other.
What is Bush's defenition of a terrorist dependant upon?
2006-07-29 00:45:43 · 19 answers · asked by paul1953uk 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The israelis are not only attacking Lebanon they are also attacking Hamas which is still part of the state of Isreal and Bush does not want to speak to the democratically elected Hamas representatives.
2006-07-29 01:06:38 · update #1
We call this double standards. He never used this word when referring to the IRA, so some racism, too, may be.
2006-07-29 02:16:32 · answer #1 · answered by philip y 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your assumptions that President Bush regards Israel as a terrorist state is an exaggeration ... nor is Israel engaging in any kind of genocide. If you might read any part of Israel army reports regarding the numbers of civilian and terrorist dead after an operation, you will find that the terrorists dead are mingled with citizens. Apparently this solves two problems for the terrorists: (1) Terrorists build their fighting compounds in and around civilian enclaves for purely political reasons, i.e. when the terrorists are attacked (by Israel or US) a number of civilians are killed along side soldiers. This is used immediately, to draw international attention to the deaths of civilians and away from the deaths of terrorists who were intermingled with the civilians...all which the UN community uses to cry "foul" on Israel.
It is truly an elementary exercise on behalf of the palestinians, hezbollah and all relative groups in their eternal struggles against the state of Israel and the U.S.
Terrorists use their media for this sole purpose all the time now. Reading many newspapers, journals and periodicals I see this simple example being used over and over again by all terrorists organizations. It is an easy event to stage. This is why I am amused by terrorist newspapers and TV networks who, each day, come up with the same old, contrived charges against Israel and the US.
Of course, I believe its also easy to understand (especially if you view photos and news reels of some of the fighting) that terrorists employ their own wives, adolescent sons and daughters to stay near them during the fighting. This is why "families" are reported being killed after Israel and US bombing missions are completed against strongholds.
In fact, this is one reason that US soldiers are being charged with "crimes" when terrorists are killed along with their family and/or other civilians they hide behind during skirmishes.
I live in hope for our future.
2006-08-03 06:44:00 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The difference is not in definition, it's in political affiliation. Sudan was an internal conflict, a civil war. Hezbollah conducts attacks on a separate sovereign nation. The comparison you want to make is there... with US communication between itself and the government of Lebanon.
2006-07-29 00:50:17 · answer #3 · answered by claymore 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
exciting question. i think of multiple the medical advances could have come from Europe besides on account that most of the U. S. are descended from eu colonists. in line with risk the concepts does no longer have handed off as rapidly however on account that Europe exchange into economically crippled after the 1st international conflict. usa's intervention interior the wars and its advocacy for self determination very much helped velocity up the efforts to look after peace in Europe. even with the undeniable fact that different than that i do no longer think of the international could be in a lots worse state than that's on the 2d. Human rights circulate could have went on regardless and massive Britain especially exchange right into a huge hotspot for Asian and African immigration. surely the united kingdom is a miles extra multicultural society as we communicate than the U. S..
2016-11-03 06:13:25 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Fear! I think the world is still guilty form the killings of the Jews during Hitler times. What is happening in the Middle East IS wrong? They should be a cease fire at all cost unconditionally. And all parties have to be evolved!! Including Hezbollah.
2006-08-01 21:58:21 · answer #5 · answered by akbishop55 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The same boring answers Bush is in the pocket of the Jews, oil etc,
wake up people America and others are fighting evil no matter how you like to dress it up
2006-08-01 23:29:59 · answer #6 · answered by jagkes 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is because Rebel leader Minni Minnawi has agreed to cease fire. When the terrorist Sheik Hassan Nasrallah agrees to a cease fire then he might get an audience too.
2006-07-29 00:53:52 · answer #7 · answered by The Oregon Kid 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Cause they'll shoot him on sight. To fundamentalists who've always hated America and Israel, the head of the American president is THE ultimate trophy.
2006-07-30 23:55:04 · answer #8 · answered by Shining Star 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
bush is being conroled by rich jews and israel thats why no matter what the conflict they will always be against the muslim side even though they are right
2006-07-29 00:48:49 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No standard.They have been meeting Saddam for their interest.They are the biggest traitors and be shifted ti Gitmo.
2006-08-02 18:33:15 · answer #10 · answered by khan a 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋