Uh oh....NOT good. Bhutto Assasinated

[sirs]

you did say this:

That can't be said of messers Iran, Syria, or Saddam Iraq.

Which is not true. It implies that those nations supported al-Qaeda and militant Islam when in fact they were targets as well, with the exception of Iran who's quite different from the other two in nature and has no reason to support al-Qaeda.

No, it implies that they support militant Islam and most, if not all, of its offshoots, incl AlQeada, Hamas, Hesbollah, etc.  Not that they had to deal with their own occasional domestic issues & incursions by their version of "terroists", which your article doesn't appear to refute

[_JS]

you did say this:

That can't be said of messers Iran, Syria, or Saddam Iraq.

Which is not true. It implies that those nations supported al-Qaeda and militant Islam when in fact they were targets as well, with the exception of Iran who's quite different from the other two in nature and has no reason to support al-Qaeda.

No, it implies that they support militant Islam and most, if not all, of its offshoots, incl AlQeada, Hamas, Hesbollah, etc.  Not that they had to deal with their own occasional domestic issues & incursions by their version of "terroists", which your article doesn't appear to refute

Hamas and Hezbollah are political militant groups primarily confined to Israel and Lebanon. Moreover, Hezbollah is predominantly Shi'ite and represents the poor and oppressed Shia of Southern Lebanon. While they support an Iranian style Shia Theocratic Republic, they do not wish to impose one on Lebanon but instead call for an election once all colonial powers are removed from the country and once the Phalange have been tried and punished for the massacres committed against both Muslims and Christians.

It should be noted that Hezbollah is not universally seen as a terrorist organization in the international community. Yes, Iran supports Hezbollah as it supports many Shia movements in the world. Hezbollah directly believes in the principles of the Iranian revolution and theological principles of the Iranian clerics as well.

Now where and when have Syria, Iran, and Hussein's Iraq supported al-Qaeda?

By the way, saying that the Muslim Brotherhood was a "domestic issue" is interesting. I would suggest reading something on Sayyid Qutb, the founder of Qutbism. He advocated violence to bring about the proper Islamic states free of apostates and infidels. He was a major influence on people like Osama bin Laden (remember him?) and other notable Islamic militants. He was also a leading intellectual in the Muslim Brotherhood which still has political and terrorist ties in nearly all Middle Eastern nations today. It is also a major component of al-Qaeda.

It is a capital offense to be a member of the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria. Hamas was founded by a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and is considered a wing of that organization. The Islamic Action Front, a Brotherhood political party, has the most seats in Jordan's Parliament. Iran has no Brotherhood groups of any prominence due to the Sunni nature of the group. The Brotherhood is the major political group for the Sunni in Iraq after the fall of Hussein in 2003 and they are the primary non-secular party for the Kurds (KIU). The Brotherhood has the largest political party in Bahrain (Al-Menbar). They are prominent in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. In Kuwait they have fought hard to prevent women from voting amongst other societal reforms. They have huge followings in Turkey and Egypt where they fill many prisons.

The Muslim Brotherhood also operates in Algeria, Sudan, Tunisia, Somalia, Libya, and the Maldives.

They are probably most famous for their possible role in the attempted murder of Gamel Abdul Nasser and Syrian President Assad.

[sirs]

you did say this:

That can't be said of messers Iran, Syria, or Saddam Iraq.

Which is not true. It implies that those nations supported al-Qaeda and militant Islam when in fact they were targets as well, with the exception of Iran who's quite different from the other two in nature and has no reason to support al-Qaeda.

No, it implies that they support militant Islam and most, if not all, of its offshoots, incl AlQeada, Hamas, Hesbollah, etc.  Not that they had to deal with their own occasional domestic issues & incursions by their version of "terrorists", which your article doesn't appear to refute

Hamas and Hezbollah are political militant groups primarily confined to Israel and Lebanon. Moreover, Hezbollah is predominantly Shi'ite and represents the poor and oppressed Shia of Southern Lebanon. While they support an Iranian style Shia Theocratic Republic......

Thank you for that concession.  However they wish to advocate, if not literally facilitate such, they are an offshoot of Militant Islam.  That IS the point I was making, and your effort to apply different shades of that point, doesn't refute the point.  I realize there are both Shiite and Suuni factions, who really don't like each other, and it's been going on for quite a while.  But what hasn't been going on, except over the last couple of decades is the rise in Islamofascism & the movement of militant Islam, as embodied by AlQeada, where Islamic law is to rule everyone, and one is either to convert, be subjugated, or die.  Those are the only options to those folks.  And messers Syria, Iran, Taliban's Afghanistan, and Saddam's Iraq were not having any problem with that agenda, and frequently supported such efforts with either $, logistics, training sites, and/or equipment.  That doesn't mean that Suuni didn't take pot shots at Shiites, and vice versa.  It means that when you stop focusing on the trees, you can actually see the forest.  In this case, their consistent support of militant Islamic terrorist activities, thru-out the globe 

[_JS]

But what hasn't been going on, except over the last couple of decades is the rise in Islamofascism & the movement of militant Islam, as embodied by AlQeada, where Islamic law is to rule everyone, and one is either to convert, be subjugated, or die.

Read about Qutb. He wrote about exactly that as early as the 40's. The Muslim Brotherhood preached exactly that in the 60's.

And messers Syria, Iran, Taliban's Afghanistan, and Saddam's Iraq were not having any problem with that agenda, and frequently supported such efforts with either $, logistics, training sites, and/or equipment.

Proof? It seems to me that Syria had a lot of problems with it, to the point of outlawing a party that supported it. Saddam did the same. Hezbollah does not support that agenda (which I explained above but you chose not to quote).

You lump them all into one category to avoid having to understand anything about what really goes on in the Middle East. That's not seeing the forest for the trees, that's just excusing ignorance.

[Xavier_Onassis]

There is no relationship between the Muslim Brotherhood and the Syrian Baathists. Hezbollah is also unrelated. The only thing that all have in common is they do not want to be dominated by the US or Israel.

[sirs]

Js --> Look at that Tree, over to the left

Sirs --> Look at that Forest