I note a particular lack of mention given to Iran and Syria as countries supporting terrorists in Iraq and other places that may or may not be lumped in with Al Queda. I also notice the lack of other groups associated with Al Queda but are not of the 'same name'.
This whole thing reads very much like a dismissal of the problem. An idea occurred to me which seems obvious. Al Queda is the undeniably evil 'face' that we've given terrorism to avoid the knee jerk "they're freedom fighters" response. Europe will bend over backwards for those cocksuckers in Hamas or Hizballah (despite their clearly stated murderous intent), but if you label a terrorist group as an Al Queda affiliate as soon as they perform an attack, it stigmatizes them as 'untouchable' by ultra-liberals (or whatever label you want to give terrorist appeasers). It's marketing. -- Michael On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 8:57 PM, Andrei Kondrashev <adiab...@cs.com> wrote: > > http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/LA16Df02.html > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:310668 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
