Do you have the links for these polls? I know that there are many polling bodies in the US and only a very few are impartial. If the LA Times runs a poll, it generally comes out the way the LA Times wants it to come out. Gallup is one of the very few that does decent polls and the most recent one of theirs that I can find (Sept 2003) said that only 43% of US citizens believe Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. That said, I haven't seen a recent poll from a respected company like Gallup, but I would doubt that most US Citizens today think that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11.

A person is a terrorist either because of their goals or because of their tactics. I can agree with you that some of the palestinian groups have non-terrorist goals (the creation of a Palestinian state), but they choose terrorist tactics and as such are terrorists. By calling them anything else, you condone (or at least dismiss) their tactics (you also fall close to saying the ends justify the means).

Just because new intelligence disputes a committee's finding doesn't automatically render the intelligence finding as invalid. Just because nothing could be proven in June doesn't mean that by December (the date on the article you quoted) new facts hadn't come to light.

No, the fact that they were in Iraq doesn't prove Hussein's support of them, but the washington times article that I referenced speaks of Iraqi officials travelling to the Sudan to train Al Quaeda.

Well, you opened this thread with the story of the bomb, then you stated on May 26th that one can conclude: So you therefore suggested that the story (which involves fewer than 20 people) leads to the conclusion that many Americans have a violent streak.

First, you're right, his grief won't go away. As I said in my post, it was wrong that this happened. We (neither you nor I) don't know this man personally and don't know his motivations. You suggest that 2 years means that grief has subsided and revenge is all that is left, but you don't know this person at all and make an assumption about him. I don't know him either, but I believe that it is possible grieve for a loss for more than 2 years. As I said before, this was a bad decision and his grief cannot justify his requests or actions in this matter. Nonetheless, it is still a human reaction and not all that surprising. Wanting revenge doesn't mean he is violent. Lashing out in pain and grief doesn't mean he's inheirently violent, but rather that the situation he was in made him make a violent decision. There is no justification for revenge, but human beings regardless of their country of origin pursue revenge all the time. This isn't about his being American, but rather about him being human.

Remember that the Iraq war wasn't because of 9/11. It was because of UN resolutions that were disregarded. It was because of Iraq's support of terrorism (not just Al Quaeda). And it was because of weapons that most of the world, including the UN, believed Saddam Hussein to have at the time the war started. If the UN didn't believe it, then were they just wasting their time trying to get inspectors back into the country? If they didn't believe, why the resolutions? In fact, at least one weapon has been found, the makings of others have been found and there is evidence that much was destroyed by Saddam Hussein's people or transported out of Iraq during the war. Millions of US Citizens supported the war in Iraq. Millions supported WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Korea, Desert Storm, etc. Others opposed these wars (all of them). Many other countries also supported all of these conflicts, does that make the citizens of all of these nations violent too? Supporting the war isn't about a violent streak, it is about supporting one's country and supporting the troops who are brothers, sisters, parents, friends, relatives, etc.

Every culture on this planet has violence, either in the present or the past. In fact, I'd be impressed if you could name 10 currently non-violent cultures (no crime, no violence of any sort). Most cities deal with murder, gangs, rapes, kidnapping, burglary, organized crimes, etc. Nonetheless, that wasn't your argument at first. Your argument was that from the article about the name on the bomb, you can draw the conclusion that many Americans have a violent streak. Your argument doesn't hold water without introducing additional evidence. So be it. All cultures has violence as part of its nature and I never stated that Americans didn't either, just that your argument doesn't stand on its own merit. A violent streak would suggest an excessive amount of violence and that I will disagree with. Certainly there are cases of excessive violence in our culture, just as there are in every culture. Those are the exceptions, not the rule. For every Charles Manson or Ted Bundy, there are thousands of US Citizens who will never commit a violent act.

A truly objective viewpoint would call it as they see it, both good and bad. Where's the good? Where's the realization that there is a broad spectrum in the United States (and the rest of the world), not just the side that you see reported in the media?

My problem with your post was that you took one article and drew a blanket conclusion. That suggests a predisposition towards a certain viewpoint. Perhaps that wasn't your intent. Perhaps all you read are news articles of the misdeeds of US Citizens. You didn't present your argument that way, however. So be it. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you probably aren't exposed to the good stories of US Citizens, but they are out there and they are the true spirit of this nation.

-- Jeff