> Anyways - in a lot of the more liberal editorials etc, there have been accusations that the US is to blame for the WTC attacks because of its past "foreign policies". But the policies in question are rarely mentioned. Besides the obvious one of supporting Israel (which I fully support)...

That's enough for this particular brand of extremist, who would like nothing better than for Israel and its supporters to be pushed into the sea(s). Of course, I'm of the line of thought that if you don't support Israel, and by that I *don't* mean support everything it does, then it you're deceived if you think you believe the Bible. Of course, those who make no pretense of believing the Bible have no problem with this. I would be surprised to learn that you don't believe the Bible. :-)

> ...what are these policies that have supposedly brought about this attack?

I haven't heard any others. Anyone else?

> It may be that some exist, but personally I feel these columnists are overemphasizing them to the point of ridicule, as if the US should take the sole blame for the attacks. I was arguing today with a friend about what the US response should be, and she again brought up the foreign policies of the US - I asked her to elaborate, give some concrete examples, and she couldn't.
> Does anyone here have any insight?

Either she's been duped by the liberal portion of the media*(who perhaps know what policy they refer to, but don't want to say lest they lose readership/viewership/whatevership, so they remain vague), or she herself knows what policy, but doesn't want to make herself look bad in your eyes.

*I use this phrase because I'm guessing that not all portions are liberal. Of course, there may be some in the liberal section who feel the same way about Israel as you do. I don't know which portion Ellie's in, but I'm sure she supports Israel.

> I am willing to be proved wrong, but not with only vague ramblings of foreign policy...
>
> Thanks,
>
> --jon

Nyper"Welcome! You sound like you might fit in."old