Are there People Intentionally trying to Sabotage Peace in the Middle East?

I think it's radicals in a lot of groups who consistently and persistently attempt to derail any peace process in that area of the world. Determining why radicals do anything is nigh to impossible and no matter how how those of us with any measure of true logic try to dissect their "reasoning" is, in my opinion, likely ultimately impossible.. Well, except that they want what they want, no matter the cost and think that anyone else with a differing desire is completely wrong.

I still believe, as I have for 35 or more years, that Jerusalem should be a neutral city - and everyone should be able to visit that city without fear of harm... Muslim, Jew, and Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Agnostic, Atheist, Pagan, and everything in between should be able to visit without thinking they might be blown up - by anyone.

There are far too many crazies in this world who believe that their way is the only way - and are willing to do anything to get their way.

I think so, though I think we underestimate the strength of fanatical fundamentalist religion and how pervasive it is in other cultures. We are not like that in the west, not any more, with the US being the most religious of western nations, but still technically secular. We forget how ingrained into the culture and the identity of these people, their religious beliefs and the things they hold sacred really are.

Those who perpetrate the acts mentioned above, are all too aware of what it is they are doing and what the consequences of those actions are likely to be.

I disagree. It happens here in the United States, too. Also, those who perpetrate the violence and work to derail peace are fully aware of what they are doing. It's not done indiscriminately.

I think it is both and the fanatics are easily used.

Its called the CIA and MOSSAD..the guy they used is the patsy...he will be blamed for it all..and the christians and muslims will fight over it..Oswald..Sirhan Sirhan..James Earl Ray..McViegh..Bin Laden..all CIA and MOSSAD tools !

Its obvious someone is doing their best to promote unrest. Why else would radical groups be aided? I think its setting the stage for a major war - the health of the state.

Yes.....those that hate america.

Yes, the radicals who are attacking American, British and German embassies.

Nobody has done anything severe enough to legitimize these attacks. They're outraged over a youTube video, over a recent demonstration in Munich against a planned center for Islamic studies, over the fact that Merkel honored the Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard at an award ceremony two years ago... do we really give a damn?

I mean, do we really have to pretend that these people act and react in a rational and predictable fashion? Do we seriously have to apologize for newspaper cartoons, peaceful protests and youTube videos?

They will always find a reason to hate everything that isn't Islam. They're like Jerry Falwell, who suffered fits of rage because Tinky-Winky, the purple teletubbie, set off his gaydar. Only that Falwell didn't set a film studio on fire, because in Western countries, even the craziest of the batsh*t crazy lunatics know that this is an utterly disproportionate and ethically wrong response.

Probably.

Yes................and the persons initials are Barack Hussein Obama

What could he possibly have to gain? - it could cost him the election.

I honestly don't know JMCC, but things just are not adding up

I think it is more likely to be elements of the military industrial complex... They really hate it when somebody says the words "defense cuts"...

It began long before the cuts were even discussed. I can kinda understand why Bush went into Iraq, the pressure for him to do something was enormous back then. But why did we continue any involvement in the middle east?

Especially Libya for instance
IIn December 2003. Muammar el-Qaddafi stunned the world and agreed to dismantle Libya's nuclear weapons program. Libya would "regain a secure and respected place" in the world, President Bush said. Western leaders met personally with their unlikely bedfellow in subsequent years.

The United States normalized relations. Britain hailed its "new relationship." France signed a $16 billion nuclear reactor trade deal. Qaddafi was harvesting the fruit of de-nuclearization.

What do we do at the first opportunity?....ATTACK!...WTF!

We attacked a sovereign nation while hiding under the skirts of the UN
Egypt... Afghanistan...who's next Syria or Iran?

I suspect neither for the time being - everybody is sick to the hind teeth with war,

If there were two things that will lose Romney the election, it would be his stance on taxation and his apparent willingness to go to war.

Never cared for Romney "the politician", but I don't think he's eager for war as he is a supporter for Israel, our only steadfast ally in the region.

As far as his stance on taxes is concerned, I like Obama's vision less. The best years we've experienced over her were between the mid 80's - 2001 and I would credit Reagan for the economic surge

Little known fact - Carter signed a very significant document that permitted the deregulation of the banks. This one act sparked the whole Wall Street "Greed is good" boom of the 80's through the loose credit and hedging,,,

Short term thinking again,

Greed is the fuel to any business venture. Whether it's the lemonade stand down at the street corner or the next Microsoft.

Too little regulation leads to abuse, too much regulation strangles the business

The drive to make a living is the fuel of any business venture...

There is such a thing as a modest profit - would you say the same if it were a table of food?

I'm looking at the bigger picture here JMCC

If you think about it restrictive socialism in its most simple form would be preferred over our current system of governance here in the US, the problem is it's just a stepping stone towards some form of totalitarian regime. It always has been that way and it always remain that way due to a fundamental flaw in the human race and that flaw is ……………. Greed

Some will always want what another possesses, some will always want more of what they already have and they will go to great lengths to get it and greater lenghts to keep it.

BUT........ (Monetary) Greed is also he fuel to any business venture and business is also what drives any nations economic engine.

So IMHO, it seems that finding a good "balance" is the key. Too much regulation stifles business growth, too little leads to abuse

Oh I agree in every respect and in times past that "balance" was exactly what religion was supposed to supply...

The only way that man will ever be freed of greed will be to experience the ultimate consequences of it...

Sadly I suspect that that moment is only just around the corner...

Morals and ethics...or the lack of?

Business schools in the UK decided that they would have to add an ethics course to their degrees a couple of years ago.

Yet I do not think that it will have quite the same effect of believing that the Almighty is peering over your shoulder every step of the way and that the firey pit awaits your every transgression...;)

I was in private catholic schools my whole life and while I do harbor some doubts about certain aspects of the teachings, the basics hold true across all ....errr....most religions

;o)~

I agree entirely.

Of course. Islam has declared war on the rest of the planet. Their "holy books" is a declaration of war against all non-muslims. Convert, enslave or kill are their orders.

Extremists hate that quality in other extremists, and constantly goad each other. Perhaps agenda is a strong word, but if you do something to imflame an already volatile situation, just because it makes you feel powerful, you may as well toss a grenade in the air, for the pain and death you're about to cause. It's as cowardly as ringing doorbells and running.

Yes and you know who they are, Obama and crew.

Really?

I thought that this would be a backward step for him, how do the Democrats benefit?

By blaming it on the Republicans, somehow, some way.

That would be an incredibly risky and stupid thing for them to do. It would be more likely to be an arm of the military industry complex - for it doesn't matter to them who wins the election as long as the fighting continues...

I disagree, I think it does matter, I think it means a lot to Obama not to be a one term President.

Which is the best reason I can think of for not being behind it...

I think that there are definitely people trying to be outwardly offensive in order to stir the pot but I don't know if it is part of an agenda to keep the war going.

There is no peace in that region.

Everytime we take a step in the right direction someone comes along and takes us right back to where we started again, that is why there is no peace.

I disagree. consider history.

It is precisely because of history that it is not advisable to continue to "stir the pot" - have you not considered that they might be just as tired of the fighting and dying as we are?

I have. I think in the region, fighting and dying is what they perceive to be the greatest form of loyalty and love. I disagree however.