EU embarrassed as poll labels Israel world's biggest threat

[Herschel]

The European Union scrambled Monday to contain the fallout from a public opinion poll that -- to Israel's fury -- labelled the Jewish state the biggest threat to world peace.

The United States was just behind Israel in the global danger league, in joint second place with North Korea and Iran, according to the "Eurobarometer" poll requested by the European Commission.

The results were part of a survey last month on Europeans' attitudes in the aftermath of the Iraq war, which also found that more than two-thirds of EU citizens think that the US-led war was wrong.

The Israeli embassy in Brussels voiced outrage at the findings, which said that 59 percent of Europeans see Israel as a threat to world peace.

cut

http://www.eubusiness.com/afp/031103170505.xmn7mrha

====================

Anti-semitism is at alarmimg levels. Europe has much improving to do.

[stopthegop]

1. the EU should be embarassed by that..

it appears to be based on bias..not rational analysis

[Old and In the Way]

5. OK, would this qualifier be more acceptable?

59% find the RW government of Israel a threat to world peace.

BTW, before you label me an anti-semite, please know I was a big defender of Israel and the right for the State to exist. However, as long as Sharon and his goons run things, I think that the people of Israel are being held hostage by their own government.

Really, you don't see how this country could be run by the same fascist mindset in a few short years? Sharon and Hazbollah/Hamas seem to be mutually codependent and enabling...quite similar to this administration and Al-Qaeda.

[Darranar]

2. That poll was not anti-semitic...

as I believe I said in the last thread about this.

Note that 59% of Europeans said that Israel was a threat to world peace - which it is - not that it was the only threat to world peace, or the main threat to world peace.

[vi5]

3. Thank you....I was too afraid to say it....

Lest I be labelled an anti-semite.

If the US were first on that poll I don't think it would be inaccurate either but that doesn't mean I'm anti-American. Or if Saudi Arabia were #1 that I would be anti-islamic.

[Darranar]

4. If you were labeled as an anti-semite...

the post would be deleted.

Say what you wish, as long as it does not violate DU rules.

[Herschel]

7. So please tell us

What justification there is to call Israel the most dangerous country.

[Darranar]

8. i think you might be misunderstanding the poll...

as I did the first time I read about it.

All this shows is that more Europeans view Israel as a threat to world peace than Europeans who view the other countries in the poll as a threat to world peace - not that most Europeans view Israel as the greatest threat to world peace.

[Herschel]

9. Very well

Does Israel deserve that? I think you know the answer.

[Darranar]

13. Deserve what?

To be called a threat to world peace? Most certainly yes.

Does Iran as well deserve that title? Most certainly yes.

Does North Korea also deserve it? Most certainly yes.

Does the United States of America deserve it? Most certainly yes.

[sushi]

31. Great post.

;-)

[Jim Sagle]

6. Israel ain't no threat to anyone who's not trying to do her in.

And everybody goddamn well knows it.

[onebigbadwulf]

11. Hmm

Maybe it's because Sharon has an iron fist policy that hasn't been used since Stalin?

Because they're making a berlinesque wall that hasn't been seen since....yes?

Because 892 Israelis and 2,546 Palestinians have been killed since September 29, 2000?

Because 1 Israeli school has been fired upon by Palestinians and 185 Palestinian schools have been shelled or fired upon by Israelis since September 29, 2000?

How about 1 Israeli home has been destroyed by Palestinians and 2,202 Palestinian homes have been completely destroyed (14,436 partially destroyed) since September 29, 2000?



And more at..http://www.ifamericansknew.org/

[Classical_Liberal]

17. Let's not forget their right wing government that

includes many fundamentalist, and the fact that they are supported by dispensationalist christian crazies in this country who hold our own government hostage. None of these groups would care if the world blew up today.

[Classical_Liberal]

12. You don't speak for me.

or anyone else.

[ForestsBeatBushes]

16. Whaaaaaaaaaaa?

He speaks for me...and I'm quite sure for many others as well.

[Herschel]

18. Agreed

-

[Classical_Liberal]

23. You two agree with Bush most of the time too

.

[ForestsBeatBushes]

24. Clarify to whom you refer to as "you two", please.

[Classical_Liberal]

27. You and Herschel

agree with Bush most of the time.

[Herschel]

32. Explain yourself

If it is my support for Israel, I agree with many Democrats as well.

[Classical_Liberal]

34. a bunch of cowed dems that votes for the war

. Fine you agree with them.

[Herschel]

36. A giant in the party

Joe Lieberman supported the war, with many others.

[Darranar]

37. They cooperated with Bush's greed...

and his imperialism.

They cooperated with allowing a bunch of fools in the Bush Administration to devestate a country for oil.

The neocons - sorry, "centrist democrats" - who voted for this war in the Democratic Party deserve to be ousted from their seats ASAP.

[Herschel]

38. How dare you

Are you calling for the defeat of Democrats?

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Darranar]

40. No...

I am calling for their replacement with dovish Democrats.

They're still better than Republicans - they simply should be ousted in the primaries.

[Herschel]

41. Very well

I regret the misunderstanding. This site stands in support of Democrats. Personally, I prefer pragmatic Democrats as opposed to leftist types.

[Darranar]

42. No, it stands in support of progressive Democrats...

the "Democrat" Zell Miller is among the Top Ten Conservative Idiots this week, rightfully...

[Darranar]

44. "Pragmatic" as opposed to "leftist"...

since when are those inconsistent?

[Herschel]

45. Leftists are often

not consistent with reality in their views.

[Darranar]

46. How, exactly?

Because we're against the Iraq war?

Because we're against corporate greed?

Because we're against corporate imperialism/"globalization"

Yes, I'm a "leftist" - and a proud one.

Or as some choose to call me, I'm a "leftist retard."

[Old and In the Way]

54. Joe, I mean, Hershel

Liberman is a veritable giant in the Party-

From Iowa (that radical left wing of the Party) polling-

Dean 26 (25)
Gephardt 26 (21)
Kerry 15 (16)
Edwards 8 (6)
Clark 3 (3)
Lieberman 3 (12)

Lieberman's floor has plummeted in this poll. Expect to see more of that type of action in subsequent polls, be they Iowa, NH, national or elsewhere.

From Daily Kos (10/31)

[Darranar]

55. Let's hope he stays there.

[ForestsBeatBushes]

35. That is simply untrue.

I realize that one such as myself who is extremely liberal on every issue, yet has a very soft spot for Israel, might cause you cognitive dissonance; but please do not make untrue definitive statements such as the one to which I am now responding.

[Classical_Liberal]

47. Your soft spot for Israel despite its far right government

is the real congnative dissonance here. I don't have any way of verifying whether you are liberal as you claim. I know at least one poster in this forum who posts conservative on all other issues too, and I wonder why he is tolerated.

[ForestsBeatBushes]

48. Okay, fair enough

pro Affirmative Action
pro Woman's Right to Choose
pro Complete Rights for GLBT
Anti Globalization
Anti NAFTA
Anti WTO
Pro Universal Healthcare
(they come immediately to mind)

I hate to get into personal stuff, but let me just say that my family (or lack thereof) has colored my soft spot for Israel - can you understand what I'm getting at?

[Darranar]

49. What about anti-Iraq war?

You don't have to be against it to be a liberal, but are you?

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ForestsBeatBushes]

51. Did someone let you down so that you don't

trust anymore?

I have been politically active since I was a child.

I have always been drawn by the leftist, idealist way of thinking.

I also have a streak of libertarianism because I don't think the government has a right to be in anyone's bedroom.

However, I have a lot of loss to contend with as well which colors the issue of Israel for me.

Yes, so, I say.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Darranar]

57. How exactly can he prove it?

[Classical_Liberal]

58. Post verifyable info

If he doesn't want to do that, it is understandable, but I don't have to take his word for it then. I happen to feel that these anonymous forums produce alot of dishonesty, and people should be aware of the bandwagon affect that can be created rather than naifs.

[Darranar]

59. What sort of info?

You'll never be able to read his mind.

[Classical_Liberal]

61. name, residence, liberal organizations he is a member of

. No I can't read his mind, and he doesn't have to post his personal data, but if he doesn't he is just an anonomys poster and his claims should be taken with a grain of salt.

[ForestsBeatBushes]

63. Well, I don't see

why you should take my word on this because I most certainly will not post any personal data, but I am a member and also donate to:

Southern Poverty Law Center
Move.On
NARAL
The Pacifica Radio Foundation
CommonDreams
Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting

I'm sure there are others and that certainly doesn't cover the picket lines I've manned and so on, but these are the ones I could easily look up by credit card receipts.

[Classical_Liberal]

64. So you say.

. This is no more convincing than your other claims without verifyable data.

[ForestsBeatBushes]

65. You asked me for it. I provided it.

What is this? Some sort of twisted sadistic game?

[Classical_Liberal]

68. Provided what?

More unverifyable claims?

[Lurking Dem]

69. So who the fuck are YOU?

[ForestsBeatBushes]

70. I was kinda worried he's with Homeland Security...

[ForestsBeatBushes]

60. I'm sorry,

but I don't see how I can gather 'verifyable info' on my beliefs and actions for the past 30 years.

So, don't take my word. Actually, after the way you've behaved, I can understand because I wouldn't be able to take your word either.

[Classical_Liberal]

62. It is pretty easy actually

If you are a member of women for Al Gore your name would be on the website under the state you live in. Mine is, but I have made my point. Your identity can be hidden very easily on these forums, and so your claims about yourself are unverifyable anecdotes. I find it strange that very few people I know are as conservative on Israel as many people on this forum. The only people I know who are this conservative are honest to god republicans.

[ForestsBeatBushes]

66. That's because you don't seem to be

capable of understanding how certain life events will cause one to feel very strongly about one issue (in my case, Israel)...you just haven't got the family background in order to be able to understand.

[Paschall]

67. So what do you say...

...to Israelis who oppose Sharon's policies, Israeli soldiers who--in increasing numbers--are refusing to serve in the Occupied Territories, Israeli victims of terrorism who say these murderous acts are driven by despair in which Israel has a hand, and Israelis who are seeking a path to a lasting peace without a wall?

By the way, I don't think the argument that one doesn't have the "family background" to understand is valid. Or you're not putting much faith in human capacity to empathize.

During WWII, even before the full terror of the Holocaust became known, many people--Jews and non-Jews alike--understood that the anti-Jewish laws enacted in Germany and the countries it occupied were wrong, and they worked to rescue the Jews. I know a few of these rescuers--among my friends and family in Europe--, as well as leftist Jews living in Europe, and almost to a man they are horrified by Israel's policies toward Palestine.

[rini]

74. I must be in the wrong site

somehow I wandered into the thought police site. In this site, everyone must agree with whoever decides he/she has the lock on truth and morality. All subjects and must prove their loyalty to the leader or not be allowed to speak.

[rini]

73. me too

n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

72. Since when have you been 'everyone'??

See, our Jim was trying to speak for *everyone* and I guess it was based on a false assumption that *everyone* must be totally ignorant of global affairs and what contributes to world instability. I think in any poll of this nature, the US well and truly deserves top spot, but Israel is one of the smaller players along with Iran, North Korea etc. While the I/P conflict is a regional conflict, to believe that it doesn't play a part in world instability is ignoring the obvious. While there's regional conflicts there can't be world peace, and it's pretty hard to forget that both WWI and II started off as regional conflicts....

Violet...

[ForestsBeatBushes]

76. Ms. Crumble, I believe you misread my post.

"He speaks for me...and I'm quite sure for many others as well."

That is all I posted; nothing about "everyone".

Please check it out for yourself.

Then, please acknowledge your error. Thank you.

[Violet_Crumble]

78. Nope, but I do believe you misread Jim's post...

Because he did say 'everyone' in the post that Classical Lib was replying to. If you need me to walk you through the series of posts you posted in, I'm more than happy to, but I think it'd be best for you to check it out for yourself and then maybe acknowledge yr own error :)

Violet...

[ForestsBeatBushes]

79. Let's take a walk together, shall we?

First we have the Original Message.

Jim Sagle’s post 6 (to Orig.Msg.) = Israel ain’t no threat to anyone who’s not trying to do her in. And everybody goddamn well knows that.

Classical Liberal’s post 12 (to 6) = you don’t speak for me or anyone else

My post 16 (to 12) = He speaks for me...and I'm quite sure for many others as well.

Your post 72 (to 16) = See, our Jim was trying to speak for *everyone* and I guess it was based on a false assumption that *everyone* must be totally ignorant of global affairs and what contributes to world instability. I think in any poll of this nature, the US well and truly deserves top spot, but Israel is one of the smaller players along with Iran, North Korea etc. While the I/P conflict is a regional conflict, to believe that it doesn't play a part in world instability is ignoring the obvious. While there's regional conflicts there can't be world peace, and it's pretty hard to forget that both WWI and II started off as regional conflicts....

Violet...

My post 76 (to 72) = "He speaks for me...and I'm quite sure for many others as well."

That is all I posted; nothing about "everyone".

Please check it out for yourself.

Then, please acknowledge your error. Thank you.

Your post 78 (to 76) = Because he did say 'everyone' in the post that Classical Lib was replying to. If you need me to walk you through the series of posts you posted in, I'm more than happy to, but I think it'd be best for you to check it out for yourself and then maybe acknowledge yr own error

Violet...

Which brings us to my post in response to you = Jim stated that 'everyBODY goddamn well knows that'. Maybe they do; deep down. That is Jim's stated opinion. How do you know what everybody really knows? Are you a mindreader?

However, Classical Liberal stated unequivocally that Jim did not 'speak for me or for anyone else.'

Therefore, I responded that Jim indeed spoke for me, thus proving CL incorrect.

Your post 72 in response to mine was a paragraph of assumptions about Jim's motivations along with statements of your political beliefs.

My post 76 to you was a quick response w/o all this backup.

Then, instead of checking things out as I asked you to do, you posted 78 in which you have just been enlightened. So, it seems it was you who needed this walk as it is you who would be well advised to now acknowledge your error.

However, frankly, I wish you would just not even answer, because this has gone far enough...I mean, really :eyes: !

[ForestsBeatBushes]

80. So far, Andromeda has also agreed with Jim.

[Violet_Crumble]

85. So?

How does this prove Jim's statement that *everyone* knows this?


Violet...

[ForestsBeatBushes]

86. Why do you keep bringing Jim into this? hmmmmmmm?

It is, as I so patiently explained to you, responding to Classical Liberal's statement that no one would agree with Jim.

[Violet_Crumble]

89. Uh, because I actually read an entire sub-thread started by Jim?

Something you should try doing, btw. Then you'll see that Classical Liberal did not say that no-one would agree with Jim. He said that Jim didn't speak for anyone else. I think Classical Lib's been round here long enough to have spotted that the cheersquad that is Team Israel think Jim speaks for them, but I'm of the more modest belief that each of us can only speak for ourselves. Jim's original statement was clearly untrue, anyway, and I've yet to see anyone explain why it was...


Violet...

[Violet_Crumble]

81. Let's not...

I actually do read every post in a thread so I've got no idea why you reposted something to prove what I'd just told you - that our Jim did indeed say *everyone*, which was clearly not true...

It's interesting you brought up mind-reading. So you somehow have a magical ability to read people's minds and *know* what they're saying, hence yr agreement with our Jim, yet others don't? It doesn't take a mind-reader to know that everyone doesn't *know* what Jim claims they know, after all. But speaking of mind-readers, something that I'm not, I've asked you quite a few times now to clarify what you mean when you claim that this forum is chockablock with Israel-haters, yet you haven't yet explained. Are you of the belief that legitimate criticism of Israels actions in the Occupied Territories is a hatred of Israel? Or do you believe that it's more along the lines of criticising Israel for everything, domestic policies and laws included, no matter whether the govt is right-wing or left? If it's the former, does that mean that anyone criticising US foreign policy is a hater of the US?

Anyway, thanks for ignoring the substance of my original post which would have raised you in my estimation if you'd at least attempted to address it. I'll repost it for you and give you another chance, and feel free to point out how I've got the bit about there not being any chance for world peace while regional conflicts continue wrong....

"I think in any poll of this nature, the US well and truly deserves top spot, but Israel is one of the smaller players along with Iran, North Korea etc. While the I/P conflict is a regional conflict, to believe that it doesn't play a part in world instability is ignoring the obvious. While there's regional conflicts there can't be world peace, and it's pretty hard to forget that both WWI and II started off as regional conflicts...."


Violet...

[drdon326]

83. Jimbo speaks for me also.

hi Vi....

[ForestsBeatBushes]

84. Yes, it's clear you don't have any idea

why I reposted.

Why do you type asterisks everywhere? I've seen that on DU as some sort of reference to Bush. Do your asterisks represent Bush?

"our Jim" - hmmm; now, what could that possibly mean?

"So you somehow have a magical ability to read people's minds and *know* what they're saying, hence yr agreement with our Jim, yet others don't?" huh? whaaa?

I don't like either-or questions; do you ever see shades of gray?

You're welcome, but I don't believe I want any more chances with you, thank you very much.

[Violet_Crumble]

87. Want to address the issue and answer the question I asked?

And I don't really have any clue why people use * when referring to Bush, though actually reading my post with a view to comprehending what was said would have saved you time because you'd realise that if you insert Bush for an asterisk, it wouldn't work, seeing as how I'm not even talking about Bush in this thread...

The question I asked you about hatred of Israel was a simple one that anyone with a genuine interest in discussing the issue without posts full of 'huh?' and 'whaaa?' wouldn't have problems answering. So, seeing yr so shy about answering a simple question that would clarify yr views, don't get all upset if in the future anyone here assumes that yr claims of this forum being full of Israel-haters is just you believing that criticism of Israel for its actions in the Occupied Territories is displaying a hatred of Israel. After all, you've refused to clarify what you mean when you talk about a hatred of Israel...

Maybe you could also try explaining why you agree with Jim. I know that's actually getting back to the original topic of the thread, and you might not be too keen on discussing the issue...


Violet...

[drdon326]

88. Dont bother, FBB

I'VE TRIED......It never seems to satisfy.

[Violet_Crumble]

90. No you haven't...

You have NOT tried to answer questions you've been asked by me, don, so don't try claiming otherwise...

btw, it's funny how you run around shrieking about how other folk here don't answer yr questions, yet are urging others to refuse to answer simple questions that would clarify what they are saying when they throw accusations around about this forum...




Violet...

[drdon326]

91. Listen here Violet....

i've tried to answer your questions but youre never satisfied.

then you claim I dont answer your questions.

then you claim I twist *yr* words.

you cant win.


now go bring me a Fosters.lol

[Violet_Crumble]

92. I'm listening, don...

And, no, you haven't answered my questions in the past. The most recent one I can think of is where I asked you why claiming a different time and a different place made attacks on military targets legitimate after you'd claimed that attacks on Israeli military targets in the Occupied Territories were terrorism. Have you in fact answered that and I've missed it? Maybe I should go back and check, but on my way I might manage to spot a few more unanswered questions ;)

I don't recall twisting yr words in my post. (And a translation of yr words for Mr Bushes might read something along the lines of 'then you claim I twist Bush yr Bush words')...

I don't bring anyone Fosters. It's a fate I wouldn't even wish on my back-stabbing, ladder-climbing boss or Bush himself...

Violet...

[Jim Sagle]

93. And besides, I LIKE Foster's.

:beer:

[Andromeda]

71. Wait a minute...

he speaks for me.

[ForestsBeatBushes]

77. And he speaks for me.

[number6]

96. wrong ...

Israel has done harm to the Palestinian people.
killed many and stole their land ....

[Classical_Liberal]

10. It is the number 1 threat to world peace.

Nothing antisemitic about saying that either.

[Darranar]

14. No, it's not...

at the very least, the US should be put above it.

[Classical_Liberal]

19. It is because the US is run by a fundy junta

that supports israel's fundy junta. What's the difference. It is the same right wing fundy crowd that runs both countries.

[Darranar]

20. Uh...

the Iraq war, US funding of various dictators, US oil-spending, US imperialism (corporate and otherwise) and US multinational corporations are a tremendous threat to world peace.

[Classical_Liberal]

21. I don't think they are as threatening now as the Sharon government

. We wouldn't have gone into Iraq if the Likud faction didn't say "the road to peace runs through Bagdad."

[Darranar]

26. Yes, we would have...

It's oil, not Israel, that was the primary reason for getting us stuck in this quagmire and butchering hundreds of innocent Iraqis.

[Classical_Liberal]

28. I don't agree.

. Perle's "Strategy for Securing the Realm" that he wrote for Netenyahu makes it pretty clear Israel views Iraq as a threat. Now they may have made common cause with oil barons like Cheney, but fundamentally we whouldn't have gone in there if it weren't what the right wing pro-likud crowd wanted.

[Darranar]

29. Of course it did...

but that doesn't make it the major motivation for the war...

[Classical_Liberal]

33. In my opinion it does.

.

[rini]

75. for once

I agree 100%

[number6]

97. I Agree ...

"at the very least, the US should be put above it."

[izzie]

15. What is wrong with it? It is not the people it is the waring rulers.

n/t

[bpilgrim]

22. i disagree

the u.s. should certainly be at the top. i don't know how they knocked us out of the top spot?

the sub? the wall? the assinations? sharons bloody facts on the ground?

:shrug:

peace

[Classical_Liberal]

25. A few officials that live in the EU claim embarrassment

I certainly didn't see anything from the Pres of the EU. Why should they be embarrassed. The citizens of the EU believe what the believe and there is nothing antisemitic about what they believe even if Israel's rightwingers don't like it.

[sushi]

30. Only Europe

has much improving to do? What kind of attitude is that? You can't insist on people to like you.

[pschoeb]

43. Problems with poll, very poorly concieved

I'm sorry if this is repeating because I didn't have time to read all posts.

In this poll you could only choose from 15 countries, also you could choose as many from the 15 as you wanted.

The question was not if the countries were the biggest threat, merely that they were a threat. here is the question "INSERT COUNTRY does not present a threat to world peace". So it wasn't ranked as how big a threat, just as a threat. Since you could select as many of the 15 as you wanted, you might choose Israel among several other, but really think Israel is less of a threat(but still a threat) to peace than say Iran. So the results really could be summed up as 59% percieve Israel as some kind of threat to world peace.

Also listed as pretty high threats, were Afghanistan and Iraq, it's obvious these countries are not thought to be big threats in themselves, but their situations are considered threats to peace. This is probably the same for Israel. It goes without saying that as long as the I/P conflict continues on it's violent course that there is no world peace, so who is suprised?

Also the poll was biased towards smaller EU countries as each country got 500 responses, instead of basing it on population. One of the highest ranking in seeing Israel as a threat was Luxembourg, Austria, and the Netherlands, considering they were each given an equal 500 votes to say Italy or France(the combined populations of the first three doesn't even equal the population of Italy or France seperatly), certainly scewed the results.

This original story was a leaked poll result, and no one had seen all the data yet as this was an unpublished EU commision poll. It supposed to be published today(monday).

Here is a link to what I think is the full report
http://europa.eu.int/comm/public_opinion/flash/fl151_iraq_full_report.pdf

Patrick Schoeb

[pschoeb]

52. Another point on this Poll as regards the US

An interesting thing on this poll is the results on th US. Many have mentionaed that they thought the EU would/should rank the US a greater threat.

In a way they did, if you notice two of the 15 countries listed are countries occupied by US, Afghanistan and Iraq, they also ranked very high on percentage chosen as a threat. It's quite conceivable that people voted for these two choices instead of the US directly, depending where they felt the main problem was.

The poll results don't tell us all we would like to know(like what percantage who voted for US also voted for Iraq or Afghanistan), but we can make and educated guess by looking at Greece, who voted 88% that the US was a threat, but voted 27% that Iraq was a threat and 23% that Afghanistan was a threat. It seems clear, that if they chose the US, then they didn't choose either of the US occupied countries, and probably vice versa. If Iraq and Afghansiatan had not been listed I would assume that the US would have scored a much higher percentage, because they wouldn't be able to make a distinction.

The same could be true with Israel, since there was no choice to vote on West Bank and Gaza, anyone who thought the I/P situation important could only vote for Israel.

Patrick Schoeb

[pschoeb]

53. Additional info

Sorry for all the posts, but I think it is importnat to fully understand a poll before making any kind of determination, as there are so many bad polls.

I was wrong about small countries skewing the total results, as they were adjusted for population when calcualting the total. I still feel that larger countries need a larger number of respondants to get a similarly accurate poll for a small country.

Another very important point, is that depsite asking for an answer that connoted degrees of threat, the result are given as yes or no only.

The allowed responses for the survey question were

Yes, absolutely
Yes, rather
No, rather not
No, absolutely
No Response/Don't know

We only see the results of Yes or No, without the shades of Yes or No.

Patrick Schoeb

[tinnypriv]

82. A mini graph breakdown of the poll (image)

What's with all the anti-semites in Holland? :shrug:

[JohnLocke]

94. kick

:kick: :kick:

[number6]

95. I wouldn't say that Israel is the world's biggest threat,,,

I'd just say its a major ingredient, along with religous nuts
arms dealers, loose WMD's ect..