Anti-US feeling has grown since the Iraq war, a survey says

[cut]

US feared by foes and friends


By Jon Leyne
BBC State Department correspondent

Discontent with the United States and its policies has intensified in the year following the war in Iraq, according to an annual poll of global attitudes towards the US.
On a miserable, drizzly day in Washington, Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Centre said: "The results of this survey were as gloomy as the weather outside."

The image of the United States is as negative as it was a year before, and even in the UK, arguably the closest ally of the US, approval of the world's lone superpower "tumbled".

And while the Pew Global Attitudes Project showed slight improvement in attitudes in the Muslim world towards the US, a great divide still exists.

And the report showed that those negative attitudes toward the US will fuel support for continued attacks against Americans.

Anger in the Muslim world

Former US secretary of state Madeleine Albright said the numbers showed real concern about US foreign policy around the world, especially in the Muslim world.

"There is a huge chasm between the Muslim world and the rest of us," she said.

The survey showed high approval ratings for Osama Bin Laden and support for suicide bombings against the Israelis and against Americans in Iraq.


Support for Osama Bin Laden
65% - Pakistan
55% - Jordan
45% - Morocco
And Mr Kohut said, "Anger remains pervasive in the Arab world."

A troubling figure from Turkey - a country set to join the European Union - showed that 31% of those polled thought that suicide attacks against Americans and westerners in Iraq were justified.

And in Jordan, a relatively moderate Arab nation, 70% of those polled thought that suicide attacks against Americans and others in Iraq were justified.

"It is a particularly chilling report," said Kurt Campbell of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies.

And in no place was this great divide between US opinion and Muslim opinion greater than with respect to Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein.

In the US, a full 84% of those polled thought Iraq would be better off with Saddam Hussein gone.

In Jordan, only a quarter of those who responded thought Iraqis are better off now, and in Pakistan, only 8% thought the lives of Iraqis would be improved.

European views

But the divide was not just between the US and the Muslim world. Divisions remained unabated between Europe and the US as well.

The poll was conducted in February before the deadly attacks in Madrid, but at the time the survey was conducted, fewer Europeans backed the war on terror.

In 2004, 57% of those polled in France and 49% of those asked in Germany thought the US was overreacting to terrorism.

George Bush and Tony Blair were seen as lying about the reasons for going to war in Iraq.

And Europeans are increasingly sceptical of the US and its motives.

In Germany and France, the great majority (82% Germany, 78% France) say as a consequence of the war they have less confidence that the US is trustworthy

Majorities in six of the nine countries surveyed do not believe that the US-led war on terrorism is a sincere effort to reduce international terrorism.

Instead, many believe that the US wants to control oil supplies or dominate the world.

It helps explain why 90% of French and 70% of Germans surveyed thought it would be good if the EU grew into a powerful counterbalance to the United States.

Does America care?

But does the American government care about these numbers?


It's nice to be feared by your enemies, but it's not nice to be feared by your friends
Madeleine Albright, former US secretary of state
As Ms Albright asked: "Didn't the US government want to be feared?"
Patrick Cronin of CSIS was in the Bush administration ahead of the war in Iraq, and he said, "Iraq was a lot about putting bad actors on notice."

But Ms Albright countered, "It's nice to be feared by your enemies, but it's not nice to be feared by your friends."

The larger question is whether this is damaging US foreign policy.

Ms Albright said: "It's nice to be popular, but it's not a popularity contest. It's a matter of making sure that many other countries come along with your policies."

In the long term, many believe the US will have increasing difficulty in getting other countries to come on board.

Countries have no incentive to go along with a deeply unpopular America.

Even the Bush administration accepts that they need some kind of multilateral support for its policies such as expanding international support for the military commitment in Iraq.

Politicians in any country will not take the risk looking at the numbers in this survey.


Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/americas/3518412.stm

Published: 2004/03/17 06:52:40 GMT

[Haiw]

Not exactely a big surprise. I doubt it's just the muslimworld that have grown rather negative of the US since OIF started...

[Royal]

It's funny that the Iraqi's seem to be one of the few Muslim peoples that think things are better since OIF/Op Telic.

I've got no time at all for 'the whale' (as we called her when she was f**king things up in the Balkans) (Allbright), but her comment "It's nice to be feared by your enemies, but it's not nice to be feared by your friends" is telling.

[Kilgor]

Anger in the Muslim world

[/quote]

When havent they been angry ? :roll:

[Trigger]

Who cares about these easily skewed opinion polls?

The U.S. has the right to protect it's interests which include maintaining our way of life and the prevention of hostile acts towards our citizens.

I personally could give a rat's ass what other people think of my country.

[Truthsayer]

The fundemental muslims has the right to protect it's interests which include maintaining our way of life and the prevention of hostile acts towards our citizens.

[pinkeye]

Who cares about these easily skewed opinion polls?

The U.S. has the right to protect it's interests which include maintaining our way of life and the prevention of hostile acts towards our citizens.

I personally could give a rat's ass what other people think of my country.


this line of reasoning is very dangerous and has been used in the past (socialism threatens the american way of life) to justify supporting, for example, oppressive regimes in latin and south america resulting in the torture and deaths of thousands of innocent civilians.

if "your" way of life threatens the interests of others, then you should expect and probably merit some form of retaliation. we, as human beings, have to look beyond our immediate personal interests. i am always amazed that the christian members of this website are often the most callously selfish individuals, thus essentially rejecting the core tenets of their faith. but i digress...

in other words, if country x likes to dump its toxic waste on foreign soil, then country x should get a kick in the nuts.

[Kitsune]

Its not surpeising at all that 70% of the polled Iraqis think that they are better off wihtout Saddam Hussein.

65% of all Iraqia are Shiits, a majority, that has always been opressed by Saddam (in fact since time immemorial) and so, of course they support his downfall.
But that does not mean that the Americans are liked by them. In fact they are not: The vast majority of Shiits want to see the Americans gone, and an Islamic republic installed. They support the "democratisation" of Iraq for one reason only: They are the majority and would win any election.
Until now the Shiits have kept remarkebly quit, they patiently wait for their time. The British, who "control" the main Shiit areas of Iraq have only few losses.
Those, who hate the Americans and attack them are so far Sunnits in the infamous "Sunni triangle". Many of them hate the Americans (whatever they tell CNN...they had years of practice in lying) and fear the coming Shiit state in which they would be a minority.

In fact, the Coalition has already lost the fight for Iraq (also most amricans are still "protected" from this truth). They have now two choices:
1)Go on with democracy, and we will see a not so unfundamentalist Islamic state. It was Saddam who kept the lid of islamism closed on Iraq, Bush has opened it.
2)But if things take a turn for the worse, the Shiits start to believe that they are tricked by the Americans and that another opressive (Sunni) ruler is about to be installed. If that causes their relgious leaders to encourage the use of force or even call for insurrection, the **** hits the fan. The Shiits are far more ****e to suicide attacks than the Sunnis (they more or less inventet it). They are the ones with the dark fascination of death and martyrdom, and they are numerous. If they start to rise up, we would see a kind of Hyper Intifada in Iraq.

Interestingly, the typical European demand to bring the UN into the game is also not popular in Iraq. The Iraqis remember the UN embargo very well, and many see the UN as a organisation that is basically controlled by the US, anyway. So this will not be a solution either.

Best thing would be to install some kind of government, that manages at least to mitigate the new Iraqi islamism somewhat, and to get out of there as soon as possible.
And to learn something out of the whole affair.

[Trigger]

The fundemental muslims has the right to protect it's interests which include maintaining our way of life and the prevention of hostile acts towards our citizens.
Riiiiiiiiiiiight.
You should have thought about preventing hostile acts against your citizens before you started blowing up embassies and crashing airliners into buildings asshole.

Next retarded post please.

[Trigger]

Who cares about these easily skewed opinion polls?
The U.S. has the right to protect it's interests which include maintaining our way of life and the prevention of hostile acts towards our citizens.
I personally could give a rat's ass what other people think of my country.


this line of reasoning is very dangerous and has been used in the past (socialism threatens the american way of life) to justify supporting, for example, oppressive regimes in latin and south america resulting in the torture and deaths of thousands of innocent civilians. Oh, right, we're back to that again. Basically, we can't do a friggin' thing because innocent civilians got killed in the past.

if "your" way of life threatens the interests of others, then you should expect and probably merit some form of retaliation. True. Iraq's ongoing development of WMDs would definitely have threatened our interests, so we pre-emptively retaliated. we, as human beings, have to look beyond our immediate personal interests. What did I just say. i am always amazed that the christian members of this website are often the most callously selfish individuals, thus essentially rejecting the core tenets of their faith. but i digress...Self preservation is not callous or selfish. It is however logical. But I digress...

in other words, if country x likes to dump its toxic waste on foreign soil, then country x should get a kick in the nuts. Huh?

[pinkeye]

The fundemental muslims has the right to protect it's interests which include maintaining our way of life and the prevention of hostile acts towards our citizens.
Riiiiiiiiiiiight.
You should have thought about preventing hostile acts against your citizens before you started blowing up embassies and crashing airliners into buildings asshole.

Next retarded post please.

trigger, you should probably avoid making this argument because the west has much to answer for. colonialism? what about supporting oppressive regimes around the planet? what about western corporations exploiting developing countries? the west has its fair share of skeletons in its closet.

[Trigger]

The fundemental muslims has the right to protect it's interests which include maintaining our way of life and the prevention of hostile acts towards our citizens.
Riiiiiiiiiiiight.
You should have thought about preventing hostile acts against your citizens before you started blowing up embassies and crashing airliners into buildings asshole.

Next retarded post please.

trigger, you should probably avoid making this argument because the west has much to answer for. colonialism? what about supporting oppressive regimes around the planet? what about western corporations exploiting developing countries? the west has its fair share of skeletons in its closet.
What about the Crusades? you forgot to lump that one in too.
We live in the here and now.
If they want to try to justify terrorism by using the past, they will continue to pay in the present.

[NcDeuce]

... The Mitchells have been in regular contact with their son through e-mail since he has been at Camp As Sayliyah.

"In Desert Storm, the only communication we had were letters and the occasional phone call. Now, at least, we have e-mail," Kathy Mitchell said.

While their son was in Afghanistan, the Mitchells said, they did not hear from him for a long time, and that made them worry.

Then one day, they were watching CNN and recognized his voice in an interview done by a reporter near the front lines. Terry Mitchell said that the TV report never showed Mark's face, but they knew that voice was his.

Thursday morning, Terry Mitchell received an e-mail from his son, apparently sent after orders had been given to do the surgical airstrikes in southern Baghdad that were aimed at taking out Iraq's leadership.

"Now, we have crossed the Rubicon confident of ultimate victory and there is no turning back," the e-mail said.

Mark Mitchell noted that many of his friends are in harm's way near the front lines, and that we all are living "during historically significant times."

Mark Mitchell, who speaks fluent Arabic, said he was confident that the people of Iraq are looking forward to Saddam Hussein being driven from power.

He wrote: "The vast majority of Iraqis are eagerly awaiting liberation and they will not be disappointed.

You anti-IF junkies may find this interesting. If you don't recall, Mitchell was pinned the Distinguished Service Cross for his actions at the Battle of Qala-I-Jangi.

I'll take this man's word over some fatass working for the BBC.

[BlackRain]

Cut, thanks for posting the poll. I read it yesterday and the results were interesting to say the least.

The central reason for the anti-American attitude can be summed up by this quote:


Jose Varela Ortega, vice president of the Ortega y Gasset Foundation, a Madrid think tank, said Spanish voters resented the war on terrorism because of a natural tendency to opt for a policy of ignoring or appeasing violent extremists.

"It is very human to blame the policeman and not the criminal," he said. "You see it in France and Germany and to a large extent in Spain -- that the best thing to do is to let them alone, the Saddam Husseins of this world, and nothing bad will happen. The policeman is the troublemaker, and (the Americans) are the policeman of the world."

The USA has become the boogeyman in the world for everyone's ills. It is easier to blame everything on us than to do some critical introspection.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

from AP today -


HALABJA, Iraq — Clutching pictures of relatives they lost, survivors of Saddam Hussein's 1988 chemical weapons attack gathered in this northern town Tuesday to remember the thousands who died.

They were joined by the top administrator in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer (search), at a ceremony marking the 16th anniversary of the infamous bombing. The memorial was the first since Saddam was toppled by the U.S.-led coalition and it resonated with references to the war.

"This day reminds us of our grief ... (But) it's also a day of happiness because the dictatorship has collapsed," said Drakshan Kakasheik, who lost her husband, brother and three children, including a 5-month old son who died in her arms.

"We smelled a foul smell and my brother went out and said: 'We're doomed. These are chemical weapons,"' she recalled tearfully.

An estimated 5,000 people were killed and another 10,000 injured by the poisonous bombs Iraqi forces dropped on Halabja on March 16, 1988.

"For those in my country and elsewhere who ... still wonder if the war was worth fighting, I say, 'Come to Halabja,"' Bremer said. "Look in the faces of the survivors here today. See how a peaceful village was turned into a hell overnight by evil."

Bremer said the coalition would establish a $1 million fund for Halabja, where Saddam Hussein's "government turned its own power and might on its own people."

Jalal Talabani, leader of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, one of two main Kurdish parties, said the attack on Halabja is proof of the use of "mass destruction arms by the Iraqi dictator."

"I call all those who are not believing in it, 'Please come to Halabja to see how mass destruction arms (were) used,"' he said. "We are now free ... thanks to the coalition forces."

Bremer, surrounded by families clutching photos of relatives they lost, said those behind the attack would be held accountable.

"I can promise you that justice will be done against the men who committed these acts," Bremer said. "At the appropriate time, Saddam Hussein ... and all the other criminals will face justice before the special tribunal."

Bremer was speaking outside the Halabja Monument, built in honor of the victims. He chatted with relatives of those killed and toured the building, looking at photos of disfigured residents and lifeless children piled on top of each other.

In one room, statues replicate scenes from the attack. One shows a man using his own body as a shield to protect his baby. Both were lying dead at a doorstep next to a dead sheep. The names of victims are inscribed in white on the black marble walls of a circular hall.

During the ceremony, Kurdish forces surveyed roads leading to Halabja from atop rolling green hills and squat brick houses. Others manned checkpoints and searched vehicles.

Two suicide bombers killed 109 people at the offices of the two Kurdish parties in Irbil on Feb. 1. A little-known group, Jaish Ansar al-Sunna (search), claimed responsibility for the attack. Some officials linked the group with Ansar al-Islam , a Kurdish extremist movement with alleged ties to Al Qaeda.

[pinkeye]

What about the Crusades? you forgot to lump that one in too.
We live in the here and now.
If they want to try to justify terrorism by using the past, they will continue to pay in the present.

yeah, the crusades argument is beyond idiotic, but your view is incredibly irresponsible. latin and south american escapades occurred not too long ago (remember the contras?), and the west continues to support oppressive regimes in 2004. furthermore, it does not matter what you think about historical arguments, for as long as people refer to past incidents they will act. and we should not assume that only muslims are guilty of this, just look at orangemen in northern ireland, for example.

more importantly, you fail to understand that the west, for example, is responsible for much of the crap that afflicts the international community today. i cannot for the life of me understand why you seem to be unable to understand this simple fact. do you honestly think terrorists just kill for the fun of it? some probably do, but many do not. some kill because they are politically motivated (e.g. the political violence of the red army), others do it because of religion (e.g. islamic and christian extremists), others target ethnic groups, and so on and so forth.

frankly, if others share your views, then the war on terrorism is lost.

[Royal]

... The Mitchells have been in regular contact with their son through e-mail since he has been at Camp As Sayliyah.

"In Desert Storm, the only communication we had were letters and the occasional phone call. Now, at least, we have e-mail," Kathy Mitchell said.

While their son was in Afghanistan, the Mitchells said, they did not hear from him for a long time, and that made them worry.

Then one day, they were watching CNN and recognized his voice in an interview done by a reporter near the front lines. Terry Mitchell said that the TV report never showed Mark's face, but they knew that voice was his.

Thursday morning, Terry Mitchell received an e-mail from his son, apparently sent after orders had been given to do the surgical airstrikes in southern Baghdad that were aimed at taking out Iraq's leadership.

"Now, we have crossed the Rubicon confident of ultimate victory and there is no turning back," the e-mail said.

Mark Mitchell noted that many of his friends are in harm's way near the front lines, and that we all are living "during historically significant times."

Mark Mitchell, who speaks fluent Arabic, said he was confident that the people of Iraq are looking forward to Saddam Hussein being driven from power.

He wrote: "The vast majority of Iraqis are eagerly awaiting liberation and they will not be disappointed.

You anti-IF junkies may find this interesting. If you don't recall, Mitchell was pinned the Distinguished Service Cross for his actions at the Battle of Qala-I-Jangi.

I'll take this man's word over some fatass working for the BBC.

The vast majority of Iraqi's are happy that they've been liberated. The problem is that the ungrateful bastards don't like being occupied.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

I think the US does take a fair bit of bashing these days from all quarters a lot is just the usual regurgitated rhetoric and mostly its just plain old ****. The US sort of mishandled Iraq to start with and they should have waited until they got everyone aboard (which was possible) and then went in but no they just steamed in right reason or none. The final reason for the invasion after the WMD one fell flat on its ass was to remove a brutal dictator which is quite funny since the US, UK and France supported quite a few of them over the years including Saddam.
Another thing that sticks in my craw is the US and the UK's support of Saudi Arabia how Americans have not made the connection between international Islamic terrorism and the Saudis and demanded action from their government is beyond me but I guess there is a lot of money invested in Saudi Arabia and other Jihad friendly oil bearing countries so thats OK then. I am not one of the people that is anti American I like Americans but then again I like people from all nations I just think that much of the foreign policy coming from America in recent years is malignant.

[Trigger]

yeah, the crusades argument is beyond idiotic, but your view is incredibly irresponsible. latin and south american escapades occurred not too long ago (remember the contras?), and the west continues to support oppressive regimes in 2004. furthermore, it does not matter what you think about historical arguments, for as long as people refer to past incidents they will act. and we should not assume that only muslims are guilty of this, just look at orangemen in northern ireland, for example.

more importantly, you fail to understand that the west, for example, is responsible for much of the crap that afflicts the international community today. i cannot for the life of me understand why you seem to be unable to understand this simple fact. do you honestly think terrorists just kill for the fun of it? some probably do, but many do not. some kill because they are politically motivated (e.g. the political violence of the red army), others do it because of religion (e.g. islamic and christian extremists), others target ethnic groups, and so on and so forth.

frankly, if others share your views, then the war on terrorism is lost.
1. This poll and thread topic has nothing to do with our past support of dictators in Latin America.
2. If we are to blame for Latin America's woes, why aren't we plagued with bombings from angry Nicaraguans or Chileans?
3. Why is it that one particular group seems to keep acting in a terroristic fashion due to 'past grievances'? You don't see the Americans randomly blowing people up in Japan. You don't see Israelis taking out busloads of people in Berlin. Why is that? Is the terrorist's 'way of life' unable to move into the 21st century like the rest of the world?

4. '...the west, for example, is responsible for much of the crap that afflicts the international community today.' Besides being a foolhardy statement, that is still no justification for terrorism.
5. 'i cannot for the life of me understand why you seem to be unable to understand this simple fact.' It's not a fact, it's an opinion of yours.
6. 'frankly, if others share your views, then the war on terrorism is lost.' I disagree.

It's nice to kick these ideas around, and while I may get heated in my arguments I don't hold any malice towards you Pinkeye. Just so you know. ;)

[martinexsquaddie]

nobody is justifying terrorist attacks
but what there are is EXPLAINING WHY THE ENENMY THINK THE WAY THEY DO.
the west has supported and still does some very dodgy rulers ones who if forum members had to live under there rule would probably take up arms against said rulers.
when you talk about freedom and liberty then count as your "friends" pakistan and Saudi the words hypocriate does spring to mind.
As my friend said I'd rather have the USA as no1 world power rather than russia or china at least they try to limit the carnage :(

[Trigger]

The survey showed high approval ratings for Osama Bin Laden and support for suicide bombings against the Israelis and against Americans in Iraq.

[M1A2U2]

we, as human beings, have to look beyond our immediate personal interests.

I agree that is a very good point. And by being against the war in iraq you are being selfish. It is essentially saying "saddam only kills his own people, its none of our business." I say liberatying 56 million people could have been one of the most unselfish things the US has ever done. And if you think its for oil dont talk to me because that theory is idiotic and has already been disproven in '91.

[M1A2U2]

"Blame the west" thats great theory. yep we have done nothing but colonized and killed people. Stop asking us to answer for things that happened in history. We are living in the now. You just hate the west becasue you hate power and authority so you try to pick out things that are wrong with the west to make yourself feel stronger. People like you are pathetic

[Truthsayer]

Who is these 'you', that you are attacking?

[MEGR]

People hate America? No kidding! When did this happen? Oh.. And in the middle east too? You gotta be kidding me :cantbeli: ..

All of this is old news.

[pinkeye]

trigger, indeed, there is no justification for terrorism, but what you and i think is irrelevant because there are plenty of people who consider what we define as terrorism (and this distinction has to be made) as a viable course of action. accordingly, they resort to violent action. our only real solution is to examine and address the factors that motivate people to adopt such tactics. apache gunships may assuage our need for vengeance in the short-term but it will not stop terrorism. military solutions cannot solve the problem.

regarding our exchanges, you and i frequently disagree, but i know i can have a civil exchange of ideas with you, so you don't have to worry about ruffling my feathers. this is just a messageboard, right?

[Quon Sen Hutt]

Who cares about these easily skewed opinion polls?

The U.S. has the right to protect it's interests which include maintaining our way of life and the prevention of hostile acts towards our citizens.

I personally could give a rat's ass what other people think of my country.


this line of reasoning is very dangerous and has been used in the past (socialism threatens the american way of life) to justify supporting, for example, oppressive regimes in latin and south america resulting in the torture and deaths of thousands of innocent civilians.

if "your" way of life threatens the interests of others, then you should expect and probably merit some form of retaliation. we, as human beings, have to look beyond our immediate personal interests. i am always amazed that the christian members of this website are often the most callously selfish individuals, thus essentially rejecting the core tenets of their faith. but i digress...

in other words, if country x likes to dump its toxic waste on foreign soil, then country x should get a kick in the nuts.



Your side lost the Cold War, so get over it.

I should also point out that communist regimes have murdered and oppressed millions more people than any other form of dictatorship.

[Quon Sen Hutt]

People hate America? No kidding! When did this happen? Oh.. And in the middle east too? You gotta be kidding me :cantbeli: ..

All of this is old news.


You are correct.

Remember that Robert Kennedy was assassinated by a Palestinian Arab named Sirhan Sirhan. That was back in 1968.

The war has been going on for awhile now.

[M1A2U2]

Pinkeye, If you used your theory of trying to find out why people are like they are on hitler, we would all be speaking german right now. These people are terrorists because they are evil. Anyone who purposely targets innocent women and children should be thrown from this earth. I dont care if some country killed all my innocent friends, that wouldnt make me wanna go kill their innocent people.

[martinexsquaddie]

m1a1 there evil lets kill them
well reallife is a little more complex al qaida won't be walking round in please shoot me t-shirts worse luck
cutting away there support needs rather more than a super duper splinter cell bloke. its political as well as military and poor old george does'nt seem able to grasp that one though :roll:

[MEGR]

Yea and Robert Kennedy didn't have anything to do the mid east. His intentions were all peaceful mainly focusing on Civil Rights for blacks.
Him and Bush are complete opposites, yet Rob dies for no reason.

[M1A2U2]

No its not more comlplex. You find them then kill them. You dont try and get them a doctor to talk to. They are evil its black and white. Its not hard to comprehend

[Haiw]

I applaud your enthusiasm, but unscrew yourself!
A cookie if you know where it's from ;)

[Quon Sen Hutt]

Yea and Robert Kennedy didn't have anything to do the mid east. His intentions were all peaceful mainly focusing on Civil Rights for blacks.
Him and Bush are complete opposites, yet Rob dies for no reason.

Sirhan Sirhan was angry at Robert Kennedy for supporting Israel in the 1967 war.

[BlackRain]

Yea and Robert Kennedy didn't have anything to do the mid east. His intentions were all peaceful mainly focusing on Civil Rights for blacks.
Him and Bush are complete opposites, yet Rob dies for no reason.

That is not true.

Consider this...


Since it is the 30 year aniversary of Robert Kennedy's asassination someone should mention that he was killed because of pro-Israel statements that he made concerning Israel's illegal occupation of Sirhan Sirhan's Palestinian homeland. Israel had, just the year before, captured the West Bank in a war of agression against Palestinians.

...

"Sirhan Bishara Sirhan: 24, a Jordanian, born in Jerusalem, who'd ended up in L.A. and had spent a lot of time watching TV in the suburbs." [No doubt while watching TV he heard Kennedy's repeated convictions about supporting Israel].

Washington Post; 6/4/98.