Well, he has won the war against Iraq, but can Bush bring his war against terrorism to a close? If you haven't noticed, after the takeover of Iraq, there has been a major increase in terrorist activities.

There has now been two attacks this week.

Since they both bear the hallmark of being a synchronised part perhaps even of a bigger campaign, it is not bloody likely that these have not been in the planning for months.

What I will say is this though, the war in Iraq was generally rejected by the Arab world moderates, the current campaing will swing most muslims back to support for the US led campaign against terrorism.

Contrary to much bad press, most muslims abhor these actions as much as we do in the west. And they certainly do not want to be associated with actions like this which are clearly against everything their religion stands for.

Has there really been more 'terrorist' attacks?
Or has the media just been focusing more on them now?

Contrary to much bad press, most muslims abhor these actions as much as we do in the west. And they certainly do not want to be associated with actions like this which are clearly against everything their religion stands for. I agree with that. But the problem is still nationalism. Nationalist arabs tend to connect their nationalist mythology with "religious" wording. Arab Nationalism sure will get stronger in the future. And, as I stated before, I see troubled times coming. Well, not that the past wasn't troubling. Just an increase in trouble, not a decrease.

No, because last week there were multiple attacks on American connected buildings all over the Middle East. In fact I think its more linked to the fate of the Bali bomber rather than the Iraq take-over.

Yago,
I disagree on the arab nationalism thing. Arab nationalism was a primarily secular thing and it has lost quite a lot of support since the end of the cold war. The gvt's in the middle east are corrupt and repressive to any opposition - islam is seen as an alternative.

So islamism IMO is not a belief of a couple of militant maniacs but a reaction on circumstances in their respective countries. In palestine it may be nationalism goldplated with religion, not so with the Al Quaida: The islamists want a state ruled by islam, nothing less - Al Quaida is focusing on Saudi Arabia. The palestinians want a secular country ruled by themselves, religion only serves as an additional motivator. You have to make a difference here.

Ragusa, I disagree

There have always been two kinds of nationalism: The secular one, which is weak now, and the islamist one.

I think, we both agree, that islamism is no problem, becuase in our countries, we parties like CDU/CSU and the CVP and FDP in mine. Islamism thereofore is nothing strange or bad in itself.

Second. The connection between religion and nationalism has always been strong in ex-colonies. It was needed, to make the "stubborn farmes" to nationalist. -> British India is the most important and still most influencing example.

The Hindu-nationalims -> Ghandi/Nehru and the at the same time developed Islam-nationalism. (Can't remember the name of the leader, at least it was a docter hmhmhm). It was a too strong movement for the British. They were kicked out. But religious nationalism had a bad side, which lead to a bloody civil war. This lead to the split of India into India/Bangladesh/Pakistan.

So, Islamism has always been strong nationalistic. They argue mostly strong nationalist, but do not use a secular law speech, but a religious law-speech. The message is still the same nationalist. The come with god and country. In the end, it does not matter, on which law-founding you claim soil. The important point is, you claim soil.

Infidels = Foreigers.

Example Saudi-Arabia. Saudi-Arabia was put together through the Sauds. They needed a kind of religious-nationalism to melt Saudi-Arabia together. The same religious-nationalism that some say, demands infidels/foreigners to leave their "holy" soil. And islam-nationalism can be used to get different islamic movement to work together, like German-natioalnism was used, to unify different German-nations.

So, yes, secular Arab nationalism is dead, religious nationalism is still alive and kicking.

I personally think, the Arabs want the same, what India and China got, former colonies who developed to strong and independent states. In the case of India/Pakistan/Bangladesh with the help of strong religious nationalism, whereas in China the sakular nationalism (communism) of Mao prevailed. China is a success story. The former humilated colony is free of Japanese and the "white devils".

Of course, nationalism is a dangerous fire and a lot of people will get burned. It does not matter, if it is sakular or religious one.

Edit: Found a nice quote:
Pan-Arab or pan-Islamic nationalism is also championed by the Arab media because it invokes an era when Arab culture was greater that the culture of the West. As Professor Richard Bulliet of Columbia University wrote in Policy magazine last year: "Because Muslims retain a historical memory of being unified under a caliphate - a powerful state predicated on Islamic teachings - the dream of Islamic political unity will not disappear."


And one day, I will even learn the English spelling of "secular".

[ May 17, 2003, 16:10: Message edited by: Yago ]

Don't go blame Bush that he can't stop terrorism, nobody can stop terrorism. As long as there are human beings on this planet, there will always be terrorism.

The Spanish government can't stop the bombings in their country, the British government can't stop the bombings in Northern Ireland, The Russians can't stop the chechnian attacks, and Bush can't stop Al Qaeda attacks. You can hurt the terrorists, by freezing their assets, and arresting a few cells from time to time, but you can never completely whipe them out.

The only ones who can stop terrorism, are the terrorists themselves.

Nope, the only ones who can stop terrorism are the people who are giving a reason for terrorists to attack.

Yago,
I strongly guess our disagreement is based on a very different perception of the term nationalism. Nationalism for me is a purely secular thing. A religious motivation for conquest is a distinctly different thing for me.

Personally I make the difference where I perceive the focus in ideology. The pan-arabian idea was an arbian nationalist idea, Nasser, the egyptian president is the key exponent of it - it lead to the concerted arab efforts in the wars against israel. And there was nothing religious in it - the the pan-arabian countries were majorly secular socialists, in their ideology was little place for islam - as religion would challenge the secular regime.

When islamists in egypt protest against their gvt they of course speak out a demand for power - in their country. They protest against the "infidels" in their land, those who drink alcohole, allow their kids and weaman to live a western lifestyle - and those who are corrupt, injust and unfair. Islam as a system of rule and religion is an alternative approach - led by god it can only lead to justice. That has nothing to do with nationalism.

When Al Quaida bombs US facilities in iraq to make the US withdraw (what they amusingly actually do even, re-deploying their troops to Iraq instead - that can be seen as a late victory for Bin Laden who has always demanded that) from there that is also targeting the Saudi regime, not only the US. Not only as a result of that the saudi regime is weaker than ever before. Their people are unhappy with them.

Of course, nationalism can have a religious element - that's visible in iran and in the US even (god's chosen country :rolleyes: ), however I thing the term islamic nationalism is an unlucky and misleading one as it IMO doesn't adress the phenomenon rightly.

Erebus,
my point exactly. I very much doubt that anyone is born somewhere in Afghanistan with a lust for American blood. The West-hating terrorist hate the west for a reason. They feel they are being occupied by a hostile force (USA) and I get the feeling that the Iraq-war will only light the furnace. Terrorist now have new motives...

@ Erebus

So you're suggesting the Spanish Government should give up an entire province of their country, just because some Baskish knuckleheads say so ? That doesn't make any sense, does it ?

And what about Al Qaeda ? They want the whole world to be islamic. Should we let them have it their way, just so they will stop being terrorists ?

I'm sorry dude, but that's the dumbest thing i've ever heard.

I strongly guess our disagreement is based on a very different perception of the term nationalism. Nationalism for me is a purely secular thing. A religious motivation for conquest is a distinctly different thing for me.
I guess you are right here. We have different views on applying the word nationalism. I personally think, that religious-nationalism is an appropriate term and it is correct, to use it on islamic-nationalism.

But I don't think, that it autoamaticly leads to the assumption, that "islamist" want to conquer the world with their believe. When the goal of independence and islamist-state is reached (like Iran), the movement will loose it's power and appeal. Why. Because a development like Iran is, in my view, unavoidable, a new genereation growing up, starting to make their own interpretations of holy scripture, saying:"loosen up folks, we need some rationalism here".

Hm, and I think huge differencese between Swiss and Germans come here into play. Switzerland (as the UK) used to be a theorcracy, back in the old days. With two theocratic strongholds, Geneva and Zürich. Presbyterians had the same plan, of conquering the rest with their religion. After about 50 years, they said, what the heck. It's not worth the fuss. We better start loosen up.

A religious motivation for conquest is a distinctly different thing for me.
I think that's the point, in which my swissness has to heavily disagree. Geneva is the protestant rome, and Swiss still are recruited as bodyguards for the pope. Religious greed for conquer can still be found by minorities of protestant and catholic groups. But the real motor of conquest is money, money, money. Now, Europeans made a big part of the world christian. But it was only a side effect of conquering gold, money, gold, money, gold.

Conquering something without some material gain is pretty boring. That is not where those islamists get the drive from. Its independence, decent policiy (10 commandments -> Thous shalt not lie, Thou shalt not commit theft, that's the medicine in the Qurain for corrupt and cleptocratic goverments, which can be found everywhere in the middle-east) and national unity.

Iirc, the Nazis wanted to conquer land to distribute it under the Germans. That's conquest for material profit. The Nazi-Ideology was never the driving force. The Nazi-Idelogy alone would have made political changes in Germany. -> Just the land of the others, where some Germans lived, was claimed in the name of Nazi-Ideology and national-unity. In other words, the Nazi and their ideology, the strong military power and made them want to search a "Platz an der Sonne". At the cost of others material gain for the Germans. The Italians and Spanish, on the other hand, were aware, that they had not the military strength, to conquer new wealth in other countries. Franco was always smarter then Moussolini, which fell for victory.

And by the way, forcing people into another national-state, just because their language is perceived as "German" is an unbeliveable weird idea, which I still don't get. :p ;) :D

[ May 17, 2003, 18:22: Message edited by: Yago ]

I'm sorry dude, but that's the dumbest thing i've ever heard. Pac Man, you beat me to the punch! :D To elaborate...

Who can tell WHAT terrorists really want? Osama Bin Laden has a vey different perspective on American activities - governmental or private - than Americans do. When McDonald's opens a restaurant in Riyadh, Americans see it as supply meeting demand or a corporation taking advantage of an opportunity for expansion. However, Bin Laden sees it as evidence of an American conspiracy to wipe out all other cultures. While it may seem that way at times, I can pretty well guarantee that no corporate executives are actively trying to wipe out anyone's native culture. All execs want to do is make money. Really. There are no ulterior motives, just PROFIT. And I can't think of a worse way to impact profits than for a corporation to be perceived as actively trying to replace one culture's heritage with its own products. While McDonald's ads might say "our burgers are better than Wendy's!" you'll never hear "Our burgers are better than the falafel at Ahmad's stall in the bazaar!"

To get back on track, giving in to any terrorist's current demand won't stop their aggressions, it will only set a pattern. Enjoying its success, the group will simply go find something else to demand and the terrorism will escalate.

Rallymama. Is it so that McDonald's is the point of contention or is it the fact that there are military bases and foreign policies that undermine native interests? American and/or Western culture is more than just McDonald's and American Western influence and reactions to it are not based on McDonald's.

Pacman. Is it so that Bin Laden want's the whole world to be Islamic? or just the area that is supposed to be because there are muslims living there?

Flip the coin. If by stopping the world from becoming "Islamic" then what are you prepared to make it? "Western"? In Bin Laden's eyes should he allow you to make the world "Western" which is the goal of Americans and Westerners generally?

The above is not my opinion, I am just trying to be thought provoking by imagining the issue from the other side.

@Khazraj: Good point about the military bases. I was just using McDonald's as an example of the corporate perspective. I still believe, however, that - whatever difference of fundamental interests there may be between the US government and the countries where bases are located - that no one is actively trying to subvert local cultures and replace them with Americana. It's a side effect, but a major one that Americans (corporate, military, and otherwise) need to be more sensitive to.

A question for you - should a country be Islamic simply because Muslims live there? If so, then the US should be an Islamic state as well. But then what happens to the Christians, or the Jews, or the Hindus, or the Buddhists, or the Pagans, or the... you get my point. ;)

To get back on track, giving in to any terrorist's current demand won't stop their aggressions, it will only set a pattern. Enjoying its success, the group will simply go find something else to demand and the terrorism will escalate. That's a dangerous thinking-mistake. Terrorism will go on, until the underlying problem is solved. If the problem is not solved, than the whole thing will continue and continue and continue. The point is, terrrorist in South-Africa demanded end of Apartheid. As long Apartheid did not end, violence went on and on and on and on. Now, they've got still violence, I guess. But not at such a large scale like earlier.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2589409.stm

A senior US marine officer in Japan has been indicted on charges of attempted rape and handed over to Japanese authorities.

The case is potentially controversial because of Japanese outrage over the rape of a 12-year-old Okinawan schoolgirl by three US servicemen in 1995.

That incident led to a change in the Status of Forces Agreement which governs the 48,000 US troops stationed in Japan.

The case comes amid a wave of anti-American sentiment in South Korea, where two servicemen have been acquitted of negligent homicide in the deaths of two schoolgirls killed by their armoured vehicle.

The acquittal has prompted calls for South Korea's Status of Forces Agreement to be renegotiated, and even some calls for the US presence to be scaled down.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1415234.stm



US military spokeswoman declined to identify the suspect, but said he was an Air Force sergeant in his 20s assigned to the 353rd Special Operations Group at Kadena Air Base

The woman, who is in her 20s, told the authorities she was surrounded by several foreign men in a car park in the central town of Chatan and that one of them raped her.

The incident was front-page news in both local newspapers in Okinawa, where there is considerable pressure for a reduction in the huge US military presence.

Local politicians have warned that the case could trigger yet more anti-American sentiment in Okinawa if US military personnel are found to be involved.

People on Okinawa are already angry at a string of sexual attacks by US servicemen, including the 1995 gang-rape of a 12-year-old girl.

The row over the sinking of the Japanese trawler by a US submarine worsened on Thursday, as Japan lashed out at the United States over reports that civilians on the submarine distracted the crew.

However, the newspaper warned that regulations for US troops in Japan needed to be studied for relations to improve.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/842518.stm

Thousands of protesters are staging an anti-American rally on the Japanese island of Okinawa, on the eve of Friday's G8 summit of world leaders.

About half the total 48,000 US military personnel in Japan are stationed on Okinawa - just over one-quarter of the entire US military presence in Asia.

But many residents are angry at recent crimes committed by US soldiers.

A US marine has been arrested for sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl and an airman has been accused of a hit and run accident.

Residents in Okinawa, the poorest part of Japan, also say US interests have stunted the region's development.

"The US military owns our land, our sea and our sky," said protester 82-year-old Toyo Hokama.


Sidenote: What really confused me, that Laches essay on Anti-Americanism didn't involve Okinawa. If anywhere outside the US, reasons for Anti-Americanism are mentioned, the famous Okinawa problems are usually first on the list. Now, I don't doubt that Laches used dilligently the sources he had. I just wonder about the sources.
A question for you - should a country be Islamic simply because Muslims live there? If so, then the US should be an Islamic state as well. But then what happens to the Christians, or the Jews, or the Hindus, or the Buddhists, or the Pagans, or the... you get my point. Rallymama, I am sure you know, that the Qurain (Sp? dam, I never know English spelling) states explicit tolerance and security versus sister-religions, namely Jews and Christians. And you know, while Jews were burned at stakes in Europe, Jews in muslim countries were save and sound.

What is with the countries, which have a cross in their flag, the UK, Sweden, Denmark, Switerland, Norway. Do they oppress non-christan minorities ? What's with turkey (except kurds). The best example for me is still the Buddha statue, which was blown away by the Taliban. Afghanistan was muslim nearly a thousand years. But they never had the idea to destroy Buddha statues. What changed ????

I still believe, however, that - whatever difference of fundamental interests there may be between the US government and the countries where bases are located - that no one is actively trying to subvert local cultures and replace them with Americana "The US military owns our land, our sea and our sky," said protester 82-year-old Toyo Hokama.


[ May 18, 2003, 04:18: Message edited by: Yago ]

Rally -- No joke, you are correct in citing McDonald's. The running joke about them is that they do no market research before they open a location. They could not understand why they were having trouble with their stores in India. Finally, after 8 months of no profits someone at Micky Ds figured out that Hindus don't eat hamburgers. It's not that they are trying to change anyone's culture. It's that they don't know what culture is.

Your wrong about that. Mc Donalds do do market research before opening a store. I had a friend who was paid by Mac Donalds to reseach different places in NZ on quiet a few occasions.

Did I say they should stop whatever they're doing? No, I didn't, I said they happen, because people give them a reason to attack.

You just don't give up, do you ? And what do you think IS that reason ? Do i need to explain the story again ?

If they don't have a reason, they'll find one. If it really was like you said, terrorism would have been negotiable. Most terrorists would have been normal criminals if they didn't have a "reason to fight" for a cause. Do you really think the IRA hitmen are going to be farmers, or shopkeepers if there ever should be peace in Northern Ireland ? Hell, they're in the killing business, it's the only business they know.

If they don't have a reason, they'll find one. If it really was like you said, terrorism would have been negotiable. Most terrorists would have been normal criminals if they didn't have a "reason to fight" for a cause. Do you really think the IRA hitmen are going to be farmers, or shopkeepers if there ever should be peace in Northern Ireland ? Hell, they're in the killing business, it's the only business they know. I don't agree. Throughout history, terrorism has been stopped, through solving the underlying political conflict. When was the las British victim of an Indian terrorist attack? Hm, British suddenly stopped to be victim of Indian terrrorism, as they finally give in and granted India home-rule.

And considering Northern-Ireland. The situation there can be attributed to 50 % Irish and 50 % British. The British, in my view, had their fair share in making things worse, not granting minimal rights to human beings and iirc, pro British terrorist groups have the biggest body-count in Nothern-Ireland. So, in my view, the British themselves did all to kill business in Northern-Irealand themselves, just like the Irish.
But the peace-agreements did better the situation at the beggining of the mid-90s. No one said it is easy, to end an very old conflict. But someone has to start. The main problem now seems to be, how stop the protestands from rioting and killing people.

How old is the conflict ? Old as the easter-rising, the civil-wars from the 19th century, Irish home-rule ?

The following is from BBC-History:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/troubles/

The Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association was formed in January 1967 as a response to four decades of Unionist discrimination against Catholics. It had five demands: one man, one vote in council elections; ending of gerrymandering of electoral boundaries; machinery to prevent discrimination by public authorities and to deal with complaints; fair allocation of public housing; repeal of Special Powers Act and disbanding of B Specials, a predominantly Protestant auxiliary police force .

By the summer of 1969 the crisis in Northern Ireland had deepened considerably. Terence O'Neill who had sought to open dialogue with Catholics had resigned and been replaced by Major James Chichester-Clark. Unionists, who had ruled Northern Ireland as a one party state since 1921, had no experience of negotiating with the minority Catholic community. Catholic demands for civil rights had not been satisfied and as the loyalist marching season approached sectarian passions were inflamed.

Bloody Sunday is named after the events that occurred on Sunday 30 January 1972 when British soldiers shot dead 13 men and injured 14 others. A further victim died later. The killings took place in the predominantly nationalist city of Londonderry.

The soldiers claimed that they had been fired on as they moved in to make arrests. The people of the Bogside believed the army had summarily executed 13 unarmed civilians. The killings provoked outrage and were denounced as "another Sharpeville". The British Embassy in Dublin was burned down and Bernadette Devlin MP physically attacked the Home Secretary Reginald Maudling in the House of Commons.

On the twentieth anniversary of the killings there were calls for an independent inquiry. The Prime Minister John Major's response that those killed could be regarded as innocent did not satisfy the relatives of the dead and injured . On 30 January 1998 Prime Minister Tony Blair announced that there would be a new inquiry on the grounds of "compelling new evidence". Lord Saville of Newdigate was appointed to chair the inquiry and its findings are not expected to be published for some time yet.

Bloody Sunday provided a recruitment boost for the IRA who stepped up their bombing campaign. By March the newly formed Ulster Vanguard Movement assembled 60,000 supporters at a rally in Belfast and heard their leader, William Craig, state that if the politicians failed to deal with the IRA "it may be our job to liquidate the enemy".

The political momentum for the September 1994 Provisional IRA cease-fire started with the Hume/Adams talks and progressed with the December 1993 Downing Street Declaration. By the beginning of 1994 it was clear that the Provisional IRA was debating the possibility of a cease-fire. US President Bill Clinton took a political risk and against the wishes of the British government granted the Sinn Féin President Gerry Adams a limited duration visa . Adams arrived in New York on 1 February 1994 and addressed the National Committee on American Foreign Policy.

The cease-fire came on 31 August. The Provisional IRA declared what it called a "complete cessation of military operations." The British government and unionist politicians criticised the statement because of the absence of the word "permanent".

On the day the Provisional IRA announced its cease-fire the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) abducted a Catholic joiner and shot him dead. Another Catholic was shot dead the following day by UDA/UFF gunmen.
In July 1997 the LVF was linked to the murder of an 18-year-old Catholic woman as she slept with her Protestant boyfriend at his home in Aghalee near Portadown. It also admitted planting a bomb in Dundalk and firebombs in two Northern Ireland Tourist Board offices in Banbridge and Newcastle. Then just after Christmas 1997 an INLA prisoner shot Billy Wright dead at the Maze Prison where he was serving an eight-year sentence for threatening to kill a woman. After the Wright murder the LVF established close links with the UFF to the point where the UFF used the LVF title and code word to try to hide its involvement in the sectarian murder of Eddie Treanor in December 1997. A few days after the killing the Chief Constable publicly linked the UDA/UFF to that and other killings and the Ulster Democratic Party was suspended from the political talks as a consequence.

In March 1998, LVF gunmen shot dead Protestant Philip Allen and his Catholic friend Damien Trainor at a bar in Poyntzpass. Shortly after the killing the LVF issued a ten-page policy document threatening politicians, Church and industry leaders and paramilitaries who it claimed were colluding in a "peace surrender process designed to break the Union and establish the dynamic for Irish unity, within an all-Ireland Roman Catholic, Gaelic Celtic state." In a Sunday Times interview an LVF representative said his organisation supported the political analysis of Rev Ian Paisley, leader of the Democratic Unionist Party .

Some people, in the US even, say the US won't win another war because sooner or later they might end up bankrupt (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Greider/End_of_Empire.html) following their current path of action.

Interesting aspect. The cost of the iraq war has been massive (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/consequences/2003/0226iraqwarcost.htm) .... blowing up things spending billions of US capital is not the smartest thing to found an empire on. America's last war with Iraq in the early 1990s cost $61 billion. In that case, U.S. allies footed most of the bill. That almost certainly will not happen this time.Even the washington posts had to admit that in a recent article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A2247-2003Feb25&notFound=true).

More links here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2805769.stm) and here (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/21/iraq/main541584.shtml). I wouldn't wish that to the US but this is a point is worth to be kept in mind.

At Ragusa: The same was with the vietnam war (concerning costs, which the Americans could not pay).

Guess why Powell is touring in your country.

Personally I make the difference where I perceive the focus in ideology. The pan-arabian idea was an arbian nationalist idea, Nasser, the egyptian president is the key exponent of it - it lead to the concerted arab efforts in the wars against israel. And there was nothing religious in it - the the pan-arabian countries were majorly secular socialists, in their ideology was little place for islam - as religion would challenge the secular regime.
Hm, I thought about that one again. I think you're making a huge mistake, when you differentiate between secular and religious natinionalism. They are in the end the same. Secular thought is based on the philosophies of the Greeks and Romans. Religious thought is based on the holy scripture (which is the same for jews, christians and moslems, as Lessing showed). Big parts of the holy scripture are in the end nothing but archaic law books. There's no big difference in the foundings of the two thoughts. There are in the end the same, one claims the authority of rational thinking, the other the authority of spiritualism. But both want the same.

Now nationalism needs something to base on. Germans based their nationalism on a common language (a ridiculous Idea in my vies, as I stated before), other base ther nationalism on shared beliefs. Their is no big difference.

The reason why wars are waged. They are waged to win something. Why loose blood for absolute nothing ? And that's why my country was secure from the lunatic, which ruled your country. In my country, there is nothing but hills, cows. No ressources, no big industry, nothing. The best security a country ever had. Having no natural ressources and no big industry at all.

While it may seem that way at times, I can pretty well guarantee that no corporate executives are actively trying to wipe out anyone's native culture. All execs want to do is make money. Really. There are no ulterior motives, just PROFIT Therefore, Rallymama's thought is absolute right, why invest precious time and energy in something, you don't gain something from ? There is no international islamic conspiracy to conquer the world.

A religious motivation for conquest is a distinctly different thing for me.
Well, you could quote some articles, which would support you're theory and convince me. But as things are, like they are now, I don't fear, that Indonesia and Singapore, Pakistan and Malaysia (Malaysia, truly Asia) join together to conquer the world.

I don't even think, that the only reason for existence of Chinese is to conquer North-America, as Conoleeza Rice's writings sometimes seem to indicate. :evil: :evil: :evil:

[ May 18, 2003, 15:48: Message edited by: Yago ]

Pac man, I believe George Orwell once wrote "If you control the present, you control the future. if you control the past you dictate the present." It means that by allowing the looting of the Iraqi museams, they can wipe away an entire cultures history, and rebuild it in their own image, mainly large corporation, US sympathies, and oil with the price of nothing. The terrorists believe that the US are taking an advantage against people of the Islamic faith.

And have you noticed that many of the terrorists groups all feel "slighted" by the US? The Palestinians, Iraqis, Afghanis...the list is endless. In fact I'm surprised that the other so-called "rogue" states haven't started openly defying US policy.

It means that by allowing the looting of the Iraqi museams, they can wipe away an entire cultures history, and rebuild it in their own image, mainly large corporation, US sympathies, and oil with the price of nothing. The terrorists believe that the US are taking an advantage against people of the Islamic faith.
Hm, the looting of the museums, as the whole looting which went on, was the product of very poor management. It was not intendent. They don't plan to wipe out the Iraqi culture. And the effort of the Americans (and others) to get that stuff back is sincere. The looting of the museum was a worst case scenario come true. They now got the title of "mongols" and I don't think they are happy about it. But the goodside of the whole thing is, there are still some Iraqi artefacts left in Museums all over the world. Mainly in the British museum. Hm, how did Iraqi stuff come to the UK ?

Sidenote: I am trying and trying and trying to get some flames on me, in vain. That's depressing.

Sidenote II: What the heck has McDonalds to do with it ? :confused: McDonalds is just an international company, there's nothing specific American about it, even if some Americans seem to think, that McDonalds has something specific American to it, but that's not the case. And others aim at the golden archers as target, because think, the same wrong thinking, the golden archers are somehow a symbol for America. It's just an international company, in reality owned by a lot of nationals, which makes a lot of advertising. McDonals themselves are not the reason for anything. But I think McDonalds would deserve a topic on its own.

Lol, I just learned the spelling of "Advertising". The development of my spelling is slow, but rest assured, there is some kind of development in my spelling. 10 years and it will maybe show results.

[ May 18, 2003, 17:35: Message edited by: Yago ]

RoKU - Then can you explain why they did not know that Hindus don't eat beef? Not meaning to be picky, but try "does" instead of "do do," someone may mistake that for McDonald's burgers.

Rallymama. I see your point. I meant majority rather than minority. But I propose, "should a majority muslim nation that wants to have an Islamic state be prevented from having one?"

I mean, if tomorrow most people in the US wanted a "Christian State" should they be prevented from having one? or a communist state? or a democratic state? or...or...or.

Why should we decide that for others? Is it bad that a particular group of people say, "no, we don't want you to be here anymore. Please leave."?

I don't remember many people objecting to that idea when India was partitioned, or when East Timor gained independence...

Bush can win many more wars and the US probably will continue to do so... I don't think that it will be such a healthy world if it does...