Egypt

OK, I will read those articles. Thanks.

But the point was that we cannot, as somebody did in one of these posts, blame the WTC muders on Bush's invasion of Iraq; those happened before Iraq.

By the way, that complaint against the West about the Crusades is one of bin Laden's justifications for terrorism, and it's a crock of shite. Muslim armies invaded Europe centuries before the crusades, and they left centuries after the crusades. They were there for over 1200 years (in fact, they're still there, in Eastern Thrace), compared to about 175 years of crusades. I have no sympathy whatsoever for Muslim complaints about Western "injustice" vis a vis the Crusades.

EDIT: Here's my origial post on the Crusades, minus the sarcasm:

We’re “Crusaders.” Ah yes, the Crusades. Nine of them, ran from 1096 until 1272. Lasted 176 years.Beginning in 674, Muslims attacked Constantinople, a European City. In 711, Muslim armies crossed into Spain, but were defeated in central France at the battle of Poitiers, in 732. They didn’t actually leave France, though, until 759, when they retreated to Spain. Muslim armies conquered Sardinia in 827, Sicily and southern Italy in 841, Corsica in 850.From 972-1072, Normans drove the Muslims out of Italy. The Spanish didn’t retake Spain until 1492, seven hundred eighty one years after the Muslims first showed up.But Islam wasn’t done with Europe yet. Constantinople was conquered by the Turks, who saw it as their mission to bring Islam to the European “polytheists,” in 1453. The Turks continued their drive north until they were defeated at Vienna in 1529. Nevertheless, the Turks remained in southeastern Europe until 1923, when they signed a treaty granting them eastern Thrace. They are still in Europe—eastern Thrace-- to this day.European armies attacked Muslims (in lands they had conquered) over the course of 176 years.Muslims, on the other hand, sent armies to attack Europe 385 years before any European army ever showed up on their doorstep, and they continued to wage wars of conquest and exercise dominion in Europe for 1,212 years. Well, they’re still in Europe, if you consider eastern Thrace.

almansoglasnost wrote:

bLuE oRdEr wrote: OK, so my point with #1 is that those deaths can't be used as an example of the folly of UK & US policy on Iraq, because they occurred before the Iraqi war.

hmm, and when have this war begun for you? because for iraqis it all started when the british invasion of 1917. and for others it all even begun in the crusades. the fact is that Iraq has been in war all XX Century for one reason or another and always had to do with the main countries influence in all middle east. or do you think Afghanistan and Iraq are new in USA´s agenda? check out who they supported when the afghans war against the russians in 78. or who they supported in 1980´s Iran-Iraq war (pic Rumsfeld/Hussein, 1983)

i recommend you to read some articles written by Robert Fisk. he explains the situation pretty well.

1. The British invasion: In fact, the British and the French both carved up the Ottoman Empire as it collapsed. They didn't "invade" sovereign nations, they took over the administration of Ottoman provinces under international mandate. And yes, they had selfish motives for taking control. But to characterize it as an invasion implies that the Iraqis were a nation and Britain went to war. They weren't a natrion, and Briatin didn't go to war; Iraq was welded together from 3 or 4 Ottoman provinces and administered by the British.

2. I know about our involvement in the war against the Russian occupation. The Russians characterized it as peace-keeping in support of the legitimate socialistAfghan government, by the way. The reason bin Laden fought against the Russians and their Afghan sponsors is because communists are atheists, and thus, anathema to fundamentalist Muslims. The same reason bin laden hated Saddam Hussein. I'm also aware of which side we supported in the Iraq-Iran war; that was right after the Iranian revolution.

3. I have only skimmed some of the Fisk articles, but he doesn't seem very intellectually honest right off the bat. Here's one example:

Other elements of the Bush speech were, of course, woefully dishonest. It’s a bit much for Bush to claim that "terrorists" want to "topple governments" when the only guys who’ve been doing that - in Afghanistan and Iraq - were, ahem, ahem, the Americans.

In fact, bin Laden's goal is to overthrow the Saudi regime. Fisk is pretending, apparently, that that isn't bin Laden's goal.

Bush is woefully dishonest, and Bush did topple regimes (and on that subject, the Taleban were a group of armed thugs, not a legitimate government) but countering Bush's dishonesty with dishonesty isn't very, well, honest.

EDIT: I've skimmed through some more articles, and for the most part, they seem more honest than that first example I read, with maybe a few points here and there that I'd take exception to.

bLuE oRdEr wrote:

I merely used the WWII analogy to point out the problem with basing foreign policy decisions on whether a course of action will be difficult.

but this is my point: 'the ends justify the means' is not a valid reason for going to war. one should take the course of action into consideration, especially if it is widely known that that a course of action will most likely lead to wider problems that will overshadow the initial objective--which is what is happening in iraq.

AgentWood wrote:

bLuE oRdEr wrote:

I merely used the WWII analogy to point out the problem with basing foreign policy decisions on whether a course of action will be difficult.

but this is my point: 'the ends justify the means' is not a valid reason for going to war. one should take the course of action into consideration, especially if it is widely known that that a course of action will most likely lead to wider problems that will overshadow the initial objective--which is what is happening in iraq.

We agree.

More or less, I guess. Of course one can't ignore the consequences of decisions, but one also can't just limit decisionmaking to those decision on which every single member of humanity agrees. Thus my Swedish Lutheran terrorist hypothesis.

On a slightly different subject, here's an interesting news bit, by the way...

bLuE oRdEr wrote: Swedish Lutheran terrorist

terrifying people. the ikea...the ikea....

Well, in the spirit of valuing Westrn lives more than Mideastern lives, here's a disgusting article crowing about how Western lives were saved in Egypt.

AgentWood wrote:

bLuE oRdEr wrote: Swedish Lutheran terrorist

terrifying people. the ikea...the ikea....

Bloody (descendants of) Vikings!

bLuE oRdEr wrote: Well, in the spirit of valuing Westrn lives more than Mideastern lives, here's a disgusting article crowing about how Western lives were saved in Egypt.

god. i don't know what i would've done had the bomber hit the hard rock cafe.

AgentWood wrote:

bLuE oRdEr wrote: Well, in the spirit of valuing Westrn lives more than Mideastern lives, here's a disgusting article crowing about how Western lives were saved in Egypt.

god. i don't know what i would've done had the bomber hit the hard rock cafe.

Prolly go looking for a cheap night of solace in the arms of a stranger met at the Hard Rock Cafe, Orlando. Oh, the shared grief. And saliva.

AgentWood wrote:

bLuE oRdEr wrote: Swedish Lutheran terrorist

terrifying people. the ikea...the ikea....

The owner of IKEA, Kamprad, was a Nazi. He have admitted that, and doesn't seem to be sorry for that.

Rian wrote:

AgentWood wrote:

bLuE oRdEr wrote: Swedish Lutheran terrorist

terrifying people. the ikea...the ikea....

The owner of IKEA, Kamprad, was a Nazi. He have admitted that, and doesn't seem to be sorry for that.

so that explains the prevalence of excessive neatness, clean lines and right angles.

so that explains the prevalence of excessive neatness, clean lines and right angles.

Probably