Iraq War has angered and increased Islamic terrorism.

[Devastatin Dave]

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2006Sep...USIraq,00.html

Interesting article. According to National Intelligence Estimate, Islamic terrorsim and anger has increased over the Iraq war. I just have this to say...

WELL, DUUUUUUUHHHHH

The mere fact that people in the Western World are still breathing causes Islamic anger and terrorism!!! You can't walk past a mosque and fart these days without having a jihadists having a fit. Cartoons anyone? I just find it funny that people think that if we were to play nice with the middle east that they would all the sudden be as playful as puppy dogs.

(ser disclaimer: I'm talking about radical Islam, so don't start menstrating, thanks)

[Pannonian]

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2006Sep...USIraq,00.html

Interesting article. According to National Intelligence Estimate, Islamic terrorsim and anger has increased over the Iraq war. I just have this to say...

WELL, DUUUUUUUHHHHH

The mere fact that people in the Western World are still breathing causes Islamic anger and terrorism!!! You can't walk past a mosque and fart these days without having a jihadists having a fit. Cartoons anyone? I just find it funny that people think that if we were to play nice with the middle east that they would all the sudden be as playful as puppy dogs.

(ser disclaimer: I'm talking about radical Islam, so don't start menstrating, thanks)

Do you have any evidence showing that these things cause these fundies to tip over the edge into actual terrorism, as opposed to mere words? Of our own home grown terrorists, the common reason they've given for their turning against their hosts was Iraq and Britain's participation in it. Before Iraq, these nutjobs were of marginal importance and influence. After Iraq, their stories gained ready ears and their schemes ready followers.

If you read or watch the Feb 2003 Newsnight interview, you'll know that the studio audience warned Blair that Britain's participation in an invasion of Iraq would only increase our risk from terrorism.

[Devastatin Dave]

Do you have any evidence showing that these things cause these fundies to tip over the edge into actual terrorism, as opposed to mere words? Of our own home grown terrorists, the common reason they've given for their turning against their hosts was Iraq and Britain's participation in it. Before Iraq, these nutjobs were of marginal importance and influence. After Iraq, their stories gained ready ears and their schemes ready followers.

If you read or watch the Feb 2003 Newsnight interview, you'll know that the studio audience warned Blair that Britain's participation in an invasion of Iraq would only increase our risk from terrorism.

So you're saying that before the Iraq war there wasn't any islamic terrorism.

[Spetulhu]

So you're saying that before the Iraq war there wasn't any islamic terrorism.

No, he's saying exactly what the Republitards don't want to hear: invading Iraq was a blunder that only increased terrorism.

[Pannonian]

So you're saying that before the Iraq war there wasn't any islamic terrorism.

None against us, which is all that matters to me. There's the matter of 9/11 and the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan, but that was a treaty matter, a response to an attack to an ally, and that didn't provoke any homegrown terrorism. Are you saying that Islamic fundamentalism in the UK had already moved into terrorism before Iraq? If so, can you provide cites?

[Devastatin Dave]

No, he's saying exactly what the Republitards don't want to hear: invading Iraq was a blunder that only increased terrorism.

Terrorism would increase towards the West regardless. These aggressions have increased decade by decade. We weren't in Iraq from the time terrorist (yes terrorist) Yassar Arafat began hijacking airplanes in the 70's, all the way up to 9/11. It would have increased regardless of the Iraqi invasion. Oh, I almost forgot my disclaimer....

(ser disclaimer: I'm talking about radical Islam, so don't start menstrating, thanks)

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The NIE also notes that terror forces are much less centralized now, albeit more numerous. This makes larger, coordinated attacks such as the 9-11-01 assault less likely, even though the increase in terror recruiting indicates that the overall threat of terror attacks has probably increased.

Had we never attacked Iraq, it is unlikely that Libya would have opted out (big plus for the WOT? debatable), but Al-Queda capabilities would still have been significantly degraded by the attack on Afghanistan. Recruiting would still have been up -- any involvement by the USA beyond what existed prior to the 9-11-01 attack would have generated an increase in recruiting, but probably not to the levels we see today. Iraq as a festering sore provides the USA with little advantage. Iraq as an emergent and semi-secular democracy provides huge long term advantages. Not having an effective plan -- and it seems clear now that we were relying on a "we're liberating France from the Nazis model (only we'll skip the bit about a government in exile ready to step in and minimize chaos) -- to begin the rebuilding is far and away the biggest malf-up of the whole process.

We now have a more difused threat with a greater number of opponents and even less of a central authority (C3I) component to target. International terror forces would have been a smaller -- albeit capable of more "marquee" operations -- opponent had we done nothing militarily in response to the 09-11-01 attacks. Psychologically, of course, a non-response was impossible. The USA could no more sit still and not counter-attack than could Israel ignore Hizbollah rockets.

Which brings us back to the age-old dilemma. If you do nothing, extremist terror forces "win," your goverment may fall, and you might even lose militarily. If you hammer the terrorists, innocents die along with them and you will be seen as an invader in almost all circumstances -- and become a target as numerous people seek to repel a foreign occupier. You can co-opt one terror faction against another -- war on the cheap -- but you will be tarred by the association and (unintended consequences) may create a worse threat in the long run [some Taliban forces (and subsequent AQ's) had CIA training back in the early 1980s]. Negotiation has all the moral drawbacks of legitimizing criminality -- which gets done with every successful rebellion of course, but still isn't fun -- and often carries the impact of creating a perception of weakness that prompts further attacks.

No neat answers, folks. Lessons to remember: Resolve matters. Intelligence (miilitary sense) is key -- and we don't have enough (yet).

[sharrukin]

Do you have any evidence showing that these things cause these fundies to tip over the edge into actual terrorism, as opposed to mere words? Of our own home grown terrorists, the common reason they've given for their turning against their hosts was Iraq and Britain's participation in it. Before Iraq, these nutjobs were of marginal importance and influence. After Iraq, their stories gained ready ears and their schemes ready followers.

If you read or watch the Feb 2003 Newsnight interview, you'll know that the studio audience warned Blair that Britain's participation in an invasion of Iraq would only increase our risk from terrorism.

You know that when the United States went to war with Japan, the citizens of Japanese ancestry remained loyal despite American actions towards them, that gave them far more cause for complaint.

Citizens of German, Italian, and French descent went to war against the nations of their origin, and showed themselves to be Americans first.

Perhaps the 'hosts' should tell the guests that its time to go home!

And since when haven't the Muslims been blowing up airplanes, cafes, etc. It started in the mid to late 1960's and hasn't stopped since. The reasons change slightly as events transpire, but the song remains the same.

So maybe if we are really nice to our killers they will murder less of our citizens than they did last year? We can hope!

[rotorgun]

This disatisfaction is not limited to Irag, but Afghanistan also. I watched a presentation by Sarah Chaye of her book, Punishment of Virtue: Inside Afghanistan After the Taliban, last night on CSPAN. She has lived in Kandahar for sometime now, and she has taken notice of how corrupt the newly installed government is. The reliance on the former warlords by the US, and inability of the new government to reign them in has led to vast corruption in the region. So bad is it, that many people are being driven back into the ranks of the Taliban. The governments inability to provide stability has led many to wish for a return of the Taliban because they did a better job of running the show.

Here is a short excerpt from the book review in the New York Times:

She contends that Gul Agha Shirzai, the warlord governor of Kandahar, has been able to convince the American military officers constantly rotating through the city that he is a loyal supporter of the new Afghanistan. But in fact, she writes, he and his relatives hid their own sweeping corruption, along with bitter complaints from other tribes. Today, Afghans who long for a modern and stable country express disappointment with Hamid Karzai and his American backers for creating a hugely corrupt Afghanistan. In rural areas, support for the Taliban is rising.

Chayes’s most explosive charge is that Pakistan — the United States’ supposed ally in the war against terrorism — is actively supporting the Taliban as a way to counter the spreading influence of its regional rival, India. To placate the Americans, Pakistan occasionally arrests a senior Qaeda operative. But at the same time, the resurgent Taliban fighting and killing American soldiers in the “new” Afghanistan were “maufactured and maintained, housed, trained and equipped by stubborn, shortsighted officials in that very Pakistani government,” she writes. “I was at a loss to understand why American decision makers could not see how suicidally contradictory their alliance with Pakistan was. To us on the ground, it was obvious.”


This is also similar to what is happening in Iraq in some ways. The level of corruption is very high in most provinces, and this has caused many Iraqis to have a lack of faith in the government to provide services and security.

If you care to read the whole review:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/17/bo...fab9dd&ei=5070

"If you break it(Iraq), it's yours." (Colin Powell's advice to the President and his cabinet before the invasion of Iraq)

[Pannonian]

Had we never attacked Iraq, it is unlikely that Libya would have opted out (big plus for the WOT? debatable)

Gaddafi had been looking to reestablish normal international relations since the mid 1990s. Fortunately for him and us, Blair saw this and (helped by the atmosphere following 9/11) worked out a mutually acceptable solution based on compensating the relatives of the Lockerbie victims. The publicly acceptable solution could only be defined in terms of Lockerbie, but as a bonus we got the full cooperation of the Libyan intelligence services, who had opposed Islamic radicalism since their inception..

No neat answers, folks. Lessons to remember: Resolve matters. Intelligence (miilitary sense) is key -- and we don't have enough (yet).

It's been alleged that Syria offered full cooperation with the US over al-Qaeda - their intelligence service being second only to Libya's on the matter - but were turned down. The price was America's non-intervention in Israeli-Syrian relations. The CIA were happy at filling this big gap in their intelligence efforts for no material cost, and were less pleased when the White House ordered them to shut shop.

[kataphraktoi]

And what have these extremists done to increase terrorism? Everything under the sun....

[caravel]

You can't walk past a mosque and fart these days without having a jihadists having a fit.

You can fart, just so long as you haven't eaten any pork in the last 24 hours?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Apologies

[Pannonian]

You know that when the United States went to war with Japan, the citizens of Japanese ancestry remained loyal despite American actions towards them, that gave them far more cause for complaint.

Britain invaded Iraq without just cause. America did not invade Japan without just cause. When we took action against Afghanistan, it was almost universally recognised as the right response to an attack on our ally. Everyone supported that war. The invasion of Iraq was a different matter - Iraq had done nothing against us, nor had they done anything against our allies. We had no business there.

Citizens of German, Italian, and French descent went to war against the nations of their origin, and showed themselves to be Americans first.

Perhaps the 'hosts' should tell the guests that its time to go home!

Do you want to say the same to those WW2 veterans who opposed the Iraq war?

And since when haven't the Muslims been blowing up airplanes, cafes, etc. It started in the mid to late 1960's and hasn't stopped since. The reasons change slightly as events transpire, but the song remains the same.

So maybe if we are really nice to our killers they will murder less of our citizens than they did last year? We can hope!

Do you have any cites for Islamic terrorists targeting Britain before Iraq?

[rotorgun]

Britain invaded Iraq without just cause. America did not invade Japan without just cause. When we took action against Afghanistan, it was almost universally recognised as the right response to an attack on our ally. Everyone supported that war. The invasion of Iraq was a different matter - Iraq had done nothing against us, nor had they done anything against our allies. We had no business there. (Pannonian)

Exactly Panonnian! This is exactly what gets my goat the most about his whole trumped up affair, IMO designed to do nothing else but expand power and keep the defense industry in the black. We haven't even done the honor of officially declaring war upon Iraq-an honor that we felt that Germany (under Hitler) and Japan (under Tojo) were at least entitled to. This rousing of public fear against WMD's and the "War on Terror" is only so much of a cheap side parlor trick IMO. I have always been behind our efforts in Afghanistan, but not in Iraq. I love my country and would die for her, but this makes a mockery of honorable service.

Sincerly,

[Devastatin Dave]

None against us, which is all that matters to me.

You have a veeery short memory if you think that 911 was the first time we've been attacked. Your real name wouldn't happen to be Clinton would it?

[Devastatin Dave]

You have a veeery short memory if you think that 911 was the first time we've been attacked. Your real name wouldn't happen to be Clinton would it?

Sorry, i forgot , you're Brittish. But do you HONESTLY believe that Britain would NEVER be attacked by Islamic radicals if they did not assist the Americans in Iraq? You're a fool if you think so...

[Scurvy]

Of course there were islamic terrorist attacks before 9/11, but Iraq (and to a lesser extent Afganistan and probably now Lebannon) certainly increases the terrorism threat. This is because the terrorists get publicity, which then attracts more radical muslims them - palestine is a good examples - a (fundamentalist) muslim might see pictures of dieing kids in Gaza on bbc news - and be rightly angered, see reports of terrorist activites against those he percieves as responsible, and it all proceeds from there (- that was v badly structured, need to improve my writing skills )

[Idaho]

Sorry, i forgot , you're Brittish. But do you HONESTLY believe that Britain would NEVER be attacked by Islamic radicals if they did not assist the Americans in Iraq? You're a fool if you think so...

You are the fool for desperately hanging on to the idea that islamic terrorism would have increased without Iraq and Afghanistan. It's a nonsense argument that your limited world view needs to survive.

The war on terror has been misguided, misled, strategically fanciful at best, and has done nothing but increase the very problem they set out to conquer. And what's more millions of people told you so many years ago. Well Dave - this whole cock-up is your responsibility. Yours and the other unthinking buffoons who bought freedom fries, voted for George Bush and argued for the war in Iraq. History will judge you all harshly.

[Devastatin Dave]

You are the fool for desperately hanging on to the idea that islamic terrorism would have increased without Iraq and Afghanistan. It's a nonsense argument that your limited world view needs to survive.

The war on terror has been misguided, misled, strategically fanciful at best, and has done nothing but increase the very problem they set out to conquer. And what's more millions of people told you so many years ago. Well Dave - this whole cock-up is your responsibility. Yours and the other unthinking buffoons who bought freedom fries, voted for George Bush and argued for the war in Iraq. History will judge you all harshly.

So now you're saying that we should not have gone into Afganastan after 9/11? So your answer to Islamic terrorism is what?

[Pannonian]

Sorry, i forgot , you're Brittish. But do you HONESTLY believe that Britain would NEVER be attacked by Islamic radicals if they did not assist the Americans in Iraq? You're a fool if you think so...

So do you have any cites, references to where Britain was targeted before the Iraq fiasco? Not by states who happen to be Muslim (Libya), but Islamic fundamentalists proper. Call me a fool if you want, but provide references - we heard the same kind of dismissal before March 2003, and we weren't too impressed by it then either, preferring actual evidence or a ruddy good case to be made before going to war.

[sharrukin]

Britain invaded Iraq without just cause. America did not invade Japan without just cause. When we took action against Afghanistan, it was almost universally recognised as the right response to an attack on our ally. Everyone supported that war. The invasion of Iraq was a different matter - Iraq had done nothing against us, nor had they done anything against our allies. We had no business there.

I disagreed with the invasion of Iraq from the beginning. I think it was an idiotic mistake, that burned up a lot of goodwill around the world. That does not mean that Muslims do not owe their loyalty to the nation they claim to be citizens of.

Do you want to say the same to those WW2 veterans who opposed the Iraq war?

I would say to them that I agree with them completely.

Do you have any cites for Islamic terrorists targeting Britain before Iraq?

The Lockerbie Bombing.

Leila Khaled, the leader of the PFLP cell captured in Britain.

Two attempted attacks on planes in December, 1969. Stopped by police.

Another arrest in December, 1972 at London airport

Letter bombs sent to Jewish and Israeli addresses in Britain. May 1973

An explosion at a hotel resort near Athens injured 13, including six British citizens by Abu Nidal.

In 1978, Al Mukhabarat was behind the murder of Gen Abdul Razzaq al-Hayef, outside a hotel in London.

April 17, 1984, a Libyan embassy employee kills a british policewoman

In December,1970 Black September attempted the assassination of the Jordanian ambassador to Britain.

In February 1972, Black September destroyed a West German electrical plant and a Dutch gas plant. Tell me, what exactly did West Germany or the Netherlands do to them? You are fooling yourself if you think grovelling is a tactic that will work.

[Pannonian]

The Lockerbie Bombing.

Leila Khaled, the leader of the PFLP cell captured in Britain.

Two attempted attacks on planes in December, 1969. Stopped by police.

Another arrest in December, 1972 at London airport

Letter bombs sent to Jewish and Israeli addresses in Britain. May 1973

An explosion at a hotel resort near Athens injured 13, including six British citizens by Abu Nidal.

In 1978, Al Mukhabarat was behind the murder of Gen Abdul Razzaq al-Hayef, outside a hotel in London.

April 17, 1984, a Libyan embassy employee kills a british policewoman

In December,1970 Black September attempted the assassination of the Jordanian ambassador to Britain.

How many of those were by Islamic fundamentalists, and how many were nationalists or other purveyors of secular causes who happened to be Muslims? Most of the terrorism Britain has suffered in the past few decades was directed by people who happened to be Christian, but we didn't call them Christian terrorists because their cause was not dictated by Christianity.

In February 1972, Black September destroyed a West German electrical plant and a Dutch gas plant. Tell me, what exactly did West Germany or the Netherlands do to them? You are fooling yourself if you think grovelling is a tactic that will work.

Now where have I ever advocated grovelling? My consistent position on the threat of Islamic terrorism is that we should do what we should be doing in the first place, whether or not those terrorists existed. That means not lashing out at people and countries who have nothing to do with these terrorists, it means not doing what these terrorists want us to do simply because they tell us to. It means not giving in to these terrorists, but it also means not doing the opposite of what these terrorists say simply because they say it. It means completely ignoring them as a political factor.

[Scurvy]

completely ignoring terrorsist isnt impossible the blow things up however i agree it is irrational to target the countries which the terrorists are based it - its an obvious problem though, how do you take out terrorist groups without having a "war" in a neutral country....

[Tribesman]

We weren't in Iraq from the time terrorist (yes terrorist) Yassar Arafat began hijacking airplanes in the 70's, all the way up to 9/11.

Change your name to doublethink dave , all hail the party faithfull
Why not just repeat Big Bubbas classic about Russia not invading Iraq but still getting attacked my Muslim terrorists

[sharrukin]

So do you have any cites, references to where Britain was targeted before the Iraq fiasco? Not by states who happen to be Muslim (Libya), but Islamic fundamentalists proper. Call me a fool if you want, but provide references - we heard the same kind of dismissal before March 2003, and we weren't too impressed by it then either, preferring actual evidence or a ruddy good case to be made before going to war.

I don't disagree with the foolishness of invading Iraq, but I do not think that Muslim terror groups need much in the way of an excuse to murder.


http://www.gamla.org.il/english/arti.../jan/post1.htm

"And they describe how the British government, Hussein's closest Western ally, declined to come to his aid during Black September, suggesting that it believed the Hashemite throne might be toppled in the Palestinian-initiated civil war and that it should keep its options open in the event of a Palestinian triumph."

"Hussein's most urgent appeal to Britain and the US, including the request to London to ask Israel for assistance, was sent on September 19."

"Moreover, the Palestinians have also alleged that Israel secretly supplied Jordan with arms after agreeing with Hussein's assessment that a Syrian invasion of Jordan could spark a full-scale regional conflict."

"Among the documents just released is a copy of a letter written by Khaled to her mother from her police cell in west London, in which she reported that she was being treated "as if I were an official state guest."

One of your Arab allies doing the boogy-woogie with a British knife in the back and the funny part is that it was Israel doing more to help Jordan than their so-called ally, Britain.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/...al/1089694.stm

The PFLP demanded Khaled's release - as well as the other Palestinian extremists. To emphasise the point, a few days later the group hijacked another plane, a BOAC (British Overseas Airways Corporation) - VC-10 on course from Bombay to Beirut.

The guerrillas now held over 300 hostages, 65 of them British. What should Britain do?

30 Sept: Leila Khaled released from UK

Speaking to UK Confidential, Leila Khaled, now a middle-aged housewife, admitted that the PFLP was encouraged by the UK's capitulation to its demands.

"It was a good step for us that we saw governments could be negotiated with. We could impose our demands.

"The success in the tactics of the hijacking and imposing our demands and succeeding in having our demands implemented gave us the courage and the confidence to go ahead with our struggle."

Your PM Heath thought he was being pragmatic about things, but that doesn't work with fanatics.

You are splitting hairs regarding Libyan, or other state sponsored terror operations, because in that case the IRA, who received Soviet backing wouldn't be included in your list of terror groups either.

The fact that generally Britain acted more as a base for Muslim terrorist activities against Israel and other European nations, rather than a target is not an indication that they mean you no harm. Other European states, as well as Canada took the same road and it served them no better. The US also hosted IRA fundraisers and recruiters, so no one comes out of this with clean hands, IMO.

The point is that we too often fool ourselves into thinking that our actions can be tailored to avoid angering terrorist fanatics, and thus avoid a murder spree. We are just neutralizing ourselves while they make advances elsewhere.

[sharrukin]

completely ignoring terrorsist isnt impossible the blow things up however i agree it is irrational to target the countries which the terrorists are based it - its an obvious problem though, how do you take out terrorist groups without having a "war" in a neutral country....

Well, I think we need to keep our own interests in mind. We should not be missionaries (crusaders) of (for) democracy (christendom), nor should we engage in "nation building". It didn't work for the Crusaders, it didn't work for the Imperialists, and it isn't going to work for us. If they want to run around and eat each other...let them! We are not gods, among men, nor are we a superior breed of mankind that all should emulate us.

We should target states that harbour terrorist organizations, and this does not mean that we need to send any soldiers to occupy the place, as our intent is to curb their actions, not dictate their lifestyles. That means we don't build schools for Muslim women, or help poor farmers with their crops. Poor farmers and Muslim women generally aren't the ones carrying out these terror raids. Rich pampered Saudi's and middle class educated Egyptians are the culprits. We need to target the states that allow this to go on, and too many of those are the nations we call "friend".

For small/weak states like Libya, direct military action will serve nicely to prevent them taking further aggressive actions against us. For larger states who sponsor terrorism, like Iran and Syria, a naval blockade, and harbour mining would probably be the quickest, least costly method to get them to cease backing terrorist groups. They have little to no interest in paying a high price for their actions. Terrorism is used by these states due to its cheap cost to further their aims, and their being at arms-length when it comes time to portion out the blame. If we make it very expensive for them to engage in this activity they are unlikely to continue.

[Redleg]

The point is that we too often fool ourselves into thinking that our actions can be tailored to avoid angering terrorist fanatics, and thus avoid a murder spree. We are just neutralizing ourselves while they make advances elsewhere.

This is by far the most observant of all the comments in this thread.

Now for Idaho's comment of You are the fool for desperately hanging on to the idea that islamic terrorism would have increased without Iraq and Afghanistan. It's a nonsense argument that your limited world view needs to survive.

Care to provide evidence that shows Islamic based terrorism was actually on the decrease prior to 9/11?

An interesting article I found while trying to find an easy listing on the web of when attacks happened and where.


http://www.boroumand.com/files/politics/pol_1002.htm

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

A taste of the article

"Why?" That is the question that people in the West have been asking ever since the terrible events of September 11. What are the attitudes, beliefs, and motives of the terrorists and the movement from which they sprang? What makes young men from Muslim countries willing, even eager, to turn themselves into suicide bombers? How did these men come to harbor such violent hatred of the West, and especially of the United States? What are the roots-moral, intellectual, political, and spiritual-of the murderous fanaticism we witnessed that day?

As Western experts and commentators have wrestled with these questions, their intellectual disarray and bafflement in the face of radical Islamist (notice we do not say "Islamic") terrorism have become painfully clear. This is worrisome, for however necessary an armed response might seem in the near term, it is undeniable that a successful long-term strategy for battling Islamism and its terrorists will require a clearer understanding of who these foes are, what they think, and how they understand their own motives. For terrorism is first and foremost an ideological and moral challenge to liberal democracy. The sooner the defenders of democracy realize this and grasp its implications, the sooner democracy can prepare itself to win the long-simmering war of ideas and values that exploded into full fury last September 11. The puzzlement of liberal democracies in the face of Islamist terrorism seems odd. After all, since 1793, when the word "terror" first came into use in its modern political sense with the so-called Terror of the French Revolution, nearly every country in the West has had some experience with a terrorist movement or regime. Why then does such a phenomenon, which no less than liberal democracy itself is a product of the modern age, appear in this instance so opaque to Western analysts?

Islamist terror first burst onto the world scene with the 1979 Iranian Revolution and the seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran in November of that year. Since then, Islamism has spread, and the ideological and political tools that have helped to curb terrorism throughout much of the West have proven mostly ineffective at stopping it. Its presence is global, and its influence is felt not only in the lands of the vast Islamic crescent that extends from Morocco and Nigeria in the west to Malaysia and Mindanao in the east but also in many corners of Europe, India, the former Soviet world, the Americas, and even parts of western China.

Ah here was what I was actually looking for - a timeline listing, an interesting read - its a PDF file though.

http://www.acfei.com/images/PDF/Fina...T.%20color.pdf

Now which world view is actually correct Idaho?

[Dracula(Romanian Vlad Tepes)]

You americans want everything.You are selfish.The terrorism has grown because of your invasion.You are blind,because you don't see that more and more people hate you.A lot of countries turn against you.Your politics are very aggressive and not friendly.If you will invade Iran ,I don't think you will get out from there with your army in one piece.The terrorism in Iran is because of you.They associate you with the Europe, so they want to kill europeans too.If you go in Iran ,it will be like in Vietnam.So you can not have the world for you.In the end you will fall like the roman empire.

[Dracula(Romanian Vlad Tepes)]

In Iraq you went because of oil.You are invading their country ,and you say that you bring peace,instead you bring war and you kill people.Your soldiers are killing women and children.Innocent people.But a new empire is rising:European Union.Even the European money is powerful than yours.

[Samurai Waki]

My Proposal is too not invade Iran, just to deny the Iranians any Food or General Health Services until they surrender.