[Intrepid Homoludens]

There's some pretty good pr0n here in the U.S., but I think there's also good stuff coming out Scandinavia, I think. Or at least that guy making it is Scandi.

[Marek]

Originally Posted by Bastich

Personally, I think countries should be judged purely on the quality of their porn.

There goes Germany....... :eek:

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by Ninja Dodo

Yeah, I know. I was just saying don't take my comments personally.

I'm not, ultimately. But we should remember there is genuine benevolence in some governments. If you really, really dig deep enough, and if you're lucky. I mean, really lucky.

ARGH! No no no! Trep you are totally misunderstanding me.

I'm not saying the past doesn't count or matter - I am personally deeply ashamed of some of the things my countrymen have done (I mean, we invented apartheid :eek: ) - but what I am saying is that the past cannot be changed whereas the present can.

Remember, though, that the past can have great repurcussions on the present and the future, so it's wise to keep it in the back of your head. And you're right, we'll always have options open to fix potential problems. That's the trick. Too many bastards want the short term fix, including many Americans as well as those countries in need of help.

Right now, we have soldiers in Iraq who are getting killed just because we're simply trying to help the Iraqis get back on their feet. We get shit for our efforts, and they complain left and right that we are not doing enough. What more can we do? We got stupid terrorists sneaking around with bombs and hiding in civilian establishments, a U.S. soldier gets blown up, they laugh, a British soldier gets blown up, they laugh....meanwhile we get yelled at by the Iraqis, the media, and everyone's grandmother's dog for not doing enough? Like we're God or something? We want the Iraqi's to have a chance at something better than what they've had since....forever, but it now seems like we're the only ones willing to get our asses killed trying to do it, while the other governments stand back and complain that we're 'killing innocent civilians' (as if the Iraqi government and the terrorists were never guilty of that crime themselves). That's just pathetic! No one is meeting us halfway and helping us, and we get crapped on just because we happen to care.

My sister and I have been discussing this off and on, and I came up with this summary for the U.S.: "Damned if we do, damned if we don't!"

You guys or the UN or SOMEONE can get Bush the **** out of there so all this will stop.

Meh, unfortunately the UN is all talk.

Yes. The thing is it applies to all prominent religious symbols. It's not singling out muslims and the intention is not to supress anyone but to ensure a secular atmosphere in schools. I think it's a bit fascist and unecessary, but it's a debatable issue.

I think it's an unwise approach. A Band-Aid approach. It's treating the symptom without curing the disease, and it objectifies the affected groups. Would the French government also ban students from wearing t-shirts and having bumper stickers on their cars with this symbol on them?



Here in the U.S. there's been an ongoing controversy over saying prayers in public schools, that non-Christians refuse to allow their tax money to support institutions that allow students to pray at the start of classes. Personally, I don't care, as long as the Hindus, Muslims, Catholics, Jews, etc. are ALSO allowed to pray (and the atheists could do whatever they want). In effect that would neutralize the whole damn thing, no single faith would be discriminated against because everyone gets to pray. Or not.

I know.

((( sensible americans )))

Yep. Unfortunately there are a lot of us here who are just as crazy as anyone elsewhere in the world. No one is immune, hon.

Anyway...

- a link -

It's now 48% though, apparently.

So that's where it came from! You sneaky little bastard!

[Mattsius]

Originally Posted by Marek

There goes Germany....... :eek:

Heh, I thought the same thing. Günther, Günter!

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

That's just pathetic! No one is meeting us halfway and helping us, and we get crapped on just because we happen to care.

Well, you didn't go to Iraq because you cared, you went there to get the oil.

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

I think it's an unwise approach. A Band-Aid approach. It's treating the symptom without curing the disease, and it objectifies the affected groups. Would the French government also ban students from wearing t-shirts and having bumper stickers on their cars with this symbol on them?

It not just in France that this is a hot topic. The same thing has been discussed in Sweden (which also happens to have many newish immigrants who are not Christians) also during the year. I don't remember if they went the same way as France or if there was some kind of compromise.
I'm not really sure if I'm against or for a ban of religious symbols. It's without a doubt a tough choice. I totally understand why there shouldn't be, for example, headscarves in schools, because it's quite a big problem if the teacher can't even see the face of the student when he/she is talking to her. But I guess I'm not really comfortable with the way they are trying to "solve" the issue.

Overall Europe is much more secular than America and it's very easy to notice this difference in belief in this very thread. I believe one reason why Europeans in general want to lay low regarding religion is that we have had so many religious wars here in the past and therefore are even scared of religious conflict. The problem is that this headscarf ban might enlarge the conflict that it is trying to prevent.


Also, that pic made me think of Kingz's delicious Tim-fish.

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by deadworm222

Designed by all the Chinese, Japanese, Korean etc. Asian people who have moved to America. The greatest technological advancements after WW2 were by Germans who had moved to America.

That's the beauty of America. We accept all people while other countries either reject them or force them to leave their own homeland. I am proud to be part of that. My parents were not born in America either, but it offered them what my birth place didn't.

[Wormsie]

Are you hungry?
Are you sick?
Are you begging for a break?
Are you sweet?
Are you fresh?
Are you strung up by the wrists?

We want the young blood

Are you fracturing?
Are you torn at the seams?
Would you do anything?
Fleabitten, motheaten?

We suck young blood

Won’t let the creeping ivy
Won’t let the nervous bury me
Our veins are thin
Our rivers poisoned

We want the sweet meats
We want the young blood

Hmmm.

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

Right now, we have soldiers in Iraq who are getting killed just because we're simply trying to help the Iraqis get back on their feet. We get shit for our efforts, and they complain left and right that we are not doing enough. What more can we do? We got stupid terrorists sneaking around with bombs and hiding in civilian establishments, a U.S. soldier gets blown up, they laugh, a British soldier gets blown up, they laugh....meanwhile we get yelled at by the Iraqis, the media, and everyone's grandmother's dog for not doing enough? Like we're God or something? We want the Iraqi's to have a chance at something better than what they've had since....forever, but it now seems like we're the only ones willing to get our asses killed trying to do it, while the other governments stand back and complain that we're 'killing innocent civilians' (as if the Iraqi government and the terrorists were never guilty of that crime themselves). That's just pathetic! No one is meeting us halfway and helping us, and we get crapped on just because we happen to care.

My sister and I have been discussing this off and on, and I came up with this summary for the U.S.: "Damned if we do, damned if we don't!"

That is where I don;t agree with you Trep. I think Bush has majorly screwed up in going to Iraq, and I don't believe he intended to help the Iraqis for one second. You know he said that he cares for the women of Afghanistan getting civil rights after they bombed our ass. Like he didn't care about it be4? And I think Iraq is all a big scam to get their oil. Why didn't he go to N Korea instead? They obviously had nuclear weapons? And Helping a country is not going in there and tagging them as insurgents? Hey like if country X invaded the bay area tomorrow and I went out and fought them, I would be tagged as insurgent.

I think America and the American people are kind and gracious and they want the better for other countries, and they hold great values, but too sadly that the government and the media are making use of this to wage wars that benefit themselves and their pockets.

Ninja Dodo and GG, I myself do not agree with the US foreign policy, but I believe that by staying here and fighting it and fighting for what's right, I can make a difference. People create countries and thank god that we still have democracy and elections. Leaving your country coz you're not proud of the government is not very wise. We should instead stay here, and try our best to change it to the better.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by Mattsius

Well, you didn't go to Iraq because you cared, you went there to get the oil.

Originally Posted by SoccerDude28

That is where I don;t agree with you Trep. I think Bush has majorly screwed up in going to Iraq, and I don't believe he intended to help the Iraqis for one second. You know he said that he cares for the women of Afghanistan getting civil rights after they bombed our ass. Like he didn't care about it be4? And I think Iraq is all a big scam to get their oil. Why didn't he go to N Korea instead? They obviously had nuclear weapons?

I'm sorry, but it goes deeper than that. How does this explain the interests of the other countries, such as France who is a major arms supplier in the Middle East, and Germany is also involved in arms supplies and technology? You can't deny it, but they do have their own stake. Other countries are in essense making the U.S. do all the dirty work, while they themselves prefer to stay in the background to protect their own self interests. Don't go telling me that those countries don't have their own agendas in this. I don't disagree with you that there are some ulterior motives on the part of the U.S., yet why are we always being singled out? Especially when many of our efforts actually do have major humanitarian purposes or at least to maintain some level of peace?

When the Serbs were massacring the Bosnian Muslims and the Croats, who went there first to kick ass and get them to stop? The U.S. military. And only after that did NATO finally step in. Right now I'm doing a bit of research on what actually happened between the Serbs, Bosnians, and Croats during the 90s, and the tensions go back at least decades and generations. It's infuriating.

As for North Korea, they have not attacked us as of yet. So where is the argument there? The U.S. military is keeping an eye on them in case they DO try to start something with us, it's all we can do. We've been trying to negotiate with them to ease up as well as asking China to help (they won't, for their own interests), but Kim Dong Il (whatever his name is) doesn't care, he's gonna keep leveraging his nuclear arms against us in exchange for food and other aid, things which he and his government cannot provide their own people. So what does he do? He builds nuclear weapons to bully the U.S. into giving into him, as most of the money that went into those nuclear weapons and military power could have been spent feeding the starving North Korean population, and the rest went into Kim Dong's pockets. So, you're talking about the U.S. interest in sticking their noses in other people's business, why not let's talk about North Korea sticking their noses into our resources (with some of their missiles reported to be powerful enough to reach the state of California, never mind South Korea, Japan, etc.)?

And also note that President Bush is the very first U.S. president in whose term we the U.S. have been attacked by terrorism on this insanely massive level - over 3000 civilians dead, absolutely no declaration of war upon us as a warning, by a fundamentalist terrorist group who never play by the rules. How would you expect ANY leader of ANY country to act? Especially without any previous experience as a government and as a country to deal with a terrorist attack as huge as this? Should we just ask them kindly to stop, pretty pleeeeez? Will that do it? Of course, we could keep negotiating with them - remember, they are terrorists, thus BEYOND negotiations - for years and years, and that is of course no guarantee that they will stop murdering our citizens and anyone else.

And Helping a country is not going in there and tagging them as insurgents? Hey like if country X invaded the bay area tomorrow and I went out and fought them, I would be tagged as insurgent.

So you're saying that the U.S. military are perceived as insurgents for poking into Iraq? Well then, what do you label the Al Quaeda cells who poked into the U.S. to take up flying lessons and crash the planes into the WTC and the Pentagon?

We're not a perfect government, but hey, no government is. We have our own self interests to protect, but don't think that any other country doesn't. I am not necessarily for war and bloodshed, I hate it. But tell me, what can we do? We have great resources and money, and we honestly do want to help others here and there the best way we can. And yes, we have our self interests, but it takes at least two to tango. What would have happened if we had not marched into France during WWII and kicked Nazi ass? What would happen if we denied North Korea their demands under threat of them launching nuclear missiles on another country in Asia?

Like I said before: "Damned if we do, damned if we don't."

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

When the Serbs were massacring the Bosnian Muslims and the Croats, who went there first to kick ass and get them to stop? The U.S. military. And only after that did NATO finally step in. Right now I'm doing a bit of research on what actually happened between the Serbs, Bosnians, and Croats during the 90s, and the tensions go back at least decades and generations. It's infuriating.

They were also massacring people in Kosovo. But remember that was a war I 100% supported and that was during the Clinton administration which I regard as one of the best in this country's history. Serbia does not have any oil or interest for us to go there but we actually did it for the good of mankind. These are the types of war I'm totally for.

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

As for North Korea, they have not attacked us as of yet.

Iraq has not attacked us AT ALL. I was all for the war agains the Taliban regime and Afghanistan, where you actually had footage of Al Qaida troops training. But there was not a single proof of evidence that Usama Bin Laden's Al Qaida network and Sadam are collaborating. He actually hated Usama, and did not do business with him. President Bush called it a preemptive strike. That is very dangerous politics, coz you can claim that any country is guilty before they are proven innocent. And the sad part is, they did not find any WMD's like our president had suggested before the war, and Iraq was innocent. And just to put things in perspective you know that among the 19(or so) suicide bombers of the WTC, NONE were Iraqis. There were 15 Saudis, THE BIGGEST ALLY of America. Go Figure....

What was the outcome? 100,000+ innocent Iraqi civilians and 1000+ innocent American troops were killed in battle, Al Qaida has flourished in Iraq now because of the lack of real government, innocent people are being kidnapped and beheaded, and as we are speaking, we are bruing more hatred towards America and more terrorists throughout the world, including in Iraq. Bush should be impeached for how he lied to the American people, and the amount of damage he has resulted in. He made use of a tragedy to benefit his own agenda. Funny how Halliburton won the bid for the oil contracts in Iraq. Dick Cheney's own company.

What could have been done? If you suspected Iraq, you let the UN finish its investigation, you impose stronger economical sanctions on them, and you spend the 87 billion on special forces and ops, to go after the real culprits, the Al Qaida network, not a sovereign country who was not even close to impose any threat.

As far as France and Germany having interests in Iraqi oil contracts, I have no doubt about that too. I am skeptical that they are doing it for Iraqi's goodwill. But that still doesn't give us the right to go as a country and wage war on another country just coz we wanna control their oil and get beefier oil contracts. Try to explain that to the 5 and 10 year olds over there who are deprived of a father or a mother.

[Mattsius]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

And also note that President Bush is the very first U.S. president in whose term we the U.S. have been attacked by terrorism on this insanely massive level - over 3000 civilians dead, absolutely no declaration of war upon us as a warning, by a fundamentalist terrorist group who never play by the rules. How would you expect ANY leader of ANY country to act? Especially without any previous experience as a government and as a country to deal with a terrorist attack as huge as this? Should we just ask them kindly to stop, pretty pleeeeez? Will that do it? Of course, we could keep negotiating with them - remember, they are terrorists, thus BEYOND negotiations - for years and years, and that is of course no guarantee that they will stop murdering our citizens and anyone else.

First of all they shouldn't have let the Bin Ladins fly out of the country like they did. They did the right thing when attacking Afghanistan and, at first, it went very well. They shouldn't have left Afghanistan when they did though, but should have stayed there and finished up the job (capturing Bin Ladin). Instead they attacked Iraq which had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 incident. So, overall, Bush and his government screwed up big time.
But hey, they got what they wanted and that's the most important thing.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by SoccerDude28

As far as France and Germany having interests in Iraqi oil contracts, I have no doubt about that too. I am skeptical that they are doing it for Iraqi's goodwill.

For heaven's sake, when will you people realise that there are other alternatives than economy and ethics at stakes here?
My opinion is that France was against this war for political reasons, ie: to be seen as a friend of the middle east, which means trying to be a counter weight for the american power, soothing the internal religious and social problems in France, and gaining from all sides, being an (somewhat treacherous, but still) ally of the US, and also an of the arabic countries.

EDIT: This belief is supported by the fact that Chirac is, and has always been a gaulist, meaning that he's believing and trying to stick to the General De Gaulle's politics. And De Gaulle had both admiration for and resentment toward the US, and always had this idea of Europe being an alternative to the US dominion.
Also, I don't like Chirac at all, I just happens to think that his Iraq politic was wise, while the US one was dangerous and ill-advised.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by SoccerDude28

As far as health care goes, I think it is better to make it private. This way you get better quality health care. In canada, the wait sometimes to get medical attention is very long because of the number of people in line to be treated. All respectable companies here usually provide health care.

No, health care should be public. If I'm sick, I'll go to a doctor, and I'll get refunded afterward, so that it doesn't cost me anything. It works well, and that's the way it should be: health care for all, free for all, all treated the same.

[Wormsie]

Where to take the money for quality healthcare? Higher taxes?

I'd be more in favour of making it partially private.

[Mattsius]

Originally Posted by Ninth

No, health care should be public. If I'm sick, I'll go to a doctor, and I'll get refunded afterward, so that it doesn't cost me anything. It works well, and that's the way it should be: health care for all, free for all, all treated the same.

Agreed.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

I think it's an unwise approach. A Band-Aid approach. It's treating the symptom without curing the disease, and it objectifies the affected groups. Would the French government also ban students from wearing t-shirts and having bumper stickers on their cars with this symbol on them?

Darwinism is not a religion. School in France are laic, and laic school means no religion symbols. What's so offensive about forbidding them? I mean, people can't wear hat during classes, but they could have huge crooses or headscarves? That doesn't make sense, seeing how the goal of a laic school is to get rid of all the prejudices and differences.
The problem here is that people make a confusion, believing that they're asked to forsake their cultural and religious identity, when in truth they're being asked to integrate themselves.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by deadworm222

Where to take the money for quality healthcare? Higher taxes?

Well, yes. What's the matter with taxes? Really, I wouldn't mind paying more taxes if it meant better health care for everyone. That is, if taxes are fairly distributed, ie: the more you get, the more you pay. ...did i mention that I was left-winged?

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by Ninth

No, health care should be public. If I'm sick, I'll go to a doctor, and I'll get refunded afterward, so that it doesn't cost me anything. It works well, and that's the way it should be: health care for all, free for all, all treated the same.

That is all perfect in theory, but when it comes to implementation, things can become hazy. I might not get the best medical treatment available because I'm not actually paying for it, and if I do get it, I might get it late. My cousins lived in Canada for a while, and they would be on a waiting list sometimes to get treatment. With private insurance on the other hand, you get what you pay for. If you can provide "GOOD QUALITY" health care "IN A TIMELY MANNER" to every citizen, then I am a 100% for making it public.

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by SoccerDude28

That is all perfect in theory, but when it comes to implementation, things can become hazy. I might not get the best medical treatment available because I'm not actually paying for it, and if I do get it, I might get it late. My cousins lived in Canada for a while, and they would be on a waiting list sometimes to get treatment. With private insurance on the other hand, you get what you pay for. If you can provide "GOOD QUALITY" health care "IN A TIMELY MANNER" to every citizen, then I am a 100% for making it public.

Plus the nice thing here is that most respectable companies pay for health insurance, so you don't end up paying for it unless you are unemployed. But then you can also get unemployment benefits. I'd really rather cut on the taxes.

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by Ninth

For heaven's sake, when will you people realise that there are other alternatives than economy and ethics at stakes here?
My opinion is that France was against this war for political reasons, ie: to be seen as a friend of the middle east, which means trying to be a counter weight for the american power, soothing the internal religious and social problems in France, and gaining from all sides, being an (somewhat treacherous, but still) ally of the US, and also an of the arabic countries.

EDIT: This belief is supported by the fact that Chirac is, and has always been a gaulist, meaning that he's believing and trying to stick to the General De Gaulle's politics. And De Gaulle had both admiration for and resentment toward the US, and always had this idea of Europe being an alternative to the US dominion.
Also, I don't like Chirac at all, I just happens to think that his Iraq politic was wise, while the US one was dangerous and ill-advised.

Well it is multi-folded. Economy/oil interests is one part of it. But as far as France goes, I agree with what you said. That is another reason. France has a big muslim population (Moroccon and Algerian) which they want to please.

EDIT: Bottom line, they did not have an interest in going to Iraq.

[jjacob]

Originally Posted by Mattsius

First of all they shouldn't have let the Bin Ladins fly out of the country like they did. They did the right thing when attacking Afghanistan and, at first, it went very well. They shouldn't have left Afghanistan when they did though, but should have stayed there and finished up the job (capturing Bin Ladin). Instead they attacked Iraq which had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 incident. So, overall, Bush and his government screwed up big time.
But hey, they got what they wanted and that's the most important thing.

I don't think invading Afghanistan was such a good idea either - nothing good came out of it, no? Consider for a moment that the vast majority of the training camps over there had nothing to do with Islamic terrorism, and even if they did, still nothing to do with 9/11 or "Al-Qaeda" - think more along the path of Chechnia, Uzbekistan and Kashmir. Fact is that the U.S. invaded Afghanistan looking for 'ghosts' that weren't there. Bin Laden's "organisation", which consisted of barely 30 people tops (don't forget to subtract the 19 who flew into the wtc), never really existed, as such. That didn't stop the U.S. media from portraying Al-Qaeda as an incredibly organized group of international terrorists at the time, though, "operating in over 60 countries", "are hiding in an incredibly advanced hidden bunker complex in the mountains of Tora Bora", the claims were getting more outrageous with every news broadcast. I can't say I blame them as such, in the U.S. unfortunately news is a most competitive business, and unless your news guys know how to come up with an even more sinister nightmarish vision of Al-Qaeda, your news show won't get very high ratings. For some reason, 'news' stopped doing what it ought to be doing. But that's besides the point.

Let's go back to 1998. Bin Laden heads for Afghanistan armed with a new strategy; before that, his aim had always been to make the masses rise up against the corrupt middle-eastern regimes (what he called the "near enemy") by bombing local politicians and such, but after witnessing decades of failure to do so, he invented a new "philisophy": he decided he would impress the masses by striking at the "far away enemy" (the West). He first implemented this in Nairobi august 1998 by bombing the U.S. embassy - but this operation was very much on the fringes of the Islamist movement, and it wasn't received well either. In fact, even within Zawahiri's (Bin Laden's mentor) group there were alot of people firmly against this new strategy. Needless to say, he was seen as a sort of lunatic extremist even in those training camps. However, in return for providing funds to some of the camps (having come from a very very wealthy family), he was allowed to look around for volunteers for his operation. Most senior Islamists however, were against this operation (the Islamists' goal is to establish Islamic regimes in the arabic world, and so they wanted nothing to do with Bin Laden). Bin Laden was never very popular within the Islamist movement, and never had much of a base, let alone an "organisation". Untill the U.S. invented one for him, that is. In a Manhattan courtroom in January 2001, four men were accused of the East-African embassy bombings. But they also chose to prosecute Bin Laden in his absence, and to do so, under American law, they had to provide evidence of a criminal organisation - because, as with the maffia, it would allow them to prosecute the head of the organisation, even if he could not be directly linked to the crime. The 'evidence' for this organisation came from an (already) known conman named Jamal al-Fadl. He was an ex-associate of Bin Laden in the early 90s, and he had been passed around a whole lot of middle-eastern secret services, none of which wanted anything to do with him. Ofcourse, he was good enough for the FBI, so they decided to make him a key prosecution witness. The picture that al-Fadl drew in the courtroom was about an omnipotent figure at the head of a huge terrorist network with an organised network of control. He even claimed Bin Laden had given it a name; "Al Qaeda". Very, very dramatic, but nothing could be further from the truth; al-Fadl was on the run from Bin Laden, having stolen money from him, and in return for his witness statement, he was given witness protection and literally hundreds of thousands of dollars. Most lawyers present at the trial thought al-Fadl exaggerated and lied to give the FBI the picture they needed to prosecute Bin Laden. In reality, there is no "Al Qaeda", there is no international network of terrorist "sleeper cells", all of this is just a myth. But in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration quickly referred to the model which had been constructed in that courtroom earlier that year; of an international organisation of terrorist cells with Bin Laden at the top. While in fact, Bin Laden was not even the originator of 9/11, that was Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who came to Bin Laden for help in funding. So when Bush said "Al Qaeda is to terror what the Mafia is to crime." and "There are thousands of there terrorists in more than 60 countries." he was flatout lying. He was drawing the picture that he needed to shape public opinion and instill fear. And for his own party, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Pearle did thesame thing they had done 20 years prior, they called on America to "battle the forces of evil", only this time, the evil weren't communists ofcourse. There is alot of resemblence though, as they did with the communists under Reagan, the neocons made it look like these terrorists wanted to take over the world, live in an Islamic universe and impose the Koran on everyone.

Completely blind to the truth, the U.S. set off for Afghanistan. They allied themselves with the Northern Alliance, a group of warlords which hated the Taliban. The Taliban's best soldiers were the foreign fighters in the training camps, whom the NA despised. So the Northern Alliance took their revenge on the foreign fighters, and the Americans (naive and ill-informed as they were) believed these killed and captured men to be Al Qaeda members. Ofcourse, the Northern Alliance never told them otherwise, because they were paid by the U.S. for each "Al Qaeda member" they captured. All of these prisoners which were either killed or taken off to Guantanamo Bay had absolutely nothing to do with international terrorism, or Bin Laden, Zawahiri or Khalid Sheik Mohammed. They were "freedom fighters", radical nationalists from countries like Pakistan who wanted to establish Islamist societies in their own countries. And as the Islamist training camps were obliterated, the NA came up with an even more illusive fantasy for the Americans: Bin Laden was hiding in the mountains of Tora Bora. So (for some reason) the U.S. bombed the hell out of the mountains for days, and then sent the NA up there to find the supersecret superadvanced superbunker complex ehm superfortress.. They found nothing. The NA did manage to produce some prisoners, but there was no evidence whatsoever that these men had anything to do with Bin Laden. It's very likely that they just captured anyone who looked remotely arab to get some more money out of the Americans (by now they'd already been paid well over a million dollars, alot of money over there).

Then the British arrived in Afghanistan, convinced they could find Al Qaeda because of their unique experience with terrorism in Ireland. They hunted down pretty much every cave in the entire region and ofcourse found nothing - because there was nothing to be found. Al Qaeda was a myth, nothing more than a group of tens of people that had already been captured or killed by the Northern Alliance (and in the WTC attack ofcourse).

With not much to show for, the confused administration even started looking in their own country, because they were convinced that Al Qaeda sleeper cells had infiltrated the U.S. - thousands of arabs were arrested, and Bush proudly claimed these arrests as the first succeses in the war on terror in America. In reality, they haven't proven, in ANY of these cases, that there was any evidence of terrorist activity, nor the intent of committing an attack. The provided evidence was always circumstantial and often bizarre - like the first case against four arab teenagers; a videotape of their trip to Disneyland was enough to convict them. A so-called surveillance expert was brought in to explain the true nature of the tape: to show hotspots on where to place bombs. All cases were either equally or more ridiculous. Thesame thing happened in the UK: of the 640 people arrested none were convicted for belonging to a terrorist sleeper cell. Only 3 people in the UK have been 'proven' to be involved in terrorist activity; one for fund-raising, and two for possesing Islamist literature.

The media continually helps create this fantasy, and because it's so much like fiction, it dramatically improves ratings. The media for instance immediately took the bait when there was talk about a 'dirty bomb'. Something which is proven to be perhaps the least efficient and least deadly weapon in existance (it kills around zero people). I think CBS started the paranoia, and ofcourse everyone bought into it. Just one example.

Anyway I really don't see why any country should support America in their futile war on phantom terrorists, and destroying and endangering half the world on the way. Invading Iraq was.. perhaps even more stupid than Afghanistan. But now it certainly is their responsibility to rebuild Iraq. I don't see how these elections can ever be fair though, seeing as though not one party (except Allawi's ofcourse) is prepared for such a thing, let alone the people, the U.S. is rushing it.