[Intrepid Homoludens]

No, but I see U.S. troops having a very hard time distinguishing friend from foe, one of the reason there shouldn't have been a U.S. troop presence in the first place.

So what do you want to do? Leave them alone and let more atrocities happen? You're asking us to turn our eyes away from the slaughtering of men, women, and children while we sit down to seven course dinners in our posh suburban homes?

And besides, if the U.S. cares for innocent life, why aren't they restoring the countries health system, water supply, electricity etc. (after bombing the living shit out of it)? All they're doing is rebuilding the oil infrastructure. 19 months after the war supposedly ended, no hospital in the whole of Iraq has received any form of aid from the U.S. The situation is far, far worse than before the war, there's not a hospital in Iraq that's not short of every single midicine, making the population a sitting duck for every disease (that could otherwise be easily cured or treated). After bombing the country's water supply, why hasn't the U.S. rebuilt any water purification facility?

What are you talking about, this is EXACTLY what the U.S. has been trying to do - rebuild systems like hospitals, schools, etc. The primary problem is exactly that those insurgents are trying to destroy what the U.S. is attempting to restore for the Iraqis. But unless you've been licking the t.v. screens and the media bullsh!t, you should know this. You believe what you want to believe, there is already so much lashing out against the U.S. that you'd believe anything the media shoves down your throat. We believe the troops are trying to restore some kind civility to one greatly fooked up country (if you can even call it a country now), you believe they're out to massacre innocent civilians and take over the country's oil supplies. Look, we spent billions and billions of freaking dollars on this war, d'you honestly think that we did this just out of sheer boredom and sensationalism? We try helping people out, and we always get sh!t for it.

Oh right, I forgot, it's too dangerous to rebuild Iraq right now. So then why doesn't the U.S. hand the reconstruction contracts out to Iraqi companies? Because the U.S. only hands out these reconstruction contracts to American companies! At this rate, I don't think we can expect Iraq being rebuilt anytime soon, or for years to come.

WHAT IRAQI COMPANIES?!! The whole damn country's fooked! What companies are you talking about? Those two guys in tunics and their mule? Hey, get real. There is no such thing as a pretty war where nothing is touched and left intact. The U.S. troops came in to liberate the Iraqis, buildings were destroyed, casualities were inevitable. They're still working on trying to reconstruct the country (which will take years and years), and who came in to screw it up further? The insurgents - Hussein loyalists, Iranians, and others, acting out of fear that the U.S. will come after them as well.

And what about some of those European companies who bitched about wanting to capitalize on all that dirty work the U.S. had to do first so they can come in afterwards to make money in Iraq? Can you say 'vultures'? I mean, yeah, I go in, kick some ass, and then some guy from another country who had been waiting for me to get beat up in the process just 'cause he doesn't want to get his own hands dirty complains that I won't let him? Fair is fair.

But with the invasion of Afghanistan, Sheik Mohammed's group was destroyed, killed or scattered (along with most of the Islamist movement).

Why don't you look at what's going in your own backyard? It was Russia who invaded Afghanistan. The U.S., under the Reagan administration and not about to risk the spread of communism, helped out the Afghans. Unfortunately the U.S. left afterwards without helping Afghanistan in the long term, and the Afghans were left to fight amongst themselves as to who was to rule the country (it got pretty ugly). Our fault.

Today, the U.S. is in a similar situation with Iraq. But now that we've learned from our mistakes (knock on wood) and are trying to reconstruct this country (to avoid it turning into another Afghanistan), we cannot back off and leave, especially now since Iraq is far, far more vulnerable to being even more fooked up and invaded by surrounding countries. So, are you going to ask us to leave? You want us to leave the Iraqis with absolutely no way to defend themselves against, say, Iran? Sure, we may have invaded them, but they weren't ultimately any better off before the fact, what with Hussein killing thousands of Iraqi Kurds and whoever else.

But in chasing the phantom enemy's organisation, they missed the real threat that has emerged: the idea. This idea has become prevalent amongst young, angry muslims throughout the arabic world, precisely because of what the U.S. has done in response to 9/11. It was this idea that inspired the Spain train attacks.

What idea? What idea are you talking about?

Those young, angry Muslims, you say. These terrorist organizations tend to recruit very young men, usually in their early teens, a very impressionable age. What they've experienced that makes them dangerously inluenced by the charismatic and radically romantic 'instant-good-life-just-add-water' preachings of these recruiters is the lack of opportunities to better their own lives. We're talking about rural villages and even larger cities in countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Iraq. Why don't they have these opportunities? Why aren't the governments of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Iraq providing them with it?

[EasilyConfused]

I don't agree with everything jjacob says, but I don't at ALL agree with your view of the war, Trep.

First of all, as everyone else pointed out, the post where you talk about the 9/11 attacks in connection with Iraq is really confusing, since there weren't any ties between Iraq and OBL, as everyone now knows. Dick Cheney even had the nerve to claim he never made that connection when he was debating John Edwards--one of at least two flat-out lies he told that night. In fact, it's far more likely that OBL found support from Saudi Arabia, and do you see us attacking it? No, we're not going to do that. Is it a democracy? No. Fine, it doesn't have WMD, but it doesn't need them right now, because it plays ball with the US, and so nobody's going to mess with it anytime soon.

Second, the idea that we went into Iraq for humanitarian reasons is pretty appalling to me. Yes, Saddam was a really bad guy. But you just can't go into every country invading it when people are getting hurt. I'm sorry, it's financially, logistically, militarily, and morally impossible. One of the biggest problems is that most of the time, people don't actually LIKE to get invaded, and they get pissed off and try to fight back. We had a window of a just a few months to keep what was actually quite a sophisticated culture from falling apart, and we didn't do it. We allowed all the major ministries to be ransacked and many, many crucial files and documents to be lost, stolen, or looted. We fired anyone in power for being a Ba'athist, which meant that anyone who knew how to do anything was now sitting at home, thumb-twiddling. We didn't pay the police or the civil servants--now they were home, doing same. We didn't have NEARLY enough people there--Paul Bremer said so, and Tommy Franks thought so, and they retracted or revised their opinions because they're loyal or because of political pressure. And so now, the forces in Iraq that were always going to oppose us are gaining momentum. It may well have been that it would have happened even if we hadn't screwed the pooch from the get-go--but we'll never know.

Your rant about using innocents as human shields is ridiculous. What do you think war IS? (William T. Sherman: "War is hell.") What did you expect to have happen? This thing was SO ill-conceived. You ask how we rebuilt Europe? We had people with brains planning it. The Pentagon started planning for Iraqi rebuilding in about late JANUARY of 2003. Remember, Bush had been pushing for war since September 2001, and the rest of the White House and Pentagon hawks had been doing so since way before the Inaugural. So you can stow the sob story about how all we want to do is build hospitals and schools. I have NO DOUBT that the troops on the ground want to do that, and have really tried to help. I have no doubt that the people planning the rebuilding have tried to help. And I have no doubt that many Iraqis are grateful. But if you go into a country under false pretenses for all the wrong reasons and prepare for it poorly, it's just not going to turn out well.

You say what are we supposed to do now, sit back and eat dinner? I don't know, because I agree that Iraq will descend into some kind of civil war if we leave. But we're using half-measures now (still not enough troops) and holding the Iraqis to an arbitrary elections deadline that now practically every political party is refusing to participate in. Oh yeah, we stand up for democracy alright. We're a real beacon for democracy.

I think this is going to end horribly and be one of the worst tragedies in the history of American foreign policy, and it all could have been avoided. I read the other day (Washington Post) that casualty rates (injuries and deaths) are exactly the same as they were in WWII and Vietnam. Fewer soldiers are dying because our medicine has advanced so much. But in terms of the average guy on the ground's chances of getting hurt--just the same as in the last two major wars we fought. We have to stop pretending that this is some little tiny Grenada or something. This is a huge military challenge, political, and financial challenge. As far as I can see, there was NO justification for it. Over 100,000 innocent people dead and counting, with no reason to think that Saddam was going to be a threat to the world or to us any time at all in the near future. Great. Just great.

And you talk about being afraid of being attacked? That's really rich to me. People come here and commit the most ghastly crime imaginable, and instead of finding some way to actually effectively combat terrorism and make folks safer, we go out and attack a country that had nothing to do with it and just flush 100,000 people down the toilet. I mean, we might as well have gone out and attacked the Sudan. It's just nonsense. Meanwhile, the Bush Administration continues to ignore the giant festering sore that bred much of the anti-US resentment in the first place--Israeli-Palestinian relations. James Baker had to write a public editorial to him in the Times this week telling him effectively to get off his butt and pay attention to Palestine before the window of opportunity closes. As far as I can see, he and his buddies are too busy playing war. Too bad they didn't do it when they were younger; they might have learned something.

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by Trepsie

So what do you want to do? Leave them alone and let more atrocities happen? You're asking us to turn our eyes away from the slaughtering of men, women, and children while we sit down to seven course dinners in our posh suburban homes?

Trepsie what you are saying is very contradicting. the American soldiers have killed "reportedly" more than 100,000 Iraqi men, women and children. Saddam with all his autrocities might be in the same ballpark. We are the ones who are slaughtering men, women and children. It is really sad, coz from 30,000 feets, a child and a man look the same to an F16 pilot. How are you talking about saving them when we are killing them?

Originally Posted by Trepsie

The U.S., under the Reagan administration and not about to risk the spread of communism, helped out the Afghans

Trepsie I'm not sure if you know your American history or you were following during that period. The Reagan administration gave *GASP* Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban WEAPONS to fight the atheist communist Soviets for invading a pious islamic country. That is how it was perceived back then. And you know what we called Bin Laden? A freedom fighter? Yup so if you want to blame someone for terrorism, take a close look at the white house. That same freedom fighter is now a terrorist. Go figure.

Saddam hussein and Chemical weapons? the US GAVE IT to him to use it against Iran in the Iran-Iraqi war. Saddam was an American hero for fighting the fundamentalist Irani regime. What a double standard huh?

Originally Posted by Trepsie

So, are you going to ask us to leave? You want us to leave the Iraqis with absolutely no way to defend themselves against, say, Iran?

This really shows how little you know about Iraq. The threat is not Iran. The problem is, that Iraq is a very secular country. The north is dominated by Kurds, the south by Shiites and the middle by Sunnis. No matter what, civil war is imminent in that region, coz Kurds want their own country, Sunnis were in power and want back the power that was taken from them, and Shiites are the majority.

Originally Posted by Trepsie

What they've experienced that makes them dangerously inluenced by the charismatic and radically romantic 'instant-good-life-just-add-water' preachings of these recruiters is the lack of opportunities to better their own lives

You are also forgetting the double standards that America is using in its foreign policy. 4 billion dollars of our money goes to Israel every year, (who use our F16's to bomb the crap of the palestinians), and that is viewed by the Islamic world as biased against another Islamic country. Did you ever sit and think why the terrorists hit America and not Canada for example or Switzerland? Maybe there is a reason for this. Believe me, bombing the crap of Iraqis is not gonna convert them to democracy or to hail America. They are gonna go stand in line to sign up for another suicide attack.

[EasilyConfused]

Originally Posted by SoccerDude28

Did you ever sit and think why the terrorists hit America and not Canada for example or Switzerland? Maybe there is a reason for this. Believe me, bombing the crap of Iraqis is not gonna convert them to democracy or to hail America. They are gonna go stand in line to sign up for another suicide attack.

I agree. Lots of people just got so alarmed about 9/11 (with some hefty help from folks who were always reminding us of it) that few people bothered to think about it. I'm not saying by any means that we deserved it or that it was justified--that would be a horrific concept. I think OBL is disgusting, and I think he's lying if he tries to claim that he's serving anyone's agenda but his own incredibly destructive, insane one. But the point is that the reason people in the Arab world aren't our biggest fans right now has to do with things besides the fact that they "envy" us.

And please, if we really want to be humanitarians, killing people is virtually never the answer. Okay, if you're up against genocide--WWII, Bosnia, Rwanda, the Sudan--yes, potentially to definitely. But there are so, so many people who are hurting in the world, including in our own country. (One in five children growing up in poverty.) I saw the other night night on the news that 6500 people A DAY die in Africa from HIV. That's two 9/11s A DAY. What would the money we spent on Iraq have done for Africa? Quite a lot, I imagine. The fact that we never would have spent that much is something to think about.

[jjacob]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

So what do you want to do? Leave them alone and let more atrocities happen? You're asking us to turn our eyes away from the slaughtering of men, women, and children while we sit down to seven course dinners in our posh suburban homes?

Well you managed to enjoy your dinner during the years those atrocities actually happened, didn't you? And the U.S. government had always supported these very atrocities, to great lengths, in the years before the Gulf war (as I said, Rumsfeld under Reagan supplied Saddam with chemical weapons to use against Iranian civilians, amongst other things). If the U.S. government would actually care about atrocities they would be using their political power to pursue very different goals. There's so many genocide going on in the world, but somehow Saddam was the most evil of them all? I doubt that. Saddam was ruthless in executing those who opposed him, but the humanitarian situation in Iraq doesn't even compare to other humanitarian hotbeds in the world, so that was definately not the reason you went into Iraq. I can't by the lives of me understand how you're trying to defend the vision that the U.S. went there out of a humanitarian concern, that is just bullshit. They started off with a false conclusion, then filled in all the blanks, exploited every possible reason one could think of to pursue their goals (and I'm not so sure it was oil, you must have me confused with someone else, although I did believe more strongly in that once, I doubt it was the main reason).



First it was WMDs, then the failure to comply with UN resolutions for 12 years (something which the U.S. can also be accused of, along with dozens of nations worldwide), then because Iraq was not a democracy (OMG we can't sit idly by and watch a country not be a democracy!), then because Saddam was opressing his own people,..because Saddam used torture (something the U.S. can be equally accused of, along with dozens of other etc.), then because Iraq had invaded Kuwait, then because Saddam had supposed links to Al Qaeda (bullshit) and supported terrorism, and finally because they were just being such big liars for misleading the world into believing they didn't have WMDs! Oh yeah, the U.S. went there to get rid of Saddam alright, but not for the reason you like to repeat to yourself over and over.

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

What are you talking about, this is EXACTLY what the U.S. has been trying to do - rebuild systems like hospitals, schools, etc.

I'm not saying they're primarily interested in the oil per se, all I'm saying is that the rebuilding effort has already shown itself to be one giant pitfall failure. Over one year ago, U.S. Congress authorised $18.4 billion for reconstructing "post-war" Iraq. Yet now, one year later, only a mere $1.14 billion has been spent on the whole project!

And of the $4.2 billion allocated for water and sanitation projects, a mere $16 million has been spent so far (that's far less than 0,01%). I don't know what that tells you, but I think that barely buys you one water purification facility, and that's not much for a huge country with no water supply whatsoever, broken sewer systems everywhere (causing all the waste to flow into the ground water causing tons of diseases more common to places like africa).

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

The primary problem is exactly that those insurgents are trying to destroy what the U.S. is attempting to restore for the Iraqis. But unless you've been licking the t.v. screens and the media bullsh!t, you should know this. You believe what you want to believe, there is already so much lashing out against the U.S. that you'd believe anything the media shoves down your throat. We believe the troops are trying to restore some kind civility to one greatly fooked up country (if you can even call it a country now), you believe they're out to massacre innocent civilians and take over the country's oil supplies. Look, we spent billions and billions of freaking dollars on this war, d'you honestly think that we did this just out of sheer boredom and sensationalism? We try helping people out, and we always get sh!t for it.

Lashing out? Is that what you call criticism? I'm sorry but the U.S. is doing the shittiest job possible rebuilding Iraq. The first mistake was putting Allawi at the head of the interim government, already, he's proven himself to be quite the Saddam-wannabe; the first action he took when he was put in charge was order the dismantled secret police to be formed again, he received vast amounts of criticism for this both home and abroad, as he was employing the majority of the same secret police that had worked under Saddam, with all the torturers and whatnot included. The Economist wrote that his rivals accused him of "recruiting former torturers to man a new apparatus of oppression." Smart move. And in the first days of his rule, he was witnessed directly executing 6 prisoners (by several reporters infact). The men were detained for attacking U.S. forced two weeks before the fall of Saddam. Then Allawi instituted martial-law!. He's already threatened to detain journalists (!), and he totally banned Al-Jazeera from Iraq! Sorry but it doesn't end here; he also adopted a more gruesome version of your lovely American death penalty: the cutting-off of hands and heads of insurgents. On top of that corruption has actually managed to increase in the interim government! You're not going to tell me this is a good leader. Allawi is seen throughout Iraq as a traitor to his own country, a firm dictator like Saddam but with the aid of U.S. forces. That's what Iraqi's think of the interim government and the U.S. and coalition forces, and that's why it's not hard to understand why the insurgency is quickly growing.

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

WHAT IRAQI COMPANIES?!! The whole damn country's fooked! What companies are you talking about? Those two guys in tunics and their mule? Hey, get real. There is no such thing as a pretty war where nothing is touched and left intact. The U.S. troops came in to liberate the Iraqis, buildings were destroyed, casualities were inevitable. They're still working on trying to reconstruct the country (which will take years and years), and who came in to screw it up further? The insurgents - Hussein loyalists, Iranians, and others, acting out of fear that the U.S. will come after them as well.

Ofcourse Iraq has (and always had) companies, what a dim-witted thing to reject. ? You act like Saddam had the country under such a firm grip that there was no 'normal' life possible, no trade at all, and.. no companies? GET REAL. Iraq was alot more than collection of tents and camels you idiot.

And if the U.S. government would actually channel the allocated funds to local governing councils instead of going through the Interim government and strictly U.S. and 'coalition' companies (AND ACTUALLY FVCKING PAY UP!!!!!), then the insurgence would stop, they won't target their own people's reconstruction efforts. Also understand that with 30% unenployment, alot of people are getting more and more confused about why they can't rebuild their own country, so more and more are joining the insurgence, it's already a fvcking bloodbath, and it will only get worse.

Already 100.000+ civilians have died (mostly the 'weaker' ones such as children) in either the crossfire or due to the lack of clean water, the lack of any form of healthcare whatsoever (there are simply no medicine) and the general lack of well,.. anything. And you act like the Iraqi insurgents are strictly Saddam loyalists, WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP. In most cases these are angry Iraqi's, trying desperately to prevent the shift of one dictator rule to another, well atleast that's what they think. But I see you're one of those people who just can't accept the fact that normal Iraqi's are growing more disgruntled with both the interim government and the U.S. forces because of their complete inability to improve anything in Iraq.

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

And what about some of those European companies who bitched about wanting to capitalize on all that dirty work the U.S. had to do first so they can come in afterwards to make money in Iraq? Can you say 'vultures'? I mean, yeah, I go in, kick some ass, and then some guy from another country who had been waiting for me to get beat up in the process just 'cause he doesn't want to get his own hands dirty complains that I won't let him? Fair is fair.

Hey, I'm firmly against profiteering off a bad situation like this. I feel that might be one of the reasons my government went along with your administration, because now there are 22 dutch companies working in Iraq (oil , banking and water infrastructure . They don't fit your vision of vultures since they fought along, but I still think they're making blood-money. What I think about french or german companies for instance asking to get a piece of the action? Probably something very much like yourself, but companies will be companies (just as..).

On the other hand, when I look at the extremely poor job the current 'coalition companies' are doing (not just because of the insurgence), I can't help but wonder if the reconstruction effort would benefit from as much 'diversified experience' as it can buy.

[jjacob]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

Why don't you look at what's going in your own backyard? It was Russia who invaded Afghanistan. The U.S., under the Reagan administration and not about to risk the spread of communism, helped out the Afghans. Unfortunately the U.S. left afterwards without helping Afghanistan in the long term, and the Afghans were left to fight amongst themselves as to who was to rule the country (it got pretty ugly). Our fault.

My own backyard? Russia? Anyway you do realise that Reagan's administration had a very distorted and exaggerated vision of the Soviet Union back then? Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz had set out to prove to Reagan, that the USSR was really a global "Terror Network" (I'm not kidding), and that it was the base of all terrorism in the world (using Team B's findings as "evidence"). Long story short; this directly affected the way the U.S. handled Afghanistan; instead of normal warfare, they would support, aid and fund 'freedom fighters' (Islamist warlords), train them in the techniques of terrorism (car bombing, IED knowhow, tactics, the whole lot). And it was an offspring of the Islamist movement, namely Al Zawahiri and Khalid Sheik Mohammed (who came around Bin Laden for funding) that would later committ 9/11. And although "Al Qaeda" is no more, along with the entire Islamist movement which as a whole had no interest in striking at the U.S., a lot of terrorism is simply labeled "Al Qaeda" to fit the picture the public has of an evil terror network (which simply doesn't exist), blind and deaf to the real motives.

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

Today, the U.S. is in a similar situation with Iraq. But now that we've learned from our mistakes (knock on wood) and are trying to reconstruct this country (to avoid it turning into another Afghanistan), we cannot back off and leave, especially now since Iraq is far, far more vulnerable to being even more fooked up and invaded by surrounding countries. So, are you going to ask us to leave? You want us to leave the Iraqis with absolutely no way to defend themselves against, say, Iran?

I do not want the U.S. to leave, I simply want them to do the right thing for once and re-consider their strategy for re-building Iraq, I want them to actually spend money on the rebuilding effort fast, so alot of deaths can be averted, in other words: do what they promised. And if you think Iran is any of Iraq's problems you're definately mistaken, that's the least of Iraq's worries. Right now there's a country which needs to be rebuilt from the ground on up, or else a lot of people will die from ordinary diseases, it's that simple, sadly.

So you can't blame me for criticising the way it's going over there, come on, both Democrats and Republicans are complaining about this administration's lack of spending and actual rebuilding. Objective studies by all humanitarian groups have shown that Iraq is becoming more and more of a disaster, it's even being predicted by some that up to a million people could be dead by the next summertime, simply because disease will spread like .. it does anywhere where there's no clean drinking water, sewage systems, electricity, medicine etc. Are seriously suggesting that it's a good decision to decrease the budget on restoring the country's health system and increasing the budget for security? Because that's what the administration has done recently. There's simply a fundamental difference between your vision of rebuilding a country and mine, I guess. You could argue that it's more important to secure the country first, but I think that's not a strategy that is either effective in its goals nor beneficial to the humanitarian disaster. And as I said, it's not a wise decision to leave the Iraqi's out of the reconstruction effort entirely, as Iraqi businesses would be far less subject to insurgent attacks.

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

Sure, we may have invaded them, but they weren't ultimately any better off before the fact, what with Hussein killing thousands of Iraqi Kurds and whoever else.

Actually they were better off before "the fact"; child dealth rates have increased from 4% before the war, to 7.7% since the invasion. So despite the 13-year long UN sanctions, Iraqi children were much better off living under the regime of Saddam than under this occupation.

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

What idea? What idea are you talking about?

The idea that was developed by Al Zawahiri, that a strike at the far away enemy (the West), as opposed to their previous strategy of bombing and killing local government officials, would impress the masses and make them rise up against their corrupt regimes (sic). It's always been about mobilizing the masses of middle-eastern countries to rise up against their governments. The Islamist movement disagreed with this strategy, but was obliterated by the Northern Alliance nonetheless (simple fact: NA were radically xenophobic of all the foreign fighters in the camps), while it was in effect a product of Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and the rest of the neoconservative movement.

Sadly, it's their idea that has now become a threat, precisely because of the way the U.S. handled 9/11. Because of the enormous exaggeration of the threat and the completely disproportionate and counter-productive response this idea has now begun to live a life of its own.

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

Those young, angry Muslims, you say. These terrorist organizations tend to recruit very young men, usually in their early teens, a very impressionable age.

You have a very distorted vision of the real threat; it doesn't lie in terrorist organisations, simply because they do not exist. The idea of a terrorist 'network' has been invented by the U.S. in order to prosecute Bin Laden for the 1998 Nairobi embassy bombings (and later for 9/11 ofcourse). BUT, to prosecute someone in his absence, under U.S.-law, they would have to find evidence of a criminal ORGANISATION, because, as with the mafia, it would allow them to prosecute the HEAD of the organisation, even if he could not be directly linked to the crime. So the government found a suitable 'witness', someone of whom they knew was passed around various middle-eastern (and the Israeli-) secret services (none of whom wanted anything to do with him), and they gave him a U.S. passport, witness protection and a couple of hundreds of thousands of dollars (taxpayer's money, ofcourse). This someone was Jamal al-Fadl, a sudanese militant who was with Bin Laden in the early 90s. He was the key prosecution witness, and he drew excactly the picture the government needed: of an international organised network of terrorists, with at the head, Bin Laden, he told them they had sleeper cells all over the world (or vice versa), and al-Fadl told even told them this network had a name: Al Qaeda. But the lawyers present at the court stated afterwards that they felt al-Fadl was greatly exaggerating and making things up in order to draw the picture the government (FBI) needed. In reality al-Fadl was a conman, on the run, having stolen money from Bin Laden in the early 90s.

In the wake and of the attacks, as EasilyConfused said, they panicked and reached for this model, which was created in the Manhattan courtoom in January 2001. The attacks have led the whole world to believe the myth that was created in this courtroom. These hijackers must be just the tip of a vast international network called Al Qaeda, operating in 60 countries including the U.S.!. But the reality is that there is no such network, there has NEVER been ANY evidence of this. The 9/11 attacks were planned by a small group, with that group killed and scattered, there is now the possibility that his ideas will inspire other individuals around the world that have no relationship to each other. Unless U.S. foreign policy can admit its faults and change course radically.

Just look at the horrible 'failure' of 'fighting terrorism at home'; there is no evidence that even ONE terrorist 'cell' is active in the U.S.; yet more than a thousand arabs were arrested and accused of planning attacks. There was strictly ridiculous evidence such as videotapes of a trip to disneyland, or some doodles in a dayplanner. When it could not be proven that they were planning attacks, they tried accusing them of simply being "sleeper cells". When eventually all evidence fell apart most cases were quietly dropped and Bush never spoke of 'fighting terrorism at home' since. But who knows how paranoid the government can be, I'd bet there are more than enough innocent arabs in places like Guantanamo Bay. In the UK, under the new Terrorism Act, 650 people were arrested, all claimed to be successes in 'fighting terror at home', yet 400 of these belonged to the IRA, and the rest of the cases were just as ridiculous and flimsy as in the U.S. so I'm right in concluding there are no Al Qaeda terrorist sleeper cells, as there's no evidence of this.

Ofcourse in the U.S. that doesn't really matter, because in the words of Ashcroft, you have shifted to a precautionary principle - once you start making assumptions upon assumptions of what MIGHT happen, what someone MIGHT do in the future, then you're lost.

[jjacob]

ASHCROFT: We had to make a shift in the way we thought about things, so being reactive, waiting for a crime to be committed, or waiting for there to be evidence of the commission of a crime didn't seem to us to be an appropriate way to protect the American people.

Bin Laden understood this all too well, and he saw the power of such an imaginary threat, if only in people's minds, and sent an associate of his to be captured, Abu Zubaydah. Zubaydah told his interrogators a set of stories to alarm the U.S. He told them that terrorist were planning to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge, but the government never realised it was simply because Abu had just seen the movie Godzilla in a cinema (in which the bridge is destroyed). He told them that Al Qaeda (the name Bin Laden now recognized to have been given to him by the U.S., as he only started using it since after 9/11, AFTER Bush had called him that) was planning to blow up stuff like subway trains, apartment building and shopping malls, the statue of liberty, financial institutions, hotels etc. etc.

He also told them about a new weapon which Al Qaeda was planning to use: a dirty bomb. The media immediately took the government's bait:

DAN RATHER: First, a CBS News exclusive about a captured Al Qaeda leader who says his fellow terrorists have the know-how to build a very dangerous weapon and get it to the United States.

The media portrayed the dirty bomb as a terrifying weapon: one which would kill thousands, perhaps millions. And the government ofcourse did nothing to disabuse them of this; but a Department of Energy test had already proven in the 80s that the danger from such a device was non-existant. Their test concluded that the most dangerously exposed person would get a fairly high dose of radiation (not lethal), but they assumed that everyone on the blast radius would not move for one year, so you see how the danger really is non-existant, as not one person would get killed.

He told them exactly what Bin Laden wanted him to tell the U.S.

So you see, there is no terrorist organisation called Al Qaeda - it's exactly what Bin Laden wants you to believe. There is no terrorist organisation of network of which you can be a "member", or be "recruited" for that matter. What does exist now, is the idea, brought into the world by the Islamist radicals (not the Islamists) with the help of the neoconservative movement and the media (who DO benefit hugely from all those flashy newsbits and "tv reconstructions", because it's so much like fiction).

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

What they've experienced that makes them dangerously inluenced by the charismatic and radically romantic 'instant-good-life-just-add-water' preachings of these recruiters is the lack of opportunities to better their own lives.

As I said, you'll be hard-pressed to find ANY recruiter for Al Qaeda, you seem to think terrorists enjoy mass sympathy, that's a myth.

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

We're talking about rural villages and even larger cities in countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Iraq. Why don't they have these opportunities? Why aren't the governments of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Iraq providing them with it?

Well you're right about the Iraqi government not providing them with oppurtunities (or even the prospect thereof) But Egypt has become a very Westernized country, perhaps in most ways similair to Turkey. Saudi-Arabia knows a very uneven distribution of wealth but the U.S. has always endorsed this policy (even falsifying studies along the way). And the U.S. has largely ignored what is happening in Iran, which is understandable, because it's an issue wayyyy too complex for the U.S. too handle. Ofcourse certain governments don't provide their peoples with the opportunities they need, but it's foolish to think war can change that, it does exactly the opposite. You can't just "install" a democracy in a country, it has to come from within. That doesn't mean we can't help them, but that help can not come in the form of bloody war.

[Erwin_Br]

You have a very distorted vision of the real threat; it doesn't lie in terrorist organisations, simply because they do not exist. The idea of a terrorist 'network' has been invented by the U.S.

Excuse me, but that's very naive thinking of you. Look, you can define an organization in many ways, but there are definitely relations. Take the man that shot van Gogh, for example. His relations track back all the way to goddamn Spain, to the Islamic terrorists who blew up a ****ing train, for crying out loud! Unless you believe the Dutch and Spanish governments are into the same conspiracy as the USA.

I don't believe Bin Laden is this evil madman like you see in the movies: I don't believe Al Qaida has a Secret lab in the mountains, with big charts on the wall displaying plans for their next strike. But I do believe Bin Laden knows people, who know other people, who know other people, etcetera. The man has money too, not to forget.

It's possible Al Quaida doesn't exists as the terrorist network like it's been presented, but there are relations and there -is- a threat. And nobody really knows how well organized they are, or how many people are involved. Not even the CIA. So don't tell me it's all made up by the US Government.

--Erwin

[jjacob]

Exactly, events in Spain and the Netherlands were inspired by Bin Laden's idea; instead of preventing this idea/strategy from 'being proven effective', the U.S. went off to chase a phantom organisation that didn't exist, this reflects in all of their actions taken over the past years, the focus has always been on Al Qaeda and now the supposed threat that they can get hold of nuclear devices by governments on the "axis of evil" list (a pretty absurd claim). So instead of focusing on the real threat - that Sheik Mohammed's idea might inspire others that had no connection to each other, they continue to be blind to what's really going on. They continually try to map a network that isn't there, it's not very effective. They tried to do the exact same thing with the Soviet Union for nearly half a decade, portraying it as the great evil source of a global terror network ruled by Moscow, while in reality all of their 'findings' they presented as evidence (google "Team B") were completely made up and absolutely ridiculous, they couldn't even see that right in front of their eyes, the Soviet Union was falling apart.

And Mohammed B.'s relations are limited to one phone call with a suspected terrorist in spain, according to a Swiss newspaper, but all they can charge him with is fundraising (Islamism needs a lot of that since it's been wiped out). The Spanish judge investigating the case of the alleged plan to blow up a Spanish court of this 'relation' of Mohammed B. has denied that the two cases are linked in any way.

I'm not saying the Dutch and Spanish are in thesame "conspiracy" (nor do I believe there is one), but I am argueing that they're probably falling in the exact same trap as both the Americans and the British have done (although spain to lesser degree than the Netherlands). And instead of fixing the problems that created the dissatisfaction and radicalisation these people go through, they are searching for connections that can barely be proven, if they even exist at all. Atleast I think that's what they're doing, but I truly hope they won't make thesame mistakes, and just identify this threat for what it really is: a problem. It's not the "GREAT EVIL" of the world, it's not organized, it's not a network and these people aren't related, they are simply people, often on the edge of society growing more disgruntled, up to the day they become so disconnected with the normal world they choose to committ murders (or place bombs), but the fact is these people have always existed, throughout the last century, and this 'new approach' to terrorism is not working any better than previous strategies. Gravely exaggerating the threat and scaring the masses into believing they could be struck by terrorism anywhere anytime with any means is definately not the answer, do you agree? Wilders is using the fact that there are 150 people on the BVD's "ct info box" (didn't you just hate it when Remkes smiled after being asked about that term) to scare the people into believing they're all terrorists, while in reality that is just bullshit. These people are being monitored because they're being suspected of terrorist activity, but there is no evidence to support this yet, and it's not likely there are more terrorists hiding out in the Netherlands than there are in the UK and the U.S. combined, wouldn't you agree?

[Erwin_Br]

Originally Posted by jjacob

And Mohammed B.'s relations are limited to one phone call with a suspected terrorist in spain, according to a Swiss newspaper, but all they can charge him with is fund raising (Islamism needs a lot of that since it's been wiped out). The Spanish judge investigating the case of the alleged plan to blow up a Spanish court of this 'relation' of Mohammed B. has denied that the two cases are linked in any way.

According to a Swiss newspaper? What the hell are you talking about, man? What has Switzerland have to do with it? It's been in the news for weeks, and not only in Switzerland. You don't trust the Dutch media or something? Mohammed B. has been in touch with several men, who incidentally were already being monitored by the government for suspected activities in terrorism.

I'm not saying the Dutch and Spanish are in the same "conspiracy" (nor do I believe there is one), but I am argueing that they're probably falling in the exact same trap as both the Americans and the British have done (although spain to lesser degree than the Netherlands). And instead of fixing the problems that created the dissatisfaction and radicalisation these people go through, they are searching for connections that can barely be proven, if they even exist at all.

The same trap? Don't you think the AIVD (intelligence service, call it what you want) hasn't been deeply investigating this thing? Don't you think it's a bit silly to assume you know exactly what's going on, claiming professional investigators who've been working on this issue for years are falling for a trap? How do you know? You don't even have a fraction of the information they have. You base your conclusions on second-hand information.

It's not a network and these people aren't related, they are simply people, often on the edge of society growing more disgruntled

Jesus Christ, Mohammed B. has had an excellent education and was doing very well! What do you mean 'edge of society'!? This is a very old image you have.

Gravely exaggerating the threat and scaring the masses into believing they could be struck by terrorism anywhere anytime with any means is definately not the answer, do you agree?

Yes, I agree. I'm not denying that. I'm just saying that I believe there ARE connections, and these violent acts are NOT individual cases. The people are related, they KNOW each other, they financially support each other, and they consult each other. -Unless the AIVD is making this all up, together with the Spanish government and the USA. Which I don't believe.

And it's foolish to pretend nothing is going on, that the bombing of a train was an isolated incident. What did I say, foolish? It's downright dangerous!

Wilders is using the fact that there are 150 people on the BVD's "ct info box" (didn't you just hate it when Remkes smiled after being asked about that term) to scare the people into believing they're all terrorists, while in reality that is just bullshit.

What the hell? Our government wants to scare people? What for? To reassure they'll be re-elected next period? We're not in the USA, my friend. And you are seriously seeing ghosts.

These people are being monitored because they're being suspected of terrorist activity, but there is no evidence to support this yet

No evidence, but what does that say? They aren't being monitored for nothing, you know. You think we should leave these suspects alone and wait until they do kill someone?

Besides, it's very normal to monitor suspects. If I commit a murder, without leaving a trace of evidence, the police can rightfully suspect me because of a motive or something. You say they shouldn't monitor me because they haven't found evidence yet? Wake up, man!

and it's not likely there are more terrorists hiding out in the Netherlands than there are in the UK and the U.S. combined, wouldn't you agree?

Probably. But what's your point? I doubt a terrorist residing in the US would be interested in killing someone in the Netherlands.

[jjacob]

Originally Posted by Erwin_Br

According to a Swiss newspaper? What the hell are you talking about, man? What has Switzerland have to do with it? It's been in the news for weeks, and not only in Switzerland. You don't trust the Dutch media or something? Mohammed B. has been in touch with several men, who incidentally were already being monitored by the government for suspected activities in terrorism.

I was tired, I should've put that differently; according to the Swiss newspaper Le Temps the Spanish judge investigating the case was holding back on information, so that's just a rumour (plus I don't know how sensationalist that paper is, do you?). The judge has denied that there is any evidence of a direct connection between the suspects detained there and Mohammed B. and he has not confirmed that the call was of any significance.
The men MB 'conspired' with or whatever came together in his place, I still don't have any reason to believe otherwise, for example that this group was a dutch 'cell' of an international terror network (I know you don't believe that either, but still).

Originally Posted by Erwin_Br

The same trap? Don't you think the AIVD (intelligence service, call it what you want) hasn't been deeply investigating this thing? Don't you think it's a bit silly to assume you know exactly what's going on, claiming professional investigators who've been working on this issue for years are falling for a trap? How do you know? You don't even have a fraction of the information they have. You base your conclusions on second-hand information.

Yeah, they've been investigating it so deeply that they accidentaly leaked the documents to the men, alerting them that they had been watched for some time (how about that for a push in the wrong direction). They stopped monitoring his cell phone two weeks before the murder. Anyway, ofcourse I don't exactly know what's going on, but I do know the AIVD could very well be making thesame mistakes as the U.S. and the UK agencies have, in fact I think it's very possible. I just hope Europe won't shift to the precautionary principle as the U.S. and the UK have, as it has caused an improportionate number of wrongful arrests. Fortunately, that hasn't happened here yet.

Originally Posted by Erwin_Br

Jesus Christ, Mohammed B. has had an excellent education and was doing very well! What do you mean 'edge of society'!? This is a very old image you have.

Old image? The guy was radicalising within a very small time period (about a year), committed a murder in the name of the islam without having read the koran, even leaving texts he didn't understand, to me that sounds like someone being driven towards the edge of society, wouldn't you say? I don't claim to know the cause but I doubt he was packing his full mental sanity, that's all I meant.

Originally Posted by Erwin_Br

Yes, I agree. I'm not denying that. I'm just saying that I believe there ARE connections, and these violent acts are NOT individual cases. The people are related, they KNOW each other, they financially support each other, and they consult each other. -Unless the AIVD is making this all up, together with the Spanish government and the USA. Which I don't believe.

Well I believe Mohammed B. had a close group of friends in Amsterdam, but as I said I'm not so sure that his (single) phone call with a suspected terrorist in Spain is of any sifnificance at all, and there is as of yet no evidence for this! Also, remember that the AIVD hasn't found evidence of any link between the arrested people in the Hague and either Mohammed B. or Samir A.. The spain contact, Achraf, lived in Zürich, what is known is this: he sent money to two (passport) forgers in Amsterdam, Yala and Mahdi. Yala had contact with Mohammed B. but for unknown reason (it could be he just wanted a passport). Yala and Mahdi however were also suspected of experimenting with using a computer as a detonation device, but the only evidence for this is a blown up computer (which happened to me once, back when I didn't know that swapping sound cards required turning off the computer), and since they were in the business of forging passports - who knows what they were using the computer for. I for one am waiting till stuff gets proven.

Originally Posted by Erwin_Br

And it's foolish to pretend nothing is going on, that the bombing of a train was an isolated incident. What did I say, foolish? It's downright dangerous!

I'm not pretending nothing is going on! I just hope that instead of searching for ghost networks that aren't there, they keep their eye on the ball: isolated groups or even individuals with no connection to each other. Look it doesn't take a network or financing and whatnot to simply inspire someone to committ an atrocity. Ofcourse the FBI (which invented the Organized Terrorist Network model) has linked one of the Madrid suspects to Al Qaeda: he was in the training camps in Afghanistan! Then he must've met Bin Laden! Ofcourse they weren't there at thesame time but.. there must be a connection. Look, it's more likely the 'mastermind' behind Madrid (Nasar) was infuriated with the complete destruction of his beloved Islamist camps in Afghanistan (where he had trained recruits up to the invasion), and the victory of the NA and the U.S. there, than the possibility that they even met or had any relation.

Originally Posted by Erwin_Br

What the hell? Our government wants to scare people? What for? To reassure they'll be re-elected next period? We're not in the USA, my friend. And you are seriously seeing ghosts.

Please read more carefully: I said Wilders is trying to scare people (into voting for him), yes, to assure his election. I mentioned Remkes only on a sidenote.

Originally Posted by Erwin_Br

No evidence, but what does that say? They aren't being monitored for nothing, you know. You think we should leave these suspects alone and wait until they do kill someone?

Well no evidence means there is no evidence. I'm sure the AIVD is monitoring them for a reason, but I hope it's for better reasons than some doodles in a dayplanner. I think they should keep monitoring them (especially now that that now they're being watched, I still can't figure out why they stopped monitoring MB), but on the other hand I seriously doubt we have 150 terrorist in this country. In the UK they only managed to convict three people for terrorist behaviour: one for fund-raising, and two for possesing Islamist literature, and that's out of 640 people arrested under the terrorism act.

Originally Posted by Erwin_Br

Besides, it's very normal to monitor suspects. If I commit a murder, without leaving a trace of evidence, the police can rightfully suspect me because of a motive or something. You say they shouldn't monitor me because they haven't found evidence yet? Wake up, man!

Oh they should definately monitor you! *whispers: they already do!

Look I never said they should stop monitoring them (that'd be stupid), I was just criticising Wilders for the fact that he uses those 150 people under surveillance to convince voters that there are 150 terrorists running loose in the country (these were his very words), which is ofcourse ridiculous. You were reading too much into my words.

Originally Posted by Erwin_Br

Probably. But what's your point? I doubt a terrorist residing in the US would be interested in killing someone in the Netherlands.

and it's not likely there are more terrorists hiding out in the Netherlands than there are in the UK and the U.S. combined, wouldn't you agree?

*All* I was saying is that Wilders is flatout lying when he says there are 150 terrorist running loose on the streets here - because in the U.S. and UK combined there haven't even been one tenth of 150 convicted terrorists found, really, that's all.

[Erwin_Br]

Originally Posted by jjacob

I was tired, I should've put that differently; according to the Swiss newspaper Le Temps the Spanish judge investigating the case was holding back on information, so that's just a rumour (plus I don't know how sensationalist that paper is, do you?). The judge has denied that there is any evidence of a direct connection between the suspects detained there and Mohammed B. and he has not confirmed that the call was of any significance.

And the Dutch media didn't pick this up? That's odd.

The men MB 'conspired' with or whatever came together in his place, I still don't have any reason to believe otherwise, for example that this group was a dutch 'cell' of an international terror network (I know you don't believe that either, but still).

Correct. I don't believe in organised cells.

Yeah, they've been investigating it so deeply that they accidentaly leaked the documents to the men, alerting them that they had been watched for some time (how about that for a push in the wrong direction).

Hehe, I know. The AIVD can't handle this sort of heat, that's something we already know. It's been investigated too.

Excuse my sarcasm, But tell me, I thought you said this man was working alone? What men are you talking about?

I just hope Europe won't shift to the precautionary principle as the U.S. and the UK have, as it has caused an improportionate number of wrongful arrests. Fortunately, that hasn't happened here yet.

Well, a family was wrongfully suspected and interogated not too long ago. They thought they had something to do with terrorism. But it's part of the deal, and it's been happening before this terrorist hype. A friend of mine was wrongfully accused and arrested too, because a police officer *thought* he had thrown in a window after returning from a pub. They even took him to the police station.

Old image? The guy was radicalising within a very small time period (about a year), committed a murder in the name of the islam without having read the koran, even leaving texts he didn't understand, to me that sounds like someone being driven towards the edge of society, wouldn't you say?

ALL Radicals/extremist don't understand the Koran, in my opinion. Same goes for extremist Christians!!! And they have nothing to complain about in this rich West! Yet some have killed doctors working in abortion clinics! What excuse do they have? You don't have to be screwed up in the head to commit a murder, you know. The pilot that flew in the WTC tower was highly educated and intelligent. Belief is only one of many motivations.

Well I believe Mohammed B. had a close group of friends in Amsterdam, but as I said I'm not so sure that his (single) phone call with a suspected terrorist in Spain is of any sifnificance at all, and there is as of yet no evidence for this! Also, remember that the AIVD hasn't found evidence of any link between the arrested people in the Hague and either Mohammed B. or Samir A.. The spain contact, Achraf, lived in Zürich, what is known is this: he sent money to two (passport) forgers in Amsterdam, Yala and Mahdi. Yala had contact with Mohammed B. but for unknown reason (it could be he just wanted a passport). Yala and Mahdi however were also suspected of experimenting with using a computer as a detonation device, but the only evidence for this is a blown up computer (which happened to me once, back when I didn't know that swapping sound cards required turning off the computer), and since they were in the business of forging passports - who knows what they were using the computer for. I for one am waiting till stuff gets proven.

It doesn't matter if they know each other because they're dealing in passports or because they've been buying fruit from one another. They KNOW each other, which is reason enough to be cautious and to further investigate these relations. I'm waiting untill it's proven they only know each other because of irelevant reasons, that's the difference. As long as that's not certain, it's POSSIBLE they have been in contact because of terrorist activities.

Look I never said they should stop monitoring them (that'd be stupid), I was just criticising Wilders for the fact that he uses those 150 people under surveillance to convince voters that there are 150 terrorists running loose in the country (these were his very words), which is ofcourse ridiculous. You were reading too much into my words.

My bad, then. I don't really care about Wilders and what he has to say. I don't think he's got much to say when people have forgotten him by the next elections. Hehe.

--Erwin

[jjacob]

Originally Posted by Erwin_Br

And the Dutch media didn't pick this up? That's odd.

Well here's an article similair to what I was referring to.

Originally Posted by Erwin_Br

Hehe, I know. The AIVD can't handle this sort of heat, that's something we already know. It's been investigated too.

Yeah I know, but I just had to mention it

Excuse my sarcasm, But tell me, I thought you said this man was working alone? What men are you talking about?

Well I believe he was acting alone but I read that he came together in his apartment with a bunch of other people also on the ct info box, so I think his ideas radicalised in part due to their influence. It's even hard to say whether or not these people knew about his plans to committ the murder, for all we know they're just people with a radical interpretation of the islam (which doesn't mean to say they will necessarily plan or committ attacks), let's hope the AIVD knows more and we'll know more soon.

Originally Posted by Erwin_Br

Well, a family was wrongfully suspected and interogated not too long ago. They thought they had something to do with terrorism. But it's part of the deal, and it's been happening before this terrorist hype. A friend of mine was wrongfully accused and arrested too, because a police officer *thought* he had thrown in a window after returning from a pub. They even took him to the police station.

Yeah I heard about that, but so far it's not exactly disproportionate to the number of actual 'useful' arrests, so let's hope it stays that way. Embracing the precautionary principle in law enforcement means pretty much arresting people based purely on the speculation of what that person might do in the future, and as there can be no evidence of that yet (and no evidence to prove the suspect is in fact innocent), the speculation is enough to arrest someone. In the U.S. this has swept through every aspect of the law, let's hope it doesn't over here.

I was once 'wrongfully accused' too, I was putting up posters (promoting a party) in the city with some friends and the police spotted us, we ran but it didn't help much, when we got to station it turned out they were charging us for vandalism; but not for the posters - someone apparently rang the police to tell them about someone breaking open parking meters and emptying them, which happened the street next to us. Ofcourse we were in the clear but in the end they promised us we'd get a 400€ fine, which ofcourse we never received

Originally Posted by Erwin_Br

ALL Radicals/extremist don't understand the Koran, in my opinion. Same goes for extremist Christians!!! And they have nothing to complain about in this rich West! Yet some have killed doctors working in abortion clinics! What excuse do they have? You don't have to be screwed up in the head to commit a murder, you know. The pilot that flew in the WTC tower was highly educated and intelligent. Belief is only one of many motivations.

You're 100% right one the radical thing, but to me anyone who is ready to committ murder for his religion is on the 'edge of society'; I'm not referring to how well they speak the language or how decent their education is. Perhaps it's because I'm atheist - I don't 'understand' a great deal about worship anyway.

Originally Posted by Erwin_Br

It doesn't matter if they know each other because they're dealing in passports or because they've been buying fruit from one another. They KNOW each other, which is reason enough to be cautious and to further investigate these relations. I'm waiting untill it's proven they only know each other because of irelevant reasons, that's the difference. As long as that's not certain, it's POSSIBLE they have been in contact because of terrorist activities.

Ofcourse, and possibilities like that should be considered so they should be investigated, but it's a bit early to speculate (for us, that is) that MB was part of a group of terrorists all with the intent of planning or committing terrorist attacks, and it's even more farfetched right now to suggest there is a link between these groups of people/individuals in Spain (also: not to be confused with the madrid train bombing, that was a different group) and the Netherlands, based on the current evidence.

Originally Posted by Erwin_Br

My bad, then. I don't really care about Wilders and what he has to say. I don't think he's got much to say when people have forgotten him by the next elections. Hehe.

--Erwin

I don't know I'm still sort of holding my breathe (he still gets 25 seats in certain polls, although that's less than before). I so hope you're right about next elections

[TylerDurden]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

Also, did you know that one reason many Turkish women (and women of other Muslim countries) come to the U.S. to study at university is because the U.S. doesn't care whether they wear head coverings? Whereas in France it's now illegal to wear it in schools?

Actually, Turkish women aren't even allowed to wear veils at public universities in Turkey, because there is a separation of state and religion in their constitution. This is also one of the reasons why all religious symbols are forbidden in French schools, so I don't think it is that strange. Another reason is of course that a lot of these girls do not wear a veil because they want to, but because they are forced by their conservative father and/or brothers.

As a matter of fact, I believe that more European countries may be following this example in the future, at least in my country (Belgium that is) this topic is currently being debated.

As someone mentioned earlier, in general Europeans are not that keen on religion interfering with public life anymore. We certainly don't have "In God we trust" printed on our money bills and our presidents, kings, queens or prime ministers certainly wouldn't dare ending their speeches with "God bless <insert country here>"

Originally Posted by Flux

America is one of the free countries in the world, but if you look at it anally, The Netherlands offer far more basic freedoms, such as the freedom to marry a member of the same sex, the right to abortion and other things that we take for granted here but are still not legit or normal in America. And then to think that a lot of the people here want to be more like America. I say we need to become more like the Netherlands and nourish our own culture

The Netherlands paved the way, but the freedoms you mention exist in most Western European countries today (perhaps unless the gay marriage right, which I think for now is only possible in the Netherlands and Belgium).