shit you're learning from Fox News.
I think that's the most offensive thing anyone's ever said to me. For the record, I NEVER watch Fox, it makes me want to smash the television into pieces to stop the evil from spewing out of it. Oh, and I cited a book by Ali Allawi instead. You don't get much further from Fox News than a book written by an Islamic expert and former Iraqi minister who strongly condemns the occupation.

None of the attacks you cited have been attributed to Iraq or Afghanistan. The USS Cole bombings? Al-Qaeda and Sudan. The attacks on US embassies? The Egyptian Islamic Jihad and bin Laden. The 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Lebanon.

Really?

You agree that Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda where behind all of the attacks. You are aware that Bin Laden is no more a citizen of Saudi Arabia than he is a Muslim, correct? You are aware that as of the 9/11 attacks that Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda were operating out of non of the countries you mention, but instead out of... Afghanistan. And it wasn't the first time that America had confronted Afghanistan's ruling Taliban regarding Bin Laden. America had previously pressed for charges against Bin Laden, and submitted evidence to the Taliban. The Taliban even 'tried' Bin Laden under their version of Sharia law, and refused admittance to 100% of the evidence America put forward. They rejected not because it was considered unreliable, but because "it was nothing new and that they did not already know". The result of the case was a complete vindication of Bin Laden and his actions. I dare say going after Bin Laden and his Taliban allies in Afghanistan was irrefutably the result of multiple very serious provocations.

And nowhere in my post did I cite the Muslim-on-Muslim violence that you, for some reason, chose to cite in counter to my statement.

I was countering your claim:
any "terrorist" activity against occupying troops is most certainly merely resistance and protest against this occupation.

Calling the violence in Iraq resistance to the occupation and not terrorism is rather strongly countered by the body counts. The majority of dead are Iraqi muslims, killed by terrorist attacks by other Iraqi muslims. The violence in Iraq against coalition troops ended up being dominantly because they were trying to stem the muslim on muslim violence by standing in the middle and offering protection. Sure there was a much, much smaller faction really bent on 'resistance', but it consisted primarily of former Baathists, and was hardly a faction anyone in Iraq sympathized with.

bcglorf: Please. If you're going to refer to my views as "ignorant" and "stupid", at least be armed with something more substantial than shit you're learning from Fox News.

None of the attacks you cited have been attributed to Iraq or Afghanistan. The USS Cole bombings? Al-Qaeda and Sudan. The attacks on US embassies? The Egyptian Islamic Jihad and bin Laden. The 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Lebanon.

And nowhere in my post did I cite the Muslim-on-Muslim violence that you, for some reason, chose to cite in counter to my statement. Regardless, the US is not in Iraq or Afghanistan to address Muslim-on-Muslim violence. What is your point?

Granted I inadvertently misspoke about Afghanistan. Instead, Afghanistan was seen as geographically important in the construction and securing of oil and gas pipelines.

6 Arabs who claimed to be from Khuzestan took 26 workers hostage in the Iranian embassy. Their demands were:

1. Autonomy for Arabistan
2. The release of 91 political prisoners held in Iran

The 91 political prisoners were executed on the first day of the seige.



This happened the year after Iranian students stormed the US embassy in Tehran after the Iranian people revolted against the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi who was put in power after a CIA funded coup.

The US military launched a rescue mission (Operation Eagle Claw) which failed killing 8 soliders. This led to Jimmy Carter loosing the election, and ended up strengthening the position of the Ayatollah Khomeini and radicalising anti-American forces in Iran.



This clip of the SAS storming the embassy in 1980 is unfortunately all that most people remember from those very scary times. We would do well to remember what is known historically as 'America's first war with militant Islam', with all the propaganda about Iranian nukes that is dribbling out of the evil frothing mouth of corporate American media these days.

Check out the news reports on the size of the US embassy there.

As much as I'd like to decree that the US should have kept its trap shut about Kosovo declaring it's independence, if we had, we'd probably have Kosovoians (sp?) protesting and setting fire to our embassy instead of Serbians. I think I'll file this on under damned if you do damned if you don't.

On a more disturbing note, last I read a burned body was found at the US embassy, I've not heard anything on who it was.

Murderous dictator aside, before the first Gulf War and brutally inhumane sanctions regime, (even after having fought the long and devastating Iran-Iraq war), Iraq was still a modern basically secular society with high rates of literacy, low infant mortality, good health care and education, and a high standard of living.

How much did that new US embassy cost again? Nobody's going anywhere unless USians make it happen.

Theo, in the World Trade Center bombing (February 26, 1993) a car bomb was detonated by Arab Islamist terrorists in the underground parking garage below Tower One of the World Trade Center in New York City. The 1,500-lb (680Kg) urea nitrate-fuel oil device killed six and injured 1,042 people. It was intended to devastate the foundation of the North Tower, causing it to collapse onto its twin.

I don't remember going to War to Afghanistan (which prolly should have happened at least to capture Bin Laden), or war on terror or even to Iraq based off this attack.

Before 9/11 there was long term knowledge of attack, that amounts to criminal negligence, given the previous attacks in 1993, the Oklahoma City bombing and other terrorist acts the fact that this information was not acted on is shocking to say the least. The events of 9/11 created the perfect opportunity for the US to secure long-term oil and gas supplies from Central Asia and the Middle East. If you think that's conspiracy I think you should read US Military force deployments from http://www.globalsecurity.com.

Read about the 17 FOBs in Iraq, the fact that the Pentagon is building a permanent military communications system in Iraq, in a you know sovereign nation that is 'not' going though civil war. What about the largest buttoned down military facility for an US embassy, the size of the Vatican?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article712424.ece

But you know back in 2002, the American people got fooled into going to War in Iraq. Which had nothing to do with 9/11, yet was easily sold to the American public due to the fear created post 9/11. Questioning the war back them was unpatriotic, yet look at events now. Is the US goverment directly implicated? Probably NOT. Did they use the situation post 9/11 to implement their own imperialistic polices. DEFINITELY.

Am sorry I studied too much history to suddenly think that the most highly trained and specialized intelligence community in the world would fail due to sheer negligence and confusion as stated by the documentary, to defend it's country against threats foreign and domestic.

There is nothing George Bush or any person can tell me, to make me believe that Al Qadea is somehow better trained then the KGB. That's just stupidity.

"Jordanian intelligence (the GID) makes a communications intercept deemed so important that King Abdullah's men relay it to Washington. The message states that a major attack, code named “The Big Wedding,” is planned inside the US and that aircraft will be used. [International Herald Tribune, 5/21/02; Christian Science Monitor, 5/23/02]"
http://www.americanhiroshima.info/911warnings.htm