When US soldiers kidnap innocent civilians, transport them to a country like Egypt and then have them tortured for information and released in Albania, they're going to look bad. Germany has already complained about the kidnapping of their citizens, and the upcoming trial of David Hicks has strongly polarised the Australian people. And we are actual allies! Just think how these actions are perceived in the souks and cafes of the Middle East.

I would be "very" interested to know when this supposedly happened.

Sorry that style of warfare was done 30 years ago. Let us into your hearts and minds, welcome us with open arms. Or we will rape your women and burn your village to the ground. lol Sorry but its an old joke.



Sorry but you are wrong on this point. The only symbol that has any worth is winning in that part of the world. You have to be perceived the winner or you are a non-starter. This is why it is so easy to buy friends and hard to keep them without money. Fighting for and ideal is not a wise thing to do since the losing side gets killed by the winning side. For this to change there has to be a big ideal. Freedom is that big an ideal. The terrorist kill thousands and still people are signing up to be in the military and work in the government. This is a new concept for that part of the world. You can tell when we are really losing when the numbers of people wanting to be part of the new government drop off sharply. Until that time we are winning big time and that is a symbol that is easy for all to see.



I am not sure this makes any sense since all that you say took place after that Pesky 9/11 thing which was when we could no longer afford to be nice to nutjobs. Especially since sweet, innocent Saddam had set up training camps for Al Qaeda and was providing safe haven for AQ wounded in Afghanistan. Little things like that tend to make people nervous. Or maybe the public statements of selling or giving what little WMD he had to any terrorist who would use them on Israel and oh yeah America. Worthless threats, boastings of an impotent man? Maybe but after 9/11 who wants to take the chance he would follow through? Gee that is the same argument the President used before we went to war in Iraq. Still sounds right to me.
My question is what caused the war started by AQ to be the fault of America?




Ok, before 9/11 AQ numbered 100,000 they have not exceeded that number in the last 6 years so it seems that they did not do that great a job. One billion Muslims world wide and less than 100,000 people who want to kill us. Two fledgling democrocies building in the Middle East something Europeans swore could not be done. Try as the enemies of peace might it is still going forward. Will it come out the way we want it? I don't have a clue but we gave them a chance to do it in what ever way works for them.



Not a police action at all. People are working to kill us. If it were a police action then we would arrest them instead we are killing them. Police arrest, nations at war kill. The Clinton administration tried arresting them and they replied with 9/11 hunting them down seems to be working so far.



Let me see if I get this straight. It is our fault that AQ attacked us in 1993, and in 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 2000, and 2001 but since we have taken to hunting them down now were really in for it? Is this because we are so weak as to hunt them down instead of just letting them kill people a few at a time? It seems that no matter which way we go we are going to have dead Americans might as well go down fighting.

Positive thinking is important. I do think though that better use could have been made of that symbol of freedom, but perhaps you're right - the only symbol those fighting in Iraq (on either side is what I suppose you mean) is victory, so there was nothing more to do after Bush landed on that aircraft carrier.



Do you have evidence of this? Beyond the unsupported allegations of the US government I haven't seen anything to suggest this was the case. From most reports Saddam and Osama loathed each other on sight, and in fact Pakistan became the secondary and now main base of operations for al Qaeda.



Where do you get this figure? In any event I'm less than convinced that al Qaeda is really a worldwide organisation. Sure, it has links worldwide, but it's no cohesive body. Most of the fighters in Iraq are members of local militias, most in Afghanistan are Taliban or disenchanted Northern Alliance warlords. If we're looking at hostile enemy powers since 9/11 I would have thought they've grown in number, not reduced. After all Iraq was cowed with regular bombing runs up to 2001; now it requires more than 150000 soldiers and mercenaries.

Just so's you don't get the wrong idea I do think the situation is improving worldwide, but I'm not sure the effect is due solely to the US' invasion of Iraq.



A terrorist's gravitas depends on him being treated as a political criminal. Take away their politics and you rob them of status. It worked for the Brits in Northern Ireland. After treating the terrorists as criminals and negotiating with the politicals they've found a reasonably steady peace. Sometimes doublethink is useful in preventing terrorist crime.



Well considering the US bankrolled Osama for quite some time I would say Al Qaeda is the US' fault. But to be fairer to the intent of your question it might not be America's fault, but that doesn't matter. The terrorists want a fight. Giving them that just makes them stronger. So use other means. Spread lies about them. Lead them into temptation and then broadcast their horrors to the world. Go after their financiers. Suffocate them and divide them from their base (fundamentalists). Eventually they will be unable to recruit, much like the IRA finds itself increasingly unable to recruit.

Oh, and do something about Saudi Arabia. The best thing the US could do to end the threat of Wahhabist Islam is crush the House of Saud and its alliance with the Wahhabist faith. Until that is done extremism will have a safe house in every Saudi-financed mosque in the world. You seem to be well-read - surely you've seen the textbooks mandated by the Saudis. It's no wonder home-grown terrorism is taking off in the UK when you see what Saudi-financed schools are forced to teach. The anti-Semitism alone is bad enough, let alone the attitudes towards women and christians.



Soldiers don't, or at least they shouldn't. In Iraq I think they arrest, don't they? In any event it's the CIA who's been 'renditioning' suspects from across Europe, the Middle East and Central Asia and allegedly sending them to be tortured in torture-friendly countries like Egypt, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

One German man who was kidnapped whilst on holiday in Macedonia is suing the CIA: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4504292.stm

This second one discusses rendition but unlike the first story has no official government statement claiming rendition actually happens: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/04/60minutes/main678155.shtml

If you don't believe the Bolsheviks in the BBC and CBS, then here's a story from FoxNews about the al-Masri/CIA case in Germany: http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Jan31/0,4670,GermanyCIAKidnapping,00.html

I think you started to get it. That is Exactly what they expect. and i said it many many times. terrorism is an act of desperation not a logical one. I am sure you remember the saying "desperate situations call for disperate measures". That is precisely what they are in. They are not a government, they know that.



Not the way they look at it. Unfortunately, history sides with their view on that point. And that is why the Liberals (as you say) and most of the world are saying we should change our approach to this "war on terror". That is the way they look at it (this is almost word for word from their main-stream news papers, not my assumption. like it or not, agree with it or not that is the way they see it):

No matter what, the USA with all its might, or even the whole world can not and will never be able to eliminate all 350 million Arabs. Sooner or later they believe that time is on their side and they are prepared to pay any price and bear any sacrifice to gain their land back. They always refer to The Crusaders, and to the Tatars and to the Greeks and the Romans and to France and Britain . All ended up leaving licking their wounds and dragging their tails between their legs and the land always returned to its rightful owners. Actually they refer to the USSR invasion of Afghanistan and their eventual defeat there as a recent example. Ironically, we supported them in that effort. Now, they say, it is our turn to leave or to be defeated.

that is how they look at it. History in a way bears them out.

Our own experience bears their view out. Vietnam, Campodia, Korea all are examples of failed attempts to control other people's lands through invasion or by force.

we can look at it this way: They have no where else to go, the invaders can always go back home. And that is what invariably happens.

So is L Ron Hubbard.

Like i said, my friend, it is not what you or I like it to be. This statement is far off the reality as you can get. The reality is even more scary. I just didnt want to say it. It is not only the Arabs, it is the whole Muslim world that are involved in this conflict. living in our own bubble and think it is "not arabs in general" is a grave mistake. may be that is why many of us can't understand why we were attacked by 'Saudis with Egyptian ring leader'. there was not ONE Palestenian among them. Palestine is much more to the Arabs And Muslims than just a piece of land.





Again, your list or mine are not the reference, look at the whole record not small little jestures here and there. That record is documente in the UN and it is as long as the distance from here to Palestine itself.

We can believe what we wish. it doesnt mean anything. History and the world are watching and we cant control that no matter how much power we have.