How best to deal with Terrorism

[Woe Kitten]

I must admit, this is an excellent discussion and I would have to agree that fighting hate with hate does not solve any problems and I as an American citizen, would have to agree that our government should not try to force our system on other countries and that is why we are "hated" around the world.

*gasp* I think I love you

[compy905]

I must admit, this is an excellent discussion and I would have to agree that fighting hate with hate does not solve any problems and I as an American citizen, would have to agree that our government should not try to force our system on other countries and that is why we are "hated" around the world.

*gasp* I think I love you

Too bad I am powerless to change our government's philosophy on forcing our views...

Obviously I can vote for a new leader next election but a new leader is probably going to carry on those views too. This upcoming presidential election is going to be very interesting...

[Jest@]

Agreed Zombie, but that's unlikely to happen. Luckilly nothing that extreme is required. All the US needs to do is stop supporting Israel disproportionately to the rest of the middle-east and making crazy foreign policy decisions like invading Iraq and Afghanistan. It's not their job to help those countries by charity, only to stop suppressing their development.

actually, israel/palestine normally isnt a key reason for terrorist attacks, or even recruitment. I always though it was, but recently i've seen info to the contrary. It's a rallying cry, and it's a good piece of obvious headline propaganda, but it's rarely actually the cause.

Although I agree that the western double standards vis-a-vis Israel should end, and it certainly cant help the teeorism issue - although I fear a perfect solution to israel-palestine (if such a thing were possible) would have a negligible effect on terrorist recruitment.

[Woe Kitten]

I must admit, this is an excellent discussion and I would have to agree that fighting hate with hate does not solve any problems and I as an American citizen, would have to agree that our government should not try to force our system on other countries and that is why we are "hated" around the world.

*gasp* I think I love you

Too bad I am powerless to change our government's philosophy on forcing our views...

Obviously I can vote for a new leader next election but a new leader is probably going to carry on those views too. This upcoming presidential election is going to be very interesting...

Well, it won't take a lot of people from the US who show at least basic awareness of the rest of the world, to end the hatred people have for the US. So you are far more powerful than you know

[Terminator]

I tried to post this earlier, but the network cut out...

The days of mass warfare are over . . .

Honestly, I think they are just lying dormant. Wherever humanity goes, war follows: it is in our nature. With the way the world is going today, there could be another major world war within 30 years. Hopefully, it will not involve nuclear weapons.

Time will tell...

As to your comments on current social organization, what would YOU suggest as opposed to capitalism?

How about a merger of a resource-based economy and capitalism? Modern industy and technology is more than capable of providing every single human being with the neccessities of life: food, shelter, clothing, medical care, and even jobs. Jobs could continue to pay out wages, but instead of relying on that money for survival, you save it for whatever personal reward you desire (a bigger TV or softer couch, for example). Government programs, run by a single fixed income tax (say, 15-20%) instead of multiple layers of taxes (Double-taxing is outlawed by the US Constitution, so the Government triple-taxes us instead: National, State, and City tax, all on the same pre-tax income. This should be illegal by the Constitution, yet has been done for almost 80 years in America.), are responsible for distributing all resources to where they are needed: everybody gets equal and free access to all the neccessities of life.

Bang. Capitalism instantly loses the power of taking total control, and a resource-based economy cannot be abused by a select few. The minimum standards of life rise to place everyone on the same level. Hunger, poor (or no) medical care (based on wealth), and homelessness are eradicated, as is the need for defunct programs like Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. Disease is easier to control, and technological advancements can accelerate.

. . .
The elected representatives and the elected head of state are meant to balance out eachother's power by a system called 'seperation of powers'. Basically, the powers of the elected representatives, the head of state and the judiciary (law) are kept seperate, so that each is free from the influence of the other.
. . .
Both the US and UK have seen radical erosion of seperation of powers in the last 50-100 years. The main problem is that the Head of State is ALSO the head of the elected representatives. This can lean to what are called "elected dictatorships" where a single person controls the entire government of the country. This is a major problem in the UK and a less major, though still dangerous, problem in the US.
. . .
In the US, and to a lesser degree in the UK, our school systems teach a horribly one sided version of history. In the US this is equivalent to the complete brainwashing of a nation that took place under Hitler. In my opinion it is vital that we address this problem.
. . .
Surely our leaders should be the best informed people on earth? If we have a stupified population, then they will ellect stupified rulers. It's as simple as that.

The problem today is that the erosion of this "seperation of powers" has reached such a critical level, that the very phrase is laughable. In the US, the Judicial branch is totally reliant on the Executive branch. Both the Exacutive branch and the legislative branch sqabble amongst each other, but the Executive branch usually wins. 30 years ago, they were much more equal, and activly practiced their "checks and balances" to keep each other in line. Today, the Executive branch has practically absorbed the Judicial and dictates most of the policies to the Legislative branch.

Face it. The American ideal that was created 230 years ago has been utterly destroyed. The Founding Fathers would be turning in their graves. Americans are blind puppets of their bloated government, and the US government continued to consilidate and expand its powers. The US government has its hands stretched over the entire planet, with its fingers dipped into ever other government in the world, and refuses to lose a single privalidge. The enormous economic might is constantly used to pressure other nations, by sanctions or threats. The "represenatives" that are elected by the Electoral College (not the people, and they never were!) are too concerned with their own bank accounts to care anymore. The US government has become the very definition of corruption.

I sense a second revolution coming that will destroy the America we know today, but rebuild it as a new and greater society. One that actually takes the time to listen to its people and care about them. I eagerly await that day...

So go my premonitions...
After all, historically, the average maximum age of any nation is only 200 years; beyond that, and you are borrowing time.

[5eyes]

I have a feeling this will be a very long post...

Caste, never did I say they were "some incarnation of Satan" or some bull like that, and I understand they are trying to get "messages" across to us but seriously do you believe that killing a couple, or a dozen, or a few hundred, or up to several thousand people just to say "we don't like you" (not that that is what they say, I would love to give a couple examples of what terrorists have said to countries they attacked but can't seem to find the exact quotes) or (hopefully) more important messages?

Am I right in thinking that you believe that George Bush and your Armed services enjoy killing? If you take the above premise as granted then it seems you can't avoid that position. If so the Iraqi people are in grave danger.


- Not everyone who kills enjoys it or everyone would be doing it, most people that commit murder are overcome with extreme mysery and self loathing as a result
- Any person that acts in any way has a justification for their actions, we may not think their justification is valid. However, this is irrelevant, the only way to stop someone acting on justifications they believe in is to show that their justification is false (either that or you can kill them). In the case of terrorists, the atrocities commited by the west ARE the justification. So if we kill terrorists, we only REINFORCE their justification. Therefore, every terrorist we kill makes terrorism a bigger problem.
- If terrorists killed only because they like killing they would do it themselves. Osama bin Laden doesn't plant the bombs himself.

George Bush himself does not actually kill people, he just commits others to death, as any leader who starts a war, or in fact tries to defend his own country... The Armed Forces, although individuals may become addicted to killing, as a whole doesn't become addicted. The terrorists use hit-and-run tactics, but the military is full-frontal. With the full-frontal attacking/defending the people in the military are constantly targeted by the enemy, constantly fighting, constantly watching their close friends getting torn apart by enemy weapontry. In this is created fear of combat, although troops are trained to deal with it, but in the case of terrorists they arn't always fighting. The reason they get such a high off of killing is because they are being chased, they have to hide among their enemies, they have to avoid and move. And they are not fighting trained fighters, they are attacking untrained civilians. The military is forced to deal with experienced and trained enemy forces. The military is in a more singular-dimensioned fighting. The terrorists are fighting in multi-dimensioned battles, where the objective is not to push forward or hold your position and outlast and beat the enemy, it is to sneak around, hit the "enemy", run and hide. The battling is on a small-scale where it is a single person or small team that is fighting, not large forces of nations. This fact means the terrorists are less afraid of seeing many of their people die infront of them, but the soldiers do see their friends and fellow people get torn apart. It has to do with scale and situation, not the number of people you kill.

-Didn't say that EVERY murderer enjoys killing, hence where I said SOME testify that they enjoyed what they did...

-Their "justifications" as they go along become more senseless because they get lost in what they are doing. Some terrorist messages are incredibly riciculus and have absolutly nothing to do with those they attack. And to try and show the terrorists that their "justifications" are wrong is incredibly hard and most likely useless. They become concrete in their thought of a single person or country is completly against them even if that person or country tries everything to help them. I mean you can ask people their thoughts on certain subjects and they will tell you something, but not give in any way examples or truth behind what they think. I mean you can ask many people on the East and West coast of the USA about their thoughts on Bush and they will instantly say they dont like him, and if you ask them why they will give you irrational answers and say things like "he's stupid" or "he's a monkey" and so on. The same goes for those who support Bush, mainly the midwestern area, when asking them of Bush they will say "he's great" and again just give you meaningless answers with no proof. It has to do with how the brain reacts to those questions. A recent study showed that when attacking a person's favorite candidate they will respond using the emotional center of their brain instead of the rational center, the same will go opposite, when you defend the candidate that the person dislikes they will again use their emotional center to attack them. It works the same with people who do not like other countries, they emotional hate it and therefore incredibly hard to alter their emotion towards something.

-So what, Osama can sit on his ass and watch his enemy die without having to do the hard part himself, I mean you may enjoy a certain food but if someone else is willing to go make it for you makes it all that much sweeter.

And to your whole democracy rant, some I have to agree with like the lack of education and the deterioration of the seperation of power, but also there is no way that every citizen will have enough time to vote for every law/bill/tax or whatever. The idea behind having people represent a larger whole is so that they are willing to take a dive and do something for the better of the whole. If there was a proposed tax increase on something like fast food, vast majority of people would be opposed because it means they will be the ones paying, but the single elected politician can say yes to the tax and tell the people its neccessary to keep other problems at bay. For people to vote on every single issue would require every person to be educated about each issue and therefore timeloss would ultimatly ruin the community.

The best plan we have against terrorism is removing the reason in can exist. The reason is poverty, the weapon is money. If the USA would use 50% of their militairy budget to fight poverty in the middle east, it would be much safer for both americans and other populations in this world.

Not all Middle East countries are in poverty, take a look at Saudi Arabia, they are incredibly rich

ugh. Really. That's disgusting. You insult your own higher brain functions.

"but they band together with the single fact of them all that they are addicted to killing and all are set on destroying the world for the rest of us."

Seriously: take that mentality (not that specific claim, but the kind of thinking behind it), then imagine yourself as a kid growinmg up somewhere in the middle east - that mentality could perfectly well lead to you thinking "Americans, they are hell-bend on their own consumption, they don't give a fuck about the rest of the world, they don't care who's feet they tread on, and they will kill anyone who does not conform to their will, or gets in the way of their greed."

And...it's that exact thought process that becomes the key recruiting seargent for terrorism.

Both statements have a modicum of truth, but have blown themselves out of proportion into some big, black-or-white, they-are-evil-and-worse-than-us mentality. Both are stupid, short-sighted, selfish, ignorant and FUNDAMENTALLY DANGEROUS.

do you really think these people are fundamentally different to us? NO. they have the same brains, the same logical process, the same ability to be influenced by their environment and by the evidence they get. THEY ARE NOT ESSENTIALLY DIFFERENT TO YOU - they just come from a different body of experience. A body of experience that understandeably (not necessarily legitimately) teaches them that you are the bad guy.

Don't fight fire with fire, or assumtion with assumptiuon, or ignorance with ignorance.



Hatred only breeds more hatred, no matter who you think started it. All you can do is remove the reasons to hate or be hated.

So what is the reason for the hate?

I must admit, this is an excellent discussion and I would have to agree that fighting hate with hate does not solve any problems and I as an American citizen, would have to agree that our government should not try to force our system on other countries and that is why we are "hated" around the world.

Although I'm opposed to dictatorships, communism, etc... it is true that the USA shouldn't try to force democracy on other countries, honestly many countries converted to democracy on their own, maybe with alittle political nudge from us, but ultimatly they came upon it on their own. The only reason such gov'ts in the Middle East exist is because they have for so long been able to support themselves, but ultimatly the world will move on from oil and the ME economies will suffer, and ultimatly will more than likely convert to another gov't. I think personally the USA just needs to get off of oil and buy less of it from the ME, trade less with them. Although it wont make a huge diffrence, a la Cuba, but if the terrorists from there see us less of a problem than maybe they'll leave us alone.

Honestly, I think they are just lying dormant. Wherever humanity goes, war follows: it is in our nature. With the way the world is going today, there could be another major world war within 30 years. Hopefully, it will not involve nuclear weapons.

Time will tell...

All true, but I think it may be longer than 30 years, nations have been settling a bit especially with the collapse of the Soviet Union. But again, war can start at any time, so we'll have to wait and see and hope it wont be according to Einsteins prediction

I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

Sorry about making this so long, I know its probably really boring because I'm falling asleep writing this line myself. I also didn't address everything I wanted but honestly I really don't feel like it...

[Jest@]

Not all Middle East countries are in poverty, take a look at Saudi Arabia, they are incredibly rich

Overall, yes, but HUGELY unequal, most of the wealth is in very few hands.

Anyway, poverty isn't the point necessarily, it's about perception of...
-western exploitation (oil)
-imperialism (media + 'spreading democracy')
-double standards (US treatment of Israel, US 'special relationship' with Saudi, although that is slowly changing)
-selfish agression (iraq, afghanistan)

So what is the reason for the hate?

Well...hahah....it doesnt really matter in a way. You think the hatred starts with terrorists 'killing a couple, or a dozen, or a few hundred, or up to several thousand people just to say "we don't like you" ' - your words. It starts, according to you, with people zealously over-reacting to a few grievances.

They think it starts with selfish, short-sighted westerners more than happy to piss on, rob and rape the rest of the world then crush them mercilessly if they object. For them, they have no choice but to resort to violence, they feel like the west will fuck 'em over anyway, so they might as well fight back while they can. In a way, you can't blame them for thinking like that - obviously i dont condone their actions, but I don't condemn their logic up to the violence part.

You blame them, they blame you. How productive. Where does that get us? nowhere. Saying "they started it" like a 5-year-old is simply fucking stupid.

Now, i'm not gonna go into the ins-and-outs of extreme postmodernist moral relativism etc, cos it's useless - but a degree of relativism, and at least understanding and comprehension of the 'others' on fair terms would be a start.

[Woe Kitten]

5 eyes, when I replied to your view that people get adicted to killing by using the two examples of Bush and the US army, I was pointing out your double standards. In your last post you went on to reaffirm them and miss my point completely. To make it easy I will spell it out really simply.

George Bush has the same relation to the killing done by the army, as Osama bin Laden has to the killing done by Al Quida terrorists. You either have to abandon you initial point that Terrorists do what they do because they are addicted to killing, or you have to accept that George Bush is addicted to killing.

As for the rest of your post, it was too littered with inacuracy to even be worth arguing against.

[5eyes]

Overall, yes, but HUGELY unequal, most of the wealth is in very few hands.

Anyway, poverty isn't the point necessarily, it's about perception of...
-western exploitation (oil)
-imperialism (media + 'spreading democracy')
-double standards (US treatment of Israel, US 'special relationship' with Saudi, although that is slowly changing)
-selfish agression (iraq, afghanistan)

-I don't like oil, honestly (as Bush said in his recent State of the Union address) America is to based on oil, and as a country we need to pour our resources into finding alternatives. Hydrogen is a growing possibility, already California has lined their major highways with hydrogen capable stations. There needs, and soon, to be a push toward removing ourselves as a oil-based country.
-'spreading democracy' again the way we are doing it in Iraq is a tad... hypocritical and so-forth. As for the media terrorists use it to their advantage, so I doubt they can complain to much about it.
-Unbalances due to the fact America no longer has a target competitor (like the Soviet Union was), and since we supported certain countries before the collapse of the Soviet Union and were opposed to areas held by the Soviet Union, America has continued what it was doing. Although I think if we weren't being attacked by terrorists we may have been alittle more likely to start balancing the money distribution, but the terrorists are still opposed to us even after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
-I wouldn't call fight in Afghanistan such a 'selfish agression' but rather as 'preventative measures'. Iraq on the other hand I won't argue that, at least by Bush, wasn't a 'selfish aggression'.

So what is the reason for the hate?

Well...hahah....it doesnt really matter in a way. You think the hatred starts with terrorists 'killing a couple, or a dozen, or a few hundred, or up to several thousand people just to say "we don't like you" ' - your words. It starts, according to you, with people zealously over-reacting to a few grievances.

They think it starts with selfish, short-sighted westerners more than happy to piss on, rob and rape the rest of the world then crush them mercilessly if they object. For them, they have no choice but to resort to violence, they feel like the west will fuck 'em over anyway, so they might as well fight back while they can. In a way, you can't blame them for thinking like that - obviously i dont condone their actions, but I don't condemn their logic up to the violence part.

You blame them, they blame you. How productive. Where does that get us? nowhere. Saying "they started it" like a 5-year-old is simply fucking stupid.

Now, i'm not gonna go into the ins-and-outs of extreme postmodernist moral relativism etc, cos it's useless - but a degree of relativism, and at least understanding and comprehension of the 'others' on fair terms would be a start.

I understand that you are saying we need to understand others, and America (especially in gov't) should be taught these things. But when bombs start going off in our homeland you understand that we want to react based on how we have been taught. But mass-scale is not what should be applied, politicians can send out their jets and tanks but it won't accomplish alot and hurt the country more. They do it to please the mob because they believe something will be accomplished with millions of dollars of equipment flying around. Again, what is needed is small counter-terrorist units that will respond and eliminate terrorist threats, training camps, and the leaders of their groups.

5 eyes, when I replied to your view that people get adicted to killing by using the two examples of Bush and the US army, I was pointing out your double standards. In your last post you went on to reaffirm them and miss my point completely. To make it easy I will spell it out really simply.

George Bush has the same relation to the killing done by the army, as Osama bin Laden has to the killing done by Al Quida terrorists. You either have to abandon you initial point that Terrorists do what they do because they are addicted to killing, or you have to accept that George Bush is addicted to killing.

As for the rest of your post, it was too littered with inacuracy to even be worth arguing against.

Diffrent matters with diffrent condidtions require diffrent mind-sets and diffrent actions. George Bush doesn't tell the military to go kill this or blow up that because he enjoys it, its because its what he thinks is neccessary for the protection of the country. Osama on the other hand does to hurt others and try to destory established soceity. And Bush didn't initially say "lets go kill because I feel like it", he was brought to a point where he had to make a decision to start a war. The terrorists on the other hand said "i dont like that" and started to bomb, assassinate, kidnap, etc...
And even if Bush is addicted to killing at least he has come up with excuses for it, I havn't heard any reasons other than the same BS from the terrorists. And whatever they say they will just keep attacking, you can look at a number of countries around the world who tried to appease the terrorists and ended up getting bombed, having their diplomats kidnapped, having their people killed. The terrorists don't care what countries do, they will kill at random and even target those who show weakness.

And to what inaccuracies do you speak of? If there are any I apologize but otherwise I will be happy to post all my sources...

[Terminator]

Honestly, I think they are just lying dormant. Wherever humanity goes, war follows: it is in our nature. With the way the world is going today, there could be another major world war within 30 years. Hopefully, it will not involve nuclear weapons.

Time will tell...

All true, but I think it may be longer than 30 years, nations have been settling a bit especially with the collapse of the Soviet Union. But again, war can start at any time, so we'll have to wait and see and hope it wont be according to Einsteins prediction

I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

Einstein was not that smart. Sure, he was one smart cookie, but we now know that he had quite a few of his theories backwards. I highly doubt his "prediction" will ever come true. It was intended more as a warning than a prediction anyway.

As for World Wars, one could argue that World War III was the Cold War, and we are already in World War IV (the War on Terror). Both were global conflicts; the only difference is the body count. One was a war of technology, economics, and wits, and the other a more direct conflict against hidden weapons and training camps, IEDs, and kidnappings.



Humanity is always at war.
Right now, there are some 42 conflicts raging worldwide, about 14 of those are classified as "Major Wars" by the UN (defined as causing more than 1,000 battlefield deaths per year). The only one you hear about on world media is the little conflict known as Iraq, which barely registers as a "major war". Only a little over 2,300 soldiers, and about 10,000 Iraqis have died in the three years of that war. Nobody seems to care about the millions that die each year around the world, especially those in Africa and South America...
I have a complete list if anyone is interested as to who is fighting whom.

[5eyes]

Then again Einstein did accomplish alot for his time, and alot of people have been considered intelligent but had holes in thier theories (such as Issac Newton). Althought I dont believe exactly in his prediction, but it is always smart to make sure you take what he said in consideration.

Although I don't believe any country will officially recognize those wars as actually World Wars, even tho they are and did take place around the world. People see World Wars more as large ground battles, with tanks and planes and the such.


Actually I'd like to see that list, lately I havn't paid much attension to the number of wars going on.

[Nav]

Dealing with Terrorism, should be dealt with higher security and defense for our own country. We should not invade other countries when dealing with terrorism, unless absolutely necessary.

[Terminator]

The World at War:
Currently Active Military Conflicts


Major wars are in bold.
Format is "Attacking Country : (Conflict) : Start - End : (Current Intensity)".

"Ravaging" means that over 95% of deaths are civilians, mostly from rampant disease and mass starvations. Most modern wars constituate over 75% civilian casualties.

Remember that the UN labels a conflict "Major" only after battlefield death top 1,000 per year. Often, as in the case in Somalia, hundreds of thousands of civilians have died from stavation as a direct result of military action; but since they are not shot in battle, they are not counted by the UN.

Algeria : (Insurgency) : 1992 - current day
Angola : (Cabinda) : 1975 - current day
Burma : (Insurgency) : 1950 - current day
Burundi
China : (Senkaku Islands) : 1968 - current day
China : (Spratly Islands) : 1988 - current day
Columbia : (Insurgencies) : 1070s - current day : (Major War, plus Drug War)
Congo (Zaire) : (Congo War) : 1998 - current day : (Major War)
Georgia : (Civil War) : 1991 - current day
India : (Assam) : 1985 - current day
India : (Kashmir) : 1970s - current day
India : (Naxalite Uprising) : 1967 - current day
Indonesia : (Aceh) : 1986 - current day
Indonesia : (Kalimantan) : 1983 - current day
Indonesia : (Maluku) : 1999 - current day
Indonesia : (Papua / West Iran) : 1963 - current day
Israel : (Al-Aqsa Intifada) : 2000 - current day : (Major Conflict)
Ivory Coast : (Civil War) : 2002 - current day : (Major War)
Korea : (Korean War) : 1953 - current day
Laos : (Hmong Insurgency) : 2000 - current day : (Major Conflict)
Liberia : (Civil War) : 1999 - current day : (Ravaging)
Moldova : (Transdniester) : 1991 - current day
Namibia : (Caprivi Strip) : 1966 - current day
Nepal : (Maoists) : 1996 - current day : (Major Conflict)
Nigeria : (Civil Disturbances) : 1997 - current day
Pakistan : (Baluchistan) : 2004 - current day
Peru : (Shining Path) : 1970s - current day
Philippines : (Moro Uprising) : 1970s - current day
Russia : (Chechen Uprising) : 1992 - current day : (Major War)
Rwanda
Somalia : (Civil War) : 1991 - current day : (Ravaging)
Spain : (Basque Uprising) : 1970s - current day
Sudan : (Darfur) : 1983 - current day : (Ravaging)
Thailand : (Islamic Rebels) : 2001 - current day
Turkey : (Kurdistan) : 1984 - current day
Uganda : (Civil Conflict) : 1980 - current day
United States : (Afganistan) : 1980 - current day : (Minor Insurgencies)
United States : (Djibouti) : 2001 - current day
United States : (Iraq) : 1990 - current day : (Heavy Insurgencies)
United States : (Philippines) : 1898 - current day
Uzbekistan : (Civil Disturbances) : 2005 - current day
Yemen : (Sheik al-Houti) : 2004 - current day

42 in total.
Data is at most four months old.

With the increasing disturbances throughout the Muslim world in response to the recent cartoon incident, this is likely to rise very soon... Damn muslims have to take everything so personally, and now they have started attacking Danish Embassies and have already caused several deaths. The situation is rapidly spilling out of control in the Middle East...

Fighting over a drawing. So stupid, but man has it stirred up the hive...

[5eyes]

Dealing with Terrorism, should be dealt with higher security and defense for our own country. We should not invade other countries when dealing with terrorism, unless absolutely necessary.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Benjamin Franklin

Israel : (Al-Aqsa Intifada) : 2000 - current day : (Major Conflict)

Russia : (Chechen Uprising) : 1992 - current day : (Major War)

United States : (Philippines) : 1898 - current day

I'm suprised that the Chechen Uprising and the Al-Aqsa Intifada were both killing so many, I havn't heard much about whats going on over in Russia or Israel. I havn't heard of any recent attacks on either of them, except for the bombed natural gas line in Russia which Georgia was complaining that Russia did it on purpose so Georgia wouldn't get the gas, funny how child-like some countries can act.

And I have to wonder what's going on in the Philippines

42 in total.
Data is at most four months old.

With the increasing disturbances throughout the Muslim world in response to the recent cartoon incident, this is likely to rise very soon... Damn muslims have to take everything so personally, and now they have started attacking Danish Embassies and have already caused several deaths. The situation is rapidly spilling out of control in the Middle East...

Fighting over a drawing. So stupid, but man has it stirred up the hive...

::grumble:: This really does directly affect me especially if Muslim terrorists start hitting Denmark, my brother is studying abroad in Copenhagen. From what I heard the Danish said they CAN'T appologise due to freedom of press laws in their country, which it seems idiotic that they would get in such an uproar especially after decades of horrible things said about other religion's prophets.

lol, "man have you stirred up the hive" -Barney, when he's giving Gordon the crowbar... kinda sad thats the first thing that reminded me of...

[InternalRage]

I'm just waiting for dragonfilet's view on this. He always has an awesome view on everything.