OH, yeah
Quote:Please provide an alternative that doesn't involve the WMD's simply disappearing because we both know that is not the case.
Here's one: they didn't exist. There is no evidence that Saddam had WMD that weren't destroyed. The only argument that has been forwarded by you and yours along these lines is 'we didn't see proof of the destruction, why didn't they tape it, etc.' but that doesn't prove that they weren't destroyed.
Occam's razor applies here; the simplest solution is probably the most accurate.
It is far more likely that Saddam never had the WMD in the first place, then a complicated and secret plot to hide them in the desert in Syria.
Here's a motive for Sada to lie for ya: He's pimping his book. Money is his motive, and since there are no fact-checkers to prove him wrong, why not lie?
Cycloptichorn
There are two separate questions to be answered.
(1) Was the USA's choice to invade Iraq and replace its government, the USA's best available, workable choice for significantly reducing the threat of the Terrorist Malignancy to Americans?
(2) Are the USA's present methods for replacing Iraq's government the best available, workable methods for replacing Iraq's government?
For reasons I have repeatedly posted, I think the answer to question (1) is Yes.
For reasons I have yet to post, I think the answer to question (2) is No.
I think the primary thing wrong with the USA's present methods in Iraq is a failure to do two things. First, the USA should be openly working to take no prisoners and exterminate the Terrorist Malignancy in Iraq. Second, the USA must declare to the Iraqi government, as it is currently constituted, that the USA will leave Iraq if the new Iraqi government is not formed by a specific deadline (i.e., a specific date).
I think that if both are done, there will not be a civil war in Iraq, and millions of Iraqis will not be murdered. If either one or both are not done, there will be a civil war in Iraq, and millions of Iraqis will be murdered.
If any of the Terrorist Malignancy is quarantined (i.e., taken prisoner) by the USA, the quarantine must be ended when the USA leaves Iraq. At that point, the Terrorist Malignancy will certainly renew and resume its war on any civil Iraqi government. Worse, if quarantine of Terrorist Malignancy continues, the Terrorist Malignancy will view it as nothing more than a sabbatical, a nice material reward (e.g., food, clothing, shelter, and recreation) for the murders they have perpetrated.
If the USA fails to set a deadline (i.e., a specific date) for the current Iraq government to form its new government, it will not happen for many many years if at all, and civil war with all its bloody consequences will ensue in the meantime.
Investigators laid the possibility to rest last year. Charles Duelfer, the White House's hand-picked W.M.D. investigator, found in a 92-page report that "no information gleaned from questioning Iraqis supported the possibility" that Saddam moved WMD to Syria.
The U.S. military will rely primarily on Iraq's security forces to put down a civil war in that country if one breaks out, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told lawmakers yesterday.
Sectarian violence in Iraq has reached a level unprecedented since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 and is now eclipsing the insurgency as the chief security threat there, said Army Gen. John P. Abizaid, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East, who appeared with Rumsfeld.
"The plan is to prevent a civil war, and to the extent one were to occur, to have the . . . Iraqi security forces deal with it to the extent they're able to," Rumsfeld told the Senate Appropriations Committee when pressed to explain how the United States intended to respond should Iraq descend wholesale into internecine strife.
If civil war becomes reality, "it's very clear that the Iraqi forces will handle it, but they'll handle it with our help," Abizaid said later when asked to elaborate on Rumsfeld's remark.
The sobering assessment of sectarian tensions in Iraq shows the extent to which the Feb. 22 bombing of a holy Shiite shrine, and the ensuing revenge attacks that left hundreds of Sunni and Shiite Muslims dead, has shifted military calculations on a range of fronts, including what constitutes the top security challenge and prospects for further reductions in U.S. troop levels this year.
Yesterday's statements suggested that the imperative to curb sectarian violence, and the risk that it will evolve into civil war -- a risk commanders have long warned was real, if remote -- has now emerged as a central consideration for U.S. strategy in Iraq.
"There's no doubt that the sectarian tensions are higher than we've seen, and it's a great concern to all of us," Abizaid told the Senate committee, adding that the situation in Iraq is "changing [in] nature from insurgency toward sectarian violence." Asked about that comment after the briefing, Abizaid said that "sectarian violence is a greater concern for us security-wise right now than the insurgency."
Abizaid and Rumsfeld voiced the belief that Iraq is not currently engulfed in a civil war and expressed confidence in Iraqi security forces, saying they had performed generally well after the recent wave of sectarian unrest. The country "is not in civil war at the present time, by most experts' calculations," Rumsfeld said.
The key to averting a civil war, they told lawmakers, is the quick formation of a unified Iraqi government that is broadly representative of the main Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish religious and ethnic groups.
"The situation, to the extent that it's fragile and tense, is as much a governance issue as it is a security issue," Rumsfeld said. "The need is for the principal players in the country to recognize the seriousness of the situation and come together to form a government of national unity that will govern from the center and do it in a reasonably prompt manner," he said. "That will be what it will take, in my view, to further calm the situation."
Rumsfeld's testimony included some tense exchanges with Democratic senators, who pressed to know what the latest violence in Iraq would mean for the presence in the country of U.S. troops, who currently number about 132,000, down from 138,000 earlier this year.
Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) repeatedly asked Rumsfeld whether 2006 will be a year of transition to Iraqi security forces, allowing the withdrawal of significant numbers of U.S. troops by the end of the year. Rumsfeld declined to discuss troop levels, saying it would be "ill-advised for me to make a prediction," but he said that Iraqi security forces are "doing a good job" and that Iraqi leaders are taking responsibility for conflict in the country.
"Proof positive the Iraqi security forces are as good as you say is when American troops can come home," Durbin responded. "That's proof positive. Every year we hear about growing numbers and growing capabilities, and yet . . . our best and bravest are still there in danger today."
Other Democrats called "unrealistic" Rumsfeld's decision to rely primarily on Iraqi security forces in an outbreak of civil war. "The real issue here is, where will those security forces place their loyalties, and will we be caught in the middle of a situation in which it's unclear to us who the enemy is," Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) said after a closed Senate briefing on Iraq operations by Abizaid and Rumsfeld after the public session.
Reed, Durbin and other Democrats urged Rumsfeld to tell the Iraqi leadership that the United States would soon begin to withdraw troops, as a means of gaining leverage to compel the Iraqis to form a compromise government. "If that real government doesn't materialize, we might be stuck" taking sides, Reed said in an interview.
In Baghdad, tit-for-tat sectarian attacks continued yesterday, with a bomb targeting a Sunni mosque and killing five civilians. In all, car bombs killed 16 people in the capital. Another car bomb targeting a police patrol killed nine civilians, news agencies reported, citing police.
Iraq's government announced the hanging Thursday of 13 people convicted as terrorists. The hangings marked the first court-ordered executions of insurgents, although three other people -- convicted murderers -- have been legally executed since Iraq reinstated the death penalty in 2004. The Cabinet statement that announced the hangings identified only one of the condemned, Shuqair Fareed, a former Mosul police officer. State television had trumpeted Fareed's confession last year in about 90 killings, including the shooting of two colleagues as they gave him a ride home from work one day.
2. Quran Quote of the Day on Peace The fourth chapt...
Quran Quote of the Day on Peace
The fourth chapter of the Quran, "Women," addressed the early Muslim community in Medina during the 620s, at a time when they were being attacked by the powerful pagan Meccans, who were trying to wipe them out. The Quran repeatedly commands the Muslims to defend themselves from these Meccan infidels and polytheists, who worshipped star goddesses (think Venus) and refused to permit the new monotheistic teachings of Muhammad. The Quran objects on spiritual grounds to the Meccans' polytheism, but it was only when the Meccans tried to ethnically cleanse the Muslims that it commanded them to fight back.
But there were non-Muslim, including pagan, tribes with whom the Muslims had reached peace treaties, with whom they were not at war. So the question arises-- what if a new non-Muslim tribe shows up in the area? Are the Muslims to treat them as enemies or not? Remember that they are pagans, or at least non-Muslims, and entering the war zone of Western Arabia. This is what the Quran says about pursuing warfare in these ambiguous circumstances:
[4:90] Exempt those who join a people with whom you have concluded a peace treaty, and those who come to you with hearts unwilling to fight you, nor to fight their relatives. Had God willed, he could have placed them in power over you and they would have made war on you. Therefore, if they leave you alone, refrain from fighting you, and offer you peace, then God gives you no way to go against them.
(Cole translation, influenced by several existing ones, but done from the Arabic text.)
The Quran lays down in 4:90 the rules governing such a situation. Muslims are not to fight tribes under these conditions:
1. If the new tribe joins up with a tribe in the area with which the Muslims are at peace, then the Muslims are to act peacefully toward the new one.
2. If the new tribe shows up in the region and lets the Muslims know that they have no desire to attack Medinah or the Muslims, then the Muslims are to act peacefully toward it. Some of these tribes may be related to the Muslim tribes of Medina, and that may be one reason they are inclined to peace. The inclination must be returned under these circumstances.
The Quran reminds the Muslims that they benefit from peace with the peaceful. If they had to fight all the tribes in Arabia, they might well be conquered. Returning peaceful intentions in kind is a sort of "social intelligence" that allowed Muslims to focus on the real threat, the profound hatred for them of the Meccans, while living at peace with the neutral Arabs.
The default in the Quran is therefore not aggressive warfare, something the book repeatedly condemns. Warfare is permitted in self-defense. But the default is to be at peace with those who are at peace with you.
ican711nm wrote:
There are two separate questions to be answered.
(1) Was the USA's choice to invade Iraq and replace its government, the USA's best available, workable choice for significantly reducing the threat of the Terrorist Malignancy to Americans?
(2) Are the USA's present methods for replacing Iraq's government the best available, workable methods for replacing Iraq's government?
The two questions you are asking are inseparable.
No they are not inseparable. These two things can be true concurrently.
The USA's choice to invade and replace can actually be our best available choice independent of the adequacy of our particular choice of methods for invading and replacing. Just because we chose inadequate methods to invade and replace doesn't mean there are no adequate methods available for us to have chosen for invading and replacing.
In fact, it's clear that the we did not choose the best available methods for exercising our choice to invade Iraq.
Ok then, what better choice did we have for significantly reducing the threat of the Terrorist Malignancy to Americans?
With the invasion, removal and occupation of Iraq, there is no other way for America to fight fourth generation warfare. It cannot fight an amorphous enemy with a conventional army.
I agree that America "cannot fight an amorphous enemy with a conventional army." I do not agree that "there is no other way for America to fight fourth generation warfare."
I believe that the best way to fight this "amorphous enemy" is to exterminate it on site, on sight with our own "commando" style of search and destroy. We must treat this enemy like any other malignancy that we must exterminate or at least control in order for us to survive. Treating the Terrorist Malignancy as if it were a conventional army or even as if we are obliged to provide its members humane treatment and/or legal rights when found, is not only stupid, it is destructive of humanity's survival.
The objections to this method are based on the fact that we will kill innocents if/when we do this. Yes, in our imperfection we will. But failure to do this causes us to allow far more innocents to be killed.
It's analogous to cancer of the human body. Often extermination of such malignancy requires us to exterminate uninfected tissue because we do not know enough or are not skilled enough to exterminate human cancer other than with radiation, surgery and/or drugs that kills some healthy as well as cancerous tissue. But the removal of the cancer is necessary for the survival of the rest of the body. So, like it or not, we do there what has to be done. It's the same for Terrorist Malignancy. It must be removed from the human race in order for the human race to survive. So we should do what has to be done.
Is this a horrible situation in which we find ourselves? Yes it is! But allowing it to become a far more horrible inhumane situation, because we cannot exterminate malignancy with perfection, is in itself a far more horrible inhumane situation.
ican711nm wrote:For reasons I have repeatedly posted, I think the answer to question (1) is Yes.
For reasons I have yet to post, I think the answer to question (2) is No.
I think the primary thing wrong with the USA's present methods in Iraq is a failure to do two things. First, the USA should be openly working to take no prisoners and exterminate the Terrorist Malignancy in Iraq. Second, the USA must declare to the Iraqi government, as it is currently constituted, that the USA will leave Iraq if the new Iraqi government is not formed by a specific deadline (i.e., a specific date).
I think that if both are done, there will not be a civil war in Iraq, and millions of Iraqis will not be murdered. If either one or both are not done, there will be a civil war in Iraq, and millions of Iraqis will be murdered.
If any of the Terrorist Malignancy is quarantined (i.e., taken prisoner) by the USA, the quarantine must be ended when the USA leaves Iraq. At that point, the Terrorist Malignancy will certainly renew and resume its war on any civil Iraqi government. Worse, if quarantine of Terrorist Malignancy continues, the Terrorist Malignancy will view it as nothing more than a sabbatical, a nice material reward (e.g., food, clothing, shelter, and recreation) for the murders they have perpetrated.
If the USA fails to set a deadline (i.e., a specific date) for the current Iraq government to form its new government, it will not happen for many many years if at all, and civil war with all its bloody consequences will ensue in the meantime.
Iraq has been in an unofficial civil war since the removal of Saddam which created a power vacuum. Just listen to all those American military generals that were silenced because there were those rational ones that actually saw this as a military blunder.
As I posted previously, I will repeat my previous position to address the points about the civil war.
------------
I am one of those people that do not believe this war will end well for America. As such I am for pulling out now. America has caused far too much trouble in that region and it's presence is further going to add to the destabilization. "No one predicted this" or "We weren't prepared for this", the administration chants. When were they ever ready? Whether 9/11, Katrina, or the insurgency, I have heard nothing but the same "We weren't ready or expecting this" bromide. America grossly underestimated both the history of the region, the peoples, the religion, the insurgency and did not put enough insight and judgement into its strategy and march to war.
America doesn't hold the cards, and nor does it control the situation anymore. It lost control of that situation a long time ago, when it removed Saddam and created a power vacuum. It's surprising how all this is so simple and not beyond common sense, yet the Washington hawks cannot see this, nor their blind supporters and keyboard warriors such as those that fester on this thread.
America doesn't control and hasn't controlled the situation in Iraq since then. It can only respond to events, and that is no recipe for success. Since its removal of Saddam and the power vacuum, things haven't exactly gone the way America predicted. America has been subjected to the law of unintended consequences. Who knows what we can expect? No one can predict what will or is going to happen.
Pulling out now, or later, is not going to make a difference in terms of the outcome which is loss. It is a lost cause, mark my words. It is a lost cause 1) militarily 2) politically and 3)financially. The billions that this war costs to an already overstretched American militarily, and a debt-ridden America financially and economically is not good, not to even begin to mention the lives lost on both sides to what was the worst military and political blunder because of Bush's grand visions. America is a debtor nation that is quickly losing its footing as the worlds superpower. Already the cracks are evident in the world system, with the rise of China and India, and the rebellion of the Muslim world. It no longer has an advantage over other nations. What is more, America's immense debt is financed by the Asian giants such as China and Japan.
Perhaps America will learn the hard way. You cannot march into peoples countries and expect to change thousands of years of history, culture, and tradition. You cannot expect them to have some petty elections where people have the illusion of power, and expect a land of clans, tribes, sects and blood ties to be absolved. What Iraq and recent events regarding cartoons, Iran, Hamas, and the recent events which finally made the unofficial civil war come to the fore, have all shown are two things:
1) First, They have shown that, indeed, America and the West are engaged in a clash of civilizations as Huntington wrote so eloquently in his essay and I urge everyone to read it who has not. http://www.alamut.com/subj/economics/misc/clash.html
This idea that you can imbue your own values and norms upon other cultures and peoples, and expect them to all of a sudden change miracolously, and embrace yours, is unfounded. Not all cultures are American or Western cultures. Not all cultures are ready to accept the Western 'values', their ideologies, their institutions, and their ways of life, much less their humor or taste in cartoons, nevermind democracy, which in my opinion is grossly overrated as it is. Not all cultures are ready for democracy, much less secularism, all these values so proudly cherished by the 'progressive West'. These people consider themselves as the 'progressives' in their paradigm. Who is right? Both of them. Who is wrong? None of them.
The Western world may regard religion as mere opinion, or relegated to the dust bin of history or the back pages of the newspaper, but in other parts of the world, religion is the centerpiece of life and society and has always been so. This is why the West and America particularly is not equipped to deal with the Muslim world.
2) The second thing these recent events and conflicts have shown is that where you have a multicultural society, you cannot have it held together by the gluestick of democracy, especially in a region that is not affluent, not fully developed, and doesn't have the standard of living to keep people satisfied and shut up, such as in countries like America where multiculturalism is still stable for the time being (although I wouldn't say it is if you look at the prison system or inner city schools). All societies and governments that become too large and too complex and absorb too many elements, peoples and cultures, create the seeds of their own destruction. These work in an entropic fashion. The more complex systems get, the more they move toward disorder. There are too many chaotic variables in Iraq to hold it together. America is simply one variable in the equation of chaos.
Since it's impossible to have a multicultural society like Iraq held together by a weak thread like democracy, the alternative is either a dictator or breakdown. It takes either an iron fist to rule a vast multucultral country, empire or society (with Iraq you had Saddam, in an example like the Soviet Union you had Stalin, or the example of Yugoslavia), otherwise they break apart, and decompose. The Soviet Union was an example of an overly large multicultural empire composed of many cultures that eventually brokedown. You cannot control different peoples, cultures, sects, religions and rule them under one banner, which is an important note Huntington also makes. Furthermore, I recommend The Breakdown of Nations by Leopold Kohr.
To quote Kohr:
[quote]There seems to be only one cause behind all forms of social misery: bigness. Oversimplified as this may seem, we shall find the idea more easily acceptable if we consider that bigness, or oversize, is really much more than just a social problem. It appears to be the one and only problem permeating all creation.Whenever something is wrong, something is too big. And if the body of a people becomes diseased with the fever of aggression, brutality, collectivism, or massive idiocy, it is not because it has fallen victim to bad leadership or mental derangement. It is because human beings, so charming as individuals or in small aggregations have been welded onto overconcentrated social units. That is when they begin to slide into uncontrollable catastrophe. Hence it is always bigness, and only bigness, which is the problem of existence. The problem is not to grow but to stop growing; the answer: not union but division.
There are some, I'll call 'em the possibles, who argue as if they believe that if it is possible that XXX is true, then the probability that XXX is true is equal to the probability that any other possibility is true.
For example, according to the possibles, it is possible that General Tommy Franks is a fraud, a fool, an incompetent, or a truthteller when he claims that he found tons of toxic WMD ingredients stored in Iraq. So, according to the possibles, it is equally probable that General Tommy Franks is either a fraud, a fool, an incompetent, or a truthteller.
There are others, I'll call 'em the probables, who argue as if they believe the probability of all that which is possible is not necessarily equal.
For example, according to the probables, it is more probable that General Tommy Franks is a truthteller than he is a fraud, a fool, or an incompetent when he claims that he found tons of toxic WMD ingredients stored in Iraq. They claim this based on General Frank's previously highly successful leadership performance, and on Saddam's frequent interference with UN inspectors who were trying to obtain evidence to support Saddam's claim that he actually did destroy his WMD soon after 1991.
But it is of course possible that Saddam's interference with UN inspectors was based on nothing more than Saddam's resentment of being inspected by the UN, and not on his efforts to remove WMD ingredients from Iraq before the UN inspectors found them.
Are these two possibles equally probable, or is one more probable than the other? If one is more probable than the other, which one is it?
My hell in Iraq, by boy soldier
BY STEPHEN FOSTER
A SOLDIER on leave from Iraq has spoken of the "living hell" of serving in the Gulf.
Fusilier Lawrence Buckley, said the Iraq situation, with more than 100 British military personnel killed and the country slipping towards civil war, was turning into "another Northern Ireland".
Lawrence, 19, pictured above left, who is staying with his father Christopher in Newhey, near Rochdale, claimed most of the troops thought it was pointless being out there.
In a frank interview Lawrence, who is serving with the 1st Battalion Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, said: "Iraq is hell. It is a horrible place.
"I drive a Warrior tank and go out on patrol regularly. It is frightening and we have been under rocket attack twice. Fortunately, it was not accurate fire.
"Part of the population don't want us there, most don't even care about our presence and some are hostile. I feel it is pointless us being there.
"We are supposed to be out there training the Iraqis to take over the situation, but nine-tenths of them don't want to know and the police force they have got is corrupt." Lawrence added: "I can see it becoming another Northern Ireland."
His tour of duty ends in May, with his battalion being transferred to Germany.
"I don't want to go back to Iraq, but it is a job at the end of the day and they pay my wages," he said.
"The people of Iraq don't seem to have any value for life. They just exist and the place stinks, with rubbish and dead animal carcasses all over the place."
Lawrence, a former pupil of St Thomas's CE Primary and Hollingworth High, said the troops in his battalion were living in relative comfort in eight-man tents, sleeping on proper bed mattresses.
There were "proper" showers and toilets and there was a NAAFI shop and Pizza Hut on site. He said the authorities were doing their best to make conditions comfortable.
He arrived home to see his dad last week and together they have been visiting relatives in Dublin.
Lawrence said: "It has been very good to chill out with dad. We are more like friends than father and son."
I'd give Rummy a minus 100. In other words, he's batting a negative 1000 - the first time in American history.
... All that text could have been avoided if you just enlisted and went to Iraq to fight the terrorist boogeyman. At least then you would have some consistency.
Those youths know that their rewards in fighting you, the USA, is double than their rewards in fighting some one else not from the people of the book. They have no intention except to enter paradise by killing you. An infidel, and enemy of God like you, cannot be in the same hell with his righteous executioner.
… when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)"; and peace be upon our Prophet, Muhammad Bin-'Abdallah, who said: "I have been sent with the sword between my hands to ensure that no one but Allah is worshipped", Allah who put my livelihood under the shadow of my spear and who inflicts humiliation and scorn on those who disobey my orders.
… to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it.
Once again, we repeat our call and send this clear message to our Muslim brothers, warning against fellowship with the Crusaders, the Americans, Westerners and all idols in the Arab Gulf. Muslims should not associate with them anywhere, be it in their homes, complexes or travel with them by any means of transportation.
Prophet Muhammad said "I am free from who lives among idols".
No Muslim should risk his life as he may inadvertently be killed if he associates with the Crusaders, whom we have no choice but to kill.
Everything related to them such as complexes, bases, means of transportation, especially Western and American Airlines, will be our main and direct targets in our forthcoming operations on our path of Jihad that we, with Allah's Power, will not turn away from.
The war in Iraq is central to al Qa'ida's global jihad.
...
The war will not end with an American departure.
...
Our strategic vision is one of inevitable conflict with a call by al-Zawahiri for political action equal to military action.
...
Popular support must be maintained at least until jihadist rule has been established.
...
More than half the struggle is taking place "in the battlefield of the media."
Al Qaeda's seven phase plan for world conquest:
Phase 1, the "wakeup call." Spectacular terrorist attacks on the West get the infidels to make war on Islamic nations. This arouses Moslems, and causes them to flock to al Qaedas banner. This phase is complete.
Phase 2, the "eye opening." Al Qaeda does battle with the infidels, and shows over a billion Moslems how it's done. This phase to be completed by next year.
Phase 3, "the rising." Millions of aroused Moslems go to war against Islam's enemies for the rest of the decade. Especially heavy attacks are made against Israel. It is believed that major damage in Israel will force the world to acknowledge al Qaeda as a major power, and negotiate with it.
Phase 4, "the downfall." By 2013, al Qaeda will control the Persian Gulf, and all its oil, as well as most of the Middle East. This will enable al Qaeda to cripple the American economy, and American military power.
Phase 5, "the Caliphate." By 2016, the Caliphate (i.e., one government for all Moslem nations) will be established. At this point, nearly all Western cultural influences will be eliminated from Islamic nations. The Caliphate will organize a mighty army for the next phase.
Phase 6, "world conquest." By 2022, the rest of the world will be conquered by the righteous and unstoppable armies of Islam. This is the phase that Osama bin Laden has been talking about for years.
Phase 7, "final victory." All the world's inhabitants will be forced to either convert to Islam, or submit to Islamic rule. To be completed by 2025.
… eight reasons for global jihad ... the U.S., Israel and India are existential enemies of Islam and lists ... objectives include the restoration of Islamic sovereignty to all lands where Muslims were once ascendant, including Spain, "Bulgaria, Hungary, Cyprus, Sicily, Ethiopia, Russian Turkistan and Chinese Turkistan. . . parts of France reaching 90 kilometers outside Paris."
1996
June 25: Khobar Towers bombing, killing 19 and wounding 372 Americans.
1997
---
1998
August 7: U.S. embassy bombings in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya, killing 225 people and injuring more than 4,000.
1999
---
2000
October 12: USS Cole bombing kills 17 US sailors.
2001
September 11: The attacks on September 11 kill almost 3,000 in a series of hijacked airliner crashes into two U.S. landmarks: the World Trade Center in New York City, New York, and The Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia. A fourth plane crashes in Somerset County, Pennsylvania.
October 12: Bali car bombing of holidaymakers kills 202 people, mostly Western tourists and local Balinese hospitality staff.
October 17: Zamboanga bombings in the Philippines kill six and wounds about 150.
October 18: A bus bomb in Manila kills three people and wounds 22.
October 19: A car bomb explodes outside a McDonald's Corp. restaurant in Moscow, killing one person and wounding five.
October 23: Moscow theater hostage crisis begins; 120 hostages and 40 terrorists killed in rescue three days later.
2003
March 4: Bomb attack in an airport in Davao kills 21.
2003
May 12: Bombings of United States expatriate housing compounds in Saudi Arabia kill 26 and injure 160 in the Riyadh Compound Bombings. Al-Qaeda blamed.
May 12: A truck bomb attack on a government building in the Chechen town of Znamenskoye kills 59.
May 14: As many as 16 die in a suicide bombing at a religious festival in southeastern Chechnya.
May 16: Casablanca Attacks by 12 bombers on five "Western and Jewish" targets in Casablanca, Morocco leaves 41 dead and over 100 injured. Attack attributed to a Moroccan al-Qaeda-linked group.
July 5: 15 people die and 40 are injured in bomb attacks at a rock festival in Moscow.
August 1: An explosion at the Russian hospital in Mozdok in North Ossetia kills at least 50 people and injures 76.
August 25: At least 48 people were killed and 150 injured in two blasts in south Mumbai - one near the Gateway of India at the other at the Zaveri Bazaar.
September 3: A bomb blast on a passenger train near Kislovodsk in southern Russia kills seven people and injures 90.
November 15 and November 20: Truck bombs go off at two synagogues, the British Consulate, and the HSBC Bank in Istanbul, Turkey, killing 57 and wounding 700.
December 5: Suicide bombers kill at least 46 people in an attack on a train in southern Russia.
December 9: A blast in the center of Moscow kills six people and wounds at least 11.
2004
February 6: Bomb on Moscow Metro kills 41.
February 27: Superferry 14 is bombed in the Philippines by Abu Sayyaf, killing 116.
March 2: Attack on procession of Shia Muslims in Pakistan kills 43 and wounds 160.
March 11: Coordinated bombing of commuter trains in Madrid, Spain, kills 191 people and injures more than 1,500.
April 21: Basra bombs in Iraq kill 74 and injure hundreds.
April 21: Bombing of a security building in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia kills 5.
May 29: Al-Khobar massacres, in which Islamic militants kill 22 people at an oil compound in Saudi Arabia.
August 24: Bombing of Russian airplane kills 90.
August 31: A blast near a subway station entrance in northern Moscow, caused by a suicide bomber, kills 10 people and injures 33.
September 1 – 3: Beslan school hostage crisis in North Ossetia, Russia, results in 344 dead.
September 9: Jakarta embassy bombing, in which the Australian embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia was bombed, kills eight people.
October 7: Sinai bombings: Three car bombs explode in the Sinai Peninsula, killing at least 34 and wounding 171, many of them Israeli and other foreign tourists.
December 6: Suspected al Qaeda-linked group attacks U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, killing 5 local employees.
December 12: A bombing at the Christmas market in General Santos, Philippines, kills 15.
2005
February 14: A car bomb kills former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri and 20 others in Beirut.
March 9: An attack of an Istanbul restaurant killed one, and injured five.
March 19: Car bomb attack on theatre in Doha, Qatar, kills one Briton and wounds 12 others.
April 7: A suicide bomber blows himself up in Cairo's Khan al Khalili market, killing three foreign tourists and wounding 17 others.
May 7: Multiple bomb explosions across Myanmar's capital Rangoon kill 19 and injure 160.
June 12: Bombs explode in the Iranian cities of Ahvaz and Tehran, leaving 10 dead and 80 wounded days before the Iranian presidential election.
July 7: London bombings - Attacks on one double-decker bus and three London Underground trains, killing 56 people and injuring over 700, occur on the first day of the 31st G8 Conference. The attacks are believed by many to be the first suicide bombings in Western Europe.
July 23: Sharm el-Sheikh bombings: Car bombs explode at tourist sites in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, killing at least 88 and wounding more than 100.
August 17: Around 100 home-made bombs exploded in 58 different locations in Bangladesh, Killing two and wounding 100.
October 1: A series of explosions occurs in resort areas of Jimabaran Beach and Kuta in Bali, Indonesia.
October 13: A large group of Chechen rebels launched coordinated attacks on Russian federal buildings, local police stations, and the airport in Nalchik, Kabardino-Balkaria. At least 137 people, including 92 rebels, were killed.
October 15: Two bombs exploded at a shopping mall in Ahvaz, Khuzestan in Iran. Six people died and over 100 were injured.
October 29: Multiple bomb blasts hit markets in New Delhi, India, leaving at least 61 dead and more than 200 injured.
November 9: Three explosions at hotels in Amman, Jordan, leave at least 57 dead and 120 wounded.
LONDON (AFP) - An elite British soldier reveals that he quit the army after refusing to fight in Iraq anymore on moral grounds because of the "illegal" tactics used by US troops on the ground.
Ben Griffin, a member of the Special Air Service (SAS) described in an interview with The Sunday Telegraph the experiences that led him to end his impressive army career after just three months in Baghdad.
The 28-year-old, who was discharged last June, is believed to be the first SAS soldier to refuse to go into combat and to quit the army on moral grounds.
"I saw a lot of things in Baghdad that were illegal or just wrong," Griffin told the weekly newspaper in his first interview since leaving the SAS.
"I knew, so others must have known, that this was not the way to conduct operations if you wanted to win the hearts and minds of the local population.
"And if you can't win the hearts and minds of the people, you can't win the war."
Griffin, who worked in the SAS's counter-terrorist team, recalled joint operations to tackle insurgents with his American counterparts.
"We would radio back to our headquarters that we were not going to detain certain people because, as far as we were concerned, they were not a threat because they were old men or obviously farmers, but the Americans would say: 'No, bring them back'," Griffin said.
"The Americans had this catch-all approach to lifting suspects. The tactics were draconian and completely ineffective."
The SAS soldier spoke of another operation which netted a group of innocent civilians who were clearly nothing to do with the insurgency.
"I couldn't understand why we had done this, so I said to my troop commander: 'Would we have behaved in the same way in the Balkans or Northern Ireland?' He shrugged his shoulders and said: 'This is Iraq', and I thought: 'And that makes it all right?'"
Griffin said he believed US soldiers had no respect for Iraqis, whom they regarded as "sub-human".
"You could almost split the Americans into two groups: ones who were complete crusaders, intent on killing Iraqis, and the others who were in Iraq because the army was going to pay their college fees," he said.
"They had no understanding or interest in the Arab culture. The Americans would talk to the Iraqis as if they were stupid and these weren't isolated cases, this was from the top down.
"There might be one or two enlightened officers who understood the situation a bit better but on the whole that was their general attitude. Their attitude fuelled the insurgency. I think the Iraqis detested them."
Griffin said he had reservations about going to Iraq in the first place, but went because he was a soldier and had to obey orders.
He soon found it impossible to separate his personal views from his work.
"It was at that stage that I knew I couldn't carry on. I was very angry, and still am, at the way the politicians in this country and America have lied to the British public about the war," Griffin said.
"But most importantly, I didn't join the British army to conduct American foreign policy."
In March 2005, Griffin told his commanding officer while on leave that he had no intention of returning to Iraq because he thought the war was morally wrong.
The Ministry of Defence, when contacted by The Sunday Telegraph, declined to comment.
