I defy anyone to argue that these attacks are not a direct result of the Bush Thugs' hijacking of Iraq, Afghanistan and their general criminal behavior throughout the world. Newton's Third Law of Motion, "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." When will people realize that "terrorism" is not caused by people who simply choose to blow up things for sport? There are very specific conditions that breed "terrorists" and "terrorism". Unfortunately, the U.S. and the Western World, through mercantilism, colonialism, imperialism, neo-colonialism, economic imperialism or whatever one wishes to term it, is largely responsible for the gross economic and social disparities found in the modern world. I would be more surprised if people were NOT violently lashing out. This is nothing more than payback time. I have always believed that, post 9/11, America squandered a golden opportunity to address the conditions that have bred and continue to breed "terrorism". Instead, its greed, arrogance and heavy-handedness assures us and the world of several more years of escalated global violence. America has only itself to blame.

The current escalation is undeniably a response to America's posture and actions. They have a very good strategy, actually…keep stressing the US while it's on the edge and try to make it overextend itself. Almost as a side effect they isolate the US by making our putative allies hesitate.Rumsfeld though he could essentially execute a coup, just decapitate the system and install a new head. But you need the people in key positions on your side in a coup and we didn't have that. And because we declared we didn't need help to dominate the world, suddenly it's in every other nation in the world's best interest that the USofA be forced to recognize limits. If the USofA, when Saddam was back into that corner, executed the most intrusive search of WMDs imaginable, found nothing, then withdrew, the USofA would be seen as the leading economic power on the planet, a nation of terrible power that is willing to use it—and a nation that keeps its word. Lesser nations would have flocked to its shadow. And we wouldn't have exposed the limits of our power—it's just not possible to project that much force so far for the length of time it takes to pacify that many people.You know, our technical and economic force means we are the natural Alpha Nation, and the neocon's dream was attainable. But they aren't the sort of people who could do what is necessary to establish a Pax Americana…which is to wait. More proof of the old saying, "those who seek power are, for that very reason, unfit for it."

America's power and influence throughout the world is predicated upon money, fear, awe and overwhelming military power. Hardly the recipe for upright, moral leadership. Further, it is a country that is guided by a man, whom Mandela so eloquently put, "...cannot think properly...". Other peoples can clearly see and clearly do not accept the prospect of American domination. You are correct, America IS overextended, having a military presence in upwards of 150 nations around the world. We are unwelcome and unwanted and, based upon "our" behavior, I fully understand the backlash against us. These are perilous times, my friend. There is no way out of this quagmire. It will only get worse because the Bush Thugs' hubris is matched by their misunderstanding of the people they aim to dominate. Although I agree with much of your analysis, I do not share your optimism concerning "if certain things had occured". America is considered a rogue nation throughout the world and for good cause. It has installed, supported and funded dictatorships (including Saddam's government pre-1990) throughout the world for the past 60 years under the guise of fighting communism and extending "freedom" (to exploit). It has exploited many nations and peoples (primarily people of color) in a single-minded pursuit of new markets and cheap labor. And as far as I am concerned, the Cold War was simply a family squabble among white boys for who would dominate the world and under which economic and political system, much like WWI and WWII (Capitalism won over Monarchies and Nazism). America, and the lapdog, formerly imperialist British won, and now the each seek to divide the spoils of war. Iraq is the logical extension of the long-held and revered "white man's burden". Especially because it sits upon an ocean of oil. As with the "spice" of Dune, he who controls the oil controls the universe. Saudi Arabia is next. I would not be the least bit surprised if the U.S. was playing both sides regarding S.A. in the attempt to force them to further open their oil industry to American "investment" (i.e. control). Nigeria and Equatorial Guinea are on the list as well. Those who believe that this war is about Saddam's crimes, "terrorism", "freedom", democracy, Al Qaida, WMD, "access" to oil, America, baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and Chevrolet, are woefully missing the point. This is about control of oil and the extended power that it would bring. Control of Iraq would destroy OPEC and cripple the European Union. Further, it would pave the way for Israel to continue its criminal assault upon the freedoms of the people from whom they stole their land. This war is about white supremacy. It cannot be any clearer to me.

I look at the Iraq situation and I see the issue as one of power and control, just as white supremacy is. But I don't see one as causing the other, except incidentally…the practices we group and call white supremacy is the condition which allowed the power-hungry fools to rise to a position in which they could inflict their poor judgement on us all.My brief alternate history wasn't an exercise in optimism. It was a recognition that there are power relations between nations and the USofA…yes, because of money, fear, awe and overwhelming military power…is in the Alpha Male position of the hierarchy. It was a recognition that there is a way to do EVERYTHING that can be done. The choices that were made caused the USofA to be seen as a bully and aggressor by much of the world. That was not the way to secure the USoA's position as head of empire. Now, I can't say I feel the US as head of empire is the best possible thing for the citizens of the client states. But again, that's largely because the power is in unfit hands. As long as it is, there's no way to win short of genocide.

> largely responsible for the gross economic and social disparities found in the modern world.An obvious counterindication would be to acknowledge the fact that this disparity existed when the evil westerners made first contact with various nonwestern civilizations. By accident, geopolitical happenstance, or whatever reason, it were European nations that first bult large amounts of ocean-capable ships and became the dominant faction on earth. Kamau would want us to believe that only western culture has evil expansionistic or imperialistic tendencies. But if it weren't for Marathon, the Punic wars, Poitiers and Vienna, where us whiteys were on the defensive from various coloured factions trying to invade our own homeland, we very well might have a coloured dominant faction, and while Kamau prolly wouldn't exist, his counterpart might very well take on my role and tell the northern whiteys to stop bitching and you guys are just poor because you people live in places where it freezes half of the time.

Whistle on the play. Personal foul, ad hominem on the defense.Five concept penalty, remains second down.

If the USofA, when Saddam was back into that corner, executed the most intrusive search of WMDs imaginable, found nothing, then withdrew, the USofA would be seen as the leading economic power on the planet, a nation of terrible power that is willing to use it—and a nation that keeps its word. Lesser nations would have flocked to its shadow. And we wouldn't have exposed the limits of our power—it's just not possible to project that much force so far for the length of time it takes to pacify that many people.

Wrong. Not from what I have seen of the Arab perspective. It would have been seen as weakness. It wouldn't have made everything hunky-dorey -- it would have sent the message that the US is just a chickenshit bully, and if you bloody its nose, it will go home crying.Lesser nations are flocking to our power. Look at the list of nations that served in Iraq. The nations that oppose us are the exception, not the rule. We haven't exposed the limits of our power -- just the limits of our political will. Any military commander that watched the Iraqi war with a military eye will see that we can roll over anyone in the world, if the political will is there. (And push comes to shove, no one can destroy the US. Bush's refusal to disarm nuclearly [sp?] guaranteed that.) As for this naive remark:

I defy anyone to argue that these attacks are not a direct result of the Bush Thugs' hijacking of Iraq, Afghanistan and their general criminal behavior throughout the world.

the evidence is undeniable.

Not from what I have seen of the Arab perspective. It would have been seen as weakness. It wouldn't have made everything hunky-dorey -- it would have sent the message that the US is just a chickenshit bully, and if you bloody its nose, it will go home crying.

I'm talking about what could have been done before we got into the current mess…before having our nose bloodied. And the fact is, if we withdraw and guerilla resistance hasn't been destroyed your message will be received anyway. As has been said, guerillas win by not losing.

First of all, dog of Flanders, you have no idea what I would "want [you] to believe". In fact, I could care less what you believe as my goal is to do my small part to help lift the veil of ignorance from my brothers and sisters in America and remove the shackles of mental slavery brought on by Eurocentrism. What you think or believe is immaterial to me and my efforts, but proves that my focus is in the right place. The fact remains that the conditions of the world today are largely caused by European imperialism. Whether or not you perceive this as being a positive reality has no bearing upon the fact that Europeans have mostly (overwhelmingly) drawn the modern geopolitical boundaries (without regard for local ethnic or religious considerations), defined power relationships, created economic disparities, imposed their moral, social, political and economic values and belief systems upon others, and spread the gospel of racism throughout the world. These facts are unassailable.Phelps, I fail to see the "naiveté" of my remark. Do you not attribute the increase of so-called "terrorist" attacks on British and American soldiers and citizens to the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, whether you support the wars or not? If I invade and occupy your home and you decline to fight until a more favorable opportunity and, then, at a time and manner of your choosing, you attack not only me, but those who supported me in invading your home, is that "terrorism"? Moreover, are your attacks not a direct result of my invasion? No, my friend, it is you that appears to be naive. You see only through the prism of Eurocentrism (whether you are white or not) and fail to see the reality and perspective of anyone who is not like you. That is the main fallacy of Eurocentric thought. I expect for you to view the world through your value system (as do I), but I find it fascinating that you are wholly unable to see the viewpoints of others who disagree with you.In addition, I fail to see what you link proves. "Terrorism" did not begin in 1968 nor does everyone subscribe to what the author of that woefully incomplete "history of terror attacks" deems as being the "major terrorist actions". Again, the list is Eurocentric in perspective, ahistorical and incomplete. Like most whites (and those who think like whites), you fail to address the CONDITIONS that cause people to lash out violently against others. Palestinians did not attack Jews until the British, Americans and European Jews escaping the European Holocaust, stole land from the Palestinians and established the state of Israel upon it. As far as I am concerned, the Palestinians are justified in taking whatever action they deem necessary to get their homes back, the same as Europeans would be if some powers decided to carve the new Vietnamese homeland out of France and Germany. Further, neither the author of your web example nor your definitions of "terrorist" nor "terrorism" is universal. Far from it. The "popular" definitions, though, have become the de facto definitions because whites control mass media worldwide and have the freedom to define reality for them (and others) as they see fit. The reason why Al-Jareeza is "organization non grata" in the Western world is not because of some alleged "anti-American" bias, but because they refuse to accept Western definitions of their reality, which is truly quite admirable. They upset white sensibilities by refusing to "play ball". The nerve of them to think for themselves!!!! From my perspective, the over 2500 lynchings and other violent acts perpetrated by whites against Blacks to keep us "in our place" are "terrorism", the bombings of a peaceful Black community in Tulsa in 1921 (cynically called the (Tulsa Riots") by hateful whites was a "terrorist attack", the Middle Passage and the extermination of the native peoples of this land was "terrorism" of a far grander scale than 9/11. The treatment of South African blacks by the white minority was one of the most evolved forms of state-sponsored terrorism in the history of mankind (and largely patterned after the American apartheid system), as is the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians, which has CAUSED the Palestinian attacks against them, not the other way around. The countless hijackings of nations of color by imperialist Europeans justified by racism, religion, and patronization are terrorism. In addition, as the Western world is the most powerful entity in the world, possesses sophisticated (sexy) weaponry, and control of the global media, it can always paint its undemocratic actions against sovereign nations as battles for freedom and democracy and justify its tactics as "humane" and "with respect for human life". It is an amazing achievement in propaganda that blowing up entire cities with depleted uranium and smart bombs (real WMD) is considered moral, humane and "heroic" while a desperate, poor Arab who straps a crude, homemade bomb to himself and blows up "infidels" in defense of his/her country is a "terrorist". However, I am not fooled. But I digress....

> First of all, dog of Flanders, you have no idea what I would "want [you] to believe".I don't see why my reaction to a website that only portrays "white" or "european" examples of slavery, imperialism or colonialism should differ from the average black person's reaction to a website that only portrays "black" examples of crime, nor why you would expect that to be the case.> created economic disparitiesNo, these disparaties existed before first contact was made.

I don't see why my reaction to a website that only portrays "white" or "european" examples of slavery, imperialism or colonialism should differ from the average black person's reaction to a website that only portrays "black" examples of crime, nor why you would expect that to be the case.

But your reaction is different. In general, Black people's reactions along these lines express outrage. White people's tend to inflict outrage. For instance Kamau discussed a situation. You went straight for the ad hominem.I'm not taking sides here, just pointing out that you ARE doing something different than Kamau did. This shifts the ground of the discussion such that the original topic tends to get lost.

P6: You went straight for the ad hominem.As did you with Rush Limbaugh. From previous discussions with Kamau, and stuff on his blog, I have him classified as a "white demonizer". Just as you can classify someone as "white supremacist" based on his statements.

As did you with Rush Limbaugh.

I wasn't engaging in a discussion with Limberger. Limberger is a public figure.I ain't babysitting. I need the discourse here to stay above a certain level.

Phelps, I fail to see the "naiveté" of my remark. Do you not attribute the increase of so-called "terrorist" attacks on British and American soldiers and citizens to the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, whether you support the wars or not? If I invade and occupy your home and you decline to fight until a more favorable opportunity and, then, at a time and manner of your choosing, you attack not only me, but those who supported me in invading your home, is that "terrorism"? Moreover, are your attacks not a direct result of my invasion? No, my friend, it is you that appears to be naive. You see only through the prism of Eurocentrism (whether you are white or not) and fail to see the reality and perspective of anyone who is not like you. That is the main fallacy of Eurocentric thought. I expect for you to view the world through your value system (as do I), but I find it fascinating that you are wholly unable to see the viewpoints of others who disagree with you.

By the same logic, the failure of Orientalism is to assume that anyone who takes a critical view of the Arab society is doing to because of Eurocentrism. That is tautology, and I won't waste any time on it. Do I attribute the "increase" to those attacks? Absolutely, as to the timing. The attacks would happen either way; they just wouldn't happen as soon. I would rather get them over with on our terms, thank you very much. If I have a gang of thugs attacking my family, and I defend myself, I am not to blame if the thugs decide to fight even harder against me. I didn't start it.

Palestinians did not attack Jews until the British, Americans and European Jews escaping the European Holocaust, stole land from the Palestinians and established the state of Israel upon it.

You are correct only in that the term "Palestinian" didn't exist prior to the establishment of Israel; until then they were simply Arab. Arabs did attack Jews, because the Mufti of Jeruselem was an active participant in the Holocaust (and he taught his protege, Yassir Arafat, very well.)