TrevorOfCrete

well divide and conquer wasnt really what happened in the empire. most of the time british occupation united people, becuase rather than hating each other they hated the british more. the problem occured when britian left, be it in India, which it is claimed millions died in the blood bath than ensued, Iraq, South Africa and the other various african countries that have been locked in civil war in the past. During british occupation few colonies populations were divided.

well here in the uk with have many muslim members of parliment and they get on fine. i suppose you guys are correct. Â Black muslims were there before america had arab muslims creating terrorism. Â Black panthers etc..., so maybe some of that has carried on in small pockets.

thats not radical. its just like christians saying "praise the lord." or "god be with you". just becusae a sentance has allah in it dosnt make them radical

the only way this is ever going to end is if Israel do somthing. if they carried out a no-retribution, no needless voilence policy, maybe some muslims would change there opinions of it. its no use saying, "no they wouldnt" , becusae im pretty sure some would. ofcourse for a while things in israel might become bad, but eventually the terrorists would start to look like terrorists. but becusae of isreals over the top revenge strikes, that kill more civilians than 1 careless rocket fired over a wall could ever hope to kill, muslims go on hating israel and praising terrorists as freedom fighters.

im sorry i flatly refuse to believe that. Â it makes no sence, why? why would the british, or any of the occupiying forces be trying to esculate the shiayt/sunni tensions. more tension mean more occupieing soldiers deaths. Â I think the iraqis are trying to find a way to justify the civil war that threatens to ensume by blaming the ocuping nations. Â i think this will turn out to be a simple conspiracy story exagerated by al-jazeera. Â as i was aware the two british soldiers were obtained at the police station, and at the time there were no reported fatalities. Â im pretty sure that would have hit the news at the time if there were, seeing as how much of an uproar the iraqi police made. im also pretty sure i remember seeing a vidio of the tank actually smashing the prison walls, and i recall seeing 2 warriors, not 10 tanks and helicopters that this source reports. i really dont understand this acusation

whats radical in all of that? it seems just like a candidate making a candidate like speech. if your really suggesting saying "god is great" is radical......

for pre-order....?

no its not a lie, they went in fear. Jews were attacking arabs as arabs attacking jews. It could have easily turned into a anti-arab bloodbath - which it didnt, but as from examples like India things can turn very ugly very quickly when countries gain soverignty. But Islam and also Christianity stem out of the same place, both massive religious and cultural heritige in exactly the same area. Thats what some Israelis fail to understand and think its soly a Jewish area.

well its hard to say they "bought" it , becuase there wasnt any proper documentation, it was sold to them without consulting the arabs natives who lived on it, due to the lack of records. The jews certinly cultivated it, with irragation scemes and what not. Thats where the problems start. Arabs moved on from land they have been living on for generations. Forced, with the creation of isreal, out of there homeland into countries such as Jordan, Syria and the Lebonnen. Saying that palastinian muslims should just go live in Jordan becuase thats there arab state is like saying why dont israelis all go to the United states becuase it has a high population of jews.

bingo, learn from histroy. Â how many times have we seen in histroy removal of a leader and then a power vaccum? countless.... and the US are no wizard, they were foolish to think a country can be controlled with such huge change in a short time.

maybe your correct, but this is anchiant history, lets look at modern history. Â in the 1800's the amount of jews living in palastine was small, that you cant deny. Â the amount of arabs was much larger. The arabs were promies a homeland free from both Ottamen rule, and later British rule on several occasions. Â then finally when the area was made soverign, it was given the the jews. Â now flip the coin and think of how agreeved the jewish people would be if it was the other way around. Â Dont you think they would do all there might to get "there homeland" back. dont you think the jews would muster all there might to drive the arabs into the sea? Â well we know the jews would definatly do that by looking at there terrorist activities in the late 40's early 50's, killing hundreds of inocents. Â Reality is jewish opinion is no different from the arab opinion towards each other. Â Israel is quick to critise arab leaders who want to obliterate israel, but if it was revers, the view of the Jews would be exactly the same of the Arabs that surrond them today.

The American leaders used fear as a tool to 'war on terror'. You can also see this by the recent 'scandal' of a muslim getting into the congress overthere. People are afraid of it - they have fear. And it is only themself and their leaders to blame - it's called ignorance. BULLSHIT!!! It was more of someone saying "They threatened us!" and let me tell you, where I live, if someone threatens someone esle... one of them will leave with a boot up their ass! Its not a scandal, Muslims are a minority. eventualy they will get in the government... for a few seconds. Oh BTW: HAPPY 231st B-Day US MARINES! you have just highlited another problem. the underlying racism of the US political system and of the US in general. Â Watching the Borat movie, alough not a prefered piece of evidence, a american man tells him to shave his moustache off becuase he looks too Muslim, and its not good to look like a Muslim. Â views like that disguist me. Â alough an isolated incident, it helps to show some of the racial tensions brewed by W.Bush. Â Its encouriging too see further black increaes of power in congress, the 20-30 year hump of breaking down segregation is clearly on the demise. (takes time for peoples attitudes to change) happy birthday to the marines indeed, i wonder how many of its soldiers are simply there to get home and get to college.

That is wrong. Plain and simple, wrong. If we're going to talk about this, you might as well get the whole picture - The original Palestinians were the Jews. The Arabs took this identity during the many wars with Israel. A PLO ambassador has even admitted to this. But the Palestinians we see today, being the Arabs, are from Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt. Ethnically, they are no different than their Arab brethren. The Arabs who really were in the region were largely a nomadic people. that is an incorrect statement, the original palastinian were not jews. Â palastine was occupied by nomads and arabs long before the exodus (when jews in numbers first began to settle in palastine). as for france loosing its sympathy to Israel, did it really have any? The suez crisies was about the only time they worked together, and even then the French and British were out for there own good. Â The usa got pissed of with britian and france for talking to Israel without its 'permission' (ha). A cinic person might say France just make a fuss nowdays becuase there annoyed they no longer have a big say in international affairs. Also races dont go extinct, they just develop differently over time with added genes to the dna, simple biology. Â to call the original race of palastine extinct is rather foolish, and there will be generatin of people all over the middle east and further still related to them.

israels actions really bug me, if the ywant peace why do they keep winding the arabs up. I mean are they stupid or just plain stupid?

hey everyone. does anyone else think the the decision on Saddam came all of the sudden out of nowhere? Is it just co-incidental that it coinsided just before mid-term elections? im not sure personally alough it is very fishy.

That's brilliant thinking, trevor! That must explain why he caved to the Democrats and booted Rumsfeld the day after the election! If anything, Bush will probably be open to compromise so that he can leave office with decent approval ratings. How, pray tell? The US's recent foreign policy adventures hardly compare to British or Roman imperialism. The scale is far too small, there's no attempt to install American culture, and so on. For starters, if the US was actually going to indulge in full-bore imperialism, why not invade Venezuela? They've got lots of oil, and there'd be no stomping on a hornet's nest of Islamic fanatics. Or if there was some pressing need to get Iraqi oil, why not just use to power of the Marines and Navy to capture the oil fields, set up a defensive screen, and simply pipe the oil to a harbor and bring it out through the Gulf? There'd be no need to pacify cities like Fallujah and Baghdad if the US was simply invading to gain resources. Not to mention, I'm pretty sure any self-respecting Roman would have been insulted if you thought America's Inspector Clouseau-quality Iraq adventure compared to the conquest of Europe, Asia Minor, Egypt, and North Africa. i ask you, did he really have any choice of keepigng rumsfeld or not? -no. America is not trying to install its culture? ohh i beg to differ. Â Japan, South Korea both formed by the USA spreading its culture. Â It failed in Vietnam, and it failing in Iraq and Afganistan. Â you know an empire dosnt have to be gained by beating up natives. Â the USA have exported there culture through coperations. Â Microsoft, Nike and Cocacola are US culture spread throughout the world, and just bush saying "spreading democracy", Â is exporting US culture. Â has iut ever occured to you that some countries just dont want Democracy, and definatly not US democracy. And im sure Ceaser would have been very impressed the Bush's exportation of terrorist accuses, for the simple aim to torture them. Â Very creditable, im sure he would be impressed. Â Comparable with his liquidation of the Gauls. I have to ask you do you know anything about classic civilisations? it wasnt all guts and glory you know. And if you could call yourself a historian, yo uwould know to compare things they dont necisarily have to be on the same scale.

finally the american people have seen the light. the republican party is on the downturn, Bush is becoming a lame duck. He will obviously now sulk and use his veto for anything democrats try to pass. he is against democracy if you ask me, selfish and arogent. He subjegates other cultures and nations automaticly making america more important. in effect he is making all the mistakes britian made in its empire. Now its turning round and biting his ass, both at home, and in "american empire" eg. various countries in south america. A mirror in histroy, america is so easily comparable to any of the great empires.

maybe theres US hummers and South Sahrini Hummers?

i want to know how dynamic this is going to be. do you think the allies can actually loose? or do you think its historically acurate and your just dragged along with the fighting?

i found these vids, not sure if there new or not, probably quite old but i havnt seen them before artillary artillary2 fire flares heli attack drive in woods bulding desrucion civilian cross fire town outskirts town2 town3 north sf )

no, but its the country that effectivly makes all the decisions , and is the main target for iraqi's. Â Other countries to them are just supporters of the USA. So is that why the British have come under fire in the city of Amarah? It's within the British zone. But lets not stop there, the Polish control a sector too! In fact the Polish control more land than the British! The Bush Doctrine is something that should have been made into policy a long time ago. Preemptive strike would have definitely altered WWII and later. OMG, do you actually know anything about middle eastern history? a pre-emtive strike? when ? after the war? when the USA and Britian were still friends with most of the middle eastern countries, yes, that would have been very sencible. Â Before the war that suggestion is even more stupid, seeing as most of the middle east was under either British of French control. also, yes many other countries are in iraq, but what im trying to say is that the USA is given the label as the head of the western countries, which os obvious, yes the British and Polish are under attack, but insignificantly when compared with the situation of Bagdad and Fallujah.

very nice guys, great job

its simple, bush is corrupt, mosit of the things he does revolve around wither oil or weapons. both wich he 'just happens' to have shares in.

no, but its the country that effectivly makes all the decisions , and is the main target for iraqi's. Other countries to them are just supporters of the USA.

ah yeh,