Black Dog

Science versus Lomborg A skeptical look at The Skeptical Environmentalist

Perhaps many of the thousands of post war European Jewish DPs could, casting back through the ages, trace their lineage to the tribe sthat once roamed the deserts of what is now Israel. That fact pales to insignificance when one considers the claims of the million+ Arabs who actually lived there up until the time of partition and were subsequently dispossessed by the influx of Jewish immigrants. In 1947, Jews made up 1/3 of the population of the Palestine Mandate. After partition and the declaraton of the State of Israel, more than 700,000 Arabs were expelled (many by force, while those that left voluntarily were refused the right to return). So, given that and teh fact that Jewish land ownership jumped from 7 per cent before partition to 79 per cent after, its difficult to arrive at any conclusion other than the one that says Israel, in its present form, is the product of conquest.

Nonsense. The evidence (including the Downing Street memo and statements from former administration officials) indicates the decision to invade Iraq was made irrespective of weapons inspections. Even if one chooses to disregard this information, weapons inspectors were working in Iraq right up to the final deadline and making progress.

Toyota to build 100,000 vehicles per year in Woodstock, Ont., starting 2008

Sure, I know what a rogue nation is. By the Bush definition (and, apparently, yours) it's a country who's ;leadership is willing to destroy themselves, their country and whatever power, wealth and influence they have. In other words "rogue nations" are fantasies. Well, I can look at the current world situation and see that the chances of us getting hit with a nuclear missile are prety damn slim. That tells me we should focus on other priorities. The problem with the UN is that its been an insturment of the powerful from the outset. Sure, there's a lot of unsavoury characters represented in the membership, but those guys have little or no real power or influence. That belongs to the Security Council. So the United Democratic Nations would really be the same as the current UN, just without the illussion of inclusiveness.

Or perhaps, given the increased focus on aviation security since 9-11, they've simply adjusted their methods. Western support of Israel (the foundation of which was in direct violation of the indiginous people's right to self-determination) led to a de facto showdown between the rising forces of Arab nationalism (Nasser et al) and western military might (through Israel). The former lost, another humiliation in a long line stretching back to the Crusades and the end of the Islamic world's cultural supremacy. As for why Arab Muslims don't care about Muslims in China or India or Indonesia, I don't know that they don't. But Israel was Arab land, colonized against the wishes of the inhabitants, a lingering reminder of the west's apparent war on Islam in Islam's own backyard. First: historically, western support for dictatorships (such as the Shah) came at the expense of self-determination and secular nationalism. No wonder the inevitable blowback had a religious flavour. Second: you're contradicting yourself. One the one hand, you bemoan the Muslim world's lack of progress, their oppressive government's and shoddy human rights records. Then, on the other, you make the claim that support of dictatorships like Egypt and Saudi Arabia (itself a " brutal theocratic thugocracy") actually "causes no harm to the people". Which is it? Benevolant clients or backwards thugs? Or does that depend on the price of gas?

You raise a pretty shit example, given that much of the Alled bombing campaign was a campaign of terror directly targeting the civilian population (ie. Dresden, Hiroshima). That's an extreme example used to justify the indefensible. Take the case of Sheik Yassin, killed by an Isralei missile (along with a number of innocent bystanders). Here was a man, whom Israel claimed was a terrorist mastermind, yet whom they themselves held in custody (twice!) and later released. So, if it was possible to take him into custody once, surely they could have done it again. Instead, they opted for the path that most certainly would (and did) lead to innocent blood being shed. To me that's pretty much the same as a suicide bomber on a bus. Anyway, moral superiority is always claimes by the individual or nation doing the killing, which means such claims are essentially meaningless. What do Iranians have to do with Arabs?

Homosexuality is, according to the popular interpretation, one of many things deemed to be "abominations" by God (Leviticus also forbids the wearing of clothing made from two kinds of fiber, approaching a woman during her "time of impurity" and, my personal favorite, shrimp). So why so great a focus on homosexuality over all the other "abominations"?

The issue, again, isn't how I see it, but how those directly affected by 500 lbs of good intentions dropped from an F-16 see it.

As was stated before, but obviously bears repeating, there's little moral distinction between setting a bomb off on a bus with the intention of killing civilians and dropping a bomb or firing a tank shell into a civilian area knowing that civilians will die as a result. An Iraqi civilian who's family is gunned down by trigger happy Marines, or blown to bits by a bunker-buster doesn't really care if the perpatrators really had the best interests of freedom and democracy in mind: they just know the pain of losing a loved one and the desire for revenge on those responsible. As long as western people cling to the attitude that good intentions should somehow mitigate acts of violence and gross inhumanity, the problem of terrorism will only grow.

Just like all the "kill 'em all" types are doing. What's your point? Meaning what, exactly?

Interesting theories, and contradicted by just about everybody with a working knowledge of Bin Laden, his ideaology and methodology. But then analysis is not your strong suit. But if I need anyone to stir up hatred of Arabs, I'll know who to call. Right, because there's no Muslim/Hindu violence is there? Oh wait. As for Muslim oppression of Muslims, Al Qaeda believes that the Muslim world is weak and oppressed and dominated by West. which uses things like the establishment of Israel or the setting of Muslim against Muslim in Iraq or Afghanistan as a way of keeping the Muslim world weak. Whichis why the central tenant of Al Qaeda is the destruction of all the corrupt regimes and teh formation of a pan Islamic caliphate.

Hmm, as oppossed to now when Al Qaeda has a new base (Iraq) with an unknown number of fighters, an international network capable of striking at the heart of the "infidels'" nations (if yesterday's London attacks are indeed the work of AQ or AQ afiliates), a series of networks capable of operating without central leadership, a vast pool of new recruits to draw from, while Osama bin Laden remains at large, his whereabouts unknown. If that's what you call success and good leadership, I'd really hate to see what you consider a failure. Bzzt! Wrong! Here's a hint: bin Laden himself has repeatedly claimed that his war with the United States and the West is based on what they have done and are doing in the Muslim world – and not by the mere existence of their societies and freedoms. By extension, then, the less a country is seen to be involved in what is preceieved as the wests war on Islam, the less likely they are to be targets.

How does teh marriage of two gay people who you don't know affect your life any more than the marriage of any two hetero people you don't know? Are you less married now than you were a couple of weeks ago? So is it the fact they are gay or the fact they have anal sex? What about lesbians? What about hetero married couples that indulge in a little backdoor shenanigans? Why would the Almighty have such a great interest in the particulars of sex?

Sigh. The same principles which kept the Soviet Union from launching a nuclear attack against the U.S. (and vice versa) would most certainly apply to any rogue nation.

No. Actually, let me rephrase that. Its entirely possible that canada's expansion of marriage rights to include same sex couple scould lead to violence and perhaps terrorism. Except it won't be perpatrated by our own Emmanuel Goldstein in Tora Bora, but by homegrown religious extremists. The best leadership Al Qaeda could ask for. ... As an aside, I noticed that on the list of the top places in the world for quality of life, cities in the "irrelevant" countries seem to continually score the highest, while powerhouse nations like Luxembourg, Switzerland, Norway consistently rank near the top of the scale, all the while managing to avoid Al Qaeda's tender mercies. What are these nations doing?

Garbage. If Shell or any other "amoral" corporation aids and abetts corrupt and despotic regimes like that of Nigeria, they bear a measure of responsiblity for the actions of that regime. Period. Similar stories abound: In Congo Brazzaville, the petro-state most closely associated with the dirty dealings of the former French state oil company Elf Aquitaine, the government is entering into ever more tortuous deals with the oil industry to avoid financial scrutiny from the World Bank and International Monetary Fund and its own citizens. In Angola, where a quarter of the country's oil revenues are still unaccounted for each year, the state oil company, Sonagol, continues to receive secret signature bonuses from western oil companies which are hidden in offshore bank accounts. In Equatorial Guinea, one of the most criminalised states in the world, companies are lining up to do business with the brutal regime of President Obiang Nguema, who has hundreds of millions of dollars in a bank account just down the road from the headquarters of the IMF and World Bank in Washington. I don't think anyone who has considered the issue of energy from a global perspective considers hydrogen to be anything more than a pie-in-the-sky stopgap measure. The only solution to the oil issue is the one that no one wants to deal with: reducing use. Which brings me to my main point: the left wing tries to offer solutions, some of which will fail. The alternative is the status quo, at leats based on the right-wingers here. If it is a straw man, it is one of your own creation. You were the one who stated that anyone who decrided, well, anything about our way of life and its affect on other people is a hypocrite for enjoying the benefits of living in this society . I simply pointed out that, by your own logic, you are a hypocrite for not living your beliefs. As for the military service thiong, I'll have to take your word for it. However, I should also point out there's plenty of jobs available with Blackwater, Kellogg Brown and Root and other civilian agencies working in Iraq. Anyway, I'll let this go.

No surprise, too, who weighed in with the first egregious strawman post. They are, after all, your stock-in-trade. Or maybe he, unlike you, has been paying attention to the terrorists stated goals, as oppossed to the "they hate our freedoms" bunk spewed out by the SCLM. Right. We think they need therapy. Give your head a shake, man. No one is saying the perpatrators should not be brought to justice. Where the left and right differ are the methods and means of prosecuting anti-terrorism. Yeah, good thing there's a finite supply of "terrorists" and they all come so clearly labelled. Again, give your head a shake. Also, if the Americans and Brits (now in the fourth year of the "war on terror") are so good at stopping terrorism, why are terrorists still able to strike the very heart of their nations?

Most of Alberta's oil and gas exports head south, not east. We don't even vote in our own elections now (only 47.7 per cent of Albertans voted last November).

Which perfectly demonstrates my point that terminology is subjective. Even Bush is now making the distinction between "terrorists" and "insurgents" in Iraq. So for you to state that referring to the US and UK's actions as terrorism is sophism (regardless of how closely they may meet the definition thereof) is, frankly, bogus. Unlike you, I'm asking for a universal standard: you're just prevaricating.

Sure: we all know what terrorism is: it's what they do to us, never what we do to them. That's the working definition. But if one looks at the actual definition of terrorism, (the following: "the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature...through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear." is as good as any) then states (including your simon-pure stalwarts the US and UK) can and are as guilty of terrorism as Al Qaeda. As for semantics: semantics are important. Language use, the way ideas are constructed and expressed, has enormous power. If you're going to dispute something, you should be prepared to back it up.

As usual, you miss the mark by a country mile. Individuals (rock musicians or just common folk) have little impact on policy. The United Nations is only as effective as its rulers want it to be. The UNSC (including those great defenders of human rights Canada, the UK and USA) had the power to intervene in Rwanda if they so desired. They did nothing. Also note your list of nations trading with sanctioned countries omitted a few such as Canada, the United States (who accounted for more than half of all sales under Iraq's oil for food program) and teh UK (aghain, teh leading supplier of arms to Nigeria and others). As for blaming oil: oil is an inanimate substance, I'm not blaming it for anything. However, it is also the single most important commodity in the world. How is recognizing that fact (and the fact that nations and corporations will do just about anything to ensure their continued access to the stuff) "myopic"? You stated that Shell hired mercanaries and enlisted the aid of the Nigerian dictatoship to protect itself from thugs. Ken Saro Wiwa's story tells a different tale, where indiginous people standing up against the pillage and destruction of their land were targeted by the government and Shell for being in the way. To me, it's unrealistic think that the current path we're on is sustainable. It's unrealistic to think terrorism, poverty, corruption exist in vacums, independant of the actions of the wealthiest nations on earth. It's unrealistic to think we can continue doing business as usual and not face grave social, political, economic and environmental costs. It's more than unrealistic: it's stupid and short-sighted. Frankly, its not the "radical people" who are the problem: it's people like you who accept no alternatives beyond the status quo. There's nothing unrealistic about recognizing that we're headed for a fall and that change is needed. By the way: have you signed your enlistment papers yet? I'm sure the US Army would be happy to have you.

So what is terrorism, then?

As far as advice goes, that's about as helpful as Ralph Klein shouting "Get a job you f**king bums" at the men in the homeless shelter. There's nothing wrong with promoting a healthy lifestyle. But there is something wrong with being a dick about it. I don't see how making fun of people for being fat is any more okay than mocking someone's financial status, disability or even race. I'm not one of those "it's okay to be fat" types, but I do believe in a little decorum. North American lifestyle is geared towards indolence, overindulgence and a general lack of of physical exercise. Things went down hill with the rise of the car culture after world war 2.

Limbaugh's popularity has nothing to do with his knowledge of anything. I am willing to concede he knows more about oxycontin than I, but other than that, its a toss up. Savaga's PhD is in Nutritional Ethnomedicine, does that then make him an expert on...well anything uinrelated to Nutritional Ethnomedicine? The perpatrators believe (and many of "our" enlightened, reasoned elites agree) that there is a war going on. The London bombing, like other non-state terrorist activities before it, is a tactic, a means to an end. Not an irrational act of crazy people. It's time sliek these that being "irrelevant" isn't such a bad thing.