War on Terrorism: Getting past the semantics

[Rue]

I suspect Muslim negotiators will be looking for trillions of dollars in reparation - in addition to apologies and a renouncing of economic and geopolitical beliefs that caused us to interfere in their lands, lives and development.

I suspect non Muslim negotiators will be looking for trillions of dollars in reparation-in addition to apologies and a renouncing of Muslim extremist beliefs that have for over 3 thousand years caused Muslims to interfere in lands, lives and development that do not belong to them not to mention terrorism.

You done?

[Rue]

It sure does encourage that. All the same we also have to negotiate how a peace process begins, there's no way around that - our applying existing human rights universally would help.

One does not negotiation how a peace process begins. Peace talks because parties seek each other out-the desire commences the process. Your comment is ridiculous. What you probably are not skilled to say is you mean the actual agenda of the peace talks might have to be discussed. Duh. This is like saying if people are to speak they will not to speak.

You even have a point at this point?

Any negotiation process is structured by a neutral third party who sets the agenda as told to them by both sides and places the agenda items in an order of easiest to deal with first to hardest last.

Furthermore your comment using the word "our" and human rights is inane.

One does not apply human rights to terrorists. They reject them. Unless human rights are accepted and incorporated and implemented by terrorists they don't just magically poof land on their laps because "our" or you mean the West initiates them.

You can't miss an opportunity to lecture the West on catering to Muslim terrorists.

Edited December 23, 2015 by Rue

[eyeball]

One does not negotiation how a peace process begins. Peace talks because parties seek each other out-the desire commences the process.

You even have a point at this point?

I'll just let this speak for itself.

Your comment is ridiculous.

:-)

[Rue]

If you need help wiith it let me know.

[eyeball]

No, you're do a fine job of getting your point across. Incoherence speaks volumes.

[SRV]

Furthermore your comment using the word "our" and human rights is inane.

One does not apply human rights to terrorists.

One applies human rights to humans. Are you saying that terrorists aren't humans? And who do you mean you use the word terrorist?

Terrorist

noun

1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.

2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.

Terrorism

noun

1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

[Rue]

One applies human rights to humans. Are you saying that terrorists aren't humans? And who do you mean you use the word terrorist?

Here is what I wrote SRV. Don't play with me. At no time did I state terrorists are not homo sapiens. Play with someone else and don't pull the statement I made out of its context to try give it a new meaning,

" One does not apply human rights to terrorists. They reject them. Unless human rights are accepted and incorporated and implemented by terrorists they don't just magically poof land on their laps because "our" or you mean the West initiates them. ''

My point was and remains for their to be an implementation of human rights it must flow both ways.

Isn't it ironic you came on this thread to lecture on getting past semantics and you try engage in it by trying to engage me in an idiotic attempt to suggest I suggested terrorists are not human beings.

Go on engage someone else in a stupid tit for tat as to what to call terrorists and hey go on pull out the dictionary. While you ar at it explain how terrorists are humanitarian because that is the word you clearly interchange with human to try engage me in a witless debate about. Lol and lol.

Edited December 25, 2015 by Rue

[SRV]

Here is what I wrote SRV. Don't play with me. At no time did I state terrorists are not homo sapiens. Play with someone else and don't pull the statement I made out of its context to try give it a new meaning,

" One does not apply human rights to terrorists. They reject them. Unless human rights are accepted and incorporated and implemented by terrorists they don't just magically poof land on their laps because "our" or you mean the West initiates them. ''

My point was and remains for their to be an implementation of human rights it must flow both ways.

Sorry. I misread your meaning. You agree that human rights apply to all homo sapiens but cannot or should not be applied if... If what? If the homo sapiens in questions are 'terrorists'? We've already discussed the ambiguity of that term. Because they reject human rights? Or because they reject (do not also recognize and respect) our human rights? Surely they do not refuse their own rights to legal council and a fair trial? to be considered innocent until proven guilty?

Civilians are the victims of terrorism, whether they are threatened by a drone attack, a suicide bomber, the commandeering of a civilian airliner, or the illegal unsanctioned invasion of a their country. Most civilian victims do not want vengeance, they want protection and assurances that the won't be re-victimized. (Unless they've become radicalized and want to take vengeance on other civilians, but that's another discussion) The treatment of detained suspects and presumed perpetrators of such acts should at the very least meet the same universal standards as the treatment of soldiers or POWs in a declared war, should it not? In our struggle against terrorism if we are not going to get pulled down to the same level as our adversaries surely we must hold ourselves to a higher standard!?

While you ar at it explain how terrorists are humanitarian because that is the word you clearly interchange with human to try engage me in a witless debate about.

I do not think terrorists are humanitarian. I want to find a strategy that will make them act more humane, and stop this counterproductive strategy in WOGT that makesopponents of terrorism less humane as well.

I was in Iraq during 'Shock and Awe' and stayed until the summer of 2004. Most Iraqis were initially delighted that Saddam had been deposed by the invasion, and looked forward to a new life in which they would enjoy the same freedom and liberty as American citizens. But they quickly became horrified and dismayed to learn that they were not extended the same rights and freedoms as American citizens. They were incarcerated in large numbers as 'suspects', and almost everyone had a friend, neighbour or family member who had been picked up after an IED went off, or after a house raid, or after an accusation by an anonymous informant. Tens of thousands of Iraqis were being picked up and detained for indefinite lengths of time, often for years, and often at unknown locations. When the pictures of the sexual abuse that they were subjected to surfaced Iraqis of all stripes were outraged. The deaths of hundreds of civilians, including elderly, women and children during the bombings of Fallujah, in retaliation for the deaths of four Blackwater mercenaries,offered further proof to Iraqis that their lives were insignificant as far as their "liberators" and "benefactors" were concerned. It is impossible to exaggerate the number of hearts and minds that were lost in Iraq due to this double standard and the disregard for Iraqi rights.

Nevertheless this seems consistent with everything I've read about the treatment of Guantanamo prisoners, the treatment of suspects in Afghanistan, and Canada's treatment of "security detainees" including Canadian citizen Maher Arar. The message we are sending is that the rights and freedoms we seek to protect are not universal, and don't apply to Muslims and/or peoplw who were born or reside in certain geographic areas we consider to be breeding grounds for terrorism.

Instead of winning the hearts and minds of potential allies in our fight against terrorism we are creating more enemies , and selling our souls in the process, becoming the evil we wish to defeat.

That is my perspective. I'm afraid I'm still not clear on yours. Please explain a little more about what you mean by 'it must flow both ways'.

Edited December 28, 2015 by SRV

[bush_cheney2004]

.....or the illegal unsanctioned invasion of a their country.

This matters not if violations of "human rights" be the real concern, as they are still violated. Canada proved this during the Kosovo War in 1999.

[On Guard for Thee]

This matters not if violations of "human rights" be the real concern, as they are still violated. Canada proved this during the Kosovo War in 1999.

You keep running that one up the flagpole, but ain't nobody saluting. We all know why Bush and Cheney don't/won't leave the safety of US shores. It kind of reminds me of that old saying about "you can run but you cannot hide" except it applies in reverse in this situation.

[SRV]

This matters not if violations of "human rights" be the real concern, as they are still violated. Canada proved this during the Kosovo War in 1999.

Canada, along with other countries, did not wait for NATO to sanction their operations. That is correct. And yes, ethnic cleansing was going on and human rights were being violated.

I am not trying to argue that we shouldn't try to protect innocent civilians and their rights from those who threaten them. I just want to get away from the idea that terrorism and acts of terrorism are only committed by people from a particular geographical area with a particular ethnic background or religious affiliation, Western and non-westerner innocent civilians alike can be terrorized when their right to life and liberty is threatened. Respect for life and liberty and human rights must be universal, and we must be consistent and careful to apply the same rules and dhow the same concern for all people, regardless of their religious beliefs, ethnicity, cultural background or the geographical area or nation in which they were born and/or reside.

[Rue]

SRV you stated and I quote:

" I want to find a strategy that will make them (terrorists) act more humane.."

The very way you pose the question presumes you can "make" terrorists do something.

I would contend you are presumptive in belief you can make any terrorist humane.

My perspective is far different than yours.

To me you sound like a recycled version of a missionary come to save the savages.

Read back your words; "find a strategy that will MAKE..".

"MAKE"? You could have also said instead of "make"- "dictate", "impose", "demand", "command", "order".

.

You want my perspective? I think you sound like a missionary and a tourist wanting to "make" or "save" the savages.

I think missionary types are often as screwed up and wound up by the same extremist ideology that fuels terrorists. I think you really believe like terrorists there is "truth" and "justice" and "the way" and it can be imposed on people, i.e., you can "make" them..

The problem all tourists you eventually go home. They soon get bored and disillusioned when the savages don't hero worship their dollar.

See from my perspective I think terrorism bothers you because it makes YOU feel something you don't want to feel- and so you want to cut off that feeling by creating a "strategy".

From my perspective your "strategy" is not that much different then say Justin Trudeau posing with some Syrian Christians posed as Muslim refugees. It made him feel good. Some photo ops and hugs, some giggles, and there is your strategy and see how it works?

Now all the other refugees in the world go poof! Yes we have a strategy but it in fact enables Trudeau and all his arm chair liberal guilt ridden followers to block out the rest of the world's inhumanity.

Guess what? In my perspective the last thing I want is for you coming up with any strategy. I don't care about your discomfort, your feelings, your need to block out terrorism because it scares you.

For me there's no Messiah. There's no "strategy" or cleansing or salvation or way shown to the masses. There are just soldiers (legions) who come after the fact and if they are fortunate stop further deaths in the moment of intervention by killing some more.

There are also no shortage off bulgy eyed people full of Muslim faith with knives attacking indiscriminately anything that moves. There's young men with beards and no mustaches blowing each other up while yelling God is great. There's extremists from all kinds of religions and sects and I don't much think any of them are interested in discussing anything.

You have any idea how many Caucasians have travelled to the Middle East and get these religious visions and think they are Jesus and want to save the masses? You know its so common they created a special psychiatric name for it?

Messiahs? Yah I see many claiming to be. No shortage of them They come with bombs, guns and they indiscriminately kill in the name of strategy and saving humanity. Line up

The place you were at..... well it was just people... living in the here and now trying to do their best to make it to the next day.

You want my perspective-bare witness. At best you are a witness. Until you learn to accept you are just a witness you won't get it.

People just do what is in the moment to survive. They do what they think in that moment is the thing to do to stay alive. There's no miracle when one ducks or runs or hides behind whatever she/he can.

There's no miracle. You pee your pants. You shake. You bite down so hard on your tongue you can take a piece off. Your teeth get all chipped from clamping down on your jaw. Your hair falls out in clumps. Your skin is all dry and cracked with sores, your feet full of fungus and inflammation and in-grown nails. Your hands are always dirty as is your face. You feel the grime. No matter what you taste it... smell it... its always there-that smell of crap, urine, vomit, methane gas, rot. There's no miracle.

There's no strategy. You adapt or maladapt. Your brain decides, will it adapt or maladapt

There's no messiah or strategy. What there is...is the individual moment-the immediate I am of every moment -its like the eye of the hurricane-in the middle of the chaos that assaults you comes a brief glitch where you encounter the trilogy which is; I-the decision to stand paralyzed and encased in fear; ii-the decision to run; or iii the decision to fight back.

That's the only trilogy. You won't find God, Mary or Jesus...just people breathing fast with bulgy eyes and flared nostrils, dry mouths, hearts beating like crazy.

Messiah? No. There's just frightened people and each one will have his or her moment in the moment to choose.

Missionaries need to stop trying to preach and learn to be quiet and stop looking for the messiah and instead witness what I am talking about-this "strategy" as you call it does not exist.

What there is in fact is a spirit, a soul...a force in each human that rises from the chaos in the very midst of the darkest moment and it decides for that individual whether they choose light or dark..

The decision to shoot or be shot, or to kill in the name of God as the Messiah which is what a terrorist is, offers testimonial to the momentary glimpse at and of the illusion man created and calls civility or strategy, or gospel, or the words of Muhammed blessed be he, or whatever else you want to call it.

Its just an illusion.

There's no messiah. Just an alpha male who runs a pack until he gets old and is killed off. Its just us a bunch of flea infested, homo sapiens replete with both equal potentials of evil and goodness in our hairy corpses.

The conflict of the two within we smelly apes always was and always will be.

It is in all forms of life. It is the essence of all energy.

You learn to respect this clash of polar energy opposites and connect to it or you live destined to be overwhelmed by it.

The choice to be electrocuted or build up calluses on your fingers to momentarily withstand it enough to channel it some place else is a choice of necessity. Some become electricians others the electrocuted.

No you can't make an alcoholic stop drinking. You can't make a terrorist do a damn thing. At best you can live in the moment as an example of what you think is right and prevent yourself from killing someone or prevent someone else from killing. Each individual lives and dies in the moment of their choice.

Here let me put it in the simplest of terms.

Hell you want a banana. Go climb a tree and get one but don't presume to be the messiah. We are just apes sitting around picking fleas out of our asses.

Edited December 28, 2015 by Rue

[SRV]

SRV you stated and I quote:

" I want to find a strategy that will make them (terrorists) act more humane.."

...See from my perspective I think terrorism bothers you because it makes YOU feel something you don't want to feel- and so you want to cut off that feeling by creating a "strategy".

You are right. I have no strategy. M greatest concern is that there are those who do, and that strategy is counterproductive. This from the US Department of State:

National Strategy for Combating Terrorism

From the beginning, we understood that the War on Terror involved more than simply finding and bringing to justice those who had planned and executed the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Our strategy involved destroying the larger al-Qaida network and also confronting the radical ideology that inspired others to join or support the terrorist movement. Since 9/11, we have made substantial progress in degrading the al–Qaida network, killing or capturing key lieutenants, eliminating safehavens, and disrupting existing lines of support. Through the freedom agenda, we also have promoted the best long-term answer to al–Qaida's agenda: the freedom and dignity that comes when human liberty is protected by effective democratic institutions.

The War on terrorism cannot be successful if it creates in more terrorists than it eliminates. The invasion of Afghanistan, and Iraq, countless drones strikes, the incarceration of tens of thousands without trial or due process, the abuse and torture of detainees and hundreds of thousand of civilian casualties as collateral damage of military intervention by the West, combined with the rise of sectarian violence after invasions have collectively created an ideal recruitment ground for newly radicalized terrorists. ISIS is largely the child of the invasion of Iraq and Islamic extremists who thought Al Qaeda wasn't effective enough. While the current WOGT strategy may have immobilized or killed a large number of terrorists, it has created even more new ones.

Now I know you can't make people do anything. Certainly not terrorists. But you can create options for those living near them and most affected by the WOGT. If you don't want them to be easily recruited by ISIS and the like, you must first of all convince them that they are not the target, and you must certainly make sure that you treat them as innocent until you have very compelling evidence to the contrary. All of these people have families, neighbours, relatives and friends. Wrongly killing, detaining or otherwise mistreating even one of them will cost the hearts and minds of dozens and create an ideal climate for recruitment by ISIS, Al Qaeda, the Taliban or whomever. It will feed the ISIS narrative that the West has declared war on all of Islam and Muslims must therefore join forces to defend themselves. Like fish need water terrorists need a certain amount of civilian support to live and carry out their terrorist operations. If we are able to win the hearts and minds of significant numbers of civilians we can begin to drain the pool that terrorists live, thrive and recruit in. And to achieve that all we have to do is apply the human rights we believe in universally. Is that a strategy? I don't know. It's a moral imperative, and we can't make anyone do anything, but perhaps we can entice significant numbers by offering them this more appealing alternative.

Failing that, I think we should do nothing. It is better to do nothing than to do something counterproductive.

Edited December 29, 2015 by SRV

[bush_cheney2004]

.... And to achieve that all we have to do is apply the human rights we believe in universally. Is that a strategy? I don't know. It's a moral imperative, and we can't make anyone do anything, but perhaps we can entice significant numbers by offering them this more appealing alternative.

But this is just more of the same thing, as so called "human rights" were co-opted to achieve economic and geo-political objectives, often with military force or cripling, dehumanizing sanctions. There is no free lunch. Canada's brand of this is called "Responsibility to Protect ©", an idea championed by Michael Ignatieff to sell books.

[Rue]

You are right. I have no strategy. M greatest concern is that there are those who do, and that strategy is counterproductive. This from the US Department of State:

The War on terrorism cannot be successful if it creates in more terrorists than it eliminates. The invasion of Afghanistan, and Iraq, countless drones strikes, the incarceration of tens of thousands without trial or due process, the abuse and torture of detainees and hundreds of thousand of civilian casualties as collateral damage of military intervention by the West, combined with the rise of sectarian violence after invasions have collectively created an ideal recruitment ground for newly radicalized terrorists. ISIS is largely the child of the invasion of Iraq and Islamic extremists who thought Al Qaeda wasn't effective enough. While the current WOGT strategy may have immobilized or killed a large number of terrorists, it has created even more new ones.

Now I know you can't make people do anything. Certainly not terrorists. But you can create options for those living near them and most affected by the WOGT. If you don't want them to be easily recruited by ISIS and the like, you must first of all convince them that they are not the target, and you must certainly make sure that you treat them as innocent until you have very compelling evidence to the contrary. All of these people have families, neighbours, relatives and friends. Wrongly killing, detaining or otherwise mistreating even one of them will cost the hearts and minds of dozens and create an ideal climate for recruitment by ISIS, Al Qaeda, the Taliban or whomever. It will feed the ISIS narrative that the West has declared war on all of Islam and Muslims must therefore join forces to defend themselves. Like fish need water terrorists need a certain amount of civilian support to live and carry out their terrorist operations. If we are able to win the hearts and minds of significant numbers of civilians we can begin to drain the pool that terrorists live, thrive and recruit in. And to achieve that all we have to do is apply the human rights we believe in universally. Is that a strategy? I don't know. It's a moral imperative, and we can't make anyone do anything, but perhaps we can entice significant numbers by offering them this more appealing alternative.

Failing that, I think we should do nothing. It is better to do nothing than to do something counterproductive.

Well stated. Excellent come back. I bark and hiss but I love a debate. Excellent come back. Like it. There as a genuine humility in your response. Appreciated.

Will you and I ever really know who benefits the most from arming terrorists because those are the people we really have to be willing to take on.

Man when all is said and done we are all pawns in a battle for geopolitical control by competing interests in a screwed up marketplace.

My prediction is terrorism will lead to justification of very totalitarian martial laws making democracy a thing of the past and we shall see in the next twenty years an attempt to have a one world currency.

The refugee movement we see going on will spread disease, unemployment, crime and internal chaos in the US and Europe setting the stage for martial rule, government centralized security control and severe curtailing of remaining individual rights.

People feel it. Its in the air. Terrorism is just part of the anxiety, its just a symptom of the coming war between an outmoded religion that failed to progress (Islamic society) and is crushing the spirit of its people and another one (Judeo-Christian)that has allowed its pursuit of materialism to bring it to a dead end in spiritual development.

Either side is equally full of totalitarian extremists seeking to control us. Our right of free choice is on the line.

I sound a lot more cynical then I am. We have to keep trying for peace. All I am saying is it won't happen with some huge bug thing, just small stuff, small stuff that spreads at the grass roots level and underground....something as simple where people treat each other with respect.

Edited December 29, 2015 by Rue

[SRV]

But this is just more of the same thing, as so called "human rights" were co-opted to achieve economic and geo-political objectives, often with military force or cripling, dehumanizing sanctions. There is no free lunch. Canada's brand of this is called "Responsibility to Protect ©", an idea championed by Michael Ignatieff to sell books.

.

Gees, you're almost as cynical as I am!

But I think you are probably right. Concern for human rights get trotted out only when and if it is politicly expedient to do so. The rest of the time we sell arms to the Saudis, sign FTA's with Colombia etc., and invite dictators like Suharto to economic trade summits as the legal representative of Indonesians and East Timorese. Harper even abolished CIDA because he reasoned that global capitalist expansionism was doing a better job at bringing development to the 'under developed', and Canadian embassies around the world have become lobbyists and PR firms for Canada's corporate mining sector. The Canada-Colombia FTA is the only FTA that even pays lip-service to human rights, so now every year they produce a farcical human rights non-report. I haven read Michael Ignatieff's book, nor do I intend to. I'll take you word for it!

Rue seems to think I suffer from some kind of a Messiah complex, and that I am trying to come up with some 'strategy' to save the world.

You want my perspective? I think you sound like a missionary and a tourist wanting to "make" or "save" the savages.

I think missionary types are often as screwed up and wound up by the same extremist ideology that fuels terrorists. I think you really believe like terrorists there is "truth" and "justice" and "the way" and it can be imposed on people, i.e., you can "make" them..

I have given that quite a bit of thought, even long before I read Rue's comments. I have in fact spent much of my life as a human rights defender, in El Salvador, here in Canada, in Iraq and over ten years in Colombia, and also for briefer periods in other countries. If i thought that there was a global 'strategy' that could and should be imposed on all and sundry, I certainly no longer thinks so. Their are many different cultural perspectives out there, a different answers to the question: "What does it mean to be human and integrated into life on this planet?" Personally I don't totally agree with any of them, and would never want to impose one or the other on all and sundry, least of all the neoliberal colonialist free-market capitalist viewpoint!

Rue goes on, at some length, to describe the world as we know it, and attributes conflict to inevitable freeze, fight or flight response amongst individuals in Darwinian terms --the survival of the fittest or most adaptable. (At least that's how I interpreted his comments, but I've been wrong before!.)

There's no messiah. Just an alpha male who runs a pack until he gets old and is killed off. Its just us a bunch of flea infested, homo sapiens replete with both equal potentials of evil and goodness in our hairy corpses.

The conflict of the two within we smelly apes always was and always will be.

It is in all forms of life. It is the essence of all energy.

You learn to respect this clash of polar energy opposites and connect to it or you live destined to be overwhelmed by it.

The choice to be electrocuted or build up calluses on your fingers to momentarily withstand it enough to channel it some place else is a choice of necessity. Some become electricians others the electrocuted.

Now I do believe there is hard scientific evidence to prove that things have and continue to evolve. However, theories as to why and how they evolve is in the realm of social or soft sciences --ideologies, etc. Harper took the position that we are all equal competitors on an equal playing field, and that things like the long-form census for instance, was a waste of taxpayers money. Others of a more socialist bent considered detailed information on how certain sub-groups were impacted by a certain phenomenon or policy was useful indispensable information. Perhaps Rue would agree that cultural and religious viewpoints play a significant role in how we collectively act and respond to create, control, or minimize conflict and violence.

There are of course gross imbalances of power, and abuses of power, and imbalances in whom gets to decide what constitutes an abuse and misuse of power and what doesn't. For the most part 'might makes right', and while the mighty are imposing their will on all and sundry, others are vying for the same thing or trying to form some kind of block that can resist the mighty. These are the subjects in the life sentence --the actors. The rest of us powerless individuals are the objects --the acted upon (to borrow from Paulo Freire). The question is can objects aspire to become subjects and regain some control over their lives, or must the always remain unwilling objects of someone else's script? Can peoples unite to regain some autonomy and control over their own destiny and local resources? Can local groups organize to reclaim the human rights and local resources that have been 'co-opted'?

The quality of all of our lives has less to do with being united in a singular pursuit of an objective or particular outcome than it does with how we treat each other along the way. (the way Mahatma Gandhi put it is 'the means is the end in embryo) A plurality of missions, objectives, religious or ideological beliefs can peacefully co-exist as long as they are mutually respectful of each other. Not one has the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and not one should be allowed to impose their particular 'truth' on all and sundry. On this point I think Rue and I agree. (?)

So these days, as a human rights defender I seek to strengthen grass-roots initiatives of threatened and marginalized groups to regain control over their own lives and local resources --to reclaim and regain control over what has been co-opted, Bush_Chaney. Admittedly these grass-roots initiatives have been and likely will continue to be unsuccessful. But, to quote Wendell Berry, "Protest that endures is motivated by something far more humble than any prospect of public success. It endures because acquiescence would be detrimental to one's own heart and spirit". Or is that motivation just one more Messianic strategy to save the world Rue?

So, in short, given than no one has the whole truth and nothing but the the truth, we should make every effort to protect and respect the diversity and plurality of opinion that exists, not allowing one to overpower and obliterate the other. Hence my insistence on the need to recognize human rights as universal, for all homo sapiens we share a planet with.

Edited December 30, 2015 by SRV

[SRV]

I sound a lot more cynical then I am. We have to keep trying for peace. All I am saying is it won't happen with some huge bug thing, just small stuff, small stuff that spreads at the grass roots level and underground....something as simple where people treat each other with respect.

Thanks! I too love a debate. It makes me hone and occasionally rethink some of my arguments. You and I may well be in agreement on more things than I first thought!

By the way, I was composing my response to yourself and Bush_Chaney when you sent this, so it was written before I read this.

[bush_cheney2004]

...So, in short, given than no one has the whole truth and nothing but the the truth, we should make every effort to protect and respect the diversity and plurality of opinion that exists, not allowing one to overpower and obliterate the other. Hence my insistence on the need to recognize human rights as universal, for all homo sapiens we share a planet with.

The truth doesn't even matter in the overall scheme of things. "Human rights" as universal for all homo sapiens on the planet cannot happen when the very same homo sapiens are willing to live and die for competition in economic and geo-political frameworks. Humans as consumers wield more leverage and power over humans as labor and occupiers of natural resources. "Human rights" are already co-opted and need to be re-branded like, ironically, abortion rights.

[Army Guy]

SRV....

I see you and big guy have been reading the same media.....and have determined the same outcome, that we should all sit down in front of the camp fire and sing kumba yah.....hold hands, drink some beer, smoke some weed and all will be good.....and while it is good to dream, of a place that everyone gets along, respects the basics such as human rights, peaceful co existence with all races, religions, creeds etc etc....but welcome to the real world....it will never happen....how's that for being cynical....

your premise of your main argument is we are creating more terrorist than we are destroying.....what a load of horse shit.....your equations you base this on only take into account our actions, and totally dismiss the actions of the terrorist.....ya that's right the terrorist side, always two sides to the coin isn't there....

Take a look at the figures for Afghanistan.....all of them....80 to 85% of all of them that have been killed or wounded are by the terrorist themselves....but hey that can't be right....the bad guys are killing more innocents than the coalition forces.... that are fighting them.....and yet, according to your whole premise of your argument those numbers count for nothing it does not create citizens willing to fight on the coalition side.....that can't be right....can it.......just the 15 to 20 percent that have been killed or wounded by coalition forces....those numbers are responsible for all those new terrorist....we can't win.... it is one big circle.....shit time to sit back down by the fire come up with another idea, this one is not working.....pass that joint down will ya....

.....you Fail to account for any other reason why young Muslim men flock to these scumbags and their cause....If we bury our heads up our asses the bad men will go away.....Sorry the REAL world does not work that way.....you can't sit on top of your throne and preach about human rights and expect everyone to stop and listen.....These guys ( THE terrorist) don't give a rats ass about your human rights theories and they are not interested, they want the ability to have total control over millions, to force upon them their will, their opinions, their form of rights, and none of it has any resemblance of your belief of human rights.....SO by us and the rest of the coalition sitting on our hands doing nothing and letting millions of human soles be treated like mere animals....well sir your human rights means what.....it is what we aspire to be ....but human rights is just for us right.....not the millions of oppressed.....It means nothing if there is no way to grant these basic rights to everyone....every where....and to do that you can't sit on your hands bury your head in your ass....some times you need to stand tall, pick up a big stick and beat some one with it.....and if your not willing to do that sit back down on your throne, and STFU, your basic human rights for everyone is just a dream unless you are willing to stand up for those that can not defend themselves......

We can count ourselves extremely lucky in this country we live in a country with huge excess of everything....we sit here and judge so many, it's our basic right as Canadians... we are good at judging like it is in our DNA or something....but lucky for us there are Canadians among us, that are willing to take those core values and take some actions.....taking the fight to terrorists....standing up for the little guy....That part of our DNA is a lot older than the part of us being so judgmental , our history is full of examples.....

[Big Guy]

SRV....

I see you and big guy have been reading the same media.....and have determined the same outcome, that we should all sit down in front of the camp fire and sing kumba yah.....hold hands, drink some beer, smoke some weed and all will be good.....and while it is good to dream, of a place that everyone gets along, respects the basics such as human rights, peaceful co existence with all races, religions, creeds etc etc....but welcome to the real world....it will never happen....how's that for being cynical....

..

I read Big Guy as being mentioned so I will respond. Your painting of a rational solution to a major problem as camp fire.. kumba yah ... hand hold etc is a complete misrepresentation of my position.

If you have followed my posts then you would have read that what America did in Iraq caused the problem, what we continue to do aggravates the problem and what we intend to do makes not sense - and that especially includes those rah, rah guys in or out of uniform who just cannot admit that what they did was a waste of time in Iraq in Libya in Afghanistan. These are not the results of some epiphany by Big Guy but the analysis of objective experts who view this war as the farce that it is.

Do you ever read media based outside of North America? How about taking about 25 minutes and watch a CNN, yes - an American analysis of what a and why is happening in the Middle East:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXUtr19uFKc

Do you think you know better than them?

You can stand up and wave a flag and charge the enemy (if you can figure out who they are) and pretend that you are prepared to give your life for your country. Good for you. I agree with Paton, I would like to allow the enemy to give their lives for their country.

BTW - Those folks in Canadian uniforms do what they are told and follow orders as a career.

"but lucky for us there are Canadians among us, that are willing to take those core values and take some actions.....taking the fight to terrorists....standing up for the little guy" - The soldiers fight who they are told to fight - be they terrorists or whatever.

If Canadian join our forces to push core values (the ones that politically established) or standing up for the little guy then they are in the wrong business.

Now that I have your attention I will try to explain:

This is a civil war between Sunni and Shia. We have no business there - we never did. The local powers like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt, Iran sit on their $trillions in oil money, on militaries that could clean out the Sunni ISIS out of Iraq and Syria in days and laugh at guys like you who want to grab a flag and run into the enemy guns. Its OK by me if you want to but do not suggest that others should.

We get out of the crossfire and let them work it out. It would force those Arab states to start to spill their blood and spend their money to establish stability in the area. If the West does not like the end result THEN we get involved. We will know who and why we are in battle against.

People like you are falling for the propaganda and machinations of ISIS. Why do you think that they video those beheadings and burnings and murders? It is to get people like you all worked up and jump up and down and encourage others to run blindly into the enemy strongholds - and it is working. You are being manipulated lake a hand puppet.

Hello? What we have been doing is not working. Hello! What we have been doing is not working.

Yet you suggest that we keep doing it and demean opposing points of view as somehow cowardly or naïve or mistaken or ...

I suggest that you continue to stand tall, pick up a stick and keep looking for somebody to hit with it. You will probably hit a few innocents and end up having a few pi$$ed off innocents coming back at you with their big stick.

You macho warriors have had your chance. You have screwed things up so badly that now Canadians in Canada are in danger from our stupid moves over there.

Walk softly and carry a big stick - and make very, very sure about where and how you use it.

Edited December 30, 2015 by Big Guy

[SRV]

SRV....

...

Take a look at the figures for Afghanistan.....all of them....80 to 85% of all of them that have been killed or wounded are by the terrorist themselves....but hey that can't be right....the bad guys are killing more innocents than the coalition forces.... that are fighting them.....and yet, according to your whole premise of your argument those numbers count for nothing it does not create citizens willing to fight on the coalition side...

My argument is that the current coalition military attempt isn't working, and most of the examples I cite are why I consider it to be counterproductive. I mentioned, and readily acknowledge that many of the civilian deaths have resulted from sectarian violence. I think that in both Afghanistan and Iraq the level of sectarian violence has increased exponentially as a direct result of the coalitions' overthrow of pre-existing governments. I am not quite yet cynical enough to believe that there was a deliberate strategy by the West to stir up the hornets' nest in the hopes that sectarian violence would result in everyone killing each other. Bush had said that he'd rather defeat terrorists on their own soil, and not on the streets of America, and the Iraqi Jordanian border was completely open to anyone and everyone who wanted to cross over into Iraq at least up until early 2004. I can't help but wonder if this was deliberate to entice Al Qaeda to come into Iraq, since they were not welcomed by Saddam. In any case, after the invasion of Iraq the Coalition Governing Body had no plan as to how go about providing even essential government services such as policing, garbage collection or staffing hospitals and schools, never mind foreseeable problems like a rise in sectarian violence.

Libya and Syria we can debate, since they weren't the direct results of invasions, but rather deliberate attempts to control the outcomes of democratic civil revolutions in both of these countries.

I certainly hope that those currently being recruited by the Taliban, Al Qaeda, ISIL or whomever do not decide to join the side of the coalition instead! On the contrary, I hope both sides run out of people willing to fight for them!

Edited December 30, 2015 by SRV

[Army Guy]

I must have struck a cord with you Big guy, for you to use so many personal insults, I can remember when you used to refrain from those practices, I guess time changes everything doesn't it. but it did not end there did it Big guy no, from your lofty throne you have judged me as just a killer for the state , disregarding all my beliefs and statements as governmental propaganda. no more than what was it you called me, oh ya a government hand puppet....

Hard to take anything you say serious as you don't want to debate, but rather call people names and judge them as you see fit......Which is one of your basic rights....Freedom of speech .....But if you think i'm impressed with a few media so called experts on Iraq , your wrong....the media is full of so called experts on both sides of the fence....all you have to do is look.....but hey.... hard to do when you have to come down from the mountain to use the intra net....I get that....

See for me big guy Afghanistan is personal, I spent almost 24 months over there, most of it was outside the wire, I have seen terrorist at their worst....I have fired my weapon in anger...I have watch those young men and women you make fun of die, including my best friend who died as I frantically tried to save his life....., I have never glorified war or this conflict, war sucks I've seen it , smelled it, heard it, tasted it, even felt it....but to say it was all a waste of time , blood and treasure is to say they died for nothing....and I don't believe that, not for one second....I don't care what the experts say.....nor do I care about a few opinions...

For those that say that the Canadian military did not make a difference for the better in the daily lives of the Afghan people I say your full of shit....lairs...

perhaps those of you that believe that horse crap should do some research on there own countries military contribution to Afghanistan....I am proud of my service to my country, and I was honored to serve with some of the finest Canadians soldiers there ever was...

And big guy...I wear that Canadian flag with pride....still do....and I wave it when ever I get a chance....PS, big guy I left a lot of good friends on the battle field over there and there are days I wish I had died with them....not for my country or my unit, or anything else...but for my comrads...but you would know nothing about that, you sit to high up the mountain to see that, or to understand why we all stuck our hands up and volunteered to go back over and over again....

[SRV]

Take a look at the figures for Afghanistan.....all of them....80 to 85% of all of them that have been killed or wounded are by the terrorist themselves....but hey that can't be right....the bad guys are killing more innocents than the coalition forces.... that are fighting them.....and yet, according to your whole premise of your argument those numbers count for nothing it does not create citizens willing to fight on the coalition side.....that can't be right....can it.......just the 15 to 20 percent that have been killed or wounded by coalition forces....those numbers are responsible for all those new terrorist....we can't win.... it is one big circle.....shit time to sit back down by the fire come up with another idea, this one is not working.....pass that joint down will ya....

Army guy --sorry for not responding to you sooner.

First of all, let me say that I admire your commitment and do not question the sincerity of your motivation, nor Canada's reasons for wanting to participate in efforts to prevent terrorism by debilitating terrorist cells in Afghanistan.

I have had no first-hand experience of Afghanistan, and what little I know comes from secondary sources, and inferences from what I have learned from spending time in other battlefields elsewhere, including Iraq.

I am a pacifist, but, contrary to what you may think, I am not an armchair pacifist. I have spent many years in war zones in different countries, and I too have lost friends in wars, including the Iraq war, and had another close friend taken hostage in Iraq. I know that this does not compare to what you have witnessed and experienced while serving in Afghanistan, but know that my opinions, like yours, were formed by personal on-the-ground experience as well as media and alternative media.

And you are absolutely right, the vast majority of civilian deaths in both Afghanistan and Iraq were caused, not by coalition military operations, bombing campaigns or drone strikes, but by terrorist acts committed by fellow Muslims, mostly using IEDs, car bombs, and the like. Since the invasion of Iraq the number of jihadist terrorist attacks around the world rose by 267 percent. Eighty percent of those took place in Afghanistan and Iraq (Source) --both of them countries that were invaded and had their governments toppled as part of the GWOT. Admittedly both countries were run by despicable tyrants who ruled with an iron fist, but when they were removed all hell broke loose, much like the former Yugoslavia after the collapse of the Soviet Union. And despite temporay gains for women and school girls in Afghanistan and a breath of freedom for Shiites in Iraq, both countries are far worse off now than they were before they were invaded. But the liberation of the local population had little or nothing to do with the reasons for invading either country. Nevertheless, from my point of view a successful GWOT strategy would have resulted in fewer terrorist attacks, not a 267 % increase!

Your inference that I don't care about Muslim victims of violence is unwarranted, unfounded.and disrespectful.

...you can't sit on top of your throne and preach about human rights and expect everyone to stop and listen.....These guys ( THE terrorist) don't give a rats ass about your human rights theories and they are not interested, they want the ability to have total control over millions, to force upon them their will, their opinions, their form of rights, and none of it has any resemblance of your belief of human rights.....SO by us and the rest of the coalition sitting on our hands doing nothing and letting millions of human soles be treated like mere animals....

I have spent a lot of time with civilian victims of violence in Iraq and elsewhere, trying to help them locate their disappeared loved ones (detainees), documenting accounts of abuse from released detainees, etc. More time with civilians than most soldiers did, who had little opportunity to interact with them. In Iraq most soldiers mistrusted and feared all civilians, because they never knew when or by whom they might be targeted by IEDs etc. Even I felt ill at ease if a humvee stopped in the street, because if they stayed there too long there was an increased chance that an IED would go off. They spent their R&R in the Green Zone fortress (formerly Saddam's palace), inside of five perimeters, the two outside ones manned by Iraqi soldiers (whom they didn't trust either, by would not be sent home to the US in body bags if a bomb went off), and three inner ones manned by coalition forces. The palace also housed the coalition governing body, as well as Mc Donalds restaurants and Pizza huts to help the coalition feel more at home. It was easier for me as a foreigner to gain entry and make inquiries about detained prisoners than it was for "liberated" Iraqis, so I went there with some frequency.

Your experience in Afghanistan may have been totally different, I don't know. I'd be interested in hearing about it!

In the early days after the invasion when the bombing had stopped and Saddam was removed from power there was a great deal of euphoria and relief, certainly amongst most of the majority Shiite population. The Sunnis not so much, and the Christians and Palestinians soon found themselves threatened by sectarian violence and became fearful. Within a year even the Shiite found that they were not immune from mass arrests, and soon there were as many Shiites as there were Sunnis amongst the tens of thousand of detainees. Anyone in close proximity was picked up if an IED went off, or after a house raid, or some such thing. Pretty much every detainee complained of abuse somewhere along the line, but pretty much everyone also had a story about someone who had treated them with kindness and dignity as well.

I share all this in case you have not had similar opportunities to interact and share with detainees and victims of violence in Afghanistan. I also share it to help you understand that the GWOT has not increased Muslim support for the US and her allies. I will provide you with some before and after numbers for that too:

One measure of the impact of the Iraq War is the precipitous drop in public support for the United States in Muslim countries. Jordan, a key U.S. ally, saw popular approval for the United States drop from 25 percent in 2002 to 1 percent in 2003. In Lebanon during the same period, favorable views of the United States dropped from 30 percent to 15 percent, and in the world's largest Muslim country, Indonesia, favorable views plummeted from 61 percent to 15 percent. Disliking the United States does not make you a terrorist, but clearly the pool of Muslims who dislike the United States has grown by hundreds of millions since the Iraq War began. The United States' plummeting popularity does not suggest active popular support for jihadist terrorists but it does imply some sympathy with their anti-American posture, which means a significant swath of the Muslim population cannot be relied on as an effective party in counter-terrorism/insurgency measures. And so, popular contempt for U.S. policy has become a force multiplier for Islamist militants.

Source: The Iraq Effect: War Has Increased Terrorism Sevenfold Worldwide --By Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank

These are some of the reasons I hold the opinions that I do. I did not come by them easily while smoking a joint around a campfire (although that idea does sound a bit appealing). I don't expect you to share my opinion, but if you're not going to ingnore them I would like you to provide better reasons for dismissing them.

And again, I think your intentions and those of the Canadian military you served under were noble and laudable, and you acted with courage. My condolences for the loss of your friend there. I hope you can continue to honour his memory and his intentions in a noble endeavour that, in my humble opinion, turned out to be counter productive. The fact that I don't share your opinion does not mean I don't honour your intentions or your willingness to put your life on the line for them. I do!

Edited January 1, 2016 by SRV

[Big Guy]

but to say it was all a waste of time , blood and treasure is to say they died for nothing....and I don't believe that, not for one second....I don't care what the experts say.....nor do I care about a few opinions...

..

Since you do not care what experts say, nor for my opinion, I will not waste your or my time on a response.

[DogOnPorch]

Since you do not care what experts say, nor for my opinion, I will not waste your or my time on a response.

Army Guy was there for two years and has served in the military for over 30 years.