Faisal Hussain - the evolving story

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

George Bush Sr. gave a speech rationalizing Gulf War I indicating that without that action oil prices would be much higher due to Sadam Hussein.  I heard it on TV at that time.

That was not the reason for the Gulf war.

[GostHacked]

On 8/5/2018 at 5:48 PM, Argus said:

Except by about 99% of people, you mean?

Who are those people? Got any more figures you simply want to pull out of your ass?

[Argus]

1 hour ago, GostHacked said:

Who are those people? Got any more figures you simply want to pull out of your ass?

Everyone other than conspiracy lovers.

[cannuck]

On 8/6/2018 at 6:20 PM, Michael Hardner said:

George Bush Sr. gave a speech rationalizing Gulf War I indicating that without that action oil prices would be much higher due to Sadam Hussein.  I heard it on TV at that time.

That may have been an observation by Bush, but hardly revealing the behind-the-scenes conspiracy to define the case for war.   I get to discuss this with one of my closest friends, a US DoD Prime Contractor and RMOA member.  He is  bluntly honest and candid, and has never indicated any such thing at all.

One of my close friends is a US DoD Prime Contractor, and now member of RMOA.   We have discussed Iraq at great length (as it has considerable implications to his business and some lawsuits filed against DoD).  Any nonsense about "stabilizing oil price" has never come up.   The Iraqi petro infrastructure was, and still is too disfunctional to have any significant impact on global crude markets.

[turningrite]

There was a good column today in the Toronto Star ('An American questions Canada's democratic chops'), in which an American observer ponders the question of whether Canada is a functioning democracy at all. While the column doesn't specifically address official and media silence about the Danforth investigation, it does address the deferential and often docile approach implicit in the Canadian model, noting the stifling impact of party-enforced conformity in relation to controversial issues and the ability of courts (and it might have added, public authorities in general, if Danforth is an example) to limit public access to information about important matters. The column notes that Canadian political philosophy is restricted to a range covering from "just left of centre to just left of Stalin" and all other voices are shut out. Ouch!

I couldn't help but think of the official silence about the Danforth investigation while reading the column. As I've mentioned in other posts in this string, the situation reinforces for me concerns about the vitality and viability of Canadian democracy itself. We are told what the political and media elites want us to hear. We are only permitted to publicly discuss what those elites want us to discuss. And all views not officially sanctioned are portrayed as fringe perspectives, or, worse, as reflecting impure or scurrilous motives. We vote without much actual choice where issues important to society are at stake and we defer to our betters because, well, that's so much more civil. As has often been noted, democracy is a messy business. We should both relish and enjoy the mess. Too many Canadians, however, appear to be satisfied with deference. Is this a democracy?

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/2018/08/07/an-american-questions-canadas-democratic-chops.html

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, cannuck said:

1. That may have been an observation by Bush, but hardly revealing the behind-the-scenes conspiracy to define the case for war.   

2. I get to discuss this with one of my closest friends, a US DoD Prime Contractor and RMOA member.  He is  bluntly honest and candid, and has never indicated any such thing at all.

 

1. Not a conspiracy at all but an open objective.

2. Pardon me if I emphasize the words of the president over your mate.

[DogOnPorch]

Has enough time passed that we are no longer hot buttoning this Islamic terror attack and the poor PM can reemerge?

#NoToughQuestionsPlease

[GostHacked]

22 hours ago, Argus said:

Everyone other than conspiracy lovers.

Still waiting for you to show me 99% .....

[cannuck]

8 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

. Pardon me if I emphasize the words of the president over your mate.

The President may have had a political objective, a DoD contractor has only a military and business objective - in that particular case, it requires one to be...well, OBJECTIVE.

[Michael Hardner]

41 minutes ago, cannuck said:

The President may have had a political objective, a DoD contractor has only a military and business objective - in that particular case, it requires one to be...well, OBJECTIVE.

Ok but one of the two may also have a wider perspective.

[cannuck]

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

Ok but one of the two may also have a wider perspective.

Maybe - maybe not.  You will have to wait for the book (and maybe movie/documentary) to come out.

[OftenWrong]

10 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

Has enough time passed that we are no longer hot buttoning this Islamic terror attack and the poor PM can reemerge?

#NoToughQuestionsPlease

No, it's not safe to come out yet. Lay low! Lay low!

[Michael Hardner]

On 8/6/2018 at 9:28 PM, Argus said:

That was not the reason for the Gulf war.

I didn't say it was the reason.  The reason was Saddam Hussein and the US miscommunicated their permission for him invading Kuwait.

[cannuck]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

I didn't say it was the reason.  The reason was Saddam Hussein and the US miscommunicated their permission for him invading Kuwait.

Again, it was not that simple.  No doubt this is but ONE of literally hundreds of reasons (and a convenient excuse) used in coming to the conclusion.

[Michael Hardner]

27 minutes ago, cannuck said:

Again, it was not that simple.  No doubt this is but ONE of literally hundreds of reasons (and a convenient excuse) used in coming to the conclusion.

You are saying that if Hussein didn't invade, the Gulf War would have happened anyway?  I'd that was only one of hundreds of reasons I would assume you are saying that.  I have heard some strange attempts to excuse Iraq in the past, but I don't buy it.

[cannuck]

7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

You are saying that if Hussein didn't invade, the Gulf War would have happened anyway?  I'd that was only one of hundreds of reasons I would assume you are saying that.  I have heard some strange attempts to excuse Iraq in the past, but I don't buy it.

All we can do is speculate, but I believe that ANY excuse at all would have had the Yanks waging this proxy war to strut their stuff before Russia got too deep into the region.  Also to support Israel.  Invading Kuwait was a pretty good excuse.  If memory serves, there was no defense treaty with Kuwait at all.  Did not hurt US relations with the rest of the Gulf states, who no doubt realized that So Damn Insane could have turned on any one of them.  No time now for details, but there is also a HUGE energy implication for that region (passage of gas pipeline(s) to Europe, which Russia is extremely fearful of happening).

[turningrite]

There's an interesting new column written by Christie Blatchford on the delay in releasing information about the Danforth shooting investigation, in which she points to the inherent problem in assigning the investigation to Ontario's Special Investigations Unit. Blatchford writes: "And in the Hussain case, where there is much public interest and a sort of imposed chill on the police until the SIU part of the probe is complete, surely the unit could both put a rush on the job or be a little more transparent about the issues, if there are any, that are complicating its task."

The column also notes that in the absence of information rumor and speculation has been rampant. We assume that in a democracy the public has a right to be informed. This whole mess raises concern about why we've developed a system, at least in Ontario, that isn't apparently designed to accommodate the public interest. Can political leaders not bypass or resolve the smothering impact of SIU involvement in such matters? Presumably they can, which should make us wonder why they haven't.

https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/christie-blatchford-absence-of-police-answers-on-toronto-danforth-shooting-leaves-rumours-and-nonsense/wcm/1d7f8312-940c-41f9-951f-d2c2672f9129?video_autoplay=true

Edited August 10, 2018 by turningrite

[Michael Hardner]

5 minutes ago, turningrite said:

 

1. The column also notes that in the absence of information rumor and speculation has been rampant. We assume that in a democracy the public has a right to be informed.

2. This whole mess raises concern about why we've developed a system, at least in Ontario, that isn't apparently designed to accommodate the public interest.

3. Can political leaders not bypass or resolve the smothering impact of SIU involvement in such matters? Presumably they can, which should make us wonder why they haven't.

1. I didn't agree with that before but I changed my mind.  It has been more than long enough.

2. Investigation that can find fault is normally shielded from the press for privacy reasons.  But it can be an excuse to achieve political objectives.

3. Why would we trust one kind of politician to veto the process over another? Doug Ford has proven himself to be a perfect Stalinism communicator with his own propaganda arm and his Toadies drowning out questions from the people.

[Centerpiece]

1 hour ago, turningrite said:

There's an interesting new column written by Christie Blatchford on the delay in releasing information about the Danforth shooting investigation, in which she points to the inherent problem in assigning the investigation to Ontario's Special Investigations Unit. Blatchford writes: "And in the Hussain case, where there is much public interest and a sort of imposed chill on the police until the SIU part of the probe is complete, surely the unit could both put a rush on the job or be a little more transparent about the issues, if there are any, that are complicating its task."

 

Seems pretty simple. The SIU mandate is to investigate police officers who are involved in any shootings of civilians. If Hussain took his own life with his own gun, that should be pretty easy to prove - and the case would be over for the SIU. If he didn't, that would necessitate a fuller inquiry. Simple question to ask and answer. Is it any wonder we're left scratching our heads?

[DogOnPorch]

Betcha none of yez can name one of the dead w/o looking...

That's because ISLAM is the real victim...not the dead.

[eyeball]

22 minutes ago, Centerpiece said:

Simple question to ask and answer. Is it any wonder we're left scratching our heads?

Not from one perspective.  This issue has inevitably run aground on the same shoals that virtually everything else does; transparency vs accountability, privacy vs secrecy, government vs the governed.

Its the same hard biting wind that never stops blowing - a row of hurdles that stretch endlessly into the future, for most human beings.

[turningrite]

22 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Not from one perspective.  This issue has inevitably run aground on the same shoals that virtually everything else does; transparency vs accountability, privacy vs secrecy, government vs the governed.

Its the same hard biting wind that never stops blowing - a row of hurdles that stretch endlessly into the future, for most human beings.

On yet I can't think of another Western democracy where this kind of apparent bureaucratic lassitude would be tolerated in relation to a serious matter that potentially intersects with public safety. Can you?

I wonder if it will take as long before authorities release meaningful information about the investigation into today's shooting atrocity in New Brunswick? My guess is that it won't.

Edited August 10, 2018 by turningrite

[eyeball]

8 minutes ago, turningrite said:

On yet I can't think of another Western democracy where this kind of apparent bureaucratic lassitude would be tolerated in relation to a serious matter that potentially intersects with public safety. Can you?

Sure, every single one as near as I can tell. I meet people from all over the world all the time and the extent of bureaucratic lassitude sounds pretty similar everywhere you go. The dysfunctionality in the relationship between the governed and their governance is as universal as it is timeless. We'll never get 'to the bottom of it' until we treat political and official power like a deadly radioactive substance and shield people we put in proximity to it accordingly. In their case that's with a degree of monitoring and surveillance that would make Orwell blush.

I'm quite certain if we'd had this sort of check in place decades ago there would be little to no problem with Islam and terrorism would be as rare as a forthcoming government - the lack thereof is the greatest public safety issue bar none when you consider how broad the scope of government has become.. As for this case, what public safety seriousness? The shooting is over and the shooter is dead...we're already onto the next one and on and on it will go.

[turningrite]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Sure, every single one as near as I can tell. I meet people from all over the world all the time and the extent of bureaucratic lassitude sounds pretty similar everywhere you go. The dysfunctionality in the relationship between the governed and their governance is as universal as it is timeless. We'll never get 'to the bottom of it' until we treat political and official power like a deadly radioactive substance and shield people we put in proximity to it accordingly. In their case that's with a degree of monitoring and surveillance that would make Orwell blush.

 

I'm not talking about regular political and bureaucratic obfuscation. I doubt that opposition parties or the media in other Western countries would tolerate the kind of silence we've seen in Canada relating to the Danforth investigation. In the U.S., the example physically and culturally closest to us, I suspect there would be mounting campaigns of outrage were an investigation into an event like the Danforth shooting smothered as has been the case here. Can you point to a single episode in another major Western/democratic country where in recent decades, and particularly since the advent of the internet, politicians and the media have been similarly content to tolerate silence on such a serious matter of public interest. I can't. To me, the situation illustrates a serious flaw in the Canadian democratic model.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, turningrite said:

To me, the situation illustrates a serious flaw in the Canadian democratic model.

I think there are a lot more serous flaws in that model we could and should be paying attention to. Your outrage at the situation is a result of ignoring regular political and bureaucratic obfuscation. The root causes that have led to Islam being at the centre of your outrage is a result of ignoring regular political and bureaucratic obfuscation. Political and bureaucratic obfuscation has been going on forever and we should know better than to not get serious about it. The fact we don't is just about as serious a flaw as it gets for a democratic model such as ours don't you think?