Doesn't everyone feel safer now?

[mirror]

I remember when the Canadian supporters of Bush invading Iraq kept insisting that the world would be a safer place with Saddam locked up. Looking back now are you prepared to admit you made a serious mistake in judgement? I mean WMD my ass!

There is nothing wrong with making errors. After all to err is human. It is just that when the eraser wears out before the lead in your pencil you are overdoing it.

PM Chretien's foreign policy was very wise to kept us out of that Iraqi quagmire. At the moment Canada's foreign affairs is reasonably on track. I'm not so sure however that PM Martin has the wisdom to do likewise. What say you?

[mirror]

Planes are crashed into a building in New York City so AFTER THE ATTACK Canada pumps money into airport security - don't you feel safer now?

London's public transportation system is bombed so AFTER THE ATTACK Canada is now going to pump money into the TTC and other public transportation security - won't you feel safer soon?

Do you see a pattern here?

Do you think this in any way addresses the problems we as a global society are encountering?

[Bro]

Planes are crashed into a building in New York City so AFTER THE ATTACK Canada pumps money into airport security - don't you feel safer now?

London's public transportation system is bombed so AFTER THE ATTACK Canada is now going to pump money into the TTC and other public transportation security - won't you feel safer soon?

Do you see a pattern here? 

Do you think this in any way addresses the problems we as a global society are encountering?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You better get rid of whatever it is that is altering your thinking process,or stop listening to the cbc.

[cybercoma]

I remember when the Canadian supporters of Bush invading Iraq kept insisting that the world would be a safer place with Saddam locked up. Looking back now are you prepared to admit you made a serious mistake in judgement? I mean WMD my ass!

There is nothing wrong with making errors. After all to err is human. It is just that when the eraser wears out before the lead in your pencil you are overdoing it.

PM Chretien's foreign policy was very wise to kept us out of that Iraqi quagmire. At the moment Canada's foreign affairs is reasonably on track. I'm not so sure however that PM Martin has the wisdom to do likewise. What say you?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey, I've got news for you...THERE WERE TERRORIST ATTACKS BEFORE THE WAR.

Just in case you forgot about 3000 people that died.

[mirror]

I think there are going to have to be some changes both within our minority communities and the majority communities as well. Canada has prided itself on its tolerance and that is good however there are limits. We need to reaccess some things in our country:

1 religious minorities will need to report to the authorities immediately any discussion of inciting violence within their communities.

2 any religious leader who preaches violence goes and the institutional assets should be seized

3 all private schools need to be closed and all children need to go to the public school system

4 all wearing of religious artifacts, turbins, daggers, crosses, stars of david, etc. should be banned from public places and used only within one's home or one's place of worship.

5 newcomers to Canada should be forced to leave their former customs and grievances where they came from, and to integrate into our society and adopt Canadian ideas of tolerance and respect for others as much as possible.

And I say these things as a person who attends church on a regular basis.

The reason I suggest these changes is that we need to abolish divisiveness within our society as much as possible.

[Riverwind]

Just in case you forgot about 3000 people that died.

And pretty soon 3000 US soldiers will have died fighting a war that has nothing to with terrorism or al queda. If the US had not invaded Iraq and simply focused on domestic security there would have been no Madrid or London attack.

[Fortunata]

Just in case you forgot about 3000 people that died.

And pretty soon 3000 US soldiers will have died fighting a war that has nothing to with terrorism or al queda. If the US had not invaded Iraq and simply focused on domestic security there would have been no Madrid or London attack.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Pretty much. Iraq only happened because it could not defend itself. Notice that diplomacy is used to deal with other countries that CAN defend themselves. It's all about pax americana. Only, IMV, the Iraq war did not come with Bush's hawks expectations - that all the rest of the world would fall into line with US as the only indispensible country.

[cybercoma]

Just in case you forgot about 3000 people that died.

And pretty soon 3000 US soldiers will have died fighting a war that has nothing to with terrorism or al queda. If the US had not invaded Iraq and simply focused on domestic security there would have been no Madrid or London attack.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If the United States focused on domestic security there would have been no Madrid or London attack?

Sorry, can you help me out with the relation here?

As far as I can tell, terrorists were blowing things up before the US went into Iraq and they'll be blowing things up long after they leave.

[Riverwind]

As far as I can tell, terrorists were blowing things up before the US went into Iraq and they'll be blowing things up long after they leave.

The attacks on Madrid and London were a direct result of the involvement of those countries in Iraq. If there was no Iraq there would have been no attack. Iraq has given the anti-american terrorists a bunch of new recruits that never would have considered being suicide bombers before. The london bombers were not considered to be radicals before the event.

Slightly less than 50% amercians hate bush and his foriegn policy. Close to 90% of people in the rest of the world feel the same. You do the math: bush is making more enemies than friends. That will translate into more terrorists over time.

[Left for life]

I've never felt unsafe to begin with. Risk of a possible terrorist attack is part of living in a free society. I would rather not have 10k cameras and a million guards walking around limiting my freedom. People are too willing to give up their freedom for a sense of security.

You can't stop terrorist attacks if they really want to attack so there is no point in worrying about it.

[mirror]

I agree we should continue to live our normal lives but I also don't agree that Canada's top military leader should be trying to provoke people. He should know better than that and perhaps PM Martin should consider replacing him:

London attacks underscore Canada's need to be in Afghanistan: Hillier

Last week's terrorist attacks in London underscore the need for Canada and its allies to take the fight to the enemy in failed states where "murderous scumbags" have room to thrive, says Canada's top soldier.

[Melanie_]

4 all wearing of religious artifacts, turbins, daggers, crosses, stars of david, etc. should be banned from public places and used only within one's home or one's place of worship.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have to disagree with this statement. Canada has freedom of religion, and placing limits on how people express their faith is compromising this freedom. I can't see my elderly mother in law, a devout Roman Catholic, ever leaving her home without wearing her cross. However, this is done more as a choice than anything else. A Muslim woman, forced to give up her hajib, would feel violated to allow men outside of her family to see her hair uncovered. This is a basic tenet of her faith. Don't come back to me claiming the hajib is just a sign of the oppression of Muslim women - it would be equally oppressive to force them to give it up against their will.

[mirror]

We have enough differences amongst each other with skin colour which we can't do anything about. We don't need to escalate these differences with things we can do something about. No one is saying not to practice your religion however do it privately as religion has become so divisive in our society and it is being used to perpetuate violence. Maybe when the religious communities start speaking out, and acting forcefully to stop the violence there might be more tolerance for religion. Right now I would fathom a guess that religions are now perceived like the plagues.

[Melanie_]

A Muslim woman doesn't wear her hajib at home, as she doesn't need to cover her hair when among her family. It is when she leaves her home that she needs to wear it. Your idea that people only practice religion at home doesn't work in this case, and in many others (i.e., turbans); their religions are also their way of life. Also, should a nun only wear her habit in the convent, and put on street clothes when she goes out in public? What about Hutterites, who also wear distinctive clothing? I don't think the answer is to hide our religions (although I personally don't practice any); people need to be able to seperate the religion from the fanatics.

[mirror]

people need to be able to seperate the religion from the fanatics.

I agree with you but it is not quite so simple and we need the religious communities to get actively involved in providing solutions here.

[mirror]

West in denial about terror attacks

This above article is what I really started this thread for not to attack someone wearing the star of david, etc.

And of course there is absolutely a direct relationship between the invasion of Iraq and these attacks. Really we need to take our collective heads out of the sand here.

Canadians are going to have to be very vigilant about reckless and provocative comments from our leaders including military leaders like the one we heard last nite from Gen Hillier. I agree totally with the message bourque had on his wrebsite last evening:

"Memo to Hillier: Shup Up!"

[kimmy]

Just in case you forgot about 3000 people that died.

And pretty soon 3000 US soldiers will have died fighting a war that has nothing to with terrorism or al queda. If the US had not invaded Iraq and simply focused on domestic security there would have been no Madrid or London attack.

This is just not sensible.

If terrorists did not have Iraq to justify their actions, they'd have Afghanistan. If they did not have Afghanistan, they'd have East Timor (the justification for the Bali bombing, according to them.) If not that, then they'd have Western policy regarding Israel, or western involvement in the middle east going back 60 or 100 years. Unless you can find a way to erase the past, there's no way of removing the potential justifications for revenge.

As I keep saying, setting our policies with the goal of not upsetting someone else is doomed to fail because we have no control over what upsets other people... especially people who already have a chip on their shoulder and people who do not have a history of objectivity or open-mindedness.

And if the goal of not offending Muslims clashes with our belief in "doing what is right", what then?

Al Qaeda terrorists killed Australians in response to Australia's intervention in the crisis in East Timor. Should Australia have stayed out, and let the genocide continue?

Some Muslims were upset by the presence of western military in Indonesia to provide aid following the tsunami. Should we have kept our personnel at home to avoid offending people?

Should we provide assistance in the humanitarian disaster in Darfur? I mean, it's a crisis... surely nobody would be upset if we helped stop the bloodshed and the mass displacement of people by the militias, right?

Well, that'd be the western view, anyway.

The Muslim world might not view things the same way. For one possible interpretation, visit Al Jazeera English, click on their "Cartoons" section, and check out the animated political cartoon for August 27, 2004.

Al Jazeera English

It depicts a meek, mild-mannered representative of Sudan's Islamic government, going to extraordinary lengths (pole-vaulting!) to meet with the rebels to extend a hand of friendship. The brutish rebel, seated in comfy chair, extends a hand also... a huge spring-loaded boxing glove labeled "Foreign Hand", which punches out the government representative.

Sure, it's just a political cartoon. But if a political cartoonist interprets western involvement in the Sudan as outsiders taking sides against an Islamic government, don't you think Islamist militants might see it that way too?

So... if some pan-African group comes to us requesting Canadian money and personnel to assist in resolving the situation in Darfur, should we help? Or should we stay home out of concern that some Islamist somewhere is going to interpret our actions as a trespass against Islam?

-k

[mirror]

If you think doing what's right means doing what the US, the UK, the Australians, and the Spainards, the people that have been attacked, have done in Iraq, what's the point in further dialogue?

[kimmy]

If you think doing what's right means doing what the US, the UK, the Australians, and the Spainards, the people that have been attacked, have done in Iraq, what's the point in further dialogue?

I didn't say that being in Iraq was "right".

I did say that there are situations where doing what's right (ie, helping in Darfur, or Australia's intervention in the East Timor genocide) will make us targets. Please read more carefully.

-k

[mirror]

Those are sidebar issues which muddy the waters. This is about Iraq and the retaliation against the US and its allies.

[kimmy]

Those are sidebar issues which muddy the waters. This is about Iraq and the retaliation against the US and its allies.

No, it's not. The Bali bombing took place *before* the Iraq war. Dozens of Australians were targeted and murdered by Al Qaeda because Australia intervened in East Timor.

Quite clearly the Islamists have other gripes than just the Iraq war.

-k

[BHS]

Just in case you forgot about 3000 people that died.

And pretty soon 3000 US soldiers will have died fighting a war that has nothing to with terrorism or al queda. If the US had not invaded Iraq and simply focused on domestic security there would have been no Madrid or London attack.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good grief! How could you possibly know that?

[mirror]

I think that is a reasonable analysis and conclusion.

What does the war in Iraq have to do with in any way apprehending the perpetrators of 9/11? It is really hard for it to sink in but the answer is nothing. ZILCH! It was a diversion because it's the crude dude!

[BHS]

I think that is a reasonable analysis and conclusion.

What does the war in Iraq have to do with in any way apprehending the perpetrators of 9/11? It is really hard for it to sink in but the answer is nothing. ZILCH! It was a diversion because it's the crude dude!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ask yourself the same question 20 years from now.

[mirror]

If you think doing what's right means doing what the US, the UK, the Australians, and the Spainards, the people that have been attacked, have done in Iraq, what's the point in further dialogue?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Since 2003, countries that sent troops to Iraq are being targeted by Islamists"

I wish to correct an error I made above concerning the Australians who have not yet been attacked on their own soil because of their involvement in Iraq. But they probably will be before too long. Tit for tat you know.

And to suggest that violence only comes from Muslims is absurd. Anyone ever hear of the Oakloahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh? 168 Americans killed by a good ole American Christian boy!