Doesn't everyone feel safer now?

[GostHacked]

PATRIOT ACT RENEWED

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/21/pat....act/index.html

With the two recent bombing events in London this past month, looks like that only helped Bush get the Patriot Act renewed. If those bombings did not take place, I guess it would have passed either way, but not by a large margin.

[i"]The final vote was 257-171. The bill makes permanent 14 of 16 provisions in the act set to expire next year and extends two others for another 10 years."[/i]

Now those provisions are PERMANENT. Meaning it is the law of the land.

Orwellion Police State here we come!!

NOW DO YOU FEEL SAFER??

[mirror]

Yup, we are all going to lose a lot of our freedoms in the name of security. I suppose that is OK as long as you don't have something to hide, but the thought of the police having too much power is disconcerning to say the least. This thing is starting to really escalate out of control. I just wish cooler heads would prevail.

Blair calls for calm but Britain may never be the same again

Mr Livingstone was first to break ranks earlier this week by saying western countries had effectively financed the groups behind the suicide bombers, when al-Qaeda was born to fight the Russians.

Yesterday, the mayor steered clear of political ramifications and played down the possibility of airport-style security checks on buses and trains in London.

"It doesn't take long to realise it is not feasible for three million passengers using the system to get to work to go through the security checks of taking off their coats and having their bags scanned. That would delay everybody on their way to work by 15 to 30 minutes each way at least," he said.

"Even if we could do it, we are in a position where many of our Underground stations do not have room to do it."

Some were so cramped that they did not even have space for racks to give away free newspapers, he added. Mr Livingstone appealed for religious leaders who will take prayers in mosques today to persuade anyone with "even the most remote information" to come forward. "We want to bring these perpetrators to justice," he said.

[cybercoma]

Hey, I'm still waiting to hear why we should give in to the "grievances" of murderers that intentionally slaughter innocent civilians to try and push their religious and political agendas?

[err]

Hey, I'm still waiting to hear why we should give in to the "grievances" of murderers that intentionally slaughter innocent civilians to try and push their religious and political agendas?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Who's saying tht we should "give in" to the grievances of the murderers. Why not try to understand why they do what they do.... You can choose to stick your head in the sand and believe that they "hate freedom".... or you can recognize that what they really hate is "American Foriegn Policy"...

Here's another way of looking at the Iraqi war... It was originally going to be called

Operation

Iraqi

Liberation

But that spells too close to the truth, so they had to change the last word to Freedom...

[cybercoma]

Who's saying tht we should "give in" to the grievances of the murderers.  Why not try to understand why they do what they do....  You can choose to stick your head in the sand and believe that they "hate freedom".... or you can recognize that what they really hate is "American Foriegn Policy"... 

Here's another way of looking at the Iraqi war... It was originally going to be called

Operation

Iraqi

Liberation

But that spells too close to the truth, so they had to change the last word to Freedom...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Like I said, until they decide to use a little diplomacy, I don't care what their grievances are. Not once did I suggest that they simply "hate freedom", they could have the most noble reasons in the world; however, when they murder innocent people to get their point across, I could care less what their reasons are. They're nothing more than murderers and should be treated as such.

[Argus]

The greatest number of suicide attacks, Argus, have been carried out by Tamils. Those Tamils were fighting for an independent state and religion had nothing at all to do with it.

The Tamils practically invented suicide bombing in the modern era. The Tamils are nuts. There is something very ugly and dark about their culture. They've turned a paradise island into a shithole of war and poverty while accomplishing virtually nothing. There are simply certain cultures in this world - the Serbs being another - which have become twisted and sick. However, I doubt there were more suicide bombings commited by the Tamils. I think the Muslims have easily outstripped them.

The suicide attacks in Iraq are by secular Sunni mostly. Where religion has come into that, it is mostly from those who are using religion as a tool. There is little religious in the insurgency.

First, you can't possibly discard religion in a struggle involving Muslims, especially one involving Muslims and non-Muslims. Of course religion plays a major role. The beheadings, for example, were not merely mean to shock, they were trying to immitate incidents from the Koran. And people who have never been to Iraq do not travel from all over the middle east to blow volunteer to blow themselves up out of nationalism. Why should a Pakistani care about Iraq? It involves Islam, and the outrage of fanatic Muslims that, in their twisted perception, their religion is under attack from infidels.

Quebec and the IRA have no place in comparison. Suicide attackers all are in areas where the "terrorists" have no political options and no armaments to match their enemy.

The Tamils actually had political options. And Iraqis certainly do. India is also a democracy.

[Argus]

Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: cluster sample survey

Making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100000 excess deaths, or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most violent deaths.

This was published online on October 29, 2004. Shocking!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Shocking if you're gullible and don't realize that its scientific methodology was almost non-existent and was subsequently discredited.

[Argus]

The war on terror certainly does nothing to get to the root of the problem.

Or perhaps its simply that a small-time newspaper writer lacks the knowledge, education, intelligence and imagination to see or understand every aspect of the 'war on terror"

For several years now, a new kind of "political correctness" has prevented meaningful public discussion about this entire subject.

Imagine a writer from the Toronto Star complaining about political correctness!

The people of the Middle East have legitimate grievances against America — from the U.S. overthrow of a democratically elected government in Iran in 1953 to decades of U.S. backing of tyrants in the region (including Saddam Hussein in the 1980s) to unwavering U.S. support for Israel during its 38-year military occupation of Palestine.

Until the U.S. changes its behaviour, the Middle East will be fertile ground for Islamic extremists to win recruits — and even some public support.

This is just the typical liberal racist BS. The mean white man isn't playing fair with those poor darkies! He needs to cut them a break! After all, they're uneducated, unsophisticated, backward and stupid! They can't be expected to know their own interests, let alone stand up to those cany western capitalists!

[Argus]

Hey, I'm still waiting to hear why we should give in to the "grievances" of murderers that intentionally slaughter innocent civilians to try and push their religious and political agendas?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Who's saying tht we should "give in" to the grievances of the murderers. Why not try to understand why they do what they do.... You can choose to stick your head in the sand and believe that they "hate freedom".... or you can recognize that what they really hate is "American Foriegn Policy"...

"We've declared a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy and those who follow this wrong ideology and anyone who tries to help set up this system is part of it, and those candidates running in elections are demi-idols, and those who vote for them are infidels." - Abu Musab al-Zarqawi

Clearly they DO hate democracy, as it goes against the teachings of Islam by its original barbarian-king-prophet. They are most definitely against any aspect of freedom of speech which questions, in any way, anything which they believe to be a requirement of Islam. And since Mohamed was a ruler, and set out how nations are to be ruled, as well as how individuals are to live, you can question almost nothing about your life or your goverment without drawing accusations of going against the teachings of Islam. It is not a very big step, then, to say they hate freedom. They certainly hate freedom as practiced in the West. They would certainly hate the idea of things like premarital sex, homosexuality, nudity on films or in magazines (or even women walking around without their burquas). They hate permissiveness. They hate questioning of the teachings of Islam.

I'm afraid that by any reasonable standard they do hate freedom.

[Black Dog]

I agree, about restricting arms sales to repressive regimes. You might have a tough time convincing the Europeans though

And we'd have a tough time convincing the Americans, the globes top supplier of arms.

G8 global arms exports

Guide to the arms trade

Your quote leads me to believe that George Washington would not have approved of America being part of the UN, prefering to remain politically isolated from the rest of the world. Is that consistent with your opinion?

Yes. I've said before the UN is nothing more than a fig leaf for the powerful nations to do their will.

That study has long been discredited. It had a possible error rate of something on the order of 98%

Citation?

Can we say that a man wearing a really expensie suit a Rolex, and gold chain, contributed to his beathing death by thieves because if he hadn't worn such expensive stuff he'd probably not have been attacked? If we do, does this excuse his attackers in any way or justify their actions? Also, can we say he was wrong to do what he did?

God, but you are dim.

The reason likes with the intent. What is the "intent" behind all those wacko suicide bombers in Baghdad? Try to reach beyond the obvious (expell americans). Are they outraged at the mistreatement of their people? Unlikely, as most appear not to be Iraqis. Do they want to bring "freedom" to the Iraqi people? Unlikely, as Iraq is clearly on the road, at a brisk pace, to self government with a new constitution and a democratically elected government.

Intent is irrelevant. By your logic, if the cops spray a crowd of people with gunfire with the intention of hitting just one criminal, those actions are "morally just".

What is relevant is the entirely predictable reaction of escalation and hatred.

[Black Dog]

When an Israeli pilot puts a missile into a Hamas leader's bedroom his intent is to stop the violence being perpetrated against Israeli citizens. Quite morally just.

Which brings us back to the suicide bomber at the checkpoint. Supposing he was trying to stop the violence be perpetrated against the Iraqi people, then his actions are morally just.

You are trying to cast this into the mold of a local insurgency fighting against an oppresive occupying power when everyone knows that the Americans want nothing more than to leave as soon as possible. Were it not for the insurgency they'd already be gone. Also, were the insurgents to win Iraq would hardly become a land of freedom. Instead it would be far, far more oppressive than anything the Americans would ever dream of. These are not people fighting for freedom. They are fighting for an intollerent theocratic state which slaughters anyone who doesn't believe exactly as they do.

Obviosuly, the Americans don't want to go, which uis why they invaded in the first place. Were it not for the insurgency, perhaps we'd see Iran being menaced next. Whatever. And, given that the core of the insurgency is secular in nature, your "reliious theocracy" argument falls flat (the theorcrats are the one's who are riting the cionstitution).

But all nations do that, including the Chinese, for example, and the Russians, and the French. And it isn't like these people are opposed to dictators. They just want to BE the dictators

And your point is...?

So you are suggesting we radically adjust our way of life in order to attempt to placate some religious wackos who, by your own claim, are a small minority of the Muslim world?

No I am suggesting we radically adjust our way of life (an inevitablity we will have to confront sooner or later anyway) to curb the conditions which create fertile ground for the radical ideaologies that threaten us through terrorist tactics.

1) China, Brazil and North Korea are huge arms sellers to the third world. No one ever seems to be particularly outraged at this.

Pikers who's total arms sales don't even come close to equalling those of the U.S. and U.K. In any case, this is another example of the classic Argus Deflection (a cousin of the patentened Argus Strawman): "look over there at what those other guys are doing! why isn't anyone looking?"

2) In what way would the people of the middle east be better off if we stopped selling them military equipment and their dictators had to buy them from the Chinese and Russians instead?

What does the term global restrictions on arms sales say to you?

Until these, for lack of a better word, assholes learn how to use a little diplomacy, then we'll talk. Until then we drop bombs on them and try to free the people living in fear of them.

Good one genius: drop bombs on th epeople you're trying to free (anyway, if freedom is teh nam eof the game, where are the bombs over Rihyad?)

The suicide attacks in Iraq are by secular Sunni mostly. Where religion has come into that, it is mostly from those who are using religion as a tool. There is little religious in the insurgency.

Incorrect.

"Martyrs" in Iraq mostly Saudi

This is just the typical liberal racist BS. The mean white man isn't playing fair with those poor darkies! He needs to cut them a break! After all, they're uneducated, unsophisticated, backward and stupid! They can't be expected to know their own interests, let alone stand up to those cany western capitalists!

Isn't this:"they're uneducated, unsophisticated, backward and stupid" exactly what you used as a reason why Africa needs to be recolonized? Oh, but I'm sure your reasoning has nothing to do with race, any more than your talk of "crazed turbanheads" is a racial remark.

[Black Dog]

One final word: since 2001, and the start of the war on terror, the threat of terrorism has not diminished. There have been more attacks and it seems the likliehood of terror attacks hitting more western centres is increasing. Violence in Iraq has not abated (though it seems the draft constitution has replaced free elections as the latest right-wing panacea du jour). Certainly Islamic authoritarian militarism is on the rise, gaining adherents, turning previouly moderate Muslims and (allegedly) ordinary westerners into human bombs. The invasion of Iraq has been a godsend to these folks. So my question is, having written off disengagement, what course of action would people like Argus pursue? The status quo? Escalation? Clearly, any solution that calls for the "us" to change our ways at all is a non-starter, so what's their answer?

[mirror]

Police (bobbies?) shot and killed someone today in the tube. I wonder what the connection this man has with what happened yesterday.

Police gun down London bombs suspect on train

[BHS]

One final word: since 2001, and the start of the war on terror, the threat of terrorism has not diminished. There have been more attacks and it seems the likliehood of terror attacks hitting more western centres is increasing. Violence in Iraq has not abated (though it seems the draft constitution has replaced free elections as the latest right-wing panacea du jour). Certainly Islamic authoritarian militarism is on the rise, gaining adherents, turning previouly moderate Muslims and (allegedly) ordinary westerners into human bombs. The invasion of Iraq has been a godsend to these folks. So my question is, having written off disengagement, what course of action would people like Argus pursue? The status quo? Escalation? Clearly, any solution that calls for the "us" to change our ways at all is a non-starter, so what's their answer?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So, the first free democratic elections in Iraq's history happened in January of this year, but the world isn't perfect yet, so it was all a big mistake? Isn't that a little hasty? Why not wait a couple of years before you decide that democracy in the Middle East is a right-off, and we're all doomed?

[mirror]

The police have finally arrested someone in London which is good. I am glad that they have a live person who hopefully will be able to give them some details. Another thing is that the British system of justice is very fast compared to the Canadian system. They will have him in court lickity-split.

British Police Arrest a Suspect in Thursday's Blasts

[mirror]

Police issue CCTV images of bomb suspects

I wonder if that New York t-shirt is supposed to be a subliminal message. Actually it is not so subliminal. It must be getting quite stressful taking the tube. First the bombs on July 7, the attempted attack yesterday, and a shooting and who knows what else today. I wonder how many people are choosing a different form of transportation these days.

[Black Dog]

So, the first free democratic elections in Iraq's history happened in January of this year, but the world isn't perfect yet, so it was all a big mistake? Isn't that a little hasty? Why not wait a couple of years before you decide that democracy in the Middle East is a right-off, and we're all doomed?

What I was saying is that the elections were billed as a turning point, after which the insurgency would just wither away. Instead, the violence has increased and the Iraqi government has been plagued by infighting (the Sunnis walked off the constitutional drafting committee this week) and ineffectiveness. Now, we're seeing the same sunshine-and-raindbows sentiment about the constitution. Fool me once...

It may be a little presumptuous to say that democracy in the Middle East is a write-off (though I'd be quick to make the distinction between democracy obtained freely and democracy brought from the barrel of a gun), based on the track record of events, I'm having a hard time being optimistic. In other words, the whole thing has been such a SNAFU from the get-go that I'd be very surprised if anyone could make a silk purse out of the sow's ear of the Anglo American intervention.

[BHS]

What I was saying is that the elections were billed as a turning point, after which the insurgency would just wither away. Instead, the violence has increased and the Iraqi government has been plagued by infighting (the Sunnis walked off the constitutional drafting committee this week) and ineffectiveness. Now, we're seeing the same sunshine-and-raindbows sentiment about the constitution. Fool me once...

But it's my understanding that you weren't fooled the first time.

I'm not willing to give an inch past the notion that these are temporary setbacks, at this point.

It may be a little presumptuous to say that democracy in the Middle East is a write-off (though I'd be quick to make the distinction between democracy obtained freely and democracy brought from the barrel of a gun), based on the track record of events, I'm having a hard time being optimistic. In other words, the whole thing has been such a SNAFU from the get-go that I'd be very surprised if anyone could make a silk purse out of the sow's ear of the Anglo American intervention.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How many cases can you point out of democracy being obtained freely? America fought for it's democracy in three different wars (the Revolutionary War, The War of 1812, and the Civil War to prevent illegal secession of the Confederate states). Britain's long climb from the Magna Charta to the Westminster Parliamentary system was plagued by internal strife (think Oliver Cromwell for instance), and took centuries to achieve. Our own democracy was bestowed upon us by the British, who fought for control of British North America against the French and the Americans. Every other democracy I can think of came into being at the cost of ousting whatever came before it.

A democracy can freely vote it's way into tyrrany. It doesn't work the other way around.

[Guest eureka]

Not that it matters much, BD, but that does not say that most are Saudi: just that the biggest element now is. It does say that most are foreign now.

Most, too, would be Sunni and, as I said in the post, tools of secular using religion. The insurgency is not a religious one in the main.

Argus, still, by count, most of the suicide bombings committes to date have been by Tamils. In India, and Kashmir, the bombings have a political inspiration not religious. Being anti-Muslim is not an excuse for calling their every action a perverted religious response.

There are also Sikhs whose aims are nationalistic.

Up to a couple of years ago, 60% of all terrorist actions, annually, ocurred in India.

[mirror]

Here you have it folks. Canada's most right-wing daily newspaper has on their front page this morning how the US invasion of Iraq is breeding suicide bombers. So I think we can all stop arguing about whether or not it is so and begin to start trying to find solutions to this mess, this can of worms that has been opened by the US invasion.

Iraq breeding suicide killers

  Yesterday's attack in London, the second in two weeks, may not have involved suicide bombers, but nonetheless may foreshadow a new wave of terrorism to come.

"In Iraq, al-Qaeda is fighting exactly the type of conflict it wants," says Evan Kohlmann, a U.S. terrorism consultant.

"It's a conflict that is based on suicide bombings, sniper attacks, assassinations and roadside bombs. It breeds terrorists who are trained in urban warfare. It teaches the exact skills they need and want to have."

Like previous holy wars in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Chechnya, the conflict in Iraq has become a magnet for jihadi volunteers. But Iraq also provides al-Qaeda with a training ground, a recruitment base and vast opportunities to enhance the technical skills of a new generation of Arab terrorists.

"The Sunni Triangle has become the virtual engine driving religious terrorism," Mr. Kohlmann warns. "It's the breeding ground for the next 9/11."

Thank you Mr Bush.

[mirror]

Musharraf’s tough talking in doubt

Up to 600 suspects have been arrested and handed over to the US. The London bombings, however, have prompted critics to demand measures that link combating militancy in Pakistan’s urban areas and its mainstream politics.

“The military action against al-Qaeda is only one element in cleaning up Pakistan from its legacy of militancy,” warned Hasan Askari Rizvi, a respected Pakistani scholar and author of a widely read book on the Pakistani military. “The Pakistani military has used these elements for waging its own jihad [holy war] in Afghanistan and [indian administered] Kashmir. Now the question is, can Musharraf untie that knot which would essentially mean completely eradicating their influence in a big way?”

.Mr Rizvi said dismantling the structure that supports militancy in Pakistan not only involves such obvious measures as regulating the network of madrassahs, widely known as the first stop for would be militants.

“The Islamists have become a large political force in Pakistan. The paradox is that you need to take this country towards a more representative democracy so that other mainstream and liberal political parties become more central and seize the space taken by islamists,” Mr Rizvi said.

The bloodless coup that brought the general to power in 1999 has seen the marginalisation of the two mainstream political parties – the Pakistan People’s Party led by Benazir Bhutto and the Pakistan Muslim League of former prime minister Nawaz Sharif. Both remain in exile, leaving behind parties in disarray.

“Today, Pakistan faces a grim situation with no easy answers,” concluded Ghazi Salahuddin, a respected newspaper commentator, after yesterday’s protests. “How to make a new beginning for weaning Pakistan away from militancy involves some obvious choices. The question is, can Musharraf make them?”

Can he? I have my doubts. Musharraf has had ample time to sort these madrassahs and he hasn't done so. Why? Perhaps he just can't do it with so little political support. But if we are even going to sort out this terrorism situation we are somehow going to have to begin facing all these hard choices in all of our respective countries. Time to act is now.

[BHS]

Can he? I have my doubts. Musharraf has had ample time to sort these madrassahs and he hasn't done so. Why? Perhaps he just can't do it with so little political support. But if we are even going to sort out this terrorism situation we are somehow going to have to begin facing all these hard choices in all of our respective countries. Time to act is now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What you mean by your last sentence has escaped me. What action are you talking about now?

[cybercoma]

I don't think anyone was arguing that Bush's war has not created more suicide bombers. The point is that their demands will never be met as long as they intentionally target and murder civilians. Just because they've taken it upon themselves to make people hostages in their own countries by blowing up trains and buses, doesn't mean we should give in to their demands and leave Iraq. The task at hand is to make sure democracy gets going in Iraq and if the UK or US just walks away from it now, the 2000 soldiers that have died would have been in vain.

[mirror]

Over 100, 000 people have died in Iraq and you are worried about 2,000 soldiers. Give us a break. As they said in an Irish paper today, Iraq has 100 Londons every day!

What I was referring to is that if we don't get a handle on dealing prpoerly with the world community, we are going to lose all our freedoms in the name of security. Do you want the world to become a giant Israel and for us to all live like the Israelis do now? Thanks but no thanks.

[BHS]

Over 100, 000 people have died in Iraq and you are worried about 2,000 soldiers. Give us a break. As they said in an Irish paper today, Iraq has 100 Londons every day!

What I was referring to is that if we don't get a handle on dealing prpoerly with the world community, we are going to lose all our freedoms in the name of security. Do you want the world to become a giant Israel and for us to all live like the Israelis do now? Thanks but no thanks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The 100,000 figure isn't worth posting about. As has already been stated numerous times on this forum, that figure is off by as much as 98%.

My concern is that we not end up like Israel, as well. A big part of the problem Israel has faced since 1948 is interference of the UN, which created the "refugee camps" on "Palestinian land" and encouraged the "Palestinians" that they had a all-or-nothing "right" to one day return to their former homes. The UN has been happy to fight for the "rights" of "Palestinians" while completely ignoring and taking zero repsonsibility for terrorist activities in the "refugee camps" that they maintain. I think it's fair to say that without the incompetence of the UN a peaceful reintegration of the "Palestinian" Arabs would have happened a long time ago.

So much for dealing properly with the world community.