Doesn't everyone feel safer now?

[mirror]

It seems actually that we know next to nothing about who is behind these recent attacks in London. What we do seem to know is that these attacks will probably go on for 10 years. Good grief!

Police swoop on capital's estates as hunt intensifies

[cybercoma]

Just relax, Canada: Sorry to disappoint Julian Fantino and Anne McLellan, but our country doesn't make much of a terror target

Police here ill-prepared for suicide bombers

I actually think we are spending way too much money on security to prevent terrorism which we are not able to stop anyway so what's the point? We need to be in touch and befriend our Muslim community, and boot out the violence supporters, and as a result they will not be hostile towards Canada as a whole.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, boot out the violent ones. Just deport them because that'll make them happy. I mean, that's what you're about right? You're all about appeasing murderers so they don't kill civilians anymore. Why not just give them more political benefits?

[mirror]

The American approach has totally failed. There is a lot more terrorism in the world than there ever was before. And now people want Canada to buy into into that insality. I say, as a Canadian no thanks. Some people don't understand that you have to get to root of the problem, not the superficial American solutions that don't work. Fortunately enough Canadians are educated now to think for themselves and realize what is going on here. It is all about oil. And the US has drastically failed. Even Americans have woken up to that fact.

[mirror]

Eric Margolis, a security expert, stated in an interview that if Canadians (read Hillier's comments) are going to go to Afgan and kill afgans, Afgans are going to come and kill us. Maybe Canada needs to have a national debate on what the hell we are doing in Afghanastan before we bring an attack down on ourselves. This war on terror is seriously deteriorating as you can see from the following article which states that bin Laden and his advisers are very much in control and are probably responsible for both the Egypt and UK bombings.

Al Qaeda Leaders Seen in Control

[Argus]

I have enough confidence that the vast majority, 99.9% of the Muslim community, just like all our other Canadian communities want to live in peace and would appreciate Canada kicking out non Canadians who promote violence and hatred,

The statistics and surveys seem to disagree with you.

[Argus]

The American approach has totally failed. There is a lot more terrorism in the world than there ever was before. And now people want Canada to buy into into that insality. I say, as a Canadian no thanks. Some people don't understand that you have to get to root of the problem,

So you're saying we should kill all our Jews so these people will be happy?

[Argus]

Eric Margolis, a security expert,

Margolis is not a security expert of any kind. He is an alleged journalist who has spent at least the last decade attacking everything the West and Israel does and doing his best to defend the Muslim world and portray it as noble, honourable and far more advanced culturally than the decadent, capitalist west.

[BHS]

The American approach has totally failed. There is a lot more terrorism in the world than there ever was before. And now people want Canada to buy into into that insality. I say, as a Canadian no thanks. Some people don't understand that you have to get to root of the problem, not the superficial American solutions that don't work. Fortunately enough Canadians are educated now to think for themselves and realize what is going on here.  It is all about oil. And the US has drastically failed. Even Americans have woken up to that fact.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And I say, as a Canadian, that the West and America in particular is headed on the correct course. So there.

I don't understand how you can call anything a total failure, or a total success. It's history for crying out loud, not a video game. There's no way on earth for you to prove that terrorism wouldn't have increased if the Americans had done nothing, so give it a rest.

You preach continuously about getting to "the root of the problem" without ever acknowledging that any action we take from here on falls into your own definition of interfering with the Muslim world, thus provoking more terror. There's no argument you can make that will convince me to bury my head in the sand and hope the terrorists all go away. You can blame the US all you want (and I'm convince you always have and always will) but it's time you woke up and realized there's more going on in the world than what you're little fevered imaginings have lead you to believe.

[Guest eureka]

Thanks, Kimmy. I don't see anything on the site, though, that helps. I think the problem must be something else.

Probably my visceral hatred of technology!

[Guest eureka]

Mirror, I think that you were one right about root causes. However, I also think that, like Northern Ireland, we have gone beyond root causes and that we now have a terrorist world that doesn't know why it does what it does but thinks it is fighting for its survival or its religion against Crusaders. That goes for America too, where the Fundamentalist Right is seeking to extend God's Kingdom on earth (America) to other regions of the world.

On the side of religion, we now have the two largest religions seeking to establish themselves as the one true belief for all mankind.

Allying religious fervour to Nationalism brings a force that will not be stopped without descending into the abyss. Like Grey at the start of WW1, I do not think we will see the lights go back on in our time.

[kimmy]

Thanks, Kimmy. I don't see anything on the site, though, that helps. I think the problem must be something else.

Probably my visceral hatred of technology!

If you tell me what you were searching for by private message (or carrier pigeon...) I could attempt to help you

-k

[err]

The American approach has totally failed. There is a lot more terrorism in the world than there ever was before. And now people want Canada to buy into into that insality. I say, as a Canadian no thanks. Some people don't understand that you have to get to root of the problem, not the superficial American solutions that don't work. Fortunately enough Canadians are educated now to think for themselves and realize what is going on here.  It is all about oil. And the US has drastically failed. Even Americans have woken up to that fact.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And I say, as a Canadian, that the West and America in particular is headed on the correct course. So there.

I don't understand how you can call anything a total failure, or a total success. It's

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

America is putting gas on a fire.... Which is the correct course if you want a really big fire. Most people, or at least the ones with common sense, would rather not have a big fire....

It is interesting that you don't understand what a total failure is.... I suppose it depends on your perspective though... If getting your hands on Iraqi oil is part of the objective, then the USA was successful. Who cares that tens of thousands of Iraqis have died, heck, even about 1800 Americans... Who cares if terrorists are pouring into Iraq from all over the world... And some of them will be setting their sites on America... Operation Iraqi Liberation was a success.... And who cares if we need armed guards on our local subway stations, searching peoples bags, etc....

[cybercoma]

The American approach has totally failed. There is a lot more terrorism in the world than there ever was before. And now people want Canada to buy into into that insality. I say, as a Canadian no thanks. Some people don't understand that you have to get to root of the problem, not the superficial American solutions that don't work. Fortunately enough Canadians are educated now to think for themselves and realize what is going on here.  It is all about oil. And the US has drastically failed. Even Americans have woken up to that fact.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And I say, as a Canadian, that the West and America in particular is headed on the correct course. So there.

I don't understand how you can call anything a total failure, or a total success. It's

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

America is putting gas on a fire.... Which is the correct course if you want a really big fire. Most people, or at least the ones with common sense, would rather not have a big fire....

It is interesting that you don't understand what a total failure is.... I suppose it depends on your perspective though... If getting your hands on Iraqi oil is part of the objective, then the USA was successful. Who cares that tens of thousands of Iraqis have died, heck, even about 1800 Americans... Who cares if terrorists are pouring into Iraq from all over the world... And some of them will be setting their sites on America... Operation Iraqi Liberation was a success.... And who cares if we need armed guards on our local subway stations, searching peoples bags, etc....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

alright, how do you suggest handling world terrorism. I understand you want to get to the "root" of the problem, but tell me what the root is and how we are to solve it. You must have an opinion on the matter if you're educated enough to say that everything that has been done so far is a complete failure.

[Argus]

I don't understand how you can call anything a total failure, or a total success. It's

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

America is putting gas on a fire.... Which is the correct course if you want a really big fire. Most people, or at least the ones with common sense, would rather not have a big fire....

Sometimes, when there already is a big fire, we light smaller fires to burn away the tinder so the big fire is robbed of material it needs to stay big. Think about that, some time.

[Black Dog]

Saying the Americans are the "globe's top supplier of arms" is both true and, in this context, somewhat dishonest. The Americans, after all, sell multi-billion dollar systems to places like, er, Canada, the Netherlands, the UK and Australia, among others. The systems they sell to the likes of Saudi Arabia also tend to be on the high end, ie, sophisticated fighter jets, few of which ever get used for anything. Meanwhile, the Chinese and Brazilians, among others, are pouring out the low dollar orders for AK-47s, mortars and grenades to every little bandit group and third world dictator around the globe.

Even if you strip away those advanced weapons systems, the U.S.A is stillthe globe's top supplier of small arms. That doesn't include the vast majority of small arms arms exported from the United States through direct commercial sales negotiated between U.S. companies or brokers and foreign buyers.

Intent is irrelevant!?  You try to compare morality of conduct and then state that the intent of those commiting that conduct is irreleveant?!

Do you really lack such basic understanding of what constitutes morality? 

Intent is in the eye of the beholder. It's flexible. Few crimes of war are committed without first being draped in noble intentions. The Rape of Nanking, Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the bloody Latin American dirty wars of the '70s and '80s etc etc. are all examples of horrific, immoral actions perpetrated in the name of good intentions.

Because intentions are so indefinable, we must judge actions soely on their impact. A cop shooting a violent, gun toting assailant is morally justifiable in terms of self defense. A cop spraying a crowd of people with gunfire to hit a gun toting assailant is reckles and irresponsible.

Possibly. If the US were perpetrating violence against the Iraqi people. However, it appears that by far the greatest violence being perpetrated on the Iraqi people is coming from the "insurgents". Nor do these insurgents seem to care a fig about who they kill, including kids

The US is not innocent of perpetrating violence, though your second assertion is correct.

No, sorry, but that is an obviously idiotic statement. The Americans are desperate to get out of Iraq without seeing the place immediately collapse behind them. That much should be painfully obvious to anyone with more than half a brain.

Right, hence the talk of building permenant bases in iraq. If you think the U.S. would pull out wholesale from a country they shed so much blood and lucre on and one in such a vital strategic location, you're soft in the head.

The "core of the insurgency" appears to be run by a man who calls the Shiites dogs and Jews, and wants them exterminated, who despises democracy because it goes against the apparent will of Allah in how nations should be run, and whose major weapon are religious wackos from around the Muslim world. That hardly seems secular in nature.

And how does this view square with the U.S.'s own admission that foreign ighters such as Zarqawi and his followers make up but a small percentage of the insurgency?

How many people does Zarqawi have under his control? How do we know he's anything but a vocal, small time thug quick to claim credit for others' work? How do we know, given multiple reports of his death or severe injury, if he's even alive or just a bogeyman?

And yet you have no idea whether or not adjusting our way of life will have any correspondingly positive results on the conditions you speak of. I'd think most people would require a little more assurance of results first.

The way I see it, global circumstances will necessitate such changes anyway. It's a question of choosing to adjust now or being forced to adjust later. The alternative, as I said before, s the status quo. Are you suggesting the status quo is working?

It's merely elementary logic. If you ever used logic you'd understand the inference.

You claim the US is being attacked for making arms sales to dictators. I say,

That's not what I claimed. Arms sales are but one way the U.S. and otehr western nations like the UK, France and Australia support corrupt regiems. Those corrupt regimes lead to increased radicalism, which increases the danger of blowback (the Shah's Iran is a textbook exmple of this phenomenon). You are trying to draw strict linear connections. It doesn't work that way.

I don't believe I ever said "crazed turbanhead".

Argus  Sep 10 2004, 06:58 PM Post #152 

The Big Leagues

Group: Members

Posts: 2177

Joined: 17-May 04

Member No.: 516

QUOTE (easychair @ Sep 10 2004, 01:44 PM)

This is not partisan hyperbole. As I said in my other post, Iraq is just the starting platform for the Pax American war plan and the next objective is Iran. 

You talk like that's a bad thing.

Certainly someone is going to have to do something about Iran or we're going to have crazed turbanheads with nukes - well, with nukes for about one day, which is all it'll take for them to use them.

Link

What I said was that these "nations" were abandoned with almost no educated residents, with borders which were impossible and foreign, and had since developed cultures of corruption and violence. In any case, I'm openly stating they seem incapable of progress and suggesting we take over, establish order and proper education systems, and put them on the right path towards proper self government. This is at the very least a consistent argument. The other said says they are equal, independant nations worthy of respect on the international stage - but at the same time want to treat them like welfare lifers, pouring in charity money, forgiving debts (many of which were stupidly or corruptly incurred), and expecting the other world nations to be nice and pat them on their collective heads and not treat them like we do each other.

I think that's a fallacy because I haven't really seen the latter viewpoint expressed. But I'l leave this out for now.

[Black Dog]

Well, pulling out at this point certainly would. After a constitution is created and an Iraqi government is legitimately elected I expect the situation to change. I think at that point Iraqi's Shias will start thinking of the government as "theirs", and with Al Sistani and company urging them on, the Iraqi military and police (with the inevitable new recruits from the Shia mosques) will find a new purpose and will in fighting the "insurgency". I expect this to result in poor treatment for Iraq's Sunnis until the insurgency is brought under control. But it will be brought under control.

What happens thereafter is a crap shoot. In a perfect world there would be some kind of consolidation with the Kurds, and then more moderate members of the Sunni minority would be allowed more influence. Will that happen? Dunno.

I've been mulling this over and have figured out a cdouple of issues I have with it.

One: the whole notion that U.S. withdrawl will lead to civil war is based on the assumption that the US presence is a stabilizing factor there. It's not. We're seeing fewer attacks on Americans (as they revert to force protection mode) and more attacks on Iraqis. I would postulate that we're already seeing a civil war in miniature.

The big problem with your scenario specifically is that you say a withdrawl will lead to civil war, yet your analysis points to civil war as an inevitability. You've just cloaked the Shia faction in the veneer of legitimacy brought on by their dominance of the government. Your "bringing the insurgency under control" is just another word for a "hot" civil war, no?

I've said before that the reason this Iraq experiment will end in a failure is because Iraq itself is fundamentally damaged. The political arrangements to date simply don't match the realities on the ground. The religious and tribal divides are too deep to support the kind of unified, democratic Iraq the neocon bubbleheads envisioned. the way things are going, Iraq is headed towards becoming a theocracy with the dominant Shia majority exerting its will against unwilling and weakened Sunni and Kurdish populations. A sure recipe for a prolonged and bloody future. The only way this situation can be salvaged is if we dispense with the idea of Iraq as a unit and instead think of it in terms of a loose confederation in which each of Iraq's communities governs itself, and is capable of defending itself.

[Guest eureka]

That is a very perceptive analysis, BD. My thinking has been along those lines and I am glad to see someone expressing it so clearly.

[Argus]

Saying the Americans are the "globe's top supplier of arms" is both true and, in this context, somewhat dishonest. The Americans, after all, sell multi-billion dollar systems to places like, er, Canada, the Netherlands, the UK and Australia, among others. The systems they sell to the likes of Saudi Arabia also tend to be on the high end, ie, sophisticated fighter jets, few of which ever get used for anything. Meanwhile, the Chinese and Brazilians, among others, are pouring out the low dollar orders for AK-47s, mortars and grenades to every little bandit group and third world dictator around the globe.

Even if you strip away those advanced weapons systems, the U.S.A is stillthe globe's top supplier of small arms. That doesn't include the vast majority of small arms arms exported from the United States through direct commercial sales negotiated between U.S. companies or brokers and foreign buyers.

You have a cite for that? I'd like to see if it's by price, for example, where US goods are always much more expensive, and if it includes the US and NATO as purchasers

Intent is irrelevant!?  You try to compare morality of conduct and then state that the intent of those commiting that conduct is irreleveant?!

Do you really lack such basic understanding of what constitutes morality? 

Intent is in the eye of the beholder.

No it's not. Intent is in the mind of the doer.

Ie., "I have to shoot this guy because I think he's a terrorist with a bomb under that heavy coat and is going to kill us all any second", or, "I want to shoot this guy because I don't like his skin colour". Completely different intents, completely different moral outlooks.

It's flexible. Few crimes of war are committed without first being draped in noble intentions. The Rape of Nanking, Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the bloody Latin American dirty wars of the '70s and '80s etc etc. are all examples of horrific, immoral actions perpetrated in the name of good intentions.

Whether the doer considered his intentions good or not is beside the point (Who considered the rape of nanking to be draped in noble intentions?). The question is whether an unbiased observer would conclude that the intent of the doer was, in fact, moral or immoral, or somewhere in between. Every murderer believes the murder is justified - and to him it is, at least. But the question is whether it's justifable to others.

Because intentions are so indefinable,

No, intentions are perfectly definable. I did A because of B, C, and D. There, it's defined. If you ask the terrorists why they're killing people they'll have no difficulty telling you the whys and wherefores.

we must judge actions soely on their impact. A cop shooting a violent, gun toting assailant is morally justifiable in terms of self defense. A cop spraying a crowd of people with gunfire to hit a gun toting assailant is reckles and irresponsible.

Intent is not judged in isolation, it's judged in context. Spraying a crowd in order to kill one man is immoral unless the one man was about to explode a nuke and vaporise the city, in which case it's perfectly moral. If you judge only on actions then a cop who shoots a killer is as guilty as the killer who shoots the cop. The intent is largely the same, after all.

I don't believe I ever said "crazed turbanhead".

Certainly someone is going to have to do something about Iran or we're going to have crazed turbanheads with nukes - well, with nukes for about one day, which is all it'll take for them to use them.

Oh, okay <shrug> but in this context I don't have a problem with it. I think it's a perfectly apt description of Iran's rulers.

[Argus]

One: the whole notion that U.S. withdrawl will lead to civil war is based on the assumption that the US presence is a stabilizing factor there. It's not. We're seeing fewer attacks on Americans (as they revert to force protection mode) and more attacks on Iraqis. I would postulate that we're already seeing a civil war in miniature.

The big problem with your scenario specifically is that you say a withdrawl will lead to civil war, yet your analysis points to civil war as an inevitability. You've just cloaked the Shia faction in the veneer of legitimacy brought on by their dominance of the government. Your "bringing the insurgency under control" is just another word for a "hot" civil war, no?

Not precisely. First, I do think the presence of foreign troops is a stabilizing factor. They protect most of the organs of a fledgeling government and they minimize the options of the insurgents. The enemy can't, for example, start taking over cities and executing the leadership. Faluja was a lesson for both sides, there. So they're left to blow up cars here and there, which is ultimately nothing more than a nuisance (think about the massive, sustained bombing raids on London in WW2, and they accomplished what, exactly?) So the US presence buys time for a legitimately elected government to train its own people and take control of the situation.

Second - to a degree yes, I think what will inevitably happen is at least a sort of a civil war. But I think that with the cloak of legitimacy - not to mention tanks and APCs, intelligence organizations, and governmental structure on one side it will be a brief civil war. Most Sunnis will recognize the inevitability and not join in, leaving the fanatics to die, and their firebrand clerics and leaders to be hanged, shot or blown up.

I've said before that the reason this Iraq experiment will end in a failure is because Iraq itself is fundamentally damaged. The political arrangements to date simply don't match the realities on the ground. The religious and tribal divides are too deep to support the kind of unified, democratic Iraq the neocon bubbleheads envisioned.

I've long said that Iraq was doomed to civil war whenever Sadaam died (not that I'm a prophet, many others have too), for much the reasons you cite. None of Iraq's major ethnic groups seems to have leaders with much understanding of or experience in compromise, and compromise is a requirement for democratic government. I will say that they have a far better chance of reaching some kind of understanding this way than they would have if Saddam simply keeled over dead one day or someone put a bullet in his head.

the way things are going, Iraq is headed towards becoming a theocracy with the dominant Shia majority exerting its will against unwilling and weakened Sunni and Kurdish populations. A sure recipe for a prolonged and bloody future.

Well, there are theocracies, and then there are theocracies. How bad it gets in Iraq depends in large measure on the leaders of the various factions, especially Al Sistani (the kurds, btw, are hardly a weakened population). And a theocracy doesn't have to be in place forever. I think to some degree it was inevitable because Iraqis don't trust anyone but their clerics. As in Iran, though, they will come to realize their clerics are untrustworthy too after a few years of rule. And if things aren't as hard-line as they are in Iran(and at this time they don't look like they will get that way), a reversion to some form of democratic rule and a softening of religious rules seems likely.

The only way this situation can be salvaged is if we dispense with the idea of Iraq as a unit and instead think of it in terms of a loose confederation in which each of Iraq's communities governs itself, and is capable of defending itself.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Don't know if that's possible given the presence of Iran and Turkey, and their antipathy to anything approaching Kurish self rule, not to mention the so-far blanket hostility and mindless violence of the Kurds.

[mirror]

Here is an interesting perspective about our Al Quaeda theories. Now before you rush off too quickly to condemn Parris please remember he is writing this article in the London Times, considered one of the most prestigious daily newspapers in the world by some. I think there is a lot of validity to what he is suggesting.

I name the four powers who are behind the al-Qaeda conspiracy

[GostHacked]

Well, it seems to be getting worse there in Iraq.

Insurgents have infiltrated the ranks of the Iraqi Security Forces.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4716531.stm

I guess the security is not as tight as it should be. So you still think that the war is being won? Now the enemy is among their ranks. How can you kill an enemy when it looks like the person you are to training COULD be the enemy? Hard to tell the difference. Hard to do your job. Security is TOTALY compromised when this is happening. Now who is to blame for this? The US? The Iraqis? Who?

The US will always be one step behind the insurgents.

Afghanistan is heating up again too.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor..._263/?hub=World

http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/stor...1536767,00.html

http://www.eitb24.com/noticia_en.php?id=78262

And those Navy Seals that got ambushed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4712885.stm

The focus should have been on Afghanistan and stayed there. When the focus was switched to Iraq, this allowed for many things. First off, they were after Osama Bin Laden. Even still today they cannot find him! This allowed for the festering of the remaining Taleban leaders and bought them time to organize a new movement. So once Iraq is dealt with (or rather IF it is dealt with), Afghanistan will have to be liberated again.

[mirror]

I remember attending a speech by Gwynne Dyer shortly before the US invaded Iraq. At the time he said the US will blindly go ahead having no idea what they are getting into, and then when they have a quagmire situation, the rest of the world will have to bail them out. Over two years later there is nothing I disagree with that Dyer said.

[mirror]

Ready to strike again

Well there is no doubt a massive hunt is underway in Britain to apprehend the culprits. I sure hope the bobbies can catch these suckers before any more damage is done. What a tough job. It must be like looking for a needle in the haystack. Do you think they will catch them before there are any more innocent people are killed? And if so, how you do think they will nab them? I haven't heard of any rewards being offered - perhaps they don't want to use that approach.

[mirror]

I am going to stick to my initial hunch that they were not suicide bombers:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/27/international/europe/27suicide.html?hp&ex=1122436800&en=d7cf626e3bc6e8c9&ei=5094&partner=homepage' target='_blank'>

Police Debate if London Plotters Were Suicide Bombers, or Dupes

[mirror]

This seems to be most unusual however I haven't followed British politics that much. Anyway good on Ms Blair for speaking out on behalf of human rights. We had our our own loss of civil rights in Canada when the War Measures Act in 1970 was brought in by Trudeau, perhaps the biggest blunder he ever made. It was overkill. That is why everything we do has to be measured very carefully so that we do not over react.

Blair v Blair in the War Against Terror