Doesn't everyone feel safer now?

[mirror]

Shady

It sounds like you are completely brainwashed.

My major problem with this whole Iraq invasion by Bush & Blair is, if they were so sure they were doing the right thing, why did they lie about the reasons for going to war? It seems to me if you have legitimate reasons for doing things, you just need to tell the truth, which they didn't. So who is going to believe anything they say after that? And why would anyone?

[Shady]

Perhaps I could recommend a little reading to both of you before you continue to write as though you know what you are writing about.

I appreciate the offer, however, I absolutely know what I'm talking about.

Shady, if they are supporting terrorism then they are a threat and dangerous

No. Saudi Arabia does not support terrorism. Are there citizens within Saudi Arabia that do? Of course. But all things considered, the government of Saudi Arabia does not support terrorism. So to suggest they be invaded is laughable. Same goes for Pakistan. The government of Pakistan, does not support terrorism. However, there are large portions of the Pakistani population that do. You cannot compare the two to Afghanistan. Afghanistan was invaded and its government removed because they absolutely did support terrorism, and provided refuge to Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

It sounds like you are completely brainwashed

Some may say the same of you.

My major problem with this whole Iraq invasion by Bush & Blair is, if they were so sure they were doing the right thing, why did they lie about the reasons for going to war? It seems to me if you have legitimate reasons for doing things, you just need to tell the truth, which they didn't. So who is going to believe anything they say after that? And why would anyone?

Sorry, but I don't agree with your premise that Bush and Blair lied. If Bush and Blair lied, then France, Germany, Russia, China, and the United Nations all lied. Not to mention most of the rest of the world and their intelligence apparatus. Was there intelligence suggesting that Iraq possessed WMD? Of course. Was there intelligence that suggested Iraq possessed no WMD? Of course. However, as elected leaders, after 9/11, a decision was made, that such threats, especially when examining Iraq's history, couldn't be tolerated.

[Black Dog]

No. Saudi Arabia does not support terrorism. Are there citizens within Saudi Arabia that do? Of course. But all things considered, the government of Saudi Arabia does not support terrorism. So to suggest they be invaded is laughable.

The Saudi Government provides millionsin aid to charitie sthat act as front groups for terrorist organizations. The House of Saud also funds the religious schools that are the nexus of the radical Wahabbist ideaology theat promotes terror.

Saudi Arabia and terror

Same goes for Pakistan. The government of Pakistan, does not support terrorism. However, there are large portions of the Pakistani population that do.

Pakistan is another sponsor of terror. The ISI has historically backed extermist groups that wage terrorist vcampaigns in the disputed Kashmir region.

Pakistan terror hub

So you've got two key allies, who also happen to have deeper connections to the "Islamofascists" than Saddam Hussein ever did. Yet Bush is walking hand in hand (literally) with the new Saudi king and cozying up to Mushareff.

If Bush and Blair lied, then France, Germany, Russia, China, and the United Nations all lied. Not to mention most of the rest of the world and their intelligence apparatus.

I've shown eslewhere that there was no consensus on Iraq's WMD among the nations you mention. Russia, China and France never accepted the U.S./UK's intelligence on the matter.

[Argus]

I did not mention religious beliefs, so let's leave that factor out of this for now. I am not sure. It may all come from religious centers, but that is no reason NOT to invade if they support terrorists through those means. If the religion spreads hate, I would not consider it a religion anymore.

I would say, from what I have heard, that the Wahabi brand of Islam is extremely intollerent of all other religions and ruthlessly orthodox. If you want to consider that hate, well, it certainly creates the mindset in which hatred is fostered.

I am focusing on money and the support of terrorist groups outside Saudi Arabia. Are there ties to that nature? Any evidence to support my claim?

Nothing definitive. I would not say the Saudi government supports terrorism, except in Israel. However, there are something like a thousand Saudi princes. There are a tons and tons of very, very rich Saudis, and some of them certainly provide aid and money to terrorist causes. Bin Laden, as you are no doubt aware, comes from a wealthy Saudi family.

Saudi Arabia itself has, for some years, been pumping out hundreds of millions of dollars in support of the Wahabi school of Islam. It funds mosques and religious schools from Pakistan to Canada. Most of Canada's Islamic centres, mosques and Islamic schools have recieved money from Saudi "charities", and that money generally comes with strings attached, which include either bringing in Wahabi immams or at the least allowing Wahabi clerics to be guest speakers on occasion. Many American mosques are now operated by Wahabi clerics sponsored by Saudi Arabia, in mosques built by Saudi Arabia. Many of the madrassas schools in Pakistan, home of some of the worst extremists, are paid for by the Saudis. Spain has recently opted to take control of the funding for its mosques in order to break connections between Saudi money and what is taught in mosques and schools. So while you probably can't say that Saudi government money encourages terrorism, you could say that it encourages the religious extremism from which many of these terrorists take their inspiration.

Why all this pussyfooting around with Saudi Arabia if this IS the case? What do they have as collateral that prevents the US from invading?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Invading Saudi Arabia would be invading a "friendly" and "allied" nation and would infurate the entire Muslim world far more than invading Iraq. And unless you were willing to stay there for decades you'd never get anything friendlier than the current government. Anything which replaced the Saud family would almost certainly be far, far more hostile to western interests and much more religiously extreme.

[Argus]

Perhaps I could recommend a little reading to both of you before you continue to write as though you know what you are writing about.

But you never sound like you know what you're writing about.

So clearly reading these books hasn't aided you.

[Shady]

I've shown eslewhere that there was no consensus on Iraq's WMD among the nations you mention. Russia, China and France never accepted the U.S./UK's intelligence on the matter

That's being about as intellectually dishonest as one can be. Russia, China, France, Germany, etc didn't need to accept any intelligence from the U.S or UK. They had their own. They all had intelligence suggesting that Iraq possessed WMD and that Iraq was in violation of a laundry list of UN resolutions. They just didn't feel it was necessary to go to war over.

, there are something like a thousand Saudi princes. There are a tons and tons of very, very rich Saudis, and some of them certainly provide aid and money to terrorist causes

You nailed it again Argus. There's a vast number of rich Saudi princes all with their own agenda. Unfortunately some of whom provide aid to terrorists and terrorist organizations, especially dealing with Israel.

as we are about the actual actions of a country which has led to turmoil and blodshed?

The country that was responsible for turmoil and bloodshed was Iraq and it's leadership. They were the ones responsible for invading Kuwait. They were the ones responsible for seeking and developing WMD. They were the ones responsible for a continuing pattern of lies and deception. They were the ones responsible for dismissing weapons inspectors for a 4 year period. And they were the ones responsible for the bluff of WMD.

[mirror]

London bombs 'set off by mobiles'

So are they saying here these guys were not suicide bombers or what, eh!

Bizarre that the NYPD are releasing details about the London bombings. Isn't there some kind of protocol for these kind of things? Or is this another case of Yankees jumping the gun, before all the details are proven beyond a shadow of a doubt?

[mirror]

This article is dedicated to Shady and all the others who accuse people of supporting terrorism when they don't kiss the president's butt and believe all his lies. You know, for all the people who believe the tripe in the MSM instead of doing a little thinking for themselves.

Why 'War on Terror' Was Re-Branded

Former US Secretary of State Colin Powell had suggested "crime" as the frame to use. It justifies an international hunt for the criminals, allows "police actions" when the military is absolutely required, and places the focus and the funding on where it should go: intelligence, diplomacy, politics, economics, religion, banking, and so on. And it would have kept us militarily strong and in a better position to deal with cases like North Korea and Darfur.

But the crime frame comes with no additional power for the president, and no way to hide domestic troubles. It comes with trials at the international court, giving that court's sovereignty over purely American institutions. It couldn't win in the administration as constituted.

The abstract noun, "terror," names not a nation or even people, but an emotion and the acts that create it. A "war on terror" can only be metaphorical. Terror cannot be destroyed by weapons or signing a peace treaty. A war on terror has no end. The president's war powers have no end. The need for a Patriot Act has no end.

And remind the public of what Karl Rove said just weeks ago: "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war." The conservatives were wrong; had they been right, they'd still be talking proudly about the "war."

[BHS]

The war on terror wasn't rebranded. Rumsfeld started using a different euphamism on his on, and was reprimanded by Bush. The person who wrote this article is about a week behind the times.

We now have a situation for comparison. Spain intends to treating train bombing terrorism as a domestic crime. England intends to continue treating it as an act of war. We'll see which method gets the better results.

[mirror]

Actually it looks like England needs to focus on training their police.

Call to jail police over Tube train shooting

[mirror]

They said it appeared that the “entire body of information” that had been placed in the public domain since his shooting was wrong.

The leak will increase the pressure on Sir Ian Blair, Metropolitan Police commissioner, whose initial comments on the day of the shooting suggested that the shooting was “directly linked” to anti-terror operations and that the suspect had refused to obey police instructions when challenged.

But evidence given to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, leaked on Tuesday, disproved early reports that Mr de Menezes had been running away from the police, had vaulted a ticket barrier at the station and was wearing a heavy padded jacket that could have concealed explosives.

The documents also revealed that the 27-year-old Brazilian was unaware he was being followed and had been restrained by a surveillance officer before he was shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder on the day after the July 21 failed bomb attacks in London. It is understood police mistook Mr de Menezes for one of the suspects in the attacks.

This is beginning to look really bad for the police. Too bad! What a tragedy for all concerned.

[mirror]

Police may face public inquiry over shooting of Brazilian

Details from the post-mortem examination of the innocent Brazilian shot dead by police suggest Scotland Yard officers lied about the circumstances of the death.

Notes presented to the pathologist examining Jean Charles de Menezes, five days after he died, wrongly indicated the electrician was fleeing police shortly before he was shot.

The apparently misleading account could be highly damaging for Scotland Yard if, as claimed, it is proven to have been written by the Metropolitan Police. It would provide evidence the police continued to portray Mr de Menezes in a negative light and provided false information days after his innocence had been established.

What are we to do if our police forces can't be honest and above board and always tell us the truth?

[mirror]

Leading article: How to forfeit the public trust

In the space of just under a month, Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, has demonstrated how easily an organisation can forfeit the public's trust. Documents leaked this week from the ongoing Independent Police Complaints Commission inquiry into the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes have demonstrated how the police misled the public in the wake of their tragic blunder. It has also emerged that Sir Ian tried to prevent the IPCC from investigating in the first place. All this has stained the reputation of the Metropolitan Police.

At the heart of the matter is the question of why police used such lethal force. Before the 7 July suicide bombings on the London transport system, armed police officers followed some straightforward rules. This was itself a result of some high-profile mistaken shootings in the past - such as Stephen Waldorf and Harry Stanley. Officers were required to identify themselves to the suspect. They were to aim for the torso. And they were to reassess the situation after each shot.

No one is trying to put down the police here. The police bring their disrepute unto themselves by their own behaviour. I do think though the Britain should reconsider allowing the police to be armed, and perhaps we might want to consider this strategy for Canada as well.

[Canuck E Stan]

So much for feeling safer.

Report: Military has no emergency plan

CALGARY (CP) - A new report says that four years after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Canada still doesn't have a national plan to co-ordinate its soldiers and reservists in the event of war or natural disaster.

Military historian Jack Granatstein, who co-authored the report for the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute in Calgary, says there's no communication between the army, navy or air force reserves when it comes to crisis planning .

Granatstein says he's hopeful that the Forces will be made to co-operate following the creation of Canada Command in June, but he's seen no sign of it yet.

Granatstein says Canadians have to start asking tough questions, especially in light of the recent hurricane disasters in the U.S.

They need to know whether the Canadian Forces could get equipment and people and help in a disaster any faster than the Americans could in New Orleans.

Granatstein stresses that the military is aware of the shortfalls, but the federal government has not put enough money into the system to make any significant impact.

With this government, everything takes longer than it takes.