Doesn't everyone feel safer now?

[cybercoma]

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}>

Obviously it's not about the crude, since that has been an underlying issue for years and they didn't do it sooner. Let's not forget that the prices are worse now than ever and the united States will soon purchase more oil from Canada than Saudi Arabia.

Oil is a very small piece of the puzzle.

[mirror]

Most Americans have finally lost confidence in Bush and his pretexts for going to war in Iraq. I thought most Canadians had already done that a long time ago.

History will show U.S. lusted after oil

[cybercoma]

Most Americans have finally lost confidence in Bush and his pretexts for going to war in Iraq. I thought most Canadians had already done that a long time ago.

History will show U.S. lusted after oil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

sweet, give me a few minutes to dig up an opinion column I can pass off as fact.

[Guest eureka]

Kimmy, I am not at all sure that Bali had anything to do with the Australia intervention in East Timor. Something that has stuck in my thinking about the Indonesian invasion and atrocities is that Indonesian troops marched in to East Timor only hours after Ford and Kissinger left following a visit to Indonesia.

Why?

[Riverwind]

Obviously it's not about the crude, since that has been an underlying issue for years and they didn't do it sooner.  Let's not forget that the prices are worse now than ever and the united States will soon purchase more oil from Canada than Saudi Arabia.

Oil is a very small piece of the puzzle.

Right, it was just a convenient, if unvoiced, excuse to help justify the rediculous cost of the war to the american public. The Iraq war was all about proving to the world that the US could and would invade any country that defied them. It was gamble that could have paid off but has turned into a miserable failure.

[kimmy]

Kimmy, I am not at all sure that Bali had anything to do with the Australia intervention in East Timor. Something that has stuck in my thinking about the Indonesian invasion and atrocities is that Indonesian troops marched in to East Timor only hours after Ford and Kissinger left following a visit to Indonesia.

Why?

eureka, I don't know what ulterior motives may have underlain the carnage in East Timor. I don't know what ulterior motives may have underlain Australia's decision to intervene (although, "because the UN asked them to" might be one explanation.)

However, Bin Laden himself declared that intervention to be "a trespass against Islam" and warned of dire consequences. And after the Bali bombing he issued a tape praising it as a deserved retribution, though stopped short of claiming responsibility.

-k

[mirror]

Reading the following New York Times article about the Muslim communities in the UK makes me realize what a huge challenge it is going to be to turn some of these people around. It may never happen unless the UK decides to changes its foreign policies.

Anger Burns on the Fringe of Britain's Muslims

[BHS]

Reading the following New York Times article about the Muslim communities in the UK makes me realize what a huge challenge it is going to be to turn some of these people around. It may never happen unless the UK decides to changes its foreign policies.

Anger Burns on the Fringe of Britain's Muslims

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Or, unless it decides to drop the concept of multiculturalism, which has clearly kept these people from joining the mainstream of British society.

[mirror]

I think it is a bit too late for that although there obviously is going to have be some major changes made on both sides of this mess.

[Argus]

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}>

I disagree that Iraq has nothing to do with th ewar against terrorism. The arab world has been on a downward spiral for decades, with no hint of emerging democratic values. The growing religious zealotry is partly a response to that. If the west wants to do something to eliminate the causes of terrorism in the Arab world it needs to shake up that world. It couldn't do that from the outside, so the Americans are having a go at shaking it up from inside. Might not work. But at least they're trying. If the US can produce a successful, semi-democratic state in Iraq it will put intense pressure on all the dictators in the middle east to allow more democracy and freedom (we've already seen some of this in Lebanon recently). Why do you think none of them are supporting the US in any way? Why do you think the Syrians and Iranians and even the Saudis are allowing would-be jihadists to flow freely across their borders into Iraq? Because they sympathise with the Iraqi people? Get real.

[Argus]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The only reason the US hasn't already clobbered North Korea is because of its proximity to the major cities of South Korea. The casualties when the crazy commies start attacking them would be too high, so the US has little alternative but to try negotiations.

And in case you hadn't noticed, the US IS the only indispensible country.

[Argus]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The British have stopped most of them. Are you suggesting that was a waste of time? And how do cameras limit your freedom? You afraid to scratch yourself in case someone is watching? As for guards, Canada has far fewer police than anyone else. We could double the number of police on the streets and still wouldn't have as much as the French had before anyone ever cared about Iraq.

[Argus]

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.

It's funny that everyone seems to be taking it for granted that Muslims everywhere will rise up and attack people - even their fellow citizens - on behalf of Muslims half a world away in a country they've never been to.

And yet no one is talking about the obvious.

Does it mean you can't trust Muslims? Does it mean all Muslims are potential traitors to their country? There has been talk before about the dual loyalty of Jews to their own country, and to Israel. Even Joe Clark said it. But so far no one has talked about Muslims in this way.

If the loyalty of a Muslim is not to his nation but to those others of his reliigion, even in a hostile country a world away then that would seem to provide a need to be much more careful about letting Muslims become citizens. Also, no Muslim should ever be given a security clearance, and all Muslim groups would need to be watched much more carefully for disloyalty. Would you allow a Muslim to join the army, for example? The US has already had a Muslim soldier attack his fellow soldiers in Kuwait.

Does this sort of sentiment among Muslims mean they are untrustworthy citizens?

All the Japanese Americans and Canadians were rounded up during WW2 in case they sympathised with Japan and acted against Canada and the US, but to my knowledge not one Japanese Canadian or Japanese American ever did. Clearly you can't say the same about Muslims.

[Argus]

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, that is the main issue. You are simply using Iraq as the example because you feel morally rightteous while doing so. Apparently you feel attacking the US for Iraq is much easier to defend than attacking Australia for East Timor or anyone else for Darfur.

[Argus]

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!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

People inevitably bring up the Oklahoma bombing as a counter against the suggestion Muslim extremists have a lock on violence.

Thing is, that was one incident with two guys. So you place those two guys on a scale with what, 100,000 Muslim extremists? And you figure that balances out?

[cybercoma]

I wonder if there ever will come a time when Muslim extremists will realize that violence will not get them what they want.

[mirror]

Of course the US should go after the perpetuators of 9/11 and no one is suggesting otherwise except that Bush had a plan to go to war in Iraq even before he was elected. Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 and by US invading Iraq it has slowed down defeating the al Quaeda organization whatever it is.

All I am suggesting is that most Muslims are OK, just like most Jews are OK, and just like most Christians are OK but because of our indiscrimminate bombing/killing of innocent civilians we are now paying the price. If you don't like it don't bomb innocent people who have nothing to do with al Quaeda because all you end up doing is create more support, and more suicide bombers for your enemy. If we up the ante they will up the ante and the next thing that will happen is that dirty bombs will begin to be used in future sucide attacks.

Is that what you want to happen next?

[kimmy]

All I am suggesting is that most  Muslims are OK, just like most Jews are OK, and just like most Christians are OK but because of our indiscrimminate bombing/killing of innocent civilians we are now paying the price. If you don't like it don't bomb innocent people who have nothing to do with al Quaeda because all you end up doing is create more support, and more suicide bombers for your enemy.

I agree with this part. The invasion of Iraq has proven to be a huge mistake that has undoubtably inflamed the fervor of the fanatics, and driven some Muslims towards extremist doctrines.

The continuing occupation of Iraq is also diverting resources that could better be used elsewhere.

Of course the US should go after the perpetuators of 9/11 and no one is suggesting otherwise except that Bush had a plan to go to war in Iraq even before he was elected. Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 and by US invading Iraq it has slowed down defeating  the al Quaeda organization whatever it is.

So going to Afghanistan after Al Qaeda was ok, and justified, in your opinion? That's how I feel too. But let's be clear: Muslim extremists do not share that view. As I keep saying... just because it seemed like a reasonable step to us westerners doesn't mean that the terrorists will agree that it was reasonable or justified. As you'll recalled, Bin Laden and friends were more than a little upset that we joined the invasion of Afghanistan:

Canada was also directly named by bin Laden in an audio address warning the U.S.'s allies.

"What do your governments want from their alliance with America in attacking us in Afghanistan?" bin Laden asked in Arabic.

"I mention in particular Britain, France, Italy, Canada, Germany and Australia.... You will be killed just as you kill and will be bombed just as you bomb."

National Post: we're still on Al Qaeda's list

And interestingly enough, all of this comes just as Canada is set to step up operations in Afghanistan.

I find it baffling that some people think our decision not to go to Iraq makes us safe from the extremists. I find it baffling that people seem to think that if the US had not invaded Iraq, we would not now seeing these attacks carried out in the name of Afghanistan instead.

Why do people think the extremists see a difference between the invasion of Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq? Do you think extremists thought it over an decided "you know, the invasion of Afghanistan was probably justified, but I'm pretty angry over Iraq." Nonsense. The extremists view the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq as one and the same: infidel aggression against the ummah.

-k

[mirror]

Be careful with that list of countries that the National Post is circulating as I have heard from some quarters that that audiotape has been discredited and is not authentic. Apparently there was a retraction after the original details were circulated athough like any correction it was buried in the back pages.

[Argus]

Of course the US should go after the perpetuators of 9/11 and no one is suggesting otherwise except that Bush had a plan to go to war in Iraq even before he was elected. Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 and by US invading Iraq it has slowed down defeating  the al Quaeda organization whatever it is.

All I am suggesting is that most  Muslims are OK, just like most Jews are OK, and just like most Christians are OK but because of our indiscrimminate bombing/killing of innocent civilians we are now paying the price.

How come Syria isn't paying the price for its slaughter of civilians? How come Iran isn't paying the price for the brutality of its government? How come these muslims, so outraged at our violent ways, don't see fit to blow up Indonesian ministers or Libyan mlitary people or any of their own brutal, thuggish police?

How come the same people outraged at the evil of the Americans welcome the Taliban into their homes and vow their help in punishing the evil infidels? How come Muslims think it's okay for Muslims to commit brutalities and murders and only care when non-Muslims do it?

The average Muslim is okay. Just like the average German in 1930s Germany wasn't a bad sort either. But tens of millions of them support terrorism and extremism, and so the problem is not just the extremists but Muslims themselves.

[Riverwind]

I find it baffling that some people think our decision not to go to Iraq makes us safe from the extremists.  I find it baffling that people seem to think that if the US had not invaded Iraq, we would not now seeing these attacks carried out in the name of Afghanistan instead.

You are probably correct that extremists would have tried to use Afganistan as an excuse if the invasion of Iraq never happened. However, the difference is these extremists would not have the unspoken 'moral' support from moderates in virtually every Islamic country nor would there be the moral support from significant segments of the population in Western countries. In other words, the Iraq invasion pissed aways all of the good will and sympathy the Americans had after 9/11 and created an environment where muslims feel like they are helpless victims of an American bully.

[mirror]

Or, unless it decides to drop the concept of multiculturalism, which has clearly kept these people from joining the mainstream of British society.

Like it or not we live in multiculteral societies which are only going to continue to grow with their cultural diversities.

I don't know what the figures are for Canada and the US, does anyone know what they are, but Europe already has 20 million Muslims, and so we had better learn to somehow live together much better than we have so far, as Muslims are here to stay.

The system is broken but not in the way most people think it is.

Average Muslim families are not our enemies. An ex-Canadian corporate crook, head of World-Com, just got sentenced to 25 years in jail for creating the largest fraud the world has every known. If we are going to blame Muslims for these attacks in London, 9/11, etc. then should we not be saying that all business people are crooks and should be locked up? That's the impression I am getting listening to some of the arguments here.

[Argus]

Average Muslim families are not our enemies. An ex-Canadian corporate crook, head of World-Com, just got sentenced to 25 years in jail for creating the largest fraud the world has every known. If we are going to blame Muslims for these attacks in London, 9/11, etc. then should we not be saying that all business people are crooks and should be locked up? That's the impression I am getting listening to some of the arguments here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

During a recent poll of CEO's Fortune magazine found that most of them wanted Ebbers to be all-but crucified. There was no sympathy for him, none. Many wanted him jailed for life.

A recent poll of the Muslim world, on the other hand, found tens of millions cheering on and praying for the well-being and success of Osama bin Laden.

The Muslims surveyed also displayed a massive, overwhelmingly negative opinion of Jews.

During their training in business school, every future business leader is taught the importance of following laws and security regulations, and lectured on ethics and honest legal practices.

Yet there are thousands and thousands of Maddrassas schools around the world teaching children that Allah hates Jews and Christians and any other non-believer, that Jihad was the most honourable and noble act of any Muslim, and that suicide bombing will get them a ticket straight to paradise, where they not only get a big pile of virgins, but can invite their family to join them!

Madrassas' hothouses of radicalism

Clinging to cultural identities

[BHS]

Or, unless it decides to drop the concept of multiculturalism, which has clearly kept these people from joining the mainstream of British society.

Like it or not we live in multiculteral societies which are only going to continue to grow with their cultural diversities.

I don't know what the figures are for Canada and the US, does anyone know what they are, but Europe already has 20 million Muslims, and so we had better learn to somehow live together much better than we have so far, as Muslims are here to stay.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The US isn't a multicultural society. Americans take great pains to assimilate newcomers before granting them citizenship. Though America has many, many Muslim citizens, they don't have the same problems with "ghetto" neighbourhoods full of seething resentment. Ironically, it's the UK's multi-culti attempts to make foreigners feel welcome that's making them feel different and unwanted.

[PocketRocket]

One thing seems certain; It's gonna get worse before it gets better.

Another seems certain, at least to me, Canada will take a hit before all is said and done.

The radicals who are doing this seem intent on putting the entire world on notice with a simple message; "No one is safe".

But some people have realized that simple fact for years.

Society is a thin veneer.

When things start to break down, the "civilised" man turns into quite a different animal.

What comes will come.

As one individual, I feel fairly well prepared.