Doesn't everyone feel safer now?

[BHS]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hmmm, that sounds pretty confindent. Am I to assume you have some unregistered firearms buried in plastic bags in the yard, perhaps? A panic room in the cellar? Fireproof underwear?An electronic thumb for hitching a lift off of our poor little backwoods planet?

[kimmy]

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.

I agree with all that. I think Iraq has proven to be a costly mistake, but I think it's very naive to think that we'd be all cool with the Islamists right now if it weren't for the Iraq invasion. It's a ridiculous claim, in my opinion, and yet you're far from the first person to offer that viewpoint.

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.

ok, now this, on the other hand, is less promising...

First off, it's not "that list the National Post is circulating." The audio tape in question was circulated all over the world, starting with Al Jazeera, and analyzed by experts around the world, and is widely believed to be the real thing. I know that some people believe you can discredit a news article by mentioning that it came from the Post, but in this instance the source material is tape that is well-known and widely believe to be legitimate.

Secondly, the Bin Laden tape was not the only source mentioned.

"Human targets sorted by level of importance," reads a list in the al-Battar Military Manual, a training manual masterminded by Saif al-Adel, one of al-Qaeda's most senior leaders, and distributed to supporters over the Internet.

Jewish targets top the list. Then, in a separate category called "the Christians," the manual states: "The grades of importance are as follows: 1. Americans, 2. British, 3. Spaniards, 4. Australians, 5. Canadians, 6. Italians."

The same sources are referenced by the Toronto Star article I linked to, if that makes you more comfortable:

The first warnings against Canada came in a November 2002 audiocassette reputedly recorded by Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

In the tape, the reclusive bin Laden identified Canada as one of several countries that would be targeted in retribution for their involvement in the United States' so-called "war on terror."

and

Then, in the spring of 2004, an online manual for Islamic militants called the Military Camp of al-Battar — believed to be run by Saudi Al Qaeda operatives — listed Canada as the fifth-most- important nation on a list of "Christian terrorist" countries.

And if warnings from 3 years ago or 1 year ago aren't fresh enough for your liking, then how about one from last week:

And Canada's new mission in southern Afghanistan — a hotbed of Taliban resistance — may heighten the rage of Al Qaeda and its satellite organizations.

The organization that immediately claimed responsibility for the London bombings said in a statement posted on an Arabic-language website they came as "a response to the massacres carried out by Britain in Iraq and Afghanistan."

The document was signed by a previously unknown group called the Secret Organization of Al Qaeda in Europe, and contained a stark warning aimed at the governments of Denmark and Italy, as well as "all the Crusader governments" — a catch-all believed by most terrorism experts to include Canada.

It continued: "They will meet the same fate if they don't pull their forces out of Iraq and Afghanistan."

--from the same Toronto Star article.

Is that more to your liking?

-{Kilo India Michael Michael Yankee}

[mirror]

Maybe we should all move to Italy.

I just said I had heard that the tape was discredited, it had nothing to do with whether or not it was in the National Post.

Look the dirty tricks that I have seen come out the current White House crowd makes Richard Nixon appear like a saint. It would not surprise me for one second that they would fabricate something like that. Having said that I am not saying Bush & Co. did it, and I am not saying that we do not have to be vigilant in Canada. I do not think however that Canada is at the top of the list for terrorist attacks. Maybe for the 2010 Olympics in Vancouver, we will be, who knows.

I am quite sure whatever is really going on we are not going to reading about it in our newspapers.

Here is a tragic but fascinating read about the London attack. It seems that the so-called suicide bombers might not even have known they were going to die themselves. And I do believe we do owe a big vote of gratitude to those security forces personnel that are hunting these murderers down, knowing sometimes they are dealing with killers and impossible timelines.

One thing about that person they have arrested in Egypt. If he is so innocent why he not just return to the UK of his own volition, instead of forcing the UK to go through the extradiction process? And now I have even heard that Egypt is refusing to extradict him.

Britain's enemy within

[BHS]

One thing about that person they have arrested in Egypt. If he is so innocent why he not just return to the UK of his own volition, instead of forcing the UK to go through the extradiction process? And now I have even heard that Egypt is refusing to extradict him.

Britain's enemy within

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Because it gives them (the Egyptians) more time to torture a confession out of him, so that he can be presented in trade for whatever the Egyptians think they can get for him. Dumb bugger. (Him, not you.)

Just in passing, did you really mean to write "so-called suicide bombers" or should it have been "alleged suicide bombers"? Because, if you acknowledge that the dudes identified in the video surveylance with the backpacks are the guys who did the job, and they died in the explosions, it's pretty plain that they're "suicide bombers" no matter how you slice it.

[mirror]

Actually I should have said those London murderers, not so-called suicide bombers, and yes, they are the ones you saw on that CCTV tape. There is no confirmation from the police that they were suicide bombers. Seriously.

Maybe I'm splitting hairs here, but it is possible they did not realize they were going to die themselves and that someone else set off the bombs by remote control or mislead them as to the timer or timing of the explosions.

There is confirmation now however of a direct link to al Quaeda.

[mirror]

I actually think that the US war on terror has actually increased terror in the world. Don't you?

Linda McQuaig says the war on terror has done absolutely nothing to get to the root of the problem

It's hard to imagine how the war on terror could be viewed as a success.

Among other things, terrorism is up sharply since the war to end it began — even before the horrific bombings in London last week. The number of serious international terrorist attacks more than tripled — to 655 last year from 175 the year before — according to U.S. government figures.

The Bush administration was hoping to keep these discouraging numbers secret, and so decided last April not to include them in its annual terrorism report to Congress. But congressional aides, briefed on the statistics, released them. It was the second year in a row the administration tried to hide a dramatic rise in terrorist attacks.

This raises the question: has the war on terror actually increased terrorism?

The present occupants of the White House are quite the crowd, aren't they!

[BHS]

I actually think that the US war on terror has actually increased terror in the world. Don't you?

Linda McQuaig says the war on terror has done absolutely nothing to get to the root of the problem

It's hard to imagine how the war on terror could be viewed as a success.

Among other things, terrorism is up sharply since the war to end it began — even before the horrific bombings in London last week. The number of serious international terrorist attacks more than tripled — to 655 last year from 175 the year before — according to U.S. government figures.

The Bush administration was hoping to keep these discouraging numbers secret, and so decided last April not to include them in its annual terrorism report to Congress. But congressional aides, briefed on the statistics, released them. It was the second year in a row the administration tried to hide a dramatic rise in terrorist attacks.

This raises the question: has the war on terror actually increased terrorism?

The present occupants of the White House are quite the crowd, aren't they!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There seems to be a number of McQuaig fans in this forum, so I make an effort to read her columns when I come across them. This was one of those.

To tell the truth, while I support the war on terror I believe it is analogous to the war on drugs, which has not been a success for the Americans. Like the war on terror, the war on drugs has seen an increase in the proscribed activity rather than a decrease. An amorphous, conceptual target is not as easy to hit as a radar station.

The question then arises: is the war on drugs responsible for increased drug use and acceptability? I suppose some arguments could be made to affirm this charge. A lot of people believe that making a thing illegal only makes it more desirable, for instance.

But we are without the possibility of exploring an alternate timeline where there is no war on drugs or war on terror. Who's to say that terror and drug use wouldn't have increased anyway?* The Americans pulled out of Lebanon after the guerilla attack in 1983. Between 1983 and 2001 numerous terrorist and guerilla attacks of increasing severity were perpetrated against American targets with only mild American rebukes. Do you think the World Trade Centre was their final big score, and after that they had planned to retire?

The war on terror is more than just sending in an air strike whenever something blows up in North America. It's also about vigilence on the part of ordinary people, and the willingness of the public to tolerate a loss of civil liberties to combat potential terrorist threats. It's about winning the hearts and minds of foreign populations who've lived their entire lives being taught that we have evil plans for their souls. It's about fostering and encouraging democratic movements in the most undemocratic places, and forming new relationships with countries that have changed.

I've read a lot of criticism about how America has treated the people of the Middle East in the past, and a lot of it is justified. I've also read posts where people have said that 911 didn't really do much to change our society.

But that's wrong. 911 was a watershed moment in the way the West views and relates itself to the Middle East. Complaining about how we used the Middle East for our own ends before 911 is kicking a dead horse. We don't have the luxury to take what we want and trust that the people we screwed will just fight among themselves. In a way, the terrorists have won. But not in the way they intended.

* (Here's a thought that I couldn't fit neatly into my argument: another analogy is crime prevention and deterance, potentially a "war on crime". Is crime prevention worth the effort? Or should the police sit around passively waiting for crime to occur, and do a minimal mop-up afterwards?)

[Riverwind]

Here's a thought that I couldn't fit neatly into my argument: another analogy is crime prevention and deterance, potentially a "war on crime". Is crime prevention worth the effort? Or should the police sit around passively waiting for crime to occur, and do a minimal mop-up afterwards?

In most cases the police are only part of the solution. Any effective crime fighting strategy has to look at the 'root' causes and address them. If your crimes are largely committed by drug addicts looking for a fix then you need to provide treatment facilities for addicts because the supply of drugs will never go away as long as there is a demand. If your crimes are committed by youth involved in gangs then you need to invest in education and community outreach programs that give marginalized youth choices. In these two examples, only stepping up enforcement would likely make the problem a lot worse. The same is true of terror. The problems in Northern Ireland did not start to subside until the British agreed to give the province a certain amount of autonomy. Similarly, it will be impossible to eliminate terrorism before the US pulls out of Iraq - we will be trapped in a vicious circle of killings as long as the US uses terrorism as an excuse to stay in Iraq.

[mirror]

Well I have read recently that the US is going to begin pulling troops out of Iraq next year. No doubt in time for the Congressional elections in November. Will this help? Who knows for sure?

Obviously this whole thing is about the rich against the poor. Until we learn to share and take care of those less privileged, we are probably going to have terrorism forever. We need to make it our goal to rid to rid the world of poverty but how to convince affluent people, that to do so, is in their best interests. Look at Canada, we can't even bring ourselves to spend 0.7% of our GDP on foreign aid. People need to be able to live with some realistic hope that their lives are going to get better. If we can't offer that we are doomed.

[BHS]

Well I have read recently that the US is going to begin pulling troops out of Iraq next year. No doubt in time for the Congressional elections in November. Will this help? Who knows for sure?

Obviously this whole thing is about the rich against the poor. Until we learn to share and take care of those less privileged, we are probably going to have terrorism forever. We need to make it our goal to rid to rid the world of poverty but how to convince affluent people, that to do so, is in their best interests. Look at Canada, we can't even bring ourselves to spend 0.7% of our GDP on foreign aid. People need to be able to live with some realistic hope that their lives are going to get better. If we can't offer that we are doomed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

One of the problems with the goal of ridding the world of poverty (a worthwhile goal to be sure) is the definition of poverty itself. I often see posts on internet forums where a poster is complaining about the widening gap between rich and poor, and the increase in the number of people who live in poverty. And it occurs to me, "this guy is using LICO statistics to define poverty". Which happens all of the time, despite the fact that Statistics Canada specifically states that Low Income Cut Off is not a measurement of poverty:

LICO

(read the first paragraph of the introduction)

The problem with using LICO as a measurement of poverty is that LICO is a ratio and will always exist, no matter what the lowest income in the country is. This leads to the absurd potential situation where everyone could be a millionaire living in luxury, and yet a set portion of the population would still have a sub-par income. Anyone using LICO to measure poverty would consider these people "poor".

A second problem of poverty activism is that it often conflicts with the concurrent goal of maintaining indigenous cultural purity in impoverished regions. What we in the West consider conditions of abject poverty are often the cultural norms of the society we are examining. That disease and malnutrition go hand in hand with these cultural traditions, is the traditional condition of those cultures. Trying to bring tribal peoples out of their "poverty" will inevitably mean forever changing huge swathes of their way of life.

[Guest eureka]

How many circles are there to go around? This "criticism" of LICO seems to surface with the regularity of the tides. No matter that Parliament used the measure for its definition of poverty. No matter that LICO is adjusted downwards once in a while so that the "newly wealthy" poor can be ignored.

No matter that the whole world, or the parts of it that care, uses the measure for comparative purposes. Of course, Statscan has the disclaimer. It is Statscan's job to produce figures not to make definitions related to social policy.

That the gap between rich and poor is widening should hardly be a matter of question now. Even in these discussions, there have been numerous references to the growing disparity (and links). LICO does not tell the whole story either. It does not bring out the deepening poverty of the lower end who are far below the "cut-off."

[BHS]

How many circles are there to go around? This "criticism" of LICO seems to surface with the regularity of the tides. No matter that Parliament used the measure for its definition of poverty. No matter that LICO is adjusted downwards once in a while so that the "newly wealthy" poor can be ignored.

No matter that the whole world, or the parts of it that care, uses the measure for comparative purposes. Of course, Statscan has the disclaimer. It is Statscan's job to produce figures not to make definitions related to social policy.

That the gap between rich and poor is widening should hardly be a matter of question now. Even in these discussions, there have been numerous references to the growing disparity (and links). LICO does not tell the whole story either. It does not bring out the deepening poverty of the lower end who are far below the "cut-off."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You appear to be emloying the ad populum fallacy. I'm not criticizing LICO per se, just it's employment as a measurement of poverty for political purposes, which is surely the reason why parliament has so abused it. The reason you see criticisms of this practice so regularly is because it's wrong, but it remains popular among poverty activists because it "proves" that poverty is a growing problem.

That the difference between the wealth of rich and poor is widening is inevitable given the effect of inflation alone. It is also irrelevant. The rich getting richer is not related to the poor getting poorer. Wealth creation is not a zero sum game. Information about the gap does nothing to illustrate the condition of the poorest people, or if there is in fact "deepening poverty".

[Riverwind]

It is also irrelevant. The rich getting richer is not related to the poor getting poorer. Wealth creation is not a zero sum game. Information about the gap does nothing to illustrate the condition of the poorest people, or if there is in fact "deepening poverty".

Here is an interesting quote from this week's Economist:

In 1979-2000, the real income of the poorest fifth of American households rose by 6.4%, while that of the top fifth rose by 70% (and of the top 1% by 184%). As of 2001, that top 1% nabbed a fifth of America's personal income and controlled a third of its net worth. Again, this would not necessarily be a cause for worry, as long as it was possible for people to work their way up and down the ladder. Yet various studies also indicate that social mobility has weakened; indeed by some measures it may be worse than it is in crusty old Europe.

In other words, the rich getting rich faster than the poor is a sign that something is wrong in society. The economist magazine seems to feel that the fact that social mobility has declined is unrelated to the increase in wealth disparties. I disagree - I feel the increase in wealth disparties leads to less social mobility as the wealthy are able to use their money and influence to buy better education and politicians than than the middle class and lower class can afford. Eventually the gap will be so large that social mobility will disappear (unless you count the middle class drifting in poverty as 'social mobility').

[BHS]

Here is an interesting quote from this week's Economist:

In 1979-2000, the real income of the poorest fifth of American households rose by 6.4%, while that of the top fifth rose by 70% (and of the top 1% by 184%). As of 2001, that top 1% nabbed a fifth of America's personal income and controlled a third of its net worth. Again, this would not necessarily be a cause for worry, as long as it was possible for people to work their way up and down the ladder. Yet various studies also indicate that social mobility has weakened; indeed by some measures it may be worse than it is in crusty old Europe.

In other words, the rich getting rich faster than the poor is a sign that something is wrong in society. The economist magazine seems to feel that the fact that social mobility has declined is unrelated to the increase in wealth disparties. I disagree - I feel the increase in wealth disparties leads to less social mobility as the wealthy are able to use their money and influence to buy better education and politicians than than the middle class and lower class can afford. Eventually the gap will be so large that social mobility will disappear (unless you count the middle class drifting in poverty as 'social mobility').

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I fail to see the problem with this.

[Riverwind]

I disagree - I feel the increase in wealth disparties leads to less social mobility as the wealthy are able to use their money and influence to buy better education and politicians than than the middle class and lower class can afford. Eventually the gap will be so large that social mobility will disappear (unless you count the middle class drifting in poverty as 'social mobility').

I fail to see the problem with this.

It took about 4000 years to free human society from feudalism. You sound like you are nostalgic for the 'good old days' of hereditary monarchs and 'droit du seigneur'. I beleive that government has an obligation to ensure that everyone in society has an equal opportunity to succeed - this does not necessarily mean equal outcomes - just equal opportunity. Social mobility is one of the key measures of whether the government is succeeded in providing equality of opportunity.

[BHS]

I disagree - I feel the increase in wealth disparties leads to less social mobility as the wealthy are able to use their money and influence to buy better education and politicians than than the middle class and lower class can afford. Eventually the gap will be so large that social mobility will disappear (unless you count the middle class drifting in poverty as 'social mobility').

I fail to see the problem with this.

It took about 4000 years to free human society from feudalism. You sound like you are nostalgic for the 'good old days' of hereditary monarchs and 'droit du seigneur'.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I fail to see how merely being wealthy equates to feudalism or inherent political/social privilege.

[Riverwind]

It took about 4000 years to free human society from feudalism. You sound like you are nostalgic for the 'good old days' of hereditary monarchs and 'droit du seigneur'.

I fail to see how merely being wealthy equates to feudalism or inherent political/social privilege.

It does if wealth disparities get so large that social mobility disappears. Then you have a situation where the only way to be wealthy is to be born wealthy. No different than the old feudal systems.

[BHS]

It took about 4000 years to free human society from feudalism. You sound like you are nostalgic for the 'good old days' of hereditary monarchs and 'droit du seigneur'.

I fail to see how merely being wealthy equates to feudalism or inherent political/social privilege.

It does if wealth disparities get so large that social mobility disappears. Then you have a situation where the only way to be wealthy is to be born wealthy. No different than the old feudal systems.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Except for the inherent entitlements, droit de seigneur, place in the House Of Lords, permission to raise taxes and private armies, etc. etc. etc. being rich and being a lord are exactly the same.

I'm never going to be in the top 1%. I probably won't ever make the aquaintence of those people. But I probably won't ever associate with Portuguese fishermen or Australian aborigines or Czeck countesses either. What do I care, if my life is as good as I want it to be?

[mirror]

I know some of you feel that regardless of the US invasion of Iraq those London bombings would have occured. Well I am here to tell you that you are completely wrong, and that the UK's siding up to the insane polices of GW are precisely why London got hit. It is just common sense to me, but don't take my word for it. Take the word of experts:

Report ties London bombs to Iraq war

[Guest eureka]

That is not an ad populum fallacy: it is not a fallacy at all. Those measures are accepted around the world by governments, not just "poverty activists" whatever they may be. They are used bu UNESCO among other UN bodies.

Sparhawk's figures ought to be enlightening but they don't tell the whole story. The bottom fifth have not done well but the bottom tenth have fared much worse and are actually much worse off than they were a decade or so ago That is, to concentrate on Canada, because of the devastating impact of the limiting of Unemployment insurance and the reduction of welfare rates. The bottom tenth in Canada are in a desperate situation and it is worse in our neighbours.

To decide whether something is any kind of fallcy, it is necessary to understand the statement. And, fallacy is a word too easily bandied about by debaters who don't want to debate facts.

[BHS]

I know some of you feel that regardless of the US invasion of Iraq those London bombings would have occured. Well I am here to tell you that you are completely wrong, and that the UK's siding up to the insane polices of GW are precisely why London got hit. It is just common sense to me, but don't take my word for it. Take the word of experts:

Report ties London bombs to Iraq war

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Interesting. You conveniently failed to mention that the British government rejects the conclusions of the report, or that your "experts" were researchers from left-leaning British think-tanks with a history of opposing the war for political reasons. Your post read like the expert opinions were not in dispute.

As for the report's primary conclusion (at least I assume it's primary, having only read the CBC story) is that the war in Iraq has given Al Qaeda a fundraising and recruitment boost. But that's a moot point. ANYTHING the Americans might have done in response to 911, from frying the entire Middle East to cowering in abject terror, would have given Al Qaeda a boost. That was apparently one of the reasons Osama was pushing for the operation to go forward, against the advice of his lieutenants.

[BHS]

That is not an ad populum fallacy: it is not a fallacy at all. Those measures are accepted around the world by governments, not just "poverty activists" whatever they may be. They are used bu UNESCO among other UN bodies.

Sparhawk's figures ought to be enlightening but they don't tell the whole story. The bottom fifth have not done well but the bottom tenth have fared much worse and are actually much worse off than they were a decade or so ago That is, to concentrate on Canada, because of the devastating impact of the limiting of Unemployment insurance and the reduction of welfare rates. The bottom tenth in Canada are in a desperate situation and it is worse in our neighbours.

To decide whether something is any kind of fallcy, it is necessary to understand the statement. And, fallacy is a word too easily bandied about by debaters who don't want to debate facts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ad populum fallacy: the logical error of assuming that a premise is correct because it is accepted by a large number of people.

Without the apostrophe "neighbours" loses significant meaning. Are you referring only to the US, or also to Russia and Mexico and Greenland?

[Guest eureka]

It is not a premise! The rest needs no answer.

[Black Dog]

As for the report's primary conclusion (at least I assume it's primary, having only read the CBC story) is that the war in Iraq has given Al Qaeda a fundraising and recruitment boost. But that's a moot point. ANYTHING the Americans might have done in response to 911, from frying the entire Middle East to cowering in abject terror, would have given Al Qaeda a boost. That was apparently one of the reasons Osama was pushing for the operation to go forward, against the advice of his lieutenants.

Frankly, that's just wrong. For one thing, Al Qaeda doesn't really exist anymore in terms of being a cohesive organization with central leadership etc. Rather, Al Qaeda has become an ideological movement, its adherent scattered and operating independantly. This is a direct result of the "war on terror", which to date has had the equivilant effect of of destroying a dandelion by scattering its seeds across the lawn. It's hard to argue that thousands of Iraqis would have suddenly taken up arms against their occupires if there was no occupation, nor would foreign jihadis flock to Iraq to learn tactics and establish ties with other factions if the U.S. hadn't stepped in. So its safe to say that the war in Iraq has most definitely given Al Qaeda a boost, whereas yopur speculation that not invading Iraq would have given Al Qaeda a boost is mere speculation. Since we are dealing with the present realities, the point that western responses to terror to date have not hindered terrorism, but have advanced the cause of the "enemy" is decidedly NOT moot. There may be some value in that the 9-11 attacks place dteh U.S. in a Catch 22 situation, but its interesting that the one main course of action that hasn't been put forward (that is: a re-evaluation of foreign policy and an decrease in foreign entaglements) is the only one that would have likely reduced the terrorist threat to western nations.

[Riverwind]

I'm never going to be in the top 1%. I probably won't ever make the aquaintence of those people. But I probably won't ever associate with Portuguese fishermen or Australian aborigines or Czeck countesses either. What do I care, if my life is as good as I want it to be?

If income and wealth is distributed realtively equally in society then it is possible to provide a good number of government services with a reasonable level of taxation. If the wealth and income of society is concentrated in hands of a small number of people then it becomes necessary to tax the wealthy at a much higher rate to maintain the same level of services. Since the wealthy usually object to such things and can move their money to tax shelters, governments are forced to increase taxes on the middle class and/or cut services. This, in turn, reduces the ability of the middle class to maintain its standard of living.

In other words, you should be concerned about income disparities in society even if you believe your income is rising and you don't believe you will ever be in the extreme upper or lower classes.