Doesn't everyone feel safer now?

[mirror]

So we are supposed to put up with these attacks on our cilivian populations just because the US wants oil in the Middle East. Screw it. The US needs to start looking at alternative sources of energy, change their habits, and get the hell out of Iraq, before al Quaeda ups the ante and use a dirty bomb next in the US or one of their allies.

[cybercoma]

So we are supposed to put up with these attacks on our cilivian populations just because the US wants oil in the Middle East. Screw it. The US needs to start looking at alternative sources of energy, change their habits, and get the hell out of Iraq, before al Quaeda ups the ante and use a dirty bomb next in the US or one of their allies.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You see, the idea here is to overthrow terrorist sympathizers because they are criminals endorsing murderers. Pulling out is going to do nothing but encourage these terrorists to continue attacking western states because they have the ridiculous notion that they are "winning" and their tactics are working.

[Black Dog]

There's a huge difference between blowing yourself up on a bus during rush hour traffic and dropping bombs on military targets that unfortunately are next to civilians. The first is intentionally trying to murder innocent civilians, the second is collateral damage that is sadly a part of war and is unavoidable. I'm sorry you can't see the difference.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: there's no difference between deliberatly targetting civilians with biombs and dropping bombs knowing that they will kioll civilians.

Furthermore, the dehumanizing language of "collateral damage" is precisely the kind of thing that stirs up anti-western sentiment and, in turn, incubates terrorism. The people who's husbands, sons, wives, daughters etc are blown apart by cluster bombs don't see their loved ones as "collateral damage" but the victims of uneccesary violence. The fact that you and other war apologists can't even acknowledge these events as the death of individuals with teh same hopes dreams, emotions and aspirations as anyone of us is just salt in the wound.

Earler I posted two stories that passed without comment: one concerened a suicide bomber in Iraq who blew himself up while AMerican soldiers were handing out toys and candy's to kids, killing one GI and dozens of kids. If we are to apply your perverse, amoral calculations, this attack and the death of dozens of innocents was not a terrorsit act but a "unavoidable" aspect of war, since GI's are "military targets".

The reality is, the suicide bomber knew very well before he pushed the button that there were kids areound. he just didn't care, just as the F-16 pilot dropping bombs on Iraq towns knows his bombs will probably kill innocents and just doesn't care.

Do you understand what would happen to Iraq if they just "pulled out" as you're suggesting? This civil war would consume the country and religious fanatics would take over the government enslaving the people again.

Again: for the most part, its not religious fanatics doing the fighting. The religious fanatics, the Shiite clerics intent on instituting Sharia law, are the ones eagerly taking part n th epolitical process, knowing their majority status will allow them to do as they please. The core of the insurgency are remenants of the secular Baath Party.

[BHS]

So we are supposed to put up with these attacks on our cilivian populations just because the US wants oil in the Middle East. Screw it. The US needs to start looking at alternative sources of energy, change their habits, and get the hell out of Iraq, before al Quaeda ups the ante and use a dirty bomb next in the US or one of their allies.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No one said we had to "put up" with terrorist attacks. That our government has chosen a passive stance in the war on terror has been notably lauded by the Canadian Left. It's so much easier to remain judgemental if we don't pick a side, and let others pick our side for us. Just don't be surprised that nobody in the rest of the world gives a damn when it happens here.

You say "alternative sources of energy" as if the thought had never occurred to anyone else. What a brilliant idea!

Which allies? I thought the whole world was against America lately.

You'd love it if a dirty bomb went off in Washington, wouldn't you? The schadenfreude would be so stimulating. Here is the problem for the anti-Americans though - the American response to terrorism has been restrained, compared to what they are capable of. If a dirty bomb goes off in a major American city, you can count on Americans upping their efforts to remake the Middle East, not pulling out. And you can count on harsher attacks on civil liberties, to make the Patriot Act look like something the ACLU cooked up. And if there's any indication that Canadians were involved, you could pretty much expect our economy to tank with new, stricter border security measures in place.

In other words, every element of the war on terror that you despise would become that much greater overnight.

I hate to break it to you, but history is moving ahead with or without your approval.

[BHS]

Black Dog:

Your suicide bomber analogy is wrong. Given a choice of targets, American bombers would concentrate on denser military targets and leave individual gun placements in residential areas for last, hoping that they wouldn't need to be bombed at all. That a suicide bomber's first (and last) choice for a target is a single marine, surrounded by children, speaks volumes about why your moral equivalency is off base.

[cybercoma]

Black Dog:

Your suicide bomber analogy is wrong. Given a choice of targets, American bombers would concentrate on denser military targets and leave individual gun placements in residential areas for last, hoping that they wouldn't need to be bombed at all. That a suicide bomber's first (and last) choice for a target is a single marine, surrounded by children, speaks volumes about why your moral equivalency is off base.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He knows that, I would hope. I didn't even think it needed a response.

[BHS]

I'm not getting that from his post.

[Black Dog]

No one said we had to "put up" with terrorist attacks. That our government has chosen a passive stance in the war on terror has been notably lauded by the Canadian Left. It's so much easier to remain judgemental if we don't pick a side, and let others pick our side for us. Just don't be surprised that nobody in the rest of the world gives a damn when it happens here.

What are the "sides" in this?

You say "alternative sources of energy" as if the thought had never occurred to anyone else. What a brilliant idea!

Sadly, petro dependence is so pervasive that no existing technology or combination of existing technologies is sufficient to replace it. We can eitehr face the fact that our "way of life" is unsustainable and start taking drastic steps to change our expectations, or we can keep staggering toward sthe cliff.

You'd love it if a dirty bomb went off in Washington, wouldn't you? The schadenfreude would be so stimulating. Here is the problem for the anti-Americans though - the American response to terrorism has been restrained, compared to what they are capable of. If a dirty bomb goes off in a major American city, you can count on Americans upping their efforts to remake the Middle East, not pulling out. And you can count on harsher attacks on civil liberties, to make the Patriot Act look like something the ACLU cooked up. And if there's any indication that Canadians were involved, you could pretty much expect our economy to tank with new, stricter border security measures in place.

In other words, every element of the war on terror that you despise would become that much greater overnight

You don't see any problem with that course of action, then?

I hate to break it to you, but history is moving ahead with or without your approval.

That sounds like a line from the Third Reich.

Your suicide bomber analogy is wrong. Given a choice of targets, American bombers would concentrate on denser military targets and leave individual gun placements in residential areas for last, hoping that they wouldn't need to be bombed at all.

A weak defense mounted by someone who clearly has little knowledge of the military doctrines at work. The guerilla war in Iraq is such that there are no "dense military targets": no armoured divisions to bomb, no fortifications to pound. Also, the U.S. military's tactics and the emphasis placed on "force protection" tend towards the use of overwhelming firepower: they'll pound whole neighbourhoods flat rather than risk one grunt's life. The combination of the two means that targetting civilian areas (and accompanying casualties) is inevitable.

That a suicide bomber's first (and last) choice for a target is a single marine, surrounded by children, speaks volumes about why your moral equivalency is off base.

Actually it was a entire patrol that was targeted, of which only one died.

Two Army Humvees had parked in the street, and their crews blocked off a small area with razor wire and began giving gifts to children who immediately swarmed around them. A speeding Suzuki sedan plowed into their midst and exploded, turning a festive scene into one of carnage, witnesses said.

"The kids were laughing and playing with the solders when the suicide bomber drove his car bomb very fast into the crowd and blew himself up, killing all the kids who were around the soldiers, and some cleaners who were there," said Ali Hussein, a police officer.

And I'm sure the bomber would have prefered to call in an airstrike on the U.S. patrol, but such technology is beyond the insurgency's means. It's the nature of asymeterical war to fight with whatever means are available.

[mirror]

BHS

Dirty bombs can happen anywhere. Only someone with a twisted sick mind could come to the conclusion that Canadians would get pleasure derived from the misfortunes of others. If the people who are perpetuating this war in Iraq, and their supporters, were subjected to what the people in Iraq are being subjected to in Iraq, I can guarantee you that the war effort would be stopped overnight. Why don't the people sign up to go and fight there if they believe in the cause so much. People need to put their money where their mouth is. But cowards and bullies don't do that, do they?

[BHS]

What are the "sides" in this?

There's the side that I'm on: that the reasoning behind terrorist attacks is irrelevant, and we should pursue an aggressive policy of pre-emptive action to prevent further terrorism.

Then there's the side you appear to be on: all terrorism against us finds it's roots in our own actions, and so terrorist attacks are justified if not morally equivalent to our wrongdoing. Since terrorism is a product of this wrongdoing, we are morally obliged to put up with terrorism, and treat it as a crime stemming from our failure as a civilization.

On further reflection, my statement that we were waiting for others to pick a side for us is wrong. It's pretty clear which side we've chosen to be on.

Sadly, petro dependence is so pervasive that no existing technology or combination of existing technologies is sufficient to replace it. We can eitehr face the fact that our "way of life" is unsustainable and start taking drastic steps to change our expectations, or we can keep staggering toward sthe cliff.

As you yourself have noted (at least I think it was you) market forces and new technology will take care of the energy supply situation.

You don't see any problem with that course of action, then?

I'm not saying it's good or bad, just that in the event of a dirty bomb, this is what is likely to happen.

That sounds like a line from the Third Reich.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Congratulations. I believe you're the first person to infer that I am a Nazi in my history of posting to the web. In a way, it's kind of a right of passage for a Bush supporter, so I guess I should thank you. At the same time, way to scrape the bottom of the rhetorical barrel.

[mirror]

Tough General, Bad Approach

It appears that the one thing both sides can agree on is fear. The fear of being attacked by an enemy we don't understand. The rules of war have changed and history is at a loss to tell us what to do next.

Lost in the debate on Hillier's comments are two important facts that are supported by empirical data. First, that his views are based on a lack of understanding of the motivations behind the terrorist attacks and do not improve our safety. And secondly, that they do not reflect the views of a majority of Canadians.

Here is an interesting in depth article about Hillier, who IMO, is only going to make matters worse.

[mirror]

Congratulations. I believe you're the first person to infer that I am a Nazi in my history of posting to the web. In a way, it's kind of a right of passage for a Bush supporter, so I guess I should thank you. At the same time, way to scrape the bottom of the rhetorical barrel

You are the bottom of the barrel when you suggest that Canadians would derive please from seeing American cities bombed.

[BHS]

Congratulations. I believe you're the first person to infer that I am a Nazi in my history of posting to the web. In a way, it's kind of a right of passage for a Bush supporter, so I guess I should thank you. At the same time, way to scrape the bottom of the rhetorical barrel

You are the bottom of the barrel when you suggest that Canadians would derive please from seeing American cities bombed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But wouldn't they only be getting what they deserve?

[BHS]

BHS

Dirty bombs can happen anywhere. Only someone with a twisted sick mind could come to the conclusion that Canadians would get pleasure derived from the misfortunes of others. If the people who are perpetuating this war in Iraq, and their supporters, were subjected to what the people in Iraq are being subjected to in Iraq, I can guarantee you that the war effort would be stopped overnight. Why don't the people sign up to go and fight there if they believe in the cause so much. People need to put their money where their mouth is. But cowards and bullies don't do that, do they?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hmmm. Your argument is that America should cut and run from it's responsibility in Iraq, which I disagree with, and that makes me more of a coward than you?

[mirror]

In a follow up piece in the same paper on July 9th, Pape revealed that despite American counter-terrorism efforts, since September 11, 2001 Al Qaeda has been involved in at least 17 bombings killing over 700 people- more than all the years before 9-11 combined. Trying to make sense of the data he investigated further and found that " "Al Qaeda is today less a product of Islamic Fundamentalism than of a simple strategic goal: to compel the United States and its Western Allies to withdraw combat forces from the Arabian Peninsula and other Muslim countries."

Tracking the suicide bombers nationalities, he learned that the overwhelming majority of attackers are citizens of Saudi Arabia where the US has stationed combat troops since 1990. The rest have mostly come from countries like Morocco, Turkey and Indonesia- countries the U.S. considers allies in the muslim world. None came from Iraq, Libya or Sudan- America's main targets, and none came from Afghanistan until after the Western invasion in 2001. His conclusion? That Al Qaeda "might well collapse" if it couldn't recruit from countries where America is in combat.

Why don't we just leave other people alone to run their countries they way they see fit? Since when does the Western world have the answers for everyone? Often we can't even figure out answers for ourselves. I'm really tired of Christianity, and these born-again Christians, who feel they have to save the world when they can't even dsave themselves.

What is a really sad indictment of Canadian politicians and our political parties is that not one of the major party leaders in Canada challenged Hillier's comments, yet most Canadians are diametrically opposed to his approach.

[BHS]

BHS

Dirty bombs can happen anywhere. Only someone with a twisted sick mind could come to the conclusion that Canadians would get pleasure derived from the misfortunes of others. If the people who are perpetuating this war in Iraq, and their supporters, were subjected to what the people in Iraq are being subjected to in Iraq, I can guarantee you that the war effort would be stopped overnight. Why don't the people sign up to go and fight there if they believe in the cause so much. People need to put their money where their mouth is. But cowards and bullies don't do that, do they?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

By the by, if you'd care to reread my post, you'll note that I was suggesting Black Dog would derive that sort of pleasure, not "Canadians". Thanks for twisting my words.

[mirror]

BHS

Dirty bombs can happen anywhere. Only someone with a twisted sick mind could come to the conclusion that Canadians would get pleasure derived from the misfortunes of others. If the people who are perpetuating this war in Iraq, and their supporters, were subjected to what the people in Iraq are being subjected to in Iraq, I can guarantee you that the war effort would be stopped overnight. Why don't the people sign up to go and fight there if they believe in the cause so much. People need to put their money where their mouth is. But cowards and bullies don't do that, do they?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

By the by, if you'd care to reread my post, you'll note that I was suggesting Black Dog would derive that sort of pleasure, not "Canadians". Thanks for twisting my words.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ah, I don't think so.

[BHS]

In a follow up piece in the same paper on July 9th, Pape revealed that despite American counter-terrorism efforts, since September 11, 2001 Al Qaeda has been involved in at least 17 bombings killing over 700 people- more than all the years before 9-11 combined. Trying to make sense of the data he investigated further and found that " "Al Qaeda is today less a product of Islamic Fundamentalism than of a simple strategic goal: to compel the United States and its Western Allies to withdraw combat forces from the Arabian Peninsula and other Muslim countries."

Tracking the suicide bombers nationalities, he learned that the overwhelming majority of attackers are citizens of Saudi Arabia where the US has stationed combat troops since 1990. The rest have mostly come from countries like Morocco, Turkey and Indonesia- countries the U.S. considers allies in the muslim world. None came from Iraq, Libya or Sudan- America's main targets, and none came from Afghanistan until after the Western invasion in 2001. His conclusion? That Al Qaeda "might well collapse" if it couldn't recruit from countries where America is in combat.

Why don't we just leave other people alone to run their countries they way they see fit? Since when does the Western world have the answers for everyone? Often we can't even figure out answers for ourselves. I'm really tired of Christianity, and these born-again Christians, who feel they have to save the world when they can't even dsave themselves.

What is a really sad indictment of Canadian politicians and our political parties is that not one of the major party leaders in Canada challenged Hillier's comments, yet most Canadians are diametrically opposed to his approach.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What does Christianity have to do with any of this?

Promoting democracy means giving people, not warlords, the chance to make decisions about how their countries should be run. How can you live in freedom and willfully argue to deny that freedom for others?

Who are you to assume that the majority of Canadians are opposed to what Hillier has said and what he proposes?

[mirror]

Police to Check Bags on NYC Subways

Police will begin conducting random searches of packages and backpacks carried by people entering city subways, Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced Thursday after a new series of bomb attacks in London.

Better make sure your purses and bags are nice and tidy now that they are going to be searched.

[BHS]

Ah, I don't think so.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My only reference to pleasure was schadenfreude, in a paragraph when I was specifically addressing Black Dog. Read it again.

[Black Dog]

By the by, if you'd care to reread my post, you'll note that I was suggesting Black Dog would derive that sort of pleasure, not "Canadians". Thanks for twisting my words.

Your pants are on fire, BHS. You were addressing mirror.

So we are supposed to put up with these attacks on our cilivian populations just because the US wants oil in the Middle East. Screw it. The US needs to start looking at alternative sources of energy, change their habits, and get the hell out of Iraq, before al Quaeda ups the ante and use a dirty bomb next in the US or one of their allies.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No one said we had to "put up" with terrorist attacks. That our government has chosen a passive stance in the war on terror has been notably lauded by the Canadian Left. It's so much easier to remain judgemental if we don't pick a side, and let others pick our side for us. Just don't be surprised that nobody in the rest of the world gives a damn when it happens here.

You say "alternative sources of energy" as if the thought had never occurred to anyone else. What a brilliant idea!

Which allies? I thought the whole world was against America lately.

You'd love it if a dirty bomb went off in Washington, wouldn't you? The schadenfreude would be so stimulating. Here is the problem for the anti-Americans though - the American response to terrorism has been restrained, compared to what they are capable of. If a dirty bomb goes off in a major American city, you can count on Americans upping their efforts to remake the Middle East, not pulling out. And you can count on harsher attacks on civil liberties, to make the Patriot Act look like something the ACLU cooked up. And if there's any indication that Canadians were involved, you could pretty much expect our economy to tank with new, stricter border security measures in place.

In other words, every element of the war on terror that you despise would become that much greater overnight.

I hate to break it to you, but history is moving ahead with or without your approval.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[mirror]

So we are supposed to put up with these attacks on our cilivian populations just because the US wants oil in the Middle East. Screw it. The US needs to start looking at alternative sources of energy, change their habits, and get the hell out of Iraq, before al Quaeda ups the ante and use a dirty bomb next in the US or one of their allies.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No one said we had to "put up" with terrorist attacks. That our government has chosen a passive stance in the war on terror has been notably lauded by the Canadian Left. It's so much easier to remain judgemental if we don't pick a side, and let others pick our side for us. Just don't be surprised that nobody in the rest of the world gives a damn when it happens here.

You say "alternative sources of energy" as if the thought had never occurred to anyone else. What a brilliant idea!

Which allies? I thought the whole world was against America lately.

You'd love it if a dirty bomb went off in Washington, wouldn't you? The schadenfreude would be so stimulating. Here is the problem for the anti-Americans though - the American response to terrorism has been restrained, compared to what they are capable of. If a dirty bomb goes off in a major American city, you can count on Americans upping their efforts to remake the Middle East, not pulling out. And you can count on harsher attacks on civil liberties, to make the Patriot Act look like something the ACLU cooked up. And if there's any indication that Canadians were involved, you could pretty much expect our economy to tank with new, stricter border security measures in place.

In other words, every element of the war on terror that you despise would become that much greater overnight.

I hate to break it to you, but history is moving ahead with or without your approval.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Now please shut up!

[BHS]

Oops. Mea culpa. It's hard to tell you two apart.

[mirror]

Almost a year ago, Governor Pataki of New York said "With supreme guts and righteousness, President Bush went into Iraq". Pataki's son Teddy is, with supreme guts and righteousness, seeking a 3 year law school deferment. Gov. Pataki, who himself received a medical deferment from service in Vietnam, says he hopes his son gets the deferment.

This hypocrisy is what bothers me a lot. We will send other people's kids or other people into battle but not ourselves. Bush nor Pataki do not believe in war if it involves themselves or their kids bit it is fine for others. What kind of bravery or leadership is that?

[BHS]

mirror:

What's with "shut up" all the time? I've seen you post that more than once. It's almost as annoying as your tendancy to point out that personal attacks and dirty words are forbidden, in between posts where you slander entire demographics (eg. I don't think your use of the term "Christians" was appropriate at all). Why don't you shut up for a change?