Doesn't everyone feel safer now?

[mirror]

Musharraf calls for jihad against Islamic militants

Security forces in Pakistan said today they have arrested 228 suspected militants and extremist clerics in a series of raids on religious schools and private homes over the last week after three of the four London bombers were found to have links to the country.

Good. He should have done it a long time ago.

[Black Dog]

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.

How can you expect to preempt something if you have no interest in what causes it? You want to cure a disease; you look for the virus, not kill the infected person.

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.

I didn't know you were a mind reader, dude. Oh wait: you're not, so stop telling me what I believe.

My position is pretty simple: Terrorism is a symptom, an expression of the anti-western sentiment predominant in the Muslim world, feelings rooted in western political, military and economic policies and dating back to the days of colonialism.

If we want to address the symptom, we must acknowledge our role in perpetuating the policies (such as supporting corrupt dictators that are sympathetic to our interests) that increase the anti-western sentiment that is the wellspring of radical ideologies that promote terrorism as a tactic and then change those policies accordingly. This would require us to change our own ways (such as curbing our dependence on oil), which would mean a radical adjustment to our way of life. The status quo is to blunder forward, reacting to terrorist threats with military force (like the U.S. Congressman who just said that if the U.S. is attacked again, they should respond by bombing Mecca) and thus perpetuate the same cycle of violence and stupidity that made radical ideologies a threat to begin with and would most certainly spell an end to our own freedom.

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.

Nope, wasn’t me. I don’t have a blind faith in free market magical fairy dust. I repeat: there is no combination of any alternatives that will allow us to continue consuming the way we do. The only way we can mitigate the crunch is by combining alternative fuels with drastic reductions in consumtion, reductions that will certainly spell and end to our way of life as we know it.

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.

So basically, the best way for the terrorists to “win” (if indeed, they “hate our freedoms”) is to keep on doing what they are doing now.

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.

Try reading for comprehension: I said

“That sounds like a line from the Third Reich.”

Which is pretty straightforward. I didn’t say you were a Nazi nor do I care to speculate on what an individual's core values are (I’ll leave that to you), but I simply stated that your comment on the inevitable march of history had distinctly fascist overtones.

Your line also reminded me of Agent Smith from the Matrix (“Do you hear that Mr. Anderson? It is the sound of inevitability”). If I said that, would I then be accusing you of being a killer computer program?

[mirror]

McLellan: No threat in Canada

There you have it folks. There is no threat to Canada so go back to your beers and your vlts.

[BHS]

Black Dog & mirror:

Thanks for the argument. I really do appreciate your views, and your knocking holes in my statements.

Black Dog: boiling down your last post, is it fair to say that, moving forward, the best strategy for the West is to pull out completely from the Middle East?

mirror: if Black Dog affirms the above, do you concur?

I'm going to keep my belief that America's strategy of going into Iraq, while perhaps not justified legally or by immediate historical events, was nonetheless the correct first step towards a freer, more peaceful world. If in the next few years it comes to pass that Iraq sinks once again into the tyrrany from which it has been raised, I'll join you in voicing my opinion that we need to pull out completely from that region of the world (assuming my above summation is correct).

[mirror]

I basically support what Mr Livingstone, the Mayor of London, says. There is lots of stuff on the 'net to explain what that means.

London attacks were meant to kill: police

For those people who think that today's attacks were anything less than 2 weeks ago, I am not so sure that was the intent of these would be killers.

Freedom of expression is a good subject to discuss because it is not all cut and dried like some people believe. We have societial norms that need to be followed and respected. We can't have religious clergy going around inciting violence any more than we should allow our military officers to incite violence. and maybe at one time it was acceptable to denegate jews or muslims, but this is no longer acceptable. What is acceptable in sociey changes too with time, and we have a responsibility to keep up with those changes, whether or not we agree with them. Smoking is another good example where things have changed, where once things used to be acceptable and now they are not. I think the same is coming for fat people as well.

[Black Dog]

Black Dog: boiling down your last post, is it fair to say that, moving forward, the best strategy for the West is to pull out completely from the Middle East?

That's not entirely accurate. For one reconizing the integrated nature of the global economy means that total isolationism isn't going to help anyone. I've used the term "constructive engagement" which I can summarize thusly: stop selling arms to repressive and undemocratic regimes (such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates). Reevaluate the western relationship with Israel. Start trading squarely with countries that do meet some standard for human rights. Offer aid incentives to countries that meet those same standards. All of which must be accompanied by a radical shift in our domestic way of life.

Basically I'm saying the west should take George Washington's advice:

"The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign Nations is in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible."

[BHS]

I basically support what Mr Livingstone, the Mayor of London, says.  There is lots of stuff on the 'net to explain what that means.

London attacks were meant to kill: police

For those people who think that today's attacks were anything less than 2 weeks ago, I am not so sure that was the intent of these would be killers.

Freedom of expression is a good subject to discuss because it is not all cut and dried like some people believe. We have societial norms that need to be followed and respected. We can't have religious clergy going around inciting violence any more than we should allow our military officers to incite violence. and maybe at one time it was acceptable to denegate jews or muslims, but this is no longer acceptable. What is acceptable in sociey changes too with time, and we have a responsibility to keep up with those changes, whether or not we agree with them. Smoking is another good example where things have changed, where once things used to be acceptable and now they are not. I think the same is coming for fat people as well.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not sure what smoking and eating have to do with freedom of expression. I can understand why people would want to curb smoking (to avoid second hand smoke) but why excessive eating?

[BHS]

Black Dog: boiling down your last post, is it fair to say that, moving forward, the best strategy for the West is to pull out completely from the Middle East?

That's not entirely accurate. For one reconizing the integrated nature of the global economy means that total isolationism isn't going to help anyone. I've used the term "constructive engagement" which I can summarize thusly: stop selling arms to repressive and undemocratic regimes (such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates). Reevaluate the western relationship with Israel. Start trading squarely with countries that do meet some standard for human rights. Offer aid incentives to countries that meet those same standards. All of which must be accompanied by a radical shift in our domestic way of life.

Basically I'm saying the west should take George Washington's advice:

"The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign Nations is in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree, about restricting arms sales to repressive regimes. You might have a tough time convincing the Europeans though.

I'm all for re-evaluating our relationship with Israel, but can you point out some specifics? I'm a little gun-shy about trying to read your mind just now.

I also agree about trade and aid.

Your quote leads me to believe that George Washington would not have approved of America being part of the UN, prefering to remain politically isolated from the rest of the world. Is that consistent with your opinion?

[mirror]

why excessive eating?

All the following relate:

Longevity and being proper role model for children

Drain on our health care system

Seating space for example on aeroplanes.

Meat eaters and the environmental costs of raising cattle.

[mirror]

Terror returns to London

Exactly two weeks after the deadly bombings of London’s transport system on July 7th, Britain’s capital has been hit by a fresh wave of attacks—though with few casualties this time. Were the four reported explosions the work of further members of the Islamist group that struck last time—or unrelated “copycats”?

What do people think?

If you have to go to London in the near future honestly would you take the tube?

[Argus]

Actually Lanclet the British medical journal projected last fall that there were already over 100,000 deaths in Iraq so that figure of 128,000 is probably accurate when you add both civilian and military casualties. Just because it is an Arab  website, if that is what it is, does not mean it is not accurate.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That study has long been discredited. It had a possible error rate of something on the order of 98%

[Argus]

Well there you have it folks. Livingstone by-the-way is not some raving religious nut of a suicide bomber, he is the mayor of London.

The two are not mutually exclusive. However, Lingstone is, I believe, one of those raving, pinko lefty types who invariably sympathize with dark skinned people no matter what they do.

The West of couse contribulted to these suicide bombings.

That smells like what's been sitting out back of the barn for a few weeks.

So when the people in the US ask themselves why they were attacked one of the things they can do is look in the miror.

So it's their own fault and they get what they deserve, just like women who dress up sexy and get raped, right? Or guys in really expensive clothes wearing expensive watches. They deserve to be robbed or killed.

Interesting world you live in. But I'm guessing it could use a better education system.

[Argus]

Perhaps we can put this baby to rest now as it is so painfully obvious that the UK presence in Iraq contributed to the London attacks.

Can we say that a man wearing a really expensie suit a Rolex, and gold chain, contributed to his beathing death by thieves because if he hadn't worn such expensive stuff he'd probably not have been attacked? If we do, does this excuse his attackers in any way or justify their actions? Also, can we say he was wrong to do what he did?

One of the problems with this type of screwy thinking is you're condemning someone because their actions (allegedly) inspired someone else to something without there being any evidence that this inspiration was at all reasonable.

Let us say these dumbass Muslims were outraged because the UK has too much blue in their flag. Do we blame the UK because of it? Do we suggest that they should change the colour of their flag so it won't offend wacko Muslims?

Let's look at wacko Islam for a minute. It worships a long dead murderer, a ruler in times where, to put it mildly, your political opposition was handled by various impliments of torture and murder. The stories of Mohamed's butcheries are legendary. He treated other nations as victims to be crushed under his heel and incorporated into his empire. And he was the perfect human.

So if the West was to adopt the same standards we'd long ago have butchered all leaders and all opposition in Muslim nations and simply taken over, converting all Muslims to Christianity by the sword, or killing them. That would be acting in the way their heroic religious leader did.

Yet Muslim wackos are outraged at our comparitively bland, mild and even-handed treatment of their people.

Why is that?

What have we done that Mohamed didn't do worse?

[Argus]

What Livingstone did say however is this:

Today, the Mayor condemned all suicide bombings but suggested that the "double standards" exhibited in Western foreign policy towards the Middle East had given rise to enormous feelings of antipathy among Islamic extremists.

What about the double standard of muslims? The double standard which pretty much excuses Muslim violence but gets hysterical at violence commited by Jews or Christians? What about the double standard of Arab media, which extensively covers every injustice, every death, every injury against a Muslim at the hands of a Jew or Christian, but glosses over or ignores violence commited against Jews (in particular) or Christians by Muslims? If Muslims are outraged at the mistreatment of fellow Muslims why aren't they killing members of the Syrian or Iranian or Libyan governments?

"I think the particular problem we have at the moment is that in the 1980s the Americans recruited and trained Osama bin Laden, taught him how to kill, to make bombs and sent him off to kill the Russians

Utter drivel. It's been long established that Bin Laden was never involved in any fighting in Afghanistan. He was a money man who went over on his own to volunteer. His involvement with the Americans was, at best, peripheral, and there's no evidence he ever got any kind of training.

"I have not the slightest doubt that, if at the end of the First World War we had done what we promised the Arabs, which was to let them be free and have their own governments, and kept out of Arab affairs, and just bought their oil, rather than feeling we had to control the flow of oil, I suspect this wouldn’t have arisen.

More drivel. To begin with, there's no evidence whatever that the middle east would have been any more pleasant a place to live, that there'd have been fewer butchers, less incompetence and corruption, or a better life for Arabs

Second, it presupposes that the world owed a special free pass to Arabs because.... because... why was that again? Oh yes, because they're an inferior people incapable by reason of a lack of intelligence and intellect, to look out for their own well-being! Which is typical leftist racism, never stated openly but quite implicit. I mean, if they're incapable of looking after their own interests because they're so easily manipulated by us clever westerners, then maybe they should all be in some kind of UN protectorate. Should we be bombing the US because we figure their government took advantage of ours in some way? If I decide I'm being screwed over by my insurance agent is blowing up his station wagon the way to go? Why is it tiny nations like Denmark can easily look after themselves and their people but enormous, ancient peoples like say, Egyptians, are nothing more than ignorant natives eager to trade away their land for shiny coloured beads, putty in the hands of the clever white man?

Third it ignores the fact that all nations try to further their own ends, try to get the best of every deal, try to manipulate their neighbours, their competition, their suppliers, their customers. That's the nature of the world and always has been. And not for one second should anyone figure that Egypt doesn't try to get the best of any deal with Sudan, or Syria doesn't try to screw over Iran in their dealings. But racists like Livingstone seem to take for granted that all non-white nations should be exempted from this sort of thing by White nations because... well, dash it all, it's so unfair to have the poor little darkies going up against the mighty white race!

And btw, if we're going to go into the historical injustice thing should we point out that Arabs were and remain the world's greatest slave traders? Should Black Americans be setting off bombs all over North Africa for what happened to their ancestors?

[Argus]

I thought it was pretty well established in the previous discussion of the deaths in Iraq that the number of 100,000 killed was no exaggeration. It was, as Black Dog implied, an extrapolation from the provable deaths.

Actually, what was pretty well established was that there was no logical, scientific or statistical basis for that claim.

[Argus]

Suicide bombers, in general, do not "kill" because of their belief systems. The root of suicide bombings is largely nationalism not religion.

Glad you've set the record straight there, Eureka. Do please tell us why suicide bombers are virtually unknown on this planet outside the world of wacked out religious goofballs. How come the Irish never used suicide bombers, or for that matter, the Basques? How come there are no Quebec suicide bombers? I mean, they've got a lot of nationalists in Quebec who must be pretty darned frustrated these days. For that matter, the Americans are pretty damned nationalistic. How come more don't see tons of suicide bombings there in the name of one political extremist or another?

[Argus]

Do you agree with London's mayor that the West has contributed to the growth of Islamic extremism? 

Yes      69%  17492 votes 

No      31%  7949 votes

 

Total: 25441 votes

So, if we have contributed to its growth, what can we do to contribute to reducing it?

Surrender? Convert to Islam, put bedsheets on all our women and murder all homosexuals?

Well for one thing, although it has nothing to do with Canada, we could encourage the Coalition of the Willing, what an absurd name, to pull out of Iraq which is on the verge of civil war anyways.

What a good idea! Then we can be sure there'll be civil war, with hundreds of thousands of deaths! And nobody will blame us for that, right?

Secondly perhaps Canada should consider pulling out of Afghanastan. What are we doing there?

Trying to help support the local government in hopes of ending decades of misery and violence in that land? But again, your idea is everyone pulls out, right? So that Afghanistan can return to being a shithole full of religious violence by wackos and endless intercine warfare by the warlords?

Thirdly we need to make the effort to get to know the Muslim people in our respective communities, and learn what it takes to be friends with them.

I don't think any nation on Earth has more politically correct governments than in the UK. They've done everything in their power ot make Muslims feel they are respected, wanted and accepted. Hasn't seemed to do anything but encourage feelings of alienation among many Muslims.

Fourth we need to ensure there really is equal opportunity for everyone in Canada, including Muslims.

Again, exactly as the British have done.

Fifth we need to listen more to people like Livingstone who know better than most what is causing the attacks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You seem to want to be exactly like the UK, which got bombed - twice. Do you actually WANT to see bombs going off in Canada or have you just not clued into the similarity between your desires and British national policy?

So to sum up. Your answer is, in foreign affairs, isolationism, let the Muslims slaughter each other. It's not like we should care anyway. And then when it comes to how to treat our native Muslims we should do exactly as the British have done - and got bombed for.

[Argus]

Two weeks ago today Londoners were attacked by 4 bombs in their public transportation system. Today their public transportation system was attacked again. It is time for the UK to pull out of Iraq:

British Police Evacuate 3 Subway Stations After Explosions

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Okay, so if Christian extremists set off bombs in the Toronto subway, then do it again in two weeks, in opposition to, oh, let's say, Same sex marriage, will we see you posting something that says:

"Two weeks ago today Torontonians were attacked by 4 bombs in their public transportation system. Today their public transportation system was attacked again. It is time for us to get rid of same sex marriage."

Just wondering.

[Argus]

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}>

Because, if the US gets out of Iraq and Afghanistan, then there'll no longer be any attacks on them, like say, the World Trade Centre bombing.

Uhmmm, isn't there a logic problem with that? Like, the WTC bombing happened BEFORE the US was in Afghanistan or Iraq?

So what makes you think, should they leave, that the same groups of Muslim wackos will suddenly decide to ignore them?

More likely they'll be greatly encouraged, and want to carry their violence forward to ever greater heights.

[mirror]

You war mongers can go on and fight your wars.

I just wish there was some way the rest of us who don't believe in war could be kept out of it.

The problem for the war mongers is that this US/UK invasion of Iraq is not a moral war. The WW 2 war against Germany was. And that my dear friends is the difference.

[Argus]

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.

The reason likes with the intent. What is the "intent" behind all those wacko suicide bombers in Baghdad? Try to reach beyond the obvious (expell americans). Are they outraged at the mistreatement of their people? Unlikely, as most appear not to be Iraqis. Do they want to bring "freedom" to the Iraqi people? Unlikely, as Iraq is clearly on the road, at a brisk pace, to self government with a new constitution and a democratically elected government.

So what is the intent that makes murdering many innocent people worthwhile?

When an Israeli pilot puts a missile into a Hamas leader's bedroom his intent is to stop the violence being perpetrated against Israeli citizens. Quite morally just.

The intent of those blowing things up in Iraq appears to be to incite religious civil war between Sunis and Shiites. Or so they have said. Now let us weigh the intent of the Israeli pilot against the intent of the suicide bombers of Baghdad.

Hmmmmmmm.

"We've declared a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy and those who follow this wrong ideology and anyone who tries to help set up this system is part of it, and those candidates running in elections are demi-idols, and those who vote for them are infidels." - Abu Musab al-Zarqawi

So he's fighting against the evils of democracy, because, of course, Mohamed did not believe in democracy, and so democracy is not the way of Islam. Those who run for election are making themselves "demi idols" and deserve death.

This is what he and his followers are killing for.

Care to consider that moral equivilency thing again? He has called Shiites worse than Jews, which is pretty rough stuff for a Muslim wacko.

As I said, it is intent which should be examined.

[mirror]

Global Empire

The Straight Line Between Falluja and King's Cross Station: Bush and Blair's Orgy of Carnage

"Does anyone doubt that 10,000 bin Ladens have been created by the events of the past two and a half years? If they do, they have their head in the sand."

George Galloway; British Parliament, 7-7-05

This is Rumsfeld's remedy for resistance. This is Bush's "Liberation". Take a good look.

The people in London are the lucky ones. If they'd been in Iraq (after the explosions) the passers-by would have been cut-down by snipers on top of surrounding buildings. Their ambulances would have been fired on as they tried to remove the dead and wounded. Their hospitals would have been bombed and occupied by foreign soldiers. They would have been deprived of even the most basic medical supplies to keep them alive. How can anyone compare the bombings in London to the all-encompassing campaign of terror in Iraq?

The victims of the London bombings deserve our sympathy, just as surely as the cut-throats in Washington and 10 Downing Street deserve our contempt. MP George Galloway summarized the feelings of many of us when he said, "Members of Parliament find it easy to feel empathy with people killed in explosions by razor-sharp red-hot steel and splintering flying glass when they are in London, but they can blank out of their mind entirely the fact that a person killed in exactly the same way in Falluja died exactly the same death."

There's a straight line between Falluja and the London subway; just as there is a straight line between the gulag at Abu Ghraib and the terror attacks that Americans can expect to face in the near future.

For America, the prospect of London-type bombings is a mathematical certainty.

American newspapers are all breathlessly circulating their theory of "suicide bombers" in headlines across the nation.

Why not? It fits nicely with the racist ideology that underscores Bush's war on terror.

Washington knows that its support would disappear in a flash if they failed to conjure up the requisite racial stereotypes that feed the public rage. And, no one is better at demonizing and fear-mongering than the Bush administration.

The problem is there are not one or two articles like this, but hundreds, if not thousands, being written every day, and their numbers are increasing exponentially. What is it going to take for it to sink in that this invasion of Iraq has been a total failure, and the sooner foreign troops are out of there the better. Even Bush's ratings are heading due South and will soon be in the toilet.

[Argus]

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.

Really? Many, many insurgencies have faced worse challenges and only one I can think of has resorted to suicide bombings at all, much less of civilian areas.

And it sounds very much like you are trying to make a case for why it is justified. Iraq is a budding democracy, to begin with. And it is almost impossible to justify violence, let alone this level of violence, when change can be achieved through the ballot box if your fellow citizens so desire

Also, if it weren't for the demented violence of these imbecile religious wackos Iraq would probably be well on its way now to being the most democratic, well-ordered state in the Middle East. If none of these "insurgents" existed, Iraq would be a paradise compared to what it was under Saddam, and other Arabs would be casting envious glances that way and wondering why their country couldn't be the same.

You are trying to cast this into the mold of a local insurgency fighting against an oppresive occupying power when everyone knows that the Americans want nothing more than to leave as soon as possible. Were it not for the insurgency they'd already be gone. Also, were the insurgents to win Iraq would hardly become a land of freedom. Instead it would be far, far more oppressive than anything the Americans would ever dream of. These are not people fighting for freedom. They are fighting for an intollerent theocratic state which slaughters anyone who doesn't believe exactly as they do.

[Argus]

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}>

I think it is clear that at least some Canadians would be delighted.

[Argus]

Why don't we just leave other people alone to run their countries they way they see fit?

You mean like the South Africans who were perfectly happy with Apartheid?