Was/will The Iraq War Good?

[RT_1984]

An interesting article today in the Globe and Mail which strikes a blow to the anti-american emotionalism rampant in Canada and Europe.

But Iraqis liked the war

By MARGARET WENTE

Thursday, November 20, 2003 - Page A23

E-mail this Article

Print this Article

Advertisement

Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, isn't a big fan of George W. Bush. He once called President Bush the "greatest threat to life on this planet we've probably ever seen."

That pretty well reflects the view of the 100,000 protesters expected to turn out on London's streets today. Glenda Jackson, the actress-turned-MP, endorses them, as does Kate Allen, the U.K. director of Amnesty International. "You don't win the hearts and minds of the doubters and the disaffected by riding roughshod over human rights," she declared.

England's protesters (along with more Canadians than I can count) believe that the war and the occupation of Iraq are a violent attack upon its citizens. A letter published in The Globe and Mail this week referred to "the terrible suffering this war has inflicted on the Iraqi people."

There's just one problem. Most Iraqis think the war was a good thing. A sizable majority of Baghdadis -- 62 per cent, according to a recent Gallup poll -- says the ouster of Saddam Hussein was worth any hardships. Two-thirds say they believe Iraq will be better off five years from now than it was under Saddam.

Whenever I tell my friends about these polls, I get looks of amazed surprise. The impression they've gotten from the news is that most Iraqis hate the Americans and want them out now. And whenever I write about what Iraqis think, dozens of people write me to tell me I'm wrong -- the polls are lying, the results are distorted, and the frightened Iraqis will never tell foreigners what they really think.

Actually, Iraqis are so eager to tell you what they think that it's hard to shut them up. When Gallup took its poll, its standard 15-minute interviews stretched to 70. The subjects insisted on inviting the pollsters home for glasses of sweet tea and a piece of their minds.

There are plenty of demonstrators in Iraq, too. Only there, they're demonstrating against the terrorists. In Nasiriyah last week, hundreds of students took to the streets to protest the terrorist bombing of Italian soldiers and Iraqi civilians. They carried signs saying "No to terrorism. Yes to freedom and peace," and "This cowardly act will unify us."

One man who wrote me said he doesn't give a damn what Iraqi people think; he hates Mr. Bush anyway. This, at least, is refreshingly honest. Here, protesters pretend to care about Iraqis, but really don't. That's because for them it's not about Iraq at all. It's about the warmonger Bush, and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the lapdog of the imperialists, etc. I was amazed to discover how many Canadians share these reflexes. Now I'm just depressed. (Note to angry readers: Please don't write and tell me to go home. I am home.) Bad news in Iraq is good news to them, and vice versa. Tell them most Iraqis are profoundly glad Saddam's gone and they'll accuse you of being an apologist for Washington.

You can't shake these fantasists with puny facts. But at least someone is trying. William Schultz, the executive director of Amnesty International USA, also has doubts about the London protesters, and thinks it's time for them to confront terror with the same zeal they muster up for Mr. Bush. "There's been a failure to give the necessary attention, analysis and strategizing to the effort to counter terrorism," he said in an interview with Salon. "This is a serious problem."

In a new book (Tainted Legacy: 9/11 and the Ruin of Human Rights), he makes the obvious but novel point that terrorists are human-rights violators, too. Rising global terrorism requires the left "to rethink some of our most basic assumptions." Maybe there are times when force is needed to protect human rights. Maybe, he ventures, there are even times when an occupation is justified to promote stability and peace.

Not that I hold out hope this message will catch on. I recently had the dreary experience of sitting through an address by the head of Human Rights Watch at the Canadian Club. Naturally, he spent the entire time denouncing the Americans. The audience vigorously applauded.

Why? Because the real subject of the speech was not human rights at all. It was how dreadful they are. We eat this stuff up, and never tire of it, because it pleasantly affirms our own superiority.

"Today, anti-Americanism is the closest we come to a common ideology," write two Norwegian journalists in a new book, The Fear of America. They're talking about Europe, but it might as well be us. "Our prejudices against Americans are much greater than against both Muslims and Africans," they argue. "By speaking negatively about them, we elevate ourselves. It confirms that we are the opposite. Europeans have refinement, culture, and intellectual life. To think this way elevates our self-image."

In London, the graffiti read: "No blood for oil!" Baghdad's read: "Down Saddam the infidel and long live Bush the believer! " But don't bother telling Glenda Jackson. She doesn't think it's relevant.

[email protected]

E-mail this Article

[Morgan]

1. What's interesting too is that even though the BBC had been pumping up anti-Bush hysteria in the UK for 2 weeks before Bush's arrival, predicting that 400,000 anti-Bush protesters would come to Trafalgar Square, police estimate only 70,000 showed up today. So even left wing "soldiers" are deserting the Left's "cause."

To give you an idea of how pathetic the numbers of the anti-Bush crowd were, there were over 400,000 people marching to protest fox-hunting in the UK one year ago.

400,000 protest fox-hunting, but only 70,000 protest Bush's visit

Police say only 70,000 anti-Bush protesters showed up at Trafalgar Square

2. more on how Iraqis view George Bush and his getting rid of Saddam:

Thousands of slogans in the Arabic script snake across acres of gray walls that line city squares, apartments and office buildings, a perfect canvas for the outpourings of a population intoxicated by new freedoms...In a place where reliable surveys of the public mood are difficult to gauge, the writings on the walls are one way to peer into Iraqis' minds...There are the occasional anti-American slogans, some in misspelled English - like "Dawn USA" - but mostly President George W. Bush is hailed as a liberator, especially in the neighborhoods of the Shia majority historically brutalized by Hussein....Samplings of the Arabic slogans include: "Down Saddam the infidel and long live Bush the believer!"...Many taunt the deposed dictator: "Saddam the dirty, the son of the dirty, in which septic tank are you hiding now?"...Hussein's family also comes in for abuse: "Where are your wife and daughters, Saddam? Are you pimping them in Jordan?"

Baghdad Graffitti, Newsday, Nov. 19/03

3. William Schultz ( Amnesty Int'l USA) apparently gave a great interview re: the disingenuous posturing of the anti-Iraq War/hate Bush crowd in Salon.com a few days ago, but it requires a subscription to access the full text.

[Morgan]

An Iraqi Blogger says that anti-war protesters owe Iraqis an apology:

Anti-war protresters owe Iraqis an apology

YOU OWE US AN APOLOGY Nov. 17/03 I don’t know really know why Saddam’s regime lasted for over three decades, but I am sure as an Iraqi who survived that period that there’re no legal or moral justifications for it. I was counting days and hours waiting to see an end to that regime, just like all those who suffered the cruelty of that brutal regime. Through out these decades I lost trust in the world governments and international committees.Terms like (human rights, democracy and liberty..etc.)became hallow and meaningless and those who keep repeating these words are liars..liars..liars.I hated the U.N and the security council and Russia and France and Germany and the arab nations and the islamic conference. I’ve hated George Gallawy and all those marched in the millionic demonstrations against the war.It is I who was oppressed and I don’t want any one to talk on behalf of me,...Can anyone tell me why the world let Saddam remain and stood against America’s will to topple him? To me I don’t recognize your committees and I have no time to listen to that nonsense, I’ve got along way to walk building my country and helping my people forget the days of abasement.You all owe the Iraqi people an apology.What happened in Iraq was worse than the holocaust.

[Black Dog]

. What's interesting too is that even though the BBC had been pumping up anti-Bush hysteria in the UK for 2 weeks before Bush's arrival, predicting that 400,000 anti-Bush protesters would come to Trafalgar Square, police estimate only 70,000 showed up today. So even left wing "soldiers" are deserting the Left's "cause."

Care to cite the reference to 400,000? Current reports have the number between 150,000 and 100,000. Which ain't too shabby.

Most Iraqis think the war was a good thing. A sizable majority of Baghdadis -- 62 per cent, according to a recent Gallup poll -- says the ouster of Saddam Hussein was worth any hardships. Two-thirds say they believe Iraq will be better off five years from now than it was under Saddam.

Funny thing about polls. It's all in how you spin the results. Spread the poll over the whole country and you get a different story...

A recent Gallup Poll that found that almost two-thirds of those polled in Baghdad said it was worth the hardships suffered since the U.S.-led invasion ousted Saddam Hussein.

67 percent thought that in five years they would be better off while 11 percent thought they would be worse off.

That same poll, however, found that, countrywide, 33 percent thought they were better off than they were before the invasion, and 47 percent said they were worse off.

And 94 percent said Baghdad was a more dangerous place for them to live, a finding the ad-ministration officials did not discuss.

The poll found that 29 percent of Baghdad residents had a favorable view of the United States, while 44 percent had a negative view.

By comparison, 55 percent had a favorable view of France.

Similarly, half of Baghdad residents had a negative view of President Bush, while 29 percent had a favorable view of him.

In contrast, French President Jacques Chirac drew a 42 percent favorable rating.

-Washpost Sept. 29, 2003

Here, protesters pretend to care about Iraqis, but really don't. That's because for them it's not about Iraq at all. It's about the warmonger Bush, and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the lapdog of the imperialists, etc.

Wente's grown increasingly shrill and irrational since 9-11 and this piece is just another example. For example, I'd like to ask where the concern for the well-being of the Iraqi people was on the right prior to the run up to war? It certainly wasn't there when Doanld Rumsfeld was pressing the flesh with saddam on the same day he gassed the Kurds. It certainly wasn't evident in the clumsy sanctions regime that crippled everyday Iraqis while allowing Sadam to consolodate his grip. No, you can easily find anti-war people who have long stood up for the plight of the Iraqis. Finding them on the other side will take some doing.

[Morgan]

Typo error...mea culpa...BBC predicted 100,000 and police say only 70,000 showed up. Police should know because they have to have appropriate numbers of police on hand. And, yes, the fox-hunting protest rally which drew 400,000 people last year speaks volumes as to failing support of the left wing hate-Bush folks.

The following article was written by an Iranian author who describes the composition of the anti-war protest marchers...very enlightening, indeed.

Who are the anti-Bush protesters in London? Amir Taheri

He[bush] will also observe a bizarre political marriage: one between the remnants of the Marxist-Leninist Left and militant Islamists. Negotiated over the past two years, the "wedding," will be celebrated in a mass demonstration against Bush's visit. The demonstration is organized by a shadowy group called "Stop the War Coalition," part of the Hate-America-International, which has orchestrated a number of street "events" in support of the Taliban and the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein since 2001.

The coalition has a steering committee of 33 members. Of these, 18 come from various hard left groups: Communists, Trotskyites, Maoists, and Castrists. Three others belong to the radical wing of the Labour party. There are also eight radical Islamists. The remaining four are leftist ecologists known as "Watermelons" (Green outside, red inside).The chairman of the coalition is one Andrew Murray, a former employee of the Soviet Novosty Agency and leader in the British Communist party.Cochair is Muhammad Asalm Ijaz of the London Council of Mosques. Members include John Rees of the Socialist Workers' party and Ghayassudin Siddiqui of the Muslim Parliament. Tanja Salem of the Al-awdah (The Return) group, an outfit close to Yasser Arafat, is also a member along with Shahedah Vawda of "Just Peace," another militant Arab group, and Wolf Wayne of the "Green Socialist Network."A prominent member is George Galloway,..But the coalition's biggest success is the alliance that it has forged between the extreme Left and militant Islamist groups. This would have been unthinkable even a couple of years ago. The first to advocate a leftist-Islamist alliance against Western democracies was Ayman Al Zawahiri al Qaeda's #2. In a message to al Qaeda sympathizers in Britain in August 2002, he urged them to seek allies among "any movement that opposes America, even atheists."The idea has received strong support from Ilich Ramirez Sanchez, the Venezuelan terrorist known as "Carlos the Jackal." "Only a coalition of Marxists and Islamists can destroy the US," he says.This week's anti-Bush demonstration in London will mark the emergence of a coalition the hard core of which consists of the radical Left and militant Islamism. Around it we find other groups who hate the U.S. for different reasons. There are supporters of free abortion, opponents of capital punishment, anti-globalization fanatics, advocates of the Kyoto protocol on the environment, and anti-Semites who believe the Jews control the United States. But a good part of the planned demonstrations will, as always, consist of what Lenin called "the useful idiots", men and women of good faith whose political naiveté makes them natural targets for experts in agitprop.

[SirRiff]

why are you trying to argue the opinions of iraqis? has anybody ever claimed that most iraqis like living in misery and fear? i dont think so. nobody has ever cited the opinions of iraqis as the reasons for international policy.

the arguments generally center on WMDs, oil, US blood lust, israel, reconstruction, pax america/PNAC, reelection, economic profits and others.

sirriff

[Morgan]

Sir Riff,

In case you didn't bother to read how this thread started...it was because of an article by Margaret Wente wherein she said:

That's because for them[anti-war protesters] it's not about Iraq at all. It's about the warmonger Bush, and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the lapdog of the imperialists, etc. I was amazed to discover how many Canadians share these reflexes...Bad news in Iraq is good news to them, and vice versa. Tell them most Iraqis are profoundly glad Saddam's gone and they'll accuse you of being an apologist for Washington.

Your dismissal of Iraqis' pro-Bush/pro-Iraq war comments together with your baseless rant against America just proves that what Wente said in her article is true. In fact, there's a curious familiarity to the gist of the comments made by the spokesperson for Stop the War coalition:

Who are the London anti-Bush protesters? by Amir Taheri

When I called the coalition to ask whether the idea was to stop all wars, a spokeswoman assured me that this was not the case.She referred me to the first article of the coalition's charter that states: "The aim of the coalition is simple: to stop the war currently declared by the United States and its allies against 'terrorism.'""We really want to stop Bush and Blair from going around killing babies," she said. "Our objective is to force the U.S. out of Iraq and Afghanistan."But what if a U.S. withdrawal means the return of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein?"Anything would be better than American Imperialist rule," she snapped back.

People like Wente and the President of Amnesty Int'l USA see that Iraqis' "opinions" are in fact more genuine and more worthwhile when talking about the Iraq War, than the phony mantras of the coalition of Marxist-Leninist-Islamic militants and their useful idiots who protest the Iraq War but are silent about psycho dictators and homicidal terrorists.

[Michael Hardner]

People like Wente and the President of Amnesty Int'l USA see that Iraqis' "opinions" are in fact more genuine and more worthwhile when talking about the Iraq War, than the phony mantras of the coalition of Marxist-Leninist-Islamic militants and their useful idiots who protest the Iraq War but are silent about psycho dictators and homicidal terrorists.

While I agree that the majority of Iraquis support the ousting of Saddam, it should also be noted that the Gallup respondents may have felt intimidated or may not have understood the independence of the pollsters.

That being said, it should be obvious that any rational person would be glad to be rid of any dictator as bloody and ruinous to his country as Saddam.

[KrustyKidd]

The organisers of the rally are Communists, Islamist Fundementalists and Watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside.) "Useful Idiots" fill in the spaces.

Silent majority wins again.

[daniel]

The organisers of the rally are Communists, Islamist Fundementalists and Watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside.) "Useful Idiots" fill in the spaces.

Silent majority wins again.

Prove your claim.

[Morgan]

Daniel,

Read the article link and the cut and paste blurb I provided approximately 4 posts back entitled "Who are the anti-Bush protesters in London" by Amir Taheri. Taheri is an Iranian author who researched the composition of the Stop the War Coalition and he had a discussion with the organization's spokesperson. Happy reading!

[Black Dog]

The following article was written by an Iranian author who describes the composition of the anti-war protest marchers...very enlightening, indeed.

Who are the anti-Bush protesters in London? Amir Taheri

The demonstration is organized by a shadowy group called "Stop the War Coalition," part of the Hate-America-International, which has orchestrated a number of street "events" in support of the Taliban and the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein since 2001

What a steaming pile of crap. Setting aside the baseless ad hominem that opens Taheri's tirade, I find the conservative tendancy to look for hobgoblins under every bed to be somewhat comical. Grassroots organizing is something the conservative mind simply cannot grasp.

Your dismissal of Iraqis' pro-Bush/pro-Iraq war comments together with your baseless rant against America just proves that what Wente said in her article is true. :

First, nice way to duck the question. Let me refesh your memory:

I'd like to ask where the concern for the well-being of the Iraqi people was on the right prior to the run up to war? It certainly wasn't there when Doanld Rumsfeld was pressing the flesh with saddam on the same day he gassed the Kurds. It certainly wasn't evident in the clumsy sanctions regime that crippled everyday Iraqis while allowing Sadam to consolodate his grip. No, you can easily find anti-war people who have long stood up for the plight of the Iraqis. Finding them on the other side will take some doing.

So, where were YOU?

In fact, there's a curious familiarity to the gist of the comments made by the spokesperson for Stop the War coalition

A quote that positively reeks of fabrication (for example, no name is given, yet the individual is still cited as a spokesperson).

Indeed the whole article is a mish-mash of distortions and opinion masquerading as fact. In other words: rubbish.

People like Wente and the President of Amnesty Int'l USA see that Iraqis' "opinions" are in fact more genuine and more worthwhile when talking about the Iraq War, than the phony mantras of the coalition of Marxist-Leninist-Islamic militants and their useful idiots who protest the Iraq War but are silent about psycho dictators and homicidal terrorists.

As I pointed out already by posting the remainder of the poll mentioned by Wente, there's no iraqi consensus on the invasion/occupation.

[Morgan]

Black Dog,

1. The author of the article about the composition of Stop the War Coalition, Amir Taheri, has written 10 books on the Middle East and Islam and is Muslim himself. To make a long story short, Taheri is well credentialed and well respected and his research is accordingly more believable than your emotionally driven derisive "critique" which has no substance but only insult. It must be painful to read about the motley assortment of knaves and fools who comprise the anti-war coalition, and to add insult to injury, the information is given by an Iranian Muslim, and not by a WASP Republican. So sad.

What a steaming pile of crap.Setting aside the baseless ad hominem that opens Taheri's tirade, I find the conservative tendancy to look for hobgoblins under every bed to be somewhat comical

2. As for your condemnation of Rumsfield "pressing" the flesh of Saddam and the evils of anti-Iraq sanctions...here's my response...get your brain unstuck from 20 years back and move along in time like the rest of the world has done.

For instance, you'd like everyone to think that the US was the only country that ever befriended Saddam. But you are not being honest, are you?

If the truth beknown, the USA, like other countries you obviously hold in high regard, all befriended Saddam at one time or another. In fact, Jacques Chirac's relationship with Saddam is ages old. It was Chirac who sold Saddam the nuclear reactor that Israel eventually bombed to smithereens [yes!] and it was Chiraq's French oil company, Totalfinaelf, that had just signed a lucrative oil contract with Saddam shortly before the second Iraq War. Furthermore, prepare yourself for sad news about another noble peacenik political hero...Jean Chretien's son-in-law, Andre Desmarais, and the Desmarais family were the largest individual stockholders in Totalfinaelf. So coincidently, Jean Chretien's family had alot of money riding on the fact that Saddam stay in power...but enough about peace-loving senile Canadian politicians, back to evil Rumsfield...

Here's the big difference with the USA's relationship with Saddam. The USA changed its attitude to Saddam, but your favourite countries did not. After the first Gulf War, the US had nothing but contempt for Saddam, whereas FRANCE, GERMANY, RUSSIA [the very countries you think are so morally upstanding for being obstructionist about the second Gulf War that toppled Saddam] INCREASED their business with with psycho Saddam. They sold him chemicals and weapons and signed contracts with him to drill for oil in Northern Iraq, knowing full well that he brutalized his people and spent all the oil profits on his own personal bank accounts and on weapons to keep non-Baathist Iraqis enslaved.

How dare you harp on Rumsfield shaking the hand of Saddam when your "anti-war" countries were propping up Saddam in power for the last 20 years knowing full well by this time that there was no doubt about Saddam being one of the sickest despots known to man.

Even the anti-war media of today, like CNN, dealt with Saddam to the bitter end and even went so far as to embelish his reputation, while hiding the truth about his brutality...remember Jordan Easton and his recent confession about the duplicitous news department of CNN? Even today, the mainstream news media are following Saddam's old practice of hiring "minders" ...I guess old habits die hard, eh?

As for the US and the Kurds, how is it that the Kurds love the USA so much and actually welcomed the coalition troops back last fall and collaborated with Special Forces to get tactical information to be used against Saddam?

Here's why...something you have forgotten or perhaps never read. The US and Brits for the last 20 years have kept the Kurds alive with their "no-fly" zones, which kept Saddam on a tight leash and which prevented him from attacking the Kurds again. Were it not for the US and Brits, [not the anti-war protesters, not France, Germany, Russia] Saddam would have finished off the Kurds long time ago. So that's why the Kurds feel indebted to the USA, and not to anti-war protesters, France, Germany, or Russia.

As for the sanctions...the sanctions did not starve or kill anyone...Saddam did those things to his own people, because he misused the UN plan so as to profit himself and to build up his armaments.

3. Here's another Canadian writer that does a take on the anti-war protesters, via Neale News. I guess it's just a no-good, very bad 2 days for Marxists-Islamofascists-useful idiots...err, no offense intended...

Moral blindness blinds anti-war protesters, by Marcus Gee, Nov.21/03

The smoke was still rising from two bombing attacks in Istanbul yesterday when tens of thousands of anti-war protesters took to the streets of London. As dazed, bleeding Turks stumbled away from the wreckage, the protesters waved placards and chanted slogans about terrorism.But don't get them wrong. The protesters didn't come to denounce the killers of Istanbul. That's not the war they're worried about. No, they came to denounce the man whose country is leading the counterattack, the world's "number one terrorist," U.S. President George W. Bush.Have these people no shame? Have they lost all sense of right and wrong?

[KrustyKidd]

The organisers of the rally are Communists, Islamist Fundementalists and Watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside.)  "Useful Idiots" fill in the spaces. 

Silent majority wins again.

Prove your claim.

The following persons were elected to the Stop the War Coalition Steering Committee in 2001:

    Mohammed Aslam Aijaz (London Council of Mosques), Sait Akgul (Federation of Kurdish Community Organisations in the UK), Tariq Ali (Broadcaster and Writer), Lois Austin (Socialist Party), Roger Bannister (UNISON NEC * and Socialist Party), Jim Brann (London Region CND Exec *), Andrew Burgin (Housmans Peace Bookshop), Graham Cee (Labour Left Briefing), Louise Christian (Lawyer), Jeremy Corbyn MP, Tekin Kartal Daymer (The Turkish / Kurdish community Centre), Laura Dubinsky (Fundraiser), George Galloway MP, Lindsey German (Editor, Socialist Review), Suresh Grover (National Civil Rights Movement), Stephanie Harrison (Campaign Against Criminalizing Communities), John Haylett (Editor, Morning Star), Mark Hoskisson (Workers Power), Soraya Lawrence (Lawyers Against the War), Fred Leplat (Branch Officer Islington Unison), Mike Marqusee (Media Workers Against the War), Andrew Murray (Communications Officer: ASLEF *), Chris Nineham (Globalise Resistance), John Rees (Socialist Workers Party), Bernard Regan (NUT Executive *), Asad Rehman (Newham Monitoring Group), Ratin Roy (SOAS: School of Oriental and African Studies), Carlos Rule (Socialist Labour Party), Tanja Salem Al-Awda (Campaign for Palestinian Rights), Helen Salmon (National Executive NUS *), Jane Shallice, Christine Shawcroft (Labour Against the War), Dr. Ghayasuddin Siddiqui (Muslim Parliament), Rae Street (Peace activist), Shahedah Vawda (Just Peace), Hilary Wainwright (Editor, Red Pepper), Wolf Wayne (Green Socialist Network and Socialist Alliance).

I checked a few out by actually going to the website of their organisation. Even the begnign ones has socialists everywhere.

Other agenda? Seeing as how they only come out when the USA is involved and ignoring other atrocities such as Saddam killing his own, others (Kuwait, Iran, Saudi) and seem to be too busy to protest things like Bali, 911, Turkey and so on I think it safe to say that many, if not all have other agendas.

BTW, where were they when Saddam was filling the mass-unmarked-graves that the US is finding everywhere?

[Hugo]

Also worth noting that, as of February 15th, of all the anti-war protests thus far only one was not organised by the World Worker's Party, a Marxist-Leninist group that has, amongst other things, publicly applauded the North Korean regime. The one that was not, was organised by United for Peace and Justice, a group that openly supports Fidel Castro's unlovely dictatorship.

See here for more information.

[RT_1984]

No wars are always fought completely for the right reason. Oil was definitely a major motivating factor. But the war in Iraq is over. Move the F*ck on. What is occurring now is an attempt to reconstruct Iraq while below it is demonstrated that Canada has been an indirect participant. A war protest is fine, but what are these people protesting now? Reconstruction? The truth is that these people are more concerned with seeing Bush embarressed and his process of reconstruction a failure, than they are concerned for the well-being of Iraqis. They have now sunk to the level that they criticised the Americans for sinking to. The truth is what they dislike is global capitalism in general. Bush and the U.S. are their objects and symbols of fury. What they want is for socialism, social democracy and welfare liberalism to riegn the world. They have become their own enemy. Their motivations are economic and political.

Canada could be next terror target, report says

Canadian Press

OTTAWA — Attacks like the bombing of the British consulate in Istanbul on Thursday could take place in Canada as terrorists target coalition partners in the war on Iraq, an RCMP intelligence report suggests.

The newly released assessment of extremist threats warns that although Canada is not a member of the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq, terrorists might strike at participants with assets on Canadian soil - an obvious reference to embassies and consulates.

The war in Iraq is "likely to result in retaliatory terrorist attacks against the coalition countries and their interests," the RCMP report says. "Coalition interests in Canada could (therefore) be at risk of attack."

A copy of the April report, Strategic Assessment of the Nature and Extent of Criminal Extremism / Terrorism in Canada, was obtained Thursday by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act.

The document examines the terrorist organizations and other extremists that most preoccupied the Mounties in 2002, particularly Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network, the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka, the Algerian Armed Islamic Group, militant Muslim sect Jamaat ul Fuqra, and Lebanese group Hezbollah, which aims to destroy Israel and liberate all Palestinian territories.

The report's disclosure follows the explosion of suicide truck bombs in Turkey that killed more than two dozen people at the British consulate and a London-based bank - attacks some were quick to blame on al-Qaida.

Although there is a "great ideological divide" between al-Qaida and the now-deposed secular regime of Iraq's Saddam Hussein, "Islamic extremists apparently perceive the war in Iraq as part of the larger conflict between the West and the Muslim world," the RCMP says.

"Iraq's support of the Palestinians could also provide the basis for anti-Western attacks by Islamic and secular Palestinian terrorists."

The report also reiterates RCMP warnings that Canada's role in ousting the Taliban from Afghanistan and subsequent peacekeeping efforts could provoke a backlash from extremists.

"The Taliban and its allied terrorist and guerrilla factions are regrouping and escalating (their) efforts against the new Afghani government and its foreign supporters."

The Mounties note the "Canadian contribution to the peacekeeping force in Afghanistan can be expected to provoke violence against Canadians in Afghanistan, and possible attacks in Canada."

The latest evidence of such retaliatory plots came this week with the discovery of rockets aimed at Canadian troops in Kabul.

Moral blindness blights anti-Bush protesters

By MARCUS GEE

Friday, November 21, 2003 - Page A17

E-mail this Article

Print this Article

Advertisement

The smoke was still rising from two bombing attacks in Istanbul yesterday when tens of thousands of anti-war protesters took to the streets of London. As dazed, bleeding Turks stumbled away from the wreckage, the protesters waved placards and chanted slogans about terrorism.

But don't get them wrong. The protesters didn't come to denounce the killers of Istanbul. That's not the war they're worried about. No, they came to denounce the man whose country is leading the counterattack, the world's "number one terrorist," U.S. President George W. Bush.

Have these people no shame? Have they lost all sense of right and wrong?

Holding an anti-war march now is like protesting the fight against Nazism at the height of the Blitz. The world is at war, and the enemy is just as ruthless. In the past few weeks, we have seen attacks on synagogues in Turkey, expatriate families in Saudi Arabia, Italian police in Iraq -- even the International Red Cross in Iraq. Scores of innocent people have been killed and maimed: women and children, young and old, Muslims and Jews. No one knows who will be next.

Yet, none of this seems to have made the slightest impression on the anti-war crowd. There were no mass marches against anti-Semitic violence when the synagogue bombs went off. No crowds gathered to condemn the murder of the poor Italians, who are in Iraq solely to help Iraqis put their country back together. Instead, the protesters direct their anger exclusively at the "imperialist," "colonialist," "militaristic" Americans and their British allies in the war on terrorism. "Blair, Bush: Butchers," said a typical placard at yesterday's march.

This sort of thing has become so common since Sept. 11, 2001, that we have almost lost sight of how perverse it is. Whatever anyone may think of the United States, its war on Iraq, or its prison in Guantanamo Bay, to equate George Bush with the killers of Istanbul is to demonstrate the worst kind of moral blindness.

You need to be blind not to see which side is the right one in this struggle. On one side, stand the United States and its fellow democracies, with all their faults. On the other, stands al-Qaeda, a fanatical terrorist movement that would deliver the Middle East to a medieval form of Islamic rule.

It is a woman-hating movement that treats women as chattel. It is an anti-Semitic movement that would "cleanse" the region of Jews. It is a homophobic movement that considers homosexuality a capital crime.

It is an anti-democratic movement that would rule through the word of the Koran and never hold a vote.

In short, it is a movement that would wipe out everything London's protesters hold dear.

Many feminists marched through London's streets yesterday. Their blindness is so deep that they marched against the overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan, a movement that forbade women to work, and girls to go to school. Many environmentalists marched, too. Their blindness is so deep that they opposed the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, a man who drained the fertile marshes of southern Iraq to drive out the Marsh Arabs, and who fouled the Persian Gulf with oil in the 1991 gulf war.

Human-rights activists were out by the thousands yesterday. What do they have so say about the hundreds of mass graves uncovered in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion, each filled with the remains of Mr. Hussein's victims -- perhaps 300,000 of them in all?

This is what they have to say: "Stop Bush." That was the vapid slogan of yesterday's march.

Stop him from doing what? If the anti-war crowd had stopped Mr. Bush from going after al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, the Taliban would still be in power and women would still be walled up in their homes. If the anti-war movement had stopped him from invading Iraq, the Hussein regime would still be in power and the mass graves would still be filling up with corpses.

Mr. Bush didn't listen, thank goodness, and both the Taliban and the Hussein regime are gone as a result.

So now, the protesters want to "Stop Bush" from occupying Iraq. We all know what the result of that would be. If the Americans leave Iraq now, while they are under attack and Iraqis are still preparing for self-rule, the bombers and the insurgents will claim a victory that would inspire terrorists the world over.

Iraq itself would fall into chaos, causing misery for its people and endless trouble for its neighbours. Is this what the protesters want?

Yesterday was Nov. 20, 2003. Remember it. On that day, terrorists in Istanbul killed at least 27 people and injured more than 400. On that same day, tens of thousands of cheerful protesters marched through the streets of London calling "Stop Bush."

Have they no shame?

[email protected]

E-mail this Article Print this Article