Canada dodged a bullet

[Onkel Neal]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/06/03/canada.terror/index.html

Toronto terror plot foiled -- Canadian police

Canadian police on Saturday said they have prevented a major al Qaeda-inspired terror plot to attack targets in and around Toronto. Twelve adults and five youths were arrested in connection with the plans that police said involved three tons of ammonium nitrate -- three times the amount of fertilizer used in the Oklahoma City bombing. Canada's largest anti-terror operation since 9/11 is still going on, officials said.


Now why would AlQueda target a country that sat out the Iraq war?

[STEED]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/06/03/canada.terror/index.html



Now why would AlQueda target a country that sat out the Iraq war?

That is a very good question Neal, makes you wonder what the real facts are.

[TLAM Strike]

Now why would AlQueda target a country that sat out the Iraq war? Perhaps because... I don't know... maybe they are Infidels who must be killed so Islam can rule the world?

[Torpedo Fodder]

http://www.forbes.com/entrepreneurs/feeds/ap/2006/06/03/ap2791200.html

And the RCMP has stated that these guys had three times the amount of ammonium ntrate than was used in the Oklahoma City bombing: Needless to say, that would have done alot of damage if set off in Downtown Toronto. And it's also another reminder that Canadians should not be complacent in thinking that Islamic terrorism can't happen here.

EDIT: I see Neal beat me to it; this thread can be locked then.

[Skybird]

Perhaps because... I don't know... maybe they are Infidels who must be killed so Islam can rule the world?

Bah, why so pessimistic? :nope: Trying to be subversive, or what? :88)

Congrats to the Canadians. Glad they scored this round their own.

[TLAM Strike]

Perhaps because... I don't know... maybe they are Infidels who must be killed so Islam can rule the world?Bah, why so pessimistic? :nope: Trying to be subversive, or what? :88)

Just trying to take some of the load off you, I'm sure your fingers are developing calluses by now. ;)

[Abraham]

Just trying to take some of the load off you, I'm sure your fingers are developing calluses by now. ;)

@ TLAM Strike:
Help, I can't read your posts anymore since I have the haylazblue presentation of the forum...

[Onkel Neal]

Just trying to take some of the load off you, I'm sure your fingers are developing calluses by now. ;)


TLAM, I'm using haylayblue for testing, why are your links appearing white?? Are you changing the color?

[Wim Libaers]

@ TLAM Strike:
Help, I can't read your posts anymore since I have the haylazblue presentation of the forum...

Try selecting the text. That's what I do if someone posts black text (I'm using the dark background). The selection colours almost always give good contrast.

[Onkel Neal]

Not to hijack the thread, sorry. Must be a downside to having multiple styles :-?

[TLAM Strike]

TLAM, I'm using haylayblue for testing, why are your links appearing white?? Are you changing the color?

I use Word to spell check (although not in this post) so when I paste my text its black and I change it to white since thats the closest to what the text is in smartdark. Any way to get a auto default color option?

[scandium]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/06/03/canada.terror/index.html



Now why would AlQueda target a country that sat out the Iraq war?

9/11 was before the Iraq war. And Iraq was not connected to it. And, lastly, this is not Al Qaeda (according to the Toronto Star). Beyond that, the reason looks - in part - to be one of convenience: most of those arrested were Canadian citizens or residents so I suppose attacking the country they were already in served whatever statement they were hoping to make.

[August]

9/11 was before the Iraq war. And Iraq was not connected to it. And, lastly, this is not Al Qaeda (according to the Toronto Star). Beyond that, the reason looks - in part - to be one of convenience: most of those arrested were Canadian citizens or residents so I suppose attacking the country they were already in served whatever statement they were hoping to make.

First, which Iraq war are you talking about? There have been two in the last 15 years and Canada was indeed involved in the first one.

Second, Canadas continued involvement in Afghanistan would be all the reason Al Quaeda needed (as if they need a reason) to target Canadians.

Third, AFAIK Canada is still on Irans Little Satan list for helping some of the Big Satan American embassy staff escape in '79.

[Skybird]

Canada is part of the West. That simple.

[scandium]

First, which Iraq war are you talking about? There have been two in the last 15 years and Canada was indeed involved in the first one.

The current war. Usually people refer to the one that was 15 years ago as "The Gulf War."

Second, Canadas continued involvement in Afghanistan would be all the reason Al Quaeda needed (as if they need a reason) to target Canadians.

Perhaps, though that is speculation at this point. And, as I pointed out, the suspects arrested are not Al Qaeda.

Third, AFAIK Canada is still on Irans Little Satan list for helping some of the Big Satan American embassy staff escape in '79.

I haven't read anything linking this group, or their motives, to Iran.

[DeepSix]

9/11 was before the Iraq war. And Iraq was not connected to it. And, lastly, this is not Al Qaeda (according to the Toronto Star). Beyond that, the reason looks - in part - to be one of convenience: most of those arrested were Canadian citizens or residents so I suppose attacking the country they were already in served whatever statement they were hoping to make.

Why obfuscate with this? What constitutes terrorism is not defined by whether or not Iraq was involved, nor by a particular sequence of events, nor by the subtlest of distinctions between "Al Qaeda" and "Al Qaeda-inspired," nor by the nationality or residency of the accused. Absent from your apparent list of terrorism pre-requisites is the three tons of ANFO evidence.

[scandium]

Why obfuscate with this? What constitutes terrorism is not defined by whether or not Iraq was involved, nor by a particular sequence of events, nor by the subtlest of distinctions between "Al Qaeda" and "Al Qaeda-inspired," nor by the nationality or residency of the accused. Absent from your apparent list of terrorism pre-requisites is the three tons of ANFO evidence.

Interesting... what up is down world do you live in where clarification is obfuscation?

[Konovalov]

It appears like another big win for our intelligence services thankfully. We have to be lucky all the time. The bastards however only have to be lucky once. I really find it a waste of time trying to figure out within 24 hours of the event who it was. That is something that should be subject to analysis further down the track once the infomation becomes available.

[August]

The current war. Usually people refer to the one that was 15 years ago as "The Gulf War."

Up until the beginning of the second one at which point its become known as "The First Gulf War"



Perhaps, though that is speculation at this point. And, as I pointed out, the suspects arrested are not Al Qaeda.

A rose by any other name still smells.


I haven't read anything linking this group, or their motives, to Iran.

I did not say they were but Iran is the biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world.

[DeepSix]

Interesting... what up is down world do you live in where clarification is obfuscation?

Well, what up-is-down world do you live in if you think what you posted clarified anything? Again - what of the three tons of ammonium nitrate? Or is that also part of the up-is-down world?

[DeepSix]

...A rose by any other name still smells....

Precisely.

[TteFAboB]

Way to go.

Canada is less Big Brotherized than the UK, it's possible to catch them without implanting micro-chips into every citizen, as some in the UK would like.

Terrorism is no excuse for totalitarianism.

Just a little phone tap here, a little e-mail reading there.

[scandium]

Well, what up-is-down world do you live in if you think what you posted clarified anything? Again - what of the three tons of ammonium nitrate? Or is that also part of the up-is-down world?

The significance of whether or not it is Al Qaeda lies in the fact that Al Qaeda is a very big organization with a tendency to launch coordinated attacks on multiple targets. With this much explosive, if there's an Al-Qaeda connection I would be concerned that it might only be the first prong of whatever they had planned. If its not Al-Qaeda then its likely a smaller group and there's a greater likelihood that this is the end of it.

Aside from that, I was offering another tidbit of information from the Toronto Star that Forbes (and Neal) may not have been aware of when he posted.

[SUBMAN1]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/06/03/canada.terror/index.html



Now why would AlQueda target a country that sat out the Iraq war?
Are you nuts? You can answer this one yourself. Al Qeada doesn't care if your country is in the Iraq war or not. You are still an infidel and if you won't convert to Islam, you must die. It doesn't matter who you are, you must die! This is how the Koran is written and Al Qaeda takes it litterally. Its purely a religious thing.

Say they are going to blow up this or that because we attacked Iraq is just political manuvering. They are going to blow up this or that 'anyway' regardless just because you are not an Islamic country and that is a threat to Islam in their eyes.

I watched them video tape Canadian Ferries emergency exits long before Iraq even happened. Canada has been on this hitlist for many years. Their time is coming, especially with how open Canada is with their borders and how clueless they are as to the whereabouts of people after they enter their borders.

-S

[scandium]

I watched them video tape Canadian Ferries emergency exits long before Iraq even happened. Canada has been on this hitlist for many years. Their time is coming, especially with how open Canada is with their borders and how clueless they are as to the whereabouts of people after they enter their borders.

-S

Are you suggesting we need to militarize our border with the US? Actually, I don't even know what you're suggesting. I don't think you can effectively surround a modern country with a midieval style wall, however, particularly in a country like Canada which shares such a long border with a peaceful nieghbour. Nor do I agree with your suggestion that we track visitors as though they were pets. And it seems, in this case, that it was good old fashioned police work and not walls or electronic dog tags that prevented the attack.

[August]

The significance of whether or not it is Al Qaeda lies in the fact that Al Qaeda is a very big organization with a tendency to launch coordinated attacks on multiple targets.

Al Quaeda is also an organization that is divided into independantly operating cells. Coordinated attacks on multiple targets is not a given by any means.

[Onkel Neal]

Are you nuts? You can answer this one yourself. Al Qeada doesn't care if your country is in the Iraq war or not. You are still an infidel and if you won't convert to Islam, you must die. It doesn't matter who you are, you must die! This is how the Koran is written and Al Qaeda takes it litterally. Its purely a religious thing.

Say they are going to blow up this or that because we attacked Iraq is just political manuvering. They are going to blow up this or that 'anyway' regardless just because you are not an Islamic country and that is a threat to Islam in their eyes.

I watched them video tape Canadian Ferries emergency exits long before Iraq even happened. Canada has been on this hitlist for many years. Their time is coming, especially with how open Canada is with their borders and how clueless they are as to the whereabouts of people after they enter their borders.

-S

I suppose.

Now CNN has this image on their lead news story:
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/WORLD/americas/06/03/canada.terror/newt1.ca.objects.ap.jpg

Lol, look! They grabbed some flashlights, duct tape, and a BBQ grill :lol: in an IKEA bag.

[TLAM Strike]

I suppose.

Now CNN has this image on their lead news story:
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/WORLD/americas/06/03/canada.terror/newt1.ca.objects.ap.jpg

Lol, look! They grabbed some flashlights, duct tape, and a BBQ grill :lol: in an IKEA bag.

You laugh but MacGyver could take out a battleship with that bag. :know:

[Konovalov]

You laugh but MacGyver could take out a battleship with that bag. :know:

:rotfl: :rotfl: Gee I miss that show.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Score for the Canucks. That oughta throw a spanner in the works for them thar terrorists.

[Kurushio]

scandium...you said that 9/11 occured before the Iraq War (the second one...)?? I think you should recheck the dates. You'll find you are wrong...by about 2 years. ;)

[Wildcat]

The picture looks funny, but the whole plot is not. ANFO is extremely easy to make, a 5 year old could do it on a budget of 20 bucks.

Sounds bad but I feel that muslim immigrants should be turned away from this country and muslim groups displaying any violent or radical behavior should be monitored heavily and deported if they have any violent plans. It's so irritating that these primitive bastards want to murder innocent citizens in our own countries. They need to get out and kill themselves, hell if I care when they're dead.

[Yahoshua]

I did not say they were but Iran is the biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world.


Well, I think the Saudis may have the Iranians outperformed in terms of financing. But nonetheless they're all the same.

[scandium]

Al Quaeda is also an organization that is divided into independantly operating cells. Coordinated attacks on multiple targets is not a given by any means.
And so it continues. A police spokesman initially stated, and incorrectly it was later admitted, that this group was Al Qaeda affiliated when they aren't. I offer up that additional tidbit of information and its almost as if by doing so I'm defending the terrorists to see some assert so strongly that it makes no difference. Okay, if it makes no difference what we call them, why not call them FLQ or IRA? I mean, those are terrorist-affiliated organizations right? Same thing right? To me, not the same thing, but then I haven't been indoctrinated into whatever culture of ignorance and stupidity that this dumbing down of everything properly belongs to.

[Wildcat]

* Fahim Ahmad, 21, Toronto;
* Zakaria Amara, 20, Mississauga, Ont.;
* Asad Ansari, 21, Mississauga;
* Shareef Abdelhaleen, 30, Mississauga;
* Qayyum Abdul Jamal, 43, Mississauga;
* Mohammed Dirie, 22, Kingston, Ont.;
* Yasim Abdi Mohamed, 24, Kingston;
* Jahmaal James, 23, Toronto;
* Amin Mohamed Durrani, 19, Toronto;
* Steven Vikash Chand alias Abdul Shakur 25, Toronto;
* Ahmad Mustafa Ghany, 21, Mississauga;
* Saad Khalid, 19, of Eclipse Avenue, Mississauga.

Those are the names of the terrorists.

Muslims all the same, doesn't matter if they're al qaeda. Islam is a pollutant and it is the only freedom that should not be allowed that currently is.

[Skybird]

There is a structure called Al Quaeda. but it is more important to realize it's mental presence inside heads, it's character of it's deeds being an example for others. Al Quaeda greatest threat potential is that now it is an idea, a motivation, a thinking pattern, a way of gaining superindividual identity: the feeling of being part of something bigger. And that is attractive for quite some people. You could wipe out Al Quaeda organisations and sub-cells militarily, but Al Quaeda still would be there. You must also find a way to deterr those who potentially might share it'S way of thinking from doing so. How? I do not know. Mayby only brute force would work here. What will not work is a soft, psychological approach: Al Quaeda founds it's acting on an aggressive warrior-religion and a faith of rightful demanding all world, and being individually superior.

[scandium]

* Fahim Ahmad, 21, Toronto;
* Zakaria Amara, 20, Mississauga, Ont.;
* Asad Ansari, 21, Mississauga;
* Shareef Abdelhaleen, 30, Mississauga;
* Qayyum Abdul Jamal, 43, Mississauga;
* Mohammed Dirie, 22, Kingston, Ont.;
* Yasim Abdi Mohamed, 24, Kingston;
* Jahmaal James, 23, Toronto;
* Amin Mohamed Durrani, 19, Toronto;
* Steven Vikash Chand alias Abdul Shakur 25, Toronto;
* Ahmad Mustafa Ghany, 21, Mississauga;
* Saad Khalid, 19, of Eclipse Avenue, Mississauga.

Those are the names of the terrorists.

Muslims all the same, doesn't matter if they're al qaeda. Islam is a pollutant and it is the only freedom that should not be allowed that currently is.

That won't happen so you'll either have to learn to live with it or move to one of the few remaining countries that practices religious intolerance.

[Sea Demon]

There is a structure called Al Quaeda. but it is more important to realize it's mental presence inside heads, it's character of it's deeds being an example for others. Al Quaeda greatest threat potential is that now it is an idea, a motivation, a thinking pattern, a way of gaining superindividual identity: the feeling of being part of something bigger. And that is attractive for quite some people. You could wipe out Al Quaeda organisations and sub-cells militarily, but Al Quaeda still would be there.

I totally agree with you Skybird. This is bigger than just killing different groups of terrorist radicals. The ideology of hate being bred within needs to be confronted. It's scary to think that there are some who don't understand this. It's even scarier to think they consider themselves to be the West's intellectuals.

I think dealing with this problem is going to have to be multi-faceted. And we're going to have to throw away the politically correct nonsense that prevents us from doing the things which will help us defeat the threats. For example racial profiling at airports. And stopping immigration from countries where there are large contingents of people who despise you and want you dead, or changed to their ways of seeing the world. I'm not sure if you agree Skybird with my last statements.....but I know we see eye to eye with the understanding that Al Qaeda is more than a group of people with a culture and ideology. It is a culture and ideology in itself.

[Skybird]

That won't happen so you'll either have to learn to live with it or move to one of the few remaining countries that practices religious intolerance.
All countries are religiously intolerant, and increasingly so: you are not accepted to be against Islam. The EU even turns it into laws that lacking support for Muslim immigrants in your personal deeds comes under penalty (they call it discrimination), and presses for more opening of the EU towards Islam. Political correctness is about to be silenced when you question the wisdom of this policy. Islam is in the offensive, everywhere.

Learn to live with it is some decades will translate into "become Muslim", or be part of a discriminated minority. France in fourty years will have a Muslim majoirty of population. Next Netherlands will fall, Belgium. Next Germany, Spain. Then the rest of Europe. During that time, somewhere, Canda will get increasing problems deriving from this stupid policy they have in Quebec. The last Western nation being Islamised will be the US. They will be overrun from Canada.

Your use of the term "religious intolerance " is absolutely queer here.

the new pope seems to be a little bit more clever than the last one, who was an absolute desaster for the chruch, imo. Benedict entered the term "reciprocity" into the relation between Catholizism and Islam, and demands that principle being practoiced. To what degree remains to be seen. Paul II wanted a completely onesided giving, and accepted the other side to only take, but never give anything substantial.

[Skybird]

I totally agree with you Skybird. This is bigger than just killing different groups of terrorist radicals. The ideology of hate being bred within needs to be confronted. It's scary to think that there are some who don't understand this. It's even scarier to think they consider themselves to be the West's intellectuals.

I think dealing with this problem is going to have to be multi-faceted. And we're going to have to throw away the politically correct nonsense that prevents us from doing the things which will help us defeat the threats. For example racial profiling at airports. And stopping immigration from countries where there are large contingents of people who despise you and want you dead, or changed to their ways of seeing the world. I'm not sure if you agree Skybird with my last statements.....but I know we see eye to eye with the understanding that Al Qaeda is more than a group of people with a culture and ideology. It is a culture and ideology in itself.

I am sure that trying to profile Islamic assassins and terrorists is a complete waste of time. They do not have a profile that rasies attention. They are trained in to exactly avoid that kind of profile. At least that is true for the non-amateurs amongst them. Mind you that after the strikes in London police was warried that the identified attackers did not fall into any kind of their profiling patterns. They were having background of assimilated, fully integrated members of a multicultural society. Getting a face desription for an amoeba promises higher chances of success.

Yes, it has become an ideology in itself, or better: a more consequent interpretation of an almost existing ideology.

[scandium]

The last Western nation being Islamised will be the US. They will be overrun from Canada.

Skybird, the US has a population of about 300 million to Canada's 30 million and we are similarly ethnically diverse with about the same rate of population growth. How do you see the US being overrun from Canada?

[scandium]

I totally agree with you Skybird. This is bigger than just killing different groups of terrorist radicals. The ideology of hate being bred within needs to be confronted. It's scary to think that there are some who don't understand this. It's even scarier to think they consider themselves to be the West's intellectuals.

Then on the other extreme you have leaders who simply think you can declare war on it and fight terrorism with the same conventional forces that you'd employ against an enemy state. While befriending and arming the Saudi Arabian dictatorship where a curious number of these extremists seem to originate from.

[Skybird]

Skybird, the US has a population of about 300 million to Canada's 30 million and we are similarly ethnically diverse with about the same rate of population growth. How do you see the US being overrun from Canada?

In the same way Europe surrenders itself to Islam. it is about the power to form opinions, and influence them. Building ideological spearheads. Getting infleunce on inner policy, education. By that widening Islam'S basis, being able to influence decision making on foreign policy.
What is different in the US is that opposite to Europe, Islam will meet a strong fundamantalism that is opposing Islam, that is the Christian right.

Al Djazeera currently opens it'S English international program. they declared it their intention to become the gloabl leader in information business, even leaving CNN & Co behind. They have a good chance to acchieve that.

Add to this influental dynasties of the American plutocracy, for example the bushs, are said to have strong personal and economical ties to Muslim lobbies like - Saudi Arabia. America can't trust such leaders. Also, it's unwillingness to reduce it's dependece from oil (like Europe), and as you pointed out, it's stupid belief that these processes could be labelled "war on terror" and then could be prevented by means of military warfare does not help to increase America'S position here. It has many ressources, but it does not make wise enough use of them, and it accepts to overstretch its lines.

The most dangerous thing is this "political correctness" in opinion building and public thinkng. By this Islam will try, and does, to turn our own laws against us, and it is very successful in that. Then there is the power of demographics. The birth rate of "fast breeders" :) simply outclasses that of the american white, like it outclasses that of native Europeans as well.

I do think indeed what we see is a new war between europe/the West, and Islam, the third or fourth one, depending on how you count. The first ones Islam fought with sword ans spears, and after bitter fioghting they finally lost (and their own arrogance: in france they were defeated although being numerical superior 3:1 becasue they were not able to give up the plundered goods they had stolen from all over France, and so were very immobile). This one Islam fights wirth birth rates and demographics. And it's representatives know that very well, even lable it like I do, and talk ob "jihad fought with demographic bombs", as I red it some weeks ago. with climbing number sof Muslims babies born in a host, their demands grow, and their nattempt to influence legislative, becoming the centre of social wellfare, attracting ressources for getting integrated and buidling an image that forms in local resident'S minds that these poor and friendly people must be supported, and that they are served best if more Isdlam is tolerated, and more, and more. that'S what we see in Europe, and when it is correct what I read in newsppaers, it forms up to become a probolem in Quebec as well. It will not stop there.

In the past we "got beaten on the neck" (Quran's term for beheading), we got confronted with military terror (during the foirst Vienna siege, all farms and villages inside a 100 km got burned down, people slain and often brutally humiliated and tortured to death, even children. It formed the West's image of the Turks for generations, it was an intented act to stun christianity by confronting them with sheer horror), attacks, and huge armies. Today we get smiled to death, by that being overwhelmed and at the same time being left defenseless. what can you do if your attacker is smiling at you and is friendly and isunaware that he is a pawn that is used to spread a certain ideology? It is not humanitarian to expel such helpelss, friendly people, isn't it? We get overrun. the political left even opens more gates, importing voters of which 90% will vote for them. the article I loinked to illustrates that real deals are made that way: votes for money, votes for influence.

[The Avon Lady]

Skybird, for you: DETERRING THOSE WHO ARE ALREADY DEAD? (http://www.hudson.org/files/publications/Bar%20Ilan.pdf)

[Skybird]

Good point. Let's ask Mr. Romero for advise, then? :doh:

[DeepSix]

Skybird, the US has a population of about 300 million to Canada's 30 million and we are similarly ethnically diverse with about the same rate of population growth. How do you see the US being overrun from Canada?

It doesn't matter what the population is; the problem is the border that you said shouldn't be militarized. I'm not saying it should be, but the U.S. borders with Canada and Mexico have traditionally been very lightly guarded, and that makes it easier for "evil-doers" (as El Jefe refers to them) to slip through.

[LoBlo]

9/11 was before the Iraq war. And Iraq was not connected to it. And, lastly, this is not Al Qaeda (according to the Toronto Star). Beyond that, the reason looks - in part - to be one of convenience: most of those arrested were Canadian citizens or residents so I suppose attacking the country they were already in served whatever statement they were hoping to make.

Yes the 9/11 attacks and the Iraqi war are directly connected. But not through the reasons that most people understand. The Iraqi war is a direct result a unabashed policy change within US political policy. The US stance immediately subsequent to 9/11 was that it will now engage full military operations on any and all entities that it percieves as having ill intent on US sovereignty. Iraqi's stance toward the US was as bad as it gets (it had been shooting SAM missiles at US air patrols for almost 10 years since the first Iraqi War).

Unfortunately, the political public relations idiots within the Bush administration (most notably Dick Chaney) thought that this reason for the US military engagement within Iraqi would not be understood by the general public. The same stance had been taken to the public during the Clinton administration when President Bill Clinton decided that Iraqi firing on US air patrols, as well as its violation of post-war UN resolutions, needed to be addressed with punative measures (cruise missile strikes). The publics understanding and reception of the reasoning were met with, at best, confusion and apathy...much like the response of the UN security councils themselves. Because the Bush administration witnessed and understood the public response that Clintons attempts had garnered, the administration decided that selling to the public the "WMD" pitch would gather more support despite the fact that it was not the real motivation of conflict. This plan for public support backfired rather quickly and blew up in the administrations face big time... as badly as any public/political mishap in recent history. And most people STILL do not understand the real US reasoning for begining their Iraq operations.

If 9/11 had not happened, the current US policy change would not have taken place and the US would probably not be in Iraq today.

[Skybird]

You are wrong, LoBlo.The Iraq qar had been set on the agenda many years before 9/11, and described by Wolfowitz in written papers. It dissapeared from the table under Clinton, but laready then it was planned for. It's execution was decided the day Bush was elected (or any other conservative administration). 9/11 caused Afghanistan going first, and Iraq following soon after. - Of course, the whole match already was lost on day 4 of the war in 91 - when the premature cease-fire was declared. That was the day the US policy on Iraq was defeated. Since then, 1991, it was only about preventing that fact from becoming realized by the public.

[SUBMAN1]

There is a structure called Al Quaeda. but it is more important to realize it's mental presence inside heads, it's character of it's deeds being an example for others. Al Quaeda greatest threat potential is that now it is an idea, a motivation, a thinking pattern, a way of gaining superindividual identity: the feeling of being part of something bigger. And that is attractive for quite some people. You could wipe out Al Quaeda organisations and sub-cells militarily, but Al Quaeda still would be there. You must also find a way to deterr those who potentially might share it'S way of thinking from doing so. How? I do not know. Mayby only brute force would work here. What will not work is a soft, psychological approach: Al Quaeda founds it's acting on an aggressive warrior-religion and a faith of rightful demanding all world, and being individually superior.


You have it right. Kinda contradicts your anti war anti Bush messages though.

The Western world 'has' also grown soft. As an example - notice how it tries and treats all negatives with a positive approach. Take our youth - Doesn't seem to be working well on our youth because our youth seem to be getting more violent and dangerous. Is this because human nature requires a negative side to balance the positive? Or is this because the youth do not realize just how negative they are being or how hurtfull they are being because they have never suffered a negative themselves?

Here is another example of positives making a negative - how about saftey equipment. Know why kids do the most stupid stuff on their skateboards? Because we gave them so much saftey equpiment form pads to helmets that they will try even more dagerous stunts because we have enabled them to do so because we have protected them from getting hurt on the smaller stunts. In this case, the injuries just get horribly worse just because when enabled them! This translates into adults too. An example - make the car safer and the driver will drive more unsafe with it.

Its all negatives coming from positives. Is this human nature??

These are the same physc people that are trying to correct a mentallity based on this: Take a guy who has nothing to lose and tell him he will get 72 vigins and palace and get to sit on the right hand of Allah for doing this deed. The tell him if he doesn't that he will have a hard time going to heaven in the first place since he will have to do more good deeds in his lifetime than bad. And then you tell him that he has already done a lifetime of bad and it is going to take him the rest of his life to make up with good - and that he may never make it! Then you go back to him and tell him that if he does this one great act for Islam as a whole, all his negatives will be wiped away and that he will go to heaven and if he believes this, the phych guys will have lost a thousand battles and never get through to him, nor the people we are trying to fight.

The only possible solution - destroy them or be destroyed, no matter where they are. This is all they will unerstand. You can't fight this from a phyc standpoint since you can only do more harm than good by offending people who are looking for a reason to be offended. This is an unwinnable war from a soft standpoint.

From a hard standpoint as well though, it will only get worse. These people don't have what we have and they relate that to the Western world holding them back. This hard fight is also fight that we won't be able to get away from. This is escalating to a war against Islam with no way out, no matter how much they backpedal on the idea - this is just a stalling tactic while they try and deal with the situation, hoping it goes away. The problem is, no matter how much the Western world wants to avoid or stop this war, they will fail. It will be interesting to see how the Western world deals with a catch 22 situation like this that they can't resolve. All I know is this - don't let the phych guys run it.

Here is the problem - you can't reason with them, since if you try, it makes them stronger. You also can't use force on them because if you do it will only make them stronger. Catch 22. One possible solution - ignore them. This would work but we have such a screwed up media that like to oversensationalize things that it could never work. This is our weekness - once our one strength - freedom of press. Here is what happened - the press got greedy and figured out they could oversensationalize things and get more viewers and hence, more money, and terrorist organizations just love this mentallity. I could go on and write a book, but I'll quit.

Just my 2 cents on it.

-S

[scandium]

Yes the 9/11 attacks and the Iraqi war are directly connected. But not through the reasons that most people understand. The Iraqi war is a direct result a unabashed policy change within US political policy. The US stance immediately subsequent to 9/11 was that it will now engage full military operations on any and all entities that it percieves as having ill intent on US sovereignty. Iraqi's stance toward the US was as bad as it gets (it had been shooting SAM missiles at US air patrols for almost 10 years since the first Iraqi War).

Unfortunately, the political public relations idiots within the Bush administration (most notably Dick Chaney) thought that this reason for the US military engagement within Iraqi would not be understood by the general public. The same stance had been taken to the public during the Clinton administration when President Bill Clinton decided that Iraqi firing on US air patrols, as well as its violation of post-war UN resolutions, needed to be addressed with punative measures (cruise missile strikes). The publics understanding and reception of the reasoning were met with, at best, confusion and apathy...much like the response of the UN security councils themselves. Because the Bush administration witnessed and understood the public response that Clintons attempts had garnered, the administration decided that selling to the public the "WMD" pitch would gather more support despite the fact that it was not the real motivation of conflict. This plan for public support backfired rather quickly and blew up in the administrations face big time... as badly as any public/political mishap in recent history. And most people STILL do not understand the real US reasoning for begining their Iraq operations.

If 9/11 had not happened, the current US policy change would not have taken place and the US would probably not be in Iraq today.
So you are saying that the US committed 170,000 odd troops to an invasion of Iraq, spending $200 billion and the lives of over 2,400 of its own troops (so far), because Iraq fired on US planes during their patrols of the no-fly zones? Interesting theory.

The problem with your theory is that it proclaims that the US government makes no distinction between capability and intent, as though capability was of no imporantance. Iraq firing on US aircraft patroling no-fly zones in Iraq is not even proof that Iraq had ill intentions toward "US Sovereignty" (it only proves that it had ill intentions toward aircraft within its own airspace), let alone the capability to project that ill-intent beyond Iraq. It also ignores North Korea's stance toward the US at that time, and its capability which included an established nuclear threat with the capability and intention to build more of these weapons. If invading Iraq was done to protect "US Sovereignty", why not invade say North Korea instead? Why expend 200,000 troops and $200 billion on a country already contained by UN sanctions? If it was out of concerns following 9/11, why invade Iraq rather than Pakistan where the person who had master-minded 9/11 (Osama Bin Laden, remember that guy?) was said to be hiding? Why not put more troops into Afghanistan which has, in recent years, seen a revival of Al Qaeda and Taliban elements? You remember Al Qaeda right, the organization that had trained and sent the guys on 9/11 who destroyed the WTC.

[scandium]

Yes the 9/11 attacks and the Iraqi war are directly connected. But not through the reasons that most people understand. The Iraqi war is a direct result a unabashed policy change within US political policy. The US stance immediately subsequent to 9/11 was that it will now engage full military operations on any and all entities that it percieves as having ill intent on US sovereignty. Iraqi's stance toward the US was as bad as it gets (it had been shooting SAM missiles at US air patrols for almost 10 years since the first Iraqi War).

Unfortunately, the political public relations idiots within the Bush administration (most notably Dick Chaney) thought that this reason for the US military engagement within Iraqi would not be understood by the general public. The same stance had been taken to the public during the Clinton administration when President Bill Clinton decided that Iraqi firing on US air patrols, as well as its violation of post-war UN resolutions, needed to be addressed with punative measures (cruise missile strikes). The publics understanding and reception of the reasoning were met with, at best, confusion and apathy...much like the response of the UN security councils themselves. Because the Bush administration witnessed and understood the public response that Clintons attempts had garnered, the administration decided that selling to the public the "WMD" pitch would gather more support despite the fact that it was not the real motivation of conflict. This plan for public support backfired rather quickly and blew up in the administrations face big time... as badly as any public/political mishap in recent history. And most people STILL do not understand the real US reasoning for begining their Iraq operations.

If 9/11 had not happened, the current US policy change would not have taken place and the US would probably not be in Iraq today.

In looking at this from another angle, this house of cards comes toppling down in the face of facts:

a: The cease-fire accord permitted Iraq to fly all types of aircraft and imposed no restrictions on their use;

b: the no fly zones (NFZs) were imposed upon Iraq unilaterally and without the legitimacy of any UN resolution or other international authority;

c: Iraq's attempts to defend its skies were therefore justified under international law.

Your position therefore boils down to this: the US invaded Iraq because Iraq exercised its legitimate right, under international law, to defend its skies. Not a good case to base the invasion and occupation of a country on, which is perhaps why it was never made.

By the way here is the source for my own assertions on the NFZs:

http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/23/dreyfuss-r.html

[LoBlo]

So you are saying that the US committed 170,000 odd troops to an invasion of Iraq, spending $200 billion and the lives of over 2,400 of its own troops (so far), because Iraq fired on US planes during their patrols of the no-fly zones? Interesting theory.

Yep, but not that simplistically. Everyone on this thread, myself included, is using overly simplistic notions for the sake of brevity. Otherwise we would be having essay lenght post. :)...
...but if I were to try to reply in a nutshell... the short answer is yes. The difference between the countries you listed is that Iraq has openly attacked US assets, so will bare brunt to its response (which is the doctrine that the US is proporting for at least the time being), while N. Korea has not openly attacked US assets. Pakistan's government is complying with full cooperation with US and UK forces. Other subtle differences apply as well, including economic and historical factors, but aren't worth discussing here.

As far as Iraq's legitimate right to defend its skies. After the first Gulf War Iraq it was decided by US policy makers that Iraq had no rights, for reasons that should be obvious, or if they are not, require too lengthy a history lesson to dileneate here.

[LoBlo]

You are wrong, LoBlo.The Iraq qar had been set on the agenda many years before 9/11, and described by Wolfowitz in written papers. It dissapeared from the table under Clinton, but laready then it was planned for. It's execution was decided the day Bush was elected (or any other conservative administration). 9/11 caused Afghanistan going first, and Iraq following soon after. - Of course, the whole match already was lost on day 4 of the war in 91 - when the premature cease-fire was declared. That was the day the US policy on Iraq was defeated. Since then, 1991, it was only about preventing that fact from becoming realized by the public.

Yes the proponents of a "strike first ask questions later" response have been in government for years, proponents of Iraqi war have been inplace ever since the first war was concluded. However, these proponents (including GWB) would have met too much resistence to enact their plans if 9/11 had not taken place. The 9/11 incident allowed them just enough impetus to achieve their plans. The way for a "strike them before they strike us" policy was laid with the bombing and plans to conduct an Iraqi war were legitimized under this policy. It was just enough to allow them to conduct their agena. Had 9/11 not taken place, then too much opposition would have prevented any full military conflict, IMHO. Their are those like to fancy conspiracy theories, insisting that GWB would have gone dictator and been able to achieve a war anyway, but the reality is that he would not have had enough support IMHO to proceed.

As far as the first Gulf War and GHWB Sr. He states in his autobiography his reasons for not removing Sadam Hussein from power and stopping the war when he did, reasons that basically say in a nutshell that he was attempting to prevent the exact situation that the US currently is in... that full scale Iraqi invasion would be without an exit plan and with no clear end strategy in site. If you remember... well, perhaps you don't since you don't live in the US... but during the build up toward the first Gulf War the most pressing concerns were that Iraq was going to become another Vietnam. The bitter, bloodly, and embarassing incident of Vietnam was the most vivid military experience still in public memory and the public (appropriately) looked upoon any conflict with fear and foreboding believing Iraq will become a repeat of Vietnam (contrary to popular belief most Americans are not war mongerers and hate military conflict). The fear was strong enough that GHWB had to emphatically and publicly pronounce on several occasions that he would not allow the conflict to linger and become a repeat Vietnam. This was his motivation for ending the conflict, to prevent a situation like the one currently.

...but for some reason his son was not as wise as the father... even more apparent when you compare their track records. GWB Jr. stumbled right into the mess that his father was smart enough to avoid, IMHO. Though there may be some unforseen benifits to the current situation... though not readily realized.

[DeepSix]

...b: the no fly zones (NFZs) were imposed upon Iraq unilaterally and without the legitimacy of any UN resolution or other international authority;
....


You may disagree with the interpretation and application of the following, but there was a U.N. Security Council Resolution (688) on this:

"The Security Council... 1. Condemns the repression of the Iraqi civilian population in many parts of Iraq, including most recently in Kurdish populated areas, the consequences of which threaten international peace and security in the region; 2. Demands that Iraq, as a contribution to remove the threat to international peace and security in the region, immediately end this repression... 5. Requests further the Secretary-General to use all the resources at his disposal, including those of the relevant United Nations agencies, to address urgently the critical needs of the refugees and displaced Iraqi population; 6. Appeals to all Member States and to all humanitarian organizations to contribute to these humanitarian relief efforts; 7. Demands that Iraq cooperate with the Secretary-General to these ends"

[edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_688]

That's the resolution the U.S., Britain, France (originally; subsequently I think they withdrew), and others agreed to in April 1991, and the legal grounds on which the NFZs were based. That is a fact, notwithstanding that there is room to interpret it differently. It isn't quite fair to say that the U.N. was not involved. It might be more accurate to say that current political forces have taken advantage of the U.N.'s involvement, but the U.N. was involved.

[scandium]

As far as Iraq's legitimate right to defend its skies. After the first Gulf War Iraq had no rights, so reasons that should be obvious, or if they are not, require too lengthy a history lesson to dileneate here.
That is simply not so. You are confusing a ceasefire agreement with an unconditional surrender (and even then, under international law the defeated party still maintains certain rights) and they are not the same. There is no basis for your claim. None. The NFZs were imposed upon Iraq only because Iraq had no power with which to dispute them, militarily or otherwise, and that any resolution introduced into the UN opposing them could be vetoed by the US. Iraq's only means to dispute them was to fire upon aircraft violating its airspace, in vain, and from this proof of just how impotent Iraq was you conclude that it actually meant they posed a threat to US sovereignty? Do you not see how circular and black-is-white this reasoning is? Naturally you don't offer a single shred of evidence to support your claims.

As an aside, its interesting to look back and see what then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney had to say about the decision not to push on into Baghdad:

" I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home. And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties, and while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war. And the question in my mind is, how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is, not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the President made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."

And GHW Bush had this to say on why they chose not to push on into Baghdad:

"Whose life would be on my hands as the commander-in-chief because I, unilaterally, went beyond the international law, went beyond the stated mission, and said we're going to show our macho? We're going into Baghdad. We're going to be an occupying power — America in an Arab land — with no allies at our side. It would have been disastrous."

Prophetic isn't it?

[scandium]

You may disagree with the interpretation and application of the following, but there was a U.N. Security Council Resolution (688) on this:



[edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_688]

That's the resolution the U.S., Britain, France (originally; subsequently I think they withdrew), and others agreed to in April 1991, and the legal grounds on which the NFZs were based. That is a fact, notwithstanding that there is room to interpret it differently. It isn't quite fair to say that the U.N. was not involved. It might be more accurate to say that current political forces have taken advantage of the U.N.'s involvement, but the U.N. was involved.

Its accurate to say that this resolution doesn't mandate the creation of NFZs, as it doesn't even mention NFZs anywhere in it. Nor does any other UN resolution. Those are the facts. Your so called "facts" seem to consist of assumptions supporting your beliefs that have been manufactured out of whole cloth.

[Wim Libaers]

The picture looks funny, but the whole plot is not. ANFO is extremely easy to make, a 5 year old could do it on a budget of 20 bucks.

Fortunately, it'd be useless. ANFO, on its own, is useless if you do not have a booster charge, and primary explosives to initiate that booster charge. For reliable effect, it is also preferable to have low density AN (much fertilizer grade AN is high density). ANNM is better, but more expensive. And even ANFO would cost more than $20 if you wanted a large quantity. (just 100kg of AN fertilizer would cost more)

Of course, all of these problems can be overcome (McVeigh trial documents if you're looking for some practical guidance to make your own truck bomb), but it's a little bit more complicated than you seem to think.

[LoBlo]

That is simply not so. You are confusing a ceasefire agreement with an unconditional surrender (and even then, under international law the defeated party still maintains certain rights) and they are not the same. There is no basis for your claim. None. The NFZs were imposed upon Iraq only because Iraq had no power with which to dispute them, militarily or otherwise, and that any resolution introduced into the UN opposing them could be vetoed by the US. Iraq's only means to dispute them was to fire upon aircraft violating its airspace, in vain, and from this proof of just how impotent Iraq was you conclude that it actually meant they posed a threat to US sovereignty? Do you not see how circular and black-is-white this reasoning is? Naturally you don't offer a single shred of evidence to support your claims.

As an aside, its interesting to look back and see what then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney had to say about the decision not to push on into Baghdad:

" I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home. And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties, and while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war. And the question in my mind is, how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is, not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the President made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."

And GHW Bush had this to say on why they chose not to push on into Baghdad:

"Whose life would be on my hands as the commander-in-chief because I, unilaterally, went beyond the international law, went beyond the stated mission, and said we're going to show our macho? We're going into Baghdad. We're going to be an occupying power — America in an Arab land — with no allies at our side. It would have been disastrous."

Prophetic isn't it?

I have to go to work now. I'll respond to you later...:stare: ...:lol:

[Skybird]

You have it right. Kinda contradicts your anti war anti Bush messages though.

You think so? I do not. i insist on the true reasons being given for going to war. And these reasons being given BEFORE a war. If they are given afterwards, they are no reasons, but foul excuses. I do not trust Bush, and I call im a liar. I do not want such bizarre figures taking the lead in such important fights, I do not want them in my rear or at my side, because I never know when they will turn against me to protect their own interests. As I see it, if you are propagating actions against the expansion of Islam, one must be against types like Bush and others who have personal interests in business with Muslim countries as well.

Concerning Iraq, another argument I have: the war has been inadequately planned from the beginning (mybe the plan by the pentagon was alright, I do not know, but Rumsfeld, as we all know, has overruled that plan and made them running it his way - which obviously was wrong). Not to mention the counterproductive longterm-perspective of this special war. Not mentioning the vital vulnerability due to the dependence on Muslim oil. One thing you learn in all martial arts at the very begi8nning: you must have a right stand before starting a fight, else you easily get deflected by your own effort. But the West is balancing on jugs of clay, and even cannot do it blindly.

You maybe say it makes no difference for what reasons a war against Iraq or a Muslim country is being fought. Well, maybe not for them, it is the same bombs hitting them. But it certainly makes a difference for us. I want such things properly named - but still they tell us lies about what the intention was.

They try to hide the grim nature of war. And this is a crime that I do not forgive. Pull the trigger, or don't. but if you pull it, don't spend time painting a smiley on the bullet, but aim for the head. Or as my teacher and mentor in swordfightign taught me years ago: "Don't be afraid to get killed, and always strike to kill with all effort, with your first strike." That'S how it is done, and not differently. I only laugh at Rumsfeld and his superior strategies. Murderous idiot he is, a threat to his own army. i wonder why he is still allowed to enter the pentagon.

[tycho102]

I agree.

This "hearts and minds" **** is the problem. When you go in, you go in like the Great Khan. You massacre an entire 300,000 person city, and poor molten silver into the eyesockets and mouths of your enemies.

Conquer and subjugate. Then, rebuild better than it was before. Require engineering degrees and medical degrees.

[DeepSix]

Its accurate to say that this resolution doesn't mandate the creation of NFZs, as it doesn't even mention NFZs anywhere in it. Nor does any other UN resolution. Those are the facts. Your so called "facts" seem to consist of assumptions supporting your beliefs that have been manufactured out of whole cloth.

If you had actually taken the time to read what I wrote, you might have noticed that I supported no particular position; I simply pointed out what happened historically and explicitly said the resolution could be interpreted differently. And posted a link where you can read the same thing. And indeed it could be interpreted differently, but the fact is that it has been used to justify the NFZs, whether or not you think that it should. There's nothing "so-called" about it. That you do not approve of how it is currently applied does not change the fact that the U.N. passed it.

Every time somebody dares to disagree with you or even appears to do so, you start throwing around collegiate cliches like "manufactured out of whole cloth." In your reply above, you are the one doing the manufacturing. This just makes you sound like a pompous and sophomoric ass whom I cannot take seriously.

[scandium]

If you had actually taken the time to read what I wrote, you might have noticed that I supported no particular position; I simply pointed out what happened historically and explicitly said the resolution could be interpreted differently. And posted a link where you can read the same thing. And indeed it could be interpreted differently, but the fact is that it has been used to justify the NFZs, whether or not you think that it should. There's nothing "so-called" about it. That you do not approve of how it is currently applied does not change the fact that the U.N. passed it.

Here are the items from 688:

"1. Condemns the repression of the Iraqi civilian population in many parts of Iraq, including most recently in Kurdish populated areas, the consequences of which threaten international peace and security in the region;
2. Demands that Iraq, as a contribution to remove the threat to international peace and security in the region, immediately end this repression and express the hope in the same context that an open dialogue will take place to ensure that the human and political rights of all Iraqi citizens are respected;
3. Insists that Iraq allow immediate access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in all parts of Iraq and to make available all necessary facilities for their operations;
4. Requests the Secretary-General to pursue his humanitarian efforts in Iraq and to report forthwith, if appropriate on the basis of a further mission to the region, on the plight of the Iraqi civilian population, and in particular the Kurdish population, suffering from the repression in all its forms inflicted by the Iraqi authorities;
5. Requests further the Secretary-General to use all the resources at his disposal, including those of the relevant United Nations agencies, to address urgently the critical needs of the refugees and displaced Iraqi population;
6. Appeals to all Member States and to all humanitarian organizations to contribute to these humanitarian relief efforts;
7. Demands that Iraq cooperate with the Secretary-General to these ends;
8. Decides to remain seized of the matter."



There is nothing there that mentions NFZs or alludes to their creation. Interpreting it to mean that it allows for the creation of NFZs makes about as much sense as interpreting that it allows for the nuking of Baghdad.



Every time somebody dares to disagree with you or even appears to do so, you start throwing around collegiate cliches like "manufactured out of whole cloth." In your reply above, you are the one doing the manufacturing. This just makes you sound like a pompous and sophomoric ass whom I cannot take seriously.

Sure, if your arguements are not convincing then resort to insults.... those are always persuasive. :nope:

[DeepSix]

This is ridiculous. I know perfectly well what it says because I posted it. You said:

"b: the no fly zones (NFZs) were imposed upon Iraq unilaterally and without the legitimacy of any UN resolution or other international authority;"

which is incorrect. They were imposed based on UNSCR 688. Rightly or wrongly, the language of UNSCR 688 has been interpreted to allow the NZF since 1991. You stated something that is factually incorrect. There's no shame in that; you can either admit it to yourself or not. But I'm not going to play "whack-a-mole" about it.

[scandium]

This is ridiculous. I know perfectly well what it says because I posted it. You said:

"b: the no fly zones (NFZs) were imposed upon Iraq unilaterally and without the legitimacy of any UN resolution or other international authority;"

which is incorrect. They were imposed based on UNSCR 688. Rightly or wrongly, the language of UNSCR 688 has been interpreted to allow the NZF since 1991. You stated something that is factually incorrect. There's no shame in that; you can either admit it to yourself or not. But I'm not going to play "whack-a-mole" about it.
Alright, since you know this resolution then quote me the part of it that prescribes the creation of NFZs. Or even mentions NFZs. In the meantime, this is what an expert on this subject had to say during the run-up to the war (this is from the American Prospect article I linked earlier):

Marjorie Cohn, an attorney and executive vice president of the National Lawyers Guild, has studied the issue of NFZs. "The no-fly zones have never been specifically authorized by the UN Security Council. They are illegal violations of Iraqi sovereignty," she says. "The UN Charter is very clear. Only the Security Council can decide what measures can be taken to enforce Security Council resolutions."

[Onkel Neal]

Yes the 9/11 attacks and the Iraqi war are directly connected. But not through the reasons that most people understand. The Iraqi war is a direct result a unabashed policy change within US political policy. The US stance immediately subsequent to 9/11 was that it will now engage full military operations on any and all entities that it percieves as having ill intent on US sovereignty. Iraqi's stance toward the US was as bad as it gets (it had been shooting SAM missiles at US air patrols for almost 10 years since the first Iraqi War).

Unfortunately, the political public relations idiots within the Bush administration (most notably Dick Chaney) thought that this reason for the US military engagement within Iraqi would not be understood by the general public. The same stance had been taken to the public during the Clinton administration when President Bill Clinton decided that Iraqi firing on US air patrols, as well as its violation of post-war UN resolutions, needed to be addressed with punative measures (cruise missile strikes). The publics understanding and reception of the reasoning were met with, at best, confusion and apathy...much like the response of the UN security councils themselves. Because the Bush administration witnessed and understood the public response that Clintons attempts had garnered, the administration decided that selling to the public the "WMD" pitch would gather more support despite the fact that it was not the real motivation of conflict. This plan for public support backfired rather quickly and blew up in the administrations face big time... as badly as any public/political mishap in recent history. And most people STILL do not understand the real US reasoning for begining their Iraq operations.

If 9/11 had not happened, the current US policy change would not have taken place and the US would probably not be in Iraq today.

Well said :yep:

[scandium]

More details on the alleged conspirators

They include men of Somali, Egyptian, Jamaican, and Trinidadian origin. All are residents of Canada and “for the most part” all are Canadian citizens, police said.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=de3f8e90-982a-47af-8e5e-a1366fd5d6cc&k=46849


What's interesting to me is that the only "Muslim" country in that list is Egypt. :hmm:

[August]

More details on the alleged conspirators

They include men of Somali, Egyptian, Jamaican, and Trinidadian origin. All are residents of Canada and “for the most part” all are Canadian citizens, police said.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=de3f8e90-982a-47af-8e5e-a1366fd5d6cc&k=46849


What's interesting to me is that the only "Muslim" country in that list is Egypt. :hmm:

You can add Somalia soon.

[TLAM Strike]

You can add Somalia soon. Soon? CIA World Factbook says its population is 99.3 % Sunni Islam. Of course Somalia isn't a "country" in the traditional sense... :hmm:

[Abraham]

... We have to be lucky all the time. The bastards however only have to be lucky once.
I really find it a waste of time trying to figure out within 24 hours of the event who it was. That is something that should be subject to analysis further down the track once the infomation becomes available.
Wise words twice!:up:

[The Avon Lady]

Wise words twice!:up:
Meanwhile, down the track........ (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=I3GNT2EBUJKCTQFIQMGSFFOAVCBQ WIV0?xml=/news/2006/06/04/nterr04.xml)

EDIT: Wrong attack thread. It's getting so confusing! :dead:

EDIT: Right attack (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/011672.php). I feel better now!

EDIT: BTW, it's Canada's fault (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=20894_Canadian_Islamic_Congress_Blames_Cana da). :yep:

[Abraham]

That won't happen so you'll either have to learn to live with it or move to one of the few remaining countries that practices religious intolerance.
Which mostly happen to be Muslim countries...

Which by the way is due to the diffuse comprehension, inherent to Islam, of the separation between state and religion. Any lack of understanding the authonomy of the state towards any religion and vice versa (!) will lead to suppression of individual freedom and to totalitarism by either state or church.

[scandium]

Meanwhile, down the track........ (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=I3GNT2EBUJKCTQFIQMGSFFOAVCBQ WIV0?xml=/news/2006/06/04/nterr04.xml)

EDIT: Wrong attack thread. It's getting so confusing! :dead:

EDIT: Right attack (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/011672.php). I feel better now!

EDIT: BTW, it's Canada's fault (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=20894_Canadian_Islamic_Congress_Blames_Cana da). :yep:

I don't see how they get "Canadian Islamic Congress Blames Canada" from this:

"It is irresponsible for our Prime Minster to paint today’s arrests as a battle between “us” and “them”. Such statement puts all Canadian Muslims in great danger."

In fact, I happen to agree with them. Condemnation and horror are the natural reactions to any plot involving 3 tonnes of explosive so there is no need for such rhetoric.

[The Avon Lady]

I don't see how they get "Canadian Islamic Congress Blames Canada" from this:

"It is irresponsible for our Prime Minster to paint today’s arrests as a battle between “us” and “them”. Such statement puts all Canadian Muslims in great danger."

1. Exactly what did Harper say? Can you find me the verbatim quote?

2. What's wrong with "us or them"?
In fact, I happen to agree with them. Condemnation and horror are the natural reactions to any plot involving 3 tonnes of explosive so there is no need for such rhetoric.
But of course. But of course. Rhetoric.

[Abraham]

@ scandium:
I find it difficult to follow this discussion.
Who uses rethoric? The Canadian Prime Minister? I only know that the chairman of the Canadian Islamic Congress did not quote him but edited him as: "to paint today’s arrests as a battle between “us” and “them”." That certainly sounds a bit rethoric to me, just as his next line: "Such statement puts all Canadian Muslims in great danger."...

And even if the Canadian P.M. made a distinction between "us" and "them", who did he mean?
Are "us" just the non-Muslim Canadians or all the decent, law abiding, hard working Muslim and non-Muslim citizens of Canada?
Are "them" all Canadian Muslims or just a bunch of radical totalitairian extremist Muslims?

By the way, I liked the little reminder that the guy himself considers all Israeli citizens "legitime targets".

"Thank you, Canada, for adopting us and giving us a better future." is probably their weekly Mosque prayer.


A way to stop this kind of planning of terrorism was promoted about a year ago by a Dutch Islamist of the University of Utrecht Prof. Hans Jansen. He said that if anybody would be arrested for planning a terror attack his whole family or clan should be send back to the country of origin (deported), only the ones who inform the police should get permament residence. They would not be able to hide within their own community anymore, as they do now. They would be betrayed by their own brothers before they could ever flick a switch or press a button... And this kind of collective punishment would be very well understood by them.
Just a thought, perhaps not yet for now, but for the future...:hmm:

[Skybird]

Discussions of these kinds only cause one thing - that the attention after an intended or successful Islamic terror strike against the West immediately is distracted towards a debate based on political correctness, that attention shifts away from the crime and it's victims and towards plenty of reasons why an Islamic attack on the West is not an Islamic attack on the West, and that the ideolgy that does very little or nothing to prevent such attacks being conducted from the grounds of it's teachings, immediately is cleaned of all responsebility, so that it can go on with expanding. These guys were about killing a lot of Non-Islmaic people, obviously. But now we talk on the interests of Muslims again. Bewildering. After the london strikes, there were TV deabtes on German TV. The content focussed not so much on the victims, and the the sequence of actions during the attack, but on how one could make sure that everyone agrees that these Islamic terroists were no Islamic terroists, and that Islam should be cleaned of any guilt in cuasing such attacks.Before that, I saw the same after the Madrid strikes: TV discussions stressing that there are Islamic terrorists hidden as sleepers, but that they are not Islamic terrorists.I am so very much sick and tired of this European masochistic self-destruction. It should be added to chapter F of the ICD as a major psychopathological desease.

[Abraham]

Discussions of these kinds only cause one thing - that the attention after an intended or successful Islamic terror strike against the West immediately is distracted towards a debate based on political correctness, that attention shifts away from the crime and it's victims and towards plenty of reasons why an Islamic attack on the West is not an Islamic attack on the West, and that the ideolgy that does very little or nothing to prevent such attacks being conducted from the grounds of it's teachings, immediately is cleaned of all responsebility, so that it can go on with expanding...
:up:
Well said, Skybird!
It further serves to create a feeling of solidarity within the Muslim community. A sense of: "It is really them against us (the Muslims), just as the imans predicted..."
But then, taking individual responsability for one's actions is not something Muslims are known for, to say something politically incorrect for a change...

[Skybird]

I said that before, and I remind you of it again: during the age of the rivalry between the Spanish and British kingdom, before the Spanish built their armada, the British send bucaneers to bring up and rob and destroy Spanish gold transports. These bucaneers were not labelled as being official part of the Royal navy, but nevertheless they acted on demand and with explicit acceptance by the crown. That way Britain was able to hurt Spain and fight a hidden war, without the Spanish being able to declare war on britain, for the attackers "were not part of the British navy", were "private enterprises" only. Clever. Deliver them a hit, but don't get hit yourself. The same strategy was used by Denmark in it's confrontation with the Hanse in the Eastern sea - Denmark did not send it's own warships, but supported pirates to attack ships of the Hanse.Today Islam conducts attacks against the communities in Western nations, and escapes being held responsibole for it by saying that it is no true Islam what the attackers represent. Unfortunetyl, thse attackers are more in conformity with the orders and demands of their religion, than the socalled moderate Muslims. It is an evasion maneouvre to avoid Western counterattack.

[The Avon Lady]

to say something politically incorrect for a change...
Lost your moderator hat?:lol:

[Abraham]

@ Skybird:
And what do you think of this: A way to stop this kind of planning of terrorism was promoted about a year ago by a Dutch Islamist of the University of Utrecht Prof. Hans Jansen. He said that if anybody would be arrested for planning a terror attack his whole family or clan should be send back to the country of origin (deported), only the ones who inform the police should get permament residence. They would not be able to hide within their own community anymore, as they do now. They would be betrayed by their own brothers before they could ever flick a switch or press a button... And this kind of collective punishment would be very well understood by them.
Just a thought, perhaps not yet for now, but for the future...:hmm:as a riposte?
Their own families don't want to be send back...

[scandium]

1. Exactly what did Harper say? Can you find me the verbatim quote?

2. What's wrong with "us or them"?

But of course. But of course. Rhetoric.

This is the quote:

"Their alleged target was Canada, Canadian institutions, the Canadian economy, the Canadian people," Harper said. "We are a target because of who we are and how we live, our society, our diversity and our values values such as freedom, democracy and the rule of law. The values that make Canada great, values that Canadians cherish."

Such a speech is fine if its being delivered to a non-Canadian audience that is not that familiar with Canada. In this case it was being delivered to Canadians who already know what our values are and don't need a lecture on them from the PM. But such speeches are not meant to explain, they are meant to stir nationalistic sentiment by rallying "us" against "them". To me its rhetoric because I don't need a "them" to value my country. And its rhetoric because in this case the "them" that he's talking about happened to be among "us"; at least some of them were Canadians which makes the facts in this case at odds with rhetoric. But that is the problem with rhetoric, that the facts are often ignored when they get in the way of a good speech.

The problem with "us" and "them" rhetoric is that it leads to scapegoating and the rationalization of the unjustifiable. Islamic fundamentalism thrives on this kind of "us" and "them" dichotomy where the world is simplified into only two groups of people: "us", the true believers, and "them" the infidel. If that's something that appeals to you then you're welcome to it, but I'll pass.

[scandium]

@ scandium:
I find it difficult to follow this discussion.
Who uses rethoric? The Canadian Prime Minister? I only know that the chairman of the Canadian Islamic Congress did not quote him but edited him as: "to paint today’s arrests as a battle between “us” and “them”." That certainly sounds a bit rethoric to me, just as his next line: "Such statement puts all Canadian Muslims in great danger."...

And even if the Canadian P.M. made a distinction between "us" and "them", who did he mean?
Are "us" just the non-Muslim Canadians or all the decent, law abiding, hard working Muslim and non-Muslim citizens of Canada?
Are "them" all Canadian Muslims or just a bunch of radical totalitairian extremist Muslims?

That is one of the problems with "us" and "them" rhetoric, you need to create nice neat little categories to put people into only to find that they often don't even fit into these categories. The "us" the PM is referring to are Canadians in general, the "them" he referred to were the 17 arrested, at least some of whom also happen to be Canadians. I dislike such rhetoric because I see the world in full colour and not black and white little categories, although this particular example of it is, in itself, trivial and not something I'll lose any sleep over.

[Abraham]

Lost your moderator hat?:lol:
You are the first who is complaining...
Please send a p.m. to John Channing or Drebbel.
:D

[The Avon Lady]

Islamic fundamentalism thrives on this kind of "us" and "them" dichotomy where the world is simplified into only two groups of people: "us", the true believers, and "them" the infidel.
Just the opposite.

Islamic terror has thrived on people like yourself continually blaming the victims and constantly blathering about a minority of extremists ad infinitum and failing to study the historical and theological foundations of Islam.

Finally, the world is waking up, though apparently comatose is still rampant.

[Skybird]

@ Skybird:
And what do you think of this: as a riposte?
(...)
Their own families don't want to be send back...

Fully acceptable for me. I admit I did not always see it like that. But I saw myself in need to change some earlier assessments of mine. I also can see it in no violation to the kind of ethics and "spiritual convictions" I live by. So, no problem for me to go this way. I personally am willing to stress even tougher sanctions against Islam in the West. I finally accepted that Israel may have been right in raising that damn wall and using the ammount of violence it is using in dealing with the Palestinians. I have not always accepted that. The enemy's tactics are changing, so do I change mine.

[Abraham]

That is one of the problems with "us" and "them" rhetoric, you need to create nice neat little categories to put people into only to find that they often don't even fit into these categories. The "us" the PM is referring to are Canadians in general, the "them" he referred to were the 17 arrested, at least some of whom also happen to be Canadians. I dislike such rhetoric because I see the world in full colour and not black and white little categories, although this particular example of it is, in itself, trivial and not something I'll lose any sleep over.
Thanks, that clarifies my questions.
Conclusions:
1. The P.M. wisely made a big category of all the decent, law abiding, hard working non-Muslim and Muslim citizens of Canada and a little category of people that (try to) place themselves outside the legal framework of the society they live in and thrive on. Just as I expected. I fully agree with the guy.
:up:
2. The Canadian Islamic Congress leader was the one using rethoric after all, trying to make this a 'Canada against all Muslims' issue. Just as I expected.
:p
3. You fell for his retorics. Just as I expected.
:down:
4. I see the world in color at least as well as you do, but for observing events like this I take off my shades.
Terrorism is such a dark crime that I don't see any color left in it.
:cool:

You should forget that neat little pallet of colors of yours for once and have the guts to take a stand based on principles without losing any sleep about making a choice between good and evil, scandium!
Have you REALLY considered for more than a second what would have happened had this attack succeeded?
What misery it would have brought to Canadians, non-Muslims and Muslims alike?
How much hope it would give to extremists and how much inspiration for would-be terrorists, seeking their own second of glory in their worthless life?
There are some evils on this planet that make people who nuance them sometimes perpetrators in the mind...

[scandium]

Just the opposite.

Islamic terror has thrived on people like yourself continually blaming the victims and constantly blathering about a minority of extremists ad infinitum and failing to study the historical and theological foundations of Islam.

Finally, the world is waking up, though apparently comatose is still rampant.
I blame the victims? Where? As the would be victims were Canadians, and I am Canadian living in Canada, your accusation makes about as much sense as my calling you a Nazi. Get a grip AL, your hatred is out of place and unwarranted.

[Abraham]

@ Skybird:
Please edit this:I finally accepted that Israel may have been right in raising that damn wall and using the ammount of violence it is using in dealing with the Palestinians.
into:
I finally accepted that Israel may have been right in raising that damn fence and ... (etc.)
Just to save you the wrath of your new girlfriend, The Avon Lady...
:rotfl:

[scandium]

You should forget that neat little pallet of colors of yours for once and have the guts to take a stand based on principles without losing any sleep about making a choice between good and evil, scandium!
Have you REALLY considered for more than a second what would have happened had this attack succeeded?
What misery it would have brought to Canadians, non-Muslims and Muslims alike?
How much hope it would give to extremists and how much inspiration for would-be terrorists, seeking their own second of glory in their worthless life?
There are some evils on this planet that make people who nuance them sometimes perpetrators in the mind...
Quote me the passage in this thread, or anywhere on this forum, where I condone terrorism. You won't find it because I do not condone it.

Of course I considered what would have happened if the attack had suceeded. Have you not considered that as a Canadian I might have friends or family that could have been hurt or killed if this had happened? Do you not realize how outrageous you are being here? Please, being scolded and lectured on the consequences from someone an ocean away is absurd and offensive. You're almost as bad as AL with your patent on righteous preaching that is totally out of place and out of line.

Editted for typos.

[Konovalov]

Just the opposite.

Islamic terror has thrived on people like yourself continually blaming the victims

Where the heck did he blame the victims in any of his postings? You are out of line on this one Avon Lady. :nope:

[The Avon Lady]

The B O O M (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-2211228,00.html) that could have been.

[The Avon Lady]

Where the heck did he blame the victims in any of his postings? You are out of line on this one Avon Lady. :nope:
My full response to Scandium was:
"Islamic terror has thrived on people like yourself continually blaming the victims

and

constantly blathering about a minority of extremists ad infinitum

and

failing to study the historical and theological foundations of Islam."
I will provide you with an alternative rendition:
"Islamic terror has thrived on people like yourself continually blaming the victims

and/or

constantly blathering about a minority of extremists ad infinitum

and/or

failing to study the historical or theological foundations of Islam."

[Abraham]

@ scandium:
Don't get upset or personal; I am only criticizing you for what you wrote.
I have nor said, nor suggested, nor do I think, that you condone terrorism.
It's just that I get as sick as Skybird and some others on this forum of people who as a first reaction to an act of Muslim terrorism (or the threat thereof) start soul searching for a non-obvious cause.
That you are a Canadian yourselves doesn't change this a thing. I think it is sometimes a well known psychological reaction of some victims to excuse the perpetrators and blame themselves. (I mean 'blame' in this sense: the victim's doubting or soul searching his/her own attitude as a possible cause for the motivation of the perpetrator; and 'victim' in the widest possible meaning, including all who could suffer: an ethnic group, a people, a nation i.e. Canada). Skybird might know the psychological name for it...
You just fell hook line and sinker for the rethoric of the Canadian Islamic Congress leader blaming your P.M. of retorics. Your Prime Minister was damn right: it is "us" - you and me included - against "them" - the force of destruction.
Your remark that I am almost as bad as The Avon Lady could perhaps be considered offensive by that lady...
As far as the "righteous preaching that is totally out of place and out of line" I would say: you are right, but we all have our faults. This is one of my leftist antics or traits that I sometimes find hard to suppress.
Since terrorism is a world wide problem I find your remark that I should keep quiet unjustified. Your added argument that I am "an ocean away" doesn't make much sense given the issue (terrorism) and the platform (a subsim forum...)
:D

[The Avon Lady]

Your remark that I am almost as bad as The Avon Lady could perhaps be considered offensive by that lady...
I'm badder than bad!:rock:

[StdDev]

I'm badder than bad!:rock:

Thats Good!!!!! :yep:

[Skybird]

@ Skybird:
Please edit this:
into:

Just to save you the wrath of your new girlfriend, The Avon Lady...
:rotfl:
Pardon? Maybe it is becasue it is holiday in Germany, and I am lazy today, and my brain is slow, but what do you mean?

[Abraham]

Pardon? Maybe it is becasue it is holiday in Germany, and I am lazy today, and my brain is slow, but what do you mean?
Oops...
Having to explain a joke is the ultimate proof that it failed.
Here I go:
You showed understanding for Israels actions versus the Palestinians. Now you have a new girl friend, The Avon Lady.
But you spoke about the wall, and many Israeli's make an issue of pointing out that about 90 % is actually a fence.
It is a known fact that The Avon Lady doesn't compromise with anybody, friends or not. So I suggested a little editing to keep this new friendship alive...

Ahw, probably The Avon Lady being a bedder woman gives (*edited*) about how you call it, as long as it gets finished...

[Skybird]

Since I have seen images both of high metal fences and solid concrete walls, I think it doesn't matter. And since she already cut off my lips and hands, there is not much more she can threaten me with.

[The Avon Lady]

Since I have seen images both of high metal fences and solid concrete walls, I think it doesn't matter.
I agree. Fact is, however, that something like 90% of it is fence.
And since she already cut off my lips and hands, there is not much more she can threaten me with.
/avon emits evil laugh: BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!:eek:

[TLAM Strike]

And since she already cut off my lips and hands, there is not much more she can threaten me with. Well there is one more thing she could cut off... ;)

[Abraham]

"You took the words right out of my mouth..."

And I bad she would in see deemed it necessary for the safety of the State of Israel.
:rotfl:

[scandium]

@ scandium:
Don't get upset or personal; I am only criticizing you for what you wrote.
I have nor said, nor suggested, nor do I think, that you condone terrorism.
It's just that I get as sick as Skybird and some others on this forum of people who as a first reaction to an act of Muslim terrorism (or the threat thereof) start soul searching for a non-obvious cause.
That you are a Canadian yourselves doesn't change this a thing. I think it is sometimes a well known psychological reaction of some victims to excuse the perpetrators and blame themselves. (I mean 'blame' in this sense: the victim's doubting or soul searching his/her own attitude as a possible cause for the motivation of the perpetrator; and 'victim' in the widest possible meaning, including all who could suffer: an ethnic group, a people, a nation i.e. Canada). Skybird might know the psychological name for it...
You just fell hook line and sinker for the rethoric of the Canadian Islamic Congress leader blaming your P.M. of retorics. Your Prime Minister was damn right: it is "us" - you and me included - against "them" - the force of destruction.
Your remark that I am almost as bad as The Avon Lady could perhaps be considered offensive by that lady...
As far as the "righteous preaching that is totally out of place and out of line" I would say: you are right, but we all have our faults. This is one of my leftist antics or traits that I sometimes find hard to suppress.
Since terrorism is a world wide problem I find your remark that I should keep quiet unjustified. Your added argument that I am "an ocean away" doesn't make much sense given the issue (terrorism) and the platform (a subsim forum...)
:D
Abraham, where do I excuse the perpetrators? As far as I know the leader of the Canadian Islamic Congress wasn't one of the perpetrators and his remark was the only thing I agreed with. That is another problem with your "us" and "them" mentality, that the "them" has a tendency to expand to include those whose only crime is that they are of the same ethnic group as the perpetrators, or in my case, happen to agree with something that was said by a Muslim.

[Abraham]

Abraham, where do I excuse the perpetrators? As far as I know the leader of the Canadian Islamic Congress wasn't one of the perpetrators and his remark was the only thing I agreed with. That is another problem with your "us" and "them" mentality, that the "them" has a tendency to expand to include those whose only crime is that they are of the same ethnic group as the perpetrators, or in my case, happen to agree with something that was said by a Muslim.
I am not saying that you excuse the perpetrators. What irritated me and made me react, perhaps overreact, is the fact that in the face of an attempted act of terror you reacted to the words of the Canadian P.M. by attacking him for talking about "us" and "them" and started to make nuances.

If you see this kind of terrorism in the face, religiously motivated, totalitarian (no limits to political objectives or human targets) and only capable of destruction than you have to take a principle stand: this can't be condoned. As soon as you do that, you are in an "us versus them" situation whether you like it or not. And that line is very clear. No need for nuances here!

Now the leader of the Canadian Islamic Congress - a racist and would be terrorist himself if we should believe his statements about Israeli civilians as legitimate targets - tried to nuance that line and make this into a Canadian non-Muslims and Canadian Muslims issue. His reasons seem obvious, he probably adheres the same ideology as the would-be terrorists. His tactics are also clear; attack the clear statement of his own P.M.; scare the Muslims into a minority and victimized role and try to divide the country along religious lines.

Skybird rightly complained about that standard approach of many (not all!) Muslim communities. A total lack of soul searching what brings their sons and brothers to come to free nations, built by succesfull people, get adopted into new societies and then start their destructive work. That's what the rest of the world expects the Muslim communities to do.

Terrorism is a black crime for me and I think I am smart enough to make a distinction between black and all the other colors of the spectre. In situations like this what's wrong with "us" and "them" as The Avon Lady said. I felt manipulated by your remarks into a group of people who are dangerously stupid to include every Canadian Muslim into the "them" group. I am not doing that. The issue at hand is whether the Canadian Muslims are doing that themselves. Seen in that light the remarks of the jeader of the Canadian Islamic Congres don't forebode much optimism.

[scandium]

I am not saying that you excuse the perpetrators. What irritated me and made me react, perhaps overreact, is the fact that in the face of an attempted act of terror you reacted to the words of the Canadian P.M. by attacking him for talking about "us" and "them" and started to make nuances.

Of the dozen or so newspaper articles on this attempt I'd looked at, none had the quote from the PM. A few allocated a paragraph on the bottom half of their article to what the leader of the Cdn. Islamic Congress had to say. In the face of an attempted act of terror I had no reaction to the words of our PM because I had not seen those words - until AL posted that ridiculous "Little Green Footballs" article that accused the Cdn. Islamic Congress leader of blaming Canada. My reaction to this was to point out that it is utter BS and that I agreed with the Cdn. Islamic Congress leader as far as his point about rhetoric goes. Again, this goes to your "us" and "them" mentality that you could equate that with "attacking the PM" which is total nonsense.

If you see this kind of terrorism in the face, religiously motivated, totalitarian (no limits to political objectives or human targets) and only capable of destruction than you have to take a principle stand: this can't be condoned. As soon as you do that, you are in an "us versus them" situation whether you like it or not. And that line is very clear. No need for nuances here!

A strawman. Believe it or not I can see terrorism for what it is, not condone it, be completely opposed to it and yet still separate the acts of the few who practice it or encourage it from the many whose only crime was being born into a Muslim family and who have never and will never encourage or commit such an act.

Now the leader of the Canadian Islamic Congress - a racist and would be terrorist himself if we should believe his statements about Israeli civilians as legitimate targets - tried to nuance that line and make this into a Canadian non-Muslims and Canadian Muslims issue. His reasons seem obvious, he probably adheres the same ideology as the would-be terrorists. His tactics are also clear; attack the clear statement of his own P.M.; scare the Muslims into a minority and victimized role and try to divide the country along religious lines.

I read it the opposite way, that he was asking the PM not to make this into a Muslim vs non-Muslim issue. As to the rest of what you're saying, I have no idea what you're even basing that on other than obviously not the same remarks I had read earlier.

Terrorism is a black crime for me and I think I am smart enough to make a distinction between black and all the other colors of the spectre. In situations like this what's wrong with "us" and "them" as The Avon Lady said. I felt manipulated by your remarks into a group of people who are dangerously stupid to include every Canadian Muslim into the "them" group. I am not doing that. The issue at hand is whether the Canadian Muslims are doing that themselves. Seen in that light the remarks of the jeader of the Canadian Islamic Congres don't forebode much optimism.

What's wrong with your "them" is that it seems too often to include Muslims in general, except when as now you are being disengenous. What's wrong is that it has every appearance to me of being grounded firmly in bigotry against a very large group of people whose identity I don't see as defined by the acts of a few the way you do. You say you feel "manipulated" by my remarks into this, I say its because my remarks perhaps come a little closer to the truth than you are willing to admit to yourself.

[Abraham]

Of the dozen or so newspaper articles on this attempt I'd looked at, none had the quote from the PM. A few allocated a paragraph on the bottom half of their article to what the leader of the Cdn. Islamic Congress had to say. In the face of an attempted act of terror I had no reaction to the words of our PM because I had not seen those words - until AL posted that ridiculous "Little Green Footballs" article that accused the Cdn. Islamic Congress leader of blaming Canada. My reaction to this was to point out that it is utter BS and that I agreed with the Cdn. Islamic Congress leader as far as his point about rhetoric goes. Again, this goes to your "us" and "them" mentality that you could equate that with "attacking the PM" which is total nonsense.
OK, but don't you think the leader of a government has to unite the nation in moments of peril? Would you consider the war speeches of Churchill just retoric or even BS? I think your P.M. drew the line between "us" and "them" where he should. Because there is a line that was trespassed; the attempt to commit a terror attack.
Believe it or not I can see terrorism for what it is, not condone it, be completely opposed to it and yet still separate the acts of the few who practice it or encourage it from the many whose only crime was being born into a Muslim family and who have never and will never encourage or commit such an act.
I believe you on this of course. But don't you see you start immediately completely unfounded retorics yourself by saying stating "whose only crime it was to be borne in a Muslim family". Who is tating that? Not me, and such remarks pollute the discussion.
I read it the opposite way, that he was asking the PM not to make this into a Muslim vs non-Muslim issue. As to the rest of what you're saying, I have no idea what you're even basing that on other than obviously not the same remarks I had read earlier.
Again, the P.M. wasn't. The retorics guy was the Muslim leader and I think I pointed out his obvious motivation. You just fell for his retorics, which is a pity.
What's wrong with your "them" is that it seems too often to include Muslims in general, except when as now you are being disengenous. What's wrong is that it has every appearance to me of being grounded firmly in bigotry against a very large group of people whose identity I don't see as defined by the acts of a few the way you do. You say you feel "manipulated" by my remarks into this, I say its because my remarks perhaps come a little closer to the truth than you are willing to admit to yourself.
Let's say we differ greatly on this. I see no bigotry in identifying a group with a huge problem. And isn't it a bit selfrightious of you to pretend that your remarks come a little bit closer to the truth than I am prepared to admit to myself?

I have no problems with Muslims in my country as long as they are loyal citizens, which the majority is.
However I am not blind and I see a growing extremism amoungst the second and third generation of immigrants, who were never properly taught how to behave in a free society and are now being hijacked by radical imans.
I also clearly undrerstand the philosophical problem for the Islam to operate for the first time as a minority religion in a mainly secular environment; a role it is definitely not prepared for to play. This - the constellation of our western free society with its individual freedoms - creates great uncertainty and the sense of being threatened amoungst fundamental (= the majority of) Muslims. Some adapt, or lose interest in their religion, others want to destroy the free world and build a perfect umma.
I further see a problem of loyality for many Muslims. They should stay on the right side of the line separating "us" from "them" (the radicals). But too many linger or try to avoid hard choices. Toomany pretend to be against violence but immediately point at Israel or the United States, thus excusing the terrorists. Toomany say they support their new country but refuse to inform the law enforcing agencies about what happens in their midst. Toomany refuse any soul-searching about the fundamental issues that makes the Islam a religion that can so easily lead to or be used for violence.

It's really the Muslim community itself in many countries that has to determine whether they are with "us" or with "them".

And don't forget, this Salafi jihad is not your average terror organisation like the ETA, the IRA, the Tamil Tigers and so on. Those are local organisations with limited political objectives and a high percentage of criminal influence (from drugs trafficking to extortions). The Salafi jihad has no less objective but to conquer the world and kill or suppress all infidels. We can laught about them, but because they take their struggle serious and will do anything to reach their goal we better take them serious as well.

[scandium]

OK, but don't you think the leader of a government has to unite the nation in moments of peril? Would you consider the war speeches of Churchill just retoric or even BS? I think your P.M. drew the line between "us" and "them" where he should. Because there is a line that was trespassed; the attempt to commit a terror attack.

Yes, a good leader should unite the nation. Period. Not just in moments of peril, but at all times. The natural reaction to a terror attack, by the way, is I think twofold: on the one hand people tend to come together, to unite, in their condemnation of such horrificly deviant behaviour; on the other hand, because of the shadowy aspect of terrorism they can also become suspicious, paranoid, and because of the wrongful nature of the attack, may take their fear and anger out on proxies. These are natural human emotions. At the same time, you cannot create a situation where this is allowed because (a) it is morally wrong, and (b) the minority that is scapegoated in this fashion may then begin to identify with the terrorists and become radicalized, creating a vicious cycle.

A good leader then, in this situation, is faced with a delicate balancing act. On the one hand he needs to calm people's fears and suspicions and demonstrate that justice is (or will be) forthcoming. At the same time, he also needs to restrain society's natural inclination toward vigilante justice and retribution so that it doesn't lead to attacks on proxies and create the vicious cycle. A comparison to Churchill is not valid because Britain's enemies were external and so the dynamic was different.

Again, the P.M. wasn't. The retorics guy was the Muslim leader and I think I pointed out his obvious motivation. You just fell for his retorics, which is a pity.

It seemed to me simply as though the Muslim leader was pointing out the line Harper was walking and cautioning him not to cross it, lest Harper inflame sentiment among ordinary Canadians and among Muslim minority groups in Canada. On this I agreed with him for the reason stated above and in previous posts.

[scandium]

More details on this made public:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060606/ap_on_re_ca/canada_terrorism_arrests_41

BRAMPTON, Ontario - At least one member of a group of terror suspects plotted to storm Canada's parliament and behead officials, including the prime minister, if Muslim prisoners in Canada and Afghanistan were not released, according to charges made public Tuesday.

Authorities also alleged that Steven Vikash Chand plotted to take over media outlets such as the Canadian Broadcasting Corp.

Pretty sick stuff.

[CCIP]

Living in Ottawa, I can tell you that if a bit crazy, it was not implausible. I was passing by Parliament Hill the other day, and I smirked at how the American Embassy nearby is a fortress with a tall fence, blocks to prevent cars from getting near entrances, and half of both roads near it closed off - when there is basically no real security whatsoever at the parliament itself.

[scandium]

Another Yahoo article that provides even more details:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060606/wl_afp/canadaattackstrial_060606184338

I had a bit of a chuckle at this part (actually a mixture of wry amusement and disgust):

Asked whether the prisoners' religious requirements were being met, McLeod said: "They're Muslim and clearly they'd like to be able to pray, to pray as a group. We'd like to be able to facilitate that religious freedom that they're entitled to."


"That is one thing that counsel is asking for and the justice inside the court was not able to give a definitive answer where that was concerned."

His clients' are alleged to have conspired to commit terrorist acts and he things they should be entitled to pray together as a group? Yeah right. :roll:

[Wildcat]

The muslims caught in Toronto had plans to behead numerous politicians and members of the press.

What is it with islam and violence? What is wrong with that religion? It really ought to be banned. Someone needs to stop that virus from infecting this country.