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.

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.


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

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."

Well said :yep:

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/n...d5d6cc&k=46849


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

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:

Canada dodged a bullet
 

Wise words twice!:up:

Meanwhile, down the track........

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

EDIT: Right attack. I feel better now!

EDIT: BTW, it's Canada's fault. :yep:

Canada dodged a bullet
 

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.

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.

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.

Canada dodged a bullet
 

@ 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:

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.