Muslims at Wooten Bassett

[driveace]

Should the Muslims ,under the guidence of the (Cleric?) ,be allowed to hold a parade down the centre of Wooten Bassett with empty coffins,in memory of people killed in Afganistan.
Or should the police and the Courts ban it?

[BTCC Fan#1]

The people organising this march are idiots of the highest order, as I understand it when they attempted something similar in Birmingham, the local community (including fellow Muslims) told them to shove it. However, this is a free country. The best thing the people of Wootton Bassett could do is just ignore them, don't give them the oxygen of publicity let alone the time of day.

The only grounds on which this should be banned in my view is the seemingly inevitable threat of the 'English Defence League' (equally idiotic IMHO) turning up and starting a fight..

[Mark in Oshawa]

Let em march. Freedom of speech means freedom to be offensive or stupid. We either tolerate freedom of speech and thought or we don't.

[Hondo]

No, don't allow it. Piss on them. They choose for whatever reason to immigrate to Britain and the culture Britain has built through it's religion and it's history. Now they demand the right to dilute and undermine the culture they immigrated to by protesting in Britain, an event that occurred in Afghanistan. If it meant that much to you, you should have stayed there and stood up for what you believe. Better yet, just go home and take your sillyassed protest with you.

[Mark in Oshawa]

No, don't allow it. Piss on them. They choose for whatever reason to immigrate to Britain and the culture Britain has built through it's religion and it's history. Now they demand the right to dilute and undermine the culture they immigrated to by protesting in Britain, an event that occurred in Afghanistan. If it meant that much to you, you should have stayed there and stood up for what you believe. Better yet, just go home and take your sillyassed protest with you.

Free speech Fiero. I agree they are twits and should go home, but they are there now and are "citizens" or legal immigrants in the least. Either we have the courage of our convictions or we don't.

[Hondo]

There are limits to free speech. Much like the old question about shouting "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater. Does your freedom of speech override the damage that may be caused by the ensuing paniced rush to the exits? Freedom of speech carries obligations and perils but I would at least hope, in the case of immigrants anyway, that good manners alone would be enough to keep them from spitting in the face of the country that took them in when they came asking.

Feel free to brand me whatever you want, but all this multiculturalism does is create a huge goop where everything becomes ok because to take a stand and say "No, this is wrong" gets you tagged as a bigoted hater with a closed mind instead of a knowing prophet of what is to come.
Let them go home and protest.

[Mark in Oshawa]

There are limits to free speech. Much like the old question about shouting "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater. Does your freedom of speech override the damage that may be caused by the ensuing paniced rush to the exits? Freedom of speech carries obligations and perils but I would at least hope, in the case of immigrants anyway, that good manners alone would be enough to keep them from spitting in the face of the country that took them in when they came asking.

Feel free to brand me whatever you want, but all this multiculturalism does is create a huge goop where everything becomes ok because to take a stand and say "No, this is wrong" gets you tagged as a bigoted hater with a closed mind instead of a knowing prophet of what is to come.
Let them go home and protest.

Fiero, I don't disagree in how much I dislike their point or their hypocritcal and ludcrious behaviour. The point is, if we restricted in modern society those of a different religion who we thought were idiots, we would be no different than the 18th century UK gov't who persecuted the Quakers or the Germans and Swiss who persecuted the Amish. The US was founded on the right to have a different religion and freedom of though and speech. If you are against Muslims protesting a war; tell me how it is consistent with the concept of of the freedoms YOUR nation is supposed to hold dear.

I don't have to like it, you don't have to like it, but if we start dictating who is allowed to march peacefully, you are halfway to a facist state, which the last time I looked, wasn't your aim or your style.

These loons are no different than the useless rent a mob protesters we have for any issue....

[Hondo]

Ok, i'll respect their right to free speech as long as they recognize my right to haul off and bust them in the mouth if it offends me. That seems fair to me.

[Drew]

That's a weak start to a thread tbh. It's being planned by a group called islam4uk, an islamist extremist group which advocates bringing sharia law to the UK and has been linked to a terrorist group. So it's not just the average muslim on the street, it's just mental extremists, who are clearly trying to get some column inches.

[wedge]

Wonder if Lefty-nutters AKA anti-fascits will turn up as well having a pop at the Islamic extremists for once.

[Easy Drifter]

Mark if a similar group tried it here at Grenville Street in Toronto or at Trenton, when the bodies are returned, or anywhere along the 401 the public would tear them to pieces.
There are a lot of Cdns. who do not support our presence in Afghanistan but they sure support our troops.

[anthonyvop]

Let them march and at the same time take their photos and investigate every single one of them and put them on the "no fly list."

[Mark in Oshawa]

Mark if a similar group tried it here at Grenville Street in Toronto or at Trenton, when the bodies are returned, or anywhere along the 401 the public would tear them to pieces.
There are a lot of Cdns. who do not support our presence in Afghanistan but they sure support our troops.

Flip em the bird, shout em down, turn you back or ignore them, but they have the right to have a peaceful march. I feel as you do that they are stirring up crap that is just an insult to us all, but we can take insults and words. As long as they just walk down the street, their opinion is what it is. THey are wrong in my opinion, but that is the difference between the world we die for and the world the Taliban die for.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Let them march and at the same time take their photos and investigate every single one of them and put them on the "no fly list."

That I suppose would get the ACLU mad, but I am all for that......

[Hondo]

We have all seen what radical Islam talks about and acts upon when the opportunity presents it's self. What they advocate is unlawful. Why not let child molesters march and spread their gospel also?

Countries had better quit screwing around with these ingrates and start sending them home. You laugh at them now as nothing but they are patient and their time is coming.

Send them home.

[Jag_Warrior]

I don't know what the laws are over there. But here, we let Nazis and the KKK march, so why not? In fact, in the supposed birthplace of the Klan, they have an annual get together and parade every year: Pulaski, TN, aka Sh##hole of the South.

But I agree that some good, high quality pictures might provide a list of suspects, should anything go boom in the coming months.

[Langdale Forest]

Stop any muslims from going near Wooton Basset because thats is about as disrespectfuil as you can get.

[DexDexter]

Should the Muslims ,under the guidence of the (Cleric?) ,be allowed to hold a parade down the centre of Wooten Bassett with empty coffins,in memory of people killed in Afganistan.
Or should the police and the Courts ban it?

Could you enlighten us non-Britts about what "Wooten Bassett" is? A place in the UK, I understand that.

[BeansBeansBeans]

Stop any muslims from going near Wooton Basset because thats is about as disrespectfuil as you can get.

Tarring all muslims with the same brush is similarly disrespectful. As Drew pointed out, extremists are behind this, not all muslims.

I'm not sure whether the parade should be allowed. It seems to me to be unnecessarily provocative and incendiary.

[Mark]

They *should* be allowed, however, by doing so it would likely provoke a fierce response and would probably cause a riot! If I were the police I'd fear for the safety of those marching. So purely to maintain public order it shouldn't be allowed.

On a personal level, I think they are sick twisted scum, but even scum should be allowed to protest, after all, *that* is what we are fighting for, isn't it?

[Eki]

Let em march. Freedom of speech means freedom to be offensive or stupid. We either tolerate freedom of speech and thought or we don't.
What's offensive in marching in memory of people who have been killed? Yesterday there was a moment of silence in memory of the victims of the shooting-rampage in Espoo in every store of the supermarket chain of whose employees the killed were. Do you consider also that offensive or stupid?

[Mark]

What's offensive in marching in memory of people who have been killed? Yesterday there was a moment of silence in memory of the victims of the shooting-rampage in Espoo in every store of the supermarket chain of whose employees the killed were. Do you consider also that offensive or stupid?

Well, they aren't really are they? They are not marching in memory of those killed, but protesting against the soldiers who are there and who have died. The choice of location is the key thing, Wotten Basset is the prime location to mourn those who have died in action, you don't got protesting at (effectively) a funeral.

[Eki]

Well, they aren't really are they? They are not marching in memory of those killed, but protesting against the soldiers who are there and who have died.
Really? Are you sure they aren't marching for everyone killed in Afghanistan, every civilian, every soldier and every Taliban fighter?

[Tomi]

The choice of location is the key thing, Wotten Basset is the prime location to mourn those who have died in action, you don't got protesting at (effectively) a funeral.

Yes, this is the point, and it seems they are in a win/win situation, if they are allowed to protest they will get attaced and get publicity that way, and if not allowed, the freedom of speach issue is there.

[Mark]

Really? Are you sure they aren't marching for everyone killed in Afghanistan, every civilian, every soldier and every Taliban fighter?

I'm very sure! That is not their point at all.
If you are going to make an anti-war point, march outside Westminster.

[Malbec]

There are limits to free speech. Much like the old question about shouting "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater. Does your freedom of speech override the damage that may be caused by the ensuing paniced rush to the exits? Freedom of speech carries obligations and perils but I would at least hope, in the case of immigrants anyway, that good manners alone would be enough to keep them from spitting in the face of the country that took them in when they came asking.

Feel free to brand me whatever you want, but all this multiculturalism does is create a huge goop where everything becomes ok because to take a stand and say "No, this is wrong" gets you tagged as a bigoted hater with a closed mind instead of a knowing prophet of what is to come.
Let them go home and protest.

Mark is right on this, while the group in question is definitely on the extreme fringe they claim they are marching to raise the issue of Afghan casualties and to stop the war.

They are by no means the first group in Britain, religious or not, to march against the war. Most of them are held by anti-war protesters of the secular white British sort. The only thing new about this march is that it may be held in Wooton Bassett.

Yet according to your reasoning this march should be banned. On what grounds? Because they are Muslims? So presumably white Christian Brits are free to march against the war (as they have done) but not Muslims?

If you believe in free speech it is for all, not just for those you happen to agree with.

[Malbec]

Yes its a town in England where alot of the remembrance of our soldiers killed in action, are mourned.

As far as I understand it though, it is not an official act or site of mourning. Wooton Bassett is merely a town that most if not all military casualty parades pass through, the gathering of mourners is entirely spontaneous and hasn't really happened in previous wars (I might be wrong).

If so then this group have proposed something quite clever, it isn't the same as proposing a march past the cenotaph but merely through what is officially just another English town.

Anyway they've succeeded in getting what they wanted, they've already had publicity thanks to the overzealous responses from most leading politicians. Their press release should have been ignored to deny them the headlines they've been given.

[Garry Walker]

Wonder if Lefty-nutters AKA anti-fascits will turn up as well having a pop at the Islamic extremists for once.
Yeah, all the idiots would be together then.


Tarring all muslims with the same brush is similarly disrespectful. As Drew pointed out, extremists are behind this, not all muslims.
.

The issue being that extremism is very widespread in the muslim community, at a very worrying level.


Let them parade and then, shoot them one by one. World would be a much better place.

[BeansBeansBeans]

Let them parade and then, shoot them one by one.

Extremists eh?

[Eki]

Yeah, all the idiots would be together then.



The issue being that extremism is very widespread in the muslim community, at a very worrying level.


Let them parade and then, shoot them one by one. World would be a much better place.
And you're not extreme yourself?

[Garry Walker]

Extremists eh?

Okay, shoot only 9 out of 10 :D

[Mark]

Okay, shoot only 9 out of 10 :D

There's no need to shoot them. Just allow the families of servicemen to get at them, they won't last long..

[Robinho]

i'd be in favour of collecting as many people who think the march is a terrible idea, but who is in favour of them exercising the right to free speech, and all turn up, line the route and stand with our backs turned, in silence, ten deep.

starting a slanging match/fight/riot etc will just increase the problem and the tension. show them what most reasonable people think of their march by ignoring them - i'm all for free soeech, no-one says we have to listen.

i'd advocate the same approach at anywhere the ridiculous english defence league are threatening to turn up with their thinly veiled attempt at a riot.

if enough people turned their backs on them, peacefully, they'd take all the publicity and also starve them of the controversial column inches they desperately crave.

[Mark]

i'd be in favour of collecting as many people who think the march is a terrible idea, but who is in favour of them exercising the right to free speech, and all turn up, line the route and stand with our backs turned, in silence, ten deep.

starting a slanging match/fight/riot etc will just increase the problem and the tension. show them what most reasonable people think of their march by ignoring them - i'm all for free soeech, no-one says we have to listen.

i'd advocate the same approach at anywhere the ridiculous english defence league are threatening to turn up with their thinly veiled attempt at a riot.

if enough people turned their backs on them, peacefully, they'd take all the publicity and also starve them of the controversial column inches they desperately crave.

Absolutely so! But people won't will they. There will always be one who will hurl abuse and everyone else will join in. As you say, if everyone stood there in total silence, with their backs turned, that would be brilliant, but it wouldn't happen :(

[Dave B]

The best thing would be to let them do it, with not one person bothering to come out and watch and none of the media giving them the slightest bit of attention. Sadly this won't happen, so the next best course would be to allow it to pass off peacefully and swiftly. Make it as much of a non-event as possible.

[V12]

Wonder if Lefty-nutters AKA anti-fascits will turn up as well having a pop at the Islamic extremists for once.

The so-called UAF will probably be there, but marching alongside them.

[Bezza]

No, don't allow it. Piss on them. They choose for whatever reason to immigrate to Britain and the culture Britain has built through it's religion and it's history. Now they demand the right to dilute and undermine the culture they immigrated to by protesting in Britain, an event that occurred in Afghanistan. If it meant that much to you, you should have stayed there and stood up for what you believe. Better yet, just go home and take your sillyassed protest with you.

Best post ever, Fiero :up: I could not possibly put it any better. You sum up how much of the country feels.

[Cooper_S]

Wonder if Lefty-nutters AKA anti-fascist will turn up as well having a pop at the Islamic extremists for once.

Q. Are you 'pro' or 'anti' fascist? and if 'anti' am I free to call I call you a Lefty nutter ?

[Mark in Oshawa]

Yes its a town in England where alot of the remembrance of our soldiers killed in action, are mourned.

I do think its important to mention again that these protesters are muslim extremists and not general law abiding muslim people. These people are second generation to this country and have adopted an anti British view with the intention of spreading hate within the muslim comunities. I wouldn't stop them protesting but I would urge the people of Wooton Bassett to stay clear of the town on that day so the protest reaches as little audience as possible.

Yes they are entitled to protest, but IMO its purely bad taste to choose this location. It makes you wonder how a remembrance march for the British soldiers KIA would go down if you marched through the middle of Karachi. I very much doubt it would be tolerated and these people need to wake up and realise that by living here they are supporting our government whether they like it or not. If they are happy to live in a society which is relatively safe and has a generous benefits system combined with free health care, then they should respect our countries defense.

Not all soldiers support the war but its their job and many are dying doing a job they love but a cause they loathe. :)

This is my take as well. I think these protesters are dead wrong, and hypocrites complaining about the UK participating in a war against the Taliban, while they ignore the thousands of death's every year by various Muslim groups against other MUSLIMS! The bomber in Peshewar last week took out 75 alone......

[Mark in Oshawa]

I would like to see a counter protest of good, honest, Brits who would march in favour of the war go down there....

[Hondo]

I don't see this as a "free speech" issue. This is a public speech issue and there are limits and responsibilities connected with public speech. I'd love to know why these people chose to immigrate to Britain in the first place. All these defenders of free speech have allowed their government to ban an American radio talk show host over his free speech although he has never called for the use of violence against any group of people.

Y'all better start taking these people seriously.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I don't see this as a "free speech" issue. This is a public speech issue and there are limits and responsibilities connected with public speech. I'd love to know why these people chose to immigrate to Britain in the first place. All these defenders of free speech have allowed their government to ban an American radio talk show host over his free speech although he has never called for the use of violence against any group of people.

Y'all better start taking these people seriously.

It is a free speech issue. Protests are considered part of speech and freedom of thought. IF this town was in the US, they would be covered by the First Amendment.

AS for the Brit's keeping Savage out, that too is stupid and wrong, but there you go with banning free speech. Where does it stop?

[V12]

I would like to see a counter protest of good, honest, Brits who would march in favour of the war go down there....

The thing is the majority of non-Muslim Brits are against the war too, although maybe for different reasons. Where we perhaps differ is we still respect the job that ordinary servicemen and women are doing out there, even if we don't agree with the orders that sent them there in the first place.

What gets my back up, and most like-minded Brits (and Europeans in general) I imagine, is that having spent centuries struggling (and winning) the fight against religions controlling our lives, now we have groups like this one, however marginal, vocally wanting to throw all that away.

Besides, any religion which forbids practically everything from a pint of beer to a bacon sandwich is never going to be looked upon favourably by the general population.

Oh and as for counter protests in general, somebody already tried that. They got branded a bunch of fascists. Go figure.

[Langdale Forest]

Tarring all muslims with the same brush is similarly disrespectful. As Drew pointed out, extremists are behind this, not all muslims.

I'm not sure whether the parade should be allowed. It seems to me to be unnecessarily provocative and incendiary.


Remember that almost all extremists are MUSLIMS and whenever there is a terrorist attack, muslims are almost always to blame theese days.

[Dave B]

Remember that almost all extremists are MUSLIMS and whenever there is a terrorist attack, muslims are almost always to blame theese days.
You remember Venn diagrams from school? Draw one - to scale - with sets representing Muslims and extremists and let us know how you get on.

[Mark in Oshawa]

The thing is the majority of non-Muslim Brits are against the war too, although maybe for different reasons. Where we perhaps differ is we still respect the job that ordinary servicemen and women are doing out there, even if we don't agree with the orders that sent them there in the first place.

What gets my back up, and most like-minded Brits (and Europeans in general) I imagine, is that having spent centuries struggling (and winning) the fight against religions controlling our lives, now we have groups like this one, however marginal, vocally wanting to throw all that away.

Besides, any religion which forbids practically everything from a pint of beer to a bacon sandwich is never going to be looked upon favourably by the general population.

Oh and as for counter protests in general, somebody already tried that. They got branded a bunch of fascists. Go figure.

I do know this much. IN Canada, no one would stop their protest, but I can tell you they would be ignored. We are about 50-50 for the war in Afghanistan, and most Canadians, even those like me who understand why we are there want us out this year upcoming as scheduled. That said, groups as stupid and as insenstive as this one have to have their day to make fools of themselves. IT is democracy...love it or not, it beats having the cops show up with trunchons and water cannons and busting heads. We saw how well that works in Ulster on the 12 of July, or in Europe when some bunch of pseudo fascists meets others on the other side. This stuff happens all the time and it is part of living in a free society. The cops stopping such protests just tells these idiots that Christian/Western society IS Persercuting them; which is not true.

The riot cops and national guard in Ohio at Kent State didn't do anything but legitmize the opposition of the Vietnam war in the 60's. Stopping a demomonstration gives these people what they want....a martyr's cause...

[Langdale Forest]

You remember Venn diagrams from school? Draw one - to scale - with sets representing Muslims and extremists and let us know how you get on.

The problem is now that most people think of muslims as terrorists which is not true.

But muslims in wooton basset would be pathetic becasuse people would not want them there becaause 'extreme' islam followeres (Taliban) killed UK soilders.

[Langdale Forest]

I'm struggling to see your point here... Are you suggesting that because muslim extremists carry out bombings, we should be equally hostile to law abiding muslims because they share the same religion? Ted Bundy was a christian buddy, or so he claimed.


There are always exeptions, but it is the image thing that is the problem.

[GridGirl]

The problem is now that most people think of muslims as terrorists which is not true.


Sure there are some nutcases but I definately don't think of all Muslims as terrorists. They are just the same as everyone else. I would hope that no member of thus forum would see, know or think that the majority of Muslims are terrorists.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Sure there are some nutcases but I definately don't think of all Muslims as terrorists. They are just the same as everyone else. I would hope that no member of thus forum would see, know or think that the majority of Muslims are terrorists.

They are not all terrorists. That said, If I am in a lineup at security getting searched like there is no tomorrow before I get on a flight, while the guy with a Muslim Kefti walks through with little searching, I do think it is rather politically correct and ineffective to do so. Last time I looked, the terrorists plauging Western Society are Muslim.

I think in this particular situation, these Muslims are harmless. What they want isnt.....

[Langdale Forest]

Does anyone beileve that muslims are searched more often at airports then non-muslims?

[BeansBeansBeans]

Last time I looked, the terrorists plauging Western Society are Muslim.

Ever heard of Eta?

[Drew]

Remember that almost all extremists are MUSLIMS and whenever there is a terrorist attack, muslims are almost always to blame theese days.

Wikipedia: IRA, ETA, FARC and so on and tell me they're muslim groups.

But I believe you that muslims are searched more at airports than non-muslims, just as much as i'm sure back in the 80s Irish people were searched more than other nationalities.

[Langdale Forest]

The IRA is no longer active.
ECSA?

[anthonyvop]

Wikipedia: IRA, ETA, FARC and so on and tell me they're muslim groups.


Those are all groups active regionally. ETA and the FARC are not trying to blow up planes that leave Amsterdam heading to the US.

[Eki]

They are not all terrorists. That said, If I am in a lineup at security getting searched like there is no tomorrow before I get on a flight, while the guy with a Muslim Kefti walks through with little searching, I do think it is rather politically correct and ineffective to do so. Last time I looked, the terrorists plauging Western Society are Muslim.

I think in this particular situation, these Muslims are harmless. What they want isnt.....
Potential terrorist would hardly be a guy with a Muslim Kefti. Most likely they'd try to hide they are Muslim. I mean like secret agents would likely try to hide the fact they are secret agents.

[Langdale Forest]

There are many more terrorist groups.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_designated_terrorist_organizations

[Malbec]

Remember that almost all extremists are MUSLIMS and whenever there is a terrorist attack, muslims are almost always to blame theese days.

Really? The last British soldiers killed on British soil two years ago, who killed them? The Real IRA perhaps? Odd, I thought Muslims had the monopoly on terrorism?

Muslim extremists are Muslim, but not all Muslims are extremists, you do understand that I hope.

[Langdale Forest]

I have already said that not all MUSLIMS are terrorists.

[GridGirl]

Those are all groups active regionally. ETA and the FARC are not trying to blow up planes that leave Amsterdam heading to the US.

I don't understand your point. Terrorism is terrorism whether it be on some plane heading for the US or anywhere else in the world. A terrorist is still a terrorist whatever their chosen cause or group they belong to.

[Malbec]

I do know this much. IN Canada, no one would stop their protest, but I can tell you they would be ignored.

In Britain the recent counter-terrorism laws are so restrictive that just about any public meeting can be banned and the people arrested if they haven't received prior permission from the police. Doesn't matter whether you're protesting for/against the war or about your neighbours garden. The British government doesn't exactly lack powers to control things like this.

Oddly enough the government doesn't seem to see that by restricting civil liberties they have indeed done what groups like Al-Qaeda want to see done in Europe.

[Langdale Forest]

That's why there are so many terrorist groups. If all the terrorists in the world wanted to destroy everything, they would get together in a 'Taliban supergroup' or whatever else it might be called.

[Langdale Forest]

In Britain the recent counter-terrorism laws are so restrictive that just about any public meeting can be banned and the people arrested if they haven't received prior permission from the police. Doesn't matter whether you're protesting for/against the war or about your neighbours garden. The British government doesn't exactly lack powers to control things like this.


That's why this country is not all good. :(

[GridGirl]

That's why there are so many terrorist groups. If all the terrorists in the world wanted to destroy everything, they would get together in a 'Taliban supergroup' or whatever else it might be called.

Why call it a Taliban supergroup?

Each different group have their own agenda's. Why on earth would they ever want to join together. Oh well, I'm sure Vop is scared about it already. The so called supergroup may decide to strike Florida. :p

[Langdale Forest]

Because the Taliban is the biggest terrorist group in the world.

[GridGirl]

I haven't looked for any reliable statistics but I don't think the Taliban are the largest terrorist group in the world. I think you are some how confusing the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and presuming they are one and the same. They are two different orgsnisations.

[Mark in Oshawa]

In Britain the recent counter-terrorism laws are so restrictive that just about any public meeting can be banned and the people arrested if they haven't received prior permission from the police. Doesn't matter whether you're protesting for/against the war or about your neighbours garden. The British government doesn't exactly lack powers to control things like this.

Oddly enough the government doesn't seem to see that by restricting civil liberties they have indeed done what groups like Al-Qaeda want to see done in Europe.

You are well on the slippery slope then. If the police have that power and use it too often, then you do have in essence the type of state that these people would be very happy to manipulate.

We have lots of protests for various issues, especially in Canada where we have so many ethnic groups with all their various chips on their shoulders. Never once heard of the law stopping a protest as long as people are non-violent. It serves one purpose. It proves without a doubt our system of freedom is what it is supposed to be; better than the tyranny those protesting in Wooten Bassett would ask us to live under.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Because the Taliban is the biggest terrorist group in the world.

They are NOT. They don't operate outside of Afghanistan and Pakistan far as anyone knows. Hezbollah, Al Quaida, and various Muslim factions operating in Sub Saharan Africa are a far greater danger to democracy.

[Jag_Warrior]

We have all seen what radical Islam talks about and acts upon when the opportunity presents it's self. What they advocate is unlawful. Why not let child molesters march and spread their gospel also?

Countries had better quit screwing around with these ingrates and start sending them home. You laugh at them now as nothing but they are patient and their time is coming.

Send them home.

A guy I was talking to on another board said we should do that in the U.S.: send them home. Problem is, we don't even know how many Muslims there are in the U.S., since we don't track people by religion (estimates are between 2.5 and 7 million). Another problem with "sending them home" is, what if they already are "home"? ;)

I dunno...

[Daniel]

The best option for tackling the problems with radical Islamists is to stop backing Israel against the Palestinians, get out of Iraq and Afghanistan in a timely manner and to allow Islam to take care of things itself.

[Mark in Oshawa]

A guy I was talking to on another board said we should do that in the U.S.: send them home. Problem is, we don't even know how many Muslims there are in the U.S., since we don't track people by religion (estimates are between 2.5 and 7 million). Another problem with "sending them home" is, what if they already are "home"? ;)

I dunno...

The Brits have had more trouble with the kids of the immigrants. They are like it or not citizens. The Lackawana 5 that were busted after 9/11 a year later, all US citizens born and bred. The bomb guys the RCMP nailed up here were all kids born here. The radical imams are the issue.....

[Langdale Forest]

get out of Iraq and Afghanistan in a timely manner

I agree with that.

[Garry Walker]

Does anyone beileve that muslims are searched more often at airports then non-muslims?

They should be.


The best option for tackling the problems with radical Islamists is to stop backing Israel against the Palestinians, get out of Iraq and Afghanistan in a timely manner and to allow Islam to take care of things itself.

Which still would not solve the many problems that islam brings to the western countries.

[DexDexter]

Those are all groups active regionally. ETA and the FARC are not trying to blow up planes that leave Amsterdam heading to the US.

RAF killed German politicians/entrepreneurs and even had a Lufthansa airplane hijacked (and they were going to blow it up) to get their imprisoned members free. I don't see any difference between them and these muslim groups, all fanatics. And the groups you're referring are not trying to blow up all planes that leave Amsterdam, just the US (and possibly some other) ones. But as I stated earlier, if there is enough will, these types of persons will not get into the planes. It all comes down to money.

[Daniel]

Which still would not solve the many problems that islam brings to the western countries.

The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of Muslims don't cause and problems or pose any threat. If the Western govts take a step back and are seen not to be attacking Islam then it's up to the moderate Muslims to take care of the problems with radicals.

[Drew]

The best option for tackling the problems with radical Islamists is to stop backing Israel against the Palestinians, get out of Iraq and Afghanistan in a timely manner and to allow Islam to take care of things itself.

Danny boy, we're already out of Iraq :p :

But I agree with you, going over to the middle east and starting wars with the aim of sorting out terrorism doesn't help stop terrorism, it makes it much worse.

[anthonyvop]

I don't understand your point. Terrorism is terrorism whether it be on some plane heading for the US or anywhere else in the world. A terrorist is still a terrorist whatever their chosen cause or group they belong to.

Perhaps if you read the previous posts you would understand the context.

My point is that Islamic Terrorism is a world-wide problem. Groups like the FARC or ETA, while a problem, is not high on the list of dangerous situations for people in the USA, UK or most other countries.

That being said there is more than ample evidence that many of these regional terror groups are not only in contact with each other but provide training and support.

Here is a question for everyone here. Besides the use of terror what do most of these terror groups have in common?

[anthonyvop]

As far as I am aware the Taliban is a movement in Afghanistan which has radical ideals which once operated as a political party in the said country. Its not a terrorist group by any means. :)

You want to rethink that statement?

[anthonyvop]

RAF killed German politicians/entrepreneurs and even had a Lufthansa airplane hijacked (and they were going to blow it up) to get their imprisoned members free. I don't see any difference between them and these muslim groups, all fanatics. And the groups you're referring are not trying to blow up all planes that leave Amsterdam, just the US (and possibly some other) ones. But as I stated earlier, if there is enough will, these types of persons will not get into the planes. It all comes down to money.
That High jacking was done by Arabs who demanded the release of RAF and Palestinian prisoners.....Oh and $15 Million dollars. We all know how that ended.

But you proved my point. Those spoiled brats from the Red Army Faction were German and pretty much acted inside Germany.
Islamic Terrorist operate world wide from Bali to Argentina.

[anthonyvop]

They all believe they are fighting for a cause that is right... It might not be, and it certainly isn't demonstrated in the correct way however... :)

Nope!

They all embrace and wish to impose Marxist/Communist principles!

[anthonyvop]

I think most people here have the general idea of what the Taliban is all about. They are mentioned daily on our news. :)
And do they mention that the Taliban was a huge supporter of Islamic Terrorism and are currently committing acts of terrorism today?

[Hondo]

The Taliban are very involved in Somalia, attempting to make it their own country. If they are willing to stay there, they can have it as far as I'm concerned. Somalia isn't likely to get any more help from the west again either. The western countries and the UN learned their lesson the first time.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I wouldn't know mate I'm pretty bored of the same headlines day after day. I tend to turn over to the Simpsons after the main story has passed.. :p

There is the problem. You may not like the news, but the reality is those who condemn you and I for our religion, lifestyle, freedoms, libreal ideas and the rest of it want you to not care, to be apathetic. Go back to the mindset you had on Sept. 10/01. You and I are to either terrorized and irrational or apathetic. Paying attention and engaged to find a way to stop this is the last thing they want. It's ok tho...you can still watch the Simpsons.....

[Mark in Oshawa]

The Taliban are very involved in Somalia, attempting to make it their own country. If they are willing to stay there, they can have it as far as I'm concerned. Somalia isn't likely to get any more help from the west again either. The western countries and the UN learned their lesson the first time.

Taliban? Or just some other Islamic nut jobs that want to turn the world into an Islamic hell of the 12th century? As for Western countries and the UN in Somalia, I cannot think of a better example of how useless the UN was/is than the mess that was made there. It also is where the USA made the one error that encouraged Bin Laden, in pulling out after the Black Hawk incident. Nothing close to the hell that was/is Afghanistan and Iraq, but Clinton cut and run. Either we have principles we are willing to die to defend, or we wall off our part of the world, and let the Islamic fundamentalists do what they want. I can tell you this much. They are not content letting us co-exist. That is the one truth the peace at all costs crowd wont admit...

[anthonyvop]

......... terrorist attacks have one thing in common. Religion, be it Islamic, Jewish, Catholic, Protestant etc etc.

Wrong!
What about Marxist terrorist groups like the FARC, ETA, Sendero Luminoso...ect?




Our governments are in the middle east for one reason only and that is oil.

Wrong again.
Recently the Angolan state oil company won drilling rights in Iraq. Angola has troops in the Middle East?


The government here may want us to think its a war on terrorism, but lets face it, its not. Terrorism is simply a consequence of keeping our contry rich with the black stuff, and admittedly the government are investing in measures to keep us safe, but we could help ourselves by getting out of such countries and spending the billions invested on war, on bio fuels and alternatives to the product being fought over. :)

Ok. Now you are sounding like some spoiled college student. Put down the bong, get rid of the Birkenstocks and take down the Che Guevara poster.

[Hondo]

It's the Taliban.

We live in an instant gratification society. Everything needs to start quickly and end quickly. Desert Storm was a fast little war and once Saddam was pushed out of Kuwait, the UN mandate and the war ended. Kuwait went back to the good life spending their oil money and Saddam went back to being Saddam. After Desert Storm, the world began to expect short wars won mainly through superior technology. That doesn't work against criminal organizations that don't have a state. They have no infrastructure and no population to protect. They are not bound by legal constraints. In the cases where religion is their justification, they have the benefit of deciding what in the holy book must be taken literaly and what is merely metaphor which can be viewed in a number of different ways and changed as needed. Their rank and file troops are blinded by idealism in addition to the fact that few of them have anything to lose. You will never win absolutely against this sort of enemy. It will continue to pop up now again for as long as there are human beings. You can however stomp it down to where it lays dormant for a couple of generations. That would involve tactics western troops are well capable of using but are forbidden to use by public opinion. In other words, we have to be just as hard hearted as the enemy. To start with, you'd have to do away with this notion of rules of warfare. There are only two, win or lose. This is war not a football match. Under their current shroud of Islam they will make great strides. They are attacking on every front not only with bombs but also with education and peaceful, legal expansion. They have people in the very societies they have vowed to destroy making excuses for them. When someone says "wow, these people don't like us or our lifestyle, maybe we should stop their immigration..." they are branded as bigots, fools, and haters by their own "enlightened" people.

People don't believe it can happen, but it is. The Shah didn't think the little scruffballs could run him out of Iran, but they did. The Afghans have been fighting invaders throughout their entire history. When the invaders leave, they cheerfully go back to fighting each other like they always have. They all have the one weapon the west doesn't have, time. The west wants it over and done with the opposition has generations and is willing to wait as long as it takes.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I know exactly whats going on in the news and I shudder everytime it comes on the news that a British Soldier has been killed in Afghanistan seeing as two close mates of mine are out there at present.

I don't know anyone over there but I don't want to see any more Canadians come home in hearses BUT I grasp why they do what they do, and the ideals they are willing to die to defend.


I had one wish it would be to eradicate religion of any kind from the memory of mankind as all wars, and terrorist attacks have one thing in common. Religion, be it Islamic, Jewish, Catholic, Protestant etc etc. Our governments are in the middle east for one reason only and that is oil. The Islamic extremists may think its a war on Islam simply because they think we hate them, but the rosey way our western world is run relies on one thing and thats oil. The government here may want us to think its a war on terrorism, but lets face it, its not. Terrorism is simply a consequence of keeping our contry rich with the black stuff, and admittedly the government are investing in measures to keep us safe, but we could help ourselves by getting out of such countries and spending the billions invested on war, on bio fuels and alternatives to the product being fought over. :)

IT IS A WAR ON TERRORISM!!!! This fiction the war is about oil is what the socialist minded libreal progressives spread to make the working man go against the war. The extremist Islamic terrorist organizations use Israel or the west's prescence there as an excuse, and you can be naive and think if we bail on Israel and stop buying oil that this all stops, but it WONT. Terrorists have ideals they "fight" for, but they don't stop if you give them what they want on the surface. Face the reality, they want the world to be an Islamic, fundamentalist state on the surface. Right there, that isn't going to work and if they are honest they know that. It is the fight...the cause.

Fiero is right, we cannot eradicate this sort of thing entirely. What we have to do is be vigilant and be prepared to fight and NOT give up. Our attention span is awful.....

[Langdale Forest]

Our attention span is awful.....

The attention span of a rock.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Its OK I'm out :)

Henners, you should want to prove Fiero and I wrong or debate us. We don't want you to walk away. We are (or I am anyhow) debating you. There isn't a loser or winner in this. If you can prove us wrong or make us think, you win also.

[DexDexter]

That High jacking was done by Arabs who demanded the release of RAF and Palestinian prisoners.....Oh and $15 Million dollars. We all know how that ended.

But you proved my point. Those spoiled brats from the Red Army Faction were German and pretty much acted inside Germany.
Islamic Terrorist operate world wide from Bali to Argentina.

Yes they do but you make it sound like they are targeting everybody. Like RAF or IRA, they are targeting their "enemies", who in case of Islamic terrorists are Americans and people that they perceive to be their allies.

[anthonyvop]

they are targeting their "enemies", who in case of Islamic terrorists are Americans and people that they perceive to be their allies.
Which is everyone who isn't the right type of Muslim.....
They have attacked everyone from the US to Russia to China,. On every continent except Antarctica. They are an equal opportunity wannabee oppressor.

[Hondo]

Saudi Arabia fears al Qaeda more than any other group and al Qaeda has it in for Saudi Arabia. The Saudis react hard and ruthlessly every time al Qaeda surfaces in the country. Any survivors are processed like common criminals and usually end up beheaded.
The Saudis have no illusions about what is afoot and the dangers of allowing al Qaeda to get a comfortable foothold in the country.

People forget when the USA was supplying Bin Laden and al Qaeda money and weapons in Afghanistan so they could pretend they were fighting the Russians, the USA was Bin Laden's best buddy. Once the Russians went home, Obama got left out of the power vacuum and ended up a nobody again. It didn't help that nobody could vouch for Bin Laden's presence at any armed engagement with the Russians. Bin Laden is just a nobody that demands to be somebody and it isn't working out.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Yes they do but you make it sound like they are targeting everybody. Like RAF or IRA, they are targeting their "enemies", who in case of Islamic terrorists are Americans and people that they perceive to be their allies.

Dex, I don't always agree with Tony, but he is pretty much right. You hear what Bin Laden and other fundamentalist Muslim extermists say about Western Culture, it is VERY clear that they may see the Americans as the great Satan, but they will kill anyone who respects human rights, equality for women, or basically an infidel who happens to be in the wrong place. Heck, they kill Muslims they don't agree with just as easy. Pakistan is full of bombings and attacks, and the fact remains anyone who gets in their way will be a target.

What people have to grasp is they really do hate our way of life. OUR way being Western Europe, Christian nations everywhere, the "godless" Communist Chinese, and the Yellow Peril of Asian nations not converting to the Muslim way of doing things. The Americans are singled out the most because they are the only nation willing to fight but just barely. Kick them in the nose a few times, (Blackhawk Down anyone?) and they go away, or at least that was the conventional wisdom until Bush didn't give up and go away in Iraq or Afghanistan. Of course, many in the west see both wars as immoral, conveniently forgetting that going away just proves to the terrorists that we have no stomach to stop them.

You can quibble with me, argue or disagree, I really don't care. History will show that this wont end any time soon, and while places like Finland and Sweden are less likely targets, one only has to look at the whacko radical Islamic types who just invaded the house of a cartoonist in Denmark over his cartoons a couple of years ago. Any slight to these people, and their great desire to come to the West and then push to make it the same Sharia hell that they LEFT tells you that even the less radical Islamic fundamentalists are a problem. There are more than enough terrorists and suckers they have convinced to put bombs on their bodies that this wont end.

There isn't an end to it. Sorry...you will NEVER convince me there will be. We however have to continue to fight the war such as it is to the best our ability, and use our desire to help the less fortunate in such a way that we can win the ordinary Muslim over. It is the best we can do. Afghanistan is the perfect place to do it too.......

[Langdale Forest]

Wrong!
What about Marxist terrorist groups like the FARC, ETA, Sendero Luminoso....

They are not a threat to the UK.

[Mark in Oshawa]

They are not a threat to the UK.

That wasn't the point. Tony's point is not all these groups are motivated by religion. Unless Communism is a religion. some might argue it is....Of course....you could also ask yourself is it ok if they blow someone else up and just leave you alone, and then you might start to really answer, no...because they will come after me maybe next?

[DexDexter]

Dex, I don't always agree with Tony, but he is pretty much right. You hear what Bin Laden and other fundamentalist Muslim extermists say about Western Culture, it is VERY clear that they may see the Americans as the great Satan, but they will kill anyone who respects human rights, equality for women, or basically an infidel who happens to be in the wrong place. Heck, they kill Muslims they don't agree with just as easy. Pakistan is full of bombings and attacks, and the fact remains anyone who gets in their way will be a target.

What people have to grasp is they really do hate our way of life. OUR way being Western Europe, Christian nations everywhere, the "godless" Communist Chinese, and the Yellow Peril of Asian nations not converting to the Muslim way of doing things. The Americans are singled out the most because they are the only nation willing to fight but just barely. Kick them in the nose a few times, (Blackhawk Down anyone?) and they go away, or at least that was the conventional wisdom until Bush didn't give up and go away in Iraq or Afghanistan. Of course, many in the west see both wars as immoral, conveniently forgetting that going away just proves to the terrorists that we have no stomach to stop them.

You can quibble with me, argue or disagree, I really don't care. History will show that this wont end any time soon, and while places like Finland and Sweden are less likely targets, one only has to look at the whacko radical Islamic types who just invaded the house of a cartoonist in Denmark over his cartoons a couple of years ago. Any slight to these people, and their great desire to come to the West and then push to make it the same Sharia hell that they LEFT tells you that even the less radical Islamic fundamentalists are a problem. There are more than enough terrorists and suckers they have convinced to put bombs on their bodies that this wont end.

There isn't an end to it. Sorry...you will NEVER convince me there will be. We however have to continue to fight the war such as it is to the best our ability, and use our desire to help the less fortunate in such a way that we can win the ordinary Muslim over. It is the best we can do. Afghanistan is the perfect place to do it too.......

I agree with you to an extent but the reality is that there are Muslims over here and over there as well and somehow we need to cope with that and waging a war is perhaps not the best way to do it, although having said I don't know what the solution could be.

Talking about the Danish cartoonist, the Danes seem to live in their own world, the cartoons were totally unnecessary. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you should publish things people find offensive just because you can.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I agree with you to an extent but the reality is that there are Muslims over here and over there as well and somehow we need to cope with that and waging a war is perhaps not the best way to do it, although having said I don't know what the solution could be..

Ok..don't wage the war. Then Bin Laden or some other loon in Al Quaida decides maybe the Italians don't need to have the Vatican and blow it up. Maybe somehow they decide the Eifel Tower is a nice target? IN the UK? Oh...put a bomb in any number of towers downtown, maybe Canary Wharf (Charles might go for that on aesthetics). The US WAS the target on 9/11 but since that attack, every g-7 nation has had an Al Quaida attack or muslim extremist attack. This isn't going to stop, but at least if the miltary of the west is in Afghanistan, they are a target there and the civilians and cities they are in essence protecting are NOT the targets. Furthermore, the bases used or areas used for training are not available or at least, are hindered. It isn't perfect, it is ugly and nasty, but it is the only option we have. Cut the cancer out as best we can...it isn't like it is going to go away.


Talking about the Danish cartoonist, the Danes seem to live in their own world, the cartoons were totally unnecessary. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you should publish things people find offensive just because you can.

They don't live in any world you don't live in. You just don't get it do you? Free Speech is FREE SPEECH. Why should Islam be exempt as a satircal target? The Christians and the Pope in particular are punching bags for comedians, cartoons and satire all the time. They are criticized and maligned. You make Islam off limits and THAT is the first step towards Sharia law. They may be able to ban and censor cartoons and that sort of thing in Saudi Arabia, but I will die for the right to say what I want in a free nation such as Denmark, Canada or Finland. You may be not a fan of the cartoon, but the cartoonist had his point to make and THAT is free speech. The Muslims in the west who don't like it can complain all they want. If they don't like free speech, go back to the Middle East and live there where they wont have to worry about it.

[Mark in Oshawa]

It never ceases to amaze me the capacity of people in Europe to not comprehend the idea that free speech means it is FREE to ignore, disagree with or protest against.

It is a tenet of Western society that we don't have to always agree with the other guy, but by god we have to let him speak. This is one of the basic rights in Western nations that is taken for granted obviously, and it is one of the FIRST ones radical Islam either uses to attack US, or wants to ignore. Did you know the Taliban have a PR organization? They don't believe in western values but they will try to manipulate our free press to make themselves not be the villians they really are. Sick.....but that is the way it is.

[Garry Walker]

The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of Muslims don't cause and problems or pose any threat. If the Western govts take a step back and are seen not to be attacking Islam then it's up to the moderate Muslims to take care of the problems with radicals.
The problems with muslims are far greater than what you make it seem. Taking a step back in the end will not solve anything, the problems with massive muslim immigration will remain.




Talking about the Danish cartoonist, the Danes seem to live in their own world, the cartoons were totally unnecessary. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you should publish things people find offensive just because you can.

As Mark said, christianity and the pope are a free target and you dont see christians (mostly) threatning to kill people for that or rioting. Yet muslims do that for every little thing. But it is a taboo subject and "racist" to talk about it and point out the problems.


Ok..don't wage the war. Then Bin Laden or some other loon in Al Quaida decides maybe the Italians don't need to have the Vatican and blow it up. Maybe somehow they decide the Eifel Tower is a nice target? IN the UK? Oh...put a bomb in any number of towers downtown, maybe Canary Wharf (Charles might go for that on aesthetics). The US WAS the target on 9/11 but since that attack, every g-7 nation has had an Al Quaida attack or muslim extremist attack. This isn't going to stop, but at least if the miltary of the west is in Afghanistan, they are a target there and the civilians and cities they are in essence protecting are NOT the targets. Furthermore, the bases used or areas used for training are not available or at least, are hindered. It isn't perfect, it is ugly and nasty, but it is the only option we have. Cut the cancer out as best we can...it isn't like it is going to go away.



They don't live in any world you don't live in. You just don't get it do you? Free Speech is FREE SPEECH. Why should Islam be exempt as a satircal target? The Christians and the Pope in particular are punching bags for comedians, cartoons and satire all the time. They are criticized and maligned. You make Islam off limits and THAT is the first step towards Sharia law. They may be able to ban and censor cartoons and that sort of thing in Saudi Arabia, but I will die for the right to say what I want in a free nation such as Denmark, Canada or Finland. You may be not a fan of the cartoon, but the cartoonist had his point to make and THAT is free speech. The Muslims in the west who don't like it can complain all they want. If they don't like free speech, go back to the Middle East and live there where they wont have to worry about it.
Exactly. If muslims have a problem with free speech, go back to whereever they came from, I would be more than happy about that.

[Hondo]

The funny thing is that US power is fading and as that happens we will become less of a target. Quite frankly, I don't know why we took so much flak over the Israel-Palestine thing. That had it's origins with Britain and France. Ok, we provided aid to Israel but thats not why Israel is still there. Israel is there because there isn't an Arab or Persian country that can put a competent, motivated army in the field.

The straw that broke the back with the USA and Bin Laden was the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Bin Laden generously offered to bring his al-Qaeda fighters to Saudi Arabia and defend the Saudis while driving Iraq out of Kuwait. Well, the Saudis didn't go for it and instead invited the US in to do the job. If you listen to and read Bin Laden's early blatherings, he vows to target the US until every last one of them is out of Saudi Arabia.

Anyway, as our own personal Mugabe continues to lead our mad spiral downward to become a sister nation of Zimbabwe we will become less of a target and countries that do increasing amounts of business in the middle east will find themselves the new targets. Part of the prestige of the game is the size and power of your enemy. Beating up someone in a wheelchair is nothing to brag about.

[Daniel]

The funny thing is that US power is fading and as that happens we will become less of a target. Quite frankly, I don't know why we took so much flak over the Israel-Palestine thing. That had it's origins with Britain and France. Ok, we provided aid to Israel but thats not why Israel is still there. Israel is there because there isn't an Arab or Persian country that can put a competent, motivated army in the field.

The straw that broke the back with the USA and Bin Laden was the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Bin Laden generously offered to bring his al-Qaeda fighters to Saudi Arabia and defend the Saudis while driving Iraq out of Kuwait. Well, the Saudis didn't go for it and instead invited the US in to do the job. If you listen to and read Bin Laden's early blatherings, he vows to target the US until every last one of them is out of Saudi Arabia.

Anyway, as our own personal Mugabe continues to lead our mad spiral downward to become a sister nation of Zimbabwe we will become less of a target and countries that do increasing amounts of business in the middle east will find themselves the new targets. Part of the prestige of the game is the size and power of your enemy. Beating up someone in a wheelchair is nothing to brag about.
Huh? The US provide a lot of military hardware for Israel. If a bomb is dropped or a rocket is fired it's probably fired it's usually by US made or at least developed aircraft or helicopters.

[Hondo]

We have also provided weapons for most of the middle east nations at one time or another. Those we didn't supply were well supplied with top of the line equipment by the soviet union. France and England enjoy decent weapons sales in that area. Israel just up and whupped all comers and will continue to do so. Why is that so hard to understand?

[Jag_Warrior]

I don't know where people get the idea that the U.S. is the only country that supports Israel, no matter what... come Hell or high water.

U.S. Vetoes of UN Resolutions Critical of Israel
(1972-2006) (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html)

For those who say that Israel would be just fine without Big Brother Uncle Sam, I say, let's test that theory ASAP!!!

[DexDexter]

Ok..don't wage the war. Then Bin Laden or some other loon in Al Quaida decides maybe the Italians don't need to have the Vatican and blow it up. Maybe somehow they decide the Eifel Tower is a nice target? IN the UK? Oh...put a bomb in any number of towers downtown, maybe Canary Wharf (Charles might go for that on aesthetics). The US WAS the target on 9/11 but since that attack, every g-7 nation has had an Al Quaida attack or muslim extremist attack. This isn't going to stop, but at least if the miltary of the west is in Afghanistan, they are a target there and the civilians and cities they are in essence protecting are NOT the targets. Furthermore, the bases used or areas used for training are not available or at least, are hindered. It isn't perfect, it is ugly and nasty, but it is the only option we have. Cut the cancer out as best we can...it isn't like it is going to go away.



They don't live in any world you don't live in. You just don't get it do you? Free Speech is FREE SPEECH. Why should Islam be exempt as a satircal target? The Christians and the Pope in particular are punching bags for comedians, cartoons and satire all the time. They are criticized and maligned. You make Islam off limits and THAT is the first step towards Sharia law. They may be able to ban and censor cartoons and that sort of thing in Saudi Arabia, but I will die for the right to say what I want in a free nation such as Denmark, Canada or Finland. You may be not a fan of the cartoon, but the cartoonist had his point to make and THAT is free speech. The Muslims in the west who don't like it can complain all they want. If they don't like free speech, go back to the Middle East and live there where they wont have to worry about it.

Your views are a bit extreme. If we know that Muslims are easily offended by certain things, why bother? Why offend deliberately if it does nothing for us? We know that Western people are generally not as religious ans Muslims, for example, and that's why bashing the pope etc. is not such a big deal. We've evolved, our religion has evolved while in the case of Muslims from the third world it hasn't as much. By the way we've had Muslims called Tatars for hundreds of years over here and their behaviour and manners are not that different from ours even if they have a different religion, no veils etc. They fought with us against the Russians in WW2, for example. So IMO it's not the religion itself, it's poverty, underdevelopment and the cultures these fundamentalists come from that are the real problem.

[Malbec]

They don't live in any world you don't live in. You just don't get it do you? Free Speech is FREE SPEECH. Why should Islam be exempt as a satircal target? The Christians and the Pope in particular are punching bags for comedians, cartoons and satire all the time. They are criticized and maligned. You make Islam off limits and THAT is the first step towards Sharia law. They may be able to ban and censor cartoons and that sort of thing in Saudi Arabia, but I will die for the right to say what I want in a free nation such as Denmark, Canada or Finland. You may be not a fan of the cartoon, but the cartoonist had his point to make and THAT is free speech. The Muslims in the west who don't like it can complain all they want. If they don't like free speech, go back to the Middle East and live there where they wont have to worry about it.

When you start talking about satire you go into an area that is far more complicated than simple black and white arguments about free speech.

Satire requires good understanding of the subject matter by both the comedian and the audience. Ignorance of the subject matter by either merely makes the 'comedy' unfunny and often purely offensive. You can see this by watching or listening to political satire in a country you know nothing about. Unless it touches on something that you know about its not funny at all. It was pretty clear to me that the Danish cartoonists didn't understand the basics about Islam. The cartoons were unfunny and therefore merely offensive and they should have expected some response given the subject material.

The whole argument about freedom of speech used by the Danish magazine editor btw rings hollow when months before he had vetoed cartoons poking fun at the pope on the grounds that he didn't want to offend the Catholic church.

Now you can argue about freedom of speech and I'd agree with you, but then that would include my right to call your mother several nasty things. It may be illegal for you to deck me, but to an observer it wouldn't be an entirely unreasonable thing for you to do in the circumstances would it?

BTW unlike Christianity which often pokes fun at itself, Islam has always been perfectly straight about jokes at its expense. It has never accepted such jokes, they've made the limits clear and have asked people to respect those limits. Why exactly shouldn't they be respected? If you asked me not to make those comments about your mother the onus would be on me not to wouldn't it? To do otherwise would be disrespectful wouldn't it?

I've also watched what passes for Danish 'comedy' and I've found it sometimes has a sadistic streak that I haven't seen elsewhere, including a TV comedy involving practical jokes. Hilarious scenes included one where these guys jammed the door of a public phone with a young woman inside and incited the audience to laugh as she broke down in tears in fear and frustration. Others included flying radio control planes into peoples heads in a park and laughing at the responses, especially from the humourless types who seemed to take exception at being hit. Whilst I wouldn't argue that this is necessarily typical, it does give some insight into the Danish sense of humour.

[Malbec]

The funny thing is that US power is fading and as that happens we will become less of a target. Quite frankly, I don't know why we took so much flak over the Israel-Palestine thing. That had it's origins with Britain and France. Ok, we provided aid to Israel but thats not why Israel is still there. Israel is there because there isn't an Arab or Persian country that can put a competent, motivated army in the field.

It depends who you're talking about.

The average Arab in the street IS pissed off about American support for Israel, but that isn't what drives Al-Qaeda at all.

You need to look at where Al-Qaeda came from, who those volunteers who originally went to fight the Russians in Afghanistan were.

They didn't start their lives fighting Americans, they started trying to overthrow dictatorial regimes in places like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria. Many of these guys found it impossible because of US support in some places and Soviet support in others. I guess they found it offensive being shot by M-16s and being tortured by security services with close links to the CIA. In Iran's case I guess the presence of CIA officials in torture sessions might have offended people, but Iran is a separate case entirely.

Those guys were pushed into going to Afghanistan, often with the blessing of their home countries who were hoping they'd all get killed. Instead the survivors became even more radical and had military experience. They realised that to overthrow those dictatorial regimes, they had to get the US and USSR out of the region.

You ask why these guys aren't pissed off with the USSR? The reason is simple. They beat the Russians in Afghanistan and with the collapse of the USSR they pulled out of the Middle East. That leaves just one power left in the Middle East, and thats the US.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict isn't what Al-Qaeda is about, they've made that clear by barely referring to the Palestinian cause.

[Langdale Forest]

This is now a big debate.

[Drew]

I've also watched what passes for Danish 'comedy' and I've found it sometimes has a sadistic streak that I haven't seen elsewhere, including a TV comedy involving practical jokes. Hilarious scenes included one where these guys jammed the door of a public phone with a young woman inside and incited the audience to laugh as she broke down in tears in fear and frustration. Others included flying radio control planes into peoples heads in a park and laughing at the responses, especially from the humourless types who seemed to take exception at being hit. Whilst I wouldn't argue that this is necessarily typical, it does give some insight into the Danish sense of humour.

Do you speak Danish Dylan? You're going to judge Danish humour based on one tv show? I dunno if you live in the UK, but imagine if you judged british humour just on Beadle's about. BTW we have (had?) a programme almost like the one you described on the BBC and it was rubbish.

[Malbec]

Do you speak Danish Dylan? You're going to judge Danish humour based on one tv show? I dunno if you live in the UK, but imagine if you judged british humour just on Beadle's about. BTW we have (had?) a programme almost like the one you described on the BBC and it was rubbish.

I believe my last sentence was a comment that that programme may not have been typical of Danish comedy if I'm not mistaken. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I wouldn't have included that comment about the Danish programme had it not gone WAY above and beyond what is allowed on British TV. It was purely sadistic which is why I thought fit to include it.

[Langdale Forest]

Crashing remote controll planes into people's heads is stupid and dangerous.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Your views are a bit extreme. If we know that Muslims are easily offended by certain things, why bother? Why offend deliberately if it does nothing for us? We know that Western people are generally not as religious ans Muslims, for example, and that's why bashing the pope etc. is not such a big deal. We've evolved, our religion has evolved while in the case of Muslims from the third world it hasn't as much. By the way we've had Muslims called Tatars for hundreds of years over here and their behaviour and manners are not that different from ours even if they have a different religion, no veils etc. They fought with us against the Russians in WW2, for example. So IMO it's not the religion itself, it's poverty, underdevelopment and the cultures these fundamentalists come from that are the real problem.

I am not extreme. Attacking me for criticizing a religion who has MANY followers (not just bomb tossers) who go nuts at any slight to their religion. Damn right we Christians have evolved. Good thing we did too. Doesn't change the fact that in a free society, at times you might be offended or insulted. It comes with the territory of living in a free society. Listen, I don't like a lot things, I take offense to people asking me to not call a Christmas tree a Christmas tree because it is a "holiday" tree. I take offense at a lot of things. Still doesn't justify me going out and attacking the artist or offending party.

As for the Tatars and Euro Muslims, I respect them, and I certainly wouldn't attack Jesus or Mohammed if I was a cartoonist, but the point remains it is part of free speech. You start restricting free speech, it better be the same for everyone and have a VERY limited and constricted focus. That includes banning such crap as copies of Mein Kampf and other such racist garbage. I have an issue. Educate the people of this society and yours that we have to tolerate and debate those we don't agree with. You end any respect for differening opinions when you advocate censorship.

[Drew]

I believe my last sentence was a comment that that programme may not have been typical of Danish comedy if I'm not mistaken. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I wouldn't have included that comment about the Danish programme had it not gone WAY above and beyond what is allowed on British TV. It was purely sadistic which is why I thought fit to include it.

Fair enough, it's doesn't really give a fair insight though. I seem to remember seeing a clip from a Japanese tv show where a woman was in a phone box and then she was locked in and they dropped down loads of snakes in the phone box, that's what I call sadistic.

[driveace]

This has developed into a fantastic debate.
A friend of mine,who took part in the Balcombe Street seige,in his job in the military,,and who has lived in a few country,s in the Middle East tells me that Osama bin Laden,s family is a very rich family,who are in Building Construction in Saudi Arabia

[Mark in Oshawa]

When you start talking about satire you go into an area that is far more complicated than simple black and white arguments about free speech..

It isn't simple at all. IT may be bad taste ( see the KFC Australia thread ) but it still is free speech. You have the right to be a jerk....


Satire requires good understanding of the subject matter by both the comedian and the audience. Ignorance of the subject matter by either merely makes the 'comedy' unfunny and often purely offensive. You can see this by watching or listening to political satire in a country you know nothing about. Unless it touches on something that you know about its not funny at all. It was pretty clear to me that the Danish cartoonists didn't understand the basics about Islam. The cartoons were unfunny and therefore merely offensive and they should have expected some response given the subject material..

You and I may find the cartoons stupid, I didn't see the point in them but I am not a reader of that magazine nor understanding the Danish sense of humour. Still doesn't change the fact I am not going to handover sole censorship rights on anything to the group who would see NO issue or problem with satire going after Christian symbols.


The whole argument about freedom of speech used by the Danish magazine editor btw rings hollow when months before he had vetoed cartoons poking fun at the pope on the grounds that he didn't want to offend the Catholic church.

He is a hypocrite on that one. The editor is a doofus BUT he was right the second time, wrong the first. THAT also is marketing, attacking Christian/Catholic symbols in a country with a lot of Catholics might hurt your readership. THAT is business....


Now you can argue about freedom of speech and I'd agree with you, but then that would include my right to call your mother several nasty things. It may be illegal for you to deck me, but to an observer it wouldn't be an entirely unreasonable thing for you to do in the circumstances would it?.

FIrst off, you are too much a Gentleman to insult my mom. Still wouldn't mean I would be entitled to deck you if you did. That is why we have laws. The thing is, you are correct in stating you shouldn't insult or attack people in general verbally. It is in BAD Taste. Still is free speech tho. When we start deciding something is in poor taste, who is the final judge? Who is to say what is GOOD Taste? Not you...not me. Certainly not Eki, Daniel, Easy Drifter, Fiero, Jag or Tony. Who is? You CANNOT say something is in good taste or not in society. In the case of the Danish Magazine, the Editor has the right to not publish something and should use common sense and good taste, but it is all free speech no matter what.


BTW unlike Christianity which often pokes fun at itself, Islam has always been perfectly straight about jokes at its expense. It has never accepted such jokes, they've made the limits clear and have asked people to respect those limits. Why exactly shouldn't they be respected? If you asked me not to make those comments about your mother the onus would be on me not to wouldn't it? To do otherwise would be disrespectful wouldn't it? .

It should be respected. I don't like people attacking the churches of Christainity either, but I don't threaten to do harm to people who do it. Disrespect is NOT the same as hate speech, and free speech has to be respected. As I said above, who judges?


I've also watched what passes for Danish 'comedy' and I've found it sometimes has a sadistic streak that I haven't seen elsewhere, including a TV comedy involving practical jokes. Hilarious scenes included one where these guys jammed the door of a public phone with a young woman inside and incited the audience to laugh as she broke down in tears in fear and frustration. Others included flying radio control planes into peoples heads in a park and laughing at the responses, especially from the humourless types who seemed to take exception at being hit. Whilst I wouldn't argue that this is necessarily typical, it does give some insight into the Danish sense of humour.

I wont comment on Danish humour, since I am over here, but the Danes seem like a different sort compared to the rest of their Scandinavian cousins. That said, the cartoonist insulted Islam. I don't mind that Muslims are upset, but when they threatened the cartoonist's life, and there was Imams calling for his head, THAT offends me a LOT.

Now...in this town in the UK, those against the war in Afghanistan can walk down the street and offend the hell out of people. WE don't have to agree or like them, but if they are peaceful, than they have that right. I don't like it...but they have that right.

[Malbec]

As for the Tatars and Euro Muslims, I respect them, and I certainly wouldn't attack Jesus or Mohammed if I was a cartoonist, but the point remains it is part of free speech. You start restricting free speech, it better be the same for everyone and have a VERY limited and constricted focus. That includes banning such crap as copies of Mein Kampf and other such racist garbage. I have an issue. Educate the people of this society and yours that we have to tolerate and debate those we don't agree with. You end any respect for differening opinions when you advocate censorship.

The thing is, people do exercise self-censorship. Its a normal part of civil society.

I was lucky enough to get tickets for a British comedy show called 'mock the week' which is effectively a current affairs based standup comedy masquerading as a quiz a few years back.

I don't know if you're familiar with it but some of the comedians are pretty much on the edge. During the filming they made a series of running jokes about the McCann family at their expense, the couple who had their 4 year old daughter abducted from their hotel in Portugal. The jokes were so funny I couldn't breathe with laughter for ages, but they were pretty offensive too at the height of the search for Madeleine McCann.

None of that made it to the final TV cut, simply because a large amount of the British population wouldn't have seen the funny side and would have complained.

The decision was made therefore not to offend and the jokes were cut. That is self-censorship, and flies in the face of the freedom of speech.

With free speech comes the responsibility to use that freedom appropriately, even when it comes to comedy. Those Danish guys weren't using their freedom responsibly. This doesn't mean that extremists are justified in trying to kill them, but a response of some kind should have been expected.

[Malbec]

This has developed into a fantastic debate.
A friend of mine,who took part in the Balcombe Street seige,in his job in the military,,and who has lived in a few country,s in the Middle East tells me that Osama bin Laden,s family is a very rich family,who are in Building Construction in Saudi Arabia

They're huge, a bit like the Rockefellers in the US and as you said, they're in construction. Thats why Osama Bin-Laden is such a good posterboy for Al-Qaeda, he's a typical fairy story of a rich playboy who's traded it all in for a 'good cause'. To be fair, his family has disowned him.

I believe one of his cousins is unsuccessfully pursuing a career to be a pop singer in the US.

[Mark in Oshawa]

The thing is, people do exercise self-censorship. Its a normal part of civil society.

I was lucky enough to get tickets for a British comedy show called 'mock the week' which is effectively a current affairs based standup comedy masquerading as a quiz a few years back.

I don't know if you're familiar with it but some of the comedians are pretty much on the edge. During the filming they made a series of running jokes about the McCann family at their expense, the couple who had their 4 year old daughter abducted from their hotel in Portugal. The jokes were so funny I couldn't breathe with laughter for ages, but they were pretty offensive too at the height of the search for Madeleine McCann.

None of that made it to the final TV cut, simply because a large amount of the British population wouldn't have seen the funny side and would have complained.

The decision was made therefore not to offend and the jokes were cut. That is self-censorship.

With free speech comes the responsibility to use that freedom appropriately, even when it comes to comedy. Those Danish guys weren't using their freedom responsibly. This doesn't mean that extremists are justified in trying to kill them, but a response of some kind should have been expected.

Yes, I agree entirely. Still doesn't change the fact people CAN say stupid things. They have that right. You and I don't disagree on this really. Just this thread became a fight for free speech because a lot of people I thought knew better were advocating these protesters against the Afghanistan war were going to troll through town with coffins as if baiting the populace about British war dead to come. I would BE OFFENEDED to the MAX if I was there, but they have the right to be offensive. Just us mature and intelligent types are smart enough to have a sense of decency on how we try to make our points, and in the case of some points, use self censorship.

By the way, I am saddened when the UK banned US talk show head Michael Savage and that Dutch politician. THAT too is sad, and I was angry enough to send an email to our Immigrantion Minister Jason Kenney when he banned that loon George Galloway from giving a speech in Toronto. At some point, you have to bite your tongue on things going on, because it is a slippery slope.

[Hondo]

Dylan, weren't you living in Japan way back when? Teacher maybe? You were pretty regular and then tapered off for awhile.

[Hondo]

They're huge, a bit like the Rockefellers in the US and as you said, they're in construction. Thats why Osama Bin-Laden is such a good posterboy for Al-Qaeda, he's a typical fairy story of a rich playboy who's traded it all in for a 'good cause'. To be fair, his family has disowned him.

I believe one of his cousins is unsuccessfully pursuing a career to be a pop singer in the US.

And he was far down the list in the pecking order. Although married, his mother was wife number what???? and he was kidded as the child of the slave girl.

[Hondo]

I brought up the Israel palestine thing just as an example of another thing the US is constantly blamed for. We didn't create Israel. We did sell arms to israel. From there on everything else is an opinionated "what if". What I say is that the Israelis would have got the arms they needed from somebody and easily in the quantity and quaility they desired. They are victorious due to superior morale, superior training, superior battlefield tatics, and the fact they are fighting for their lives and homes, not some despotic goatherd's ego.

The US and the French supplied most of Argentina's arsenal but the Falklands are still British.

The US supplied South Viet Nam with more than enough stuff to fight for their independence but they didn't have the will to fight.

In '73, by the time additional US aid hit the ground in Israel, Egypt had already listened to Syria's fractured fairytale strategy, got whupped, and the Arabs were on their way home, again.

It's not only what you give them to fight with, it's the will with which you fight.

Since we have so many folks that like to run around the web checking numbers, see how much aid the US gives Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia.

[Daniel]

I brought up the Israel palestine thing just as an example of another thing the US is constantly blamed for. We didn't create Israel. We did sell arms to israel. From there on everything else is an opinionated "what if". What I say is that the Israelis would have got the arms they needed from somebody and easily in the quantity and quaility they desired. They are victorious due to superior morale, superior training, superior battlefield tatics, and the fact they are fighting for their lives and homes, not some despotic goatherd's ego.

The US and the French supplied most of Argentina's arsenal but the Falklands are still British.

The US supplied South Viet Nam with more than enough stuff to fight for their independence but they didn't have the will to fight.

In '73, by the time additional US aid hit the ground in Israel, Egypt had already listened to Syria's fractured fairytale strategy, got whupped, and the Arabs were on their way home, again.

It's not only what you give them to fight with, it's the will with which you fight.

Since we have so many folks that like to run around the web checking numbers, see how much aid the US gives Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia.
Pull the other one. In this day and age airpower is the most important thing and with the Israeli's pretty much having state of the art American planes they will always win.

[Hondo]

Pull the other one. In this day and age airpower is the most important thing and with the Israeli's pretty much having state of the art American planes they will always win.

Airpower cannot take and hold the ground. Airpower cannot tell you what is in that cave. Airpower has not and will not win in Afghanistan.

[Daniel]

Of course. But airpower can stop vehicles coming into your country

[Mark in Oshawa]

Of course. But airpower can stop vehicles coming into your country

It isn't the superior f15 Eagle that is keeping Israel independent. It is the ability to put the whole nation under arms and fight to defend it in a manner that isn't just tossing lives into a meat grinder. Motivated and trained troops will beat undisciplined and un motivated troops. Show me an Arab nation with a top flight motivated miltitary and Then Israel will worry. THAT, or giving one of those nations who really dislike the Jews an A-Bomb.

[Hondo]

Of course. But airpower can stop vehicles coming into your country

North Viet Nam brought most of it's supplies and materials by foot and bicycle. Slow, but effective.

That airpower alone will win wars is a myth that was started when the first bomber was produced. There have been no wars won by airpower alone. Air superiority is a warm, cozy thing to have and can make life easier but an F-15 didn't pull Saddam out of his hole and south Viet Nam's air superiority didn't save them.

[Langdale Forest]

More terrorist news.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18/20100107/tod-german-cop-in-trouble-for-explosive-7f81b96.html

[Hondo]

The ability to out produce and the willingness to outwait your enemies while destroying their means and willingness to continue fighting is what wins wars. The biggest mistake in the "war on terror" is calling it a war in the first place. I have first hand, field experience in combatting what the press nowadays would call political insurgency. To even use the term "insurgent" gives the immpression they are patriots waging a desperate fight for liberty and justice. They are, in ascending order, the stupid, those that gain the respect (fear) of those that did not respect (fear) them before, the have nots in their never ending battle against the haves, common thugs, the idealistic, and the easy to manipulate. The leaders all have above average educations, good knowledge of the world and how it works, good working knowledge of human nature, a sense of self-importance and a lust for power and most of all, a charismatic personality. Yup, a good used car salesman. So even if you could achieve complete social equality, give Palestine to the Palestinians, get the world to love Israel and give the Falklands to Argentina, you'll still see the beginings of al-FooFerAh and the Peoples Republic of Jingle Bells. Why? Because there will ALWAYS be a megalomaniac b@stard out there with charisma that wants more. He only needs to decide what he wishes to justify his crusade with i.e., political cause, religious cause, or social justice cause and he can start recruiting. Every now and then he can come out from behind his curtain and fire up his troops with a grand and pious oratory on the rightousness of their cause before disappearing behind the curtain again to bear the heavy burden of command. Of course his followers, that have been eating lizard, don't know that heavy burden behind the curtain is 2 women, a boy, 3 bottles of whisky and a goat.

His organization is small and doesn't worry about production. What they can't get through donation, they steal. They have no need to produce anything, they are parasites. They live off of the entity they are trying to kill. Thats why the cause must go on with a new enemy. There must always be some outside force preventing the leadership from delivering the good life he has promised his followers. They must never find out he isn't up to it or even the stupid will turn on him.

They have time. Lots and lots of time. A legitimate government has to pay for it's wars. It needs to produce goods and it needs to protect it's production. It has to respond to it's citizens as they become war weary from having this thing drag on and on.
These criminals can be beat down once they crop up, but not by societies that lose 50 or more in transportation bombings and more than that in airliner crashes but want to b!tch about water boarding or thinking that being made to assume ridiculous sexual poses is torture.

When you have organiztions stating their purpose is to force you under their way of life, you'd better pay attention.

In case anybody is interested in what I was doing by getting mixed up in it...well, in my younger days I was subject to a bit of idealism also and believed going in that it was about a higher purpose but it wasn't. They were all just crooks.

[anthonyvop]

North Viet Nam brought most of it's supplies and materials by foot and bicycle. Slow, but effective.

Most of the North Vietnamese supplies arrived by Ship from the USSR into Haiphong Harbor. The Ho-Chi-Min Trail was one of the many forms of supplying the Viet Cong.

[Hondo]

Most of the North Vietnamese supplies arrived by Ship from the USSR into Haiphong Harbor. The Ho-Chi-Min Trail was one of the many forms of supplying the Viet Cong.

You are correct. I should have clarified my statement by saying the North brought most of it's supplies to the south down the trail by foot and bicycle. Yes, I know they used trucks and sampans too but the lack of trucks or boats never kept them from bringing the stuff south.

[Jag_Warrior]

These criminals can be beat down once they crop up, but not by societies that lose 50 or more in transportation bombings and more than that in airliner crashes but want to b!tch about water boarding or thinking that being made to assume ridiculous sexual poses is torture.

Lynndie England, and her depraved cohorts at Abu Ghraib, put (supposed) American ideals in a very bad light, whether it was torture or not. "War is hell", and all that chest thumping jazz aside, the last thing we needed back then was some pompous neocon giving holier than thou speeches about the virtues of America, while some trailer park princess in a U.S. Army uniform was posing with naked prisoners FOR NO GOOD REASON! It's kinda hard for a preacher, with liquor on his breath, to preach the gospel on Sunday mornings, ya know?

And if Bush/Cheney/Ashcroft were correct, that waterboarding was not torture, why the hell didn't they approve its use on suspects within the U.S.? Think of how many missing kids we could have found by now, if it's so all fired great... and LEGAL. ;)

American (foreign policy) rhetoric and propaganda tends to be based on a moral high ground. So we're ALWAYS going to be torn between what might be effective in tackling an issue and what enables us to maintain a (believable) position on that moral high ground.

I have to give Mancow a lot of credit for walking the walk and not just talking the talk.
wOStoGd5GZw

[Hondo]

The people who have vowed to attack you and continue to attack you don't give a rat's ass about moral high ground except where they can get you to use it against yourself. Buzzwords like your favorite, neocon, don't impress them at all. Is everybody in disagreement with you a neocon? What's your definition of neocon. I get a kick out of self-styled intellectuals with, as Jon Brown calls it, a first class degree in their pocket and being absolutely sure they would bask at the top level of Plato's Republic benevolently taking their time to patiently explain the world to the rest of us.

The Bin Ladens will always have justification for their deeds because they can and will use anything for a justification. Anything. The one thing Osama wants, he isn't going to get. Osama wants to be what Yassir Arafat was. He wants to be recognized internationally and treated as a Head of State, without the hassles of actually having a state. Only when the world acknowledges his superior intellect and pious holiness will he be happy.

I don't say waterboarding is fun, but compared to electric shock, beatings, joint dislocations, broken bones, a variety of creative internal probes, and striping, it's a walk in the park.

When they decide to fight as military organizations striking only at military targets and only when those military targets are concealed within and around civillian areas do civillian losses become acceptable, then they expect better handling.

[Jag_Warrior]

The people who have vowed to attack you and continue to attack you don't give a rat's ass about moral high ground except where they can get you to use it against yourself. Buzzwords like your favorite, neocon, don't impress them at all. Is everybody in disagreement with you a neocon? What's your definition of neocon. I get a kick out of self-styled intellectuals with, as Jon Brown calls it, a first class degree in their pocket and being absolutely sure they would bask at the top level of Plato's Republic benevolently taking their time to patiently explain the world to the rest of us.

The Bin Ladens will always have justification for their deeds because they can and will use anything for a justification. Anything. The one thing Osama wants, he isn't going to get. Osama wants to be what Yassir Arafat was. He wants to be recognized internationally and treated as a Head of State, without the hassles of actually having a state. Only when the world acknowledges his superior intellect and pious holiness will he be happy.

Who said the first thing about caring what Osama or any other radical thinks about us? What I'm talking about are the nations whose assistance we need on coalition missions or campaigns. That is, unless we want to keep running with the slogan, "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists." Yeah, that's worked SO well for 8 years, hell, let's just keep saying it. Heck, maybe we can buy a magic lamp at an antique shop, rub it real hard and someday slogans and rhetoric will accomplish something. And if they don't, we'll just go it alone and draft some of the middle aged, chest thumping, armchair warriors that populate the internet. The youngsters seem to be tiring after their fourth or fifth deployment. But I'm sure the Father Time Brigades can take up some of the slack for them. We can even get some rest home residents to paste together Misson Accomplished banners for them to carry with them.

And no, not everyone who disagrees with me is a neocon. What led you to that belief? And not to trick you with any "gotcha journalism", but what would you say the Bush Doctrine was based on? Do you think that came from someone like Pat Buchanan or someone more like Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle? Since Buchanan shares the same view of that rabble as I do, there's your hint. I'll put those who (faithfully) believe in unilateralism and interventionism, as a basis for foreign policy, ALL under that umbrella. If they don't like being called what they are, tough sh##. I call them other things too. But this is a family forum and I've been here for far too long to get banned now. :)

Another example: it's no secret that I don't agree with Sarah Palin on much of anything AFAIK (well, gun rights maybe). But I do not believe she's a neoconservative. I'm not really sure what she is. I'm not sure if she even knows what she is, as I've never heard her utter a word about foreign policy.

The term can be overused. But when the shoe fits... ;) The problem some have with that term reminds me of J. Edgar Hoover claiming for decades that the Italian Mafia didn't exist.



I don't say waterboarding is fun, but compared to electric shock, beatings, joint dislocations, broken bones, a variety of creative internal probes, and striping, it's a walk in the park.

When they decide to fight as military organizations striking only at military targets and only when those military targets are concealed within and around civillian areas do civillian losses become acceptable, then they expect better handling.

What does any of that have to do with whether or not waterboarding is torture? If it's not torture, then my question is pretty straightforward: why didn't the Bush administration approve its use for domestic criminal suspects?

[Mark in Oshawa]

Jag...Palin has sounded off on Foreign policy on occasion, in that she supports the troops and believes in what the US is trying to do in Iraq and Afghanistan, but I have no idea if that is out of a clear conviction, a "neo-con" point of view or just parroting the party line. IT is one of the reasons I am not a big fan of hers, not because of what she believes, but because I don't know where all her ideas and direction are springing from.

That said, any one person who can draw the hate of that many libreals and journalists without doing anything but showing up cannot be all bad in my books!!

AS for Waterboarding, it is a gray area. It is torture in the sense that it is HIGHLY unpleasent and psychologically scary, BUT it leaves no mark, causes no permanent damage. I don't approve of it, and I understand why the opponents of it oppose it; but I am not bent out of shape on this either. I probably should be, with my liberatarian and fair play leanings but I just know that the people they are fighting do far worse to far more innocent people.
I know that the US is claiming they are not doing it to every suspect and they are only doing it in extreme or special cases where they think immediate information can be of value. Now that is wrong...but in preventing a bombing or attack in the short term, it could be worth it. IT is a very slippery slope. That said, most of the nations bent out of shape by it wouldn't refuse the intelligence if the US had information obtained this way about an attack on THEIR soil. It is one thing for a Brit to be upset by waterboarding, but if one of these mutts after a snout full of water told the US about a bomb attack on the House of Westminister, I hardly think there is one Brit alive who would advocate that the result of stopping that attack didn't outweigh their misgivings of how that intelligence is obtained. THAT is the rub..and THAT is why the Bushies probably decided this was worth taking heat over.

Personally, most of the nations who condemn the US for it have likely in their past done things as heinous or more heinous..

We also live in a world where people thought the US playing Barry Manilow and other elevator music at high volumes at the building where Noriega was holed up in to get him to come out was torture too. Heck, shooting people in a war isn't pleasent. The whole business of war is ghastly...but civilized nations still on occasion have to get involved in it....because there are threats out there that will take full advantage of it to attack the civilized world and they have no qualms about torture or any other measure to get what they want.

[Jag_Warrior]

Jag...Palin has sounded off on Foreign policy on occasion, in that she supports the troops and believes in what the US is trying to do in Iraq and Afghanistan, but I have no idea if that is out of a clear conviction, a "neo-con" point of view or just parroting the party line. IT is one of the reasons I am not a big fan of hers, not because of what she believes, but because I don't know where all her ideas and direction are springing from.

Exactly. I've not heard every speech she's ever given, but there's not a lot of info out there on what her (precise) positions are on unilateralism and interventionism. Which is the point I was making to Fiero, regarding his question about who I refer to as a "neocon". IMO, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... then I'm going to shoot it and make some orange sauce. I don't concern myself with how other people use the word. But yes, as I said to him, I have seen it misapplied and overused. Sarah is a social conservative - that much we know. We really don't know much about where she stands on foreign policy or economic issues. As with many on the far right these days, her telling me what's she's against doesn't tell me anything about what she's for.



That said, any one person who can draw the hate of that many libreals and journalists without doing anything but showing up cannot be all bad in my books!!

Good point and I'm sure that's the case with many. But it was her position on abortion that unleashed the wrath of many on the left against her. What I also find interesting about her is that the people who are supporters
(fans? ;) ) can seldom tell you much about what her positions are, outside of abortion or some religious issue. And as Pat Buchanan said, even among the upper ranks of the GOP, while they love the fact that she can raise money, they don't want her to try to get the nomination. Even to them, she seems to be too much of an unknown quantity.




AS for Waterboarding, it is a gray area. It is torture in the sense that it is HIGHLY unpleasent and psychologically scary, BUT it leaves no mark, causes no permanent damage. I don't approve of it, and I understand why the opponents of it oppose it; but I am not bent out of shape on this either. I probably should be, with my liberatarian and fair play leanings but I just know that the people they are fighting do far worse to far more innocent people.
I know that the US is claiming they are not doing it to every suspect and they are only doing it in extreme or special cases where they think immediate information can be of value. Now that is wrong...but in preventing a bombing or attack in the short term, it could be worth it. IT is a very slippery slope. That said, most of the nations bent out of shape by it wouldn't refuse the intelligence if the US had information obtained this way about an attack on THEIR soil. It is one thing for a Brit to be upset by waterboarding, but if one of these mutts after a snout full of water told the US about a bomb attack on the House of Westminister, I hardly think there is one Brit alive who would advocate that the result of stopping that attack didn't outweigh their misgivings of how that intelligence is obtained. THAT is the rub..and THAT is why the Bushies probably decided this was worth taking heat over.

Personally, most of the nations who condemn the US for it have likely in their past done things as heinous or more heinous..


I don't pretend to be any sort of expert on interrogation techniques, or human rights, for that matter. But as I said, if we're going to claim that these techniques are NOT torture, then let's use them on criminal suspects here in the U.S. We can use the same "the end justifies the means" rationalization. Some 6 year old girl comes up missing and there's a convicted sex offender living next door... well, why not waterboard him before 48 hours passes?



We also live in a world where people thought the US playing Barry Manilow and other elevator music at high volumes at the building where Noriega was holed up in to get him to come out was torture too. Heck, shooting people in a war isn't pleasent. The whole business of war is ghastly...but civilized nations still on occasion have to get involved in it....because there are threats out there that will take full advantage of it to attack the civilized world and they have no qualms about torture or any other measure to get what they want.

What pacifists would claim is torture and what those closer to the moderate middle would say, are probably worlds apart. It comes down to this in my mind. The only (truly) effective form of war that I'm aware of is "Total War". From the ancient Romans to General Sherman in the U.S. Civil War to the Allies in WWII, total war has ALWAYS worked (in defeating the enemy). Police actions (with rules and such) seldom do. But these days, we have rules of engagement. We have international laws that we say we'll follow. But if we're (solely) concerned with what's seemingly effective in the short term, we can break from those internationl laws, do what's effective... and then just be prepared to go it alone in the long term. Our new national anthem can be, "One is the Loneliest Number"... sung in Chinese. ;)

[Mark in Oshawa]

I dunno Jag. I think that was what Bush was thinking, going where he thought he had to go and you were with him or against him. It was a naive strategy and they really backed off of that mindset when it was clear not everyone was happy about it, but the waterboarding stuck.

What got me tho was the ACLU being up in arms about internet spying and phone taps, and yet Obama has kept that legislation in force even tho it is not done to everyone, just to any conversation with key words in it that trigger it until they can discern whether it was a legitmate conversation worthy of keeping an eye on or not.

The NSA have computers doing all sorts of this stuff, and while they couldn't legally spy on US citizens, it is a little known but not hidden fact that British Intelligences (both MI's), The ANZAC listening program and Canada's CSIS all spy on some US citizens and pass on intelligence BACK to The FBI and NSA. THat makes it all legal too.

Illegalities, gray areas and some murky ideas have been all used to try to stop another 9/11 from happening again, and so far...so good for the most part.

[Hondo]

What al-Qaeda and organizations like them have created is a gray area operating in the twilight. They are not a government and they don't represent a government. For that reason, you can't have an official declaration of war against them. It follows that they enjoy no benefits of the rules of war. They operate in an area far beyond what civil law and civil police were ever meant to deal with.

They choose the conditions of their fight. We have warriors well capable and willing to carry the fight to them on their terms. They are comfortable in the gray area and can make the distinction between what they are tasked to do now as opposed to a declared war. All they ask is proper logistic support.

There is a huge difference between waterboarding these thugs as opposed to prisoners of war or civillian police suspects. Not too many see that. I have no problem with the waterboarding. As far as I'm concerned, they signed away the expectation of any decent treatment when they joined the organiztion. Again, having been involved with similar back in the day, our only obligation was to make them cease operations and that was done. Nobody cared how.

[Mark in Oshawa]

What al-Qaeda and organizations like them have created is a gray area operating in the twilight. They are not a government and they don't represent a government. For that reason, you can't have an official declaration of war against them. It follows that they enjoy no benefits of the rules of war. They operate in an area far beyond what civil law and civil police were ever meant to deal with.

They choose the conditions of their fight. We have warriors well capable and willing to carry the fight to them on their terms. They are comfortable in the gray area and can make the distinction between what they are tasked to do now as opposed to a declared war. All they ask is proper logistic support.

There is a huge difference between waterboarding these thugs as opposed to prisoners of war or civillian police suspects. Not too many see that. I have no problem with the waterboarding. As far as I'm concerned, they signed away the expectation of any decent treatment when they joined the organiztion. Again, having been involved with similar back in the day, our only obligation was to make them cease operations and that was done. Nobody cared how.

This is the whole point most people don't grasp. The Geneva Conventions only apply to those who agree with it. It is sort of farcical having rules of conduct for war. I notice how well Joe Stalin treated Germans and others he didn't like, Hitler treated the Russians in turn equally bad. The only rule of war really in the end is don't lose....

[Easy Drifter]

The vast majority of Afghan and Nato troops have been killed and wounded by IED's a banned weapon.
IED's and suicide bombers have killed many many innocent Afghan civilians.
The Taliban rarely will take on Nato forces in a firefight.
But don't worry Eki will support the Taliban.

[Hondo]

Maybe I can get some intellectual help with this. I know very little about the religion of Islam. I don't care what the Catholics did 500 years ago, they don't do it now.
I hear or read:
Islam is a religion of peace and love.
The Koran calls for the death or conversion of non-muslims.
If it does, does it do so literally or through the use of metaphor which is always open to individual interpretation?
If the Koran specifically calls for the conversion or death of non-muslims then doesn't that in fact make the extremist, radical Islamic groups the "good Muslims" and the peaceful Muslims "bad Muslims"?
Are the "peaceful Muslims" really peaceful or merely cowards sitting on the fence, waiting to cozy up to the prevailing side?
If the peaceful Muslims are correct in being peaceful, shouldn't they be far more active and vocal in stopping the radical elements that have become such a blight on their religion?

Too many contradictions here. Somebody is lying. Who?

[Mark in Oshawa]

Maybe I can get some intellectual help with this. I know very little about the religion of Islam. I don't care what the Catholics did 500 years ago, they don't do it now.
I hear or read:
Islam is a religion of peace and love.
The Koran calls for the death or conversion of non-muslims.
If it does, does it do so literally or through the use of metaphor which is always open to individual interpretation?
If the Koran specifically calls for the conversion or death of non-muslims then doesn't that in fact make the extremist, radical Islamic groups the "good Muslims" and the peaceful Muslims "bad Muslims"?
Are the "peaceful Muslims" really peaceful or merely cowards sitting on the fence, waiting to cozy up to the prevailing side?
If the peaceful Muslims are correct in being peaceful, shouldn't they be far more active and vocal in stopping the radical elements that have become such a blight on their religion?

Too many contradictions here. Somebody is lying. Who?

To be Fair Fiero, read the Old Testament. Lots of hard rules and nasty consequences in there.

Religion shouldn't be taken so literally, but it should be used to form a moral base....in the end, humans still have free will. Except in the case of Islam, there is a pretty powerful but small minority that try to do the literal interpretation..

[Hondo]

Maybe it is meant to be taken literally. I've read the Bible. My ex-wife was contantly using literal Bible quotes to back up or prove the sanctity of her argument. Funny thing though, when I would find quotes to counter her's it was " oh, I know it says that but that's not what it means...that's a metaphor..." Yeah yeah.

The ten commandments do an excellent job of addressing the weaknesses of human nature.

The Founding Fathers of this country took equal care in sculpting the Constitution of the United States of America. They crafted that document to safeguard the people from the wickedness of Human Nature which they knew to be unchanging regardless of the development of future technologies.

Now, the Constitution is dismissed as an out of date, low tech document every time somebody wants to do something that flies in the face of what is written. It's funny that no one suggests the Commandments, although older than the Constitution, have been rendered obsolete by technology.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Maybe it is meant to be taken literally. I've read the Bible. My ex-wife was contantly using literal Bible quotes to back up or prove the sanctity of her argument. Funny thing though, when I would find quotes to counter her's it was " oh, I know it says that but that's not what it means...that's a metaphor..." Yeah yeah.

The ten commandments do an excellent job of addressing the weaknesses of human nature.

The Founding Fathers of this country took equal care in sculpting the Constitution of the United States of America. They crafted that document to safeguard the people from the wickedness of Human Nature which they knew to be unchanging regardless of the development of future technologies.

Now, the Constitution is dismissed as an out of date, low tech document every time somebody wants to do something that flies in the face of what is written. It's funny that no one suggests the Commandments, although older than the Constitution, have been rendered obsolete by technology.

Both documents are as relevent as you want them to be. Nothing wrong with either as a basis for your country and your personal morality I suppose.

I respect religion, baptized in the Anglican church, but wouldn't say I was very religious. What I do think tho is most religions shouldn't tell you what to do, they should make you think. The problem with Islam the Imams issue their fatwas and thinking is not part of the program at all....just like the born-again bible thumpers who don't seem to grasp they may just be taking everything a little tooooooo serious.

[BDunnell]

I get a kick out of self-styled intellectuals with, as Jon Brown calls it, a first class degree in their pocket and being absolutely sure they would bask at the top level of Plato's Republic benevolently taking their time to patiently explain the world to the rest of us.

Tell me, did you go to university?

[BDunnell]

...unless we want to keep running with the slogan, "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists." Yeah, that's worked SO well for 8 years, hell, let's just keep saying it.

I was under the impression that prison, or whatever form of detention, was supposed to act as a deterrent — to try and stop those detained from offending again, and to deter others from following suit. I don't believe this is too controversial or radical a view, is it? Now, do we seriously believe that Guantanamo Bay has acted as any form of deterrent? Do we seriously believe that the (probably illegal) goings-on at other secret locations have acted as any form of deterrent? I think not. It is therefore an example of failed policy.

And on the original thread topic, let them parade.

[anthonyvop]

, do we seriously believe that Guantanamo Bay has acted as any form of deterrent? Do we seriously believe that the (probably illegal) goings-on at other secret locations have acted as any form of deterrent? I think not. It is therefore an example of failed policy.
.
I disagree 100%
Of course it is a deterrent. if it wasn't they would be blowing up every street corner without any fear of reprisal.

[Hondo]

Tell me, did you go to university?

I've been wondering where you've been. You've been kinda scarce since the Great Global Warming Hacking Incident. Welcome back!

And yes I did.

You may or not believe this, but I thought that might smoke you back out.

[BDunnell]

I disagree 100%
Of course it is a deterrent. if it wasn't they would be blowing up every street corner without any fear of reprisal.

Would they? Would they really? Literally every street corner, and literally without any fear of reprisal? It may have escaped your notice, but there have always been laws that cater for terrorist offences.

[BDunnell]

I've been wondering where you've been. You've been kinda scarce since the Great Global Warming Hacking Incident. Welcome back!

And yes I did.

You may or not believe this, but I thought that might smoke you back out.

To be honest, one quick look at the forums, as here, is generally enough to send me away again.

[Hondo]

To be honest, one quick look at the forums, as here, is generally enough to send me away again.

Oh, thats no way to be. Admit it, you love us!

[Hondo]

If you're not going to hang around, it was nice to see you're alive and doing well. Take care.

[Langdale Forest]

Another installment.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20100110/tuk-anti-war-march-group-to-be-banned-6323e80.html

[Mark in Oshawa]

To be honest, one quick look at the forums, as here, is generally enough to send me away again.

Ben, I missed you to fence and parry with, and the only quibble I have with your argument that Gitmo isn't a deterrent is I don't believe in this case it should be a deterrent. Terrorists behind bars don't blow things up. They also get indoctrinated to an extent by the wealth, power and curiously different way their jailers look at life. They were fed well, allowed their Korans and lived in barracks with A/C, so despite the propaganda, they were not mistreated for the most part (I think waterboarding is into that gray area and some other interrogations might have been tough, but hey, these were people caught with weapons in their hands, they knew the game they were playing).

So while you think Gitmo isn't working and is a failed policy, I can say no one behind the fence blew anything up either. Sometimes removing the other guys pawns from the playing field is reason enough.

Don't be a stranger Mr. Dunnell. Your influence isn't unnoticed except when it isn't here...

[Mark in Oshawa]

Mr. Forest's link says the march was banned. I hate what they stand for, but you are walking into their world when you ban such marchs. Terrorism Act violation? So protesting government policy is a Terrorist act violation? Good lord what happened to the Labour Gov't? George W. Bush didn't ever ban anyone and Eki can write reems about how awful and undemocratic he is, but Gordon Brown does this and hardly a peep......sad...

[Malbec]

Dylan, weren't you living in Japan way back when? Teacher maybe? You were pretty regular and then tapered off for awhile.

Thats right, I posted here a LONG time ago and wandered back in only recently.

Don't know where you get the Japan connection though.

[Malbec]

I disagree 100%
Of course it is a deterrent. if it wasn't they would be blowing up every street corner without any fear of reprisal.

So you're going to deter suicide bombers by telling them they're going to spend the rest of their lives in G'mo bay?

Hmmmm someone hasn't grasped what suicide bombings entail....

Seriously though, exactly how do you deter people who are willing to give the most valuable thing they have, their lives?

[Hondo]

Thats right, I posted here a LONG time ago and wandered back in only recently.

Don't know where you get the Japan connection though.

Like you said, it's been a long time and I'm old. Seems like we had 3 guys that were real sharp on Honda and it's goings ons, and 2 of them lived in Japan. You were one of the sharp on Honda guys.

[Jag_Warrior]

So you're going to deter suicide bombers by telling them they're going to spend the rest of their lives in G'mo bay?

Hmmmm someone hasn't grasped what suicide bombings entail....

:arrowed:

:D

[BDunnell]

Mr. Forest's link says the march was banned. I hate what they stand for, but you are walking into their world when you ban such marchs. Terrorism Act violation? So protesting government policy is a Terrorist act violation? Good lord what happened to the Labour Gov't? George W. Bush didn't ever ban anyone and Eki can write reems about how awful and undemocratic he is, but Gordon Brown does this and hardly a peep......sad...

Well, the comedian David Mitchell addressed this very eloquently in his Observer column today, saying: "As British right-wingers always say in response to Islamist protests, in most Islamic countries the equivalent wouldn't be permitted. That's both true and a direct index of the liberal democracies' moral superiority. When they allow a gay pride march through the real Mecca, Saudi Arabia may be a country worth visiting."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/10/david-mitchell-free-speech

[Hondo]

Gitmo isn't and never was supposed to be a deterence. Gitmo was supposed to be a secure, controlled access facility off American soil for the express purpose of holding terrorists for interrogation and further processing. I suppose Gitmo was an easier choice than just shooting them in the field.
My feelings on this. You are dealing with, in al-Qaeda'a case, an organization that recruits and trains it's followers to target and destroy through explosive means any individual who, with the exception of their bomber, does not belong to or support their organization. Civillians come to harm in any armed conflict but I know of no western power in the present age that has intentionally plotted the deaths of innocents. al-Qaeda does and is proud of it. Crash airliners into buildings, blow up wedding receptions, leave truck bombs lying around, etc. There is no war so they are not prisoners of war. They are not under arrest by civillian police. My understanding is that if held on American soil they would face civil criminal charges and be accorded full constitutional rights. At Gitmo they are under military tribunal. I am quite content with them at Gitmo being as chatty as they feel they need to be.

Whether you shoot them in the field, take them to Gitmo, bring them onshore, or feed them to the sharks isn't going change one iota of anything that drives them to join. We suffer from some dream that if we would only soften our approach to them, they will soften their approach to us. They will not. They will see us as weak and losing and press even harder.

[Mark in Oshawa]

So you're going to deter suicide bombers by telling them they're going to spend the rest of their lives in G'mo bay?

Hmmmm someone hasn't grasped what suicide bombings entail....

Seriously though, exactly how do you deter people who are willing to give the most valuable thing they have, their lives?

That is why I think the deterrence isn't in the motivation, it is just keeping these guys away from bombs, guns and people giving them that stuff. No inmate ever found away to blow up an airplane....

[Mark in Oshawa]

Well, the comedian David Mitchell addressed this very eloquently in his Observer column today, saying: "As British right-wingers always say in response to Islamist protests, in most Islamic countries the equivalent wouldn't be permitted. That's both true and a direct index of the liberal democracies' moral superiority. When they allow a gay pride march through the real Mecca, Saudi Arabia may be a country worth visiting."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/10/david-mitchell-free-speech

I'd Pay to see a Gay rights parade in Mecca. It is so true. I may be right of center on some topics, but free speech and the right to protest within the norms of society is a sacred value. AS it was once said in some form, I can disagree with you, but I would die to protect that right for you to disagree with me. IN our case Ben, we don't always agree on much, but I defend your right to disagree. I always learn something.....

[Mark in Oshawa]

Gitmo isn't and never was supposed to be a deterence. Gitmo was supposed to be a secure, controlled access facility off American soil for the express purpose of holding terrorists for interrogation and further processing. I suppose Gitmo was an easier choice than just shooting them in the field.
My feelings on this. You are dealing with, in al-Qaeda'a case, an organization that recruits and trains it's followers to target and destroy through explosive means any individual who, with the exception of their bomber, does not belong to or support their organization. Civillians come to harm in any armed conflict but I know of no western power in the present age that has intentionally plotted the deaths of innocents. al-Qaeda does and is proud of it. Crash airliners into buildings, blow up wedding receptions, leave truck bombs lying around, etc. There is no war so they are not prisoners of war. They are not under arrest by civillian police. My understanding is that if held on American soil they would face civil criminal charges and be accorded full constitutional rights. At Gitmo they are under military tribunal. I am quite content with them at Gitmo being as chatty as they feel they need to be.

Whether you shoot them in the field, take them to Gitmo, bring them onshore, or feed them to the sharks isn't going change one iota of anything that drives them to join. We suffer from some dream that if we would only soften our approach to them, they will soften their approach to us. They will not. They will see us as weak and losing and press even harder.

Exactly, which is why I like you don't get bent out of shape over Gitmo. When people see the 3 ring circus that these trials on American soil will bring that Obama's Attorney General has put forward, we will see the folly of giving terrorists without a country or morals a voice in the legal system.

These guys were fighting US soldiers in the field, were captured and now will get rights as citizens? THAT just isn't logical. The US Army was humane by not just shooting them and massacring them, but now the US is criticized for keeping them prisoner?

Bush's only mistake with Gitmo really was solving what he was going to do with them. Try them in a military tribunal system or release them. Don't just hang onto them indefinately.

Oh...one year after Gitmo was to be closed...it still has prisoners. Gotta like how Obama keeps his promises eh?

[Hondo]

Obama has kept none of his promises. Some he can be forgiven because he didn't have a clue about what he was talking about when he was promising.

The other stuff, at least 48 hours for the public to examine any legislation before it is passed, no lobbyists holding administration jobs, transparency, the healthcare process to be covered by CSPAN and to be out in the open. Nope, and he could have made all that happen.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Obama has kept none of his promises. Some he can be forgiven because he didn't have a clue about what he was talking about when he was promising.

.

I wouldn't forgive him. He is so smart from what I have been told by all who love him, and he couldn't figure out his mouth was writing checks his Presidency couldn't cash? I wouldn't forgive him just like no one forgives any other politician. It is the rules of the game...

[BeansBeansBeans]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1242152/Islamic-group-abandons-anti-war-march-Wootton-Bassett.html

It's off.

[Hondo]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1242152/Islamic-group-abandons-anti-war-march-Wootton-Bassett.html

It's off.

Islam4UK remained defiant tonight and said it would continue to oppose the war in Afghanistan.

Mr Choudary said: "We once again appeal to the British public and in particular the families and friends of soldiers who have died or are currently involved in Afghanistan to engage with us in an honest dialogue.

"There is common ground between us. Just as you grieve the deaths of your sons and daughters, we too grieve the deaths of thousands of ordinary Muslim men, women and children."


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1242152/Islamic-group-abandons-anti-war-march-Wootton-Bassett.html#ixzz0cFhGXnPJ

Mr. Choudary, I'd like to know if you are a British citizen or an immigrant? If you are an immigrant, I'd like to know what caused you to decide to come to Britain. Was it some persecution or economics? Did you come to Britain for the personal freedom and economic benefits your Islamic society in Afghanistan has been unable to provide for centuries? What would you like this honest dialogue to be about? Getting out of Afghanistan? We would all love to get out of Afghanistan, the Brits, the Yanks, and it looks like you didn't waste any time leaving it in the rear view mirror either. The problem is that some of those people and maybe some of our people want to kill each other over lifestyle choices and prosperity. From the Yank point of view, the airplanes and buildings thing was way beyond the mark. Those weren't combatants. Those were people that hadn't done a damn thing to you or your countrymen and don't have anymore control over their governments foreign policy than you can control when your camel is going to take a dump. If the Brits want to clear out, they can. If you hand over the individuals we are interested in about the airplane deal, then we'll probably leave too and that will leave you free to go back to killing and oppressing your people yourselves. If you wait a little longer, the Yank's new Islamic President will bow to the goat herders again and sneak his troops out of town in the dead of the night. Beyond you and the Brits being Humans, exactly what do you think this common ground is?

Best of luck,

Your friend Fiero

P.S. Call me when, in the interest of honest dialouge, you march Koran in hand to convince the Brits that the death penalty is the best way to deal with adultery and homosexuality. I'll be wanting to watch that one.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Fiero..you cheeky lad you. You know asking questions like this will get you nowhere. Why ask the obvious when you can just let the little protest to go down the road?

Personally, I think no matter how repugnant one things these protesters are, and how wrong they are, they can march. We can just let them have their temper tantrum and move on....but apparently the UK gov't wont see it that way.

BTW, the British town honouring their dead in this fashion of Wooten Bassett does it much the same way as we do with our "Highway of Heroe's" on Ontario's 401. We line every overpass and on the side of the road for 100 miles and right into Downtown Toronto where all the dead repatriated from the Air Force base in Trenton ON are brought to the coroner's office for processing. I have yet to see a protest of this nature, but if there was a group silly enough to fly in the face of that much public opinion, I am sure they would be accomodated. We are better than the world they would have us live in....

[Hondo]

One more thing Choudary, this isn't a strike against free speech, it's a victory for good manners.

[Mark in Oshawa]

One more thing Choudary, this isn't a strike against free speech, it's a victory for good manners.

It is a victory for good manners? No ...good manners means you are gracious enough to accept that you are dealing with a pinhead and you let him have his say, no matter how offensive you find him. Bans of freedom of expression should only be undertaken with the most dire of situations and consequences. A march offending all in the town of Wooten Bassett isn't good enough. I would be offended as anyone, but I would recognize that was what made my country great that I was unafraid to look ole Choudary in the eye and tell him how wrong he was... And he would be allowed to disagree.

[Dave B]

It's just been announced (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8453560.stm) that the group behind the planned Wooten Bassett protest has been banned.

Islam4UK (they sound like a phone shop staffed by injury lawyers) is now proscribed and being a member is punishable with a prison sentence of up to 10 years.

In theory a welcome move, but surely all it will do is drive this group and others like it underground where it will be harder to track their movements.

[Daniel]

Yeah I reckon it would have been easy to keep track of them on Facebook.

[Hondo]

If I'm not mistaken, this bozo has been making noises for quite a while now and putting on his grand show while getting a great deal on a council house and living on the dole. He likes the attention and he likes the spotlight. The police probably already have a folder on him that has to be carried in a van. It takes massive amounts of money to go "underground". He hasn't got it and would be a security risk way out of proportion to his value for anyone else to cover. If he takes an offer to be smuggled out of the country he's smart enough to know that with his command of the language and knowledge of western ways he's going to the front of the line for suicide bombing.

No, he'll form a new group, tone it down a little, and go back to noisemaking.

[Hondo]

You can bet Choudary has an MI5 agent following him wherever he goes. Inhabiting a country and then spreading hate towards its citizen's is not a wise method IMO. People like this clown give honest muslims a bad reputation.. :)

To his , and many others, way of thinking he is an honest Muslim. It's the others that do nothing to eliminate the non-believers that are bogus Muslims to him. Pay your money and pick your winner.

[schmenke]

Received in a recent e-mail...:

YOU MAY BE A Terrorist IF...

1. You refine heroin for a living, but you have a moral objection to liquor.

2. You own a $3,000 machine gun and $5,000 rocket launcher, but you can't afford shoes.

3. You have more wives than teeth.

4. You wipe your bum with your bare hand, but consider bacon "UNCLEAN".

5. You think vests come in two styles: bullet-proof and suicide.

6. You can't think of anyone you haven't declared Jihad against.

7. You consider television dangerous, but routinely carry explosives in your clothing.

8. You were amazed to discover that cellphones have uses other than setting off roadside bombs.

9. You have nothing against women and think every man should own at least four.

10. You've always had a crush on your neighbour's goat.

[gloomyDAY]

Received in a recent e-mail...:

YOU MAY BE A Terrorist IF...

1. You refine heroin for a living, but you have a moral objection to liquor.

2. You own a $3,000 machine gun and $5,000 rocket launcher, but you can't afford shoes.

3. You have more wives than teeth.

4. You wipe your bum with your bare hand, but consider bacon "UNCLEAN".

5. You think vests come in two styles: bullet-proof and suicide.

6. You can't think of anyone you haven't declared Jihad against.

7. You consider television dangerous, but routinely carry explosives in your clothing.

8. You were amazed to discover that cellphones have uses other than setting off roadside bombs.

9. You have nothing against women and think every man should own at least four.

10. You've always had a crush on your neighbour's goat.HAHA! Made me laugh pretty hard, and I'm supposed to be at home, sick. :D

[Langdale Forest]

Received in a recent e-mail...:

YOU MAY BE A Terrorist IF...

1. You refine heroin for a living, but you have a moral objection to liquor.

2. You own a $3,000 machine gun and $5,000 rocket launcher, but you can't afford shoes.

3. You have more wives than teeth.

4. You wipe your bum with your bare hand, but consider bacon "UNCLEAN".

5. You think vests come in two styles: bullet-proof and suicide.

6. You can't think of anyone you haven't declared Jihad against.

7. You consider television dangerous, but routinely carry explosives in your clothing.

8. You were amazed to discover that cellphones have uses other than setting off roadside bombs.

9. You have nothing against women and think every man should own at least four.

10. You've always had a crush on your neighbour's goat.

LOL! :D

Non of that applies to me so I am not a terrorist. ;)

[Mark in Oshawa]

It's just been announced (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8453560.stm) that the group behind the planned Wooten Bassett protest has been banned.

Islam4UK (they sound like a phone shop staffed by injury lawyers) is now proscribed and being a member is punishable with a prison sentence of up to 10 years.

In theory a welcome move, but surely all it will do is drive this group and others like it underground where it will be harder to track their movements.

We all know the guy is a self serving weasel who if given his druthers, would bring in Sharia law and cane your kids for looking sideways at a Bible but he still was "peaceful" and therefore should have been given a lane somewhere in town to march on. Maybe a back lane...maybe near some dumpsters.....maybe with the locals tossing the local produce at him...

[Malbec]

Gitmo isn't and never was supposed to be a deterence. Gitmo was supposed to be a secure, controlled access facility off American soil for the express purpose of holding terrorists for interrogation and further processing. I suppose Gitmo was an easier choice than just shooting them in the field.
My feelings on this. You are dealing with, in al-Qaeda'a case, an organization that recruits and trains it's followers to target and destroy through explosive means any individual who, with the exception of their bomber, does not belong to or support their organization. Civillians come to harm in any armed conflict but I know of no western power in the present age that has intentionally plotted the deaths of innocents. al-Qaeda does and is proud of it. Crash airliners into buildings, blow up wedding receptions, leave truck bombs lying around, etc. There is no war so they are not prisoners of war. They are not under arrest by civillian police. My understanding is that if held on American soil they would face civil criminal charges and be accorded full constitutional rights. At Gitmo they are under military tribunal. I am quite content with them at Gitmo being as chatty as they feel they need to be.

Whether you shoot them in the field, take them to Gitmo, bring them onshore, or feed them to the sharks isn't going change one iota of anything that drives them to join. We suffer from some dream that if we would only soften our approach to them, they will soften their approach to us. They will not. They will see us as weak and losing and press even harder.

I think you miss the point with G'mo bay.

People don't object to prisoners being held or questioned there. What people object to is the use of torture on those prisoners.

Guys like Mark stick to the principle of free speech whatever the case may be and thats fine. However free speech isn't a standalone principle that Western countries stand for, it goes together with respect for the individual and is inseparable from human rights. As such torture is incompatible with what the West stands for.

You cannot preach to the rest of the world that Western values are the greatest and use methods that directly run against that claim on prisoners. Nor should you or Mark be applauding yourselves that you're civilised because you don't finish these prisoners off on the battlefield. I'm afraid that in order to win this war properly you have to be able to show moral superiority from the outset. Descending to torture, rendition and the like does not do anything to strengthen the impression of Western moral superiority, far from it. If anything it looks to outsiders that 9/11 merely uncovered the barbaric savage side of the West that people always suspected lay underneath.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I think you miss the point with G'mo bay.

People don't object to prisoners being held or questioned there. What people object to is the use of torture on those prisoners.

Guys like Mark stick to the principle of free speech whatever the case may be and thats fine. However free speech isn't a standalone principle that Western countries stand for, it goes together with respect for the individual and is inseparable from human rights. As such torture is incompatible with what the West stands for.

You cannot preach to the rest of the world that Western values are the greatest and use methods that directly run against that claim on prisoners. Nor should you or Mark be applauding yourselves that you're civilised because you don't finish these prisoners off on the battlefield. I'm afraid that in order to win this war properly you have to be able to show moral superiority from the outset. Descending to torture, rendition and the like does not do anything to strengthen the impression of Western moral superiority, far from it. If anything it looks to outsiders that 9/11 merely uncovered the barbaric savage side of the West that people always suspected lay underneath.

I'll buy all of what you say Dylan but the assumption there was rampant torture going on there. We have no idea on how much of the waterboarding was going on. Interrogation covers a lot of ground and is part of the process of intelligence. I am not a fan at all of the waterboarding, but it is a grey area on how it is torture. I consider it a torture BUT it is a long way from some of the tactic's the enemy is using.

Also, many journalists were given full access and tours of Gitmo and the detainees were at least treated for the most part well. There was no attempt to hide this process or to make these detainees disappear. I think it is all spliting hairs. Gitmo wasn't the second coming of Bergen Belsen or a Gulag in Siberia. It was bad form on the Americans to have it, and there are issues you can quibble with, but as I said, the inhumane nasty people would have shot all these mutts where they found them in cold blood. The Americans gave them 3 squares a day and medical care in the very least.

[Malbec]

I'll buy all of what you say Dylan but the assumption there was rampant torture going on there. We have no idea on how much of the waterboarding was going on. Interrogation covers a lot of ground and is part of the process of intelligence. I am not a fan at all of the waterboarding, but it is a grey area on how it is torture. I consider it a torture BUT it is a long way from some of the tactic's the enemy is using.

Also, many journalists were given full access and tours of Gitmo and the detainees were at least treated for the most part well. There was no attempt to hide this process or to make these detainees disappear. I think it is all spliting hairs. Gitmo wasn't the second coming of Bergen Belsen or a Gulag in Siberia. It was bad form on the Americans to have it, and there are issues you can quibble with, but as I said, the inhumane nasty people would have shot all these mutts where they found them in cold blood. The Americans gave them 3 squares a day and medical care in the very least.

I don't think you get the point. You seem to think that some torture, or enough torture as is necessary is fine. I don't think that any torture is acceptable, not if you want to claim that you are morally superior to the enemy.

Also, what the enemy does is irrelevant. Saying that mistreating prisoners is ok as long as its not as bad as what the enemy does is not acceptable. What exactly is the line between what you're willing to accept and what you aren't? We're talking about a slippery slope here.

Is it ok then to kill 10 enemy civilians in cold blood if they kill 100? You could argue that you didn't kill anywhere near as many as they did so its acceptable. How far are you willing to go down that line Mark? Or are you willing to agree that its best not to go down that path at all?

Regarding G'mo bay it took a while for journalists to gain entry and initially they had their movements severely restricted. I don't believe that detainees were treated well in its initial days when that press access was severely limited.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I don't think you get the point. You seem to think that some torture, or enough torture as is necessary is fine. I don't think that any torture is acceptable, not if you want to claim that you are morally superior to the enemy.

Also, what the enemy does is irrelevant. Saying that mistreating prisoners is ok as long as its not as bad as what the enemy does is not acceptable. What exactly is the line between what you're willing to accept and what you aren't? We're talking about a slippery slope here.

Is it ok then to kill 10 enemy civilians in cold blood if they kill 100? You could argue that you didn't kill anywhere near as many as they did so its acceptable. How far are you willing to go down that line Mark? Or are you willing to agree that its best not to go down that path at all?

Regarding G'mo bay it took a while for journalists to gain entry and initially they had their movements severely restricted. I don't believe that detainees were treated well in its initial days when that press access was severely limited.

I get what you are saying exactly. I just know that the moral highground is great in a perfect world, but in todays nuanced world of grey, most of the West has dirty hands....

Gitmo was a bad idea, I get that...but I again ask you, would shooting everyone on the battlefield better? No...and you don't give terrorist fighters POW status as if they were a foreign sovreign nation.

As for torture, if waterboarding one man stops a terrorist attack that could kill hundreds or not, it is worth taking the abuse for doesn't it? I don't agree with it, and deplore its use, but It is a little rich to be on the moral high horse from a world that allows the slaughter in Rwanda to go on, or any one of a hundred abuses of human rights? Nothing about this is good Dylan.

Your point is it is all wrong, the US shouldn't have done it and waterboarding is not allowing the US to have a clean moral highground. Well in a world full of greys, they are less grey than the Taliban, or Hussein's Baath party.....

[Hondo]

I think you miss the point with G'mo bay.

People don't object to prisoners being held or questioned there. What people object to is the use of torture on those prisoners.

Guys like Mark stick to the principle of free speech whatever the case may be and thats fine. However free speech isn't a standalone principle that Western countries stand for, it goes together with respect for the individual and is inseparable from human rights. As such torture is incompatible with what the West stands for.

You cannot preach to the rest of the world that Western values are the greatest and use methods that directly run against that claim on prisoners. Nor should you or Mark be applauding yourselves that you're civilised because you don't finish these prisoners off on the battlefield. I'm afraid that in order to win this war properly you have to be able to show moral superiority from the outset. Descending to torture, rendition and the like does not do anything to strengthen the impression of Western moral superiority, far from it. If anything it looks to outsiders that 9/11 merely uncovered the barbaric savage side of the West that people always suspected lay underneath.

You are right, there are points being missed. This is not a war, it's a down and dirty, close quarters fight with an organization who's stated purpose is your death and the death of your culture. Their presence, by their own free will, in the company of those that would take 4 civillian airliners, crash 2 into civillian buildings, 1 that you could argue was a military building at the least, and plummett one into the gound when the game was lost means I don't have to show them jack. They have absolutely shown no moral code in any of this and it doesn't bother me in the least to play their own game with them. If waterboarding or anything else lets me know when and where that 5th airliner is going to happen I'll use it. My moral obligation is to the people on that 5th airliner not to the criminal thug in the wet tee shirt.

But all this debate is meaningless because you don't get it, do you? At the top of these heaps you've got the charismatic, megalomaniac leader. He picks the justification of rightousness under which to cloak and sell his activities. He is responsible for recruiting and selling the lower level. The lower level are the overly idealistic and easy to manipulate. Those are the guys that get talked into the suicide attacks. Why? Because they are so easy. The guys in the middle are your hard core criminal thugs. They handle day to day stuff, criminal stuff, logistics, and keep an eye on the flock in case anyone changes their mind. Okay, here comes the hard part. For the middle and top levels, this is their job. Their occupation. It is the work they do for a living. Just like you have something you do for a living, so do they and this is it. Except to sell the easy to manipulate on both sides, there is no real cause beyond personal enrichment. Thats why stuff like this never goes away. Right now Islam and Jihad is all the rage. There are more Islam justified criminal groups out there now than you can count. Why? because it sells. Just like in the civillian market, these guys will go from one group to another for a better position, pay, or better benefits. Hell, they could crusade against 4 slice toasters and somebody in the west would start moaning about how he can see their point, we do have more 4 slice toasters than them.

[Mark in Oshawa]

You are right, there are points being missed. This is not a war, it's a down and dirty, close quarters fight with an organization who's stated purpose is your death and the death of your culture. Their presence, by their own free will, in the company of those that would take 4 civillian airliners, crash 2 into civillian buildings, 1 that you could argue was a military building at the least, and plummett one into the gound when the game was lost means I don't have to show them jack. They have absolutely shown no moral code in any of this and it doesn't bother me in the least to play their own game with them. If waterboarding or anything else lets me know when and where that 5th airliner is going to happen I'll use it. My moral obligation is to the people on that 5th airliner not to the criminal thug in the wet tee shirt.

But all this debate is meaningless because you don't get it, do you? At the top of these heaps you've got the charismatic, megalomaniac leader. He picks the justification of rightousness under which to cloak and sell his activities. He is responsible for recruiting and selling the lower level. The lower level are the overly idealistic and easy to manipulate. Those are the guys that get talked into the suicide attacks. Why? Because they are so easy. The guys in the middle are your hard core criminal thugs. They handle day to day stuff, criminal stuff, logistics, and keep an eye on the flock in case anyone changes their mind. Okay, here comes the hard part. For the middle and top levels, this is their job. Their occupation. It is the work they do for a living. Just like you have something you do for a living, so do they and this is it. Except to sell the easy to manipulate on both sides, there is no real cause beyond personal enrichment. Thats why stuff like this never goes away. Right now Islam and Jihad is all the rage. There are more Islam justified criminal groups out there now than you can count. Why? because it sells. Just like in the civillian market, these guys will go from one group to another for a better position, pay, or better benefits. Hell, they could crusade against 4 slice toasters and somebody in the west would start moaning about how he can see their point, we do have more 4 slice toasters than them.

As I said, I have no problem picking who I support, the US and like minded states may not have "clean" hands, but I trust their motives more than I am going to stand there and try to justify the Jihad against the west Bin Laden wants...

If you can stand around for years and debate whose hands are dirty in this game, it means the terrorists haven't won...

[Mark in Oshawa]

Remember...you have to WIN before you can have these long debates about what is moral and just. If the West sat around and argued about the efficacy and ethics of how they were going to prosecute the war against Hitler, we would be speaking German......

[Malbec]

Mark and Fiero, this isn't a simple war between states as WW2 was, this is a war against a terrorist organisation.

Whilst Fiero is right in saying that the drive behind these groups isn't purely ideological but is often purely criminally and/or financially based, their job in recruiting people is made more easy by having the US behave as it did in G'mo. That kind of stuff breeds resentment against the US's double standards, just as Abu Ghraib did.

It is therefore counterproductive as well.

Oh and Mark, this was a fight the terrorists were never going to win. Even if after 9/11 nothing was done at all Western civilisation was never going to collapse under extremist terrorism. Maybe there would have been a few more attacks but that would have been it. Comparing it to WW2 merely sounds melodramatic and isn't relevant.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Mark and Fiero, this isn't a simple war between states as WW2 was, this is a war against a terrorist organisation.

Whilst Fiero is right in saying that the drive behind these groups isn't purely ideological but is often purely criminally and/or financially based, their job in recruiting people is made more easy by having the US behave as it did in G'mo. That kind of stuff breeds resentment against the US's double standards, just as Abu Ghraib did.

It is therefore counterproductive as well.

Oh and Mark, this was a fight the terrorists were never going to win. Even if after 9/11 nothing was done at all Western civilisation was never going to collapse under extremist terrorism. Maybe there would have been a few more attacks but that would have been it. Comparing it to WW2 merely sounds melodramatic and isn't relevant.

I wont disagree with that Dylan, and I wont deny that you are right to not claim the moral high ground when you have Gitmo. I still see this though more from Fiero's point. Winning this battle on the front lines means more than winning it from the intellectual point of view. There isn't a nation with clean hands on many things, and I think the recruiting of terrorists wasn't going to change no matter how the US reacted or acted on how they prosecuted this war. If the US didn't have Gitmo, Bin Laden and his like would find something else the Americans did to drive the recruiting drive. You cannot accept their aims as rational or moral, so why accept the premise that anyone would join such a group would be swayed one way or the other by Gitmo? I can believe that many people would be angry over this, but getting mad at the US is something Eki has been for years, and I don't see him plotting the downfall of the west.

[Hondo]

It is nothing more than criminal enterprise. A gifted leader can and will twist any event into an atrocity or insult against his faithful. They will believe him. Are they all stupid? No, many are highly educated but their idealism and the ease with which they can be manipulated is their downfall. What the criminals use to light the fires of their followers isn't any different than what the west uses through news stories, war movies, and video games, etc. Catch them young, unhappy, and idealistic and you've got them. Convince them their unhappy situation is completely the fault of others and I might add, intentional, and you've got them. Give them a taste of the power and wealth they'll never obtain on their own, and you got them. It's no different than a buisness. You've got an employee that's become a pain because his grumblings for more money now have a bunch of employees grumbling for more money. You don't want to lose the guy but you don't want to pay him more either. You take the guy and show him his new office with his new title and explain to him how valuable he is to the company and how you appreciate the superior leadership he has shown over his fellow employees. You also tell him that you can't give him a raise right now but you will as soon as the business takes off again. Bam, you've got him. He will work like a dog for you, produce more than he ever has, and get the others back in line. All you did was stroke his ego, give him a tangible and public reward (new title complete with sign on the door), and best of all you gave him POWER over his immediate peer group.

These causes are businesses. The late, great founder of the modern terrorist cause Yassir Arafat is seldom mentioned anymore. Why? Because after his death it was learned he was sitting on some $2 bn he scammed from the PLO and those that donated it. He got the world, including the UN, to recognize him as a head of state along with all privileges thereof, without having a state. Popping Bin Laden won't stop these groups anymore than popping Pablo stopped the cocaine business or popping a mafia don stops organized crime. Jihad is their business, it is not the means by which they further their cause. Finally having enough of it and taking the fight to them rocks them back on their heels and makes them rethink their tactics and targets. It will never end it.

They don't mind the torture, they use it themselves. To them it's a tool not a moral issue. It boggles their minds that their enemy would allow themselves to be beaten up from within over such a non-issue. Once they see their enemy make an issue of it, they jump on the band wagon with it also. There is nothing more amusing than a criminal, after being caught, screaming for the protection of the law.

Now Yemen wants to negoitiate with al-Qadea. Great.

[Daniel]

It is nothing more than criminal enterprise. A gifted leader can and will twist any event into an atrocity or insult against his faithful. They will believe him. Are they all stupid? No, many are highly educated but their idealism and the ease with which they can be manipulated is their downfall. What the criminals use to light the fires of their followers isn't any different than what the west uses through news stories, war movies, and video games, etc. Catch them young, unhappy, and idealistic and you've got them. Convince them their unhappy situation is completely the fault of others and I might add, intentional, and you've got them. Give them a taste of the power and wealth they'll never obtain on their own, and you got them. It's no different than a buisness. You've got an employee that's become a pain because his grumblings for more money now have a bunch of employees grumbling for more money. You don't want to lose the guy but you don't want to pay him more either. You take the guy and show him his new office with his new title and explain to him how valuable he is to the company and how you appreciate the superior leadership he has shown over his fellow employees. You also tell him that you can't give him a raise right now but you will as soon as the business takes off again. Bam, you've got him. He will work like a dog for you, produce more than he ever has, and get the others back in line. All you did was stroke his ego, give him a tangible and public reward (new title complete with sign on the door), and best of all you gave him POWER over his immediate peer group.

These causes are businesses. The late, great founder of the modern terrorist cause Yassir Arafat is seldom mentioned anymore. Why? Because after his death it was learned he was sitting on some $2 bn he scammed from the PLO and those that donated it. He got the world, including the UN, to recognize him as a head of state along with all privileges thereof, without having a state. Popping Bin Laden won't stop these groups anymore than popping Pablo stopped the cocaine business or popping a mafia don stops organized crime. Jihad is their business, it is not the means by which they further their cause. Finally having enough of it and taking the fight to them rocks them back on their heels and makes them rethink their tactics and targets. It will never end it.

They don't mind the torture, they use it themselves. To them it's a tool not a moral issue. It boggles their minds that their enemy would allow themselves to be beaten up from within over such a non-issue. Once they see their enemy make an issue of it, they jump on the band wagon with it also. There is nothing more amusing than a criminal, after being caught, screaming for the protection of the law.

Now Yemen wants to negoitiate with al-Qadea. Great.
Quite true. Which is exactly why the US should give up trying to get Bin Laden unless they get an easy pop at him.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Quite true. Which is exactly why the US should give up trying to get Bin Laden unless they get an easy pop at him.

I am of the mind that killing Bin Laden without killing most of the organization off first just makes him a martyr emboldening the rest of them.....

[Hondo]

Quite frankly, these drones have been the best thing so far in quieting these people down. Now you're sitting in the back yard, barbequeing a goat with your fellow felons, knocking back the green tea while reviewing your press clippings and BLAMO!!! Before you can get a "aw sh!t" out of your mouth much less an "Allah akbar", a missle you didn't know was coming from an aircraft you couldn't see has your Wylie Coyote looking ass wondering where the virgins are. Do "innocents" also get killed during these attacks? Sure they do. The innocents also knew these people were criminals and that associating with them was risky business.

Between 100-200 special troops broken into smaller units, on the ground, operating under enemy rules, with full logistic support as requested, along with the drones and other sky intelligence will get Obama. Whether Obama becomes a martyr or not depends on many things but he is not a likely candidate. The Afghans that fought the Russians have no respect for him because he never fought the Russians. Bin Laden has not actually been documented as an active fighter anywhere. The Saudis and the Jordanians view him as a common criminal. Arafat isn't a martyr. I'm saying a small force can get him. Whether you want to publicize his death or not is up to their employer. One problem is that Generals and such do not like special forces. They like big budgets and lots of tanks and other toys.

I've said this before and and all of you laughed, called me nuts, etc. Do you remember when I told you that Obama was going to increase the troops in Afghanistan? You laughed. I told you he was going to increase the troops to have an area from which he could stage an invasion of Iran and you laughed. Iran finally caught on and they aren't laughing, they are planning war games to deal with an American invasion. I told you Obama was a lying bast@rd before he got elected. I told you he was a lying bast@rd after he got elected. He doesn't have an idea in this world about whats going on, anywhere. Foreign leaders snub him and have made it clear they have no respect for him or his wishes. He has still not formulated a plan or treaty dealing with Iran. His popularity numbers are dropping like rocks at home. Pretty soon he's going to need an outside enemy and a major crisis to save his ego. If he pulls off the Iran thing, he will be a leader worthy of respect and have the gratitude of nations that fear a nuclear Iran. If an agreement is reached with Iran, the troops will come home.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Quite frankly, these drones have been the best thing so far in quieting these people down. Now you're sitting in the back yard, barbequeing a goat with your fellow felons, knocking back the green tea while reviewing your press clippings and BLAMO!!! Before you can get a "aw sh!t" out of your mouth much less an "Allah akbar", a missle you didn't know was coming from an aircraft you couldn't see has your Wylie Coyote looking ass wondering where the virgins are. Do "innocents" also get killed during these attacks? Sure they do. The innocents also knew these people were criminals and that associating with them was risky business.

The Innocents are often unaware if the tribesman camped on the edge of "town" are just nasty, or actual terrorists, and in any case, are powerless to stop the intimidation of their situation by these cowards. I don't like them dying due to a Predator strike, but I suppose that is why these clowns hide in the midst of innocent civilians. I do hope care is taken NOT to create collateral damage.


Between 100-200 special troops broken into smaller units, on the ground, operating under enemy rules, with full logistic support as requested, along with the drones and other sky intelligence will get Obama. Whether Obama becomes a martyr or not depends on many things but he is not a likely candidate. The Afghans that fought the Russians have no respect for him because he never fought the Russians. Bin Laden has not actually been documented as an active fighter anywhere. The Saudis and the Jordanians view him as a common criminal. Arafat isn't a martyr. I'm saying a small force can get him. Whether you want to publicize his death or not is up to their employer. One problem is that Generals and such do not like special forces. They like big budgets and lots of tanks and other toys..

You might want to edit this. You mean Bin Laden right? Freudian slip???? you have Obama as the terrorist. Even Rush Limbaugh hasn't called him that...lol.



I've said this before and and all of you laughed, called me nuts, etc. Do you remember when I told you that Obama was going to increase the troops in Afghanistan? You laughed. I told you he was going to increase the troops to have an area from which he could stage an invasion of Iran and you laughed. Iran finally caught on and they aren't laughing, they are planning war games to deal with an American invasion. I told you Obama was a lying bast@rd before he got elected. I told you he was a lying bast@rd after he got elected. He doesn't have an idea in this world about whats going on, anywhere. Foreign leaders snub him and have made it clear they have no respect for him or his wishes. He has still not formulated a plan or treaty dealing with Iran. His popularity numbers are dropping like rocks at home. Pretty soon he's going to need an outside enemy and a major crisis to save his ego. If he pulls off the Iran thing, he will be a leader worthy of respect and have the gratitude of nations that fear a nuclear Iran. If an agreement is reached with Iran, the troops will come home.

Iran is the biggest wild card, and I hope it falls from with in by unrest by the students and civilian population to the point that change happens in that manner. Invading IRAN? Oh boy...not a good plan, and I do not think there would be too many in the US Defense Establishment willing to be happy campers on that one. I am thinking it is a bit of a stretch to go from increased soldiers in Afghanistan to an Iranian invasion. The surge of sorts is required just to get a handle on the Taliban insurgency that refuses to completely go away. With the lack of support from a lot of NATO members to actually do something besides show up, these troops will be too busy to worry about planning their road into Iran. The Iranians however will make hay out of this, because being able to use any lever to make the populace paranoid is a weapon in keeping the regime going. Straght out of 1984 and Orwell's playbook...