# Spain is pulling out



## K. Ash (15 Mar 2004)

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/03/15/spain_election040315 

Granted, I‘m no expert but wouldn‘t this be considered giving into terrorist demands?


----------



## Garry (15 Mar 2004)

Yes and No.

They made the decision to pull out part of their election platform. However, they were attacked! It‘s absolutely beyond me how they could then turn around and pull out.

Cowards.

Score one for the terrorists.


----------



## K. Ash (15 Mar 2004)

I agree. For all those people who are against the war, that‘s besides the point, once your there finish the ****in job.


----------



## Ty- (15 Mar 2004)

"Granted, I‘m no expert but wouldn‘t this be considered giving into terrorist demands?"

- One doesn‘t have to be an expert to realize this; it was a cowardly stand--much like, dare I say, Canada not joining in the oust of Saddam--by Spain. 

Now that these terrorist groups realize that one country that was formerly against them has given in to their demands--and not, as Spain should have, further expressing hostility against the country--our countries still involved with rebuilding the Middle East are at a greater risk--because many more terrorists believe now that they aren‘t just fanning a given country‘s ‘fire‘, and causing it to grow; instead, they‘re blowing it out.


----------



## FlightSergeantRose (15 Mar 2004)

Terrorism is not going to be defeated by helping secure Iraq. If anything, their presence is only festering more support for them then ever before. The Iraq conflict never had anything to do with terrorism, it was about Saddam and it was about oil. 

You people, that seem to think that the Spanish are cowards for pulling their people out are fools. ‘Terrorism‘ does not have a country, ‘Terrorism‘ does not have a face. It is an idea and a tactic and you can never destroy it. There will always be terrorism in some form or another.

Anyone who thinks that we should have sent troops to help invade and occupy Iraq are not very bright.

As much as I don‘t like Chretien, he was right in not supporting the invasion.


----------



## Roger (15 Mar 2004)

I think if they pull out then the terrorists have won, it is a shame.

I think that the terrorists will think they won and that they should continue to kill civilian, do not be suprised if it happens in Canada.


----------



## Ty- (15 Mar 2004)

"Terrorism is not going to be defeated by helping secure Iraq. If anything, their presence is only festering more support for them then ever before."

- Granted--however, my example of Canada acting in cowardice was towards not joining in the Iraq invasion, even at the cost of becoming a target, and not specifically for the sake of helping to end terrorism.


"The Iraq conflict never had anything to do with terrorism, it was about Saddam and it was about oil. "

- I agree with everything except the oil being in the same motivational standing as Saddam.  I don‘t imagine the US will be making a profit off the Iraq invasion any time soon (check out    http://www.costofwar.com/)   


"You people, that seem to think that the Spanish are cowards for pulling their people out are fools. ‘Terrorism‘ does not have a country, ‘Terrorism‘ does not have a face. It is an idea and a tactic and you can never destroy it. There will always be terrorism in some form or another."

- Everybody knows this. The idea behind ‘the war on terrorism‘ is not (outsite of an ideal) to remove all terrorism, but to remove as much as possible, including the biggest threats (such as as organizations and human leaders)--which, as tangible targets, do have ‘faces‘ as sorts.


"Anyone who thinks that we should have sent troops to help invade and occupy Iraq are not very bright."

- I defy that affront; refute my response; seeing as, according to your logic, I am part of the ‘not very bright‘ group, it should be easy.


----------



## Infanteer (15 Mar 2004)

> Terrorism is not going to be defeated by helping secure Iraq. If anything, their presence is only festering more support for them then ever before. The Iraq conflict never had anything to do with terrorism, it was about Saddam and it was about oil.


Here we go again.  Where did you get that idea from, your service in the cadets?



> You people, that seem to think that the Spanish are cowards for pulling their people out are fools. ‘Terrorism‘ does not have a country, ‘Terrorism‘ does not have a face. It is an idea and a tactic and you can never destroy it. There will always be terrorism in some form or another.


We‘re fighting a specific form of terrorism that has a country and a face.



> Anyone who thinks that we should have sent troops to help invade and occupy Iraq are not very bright.


I‘m glad you think that.  Myself and most of the BTDT‘s that frequent this board thank you for your compliment.  Care to explain why I‘m not very bright, Henry Kissinger?



> As much as I don‘t like Chretien, he was right in not supporting the invasion.


Remember that.  Next time your buddy takes a shot to the face in a bar, turn around and walk away.


----------



## Garry (15 Mar 2004)

"Remember that. Next time your buddy takes a shot to the face in a bar, turn around and walk away."

‘nuff said.


----------



## Tyrnagog (15 Mar 2004)

If my buddy took a shot in the face in the bar, I would be there to support him.  Canada is there in Afghanistan.

If my buddy went after someone with whom he had a grudge because of a fight his father was in 10 years ago, I wouldn‘t be so eager to help him..  Even if my buddy said he had a knife or a gun, even though the guy at the door has already checked him a couple of times...

It was hard getting through that analogy..  let me tell ya...

Iraq was never truly about terrorism, at least in the form of Al-Qaeda and the attacks on Sept. 11.  I believe that this was used as an excuse to oust Saddam.  Although the intentions were good, I believe that GWB should have gone about it a different way.

I also believe if he had gone about it a different way, Canada would not have been as reluctant to lend a hand.


----------



## Infanteer (15 Mar 2004)

> If my buddy took a shot in the face in the bar, I would be there to support him. Canada is there in Afghanistan.


Granted, but why are we not down in the south fighting the war, but instead placed on another (equally dangerous) "Non-Article 5" mission?



> If my buddy went after someone with whom he had a grudge because of a fight his father was in 10 years ago, I wouldn‘t be so eager to help him.. Even if my buddy said he had a knife or a gun, even though the guy at the door has already checked him a couple of times...


Ok, you want to play the analogy game.

The guy has been an active supporter or terrorist suicide bombers in both Israel and the United States.  Do you think he WOULDN‘T support the Al-Qaeda?  And what if the guy searching for the weapon happens to be an incompatant goof who is restricted by too many rules, despite the fact that:
A) The guy has brought a gun into the bar before and used it.
B) The guy has neighbouring buddies with him that probably wouldn‘t mind "borrowing" them.



> Iraq was never truly about terrorism, at least in the form of Al-Qaeda and the attacks on Sept. 11. I believe that this was used as an excuse to oust Saddam. Although the intentions were good, I believe that GWB should have gone about it a different way.


I don‘t believe terrorism was the heart of the issue either.  To me, undermining terrorism through behaviour modification in a region unfriendly to the West is the main goal, and what better place to start than Iraq.  Do you have a problem with removing Saddam?



> I also believe if he had gone about it a different way, Canada would not have been as reluctant to lend a hand.


They did, they tried going through the UN and had their decisions overturned by a collection of piss-pot states.  Since their (and by extention, our) interests could not be satisfyed in the cozy and disarming atmosphere of multilateralism, they decided to do the realistic thing and go without the blessing of an archaeic, Wilsonian farce.

Its funny, the left has been so eager to blast the UN for the last 10 years of sanctions in Iraq, and when the US decides to skip the log rolling of the Security Council, they clamour to defend the institution against the threat of unilateralism.

At least I can be comfortable with my consistant contempt for the UN.

So then, what is your "different" way?


----------



## Tyrnagog (15 Mar 2004)

> I don‘t believe terrorism was the heart of the issue either.


I am glad we agre...    



> Do you have a problem with removing Saddam?


No, I do not have any problem removing Saddam.  He is an evil man, and I for one am glad he is removed from power.  My problem was the process, not the end result.

Why do you believe the modification of behavious of an entire region is needed?  Why can‘t we find out the root cause of the issue?  Work to some mutually beneficial compromise?

For my different way, well, if I knew all of the answers, I would be a different man then the one I am.  I would have continued with the sanctions, continued with the arms inspections, and invested more time/manpower/money/energy into finding Osama Bin Laden...  I believe him and his organization to be more of a "clear and present danger" than Saddam was, to the west.

I believe that GWB had a well, maybe not hidden. agenda, but he had some sort of agenda with Iraq, and used the events of Sept. 11 to his advantage in bringing forward what he wanted.  He continues to do this with his re-election campaign, using images of the WTC, when he was quoted (soon after the attacks) that to use imagery of the attacks was unacceptable.

As I said, I do not disagree with the end result of the War in Iraq.  I disagree with the process leading up to it.

I support all of the service men and women there, and I pray that they come back safe.


----------



## Infanteer (15 Mar 2004)

Nice response.  When debates are clean like this, we can learn from it.



> Why do you believe the modification of behavious of an entire region is needed? Why can‘t we find out the root cause of the issue? Work to some mutually beneficial compromise?


Yes I do.

How different is it from open aggression when a state officially protects a group of people that openly say that Zionism and the West are idolaters and evil creatures aligned with the devilish Shi‘ites and activily promotes violent terrorism against them all (I took that right from the current Foreign Affairs article on Saudi Arabia).  Is a fatwa any different than a declaration of war? (Isn‘t that what it is?)  If a state refuses to cooperate with us, than they are aiding our foe.

How do we work out mutually beneficial compromise with wealthy, educated men who fly planes into buildings and seek a return to the Middle Ages?



> I would have continued with the sanctions, continued with the arms inspections, and invested more time/manpower/money/energy into finding Osama Bin Laden...


Was the 13 years since the first Gulf War not long enough?  The coalition effort to track down Al Qaeda leaders and Osama bin Ladin was never sidetracked by the Iraq War.  If anything, we just gave him one less place to hide.




> I believe that GWB had a well, maybe not hidden. agenda, but he had some sort of agenda with Iraq, and used the events of Sept. 11 to his advantage in bringing forward what he wanted. He continues to do this with his re-election campaign, using images of the WTC, when he was quoted (soon after the attacks) that to use imagery of the attacks was unacceptable.


I agree with you there.  No one seems to bring it up, but remember when Dubya was first elected, and he vowed to "deal with" Saddam.  This was in 2000.  However, after 9/11, so what.  The ends justify the means.  As well, I will continue to place my faith in the Bush administration.  I shiver to wonder what might have occured had Al Gore been President during 9/11.  I‘m sure Al Qaeda would have only been encouraged by a few more tomahawks hitting Khartoum.


----------



## Tyrnagog (15 Mar 2004)

> Nice response. When debates are clean like this, we can learn from it.


From a seasoned debater like you Infanteer, this is a real compliment.  Thank you.

On to business...    



> How different is it from open aggression when a state officially protects a group of people that openly say that Zionism and the West are idolaters and evil creatures aligned with the devilish Shi‘ites and activily promotes violent terrorism against them all (I took that right from the current Foreign Affairs article on Saudi Arabia). Is a fatwa any different than a declaration of war? (Isn‘t that what it is?) If a state refuses to cooperate with us, than they are aiding our foe.
> 
> How do we work out mutually beneficial agreements with wealthy, educated men who fly planes into buildings?


I have no answer for you, because you make a very valid point.  In an ideal world, the rules of engagement would be followed, and commuter jet planes wouldn‘t be used as missiles, aimed at civilian structures.

But this isn‘t an ideal world, now is it?




> Was the 13 years since the first Gulf War not long enough? The coalition effort to track down Al Qaeda leaders and Osama bin Ladin was never sidetracked by the Iraq War. If anything, we just gave him one less place to hide.


The coalition effort was never side tracked, but (IMHO), an emphasis should have been put on tracking down remaining members of Taliban, including Bin Laden and Mullah Omar.  

I ask the next question, simply because I don‘t know...  How strong were the ties between the Taliban regime and Saddam‘s government?  If it was a proven, strong tie, then my beliefs/reasoning would probably shift...

I don‘t know enough about Al Gore and what his leadership style is to be able to rebut you on the last remark.  Perhaps the US did, indeed have a need for GWB during 9/11.  I will admit he was a good public face during that time...


----------



## Exodeus (15 Mar 2004)

Correct me if I‘m wrong, but wasn‘t it proven that Saddam was indirectly funding terrorist activity? (‘Death benefits‘ - of some sort - for the families of suicide bombers) That was one of the reasons for targeting him again. There was an article in the Ottawa Citizen a while back. I‘ll look for it if need be.

I think that the CF should have participated in Iraq. 

Canada is -or will be- reaping the benefits (*hopeful drop in terrorist activity) of the war, but we have only gone half-way in the Middle-East (I fully support the troops in Afganistan). Cpl. Murphy‘s murder is proof that Canada is just as vulnerable as any other nation involved in the war on terrorism. Should the CF not have supported the US in whatever way possible during the Iraqi conflict? I understand that our Forces are spread thin enough already, but there has to be some way to show support! I feel like ‘we‘ turned our backs on the Americans when they needed us the most.

Once again, I have little experience within the CF, so if I need a smack then by all means, feel free.


----------



## Infanteer (15 Mar 2004)

> I ask the next question, simply because I don‘t know... How strong were the ties between the Taliban regime and Saddam‘s government? If it was a proven, strong tie, then my beliefs/reasoning would probably shift...


I‘ve had conversations with members of the US forces with time in the sandbox who have seen first hand links of Al Qaeda in Iraq; perhaps not a direct link, but something akin to the Taliban/Al Qaeda relationship is not out of the question.



> Should the CF not have supported the US in whatever way possible during the Iraqi conflict? I understand that our Forces are spread thin enough already, but there has to be some way to show support! I feel like ‘we‘ turned our backs on the Americans when they needed us the most.


It‘s not the fact that we didn‘t contribute to the war in Iraq that get me, its the fact that we didn‘t even offer moral support to the Americans or the British.  If we would have made a small contribution (a la Australia) or even just moral support for the actual war (a la Spain), I would have been satisfied.

But anyways, that is a foreign policy decision of the governent of the chief turd himself which is now thankfully gone.  I‘m willing to give Mr Martin a chance to fix things up, and look forward to seeing what lies in the future for us.


----------



## Tyrnagog (15 Mar 2004)

> But anyways, that is a foreign policy decision of the governent of the chief turd himself which is now thankfully gone. I‘m willing to give Mr Martin a chance to fix things up, and look forward to seeing what lies in the future for us.


I totally agree with you on that one.  I pray that defense spending goes up...  but that is fodder for another thread, hey?

As for the first hand account of an Al-Qaeda/Iraq link..  well, I cannot argue that.  All I have seen of this is what has been filtered through the various biased news organizations.  There always is something more than is told...  so maybe there is some kind of justification for the war I don‘t know about.  It‘s like I am NSA or anything...

I agree that we should have at least given moral support, but, Gene Poutine is out..  so hopefully things will start to turn around...


----------



## bossi (15 Mar 2004)

My personal opinion doesn‘t really matter that much, but ... personally, I‘m offended by some remarks posted here:



> You people, that seem to think that the Spanish are cowards for pulling their people out are fools ...
> 
> 
> Anyone who thinks that we should have sent troops to help invade and occupy Iraq are not very bright.


(oh - by the way - some of us may be fools, but at least we can compose and punctuate sentences properly -  the first portion quoted, above, is quite simply a dogs‘ breakfast, and the verb tense in the latter part is incorrect - "Anyone ... are not very bright" ... hmmm ... methinks the pot may be calling the kettle black, but ... I digress ...)

There are a couple of parallel threads going on where people are not being called fools (unsubstantiated, I might add), from which I prefer the following quotes:



> Here is the irony. For all the fighting, this threat cannot be defeated by security means alone. Taking strong action is a necessary but insufficient condition for defeating. Its final defeat is only assured by the triumph of the values of the human spirit.


(Tony Blair)
The Threat of Terrorism 
and



> ... whoever was responsible - whether al-Qaeda or ETA - will be pleased to have intervened so successfully in a democratic ballot. Spaniards died in industrial quantities, and the first instinct of many voters was to take it out on their government. If terrorism has succeeded there, where will be next?


The Madrid Bombing


----------



## FlightSergeantRose (16 Mar 2004)

Well Infanteer, I know this from reading a lot and watching the news often. I am also a history major in university and I am very interested in international history and politics. From all of my inputs of information I formulate my own opinions.

To myself, I believe I am right when I say that the US invaded Iraq to get rid of Saddam, but more importantly, to secure a long term supply of oil as the US‘s relationship with Saudi Arabia (they get most of their oil from them)has been deteriorating for some time.

I don‘t think that my 7 years in aircadets has anything to do with my opinions on this matter, but who knows Infanteer. . . .

So we are fighting a ‘specific‘ form of terrorism are we? Well, how about you tell us all about this ‘specific‘ type of terrorism we are dealing with. I would also like you to tell me who/how terrorism has a country and a face, because I think that you are wrong.

Politically, Canada is on the good/high end of the ‘geo political‘ spectrum thanks to Chretien not participating in Iraq. Now that we pretty much know there were never any WMD‘s(the ‘MAIN‘ reason for Bush pushing for war, although not the real reason) anyone who was involved such as the US and UK mainly; their credibility has been put into doubt to the rest of the world, and rightly so.

I am not Kissinger and would never want to be. I not going to get into it here big time here, but he made a lot of decisions that cost thousands and thousands of lives in many parts of the world (Vietnam, Nicaragua, and others) and he at the very least influenced a number of coups (sp) against democratically elected leaders.

If my best friend was sucker punched by someone in a bar or where ever, I would be the first one to go after the guy, but most of my friends can take care of themselves just fine. I am guessing your putting that comment into the context of Canada not invading Iraq along with the US. If this is the case your comment is flawed. Canada did attack Afghanistan since there was ample proof of the governments connection to terrorism. With Iraq on the other hand, there is very, very little evidence that Saddam had anything to do with ‘terrorists‘. From what I have heard, Saddam hated terrorists like Osama, and Osama had called Saddam an "infedel", so I somehow doubt they had anything to do with one another.


----------



## FlightSergeantRose (16 Mar 2004)

"The guy has been an active supporter or terrorist suicide bombers in both Israel and the United States."

You are partly wrong. He did support the suicide bombers in Israel, just like all the other arab nations in the middle east. 

There has been no connection made between Saddam and the 9-11 hijackers. There was never any connection, and I bet Saddam was just as surprised about 9-11 as everyone else was. Saddam has publicly stated on television that he loves the people of the US, just not their government. If he says this, why would he try to attack to US, or maybe he is lying. If Saddam was going to get WMD‘s, they would be more meant to keep his neighbours jittery, not to attack the US.

"If a state refuses to cooperate with us, than they are aiding our foe."

That is a very ‘BUSH‘ way of looking at things and a pathetic one at that.

"I shiver to wonder what might have occured had Al Gore been President during 9/11"

That is too bad. I think Gore would have done a much better job then Bush in dealing with whats happening. The afghan thing would probably still have happened, but not Iraq, and over 500 Americans and thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians would still be alive today. 

"How do we work out mutually beneficial agreements with wealthy, educated men who fly planes into buildings?

I disagree. Those men were not wealthy (personal wealth, not including the money they got from their leaders, correct me if I‘m wrong) and they most certainly were not ‘educated‘. Those men were brought up in a hate filled environment and were probably, constantly bombarded by anti-Western propaganda throughout the lifetime. If learning the Coran and how to fly makes them ‘educated‘ then I think all humans on this earth are ‘educated‘. Which of course is not the case.


----------



## FlightSergeantRose (16 Mar 2004)

I am sorry I offended you Bossi, next time I will use poopy pants instead of fools, ok?

If you have a problem with some of my sentences (although I am sure you get the point), you will have to ‘suck it up‘. I try to get my points across as quickly as I can and I am not spending hours editing my posts. I guess I am lazy.


----------



## FlightSergeantRose (16 Mar 2004)

Bottom line is I think the war with Iraq was wrong. Yes, Saddam was bad; so are many other world leaders, who have been involved in worse things and you dont even hear a peep from Bush about them. 

I don‘t know the real reasons Bush invaded Iraq and I don‘t think we will know for a long time, but it sure as **** wasn‘t about taking out WMD‘s or fighting terrorism.

I say "fool" because the Spanish people are overwhelmingly against the **** going on in Iraq. When they voted for the Socialists, they used the ‘democratic‘ way to tell the government that they wanted out. 

The Socialists won about 47% of the vote and about 77% of all the people in the country  voted. 77% is an extremely good turnout, which makes me think that the people of Spain had something to say to their government.

The winning party campaigned on bringing back their troops if they won the election, and now they are keeping their promise.

Spain is not a coward at all, as some tend to think, of course everyone has their own personal opinions. The people of Spain were against the Iraq invasion  and now that the people have had their chance to ‘speak out‘, they are doing what they believe is right; Not participating in the occupation of Iraq.

I was upset that some people would call them cowards. Those over here who think so are (in my opinion), are in no position to say such a thing.


----------



## Infanteer (16 Mar 2004)

> Well Infanteer, I know this from reading a lot and watching the news often. I am also a history major in university and I am very interested in international history and politics. From all of my inputs of information I formulate my own opinions.


Yeah, well I guess I‘ll have to quit the military and do that too....



> To myself, I believe I am right when I say that the US invaded Iraq to get rid of Saddam, but more importantly, to secure a long term supply of oil as the US‘s relationship with Saudi Arabia (they get most of their oil from them)has been deteriorating for some time.


Keep telling yourself that.



> So we are fighting a ‘specific‘ form of terrorism are we? Well, how about you tell us all about this ‘specific‘ type of terrorism we are dealing with. I would also like you to tell me who/how terrorism has a country and a face, because I think that you are wrong.


Well, if you were such a buff of international history and politics like you claim to be, maybe you would know?  This ain‘t the Red Brigade we are fighting here.  But I‘ll give you a hint; how many fanatic, Jesuit priests from Des Moines, Iowa do you think are in the Al Qaeda?



> With Iraq on the other hand, there is very, very little evidence that Saddam had anything to do with ‘terrorists‘. From what I have heard, Saddam hated terrorists like Osama, and Osama had called Saddam an "infedel", so I somehow doubt they had anything to do with one another.





> There has been no connection made between Saddam and the 9-11 hijackers. There was never any connection, and I bet Saddam was just as surprised about 9-11 as everyone else was.


Well, if thats what you heard, than it must be true.  I‘ve stated what my sources are for what I said, so you can take ‘em or leave ‘em.

But, since you are such a scholar and won‘t accept the word of a soldier, I‘ll throw out some academic reading that the internet is full of....
----
*Those who try to whitewash Saddam‘s record don‘t dispute this evidence; they just ignore it. So let‘s review the evidence, all of it on the public record for months or years:

* Abdul Rahman Yasin was the only member of the al Qaeda cell that detonated the 1993 World Trade Center bomb to remain at large in the Clinton years. He fled to Iraq. U.S. forces recently discovered a cache of documents in Tikrit, Saddam‘s hometown, that show that Iraq gave Mr. Yasin both a house and monthly salary.

* Bin Laden met at least eight times with officers of Iraq‘s Special Security Organization, a secret police agency run by Saddam‘s son Qusay, and met with officials from Saddam‘s mukhabarat, its external intelligence service, according to intelligence made public by Secretary of State Colin Powell, who was speaking before the United Nations Security Council on February 6, 2003. 

* Sudanese intelligence officials told me that their agents had observed meetings between Iraqi intelligence agents and bin Laden starting in 1994, when bin Laden lived in Khartoum. 

* Bin Laden met the director of the Iraqi mukhabarat in 1996 in Khartoum, according to Mr. Powell.

* An al Qaeda operative now held by the U.S. confessed that in the mid-1990s, bin Laden had forged an agreement with Saddam‘s men to cease all terrorist activities against the Iraqi dictator, Mr. Powell told the United Nations.

* In 1999 the Guardian, a British newspaper, reported that Farouk Hijazi, a senior officer in Iraq‘s mukhabarat, had journeyed deep into the icy mountains near Kandahar, Afghanistan, in December 1998 to meet with al Qaeda men. Mr. Hijazi is "thought to have offered bin Laden asylum in Iraq," the Guardian reported.

* In October 2000, another Iraqi intelligence operative, Salah Suleiman, was arrested near the Afghan border by Pakistani authorities, according to Jane‘s Foreign Report, a respected international newsletter. Jane‘s reported that Suleiman was shuttling between Iraqi intelligence and Ayman al Zawahiri, now al Qaeda‘s No. 2 man. 

(Why are all of those meetings significant? The London Observer reports that FBI investigators cite a captured al Qaeda field manual in Afghanistan, which "emphasizes the value of conducting discussions about pending terrorist attacks face to face, rather than by electronic means.")

* As recently as 2001, Iraq‘s embassy in Pakistan was used as a "liaison" between the Iraqi dictator and al Qaeda, Mr. Powell told the United Nations.

* Spanish investigators have uncovered documents seized from Yusuf Galan -- who is charged by a Spanish court with being "directly involved with the preparation and planning" of the Sept. 11 attacks -- that show the terrorist was invited to a party at the Iraqi embassy in Madrid. The invitation used his "al Qaeda nom de guerre," London‘s Independent reports.

* An Iraqi defector to Turkey, known by his cover name as "Abu Mohammed," told Gwynne Roberts of the Sunday Times of London that he saw bin Laden‘s fighters in camps in Iraq in 1997. At the time, Mohammed was a colonel in Saddam‘s Fedayeen. He described an encounter at Salman Pak, the training facility southeast of Baghdad. At that vast compound run by Iraqi intelligence, Muslim militants trained to hijack planes with knives -- on a full-size Boeing 707. Col. Mohammed recalls his first visit to Salman Pak this way: "We were met by Colonel Jamil Kamil, the camp manager, and Major Ali Hawas. I noticed that a lot of people were queuing for food. (The major) said to me: ‘You‘ll have nothing to do with these people. They are Osama bin Laden‘s group and the PKK and Mojahedin-e Khalq.‘"

* In 1998, Abbas al-Janabi, a longtime aide to Saddam‘s son Uday, defected to the West. At the time, he repeatedly told reporters that there was a direct connection between Iraq and al Qaeda.

*The Sunday Times found a Saddam loyalist in a Kurdish prison who claims to have been Dr. Zawahiri‘s bodyguard during his 1992 visit with Saddam in Baghdad. Dr. Zawahiri was a close associate of bin Laden at the time and was present at the founding of al Qaeda in 1989.

* Following the defeat of the Taliban, almost two dozen bin Laden associates "converged on Baghdad and established a base of operations there," Mr. Powell told the United Nations in February 2003. From their Baghdad base, the secretary said, they supervised the movement of men, materiel and money for al Qaeda‘s global network. 

* In 2001, an al Qaeda member "bragged that the situation in Iraq was ‘good,‘" according to intelligence made public by Mr. Powell. 

* That same year, Saudi Arabian border guards arrested two al Qaeda members entering the kingdom from Iraq.

* Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi oversaw an al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan, Mr. Powell told the United Nations. His specialty was poisons. Wounded in fighting with U.S. forces, he sought medical treatment in Baghdad in May 2002. When Zarqawi recovered, he restarted a training camp in northern Iraq. Zarqawi‘s Iraq cell was later tied to the October 2002 murder of Lawrence Foley, an official of the U.S. Agency for International Development, in Amman, Jordan. The captured assassin confessed that he received orders and funds from Zarqawi‘s cell in Iraq, Mr. Powell said. His accomplice escaped to Iraq.

*Zarqawi met with military chief of al Qaeda, Mohammed Ibrahim Makwai (aka Saif al-Adel) in Iran in February 2003, according to intelligence sources cited by the Washington Post.

* Mohammad Atef, the head of al Qaeda‘s military wing until the U.S. killed him in Afghanistan in November 2001, told a senior al Qaeda member now in U.S. custody that the terror network needed labs outside of Afghanistan to manufacture chemical weapons, Mr. Powell said. "Where did they go, where did they look?" said the secretary. "They went to Iraq."

* Abu Abdullah al-Iraqi was sent to Iraq by bin Laden to purchase poison gases several times between 1997 and 2000. He called his relationship with Saddam‘s regime "successful," Mr. Powell told the United Nations.

* Mohamed Mansour Shahab, a smuggler hired by Iraq to transport weapons to bin Laden in Afghanistan, was arrested by anti-Hussein Kurdish forces in May, 2000. He later told his story to American intelligence and a reporter for the New Yorker magazine. 

* Documents found among the debris of the Iraqi Intelligence Center show that Baghdad funded the Allied Democratic Forces, a Ugandan terror group led by an Islamist cleric linked to bin Laden. According to a London‘s Daily Telegraph, the organization offered to recruit "youth to train for the jihad" at a "headquarters for international holy warrior network" to be established in Baghdad.

* Mullah Melan Krekar, ran a terror group (the Ansar al-Islam) linked to both bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Mr. Krekar admitted to a Kurdish newspaper that he met bin Laden in Afghanistan and other senior al Qaeda officials. His acknowledged meetings with bin Laden go back to 1988. When he organized Ansar al Islam in 2001 to conduct suicide attacks on Americans, "three bin Laden operatives showed up with a gift of $300,000 ‘to undertake jihad,‘" Newsday reported. Mr. Krekar is now in custody in the Netherlands. His group operated in portion of northern Iraq loyal to Saddam Hussein -- and attacked independent Kurdish groups hostile to Saddam. A spokesman for the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan told a United Press International correspondent that Mr. Krekar‘s group was funded by "Saddam Hussein‘s regime in Baghdad."

* After October 2001, hundreds of al Qaeda fighters are believed to have holed up in the Ansar al-Islam‘s strongholds inside northern Iraq. 

Some skeptics dismiss the emerging evidence of a longstanding link between Iraq and al Qaeda by contending that Saddam ran a secular dictatorship hated by Islamists like bin Laden. *

Find this story  here.
-----




> Saddam has publicly stated on television that he loves the people of the US, just not their government.


What have you been watching, Mohammad Said Sahhaf reruns?



> If Saddam was going to get WMD‘s


Ask the Kurds about the *IF* part.



> That is a very ‘BUSH‘ way of looking at things and a pathetic one at that.


So, Canada was pathetic for going in after the Taliban for refusing to cooperate in surrendering Al Qaeda suspects?



> The afghan thing would probably still have happened, but not Iraq, and over 500 Americans and thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians would still be alive today.


Or buried under the dunes by Saddam and his sons.  Tough luck for them, eh?



> I disagree. Those men were not wealthy (personal wealth, not including the money they got from their leaders, correct me if I‘m wrong) and they most certainly were not ‘educated‘. Those men were brought up in a hate filled environment and were probably, constantly bombarded by anti-Western propaganda throughout the lifetime. If learning the Coran and how to fly makes them ‘educated‘ then I think all humans on this earth are ‘educated‘. Which of course is not the case.


Just look through the bios of the leaders of these movements, educated (some in the West), very wealthy, socially affluent.  These are the guys we are hunting.  By the way, learning to spell "Koran" properly would be a sign of being educated.




> Bottom line is I think the war with Iraq was wrong. Yes, Saddam was bad; so are many other world leaders, who have been involved in worse things and you dont even hear a peep from Bush about them.


So, since there are other autocrats in the world, it is okay to keep Saddam around?  Your going to have to justify that statement a little better for it to be taken seriously.



> I don‘t know the real reasons Bush invaded Iraq and I don‘t think we will know for a long time, but it sure as **** wasn‘t about taking out WMD‘s or fighting terrorism.


Didn‘t you just say *I believe I am right when I say that the US invaded Iraq to get rid of Saddam, but more importantly, to secure a long term supply of oil as the US‘s relationship with Saudi Arabia (they get most of their oil from them)has been deteriorating for some time"* or...wait a minute, you don‘t know, but it ain‘t about WMD‘s or terrorism....what is it BigBird?



> I say "fool" because the Spanish people are overwhelmingly against the **** going on in Iraq. When they voted for the Socialists, they used the ‘democratic‘ way to tell the government that they wanted out.
> 
> The Socialists won about 47% of the vote and about 77% of all the people in the country voted. 77% is an extremely good turnout, which makes me think that the people of Spain had something to say to their government.
> 
> The winning party campaigned on bringing back their troops if they won the election, and now they are keeping their promise.


People were pretty exstatic about Munich in ‘38 as well, and that was a smashing success.  Go join the cheering crowds, for there is peace for Spain in our time!



> Spain is not a coward at all, as some tend to think, of course everyone has their own personal opinions. The people of Spain were against the Iraq invasion and now that the people have had their chance to ‘speak out‘, they are doing what they believe is right; Not participating in the occupation of Iraq.
> 
> I was upset that some people would call them cowards. Those over here who think so are (in my opinion), are in no position to say such a thing.


If you had bothered to  _read_ into the incident, you would see that Aznar held a comfortable lead in the polls.  Obviously something changed that.

As quoted by a fellow soldier on another forum
"Bottom Line: Terrorists just toppled a First-World -NATO- government.
Re-read that statement and think through the implications."


Keep chirping, cadet.


----------



## 1feral1 (16 Mar 2004)

Spain is caving in to the terrs, not pulling out! 

This will be viewed as a victory for all AQ and AQ like groups.

Load-Action-Instant!

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Franko (16 Mar 2004)

Well said Infanteer...rebuttal Bad Bird?






Regards


----------



## FlightSergeantRose (16 Mar 2004)

Infanteer obviously has a lot of time on his hands to write so much. Unfortunately, I don‘t have the luxury of time right now, since I have a ton of work to do for school and I have reserves tonight. 

Infanteer I am no longer a cadet. I am a reservist in the Infantry. I am proud of my service in my cadet unit and your petty, demeaning comments about it doesn‘t effect me at all.

I will respond to his poor arguement when I have enough time to make a proper counter-attack. Until then Infanteer, keep it comming.


----------



## Garry (16 Mar 2004)

Hi!

While you‘re researching, take a look into the merger of Petro Fina and Elf, two of the biggest oil companies in France.

I believe that they had signed contracts with Iraq for exclusive rights to process Iraqi oil for the next 7 years, worth in the area of 100 Billion dollars.

About the same time the contracts were signed, Chiraq was trying to get the UN to lift all sanctions on Iraq.

I‘m sure it was a coincidence- though some of those rabid conspiracy theorists may bite.

I know enough of the way the world works to know that we are not getting the truth behind much of anything. I don‘t see that changing anytime soon. 

Suffice it to say that at some point in time (say, when agression raises it‘s ugly head) you have to make a stand, and pick a side.

I pick the US.

Cheers-Garry

PS- I sure don‘t enjoy it much when you all allow emotions to get involved in your arguments.


----------



## Infanteer (16 Mar 2004)

> While you‘re researching, take a look into the merger of Petro Fina and Elf, two of the biggest oil companies in France.


Didn‘t Total Fina Elf (TFE) come out of that?  The largest shareholder of TFE is Paul Desmarais, who just so happens to be married to the daughter of a certain Jean Cretin.

Hmm....


----------



## Exodeus (16 Mar 2004)

> Originally posted by Infanteer:
> It‘s not the fact that we didn‘t contribute to the war in Iraq that get me, its the fact that we didn‘t even offer moral support to the Americans or the British.  If we would have made a small contribution (a la Australia) or even just moral support for the actual war (a la Spain), I would have been satisfied.
> [/QB]


(From Infanteer)

I agree with you 100%! That‘s what I was trying to get at when I was talking about our forces being spread so thin. We gave the US and Brittan the square root of nothing (in terms of support). That‘s was what bothered me the most.


----------



## nbk (16 Mar 2004)

I hate getting into political debates, as no one will ever change their minds no matter how much unbiased evidence is shoved in their faces.

Even if you are to believe the offical story that the US government has been going with since 2001, Spain‘s reason for exiting Iraq can be shown as a correct one.

"Al Queda" leader "Osama bin Laden" had declared Jihad on the USA in 1998 (I believe). His interpretation of the word Jihad was the equivalent of declaring war against the US. The "Offical Story" also accounts for his reasoning: US support for Isreal, and US infidel military bases in the holy land (Saudi Arabia). 

"Al Queda" bombs American embassies, the USS cole, and eventually hits the homeland on 11 September 2001. 

Now here is where most of you must open your eyes and make a quantum leap in your thinking. Most will be unable to do so, but I will put this thought out there for those who are not afraid of becoming a little more enlightened.

If you are to believe this offical story, then you must agree that fighting a war with "Al Queda" is exactly what the terrorists wanted all along. "Al Queda" never declared peace on the US, they declared war.

Clinton responded to this by launching cruise missiles at "Al Queda Training Camps" (and asprin factories) however this just made the "terrorists" pout and kick the ground because this was not the fight they were looking for (remember those "found" videos of the "camps", monkey bars and the like? A cruise missile will not be thwarted by running around in circles with black balaclavas). But then Bush comes along and hands to them the war they wanted all along. Ground fighting, troops vs troops, suicide bombers and all that deal, in two Arab nations none the less. This is a dream come true for these people who have been training and fighting and hating for so long...according to the offical story of course...

So you see according to the "Official Story" Spain‘s descision to pull out, would be causing a loss to the terrorists instead of appeasing them.

Remember the Spanish people elected a new socialist leader who was never pro war. I doubt that the bombing changed much, as the population of that country was very anti war in Iraq in the first place. As were the populations in other "Coalition of the Willing" countries. Id expect to see similar results when the UK and yes, even the US has their next elections (if they are not rigged like the last US election).

So please clarify how denying the terrorists what they want, deciding they do not want any more attacks on their country and fighting another country‘s oil war, is somehow "cowardly". It took a much bigger pair (is it mucho cajones?) to do that difficult thing and do what is right then it does to fight back with blind hatred and just feed the beast, however gratifying that would feel at first.

Its like having a fire burn down your house and being so mad at the fire you pick up the closest thing (a tank of gasoline) and throw it into the flames, just because you are so angry.


----------



## FlightSergeantRose (16 Mar 2004)

Good points nbk.


----------



## Brad Sallows (16 Mar 2004)

>Why can‘t we find out the root cause of the issue?

For a change, why not mull over the possibility which no-one seems to want to consider in polite company: what if the root cause really is "Convert or die"?

It doesn‘t matter how likely or widespread you think that motivation is.  It is the worst possible case.  It must be considered.

The perception of the Spanish electorate is irrelevant.  For their part, they may believe all they‘ve done is resolve to disengage from an unpopular war.  They need to think from their opponent‘s side of the map, and they haven‘t done that.  On the other side, the perception may very well be that Spain is compliant and lacks resolve.  Couple that to a "not one step backward" attitude to formerly Islamic lands, and life in Spain may prove very exciting in the near future.

I also see in breaking news that the French are being given no credit whatsoever for all their gestures of accommodation.  You either accede to all demands, or you may as well accede to none.

It takes two to make peace, but only one to make war.


----------



## Brad Sallows (16 Mar 2004)

>"Al Queda" leader "Osama bin Laden" had declared Jihad on the USA in 1998 (I believe)

AQ and OBL also at one point announced the intention to regain the formerly Islamic lands of Spain.  How ambiguous is that?


----------



## 1feral1 (16 Mar 2004)

I am NOT stiring the pot here but telling a few well known facts.... So read on.


Its all about radical Islam, and not being satisfied until the entire world is one giant Islamic state, and all us infidels are gone.

The Leader of JI (Jamil Islamya) based out of Jakarta, has even stated "even if it takes 100 yrs or more, Australia will be a fundimental Islamic state"! Its real and scarey.

My view its east vs west, and we WILL win! We have no choice.

Its a new and different type of war, waged against innocent people, who they view as easy targets, which indeed they are.

It may take time and lives, but the radical fundimentalists of this so called ‘peaceful‘ religion should be put down, but here, even the mild ones condone their activities, and as of yet, have not condemmed one action in which terror has been committed, whether its in Israel, Afghanistan, Iraq, Indonesia, etc. Pretty sad.

In Sydney alone about 300,000 mulsims, and again say if 10% are radical, thats a 30,000 memebr force, and if say 10% of that are totally ‘out of it‘ thats a force of 3,000. we must not forget the many 100 who danced in the street all 12 Sep 01 long, and were happy that ‘The Great Satan‘ to a blow to its heart.

I have seen muslim men of all ages (say 25-75) spit at Australian women because of their swimming costumes, as muslim women go for a swim in their entire long vails and fully clothed. I have heard our women called sluts becuase of the western clothes they wear. But this is not in a far away Muslim countrty, its reight here in Sydney on our beaches.


Even the radicals picked up here in Australia have had the moderate ones condem their arrests.

BTW, does anyone know the largest Muslim country in the world? Its Indonesia, with 280,000,000 million Muslims living on over 13,000 islands, directly to our north. Thats why Australis whole defence strategy is based on a northern invasion. Even if 10% are radical, thats almost the entire population of Canada which could be considered hostile.

This war is much more deeper than Iraq, and if anyone cant see that, they should have a big giant re-think. Its about a hatred of the west period.

All war is insane, you can ask any old soldier that, but sometimes its necessary to preserve our way of life, and ensure that our kids dont have to go thru what our Dads and Grandads did 60 yrs ago.

The attacks on the west will continue, and that is a fact. Its not just a battle against George W!

So if you value our way of life, and the freedoms we have, and our childrens future, again sit back and have a re-think. Remember if you are not part of the solution, you are the problem.

Travel advisories are out in force for Australians to avoid any Muslim country for safety‘s sake. Try www.dfat.gov.au


Regards,

Wes


----------



## George Wallace (16 Mar 2004)

If you don‘t learn anything from History, then you will be condemned to relive it.  BadBird, I have no idea of what you are learning or who your teachers are, but your, and their, thoughts seem to be very dangerous.  Anarchist and Socialist philosophies have proven more distructive in history than beneficial.  With everything I have read here so far, I question your education and that of your teachers.  If you want to go through life with blinders on and a closed mind, then you are a very shallow person.  Sorry, but you seem like a Troll to me and should be treated as such.

GW


----------



## Slim (16 Mar 2004)

Why is it that professional students never seem to learn the right things?

Sweetie pie...Let me know what your thoughts are when you are forced to pray to Mohammed at gun point or put to death because you are a "decadent Westerner."

You may not believe it but I do...that is their aim and, make no mistake, we are at war.


----------



## 1feral1 (16 Mar 2004)

Hey Badbird, maybe you should consider trading uniforms, as AQ are looking for a few good WO1‘s! especially with 7 yrs cadet experience!

Iraq was liberated, not invaded,as was France, Belguim, and Holland 60 yrs ago.

It aint about oil, thats a copout! Its about stopping a madman and the spreading of a disease against the west. Its about saving a country‘s population from a most horrible time.

This is like a cancer, we can watch it spread slowly, and watch something die, or do something about it quicksmart, which may safe much strife in the future. 

I dont sling shyte very often anywhere, but after reading your lefty views, and then laughing at your profile of ‘experience‘(that of a child), frankly its people like you, that sadly I and others have to defend.

I think this ‘boy‘ (with no life expereince)is just a troll on this site, deliberatly stirring up things. So, go home and play with your hotwheels.

When you have the maturity, and expereince to say what you do, maybe then I‘ll give ya the time of day.

OUT!
Wes


----------



## Infanteer (16 Mar 2004)

> So please clarify how denying the terrorists what they want, deciding they do not want any more attacks on their country and fighting another country‘s oil war, is somehow "cowardly". It took a much bigger pair (is it mucho cajones?) to do that difficult thing and do what is right then it does to fight back with blind hatred and just feed the beast, however gratifying that would feel at first.
> 
> Its like having a fire burn down your house and being so mad at the fire you pick up the closest thing (a tank of gasoline) and throw it into the flames, just because you are so angry.





> Good points nbk.


I always wondered how Vichy France got around to doing things, now I know.


----------



## Engineer Corporal (16 Mar 2004)

It‘s hard to compare Iraq‘s situation with the one‘s of France,Belgium and Holland. The Motivations that brought us to war in World War 2 were more clear cut then today. How is the Oil arguement dismissed so easily? I find it a little funny that everyone always says that saddam had to be stopped immediately for the sake of his people. 
Since when do Americans care about a nations people? Only if it coincides with their own national best interest. I mean their are alot more tyrannical dictators in the world. Why saddam why not north korea? The control of the oil is the only logical answer. The american People did‘nt care about iraqi‘s lives in the iran-iraq war of the 80‘s which they helped supply. With the intention of weakening both countries. Nor did it care about iraqi‘s at the end of the first gulf war when George Bush senior told the iraqi‘s public they had his support and they actually believed him and rose up and when no help came they were slaughtered. That‘s what bothers me the most about Americans nowadays that they can‘t admit when their wrong.


----------



## Exodeus (16 Mar 2004)

Badbird and nbk,
I can see where you‘re coming from, but we all need to keep our minds open on this issue. Wes is entirely correct to say that this is a war ‘about radical Islam‘. This is not a ‘normal‘ (if there is such a thing) war - it is a Jihad. A religious war. The objective is to convert or conquer the infidels.

Spain is repeating history. The Second World War started long after it theoretically should have. Germany broke the Treaty of Versailles in 1938 by kick-starting the war machine. They were even allowed to go so far as to invade Poland to ‘claim what was taken from them‘ after the First World War. Only after repeated offensive actions did the rest of Europe become entangled in war. This is just one of many examples of Europe‘s reluctance to react to an international threat, so to speak.

Spain has given the terrorists what they seek; publicity and proof of power. By (perhaps) swaying the vote in favour of the socialists, the terrorists have achieved their goal. I do not doubt that the Spanish people are not cowards, but I don‘t believe that they have chosen the wisest course of action. 

I strongly believe that the best way to combat the terrorist threat is by continuous international military intervention (and by ‘international‘ I don‘t mean only the United States, England and Australia). Full United Nations support is required. Force all points of refuge from the terrorists. Any nation that does not aid in the fight either by their own means or by allowing UN forces to occupy their territory, will be accused of helping the enemy and will thereby be labeled an ‘enemy‘ themselves. 

There are more than likely some flaws in my ‘proposal‘, but I believe the logic is sound; An international threat will not be defeated without international support.

I‘m open to any and all comments.
-Dave


----------



## Infanteer (16 Mar 2004)

> It‘s hard to compare Iraq‘s situation with the one‘s of France,Belgium and Holland.


I‘m not, if you didn‘t notice, Spain is the topic of conversation here.



> Since when do Americans care about a nations people? Only if it coincides with their own national best interest


Your painting with a broad brush here and assuming that economics (ie oil) is the only thing that factors into US interests.  American history and geography have a large part to play in determining this as well (as they do in any states foreign policy).  The ideas of global superpower and standard bearer for liberty and democracy can factor in as well.

Why else would the US send troops to Somalia?  Kosovo?  Bosnia?  What economic incentives have recently driven the US evangelist community to back the AIDS/HIV struggle in Africa?



> I mean their are alot more tyrannical dictators in the world. Why saddam why not north korea?


...do you see funds or training bases for Al Qaeda coming from Kim Jong Il?  One shouldn‘t bite off more then they can chew.



> That‘s what bothers me the most about Americans nowadays that they can‘t admit when their wrong.


Thats what bothers me about the protest crowd.  They can never admit that the US (and the West in general) might be right.


----------



## 1feral1 (16 Mar 2004)

So if the US do nothing, soon everybody would be saying where are they?

The world is a more safe place with the US, and its a better world with what they have done.

It was/is about stopping Saddam for supporting and/or supplying/aiding any Islamic terr organisation, from possiblly setting off a WMD of somekind in any of our cities. Do the WMD exist, I am sure they did, and still might, but they may have been buried, or trucked out to an Iraqi ally. Time will tell on this.

It also lets any other greasy shytehole nations who are aiding terr orgs, they might be next.  

N Korea can still be talked to, and there is talk ongoing right now. It wasnt N Koreans who bombed NYC, or Bali, or Madrid was it! It was Islamic extremists.

Sounds like a little bit of anti-Americanism from ya Engr CPL??

The US saved thousands of lives for us all during WW2 ending the war much sooner than if not involved, and stopped the war in the Pacific with Fat Boy and Little Man.

The have stopped the spread of Communism through out SE Asia, South America, and aided in Somalia, Grenada, Bosnia, and other places, not forgetting the Cold War and possible invasion of the west by the Russians.

Fact: Iraq has been liberated from Saddam, Europe was liberated from Hitler, although both wars started differently, the outcome was the same. Victory, and the bad boys taken out. So how can you call them different? 

Only technology has changed for our benifit, and the benifit of less civvy casualties, say compared to Allied fire bombings of Dresden (one night 10‘s of thousands burnt to death in firestorms), German Blitz on London, and other big centres which were leveled in WW2. In other times the city of Baghdad would have been one giant K-Mart parking lot.

So as I said, if the US did nothing and later WMDs of some kind were used on Toronto, London, or Sydney, and they had come form direct Iraqi sources, what would you be saying then? Gee why didnt the US go in and sort it out back in 2003?

Regards,

Wes


----------



## 1feral1 (16 Mar 2004)

Hey Infanteer, ever had good ole Australian Bundy overproof Rum? Mate, I could have a few drinks with ya!

And for those so ‘leftly‘ inclined, our ‘watermellon‘ friends (green on the outside, red on the inside)you can discuss us ‘realists‘ over a warm beer and a few joints in the lefty corner of your uni pub.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Infanteer (16 Mar 2004)

> The objective is to convert or conquer the infidels.


I‘ve seen a good arguement that states that Al Qaeda‘s opposition to the US seems to be based around American policies.  American support of Israel, American soldiers in Saudi Arabia, American support for moderate regimes in the Middle East, etc.

This "policy-based" arguement of the problem is all fine and dandy, lets compromise and alter the policies in order to end the war.

How can we, as Westerners, realistically expect to withdraw support for the right to exist of a liberal, democratic state in a sea of authoritarianism?  How can we expect to abandon petroleum, so important to our way of life?  How can we, as democratic citizens, be expected to abandon a large percentage of the earth‘s people to the ignorance of fundamentalism?

If you have an answer to these questions, by all means, give me an answer.



> Germany broke the Treaty of Versailles in 1938 by kick-starting the war machine.


Actually, it broke it in 1935 with the remilitarization of the Rhineland.



> They were even allowed to go so far as to invade Poland to ‘claim what was taken from them‘ after the First World War. Only after repeated offensive actions did the rest of Europe become entangled in war.


No, England and France declared war on Germany for invading Poland on September 1, 1939.  This was after repeated occurances of expansion under the threat of force in Europe.

Not trying to knock you, but you should try to ensure your basic history is correct if your going to use it in your arguement.



> Full United Nations support is required


What do we do if we don‘t get it?  "Universalism" is nice, but it shouldn‘t override a more realistic "particularist" outlook.


----------



## Engineer Corporal (16 Mar 2004)

Alright enough garbage talk. Me being a History Major as well I come across alot of good papers so please take a read.
 http://www.stanford.edu/class/e297c/A%20Global%20Threat%20for%20the%2021st%20Century.htm 

I would love to hear your arguements so we can continue this battle of wits. Incased is a complete List of References if you doubt any of the material.


----------



## Exodeus (16 Mar 2004)

Infanteer,

I was refering to the Jihad (the ‘conquering of the infidels‘)

Poland was the last ‘drop in the bucket‘, if you will, that caused England and France to declare war. I didn‘t word it quite right in my first post there, but that‘s what I was getting at. My notes said 1938...but the remilitarization of the Rhineland in ‘35 does make more sense. 

As I mentioned, it was an ‘ideal‘ proposal. Obviously there won‘t be ‘full UN support‘, but I think we agree that continued military force will be required to suppress the terrorist threat (it will probably never be destroyed).

If we cannot aquire (somewhat) universal international support, we can‘t hope to suppress terrorism (or any guerilla threat) on the international level.

Just to jump back to your first point here, I‘ve heard the same argument, and I don‘t doubt it‘s validity. On the other hand, the US has become a more convenient target due to their involvement in the Middle East. Do you really think that modifying policies will end hostilities? On the other hand, are we (the Western World) to sit back and watch the Middle East destroy itself in the name of the ‘Holy Land‘? 

Finally, to answer your question(s): we can‘t (but I don‘t think that‘s what I was getting at).


----------



## Exodeus (16 Mar 2004)

(Oh, I forgot to mention...)
By all means, don‘t hesitate to correct me. I‘m not writing by memory here - not that it‘s an excuse for error, but I‘m trying to make the best point that I can without having to spend hours on research.
If anything, it‘s better to be wrong. That way I (and whoever else) can learn something.

Thanks again,
-Dave


----------



## Gunnar (16 Mar 2004)

The war isn‘t about oil.  Besides, if it were about oil, that would be about Iraq, not the vast wasteland of Afghanistan.  And even if it were about Afghanistan, it isn‘t about Afghanis.  It‘s about terrorists, who happen to be making use of poor, backwards, undeveloped countries to train in.

I am tempted to suggest the only remedial course of action is to explain it in terms usually used for pacifists:

When approached by the pacifist, listen to his views.  Allow him to explain why the non-violent approach is uncivilized, has never really solved anything, and how violence only begets violence.  Then, without warning, punch him in the face.

If he reacts violently, call him on it.  Point out all the points listed above, and show that if he really believed in that viewpoint, he would not react in that manner.  Then, when he agrees and fully understands what you mean, punch him in the face.

(Note that if he walks away,  you must prevent him from leaving, ask him why he challenges your right to express your feelings and/or cultural identity through physical means, that you feel repressed, that he should stay to hear your side of the story, that you were only trying to make a point, that you‘re sorry....then punch him in the face!)

Keep talking/punching in this manner until he gets the point:  SOME PEOPLE OUT THERE WILL PUNCH YOU IN THE FACE UNTIL YOU MAKE THEM STOP.  They may listen to your arguments, they may discuss things rationally with you, but they‘re gonna keep punching you in the face as long as you let them.

The terrorists want to keep punching you in the face.  They‘re not really interested in your arguments or rationale, unless it gives them a rest for their bruised knuckles.  Spain has shown the terrorists that they are true pacifists, and are truly willing to keep getting hit forever.  Whether a life of getting hit is a good one or not is left as an exercise for the reader.  Note also that the US has pointed out in no uncertain terms that they are not willing to keep getting hit, and that those who hit, get hit back UNTIL THEY STOP.

All arguments, in order for there to be a winner, have to rest on some common principle that you recognize as truth...when one of you expresses the truth more clearly, you understand who is wrong.  If neither one of you is entirely sure, or you recognize the possibility of error, you can compromise.  The issue the terrorists have is not one on which you can compromise.  In their mind, you are an evil, evil creature who must convert or die.  If you compromise a little bit, then you‘re a not as evil creature who must die.  Notice the last part.  YOU MUST DIE.  You can‘t meet them half way, or reason with them:  they operate on different principles that you.  They will not recognize any argument you put forward, and any compromise is seen as a win for their side.  They see themselves as messengers of GOD.  You aren‘t.  Therefore, you are wrong.  You will surrender to the almighty, or you will perish.  There is no option.

The only way to answer a black and white argument of this nature is with an equally black and white argument.  Example:

Tiger:  I am hungry.  You are food.  You will die to sustain me.

Man:  I am man.  I have a gun.  My purpose in life is not to be your food.  You will die if you try it.

Tiger:  I am hungry.  Attack!

Man:  Bang!

(Or, you could compromise, and offer the poor tiger just a leg.  Which one?)

====

Now compare and contrast:

Terrorist:  I have the one true word of God on my side.  You are evil, and must die, or you must agree with me.

Civilized Man:  I respect your belief in a higher power, but unfortunately, I can‘t agree with your assessment of my moral status.  You seem to think I should bow down to your dictates and/or religion regardless of how I feel about things.  I don‘t think I can help you out there, pal.

Terrorist:  If you do not do as I say, I will kill you, and random women and children.  I will be a brave martyr if I kill loads of women and children...it‘s so terribly manly.  My cause is just, and I will die for my cause.

Civilized Man:  Well, since you put it that way, if you try to kill me, or my women and children, I will kill you, or die in the attempt.  Because my life is worth preserving, as is the life of those I care for, and I am willing to die so that they may live for my cause.

(Or, you could compromise, and let just one of your kids die.  Which one?)

====
Terrorists need to be burned out root and branch.  Your religion and belief structure are your own affair.  However, when you choose to enforce your belief system on me, at my expense, then you are a threat which must be eliminated.  You don‘t have to agree with society‘s rules:  You can steal, rape and murder if you like.  However, society reserves the right to defend itself, and put you in jail, or destroy you.  There is no other option.

Nemo me impune lacessit.


----------



## George Wallace (16 Mar 2004)

> Originally posted by Engineer Corporal:
> [qb] Alright enough garbage talk. Me being a History Major as well I come across alot of good papers so please take a read.
> http://www.stanford.edu/class/e297c/A%20Global%20Threat%20for%20the%2021st%20Century.htm
> 
> I would love to hear your arguements so we can continue this battle of wits. Incased is a complete List of References if you doubt any of the material. [/qb]


Well now.  I‘ve had a look at your paper and in my day it would have been graded with a big fat Freddie.  The layout would not have been accepted, but most of all it would have been considered plagiarism.  You have a short list of References, all from the Net, but nowhere have you footnoted any of your sources and given them the credit they deserve.  



> BRYNN EVANS[qb]
> French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin states it correctly: â Å“'The United Nations cannot be ignored'â ? (Boston, Europe Shifts Focus).  The last time countries acted outside the international governing body (the League of Nations at the time), the peacekeeping organization fell apart.  In the 1930s, Japan, Germany and Italy acted out of self-interest, disregarding the mission of the League of Nations â â€œ subsequently, World War II occurred.  Interestingly, the United States had never joined the League, some say causing a weakness in the organization from the beginning (The League of Nations), but the independent actions of these few powerful nations were enough to topple the League.  When we examine what has been going on today, it is surprising to see the similarities between United States' actions and that of the Axis powers before World War II.
> 
> Will the United States' continued disregard for international cooperation through discussions and joint resolutions in the U.N. be the ultimately death knell for that organization?  Will the balance of power in the world become so badly skewed that the U.S. finds itself at war with virtually the rest of the world?  Will unrestrained U.S. military power, used unilaterally, cause a new nuclear arms race throughout the world?  In trying to make the nation safer, through pre-emptive military force, has the U.S. made itself more hated and threatened?
> ...


Brynn hasn‘t understood anything of what he/she wrote and would have been caught up by his/her Prof on the interview to discuss the paper.

The similarities between the USA of today and Germany and Japan in WW II are nonexistant.  Germany and Japan were both aggressively invading peaceful nations to build their ‘empires‘.  The USA is not invading peaceful nations.  The Americans have only gone into places that are already in turmoil.  In WW II the USA was not the only ‘World Super Power‘; Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Japan, and England all shared that power more than the US.  With the collapse of Communism and the failure of the Socialist systems, we are left with quite a void.  China does not have the abilities, nor the reputation, to fill a role of Peacekeeper, Peacemaker or World Policeman.  The US does.  

Your paper sucks.  It has nothing original and no real meat.  It is a collection of ‘cut and paste‘ statements from the Net and ended with more questions than thought.  Sorry, I rate it an "F".

GW


----------



## George Wallace (16 Mar 2004)

Bravo Gunnar

GW


----------



## 1feral1 (16 Mar 2004)

Engr CPL, I reckon its you with the garbage talk, unless you have whitnessed Islamic aggression first hand (like I have), and felt the pain of a neighbour‘s death, when she was vapourised in a deliberate Islamic bomb blast, then shut your gob! Your paper is something I wouldnt even light the stove with,yet alone wipe my arse.

You can have all the reports, papers, graphs, and even the video and t-shirt, but unless you have experienced ‘the topic‘ first hand, smelled it, tasted it, feared aand respected it, then forget it.

I would expect that paper to be written for some Commie Prof, who smoked hemp in his spare time. IKt slmost idiotic and completrly worthless. Somehting that I ENTIRELY disagree with full stop.

Question is, if it wasnt for America, where would you be right now? Speakig japanese, russina, or german. Take your pick.

You should thank your lucky stars, you got em as neighbours.

I do however believe in free speech, but you are lucky you can write what you want. In other countries even right now, you would be rounded up, and shamlessly shot or imprisoned.

I am beginning to get a wee tad disgusted here.


OUT - Wes


----------



## Exodeus (16 Mar 2004)

...I think Gunnar explained what I was leaning towards ‘slightly‘ (more like, exponentially) better than I did with respect to the terrorist attitude...


----------



## winchable (16 Mar 2004)

It‘s fun to throw around words like "Jihad"


----------



## Engineer Corporal (16 Mar 2004)

Say what you will I‘m not here to change any of your opinions, because that‘s all they are. This is a forum and showing points of view is what it is all about. I show the big picture and where the world is heading. I have no intention of even considering what things you have seen in your life wes. Nor would I prolly want to. What I am trying to point out is that the future is not all cheery full of victory over terrorism. I know none of you agree with most things I have said but that‘s not the point of a forum.

Dismissing the paper as things strung together from the internet I do have a problem with. Research papers are not suppose to be your own work. Your suppose to use other published information(books). Using those sources you use them to make a coherant arguement, or to prove a point. Just because you don‘t agree with something does‘nt make it stupid. 
In the end the Americans will continue their crusade against everyone that they consider evil. It really does‘nt matter, all they are doing is meeting violence with violence and thinking they can beat every "rogue state." Install democracy under a point of a gun is pure heresy on what democracy stands for.
 All they will end up doing is unite the islamic people against them. In doing so play right into osama‘s hands.

Situation is turning into a vietnam of a sort. Stop saying that the terrorists hate us and start saying WHY do the terrorists hate us? In only that statement will you find the real weapon in destroying them. Invading every country who supposedly has WMD or supports terrorists will only fuel their cause and there are endless recruits willing to blow themselves up to get back at the people who have invaded their country.

 It‘s just like the mafia you can‘t kill everyone. One day some cousin or brother of someone you killed will kill you. Why do I say this? I don‘t want to wake up one morning and see a U.S. city a crater that some nuke created by a man who is getting back at the states for invading his country and killing his children by a stray bomb. The most dangerous people in the world are the ones with nothing to lose.


----------



## 1feral1 (17 Mar 2004)

I think you should turn in your kit mate. Forum or not, and whatever your opinion is, you should hang your head in shame.

In the real world in theatre, with your attitude, I reckon you would be a good candidate for a serious fragging, so keep that body aromour on, and sleep soundly, wrapped in your kevlar blanket.

OUT!

Wes


----------



## George Wallace (17 Mar 2004)

> Dismissing the paper as things strung together from the internet I do have a problem with. Research papers are not suppose to be your own work. Your suppose to use other published information(books). Using those sources you use them to make a coherant arguement, or to prove a point. Just because you don‘t agree with something does‘nt make it stupid.


Research papers are supposed to be your own work, researched and backed up by other sources.  If all you do is gather information and paste it together, you have done nothing worth grading.  Part of an education is to learn how to think, not cheat.  Poor work deserves a poor grade.




> It‘s just like the mafia you can‘t kill everyone. One day some cousin or brother of someone you killed will kill you. Why do I say this? I don‘t want to wake up one morning and see a U.S. city a crater that some nuke created by a man who is getting back at the states for invading his country and killing his children by a stray bomb. The most dangerous people in the world are the ones with nothing to lose.


You don‘t get it do you?  They want to kill us?  That is okey for them to do in their eyes.  If we kill or injure any of them then it is "Vendetta" time.  Don‘t you see it is a loose/loose situation with them unless they are taught to not hate.  They are fanatics still in the Dark Ages.  Human Rights and Civil Rights, etc mean nothing to them.  Women are chattels in their eyes.


GW


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Mar 2004)

> Engineer Corporal,
> Stop saying that the terrorists hate us and start saying WHY do the terrorists hate us? In only that statement will you find the real weapon in destroying them.


They hate us because we are not like them. We will not bow to their laws, nor accept their rule. In their mind, we convert or die. That‘s the bottom line and the crux of the whole argument. No half measures or discussion. While the leaders like Osama MAY have alterior motives, the foot soldiers don‘t. I for one will not stand by while they FORCE their creed on me or mine. I am human and have the right to choose. I also agree with the others, pack up your kit, and take a hike. I don‘t want you taking me out of a mine field layed by your buddies.


----------



## 1feral1 (17 Mar 2004)

Comrad Engr CPL - I said this in a past post somewhere. These Islamic terrorists value DEATH as much as we value LIFE.

They will continue to believe of the award of 70 virgins and rivers of wine, making themselves martyrs by the convenience of killing innocent civvies, of one which one day may be someone in your family, after all, you as I and others here, we are the Infidel, and in their eyes, we must be killed.

No where is safe, including Canada. Any western nation be where they may, its at risk. I am sure there are sleeper cells in the metro areas of any large Cdn city.

You can go on with your lefty uni-speak political paper on the ‘evil USA‘, and share it with the other watermellons, but you have not hoodwinked me or the majority of others here in this thread.

You should also question your own effectivness in the CF, and your political beliefs, as maybe a yr or two in a country which supports terror would wake you up to the real world.

You know what they say about Cruise missiles, "if you hear it, your ok, if ya don‘t you are dead", so choose your ‘new‘ country carefully.

BTW, you call it an American Crusade against ‘what they think is evil‘ I reckon what they think is evil, is evil, and if left unattended, it will end up hitting us hard somewhere along the road. 

Remember its east vs west, not east vs USA. We are all in shyte up to our eyeballs, and yo seem to want an excuse to blame the USA for whats going on. Alls I want is victory and to live in a place where I dont have to worry about someone blowing up my 9am train into the Sydney CBD.


OUT
Wes


----------



## FlightSergeantRose (17 Mar 2004)

> Originally posted by Wesley H. Allen, CD:
> [qb]
> 
> 
> ...


Allen, I am not the one that stirred things up, at least it was not my intention. When I saw that people were calling the Spanish cowards, I took offense to that and wrote what I felt was right. Just because I have not been in the army for 15 years does not disqualify from making my opinion heard.

I can guarantee you that if we sat down together and talked, you would not think that I am a ‘boy‘ at all. I also bet that you would find me mature, as other ‘adults‘ I have talked to about these sorts of things have told me themselves. I believe that I am well informed, sure I make mistakes, everyone does. 

I am surprised to see people attack me directly. Many basing their attacks on the fact I was a cadet 4 years ago. I wonder how many years I have to be out of cadets until  the cadet attacks stop. . . maybe I should have lied about my age and background and said I have been in the infantry for 5 years or something. 

I am proud of my service in AirCadets, and if you people want to call me ‘boy‘ because of it then go ahead. I am 22 by the way, if that makes any difference. It only shows your ignorance; obviously none of you guys had the pleasure of being a member of a well-run cadet squadron as mine was. If any of you were in my squadron your tune would be much different. 

Anyways, I would be more then happy to discuss this or anythng else with any of you guys in person if any of you are in the Thunder Bay area. I prefer talking face-to-face much more then writing posts over complicated stuff like this since I would have to write a book to cover everything.


----------



## Tyrnagog (17 Mar 2004)

Here is a link to a very well written editorial from the globe and mail...

 http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040316.wxluttwark/BNStory/Front/ 

I think he says it all, when it comes to Spain and the goings on of the last week.


----------



## Spr.Earl (17 Mar 2004)

Now lets all just suck back and reload and calm down.
Many of you have made some very good point‘s toward‘s this discussion.

I‘m going to provoke some thought here.
Think before you answer.

Now if yesterday we knew what we know today i.e no unconventional weapon‘s,the lies ,ok the half truth‘s from Bush,the US‘s conection‘s to Iraq via the father re. CIA,US support of Saddam against Iran,Exile Iraqi intel which is proving to be questionable.
I could go on what has come to light over the last little while and there is lot‘s of info coming out now.
Would the U.S. and the Nation‘s it got to go along with them would have declared war?
Would these Countries had the support of their people?

As a side note.
Should the U.S. finished the job in Afg. first before Iraq?


----------



## Franko (17 Mar 2004)

On your side note Spr. Earl...the US is still in Afganistan...albeit not in the huge numbers they once had. They are slowley cleaning up their mess, and Canada is helping out.

I‘m not an expert on international affairs or not even up to date on the attacks by the Basque seperatists...so I‘m just going to sit back and read the replies.

The debate is going pretty good troops, some rough spots though.

Sorry to hear about your friend Wes...the *******s.

Regards


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Mar 2004)

This is a very imformative post i‘m enjoying reading it.

"They hate us because we are not like them. We will not bow to their laws, nor accept their rule. In their mind, we convert or die."

I think that hits the nail on the head.  Some animals are bred to be vicious and attack. So are these people.

I think Religion is the most vicious WMD of them all. The minute anyone from any religion tries to justify using violence to get their point across  or back up some kind of ideal they become hippocrits in my mind.
"They use suicide bombers because thats their only option left" Thats BS.  There is NO excuse for targeting innocent civilians. They don‘t care about furthering their goals or getting noticed. They kill people because they thinks it gives them little points.

Why do terrorists hate us? Becase they are bred to. If you put a baby in a small room and they grow up in that room it becomes their whole universe. They cannot comprehend life outside of their little box. Terrorists are the same way.

Terrorisim is like cancer. Theres a million reasons why it starts. You can either sit back and let it eat you or you can cut the cancer out.

Of course theres alternitive treatments but those costs lots of money, someone else is getting rich off it and at best its a guess if it will work or not. I‘m the first one to preach alllife is sacred, make peace not war etc.. But there comes a time when all else fails and the side excerting the most force wins.


----------



## xFusilier (17 Mar 2004)

Maybe, the PM elect in Spain is doing the famous political trick of doing "Unless A happens, I will do B".  While the participation of the UN in the political process in Iraq is not a sure thing, I think that what the PM elect is trying to do is have his cake and eat it too.  I.E.  he carters to his constituency immediately by saying "right, if the UN is not in by June we‘re outta here".

Come June, don‘t be supprised that the UN is involved in the Iraqi political process or that you hear from Spain that UN participation is imminent so they are not going to pull out.

As for the whole this was a deliberate attempt by Al-Qaeda to influence the Spanish elections issue.  Who knows, the effects of the attack could have been just as easily the opposite, to what occured.  The bottom line is Al-Qaeda‘s primary aim in the train bombings was not influence the Spanish elections, it was to kill as many people as possible.  Any influence that that attack may or may not have had on the Spanish General Election was simply gravy.

That being said, as we draw closer and closer to November, I expect to see more and more attacks on US troops in Iraq, and more and more attacks on US citizens abroad.


----------



## Spr.Earl (17 Mar 2004)

> Originally posted by Franko:
> [qb] On your side note Spr. Earl...the US is still in Afganistan...albeit not in the huge numbers they once had. They are slowley cleaning up their mess, and Canada is helping out.
> 
> I‘m not an expert on international affairs or not even up to date on the attacks by the Basque seperatists...so I‘m just going to sit back and read the replies.
> ...


Franco the side note question was
"Should the U.S. have commited total resource‘s to Afg. and finnished the job there first before going into Iraq?"

My post is from an objective point of view to create a unheated discussion.


----------



## Spr.Earl (17 Mar 2004)

Ghost you posted:

This is a very imformative post i‘m enjoying reading it.

"They hate us because we are not like them. We will not bow to their laws, nor accept their rule. In their mind, we convert or die."

I think that hits the nail on the head. Some animals are bred to be vicious and attack. So are these people.


Well I‘ll tell you somthing a true Muslim is not of the sort.
At the young age of 19 I was in Borneo on a Norwegian ship loading hard wood‘s and we were in the boonies and there was a village we could see so a few a of us whent ashore and walked about."I have alway‘s repsected every one‘s religion".We saw this old man sitting on his porch.I said "Salam Ala Come" he turned around and "Ela com salam" and asked me if I was of the faith?
I said no,I‘m christian and he askd my how came to know of his faith,I‘m a seaman and learn these things.
That old man gave me coffee and some snack‘s and I asked him how learned english (through the dutch) and he told me how they where treated badly the Dutch and we talked about many thing‘s even our own religions.
I had a very nice afternoon that day and I take umbridge to your above post.

Your above post is a man of ignorence.

Learn about true Islam first before you make comment‘s like you did.

Read the Koran it‘s say‘s the same thing‘s as our Bible does and more.

For one Mohamad said repect the other two religion‘s as we do ours i.e Jews and Christian‘s.
Yes I have read the Koran and still have my copy of it.


----------



## K. Ash (17 Mar 2004)

THis as been a terrific discussion so far. 

   All I have to say is: I think Islamic extremist‘s ultimate goal is for western society (the freeworld) to cease. THey want us to conform to their ideals. And if it means throwing a few punches back and knockin those f@#kers back on their asses to stop that from happening...so be it.


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Mar 2004)

My friend i mentioned terrorist, not muslim/islam/ black or white. I can see how you may have thought i was spicifically targeting muslims but i was not, believe me. To me anyone who is blinded by religion or culture into taking the lives of others for whatever purpose is a terrorist. They spread their word through terror from bombing a market in isreal to bombing an abortion clinic in ottawa to driving spikes into trees so loggers who are working to put food on  the table hit them and lose an eye, if their lucky. 

Theres white christians brought up in the heart of the USA who hate "us" just as much as in the heart of Iraq, as i see it. i define "us" as people who are accepting of other religions and willing to accept someone elses culture and work with them towards peace etc.. I define "them" as close minded people who think their religion is right when all others are wrong. Thats stupid and close minded on so many levels its not even funny. It‘s easy to lump muslims with terrorists out of ignorance but having spent a lot of time working with muslim soldiers i know it‘s just not the case.


----------



## Gunnar (17 Mar 2004)

Muslim/Christian....

That is why I was careful to say "terrorist" in my own posting.  Because the same could be said of the IRA, ETA, Shining Path, etc., etc....

In any case, if you have a PDA, you can download the Koran (and the Bible) for free at  http://www.memoware.com  .  There are a number of good books available for free on that site, including the Havamal, a number of Norse sagas, Sun Tzu‘s Art of War, Machiavelli‘s Art of War, Von Clausewitz‘s On War, etc.  Good reading in the field, and as portable as your PDA.

I don‘t find that the Koran reads as easily as the Bible, but you only need to read it once to see what hypocrites these so-called Muslims are.  The Prophet (peace be upon him) has already said that the "real jihad" is inside.


----------



## Engineer Corporal (17 Mar 2004)

"I think you should turn in your kit mate. Forum or not, and whatever your opinion is, you should hang your head in shame.

In the real world in theatre, with your attitude, I reckon you would be a good candidate for a serious fragging, so keep that body aromour on, and sleep soundly, wrapped in your kevlar blanket"

Funny post wes, so your saying that someone with a different view of the current situation. I.E. me, doesn‘t deserve to be in the military. How the **** does that make sense? So anyone who doesn‘t jump on the "let‘s kill the islamic terrorists bandwagon"  or someone who questions "George Bush‘s policies" is all of a sudden a ***** and is stupid? I‘m sure your answer will be yes.  Just because I‘m against the war in Iraq does‘nt make me a bad soldier. Do you think everyone in the canadian military likes the war in Iraq? Umm no, so they should turn in their kit as well? So as not to impede anyone having a good clean war of two sides and stfu and kill something? 
People who rock the boat should‘nt be looked down apon. They should be listened to maybe something they say makes sense. Obviously you don‘t think so. That‘s ok, your opinion and all. Some of you guys should really open your minds just a bit. Not every islamic person wants you dead! If you think so then god help you. I only hope that someone maybe only one person read my posts and it made them stop and think for a moment. No need for personal attacks wes. I have great respect for you being in the canadian military and then australian and I‘m sure serving both with dedication.


----------



## Infanteer (17 Mar 2004)

...


----------



## muskrat89 (17 Mar 2004)

Ummm.. Infanteer - he was quoting Wes


----------



## Engineer Corporal (17 Mar 2004)

Yes infanteer, I beleive wes has seen alot of real world theatre. Read the post first!.....


----------



## George Wallace (17 Mar 2004)

> Originally posted by Engineer Corporal:
> [qb] ....so your saying that someone with a different view of the current situation. I.E. me, doesn‘t deserve to be in the military. How the **** does that make sense? So anyone who doesn‘t jump on the "let‘s kill the islamic terrorists bandwagon"  or someone who questions "George Bush‘s policies" is all of a sudden a ***** and is stupid? I‘m sure your answer will be yes.  Just because I‘m against the war in Iraq does‘nt make me a bad soldier. Do you think everyone in the canadian military likes the war in Iraq? Umm no, so they should turn in their kit as well? So as not to impede anyone having a good clean war of two sides and stfu and kill something?
> People who rock the boat should‘nt be looked down apon. They should be listened to maybe something they say makes sense. Obviously you don‘t think so. That‘s ok, your opinion and all. Some of you guys should really open your minds just a bit. Not every islamic person wants you dead! If you think so then god help you. I only hope that someone maybe only one person read my posts and it made them stop and think for a moment. No need for personal attacks wes. I have great respect for you being in the canadian military and then australian and I‘m sure serving both with dedication. [/qb]


We are not talking about every Islamic person, we are talking about Fundamentalist, Extremist, Fanatical Terrorists.  A person should be able to recognize what we are debating about here, especially if they are claiming to be a History Major. 

As for someone being stupid, I have only seen one person in this thread using the word ‘stupid‘.  If that person feels slighted, they shouldn‘t get emotional and start calling others names.

Some have brought up the point that Terrorism is widespread and not only limited to Islamic Extremists, but to other race/etnic groups/religions as well, using the IRA and ETA as examples.

If you have to resort to name calling, then perhaps it is a sign that your POV is faulty and you have to open ‘your‘ mind.

GW


----------



## Infanteer (17 Mar 2004)

Ha, who‘s the idiot now!

I will retreat with my tail between my legs, just like the electorate of Spain....


----------



## winchable (17 Mar 2004)

To add to what gunnar said previously:

You can pick up the Qu‘ran at the library in Arabic, English, or a combination of the two into one book.

It‘s the minimal required reading before anyone can make a truly informed opinion about anything Islamic (IMO). It‘s not a hard read, but most of the beauty is lost in the translation to English. As a child I had to memorise it in it‘s original Arabic form, it‘s hard to really describe it. If Shakespeare is the most beautiful prose in English, then the Qu‘Ran is supposed to be about 10 Shakespeares.

Anywho, just a momentary interjection; Keep debating, as long as it remains civil it is proving to be an interesting thread.


----------



## 1feral1 (17 Mar 2004)

Not all muslims are terrorists but its a fact, that most terrorists today are infact muslim, and we cannot deny that, as for Badbird,, wow I have been adressed by my sur name! 

Listen here "mate", your attitude and the way you worded your postes were simply "TROLLY‘

And if you cant see the truth about Spain caving in, and this seen as a victory and now a propaganda tool for radical Islam, you are blind as a bat.

Take a look at your own words from ‘outside the square‘ and think about what you have said. I dont care how old you are, 22, you say, well it lookes like 12 to me. So dont go attacking me for something you created, I just reacted to a thread troll who words were baiting us to react, as you see I am not the only one arc‘d up over your attitude.


Regards,

Wes


----------



## Garry (17 Mar 2004)

A few things:

Religion is a hard thing to argue. Based on faith vice anything really tangible, either you "get it" or you don‘t.

Just for the fun of it, though, take a look at all of the world‘s major religions. They have several things in common, but the one I‘d like to focus on is how the religions direct society. Every single one of the worlds religions give us (mankind/society) a blueprint on how to co-exist peacefully. 

Most of every society‘s morals and laws are based on one religion or another. They amplify the religious direction, and are founded in hard learned lessons. Our‘s (Canada‘s) for instance: protect the weak, don‘t screw around your Buds, don‘t chew with your mouth open, hold the door open for gals, I could go on... these are the tenets of our society that most of us learned from our parents...and they keep us all from beating each other to death.

All society‘s have their rules, and they‘re not much different than ours.

Muslims HATE our "decadence". So what? So do I. I abhor the steady slide into pornography, drugs, gambling, violence..... difference is is in how we react. The average guy, black, white, yellow, Christian, Muslim, Bhuddist does what he can to maintain his, and his family‘s moral and living standards. We rely on the word of law, the efforts of our Governemnt and Police to stem the tide of burgeoning societal and Moral collapse.

The Extremists blow things, and people, up.

Unfortunately, the extremists groups you and I in with the "decadent" folk. The aggression is directed against our society, not portions of it.

Fair? nope. 

Fact? yup.

Fights on. Time to flee or fight.

I do NOT want the rotten aspect of my society to survive...but I do want my lifestyle, morals, country, and my society to survive.

So, I choose fight. 

Trick is to smash the right people, and that is tough to do.....

Making it worse, uncontrolled aggression has a way of snowballing out of control, dragging moderates and those on the sidelines into the fray. Tough to avoid....and tougher to accept.

Cheers-Garry


----------



## Duotone81 (17 Mar 2004)

Excellent post Garry. When you tear away all the peripherals you‘re left with a reality that you articulated very well.


----------



## 1feral1 (17 Mar 2004)

Engr CPL: 

Do you think I like war? NOT, but I do want peace and security for our way of life, and to ensure our kids wont have to fight in another war, or to be mass targeted by some wingnut suicide bomber. Sometimes to secure these things we must fight for our own safety, and self preservation, and for everything we believe in.

Maybe you would paint a different picture if an 11 Sep attack happened in say Toronto or at some Grey Cup in the west.

I hate the war in Iraq, as I have friends there right now, but its all just one piece in a giant jigsaw, and the liberation of Iraq was and is essential if the war gainst terror is to advance.

Being agianst a war is one thing, but not seeming to grasp the concequences if we sit back and do nothing is another.

By the look of things you would rather sit back and see radical Islam praised by Saddam, along with other nasty things which were going on there, with other things currently festering in the radical Islamic world and continuing to grow like a galloping cancer, with us as the intended host.

Meanwhile in Jakarta yesterday Abdu Bashir, leader of JI terrorist org has declared that all allies of the USA and the USA itself will be destroyed as Allah wills it. Thhen laughed about the Bali bombings, saying the bombers were not guilty of any crime.

I think this poor excuse for a man should have have visit from ‘black ops‘, and just disappear.

With a 5,000+ member force of radical extremeists, they are continuing to recruit members from radical Islamic schools throughout Indonesia and the region.

Read on, www.news.com.au www.dailytelegraph.com.au 

To top it off, as of yesterday the Indonesian courts are challenging the death sentances of these pi_$$ weak cowards who killed 202 people in Bali, mainly all westerners of which 89 were Australian, and they might have their death sentances quashed, and be walking the streets in just 2 months, and all of this is seen as a victory to the radicals. What does this tell the radicals, it says yes kill as many infidels as you can, and here in Indonesia, we will give you worldwide publicity then set you free in just a matter of months.

Just remember too, that the Bali bombings killed more people than the AQ attack in Spain, including one man from Wynyard Saskatchewan.

You are right, not every muslim wants us dead, its the radical fundimentalists which do, that I can agree to, but thats about it. Sadly the moderate mulsims are in fear, and will not speak against their fight against the west.

Read bewteen the lines, and right or wrong its your brothers in arms who are doing their bit, while you sit back, attacking the US govt and condem their sacrifice towards a safer world for us all.

Maybe what you need is a face to face meeting with the family of someone who was killed on 11 Sep, or the 12 Oct attacks in Bali, not mentioning about speaking to a young wife with ababy on the way, who lost her husband in a recent RPG attack in Baghdad, or speak to an Iraqi man who for the first time in a generation, who can now speak out, and not fear being killed or tortured.

Wait out,

Wes


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Mar 2004)

Regarding the high school or college paper, I must agree that while it might have "made the grade" with the recipient, it‘s too full of factual errors and unproven assertions to be taken seriously.  Sorry, I haven‘t time to fisk it in detail.

>I‘ve seen a good arguement that states that al Qaeda‘s opposition to the US seems to be based around American policies. American support of Israel, American soldiers in Saudi Arabia, American support for moderate regimes in the Middle East, etc.

Al Qaeda‘s chief aim is to establish a fundamental Islamic theocracy (ultimately, one which spans the globe) according to the organization‘s own interpretation of the religion.  To do that, al Qaeda must supplant the governments which currently control predominantly Islamic lands; in particular, al Qaeda wishes to first establish control over the holy lands and sites in Saudi Arabia.  In order to do that, it is necessary to remove external support for the regimes.  The US is one of the external supporters.  Attacks on the US are simply a means to persuade the US to remove its presence; that is simply a stepping-stone on the path, not the ultimate destination.  If the US is too difficult to attack directly, indirect pressure may be brought to bear by attacking weaker nations.

It is no more reasonable to expect the US to depart the region and leave it to its own instabilities that it would have been reasonable for Canada to pack up its tents and come home from Roto 0 in the Balkans the first time one of the local warlords knocked on the CP door and said, "You have no business here.  Leave immediately."

Whether one approaches from the religious or the political view, the "grievances" are unreasonable ("convert or die", "leave the Islamic lands"); the "root cause" of the terrorism I can only regard as irreconcilable differences.  When two parties to a negotiation or with conflicting interests refuse to compromise, the only solutions are for one party to impose its will on the other or both to accept the status quo.

Appeasement can only work if the appeased party is willing to forego its other claims; otherwise, appeasement is merely incremental surrender.  It does not seem to be true that al Qaeda will yield any of its claims.  One must conclude the only options are to roll over and die, or fight back.  If terrorists decide to apply indirect pressure and the US refuses to yield to the entreaties of other nations under attack, those nations will have three choices: endure the attacks, fight the terrorists, fight the US.


----------



## Engineer Corporal (17 Mar 2004)

Augh... I‘m not up for appeasing the terrorists. I am also not saying we do nothing. Reducing our dependancy on oil as a whole would be a major blow to the terrorists and the governments who harbour them. 
Ok what is the number one reason why osama hates the United States? Their continual military presence in the persian gulf region mainly saudi arabia. Why is their a continual U.S. presence in the persian gulf? To protect the oil wells. Where does the money for most middle eastern governments come from? The purchase of their oil. Which in turn is used to fuel their war on terrorism.
 So if we in turn eliminate our need for oil. Alternative means of energy is the way to go. Oil won‘t last forever and ever anyways so why not put enormous amounts of cash into finding new forms of energy. In doing so if that happened then the military presence in persian gulf area would be useless. They would leave. 

 Islam is not a religion of hate it‘s a religion of peace by definition. Now who is holding back the advancement of alternative means of energy? Well duh the oil companies themselves they have all the money and don‘t want to give up their huge profits to further the human race. The pursuit of who‘s in control of the world‘s energy is always going to be the driving force in war. 
When the blackout of 2003 happened and a man in africa was asked (sorry don‘t remmeber exactly which country it was). He was asked what he thought of it and he said "welcome to my world no water no electricity". 

 People are by definition good people at heart. They want to live their lives accordingly to their religious practices and be left alone by outside influences. History has shown that whenever a people from a different country has interfered in the affairs of a foreign nation disaster is not far off. Guess what everyone we have interfered big time! 
 Why would the U.S. go to all this trouble because american way of life will not survive without oil. Think about it how many times a day does oil influence your lives? Your car, heating your house, half a dozen things. So **** yeah the americans are gonna go through alot of trouble to keep the oil flowing. Winning the energy war is winning the war itself. Invading countries who have oil is only going to fuel their case and cause death destruction and despair. But hey whatever right. 
When people like the Islamic people are having their countries invaded. Then hey can you blame them for fighting back? What would happen if florida was invaded. Every american and canadian too would close ranks and fight for their lives. So why can‘t this happen with the islamic people? 

Pure arrogance that american lives are worth more than any other is a root cause of defeat. To quote a fine man romeo dallaire from his book "shake hands with the devil" A "U.S. analyst says that one american life is worth 80,000 rwandans".


----------



## George Wallace (17 Mar 2004)

> Maybe what you need is a face to face meeting with the family of someone who was killed on 11 Sep, or the 12 Oct attacks in Bali, not mentioning about speaking to a young wife with ababy on the way, who lost her husband in a recent RPG attack in Baghdad, or speak to an Iraqi man who for the first time in a generation, who can now speak out, and not fear being killed or tortured.


Wes

Maybe these are the wrong people for them (Engr Cpl and others of his ilk) to meet.  Perhaps they should have a face to face with an AQ terrorist and try to make their peace.

Just a thought.

GW


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Mar 2004)

>Why is their a continual U.S. presence in the persian gulf? To protect the oil wells.

The oil will be pumped and sold no matter who controls it.  The US could have bought Kuwaiti oil from Hussein.  The roots of the US presence go deeper than that.

>Islam is not a religion of hate it‘s a religion of peace by definition.

OK, suppose I refuse to ever convert to Islam and the rest of the world does.  What should be my fate, according to the religion‘s principles?

>People are by definition good people at heart.

Your faith is commendable, but people are fundamentally selfish.

>History has shown that whenever a people from a different country has interfered in the affairs of a foreign nation disaster is not far off.

No, it depends on circumstances.  The Allies interfered a great deal with the destiny of Germany and Japan in the post-war years.


----------



## 1feral1 (17 Mar 2004)

Comrad Engr CPL:

What about sharia law? So do you approve of honour killings, the public stoning of women or approve of husbands killing their wives, and the lack of woman‘s rights, in many cases including soemthing as simple as an education, or not leaving your home without a male relative, or even being allowed to drive a car? 

How about public executions with a kangaroo court, the cutting off of limbs or petty theft? In the majority of muslim countries this is how it is. Imagine, you see a woman, its 45C (in the shade) and she is covered in head to toe in a full on burka. Never allowed to wear something as simple as a summer dress, or makeup in public for fear of being spit on or beaten. How would you like to live in a society like that? Oh, waht about female genital mutilation too? Whats your say, mate?

In many cases its 13th century mentality, with 21st century technology, with many fundimentalists understanding the Koran in a very bent and twisted way, not seeing it the way most mainstream moderate muslims do.

Where are the moderates? Why are they not policing these bad guys up, and dealing with them?

Ther are hardcores in any religion, including mine (RC). BTW I am for priests being able to marry, and the use of birth control, and freedom of choice, you‘ll only get me in a church for weddings and funerals, but what does that define me in the RC church? I dont really care, but I wont be stoned or imprisoned for my liberal thoughts in the hoplessly joke of the RC church.

As for muslims, sure the majority are just normal people like ourselves, but when the cultures collide (christians vs extreme muslims)there is problems. Throughout Indonesia and Thailand, christians are murdered, and churches are burned. By who, the fundimentalists in large groups, which run amuck, uncontroled, while the moderates just sit back, watch, and clean up the mess. 

Right here in Sydney, the jewish communities in the eastern suburbs have been attacked with cars and property firebombed with arabic anti-jewish sloagans painted on fendes and walls. Pro OBL, pro PLO sloagans etc, etc. All this in a so called multicultural society. Has it worked? What do you think. Islamic fundimental schools are ongoing right now here in Australia, with many teachers being watched by ASIO (our CIA), and what are they telling these kids? Take a guess. 

A wooden pillar at a beachside location which resembled Mary (when the light was right) was destroyed by muslims beacuse they were offened by it.

Its not too comfortable here at time, and its not the moderates here which stir the pot. Its about being ant-west, and an infidel, and when you come face to face with a group of them, its really dangerous.

So as I said, you can have the charts, grapsh, the video, the t-0shirt, and read the book too, but unless you experience this way of life,a nd delt with it first hand (I have been to Malaysia, Thailand, and Indonesia)take the time to examine, befoer speaking, becuse you have made a fool of yourself here.

It aint about oil. Its about the putting down of a rabbid animal, its called radical Islam terrorism, and rest assured if you were in their custody right now you would in grave danger, not because you are a Cdn, white, and have a wad full of USD in your wallet, but beacuse you are not one of them. To them you are simply an infidel, and would be killed. That is a fact.

Wait out.

Wes


----------



## George Wallace (17 Mar 2004)

Wes...don‘t have a coronary because he is going through life with rose coloured glasses and blinders on.  Reality will smack him between the lookers some day.  If only it were sooner, rather than too late.  His arguements are flawed.  Give him some time to re-examine his values.  Right now he is being a closed minded Thud **** who won‘t change his mind for anything.  If he thought the sky was purple, no matter how many of us told him it was blue, he still wouldn‘t change his mind.  Could be bi-polar? Who knows?   

GW


----------



## 1feral1 (17 Mar 2004)

No worries GW, 

I wont, it just shytes me to tears with the thick blinders this bloke has on. At least he wont be hunted down for his leftist views, as he would be if he was in a fundimentalist state. 

He can thank the over 100,000 unselfish Canadians who gave their lives in the 20th century wars, to allow him to have the rights and freedoms he has today.

I think he takes it all for granted.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Engineer Corporal (17 Mar 2004)

I don‘t think the 100,000 indeed brave canadians who died giving us all our freedoms would want me to sit idlely by while the world goes down the wrong path. Your now trying to destroy my credibility just because I have views that you and others who have posted don‘t agree with. Thankfully canada decided not to go to war with Iraq on false pretences like the other‘s britain,australia. We stood up and said "no this is wrong" and made our decision and we have been proven correct.

 By trying to say that I am unpatriotic because I try to express my views on how the world could be better. Just because you except the world as a horrible place. It sure is, but let‘s not say that war is the only answer for us. Im glad none of the people who posted will ever be in a postion to change policy because we will go down the path more travelled in the past. Chretien chose the path less travelled and it was the right one. 

Like Winston Churchill said the "truth is always protected by a bodyguard of lies". 
I have said my piece so attack me as you will. Good Day.


----------



## Marauder (17 Mar 2004)

> Originally posted by BadBird:
> Well Infanteer, I know this from reading a lot and watching the news often. I am also a history major in university and I am very interested in international history and politics. From all of my inputs of information I formulate my own opinions.


It‘s one, two, three strikes, you‘re out. Spit the silver spoon out at THINK for a second. Don‘t just regurgitate the bull caca the liberal media and your commie history profs spew(I‘m well aware about the ideological leaning of arts profs, all too well, so save the feeble protests otherwise.) You‘re an adult, think for yourself. Be critical of what you read in media and all the loony lefty crap distilled into "textbooks" by comm‘anist professors who can make any claim they want from behind the shield of tenure. To repeat in case you missed it, THINK!!!

As for "root causes"    


> In his speeches and religious decrees, bin Laden has alluded frequently to the collapse of the Islamic Caliphate as the major turning point for the world‘s Muslims. The Caliphate was not officially abolished until 1924, but to many scholars, its decline began with the fall of Al-Andalus.
> "Let the whole world know that we shall never accept that the tragedy of Al-Andalus would be repeated," bin Laden declared in a videotaped statement broadcast around the world on Oct. 7, 2001. It was the start of the U.S. bombing of Afghanistan, which was intended to dislodge the al-Qaida terrorist network and the Taliban movement that sheltered it.
> At such a decisive moment in his own life, specialists say, bin Laden chose to highlight the story of Al-Andalus as a cautionary tale to Muslims. To bin Laden and other Islamic militants, the Islamic empire in Spain collapsed because of infighting among rival Muslim princes and clans.
> "To bin Laden, Al-Andalus represented the height of Muslim glory and its downfall was a great betrayal," said Mohammad Salah, an expert on Islamic militants at the pan-Arab newspaper Al-Hayat. "He uses it often as a lesson for Muslims about the importance of remaining united."
> ...


From     http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=34590    



> Muhammad XII looses the city January 2, 1492. As he leaves, he turns back and weeps, only to be reprimanded by his mother: "Weep like a woman, son, for that which you could not defend as a man."


So there‘s one of the much ballyhooed "root causes". These whack jobs aren‘t slamming planes into buildings soley cause Dubya Sr. garrisoned troops in Saudia Arabia. It‘s not just because Israel carved itself a pretty decent firetrench after WWII. No, one of O‘Sammy‘s (Happy St Paddy‘s BTW) big bitches is that a few centuries back some Muslim conqueres finally got turfed out of a nice seaside location they took by the sword another few centuries earlier. ****, I imagine he‘s just pissed that Islam has been getting its collective azz handed back to it everytime it has struck out at others since the time of Mohammed. Ya see troops, he and his pals see the root cause of their wish to blow up Whitey, as something that occured before America was even founded. 1492, someone sailed the ocean blue, remember? bin Laden is pissed about something that happened the year Comlumbus found the Americas.
You can‘t reason with these phucks. Too many libs keep getting wrapped around the axle about their precious "root causes". Well, here‘s one of Timmy Talibunny‘s. How do you propose to appease AQ about something that happened 600 or so years ago?
This thing is a fight to the finish, folks. Either radical Islam is wiped from the face of the planet, or your and my greatgrandkids are going to be living under sharia. I for one don‘t want my granddaughters stoned to death for wearing a miniskirt and high heels (any little punk who looks at her the wrong way while she‘s in that getup, on the other hand...) or for dancing, of all retarded reasons. Wake up and realize that there is no middle ground with these deadenders. Either they die, or we do. Don‘t waste time asking "Why", only ask about "How, Where, When, How Many At Once".

THINK!!!


----------



## 1feral1 (17 Mar 2004)

Comrad Engr CPL: 

I see you did not answer my questions in my above post. Why am I not suprised. I guess you can keep your head buried in the sand, and sit back to watch the news as more allied soldiers are killed fighting for something you consider wrong, our freedom. It was not the people who stood up and said it was wrong it was your limp wristed Liberal govt, you know the same guys who brought in the billion gun control registry.

How dare you condem my country for assisting in the liberation Iraq. Shame on ya. 

Australia followed the USA and other countries beacuse in our govt‘s view it was the right thing to do, when a friend needs a bit of assistance, you help him out.

The USA saved Australia from the Japanese. We suffered here more than people know, with Darwin having almost 70 air-raids alone with hundreds of people killed in the first attack in Feb 42. 

Our close ties with the USA will always be there, and although we slam the Yanks too, we cannot forget the thousands of US military personnel who gave their lives in our defence. We also fought side by side along with Canada in Korea, and again with the USA in a 10yr long battle in Viet Nam where the last Australian VCs were won. In the past over 100yrs we have fought 13 wars of other nations, and know what it is like to have blood spilt on our own shores.

I will not condem the lack of involvment in Iraq by Canada, as that was set out by govt policy, but a friend of mine who is in the CF, and won the bronze star serving in Afghanistan, has had a gutfull of the federal govt lack of intestinal fortitude, and is getting out of the CF because of it. Thats someone with almost 30yrs expereince from all levels of comd, from PTE to Commissioned Officer.

If Canada had decided to send troops ( and they still might) what would you have done if you were going to be deployed? I bet you‘d have turned in your kit quicksmart with your tail between your legs.

I would expect this behavior to be that of some watermellon misguided uni student who supports greenpeace, and S-11 groups, marches in anti-social activities, and maybe a memebr of teh communist party, not a serving member of the CF, and I find it in a way almost treasonous, and in very bad taste.

I could say worse, but I wont. why should I continue to have this debate with someone who really does not have a clue on the real world, and would rather see a nation suffer under a brutal regime.

This is what I dislike, having to put my life on the line for people of your state of mind, and beliefs.

PS - do you really think that Canada‘s lack of invlovment in Iraq will spare it from a terrorist attack from Islamic fundimentalists, afterall Canada gave ‘5star‘ service in the war in Afghanistan, and was in on East Timor too. You can rest assured that sympathisers are enbedded in the middle eastern communities througout cites in all parts of Canada, waiting, sleeping, and will strike when they are ordered to.

OUT!

Wes


----------



## Jungle (17 Mar 2004)

We have yet more proof that these people can‘t be reasonnable: they are now threatening to attack France because of that law against religious objects in schools. Now if they were civilized, they would wait for the next democratic election, and let their collective voice be heard. If that fails, they should then move back to Iran or wherever the **** they came from and live the way they want...
The spanish are not cowards, but the country had a coward reaction to the attacks. They gave the terrs a victory they probably weren‘t expecting.
BTW, the thread was about Spain, not the USA.


----------



## 1feral1 (17 Mar 2004)

Good posts Jungle and Marauder           :fifty:   Keep ‘em firing!

Cheers and cold Aussie beers,

Wes


----------



## Franko (18 Mar 2004)

Very interesting points all....

Kudos to Jungle on the point of the thread being about Spain...not about the Yanks.

Let‘s keep this discussion going.

Spr. Earl....thanks for the clarification on your sidenote. I wholeheartly agree.

Regards


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Mar 2004)

WHo threatened to attack france about the religious objects?

The terrorists we are dealing with are like the bad guys in the movies. Even when they get what they want, they blow away the hostage anyways just because their evil. 
IF we pulled out of everything, gave in to all their demands, let them have their run of the place do you think they would be happy? Think they would hang up their vests full of C4 and burry their AKs? No way. They would find something else to to destroy, find another reason to kill. They would attack North America for "showing weakness and retreating from an enemy" or something stupid like that. You can‘t win like that.

While i think it‘s poor judgement on spains behalf for pulling out I don‘t really fault them. They don‘t know any better. Just like the US didn‘t know any better and thought they were impervious to attack, until september 11th. Each country will have to suffer a disaster just like 911 until they realise staying inside your borders won‘t work anymore.


----------



## 1feral1 (18 Mar 2004)

This law comes into effect later this year. It bans not only the female muslim head dress, but the jewish skull caps, and large christian crosses, etc from being worn in public schools. Seems to be so far that only the islamic ones are complaining.

It is a ban on religous objects bein worn in public schools, not singling out any particular faith.

If memory serves me correctly, France‘s population is between 7-10% muslim, of which who knows how many are fundimentalists.

I wholeheartedly agree, that ther could be some serious problems after this law takes effect, as even herre in Australia, hundreds of muslims have protested here in Sydney, and its not even happening here at all.

Cheers,

Wes

Other countries in Europe such as Turkey have a similar law which has been in effect for years.


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Mar 2004)

That might be a good thread for another debate. What do people think about that rule. Good point about how many are actually fundimantalists. 
I‘m sure people are protesting in ottawa already.

Anways sorry back on topic;
I‘d say it brings up  good question. Do we as Canadians (or whichever country) have a right to protest what another country does. ie France banning religious objects, Spain pulling out..
 Something that may seem insiginificant often effects us in more ways than most people know.


----------



## winchable (18 Mar 2004)

The headscarf thing is already in another thread but I‘ll throw down;
Hijabs are in a different category from Crosses and Kippas.
The Hijab is worn because it is decreed by God that it be that way, crosses are basically jewelery (cosmetically worn) and Kippas are ceremonial (correct me if I‘m wrong forgive me for not knowing)
It says no-where (as far as i know, once again) that people MUST wear crosses or Kippas; The Hijab is a must (the reasons are actually somewhat sensible) for France to make a law like this it asks people to choose between their comfort and God or the academic career.


----------



## K. Ash (18 Mar 2004)

Ok, you guys have been saying that you can‘t reason with these people and the only way to beat them is to kill them, rid the Earth of them. And I am fine with that. They are evil and I do think that it is either them or us. 

 If I‘m wrong about this correct me, but I‘m assuming that Canada does have terrorist cells here somewhere. Now, if these people are going about living their lives like normal citizens how do we find them? How do we weed out the bad guys from the good guys?


----------



## nbk (18 Mar 2004)

This thread is interesting as it shows a complete other side of people. Its shocking actually what some people want to say anonymously over the internet.

I sincerely believe some of you have lifted statements that the NAZIs were using to demonize the Jews (speaking of them as animals, saying they should all be exterminated because of how evil they are) and simply replaced the word "Jews" with "Muslims" or "terrorists". 

Its actaully interesting to see how people‘s minds work. They can‘t understand how the Germans could sit back as the NAZI party was pushing its anti semetic agenda, and how they could be so oblivious to the entire holocaust. Yet at the same time they will be cheering as people like bush implement his "Final Solution" for the Middle East "question"...

This war is about oil, no matter how much you have been brainwashed otherwise. Not for greedy businessmen to profit off of, but to secure Mideast oil reserves for the US market, as it is common knowledge that the cheap, accessible oil reserves on this planet are due to start becoming rarer within the next 20 years. The american economy needs oil to survive. In fact every country needs it. The americans are simply trying to squeeze a few extra years out of their stocks before the oil market crashes and the world is plummeted into a second great depression.

As I said before, the election in Spain was going to be won by the socialists no matter what. The population was always mad at the old government due to the war in Iraq, and that is why they were kicked out of office. 

The blast, horrific as it was, was likely just a last ditch effort by the right wing party in Spain with help of the Bush administration to attempt to sway voters into thinking they needed a strong totalitarian right wing party to control them in this dangerous time. 

Their gamble obviously did not pay off for the old Spanish government. The Bush administration can however take the data they have accumulated because of this event and use it to mold the events that will lead up to the next presedential US election...

You guys will just have to sit back, wait, observe and listen. And for christs sake, you people need to learn not to believe everything the media tells you. Learn to look at things objectively, and question everything. Try to understand that political people do have motives in their actions and statements.


----------



## Infanteer (18 Mar 2004)

> I sincerely believe some of you have lifted statements that the NAZIs were using to demonize the Jews (speaking of them as animals, saying they should all be exterminated because of how evil they are) and simply replaced the word "Jews" with "Muslims" or "terrorists".


If you‘d bother to pay attention, you‘d find we were talking about the violent, fundamentalest sect embraced by terrorists as a vehicle for fighting the West.  We‘re condemning the Nazis, not the Germans.

You notice how our resident Muslim has yet to label us hate-mongerers?



> This war is about oil, no matter how much you have been brainwashed otherwise.


Funny, I thought that little thing about the World Trade Center has something to do about it.  Like I said before, your attempting to simplify things to black and white, and that shows that it is *you* who has succumbed to the brainwashing of the granola-eating crowd you subscribe to.



> As I said before, the election in Spain was going to be won by the socialists no matter what.


Wrong.  As I have shown before, the polls put Aznar‘s party in a comfortable lead prior to the bombings.



> The blast, horrific as it was, was likely just a last ditch effort by the right wing party in Spain with help of the Bush administration to attempt to sway voters into thinking they needed a strong totalitarian right wing party to control them in this dangerous time.
> 
> Their gamble obviously did not pay off for the old Spanish government. The Bush administration can however take the data they have accumulated because of this event and use it to mold the events that will lead up to the next presedential US election...


Wow, you truly are an idiot.  Anything else we should know about, Mister Tin-Foil hat.



> You guys will just have to sit back, wait, observe and listen. And for christs sake, you people need to learn not to believe everything the media tells you. Learn to look at things objectively, and question everything. Try to understand that political people do have motives in their actions and statements.


No, we‘re not going to.  You are addressing soldiers who will continue to stand up, fight, and protect sheep like you who hide in Toronto.  What you see here is not much "believing what the media tells you", but rather first hand knowledge of dealing with extremism in some way, shape, or form.

You accuse us of falling for propaganda, so tell us nbk, what objective lens do you have that makes you the beacon of truth.


----------



## clasper (18 Mar 2004)

> Originally posted by nbk:
> [qb]
> This war is about oil, no matter how much you have been brainwashed otherwise. [/qb]


You are not completely wrong here, as the war has something to do with oil.  Because of US demand, and Mid-East reserves, oil is a lever that the fundamentalists have chosen to use in their fight against the infidel.  If we all converted to renewable solar and wind power tomorrow, we would remove that lever, and that would be a setback for the fundamentalists, but they would find another lever.

As has been pointed out earlier, the root cause of the conflict goes much further back than US oil dependance, or even the discovery of the first oil well.  What does a several-hundred year old claim to Iberian territory have to do with oil?


----------



## Infanteer (18 Mar 2004)

> What does a several-hundred year old claim to Iberian territory have to do with oil?


Or a landlocked, mountainous country in central Asia?


----------



## Gunnar (18 Mar 2004)

Okay.  Thread‘s over.  Godwin‘s Law:

Godwin‘s Law     prov.     [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin‘s Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. However there is also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional triggering of Godwin‘s Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful. 

But as long as we‘re on the topic:  Advocating the extermination of an evil is not wrong.  Destroying evil is a good thing.  Destroying people who want to kill women and children is a good thing.  Destroying all Muslims (or Jews, as the case may be) with no regard for objective standards of what may make them evil people (e.g., Jew A is a Murderer, Jew B is a rabbi who helps his community, Muslim A works hard, believes in the Koran and tries to raise his family, Muslim B is a terrorist) is the issue.  Not destruction per se.

As long as we‘re on the topic, you might be just the same as a Nazi yourself, because, after all, the Nazis ate sausages....If you eat sausages, then you‘re just the same as they are!  Right?


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Mar 2004)

I agree with you NBK. The Nazi‘s, just like other groups out there use fighting evil as an excuse to further their goals, whatever they are.  When i got married the padre talked about fighting evil and the hardships on marrage because of all the evil in the world. i didn‘t associate him witht he nazi party but others could i supose.

I spoke about fighting evil. Exterminating it. Going after the evil doers as bush would say.  I‘m not sure if you think thats evil or just a cheap justification for whatever. The nazi‘s were fighting evil, the allies were fighting evil. Al quaida is fighting evil along with the guys in palastine and israel. Everyone is fighting evil today. Whos to say who is right.  Who can tell.

When the last time you saw a Canadian soldier blow themselves up in a market, gas women and children, blow up a bus?  I have a pretty good idea what evil is and im going to continue to fight it and support anyone else who does.


----------



## 1feral1 (18 Mar 2004)

I am at my whits end thinking about this whole topic, and its a forum inwhich we spew out our opinions and emotions on this very much so currrent affair, which effects us all in some way.

You have read my posts and know where I stand on it. Its not about oil, its about a new type of war in which no matter who you are, or where you are, as long as you continue to live and have western values, as long as you continue to live freely in our society, you, your grandmother, your kids, and your wife are going to be targeted by a fundemantal form of Islam who value death as we all value our lives, and the lives of our kids.

Sadly when the bombs start going off in your own country, and the innocent are vapourised on the 6.00 news, then maybe the ‘sheep‘ here will realise we are right.

Its good to see that fine healthy red blooded Canadians on this site have the balls to stand up to whats right, and do the right thing by defending our way of life, and our culture, while the spineless (yes backbones are on sale at K mart, BTW) sit back, and whinge about USA policy, and why Canada and other countries should sit back and watch, and stay out. "Evil prospers when good men do nothing".

I can sum up by saying all war is insane, vial, and quite sickening, but there is a time we must all stand our ground to ensure that terrorism will not come to our shores, and countless people be murdered by the blind hatred of an extreme end of a religion, who infact see all here as infidels.  

So, for the bleeding hearted granola eating tree huggering do gooders (who cant or wont or refuse see the truth on whats going on, and who seem to believe left wing propaganda in some newspaper), if you want, fly to Pakistan, or Afghanistan, and give out tea and buiscuts to OBL and his murderous friends, and the rest of radical Islam, as I am sure they and they and Mr Kalashnikov will be witing for you smiling.

Meanwhile as our allied forces are deep in Afghanistan, Iraq and other not so nice places, these whingers (you know who you are) will sit back, and complain about what they see on the news, and maybe go to a march against the war this weekend.

In fact the terror threat is very real against western nations, AQ has named Australia, and as of yesterday, AQ was quoted "the black brigades of death are at your gate, you lackeys of the USA have a lesson to learn". 

In happier times our governments let these people into our countries to establish new lives and live in peace and harmony, now the rightwingers of their faith have turned on their adopted countries, and want to crush us, and establish thir faith by force on us.

Simply what they have created at our expense is satellite countries of their own in ours, and in these places rise the toughts and deeds of radical Islam. In time we are in for heaps of trouble.

I am sure Canada too is on their list of hate, and somewhere in some greasy flat in TO, Montreal, or Vancouver, a sinister plot/plan, or operation is being rehearsed somewhow by a group of so called ‘martyrs in waiting‘, who see you and your kids as good soft fleshy targets, and their own kids as suicide bombers.

In Israel, a recent female suicide bomber who killed herself and others had said in an interview before hand, I have wanted to be a martyr since I was 13, and I want my body parts to fly thru the air and kill as many as possible", this coming from a woamna and mother of two small kids.

It goes to show ya how bent they are, and why something has to be done qbout it. 

So for the supporters of ther defence of our nations and our way of life on here, I salute you, and for the whingers, well you should all be ashamed of yourselves, as you are a disgrace in my eyes. 

But, thank God having your whinge is a right, which was paid for by the blood of a generation of young men 60 yrs ago. So if you value this freedom, maybe you should take a moment to see how lucky you are to have it, and maybe never take it for granted, as with your current sheeply attitudes you may just loose it.

Regards to everyone,

Wes


----------



## Brad Sallows (18 Mar 2004)

>This war is about oil, no matter how much you have been brainwashed otherwise. Not for greedy businessmen to profit off of, but to secure Mideast oil reserves for the US market, as it is common knowledge that the cheap, accessible oil reserves on this planet are due to start becoming rarer within the next 20 years.

By the same token, I invite you to develop your own capability to reason.  Ask yourself how much of your opinion is your own, and how much is adopted from people who have no credentials as experts on the subject at hand but are thought wise because they are merely popular or prominent in an unrelated field.  For the money spent to prosecute a war - and the estimates were $50-100B before the fact - why didn‘t the US just offer half the cash and guarantee to have sanctions removed since it was in their practical power to do so?  It would have dramatically outbid the French, or anyone else.

What makes you confident that more efficient methods of extracting oil will not be developed (the existence of large reserves is not in doubt), if not alternate sources of energy for transportation?

Over the long term, always bet on technology to solve the problems you think are approaching, and never project current trends too far into the future.  There will always be a discontinuity in the curve.


----------



## 1feral1 (18 Mar 2004)

Brad, 

You have your opinion (and a few agree with you), and I have mine (and others agree with me also), and if you believe what you think, its ok, but we can agree on one common thing, and that is to disagree.

Its all about a hatred against the west for the values we live by (not the views seen by extreme Islam in their interpetation of the Koran). Thats what the excuse was for the Bali bombings, along with our liberation of East Timor, our involvement in the ‘Stan and Iraq.

Why don‘t you mention your theory to my neighbours down the road, who lost a daughter in the bombings, and see what they have to say.

That was all about having westerners leave the island, to stop the western culture from polluting theirs as they see it. They have a seething hatred for anything west, from alchol to dresses, our music, our respect for women, and what they can do in the west, our overall culture to our general way of life.

East timor had a Christian minority, and the bad guys were muslims, they were forced out, murdered priests nuns, and many others, destroying churches and local infrastructure. Schools, power comms, shops, homes all gone, scorched earth. even cutting peoples hands off at sea, and dumping them into the water, so they would drown and the sharks ate the eveidence. Thousands disappeared while back in Canada you ate pizza and drank coke.

Sad, because Bali is a Hindu population, which was infiltrated by Muslims from a neighbouring island. There is over 16,000 islands in Indonesia, of which about 13,000 are populated. About 280,000,000 muslims live in Indonesia.

What the bombers got in return was the income robbed from the hotels, cafes, and shops. Mass unemployment because no westerners want to go there anymore for fear of another attack.

recently when some Australians tried to return for a holiday, they were cornered by extremists, and had matches flicked at them immatating the 89 Australians who were killed, some burning to death. They were spat upon, and verbally abused.

Presently the hotels are half empty at best, and the population suffers because of the actions of a the extreme factions who now live silently with the Hindus. There is little assistance from the govt and the poor people live in fear themselves. Corruption runs rampant with police and officials.

What about the extremists in Egypt who attack western tour busses, etc, some by AK, others by grenades. Is that about oil? Its about anti-western culture again fed by extreme values.

Name me one Muslim country which lives in harmony and is in total peace? Which accepts the west as it is.

So does the Islamic terrorists who fight in the Philipinnes, killing civvys and destroying churches about killing Christian philipinos and oil. yes on teh Christians, and no on the oil, as its about establishing a fundimentalist extreme Islamic culture and state, as it is in Indonesia, etc.

The Indonesian govt is fearful of even prosecuting extremeists for fear it may fan an epidemic of fundimentalists, causing a civil war.

I live in the region, and I know. The Australian war against terror has got nothing to do with the price of crude oil. Nothing. Its a war against a culture and religion of extremists. 

Australians are proud of what they have done to save a local neighbour. We fought the Japs on Timor, and many of our Diggers were PoWs til 1945 at the hands of a ruthless enemy. Many Timorese assisted our Diggers and saved many, sadlt the japanese killed many locals to put the fear into them. 

Thats how it is, and I am not brainwashed by far, but if you want to go ahead thinking that, thats okay Brad.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## winchable (18 Mar 2004)

I can name one country, not that this matters much.
The country of MY family, Oman.

And it‘s not a religion of extremists, it‘s extremists of a religion, the extremists still being the minority.

And please guys this thread is quickly becoming about religion, the one topic people will NEVER agree on, any attempts to do so is the cyber equivalent of taking your head and repeatedly banging it off a wall.

So back to Spain perhaps? Or just let it be.


----------



## 1feral1 (18 Mar 2004)

They might be the minority Che, but they are on the news and are vastly growing in numbers throught the muslim world everday. You cant deny that.

If this extremest defiance is not about religion, than whats it about?

Regards,

Wes


----------



## winchable (18 Mar 2004)

It‘s about religion and culture, I would not argue that fact. Being featured on the news is a form of selective coverage, the news media (yeah,yeah evil media etc.) chooses to cover the minority of extremists who blow themselves to bits in the name of God, while largely ignoring the HUGE portion of Muslims who simply want to exist like anyone from the west.
They don‘t cover the vast majority Muslims who teach, who run shops, who are doctors, lawyers and social advocates. 
I might not deny that they are featured on the news, and perhaps they are growing, but they are becoming an increasingly isolated sect of Islam. 

The general population of Muslims have grown tired, and want peace like anyone else (Islam, it CANNOT be stressed enough, IS a religion of peace, despite extremist interpretation)

While many Muslims might not like many things about the western culture(revealing clothing, drugs, alcohol, pre-marital sex) the majority are not going to war over it.


----------



## pte anthony (18 Mar 2004)

I never even read this thread but heres what I think. I hate terrorists OBVIOUSLY I am not the only one with that opinon, but, regardless of religion or ethnicity they are terrorists and are highly motivated well funded and trained individuals working together for a common goal (as twisted as their goal may be but it is a goal none the less). Think about the fact that the election in Spain was to take place a few days after the attack on the train and the opposition was running on the platform  that they would bring the troops home. Do you think the attack was just a coincidental **** no it was part of a well organized effort to sway the voting public to vote in a way that would benifit the terrorists and their cause. PS **** religion it divides us all     (that is just my opinon)   :soldier:


----------



## 1feral1 (18 Mar 2004)

Mate, take 15 mins and comb thru the thread, it has some interesting arguments put forth by ‘both‘ sides, then you make up your mind for yourself.

The attack on Spain was a long time coming, kept secret, well planned and organised, and no doubt to hope that the general populus would emotionally vote the current govt out. Hence a victory for AQ and other Islamic extremists throught the world. 

BTW Australia has a fedral election this yr, maybe as ealy as August. USA this yr, and what about Canada? Humm, time will tell, and who knows where the next cowardly atatck will be?

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## winchable (18 Mar 2004)

Rumour has it PM is planning on calling an election shortly after the conservatives pick their new leader;


----------



## 1feral1 (18 Mar 2004)

Che, 

Even the Muslim leader of Australia, know as the Mufti, has condoned the use of suicide bombers to get their point accross, and has condemmed the USA and its allies for actions in the ME, post 11 Sep.. 

Recently at a visit to Lebannon he spoke of Hezbellah, saying it was an organization which is truly Lebanese, and speaks for all of Lebannon. And he is supposed to be a moderate. 

Shiek El Hilally, was at one time almost removed freom Australia for his radicalism, but somehow made a deal with the Keating govt for a residency visa. Thats 20yrs ago, and he still needs a translator.

He was recently arrested in the suburb of Wiley Park (for driving without a license and an unregistered vehicle), a dangerous muslim ghetto in Sydney, were police INT said he was packing an unregistered handgun. He refused to be searched, and more police were called in as Muslim finatics swarmed and threatened the police to let him go. 

A dangerous situation was at hand. The police numbering about 30, and a crownd of over 100 gathered, chanting and acting like something you would see in Palestine. Pretty scazry. Somehow the police got him, and took him in, and things defused, but its hard to comprehend, that the mentality such as this exists in Australia.

So what do you think of that? its a giant time bomb here, and anyone would be crazy to drive thru these places. We drove thru in an Army convoy enroute to  Singleton, and did we ever get soem serious bad looks. If there would have been one or two vehicles, we may have had some serious problems. Guns and drugs are rampant in these places.

Cheers,

wes


----------



## 1feral1 (18 Mar 2004)

Here is another incident. Its the law here in NSW to have a fishing license, swarms of muslims on weekends go to some great places, one being Darook Park, Gunamatta Bay in Cronulla, on Sydneys southern beaches.

The muslims force the mainstream Aussies out with threats and intimadation. Some have been stabbed, had guns pointed at them, our wives and girlfriends insulted for their dress, and other not so nice stuff.

The park rangers wont even go in and check for fishing licenses for fear of being attacked, and also because of complaint of racism for interfering with a large group of ehtnics, as they would be saying "why are you singling us out". Hundreds can be seen fishing, some even in swimming areas, with no regard for the law, yet alone the people trying to swim.

I was there with my girlfriend, and we actually had to leave for fear of our safety. We were being followed, and had insults hurled at us. She was wearing a nice beachy outfit, and she was actually scared, and said she never wants to go back.

By Sunday evening they pack up and go back to the ghettos. If this is moderate Islam, I would hate to see teh radical side of it.

Can you explain their behaviour. many brag how their parent killed Lebanese Christians during the war in Beriut, and are proud of it. Mate, frankly I dont want people of this calibre living in my country, yet alone in my city.

So they dont need a license and again they are above our law, using thie minority as a shield and run free do do almost anything they want. do you think thats fair? This is what happens when a power base is formed. Recently in Melbourne an elected muslim wanted to ban pork products from an entire suburb! needl;ess to say it did not go thru, but imagine the arrogance to even propose such a thing!

cheers,

Wes


----------



## winchable (18 Mar 2004)

Let me say something about Muslim leaders; they are appointed by themselves, there is no real hierarchy in Islam like you would find in another religion (bishops, cardinals, priests) any learned person (learned about religion,not neccesarily about politics etc.) can become a spiritual leader. My neighbour is a Masjid, if I brushed up on my Qu‘ranic verse, fixed my terrible arabic which I haven‘t spoken since a child, studied the Shariah for a year, and finally went on my pilgramage or Hajj, I could be a leader too.

Chances are you couldn‘t tell me how many muslim leaders condemn suicide attacks, because you will not hear about them in the news. They still vastly outnumber the few who cling to this notion of radicalism that only drives a rift between them and the layman.

I can‘t comment on the situation with the police and the muslim "fanatics", because I don‘t know enough about it. Give me an hour or so and I‘ll have more on that, but this is the first I‘ve heard of that.

In general I hate discussing religion here, I have to defend my religion everyday in real life to people who are more bent on hating Muslims than anyone is in here. It grows tiring, like I said, debating religion is as rewarding as banging your head off a wall.

Edit-Now it‘s beginning to burn;
What would you have me do? Defend the actions of my entire race/religion? I can‘t speak for the actions of Muslims everywhere, and I won‘t be held responsible and I won‘t allow the majority of my race and religion to be held responsible for the actions of a few.
I can only tell you that despite your experiences, it is still a minority.


----------



## 1feral1 (18 Mar 2004)

Che, sadly he has a very large following, and a group of radical secuirrty who constantly swarm around him, like a bunch of really p_i$$ed off hornets or wasps.

BTW, I wont be editing anything. Facts are facts, and people deserve the right to know them. 

regards,

Wes


----------



## 1feral1 (18 Mar 2004)

Try www.johnlaws.com.au - look for ‘mufti‘ on the site and here a commentary on his trip to the ME.

Also search for australia mufti or ustralia muslim gangs, australia muslim crime

I could give a stuff, for anyone condemming me of being a RC, or a christain for that matter. I put my country first long long lonn before I would put any religion.

Regards,

Wes


----------



## winchable (18 Mar 2004)

I didn‘t ask you to edit;
That was me editing my own statement after reading yours posted while I was writing mine, the many subtelties of the internet.
After reading more about the "Mufti" I‘d condemn him as I imagine many Muslims would, he isn‘t labeled as a moderate either, he is quite radical and is far from respectable. A large portion of Muslims in Australia have challenged his status; last I checked there were 300,000 Muslims living in Australia, I find it hard to believe that a majority of them, or ever will be, radical extremists.

There are hundreds of stories, personal accounts, of Muslims being the target of minority bashing. My point? if we stand here slinging stories about how bad everyone is, we‘re still banging our head off of a wall.


----------



## 1feral1 (18 Mar 2004)

Che, fair enough. I am just trying to get my point accross, and some facts out in the open to you, but do check out my ammended searches FYI.

Yes there is almost 300,000 mulsims in Sydney alone. I dont know of any being singled out for attack here, but I do know there is a tonne of tension between us and them. That too is a sad fact, as it would be nice if we could all get along, and be as one, but that wont happen.

with all the unrest here in Sydney, I have asked for my next posting to be in queensland in 05.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## winchable (18 Mar 2004)

And I am merely trying to return the service Bruce   
I think also you‘ll find if you type in heritage front you‘ll find the same number of people calling for a "Christian domination" or "final war between the christians and heathens"  you‘ll find as many search hits. 
The point is both sides have groups radicals, and both groups are minorities within a much larger group.

Regards,
Malik


----------



## 1feral1 (18 Mar 2004)

Che, 

Check out www.islamicsydney.com and see the antisemitism in their ‘boycot israel‘ portion of the site (loc lower left on page, scroll down). I dont see any propaganda like this on www.new.com.au or www.dailytelegraph.com,au either. 

Why does this website promote hatred such as this?

BTW, I see the mufti is doing some serious backpaddling on page 1.


----------



## winchable (18 Mar 2004)

It‘s not anti-semitism.
It‘s calling for a boycot of Israeli companies products etc. It‘s common throughout the Muslim community, they buy Muslim products (zam zam cola for example) rather than support countries they feel support zionist interests. Some people refuse to support child labour by not buying gap, this particular spin is refusing to support Israeli occupation of territory they feel they have as much right to.

Alot of people do not agree with the occupation of the palestinian territory, in fact this seems 
to be one of the more peaceful means by which they are protesting occupation of what they see as their lands as well.

Rather boycott companies than blow themselves up yes?

I‘m not going to touch either religion/races right to occupy that territory because that is an entirely different argument.

You won‘t find propaganda like that on sites like the ones you‘ve listed because they are not trying to a put a particular spin on anything, nor are they catering to any one group. The telegraph (I‘m assuming as the link is a dead one) is a news service, which has a responsiblity to be unbiased; Point me to any Christian site and you‘ll find they will push their own spin on topics like abortion, divorce etc.

It‘s like comparing apples and oranges.


----------



## 1feral1 (18 Mar 2004)

As they say one mans terr, is another mans  freedomfighter, and whatever it is its inappropaite for such a thing to have in Australia. i dont care if was in Palestine, but its in bad taste here, and boycotting things as johnson products, coke, and a heaps of other things which are more USA than Isreal. i find it simply in bad taste, thats all.

regards,

Wes


----------



## 1feral1 (18 Mar 2004)

try www.dailytelegraph.com.au

cheers,

Wes


----------



## winchable (18 Mar 2004)

I don‘t know if I would lump boycotters in with terrorists;
Thanks mate got the bug worked out of the Link right quick.

Bad taste, perhaps, but I‘m sure the people living in permanent refugee camps find that in bad taste too. It‘s a painful argument that‘s really just one giant circle.

This is over my head however; For all my worth and moderate knowledge of these things, I cannot even begin to comment on the situation in Israel/Palestine, and any campaigns surrounding it.


----------



## 1feral1 (18 Mar 2004)

I view the islamicsydney site as news site for muslims, and not as religious site at all, so i would direcly compare it to any such similar site I have added here.

Boycotting and terrorism have really nothing in cxommon, but it can be seen to be in support of the bad guys.

I too wont be commenting on the Israel/palestine thing in the ME, but recently here in Sydney the PLO had a rally, which supporters caused over $1,000,000.00 in damages in Sydney, mainly smashed windows, cars, and cafes/businesses damaged, etc. 

Then, in tit for tat style, the Israelis had one too, a week later, same place and no damage, put too much publicity on the news for both. 

Personally this mentality and behaviour abhorent, and the rallies I find disgusting, as its got nothing to do with Australia. 

If either side wants to do this sort of thing, why don‘t both sides go home and do it there, not in our peaceful country.  

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## winchable (18 Mar 2004)

Well a news site for Muslims is still a news site for Muslims.
Find a news site for christians, it‘ll have all the same spin doctoring for different arguments.

Alright I‘m going to say agree to disagree since it seems for every argument one of us produces the other produces an equal counterargument.


----------



## 1feral1 (18 Mar 2004)

Che, 

Thats cool, at least we can discuss this. I have been trying to paint a room in the house all day, and I have got only one coat done, soa s they say here, ‘I better get a wiggle on‘ and get it done.

Have a good day, 

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## winchable (18 Mar 2004)

And now back to:
SPAIN WITHDRAWING FROM IRAQ

Sorry to pull that off topic folks it was, and I the moderator should be ashamed, but I don‘t think that‘s ever been discussed in quite so much detail.


----------



## 1feral1 (19 Mar 2004)

Whats to be ashamed of, Che. Its all linked together whether we like it or not. This is a forum for stating claim of facts and thoughts which are pertinant to radical Islam which is behind the Spainish attack, and hopefully everyone here can learn from it.

I hate discusing politics and religion, but in certain cases its twistedly intertwined, and in this new war its connected, so it should be accepted in this case.

Che, I‘d rahter discuss the fine tastes of a cold beer between us, two allies fighting for the same cause.

Anyways, discussing abortion, and divorce, is a far cry from discussing hatred, and alienation of western countries, being promoted by a minortiy in a western country, try doing the same in certain ME countries, and you‘ll be woken in the middle of the night and disappear.

Cheers and beers,

Wes


----------



## Spr.Earl (19 Mar 2004)

No more relgion,let‘s talk politic‘s.


Now if yesterday we knew what we know today i.e no unconventional weapon‘s,the lies ,ok the half truth‘s from Bush,the US‘s conection‘s to Iraq via the father re. CIA,US support of Saddam against Iran,Exile Iraqi intel which is proving to be questionable.
I could go on what has come to light over the last little while and there is lot‘s of info coming out now.
Would the U.S. and the Nation‘s it got to go along with them would they have declared war today?
Would these Countries have the support of their people today?


----------



## 1feral1 (19 Mar 2004)

Hey mate you are up late, its only 191824KMar04 here. About 25C, and not a cloud in the sky. Finished painting, and I reckon its time for a swim down the end of the road, to wash teh paint off.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Spr.Earl (19 Mar 2004)

> Originally posted by Wesley H. Allen, CD:
> [qb] Hey mate you are up late, its only 191824KMar04 here. About 25C, and not a cloud in the sky. Finished painting, and I reckon its time for a swim down the end of the road, to wash teh paint off.
> 
> Cheers,
> ...


That sounds far dinkum Digger,now go muck out your dunny.   

I just got off work and having a cannie  :blotto:  
It‘s about 3c windy and raining and snowing at the higher elevation‘s.  :crybaby: 

Cheers  :blotto:


----------



## 1feral1 (19 Mar 2004)

Hey SPR,

Its a tinnie or a tube! Haha, Had a good swim, nearly trod on a nice stingray about 1 metre in wing span, one of the tan coloured ones, and they cam in well in the sand. Its almost 2100, and still 23C. Not bad for an autumn day. 

I posted some Osama cartoons (which appeared in this weeks Sydney paper) on my website if you want to go have a look.

To get there do the fol:

1. go to google
2. seach for L1A1 armourer
3. follow the links
4. go to message board
4. enjoy


Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Spr.Earl (19 Mar 2004)

On your bike you!
Stop teasing us lot.
I hope you get a blow back off the barbie and all your tinnies are warm.   

Thank‘s for the info and will do Wes.


----------



## Spr.Earl (19 Mar 2004)

Wes I just signed in and Am waiting.


----------



## 1feral1 (19 Mar 2004)

Dont forget to sign the guest book, and have a look at the albums too.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## 1feral1 (19 Mar 2004)

i am in chat mode now if you are still on - wes


----------



## Spr.Earl (19 Mar 2004)

Yes


----------



## 1feral1 (19 Mar 2004)

Nick, really good to speak to ya last night.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## nbk (19 Mar 2004)

SPAIN please.

I thank the several of you who manage to continue this descussion without resorting to personal attacks, and will try to address your questions directed towards me.



> Originally posted by clasper:
> [qb]
> As has been pointed out earlier, the root cause of the conflict goes much further back than US oil dependance, or even the discovery of the first oil well.  What does a several-hundred year old claim to Iberian territory have to do with oil? [/qb]


Did the united states send troops to quell Al-Queda operations in Spain? Spain can handle their own business right? What does Iraq have to do with the Moors? Iraq was a country under a mostly secular leader who allowed most religous groups to practice (in fact certain sects of Islam were even outlawed under Saddam‘s reign) with no ties to Al-Queda. Now is it more logical to assume that this was a war against radical Islam which was not widespread in Iraq, or a war about oil, which is plentiful in Iraq?

"A war for oil" can be used by the ‘terrorists‘ to make the yanks seem ‘evil‘, but seeing as how they have colonized 2 countries already in the Middle East and many many people have died, is hearing about oil really going to sway the mind of a young extremist? 

Put yourself in the young extremists position. Your friends and family are dead, because they may or may not have been involved in ‘terrorist‘ activities. You hear maybe the yanks want to access your country‘s oil reserves. 

Are you going to strap a bomb to your chest because you dont want to give up your oil, or because of the deaths of your friends?

The ‘terrorists‘ propaganda machine may use oil as a lever, simply because they see it happening, and try to make a big deal about it.



> Originally posted by Ghost778:
> [qb] I agree with you NBK. The Nazi‘s, just like other groups out there use fighting evil as an excuse to further their goals, whatever they are.  When i got married the padre talked about fighting evil and the hardships on marrage because of all the evil in the world. i didn‘t associate him witht he nazi party but others could i supose.
> 
> I spoke about fighting evil. Exterminating it. Going after the evil doers as bush would say.  I‘m not sure if you think thats evil or just a cheap justification for whatever. The nazi‘s were fighting evil, the allies were fighting evil. Al quaida is fighting evil along with the guys in palastine and israel. Everyone is fighting evil today. Whos to say who is right.  Who can tell.
> ...


I‘m glad you realize that evil is completely subjective!! If more people could realize this there would be easier ways of stopping things from turning into problems. The concept of evil is an extremely religous idea which is used to justify how one should act morally in a time with simple people could commit ‘evil‘ acts much easier and have to pay less of a price for it. ‘Evil‘ had to exist then, to put restrictions on the unenlightened masses. 

We are lucky to live in Canada, where our government‘s corruption does not branch into oppression (yet). We have many freedoms and luxuries that people in other countries do not. I am not saying suicide bombers are justified in their actions, but if you had absolutely nothing, no clean clothes, no food, no job, nothing, except  family and friends in the same position as you and a contact who can hook you up with an explosive laden vest. What do you see yourself doing? 

Appealing to a government that will just as soon kill you as listen to you? Well the government is gone now, and in their place is a new government that cares about you even less, and on top of that has sent a bomb down upon your family and friends. Do you want to starve to death alone, on some dusty side of the road or maybe go talk to some people who will not only help you out, but make you a martyr   if you sacrafice what is left of your life for your people. You have nothing to loose. Is it wrong? Maybe part of you knows it is. Do you care? No.

No you are not going to see Canadians do it anytime soon, because we are lucky enough not to be in the position where one would consider it as an option. However it is not so much caused by how ‘evil‘ people are, as how desperate people are.



> Originally posted by Brad Sallows:
> [qb]
> By the same token, I invite you to develop your own capability to reason.  Ask yourself how much of your opinion is your own, and how much is adopted from people who have no credentials as experts on the subject at hand but are thought wise because they are merely popular or prominent in an unrelated field.[/qb]


I accept your invitation, and can tell you I have thought about it, and I am satisfied with my capability to reason. It would not make sense for me to question other people if I had not already determined things for myself. 

The US governments own department of energy has declared that the availablilty of cheap oil will peak within the next 40 years, and admitted that 40 years is an absolute most generous amount of time, and it is likely to happen much closer to the next 20 years. This is due to many factors including increase in useage in the west and the perdicted explosion of industrialization in Asia (notably China and India). 

It is hard to believe because most people have an agenda, but some people do take information with a grain of salt, regardless of which "side" of the political spectrum it comes from. You have no way of knowing that I do keep this in mind, other then me telling you I do. Of course I may be lying, so you really have no way of knowing if I have an agenda or not.



> Originally posted by Brad Sallows:
> [qb] For the money spent to prosecute a war - and the estimates were $50-100B before the fact - why didn‘t the US just offer half the cash and guarantee to have sanctions removed since it was in their practical power to do so?  It would have dramatically outbid the French, or anyone else.
> 
> What makes you confident that more efficient methods of extracting oil will not be developed (the existence of large reserves is not in doubt), if not alternate sources of energy for transportation?
> ...


Good points. If the US were simply to offer them $80B or another rediculous amount what would the taxpayers say? Your right, it would be a deal behind closed doors. Would you trust Hussein to allow you to take his oil for your own country? Would he trust you? I dont recall the Baath party and the Bush administration as being best friends (anymore). At any rate, if you seize a country by force you are in complete control of it. Do you think the yanks anticipated they would have this much trouble? It would be easy enough to justify a war, just say we are going to liberate the people. The public will love it. After all Hussein is ‘evil‘. If he is ‘evil‘ they cant question it. He is evil because he is evil, and must be dealt with as an evil person. They wont have to care about anything else.

New methods of extracting oil? Using technology of course! While we are at it, lets use technology to make a bomb that can be dropped anywhere and will instantly eliminate all of the terrorists in the world forever. After all its possible because of technology. 

Even if something in the field of oil processing got figured out tomorrow, it would have to be tested, and implemented. Unforseen eventualities would come up, but lets assume they are not severe. This at best could postpone the oil crash. Yes I am pessemistic about this. Oil is used for everything in this world. Not just for power or gas. With the increased demand worldwide, along with the shrinking availability of accessible cheap oil it is my belief that it is far too late for any implemented new drilling or processing techniques to have much of an impact.

I don‘t believe that it will be too far in the future that society will feel the pinch of the oil crash. Before the decade is out some people say. I will not bet on new technologies to be our saviour, but I can say I hope that I loose that bet.

I‘m not condemning the yanks for participating in an oil war. They need oil to survive, their economy and their entire society depends on it. I am just condemning them for lying about their motives for this war. Everyone knew they were bullshit, and now they are being exposed, one by one. Its too bad they are getting their asses kicked by a bunch of real terrorists, but this is a war about their future survival, so they gotta stick it out.

Religion is nothing more then an easy way to bend the public‘s mind to fit the governments plans. No one would believe their society is a few barrles away from collapse...indeed if they knew that what would happen to wall street and soforth? Stockpiling oil? Civil war?? All that caramel goodness...Muslims are easy to pick on because they have a small population of extremists who have a "terroristic" reputation, and who are already controlled by the american government. So score two times for the yanks. They are justified for occupying the land and they manage to survive for a few more years while the rest of the world scrambles to squeeze every last cheap drop of the black stuff. 

****! I say lets talk about Spain again but I end up talking about oil...

The old Spanish government was naive enough to believe if they participated in this war in Iraq they would have a cut of the reserves. The new Spanish government likely believes that once oil becomes an issue, the oil fairy will come and portion out enough oil for everyone. After all so many countries did not participate in the war on Iraq, they will all have to get oil from somewhere. They will go after whoever has it then. If Spain has it then...mucho problemo for them...

The socialists are likely concerned about here and now. They want power like any other political party and right now the war is unpopular in Spain, so they have won on that ticket. It would take too long to explain all that I have said, and nobody would want to listen so they dont bother. Victory is theirs, bravo sinoirs and senoiritas.


----------



## 1feral1 (19 Mar 2004)

Frankly, the only thing I want to put between me, and  ‘young terrs‘ is a well aimed shot (or some well layed indirect fire)! 

The price of crude is = to that of GW1. Here in Australia, in Sydney one pays today anywhere from 89.9 to 94.9/litre of ULP (unleaded petrol). 

Victory is theirs, the socialists and radical Islam. The loosers are a western culture who had a knee-jerk vote after the attacks, as I am sure that was in the AQ equasion.

Its not Muslims that are ‘picked‘ on, its the fundimentalists of Islam who are attacking worldwide, from the ME to SE Asia, and all points in between.

As I have said before, its about world domination transfered to a radical Islamic state, thats what Abu Bashir the JI terr king out of Jakarta even says. He wants Australia to become a pro-Islamc state, and he has followers here in Australia who want that too, along with the demise of the western world and culture as these radicals see it.

Spain particiapted becuse it was the right thing to do, as did other countries. I think its the right thing, and besides a new country now will grow and prosper (in time), and at the end of the day, Iraq is better than it was say 1 yr ago.

Regards,

Wes


----------



## clasper (20 Mar 2004)

> Originally posted by nbk:
> [qb]
> Even if something in the field of oil processing got figured out tomorrow, it would have to be tested, and implemented. Unforseen eventualities would come up, but lets assume they are not severe. This at best could postpone the oil crash. Yes I am pessemistic about this. Oil is used for everything in this world. Not just for power or gas. With the increased demand worldwide, along with the shrinking availability of accessible cheap oil it is my belief that it is far too late for any implemented new drilling or processing techniques to have much of an impact.
> [/qb]


The last time the west felt the pinch of an oil crisis (30 odd years ago) there were lots of predictions about oil (and other natural resources) running out in 20-30 years.  Since then many unforseen technological innovations have dramatically increased the efficiency of oil exploration and production.  These include (but are not limited to): directional drilling, multilateral completions, 3D seismic, logging-while-drilling, borehole imaging, bi-center bits, expandable liners, sub-sea completion technology, etc.  I could go on, but I think you get the point.  In the next 20-30 years, there will be other unforseen technological innovations.

While I don‘t think we should be content to sit back and say "technology is going to solve our dependance on oil", it is highly pessimistic to assume that no new technology will arrive in the next few decades, leading to a catastrophe.

Yes, there are problems, but the sky is not falling.


----------



## clasper (20 Mar 2004)

> Originally posted by nbk:
> [qb] Now is it more logical to assume that this was a war against radical Islam which was not widespread in Iraq, or a war about oil, which is plentiful in Iraq?
> [/qb]


The war in Afghanistan was not about oil (they don‘t have very much) and the Taliban was obviously involved with terrorism.  Many people (including the Canadian government) are making fine distinctions about the reasons behind these two conflicts.  I wonder if Al-Qaeda is making the same distinctions?  Might they consider bombing Canada several days before an election to encourage us to pull all of our troops out of Afghanistan?


----------



## nbk (20 Mar 2004)

I did hear about the possibility of an oil pipeline being constructed in Afghanistan in order to help funnel oil to the central and south Asian markets, from Iraq most likely. As well Afghanistan could be regarded as a ‘foot in the door‘ in the eastern mideast. The Taliban was a corrupt ragtag regime which was not accepted by many governments. No one would miss them if they were to be wiped out (save the ‘terrorists‘). 

The yanks have strong military presence in Saudi Arabia, and now Afghanistan, effectively controlling the west and east sides of the mideast. They also went after Iraq to gain control of another country (Saudi Arabia is not directly controlled by them). They now have Iran sorrounded, which would likely be their next target, if they can get Iraq fixed without too much more expense. Once Iran is taken care of Iraq‘s oil reserves can be shipped over land to the likes of China and India (in perticular China) so that the yanks wont have the People‘s Liberation Army knocking on their door when President Hu Jintao (or whoever is in power) decides his country needs some more oil.

Who knows, the yanks may have avoided World War 3 if they can accomplish it.

As well the oil crisis in the USA in the 1970s was due to the peak of domestic US oil suppiles. They just had to reconfigure trade, and import lots more oil to overcome it. What is predicted to happen in the next few years is the peak of the worldwide oil supplies. Where shall the US import it from if it is the same enormous price everywere on Earth? Maybe they will go to Mars?

You are quite right that technological innovations may save the day, in fact using history as your guide, as you stated, this would be likely. However viewing the USA‘s actions and its desprate attempt to secure its oil reserves and appease other world powers (and potential threats), would suggest that maybe they are not as confident as you are in these technologies.


----------



## tmbluesbflat (20 Mar 2004)

I see many of you believe Rumsfeld, Bush, Ashcroft, and the rest of the neocons, in spite of what they said was proven to be fairy stories. WMD bull! People get used to being laughed at, the war is about oil! Not Sadam, not Osama, not anything but oil, the rest is just an excuse to justify the murder of many thousands of people.  The US is terrified that the US dollar is going to be supplanted in international oil dealings by another currency such as the Euro, if that happens the Yank financial community which is based on having other nations pay the bill for the US lifestyle, will collapse. I know some of you are very young, but there are those among you that know all this, it is available in every news paper, internet news, in the world. Every financial journal mentions it every day. The US would rather kill millions than face up to that fact!  Check out a financial program on the internet called 321 gold on any given day there will be much to inform you, and this is just one of hundreds. You must give up the comic book theories!


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (21 Mar 2004)

Rumsfeld visited Saddam in the 80‘s to sell them Chemical Weapons. I think you‘ve been following all those anti-bush hippy commercials too much.


----------



## George Wallace (21 Mar 2004)

What kind of drivel is that?  Where do you get this Anti-American socialist propaganda?


----------



## muskrat89 (21 Mar 2004)

I think they‘re going to steal all of the oil, and silently sneak it back to the US, using ultra-modern blimps. Then, in 50 years, when the oil has run out anyway, the US will have enslaved enough people to keep their economy running on near-100% manual labour.....

 

Man, this thread is rapidly approaching stat


----------



## Spr.Earl (21 Mar 2004)

Lets say if Spain did not have the bomb attack and the Present Gov. still whent ahead and pulled the Troop‘s out,would we still see the vailed inuendo from Bush,even though a Leader has listened to the People.
(When was the last time that happened in N.America?)

Just another thought provoking question.


----------



## 1feral1 (22 Mar 2004)

TMBLUES- BTW I am 44 yrs old with a combination of over 28 yrs service in tow Commonwealth armies, so although I fell like I am 21, I am not.

Take some time to read the entire thread. Thanks.

Wanna know whats happening here terror wise, and see how real the threat is in Australasia? Try www.dailytelegraph.com.au or www.news.com.au

The threat is very real.Finatical Islamic extremism is alive and well right herere in Australia, and it has got nothing to do with oil?

Do a searxh for "sydney terror threat" and see to yourself.

Its just after 0500, and I must get to the reg‘t early today, and when I get home I hope to read some more sense on here, than this crap about oil!

Regards,

Wes


----------



## tmbluesbflat (23 Mar 2004)

The "OIL" in question is not so much IRAQ oil but oil from the area known as the Caspian Basin, to date the largest by far of any oil deposits anywhere. The Americans(oil companies) perciptated incursions into the basin area more than twenty years ago. This was/is Russian and those incursions by ?? supporting Afghanistan guerrillas was the events that caused the russians to invade Afghanistan in the first place.
The most logical (until the demise of the Iraq regime)pipeline route was through Afghanistan. The deals were cut in the seventies, Afghanies get to keep their usual crops, the weapons and etc to be supplied by Guess Who! The propoganda curtesy of the usual Hollywood etc. It is a matter of proven history and is being taught in some very credible universities around the world including, several Canadian Universities, in economics, history, political Science  etc. Invade Iraq serve the multinational oil companies, no higher calling!!


----------



## Infanteer (23 Mar 2004)

Have you taken your pills lately?


----------



## tmbluesbflat (23 Mar 2004)

What motivates "terrorists" I have always viewed the last one hundred years of occupation by military forces to strong to fight as one reason. Then there is this oil that should make the folks at home wealthy, give rise to better education and infrastructure etc. Well some folks benifit but not the people whose agriculture is destroyed their enviroment crippled, their people diseased by noxious fumes, spoiled  contaminated aquifers and hundreds of other complaints ignored or riduculed by arrogant wealthy Multinational Companies, companies that have national governments on their payroll. I think these things might,after a generation or two contribute to people you may refer to as terrorists but their families and their countrymen refer to as heros!


----------



## 1feral1 (23 Mar 2004)

No matter what crap spouts from you mouth, you still dont read the info in front of you!

What does oil have to do with radical Islamic fundamentalism, and their will to desire death as much as we desire life? 

They want their twisted version of their faith to be global dominated, and eveyone else dead. fact!

I dont really think they give a fat rat‘s arse about oil, just bullets, bombs and thru intimdation like Spains caving in, they see weakness as victory.

Maybe the Spaniards voted their govt out because they directed the blame on ETA, and not AQ or similar terr org?

Wait out...

Wes


----------



## 1feral1 (23 Mar 2004)

Anyways I have worked from 0530 (its 1830 now) and I am at it until at least 2230 tonight (bloody L119 Hamel 105mm prefire checks). I wish I could discuss this further now, but it must wait til tomorrow.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## tmbluesbflat (23 Mar 2004)

GW the similarities between Bushes USA and NAZI germany are striking indeed The PATRIOT ACT for one(I believe this is from Ben Franklin"the man that would give up a bit of freedom for a bit of security, deserves neither" Bushes grand father, along with an industrialist named Thyysen was both a financier of the Nazi Party, and launderer of Nazi Monies etc And indeed were the first dollar donors to Adolph Himself, I believe the first sum in about 1926 was some 25,000 USD a princely sum in those times.. They were also finacial adsvisors to the party and were warned by the President to Stop trading with the enemy


----------



## tmbluesbflat (23 Mar 2004)

Also remember that the NAZI PARTY was very highly regarded in the USA, to the point of being a serious political threat. Do not believe that those sentiments disappeared with WW11, it was convenient to hide their sympathies after Pearl Harbour. Just about a month before that a certain highly regarded trans Atlantic Pilot gave a speach about how the people in the USA should admire Herr Hitler and his friend Benito!


----------



## tmbluesbflat (23 Mar 2004)

You need to know what causes a man or a religion or a political movement to get motivated enough to create what you refer to as terrorists. Jihad is not a casual I don‘t like you, it is a reaction, in the case of Mid East religion, the reaction has been coming for about a thousand years, remember the religious nut cases refered to as CRUSADERS! If you do not understand what motivates your enemy he will kill you, if you blindly follow some crack pot religious doctrine he will kill you, so learn or DIE!


----------



## clasper (23 Mar 2004)

> Originally posted by tmbluesbflat:
> [qb] You need to know what causes a man or a religion or a political movement to get motivated enough to create what you refer to as terrorists. Jihad is not a casual I don‘t like you, it is a reaction, in the case of Mid East religion, the reaction has been coming for about a thousand years, remember the religious nut cases refered to as CRUSADERS! If you do not understand what motivates your enemy he will kill you, if you blindly follow some crack pot religious doctrine he will kill you, so learn or DIE! [/qb]


Right!  That‘s what people have been saying.  So explain to me again how oil fits into this reaction that‘s been coming for a thousand years?


----------



## Brad Sallows (23 Mar 2004)

>New methods of extracting oil? Using technology of course!...

At what point did we diverge from the realm of the possible and the likely into Star Trek?  If you want to reassure me of your ability to form coherent rational arguments, resorting to ad absurdum isn‘t helping. 

>Oil is used for everything in this world.

Except everything which is powered by electricity.  Leaving aside the extraction possibilities, oil is important because it stores a useful amount of energy which is easily transportable.  The technologies to replace it already exist.  Right now there is simply no economic incentive to pursue alternatives with vigour.  Why this particular problem (the increasing cost of oil) should be beyond our capability to adapt and overcome, unlike no other problem before it, escapes me.  We need not expect the transition to be abrupt.  As oil costs rise, alternatives will become cost-effective.  Eventually we will reach a tipping point where the alternatives become cheaper.  As we refine the alternatives, they will become even more affordable.  Can you pinpoint exactly when CDs replaced vinyl and DVDs replaced VHS?  How long did it take for computers to evolve from "expensive novelty" to "utility" in most homes?  The point these examples make is: don‘t underestimate the rapidity and unpredictability of affordable technological change.  Especially don‘t underestimate it when it underpins the vital aspects of the economy and not just novelties for the home.

>I am just condemning them for lying about their motives for this war.

Most of the lying is in the form of blatant attempts to misrepresent the prewar claims so as to establish in the popular mythology the idea that "Bush lied".  I have read the quotations and the spin.  Were the popular pretexts for war thin and in some cases overstated?  Yes.  Were they lies?  No.  Was the war "about oil"?  In 20 years or less, I expect that belief will be silly even to its current adherents.

I see the latest theory - the "threat" of oil transactions being conducted in a currency other than USD - has been trotted out.

I must be missing something if the terrorists are "kicking ***".  They‘ve "kicked ***" all the way out of Afghanistan and have lost potential footholds in Iraq and Libya.  They‘ve "kicked ***" so much they are unwelcome except in perhaps a handful of countries.  I can hardly wait for them to "kick ***" to conclusion.

Apparently the new Spanish government is making noises about remaining in Iraq and possibly increasing the troop commitment.


----------



## tmbluesbflat (23 Mar 2004)

try to remember that the founding fathers of the USA, stipulated a seperation of church from state, having seen the history of religious maniac from all sides commit murder in the name of their whatever god de Jour. they knew that for the republic to succeed that stipulation had to prevail. The patriot act suspends that stipulation. There is no misstaking the importance of oil, historically or in the future which is exactly why certain world powers have been trying to buy/corrupt/ steal or conquor any one who is in possesion of large amounts. Study economics you will find that the dollar manipulation of other peoples currency is the major factor in the collapse of Argentina, Japan,
various other SE Asian countries. The invasion of Iraq was a forgone conclusion when Iraq signed a deal with European countries, that acceptance of the Euro in place of the US dollar would break the Hegemony enjoyed by the US $ and they would no longer control most of the world based on their dollar. Anybody or country with large holdings in the US has seen their investment devalued by as much as 50% or more in some cases, check gold and silver prices and of course PGMs these have all advanced against the dollar as has the Euro up by about 50% the CDN$ up by about 20% etc. Malaysia (a large oil producer, think Brunei) have begun to go onto a gold standard denying the US $ to rule them. So there is a whole lot more to all this than Sadam,Osama etc The USA has been pillaging on the international financial markets since WW11, which is probably why the twin towers were targeted, they represent the headquarters of the greatest robberies and piracy ever known. We are not talking just cutting a good deal, force of arms have backed most of the deals, Nicaragua, Chili,Iran, Iraq,Guatamala, Panama, Venezuala, Argentina,  West African countries (oil rich) just last week mercenaries funded by a Brit connected to big oil, were arrested in east africa on their way to kill the leader of the Ivory coast, I think it was. Their game plan was apparently in print on the aircraft. This is business as usual so arrogant they don‘t even hide their orders. Well this sort of thing has been going on for decades, the victims are pissed off, millions of them, generations even have died. Think US deal like NAFTA have they ever honoured any of those deals with Canada without vast court fightsÉ


----------



## muskrat89 (23 Mar 2004)

There is no separation of church and state, in the US Constitution. You‘d better read it, before citing it.



> If you look in your pocket U.S. Constitution, you won‘t find it anywhere. Here‘s the derivation of that famous phrase, courtesy of a speech to the House of Representatives by U.S. Congressman Joseph Pitts of Pennsylvania.
> 
> "The phrase separation of church and state appeared in an exchange of letters between President Thomas Jefferson and the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut.
> 
> ...


Seems no matter how hard we try to talk about Spain, we keep coming back to this...


----------



## Spr.Earl (23 Mar 2004)

> Originally posted by Spr.Earl:
> [qb] Lets say if Spain did not have the bomb attack and the Present Gov. still whent ahead and pulled the Troop‘s out,would we still see the vailed inuendo from Bush,even though a Leader has listened to the People.
> (When was the last time that happened in N.America?)
> 
> Just another thought provoking question. [/qb]


Lets start fom here!!!


----------



## bossi (24 Mar 2004)

Yah know, I keep thinking about this ...



> You need to know what causes a man or a religion or a political movement to get motivated enough to create what you refer to as terrorists. Jihad is not a casual I don‘t like you, it is a reaction, in the case of Mid East religion, the reaction has been coming for about a thousand years, remember the religious nut cases refered to as CRUSADERS! If you do not understand what motivates your enemy he will kill you, if you blindly follow some crack pot religious doctrine he will kill you, so learn or DIE!


So, I wuz thinkin‘ ...
How about a quick survey of "war-ending" gambits and nasty stuff that discouraged resistance ... ?

Teamsters‘ Union - Jimmy Hoffa, cement, undisclosed location ...
Vlad The Impaler - heads, pointy sticks, decline in foreign tourism ...
Japan (WWII) - nuke a couple of cities ...
Germany (both Great Hates) - years of war, destruction, attrition ...

The Borg - assimilation ("resistance is futile")

Okay - maybe that last one hasn‘t happened yet in this star system, but ... we‘re talking about finding a way to convince the terrorists to stop murdering innocent civilians.
As opposed to the Borg, the democratic nations have a fairly lame battle cry: "We‘re getting tired of your political/religious intolerance, so stop killing innocent men, women and children or ... or ... or we‘ll get really angry."
(I guess it hasn‘t scared the terrorists enough yet, huh?  Should we say it louder?  Maybe stamp our feet and cross out arms, and frown?  Hmmm ...)


----------



## koalorka (1 Apr 2004)

Tmbluesflat, as usual, a voice of reason.

Now back to Spain...
I was really disgusted by this attack because Spain feeds (literally) half of Morocco. This is how the Morocans say tank you..
The entire conflict and terrorism originate essentially in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If G.W. Bush weren‘t such a ***** he would declare that for any other major terrorist attack on the population of a Western country, the Mecca would be transformed into a smoldering crater, if that doesnt prevent further attacks, Medina would be nuked etc. So there you have it, a foolproof solution. 
Oh, and I‘m glad Israel put that lousy cripple Yassin out of his misery.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Apr 2004)

> You need to know what causes a man or a religion or a political movement to get motivated enough to create what you refer to as terrorists. Jihad is not a casual I don‘t like you, it is a reaction, in the case of Mid East religion, the reaction has been coming for about a thousand years, remember the religious nut cases refered to as CRUSADERS! If you do not understand what motivates your enemy he will kill you, if you blindly follow some crack pot religious doctrine he will kill you, so learn or DIE!


The Crusaders were nut cases???!!! God help us all indeed.

Did you read the latest threat to the French Prime Minister Jaffarin from his mob of rabid islamists?  It was in last week‘s Le Figaro. 

After beating up on the French about the Hijab, (the French were both wrong and stupid on that one)these lads got down to cases. 

Their real beef with the French is that Charles Martel stopped Abd-er-rahman from spreading the gospel according to Mohammed. 

Charles the Hammer inflicted this indignity on Mohammed, blessings be upon him, at Poitiers in southern France after your man Abd-er-rahman marched across Spain.  

The Battle of Poitiers happened in 732.  

Abd-er-rahman invaded Spain in 711.  His offspring didn‘t get kicked out until 1492.  That is the reason the Moroccans blew up the train in Madrid. They were avenging the loss of Al-Andalusia.

If The Hammer hadn‘t stopped the Arabs at Poitiers and subverted the will of Allah then the whole of Europe would now be an Islamic fundamentalist paradise.

Now if you want to go dragging up history to justify current actions, and it seems lots of folks do, make sure you don‘t get off the train just because the station suits you.  Follow your logic to the end of the line.

Poitiers to Lepanto, 732 to 1457, 700 years of western Europeans keeping the forces of Mohammed out.

Lepanto to the fall of Jerusalem in 1917, 250 years of life in the balance as Islam under the rule of Istanbul decayed and the west underwent the renaissance and the industrial revolution.

1922, the word gets out to the villages that Islam is not the political power that they have been taught to believe it is and that foreigners have decided to allow other foreigners to live in their country and, to quote a Hoosier buddy of mine, "there ain‘t nothing they can do about it"

1922 to today, a bunch of frustrated Arabs.

Read history how you like, everyone else does but it is just as reasonable to blame the Arabs‘ current woes on the fact that they invaded Spain in 711 AD, 1300 years ago, as it is to blame it on the Crusaders.

Away back to school with you.

Pook out.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Apr 2004)

Sorry in my agitation I got my maths wrong, from the battle of Lepanto in 1457, when the Arabs lost control of the Mediterranean to the Italians, to the fall of Jerusalem to Allenby in 1917 was 450 years, not 250.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Apr 2004)

And watch your reference to NAZIs. You haven‘t got a clue.


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Apr 2004)

The only thing I hate worse than being wrong is being an idiot, and an obnoxious idiot to boot.

In the rant above I let my temper get away on me again.  In the process I managed to mangle some of my dates, specifically the Battle of Lepanto. In 1571 the Hapsburgs met and defeated the Turks at sea, not 1457, I don‘t know where that date came from.

I stand by my central point, that Europe, Africa, Persia, India and China have been holding of the soldiers of the prophet since 630. They made it into Spain in 711 and were stopped at Poitiers in 732.

I apologise for the gratuitous comments.


----------



## Pieman (5 Apr 2004)

--------------------------------------------------
Spain receives new threat from al-Qaeda
Last Updated Mon, 05 Apr 2004 19:11:40

MADRID - Spanish authorities have announced two more arrests for the Madrid train bombings at the same time as a faxed letter claiming to be from al-Qaeda threatens more attacks.

    * INDEPTH: Spain

After a weekend siege in which at least four suspected train bombers blew themselves up, police have stepped up the hunt for a handful of remaining suspected accomplices.


The letter threatens more attacks like the one on March 11. (AP Photo)
Investigators are analysing a letter sent to a Spanish newspaper. It promises "rivers of blood" unless Spain withdraws troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.

"The communique demands that Spain‘s government immediately withdraw its troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, or it will turn this country into an inferno," said Rodrigo Gutierrez, assistant editor-in-chief of the newspaper ABC. The letter claims al-Qaeda was responsible for the March 11 attacks, as well as a bomb planted on a high-speed rail line and defused on Friday.

The letter said Spain has until Sunday, April 4, to end its support for the United States and withdraw its troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. "If these demands are not met, we will declare war on you and ... convert your country into an inferno and your blood will flow like rivers."

Spain‘s Interior Ministry said it attached "a certain credibility to the authorship [of the letter], but not to the threat."

Written by CBC News Online staff 
---------------------------------------------------
 http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/04/05/world/alqaeda040405


----------



## Jungle (5 Apr 2004)

> The letter threatens more attacks like the one on March 11. Investigators are analysing a letter sent to a Spanish newspaper. It promises "rivers of blood" unless Spain withdraws troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.
> 
> "The communique demands that Spain‘s government immediately withdraw its troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, or it will turn this country into an inferno," said Rodrigo Gutierrez, assistant editor-in-chief of the newspaper ABC. The letter claims al-Qaeda was responsible for the March 11 attacks, as well as a bomb planted on a high-speed rail line and defused on Friday.
> 
> The letter said Spain has until Sunday, April 4, to end its support for the United States and withdraw its troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. "If these demands are not met, we will declare war on you and ... convert your country into an inferno and your blood will flow like rivers."


This is called "exploiting success".


----------



## 1feral1 (5 Apr 2004)

Hate to say I told ya so. The terrs see Spain as weak, and now are ‘extorting‘ them to leave Afghanistan or more bombs will follow. Goes to show you the desperate mentality of them. 

We as a whole must stand and fight ‘over there‘ before it comes to our shores, but sadly we know they are here, wating orders. Waitng to create a sickening rein of terror not on our doorstep, but in our living rooms.

The Spainards are freaked out in regards to the bombing of the block of flats in suburbia the other day, in which the terrs shouting ‘allah akbar‘ blew themselves up along with one policeman.

If it can happen there, it can happen in our countries too. Canada and Australia are not immune to this terror.

Regards,

Wes


----------



## bossi (9 Apr 2004)

... and it just keeps getting better, and better ...



> Video Found in Madrid Apartment Rubble
> 
> MADRID, Spain - A video found in the rubble of an apartment where suspects in the Madrid train bombings blew themselves up warns Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq and Afghanistan in a week or face new attacks, the Interior Ministry said Thursday.
> 
> ...


----------



## K. Ash (10 Apr 2004)

"leave Muslim lands immediately," 

Do you know if Iraq is all they are referring to here?


----------

