Fighting & Winning The Global War on Terror (WW IV)

[CivU]

"I don't know where you are getting your information. A lot of them  'poor local people' (as you put it) are carrying RPGs and AKs, and would KILL you because not who you are, but who you represent. The west."

I find this interesting.  Perhaps what we represent, as the west, is rooted in our history.  Whether this invasion of Iraq is ostensibly based on fighting terrorism or a struggle between the West and extremist Islam as some have suggested, the vision of the West (a term used to essentially describe Christianity) is based around a history of crusades that led to bloodshed, torture and widespread destruction of then Middle East by devout Christians on a pilgrimage to the holy land...For there to exist a resentment should not surprise anyone...We resent terrorists we associate with extremist Islam for murdering our people in our land; we cannot not ignore the hypocrisy of simply labelling it extremism as the only reason for the tension...

 

[1feral1]

Sorry 48. 'Stains' like this 'boy' really set me off like a bank of claymores ( no, Mackenzie 'bank' has got nothing to do with money either)!

Wes

 

[McG]

If the UN decrees it as being necessary, then I will support it and trust in their wisdom.

Im inclined to trust in the United Nations security council over donald rumsfeld.

That is fine, but you are not in the UN Forces and the US Forces.  You are in the CF and the Canadian government will decide where you go (even if the UN does not involve itself).  Are you sure you want to be in the Canadian Forces?

CivU,
"The West" is not "essentially Christianity"

 

[jmackenzie_15]

All I meant to bring up about egypt and syria was that they were examples of countries with terrorist organizations IN them. Iraq never had one, so whats the deal? thats all im saying.IMO, <- for clarification, not the in my opinion abbreviation, the invasion was a mistake, a waste of resources that could have been better spent.. not to mention the loss of human life already at ridiculous numbers.

Currently, I agree iraq needs to be stabilized, but i dont think its something the americans arent able to handle but only time will tell.The americans are in it for the long haul anyway, theres no feisable way they could withdraw anytime soon.If they want canadians to help organize elections? good.If they want us to help distribute humanitarian aid? great.Just dont send our troops into harms way when its not necessary.This is all kindof theoretically speaking anyway, since I doubt we have the capacity to deploy any combat troops overseas for an extended time period anyway =/

in theory there is no right or wrong.We have our culture, they have theirs.And im fully aware they would attack me just as soon as an american.Theyre brown, we arent.They see whitey, they go on a warpath. the end.I just think there must be a more effective way of dismantling this terrorist network than sending combat troops to iraq to battle insurgents, thats all.

I like to think I live in a country of educated and morally and ethically sound people.The Prime Minister is supposed to speak for the people.If the majority of the country decided to send us to iraq, then it would be my duty to do so, as a canadian, to defend the interests of the country.Although I really do not see it happening =p

 

[Infanteer]

I find this interesting.  Perhaps what we represent, as the west, is rooted in our history.  Whether this invasion of Iraq is ostensibly based on fighting terrorism or a struggle between the West and extremist Islam as some have suggested, the vision of the West (a term used to essentially describe Christianity) is based around a history of crusades that led to bloodshed, torture and widespread destruction of then Middle East by devout Christians on a pilgrimage to the holy land...For there to exist a resentment should not surprise anyone...We resent terrorists we associate with extremist Islam for murdering our people in our land; we cannot not ignore the hypocrisy of simply labelling it extremism as the only reason for the tension...

Spare us the quote from your sociology textbook and get to the point.

Are you assuming that everything revolves around the Crusades, despite the fact that:

1) The Crusades were merely one of a series of bloody invasions of the Middle East during the Middle Ages (why hasn't a Jihad been called against the Mongolians?)

2) Most of the Islamic World wasn't involved in the Crusades (By this time, the schism of Islam was moving along quite well).

3) Conflict, bloodshed, torture, and widespread destruction were perpetrated by all groups, both on each other and upon themselves (4th Crusade ring a bell?), throughout centuries.  How do the Crusades determine outlook when struggles in Spain and the Balkans were equally as brutal.  To assume that the Crusades have some mythical value to people in the Middle East is dumbing down a complex issue.

But I guess this fits with you beloved "It's All The West's Fault" theory, doesn't it  :

 

[1feral1]

"I don't know where you are getting your information. A lot of them  'poor local people' (as you put it) are carrying RPGs and AKs, and would KILL you because not who you are, but who you represent. The west."

I find this interesting.  Perhaps what we represent, as the west, is rooted in our history.  Whether this invasion of Iraq is ostensibly based on fighting terrorism or a struggle between the West and extremist Islam as some have suggested, the vision of the West (a term used to essentially describe Christianity) is based around a history of crusades that led to bloodshed, torture and widespread destruction of then Middle East by devout Christians on a pilgrimage to the holy land...For there to exist a resentment should not surprise anyone...We resent terrorists we associate with extremist Islam for murdering our people in our land; we cannot not ignore the hypocrisy of simply labelling it extremism as the only reason for the tension...

If they will MURDER an English born 60yr old female CARE worker (married to an Iraqi), who has lived in Iraq for 30 yrs, this is another example of hatred for westerners pure and simple.

Amoung many other reasons, its a hatred against what we have and how we do things. I have lived it all too often, had my GF spat at and called a slut for dressing western, and other confrontations, sadly right here in my own country, where residents are forced away from their favourite haunts by large groups of muslims with VERY bad attitudes.

Dont get me wrong, I am not tarring the whole lot, as most here in Australia just want what we do, jobs, harmony and and family, and the normal things in life.

We have many radical Islamic terrs in gaol right now, and one currently on trail. we know we are targeted, with our own PM saying its not if, but when. The govt has taken the threat seriously, and we are at an elevated threat right now.

The 89 Aussies murdered at the Sari and Paddy's nightclubs were chosen for the music, dress, and booze, and our culture in general, all of which RADICALl Islam hates with extreme prejudice, and this was before our involvement in Iraq. It was also for our large involvment in Timor L'este, which the CF also was in on too.
Anyways, I must get going or Nancy (Super Sunray) will be on my case. Gotta by some wine a pick up two Pizzas from Gillies on the Kingsway.

Anti-westernism or Anti-Australianism is alive and well right here in our own country.

Wes

 

[Acorn]

OK, my final point tonight.

Apparently you are misinformed about terrorism and organisations in certain countries. Yes, Syria has a few terrorist orgs HQ'ed in Damascus. There are also terrorist orgs in Syria and Egypt which are against the present gov'ts - the Muslim Brotherhood in both cases.

A point worth noting is that Saddam's gov't provided $25000US cash to the families of suicide bombers. As well, a number of terrorist leaders (Abu Nidal, for example) were granted sanctuary in Baghdad.

As to your loyalties, I would recommend getting out of the mob. One of the things we have to accept is civilian control. That may well mean descisions that we don't agree with. If you aren't able to do your duty should the elected gov't of Canada order you to Iraq I would suggest that you are deluded about your profession.

Acorn

 

[Infanteer]

The 89 Aussies murdered at the Sari and Paddy's nightclubs were chosen for the music, dress, and booze, and our culture in general, all of which RADICALl Islam hates with extreme prejudice, and this was before our involvement in Iraq. It was also for our large involvment in Timor L'este, which the CF also was in on too.

In an effort to switch gears....

Interesting enough, perhaps that is not the case, at least not according to "Anonymous":

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1574888498/qid=1103264233/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/104-5532402-6336758

I've yet to read the book, although I am going to pick it up for the fact that it is a different approach to the issue from a person who has dealt with it first-hand.

 

[48Highlander]

All I meant to bring up about egypt and syria was that they were examples of countries with terrorist organizations IN them. Iraq never had one, so whats the deal? thats all im saying.IMO, <- for clarification, not the in my opinion abbreviation, the invasion was a mistake, a waste of resources that could have been better spent.. not to mention the loss of human life already at ridiculous numbers.

    Actually there WERE terrorists organizations training in Iraq, but they weren't closely linked to Sadam like the US implied.  In addition, once the war got rolling, the majority of the "insurgents" were foreigners who came to Iraq to fight the US.

in theory there is no right or wrong.We have our culture, they have theirs.And im fully aware they would attack me just as soon as an american.Theyre brown, we arent.They see whitey, they go on a warpath. the end.I just think there must be a more effective way of dismantling this terrorist network than sending combat troops to iraq to battle insurgents, thats all.

    Just when I think you've hit bottom, you start digging again.

 

[CivU]

"Spare us the quote from your sociology textbook and get to the point.

Are you assuming that everything revolves around the Crusades, despite the fact that:

1) The Crusades were merely one of a series of bloody invasions of the Middle East during the Middle Ages (why hasn't a Jihad been called against the Mongolians?)

2) Most of the Islamic World wasn't involved in the Crusades (By this time, the schism of Islam was moving along quite well).

3) Conflict, bloodshed, torture, and widespread destruction were perpetrated by all groups, both on each other and upon themselves (4th Crusade ring a bell?), throughout centuries.  How do the Crusades determine outlook when struggles in Spain and the Balkans were equally as brutal.  To assume that the Crusades have some mythical value to people in the Middle East is dumbing down a complex issue.

But I guess this fits with you beloved "It's All The West's Fault" theory, doesn't it "



I see you easily confuse history and sociology, but as you suggest to many people on this forum, I think there's enough information out there to differentiate between the two so I'm certain someone who spends as much time on the internet as you can easily find it...

As far as the crusades being the only piece in a complicated puzzle, I never suggested this; however, I did offer one reason for the ongoing conflict between "The West" and "Extremist Islam", and while I understand that the West is not essentially Christianity, I do believe that is a significant point of contention between the two forces at work...

Our history plays a significant part in this conflict, not unlike the present events will undoubtedly play a significant role in perpetuating this tension long into the future.  And while you insist on ridiculing anyone whose views are not consistent with yours, which tends to take away from the potential for intelligent debate that exists on this forum, I feel that pointing out that the West is not without fault in the present conflicts that exist between "The West" and any other contentious forces around the globe is neither a radical leftist view, nor is it unrealistic by any means.  I'm reminded of the George Santyana quote, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

As far as, "Theyre brown, we arent.They see whitey, they go on a warpath. the end."

While you had some things to say that were worth consideration, this inarticulate rant absolves your statements of any credibility.  For me, a persons skin pigmentation does not initiate a violent episode, if this is the case for you, then I hope the end implies the conclusion of your messages...

 

[1feral1]

They see whitey, they go on a warpath.

Why am I responding to an idiot?

Do you really think all Iraqis are brown, or Muslim? Plenty of Christians there too (or havent you heard some of their churchs have been bombed by insurgents and plenty have been murdered).

Muslims like all religions come in more than the colour brown  :, and they are found in every corner of the world. There are plenty of white and asian muslims too. No matter what colour, its the radical extremist who hates us, and there has been many white radicals extremists too.

 

[jmackenzie_15]

As to your loyalties, I would recommend getting out of the mob. One of the things we have to accept is civilian control. That may well mean descisions that we don't agree with. If you aren't able to do your duty should the elected gov't of Canada order you to Iraq I would suggest that you are deluded about your profession

^ In reality would I do it, yes.Would I hate it for the rest of my life assuming i wasnt killed, yes.Just as many of the marines over there already hate every second of it and dont beleive in anything theyre doing over there.

It's a matter of time before Canada is severely attacked by terrorists, our security is simply.. well, almost non existant in some places, and I fail to beleive that enemies of western culture would simply pass up such a target.I live in the maratimes, a place not really defended very well in terms of security from terrorism, and includes many valid targets.International shipping ports, internation airports, ... the halifax waterfront is also one of the least guarded ports on the eastern side of north america.The crappy thing is, you cant really deploy somewhere to fight these people, therye everywhere and nowhere.

It's just a big pile of crap that I cant even begin to explain, it would take forever to even try to understand it all and frankly it makes my head hurt.I think it's going to get a lot worse before it get's any better, but ive never really been much of an optimist.

I'm powerless to affect the spinning of the earth and the happenings that are giong to happen , so Im just blowing hot air like everyone else.Might as well just let it happen and deal with it when it comes.

The things you start to say at 2am.Whatever.Have a good night.

 

[jmackenzie_15]

Wes, you would think that someone of such a higher intellect than I, you would understand the concept of a generalization.Obviously im aware not all muslims or arabs are brown etc, theres no need to get super critical over ... you know what, forget it.I thought you had to go pick up a pizza?

 

[Infanteer]

I see you easily confuse history and sociology, but as you suggest to many people on this forum, I think there's enough information out there to differentiate between the two so I'm certain someone who spends as much time on the internet as you can easily find it...

I'm touched, thanks for pointing out the deepest inadequacies of my life.

As far as the crusades being the only piece in a complicated puzzle, I never suggested this; however, I did offer one reason for the ongoing conflict between "The West" and "Extremist Islam", and while I understand that the West is not essentially Christianity, I do believe that is a significant point of contention between the two forces at work...

Our history plays a significant part in this conflict, not unlike the present events will undoubtedly play a significant role in perpetuating this tension long into the future.  And while you insist on ridiculing anyone whose views are not consistent with yours, which tends to take away from the potential for intelligent debate that exists on this forum, I feel that pointing out that the West is not without fault in the present conflicts that exist between "The West" and any other contentious forces around the globe is neither a radical leftist view, nor is it unrealistic by any means.  I'm reminded of the George Santyana quote, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

For the sake of satisfying your lofty position on the top of the moral and intellectual pyramid, I'll bite.

I won't argue against the notion that history plays a significant role in determining present behaviours.   I've argued for it before - heck, I've seen it first hand, listening to some Croat yammer on about murdering Serbs to avenge some long-held grudge.  

But the fact that your point revolved around the idea that current attitudes are "based around a history of crusades that led to bloodshed, torture and widespread destruction of then Middle East by devout Christians on a pilgrimage to the holy land" seems to be nothing but an attempt to load culpability upon the United States (and the West in general) for the actions of marauding feudal warriors 8 centuries ago.   You follow that up with the point that "For there to exist a resentment should not surprise anyone...We resent terrorists we associate with extremist Islam for murdering our people in our land; we cannot not ignore the hypocrisy of simply labelling it extremism as the only reason for the tension..." seems to be an "out" for fanatics - "They do it because we raped and pillaged them in during the Crusades."

Are you sure I'm the one confusing history here?   Is the Crusades the only event of "bloodshed, torture and widespread destruction" - if it isn't, why are you bringing it up as an indictment of "our hypocrisy"?

I would contend that contemporary events play a far bigger role in current attitudes.   Rather then reading Edward Said, I think insurgents or fanatics are apt to form a viewpoint based on what the mullah is yelling at them or what their corrupt leadership says to them as they oss them in the path of an oncoming Abrams tank.

As far as, "Theyre brown, we arent.They see whitey, they go on a warpath. the end."

While you had some things to say that were worth consideration, this inarticulate rant absolves your statements of any credibility.   For me, a persons skin pigmentation does not initiate a violent episode, if this is the case for you, then I hope the end implies the conclusion of your messages...

For once, I agree.

J Mackenzie, quit while you are behind....

 

[CivU]

"seems to be an "out" for fanatics - "They do it because we raped and pillaged them in during the Crusades."

I'm not offering an out, I'm attempting to offer a possible reason, one of many, for the present tension between "The West" and "Extremist Islam."  It is ignorant to profess that we, the West, have done nothing to provoke the conflicts that persist and are merely innocent victims...While I believe both parties are culpable, we cannot deny our own provocation, regardless of whether using one such example, the Crusades, seems inadequate to you...

 

[48Highlander]

"seems to be an "out" for fanatics - "They do it because we raped and pillaged them in during the Crusades."

I'm not offering an out, I'm attempting to offer a possible reason, one of many, for the present tension between "The West" and "Extremist Islam."  It is ignorant to profess that we, the West, have done nothing to provoke the conflicts that persist and are merely innocent victims...While I believe both parties are culpable, we cannot deny our own provocation, regardless of whether using one such example, the Crusades, seems inadequate to you...

    Now, I'm no history buff mind you, but I'm pretty sure the US wasn't involved in the Crusades.  I could be wrong though.  I guess George Bush was looking for oil even in the 13th century.  Talk about planning ahead....

    How exactly has the West provoked the conflict?  Because of our "capitalist decadence" and "immoral behavior"?  Are you the sort of person who thinks a woman wearing a short skirt is provoking potential rapists?

 

[Infanteer]

I'm not offering an out, I'm attempting to offer a possible reason, one of many, for the present tension between "The West" and "Extremist Islam." It is ignorant to profess that we, the West, have done nothing to provoke the conflicts that persist and are merely innocent victims...While I believe both parties are culpable, we cannot deny our own provocation, regardless of whether using one such example, the Crusades, seems inadequate to you...

Fair enough.  I won't argue with that.

I would only argue that we should focus on the more immediate casus belli between "Radical Islam" and "The West" as, like I said earlier, I contend that current events play a much larger and more important role.  Nothing we can do can fix the Crusades or any other conflict of the past - however, what we do (or change) right now can have an immediate affect on behaviours and outlooks.

Cheers,

Infanteer

 

[KevinB]

    Now, I'm no history buff mind you, but I'm pretty sure the US wasn't involved in the Crusades.   I could be wrong though.   I guess George Bush was looking for oil even in the 13th century.   Talk about planning ahead....

    How exactly has the West provoked the conflict?   Because of our "capitalist decadence" and "immoral behavior"?   Are you the sort of person who thinks a woman wearing a short skirt is provoking potential rapists?

;D

I think CivU has a case of the Michael Moore'ims.

 

[McG]

It is ignorant to profess that we, the West, have done nothing to provoke the conflicts that persist and are merely innocent victims...While I believe both parties are culpable, we cannot deny our own provocation,

There has got to be a host of better examples you could have used; imbalance of power, uneven distribution of wealth, explotation of developing nations' resources, etc.  

 

[Glorified Ape]

There has got to be a host of better examples you could have used; imbalance of power, uneven distribution of wealth, explotation of developing nations' resources, etc.  

Are we actually coming up short on examples of direct western interference in these people's affairs? Need we go through all the coups and agitations organized and backed by Western powers? That's to say nothing of US backing of Israel. I'm not saying it necessarily excuses terrorist acts but it sure as heck plays a hefty part - moreso than inequalities of influence or wealth stemming from the international system, imo. The US, and thus in many people's minds, the West in general has seriously screwed with these people time and again - it's hardly surprising that some of them resort to terrorism as a means of retribution. I'm not saying sit there and get drilled, but we should at least acknowledge the role of the West in this stuff or we'll just devolve into jingoist rhetoric like the US has of late.