Terrorist Blair, who assisted The US Empire in raining death down upon the Iraqi populace, though Iraq harboured no weapons of mass destruction and posed no direct military threat to either Britain or the US, and is admitted, even by Rumsfeld, to have had no connections to Al Quaida, has regrettably reaped for the British people what he has sown in their name. And his sanctimounious posturing about "terrorism" doesn't change the reality of who are the real terrorists all one wit. And we all really know it.

Dresden was terror, Hiroshima was terror, napalm and Agent Orange rained down on on the populace of Vietnam was terrorism, and so was the "Shock and Awe" demonstrated to the citizens of Iraq. And those citizens of all nations who stand idly by and allow governments to act in their name and commit acts of terror, without lifting a finger to stop it, are not innocents either. It is time for us all to get real and accept responsibility for our own actions or inactions.

Alongside the magnitude of the crime British and US Imperialism have committed upon the Iraqis, and demonstratably through their surrogate Israel, upon the Palestinians, this attack upon Britain fair pales actually. When imperialism and invaders walk upon the earth for oil and other treasure, and to steal other people's lands, they expect that everyone should and will lie down before them and their superior, and self-proclaimed "legitimate" use of force.

As this unfortunate act demonstrates, this will not happen, and there are those who will fight back with whatever means at their disposal. It was and is predictable.

Better for us in this country, that we should act to disassociate ourselves from the actions of the US Empire and its wannabe associate, Britain, rather than stand too close to them. It only puts us in the same light as them in the eyes of their many enemies, and invites their hatred down on us eventually.

In war, and this is a war brought back to the US and Britain, there are no innocents, and one people's terrorist quickly becomes another's patriot. And the first casualty is truth in the rush to militarist extremism, on all sides.

Bush and Blair are certainly not innocents here, and need to be held to account by their people and the world community.

Well Deebie, the answer is 55 minutes, if we can believe the Tyee clock.

These bombings occurred close to where I was born and spent the first 25 years of my life.
Once again, the innocents have paid.

Barbaric! Tony Blair was correct.

A first step in stopping ALL the terrorism is for the invaders to leave Iraq.

Since the figures are fudged we may never know the true tolls of the thousands already killed, but the Nazis during WW2 had a goal of ten to one when attacked in their occupied territories. The U.S., in its contrived war, has undoubtedly surpassed that.

No more blood for oil.

I am devastated. First Madrid, now London, and next we hear it is Denmark and Italy on the Al Qaida hitlist. Barbaric madmen.

Ahh the classic socialist response to terrorism. RUN.

I can't wait to see your responses when someone close to you is killed by a terrorist attack within Canada. Yes the Canada that has no military,no real pull on the world stage and no role in the war on terrorism will be a victim one day.

But until then we can live in our bubble world and criticize those who are pro-active and are trying to do something about this problem.

Terrorism is merely violence we disagree with, so wrote Lenin. Perhaps the Yankee jugarnaut should focus more on the hunt for Bin Laden instead of whatever they have become sidetracked into.

"I can't wait to see your responses when someone close to you is killed by a terrorist attack within Canada. "

God forbid, that should ever happen.

I'd like to know what your answer to this is, JIm?

Why haven't you signed up? Sure, we're not in Iraq, but I'm sure we could find you a nice gig in Afghanistan. What have you done to fight the terrorist menace?

Today proves that Bush's "fight them there so we don't have to fight them at home" is just delusional thinking.The war against Iraq and the war against terror is unwinable. The sooner all parties involved realize this, the sooner we can stop the death of more innocents, both here and abroad.

Canada is on Al Qaida's list. And there is no protection from religious nutbars like these. Recall that radical Algerians were blowing up Parisians 50 years ago, and events since have proven there is always another suicide bomber ready to step up to the plate. Invasion of Iraq was a serious mistake in my view but even if the US and GB hadn't gone in there it wouldn't have changed the Al Qaida plans.

Just becasue I support the troops and support eliminating terrorism doesn't mean I have to join the military.

Thats a good rhetorical question.

I have a question.

Do you give everything you own to the poor?

I'm sure they could make good use of your house, your clothes, your computer and even your food.

I would like to say many of my family members ride the London transit and luckily everyone is okay. My cousin decided to work at home today. I always feel sad to see innocents die for economic or political interest of others, do we honestly think that our actions will never come back to us. Some people matter in this world and are counted and others are just
cannon fotter. Does any one have the #'s or daily average of innocents killed in Iraq per day, does anyone even count the new so called Iraqi security forces that are killed Dailey. No matter what the conservatives say, the left is right about Iraq. Their was no reason to go to Iraq and now the US is bogged down in an expensive long deadly conflict they cannot win. Anyone with a sense of history knows that the US has a long record of supporting dictators including Osama and Saddam and has always made a mess of things. Canada was right not to go to Iraq and support an illegal war, and Jim Canada has a proud military record (the US stayed out of WW2 until the end) we also spend allot per capital on our military so put a sock in it.

"Yes the Canada that has no military,no real pull on the world stage and no role in the war on terrorism will be a victim one day. "

Hey Jim, visit the memorial at Victory squ and say sorry to those who died so you could give you little conservative babble.

As I read some of the comments above, which basically say, as after Sept 11, that the West and the rich capitalist world got what its been asking for, I wonder how these correspondents will react if they themselves are injured in some future terrorist bombing right here in Canada?

Will they be content to be one of the retaliatory target points for radical, fundamentalist Islam's hatred of the pagan West? If they are missing a leg, or are blinded for life, are they going to blame it on Bush and Blair, or on Osama?

Stuart, we were respected until the socialist hordes got ahold of our country and decided we didn't need a military anymore. We have become insignificant on the world stage and it wasn't always that way.

Why have a strong military when we can rely on the US and Britian then claim holy status and wipe our hands clean when they get bombed sticking up for us and the rest of the world.

A once proud country that did have signifigant impacts on the histroy of the world due to our brave men and women has been reduced to nothing by people like you stuart so don't give me any of that.

Our military power has changed a bit in the last 60 years if you haven't noticed.

I don't think that anyone is saying that the people killed in London 'deserved' it, but Britain is a nation at war. To expect that you can bomb the hell out of a country not have them retaliate seems a little unrealistic.

The point is being made that tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians have been killed with very little news coverage, a clear double-standard. My hope is that if any good comes from this, it will get people to see things from the POV of the Iraqi civilians.

That being said, we don't even know who's actually responsible for these bombings - at least a dozen different organizations have claimed responsibility. Here's hoping that everyone gives their head a shake, and the killing stops.

Not sure what your reading their Budd, but I don't see anyone justifying these acts. But it is a fact that conservatives like Bush are making the world a more dangerous place. Terrorist attacks are way up over the last 3 yrs. Terrorist groups and extreme governments are on the rise , on a recent BBC poll folks around the world thought the biggest threat to global security was Bush. Most folks in other countries do not see the US as the boy scout of the world just running around spreading democracy and doing good deeds. Bush has also been a huge organizer for the peace movement. Bush and his so called war on terrorism will work just as well as Reagan's war on drugs. It was Reagan that said the Taliban was equivalent to the founding fathers of the US.

"Thats a good rhetorical question."

Yes, It's a little like your beauty:

"Ahh the classic socialist response to terrorism. RUN."

Accusing those against the war of cowardice rather than forming their opinion based on logic or a moral position.

For the record, of course you can support the war and not fight it. I find those who are most vocal in their support for this war are generally the one's who never fight them.

Just saying.

"I would like to say many of my family members ride the London transit and luckily everyone is okay."

That's good news, Stuart.

You quote Lenin to get moral insight on the definition of terrorism? It is hard to take your arguments seriously after an introduction like that ...

IMHO Terrorism is violence directed at civilian populations to frighten them into adopting a different policy or to destabilize the state.

Here's some food for thought:
Controversial classicist Victor Davis Hanson in his Carnage and Culture: the western way of war argues that the western world, generally, has tried to limit civilian casualties in warfare, but has no problem with massacre of professional armies. Although there are very important exceptions to this argument, Hanson argues that this orientation toward war has existed in the western war since the Greeks. The west has horrified "eastern" nations through their willingness to kill soldiers.

Hanson argues that the "eastern" way of war is one of ambush, subterfuge and emphasis on civilian targets (again, with important exceptions). The "west" has generally been horrified by their willingness to use civilians as targets.

There are obvious weaknesses with this east vs west model of warfare, but it does point to an important difference in our moral orientation: that the western powers think it is abhorrent to kill civilians, but find it less troubling to kill soldiers; whereas militant jihadists think the massacre of soldiers is morally repugnant and feel that terrorizing civilians into cowing to their wishes is a more moral approach to warfare.

War is pretty ugly no matter how you slice it, but I thought this was an interesting way to look at the dilemma.

Too many of Canada's neo-cons suffer from "victim envy" hence all the Canada is next rhetoric which is supposed to change our support for the war in Iraq.

The Madrid bombings were Basque separatists.

We were told by the Americans (CIA)that Iraq had weapon's of mass destruction, responsibility for the World Trade Centre, attack drones off the east coast and were acquiring weapons grade uranium from africa. None of this is true and the Americans have admitted it. So we have to ask ourselves about the credibility of this source of information. So does Al Queda really exist? The Americans tell us they do but given their track record (like the boy who cried wolf)there is a huge problem believing anything they tell us.

We also have to look at the character of the people involved, primary being George W. Bush who employs such upstanding people as Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld (remember he took full responsibility for the Abu Garab prison abuse but he didn't resign) and Paul Wolfowitz.

Recordings and video can be faked seemlessly. I'd say to this day we do not know who attacked the World Trade Centre or placed these bombs in London. We will probably never know because the plans to invade Iraq got in the way.

Our usual sources of information have discredited themselves.

*sigh* typos, the paragraph in the above post should read:

For the record, of course you can support the war and not fight it. I find, though, that those who are most vocal in their support for war, are generally not the one's who fight them.

The underlying assumption is that withdrawal from Iraq will stop Al-Qaida's attack.

Have you really considered this assumption and what it would mean?

First, you would have to assume that Al-Qaida is completely trustworthy. I am not willing to put any sort of trust in people who obey the orders of a God that says to put C-4 on a bus -- they are fucking nuts by definition.

Second, you would have to read their demands (not difficult to find) and comply with them: complete physical, military and economic withdrawal of the west from territory claimed in the name of Islam by Al-Qaida. This would have to include things like aircraft flyovers.

I don't even know if this is possible, given the number of treaty committments and other entanglements with areas which could be conceivably claimed by a caliphate. So you can forget appeasement.

Thirdly: people who make war on civilians have lost whatever moral authority they might have had. The World Trade Centre and London Underground are not legitimate military targets. Their demands should not be met on principle.

Fourthly: radical Islam is quite right to see the West as their opponent. The values of liberalism, freedom, gender neutrality and the rule of secular law are completely incompatible with the Wahabist jihad. I believe that Islam could be secularized to fit within the norms of western civ, as has, say, Christianity, but this would mean dropping certain tenets, such as the death penalty for apostates.

I think we are quite justified in opposing this brand of thought. I think that even if Al-Qaida was content to Talibanize "their" countries, that it is just too repulsive and incompatible with universal human values to go without opposition.

This opposition could well be less violent and more clever than that advocated by Bush. But anyone here who deigns to whine about concern for human rights while sneering at Bush and Blair lacks either knowledge or concern about the reality of life under Shari'a. If the former, you are ignorant; if the latter, you are racist.

Stuart- I, too, got a sinking feeling this morning when I read in a friend's e-mail from Thailand- that's how I first heard about it-"Hope everyone in London and there loved ones are ok" and thought "What the hell happened in London?" I quickly clicked on the BBC site, shot an e-mail to my uncle, and within an hour he had written back that all relatives were ok. The internet is amazing...

Amazing too, the work ethic of the Brits. I'd have turned around and come home to hang with my dog in a heartbeat.

But it has got me wondering about Canada. How easy would it be for terrorists here to blow the CN tower sky high? Pretty damn easy, I'd guess.

Interesting point Yammer, if this is-as your last paragraph alludes-a war to liberate the Arab people from their religion then maybe Bush and Blair should have said so from the beginning.

Let me add something: of course we should make fun of our leaders occasionally, so if you are inclined to sneer at the dyslexic Bush and, um, thin-haired Blair, go right ahead.

This right is not extended to critics of the mullahs in territories governed by them.

It's also your right not to care what how the leaders treat the people in those faraway brown places.

What I am suggesting is that, if you are deeply worked up about the horrors of Iraq, you place a suitable amount of responsibility on the genocidal dictatorship which never complied with the conditions of withdrawal from Kuwait. Coalition tanks did not introduce the concept of terror to the Iraqi population, however right Michael Moore might otherwise be (for example, that Bush can't talk and looks stoned).

One thing is for certain, you gotta respect the British people. I'm always amazed at how stoic they can be in the face of such horrific events. There was a guy on TV today, still bleeding from the head, in the most calm voice he says, "Regretably there were some causualties." It was almost satire.
If terrorists were looking to panic and scare a nation, they certainly chose the wrong one. Britons, especially Londoners, will not panic.
As for the attack, say whatever kinda chest pounding bravada you want, the fact is if the US and its allies had stayed out of Iraq and spent time hunting down AL Qaida in Afghanistan like they should be, this wouldn't have happened. It is a result of poor military planning. Today the people of London paid the price for an inept strategy to "fight terrorism" fueled by interests other than public safety.

FYI: The following is excerpted from today's Guardian's website ("Al-Qaida in Europe claims responsibility for blasts")
"A group called The Secret Organisation of al-Qaida in Europe today said it carried out the series of blasts in London...
"The group's statement appeared on a website popular with Islamic militants, according to Elaph, a secular Arabic-language news website, and Der Spiegel magazine in Berlin, which both published the text on their sites.
"The statement, which also threatened attacks against Italy and Denmark, said: "Rejoice, Islamic nation. Rejoice, Arab world. The time has come for vengeance against the Zionist crusader government of Britain in response to the massacres Britain committed in Iraq and Afghanistan."
"The authenticity of the message could not be immediately confirmed, but al-Qaida in Europe also claimed responsibility for the last major terror attack in Europe: a string of bombs that hit commuter trains in Madrid, Spain, in March 2004 that killed 191 people."

And isn't Canada quite heavily involved in Afghanistan too? (Which, incidentally, I fully support and I believe that Canada is doing a very good job there.) But let's not delude ourselves: That obviously makes us an al-Qaida target too.

BTW Stuart, there are plenty of conservatives opposed to the war in Iraq (and Bush), just as there are lefties in favour of it. I was also pleased to hear my family in London were not killed or injured — we are all human beings.

Mel, it's highly unlikely that the majority of Sunnis or Shias embrace the "Wahabi" agenda (in fact the Wahabis are distancing themselves from Bin Laden, insisting he is Qutb; I should have taken care not to perpetuate that libel). So it is not a matter of the west vs. Islam, but of a particularly intolerant and arid fundamentalist interpretation thereof, from which many Muslims would benefit. I do not believe that, for example, Canadian Muslims believe that women's testimony should be half that of a man or that Bahai's should be killed. Al-Qaida is a drag on them too.

"First, you would have to assume that Al-Qaida is completely trustworthy. I am not willing to put any sort of trust in people who obey the orders of a God that says to put C-4 on a bus"

But the guy who claims he talks to god and sends the world's greatest military force upon a third world nation is somehow different?

How do we know Al-Qaida exists?

Anyone can post or create a website.

Anyone can make a recording or video.

As I said earlier. The Iraq invasion agenda got in the way of any investigation as to who brought down the World Trade Centre.

AL Qaida was well documented before 911, including a British journalist who went to one of their camps and interview Bin Laden.

Get you ass over there, jim. Stop trying to rationalize your chickenhawk support for your master's voice, the US Empire. Your attempt to compare apples and oranges impresses no one.

"Recall that radical Algerians were blowing up Parisians 50 years ago," rationalized Kurt with deliberate deceit and attempts to obfuscate.

And you, Kurt, remember of course, that those attacks stopped when the French Foreign Legion , the same army that slaughtered the Vietnamese before the US, were all pulled home, and France left Algeria to the Algerians. There is the real moral in your right wingnut bullshit.

"A once proud country that did have signifigant impacts on the histroy of the world due to our brave men and women has been reduced to nothing by people like you stuart so don't give me any of that." Jim continues to rattle on, ignoring the real issue.

Jim, whose basic mantra is, "Do as I say, not as I do." Along with every other Chicken Hawk, chickenshit Brownshirt in the country. Get into the US Marines Jim, and you will at least have some moral, if not political credibility with me.

Get your ass on over there, the US military is having difficulty, and do you know why?

They can't get their own citizens to fight this bullshit war for Halliberton's right to access Iraqi oil.

The US created, financed and armed Al Qaida and Osama, Jim, and he was a good guy so long as he fought the Russians, but the suddenly, when he said, "Now, that's done, let's get the US Empire out of the Middle East.", and acts on 9/11 to do so, he is suddenly a bad guy.

A foreign occupier is a foreign occupier, Jim. Even you should be able to see the lobic in that-, unless there is a purely partisan ideological problem, of course.

Nah! Couldn't be! This is a right wingnut, embarrassing pro-US bootlicker we are talking about here. He's too smart to not understand what is elementary, dear Watson.

ANYONE???

Does anyone really believe that we in Canada could feel safer from terrorists if we had been a partner in a criminal war against Iraq?

As far as the Allied Forces striving to avoid killing civilians is concerned, do you do this with delayed-action cluster bombs, daisy-cutters, targetting TV stations, communication centers and destroying much of the civilian infrastructure? This latter, of course, would have had nothing to do with the later handing out of sweetheart contracts to favored contractors to rebuild that infrastructure.

Sadly, people die but there's big money in war. It's something not much discussed in the media. Let's not forget it, nor that there are beneficiaries also in increased public anxiety.

Ah, but Jim, you see, no one is further left than me, or few at least, and I favour a strong Canadian military, trained in guerrilla tactics and to resist a foreign invader, any foreign invader. And we have a much more serious and threatening potential enemy, closer to home than Iraq or Afghanistan.

You see, Jim, you really do not know what you are talking about lad. The "left", a serious left, serious about social change and the sovereignty of the Canadian people does NOT oppose a strong and "democratic" military-, in the current world we are caught in. We do not so much favour it, as recognize its necessity. We are likely going to NEED a strong military, unless our US friends beat us to the punch and wrestle to the ground their own tiger.

The question is Jim, a military serving whose interests, and under whose real control? An independant power in the world, or a toady to US military power?

Is a light coming on in that dark room you live in yet?

Mel from Calgary,

You wrote:

"How do we know Al-Qaida exists?

Anyone can post or create a website."

Recalling the Reichstag fire, the Gulf of Tonkin incident and of CIA dirty tricks in running interference against popular revolutions, can you say P-R-O-V-O-C-A-T-E-U-R?

In a brief but cogent piece.

Rumours remain, as further example, the Britain sank the Lucitania, blaming it on the Germans, in order to draw them into that war on their side.

And much is still not known about events around 9-11, such that we can say with certainty that the US did at least not "allow" it to happen, in order to provide a pretext for the US invasion of Afghanistan-, where they have long been after the building of a pipeline through Afghanistan, to run oil from the northern 'Stan countries to US tankers bound for the US in the Arabian Sea. Rumours even amongst US intelligence circles, persist.

And then there is the invasion of Iraq which made absolutely no sense, from a strategic point of view, for Iraq had been reduced by embargoes to a fair basket case. Unless, as again persists in world and US circles, that the real objective was to reduce US dependancy on the potential of a Saudi Arabian oil cut-off or upward price manipulation, were the Saudi Royal Family to fall.

Imperialist policy within capitalism abounds in much a history of treachery, all hidden behind the moral highground veil about "defending democracy", freedom, etc., from terrorists, greedy Arabs etc.

Current history like all previous history, and none more than since the rise of capitalism out of the Industrial Revolution, reeks of the stench of bullshit, deceit, duplicity and manipulation.

The problem is, of course, as demonstrated here by our Neocons, that too many people still believe in fairy tales and "official" mythology.

re Lucitania, in order to draw the US into that war...

Coyote

Mel from Calgary that's a really good question... How do we know if Al-Qaida exists? There is no information flow out of Abu Ghraib other than its acts of brutality...we still know little, four years later as Mel says, about who brought down the World Trade Center. We know very little and yet awful big assumptions are being made about who is really at the heart of terrorism.

And then there is dear Condeleeza Rice today, stone-cold and well-rehearsed as usual, and with that American narcissism that sees only its own reflection in everything, saying how America can relate as they have been victims also...really?... who would have known?...they've hardly uttered a word about it...

Yes, Ms. Rice, only America has truly suffered and America alone...the only country that has suffered a real terrorist attack because yeah we've got it, no one else really counts...she then adds...and these poor people in London were just trying to get to work...

I have relatives in London as well and this is a pretty sad, scary day but everyday for a long time now the people of Iraq have also just been trying to go to work...trying to send their children to school and trying to live their lives...and everyday they must traverse the rubble of their broken cities and the terror of their broken lives...over 100,000 lives lost and no relief in sight, and probably not for a long time...so says the shifty-eyed terrorist from Texas and his high-falutin terrorist cell.

Day to day terrorism just doesn't have the same sensationalist appeal after awhile, the same media box office as the surprise attack, like the guy hiding behind the door in any good horror film...Iraq's just old hat now and has become almost invisible.

Madrid, London, Denmark, Italy...

Iraq, Iran, Syria, Pakistan, North Korea...

What's the difference? Ask the people that live there.

Quick factual note here--Mel from Calgary, you said the Madrid bombings were by Basque separatists. That story lasted about two or three days before it became clear that the Spanish bombings were Al Qaida all the way. Those responsible have already been hunted down and killed or arrested. In fact, the Spanish government's initial attempt to blame the Basques (ETA) was considered one of the reasons they were defeated at the polls shortly thereafter. It's a little scary to see how initial media reports develop a half-life and continue on. When I went to bed last night the London blasts were still being blamed on a power surge--should I stick with that?

This is horrible, and nothing short of mass murder. 40 people dead, 700 injured, with intent to do just that. Anyone whose first though is anything else, is just twisted. No matter where innocents are killed, be it Britain, Iraq, or Africa, our first thoughts should reach out to the victims, and our second thoughts should be what will prevent this.

It could happen anywhere, anytime, and acts of violence do. Some are collateral, unintentional, which are still as upsetting, others are done by individuals with disorders, and others are done in the name of ideology.

we look around the world and see conflicts and death every day, and it really sucks. the west could pull its troops in, live isolationist, and setup a fortress around our borders, and we at least would know we are safe, but is that a plan? what do we do about dictators or fundamentalist societies? should we never have gone into afghanistan? should we have left it in the hands of a fundamentalist group of leaders who tore down cultural artifact, stoned women in stadiums? would we have, had religious fundamentalists not been so zealous about US troops based in saudi arabia? should we have let a dictator rule iraq, who had attacked 2 both iran and kuwait, and who had also committed genocide on two of his countries own ethnic groups, the kurds and the marsh arabs? what would we have done had one of the countries not have had a resource our economy depended on? would the country still have been stagnating under sanctions, had certain leaders not falsified things to their own people?

can we deal with power but by power? when a single machine gun can keep 100 people hostage, and a small group can take over a country, what do we do? who is justified to use power, when such situations exists? do we declare war, or do we ignore brutalities because it may cost both sides more? Do we value our own freedoms, do we think other should have them as well, will we fight for that?

i usually like to answer questions, but on a day such as this, i think we should be asking questions..

ghostmachine, that last paragraph was totally uncalled for.

jamezposted: "'First, you would have to assume that Al-Qaida is completely trustworthy. I am not willing to put any sort of trust in people who obey the orders of a God that says to put C-4 on a bus'"

"But the guy who claims he talks to god and sends the world's greatest military force upon a third world nation is somehow different?"

There are superficial parallels between Dubya and OBL; spoiled sons of wealth, yet fervent faith.

That said, there is nothing to compare them, in motivation or in tactics.

Saddam Hussein's annexation of Kuwait and the subsequent reprisal led to UN terms and conditions which his government never fulfilled.

I was never altogether comfortable with the resultant interminable blockade of sanctions, which targeted the populace, not the problematic leadership. Invasion and removal of the Baath Party was a far more humane solution.

Saddam's was not a legitimate government anyway -- not after using poison gas against the Iranians, the draconian methods of its security forces, the campaign against the Kurds, to cite very few of its well-known egregious abuses.

Bush's folly was not to push for removal of this criminal and dangerous regime, but in his stupid use of deceit to sell the war to the American people, his diplomatic failure to bring allies onside, and the clearly inadequate plan to manage the occupation and transition to secular democracy.

Let us then compare this to Al-Qaida.

What does Al-Qaida want? To expel westerners from all lands it deems Islamic; to unite Muslims to war against the United States and Israel; to overthrow insufficiently Islamic regimes; eventually, to unite the entire world under the flag of the Caliph.

Do these goals strike you, in any way, as being reasonable? Does its method of hijacking passenger planes or setting bombs in crowded subways seem tolerable and justifiable?

I think the descriptor for your sort of questioning, dangrice.com, is called "leading questions." They clearly aren't posed for the sake of enquiry or debate, but are meant to manipulate the discussion towards a certain conclusion before anyone else can respond.

Usually they are a sign of scant or missing evidence, flawed premises, circular reasoning and wild, wild leaps. So, to use a leading question, which of those deficiencies in logic is afflicting you?

(In my case, it's a shortage of time and patience for suffering fools.)

Okay, yammer, then does it seem reasonable to attack Iraq for the sins of Al Qaida?

"Saddam Hussein's annexation of Kuwait and the subsequent reprisal led to UN terms and conditions which his government never fulfilled.

I was never altogether comfortable with the resultant interminable blockade of sanctions, which targeted the populace, not the problematic leadership. Invasion and removal of the Baath Party was a far more humane solution.

Saddam's was not a legitimate government anyway -- not after using poison gas against the Iranians, the draconian methods of its security forces, the campaign against the Kurds, to cite very few of its well-known egregious abuses."

See, one thing that isn't mentioned in there is Iraq's link to terrorism, or any kind of assault on American people.

However your second para;

"What does Al-Qaida want? To expel westerners from all lands it deems Islamic; to unite Muslims to war against the United States and Israel; to overthrow insufficiently Islamic regimes; eventually, to unite the entire world under the flag of the Caliph."

Yet, we attack Iraq, instead of diverting the proper amount of militia into Afghanistan to hunt down OBL.

Makes no sense to me... GWB is the one saying god told him to do it... so who am I to quesiton?

te aro Arahina, when in doubt, ask socrates.

Come on te, Yammer has thus far been civil and deserves a little more respect even though is views differ from yours

Coupla points--these threads are really polluted by the kind of bile spewed out by the likes of ghostworld.

Secondly, why must so many of us on the left respond to acts of mass murder by saying, "Yeah, but the US is worse?" What's your point? Can't we on the left oppose George W. Bush and also oppose the religious fanatics who slaughter the innocent? By linking the two things you validate, intentionally or otherwise, acts of mass slaughter. Bush is a jerk, and murderous religious extremists are scum. We don't have to choose one of those teams.

Bush is also a murderous religious extremist. The only difference is that he was democratically elected.

jamez posted:

"Okay, yammer, then does it seem reasonable to attack Iraq for the sins of Al Qaida?"

In the absence of better intelligence (the likes of which will not be declassified for years, if ever), no.

However, it was reasonable to remove Saddam Hussein by force for other reasons: the regime was extremely vile, he was going nowhere voluntarily, there was no indigenous revolution on the horizon, and it didn't make sense to wait for Iraq to acquire nukes -- might as well get them while they're gettable in a conventional war. (As opposed to the radioactive glassing that would take place if the States tried the same thing on North Korea.)

We could definitely argue that Bush didn't have the horses or the legal mandate.

As for not going harder after OBL in Afghanistan (which was Kerry's line), I have a couple of speculations on that.

First, the US knew it could fight Iraq without spending their whole force there.

Second, OBL has or had the tacit government support of two other countries, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. So even if they sewed up Afghanistan tight, which no occupier has ever done, you still don't necessarily get OBL.

Thirdly, even if you get OBL, that doesn't end the threat of the Qutb fantasists. OBL isn't in this for himself. He's got the bucks to live like a rock star forever or at least til his kidneys explode. Nope, the man is an honest idealist! And that ideal (restoration of the Caliphate, purging the impure, blah blah blah) has a strange amount of appeal -- Al-Qaida is not unpopular around the world.

So, what was the point?

Domino theory.

I think the idea had to be, let's kick out asshole Hussein and set up Iraq as a model society -- a nominally Islamic but functionally secularized parliamentary democracy, with human rights and of course plenty of commerce with the West. Then and only then the people of the crescent will see that it actually is good to integrate with western civilization. Then people will turn away from the bearded haters in the madrassa schools, and towards an accomodationist, pluralist world.

That deals with the roots of OBL's appeal, if not OBL himself.

If that was the plan, it's not a bad one. So I hope that was the plan.

te, i actually looked up leading questions, and i don't think i presupposed anything.

Here we go again. Folks of the Coyote and JIm ilk really need to stop with the rhetorical BS and read their history. The bombs have been falling in that area from the Turkish Empire and beyond. One would think the problem started only yesterday. Just remember folks the 'radicals' are fighting a 'war' that started with the muslims defeat in France over a thousand years ago and they intend to carry on for another thousand. They don't use the term 'Crusaders' for nothing. To listen to these extemists and their rants one would think the all lands previously conquered by the Muslim armies of old should still belong to them never mind the Christians and others had prior claims. It was just AQ by another name that was at the gates of Vienna. They have a weird idea that their conquests are god given and all others are not. So what do we have now? A rather nasty perverted bunch of murderers that are now starting to kill their own. Sorry they have been doing it for the past 100 years or so more efficently. Just ask the Algerians. They really could care less about Iraq and its peoples. Their plans aren't just for Iraq or any other country. Iraq is just convenient at present. Listen up folks this problem is going to plague the world for the next few centuries.
PS. Don't forget Air India folks different terrorists same methods and Canada's Government of the day earned a big yellow stripe for that incident.

"First, the US knew it could fight Iraq without spending their whole force there."

But Iraq didn't do anything... as well you can set up a democratic nation in the Middle East without resorting to Violence... we already were on the ground in Afghanistan... why not make that the model?

I don't think we are choosing one of these teams, Steve. We are saying they are inextricably linked and that is the point.

The terrorism that occurred in London today was as much due to religious extremism (if that is proved to indeed be the case) as it is to the policies of American-style democracy/imperialism that have effectively created wastelands of despair...nurturing religious extremism, in fact, to bloom ever more madly...and deeply.

The old canard keeps coming up about all those terrorists Saddam trained. Nonsense. The dictator would've never tolerated such a threat to his power in his backyard.

Comparisons between Vietnam and Iraq are more appropriate to the present US situation than the Ottoman saga:

Probabilities of war prior to the war
Pattern of escalation
Confusing a regional threat with an international threat
Belief that this would be a "quick, surgical strike"
Lies about the WMDs / Lies about the communist threat
Vested economic interests (oil / war profiteering)
Vast civilian casualties
Spread of Anti-Americanism, not restricted to the region
Inability to operate effectively in more critical military theatres (Sudan, Afghanistan, one's own vulnerable backside)

Yes, the fight's been going a long time. American presence isn't doing a bloody thing to ease it. And it never will. Their presence there is causing more hardship, more anger and focalizing it.

They need to walk away. It will be bloody when they leave. It will be worse if they stay and stay and stay ...

4.) As an indication of a high-level plot, not involving Moslems except possibly as patsies and dupes, the United Kingdom authorities, about a hour before the London bombings, cut off most if not all cell phone traffic. Also arbitrarily cut-off was a great deal of U.K. out-going internet traffic. As part of the BIG LIE, are the U.K. authorities, whitewashing Bush/Blair?Queen, going to deny this as well?

Bush and Blair desperately needed some kind of new "terrorist" attack because they were losing the support of their citizens for the war in Iraq.The "Downing Street Memo" was a problem for both Bush and Blair and was not going away.
http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/

The G8 anti-poverty demonstrations were also a negative factor for these two men and the other six G 8 members. So what better way to divert the people's attention than to "order up" a "terrorist" bombing in the U.K.

Probably the most sickening thing of this whole killing event is to hear Tony Blair and Bush call this London killing act "BARBARIC", while the US military has 'shock and awed" with their deadly precision bombs; and had their military BARBARICALLY KILL OVER ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND innocent Iraqi children, women and men, and wound, maim and torture hundreds of thousands more in this unnecessary horrendous SICK "war for oil and profit" in Iraq!!! How can the Illuminati supported Bush and Blair get away with their BARBARIC ACTS of killing on such a grand scale and the People not see this hypocrisy???
I don’t know about the Illuminati part the rest is bang on though
Most of the above is from
by Sherman H. Skolnick
cloakanddagger.de
skolnicksreport.com

An unrelated site and worth the read
http://www.mythoftheinnocentcivilian.com/

Very well, dangrice.com. I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

jeez, diogenes, are you on crack. some of you guys are just twisted and sick. i hope your just being a dick, cause if you actually believe that crap you probably shouldn't be walking the streets.

thank you for the kind words dangrice.com
it ia always flattering to be complimented

That idea of an east/west distinction in warfare is interesting. Certainly jibes w/ my understanding of the recommendations laid out in the book " The Art of War" and the West's history of set piece battles. Admittedly I don't know what advice Western theory has on the subjects of civilians and war. Does warfare in the East have many major battles in its history? I would venture the Crusades are an anomaly, as they were Western battle tactics brought East.

Gotta love the economics of these bombs. They shut down London pretty much all day and slowed travel globally to a minor degree. The dollar figure is probably astronomical. Much better return than adding another crater to downtown Baghdad. Take away our safety in public places and it's removing a big chunk of our freedom. There's no comparable thing we can do to the terrorists and the only way to turn the screws in Riyadh where the real power seems to be, is to turn off the need for oil. Like that's gonna happen. What to do?

my teenage son's best friend and his family arrived in london yesterday and may have been on those trains. we still haven't heard from them, though we've tried. these bombings are a tragedy that no one should be trying to score political or ideological points with. shame on any poster above that has done so. i hope none of you are ever touched by such an incident.

Whether or not you believe anyone here is trying to score political points or not is NOT the issue!

I wonder why it is concern only appears to some when it is their family and friends in harms way while the death toll mounts on all side in Iraq, Afghanistan or anywhere else the insanity of corporate greed appears.

What those of us so far removed from the halls of power ‘think’ ‘believe’ ‘agree’ about don’t mean shit to the reality of what we are not privy to.

http://www.thesimon.com/magazine/articles/canon_fodder/0889_what_behind_london_attacks.html fair use

What's Behind the London Attacks?
The bombing of the London Underground was a false-flag operation designed to keep the West mired in war. Don't believe otherwise.
By Matt Hutaff Jul 7, 2005

Only one word sprang to mind when I heard about the bombings that claimed the lives of dozens of Londoners today – convenient.
Is there anything convenient in death, or in thousands of lives destroyed from catastrophe? No – and words cannot express the sorrow I feel for the men and women changed by today's events. But governments with skeletons in their closets have a great deal to gain from a national tragedy bolstered by "terrorism."
As I sit in my office today, I hear the whispers of co-workers now utterly convinced our war on terror must continue. Despite American and British involvement in the Middle East birthing wave after wave of rebel forces, the Bush doctrine is now justified in the minds of millions. Petty grievances such as the Downing Street Minutes, the President's flagging support and Karl Rove's treasonous outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame are unimportant. A shadowy conglomeration is out to kill us.
Sound familiar? It should – the same emotional ploy was used to great effect on Americans in the wake of September 11th. Question nothing, particularly your cries for vengeance or that nagging feeling in the back of your head. Justice delayed is justice denied.
Unlike four years ago, however, I refuse to accept that the attack on London was anything less than a false-flag operation designed to enrage Western "civilization" against the Middle East. Why? Because there is no reason for "terrorist" groups to attack England. As recently as this week, the Ministry of Defense announced that plans were being drafted that would pull British armed forces from the quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan. With the British effectively admitting they're throwing in the towel, the only motivation to stay could come from an attack that compels the forces to stay and fight "global terrorism."
Think about it. The attack only benefits empires desperate to maintain a foothold in the Middle East without further eroding public opinion. Will Parliament shrug their shoulders and push their soldiers into longer tours of duty because of this? Obviously it's too early to tell, but if that happens, insurgents and rebels will have lost more than they could have ever possibly gained in destroying part of the Underground.
Brian Kilmeade of Fox News agrees, claiming the sabotage "works to ... [the] Western world's advantage, for people to experience something like this together." It doesn't just make "terrorism" an American problem. It makes it a worldwide problem. The Number One problem.
No longer do we need to concern ourselves with two world leaders (who have spawned more worldwide terrorism than any fanatical religious organization) going unquestioned in their lies that started a war. We can cast off our sluggish economies, lack of freedoms and pitiful descent into draconian law. Terror is on the rise.
I feel like I'm sitting in my apartment watching the World Trade Center collapse all over again.
Everything is the same, right down to the previously unheard of Islamic group (The Secret Organization of al-Qaida in Europe? Are you kidding me?) taking credit – even though the translation falls apart under scrutiny and the Q'uran is improperly cited. Considering the only Al Qaeda cell to ever be uncovered was a front for the Mossad, you'd think the perpetrators could at least come up with a clever new booga-booga name to grab headlines. Their arrogance is startling.
As is the ever-present Israeli connection, a staple among false flag operations. Before today's attack, the Israeli Embassy in London was notified an attack was forthcoming. As a result, former Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu remained in his hotel room rather than head towards a nearby hotel where he was to address an economic summit.
The embassy denies it had any prior knowledge, of course, but the story has changed dramatically in the process. If, as they say, Netanyahu was not warned, how did he know to stay in his room? How did he know the danger was so severe that he dare not venture out of the hotel?
Oops! The story's changed again – here Netanyahu says that British police had warned the Israelis (but not the rest of the city?) of a pending attack. Scotland Yard denies this; Israel's reply was to say Netanyahu received his warning after the first blast. How? It was initially reported as a power surge for hours. What is being hidden here? And why isn't there an investigation into these obvious discrepancies?
It's enough to make your head spin and your eyes cross with rage.
Regardless, I am making an appeal to Britons who are understandably wracked with grief at the moment – don't buy into the hatred the way we Americans did. Don't ignore the obvious evidence that this whole affair was orchestrated by your own government. Most importantly, don't let the deaths of the few, however tragic, plunge your nation into another fit of war and civic clampdowns.
Toying with your emotions is expected. Don't fall prey to ignorance. See the attack on your home for what it really is – a distraction that will keep your money, resources and troops mired in ceaseless battle for an ideology that betrays your democratic and civilized tenets.
Honor your dead with tears, not a cry for war or praise for a disgraced leader.
Canon Fodder is a weekly analysis of politics and society.

we're talking about mass first degree murder intended at solely civilian targets, and intentionally hitting in the middle of morning traffic, with the purpose of maximizing casualties, to the tune of over 700 so far.

while i agree there are plenty of sleezy things that have gone on in history, and twisting of events, accusing either Bush of orchestrating 911 or Blair of doing this is just over the edge.

i don't have too much faith in the president's competence, (which should be enough to prove the first theory dead), so don't get me wrong on that one.

The extremists attacked New York twice before the US acted. The US does not like wars, they may throw operatives in there, generally by autonomous security organizations with too large of a budget, but they like mutual fear better. WW1, WW2, it took them forever to join, and they got stuck with the Korean and Vietnam war because there troops were there, and Russia and China were dragging them into prozy wars. Even the 1st gulf war, they only did that at the last grasp. They were super reluctant to do that, but they were afraid of regional imbalance. Did they have greed and economic interest, certainly, but they've always liked stability. And regardless, each administration and time is different. Today's leadership were kids when the Tonkin incident happened.

Afghanistan has been in civil wars for most of the last century,and the international community should have acted much earlier. The problem is, the league of nation is toothless, and doesn't step in to stop fanaticism or dictatorships, neither does anyone usually. Iraq was bungled in 1991, when the US didn't depose Saddam there. They got stuck in a bunch of limbo, as whenever they tried to ease anything, Saddam would send his forces to suppress the Kurds in the North. And then there was friendly France and Russia, turning a blind eye while their companies cheated the people in the oil for food scams. The justifications for the Iraq war were worthless, but do you think the average person in Idaho cares about the rest of the word. WMDs, terrorists were not there, all that existed was a repressive regime in which a select group of sunni minorities was using horrible force to keep the others down.

For casualties as a result of the war were horrible, but I try to believe that they tried to do everything they could to minimize human losses. They pale in comparison to the Iran/Iraq war and even the gulf war. I think they are all horrible, but, well, how do you prevent them. You look at all these despot sponsored genocides around the world, which cause millions of deaths like in Sudan, Rwanda, and elsewhere, and you wish there was more of a concerted effort by the world to act. But the nations so often have self interest, they just never do.

And then we have extremists, who don't have anything to gain, who aren't fighting for rights or freedoms, but who are looking to harm as many as possible. Heck, I know there are no good guys, Bill Clinton shot missiles at Pharmaceutical factories on the day of his depositions. I don't like that either. Heck, maybe one of these days, the whole world will be a single democratic peaceful nation. A brave new world or something.

As for convenient, anything but. Bush has nothing to gain, he's not up for re-election. The economy is doing fairly well, so mid term elections should go smoothly, and the US will likely make a slight troop withdrawl before hand for the show. Blair also, he's won his re-election, London just secured the Olympics, and the G8 was probably going to make some token African commitment to Give both of them a legacy.

First off, I would like to offer my sympathies to the family and victims of this awful act. It truly must be a living hell for the survivors and their loved ones as 911 was in New York. BUT, London is at war. If the people of the UK do not want to become civilian casualties, as Londoners who lived through WW2 became, I suggest they demand that Britain remove its troops from Iraq immediately. War is ugly, people die, and if the populations of the US, UK, Canada etc are naive enough to think that perpetual war (War on Terrorism or as my uncle puts it so well, World War Forever) is going to create peace and democracy than there is something seriously wrong. Global Capitalism is extremely violent. It kills thousands of people every day through acts of violent imperialism (Iraq), starvation and environmental destruction. Some of marginalized and desperate victims of this global catastrophe feel that they have no options left. Then Al Qaeda or other organization pounces. The world is ripe for new recruits… I just had a thought, what difference is there between the Bible thumping crusaders using their own twisted interpretations of the Bible in the white house and the leadership of Al Qaeda using their own twisted interpretations of the Koran? My answer: Al Qaeda doesn't have the most powerful army in the world to carry out its BARBARIC acts. The hypocrisy is sickening. The 40 people killed in London did not deserve to die, nor did the 100,000 (and rising) people deserve to die in Iraq. Did the people just trying to go to work in Fallujah deserve to die? I also hate to be a conspiracy theorist, but the timing of this event was perfect. However, I would consider laying the blame on the CIA. They have been behind some pretty sickening things in the past 50 years. Beruit, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Guatemala, Afghanistan…London? A world in which 1 percent of the world owns 90 percent of the resouces etc is a dangerous world. The chickens have come to roost.

Ho ho ho - amusing commentary, that we know and care sooo much about everything that's happening elsewhere in the world and know shit, care less for what's happening in our own country.

Can't this type of venue be used to find some citizenship, understanding between peoples?

Ok, stupid me...fuck all of you opinionated terrorists. Boom.

Catalyst: Whats with the insults? Are we terrorists because we happen to dissagree with Bush and Blair? Most people blogging here on the Tyee are deeply interested and care about local/Canadian issues despite our political/ideological differences. With the increase in globalization, international events like 911/Iraq/Madrid/London effect us all. What I find so interesting is the very people who gather in my home town to protest War in Iraq also protest poverty, environmental destruction and local developlment issues. It is becasue they are all linked. As power becomes centralized and local control over resources errodes, people become more marginalized, the environment gets wrecked and people become dissolusioned. Then they stop voting and participating in local politics. Then corporations really take over. Hence the current situation in the U.S. Corporations need resources and if those resouces are in short supply they need war machines and then you have Iraq. Local becomes global and vice versa. One of the best ways to protest the war is to buy as much local products as possible. This ensures that fossil fuels are not being used to transport goods thousands of miles. It also does wonders for the local economy. For example if more people demanded local organic produce in BC, there would be a strong mandate to protect land under the ALR in the Lower Mainland and Saanich Peninsula. This would have a large effect on fossil fuel consumption for two reasons. The first for the reason described above and the second becasue the lower mainland would have some serrious growth boundaries forcing Vancouver to densify, reducing the number of commuters from outlying areas. People need to realize that the best method to protest the terrible events worldwide is too learn to better utilize our local resources. However, we reserve every right to protest, discuss and comment on international events such as the London bombings. It is very much linked with our lives both directly and indirectly.

First, I want to note that there is a goodly amount of US opinion showing up here, that while some is the usual Neocon apologist and "true believer" stuff for sure, some of it dancing on hot coals all over the place like Dangrice.com, significant other of that opinion demonstrates a more objective and critical view that is an understanding of the role of Western, but specifically in our time, US imperialism in the Middle East and elsewhere. It makes clear that there is no small divide amongst the US citizenry as well, and its important that we acknowledge that.

Indeed, I participate in a couple of US blogs under different aliases, and know well that many progressive US citizens understand the role that the history of Western imperialism in the Middle EAst has played in creating the current mood of military resistance (the Brownshirt wingnuts can call it terrorism), and religious fundamentalism carrying out events like 9-11, and yesterday in London. (Assuming we buy into that they even really know it was not another sinking of the Lusitania, or a burning of the Reichstag event. Which I, joining with others here, really do not, at this point.) And these US citizens have an equally good understanding of the role their own country's current imperialism is playing in feeding the phenomena in the Middle East.

So I certainly do not tar all US citizens with the same brush, and indeed, consider "these persons" my "compatriots" in the radicalizing of politics that needs to go on in this part of the world, if we are going to turn both of our societies away from attacking and degrading the lives of ordinary working class folks at home, and impoverished people abroad.

And I want these progressive and radicalized US citizens who show up here, to participate in our discussions, to know that I appreciate and value their presence. We are bucking a long history of imperialism in the Middle East and elsewhere, for which our own Canada has long been an apologist and flunky state, and in which all the great capitals of the West (and others) have participated at one time or another, and which have sown much of the seed we are now reaping the harvest of, long before the US Empire decided to pick up and run with that tradition.

The current problem, however, that needs to be dealt with most urgently, if we are going to begin to turn that history and its consequences around, and end ALL the "terrorisms", is that of current US imperialism. It continues to feed the fires bursting to flame in the "current" Middle East.

And for you Brownshirt wingnuts, homegrown and out of the belly of The Beast, who have difficulty getting your heads out of the "true believer" sand and around the complexities of the social and historical realities and relationships here, tough titty kittey. You are part of that problem and history I've alluded to. You are the great apologists, propagandists and enablers who are part of encouraging and allowing it to happen-, though typically, so long as it is some poor, unemployed or socially desparate working class kid who does the actual fighting and dying.

Your opinion matters not a pinch to me.

And actually, I must remark, that I am amazed at how much opinion has emerged out of the woodwork here, from redgreen, ghostmachine, Diogenes (a US citizen referred to above as well) and many others, that sees through all the "official" Yankee and homegrown propaganda hyperbole, and remains unintimidated by the Brownshirt wingy-dingies, and their saucer of water depth of understanding of world and political events.

"The System" of post world war II capitalism changed on us, it was hijacked by the Neocon extremists, and in addition to attempting to create a new colonialism in the Middle East, has also turned upon and begun to eat its own. It's the signal that we must change as well, and look at what rules us in a quite new, more critical and insightful way-, I think. That, or become its cheap labour and cannon fodder.

Coyote

When I was 17, my mother sent me up a tree....
Not to pick apples, but to scrape the intestines of a 11 year old little girl into a box from the branches, thrown up there by an American bomb. 11 people, including 2 little girls died in that house, one who went over to play on a nice sunny summer day in 1944 in the outskirts of Budapest.

The worst joke on this horrible crime is the quotation by somebody way above from some idiot's book that "the West has been trying to avoid civilian casualties in war". In which world ? The whole air war against Europe in WW2 was a terror campaign. The Brits came in the night and couldn't see a thing, so they bombed cities. The Americans came in huge numbers in the daytime, badly trained, the lead plane in every block of 50 shot up a certain coloured rocket and all the planes let lose their bombs, wiping out cities. Hardly any military targets were hit, German military production has been increasing right well into 1944. This is a historical fact, written up in many books and studies. The whole campaign was designed to terrorize and kill the civilian population and turn them against their dictators. However, that kind of damage could be repaired and rebuilt.

Now we have eternal damage done to the civilian populations in countries that have been the victims of recent wars by depleted uranium ammunition,used by US and British forces, probably the biggest war crime in history. The death camps of the nazis and communists could be stopped, but the damage by DU ammo is permanent as long Earth exists. This has been and is being done by so called "Christians", goddamn cowards sitting in planes and tanks, poisoning millions of human beings for untold generations with irrepairable damage.

There are no excuses or mitigating facts for these terrorist attacks, whoever did them and for what purpose. Was it really Al Queda, or something designed to bolster Tony Blair's tattered image as a "war leader" ? Why and how did the World Trade Center buildings collapse ? Why wasn't there a scientific examination of the ruins and why was all the steel sold to China to be melted up in secret ?

If the West wants to stop terrorism, the first thing they should do is force their multinational corporate Mafia out from those countries and stop their economic exploitation with the perceived power of imaginary capital.

Then start a healing process with and by normal human beings on both sides, not these ideology and religion filled maniacs we have increasingly running the world and leading it into more and bigger disasters. Ed Deak, Big Lake.

" The whole campaign was designed to terrorize and kill the civilian population and turn them against their dictators. However, that kind of damage could be repaired and rebuilt."

I agree it is all horrible.. but ever heard of the Blitz? It's not like the Brits didn't get their share.

Can't you guys (or girls - whatever) at least try and keep your posts shorter than the actual article that you are commenting on?

If you say that 'your opinion matters not a pinch to me' or even just simply 'you will shut up', you bring to mind a 15-year-old sitting in his parents basement, playing the keyboard like a piano.

Western alienation? With good reason!

Gee, it’s nice to know that only us Westerners are the bad guys and that it’s all our fault, I must have misplaced my collective guilt.

I had to convert to Islam to marry my wife, how many of you here have sat in a mosque and listened to the crap spewed from some of these Imams? I was in Malaysia in Oct 2001 listening to Muslims there tell me how good Osma was. I pointed out that he and his henchman would happily kill me and my family. He would also not hesitate for a moment to kill them either if he felt he could gain something by it.

The problems in the Middle East long predate colonization of North America by Europeans, what we are seeing with the AQ is result of a long simmering civil war in Islam. The Saudi support of Whabbism is the main source of this violent Fundamentalism. They have been using the oil money to build mosques and require anyone receiving the money to preach their version of Islam.

The US, USSR, France, Germany among others (Welcome China) all used the Middle East for their own purposes and all share some blame. Some of the stuff that went on during the cold war was wrong, criminal and sickening, but it was a war and people died all the time.

The purpose of this attack is terror for terror sake and to influence policy, it is no different then a gang killing a shop keeper in order to terrorize the others. The people who died or injured are like you and me. It is a strong possibility that we will be subject an attack in 2010. The AQ has declared war on the West and they don’t give a damm whether you voted NDP or Conservative you and I are potential targets.

People say the US and Britain should leave Iraq, why so Iraq can fall completely into a civil war, would that make you happy? If the West left do you think Iran and Syria would suddenly stop meddling in Iraqi affairs. The majority of the Iraqis want the US to stay for now, but to leave when asked.

Coyote
You want a strong Canadian military based on guerrilla tactics? I have difficulty following your reasoning. Perhaps you are suggesting a Swiss military model where everyone does military service and keeps their rifle at home and that we fortify areas. If you are suggesting the Vietnamese model, then I suggest that you read up on what it cost them to “win” that war. I somehow doubt that you are prepared to dig an extensive tunnel system or give up your daily life to carry supplies to support the fighting population. Having met Vietnamese that fought on both sides, you would amazed by what people had to go through.

To Cayote;
Your post on terrorism was predictable. If I worked for CSIS I would be looking you up right now. Carl Rove was right when he stated liberals are soft on terrorism. I suspect he must have been thinking of you as he said this.
George Bush is my hero. He has shown me that it is more important to see something through despite interference by the flaky liberal left. Can you imagine what it would be like if John Kerry ( your hero ) was running the United States of America ?
You are truly an enemy to our freedoms. I hope you find the truth soon.
Canada was once a military force but liberal's have turned most of Canadians into pussies. God bless George Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard.

You sir are an idiot.

"Your post on terrorism was predictable. If I worked for CSIS I would be looking you up right now. Carl Rove was right when he stated liberals are soft on terrorism."

Make the connection between this statement and the LOSS of the freedoms you pretend to hold dear?

People like you just give lip service to freedom while in reality you take it away.
Bush is an idiot coward who hid out at Texas whorehouses doing cocaine while John Kerry was actually IN Vietnam. Your hero is an illusion, just as is your argument.

I have heard of the Blitz, jamez, and have seen its results, also of the V weapons, when I was living in England. I make no excuses for either side in any war. As far I'm concerned, all sides in every war commit atrocities, even if the so called "victors" receive accolades after it. I have served in war as a 17 year old master marksman and have killed people, albeit never any civilians. They all had guns in their hands, pointing at me. We were all brainwashed to kill each other. The difference is that some of us grew up and realized the complete madness of any war and now hate politicians who cause them.

The idiocy of war and politics really came home to me when one day a few friends and I rode our motorcycles out to a place called Huntingdon, about 16 m. from Cambridge. Several of us were veterans on opposing sides. We were sitting in the grass by a millpond watching the ducks with their little ducklings, when I said: "You know, fellows, if I'd seen you sitting around like this a few years ago, I would have shot the lot of you to death!". They laughed and assured me that they would have done the same to me. We had quite a discussion on this at the time, wondering what the hell have we been doing, killing each other? What were we fighting about ? Nobody knows. Countries never fight each other. It is always politicians, priests and ruling classes who hype people up and force them to kill each other with a lot of hot air propaganda, so they can fill their pockets.

By the way, the damage of the Blitz in Britain was chickenfeed in comparison to the damage to Europe, because the nazis didn't have the equipment and resources. Another by the way is that I also have a British citzenship, given to me by the government for my services. Ed Deak, Big Lake,

Hell, the South Vietnamese didn't want the US to leave either, back when they were calling their invasion a "police action". And after so much wasted life, when the US finally left and the North Vietnamese finally overran the south, there were a lot of people jumping into boats and facing pirates on the South China Seas. Thirty years later, Vietnam is fairly peaceful and pleasant enough---no longer a nexus generating hate for westerners.

Would the same fate await Iraqis? Probably not. Sectarian violence is going to happen whether the Americans are there or not. The presence of Americans just escalates it to a global context. If they leave, it reduces it back to factions.

As the bombs in Madrid and London prove, American presence in Iraq is doing nothing to quell terrorism.

there's no reasoning with freaks like ghostsmachine and diogenes. these guys are anarchists, and have declared the 'system' as their enemy. ask them why and they'll stutter, stammer and spew predictable bullshit all day long. they're angry and frustrated, and the imperialist dogs blah blah blah are the easiest and most obvious target. even to the point of justifying the slaughter of innocents and children. of course in their twisted reality there are no innocents. right guys? must be one shitty way to live your life. if you weren't such assholes i'd feel sorry for you.

This is an interesting read

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1072-1684970,00.html

"By the way, the damage of the Blitz in Britain was chickenfeed in comparison to the damage to Europe, because the nazis didn't have the equipment and resources. "

The point I was making is I'm tired of people making it seem as though the allies were the only ones acting as war criminals when it comes to bombing.

Yes and he somehow managed to win three purple hearts and only missing 2 days of duty. We used to say: A wanker in uniform is still a wanker.

The US Democrats picked Kerry for his supposed war record as a surefire way to beat Bush. But Kerry can’t even eat a hotdog and look convincing. They should have done their homework before selecting him for a candidate.

to Jamez;
Exactly what freedoms have you lost. You obviously have the freedom to spew out your wacky ideas in this forum. Try that in Iran or China.
The west is not the opresser of freedom. What are you talking about ? Do you hate jews too ?
Long live western democracy. Die soon everything else.

Here is a more interesting read:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/07/08/blowback/index.html

Good piece Fait Lux. I was going to comment on that business about the West bombing only civilian targets myself, but had already spoken a great deal. :-) My hope was that somebody else would respond to this total, self-serving bullshit. And ye did sir, very well.

And while we may differ some, on the main points we are agreed, in my view. Certainly I agree with the quote below.

And Colin, while ignoring much of your Brownshirt diatribe, for the shallow and racist analysis unworthy of response it is, your allusion to the Swiss military model for Canada is more exactly what I mean: The whole people armed, trained in the art of homeland defence and prepared to repulse an invader themselves-, not completely unlike Iraq for that matter. (Though I know that is not what you were thinking of.) :-)

While I was in Vietnam during the leadup to the US intrusion there, and have studied and much admired their guerrilla war to repulse the Japanese, then French, then US invaders, their experience, while having many significant "universal" applications, also has much that was unique to their level of social development, geography and historical experience.

On the other hand, our own "military requirement", were we not toadying militarily to US needs and ambitions, while it can draw on much homeland defence experience from the Swiss, and even the Vienamese, Russians, Afghanis, Iraqis and many others, will doubtless also have its unique aspects, as a result of our geographic vastness and variability, level of population and areas of population concentration, and the need to defend our north from US and other intrusions, and their refusals to recognize our sovereignty there etc.. We also have an extensive need for homeland coastal defense and surveillance, rather than a Navy and Airforce preoccupied with serving the defence needs and global ambitions of the US Empire. (Potentially at least, even as a war game scenario, a possible, even most likely invader of this country, for which there is historical experience-, 1812 etc.)

But that requires first, our own independant view of the world and national agenda, as distinct from being a bootlicker/client state of US imperialism-, as a prerequisite.

sja wrote:

You're wrong, they're liberals. Just ask Ron Erwin.

Here is the cruncher:

Conservative commentators argue that Iraq is a "fly trap" for Muslim terrorists. It makes much more sense to think of it as bin Laden's fly trap for Western troops. There, jihadis can kill them (making the point that they are not invulnerable), and can provoke reprisals against Iraqi civilians that defame the West in the Muslim world. After Abu Ghraib and Fallujah, many Muslims felt that Bin Laden's dire warnings to them that the United States wanted to occupy their countries, rape their women, humiliate their men, and steal their assets had been vindicated.

These claims were not credited by most of the world's Muslims before the Iraq war. Opinion polls show that most of the world's Muslims have great admiration for democracy and many other Western values. They object to the U.S. and the U.K. because of their policies, not their values. Before Bush, for instance, the vast majority of Indonesians felt favorably toward the United States. Even after a recent bounce from U.S. help with tsunami relief, only about a third now do.

The global anti-insurgency battle against al-Qaida must be fought smarter if the West is to win. To criminal investigations and surveillance must be added a wiser set of foreign policies. Long-term Western military occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq is simply not going to be acceptable to many in the Muslim world. U.S. actions at Abu Ghraib and Fallujah created powerful new symbols of Muslim humiliation that the jihadis who sympathize with al-Qaida can use to recruit a new generation of terrorists. The U.S. must act as an honest broker in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And Bush and Blair must urgently find a credible exit strategy from Iraq that can extricate the West from bin Laden's fly trap.

Chicago political scientist Robert Pape argues in his new book, "Dying to Win," that the vast majority of suicide bombers are protesting foreign military occupation undertaken by democratic societies where public opinion matters. He points out that there is no recorded instance of a suicide attack in Iraq in all of history until the Anglo-American conquest of that country in 2003. He might have added that neither had any bombings been undertaken elsewhere in the name of Iraq.

George Bush is sure to try to use the London bombings to rally the American people to support his policies. If Americans look closer, however, they will realize that Bush's incompetent crusade has made the world more dangerous, not less.

jamez posted: 11 Hours Ago
"Iraq didn't do anything... as well you can set up a democratic nation in the Middle East without resorting to Violence... we already were on the ground in Afghanistan... why not make that the model?"

Damn, it feels weird defending the hawk viewpoint here...I guess that is why they call it Devil's Advocacy...

Anyway, good questions!

1. Regardless of its complicity or lack thereof in 9/11, Iraq was a pretty good case for occupation, based on the factors I already cited: atrocious regime, noncompliant with UN resolutions, sanctions too slow, potential nuclear state.

2. The oil. The White House probably figured that Iraq's reconstruction would be largely self-financing with oil revenue.

3. Strategic importance. Afghanistan is strategically important too, which is why the USSR tried to take it, but a secularized, market-economy Iraq is arguably more feasible and nicely situated if you want to influence the region's affairs. Domino theory.

4. Confidence/hubris. I think the White House figured that Afghanistan was a done deal in terms of getting the Taliban out and setting up the first round of electoral reforms. (Yes, they picked unwholesome allies in the Northern Alliance.) All pumped up from this victory, they thought, why not go after Iraq next?

5. World view. The neocon White House has pretty obviously rejected the isolationist view of some posters here (who are ideological bedfellows, in that respect, with Pat Buchanan). They seem to think that as the biggest kid in the playground, they have the ability and the responsibility to act, unilaterally if need be.

It's obviously a huge gamble, transgressive of international law, and certain to cost lives -- 100,000 in Iraq, one reads.

But isolationism and dithering has its costs too, not in American lives but in the repressive regimes of the world.

By far the best scenario would be to have had an indigenous revolution in Iraq (and in other dictatorships) which we could all applaud from a safe distance, but it was not happening.

Dear sirjohna
It's hard to find compassion when you yourself call others names etc, once the line is crossed its hard to come back. Everyone ends up blind and angry and nothing gets done.
But Anyway
Heads up Mr Pettigrew confirmed yesterday that no Canadians were hurt in the blast but if folks are concerned their is a 1-800 they can call. Not sure of the # but it will be posted on the CBC website. You need the persons passport # and date of birth.

As far as the bombing goes, any asshole can put up a website and claim they did it for political reasons. A handful of groups claimed they bombed the OK gov building when it was actually Tim McVey. And every time the cops want a serial killer a whole bunch of folks claim they are the guy.

I hate to say this but when your dealing with a gov like the US or UK your dealing with a gov that went to war on
premeditated lies. In short they acted in a psychopathic way to justify killing 1000's of innocents for economic and
strategic goals. We must look at what happened in a cynical way.

Last week Bush appealed to the US public on a TV broadcast , the approval ratings for the war in Iraq are way down. Over 60% of the public things that Iraq is unnecessary .
Blair has said he will bring the troops home, the war is very unpopular in the UK,
This bombing distracts us from the failure so far in Iraq and once again ignites support for the conflict. A scared public is one that is willing to go for the ride. Just a thought.

"Stuart, we were respected until the socialist hordes got ahold of our country and decided we didn't need a military anymore."

JIm-BOb, that is such a pathetic lie. You know full well that the NDP has never formed a federal govenment. The decision to reduce Canada's defence expenditures was made by Liberal and Conservative Govt's, starting with John Diefenbaker's cancellation of the Arrow project, and his idiotic vandalism of the prototypes.

And Ron Earwig, if CSIS is not already on my ass, I am easy enough found. And fear them not one wit. (Though they be more a surveillance arm of the CIA, Patriot Act and Homeland Defense of the United States, than actually serving any distinct Canadian interests.Which many of them must surely know themselves. Get in touch with me, you types. ;-)

Coyote

But then, you know that already, eh. :-D

Cut and paste the link, good debate going on also at iwtnews.com

http://www.iwtnews.com/node/1190

Oh Budd, what can I say. The old conservative rant about Canada not having a military. Our troops are well trained and have an excellent reputation around the world. We are a huge country with a very small tax base, we do actually spend quite a bit considering our small population. You see most Canadians don't buy into your rant , hence Steven Harper lagging in the polls even with Gomery. As far as not being respected around the world for our "socialist hordes"
I wonder who has the better reputation around the globe conservative hawks like Bush or Canadian socialist. Unless you live in Alberta or the Fraser valley I would say Canada wins hands down. LOL

"Exactly what freedoms have you lost. You obviously have the freedom to spew out your wacky ideas in this forum. Try that in Iran or China.
The west is not the opresser of freedom. What are you talking about ? Do you hate jews too ?
Long live western democracy. Die soon everything else."

I hate no one... as for myself I have not lost freedoms, however you are suggesting we give up freedoms to big brother. You call liberals an "enemy to our freedoms" (Parroting Bush I may add - you fell for that line?) What freedom have you lost? You asked me, and seeing as how you're the one sayng liberals are a danger to freedom I'd like to know what you've lost.
Liberals are all about freedom, hence the word "Liberal."
Even your support of GWB, who has stripped freedoms from his people shows you care nothing for freedom.
All your kind wants is the world to be a bunch of sheep following whatever government commands, never questioning a thing. It's much easier for you to grasp things that way.
Even here, someone voices their opinion on a complex world situation and you say CSIS should investigate them... I guess you care nothing for free speech or the right to decent... more proof of your lip service to freedom.

Coyote
Since I did not promote going around smashing windows and forcing people to wear religious markings on armbands I am unclear why you consider me a Nazi? However I will ignore because of the other far more interesting statements you made.

If I remember correctly the first contact the US military had in Vietnam (French Indochina at the time) was during the fighting against the Japanese. At the end of the war I believe that Giap asked the Americans to support their bid for independence against the returning French, they refused and for a variety of reasons supported the French. The Vietnamese then went to the Russians for support of their cause. Truly one of the great errors in post WWII strategy in my opinion.

So I understand that you were in Vietnam in the early 60’s? I was wondering what took you to that part of the world at that time?

If we do adopt a completely independent defense policy are you willing to pay for it out of our taxes? I certainly don’t completely disagree with keeping our forces independent, but don’t see Canadians as willing to foot the bill for what you are suggesting. Plus the mindset change in order to have National Service and an armed population. Also when we did go to war with the US, we were acting in concert with British policy. In fact I don’t really see a point where our defense policy was not aligned with another nation or organization. We are faced with the 2nd largest country in the world and a small population. It is not realistic to believe that we can defeat a major power from occupying our land without external support. By the way the largest permanent foreign military presence in Canada right now is Britain.

I am also struggling with your comment about being racist, perhaps your can point out which comments you felt fall into that category. My daughter is a mix of Indian-Malay-Scot-English (The Scot/English side means that there is likely everything from Scandinavia to the Middle East mixed in) The only group I could safely be racist against without pointing a finger at my family would likely be small tribal groups in the Amazon Basin.

Do you really believe that if the US and the West pulled back all military and economic “intrusions” that they would leave us alone? Do you think the vacuum would not be filled by someone else? After Clinton people felt that the US was a paper tiger all roar and no bite. Well they have seen the bite and the resolve to continue biting. I suspect that any plans that China had on invading Taiwan have been quietly shelved. In fact the show of force may have a calming influence on the whole of SouthEast Asia which has been rearming at a furious rate.

I also think this bombing is a tactical mistake by the AQ, the British may be tiring of the occupation, but if you kick them in the nuts, then they will go after you.

" wonder who has the better reputation around the globe conservative hawks like Bush or Canadian socialist. "

I've always wonder were people get off with this argument as well. There's a reason canadians put our flag on backpacks when abroad.

Colin, dude,

Interesting things to say, but "The problems in the Middle East long predate colonization of North America by Europeans..." is to suggest that once a region is warring it's always warring. We know this is not the case. The continued warring in the ME is prolonged, if not provoked, by influences external to the region. ( The lateral example, the Balkans, provides an illustration: The slaughter kicked into gear after the Sarajevo bombing. )

I can certainly relate to your experience of hearing jaw-dropping shit from the pulpit, having tumbled around the southern states and taken an amateur anthropologist's interest in the local religious beliefs. The call to righteous arms was frequent and the enemies numbered endless.

Your fencing word-play on the meaning of 'terrorism' is misplaced. At this point in the histroy of warfare it is a pointless distinction - which tactics are 'terrorist' and which aren't. And in our neighbourhood of the planet key words, such as 'terrorism', have been freighted with insupportable burdens of propaganda. Ha! Maybe that's why we're trying new options such as "shock and awe".

And lastly, I'm sure you don't mean what you say about the rationale for the continuing occupation of Iraq being to avoid a vacuum that Syria will step into. That's simply far out.

.

Ehhh, we don't always disagree, Budd. Au contraire.

My own view of Canadian military policy, especially a model for the Canadian military, is, in fact, not entirely unlike that which has been advocated by the NDP, and at least one particular Canadian military instructor to, if my memory serves, Royal Military College (Canada). This latter fellow's name escapes me at the moment.

So my view is certainly not "radical" or even uniquely my own, but has been better and more knowledgably advocated by others, with certainly better qualifications and experience. I mean, I was a lowly Rifleman in the militia infantry and a stoker in the regular Navy-, but which doesn't mean I have no right to an analysis or that it is hence irrelevant. We all need to think about it, and develop a view of the defence needs of this country-, as distinct from that Bastion of Empire to our South.

For those of you who can not consider opposing views much less hold them here is something to consider from the crack-smoking-anarchist-liberal-what-ever-convenient label your stilted mind serves up. LOL

http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article.jsp?id=6&debateId=103&articleId=1865

Terrorism in historical perspective
Fred Halliday
22 - 4 - 2004

Terrorism is the defining issue of the post 9/11 world. It is also one of the most confusing and contested words in the political lexicon. The route to understanding, says Fred Halliday, is through making connections: between past and present, state and insurgent violence, nationalist and religious movements. The result is an illuminating survey of terrorism’s history, current impact, and possible future.

In conclusion, then, here are four proposed guidelines for discussion by concerned citizens worldwide.
First, terrorism of all kinds should be condemned. At the same time, a broader sense of proportion is needed. No discussion of terrorism from below, or its history or its moral and legal dimensions, can take place without parallel recognition of the role of states, past and present, in violating the rules of war with regard to the treatment of civilians and prisoners.
This is a point that some recent terrible events in the Balkans, Indonesia and Rwanda have all too clearly underlined. By far the greater number of political deaths has always been caused by the actions of states. There is no reason to believe this will change in the early 21st century.
Second, we need to bear in mind, and with some self-critical modesty, the fact that the major governments of the west have themselves, in recent times, supported groups that are, on any objective standard, “terrorist”. Examples are legion, from Unita in Angola, which killed hundreds of thousands in the wars that lasted from the mid-1970s to the late 1990s, to the Nicaraguan contra, the right-wing governments of El Salvador and Guatemala in the 1980s, and above all the Afghan mujahideen.
While the worst crimes have certainly been committed by radical regimes that were opposed to the west (Iraq, Syria, Iran), few states in the Middle East that have been allies of the west – not Israel or Turkey, not Egypt or Saudi Arabia, not (in its earlier days) the Shah’s Iran – have upheld standards of law and norms in regard to the treatment of civilians and subject peoples.
In short, no discourse and no policy that casts al-Qaida as the sole, or main, violator of the rules of war, in a conflict with something that calls itself without qualification “the civilised world”, is defensible.
Third, resistance to terror is not a prerogative of powerful western states. Terror, from below and above, has been the experience of many peoples in the third world over decades, well before 9/11 – be it in Lebanon or Israel, Sri Lanka or Pakistan, Indonesia or Cambodia, Sierra Leone or Rwanda, Argentina or Guatemala, and, not to be forgotten, Ireland or Spain.
The victims who died in Manhattan fell in the shadow of thousands of others: intellectuals and peasants, priests and village leaders, trades unionists and student leaders, and (in Afghanistan in particular) proponents of women’s rights, who had been slain, their families and friends terrorised and dispersed. This is a phenomenon with a very wide toll, and on every continent.
This does not preclude the citizens of the United States from expressing their grief and anger, but it should remind them that they permanently exist in relation to a worldwide movement that has deep roots, to which the US itself contributed during the cold war – and that their country is part of this movement, not its singularised and unappointed master.
Thus, the opposition to bin Laden cannot be based on some privilege of suffering on 11 September, any more than can the victims of a car accident or a violent theft claim a unique experience that entitles them to pursue vengeance in disregard of established norms. There is also no supposedly pure, western, record in regard to the role of violence and terror over the past century: recall (for example) the millions killed by the Belgians in the Congo around 1900, or the millions slaughtered by France and the US in Vietnam between 1945 and 1975, in the name of causes that were later abandoned.
Fourth, the fight against terrorism, on any continent and within any political or cultural context, involves a necessary security dimension. But it also involves historical perspective, political astuteness and the defence of those standards in the name of which the fight is itself being conducted.
In other words, those who wage the fight must themselves respect law and show some element of historical modesty and perspective. This is all the more so because “terrorism”, like “globalisation”, “human rights” and relations between “civilisations” (not an analytic category I generally favour) is debated and understood through the nexus of existing world power relations.
There is, moreover, no calm, level realm for discussion of these topics. For this world is characterised by long-established and growing inequalities of power and wealth, against a background of centuries of colonial expansion, clientilist protection of oppressive regional regimes, and cold war intervention. So these topics have to be posed, debated, and understood in a context where – put bluntly – the majority of the world’s population, including its over one billion Muslims, regard the intentions and policies of the west, particularly the US, with deep distrust.
This historic fact must inform, even if it does not completely alter, the formulation of policy towards the non-west today, including those countries where terrorism is said to be an issue. At the root of this phenomenon of “globalised rancour” lies an issue that also lies at the heart of terrorism: respect, or lack of it, for the views and humanity of others.
Here, across the violent canvas of modernity, imperialism and terrorism have joined hands, forcing their policies and views onto those unable to protect themselves, and proclaiming their world-historical virtue in the name of some political goal or project that they alone have defined. Terrorism can only be defeated if this central arrogance – one as evident in the subjugation of Asia, the Middle East and Africa around a century ago as it is in the cruel and deliberate blowing up of civilians in night clubs, restaurants and shops today – is overcome. This all has very little to do with different religions, or cultures, even if the issues can be phrased in various ways and languages.
The central challenge facing the world in the face of 9/11 and all the other terrorist acts preceding and following it, is to create a global order that defends security while also making real the aspirations to equality and mutual respect that modernity itself has aroused and proclaimed but has spectacularly failed so far to fulfil.
Terrorism, then, is a world problem in cause and in impact. It should be addressed in a global, cosmopolitan, context. Europe will probably be again its victim, but it is also historically and morally a contributor to this abuse of political opposition, and an architect of political violence.
All human beings, European or not, are locked into a conflict that will endure for decades, the outcome of which is not certain. In engaging with it, citizens need five things: a clear sense of history; recognition of the reality of the danger; steady, intelligent, political leadership; the building of mass support within European and global society for resistance to this new and major threat; and above all, our best defense, a commitment to liberal and democratic values.
The Irish poet W.B. Yeats wrote in The Second Coming (1921 ):
“Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.”

We must, and can still, prove him wrong. The future – just – remains open.

How can one argue about morals when there are none? The culprit here is MAJORITY RULES and in such a society there can be no marals or right and wrong. The majority will tell one how to think. Public opinion is exactly how we define ourselves so cut out the self righteous bulshit about how better some of you are.

Dfp

Well I certainly have been called worse things than “dude” (insert smiley face here)

What is happening in Iraq right now can not be divorced from the history of the region in specific the struggle between Suuni, Shiite and Arab verus Non-Arab (Persian, Kurd,etc) which as you are aware has been going on before the founding of the North American states. The only time this area was close to peaceful was under the Ottoman period and only through brutal repression when required. Both Syria and Iran have significant interest in what happens in Iraq and the evidence is pretty clear that they are not sitting on their hands awaiting things to happen on their own accord. The only goal both countries have in common is to ensure as much suffering and humiliation that can be done to the US and would like to see a humiliated US/UK being forced to withdraw. At present Iraqi forces are in disarray and not able to take over from the Allies. (Agreed that the disbandment of the army was a bad idea, better that they had used them seal the borders and slowly removed Saddam supporters from the ranks.

I certainly agree that JDS (Jaw dropping Sh*t) is not confined to Islam. However as Islamic groups have claimed responsibility for this I will confine myself to commenting on what I have heard with my own ears (I could never stay awake in any Christian sermon) Islam is facing a very serious turning point in it’s history and the radicals presently have the upper hand. Until recently any moderate trying to take on these radical from within risked death or torture, slowly, painfully slowly there is a groundswell building in the moderate to deal with these radicals. Islam needs to remove itself from trying to run the daily affairs of life and focus on the health of the spiritual soul. Christianity also had to make this painful and bloody transition.

Doing what the Canadian military does best still, following the US military around the world with a roll of asswipe.

Seriously, though true, our small Canadian flotilla of destroyers were on war games with the US Fleet in Asia, and escorted a US convoy of ships into Saigon-, from whence unloaded trucks, jeeps and sundry crated materiale. (We were neutral at the time, of course.)

And I simply disagree that Canadians are not willing to support a military that meets real Canadian needs. This country was not an insignificant player in two world wars, despite a much smaller population than today, and ended the last war with a Navy, for example, that was a heavy hitter in doing much of the heavy lifting escorting war materiale to Europe.

So, with innovative and creative planning, and the development of a light, highly mobile army, for example, and the development of equipment suited to our own unique land, sea and air needs, a relatively small professional army ready to take "command and train" functions in the event of war, AND backed up with a whole people trained and armed, I think it is possible to develop a model, strategy and tactics that could provide for the defence of this country in the event of being invaded.

Which is not to say it would be easy. War never is. But what we could have is a highly mobile, relatively lightly armed force with modern tactical weapons such as RPGs and shoulder missles etc., that could hopefully, as now with the Resistance in Iraq, wear down an enemy over time with harassing tactics, focussing especially on urban guerrilla war. (In the event of an actual invasion, while a Navy and an Airforce would likely have limited use, it is probably more suited to peacetime patrol and surveillance functions, and to delay and harass "an enemy" in its opening stages-, depending on how well ships and planes could be hidden and capable of being moved about etc. That assumes one is up against a superior air and sea power, which is the greatest likelihood.)

Land armies, and especially infantry however, are what take and hold ground, and win in the end. Which, I suggest, is where our actual focus needs to be put; in the creation of again, of a relatively lightly armed, highly mobile force of foot soldiers, like bees, capable of stinging a superior force to distraction and death, pursuing the classic guerilla strategy of hit and run, and where my enemy is concentrated, I am not, where he is not concentrated or prepared, I am.

With such a force designed to serve exclusively Canadian needs, rather than to serve the would-be conquering Army of a great Empire fighting foreign wars abroad, our needs become immediately different in terms of "the type" of military required, and "the cost" something more reasonable and, I suggest, acceptable to the Canadian people.

I mean, what people do not want to actually be able to defend themselves?

A whole nation is no different than an individual in that regard. We all want to be able to defend ourselves, and not be dependant upon the good graces and selflessness of another-, presuming that such "another" even exists.

Diogenes and Fred Halliday,

Interesting, but it seems to be ricochet.

The concept, "The War on Terror", is nominally absurd - a war on a tactic of war? And in practice it's a bit of propaganda for describing the fallout from 'Western interests' in the Middle East. For example, Whatshisname, the American who blew up the Federal Building with fertilizer, wasn't a terrorist.

Disregarding all the rhetoric coming from you Coyote (by the way sounds like you ought to go join "the cause" yourself, maybe strap on some C4 and look for a civilian bus to blow up?), I'd like to point out a pretty stupid error on your part:

"Get into the US Marines Jim, and you will at least have some moral, if not political credibility with me."

Jim is Canadian yes? Canadian citizens without an immigrant status in the US are not eligible for service in the US Armed Forces in any capacity. The US military cannot help one get a green card, by law.

So take your cynicism elsewhere asshole.

An excellent piece, Diogenes...the prophetic power in the words of WB Yeats still holding strong.

Right now the world is being run by very bad men. On both sides.

Bush let Bin Laden escape. Only a fool would think they don't know where he is now. IMO, he is either dead, or living in a palace in Saudi Arabia. He needs good medical care for his illness.

I agree this attack in London isconvenient for Bush etal.
He has everything to gain. His approval ratings in all areas except for domestic terrorism have tanked. The Republicans stand to lose the senate elections in 06. Very soon! A Democratic senate would practically ensure impeachment. And, definitely investigations into the activities of the last four years.

What was the news story that was gathering momentum just the day before the attack? Karl Rove's outing of Valerie Plume's covert cia status, which probably meant the death of her overseas contacts, entirely due to revenge and to send a message to others thinking of whistle blowing as her husband did. This is a felony and is high treason. The act reads 'knowingly'...

Tell me all you Bush and militarty supporters, do you support that? You must, if you support Bush.

People, such as Bush, keep talking about freedom and democracy. These words have become bastardized in their mouths. They are spreading privatization of national assets and private ownership of the most basic necessities such as water and seed/lifeform patents. They are spreading an ideology and practise guarenteed to creat suffering and despair in order to profit. They are spreading 'perpetual war', as spelled out by these very people, in their PNAC document. This is as evil as any we have seen on this planet.

Wake up.

I despair of the Middle East terrorists and I despair of the Western ones as well. Murder is murder, on the tube in England, on the streets of Bagdad, in a US hospital where one dies from lack of money to treat an illness, or an African country where there is no food because of politics and exploitation. One type of murder is loud and scary. The other, is quiet and lonely. Both are obscene.

Rove's lawyers statement? 'Mr Rove did not 'knowingly' reveal Ms Plumes identity.'

Coyote
I will apologize about my comment regarding whether you had considered what you are saying, as you certainly have. I still disagree with some your comments, but accept that we have different point of views. I think you are looking at more of the Swedish & Swiss model of defence?

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=51119&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

I will certainly agree with you that Canada’s military contributions in WWI & II are simply stunning 1 out 11 in uniform and the rest committed to the war effort. Reading a book this weekend I counted over 5 VC winners that made their home here in Vancouver, with one still alive (Smokey Smith) Also in WWI one street in Winnipeg produced 3 VC winners!!!!!

I doubt however that we could ever again achieve such a feat and I doubt that you would get any support for your proposal. The Liberals are well on their way to reduce our war fighting capability to zero so no one will ask us to take part in anything.

In regards to using this style of fighting, the terrorist and insurgents in Iraq have more or less stopped targeting the US military as they lose to many men doing so and have taken to targeting people, local infrastructure and the Iraqi army/police. Although this appears to be working for now, it is alienating the local population and reducing the areas they can operate in. Modern thermals, weapons and communications make fighting a traditional Insurgency very difficult and requires very good leadership.

The Terrorist/insurgents hope to create another situation like the Tet offensive to attempt to sway popular opinion in the US. Intersting watching an interview of a retired North Vietnamese General who stated that had the US continued with the fight after Tet, with a counter offensive the NVA would have collapsed as they had used up their reserves to create the image of winning. Certainly a bold move on their part and well thought out.

Oh, by the way Canada made a nice buck selling our war reserves to the South Vietnamese.

"Jim is Canadian yes? Canadian citizens without an immigrant status in the US are not eligible for service in the US Armed Forces in any capacity. The US military cannot help one get a green card, by law. "

AlexN, I think Coyote is aware of that and was furthering a point I made earlier.

That point was that it's funny how most who call for war seem to want someone else's kids to fight it for them.

As JIm pointed out, you can have pro war-position and not necessarily fight one. I think, however, there are few, when push comes to shove, willing to walk the talk (and yes, this is true for many issues.)

Case in point, there is still significant support for the Iraq war in the US, but they can't seem to get enough people to sign up and fight it. Why is that? Could it be that it's easier to advocate a war when you don't have to fight it yourself?

Thanx Lynn
Amazing what that crack smoke anarchist liberal does FOR the mind LOL

It is far easier to put people in boxes (as some here do) than to do a bit of introspection
Thanx again Dio

Colin,

What you say may be all true. I have no idea of the pre-Ottoman history, however.

The far-outness of your line doesn't really depend on the long-term history of the region. The vigourous stirring ( to use an extremely inappropriate euphemism ) of the Middle East since the Ottomans is sufficient. Specifically, and as you partially accede, blowing away all the Iraqy infrastructure is what really provides the current opportunity for Syria, etc.

You missed my point - not that I made it very clearly - war isn't a sustainable condition. Success or civilization reduces it's benefits. Religion appears to be a handy method for creating 'us' and 'them'. The latter being a crucial ingredient to war. Another being leadership willing to take advantage of, and able to inflame, the distinction.

Among the evangelical religions there appears to be slim distinction. It's not clear to me that what you say about the transition Christianity has already made, that Islam has yet to make. What do you mean?

Dfp

It is my personal belief that one of the major problems with Islam is that it has one foot in the physical world and one in the spiritual world. This worked ok for the first few hundred years as a more homogenous culture arose and Muhammad was trying to address some of the ills of tribalism and prevalent culture of the time. However the application of religion directly into day to day laws (Sharia) causes a great deal of misuse and is used to suppress people, including non-Muslims. In fact some Islamic Fundamentalist believe that it gives them the right to force Islam on the world and punish anyone who resist. In fact they would consider my statements above as heresy and likely a whipping at best or death.
For Islam to move forward into the modern world the Muslims are going to have to see the Koran as a guide written for another time, rather than the direct word of god. If I remember all my facts right the Koran was written approx 20 years after the death of Muhammad by a committee (mostly family) who gathered the copies of phrases written by other people or as related to them orally (Muhammad was illiterate) They had to determine which version of the verses were correct and there were some differences to sort out, so if you believe the Koran came from God it followed this path: God>Angel Gabriel> Mohammed over his life from 40 on till death> Followers> 20years> Committee> Koran.

Fundamentalist see it as God>Prophet>Koran. The prophet becomes a conduit that delivers everything as he hears it directly to the Koran without any changes, which would be a remarkable feat.

Christianity also used to operate in this way and through the bloody wars in Europe the need for a separation of church and state became apparent. Although our laws are based on religious edicts and beliefs from the Christian Church. They are in most case no longer directly affected by it.

The battles between Shiite and Sunnis bear a resemblance to the struggles between the Catholic and Protestant Church.

I hope this clears it up,, and as I said this is my personal opinion

Um... yes, Canadians can enlist in the US military and have for years. In fact, not that long ago, it was one way to achieve citizenship.

In fact, it was the Canadian military that was hard to get into! lol

Actually it still is, despite needing recruits it takes between 6 months to 2 years because of muck ups in paperwork system.

Colin,

Thanks. Interesting.

Your "personal opinion" disclaimer is hardly nescessary - I'd just be intimidated if you offering someone else's!

Ha. No, I mean that I would tend to agree with you, so no mitigation is needed.

But, I would recommend you instead go to Haliburton etal, because, unlike the military, they are outfitted witlh proper gear, receive edible food, way higher pay, and are doing jobs that used to the military's before most of it was privatized.

Colin, the Koran stipulates that the body, life and soul belong to Allah, which makes suicide and murder an offense because one takes a life that does not belong to him/her. There is relatively little gray area in the texts of Islam compared to Judeo-Christians sects, which is why the Sunnis and Shiites have been arguing for centuries over the technicality of whether the leader of the Faithful should be a descendent of Mohammed or not. So, while most devout Muslims are rigid in their beliefs--as are most religious people--they are appalled by al-Qaeda and would never condone it. Quite the opposite.

"Um... yes, Canadians can enlist in the US military and have for years. In fact, not that long ago, it was one way to achieve citizenship.

Hmm, did not know that.

An intereting murder. Who killed the American Colonel that was mediating with the North Viets way back in the gap between the French leaving and the start of the American buildup? He was murdered on a isolated road on a trip between two cities and only his own people knew where and when he would be on the road. The North Viets were shocked that there was an attempt to blame them when they had nothing to gain from the assasination. Fingers were pointed at the French, the French pointed at the Saigon regime, and there was even a theory it was a team effort between the
CIA and the French. It seems one man's death led to the deaths of tens of thousands. (And added to the French and Japanese totals.)
The North Viets patterned their constitution after the US one and just maybe the US couldn't abide that. (Or the start of the 'red menace.) So what has this to do with the London bombings? History repeating itself with a different script? The murder of one man causes a war and maybe the murder of many can keep one from ending to the benefit of both sides. (It) was certainly to get the attention of the G8 folks. Anyone have any good sources on this?

There ya go, Jim. No excuses. Join "Your Master's Voice" today, become a US Marine, and be universally despised.

The rest of you Brownshirt Neocons should join with him, to show your support for The Empire. Certainly as Canadians you are failures.

stuart; thanks for the info, but we don't have that particular information about this family. at this point we're holding that no news is good news, since we can't do much else. not asking anyone to feel compassion for me, just more than a little disgusted that posters can use such a tragedy to score political, or even worse, ideological points. quite mind-boggling really. one of the most impacting photos i've ever seen was in a newspaper several years ago. it showed a street scene in northern ireland seconds before a carbomb went off. all of the people on the streets were in black silhouette, and beside the car that held the bomb was the silhouette of a man with his two-year-old daughter high on his shoulders.
yesterday thousands of innocent people were affected, probably from all over the world, and anarcho and diogenes basically spend their time trying to justify such an action. that's disgusting and pathetic, imo.

"Um... yes, Canadians can enlist in the US military and have for years. In fact, not that long ago, it was one way to achieve citizenship."

No offense redrivergirl, but I really hate it when I am corrected by people who don't know what they are talking about, especially on issues which are extremely important to me. Allow me to elaborate before you judge that I am being unduly harsh.

I am a Canadian, and have been living in the United States for the past 2.5 years on an F-1 Student Visa. My university has an Army ROTC program, and they have been allowing me to participate in the events and train with them on the side (nothing official). I personally know not only a Special Forces Major, but also several US Army recruiting NCOs. All of them have pleaded my case all the way up to the Brigade CO, to no avail. As a NON-immigrant resident, I absolutely cannot enlist in any branch of the US Military. I will be able to enlist once I get a Green Card (permanent resident status), but the military CANNOT assist me in getting it, I have to obtain it on my own. This can be done through marriage to an American or getting sponsored by a company through permanent employment, and both ways are extremely difficult (for you, the spouse, or the employer). These rules are exactly the same whether you're from Canada, Zimbabwe, or People's Republic of China, Canadians are given no privileges compared to the rest of the world. Yes you will hear about Canadians who serve in the US Armed Forces, however those individuals already became immigrants independently PRIOR to enlisting, as that is the only way.

If you do not believe me, by all means look at the US Army, USMC, USAF and USN websites, or even call the recruiters. I have hit a solid brick wall, so if you know something I don't, do let me know!

Alex

verso:
"That point was that it's funny how most who call for war seem to want someone else's kids to fight it for them."

Be careful not to use a wide brush there. I personally am more than eager to join the US Military, however it will take me several years to arrive at a point where I can legally do so.

Coyote:
"There ya go, Jim. No excuses. Join "Your Master's Voice" today, become a US Marine, and be universally despised."

Reread what I wrote. He can't join the US military as a non immigrant foreigner. GET IT?

But Jim, before you rush off and get yourself killed for Halliburton and the cause of Yankee Big Oil, pay attention to this that Verso writes. And read Redrivergirl above.

If you've got an independant brain, and generally the Neocons are sucking on multiple straws out of the same glass, I know, especially pathetic Canadian Neocons who are more inclined to suck out of a Yankee ass instead of a glass, but if, it should change your mind.

I really have no wish to see you dead, especially for a cause the US pro-war populace will not actually fight itself.

Jim, AlexN is full of shit. Get your ass down to a US recruitment office. They WILL take you. (They're pleading for recruits. They will even set up your immigration papers for you, if necessary.)

Unless of course, I've talked more sense into you than this pathetic wannabe clearly has.

Why did I feel compelled to look this up? Very bored I guess. And talk about off topic!

Anyway, AlexN, there's something odd with your situation, perhaps because you're on a student visa or something. According to this US DoD website: "Non-citizens may enlist"

http://www.todaysmilitary.com/faq/t2_faq_entrancereqs.php#q9

sirjohna
'...and anarcho and diogenes basically spend their time trying to justify such an action. that's disgusting and pathetic, imo."

Won't speak for anarcho he is fully capable of speaking for him self, As for me You have no idea were I stand politically.

I will give you a clue though as you seem bereft of any ability to see outside the box. .

http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/

To have an opinion is one thing. To have a an opinion based on a narrow view is quite an other. Take your Ad Hominems in to a little room hold them close, now read and comprehend the info at AMPP and re-examine the belief from which your opinions are formed
There a good little lad, now toddle off

Unfortunately petty insults won't prove your point Coyote. Please tell me what you base your opinion on, because you're clearly wrong:

http://www.army.com/enlist/

Allow me to quote it for you:

Also do not forget about:

http://www.marines.com/enlisted_marines/faqs.asp?format=html

Here's another quote for you, no need to thank me:

Oh yeah, please tell me which of these covers the mysterious immigration route you speak of? http://uscis.gov/graphics/faqs.htm

I suggest you research your facts better next time.

Damnit people, why do you have to be so thick skulled? Look NotShorterThan3, from the very link YOU YOURSELF posted:

Now go back and reread what I wrote about getting the Green Card. Jim doesn't have a Green Card. The easiest way for him to get it is to marry a US Citizen, and that will take a few years to process.

Does everyone understand now, or would you like to correct me some more?

Well, your quote refers to foreign-born American citizens. And this quote (below) seems to state that foreigners can enlist, although I will admit that it may be ambiguous since perhaps the author just forgot to mention that you actually have to be a resident alien.

Whoa!

I don't mind being corrected when wrong. No one is correct all the time. I remember very well when it was an accepted way to get citizenship. I also know Canadians who wanted to go to war did go to Vietnam. And, of course, Haliburton has no such requirement.

This is interesting though.

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0352,mondo2,49755,6.html

At the end of the article, they say Bush signed an order shortening the time to get a green card. And, my guess is that soon there will be no waiting period as they are desparate for troops.

The point is though, not that I want anyone to go to Iraq and die, or hurt other people. I don't want to see anyone in war. However, it can't be denied that the most strident war supporters in the US - Bush, Cheney, Rove, Hannity, Limbaugh etal - AVOIDED the draft. Cheney actually said, he had better things to do. And, now they send other people to die for their bank accounts. It seems to me that a lot of people advocating war in this country feel it is for other people, while they reap the benefits too.

Also, one can help the poor without selling everything one owns, but one can't murder people without killing them. So, the two can't be compared.

Notshorterthan3, it is confusing. I think the policy is changing quickly. My own orginial info was from the past.

I must have read the green card info somewhere else. Still, I think soon there will be no barrier because of how desperate they are for troops. And, they sure don't want a draft. At least not until after the 2006 elections.

I'll go with NotShorterThan3 (interesting moniker), because it fits with my knowledge that some numbers of misguided/retarded Canadians went down to the US and enlisted to serve in the Vietnam war. And even if you read the quote provided from AlexN, the answer is yes, and note that little proviso, "...in most cases... you must be a citizen of the United States."

Clearly they will make exceptions to any asshole dumb enough to carry a gun. AlexN has "other" problems.

If all else fails Jimmy, you and AlexN should get married. If AlexN is a guy, clearly dubious, marry up here where it is legal for queers to marry, and then take your papers back to "the land of the free and the home of the brave and straight". We all assume. :-D

Though I'd be careful about sticking "you know what" anywhere in or about AlexN. Been stateside too long-, and given the cost of privatized medical there and all. You know, Jim. ;-)

Unclean! Unclean!

NotShorterThan3, as you pointed out the answer is ambiguous since the author didn't define it quite clearly. However, in your own quote he does say:

That is the same as "The Military will not help you become a Permament Resident Alien", just phrased differently.

Redrivergirl, Bush did not shorten the Green Card waiting period. What he did was shorten the Citizenship waiting period, thus enabling Permanent Resident Aliens (individuals who have a Green Card) who serve in a combat zone to get the Citizenship almost immediately upon return. A rather good decision in my humble opinion, for if one is willing to risk his or her life for the country, they do have the right to be a citizen and enjoy all the privileges that come with that (such as being able to vote, something permanent residents cannot do).

Currently a Permanent Resident Alien has to remain under that status for a minimum of 5 years become becoming a Citizen, or 3 years if they are in the military but NOT in a combat zone.

Only Citizens can be officers in the military, and Special Forces jobs are also limited to Citizens even for those who enlist due to security clearance issues.

OK I think I've said enough on this issue unless someone else decides to contradict me once again. Sorry to have dragged it out so far but as you can probably tell this is a pretty important issue. It bothers me that I'll have to waste several years of my life before ever getting a chance to serve.

I thus label Coyote as a troll.

At least, take precautions. Wear a rubber boot.

You know this is not helping your credibility at all, right? ;)

diogenes; not sure why you're trying to act like you're superior to anyone. i've read your rants here and on bcpolitics and it's mostly garbage. boring tedious repetitive unrealistic innuendo that goes nowhere fast, and far too long by about six times. here's a clue for you; people that disagree with you aren't necessarily afraid to go 'outside the box', whatever you think that means.

sirjohna,
Nothing superior about it.

here's a clue for you; people that disagree with you aren't necessarily afraid to go 'outside the box', whatever you think that means.
so what you are saying is although you have no idea what the box is or about (read clueless) you do acknowledge people ain't a fraid to go out side od it? Hmm
sounds kinda tautalogical to me

hello current affairs buffs..I thought I would lighten the mood for all..even the braindead right who, even though they have the stink of bush about them, have a right to spew their propoganda, no matter how far fetched.
Those wishing to have greater insight into the following work will need to study the last 10-20 posts in the "Bill C 38" thread in the comics section.
The following is a response to dangrice:

O danny boy...the pipes, the pipes

I've decided to try my hand at satire as you suggested. It's painfully obvious that late last night I had SJO on the ropes once more and then he disappeared ... and there you were to take up the battle to save his sorry ass from total humiliation. I think he has you on speed dial... so the following is a likely transcript of his call to you just after midnight:

Dangrice (DG): hullooooo
Sirjerkoff (SJO): Danny you gotta get sleeps off my back..he knows everything.
DJ: relax john...I
SJO: what did I tell you?
DJ: right..relax sir..he's bluffing
SJO: don't you read his posts..he knows
DG: what can I do sir?
SJO: distract him..try and embarrass him..or kiss up to him..your're good at that. You can also imply he has no education..it will create self doubt....uh.. I think.
DG: OK..what about that thing I was asking for with the politician?
SJO: can do..but Lorne says you need to bring the lube and if you get blood,snot, piss, shit, puke or come on his Uncle Sam suit..you got pay the price
DG: oboyoboyoboy..yes sir..anything you say sir..I'll get right on it

next call at noon on Friday

DG: hunnnnnnn....yawn
SJO: wake up you blithering idiot
DG: Sir..yes sir...am I dreaming?
SJO: Stop helping me..he made you look like a fool
DG: whaaat?
SJO: Never mind...I can't let you embarrass me anymore..I've got to take your place with Lorne tonight...and if I mess up his damn costume you gotta pay
DG: why me.....sir?
SJO: I'm gonna need to scrape together every penny I have for a ticket outta here
DG: you can't leave me alone here with sleeps..where are you planning to hide?
SJO: Calgary..they like guys like me there

sirjohna,

Ps when and if you ever become comfortable enough about who YOU are then what others believe won't be a prob for ya

Always be tolerant with those who disagree with you. After all, they have a perfect right to their ridiculous opinions- ;-)
unknown

Coyote, I can't believe someone as holier-than-thou as you would resort to fag-baiting. You're pathetic.

dio; you're a very boring windbag. just spare us all your long meaningless rants, or you may be lumped in with the sicko demented piece of shit gaybasher who calls himself sleeps.