Ron Erwin, I don't blame you personally for the death and dstruction heaped upon innocent people in the middle east.

I would suggest you take a cold shower and then go back and read afew of your own posts.

You are quite frightening in the sense that you likely have access to public places and you so far have exhibited absolutely no evidence that you even know what this crisis, you are willing to kill for, is all about.

But, you know what. It is all about you and others of you ilk who have failed to climb out of your tiny little hole and look around at what is really happening instead of what Tony, George and John tell you.

I don't live in a tiny hole I live in North America and I am quite aware of what's going on. What's going on is Muslim Extremist criminals hate you and want you dead and are trying to steal your riches.
We can be our own worst enemy if we think like you.
America is not evil it is love.

Fields' article is a useful precis of the mindset of the suicide bomber.

It is good to remind ourselves that these are people, meaning that heinous acts come from normal folk, and also that normal folk can perpetual heinous acts. Consider the new book "Machete Season," which consists of interviews with Hutu men who participated in the attempted genocide of Tutsis in Rwanda. All quite ordinary fellows, who became enthusiastic and remorseless killers. The key influence is not personal morality (and certainly not God) but social expectation. If you're expected to kill, you will.

The obvious long-run solution to suicide bombing is to change the culture which incites it. This means adopting many of the so-called left-wing (but really, just common sense) solutions to conflict -- help improve their education, standard of living, and isolation, thereby alleviating their sense of victimhood and persecution.

In the short run, such measures can do nothing to dissuade current Islamic suicide bombers, since it is precisely this assimilation that is being vehemently resisted.

Until the scientists find the gene that causes terrorism I guess I'll just have to live my life knowing I'm a target of terrorist acts. At least I'll be able to leave my luggage nearby while I make a phone call without worrying if someone will steal it.

"Trying to steal your riches..." I obviously can't say where this quote come froms because of a permanent ignore feature, but this came up in discussion last night at the round table after sailing and probably 4 beer....
When the world was unexplored and seemingly infinite, humans ventured far away in search of wealth, not just silver and gold, but wealth like the grand banks. Remember the world must have seemed pretty huge....HUGE....(echo) back then. So the riches were lying around like low hanging fruit. In the name of the king/queen of you went to gather it in...
Well the world isn't infinite as we know, and to continue the search for wealth in the name of corporate greed and share holder profit is
basically a crime against humanity. The fact that some individuals (acting as corporations) are continuing this assault on nature is a direct assault on your life support system. Ed summed it up, this world is now insane. I'd like to change that to criminally insane.

The world is infinite and some counties haven't even scratched the surface.There are probably 99% of the riches we started out with and is still growing.
It's up to the people who are trying to steal ours to create their own.
What happems when all are riches have been robbed ? Who will they go after next ?
We should not be ashamed of our success.

My tongue hurts from biting it....

My stomach hurt from laughing so hard...

My head hurts from biting my tongue and laughing at the same time...

Actually Ron... The world is round and therefore FINITE. You must believe the Earth is flat or something.

Oh man, the scary part is that Ron is not kidding. Their are allot like him that think this way. He is good for comic relief but scary at the same time. I need to do a profile of Ron's thoughts and lay them out, just for fun.

The world according to Ron...

1) History started today, no past events have anything to do with what happens now.
2) The poor people hate us because were rich and successful, we have all the riches and have never took or stolen
anything from them.
3) We are the good boy scouts of the world and if things go well every county will be occupied by good leaders who impose
their will on those brown and blacks who don't know how to live.
4) We are good Christians who once in a while need to kill evil non Christians for their own good, If we need to drop a few daisy cutters or nuke a few countries then so be it (Ron's former quote)
Only the evil ones use suicide bombs,
Good countries use satellite bombs.
We are rich and have never taken riches from other places, nope they hate us because were so nice and they are
just jealous. Oh , If only the world had more McD's and WalMarts.

Hey Ron , lock the doors and windows, before the evil doers come. LOL

Man Ron is jacked up and scared right now, he's been on a week long FOX bender.

Stuart; great desciption of me, I am so happy you understand me.

***Update***
Sorry folks, looks like Ron may be right after all. I've just opened an atlas and on page 6, there it was.... the whole world on one page.....flat.

No worrys Stuart. Ron's just seeking "love and acceptance".

"We should not be ashamed of our success." What success is that, exactly, Ron? Humour me here. The best part of my day today was the 2 hrs I spent at the UBC endowment lands with my dog. The rest of it was basically nonsense, a few hours of work to pay for a roof over my head that is WAY overpriced and for some groceries ($74 at Famous Foods) that I'll probably eat tonight in one sitting. We've created a way of life that few people can actually afford, and the rest of us either hate it so much (consciously or not) we're destroying our bodies and minds trying desperately to catch up- so that what? We can have WHAT exactly?

I get what the author is trying to say, we have to start reaching out to terrorists. They need the love, and only us agnostic hippies can help them.

We need to make them feel accepted, perhaps we'll start with an everyone hug a terrorist campaign, then a bring a terrorist to work day.

Instead of locking them up in Abu Gharib and Guantanamo, we can sentence them to a lifetime of reenacting Andrew Lloyds Webber's Cats in arabic, and showing how even stone cold killers can become cuddly kitten. How could their comrades willfully follow there ways if the punishment was absolute western cultural assimiliation to a bubbly sound track.

But maybe its about angst, and joining the jihad is to easy. Perhaps, the Americans should start a new strategy in Iraq, via Regis, and start a syndicated "who wants to be a martyr," so instead of having to worry about each and every religious fubar, they can calm there horses by adding a little competition. Let the winner blow up a pipeline or something glamorous like that.

We'll only win the war, when we realize this isn't a war that should be won. Whatever, that mean, I'm not quite sure, but boy is this beer ever good.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/220705givespowers.htm

Fii,
Most perceptive. What we won't do to get more stuff!

You have noticed that: SLAVERY IS NOT DEAD
Now, THERE'S a button for you!

Poor terrorists. Let's give them milk and cookies. Thank God the lefties are out there to support them. One must wonder how they'd feel if one of their loved ones was blown to smithereens while on their way to work one day? Good thing this hasn't happened in Toronto, as we'd be making excuses for them rather than hunting them down and killing them. Well done Sir Ian Blair.

ron erwin seems to be just trying to get some attention. try ignoring him. if that doesnot work then perhaps we could scrape together enough for a one way ticket to IRAQ so he can walk the talk.

nemesis:

Having a nuanced view of the world does not necessarily mean that one supports terrorism.

How would you feel if your home sweet hovel was arbitrarily bull-dozed, or smart-bombed into oblivion with your wife and kids as the result of a near miss on a suspected terrorist? How would you feel if you were kicked off land that your family had farmed for many generations and put into a refugee camp? How would you feel if you are starving because the natural resources of your country are being siphoned off to support a multi-national company? How would you feel if you friends and family have been tortured and killed by your country's security forces who are trained, advised, and supported by some western nation who gets a guarantee of access to oil in return?

wouldn't you want to go out and ...

Understanding or trying to understand a phenomenom is not excusing it; understanding leads to working solutions.

Blasting away with all your weapons only profits the weapons manufacturers who have to resupply your million dollar a pop missiles etc. Who are the big winners of the war in iraq and afghanistan? Haliburton, Bechtel, MacDonnel-Douglas, Lockheed-Martin, Boeng, and of course all the small arms manufacturers who sell to anybody so the big boys have someone to fight.

To the Germans in WW2 the French resistance were terrorists.

To the British the american revolutionaries were terrorists.

If Tony Blair, George W.Bush and John Howard are considered "great" then the world is in bigger trouble than I thought.

What is amazing is so many people are willing to believe these people dispite all their lies in the past.

So who do you believe? The best thing is to read a variety of sources and filter out who has the most to gain by any given action.

Im of the opinion that a great many of you are living in a fantasy world or are totally out of touch with reality,in simple terms what is taking place is a holy war set about by unknown number of people ,you either support them or are against them, there is no middle ground, this fight will carry on untill there is a clear winner, the how's and why's this is occurring is of little consequence at this juncture, the die has been cast.

Ron's first word, after reading this story about frightening things was defeat. They are not impossible to defeat, I am not defeated.

He's quite right about himself, he's not defeated; quite wrong about them. Terrorism is impossible to defeat. conflict only causes more injustice and atrocities, they create more terrorists. Trying to defeat them simply creates more of them.

The article makes the point that the thinking of the suicides is essentially adolescent in nature, arrested development. The cure for that is to grow up safely in a loving family, a supportive society. Both Islam and Christianity espouse such values.

If they start to practice what they preach, perhaps some healing would occur.

Runningdog; My mother always taught me that two wrongs definitely do not make a right. You are justifying the completely indiscriminate murders of women and children, pure and simple. As far as I'm concerned anyone who does so should be ashamed of themselves.

nemesis, I see you've trotted that tired old two-wrongs BS out here as well.

Give it a break pal. No one on any of these threads have even hinted at any support for people who murder women and children anywhere other than those who are attempting to justify America's illegal occupation in Iraq where thousands of women and children have been murdered.

nemesis:

Please actually read the post before reacting.

Nowhere did i justify indiscriminate murders of women and children; i point out that the moral playing field is level (or at least not too uneven): both sides are committing atrocities. The only way to a solution other than the one mother nature (or our nature) may impose (extinction) is to attempt understanding and accept a portion of responsibility. Even the road to understanding may prove worthwhile.

Simply going out and killing in retaliation is only going to escalate things (as recent history is proving).

This brings to mind the 150+ year feud between the Hatfields and McCoys which was famously settled only within the last decade or so; it continued because each side could only remember the last (percieved) insult/injury. (I think this feud may have been the source of the "yer either fer us or yer agin us" foreign policy of the Bush administration.)

Allan, Running; You both claimed that you don't support the terrorists and then went on to do so. Brilliant stuff guys. Hope you can sleep tonight.

I suspect that there is a psycho-sexual release the pod-people who spout republican talking-points on this board get when terrorists blow themselves up along with the deaths of innocent bystanders. This would explain their resistance and resentment towards any suggestions of changes to the dynamic of British/American foreign policy which created that environment so fertile to terrorism in the Middle East.

hey nemisis define terrorism

And how did I do that, Nemasis?

Better still, go and find another board to rant that crap at. Your accusation is so ludicrous it isn't worth a reply.

NY Times: "Britain says Man Killed by Police Had No Tie to Bombings"

OOPS! - do you think the bombings are having the desired effect? are the authorities reacting predictably?

Yep, it's obvious the "kill them all and let god sort them out" policy is working.

Allan; You are making excuses for their actions, therefore you are supporting them, and as far as I am concerned you should be ashamed of yourself.

How many kids on your block have to die before you want to strike back nemesis?

Is bombing women and children noble and heroic?

How do you sleep at night wishing death and misery on defenceless people?

Good piece by David Rose in today's Guardian on the subject of combatting terrorism.

Journalist Christina Lamb also wrote an informed memoir of Afghanistan (The Sewing Circle of Herat) that's well worth reading, especially by those who haven't been there.

On reading that every effort was made to save a man's life after a policeman had put five shots into the victim's head, my first thought was: Who the hell is writing this stuff?

It seems the three policemen were insufficient to hold the victim's arms and legs immobile.

To the U.K. where I was born I ask, Please spare your island N. America's infestion of legally armed who feel a career is unfulfilled without lethal action against other than marauding bears.

That should read: ,,,,,infestation of legally armed......

I’m confused. Which I must admit is a state of mind that is becoming all too common these days.

Rona M. Fields, Ph.D, psychologist and sociologist claims that despite the fact “Western Europe and America are layered with waves of immigrants”, “xenophobia is nonetheless commonplace.”

The assumption from reading that intro is that because immigration occurred in successive waves, acclimatization to, or acceptance of, foreigners should have taken place and xenophobia should be less of a problem than if immigration was a sudden event.

Implicit in Fields’ argument is the belief that foreigners are hated simply because they are foreigners. However, Fields tempers that claim somewhat by stating, “(a)s minority groups reach a “critical number” they become targets of animosity and even persecution…”

According to Fields’ thinking, indigenous and aboriginal folk are waiting around counting heads and when it is deemed that there are too many immigrants (it's a mystery as to who makes that decision) the locals then become xenophobic. Rubbish.

Unfortunately, immigrants aren’t the cause of the fear and loathing Fields’ believes simply because they’ve reached some artificial numerical threshold. And even if the source of the fear and loathing is tied to judgments about color, religion, economics and/or politics, Fields provides no explanation (other than a mass effect spun from seeing too many immigrants) of how that judgmental thinking developed, how it developed into siege mentality, or the fact that the judgmental thinking (about color, religion, economics and/or politics) was in place long before the immigrants arrived.

An excellent article deserves a link, kurt:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1535130,00.html

Here's one for cut-&-paste:

http://tinyurl.com/b827x

Thanks, Te Aro and Kurt for that link. It is a very interesting article in light of what is happening in the US - which is the attempt to isolate all agencies from each other, whether in regards to intelligence or the old gumshoe variety, to isolate and prevent the flow of information ...to the point where only that little privileged cultish-clique of Bush, Rumsfeld et al hold all the cards... in their own game with their own rules... and can then play their privileged cards as they see fit.

In the above article I wish Fields had developed more deeply the idea of the significant role shame (which she just touches on) plays in the Moslem world. To humiliate sexually as Abu Graib did, not to mention the humiliation that comes with occupation of one's country, obviously results in overwhelming shame.

As Fields says the grandson of Mohammed states "better to die in dignity than to live in humiliation"...so if shame plays such a pivotal role in the Moslem world, then one must understand that to recklessly invoke it comes with the most dire of consequences.

The article pointed out, "At times like these, extremist recruiters mobilize frightened people."

Ron said, "What's going on is Muslim Extremist criminals hate you and want you dead and are trying to steal your riches."

They're all the same. It's all hate.

Lynn,

The American interrogation of Islamic prisoners at Abu Gharib and Gitmo intentionally invokes shame. It is a psychological stress technique.

I agree that its use is shortsighted in that the Americans are committing propaganda suicide with every violation of human rights.

Secondly, one could argue that the USA is in contravention of the UN Convention Against Torture. What sanctions or invasions is the USA making morally permissible?

Igition: I think there is a qualitative difference in motivations although the Qutbists and the Americans can both be said to commit crimes against humanity.

In fascistic and theocratic regimes, the behaviour is coerced. There is the threat of being punished for apostacy as well as criminality in such societies.

In the west, as Chomsky neatly points out, the society is free, and we coerce ourselves. The conditions are set out so that choices freely made out of rational self-interest (e.g. "I want to do what is best for my shareholders and self") have negative consequences that are unintended but also ignored (e.g. "your newspaper is biased towards the views of the rich").

To; Yammer, had your head cut off lately ?

No. What's it like?

The U.S. attorny general has advocated torture in the past.

The rhetoric of Georg W. does not match his actions hence the disdain the world has for him.

I think the world wants to like the americans but they keep giving us reasons to dislike them.

The american people are genuinely surprised others around the world do not like them. Until they take more effort to understand the world the situation will continue.

Yammer; Go to heaven and ask Daniel Pearle.

There is nothing the Ameicans can do to make many of above writers " like " them. So, why bother ? I think they have only one respnsibility, which we all share, which is to protect their own sel interest. George Bush is doing a preety good job of doing that.

Just because someone claims to understand a "terrorist" does not necessarily mean that they support the "terrorist".

One wonders how Ron might feel if the Chinese and thier growing economy began protecting thier self interests in North America the exact same way the Americans protect thier self interests in the Middle East.

Eddy; The Chinese have already began to exersize their self interest by making offers for Unical and Maytag. I don't think either deal will go through. But you are right, we have only seen the beginning of this.
I know however that the Chinese are not going to try to take down their largest market. That wouldn't make mush sense. However, the clash of civilizations does include three combatints.
I know what side I am on, do you ?

Well Ron... the Chinese do not have a military base in the middle of our city. And thier soldiers do not go out into the city and look at our local citizenry like they are garbage. And the Chinese do not have several carrier task forces located off our coast nor do they declar "no-fly zones accross our land. And, most importantly, they do not destroy our infrastructure with cruise missiles every time they disagree with our government. I'm on the side of life and freedom of the individual regardless of who's church they attend.

Eddie; Don't you follow current events ? A Chinese General last week threatened to desroy hundreds of North American cities if we even attempt to defend Taiwan from invasion from China. They look at there own people as garbage ( 2000 dead in Tianimen Square ). Give your head a shake and get on the right side of this clash of civilizations. Get on the side of the USA>

Like I said Ron... The Chinese are not doing these things that the USA is doing. Who cares what some general says. The Yanks say the same thing to the Chinese. The Yanks are engaged in a phoney war that by all appearances they intend to escalate. In order to escalate the adventure they need to convince more people who are willing to believe that 'us or them garbage, like yourself, that the prosecution of a war is the moral thing to do.

Wow! ron never fails to reach now lows in his rhetoric: clash of civilizations eh ron? The u.s. is the "right" side? Lets just forget for a moment how the u.s. sees non-americans, let us look at how the u.s. views it's own citizen. Does the vision of their superior society (your words ron) include the millions that are without adequate health care; or the millions of children that go hungry everyday while money is redirected into the great american war machine. Does the vision of their superior society account for the millions of families who are no longer without a paycheque, or the families of murdered children in the forgotten about slums at the hands of a un-controlled for hand gun?

If one could measure a person's level of xenophobia along a continuum from "moderate" to "extreme", ron, you are not too far behind the muslim extremists.

"A Brazilian man mistaken for a suicide bomber was shot eight times by police, an inquest heard hours after the British prime minister apologized for the slaying."

Terrorism is just language of the powerful to describe their weaker enemy, so called Terrorist are just groups of people who resist occupation , usually groups that have no real army, navy or air force. Groups that could not go head to head with their oppressor. Killing of innocents is wrong, but one group claims to be pure and innocent while the other is called terrorist, Israel killing 1000's women and children in a refugee camp are not terrorist but a suicide bomber is a militant or Terrorist. The US killing 1000's of defenseless innocents in Iraq and other places once again is good while those who resist are terrorist.

History is written by the winners, I wonder how many papers around the world are calling the UK police Terrorist today.

mbraun; If I am not too far away from the Muslim Terrorist's, you should be grateful. At least someone on this site is chasing them.
The standard of living is 30% higher than Canada's. So I don't know who the millions of starving poor are. But,I know it's popular to make out like the USA is some kind of evil power so I understand your bias.

Thanks Te Aro and Kurt for that Guardian article.

I'm amazed that it took a successful attack in London to rouse Britain to hastily begin new anti-terror initiatives and to draft new laws. Apparently, there were a number of foiled plots previous to 7/7. Those cases should have been proof enough that England was very much a target and too vulnerable.

I'm also amazed that Tony Blair's poll ratings have gone up since the attack. Britons seem to think he has led well, post-attack. I say, what about pre-attack? There is a disconnect here with 2/3 of Britons believing Britain's Iraq role helped provoke the attacks.
So why is Blair getting credit now? If I was a Briton I'd consider Blair to have much blood on his hands for leading his country into a war against the popular will which his government's own lawyers thought illegal. He's made Britain one of the top Al Qaida targets now.
I'm surprised a massive "dump Blair" movement hasn't emerged.

I ran across an interesting article today expanding on the idea that the London bombings (along with recent attacks in Egypt, Syria and Jordan), herald a new multi-pronged Al Qaida campaign soon to hit multi European and Middle East targets beyond Iraq.Apparently, Al Qaida has new strength as it has forged new alliances with some of the most powerful Middle Eastern organized crime gangs who have joined the Jihad
(it's probably "good business"). This provides Al Qaida with new operatives,new networks of contacts across many countries, new sources of weapons,and new smuggling routes. I can't help but believe the situation will get much worse before it ever can satrt to get better.
http://debka.com/article.php?aid=1059

Bla, Bla, Bla,,,

Allot of right wing nuts get off on terrorism either state or individual terror.It gives them new drive and lives up to their good
vs. evil black and white way of thinking.
Ask them WHY.
And you get the typical answers that have no historical presidents.

Well you see says Ron, its a war of civilizations. If that's so then why do we do business with Saudi Arabia the most fundamentalist country in the mid east.
Why did we do business with Saddam, Osama and other dictators when it suited us. When did they become monsters
and not our best allies

In short many innocents will die on both sides , what reasons , what madness. Who benefits from all this.

Well we all know who. The poor American soldiers , civilians of the world and poor Iraqis will die for the benefit of large US firms who profit from their blood. But as Ron puts it, self interest rules supreme, If only he know it was not his self interest.
anyway **** thanks all your right wingers who have his best interest in mind.

"
Vice President **** Cheney¹s former company Halliburton has been the number
one beneficiary of the invasion of Iraq, raking in some $9 billion in contracts to rebuild Iraq's oil industry and service the U.S. troops. Every other week, news reports document a pattern of fraud, waste, and corruption by Halliburton Â* from alleged overcharges of $61 million for fuel and $24.7 million for meals to confirmed kickbacks worth $6.3 million. Meanwhile, Halliburton has failed to rebuild key oil infrastructure, provided shoddy
services to U.S. troops in the field, and has taken jobs away from qualified Iraqi businesses and workers. Isn't it time for Halliburton¹s Iraq contracts to be revoked?

My goodness Richard Cheney aka **** Cheney thanks you.

http://www.amerikaos.com/boycottlinks.html

Just boycott brand USA in protest.

Ron, I live well with less than 10 hours productive effort per week. I eat everyday, enjoy a one bedroom apt that others think is a dream, and take a couple of road trips each month. When you say someone is living 30% better than me, by whose standards do you make this measurment?

Ron lives in his mom's basement, eats chips and watches FOX news.
and goes to church every Sunday and talks in tongues.

He hates gays, loves Wal Mart and only justifies killing innocents if their not Christian. Like that innocent guy from Brail who got shot 8 times. Turned out he was not an evil doer.

Oh sorry, just typing up Ron's Lava Life ad.

RON ERWIN:

You start from a faulty premise. US interests require more and more access to other people's resources to maintain the status quo. The US reliance on fuel imports has never been higher. Certainly you do not support theft, so why do you act as apologist for thieves?
I suppose you are also willing to condone cold-blooded murder by the police in London?
I would add to your lavalife profile that you have the quality of a talking parrot, with a large, but illogical, vocabulary.

Yammer, I agree the use of shaming techniques was intentional but if shame is the trigger in the Moslem world that causing one to rather die with dignity than be humiliated then it is an utterly ignorant and useless...not to mention dangerous ploy by the americans ...that only fuels more and more of the very thing they say they have declared war on.

I think what comes through under the neo-cons over and over again is their intolerance, their complete lack of understanding of other cultures... and their foreign policies... or lack of them reflect that, in ways that have put the world at great risk.

Ron, here's a little information you might want to check out about what even the conservatives have to say on "standards of living"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_of_living_in_the_United_States

I would normally hope that after you did a little research you might think before you speak, but given your history here I think I might as well give up on that one... I don't think you even bother doing the research...

I'm impressed by how much everyone's held back!

Another perspective and analysis on the suicide bombings in London are outlined in Nature: http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050718/full/436308a.html
To quote some of the article - which does contradict this article on some contexts:
'But to academics who have studied the psychology of suicide bombers and the groups that back them, this was par for the course. Through interviews with bombers who have failed to detonate their devices, and discussions with the families of those who succeeded, reasonable knowledge about suicide terrorism has been accumulated.
...
Andrew Coburn, director of terrorism research for Risk Management Solutions in Cambridge, UK, uses risk-analysis techniques borrowed from the fields of economics and natural disasters to predict terrorist risk for insurance companies. Understanding that the attackers are, in a sense, sane and rational is key to predicting where they might strike and what damage they will inflict, he says.
"Logic drives their actions," he says. "They're not madmen. They're just playing to a different rule book."'

Coburn has an outdated definition for madness, Avicenna. One of the most common stereotypes of mental illness is the classic hallucinogenic experience. While these certainly exist, in fact sociopaths and psychopaths play very rationally and logically by---yes---different rule books. This makes them no less mad.

Coburn's definition seems calculated to make state-sanctioned sociopathology appear sane, ie., blowing up 70 innocent Londoners through suicide bombings is less sane than ordering the killing of 150,000 innocent Iraqis by bombings, sniper attacks and other acts of aggression to satisfy one's personal vendetta against that country's leader.

Where does the Air Inda bombing fit into this equation, oh pardon me those were Canadians, they don't count,do they, only Iraqis and Londoners and all the above, only one of the largest act of terrorism to ever take place in the world,but then I suppose thats a chapter many of you would rather over look, like I mean were Canadians, were not like them, are we?

Sanity is not measured on a scale depending on how many people are killed. Fortunately, few persons actually are diagnosed with anti-social personality disorder(the clinical term). This illness does not manifest itself with symptoms of psychosis. It positively correlates with substance abuse and higher than average intelligence. Ted Bundy is a textbook example.
I don't think "terrorists" consider us to be as innocent as we think we are. Our economic system is not creating much wealth that doesn't feature some form of foreign exploitation. The richest country in the world is running out of fuel.

Fortunately not, and western citizens have a remarkable facility for willful blindness when it comes to the exploitation and suffering of others, agreed.

But to imply that there is anything sane about mass killings---whether by acts of terrorism, civil disobedience, modern slavery, or warfare---is disingenious.

Anti-social personality disorder is either more pervasive than currently acknowledged, or the descriptors of the illness need to be expanded.

Ghostmachine, you can add to your list the Oka Crisis which took place in Quebec about 15 years ago. When the locals tried to leave the reserve they were stoned to death by ordinary folk who were unhappy with them. The cops just stood by and laughed.

Te: I have been making the fairly narrow observation that invasion turned out to be the moral option in Kosovo, and Afghanistan, so why not Iraq?

I have never defended the use of torture or the Bush regime's opportunism, religiousity, and indifference to domestic human rights.

Ghostsmachine wrote:

What are you talking about? Civil disobedience is the peaceful breaking of an unjust law. Terrorism is killing civilians to scare them into political policy change. HUGE difference. Your inability to see the moral difference between these two activities leaves me questioning your moral vision.

I hear you ghostmachine, but in the case of Telus I think the cutting of lines has been a cleverly staged media event by the corporation.

Apparently, the union is saying that the police stated these lines have been cut a number of times before by thieves wanting the copper wire inside. But right now it is more to Telus's advantage to overlook that fact.

Suddenly and oh so conveniently Telus management cares about it... and our MSM is right there to help them exploit this issue against the unions. It's the old "Poor Little Telus" vs. "Big Bad Union" line.

Strange that for all the other times the wires were cut in the past it was not deemed the sensationalist media story it is today because of the strike.

Nobody cuts out 2 feet of cable for the copper. It's cut that way to make the repair more difficult. (ex cable installer) As an ex Albertan, I remember we looked at B.C. with wonderment. They want it all, the climate, the natural surroundings and a job where they don't have to work. The labour is cheaper and more skilled in Alberta, and they show up on time too. That's why many companies have moved back or relocated to Alberta. It's not always about the money!!! It's about job satisfaction too. I work with people now who's behavior I would never have thought would be tolerated in a work place... and I work in a non union environment!! I can't imagine what it's like in a union, but I've heard the stories about how a longshoreman claims 8 hours and 4 more for overtime for 2 hours of actual work, they brag about it. Unless they are ripping off investors and pensioners I don't see the phone company as the evil empire.

Strange how a discussion about suicide bombers has evolved to a discussion about Telus.

Let's talk about how wonderful things are in Alberta...if you have a good job. If you work in a store forget it. If you work in the oil and gas business expect to work from 6:30 to 5:00 and take your laptop and cell on holidays.

They just changed the labour law so 12 year olds can work. If they lowered it to 6 or 7 we would have a persian carpet industry.

Phone company as evil empire. AGT was better and the service was cheaper putting the lie that the private sector does both.

As to suicide bombers unless the powers that be try to understand them, they will continue.

Clubofrome... are you aware that Telus actually assesses hidden service charge to send you your bill? And people do steal two feet of copper just as surely they break car windows to gather pop tins. And companys do vandalize thier own equipment in an effort to galvanize public opinion towards a certain point of view. I can recall an oil company blowing up thier own wells in an effort to discredit a farmer named Ludwig because the sour gas was killing his sheep and he was complaining about it. And managers of companies brag about lording it over the workforce and they get bonuses for cutting safety corners. I once had a manager brag about a one month 4000 dollar cell phone bill because he call forwarded calls to his office outside so that he could smoke cigarettes.

Te Aro:

Civil disobedience is not terrorism.
Some terrorists are likely raving mad but it is a mistake to write off every suicide bomber as a psychopath, especially if we are relying on media reports for information.

Yammer:

The invasion of Kosovo was a NATO exercise, not an American one.
There is little evidence to show that invading Afghanistan has been a "success".
The invasion of Iraq was probably illegal and has left that country in chaos, as the Bush regime makes it up as they go along.

What I am aware of: I believe that with diversity we have the tools to solve most problems. The I don't have to agree with what you said but I respect you have a chance to say your piece. I've lived long enough to know intolerance or jaded commentary when I here it. No doubt all of that has happened. Just not this cable, not this time. Too bad about the sheep...
Mel, I'd say things have changed since I left Calgary in 95. But the changes are growing everywhere exponentially. I think peoples' fuses are much shorter too, even mine. This is in reaction to forces out of our control. We see wrong and want to correct it. I hope that trend grows exponentially too.

Telus is now withdrawing their implication that the union had anything to do with the cutting of the wire.

People do steal for copper and any other of a number of things as Eddie Haskel states...the significant part of this story is that this kind of vandalism happens year round but isn't it interesting how it has just become a headliner media story now?

Lynn, that just goes to show you what Telus management really thinks about it's employees.

Isn't it interesting that a significant % of the Telus employees in Alberta are crossing the picket line to go to work.
Eddy: Who blew up the oil wells?
Lynn: So there is no vandalism what so ever by union members against Telus property?
Of course there is. What does that say about the repect some workers have for the company that employs them. Notice how I don't use a paint brush here to say that all Telus employees disrespect their employer.
CofR out.

"Lynn, that just goes to show you what Telus management really thinks about it's employees."

...and what much of the media thinks of the union, too. Did the press do it's due diligance on this story before rushing to press, or were they all too willing to help spread the company's implications?

Yes I see now, this must be a conspiracy. No way would the media cover such a trivial event as a strike involving such diversity. Merging the two organizations formerly AGT and BC Tel. The impact of new technologies and the changing market place. Why would these be newsworthy when you have the far more credible media/corporation collusion conspiracy.

Camgra posted: 2 Hours Ago
Yammer:

"The invasion of Kosovo was a NATO exercise, not an American one.
There is little evidence to show that invading Afghanistan has been a "success"."

Depends on what you mean by success. There has not been lasting and permanent change. On the other hand, all of the independent human rights reports show marked improvement from the Taliban era compared to now.

There are significant concerns now -- treatment of prisoners, slow reform, supply line issues, treatment of women. But this simply cannot constitute an argument that the invasion has been of no effect, let alone worse.

The invasion of Iraq was probably illegal and has left that country in chaos, as the Bush regime makes it up as they go along.

clubofrome, I'm not suggesting a conspiracy, I'm not even saying it's not news worthy. I believe that more info should have been given when the story was reported. The news reports I heard yesterday didn't mention a history of copper theft at telus. The way the story was reported it was implied (not explicitly said) that there was union involvement -- more investigation should have been done before the two stories (strike and vandalism) were linked.

The western invasion of Afghanistan was the only option. It was provoked, it was morally justifiable and victory is a distinct possibility. (None of which applies to Iraq, which has been a strategic nightmare.)

There is no reason to believe that Afghans are not capable of running their own affairs, if they can keep Pakistan's ISI (secret police) and mullah-run madrassas, and the Afghan warlords at bay. All three have their own ruthless designs on the Afghans.

As for "understanding" the motivations of suicide bombers, that's laughable. The only job qualifications for a madrassa graduate is either as a bomber or mullah. They are indoctrinated by (mostly illiterate) mullahs to learn the Koran by rote, while rocking back and forth — a book which by the way is in a foreign language (Arabic) unknown by the majority of Pakistanis (they speak Pashtun or Punjabi). If you think the madrassa grads understand the teachings contained within the Koran you probably also believe most Catholics read Latin.

Ghostsmachine wrote:

I still think you are morally blind to be unable to see the real difference between terrorism and civil disobedience.

This isn't a relativist view that changes with who writes the history: in one case, people peacefully break the law to make a point; in the other, extremists kill civilians to pressure them to adopt a political policy. Civil disobedience is commonly accepted in Canada. Terrorism is not.

To not see the difference is bullsh*t sophistry. To suggest that they are morally equivalent is to equate Ghandi's peaceful independence movement with suicide bombers. Was this your intention?

You are right that I took a cheap snipe at you regarding your moral vision, but I stand by it. What I'm doing here is an (admittedly modest) exercise in (secular) moral reasoning -- providing an argument about why two activities should not be considered morally equivalent.

BTW, saying "my take on history" is a vague substitute for a real argument. Could you be more specific please? I'd be fascinated to see what historical examples you draw upon to demonstrate the moral equivalence of civil disobedience and terrorism.

KKK... terrorist or good 'ol boy? You decide.

Hello Verso, you expect a lot from the media.... and I assume you mean TV, radio, newspaper. You could say the same for almost every story aired on the 5 o'clock news. (it used to be 6 o'clock news but now we have international DST)
Jumping on the corporation every time gets old and it's just plain false to think they don't care about employees. I mean really. Especially when we are taking about the phone company. I'm just glad we didn't get into the discussion of the secret society of Ferry Workers who collect rare cotter pins.

"Hello Verso, you expect a lot from the media..."

*sigh*

Yes, perhaps too much.

Yammer,

There is a difference between success and an effect. If an effect creates more damage than it prevents, then it cannot be considered a "success". But I don't think there is a successful end to a war on terror, when it is fought with military means.

In the years prior to 2002 there were 1.5 million Afghans killed and twice that number, 3-million, were refugees, primarily in Pakistan. Famine was widespread too, especially among dissident minority tribes, and this was fostered by warlords who destroyed roads that could have brought in food. All this anarchy and bedlam suited Pakistan fine, as they wish to obliterate the border and take the country as part of Pakistan, although of course, the Russians and Iranians weren't particularly enthusiastic about this prospect.

This death toll has been significantly reduced, qualifying the invasion as a "succcess." Much work needs to be done, but the Afghans can do it if they are able to overcome the invaders and warlords, and maintain and expand a democratic government outside of Kabul.

Double sigh from me as well, verso. Well said and aptly sighed as well. :-)

Implication without facts or details, without investigation, is the sad state of so much of the news today. And the accusatory finger of implication, like a bad scent, lingers on, even well after the real facts and details emerge...leaving one wondering if that was the intention all along.

Sigh./I] Cvil disobedience vs. terrorism, I trd to stay out of that by extrapolating the gist of what I meant thusly:

"But to imply that there is anything [I]sane about mass killings...is disingenious."

... and then, further clarifying by removing the word "mass".

Killing is not the act of a sane person.

That said, sometimes our environment and circumstances place us in positions where we are compelled to be insane. Morality, social Darwinianism, these are about rationalization and which rationalizations we judge as valid or invalid.

Let's try this again:

Sigh. Civil disobedience vs. terrorism, I tried to stay out of that by extrapolating the gist of what I meant thusly:

"But to imply that there is anything sane about mass killings...is disingenious."

... and then, further clarifying by removing the word "mass".

Killing is not the act of a sane person.

That said, sometimes our environment and circumstances place us in positions where we are compelled to be insane. Morality, social Darwinianism, these are about rationalization and which rationalizations we judge as valid or invalid.

So now Karen Hughes, Bush's Minister of Orwellian Truthspeak, wants to rename the "Global War on Terror" to the "Global War on Violent Extremism."

And she probably doesn't think it's the slightest bit ironic.

' these are about rationalization and which rationalizations we judge as valid or invalid.' Are you suggesting that terrorism is rational and valid, as Allan and Runningdog have earlier in the thread?

Bush on CNN calling the London bombers heartless and without conscience - this from a man who gave the order to drop 40,000 bombs in 24 hrs on an umarmed city of five million people (remember shock and awe)

Dr. Zhivago was an overrated movie (er, video) and, as such, hasn't got a lot of memorable images. But there is one scene which always jumps to mind for me:

Zhivago and the red army band he's been conscripted into are hunting down the remnants of the white army somewhere on the steppes. They see a column of smoke in the distance where a farmhouse has been torched, and as they walk towards it, they come across a family hurrying away with whatever they could salvage bundled up on their backs.

"Was it soldiers that did this?" The only living adult in the family, a woman, is asked.

"Soldiers, yes, soldiers?" She answers.

"Were they White Army? Or Red Army?"

She shrugs her shoulders, and says with irritation. "Soldiers, yes, soldiers."

That's what I think about Bush-America troop coalitions, suicide bombers and the whole pack of whacked out war profiteers, corporate planet-looters and religious nutballs. Who gives a flying farrt what their cause is!

This conflict is unwinnable by any side. The collective result of all these crazies is our planet suicide-bombed into oblivion.

Comments like this "Are you suggesting that terrorism is rational and valid..." aren't up to speed.

Ghostsmachine:

You make a case (kind of) against moral objectivism, but still have not clarified why you think terrorism and civil disobedience are only a matter of perspective.

I think you are getting upset about the use of the word "moral" because so many irritating evangelicals think they own the word.

I don't think I wrote anything to suggest that I'm a moral absolutist, but I do think there is a real difference between terrorism and civil disobedience. One results in death and terror, the other does not. You didn't address this in your last post in your rush to kick at evangelical morality-mongerers.

I can understand where you are coming from with this, as I also don't like evangelicals who use the word "morals" to mean "their religious values". But in the case I'm trying to make, morality is something used to constrain the strong in society, not the weak.

Example: For civil disobedience to work, the powerful whom one protests must be susceptible to moral arguments: they must feel badly about oppressing a population. If the oppressors would just as soon kill all of the protestors, it doesn't work. Thus morality is a tool used by the weak to overcome the strong.

In this case, I'm not suggesting that terrorism is never justifiable (even though I have profound sympathy for that position): I am trying to argue that civil disobedience is not the same as terrorism from a moral perspective. In one case you have peaceful people carrying placards, picketing sites, chanting slogans, withholding taxes and using moral suasion (there's that word again) to encourage the powerful to change their behaviour; in the case of terrorism, you have radicals strapping bombs to their body to kill and maim civilians to frighten them into changing their political policy.

The difference between the two results in real, physical, medical consequences to real people -- to suggest that the difference is simply a matter of perspective is, well, flakey.

The thing is, I think you do make moral arguments, Ghosts, but don't use the m-word.

You imply that it is wrong to be anthropocentric in your last post (incidentally, I agree with you on this) -- this is a moral argument because it discusses values. In the west it is common to distinguish in arguments between fact and value, which you do in your post: no arguments here, I agree. But whenever you make an argument about values, be aware that you are making a moral argument.

Embracing moral subjectivism too closely is dangerous for your own position: it may weaken what seems to be a hegemonic moral argument (e.g. evangelical christianity, capitalism, etc), but it also weakens your ability to posit a better alternative. Isn't identifying better alternatives for the world what this site is all about?

I think we need to reclaim moral philosophy from the hands of fundamentalists so we can discuss ethics and values in a reasonable fashion. In the rush to de-throne capitalism, I think that many on the "left" have erred in embracing moral subjectivism. You can't say the neo-cons have screwed-up values if all values are simply a matter of perspective!

Try this at home....turn on the TV news, but turn off the sound. Now write down what you think happened. You can listen to the answers on a later telecast. This is clean family fun and good entertainment.
"Last night I watched footage of the symphony of fire, from Bagdad! I didn't even know they held that event in Iraq!"

At least they're busting these scumbag bombers in London. Thank God this has yet to happen in Canada, we'd still be reading them their rights.

Nemesis:

Try a little reality in your posts.
Canada has already made provisions for fundamental curbs on civil liberties since 2001. And Trudeau suspended civil law in Canada in 1970.

Let's leave God out of it. According to the Christian belief system those "scumbag bombers" are God's children too, or does being brown rule them out?

ghostsmachine

If we know that people are likely to starve to death why:
don't we address the conditions that create starvation? It is immoral to assume that we "allow" people to be born. But it is an easy way out to assume we cannot do anything.

Ghosts:

values = basis of morality

You can't talk about one without referencing the other.

As Karl Popper argued in his classic "The Open Society and its Enemies", rejecting moral reasoning is tantamount to arguing "might makes right" because, without reasoned debate, the only recourse to solving moral disputes is force. Debates about values and morality allow us to try to establish what is important without hurting each other.

Surely you don't mean to support "might makes right"?

Rejection of common moral standards, justified or not, is still a moral argument. As Camgra points out, by suggesting it is wrong to let people be born into poverty and starvation, you are making a moral argument. By suggesting that it is okay for people to engage in consensual homosexual relationships is a moral argument.

Your argument re: the relative nature of all morality works fine if you are a hermit, but as soon as you deal with others (non-human animals and humans alike), then it is essential: is it wrong to murder? Is it wrong to steal? Is it wrong to torture? Are there conditions in which these actions are moral? Retreating into radical moral relativism doesn't save you from these issues -- it just makes it easier to violate established norms. And nobody needs to start quoting holy books in order to show that some things are immoral (even though this is a common annoying practice).

The fact that some norms deserve violation doesn't debunk the notion of morality in general. The fact that morality is something that human communities create to help solve problems and order social life, and that morality is not objectively true in the same way that gravity is true, does not diminish its usefulness.

Camgra; Is that why the Khadr's, Canada's Al Queda poster family, are allowed to encourage terrorism and collect welfare and medical benefits in Ontario? As for Trudeau, he was a self-serving hypocrite and used the War Measures Act not only to quell the crisis but to screw Quebec as well. And no, scumbags who indiscriminately blow up innocent children are not God's children, they're evil bastards that should be eliminated. Unfortunately this website is full of people who support their actions to some degree.

You play along peacefully in the sandbox until a dispute arises, you state your case as any lawyer would do..."I was here first, gimme that shovel...." If you can't settle the dispute, Mom is called in. Mom mediates the conflict and play in the sandbox continues or it is suspended for the rest of that day. Problem is when we get older we don't have Mom around anymore. So we argue until the dispute is resolved or the fists start flying. If your not good at fist fighting you need to be good at arguing. If you happen to be a bully then you might just think that you are above arguing and go straight for the choke hold. I think nations do this too. The little countries will rule the sandbox until the big countries come to play, then they are pushed aside. Each one pushing the smaller one around until it's just a game of King of the Castle. Everyone gets knocked off eventually, as someone here pointed out recently, all dynasty's and empires eventually collapse at bankrupcy. This is what the US is headed for. The little guys who don't parish in the sand beneath the giants fighting, grow up tougher and wiser in the ways of self preservation. They may even challenge for the sandbox one day. Right, wrong, morals, ethics what does it matter if we can't share the sandbox. Perhaps we just are not genetically predisposed for sharing? After all, we are animals with instinct for survival, perhaps that's our strongest motivator. We are an animal that recognizes something called a future, but the meaning seems to have eluded us. We are too busy hoarding nuts for the coming winter. We could have aimed higher, perhaps guardians of life on earth.
Last chance to welcome everyone into the sandbox, before the big kids decide to throw the tantrum of all time. "MOAT!" Mother of all tantrums!

NEMESIS:

Show me what laws the Khadrs have broken. Collecting benefits is not a crime.

Quebec requested that Trudeau invoke the War Measures Act, at Trudeau's insistence. Can you please tell us how this makes him a hypocrite? Can you show us how this "screwed" Quebec?

You are quick to use the word "scumbag". Did you learn it from Gen. Hillier? Did you learn to use the word "evil" this way from George Bush?

I might be concerned that you label people who want to understand the "terrorists" as terrorists themselves, but I cannot stop laughing at your (lack of) logic.

Ghosts:

I'm trying to argue that moral reasoning and discussion of values does not need to be left to religious types who justify a particular moral position on faith. Justifying values on the basis of faith is dangerous because, when people disagree, there is no way to resolve the dispute except by force. I agree with you that this is dangerous.

I see two alternatives to faith-based moral systems:
1) no morality, or might makes right
2) debates in moral philosophy, where people point to history and the social sciences to argue what the consequences of a given moral position could be. Some would also argue that aesthetics play an important role in moral reasoning (e.g. a community informing a developer that the developer ought to preserve beautiful hillside views during a real estate development).

I'm for #2.

I think morality is useful to you, too: it is what prevents people who are more powerful than you from abusing you and your family, even when a police officer or security force is not there to enforce your rights (the notion of human rights also being a moral position). Legal codes tend to lag behind changes in morality: for example, most Canadians believe it is acceptable to tolerate homosexuals, and now our laws are finally catching up with this social fact. Without moral constraints on human behaviour, we live in a Hobbesian world, where life is "nasty, ugly brutish and short."

Moral arguments also appear in your last post, suggesting that Love, Peace and Understanding (capital L, P & U) are worthy social values.

My point is that rational debate should solve value differences when we disagree: not faith, not force, but open, civil, rational, democratic debate -- kind of like we are doing here. In the social sciences, Jurgen Habermas has written extensively about how open discourse among free people constructs political legitimacy and socially-defined truth in matters of value. I encourage you to check him out. Since Habermas gets dense, a really good intro & application of his theories may be found in Berkeley community planning professor Forrester's "Planning in the Face of Power".

Morality doesn't need to be debated through a rear-view mirror. I think the current debate about sustainable development highlights this: how ought we live to create a better future? The "ought" part of this question makes it a question of (hopefully secular) moral philosophy. Most progressive movements make extensive use of moral arguments: feminism, anti-slavery, universal suffrage, civil rights, environmentalism, labour, etc. Is this not useful to those who pursue these causes?

But let's get back to the original point: you suggested in an earlier post that there was no real difference between those who engage in peaceful civil disobedience and those who engage in terrorism. You have attempted to undermine the basis for any moral reasoning, but haven't said anything to convince me that these two different ways of bringing about social change are equivalent. You accuse me of being locked into history and not looking forward, but your original argument equating civil disobedience to terrorism was to call us children and make a blanket statement about your interpretation of "history".

So why should I consider civil disobedience and terrorism to be simply a matter of perspective? Please help me out here -- I really don't get it.

Camgra; As long as there are people like you and Allan who justify terrorism we have a serious problem in this country. And you'd better check your facts regarding the WMA, as your version is highly contested.

Goddess of vengeance:

I can only speak for myself.

I despise "terrorism" of any kind, including the American brand that drops indiscriminate bombs on innocent brown people's houses in Baghdad.
There is no serious dispute about the facts as to why Drapeau asked Trudeau to declare martial law. Or why Trudeau would only do it if such a request were made. Deniers of these facts rest on faulty logic. You are mistaking "highly contested" for puffy rhetoric.

That ain't no goddess, Camgra. That's a troll.

Nemesis:

I am still waiting for you to provide evidence that Trudeau was a hypocrite and screwed Quebec...Or do you enjoy slandering dead people?

Camgra; Trudeau is perhaps the most hated French-Canadian politician in Quebec, running close with Chretien. This is not about slander, it's about history. Despite the fact that Drapeau, who was a disaster as mayor of Montreal, asked Trudeau to invoke the WMA, Quebeckers considered it an affront, and never forgave him for it.

Being a hypocrite(or not) does not depend on popularity. And Trudeau won elections, with Quebec, after WMA, despite the anger of some. He never screwed Quebec.
Mulrooney exploited the dissatisfaction in Quebec by trying to bring separatists into government. It didn't work and set us up for Meech Lake, Charlottetown and reinforced the perception that politics is done in smoky back rooms, away from the public.

Stephane Dion, the architect of the Clarity Act, is despised too. By people who resent that he has made it much harder for the separatists to get away with rigged questions on the referendum ballot.

Actually, Nemesis, you are right, it is not slander. It is lible. And you have still not indicated what makes Trudeau a hypocrite.

Easy and simple again. The great guardian of rights and freedoms invokes the War Measures Act without consulting Parliament. Ya can't have it both ways Cam.

It was done legally. Trudeau was not asking the country to go to war against another state. And there were bombs going off and kidnappings and murder. There's a time for talk and a time for action. And the perpetrators got a fair trial and fair sentences.
We should be more concerned with the Prime Minister's office today- Chretien consolidated a lot of power there during his time.

Can't disagree with that last point Cam. Our federal gov't is an outright disgrace. As for whether the PET did it legally or not isn't really the point. He did it with absolutely no consultation with Parliament or Quebec's provincial gov't. By the way, it was the ever-arrogant Trudeau that started the process of concentrating power in the PMO's office and the Privy Council. Chretien just carried it a few steps further.

What part is a disgrace? The PMO? The civil service? Parliament? The senate?
Power is fine. Trudeau used his for nation building, mostly, and saying fuddle duddle and giving the Salmon Arm salute. He fought people who wanted to scare people without asking the public to cower with fear. That is admirable in itself, given the official fear-mongering we are hearing from almost all western politicians and functionaries.

The Mayencourt post was gross all right, but I think Beers swaggering arrogance was worse. I hope it was a hoax.

The Mayencourt post was a hoax. It has been pulled.

I love tyee , they must be making head way when folks start pulling crap like that.

There is a lot of evidence that many of these suicide bombers are unwilling volunteers. A number of the female ones captured in Israel indicated that they were given a choice of being a bomber or being exposed to shame after being caught in affairs or such.

Quite a few of the bombers in Iraq were handcuffed to the wheel and the bombs had remote detonators in case the bomber failed to blow themselves up. Many of the survivors report being forced to take part because a member of their family was kidnapped.

Reading this morning a blog from Iraq. Some of the foreign Jihadist were complaining to their captors that the local network used them for suicide bombing, even when they did not wish to and were threatened with torture if they did not.

Also the nice tactic of using multiple suicide bombers, the first one blows up a site and then the other ones wait for the rescuers to come and then attack them while they help the dying and wounded.

It is one thing to fight and die for your cause, but another to just die for it.

Also the article is incorrect, you can disrupt suicide bombers. This is the reason the IDF targeted the home of suicide bombers. Every bomber knows that their family will suffer if they attack. There has been a lot of news articles from all sides that have said this tactic was effective in reducing attacks.

If there's any such evidence, Colin, then you had beeter post it. Real evidence, that is. Not the Judy Miller kind. We tend to think that stuff coming from the US Military isn't worth squat.

Would you prefer it came from the Georgia Straight, the CBC or Co-op Radio?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_bomber

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=331020

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/13/africa/web.mideast.php

http://michaelyon.blogspot.com/

Here are a couple. I have seen reports of this and there was a website that showed graphic pictures of suicide bombers remains, including faces and handcuffed hands, but I can’t find the link. A search on suicide bombers brings up 3,000,000+ hits and I have work to do, so you search some more yourself.