If having a position paper released by the Network on North American Studies in Canada constitutes terrorist victory, I would say, yes, they have already won.
Have the terrorists won?
I wonder when I read story that the British police are getting sweeping new powers
Blair wants to give UK police more anti-terror muscle - CNN.com
And this little gem
Blair wants to give UK police more anti-terror muscle - CNN.com
And this little gem
Bio-border patrolCanadians will inevitably have to carry travel documents with their DNA, biometrics or other biological identifiers in order to ensure secure border travel to the United States, according to a new white paper to be revealed to government officials in Ottawa Monday.
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
With respect to certain objectives, like reducing the security and freedoms of the citizens of the west, the terrorists couldn't loose.
However, we can and should exert ourselves most strenuously to mitigate how much they win. Furthermore, with respect to their main objective - converting the world into a theocracy under their religion - they're not even close, and I don't see them getting any closer. Their greatest allies, the Bush and Blair administrations, are in disarray and soon to be replaced and/or reinvented in ways that will do their cause no good.
That is not to say that we haven't got our work cut out for us. Our education system, which can and should be our primary line of defense against hostile memes like these, is in a shambles. And our economic system, which generates a great deal of the wealth that allows us the luxury of personal freedoms is largely founded on unsustainable resource consumption. So we've got lots of work to do, but I don't radical Islamic terrorists are about to topple our civilization.
Cheers
However, we can and should exert ourselves most strenuously to mitigate how much they win. Furthermore, with respect to their main objective - converting the world into a theocracy under their religion - they're not even close, and I don't see them getting any closer. Their greatest allies, the Bush and Blair administrations, are in disarray and soon to be replaced and/or reinvented in ways that will do their cause no good.
That is not to say that we haven't got our work cut out for us. Our education system, which can and should be our primary line of defense against hostile memes like these, is in a shambles. And our economic system, which generates a great deal of the wealth that allows us the luxury of personal freedoms is largely founded on unsustainable resource consumption. So we've got lots of work to do, but I don't radical Islamic terrorists are about to topple our civilization.
Cheers
I don't know about the terrorists winning. The Fascists are gaining and we the people are losing.
By quietly allowing the nosey control freaks to invade the privacy and freedoms of a few we all losers.
By quietly allowing the nosey control freaks to invade the privacy and freedoms of a few we all losers.
Have the terrorists won? Well --- thanks to Jon Stewart and the Daily Show, I caught his bit of news from almost a week ago that just blows my mind.
U.S. Arming the Insurgents.
Yup - the people who've been blowing up IEDs on the roadside, the U.S. is now providing weapons.
Can the entire Iraq situation get any more obscenely surreal?
M
U.S. Arming the Insurgents.
Yup - the people who've been blowing up IEDs on the roadside, the U.S. is now providing weapons.
Can the entire Iraq situation get any more obscenely surreal?
M
Not showing a passport at the border would reduce our sovereignty. I encourage everyone to not visit the U.S. until they treat Canadians like Americans again.
:lmao: :clap:Not showing a passport at the border would reduce our sovereignty. I encourage everyone to not visit the U.S. until they treat Canadians like Americans again.
Security measures don't mean the terrorists have won. People talk about our eroding freedoms, but remember, these freedoms are relatively new in the history of our civilization. Our freedoms were originally drafted in much simpler times. Heck, even the much lauded American 'Bill Of Rights' is only about 300 years old. How does that compare to the thousands of years of 'non-rights'?
Yes, our freedoms and rights are important, but we can't just take the 'you gave it to me, and now you can never take it away from me' mentality. It's an ever evolving process.
What the? Not showing a passport would reduce our sovereignty? What are you trying to say here?Not showing a passport at the border would reduce our sovereignty.
IEDs = metaphor for "bomb" so as to not scare suburban U.S. populationHave the terrorists won? Well --- thanks to Jon Stewart and the Daily Show, I caught his bit of news from almost a week ago that just blows my mind.
U.S. Arming the Insurgents.
Yup - the people who've been blowing up IEDs on the roadside, the U.S. is now providing weapons.
Can the entire Iraq situation get any more obscenely surreal?
M
detainees = metaphor for "prisoner of war" so as to avoid Geneva Conventions for treating POWs
detainees = metaphor for "prisoner of war" so as to avoid Geneva Conventions for treating POWs
Definition of "prisoner of war". "A prisoner of war (POW, PoW, or PW) is a combatant who is imprisoned by an enemy power during or immediately after an armed conflict."
Prisoner of war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Definition of a "combatant". "A privileged combatant is a person who takes a direct part in the hostilities of an armed conflict within the law of war and is someone who upon capture qualifies as a prisoner of war under the Third Geneva Convention (GCIII)."
Combatant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Geneva Convention/Third Geneva Convention - Wikisource
Definition of the "rule of law", The two parts of the laws of war (or Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC)): Law concerning acceptable practices while engaged in war, like the Geneva Conventions, is called jus in bello; while law concerning allowable justifications for armed force is called jus ad bellum.
These laws are theoretically applicable only to nations which approve and consent to bind to them, usually in the form of international organizations or diplomacy, but in practice ]b]all nations[/b] are expected to follow the laws of war. Geopolitical conditions of a particular era often dictate which laws are enforced, and by whom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of...swer AS's question, no they haven't won, yet.
I personally don't think the terms won or lost are appropo in these cases as it does not admit to shades of success or failure and the statement is way too broad without some additional clarifying terms.
Are we talking Basques, Al Qaeda, Tamil Tigers etc.......
Gorby has a statesman take on Iraq in today's Star
good read by someone who's "been there, done that".....to his dismay and perhaps accrued wisdom.
Are we talking Basques, Al Qaeda, Tamil Tigers etc.......
Gorby has a statesman take on Iraq in today's Star
TheStar.com - comment - U.S. needs to exit Iraq: GorbachevU.S. needs to exit Iraq: Gorbachev
Email story
Choose text size
Report typo or correction
Tag and save
Developing a strategy to withdraw troops is the only real aid Bush can give Iraq, ex-Soviet leader says
Jun 17, 2007 04:30 AM
MIKHAIL GORBACHEV
Clashes between U.S. troops and insurgents throughout Iraq, political manoeuvring in the United States over its presence there and the repercussions of that presence around the world leave no doubt that the Bush administration's hopes for a turnaround have been frustrated.
The recent American troop "surge" has only increased the grim statistics of military casualties, civilian deaths and overall devastation. The U.S Congress reluctantly approved funding for the continued troop presence without requiring a date for withdrawal. But despite claims of victory, media reports suggest that the Bush team understands its current Iraq policies have run their course.
The administration is reportedly considering a 50 per cent reduction of troops in Iraq next year, as well as changing their mandate from combat missions to support and training. There's renewed interest in the recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group, brushed aside only a few months ago. The administration has begun consulting Iraq's neighbours, Iran and Syria.
So even those who like to persist in their mistakes and illusions are being forced to rethink or, at least repackage, their policies. But is this a real change for the better? Is there a light at the end of the tunnel?
No.
good read by someone who's "been there, done that".....to his dismay and perhaps accrued wisdom.
I personally don't think the terms won or lost are appropo in these cases as it does not admit to shades of success or failure and the statement is way too broad without some additional clarifying terms.
Are we talking Basques, Al Qaeda, Tamil Tigers etc.......
Gorby has a statesman take on Iraq in today's Star
TheStar.com - comment - U.S. needs to exit Iraq: Gorbachev
good read by someone who's "been there, done that".....to his dismay and perhaps accrued wisdom.
Seems our own clowns are echoing the US stance at the moment.
globeandmail.com: Hillier says training Afghan army now first priorityHillier says training Afghan army now first priority
harpo and his band of not so merry men are licking the neo con a$$es and the same $hit is produced as pablum for CanadiansSeems our own clowns are echoing the US stance at the moment.
globeandmail.com: Hillier says training Afghan army now first priority
i can't wait until harpo decides to rename parliamentary menu items such as; "freedom fries"
I guess that really depends on what their goals were but a few additional security measures were clearly not one of them and any "freedom" grab by, at least the Canadian government, is going to have to comply with the Charter.Have the terrorists won?
They did want to scare us, kill us and try to drive us out of their countries, and in that sense, since 9/11, they haven't done so well although have succeeded a few times with the killing part.
Given that most of the threats stopped recently appear to have been local independent groups of disgruntled muslims and that Al-Qaeda has resorted to uttering threats on TV a few times a year (a reasonable sign they can't mount a successful attack as they were normally very quiet while planning things) suggests to me that they aren't winning.
I also wouldn't confuse the US invasion of Iraq with the "War on Terror" as that was more a testbed for the ideas in the Project for the New American Century than a genuine attempt to strike back at terrorist groups.
I don't want to speak of some mythical monolithic "them" equating to all terrorists, but it seems to me that if you can make your enemy so afraid that a certain level of creeping paranoia is effectively encouraged and their own citizenry's freedom of movement and expression end up being curtailed, then you have succeeded in psychologically undermining their morale. Which is, of course, a useful tactic in any battle.I guess that really depends on what their goals were but a few additional security measures were clearly not one of them and any "freedom" grab by, at least the Canadian government, is going to have to comply with the Charter.
In other words, a war on terror can have its own unforseen, and unfortunate, consequences.
I don't think they have much of a concept of that or care what we do regarding scaling back freedoms. In the case of Al-Qaeda, they want us out of the middle east and that hasn't happened.I don't want to speak of some mythical monolithic "them" equating to all terrorists, but it seems to me that if you can make your enemy so afraid that a certain level of creeping paranoia is effectively encouraged and their own citizenry's freedom of movement and expression end up being curtailed, then you have succeeded in psychologically undermining their morale. Which is, of course, a useful tactic in any battle.
I don't think they take much satisfaction in reducing the size of shampoo bottles you can carry on flights or any of the rest of the issues that we are concerned with.
These are our issues to deal with, security vs. personal liberty, they just want us out of their countries.
So..... apart from MacSpectrum's terminology lesson --- nobody here has anything to say about the U.S. military arming the very groups that were (are?) killing U.S. soldiers, in exchange for the promise that they would instead starting fighting Al Qaeda?
Hmm.
M
--- nobody here has anything to say about the U.S. military arming the very groups that were (are?) killing U.S. soldiers, in exchange for the promise that they would instead starting fighting Al Qaeda?Hmm.
M
" These are our issues to deal with, security vs. personal liberty, they just want us out of their countries."
I disagree... for hard-core revilers of Western ways, anything which serves to weaken the West would be agreable, would it not?
As for wanting "us" out of the Middle East, it seems like a bad joke from the word go... in such a boiling cauldron of rival states, factions and religions, there's always opposition and fanatical devotion to the idea of obliterating one's enemy, once and for all. For some reason, it is a place where the culture of blood lust has been allowed to thrive over the centuries. Whether or not "we" (whoever that is) are involved in the current conflict is immaterial. If an enemy did not exist, it would have to be invented. Americans happen to be a convenient current, scapegoat for a bitterness which soaks the soil and is far older than America itself.
I'm not attempting to say that this is a simple situation - far from it. I just think it's so full of greys (in the form of conflicts of interest and hidden agendas between competing nations and allies) that unravelling this puzzle is a daunting task.
I disagree... for hard-core revilers of Western ways, anything which serves to weaken the West would be agreable, would it not?
As for wanting "us" out of the Middle East, it seems like a bad joke from the word go... in such a boiling cauldron of rival states, factions and religions, there's always opposition and fanatical devotion to the idea of obliterating one's enemy, once and for all. For some reason, it is a place where the culture of blood lust has been allowed to thrive over the centuries. Whether or not "we" (whoever that is) are involved in the current conflict is immaterial. If an enemy did not exist, it would have to be invented. Americans happen to be a convenient current, scapegoat for a bitterness which soaks the soil and is far older than America itself.
I'm not attempting to say that this is a simple situation - far from it. I just think it's so full of greys (in the form of conflicts of interest and hidden agendas between competing nations and allies) that unravelling this puzzle is a daunting task.
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend"...or at least, we hope this is the case.So..... apart from MacSpectrum's terminology lesson
Hmm.
M
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Canadian Mac Forums at ehMac
A forum community dedicated to Canadian Mac owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about collections, iOS, models, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
