If you click on the video clip at 7:55 mark -. there is a story about those arrested
“He says the Saudis have flooded Canada with free Qur’ans, laced with jihadist commentary.
“In the back of these Qur’ans that are being published in Saudi Arabia, you have basically essays on the need for offensive jihad and the legitimacy of offensive jihad and things like that. Very alarming stuff,” he said.
Amiruddin said many mainstream Muslim organizations in Canada are really part of the problem, standing by as extremist propaganda spreads in the mosques.
He cites the Al-Rahman centre in Mississauga, Ont., which he links to the Al-Maghrib Institute, which runs a popular educational website. It’s nominally run out of Ottawa, but Amiruddin says it’s really a Saudi operation.”
The CBC page referred to is here. As an aside – this is pretty funny – a courtroom artists rendition showing the young offenders from the Broad Strata Gang first presumably drawn – then their “identies” concealed with black boxes.
kmm – I see your point, but, you can’t set up an argument that IF we are reliant on oil, THEN, there will be terrorists. That’s your argument. That leads to the conclusion that, quite possibly, IF we were NOT reliant on oil, THEN, there wouldn’t be any terrorists. I’m saying that’s a fallacy.
The fact that oil, controlled by tribal dictatorships, enables them to maintain their dictatorships, doesn’t mean that IF you take away the oil, tribal-induced fascism would disappear. The problem is deeper. First, there is the long history of tribalism.
It might remain, but funded by some other tribal-controlled economic entity, such as drugs (as in C. America). Tribalism doesn’t disappear in an instant; the elite tribes have no intention of giving up power.
What might have happened, however, without the massive repression of the population provided by oil-funded military dictatorships, is that the ME might have remained within a peasant agricultural economy. But not for long, because as the world economy switched to industrialism, there would be several decisions to make. The ME would have to industrialize – but – how? Who would fund it? Who would educate a population that is primarily illiterate and operating only within local peasant agriculture? Who would build factories, roads, switch the population from a rural to an urban site, build apartments, hospitals, schools? Who would modernize Islam which rejects the education of women?
A ME population watching the rest of the world industrialize while repressed from participation in that mode of life would be very restless! That disparity might in itself, lead to the terrorism we now see. But, what might first happen?
First, massive migration from the ME, as the population wants to participate in the industrial world and can’t do it in their homeland. That’s what happened, with massive migration of unskilled Muslim labour to Europe.
But the problem would remain – how would this region of the world industrialize? It has one of the lowest proportions of arable land in the world; it must import food to sustain its increased population. And, the population has increased exponentially, far beyond the capacities of a rural agriculture to support, over the past two decades.
Oil is all that has enabled these states to support this increased population. But, tribalism has meant that they rejected allowing the people to participate in gov’t, in economic growth, to get educated, skilled. The majority of skilled labour in SA is foreign. They haven’t educated their own people and enabled them to participate in their own economy!
And, they haven’t reformed their religion, which supports a non-industrial lifestyle rather than an industrial lifestyle. They need gender equality, they need to promote individualism, entrepreneurship, risk-taking, non-kin based collaborations and so on.
None of this has to do with oil. It has to do with a sociopolitical infrastructure, tribalism, that has to be changed.
Civil War in Gaza.
Reuters calls Civil War: “Inter-factional fighting”.
Civil War in Gaza.
Muslims killing Muslims.
Civil War in Gaza supported/aide/abetted by Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE. …
Palestinian gunmen clash in Gaza Strip-(pali on pali violence)
reuteurs ^ | 10 Jun 2006 | Source: Reuters
Posted on 06/10/2006 11:05:51 AM PDT by Flavius
GAZA, June 10 (Reuters) – Gunmen shot dead a Palestinian security officer loyal to President Mahmoud Abbas on Saturday in an attack his comrades blamed on the rival Hamas group.
A gun battle between members of the Preventive Security Service and Hamas militants later erupted at the funeral of Major Basim al-Qutub and witnesses said at least three people were wounded in an incident involving a top security chief.
Inter-factional fighting has become commonplace in the Gaza Strip since Hamas, an Islamic militant group dedicated to Israel’s destruction, assumed power after crushing Abbas’s long-dominant Fatah faction in a January election …
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1646896/posts
kmm said
“But then Iraq would likely just turn into what Saudi Arabia is now, don’t you think”
The differentiation is that Saddam was a secularist dictator while the Saudi’s in the main adhere to the Wahhabist interpretation of Islam.
Both forms of govt. are closed. The US is trying to put together a democracy which includes disparate groups to move them away from internecine tribalisms in Iraq.
Similarly, Germany and Japan moved away from dictatorship and tribalism. Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and to lesser degree Saudi Arabia, Egypt are still have strong tribalist features in their societal structures. You can add your own granularity for completeness. When that tribalism lashes out is when the problems occur.
Well of course Germany and Japan by most measures aren’t as dysfunctional as they once were. Neither by extension should the ‘Muslim Lands’ be. This says nothing whatever about whether individuals are good or bad people, simply that the societal structures don’t permit the flexibility to adapt in a constructive way.
The expression of a destructive tribalism draws parallels in lessons learned from past political cataclysms in the past such as WWII.
When Ahmadinejad is using the same political rhetoric as Adolf, I don’t think I am drawing too long a bow in making the logical connector.
Hell my greater family lived through all that rubbish, so it is not too difficult to see that it is rearing its ugly head again.
40 million people later, and we have a radicalized Islamic interpretation saying “let’s light up the Jews” again.
Isn’t that patent evidence of tribalism running out of control?
ET
Tribalism and Islam both have to change focus.
The people need to replace those with Nationalism. All these ‘isms’ have their inherent dangers but Nationalism could replace tribalism(a more local type of nationalism if you like)and moderate Islam, driving it back to being simply a religion, like Christianity is now.
These things may happen naturally anyway as they have everywhere else. The question is can we stop the bleeding long enough to settle these countries down. If a natural economic process were allowed to occur then I think Nationalism would grow.
It takes a long term view and a hands off policy in the short term. This process had begun in the ME after WW2 but because of American aggressiveness in their foreign policy they will not tolerate certain challenges. What I am speaking of is the Democratic Republic that had emerged in Iran. Unfortunately, the government decided to nationalize the oil business. The American oil companies got American foreign policy working for them and the CIA orchestrated a coupe. Thereby setting back the rise of democratic government and the rise of nationalism in the ME.
We have to start over being less self interested in short term gain and more interested in long term peace, security and yes, gain.
Exactly, Hans. Very nice analysis. The key problem in the ME is tribalism. Islam is a sociopolitical system that promotes tribalism. They have to question it, debate it, and change it – as people like Salim Mansur and Tarek Fatah and Irshad Manji and others are saying.
And by the way, for all the ‘steve d’ types who assert that ‘it’s all about oil’ – while ignoring the sociopolitical mode of tribalism, I’d like to point out that oil use is global. I know steve d and others of the left have in mind that only the Evil USA uses oil, but, our industrial technological infrastructure is global. And, that infrastructure runs, heavily, on oil. All over the world. That includes all the computers and homes and cars and etc used by the left. Oil is a significant contributor to the industrial economy.
At one time, it was coal. Now, it’s oil. We’ll probably be moving to helium and hydrogen at some time, but for the moment, the whole world, not just the Evil USA, runs on oil. I wish the left would remember that.
ET
“kmm – I see your point, but, you can’t set up an argument that IF we are reliant on oil, THEN, there will be terrorists. That’s your argument. That leads to the conclusion that, quite possibly, IF we were NOT reliant on oil, THEN, there wouldn’t be any terrorists. I’m saying that’s a fallacy.”
I don’t see it as a fallacy at all. It is possible that removing oil would mean no terrorist. Though that still isn’t what I was argueing. What I was trying to say was that isn’t supporting these dictators the same as supporting the tribal culture, because really nothing will change when the west keeps supporting these governments.
As for how will the countries get rid of their tribal culture and become industrialized. Well this is something that I’m just starting to get into so I wouldn’t want to provide much for solutions. I just finished reading the End of Poverty by Dr. Jeffrey Sachs, which I would recommend. It mainly focuses Africa, but it addresses many of the questions you ask, and it is very optimistic about the possibility of the ability of a tribal country to become industrialized and democratic.
And one more thing, I wouldn’t ever say moving to towards a less oil reliant west is a cure all, it is instead just one piece of the puzzle.
steve d. said: “Yes, Saddam sent $25,000 to families in Palestine who lost a child to suicide bombing.”
I think the evidence showed that Saddam’s support of terrorism was far greater than cutting a few cheques.
For example, after the US achieved control of Baghdad, a TV report showed 300 or 500 fully-prepared, fully-charged suicide vests hanging on wardrobe racks inside a GOVERNMENT warehouse. The vests looked, at least to me, to be identical to those seized from Palestinian suicide bombers who were unsuccessful in blowing themselves up.
What were they for? The theory that makes most sense to me is that Saddam’s regieme had a political interest in supporting terrorism and supporting destabilization in the region. Just as Iran today has a clear interest in fostering the insurgency in Iraq and Afstan, not just for their own terrritorial ambitions but to keep the US occupied there, so that they are less able to deal with the Iranian situation.
Seems to me that its the other way its kill all the muslims.
What did the US do when IRAN democaticly elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh, they replaced him with the Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.
The US and Britain have always been a destabilizing force in the Middle East.
Back in the late 70’s and early 80’s both countries sold weapons to Iraq they continued even after the gassing of the kurds, Saddam was the only stablizing force they had to hold everything together, now that they lost their puppet in Iran.
Was it a good deal to give the War Lords of Northern Afghanistan money and the right to replant the opium fields?
Sorry Steve d., I just cannot let this go – you said “Israel has more UN resolutions against it than any other country”.
this statement says more about the UN than it does about Israel. The vast majority of UN resolutiions against Israel are from the General Assembly, which are non-binding “recommendations”.
The UN Charter (Articles 10 and 14) specifically empowers the General Assembly to make only nonbinding “recommendations.” Assembly resolutions are only considered binding in relation to budgetary and internal procedural matters.
As far as Security Council resolutions are concerned only those adopted under Chapter 7 of the Charter are binding and require action. The most severe resolutions of the UN Security Council are those specifically adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter – that deal with “Threats to Peace, Breaches of the Peace and Acts of Aggression.” When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, the UN Security Council adopted all its resolutions against Iraq under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. The implementation of those resolutions was not contingent on Iraqi-Kuwaiti negotiations, for Iraq engaged in a clear-cut act of aggression. Moreover, UN resolutions on Iraq are self-enforcing, requiring Iraq alone to comply with their terms. However, the UN recognized, under Article 42 of the UN Charter, the need for special military measures to be taken if a Chapter VII resolution is ignored by an aggressor.
Steve d, please do not mis-inform and mis-lead SDA readers. This is a favourite technique of Haroon Siddiqui and the Star and other left-leaning editorialists: well how can you go after Saddam for violating UN resolutions when Israel is always violating UN resolutions? this line of reasoning totally ignores the fact that General Assembly resolutions and Chapter 6 Security Council Resolutions are different from Chapter 7 Security resolutions which were issured against Saddam’s Iraq.
kmm – again, I see your point. But, as to who is supporting the dictators of the ME – I think you’d better look outside the US. Try France, Germany, Russia and China. It’s an error to focus everything on one country.
The reality is, however, that at the moment, the industrial global economy runs on oil. However, that doesn’t mean that a global economy based around oil REQUIRES that the ME, as the major source of oil, has to be run tribally! That is ITS error. It is the ME tribal dictatorships that are keeping their own people repressed. To blame this repression on the global use of oil, and the west’s use of oil, misses the point. The ME governments are, themselves, running as dictatorships. They could empower their own people; they choose not to do so. They aren’t puppets of the West; they could move out of tribalism.
Since, on their own, they won’t – and since this is harming the West – the West has had to move in, and take out the peripheral dictatorships and enable democracy. Since it was obvious that the ME would not, on its own – as it should have – moved itself into democracy. The West, by the way, did move into democracy on its own.
I haven’t read Sachs; thanks for the title. Africa is quite different – but again, it’s all about tribalism there!
Everything I’ve found so far is here:
-Terror Strike Toronto ( Aborted! )–
ET
hey sorry if I have singled out the US. It’s just too easy to do that seeing theyre so close to where I live and are often the biggest culprits. I know I shoudl even be lumping Canada in there too.
As for their the ME’s ability to move from tribalism from democracy, I simply think that sometimes the developed world is holding them back sometimes by supporting these dictators. I don’t think we need to go to the extent of forcefully removing, but instead just stop supporting them. Democratization takes time, and I believe can and must be initiated from the inside not from outside force. We as developed countries have to make sure democracy is not hindered by our doing and also support growing democracies with aid.
ex-liberal Here’s a short list of the resolutions against Israel.
The Security Council,
“Recalling its resolutions 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967, 267 (1969) of 3 July 1969, 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971, 446 (1979) of 22 March 1979, 452 (1979) of 20 July 1979, 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980, 476 (1980) of 30 June 1980, 478 (1980) of 20 August 1980, 904 (1994) of 18 March 1994, 1073 (1996) of 28 September 1996 and 1397 (2002) of 12 March 2002,
“Reaffirming the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force,
“Reaffirming its vision of a region where two States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side within secure and recognized borders,
“Condemning all acts of violence, terror and destruction,
“Stressing the urgency of ending the current violent situation on the ground, the need to end the occupation that began in 1967 and the need to achieve peace based on the vision of two States mentioned above,
“Reiterating its call upon Israel, the occupying Power, to fully and effectively respect the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949,
“Reiterating its opposition to settlement activities in the Occupied Territories and to any activities involving the confiscation of land, disruption of the livelihood of protected persons and the de factoannexation of land,
Resolution Vetoed by the US
October 14, 2004
Interesting about the Brits and Americans moving into the region back in the 50’s the exact point that Ahmadinejad raised in his letter to Bush.
This event has to be set into the global context of the COLD WAR as the Russians were also known to invade countries like Afghanistan in 1979 and permanently occupy East Germany. To suggest that the Soviets didn’t have global ambitions is just naive eg. Cuban missile crisis, etc.
I think to bring up those events after the demise of the COLD WAR is a misread by Ahmadinejad and the left. There was greater motivation there than supposed simple agression against Iran.
Moreover, since the Soviet system liquidated some 60 million people and the Chinese system some 75 million maybe the 1953 move wasn’t all about Iran but rather a part of the global COLD WAR.
For those not up to speed, try Alexander Solzynitsyn’s “Gulag Archipelago”. Ahmadinejad’s misread of the CIA campaign in the 50’s completely ignores COLD WAR realties. Back then the western democracies were holding the line on the communist ideological tribalism and Iran was swept up in the post-war WWII reality. This doesn’t completely excuse it, but makes the history understandable.
Mopping up Z-Man’s Scum.
Abbas al-Mufraji is on his Abbas, along with 23 other scums.
More, and faster.
Iraqi Military Arrest Top Zarqawi Aide
Posted by bnelson44
On 06/10/2006 1:39:40 PM PDT · 18 replies · 290+ views
FOCUS News Agency ^ | 6/10/06
Baquba. An aide to killed insurgent leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was arrested south of Baquba today, an officer in the Iraqi army said cited by AFP. Abbas al-Mufraji, described by the military as a Zarqawi associate, was arrested in the village of Khan Bani Saad, the same place where two heads without bodies turned up earlier in the day. Twenty-three other suspected followers of the Al-Qaeda in Iraq leader were also picked up in sweeps throughout the villages south of Baquba that started Friday and lasted well into the next
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1646942/posts
On or about June the 10th it is alleged that the impeturbable ET wrote the following: no, steve d. It is not ‘American capitalist imperialism’. The US is not an imperial nation. OK?
Heheh. If China had military bases in 130+ different countries people here would be flipping out worrying about the Chinese empire. The American emprise exists, the only question that’s left is whether it is good or bad, aggressive or benign, influential or not in all places at all times, etc.
Military aside, it’s difficult to pin down the kind of capitalist expansionism we see and lay it all at the feet of the US, given the international structure of the major players and the organizations propagating it (IMF, WB), but the US continues to play a strong role (in both military, economic and policy terms), even if its grown beyond the full control of the US.
What were we talking about? Oh yeah, terrorism in Canada…man I love a good threadjacking.
“Moreover, since the Soviet system liquidated some 60 million people and the Chinese system some 75 million”
Good point Hans but I dislike your used of the word liquidated. Murdered would be more appropriate. Liquidated makes is sound like some socialist scientific experiment.
Hans
Ahmedinejad is not misreading the Cold War. I think that the movement at that time of Iran toward a more Western style government is evidence of this.
You have to appreciate how powerful economically and militarily speaking the U.S. was in relation to everyone else. Their power was and is overwhelming compared to everyone else.
The Soviet ambitions were real but then so are America’s. So were Japan’s and Germany’s before WW2. America fought them both at the same time and won. I don’t think Russia was ever a real economic threat only a potential military threat. But then with Mutual Assured Distruction the military response in the end is unthinkable. In reality then Russia was only a minor economic player. They had to spend so much trying to keep their military operational that it finally bankrupt them. America didn’t blink but kept charging on after a brief respite from building in the 90’s they are rejigging their military for the new realities, all without missing a beat. It is truly a remarkable economic machine. But they do require huge amounts of raw material and cheap labour to keep their economy vibrant. They do after all consume more than half of everything.
So when I constantly refer to the U.S. it is because they are a huge factor in almost everything going on in the world. Their aggressiveness overwhelms their competitors most of the time. If there is resistence, they just get more aggressive. It is this overaggressive imperialism that is responsible for their faux pas internationally. It also blinds them to local realities which come back to bite them..as Iran is now.
Ahmadinejah is no Hitler. Hilter was a dictator, with total control. Ahmadinejah is one of a small group. Ahmadinejah is a mouthpiece but not the last word.
It has been the American foreign policy that they want regime change since 1979. They would prefer a non-Islamic despot. They aren’t likely to get another shot at a democratic republic for another while.
I don’t think American foreign policy has changed since before the turn of the 20th century. That is, it is run as an extension of American business. As such they are prone to suffer from short term solutions to gain the economic prize, be it oil or some other raw material important to Multinational corporations.
If they took the attitude that they will take the short term gain but work for long term stability through empowering the people rather than a despot or small oligarchy then these Iran situations might be far fewer in the future.
kmm is right when she (?) points out that the west’s oil dependancy in part facilitates the terror problem. oil is all they have and without its value they would have no choice but to finally modernize in every way. they produce nothing, they contribute nothing, at least since the oil floodgates were openned, and they have to work for nothing. without the golden eggs that goose would have to get along with the gaggle.
Dear Neutralsam,
Pleas note there is a distinction between UN General Assembly resolutions and UN Security Council resolutions. UNGA resolutions are political statements and not legally binding. Security council resolutions create legal obligations, which vary depending upon the chapter of the United Nations Charter under which they are passed and the text of the resolution.
Chapter VI of the UN Charter is entitled “Pacific Settlement of Disputes” and resolutions under this chapter envision negotiated solutions. All Security council resolutions related to Israel were promulgated under Chapter VI. Neither sanctions nor force are authorized to enforce Chapter VI resolutions.
By contrast, Chapter VII of the UN Charter refers to cases of aggression or threats to international security, and is entitled “Action With Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression.” These resolutions involve non-military (i.e. political and economic) sanctions and/or the use of force. These resolutions are enforced by third parties: the UN itself and/or UN member states.
All of the Iraq resolutions include the phrase “Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter.” Some also include the phrase “authorizes Member States … to use all necessary means” (i.e. the use of military force).
As I said above, that the UN spends a third of its time and resources fixating on Israel, says more about the UN than it does about Israel – unless you think that the 5.5 Jews living on that tiny speck of earth are really causing that much trouble in the world.
that would be 5.5 million
Grill, aka hot seat, third degree, etc.
Imam Aly Hindy will be offended; MP Algebra is tied up, Bob Rae is a stooge,
El Misery will commiserate with Pak suspect (what’s a Pak?), Kadars are on their way to Londonistan to protest, Harkat is at a strip club/unreachable, Mohammed is spouting blasphemous curses (blessed be he of murderous memory), and Allah is on the throne. …
British officials grill Pak suspect
PakTribune.com – 49 minutes ago
LONDON: Investigators are probing whether a man arrested in Britain played a role in arranging terrorist training in Pakistan for those involved in the alleged plot to conduct a series of terror attacks on Canadian targets, reports said on Thursday. …
googlenews
ex-liberal
If I had a dime for every time I have read a front page story about the Israeli/Palestinian problem I would be without doubt a millionaire.
While Israel and Palestine are tiny specks they are for some reason very important tiny specks. Seemingly causing a lot of governments a lot of time and attention. So lets not underestimate its importance. It appears to be very important to a lot of people. The world never seems to tire of negotiating their problems. They do show very little patience(relatively speaking) with Iraq, Iran or Afghanistan.
steve d – your long monologue, without evidence or logic is -well, a long monologue without evidence or logic.
Could you provide proof that the US wants a non-Islamic despot in Iran? It’s the ‘despot’ that I find fascinating, and I’d really like your evidence.
Again, you don’t seem to know anything about social structures. Don’t you understand that economics is the ‘basic ground’ of a society? You seem to think that ‘business is bad’. That’s typical left, but, it’s always such fun to wonder how the leftist (you) could live without any food, housing, or even your computer.
It’s quite astonishing to realize that you haven’t a clue about social structure.
Could you explain what you mean by ‘short-term solutions’?
Oh – and multinational companies. Could you explain that also? Are you aware that the world is now, spatially and temporally, global and networked? Do you know what that means? Do you expect a 6 billion world population to operate within local food, clothing, housing and other resources?
What a silly thing to say – to blame the Iran ‘situation’ on the US. Nonsense. Blame Iran for Iran.
You sound a bit like the superstitious folk who blame everything on ‘evil spirits’. For you, that automatic knee-jerk ‘spirit’ is the US. But, don’t you think it’s time you moved out of the spirit world of superstition and started to deal with facts, evidence, logic and try to get an understanding of social and political infrastructures?
It’s not just that the comments made by that imam are opportunistic – they’re false too. There are different streams of Wahhabism. The Saudi brand doesn’t advocate violence or aggression against the government, even if it be non-Muslim.
querty said:
“Good point Hans but I dislike your used of the word liquidated. Murdered would be more appropriate. Liquidated makes is sound like some socialist scientific experiment.”
Liquidated is the appropriate word given the forced farm collectivization in the Ukraine and Great Leap Forward events in China as well.
If that wasn’t a social science experiment gone wrong, I could not think of a more compelling example. If one didn’t go along with the five year plan, hard labour and a fast bullet to the back of the head were the most common “responses”.
The “Cultural Revolution” wasn’t too helpful either. How about that for “multicultural” fans?
Hey its just the replacement of institutional terror with jihadist terror. In the end, you are still very dead.
The American super power effort takes its thrust from the Monroe doctrine harking back to the days of ‘gun boat diplomacy’. While I am not an apologist for the American regime; I can tell you about my experiences in the worker’s paradise of East Germany and Czechslovakia. No thanks, one adventure with machine pistols in my face, and numerous divisions of Soviet Army told me all I need to know. While the American regime isn’t perfect it is better than the alternatives.
My folks did the full meal deal with Adolf; but managed to scrape by with their lives and bodies intact.
So far my greater family have dodged all the various ‘shitstorms’ thrown at us from Bismark, Kaiser Wilhelm, Adolf, Stalin, and Honnecker. We’ve had a front row seat to a lot of awful inhuman cruelty. For all the anti-Americanisms being hurled about at least they have a president who has got the jam to express regret when they messed up on Abu Graib.
Churchill had some pretty good thoughts on democracy as well. Hell even he said the Dresden bombings weren’t all they were cut out to be. My greater family made it through that one as well. It would seem participation rather than isolation would be the name of the game.
Finally, if you are looking at the cemetary from the topside its probably a good day. Lord knows a lot of politicians of various stripes have been trying to get us to look from the bottom. So far the Schweinehunde (Sons of Bitches) haven’t been successful. Now you will have to put up with me.
Cheers!
The continuation of Allied action in Iraq was valid and legal. A reading of section 34 of the -ceasefire- agreement should make that clear.
….”and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area.”….
The smokescreen of dragging in the non-binding resolutions against Israel is based either in ignorance or deliberate misinformation.
No doubt, if the U.S and others had moved against Saudi Arabia, Steve D. would be here moaning how dare they and what about Saddam and Iraq.
As an aside, maybe the U.S. should have just taken over the world in 1945. They certainly get damned for whatever they do or don’t do, or should have done and so on….
As someone looking in on this argument “from the outside,” as I don’t know enough about the details of this situation to comment, it appears to me that steve d. is playing at responding to the questions asked of him. There is something inauthentic and woozy, as in no straight line, in his (il)logic.
I don’t know. Is it worth trying to explain to him in detail the situation in the ME? He never seems to grasp the point being made and slides into ever widening circles of irrelevance. I suspect laughing the whole time.
He’s getting an awful lot of SDA attention. Does he deserve it?
Robert in Calgary said:
“maybe the U.S. should have just taken over the world in 1945”
With tongue firmly in cheek,
then we could sing: “AMERIKA UBER ALLES” 😎
(apologies Kate)
And yes, Steve D does seem to have “complications” grasping straight-forward logic.
Laughing?? If being dense is a form of entertainment for him we should all be laughing at him.
There already is a “Palestinian” country.
From page 424 of “Paris 1919”
“Mindful of its promises to the Arabs, the British government, at the urging of Churchill, now colonial secretary, divided the mandate in two, with Palestine confined to the area west of the Jordan and a new little Arab state of TransJordan under the rule of Feisal’s brother Abdullah.”
It would be quite useful if you would apply your efforts to get the Arab countries to respect this fact. Perhaps you could do a tour of the Arab capitals?
“little” Jordan 92,300 sq. km
Israel 20,770 sq.km
Gaza Strip 360 sq. km
West Bank 5,860 sq. km
How little do you think the Jewish people should have?
If young ME men are constantly disempowered by lack of participation and ownership, then they have nothing to lose.
Muslim males have a lot of power to lose if they join the 21st century and give up their macho status. That’s why it is being fiercely resisted. It seems you’ve defined the situation of women more aptly in the ME. The ME macho males have power over the life and death of females in their own families in many places in the ME, for God’s sake. It would follow that if your mother, product of an arranged marriage, maybe dad’s third wife, is so cheaply regarded by dad and the culture(add sister, too), then there is really no mechanism for you to evolve as a male with qualities of fairness, respect for humanity in general, and with anything less than a twisted sense of entitlement. When you are raised by an illiterate(imposed upon them)woman with poor self-esteem in a culture that is exclusively macho, you’ve got pathology as a male. Multiply that by millions.
This is a much different paradigm than pre-WWII Germany.
Soiled their clothing and bedsheets… yukee.
Bloomberg describes the departed as “detainees”. They were buddies of Z-Man: Muslim Islamist terrorists.
Mo and Al are in mourning. …
Guantanamo Bay Detainees Commit Suicide, US Says (Update2)
Bloomberg – 44 minutes ago
June 10 (Bloomberg) — Three detainees hanged themselves in their cells at the US military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, using their clothing and bedsheets, the US military said. Two Saudis and a Yemeni … via Google news
maz2, I find this site stranger and stranger. Please tell me that you are not rejoicing.
Penny:
I didn’t say the paradigm was exact just that there are some similarities.
The thing about oppression is that the tyrants just curry enought favour with supporters to keep overt revolt under wraps either through fear, manipulation and control of the state apparatus.
There are some parallels in that Adolf gave out what was derisively referred to the “Rabbit medals” or “Kaninchen Orden” to mothers of many children, etc. Marriage of party apparatchiks was controlled by “racial purity checks” etc.
Secondly, you don’t see too many women bombers among the jihadists as you didn’t in WWII among the belligerents.
In any case, a good observation Penny.
Further, in kingdoms and tyrannical states only about 5-10% are empowered by having the levers of the state at their disposal or their friends for favours. The rest just kind of scrape by in a pedestrian way. It would be a stretch to say a broad strata of youth feel ownership of their soceity in ME lands.
Given that Yasser Arafat reportedly tucked away billions in assets, from all sorts of aid and loan programs over the years, it certainly didn’t get on a developmental level to the people.
Robert in Calgary,
Thank you for pointing that out.
There is a state for Arabs from the the British Mandate for Palestine – its called Jordan.
Between 1948 and 1967, when Jordan held Judea and Samaria (West Bank) and Egypt held Gaza, there was not a single Arab, Muslim, UN member, Noam Chomsky-ite-I-hate-me-too-leftie-Jew, calling for a state for the “poor poor ancient Palestinians”.
After the 1967 war, Israel offered everything they gained in a land for peace deal. The Arabs responded with the 3, now famous, Nos:
No peace with Israel
No recognition of Israel
No negotiations with Israel
How to determine if a Muslim is a “moderate”? Ask if they think that Israel has a right to exist? Ask what they think of Christians and Jews.
Glen; re: U.S. I think world thinks that US is the target/bad guy and therefore they do not have to take precautions. Sorry if there was doubt.
Apparently it’s the Sunni side of the strata.
Now THAT was a good one, Andy.
The pic is posted at LGF….
A Member of Canada’s Roundtable on Security*
In yesterday’s post about the Canadian authorities’ kid-glove treatment of the Islamic community, there’s a quote from Hussein Hamdani, a lawyer and member of the government’s cross-cultural roundtable on security:
[Hussein Hamdani] and others tried to explain to police why they had to engage the Muslim community.
“We would say, ‘Look, you’re doing a negative job when doing outreach because you have this wall of silence,’ ” he said. “I don’t think they listened for a long time.”
In 1998 at the University of Western Ontario, Hussein Hamdani reached out to the Jewish Student Union’s celebration of Israel Independence Day, showing up with a friend dressed in a shirt with fake blood stains and a kaffiyeh covering his face and head.
[Pic here]
Celebration of Isreal disrupted.
For the second consecutive year, a Jewish celebration was disrupted by a single student protestor in the University Community Centre. The celebration of the 50th anniversary of the Independence of Israel was hosted by the Jewish Students’ Union yesterday.
The demonstrator, dressed in an artificially blood-stained shirt with his face and head covered with a scarf, was handing out pamphlets modeled after the JSU’s posters used to advertise yesterday’s celebration. The flyers acuse Israel of tyranny, oppression and bloodshed.
“The celebration was not intended to be a political statement, although there are certain people who do not accept Israel because they want a completely Arab area,” said Michael Bloom, public relations officer for the JSU. He added the event is held annually to celebrate the birthday of Israel.
The University Police Department and Entertainment Productions manager Pete Stanbridge, who is responsible for booking the space in the UCC, were contacted shortly after the protestor appeared and asked the student to leave, Stanbridge said. “The concern was that it would disrupt the event or create a situation where tempers might flare.”
Although the protestor refused to comment, his accompanying friend Hussein Hamdani, a first-year law student, spoke to members of the UPD and University Students’ Council questioning their grounds for asking the protestor to leave. “I am not protesting anything – I heard that they had restricted someone from walking around,” Hamdani said. “This person was doing nothing illegal – a paying member of the USC has the right to walk around the student centre.”…
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/
Hamdani …. appointed by Martin’s security team: “No-Longer-Got-Yer-Guns” McLellan, Cotler, Chan.
globeandmail.com : Islam & the West
Hamdani Hussein Hamdani is a lawyer who sits on the federal Cross-Cultural Roundtable on Security. He is also heavily involved in the Muslim community, …
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060605.wterrdisc0605/BNStory/Front/?pageRequested=all – 64k –
Backlashes? You want backlashes. For Muslim Islamist terrorists? How many?
Google News…
Historian warns against anti-Muslim backlash
Canada.com – 11 hours ago
A Muslim cleric shouts slogans as Lebanese demonstrators set fire to the building housing the Danish consulate in a Christian neighbourhood of Beirut 05 February 2006. OTTAWA – A controversial British historian ..
Did anyone every consider that SteveD might not be a Liberal, but simply a clever moderate who just enjoys starting little fires and watching everybody throw kerosene at them. Try ignoring him both here and at Angry White, I’ll bet he gives up and moves over to the left Blogs and fights as a righty for a while.
Bob Rae, a member of convenience of the Liberal Party of Canada, is seeking the leadership of the federal Liberal Party of Canada. Rae has called publicly for the early withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan.
Bob Rae fits Warren’s definition of a Muslim Islamist stooge. …-
Defend with Vigour, Not ‘Sensitivity’ (Canada roused!)
RealClearPolitics.com ^ | 6/10/2006 | David Warren
Posted on 06/10/2006 8:41:25 AM PDT by Dark Skies
In the words of one of my correspondents, “I have been going around trying to believe that we haven’t been harbouring a Fifth Column, a blatant Fifth Column, and, lo, we have.”
My reply to everyone in her condition is, now you know. And now that you do know, do not forget what you know.
The arrest of 17 alleged terror cell members around Toronto last weekend could not surprise anyone familiar with police and intelligence work in this area. We have been repeatedly warned that fanatical Islamists have been organizing, with a view to terror strikes — not only abroad, but here. And as we should have observed already from England, and elsewhere in Europe, they have surprisingly little difficulty recruiting suicidal young Jihadis from the second and third generations of peaceful Muslim immigrants.
These are facts that we must face, one way or another. Pretending it’s not happening, or that it will stop happening if we meet some fanciful demands (such as withdrawing from Afghanistan, or surrendering Andalusia), does not change the reality.
We should take pride that, working with their contacts throughout the West, our police and intelligence may very well have prevented the destruction of prominent public buildings, and the violent deaths of hundreds or thousands of innocent people. Prime Minister Harper was right to express satisfaction in this.
We should be prepared to express outrage at the apologists for fanatical Islam, who attempt to run interference on behalf of those arrested by raising specious counter-charges of “racism” and the like.
But get used to that. Intrinsic to the threat against the West is not terrorism, alone, but terrorism in combination with legal efforts to use the more fatuous provisions of our “human rights” codes to subvert our defences.
Still, be clear: this does not come from the Muslim majority, who have no desire whatever to be associated with acts and arguments that give Muslims a bad name. It comes from a small, determined, and disciplined community of religious fanatics. Appeasing them, as if they represented Muslims at large, only empowers these fanatics.
Nor hold it against “moderate” Muslims that few of them speak up. They are even more prey to the fear that is stalking the non-Muslim population, because they are closer to the threat. As I began my first column after the 9/11 attacks on the United States, “The purpose of terrorism is to terrify, so that the first response to it must be the Gospel response: ‘Be not afraid’.” This is what we should communicate to every decent Muslim. That we are in this together.
Do not listen to the nonsense that will be argued, increasingly, by the bed-wetters of the Left in our academic and media establishments, who blame the terror not on its perpetrators, but on their own domestic political opponents. In particular, now that Parliament has affirmed our troops will remain in Afghanistan until 2009, anyone who demands a quicker exit should be publicly labelled as the terrorists’ stooge. …
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1646843/posts
ronrob
don’t be gambler they always lose in the end.
maybe I dont label as well as some because I follow no ideology just my common sense, my gut, my knowledge, etc.
Most people are not simply defined as liberal or conservative or anything else. people have opinions and, over time you can see a certain bias but then that doesn’t always tell you how they will respond to the next thing.
ET
An Iranian despot the Americans would like is someone like the last Iranian despot the Shah of Iran, 1953-1978. Are you aware that the Americans deposed a democratically elected government in 1952? They did. The government was going to nationalize oil putting American oil companies out of a lucrative business. They complained to the American government and as a result the CIA overthrew the government. The Shah was America’s man. That is why when deposed he ended up in America.
Shortly after that Saddam became America’s man in the ME and even fought a war at the ecouragement and financing of America against the Iranians. While Saddam was poison gassing the Kurds, Rumsfeld was shaking Saddams hand in Baghdad.
The reason I think a despot is what they want is that they are traditionally easier to control and easier to take out if there are problems(Saddam,Noriega)the exception being Castro. They can’t control the Imams, I hope you agree. There is not quick way to set up a democracy after a coupe, so that leaves us with the obvious, a despot or a puppet that will do your bidding, I think the guys in charge in Afghanistan and Iran fit the bill. Yes, I know there were “elections” but the Afghan one really they are illiterate, they didn’t really know what they were doing. The Iran elections I think there was more backroom negotiating as to candidates than is acknowledged. You have to think that after almost $400 billion invested so far the Americans are not simply going to walk away any time soon, even if peace is declared tomorrow.
I realize we have a global economy. I also realize it has been a global economy that is to a large extent run by American business and has been since WW2. America came out of that war as the singular economic superpower. She has held that position ever since. Like every other superpower in history they have economic and military clout. An irresistible one two punch.
It is not bad or good. Economics isn’t morality. Economics is about business and business is about the bottom line. No illusions. Business is simple and straightforward. In business you use leverage when you need it, bribes when you need them, lobbying when you need it, gifts and wineing and dining. Just get the deal and make the business bottom line grow. That is what America has done best for the last 100 years.
Find the words, “the survivors at all strata”, in these comments:
Stalking Zarqawi
desert rat said…
Both westhawk and tigerhawk second stratfor’s idea there may a Grand Agreement in Iraq that led to Z and the 17 safe houses all being taken down concurrently.
Price of Peace was Z and his network.
If this assessment is correct we’ll see the Sunni Insurcetion wind down quickly.
Baghdad, Ramadi and Haditha will be the places to watch to see if Peace has broken out in Iraq.
3:44 PM
The Mad Fiddler said…
It takes no genius to make this prediction: There will likely be a significant purging by al Qaeda of its own ranks over the next few months. I anticipate both a wave of internal murders AND a handful of defections. Regardless of any leaks or officially promulgated version of the source for Zarqawi intel, the survivors at all strata must be wondering about the wavering commitment of those standing near.
3:52 PM
wretchard said…
Once the Iraqi government became a going concern the context changed entirely. Jordan was probably looking to revive trade with its neighbor. People are looking for contracts. Now that the Sunni pols are on board they are looking to get positions, make deals, etc. It doesn’t really make sense for a Sunni to accept the Ministry of Defense position and have Zarqawi out there planning on sending a car bomb into it.
It’s possible that Z had simply outstayed his time. The last of the desperadoes in a settled West. Bad for business and all that. And if he died he would take his secrets with him. Everyone in the government can take their seat with clean hands. I say that with bitter irony.
But that’s how it goes in that brutal business. Once it was clear that the insurgency wasn’t really going anywhere there was no percentage in keeping it up. Zarqawi’s mistake was that he put himself so far out that he couldn’t do a deal. He had burned his bridges and what was there but to await the end. Funny how the Z and Abu Nidal were always the last to know.
3:59 PM
Doug said…
” He had burned his bridges and what was there but to await the end. Funny how the Z and Abu Nidal were always the last to know.”
—
I would think he must rank pretty high on the All Time List of Bridge Burners. …
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=12136206&postID=114988853200518927
Steve,
without going into all of the ridiculous assertions that you make, who do you thinks owns those big businesses that you refer to?
Do you own mutual funds, or have a pension? If you do, chances are you are an owner of those bad companies, as are millions of other “owners”. This isn’t the 1920’s where only the priveleged few partook in capital ownership.
Do you drive a car or purchase consumer goods procuded by these evil companies?
BTW, how many people do you think are employed ( ie gain a livelihood) from those evil corporations?
Steve, you blind hypocrite, don’t you know that you (or your parents with whom you currently live): 1) own shares and directly share in the wealth created by those companies 2) regularily avail yourself of the benefits of the goods offered by those companies(unless you live in a cave and “live off the land”), and 3) either directly or indirectly gain a livilihood from those businesses that want to make the “bottom line grow”.
Steve D
So what is wrong with capatalism and the incentive for profit? You talk about it as if it is a bad thing. It is what drives competition and improvement in market economies and gives incentive to take risks. In your “perfect world”, how would things be different?
Daniel
Everyone should read this article by Salim Mansur of the Toronto Star.
http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Mansur_Salim/2006/06/10/1623710.html
It is the first article that I have read where a Muslim journalist has had the courage to speak to his fellow Muslims about what is wrong with Islam. Brutally honest in his evaluation. I hope that it is widely read in the Muslim community. It echoes many of the thoughts and insights shared on this thread.
One more article of note. Prime Minister Stephen Harper is looking more Prime Ministerial all the time:
“Prime minister holds closed-door meeting with Muslim community leaders”
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2006/06/11/1625074-cp.html
Here Mitch check out this interview with the author of “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man”.
John Perkins, from 1971 to 1981 he worked for the international consulting firm of Chas T. Main where he was a self-described “economic hit man.”
This is what the US brings to third world countries EHM’s.
“JOHN PERKINS: Yeah, it was a tongue-in-cheek term that we called ourselves. Officially, I was a chief economist. We called ourselves e.h.m.’s. It was tongue-in-cheek. It was like, nobody will believe us if we say this, you know? And, so, we went to Saudi Arabia in the early seventies. We knew Saudi Arabia was the key to dropping our dependency, or to controlling the situation. And we worked out this deal whereby the Royal House of Saud agreed to send most of their petro-dollars back to the United States and invest them in U.S. government securities. The Treasury Department would use the interest from these securities to hire U.S. companies to build Saudi Arabia–new cities, new infrastructure–which we’ve done. And the House of Saud would agree to maintain the price of oil within acceptable limits to us, which they’ve done all of these years, and we would agree to keep the House of Saud in power as long as they did this, which we’ve done, which is one of the reasons we went to war with Iraq in the first place. And in Iraq we tried to implement the same policy that was so successful in Saudi Arabia, but Saddam Hussein didn’t buy. When the economic hit men fail in this scenario, the next step is what we call the jackals. Jackals are C.I.A.-sanctioned people that come in and try to foment a coup or revolution. If that doesn’t work, they perform assassinations. or try to. In the case of Iraq, they weren’t able to get through to Saddam Hussein. He had — His bodyguards were too good. He had doubles. They couldn’t get through to him. So the third line of defense, if the economic hit men and the jackals fail, the next line of defense is our young men and women, who are sent in to die and kill, which is what we’ve obviously done in Iraq.”
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/09/1526251
daniel and mitch
corporations are owned by shareholders but controlled by a small power elite perhaps 1% of the population. It is who the prime ministers and presidents work for when they leave office. They hire from senior government and lend to senior government. They have access. They support politicians and political parties. Typically many will support Liberals and Conservatives. Hedging their bets. Politicians help them attain their goals.
Notice the small guy is out of the loop. The middle class and lower classes are stuck with the results of whatever the upper group decides.
If they decide to move half of their business to China, well thats just good business. If its good for business then it will be good for everyone…eventually. They mean of course when our wages fall to their levels…then they will come back.
These elite have benefitted enormously while the middle class have been treading water economically. The top 1% have enjoyed over a 400% increase in benefits, regardless of how well the company does. The CEO’s used to make 20 times what the average worker made, then 70 times. Now they make 700 times what the average worker makes.
In a culture that is supposed to be relatively classless we have now a new aristocracy. Like the old aristocracy it vaccuums money up their way leaving less and less for the little guy. The corporations have along the way managed through their influence, to gain ever greater benefits from society while giving back less. They used to pay 50% of the taxes in this country after WW2 and now their taxes are less then 20% headed for zero. Provincially they pay as little as 9% in Alberta and as high as the mid teens in some other provinces. Meanwhile they gets further benefits through a plethora of write-offs, write-downs, delayed taxes, deferred taxes, low capital gains tax, dividend tax, etc.
Then if they are going to expand they take advantage of government ‘incentives’ tax free periods, free loans, etc. You get the idea. People complain about welfare recipients but our largest corporations get a hundred times more than the welfare recipients.
I like corporations. I just don’t like them being used by a small elite. I think the benefits could be spread around a little more equitably and responsibly. They have too much power to the detriment of the vast population. There needs to be a re-balancing of power within society.