Margaret Hassan

[Ranger68]

No, that's wrong.
NO major power put forth resolutions to empower the UN mission, and the US, among others, VETOED resolutions that would have. There were no Canadian troops available for the mission - D'Allaire led a multi-national force without any troops of his own nationality. No other major nation presented troops for the mission, which is why they had to rely upon terribly equipped Bangladeshi's for the bulk of the troops, and why the core of the force was Belgian. This, despite the fact that Belgium, as the ex-colonial ruler, would usually have been prevented from partaking in such a mission - such was the desperation for any sort of boots on the ground.

 

[fernie]

I read in yesterday's paper that they have not found Hassan's body, though they still believe she is no longer alive.

Fernie

 

[ocean976124]

I disagree with the notion that the UN has been ineffective.

Indeed, the UN was very effective in taking bribes from Saddam's government to help him get around the UN sanctions.

 

[Ranger68]

It was also very effective in PREVENTING A NUCLEAR WAR.


It's hard to tell how snide you're being, but I truly believe that people of this generation just don't realize how lucky they are not to have suffered through another world war. We got our futures back, people. There were many times over the last fifty years where that looked to be in *grave* jeopardy.

How many hundreds of millions of people would have died had hostilities begun? The UN has fulfilled its original purpose in spades.

 

[ocean976124]

It was also very effective in PREVENTING A NUCLEAR WAR.


It's hard to tell how snide you're being, but I truly believe that people of this generation just don't realize how lucky they are not to have suffered through another world war. We got our futures back, people. There were many times over the last fifty years where that looked to be in *grave* jeopardy.

How many hundreds of millions of people would have died had hostilities begun? The UN has fulfilled its original purpose in spades.

I agree that the UN played a role in the Cold War era. However, in the terrorism era I think the UN is still trying to find how it fits in.
During the Cold War both the US and USSR knew that a nuclear war could not be won. They knew that a first strike meant Mutually Assured Destruction. Thus both parties had a vested interest in avoiding crossing certain lines. However, terrorists don't mind being destroyed themselves as long as they can take you with them. Thus the UN doesn't work quite as well in when dealing with this threat to world peace.
There needs to be new agreements on the consequences of harboring and aiding terrorism....

 

[Ranger68]

I agree with the premise that the UN doesn't deal *as well* with the terrorism threat, but you need to remember that it DID sanction the invasion of Afghanistan - arguably the ONLY recent invasion that had anything to do with terrorism - and that THAT went rather better than the current venture.

Also, I *fundamentally disagree* with the notion that terrorism is a threat to world peace. Unless everyone becomes like the US and uses it as an excuse to preventively invade all over the place.
Why do we need "new agreements"? What was wrong with the old ones? Afghanistan demonstratively harboured and supplied Al Qaeda cells, and they were brutally removed from power because of it. What's the problem? The UN went along with it, quite reasonably, and that was that.

It is a modern myth that *this* is the "terrorist era". Terrorism has existed for THOUSANDS of years, and frankly has been MUCH more prevalent in the past than it is now. It didn't work well then (to be *very* kind), and it won't work well now, as long as everyone doesn't get hysterical. (Dubya, I'm looking at you.)

Finally, LOTS of terrorists certainly do mind being destroyed themselves. Suicide terrorists are a small fraction of the whole.

 

[ocean976124]

I agree with the premise that the UN doesn't deal *as well* with the terrorism threat, but you need to remember that it DID sanction the invasion of Afghanistan - arguably the ONLY recent invasion that had anything to do with terrorism - and that THAT went rather better than the current venture.

The fact that the UN sanctioned it has nothing to do with how "well" its went (or is going). The difference between Iraq and Afghanistan is that the US didn't really try to occupy Afghanistan.

Also, I *fundamentally disagree* with the notion that terrorism is a threat to world peace. Unless everyone becomes like the US and uses it as an excuse to preventively invade all over the place.

Oh come on, give me a break. Terrorism is a major reason why there's no peace in the Middle East. And 9/11 was because the US backs Israel the terrorists seek to strike out at the US.

Why do we need "new agreements"? What was wrong with the old ones? Afghanistan demonstratively harboured and supplied Al Qaeda cells, and they were brutally removed from power because of it. What's the problem? The UN went along with it, quite reasonably, and that was that.

Yes but Iran, Syria, etc. still remain state sponsors of terrorism and they face little to no pressure to change from anyone besides the US. How can the UN put no pressure on countries that arm and give money to Hammas?

It is a modern myth that *this* is the "terrorist era". Terrorism has existed for THOUSANDS of years, and frankly has been MUCH more prevalent in the past than it is now. It didn't work well then (to be *very* kind), and it won't work well now, as long as everyone doesn't get hysterical. (Dubya, I'm looking at you.)

I simply disagree. Terrorists have the possibility to get their hands on weapons and devices in the 21st century that causes them to be much greater threats than any other time in history...

Finally, LOTS of terrorists certainly do mind being destroyed themselves. Suicide terrorists are a small fraction of the whole.

Suicide terrorism is mainstream in Islamic terrorism. Its not their first choice of attack, but there's no hesitation to use it.

 

[Ranger68]

Well, that's part of it, though, right? Nobody thought (rightly) that the US had anything more in it than a genuine NEED to destroy Al Qaeda. That's what they did, and now other nations are actively involved in helping to rebuild. I think the fact that the UN sanctioned it certainly did help.

"Terrorism" is why there's no peace in the middle east? I think you're mixing cause and effect, and badly. There have been FIVE RECENT WARS involving the state of Israel. The existence of the state of Israel is why there's no peace in the Middle East. The terrorism is there because nobody can challenge the power of Israel anymore. Right? Come on. You're right about one of the reasons why the US is being lashed out at though - continued, practically unquestioned support of Israel.

As for states that sponsor terrorism, this can easily be dealt with under the UN Agreement on Human Rights. The UN *should* be more firm with these states, but as we've seen, intelligence can be very faulty or spun to support all kinds of things. Not that I doubt these states are terrorist-supporters, and not that I think we should leave them alone. I think we should act STRONGLY to stop their actions. But, through the UN. Of course, THE US could act through the UN, and did for Afghanistan. I'm not sure that military intervention is in anyone's best interests with regards to these nations, necessarily, but the US should, if they're game, try to mobilize the UN to act. It's not like the UN is some *wholly* separate entity - in many cases, it (meaning the other member nations) does what the US wants. Why isn't the US pressing other nations for multilateral action on these rogue stats - using the UN as it was meant to be used?

No chance are terrorists more dangerous now. What kinds of weapons? This century has started out to be the *least* dangerous in terms of terrorism - *even factoring in 9/11*. (Not the least dangerous to people in North America, mind you - but there's the rub. And outside of 9/11, we're not really suffering yet, are we?) Let me say that terrorism can include *state-sponsored* terrorism, and thus includes all kinds of genocides of the worst kind from the past century. Anyway, what kinds of weapons? If you want to start another WMD discussion, we can, but let me say at the outset that it's a myth - the best weapon a terrorist could get their hands on today, after a nuclear weapon, would be a pile of explosives. There's no threat from biological or chemical weapons that anyone should be concerned about.

DON'T BUY IT FOLKS. There is no war on terror, nor is there a need for one.

There are lots of terrorist groups outside of Islamic terrorists, and tons of Islamic terrorists are NOT interested in suicide.

 

[ocean976124]

Well, that's part of it, though, right? Nobody thought (rightly) that the US had anything more in it than a genuine NEED to destroy Al Qaeda. That's what they did, and now other nations are actively involved in helping to rebuild. I think the fact that the UN sanctioned it certainly did help.

LOL, other nations actively involved? ROTFL! The US had a huge fight with NATO over sending more help to Afghanistan.

"Terrorism" is why there's no peace in the middle east? I think you're mixing cause and effect, and badly. There have been FIVE RECENT WARS involving the state of Israel. The existence of the state of Israel is why there's no peace in the Middle East. The terrorism is there because nobody can challenge the power of Israel anymore. Right? Come on. You're right about one of the reasons why the US is being lashed out at though - continued, practically unquestioned support of Israel.

Israel deserves to be supported. http://www.factsandlogic.org/

As for states that sponsor terrorism, this can easily be dealt with under the UN Agreement on Human Rights. The UN *should* be more firm with these states, but as we've seen, intelligence can be very faulty or spun to support all kinds of things.

Yes and such great human rights supporters like Syria and China get to sit on the UN's Human Rights Commission. What a joke.

It's not like the UN is some *wholly* separate entity - in many cases, it (meaning the other member nations) does what the US wants. Why isn't the US pressing other nations for multilateral action on these rogue stats - using the UN as it was meant to be used?

The US has been pressing for a tougher line on Iran in particular.

And outside of 9/11, we're not really suffering yet, are we?)

Yes, the key word in that sentence is "yet". A "dirty bomb" or chemical/biological attack isn't that difficult to carry out once the materials are obtained. I, for one, don't like waiting around for it to happen before we take action.

DON'T BUY IT FOLKS. There is no war on terror, nor is there a need for one.There are lots of terrorist groups outside of Islamic terrorists, and tons of Islamic terrorists are NOT interested in suicide.

The international threat comes from Islamic terrorism. Other terrorist groups mainly terrorize only their main enemy. Islamic terrorism considers the Western World and Jews as their main enemy.

 

[red]

vanessa reaches for the baby oil as AT removes her top.........

 

[Ranger68]

LOL, other nations actively involved? ROTFL! The US had a huge fight with NATO over sending more help to Afghanistan.

Israel deserves to be supported. http://www.factsandlogic.org/
Yes and such great human rights supporters like Syria and China get to sit on the UN's Human Rights Commission. What a joke.
The US has been pressing for a tougher line on Iran in particular.
Yes, the key word in that sentence is "yet". A "dirty bomb" or chemical/biological attack isn't that difficult to carry out once the materials are obtained. I, for one, don't like waiting around for it to happen before we take action.
The international threat comes from Islamic terrorism. Other terrorist groups mainly terrorize only their main enemy. Islamic terrorism considers the Western World and Jews as their main enemy.

Nations were involved, from the get-go, in Afghanistan. And nobody had any serious objections when the topic was being discussed.
?

I'm not saying that Israel doesn't need to be supported, although the US should ABSOLUTELY be pressing them harder on human rights issues. That they don't is one of the biggest causes of grief for them.

Nothing you've mentioned - dirty bombs, chemical weapons, biological weapons - should concern anyone in the least. These are not effective terrorist weapons.

Lots of terrorists other than Islamic ones have been of concern to western nations in the past, and will be again.

 

[ocean976124]

Nations were involved, from the get-go, in Afghanistan. And nobody had any serious objections when the topic was being discussed.
?

Yes, everyone was in agreement that the US would do most of the work. But NATO doesn't want to send peacekeepers or help train the new army and police. Pretty much all they've done is help with the cost.
As for serious objections, the NY Times declared Afghanistan another Vietnam about a week before the first bombs fell...

I'm not saying that Israel doesn't need to be supported, although the US should ABSOLUTELY be pressing them harder on human rights issues. That they don't is one of the biggest causes of grief for them.

Israel has been more restrained than practically any other nation would be given the terrorist threat they face on a daily level.

Nothing you've mentioned - dirty bombs, chemical weapons, biological weapons - should concern anyone in the least. These are not effective terrorist weapons.

These things cause panic and depending on when, where, and how they go off can cause a good deal of deaths.

Lots of terrorists other than Islamic ones have been of concern to western nations in the past, and will be again.

Indeed, but Islamic terrorism is different from other forms of terrorism. One could negotiate with the IRA, there is no negotiating with people who think they get to heaven by killing as many of you as possible...

 

[antaeus]

...(edited)...
We will probably not hear cries of outrage from the Muslim community because most of them will be hanging their heads shame. Unfortunately, on TV you will only be shown the ones dancing in the streets and celebrating her death.

On TV... yes, because multitudinous Western media outlets are starved for visual no explanation required hyperbolic content to draw the ears and eyeballs to sell their advertisers. Some broadcasters have 'ties' to christian sources that have agenda. Any cries of outrage from the Muslim community would not not get aired in the West, not least because of broadcasters fear of pissing off their advertisers.

...(edited)...
In the process, they project Islam as evil.
Islam may or may not be evil: I haven’t a clue – all I know is that so long as Islam protects killers like those who murdered Margaret Hassan, its creditability as a front-line faith is in jeopardy.

With my above comment and re:they project Islam as evil...yes, interesting it's the only thing you see on tv along with explosions, smoke, fighters with bullet bandoliers. Islam (apologies to all) has many similarities to christianity and Judaism. All 3 have a radical, loudmouth element, but I would never say that either religion as a whole protects killers, that's plain fear-mongering ignorance.

She was an Iraqi citizen (in addition to having a British citizenship) who had spent 30 years in Iraq helping Iraqis. ...(edited)...

In the ME citizenship is not something you acquire or change, it's your family bloodline only. 2 examples: Zahra Kazemi was Canadian to everybody but her original Iranian countrymen, to wit, they are still telling Canada to but out of an internal affair; and me - I was born and lived half my life there and legally could claim certain ME country's citizenship, but I would ALWAYS be American first, Canadian after I explained.

 

[antaeus]

There's the problem that many Westerners do not seem to understand... " He would not give his name for fear of reprisals".

That's the main problem facing many moderates in the Middle East. Moderate Muslims are afraid to denounce the acts of the fanatics because the reality is that they could very easily become the next target of the fanatics. You speak out against these lunatics and the next day, your home is invaded, your wife and children are raped, tortured and murdered, and this happens all the time.

...to the first part of post - yes, much like one witness on a TTC bus shooting.

To your last sentence...and this happens all the time. maybe yes maybe no, but how do you KNOW. I'm not trying to be diminutive and personal like so many political threads here, so I'll just say this, based on 1/2 lifetime in the ME. ALL news, information and "facts" reported from or about the ME should be taken with proverbial huge grain of salt. Most are false or have some truth but are of the disinformation variety. 100 media outlets, talking heads and politicians reporting a false but common mistruth do not give it credence.

I've heard rumours but most ransoms for money aren't advertised and very common in parts of the world. There were supposedly quite a number that happened during Beruit's civil war. I'm sure that capitalist ideals are live and well in iraq.

... re kidnapping for $ in Lebanon civil war...No this is not true of the infamous Western hostages. Primary reason was release of prisoners in 3rd countries. Example, France complied immediately and French hostages in Beirut were released. US (Israeli prisoners) and Brits did not release, and their respective nationalities' hostages were held for years.

My understanding is practically ALL of the kidnappings are for money, and virtually all of them come with a monetary demand. The threat is not that the kidnappers will kill the victim; the threat is that the kidnappers will turn the victim over to Al Qaeda.
...(edited)...

No they're not. Most are 'altruistic' in their purpose of furthering the cause - release my brothers in your jail, get out of my country. Or, a big or, are unfortunate collateral in a much more complex multi-layered power brokering ploy. Kidnapping for $ is more a regional or tribal thing and is fairly common in certain areas. Sometimes the $ factor does come into play, but is typically after a very long drawn out effort that has devolved to militia control exercising power for personal profit. But there's more profitable, lower risk methods for $ that come to the militias and sometimes unasked for.

Lastly, yes it is terrible what happened to Ms. Hassan. As much as I like to think I know about the ME, those who kidnapped her knew who and what she was. I cannot imagine what they hoped to accomplish.

 

[wikiwild]

I have come to the conclusion that Islam as a whole has declared war on all of us in the west and it is time to met it head on.


bbk

'Islam' is a religion, not a group of people. If you mean 'muslims', they can't even agree on the colour of their own poo, much less launch a concerted 'war' on all of us in the west.

BTW, about 500,000 of us in Canada are muslims, about 4 or 5 million in the states, and another 2 million in Western europe.

It appears that many of 'us' in the 'west' are muslims too. Most of them emmigrated (immigrated?) so that their children could find better education and free-er socieities and become whatever they want to become.

Pretty tough to declare war on yourself.

If you mean 'eastern muslims', then that's a little more plausible. However, do you mean Sunni or Shi'ite? Arab or Indonesian? Kuwaiti or Syrian? Iranian or Afghani? Malaysian or Philipino? Indian or Pakistani? Thai? Burmese? Turk?

Do you realize the IMMENSE cultural differences between all these groups of people who can ALL be classified as 'eastern muslims'?

Do you realize that there is no equivalent to the Papacy in Islam, i.e. no center of authority?

Where was this declaration made? Who decided it? In what language (most of the muslim world DOES NOT speak Arabic)?

For all muslims to declare and execute any kind of 'Jihad' against the 'west' is simply logistically impossible... can't be done... never gonna happen.

Most of the eastern countries mentioned have bigger problems to deal with than declare war on some strangers a world away...

 

[wikiwild]

Having issues with Israel and the US does not equate being part of an alleged Islamic war against the west.

Semantically speaking, Israel is in the Middle East, and the US is not the only Western country.

But If I were to take a poll here and ask how many people have serious issues with the US and Israel, I betcha many people would reply, and NOT many would be Muslim.

There is no doubt that there are VERY legitimate arguments to made about some VERY legitimate grievances against the U.S. AND Israel. I have also spoken with many muslims who use these grievances to EXPLAIN.. not to DEFEND, the actions of the terrorists. Providing these explanations does not mean that they are in cahoots with Bin Laden.

While your muslim countryfolk may potentially harm you, the potential to do so is no different from your Black countryfolk, or Hispanic countryfolk, or Native countryfolk.

Your fear is understandable, but unnecessary.

Unless I am mistaken, you, like many others, are unsure of who the enemy is, what their motivations are, and how to tell friend from foe.

To compensate, I think you have picked out a super-category, and determined that it holds little value to you (perhaps you don't have any muslim friends, or co-workers, or whatever), and you have drawn a line... it makes you feel safer and provides more certainty and ease..

after all, this way you KNOW which side you are on, it suddenly becomes black and white, there's YOU and then there's THEM.

 

[Ranger68]

Yes, everyone was in agreement that the US would do most of the work. But NATO doesn't want to send peacekeepers or help train the new army and police. Pretty much all they've done is help with the cost.
As for serious objections, the NY Times declared Afghanistan another Vietnam about a week before the first bombs fell...
Israel has been more restrained than practically any other nation would be given the terrorist threat they face on a daily level.
These things cause panic and depending on when, where, and how they go off can cause a good deal of deaths.
Indeed, but Islamic terrorism is different from other forms of terrorism. One could negotiate with the IRA, there is no negotiating with people who think they get to heaven by killing as many of you as possible...

We *were* talking about *international* support, specifically support at the UN level. Which, again, there was lots. The UNSC supported the Afghanistan invasion, which makes it fundamentally different than the Iraq invasion.

Meh. I'm not sure I buy that argument that Israel has been more restrained than anyone else has been. You don't know that. And, fact is, they HAVEN'T been all that restrained. They need to *obey international law* and vacate the lands they've illegally occupied - in accordance with the UN Charter. They need to be MORE restrained. Sorry.

That sentence you posted can be applied to conventional terrorist weapons - and, in fact, they're MUCH deadlier.

Not all terrorists have such limited goals as the IRA (British withdrawal from Northern Ireland) and not all terrorists have such far-flung goals as the Islamists (establishing a borderless Muslim religious state). I don't think this makes them any more or less dangerous. The fact is, most nations don't negotiate with ANY terrorists.

 

[Ranger68]

And, yes, as has been posted above - to equate the Islamists with the Muslims is ignorant.
Most Muslims want nothing to do with them.
Period.

 

[Ranger68]

"By NICK WADHAMS, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Gunmen ambushed a bus carrying unarmed Iraqis to work at a U.S. ammo dump near Tikrit on Sunday, killing 17 and raising the toll from three days of intensified and bloody insurgent attacks to at least 70 Iraqi dead and dozens wounded.

The attacks, focused in Baghdad and several cities to the north, appeared to be aimed at scaring off those who cooperate with the American military — whether police, national guardsmen, Kurdish militias, or ordinary people just looking for a paycheck.

The violence came just weeks after the United States launched major offensives aimed at suppressing guerrillas ahead of crucial elections set for Jan. 30."

Wayda "smoke out" those terrorists.

Nice job, Dumbya.

Of course, there are those *in this forum* who've said that it's "better them than us". Yeah, that's gonna work out real well for ya.

 

[ocean976124]

We *were* talking about *international* support, specifically support at the UN level. Which, again, there was lots. The UNSC supported the Afghanistan invasion, which makes it fundamentally different than the Iraq invasion.

Not really, since even with UN support the US would have gone into Afghanistan...

Meh. I'm not sure I buy that argument that Israel has been more restrained than anyone else has been. You don't know that. And, fact is, they HAVEN'T been all that restrained. They need to *obey international law* and vacate the lands they've illegally occupied - in accordance with the UN Charter. They need to be MORE restrained. Sorry.

Israel took land that was being used to invade them. They took the land at the very time when Syria and Egypt were threatening to invade them. Check out the myths of th 1967 war here http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf6.html

That sentence you posted can be app...eapons - and, in fact, they're MUCH deadlier. There's lots of options available to terrorists.

Not all terrorists have such limited goals as the IRA (British withdrawal from Northern Ireland) and not all terrorists have such far-flung goals as the Islamists (establishing a borderless Muslim religious state). I don't think this makes them any more or less dangerous. The fact is, most nations don't negotiate with ANY terrorists.

The main threat comes from Islamists.