Lets see what the Leftys would do........

[EastSideScotian]

Ok.....

Iam not a lefty or a righty ...Iam in the middle ground....Now as for the War.....and the Use of troops in Afghanistan, I am for it, as a means of fighting terrorism, I see it as basicly the onyl way it can be fought.

Now..its seems to me that most Left wingers are on the whole Pull the troops out bus.

My Question to the....Left, is:
What are your Ideas on how we would Fight terrorism, without the use of force, and military power? I mean since it seems you dont want to use the troops to do it in Afghanistan, How should we go about fighting the global threat.....

This isnt a ploy of anytype, because there is definatly some other ways to go about it....I want to sue this thread to compare the ideas and see which we all think would possibly work to Give North America Mainly Canada security and peace of mind, in the war on terror, with out the use of troops.

Also the right can say there ideas too with out the use of troops, but use of troops seems to be a mainly right wing supported idea

 

[FiveParadox]

Re: Peaceful Antiterrorism

Before I post my suggestions in relation to how to combat terrorism without the use of the Canadian Forces, I would like to make it quite clear that despite being left-wing, I do indeed support the present mission in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. To that end, I would like to see our Forces continue to be effective in that region until such a time where it would be appropriate to begin effecting their return.

In my opinion, dialogue is a cornerstone of peace, and any efforts to combat terrorism in a peaceful manner should be with keeping that idea in mind. I would suggest that one major component of such an endeavour would be to engage in open, and honest, conversations with the persons who are suspected, or proven, of or as wanted to commit acts of terrorism against Canada (and, where warranted, elsewhere). This could be accomplished through inviting "representatives", so to speak, of these terrorists, to speak to Members of Parliament, or other representatives of the Government of Canada, in a safe environment (for both parties; obviously, security would be heightened) in an effort to establish an understanding, and perhaps a solution.

 

[Colpy]

Re: Peaceful Antiterrorism

Before I post my suggestions in relation to how to combat terrorism without the use of the Canadian Forces, I would like to make it quite clear that despite being left-wing, I do indeed support the present mission in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. To that end, I would like to see our Forces continue to be effective in that region until such a time where it would be appropriate to begin effecting their return.

In my opinion, dialogue is a cornerstone of peace, and any efforts to combat terrorism in a peaceful manner should be with keeping that idea in mind. I would suggest that one major component of such an endeavour would be to engage in open, and honest, conversations with the persons who are suspected, or proven, of or as wanted to commit acts of terrorism against
Canada (and, where warranted, elsewhere). This could be accomplished through inviting "representatives", so to speak, of these terrorists, to speak to Members of Parliament, or other representatives of the Government of Canada, in a safe environment (for both parties; obviously, security would be heightened) in an effort to establish an understanding, and perhaps a solution.

Five, one can only admire your youthful idealism.

Those who wish to destroy western culture care little about dialogue............

 

[I think not]

Re: Peaceful Antiterrorism

Five, one can only admire your youthful idealism.

Those who wish to destroy western culture care little about dialogue............

You took the words right out of my mouth.

 

[mabudon]

RE: Lets see what the Lef

Wel, that's the end of this discussion, good job

 

[darkbeaver]

Ok.....

Iam not a lefty or a righty ...Iam in the middle ground....Now as for the War.....and the Use of troops in Afghanistan, I am for it, as a means of fighting terrorism, I see it as basicly the onyl way it can be fought.

Now..its seems to me that most Left wingers are on the whole Pull the troops out bus.

My Question to the....Left, is:
What are your Ideas on how we would Fight terrorism, without the use of force, and military power? I mean since it seems you dont want to use the troops to do it in Afghanistan, How should we go about fighting the global threat.....

This isnt a ploy of anytype, because there is definatly some other ways to go about it....I want to sue this thread to compare the ideas and see which we all think would possibly work to Give North America Mainly Canada security and peace of mind, in the war on terror, with out the use of troops.

Also the right can say there ideas too with out the use of troops, but use of troops seems to be a mainly right wing supported idea

And my questions to you are. What is terrorism? Who are the serious terrorists? Who trains terrorists? Who supports death squads? Can the poor really afford effective terrorism? Is terrorism an effective method? Do you know anything about the history of terrorism in the last hundred years? What is the global threat of terrorism?
Whithout answers to these questions we do not even know who the terrorists are.

 

[darkbeaver]

Re: Peaceful Antiterrorism

Before I post my suggestions in relation to how to combat terrorism without the use of the Canadian Forces, I would like to make it quite clear that despite being left-wing, I do indeed support the present mission in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. To that end, I would like to see our Forces continue to be effective in that region until such a time where it would be appropriate to begin effecting their return.

In my opinion, dialogue is a cornerstone of peace, and any efforts to combat terrorism in a peaceful manner should be with keeping that idea in mind. I would suggest that one major component of such an endeavour would be to engage in open, and honest, conversations with the persons who are suspected, or proven, of or as wanted to commit acts of terrorism against
Canada (and, where warranted, elsewhere). This could be accomplished through inviting "representatives", so to speak, of these terrorists, to speak to Members of Parliament, or other representatives of the Government of Canada, in a safe environment (for both parties; obviously, security would be heightened) in an effort to establish an understanding, and perhaps a solution.

Five, one can only admire your youthful idealism.

Those who wish to destroy western culture care little about dialogue............

And those who wish to own the planet care even less about dialogue. Colpy one can only regret your lack of idealism.

 

[darkbeaver]

Re: Peaceful Antiterrorism

Five, one can only admire your youthful idealism.

Those who wish to destroy western culture care little about dialogue............

You took the words right out of my mouth.

To bad he didn't get your tongue while he was in there. :lol:

 

[darkbeaver]

RE: Lets see what the Lef

I'v been involved in peacefull terrorism most of my life. Change to many is terrorism.

 

[jimmoyer]

Peaceful terrorism ?

LOL !!

The love you show for that word terrorism, keeps you
holding on to it, looking for any way to strip it of its
essentially original horror.

 

[Karlin]

East, you got off on the wrong foot here - left or right?

Left and right is not the point here - many on both sides of the politics of "socialist programs to help everyone or individual effort" are actually on both sides of this question of how to fight terrorism.

It has nothing to do with socialism or capitialsim, does it? Other than in one way - capitalists are eager to get their hands on the oil, and hence we have fake terrorism events to gain support from the public to invade oil-rich nations on the basis that they have terrorists there.

So, the basic problem then, the reason Arabic peoples have taken up arms and bombs to fight of the invaders of their homelands, is capitalist greed. Capitalist greed, oil hunger, is the cause of terrorism.

How to fight that? Get off oil. Find alternatives that do not continue the monopoly on energy. This can be easily done by "decentralising" energy, as in putting up a $300 solar panel that will charge your electric cars over night for 150 km of non-fossil fuel energy driving the next day [kick in the small gas motor if you need more distance than that]
- an upcoming movie on electric cars will convince you of this fact. "Who killed the Electrcic car?"

Eastside asks :
"How should we go about fighting the global threat....."

- by stopping the monopoly on energy we will end the corporate/Elite Wealthy group control of energy, and hence their ambitions to control all the oil, which allows them to control all world economies. Do you doubt that this is the goal of the Elites?

 

[jimmoyer]

Karlin, I agree with you about emancipating ourselves
from oil.

I don't like filling gas in my car knowing a certain
percentage goes to the clowns in the Middle East.

But terrorism's cause is not as simple as you believe.

You do no justice to that subject.

 

[Toro]

Re: RE: Lets see what the Lef

Change to many is terrorism.

I have to go terrorism the sheets on my bed.

 

[bluealberta]

Interesting topic, and some interesting responses, darkbeavers aside.

Five, I would agree with you 100% if there was a willingness on the "other side" to engage in such a conversation. However, when people are prepared to die for "their way or the highway" mentality, conversations and discussions are somewhat moot. For instance, how would you start a conversation or dialogue with bin Laden, who as he has stated, has one goal, and that is to bring down Western civilization? How do you have a dialogue with people who are willing to strap explosives onto their chests and go into a crowded market and kill women and children, simply becuase they are of a different faith or ethnicity?

So, while I agree that your idealism is admirable, I also understand that reality sometimes means force is required, especially when the other side uses force indiscriminately. That old saying about" Don't bring a knife to a gun fight" really holds true in these instances, I believe.

But hey, keep up the idealism, someday maybe it will be the reality. :wink:

 

[FiveParadox]

RE: Terrorism Charges

In terms of terrorism, I am among those who think that terrorism-related provisions should be removed from the Criminal Code of Canada. I don't think that such provisions are, in particular, needed. For example, the seventeen persons arrested in the Province of Ontario should not, in my opinion, be facing separate charges for terrorism; rather, I think that they should be charged with, among other things, treason. Our framework of laws provides charges by which we can prosecute those who commit acts of terrorism — we don't need a terrorism charge.

 

[Karlin]

Re: RE: Lets see what the Leftys would do........

Karlin, I agree with you about emancipating ourselves
from oil.

I don't like filling gas in my car knowing a certain
percentage goes to the clowns in the Middle East.

But terrorism's cause is not as simple as you believe.

You do no justice to that subject.

Well, thanks for your advice, but I still say it is a darn good starting point - you are not doubting that we are over there for the oil are you? ['there' = Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, the oil-rich Arabic nations]

And if we were not 'over there' at all, the group Bush and Harper and Blair are going after ["terrorists"] - would not have issues with us.

The broader scope of "terrorism", as in the Washington sniper, and Okahoma bombing, and the FLQ kidnappings, are all "home grown" terrorists , and will still be an issue.

 

[jimmoyer]

And if we were not over there at all, the group Bush and Harper and Blair are going after [ "terrorists" - would not have issues with us.
-----------------------------Karlin----------------------------

You don't think the Terrorists could find other reasons
over the last 40 years to have a problem with us ?

This is an industry dedicated to keeping itself alive.

It will find a reason.

And it will find a reason you will support.

Always.

 

[EastSideScotian]

Ok.....

Iam not a lefty or a righty ...Iam in the middle ground....Now as for the War.....and the Use of troops in Afghanistan, I am for it, as a means of fighting terrorism, I see it as basicly the onyl way it can be fought.

Now..its seems to me that most Left wingers are on the whole Pull the troops out bus.

My Question to the....Left, is:
What are your Ideas on how we would Fight terrorism, without the use of force, and military power? I mean since it seems you dont want to use the troops to do it in Afghanistan, How should we go about fighting the global threat.....

This isnt a ploy of anytype, because there is definatly some other ways to go about it....I want to sue this thread to compare the ideas and see which we all think would possibly work to Give North America Mainly Canada security and peace of mind, in the war on terror, with out the use of troops.

Also the right can say there ideas too with out the use of troops, but use of troops seems to be a mainly right wing supported idea

And my questions to you are. What is terrorism? Who are the serious terrorists? Who trains terrorists? Who supports death squads? Can the poor really afford effective terrorism? Is terrorism an effective method? Do you know anything about the history of terrorism in the last hundred years? What is the global threat of terrorism?
Whithout answers to these questions we do not even know who the terrorists are.

Have you been hiding under a rock since....I donno the Air India bombing?
Terrorist plain and simple are people who use terror as a weapon, people who blow things/themselves up to attack the civilian masses as a way to fight their enemies. As for training, there has been all kinds of help there, hell event he usa helped train a few. There is drug lords who fund terrorist who train more terrorist there are war lord, and even government.... As for the Global threat of terrorism, if you don’t see it as a threat to human life and humanities somewhat peaceful existence...Terrorist are cowards.

Karlin, I agree i Didn’t quite say what I wanted to say on my first post. As for your Energy addiction post, I can defiantly see that point, The war in Iraq is defiantly Oil driven to some aspects, Afghanistan even has a few nice places to lay some pipeline. But we cant just say terrorist hate us for the fact that we want their oil, its safe to say they hate our culture and how secular the west is, they see us as infidels to their religion (their extremist view of their religion).It sure would help if we could keep our hands off their oil and maybe not give them sanctions and so on for trade, but there are also some reason behind the sanctions we had put on Iraq, maybe there was some backing from saudis. Mr.Moore pointed out in his movie that the Saudis were in league with the USA, the Saudi government had lots to do with sanctions being placed on Syrian oil exports and Iraqi exports...because then we would have to buy Saudi oil, so even right there that says that the west isn’t to only oil and power hungry area of the world we have the saudis and there right in the middle east. Like said before Karlin, you dont really do justice to the subject, because there are much more reason than just oil that we are targeted, some of them decent reasons to be disliked, some of them are just out to lunch. I mean hateing the West because we allow women eqaul rights, and freedom to work.....? We dont nessarly comdem hommosexuals to death....and if a female cheats on their husban, they dont get stoned there is devorice for that...all these things extreamists dont agree with, they see us as Chirstains and followers of a false faith, and the extream Muslims feel we should be taken care of.

Now we find ourselves at war in 2 Countries, The first for retaliation for the 9/11 attacks and the second for WMD`s that to this day still have not been found, and it has been admitted that they Intel was bad/false Why the USA, is in Iraq is beyond me, there is nothing ligetament about it. At least in Afghanistan they have a real reason to be there and the government there does seem to back us being there.

 

[Colpy]

Re: RE: Terrorism Charges

In terms of terrorism, I am among those who think that terrorism-related provisions should be removed from the Criminal Code of Canada. I don't think that such provisions are, in particular, needed. For example, the seventeen persons arrested in the Province of Ontario should not, in my opinion, be facing separate charges for terrorism; rather, I think that they should be charged with, among other things, treason. Our framework of laws provides charges by which we can prosecute those who commit acts of terrorism — we don't need a terrorism charge.

On this I'm with you 100%.

We don't need layer after layer after layer of law. Each layer constricts us just a little more, each layer takes another bite of our liberty, and only very rarely does a new layer actually threaten "evil-doers" with anything more than already existed.

As you say, there is no need to charge the 17 with terror offenses. Conspiracy to commit murder, treason, sedition, and possession of weapons should cover it quite nicely IMHO.

 

[jimmoyer]

I'd agree with that sentiment FiveParadox and Colpy
were it not for the arcane loopholes in sedition case
history. Over time a body of case law has raised hurdles
for the prosecution.

Thus adding another layer of law closing some of those
loopholes of court case law gives the prosecution a better chance at getting more time in jail for those perpertrators.