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


EastSideScotian
#1
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
Liberal
#2
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
Conservative
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by FiveParadox

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
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy

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
#5
Wel, that's the end of this discussion, good job
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by 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.
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy

Quote: Originally Posted by FiveParadox

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
Republican
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by I think not

Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy

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.
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#9
I'v been involved in peacefull terrorism most of my life. Change to many is terrorism.
 
jimmoyer
#10
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
#11
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
#12
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
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver

Change to many is terrorism.

I have to go terrorism the sheets on my bed.
 
bluealberta
#14
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.
 
FiveParadox
Liberal
#15
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 ó we don't need a terrorism charge.
 
Karlin
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by 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.

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
#17
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
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver

Quote: Originally Posted by 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 donít see it as a threat to human life and humanities somewhat peaceful existence...Terrorist are cowards.

Karlin, I agree i Didnít 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 isnít 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
Conservative
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by FiveParadox

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 ó 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
#20
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.
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#21
[quote="EastSideScotian"]
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver

Quote: Originally Posted by 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 donít see it as a threat to human life and humanities somewhat peaceful existence...Terrorist are cowards.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You seem to draw a distinction between plainclothed and uniformed terrorism. Is terrorism any more of a problem now than it was before 9/11. When did you begin to think about terrorism?
Does the war on terrorism make it easier to persecute lawfull dissent? Does the war on terrorism trump democracy? Who benefits from the war on terrorism? Who benefits from terrorism in general?

[/i]
 
EastSideScotian
#22
I had thought about terrorism a few years before 2001, 9/11. Ill admit, I have thought about it alot more, why? Well its simple I was in English class in grade 10, and my English teacher who was from Boston, came intot he class room first period crying.....Which was pretty odd. Once someone asked what happend (non of us aware of anything yet) He said my sister may be dead. Then he said that a plane had hit the world trade centre where she worked. We put the class radio on and listend in as another plane hit the second tower. After that class I had Biolgy, my teacher interestingly enough was german and sat us down and scrapped the lesson plan for the day, and right away started to talk about terrorism and Osma Bin Laden, American Culture and oil sanctions, And this was before we were even told the suspects on the news, so it was pretty interesting how accurate mr.muller was.

I started to really think about the effect Terroism has on people, inocent people when it was Confrimed my English Teachers Sister had been killed in the attacks, she had 2 childern and a husband in the FBI. Not only was my English teacher crushed, I cna only imagne her Husban and 2 childern. Thats when it really hit home for me I think.
Your other questions are pretty well they dont have much to do with much....Ill awnser the who Benifits fromt he war on terror.

No one really, who benifits from war? Not me, not you, not the soldiers not the taliban. But Ill tell you what the war does it says hey, we arent gonna take this shit and we are willing to stop it.
 
Cosmo
#23
Interesting topic, this. There's no pat answer to the issue of terrorism. I'm with darkbeaver on this one ... who are "they"??

It's human nature for one culture/tribe to pit itself against another (ok, whole new thread for philosophy in that statement!) but terrorism has been going on since the first caveman clubbed his neighbour to claim his cavewoman and intimidated the other neighbour into going along. There's always been an us/them mentality. These days, it's just more well publicized. I was glued to the TV on 9/11 ... like everyone else ... and was equally as horrified.

What about all that has come before 9/11? Using the true definition of terrorist (terrorism is primarily a form of violence undertaken {by individuals, groups, or states} against civilians for political or ideological purposes according to Wikipedia), it's standard fare for humans. I can't even begin to list the terrorists throughout history. Google it if you want that info. Start with Ireland.

The terrorist flavour of the month at this time are Osama and Saddam. *shrug* Nothing new with the concept, but what is new is the coverage. You can't turn on a TV, open a magazine, pull up a website without finding some reference to it.

Today's wired world makes terrorism more visible. It offers a double edged sword for politicians ... on one hand their sneaky little games (like supplying Saddam with money and arms years ago) are exposed but on the other hand it offers up grist for the political mill. Nice little platform to hang a political hat on. Scare the masses into the poll booths by promising to keep them safe.

There were no WMD, so anyone who has followed this at all knows it's about oil. Karlin is right ... free ourselves from that addiction and we'll solve this one issue. But it won't solve terrorism. As long as there are folks running around the planet feeling they have some devine pipeline to religious wisdom, there will be terrorists. It's how we are wired. We all want to be right and dammit, if we have to blow up a plane to get attention, we'll do it in the name of {insert diety here}.

I agree, Five, that sane people would sit down and sort this out. Unfortunately we are not discussing sane people here. We're talking about zealots ... of two different stripes. I consider "our" side just as guilty. We may not be blowing up planes, but we're still involved in the fighting. Just because we can justify our violence publicly doesn't make it any more acceptable in my eyes.

But back to the question ... I consider myself primarily a lefty. I don't believe in war, I don't even buy poppies. It's my own personal preference. But I do believe in individual autonomy. A kind of responsible anarchy. Arm the population, teach them to look after themselves, kick individual asses as needed and stop the political money grab. That's all war really is ... nobody wins.

As for terrorists? Well, if Canada has to play that game, I agree with Five. Use the legislation in place instead of throwing a big drama scene and creating laws to cover what already has been considered. More political posturing to show the good folks of Canada that we are not out of that loop.

I am very cynical about all politics. There is so much spin, untruth and self serving b.s. that I don't believe any of them. Follow the money and you'll find the truth, imo. In this particular case, the money leads to oil.
 
missile
Conservative
#24
There is no talking to terrorists, or talking with them. Killing all of them is the only way to stop them.
 
Cosmo
#25
Ya ... what Missile said. I agree with that. Of course that would mean lining up most of the politicians in front of a firing squad as well. The other side see US (us as in you and I, not as in U.S. of A.) as the terrorists, ya know.
 
missile
Conservative
#26
These countries would have nothing if it wasn't for the oil revenues, and they're attacking the hands that feed them! I suggest the terorist leaders have some political ambitions in their native lands & are using terror to overthrow the govts' All this means is: more reason to kill them all.
 
I think not
#27
Modern day terrorism is an all out war on Western Democracy by Islamo-fascists and their so called passive moderates.
 
Caleb-Dain Matton
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by EastSideScotian

Ok.....


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.....

Hope that the U.S. goes bankrupt. It would help stop them from terrorizing.
 
Finder
#29
as a so called "Leafty" whatever you wish to call it, I think the americans have helped the cause of terrorism greatly by invading the nations and giving these terrorists more cred then they ever had in the past.

However when it comes to the Islamic republic and the Taliban I believe Canada is doing an alright job there. I do prefer a UN mission to take the current place of NATO. As NATO is a political alliance based on American interests and does not have the legitimacy of the United Nations.

For Iraq I feel invading that nation was the worst thing the Americans could have done and are pretty screwed up now. I would hope Canada stays out of this mess, but at the same time I believe the Americans can not just up and leave after putting this nation into such chaos. However I do again believe the United nations sould have a strong roll in the rebuilding of Iraq.
 
gopher
No Party Affiliation
#30
use of troops seems to be a mainly right wing supported idea


And the more troops used, the more terrorism experienced throughout the world. Development ( a more pragmatic approach) has always been a better option.
 

Similar Threads

126
Haiti,lets discuss it civilly
by Kakato | Aug 16th, 2011
33
Lets Talk Music
by Kreskin | Mar 13th, 2008
26
Lets play: Guess the change!
by sha_zapple | Oct 2nd, 2006
139
lets cut and run
by cortez | Mar 22nd, 2006