Al-Qaeda warns Canada it will attack us like 911.
- Thread starter Sassylassie
- Start date
CDNBear,
First I do not view Afghanistan as a failed state. I view it as a nation with vastly different religious, cultural and societal ways which is at a considerably different stage in it's evolution to what we in the West are at. At one point the West was no better (think U.S.A.'s Wild West circa 1700's or Middle-Ages Europe). Eventually they will catch up but it's not for us to decide when or how.
Regarding the anti-US sentiments... I have found that when asked, a vast majority of folks direct that vitriol towards the administration of the day and the policies the U.S. as a nation subscribe to. It is not an indictment of the people living there as we in Canada are intelligent enough to realise they have virtually no say under the system they live in regardless of the fact a vote is taken.
I also do not believe we are subject to U.S. masters but will concede we are heavily influenced by their decisions. Liberal, NDP, Conservative or wotever... they are all influenced by the decisions of the U.S. but that is a topic for a different thread because each party is a 'pansy' to some extent depending on the topic.
First I do not view Afghanistan as a failed state. I view it as a nation with vastly different religious, cultural and societal ways which is at a considerably different stage in it's evolution to what we in the West are at. At one point the West was no better (think U.S.A.'s Wild West circa 1700's or Middle-Ages Europe). Eventually they will catch up but it's not for us to decide when or how.
Regarding the anti-US sentiments... I have found that when asked, a vast majority of folks direct that vitriol towards the administration of the day and the policies the U.S. as a nation subscribe to. It is not an indictment of the people living there as we in Canada are intelligent enough to realise they have virtually no say under the system they live in regardless of the fact a vote is taken.
I also do not believe we are subject to U.S. masters but will concede we are heavily influenced by their decisions. Liberal, NDP, Conservative or wotever... they are all influenced by the decisions of the U.S. but that is a topic for a different thread because each party is a 'pansy' to some extent depending on the topic.
CANUCKLEHEAD, I apologize for shaming you with my post which pointed out some information that you seem to not remember in your posts. If it upsets you that l am being juvenile in my name calling then why do you call yourself a ca-nucklehead, don't blame me for your own label.
I happen to disagree with you about your stance, and at least l came up with some facts, so why don't you come up with something to back up your opinion, after all you decided to participate.
And nuck...CANUCKLEHEAD, l'll try to remember to add the ca to nucklehead if you remember to back up the mis-information you are putting on the thread...
First off, it really does not matter how or what you view afghanistan as. It is a failed state, whether you recognise that or whether or not I recognise that, that is what it was.
I have stated several times, I do not feel forcing Western ideologies or democracy on a foriegn nation is wise nor acceptable. But we can not allow it to fester as a training ground for hatred.
As has been clearly stated by colpy and myself in more then one thread, an attack on a treaty member of the NATO pact is an attack on all. Whether or not Canada's governing body likes it or not, it is OBLIGATED to follow the mandates set forth under the NATO treaty. Or we can opt out and face the world alone. Frankly, I like having the tuffest kid on the block,,, on my side.
On September 11 the US was attacked and 3000 innocent people were murdered, Al Qaeda proudly told the world they were responsible for the attacks via Video Tape. Al Qaeda’s home base and training camps were in Afghanistan. Afghanistan was ruled by a group of Muslim Extremist called the Taliban, who supported Al Qaeda with a safe haven to operate their terrorist organization. Canadians also lost their lives on September 11 and in extension Canada was attacked because the US is our strongest Ally. Canada is also a member of Nato, when we were asked to participate in Afghanistan by Nato the Canadian Liberal Government said yes and sent our troops to Afghanistan. No outrage, no protest not a murmur from the public. Fast forward to a new Canadian Government the Conservatives, and now the issue of Afghanistan is politicized to further the agenda of the Liberal Party and the Fringe party the NDP.
Canada’s history of being nation of Peace Keepers is a misnomer, for those whom actually served in Bosnia; Kosovo, Somalia under a United Nations Mandate will tell you of having to sit on their hands and watch atrocities take place and were not allowed to intervene under the Rules of Engagement. Rawanda was anything but a Peace Keeping Mission. Put forth this argument with someone who has knowledge of the Military and it’s Missions and the results would be the same, it’s an illusion that makes Peaceniks happy.
Canada did not invade Afghanistan, we were asked by Nato to go Afghanistan, and the Liberals sent the Military under a UN mandate. To invade implies “Hostile inroads into a country, to swarm into,” Canada did none of these things. Afghanistan’s PM and it’s people have asked us repeatedly to stay, and we will until the Reigning Government the Conservatives decide otherwise.
Ironically it’s not the Taliban threatening us with Terrorism it’s the same group that attacked the US and Canada on September 11, the enemy is at hand but the peaceniks muddy the waters with their left leaning tripe and spittle. I’m not surprised, they don’t seem to value innocent lives being slaughter by the Taliban and Al Qaeda as much as their value their politics.
Cosmo I’ve never crawled out from under a rock, nor will I ever be required to. One more unprovoked insult from you and I will file a formal complaint against you. Back off and get your own sandwich.
Canada’s history of being nation of Peace Keepers is a misnomer, for those whom actually served in Bosnia; Kosovo, Somalia under a United Nations Mandate will tell you of having to sit on their hands and watch atrocities take place and were not allowed to intervene under the Rules of Engagement. Rawanda was anything but a Peace Keeping Mission. Put forth this argument with someone who has knowledge of the Military and it’s Missions and the results would be the same, it’s an illusion that makes Peaceniks happy.
Canada did not invade Afghanistan, we were asked by Nato to go Afghanistan, and the Liberals sent the Military under a UN mandate. To invade implies “Hostile inroads into a country, to swarm into,” Canada did none of these things. Afghanistan’s PM and it’s people have asked us repeatedly to stay, and we will until the Reigning Government the Conservatives decide otherwise.
Ironically it’s not the Taliban threatening us with Terrorism it’s the same group that attacked the US and Canada on September 11, the enemy is at hand but the peaceniks muddy the waters with their left leaning tripe and spittle. I’m not surprised, they don’t seem to value innocent lives being slaughter by the Taliban and Al Qaeda as much as their value their politics.
Cosmo I’ve never crawled out from under a rock, nor will I ever be required to. One more unprovoked insult from you and I will file a formal complaint against you. Back off and get your own sandwich.
Exactly.
This is in fact world war three and it is time that Canadians and the world faced reality.
What kind of country do you want to belong to? To date, our country was built on foundations of fighting wars that threaten our freedom and our way of life. This country we are now enjoying is a result of these decisions and the sacrifices made to carry out these decisions. Can you imagine what would have happened if we had decided that the Nazi threat had nothing to do with us??
here we are facing two irrational fanatic leaders with nuclear weapons, one of which is tied to Al-Queda, and for some reason l hear these voices claiming we shouldn't be involved. What choice is there? Should we just allow ourselves to let visiting prophets come freely in and out of our country and bomb our citizens to smithereings, and then just say, oh it has nothing to do with us??
These arguments about not being involved make no sense.
This is in fact world war three and it is time that Canadians and the world faced reality.
What kind of country do you want to belong to? To date, our country was built on foundations of fighting wars that threaten our freedom and our way of life. This country we are now enjoying is a result of these decisions and the sacrifices made to carry out these decisions. Can you imagine what would have happened if we had decided that the Nazi threat had nothing to do with us??
here we are facing two irrational fanatic leaders with nuclear weapons, one of which is tied to Al-Queda, and for some reason l hear these voices claiming we shouldn't be involved. What choice is there? Should we just allow ourselves to let visiting prophets come freely in and out of our country and bomb our citizens to smithereings, and then just say, oh it has nothing to do with us??
These arguments about not being involved make no sense.
Northstar,
To ensure due diligence, I have reread the thread here just in case I missed a post of yours. I have not. What additional facts have you brought to light? There was a reference to the original article and an opinion. Please enlighten me with these new facts as you will find that while I may not agree with a position, I am happy to at least listen.
CDNBear,
In terms of international law you may be entirely correct but I am far too tired after pumpkin carving and gorging on a late lunch to go look it up LOL. (care for a roasted pumpkin seed?
) If you could tell me what consitutes a failed state then I believe you, I and the others reading this thread would be in a far better position to determine the accuracy of that assertion. I ask primarily because while their method of governance was nothing like anyone born in the West is used to, it did have a government of sorts, laws of it's own and those laws were enforced (whether you or I like the laws is completely irrelevant at this stage of the game). I mean, they managed to hold off the Russians for a decade even with U.S. funding!!! Not bad for a failed state.
To ensure due diligence, I have reread the thread here just in case I missed a post of yours. I have not. What additional facts have you brought to light? There was a reference to the original article and an opinion. Please enlighten me with these new facts as you will find that while I may not agree with a position, I am happy to at least listen.
CDNBear,
In terms of international law you may be entirely correct but I am far too tired after pumpkin carving and gorging on a late lunch to go look it up LOL. (care for a roasted pumpkin seed?
) If you could tell me what consitutes a failed state then I believe you, I and the others reading this thread would be in a far better position to determine the accuracy of that assertion. I ask primarily because while their method of governance was nothing like anyone born in the West is used to, it did have a government of sorts, laws of it's own and those laws were enforced (whether you or I like the laws is completely irrelevant at this stage of the game). I mean, they managed to hold off the Russians for a decade even with U.S. funding!!! Not bad for a failed state.
So heres a quick hypothetical for those who disagree with our presence in Afghanistan. Your kid is at your next door neighbours house playing with his friend. Someone who has a grudge against your neighbour hurls a molotov cocktail through their window. Your child is hurt in the incidence. Your neighbour asks you for help. Do you or don't you? In this case lets call the parents Canada and The US. The children are the citizens. Our government is charged with protecting it's own citizens, regardless of where they are. The fact that we share mutual obligations with the Americans whose defence issues are very much intertwined with our own, means we have to own up in situations like this. If Canadians stand by and do nothing when our own are killed in an act of war, why even bother with having a military at all. It is sad that we have been called out in this issue, but the way the globe is being drawn by lines right now it was only a matter of time til we had to choose sides.
Yep, l agree but there is also a bilateral obligation that we hold as allies and friends with the USA.
In addition, we are also obliged by our membership in several global organizations. One of these is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO, and another is the United Nations, UN.
As a member of NATO, we have to contribute financial and military support.
We are required to follow several agreements such as Article 5, which is a principle of shared defence. However we have some freedom to agree to where and how we participate in this.
This article is about all Nato Members being protected as one, so that if one member is attacked the members collectively consider themselves to all be under attack and respond accordingly.
Therefore, the 9/11 attacks and declaration of war made all members obliged to be a part of the entry into the war on terrorism.
The United Nations is all about world peace, and has directives in peacekeeping and humanitarian missions. As a member, Canada is a significant contributor to global peacekeeping missions.
The USA is leading the war on terrorism as a response to the 9/11 declaration. So the UN is essentially taking the humanitarian role, involved in refugees, rebuilding and bringing in humanitarian aid.
This should explain why we are obliged to be involved.
In addition, we are also obliged by our membership in several global organizations. One of these is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO, and another is the United Nations, UN.
As a member of NATO, we have to contribute financial and military support.
We are required to follow several agreements such as Article 5, which is a principle of shared defence. However we have some freedom to agree to where and how we participate in this.
This article is about all Nato Members being protected as one, so that if one member is attacked the members collectively consider themselves to all be under attack and respond accordingly.
Therefore, the 9/11 attacks and declaration of war made all members obliged to be a part of the entry into the war on terrorism.
The United Nations is all about world peace, and has directives in peacekeeping and humanitarian missions. As a member, Canada is a significant contributor to global peacekeeping missions.
The USA is leading the war on terrorism as a response to the 9/11 declaration. So the UN is essentially taking the humanitarian role, involved in refugees, rebuilding and bringing in humanitarian aid.
This should explain why we are obliged to be involved.
Since at least seven of those so called terrorists are out on bail (dumbass) I don't think they had the capability or the knowhow to do such an action even with a former soldier that arrived maybe several times even though Harper has kept calling them terrorists even before their trial gets underway which makes it unlikely for them to get a fair trial.
So please come up with something new. The only one who wants to take over the world with a few lackeys is Bush.
Bravo to those whom understand it wasn't just the US that was attacked on September 11 but Canada as well. I'd rather be a "Bush" lap dog than someone who cares nothing for the suffering of Women and Children who were slaughtered like dogs by the Taliban and Al Gutus.
It's nice to see intelligent post by newbies keep up the good work Northstar, Bear and Tonyington.
If one has to ask why we intervened in WW11 like Cosmo asked: Originally Posted by Toro
The Nazis never attacked Canada.
Why did we fight them?
Ya. Why? No one has ever answered that to my satisfaction either. ~shrug~
How can anyone answers such ignorance, and lack of knowledge? Slurp, slurp where's my monthly Govberment Check and Hail Hitler comes to mind. Gas chambers, the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Jews, attacking England, Poland, never mind it's like talking to a house plant why would I?
It's nice to see intelligent post by newbies keep up the good work Northstar, Bear and Tonyington.
If one has to ask why we intervened in WW11 like Cosmo asked: Originally Posted by Toro
The Nazis never attacked Canada.
Why did we fight them?
Ya. Why? No one has ever answered that to my satisfaction either. ~shrug~
How can anyone answers such ignorance, and lack of knowledge? Slurp, slurp where's my monthly Govberment Check and Hail Hitler comes to mind. Gas chambers, the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Jews, attacking England, Poland, never mind it's like talking to a house plant why would I?
Oh the drama! Someone this woman a damp hankie and a chaise to recline on.
Sassy, just because others have differing opinions from your foam-at-the-mouth ranting doesn't mean they lack intelligence. In fact, my dear, disagreeing with you would seem to be a requirement for sentient thought.
As for your previous comment about me insulting you ... I walked away and left it. You brought this on with your vile tempered little tirade. Go make your reports ... then crawl back under your rock where you belong.
Having had a cursory look at NATO's 15 Charter articles, it would appear that NATO, as I suspected, is not entirely within it's jurisdiction to invade a sovereign nation which resides outside of the North Atlantic region. I do not claim to be a lawyer or international law expert of any kind so as their job dictates, a lawyer can and will twist sentences and interpretations to suit the needs of their employer (in this case the U.S. as a NATO member)
Here are a couple of excerpts from NATO's charter which are open to interpretation:
Article 2
[SIZE=+2]T[/SIZE]he Parties will contribute toward the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and well-being. They will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them.
Article 5
[SIZE=+2]T[/SIZE]he Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary,including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain inter- national peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
The issue of defence in this case is apparently widely open to interpretation since defence is by definition, not offensive. Which is to say, if the Afghanis wanted to sail across the ocean and launch an attack on the U.S. then we are undoubtedly obligated as per NATO to assist once they enter a NATO member state's territorial waters. Since the Afghani government did not attack the U.S. (or Canada in particular) and a declaration of war was not made by any state, we do not appear to be in a state of war. The only state of war which we may or may not be in is against a concept... an idea... an interpretation of actions. There is no concrete definition of terrorism. Using the loosely applied 'understanding' of what a terrorist is, all those Canadians who misfiled or deliberately did the bare minimum in the census to make the system not so efficient would be considered terrorist because they interfered with the governance of the nation. Puhlease
Here are a couple of excerpts from NATO's charter which are open to interpretation:
Article 2
[SIZE=+2]T[/SIZE]he Parties will contribute toward the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and well-being. They will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them.
Article 5
[SIZE=+2]T[/SIZE]he Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary,including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain inter- national peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
The issue of defence in this case is apparently widely open to interpretation since defence is by definition, not offensive. Which is to say, if the Afghanis wanted to sail across the ocean and launch an attack on the U.S. then we are undoubtedly obligated as per NATO to assist once they enter a NATO member state's territorial waters. Since the Afghani government did not attack the U.S. (or Canada in particular) and a declaration of war was not made by any state, we do not appear to be in a state of war. The only state of war which we may or may not be in is against a concept... an idea... an interpretation of actions. There is no concrete definition of terrorism. Using the loosely applied 'understanding' of what a terrorist is, all those Canadians who misfiled or deliberately did the bare minimum in the census to make the system not so efficient would be considered terrorist because they interfered with the governance of the nation. Puhlease
Agreed Canucklehead but i got another definition for you that defines a terrorist at least to some people in the Canadian-Western ideology.
The men wear turbans, the women wear a Burka or Hijah and they carry around a book called the Quran.
The men wear turbans, the women wear a Burka or Hijah and they carry around a book called the Quran.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the invasion into Afganistan was not directed against the Afgan government, but rather al-Qaeda, a terrorist organization within Afganistan. (Unlike the yankees invasion into Iraq, who's sole purpose was to rid the country of their leader). I believe NATO had the ruling government's blessing in this operation. As well, Canada is there only in a 'clean-up' and 'rebuilding' role. Unfortunately the terrorists there don't seem to appreciate that fact.
Blame Canada first if there is a Terrorist attack against Canada? It's people like you who embolden Terrorists with comments like that. Thankgood so called Canadians like you don't run the governemt, I for one sleep better at night knowing that..
And Johnny, we all know how cranky you can git without yer beauty sleep
I've seen that first hand.I seriously doubt the terrorists are keeping a close watch on CC for fuel for their religious fires. Being able to express the opinion here is part of the joy of forums. Not siding with those who want to get in there and kill em all is hardly an invitation.
This is another thing I was afraid of with our current government. When we begin adopting US foreign policy, a US approach to external concerns or threats, we become just as resented as they. There are a lot of countries who have a very free democratic society that don’t have this focus of a threat against them. The US has used the argument that they are a beacon to the world and because they are a supposed democratic super power, they would no doubt be the focus for anyone against “freedom” as the US likes to coin it.
If we are being regarded as much an enemy when other democratic nations are not, then that argument is no longer true. It would appear then that it is because of policy, or of interference that there is such a backlash.
The current situation is not about terrorism. Those camps that could have trained anyone with any relationship to 911 have long since been destroyed. The government that allowed Bin Laden to stay within the country of Afghanistan has long been toppled. The mission in relation to terrorism has been over for some time.
This is about interference. About a foreign entity occupying another’s land and trying to impose ideology over the dominate culture of the people who live there. Whether good or bad as to how those people chose to live, it still isn’t our right to control their environment and do so by the means of military hostility.
We can try to inspire a better way, but killing people who resist our occupation is not going to inspire anything but retaliation.
If this starts to become a problem for this country, expect me arguing with my fellow Canadians with the same frustration I had with Americans before the Iraq invasion and the folly of a "War On Terror". As a good neighbour who did care about the average American, I felt they were simply dealing themselves a tragic hand in the direction they were taking. However they took it and it’s not my country to fight for. They have been paying a high price and they too are blinded by their own ideology to hold a better understanding towards ‘consequence’. It becomes almost impossible trying to reason with people who only speak on the basis of ideology. It becomes as meaningless as a discussion of which religion gets you into heaven.
But I cannot tolerate our country falling into the trap of not being able to recognize the cause and effect relationship trap that the USA has fallen into. The he/she started it first is like a child who come to blows and is trying to justify anything else he/she does from the initial point of provocation as justification to any further action in response.
At some point we are no longer dealing in justice, and we are definitely not dealing in freedom. We may only be offering harm, and in eventuality, creating harm for ourselves.
There is an old saying that goes, “you reap what you sow”. A time tested true saying.
If we are being regarded as much an enemy when other democratic nations are not, then that argument is no longer true. It would appear then that it is because of policy, or of interference that there is such a backlash.
The current situation is not about terrorism. Those camps that could have trained anyone with any relationship to 911 have long since been destroyed. The government that allowed Bin Laden to stay within the country of Afghanistan has long been toppled. The mission in relation to terrorism has been over for some time.
This is about interference. About a foreign entity occupying another’s land and trying to impose ideology over the dominate culture of the people who live there. Whether good or bad as to how those people chose to live, it still isn’t our right to control their environment and do so by the means of military hostility.
We can try to inspire a better way, but killing people who resist our occupation is not going to inspire anything but retaliation.
If this starts to become a problem for this country, expect me arguing with my fellow Canadians with the same frustration I had with Americans before the Iraq invasion and the folly of a "War On Terror". As a good neighbour who did care about the average American, I felt they were simply dealing themselves a tragic hand in the direction they were taking. However they took it and it’s not my country to fight for. They have been paying a high price and they too are blinded by their own ideology to hold a better understanding towards ‘consequence’. It becomes almost impossible trying to reason with people who only speak on the basis of ideology. It becomes as meaningless as a discussion of which religion gets you into heaven.
But I cannot tolerate our country falling into the trap of not being able to recognize the cause and effect relationship trap that the USA has fallen into. The he/she started it first is like a child who come to blows and is trying to justify anything else he/she does from the initial point of provocation as justification to any further action in response.
At some point we are no longer dealing in justice, and we are definitely not dealing in freedom. We may only be offering harm, and in eventuality, creating harm for ourselves.
There is an old saying that goes, “you reap what you sow”. A time tested true saying.
Last edited: