Fighting & Winning The Global War on Terror (WW IV)

[Britney Spears]

Wow, Strawman Much?

Thanks sarge, I actually had a half-ass intention to read his book, because he touts it as an "even handed" overview, giving both Liberals and Conservatives a fair shake. Well, scratch that Idea.

Miniter: I guess '80s music has made a comeback, but memories of 1980s history are fading fast. Yes, the CIA funded Afghans fighting for their country against the Soviets, but virtually all of that CIA money went through the ISI, Pakistan's feared intelligence service. The money was earmarked for seven different factions of the resistance â ” all of them Afghan. Meanwhile, the Saudis funded a separate and parallel program for Muslim radicals drawn from across the Muslim world. Bottom line: Bin Laden was funded by the Saudis, not by us. I interviewed all three of the CIA station chiefs responsible for managing the Afghan war. All denied that any CIA money went to any Arabs, let alone bin Laden. I also pored over every bin Laden interview conducted in any language from the 1980s to today.

The CIA, Saudi, and ISI efforts were all loosely connected. Whether the CIA was to blame for bin Laden is a matter of opinion, but it would be disingenoious to claim that there was absolutely no connection.

In every single instance bin Laden is asked about CIA money, he denies it.

Really? You mean he denies that he was funded by his avowed enemy? Who woulda thunk it?  :

Miniter: There are so many differences between the Vietnam War and the Iraq war that I had to write a 10,000-word chapter just to present all of the evidence. Basically, Iraq is Vietnam in reverse. Vietnam began with a small but growing insurgency and ended with tanks and division-strength infantry assaults on our forces.
In Iraq, we destroyed the tanks and vanquished the army in a few weeks. The insurgency in Iraq is estimated today at 20,000 men. In 1966, Viet Cong and North Vietnamese regulars had combined troop strength of 700,000. By 1973, they had 1 million men under arms. North Vietnam had two superpowers supplying cutting-edge weapons; the most the insurgents in Iraq can hope for is car-bomb expertise from Iran and Syria. Ho Chi Minh was a compelling leader whose propaganda promised a better life for peasants. Al-Zarqawi is a Jordanian street thug who gets no respect in Iraq and offers no vision of a better life. I could go on and on about all of the important differences. Once you read this chapter, you will be able to shoot down liberals at cocktail parties for the next 20 years.

Yah, and in Vietnam , the enemies were Vietnamese, and in Iraq, they are Iraqis. Whoope-di-doo. Of course, the fact that both involve a small insurgent force, with sanctuaries across foreign borders, fighting a superior invading western army has no relevence at all.

The 100,000 dead civilians claim is provably false.

Really?

I assume <a href=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7967-2004Oct28.html>this</a> is the report he is talking about.

The estimate is based on a September door-to-door survey of 988 Iraqi households -- containing 7,868 people in 33 neighborhoods -- selected to provide a representative sampling. Two survey teams gathered detailed information about the date, cause and circumstances of any deaths in the 14.6 months before the invasion and the 17.8 months after it, documenting the fatalities with death certificates in most cases.

The project was designed by Les Roberts and Gilbert M. Burnham of the Center for International Emergency, Disaster and Refugee Studies at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore; Richard Garfield of Columbia University in New York; and Riyadh Lafta and Jamal Kudhairi of Baghdad's Al-Mustansiriya University College of Medicine.

Based on the number of Iraqi fatalities recorded by the survey teams, the researchers calculated that the death rate since the invasion had increased from 5 percent annually to 7.9 percent. That works out to an excess of about 100,000 deaths since the war, the researchers reported in a paper released early by the Lancet, a British medical journal.

The researchers called their estimate conservative because they excluded deaths in Fallujah, a city west of Baghdad that has been the scene of particularly intense fighting and has accounted for a disproportionately large number of deaths in the survey.

"We are quite confident that there's been somewhere in the neighborhood of 100,000 deaths, but it could be much higher," Roberts said.

A lot of what we think about as liberal bias is really just poor editing.

 

The notion that terrorism is caused by poverty especially. It turns out that the average al-Qaeda member is from an intact family, has at least a college degree, is more likely to be married than not, and was not particularly religious until he joined a terror cell.

This is the dumbest thing I've read all week. The leaders of the French revolution were all rich too, so the French Revolution had NOTHING to do with social-economic difficulties either, right? Succesful insurgencies are NEVER led by poor peasants. The point is that terrorism is a RESULT of social-economic circumstances in general among Arab and Middle Eastern countries, the failure of secular-nationalist regimes in Egypt and Syria, and many many other factors, but, of course, attempting to address THOSE issues is just showing weakness.  :

Another surprise was that we did find some WMDs in Iraq. Okay, no stockpiles, but artillery shells loaded with sarin gas as well as other chemical weapons. The antiwar crowd always says "no evidence" â ” nada, zip, zero â ” and they are provably wrong.

Maybe they should tell the Border patrol to keep a lookout for any suspicious looking Arabs driving gun tractors  towing 152mm howitzers trying to cross the border? This is a strawman again. We KNOW the Iraqis have chemical weapons, they used a whole bunch of them against Iran 20 years ago. I don't think we are talking about the same "WMD"s here.

The press simply doesn't play up allied victories; they save that precious air time for the next car bomb. Consider the recent campaign in a place called Tall Afar, near the Syrian border. An Iraqi-American force (with more Iraqis than Americans) took on dug insurgents in A series of battles in September 2005. The enemy was quickly beaten and more than 100 terrorists were taken prisoner. Tall Afar was important because it cut a key enemy supply route from Syria to Baghdad and drove the enemy out of its desert strongholds. Or consider that the al-Zarqawi master bomb-maker was recently captured in Northern Iraq, as well as a bomb factory. And so on.

But Iraq and Vietnam are completely different!

Nor has it escaped the notice of Iraqis that most of the victims of the insurgency are civilians and most of suicide bombers are foreigners, some 60 percent hail from Saudi Arabia according to the death notices posted on jihadist websites. 

And this is the GOOD news? So if all the terrorists were in Saudi Arabia, why was IRAQ invaded? I thought the whole point of invading Iraq was to, you know, hunt terrorists? so where are all those Iraqi terrorists?

Never mind, my liberal mind was just never meant to do these kind of twists.....


Of course, for you youngsters who are still unclear, The National Review is a fairly well established conservative wank-rag. take it with a few bushels of salt, mmkay? 

 

[paracowboy]

Yes, but is this unique to Canada?   Is Canada the staging point for operations?   I think this is a problem shared with the Brits and the Americans which is what Acorn was getting at.   9/11 and the London Metro bombings were done by groups that worked within those respective countries.

gotcha. Makes sense. a_majoor covered any points I would have brought up, and Brits got the rest.
And I can't believe I agree with both a_majoor and Brits in the same thread.

Actually, I can't believe I agree with almost every point Brits brought up. I must be dehydrated or something.

 

[a_majoor]

Since Britney and I almost never agree on anything (its a love match, OK?), then the planets must really be out of whack.

Much of what is being said in the book challenges "conventional" wisdom, and I will admit I havn't read the book yet either. Most of the relentless hyping of "Its another Viet Nam, no blood for oil, WMDs etc." is never challenged, and it will be interesting to see the basis for these counter claims. (If he is repeating various blogs I will be steamed; I can read Instapundit for free). I suppose the worst result is the pro and anti war strawmen will get to hug one anther.

The leaders of the French revolution were all rich too, so the French Revolution had NOTHING to do with social-economic difficulties either, right? Succesful insurgencies are NEVER led by poor peasants. The point is that terrorism is a RESULT of social-economic circumstances in general among Arab and Middle Eastern countries, the failure of secular-nationalist regimes in Egypt and Syria, and many many other factors, but, of course, attempting to address THOSE issues is just showing weakness.   :

Certainly the leaders of most revolutions were well off, but these people are not trying to assist the poor peasantry, they are using the discontent of the underclass to propell their own acsent into the halls of power. "The Coming of the French Revolution" is a good starting point to explore that thesis, certainly the "will to power" argument explains things more fully than most other ideas on the causes of revolutions. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0691007519/104-1553119-7997527?v=glance

Addressing the inequities and injustices of the Ba'athist, Theocratic and Authoratarian states in the middle east will certainly pull the rug out from under the Jihadis, as there will be less and less discontent to tap into. The Cedar Revolution in Lebanon must be scaring the hell out of them, and it should be noted that much of the Jihadi activity in Iraq is specifically directed against the economic recovery and emerging local leadership (politicians, police, educators, the judiciary etc.) in order to keep the people (and thus recruiting pool) discontented and to prevent the possibility of a civil order emerging which shuts them out of power. The fact that many Sunni leaders decided to get on board for the constitutional referendum shows that they know the "exploiting the peasants" model isn't working any more, or isn't a sure fire means to claim and maintain their positions.

 

[48Highlander]

Brit, you start off with some good points, but I think you got a wee bit wound up and managed to miss a few things.

Yah, and in Vietnam , the enemies were Vietnamese, and in Iraq, they are Iraqis. Whoope-di-doo. Of course, the fact that both involve a small insurgent force, with sanctuaries across foreign borders, fighting a superior invading western army has no relevence at all.

You could say the same thing about many modern wars.   Does that mean that any war which involves an insurgent force operating against a superior force is "just like vietnam"?   The similarities between the Iraq and Vietnam campaigns are so few and far between that attempting to draw any serious parallel is ludicrous.

I assume <a href=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7967-2004Oct28.html>this</a> is the report he is talking about.

You seem to have missed an important sentence in the article you quoted:

"Based on the number of Iraqi fatalities recorded by the survey teams, the researchers calculated that the death rate since the invasion had increased from 5 percent annually to 7.9 percent. That works out to an excess of about 100,000 deaths since the war, the researchers reported in a paper released early by the Lancet, a British medical journal."

In other words, the 2.9% increase in TOTAL deaths equals out to about 100,000 more dead in that period than in the same period before the war.   Now, how many of those deaths can be attributed to coalition forces?   Insurgents are currently killing 600+ civilians a month, however, this "study" makes no effort to distinguish between deaths caused by the coalition, and deaths caused by the insurgency.   Moreover, as far as I can tell, the "estimate" also includes Iraqis who are PART of the insurgency!   So the figure is at the very least highly misleading, and, in my opinion, a flat out lie.

Maybe they should tell the Border patrol to keep a lookout for any suspicious looking Arabs driving gun tractors   towing 152mm howitzers trying to cross the border? This is a strawman again. We KNOW the Iraqis have chemical weapons, they used a whole bunch of them against Iran 20 years ago. I don't think we are talking about the same "WMD"s here.

The point is, the existance of chemical weapons of any type validates another reason which the US gave for the invasion.   Sadam claimed to have destroyed all of his stockpiles.   Obviously he lied.

And this is the GOOD news? So if all the terrorists were in Saudi Arabia, why was IRAQ invaded? I thought the whole point of invading Iraq was to, you know, hunt terrorists? so where are all those Iraqi terrorists?

Wether they're hunting Syrian terrorists in Iraq, or Iraqi terrorists, or any type of terrorist, it's still "hunting terrorists"   Nobody ever claimed that there was a huge threat from Iraqi terrorists, in fact I don't recall ever hearing the term untill now.   Ther were many reasons to invade Iraq as you well know.

 

[Infanteer]

Mark Sageman's Understanding Terrorist Networks debunks the claim that the CIA "made" bin Laden or funded him.  The CIA funnelled money through the ISI who supported the Afghan Mujihadeen organizations (I think there was 4 principle ones) that were built around Afghan tribal lines.  The Arab-Afghans, where bin Laden and Co. got their spurs, was funded and supported through Sheikh Abdullah Azzam's Maktab al-Khadamat.  Two seperate pipelines.  The Taliban, who gradually became allied with the Arab-Afghans who stuck around (Al-Qa'ida), had nothing to do with the mujihadeen fighting off the Soviets - this is a point which many people miss; a large percentage of the Taliban never fought during the Soviet occupation.  They were a reactionary organization based in the madrassas in the refugee communities on the Afghan-Pakistan border - they crossed into Afghanistan following the squabbling and infighting amongst the tribal warlords who were in power after fighting off the Soviet Union.

 

[Britney Spears]

You could say the same thing about many modern wars.  Does that mean that any war which involves an insurgent force operating against a superior force is "just like vietnam"? 

No, but then I don't really like sweeping generalizations of any sort. I don't know if Miniter's words were in response to any particular critic.

The similarities between the Iraq and Vietnam campaigns are so few and far between that attempting to draw any serious parallel is ludicrous.

*shrug*. I'll meet you half way and admit that there are many differences, but it is essentially the same kind of war, with an insurgent force supported by foreigners living amongst an indifferent native population.

You seem to have missed an important sentence in the article you quoted:

"Based on the number of Iraqi fatalities recorded by the survey teams, the researchers calculated that the death rate since the invasion had increased from 5 percent annually to 7.9 percent. That works out to an excess of about 100,000 deaths since the war, the researchers reported in a paper released early by the Lancet, a British medical journal."

In other words, the 2.9% increase in TOTAL deaths equals out to about 100,000 more dead in that period than in the same period before the war.  Now, how many of those deaths can be attributed to coalition forces?  Insurgents are currently killing 600+ civilians a month, however, this "study" makes no effort to distinguish between deaths caused by the coalition, and deaths caused by the insurgency.  Moreover, as far as I can tell, the "estimate" also includes Iraqis who are PART of the insurgency!  So the figure is at the very least highly misleading, and, in my opinion, a flat out lie.

Read it again. The article is titled 100,000 Civilian Deaths Estimated in Iraq, not 100,000 civillian death due to coalition action. So, no, it isn't "provably false" or a "flat out lie" is it? I mean, it might be PROVABLY false if the Coalition Authority kept tags on civillian deaths themselves, but they don't, so oh well.....

The point is, the existance of chemical weapons of any type validates another reason which the US gave for the invasion.  Sadam claimed to have destroyed all of his stockpiles.  Obviously he lied.

Fine, but were these a reasonable threat to the security of the US homeland? I think this is probably the reason why most people are unconvinced on the WMD issue.

Wether they're hunting Syrian terrorists in Iraq, or Iraqi terrorists, or any type of terrorist, it's still "hunting terrorists" Smiley  Nobody ever claimed that there was a huge threat from Iraqi terrorists, in fact I don't recall ever hearing the term untill now

. 

OK, so them you are admitting that there was no threat of an Iraqi 9/11 style terrorist attack on the US?

Ther were many reasons to invade Iraq as you well know.

No doubt there were, but more and more Americans are liking those reasons less and less. The problem now is that Bush has created a self fulfilling prophecy. Al-Qaida certainly IS in Iraq now, and to end the occupation now will be disastrous.

 

[48Highlander]

*shrug*. I'll meet you half way and admit that there are many differences, but it is essentially the same kind of war, with an insurgent force supported by foreigners living amongst an indifferent native population.

I can go with that.

Read it again. The article is titled 100,000 Civilian Deaths Estimated in Iraq, not 100,000 civillian death due to coalition action. So, no, it isn't "provably false" or a "flat out lie" is it? I mean, it might be PROVABLY false if the Coalition Authority kept tags on civillian deaths themselves, but they don't, so oh well.....

Alright, let me rephrase.   The article itself is simply highly misleading, as displayed by the fact that numerous organizations claim the 100,000 dead as civilians killed by US soldiers.   The claims by numerous peacenick and anti-Bush organizations that the US is directly responsible for 100,000 civilian deaths in Iraq - THAT is an outright lie.

OK, so them you are admitting that there was no threat of an Iraqi 9/11 style terrorist attack on the US?

Deffinitely.   Did anyone ever claim there was?   Yeah, they made mention of ties between Sadam and various terrorist leaders, they mentioned that he funded/rewarded suicide bombers who attacked targets in Israel, and they made the claim that there may be terrorist training camps in Iraq.   However, I can't recall anyone in the US administration ever claiming there was a serious threat of a terrorist attack from Iraq.

No doubt there were, but more and more Americans are liking those reasons less and less. The problem now is that Bush has created a self fulfilling prophecy. Al-Qaida certainly IS in Iraq now, and to end the occupation now will be disastrous.

That's something anyone with a military background should have realized from the start.   If American civilians thought this was going to be one of Clintons bomb-and-run campaigns, that's their own problem.   Bush is deffinitely in it for the long haul; let's hope his succesor posseses the same level of dedication.

 

[Britney Spears]

Alright, let me rephrase.  The article itself is simply highly misleading, as displayed by the fact that numerous organizations claim the 100,000 dead as civilians killed by US soldiers.  The claims by numerous peacenick and anti-Bush organizations that the US is directly responsible for 100,000 civilian deaths in Iraq - THAT is an outright lie.

Look back in the original article:

Lopez: Speaking of deaths . . . we haven't killed 100,000 innocent Iraqis?

So, to answer the interviewer's question using the evidence from the survey, NO, the US has not "Killed 100,000 innocent Iraqis". The authors of the survey never made the claim.

However, Miniter responds:

The authors were open about their anti-Bush bias.

I have looked at several sources and none of them mention that" Les Roberts and Gilbert M. Burnham of the Center for International Emergency, Disaster and Refugee Studies at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore; Richard Garfield of Columbia University in New York; and Riyadh Lafta and Jamal Kudhairi of Baghdad's Al-Mustansiriya University College of Medicine" are openly anti-Bush.

He also claims that:

They got the 100,000 by knocking on doors in 33 neighborhoods across Iraq. They simply asked Iraqis how many civilian deaths they knew about.
They did not take any steps to avoid double counting. They didn't demand any proof, such as a funeral notice or a newspaper clipping. Instead they decided to just trust Iraqis to give them straight dope.

When the survey authors specifically state that

The estimate is based on a September door-to-door survey of 988 Iraqi households -- containing 7,868 people in 33 neighborhoods -- selected to provide a representative sampling. Two survey teams gathered detailed information about the date, cause and circumstances of any deaths in the 14.6 months before the invasion and the 17.8 months after it, documenting the fatalities with death certificates in most cases.

Miniter also states that:

So if you interview Baghdad Bob you know what kind of answers you're going to get.

Thereby comparing the cumulative reliability of 988 Iraqi households to "Baghdad Bob". How Charming. They must LOVE this guy over there, if he had ever actually served in Iraq.

The 100,000 dead civilians claim is provably false.

Maybe he "proves" it in his book, but if this interview is at all representative of this guy's political stance and discourse level, I somehow doubt it.

I think that if Mr. Miniter ever showed up at a liberal cocktail party, he won't be the one doing the shooting.

 

[48Highlander]

In his defence, the article states "documenting the fatalities with death certificates in most cases."

What exactly "most cases" means is unclear.  Also, since they were working with a fairly small segment of the population, even small errors could make their figure meaningless.

As well, at this stage it's pretty much a he-said-she-said argument.  He claims to have done research into it and have determined that they cant back up their figures.  They claim to have done a scientific study and can back up their figures with solid evidence.  So who do you beleive?

Although I do agree that his "discourse level" leaves a lot to be desired.  His arguments are just as misleading as the "myths" he claims to be attempting to expose.

 

[Infanteer]

F$%K - are you guys going to Iraq debate?!?  The thread is "Fighting and Winning the War on Terror", not the "morality of Iraq".  We're there already and people are dying everyday - settle everything?

 

[Britney Spears]

OK 48th you dirty sod, I went to the Lacet site, registered, read the WHOLE REPORT, brushed off my old stats formulas and worked through their numbers, so I can give you (and our readers) the down lo'.

- There is nothing technically flawed in their survey.

- "Most cases" means 81% in a random sample.

- The figure of 100,000 is just a guess. The report itself acknowledges that it is on a 95% CI 8000 - 194000 (That puts Standard Deviation at a whopping 56,000!). 

- The survey ended in Oct. 2004.

- The survey did not include data from the aree of Falluja, because the number of deaths was so disproportionatly high as to be considered an outlier.



So there you have it. The figure is far from definitive, and of limited accuracy. "Provably false"? You decide.

 

[48Highlander]

F$%K - are you guys going to Iraq debate?!?   The thread is "Fighting and Winning the War on Terror", not the "morality of Iraq".   We're there already and people are dying everyday - settle everything?

Nobody mentioned morality, we're debating the article that was posted earlier.

OK 48th you dirty sod, I went to the Lacet site, registered, read the WHOLE REPORT, brushed off my old stats formulas and worked through their numbers, so I can give you (and our readers) the down lo'.

Thanks brit

 

[Acorn]

no it isn't. We've had several RCMP, former RCMP, CSIS, and former CSIS types appear in the media over the past several years warning us that we are over-run with terrorists and spies. We have been for decades. We allowed Hezbollah and HAMAS to operate from here for how long? We allowed the Cubans to run a spy ring out of their embassy, and now we have the Chinese stealing everything that isn't nailed down, info-wise.

Let's face it, when it comes to anything resembling Intelligence work, we always screw it up. That's why the Brits and Yanks booted us out of the ISTAR meetings in Bosnia last decade. That's why we had CSIS types losing top-secret files outside of bars, but not losing their jops. And if incompetence doesn't screw us up, our "leader's" concerns with making personal profit at the expense of the nation does it for us.

The article mentioned "a number" of A-Q operatives that entered the US from Canada. Other than Ressam, can you name any? That's why its Bovine Excrement.

Yes, we have a problem with those who have found their ways to our shores who work for various terrorist orgs. Their existence is not so much a function of our Intelligence capability as of our weak laws. Something you should consider though, is the fact that pre-9/11 it was far easier to legally get into the US than Canada. In fact, up to that point roughly 70% of all refugee claimants in Canada had arrived across our southern border. The Minutemen were looking the wrong way at the time, I guess.

 

[a_majoor]

It seems the unassimilated Muslim population in France has boiled over (with the possibility that this might spread to other European nations?) This exerpt from the Belmont Club has some interesting points, especially in the last paragraph as to the various groups jockying for power:

http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2005/11/where-to.html

    The riots have already reached 20 suburbs of Paris. The Reuters story suggests they may now be spreading to other cities. French Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy is hinting darkly of conspiracies. Should one conclude even more serious developments are in the offing? I don't know. I think that neither Sarkozy nor the conspirators he refers to understand the exact potential of this thing, which is behaving like a chaotic system whose trajectory is difficult to predict except in the very short term.

    Ideally, Sarkozy would be looking to simplify the situation by fixing some variables so that the remainder of the system will behave in a more linear manner; gradually damping it down until it can be controlled. But splits within the French cabinet have done the opposite: they have added more variables to the mix and now it's shake, rattle and roll.

    In these situations, as most rabble-rousers know, there is typically a race on the ground to see who can 'harness' the energies unleashed to best advantage. My own guess, without any special knowledge, is that 'community moderates', ideological radicals and even gangsters are in a derby to see who can control events. The French government by contrast, seems tied up in knots and is casting around for leverage, a way to get a handle on the events of the past week. Things could stop tomorrow or zoom off in some unexpected direction.

The forces of order better get in there quick.

 

[48Highlander]

Something you should consider though, is the fact that pre-9/11 it was far easier to legally get into the US than Canada. In fact, up to that point roughly 70% of all refugee claimants in Canada had arrived across our southern border. The Minutemen were looking the wrong way at the time, I guess.

Now you're being silly.  He was talking about known terrorists running around in Canada without us doing much about it.  You're talking about mainly legitemate refugee claimants who arrived in the US on a visitors visa and then crossed the border to apply for refugee status here.  A bit of a difference don't you think?  Theres a good reason for them going through the US too - generaly speaking it's easier to get a visa to visit the US, while it's much easier to claim refugee status in Canada, and failing that, to stay in the country illigaly.

 

[Acorn]

Now you're being silly.   He was talking about known terrorists running around in Canada without us doing much about it.   You're talking about mainly legitemate refugee claimants who arrived in the US on a visitors visa and then crossed the border to apply for refugee status here.   A bit of a difference don't you think?   Theres a good reason for them going through the US too - generaly speaking it's easier to get a visa to visit the US, while it's much easier to claim refugee status in Canada, and failing that, to stay in the country illigaly.

Now who's being silly? He claimed a number of terrorists, unnamed other than Ressam, who infiltrated the US through Canada. Who were they?

A refugee claimant to Canada who enters via the US is NOT a legit claimant. Most of them wanted to be in the US in the first place, but ended up coming here because we had a lax system compared to the US and it was dead easy to sneak in. We now have a "Country of First Refuge" agreement with the states. That being said, don't you think it's silly to claim that somehow all of the "terrorists" we have here are legal Landed Immigrants (most aren't) and then blame our lax system, when most of said terrorists hit our territory pre-9/11?

I agree our system isn't handling it very well, but before the Yanks start examining the splinter in our eye, they should look to the 2x4 in their own. They had 20 terrorists "running around" in the US pre-9/11. How many do they still have? Will they blame Canada again (like with the 9/11 terrorists - none of whom had entered the US through Canada)?

 

[48Highlander]

Sorry, I'm not privy to CSIS and RCMP info, so I can't tell you how many of "our" terrorists entered through the US.  I also cannot tell you how many terrorists or potential terrorists entered the US from our side of the border - those who are caught never actual;y get to BE terrorists since they get deported or locked away, and their capture generaly doesn't make more than a 5 sentence paragraph in some obscure newspaper.  I do however recall hearing of several individuals being caught crossing in to the US who were suspected to be plotting some sort of terrorist act.  I do not recall exact names or dates, probably due to the fact that it WAS nothing more than a 5 sentence paragraph in some obscure newspaper.

And just to be clear, I never claimed that the terrorists on our shores are "Legal Landed Imigrants", and I'm not too sure where you got that idea...

Also, I don't recall the US blaming Canada for the 9/11 terrorists, other than a few comments by individuals who should have known better.  What I do recall is that they got concerned about the fact that we had some 50+ known terrorist groups operating in our country.  Since they were working on improving the way they handled immigration and terrorism, I don't think it was unreasonable of them to ask us to improve our system as well.

 

[Acorn]

So, a few lines in some obscure newspaper? Ressam certainly made more than that. I'd suspect that any others would have been as big news. The article claims Ressam and others. I want to know who the others are.

"..other than a few comments..." Like Fox news? The most popular news channel in the US? Yeah, that's obscure.

That the US is concerned doesn't surprise me, nor do I think we should treat it lightly (either the terrorists or the US reaction - however misinformed). As for the 50+ terrorist groups, I'm sure you mean to include those groups who have loose ties to real terrorist groups - like those who provide funding through otherwise humanitarian status. Maybe groups like the United Way. I suppose Maher Arar is actually guilty, and it's all one big Islamic conspiracy supported by the Liberal party.

Frankly, I'm a bit sick and tired of the knee-jerk readiness of people on this site to defend all that is American and slag all that is Canadian. The readiness to treat the National Review as gospel, but denigrate anything from the Globe and Mail. Get some perspective folks.

 

[Infanteer]

Frankly, I'm a bit sick and tired of the knee-jerk readiness of people on this site to defend all that is American and slag all that is Canadian. The readiness to treat the National Review as gospel, but denigrate anything from the Globe and Mail. Get some perspective folks.

You make a point - isn't this something many accuse the opposite end of the spectrum of doing all the time?  A few juxtoposition of words in that statement would fit the bill for some posts on these boards (I'm sure a few of mine would fit the bill too.... ^-^).

The TruthTM is a slippery thing.

Cheers,
Infanteer

 

[48Highlander]

We have perspective, that's why we slag anything from the Toronto Star or National Post  ;D

Sure, have it your way, no terrorists have ever crossed into the US from Canada except for Ressam.  The Americans are having a fit over nothing.  Canada in fact has a GREAT legal system, a WONDERFULL immigration system, and the Liberals are the BEST government we could EVER hope for.  Oh yeah, and anything printed in the National Post is gospel, whereas anything in the NRO or Fox News is, ofcourse, horrible lies by those evil republicans.

I don't know man, if I'm going to go to either extreme I think I'd prefer to go the other way.  At least the yanks are getting things done, wether or not the results turn out the way they intended.  It's much better than the indifference and complacancy shown towards most problems by our own government.