Is a New World Order Emerging?

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Has the invasion of Iraq and consequent re-election of George W Bush as President of the United States of America precipitated a turning point in the nature of global politics?

*

American Myopia: The View from Abroad
by Gregory Stephens

“The course of this nation does not depend on the decisions of others,” declared President Bush in his 2003 State of the Union speech. Such a bald assertion of American arrogance is not surprising, coming from a man whose worldview has been termed “messianic militarism.” But this was one of Bush’s biggest applause lines, which I find discouraging. Can we voice a more attractive alternative to this jingoistic patriotism?

It has long been a conceit of North Americans that we operate on a moral plane above the rest of humankind. But in the transnational era, the rest of the world lives within us, and we live within the rest of the world. There is no escape from our inter-relatedness. But neither is there an escape, apparently, from the dangerous combination of “messianic fervor” and imperial ambition which drives those who hold the reins of power in the United States at this moment.

Acting on the belief that there are two sides to every story, at least, and that the United States does not possess the sole truth about world affairs, I have been listening to what foreign voices have been saying about the land of the free and the home of the brave. Contrary to what the Bush administration preaches, true patriotism, and national security, require more than ever that North Americans learn to see at least a partial truth in views of reality that conflict with our own.

- www.empirepage.com/guesteds/guesteds161.html

*

Will U.S. Foreign Policy Increase Terrorism?

Paul Cochrane
Worldpress.org contributing editor
July 5, 2004

“As long as American foreign policy remains the same and the Palestinian issue is left unresolved, the U.S. ‘war on terror’ will increase terrorism by 100 percent,” said Lebanese Shiite Muslim leader Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah.

In an interview, Fadlallah talked about the effects of U.S. counter-terrorism strategy, the assassination attempt on his life in 1985 by the CIA and the recent U.S. sanctions on Syria.

Talking at his residence in the Beirut suburb of Haret Hreik, the aging Shiite spiritual leader, his eyes bright and alert, said: “the method the American administration has used in the war against terror may have complicated the situation even more.”

- worldpress.org/Mideast/1891.cfm

*

Nov. 8, 2004. 01:00 AM

Defining Canada's role
As the United States moves further right, we should experiment with social policies that cannot yet find traction within the American political spectrum
by Chuck Gastle

A second Bush administration will place pressure on Canada's ability to maintain an independent trade policy. Our dependence on bilateral trade makes it clear that secure access to the United States should be Canada's most important trade objective.

This does not mean that Canada should wilt under American unilateralism and appease the U.S. to maintain access.

Notwithstanding the realities of our trade patterns, there is a danger in focusing on bilateral trade issues should we wish to continue to wield influence internationally.

Canada has traditionally "punched above its weight" in international trade matters.

Recently, Canada has been marginalized in global trade negotiations and increasingly is been perceived as a satellite of the United States and a junior partner in a regional market.

This loss of influence is a result of economic trends, by which Brazil, India and China have become central players in the multilateral negotiations now taking place between the developed and developing world.

Canada should resist being drawn to the right over the next four years. If it follows the U.S., Canada will become increasingly isolated from trends in international trade policy, suggesting that the importance of social policy is growing elsewhere.

- tinyurl.com/69d2w

*

The Seeds of the American Taliban

December 10 2004
Counterbias.com
by W. David Jenkins III

"God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then He instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East” — George W. Bush to Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, July 2003

"We tell them that we do not seek to kill, but we will chop off the hand which seeks to inflict harm on us, God willing" — Ayman al-Zawahri deputy to Osama bin Laden, September 2003

"The national government will maintain and defend the
foundations on which the power of our nation rests. It will offer strong protection to Christianity as the very basis of our collective morality. Today Christians stand at the head of our country. We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit. We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press — in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of LIBERAL excess during the past years" — Adolph Hitler (Taken from The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1, Michael Hakeem, Ph.D. (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pp. 871-872.)

- www.counterbias.com/181.html

[blaise]

OK, George W. Bush is by far the worst American president in my lifetime. He is unloved by other nations and by the "Arab Street." So what else is new?

Unfortunately, he is beloved by the evangelicals, pentecostals, fundamentalists, born-agains, fetus-worshipers, homophobes, and the military in the US. There were 59M+ of the benighted, and they prevailed.

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

Blaise said:

OK, George W. Bush is by far the worst American president in my lifetime. He is unloved by other nations and by the "Arab Street." So what else is new?

Unfortunately, he is beloved by the evangelicals, pentecostals, fundamentalists, born-agains, fetus-worshipers, homophobes, and the military in the US. There were 59M+ of the benighted, and they prevailed.

George Bush is the worst president in your lifetime. You must be much younger than I.
Reagan was the Best, most effective.
Carter was the worst, most intelligent though.
Clinton was the most dishonest, but very convincing and slippery.
Did I say Clinton was the most dishonest? I forgot about Nixon. He was the worst!
Ford was bumbling and never should have granted Nixon a pardon.
Kennedy the most loved and motivating.
Eisenhower the most disappointing.
Johnson the most despised although in retrospect Vietnam wasn't all his fault.
Bush certainly isn't the highest IQ, best Yale student, or polished public speaker, but he does have a cocky self-confidence (deserved or not) and he is the right man for this troubled time. I find myself in agreement with only 25% of his stands, but they are the most important issues. I know I'm in the minority when I support him in Canada, but I'm in the majority in the Red States where it counts.

Bush has enraged much of the Muslim world, but if there has to be a Jihad, lets hold it over there instead of here.

[franko]

Blaise said:

Unfortunately, he is beloved by the evangelicals, pentecostals, fundamentalists, born-agains, fetus-worshipers, homophobes, and the military in the US. There were 59M+ of the benighted, and they prevailed.

As an evangelical born-again I am offended by some of the implications made here and will reply to them after I have time to reflect on a proper/adequate/respectful answer.

[blaise]

Habs_fan_in_LA said:

George Bush is the worst president in your lifetime. You must be much younger than I.
Reagan was the Best, most effective.
Carter was the worst, most intelligent though.
Clinton was the most dishonest, but very convincing and slippery.
Did I say Clinton was the most dishonest? I forgot about Nixon. He was the worst!
Ford was bumbling and never should have granted Nixon a pardon.
Kennedy the most loved and motivating.
Eisenhower the most disappointing.
Johnson the most despised although in retrospect Vietnam wasn't all his fault.
Bush certainly isn't the highest IQ, best Yale student, or polished public speaker, but he does have a cocky self-confidence (deserved or not) and he is the right man for this troubled time. I find myself in agreement with only 25% of his stands, but they are the most important issues. I know I'm in the minority when I support him in Canada, but I'm in the majority in the Red States where it counts.

Bush has enraged much of the Muslim world, but if there has to be a Jihad, lets hold it over there instead of here.

I weep for you too.

[franko]

Blaise said:

Unfortunately, he is beloved by the evangelicals, pentecostals, fundamentalists, born-agains, fetus-worshipers, homophobes, and the military in the US. There were 59M+ of the benighted, and they prevailed.

As an evangelical born-again I am offended with the fact that you imply that anyone who is one automatically loves George Bush -- 'taint so, 'taint nearly so. It annoys me that some – and many in the media – lump all . . . what was it . . . evangelicals, pentecostals, fundamentalists, born-agains, fetus-worshipers, homophobes, and the military in the US as one entity. While evangelicals are most likely born-agains, and while pentecostals are most likely evangelicals, it does not follow that they are in the camp of fundamentalists. And how derogatory to use names like fetus-worshipers and homophobes. Easier to call names and to typify than to look a little deeper, I guess.

Foetus-worshipers? No, simply pro-life (aren't we all to different degrees?) And in a reasoned discussion you won’t hear me call people of the pro-choice movement foetus-killers!

Further, is there a reason you did not mention Roman Catholics by name in your diatribe? It I recall correctly, they had something to say about Mr. Kerry’s stand as one who claimed to practise his faith yet spoke out against the tenets of his church.

Homophobes? A name that has expanded to include people like Fred Phelps as well as people who merely disagree with the homosexual lifestyle. But I guess if you can use a deprecating or belittling name then you can appear (or at least feel) morally superior.

And the military? Are you suggesting that every grunt in the US forces is in a hurry to get to Iraq and fight?

Easy to lump us all together as one. However, you are wrong to do so. Many of "us" (in Canada and in the US) do not support the Republican/Conservative parties. Come to my church (yes, I am part of one and actually attend) and you will meet people who voted for the Conservatives, the Liberals, the NDP, and the Green Parties (not sure about the fringier parties). No Bloc as far as I am aware but it could have happened. We discuss the issues. We may not agree politically but at least we do not denigrate to name calling and uppitiness.

In fact it irks me to no end that it is suggested that people with brains voted against George Bush, that the anti-Bushers are the only ones who have any intelligence whatsoever, are the only ones who can think for themselves, and are not wing-nuts -- and that anyone who did vote for Bush cannot be one of the above . . . that those who voted for Bush (or in Canada for Steven Harper) are either uneducated back-woods redneck idiots or business executives whose only goal is to pilfer every cent they can from every widow and to be on the corporate welfare roll.

Interesting too that "we" are people who are not open to intelligent discourse but are said to live in a narrow box and are charged with using a wide paint-brush to denounce free thinkers while those on the left who are more "open" to life in the real world (note italics, referring to sarcasm) tar anyone with an opposing thought to their belief system as close-minded.

I suggest that 59M+ citizens of the United States from all parts of the Union (even some Californians and some New Yorkers) voted for and re-elected George Bush – some who were quite thoughtful in their decision and found that he would make a better leader than Mr. Kerry . . . and for good or for ill, that’s it. It may even be that some evangelicals, pentecostals, fundamentalists, born-agains, fetus-worshipers, homophobes, and the military in the US voted against Mr. Bush and for Mr. Kerry. To suggest otherwise is mere speculation, conjecture, and irresponsible criticism and goes much further than you have the right through knowledge to do.

[blaise]

Thank you for your heartfelt reply. I hope you are not among those who insist that the world is 6,000 years old, that the universe was created in 6 days, and that evolution is an unproven theory. I consider myself to be a scientist and feel that the groups I mentioned are trying to impose their primitive beliefs. I am not pro-abortion. It is always regrettable but in some cases necessary. What infuriates me are "pro-lifers" who do nothing to relieve the misery of children and adults but are fixated on embryos. Yes, I should have included the Catholic church in my litany. Sorry for the omission. However, many if not most lay Catholics seem to be less rigid than the groups I have named.

As for George W. Bush, he was a wastrel who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth but educated himself too little while carousing too much and discovered religion at the age of 40. Without religion as a crutch he would relapse. If he were a Christian like Jimmy Carter who has done so much for the world I would respect him but he isn't. He's really for his rich supporters and is cynically using the conservative religious vote to get elected.

[franko]

I'm not sure where to drop this . . . didn't know whether to start a new thread or no . . .

Muslim Scholars Increasingly Debate Unholy War (part 1)
By NEIL MacFARQUHAR

Published: December 10, 2004


CAIRO, Dec. 9 - Muhammad Shahrour, a layman who writes extensively about Islam, sits in his engineering office in Damascus, Syria, arguing that Muslims will untangle their faith from the increasingly gory violence committed in its name only by reappraising their sacred texts.
First, Mr. Shahrour brazenly tackles the Koran. The entire ninth chapter, The Sura of Repentance, he says, describes a failed attempt by the Prophet Muhammad to form a state on the Arabian Peninsula. He believes that as the source of most of the verses used to validate extremist attacks, with lines like "slay the pagans where you find them," the chapter should be isolated to its original context.

"The state which he built died, but his message is still alive," says Mr. Shahrour, a soft-spoken, 65-year-old Syrian civil engineer with thinning gray hair. "So we have to differentiate between the religion and state politics. When you take the political Islam, you see only killing, assassination, poisoning, intrigue, conspiracy and civil war, but Islam as a message is very human, sensible and just."

Mr. Shahrour and a dozen or so like-minded intellectuals from across the Arab and Islamic worlds provoked bedlam when they presented their call for a reinterpretation of holy texts after a Cairo seminar entitled "Islam and Reform" earlier this fall.

"Liars! Liars!" someone screamed at a news conference infiltrated by Islamic scholars and others from the hard-core faithful who shouted and lunged at the panelists to a degree that no journalist could ask a question. "You are all Zionists! You are all infidels!"

The long-simmering internal debate over political violence in Islamic cultures is swelling, with seminars like that one and a raft of newspaper columns breaking previous taboos by suggesting that the problem lies in the way Islam is being interpreted. On Saturday in Morocco, a major conference, attended by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, will focus on increasing democracy and liberal principles in the Muslim world.

On one side of the discussion sit mostly secular intellectuals horrified by the gore joined by those ordinary Muslims dismayed by the ever more bloody image of Islam around the world. They are determined to find a way to wrestle the faith back from extremists. Basically the liberals seek to dilute what they criticize as the clerical monopoly on disseminating interpretations of the sacred texts.

Arrayed against them are powerful religious institutions like Al Azhar University, prominent clerics and a whole different class of scholars who argue that Islam is under assault by the West. Fighting back with any means possible is the sole defense available to a weaker victim, they say.

The debate, which can be heard in the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia, is driven primarily by carnage in Iraq. The hellish stream of images of American soldiers attacking mosques and other targets are juxtaposed with those of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi beheading civilian victims on his home videos as a Koranic verse including the line "Smite at their necks" scrolls underneath.

When the mayhem in Iraq slows, events like the slaying in September of more than 300 people at a Russian school - half of them children - or some other attack in the Netherlands, Egypt, Turkey, Indonesia or Spain labeled jihad by its perpetrators serves to fuel discussions on satellite television, in newspapers and around the dinner tables of ordinary Muslims.

"Resistance was never like this - to kidnap someone and decapitate him in front of everyone," said Ibrahim Said, delivering pastry in the Cairo neighborhood of Nasser City recently.

"This is haram," he went on, using the Arabic word for something forbidden or shameful, and then quotes the Koran on his own. " 'Verily never will Allah change the condition of a people until they change it themselves.' That means nothing will change unless we change ourselves first."

[franko]

Muslim Scholars Increasingly Debate Unholy War (part 2)
By NEIL MacFARQUHAR

Published: December 10, 2004

CAIRO, Dec. 9 –
Abdul Rahman al-Rashed, director of the Dubai-based satellite network Al Arabiya and a well-known Saudi journalist, created a ruckus this fall with a newspaper column saying Muslims must confront the fact that most terrorist acts are perpetrated by Muslims.
"The danger specifically comes from the ideas and the preaching of violence in the name of religion," he said, adding, "I am more convinced there is a problem with the culture, the modern culture of radicalism, which people have to admit. Without recognizing that as fact number one, that statistically speaking most terrorists are Muslims, we won't be able to solve it."

Mr. Rashed senses there is a movement in the Arab world, if perhaps not yet a consensus, that understands that Muslims have to start reining in their own rather than constantly complaining about injustice and unfairness. The violence has not only reduced sympathy for just causes like ending the Israeli occupation, he says, but set off resentment against Muslims wherever they live.

On the other side is Abdel Sabour Shahin, a linguistics professor at Cairo University and a talk show stalwart, who says the Muslim world must defend itself and most foreigners in Iraq are fair game. In the new middle-class suburbs stretching into the desert beyond the Pyramids, Professor Shahin greets visitors inside a small gated compound of high white walls that includes his own mosque where he preaches each Friday.

"There is a large group of people who wear civilian clothes but serve the occupying forces," he said. "So how can we demand from someone who is resisting the occupation to ask first if the person is a civilian or not?"

When asked what he thinks of those who chop off heads, he responds: "When a missile hits a house it decapitates 30 or 40 residents and turns them to ash. Isn't there a need to compare the behavior of a person under siege and angry with those who are managing the instruments of war?"

His remarks echo those of Sheik Yousef Qaradawi, an Egyptian-born, now Qatari cleric whose program "Islamic Law and Life" on Al Jazeera satellite television makes him about the most influential cleric among mainstream Sunni Muslims, the majority sect.
Last August Sheik Qaradawi seemed to imply that all Americans in Iraq could be targets. Asked whether that included civilians, the sheik responded with a question, "Are there civilians in Iraq?" In the ensuing uproar across the region he issued a clarification, suggesting that he meant only those who abetted the occupation, and pointed out that he had previously condemned beheadings.

Yet late last month, right after the renewed United States assault on Falluja, the sheik again put the Islamic seal of approval on anyone fighting back.

"Resistance is a legitimate matter - even more, it is a duty," he said on television.
While few Muslims argue with the right to resist a military occupation, the problem is that such sweeping, ill-defined statements are interpreted as a mandate to undertake any violence, no matter how vicious.

"You condemn the beheading and then on a different question you say anybody who supports the occupation is worth fighting," said Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi expert on Islamic movements. "So the message does not sink in."

In November, 26 prominent Saudi clerics signed a petition supporting the "defensive jihad" in Iraq. Although their statement ruled out attacking relief workers or other uninvolved parties, it was interpreted as a signal for Saudis to volunteer. Osama bin Laden and his followers emerged from a similar call 25 years ago to fight in Afghanistan, a fight that they subsequently spread around the globe.

The discussion on the reinterpretation of Islam remains largely confined to an intellectual elite, but even raising the topic erodes the taboo that the religion and those schooled in it are somehow infallible. There are no opinion polls on the subject, but in talking to people on the streets, one gets the sense that they are grappling with these issues within their own understanding of their faith.

Some utterly reject any criticism and immediately identify Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and President Bush as those bearing the most responsibility for the butchery. They inevitably also mention the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib as needing to be avenged.
But others exhibit a certain introspection.

One sense of the growing public dismay in the Arab world is the muted reaction to the Falluja assault last month compared with the one six months ago. This has been partly attributed to the atrocities committed by the insurgents, including suicide attacks killing many Iraqis.

The wide public sympathy enjoyed by those fighting the American or Israeli soldiers, however, makes it difficult to mount any campaign against violence and terrorism, advocates of a change say.

Proponents of jihad argue that it is only natural for Iraqis and Palestinians to fight back, and point to what they call American hypocrisy.

Sheik Khalil al-Mais, the mufti of Zahle and the Bekaa region in Lebanon, compares the treatment of two despots, Saddam Hussein and Muammar el-Qaddafi, both with a long history of abusing dissidents and other ills. One did not yield to the West, while the other abandoned his unconventional weapons programs.

Qaddafi bought his way out, but Qaddafi is still Qaddafi," the sheik said, donning his carefully wrapped white turban before leaving to deliver a Friday Prayer sermon. "Why did they put Saddam in jail and leave Qaddafi in power? America should not talk about principles."

Asked about those who say the problem lies deep within restrictive interpretations of Islam itself, Sheik Mais grimaced and exclaimed, "Take refuge in God!" summing up the viewpoint of most Islamic scholars.

You cannot divide Islam into pieces, he says. You have to take it as a whole.

But whose whole, the would-be reformists respond, lamenting what one Saudi writer calls "fatwa chaos." A important difficulty under Sunni Islam, as opposed to, say, the Shiite branch predominant in Iran or the Catholic Church, is that there is no central authority to issue ultimate rulings on doctrinal questions.

Those in the liberal trend believe that Islam, now entering its 15th century, needs to undergo a wholesale re-examination of its basic principles. Toward that end, the Cairo conference this fall recommended reviewing the roots of Islamic heritage, especially the Prophet's sayings, ending the monopoly that certain religious institutions hold over interpreting such texts and confronting all extremist religious currents.

Those taking part were harshly accused of dabbling in a realm that belongs solely to the clergy, with the grand sheik of Al Azhar, Muhammad Sayed Tantawi, Egypt's most senior religious scholar, labeling them a "group of outcasts."

But Mr. Shahrour says he and an increasing number of intellectuals cannot be deterred by clerical opposition.

He describes as ridiculously archaic some Hadith, or sayings, attributed to Muhammad - all assembled in nine bulky volumes some 100 years after his death and now the last word on how the faithful should live.

"It is like this now because for centuries Muslims have been told that Islam was spread by the sword, that all Arab countries and even Spain were captured by the sword and we are proud of that," he said. "In the minds of ordinary people, people on the street, the religion of Islam is the religion of the sword. This is the culture, and we have to change it."

[franko]

Some interesting statistics and a book I'recommendation that were passed on to me:

Every month as many US citizens as died on the 11th of September die from handguns -- yet no-one's urging a war on handguns in that country.
In the 3 years since that event, lightning strikes dead as many people as died on 9/11.
By 2010, China will be consuming as much petroleum as the US and the EU combined.

The book is: Future: Tense. The Coming World Order?, by Canadian military journalist, Gwynne Dyer (http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/D/htmlD/dyergwynne/dyergwynne.htm). Presents a very good overview of the situation, and a solid defence of why Bush invaded Iraq: not for oil nor vengeance, but for US military supremacy in the coming years, since all the signs suggest that it will no longer dominate the world economically.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

franko said:

The book is: Future: Tense. The Coming World Order?, by Canadian military journalist, Gwynne Dyer (http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/D/htmlD/dyergwynne/dyergwynne.htm). Presents a very good overview of the situation, and a solid defence of why Bush invaded Iraq: not for oil nor vengeance, but for US military supremacy in the coming years, since all the signs suggest that it will no longer dominate the world economically.

Very interesting. Makes sense to me.

OT: What a pleasant surprise to see Manon Lamontagne's name at the foot of the Gwynne Dwyer page as a copywriting credit. I'll likely be seeing her over the holidays. Small world.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

franko said:

You cannot divide Islam into pieces, he says. You have to take it as a whole.

But whose whole, the would-be reformists respond, lamenting what one Saudi writer calls "fatwa chaos." A important difficulty under Sunni Islam, as opposed to, say, the Shiite branch predominant in Iran or the Catholic Church, is that there is no central authority to issue ultimate rulings on doctrinal questions.

Those in the liberal trend believe that Islam, now entering its 15th century, needs to undergo a wholesale re-examination of its basic principles. Toward that end, the Cairo conference this fall recommended reviewing the roots of Islamic heritage, especially the Prophet's sayings, ending the monopoly that certain religious institutions hold over interpreting such texts and confronting all extremist religious currents.

Those taking part were harshly accused of dabbling in a realm that belongs solely to the clergy, with the grand sheik of Al Azhar, Muhammad Sayed Tantawi, Egypt's most senior religious scholar, labeling them a "group of outcasts."

But Mr. Shahrour says he and an increasing number of intellectuals cannot be deterred by clerical opposition.

He describes as ridiculously archaic some Hadith, or sayings, attributed to Muhammad - all assembled in nine bulky volumes some 100 years after his death and now the last word on how the faithful should live.

"It is like this now because for centuries Muslims have been told that Islam was spread by the sword, that all Arab countries and even Spain were captured by the sword and we are proud of that," he said. "In the minds of ordinary people, people on the street, the religion of Islam is the religion of the sword. This is the culture, and we have to change it."

I bring not peace, but a smart bomb.

So, will the next great world conflagration then involve forces led by misinterpreters of a holy book and the planet's most "progressive" nation which happens to be led by a man who hears voices telling him what to do? Welcome to the 21st century.

Would God hedge his bets and back both sides? Or, would He, viewing the same old same old about to begin again, finally decide to pull out those alternate plans and blow the dust off them as the world flares into a gorgeous orange sunset before going dark.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

franko said:

The book is: Future: Tense. The Coming World Order?, by Canadian military journalist, Gwynne Dyer (http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/D/htmlD/dyergwynne/dyergwynne.htm). Presents a very good overview of the situation, and a solid defence of why Bush invaded Iraq: not for oil nor vengeance, but for US military supremacy in the coming years, since all the signs suggest that it will no longer dominate the world economically.

I've enjoyed Gwynne Dyer since his documentary called "War" which was aired by CBC in the early 80's. His book of the same name was re-released this year.

He recently spoke at a high school in Napanee which is 28 km west of Kingston. Had I known, I would have tried to see him myself. Still, he remains one of the most respected military journalists/theorists out there ... in my opinion anyway.

Cheers.

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

franko said:

Some interesting statistics and a book I'recommendation that were passed on to me:

Every month as many US citizens as died on the 11th of September die from handguns -- yet no-one's urging a war on handguns in that country.
In the 3 years since that event, lightning strikes dead as many people as died on 9/11.
By 2010, China will be consuming as much petroleum as the US and the EU combined.

The book is: Future: Tense. The Coming World Order?, by Canadian military journalist, Gwynne Dyer (http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/D/htmlD/dyergwynne/dyergwynne.htm). Presents a very good overview of the situation, and a solid defence of why Bush invaded Iraq: not for oil nor vengeance, but for US military supremacy in the coming years, since all the signs suggest that it will no longer dominate the world economically.

Is this an attempt to minimize 9/11 since more people die from handguns or lightning?

9/11 was an atrocity.
The next step could be much worse with simultaneous coordinated neuclear bombs going off in containers in the ports of NY, Washington, Miami, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Seattle.
The concern is very real and if the only way to stop this kind of attack is a preemptive strike Jihad, then we will use preemptive suicide bombs.
I'm tired of 3 hour waits in airports and billions of dollars spent on security because some misguided terrorists can think of nothing else but attacking the US. THey don't create anything, they don't build anything, they don't shave or bathe. They just destroy. (well, maybe they do bathe occasionally, but we don't deserve to live in fear like this)

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

The motherlode, for Dis, franko and anyone else who appreciates Gwynne Dyer's broadminded and razor-sharp intelligence.

www.gwynnedyer.net/

Tons of superb reading.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Habs_fan_in_LA said:

Is this an attempt to minimize 9/11 since more people die from handguns or lightning?

More like a comparison.

9/11 was an atrocity.

Yes it was. But it should not be seen as unexpected.

The next step could be much worse with simultaneous coordinated neuclear bombs going off in containers in the ports of NY, Washington, Miami, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Seattle.

I saw that movie too. Anything is possible in this wild world.

The concern is very real and if the only way to stop this kind of attack is a preemptive strike Jihad, then we will use preemptive suicide bombs.

Are you hearing voices as well? Or are you following a self-fulfilling interpretation of your holy book?

I'm tired of 3 hour waits in airports and billions of dollars spent on security because some misguided terrorists can think of nothing else but attacking the US.

Wow, what a tough life.

THey don't create anything, they don't build anything, they don't shave or bathe. They just destroy. (well, maybe they do bathe occasionally, but we don't deserve to live in fear like this)

No one deserves to live in fear, even unwashed, unshaven Americans.

[franko]

Habs_fan_in_LA said:

Is this an attempt to minimize 9/11 since more people die from handguns or lightning?

No, but it looks like Mr. B. covered it for me.

What happened on 9-11 was an attack on US sovereignty, no doubt . . . and while I am not a Michael Moore fan Bowling for Columbine's most striking thought (to me) was that people living in a culture of fear focus their attentions away from other issues.

Yes, the jihad is an attack on the US (deserved or not, it is perceived so by many Arab states). However, there are other problems that are being overlooked . . . homelessness and poverty, violence (though if you live in a culture of violence . . . ), the rape of the earth . . . and the greatest tragedy: no NHL hockey!

[Disgruntled70sHab]

M. said:

The motherlode, for Dis, franko and anyone else who appreciates Gwynne Dyer's broadminded and razor-sharp intelligence.

www.gwynnedyer.net/

Tons of superb reading.

I have it bookmarked both here and at work, and check it daily Mr. B. Thanks.

Cheers.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Since Dr Dyer has very graciously granted the public permission to use his articles for non-commercial purposes...

5 July 2004

It's Not Always About You

By Gwynne Dyer

You can never say this without hurting the feelings of at least some Americans, but it needs to be said. At the stone-laying ceremony of July 4th on the site where the World Trade Center towers formerly stood, New York state governor George Pataki dedicated the building that is to replace them with the rhetoric that is standard in the United States on such occasions: "Let this great Freedom Tower show the world that what our enemies sought to destroy -- our democracy, our freedom, our way of life -- stands taller than ever." But 9/11 wasn't really about any of that.

Imagine the scene: it's 1999, and a group of wild-eyed and bushy-bearded Islamist fanatics are pacing a cave somewhere in Afghanistan planning 9/11. "We must destroy American democracy," says one. "An America run by a dictator would be a much better place."

"Yes," says the second, "and we must also curtail their freedom. Americans have too many television channels, too many breakfast cereals, and far too many kinds of make-up to choose from." Then the third chimes in: "While we're at it, let's destroy their whole way of life. I've always hated American football, Oprah Winfrey sucks, and I can't stand Coca-Cola."

No? This scene doesn't ring true? Then why does almost all public discussion in the United States about the goals of the Islamist terrorists assume that they are driven by hatred for the domestic political and social arrangements of Americans? Because most Americans cannot imagine foreigners NOT being interested in the way they do things, let alone using the United States as a tool to pursue other goals entirely.

Public debate in the United States generally assumes that America is the only true home of democracy and freedom, and that other people and countries are 'pro-American' or 'anti-American' because they support or reject those ideals. Practically nobody on the rest of the planet would recognise this picture, but it is the only one most Americans are shown -- and it has major foreign policy implications.

This is what enables President George W. Bush to explain away why the United States was attacked with the simple phrase "They hate our freedoms," and to avoid any discussion that delves into the impact of American foreign policy in the Middle East on Arab and Muslim attitudes towards the United States. It also blinds most Americans to the nature of the strategic game that their country has been tricked into playing a role in.

So once more, with feeling: the 9/11 attacks were not aimed at American values, which are of no interest to the Islamists one way or another. They were an operation that was broadly intended to raise the profile of the Islamists in the Muslim world, but they had the further quite specific goal of luring the United States into invading Muslim countries.

The true goal of the Islamists is to come to power in Muslim countries, and their problem until recently was that they could not win over enough local people to make their revolutions happen. Getting the United States to march into the Muslim world in pursuit of the terrorists was a potentially promising stratagem, since an invasion should produce endless images of American soldiers killing and humiliating Muslims. That might finally push enough people into the arms of the Islamists to get their long-stalled revolutions off the ground.

Specifically, the al-Qaeda planners expected the US to invade Afghanistan and get bogged down in the same long counter-guerrilla war that the Russians had experienced there, providing along the way years of horrifying images of American firepower killing innocent Muslims. Osama bin Laden and his colleagues were simply trying to relive their past success against the Russians and get some more mileage out of the Afghan scenario. In fact, their plan failed: the United States conquered Afghanistan quickly and at a very low cost in lives, and even now, despite huge American neglect, Afghanistan has not produced a major anti-American resistance movement.

The reason al-Qaeda is still in business in a big way is that the Bush admnistration then invaded Iraq. The Islamists were astonished, no doubt, but they knew how to exploit an opportunity when one was handed to them. And so the real game continues, while the public debate in the United States is conducted in terms that have only the most tangential contact with strategic reality.

Perhaps it's unfair to ask Governor Pataki to get into any of that at an emotional ceremony that was in part a commemoration of the lives that were lost on 9/11, but when will it be addressed, and by whom? What major American public figure will stand up and say that the United States and its values are not really under attack; that the country and its troops are actually just being used as pawns in somebody else's strategy? Many senior American politicians and military officers understand what is going on, but it's more than their career is worth to say so out loud.

- tinyurl.com/47sbe

[Disgruntled70sHab]

I was trying to find where in this forum I used this exact article as a reference, MR. B. While I didn't post the URL I did mention Mr. Dyer's name.

This is a man whose vision of the whole picture is phenominal.

Cheers.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Disgruntled70sHab said:

I have it bookmarked both here and at work, and check it daily Mr. B. Thanks.

Cheers.

You may find this an interesting source of off-main-street journalism:

www.journalismnet.com/

[MC Habber]

Habs_fan_in_LA said:

The next step could be much worse with simultaneous coordinated neuclear bombs going off in containers in the ports of NY, Washington, Miami, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Seattle.

You're right about that, America's ports would be one of the easiest ways for a terrorist organization to attack and they could potentially do massive damage on a scale never before seen on US soil. So, why is Bush so preoccupied with missile defense while the ports remain almost totally undefended?

[blaise]

Dr. Dyer sees it correctly. The Bush explanation is unbelievably naive. The imbeciles who voted for him for extraneous reasons (Values??!) will for the most part regret it. I'm not saying they'll all live to regret it, because some of them will die in the US or Iraq or somewhere else before they know what hit them.

[franko]

Blaise said:

The imbeciles who voted for him for extraneous reasons (Values??!) will for the most part regret it. I'm not saying they'll all live to regret it, because some of them will die in the US or Iraq or somewhere else before they know what hit them.

I love how you are so positive!

But again I question your vocabulary usage. Are you really suggesting that over 51% of the people who live in the US are imbeciles? Some of those I've talked with are not particularly enamoured with Bush but found him to be the lesser of the two evils.

[franko]

MC said:

why is Bush so preoccupied with missile defense while the ports remain almost totally undefended?

Missle defense is more lucrative.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

M. said:

You may find this an interesting source of off-main-street journalism:

www.journalismnet.com/

Just added it to my Firefox bookmarks. Thanks

Cheers.

[blaise]

franko said:

I love how you are so positive!

But again I question your vocabulary usage. Are you really suggesting that over 51% of the people who live in the US are imbeciles? Some of those I've talked with are not particularly enamoured with Bush but found him to be the lesser of the two evils.

They are imbeciles because they voted against their own best interests. They gave a vote of confidence to a president who plunged the US into a war it should not have started and that is going very, vary badly (much worse that Bush admits). They ignored the deleterious effects on the environment of his loosened regulatory standards. ("There is no global warming.) They were oblivious to the consequences of monumental deficits and an uncontrollable national debt. They are braving out a shortage of influenza vaccine instead of being outraged. They are satisfied with substituting a mantra of abstinence and lies for useful sex education. They aren't alarmed about the consequences of privatizing Social Security. All because they LIKED Bush better than Kerry. Some of my friends talk about wanting to move to Canada but I suppose they'll chicken out.

[MC Habber]

Blaise said:

voted for him for extraneous reasons (Values??!)

In light of that, I find it highly amusing that the first thing the Repbulican party did after the election was to hold a vote to lower their ethical standards.

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

MC said:

You're right about that, America's ports would be one of the easiest ways for a terrorist organization to attack and they could potentially do massive damage on a scale never before seen on US soil. So, why is Bush so preoccupied with missile defense while the ports remain almost totally undefended?

I agree with you. Missle defense to the exclusion of security of the ports is wrong. I certainly don't agree with President Bush on 100% of his stands. In fact I's guess I agree with him less than 30% of the time. There is one issue that I do agree with him and it trumps all the others.

Self preservation is paramount. If the only way (IF) to ensure our security, is to eliminate all threats, then it best be done quickly. I have no intention of protecting those who pose a risk to myself and my family. If it means preemptive neuclear strikes, I would do it with regret but no hesitation. My family is more important to me than my enemies. The USA is more important to me than the middle east. North America is more important to me than Asia, Europe or Africa.

We all live on a small planet and we have weapons that transcend distances. Nobody is totally secure. The Turks feared invasion by the Greeks, The Romans the Huns. Today a small band of fervent terrorists can overcome the defenses of the most powerful armies.

The US isn't trying to enslave anyone. We are only out to protect ourselves. We WANT to get out of Iraq and Afganistan. None of our soldiers want to be there and our leaders aren't looking to erect country houses there. In truth we aren't trying to steal their oil. We have a free and open society and we want to keep it that way.

[franko]

Blaise said:

They are imbeciles because they voted against their own best interests.

Who felt the alternative was even worse (whether right or not).

Blaise said:

They gave a vote of confidence to a president who plunged the US into a war it should not have started and that is going very, vary badly (much worse that Bush admits).

Yes . . . but they questioned whether a change in leadership would a make a difference in the way the war was going and the eventual outcome.

Blaise said:

They ignored the deleterious effects on the environment of his loosened regulatory standards. ("There is no global warming.)

These loosened standards compare to Canada’s great standards . . . how? The US’s toxic output is less than Canada’s on a per capita basis (though total output is ridiculously high). The US opposed Kyoto and says we’ll do it our own way. Canada says we’ll follow the Kyoto protocol but hasn’t a plan (or a clue?).

Blaise said:

They were oblivious to the consequences of monumental deficits and an uncontrollable national debt.

Sadly, debt runs the economy.

Blaise said:

They are braving out a shortage of influenza vaccine instead of being outraged.

If it can’t be fixed with guns it can’t be fixed.

Blaise said:

They are satisfied with substituting a mantra of abstinence and lies for useful sex education.

Please define “useful” – do you mean more instruction at an earlier age? Seems to me that what has been taught so far hasn’t worked all that well, as pregnancy rates have not disappeared just by telling young people the “how-to’s” of sex and contraception.

I see nothing wrong with encouraging abstinence, or at least with pointing out that it is the only guaranteed way to avoid pregnancy. Balance is the key.

Blaise said:

All because they LIKED Bush better than Kerry.

Federally, the Liberals are in power despite a raft of ills (sins?) because they were deemed more trustworthy than the alternative – the people LIKED Paul Marin better than Stockwell Day Stephen Harper. That’s what politics is all about.

Blaise said:

Some of my friends talk about wanting to move to Canada but I suppose they'll chicken out.

Big talk, but why move to a country where you pay more tax, have to wait in line at the doctor’s office or hospital, are maligned for being rich, and have to face the minus 19 windchill that I have to dress for this morning?