What's Up Canada???

[Lon]

Heard on the news this afternoon that Canada has over 50 different Terrorist organiszations operating within the country, including Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Queda. Now I know you guys are a wee bit liberal up there, but----------------

[koan]

Lon wrote: Heard on the news this afternoon that Canada has over 50 different Terrorist organiszations operating within the country, including Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Queda. Now I know you guys are a wee bit liberal up there, but----------------


Here's a tip, Lon: They're everywhere.

Even in the US.

“I can only tell you one thing,” Bush replied, “we will stay on the offense; we’ll be relentless; we’ll be smart about how we go after the terrorists ... we will find them where they hide and bring them to justice.”

Yet, just days later, a senior US State Department official made it clear that wanted international terrorists can hide in plain sight within the United States itself, without the Bush administration or its Homeland Security Department lifting a finger to apprehend them.

“I don’t even know if he is in the United States,” said Roger Noriega, the State Department’s top official on Latin America, when asked about a terrorist sought for extradition by two countries for bombing an airliner as well as other terrorist crimes.



...

Noriega’s plea of ignorance came one day after Castro addressed a mass May Day rally in Havana reiterating Cuba’s demand for Posada Carriles’s extradition. Castro called him “the most famous and cruel terrorist of the Western Hemisphere.” The fact that he has found a safe haven in the US, the Cuban president added, “exposes to the world the immense hypocrisy, the lies and the immorality ... with which US imperialism subjugates the world.”


source

[gmc]

posted by Lon

Heard on the news this afternoon that Canada has over 50 different Terrorist organiszations operating within the country, including Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Queda. Now I know you guys are a wee bit liberal up there, but----------------


terrorists or political activists? Like noraid for instance and their support for everybody's favourite terrorist those cuddly people the IRA.

[minks]

well if we have that many imagine how many are in other countries. As well I have to wonder how large these groups are and to what extent their terrorisim extends. Not that I am sweeping them under the carpet by any means I just have to wonder.

[Lon]

Of course terrorists exist everywhere, but in Canada, these were apparently identified terrorist organizations.

[minks]

hey we have loads of woods for them to hide out in.

Pity isn't it to see us on the same playing field as the rest of the world. Our immigration system is absolutely horrific!!

We are bleeding hearts really. You would be shocked at who we let in here and why? We seem to be a haven for protecting people at all costs. I have known of a situation where a muslim man who was allowed to immigrate here because he feared for his life. He came and married a co worker of mine some years ago. I found out from her much later that he was hiding in Canada because the "group" he belonged to was of shady origin back home Hah because this woman married him he was allowed speedy entry to our country.

I now of people who fled afghanastan because of their involvement in the Afghanastan army and because their lives were in danger they came here.

Canada takes them in on refugee status, with very few questions and gives them government assistance for 12 months. Now these are very nice folks but..... others abuse this privledge.

I currently have a co worker here from russia, he holds a steady job now and has for over 1.5 years and after 8 months of jumping through hoops finally can bring his wife here.

There is no rhyme or reason to who we let in here.

Sick eh.

[koan]

I actually took a little time to try and find some info on this subject.

http://www.tkb.org/AdvancedSearchResult ... Field.y=10

US active terrorist groups: 15 listed. unable to get complete list including inactive. 20 up to the letter H.

http://www.tkb.org/AdvancedSearchResult ... Field.y=10

Canada active terrorist groups: 3 listed, Animal Liberation Front, Earth Liberation Front, al-Fuqra. Inactive add the Liberation Front of Quebec.

Canada has only 38 known terrorist groups which it includes in it's counterterrorism legislation. They are not necessarily in the country just named as illegal terrorist groups that are known.

http://www.psepc-sppcc.gc.ca/national_s ... ties_e.asp

from http://www.emergency.com/fbiter96.htm

In its recently released report on "Terrorism in the United States -- 1995," the F.B.I. says that supporters of formalized terrorist groups continue to view the United States as an attractive refuge and staging area.


14 out of 18 of the WTC terrorists lived in Florida. How is Canada more of a host than any other country? Please show me some data.

[Lon]

koan wrote: I actually took a little time to try and find some info on this subject.



http://www.tkb.org/AdvancedSearchResult ... Field.y=10



US active terrorist groups: 15 listed. unable to get complete list including inactive. 20 up to the letter H.



http://www.tkb.org/AdvancedSearchResult ... Field.y=10

Canada active terrorist groups: 3 listed, Animal Liberation Front, Earth Liberation Front, al-Fuqra. Inactive add the Liberation Front of Quebec.



Canada has only 38 known terrorist groups which it includes in it's counterterrorism legislation. They are not necessarily in the country just named as illegal terrorist groups that are known.

http://www.psepc-sppcc.gc.ca/national_s ... ties_e.asp



from http://www.emergency.com/fbiter96.htm







14 out of 18 of the WTC terrorists lived in Florida. How is Canada more of a host than any other country? Please show me some data.
Wow!!! Taking it pretty personal aren't you Koan, like, a real bug up your butt? I just reported a simple news report and made no judgement about Canada being more of a host to terrorists.

[Lon]

Scrat wrote: Hypocrisy is an ugly thing Lon. Britain and the US are the worst hypocrites on earth.



Russia has proof that Akmadov gave the order to pull off the Beslan attack in which 300 children died. Do you really think Britain is going to turn him over to the Russians?



:yh_rotfl



I suppose that the Russians are uncivilized though. They would probably turn him over to the parents of the dead children.



You could only hope.
Interesting, but what's that got to do with my post?

[koan]

To speak frankly, the accusation is so absurd it reeks of propaganda. I am mostly concerned about the purpose of spreading such rot. Not on your part, Lon, so much as the media's.

[Lon]

Scrat wrote: The way I see it Lon is you jabbed at Canada by accusing it of something or other. Koan sees the hypocrisy of it and retaliated whereupon you accused him of taking it too personally.



I see Koans point, you (and especially Americans) have no right to point fingers.



To put my post more in the light, one mans terrorist is another mans patriot.



The baby killers of Beslan were patriots in the eyes of the western powers fighting for freedom from their evil Russian oppressors.



Get my point?
"The way I see it Lon is you jabbed at Canada by accusing it of something or other."



Something or other my ass. Why don't you read my original post for yourself instead of using an interpreter. GET MY POINT!!!!

[koan]

I was actually unconcerned about whether there was a jab or not. Lon was reporting an article he read the contents of which I'm glad he reported so that I know what new propaganda is arising.

[Adam Zapple]

Here's a tip, Lon: They're everywhere.

Even in the US.




The difference is that, since 9/11, the U.S. is actively trying to irradicate these groups found in the country. Admittedly, prior to that date we had our heads in the sand just as Canada does today.

In reference to Lon's original post: Link #1, Link #2, Link #3, Link #4, Link #5....shall I continue.

It's unfortunate that any Canadian would take this personally or as an affront or insult to their country. It's not intended in that spirit, but it should be a wakeup call. This isn't about "My country is better than your country", this is about people's lives. American's have a vested interest in what is going on in Canada because it is our borders they will cross with the intent of killing and multilating our women and children. Sorry if our concern ruffles Canuck feathers but we ain't talkin' hockey here folks.

Britain for years has allowed radical Muslim clerics free reign and the Mayor of London has even hosted them as honored guests. Look what that got them. These radical Islamic pigs don't want to even share the same planet with the infidels, and that includes you. They will kill you and lose no sleep nor blink an eye. If they are willing to kill fellow muslims and arabs, and they are, they won't think twice about striking Canada.

They are everywhere because almost no one is rooting them out. The one man who is at least trying is villified as the dangerous one. This is war. It is a fight to the death. They laugh at appeasement.

Do you have a small child? Take a look at your child, so sweet and innocent, because the terrorists would like nothing better than to tear them limb from limb and dance over their bloody corpse. That's who we are fighting.

[koan]

Lon wrote: Wow!!! Taking it pretty personal aren't you Koan, like, a real bug up your butt? I just reported a simple news report and made no judgement about Canada being more of a host to terrorists.


I think this comment threw the discussion off. If you look at my post refered to, it was not a case of taking it personally whatsoever. I looked up the available facts and the facts indicated that the story is a bunch of bologne. Active terrorists groups in Canada are listed as 3. Active terrorist groups in the US are 15. Five times more than those found in Canada. The list on the US government site of known terrorist groups related to current national security do not even equal 50 recognized groups. Again how is this taking it personally? I looked up facts and, rather impersonally, asked for any facts that could counter those that I found.

The question that arose, I think naturally, is why was this article written in a way that seems to clearly distort the facts and cause fear about the border between the US and Canada? Could it be related to the organization that has been established to consider the "expansion" of US borders to include Canada and Mexico? Yes there is now a group looking into that option. As that group exists and the distorted facts of the OP article referenced support the case for that organization and I am a Canadian who does not wish to become a part of the US...naturally I have some concerns about the misrepresentation.

I suppose the "bug up my butt" reference is a reaction to my posting actual supporting links before being asked for them. Just something I've learned to do around here. The only "bug" is that other people can make simple "comments" loaded with assumptions and/or false information and rarely have to support them. All I did was ask for proof. Where is yours? I gave mine. It not personal at all just a matter of wanting accurate news.

[spot]

Far Rider wrote: Scrat, I have to disagree with your line about the terrorist/patriot...

I define a terrorist as someone who attacks a civlian population, for whatever reason, that is never a patriot.

I do see your point as a matter of perspective, but in reality a terrorist is a terrorist.

A Rebel can be a patriot, it depends on the situation. And I must confess to me it is a case by case basis.Traditionally, you needed a trumpet. These days, the modern equivalent to a trumpet is air cover.

"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."

I agree, though, in reality a terrorist is a terrorist. Whether he has air cover or not.

[spot]

Adam Zapple wrote: Do you have a small child? Take a look at your child, so sweet and innocent, because the terrorists would like nothing better than to tear them limb from limb and dance over their bloody corpse. That's who we are fighting.That is so perverse a twisting of reality, Adam. You can take any decade you like since air forces became popular, and there's more sweet and innocent children torn limb from limb into bloody corpses by air strikes than by every terrorist on the planet put together. Terrorists don't have air forces, of course.

[spot]

Far Rider wrote: ???? Wow, I don't get the trumpet part. Care to explain that one? And what does the trumpet have to do with my statement???In olden days, the only people who killed to the sound of trumpets were the army. You're making a distinction between terrorists and patriots. I quoted a quote from a long time ago about how you used to tell them apart. I'm saying that now the usual test is having air cover. I'm concluding by saying air cover is a lousy test.

What is there in that tedious explanation that wasn't in the succinct original?

[Adam Zapple]

Of course, spot. That's what seperates us from terrorists...a fleet of planes. Otherwise we're all the same. :yh_nailbi

[spot]

Adam Zapple wrote: Of course, spot. That's what seperates us from terrorists...a fleet of planes. Otherwise we're all the same. :yh_nailbiIf you'll excuse me quoting from this morning's Independent:

It is easy for Tony Blair to call yesterdays bombings "barbaric" - of course they were - but what were the civilian deaths of the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq in 2003, the children torn apart by cluster bombs, the countless innocent Iraqis gunned down at American military checkpoints? When they die, it is "collateral damage"; when "we" die, it is "barbaric terrorism". What you'll find distinguishes these labels you apply - terrorist and patriot - might be that one instigates violence, and the other reacts to it. I don't insist on that, I merely offer it as a suggestion.

[Adam Zapple]

So you are suggesting that terrorist attacks are reactionary and defensive tactics while the invasion of Iraq was not a reaction to previous events? May I ask what precipitated 9/11? The Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia? The USS Cole? The Bali nightclub bombings? The embassy in Kenya?

If only we weren't in Iraq then Bin Laden and Al Zaqarwi would play nice, is that right? All they want is to be left alone. They have no designs on the spread of Islam and the annihilation of the infidels. The real danger to bus and tube riders is Bush and Blair.

The U.S. military has gone to extreme measures to limit civilian casualties, even to the increased risk to themselves. My brother was a physician over there; he sewed up some of these Iraqis approaching checkpoints. He will tell you from firsthand eye witness accounts that these checkpoint guards only fire as a last resort. Of course they are no better than bin Laden.

The terrorist hide among the civilian population, dressing as the civilians do, blending into the community while conducting lethal attacks on coalition soldiers. Their cowardly actions put the civilians at risk. War is dirty. No one likes it. But I don't know what to say to someone who can't tell the difference between unintentional civilian casualties and intentionally blowing up civilian targets. I've had this argument ad nauseum on other boards. To paraphrase U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, "I know (terrorism) when I see it."

[spot]

Adam Zapple wrote: But I don't know what to say to someone who can't tell the difference between unintentional civilian casualties and intentionally blowing up civilian targets. I've had this argument ad nauseum on other boards. To paraphrase U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, "I know (terrorism) when I see it."You know, if I'm right in saying that you can take any decade you like since air forces became popular, and there's more sweet and innocent children torn limb from limb into bloody corpses by air strikes than by every terrorist on the planet put together, then I don't actually care a hoot that you can describe those deaths as "unintentional civilian casualties". Be damned with your "unintentional". Given the two, I know which I'd rather see stopped first. Given the stopping of the first, the stopping of the second becomes a great deal more manageable.

If you have a just war, then it is commonplace to refer to the deaths it causes as legitimate, God knows why but it is. If you have a war that fails to meet the conditions of a just war, then those deaths are murder by the State concerned, and not legitimate in the slightest. The test of a just war is well-established. What is happening in Iraq fails by miles to qualify. I know perfectly well what to call the government of a State which engages in an unjust war. How dare you say that "unintentional" makes those deaths acceptable, those "sweet and innocent children torn limb from limb into bloody corpses", in your rather cloying phrase?

[Adam Zapple]

You know, if I'm right in saying that you can take any decade you like since air forces became popular, and there's more sweet and innocent children torn limb from limb into bloody corpses by air strikes than by every terrorist on the planet put together,


I don't know that you are right. How about some factual statistics rather than what you suppose. I know that there were air campaigns esp. in WWII that resulted in ten of thousands of civilian casualties. I know terrorism has taken tens of thousands of lives. Seems you are suggesting that because the allies flattened Dresden and the Lufftwaft blitzed London, that lives lost at the hands of present day terrorists are not that big a deal; that it all evens out somehow. Seems you like to mix history to justify dastardly deeds that can't otherwise be justified. That's fine. If you can live with that more power to you, whatever helps you sleep at night dude. As for me, I'll continue to hope that the bastards that mastermined 9/11, that hit Madrid, that behead innocent civilians on webcams, that indiscriminately kill Iraqis with car bombs and assassinations, and that slaughtered innocents in London are brought to a swift and final judgement. I won't shed a tear for their sudden (and hopefully painful) demise.

[Adam Zapple]

How dare you say that "unintentional" makes those deaths acceptable,


I don't call them acceptable, I call them unavoidable when the coward dogs hide behind them. But that's your boys that you're trying to defend. Here's the problem I have with people who try to argue your position. You're strangely silent when the terrorists are killing civilians by the busload or you seek to justify it as retaliatory; "the poor souls have no alternative. It's the fault of the criminal Western imperialists". But an American soldier spills a drop of water on a Koran and you scream torturous bloody murder.

btw, this war definitely meets the criteria of a just war. Peace, out.

[koan]

Adam Zapple wrote: How about some factual statistics rather than what you suppose.


Here's the problem I have with people who try to argue your position. You're strangely silent when the terrorists are killing civilians by the busload or you seek to justify it as retaliatory; "the poor souls have no alternative. It's the fault of the criminal Western imperialists". But an American soldier spills a drop of water on a Koran and you scream torturous bloody murder.


Here's the problem I have with people who demand statistics while offering none themselves...don't go making inflammatory statements you have no way of backing up. Where's the proof that terrorists enjoy ripping children limb from limb? Where the proof that any member of this forum screamed bloody murder at a drop of water on a Koran. BTW It wasn't really water, was it? Don't demand factual statistics unless you are willing to talk about them yourself. Otherwise I'm sick of wasting time looking for proof when all we get in return is slander and propaganda.

[spot]

Adam Zapple wrote: btw, this war definitely meets the criteria of a just war. Peace, out.Just so that we all agree our basic facts, would you like to tell us what the criteria of a just war are?

[koan]

If this convo is turning to the methods and "reasoning" behind terrorism...I just happened to read an interesting book on the topic recently.

We tend to think of it as senseless and unorganized. This book suggests that terrorism works on a theory of provocation. The intention of Sept 11 is supposed to have been to provoke immediate reaction that was intended to show the rest of the world how ruthless and horrendous the US can be. The idea is to provoke action that will cause hatred towards their target. I just started reading this last night so I'll have to consult it to finesse the reasoning behind it.

[abbey]

koan wrote: Here's the problem I have with people who demand statistics while offering none themselves...don't go making inflammatory statements you have no way of backing up. Where's the proof that terrorists enjoy ripping children limb from limb? Where the proof that any member of this forum screamed bloody murder at a drop of water on a Koran. BTW It wasn't really water, was it? Don't demand factual statistics unless you are willing to talk about them yourself. Otherwise I'm sick of wasting time looking for proof when all we get in return is slander and propaganda.No proof the B******* enjoy ripping children limb from limb koan, but if this video of them hacking off hostage and fellow Brit Ken Bigley's head is anything to go by, then i'd say its a fair assumption!http://www.ogrish.com/archives/ken_bigl ... _2004.html

[koan]

abbey wrote: No proof the B******* enjoy ripping children limb from limb koan, but if this video of them hacking off hostage and fellow Brit Ken Bigley's head is anything to go by, then i'd say its a fair assumption!http://www.ogrish.com/archives/ken_bigl ... _2004.html


a sixty two year old man is not a child. I'm not allowed extrapolations...

[koan]

BTW I do not defend terrorism as a viable solution to world issues. Please let it not be thought that I do.

[abbey]

koan wrote: a sixty two year old man is not a child. I'm not allowed extrapolations...My point was, if they take great delight in hacking off a 62 year old christians head, what is to stop them haking off a 6 year old christians head??

IT IS A FAIR ASSUMPTION TO MAKE!

koan wrote: BTW I do not defend terrorism as a viable solution to world issues. Please let it not be thought that I do. And for the record, i did'nt for one second think that you did.

[BTS]

spot wrote: Just so that we all agree our basic facts, would you like to tell us what the criteria of a just war are?I think the UN's resolution on Iraq sums up a just war better than anyone can:



Text of U.N. resolution on Iraq



Friday, November 8, 2002 Posted: 2:17 PM EST (1917 GMT)





The Security Council,



Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,



Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,



Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,



Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,



Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,



Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,



Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,



Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council's repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,



Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,



Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,



Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance,



Recalling that the effective operation of UNMOVIC, as the successor organization to the Special Commission, and the IAEA is essential for the implementation of resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions,



Noting the letter dated 16 September 2002 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iraq addressed to the Secretary General is a necessary first step toward rectifying Iraq's continued failure to comply with relevant Council resolutions,



Noting further the letter dated 8 October 2002 from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq laying out the practical arrangements, as a follow-up to their meeting in Vienna, that are prerequisites for the resumption of inspections in Iraq by UNMOVIC and the IAEA, and expressing the gravest concern at the continued failure by the Government of Iraq to provide confirmation of the arrangements as laid out in that letter,



Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,



Commending the Secretary General and members of the League of Arab States and its Secretary General for their efforts in this regard,



Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,



Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,



1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);



2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;



3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;



4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and or 12 below;



5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC's or the IAEA's choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;



6. Endorses the 8 October 2002 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq, which is annexed hereto, and decides that the contents of the letter shall be binding upon Iraq;



7. Decides further that, in view of the prolonged interruption by Iraq of the presence of UNMOVIC and the IAEA and in order for them to accomplish the tasks set forth in this resolution and all previous relevant resolutions and notwithstanding prior understandings, the Council hereby establishes the following revised or additional authorities, which shall be binding upon Iraq , to facilitate their work in Iraq:



-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall determine the composition of their inspection teams and ensure that these teams are composed of the most qualified and experienced experts available;



-- All UNMOVIC and IAEA personnel shall enjoy the privileges and immunities, corresponding to those of experts on mission, provided in the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the IAEA ;



-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have unrestricted rights of entry into and out of Iraq, the right to free, unrestricted, and immediate movement to and from inspection sites, and the right to inspect any sites and buildings, including immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to Presidential Sites equal to that at other sites, notwithstanding the provisions of resolution 1154 (1998);



-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to be provided by Iraq the names of all personnel currently and formerly associated with Iraq's chemical, biological, nuclear, and ballistic missile programmes and the associated research, development, and production facilities;



-- Security of UNMOVIC and IAEA facilities shall be ensured by sufficient UN security guards;



-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to declare, for the purposes of freezing a site to be inspected, exclusion zones, including surrounding areas and transit corridors, in which Iraq will suspend ground and aerial movement so that nothing is changed in or taken out of a site being inspected;



-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the free and unrestricted use and landing of fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, including manned and unmanned reconnaissance vehicles;



-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right at their sole discretion verifiably to remove, destroy, or render harmless all prohibited weapons, subsystems, components, records, materials, and other related items, and the right to impound or close any facilities or equipment for the production thereof; and



-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to free import and use of equipment or materials for inspections and to seize and export any equipment, materials, or documents taken during inspections, without search of UNMOVIC or IAEA personnel or official or personal baggage;



8. Decides further that Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or the IAEA or of any Member State taking action to uphold any Council resolution;



9. Requests the Secretary General immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA;



10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;



11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;



12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;



13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;



14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

[koan]

Was that really necessary, BTS? It's nice to summarize, choose the best portion to quote and link to the rest. I don't think that "says it best" at all. If the UN had sanctioned the Iraq war Canada would have supported it.

It does not follow, Abbey. A lot of people would have no problem implementing the death penalty on a 62 yr old man but would adamantly refuse to execute a 6 yr old by capital punishment. That they beheaded instead of electrocuted is a matter of location. It is not the same in that the victim had no official trial but the similarity of attitude towards the death penalty is a more likely comparison than a blanket assumption. As it is, the US does execute children and Amnesty International has appealed to the States many times to stop this practice. I have not heard of a child beheaded by the terrorists to date. If anyone knows of a recorded instance please inform the discussion. The fantastical pictures painted of the enemy are, at times, no less than fairy tale ogres. You can't fight mythical beasts but you can fight real people. Some believe the best way to fight them is to be the opposite of the enemy. I don't see that line clearly drawn.

[abbey]

As a matter of interest, when did terrorists become insurgents?

[Adam Zapple]

As it is, the US does execute children


Can you provide an example. Just one.

Again you attempt to strike a moral equivalency between the state ordered execution of a criminal to the vigilante execution of people whose only crimes are to be non-Muslim or to have worked peacefully with a non-Muslim. I can understand an opposition to the death penalty, I can't understand how one can't draw the distinction between these two situations. How can your world be ruled by laws when laws require a set of moral dictates. Your world is a free-for-all.

I realize moral relativism makes one feel all warm and fuzzy inside but it is at its worst when applied to fanatical suicidal muslims. The aim of their "war" is to wipe the infidels from the earth and set up a worldwide Caliphate. Don't fool yourself into thinking its about Gitmo or Afghanistan. Don't fool yourself into thinking they are moved by and/or appreciative of your understanding.

Hussein Massawi, former leader of Hezbollah-

"We are not fighting so you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you."

London's Shiek Omar Bakri Muhammed -

"We don't make a distinction between civilians and non-civilians, innocents and non-innocents. Only between Muslims and unbelievers. And the life of an unbeliever has no value. It has no sanctity." (I'm assuming that includes non-Muslim children).

The Muslim Student Association, Queensborough Community College in New York in March 2003-(empahsis mine)

"We reject the U.N., reject America, reject all law and order. The only relationship you should have with America is to topple it … Eventually there will be a Muslim in the White House dictating the laws of Shariah."

Another gem from Omar Bakri-

"Our Muslim brothers from abroad will come one day and conquer (London) and then we will live under Islam in dignity."

Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi-

"We have declared a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy and those who follow this wrong ideology,”

This isn't about Iraq. It isn't about Afghanistan. It's about a radical philosophy that wants to destroy all those who don't embrace that ideology.

[koan]

Far Rider

It must have been horrible to see such a scene. (Though it is not the same as holding a child prisoner and cutting his/her head off in pleasure.) I do wonder at the wisdom of involving children in war related matters. The image of troops luring children with candy is reminiscent of the lollypop man in "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang". If these children were putting insurgents at risk it does not justify what was done but it does reflect poorly as well on troops putting them at risk by luring them for info as well. Are they the only ones who kill children?

****

Guckenheimer, who helped clear the L-shaped valley near the border of Pakistan whose twists and turns are burned into his memory, explained the nature of his company's mission. In doing so, he spoke candidly about the reality of war.

In an April interview with The Ithaca Journal at his family's Cayuga Heights home, Guckenheimer, 22, shared his experiences during Operation Anaconda. He was sent on March 6 in a company of more than 100 soldiers to participate in the largest U.S.-led ground engagement in Eastern Afghanistan.

"We were told there were no friendly forces," said Guckenheimer, an assistant gunner with the 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum. "If there was anybody there, they were the enemy. We were told specifically that if there were women and children to kill them."


The US calls children "enemy combatants" when they are killed by the coalition.

Lieutenant Colonel Barry Johnson, a US military spokesman, yesterday said all the teenagers being held were "captured as active combatants against US forces", and described them as "enemy combatants".


Adam

Where do I start? Could you please refrain from characterizing me based on what you believe me to be? As opposed to the warm, fuzzy feelings you attribute to me, I am afraid to cross the border because of the us/them attitude you and many others exhibit. What happened to the freedom to question and the right to hold a minority opinion without being criminalized? Come to think of it, it is not even a minority opinion anymore. Gallop Polls indicate that the maximum support for the Iraq war is 13% in any country and less than 10% in most.

here's your example:

Amnesty International

Since 2000, only five countries in the world are known to have executed juvenile offenders: China, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Iran, Pakistan, and the United States. Pakistan and China have abolished the juvenile death penalty, but there have been problems in nationwide compliance with the law.

In the past five years, the United States has executed 13 juvenile offenders. Eight of these executions took place in the state of Texas. The rest of the world combined carried out five such executions. The United States accounts for four of the last five known juvenile offender executions in the last two years.

[BTS]

koan wrote: Was that really necessary, BTS? It's nice to summarize, choose the best portion to quote and link to the rest. I don't think that "says it best" at all. If the UN had sanctioned the Iraq war Canada would have supported it.

Yes, I think it was necessary......... I know you don't like facts in black and white put right in your face koan. I posted the WHOLE thing because there is no summarizing such an IMPORTANT document.

Just look at the demands in it.

How many of the them did IN-Sane throw his head up and refuse to comply with?

I should add, this resolution (just 1 of many) passed unanimously.

No the UN let us down and voted against their own threats when it came time for IN-Sane to comply .....

We had every right to enforce all the resolutions leveled against him.