[Keith_McClary]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dorlomin', 't')oday we can perform decapitation strikes by drone.

[dorlomin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Strummer', '[') What you (the USA) are doing is not "modern warfare". It's just attacking opponents much weaker than you in local skirmishes and outright terrorist attacks. That does not equal at all to "modern warfare" between equal opponents,

[Sixstrings]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')anada gives spy agency new anti-terror powers

In the aftermath of the terror attacks -- the first ever on Canadian soil -- Prime Minister Stephen Harper pledged to beef up security.

On Friday, he said new measures are needed to combat "a great evil (that) has been descending on our world, an evil which has been growing more and more powerful: violent jihadism."

It is "one of most dangerous enemies our world has ever faced," he said.

...

He said "jihadists have declared war on Canada and... are encouraging others to join their campaign of terror against Canadians."

"It would be a grave mistake to ignore their threat."

The new legislation mandates Canada's spy service, the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service (CSIS), with disrupting national security threats domestically and abroad, for the first time and in the most sweeping security changes since new anti-terror measures were unveiled immediately following the attacks of September 11, 2001 in the neighboring United States.

Although the lengths to which Canadian spies can go in their new duties will be dramatically expanded, any activities that infringe on Canadians' constitutional rights will require ministerial approval and judicial authorization.

These efforts may include interfering with financial transactions or a suspect's travel plans such as preventing him or her from boarding a plane, intercepting weapons and conducting "online counter-messaging," for example, hacking a Twitter account used to recruit jihadists.

The new measures, notably so-called "threat disruption powers," are in line with British and Australian anti-terror laws.

They explicitly do not include assassination or causing bodily harm to individuals.

Until now, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) has been responsible for investigating and acting on terror threats.

Early critics, including opposition leader Tom Mulcair, expressed concern about oversight and abuses.

Harper countered: "I think what Canadians understand is that their freedom and their security more often than not go hand in hand."

"We do not buy the argument that every time you protect Canadians, you somehow take away their liberties. It is the jihadists who would take away our freedoms."

The bill criminalizes the advocacy or promotion of terrorism, and allows for the taking down of websites containing such materials.

It also lowers the threshold for detaining suspects in terror cases, and allows them to be held without charges for longer.
http://news.yahoo.com/canada-gives-spy-agency-anti-terror-powers-154753715.html;_ylt=AwrBJR_pustUxm4AjtrQtDMD

[onlooker]

We all are discussing matters to do with terrorism. So let's examine why their is a War on terror. US is the main sponsor of terrorism in so much as a perpetual war serves to coalesce support for US adventurism abroad. Acting as an empire they had to have an enemy after the cold war ended. So this was the candidate in so much as the main theater of operation is the middle east which coincidentally has most of the oil that is a very coveted resource by the US. Also, it is an enemy which can be anywhere and cannot be pinpointed easily so that everybody, anywhere is potentially the enemy. Also, this is a way for a fascism type of control by the governments to be effected. Those in power wish to stay in power, this boogeyman of terrorism is the ideal deflection for the masses. Yes we have provoked some real terrorism to occur but again we did it. Those who wish to know more of the dynamic of a perpetual war not meant to be won just simply fought, should read George Orwell 1984. Wars are lucrative but more so they deflect the public attention from the outstanding domestic issues and also they unite all under the banner of fighting the enemy and of course the military/govt. are our protectors who wage this war. Domestically, an iron security blanket is thrown over the citizens, in which any protests to the government are considered unpatriotic and whereby people can be summarily accused of seditious activities. Did we not see that with the Bush administration. Understand that 9-11 was an inside job by the US. If you come to understand that then the rest is not so difficult to believe.

[ennui2]

Your diatribe above is a figment of your imagination. Just read it again. It reads like a movie treatment. Way overly simplistic white-hat black-hat. I know you'll never realize it, but I'm calling you out on it regardless.

[Pops]

Pops says:
Movie treatment indeed.

Lots and lots of words of criticism could be written about the subject, and never need come close to "deflect the public attention from the outstanding domestic issues" dog-wag fantasy.

But whatever.

--
Pops the Mod says;
911 blather goes down here in the members only, off topic, apropos to nothing sub-sub-forum.

[Keith_McClary]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ennui2', 'W')ay overly simplistic white-hat black-hat.

[DesuMaiden]

Watch the following documentary. It explicitly links the war on terror with peak oil.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVzJhlvtDms

The Middle East contains about 2/3 of all of the oil left in the world. The USA wants to control all of that oil. So they will use military means to control that oil. 911 (the attacks on the World Trade Center) was really the catalyst for starting the war on terror. Are there terrorists? Yes, but that's not what the war on terror is really about. The war on terror (WoT) is really about controlling the strategic oil reserves of the Middle East. Since the USA has already used up most of their own oil, they need to control oil in other countries. Remember oil is power in the 20th and 21st century because oil is the most critical resource for industrial civilization. If you have oil, then you have power and wealth. If you don't have oil, then you don't have power and wealth. Many of the wars in the last 100 years were all about controlling oil. World War 2 had a major element of oil in it.

The war on terror is all about controlling the remaining oil reserves in the Middle East. Terrorism is just a facade for starting wars over controlling oil. The biggest terrorist state in the world is the USA since they start most of the wars in the world. The USA are the biggest terrorists in the world. In order to maintain the gluttonous American way of life, the USA needs to start wars in the Middle East to control all of that oil.

For example, the war in Iraq in 2003 was blatantly about oil and had nothing to do with so-called weapons of mass destruction. The USA invaded Iraq in 2003 because Saddam Hussein was deciding to sell his country's oil in Euros rather than USA dollars. This really pissed off the USA. So they invaded Iraq and set up a puppet regime in the country for controlling the oil in Iraq. But there is only around 100 billion barrels of oil in Iraq. That might sound like a lot of oil, but considering in 2008 the world was using 85 million barrels of oil a day, 1 billion barrels of oil only lasts for about 12 days. So 100 billion barrels isn't really that much oil, and will only last around 3 years worth of oil for the entire world at current rates of consumption.

And the invasion of Afghanistan wasn't really about terrorism either. Afghanistan is located near major oil finds, so the USA invaded Afghanistan in order to control those oil finds. Sure they killed Bin Laden, but do you really think Bin Laden is more important than controlling oil in Afghanistan? Nope. The war in Afghanistan was related to oil too, and also they invaded the country in order to surround their nemesis China.

The war on terror has little to do with fighting terrorists. The war on terror is really all about controlling the world's remaining oil reserves. That's what I'm trying to get at. Since oil is used to produce all of the petrochemical products and food we eat, controlling the remaining oil left in the world is of vital importance to the USA. But rather than start illegal wars for oil, I think the USA should start weaning itself off of oil because the country is seriously addicted to oil.

In summary, the war on terror's true intent was to control all of the remaining oil left in the world. It isn't really about fighting terrorists even though they have fought with some terrorists.

[americandream]

It should come as no surprise that a semi objective social economy will utilise its objective prowess to extract resources marooned behind feudal lines.

[Dybbuk]

You give politicians too much credit. They don't care about long-term goals like control of oil. They're just interested in winning elections. The reason we started the "war on terror" is because politicians needed to show that they were "getting tough" (which is what voters demanded after 9/11), in order to get voted back into office. A secondary (related) reason was to get campaign contributions from weapons contractors.

[Poordogabone]

Not much as been said to the fact that most of the attackers on 9/11 were Saudis.
Now try to put yourself in the shoes of an average Saudi. You live in a country that has the largest oil reserve in the world. Imagine the prospects of that wealth for that society but only the king and his entourage in their lavish palaces have control of it and you are only a subject with no say. This antiquated system is propped up by the U.S. who at the same time preaches the merits of democracy. In fact the only thing standing in your way to change the system is the US.

I can't say for sure but at least there is a motive there that seems more plausible than religion alone or hating our freedom, to attack the U.S.

And yes I agree to get back on topic that the so called W.O.T is primarily about controlling the flow of oil in the M.E.

[KaiserJeep]

I just want to make one observation. After 150+ years of oil consumption, the Middle East STILL contains most of the remaining oil.

When fracking and other new technologies are in use world-wide it seems that the ME will continue to be the majority supplier of oil. Gas production will be much more distributed than will fracked oil, which will be coming from the same areas where conventional wells exist today.

The spread of the technology needed to frack oil is in itself a destabilizing force in an already strife-ridden region. I am very much afraid that for at least another century, the ME will remain a violent and dangerous place. A violent place that will soon have nuclear explosives, because the present nuclear club - especially the USA - did not care enough to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

[ralfy]

It is highly unlikely that the war on terror simply involved getting votes, especially given the fact that the war went on during the next administration.

[Dybbuk]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ralfy', 'I')t is highly unlikely that the war on terror simply involved getting votes, especially given the fact that the war went on during the next administration.

[evilgenius]

You can talk about it that way, and you're right, but you also have to address the alternative energy complex and its vulnerability to cheap oil. Yeah, even at very high prices oil is cheaper than solar, for instance. Strategically, you have to buy time, while holding off a market based decision to follow the oil path in a business as usual grasping for a permanent solution from an impermanent source.

Also, there is a financial component to fracking which most other countries in the world besides the US won't be able to apply. The risk/reward equation manifest in the US wouldn't be the same everywhere else. The Nigerians and Tajiks simply couldn't handle the funding and application of the debt necessary. You think corruption is bad in the US, then you haven't seen what those people can do with that kind of money.

I also don't think Afghanistan was truly about oil production, but oil pipelines, which have since been proven to be cost ineffective.

The anti tone of this post is nothing unusual. To an extent it's correct because of the lack of popular consensus involved in making the decisions, but that is not the contention hidden in the exposition about the nature of the evil. It's really just more villainy interpreted on the part of the rich, or possibly the Christians. I don't see an argument about how to go forward, only a critique of one attempt by one group, and not necessarily the consensus of the people of that state as a whole, except in their unconsidered opinions.

[KaiserJeep]

The KSA and the other Middle Eastern countries are already completely dependant upon paid foreign technologists to boost production from conventional wells that have already peaked and are in decline. The USA is and always has been the biggest supplier of oil tech to the Middle East.

It is already the case where the USA is providing tech (both expertise and equipment) for offshore drilling platforms, which would not be needed in the Middle East had not the conventional wells on land already peaked and been in decline. In a future where both land-based and offshore wells must be fracked to extract even more oil, I believe we the USA will continue to be both the main supplier of oil technology and the biggest customer/consumer of Middle Eastern oil.

We have already demonstrated that we will pay the price in both Blood and Treasure for ME oil. I do not see that changing.

[americandream]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Poordogabone', 'N')ot much as been said to the fact that most of the attackers on 9/11 were Saudis.
Now try to put yourself in the shoes of an average Saudi. You live in a country that has the largest oil reserve in the world. Imagine the prospects of that wealth for that society but only the king and his entourage in their lavish palaces have control of it and you are only a subject with no say. This antiquated system is propped up by the U.S. who at the same time preaches the merits of democracy. In fact the only thing standing in your way to change the system is the US.

I can't say for sure but at least there is a motive there that seems more plausible than religion alone or hating our freedom, to attack the U.S.

And yes I agree to get back on topic that the so called W.O.T is primarily about controlling the flow of oil in the M.E.

[ralfy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dybbuk', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ralfy', 'I')t is highly unlikely that the war on terror simply involved getting votes, especially given the fact that the war went on during the next administration.

[onlooker]

I am making this post to submit that the War on Terrorism is the ultimate false flag and a black swan event only superficially. Specifically from the point of view of the US and western world, Islamic terrorism provides the backdrop for an endless war. This fits perfectly in the context of literature on the matter including the famous book "1984", in which the purpose of war is to distract and control the native population. To wit, you add the fact of the geopolitical importance of the Middle East and that is where we are fighting proxy wars. The other war is the propaganda war to win the hearts and minds of people. 911 is a crucial piece to the puzzle thus is was not a black swan event but rather a carefully thought out plan to begin this never ending War on Terror. Even the fanaticism of religious zealots in the ME makes this ongoing strategic operation even more successful. Thus, we now have a situation whereby terrorists attacks grab all the headlines as the most recent one in Mali has. All the while the more pervasive and foreboding threats of peak oil, global warming and associated environmental and economic decline and dysfunction are circumvented and under reported and under appreciated. The War on Terror allows Western powers to continue to try and attain the rich deposits of fossil fuels in the Middle East and thus maintain the control and power structures that currently exist.