This is not about economic development, but I think a worthy blog topic. Here’s the top headline from the Globe & Mail today:

Passport saved Canadian hostage

Held hostage at gunpoint by Palestinian extremists in the Gaza Strip, Mark Budzanowski feared for his life – until his captors discovered his passport and declared ‘We love Canada’.

Now I don’t know about you but I consider myself a pretty moderate guy – sort of in the ‘Sorry Centrist’ kind of moderation – but are there any Canadian’s that would be happy about the fact that terrorists ‘love Canada’?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

0 Responses to

  1. Anonymous says:

    ME!!!! COUNT ME AS ONE!! In fact the MORE terrorists ‘love Canada’ the less likely it is we’ll have planes crashing into skyscrapers, AK-47’s brandished in our malls, and god only knows what else!

    Personally, I find it incredulous that people WOULDN”T find this good news because not only is the old stereotype true that you will be treated better internationally, IT MAY SAVE YOUR LIFE!

    And actually, the full story was that they didn’t check his passport til later, after he was hit several times, and thrown down the stairs. So clearly by not being happy about the above statement people are quite happy to have seen this guy tortured or even killed. So by ‘being canadian’ we have actually saved a man’s life.

    Of course one person’s ‘terrorist’ is another persons ‘freedom fighter’. There’s no reason we should accept the party line that these are ‘sadinista’s’ and not ‘contras’. In fact, as THAT story proved, the US was on the BAD side. (not to mention the obvious fact that it is OUR troops in THEIR country)

  2. David Campbell says:

    COUNT ME OUT. If kissing Osama’s ass is the only way to keep planes from crashing into our skyscrapers, I’m out. These creeps and bullies need to be stopped. Underlying, serious economic and social issues must be addressed but through legitimate means. Ask the Pope. Ask the Dali Lama. Ask Mother Theresa. Ask Jack Layton, for cripes sake. Kidnapping, murder, terrorism, for the sake of a cause is not acceptable. And if terrorists ‘like Canada’ because we don’t take a hard stand against terrorism, then I think we need to firm up our position.

  3. Anonymous says:

    That’s easy to say. I’d do FAR more than kiss Osama’s ass if it meant saving thousands of lives, but I guess that’s just me. Just pray you or your loved ones aren’t among the wreckage.

    As far as legitimate means, um, you mean like attacking a country without security council permission or a declaration of war, imposing sanctions on a country that killed hundreds of thousands, using known fraudulent data as a justification for aggression, even though your definition of pre-emption doesn’t jibe with international law, setting up torture camps, curtailing civil liberties, arresting and wiretapping without warrants, illegally occupying a foreign nation, cutting off international aid, and carpet bombing defenseless nations…

    Um, you mean THOSE legitimate means?

    As for the Pope, the people of South America listened to him in Nicaragua, look how far ‘legitimate means’ got them. In fact it got them MORE attacks from the US Air Force and even the legitimation of attacking ‘soft targets’ meaning hospitals and farms. Remember, the US is the ONLY country in the world that has been found GUILTY of international terrorism. Not the taliban, not even Hussein.

    People aren’t stupid. A quick look at history shows WHY they resort to violence, because its the only thing the US understands. You think they are going to get their oilfields back by joining the dalai lama in a prayer vigil? Get real.

    Joining the ‘war on terror’ would of course mean that this man would be dead now. Perhaps your ideals and beliefs are that strong that you’d suffer other people to die for them, as for me, the more lives ‘being canadian’ helps save, the happier I am. If that makes terrorists happy as well, then that’s fine too. Call it the christian in me, but there’s a reason Jesus said to love your enemy, and it’s usually because they’ve got a damn good reason for being it. If the US kept their military in their own backyard there would have been no 9/11 and the world would have far more peace.

    The real ‘terrorists’ happen to have the largest military in the world and have kill on average, about ten thousand times as many people than others have kidnapped or murdered. But I guess since THOSE people look different they aren’t nearly as important.

  4. PoliticsNB says:

    Wow Anonymous you REALLY need to grow a backbone… wonder we’re becoming known as the terrorist’s “safe house”…..I’m with David. It bothers me a great deal to even consider “kissing Osama’s ass”…..

    I’m no fan of George Dubbya’s way of doing it of course, but the goal is correct. The free world needs to be united against terror.

  5. David Campbell says:

    That’s easy to say. I’d do FAR more than kiss Osama’s ass if it meant saving thousands of lives, but I guess that’s just me. Just pray you or your loved ones aren’t among the wreckage.

    Anonymous, your commentary in the past has been much more intelligent than that. Imagine if your world view on this was pervasive. Don’t provoke the biker gangs in Montreal because a loved one might be ‘among the wreckage’. Don’t provoke Hitler or a loved one might be ‘among the wreckage’. Don’t provoke the maniac with hostages because a policeman might get shot.

    All but the most severe pacifists would say that there are times when you have to take a stand against criminals and terrorists.

    There will be far more ‘wreckage’ my friend if people that espouse terror are placated and left to do their business or worse yet given what they want as the result of their terror.

    I also think your attempts to bring in the U.S. show a lack of nuance. You seem to not be able to differentiate between the US in Iraq and attempts to curb global terrorism as a means to attain political outcomes.

    I have to admit a bit of a right wing stance on this but I find it hypocricy that we are all for sending financial ‘aid’ to Africa but adamantly against sending troops to help stabilize the environment in which aid could actually work.

    At least Pat Buchanan and the other US isolationists are consistent – they don’t want Americans giving money or military support to the causes of world peace and stability.

    I have a simple little rule of thumb that I use in these situations. It’s lacks intelligence maybe but I use it anyway. I don’t think the world with all its wealth in the 21st century should stand by and let massive injustices occur. Whether a famine, pandemic or unjust oppression by a government, I think the world community has an obligation to act.

    Maybe it’s because I grew up on songs like “We are the World” and “Save the Children” or maybe it’s because I can get on a plane and be in Afganistan quicker now than I could be in Edmunston 100 years ago. The world has shrunk. Our capacity to tackle global injustice has increased.

    If it is not acceptable for the Mayor of Halifax to brutalize his constituents it should not be acceptable for the President of Afganistan to.

    But that’s just me.

    And I realize the massive holes that could/would/should be shot in my philosophy but I can’t help it.

    Canada’s reputation in the world has gone from being known as peacekeepers to being ‘liked’ by terrorists. I still find that confusing and somewhat incompatable – especially given my lack of understanding of these things.

    But I’ll get back to my bread and butter – economic development for New Brunswick as I have some knowledge of that subject and my rumination on foreign affairs do not come from an informed perspective. Unfortunately, Peter MacKay doesn’t have that luxury. He needs to be skilled in both foreign diplomacy and regional economic development. Which probably explains why, I am told, he spends 95% of his time on FA and 5% on ACOA.

  6. Anonymous says:

    Buddy, I grew up on a military base next door to a native reserve. I did six years of official tae kwon do and spent twelve hours in surgery to get an earlobe reattached from a barfight. I did my service in the forces and anytime you want to test my ‘backbone’ you just name the time and place.

    There’s an easy way to fight terror-you stop USING terror. It took four decades of the US messing around in the middle east before terrorists finally attacked american soil.

    Every miltary strategist in the world, even american ones, told the US that attacking Iraq would lead to a resurgency. The US is the biggest terrorist in the world, going back all the way to its beginnings when it wiped out the natives, then attacked the british over taxes (when’s the last time YOU started a revolution because Ottawa was laying too much income tax on you?), then killed many would be canadians in 1812.

    THe long bloody history goes on and on, almost as if they were trying to catch up to europe.

    Ever notice how the discussion never turns to what Osama actually wanted, which was for the US to get its soldiers out of Saudi Arabia. Notice how almost all the terrorists were SAUDI’S. Even the most retarded private I’ve ever met knows what’s wrong with THAT scenario.

    So how about this, how about talking about whether he’s got a point. Saudi Arabia is EASILY as brutal as the Taliban ever was. That’s where the terrorists WERE. Notice how THEY are not a democracy, hmm, I also notice Kuwait still isn’t one either. Strange, coincidences like that. Try this as military strategy:

    “Ok bob, the germans attacked us on the right flank, so what we’re gonna do is attack the italians on the left. Yes, I know they didn’t attack us, so what? We think they might have a real important german officer there and that’s just wrong. Plus, well, we buy a lot of junk from those germans so we’ll just leave them be..let’s go!”

    It’s got nothing to do with backbone. I never saw actual combat, but my family comes from a line of veterans and if you want to know war just talk to them sometime. Ever notice how you almost NEVER see a veteran support this exercise?

    So for backbone, for those warmongers out there all keen and eager to clean up american terrorism, I’m pretty sure there’s a recruitment office near you. But I usually notice people’s ‘warrior’ nature tends to decrease the closer they get to actual battle. It’s called “the bravery of being out of range”. Funny how people’s backbones are nice and rigid when its OTHER people getting killed and the extent of thier involvement is typing on a keyboard.

  7. Anonymous says:

    I can’t help but bring up this quote: “It’s lacks intelligence maybe but I use it anyway”

    I think that is perfectly consistent logic. If ‘terrorists’ state that they have no intention of attacking canada, if in fact they ‘love canada’, how is that not the most effective means of battling terror? How many attacks have taken place on canadian soil? Zero. How many in Switzerland or Norway?

    And how many in Spain, Britain and the US? Well, I’d suggest OUR way is FAR superior. Imagine, we didn’t even have to lift a finger and there is no chance of terrorism taking place on our soil! Hurray! And it’s cost effective!

    As far as pacifism goes, you misunderstand me, because I”m no pacifist, I’m fully sympathetic to those people who have just been bombed to rubble by the US, just like I was of the Nicaraguans and guatamalans, and Panamanians who got bombed all to hell because the US simply can’t seem to get along with countries they can’t control.

    And keep in mind this is not an nationalist debate, in the states the people are extremely divided over the war. In fact a republican publication, the American Journal of Foreign Policy had an article last november where authors actually came out and called for ‘the chinese and other leading nations to form an alliance to combat this american regime’.

    That’s pretty blatant talk from a mainstream publication. When you go around starting illegal wars and bombing the hell out of people and stating publicly that “this is a test case of the pre-emption strategy”, the OF COURSE you are going to get people reacting violently, in the only way they know how.

    To compare it to biker gangs makes no sense, the taliban wasn’t selling drugs to americans. In fact that was one of the things the US hated about it, that the taliban had incredibly stiff sentences-namely death, on drug trafficers. It made it hard to get opium, but now, thankfully, the opium trade is flourishing once again!

    And who are the ‘we’. Canadians have zero impact on foreign policy. For one thing, Martin cut foreign aid by 90%, or don’t you remember the big Bono spat. Second, aid is far different than sending in a military, or do you forget Somalia?

    Take a look at virtually every brutal dictator in the world, they are usually propped up by the US, and in many cases Canada. If you want to stop brutalizing, stop FUNDING the people. Indonesia, the Philipinnes, Saudi Arabia, and of course we have no trouble buying all our crap from China even though they are brutal on their civilians. But when is the last time you’ve seen a canadian start up a China boycott. It’s easy to do, all you have to do is make a sign and stand in front of Wal Mart or a dollar store (or any store).

    But oddly enough, some people don’t mind that type of support. I mean, so what if the chinese use all that money we give them to double their military. That just makes them more like us,right?

    So for consistency we need not look far. The above quote about isolationists is right on, and that’s why this president doesn’t represent democrats OR republicans. It’s just what it is-a regime.

    So again, you want to stop terrorism, stop using terror, stop giving money to those who use terror, and stop supporting corporations, such as the energy sector, who are supporting terrorism through the above means.

    And as far as brutalizing goes, again, we just need to bring up Somalia to recognize that we aren’t exactly in a position to be preaching about the subject.

  8. scott says:

    Like I said before. It is easy to hide behind a veil of anonymity.

    For all I know “anonymous” could be working for Osama right here in The Lower Millstream, New Brunswick.

    And by the way, you can’t negotiate with a terrorist. So kissing their ass would only mean that you are kissing their ass. Period.

  9. Anonymous says:

    Of course you can negotiate with terrorists, where have you been living? How do you think Reagan got the hostages out of Iran in 1984? How do you think EVERY kidnapping is handled?

    The only terrorist you CANT negotiate with is the US. After 9/11 the Taliban said to simply produce some evidence that Bin Laden was in Afghanistan, let alone had anything to do with 9/11. Nope. Wasn’t going to happen, in fact in the US that was ‘talking tough’to say ‘we’re invading you’. In fact the Taliban was even beginning to cave. Of course we now know that the US had plans to invade Afghanistan LONG before 9/11.

    In fact the first thing they did was tell Pakistan to stop sending international aide into Afghanistan (which is how aide got there). This even though most people in Afghanistan were on the verge of starvation.

    And then the bombing happened. Before Iraq the international community said ‘just produce some evidence there are WMD’s in Iraq’. Again, wasn’t going to happen. Powell makes the famous speech at the UN that ‘with or without’ the approval of the UN they were going in.

    So in fact the evidence is completely the reverse. A criminal court case is almost the same as a negotiation, charges are dropped if conditions are met. When Nicaragua charged the US with crimes against humanity, at any point the US could have stopped their intervention. Instead, they continually expanded it, even when the court found them guilty and ordered them pay reparations. They simply laughed and said the court had no jurisdiction over them.

    It’s the US nobody can negotiate with, that usually comes with running an empire. Hell, the people of Palestine even elected a terrorist group to be their government so they’d have something to negotiate with and what happens? Everybody says their illigitimate, even though they are a legal party and were legally elected. But they aren’t ‘legitimate’ unless they do what the US tells them to do.

    Personally, I think this is simply people’s way of expressing their racism in a politically correct way. They aren’t ‘people’ they are ‘terrorists’. Of course the germans called the french underground ‘terrorists’ as well. Hitler took complete control of the government after the Reichstag fire, calling it ‘terrorism’, even though their is evidence it was their own party that started it.

    When they annexed Austria the claim was that ‘that’s where the terrorists are hiding’. So we’ve seen all this before, and like before, in the words of Rush: “we hear the drunken and the passionate cry, of the citizens along for the ride”