Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« More Hot Air Coming From Toronto | Main | Demos Down Under »

Tuesday, September 04, 2007

Chinese weapons for Taliban

Chinese weapons are being used extensively against the coalition forces in southern Afghanistan:

Posted by Winston on September 4, 2007 in Current Affairs, International Affairs, Military | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Chinese weapons for Taliban:


An influential power attempting protecting their interests in Afghanistan, perhaps? It will be interesting where this story leads to. I also remember reading about US weapons being sold in black market and ending up in Turkey.

Posted by: Edmontonian | 2007-09-04 2:15:42 AM

Andnow we also see what Maurice Strong is up to in China:

"Bombardier expects strong Chinese demand for small aircraft"

DIKKY SINN, Associated Press

HONG KONG — — Plane maker Bombardier expects strong demand from China as domestic air and business travel grows and the need for smaller-sized aircraft rises, executives said Tuesday.

The company expects China to need 1,660 aircraft with capacity for up to 149 passengers over the next 20 years, said Trung Ngo, Bombardier Aerospace vice president for marketing and communications, who was attending the Hong Kong air show.

In June Bombardier, the world's No. 4 plane maker and a specialist in smaller planes, said it would partner with Chinese counterpart China Aviation Industry Corp. I, or AVIC I, to develop a 90- to 149-seat commercial airplane.

The agreement covers AVIC I's own five-abreast ARJ21-900 aircraft and Bombardier's proposed C-Series aircraft.

Posted by: obc | 2007-09-04 6:53:06 AM

Not surprising that every tin pot dictator or gangster don or war lord outfits his rabble with Chi-com small arms....Russian and eastblock military surpluss is too expensive....and US ordnance is wat far out of reach.

China's Norinco cranks out millions of cheap knock-offs of Russian design and billions of rounds of cheap ammo...AK47s, CZ pistols, AKS, RPGs....it all goes on Chinese cargo vessels that are circling the globe and at any given time can dock in to a port near the latest trouble or hot spot and sell arms to the first tyrant with the cash.

I always get a charge out of the UN-lefty-Peacenik anti gun freaks. They must have rectal-cranial displacia because while they are howling at the North American sportsmen and sporting arms industry, China (a member of the UN security council) has emerged as the number one supplier of illicit cheap automatic small arms on the planet.

Not a wisper from the gunphobes on this.

Posted by: WL Mackenzie | 2007-09-04 8:34:54 AM

OBC said: "And now we also see what Maurice Strong is up to in China: "Bombardier expects strong Chinese demand for small aircraft"

Typical Powercor Chi-com insider deal. Moe sets the players up for a large commission payment, Desmarais brokers the deal to a Quebec Powercor corporate crony for a tax-exempt skim of the take and the Canadian government uses taxpayer revenues to insure the credit on the deal.

Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux | 2007-09-04 8:39:58 AM


Are you in favour of gun control?

Do you want a swift end to the war in Afghanistan?

Are you in favour of democracy?

It sounds to me that you are hypocritical on gun control, that you support a repressive regime in both China and Afghanistan and want to prolong the conflict in Afghanistan.

Defend yourself.


Posted by: Epsilon | 2007-09-04 8:40:21 AM

With any luck the material used in manufacturing the guns will make the Taliban sick like everything else the Chinese produce.

Posted by: John | 2007-09-04 9:00:26 AM

Andnow we also see what Maurice Strong is up to in China.

"Bombardier expects strong Chinese demand for small aircraft"

And so does Embraer, Boeing, Airbus and Sukhoi. Is there any doubt that each one of those firms have their own "Maurice Strong". And how does selling commercial aircraft to China have anything to do with Chinese weapons being sold to the Taliban?

Posted by: JAS39 | 2007-09-04 9:14:04 AM

"With any luck the material used in manufacturing the guns will make the Taliban sick like everything else the Chinese produce."
Posted by: John | 4-Sep-07 9:00:26 AM

In Vietnam, Special Forces groups used to find VC arms caches and spike the ammo with overcharged cartridges. The results were that, when fired, the cartridges would blow up the AK-47s and injure or kill the enemy combatant.

Maybe, in addition to doing the same in Afghanistan, they could irradiate the rifles and ammo, therefore giving the Taliban radiation sickness and providing a traceable radioactive marker making tracking and identification of the enemy easier.

Of course it would also make Chinese arms supplies suspect.

Posted by: Speller | 2007-09-04 9:18:38 AM

So what if we found a Canadian firm selling weapons to the Taliban JAS? Or an American firm?

What would you think?


Posted by: Epsilon | 2007-09-04 9:19:37 AM


Is this, 4-Sep-07 9:19:37 AM, true or did you just pull the question out of your a$$ to cast aspersions on the Canadian and American war effort?

Even if it were true,(buying into your fantasy), it still wouldn't demonstrate government involvement for small groups to act illicitly on a small scale.
Remember, the bulk of Taliban arms are from China.

Posted by: Speller | 2007-09-04 9:32:36 AM

Spell, I am just posing the question to tease out an answer from a domestic perspective.

You answered it!


Posted by: Epsilon | 2007-09-04 9:49:04 AM

So what if we found a Canadian firm selling weapons to the Taliban JAS? Or an American firm?

What would you think?

I would expect the government of either country to prosecute them.

Posted by: JAS39 | 2007-09-04 10:11:01 AM

The assault rifles and carbines that are produced in large numbers in Canada and the U.S. are based on the late Eugene Stoner's AR-15 design. These weapons have high manufacturing tolerances that make them far more accurate but far more difficult to maintain and they eat a more expensive type of ammunition as well to prevent fouling.

This means the troops who use them have to have greater training as well as discipline and maintain them thoroughly more often. Afghanistan and other desert type regions are notorious for dust, dirt, and sand damaging weapons function with failures occurring in combat leading to WIA and KIA for the negligent user. This is why the Taliban and other irregular armies use AK-47s.

If Canada and the U.S. companies manufactured AK-47 clones in numbers large enough to be useful for irregular armies the manufacturer would need government issued end-user certificates to sell them abroad or they would be committing a criminal offense.

Posted by: Speller | 2007-09-04 10:33:13 AM

OK, so let's say they get a certificate. They are sold. Title changes.

Then what?

How can we be guaranteed that somewhere in the upstream supply chain the Buyer does not re-sell to a higher paying Customer somewhere else? Like an agency of Iran, Syrai, N Korea, Sudan, Pakistan even Saudi Arabia.


Posted by: Epsilon | 2007-09-04 10:41:25 AM

Even if Canada and the U.S. was next door to Afghanistan, the way China is, and we had companies that manufactured AK-47 clones in large enough numbers to be worth shipping to a war zone, our AK-47s would cost 2-3 times the Chinese ones to manufacture in the first place because of our internal labour and shipping costs.(forget about shipping them to the other side of the world AND having a middle man or three to get around the end-user certificate which would be revoked with criminal charges ensuing IF the end-user turned out to be the Taliban)

Posted by: Speller | 2007-09-04 10:52:53 AM

OK, ours are more expensive, but the control systems by which country of origin can be confirmed seem pretty loose to me.

I hope that US$20 million the traitorous S Koreans paid to the Taliban at least had the bills serial numbers recorded. If we can't trace the weapons, maybe we can trace the cash.


Posted by: Epsilon | 2007-09-04 10:56:38 AM

How can we be guaranteed that somewhere in the upstream supply chain the Buyer does not re-sell to a higher paying Customer somewhere else? Like an agency of Iran, Syrai, N Korea, Sudan, Pakistan even Saudi Arabia.

The only thing that can be guaranteed is death and taxes. While Chinese arms may be the most abundant, the Taleban are also using Czech, Russian and Ukrainian made weapons. Does anybody know if Interarms of Manchester is still in business? They used to be the world's largest private arms dealer.

Posted by: JAS39 | 2007-09-04 11:00:53 AM

The venerable Moncton Flight College secured a contract earlier this year worth $60 mi8llion to train pilots to International commercial pilot
multi-engine certification EADS Airbus and Bombardier are doing business with the PRC as well of course as Russia. No surprise to me. Bombardier has been subsidized to over 100% of production values by the hopelessly naive Canadian Taxpayers
-and their airplanes designed by American Bill Lear
for subsidized to over 100% Canadair Limited have had mechanical and marketing problems for decades.
Big problem in the PRC worker's paradise is the significant shortage of certified aircraft maintenance engineers, and finding a facility to train them -Bombardier cannot even think about it
-today they are faced with translation of their Technical Manuals for their commercial aircraft in
one of two on the many acceptable Chinese languages -PRC will sell weapons to anybody with cash -so will the Russians but the PRC have their greedy eyes on Afghanistan -be interesting to observe how the PRC factor in the real world of terrorism politics turns out -Layton still focused on talks with the Taliban -insert laughter here.

Posted by: Jack Macleod | 2007-09-04 11:03:08 AM

Doh! John, you beat me to the recall punchline!

Posted by: Markalta | 2007-09-04 11:04:21 AM

U.S. Laws restricting Arms Exports

End Use Monitoring:

A list of recent U.S end-use violators caught by U.S. Customs current to June 27, 2007.

Posted by: Speller | 2007-09-04 11:16:38 AM

Speller! My God!

That ICE website sent a chill down my spine!

I cannot think of a punishment bad enough for these traitors - and there are so many, including ITT. And we know NOTHING about this from the MSM.

Well done and Thank You!


Posted by: Epsilon | 2007-09-04 11:24:48 AM

"If we can't trace the weapons, maybe we can trace the cash."

The Taliban kidnappers have for the most part been killed yesterday.

Guess they lost the chance to spend their ill-gotten gains.

Posted by: obc | 2007-09-04 11:26:25 AM


And now for something lighter to break the ICE.
TANK the Coyote.

Posted by: Speller | 2007-09-04 11:36:21 AM

Where's the $20 million?

Guess someone planted a gps on one of those bastards during the hostage release!


Posted by: Epsilon | 2007-09-04 11:37:15 AM


I say we leave the Afghani's alone, since they do not support the NATO occupation. If they want to live in Local tribes with no National Unity and limited democracy then let them.

On Gun control, I do really have a hard position on it. Since it is not brought up much in Canada due to the majority being for Gun control.

However, if we wasting Billions on the Gun registry then I am against it. Since there has to be better ways.

Posted by: Edmontonian | 2007-09-04 12:06:25 PM


The Afghans DEFINATELY support the NATO occupation!

Not only that, we in the west need to secure the border against the terrorist state of Iran which Afghanistan provides AND we need to maintain a military presence close to Pakistan in case the Islamoloonies take over and SECURE NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

To say nothing of the oil that the west needs and which simply cannot fall under control of yet another whacko stone age dictatorship. Like we don't have enough of these idiots controlling our destiny already.

Can you imagine leaving Afghanistan and letting the nutbars from Iran, Russia and China flood in? Good grief! I cannot stand to imagine what would come to us if we cede yet more power to these dictatorial and insane regimes.

This is REALITY my friend. None of us likes it. But this is reality. Ignoring will make our worst case scenarios that much more likely to come to pass.

This reminds me so much of Churchill's warnings in the '30's


Posted by: Epsilon | 2007-09-04 12:14:51 PM

The problem here is Epsi that We as Canadians have barely committed any troops in Afghanistan to make any progress.

"Respectable military thinking holds that, even with allies, The Mission might take half a million men. A Rand Corporation study in 2003 stated you need 20 soldiers per 1000 inhabitants for that sort of thing. Based on RAND's population figure for Afghanistan of 27,755,775, this, yields a force of about 500,000.(*) Defense expert Craig T. Cobane does not dispute the calculation, but adds: "That number was totally unfeasible and impractical."(**) In 2001, mainstream publications like the Christian Science Monitor and the New York Times echoed the 500,000 figure. Nothing and no one has discredited this estimate; it's studiously ignored. Current 'coalition' forces number 30,000 to 50,000."

If we were really committed to Afghanistan and keeping stability in the Middler East then there should be 500 000 troops in Afghanistan. Canada has committed only 0.5% of the required amount. Realistically, it is hard to accomplish anything for the long-term with only 0.5% effort in Afhganistan.

Posted by: Edmontonian | 2007-09-04 12:24:33 PM

Forgot the source for the quote: http://www.counterpunch.org/neumann06052007.html

Posted by: Edmontonian | 2007-09-04 12:27:59 PM


We must do what we can.

To do nothing would be to invite anarchy upon Afghanistan and like falling dominoes so upon the rest of the world.


Posted by: Epsilon | 2007-09-04 1:00:53 PM

Epsi, ) 0.5% is really close to 0. We are basically doing nothing in Afghanistan if you look at the numbers. There is already anarchy and unstable government in Afghanistan. They should not have their economy be based on opium.

Epsi, I would be in favour of the Occupation of Afghanistan if NATO had employed 500 000 troops in the beginning. We would probably out of their right now if it was handled correctly.

Posted by: Edmontonian | 2007-09-04 1:11:49 PM


You have placed yourself into a difficult position. You are saying that the sacrifice of 60 Canadian young men and women is "nothing" yet they have made heroic efforts in cleaning out vast areas of Afghanistan of hostile thugs to say nothing of the humanitarian work.

And you are also saying that unless the West can enter Afghanistan with a certain minimum strength we should do nothing. Yet doing nothing, by default invites the likes of Iran to destabilize Pakistan and secure nuclear control, to interfere in the peaceful and democratic development of other resource rich areas like Kazacjstan upon which the world depends for oil and other resources as well as invite in dubious power brokers like China and Russia who will manipulate this whole area for their own ends and against ours.

We simply must do what we can to protect the interests of western nations and to secure our future. We cannot abandon our future and our way of life to the control of undemocratic regimes like the aforementioned.

Now, perhaps the naivists will have their way and Canada will be forced to withdraw its troops by 2009.

Myself and others absolutely refuse to "do nothing". And I do guarantee you this: You will see Canadians who do care about other Canadians enlisting in the US armed services instead of the CAF if that is the only means for them to actively protect what they truly believe in.

I am just now reminded of one of my bf's favourite movies. The lead character says in an actual speech that he gave "so when your grandchild is sitting on your knee and he asks what did you do in the great World War II, you won't have to say, 'Well, I shovelled shit in Luisiana'".

I bet you know who said that!


Posted by: Epsilon | 2007-09-04 1:32:38 PM

I am being rational and not emotional. A 0.5% effort will bring short-term results. However, I know that people here, want to get rid of the Islamic threat for the long-term.

In a theory 500 000 troops would be nice. However, do you no think that 30 000 troops is way too low to fight this War of Terror you support, and gain long-term results.

We shouldn't even be fighting Americas war. If Canadians want to enlist in the US force then I do not have a problem. However, I doubt they will be fighting in Afghanistan. Instead, the illegal Occupation of Iraq.

Posted by: Edmontonian | 2007-09-04 1:43:04 PM

If Canadians want to enlist in the US force then let them.

Posted by: Edmontonian | 2007-09-04 1:44:20 PM

60 Canadians may have died. Afghani's have made 1000's of sacrifices for short term results.

The Military planners share the same point of view as me. You may want to look at the quote again, in my previous comments.

Posted by: Edmontonian | 2007-09-04 1:50:20 PM

"Afghan police say kill Taliban hostage-taker"

By Sayed Salahuddin

KABUL (al-Reuters) - A senior Taliban commander involved in the abduction of 23 South Korean missionaries was among dozens of insurgents killed in clashes in southern Afghanistan overnight, police said on Tuesday.

Ali Shah Ahmadzai, police chief of Ghazni province, said Taliban commander Mullah Mateen was among 22 insurgents killed in a clash in the province's Qarabagh district.

"He was involved in the kidnapping. We have reconnaissance colleagues on the ground," Ahmadzai told Reuters by telephone from Ghazni.

Posted by: obc | 2007-09-04 1:57:49 PM


The criticisms that you raise are all good points.

But the fact is that we are dealing with serious threats to global peace and our future progress as a democratic, free and prospersous society.

You say we need 500,000 troops. Yes, I agree. But we do not have that many and we cannot cede control of this area to a group that will cause serious disruptions to the planet. Inaction is not an option here Edmontonian. I know you agree that we must not allow Iran's influence to sway world peace here. So what would you suggest we do?

Yes, Iraq's war can be considered illegal. I myself did not agree with going to war in Iraq. But we cannot change the past. We are there now. We have to accept this reality and deal with it and not hide from it. Again, withdrawal here would permit Iran's shiite Ayatollahs to seize control almost immediately since they are already on the ground in force. Do you not think that they would not immediately try to take Mecca and destabilize Saudi Arabia in the process. CRASH! That is the sound of economic collapse as oil exports are obstructed. And it is not just oil, the world's fertilizers are all made from Saudi Natural gas to say nothing of plastics and other materials of all kinds.

So what would you do to resolve this Edmontonian. Hiding from it does not make it go away.

And to say the US's war is not Canada's war is simply hiding and not accepting reality. We have only one earth, we cannot hide from this. It is like saying as a child that your parent;s divorce has nothing to do with you. My God, it has EVERYTHING to do with you!

Again, Edmontian, what would you do?


Posted by: Epsilon | 2007-09-04 2:01:11 PM


It seems you want to micromanage the entire Muslim world. How about stopping all further Muslim immigration to the West and deporting, at minimum, the radicals already here instead?

As for the oil "weapon", the sooner we move away from Persian Gulf oil, the less influence the Islamic world will have on our economy and on our lives in general. A policy of separationism vis-a-vis the Muslim world would serve our long-term Western interests far better than our present disastrous twin policies of invading Muslim countries and inviting Muslim immigrants, IMHO.

Posted by: JP | 2007-09-04 2:42:55 PM

Hold the phone, Gracy!

The invasion of Iraq was not illegal. Period. End stop.

The purpose of invading and occupying Afghanistan isn't to build roads, schools, or other infrastructure. It isn't to bring democracy to the poor long-suffering Afghans.

It is to prevent them from being a threat to us, to train our soldiers how to fight and defeat deadly new NGOs like the Taliban and al-Qa'eda, and to secure oil for the world economy.

I don't care about the 'sacrifices' of the Afghans. They are Muslims and as such will always be a threat, just like their 'prophet' meant them to be. They will never be a good, contributing, responsible, tolerant member of the world community because their religion teaches that all of the world should be under Sharia, which by the way the 'democratic' Afghan government rules according to, just like the Taliban.

The thread is about China supplying our enemies with the hardware to kill our soldiers.
I'd like to add that the Canadian Government, yes the Harper government and the Martin government before it, gives $200 million of OUR Canadian taxes to the Peoples Republic of China annually.

The only reason the war hasn't been won yet is because the politians are too busy sucking up to people like Edmontonian and suffering his 'illegal war' lies to use the necessary force, which our militaries already possess, to win.

And NO the Christian Science Monitor is NOT a mainstream media source and YES Christian Science is a cult and everything that is in it's publications reflect the position of that cult's unelected leaders who happen to believe in an upcoming Apocalypse just like the Shiite leaders in Iran and would like to see it happen.

P.S. if we had 500,000 soldiers overseas doing exactly what the present troop numbers are doing it would just provide the enemy with more targets for their IED and suicide bomber teams, and overextend our troops so that the Communists could start another conflict or three, just like the present one, and we wouldn't be able to respond to it at all.(if our politicians are hell bent on following the same lame 'do nothing while looking busy' war strategy of attrition.

Posted by: Speller | 2007-09-04 2:46:06 PM


I am not micromanaging the Muslim world, I am rather Macromanaging it. And furthermore, I am acting realistically and proactively so as to not become a victim and in doing so keeping the expense of this endeavour at the lowest possible cost in both lives and tax dollars IN THE LONG RUN and ON BOTH "SIDES"

Furthmore, we cannot surrender the rest of the world to the Muslims and think that the problem will go away by some "miracle" of renewable fuels.

Ask Charles Martel if he thought the Muslims would go away after repeated flimsy negotiations and military actions in the 8th Century. Thank God he won at Poitiers. Do you know where Poitiers is today? It is on the outskirts of Paris for gracious sakes!


Posted by: Epsilon | 2007-09-04 3:00:40 PM

Give me Peter MacKay's job!

I can defend this war better than that bony arsed triangle-headed de-Magnafied man!


Posted by: Epsilon | 2007-09-04 3:07:14 PM

Charles Martel was defending his Frankish homeland from the Muslim hordes. Who's defending our Western, Judeo-Christian homeland from the Muslim hordes immigrating here in their millions?

Posted by: JP | 2007-09-04 3:14:31 PM

We are, JP.

And the more that people understand this and take personal responsibility for their way of life the better.

Don't look for leadership elsewhere. Let's all take a good look in the mirror. Act!


Posted by: epsilon | 2007-09-04 6:55:55 PM

As for what I would do with Iran. There is no question that they will and do now have enormous influence over Iraq's progress. Dropping bombs may stop Iran in the short term. However, USA will feel the blowback over the long-term. Of course, this is of no importance to the current President, since he will be long gone.

Where is the Diplomacy? Iran, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon are all nations who want a stable middle east. Why hasn't the US and NATO countries tried diplomacy? The USA hasn't even tried it with Iran and are already talking about bombing it. What the hell is that going to do for stabilizing the Middle East and stopping radicalism.

This battle in the Middle East should be a mental one and not a physical one. The West should support all of the Secular Political groups and Universities by helping them spread the message of secular democracy to battle all of the anti-west propaganda the Governments in the Middle East use to put fear in their citizens so that they can take away liberties in exchange for securities.

I know a lot of WS'ers do not like protesters, liberals, anti-war message, and Secularism. However, these methods are the only way to change the thought on the Middle East. Conservatism will only further the problem because it promotes traditionalism, which in turn means Islamic tradition in the Middle East.

In conclusion, fight the Propaganda war instead of the War of Terrorism. Force them to become liberals and the separation of church and state. The CIA should do some covert operations to force this.

Posted by: Edmontonian | 2007-09-05 1:12:31 AM

Fight the Propaganda war and promote Liberalism and Secularism to the Middle East.

Posted by: Edmontonian | 2007-09-05 1:13:24 AM

'Force them to become liberals"

Sorry. All of our teachers are presently occupied, brainwashing North American children. They are not available for this "vital" mission at present.

Posted by: obc | 2007-09-05 6:18:07 AM

Just like the term "Democrat" is buried deep inside any article that exposes a DemoRat caught in a scandal (as opposed to "Republican" which is usually in the headline), here too the source - China - is buried in the 5th paragraph, and omitted from the headline entirely:

"Concerns Affect D.C. Condom Giveaway -
Recipients Say Wrappers Faulty"

By Susan Levine
Washington Post Staff Writer

Tens of thousands of condoms provided free by the District to curb HIV-AIDS have been returned to the health department because of complaints that their paper packaging is easily damaged and could render the condoms ineffective.

Demand at two distribution sites in Southeast set up by nonprofit groups plummeted more than 80 percent after the condoms, in a mustard-yellow and purple wrapper, were introduced this year. More than 2,000 packets a week were scooped up in mid-March, but by late May, only 400 were being given away each week.

Volunteers concerned about why interest had dropped began asking people who had picked up the condoms. They were told about packets ripping in purses or bursting open in pockets. As a result, recipients said they had little confidence that the condoms would offer protection.

In addition, expiration dates on some of the Chinese-made condoms were illegible.

ANOTHER REASON TO BOYCOTT Chinese merchandise. It is shoddy & unsafe - and could endanger your life.

Posted by: obc | 2007-09-05 8:52:07 AM

Thank you for your thoughtful post Edmontonian. I read it with interest.

I think that what you are proposing is only one part of the effort that is needed. A second component is to destabilize the country by starving it of capital. An embargo on capital not goods although military and certain industrial goods need to be interdicted. The economy is on the brink of collapse. they cannot even refine enough gasoline to meet their own needs and radical Islam and profit making just do not mix.

Thirdly, if not a strategic bombing campaign than the threat of invasion to keep the leadership distracted and to cause them to divert resources to the production of military infrastructure rather than industrial capacity that will prevent their economy from getting on its feet and give more time for internal revolution to occur.

The dilemma we are facing, Edmontonian, is that they are only a few years if not months from developing nuclear capacity. We are going to have to bomb them within that time frame. Maybe even with the covert consent of Syria, Saudi, China and Russia.


Posted by: epsilon | 2007-09-05 9:08:31 AM

"Fight the Propaganda war and promote Liberalism and Secularism to the Middle East."
Posted by: Edmontonian | 5-Sep-07 1:13:24 AM

Promoting Liberalism and Secularism in the Middle East is the prime reason we in the West are being attacked by Islam. Osama bin Laden named it as his reason for forming al-Qa'eda.

Islam, you need to know Edmontonian, draws no distinction between politics and religion. Sharia law is the root of theocratic rule.

If you are proposing to eradicate Islam you've got my support.

Like all Liberals you fail to enunciate a method to get from point A to point B, you just say, "Here we are, we need to be there, and in between something magic occurs." But you say the military option is the wrong way to go without showing us a better way.

Turkey, which of all the Muslim nations was once most secular, had that secularism forced on it by it's own military. Turkey, has of late, been electing Islamists to government and sliding toward a theocracy.

Do you draw any of your ideas from the real world?

Time is not on our side.

Posted by: Speller | 2007-09-05 9:43:56 AM

"Turkey, has of late, been electing Islamists to government and sliding toward a theocracy."

. . . and its army is poised to overthrow the government & return the nation to a non-Sharia form of rule if the new entity oversteps its bounds - and they will. Islam knows not the middle path of tolerance.

Posted by: obc | 2007-09-05 9:49:54 AM

We were attacked on 9/11 by hijackers who sympathized with the Palestinian Problem. There is still no proof Osama Bin laden was involved. As indicated by the FBI and CIA.

Posted by: Edmontonian | 2007-09-05 10:51:10 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.