Do non americans feel suckered by the war on terrorism

I think this is a debate more than an IMHO thing.

And i know to alot of you the answer is obvious but i want to hear more unbiased accounts.
Terrorism has existed forever, however until it became a detriment to america is was a minor concern. The US supported tons of terrorists during the cold war in the fight against communism, terrorists were also supported in WW2. And probably during the efforts to remove saddam hussein from power in the 90s (by covert funding of anti-saddam terrorists).

So how do other countries take it when their country (like Canada, or the UK, or malaysia) rewrite their own laws just to benefit the US, knowing the US only cares about terrorism that affects it negatively? How strong is the blowback and discontent from that? If China were a world power and the US started rewriting its laws and maybe taking away my civil/political rights to benefit Chinas selective morality i would be pretty pissed off.

Cite?

Just a little linky on a law changed by another country “just to benefit the US”. And I think our involvement with Israel and their terrorist problem has been the cause of many negative effects towards the US. So that kinda flies in the face of the later part of your declaration.

You want unbiased accounts to such a wonderful unbiased OP? One even, based on faulty assumptions. Why do you think terrorism was a minor concern? It might have been a minor concern to you Wesley, however to say it was a minor concern to everybody is just such a monumental, arrogant self centered world view, that it leaves me speechless. (I remember the 80’s bomb scares in London as a child, also I think France, Germany, Italy, Israel, Greece, Russia – just to mention a few that have suffered under terrorism - disagree). None of those counties you list have been forced to change their laws, that they chose to do so reflect the fact that they find it in their own best interest.

  • Rune

Hear hear! The blowing up of the apartments in Moscow, the IRA attacks, the Red Brigades–the Europeans are old hands at this, sadly. Much of it was home-grown rather than people from another country, but in some ways to me that would be worse.

Wes, where are you posting from? If you’re American, just a friendly word of advice from a fellow Yank–assume a good chunk of your audience isn’t and post accordingly. I’ve learned that the hard way a few times :wink:

i wont retort because this will be moved to the pit but you people need to learn to read, get hooked on phonics or something.

I started this post as a response to reading this:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=220677

sinical brit
Member

Registered: Aug 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 12

Another one of our basic human rights disappears into the fog known as the war against terrorism.


And i was wondering how others took things like that.

i am aware terrorism was on the radar before it affected America however only a moron would say it wasn’t considered much more important now that it affects the US. My point is that terrorism is/was an issue but until it affected the US it was considered a moderate one.

http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/news/nr/2001/doc_27785.html

Canada has passed new laws, so has France

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1630864.stm

France has agreed emergency anti-terrorism legislation drafted in response to the 11 September attacks in the United States.
The new laws extend police powers to search private property, including cars, and bolster security in public places.
Why are people not offended that France has passed laws broadening police powers because of something that doesn’t affect them and that is selective morality?

Thanks. However i dont think im saying terrorism wasn’t an issue im just saying it wasnt considered as important until it affected the US. i didn’t see France or the UK instituting new laws that restricted civil rights as a response to Chechnya.

http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/news/nr/2001/doc_27785.html

The Government of Canada today introduced in the House of Commons a new package of anti-terrorism measures as part of its Anti-Terrorism Plan…The horrific events of September 11 remind us that we must continue to work with other nations to confront terrorism and ensure the full force of Canadian law is brought to bear against those who support, plan and carry out acts of terror - we will cut off their money, find them and punish them

The bill will give law enforcement and national security agencies new investigative tools to gather knowledge about and prosecute terrorists and terrorist groups, as well as protect Canadians from terrorist acts, including:

making it easier to use electronic surveillance against terrorist groups;
creating new offences targeting unlawful disclosure of certain information of national interest;
amending the Canada Evidence Act to guard certain information of national interest from disclosure during courtroom or other judicial proceedings;
amending the National Defence Act to continue and clarify the mandate of the Communications Security Establishment (CSE) to collect foreign communications;
within carefully defined limits, allowing the arrest, detention and imposition of conditions of release on suspected terrorists to prevent terrorist acts and save lives;
requiring individuals who have information related to a terrorist group or offence to appear before a judge to provide that information; and
extending the DNA warrant scheme and data bank to include terrorist crimes.

These necessary measures target people and activities that pose a threat to the security and well being of Canadians. This is a struggle against terrorism, and not against any one community, group or faith. Diversity is one of Canada’s greatest strengths, and the Government of Canada is taking steps to protect it. Measures will be included in the bill to address the root causes of hatred and to ensure Canadian values of equality, tolerance and fairness are affirmed in the wake of the September 11 attacks. These include:

amending the Criminal Code to eliminate online hate propaganda and create a new offence of mischief against places of religious worship or religious property; and

amending the Canadian Human Rights Act to clarify that the prohibition against spreading repeated hate messages by telephonic communications includes all telecommunications technologies.

Try again buddy.

Hhmm… I wouldn’t feel suckered if Bush was a nice guy… but we have changed a bit only our laws in order to deal better with the new geo political consideratios (also known as the US wants to get terrorists).

So its a minor thing. I would say most countries were getting relaxed about terrorism... its just that the US was giving them good reasons to attack them. We weren't.

To be fair... the Mexico crisis and other crises afterwards for example affected the whole world and many countries changed some financial laws to avoid similar fates.... so its not the first time something in one place makes everyone adjust their laws.

The diplomatic and political pressure is unacceptable thou. Things like demanding to know why we spoke out against the Iraq war and getting our police forces to crack down on Arab merchants near the triple frontier is counterproductive....

hahaha. so a law that states its a response to 9/11 that was passed on 10/15/01 isn’t a tie in for you?

Oh, I thought you said they changed their laws just to benifit the US. Oh, you did…

If you started the thread as a response to another thread, you probably should include a link or something.

You have to do better than the moron thing if you want to prove how the current so-called war-on-terrorism affects (just to name a few):
Germany more than their struggle with Rote Armé Fraction’s and their damned city revolution.
Russia more than their struggle with Chechen terrorists, taking whole towns and last a Moscow theater, hostage.
India more that their war with Kasmiri terrorists and Pakistani sponsored insurgents, suicide attacks on local parliaments and bombs in Bombay, etc.
Israel more that their struggle with suicide bombers targeting civilians and children.
Etc. etc.

Mostly these countries are relieved that the US finally have waken to smell the coffee. And contrary to what you may think in a fit of national megalomanic, the US is not the center of the world, nor is your war-on-terror the axle of the world. And I do find your insistence that the US can willy-nilly decide what other, freely elected democratic, governments do or do not do, more than a little condescending. It might have escaped your notice, but France (nor Russia or Germany – or the rest of Europe for that matter) has not made a habit of being forced to do anything simply because your Bush tells them so.

  • Rune

whatchoo talkin bout Willis? fine, then show me how anything ted to 9/11 just benefits the US?

Well…I don’t think there are many western countries who rewrote their laws “just to benefit the US” (though some particular actions, say, intelligence operations, could be conducted for the benefit of the US)
First, terrorism was already a concern in most european countries, and islamist terrorism more specifically in some of them (bombings in Paris during the early nineties, the hijacking of a plane with the intent to crash it on the Eiffel tower, in the case of France, for instance). So, it’s not like these countries were totally unconcerned and took measures, passed law, etc…just to please the US.
But nevertheless, after the 9/11, stiffer measures were taken, increased rights granted to the police in terrorism cases, etc…But once again it wasn’t only to make the US happy. The attacks in New-York reached a totally new scale. 3000 deaths in a single attack was unheard of. So, independantly of the fact that the attack happened in the US, the other countries felt a need to protect themselves against this potential major threat. If a “dirty bomb” can explode in the port of New-York, it might as well explode in the port of Marseilles.
Now, I was refering to european countries. The situation and the perception might be (certainly are) entirely different in a country unlikely to be a target or in a muslim country, for instance.

Thanks for putting that last paragraph… we have 99% certainty of not suffering terrorism from arabic sources over here. (thou we have a sizable arabic community). No earthquakes or tornadoes either. Droughts are few too… :cool:

Yes I feel suckered. And I am ashamed that my country has become lickspittles and accomplices.

I work in the Defence department. And scuttlebut around the department at the moment is that for all the surface cheeriness and gratitude for Australia’s support to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan the real picture is very different. The US is displeased with the scale of our support and thinks we aren’t pulling our weight and taking our share of the political flak. And the US is not happy that we do not have forces occupying Iraq. To date we have made largely token commitments, SAS personnel etc but we are under heavy behind the scenes pressure to contribute a heavy mechanised brigade group to any future American wars. We are now seriously considering scrapping our Leopards ahead of schedule and buying M1 Abrams so we will be more inter-operable with US forces. All so we can keep Master happy and fight his wars.

All so your butts can be pulled out of the fire again when the time comes.

How quickly our old allies forget…

That’s pretty damn snarky adaher. Should we Canadians hark about how we defeated the US in our only war? Should the US shun Russia and China even though they were old enemies?
I don’t feel sucked at all. Canada stayed out of Iraq, we upgraded some laws, and most Canadians are happy about both situations. The new US laws have affected me though, in that I have cancelled any and all plans for any trips to the US (if even just crossing the boarder for a few hours).
I think the real issue is, most countries have had problems with home grown terrorists. The US (AFAIK) was the first country to be hit from the “outside” and responded by attacking other countries. If 9/11 was planned and executed by white KKK members I’m sure the US anti-terror mission would be quite different.

badmana,

Can I borrow your signature in the altered version:

*If you have any comments on my spelling or grammar, please direct them to my twinbrother Dyslex. And be so kind to inform me about which corrections you suggest. Thank you. [/]
Salaam. A

No help for tags needed… That was entirely my fault.