JerrySeinfeld

Intersting thing for the "this is not a war, let's run home with our tail between our legs"...there isn't really a problem until it's too late. it's actually quite unbelievable that our enemies sit out plain as day and annouce their intentions and our soft and ridiculously "tolerant" society still finds ways to loathe our OWN country and apologize for Hezbollah and Ahmedinejad. This is a long war which has been developing for decades and is now heating up. It IS a wold war, which most leftyies won't admit until it's too late. Iran has clear intentions: they don't even hide them and we still back down. Bin Laden once said "in a long war, the strong horse wins". Hezbollah starts a war then hides behind it's own women and childeren, resulting in vast numbers of dead an injured Lebanese - yet the streets are filled with people chanting "Hezbollah" and waving their flags. Our countries go to war and lose the least amount of soldiers than in any other war in history and we're running around like ninnies demanding that we lose. You tell me who the strong horse is in this war? Not us - not with our newfound societal self loathing. Can you imagine if in the 1940's the UN was in REAL TIME publishing troop movements of the Allies? or a Press Corps eager to point our the need to "stand down" and "negotiate" with Hitler? NATIONS go to war, not SOLDIERS.

Good escape on your accidental racism Doggy this topic is about racism. My position is simply that Muslims could do something to improve their image. I can't see how that is empty unless you don't think there is a problem to begin with.

I got that, but my point remains that the best way to fight terrorism is to teach people not to freak out about it. Part of that would entail not throwing terms like "World War" around willy-nilly. WIlly nilly? Who ya gonna believe? The multi culti elite or your lyin' eyes?

Who, exactly, is that ritual condemnation suppossed to benefit? Is the poin to stop terrorism or just to make you feel better about brown people? Big generalization - not all Muslims are brown, Black Dog. Ritual condemnation without action is pretty much what sums up the UN so if your on side with most of the world that likes how the UN operates you should appreciate and love "ritual condemnation". And if PR or public perception is an issue for Muslims, ritual condemnation would be a good starting point toward a better public perception. If they don't care about perceptions then there is no problem here. Youn can't have i both ways guys.

hominem, Not all Germans were Nazi thugs but alot of good that did the jews. In the rest of society when we see wrongdoers we feret them and speak out against them. Not all Hells Angels are murderers but if they're aqcuiescing and allowing wrongdoers to continue without reporting them, they are part of the problem. "Moderate" muslims, if they disapprove of terrorist acts, should be the LOUDEST and most adamant opponents of extremist groups within their religion. I don't see that happening. Instead what I see are token press release statements from Imams and alot of posturing about "backlash against muslims". Oh - and by the way Hominem yours is a straw man argument.

Yea- Danish cartoon? Islamic Militants. London Bombings? Islamic Militants. Buenes Aires Bombings of Jewish center? Islamic Militants. Toronto Arrests? Islamic Militants. Hezbollah firing rockets at Israel? Islamic Militants. But - what a surprise!...9-11 attacks? of course! US GOVERNMENT!!! I'm not even disgusted by Islamic militants - at least they believe in, fight for and are willing to die for their side. What's truly disgusting is the willingness of s many lefties in the west to fight AGAINST our side

Great post - and a good addendum from a Mark Steyn barb:

Milton FriedmanThis data (presented by a US liberal web site: the Economic Policy Institute) shows that the poorest 10% of Finns receive about the same amount of real stuff (food on the table, Asian consumer junk, national security protection) as the 10% of poorest Americans. (If I had a quibble, it would be that the comparison should have been based on 'disposable income' and not simply 'income'.) Anyway. Here's the great philosophical question involved: Would you prefer to earn $20,000 in a small town where everyone else earns $15,000 or would you prefer to earn $40,000 in a small town where everyone else earns $100,000? For starters, think of this. It might depend on your age. If you're a young single guy, you might prefer the first scenario. If you're happily married woman, you might prefer the second scenario. Where is RB when we need an opinion? Great point and , as we all secretly know (but some are loathe to admit), "egalitarian" societies are more about bringing the successful down rather than bringing the poor "up". And the original swede/US stats actually prove that.

No. You singled out Arab and Islam. You could have said: "We make a list of all countries that allow gang-raping of women, or those that don't let women vote, or those that don't allow women to feel the sun shine on their face...ever." and "All people who treat women like beasts deserve the harshest form of colonization until they get it right." but your racism got the best of you. Colonization has more to do with coersion which is a violation of human rights more than anything else. Short term pain long term gain.

Colonializing a barbaric society has less to do with race and more to do with human rights. Only a multiculti apologist would read a comment about spearheading women's rights in barbaric societies as a racial comment.

We need to help Black Dog distinguish between COMPANIES and NATIONS. Since Daddy has perfectly argued why it wouldn't make logical sense for the NATION of the USA to go to war for oil freely available on the world market, I boils down to this: It seems Black Dog thinks since US oil companies would profit from EXTRACTING oil in Iraq prior to selling it on the open marketplace, that might be some kind of motivation for war. But based upon this assumption that the USA goes to war based upon helping the profitability of corporations domiciled in the USA, the next target might be Brazil (Embraer) or France (Airbus), both competitive with BOEING, an american company.

"The White Man's Burden" is the title of one of Rudyard Kipling's most famous works, a poem about the western world's duty to introduce knowledge and our concepts of civilization to people who are less technologically advanced and have different cultures and customs. Depending how you read the poem, Kipling might be advocating colonialism... or he might be warning of its consequences. Either way, the reference is very apt for the subject of this thread. I would think that Argus's choice of title was intended to reference all of the historical debate symbolized and embodied in Kipling's poem, not an effort to make this a "race" issue. -k Good on you Kimmy. My two bits on the white man's burden is this: We make a list of Arab countries that allow gang-raping of women, or those that don't let women vote, or those that don't allow women to feel the sun shine on their face...ever. Then we go in there and blow the sh*t out of those a**holes and start fresh. Islamofascists who treat women like beasts deserve the harshest form of colonization until they get it right.

Let 'em go at it for awhile - US needs to replenish and retool for more battles to come. Meantime we need to plan the airstrikes of Iran...This is gettin' good.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=74...26486&hl=en Play the above video and judge for yourself... My first reaction? At a bare minimum this does not appear to be a group that DISCOURAGES terrorism.

I agree Michael. The past wars were horrific and this current battle seems to pale in comparison.In my mind, in the future, WWI, WWII and the Cold War will become known as one war from 1914-1989 with a violent phase and a less violent phase. The western liberal democracies defended an individual's freedom to choose against institutional authority (call it fascism, socialism, Bismarckism or what you will). What we face now is different. For a lack of a better term, we now face heathen hordes who have never quite accepted or understood liberal values and the freedom of the individual to choose. Too many are uneducated and superstitious. We are facing a threat from the 14th century. I agree that this is a 14th centruty threat. But the scariest part is the WILL that these people have. As the Taliban showed USSR, these people will just keep fighting and fighting. They will not stop fighting. As supersticiuos and ridiculous I find strong religions, I must admit they can be very formidable foes. Contrast that with what we see in the west. Michael Moore, Howard Dean et. al. waving the white flag - their very best friend. As Osama is fond of saying, in a long race its the strong horse that wins. And he believes the strong horse is the side with the WILL to win, more importantly than the "weaponry". As Iran says: "America is risk averse - that is to our advantage." The strength of the Islamic Republic - a movement of Muslims across the globe and a desire to destroy this brief 60 year glimpse of freedom in the world - comes from it's people's support. These are people willing to die for the cause, for Allah,...tommorrow! Meanwhile Michael Moore and the Toronto Star can't wait to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq after 2500 deaths. 2500!!!! That's about one month's toll in Vietnam. But as Iran says: we're squeemish, we're risk averse. It's a scary proposition. I don't see many moderates in the Islamic community demanding a stop to global terrorism in the name of Allah with the same fervour that Michael Moore demands "out of Iraq TODAY". In other words, the Islamic Republic has the will and the long-term attitude. They know that our multi-lateral UN stalemate/lack of action will ultimately lead to an Iranian Nuke. And, unlike us, they have the balls to use it.

The real issue isn't whether muslims are mostly moderate, but whether they acqueisce in the face of militant islam. Anyone who knows alot of Irish people (I used to belong to the Irish club in a prominent Alberta city) knows that many of them quietly supported the IRA and it's cause. Is the same true amongst Muslims? This is a valid question.

So you're sayin the problem is intrinsic to Islam itself? That's most emphatically not what you've said: Just because you say contradictory things in different threads doesn't mean people can't find them. blah blah blah - you're just mad 'cause I have seen through your facade.

I didn't bother watching the link. I want you to answer the questions. We're waiting. It is written in the KORAN and has grown and developed on the backs of a number of causes, multiculturalism, the crusades, danish cartoons, Salmon Rushdie, theo van gosh films, and yes, even foreign policy. Haven't you noticed? The jihad morphs and grows with each new "justification" for it. As I said, it's far more complex than you thought. As I said before, let me repeat it, it is written int eh KORAN and that is it's source. Now will you please try to learn more than what the CBC spoonfeeds you. You probably believe the "50,000 Canadians" in lebanon BS too.

OK I'm calling your bluff Dog. What is your foreign policy explanation for -The danish cartoon jihad -The banning of the chocolate swirl in Burger in the UK because it resembles the Arabic symbol for "allah" -The blowing up of a French frigate by terrorist groups -The planned beheading of the Prime Minister of Canada -The Fatwa against Salmon Rushidie -The bombing of a nightclub in Bali ??

Why is it that everytime we arrest another group of people who planned to bomb Toronto or London with 5 times as much explosive as the Oklahoma city bombing, the first thing we see on news is a big story about a dent on the outside of a mosque? Are we so hyper sensitive that we can't examine what it is in Islam that causes these young chaps to want to self detonate all over the world? I have a candid question: Amongst all this rhetoric about "Moderate Muslims", why don't we actually go into Muslim communities and ASK THE QUESTION: do you support militant muslim actions or beliefs? Instead of everyone GUESSING about what we're dealing with here, let's find out! Makes sense to me!

So why are they still there if the whole thing was sewn up when they kicked the hell out of Saddam Hussein's hodge podge "army"? Could it be that he debacle in question is the has h they've made of the susequent occupation? Um I don't know if reading comprehenison is your problem, or maybe you just don't understand basic logic, but citing western foreign policy as a force which fed the rise of Islamic radicalism is not blaming the west (blame is a moral concept that implies that the reaction to those policies is justified, which is a question of minor importance), but a simple recogniton of cause and effect. In politics, as in physics, actions have equal and opposite reactions. Sixty years of promoting regional "stability" to the benefit of western interests and at the expense of the local populace has come with a price, and we're just getting the bill now. Yes - the raquetball theory of global jihad. Good one. Now go talk to an Islamic Militant and lay it out for us all. Let me teach you a basic premise. Al Qaeda and other Islamofascists want to create Islamic states where they don't exist now. They want to kill infidels - non-believers like Nick Berg who had nothing to do with the military. For them this is not a military battle, it's a religious one. I watched a hidden camera documentary on the Passionate Eye. Inside Al Qaeda meetings they have a map of the world and colour each country as "conquered" or "not conquered" yet. Conquered countries are green. England was green. So was France. The sooner you understand the mentality of terrorist Islamofascists, the much more intelligent this discussion will be. Drop your antiquated [insert "US FOREIGN POLICY" rhetoric here] arguments and start dealing with reality of today's world. Seriously I'm trying to help you. These old fashioned arguments are starting to sound ridiculous in the face of whats actually happening in the world today. I know usually the left tries to pull out it's "complex / nuance/ I understand more about the situation than you to" snoot nosed BS to try to evade candid realistic discussion, but who are you really gonna believe about JIHAD? The elitist lefty drivel or your LYIN' EYES?

And that has what to do with what? I'm asking about causes. You say muliticultrralism is "one of the prime root causes of the Islamofascist movement in the west." That indicates that befoe multicultralism, there was no such thing as "islamofascism" in the west. Now, becaus eof multicultralism, there is. But where did that ideology come from? It did not develop here (something you implicitly recognize in your, uh, arguments). So it came here from elsewhere and, it could be argued, was allowed to grow due to policies of multicultralism. But if it came from elsewhere, where did it come from, how did it develop and, most importantly, how did it get so strong as to make it's way into our societies? This is truly a clash as this Arab woman states so articulately: http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ai=...wmv&ak=null We will perish badly in the war if we don't start standing up against the cartoon jihadists and those infiltrators in our society who think they can form foreign policy by self-detonating in pizzarias and aircraft.

When this thing goes down for real - US/ISRAEL/CANAD/AUSTRALIA/BRITAIN v. IRAN/HEZBOLLAH(lebanon)/N.KOREA/VENZUELA the real serious question will be: which side will France come down on? I'm serious - they have some real problems in that country. Besides the massive unrest amongst it's swelling unintegrated Muslim population...The biggest problem (one shared by many posters on this site) is that they knee jerk against anything that is USA originated. Especially if it violates precious multiculti BS. Some how they need to reconcile that kneejerk reaction to blame everything on "US foreign policy" with the fact that this time the US enemy is a jew-hating armegeddon-loving self-detonating death-cult. France does good business in the mid-east. How will they ultimately come down? Like many liberals around the world, France loves peace but doesn't have the stomach to stand up and fight for it. Sounds like a contradiction, but as we'll soon again see in Lebanon, it isn't.

Article one, Geneva conventions - don't hide military behind civilians. if you do - yuo are culpable for their death or injury. War crimes? HEZBOLLAH. I can't believe I saw people marching down my streets waving hezbollah / lebanon flags. What a disgusting country.

Yeah, Israel should totally listen to the same half-wits who cheerlead the U.S. into the Iraq debacle. Good idea! Debacle? They won that war in a matter of months!