sharkman

Simple, ban religions that promote violence as a way of spreading their religion. And that would not include Christianity, since the bible does not advocate violence or hatred at all. The Koran does. What people do in the name of Christianity is another matter altogether.

It sounded like you were angy and I'm not sure why you decided to be insulting, but one can catch more flies with honey I'm told. As for technology, it's going to save our bacon. Battery powered cars, or some other technology will solve the dilema of transportation faster than mass transit, which is only practical for a minority of commuters. Actually building up the highway system would shorten commute times, thus lowering polution, but don't tell that to an NDPer unless you want to see a hissy fit. Paving good farmland for the people who refuse to use rapid transit does not make much sense to me. Driving 20 minutes to work when public transit takes 1 1/2 hours does not make much sense to me. Rapid transit indeed. Widening existing highways does not involve the use of farmland, at least in the lower mainland of B.C. Again, shortening the commute times causes less fuel to be used in the commute. This would be most noticable for big trucks that spew diesel fumes. And many people have no choice as to using transit.

It sounded like you were angy and I'm not sure why you decided to be insulting, but one can catch more flies with honey I'm told. As for technology, it's going to save our bacon. Battery powered cars, or some other technology will solve the dilema of transportation faster than mass transit, which is only practical for a minority of commuters. Actually building up the highway system would shorten commute times, thus lowering polution, but don't tell that to an NDPer unless you want to see a hissy fit.

Well Jerry, freedom of speech is only correct as long as Muslims' hyper-sensitivities are obeyed. That little tidbit of info seems to be ignored by liberals, who get up in arms about freedom of speech only when people like Howard Stern get protested for R rated material. When the Pope gets his life threatened by muslims over a few benign comments, the silence from that side of the fence is astounding.

The president of Iran is one person that does not really have that much power. The only reason he is power is because of the invasion of Iraq - if that had not happened we would likely still be dealing with the reformist that was booted out in 2005. In any case, Iran has a real reason to believe that it could be invaded by the US which means it has a right to acquire nuclear weapons for self-defence. If the US does not like it when countries do that then it should learn to respect international law and stop invading countries without the approval of the United Nations. The US helped terrorists all over the world during the cold war. Does that make the US a member of the 'axis of evil'? Actually, no. Israel would be under direct threat - I would have no issue with them responding in kind provided they issued a ultimatum via the security council first and gave diplomacy a final chance before the bombs start to fall. We are not talking about what to do if there is a real threat - we are talking about what to do when there is nothing but a lot of inflammatory rhetoric on both sides. And what would have changed if the Chamberlain said no? Absolutely nothing - Germany would have still invaded its neighbors and France and Belgium would have likely fallen just as fast. There would have been still a D-Day and a holocaust. Deferring in Munich bought time to prepare and there was always the small chance that Hitler would have been satisfied with that (albeit very small). All things considered the deal the Chamberlain made was the right deal at the right time. good for you Riverwind.

How many Cartoon riots occurred in Canada and the US? Assimilation is a two way street - people can only assimilate if the dominate culture allows them to assimilate. Most European societies do not accept even 2nd or 3rd generation immigrants as equal to 'pure lain'. To fly a plane, you need a pilot.

It'll never happen Dancer. Muslim extremists will bomb us back to the Age of Reality first.

Well don't look now, but Muslims have been unassimilating over the last decade. If you want to call the cartoon riots and the Pope riots anecdotal evidence,(As I referenced above) then I'll leave you to your rose coloured view.

So you really think that a party that wants to get elected would repeatedly alienate a large voting block that they gave the right to vote to? I don't believe the Dems have earned their support to the tune of over 90%, but what do I know. The witch hunt that was the Clarence Thomas hearing was embarrassing. Yes, I remember Anita hill's attempt at character assassination, but the Dems were hypocrites in that case. If Thomas had been a liberal, there would have been no Anita Hill or questions about pubic hair comments. The Republicans had the right to put whoever suited them on the bench since the public had elected a Republican president 3 terms in a row, and the fact that he was black didn't matter to the Dems as long as he was a conservative.

Connecting the dots is done by analysis - by looking at the data, coming up with a hypothesis, and testing it. It's not done by posting news articles of individual crimes and implicating millions of people with the same race, or religion. What do you suppose our governments are doing? When muslim extremists keep killing 'infidels' time and time again, and then attack Catholics because of something the Pope said in passing, and violently protest any cartoon that they don't like, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what's going on. At this point it's not connecting the dots anymore, it's a 'masterpiece' painted with the blood of innocent lives. Even if you don't want to look at it because the implications are too awful, it's still there, being shoved in our faces every time another 'infidel' gets murdered.

Too early to tell what this is yet, but when you ignore islolated act after isolated act you are unable to conncet the dots.

Not at all. It has become perfectly acceptable in the West to incite violence against Muslims. The only difference is people in the West don't talk about attacking individuals Muslims. People in the West vilify entire societies with terms like 'axis of evil' and then demand that they be bombed back to the stone age of their leaders do not comply with our demands. You're simply wrong, once again you can't see the difference between the norms in the West and in Muslim centers. I think I see where you are coming from, however. You hate the West or at least the U.S. and everything you see is coloured with that perspective. The president of Iran has repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel and is trying with all his might to get nuclear weapons. Iran is helping terrorists in Iraq and in Syria. Yet you believe the phrase axis of evil is vilifiying Iran. When Iran gets Nuclear weapons and starts sabre rattling and perhaps starts a war, you will blame Israel for provoking them, or the U.S. for 'pushing them' to the brink. I think the only thing that will wake people like you up is a Chamberlain moment. Only I hope we never see one, because a world war is too high a price to pay just to have Chamberlain realize that Hitler was tricking him.

Depends. Would you be ok with Muslims assassinating whoever they decide incites hatred against them? Here's the difference between the West and Muslim centers who hate the West around the world. In Muslim centers, inciting hate and violence toward the west is seen as morally correct and is the norm. In the West, inciting hate and violence toward Muslims is considered wrong. It's a simple difference, but it has profoundly dangerous outcomes.

Bush Derangemet Syndrome. Besides those who have a hang up with the U.S. gov. in general, there are those whose hang up with Bush has become so strong it blocks out logic and reason.

But its a political game as well, and he's too valuable an asset to them to kick to the curb yet. yet another kooky thought though from the old Goremeister though.

Yes, there was a paradigm shift whose effects haven't all been felt yet. The new big picture is not completely in focus.

No, actually it didn't cross my mind that you would be scared of being called anything. I do note, however, that you are getting rather schrill over this one issue. With your suspicions regarding everything the U.S. does, you'll have lots to get schrill about around here. Jerry, I agree with you on the UN. But I wonder if having someone there to at least be aware of the goings on is beneficial. The World bank, IMF, EU, Asia alliances, these are all important issues. I would add a need to counter the EU with an Americas alliance that would strenghten our position in global commerce. Some worry that the EU has the upper hand right now.

A hundred different things could happen to affect Canadian interests. This is pretty low on the liklihood list. If the U.S. makes some provocative moves in this area, the Canadian government should be prepared, but for typical Joe Canadian, Remiel's response smacked of Anti-Americanism.

There are fanatics in the Muslim world that have been puzzling over that very question. They have been trying to unite their factions, got tired of talk, and started blowing up western interests, predicting the U.S. and the west would respond as only we can. It looks like fanaticism is winning the day in the Muslim world.

So, it looks like Iggy might take it. I'll be very interested how he gets treated in our media.

Part of our parliamentary tradition derived from the UK is that, because "the Government" (the parliament and ministry) is not a continuous institution, no one is bound by its predecessor. Thus, neither Harper, nor the ministry that he heads, is responsible for the actions of Chretien or Martin. He should not apologize, and, on Arar's part, it either shows a desire to grand-stand, or a serious misunderstanding of the nature of our government, for him to expect an apology from the current prime minister. Further to that comment, in the sense that there is a continuous state of Canada, it is technically the Governor-General who can be called upon to make apologies on its behalf which are beyond the responsibility of the government-of-the-day. What on Earth would prompt that? He shouldn't receive any apologies as long as he's suing for hundreds of millions of dollars.

I'd say we have enough to worry about without developing strategies and defences for something that hasn't happened yet.

An inefficient economic system and the collapse of oil prices in the 80s is what led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. The idea that Reagan caused or contributed to the collapse is a complete myth. All Reagen did is saddle future generations of Americans with a huge debt. It was a known policy of the Reagan administration to spend the Russians into the ground. Missiles, tanks and planes, and the Russians went into receivership trying to keep up. The debt came in part because of a 20% interest rate in the early eighties as well as the recession of the same time. To assume that Muslim empire building will suffer the same fate without lifting a finger is simplifying the situation. They have most of the oil.

The are numerous posters responding with similar points. I may have mixed statements you said with others. There is a line of thinking that some people subscribe to (not necessarily you) that goes like this:"All/most Muslims hate us and want to take over our society so we have no choice to but go and bomb/invade their countries to stop them from attacking us." Stating the fact that some Muslims have expressed irrational hatred towards western society is not a problem in itself. It only becomes a problem when that statement is extended to include all Muslims and then used as an excuse to justify violence against Muslim societies. Well, I suppose I can't claim I have read every single thread on these topics and wasn't aware that some advocate attacking mulsim countries just because they hate us. I am not of that crowd, I guess hate is on both sides.

Can't you even see the hypocracy in your statement? You talk of brainwashing and irrational prejudice but you are blind to your own brainwashing and irrational prejudice towards Muslims. Where have I defended or justified the extremist beliefs of the Muslims? I speak against irrational hatred wherever I see it and on this forum I see irrational hatred directed at Muslims so that I what I speak against. You can't see the irrational hatred directed at the West by the Mulsims. You also stated, "People spouting such beliefs are ideological cousins to the people in Germany who vilified the Jews before WW2." You were speaking of the Nazis, and comparing them to the 'hatred' you see on this forum. I said response that you speak of irrational hatred towards Jews, but ignore the irrational hatred towards Jews by the very People(Muslims) you defend. Further you state above that I am brainwashed and have an irrational prejudice towards Muslims. I have never expressed any dislike toward Muslims, let alone hatred. I am, however mentioning the actions, jihad and prejudice of Muslims who want the West to die. If you think that is prejudice, you are unable to differentiate. Do you really believe that there are no Muslims who want the west to die? Wake up. Any time someone feels it necessary to play the Nazi card, as you did, maybe you need a time out.