betsy

Well I guess we differ in that regard...too. I find reading your posts is hard on the eyes sorting what was a previous comment...and what is the reply. I find it look more cluttered. Besides, I like to emphasize what particular segment or comment I am directly responding to. I tried doing the multiple boxed thing...but I can't make it work.

I guess it's not 'wrong' to discuss anything. But surely you realize that what you're suggesting is revolting to a great many people, and would never be implemented. We are just discussing it. So what if it never gets implemented? But I have to comment on the knee-jerk reaction by some. Why do I have the feeling that for some, this topic should be a taboo? What happened to the Japanese was sad, unjust and a big shame. Because of how they were treated and how it applied. They were all automatically treated like enemies!

Internment had happened before....and since it did, I don't think there's anything wrong in discussing that premise. You should set aside partisanship and liberal-thinking for a minute and just look at this discussion through fresh eyes.

But doesn't it reminds you of Christians during the ancient times though when they had to make a stand? I must say it was not in a bloody way...although who knows, maybe there were bloody skirmishes too.

If he's found guilty again...he's a sure goner.

We know that there are already Muslim organizations that are trying to stop certain imams from preaching hate. And these leaders of said moderate organizations have been targetted for harrassments and threats from the radicals. If I'm not mistaken, the government or law enforcement offices (not sure which one)...are already working alongside some Muslim leaders who represent the moderates. But you're right as to seeking out how the attacks are carried.

If it were my people who is at war and creating havoc in Canada...I'll prefer to be interned. As long as my lands and possessions are not confiscated.

We have had no other experience like the Japanese interment during the Japanese wars. What was sad and wrong about that internment was the negative reactions towards those interned...and the way they had lost their lands and possessions. Japanese-Canadians should not have been looked upon as enemies just because they came from Japan. The interment should've been viewed as a safe haven...disruptive to their lives, yes....but still a haven nevertheless. Although we know that there are many moderates who only want to live like us in peace....the sad reality is we do not know who the enemy is. Suspicion will fall on every one of them...and an angry society can be dangerous.

You get off my topic! If you can't keep from giving an unconstructive and trolling opinion...or prevent yourself from being childish...then butt out of here! Don't trash my topic! Go! Create your own poll! Create a cloister for homosexual perverts and pedophiles and make sacred artifacts out of castrated body parts and wear them for earrings for all I care...

The news showed some people dancing in the streets and some firing rifles in the air, saying that hese people are celebrating the death sentence of Saddam....and then the news showed the other people (Sunni?) marching down the streets, saying that they are protesting and angry over the sentence. Well, the cameraman should've taken pictures of people who look at least serious. These people looked just as happy as those celebrating! Ha-ha-ha! Maybe despite what they say...these people still concede: it is a good day for Iraq.

By the looks of it, rational people against Muslims. The extremist Muslims...like the guy above.

Exactly jbg. What is a single mother of 2 doing having another pregnancy? IMO if a woman is on social assistance, she should be on contraceptives. Funny, her back pain didn't stop her from having a romp in the hay but she "can't work". Pffft. My sister has scoliosis (curvature of the spine) and she works. She raised 6 children, btw. Yep. Strange world. Someone who's already on assistance should at least try to be less of a burden to the society already supporting them. Who helps take care of these children? Do we provide her with a nanny?

Keep in mind this is just a what-IF scenario.

Keep in mind this is just a what-if scenario. And that in this scenario...land or possessions of the Muslims will not be confiscated. Boy...I messed up.

What makes you think terrorism will wane...if we don't make it wane? More likely there will be more terrorists....for the perceived "winning team" will most likely attract more support! The team who displays a confused attitude and applies mind-boggling philosophies in handling war does not earn respect! Liberal-thinkers and lefties may want to imagine they do....and give their backs a collective pat for being so "morally superior"....but the bottom line is: did you win or not? You think the terrorrists will just say..."oh I'm tired of this...I'll stop now." Terrorists are not playing a silly game...they are dead serious!

We already are experiencing a religious revolution....according to this guy (taken from from the same article above). "Anjem Choudary, who helped organise the anti-Danish cartoon protests, last week said that the London bombings should not have come as a surprise. "How else do you expect Muslims to express themselves?" he said. "We are a community under siege. It's going to blow up one day in everyone's faces."

Well, one soldier spoke at the rally and said: HELP US HELP YOU!

I agree . Because when we follow all the imposed outdated and impractical rules, we'll lose. Then there's no more need for the terrorists to terrorize. So no more need to recruit and breed terrorists.

What makes you so sure? People under oppressive regimes can become so frustrated from waiting and enduring...wondering why powerful nations don't just take on the enemy by force and free them from oppression! They'll end up losing hope waiting for all our quibbling over what is acceptable and inacceptable. Their own morale goes down the chute...and of course they'll think..."Unbelievable. What a confused bunch. They'll most probably leave me swinging in the wind. I'm better off with my oppressors!" Of course, those who are quick to put the blame on nations that try to help....you question their allegiance. And their possible motives. Are they for real? Or playing the game of politics to weaken and undermine the good guys? Those that do want desperately to be free understands that at times, it takes doing ugly to fight what is ugly. War is never pretty.

Depends on the outcome of the war...long-term outcome I suppose. If our grandchildren end up being under an oppressive regime as the outcome....THEY WILL be the ones calling us stupid! And cursing us to boot.

So you do not approve of the tactics the Israeli soldiers did regarding those women? Keep in mind that those women rushed to the mosque after hearing the plea for help from the gunmen. They were not just innocent bystanders caught in the middle...and forcefully used as shields against their will. What would've been the best way for them to do...if they wanted to get those gunmen. Please explain how they should've done it instead.

The great nations of the old days like England and USA had done perfectly well during the old wars...moral-wise, don't you think so? And they've survived. Perfectly well too.

Why, have we fought terrorism before? You don't know any more than I do...I think. So can you explain why you're so sure that's the best way to go? Besides, you seem to be confused.... equating fighting back with acts of terrorism? So now, when you hit back....that's now defined as terrorism?"

It all boils down to the law of survival, isn't it? Survival of your comrades. Survival of your platoon. Survival of your battalion. Survival of your own people. Survival of your nation. Survival of your way of life! The great nations of today had been at war way before somebody came up with the Geneva Conventions. Some of them, had behaved with reasonable decency in the face of combat, despite the lack of universal laws on how to engage. There was an unwritten code of honor that the civilized nations followed in the old days. But times had changed. The enemy had changed. The strategies of combat had changed. You do not bind yourself with restrictive rules that render you helpless. That's just common sense. You fight to win! Plain and simple. I now wonder why some nations refuse to sign the Protocol 1. What's in it?

But should we assume every person wearing a burqua is a fighter? IF they act like those women did, YES! Treat them all like enemies! Anyone providing help to the enemy IS an enemy! Anyone providing morale support to the enemy IS an enemy! Whether he or she is wearing pants or dressed in a burqua! In times of conflict or engagement....the innocent civilians run the other way....far, far away!