AndrewL

Christianity might not be as barbaric as islam today, i agree. But there is simply no way to combat the ideology of Islam without attacking all religious belief. Islam might manifest itself in the modern day with extreme violence, but it is still irrational belief in the literal truth of the book that allows them to commit such acts of depravity. How do you propose we go about changing islam from the west? Do you think we should just kill them? Andrew

You know what i found in all those links (and no i did not read every story, as i doubt you have)? I found a few blatant anti-semitic peices of propaganda, i agree. I found many, many more examples of harsh criticism of jewish policies confused and spun as anti-semitism. Thansk for the ADL link, they are the folks that cry anti-semite loudly if someone says something remotely negative about jews or israel. One thing ifound interesting on the Wikipedia link: "Antisemitism in the Arab world increased in the twentieth century, as anti-Semitic propaganda and blood libels were imported from Europe..." Which is what my original point was, that Anti-semitism is a christian invention, founded in Europe. But thanks for doing the research. I do see that there are a few examples of anti-semitism in the arab media. What shoudl we do about it? Kill their children with cluster bobmbs? Will that make you feel better? Andrew

That's because a small but noisy segment of the population of the west wants the war to be lost, and will cointinue to agitate until it becomes true. Wow. You give me us people so much credit to influence geopolitical affairs. Thanks! I feel so powerful all of a sudden. Andrew

Its not early in the game at all. Its four years on. And all they will do is wait it out. This idiotic war was lost in the first three months. There is no changing that. Andrew

What can I say to willful ignorance like this? I'm sure it exists in some corners too. Like all across the headlines of every middle eastern newspaper every day. Care to provide some examples? No. Just google up "middle east" or "arabic newspaper" and you can feast your eyes on it. Nice cop-out. Just for fun i brought up Al Jazeera's front page. That is the most influential Arabic newspaper in the region. I don't see anything even remotely anti-semitic. Surely if you are going to make such sweeping accusations you could at least try and back them up? Andrew

What can I say to willful ignorance like this? I'm sure it exists in some corners too. Like all across the headlines of every middle eastern newspaper every day. Care to provide some examples? Perhaps i am ignorant of this, i just have never seen it. Im familiar with their anti-zionism, just not their anti-semitism (if it exists to any greater degree than it exists in the west). Andrew

Claiming that the holocaust was a result of atheism is perhaps equally absurd. But lets put the holocaust in perspective. There was deep seeded anti-semitism all throughout Europe at the time. This anti-semitism had its roots in the historical hatred Christians had for jews. What sort of historical revisionism would place the blame entirely on atheism, and ignore actual history. Whether or not Hitler was a genuine Christian or just a political opportunist is not really important. How Christians all over Germany and Europe came to detest jews, how they became a convenient victim of Hitler is far more relevant and certainly is far more related to christianity than anything to do with atheism. Andrew Now that is an argument with some merit. And you would more profitably point to various 19th century pogroms as evidence of it than try to paint Hitler as a Christian or as acting on behalf of Christianity. I would put this to you though: Anti-semitism has been alive and well in Islam as well. In fact the very genesis of Islam involves explicit anti-Semitism, and that anti-Semitism continues to this day in Islam. Yet Christianity hasn't sparked a pogrom in...well...a long time, anyway. And only the most fringe of fringe groups within Christianity would today adopt an openly anti-Semitic thesis, yet anti-Semitism is pandemic across all four schools of Islam and across the Sunni/Shia schism. Moral equivalency between the two just isn't on within the context of the current situation. I see plenty of anti zionism coming from arab sources. But i don't see anti-semitism. Im sure it exists in some corners though, as it does in all parts of the western world still to this day. Many arabs are also semitic peoples, anti-semitism from arabs makes little sense in this context. Andrew

Claiming that the holocaust was a result of atheism is perhaps equally absurd. But lets put the holocaust in perspective. There was deep seeded anti-semitism all throughout Europe at the time. This anti-semitism had its roots in the historical hatred Christians had for jews. What sort of historical revisionism would place the blame entirely on atheism, and ignore actual history. Whether or not Hitler was a genuine Christian or just a political opportunist is not really important. How Christians all over Germany and Europe came to detest jews, how they became a convenient victim of Hitler is far more relevant and certainly is far more related to christianity than anything to do with atheism. Andrew

And what could be more a symbol of their greed than a belief that they are unique and special in the universe, that god has chosen them personally to talk to, and that god will reward them when they die? Greed is always inseparable from a sense of personal entitlement. Andrew

Looks like he became converted to atheism. Sounds exactly like todays atheists. "Christianity is an invention of sick brains," Adolf Hitler, 13 December 1941. http://www.davnet.org/kevin/essays/hitler.html Mistranslation. But the original German says, "Christianity teaches 'transubstantiation,' which is the maddest thing ever concocted by a human mind in its delusions, a mockery of all that is godly." The difference in meaning here is radical, and again shows how Genoud (hence the Trevor-Roper translation) has distorted Hitler's criticism of one form of Christianity (which implies he believed there was a true Christianity) into a thoroughly anti-Christian sentiment. http://ffrf.org/fttoday/2002/nov02/carrier.php Andrew

You dont need to care about it i suppose. I just personally convinced that the source of of justification for many of the horrendous things people do is religion. I think we are born with a great capacity for empathy, it takes something as powerful as religion to set natural empathy aside. Thats why i care about strategies that would marginalize and eventually relegate religion to a historical footnote religion in the world. I think it would bring forth a great improvement in the human capacity make the world a better place. Honest commercial trade? You mean let them determine the fate of their own natural resources? Thats a start. I doubt it will have the power to overcome religion though. If we take a cue from the fundamentalist mega-church folks in the USA, all they have done is combine religion with capitalism and politics. Yikes! Andrew

Im certainly open to suggestion about ways in which rational sane people can marginalize and eventually eliminate religion, without resorting to widespread murder and genocide. I don't think we can undermine Islam without undermining Christianity and Judaism, based as they are on the same silly beliefs. It is a scary scenario we have right now, with all those violent fundamentalists convinced of their otherworldly destiny, be it Bush or the suicide bomber in iraq. How do we combat that? At home we can stop allowing children to be exposed to such nonsense. But abroad how do we convince Muslims of their abject insanity? How do we first get them to moderate and modernize their beliefs? - How do we release all religious people from the clutches of superstition and literal beliefs about god and heaven? This is the heart of the problem. How do we defeat the fanatical Muslims without murdering their children with cowardly air strikes and cluster bombs? That will certainly never lead to success. How do we spread enlightenment when our leaders hold the same stupid beliefs about the origin of the universe and their place in it? The prospects for the future are looking dimmer every day. Andrew

How would Ray have any idea if those are misleading fact are not. First off, 20k children dead under 5 is not unreasonalbe when one considers that children are often the most common victims of war. Second, im assuming that the pamphlet did not say 20k kids were killed by american fire, only that 20k kids were killed as a result of the war. Third, most civilian casualties are a result of air strikes, not the actions of ground forces. Fourth, the experiences of one soldier in Iraq, a nation of close to 30 million poeple, is hardly significant at all. Andrew

Well I'd say that the soldiers on this forum and in this thread may just have a wee bit more of an understanding than you. One is just freshly back from Afghanistan. So it would be more accurate if you just spoke for yourself. ie: stop saying WE when expressing YOUR opinion. You are projecting YOUR ignorance on the population as a whole. Very self-centred 'style' of debate. I have yet to see any proof whatsoever that we are not just killing villagers who are partial to the taliban and a fundamentalist islamic way of life. This is not just my opinion, this is a worry that i have heard expressed by many people with intimate experience of the situation on the ground. Any soldier who was there is certainly able to give me their opinion on the matter. Im not saying AQ and the Taliban are not in Afghnaistan, im just saying that its not as simple as saying over there is taliban and over there is drug lords, and over there is this tribe, over there is that tribe, and so on. Outside of Kabul and Kandahar there is not blanket support for NATO against the Taliban.... Andrew

Honestly, id rather kill any one of our politicians than be killed covering for one. Regardless, i don't think Canada needed political cover to not go to iraq, we need not be afraid to tell the americans that we want no part of their imperialism. This is the reason why i do not support a standing army. Eventually their existence is used to justify their deployment. This is why the founding fathers of the US did not support a standing army, and it is the real danger now posed by the military industrial complex. But the current push for recruitments, tied into the ad campaign, is essentially for the indefinite commitment we seem to have made to not only Afghanistan, but wherever else our government, liberal or conservative, wiashes to see us tag along with the americans. Fair enough. You are certainly promoting a realist view, whereas i am promoting a ideal one. Andrew

No you don't have my views right at all. Combat missions are only just and proper under a very limited definition; self defense (of oneself and ones allies), and only when the mission is achievable should it be supported. The Afgan mission turned from just war (self-defense) to nation building, and it has lost all hope of success (mainly because pakistan cannot and will not do what needs to be done). Hence the current misison in Afghanistan is primarily a waste of life, and secondly it will invariably lead to corruption and disgrace. Really? What exactly is there to discuss with religious fanatics who want a medieval society? Nothing. We will never ever discuss anything with those lunatics, nor should we. Then we are left with an impossible military mission. Our only choice is withdrawal or long term indefinite occupation that will result in nothing except wasted lives, wasted dollars, and who knows what else. We are building new fighter jets, buying new transport planes, and handing out new military research grants for weapons development. This totals about 10 billion so far. And the purpose is obviously to partake in war, for dubious reasons, but certainly tied into the economic benefit of large corporations. Well, what else do they do? Im listening. Here is what the CFs say to this question: [/b]Q: What does the Army do? A: The combat-capable, multipurpose Land Forces are designed for the following duties: · defending Canadian territory and helping to maintain Canada’s sovereignty by providing land surveillance and combat-ready forces · contributing to the collective defence of North America · providing armed and unarmed assistance to civil authorities when needed to maintain public order and security or to assist in emergency relief · supporting Canadian interests abroad, a task that may include providing forces for UN, NATO, and other multilateral contingency operations, peacekeeping, and humanitarian assistance What would you add to this? Does our history justify everything we now do or will do in the future? Andrew

I think there are many different groups operating in each war. I define an insurgent as a group of people that are nationalist or tribal in origin and attack an occupying force and their collaborators. The goal of terrorism is primarily to cause chaos, shock, and fear, and to do this you attack civilians primarily. I think there has always been a difference between AQ and the Taliban. Sometimes they may work together to achieve common goals, just as a state actor might form temporary alliances with terrorists to achieve common goals. That is not clear to me. I hear a news bits every once in a while that CFs killed x number of militants, then there are conflicting stories that these are just villagers loyal to whatever side, and so on. We don't know who they are fighting and if they are actually protecting civilians. Not true. There are various different groups in iraq who all have different agendas and goals. And these groups go about achieving these goals differently. It is far too simplistic to just lump them all into one group. I would not say that Canada is the cause of this violence, but in some cases our presence might be exasperating an already bad situation, and at best we cant do anything at all about the constant flow of AQ type militants from east pakistan. Andrew

Yikes. Our soldiers are being killed partly for political cover and an institutional desire to be deployed. That is rather pathetic. But your first point about treaty and alliance obligations is legit. Sure. But it was always imperial powers engaged in colonialism. Obviosuly Canada is not an imperial power, but i firmly believe that the US is, and without the US imperial history in this region, Canada has no need to be in Afghanistan. True enough. I agree that the initial move against the taliban fell under the rubric of just war. The real danger is now in Pakistan, and once again, the Afghan people are caught in the middle. There is no justifiable reason for Canada to now sacrifice our soldiers and dollars for what is essentially a problem not of our making, and not within our ability to solve. This is debatable, IMO. Before the notion existed that all it took was UN recognition to bestow legitimacy on a state, a government actually had to control the resources and security of a territory in its entirety before it was considered to have legitimacy. All we have with Afghanistan, (and Iraq) is UN recognition of puppet governments that controls a diminishing amount of territory. This will certainly fail. I agree. And to bring it back to the topic, i hate to see ads promoting this futility. Andrew

Are you maintaining that Canada wants Afghanistan as a colony? Not in the traditional sense. Nations no longer need to gather foreign resources and bring them back home. Nations do need to install cooperative leaders who will allow for exploitation of land and resources for the promotion of global trade and economies. And it matters little to the more powerful nations if the civilian population agrees or not. This is the history of modern colonialism in the ME, Asia, and Latin America, we would be foolish to think it is any different now. As if we all of a sudden became altruistic.... not likely. Andrew

??? Colonialism and occupation are terms with actual meanings. They do not apply willy-nilly to any foreign deployment. Currently none of our foreign deployments fall within the concept of colonialism or occupation. We have our military employed in a country for the purpose of building a compliant and obedient economy and trading partner for our own interests. That is why greater powers build other nations. NATO is a collection of powerful allies who are engaged in modern day colonialism. You can call it what you want, but Afghanistan is not and has never been a threat to Canada, yet we are out there killing the villagers who want no part of our presence. We do this to support an increasingly theocratic kabul government. In a few years this will be nothing less than a failed state, and we will have wasted countless lives, as well as dollars. Andrew

I also walk with confidence, knowledge, and understanding. And the only time i would ever consider joining an army, or supporting my childs interest in it, is if the nation was in direct danger. In fact I know many confident and very knowledgeable people in the world, not one of them in the army. The thug who is a disgrace to society is not such a pathetic slouch because he didn't join the army, he is a 'loser' because of many circumstances, some of it media, most of it his incapable parents, or lack thereof. How sad is that? And its not so much how many people die every year in the military compared to street murders or what have you, if anything that stat proves we have much more work to do domestically rather than waste time fighting the constant and unchecked flow of taliban and AQ from Pakistan into Afghanistan. The only people who can solve that problem are Pakistanis and Afghanis, and they cannot and will not. They have tried and failed, and have given up, and most of them are inclined to the religious rule we hate and won't support. We are involved in colonialism for the first time since we slaughtered the natives, and i hate to see it promoted. Andrew

???

My personal opinion is that children are more robust in this respect that they are given credit for. But since you think differently, obviously your solution is to shield them from media. You can shield them from the media at a very young age, but not when they get older. I am not sure what the solution would be, or even if there is one. Andrew

We rank near the very bottom of peacekeeping nations, the great bulk of our force is gathered in a nation building/colonial exercixe in afghanistan, and we are buying brand new offensive weapons designed for the specific purpose of troop deployments in far off places. Besides disaster relief, that is all they do. And there is no end in site. That is why there is a recruitment drive, and young teenage boys are the main target. I simply can't support that. Andrew

Children also can't join the Army. Not in Canada. But they can join cadets, which is really just a kids army, prepping them as later fodder. And advertising has a long gestation period. A kid who sees advertising for the army consistently growing up, playing free games like America's Army or whatever, they are well on their way. Andrew