Moonlight Graham

1st, yes the US is the top dog and have to do some unpleasant work sometimes that other western states aren't forced to deal with, however that doesn't mean all their actions/policies are justified. 2nd, I'm not blaming the US for 9/11. This is what I said in the 1st sentence of my 1st post in this thread: "US foreign policy in the middle east is only part of the reason for 911, but the US did have it coming." I've done extensive research on transnational terrorism, al-Qaeda, and the factors that led to 9/11. US foreign policy is only one factor, another big factor is the radical Islamist ideology of Qutbism and the writings of Sayyid Qutb, that espouses offensive jihad, that the terrorists believe. Another big factor is the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 80's, without which al-Qaeda would not exist. Also, I'm not "siding with the terrorists", a typical claim. I'm saying it's naive to expect zero pushback/blowback/consequences when states are mucking around and imposing their will on other states/people. Newton's 3rd law: "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction". I specifically referred to actions of a state against foreign states/people. You're referring mostly to domestic events. Most war in Africa since WWII has been civil war, a big exception being te recent DRC conflict tat I mentioned. End of WWII is a logical timeframe since that's when the US became a superpower. Domestically, the murder/genocide of aboriginals, witch hunts, the era of chattel slavery, and capital punishment to name a few. With foreign policy, they certainly have targeted/killed civilians during times of war and through covert ops. And while the US military does try to avoid civilian casualties, dead is dead, and sometimes they really don't try that hard. I'm not, just to the worst of state foreign policy since WWII. But I'll certainly agree they've done much good as well.

No, actually it isn't anything like that at all. It's more like punching a man's daughter and being surprised you get a punch back. Go ahead, name a country since WWII that has messed with more countries & people in foreign countries in a negative way than the US. Maybe the USSR or recent wars in the DRC (though much of that is caused by non-state actors) could give them a run. I'll bet the Washington Consensus/SAP's & the Bretton Woods institutions have alone done more than just about every other country on earth.

AW, what country i'm from is irrelevant. I shouldn't have brought it up, but was just anticipating your argument. My point is, the US had it coming. I'm not saying it was right, or innocent people deserved to be killed, but sooner or later they were going to be bit in the ass for their foreign policy. Often Western militaries try to avoid civilian casualties, but then again other times they don't care. And they'll gladly take the risk to further all sorts of selfish interests, be it security, influence, economics, oil/resources, whatever. I'm sure if other NATO countries had the chance to be the global hegemon they'd act similarly to the US, but that doesn't make it right. It's also BS that just because some Americans get butt-chapped I then have to asterisks/defend every criticism I have of the US with the fact that my country has done some similar things on a smaller scale. No crap. I criticize them for it too. And I'll criticize the US all day long because they darn well deserve it, more so than any other western state because they cause more BS in this world than any other western state by legions. If you want to hear how great the US is and all the good they do then don't come on the US politics forum. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. This is the last time I'm responding to a "yah well Canada did something like that to". The US had it coming. They got a small taste of their own medicine. Unfortunately a lot of Americans don't seem to have learned anything from it.

Yes it's a matter of degree. But since WWII, and over the last 20 years especially, no other country has f'ed with other countries and their people to the degree that the US has, and it's not even close. On top of that, the US is (at the end of the day at least) a democracy, and US citizens cast votes in support of officials making these foreign policies, so US citizens are in part responsible. 3000 US civilians killed by Muslim extremists is as tragic as 3000 civilians killed anywhere in the world by US military or policy. And yes, Canada does this and Canada does that, we're no saints. But if a man shoots 2 people in the face and another man shoots 50 people in the face, people will/should be concerned about both but they will/should be more concerned about the man who shot 50.

That's a great point. That's probably the best argument for why it should be illegal. Hate speech is not directly harmful, but it spreads hatred, and hateful thinking (itself harmless) leads to hateful acts.

US foreign policy in the middle east is only part of the reason for 911, but the US did have it coming. I wish absolute, tit-for-tat karma did exist in this world. Then we would have peace & a wonderful world because if anyone ever did anything negative to someone else they'd get it right back. But when you can get away with being an ass, why not be an ass?

Persecuting means taking an action against someone. If you don't hire someone based on race, or don't let someone in your restaurant based on race etc., then that is much different than speaking "hatefully" towards someone based on race. Hate speech doesn't really harm anyone. I would say verbally harassing someone, no matter if it is due to race or gender or due to them being fat or ugly etc., is different and should be illegal. But expressing your views toward a group of people is, in itself, not harmful. They are only words, and unless those words turn into threats or specific harassment of individuals, then "hate speech" is harmless. Yes, it may incite more people to be hateful, but these days it seems racists attract other racists within their own little niche groups and most people know they are idiots and simply ignore it. Hatred against Jews re: Germany, well, was there anything truly harmful with such hate speech? Did it really harm anyone? It was only until people and the state starting acting in hateful (and what our laws say are illegal) ways towards Jews was great harm really done. We must separate words from actions. Sticks and stones...

Bin Laden wasn't Wahhabi. Al-Qaeda was founded on the basis of Qutbism, a form of radical Islamism. We should focus on radical, violent Muslims, not Muslims in general. Just as we should be weary of radical, violent Christians, not Christians generally.

Do they? No. Should they, IMO I'm torn, but would lead towards making it legal. Speech is speech, and shouldn't be regulated IMO. I'd argue that only actions can truly harm someone. But then, I suppose hateful speech could harm someone (ie: verbal abuse), and the victim could sue etc.. So maybe banning hate-speech nips that in the bud

Iran isn't Arab and they seem just as f'ed up.

Agreed. It's also disrespectful to those who suffer from schizophrenia, one of the most horrible diseases known to man.

Never seen that one before. Wow.

Does that mean they can't say God's name? "Hi I'm a Jew and I believe in...well, I can't actually say it. But, y'know, the big guy upstairs!"

How can it be classic rock if it's new?

Harper and Obama are also Christian men. They believe in a man whose teachings greatly preached forgiveness and non-violence, yet these men do the opposite. How many western leaders is this the same for? These Christian hypocrites? What is happening in Egypt in Syria is primarily religious? Seems like these crackdowns have much more to do with authoritarian governments maintaining power at any cost. Also, you say Africa. Which countries specifically? It's a big continent. There are religious wars there, as well as ethnic/racial wars, resource wars, wars of political independence, and many coups based on power grabs that have little to do with religion. I would say most of the violence in Africa post-WWII has more to do with things other than religion.

You forgot western countries, that are as a guilty as any. Seems our most religious leaders/parties are most dedicated to war.

This is an oversimplification IMO. International development is a complex subject, and both the "left" and "right" need to study the facts and the case studies of different countries in their development to see what works and what doesn't. Simply giving foreign aid is quite helpful in many ways, but also leads to aid dependency, corruption by recipient governments, and almost always comes with "strings attached" that benefits the donor country as much as the recipient (ie: structural adjustment packages). The idea of letting "people be free" to improve their lot led to neoliberalism and the Washington Consensus of the 1980's and 90's, which in a great many developing countries actually reversed or stifled their development progress. There are a number of significant examples, such as South Korea/Singapore/China etc, where strong government-directed policies (in proper ways) helped steer their own countries towards fantastic economic improvement. To answer your title question, yes I believe trade is far better than aid. The problem though is that rich western/developed states impose unfair/lopsided terms of trade on developing countries because it benefits the rich economies, and that trumps any concern for the welfare of people in poorer countries. Companies in richer countries also exploit workers and resources in development countries for profits. Even though it may lead to increased prices for consumer goods, voters in developed countries need to demand that their governments keep more balanced trade policies with developing countries and give their people a fair shake and reduce the need for aid. Consumers must also be more aware of the products they buy and how they came to be made and if this is ethical. The disturbing fact is that people in developed countries like Canada enjoy such a high standard of living because prices of goods are kept low by exploiting workers, resources, and governments in developing countries for our benefit. If Chung Lo in China made $5 an hour on the assembly line in a factory with what any westerner would deem decent working conditions our goods would cost significantly more.

Why only China? There are many developing countries providing us with goods/labour that have poor practices.

It's also weird that people in western countries spill anti-western rhetoric. If you don't like it then go move to a third world country. Can't they get charged for hate-speech or something?

And they should care why? If you have nothing to hide it should be fine. Would Catholic churches care if there were 5 FBI agents hidden in the audience. No.

Really? Where does it say that? I'm sure there are RCMP or whomever infiltrating this conference, or at least I hope so. Islamists in this country can kiss my butt. Keep that crap out of Canada.

We love ya Shady, what would this board be without you.

Merry Christmas!!!

I thought that one was saying thinks like "God d*mn it", or "Jesus Christ" as a swear word?