kuzadd

I am with both t-bud and AW on this, rules, since we have them ,are not enforced in an across the board kind of manner. AW is correct, a poster can sit here and call for genocide and mass killings/deportations, but don't dare point out the inherent racism in doing that? Is this a joke? Did we not learn a darn thing from history? The promotions of these types of ideas? sad. Let's look at the forum we have numerous threads, look at the titles "Islam, the sneaky buggers " Insulting, with intent, defintely, but totally acceptable. Personally if specific posters hold these PERSONAL beliefs,whatever. But I am seriously wondering how it is the discussion can be considered "intelligent" and "responsible" when such nonsense as the promotion of mass deportations and killings is acceptable.

how about this post, it is positively filled with labels with negative intonations particularly here, in this forum "left leaners ", " socialist". These are tossed around quite liberally as insults. As we can see. So is it ok, to use these terms constantly along with all other names, such as "retard", "ignoramus", "pothead", , but not racist or bigot?

IMO, it is you drinking the kool-aid. Oh and I am referring to exactly that kind of expansion, invasions, occupations, etc.,

RACISM: * or racialism is a form of discrimination based on race, especially the belief that one race is superior to another. Racism may be expressed individually and consciously, through explicit thoughts, feelings, or acts, or socially and unconsciously, through institutions that promote inequality between races. * The inherent belief in the superiority of one race over all others and thereby the right to dominance. * The belief that one 'racial group' is inferior to another and the practices of the dominant group to maintain the inferior position of the dominated group. Often defined as a combination of power, prejudice and discrimination. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- xenophobia:an unreasonable fear or hatred of foreigners or strangers or of that which is foreign or strange.An unreasonable fear, distrust, or hatred of strangers, foreigners, or anything perceived as foreign or different. or xenphobe:A person unduly fearful or contemptuous of that which is foreign, especially of strangers or foreign peoples. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BIGOT:a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion. Word History: Bigots may have more in common with God than one might think. Legend has it that Rollo, the first duke of Normandy, refused to kiss the foot of the French king Charles III, uttering the phrase bi got, his borrowing of the assumed Old English equivalent of our expression by God. Although this story is almost surely apocryphal, it is true that bigot was used by the French as a term of abuse for the Normans, but not in a religious sense. Later, however, the word, or very possibly a homonym, was used abusively in French for the Beguines, members of a Roman Catholic lay sisterhood. From the 15th century on Old French bigot meant "an excessively devoted or hypocritical person." Bigot is first recorded in English in 1598 with the sense "a superstitious hypocrite."

I can't insult the intelligence of any posters here, who don't display any intelligence. BTW: don't insult my intelligence. read below. In 1996, a paper came out called "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" from the "Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy," http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break...uring_the_Realm ( i detest wiki though) some excerpts wrt Iraq and one more for good measure so in 1996, Israel was looking to remove Saddam Hussein, as an important Israeli strategic objective. Make no mistake Israel is in an expansionist mode.

racist theories are incorrect, first off, since there is no such thing as "race" but one, the human race, we have had that discussion here, it is solidly backed up. Therefore, it is simply ignorant and irrational to persecute/criticize based on race. Secondly, as I believe you said, to judge an entire distinctive group of people, in this case, followers of Islam, as "terrorist" and 'thugs' is fomenting hatred and nothing more, it is promoting discrimination, against people for their faith. Or as you noted people who share similar skin tones, being attacked for their skin colour, this demonstrates irrationality, on the part of people who do this type of stuff and also irrationality on the part of people who think this type of stuff is ok. As I have said, before there are approx. 1 billion, followers of the Islamic faith in this world and by far the vast majority of them, are just going about there lives, living, loving, dying, marrying, raising kids, working etc., The vast populace should not be judged by the actions of the few criminals, any more then I wish to see myself judged by the words of scottsa or argus. Condemn the actions of the criminal, not the people at large who have ZERO to do with the actions of the few.

well, obviously you missed the "company you keep" quip, wrt to scottsa and your defence of his comments. I guess I too, can tell when a person "is an idiot", as you so nicely put it. go back and read the sequence of posts, for help.

Indeed there are no Muslims here, to defend themselves or enlighten us on there feeling, dreams, hopes, aspirations, etc., Just like the human beings they are. It is a snapshot and a dam frightful one at that, as it is a loud/bold display of inhumanity, on the part of people who actually believe themselves superior.

i am not pointing this out to say, jews get special protection exactly, and yet it is allowed, repeatedly here, and scottsa is the worst prevaricator of that absolute garbage, along with some others. it is absolutely atrocious. This is approporiate? Is it? wow! and I mean wow! If this was said about any other group of people,and I mean any other distinctive group of people, we would recognize this exactly for what it is. and yet, Maple Leaf forums allows it?? hey scottsa or maybe argus: would you agree with this statement, does it summarize your opinion? how about this one scottsa, or argus, does this summarize your feelings? do tell?

That was a reference to illegal, immoral, unjustified US invasion.

flashback http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...;articleId=2250 U.S. Considers Dividing Iraq Into Three Separate States After Saddam Is Gone October 1, 2002 proof propaganda works but, I digress therefore, the intent has always been to destroy Iraq, not liberate, but destroy. Not to free, but to enslave to the ideals of the neo-cons. But gosh, who really thought the US was helping anyway??? Oh sorry, some believed, like fanatic religious zealots, believed the rhetoric and nonsense. Thankfully (gloating) I wasn't one of them!

debateable? I don't see religious fanatics as sane. Hm, I guess you can tell alot about someone by the company they keep?

actually Israel will benefit greatly from a divided Iraq, three weaker states , easier to attack, etc., particularly when Israel is in an expansionist mood. Not really up on things are ya!!

Imagine my non-surprise! wasn't this the intent all along? Yup!!!! Yup!!! Wasn't this discussed prior to the attack? Yup!!! Yup!!!! Divide and conquer, just like good ol' imperialists. Ah 'freedom and democracy', 'cakewalk' and all that blather

ever notice, scottsa, continuously portrays islam as the religion of violence, BUT, we see the "christian" nations and there Pentagon indoctrinated christian soldiers ilegally invading and killing people, under bogus, trumped up reasoning. Anyone see the nice mercenaries,l ikely good "christian" Americans, in iraq, randomly driving along shooting people in cars. But hey, it is only Islam that is violent. :rolleyes: Yeah sure!

kind of like a popularity contest? cliques abound

well actually scottsa, I am right on the $$$$. check the links, the book tbud noted, and there are some other books also. Perhaps you really, really need to do your own homework. The taliban were very much connected to the US. it is yourself that is either intentionally deceitful, or sorely ignorant (lacking knowledge) empower yourself!

hey dop! (see your still about) If only it was a few, but it wasn't. It went on for more then ten yrs and was costing millions and millions of dollars. perhaps, you should start with the links I posted and go from there. There are also some books on the topic. Here, right from my originating post, in really big words, so it can't be missed wrt your comment on books handed out to a 'few schools' millions of these textbooks are used long after 1994; the Taliban are still using them in 2001. Millions of books, that is lots, lots more then a few! lots of brainwashing material for lots of kids, over a long period of time. Of course, what choice would the Afghan government have but to continue to use the only books they had, provided for them so freely, by the US, war-torn and deeply impoverished. Plus the Taliban were nothing but lackeys to the US anyway.... actually, i could expand, more but the 3 links i provided you with should be good enough start for you to do your own homework? You don't need your hand-held.I am certain of that.

actually the US funded that "special" system http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?e...ity_of_nebraska 1984-1994: US Supports Militant Textbooks for Afghanistan Edit event The US, through USAID and the University of Nebraska, spends millions of dollars developing and printing textbooks for Afghan schoolchildren. The textbooks are filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings, part of covert attempts to spur resistance to the Soviet occupation. For instance, children are taught to count with illustrations showing tanks, missiles, and land mines. Lacking any alternative, millions of these textbooks are used long after 1994; the Taliban are still using them in 2001. In 2002, the US will start producing less violent versions of the same books, which President Bush says will have “respect for human dignity, instead of indoctrinating students with fanaticism and bigotry.” or http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/afghanistan/schools.html or http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A...anguage=printer Too bad, some choose to spout nonsense, instead of facts. It is infact correct to say, from 1984, possibly as early as 1982, the US via the CIA funded and provided the violent brainwashing text books, for the kids in school, as it served the US very well to brainwash the populace. Sigh..... a little truth can go a long, long, way...

This false dilemma useage, may go way back, but it is , what it is. All it is, is a manipulative means to get people 'on side' or following, without question, wether it is alleged to have been said by Jesus, is debateable , but whoever wrote it surely used it for the very same reason as Goering used it and Bush used it. Manipulation of the masses, just do, don't think. Sadly, most of the masses comply, then ostracize those that don't.

tbud' date='Sep 27 2007, 11:15 AM' post='254017'] you see you are just thinking in black and white, as is in vogue these days, stylish oh it is the modern mantra, alright. It's a new spin on some old propaganda. But that is lost on the simple minded. "I know two types of law because I know two types of men, those who are with us and those who are against us." ~ Nazi Hermann Goering, 1936 "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." ~GWB it is the language used by an empire, in an expansionist mood. To get the populace onside. it's simplistic appeal lies, in it's call to act (stay on the "right" side) and not to REALLY think, about what is ACTUALLY going on.

no such thing as empire?! hilarious! empire and aspirations of empire have never gone away. Maybe it's just "less obvious" to the some. BUT, take a good look around, a reality check. The reality is different then the delusion.

betsy Gosh Betsy: where do you come to the conclusions you do? except from your own bias? Did you read anything I posted? He is not asking for preferential treatment, he only asked what he was entitled to. Take it up with corrections canada for having this type of policy if YOU have a problem with it, because YOU appear to. Betsy: Apparently, though that is EXACTLY your view! , frivolous and outlandish, preferential. see your own words below: or have you had an epiphany? The FACT is the man only asked for what he was entitled to, nothing else. You are unwilling to accept that, that's your problem. secondly, this entire article as betsy pointed out , apparently needs to be brought to more peoples attention. Though I fail to see why. Well I don't know exactly what you think is going on? Though I can fathom a reasonably good guess at it. There is nothing going on. This is why I couldn't find in in the Globe or the Star, or my local paper, because it is much ado about nothing. Corrections Canada in fact, did not live up to their own guidelines, and they were held accountable. I can't imagine why any newspaper, would waste much ink on this story when there are more vital issues to contend with. Except for a paper with a set bias. Interesting, FYI: the Sun has a readership level of Grade 5, it's appeal is to a lower intelligence reader. How do I know? A writer informed me of the necessity to dumb the article down to the audience, yup, every paper has an 'audience' and the paper knows who it is. The Sun's are the lowbrow type, drink beer, heavy on the boobs and sports, lots of ads. Enjoy it, for what it's worth. oh and betsy: I would have said the exact same thing.

That would be an entirely different discussion. rehabilitation or punishment, or some combo of both. This one has been all about an alleged favouritism, where there isn't one. It is quite clear Corrections Canada has been providing diets based on religion. Either they do it for all, or none at all. But if we look at the issue as a rehabilitative/punishment together, with a goal of getting people back into a productive roll in society, then it makes sense, to allow people to continue on practicing their religions , etc., But that , until now has not been the issue.

did you check corrections canada's website? I linked to it. here it is http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/prgrm/chap/d...iete-03_e.shtml Corrections Canada Religious Diets - General Guidelines We apparently already do " pander to other frivolous religious demands!" and in all likelihood for sometime now. read it for yourself. Making that argument rather bogus. so I'll say the same thing I said to Jefferiah: "So i'll suggest to you, make an issue of it, and have corrections canada stop providing specific meals for religious reasons, for all religions!" that , should take care of the whole issue quite nicely!