Peter F

Obviously M.Dancer is correct. A caucasian homeland would have to define what caucasian means for immigration purposes (if only to allow the homeless caucasians in).

Well, so far in the thead regarding the protection of Caucasians we have the following: Caucasians are in danger of being reduced to minority status. The Causes are a Low birth rate of Caucasians and massive immigration of non-caucasians who, to make matters worse, have a high birth rate. This will result in Caucasians becoming a minority and subject to the (at best) descrimination by the majority non-caucasians. Argus proposed way back at post#22 (page 2) According to ScottSA, Argus' proposal is merely the ongoing 'melting-pot' concept wich has failed (see post #74) The only other proposed solution (professor ScottSA's suggestion see post #17 amongst others): We need a Caucasian homeland. Actually he did not say we need a Caucasian homeland. ScottSa only referred to a lack of a caucasian homeland as an indication of the seriously dangerous position the Caucasian race is in. Because ScottSA deals in negatives in order to not be pinned down on anything I have to ask if he would agree that the answer to the supposed Caucasian suicide problem is a Caucasian homeland? If so, and recognizing that ScottSA considers all races equal and that no one race is any better than any other; Would not such a Caucasian-safe homeland require the following: -Immigration from non-Caucasians will be restricted (otherwise whats the point of a caucasian homeland if it will be swamped by non-caucasians. A form of unilateral disarmament as the professor called it) -Pro-creation amongst non-caucasians allowed to immigrate to the homeland will be restricted (otherwise the non-caucasian high birthrate will eventually reduce caucasians to minority status.) -Policies of the Caucasian homeland should be designed to encourage pro-creation amongst the caucasians while discouraging the same amongst the non-caucasians. ?

ScottSA won't say it. He aludes; he hints; he uses innuendo; he gets others to say it for him; But he will not say it for himself. What is he trying to say? Why would an obviously well educated man, with many letters behind his name, piss-ant around? Why is he so terrified of actually saying what he means? More piss-anting around. Make your point, man. Say something smart Now that was funny...

Whats to explain? There simply is no impending demise of caucasians. So I am not concerned.

Okay, lets forget all that and start over... ScottSA: Is anyone not concerned? I am not concerned.

I can only assume this cartoon version of a discussion is meant tongue in cheek? you assume wrongly. No tongue in my cheek at all. Your original question was is anyone concerned or not concerned about the impending racial suicide of Caucasians. I said no I am not concerned about the demise of Caucasians. Whats the problem? You asked a question and I provided an answer. You have said that you forsee sometime in the future other races discriminating against Caucasions. Fine. But your original question was not about discrimination and/or genocide or anything else resulting from one races acts against another. It is about Caucasian racial suicide via immigration. You however seem very concerned - I asked why? Was my question out of the blue? Irrational? Off subject? Insulting?

Yep. As a place of retreat in the very likely event of racial discrimination and/or attack. Glad the penny has dropped. Okay, so you fear the other races. Not because of any cultural difference, but because (place racial designation here) inherently wish to kill all caucasians. I see no basis for the assumption. Nevertheless, what has this got to do with your claim that Caucasians are committing racial suicide? and why is racial suicide a bad thing?

...and with a swish of his tail and an airy toss of his head, Peter establishes his credentials as a myopic utopic! ScottSA: ''the question stands...is anyone concerned? Is anyone not concerned?'' Peter F : ''Does'nt bother me in the least. Why would it?'' ScottSA: snotty reply. Are you trolling or what?

What can I say? You're an idiot. ScottSA doesn't "assume" that "other races have some inherant genetic quality that makes them want to destroy the other races," ScottSA has just read a little history and knows that races are not known for getting along real well; to wit: killing each other off every chance they get, everywhere and always without exception. For a while under Tito, Yugoslavia was starting to look like a first, but oops... But ScottSA, you specifically said that Cultural differences are inconsequential to this thread - and that you are only concerned with the impending demise via suicide of the Caucasian race. Then, later you said you were afraid that us Caucasians will not have a safe place to hide. If culture is out that leaves race. So what is the need for a Caucasian 'homeland' as you call it? Safety from the other races right?

You sound happy at the prospect, as if it is a punishment that Caucasians have long deserved and yet so far escaped or something. I am neither happy nor unhappy at the suspected demise of the Caucasian race. In my view race matters not. Thus I fail to comprehend the concern. A race war however is a different story. That implies massive amounts of killing and blood and pain and lamentation and mourning. But ScottSA's original question wasn't about genocide. ScottSA's question was about racial suicide. I'm not killing myself anytime soon, and I suspect most people arn't, so what is ScottSA talking about - surely not a violent end to the Caucasian race. No, he seems to be wondering more about the racial suicide of caucasian race due to massive amounts of immigration thus depriving us whites of a racial homeland/bunker when the genocidal maniacs of the other races decide to finish us off. You assume correctly on both assumptions. Am I concerned about a violent end to the Caucasian race (if there is such a thing) - I would be if I thought it was something likely. But I don't share ScottSA's worry about massive immigration depriving us of a bunker. If, as he claims, the Caucasian race is committing suicide through immigration and lack of breeding amongst the racially pure, then I am not concerned about the feared demise at all. Does'nt bother me in the least. Why would it? ScottSA assumes that the other races have some inherant genetic quality that makes them want to destroy the other races. Remember, cultural differences/values, have nothing to do with ScottSA's original question. It follows then that ScottSA fears the other races because the other races are Dangerous to us Caucasions. and thus this entire thread and his question is in itself racism of the worst sort. But prettied up nicely.

You sound happy at the prospect, as if it is a punishment that Caucasians have long deserved and yet so far escaped or something. I am neither happy nor unhappy at the suspected demise of the Caucasian race. In my view race matters not. Thus I fail to comprehend the concern. A race war however is a different story. That implies massive amounts of killing and blood and pain and lamentation and mourning. But ScottSA's original question wasn't about genocide. ScottSA's question was about racial suicide. I'm not killing myself anytime soon, and I suspect most people arn't, so what is ScottSA talking about - surely not a violent end to the Caucasian race. No, he seems to be wondering more about the racial suicide of caucasian race due to massive amounts of immigration thus depriving us whites of a racial homeland/bunker when the genocidal maniacs of the other races decide to finish us off. You assume correctly on both assumptions. Am I concerned about a violent end to the Caucasian race (if there is such a thing) - I would be if I thought it was something likely. But I don't share ScottSA's worry about massive immigration depriving us of a bunker. If, as he claims, the Caucasian race is committing suicide through immigration and lack of breeding amongst the racially pure, then I am not concerned about the feared demise at all. Does'nt bother me in the least. Why would it?

ScottSA: The 'Caucasians', as a race disappear from the earth. Apparently the sowhat is that ScottSA fears another race or perhaps the other races will, once white numbers decline sufficiently, engage us whites in a race war in order to eliminate us from the face of the earth. And poor us will have no israel to retreat to...not that it would matter because, of ScottSA is correct, the 'Caucasions' are committing racial suicide anyways by not having lots of kids. Since this thread is not about cultural differences then, as Xman asked: So we all become caramel, so what? I think Xman has a perfectly valid point.

I have no experience in the matter but from my understanding surrender in battle is a very iffy thing at the best of times and as army guy says 'rough' treatment will be inevitable. However, a surrendering enemy who is not in any immediate danger, is also a very common thing, and I assumed something the enemy should be encouraged to do. This would imply that an enemy has the belief that to surrender early is a really good idea because treatment in the camp would be no worse than what the fellow is putting up with now with the added benefit of living out the war. Thus german surrender rates skyrocketed in the late months of both world wars - on the western fronts anyways. So I would think that it would be in the CAF's best interest to ensure that prisoners are indeed treated to the minimum standards of the Geneva conventions - be Talibani's legal combatants or not. Turning them over to others and then, as August 1991 suggests, forgetting about them would, I think, be detrimental. In restrospect, I agree that the press' treatment of the prisoner thing a few months back was appalling. Wether the charges were true or not the press should never have reported such a counterproductive story and it should never have been argued about in public. I sincerely hope that our soldiers would never refuse to take a prisoner due to a possible black mark on thier service record. To avoid unreasonable risk to thier lives or the operation at hand is understandable...but to avoid maybe getting a black mark on thier service record is a little too cold-blooded. Unless 'not taking prisoners' doesn't mean what I think it means.

Your right. He did make it sound like that. I agree. You are also right about me not giving a rats ass about our soldiers. Mea Culpa. Again you are correct. My apologies.

For the sake of our soldiers - as a card carrying member of the NDP - I accept the designation 'Coward'.

Lol.. The CBC and MSM has really gotten to you eh? We don't need a gun registry, we need a Doctor registry. You can sign up for the stoneage-cultured doctors, and I will choose Dr. Bernstein or Dr. James. That will make things fair. Go fast track those doctors, but YOU sign up that you would like to be treated by them. I will keep myself off that list and wait for a Canadian/American doctor. Does that sound like a good deal? Hell yeah! Where do I sign? gimme your pen...

Talk about pulling teeth... I agree with MadMicheal. Engagement is always to be sought and should never be avoided. I confess I don't understand the idea that engagement is to be avoided. What is gained? What is risked by engagement?

To Weaponeer: I knee-jerked reacted to your post where-in you called us leftoids excuse makers for the enemy and more-or-less cowards. I should not have done so. It was extremely egotistical of me to feel insulted by your statements. I cannot, in any circumstance, understand the pressures you and everyone else in Afghanistan must be under. I offer no excuses, only admit my lack of empathy for your position. For what its worth. I apologize for the insults I selfishly aimed at you.

Maybe your eyes were closed but I was a big fan of Ahmad Shah Massoud. Follwed his career closely as he forst fought the russians then the Taliban. Good for you. And I cheer on the Seattle Seahawks. And we both stayed the fuck out of Afghanistan. Wich reveals exactly where our prioritys lie. If I were you I would avoid attempting smart comebacks.....they don't quite work for you. ...but wait, you said teh same people who fought the Soviets are fighting us....yet here is the Lion of the Panjshir who made the Red Army tremble with his daring and courage and lo...he was the sworn enemy of the Taliban..... So? EDIT: Ohhhh. ok. I'll mail him a hero cookie. sui Like I said, smart comebacks aren't your forte. He was murdered by an Al Qaeda suicide bomber, sept 9, 2001 Good man. too bad you can't actually make an argument about negotiations.

Maybe your eyes were closed but I was a big fan of Ahmad Shah Massoud. Follwed his career closely as he forst fought the russians then the Taliban. Good for you. And I cheer on the Seattle Seahawks. And we both stayed the fuck out of Afghanistan. Wich reveals exactly where our prioritys lie. If I were you I would avoid attempting smart comebacks.....they don't quite work for you. ...but wait, you said teh same people who fought the Soviets are fighting us....yet here is the Lion of the Panjshir who made the Red Army tremble with his daring and courage and lo...he was the sworn enemy of the Taliban..... So? EDIT: Ohhhh. ok. I'll mail him a hero cookie.

Wich is his duty. Thats called parliamentary democracy. A weakness in times of war, certainly, but nevertheless a necessity in any democracy. He is right to do so. I commend him. He has my full support.

If you consider mr.Laytons statements shrill and jeopardizing of our troops, what would have been the proper way to express opposition? There was nothing shrill or jeopardizing about what he said.

...and again, No Shit Sherlock. When have I disagreed with that? Bullshit. Read your own post.

Maybe your eyes were closed but I was a big fan of Ahmad Shah Massoud. Follwed his career closely as he forst fought the russians then the Taliban. Good for you. And I cheer on the Seattle Seahawks. And we both stayed the fuck out of Afghanistan. Wich reveals exactly where our prioritys lie.

Typical right-wing two-faced hack. Didn't hear you chomping at the bit to liberate the downtrodden in North Korea...nope. silence regarding democracy and human rights there. From you also. In fact, those on the Left have never shown much enthusiasm for condemning repression and human rights abuses commited by communist states. They have rather more enhthusiasm for defending it, in fact. You are correct, sir. I am a staunch leftoid and have never advocated liberating the downtrodden. You see, I don't engage in Bullshit attacks and falsly claim to be so handwringingly concerned about human rights that we need to invade hundreds of country's....as you bullshit artists do.