Peter F

Yeah. sure. NATO will eventually pull out of Afghanistan. Afghanistan, at some point, will be left to its own devices - just like after the Russians packed up. Didn't see you anywhere nearby egging on one warlord or another. When Canada eventually packs up and leaves (and we will...Taliban or not) all this silly rejection of negotiations by Canadians aint gonna mean squat. And it doesn't mean squat right now either. Fine, you think negotiations are a laughable joke. The Afghans have a different reality they (and not you or other No-Negotiations Canadians have to live with) and they know that very well. Afghan Senate So you see, Mr Layton and the NDP may be shooting themselves in thier collective foot, Canadian politics wise, but unlike yourself, do see the political realities of Afghanistan. Wich is far more than any other political party in this country has managed.

Are we to remake Afghanistan into Canada? Sharia law is the law of the land in Afghanistan right now. You may not like it but most Afghans do. The severity of that law will no doubt form part of the negotiations. Thats what negotiations means...haha Fine. I agree. Wether the Taliban continues to exist or not, or wether Evil Islam continues to exist or not, or wether AQ continues to exist or not...once the Afghan government is able to take care of itself NATO's job will be done. But that has nothing to do with negotiations/surrender. In fact negotiations between Kharzai and the Taliban are inevitable and the sooner they get down to it the better. Distastefull or not, they do have common ground considering that Kharzai was once an influential member of the Taliban himself. Negotiations may be a haha joke to unimaginative Canadians, but it ain't no joke to Afghans. Laugh it up.

Good. I'm glad. Maybe it you will realize that the shit on your monitor is your own . So far so good. No shit sherlock. I agree 100%. You guess wrong. Since when has negotiations meant surrender? Surrender what? Did the Hon.Jack Layton mention surrender? The only people spouting surrender is you and your ilk in an attempt to discredit what Hon.Jack Layton is saying. You know full well he never mentioned 'surrender'. You know full well that negotiations mean just that - negotiations. So what's all this bullshit of yours about surrender?. You know its bullshit yet you keep spitting it out. Why the need to spew bullshit about surrender? Why the smokescreen? What are you trying to obscure? You won't recognize that negotiation is precisely what Kharzai is aiming for. He has to, he has no other choice. The NATO nations also recognize this. The whole point of the military operations is to bring the Taliban to realize that thier only hope for success is through negotiations with the Kharzai government. They are trying to prove to the Taliban that they (the Taliban) will achieve nothing without negotiating. Because the Taliban are not restricted to within Afghanistans borders, and because NATO is in the position politically, that extension of the war to Afghanistans neighbours is to be avoided; there is no way in hell NATO can achieve your much sought for complete and utter unconditional Victory over the Taliban. Therefore, the Taliban must either be brought to the negotiating table or the Kharzai government must be left to stand on its own...wich is why Kharzai will be seeking negotiations also. The willfull ignorance is yours.

nice. he's only a soldier over there NOW. Could you be anymore pompous? such ignorance. Yes, he is a soldier over there right now. and right now, as a soldier over there putting his life on the line to achieve to goals of the canadian government - he still doesnt know why he's there. He thinks he's there to defeat evil Islam the Taliban and Al Queda. That may very well be his own personal ambition but thats not why the Canadian government sent him there...and he knows that very well. I might suggest you refrain from drinking and posting at the same time I suggest you stop kissing ass.

nice. he's only a soldier over there NOW. Could you be anymore pompous? such ignorance. Yes, he is a soldier over there right now. and right now, as a soldier over there putting his life on the line to achieve to goals of the canadian government - he still doesnt know why he's there. He thinks he's there to defeat evil Islam the Taliban and Al Queda. That may very well be his own personal ambition but thats not why the Canadian government sent him there...and he knows that very well.

Jack Layton (from the G+M article): "Mr. Layton said Prime Minister Stephen Harper needs to show leadership by urging the United States to stop high-altitude bombing in the war-torn country and withdrawing Canadian troops from what he characterized as a hopeless mission. “It's the wrong mission; it's not working; it's not going to accomplish the goals,” said Mr. Layton, adding his party will ensure the issue is front and centre in coming federal byelections. NATO's presence in Afghanistan is only boosting Afghan support for the Taliban, he said, adding the only way to peace is through negotiation." I think it is you who doe's not have a goddamed clue about Canada's role in Afghanistan. Canada isn't in Afghanistan to defeat AQ. We aren't even in Afghanistan to defeat the Talibs. Canada's aim in Afghanistan is to help secure the Kharzai government until such time that they can secure their own selves. You are spouting bullshit about our need to defeat AQ+Talibs+evil Islam. That is not our aim at all and never has been. Where did you pull this crap from? Taliban Jack is right. The only way to peace is through negotiations. There is no other realistic way to peace in Afghanistan. Without negotiations NATO will be fighting the Taliban as long as the Taliban wish to continue the struggle. Wether the Taliban wish to continue the struggle or not is entirely out of NATO's hands. The Taliban have shown a willingness to accept the casualties necessary to continue the struggle. Militarily NATO can continue to defeat the Taliban in the field for years to come. It doesn't matter politically. What matters is that the Taliban continues to exist and continues to attract recruits. NATO as yet has shown no ability to stop this. As long as the Taliban is successfull in recruiting there is no means to achieve the defeat of the Taliban militarily. Negotiations is the only other option that can possibly achieve NATO's and the Kharzai governments goals. puke all you want about it...Taliban Jack and the NDP are right. Understandably, this makes you ill.

We are still there because NATO is still there. We are in the combat role because the Americans are looking for allies that will take on the combat role in Afghanistan. We are there to please the Americans. Nothing terribly wrong with that, either. They are the great power - not us. Everything we Canadians have we have at the sufferance of the Americans. Our present committment to Afghanistan freedom and justice is entirely aimed to impress the Americans. You have many impressions - most of them wrong.

Nuking...I understand, Scottsa, that you're quite willing to punish the innocent for the crimes of a few; That you subscribe to the terrorist mantra that all civilians are justifiable targets; That there are no innocents. You are playing right into AlQueda's hands. You are the usefull idiot.

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. So in an effort to be an evenhanded lefty, would you care to suggest we ought to attack North Korea too? It's only fair. Maybe we oughta take a few rounds out of China too, what with sweatshops and pollution. Would it be hypocritical to go save Darfur when we have all those beheadings going on in Indonesia? Goodness, what shall we do in an effort to be perfectly fair, evenhanded, and equitable? Nothing? Or should we dither about, tapping warlords on the shoulder and reminding them that the good book says we ought not step on each other's toes, much less commit genocide and mass rapes, so would they be so kind as to sip tea and nibble crumpets with us while we 'negotiate' more acceptable ways to enslave and disappear huge swathes of the population?" Bullshit. Weaponeers whole point is to make political hay. Leftards are chickenshits is his claim. Leftys care not about anyone else - only themselves. The facts are this ScottSA: No one made any efforts whatsoever to intervene in Afghanistan when the Taliban were taking over the country. Nobody - Nobody in the military was advocating a need to stop the Taliban from siezing control of the country. Zilch. Nada. Nothing. Now weaponeer and yourself are on about how the muslim world must be defeated/conquered/outlawed for the sake of mankind/democracy/freedom/education of little girls and a hundred other boilerplate excuses that didn't mean shit on Sept 10th 2001 and don't mean shit today. Its bullshit and lies pulled out by you and weaponeer. The proof of that is that the fact that nobody advocates interfereing/liberating anywhere else - only Afghanistan. All this care about humanity you and weaponeer claim for yourselves is absolute Lies and bullshit. If you and weaponeer are to be believed then you would agree that North Korea, China, and a hundred other places in the world need saving. You don't. You never have. Its political spin. Its hackery.

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.

Good one jbg. Glad to see you using your time constructivly creating laws to curb the violence of kirpan wielding sikhs (not reported by the MSM of course). We need more laws to punish those who aren't a problem.

Because she has a conscience?

I've answered that in a number of threads. So you have. The number being two: From "An opinion. Not mine originally, but mine now." ScottSA's position (not his originally) From Britain Dodges Terrorist attacks... post #34 Britain dodges etc 'banning Muslim organization'... 'Stomp it out' is vague in meaning. I can stomp out ants. I can stomp out fires. But I am sure 'stomp out' in regards to islam is a metaphor - so 'stomp out' actually means something else. Far be it from me to shove words in ScottSA's mouth. Am I correct to say that when you say 'stomp out' you mean to ban muslim organization and outlaw the religion of Islam and all visible symbols of it? Is that an all inclusive interpretation of 'stomp out'?

Let them hate us. See? It's easy. Didn't cost you a dime either.

Ok,ok. I promise not to convert...no matter what happens. Now, you're long on condemnations but short on solutions. What should be done?

Thats the point Scottsa, you're long on condeming islam, but short on what should be done. Give us leftie immigrant-tolerating wooses some options please.

I am unable to identify any government policy of "granting special powers to Islams followers". Please identify what special powers Islams followers have been granted. Also, please indicate some of the new rules in schools and what is special about muslim prison cells. I'm sure there is no need to specify other items of the globally endless list - just the above two should suffice. I agree that Islam is a minority in our government but I am unable to fathom what treating them as such means. How do we treat other minorities? I don't think immigrants have special votes that are worth more than anyone elses vote. So vote pandering to immigrants is really no different than other forms of vote pandering. I am sure that you are correct...if these unspecified special rights were ended Islamic terrorism would quickly stop. True, the left obviously no answer to Muslim terrorism, so I am begging you to help me out here. I beseech the cons to provide leadership. Thank you for your assistance. Answers to the above questions will really help identify to my MP what steps should be taken to help end this horrid terrorism.

Errrr...mind pointing me to a post where I said that? If you do, I'll point you to the post where you said you like to mate with turnips and goats. Thats the point Scottsa, you're long on condeming islam, but short on what should be done. Give us leftie immigrant-tolerating wooses some options please.

Yes, but, whatever shall we do? Crucifiction didn't work for christians...what works for Muslims?

Goodness! You're right! Whatever shall we do?

The only dumb thing here is your claim that the Allies killed fascism. They didn't. They defeated the Axis powers and nothing more. The reason fascism is currently slithering along the bottom of hard to find ponds is because the fascists themselves brutally murdered millions of gypsy's, jews, poles, russians and whoever else they found to be unproductive and/or undesireable. Thats what killed fascism - a botched suicide.

Fascism certainly was not confined to Germany, as you say, and indeed had roots throughout Europe and Britain and America. Guess what? It still does. Fascism is not dead - as you would have us believe - despite WWII. Fascism as a ideology of the Nazi Germany was destroyed, certainly, but it was the German fascist government and its capacity to wage war that was destroyed - not the ideology, as you falsly claim. I decided to eat some humble pie and do as ScottSA suggest so's I wouldn't make an ass of myself. ...But Lo! ScottSA really cannot define Islamism...as a matter of fact he never tried. Post #564 Apr 16 2007 page 38 Is Indonesia a lost cause because there is a beheading or three a week? Should the government go into exile and leave the country to the tender minstrations of Islam? Post #575 Apr 17 2007 page 39 Underlying problems have a habit of going away when they have their weapons taken away from them or when the cost of being an underlying problem is higher than the benefits of not being an underlying problem. This is something the left never seems to get. This and the perpetual misidentification of the problems... Post #579 Apr 17 2007 page 39 What's your solution? Run away? Bomb them till they glow? Post #862 Jun 26 2007 page 58 Once we take a few hundred casualties in TO from some of these folks whose diversity you're eager to celebrate, you'll find that a lot of people share jbg's "hatred" of a barbaric 6th century religion. Post #867 Jun 26 2007 page 58 What rubbed off is a better grasp of the reality of Islam than what is available to you. And yes, that reality happens to be negative. Post #890 Jun 26 2007 page 60 Oh, wait, we've already thrashed the Taliban, and you're STILL waiting for imminent defeat. Post #913 Jun 28 2007 page 61 it doesn't take an "expert" in those countries to know that Islam foments rebellion everywhere it plants its seeds. Why would it not? How could it not? Post #915 Jun 28 2007 page 61 All I did was grow up watching Muslims torch Hindus and Sikhs. Silly me. And of course I've never had a Muslim friend, what with the teeming millions of them around me all the years I grew up beside them. The idea that someone wouldn't be able to distinguish between the particular and the general, the individual and the mass, is something that never actually struck me as worthy of explanation. Do you really not see the difference between Islam and your "Muslim friends?" Do you imagine that all Nazis were growling beasts, or do you think it possible that a few of them might have been...well...nice guys? If that is possible, does it mean that Nazism is a nice philosophy? Are your "Muslim friends" representative of the ideology of Islam? I hardly think so. You claim these countries exist, but of the countries you cited, only two are Muslim and both of those are awash in oil, while the rest of the world stands by waiting for the revolutionary nightmare when they run out of it. So you just develop your friendships in enlightened bliss while I continue to call Islam a global scourge. Post #919 Jun 28 2007 page 62 Nonetheless, even in the countries you mentioned, Islam can be found at the bottom of most of the political shenanigans that go on. Post #921 Jun 28 2007 page 62 No, I think a focussing of your mind and a good beating of swords strawmen into plowshares brooms is in order. Holy war on Muslims? Are you still beating your mother? Post #923 Jun 29 2007 page 62 The solution? The same solution we used against Nazism and Communism. Stomp out Islamism wherever we can, and hold it off wherever we can't. Make Islamic revolution an extremely unpleasant undertaking. Put Islam under the microscope, and especially when it's in our own countries. Post #925 Jun 29 2007 page 62 stop trying to pretend that Islam is a "religion of peace," and put some real muscle behind the war effort, including expanding it if necessary to Syria and almost certainly Iran. And I don't mean "nation build" either...if they want a Marshal Plan in the aftermath on our terms, fine. If they want instead to stew in the rubble without one, that's fine too. Everyone seems to have forgotten what happened to the so-called "Arab Street" when the US originally showed resolve. It ran away fast. Islam understands strength and mocks weakness, and at the risk of invoking a much overused analogy, that's exactly how Hitler managed to manipulate the powers for so long. This has nothing to do with silly "Holy Wars" or anything else. It has to do with defeating an ideology, a scourge. Post #927 Jun 29 2007 page 62 Islam may be a religion, but it is an ideology as well. And it can be, if not entirely stamped out, at least neutered to the point that Jihad becomes seen as a losing proposition. Post #931 Jun 29 2007 page 63 Well, I believe you were arguing that ideologies can't be stomped out from outside, and fascism is proof positive that it can be. Post #937 Jun 29 2007 page 63 Which is why I suggested expanding the war, to which you replied that external force doesn't work. It does work. It just has to be comprehensive, and it has to come from a society that believes in itself. Post #939 Jun 29 2007 page 63 Limited war doesn't work against a global phenomenon. Total war does. There's no sense in re-enacting Vietnam and hoping for the fall of Berlin. The forces to do that are easily...easily...available. Rome at its height never had it so good. Peter F Today, 07:38 PM Post #950 Wich brings us up to date. With only the possible exception of post 921 (in orange above), all his other posts define the threat as Islam itself - the ideology of it. Wich is to say; The religion itself. So, again, ScottSA has claimed things to be true when they are not, and denied things that are backed up by his posts. I repeat: he can't explain what Islamism is - other than it being the religion itself - and therefore, of necessity, stomping out Islamism actually means religious war with the end goal of allowing folks to be Muslims only under state sanction.

It didn't bother me in the least that my kid played with toy guns. Nor does it bother me in the least that other parents think different. Nor would I see any loss by the boy not having toy guns to play with.

Certainly. So does Betsy. It's not hard to find people who hate others morals. So what is particularly marvelous about the mid-eastern woman hating someone elses morals?Let's see if I get this right. She fears the US eitherBecause she fears her inability to impose her "morals" on people who don't try to impose their morals on the pedophile, polygamist and violent males in her society; or Fears Western retaliation for violent Islamic attacks against Western interests. Do I have it right? What she reportedly said is: No I don't think you have it right. She doesn't say she fears her inability to impose her morals on others. She does say that she thinks 'them' immoral. She doesn't say she fears western retaliation for violent Islamic attacks against western interests, but she does say she worries that her children will be killed by 'them'. Actually, in truth, her very words could be said by me and countless others in the West. I fear theie morality and I worry that they could kill my children. Me and Fantin could be reading from the same page.

I agree. I don't see the utility of it either, nor the feasability, let alone the supposed need. Despite the visionary rhetoric , he can't explain what Islamism is - other than it being the religion itself - and therefore, of necessity, stomping out Islamism actually means religious war with the end goal of allowing folks to be Muslims only under state sanction. Its a fantasy. The same fantasy that allows him use the defeat of Nazi Germany by the Allies as an example of how 'Islamism' can be defeated. He ignores the fact that the Allies directed thier warmaking efforts to destruction of the German industrial and transportation capacities wich allowed Germany to make war effectively, all at great cost in wealth for the nations involved, not to mention 10's of millions slain. Perhaps there is some sort of 'Islamist' industrial base we could strike? or some sort of 'Islamist' command and control network to be disabled through strategic bombing? By what means and at what cost is ScottSA proposing we 'Stomp Islamism' via methods of armed might? Its alll pure fantasism.