Peter F

Ok. I see what you mean now. You are referring to the original post

We agree. The threat isn't religion, the threat is those who use violence to achieve political/religious/economic goals; who have no use for the pen and the ballot but resort to bombs and bullshit. Those guys I'm willing to see put away (not deported) but actually put away. Deporting such folk doesn't do anyone any good. Wether Christianity or Islam is better has been an ongoing debate for the past 1200 years and best left for another thread

Please...you embarass me.

True, but those who made up the Northern Alliance didn't just vanish into the hills, nor were they shipped out. So what happened? Nothing happened to them - they're still there and just as committed to thier motivating cause as ever. The USAF hasn't gone anywhere - except move from airbases in Diego Garcia and former Russian Republics to bases within Afghanistan itself. So why is the Islamic Republic so weak and incapable of keeping the Taliban out if they are stronger now than they were when they threw the Taliban out?

But they did "allow" the Taliban to stay in power. They weren't helpless or too fearful of death to remove them. The Northern Alliance was in the field actively campaigning to overthrow the Taliban government. These are not people who are helpless under the fear of death. Opposing the Northern Alliance was the forces of the Taliban; in the field and actively campaigning to destroy the Northern Alliance. These are not the actions of people who are helpless under the fear of death to do anything to remove the Taliban. In fact these actions are indicative that they are willing to risk life and limb in order to preserve what they have under the Taliban and reject the alternative of the Northern Alliance. Then the USAF/USN and JTF intervened and the support of the Taliban collapsed under the rain of bombs and paychecks. Did the Taliban suddenly turn into a bunch of bleeding-hearts no longer keeping people helpless under fear of death? No. In fact the Taliban probably became even more draconian and fearful...yet their support collapsed and the Northern Alliance rolled through Afghanistan like the proverbial sh*t through a goose. Now the situation is even more stabalized. Money flows in from the West like manna from heaven. The Taliban is reduced to bombs in market places and cockamamey attacks on the periphery. ...Yet we are to believe that while the former half-trained and half-paid poorly armed sloggers of the Northern Alliance - now 60,000odd strong, re-equipped with AFV's, Artillery, supporting arms and actually trained and organized - are now incapable of taking on an enfeebled Taliban? That 40,000+ foriegn troops are necessary to protect the security of the Islamic Republic for the next 10-20 years? I'm sorry...but that says to me that there are some serious Popular Support issues at play here.

Okay I admit defeat...you don't mean muslims in general you only mean Militant muslims. Fine. Now lets review your posts in light of the above clarification. Warbikes post #1 of this thread (italics mine): Ahjeez now we already find contradictions... How can 1% of Muslim population be militant and "not considered a threat" and how can Militant muslims be considered an integral but unique segment of society" ? What makes such muslims militant at all? Thier unthreatening behaviour; thier integration but unique status; Thats militant? Same thing for 2-3% level. Militant muslims recriut amongst disenfranchised youth, streetgangs and prisoners. What is it that makes these muslims militant? There are Christian missions out doing the exact same thing and no one considers that 'militant' or dangerous. 5% level: they (militant muslims) make exceedingly unreasonable demands ;they will insist on the availability of halal food ; they will demand modesty hours at public pools; they will demand the right for women to cover the faces on photo ID; and, most important, they will use the threat of litigation should and institution or employer fail to comply. They will also pressure the government in power to allow them to govern themselves under Sharia law. ...Whats so militant about that? Thats the normal process of lobbying and politics in a democratic open society. and we go on to "Once militant Muslims reach 10% of a nation’s population the trouble begins" hmmm... Guyana -- Muslim 10% India -- Muslim 13.4% Israel -- Muslim 16% Kenya -- Muslim 10% Russia -- Muslim 10-15% Those percentages actually mean 'militant' muslims and not just plain ordinary nonkilling muslims ... 'cept the CIA Factbook from wich the numbers are taken don't specify that those percentages mean Militant Muslims as seperate from muslims. Otherwise Militant Muslims make up 16% of the population of Israel....and non-militant muslims make up some other non-specified proportion of the population of Israel. To carry on enters the realm of ludicrous. So I contend that the article doesn't make any logical sense if 'Muslim' means Militant Muslims, but actually has a bigotted logic if 'muslims' means exactlty what the author says: muslims. Wich would explain why the author doesn't say militant muslims. You see, he knows how to structure an argument (such as it is). Warbikes post #3 of this thread: .Warbike only means 'Militant' muslims. Yet al-Zawahri doesn't mean militant muslims but all muslims. Sorry...I don't buy it. If thats what you meant, that's what you would have said. You meant what al-Zawahri referred to - all muslims, thus no qualification in your reply. Warbikes post #10: Very clear and straitforward. You mean what you wrote. Understood. Warbike still means militant muslims. but we run into more contradictions: Warbike was responding to Oreodontists' post #9 Did Oreodontist mean his Militant Muslim friends? Perhaps...but I doubt it. I doubt very much Oreodontist has 'militant' muslim friends (that is the blood lusting type of muslim). Who would? When warbike responds about the historic dangers of Oreodontists 'muslim' friends he doesn't appear to mean Militant Muslims at all. Just Oreodontists friends. Why would Warbike assume Oreodontist's friends are militants? I suspect the answer to that is because Oreo's pals are Muslims. The horse is dead. Further beatings will get nowhere. Muslims are just as much the victims of terrorism and state reaction to terrorism as any Israeli, American, Spaniard, Christian, Hindu, or anyone else. Everyone invokes thier diety to justify thier actions - thus 'crusade' and 'Evil' and 'Good'. To claim Islam a threat to civilization and our very lives is just a bigotted generalization that lumps the Terrorists and Radicals and Militants and war-sickened Afghani's and bleeding-hearts and innocents all into the same group. That is morally contemptable. We have a problem with Militants and Radicals then lets take action against Militants and Radicals in particular...not everybody under the sun.

Change it to whatever you like. If this thread is about 'militant' islam whats all this bull about "when the percentage of muslims reach 5% of the population...and 10% of the population -20%-40%100%" I don't think the author of the article was speaking only of militant muslims .

At what point did I say you did? Could you show me where I said any such thing please? Well lets see... Warbike says "Send them all home" I say "They're already home" You say I support radical muslims I say whats a radical muslim You tell me I say Oh yeah, I hate those guys but that doesnt mean we should deport all muslims You sayIm shoving words in your mouth. Perhaps you should take a pill and realize what the discussion is about here. Here...I'll type in bold letters so's you can have someone read it to you Warbikes claims that muslims are out to destroy us all is a bullshit generalization. The fact that I must support Radical Muslims because I disagree with warbikes demonization of muslims is also bullshit. Stop bullshitting!!! and given Warbikes mixing of militant muslims with just plain ol muslims...that muslims have been a pain in the worlds backside since the 7 century...that when the muslim population reaches a certain percent then thier blood lust kicks in and they start killing each other after killing everyone else etc etc... Do pray tell what sort of feeble mental exercise you had to go through to determine he only meant 'militant' muslims? Can you actually read? Do you always insert words into peoples posts? Are you that Blind??? Hey...I even let you define the terms and you still have no idea what ur arguing about. Now run along...

Hmmm...based on what warbike has said: Muslim population of Canada is 1.9% When a nation’s Muslim population is approximately 1%, they are not considered a threat and are considered an integral, but unique segment of society. Once they real 2% to 3% of a nation’s population they attempt to expand their influence by recruiting or converting other disenfranchised youth. In order to accomplish this they target street gangs and inmates serving time in prison. Once Muslims reach 10% of a nation’s population the trouble begins. One can expect unruly or mob behavior whenever they feel they have been victimized. (Riots and car burning in France). They will also physically attack and kill or threaten any non-Muslim that insults Islam So until the 10% is reached we won't have mulsim militancy. So far Canada is safe...Muslims havn't quite reached to point of expanding influence by recruiting street gangs and convicts (not sure how that expands influence for their coming political and economic demands at the 5% level, but then who am I to argue with university profs) Yet, because Al-Queda's No.2 says something, we should "Send them all home" Yet, because Canada's 1.9% Muslims makes them benign and unique then muslims of the non-militant nature "... are no different from us; they get go to work, and keep to themselves or their families" So when should we send them all home? Now? when they're no different from us? or later when they are 10%? or when they don't "keep to themselves or thier families"? I thought it was bad for them to keep to themselves or thier families. Don't they then have influence far out of proportion to thier numbers when they do that? What you are saying is all over the F'ing place. You sound like a conspiracy theorist.

and I read the other day that the moon landings were faked. Hey, if I read it it must be true. Regarding "Waterboarding Works" I see no reference in the linked article to waterboarding at all. Perhaps you think all interrogations include waterboarding? If so what would lead you to that conclusion. Here's a link saying that what you are saying is wrong; Waterboarding doesn't work Interesting contradiction...Waterboarding works because a posted link says nothing about waterboarding and...waterboarding doesn't work because a posted link says waterboarding doesn't work. However will our brains wrap themselves around the dichotomy??? As for the articles contention that the 'good news' about the war on terror being won is not reported in the press: I call bullshit. I hear every day that the WoT is being won.

You forgot an essential sentence at the 99% level Muslims, you see, lust after blood. Christian states do not. Thus Muslims are dangerous since by being muslim they have the blood-lust. Whereas Non muslims don't have that. Thus the incessant state of warfare in Muslim Europe since the rise of the Roman Empire....no, wait a sec..that can't be right. It was white/olive skinned followers of judeo-christian sects that have been killing each other in droves over the last 1000 years. ...but we don't have blood lust. We're civilized. We call that Political-Economic Realities.

I'm unsure if its Militant Muslims or unqualified Muslims that deserve our fear and loathing? Sometimes you separate the two and sometimes you lump them all together. Is it particular muslims or is it all muslims? Please help. --Terrified in Tunder Bay

Nope. Yes, thank-you. Okay, so now I know what 'inroads' is. Radical Inroads? Of course not. Whatever would give you that idea? Perhaps you jumped to a conclusion because I don't subscribe to a policy of mass deportations based soley on the pronouncements of somebody else in some other land. I guess to you if Chavez of Venuzuela says something about the USofA being the enemy of South America then all those of South American heritage should be deported back to where-ever they came from. I don't think so...Deporting muslims because some other muslim said something nasty is Radical. Moderate is not blaming people for the words of another. Radical as you define it? I do not desire that in any way whatsoever. as it is not the case the questions are moot Yes, you most certainly did miss my point. There is nowhere to deport Muslims if said muslims are Canadians. Now why you would think that means I think there are no terrorists in this world or irresponsible or illegal uses of force, violence and/or hate to further peoples agenda's is beyond me. Perhaps you should check your strawmen at home. They serve no purpose here.

Believe whatever you please. Warbike posted: Great, perhaps it is time we send them home. My reply (They are home) means that warbikes post was senseless. Tell you what, you tell me what "Radical Islam" is and what "inroads into western nations" means and I'll tell you if I'm fine with it or not and why.

They are home.

And a court room would have been different? One needs experience in a restraunt to be a Judge? Or a Jury member? A HRC commissioner "may" nurse a political agenda but Judges and juries certainly don't? Rule of law and precedence didn't apply? Gimme a break. As for MacDonalds being "forced to present thier case": They weren't and presented no case at all. That's with Lawyers! If they were 100% right it may have been a good idea to actually show why that is...but no they sat on thier hands and hoped Great West Life and somebody in HR would take care of it. The complete lack of any effort at all on McDs part showed callous indifference to the complainants plight - and their legal duty to accomodate, no less - and the complainant rightfully won compensation for it. Looks good on her and good on McDonalds too.

Yes...that may have something to do with Human Rights.

The law shouldn't apply to Sikhs?

Thats the Levant bullshit line. The case found no evidence whatsoever that the employer made any attempt to slot the complainant into a position that would suit her condition. McDonalds made no attempt whatsoever to investigate what they could to to accomodate the complainant. Nothing! Nada! Zilch!. They sacked her because she could not return to her old job. She had been a swing-manager for 10 years (without compensation for it, I might add) and had worked there for 23 years and every single performance appraisal she had said she was a model employee. Did Management consider giving her some managerial training? Nope. Rejected without reason and sacked. Did Management consider looking into her wearing gloves - wich would reduce the frequency of hand washing? Nope. Not any effort at all. Did Management consider putting her on the Cash window where frequency of hand washing would be reduced? Nope. None. and because Management made no effort at all to even attempt to accomodate the complainant - let alone getting anywhere near unreasonable hardship - the HRC determined McDonalds failed in its legal duty to accomodate. Nowhere - Nowhere does the HRC say employee's have no requirement to wash thier hands. But Mr Levant - after reading the decision itself says A fabrication to say the least. Mr Levant says: That is an outright lie. Mr Levant says: The BCHRC never once - not once suggested that the complainant or employees at restaurants need not wash their hands. For Levant to suggest such is a blatant lie. But he suggests it - so do you for that matter. Here's another lie: The HRC never said that - or even anying remotely like it. He Lies! Read the decision and the reasons for the award. You will see that Levant is not telling the truth. and here's probably the biggest whopper of them all: What a load horseshit.

I think I'd rather be in cafeteria with only one loon shooting...makes choosing a tackle or an exit soooo much easier.

Economic Left/Right: -7.38 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.82 Slightly to the Left of Ghandi. Not much change from the last time if I remember correctly...

No, Qwerty, what Levant says is a Lie. Read the report. The report doesn't conclude anything Levant says it doe's. He's lying. Its obvious. Edit to add: from Levants website (see OP for link) referring to scribbletts quote: italics mine Levant is Lying through his teeth!. Why people pay attention to what this bullshit artist say's I'll never know...

Whats to be said? It is not surprising to me that Mr.Levant could read the BCHRC decision (he must have because he provided the link to the decision) and then spout off that it means Restraunt employees have a human right to not wash thier hands. Mr Levant is an obvious Liar. And Scribblet should be ashamed for trotting out such bullshit as an accurate representation of what happened.

Yes. But the citizens of Saskatchewan aren't annoyed.

Doe's anyone else here see the inherent contradiction in that statement? or is it just me...