ScottSA

Uh, no. I don't even know what you're trying unsuccessfully to say, but listen carefully while I spell it out for you: McVeigh is a single individual who blew up an office building because he had a beef with the government. He did it in his own name. Muslims blew up the twin towers in the name of Allah. Muslims, at least good Muslims, continue to blow things up in the name of Islam every single day all over the world. If McVeigh had blown up a building in the name of Christianity, and if thousands of Christians blew up buildings and killed people every single day around the world in the name of Christianity, you better believe I'd have a problem with Christianity. My point in the original post is this: whereas liberals are all too ready to absolve Muslims and blame the actions of the US government for 911, no-one has tried to absolve Timmy by blaming the US government for his actions. I'm addressing the hypocrisy of liberals. I'm sorry you find that so hard to understand.

Where I am Mikey, is noting that other religions don't, in fact, diefy rape, pedophilia, genocide and a host of other niceties, and then exhort their followers to do the same. You can dig up a few tidbits in the old testament I suppose, even if you're not aware that the new testament is supposed to sit in its place, but I challenge you to point to a widespread Christian, multinational, multiethnic call for the heads of non-believers, along with an organized political movement aimed at taking over democratic countries in the name of a psychotic genocidal maniac. Sorry Mikey, the Koran is not the "Good News Bible". There is no equivalence. Take your silly milquetoastisms elsewhere.

Not at all. I blame Islam because it was done in the name of Islam, and continues to be done, every day, in the name of Islam, often by Muslims who may never have heard of bin Laden. McVeigh, on the other hand, did it because he disagreed with the Federal government, yet people still want to blame Christianity. I'm afraid your logical comprehension is off today.

I ignore your posts because all you do is namecall. Why should I bother responding to that? I haven't heard you make a cogent point yet. If you'd like to ramp up your intellect a bit and challenge me on a philosophical level, you'll find I'm quite able to respond. If on the other hand you continue to sit on the sidelines throwing childish and overpunctuated snideities at me, you'll find I'm still "afraid" to respond.

I think you must misunderstand the point of the protest. Have you taken the time to actually find out what it was about? Let me help. But first let me clarify my position on this, since it seems to have eluded you: I have nothing against individual Muslims except for their association with Islam. Islam is in my view evil at its root. I don't know if you've taken the time to read the Koran, and do so with the concept of abrogation in mind, at the source, not through apologia and rhetoric coming from the soothing salesmen of Islam. If you have, you'll note that Islam is, at its very core, fundamentally different from, and more barbaric than, Christianity. I can't speak to its similarities or differences to Judeaism, but I put a fair bit of stock in the observation that for two millenia Jews have resisted the temptation to intentionally blow up innocents, so I treat any similarities there as moot. Moderate Muslims exist, to be sure. How many of them are moderate, and what exactly moderate means is not quite clear to anyone. Is a moderate Muslim a Muslim who doesn't blow up the infidel first hand? Is that enough to categorize a Muslim as moderate? Is a moderate Muslim one who quietly cheers on each suicide bombing? Is a moderate Muslim a Muslim who is more or less secular? Is a moderate Muslim one who rejects all attempts to instal Sharia as a political entity? If the latter, are we even still talking about Muslims at all? I suggest not. So yes, I lump all Muslims together as believers in a death cult. Does that mean I "hate" all the individuals who are Muslim? Of course not, and to suggest it shows a lack of comprehension. Does that mean I hate Islam? You bet. Now, to the demonstrations: They are against the "Islamification of Europe." That is, as above, quite distinct from being against "Muslims," although they probably want a halt to Muslim immigration post haste as well. There is no line being "blurred" here at all. They want to keep their countries Judeo-Christian and exclude the incremental movements toward accomodating a tyrannical deathcult. Let me ask you this, and I'll hope for an honest answer instead of Sophistry: If German Jews got together in 1933 and peacefully demonstrated against Nazis, claiming they didn't want Germany to fall prey to totalitarianism, would you mount the same defence for the Nazi SA when they broke up the demonstration, claiming that lumping fanatical Nazis and moderate Nazis together wasn't "fair?" Because really, you know, not all Nazis shared the radical anti-Semitism of the hard core. I bet even most of them were "moderates."

What's this? Little Miss Safetypants come to save the thread from a differing opinion? How childish.

And certain other members have kneejerk reactions to largely imagined "subtle" racist overtones. If "racism" is defined as imagining that one race is superior to others, then there is no one here, to my knowledge at least, who could properly be described as racist. Even if there were, so what? But there isn't. However, since race is a factor of immense proportions in the debate on immigration, given that a significant majority of the immigrants are "visible minorities," why pretend it's not a factor? Why intentionally pretend that visible minorities (read: non-whites) don't enclave in race-based ghettos? How honest is it to pretend? How honest are those happy happy ads showing a representative of each hue and shade smiling happily as they hold hands and dance about celebrating whatever product is being flogged? How representative of reality is it? Sure, we all have friends who are different races, and that's just peachy, but a quick look around any university or neighbourhood will clearly indicate that as a general overriding rule, people like to mate with, live with, and socialize with people of the same race. This has huge implications for the future of Canada, and it is a crime against our children, almost a sin, not to discuss it openly and honestly, without hiding behind euphemisms and platitudes.

I have to laugh at the constant stream of strawmen, invective, and "anti-racist" hyperbole hereabouts. Just for the record, I'm pretty much exactly where jbg is on immigration in terms of this statement: "The absorbtion rates have to be slow enough to assimilate newcomers, turn them into "Westerners" in effect." My preferred rate of "visible minority" immigration (I love that euphemism) is quite a bit slower than most, to be sure, because the platitudes of the left notwithstanding, their very visibility leads to ghettoization and non-assimilation. Couple that with the victim philosophy of the bureaucratic left in canada, and it makes rather a joke out of "Canadian pluralism" (another euphemism for factional whinefests).

Yeah, I was a bit stunned at that one too. Sort of like Napoleon claiming he successfully invaded Russia.

As the major recipient of the hoots and hollers of "racist" and "bigot," I for one don't mind being called silly names for raising subjects that are at odds with the Church of Political Correctness. What I have found, after rather more experience with swarthy folk than the average poster hereabouts, is that swarthy folksare not the ones who object to disussions of immigration or race so much as their lilly white liberal self-appointed guardians. For the most part, and excluding from this characterization certain communist and nationalist post-colonial revisionist historians, the people who imagine that colonialism was unmitigated horror, and in particular British colonialism, are those same lilly white liberals who feel they need to protect little brown folk from the minstrations of opposing viewpoints. That to me is far more egregious racism; to posit a people or a race as morally innocent by virtue of largely fabricated historical wrongs. What does it say about Muslims when I attack them? It means that in my opinion they are thinking, responsible human beings who believe in a deathcult, and are wrong to do so. But what does it say about them when they are blindly defended by lilly white liberals, who twist reality with transparent nonsense like the claim that Islamic terrorism has "nothing to do with Islam?" What does it say about them when they are painted as victims who must be protected from brutes like me who criticize them? I have always felt that it's the ultimate in racism; that they are being "protected" because they can't really be expected to live up to the same standards as we first world folk. Witness the hellfire and brimstone called down on Christianity as a matter of course, juxtaposed against the cries of "racism" from the very same people when Islam is criticized. Witness the apologists of terrorism, who prefer to blame some fabricated excuse for killings and maimings all over the globe in the name of Islam, even though the perps are loudly and proudly confessing, often on camera, that Islam is the sole reason for their act. No one blamed America for Timothy McVeigh. People quite rightly blamed Timothy McVeigh for Timothy McVeigh, and some even tried to blame Christianity. But let some Islamic thug kill a few thousand people, and the same people who are ready to convict Christianity on the most tenuous of evidence fall all over themselves to blame...well...anything except Islam. That's what people do to protect puppydogs from larger dogs when the puppy innocently trots along and steals the larger dog's bone. That's not what people do to equals. I strongly suspect that the reason for this behaviour on the part of lilly white liberals, somewhere in the back recesses of the liberal mind, is an unrecognized belief in their own ethnic superiority. That would perhaps also explain why they are so vocal about the topic coming up...it probably creates severe dissonance for them. Sort of like a well-bred nosepicker's secret shame when the topic of nose-picking comes up. Swarthy folk are responsible human beings able to defend themselves, make their own choices, and live their lives without babysitters. So, for that matter, am I. If someone wants to call me racist, I couldn't care less...the trouble is that the usual suspects have developed a habit of shouting 'racism' and immediately reporting my scoffing reply, secure in the rather bigotted opinion that they are morally right for defending the puppydog.

Forgive me if I don't believe you. Your statements hereabouts make it very plain that you treat Israel as a case apart from the rest of the world. I must say, though, that I notice your post above is very emotive, but a bit short on substance.

You're displaying your bigotry here.

You really have to stop your knee jerk arguing and read up on what's going on there. You really must. Why do you think there's a sharp turn to what you call "right", presumably meaning ethno-nationalist parties? Why do you think that is? And why do you turn around and babble exactly the opposite in the very same post, when it suits a different point? Your purpose seems to be to argue inanely without purpose against everything anyone says.

It doesn't take long for the mentally...errr..."different" to go right off their rockers...

Right. So you're a bigot too, then, just like me. At least according to your own definition and subsequent admission. Is that correct?

Wow, lots of sexual innuendo in that one...

Neither "nasty nancy nutter nazi boys" nor "maniacal morris the nine to five nutter" are examples of alliteration. They are cadence chants from the rower's deck of a Roman galley, generally shouted out ever faster in time to a drum as the iron ramming horn approaches an enemy's hull. As for academic alliteration...never seen it before.

Alas...I feel a spell o' gasoline comin' oon.

I wasn't aware that a non-literary alliteration existed. Isn't this redundant redundant?

Achhh...hide yer whist. Thas not ail they did y'know. Then they rubbed me ain a boot and sent me to ye bloody prrairies.

Wow, how many joints did it take to produce that tongue twisting bit o' wisdom?

I always wondered how these crafty Europeans knew all about how to infect the Indians decades before they figured out how disease transmission worked. But hey, that's probably just me. This "genocide" nonsense is just another attempt to smear whitey for trying to help. Sort of like the residential schools, which in real life were an attempt to drag Indians out of the stone age and integrate them with the current century. Of course they turned out to be wrong, because Indian "leaders" would rather see their people sink into the squalor of reservations and handouts than stand on their own two feet.

Yes. It involves kilts, oatmeal, sheep's intestines, and loud discordant moose calls out of the back end of a sheep's bladder. Somehow I managed not to bludgeon my parents to death or sniff gasoline as a result of being "deprived" of it.

I too have never heard anything like that. It doesn't even make sense from a strategic POV. Perhaps it's a story told by the elders and handed down through "oral tradition?" As for the blanket contraversy, it's just more nonsense with nothing of any value to back it up.

As opposed to the Canadian one: "everyone is equal except for some, who are slightly more equal than others, and others, who are especially equal because they are like women or those who boink each other in the like bum and stuff..."