ScottSA

On September 11 of this year, there was a demonstration against Islamification held in Brussels, the seat of the EU. It was small, absolutely peaceful, and multinational...one of the protesters even carried a Canadian flag that I sent. The film that follows was taken there, and shows the wholesale rounding up of demonstrators in scenes eerily reminiscent of another period in Europe's history. It's in Flemish, but it's not necessary to understand the language to see what's going on. "Belgium is a dictorship" looks pretty much the same in any european language. Just for a bit of background, 10 of the 17 City legislators in Brussels are Muslim. 57% of the new births in Brussels are Muslim. It doesn't take a demographer to see where this is going, and going fast. Edited correction: There are 47 City legislators in Brussels. The mayor belongs to a party in which 10 of 17 members are Muslim. However, since the ban was a mayoral decree, it is within the sole pervue of the mayor to make it, so obviously the 10/17 is a relevant statistic, and has a large bearing on the ban in question.

Not a bad take on it, except for his blithe assessment that Iraq is "unquestionably a quagmire." He should have simply stopped at "Afghanistan is a different war," because any definition of "quagmire" one attaches to Iraq must also be attached to Afghanistan. The term simply connotes that one is bogged down in some way and can't simply skip away, like Canada during the Somme, or on Green beach, or in Cyprus. Which is not to say that either the Iraq or Afghanistan mission is suffering because of being a "quagmire"...all war is a quagmire until the generals on the other side are all either dead or surrendered or negotiate a peace.

Kinda like that I guess. I didn't say they have magical powers and could wave a wand with a good flick of the left hand and put all to rights again in an instance. Unfortunately they're constrained by physical reality just like us. I said that if there is a disaster in canada, you can bet they'll be the first one on our doorsteps asking us what they can do to help. Is there a point to this outburst?

I can certainly see how getting jobs and becoming productive citizens could get in the way of "standing up for rights." Why, imagine the difficulty in trying to beat people up people if you're...well...working somewhere else. Good thing we feed the hand that bites us. If they want to create "repercussions," they should have the opportunity. If they want war, they should have war.

I wonder how all those bumbling fools managed to bestride the globe for the last 70 or so years, creating upwards of 50% of the wealth at one point and still serving as the benchmark for the international economy. Must be the resources, right? No, wait, by that measurement Africa should be the hegemon, and the less said about that the better. Hmmm...maybe the US "stole" all the resources...nope, that was the dreaded CoLoNiAlS (reverberating intonation). Obviously it wasn't because they were smrt er enything...I wonder why?

I agree with WD. This is pure twaddle. In fact, it's the product of far too many years of inculcated relativism...there's no real thought behind it; it's simply an automatic grasp for the middle road; the assumption that if two sides are in conflict, the sides are equally valid by virtue of being two different sides. The alternative to this thoughtless leftism is not to see things as a cosmic battle between good and evil, but to see the two sides for their relative worth. Simply siezing the middle road in a knee jerk reaction is about as fruitful as the courts approaching criminal cases on the a priori assumption that if the mugger mugs, the victim must have done something to deserve it, and therefore what is needed is behavioural changes on both sides. Pure twaddle.

America is our freind. It's in America's best interest to be our freind, and there's nothing wrong with that motivation; the US president's job, contrary to what passes for leftist "thought," is not to hold hands with all the "nations" within reach and sing kumbaya; it's to work for the betterment of the US. But that doesn't mean that the practical effect of that freindship is devalued. If we suffered an international disaster, America would be here fixing it a whole lot quicker than the Cubans or Palestinians, giving you a chance to snivel that they're trying to steal our logs or some such.

So what? Frenchmen, Chinamen and one legged veterans are also "not represented." As are Mullahs, Preists, homosexual activists and kumquats. Things need not be run by a polyglot freakshow in order to gain legitimacy. I'll try to join NOW, and let's see how far I get in trying to represent men.

It's drying up in the OK...my wife's daughter had a wait a whole month to sell, and had to drop $5000. Last year at this time the listing was just a formality to provide a starting point from which buyers would bid upwards.

Quite right. A little like the revisionist notion that the saxons simply immigrated to Britain in peace in the 5th and 6th centuries instead of doing what the folks living at the time said they did, which was practice rapine and pillage and, by some accounts, genocide. The revisionism was all based on one excavation, which found different cultures living side by side. They lived side by side alright, but that was because they lived during different time periods. Probably after one side burned the houses and enslaved the women of the other side. But it makes for nice comfort food in these immigrantish times, even if it's pure fabrication. This particular homosexual revisionist myth is easily dealt with here: http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9411/articles/darling.html Even the author of the nonsense that Morris cites adds a caveat: "I suspect that some of these relationships were sexual, while others may not have been," Tulchin said. "It is impossible to prove either way and probably also somewhat irrelevant to understanding their way of thinking. They loved each other, and the community accepted that.” Sure, but as he very well knows, had they been caught inserting bodily parts in each other's rectums, they would have only been accepted in little tiny pieces: Although the Middle Ages, extending from about the twelfth through the fifteenth centuries, is not a single cohesive epoch, the copious citation of trials and laws would merely accumulate evidence of homophobia rather than give us insight into its causes. Throughout this period antihomosexual attitudes and stereotypes changed only in so far as they became more rigid, and were used increasingly to bolster certain social institutions such as the papacy and state governments. The real reason for the persecution of the Templars — the most powerful crusading order of its time — derived from political and economic hostility, greed and envy. The Church and the State defeated a real threat to their authority, confiscated their great wealth, and achieved an object lesson which struck terror into the hearts of much less powerful potential enemies. The unquestioned authority of Church and State was reaffirmed. http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/homopho5.htm Oh, that was obviously from a pro-homosexual site, just in case anyone needs to actually question the obvious fact that homosexuality was seen as unnatural then too. Its temper tantrumish tone takes away from any authority it tries to convey, but I used it to avoid the accusation of cherry picking my sources. Any serious work will back up the facts as well. Morris is always on the lookout for revisionism, and I certainly applaud his tenacity in trying to put a PC slant on history.

The footbaths are going in because the Muslims asked for them. Had they not asked for them, they would not be going in. How much clearer do you need it than that? Imagine for a second that Christians had asked for some ridiculous religious custom to be catered to by the university...do you think for a moment it would have been granted, much less paid for? Universities across the west have spent the last few decades backing away from any visible sign of "religion," meaning Christianity, and all it takes is one "request" from a bomb-happy religion and it falls all over itself to accomodate? And exactly why do you pick a word like "lemming" to describe those who are against this? You're the Dhimmi. You're the lemming.

Yes, no doubt the US army is the army of Christ. Oy vey.

Read the thread. Your argument consists of "yer dumb and I'm smrt," coupled with ridiculous notions like the idea that the cold war was all a big over-reaction. How trite.

Agree 100%. The people who claim "science" is on their side usually have not the slightest clue what the "science" says, because the science is projected probabilities based on assumptions based on unverifiable data. In other words, given differnt unverifiable assumptions, the same models could as easily predict a new ice age or global inferno. Not to mention that the "vast majority" of the alleged "vast majority" of "scientists" range from piano teachers to political studies doctorates, with the odd climatologist sprinkled in. I daresay if one removed the "scientists" who have nothing to do with climatology, the "vast majority" would shrink by orders of magnitude. It's telling that even the climatologists who initially jumped on the GW bandwagon are now urging caution with the irresponsible nonsense being put about by Suzuki and Gore et. al.

Yes, I understand what happened. How does that change anything I said? If they hadn't raised the issue, there would be no issue.

For some reason cyber seems incapable of understanding this basic distinction...and on top of that he's not even able to make out what I'm saying.

I'm sorry you have no brain, but it certainly explains why you have no comprehension. I'm sorry you don't see the utter inanity of pointing out that Muslims not on the list don't kill because they are Muslims...but it certainly explains why the list isn't 2 billion names long and growing daily. Good observation, even if it makes no sense, has no point, and issues from a squishy eggplant atop a neck. Once again, this is like saying nothing of the sort. The list I supplied is not a list of every Muslim across the globe who killed someone and happened to Muslim, it is a list of people who are Muslim and killed someone in the name of Jihad. Neither the Oklahoma bombing nor the unibombings were done in the name of a God. The overwhelming majority of the names on the list I supplied DID kill in the name of a 6th century thug. I'm terribly sorry you don't seem able to grasp this obvious fact, but simply repeating dumb thing over and over doesn't change reality. I'm not wrong, but if you want to call me a bigot, feel free. I'd rather be a bigot than the village idiot.

And you forgot that they didn't pay for it, and that it would never have been an issue unless they raised it. But when you have an agenda, nothing will stop the bombs. Oops I mean rants.

You lefties keep harping on this "useful" line, but it's really just trying to jam the facts into some cockamamy theory you have about the WoT being some big plot. Bush long long ago said that the WoT will not end with OBL's death, and the administration has repeatedly re-enforced this. At no time has OBL been used as a "booga booga," as one of our less illustrious posters has said. Has he been demonized by the press? Sure. Used by various factions as a figurehead? Absolutely. But he is certainly not "useful," nor is he being "used" by the admin to make up the WoT. Islam and its tens or hundreds of killings a day are quite capable of scaring most sane people all by themselves.

Nice to see sane commentary here. Sometimes, however, a candidate can take a position to the left or right of center and MAKE it a centrist position (Trudeau, Reagan), or alternatively divert the vote by personality appeal (Trudeau, Kennedy). But I agree, in the tepid soundbyte politics of democracy-without-the-demos today, the candidates chase the center like wolfhounds. Except stupid candidates, like Kerry, who imagine the center to be stuck in Vietnam.

I never said anything remorely like that. What I said, repeatedly, is that just because he may be able to pick a few killings out of that very very long and detailed list and can assign slightly different motivation to, it doesn't mean the vast majority are not killing precisely because they are Muslims. This kind of misrepresentation is either dishonest, if you're knowingly engaging in it, or it's indicative of advance and irredeemable stupidity. Which is it in your case?

Don't be ridiculous. The word is 'pastaphobic.'

No it doesn't.

They tried that in the guild system in England. It kinda led to throwing the Jews out, burning folks at the stake for using witch craft to fail businesses in spite of the precautions, and a few other side effects, but hey, let's try it again! And don't forget we need a law to tie people to the land so they can't just get up and leave businesses in the lurch because of declining population. Let's call the new system "feudalism." It has a nice ring to it.

As I recall, there were no affidavits required for Muslims to wash their feet in the sink, either. But what if it came to the attention of city hall that Muslims found the existing pond to be somewhat hard to clamber into, and demanded a new pool with wheelchair access so that returned wounded mujahaddin could soak their sores in heavenly bliss? Because that's a much closer parallel to the actuality.