JB Globe

The reason you see a lot of stuff on here and other internet sites is that these are the only places where hardliner xenophobes can express their opinions anymore. There's so few of them left that very few media outlets represent their views at all anymore. No political party represents their views, and it's not even safe to express these views in social gatherings because they can no longer assume that because someone's white that they'll agree with them that immigrants are garbage. So the anonymous internet is the only place where folks can congregate, hence why it appears as though there are more than there actually are - because they've been excluded from everywhere else.

During the last election (not this year's) I saw some stats saying that the Cons were the worst in both categories. Maybe things have changed drastically since then, I don't know - can I see the study?

I'm not arguing that point at all. My point is that Hamas' strategy has not and never will advance the cause of an independent Palestinian state. Suicide bombings and rocket attacks are just the totally wrong kind of tactic to use because they give Israelis justification for maintaining the status quo all these years and peppering in the occasional bombing and invasion as they're doing right now. Hamas, if it really wants an independent Palestine, needs to put down the guns, organize massive civil disobedience. It needs to force Israelis, who never forget to remind everyone how ethically superior they are to Palestinians, into a position where they have to choose between giving Palestinians what they want, or committing an atrocity. ie - next time a bulldozer shows up to tear up an olive grove, or construct illegal settlements, line the ground with hundreds of women and children so that bulldozer will have to kill innocent people in order to advance Israeli colonization of the West Bank. Oh, and don't forget to tell the BBC to bring their cameras.

Moving Gazans isn't remotely possible - no one wants to take them. All the Arab states who talk a big game about their Palestinian brothers in reality don't do much for them, and wouldn't dream of taking in that many refugees. Plus, they kinda already moved once in the last century, I don't think they're going to want to move again. And remember, the whole idea of a two-state solution IS to separate Israel and Palestine permanently. And yes, I think that offers the best prospects of peace.

Unfortunately for those people and their families on both sides who will pay the ultimate price of this tit-for-tat, these attacks have absolutely NOTHING to do with long-term security. They have EVERYTHING to do with politics. On Israel's side - when in this conflict has military force ever successfully damaged a militant group's long-term ability to stage attacks? The answer is never - the strategy that failed in Lebanon in 2006 will fail here as well, no surprises. The only victory will be for Israeli politicians, who were feeling the heat from the public about the rocket attacks but lacked the political courage to ACTUAL DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM, and instead wanted to look like they were doing SOMETHING and still in-touch with the Israel public, who wanted blood. So that's where we get the ineffectual bombing campaign, and possibly an equally redundant ground-invasion. On Hamas' side - If terrorism = a free Palestinian state, such a state would be in existence already. It's clear to Hamas' leadership by now that terrorism will not get them what they claim they want so badly. But their militancy is one of the things that separates them from Fatah and gives them a certain amount of public support (mainly in Gaza). To give up militancy means moving closer to Fatah, and partnering with them in peace negotiations, which means giving up power, which is why they're not going that route. Instead, they'll satisfy the desire from their supporters for Israeli blood with rocket attacks, which do nothing to advance the cause of a Palestinian state, but do make it appear to some that Hamas is doing something to "fight the zionist entity" Spending the lives of people in order to increase your political capital is an old move, but that doesn't make it any less disgusting. Of course it should be said - that Hamas deliberately targets civilians both because it's ethically bankrupt and because it doesn't have the capacity to do anything else. Also, Israel deserves scorn as well because of how out-of-whack it's response in terms of it's severity vs the severity of the rocket attacks. The rocket attacks will accomplish nothing but keeping Israelis angry at Palestinians and willing to support things like the bombings, which will do nothing but hurt the short-term ability of Hamas to stage said attacks and do nothing about it's long-term strength. Also, they make Gazans even MORE angry and extreme than they already are, thus increasing the likelyhood of future attacks. The cycle continues, while apologists for both sides try to justify it. Nothing new here - move along people.

Although I'm late on this - I cosign Rue's last post, excellent job.

Finally, some intelligence in this post. What would we do without you wulf42?

Or even a concerted group effort at finger-waving? What will that do? I'm asking because I don't believe I've ever seen any case of this working, regardless of who's doing it or who the subject of the chastizing is. I disagree that Islam hasn't changed since the 6th century, in fact I think it's impossible for it to have not changed simply because no religion is immune from what's going on in the world. Actually, some reformers and scholars have been suggesting that this current period is the equivalent to the Christian reformation.

As per usual, you've shifted your focus onto whatever I said, dancing around the fact that yes, in fact, you made a stupid post. I'll remind you of this comment the next time I make a post that has cited sources, and an actual thesis.

Jerry, To quote an earlier poster who summarized my question - what good does finger-wagging from citizens such as yourself towards Islam in general do in terms of affecting positive change in the Muslim world?

He's not racist. He just hates people who aren't Anglo-Canadian or don't bow down to Anglo superiority. How small is your world when you can't even get along with other white people because their grandmother makes Souvlaki? And for the record - if the OP is going to troll, he shouldn't whine about the quality of responses to said trolling. Dumb posts receive dumb responses. Emotional rants based on gut-reaction in-lieu of actual information don't exactly facilitate high-minded discussion . . . I hope that last point isn't a surprise to anyone.

Because any nation, society, etc, no matter how divided they might be internally - when faced with an external threat, people will rally together. When that happens, people who do not join together are considered to be extensions of that external threat. Thus reformers who don't temper their efforts get turned into people who've been influenced by that external threat, and no one listens to them, because they're just speaking the words of the enemy. To flip this on you: how exactly is demonizing Islam helping reformers in the Muslim world? How is it improving the situation? Do you really think that someone in Pakistan is going to read a post like this and think: "wow, this guy who doesn't understand my religion or culture is right, my religion really is evil and violent, I'm going to become an atheist" People either tune out the "Islam is evil" argument completely, OR it gets used by extremists how are more than happy to turn it into the perfect kind of propaganda: "See, this is evidence that no matter what, Americans and Europeans will hate you simply for being Muslim, there is no possibility of peace so long as you are Muslim because they think that Muslims are inherently violent and evil, they will not stop until they've killed or converted us all You know this because when was the last time you saw a publication from another country that said "America is an evil and inherently violent religion" and said "yeah, that guy is right, I'm going to listen to him instead of my own authorities and public figures" - you would just tune it out or it would fuel your resentment of wherever that message is coming from: "don't tell me what my reality is, you don't even know what you're talking about" Really, can you point to any real positive impact that the whole "Islam is evil/violent" campaign has had in the Muslim world?

To answer that you'd need to first answer why Pakistan in general is a corrupt country. And although I'm not qualified enough to give a full analysis on that - I know that you'd want to focus on land ownership by a few wealthy extended families and the positions those families hold in government. The Pakistani military and ISI were created out of this corruption, so it's no surprise that they're affected as well. The difference of course being as at least politicians are SOMEWHAT accountable to the electorate. The Pakistani military and it's ISI are both thoroughly secular institutions, IN FACT they pride themselves on being secular institutions because they see themselves as a flag-bearer of modernity in Pakistan and use this to contrast themselves with religiously motivated elements like Madrassa's and Taliban fighters. And as we know, secular institutions are just as capable of acts of terrorism as religion-influenced organizations. Of course, being opportunists the ISI will not hesitate to link up with other groups if they share the same specific goal. In the case of most attacks in India, they link up with Kashmiri separatists who are comprised both of Islamic groups, and Nationalist groups - some use terror, some practice guerilla warfare on military targets. It's clear that in the case of Kashmir religion is by far not the only factor in the dispute. The separatists seek to pressure India through military action or violence into seeding part of Kashmir to Pakistan or setting up an independent state. Pakistan and India being at odds for most of their history, the ISI sees the aims of the Kashmiris coincide with their aim of hurting India in whatever way it can - in this case economically and politically (this attack came days before key state elections). I also believe as I stated before that the aim here specifically with the Mumbai attacks is to provoke a reaction from India that will destabilize the (relatively) pro-India government in Pakistan and allow them to stage a coup and install another general into power. Pursuing peace with India is almost sacrilegious within the military and intelligence establishments in Pakistan and they feel they're justified in opposing the elected government for "reasons of national security." I believe that in the case of the Mumbai attacks religion plays a minor role, while the over-arching issue is geo-political.

True, which is why when Italians first started to come to Canada, spousal abuse was a much bigger problem in the community than it was in the rest of the population. Over time, things improved a great deal, and I have no doubt that domestic violence will improve over time in many communities just like other social problems improve as those communities become more integrated into society. Integration is a means of combating these problems, hence those who want to isolate these communities are only compounding the problem they claim they're concerned about. But of course they aren't really concerned about domestic violence (otherwise they'd be just as angry about the non-Muslim, white father who murdered his family and killed himself in Edmonton a few weeks ago, instead of being completely silent). This is just another issue that they can manipulate into their agenda of oppressing or ridding Canada of non-Christian, and even non-Anglo people. If they can prove that "these people aren't like us" and that they're not fully human, than discriminatory policies become justified.

Damn did this thread get sidetracked or what? In light of recent developments I'm absolutely certain that the Pakistani ISI is involved in this plot to some degree - to what degree I can't tell yet. The fact that these guys are STILL today running around town with ammo and explosives demonstrates how well-planned this attack was. More gunshots at the (former) Victoria Terminus Station, which was hit in the first wave of attacks. What concerns me most is that there have been two bombings outside the tourist district, one near the airport - very far away, I'm hoping that this isn't spreading to the whole city. What's breaking my heart is that I've heard from some people that this attack is going to change the character of the city - I hope that's not the case because I love that place and the energy is what makes it what it is. Mumbai wouldn't be the same without that sense of unbridled optimism and celebration. The only reason I can think of that the ISI either pulled this off, or gave assistance to groups to pull this off (ie - Kashmiri Separatists) in order to try to provoke a war with India. It's no secret they hate the current PM and government in Pakistan - his wife Bhutto was going to try and reign them in somehow and they either assassinated her, contracted someone to do it, or looked the other way when they got reports of an attempt (either way, they were involved). I think they're hoping that a conflict with India, combined with the fighting with the Taliban in the west of Pakistan will weaken the already weak government enough so that either they or the military can stage a coup and install a dictator who's friendly to them. The ISI is corrupt as hell, some segments of it are totally rogue and others are glorified drug cartels dealing in Afghani opium - while these intentions make no sense for the well-being of Pakistan in general, they do make sense if you're an ISI agent who's motivated by nothing other than your own self-interest and that of your organization.

Such as? . . . No really - can you find me one post where he presents an actual case for something and proceeds to build on it and defend it? I mean since you can't resist getting involved in this. Such as? . . . Usually I get criticized for my posts being too long - so it's surprising to see someone accusing me of only posting one-liners. Maybe you have me confused with someone else.

I highly doubt that the US is involved here, and if it is, I don't think this plan will translate into an occupation of Pakistan - for the US to get involved in another conflict would pretty much destroy the country at this point. Look at the cost of occupying a nation of 30 million, do you really think the US has any appetite for occupying a nation of 170 million? I think that this is the work of militants, possibly Kashmiri separatists affiliated with rogue elements of the ISI in Pakistan, and possibly other Indian or Pakstani militant groups. There definitely is an ISI connection - the high grade explosives, and the fact that the Indian Navy is searching a ship recently docked in Bombay from Lahore. The new Pakistani Prime Minister is in real trouble - the ISI is hostile towards him (see: his wife's assassination) and now it's trying to stir up trouble with India in a big way. To his credit, he's issued the strongest condemnation I've ever heard from a Pakistani leader on this attack. I'm just not sure how much he can do to reign in the rogue elements in the ISI.

Attempting to portray Islam as inherently bad. If you had pegged me with any more an intelligent label, it would have been surprising. After all - you're completely incapable of discussing ANY issue at length. I don't think I've ever seen you post more than a paragraph. The vast majority of your posts are one-liners, personal insults, and supreme generalizations - hardly the stuff that convinces anyone of anything - no matter what issue is being discussed and what position you're taking. Do you have the capacity to have a discussion about ANYTHING? - Because in all my time here I've yet to see it.

I find it sad that your first instinct when hearing about a tragedy like this is how you can quickly manipulate it into something that serves your agenda. I think it would be in your benefit if you were to start trying to understand situations before casting judgment on them. The world is too complicated a place to base your worldview on gut-reactions.

Once again . . . a white man in Edmonton murdered his entire family and committed suicide . . . an elderly white couple in Red Deer were killed in a murder suicide . . . A year ago in BC with a Korean father killed his family before killing himself . . . Since most people don't care about family-murders until Islam is involved, they don't catalogue these incidents the same way they do if the murderer happens to be Muslim - as a result most people are completely unaware that unfortunately these incidents are common, and happen regularly amongst pretty much all ethnic and religious groups in Canada.

Than why do "honour killings" occur in Sikh & Hindu households as well? Maybe it's (GASP!) a cultural phenomenon, and not a religious one. That might explain why all of the examples you found were of people of South Asian descent.

In family murder cases Religious beliefs are always red herrings - someone who is mentally unstable / abusive enough to murder a family member will use whatever means at their disposal to rationalize that the act they're committing is justified. That may take the form of "my daughter doesn't obey my curfew, she's disobedient, I'm going to kill her!" or "my daughter won't wear a hijab, she's disobedient, I'm going to kill her!" (note: the murder of a spouse or child is one of the worst crimes a Muslim can commit) But regardless, the enabling device isn't the "justification" the murderer chooses - it's the fact that they are mentally unstable or have a history of violent behavior and abuse and haven't been treated for either.

And again - why do you think that we only pay attention to domestic violence when it's a Muslim man murdering their daughter / wife? Why don't we care as much when white men murder their entire families?

No matter how many times I hear it or read it, Islamofascism is a term that makes me laugh. Anyways - I assume you're referring to Muslims who hold extremely conservative or militant interpretations of the Qu'ran - in which case I don't believe most "socialists" (which I assume you're using as a term to describe anyone who doesn't agree with your POV) consider such people wonderful. Let's clarify - the majority of Muslims, who are moderate, are just as fully human in my eyes as anyone else - I fail to see what's so wrong with that.

So, you acknowledge that religious leaders condemn honour killings, you acknowledge that religious scholars have said that they are against Islam, but the fact that they still occur is evidence of "Islamic lawlessness"??? Isn't that the same thing as saying: Christianity condemns spousal abuse, yet some Christians still abuse their spouses - therefor: Christianity is a lawless religion. Or hell, forget religion: Canada outlaws murder, but murder still occurs, therefor: Canada is a lawless nation. Considering most Canadian Muslims are law-abiding citizens, they do respect THE law (which is everyone's law). No, actually, what should happen is they should receive the same treatment that anyone else would receive for whatever crime they commit. A car thief who happens to be Christian isn't inherently better than the car thief who happens to be Muslim - they're both car thiefs. I'm interested to know why the justice system should start treating people more severely for no other reason than they belong to a different religion? Also, while we can deport people who aren't citizens/landed immigrants, we can only do so if they violate immigration law or commit a crime - we cannot deport them for arbitrary reasons such as: they eat food you don't like, wear clothes you don't like, live their life in a way you don't like. The law isn't a tool to enforce the tastes of the majority on the rest of the population. And what actions are those? It's been my experience, growing up with Muslims and their families that Muslims are no more or less inherently inclusive than anyone else. I'm fully aware that there's a segment of the community, just like there's a segment in every community, that can be exclusive, but I haven't seen any evidence that the majority of Canadian Muslims are exclusive.