JB Globe

I would argue that you're employing the same either-or logic here as those you say are using the US and Israel as a scapegoat . . . Actually, it's the fault of both parties. The US for its arrogance and ignorance regarding post-war Iraq, and the incredibly way in which it bungled the entire operation - which created a situation where there was no rule of law - thus creating an environment where the previously underlying communal tensions could flare up into their current state. The US created the environment where it is easy for Iraqis to pull the trigger. Both deserve equal amounts of blame. Again, both are to blame. Anyone who truly believes that any one side is "good" and any one side is "evil" in that conflict are either ignorant of the history of it or so fanatical to their respective ideology that they stopped caring about the facts long ago. It's this notion of some sort of "cosmic battle" between good and evil which is the main fuel for continued violence in the region. After all - peace is eternally impossible if you believe the other side is pure evil. Again - both deserve blame. The Sudanese government is despicable, but so are Western oil companies that continue to invest in it, if not directly than through subsidiaries. So are Western nations who claimed "never again" after the Holocaust, then "never again" after Rwanda, and are currently twiddling their thumbs, whistling and looking the other way anytime anyone says anything about genocide in Darfur.

This reads like a repeat of many of the highly emotional pro-war rants before the Iraq invasion - what part of that debacle makes you think that invading and occupying nations which harbour minorities of people who engage in terrorism against the US is a good idea? How has the Iraq invasion overall helped the US' ability to protect itself against terrorism? Also, I don't believe it's even logically possible for a democracy that claims to stand for human rights to out-terrorize terrorists - I mean, their acts of inhumanity define them - they're terrorists, that's what they do. The minute America decides to go on a campaign targeting civilians and occupying every nation that goes against its authority is the minute it stops being the "City on a Hill" and the great defender of democracy and human rights. After-all, there's nothing democratic about occupation. The main reason I disagree with your proposal for a global war is that I think it would do nothing but stretch US power thinly over a wide area, destroy the US economy, and do nothing but increase support for radical Islamic movements and terrorism with this "with us or against us" approach. While you claim to be against dictators in Muslim nations, you also seem to be unaware that the US has supported such dictators in the past and is continuing to support them. The Shah in Iran is a past example - Mubarak in Egypt is a current example. It's no wonder than in each of these cases - the actions of these dictators has lead to increased support for Islamic groups which have been the most active political groups fighting for democracy. There are other alternatives to a global war that don't include finding a middle ground with terrorists. What sorts of things do you do to make this a reality?

It's unbelievable that in 2007 there are still people who believe 9/11 happened because OBL hates freedom. OBL doesn't care about the internal affairs of individual nations, if he did, Sweden and Switzerland would have gotten hit a long time ago for their freedoms. Fact is the main targets of Al-Qaeda are nations that have all had foreign military presence in what OBL considers his backyard (Mid East and Afghanistan) OR are Muslim-majority nations whose leaders cooperate with these same nations. Oh God, I really had hopped you learned your lesson from your last post - STOP MAKING SWEEPING GENERALIZATIONS ABOUT TOPICS YOU HAVEN'T STUDIED. I asked you in my last post if you really think that people who've studied Islam and global politics can't spot an amateur immediately when they pose as an expert on a topic like this? Now to deal with your assertion that Islam is in itself incompatible with the things you described . . . To date, the best analysis of the diverse opinions of the world's Muslims has been the Pew Global Attitudes Project: http://pewglobal.org/ One study on Islam, Modernity & Terrorism found that most Muslims, don't even think that there even is a conflict between Islam and modernity. (http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?PageID=833) Meaning that modernity and Islam have been integrating in their communities for quite some time, and that the two, in their eyes, aren't in opposition to each other. This would go against your statement (that wasn't backed up with any evidence, mind you) that Islam is in opposition to modernity. What's more, in nations where people did perceive there to be a conflict, the majority of people sided with the Modernizers versus the Fundamentalists. Again, this demonstrates that there are more Muslims who are for Modern Reform than there are who are fundamentalists, which is your (uninformed) belief. As for the examples you mentioned as being incompatible with Islam, it's very easy to point out examples of Muslim-majority nations which contradict this - I'd also like to point out that there are many, many non-muslim nations which don't have many of the things you mention here as well . . . material prosperity - We only need to look at the Gulf States to see this isn't true, you could through in Malaysia, Turkey as well. Relative Freedom for all citizens - See, Indonesia, Malaysia, Senegal, Turkey, Well, we know this isn't true, because again - there isn't a nation in Europe who doesn't do business with the Mid-East because of the oil and money flowing through the region. However, the only nations which have been attacked to date are nations which, as I've said before, have military presence in what OBL considers his backyard. They also happen to be nations which are currently (and in the past), propping up repressive regimes which are friendly to their economic interests. Well of course it isn't, but then again neither are most of the world's religions. There aren't too many people left who still claim that invading and occupying Iraq was a good move - and with good reason. Your statement that the relationship between the West and "Islamic lands" (as if you can toss all muslim-majority nations in the same box, which is like saying Hungary, Peru, and Ghana are one-in-the-same) should be based on mutual respect, and that it was "them" (aka - Muslims) who upset this relationship when 9/11 happened is ridiculously ignorant of world history. Again, I have to question whether you just don't know what you're talking about or you're deliberately leaving out a lot of information which you know contradicts your statement (in which case, you're being completely dishonest in your arguement). Since the beginnings of modernity, nearly every Muslim nation on earth was occupied by a European colonial power - this Imperialism was the anti-thesis of mutual respect, and if you study Muslim nations where there is antithesis towards certain Western powers you'll see that each nation had a terrible experience under colonialism or had a Western power interfere in their nation post-independence. The vast majority of these greviences have never been resolved, and in fact many of the inequalities in terms of trade and political pressure are still there and thus why there is still lingering animosity. I shouldn't have to tell you the history of US involvement in Iran - you should know already that the US overthrew a democratically elected but socialist leader who wanted to nationalize the oil-industry, and replaced him with a dictator who was hated by the public and loved by Western leaders. You should know, that the US has been interfering in Egyptian politics in much the same way for half a century - supporting forces which are Western-friendly yet anti-democratic. I can go on with the list but I think I've proved my point - that the relationship wasn't equal on September 10th, as you seem to suggest. Listen, if you're going to make the claim that "Muslims" believe something, such as the notion that 9/11 was just payback for Western wars and interventions in Muslim-majority nations, you're going to have to back it up with some facts. You can't claim 1.5 billion people believe something and expect anyone to believe it without showing us some data. Either refine your statement and be more specific, or don't make it at all. This is completely lazy and amateurish, and is no worse than someone coming on here and claiming "all Jews want to rule the world" Well, I'm not sure what the hell the Iraq conflict has to do with civil rights concerns in the US, unless of course you're the type of person which views a health sciences student who happens to be Muslim and a US citizen as one-in-the-same as Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Which is of course, what you seem to be suggesting here and in other posts as well. Of course, what you mean by "pushing back" is actually curtailing the civil liberties of Muslim citizens of Western nations, and invading and occupying Muslim-majority nations as a means of "teaching them a lesson" - we've seen in the past 6 years how effective that strategy has been - Al Qaeda is as strong as ever and Iraq (just one nation of 26 million) is a complete mess. Since you tend to be extremely vague with these statements (which I believe is due to your lack of knowledge on the subject), I have to make assumptions, so please feel free to correct me on this. Targeting civilians with weapons of mass destruction is probably the antithesis of appeasement. Again, you're being vague here and not saying if you believe that WMDs are the answer or not. As for post-war Japan - life didn't look so good until the breakout of the Korean War. Unlike the other former Axis powers the US didn't apply a Marshall-Plan program to rebuild Japan - the Korean War meant that Japan would become the biggest supplier of materials and equipment to the war effort, which kick-started it's economy. This is an outright racist statement. You're claiming that Muslims in general are "limited" in how they express themselves to "rapine, death and destruction, in search of domination" - I'm going to give you a chance to revise this statement. If this in fact what you truly believe and you see no problem with it, than I'm going to have to view you as an outright racist much in the same way I would view a Neo-Nazi who made a sweeping generalizations about Jews "wanting to dominate the world for their wicked money-hungry ideology" I find it disgusting that you chose this statement to follow an outright, racist statement. Again, I'm giving you a chance to clarify yourself here.

Really? I don't recall too many "Liberals" (as in, Dion?) expressing their support for the government of Saudi Arabia's flagrant violations of the UN Charter on Human Rights. I think you'll be hard-pressed to find any evidence of any mainstream organizations supporting nation's policies that violate the rights set out in that document. That might be true, but whoever these people are they don't represent mainstream organizations or views on the subject. Do you have anything to back that up? I have a feeling you're misrepresenting an arguement someone made and/or making this up. If there is a bias it's that SOME folks who claim to be human rights activists still are guilty of Western bias - meaning they target issues that are within the Western world OR are directly influenced by the foreign policy of Western powers. Of course, currently, for many activists and organizations the War in Iraq is a bigger issue right now than women's rights in Saudi Arabia - for the simple reason that it's more destructive to more people's lives. I'd criticize these folks of course, I'd still reserve more criticizism for people who are against Arabs as a whole, rather than a policy of an Arab government. I find it hypocritical when people only seem to care about an issue such as women's rights when it can be used to slam "leftist" organizations who don't criticize it, when in reality these folks could care less about women's rights. Aren't these folks guilty of the same indifference they accuse others of? Aren't they exploiting a social problem for their own political gain?

What we have here is religious/ethnic hatred masquerading as comedy. You have a group of white people who are cowardly using the excuse of "it's a joke" to make fun of Muslims for being Muslim. The "humour" is so obvious it's lame and lazy - "Muslim women are hairy!" - Congradulations Captain Comedy - you know how to mimic a played-out stereotype. Here, have a cookie. What's the sequel? Are these Cro-Magnon Men going to wheel around in wheelchairs and fall out of them so fellow primates can have a laugh? - "Har-har-har! Look at that! That cripple fell out of his wheelchair! Har-har-har!" With comedic talent like that, you wonder why none of these guys are performing on stage, right? This crap should not be confused with comedians who poke fun at quirks in religion or ethnicity in an equal-opportunity way - ie: Russel Peters, Dave Chappelle. You won't catch these folks making fun of themselves, only making fun of others. With these guys, their humour is inclusive, meaning they set up their routine so that everyone lightens up on touchy subjects and ends up laughing as much at the ridiculousness of things like racism, stereotyping, as much as they do their part in such things. ie - Peters makes fun of both the minority of Indians who act stereotypical and white people who ignorantly think these folks represent the whole community. Their aim is to get people laughing together, and their humour about other groups of people is informed by their real-life friendships with people from those groups. Contrast that to these dolts, which are making fun of a group of people because they think they're stupid, inferior, backward, etc. The only analogies that really stick in this case are ones in which you have a society containing a religious/ethnic minority which is the primary target of a good deal of bigotry by a substantial portion of mainstream society. The Catholic Priest example doesn't cut it - because there is no organized movement against Catholicism like there is against the Muslim community in the UK by the likes of the BNP. A more accurate example would be Jews in pre-Nazi Germany, or black folks in the US prior to the civil-rights era. In both cases there was much political presssure from bigots against the groups, but things hadn't yet turned violent on a society-wide level, and the state wasn't yet in on the act. If things like this become more publicly acceptable, things will only get worse, and outright civil violence only becomes more of a possibility. There's no doubt in my mind that if this "parody" had been about a group of people that some posters here felt sympathy for (ie - a group of Neo-Nazis or extremist Muslims dress up as Jews, talk about hairy Jewish women and chase quarters running down the street) their opinions would drastically change. Quite frankly it's times like this I'm glad I live in a country where this stuff is not only illegal, but you'd be hard pressed to find any community where such a spectacle of ignorance would be publicly accepted.

Comparing Singapore with Malaysia and Indonesia is like comparing Liechtenstein with Bulgaria - they're two different kinds of animal. How about we compare Singapore with other city-states, or rather nations small enough to function as if they were city-states - Qatar, Dubai (UAE grants its Emirates lots of political/economic independence). All three have used oil money to build highly diverse economies specializing in niche services and trade. Qatar - Knowledge & Information - besides creating Al-Jazeera and other news networks the state has become the centre of learning for the Arab world and South Asia - in addition to home-grown schools, they've even set up dozens of branch campuses for schools such as Northwestern, Cornell, Texas A&M, Georgetown, and even the University of Calgary. Dubai - Used it's oil money to build itself as both a free trade zone for ships on their way to European markets, and as a mid-way point for people heading on holidays to elsewhere, and eventually into a tourist destination itself. The national air carrier, Emirates, offers industry-best service at reasonable prices and people can save money by flying connecting flights through Dubai, rather than say British Airways straight to Thailand, for example. Once there, there's little/no cost if a person wants to change tickets and stay a week or two and enjoy the things the city has to offer which are found nowhere else in the world. Both efforts in both states were guided by thoroughly modern and innovative rulers who had a vision and were dedicated to it. More importantly, both states have been politically stable and free from outside influence since gaining independence. That's the key. Singapore - Might not have had the oil wealth, but it had always been a major shipping centre, and it used that money to engineer a diverse economy related to trade that includes financial services & tourism. I don't understand why you highlighted Malaysia as a "backward" nation - it's HDI is higher than Russia's and Brazil's and its economy is growing in a sustainable way. A better comparison would be to compare Malaysia and Indonesia - why one post-colonial state is faring better than another - and I think it basically comes down to good governance - something Indonesia hasn't had until recently, partly through their own fault, and partly because the West (US mainly) supported oppressive regimes there during the Cold War to protect against "communist expansion" You're describing things which are common among all post-colonial nations. Be they Muslim-majority, South Asian, South American, African, Southeast Asian, etc. The thing is, because of your blatant anti-muslim bias, which dozens of people have commented on, so I'm afraid it's not just me, - you're ignoring anything that contradicts your religious-centric approach to looking at the Muslim world. ie - "Muslim Piracy" vs. "Christian Piracy" - see the following statement: 1 - You can only call it "Muslim Piracy" or "Christian Piracy" if it is in fact influenced primarily by religious institutions - otherwise it becomes just plain, secular, money-grabbin Piracy. It's like claiming that murderer is a Christian murderer if he happens to be Christian, even if the crime had nothing to do with Christianity. That's what I mean by religious centrism, and its lazy. Similarly, is the United States army a Christian Army because most troops are Christian? The obvious answer is no - Christian theology doesn't drive the army's actions - secular factors do. 2 - This will be the third time I've mentioned the Persian Safavid dynasty's promotion of Silk Road trade through its borders and trade with Europe. This will be the second time I've mentioned trade on the Indian Ocean by Arab, Mughal, and Ottoman Islamic powers. This is what I'm talking about - you're stubbornly ignoring and refusing to even address historical facts which contradict your claims. Either you weren't aware of these facts before (if the case, I suggest you do some more studying before you decide to take an expert position and make sweeping generalizations), or you were and left them out of your arguement because it didn't suit it. Either way I think I'm finished here - the many errors you've made factually and logically in your arguments, combined with the fact that you never really respond with a though-out arguement to any of the points I raise, but rather 1-3 sentences, demonstrate your level of understanding about the topic. My only question is do you really think that people who have studied this material can't instantly recognize an amateur posing as an expert? There's nothing wrong with being an amateur in a certain subject, we all were at some point, and I am myself in other topics, but you never learn anything if you pretend you know everything and speak rather than listen. You went to temple, you should know that.

I guess I have to repeat myself: the main errors you're making are 1- Religious/Ethnic Centrism, 2 - Selective Historical Reading, 3 - Inconsistency when applying your arguements to other religions/ethnic groups. 1 - Your argument assumes that the primary cause of historical events in the Islamic world is because of Islam, and similarly the cause of events in the Arab world is because of something ingrained in Arab ethnicity. Political and economic factors are NOWHERE to be found in your argument, as well as pressure from neighboring states and rival powers. This argument is essentially the basis of many an anti-semitic argument that Jews have been persecuted throughout history simply because Jews are, in fact, evil. Therefor, the persecution Jews faced because of anti-semitism is justified, because Jews are evil. Just like your hatred of Muslims becomes justified, because they're all evil. Both your argument and the semitic argument completely ignore any other factor other than - the ethnicity or religion (or both) of said group. To pretend to summarize a religion as diverse as Islam and to ignore political, foreign and economic factors is as ridiculous as summarizing Europe based exclusively on ethnicity and Christianity. Believing that Ireland and Romania are one in the same because they're both Christian is as ridiculous as believing Egyptians and Indonesians are one-in-the same. 2 - You make arguments using historical events and ignore other events which contradict your beliefs. Case in point, you reference piracy done by people who happen to be Muslims (Barbary Pirates up to modern day Somali pirates) and use this to back up your statement that "Their predatory habits on the trade of other peoples is also well-known." Of course, you ignore (or perhaps are ignorant of) many cases where the opposite is true - in this case where Islamic states have promoted organized trade. One example is the Safavid Empire (which I mentioned earlier), which protected and taxed caravans which traveled the Silk Road across its territory, as well as trading luxury goods like Persian Carpets with Europe. Another example is the extensive Arab (and later, Ottoman) trade network on the Indian Ocean, stretching from Africa to Indonesia, and where the dominant merchant power on the Ocean for centuries. So if Muslims are inherently "pirates" because of their religion, why are Islamic states promoting trade throughout history? Also, you claim the period of Islamic expansion post-Mohammed was "incredibly violent" however it was no more violent than the expansion of the Roman Empire, Alexander's Conquest, or the Portuguese or Spanish Empires. Yet they are civilized while the early Islamic Caliphate is barbaric? Again - selective reading of history. 3 - You don't apply the same historical analysis and/or ethical standards (which really shouldn't be present in a supposidly objective historical analysis anyway) to other cultures and societies. Case in point - the claim that Muslims are pirates because over the course of history, some pirates happened to be Muslim. Wouldn't this mean that since Christians committed similar acts of piracy over the course of history (ie - the Carribean) that they're also inherently pirates? If I were to take your sloppy analytical framework and apply it to other societies, I could make them look just as bad as you have made the Muslim world look. Another example - you claim that the bible: "The Bible was probably a relatively accurate oral history . . . accurately described the savagery of neighboring people" - Show me one prominent historian that agrees with you that the bible accurately (as in, objectively) describes people considered by its authors to be "other" The reason no historian agrees with you is that the bible is only useful for seeing how its authors PERCEIVED other peoples. Just like Herodotus' writing serves to show us how the Ancient Greeks PERCEIVED other peoples. In short, both are obviously SUBJECTIVE accounts of history, and any historian worth their salt takes this into consideration when using them as a source. If I apply your framework to other historical accounts however - the ancestors of modern day Germans, British, and French are barbaric, because Roman historians said so - and since you don't make a distinction between Phoenecians, Babylonians, Sumerians or modern-day Arabs, that means that the ancestors of today's Germans are one-in-the-same, and thus - Germans are barbarians. After all, they are all mass-murderers, right? (note the selective historical reading) Another case-in-point: I made the following post: "If Muslims are barbaric because at one point in history, one group of Muslims engaged in piracy and slave-trading, doesn't that mean that Christians are equally barbaric for engaging in an even larger slave-trade and piracy on the most grand scale (also known as Colonialism?)" To which you responded: Of course, it is factually incorrect to say that all slaves bought by European slave traders were rounded up by Muslims, many were however, but that isn't the point. Again, I'll repeat myself - if Islam promotes slavery because some Muslims engaged in the slave trade, than doesn't Christianity promote slavery as well? You admited in this statement that European powers (or Christians, as you call them, due to your Religious Centrism) are half of the problem in this equation - doesn't that mean they're equally as barbaric? If by now most people haven't realized you have an extremely ignorant understanding of world history, this next quote illustrates it well, this was in response to a point I made that you had mentioned the "barbarity" of the ancestors to today's Arabs as claimed the (biased) bible, but left out any mention that these same people were the first city builders on earth, and pioneers in human civilization (Babylonians, Sumerians, etc) . . . You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. There was no such thing as Sumeria or Babylon at the time of Islam's beginnings in 5th century AD. Look it up. Sumeria ceased to exist as a state around 2000 BC, and Babylon fell after Cyrus the Great invaded in the 5th century BC. The people living in Arabia during the time of Mohammad were all considered Arab - they were all the same major ethnic group. This is representative of your entire argument in this post - you're speaking as an expert even though what little studying you've done is incredibly biased and selective. In some cases this happend and in some cases it didn't and people converted by choice, or maintained their religious traditions. Does this mean that Islam is really evil? If it does, than isn't Christianity evil as well? After all, Spanish Conquistadors gave the "convert or die" ultimatum to hundreds of thousands of indigenous people in South America. Then again, in many cases people converted willingly. Again - why are you applying different standards to different civilizations? I claim it's because you have a blatant anti-Islamic bias and you care more about making Muslims look bad than you do about being honest in your arguments. Thank you Captain Obvious. Now, would you like me to list equally barbaric practices of Christians, Romans, Greeks, Chinese, Indians and YES! Even us Jews - throughout the ancient world? Selective historical analysis - again! Answer this honestly - do you honestly believe that there are not similar incidents in the Christian world before modern times, or have you just never heard about them before? If you expect anyone to believe that ridiculous statement, you're going to have to provide more than a one-liner. A word of advice - if you don't have the time to back anything you say with research and facts, don't say it. It's pretty simple. Here's an idea - YOU are making the arguement that development corruption is worse in Muslim nations, so why don't YOU provide evidence of that? Or again, are you too lazy to do the work? I'm talking about today, 2007. Germany has made amends for WWII, the US hasn't made amends for supporting dictators in the Middle East, in fact, it still supports many of them while preaching that its spreading democracy to Iraq. I never said that militarily inferior forces in a conflict ALWAYS resort to terrorism or guerilla warfare (two distinct things, mind you), it isn't automatic. What I said is that it simply is a tactic of forces which can't match the might of an organized, national army. To engage in terrorism means you give up your sense of morality - if Israel were to do that it would loose what international allies it still has, and it would gain little - terrorism is only useful as a tactic if your opponent can easily be influenced by violence. Palestinians see violence all the time, it would be useless. And although I condemn terrorism and those who perpetrate it, I can't condemn an entire nation because of a tactic some paramilitary groups use. Alright, now that we've had your brilliant one-liner summary of the entire colonial enterprise, I've just about had it for today. Honestly, if you expect to win people over - which is the point of a debate - you're going to actually have to be honest in your arguement, know what you're talking about (which means studying) and be consistent in your analysis. It also doesn't help to use bigoted comments, such as referring to both Turkey and Indonesia as "armpit countries" - What makes it worse is that you're a Jew, and you're directing the same kind of hatred that was once, and still is, directed at us at other peoples. While you're at it, why don't you just go ahead and advocate for nuking the Muslim world as a "Final Solution" - because that's the next step.

Maybe I should've capitalized certain words . . . "If you WANT to believe McGuinty . . ."

If you want to believe McGuinty, most of Toronto's budget problems may be solved if he's re-elected . . . http://www.thestar.com/News/article/248228 It's a "good step." That's the unanimous sentiment of 905 mayors and officials reacting yesterday to Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty's plan to take back a $935 million load dropped on municipalities' shoulders. While mayors, including Mississauga's Hazel McCallion, Brampton's Susan Fennell and Vaughan's Linda Jackson, are "ecstatic" and "pleased" by the provincial Liberals' plan to upload the cost of two social services, downloaded to municipalities by a Conservative regime in 1998, they say it's not a full solution to their funding woes. . . . Toronto's share would be $217 million - Which proves that yes, in fact, Toronto's budget crisis is mainly a result of provincial downloading. If you add onto that the money that the city would recieve if the province returned to Bill Davis' formal of partially funding municipal transit - there would be no budget crisis. If Ontario (and the feds) funded Toronto the way New York State and the federal government fund NYC - there would be no budget problems.

Translation - you're avoiding my critique of your post. A word of advice: stop speaking from the position of an expert on topics you haven't studied, and don't start discussions you have no intention of finishing. And while you're at it, cut out the anti-semitic paternalism - You're not Jewish, you don't know our community, you don't know our history, you don't know our culture, and you damn sure don't know what's best for us, we do.

Before I start with the post let me just say that the post offends me most as a Jew, precisely because all of the same logical errors and factual manipulations are present here as they are in an anti-semetic diatribe against Jews. And I hate it when other groups are subjected to the same ignorant xenophobic rants that we are, even more so when coming from so-called "supporters of THE Jews" It's ridiculous that you're using the bible in a supposedly rational and secular historical analysis of a people. The stories contained in the bible should not be taken as fact - as a historical document the bible contains myths that may or may not allude to exaggerations of real people and places. In that time period, that region was no more or less "vicious" (a loaded term) than other regions where at the time, such as I find it telling that you've chosen to ignore ARCHAEOLOGICAL HISTORY of the Middle East - perhaps you could explain why you chose to leave out mentioning Sumeria, Babylon and other early civilizations? My belief is that you've done this because to admit that ancestor to today's Arabs were among the first in the world to practice agriculture, and engage in large-scale city-building (even sooner than in Europe) would conflict with your prejudiced view that Muslims/Arabs are barbaric, culturally inferior and always have been. "Wicked" is a loaded, religious term, and does not belong in a supposedly secular historical analysis. In addition, there is nothing inherently "wrong" with idol-worship or polytheism. Both the "wickedness and idolatry" you speak of were practiced in Europe as well by Romans and Greeks. So do you feel those cultures were equally as "barbaric?" Or are you applying different standards to different cultures? There is a clear difference between the expansion of Islam during the lifetime of Mohammad versus the expansion of the caliphate afterwards. During Mohammed's life, actions were mostly defensive and/or campaigns were waged to secure economic self-sufficiency for Mohammed's followers. By no means does this mean all actions were perfect, but it was by no means an "extremely violent" campaign of terror as you imply. Islam's early expansion wasn't extremely violent - in fact, it was on par with other expansions of other "empires" such as the Roman Empire and Alexander the Great's conquest. Again - are you ignoring this or applying different standards to Islam because you have an agenda? If Muslims are barbaric because at one point in history, one group of Muslims engaged in piracy and slave-trading, doesn't that mean that Christians are equally barbaric for engaging in an even larger slave-trade and piracy on the most grand scale (also known as Colonialism?) Again, you're applying different standards here to different groups. You're also not making the link here - just because some pirates happen to be Muslim at some point does not mean it is the fault of Islam. You have to SHOW the link between Islam and piracy, and you have account for discrepancies in your claim (ie - Berber pirates vs. Islamic societies which encouraged and defended trade - ie: the Safavid Empire encouraging trade along the Silk road, and taxing it through its borders, not raiding it) It's here where I have to question if even YOU believe what you're saying. Barbary Coast pirates as one in the same as OPEC? If that kind of leap is possible, than why shouldn't I as a Jew consider today's Germans to be one-in-the same as the Nazis? After all, that was only 60 or so years ago. It varies by region. Reconstruction in Banda Aceh - the area worst hit by the tsunami, has moved along fairly well. My current roommate worked there for 6 months and was impressed with most of the work done. In other areas, it's not going as well. Again - different standards: corruption in development work is not limited to Muslim countries but includes Christian nations in Africa, and Central and South America. Implying that Holocaust survivors did everything on their own is completely false. I only need to point to the fact that the vast majority of Holocaust survivors emigrated to Israel, which from day one has received large amounts of funding from various nations, primarily the United States. You're completely ignoring any sort of CONTEXT with this statement. Your argument assumes that both Jews, Americans and Muslims share the same capability in terms of military & economy, you fail to factor in the different histories of these peoples and nations. Terrorism and guerrilla warfare are the tactic of societies which are militarily inferior to the power they are in conflict with. The reason Israel doesn't engage in suicide bombing is because they don't need to - they have one of the best militaries in the world. The reason why Jews don't feel animosity towards Germans in general is because Germans have made a real effort to make up for the crimes of the past and are still to this day very conscious of their history - you can't say the same thing about America's dealings with the Middle East, which is why there is still animosity there. How on earth you can claim to provide a brief history of the Islamic world and NOT EVEN MENTION THE COLONIAL PERIOD is beyond me. It's even worse than talking about American history and leaving out the Revolution. I should also point out your gross generalizations - assuming that Indonesian Muslims and Turkish muslims are one in the same because they're muslim - Which is like claiming that Russia and America are one in the same because most people who live there are Christian - you completely ignore the cultural and historical differences between nations that are majority-Muslim. To summarize, you really need to do some more learning before trying to write something like this. You need to be more honest with yourself about what you know and what you don't know. Not everyone can be an expert on everything - if you haven't read that much about Islam - there's no shame in not posting about it and spending your time studying it instead. You also need to be more honest about your intentions and agenda - it's easy for many to see you're trying to portray Islam and Muslims by extension as barbaric and evil.

Why do you feel the United States can reap all of the benefits that come from being the world's only current superpower - but ignore all of the responsibilities that come with that status? And what do you think the effects are currently of this attitude and what it will mean for America in the future?

That article pretty much nailed it. It bothers me as a Jew when I see Jewish organizations or individuals throwing around the terms "anti-semitic" or "anti-Israeli" llike they're nothing. Those terms shouldn't be used for political gain - they should be used when the situation warrants it, otherwise they become watered-down and people in general stop caring when they hear them.

Non-immersion French classes in English schools are a joke. I don't know anyone, including myself, who went through these classes from grade 5 to grade 10 and has any sort of real skills in French. Most of us can't speak a single sentence, and those that can usually had to go elsewhere to pick up more French. Frankly I think they're just a political ploy - to make it seem as though Ontario is promoting bilingualism in its education system, but in reality is failing miserably. I think I would've benefited from some Immersion classes being made mandatory for all students - not having learned another language at an early age has made it difficult for me to learn languages now - learning Hindi has been a slow process because of this. Even if students don't end up speaking French fluently, learning some French at an early age and keeping some basics of it around would at least keep some doors open in the future if those students decide to learn another language (ie - if they want to learn Mandarin to go along with their business degree in the hopes of improving their work skills)

I find it rather pathetic that xenophobes are trying to turn the opening of this temple into an issue, when the majority of Canadians don't find it controversial in the slightest. It's even more sad considering how often these same xenophobes accuse minority-groups of over-exaggerating incidents of racism or discrimination. Who's making mountains out of molehills now?

And where does this activity happen? Does it happen in rural areas? In suburbs? No - it happens in cities, and it happens MOST often in the world's great global cities, especially places like NYC, London, Paris, etc. These are also the places where organizations/corporations representing groups of individuals (be they stockholders or a group of farmers) deal with other groups representing individuals. Cities are the generators of this type of activity. And the ones that generate the most are ones which are well-funded and empowered by law with freedom over various aspects of the region they govern. How can you say that when we know that the most wealth-producing regions on earth are cities - cities which have municipal governments which have done much, much, more than garbage collection and police? Look at the world's great global cities such as the ones mentioned earlier: London, Paris, NYC - toss in others like Chicago, Milan, Madrid, Amsterdam, Singapore, etc and you'll see that these cities which generate tons of commerce (and gov't revenue) all have heavily invested in things other than garbage and cops including: transit, social services, public spaces, development, etc. They've also all been viewed by their state and/or national governments as being high-priority for consistent investment in capital funds for projects and operational funds. As a result they have the financial (and legal) freedom to innovate ways to deal with a range of issues. It just makes sense to empower local government - it's always more efficient than having the feds handle local issues. There are few successful cities on earth which have only focused on things like garbage and police as you suggest. And I think that in fact when cities try to do more and innovate they end up producing some pretty remarkable things and communities.

You dodged the question: Would you support the type of policies that lead to Maher Arar being tortured while innocent if it meant that YOU or someone you love had a chance of being put in his situation. Would you or would you not support this policy if you were tortured? Also - why do you think the most hardcore supporters of racial profiling or similar policies are always people who are the LEAST affected by it? I think you need to back up your statement that Arar "knew he was a terrorist suspect" when he traveled on vacation to Tunisia in 2002 - there is no mention of that in any of the timelines I'm aware of, including this one from CBC: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/arar/index.html A criminal trial was never brought against him because the RCMP & CSIS admitted later that there was not enough evidence to warrant a trial. In fact, they dropped him as a "person of interest" altogether - meaning he wasn't even worth monitoring. The inquiry found that Arar posed absolutely no security threat, and had no actual connections to any sort of terrorist network. It's unbelievable that after a inquiry by a top judge, and the support of Arar's case by both Liberal and Conservative governments, after admissions that he's not a threat by CSIS and the RCMP there are still people that insist he's a threat. What is it that you know that CSIS doesn't know? And where did you get this information from?

"I think you are trying to say its possible there are Jews that don't find criticizing Israel in itself a reason not to vote for someone, and on that point I appreciate you saying that. That is a wonderful thing for a non Jew in my opinion to be able to understand in us." - I guess I should clarify that I'm Jewish at this point. But it's one of my pet-peeves that non-Jews in general tend to view us and other ethnic/religious communities as monolithic in our politics - Israel being the case in-point. It also ticks me off when I see Jews or Jewish organizations with a certain agenda exploiting this for their political gain, which was my opinion with BB in this case.

Let me be more clear: I'm talking specifically about people in the public who support racial profiling and other violations of basic human rights when it comes to national security, people who argue that what happen to Arar wasn't wrong or unjust or illegal - it was necessary. What I'm asking is - why are the people who take this approach to cases of torture always happen to be white and/or Atheist or Christian? Are we seeing the same thing we see with police racially profiling black folks? Where the biggest supporters of that policy are white as well? In short - are many of the supporters (not government officials, but ordinary citizens) of these policies doing so mainly because they know it will NEVER HAPPEN TO THEM? Can any of these people HONESTLY say that they could experience what Arar and others experienced and still come out at the end of it and say they support such policies?

There is also no evidence that the candidate is "anti-Israeli" - in fact her views mirror that of many Israeli Jews. Like I said earlier, the problem isn't that she's "anti-Israeli" it's that she's not "pro-Israeli" and that's a must if you want the support of conservative Jews. B'nai Brith is in fact known withing the Jewish community as being the CONSERVATIVE Jewish service organization, as opposed to the more moderate Canadian Jewish Congress. If you ever bother to read their paper - the Jewish Tribune, you can see why. These are the neocons I was referring to. The thing is, B'nai Brith doesn't speak for the Jews in this candidate's potential riding - most of whom aren't conservative. What they're trying to do is prey on the ignorance of mainstream Canadian politicians of religious/ethnic minority groups. They're acting as though they're speaking on behalf of all Jews, including those in the riding. Since some politicians really don't know any better, they're hoping to intimidate them into withdrawing the candidate - even if Jews in the riding might not care, or even agree with her. The same thing happens with Sikh conservative groups and Liberal politicians - since the politicians don't know crap about the Sikh community, they don't realize that those conservative groups they pander to only represent a fraction of the whole community.

Does anyone here think that a person's ethnic and religious background influences their opinion on whether it was right or wrong to deport Maher Arar? While most Canadians regardless of background supported Arar for a long time, he has had his opponents as well. I myself, don't believe it's a coincidence that all of his detractors tend to be white, and either Christian or Athiest. In all cases of racial profiling, or where ethnicity/religion plays a factor in how the justice system is administered to an individual, it's always those people who will never be affected by this factor who are the biggest supporters of the policy. In short - do you think that the fact that some supporters of the actions against Maher Arar here would change their tune if they knew there was a chance they could be shipped to another country and tortured? Are they only supporting the actions taken against him because they know it will never happen to them? I for one, think so.

Your racist and xenophobic hatred of religious and ethnic backgrounds different from your own is well-documented on this site. Why then the love of Israel? Especially considering the fact that a white-nationalist such as yourself would be attacking Jews in Toronto if this were 1930 . . . It's simple - Israel went to war with a lot of Muslim nations in 1967, and continues to use it's military against Muslims today. And for Mr. David, that's enough - he despises Muslims so much, he's willing to become a lapdog of Israel based on that alone.

It represents a major place of worship, in the same manor that the Cathedrals along "church row" On Church St in Toronto do.. Congradulations, you've discovered that there's a chance of anything occuring. It's called probability. What it means is yes, there's a chance that some group could try and blow up a stone temple . . . Just like there's a chance that white nationalists could assasinate Stephen Harper. Of course, both are as likely as lightening hitting the same place 3 times, but that doesn't seem to matter to you. The temple represents a religious tradition of many Canadians, just like the synagogue my Zaida goes to represents, I suppose you have a problem with that as well. Wow, you sure convinced all of us - rather than citing some data from a credible source, we're supposed to take the word of some random person on the net that the temple wasn't funded from private sources (like the globe, post, star, cbc, ctv report) because you say so? Really? An "interest?" What is that exactly? You mean some sort of Indian organization dedicated to promiting Hinduism around the world? Well there are many of those but they're tied to each of the hundreds of different schools of Hinduism, meaning none of them are too powerful. The most active one here is probably that of Satya Sai Baba, but of course that school of thought is completely apolitical and pacifist, so I don't see how that's of any concern to any Canadian. I've yet to see any evidence of Hindu fundamentalism in Canada to a degree that anyone should be fearful of. As for the massive mosques you claim are being built now - can you please direct us to a news article which provides evidence of this? Because it's looking more and more as though you're making a lot of this stuff up. It's beginning to become clear that you don't know what you're talking about. Even someone with the most basic knowledge of Indian or Chinese history knows that both societies moved out of the stone age well before 3000 BC. Go ahead and read something next time before you assume an expert position on topics you know little about. Well, this pretty much sums you up here. Incidentally, comments about Jews being allergic to work were commonplace in Toronto before WWII. You are a member of what I call the Xenophobe-caste of society - the portion of society that will always be xenophobic. In the past the numbers were larger, but today your influence is wanning, the only thing keeping it alive at all is desperation. The link between yourself and the anti-semites of the past that my Zaida had to deal with is that you'll always focus your energy on attacking the group which you consider most-different to yourself. In the past it was Jews, nowadays it's muslims, black folks, and apparently Hindus. If you were alive 60 years ago you'd be attacking Jews, if you were alive 100 years ago you'd be attacking Catholics. Oh irony, how sweet you are.

Didn't the same thing occur in Europe during the Middle Ages right up through until the industrial revolution? Didn't beggars congregate outside Notre Dame and other great cathedrals across Europe? Doesn't this occur at all grand religious sites as well? Wasn't a huge sum of money spent on constructing the Palace of Versailles while most French lived in poverty? Seems as thought this phenomenon isn't strictly Indian. Of course, it happens to a lesser extent now in the West - there are fewer poor and they congregate at cathedrals of commerce, rather than of religion. Of course, it should be pointed out that poverty began to decline in Europe as money flowed in from the colonies, colonies such as India. The reason the West is in such a good economic position will always be linked to the money exploited from the colonies. Thus India has been held back partly because of colonization. In the 60 years since its independence, it's made huge strides forward, but it still has a long way to go. It's not suprising when you consider that for several centuries various European powers saw India as a cash cow, and only developed infastructire in the country that would further the flow of money out of it, and cared about little else. And lastly, I don't see temple complexes in and of themselves as backward, just like I don't see spirituality in and of itself as backward.

Oh neo-con Jews, will you ever stop using the political tactics of America's Neoconservatives? The problem here isn't that the candidate is anti-Israel. If that were the case, than a good 1/3 or more of Israel's population would be anti-Israel for sharing her views. The problem is that she isn't PRO-ISRAEL. In the same way as anyone who criticized the Iraq War in 2003 was "anti-American" in the eyes of neocons anyone who disagrees with a good chunk of Israel's foreign policy becomes "Anti-Israeli" in the eyes of Jewish neocons and conservatives. The problem is, that since the mainstream Canadian media is out of touch with the Jewish community, as they are with many religious and ethnic communities - they mistakenly believe that organizations like B'nai Brith represent most Jews when it comes to issues like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, when it doesn't. This causes non-Jews to think that all Jews are somehow blind supporters of all Israel does, which we're not.