Scotty

The dictators rule nations which provide the West with needed supplies. Of course we maintain cordial relations with them. There really isn't much alternative. I'm in favor of encouraging such governments, wherever possible, to progress towards as much freedom and democratic rule as their people can handle. Unfortunately, given the societies involved, that's not always possible. The alternative to the present regime in Saudi Arabia, for example, is not lollipops and candy canes, it's a Taliban style government pouring billions into terrorist movements abroad.

That time was fraught with instability. Iran had had six different governments in the previous five years. The Soviets, which had occupied northern Iran had just been persuaded to leave. And the new government decided to simply nationalize an oil industry developed and built by the British. I have little sympathy for that sort of outright theft, and given the times I doubt very much the government of the time would have lasted long, much less developed into an enlightened socialist state. None of the other new governments of that time did.

Since we weren't actually a country then they were really threatening the UK.

I try to stay away from anything Chinese -- to the extent that's possible.

Thanks for the list. I will avoid giving business to any of them. Not that I'm likely to use Fedex again anyway after seeing how they deliver computer equipment...

On both sides. Seems to me the banana industry has rarely stinted from exploiting the environment of third world countries -- or the people living there -- to maximize profits, regardless of the damage caused.

Hang on. If Chiquita can decide to boycott a given organization because it dissapproves of it, then certainly other organizations and individuals have every right to do the same to Chiquita. I approve of this boycott!

Would you care to clarify your meaning?

The United States has "more" wealth than the Scandinavian countries. However, I do not see how the life of an average American is improved by this. In fact, by most measures, Scandinavians lead better lives than most Americans.

I consider it so blatantly obvious the statement needs little defense. Certainly it needs none against what you've manage to come up with, which is nothing but disagreement and a silly reference to Communism. If I desired to I could certainly have more power, yes. I haven't made such an effort. I could attend some of the local community meetings, get to know our councillor, MP and MPP better, donate money, etc. But certainly, given my neighbhorhood, it's well known that the government pays more attention when we call in to complain than when those in poorer neighborhoods do. In any event, your question is too broad and vague. Even someone with half my income is doing awfully well. Do I have more power than someone working for minimum wage? Indisputably. But again, I've had no reason to work at obtaining political power, as those with real wealth do. As to the threshold. Let's just say when you call your local MP, or a cabinet minister, and they take the call immediately, well, that's power. Most people just get the secretary, if they're lucky, or an answering machine.

You know, I think Canada has probably done a better job of absorbing and integrating its Muslim immigrants than any other country, and one of the reasons, I believe, is we haven't put in place the kind of politically correct, paternalistic bullshit laws and rules that much of Europe has. Not for want of trying by our Left, of course. What the UK judge might as well have said is "Well, it's not like we can expect Somalian women to act like civilized White people, after all!" I'm sure he'd be outraged at my paraphrasing, but in essence, that is what he said, and what the decision meant. As for the contemptible laws against freedom of speech and expression which Britain and France and other such European nations have put in place, we have seen how abused they can be, and how useless they are in combating racism or bigotry. Despite such laws being on the books for many year (or perhaps, in no small part because of them) Muslims in Britain and France are FAR less integrated, FAR more resentful and are disliked, feared and despised by the larger communities around them FAR more than in Canada. Yet another example of how out to lunch, how utterly beyond the grasp of reality and human behaiour so much of the Left is.

Other western religions don't have values which are diametrically opposed to ours. And again, as I have already reminded you, Islam is not merely a code for individuals but contains laws and rules of government. This is what makes it as much a political ideology as a religion. No one has said they have changed what they are saying, merely how they are saying it.

Perhaps you'd like to show us where these people have EVER preached peace, tolerance and love? In fact, from the cite given they were instead preaching about how western values like gender equality were a threat to Islam...

I don't recall the US ever threatening us...

Drivel. All we did was make a deal with the local government to ensure that the oil we discovered and developed was shipped to us without being impeded. The only conflicts which arose were when the Soviets interfered. There's little desire for or interest in Freedom in Muslim states. In every single case where they've had the opportunity to vote for their own government they've voted in favor of rigid theocratic parties. Iran is the governing model for how Muslims wish to be ruled.

Drivel. We combated their proxies with our proxies throughout the world. The middle-east was simply one of those areas. However, through of the cold war the Soviets were actually the arms masters of most of the more benighted Muslim states, including Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Libya, Lebanon, Jordan and Sudan. However, the middle east has been governed through dictators all the way back to the beginning of the area's history so it's not like we changed anything. Sure they are, and that's why they're replacing them with their own tyrants. Because they uh, love freedom so much.

You were being silly.

Certainly a religion can have a detrimental effect on a society in which it holds power. Imagine, if you would, one of the Aztek religions where human sacrifices were regularly practiced holding sway over a nation today.

I said that Christians and Jews "by and large" come from more enlightened societies than Muslims. This is indisputably true. Your anguish at my stating it simply shows that your opposition is based more on political correctness than any actual interest in facts or truth.

Don't be silly. It has to do with reality. I'm not rich. I'm aware, however, of my growing options and abilities to affect my life as my income grows. Those with very large amounts of wealth have far, far greater abilities in that they can use it to influence society and politicians.

It did not seem to me that he said their views were moderating, but that they were simply being more careful about how they expressed those views in a public forum. These are Muslims born and raised in 'the west' and yet the speakers were going to criticize aspects of 'western society' which they felt were 'harmful to Islam' -- such as gender rights. This would seem to be another call to separate themselves, as Muslims, from the 'evils of western culture', such as gay rights, gender rights, freedom of conscience and the like. In other words, don't be Canadians. Be sixteenth century Arabs instead.

You simply don't understand. The threat is not from the comparatively few violent radicals blowing things up. The threat is from Islam itself, from the "Muslim world" and its expansion. The actions of the few would be pointless were they not legitimized by so many voices within the broader Muslim world. Nor would their threat be of immediate interest other than to their few immediate targets aside from how that threat serves to choke off much of what might be considered modern dialogue within the Muslim world. Pakistan is a fairly good example of this. Note how more 'moderate' voices which spoke of the unfairness of their archaic blasphemy laws have been silenced by the violent extremists. No one dare speak of reform now. Repeat that in a thousand, in ten thousand cases across the Muslim world, large and small, from women being intimidated into wearing burkhas by threats of violence, to men whose livelihoods come to depend on towing the 'party line'. Most of the Muslim world are simply content to go along with whatever the status quo is for Islam. Those few who chafe at the barbarity and backwardness are largely cowed by intimidation and violence. We've even see that sort of thing spreading beyond the Muslim world, where individuals who publicly criticize Islam face threats, as do media organizations which do anything considered 'insulting' towards Islam. Witness the hysteria and threats of violence against those few silly cartoons published by a Danish newspaper. Witness how many international media organizations were cowed into not printing them, and had to somehow discuss a worldwide issue without daring to let their readers/viewers see what the discussion was about! And meanwhile the size of the Muslim world community continues to grow. . To keep oneself away from music in this society is to keep oneself largely locked away FROM this society, for music is ever present in every form of our culture, from radio, television shows and movies, to vidoes to advertising, to most public events. We, as a society, have an interest in the integration of immigrants. And yet, here we have an immigrant family determined to not integrate, and determined that their children not integrate either. And why should the state aid them in this quest? Why should the state continue to draw such people into Canada and watch their numbers expand, a group with a foreign based culture inimical to our own, hostile to our own values?

Ah, so it was their own fault? Why do you suppose everyone blames the hijackers,or the people who organized it, or the people who gave them bases and assistance then?

Would you care to explain how you believe we achieved freedom 'on the back of oppressed Muslims'?

It has nothing to do with what form of worship you engage in, provided it's not done in my face, and everything to do with the way that religion and its cultural background influences your thinking, behaviour and values as a member of my community. Islam is not merely a religion, but a rigid guide to behaviour and societal expectations, including how one is to be governed. As such, it doubles as a political ideology. I would not be happy at bringing in tens of thousands of dedicated Communists or Fascists every year either.