More from Mark Steyn

[Shady]

It's not necessarily about violence. Muslims immigrating to countries and then pushing for their acceptance of Sharia Law isn't violent behavior. But it's definitely something that can undermine Western values.

As Steyn points out..

It envisions the United States as the only liberal power properly equipped, both demographically and psychologically, to withstand the undermining of its values by the growing global influence of Islamic fundamentalism

And the influence he's talking about isn't an influence centred in violent actions. Some of you are missing the point in your focus of terrorism, or bombings, etc.

[dre]

The difference is that those Americans don't have the ability to carry out a nuclear attack on Iran. Whereas individual Muslims DO have the ability to carry out attacks on soft targets in Canada and the US.

Fair enough... I just wanted to put those poll results in context. Theres actually a theory that describes the phenomenon, and Im looking for an article I read a few years ago about that exact subject. But Im gonna take my kids for a bikeride so it will be a bit.

[Keepitsimple]

Sincerely, I'm trying to figure out why a Muslim would want to come to Canada - land of the infidels -= as opposed to an Islamist country like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. There is a difference between a Muslim and an Islamist. They are not one and the same - althgough they can be both. Canada should be welcoming of Muslims - who adhere to an "acceptance" form of the Koran.....as opposed to Islamists who adhere to world domination for their religion - kind of "my way or the highway" - re-enforced with homicide bombers.

[Michael Hardner]

Did I say anything about the "level of insurgency" in Canada? I was responding to the suggestion that Muslim fundamentalism was weakening. That's nonsensical, and it's you who's moving the goalposts.

Isn't one of the fears that fundamentalism will turn into insurgency ? I please guilty to misrepresenting what you're afraid of.

Please tell me what we're trying to guard against, then maybe we can determine some objective measures to look at.

Or is it your suggestion we needn't worry until there actually is an active Muslim insurgency in Canada?

Who am I to keep you from your worries ? Worry away. But if you want to convince us, you'll have to provide us with reasoning that comes from outside your mind - objective facts that we can track, rather than anecdotal evidence, or transitory events.

[nicky10013]

I agree...

But it does'nt answer the real threat to democracy,again in Buchanan's and my opinion....

The appeal of the modern corporate Fascist state(China) to developing countries around the world,as opposed to democratization...

States don't have any say in democratization. The people do. If they want the government to change, they'll change it and the growing trend in China is that people want rights. THe funny thing about corporate fascist states are is that they're only powerful if people believe in them. You know how many Sovietologists in 1988 predicted the collapse of the Warsaw Pact against the communist bureaucratic monolith (a term interchangeable with modern corporate fascist state) just a year later? None.

Edited November 8, 2010 by nicky10013

[Michael Hardner]

12% identified themselves as extremist Muslims and said they supported violent Jihad

Survey on Canadian opinions

Well, good for you for finding it. I have a few questions about the poll, as the results seem surprising to me. But clearly, there was something reported that doesn't gibe with my uninformed view of how these people think.

But, unfortunately, I can't find anything about the survey other than the article in Western Standard. And that article gives the responses of the 82% of moderates, but doesn't give the response that the dangerous 12% gave.

So far, this is what we have.

[dre]

I dont like religious fundamentalism... The idea that people govern their lives based on what they think a magic man in the sky wants is just flat out scary to me. And its clear that sky-god club members can do some pretty crazy shit based on these beliefs.

BinLaden claims that Mohammed was behind his actions on 911... thousands of people are dead because of that. George Bush claims that Jesus told him to invade Iraq and kill thousands more there. Now... my take on it is since neither a christian god or a muslim god exist anywhere but in the minds of the believers what we really just have is people looking for EXCUSES for evil deeds.

I still think we should separate actions from beliefs and thoughts. And as far as I can tell the number of violent criminals in the muslim Canadian community is not any higher than it is in other communities.

Edited November 8, 2010 by dre

[Jack Weber]

I dont like religious fundamentalism... The idea that people govern their lives based on what they think a magic man in the sky wants is just flat out scary to me. And its clear that sky-god club members can do some pretty crazy shit based on these beliefs.

BinLaden claims that Mohammed was behind his actions on 911... thousands of people are dead because of that. George Bush claims that Jesus told him to invade Iraq and kill thousands more there. Now... my take on it is since neither a christian god or a muslim god exist anywhere but in the minds of the believers what we really just have is people looking for EXCUSES for evil deeds.

I still think we should separate actions from beliefs and thoughts. And as far as I can tell the number of violent criminals in the muslim Canadian community is not any higher than it is in other communities.

It's also clear to me that some of us "sky-God" club members can be fairly reasonable,as well...

And here we go again with this ....

Is it God that should be impugned for the violent actions of man who use His name for evil,or is it the failing of Man that is the problem?

Edited November 8, 2010 by Jack Weber

[bloodyminded]

It's also clear to me that some of us "sky-God" club members can be fairly reasonable,as well...

And here we go again with this ....

Is it God that should be impugned for the violent actions of man who use His name for evil,or is it the failing of Man that is the problem?

Since Dre doesn't believe in God, by definition he is blaming human beings, not God.

[Wild Bill]

By far the biggest threat posed by extreme Islam is not what THEY do but how we react to them. We have literally emptied our treasuries and borrowed trillions of dollars on a policies that are not only unsustainable in the long term but have been completely ineffective.

We are by FAR our own worst enemies, and we have literally played right into their hands.

The result? A bunch of ragtag dirt farmers has tricked the west into spending trillions of dollars into destroying nations then rebuilding the exact same nations they just destroyed. They have caused the US to create the largest new branch of government in modern history that will bleed US tax payers for centuries to come.

The best analogy I can think of to the way the west has responded to 911 is that of a man using a large rock to crush a bee that has landed on his face. Yes... the bee posed a threat. It had just stung you in the face and was threatening to sting you again. The problem is that the ROCK not only failed to crush the bee, it smashed in the entire front of your skull to a pulp.

Perhaps we should measure success by a different yardstick. It's true we've still not caught Bin Lauden. However, was that the real goal of invading Afghanistan?

Just because Bush was not the sharpest crayon in the box doesn't mean that there were a FEW smart advisors in the presidential circle! The CIA and other organizations exist regardless of who sits in the Presidential Office. Surely they must have been aware of the difficulty chasing individual terrorists or small terrorist groups. War against a nation is clear and defined but war against a loose group of fanatics like Al Queda is much more of a vague, difficult target.

However, Al Queda did not act unsupported. The rulers of Afghanistan were the Taliban, who provided Bin Lauden's bunch with safe, protected training areas, money and weapons. America realized that while chasing Osama would be very difficult, removing the Taliban from power as both punishment and a clear message to any other countries that supported such terrorist groups was much more easily accomplished.

They moved in and the Taliban was deposed! True, they still have a ragtag army that plants some IEDs but still, they do NOT rule Afghanistan and are never likely to again. The most they can hope for is to have some role in the new government, a role that will never again dare to be as active in supporting threats to America!

That's the realpolitik of why America invaded Afghanistan. True, it's nice that girls can go to school without acid being thrown in their faces and individual Afghanis can enjoy more personal freedoms but those are really just PR benefits, as far as the USA is concerned. Far more important was the message that if you aid and abet terrorism against the USA it WILL make you pay a terrible price!

The Taliban spokespeople may still be full of "piss and vinegar" as they claim they are winning the war against the "foreign devils" and the "Great Satan" but if you go back in time and tell them "If you let Osama have those training bases and resources you will end up being thrown out of power" what do you think they would have done?

So again, it depends on your yardstick. There are no contradictions, just false premises.

[dre]

It's also clear to me that some of us "sky-God" club members can be fairly reasonable,as well...

And here we go again with this ....

Is it God that should be impugned for the violent actions of man who use His name for evil,or is it the failing of Man that is the problem?

I think evil men just use "god" as an excuse.

And it makes good sense to do so. When youre pushing a political cause you look for ways to make that cause appeal to those around you. If theyre Islamic then it makes sense for you to wrap that cause in Islamic rhetoric. Like BinLaden does. If theyre Christian then it makes sense to wrap that cause in Christian rhetoric.

Is it God that should be impugned for the violent actions of man who use His name for evil,or is it the failing of Man that is the problem?

I guess that depends. If youre a christian you probably believe on some level that evil is present in the human spirit because a talking snake tricked a women made of a mans ribs into eating poisonous fruit from a forbidden tree. The problem is that god made that talking snake on purpose, and set up the entire scenario. Given that it would seem that some christians probably believe that god is responsible for the evil deeds that men do. I certaintly dont believe that.

As for whether "god" is responsible for mens failures and mens "evil" I guess it depends on your views. Modern religions have an almost dualist theme (god vs the devil). But that didnt come until later on.

If you read the entire book of Genesis theres absolutely no mention of the words Satan, Devil, demon, Lucifer, fallen angel etc. Any "adversary" to god is of gods own will and own doing, and does gods bidding and acts on his judgements. The same thing holds true in ancient pagan religions and ancient Judaism.

I guess that people who subscribe to this MUST think that everything man does is gods fault on some level.

[Argus]

Isn't one of the fears that fundamentalism will turn into insurgency ?

One of my concerns is that there will be Muslim terrorism in Canada. Are you saying that's not likely to happen?

However, my overriding concern is the influence of a retrograde culture whose adherents are doubling in size in Canada every five years, and its growing political influence.

Again, are you suggesting there will be no Malmo's in Canada? Do you know anything whatever about the amount of crime Muslim immigrants and their children are involved with in Canada? Does anyone, given the government keeps no statistics? do know what their economic performance has been?

The only information I've ever seen on the degree of criminalization was a comment in the Ottawa Citizen last year (I believe) in an article which stated more than half the youths in custody in the Ottawa region were Somalians. Still, it has been well known locally, for many years, even without statistics, that almost all the local gang problems and violence involve Somalians or Lebanese. From what Macleans said during the upsurge in shooting in Toronto a couple of years back almost all the gang violence there is coming from immigrants and their kids, as well, more specifically Jamaicans. I understand the majority of street crime in the BC area is coming from Asian and Indian immigrants and their children.

So what can we say as citizens to the perception that the great majority of street violence in our cities exists only because of our immigration policy?

[Michael Hardner]

One of my concerns is that there will be Muslim terrorism in Canada. Are you saying that's not likely to happen?

I would be foolish to do so, since that has already been identified as a risk.

I thought you were questioning my use of the term 'insurgency'.

However, my overriding concern is the influence of a retrograde culture whose adherents are doubling in size in Canada every five years, and its growing political influence.

Again, are you suggesting there will be no Malmo's in Canada? Do you know anything whatever about the amount of crime Muslim immigrants and their children are involved with in Canada? Does anyone, given the government keeps no statistics? do know what their economic performance has been?

No, we don't know these things. As we can see from these threads, such discussions are fraught with problems. I do think that such things should be discussed, but I don't know how that discussion would happen. Possibly a public forum with selected panelists discussing the problem.

The only information I've ever seen on the degree of criminalization was a comment in the Ottawa Citizen last year (I believe) in an article which stated more than half the youths in custody in the Ottawa region were Somalians. Still, it has been well known locally, for many years, even without statistics, that almost all the local gang problems and violence involve Somalians or Lebanese.

"Well known local folklore" is exactly the problem here. If we want to embark on a serious study of these things, then the purpose has to be clear. It needs to be an academic discussion with a balance of views on the panel looking at the numbers.

From what Macleans said during the upsurge in shooting in Toronto a couple of years back almost all the gang violence there is coming from immigrants and their kids, as well, more specifically Jamaicans. I understand the majority of street crime in the BC area is coming from Asian and Indian immigrants and their children.

So what can we say as citizens to the perception that the great majority of street violence in our cities exists only because of our immigration policy?

What we can say is that we need to look at it. But what won't fly is a panel where the conclusion is already well-known before it even starts. Furthermore, if the purpose is to determine how to deal with questions of immigration, the discussion may well turn to spending more money on immigrant services.

But, of course, many in the public will already "know" that that isn't the way to go.

On the other hand, the discussion may determine that certain types of immigration are not beneficial to Canada and that limits need to be put in.

At that point, many in the public will "know" that racism, imperialism and so on are at the root of the panel discussions.

--------

If you want to have a real discussion, then you will need to have buy-in from the public beforehand. It's a tough task, and I don't think that we're ready for it yet. Nor do I think that the public is really asking for a review of policy.

But I'm willing to hear your ideas.

[dre]

One of my concerns is that there will be Muslim terrorism in Canada. Are you saying that's not likely to happen?

However, my overriding concern is the influence of a retrograde culture whose adherents are doubling in size in Canada every five years, and its growing political influence.

Again, are you suggesting there will be no Malmo's in Canada? Do you know anything whatever about the amount of crime Muslim immigrants and their children are involved with in Canada? Does anyone, given the government keeps no statistics? do know what their economic performance has been?

The only information I've ever seen on the degree of criminalization was a comment in the Ottawa Citizen last year (I believe) in an article which stated more than half the youths in custody in the Ottawa region were Somalians. Still, it has been well known locally, for many years, even without statistics, that almost all the local gang problems and violence involve Somalians or Lebanese. From what Macleans said during the upsurge in shooting in Toronto a couple of years back almost all the gang violence there is coming from immigrants and their kids, as well, more specifically Jamaicans. I understand the majority of street crime in the BC area is coming from Asian and Indian immigrants and their children.

So what can we say as citizens to the perception that the great majority of street violence in our cities exists only because of our immigration policy?

One of my concerns is that there will be Muslim terrorism in Canada. Are you saying that's not likely to happen?

The threat of terrorism is indeed one of the hundreds of threats to the safety of Canadians. The air india bombing which killed more people per capita than 911 is proof of that. Theres hundreds of threats that result in thousands of dead Canadians every year. If empirical evidence shows us that we arent screening refugees well enough to weed out criminal elements then we should strengthen our screening process. I dont think even pro immigration folks will argue with that. In fact I dont even think that Canadas muslims would argue with that... if we let in some crazy muslim that kills a bunch of people then theyre gonna be the ones hit hardest by it, besides the direct victims.

[Argus]

"Well known local folklore" is exactly the problem here. If we want to embark on a serious study of these things, then the purpose has to be clear. It needs to be an academic discussion with a balance of views on the panel looking at the numbers.

Good idea, except there are no numbers because those on the "we love immigrants" side of the issue have co-opted the very idea of collecting statistics based on race or national origin as being entirely racist in nature. Any proposal to do so will instantly have them label the person who suggested it as someone to the far right of the Heritage Front. This is the same sort of mentality which tells the media they must not report on the nationality or race of criminals or suspected criminals.

And I have little doubt that any research organization which dared to turn over the rocks and look in the file drawers and try to get what information is available on a particular group would find itself up before the Human Rights Commission for publishing hate literature if it dared to print that this or that group was involved in crime much more often than was the norm, or was more likely to be on welfare than others, or whatever. I mean, that would be far more controversial than what Steyn wrote in his famous Macleans article.

[Michael Hardner]

Good idea, except there are no numbers because those on the "we love immigrants" side of the issue have co-opted the very idea of collecting statistics based on race or national origin as being entirely racist in nature.

I was pretty clear about the changes that would have to happen for a dialogue to go forward. You pointed out the difficulties with the others, but what about with your side ?

[eyeball]

I believe the biggest threat to democracy is something I heared Pat Buchanan(sp) talk about about a year and a half ago...And please,I'm no fan of just about anything Mr.Buchanan says,but I think he did have a moment of lucidity here...

He felt that the biggest threat to democracy in the coming years was the influence of China,and how many "developing countries" see the ease with which the crypto-fascist Chinese can get things done do to their authoritarian style.This is true when these countries deal with China,because unlike the West,they never demand that countries change their human rights record,or their environmental stance,or,whatever...There is no Chinese interference into the internal affairs of some very bad governments.

Hew felt the creeping Fascism of the Chinese,and the appeal of that,would be the biggest threat to democracy...

It's not just the developing countries that are falling to the allure of authoritarianism. The more that countries and economies engage with one another the more like one another they become. Most people seem to have bought the notion this dynamic would only work one way and it's been the overarching assumption every trade jaunt our governments and corporations have sponsored to China have been based on but I've never believed it.

I place the phenomenon of how our society is also incrementally but inevitably becoming more authoritarian with each passing election cycle in the same category. One party threatens to crack down on...whatever, and the other side's fear of not appearing equally tough on the fear-du-jour enables it. Rinse and repeat over and over again and eventual mutual assured dictatorship can be the only outcome.

The phrase, and the band played on, comes to mind.

Edited November 8, 2010 by eyeball

[Argus]

I was pretty clear about the changes that would have to happen for a dialogue to go forward. You pointed out the difficulties with the others, but what about with your side ?

My "side" would include everyone who has doubts about the wisdom of our current immigration policy. That's a pretty broad group. What would you have them change?

[Guest TrueMetis]

There are more than 800,000 Muslims in Canada and according to a poll that I saw - and I apologize because I can't find it - at least 10% believe in violent Jihad. I believe the poll was very direct in what Violent Jihad meant - leaving little doubt that this segment of Islam was completely intransigent in their beliefs - in short - a powderkeg with a short fuse.

That's it? The number of Christians that support turning Canada into a Christian nation and suppressing the tights of all other groups is probably that high. I would expect a higher proportion of any given population to be just plain batshit crazy. This is actually quite a nice number to hear.

For anyone interested I've got a recent survey on Public Opinion in the Islamic World on Terrorism, al Qaeda, and US Policies.

My link

All in all it's really quite positive.

[Michael Hardner]

My "side" would include everyone who has doubts about the wisdom of our current immigration policy. That's a pretty broad group. What would you have them change?

How about agreeing that any discussion is fraught with problems and misunderstanding on your side. An open debate would just be a mess.

Or maybe you could volunteer something for once ?

I have noted that the left- tendency to bury dissent and suppress statistics is not conducive to open discussion. What can you offer in the way of concessions ?