Harper's KGB

Argus · June 13, 2004

As for why Harper wanted to go in, he wanted to go in to support our friends and allies.

Exactly.

So, with Harper, we could expect the same kind of toady-ing that we see from the likes of Blair?

You have no friends, I take it? Where do you get "toadying" from "support friends and allies"? I suppose we were toadying to them when we went into Korea too?

I'm proud of Canada's decision not to go to Iraq and chuck feeces on prisoners, thank you.

Are you proud that we went to Somalia and beat prisoners to death?

Argus · June 13, 2004

In this war on terror, one has to ask, how much has American foreign policy had to do with the anti-American wave that is alive and well today and even before 9/11?

The anger which drove Osama bin Laden to murder thousands of people, which drove the terrorists to sacrifice their lives, was based primarily on religious outrage that "infidels" were profaning the "holy land" of Saudi Arabia by their mere (invited) presence. In other words, by vicious, hateful religious bigotry. You are implying that the Americans should be blamed for this?

Argus · June 13, 2004

When quoting me, in particular, in the context of the way the US has handled it's foreign policy, it sure is a thug. It's not the only one, but ever since WWII it has sanctioned the assassination of democratically chosen leaders,

Names, please.

propped up dictatorships that were friendly to US "interests", though their reigns were brutal and contrary to the will of the people.

As has Canada, as has France, as has England, Russia, China and Cuba, as have most others. Your point was?

Labeling people who disagree with US actions as spouting "garden variety anti-Americanism" is a gross oversimplification.

Unless, of course, they're simply spouting garden variety anti-Americanisms.

Bionic Antboy · June 13, 2004

When quoting me, in particular, in the context of the way the US has handled it's foreign policy, it sure is a thug. It's not the only one, but ever since WWII it has sanctioned the assassination of democratically chosen leaders, propped up dictatorships that were friendly to US "interests", though their reigns were brutal and contrary to the will of the people.
Between WWII and 1991, the US was involved in an extremely serious Cold War against Communism. This war was a major preoccupation of every Administration. There is no doubt in my mind who the real thugs were in that war. Americans acted in general like a firm policeman.

That's where I have to disagree. No doubt the Soviet Union was guilty of thuggery itself, but that doesn't excuse the behaviour of the US, and it's not just an isolated case.

It was the US "enemy of my enemy is my friend" approach to foreign policy that sowed the seed that bore the bitter fruit that is Osama bin Laden, for just one example.

Not to question such fundamental issues is to ignore root causes of strife the world over, and in the end, does a disservice to the ideals of freedom and democracy. Any questioning or disageeing with policy, however, is met with a broad "anti-patriotic" brush, and this kind of attitude seems to be creeping more into Canada as well.

August1991 · June 13, 2004

Any questioning or disageeing with policy, however, is met with a broad "anti-patriotic" brush, and this kind of attitude seems to be creeping more into Canada as well.

I agree with you.

I think the problem arises because, as in a war, everyone is expected to rally around the flag. And if you don't, then it means you're a traitor.

What you are saying, and I agree, is that the freedom of dissent is a more important value than solidarity before a perceived threat.

It was the US "enemy of my enemy is my friend" approach to foreign policy that sowed the seed that bore the bitter fruit that is Osama bin Laden, for just one example.

Here I strongly disagree with you. To say that the US in any way planted the seed leading to bin Laden is absurd. bin Laden came from a wealthy family in a wealthy country. You might as well blame the Republican Party for causing Ted Bundy. Or why not the provocative clothes his victims wore?

Not to question such fundamental issues is to ignore root causes of strife the world over

Smart people in countries suffering strife need only hold up a mirror to see the "root cause".

In Quebec, for almost 40 years, there is an ongoing peaceful war about independence. It has distorted local and federal politics. This "strife" is entirely of our own doing. At least, we use peaceful means, not violent.

Bionic Antboy · June 13, 2004

It was the US "enemy of my enemy is my friend" approach to foreign policy that sowed the seed that bore the bitter fruit that is Osama bin Laden, for just one example.
Here I strongly disagree with you. To say that the US in any way planted the seed leading to bin Laden is absurd. bin Laden came from a wealthy family in a wealthy country. You might as well blame the Republican Party for causing Ted Bundy. Or why not the provocative clothes his victims wore?

Well, I'm glad to see that we can agree on some things...

As for the highlighted quote, the reason I say this is because it was the US support of bin Laden in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion of that country that laid the foundation of "Al-Qa'edah".

This article from MSNBC back in 1998 gives just a little insight to why such policies can be dangerous. And remember, it was written 3 years before 9/11.

http://msnbc.com/news/190144.asp?cp1=1

willy · June 13, 2004

Aftershocks spread around the world as the issue became a more fundamental one -- that of the vast cultural differences between the East and West concerning morality and basic freedom.
Tremors were even felt in America's shopping malls as at least three major bookstore chains temporarily removed the books from their shelves in the interest of employee safety in the face of several threats.

http://www.webcurrent.com/rushdie.html

I went to hear Rushdie speak this week. He is strong on open and free speech, but I think he has a keen insight into what creates the likes of Osama. The middle eastern extreme Islamic groups are not representative of what that religion stands for but they are a reality and they are dedicated to killing the infidels and driving them out of the middle east. Is this a position that Canadians should readily accept? They don’t want our peace offering or good will. They want us dead. These groups would and is subjecting vast populations in this world as the Taliban did in Afghanistan. What the Americans, with the Italians, British, Australians, ect. are doing has the potential to influence the whole region and in the long run the security of the west as well. I for one hope they are successful and the people of that area can live with the privileges we have received from birth.

It is easy to be an arm chair quarter back but for the last 10 years Canada is not regularly in the game. This does not make us blameless. Inaction has a moral consequence as the pain and suffering in the world continues. We don’t even have the capability to be in the game. (not even one transport plane)

Saying peace is a good thing goes with out question but how do we really influence the world to be more peaceful?

takeanumber · June 13, 2004

Whenever anyone talks about "secret agendas" the question arises; uh, how do you know if it's a secret? Ah, because you can "read between the lines". Well you know what I see when I try to read between lines? Nothing.

Wow, the Argusaur roars.

It's 'secret' because not many people outside the Calgary Conservative Elite knows about it.

How do I know about it?

Ta-Da!

Seriously Argusaur.

As for me having a Nazi Fetish, don't get me confused for you and your friends. Also, you're in no position to critisize the Nazi's for their support of racial purity.

(Swish!)

The Nazi's were pro-gay when it came to other nationalities, but when it came to their own, it was completely different. (Hence the 1933 laws) which were at the time, also predicated on Christian zeolotism. (Strange how that always gets omitted.)

Anyway, that's merely adding colour to the debate. (Drumroll).

Osama Bin Ladin was working hand and hand with the CIA back during the Afghan-Soviet war (Frontline, PBS). We all know this. It's just a fact.

When the Soviet empire somewhat crumbled (the Empire lives on in the form of the Russian Federation), they needed a new enemy. Lo and behold, the USA.

The USA does have the attitude that a 'an enemy of an enemy is a friend'...I can list a dozen examples where the USA allied with genocidal, totalitarian or authoritarian regimes just to spite a greater enemy.

Should I list them?

Ah what the hell, let's start:

1. Taiwan. (Chiang Kai Sek and the KMT)

2. South Korea. (1955-1990 featured a regime similar to the KMT)

3. Uganda

4. UNITA (Angola)

5. Mobutu (Zaire)

6. Suharto (Indonesia)

7. South Vietnam

8. Mao (PRC, 1972)

9. Iraq (Saddam Hussein)

10. Egypt (ongoing)

11. Saudi Arabia (ongoing)

12. Kuwait (ongoing)

13. Pakistan (ongoing)

14. Jordan (ongoing)

15. Uzbekistan (ongoing)

Regards,

Takeanumber.

willy · June 13, 2004

The Nazi's were pro-gay when it came to other nationalities, but when it came to their own, it was completely different. (Hence the 1933 laws) which were at the time, also predicated on Christian zeolotism. (Strange how that always gets omitted.)

This is extremely offensive to me and any other Christian who participates on this forum.

If we ever get a personal exclusion function on this site it might not be too soon. I don't need to read this crap to get to others who honestly want to talk about issues on this site.

takeanumber · June 13, 2004

Truth hurts, don't it?

Unless you're a Christian zeolot, you shouldn't be offended.

To relate this back to Jim Pankiw, Harper, Anders and Stockwell day...do I think they could perpetuate a repeat of 1933?

All the way.

Repeal of C-250 is just the first step for what they got in store.

willy · June 13, 2004

takeanumber, you just don't get it.

You are preaching hate towards Christians and implying that we some how propagated the Nazis. This is offensive. My God is of grace and love. To associate Jesus and this abomination of the holocaust is repugnant and personally very offensive. You are perfectly okay with that and even gloat in some type of righteousness?

I will pray for you tonight.

August1991 · June 13, 2004

9. Iraq (Saddam Hussein)
10. Egypt (ongoing)

11. Saudi Arabia (ongoing)

12. Kuwait (ongoing)

13. Pakistan (ongoing)

14. Jordan (ongoing)

15. Uzbekistan (ongoing)

Prayers aside, I note that all of your last examples are Muslim countries, takenumb. Ever wondered why?

takeanumber · June 13, 2004

I'm not preaching hatred.

I'm pointing out that the persecution of homosexuals by Germans in 1933 has its roots in racial purity and christian zeolotry.

Truth hurts.

My God is of grace and love. To associate Jesus and this abomination of the holocaust is repugnant and personally very offensive.

Is your God the same one responsible for the residential schools? How about those churches in Rwanda with the complicit priests and nuns?

Such a short memory.

I suppose you're going to tell me that the persecution of Jews, Homosexuals and Aboriginals all falls under your religious 'freedom'.

I will pray for you tonight.

Please don't.

August1991 · June 13, 2004

Is your God the same one responsible for the residential schools? How about those churches in Rwanda with the complicit priests and nuns?

TakeNumb, you don't trust organized religion. I don't trust the State. I gather that what we both don't like is coercive (involuntary) relations.

And I suspect that we both understand that kids have no choice because they don't know.

I say turn the page, move on, but never forget.

willy · June 13, 2004

Is your God the same one responsible for the residential schools? How about those churches in Rwanda with the complicit priests and nuns?
Such a short memory.

I suppose you're going to tell me that the persecution of Jews, Homosexuals and Aboriginals all falls under your religious 'freedom'.

takeanumber

Abuse of childern was never done in the name of the Church but regretfully by cleargy who represent the church. I will never apoligize for the evil people do, but be clear this is not what the living God is all about. We all have the capacity to hurt others and I pray every night that God works on me so I don't.

Cast the first stone takeanumber, and too late I prayed for you already, I may make a habit of it. (August below talks of prayer as a private thing, I am public about it. The way I look at it, if you are a believer you appreciate it and if not no harm done. This is not politically correct but hey maybe we need more public prayer; we do everything else in public. If I do a fend I apologize, not the intention.)

And if I clearly point out that you are attacking me personally and my faith and yet you think it is okay, yes this is hate.

August1991 · June 13, 2004

Abuse of childern was never done in the name of the Church.

Willy, I am extremely respectful of people's religious beliefs. I cannot imagine anything so private or personal as a person praying. But I must say something.

The threat of eternal damnation, or hell, or whatever you want to call it, is not a proper way to start an honest dialogue. Any intelligent person can see through such a negotiating position immediately. Children maybe not.

takeanumber · June 13, 2004

@August:

Forgot to include China (ongoing) in there.

Yeh, I know the reason. An enemy of an enemy is a friend.

In this cae, a repressive regime is threatened by terrorists, who are also American enemies, therefore, the repressive regime becomes a friend.

So yes, we know why.

I'm closing the Christian debate. It occured to me that the initial sentence was being read as "all Christians are zeolots" when the intent of the sentece was "Christian zeolots". Despite a clarification two posts back, some panties are being knotted.

The continued insistance by some that C-250 violates their religious rights, when the bill clearly exempts religion, is just gay-bashing.

There's no other word for it.

And I think Harper et al (especially past Day supporters) are more than willing to combine a secretive CSIS with a repeal of C-250 to come after homosexuals.

You know why CSIS was seperated from the RCMP in the first place? I'll let you do the research that way I don't get accused of not doing mine.

The RCMP went after homosexuals during the cold war when nobody was looking.

What's to prevent them from doing so under a Harper regime that inherently hates homosexuals and hates the Charter (which is Trudeau-iste)?

Nothing.

And that's what should scare Canadians.

It won't scare many Cons though, because I'm sure they'd like to see homosexuals get fired right out of the public service at best, harrassed, or shipped off to camps at worse.

@August:

I'm just as distrustful of the state as I am of the Church. I'm even more distrustful of a Conservative headed state than I am of a Liberal one.

Sully · June 13, 2004

Truth hurts, don't it?
Unless you're a Christian zeolot, you shouldn't be offended.

Let the wisdom and brilliance shine through. Even for you this comment is stupid.

In this case I wonder if people like you Takeanumber, who believe themselves to be the epitome of tolerance, actually realize how intolerant you really are.

You champion the rights and freedoms of many causes (gay-rights, abortion, etc.) and that in your own understanding of yourself, you think you are enlightened. You think you are doing a great job, which is fine, I think we all agree with our own viewpoints. But the very things you accuse the conservatives of (i.e. intolerance) is so blantantly obvious in the rhetoric you spout. You lash out at the right all the time, because they are of a different opinion, man just stick to the facts and accept that everyone is not the same, we are all gonna support our beliefs. But lets debate each other with facts and valid opionions.

caesar · June 13, 2004

Any one who disagrees with the USA governments aggressive actions are labelled anti-American.

We do NOT need nor want to be linked and subservient to the USA. Many USA policies are arrogant and unfair and do not meet international law standards. The USA does not abide by the agreements it has signed. At this present time: Canada won another NAFTA agreement on softwood that the USA is just ignoring. The Canadian Beef industry is suffering because of American protectionism; our industries are too intertwined to claim our beef is unsafe and theirs is not. They are using strong armed tactics on Japan to force that country (that does have higher standards than Canada or the USA to protect consumers - 100% testing for BSE)

The invasion of Iraq was pre emptive and not necessary. It was a diversion from the war on terrorism. What it has done is too spread terrorism and to anger Muslims and Arabs and to bring more recruits for the terrorist groups.

Even the first Gulf War may not have been necessary. There is evidence that this situation was manipulated by the USA. This evidence comes from former USA Attorney General / assistant attorney general to JFK and Johnston

(Ramsey Clark). There is evidence that the USA used Napalm on retreating Iraqis (Highway of Death) AFTER the cease fire was signed.

The widely touted claims of Saddam gassing his own people (Kurds) is refuted by the American War College (where Bush gave a recent speech). The War College claims that Iraq and Iran were both using gases to attack each other; the Kurds were accidently caught between the two. Plus the symptons suffered by the Kurds indicated that they were suffering from the type of poisonous gas used by Iran.

takeanumber · June 13, 2004

But the very things you accuse the conservatives of (i.e. intolerance) is so blantantly obvious in the rhetoric you spout. You lash out at the right all the time, because they are of a different opinion, man just stick to the facts and accept that everyone is not the same, we are all gonna support our beliefs. But lets debate each other with facts and valid opionions.

I said Christian zeolots.

I didn't say 'all Christians are zeolots".

I was referring to a single subset of the German population.

This has been my third clarification.

Unless you're a Christian zeolot who agrees with the Nazi actions of 1933, you should not be offended.

If you're a bad Christian who believes that Nazi policy in 1933 was a good thing -- you're the type of person who needs to consider moving to Austria where you'd be more happy; because we won't allow a Conservative government to ever enact such a law.

Same goes for ressurecting the old RCMP death machine and making it secret.

Does anybody here know why CSIS was seperated from the RCMP in the first place? Does anybody want me to tell them?

caesar · June 13, 2004

Argus; You claimed there was no money to be made in Iraq. I do believe, that the USA decided that Iraq's oil and strategic middle eastern spot to place a US military base were one of the reasons the USA did attack Iraq. Note how quickly a new government was formed in the terrorist fill Afghanistan; nothing there for the USA. As things have turned out not to be the cake walk that the USA envisioned; I do believe that the costs far out weigh any gain. I do not want our country to pay the bills to undo the damage wrought by the USA actions. Canada did back the invasion of Afghanistan and therefore we are on the hook to assist in paying for the rebuilding of that country.

Argus · June 13, 2004

Whenever anyone talks about "secret agendas" the question arises; uh, how do you know if it's a secret? Ah, because you can "read between the lines". Well you know what I see when I try to read between lines? Nothing.

Wow, the Argusaur roars.

It's 'secret' because not many people outside the Calgary Conservative Elite knows about it.

How do I know about it?

Ta-Da!

Seriously Argusaur.

In other words you're talking out of your ass again, and trying to pretend your paranoid fantasies have some basis in reality. :rolleyes:

takeanumber · June 13, 2004

They do have basis in reality.

You know I'm in Calgary West. You know I'm a graduate of the U of C.

You know that I'm an economist.

So you know the type of profs I've had, who I hung with.

Hello.

The Conservative Elite are here.

Don't be so dismissive.

I know a lot more about the party than most people do.

Maybe even you (!!)

Argus · June 13, 2004

To relate this back to Jim Pankiw, Harper, Anders and Stockwell day...do I think they could perpetuate a repeat of 1933?
All the way.

Nazis aren't all that dangerous by themselves. Hitler was just a hatemongering clown, after all.

What you need to cause trouble are a lot of ignorant people whose souls are full of hatred and distrust, who are willing to believe the most evil things about those who are different from them even without a shred of evidence. You need bitter dull-wits who will condemn _anyone_ on mere suspicion. It's so easy to convince such people that concentration camps are neccessary, and that their neighbors were, if not doing nasty things, at least "capable of" doing nasty things. It's not like you need much proof, right?

Now I wonder - who do we know around here who fits that description? :wacko: