dre Posted October 29, 2014 Report Posted October 29, 2014 I mean, we're not even talking about them reading emails. We're talking about them having a massive databank of connection history in which your calls would be a miniscule piece and almost certainly never, ever even looked at. Well you HAVE been talking about reading emails. You have made numerous references to that. And the Internet Surveillance Act allowed that. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
dre Posted October 29, 2014 Report Posted October 29, 2014 (edited) They're not exactly masking them. It's in their name for God's sake. Meaning Canadians have to walk on eggshells because their guests have shown their fangs? -- Edited October 29, 2014 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
dre Posted October 29, 2014 Report Posted October 29, 2014 Meaning Canadians have to walk on eggshells because their guests have shown their fangs? No im not walking on eggshells in any way at all. Terrorism does not even make the top 1000 list of things that frighten me. But we definately shouldnt go out of our way to provoke people in a way that damages our own interests and puts us in danger. Its just stupid behavior. I mean... this policy may have already gotten a couple of Canadians killed, and now our government is going to react to that by giving law enforcement new domestic powers.... All so that we can send a token force that really accomplishes nothing more than allowing the axis of OOPS to wave our flag around? Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
dre Posted October 29, 2014 Report Posted October 29, 2014 However, in terms of the West in general...do you really want the West to sit and do nothing while a savage Taliban-meets-al-Qaeda-type terrorist group is making good effort at establishing a fundamentalist caliphate in the middle-east run by sharia law? If not, is their a better way to approach foreign policy in the ME in these situations? No I expect the west to do the stupidest thing available.... and get bogged down in someone elses civil war. Thats what created ISIL in the first place... our "keystone cops" style bungling. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Argus Posted October 29, 2014 Report Posted October 29, 2014 They're not exactly masking them. It's in their name for God's sake. Yes, they're interested in spreading Allah's rule across the world. You take this as not being religious in nature? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
GostHacked Posted October 29, 2014 Report Posted October 29, 2014 Yes, they're interested in spreading Allah's rule across the world. You take this as not being religious in nature? Wonder why there are many Christians in Africa? Were the missions about helping people, or converting them to their religion? Quote
dre Posted October 29, 2014 Report Posted October 29, 2014 And if ISIS continues to flourish, absent western intervention, and takes over the middle east from Iran to Monocco, and then starts building nuclear weapons, well, still not our problem. Nobody with half a brain thinks that is going to happen. ISIL is surrounded by powers that could crush them with complete ease. They have no been able to take any significant territory where there hasnt been a sympathetic sunni majority. If they start trying to take territory from the Iranians, or the Turks, or Saudis, or Shia areas of Iraq and Syria they will get crushed. And if the Sunnis want their own state that is initially run by ISIL, instead of being controlled by Iranian/Shia proxies in Iraq and Syria then who cares. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Argus Posted October 29, 2014 Report Posted October 29, 2014 Funny you don't use that logic with accepting immigrants from parts of the world that are in conflict. The situations are entirely dissimilar. We don't even know that the efforts of the authorites ever thwarted a true terrorist attack, so we can hardly judge that there will never be a succesful one in future. And we know that Muslim cultural values are replete with retrograde beliefs in countries around the world, most particularly in Pakistan and the middle east. If you collect your drinking water in a muddy pool you're going to get dirty water. You might not get sick, but then again you might. Given the analyses of how immigrants from these areas perform in Canada economically, given these retrograde social beliefs, and the enhanced likelihood of terorrism, I see no convincing argument as to why we should continue to accept immirants from these areas of the world vs other areas of the world where these issues do not arise. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted October 29, 2014 Report Posted October 29, 2014 Nobody with half a brain thinks that is going to happen. ISIL is surrounded by powers that could crush them with complete ease. They have no been able to take any significant territory where there hasnt been a sympathetic sunni majority. If they start trying to take territory from the Iranians, or the Turks, or Saudis, or Shia areas of Iraq and Syria they will get crushed. They already have a substantial amount of territory. Absent western intervention I don't see why they couldn't take the remainder of Iraq, and then, with more money and recruits available, push into Syria and take that. There actually are a lot of sympathizers for ISIS in many parts of the Arab world, including Saudi Arabia. With Syria and Iraq as a base, and all that oil money, who knows where they could move next. Certainly they could take out Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states with relative ease, then push into Lebanon and take that too. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted October 29, 2014 Report Posted October 29, 2014 Wonder why there are many Christians in Africa? Were the missions about helping people, or converting them to their religion? I know that Christian missionaries didn't go into Africa with a sword to behead anyone refusing to convert. I also know this is the twenty first century and our moral codes have shifted quite a bit over time. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
dre Posted October 29, 2014 Report Posted October 29, 2014 (edited) They already have a substantial amount of territory. Absent western intervention I don't see why they couldn't take the remainder of Iraq, and then, with more money and recruits available, push into Syria and take that. There actually are a lot of sympathizers for ISIS in many parts of the Arab world, including Saudi Arabia. With Syria and Iraq as a base, and all that oil money, who knows where they could move next. Certainly they could take out Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states with relative ease, then push into Lebanon and take that too. Again this is pure fantasy. The Shia and Kurds in Iraq have 1000 times as much military force at their disposal as ISIL, and ISIL has not taken ANY significant Shia or Kurdish terrority. Certainly they could take out Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states with relative ease :lol: Edited October 29, 2014 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Argus Posted October 29, 2014 Report Posted October 29, 2014 Well you HAVE been talking about reading emails. You have made numerous references to that. And the Internet Surveillance Act allowed that. Cite, please. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
dre Posted October 29, 2014 Report Posted October 29, 2014 Cite, please. Cite for you making references to that? Or for the ISA providing for that? Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Argus Posted October 29, 2014 Report Posted October 29, 2014 Again this is pure fantasy. The Shia and Kurds in Iraq have 1000 times as much military force at their disposal as ISIL, and ISIL has not taken ANY significant Shia or Kurdish terrority. A thouands tims as much mlitary force, huh? Odd, then, that the Kurds were hunkered down trying to fight ISIL off before the US started bombing them, and odder still that ISIS is near Baghdad and the massed forces of Iraqi Shias with all their might have made no significant progress in pushing them back even with US assistance. As to Saudi Arabia. It is the closest place on earth to what ISIL wants, and its people are, if anything, much more religious than the royal family. It is a glass house with very little legitimacy, and given a chance, it would not surprise me to see a lot of Saudis rush to support ISIL if they attacked. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted October 29, 2014 Report Posted October 29, 2014 Cite for you making references to that? Or for the ISA providing for that? That it would allow them to read my emails witout a warrant. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
dre Posted October 29, 2014 Report Posted October 29, 2014 That it would allow them to read my emails witout a warrant. Nobody knows for sure what the government will try to do in the idiotic knee-jerk legislation in response to a crack-head shooting one person, thats coming. But we know what they have tried to do multiple times already... The bill would have allowed authorities to demand access to subscriber information from both ISPs and telephone providers without needing to present a warrant - and would have required telecommunications providers to ensure that there was a back door entrance to allow all communications to be intercepted when desired.[1] The bill would not only have granted these powers to police agencies, but also to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and Competition Bureau officials, as well as anybody "appointed" by the Minister of Public Safety to carry out such actions.[1][18]The bill would also have allowed any of these persons to make copies of the data taken from citizens' digital devices, without oversight or a right of appeal.[18] The bill gave the government the power to install its own surveillance equipment at ISP's to intercept communications and/or warehouse them for data-mining. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
dre Posted October 29, 2014 Report Posted October 29, 2014 Why am I quoted here? Mistake. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
cybercoma Posted October 29, 2014 Report Posted October 29, 2014 Yes, they're interested in spreading Allah's rule across the world. You take this as not being religious in nature? They're interested in having political control in order to establish a theocracy based on their bastardized interpretation of the religion. The violence is firstly about political control. Without the vacuum created by destabilizing the region, they would have no battle to fight. Quote
cybercoma Posted October 29, 2014 Report Posted October 29, 2014 Muslim cultural values What are Muslim cultural values? I have no idea what you're talking about, since there's Muslims from all different cultures. Are you talking about Dr. Oz's culture? Or Maybe Shaq's culture? Or Osama Bin Laden's? Or Malala Yousafzai's? You keep making these ludicrous sweeping statements about Muslims that are entirely meaningless. Quote
TimG Posted October 29, 2014 Report Posted October 29, 2014 (edited) Without the vacuum created by destabilizing the region, they would have no battle to fight.This fight started in 'stable' Syria. If Saddam was still in power then Iraq would be just like Syria today and some variation of ISIS would have risen. There is no reason to relieve the 'Arab Spring' would have bypassed Iraq if Bush stayed out in 2003. Edited October 29, 2014 by TimG Quote
dre Posted October 29, 2014 Report Posted October 29, 2014 A thouands tims as much mlitary force, huh? Odd, then, that the Kurds were hunkered down trying to fight ISIL off before the US started bombing them, and odder still that ISIS is near Baghdad and the massed forces of Iraqi Shias with all their might have made no significant progress in pushing them back even with US assistance. As to Saudi Arabia. It is the closest place on earth to what ISIL wants, and its people are, if anything, much more religious than the royal family. It is a glass house with very little legitimacy, and given a chance, it would not surprise me to see a lot of Saudis rush to support ISIL if they attacked. Again ISIL has only been able to take over Sunni areas. Its not that the Iraqis couldnt push them back, they just know its a bad idea. ISIL is the manifestation Sunni discontent with the Iran backed central government, and sending shia troops into these communities is just going to make things worse. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
cybercoma Posted October 29, 2014 Report Posted October 29, 2014 This fight started in 'stable' Syria. If Saddam was still in power then Iraq would be just like Syria today and some variation of ISIS would have risen. There is no reason to relieve the 'Arab Spring' would have bypassed Iraq if Bush stayed out in 2003. The only reason they have a foothold in Syria is that people are looking for anything that will get them out from under Assad's rule. Quote
dre Posted October 29, 2014 Report Posted October 29, 2014 Nonsense. This fight started in 'stable' Syria. No thats not even close to true. ISIL started In Iraq and has been active there since 2006. They started making major gains once US troops left, and the Iraqi government stopped cutting checks to 80 thousand sunni insurgents. The group announced its expansion into Syria in 2013, but thats certainly not where the fight started. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
cybercoma Posted October 29, 2014 Report Posted October 29, 2014 No thats not even close to true. ISIL started In Iraq and has been active there since 2006. They started making major gains once US troops left, and the Iraqi government stopped cutting checks to 80 thousand sunni insurgents. The group announced its expansion into Syria in 2013, but thats certainly not where the fight started. And they're only there because people in Syria are sick of Assad. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.