Argus Posted October 30, 2014 Report Posted October 30, 2014 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. No, I think the religion is the motive drawing people in to fight for the new 'caliphate'. As for their 'bastardized' interpretation. I asked once before what exactly they were doing which Muhammed didn't originally do when he spread Islam by the sword, beheading non-believers and taking 'infidel' women as sex slaves. Nobody came back with any answers. 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 30, 2014 Report Posted October 30, 2014 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. Taking a partial sentence so you can complain about it really isn't very convincing - or honest. The actual sentence was ... Muslim cultural values are replete with retrograde beliefs in countries around the world, most particularly in Pakistan. And they are. We've seen that in survey after survey, not to mention behaviour. You can argue they aren't as brutish in say, Kazhakstan as they are in Pakistan if you like. That doesn't change the fact we get a lot of immigrants from Pakistan - and that we shouldn't be. 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 30, 2014 Report Posted October 30, 2014 Why do people persist in ignoring the obvious? It's not hard to tell how out of touch with reality these people are. They're self-delusional, and believe what they want to believe, regardless of logic or evidence. 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 30, 2014 Report Posted October 30, 2014 This whole ISIS thing has nothing to do with the OP... the man who did this was on crack and had mental issues. He tried to have himself arrested several times. This was not a terrorist attack, but one lone nutbar. It's funny how no one ever suggests the Muslims who do appallingly violent things in other countries are just suffering from mental illness. When someone blows up a bus full of commuters or runs into a market with a suicide pack, or blows up a mosque or beheads children, nobody is saying "Oh, the poor man, he must have been so troubled by his mental illness!" Nobody says "This was not a terrorist attack." But somehow some of you have this bizarre notion that in Canada, there can be no violent Islamist terrorism. After all, it's CANADA! And we can't associate violence with any religion or race or ethnic group! That would be so fucking rude! So we'll just say he must have had some completely undiagnosed mental illness, even though the only time he ever saw a psychiatrist there was no evidence of one. 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 30, 2014 Report Posted October 30, 2014 (edited) It's not hard to tell how out of touch with reality these people are. They're self-delusional, and believe what they want to believe, regardless of logic or evidence. The only people out of touch are those who are concerned with what terrorists do and now how our government reacts to said terrorism. Instead the focus should be on what our government does now. And what they have been trying to accomplish for some years. As I said before, never let a crisis go to waste. I said that early on in the thread, and I stand by it. Edited October 30, 2014 by GostHacked Quote
Argus Posted October 30, 2014 Report Posted October 30, 2014 Harper seems convinced it was a terrorist attack As is anyone with more than half a brain. 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 30, 2014 Report Posted October 30, 2014 As is anyone with more than half a brain. How is it a terrorist attack? What as the attackers goal? What did he accomplish? Quote
Argus Posted October 30, 2014 Report Posted October 30, 2014 Uhm the Toronto 18? Were local amateurs who, as they made radical statements in public and on-line, obviously were going to attract attention. Half a dozen trained terrorists flying over from Lebanon, and meeting one local contact prior to an attack would be a far different kettle of fish. 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 30, 2014 Report Posted October 30, 2014 Were local amateurs who, as they made radical statements in public and on-line, obviously were going to attract attention. Half a dozen trained terrorists flying over from Lebanon, and meeting one local contact prior to an attack would be a far different kettle of fish. But we have already things in place to track foreigners in other countries. Much easier to spy on Lebanese in Lebanon than it is to spy on them here in Canada. Quote
Argus Posted October 30, 2014 Report Posted October 30, 2014 Yes I do think they want to know what people write in online forums. I've been accused of supporting terrorists several times in this forum over the years and I don't think it will be long until voicing strong opinions that are considered radical will be criminalized - we're already allied with other governments that do this. I don't see how any prohibition on freedom of expression will pass the SC unless it is of the same nature as hate crime legislation. That is to say, under hate crime legislation you can call minorities any name you want, be as unpleasant as you want, but you can't incite violence against them, and you can't campaign, for want of a better word, for people to hate them. Obviously terrorism is a bit of a different kettle of fish. You can say the Ku Klux Klan is a pretty keen organization that you support and not violate hate legislation, but if you say ISIS is a pretty keen organization which you support there's going to be fear that you'll commit terrorist acts. So I don't know how that will play out. There's no way, though, that simply saying it's really all our fault and we should do nothing, which I believe is your position, is going to wind up being anywhere near illegal. The next round of shots will trigger a call for changes to that I've seen no reason to believe you won't be here leading the parade. I've seen nothing to indicate you're particularly perceptive. 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 30, 2014 Report Posted October 30, 2014 How is it a terrorist attack? What as the attackers goal? What did he accomplish? He wanted to martyr himself on behalf of the Islamic Caliphate by attacking the infidel leadership and soldiers. 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 30, 2014 Report Posted October 30, 2014 The only people out of touch are those who are concerned with what terrorists do and now how our government reacts to said terrorism. Instead the focus should be on what our government does now. And what they have been trying to accomplish for some years. As I said before, never let a crisis go to waste. I said that early on in the thread, and I stand by it. Yes, but you're also an admitted conspiracy nut who thinks the CIA blew up the World Trade Center. 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 30, 2014 Report Posted October 30, 2014 (edited) Maybe my history is bad, but muslim countries have invaded more countries than outside countries have invaded them. Yes, but we don't hold them responsible for such actions because they're not white. If they'd been white they'd have known better, you see. Edited October 30, 2014 by Argus 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 30, 2014 Report Posted October 30, 2014 Yes, but you're also an admitted conspiracy nut who thinks the CIA blew up the World Trade Center. That's right, personal attacks will get you everywhere. A distraction at the very least. But you need to pay attention to what the government does now and what laws they will try to ram through. Quote
jbg Posted October 30, 2014 Report Posted October 30, 2014 (edited) He wanted to martyr himself on behalf of the Islamic Caliphate by attacking the infidel leadership and soldiers.The one positive takeaway we get from the shooter's motives is the quality of people who want to go to Syria or Iraq to fight for ISIS. If they're primarily as deranged as this guy, they'd make a very unpromising fighting group in the long run. They'll have an interesting time killing trying to live with each other. Edited October 30, 2014 by jbg Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
eyeball Posted October 30, 2014 Report Posted October 30, 2014 Yes, but we don't hold them responsible for such actions because they're not white. If they'd been white they'd have known better, you see. That might be true if they'd been democratic. Unfortunately the first Muslim democracy was promptly overthrown so I can only say might be true. Certainly the white democracies that overthrew it didn't seem to know any better and to this day they still refuse to be held responsible for anything. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
jbg Posted October 30, 2014 Report Posted October 30, 2014 That might be true if they'd been democratic. Unfortunately the first Muslim democracy was promptly overthrown so I can only say might be true. Certainly the white democracies that overthrew it didn't seem to know any better and to this day they still refuse to be held responsible for anything.No it wasn't. Ataturk's Turkey was not a democracy that was "promptly overthrown." And on what authority do you insist that Mossadegh would have continued a democratic path any longer than Morsi in Egypt did? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 30, 2014 Report Posted October 30, 2014 (edited) That might be true if they'd been democratic. Unfortunately the first Muslim democracy was promptly overthrown so I can only say might be true. Yes...it is unfortunate that the first democracy in the Muslim world, the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic, was overthrown by Russia/Soviet Union. Edited October 30, 2014 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
eyeball Posted October 30, 2014 Report Posted October 30, 2014 That's right the Soviets claimed to be democratic, just like the countries that overthrew Iran in 1953 also laid claim to the notion. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 30, 2014 Report Posted October 30, 2014 That's right the Soviets claimed to be democratic, just like the countries that overthrew Iran in 1953 also laid claim to the notion. Great...the we agree that Iran was not the first democracy in the Muslim world. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Argus Posted October 30, 2014 Report Posted October 30, 2014 That's right, personal attacks will get you everywhere. A distraction at the very least. But you need to pay attention to what the government does now and what laws they will try to ram through. It wasn't really meant as a personal attack. You do believe in various conspiracies, including that one, which makes it more likely you'll believe the feds have some kind of grand plan to use anything in sight to increase their dreaded surveillance of us. Just cuz. I look for motivation in the context of costs and benefits, and I just don't see it here. 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 30, 2014 Report Posted October 30, 2014 The one positive takeawy we get from the shooters motives is the quality of people who want to go to Syria or Iraq to fight for ISIS. If they're primarily as deranged as this guy, they'd make a very unpromising fighting group in the long run. They'll have an interesting time killing trying to live with each other. Oh he was a loser, no question. And I imagine most of those who join such a quest are losers looking for some meaning in their lives. That doesn't mean they can't kill people once they're given a rifle, and can even be quite effective given their lack of fear of dying. 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
eyeball Posted October 30, 2014 Report Posted October 30, 2014 Great...the we agree that Iran was not the first democracy in the Muslim world. It was the first democracy in the ME we overthrew and pretty much everything that's followed right on up to the shots fired on Parliament Hill can be traced back to that. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Topaz Posted October 30, 2014 Report Posted October 30, 2014 Wasn't it a PC MPP that said create a crisis to get what you want done?? Quote
dre Posted October 30, 2014 Report Posted October 30, 2014 "Come on" garden variety .......I think i strongly disagree that ISIL is a garden variety group, that just happens to use terrorist tactics. they are involved in much more than that, ethic cleansing, murder, rape,slavery, their tactics have caused hundrds of thousands to flee their homes concerned with their safety. What is their idealogy again....oh yes to take over the world, and destroy any of the non believers, hard to take these guys serious at any level....not to mention the savoirs of Sunnis....Would you follow these guys....And i'm sure not all Sunnis want them in power either.... Baathist factions, you mean Sadam's old party because they have such an assume record as well, that makes it all right.... Let me get this straight you think the US disposed of Sadam , and set up a government that is controled by Iran. does that make sense to anyone. And where was everyone when the Sunnis were in power, who are the minority in IRAQ , when they were in power under Sadam, who did more than antagonized the Shia majority. Oh that was all right...sorry....people have long memories it is going to take a generation or two before things return to normal. Maybe my history is bad, but muslim countries have invaded more countries than outside countries have invaded them. which would negate your piont. also you could look at the types of regimes or governments that rule most muslim countries....not many are freely elected, and most rule with an iron fist, which goes to the piont violence breds violence... I think you should relook at the defination of Guerilla warfare, which is a smaller force using hit and run tactics again'st a larger force....in most cases they are uniformed, and there targets are military in nature...not murder, ethinic cleansing, slavery, rape, forced marriages....again apple and oranges. So just to be clear, we are making way to much of ISIL, or better yet do you think ISIL tactics are within reason.....Do you not see the danger that they pose to our way of life....one man or group with a opinion can take up arms and use terror to make his piont....Our current way of life survives on our rules and laws....show me any where , that says this type of action is OK... So because National armies have killed more it's ok....like it was a game and we are trying to keep score.....and yet the last couple of conflicts more civilains have been killed by insurgents than national armies....thats ok....i wonder if we would change our outlook if this was Quebec and english Canada involved in the same type of conflict..... Let me get this straight you think the US disposed of Sadam , and set up a government that is controled by Iran. does that make sense to anyone. You are right it doesnt make sense, but thats exactly what happened. Sectarianism transcends politics in the middle east, and elections in Iraq put a Shia government with close ties to Iran in charge. What you are seeing in Iraq now is the result of the 2003 invasion... it was not thought through very well. This is what happens when geopolitical policies are thought up by a guy that cant hunt ducks without shooting his fellow hunters in the face. Iran's influence in Iraq has grown dramatically since the U.S.-led invasion toppled Hussein in 2003. His Sunni-led government fought a brutal eight-year war with Iran during the 1980s, and was a check on Iranian influence in the Middle East for decades. With the U.S. occupation eventually assenting to the Shiite-dominated central government in Iraq led by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, Iran has become a major power broker across the border. Trade and investment ties have grown as well, amid the flowering of long-suppressed religious ties between the Shiite religious capitals of Qom in Iran and Najaf in Iraq. http://online.wsj.com/articles/iran-pursues-subtle-strategy-on-iraq-1404507730 Baathist factions, you mean Sadam's old party because they have such an assume record as well, that makes it all right.... I never said it was alright, I just explained how it is. Maybe my history is bad, but muslim countries have invaded more countries than outside countries have invaded them. which would negate your piont. also you could look at the types of regimes or governments that rule most muslim countries....not many are freely elected, and most rule with an iron fist, which goes to the piont violence breds violence... Theres a reason many of them rule with an Iron fist and you are seeing it right now. Saddam had to suppress the sectarian tensions that we are seeing play out in Iraq before our eyes. Shias and Sunnis dont get along well... they dont like each other. And the only way Sunnis are going to accept a Shia government is if its forced on them. Planes, tanks, and troops wont change that. Even if you completely wiped out every member of ISIL today... you would still have the same problem. Iraq and Syria need to be partitioned, or this power struggle between Shia and Sunnis will never end. Do you not see the danger that they pose to our way of life....one man or group with a opinion can take up arms and use terror to make his piont....Our current way of life survives on our rules and laws....show me any where , that says this type of action is OK... No ISIL does not pose any danger to our way of life. They are a puny insignificant player that has only been able to take terroritory populated by fellow Sunnis, and they are surrounded by players that could roll over and crush them if they tried to take much more than they have now. Their "state" is surrounded by Iran, Turkey, Iraq, and Syria. Its a huge mistake for us to have any involvement in this at all. It puts Canadians at risk, and has zero chance of success. This is STILL the 2003 Iraq war... It never ended. These are the insurgents the coalition (Axis of Oops!) gave up fighting and started cutting checks too. And now Canada has been unwittingly drawn into it, thanks to hapless idiots that think we can fix a rift between Shia and Sunnis with some planes. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
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.