1000 sleeper cells in North America?

[Argus]

Where did I say, suggest, or imply we were?

Yeah if you ignore 400 years of total western economic and military hegemony, the Muslims have been nothing but trouble.

[Argus]

I think equating the relationship between two cultures with a commercial agreement really speaks to the utter dishonesty you've invested in this negotiation. Your interests couldn't be plainer.

Sorry if the real world and reality gets in the way of your pie-in-the-sky vision of universal brotherhood.

[Argus]

You'll notice I place blame on both sides. "Our Side", "Their Side", "us", "them".

In other words, they're the same as us. Nothing they do is something which should outrage us or cause us any undue bother, because, after all, we're "even more stupid, and self destructive"

I mean, they slaughter people, commit genocide, and open slave trading stations for underage girls, and then we do something EVEN WORSE by bombing them! Damn us!

I get that progressives are aghast at us interfering with genocide. What I don't get is how they seem to think this puts them on a higher moral plateau, rather than the edge of moral bankruptcy.

Edited December 11, 2015 by Argus

[dre]

In other words, they're the same as us. Nothing they do is something which should outrage us or cause us any undue bother, because, after all, we're "even more stupid, and self destructive"

I mean, they slaughter people, commit genocide, and open slave trading stations for underage girls, and then we do something EVEN WORSE by bombing them! Damn us!

I get that progressives are aghast at us interfering with genocide. What I don't get is how they seem to think this puts them on a higher moral plateau, rather than the edge of moral bankruptcy.

I don't mind the idea of interfering with genocide, but I'm not going to support actions that cost us billions and make things work.

You interventionalist do-gooders have no shortage of moral outrage, and like the hardliners on the other side have an easy time calling for violence that mostly ends up killing civilians, women, children, etc. The problem is you have no ideas that actually work. You supported replacing the Baathists with Iranian backed Shia in Iraq.... and by doing so you outraged the Sunnis and created ISIL. Your ideas fostered the genocide you see today.

If I thought any of these things would actually make things better over there then maybe Id think about it. But the ideas and actions you support SUCK ASS. Terrible planning, terrible execution, terrible strategically, terrible tactically. You just create bigger problems and then call for expensive violent intervention all over again.

Doing nothing is better than doing something really really stupid. Its better than paying hundreds of billions of dollars to create breeding grounds for extremism and terrorism.

In other words, they're the same as us.

No I wouldn't say that... I would only compare the people on both sides pining for war, death, and violence. Like I said... Id like to watch you all just kill each other, but with swords, and knives so there is so much collateral damage. And in a big stadium so I can watch and have a beer and a hotdog.

Edited December 11, 2015 by dre

[WestCanMan]

I'm glad he pisses off conservatives.

Yeah, that's not what he did. I'm not here to give history lessons, if you don't know what happened then there's no point debating this with you.

[Argus]

I don't mind the idea of interfering with genocide, but I'm not going to support actions that cost us billions and make things work.

I have no idea what that is even supposed to mean

You interventionalist do-gooders have no shortage of moral outrage, and like the hardliners on the other side have an easy time calling for violence that mostly ends up killing civilians, women, children, etc. The problem is you have no ideas that actually work.

Who says it doesn't work? You? Your military credentials are what exactly? It took five years to wipe out the Nazis and their allies and that was using actual troops. Now the gutless politicians won't dare send people over there to fight so they're trying to do things on the cheap from 10,000 feet up. That takes time. But we have seen ISIS stop moving forward and start moving backward.

You supported replacing the Baathists with Iranian backed Shia in Iraq.... and by doing so you outraged the Sunnis and created ISIL. Your ideas fostered the genocide you see today.

I'm sorry? Are you also opposed to the efforts to unseat the apartheid government in South Africa? Isn't minority rule a bad thing? Or do you favour us supporting brutal dictators who will, if nothing else, maintain stability?

Doing nothing is better than doing something really really stupid. Its better than paying hundreds of billions of dollars to create breeding grounds for extremism and terrorism.

We didn't create the breeding grounds. Hamfisted local political hacks and the growing extremism of Saudi funded Wahabi Islam did that.

Like I said... Id like to watch you all just kill each other, but with swords, and knives so there is so much collateral damage. And in a big stadium so I can watch and have a beer and a hotdog.

The problem with your fantasy is that if those on our side who are willing to take action remove ourselves from the equation that leaves them - and you. And if you think they'll just turn to smiles and brotherhood rather than cutting your throat you're even more naive than your posts would indicate.

[Black Dog]

Where did I say, suggest, or imply we were?

Yeah if you ignore 400 years of total western economic and military hegemony, the Muslims have been nothing but trouble.

Yeah, that doesn't say what you seem to think it says.

[Black Dog]

We didn't create the breeding grounds. Hamfisted local political hacks and the growing extremism of Saudi funded Wahabi Islam did that.

There's having a distorted view of history and then there's just having a fantasy version and this is well in the latter camp.

[Rue]

Say Argus I never did see Black Dog's response to the Ottoman Empire.

Speaking of Turks, this thread again brings up the topic Trump did and we are all skating around and that is how do democratic nations deal with terrorist threats?

Excuse me Argus if I am a tad cynical these days but all the arm chair experts on Israel and how Israel did not know how to handle terrorists, look at them now pissing their pants over the fact terrorism is now coming to their back yard and its no longer something Zionists cause for not knowing their place in this universe. Hah.

You think people who lived through the IRA, or come from war or terror zones fret and piss their panties like some of the comments that come across complaining of what Trump said or unfairly singling out certain groups? Hmm? Hell if its a Zionist do it. If its a Christian anti abortionist do it, but if its a Muslim stand down.

Sorry I won't. I think the discussion you see on this thread is easily translated as this: no one can tell the difference between a moderate and an extreme Muslim let alone a non terrorist and terrorist Muslim. So they now are asking what do we do if more Muslim terrorists come and we don't know the difference.

Well you know the liberals on this forum-we can't possibly think of anything remotely negative about anyone and must assume everyone is good unless they are a Zionist, supporter of Trump or are on "your" side, you know the Argus side the side with the Dog's Porch and the pesky American.

Yah yah got it.

We have challenges. The same way would have challenges if nuns were running around blowing people up.

Think of how absurd it is Argus. If these idiot terrorists had any brains they would start dressing up as Priests, Nuns, Rabbias, Buddist monks. If they did would the usual liberals be claiming its racist or phobic to fear people dressed like them? Lol.

Tell you what Argus. These days anyone with a silly beard is liable to get a once over from me and that's just the women.

[Argus]

I think the discussion you see on this thread is easily translated as this: no one can tell the difference between a moderate and an extreme Muslim let alone a non terrorist and terrorist Muslim. So they now are asking what do we do if more Muslim terrorists come and we don't know the difference.

I think we can tell the difference between an extremist and a moderate. The problem is that what we in the West tend to call 'moderate' is only moderate on the scale of a rigidly conformist society with values which are, by our standards, severely backward. The vitriol directed at Trinity Western U from 'progressives' was pretty severe. Yet the social values of TWU are way more socially liberal than that of any Muslim society. Despite that, progressives can't bring themselves to criticize Muslim societies and ferociously support bringing over as many of their members as possible. And as long as they don't actively call for the death of gays and Jews and don't openly beat their wives everyone calls them 'moderates'.

Well, they might be 'moderate' in the middle east, but in comparison to the Canadian mainstream they're way over there on the far right.

Edited December 11, 2015 by Argus

[WestCoastRunner]

Despite that, progressives can't bring themselves to criticize Muslim societies and ferociously support bringing over as many of their members as possible. And as long as they don't actively call for the death of gays and Jews and don't openly beat their wives everyone calls them 'moderates'.

Well, they might be 'moderate' in the middle east, but in comparison to the Canadian mainstream they're way over there on the far right.

Canadians ferociously support helping refugees out of a really bad nightmare.

[Argus]

Canadians ferociously support helping refugees out of a really bad nightmare.

No, they really don't. The only people who ferociously support it are the chattering classes of TV. I haven't met one single person so far who supports it.

But you won't see ordinary people on the CBC. Nor does the CBC care what they want or think.

[Smallc]

Ferocious would certainly be the wrong word, I'd say.

[Argus]

Ferocious would certainly be the wrong word, I'd say.

I have also not met a single person who wasn't concerned about the security aspect, even though all the chattering classes sneer at any such concerns.

[Smallc]

I have also not met a single person who wasn't concerned about the security aspect, even though all the chattering classes sneer at any such concerns.

I would agree it's a concern - I wouldn't agree that it's likely to be a problem.

[eyeball]

I get that progressives are aghast at us interfering with genocide. What I don't get is how they seem to think this puts them on a higher moral plateau, rather than the edge of moral bankruptcy.

No that's not it at all, what we think, is that your prescriptions for interfering are morally bankrupt not to mention as stupid as the day is long.

[eyeball]

I have no idea what that is even supposed to mean

That explains why your prescriptions are so morally bankrupt. Feigning ignorance is also really really stupid.

[Argus]

That explains why your prescriptions are so morally bankrupt. Feigning ignorance is also really really stupid.

Fortunately, I would actually have to feign it.

Edited December 12, 2015 by Argus

[eyeball]

Fortunately, I would actually have to feign it.

You do all the time, how would anyone know the difference?

[dialamah]

Think of how absurd it is Argus. If these idiot terrorists had any brains they would start dressing up as Priests, Nuns, Rabbias, Buddist monks. If they did would the usual liberals be claiming its racist or phobic to fear people dressed like them? Lol.

If the ratio of terrorist to non-terrorist priests, rabbis, monks and nuns was .0000625%, yes, I would consider it racist and phobic to suggest that *everybody* dressed that way was a terrorist, either in fact or probability.

These days anyone with a silly beard is liable to get a once over from me and that's just the women.

Like those Hasidic Jewish guys.

[SRV]

Let's take a step back to get past some of the semantics. In fact let's take two or three steps back, and try to gain some perspective. Let's acknowledge that there is a War on Terrorism, and that that war was both declared because of the deaths of innocent civilians and continues to result in the death of innocent civilians. Innocent civilians continue to die in large numbers. Some of these civilian deaths have been non-Muslim Westerners, but the vast majority have been Muslims. There have also been tens of thousands of people imprisoned without trial, abused and even tortured, and again the overwhelming majority of these innocent-until-proven-guilty victims have been Muslims.

Civilian victims of this so-called War on Terrorism --be they Western or Muslim-- have relatives, friends, neighbors, coworkers and acquaintances that are affected and influenced by what is happening to those around them and their loved ones. The War on Terrorism is instilling terror, hatred, and a desire for vengeance in many innocent victims, their loved ones and acquaintances, regardless of whether they are Westerners or Muslims.

Once the semantics are removed, and no distinction is made between innocent civilians who died from suicide bombers, improvised explosive devices, and the appropriation of civilian airliners on the one hand, and civilians who died died because of invasions, bombing raids, missiles, drone strikes on the other hand; When when no distinction is made between those who are wrongfully abducted and held hostage and those who were wrongfully imprisoned without trial, abused and often tortured; then it becomes clear that there have been far more innocent civilian Muslims killed, mostly in their own countries, in this so-called War on Terrorism than Westerners, and that the war itself as well as the reluctance to accept its reffugees, is doing more to radicalize Muslims than diminish a largely imagined and greatly exaggerated terrorist threat. Instead of promoting peace and the universal human rights we espouse we have become the evil we set out to defeat.

Edited December 14, 2015 by SRV

[Argus]

Let's take a step back to get past some of the semantics. In fact let's take two or three steps back, and try to gain some perspective. Let's acknowledge that there is a War on Terrorism, and that that war was both declared because of the deaths of innocent civilians and continues to result in the death of innocent civilians.

So what is your answer? Surrender? Do nothing about terrorists and their middle east bases? Do nothing about Islamic governments funding terrorists because it might cause harm to civilians over there?

Let's recall that Osama bin Laden had a huge base in Afghanistan with some 10,000 'militant' followers there. The west took no real action against any of them. Did that inspire him to focus his attention on improving his society? Nope. He continually sent out people to attack westerners, be it bombing the US embassy in Kenya or the USS Cole in Yemen or the World Trade Center. To follow your way of apparent thinking we should have done nothing, since attacking Afghanistan would have resulted in the deaths of civilians.

That is simply not a legitimate or reasonable or realistic position. If Islamists based in foreign countries continue to attack us then we'll tear those countries down to rubble, if necessary. There are more than a few people who advocate carpet bombing the whole damn middle east as a cesspool of religious fanaticism.

It would be nice if the terrorists had big red signs over their heads, but that's not the case. It would be nice if the local governments in the area took care of things before they got out of hand, but they don't and will not. They support the terrorists aims, after all, often with funds and weapons. War is rarely a surgical instrument but it's pretty much the only one we've got.

[SRV]

So what is your answer? Surrender? Do nothing about terrorists and their middle east bases? Do nothing about Islamic governments funding terrorists because it might cause harm to civilians over there?

Let's recall that Osama bin Laden had a huge base in Afghanistan with some 10,000 'militant' followers there...

I think Pandora's box can't be easily closed, but it would have been better if we hadn't been feeding those monsters for all those years before we opened it. And with the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq we opened it. Osama Bin Ladin was a paid ally before he became an adversary. The Shah, which helped bring Iran out of the dark ages, was ousted by a US supported bloodbath and was replaced by very conservative sharia law Khomeini. Saudi Arabia, which squelches Arab Springs and nonviolent attempts to gain freedom in neighboring usually US-backed dictatorships, and treats its own citizens, never mind foreign workers, atrociously, is nevertheless considered a friend and ally. (Either that or the princes are on par with the banks: Too big to fail and too big to jail) Before the invasion Iraq was a secular state where secular laws were in place and Christians and Muslims lived in relative peace, and Muslims dressed however they wished. (I`m not saying Sadam wasn't a dictator. He was, even when he was on friendly terms with the US. So was Assad. He used to torture terrorist suspects for us before the Arab Spring, remember?)

Some Muslim societies are backwards and conservative and violent, but we can`t blame them for this; we want and have helped keep them that way! And we have furthermore made it clear that non-violent Arab Springs will be tolerated only if the West has vetted and approved whomever they want to replace our dictator with. Oh! And the West must not in any way be held responsible for propping up the dictators that they turf out.

The old terrorists will eventually die off. I maintain that the best way to fight terrorism is to stop creating new ones. I put my body where my mouth is.

Stewart Vriesinga

"Iraq: Now that Pandora's Box has been opened..."

(Co-sponsored by the Trent IDS Department and TIPEC)

September 28, 2004 from 4:00 to 6:00 pm in the Lady Eaton College Lecture Hall (LEC 201)

Trent alum Stewart Vriesinga has spent the last two-and-a-half years doing violence reduction work ("getting in the way") with Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT) in Chiapas, Colombia, Asubpeeschoseewagong, and Iraq... While in Iraq he used the international press, CPT and personal letters to share stories and photos of how the war was impacting ordinary Iraqis; now Stewart is back in Canada to speak directly to Canadians about the deepening crisis and deteriorating Human Rights situation in Iraq.

Edited December 17, 2015 by SRV

[WestCanMan]

I think Pandora's box can't be easily closed, but it would have been better if we hadn't been feeding those monsters for all those years before we opened it. And with the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq we opened it. Osama Bin Ladin was a paid ally before he became an adversary. The Shah, which helped bring Iran out of the dark ages, was ousted by a US supported bloodbath and was replaced by very conservative sharia law Khomeini. Saudi Arabia, which squelches Arab Springs and nonviolent attempts to gain freedom in neighboring usually US-backed dictatorships, and treats its own citizens, never mind foreign workers, atrociously, is nevertheless considered a friend and ally. (Either that or the princes are on par with the banks: Too big to fail and too big to jail) Before the invasion Iraq was a secular state where secular laws were in place and Christians and Muslims lived in relative peace, and Muslims dressed however the wished. (I`m not saying Sadam wasn't a dictator. He was, even when he was on friendly terms with the US. So was Assad. He used to torture terrorist suspects for us before the Arab Spring, remember?)

Some Muslim societies are backwards and conservative and violent, but we can`t blame them for this; we want and have helped keep them that way! And we have furthermore made it clear that non-violent Arab Springs will be tolerated only if the West has vetted and approved whomever they want to replace our dictator with. Oh! And the West must not in any way be held responsible for propping up the dictators that they turf out.

I maintain that the best way to fight terrorism is to stop creating them. The old ones will eventually die off.

I agree with everything you said in your two recent posts, I have been against our unflinching support of Israel since I became an adult. The toothpaste is out of the tube though. We are dealing with today's problems. But for all I know, maybe the Israelis were right after all.

IMO it all comes down to "what path was the Muslim world on before 1949?" It's tough to say because we weren't there so we don't really know, and even if we were there, would we know? We live in the information age and 99.999% of the people still don't agree on what's happening right now. If we had our feet on the ground in Palestine in 1935 we would only know what was going on in our own neighbourhood. In today's news we get such a one-sided view of what's happening in the middle east that it's silly.

What's our most educated guess?

The one thing that history is clear on is that when Muslims have power, other people die in droves. If the Shia or the sunnis or Muslims in general had the power of the US arsenal would we all be screwed?

The thing to be careful of when making mass-generalizations about what a country with a lot of muslims in it would look like, is judging their society based on the small sample size, of the ones we know over here.

I've always believed that the true measure of character is not how people handle adversity, or how nice they are when they are outnumbered, it's how they handle power. Like I said before, when Muslims have power they seem to use it with maximum brutality.

Edited December 17, 2015 by WestCanMan

[Guest]

Some Muslim societies are backwards and conservative and violent, but we can`t blame them for this;

I do.