I Dont Care Where Imigrants Come From

[Leafless]

August1991

You wrote:

"I think it's useful to have a discussion about immigration, and about multiculturalism. But in this modern world, the idea that we can stop people from coming to Canada is not on. And ultimately, these people are going to fit into Canadian society in their own way."

Unfortunately you are not in a position to make such a statement.

I gather you have a thing for turmoil and potential upheaval.

[Riverwind]

All of these explanations and theories somehow play into the game of blaming something or someone else.

Something/someone has to be 'blamed'. Terrorism is not an act of nature like an earthquake that 'just happens'.

My personal feelings is home grown terrorism like we saw in Toronto is the result of rebellious youth in search of a cause combined with a dangerous ideology imported from abroad that is glorified by constant media coverage.

Osama Bin Ladin and al-Zarqawi are heroes to _some_ Muslim youth for the same reason Gangsta Rappers are heroes to _some_ urban black youth.

The only way to counter act the effect of these negative role models is to provide positive role models. The way to promote positive role models is to create a society where Muslims who value their faith _and_ our liberal democratic society can publicly express their Muslim identity. For that reason, going on a rampage against all things Muslim would be the worst thing we could do right now.

[August1991]

August1991

You wrote:

"I think it's useful to have a discussion about immigration, and about multiculturalism. But in this modern world, the idea that we can stop people from coming to Canada is not on. And ultimately, these people are going to fit into Canadian society in their own way."

Unfortunately you are not in a position to make such a statement.

I gather you have a thing for turmoil and potential upheaval.

My point, Leafless, is to say that we cannot stop immigration. Even if we refused all skilled worker applications, I don't see it politically (or even morally) possible to stop family class applications (spouses and children). With some political courage, we could change the way we process refugee cases but there will still be illegal immigrants arriving. The situation is no different in Europe or the US (as the debate about the new immigration legislation indicates).

As to multiculturalism, people ultimately choose themselves whether to integrate into Canadian society. It may be true that "multiculturalism" provides a convenient excuse to avoid fitting in but once again, I feel we are somehow blaming ourselves for a problem that is not of our making.

I have absolutely no desire to see turmoil or upheaval but it seems to me that a solution such as "stopping all immigration" is unrealistic and wrong-headed. When you think about it, it is laughable (and typically Canadian) to believe that changing government policy on multiculturalism will solve the problem.

My personal feelings is home grown terrorism like we saw in Toronto is the result of rebellious youth in search of a cause combined with a dangerous ideology imported from abroad that is glorified by constant media coverage.

Osama Bin Ladin and al-Zarqawi are heroes to _some_ Muslim youth for the same reason Gangsta Rappers are heroes to _some_ urban black youth.

So, after Columbine goes to Mecca, we've now got Mohammed Hip Hop.

These people are medieval. We're dealing with absurd superstition. The 19 guys who flew those planes into buildings all shaved off their body hair so that they would slide into heaven more easily.

If it were one lone whacko, or even a few disaffected youth, I could possibly agree. But that's not the situation here.

[Argus]

As to multiculturalism, people ultimately choose themselves whether to integrate into Canadian society. It may be true that "multiculturalism" provides a convenient excuse to avoid fitting in but once again, I feel we are somehow blaming ourselves for a problem that is not of our making.

I disagree. We chose to embrace multiculturalism. We chose to open our borders to people from disparate backgrounds. We chose not to enquire too closely into what manner of thoughts and political ideas these people had, or what influence that would have on our nation when their numbers grew into the hundreds of thousands and then millions.

Another quote from the article:

Most western countries regard themselves, officially or not, as multicultural societies. They assert the principle that different cultures have the freedom to develop as they wish, regardless of the standards of any majoritarian culture. But as political philosopher Roger Scruton argues, the result of the multicultural ideal has been to create a system of "apartheid" in which various cultures within a country refuse to assimilate to any substantive degree with the large order and exist independently of each other as much as possible. Anyone who questions this system, much less criticizes a minority culture, is censored and silenced by accusations of racism. Consequently, immigrant groups conclude they can live in a western society "as an antagonist and still enjoy all the rights and privileges that are the reward of citizenship

Perhaps we should change how we see ourselves, and do more to demonstrate our belief that there is an overculture, if you will, a greater culture which all minorities must accept and subscribe to, however much their own personal beliefs differ. And we should encourage them to accept us as we are, just as we have been doing our best to accept them.

As to your odd belief we can do nothing about immigration, while it might not be politically acceptable at this time to completely eliminate immigration, I believe a sizeable number of Canadians would support a tightening of immigration rules, more screening, and a lowering of the numbers we accept. Particularly from troublesome parts of the world. Why not accept more eastern europeans and less people from the middle east and Indian subcontinent?

[Riverwind]

So, after Columbine goes to Mecca, we've now got Mohammed Hip Hop.

These people are medieval. We're dealing with absurd superstition. The 19 guys who flew those planes into buildings all shaved off their body hair so that they would slide into heaven more easily.

That is where you are wrong. Every soldier in Iraq or Afghanistan believes he/she is killing civilians for a cause. There is a fine line between the social conditioning required to create a soldier and the conditioning required to create a terrorist. You are living in denial if you think the terrorists only exist because of 'absurd superstition'.

Furthermore, terrorism is a a 20th century weapon like nuclear bombs and mustard gas. Terrorism would be useless without a willing media that glorifies and an amplifies the effect of a single attack that causes only localized damage and kills a few people. Take away the media glorification of terrorism and you will eliminate the problem faster than any war.

[August1991]

Argus, here in Montreal, there are people who live entirely in English and have never assimilated into the larger French community around them. I have met English people in Quebec City like that too. I suppose you would say that there a French people in Canada who have never bothered to learn English.

There are Hassidic Jews in Montreal and Toronto who marry only within their own community. In the West, there are Mennonites and Hutterites. In Pennsylvania, there are Amish. There are many devout Catholics and Protestant who would never consider marrying outside their religion.

It is not government multicultural policy that determines why these communities refuse integration. They choose it themselves. We cannot force these people to become like everyone else (whatever that is). If we ever tried to force them (God forbid), they would just hide their true feelings.

There is no harm as such for a Muslim to want to be a Muslim. The harm arises when they start planning to blow things up and kill people.

[betsy]

We should do with the muslims what we did with the Japanese.

In the interest of national (and international) security we should no longer allow muslims to enter the country as immigrants nor as refugees. The muslims that are already here should be monitored daily.

It has now been proven that a person born and raised in Canada as a muslim is just as dangerous as a muslim immigrant -- both have been taught to hate.

I'm actually much more sickened by the "Canadian" muslim who grew up with all the benefits of being in a western society and still he/she finds a reason to "hate".

Ban them all I say.

So call me a bigot. Pfffffft. Who cares as long as my family and my country are safe from crazies.

No "moderate" muslim will ever be able to convince me that they are not radical and won't strap on a suicide bomb -- given the opportunity all of them are terrorists!

Although a part of me still hesitates, I'm beginning to think along those very same hard lines, Drea.

And it's not too presumptuous to think that a lot of Canadians are either starting or have been drawing the same opinion.

[betsy]

My personal feelings is home grown terrorism like we saw in Toronto is the result of rebellious youth in search of a cause combined with a dangerous ideology imported from abroad that is glorified by constant media coverage.

And some have been doctrined and learned right at home from the old folks. How many Khadrs do we have, I wonder.

[newbie]

I clearly hope you were having a bad day when you wrote this. Otherwise it is one of the most racist statements I've read yet on this forum.

On the contrary. It's a perfectly logical statement. Do bear in mind that Muslims are not a race, so you can hardly be racist towards them.

How silly of me. My bad. I should have said extremely bigoted.

No, you're still wrong. Bigotry is intollerence, at heart. And unless your definition of "tolerance" means acceptance and respect for any type of attitude or behaviour, however much it goes against our own interests and values, then bigotry doesn 't work.

Shesse. Don't you guys ever look up a word in the dictionary? Here is bigot: A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own. The original poster was very intolerant of muslims and anyone who disagreed with him by ending the sentence, If you disagree, I'm afraid your mind is defective. That fits the definition completely.

[Argus]

So, after Columbine goes to Mecca, we've now got Mohammed Hip Hop.

These people are medieval. We're dealing with absurd superstition. The 19 guys who flew those planes into buildings all shaved off their body hair so that they would slide into heaven more easily.

That is where you are wrong. Every soldier in Iraq or Afghanistan believes he/she is killing civilians for a cause.

This is total BS. For the most part, if you're talking about Canadian or western soldiers, they don't kill civilians at all, except by accident. They believe they are there for a cause, but there is a VAST difference between fighting guerrilas/terrorists - and possibly, at some point, accidentally involving civilians, and deliberately building a bomb, taking it out into the middle of a market and blowing people up.

There is a fine line between the social conditioning required to create a soldier and the conditioning required to create a terrorist. You are living in denial if you think the terrorists only exist because of 'absurd superstition'.

Do you think any of the CAF members in Afghanistan could be told to strap a bomb onto their backs and run into a disco to blow up nonbelievers?

What persuades a person to do that? Desperation, rage, hatred, would be the negative components. I don't believe any of the youth in Canada ought to be suffering from any of that. The positive components would be religion. And Canadian Christians are a bit too civilized to engage in suicide bombings in order to 'defend the faith". No, these youths are taught, and believe, that death is unimportant, that they will achieve a higher state of existance as god's chosen killer, and be rewarded for their actions. There are a lot of youth who see life, at their age, as pointless, who don't know what they want to do or how to get there. The promise of a heroic martyrdom with endless glory (and virgins) seems pretty promising as an alternative.

[Argus]

Argus, here in Montreal, there are people who live entirely in English and have never assimilated into the larger French community around them. I have met English people in Quebec City like that too.

And as long as the English community remained large enough they could do that. This has long been acknowledged and understood by French Quebecers, which is why there has been a thirty year program to eliminate the English, to force them out. This has been so successful that it's no longer possible to really have a life in Quebec without French. Thus, according to Official Languages, the most bilingual people in Canada are young English Quebecers.

I suppose you would say that there a French people in Canada who have never bothered to learn English.

Very damned few, and they'd be very old. I doubt there are any young Francophones outside Quebec now who don't know how to speak English.

There are Hassidic Jews in Montreal and Toronto who marry only within their own community. In the West, there are Mennonites and Hutterites.

But their numbers are small and stable. There are about 3/4 million Muslims and their numbers are growing rapidly. Five years ago there were only half a million. So a 50% rise in five years, and they will continue to grow exponentially as more Muslim immigrants arrive and as Muslims in Canada continue to have a much higher birth rate than others.

It is not government multicultural policy that determines why these communities refuse integration. They choose it themselves. We cannot force these people to become like everyone else (whatever that is).

To a certain extent this is true. Which is why I believe we should end Muslim immigration. Muslims here would assimilate to some degree - never fully - but to the degree they would no longer be foreigners living in a foreign land, if given time to do so without a continued heavy stream of newcomers from their "homeland".

There is no harm as such for a Muslim to want to be a Muslim. The harm arises when they start planning to blow things up and kill people.

No? How do you feel about the House bringing in legislation which criminalizes adultery? Not possible now, but as Muslim numbers continue to grow, and if their culture does not change, we could be looking at that in the future. At the very least you would find us alligning ourselves more and more with the Muslim world and against the US and Israel.

[Riverwind]

There is a fine line between the social conditioning required to create a soldier and the conditioning required to create a terrorist. You are living in denial if you think the terrorists only exist because of 'absurd superstition'.

Do you think any of the CAF members in Afghanistan could be told to strap a bomb onto their backs and run into a disco to blow up nonbelievers?

You can try to dress it up as much as you want but if you want a effective soldier you have to have someone who is capable of blowing up a few civilians accidentally without falling apart due to guilt an remorse. Killing is killing - no matter what the justification. We have created an elaborate system of values that allows a soldier for to forgive him or herself if civilians get killed in the course of duty.

[uOttawaMan]

People have killed each other since the beginning of our species time.

You aren't going to stop it from happening.

[August1991]

Furthermore, terrorism is a a 20th century weapon like nuclear bombs and mustard gas. Terrorism would be useless without a willing media that glorifies and an amplifies the effect of a single attack that causes only localized damage and kills a few people. Take away the media glorification of terrorism and you will eliminate the problem faster than any war.

Is this a new argument/rationalization: "media causes terrorism"? [Why this constant search for an external explanation?]

As it happens Riverview, I lived in a country with tightly controlled media when there were terrorist attacks. The effect is far, far worse because of gossip and rumour. Absurd conspiracy theories abound and the attacks are quickly exagerrated. In any case, guerilla tactics and terrorism predate mass media. But I'll agree with you that such tactics are the method of choice for a small group.

Every soldier in Iraq or Afghanistan believes he/she is killing civilians for a cause. There is a fine line between the social conditioning required to create a soldier and the conditioning required to create a terrorist. You are living in denial if you think the terrorists only exist because of 'absurd superstition'.

Riverwind, here you apply some strange notion of fairness - moral equivalency I think is the term. I see a stark difference between these punks who who were planning attacks in London and Ontario and soldiers in the the US or Australian armies. Do you not see a difference between Hell's Angels and a policeman?

As to my term "absurd superstition", I don't know what other term to use. They are obscurantist. The Western world has not dealt with religious fanatics of this sort for several hundred years.

[August1991]

I suppose you would say that there a French people in Canada who have never bothered to learn English.

Very damned few, and they'd be very old. I doubt there are any young Francophones outside Quebec now who don't know how to speak English.

That's just plain wrong Argus. But let's not pursue it here.

There are Hassidic Jews in Montreal and Toronto who marry only within their own community. In the West, there are Mennonites and Hutterites.

But their numbers are small and stable. There are about 3/4 million Muslims and their numbers are growing rapidly. Five years ago there were only half a million. So a 50% rise in five years, and they will continue to grow exponentially as more Muslim immigrants arrive and as Muslims in Canada continue to have a much higher birth rate than others.

The numbers are not really the issue. Hassidic youth don't buy 3 tonnes of fertilizer and make statements about cutting off heads.

It is not government multicultural policy that determines why these communities refuse integration. They choose it themselves. We cannot force these people to become like everyone else (whatever that is).

To a certain extent this is true. Which is why I believe we should end Muslim immigration. Muslims here would assimilate to some degree - never fully - but to the degree they would no longer be foreigners living in a foreign land, if given time to do so without a continued heavy stream of newcomers from their "homeland".

Argus, how could we conceivably end Muslim immigration? Do we put the question on the immigratrion form and anyone who puts X, gets refused?

The idea is preposterous if it weren't simply ridiculous anyway.

----

More pertinently Argus, you seem to want to see this as our problem. It's something we Canadians did or something we failed to do. If we didn't have this Trudeau-We Are the World-Multiculturalism, we wouldn't have this problem now. If we had different immigration rules, we wouldn't have this problem. If we hadn't sent troops to Afghanistan, we wouldn't have this problem.

This problem is not of Canada's doing. The problem goes well beyond the borders of Canada and if we think we can solve the problem by changing our multicultural policies, then we are sorely mistaken.

[August1991]

Killing is killing - no matter what the justification. We have created an elaborate system of values that allows a soldier for to forgive him or herself if civilians get killed in the course of duty.

Riverwind, I don't know if I'm misrepresenting your idea in the following. I think Argus had the best reponse to the argument "Violence never solved anything". If violence never solved anything, then why do we have police? It is not violence as such that is wrong, it is who has the authority to use it and when.

[BubberMiley]

BS. For the most part, if you're talking about Canadian or western soldiers, they don't kill civilians at all, except by accident.

Was Haditha just an accident?

[August1991]

People have killed each other since the beginning of our species time.

You aren't going to stop it from happening.

About 150 years ago, many people said the same about slavery. I mean, UOttawa, that we shouldn't just throw up our hands and say: "There'll always be sinners!"

There are many societies in the world where people lead happy, civilized, peaceful lives. It is possible to live in a free society where killing is not the norm, and where people are not afraid.

Given the fact that the past century was the bloodiest in history, that remark may seem fanciful but we should stop and think what all the fighting was about in the last century. We were defending the right of an individual to choose freely. Something similar is going on now.

[Riverwind]

The effect is far, far worse because of gossip and rumour. Absurd conspiracy theories abound and the attacks are quickly exaggerated. In any case, guerrilla tactics and terrorism predate mass media. But I'll agree with you that such tactics are the method of choice for a small group.

Terrorism has been a tactic used by weaker sides in a conflict for centuries. However, the question is why a group of people growing up in Canada would resort to terrorism when there is no conflict within Canada? I believe it is because the media glorifies terrorism without non-stop coverage and our politicians make celebrities out of terrorist leaders.

I some ways you are guilty of excusing terrorism by claiming that the only cause is some backward religion. That is a naive position to take that makes it more difficult to deal with the problem. I do agree that mixing religion into a political conflict tends to make the conflict more bloody. However, I do not believe that terrorism should be dismissed as an incomprehensible 'Muslim' problem.

Do you not see a difference between Hell's Angels and a policeman?

The difference is a matter of degree. There are people who see the use of violence as immoral no matter what the justification. However, most people acknowledge that there are times when violence is 'justified'. But that is my point. We justify violence and killing in our society all of the time. The only difference between a Hell's Angel, a Policeman, a Terrorist or a Soldier is the terms under which they feel violence is justified.

This goes back to those long debates about what a 'right' and whether they are simply granted by society or whether they represent some absolute truth that transcends society. Violence committed by Terrorists and Hell's Angles is 'wrong' because our society says it is wrong. Violence committed by Policemen and Soldiers is justified because our society says it is right.

Unfortunately, in this global village we live in there are people who feel that violence committed by Israeli, US, Russian or even Canadian soldiers is wrong and that terrorist acts are justified acts of self defence. We can argue until we are blue in the face about whether such beliefs are reasonable - however, that does not change the fact that some people have those beliefs.

So the question becomes a question of how we can resolve this difference of opinion. When it comes to Hell Angles the answer is fairly easy: eradicate the culture that creates the gangs. However, eradicating cultures is not something we can do in the case of Mulsims so we need another solution.

[August1991]

BS. For the most part, if you're talking about Canadian or western soldiers, they don't kill civilians at all, except by accident.

Was Haditha just an accident?

And you would dispense with our police and judicial system because Donald Marshall was wrongly imprisoned?

I am the first person to suspect government bureaucrats make mistakes and giving authority to anyone is a dangerous prospect - military soldiers in uniform are no different. But if fire is dangerous, that is no reason not to use it.

I see a stark difference between Zarqawi's actions in Iraq and the actions of US soldiers in Iraq just as I see a stark difference between the Hell's Angels and the RCMP.

[Leafless]

Argus, here in Montreal, there are people who live entirely in English and have never assimilated into the larger French community around them. I have met English people in Quebec City like that too.

I find it strange August that you would find it rather compulsory that the English in Quebec must conform to the larger French community in Quebec.

Is your logic based on the fact that French is the 'official language of Quebec'.

Or the fact that there are NO bilingual policies anywhere in Quebec.

Or the fact the 'French Language Charter ' restricts the use of English.

Or the fact schools restrict an English education based on mother tounge and what language you were primarily educated in.

Or do you fail to realize that English is the dominant language of Canada and despite all of Quenbec's restrictions that life for the majority English can still be carried on in Quebec.

This proves August if there is no real purpose for a language people will never be bother to learn it especially one that promotes racism.

This is why 'official bilingualism' in the government is so discriminatory and such a joke with the federal government trying to emulate a large employer in a country that is pretended to be seen as to be naturally bilingual in which both official languages offer and provide a multitude of jobs and services available to anyone who happens to be bilingual.

[August1991]

I find it strange August that you would find it rather compulsory that the English in Quebec must conform to the larger French community in Quebec.

I was not debating the merits of making it, or not making it, compulsory for a minority to assimilate. I was stating merely that if people don't want to assimilate, they won't.

More generally (and since this is not a thread about Canada's linguistic divide), I was trying to move the argument away from the soul-searching going on about Canada's multicultural policies, as if these policies are the cause of this terrorist plot uncovered in Toronto.

I think it is fair to say that Canada's multicultural policies are a matter of supreme indifference to bin Laden, assuming he's ever heard of them. Do you think Zarqawi gave any thought, against or for, to Canada's multicultural mosaic and whether it didn't foster a strong Canadian identity? Or how about the Bali bombers? Or Mohammed Atta? Or the the guys that blew themselves up in London? Or planted the bombs in Madrid?

I agree that the Canadian government can and must take steps to deal with this threat. But I don't see how cutting funding for "Celebrate Our Diversity" school posters (as much as I'd like to see the cuts occur) would have any effect on the people intent on replacing Zarqawi.

[Leafless]

August1991

You wrote:

"I think it is fair to say that Canada's multicultural policies are a matter of supreme indifference to bin Laden, assuming he's ever heard of them. Do you think Zarqawi gave any thought, against or for, to Canada's multicultural mosaic and whether it didn't foster a strong Canadian identity? Or how about the Bali bombers? Or Mohammed Atta? Or the the guys that blew themselves up in London? Or planted the bombs in Madrid?

I agree that the Canadian government can and must take steps to deal with this threat. But I don't see how cutting funding for "Celebrate Our Diversity" school posters (as much as I'd like to see the cuts occur) would have any effect on the people intent on replacing Zarqawi."

Multiculturalism I think has more of an effect conditoning Canadians to accept the federal governments multicultural policies and foreign immigration rather than have any effect on foreign immigrants religious and political ideologies.

They already know Canada is a cutural softy pertaining to the federal government implementing stringent measues to integrate.

You say there is no real way you can stop Muslim immigration.

I say this is simply not true as if you look at immigration numbers from the U.S. they are extremely low.

Does this mean no one in the U.S. is applying for Canadian citizenship or is it government is somehow blackballing or somehow labelling potential U.S. immigrants as undesirable.

I have already heard of reports how hard it is for U.S. and British potential immigrants to gain permanent Canadian citizenship and I wonder why.

Regardless there is nothing stopping the federal government from employing the same or similar tactics to curb immigration from undesirable countries.

[Argus]

It is not government multicultural policy that determines why these communities refuse integration. They choose it themselves. We cannot force these people to become like everyone else (whatever that is).

To a certain extent this is true. Which is why I believe we should end Muslim immigration. Muslims here would assimilate to some degree - never fully - but to the degree they would no longer be foreigners living in a foreign land, if given time to do so without a continued heavy stream of newcomers from their "homeland".

Argus, how could we conceivably end Muslim immigration? Do we put the question on the immigratrion form and anyone who puts X, gets refused?

The idea is preposterous if it weren't simply ridiculous anyway.

Why? You have a little form, with a box. Check the one which conforms to your religion. If you check Muslim, your application is denied, just as it is if you check the form which says "yes, I have a criminal record". And if people lie then they can be deported if this is discovered in future. Also, we should close off applications to mainly Muslim countries like Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Indonesia, etc.

More pertinently Argus, you seem to want to see this as our problem. It's something we Canadians did or something we failed to do. If we didn't have this Trudeau-We Are the World-Multiculturalism, we wouldn't have this problem now. If we had different immigration rules, we wouldn't have this problem. If we hadn't sent troops to Afghanistan, we wouldn't have this problem.

This problem is not of Canada's doing. The problem goes well beyond the borders of Canada and if we think we can solve the problem by changing our multicultural policies, then we are sorely mistaken.

Perhaps the worldwide problem is not ours alone, but the problem of "canadian" terrorists IS our problem, and we should take any action we can to ease the danger.

[Argus]

Do you not see a difference between Hell's Angels and a policeman?

The difference is a matter of degree. There are people who see the use of violence as immoral no matter what the justification. However, most people acknowledge that there are times when violence is 'justified'. But that is my point. We justify violence and killing in our society all of the time. The only difference between a Hell's Angel, a Policeman, a Terrorist or a Soldier is the terms under which they feel violence is justified.

Oh come on. This is sophistry. It's like saying the only difference between rape and consent is how much booze was used. The only difference between a Black man and a White man is the degree of skin pigmentation. The only difference between a cat and a dog are a few strands of DNA.

Arguments like this are essentially without meaning.

The Hells Angels guy uses violence to profit himself, or because of issues with rage and temper, or because he's drunk or cruel. The policeman uses violence under societal guidelines related to the protection of society, its members and property, using only the minimum amount of violence necessary to enforce widely agreed-upon societal laws.

This goes back to those long debates about what a 'right' and whether they are simply granted by society or whether they represent some absolute truth that transcends society. Violence committed by Terrorists and Hell's Angles is 'wrong' because our society says it is wrong. Violence committed by Policemen and Soldiers is justified because our society says it is right.

But sans society, violence committed against the innocent is wrong. Violence in defence of yourself or others is not. You could presume that lacking a society we would have no sense of morality, of right or wrong, but even animals don't attack each other wantonly, and within packs, herds, flocks or whatever, there is still an agreed upon structure which is enforced by group leaders. A pride of lions or a wolf pack will not long suffer one who attacks the rest of the group indescriminately. And they will enforce order through violence, if neccessary. This is simply the way all groups work.

Unfortunately, in this global village we live in there are people who feel that violence committed by Israeli, US, Russian or even Canadian soldiers is wrong and that terrorist acts are justified acts of self defence. We can argue until we are blue in the face about whether such beliefs are reasonable - however, that does not change the fact that some people have those beliefs.

So the question becomes a question of how we can resolve this difference of opinion.

Why, the same as all other groups and societies. They will reform their behaviour, or be driven off, or we will kill them.