Shoe is on the other foot

[PocketRocket]

Did you read ALL of your links????

Are you ready for the AMERICAN HIROSIMA?

http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/site/modules/news/

This is the "Read More" link for the second article on this site....

http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/site/mod...php?storyid=598

....in which an "alternate explanation for illegals carrying KI (potassium iodide) tablets" is given.

Even the website operators bought into it's credibility, which kind of makes this particular link ineffective for your purposes here.

Are you ready for the planned destruction of 20 airliners?

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/kaplan091406.htm

I'am totally sick and tired of all of it!!!

And THIS link points out that these plans were foiled, although the use of the word "interdiction" rather than something more easily undestod by the less pedantic among us, "stopped" for example, made this a bit less clear than it could have been.

I have no doubt that there are some who would love to nuke any or all of the USA.

But then again I have heard many of our supposedly "saner" westerners call for the nuking of large parts of the Middle East.

I suppose the difference is that the loonies over there take action, while our loons simply sit at a keyboard and rant on the internet.

[M.Dancer]

But the fact remains that the Islamic faith is the same for radical Muslims as it is for moderate Muslims.

If that were a fact it would remain. Since it isn't it won't. So lets refresh

Islam is divided into two worlds, Sunni and Shia

Eash is subdivided again and again.....

The extremists in the mold of Bin Laden are wahhabis. They stress a fundemantal literal view of the Koran and are collectivist in philosophy. They also are a small minority.

Ismali muslims are probably the most sophisticated, at least from a western point of view. They are shia, stress personal responsibility and freedom and have a leader in the Aga Khan....

Then there are Sufi, Druze, Ahmadiya.....bahai.......there are almosty as many and oppossing forms of Islam as there are branches of christianity.

[newbie]

This means we only allow White Christians to reside in the country.

Let's hear if for White Supremacy.

[M.Dancer]

I would take you seriously but you are not even trying to come across as intelligent. Iraq as it has been shown beyond the shadow of a doubt wasn't a danger to anyone. As far as dirty work is concerned, the US and the UK created this shite, let them clean it up.

Why should the West even have to tolerate Hussein-style rhetoric? A replay of the "Mouse That Roared"?

Why should the world, let alone 50,000 plus needlessly dead iraqis tollerate the thin skinned american conciousness.....?

[M.Dancer]

This means we only allow White Christians to reside in the country.

Let's hear if for White Supremacy.

I'm all for deporting white supremists to africa.....except africans do not deserve more of our garbage.

[jbg]

Why should the world, let alone 50,000 plus needlessly dead iraqis tollerate the thin skinned american conciousness.....?

I guess some people in your country take the privileged position of a 16 year old solving the world's problems with their parents' money. Your country can afford to be "moral" because of our defense shadow. Imagine actually having to run a defense?

[bradco]

a few thoughts regarding things Ive read in here....

Saddam Huessein posed little, arguably no, threat to any western nation. He was a dictator who was solely concerned with staying in power. He had nothing to gain from attacking any Western country. Even an attack through unconventional means (harder to find the guilty party) was not going to happen. Simple cost-benefit analysis. No benefits and the cost being the possibility of getting caught and subsequently invaded (with the blessings of even the French).

The bigger threat to US security is Osama Bin Laden, I think he proved this much on September 11. The failure to catch him and then the moving onto a war to dispose of a dictator who posed little to no security threat is ridiclous. It proves either the Bush Adminstration is completely incompetent at protecting the United States or that they have other motives they consider more important. The failure of the Bush administration to bring justice to the man responsible for Septemeber 11 and allow him to still pose an enormous threat to America while they busy themselves with non-threats is criminal. The fact that this terrorist, who has caused 3000 deaths and openly asserts he will strike again, is on the loose is very relevant to the Iraq War debate. That is if the war was really about security.

Someone argued that it may be necessary to give away some freedoms in our society because of terrorist threats. I ask you, is that not surrendering to the terrorists? If their goal is to make us change our way of life and our society, is not surrendering the freedoms that are so essential to our political beliefs the equivalent of waving the white flag?

Someone argues that we should restrict muslims from our countries because they are a threat to security. Besides the 18 or 19 (whatever the exact number of 9/11 terrorists was) people responsible for the 9/11 attacks the vast majority of Muslims are productive, freedom loving members of our society. I dont know why I am even bothering responding to this comment since it is incredibly ignorant and borderline racist.

Someone else suggested that Canada relies on the US for defense? I ask what has America ever protected Canada from? Who has ever invaded Canada that America had to jump in and save us? Who has ever threatened to invade Canada where the United States had to come to our aid to stop the attack? The one instance that pops to mind is equipment aid in helping Canada support the Afghanistan mission. But this mission was not protecting Canada. This mission was Canada coming to the aid, as an ally, of the United States after she was attacked. Canada was not attacked.

If anything American foreign policy is a danger to Canada and makes us less secure as we are seen as a close ally. This notion that America protects Canada from anything is rubbish, completely lacking of any proof and pretty much unintelligent.

[Borg]

a few thoughts regarding things Ive read in here....

Saddam Huessein posed little, arguably no, threat to any western nation. He was a dictator who was solely concerned with staying in power. He had nothing to gain from attacking any Western country. Even an attack through unconventional means (harder to find the guilty party) was not going to happen. Simple cost-benefit analysis. No benefits and the cost being the possibility of getting caught and subsequently invaded (with the blessings of even the French).

The bigger threat to US security is Osama Bin Laden, I think he proved this much on September 11. The failure to catch him and then the moving onto a war to dispose of a dictator who posed little to no security threat is ridiclous. It proves either the Bush Adminstration is completely incompetent at protecting the United States or that they have other motives they consider more important. The failure of the Bush administration to bring justice to the man responsible for Septemeber 11 and allow him to still pose an enormous threat to America while they busy themselves with non-threats is criminal. The fact that this terrorist, who has caused 3000 deaths and openly asserts he will strike again, is on the loose is very relevant to the Iraq War debate. That is if the war was really about security.

Someone argued that it may be necessary to give away some freedoms in our society because of terrorist threats. I ask you, is that not surrendering to the terrorists? If their goal is to make us change our way of life and our society, is not surrendering the freedoms that are so essential to our political beliefs the equivalent of waving the white flag?

Someone argues that we should restrict muslims from our countries because they are a threat to security. Besides the 18 or 19 (whatever the exact number of 9/11 terrorists was) people responsible for the 9/11 attacks the vast majority of Muslims are productive, freedom loving members of our society. I dont know why I am even bothering responding to this comment since it is incredibly ignorant and borderline racist.

Someone else suggested that Canada relies on the US for defense? I ask what has America ever protected Canada from? Who has ever invaded Canada that America had to jump in and save us? Who has ever threatened to invade Canada where the United States had to come to our aid to stop the attack? The one instance that pops to mind is equipment aid in helping Canada support the Afghanistan mission. But this mission was not protecting Canada. This mission was Canada coming to the aid, as an ally, of the United States after she was attacked. Canada was not attacked.

If anything American foreign policy is a danger to Canada and makes us less secure as we are seen as a close ally. This notion that America protects Canada from anything is rubbish, completely lacking of any proof and pretty much unintelligent.

Your very last comment intrigues me.

Does that mean if we are attacked we blame the Yanks? Or do we blame the perpetrators?

Bet you that if it does happen the hue and cry will go up - "It is the Yanks that did it to us!!"

I wonder when Canuckleheads will grow legs to stand on.

The Americans do more for our protection than most would realize - including protecting our northern borders during the Cold War.

Anti Americanism in Canada is constant. Without them we would be a piss pot in the third world.

Borg

[jbg]

Someone else suggested that Canada relies on the US for defense? I ask what has America ever protected Canada from? Who has ever invaded Canada that America had to jump in and save us? Who has ever threatened to invade Canada where the United States had to come to our aid to stop the attack? The one instance that pops to mind is equipment aid in helping Canada support the Afghanistan mission. But this mission was not protecting Canada. This mission was Canada coming to the aid, as an ally, of the United States after she was attacked. Canada was not attacked.

If anything American foreign policy is a danger to Canada and makes us less secure as we are seen as a close ally. This notion that America protects Canada from anything is rubbish, completely lacking of any proof and pretty much unintelligent.

You can be sure, if the US demilitarized the way Canada has, that there'd be plenty of schemers quite interested in your territory.

[M.Dancer]

Plain fact is there has been no belligerent in the last 150 years that has conceived a desire to infringe upon Canadian sovereignty. Besides the US I mean......

Americans like to think that without them, the world would fall apart. I say let them have their phantasies.....what else do they have?

[Wilber]

Plain fact is there has been no belligerent in the last 150 years that has conceived a desire to infringe upon Canadian sovereignty. Besides the US I mean......

You think the military power represented first by the British Empire and then the US had nothing to do with that?

[M.Dancer]

I think 3000 miles of sea had a lot to do with it......

[jbg]

I think 3000 miles of sea had a lot to do with it......

What about 3000 miles of land border as well? And I'm not referring to your border with Denmark (Greenland) though I do understand that most Canadians, when they refer to "the Border" mean the Danish and not the US border.

[Wilber]

I think 3000 miles of sea had a lot to do with it......

Not really, it didn't stop the Europeans when they built their global empires and an ICBM can cover it in about 15 minutes these days.

[M.Dancer]

I think 3000 miles of sea had a lot to do with it......

Not really, it didn't stop the Europeans when they built their global empires and an ICBM can cover it in about 15 minutes these days.

Look back to my post. Over the last 150 years......how many of those years were ICBM aimed at Canada for no other reason than they didn't like us.

1856 to now, what european power covetted us?

I wouldn't want to mention the 150 years of american isolationism, when they thought it was fine to be aloof from european politics....but the fact remains, the claim that the US has guarded of sovereignty lacks substance.