The Shotgun Blog
« Soothing tunes | Main | Is the notwithstanding clause the Charter's fatal flaw? »
Thursday, December 22, 2005
Louise Arbour -- Defender of Islamofascism II
I've previously posted about this, and find it increasingly disturbing that no Canadian media appear to be paying great attention to the story. Normally, when Canadians are involved in anything, in any way, shape or form at all, we are all over it. (Well, except for that pesky oil-for-food scandal thingy.) To summarize: It started when a Danish newspaper ran cartoon depictions of the Prophet Mohammed, some of which played upon violence committed by Islamofascists in the name of Islam. Danish Muslim community leaders complained. Fair enough. But when the editor of the Danish paper in question (Jyllands-Posten, the largest newspaper in Denmark) refused to backdown (good on him), all hell broke loose, with death threats, et cetera. Eventually, the whole "case" ended up before the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Canada's own Louise Arbour. In true Canadian fashion, she responded thusly to the Muslim group doing the kvetching: "I understand your attitude to the images that appeared in the newspaper. I find alarming any behaviors that disregard the beliefs of others. This kind of thing is unacceptable." She announced that investigations for racism and "Islamophobia" would begin. It is one thing to tell people you "understand" that they take offense at something. It is another entirely to de facto refuse to support freedom of speech. Her response should have been: "I understand your attitude to the images that appeared in the newspaper. However, in democratic societies, we allow freedom of expression. Oh, and maybe you could try and convince some of your fellow Muslims to stop strapping dynamite to themselves and blowing people up. Love, Louise." That's all folks. Instead, Arbour appeased in the worst way imaginable. Canadians should be ashamed of her, and editorial boards should be taking her to task. But I've barely heard about it. This case took place in Denmark. Soon enough, such things will take place across Canada, if they haven't already. This is our war, too.
(Read the whole story here. )
Posted by wonkitties on December 22, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d83466304753ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Louise Arbour -- Defender of Islamofascism II:
Comments
"She announced that investigations for racism and "Islamophobia" would begin."
Louise, honey, Islam is not a race. And when are you going to get around to investigating the holy head-hackers for their "Western, Liberal democracy, free speech, fredom of religion, equality of the sexes-ophobia", hmm? Or are you afraid they'll go allah ackbar all over your own fine self?
Posted by: Kathryn | 2005-12-22 2:16:06 PM
Ah yes, those fine peace-loving leftie Canucks can always be counted on to side with the Muslim Head-Choppers over any supposed freedoms we have. Pathetic, as always!
Posted by: Slim | 2005-12-22 3:24:56 PM
Arbour, another fine example of what is going wrong with Canada. I liked her better when she coached the Islanders...
Posted by: MarkAlta | 2005-12-22 3:32:46 PM
Arbour has no business in that position. That is the problem. Take her out.
UN is becoming more and more corrupted. We have a good example with the oil for food scheme. And you see that bougnoule (sand monkey) in Iran building nukes to destroy a nation, Israel.
I strongly suggest we start the Anti-Islamofacist League. First thing: search and destroy the head or source of terrorism. Second, as in Denmark, encourage freedom of speech. I remember the efficiency of Simon Wisenthal when he was searching hidden nazis.
We must start acting out, not only talking about the murderers. When the next terrorism attack happens in a Western country, why not send F-18 to Mecca? Repairing damages will keep them busy.
We are into action in Afghanistan and Irak, but that does not stop the Islamofacists. Forty thousand Iranians are training to bring terror in our countries. What are we doing about that? Wait that they explode our subways? Or something worst?
To do evil, those people have lots of imagination. Look what's happening in France, just after attacks in London.
Posted by: Rémi houle | 2005-12-22 4:09:46 PM
I dont' know about the rest of you but I have a touch of Islamophobia. It comes from their continued threat to kill me and all other infidels until the entire planet belongs to them.
Normally I would laugh this off, but when they continually blow stuff up, kidnap innocents and hack off their heads, hijack planes and generally kill anyone they can in places all over thge planet including many of their own who appear to be more moderate ... well I get a bit of a phobia.
BECAUSE THEY MEAN IT !!!!!
An Louise you naive bitch queen you won't like what they do to you if they happen to win.
See how Germany works with then at Duke's place
http://duckemcgoo.blogspot.com
And What BMW is up to
Posted by: Duke | 2005-12-22 4:15:12 PM
Sorry, that would be
http://dukemcgoo.blogspot.com
Posted by: Duke | 2005-12-22 4:16:43 PM
The problem alas is that the good former Judge, now High Poohbah, or whatever, is being pilloried, or not, for a mere typo and a seemingly mis-directed message.
I have taken the communication, as it has appeared on the net and corrected the typo by placing the correction in brackets after the typo-preceded by the words TYPO ALERT.
Preferably I would have simply placed a line through the typo but it would appear that, like the good judge, I too am technologically challenged and do not have the skill to take her text and simply cross out the typo.
At any rate here goes:
Former Good Judge Arbour
"I understand your attitude to the images that appeared in the newspaper. I find alarming any behaviors that disregard the beliefs (sic) of others. This kind of thing (sic) is unacceptable." (sic)( Ed. note- exercising her powers as Grand Poobah in a free and leftist universe she will soon put an end to this kind of unacceptable lack of political correctness- free speech and freedom of conscience or indeed freedom to defend yourself be damned-and some people go into the armed services because they want to control the world when the real ticket is law school.)
She announced that investigations for racism (Ed. note Islamism is a race?_-to what Armagheddon sp?) and TYPO ALERT "Islamophobia" SHE MEANT (" Christianophobia" )would begin.
Although it has been reported worldwide that the good Judge's message was directed to Muslim's in Denmark it was in fact direced to Christians in Canada alarmed by the Supreme Court of Canada's abolition of community standards. Unfortunatley as a result of one typo the good Judge's entire message appears to have been misunderstood and distorted.
It is now apparent why the good Judge, Ms. Louise Arbour,( not Mrs. Larry Taman) felt constrained to leave the Supreme Court of Canada, and who could blame her - as a person who has fought her whole life for community standards.
Clearly what the good Judge meant to say was:
"investigations for (anti-white) racism and Christianophobia would begin."
/saracasm off
Posted by: Terry Gain | 2005-12-22 6:08:22 PM
> UN is becoming more and more corrupted. We have a good
> example with the oil for food scheme. And you see that
> bougnoule (sand monkey) in Iran building nukes to destroy a
> nation, Israel.
The UN is made up of people. If the UN is becoming more corrupt, then it is because the people in general are becoming more corrupt.
> I strongly suggest we start the Anti-Islamofacist League. First
> thing: search and destroy the head or source of terrorism.
> Second, as in Denmark, encourage freedom of speech. I
> remember the efficiency of Simon Wisenthal when he was
> searching hidden nazis.
Well, here's the problem: It is not only ONE person who's causing the terrorism, it isn't as easy as finding the one or two people responsible and "take them out".
Wiesenthal was successful in what he did AFTER the fact, and he concentrated on the people who where pulling the string, this does not work in an active "grid" because if you take out the people in charge someone else will just back fill.
So, unless you have an idea on how to eradicate / destroy the entire Terrorism network successfully by military force, your "hunting down of individuals" will not do anything.
> We must start acting out, not only talking about the
> murderers. When the next terrorism attack happens in a
> Western country, why not send F-18 to Mecca? Repairing
> damages will keep them busy.
Dunno, maybe we can do this once the Terrorists blow up the Vatican.
Islam isn't the problem, it is the people who use it to justify their actions like... Oh, I don't know Weapons of Mass Destructions that turn into a freedom fight a bit later on.
In other words: The problem is Propaganda.
> We are into action in Afghanistan and Irak, but that does not
> stop the Islamofacists. Forty thousand Iranians are training to
> bring terror in our countries.
Wow, 40K? And what where those 40K doing before we (as in the West) went into Iraq? Where they training to? Where they scheming and planning to overthrow our way of life because they hate our Freedom? Or where they busy otherwise?
> What are we doing about that?
Dunno, what can we do in your opinion?
> Wait that they explode our subways? Or something worst?
So.... We do it to them before they can do it to us?
How? Launch some ICBMs and see how that works out? Throw the whole country into jail (I am sure we can ask some former KGB agents for some insight into how to build a Gulag), Mass Executions? Carpet Bombing (Linebacker III maybe?).
Please, do tell how we can be safed from the hordes of Terrorists knocking at our door.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2005-12-22 6:35:51 PM
> I dont' know about the rest of you but I have a touch of
> Islamophobia. It comes from their continued threat to kill me
> and all other infidels until the entire planet belongs to them.
Right, they're out to kill you personally. I am sure they have pills for that.
Or differently. HOW big are the chances for you to get killed by a terrorist? I wager a guess, the chances are higher that you die in a plane crash (sans terrorists) than being killed or hurt by a terrorist. Are you afraid of Engineers, Airline Pilots and Airports now?
Or afraid of cars? I mean, chances are a lot higher that you get killed crossing the street or driving your car. So you only hole up in your little shack in the middle of nowhere?
> Normally I would laugh this off, but when they continually
> blow stuff up, kidnap innocents and hack off their heads,
> hijack planes and generally kill anyone they can in places all
> over thge planet including many of their own who appear to
> be more moderate ... well I get a bit of a phobia.
Wow, that same definition would fit perfectly to the US military as well, yet I don't see anybody shake over their behaviour. Double standards anyone?
> BECAUSE THEY MEAN IT !!!!!
Mean what? That they are after you? As I said, there are pills for that.
> An Louise you naive bitch queen you won't like what they do
> to you if they happen to win.
MMhh, let's see, there are how may "Islamofacists" out there? Say, a million to be generous compared to... Oh, 300 Million people alone in North America.... So every one of them has to kill at least 300 of us in order to "wipe us out", not to mention the 1.2 Billion Chinese and 1.2 Billion Indian people.... I'd say the mathematical odds are in our favour.
So, drink some tea, lean back, take a deep breath, we will be alright.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2005-12-22 6:43:09 PM
Out of curiosity: Can anybody here describe to me please how YOUR ideal world would look like? What would be allowed, what woud not be allowed? How would we live our daily lifes?
I am curious, because I get the impression that anything that seems to be putting "humans" somewhere in the equation is automatically shit on by the posters and commenters in this fine piece of journalistic integrity.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2005-12-22 6:45:28 PM
Okay, who left the door open ?
Posted by: MarkAlta | 2005-12-22 6:58:54 PM
> Normally I would laugh this off, but when they continually
> blow stuff up, kidnap innocents and hack off their heads,
> hijack planes and generally kill anyone they can in places all
> over thge planet including many of their own who appear to
> be more moderate ... well I get a bit of a phobia.
snowrunner says: "Wow, that same definition would fit perfectly to the US military as well"
...and it proves he's a flaming lunatic...
Posted by: calgarian | 2005-12-22 8:10:31 PM
from this blog http://shepherdaway.blogspot.com/ "One Marine's View"
"Lets help the left sided thumb suckers remember Sadam killing those hundreds of Kurds in his own land with a variant of mustard gas and cyanide. (Note: Mustard gas, yea its WMD.) A truly horrific, painful, slow technique used to kill people. They may not have had it when we went into Iraq but they defiantly had it before we went in..."
"A dictator leader who slaughters his own removed. The use of WMD extinguished. Thousands liberated from the communism style leadership. A government who was fronting major terrorism activities throughout the world i.e. Bin Laden. New lives established for the thousands, schools, economic improvements and the end of torture for the weak. Oh and did we mention the whole freedom & democracy thing??"
"“Next week, Americans will gather to celebrate Christmas and Hanukkah. Many families will be praying for loved ones spending this season far from home — in Iraq, Afghanistan or other dangerous places. Our nation joins in those prayers. We pray for the safety and strength of our troops. We trust, with them, in a love that conquers all fear, and a light that reaches the darkest corners of the Earth. And we remember the words of the Christmas carol, written during the Civil War: "God is not dead, nor [does] He sleep; the wrong shall fail, the right prevail, with peace on Earth, good will to men." – The President
We are here doing what is right, just and true. We are making big gains in a shorter time than expected and we have reduced terrorists groups around the world. This may be One Marines View, but it is no mistake."
Posted by: calgarian | 2005-12-22 9:04:55 PM
Out of curiosity: Can anybody here describe to me please how YOUR ideal world would look like? What would be allowed, what woud (sic) not be allowed? How would we live our daily lifes? snowrunner
snowrunner,
This is too big a chore in the space provided, especially this late at night and this close to Christmas, but let me leave you with a few thoughts.
It's not for anyone here , or anywhere, including the Hague, or wherever Ms. Arbour is resting her fanny to tell you how to live your life. You are free to live your life as you please as long as you are not breaking the domestic law in the country you live, taking care of your famlly and not bringing harm to anyone. (I do not mention obeying so-called International Law because it is faux law which has been politicized by leftists who are more concerned with form than substance)
You are certainly free to express your opinion. Your opinion is most welcome if it is well thought out and politically incorrect.
Most of all, speak out when you see people in positions of authority express opinions which attempt to stifle legitimate debate, especially the opinions of those who have the courage and intelligence to respond to the Islamofascist Declaration of War upon Western civilization which was pronounced by bin laden in 1998.
It is most welcome that even if you can't speak out that you at least undersand that when war is declared upon us the longer we wait to defend ourselves the more lives will be lost when the war is fought in earnest, as it must be if we are to survive.
Ms, Arbour in what appears to be a near universal affliction of leftists doesn't understand this, which makes her lofty pronouncemmens on human rights laughable. If we don't win this war human rights will be dragged back centuries.
The Islamofascists want to roll the clock back 800 years. It's their way or death. They will make Hitler look like good old uncle Aldy.
You can read what you want but may I suggest
you start by reading bin laden's declaration of war, the Security Council Ceasefire Resolutions on Iraq, anything you can get your hands on by Churchill, especailly The Gathering Storm, Bernard Lewis, Mark Steyn, Victor Davis Hanson, Oliver Kramm and to help you retain your sense of humour while you contemplate the utter folly of these nutty leftist appeasers the always funny Ann Coulter.
Merry Christmas.
Posted by: Terry Gain | 2005-12-22 9:31:39 PM
> snowrunner says: "Wow, that same definition would fit perfectly
> to the US military as well"
>
> ...and it proves he's a flaming lunatic...
Hey, I am just trying to get into the swing of things... Meaning: Swinging wildly, not really thinking and hoping to hit something.
Isn't that how most comments and postings are happening here in the last couple of weeks?
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2005-12-22 9:39:37 PM
> "Lets help the left sided thumb suckers remember Sadam
> killing those hundreds of Kurds in his own land with a variant
> of mustard gas and cyanide. (Note: Mustard gas, yea its WMD.)
> A truly horrific, painful, slow technique used to kill people.
> They may not have had it when we went into Iraq but they
> defiantly had it before we went in..."
Umm, okay, so an almost 20 year delay in "righting the wrong" is okay now justification?
By that account let's roll up France and Germany again, because I think in 1916 - 1918 they used quite a bit of this stuff too.
> "A dictator leader who slaughters his own removed. The use of
> WMD extinguished. Thousands liberated from the communism
> style leadership.
Saddam was anything but a communist OR an Islamist. If anything he was against both of this. He was an ALLY of the US and the West for most of the '70s and '80s, he only fell from grace in the '90s when Stalinism at large was suddenly gone.
> A government who was fronting major
> terrorism activities throughout the world i.e. Bin Laden.
Excuse me, but that was not done by Saddam, Bin Ladin is Saudi, so where ALL of the 9/11 highjackers. They trained and equipped themselves in Afghanistan, HOW Iraq figures in that equation is a bit beyond me, because there is absolutly no link between Bin Ladin and Saddam, if anything they didn't like each other much out of similar reasons.
Saddam was a securalist(sp?) he didn't want someone like Bin Ladin undermine his power. Bin Ladin didn't like Saddam out of the same reasons.
Anybody who points at Iraq and claims that it was necessary because of Bin Ladin should stop watching Fox News and maybe read up on some other sources.
> New
> lives established for the thousands, schools, economic
> improvements and the end of torture for the weak. Oh and did
> we mention the whole freedom & democracy thing??"
Votes on the latter are still out. I doubt it'll happen anytime soon, the situation is way too complex to be resolved in a matter of years, it'll take at least a generation. Good luck to the Iraqi people, but it ain't over yet.
> "“Next week, Americans will gather to celebrate Christmas and
> Hanukkah. Many families will be praying for loved ones
> spending this season far from home — in Iraq, Afghanistan or
> other dangerous places. Our nation joins in those prayers. We
> pray for the safety and strength of our troops. We trust, with
> them, in a love that conquers all fear, and a light that reaches
> the darkest corners of the Earth. And we remember the words
> of the Christmas carol, written during the Civil War: "God is
> not dead, nor [does] He sleep; the wrong shall fail, the right
> prevail, with peace on Earth, good will to men." – The
> President
Nice and charming words.... But here's a question (and this is purely practial): How often in human history has a military force that invaded another country / society actually succeeded in changing it in a npositive way?
> We are here doing what is right, just and true.
History will be the Judge on it.... Let's talk in 50 years.
> We are making
> big gains in a shorter time than expected and we have
> reduced terrorists groups around the world.
MMhh, since the war on Terror started (just quickly off the top of my head) we had:
- Two bombings in South East Asia
- The London Bombings
- The Madrid Bombings.
Those are just the ones I can recall right now, in return, how many terrorists where actually convicted? How many are still out there?
> This may be One
> Marines View, but it is no mistake."
Everybody has their own view, right or wrong will be judged by history, not by anybody else.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2005-12-22 9:50:05 PM
> This is too big a chore in the space provided, especially this
> late at night and this close to Christmas, but let me leave you
> with a few thoughts.
fair enough, feel free to send me an email when you have time / the incling to do it.
> It's not for anyone here , or anywhere, including the Hague, or
> wherever Ms. Arbour is resting her fanny to tell you how to
> live your life. You are free to live your life as you please as
> long as you are not breaking the domestic law in the country
> you live, taking care of your famlly and not bringing harm to
> anyone. (I do not mention obeying so-called International Law
> because it is faux law which has been politicized by leftists
> who are more concerned with form than substance)
I can subscribe to that, but how would the domestic laws you desire look like?
Some things that come to mind right now (for Canada);
- Immigration
- Same Sex Marriage
- Drugs
- Healthcare
- Taxes
> You are certainly free to express your opinion. Your opinion is > most welcome if it is well thought out and politically incorrect.
>
> Most of all, speak out when you see people in positions of
> authority express opinions which attempt to stifle legitimate
> debate, especially the opinions of those who have the courage
> and intelligence to respond to the Islamofascist Declaration of
> War upon Western civilization which was pronounced by bin
> laden in 1998.
Okay, so I am allowed to critize people who don't see the world in black and white, but, say, calling President Bush out on his inconsistencies, his undermining of the freedoms that we are so proud of is not okay?
> It is most welcome that even if you can't speak out that you at
> least undersand that when war is declared upon us the longer
> we wait to defend ourselves the more lives will be lost when
> the war is fought in earnest, as it must be if we are to survive.
See, and here is where we differ. War has a reason, nobody goes to war because they feel like it.
Be it to get resources, land, people.... There is always an underlying cause.
Furthermore, there seems to be this idea on the right that if you take out Bin Ladin the rest will just collapse..... History should be a telltale sign that if you kill a leader (especially a religous one) you only create a Martyr.
> Ms, Arbour in what appears to be a near universal affliction of
> leftists doesn't understand this, which makes her lofty
> pronouncemmens on human rights laughable. If we don't win
> this war human rights will be dragged back centuries.
That's funny. On the one hand people on the right claim that all humans want to have personal freedom, in fact we freeded the Iraqis because they wanted the freedom. Yet, suddenly, a way larger porportion of the worlds population is just keeling over tomorrow morning and submitting to the "Islamofacists" because... Well, because we didn't throw enough bombs????
See, my problem with the right is not that I utterly disagree with everything they say, but the fact that it seems to be hate motivated, posts like this (or yesterdays attack on Germany) make not to even want to listen. Critizisem is something that right can't handel, the idea that maybe not ALL of their ideas are good doesn't seem to fit well.
Yeah, maybe I am a sucker, but if I have to choose between one side who wants to bomb the "opposition" back into the stone age and the one that may wait a bit longer but trying to find a humane way, i rather chose the latter. Because I do not believe that we, as a species, can progress while being forced at gun point. I do not believe that we can teach our values and morales by putting a gun at somebodies head.
We have to lead by example, and yes, that also does mean to bleed and hurt at times, and yes that sucks.
> The Islamofascists want to roll the clock back 800 years. It's
> their way or death. They will make Hitler look like good old
> uncle Aldy.
HOW MANY are really out there? If it is a million worldwide than this would mean that it is less than half a per cent of the entire world population. How will THEY bring us all down to our knees?????
> You can read what you want but may I suggest
> you start by reading bin laden's declaration of war, the
> Security Council Ceasefire Resolutions on Iraq, anything you
> can get your hands on by Churchill, especailly The Gathering
> Storm, Bernard Lewis, Mark Steyn, Victor Davis Hanson, Oliver
> Kramm and to help you retain your sense of humour while you
> contemplate the utter folly of these nutty leftist appeasers the
> always funny Ann Coulter.
Churchill et al, where right for their time, when we dealt with Nation States. When Germany went to war, you knew exactly who you were up against. Beating Germany into a pulp removed the aggression.
THIS does not work with independent terror groups, they do not have a "home" they do not have just one leader. Worse, they are religously motivated (or make it look that way) the death of their leader will be the death of a Martyr which will create more.
The current situation is not a sword fight between two people where one dies when you take their head off, it is like the fight against the Hydra, for every head you slash off, two are growing back.
The sooner the right nuts understand this, the sooner we may be able to actually affect change. Right now all we're doing is yanking their chains and that usually makes them wilder, not milder.
> Merry Christmas.
Happy Holidays. (Hello O'Reilly)
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2005-12-22 10:05:16 PM
You're naive, you don't understand people, you don't understand history, and you don't understand foreign cultures. It's a darned shame we have to go over there to those places and stomp a horde of crazed killers into the dust but, trust me on this, they understand it even if you don't. There's a little thing called respect. I doubt you even grasp the horrible effect of bomb explosions on human beings but there are those of us who won't stand for it. Maybe you think western civilizations and Israel brought this on themselves and deserve terror attacks. Who knows what you think? Probably the same old Michael Moore Hollywood crap, anti-American propaganda left over from the Cold War. I choked through most of your spam crap posted above, you are naive, your education is severely lacking. Get this through your head, the kind of radical Islam being dealt with has no place in any civilized society, they don't want to be a part of it and they bring only destruction to civilized values. The absence of tolerance and goodness and mercy is entirely on their side, you want to see someone "actually affect change"? (The word's "effect" not "affect" by the way.) That's what you're seeing in Iraq right now.
Posted by: calgarian | 2005-12-22 10:31:56 PM
Snowrunner: The U.S. invaded Japan and forced a democratic society upon them. MacArthur was given near dictatorial powers.
Posted by: rebarbarian | 2005-12-22 10:47:33 PM
> Snowrunner: The U.S. invaded Japan and forced a democratic
> society upon them. MacArthur was given near dictatorial powers.
Couple of differences though to Iraq:
1. Japan was a country, always was, they never were split.
2. The Emporer wasn't dragged off his Throne and put on trial.
3. The Emproer LEFT "voluntarily" so when he went and a new system was put in place it was with his "blessing", at least on the surface.
Why is that important? Because the people had a transition into a new form, they still have the Emperor who still is sitting on the Throne (though is political influence is pretty much nil).
This wasn't and isn't the case with Iraq. Saddam was removed from power and left behind was a power vacuum.
Then there is the fact that Iraq is a product of the British Colonialism, there are three very different groups that have been "put together" and they don't see eye to eye.
As nice as Japan (or Germany for that matter) is as an example it is not comparable.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2005-12-22 11:17:00 PM
> You're naive, you don't understand people, you don't
> understand history, and you don't understand foreign
> cultures.
Hear hear.
> It's a darned shame we have to go over there to those places
> and stomp a horde of crazed killers into the dust but, trust me
> on this, they understand it even if you don't.
Oh, I am sure they understand that while it was convinient we looked the other way, and when it wasn't convinient anymore we decided to "do something", didn't matter what as long as it was something.
> There's a little thing called respect. I doubt you even grasp the
> horrible effect of bomb explosions on human beings but there
> are those of us who won't stand for it.
And your solution is to.... Ah yes, throw bombs and kill more people in the hope that the other side "gets it".
Makes perfect sense.
> Maybe you think western civilizations and Israel brought this
> on themselves and deserve terror attacks.
"Deserve"? No, I don't think people "deserve" an untimely death by a third party who thinks that is a way to gain power.
Did we bring it on ourselves? Yes.
> Who knows what you think?
You could ask. But you may not like the answer(s) because they may disturb the stereotypical image you have of me, based on your utter hatred on anybody who doesn't agree with you.
> Probably the same old Michael Moore Hollywood crap, anti-
> American propaganda left over from the Cold War.
While you were sitting happily in your warm room during the cold war and were listening to Radio Free America telling you how spiffy everything is, I saw the cold war first hand. But I Guess that has coloured beyond repair to the idea that there is no "good" country, just opportunistic ones.
> I choked through most of your spam crap posted above, you
> are naive, your education is severely lacking.
Enlighten me please. Send me an email, point out where I am wrong (please give me some sources) and I am more than willing to read up on it.
> Get this through your head, the kind of radical Islam being
> dealt with has no place in any civilized society, they don't want
> to be a part of it and they bring only destruction to civilized
> values. The absence of tolerance and goodness and mercy is
> entirely on their side,
"Eye for an Eye and the World goes Blind" Einstein.
> you want to see someone "actually affect change"? (The word's
> "effect" not "affect" by the way.) That's what you're seeing in
> Iraq right now.
Excuse my english, it's only my third language.
And the only thing I see in Iraq right now is bloodshed, elections are a nice token, but they are no gurantee, we won't know that for quite a while.
Now, less hate, more open mindedness (in our discussion) and maybe we could get somewhere.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2005-12-22 11:27:40 PM
Oh, and affect was the right word:
from Websters:
af·fect
tr.v. af·fect·ed, af·fect·ing, af·fects
To have an influence on or effect a change in: Inflation affects the buying power of the dollar.
To act on the emotions of; touch or move.
To attack or infect, as a disease: Rheumatic fever can affect the heart.
English may be my third language, but I am not THAT bad.
Thanks for playing.
S
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2005-12-23 12:04:41 AM
Another product of our lame education system is this snowidiot!!
Let me guess......you really believe Islam is a religion of peace right??
From a mocking Darul Harbian
Posted by: Albertanator | 2005-12-23 12:14:39 AM
Yellow Snow Running off at the mouth.
I'd say your attack on me was about as hateful as one can make it.
I don't think a terrorist will likely kill me directly, but if they manage to bring say ... small pox or dirty bomb, or Spanish influenza here and let any of those things loose .. I may very well die by proxy. Certainly I have relatives in may places in
western society so .. they may suffer as well.
We are at war with Islam. You aren't it appears, so you must be on their side .. asshole.
To quote Bill O .. the man who brought back Christmas ... enjoy your cool aid yellow snow man.
Posted by: Duke | 2005-12-23 12:15:45 AM
> Another product of our lame education system is this snowidiot!!
>
> Let me guess......you really believe Islam is a religion of peace
> right??
As much as Christinanity.
You can twist any believe system into something it is not. I know enough Muslims who do not agree with any of the violence that is committed in the name of their believe.
Interesting though how it seems you don't have any arguments as you already resolve to name calling, makes it pretty clear who had some "lame education" and who the "Idiot" is.
Once you've grown up and can have a discussion without name caling feel free to reply my postings, until then go and sulk a bit more.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2005-12-23 1:11:03 AM
> Yellow Snow Running off at the mouth.
Oh the whit, oh the pain, how can I go on?
> I'd say your attack on me was about as hateful as one can
> make it.
Attack? By pointing out that the chances of you being threatened by terrorism is pretty slim and that you are paranoid? Wow.... You only like to dish it out, but you can't have it if someone is actually coming back with some arguments.
> I don't think a terrorist will likely kill me directly, but if they
> manage to bring say ... small pox or dirty bomb, or Spanish
> influenza here and let any of those things loose .. I may very
> well die by proxy.
Let's see: Small Pox, has been around, very hard to weaponize or be able to distribute over wide areas. The russians tried it, they had hundreds of scientists, the ability to construct elaborate delivery systems and huge vats to brew it up.
Didn't go anywhere because they couldn't get it to do anything.
Same with Anthrax, yeah, Antrax is easy to get, it is out there in nature, but it is not NEARLY as infectous as many people make it out to be. Again, the Russians tried to Weaponize it and AGAIN they didn't get it to disperse over large areas.
Dirty Bomb: A threat, that much is for sure, but again this isn't as easy as it may sound, in order to really distribute it to any effect you have to find an effective delivery system. I most likely got more radiation while living in Europe when Tchernobyl blew up, and that was one hell of an explosion.
Spanish Flu: Yeah, they have found the virus and it seems to be alive in a lab, but again, you can't that easily distribute it. What made the Spanish Flu so deadly were a variety of factors back then and I doubt someone in a Cave has the ability to cook up vast vats of it, much less be able to distribute it effecitvly.
We WILL have another Pandemic, but if it hits chances of it being a terrorist act are pretty slim.
Fact is: LIfe's dangerous, always was always will be AND it is unpredictable.
> Certainly I have relatives in may places in
> western society so .. they may suffer as well.
And guess what. So have I.
> We are at war with Islam.
So why are you posting here instead of herding all the islamists together, put them in a camp and keep a watchful eye on them? Oh, you're not quite there yet? I just insulted you? My bad.
> You aren't it appears, so you must be on their side .. asshole.
Ahh, personal name calling again. Considering that you and your ilk seem to gun for the intellectuals it appears to me that you proud yourself in your ignorance, which (surprise surprise) seems also to be combined with a lot of arrogance about the western culture.... Now where have I seen this once before.... There was something...... I think it was in Western Europe... Maybe.... MMMhh, roughly 70 years ago I think........
I am sure I can remember in time.
> To quote Bill O .. the man who brought back Christmas ...
> enjoy your cool aid yellow snow man.
Christmas was gone? And there I thought it just wasn't time yet. I always thought Christmas was celebrated in December of each year, but obviously you are onto something here, there is a vast conspiracy going on that prevents Christmas from being around the rest of the year as well.....
I am sure it is those Islamofashists with their Intellectual bretheren that are constantly trying to undermine your life of ignorance.
I am truly sorry that the world causes you so much pain, but it is the time of the year were we are all forgiving, and I am certain that it all will end well, you will make it to heaven one day and there will be peace, no intellectuals, no islamists, just good men and women like you who stand up for what they believe in, even if they don't have all the facts.
Salve.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2005-12-23 1:22:23 AM
it is sufficient for me that most Iraqis would disagree with snowrunner. smart guy, wrong conclusions.
Posted by: asdf | 2005-12-23 3:58:43 AM
Note that he firmly believes and clearly states that we brought terrorism on ourselves.
"Did we bring it on ourselves? Yes."
That's his smoking gun, right there, he is willing to be temporarily allied with any force that furthers his revolutionary fantasies.
He's not smart, he's a nasty little communist, seething with hatred for his own civilization. He looks kind of superficially smart bacause he uses the very aggressive internet tactic of chopping other's posts up and micro-babbling them to death, piece by piece, but quantity is no indication of quality.
Posted by: calgarian | 2005-12-23 6:57:06 AM
> Note that he firmly believes and clearly states that we brought
> terrorism on ourselves.
>
>"Did we bring it on ourselves? Yes."
Yes Sherlock, because ANY powerful entity always brought envy with it and this ALWAYS was shown in the form of terrorism one way or the other. Call it human nature, before it was the US and Western Society as a whole, it were the British who had to deal wit it.
Or look at the Northern Ireland and the IRA, there was terrorism too because some people didn't want the UK there (btw, how did that work out, did the UK lose it's freedom? Did they give up Northern Ireland?).
> That's his smoking gun, right there, he is willing to be
> temporarily allied with any force that furthers his revolutionary
> fantasies.
Stop trying to psycho-analyse me, you're doing a lousy job. You try to avoid any serious discussion that may be actually forcing you to rething your position by trying to blame me / put it on me that I am a "nut job". It's actualy rather sad how deeply you are in denial that maybe your answers aren't all right. Trying to compensate for something?
> He's not smart, he's a nasty little communist, seething with
> hatred for his own civilization. He looks kind of superficially
> smart bacause he uses the very aggressive internet tactic of
> chopping other's posts up and micro-babbling them to death,
> piece by piece, but quantity is no indication of quality.
Meanwhile YOU show your intelligence by resorting to name calling, personal attacks and utter disregard of large parts of posting and instead rather throw yourself like an attack dog on one minute piece you think you can get your hooks in in order to discredit the poster.
See, people like you and their "arguing" style is what makes most sane people crinche when they hear about "conservatism".
But obviously you're not into the details, they would just get into the way of your violence fantasies of blood and gore, where you burn down entire countries just so that "your" culture will surivive.
And yeah, you're right. If the world we're supposed to be living in is the one you are presenting here I don't want to have no part in it.
Grow up.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2005-12-23 9:06:16 AM
> it is sufficient for me that most Iraqis would disagree with
> snowrunner. smart guy, wrong conclusions.
Question: If the masses really WOULD agree with everything, how come that there are still so many of the insurgence hiding all over the country?
An Uprising can only succeed if a LARGER portion of the populance supports it, otherwise it'll fizzle out and die.
The fact that this is still going on leads me to believe that many may not do more than pay lip service to our idea of freedom.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2005-12-23 9:08:03 AM
Listen snowflake your inability to present a thought other than copy-paste WOW .. I speak three languages .. is very childish and shows you to be the furthest thing from a thinking person as possible. You are either a high school C student or you have not yet matured into adulthood.
You are not clever.
I don't know what your other two languages are but the one you are using here is a dialect of Gibberish.
If you have something to say .. say it! Give your fetish of copy-paste a rest it is tedius and boring .. otherwise climb back up your mothers ass until you are actually ready to be born.
Posted by: Duke | 2005-12-23 9:22:48 AM
Snowtard is just another immoral relativising idiot!!
Yes, all faiths and ideologies have had their share of bad people.......but only in Islam and Nazism and Marxism is it possible to find that the actually authors of said ideologies were brutal murdering scoundrals....Big Big diff snowtard!!
Muhammed himself was a murderer, a looter, a advocate of rape, married to a 6 year old, advocate of wife beating, advocate of murdering ex muslims and so forth..
Please O Snow tard find the equivelent teachings in Christianity.............I will be awaiting with mocking certitude!!
Posted by: Albertanator | 2005-12-23 11:45:02 AM
>Question: If the masses really WOULD agree with everything, how come that there are still so many of the insurgence hiding all over the country?
Welcome, believer of the western press.
>An Uprising can only succeed if a LARGER portion of the populance supports it, otherwise it'll fizzle out and die.
It is in the process of doing just so. ~70% of Iraqis just voted (for their fledgling democracy). A resounding success for Iraq and the anti-Saddam crowd.
Posted by: asdf | 2005-12-23 12:05:36 PM
> Listen snowflake
I am now really curious what else you have to say considering that you seem to have the urge to constantly degrade the people you are "talking" too. Did they teach that you in school?
> your inability to present a thought other than copy-paste
> WOW ..
What does WOW stand for? Women On Wheels? Or what? And I do not "copy & paste" unless where it is appropriate because someone already said the things I wanted to say, and in those cases I tend to give sources.
> I speak three languages .. is very childish and shows you to be
> the furthest thing from a thinking person as possible.
Meanwhile your childish name calling should impress me and other readers because.... Well just because I take it?
> You are either a high school C student or you have not yet
> matured into adulthood.
I am not the one who started the name calling.
But to put it in terms you understand: Pot, meet Kettel.
> You are not clever.
Unlike you I do not feel the need to be "clever", nor do I get my self esteem from trying to tear down other people on an internet.
> I don't know what your other two languages are but the one
> you are using here is a dialect of Gibberish.
It's okay. I try to speak in shorter sentences from now on. I will also stop using any difficult words that you may not understand.
> If you have something to say .. say it!
Oh I do.
> Give your fetish of copy-
> paste a rest it is tedius and boring ..
I am not copy and pasting. You know, some people can actually type. I know, it is hard for you to understand. I hope that sentences wans't too long?
> otherwise climb back up your mothers ass until you are
> actually ready to be born.
You may want to go and visit your doctor. I think the condition you're suffering from has a name: Tourrette Syndrome.
Clicky here for some helpful information:
http://www.tourettes-disorder.com/home.html
S.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2005-12-23 3:03:40 PM
> Listen snowflake
I am now really curious what else you have to say considering that you seem to have the urge to constantly degrade the people you are "talking" too. Did they teach that you in school?
> your inability to present a thought other than copy-paste
> WOW ..
What does WOW stand for? Women On Wheels? Or what? And I do not "copy & paste" unless where it is appropriate because someone already said the things I wanted to say, and in those cases I tend to give sources.
> I speak three languages .. is very childish and shows you to be
> the furthest thing from a thinking person as possible.
Meanwhile your childish name calling should impress me and other readers because.... Well just because I take it?
> You are either a high school C student or you have not yet
> matured into adulthood.
I am not the one who started the name calling.
But to put it in terms you understand: Pot, meet Kettel.
> You are not clever.
Unlike you I do not feel the need to be "clever", nor do I get my self esteem from trying to tear down other people on an internet.
> I don't know what your other two languages are but the one
> you are using here is a dialect of Gibberish.
It's okay. I try to speak in shorter sentences from now on. I will also stop using any difficult words that you may not understand.
> If you have something to say .. say it!
Oh I do.
> Give your fetish of copy-
> paste a rest it is tedius and boring ..
I am not copy and pasting. You know, some people can actually type. I know, it is hard for you to understand. I hope that sentences wans't too long?
> otherwise climb back up your mothers ass until you are
> actually ready to be born.
You may want to go and visit your doctor. I think the condition you're suffering from has a name: Tourrette Syndrome.
Clicky here for some helpful information:
http://www.tourettes-disorder.com/home.html
S.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2005-12-23 3:05:46 PM
> Snowtard is just another immoral relativising idiot!!
Ohh, now you even call me names in the third person , where did I go wrong?
> Yes, all faiths and ideologies have had their share of bad
> people.......but only in Islam and Nazism and Marxism is it
> possible to find that the actually authors of said ideologies
> were brutal murdering scoundrals....Big Big diff snowtard!!
Right. Ever heard of a document called "Der Hexenhammer"? No? Was a nice little book that was distributed by the churches on how to identify witches and what kind of tests one needed to perform.
There is the obvious Salem Witch Trials, but there were others in Europe way earlier. Considering the "constraints of Technology" back in those days and the lower number of people overall they were just as horrific as what has happened in the 20th Century with more "modern" technologies.
> Muhammed himself was a murderer, a looter, a advocate of
> rape, married to a 6 year old, advocate of wife beating,
> advocate of murdering ex muslims and so forth..
Out of curiosity: Have you actually ever read the Koran? Or talked to a muslim / muslim priest? Or do you get your information about the religion from Fox News et. al?
> Please O Snow tard find the equivelent teachings in
> Christianity.............I will be awaiting with mocking certitude!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexenhammer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summis_desiderantes
As for Christian cruelty, I quote:
> The measures employed against alleged witches were some of
> the worst ever practiced in the Western world. In A History of
> Torture, George Ryley Scott says:
> "The peculiar beliefs and superstitions attached to or
> associated with witchcraft caused those who were suspected
> of practising the craft to be extremely likely to be subjected to
> tortures of greater degree than any ordinary heretic or
> criminal. More, certain specific torments were invented for use
> against them."
> Part of a larger culture which was very religiously and socially
> intolerant, the witch-hunts resulted in the loss of much
> traditional knowledge and folklore (or so it is alleged, without
> the least bit of solid evidence) among Europeans when the
> practitioners were "lawfully" killed.
More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witchhunt
Oh, and as a side note, you may come off less arrogant if you would stop calling people you have arguments with by names. It just makes you look stupid and stubborn, maybe even a bit afraid, why else would you attack me personally instead of my opinions?
S.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2005-12-23 3:15:30 PM
> >Question: If the masses really WOULD agree with everything,
> >how come that there are still so many of the insurgence
> >hiding all over the country?
>
> Welcome, believer of the western press.
What press should I believe? Pravda? Not to forget, this was a direct reference to comments made in THIS discussion by people here who claim that:
>> We are into action in Afghanistan and Irak, but that does not
>> stop the Islamofacists. Forty thousand Iranians are training >> to bring terror in our countries.
This is a little bit further up, courtesy of "The Duke".
>>An Uprising can only succeed if a LARGER portion of the
>>populance supports it, otherwise it'll fizzle out and die.
> It is in the process of doing just so. ~70% of Iraqis just voted
> (for their fledgling democracy). A resounding success for Iraq
> and the anti-Saddam crowd.
There's just one problem: We had an election a YEAR ago, it was a "rousing success" as well, yet it didn't go anywhere.
Voting means nothing if the frame work isn't in place. It is a nice gesture, but unless the people really don't support the insurgence anymore and actually do more than just make their X it is nothing more but a piece of propaganda.
Hitler got elected, Stalin had votes, did it change anything? No, because despite people being allowed to 'vote" their vote didn't had any impact.
The fact that people in Iraq can vote now is encouraging, but it alone is no gurantee that something will change. If they elect a guy (or gal) and s/he gets blown up because someone doesn't like them, then the election is useless.
Democracy only works if EVERYBODY believes that this is the way to resolve problems and come to an agreement.
Let's hope that's what this election means, but looking back a year, I am sceptical.
S.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2005-12-23 3:21:12 PM
flake, SHOUTING will only get you so far. and reveals your inexperience. i'd like to step aside from this particular special olympics and invite you back in 12 months on this particular subject.
>Let's hope that's what this election means, but looking back a year, I am sceptical.
lets wait and see. i am very optimistic.
>Hitler got elected, Stalin had votes, did it change anything?
Chretien got elected, Martin had votes, did it change anything?
thanks for playing.
Posted by: asdf | 2005-12-23 3:31:26 PM
Snowrunner.
I agree that it is indeed improbable that I will be killed by an islamofacist extremist suicide bomber. We are at war with the extremists that want everyone to capitulate or die. The Iraqis have more than a 2/3 majority that support democracy, the economic benefits, and new infrastructure. Many of the terrorists are foreigners including their main leaders like Al Zawarqui (sp?). Even the 20% of the Iraq population (Sunni) that largely supported the terrorists are starting to embrace democracy. Sure it would be nice to have token approval from ther previous leader, the fact that he is being subjected to the rule of law in Iraq is a good second choice.
And to add to your list or terrorist activities/jihad attacks since 9/11, this site has the current count at 3870 attacks:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ I may not agree with all of their examples, but many are hard to refute. Another problem is that there are so many versions of Sharia law, that it is apparently hard to know which verion to follow even for the extremists.
John Reynolds
Posted by: jmrSudbury | 2005-12-23 3:31:29 PM
>>>Hitler got elected, Stalin had votes, did it change anything?
>
> Chretien got elected, Martin had votes, did it change anything?
>
> thanks for playing.
Yawn. Amazing what comes mostly from the "right"... Hot air, if that much.
But that's okay. I guess O'Reilly does have an influence, shout other opinions down, only hear what you want to hear and then it must be right.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2005-12-23 4:20:21 PM
avoid the debate. yawn at those you quote you. who is o'reilly? who's shouting?
there are 3 1/2 points there, try and address them.
Posted by: asdf | 2005-12-23 4:25:11 PM
> I agree that it is indeed improbable that I will be killed by an
> islamofacist extremist suicide bomber.
Thank you.
> We are at war with the extremists that want everyone to
> capitulate or die.
Nothing new though, this is something that all extremists have in mind, I'd say that is pretty much the definition OF an extremist.
> The Iraqis have more than a 2/3 majority that support
> democracy, the economic benefits, and new infrastructure.
> Many of the terrorists are foreigners including their main
> leaders like Al Zawarqui (sp?). Even the 20% of the Iraq
> population (Sunni) that largely supported the terrorists are
> starting to embrace democracy. Sure it would be nice to have
> token approval from ther previous leader, the fact that he is
> being subjected to the rule of law in Iraq is a good second
> choice.
Yes, it IS a good choice, but one of the things that makes the whole thing not so good is how long it took them to actually start the trial.
If there is no majoral support for the insurgence, then it will fizzle out over time and it can stabalize, but that also assumes that the three major parties in Iraq actually want to work together, and that is another big difference between Germany, Japan in Iraq.
The first two where coherent states BEFORE the war. Iraq was only in name, because only the Sunni called the shots, and the Kurts wanted their own state for a very long time and I am not necessarily convinced that they are really happy with having a piece of Iraq to call their own.
> And to add to your list or terrorist activities/jihad attacks
> since 9/11, this site has the current count at 3870 attacks:
> http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
ON a quick glance this seems to be an interesting site, I'll dig around in it a bit.
Thanks for the link.
> I may not agree with all of their examples, but many are hard
> to refute. Another problem is that there are so many versions
> of Sharia law, that it is apparently hard to know which verion
> to follow even for the extremists.
I think what many people don't do is seperate the religion from the propaganda. It is sort of ironic that people like Duke are abolishing Christianity from every wrong doing because all the wars we are fighting are "just" and not in the name of Christ, yet at the same time, those same people are saying we need more religion in our lifes in order to find the strength to fight Islam.
I know a lot of Muslims, none I know condones the effect, none of them is an extremist either though, for them their believe is something personal, yes they do adhere to their religous laws, but they also acknowledge it is theirs to follow, not mine.
I am not a Christian, I am not a Muslim, I guess I am Spiritual but not religious. I do not like organized religion of any kind really, because it can easily used for bad as much as for good.
A "war on terror" will fail, because "for every action there is an equal and opposit reaction", this was very well understood during the cold war, this is why we never went out in a nuclear blast but rather had small, brutal wars in far away countries, but it seems that the right has forgotten that simple rule and seems to think they can just exterminate the competition.
That they do not have any other arguments, btw, is very well shown in the name calling that is going on here when those people encounter an opinion that they don't understand or like.
Pity really, because the more sober ones will be caught in the cross fire of idealogies.
S.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2005-12-23 4:31:49 PM
> yawn at those you quote you
Umm, could I please get that using english grammar? This does not make any sense at all.
who is o'reilly?
That would be the person here: http://www.billoreilly.com/
> who's shouting?
For one the person linked above, and then of course there is the rest of the people here (Hi Duke) who call me names and other things, I consider this shouting.
> there are 3 1/2 points there, try and address them.
Happy now? Feeling better? Bigger? More confirmed in your views of the world? Anything else I can do to make you feel prouder?
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2005-12-23 4:53:54 PM
> yawn at those you quote you
"yawn at those who quote you"
sorry typo - please now goofball go back and address the question
>That would be the person here:
Sorry don't care. Canadian.
> For one the person linked above, and then of course there is the rest of the people here (Hi Duke) who call me names and other things, I consider this shouting.
Thought we were having a conversation. Not into threesomes.
>Happy now? Feeling better? Bigger? More confirmed in your views of the world? Anything else I can do to make you feel prouder?
Wow. Care to discuss issues now?
Posted by: asdf | 2005-12-23 5:04:54 PM
>> "yawn at those who quote you"
>? sorry typo - please now goofball go back and address the
> question
Didn't yawn at them, but at their "brushing off" of what I was saying.
> Sorry don't care. Canadian.
Oh, but you should care, after all isn't it the US who leads the "good fight" for us all?
> Thought we were having a conversation. Not into threesomes.
You should be Stephen Harpers speech writer.
> Wow. Care to discuss issues now?
Sure, feel free to go back to my former talking points and post your replies. I am more than happy to get back to you on those points.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2005-12-23 5:08:02 PM
Snow shit... when I say copy and paste I am talking about the words of others you are replying to or more to the point shitting on .. you don't need to do that if you know how to reply to a comment properly. We will know what you are refering to if you can use the language. (gibberish in you case)
You attacked me first and you used WOW first.. I was mocking you because you are mockable.
Did you notice that I didn't copy and and paste any of your inane commentary and even you probably were able to connect the dots.
Now back up your mother's ass please . you have no business talking with adults.
Now, if you reply to this comment, try to do it without copying and pasting any of .. see if you can use your memory long enough to develop a thought.
If you think I am trashing you rather discussing an issue with you .. you right.. you aren't able to discuss an issure .. you are far too taken with you feeble ability to merely navigate on the internet and ... copy and paste!
Posted by: Duke | 2005-12-23 5:39:12 PM
Snowrunner, your example is in error. You quoted Newton's third law to explain the cold war standoff. As one side pushes, the other pushes back with the same force. That is just one part of the law. It is also true that as one side pushes, the other side does not have to push back. It can end up in motion. That is how things change. Societies change too. As Canada becomes more socialist and willing to bend to the will of minorities, how long -- how many generations -- until those in charge make the country capitulate for/on us. I am glad that Dalton McGuinty and Quebec have said no to Sharia law. With the supreme court of canada continuing its social engineering, how much longer would Canada have under the liberals?
And no, kill them all or capitulate is not the definition of all extremists. Some Christian extremists do indeed go as far as killing abortion doctors, but they do not go out by blowing themselves and others up. I have heard of Palistinians and Al Quaeda employing suicide bombers. Even Japanese komakozie pilots did not target weddings or crowds of civilians. The reason the jihadists are worse is that they do not recognize civilians.
John Reynolds
Posted by: jmrSudbury | 2005-12-23 8:12:23 PM
Christmas wish at Duke's Place
http://tinyurl.com/7bdty
Posted by: Duke | 2005-12-23 9:51:15 PM
Duke:
PLONK
Grow up.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2005-12-24 12:34:30 AM
> It can end up in motion. That is how things change. Societies
> change too. As Canada becomes more socialist and willing to
> bend to the will of minorities, how long -- how many
> generations -- until those in charge make the country capitulate
> for/on us.
Life IS change. A society obvoiusly changes over time as things around them change. Before the car was inventended and easily affordable to the masses most people never left their home village, did the car bring an "end" to society? No, it changed.
Yes, it won't be the same, yes minorities will have a voice and the Canada of today will not be the Canada of the future, but that doesn't mean it has to be a WORSE Canada, just different.
> I am glad that Dalton McGuinty and Quebec have said no to
> Sharia law. With the supreme court of canada continuing its
> social engineering, how much longer would Canada have
> under the liberals?
The Sharia is something that doesn't need to be implemented, I agree, but again, there may be other things we can benefit from as well.
My problem, btw, is not with change, I quoted the third law because any "sudden" movement will cause an opposit reaction, societies are slow to move and like moving silly putty you're better off pushing a little over a long time than just trying to force it.
The problem I see lately on this blog is that there are some voices who have an utter disregard for anything that even remotely smells like Islam, it doesn't matter what it is, it is Islam and it must be bad. I could draw parallels to other parts of history, but I know that people will find colourful words to describe me at that point again.
S.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2005-12-24 12:39:59 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.