The Shotgun Blog
Sunday, August 20, 2006
Jihad is a non-negotiable position
Liberals think that we have been able to negotiate with our enemies before, we can negotiate with jihadists now. No, you can't argue with people who want to kill you and they don't stop until they achieve their bloody goals of mass murdering every one of non-believers.
No, Jihad is a non-negotiable position as Melanie Phillips, author of Londonistan, puts it in her interview with Fox News.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Jihad is a non-negotiable position:
here are a few things that spring to mind right now (in no particular order):
- Sercurity Certificates in Canada, in itself not a bad idea, but in execution badly lacking.
- All the US Spying on their own citizens that has gone on.
- Expanded power to Government agencies in order to "protect" us.
The latter point may be arguable as we do not know what exactly happens, BUT where this is causing me a headache is that this technology can easily be turned against the citizens.
A historic example (as everybody here loves analogies to WWII) is the registry in the Netherlands. When Nazi Germany invaded they used those records to find Jews and any other "person of interest". Ever since then the Netherlands have done away with a central registry, you only register local (if at all).
My concern with the erosion of our freedoms is that it is happening quietly and without us noticing until it is too late, all because some people run around like chickens with their heads lobbed off and politicians who see this as a good chance to raise their profile.
Learn to differenciate between countries and terrorists. The first one are states that follow a certain protocol, the latter ones just want to force their ideology on whoever they see fit.
Think about it, if your neighbour had a gun, and has been known for having shot people he considered a threat to himself, but you're not quite certain if he isn't one night coming into your house, drunk and disoriented because he went through the wrong door, would you not want a gun as well?
You have to deal different with a sovereign nation than you have to deal with a terrorist. A terrorist you find, throw in jail and then throw the key away. Threatening a sovereign nation usually does not help you get any closer to getting what you want. The only people who can do that are muggers because they don't really care how they are perceived.
As said in the quoted article above:
> Pleuger: The conflict with Iran can only be
> resolved through a global compromise. Europe,
> America and Russia have to find a grand bargain
> with Iran. Iran would guarantee that they
> wouldn’t build bombs; we guarantee that Iran can
> fully use nuclear power and the US will provide
> the necessary security guarantees.
Or what do you think will happen if the US invades Iran? A fast victory? People greeting the liberators in the street? Flowers?
Or will it (at best) work out as it did in Afghanistan where for three years there was a "sort of" peace happening until it started to unravel?
We used the "iron fist" in both Afghanistan and Iraq, has it worked?
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2006-08-21 4:05:34 PM
Jihad may (or not) be a global thing, but the support base is in the already muslim countries. What this means is that if you remove their base and popular support in those countries the Jihad will simply die.
This isn't any different than FLQ, RFA or IRA, they all wanted something specific, it's just happening this time in more than one country and on a larger scale.
HOW you deal with it hasn't changed though, the premise is still the same.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2006-08-21 4:10:32 PM
Come on snowrunner - there’s a big difference between a handful of Quebec Che Guevara wannabe’s shooting a guy and stuffing him in the trunk of a car like , like .. well like Librano$
1.3 billion Muslims being stirred up by Mullahs that so far have succeeded in planes flown into the WTC killing 3000 and Iran’s President stating he will Nuke Israel and a very long list of other horrendous atrocities all over the planet – not least is 17 arrested in Toronto and as the information pours out of these terrorists no doubt more atrocities will hopefully be nixed in time.
But if you think fighting Jihad is the same thing as the FLQ then let’s get the Trudeau boys to do a
“watch me” déjà vu for Poppa.
Maybe the CBC will film it.
Sheesh - Pierre Trudeau is starting to look like a right wing hawk compared to the utopians in the Liberal Party these days.
Posted by: nomdenet | 2006-08-21 4:35:56 PM
How many of the 1.3 billion Muslims really do support this? My guess would be you may get a million world wide that would support it no matter what.
Then you have the youth in the west who picks up Islam out of all the wrong reasons (they are more of a concern than immigrants).
It truly doesn't change the tactics we need to use.
But what I am still waiting for is from you and everybody else on here who disagrees with me to come up with a WORKABLE solution.
If it was up to you, what would YOU do and what would be your ultimate goal (and don't be wishy washy along the lines of "Well, I would stop the terrorists".
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2006-08-21 4:48:22 PM
The question is can we be safe if we are blasphemous or draw cartoons of Mohammed? Can we freely and openly criticize Islam without fear or threat from Muslim Jihadists?
Has anyone criticized the FLQ, RFA or IRA and then got as Islamic Fatwa for his Death?
The only way to find out is to go ahead and find out.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2006-08-21 5:36:19 PM
Fact – as noted above, 25% of Britain’s 1.7 million Muslims throws your 1 million global figure out the window.
Strategically - I would stay the course of the Anglosphere as expressed by Bush, Blair and Howard and now thank God Harper joins them. We can beat this militarily if, a big IF, we have the will to beat it and if we openly demonstrate that will.
Our biggest problem is utopian left arrogance and the desire of socialists to want to partner with the utopian Islamic Fascists as a last attempt to defeat capitalism. That means the biggest problem we have are our own Liberals as witnessed by the Toronto MP wanting to de-list the Hez as a terrorists group. The Jewish community in Canada who have always backed the Liberals now understand this Liberal risk here at home and are switching allegiances.
We Conservatives must learn to compromise on other matters to ensure a majority government. I’m pretty sure McCain and Giuliani will win the next ticket in the US. But we’ll still have to keep our own house in order. Never a Liberal lover, I’m downright scared of them now – they are scary!
So my strategy is simple – elect Conservatives in the Anglosphere and we’ll beat this Jihad.
BTW, I include in the Anglosphere, cousins if you will, in India , Japan, Denmark and a few other sensible non-appeasing democratic countries.
Steps … send donations to the PCP.
Oh and it’s now safe to criticize Liberals and will become safer as we convert them to conservatives – through logic.
Posted by: nomdenet | 2006-08-21 5:42:32 PM
I believe it is our job to make the liberals scared of us.
Perhaps go a few of their 'peace' rallies with baseball bats or some mace spray or DDT or small pox or whatever the hell you have will let them know that their politics is no longer tolerated in the free world.
For christ sakes there was a throng of Buddist monks in Shri lanka attacking a pack of peaceniks who were tryhing to appease the Tamil Tigers there the other day. That was Buddist Monks my lovelies ... even they know when enough is enough.
The probelm here is that we are a wealthy comfortable lot and have much to lose if we act up against our traitors. However, there is much more to lose if we don't.
Posted by: Duke | 2006-08-21 5:53:25 PM
This posting is not by me:
> The question is can we be safe if we are
> blasphemous or draw cartoons of Mohammed? Can we
> freely and openly criticize Islam without fear
> or threat from Muslim Jihadists?
> Has anyone criticized the FLQ, RFA or IRA and
> then got as Islamic Fatwa for his Death?
> The only way to find out is to go ahead and find
I see the cowards are out once again.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2006-08-21 5:59:16 PM
> Fact – as noted above, 25% of Britain’s 1.7
> million Muslims throws your 1 million global
> figure out the window.
25% of what? I was talking about 1 million RADICAL muslims, and that means those that are willing to actually do commit crimes, blow people up etc. Not just the ones that claim they support the cause. Those are cheap to come by for anything.
As for your "solution". You still haven't any> All you say is: "Well, they are "conservative" so I vote "conservative".
HOW this is going to save your butt (or mine for that matter) is not quite clear. You should become a speech writer, you have clearly some talent.
WHAT do you expect the war to do? PRECISE targets please, who are we to take out? Who do we take over? What do we do once have taken them over.
You may be enthusiastic about this whole thing, but you lack specifics.
Supporters like this scare me way more than any guy who wants to blow himself up, at least once he's done he won't do any more damage.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2006-08-21 6:04:33 PM
Sung to the tune of Slim Shady:
Will the real Snowrunner please shut up.
Please shut up, please shut up.
Will the real Snowrunner please shut up.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-08-21 6:06:46 PM
Why SYF? Aren't you a defender of Freedom and Democracy? Or only for people you agree with?
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2006-08-21 6:19:38 PM
Snowrunner: I see your list, thank you. but nowhere in that list is anything that me or anyone that is law-abiding need worry about. As a pakistani muslim I heard say, "If they want to listen to my phone calls to kpakistan, let them. I have nothing to hide."
Posted by: MarkAlta | 2006-08-21 6:28:28 PM
Since you ask ... freedom is never free.
It is only won by people who truly believe in liberty and are willing to sacrifice their lives so others can enjoy their liberty.
Those with an inability to distinguish between right and wrong, that is people who willingly suppress their own conscience are authors of their own misfortunes and designers of their own prisons.
Good luck with your jail break ... where is that Thomas Jefferson quote about liberty when we need it?
Freedom cannot be gained by enacting a series of laws, since even tyrants are capable of passing laws.
If you are unwilling to die for your freedom, then you deserve the slavery you so clearly desire.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-08-21 6:28:42 PM
this is not about if you have something to hide or not. Systems like this CAN (and will) be abused. Men is weak, and if they are given the chance to abuse it they will.
There are numerous examples like this in History. There is a reason why modern societies separate Law makrs, Judges and enforcement from each other, it is about holding the balance. With the laws already on the books enacted after 9/11 and the ones they would LIKE to get in this divide between the three pillars is eroded and that is dangerous for everyone. Law abiding or not.
you clearly are incapable of understanding anything of what I have written. It just doesn't fit into your very narrow world view. You are desperate for a great evil you can "fight" and anything that may deter you from this is dismissed as "idiotic" in your eyes.
If people like you are the guardians of Freedom we're all fucked.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2006-08-21 6:33:53 PM
How am I doin’now ? Snowrunner says it’s scared of me.
Snowrunner it’s what conservatives don’t do that’s important. We don’t appease. We don’t cut and run. We don’t de-list the Hez. We don’t self-loath. We don’t say cultures are equal. We don’t believe in hyphenated Canadains.
Posted by: nomdenet | 2006-08-21 6:34:04 PM
In this thread, I've said what I've said, Snowrunner. Good night.
Posted by: lookout | 2006-08-21 6:34:31 PM
Snowrunner: I'd rather take my chances with U.S. and Canadian lawmakers than Islamic fascists trying to kill us. Thanks, but you're certainly free to side with the Islamic fascists if you feel that they are less dangerous than our western lawmakers, whcih is what it comes down to. Shame on you though for being so naive.
Posted by: MarkAlta | 2006-08-21 6:38:22 PM
It is pretty clear you want something, but it seems you don't know what it is. All you do is parrot catch phrases that are thrown out there, claiming you stand for this, but you don't even seem to be able to defend these on their own merit.
Yeah, people like you scare me, because you are way closer to me than an muslim arab in Iraq and your potential impact is way higher than what they may achieve.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2006-08-21 6:39:13 PM
does anybody actually READ what I write? Or are you all just reacting to the things you EXPECT me to say?
The person who seems to be naive here is everybody who believes that our Governments can do no wrong. I am sure many Germans thought the same thing when Hitler took over from Bismarck as Reichs Chancellors, after all he was rallying about those people that did Germany wrong, he promised a rise again of a German nation and making the country strong again.
Does that sound familiar?
A lot on here like to draw parallels to WWII (e.g. Islamofacists) when it "furthers their cause" but are outright blind when things are happening that DO deserve those parallels.
Reality is: I cannot stop a guy who wants to blow himself up, simply because I won't know he's doing it. Maybe an Agency gets lucky and stops him, but chances are slim to none for that (as seen in 9/11, 7/7, Madrid, Bali and the myriad of other attacks over the last 50 years).
Considering how much everybody at the Western Standard seems to clamor for limited Government power I have to say I find it almost comical how those same people are now running to Mommy Government and ask to be protected from the Evil Arab, and hey, if that means giving up some basics of our society so be it.
Am I the only here who sees the fallacy in your (general statement, not you alone Mark) arguments?
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2006-08-21 6:44:06 PM
of course nothing concrete, now there's a shocker.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2006-08-21 6:49:41 PM
Snowrunner, you are like John Kerry, you want a plan, I won’t give you one and that’s why I scare you. Liberals are utopian because they are pessimistic about their ability to win. I’m an optimist. I know I’ll win if I can get a majority government and if the same happens throughout the Anglosphere which again will have to rescue the appeasing French and Belgians just like we did over and over again last century .
Conservatives are the sheep dogs protecting their sheep from the evil wolves. We don’t have a plan. But we will kill the wolves, a million of them if necessary. The wolves know that. That’s why they never attack until a wolf in sheep’s clothing – in other words a Liberal – manages to sneak into the herd.
Conservatism is a way of thinking. Being a utopian Liberal, I know this is scary for you, this optimism that individual effort will triumph over evil.
But no I don’t have a plan – other than I plan to win and I will never never quit until I do – that’s the conservative way.
Posted by: nomdenet | 2006-08-21 6:57:20 PM
I have to say, I don't read your posts. I briefly saw your whine above, and thought to let you know, that your kind of liberal drivel, is a dime a dozen.
Islamofacists were partners with the national-socaialists and axis in WWII. So, drawing parallel, is not only natural, it is accurate.
Posted by: Lady | 2006-08-21 7:01:05 PM
Sorry but I cannot resist. Perhaps we could pass around the hat for donations in order to purchase a one-way ticket to Iran for SR and let him/her negotiate person-to-person with the jihadist big cheese. I am sure the jihadist can deal more effectively with SR. Who knows what could result from such a love-in; SR could even lose his/her head.
Posted by: Alain | 2006-08-21 7:24:24 PM
Alain, fine idea! Where can I donate?
Posted by: lookout | 2006-08-21 7:33:36 PM
Snowrunner: I read what you wrote and responded to it. You are worried that if we let our gov't. wiretap etc. on islamofascists, it could come back to bite us, like Hitler's power run amok in pre-WWII Germany.
I disagree, and am willing to chance that, for the sake of possibly catching more of these Islamo-fascists. George W. has proven already that he is capable of doing a darn good job of thwarting these goobers. Too bad his lefty federal judges that rule against the phonetapping are trying to tie his hands.
Posted by: MarkAlta | 2006-08-21 7:46:56 PM
Snowy for peace envoy to Iran!
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-08-21 8:25:33 PM
my name is Michael Kalus. Catch me if you can.
It's not about freedom, it's about survival! Muslims don't what freedom, stupid.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2006-08-21 9:00:17 PM
Off you go to Teheran, Snowy.
Show us how you can singlehandedly save the world, o wise one.
Please file DAILY reports.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-08-21 9:02:52 PM
Any one wants to go to Iran?
Posted by: Winston | 2006-08-21 9:04:27 PM
you said :
"The Terrorists just have to be bypassed and ignored, if you give them any attention they will only feel more empowered."
Correct. The Iranian regime are terrorists and they are greatly enjoying the attention they are getting and do feel empowered.
You apparently would like to talk to them and give them more attention and empower them more.
You cannot negotiate with religious fanatics.
Melanie Phillips is correct.
Posted by: C.H. | 2006-08-21 9:23:43 PM
> Snowrunner, you are like John Kerry, you want a
> plan, I won’t give you one and that’s why I
> scare you.
Yeah well, let's just say I have a hard time buying into: "Umm, we're in danger, Ummmm, we have to do something Ummmm I know what to do Ummmm Just follow me Ummmm."
Compared to someone who says the same thing but then tells me what s/he intends to do.
> Liberals are utopian because they are
> pessimistic about their ability to win. I’m an
I am not a pesimist, I just don't believe that having the bigger hammer makes us win this.
As for you being an Optimist: Well then man, tell us your sure fire way for victory.
> I know I’ll win if I can get a majority
> government and if the same happens throughout
> the Anglosphere which again will have to rescue
> the appeasing French and Belgians just like we
> did over and over again last century .
And once again you get an F for history. Still not realizing that it is completely different to fight terrorism and state aggression.
And you wonder why you scare me?
> Conservatives are the sheep dogs protecting
> their sheep from the evil wolves. We don’t have
> a plan. But we will kill the wolves, a million
> of them if necessary.
Okay, so your plan actually is: I kill everybody who I felt threatend by.
MMMhhh, I try to imagine in what kind of world you must want to live in..... And now I am even more scared.
> The wolves know that. That’s why they never
> attack until a wolf in sheep’s clothing – in
> other words a Liberal – manages to sneak into
> the herd.
Ummm... yeah right.
First of all Wolfs hunt in packs (ever heard the term "Wolfpack"? That referred to the German U-Boats who attacked Merchant ships crossing the atlantic), usually they do not actively hunt unless provoked OR starving. Do you think threatening an entire religion could be considered a thread?
> Conservatism is a way of thinking. Being a
> utopian Liberal, I know this is scary for you,
> this optimism that individual effort will
> triumph over evil.
Oh, I am a Liberal now. How do you deduct that? You don't I assume, just like your plan you just know....
I think there's a term for this now: Truthiness. You, my friend, have a lot of Truthiness in you.
> But no I don’t have a plan – other than I plan
> to win and I will never never quit until I do –
> that’s the conservative way.
In that case: Report to the closest Canadian Forces base, learn how to kill yourself... You know, walk your talk and all of that.
@Lady (oh, the Irony),
> Islamofacists were partners with the
> national-socaialists and axis in WWII. So,
> drawing parallel, is not only natural, it is
What you refer to Islamofacism was known as the Bath Party, remember this merry band of Saddams people? Ironically enough the west didn't really mind that Facism too much while we benefited from it.
Call them what they are: Religious Nutjobs, you people don't have any issues calling other people who don't disagree with you names. But I guess it is easier to attack people who try to reason with you then call nutjobs what they are if they may actually do something about it, right?
> Sorry but I cannot resist. Perhaps we could pass
> around the hat for donations in order to
> purchase a one-way ticket to Iran for SR and let
> him/her negotiate person-to-person with the
> jihadist big cheese.
I am not a diplomat, but I would probably have more success in finding a peacful solution to the atomic problem than you whackjobs who want to kill everything / everyone that looks funny at you.
> I am sure the jihadist can deal more effectively
> with SR. Who knows what could result from such a
> love-in; SR could even lose his/her head.
See, I am sure this should scare me, but the reality is I am fully aware that it doesn't matter if those nutjobs or you nutjobs get in power, I am toast anyways.
There was a reason why Hitler and Stalin (or Saddam) went after the intellectuals: They ask questions that are hard to answer, and simple minds need simple answers. Over and over and over again.
> Snowrunner: I read what you wrote and responded
> to it. You are worried that if we let our gov't.
> wiretap etc. on islamofascists, it could come
> back to bite us, like Hitler's power run amok in
> pre-WWII Germany.
Okay, first of all, yes this is part of what I am concerned about, BUT I am concerned about this because:
1. There are no Islamofacists, there are Radical Nutjobs.
2. The system isn't that selective, EVERYBODY is in that net unless someone decides you or I are not interesting.
3. There is no public control over this. What happens to the data collected? How long will it be kept? Who as access ot it? How is this access controlled?
It is not necessarily the GOVERNMENT that is an issue, how often have you read in the media that a laptop with sensitive data has been stolen? etc.
This is a can of worms that can bite us all VERY badly in the ass.
> I disagree, and am willing to chance that, for
> the sake of possibly catching more of these
> Islamo-fascists. George W. has proven already
> that he is capable of doing a darn good job of
> thwarting these goobers. Too bad his lefty
> federal judges that rule against the
> phonetapping are trying to tie his hands.
Where did you proof anything? That is another problem, we have no accountability of what they are doing. They TELL us they cought some guys, but when it comes to a court of law they suddenly don't provide any evidence.
What has happened so far in ALL the terror cases was: "Ummm, yeah well, we have proof, please, trust us, just lock the dudes up, okay?"
Sorry, but that is not how our system works or should be working. If we do not follow due process (and this includes wiretaps) then why even HAVE those laws? Why not do away with it, and go into a Judge Dredd like future, where the police is not only enforcing the law, but also judging and making it up?
I am going to be right on it as soon as you proof to us that you have joined the Canadian Forces and volunteered to go to Afghanistan to defend the Afghani people, bring freedom and democracy to all mankind.
Until then here's another acronym for you: STFU.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2006-08-21 9:30:28 PM
Oh and to the Coward who feels like a real man because he can impersonate me: Grow up.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2006-08-21 9:32:11 PM
You have to differentiate between STATES and individual terrorists.
Things that the USSR and it's sattelites have done, or even things that the US committed over the course of it's history are ALL (by someone) considered terrorism.
The difference is that in a state you have a "go to" person and yes, with states you negotiate, if you want to go to war with a state you can obviously do that to. But even von Clausewitz already knew that: "War is the continuation of politics by different means".
And the reality is: Does anybody here truly believe that invading Iran would end differently than either Afghanistan or Iraq?
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2006-08-21 9:35:31 PM
I done my bit fighting for freedom of peace-lovin' people around the globe.
Now, it's yer tern.
PS ... You're right and everybody else is wrong.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-08-21 9:53:54 PM
How do I know you are who you say you are?
You say you are who you are and say other say you are you.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-08-21 9:56:02 PM
@SYF: You seem to know everything, I am sure you know this one too.
And as for me being right, maybe, who knows, let's just say never in history has a bigger hammer ended terrorism, or do you have an example that I am not aware of?
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2006-08-21 9:59:13 PM
Who you callin' a hammerhead?
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-08-21 10:04:29 PM
Snowrunner........I don't like your choices really......blowing up every civilian in the middle east goes against everything I and many in the West stand for.........and yet who is their to negotiate with???
Again, it's a unsolvable pickle.....I think the other choice is to get Western Countries to agree to stay in the Middle East ad infinitum like we are in Iraq and accept low casualties for our troops but in the process, we are keeping a close eye on the fanatics in the Islamic world...
The other problem is, how many people in the Islamic world proper are really willing to negotiate?? Especially in the Arab Islamic world which seems to be the most backwards and brutal along with the Pakistani Islamic community...
Snowrunner, I'm afriad the majority of these people believe literally in pure Islam and that is not a pretty ideology.....
I wish to God that you were right....and that someday peace will break out in the Islamic world and the masses will accept true democracy and even allow their citizens to freely choose their own religion and not threaten people with death when they leave Islam and so forth.....
I just don't see that as realistic amongst a majority or ever a strong minority of Muslims in Arabia or Pakistan????
Surely you recognize the evil before you...you know that Stalin and Hitler were evil men and surely you recognize that the Islamists are evil men and women.............I guess we simply disagree with how deep the radical islamic impulse as affected the Arabian masses......I tend to think it is far wider and more dangerous then you....and because the radicals can refer to the Sunnah of Muhammed, how are you ever going to convince these people that they are nuts???
I guess the best we can do is stay over there and fight and keep a close eye on these countries?? The other alternatives are to horrific to think about.....
Posted by: Albertanator | 2006-08-21 10:48:44 PM
1. Who are the radical nutjobs you refer to ? I thought we were talking about the War against Islamist terrorists.
2. You (I assume) and I aren't that interesting. Are you planning to blow anyone up ? I'm not. Therefore why would the gov't. be interested in us ?
3. If there are bad guys trying to commit horrendous crimes, then I'm sure the relevant information will be kept, otherwise what information are you referring to ?
I didn't prove anything, but George W. Bush has. Look at the terrorists caught in TO, and in the UK and the U.S.. How many terrorist attacks have happened in N.A. since 9/11 ?
I'm sorry Snowrunner, but you do not get it. Maybe if a bomb goes off close to you and yours you will finally understand what is really going on. Have a good night.
Posted by: MarkAlta | 2006-08-21 11:19:48 PM
just fuck off
Posted by: Duke | 2006-08-21 11:55:03 PM
> Snowrunner........I don't like your choices
> really......blowing up every civilian in the
> middle east goes against everything I and many
> in the West stand for.........and yet who is
> their to negotiate with???
Moderates, they may not be in power, but diplomacy always was a carrot and a stick approach. In the end if you don't want to negotiate you can either chose to ignore them or blow them up. There really aren't that many options.
I do not believe that the "let's talk about this" is over. Nation States usually aren't too keen to go to war unless they can be 100% certain they win. To that end, the Iraq war was really bad, because nobody in the region anymore fears the US Stick.
> Again, it's a unsolvable pickle.....I think the
> other choice is to get Western Countries to
> agree to stay in the Middle East ad infinitum
> like we are in Iraq and accept low casualties
> for our troops but in the process, we are
> keeping a close eye on the fanatics in the
> Islamic world...
This may work, but the question is if the societies have the gut to commit troops to this not just for five years, but at least a generation or two. Democracy is a generational thing, and you pretty much have write off anybody over the age of 10.
> The other problem is, how many people in the
> Islamic world proper are really willing to
> negotiate?? Especially in the Arab Islamic world
> which seems to be the most backwards and brutal
> along with the Pakistani Islamic community...
The people in Power are usually the ones who take it, and that's usually not the nicest guy.
I think there will be a LOT of people willing to negotiate if they believe that they are treated as equals. As long though as someone like Bush stands there and coins generalizing terms (Islamofacist being one of them) the respect is clearly lacking and would you negotiate with someone who clearly seems to despise you if you yourself do not really have a NEED to negotiate because you do not perceive the other side as a thread?
> Snowrunner, I'm afriad the majority of these
> people believe literally in pure Islam and that
> is not a pretty ideology.....
I doubt that. I know where your observation comes from, from what is shown on Al Jazerra etc. but if I go by what I see on FoxNews then all of America is full of Bill O'Reilly's and Ann Coulters, people you cannot aruge with either because they (like their Islamic counter parts) seem to be convinced to be always right, regardless of what the facts may say.
> I wish to God that you were right....and that
> someday peace will break out in the Islamic
> world and the masses will accept true democracy
> and even allow their citizens to freely choose
> their own religion and not threaten people with
> death when they leave Islam and so forth.....
It depends a lot on how we react to the threat. I still believ the masses aren't outright hostile, but we are pushing them away from us instead of letting them be or pulling them in.
I always remember how part of my family lived on the other side of the iron curtain. If you believed the rhetoric that for example Reagan had (Evil Empire) all of my family would have wanted us dead and not to say was after indoctrinating us. The opposit was pretty much true, it was a pretty quiet and peaceful life, yeah they had to wait for 15 years for a car and probably never would have a phone, but other than that?
I am pretty certain that for most Islamic countries it is the same. But like every human being they react when threatened.
> I just don't see that as realistic amongst a
> majority or ever a strong minority of Muslims in
> Arabia or Pakistan????
Well here's a question: If we truly want Freedom and Democracy for everybody, why do we actively support the government in Pakistan? Moreso: They DO have WMDs, they are constantly bickering with India about it, yet when it comes to Pakistan it seems they can do no wrong.
> Surely you recognize the evil before you...you
> know that Stalin and Hitler were evil men and
> surely you recognize that the Islamists are evil
> men and women.............
Why do you say "Hitler and Stalin" but then lump all of Islam in with them?
If you want to differentiate by religion / believe system then say: "Christians and Atheists were evil Men and so are Islamists", though maybe you just want to shorten this to: "All humans are evil".
> I guess we simply disagree with how deep the
> radical islamic impulse as affected the Arabian > masses......I tend to think it is far wider and
> more dangerous then you....and because the
> radicals can refer to the Sunnah of Muhammed,
> how are you ever going to convince these people
> that they are nuts???
Those people who make those statments will never be convinced. The masses though largely will shrug it off, they have their daily lives, their families, kids, jobs etc. They are more concerned about this than they are necessary to go off and blow something up. Why do you think most of the terrorists so far have been young males who had no family and were literally bored?
The way you "convince" the masses is by showing them that what their leaders are telling them is simply wrong and by doing so you get them to be (at worst) complacent and a King without an Army is just a Dude with very loud clothing. Or differently: To succeed we have to literall win "their hearts and minds", and we won't do that from the barrel of a tank or gun.
> I guess the best we can do is stay over there
> and fight and keep a close eye on these
> countries?? The other alternatives are to
> horrific to think about.....
We didn't get were we are by fighting, we got here because we decided once upon a time to get rid of religion in our daily lives, instead of becoming something "state" it became something private.
There are a few theories on why this happened, I think the most plausible one is that we simple are off "too good" to worry about a higher power taking charge of our lives. If that is true, then maybe the answer to our problems lies in the way we do business with these regions:
- Pay fair prices for the raw materials we extract from their countries.
- Involve local companies.
- Pay workers a fair wage
That would be a start. Instead we seem to have abused the system and in a way them for our own gain. I am not too surprised they don't really like us.
> 1. Who are the radical nutjobs you refer to ? I
> thought we were talking about the War against
> Islamist terrorists.
Yes, those are Radical Nutjobs, but we have them on our site as well.
> 2. You (I assume) and I aren't that interesting.
> Are you planning to blow anyone up ? I'm not.
> Therefore why would the gov't. be interested in
> us ?
They probably aren't activly interested, but they will still store all the data they can get and we will still be collected analyzed and cataloged.
You are aware that there is really no limit on who can access the data? Let's say a future employer, an ex etc.?
> 3. If there are bad guys trying to commit
> horrendous crimes, then I'm sure the relevant
> information will be kept, otherwise what
> information are you referring to ?
What makes you think they just throw it away? To my knowledge there is no plan on destroying ANY of the data, in fact I am aware of a few guys who after 9/11 were put on Government projects to expand Data Storage capability. Not only that, but there are also projects going on that allow for the interconnection of Government and Private Databases for more "active" Data mining.
The US (and Canadian Government) have never said what data they are collecting (okay, fair game), but worse, they never said what would happen WITH this data. How long it will be kept, who has access to it etc.
I personally find this worry some.
> I didn't prove anything, but George W. Bush has.
> Look at the terrorists caught in TO, and in the
> UK and the U.S.. How many terrorist attacks have
> happened in N.A. since 9/11 ?
- TO guys: It seems that this was more or less "run" by the RCMP, they came across those guys in a chat room, and egged them on, then organized the explosives and then arrested them. I am a bit skeptical over this, sure they got the guys, but how much this plan was RCMP made and how much actually their idea?
- UK, 11 people have been charged as of yestday, one is already free, they do not really know what they are going to do with the other 11 that are still sitting in jail. That's a pretty thin margine, it also seems that their plot was highly unlikely if you read up on some of the chemists analysis and the danger was by far not as imminent as we were initially meant to believe, it seems they grabbed those guys because the US put pressure on the UK. This makes this a bit questionable.
- ALL of the "arrests" in the US have not lead (so far) to even ONE charge. People where nabbed but the proof seemed to have been rather thin.
The problem of course is: If nothing happens did nothing happen because they were so GOOD or did nothing happen because nobody was planning anything?
Being a cynic, I'd say the chances are 40/60 in favour of nobody had planned anything.
> I'm sorry Snowrunner, but you do not get it.
> Maybe if a bomb goes off close to you and yours
> you will finally understand what is really going
> on. Have a good night.
What is really going on is that we have some religious nutjobs half away around the world who thumb their chest and declare war on us, yet the vast armies don't seem to move (yet?).
Meanwhile at home, we have politicians who scare the shit out of people for their own personal gain.
Who has won anything so far in this "war on terror"?
- Soldiers and their families? Nope. They've paid dearly.
- Politicians? Yep, they are in the news and can pretty much do what they want.
- Law Enforcement? Yep, they got a lot of new toys and even more so, laws they wanted for decades.
- Defense Contractors? Oh have they ever, all these shiny new toys have to come from somewhere.
- We the people? Well, are we any safer than we were before 9/11? No, not really. So I guess at best we have gotten out of this in a draw.
Don't get me wrong, Terrorists are a problem, but Terrorists are usually interested in Terrorizing the living, not the dead, so they will never kill everybody, they will try to create just enough carnage to get people to panic, but they had to do very little since 9/11 our own politicians have done a really good job at this.
Search on the net for a three part documentary: "The Power of Nightmares", it is a pretty good primer on some of the things I've said.
if you don't like the freedoms of this country, go somewhere more restrictive, say Iran.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2006-08-22 9:19:01 AM
“I don’t believe the let’s talk about this is over”
Especially, when it comes to Iran – because it has 80 million people and many terrific Iranians here in Toronto. I know a few. So there is hope to negotiate with Iran because the Mullahs now know because of Iraq and Afghanistan and Lebanon that harbouring terrorists will no longer be condoned.
However it “is over” with Hezbollah who are a one-purpose organization. They must and will be shut down over the next few months.
Many Iranians want democracy. That’s why the Fascists Mullahs are so scared. There is hope this can be solved without war. War can be avoided paradoxically because the Mullah’s know we’re no longer the Clintonesque weak horse and we will go to war if necessary.
But we must keep the utopian appeasers out of power in the Anglosphere. Or we will look like the weak horse again and then it will get really dangerous.
Bottom line: Islamic Fascists are only an insurmountable problem if we allow multi- culti to thrive and if we don’t stand up for our own way of life which is superior to the tribalism promoted by the Islamic Fascists and supported by utopians especially in the EU – witness the duplicity of France and it’s reneging of leadership on the UN mission in Lebanon.
Posted by: nomdenet | 2006-08-22 10:11:23 AM
nomdenet: Notice the multicultural CBC just reported on Canadians being arrested trying to buy weapons for the Tamil Tigers. Usually they love to promote Indonesian-Canadian , but not if a crime was commited, then they are just Canadians!
Posted by: Markalta | 2006-08-22 10:33:30 AM
I'm sure glad Dubya finally called it Islamic Fascism rather than the war on terror.
Terror is the tactic used by Islamic Fascists ... or jihadists as I prefer.
That subtle terminology shift give of an entirely different impression.
For example, in WWII nobody said the fight was against the tactic of blitzkreig, but for freedom against fascism and its prime promoter, the National Socialist Party of Germany.
Note to Marxists ... the fight was for freedom, not for even more control of the state over our lives.
Saw an interesting BBC-produced documentary about Battleground Ukraine, an example of how two totalitarian governments go at it.
There were actually three different armed forces in the area ... the occupying German army of regulars, Soviet Partisans (guerillas) and Ukrainian Partisans fighting for independence against both totalitarian regimes.
One woman interviewed had one brother killed by the Nazis and a sister killed by Soviet Partisans.
There were interviews with German soldiers who were ordered to burn down villages and kill all its inhabitants.
There were interviews with surviving members of the Soviet Partisans who talked about how they killed civilians they suspected of working with the German occupiers.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-08-22 10:34:19 AM
Markalta -- Those would be the same Tamils that Paul Martin had at his fundraisers with no doubt – he was such a cosmopolitan guy eh?
SYF, yes it is so much easier to talk about this War with the utopians now that Bush and Blair have named the enemy. This is a great step forward.
Posted by: nomdenet | 2006-08-22 11:03:08 AM
War against the utopians.
I like that terminology even better ... it does include all promoters of statist solutions and includes jihadists, which cannot differentiate between mosque and state.
Thanks to this forum, we already have identified those who are against individual's liberty and their freedom to make their own
mistakes as the real enemy.
In the opposition MP's statements about taking Hizb'allah off Canada's list of organizations that use terror tactics, they point out the organization also does good work.
Yeah, and the Hell's Angels are also familiar with that tactic. Be nice guys, don't ruffle any feathers, give candies to kids. Then when the payback comes for them being such nice guys ... well,, you girly can be a stripper or a prostitute. And, hey, guys, how bout some nice drugs that will make you forget about those big, bad people oppressing you.
The payback for Hizb'allah's ‘niceness' in rebuilding houses, feeding the ‘victims' they themselves created and building madrassas schools is ... hey buddy, time to go kill some Jews.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-08-22 11:16:54 AM
SYF, that’s it exactly. I like the way you put that, very helpful.
There’s 2 Wars going here:
One against the Islamic Fascists and
the other against the utopians.
The IF war will be easier but we can’t win that one decisively without beating their powerful ally in our midst – the utopians.
As capitalists we’ve won the war on the economy but we have not won it on our institutions – academia and the MSM – they are still dominated by the utopians. The utopians hate us more than they fear the IF’s therefore they have made a Faustian deal with the IF’s to aid and abet them in trying to take us down
The War on Utopians and IF’s will take at least a generation. We must help the next generation to understand this mess we’ve left them.
Posted by: nomdenet | 2006-08-22 11:40:52 AM
Yep, a three-front war.
If it comes down to state-sponsored secular humanism vs jihadists (amalgamation of church and state), my money's on the jihadists.
They won't stop at slitting the throats of the idiots as the smile back at their murderers.
If it comes down to the lovers of individual freedom vs jihadists, the jihadists lose ... on a variety of planes.
One solution is to recognize the fact a very small percentage of Muslims are jihadists and put the heat onto the so-called moderate Muslims to straighten out their brethren.
Of course, that's difficult since each imam is, in effect his own little god who can control his own little empire according to his own interpretation ... much like the structure of the so-called Christian religious right.
As much as I dislike the papacy for going it alone and rejecting the discipline of the larger group it had been partners with for more than 1000 years, at least every Catholic knows he'll be getting basically the same message in whatever church he attends throughout the world.
That's untrue of the Muslim sphere, which is much more pick-and-choose than a structured message.
The fact the Qur'an is virtually incomprehensible and uses words even Arabs cannot understand makes it that much more difficult.
Bottom line, it's up to the Muslim brethren to figure out a way to convince their fellow travellers that what worked in the seventh century is not necessarily the way to get things done in the 21st.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-08-22 11:58:45 AM
> So there is hope to negotiate with Iran because
> the Mullahs now know because of Iraq and
> Afghanistan and Lebanon that harbouring terrorists
> will no longer be condoned.
One problem: Who's gonna swing the stick? Canada? Doesn't seem to be able to.
UK? They're pretty much busy in Iraq.
US? Ditto (ever noticed how suddenly there was no more talk about invading North Korea when they just said: "Well, come on."
The EU? Fat chance.
So, they will continue to poker, they won't take the US threads seriously, and why should they? The Iraq war was intended to be a show of strength, it has failed and nobody believes in the big stick in the region anymore.
> However it “is over” with Hezbollah who are a
> one-purpose organization. They must and will be
> shut down over the next few months.
The only way this is happening "for good" is if it is done by the Lebanese Government, that means you need the support of at least Syria and prop them up. Question is: Do the Israelis want a (military) strong Lebanon?
If a UN mission tries to disarm Hezbollah it won't last.
> Many Iranians want democracy. That’s why the
> Fascists Mullahs are so scared.
Yes they do, and yes the leaders are scared, but Iranian's I doubt have forgotten who got the Mullahs in power in the first place.
> There is hope this can be solved without war.
> War can be avoided paradoxically because the
> Mullah’s know we’re no longer the Clintonesque
> weak horse and we will go to war if necessary.
With WHAT troops? Canada cleary doesn't have the man (or woman) power, the US is already stretched thin. I don't think we have the stick.
> Bottom line: Islamic Fascists are only an
> insurmountable problem if we allow multi- culti
> to thrive and if we don’t stand up for our own
> way of life which is superior to the tribalism
> promoted by the Islamic Fascists and supported
> by utopians especially in the EU – witness the
> duplicity of France and it’s reneging of
> leadership on the UN mission in Lebanon.
Wrong, if anything Mulitculturism is the only thing that can calm the waters in the long run. If people feel threatened (and what threatens someone more than having their own belief system challenged) you will only push the vast majority of "do not cares" away and towards the enemy.
The only way this can work out is if we live by example, that doesn't mean to let radicals here in the West run the show but rather to support the vast masses of "do not care" people to integrate and live peacefully.
> The more things change, the more they stay the
Indeed, so why are you advocating things that haven't worked in the past?
> As capitalists we’ve won the war on the economy
> but we have not won it on our institutions –
How have we won the war on the economy? I guess you mean to say that we have achieved unrivaled prosperity due to capitalism? That may be true for us, but there are still more than 4 billion people on this planet who have not benefited from capitalism, at best they stayed where they are.
> academia and the MSM – they are still dominated
> by the utopians.
What is so wrong in envisioning a better world and trying to work on it? In the end the world will always be held between to extremist poles, in your worldview it would be whatever you would call yourself and the Utopians (the IF would end up on your side, because they again want to use force to achieve their goals, much like you do), while the majority of people sways back and forth in the breeze.
> The utopians hate us more than they fear the
> IF’s therefore they have made a Faustian deal
> with the IF’s to aid and abet them in trying to
> take us down
I know a few idealists, none of them has made any deals with the IF, but what they have done is consider their own peers a bigger threat to their way of life than a dude half way around the world.
And THAT assessment shouldn't really surprise you too much as people by default are more concerned with what's at their doorstep than something that's far far away.
> The War on Utopians and IF’s will take at least
> a generation. We must help the next generation
> to understand this mess we’ve left them.
Here's a question: Once the IF are "conquered" what will be the danger that is being posed by the Utopians?
maybe what Islam needs is their own Luther, question is: What happens to the dude when he nails his thesis on the doors of Mecca......
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2006-08-22 1:55:32 PM
Osama bin Laden IS the Muslim 'Luther'.
Martin Luther's theses corrected the Roman Catholic practices back to scripture. That is what Osama bin Laden is doing.
That is what the Wahhabi/Salafi movement is doing, returning to Mohammed's original Islam.
The Sixth Pillar of Islam is Jihad and it is required of ALL Muslims.
Posted by: Speller | 2006-08-22 2:33:04 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.