# Seventy



## ruxted (11 Sep 2007)

Link to original article on ruxted.ca


Seventy

Seventy. 70. That’s the sidetrack on to which an entire strategic debate – a debate which never happened in Canada – was shunted. Seventy dead Canadians – sixty-nine soldiers and one diplomat – have defined the first significant foreign policy issue to face Canada in the 21st century.

The problem is not the media. The media’s obsession with casualties is nothing new. A look at some faded newspaper clippings from early 1943 demonstrates that the media was, as now, obsessed by casualties. Intrusions into the grief of newly made widows and shocked parents were all part of a day’s work for journalists.

In 1943 there was a broad, but nowhere near complete, consensus about why Canada was at war and why casualties, sometimes dozens, later in 1943, ‘44 and ‘45 often hundreds, per day* were a fair price. Not all Canadians shared that view. There was, as there is now, a sizable minority that opposed sending Canadians to fight and die in some far away land. Then, as now, many Canadians could not understand or refused to understand that a great evil bent on global domination was loose in the world. They did not see Hitler, Tojo and Mussolini as threats to their country, to their way of life or to their peace and prosperity. They did not see any good reason to fight “someone else’s war.” After all, they reasoned, they are not attacking us. That the dissenters were narrowly correct is self evident. None of the tyrants had any reasonable plans to invade North America. Had the tyrants won their local victories by, say, late 1942 we would, eventually, have found ways to accommodate ourselves to them – we would have traded with them from our secure ‘Fortress America.’ That the dissenters were broadly wrong is equally self evident; one need only look at the records of the Rape of Nanking, the Italian conquest of Ethiopia and Germany’s depredations in Europe to understand that the Second World War was a necessary war of civilization against barbarism.

Nearly 65 years ago, in 1943 most, but not all, Canadians saw the ‘big picture.’ They understood that they were engaged in a morally just _crusade_. We used that word without flinching. Its meaning is clear: it signifies a concerted action for a just cause or against an abuse. It is an apt description of the Second World War, just as, Ruxted believes, it is an apt description of this war.

Sixty-five years later most Canadians do not see the ‘big picture.’ They have great difficulty in understanding that there is a world war going on because, like the long ‘cold war’ between liberal-capitalism and totalitarian-communism (1920 to 1990), there have been few large scale combat operations and none, so far, have touched us directly in Canada. There is a _Clash of Civilizations_ ongoing nonetheless. Several nation-states and many sub-national ‘movements’ have embarked on a very loosely coordinated campaign of their own: their goal is to re-establish something akin to a caliphate or Islamic empire, a stated goal of al-Qaeda, of Tanzeem-e-Islami in Pakistan and, in Central Asia, Hizb ut-Tahrir.

Some have an immediate, local casus belli: Israel – which is, for many, many Muslims, a foreign invasion of their ummah, the homeland of their community of believers. Many Muslims see modern Israel as a creation of the secular, liberal West (through the Balfour declaration in 1917 and an Anglo-American dominated UN in 1947) and they believe that Israel’s continued existence is possible only because the West sustains it – as an ongoing affront to their faith. The division and colonization of the Middle East and West Asia after the fall of the Ottoman Empire (1918) is another wound which remains raw. So is the 500+ year rise of the secular, liberal West – which occurred as the Muslim world stagnated and failed to ‘advance’ in any meaningful way†. At various times from 650 to 1650 Muslim empires stretched from the Atlantic to the South Pacific. Some Muslim leaders want to restore that imperial position and then use it as a base for the propagation of their version of Islam to the world.

Many Canadians see nothing wrong with Muslim theocrats’ imperial ambitions. They are convinced, as some of their grandparents were in the early ‘40s, that nothing can touch us here in North America. They are sadly and dangerously wrong.

Admittedly, the ‘enemy’ appears to be pretty laughable: a ragtag collection of borderline maniacs leading failed states and certifiable lunatics hiding in mountain caves in places most Canadians cannot find on a map. That would have been a good description of Benito Mussolini and Adolph Hitler in 1928 – just 15 years before the bleak headlines and lengthy casualty lists of 1943. In 1928 Canadians (and most Americans and British, too) were too preoccupied with our own domestic affairs to worry about some strutting fanatic in a far away land. Even in 1937, when some of the men whose names would be on those 1943 casualty lists were just starting to make their ways in the world, Winston Churchill was almost alone in urging the West to arm itself against the Nazi-Fascist axis.

The threats posed by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Osama bin Laden’s followers and fellow travellers should be taken just as seriously, in 2007, as we wish, with hindsight, we had taken the threats posed by Mussolini and Hitler in 1927 – they are just as real.

It is important to understand that this new war is not between nation states or even traditional, ‘national’ sub-national groups. Since their inception the mujahideen have been pan-Islamic in nature - Osama bin Laden is a Saudi who led an Afghan-based rebel army and hides in Pakistan (we think). His top aides were or are Egyptians, Iraqis, and Jordanians. The moral and religious power of Islam, rather than any one Islamic nation, has been harnessed for evil ends. Young Muslims in Cairo and Calgary hear the call – and it rings loud and clear for young men from Tehran to Toronto: Jihad!, Holy War! This new, long war is being waged with guns and bombs in Afghanistan and Iraq, as it is with words in mosques in Marseilles and Montreal and in the salons of political and media heavyweights in Georgetown, and with money in Geneva. The prize, the new caliphate, is not meant to be a rebirth of, say, the Ottoman Empire. Rather, the enemy plans a super-national Muslim world – one firmly rooted in 12th century Arab culture.

This is neither the time nor the place to recite the moral and civil failures of the people who want to rule us, but those failures are many and on a par with those of Tojo and Hitler. What matters is that they have identified their own goals and they are, gradually at first but steadily now, increasing their power and prestige throughout the Muslim world – including throughout the Muslim _diaspora_ in North America and Europe.

So: seventy. Seventy casualties have focused out attention on one minor campaign in what is destined to be a long, global war. Seventy casualties have blinded us to the ‘big picture’ and have prevented a debate about the best strategy to resist the militant, imperialistic Islamist threat. Seventy years separate us from the last time we ignored a real threat and we paid a high price for doing so.

It is time for Canadians to stop worrying about seventy casualties or even one hundred and seventy. We need to face the reality of militant Islam and decide how we are going to join with our allies to contain and defeat this newest aggression.


----------
* World War II lasted over 2,000 days.  Nearly 40,000 Canadians were killed in action – that’s nearly 20 per day, every day, day-after-day, year-after-year.

† Lewis, Bernard - What Went Wrong?: The Clash Between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East, New York, 2003


----------



## KevinB (11 Sep 2007)

Outstanding article, and a very relevant date to jostle the sheeple.


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (12 Sep 2007)

Certainly an eye opener for those who are asleep.

 Good article.


----------



## Flip (12 Sep 2007)

This article describes the simple but profound truth of our times.

Very few, unfortunately understand or accept this, especially those on the "left".
Thankyou Ruxted for the historical context and the statement of what should be obvious.

In my own religious experience I have become aware of what kind of 
good or what kind of serious damage a charismatic religious leader can do.
Though I have profound respect for Islam - I see trends and conditions
in the world today that are cause for grave concern.
Some of these trends resemble what has gone on in Christendom 
before "tolerance" had entered our vocabulary.
The Spanish Inquisition ended an historically short time ago, for example. 

The "west" collectively has no choice but to mitigate the 
threat and carnage - or build a wall. 
In today's world - no wall could be high enough.

My two shekels worth..........


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Sep 2007)

For information: E.R. (Ted) Campbell, Managing Editor of The Ruxted Group, will be interviewed about this article on AM77 radio (CHQR), Calgary, at about 1935 Hrs (Mountain)/2135 Hrs (Eastern)  on the Rob Breakenridge show.

You can go to the CHQR website (link above) and click on *Listen Live* on the menu on the left of the screen.


----------



## HItorMiss (13 Sep 2007)

Ed you sure about that timing or is it 2035?

The Rob Breakenridge show is just starting so I think the timing is indedd 2035, probably just a typo so no one has missed it yet.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 Sep 2007)

Looking at the request, Edwards interview isn't untill "9:35pm Eastern Time and last about 15 minutes".
Bruce


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Sep 2007)

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> Ed you sure about that timing or is it 2035?
> 
> The Rob Breakenridge show is just starting so I think the timing is indedd 2035, probably just a typo so no one has missed it yet.



The producer has warned me for 2135 Hrs (Eastern); that's just about one hour from now.


----------



## GAP (13 Sep 2007)

Just a bump to let everybody know ER is on Mark Breckenridge in 5 minutes
Radio Station Link

Click on "Listen Live"


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 Sep 2007)

Live


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 Sep 2007)

Well done my friend.......


----------



## GAP (13 Sep 2007)

Nicely done!!


----------



## Flanker (29 Sep 2007)

The Ruxted Group said:
			
		

> Link to original article on ruxted.ca
> 
> 
> Seventy
> ...



Let's not take Canadians for complete idiots. 
The author is obsessed with "Islamic threats" and disappointed that nobody else sings the song?
Please, author, change the song. Too many "Islamists" in your sppech.

Discrimination by religion is not acceptable in healthy societies and prohibited by Canadian law.
Isn't it?


----------



## muskrat89 (29 Sep 2007)

I think you need to re-read it. No-one is promoting discrimination.


----------



## cavalryman (29 Sep 2007)

Flanker said:
			
		

> Let's not take Canadians for complete idiots.



Funny, but three out of four federal political party leaders (Dion, Duceppe & Layton) are doing just that - as is a good chunk of the mainstream media.  Ruxted is one of the few voices who actually doesn't take Canadians for idiots.  You should re-read the column, but this time without blinders.  I don't see any discrimination in there.  The enemy himself insists he is fighting for the supremacy of Islam - he has no objections to us calling him an Islamist.  It is exactly what he is.  Don't you think clarity in speech is important?


----------



## GAP (29 Sep 2007)

Flanker said:
			
		

> Let's not take Canadians for complete idiots.
> The author is obsessed with "Islamic threats" and disappointed that nobody else sings the song?
> Please, author, change the song. Too many "Islamists" in your sppech.
> 
> ...



Empty profile......but you are going to spout PC crap to the group of people who have been there done that, all on the basis of "be nice, don't call them what they are". What a twit. :


----------



## karl28 (29 Sep 2007)

Flanker 

 There is nothing wrong with what was written in the article   .   I suggest you check your attitude and at least fill out your profile .


----------



## GUNS (29 Sep 2007)

Flanker, all those who avail themselves of this forum and offer opinions do so with a completed profile.

A completed profile provides the reader with some understanding of your background/experience with which you speak of.

Unless your profile has some relevant information that will allow us to base our responce on.

Your opinions are no more than "farts in the wind"


----------



## Flip (29 Sep 2007)

Flanker and his kind, like to cling to the notion that Canada has no enemies.

And FYI, "Islamists" practice discrimination of religion, race and ethnicity on
a constant and ongoing basis. Funny you should bring up discrimination.
Nothing about how you lead your life would be acceptable to "Islamists".

The CF and it's members defend Canadians and others from these "Islamists".
Thus, "Islamists" are Canada's enemies.
Any more comments?


----------



## Greymatters (29 Sep 2007)

Flanker said:
			
		

> Let's not take Canadians for complete idiots.  The author is obsessed with "Islamic threats" and disappointed that nobody else sings the song?
> Please, author, change the song. Too many "Islamists" in your sppech.  Discrimination by religion is not acceptable in healthy societies and prohibited by Canadian law.
> Isn't it?



Another example of people who dont understand what is going on in the world.

Brilliant article, well done.


----------



## bilton090 (29 Sep 2007)

GreyMatter said:
			
		

> Another example of people who don't understand what is going on in the world.
> 
> Brilliant article, well done.


     + 1 GreyMatter, +100 on the article
                    Flanker what have you done to be the expert on this subject ?
                     These people are Islamic extremists, its sad to say there Islamic, but they are !
                   The only threats we have today and the world are from ISLAMIC extremists. 

            I didn't know that there was Jehovah's Witnesses in the cells.


----------



## Flanker (29 Sep 2007)

To all responded above.
I do not like as the article autor jumps right on the religion. 
That is a right way to holy wars of christians vs muslims. Do you really want it?

Do you really want a bloody religion war? Or you want to fight extremists?
Considering muslims your ennemies *just because their are muslims * does not look good at all.

Calm down please and put a line between religion and extremism. They are not related.

2 things to remember.

1. Talking about some religions as being "more evil" than others IS promoting religion wars and discrimination. I surprised the forum hosts articles like that.

2. Extremists have no religion, they are simply extremists. Some extremist calling himself "muslims or Islam fighters" do that because they want to hide behind a billion Islamic population. And many of you gob the bait on the hook and are readily jumping on all muslim population instead of extremists.


----------



## Flip (29 Sep 2007)

Flanker, 

You misunderstand - perhaps deliberately.

Islamists are extremists.

Muslims and followers of Islam are not, by and large "Islamists"
Many of us have Muslim friends and neighbors.
Some of us are Muslim.


----------



## Flanker (29 Sep 2007)

Flip said:
			
		

> Flanker,
> 
> You misunderstand - perhaps deliberately.
> 
> Islamists are extremists.



You are wrong, may be beacause of recent bias in media.
Here is what a dictionary says.

Is·lam·ism (ĭs-lä'mĭz'əm, ĭz-, ĭs'lə-, ĭz'-) 
n.
An Islamic revivalist movement, often characterized by moral conservatism, literalism, and the attempt to implement Islamic values in all spheres of life.
The religious faith, principles, or cause of Islam.


So talking about extremists in a religious context is dangerous.


----------



## cavalryman (29 Sep 2007)

Flanker said:
			
		

> So talking about extremists in a religious context is dangerous.



Why?  The enemy (al-Quaeda, the Taliban and all their offshoots) clearly states he is waging war against us in the name of his religion.  In this war, the context of Islam is inseparable from the context of the war itself.  The enemy has made it so, whether the vast majority of his co-religionists agree or not.  And I am hoping they do not agree - notwithstanding the thundering silence from some influential quarters. We (the West) are the ones trying desperately to separate the extremists' religion from their politics - the extremists do not. Do Islamists (as we all understand in this context) = all muslims? No.  We all understand that quite clearly. We fight alongside muslims of the ANA and ANP, people whose religion has been hijacked by the extremists.  However to separate the religious context from the political context is impossible - the extremists view the two as inseparable.  In their fundamentalist worldview there is no difference between the will of God and politics.


----------



## Greymatters (29 Sep 2007)

Flanker, as much as I'd like to jump in, I think you already have enough participants on this one.  I'll suffice to say that yours is an old argument some of us have been hearing for a long time, and it doesnt cut it.


----------



## muskrat89 (29 Sep 2007)

2 : a popular reform movement *advocating the reordering* of government and *society*_ in accordance with laws prescribed by Islam_
- Is·lam·ist

No one here thinks the average Muslim attending mosque in their community is out to reorder our society. The article is referring to a totally different group of people and you know it. Quit being melodramatic.


----------



## Flanker (29 Sep 2007)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> Why?  The enemy (al-Quaeda, the Taliban and all their offshoots) clearly states he is waging war against us in the name of his religion.



Because extremists steal and maliciously exploit Islam as a brand for promoting their messages. 
Like this, they want to appear more powerful, hope to get trust and sympathies of muslim population and seek protection under this umbrella when things go bad.
Their principles and fatwas, have nothing to do with muslim religion itself. 
It is a simple but working manipulation like selling a new disguisting beverage under a know brand.

Why now innocent muslims should get their religion critisized in media because of some morons that call themselves Islam fighters?
All we understand that religion is a very fragile subject.

In fact, many well known Islam leaders around the world regularly condemn extremist activities and renounce any links with Islam. 
Here some examples:



> Mustafa Mashhur, General Guide, Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt; Qazi Hussain Ahmed, Ameer, Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan, Pakistan; Muti Rahman Nizami, Ameer, Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh, Bangladesh; Shaykh Ahmad Yassin, Founder, Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), Palestine; Rashid Ghannoushi, President, Nahda Renaissance Movement, Tunisia; Fazil Nour, President, PAS - Parti Islam SeMalaysia, Malaysia; and 40 other Muslim scholars and politicians:
> 
> “The undersigned, leaders of Islamic movements, are horrified by the events of Tuesday 11 September 2001 in the United States which resulted in massive killing, destruction and attack on innocent lives. We express our deepest sympathies and sorrow. We condemn, in the strongest terms, the incidents, which are against all human and Islamic norms. This is grounded in the Noble Laws of Islam which forbid all forms of attacks on innocents. God Almighty says in the Holy Qur'an: 'No bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another' (Surah al-Isra 17:15).”





> Shaykh Yusuf Qaradawi, Qatar; Tariq Bishri, Egypt; Muhammad S. Awwa, Egypt; Fahmi Huwaydi, Egypt; Haytham Khayyat, Syria; Shaykh Taha Jabir al-Alwani, U.S.:
> “All Muslims ought to be united against all those who terrorize the innocents, and those who permit the killing of non-combatants without a justifiable reason. Islam has declared the spilling of blood and the destruction of property as absolute prohibitions until the Day of Judgment. ... [It is] necessary to apprehend the true perpetrators of these crimes, as well as those who aid and abet them through incitement, financing or other support. They must be brought to justice in an impartial court of law and [punished] appropriately. ... [It is] a duty of Muslims to participate in this effort with all possible means.”



http://www.unc.edu/~kurzman/terror.htm


----------



## Flanker (29 Sep 2007)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> 2 : a popular reform movement *advocating the reordering* of government and *society*_ in accordance with laws prescribed by Islam_
> - Is·lam·ist
> 
> No one here thinks the average Muslim attending mosque in their community is out to reorder our society. The article is referring to a totally different group of people and you know it.



Islam religion is extremely tightly related to society culture and customs. 
I do not see any problems if a people arrange its society in other manner than the western one.
Do not you think that only one right society model exists?


----------



## Greymatters (29 Sep 2007)

Worse than a troll, a misguided troll.  It boggles my mind that you can post this with a straight face.  
Mustafa Mashhur, General Guide, *Muslim Brotherhood*, Egypt
Qazi Hussain Ahmed, Ameer, *Jamaat-e-Islami  Pakistan*, Pakistan
Muti Rahman Nizami, Ameer, *Jamaat-e-Islami  Bangladesh*, Bangladesh
Shaykh Ahmad Yassin, Founder, *Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), * Palestine


----------



## muskrat89 (29 Sep 2007)

Flanker - You characterized the article as discriminating against Muslims in general. I have re-read that piece several times, and cannot see anywhere, where that was the case. Ruxted was very specific in condemning extremism.

You are taking issue with something that is simply not there.

You are nattering, plain and simple. I am done with you.


----------



## 1feral1 (29 Sep 2007)

REALITY CHK

Perhaps this Flanker would consider leaving Canada for one of these middle eastern shytehole countries he seems to admire and stand up for. In the 5 that I have been in, the best thing about them was leaving.

I am doubting Flanker's credibility anyways. There is a constant absence of simple common sense and maturity. He is secretive or embarassed about himself, refuses to fill out his profile, and continiously seeks attention. Perhaps he has something to hide, like his age (he claims english is his 3rd language, yet tells nothing more). His intentions are basic, and we've seen many like him/her come and go, and when leaving usually with a bayonet sticking out of their arses, ha!

He is constantly trolling, and smashing every thread he gets in on. He should simply be ignored for what he is, a serial army.ca pest  : . I think he is a 'bullshyte artist' and gets his his pleasure winding us up on here.

Every single one of us have opinons, many based on fact and life experience. His appears to be based on rubbing people the wrong way on purpose, and distorting reality through worthless and spinless posts. I don't mind controversy, and a good debate with many on here, and giving pretty much all a fair go and a chance, but its a one way street with this attention seeker.

Lets just give him enough rope to 'neck' himself on here, he pretty much already has anyway. The mods will feed him to the hammerheads in good sweet time.

Going for another swim..... Having another cold XXXX Gold, and thinking about what I might have for dinner from the BBQ. Perhaps some ham for this pig eating dirty great big infidel  ;D.


Cheers/beers and what ever,



Wes

EDIT, Ok keep on giving me those negatives Flanker, I don't care. Fill your boots!


----------



## Flanker (29 Sep 2007)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> Flanker - You characterized the article as discriminating against Muslims in general. I have re-read that piece several times, and cannot see anywhere, where that was the case. Ruxted was very specific in condemning extremism.
> 
> You are taking issue with something that is simply not there.
> 
> You are nattering, plain and simple. I am done with you.



Here are a couple of paragraphs that I found a bit disturbing and inappropriate for a public forum.



> It is important to understand that this new war is not between nation states or even traditional, ‘national’ sub-national groups. Since their inception the mujahideen have been pan-Islamic in nature - Osama bin Laden is a Saudi who led an Afghan-based rebel army and hides in Pakistan (we think). His top aides were or are Egyptians, Iraqis, and Jordanians. The moral and religious power of Islam, rather than any one Islamic nation, has been harnessed for evil ends. Young Muslims in Cairo and Calgary hear the call – and it rings loud and clear for young men from Tehran to Toronto: Jihad!, Holy War! This new, long war is being waged with guns and bombs in Afghanistan and Iraq, as it is with words in mosques in Marseilles and Montreal and in the salons of political and media heavyweights in Georgetown, and with money in Geneva. The prize, the new caliphate, is not meant to be a rebirth of, say, the Ottoman Empire. Rather, the enemy plans a super-national Muslim world – one firmly rooted in 12th century Arab culture.
> ...
> It is time for Canadians to stop worrying about seventy casualties or even one hundred and seventy. We need to face the reality of militant Islam and decide how we are going to join with our allies to contain and defeat this newest aggression.


----------



## armyvern (29 Sep 2007)

Flanker said:
			
		

> Here are a couple of paragraphs that I found a bit disturbing and inappropriate for a public forum.




Last sentence of what disturbs you (my emphasis):



> We need to face the reality of *militant Islam * and decide how we are going to join with our allies to contain and defeat this newest aggression.



Google is your friend ... run a search ... you'll find many *militant Islamic* clerics stating exactly that which is in the first paragraph that disturbs you.

So Ruxted put it in black & white on a public forum instead of a videotape beamed into your TV by the MSM or uploaded to the interent. Like it or not, disturbing to you or not; *militant Islam * has stated that as one of their goals. 

Does the truth hurt?? _Ooooops ... back to reality ..._*



* A 'lil eminem for everyone


----------



## cavalryman (30 Sep 2007)

Flanker said:
			
		

> Here are a couple of paragraphs that I found a bit disturbing and inappropriate for a public forum.



In other words, you find a recitation of known *facts* disturbing and inappropriate?  Hardly a basis for rational discussion.  Please - refute the facts in the Ruxted article - prove them to be false.  Otherwise, there really is nothing to discuss.


----------



## Flanker (30 Sep 2007)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> In other words, you find a recitation of known *facts* disturbing and inappropriate?  Hardly a basis for rational discussion.  Please - refute the facts in the Ruxted article - prove them to be false.  Otherwise, there really is nothing to discuss.



I like facts (where are they by the way?)
I do not like generalization.
Instead of 1000 extremists author spreads dirt on 1 000 000 000 Islam adepts.


----------



## McG (30 Sep 2007)

Flanker,
It seems you feel this article has painted the whole Muslim world as the enemy.  I don't see this.  I think the article has taken specific aim at that element of the Muslim world which sees itself as our enemy; the enemy has distorted Islam & attempts to use the distortion as a tool to perpetuate it militant struggle.  

Is there something in the article that causes you to feel it is making accusations against all of Islam?  What is it that you see?


----------



## Scott (30 Sep 2007)

Flanker,

Do you have something to add other than accusations? Refute the facts, why don't you? It's been asked of you already but you won't. Why?

Quit trolling. Contribute or take off.

Fair warning.

Scott
*Army.ca Staff*


----------



## cavalryman (30 Sep 2007)

Flanker said:
			
		

> I like facts (where are they by the way?)
> I do not like generalization.
> Instead of 1000 extremists author spreads dirt on 1 000 000 000 Islam adepts.



I see that we have reached an impasse.  It's a bit too late in the evening for me to start providing references for every fact provided in that paragraph you quote, but google is your friend and you will find Ruxted's research well founded.  If you do not wish to educate yourself beyond the boundaries you've imposed upon yourself,  I shan't do it for you. As an observation, if you re-read your posts since my first intervention in this thread, you will see that we agree on many points, especially the hijacking of Islam by those who preach a violent religious/political worldview that is detrimental to both muslims and non-muslims. No one is spreading dirt on 1 billion muslims, least of all Ruxted, and well you know it. If you're attempting to draw an anti-islamic slur from this board for propaganda purposes, good luck.  Too many Canadian troops, including many members of this board, have fought the good fight alongside Afghan troops, who happen to be muslim, and our comrades in arms.  

That being said, I'm signing off the net.  Too much pointless chatter from unknown callsigns.


----------



## armyvern (30 Sep 2007)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> That being said, I'm signing off the net.  Too much pointless chatter from unknown callsigns.



UK callsigns that call for facts ... but have yet, themselves, to provide them??

I think this insomniac will also get some sleep tonight ... she's getting bored waiting for the facts to back up the rhetoric.


----------



## Jacqueline (30 Sep 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> * A 'lil eminem for everyone



 :rofl:



Screw the extremists! They want us to argue and die. Resist their wrath.


----------



## Flanker (30 Sep 2007)

Scott said:
			
		

> Flanker,
> 
> Do you have something to add other than accusations? Refute the facts, why don't you? It's been asked of you already but you won't. Why?



Ok. Let's go straight to the facts.

1.
In the beginning, the article tries to compare 1943 with the present.
The article claims Canadians do not see "the big picture" now as they did in 1943.



> Nearly 65 years ago, in 1943 most, but not all, Canadians saw the ‘big picture.’
> Sixty-five years later most Canadians do not see the ‘big picture.’



Good. That is correct. 
But, then we read:



> Admittedly, the ‘enemy’ appears to be pretty laughable: a ragtag collection of borderline maniacs leading failed states and certifiable lunatics hiding in mountain caves in places most Canadians cannot find on a map. That would have been a good description of Benito Mussolini and Adolph Hitler in 1928



Stop. 
There seems to be an error in the logic.
Why 1943 mentionned in the beginning has suddenly became 1928?
How Canadians can see the "big picture" now if nobody did see this big picture in similar circumstances in 1928?
Not good. 

2. 
The article pretends to see ahead the Clash of Civilizations.
Who are these civilizations? 
Do al-Qaeda, of Tanzeem-e-Islami have enough members to have the status of civilizations? 
I don't think so.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (30 Sep 2007)

That post made no sense at all.........relax, take your time and try again.


----------



## George Wallace (30 Sep 2007)

Flanker said:
			
		

> 2.
> The article pretends to see ahead the Clash of Civilizations.
> Who are these civilizations?
> Do al-Qaeda, of Tanzeem-e-Islami have enough members to have the status of civilizations?
> I don't think so.



So, you are of the opinion that they don't.  That their beliefs are not lost in the Dark Ages.  That they, along with their Religious beliefs have advanced beyond fanaticism and that they have advanced in their social mores to the stage that they are accepting of all as equals in the eyes of their Gods.  That they harbour no ill wills towards their neighbours.

I think you are one of two things:  Living in a fantasy world or a borderline "Racist" walking through life with blinders on, crying foul whenever anyone mentions your religion in any way other than what you perceive as being the truth, right or wrong.  You are not a moderate open to discussion, but a fanatic who doesn't believe he could be wrong.


----------



## bilton090 (30 Sep 2007)

George you hit the nail on the head with that one. I'm still trying to under stand what Flanker is saying except that he doesn't like  the way we are picking on his religion, but sometime's I'm as brite as 2wt. light bulb.

          I'm still a little F-ed up from my over 6 months outside the wire, but the people are starting to get there s**t togetter.


----------



## Franko (30 Sep 2007)

I'm really trying to understand why you make a post Flanker, see that someone has responded, then edit your post.




> Quote from: Flanker on Today at 10:32:40





> « Last Edit: Today at 10:38:45 by Flanker »



Such tactics at best show that you are trying to cover your tracks and put on the best show for the masses, to your own benefit and not to the topic at hand.

I suggest that you think before you hit the post button in the future.

The ball is now in your court.

*The Army.ca Staff*


----------



## Flip (30 Sep 2007)

I suspect Flanker is trying to manuever us in a fairly specific direction.

I think he wants us to admit we (the west) are at war with Islam.
We're not, but that's Osama's spin on it.

If you remove the distinction between his idea of what an Islamist is
and the commonly accepted meaning of the term, that's how it looks.

In a way I agree, we don't label the "bad guys" very well.
Militant Islam is a better handle - I like Islamofascists , but doesn't
 roll off the tongue.

No, I don't think we see religious indignation here - this is political.

Flanker, this is a pretty thoughtful,and logical bunch of people.
Your angleing is getting old.


----------



## armyvern (30 Sep 2007)

Flip said:
			
		

> I suspect Flanker is trying to manuever us in a fairly specific direction.
> 
> I think he wants us to admit we (the west) are at war with Islam.
> We're not, but that's Osama's spin on it.
> ...



I'd agree with you flip ... save for the fact that the Ruxted article etc all do specifcly state: *Militant Islam*

he's trolling ... plain and simple. He knows full well what he's up to, and it's already been pointed out to him that the *Militant Islam* distinction is there ... and is made by those western governments and Canadian soldiers he now profess' to push as "in a war against Islam."

It's bull, he knows it. But then ... it's so easy to ignore the facts while safe and snug in your bed back in *Canada*. And damned be those who have gone there, seen it, and done it and know the difference because we are all just a bunch of brainwashed uneducated shits apparently. None of your opionins or facts matter to people like this ... who just love to hate you for protecting their ass' here at home and for aiding the oppressed abroad. 

I'm putting him on ignore now ... not worth burning off the calories for typing on my keyboard ...


----------



## Franko (30 Sep 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> And damned be those who have gone there, seen it, and done it and know the difference because we are all just a bunch of brainwashed uneducated shits apparently. None of your opionins or facts matter to people like this ... who just love to hate you for protecting their ***' here at home and for aiding the oppressed abroad.



Kinda interesting that I know of at least 4 Muslims that have gone over and didn't have a problem with their moral compass at all. 

But I guess that _they_ are the infidels....not the Taliban, Al Quaida and their supporters.

Regards


----------



## Flanker (30 Sep 2007)

Flip said:
			
		

> I suspect Flanker is trying to manuever us in a fairly specific direction.
> 
> I think he wants us to admit we (the west) are at war with Islam.
> We're not, but that's Osama's spin on it.
> ...



Not at all, I don't push anyone to war at Islam. Instead, that is exactly what I want we all have to avoid.
I just found the article a bit provocative (or generalizing/passionate/emotional, whatever you like the most) in that sense.

Anyway, there seems to be a common consensus as to a clear distinction between religion and extremism calling itself the same name.
Thanks for your contribution, in particular ArmyVern and Flip.
Bilton090, your sincere PM is also appreciated.


----------



## KevinB (30 Sep 2007)

Someone call for an Infidel...  ;D

  I work day in and out with Iraqi's trying to rebuild their country, none with his head above his beltline (as opposed to H-U-A or H-I-S) can believe that this is a war on Islam -- it is a war against Islamofascists who seek to destroy ANYONE who does not adhere to their perverted version.


----------



## GUNS (30 Sep 2007)

Flanker, for the benefit of those who use this forum. Could you please fill in your profile. ie: military/civvy/student, age. etc.etc.

Would be nice to know your background as to your experience on this subject.

Amuse me.


----------



## Flip (30 Sep 2007)

GUNS said:
			
		

> Flanker, for the benefit of those who use this forum. Could you please fill in your profile. ie: military/civvy/student, age. etc.etc.
> 
> Would be nice to know your background as to your experience on this subject.
> 
> Amuse me.



Me too.... ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Oct 2007)

I agree, broadly, with the contention that there is too much anti-Islam sentiment abroad and, consequently, too little focus on the various and sundry _Arabist, extremist and fundamentalist_ Islamic *movements* out there (many loosely affiliated) which are our real enemies.

As Ruxted said, “… this new war is not between nation states or even traditional, ‘national’ sub-national groups … Since their inception the mujahideen have been pan-Islamic in nature … The moral and religious power of Islam … has been harnessed for evil ends … This new, long war is being waged with guns and bombs in Afghanistan and Iraq, as it is with words in mosques in Marseilles and Montreal and in the salons of political and media heavyweights in Georgetown, and with money in Geneva … the enemy plans a super-national Muslim world – one firmly rooted in 12th century Arab culture.”

Islam, _per se_, is no more the _root cause_ of _Islamist_ terrorism than Catholicism was the _root cause_ of the IRA’s campaign of terrorism.

Infidel-6 has it about right, even though I don’t like the term _Islamofascists_ even though I think  the various _movements_ are essentially _fascist_ in nature (as defined by Britt, Lyon, _et al_).

The problem for Ruxted is to present a clear, concise explanation of a complex subject: in this case the analog of the threat we, in the secular, liberal West (and the secular, conservative East, too, I hasten to add) face in 2007 to that which we faced some sixty-five to seventy years ago and to explain that seventy (sadly, now seventy-one) fatalities have forced our attention away from the big issue and on to a _sideshow_. The ‘war’ is not with Islam but the enemy is trying to conscript Islam into its army.


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Oct 2007)

If the factions have political control, it doesn't make much difference.  We once were at war with Germany and Japan, not just the Nazis and militarist faction.   How useful were appeals to the German and Japanese people that we were at war with their governments, not them?  As long as the people were either content or lacked the courage to overthrow those in control, their resources were at the command of the factions.

It is necessary to at least neutralize the passive contributors as well as defeat the active ones.  In that respect, one is "at war" with the passive elements until the aim is achieved.


----------

