# Western Society & Home-grown Terrorists.



## Edward Campbell (15 Jul 2005)

Maybe this is just a rant, maybe not:

There is an interesting bit in today's _Globe and Mail_ (see: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050715/BLASTPROFILE15/TPInternational/?query=Four+bombers%27+profiles+called+typical ) by Michael Valpy, titled: *Four bombers' profiles called typical*.

Valpy, citing an American expert, says that the bombers' profiles match _â Å“...studies showing that 80 per cent of new recruits to Islamic terrorism are now coming from émigré diaspora populations, mainly in Europe, where they were born but do not feel part of broader society ...â ?_

Unspoken is the broadly held contention that, somehow, 'we' have to restructure our societies so that 'they' feel _part_ of it.

Within the past few years this issue has been/is being discussed throughout the Americas Asia and Europe.  (See e.g. Daniel Pipes at: http://www.danielpipes.org/article/450)  Pipes cites: _â Å“*Self-imposed isolation:* Over time, as Muslim immigrants increase in numbers, they wish less to mix with the indigenous population. A recent survey finds that only 5 percent of young Muslim immigrants would readily marry a Dane._

When General Rick Hillier says, _â ? They detest our freedoms, they detest our society, they detest our liberties ..."_ he is not being overly hyperbolic.  As others have pointed out here in army.ca, Islam in not a religion which can be separated from government â â€œ it is a 'way of life' which provides, according to _some_ of its proponents, all that anyone needs to live a 'proper' life.  Thus, Danish women who _dress and act 'provocatively'_ are not living 'properly' according to Islam and Islamic men in Denmark ought to be 'understood' if not forgiven for raping them.  (That is, certainly, not the view of all Muslims, not even of most Muslims, but it is, indisputably, the view of enough spellbinding, charismatic Muslim _imans_ and teachers who then _infect_ the minds of too many young (mostly) men who are disenchanted with their lot in (Western) life and society.)

It appears to me that many Muslims are gravitating towards the Black 'experience' â â€œ which includes self-imposed isolation as a (too easy) response to social and economic (read education system) failure.  I believe that 'mainstream' society is making the same mistake with disaffected Muslims as it made â â€œ in my opinion â â€œ with Blacks: it (the mainstream) tries to lift all responsibility off the shoulders of the disadvantaged; it (the mainstream) puts all the blame on societal factors, like racism, (factors which do exist and which are part of the problem) thus convincing the disadvantaged that they _deserve_ 'help' and that, somehow or other, they should achieve 'equality' without effort.  When, as the Black experience over about three generations suggests, the 'promise' of 'equality' cannot be fulfilled then the disadvantaged become more disaffected and the self-imposed isolation, which creates more and more problems, deepens.

It seems to me that we already have two too large, dispirited _under-classes_ in Canada: aboriginals and Blacks â â€œ both disproportionately overrepresented in prisons, unemployed lines and on welfare rolls and seriously underrepresented in universities, colleges and good paying jobs.  We do not need a third: an Islamic under-class which is better educated but equally unable to 'integrate.'

I admit to being somewhat chauvinistic â â€œ maybe even a lot chauvinistic, but I cannot see how we can make already disaffected and believing Muslims feel _part_ of our society without changing our society to such an extent that 'we' would become the disaffected.

I have no good ideas about what we should do but I believe that we must prevent further 'isolation' of Muslims â â€œ self imposed or not.  I guess I am suggesting that we must help or coerce Muslims to make themselves part of our society which, perforce, may mean discarding some of their socio-cultural and religious heritage â â€œ accepting, for example, that our freedoms and liberties are _part_ of and will remain _part_ of our society and those who will live here must embrace them, too.

If we do not do that, it seems to me, then we are helping the extremists to create a _fifth column_ of our very own.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Jul 2005)

Further.

Muslims in Canada are struggling with the _fifth column_ slander (and it is, of course, a slander insofar as it might be directed at all, most or even very many Muslims in Canada).

See: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050716.wxmuslim0716/BNStory/National/ - it is not restricted for subscribers only.

Here are a few extracts of interest:
----------​_It is what Canada's Muslims feel they must do for their self-interest and protection, leaders of the country's mainstream Islamic organizations said in interviews. 

The Canadian Roman Catholic Church didn't feel it had to issue statements denouncing Catholic terrorism in Northern Ireland. Canadian Orthodox churches felt no obligation to publicly condemn the ethnic cleansing carried out by Serbian Orthodox Christians in the Balkans.

â Å“But being a visible minority, you do not have the privilege of distancing yourself from your [global religious] community,â ? Mr. Fatah said._
----------​_Omar Alghabra, president of the Canadian Arab Association, for example, said he is tired of fielding media calls and of being viewed as belonging to some subversive â Å“fifth columnâ ? who must apologize for the acts of terrorists._
----------​ _The Canadian Islamic Congress also got its statement out early. However, it immediately found itself facing a barrage of media criticism for saying, in addition to condemning the bombing, that it hoped â Å“Canadian Muslims do not pay the guilty-by-association priceâ ? â â€ a declaration several editorialists and columnists labelled inappropriate and fanciful. 

Ms. Valiante said there was no debate within the organization's leadership about putting in the guilty-by-association reference. â Å“You have no idea how terrified the Muslim community feels â â€ following 9/11 when we found our mosques under surveillance by police and CSIS and Bill C-36 [anti-terrorism legislation] was passed._
-----------​_The Muslim community's discomfort is aggravated by a widespread conviction that it is seen as the Other in Canada â â€ an alien group â â€ even though Muslim leaders point out that Muslims are likely more securely integrated into Canadian society than in any other Western country.

â Å“We haven't been able to make the case [about ourselves] to the ordinary WASP Canadian,â ?_
----------​


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Jul 2005)

Below are two _counter points_ from today's _Globe and Mail_, one by Christie Blatchford and the other by Ken Wiwa.  I am posting both because they are, on the _Globe's_ web site, restricted to subscribers.

I am belabouring this point because I think it represents a fairly new situation for us.  There are historic parallels: for example, we interned some Eastern Europeans in 1914/18 and Japanese Canadians in 1942 - sometimes with scant evidence of subversion.  We - big broad 'we' - some of us, anyway, are using _Islam_ and _terrorism_ almost interchangeably , assuming _fifth columns_ where probably none exist.

Blatchford says: 
_ One thing is crystal clear: We still don't know one another very well, Muslims and non-Muslims.

What are the Islamic private schools and mosques in our country teaching and preaching? Most non-Muslim Canadians don't have a clue. They didn't in Britain, either. The lesson is that it's time for all of us to pay attention._

Wiwa, on the other hand, points out that:
_ Anyway, to get back to multiculturalism. What baffles people from the global South is when host communities in Europe and North America operate housing policy that effectively herds immigrants into ethnic ghettoes which are then branded as "inward-looking societies" ... Look at almost any urbanscape in Africa or Asia or Latin America, and you will find expatriate communities that are fenced off from their host countries, expat communities that could similarly be maligned as "inward-looking" because they are usually umbilically attached to their mother countries and have almost no, or very little, interest in integrating with the host societies._

I said, just up above, _I believe that we must prevent further 'isolation' of Muslims - self imposed or not._

Elsewhere, Acorn, explained why we must 'know our enemy' and consider not just his tactics but his values and motives, too - in order to provide better 'steerage' to our front line combat troops.

General Hillier explained, just this morning - http://www.cbc.ca/programguide/program/index.jsp?program=The+House&network=CBC%20Radio%20One&startDate=2005/07/16&startTime=09:11 - why we must focus also on our own home defence.

Who is the enemy?

Are we going _back to the future_ and brand Muslims of Arab descent as an _enemy_ ÃƒÂ  la the Japanese-Canadians in 1942?

Do you know what your Muslim neighbours and their children hear in their mosques and schools?  Do Canadian Muslims really have to defend themselves, as a community, every time some fanatic throws a bomb anywhere?


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Jul 2005)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/HTMLTemplate?tf=columnists/Summary.html&cf=tgamv3/common/MiniHub.cfg&configFileLoc=config&hub=christieBlatchford&title=Christie_Blatchford  


> Our culture of accommodation . . .
> *Only in Britain, or in Canada, would terrorist bombings prompt a big group hug*
> 
> By CHRISTIE BLATCHFORD
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Jul 2005)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050716/COWIWA16/Columnists/Columnist?author=Ken+Wiwa



> . . . is to some, however, a culture of exclusion
> 
> By KEN WIWA
> Saturday, July 16, 2005 Updated at 11:21 AM EDT
> ...


----------



## Dare (16 Jul 2005)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> Further.
> 
> Muslims in Canada are struggling with the _fifth column_ slander (and it is, of course, a slander insofar as it might be directed at all, most or even very many Muslims in Canada).
> 
> ...



The Canadian Islamic Congress believes that Syria should stay in Lebanon. Their president, Dr. Mohamed Elmasry,  has said that all Israeli's over 18 should be targets. They slandered the RCMP as racists because they detained 19 Pakistani's. Interestingly enough, Global released Elmasry's disingenuous correction on their story. http://www.canada.com/national/globalsunday/story.html?id=c1e2293b-1758-443e-8863-6dff7df6d945 Oh, as long as it's just Israeli Jews he wants to massacre. Then it's "OK" for the Canadian public. Omar Alghabra is President of the Canadian Arab -Federation-. This group came out *against* the G.C. ban on Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and Hamas. 
So did the National Council on Canada-Arab Relations. All on the pretext of these groups being primarily engaged in Humanitarian funding. They also do not support our efforts in Afghanistan.

So, of course these particular groups are tired of accusations that they are front groups, because they *are* front groups. The fifth column has been alive and well for some time.

As B'nai Brith put it: "As for the Canadian Arab Federation's complaint over B'nai Brith Canada's ad campaign on this issue, it is simply dishonest for the Federation to complain that B'nai Brith has depicted the unfortunate manner in which Islamic symbols have been hijacked by extremist fundamentalist groups. Rather, it should be the Federation's responsibility to speak out against the blatant abuse of these religious symbols by Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah to justify murder and terror."

Which, of course, they would never do..


----------



## Infanteer (16 Jul 2005)

Dare said:
			
		

> The Canadian Islamic Congress believes that Syria should stay in Lebanon. Their president, Dr. Mohamed Elmasry,   has said that all Israeli's over 18 should be targets. They slandered the RCMP as racists because they detained 19 Pakistani's. Interestingly enough, Global released Elmasry's disingenuous correction on their story. http://www.canada.com/national/globalsunday/story.html?id=c1e2293b-1758-443e-8863-6dff7df6d945 Oh, as long as it's just Israeli Jews he wants to massacre. Then it's "OK" for the Canadian public. Omar Alghabra is President of the Canadian Arab -Federation-. This group came out *against* the G.C. ban on Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and Hamas.
> So did the National Council on Canada-Arab Relations. All on the pretext of these groups being primarily engaged in Humanitarian funding. They also do not support our efforts in Afghanistan.



I think this is something of a new phenomonon that is due to globalization and all that jazz.  Usually, people would be supportive of their State's policies.  But now, with information capable of travelling to and fro at the blink of an eye, we see allegiences lying elsewhere - clan, religion, ethnic group, _cause du jour_.  These people obviously see themselves as Canadians whose loyalty goes towards those back in the lands of Islam than as opposed to Canadians who identify with our Western nature.  I'm sure we aren't the only ones feeling this - ex-pat communities of any ethnic stripe in any country our liable to be the same (remember Malaya with the ChiComms?).  

One odd example I witnessed was Sunera Thobani of UBC crowing about the US invasion of Afghanistan.  Despite the fact that she was the leader of feminist organizations that spearheaded the effort to ostracise the Taliban for their treatment of Afghan women, she was rabid in her condemnation of the US going in to boot them out - I figure that stemmed from her Islamic viewpoint that America is a Crusader kingdom.


----------



## couchcommander (16 Jul 2005)

_I believe that we must prevent further 'isolation' of Muslims â â€œ self imposed or not._

I think you are on the right track here Edward Campbell.

A popular theory regarding deviance, in brief, states that when a person or group of people are unable to succeed in "normal" society (read succeed loosey, as this depends on the person and the situation, but basically it all boils down to gaining social status and acceptance), one of their reactions is often times to form a "deviant subculture" where they can _succeed_ (ie if a child is in school and always getting in trouble, he will often times become friends with people who look positively upon disruptive behaviour, thus enabling him to attain status and acceptance, even if it is not within mainstream society). 

This can be taken in a larger context. If groups of Muslims are unable to "succeed" (gain acceptance, social stature, etc.) in normal society they will quite possibily retreat into groups of like minded people where they can indeed "succeed". This usually means with other Muslims. 

Thus one has the current situation where there can be found tight knit groups of muslims who are largey avoidant of outside society. 

Further, as stated before, these groups will usually form their own set of standards to gauge social status; and it can, and has IMO, happened that one of the primary factors in this is determination of status becomes devotion to the Islam. 

Though this is not necessarily a bad thing, as the grand majority of devoted, even fanatical Muslims are not terrorists nor do they condone it. 

However, just like everything, there are different interpretations. One of these seems to be one in which terrorism is justified. 

How does one get from simply being part of a Muslim community, to being a sucidie bomber? 

Well, IMO, you see the same thing we saw with Muslims and Society happen inside the Muslim ciricle itself. It appears to me (and I may be wrong on this) that this particular interpretation of the Koran is not widely held. This would make the group who held these violent beliefs, once again, a subculture; albeitwithin another subculture (as I am sure most Muslims would condemn this viewpoint, marginalizing those who believed in it). 

Now this, to me, becomes the problem. As in this particular subculture one would not only see religious devotion as a way of attaining status, but religious devotion to an interpretation that condones terrorism and promises eternal bliss to those who carry it out. From this, IMO, we see born the suicide bomber.

So, how do we deal with this? 

That's were Edward Campbell's idea comes into the picture. If we can prevent the seclusion of Muslims groups from society by accepting their culture and promoting their success we would, iMO, be able to stop the suicide bomber before he is even born. 

The hard part of all of this is that this is not something _they_ do, but something we have to do as well. Each and every one of us carries in our head a "typification" of a Muslim. Often times it means he is brown, talks kinda funny, dresses differently, sometimes terrorists, scary, mean, cheap, ******* come up (and keep in mind, this might not even be consciously, but something that you have unknowingly leanred from society around you, whether it be the news, parents, friends, or even personal experiences). It's these negative impressions that most of us carry that form a barrier to these people.

Now of course Muslims have a responsibility in this as well. They need to appropriately identify and deal with the extremists amongst them, but more importantly they need to loose their negative impressions of us that similarily form a barrier for their own integration, and an effort needs to be made, by both "sides", to try and identify with one another, accept our differences, and try to live together. 

*awaits the barrage back....*

(and sorry for the splling, , I didn't have time to check)

[edited for readability.... yes I know I failed]


----------



## Dare (16 Jul 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I think this is something of a new phenomonon that is due to globalization and all that jazz.  Usually, people would be supportive of their State's policies.  But now, with information capable of travelling to and fro at the blink of an eye, we see allegiences lying elsewhere - clan, religion, ethnic group, _cause du jour_.  These people obviously see themselves as Canadians whose loyalty goes towards those back in the lands of Islam than as opposed to Canadians who identify with our Western nature.  I'm sure we aren't the only ones feeling this - ex-pat communities of any ethnic stripe in any country our liable to be the same (remember Malaya with the ChiComms?).
> 
> One odd example I witnessed was Sunera Thobani of UBC crowing about the US invasion of Afghanistan.  Despite the fact that she was the leader of feminist organizations that spearheaded the effort to ostracise the Taliban for their treatment of Afghan women, she was rabid in her condemnation of the US going in to boot them out - I figure that stemmed from her Islamic viewpoint that America is a Crusader kingdom.


I've seen many examples of that. Socialists torn between their causes. Most feminists I have talked to have actually come on side since we removed the Taliban. As far as I'm concerned, no true feminist would be supporting many Middle Eastern governments, let alone the Taliban. Yet still, you can see them come out in droves at protests clearly oblivious to their contradictory positions, and to the radical Islamists grimacing beside their scantily clad bodies. After all, I would say it is a good thing, as it exposes duplicitous organizations and individuals who simply use divisive issues to attack the west.


----------



## paracowboy (16 Jul 2005)

couchcommander said:
			
		

> _I believe that we must prevent further 'isolation' of Muslims â â€œ self imposed or not._
> 
> I think you are on the right track here Edward Campbell.
> 
> That's were Edward Campbell's idea comes into the picture. If we can prevent the seclusion of Muslims groups from society by allowing them and promoting their success we would, iMO, be able to stop the suicide bomber before he is even born.


hmm, so a variant of Affirmative Action will quell Islamo-terrorism? But, by singling out Muslims for their success, or by going out of our way to ensure we include Muslims in >insert activity here<, are we not simply identifying and promoting their "different-ness"? 

Here's a crazy idea: howzabout we just treat everyone exactly the same, and demand that everyone do it, too? Everyone's equal, nobody's special, we all get the same shot to succeed. Now, we keep promoting this here, exporting it to less-libertarian nations, and shooting the extremely recalcitrant in the face, and it will catch on.


----------



## Britney Spears (16 Jul 2005)

> As far as I'm concerned, no true feminist would be supporting many Middle Eastern governments, let alone the Taliban. Yet still, you can see them come out in droves at protests clearly oblivious to their contradictory positions, and to the radical Islamists grimacing beside their scantily clad bodies.



 ???

What is your source for this?


----------



## couchcommander (16 Jul 2005)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> hmm, so a variant of Affirmative Action will quell Islamo-terrorism? But, by singling out Muslims for their success, or by going out of our way to ensure we include Muslims in >insert activity here<, are we not simply identifying and promoting their "different-ness"?
> 
> Here's a crazy idea: howzabout we just treat everyone exactly the same, and demand that everyone do it, too? Everyone's equal, nobody's special, we all get the same shot to succeed. Now, we keep promoting this here, exporting it to less-libertarian nations, and shooting the extremely recalcitrant in the face, and it will catch on.



No I wasn't supporting Affirmative Action, in fact I detest it. It doesn't actually deal with the cause of the problems, which are in large part due, in my opinion to our own preceptions of said groups, and their preceptions of us. 

And I like the treat everyone exactly the same (I assume you mean in regards to sex, religion, skin colour, ethnicity, etc.), in fact I think that this is a great idea. Not so sure about the shooting in the face thing. 

Have a good day,


----------



## Dare (16 Jul 2005)

couchcommander said:
			
		

> _I believe that we must prevent further 'isolation' of Muslims â â€œ self imposed or not._
> 
> I think you are on the right track here Edward Campbell.
> 
> ...


I think there is a disconnect in this arguement. I think that we would be fortifying the belief that Muslims are seperate if we treat them specially. I agree that all Canadians have a responsibility to demonstrate our good nature to Muslims. Yet, I think it is better stated that we have a duty to eachother, irrespective of religion to pierce the misconceptions. All Canadians to eachother have this opportunity every day. With every utterance and movement we make in their presence. On the other hand, I would say it's very difficult to hold back people who recognize the direction from which the fire is coming from, even if they do not grasp the distinctions, they are justified in wanting the threat to be vanquished. Polite education works better than scornful distain (which would seclude a misdirected reactive factor).

The types of people that are attracted due to the reasons you've mentioned are not the policy drivers, but a small percentage of the rank and file. I do not believe that the men behind these lackeys (the true threat) are driven by status or how we would measure "success" (material wealth and status). Many of them are quite wealthy with high status. Heavenly "success" I would agree with. The problem with that is their views of Heavenly "success" would not be anything we could earthly provide to satiate their desires. That and Heavenly "success" is purely a boolean operation, you either are or you are not. Should we elect to provide all the aid/benefits in the world to disaffected nations/groups, it would still not be enough to nullify the threat.

Essentially, the strategy of focusing on the lackeys as the primary problem is akin to attacking the appendages of the enemy. Or the symptom of the disease. It does need to be done, but not as the exclusive or primary strategy. As even the relatively well integrated lackeys (ie. the cricket playing London bomber) manifest radical sentiments. 

We must confront the doctrines of the theocracy that allows this behavior to gain strength and we must make sure that their pool of potential recruits knows we're not the Bad Evil Guys that we're painted as. This will dry up a good chunk of their lackeys but it won't dent the hardcore. Most of them are in for the long haul too. 

And in my usual controvertial nature I believe that in order to ultimately triumph, we have to view it as a deprogramming. From a heretic anti-Muslim back to a true believing Muslim again. They're making converts here, we need to start winning converts there. They can point to verses in the Qu'ran to justify anything they do. This is why we need moderate Muslims to take an even stronger roll in the intellectual battle against extremists rather than excusing them with "But" filled condemnations.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Jul 2005)

Couchcommander said:
_ The hard part of all of this is that this is not something they do, but something we have to do as well. Each and every one of us carries in our head a "typification" of a Muslim. Often times it means he is brown, talks kinda funny, dresses differently, sometimes terrorists, scary, mean, cheap, ******* come up (and keep in mind, this might not even be consciously, but something that you have unknowingly leanred from society around you, whether it be the news, parents, friends, or even personal experiences). It's these negative impressions that most of us carry that form a barrier to these people.

Now of course Muslims have a responsibility in this as well. They need to appropriately identify and deal with the extremists amongst them, but more importantly they need to loose their negative impressions of us that similarily form a barrier for their own integration, and an effort needs to be made, by both "sides", to try and identify with one another, accept our differences, and try to live together._

I'm not sure how I can square this with my view that:
_â ?... we must help or coerce Muslims to make themselves part of our society which, perforce, may mean discarding some of their socio-cultural and religious heritage â â€œ accepting, for example, that our freedoms and liberties are part of and will remain part of our society and those who will live here must embrace them, too.â ?_

This is where my chauvinism comes in: I believe that *our* society (and, of course, all its values and other trappings â â€œ including the political and social _liberalism_ which 'we' â â€œ that very broad 'we' again - have built over the millennia) will, indeed must remain dominant here, in this place â â€œ in _our home and native land._

On one level I agree with paracowboy: One of the principles of _liberalism_ is that we are all equal and we all ought to be treated equally, at law, and held to equal standards, at law.  What someone _thinks_ or _believes_ is none of my business â â€œ not even when he believes that I am pond scum and should be shot.  It only becomes my business, and everyone else's business, when anyone â â€œ including, especially, the dominant cultural group (the WASPs, people like me, in our case) â â€œ decides that it should, can or must *impose* they beliefs, however benign, on others.  But for _equality_ to serve us all and for _equality_ to protect us all we must *all* accept the principle that none of us is better or worse than anyone else.  _Equality_ as I see it requires that we all accept that each _individual_ is sovereign and equal.  This is the _post-Christian_, secular liberalism which characterizes our modern, Western world and which General Hillier and I agree infuriates _some_ Muslims.

I am not a practising, not even a professing Christian but I recognize and acknowledge my, personal cultural debt to 2,000 years of Christianity â â€œ it is one of the great foundation stones of the Western canon.  I am suggesting that Muslims must _join_ our society â â€œ my chauvinism shows again because I reckon that anyone who wants to live, work, raise their family, etc in the West ought to accept ways of the West.  That being said I also understand that others, especially Muslims, can believe that the West is trying to impose its _values_ â â€œ _inter alia_ the values of pop-culture and Hollywood â â€œ on the entire world and there is no escape, no place where Muslims can be real Muslims.  (I note, by the way, that my Hindu and Chinese friends â â€œ including my Chinese partner â â€œ think this is rubbish.  They, most of them, believe that Western culture is full and vibrant â â€œ equally full of great things and dross; they believe that they, living here, can pick the best of our _culture_, including our political culture, and mix it with some of their traditional values to make, for themselves, a comfortable 'place' anywhere in the world.)

I am suggesting that Muslims must not be allowed to drift into isolation and I think that means they must adapt to our ways and values because 'we' are not going to adapt to theirs â â€œ not here, anyway.

Maybe I shouldn't keep chewing at this but I think it is a real problem when we are asked to face the prospect of defending _our home and native land_ from home-grown enemies: fellow citizens who are divided from us by beliefs.


----------



## couchcommander (16 Jul 2005)

Dare said:
			
		

> I think there is a disconnect in this arguement. I think that we would be fortifying the belief that Muslims are seperate if we treat them specially. I agree that all Canadians have a responsibility to demonstrate our good nature to Muslims. Yet, I think it is better stated that we have a duty to eachother, irrespective of religion to pierce the misconceptions. All Canadians to eachother have this opportunity every day. With every utterance and movement we make in their presence.


I couldn't agree more. I apologize if I made it seem as though we should treat them specially. My point was just that we should be aware of how our attitudes and perceptions can present barriers to others.



> On the other hand, I would say it's very difficult to hold back people who recognize the direction from which the fire is coming from, even if they do not grasp the distinctions, they are justified in wanting the threat to be vanquished. Polite education works better than scornful distain (which would seclude a misdirected reactive factor).



Once again, I couldn't agree more. Especially your last sentance. 



> The types of people that are attracted due to the reasons you've mentioned are not the policy drivers, but a small percentage of the rank and file. I do not believe that the men behind these lackeys (the true threat) are driven by status or how we would measure "success" (material wealth and status). Many of them are quite wealthy with high status. Heavenly "success" I would agree with.


Yes indeed, as I said, success needs to be taken loosely, less in terms of concrete tangible items but more generally to mean the success of the person in society as an entire concept, ie how well they are integrate, how well they feel they are integrated, whether or not they feel they can acheive the goals society sets upon them, how well they acheive these goals, whether they have a supportive peer group, etc. 



> The problem with that is their views of Heavenly "success" would not be anything we could earthly provide to satiate their desires.


No, but by trying to prevent their ethical divergence from normalized societal values we can prempt the formation of these deviant values. In the end I don't think there is much we could do about the people who currently follow this viewpoint, but I feel that we can be very sucessful in preventing it from spreading. 



> That and Heavenly "success" is purely a boolean operation, you either are or you are not. Should we elect to provide all the aid/benefits in the world to disaffected nations/groups, it would still not be enough to nullify the threat.


Indeed, our focus needs to be on their socialization process and the formation of normative values. 



> Essentially, the strategy of focusing on the lackeys as the primary problem is akin to attacking the appendages of the enemy. Or the symptom of the disease. It does need to be done, but not as the exclusive or primary strategy. As even the relatively well integrated lackeys (ie. the cricket playing London bomber) manifest radical sentiments.


I would think it is more akin to denying the enemy food. And yes, you are right. Even someone who outwardly appears to be completely normal may in fact be very distrubed. 



> We must confront the doctrines of the theocracy that allows this behavior to gain strength and we must make sure that their pool of potential recruits knows we're not the Bad Evil Guys that we're painted as. This will dry up a good chunk of their lackeys but it won't dent the hardcore. Most of them are in for the long haul too.


I agree, educating these people would be a very good thing to do.



> And in my usual controvertial nature I believe that in order to ultimately triumph, we have to view it as a deprogramming. From a heretic anti-Muslim back to a true believing Muslim again. They're making converts here, we need to start winning converts there. They can point to verses in the Qu'ran to justify anything they do. This is why we need moderate Muslims to take an even stronger roll in the intellectual battle against extremists rather than excusing them with "But" filled condemnations.



We all have a role to play, and as I said, Muslims need to do a better job of dealing with these extremist viewpoints within their religion and ensure that it is understood that they are not tolerated (ie you follow them, you are no longer a true Muslim..). Though this won't discourage everyone, I believe as well that it will empty the pool that little bit more. 

[edit]

Re: Edward Campbell:

From my own, very superficial and quick dive into muslim theology (so I could be very wrong), I didn't see any real conflict between western libertarian values and Islam. In fact if one looks back into history one can see that Islamic societies, can, and have been some of the most accepting and toleran societies around. In short, I don't think the values that you and I hold dear are all that foreign to your average Muslim, nor are they things which they would need to come to accept but rather are values that they already hold. I think you are very right, however, that these views infuriate some muslims, but that can be said about Christians as well. 

IMO the disconnect, and the cause of our apparent inability to live harmonously (I am not saying that muslims and Christians don't live harmonously, just that some don't), is sadly not some fundamental value difference but a set of assumptions and perceptions based more upon hersey and snap judgements that put up a wall between people before they have even met.
Thanks,


----------



## paracowboy (16 Jul 2005)

couchcommander said:
			
		

> Not so sure about the shooting in the face thing.


but that's the best part!


----------



## Dare (16 Jul 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> ???
> 
> What is your source for this?


Source for which part of my statement?
For one part, I would say, observe some anti-war demonstrations. Preferrably from the inside, if you can.

Here's something I dug up for you concerning the second part.
http://www.cis.org.au/Policy/autumn03/polaut03-6.pdf
It addresses a portion of my position. The other is the apparent alliance of convenience that has be made (the enemy of my enemy is my friend) between several far left causes and radical Islamist causes which we can see manifest from street level on upwards (which includes deluded moderates and semi-moderates of both strains of thought, who genuinely believe the alliance is one of harmony). Unlikely, strange, and unnatural? Yes. Yet, not as strange as the Aryan Nation claiming alliance with Islamic fundamentalist organizations. Are both happening? You bet. I like to think of it as the Axis of Stupid. Feel free to improvise.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (16 Jul 2005)

If home grown terrorism comes from the fact that the youth are disenfranchised they can either vote in a government they want, suck it up, or fuck off.


----------



## Britney Spears (16 Jul 2005)

Source for the part I quoted silly! 




> As far as I'm concerned, no true feminist would be supporting many Middle Eastern governments, let alone the Taliban. Yet still, you can see them come out in droves at protests clearly oblivious to their contradictory positions, and to *the radical Islamists grimacing beside their scantily clad bodies.*



Here you are clearly insinuating that feminists organizations are organizing protests in favour of the Taliban and Islamic fundamentalism. May I ask in which "Rally" you witnessed this? I hope you are not referring to an anti-IRAQ invasion rally.

The source you provided is an article written by a feminist, berating other feminists for their seeming lack of tangible action against the Taliban and extremist Islamic regimes, a conclusion which itself is ridiculous. It does not come anywhere CLOSE to supporting your implication that feminist organizations are aiding the regime of the Taliban. In fact,

<a href=http://www.feminist.org/research/report/102_one.html> Feminist Majority Demonstrates Against UNOCAL Afghanistan Pipeline</a>
<a href=http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2001/02/18/stories/03180003.htm>French feminists protest Taliban Minister visit</a>


Heck, to save myself time, here's a <a href=http://www.houseofplum.com/plumcrazy/archives/000553.html>well sourced rebuttal</a> of the entire article. 

Actually I was mostly inclined to agree with your points about Muslim sub-cultures in the west, but I don't know why you felt it neccesary to launch such an outrageous and unfounded attack on the feminist movement.


----------



## Dare (16 Jul 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Source for the part I quoted silly!
> 
> 
> Here you are clearly insinuating that feminists organizations are organizing protests in favour of the Taliban and Islamic fundamentalism. May I ask in which "Rally" you witnessed this? I hope you are not referring to an anti-IRAQ invasion rally.
> ...


I'm afraid it's not unfounded, nor is it outrageous. I was not implying that all feminist organizers are aiding the disposed regime with direct support. I suggest you go to *any* anti-war demonstration (including anti-Iraq war demonstrations) and talk to the people you meet there. Ask them if they are feminist, and ask them how they feel women should be liberated from oppression in the Middle East. Forget the banners, talk to the individuals. I'll bet you all the money I have (which ain't much ), that in any sizable demonstration, you are apt to find at the very... very least one feminist who believes the Taliban should have remained in power.

My words are an attack at hypocrites who are willing to leave Middle Eastern women in the dust to further their anti-War/US/West agendas. I welcome you to take a poll of your local universities Women Studies or Sociology departments and see how many support our removal of the Taliban. Your links are dated pre-war, and only further prove my point. The article you claim debunks the article I posted, doesn't address many points and what it uses to support it are specious and dated as well. I recommend you read the comments under it, the author seems to illustrate my point exactly (and also proves she doesn't know what she's talking about). The scarcity of articles on the Taliban from feminists post-war is telling. I would like to see even one celebrating our removal of the Taliban (A real celebratory one.)

It's hard for them to understand how physical applications of force are almost always required to remove tyrants. Thus, the logical inconsistency in their platform of wanting women to be free but not wanting anyone to force the imprisoner away. You might not see it, but I see an incredible hypocracy to a feminist wearing a kaffiyah and waving a PLO flag. Or a feminist calling us Nazi's for attacking Afghanistan. As if they were real close to liberating themselves or holding a bloodless revolution. You might not call it support to conduct such actions, that's fine. Perhaps you are thinking in militaristic terms of direct support. I am thinking of moral support and popular support. 

The Feminist Majority, despite it's name and star power, is not actually the majorty of the feminist movement. People (of either gender), who honestly value the rights of women, don't support what the theocratic tyrannies allow against women. 

http://www.equityfeminism.com/archives/years/2001/000114.html (succinct and on point)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A52639-2001Oct12&notFound=true (the article which is linked in the above)
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15242 (avec real sources. not the only university out there with such Professors)
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11405 (note what the organizer of this event describes herself as: "anarcha-feminist",.. who happens to be organizing not just a rally, but an entire school tour!)
http://www.phyllis-chesler.com/articles/brownshirts-of-our-time.htm (with response and counter response) A good example of what I am discussing. 
http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/menasurvey/ (an interesting site)

Perhaps, you think these are isolated incidents? Or Horowitz constructed fantasies? Either way, introduce yourself to the mob. They'll gladly tell you everything about themselves and what they believe. I know several self described feminists who have gone through the (usual, bland) list of supposed western atrocities. Upon defeating each of these arguments it becomes clear that they are just repeating what they were taught by their Professors, and don't really understand how we are improving the lives of women in Afghanistan. How can you not see the parallels between fighting the "western imperialists" and fighting the "western patriarchy."

P.S. Where'd you get that quote in your signature? That's awesome.  ;D


----------



## Britney Spears (17 Jul 2005)

> I'm afraid it's not unfounded, nor is it outrageous. I was not implying that all feminist organizers are aiding the disposed regime with direct support. I suggest you go to *any* anti-war demonstration (including anti-Iraq war demonstrations) and talk to the people you meet there. Ask them if they are feminist, and ask them how they feel women should be liberated from oppression in the Middle East. Forget the banners, talk to the individuals. I'll bet you all the money I have (which ain't much Wink), that in any sizable demonstration, you are apt to find at the very... very least one feminist who believes the Taliban should have remained in power.



OK, I'll take your word on this, since I don't have any anti-war protestors around handy to do any polling.




> Your links are dated pre-war, and only further prove my point.



How did you come to this conclusion? The fact that many feminist groups opposed the Taliban before the war ( a fact also borne out in your sources) prove that post-war feminist must be aiding and abbeting the Taliban? 



> It's hard for them to understand how physical applications of force are almost always required to remove tyrants. Thus, the logical inconsistency in their platform of wanting women to be free but not wanting anyone to force the imprisoner away.



This I will more or less agree with, but again this isn't the same thing as you were claiming in your original post.

It seems that we may have been posting past each other to some extent. Your cites and arguments essentially tell me that most western feminist groups have so many other  conflicts(IMO quite legitimate, i.e. the embryotic Northern Alliance goverment was hardly a champion of women's rights either, which further illustrate the complexity of the issue) with the Bush&Co neoCon worldview that the little common ground that they do share (i.e. opposition ot the Taliban) is lost amongst the crossfire. I can agree with that, and I can also agree that radical feminists are idiots just as much as any other kind of radical,  but I still think you were, at best, painting with an overly broad brush witht he first comment on the supposed collusion between feminists and the Taliban.



> P.S. Where'd you get that quote in your signature? That's awesome.  Grin



I got the quote from one of those blog sites collecting humourous responses to the bombings.  I can't find the link right now, but it also had some quotes from a WW2 Vet who survived the bombs, something like "Wot, is that all those Ale Cider boys can come up with? I've been bombed by people with more class than that, I tell you".....


----------



## couchcommander (17 Jul 2005)

Hey Dare, 

I'm a little confused as to exactly what you are trying to convey (my two brain cells don't always work together). 



			
				Dare said:
			
		

> I'm afraid it's not unfounded, nor is it outrageous. I was not implying that all feminist organizers are aiding the disposed regime with direct support. I suggest you go to *any* anti-war demonstration (including anti-Iraq war demonstrations) and talk to the people you meet there. Ask them if they are feminist, and ask them how they feel women should be liberated from oppression in the Middle East. Forget the banners, talk to the individuals. I'll bet you all the money I have (which ain't much ), that in any sizable demonstration, you are apt to find at the very... very least one feminist who believes the Taliban should have remained in power.



I would be willing to bet money that this feminist reasons are along the lines that she opposes the chauvinistic and violent interference in another nations affairs so that men can further their influence and grip on the world, not because they support the Taleban...



> My words are an attack at hypocrites who are willing to leave Middle Eastern women in the dust to further their anti-War/US/West agendas. I welcome you to take a poll of your local universities Women Studies or Sociology departments and see how many support our removal of the Taliban.


I don't know much about Women's Studies but I know that as far as the sociology department goes, my experience is that you would indeed find a signifcantly higher proportion of the population against this action than you would find in the general population, but once again I don't think this is for due to any love for the Taleban. Many people I know who do not support armed interdiction in another states affairs do so not because they agree with what the state is doing (in fact for the vast vast majority of these people they think the Taleban and Saddam Hussein are some of the worst human beings that ever lived.... though they will usually put Bush on that list as well), but because they do not support the use of violence or force, period (some even for self-defence). 



> Your links are dated pre-war, and only further prove my point. The article you claim debunks the article I posted, doesn't address many points and what it uses to support it are specious and dated as well. I recommend you read the comments under it, the author seems to illustrate my point exactly (and also proves she doesn't know what she's talking about). The scarcity of articles on the Taliban from feminists post-war is telling. I would like to see even one celebrating our removal of the Taliban (A real celebratory one.)



I doubt you'd find a paper celebrating the removal of the Taleban. The Abstract from "Interchanges" explains why (I've typed it as it is in an uncopyable format):

       Establishing women's rights became part of the moral justification given for waging 'war on terror' by ensuring regime change in Afghanistan. Yet by December 2002, Human Rights Watch was reporting ongoing violations of women's rights. Western presumptions that women's lives would be transformed simply by removing the Taliban were false. This 'interchange' explains the gap between gender politics and the current political and economic situation. Acknowledging such factors reveals that Wstern intervention will not easily subvert the existing gender order. Rather, any real change will result, not from prescribing Western models, but by enabling Afghan women to be autonomous agents with the right to determine their own life plans. 

Wylie, Gillian. 2003. Women's rights and 'righteous war'. Feminist Theory 4,(2): 217-223. Sage Publications, www.sagepublications.com. (those of your with a Campus Computing ID can view the journal online via the Library E -Journal Database... just search for "Feminist Theory", then the article....HA! Revenge upon all of you with DIN access, !!!)



> It's hard for them to understand how physical applications of force are almost always required to remove tyrants.



You mean to remove them quickly.



> Thus, the logical inconsistency in their platform of wanting women to be free but not wanting anyone to force the imprisoner away. You might not see it, but I see an incredible hypocracy to a feminist wearing a kaffiyah and waving a PLO flag. Or a feminist calling us Nazi's for attacking Afghanistan. As if they were real close to liberating themselves or holding a bloodless revolution. You might not call it support to conduct such actions, that's fine. Perhaps you are thinking in militaristic terms of direct support. I am thinking of moral support and popular support.


You don't need to go to war affect change. Their point is no war is good. They would rather be oppressed than kill tens of thousands of civilians (and yes, they do die under tyrants as well).

Another extract:

       A year ago, when women's rights and peace advocate Hibaaq Osman was giving a speech at the United Nations, she cited only one cause for which the use of military force might be justified: to oust the oppressive Taliban regime from Afghanistan. Now that the bloody effort is under way, however, Osman, who heads the Center for Strategic Initiatives in Washington, feels differently.

"I said it, but I was just making a point," a distraught Osman recalls. "This predicament is a test for feminists. We have seen our worst nightmare -- women being dehumanized and shot in public -- and it makes us more radical. It makes us angry enough to entertain the idea of war. But do I support war?" Osman pauses to consider her own country, Somalia, with its brutal history, before bursting out with an emotional "No. No. No. War is not OK under any circumstances," and then concluding, "The whole thing simply breaks my heart."

The four-week-old military attack on Afghanistan is proving to be an excruciating dilemma for feminists. In heart-wrenching conversations and e-mail exchanges across the city and the globe, feminists find themselves split over how to handle possibly the most misogynistic regime in history. Many are deeply uncomfortable with the specter of a wealthy nation bombing a poor and already ravaged one -- a discomfort that is only deepened by the knowledge that more women than men die as a result of most wars. And as national loyalties are stoked by current events, feminists are further strained to reconcile their patriotism with the desire to reach out to women throughout the globe.

 - http://www.newhumanist.com/feminists.html



> The Feminist Majority, despite it's name and star power, is not actually the majorty of the feminist movement. People (of either gender), who honestly value the rights of women, don't support what the theocratic tyrannies allow against women.
> 
> http://www.equityfeminism.com/archives/years/2001/000114.html (succinct and on point)
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A52639-2001Oct12&notFound=true (the article which is linked in the above)
> ...



I don't quite think the Feminist Majority supports islamic regimes. I'd check that over one more time.

In the end I think my point is that to me, and from my very limited understanding on the topic, I have not encountered a feminist yet who supported the Taleban or other islamic fundamentalists regimes. Their opposition to the invasion in afghanistan and their participation in anti-war demonstrations was based on a fundamental objection to violence, especially large scale war. Further, they usually believe that the removal of the Taleban did not actually help the situation enough to justify the lives lost. 

(for the record I am 100% behind the Campaign in afganistan or any other war in which the removal of a dictatorial, abusive tyrant is the goal... as long as it is done in such a way as to minimize civilian looses.... nor am I a feminist, or a woman for that matter... I just have been exposed to them...*shudderz*... bah, feminists...gives me the shivers...)


----------



## Dare (17 Jul 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> OK, I'll take your word on this, since I don't have any anti-war protestors around handy to do any polling.


If you can keep a straight face, give it a go.


> How did you come to this conclusion? The fact that many feminist groups opposed the Taliban before the war ( a fact also borne out in your sources) prove that post-war feminist must be aiding and abbeting the Taliban?


It's the (semi)mysterious silence after the war and in the run-up to the war as a generalized feminist group policy (as a part of the larger socialist construct) for many groups. It's difficult for me to describe the patterns I see emerging sometimes. This is one of those times. I have been to events where I have seen this merging take place (albiet the neo-Nazi element has yet to make a serious overt appearance at anti-war events (to my knowledge (although I suppose that Dresden protest could be considered one)). They are making inroads in concerts and festivals. Neo-Nazi music is gaining footholds in areas. There is a definite, and serious alliance forming. Right now it's street theatre but it's all on a rise, in all sectors of society. 

Protestwarrior has some pretty decent protest videos if you want to take a look. There are other places you can download videos of them, but the best is always first hand.


> This I will more or less agree with, but again this isn't the same thing as you were claiming in your original post.


It was part of what I was and am claiming.


> It seems that we may have been posting past each other to some extent. Your cites and arguments essentially tell me that most western feminist groups have so many other  conflicts(IMO quite legitimate, i.e. the embryotic Northern Alliance goverment was hardly a champion of women's rights either, which further illustrate the complexity of the issue) with the Bush&Co neoCon worldview that the little common ground that they do share (i.e. opposition ot the Taliban) is lost amongst the crossfire. I can agree with that, and I can also agree that radical feminists are idiots just as much as any other kind of radical,  but I still think you were, at best, painting with an overly broad brush witht he first comment on the supposed collusion between feminists and the Taliban.


Well, N.O.W. is quite a large organization. The Feminist Majority is the only group that I could find that was in favour of removing the Taliban with force once we chose to make it happen and they're a relatively new group. Yes, there is a legitimate concern with the Northern Alliance, yet there is trumpetting of all sorts of victories and defeats on the mainstream feminist political landscape. Most are relatively mute on Afghanistan. There's two seperate issues that I was referring to here. The big Hush or lack of support for the Talibans removal, and afterwards several factions (the far left contigent) taking it even further and supporting the maligning dictators that ruled previous (over *cough* U.S. Imperialism). This is why I described it as I did. I did not say all feminists were supporting the Taliban, which is why I said that most feminists have come on side (as opposed to following the hypocracy of the herd.) Those that remain are the types you can see delivering firey anti-Imperialism, clap-trap filled speeches, completely ignoring the plight of most women and focusing on divisive issues like abortion. Their cause is not womens rights.


----------



## Britney Spears (17 Jul 2005)

Fair enough, thanks.


----------



## Dare (17 Jul 2005)

couchcommander said:
			
		

> Hey Dare,
> 
> I'm a little confused as to exactly what you are trying to convey (my two brain cells don't always work together).


That's alright. Mine don't either.


> I would be willing to bet money that this feminist reasons are along the lines that she opposes the chauvinistic and violent interference in another nations affairs so that men can further their influence and grip on the world, not because they support the Taleban...


I would say that is generally true in some matters. I'll explain at the bottom.


> I don't know much about Women's Studies but I know that as far as the sociology department goes, my experience is that you would indeed find a signifcantly higher proportion of the population against this action than you would find in the general population, but once again I don't think this is for due to any love for the Taleban. Many people I know who do not support armed interdiction in another states affairs do so not because they agree with what the state is doing (in fact for the vast vast majority of these people they think the Taleban and Saddam Hussein are some of the worst human beings that ever lived.... though they will usually put Bush on that list as well), but because they do not support the use of violence or force, period (some even for self-defence).


Certainly, I would agree with that on one level. On another, I think that many want Bush to get some punches (like many in the rest of of the political realm), and will oppose any move he makes.


> I doubt you'd find a paper celebrating the removal of the Taleban. The Abstract from "Interchanges" explains why (I've typed it as it is in an uncopyable format):
> 
> Establishing women's rights became part of the moral justification given for waging 'war on terror' by ensuring regime change in Afghanistan. Yet by December 2002, Human Rights Watch was reporting ongoing violations of women's rights. Western presumptions that women's lives would be transformed simply by removing the Taliban were false. This 'interchange' explains the gap between gender politics and the current political and economic situation. Acknowledging such factors reveals that Wstern intervention will not easily subvert the existing gender order. Rather, any real change will result, not from prescribing Western models, but by enabling Afghan women to be autonomous agents with the right to determine their own life plans.
> 
> Wylie, Gillian. 2003. Women's rights and 'righteous war'. Feminist Theory 4,(2): 217-223. Sage Publications, www.sagepublications.com. (those of your with a Campus Computing ID can view the journal online via the Library E -Journal Database... just search for "Feminist Theory", then the article....HA! Revenge upon all of you with DIN access, !!!)


There's a few problems with this persons outlook. One is that Afghan women are definitely in a better position than they were before the war. Definitely. Of course, we can't do everything instantly, but no one really thought we were trying to do that. The second problem I see is that this person disconnects "Western models" from "enabling Afghan women to be autonomous agents with the right to determine their own life plans". That's exactly what our prescribed Western model is designed to do.


> You mean to remove them quickly.


No, I would say my statement is fairly accurate that most tyrannical dictatorships are removed by force. Even slowly by force. Rose revolutions and violet revolutions are rare.


> You don't need to go to war affect change. Their point is no war is good. They would rather be oppressed than kill tens of thousands of civilians (and yes, they do die under tyrants as well).


Certainly. Therein lies the logical defect. 


> Another extract:
> 
> A year ago, when women's rights and peace advocate Hibaaq Osman was giving a speech at the United Nations, she cited only one cause for which the use of military force might be justified: to oust the oppressive Taliban regime from Afghanistan. Now that the bloody effort is under way, however, Osman, who heads the Center for Strategic Initiatives in Washington, feels differently.
> 
> ...


I would say that is exactly my point, on one of my points. The moral confusion and compromising. 


> I don't quite think the Feminist Majority supports islamic regimes. I'd check that over one more time.


I don't think that they do either. Seperate those two sentences, I should have wrote that better.


> In the end I think my point is that to me, and from my very limited understanding on the topic, I have not encountered a feminist yet who supported the Taleban or other islamic fundamentalists regimes. Their opposition to the invasion in afghanistan and their participation in anti-war demonstrations was based on a fundamental objection to violence, especially large scale war. Further, they usually believe that the removal of the Taleban did not actually help the situation enough to justify the lives lost.


Yes, there are many of those as well. That is part of what I am saying. They oppose violence against the Taliban which gives support to the Taliban. *Perhaps* it can be described as an anti-war position rather than a pro-Taliban, in that sense. Which is why I also mentioned that it is more akin to moral and popular support. Yet still, rather than directly supporting all the Talibans causes they support their continued existance (by not offering a realistic and practical solution to their removal), which is definitely a main Taliban cause and furthers the rest. Thus, the Taliban were (and are) served by these people who think we never should have gone to war in the first place. Now, I have encountered feminists who support Islamic fundamentalist regimes in more direct terms over western "imperialism" who are allied in their fights against the Dreaded Zionism. Strange creatures, but they exist. They don't know any better and I would say are akin to useful idiots. There are also seemingly intelligent "feminists" that I have seen (for instance) on CBC defending these theocratic tyrannies existence, and offering no other real practical solutions. Simply suggesting that we should mind our own business and it's excusable because it's another culture (and thus apparently legitimate) or that before Bush "they" were winning the war. While we have to realize that most people who support these regimes continued existance don't really believe in (or know of) the policies of the power structure they defend. They are often tricked into believing that the oppressors are the oppressed and that the reason they are oppressors in the first place is because we made them that way (absolving the oppressors of any responsibility for their actions). The fifth columnists don't care if their supporters truely believe in the cause, they only care how many broad groupings of the public these activists can get steered. The more the merrier. 


> (for the record I am 100% behind the Campaign in afganistan or any other war in which the removal of a dictatorial, abusive tyrant is the goal... as long as it is done in such a way as to minimize civilian looses.... nor am I a feminist, or a woman for that matter... I just have been exposed to them...*shudderz*... bah, feminists...gives me the shivers...)


----------



## couchcommander (17 Jul 2005)

Dare said:
			
		

> Certainly, I would agree with that on one level. On another, I think that many want Bush to get some punches (like many in the rest of of the political realm), and will oppose any move he makes.


I wouldn't disagree with that. 



> There's a few problems with this persons outlook. One is that Afghan women are definitely in a better position than they were before the war. Definitely. Of course, we can't do everything instantly, but no one really thought we were trying to do that. The second problem I see is that this person disconnects "Western models" from "enabling Afghan women to be autonomous agents with the right to determine their own life plans". That's exactly what our prescribed Western model is designed to do.



I'd challenge you to demonstrate your assertion that they are, for the most part, in a better position, as I would argue that for the majority of Afghan women their situation is fundamentally the same (some more superficial things may have changed, and yes for a great many opportunities are greatly increasing, that is true). Regarding the problem with adopting western models, it's not that western models are bad, in fact I would say that this is what they are aiming for. Her point, however, is that imposing them from the top down is not going to be effective. The change needs to occur within Afghan society itself and start with the women _themselves_ expressing what it is _they_ want. Many Muslims women I know have no problem wearing a burqa, or a head scarf, and many are in fact proud of it. Though I personally agree that removing the Taleban has done a lot for this cause, they can quite sucessfully argue otherwise (you mentioned reactive factors.... people don't like being told what to do, doubly so when it is at the point of a gun...)



> No, I would say my statement is fairly accurate that most tyrannical dictatorships are removed by force. Even slowly by force. Rose revolutions and violet revolutions are rare.



People die, people get old. And there are many examples of so called "peaceful" revolutions in history...



> Certainly. Therein lies the logical defect. I would say that is exactly my point, on one of my points. The moral confusion and compromising. I don't think that they do either.



I don't see any logical contradiction in wanting to acheive ones ulitmate goals of peace, happiness, acceptance, etc. by only supporting peaceful methods. In fact I would argue that it would be morally compromising for them to support violence and warfare (We want a harmonous society where no one is oppressed, and we will not only oppress you but kill you to get it!). 



> Yes, there are many of those as well. That is part of what I am saying. They oppose violence against the Taliban which gives support to the Taliban. *Perhaps* it can be described as an anti-war position rather than a pro-Taliban, in that sense. Which is why I also mentioned that it is more akin to moral and popular support. Yet still, rather than directly supporting all the Talibans causes they support their continued existance (by not offering a realistic and practical solution to their removal), which is definitely a main Taliban cause and furthers the rest. Thus, the Taliban were (and are) served by these people who think we never should have gone to war in the first place.



The old "You're either with us or against us...." I don't buy that. Saying I don't support killing people is not even close to saying "I support the Taleban", even on moral and popular groups. In fact taking a stand against violence and opression would be taking the moral opposite of Taleban thinking. Not doing anything is oftentimes just as effective as doing something drastic. 



> Now, I have encountered feminists who support Islamic fundamentalist regimes in more direct terms over western "imperialism" who are allied in their fights against the Dreaded Zionism. Strange creatures, but they exist. They don't know any better and I would say are akin to useful idiots. There are also seemingly intelligent "feminists" that I have seen (for instance) on CBC defending these theocratic tyrannies existence, and offering no other real practical solutions. Simply suggesting that we should mind our own business and it's excusable because it's another culture (and thus apparently legitimate) or that before Bush "they" were winning the war. While we have to realize that most people who support these regimes continued existance don't really believe in (or know of) the policies of the power structure they defend. They are often tricked into believing that the oppressors are the oppressed and that the reason they are oppressors in the first place is because we made them that way (absolving the oppressors of any responsibility for their actions). The fifth columnists don't care if their supporters truely believe in the cause, they only care how many broad groupings of the public these activists can get steered. The more the merrier.



There are crazy people of all stripes.

[edit]

Forgot my disclaimer...

I am not a feminist and I was for the war in Afghanistan, I am just trying to express where it is some of these people are coming from. 

[edit again]

I will definately agree that there are some very confused people out there who are more concerned with what their image is, and as you said, opposing everything Bush does, than actually pursuing postitive change. However, the reason for my response here I think lies in my rejection of the notion that regime change must be done using violent means, and further and more substantially a refusal to accept the assertion that by opposing the invasion of Afganistan and other wars, these feminists, and other humanitarian groups are someone not only "doing nothing" to help their own causes, but somehow helping and supporting the enemy. 

However, I think we've managed to diverge from the track this thread was supposed to go on, that being how do we "combat" terrorists who are members of our own society? (correct me if I am wrong Edward Campbell). 

Luckily, it can be saved. In this argument, and the one before it (regarding subcultures), my main, overriding, and cohesive point was that when we are faced with a situation such as this, traditional militaristic solutions may not be the best way of dealing with them. Though, IMO (and many disagree with this), they do indeed serve their purpose , if we are to "win" this war, and I would indeed call it a war, we must do more than engage only the most visible enemies, using only a fraction of our resources, on battlefiels far from where the real threat lies.

The real threat is beside us, within our own nation. We must, in short, mobilize the entire population, but in a very different way than is usually the case. Rather than mobilizing to fight, we must mobilize them to care and accept. Only by taking down the invisible, societal barriers that seperate our cultures can we identify with one another and begin to see us for the fundamentally homogenous group we really are. Only by doing this can we ensure that an attack upon Canada is seen for what it really is, an attack upon us all as a Nation.

By ensuring that Muslim communities are wholey part of this nation we ensure that they will be as concerned and upset about even the possibility of such an event as we all here are. They will not see it as an attack upon outsiders, but upon themselves as well. With this attitude in place we will deny those people who are pursuing this war the fuel they need to carry it out, and in short, we will win. 

Otherwise, if we continue to pursue a policy of "them" vs. "us" we will only continue to breed more "them's"

Thanks,


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Jul 2005)

couchcommander said:
			
		

> ...
> From my own, very superficial and quick dive into muslim theology (so I could be very wrong), I didn't see any real conflict between western libertarian values and Islam. In fact if one looks back into history one can see that Islamic societies, can, and have been some of the most accepting and toleran societies around. In short, I don't think the values that you and I hold dear are all that foreign to your average Muslim, nor are they things which they would need to come to accept but rather are values that they already hold. I think you are very right, however, that these views infuriate some muslims, but that can be said about Christians as well.
> 
> IMO the disconnect, and the cause of our apparent inability to live harmonously (I am not saying that muslims and Christians don't live harmonously, just that some don't), is sadly not some fundamental value difference but a set of assumptions and perceptions based more upon hersey and snap judgements that put up a wall between people before they have even met...



I must stipulate, first, that my knowledge of Islam is deficient â â€œ worse than superficial, I'm sure.

That being said, I do see a *â ?... real conflict between western libertarian values and Islam.â ?*  It seems to me that there is one huge gap which makes the _Western canon_ inaccessible to Islam.  Islam requires, in fact Muslim means submission to the will of god as defined, etc, etc, etc.  The entire _liberal_ Western canon is about individuals â â€œ sovereign individuals, answerable only to their conscience or ideals or intellects, not to gods and shamans, struggling with all sorts of authority.  It has its roots in Greece and in Christianity but the _liberal_, modern Western canon is profoundly secular: everything from Milton's _Principia Mathematica_ through Beethoven's 5th symphony and John Stuart Mill's essays scream â Å“Iâ ? ... â Å“I, canâ ? ... â Å“I, unchained from gods or God, can understand and deal with the entire universe, with _all that is, seen and unseen_, and _I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul_*.â ?

It seems to me that submission to God's will, in all things â â€œ which I understand to be the absolute core of Islam -  is totally and completely antithetical to our liberal, Western _Civilization_, as in _Clash of Civilizations_.

I, personally, believe Sam Huntington was far more right than wrong in 1993 and I still believe that his thesis, _The Clash of Civilizations_**, is 'right' because it does a good job â â€œ better than any other with which I am familiar - at explaining what we are seeing, which is what theories are supposed to do. 

Maybe I'm just a pessimistic chauvinist.

By the way, elsewhere - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/32541/post-240019.html#msg240019 to be specific - Kevin B said: _â ? I dont see any of us espousing carpet bombing the ME just to get insurgents ...â ?_  I expect that the entire Arab _world_ and those of many of the North African and South-West Asian neighbours will be convulsed in bitter, bloody, internecine wars and revolutions for a couple of generations, at least, while religious reformations (including of both the _reformed_ and _fundamentalist_ varieties) and counter-reformations are attempted.  I think _carpet bombing the ME_ might provide a welcome respite for the people there.

Those inevitable (in my opinion) long, bloody wars are, I think, an essential precursor to some sort of _peace_ between the Arabic Muslims and the West.  I believe Huntington's _Clash of Civilizations_ is, right now, sowing the seeds for those reformations (we had more than one, if you stop and think about it) and the consequential, deeply hoped for _enlightenment_ which may follow.

----------

* Yes, I know that these are (reputed to be?) McVeigh's last words but that stupid cracker was never man enough to fill Henley's shoes or dirty his _cri de coeur_.

** http://www.alamut.com/subj/economics/misc/clash.html


----------



## paracowboy (17 Jul 2005)

couchcommander said:
			
		

> I'd challenge you to demonstrate your assertion that they are, for the most part, in a better position,


'kay, in the 6 months I was there, I saw 3 schools opened that were expressly for women to learn trades, computer skills, and English. The women began to speak to us (yeah, to us, foreign males), and some stopped wearing burkhas in the alleys or sidestreets, even when we approached. In the last elections, women voted and women are in government. That work?



> The old "You're either with us or against us...." I don't buy that. Saying I don't support killing people is not even close to saying "I support the Taleban", even on moral and popular groups.


no, but speaking out aginst the soldiers risking their lives for the very people speaking against them is demoralizing for friendlies, and improves morale for enemies (see Hanoi Jane) and increases the risks those soldiers are undergoing.



> Not doing anything is oftentimes just as effective as doing something drastic.


 not doing anything means you are giving those you oppose carte blanche to do as they will. If you get slapped and do nothing, you will continue to get slapped. At least by covering your head, you minimize the effect of the blow.



> However, the reason for my response here I think lies in my rejection of the notion that regime change must be done using violent means,


 and how do you propose overthrowing a tyrannical regime by non-violent means? Amnesty International has shown us all how incredibly ineffective letter campaigns are. History is replete with examples of violence proving effective. I am completely unaware of any historical example of a dictator or cartel being overthrown through peaceful means. At the least, there has always been a power standing nearby with a large stick, threatening violence.



> Though, IMO (and many disagree with this), they do indeed serve their purpose , if we are to "win" this war, and I would indeed call it a war, we must do more than engage only the most visible enemies, using only a fraction of our resources, on battlefiels far from where the real threat lies.


yes, our gov'ts and militaries are aware of this. It's why they have developed an integrated approach using economic pressure, political pressure, economic incentives, re-building nations, and men like me shooting people.



> Only by taking down the invisible, societal barriers that seperate our cultures can we identify with one another and begin to see us for the fundamentally homogenous group we really are. Only by doing this can we ensure that an attack upon Canada is seen for what it really is, an attack upon us all as a Nation.


and we can best do this by simply treating everyone as equals. And everyone is treated exactly the same in Basic Training.   Jus' messin' with ya, ya hippy freak, ya.  ;D



> By ensuring that Muslim communities are wholey part of this nation we ensure that they will be as concerned and upset about even the possibility of such an event as we all here are. They will not see it as an attack upon outsiders, but upon themselves as well. With this attitude in place we will deny those people who are pursuing this war the fuel they need to carry it out, and in short, we will win.


 ah, but there's the rub! By going out of our way to make them feel included, we simply emphasize their "different-ness". We have done our part, now it's up to those disenfranchised Muslims to do theirs, and step up to the plate. Canada has made "Tolerance" our national religion. How much more can we do? And when should we expect some returns on our investment? 



> Otherwise, if we continue to pursue a policy of "them" vs. "us" we will only continue to breed more "them's"


to me, "us" is any Canadian citizen. Them is anyone who attempts to harm a Canadian citizen. And the "them's" started it. Even after "us" welcomed "them" into our nation, "them" have continued to act against "us". "Them" have used our resources to sponsor acts of terror against "us" and our allies. It's up to the Muslims amongst "us" to speak out, and act out, against "them". Having served alongside 4 Muslims in the past, I know well that there are Muslims amongst "us". But too few speak out, and make their presence amongst "us" known.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Jul 2005)

Here is yet another point of view, this time from Robert Fulford in yesterday's _National Post_:

http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=146797ec-ea45-4876-95ac-dd0c4a1a3111 


> Islamophobia isn't the problem
> 
> Robert Fulford
> National Post
> ...



_â ?Thoughtless, geneial toleranceâ ?_ is, of course, the centrepiece of liberalism - if we have to stop and think about being tolerant then we are anything but _liberal_ - we do not see people as individuals, rather we classify them by groups: class, race, nationality, sex - whatever.  But how can we, all of us in the West, resist the siren song of _â ?carefully considered toleranceâ ?_ - casting a suspicious eye at our neighbours just because of their ethnicity or religion?


----------



## couchcommander (17 Jul 2005)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> 'kay, in the 6 months I was there, I saw 3 schools opened that were expressly for women to learn trades, computer skills, and English. The women began to speak to us (yeah, to us, foreign males), and some stopped wearing burkhas in the alleys or sidestreets, even when we approached. In the last elections, women voted and women are in government. That work?


Was this widespread across the whole country, or limited to certain urban areas under NATO control (I don't know, that's why I am asking)? If it was widespread then I would certainly agree,but my impression to this point has been that for the majority of afghan women, not just those in certain areas, things are _fundamentally_ similar (ie they still have no respect from the men, they are still considered property, etc., though once agian I could be very wrong). 



> no, but speaking out aginst the soldiers risking their lives for the very people speaking against them is demoralizing for friendlies, and improves morale for enemies (see Hanoi Jane) and increases the risks those soldiers are undergoing.


Fair enough, but they still are not _supporting_ the taleban, even if they are making our jobs harder. 



> not doing anything means you are giving those you oppose carte blanche to do as they will. If you get slapped and do nothing, you will continue to get slapped. At least by covering your head, you minimize the effect of the blow.


How does the Napoleon quote go? "Never interrupt your opponent when he is in the middle of making a mistake"?



> and how do you propose overthrowing a tyrannical regime by non-violent means? Amnesty International has shown us all how incredibly ineffective letter campaigns are. History is replete with examples of violence proving effective. I am completely unaware of any historical example of a dictator or cartel being overthrown through peaceful means. At the least, there has always been a power standing nearby with a large stick, threatening violence.


An example off the top of my head, that i hope won't inspire much debate (as there are many, though I'm sure you would not readily agree to most), is Pinochet, in Chile (and yes, there was violence in Chile, and yes, there were violent groups operating against him, HOWEVER, his downfall cannot be attributed to either of these, rather a mistake on his part (calling a plebiscite).....I really don't feel like getting into a debate on this small point, if you don't like it, say so and I will find another). 



> yes, our gov'ts and militaries are aware of this. It's why they have developed an integrated approach using economic pressure, political pressure, economic incentives, re-building nations, and men like me shooting people.


Yes indeed, this is all good, but this needs to be combined with social action by the people. 



> and we can best do this by simply treating everyone as equals. And everyone is treated exactly the same in Basic Training.    Jus' messin' with ya, ya hippy freak, ya.   ;D


Mandatory military training is not something I am opposed to (and yes, for the last freakin time, how many times do i have to say it!?  i AM NOT advocating treating them differently, but rather trying to eliminate within ourselves, and they within therselves, the perceptions and attitudes towards one another that prevent us from becomming a cohesive unit). 



> ah, but there's the rub! By going out of our way to make them feel included, we simply emphasize their "different-ness". We have done our part, now it's up to those disenfranchised Muslims to do theirs, and step up to the plate. Canada has made "Tolerance" our national religion. How much more can we do? And when should we expect some returns on our investment?


Bah! No, no different. It's simple, think of them as part of "us" rather than "them" becuase as long as we continue to see them as "them" they will continue to be "them" and not a homogenous part of our society. 



> to me, "us" is any Canadian citizen. Them is anyone who attempts to harm a Canadian citizen. And the "them's" started it. Even after "us" welcomed "them" into our nation, "them" have continued to act against "us". "Them" have used our resources to sponsor acts of terror against "us" and our allies. It's up to the Muslims amongst "us" to speak out, and act out, against "them". Having served alongside 4 Muslims in the past, I know well that there are Muslims amongst "us". But too few speak out, and make their presence amongst "us" known.


Perfect! "us" includes all Canadians against terrorist acts, while "them" are the terrorists, perfect.... that's what we need IMO, now we just to move this into action and start behaving like it (which, I am not saying you aren't, I am using a very large "we"). 

Edward Campbell:

I'm at work now and I don't have access to my library, and I need to look some things up so that I don't go off spattering what may be useless and incorrect information, so I will get to your substantive post in a few hours.  

But re: the National Post article, I would ask at what University or Colledge did Robert Fulford undertake a study Sociology that would enable him to make such bold statements as he does in his last two paragraphs? (this is one thing I hate Journalists for.... you give them an audience and all of a sudden they are experts on everything, if they were forced to follow Mike's rules most would be banned by now....)

Saying that, however, I think that this article goes towards the point I am making regarding accetance, and the point you and dare are making towards equality. 

I mentioned that not only do _we_ need to ensure that we take down the barriers that prevent us from treating muslims groups as part of our society (and I would question whether the British truely do this or just go out of their way to "appear" friendly, while still treating them as outsiders, which is what I would suspect is the case, and seems to be the case most of my English relatives, though of course they are only a very small portion), but at the same time I was clear that the Muslim groups need to do this as well, and this paragraph:

"But does Islamophobia exist? Last winter Kenan Malik, a London writer, interviewed dozens of ordinary Muslims for his Channel 4 documentary, Are Muslims Hated? They all believed that police harassment was common, though none of them had been stopped and searched. They thought physical attacks were also common, but few had been attacked or knew anyone who had."

shows that at the _very_ least the muslims still see it, "them" and "us". 

Thanks,


----------



## Britney Spears (19 Jul 2005)

> Well I guess you never spoke to someone from pre-moorish Spain, Byzantine Empire, Constantinople, Balkans, Barbary Coast etc. but then again I haven't either   maybe they liked having their political and spiritual leaders killed and being forced to adopt the culture and religion of the benevolent conquerers?



Uhhhh are you quite sure about this one sir? Everything I've ever read seems to indicate that the Islamic Empire of the 11th and 12th Century was by far the most progressive and tolerant that Europe and the Near East had ever seen, hardly suprising since it was also the richest and most prosperous. Just off the top of my head, I know that

- Almost everything we know about the acient world comes from sources that were preserved by Muslim scholars and later translated from Arabic. 

- Our modern day scientific method mostly traces it's roots back to Islami thinkers and philosophers,, at the time the only ones who had access to the earlier works of Aristotle and Euclid.

- It was the crusaders who destroyed Byzantium and Jereuselum(Sp).


----------



## Britney Spears (19 Jul 2005)

OK, so do you agree or disagree with this statement:



> The Islamic Empire of the 11th and 12th Century was by far the most progressive and tolerant that Europe and the Near East had ever seen, hardly suprising since it was also the richest and most prosperous.


----------



## paracowboy (19 Jul 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> OK, so do you agree or disagree with this statement:


I agree. A quick perusal of journals/letters dating from the time tell you how shocked Europeans were at the advanced society found under Islam. Chinese and Indian travellers/merchants considered it to be on par with their own. 

But, your minds are made up.


----------



## Acorn (19 Jul 2005)

Islam specifically prohibits "conversion by the sword" and the expanding Muslim Empire of the 7th to about the 12thC actually followed that (more or less). They conquered, sure, but they didn't conduct anything resembling the Inquisition either. They were certainly very advanced, in medicine and science (particularly astronomy - the Great Navigators of Europe made good use of that science later).

Acorn


----------



## 48Highlander (20 Jul 2005)

Well, with the exception of a few people who seem to like sticking to pre-conceived stereotypes, I think we can all agree that in the 11th-12th Century, Islamic society far surpassed Christian society, both in technological achievements and benevolence.  That's not to say they were angels by any means, but they were certainly better than any fifedom in Europe.  Now, why is this argument relevant in modern times exactly?  So Europe and Christian society improved, while the Middle East fell apart and regressed.  I'm just curious why anyone would bother arguing about what they were like a thousand years ago.


----------



## paracowboy (20 Jul 2005)

S_Baker said:
			
		

> Now I can see why the majority of Canadians in a recent pole trust the benevolent rulers in China more that the warmongering Americans.     Benevolent Islam, I love it...you need to read a few more history books about Islamic conquests, they certainly were not Jehova witnesses or Mormons knocking at one's door....
> 
> However I can see this conversation is going no where.


yes, that's right. All Canadians despise America.  :  Especially those of us here. Yup, nobody hates America more than us. 

 I suggest you take your own advice and 





> read a few more history books about Islamic conquests


. What is being related here are simple facts. At the time, the Islamic world was far more advanced than the Christian. In the same time frame, Christians were far more primitive, more blood thirsty, and less tolerant, than Muslims. In the time since, they have regressed while we have advanced.


----------



## 48Highlander (20 Jul 2005)

S_Baker said:
			
		

> I think possibly because the Islamo facists indeed use the 7 century arguements for justifying their attacks on the Christian west.



So you have to sink down to the same level?  Seriously, anyone with an IQ over 40 should be able to figure out that the state of certain societies over a thusand years ago, or actions perpetuated by them at that time, cannot be seriously used as a justification for anything done today.  Even your "islamofascists" aren't trying to get revenge for the crusades - they have current goals that are relevant to the world as it is today and use examples of persecution (real or imagined) which occured over a thousand years ago only to perpetuate the idea that they've somehow always been victimized.  For instance, a suicide bomber might blow himself up because he feels that the invasion of Iraq is imperialistic and he wants Americans out of the middle east because he doesn't want foreigners influenceing the way Islamic states are run.  That's a current goal, something that he feels can be accomplished.  On the other hand, I'm sure you'd have quite a rough time convincing the same man to blow himself up because some Christians a thousand years ago went rampaging through the middle east.

That's also why there's no point for us to argue about the past.  What matters is our current goals and objectives, and justifications which are relevant today.  Even assuming that Muslims were burtal horrible mindless savages who slaughtered the pure-hearted Chirstian Crusaders, that has no relevance to us today.  We fight for goals we feel are acheivable - such as curbing terrorism, promoting freedom and democracy, encouraging globalization and securing resources.  Those are goals we feel are worth fighting for, goals that many of us would lay our lives on the line for.  Good luck convincing your average soldier to do the same thing in order to get revenge for Christian deaths which occured during the Crusades.


----------



## paracowboy (20 Jul 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Seriously, anyone with an IQ over 40 should be able to figure out that the state of certain societies over a thusand years ago, or actions perpetuated by them at that time, cannot be seriously used as a justification for anything done today.   Even your "islamofascists" aren't trying to get revenge for the crusades - they have current goals that are relevant to the world as it is today and use examples of persecution (real or imagined) which occured over a thousand years ago only to perpetuate the idea that they've somehow always been victimized...


hmmm, gotta disagree here. They also use the argument that they are owed the land from Southern France to the Bering Strait. Because at one time or another, they did have possession. And they are intent on utilizing tactics similar to those used by the Hashishan. So, studying the ancient history of Islam is pertinent to understanding what they're after now. In the Islamic world, last century and last week are equally relevent. After all, they refer to us as 'Crusaders' and 'Franks'. 
They base their entire fight on a cause begun 1200 years ago. That seems like a good reason to look into the roots of the Islamo-nutjob movement. 
While we're shooting them in the face, we need to know how make them stop requiring us to do it. Eventually, the recoil is gonna start making troop's shoulders sore.


----------



## Infanteer (20 Jul 2005)

I agree 100% with my learned friend Paracowboy (I really like the recoil statement.... >)

I think there could be some utility in exploring these questions.   From my understanding, time is viewed within a much more compressed factor when it comes to Islamic scholarship and thought - what happened in the 7th, 11th and 17th centuries are discussed as if they happened yesterday.   This is certainly apparent in reading some of the publicized writings of our enemies, such as Fatwas and the like, where supporting evidence is drawn from the _Hadith_ (biographies of the Prophet and his companions) and the works of scholars from 1000 years ago.   I imagine that this is why _Al Andalus_ seems to be a hot topic of time, although Islam has been pretty dead in Spain for 500 years.   As well, it appears that Islam seems to stick much closer to the "Core Doctrine" of the _Qu'ran_ and the _Hadith_, so scholarship from the 8th century is still very relevent to Muslim people.

Now, as I've been harping of late, if we are going to undermine the enemy, we must do it through his frame of reference and not ours.   We have proof positive that, under the Abbasid Caliphs, the Islamic world was a truly progressive one.

Perhaps, instead of attacking the reactionary viewpoints espoused by men like Osama bin Laden with notions of democracy and liberalism (to a society which has no history of the Magna Carta, Reformation, or Suffragettes) we should be looking to the past to find the social influences within an Islamic framework that made the Caliphate and its culture one of openness, learning, and prosperity.   We should combat intolerant viewpoints with the words of Omar al-Khayyam, Ibn Khaldun, al-Ghazali, and Averroes - which are likely to have a much more resounding affect on Muslims who hold a different view than us Westerners of Islam, history and the Ummah. (In essence, fight the Hearts and Minds battle with the right tools)

Infanteer

PS: In regards to paracowboy's advice on reading more books, I agree.   You seem to be confusing the Caliphate with some of the later empires such as the Ottomans.   Although, like most empires, it was one based upon conquest, it's rule was hardly the dark shroud you seem to imply that it is.   Here's a start for reading up on what set them apart from the "Dark Ages" of European culture.

As well, "conversion by the sword" was not the standard tactic - in Hourani's A History of the Arab Peoples, reference is made to a study of naming conventions within and outside of the Middle East; it appears that Islam did not become the dominant religion of the Middle East for *200 years* after the coming of Muhammed - it took longer in other regions.

PPS: Regarding concepts that could be useful to undermining the enemy through a Islamic framework, one interesting principle I discovered was Dar al-Ahd.   Osama bin Laden and Co. take a hardline stance, pointing out the difference between _Dar al-Islam_ (the House of Submission) and _Dar al-Harb_ (the House of War) demands that the infidel (re: us) be fought.   Perhaps we can utilize this very real idea from within an Islamic religious and legal framework to undermine this black-and-white interpretation of the world and to move mainstream Islam (ohh, about a billion people) to an acceptable (to Islamic thought) co-existence with the non-Muslim world.


----------



## a_majoor (20 Jul 2005)

My take on the matter is this is another aspect of the "Root Cause" manifesting itself: the Will to Power.

Muslims in the West are marginalized for many reasons, most of them not very good. This is the seemingly natural order of things, reading Canadian or American history, we know that the Irish, Ukrainians, Jews, Chinese, Poles, Blacks and virtually every other immigrant group was initially marginalized. In the United States, the model was "the faster you assimilate; the faster you succeed", and well assimilated groups are represented in all walks of society, from top to bottom.

For poorly assimilated groups, the desire to rise is there, but the outlets are not. If you can't make it in the outside world, you can always gain status and respect (or at least fearful acquiescence) in the "Black Hand", the "Triads", the "Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam", as a member of the "Indian Posse", and now, of course, one of the Islamic Terror groups.

This is one of the reasons I am not very convinced that "affirmative action" or group rights or any other program which *highlights* the differences between peoples and cultures can make a difference, it only reinforces the stereotyping and strengthens the cohesiveness of the group, and allows the "us and them" mentality to grow. These strengthen the hold of the groups offering power and influence, and this IMO is the real threat. In revolutionary warfare terms, this also fosters the creation of parallel infrastructures, which weaken the influence of the legitimate authorities.


----------



## Acorn (21 Jul 2005)

Changed my mind about involvement in this contest. Infanteer is so much better at it than I am, so I'll let him handle it.

Acorn


----------



## Britney Spears (21 Jul 2005)

Or maybe paracowboy should hit the gym. 

(What, still no response from the FN C1 appreciation club?)

I should add that the brand of Wahhabiism which we all know and love is a fairly recent phenomenon, and only really got off the ground with the counquest of Mecca and Medina by the House of Saud in the 1920s.  The fact that the fundamentalist state of Saudi Arabia seemd to do better than secular, Western oriented states like Iraq, Egypt and Syria(well, image is everything, and being bitchslapped by the Israelis every other year didn't inspire a lot of confidence in secular Arab nationalism) was a real boon to the spread of Wahhabiist  ideology.


----------



## paracowboy (21 Jul 2005)

gym? What is zis, "gym"? G-y-m. Gime? Gim? Jime? Jim? Plis to be hexplaining to me, plis.


----------



## a_majoor (22 Jul 2005)

Fine post on the difference between "Pluralism" and "Multiculturalism"

http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/007824.html



> *Defending western civilisation*
> Perry de Havilland (London)  Opinions on liberty
> Trackbacks to this post (0)
> 
> ...


----------



## Dare (23 Jul 2005)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/23/npoll23.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/07/23/ixnewstop.html

"Small" minority, indeed.



> One in four Muslims sympathises with motives of terrorists
> By Anthony King
> (Filed: 23/07/2005)
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Jul 2005)

We, if the Saturday papers are any reflection of 'we,' are still, I think, focused on the wrong thing.

"Islam,â ? says everyone and his brother, knowledgeable on the subject or not, "is a religion of peace.  Murder is contrary to Islamic teaching.â ?

"Fine,â ? I reply, "that's nice; totally irrelevant, but nice all the same.â ?

What is relevant?

There are, according to some Muslim organizations*, nearly 700,000 Muslims in Canada.  If only 2% are disaffected then we have 13,000+ bitter Muslims in Canada, if only 2% of those are willing and able to step down from bitter and become violent _jihadis_ then we have 250 (mostly) young people willing to carry bombs onto the Montreal _Metro_ or Toronto subway or Vancouver _Skytrain_.  If only 2% of those actually make the descent into madness then about 50 people will be killed in Toronto and 50 more in another city - maybe Calgary or Ottawa.

In today's _Globe and Mail_ (See: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20050723.BLASTMUSLIMS23/TPStory ) AP reporter Scheherezade Faramarzi says:


> ,,,
> Since the July 7 attacks, the Muslim community and the council have been scrambling to come up with a broad plan to find ways to channel the anger and frustration of Muslim youths to more positive use ... Already, local mosques and youth centres in the Muslim-populated neighbourhoods of London are teaching young men and women that Islam doesn't condone terrorism.
> 
> In one gathering, several young men wanted to know if the action of the bombers was right.
> ...



This is more pussyfooting around the problem.  There is not much point in _â ? providing mainstream schools with books, CDs, DVDs, videos and accompanying teaching aids ... to facilitate teaching of Islamâ ?_ if the aim is to stop Muslims from bombing trains and school-buses.  (That being said, I think we should teach everyone about different cultures and religions - if only to remind the silent majority that the yobs and yahoos who vandalize and desecrate synagogues, mosques and churches and snarl "_Paki!_â ? at a Sikh are ignorant, substandard human beings.)

If the aim is to protect innocent people and to preserve our way of life in what Thomas Homer-Dixon (see below) describes as our _brittle cities_ then we must take a wide range of active and passive measures, on several different levels, including:

"¢	Changing what young Muslims are taught about the West in schools and mosques here, in Canada - that may mean deporting _sheiks_ and _imans_ and the like and prosecuting religious leaders for hate crimes (those laws are on the books to 'protect' everyone) and incitement to violence.  Some religious leaders/teachers may just have to disappear;

"¢	Putting explosive detectors at every door on every bus and subway car and the entrance to every _Metro_ station and department store, library, supermarket, theatre, office building and so on and so forth;

"¢	Addressing low achievement in our ghettos - black, aboriginal and Muslim, too.  That may involve a little _affirmative action_ which gets everyone's back up but racism is alive and well in Canada and some people do suffer more than others.  It may also involve a bit of _tough love_ while we break up the _self imposed isolation_ which exists within poor, poorly educated, poorly integrated minority communities;

"¢	Carrying the war into the lawless _North-West Frontier_ regions of Pakistan - despite the very real problems this will cause for President Musharraf;

"¢	Increasing law enforcement budgets by up to an order of magnitude - at the expense of _single payer_ health care, I expect, so that we quintuple the number of eyes and ears, human and electronic, on our streets and, indeed, albeit surreptitiously, in mosques, too;

"¢	Hardening and dispersing nodes and links of our major vital utility systems: water, electricity, etc - to make them more survivable; 

"¢	Insisting that Canadian universities train Muslim clerics here and disallowing work permits for foreign _sheiks_ and _imans_;

"¢	Slowing immigration from Mulsim regions; and

"¢	Many others which you can think about.

We are not at war with Islam or with Muslims, in general.  Some people are *at war* with us - they declared war on us many years ago.  Almost all of those people are Muslim and many, probably a large majority are:

"¢	Fanatical - as only those who _believe_ in a _righteous_ cause can be;

"¢	Only dimly aware of our society and its values and accomplishments; and

"¢	Committed, without _earthly_ fear, to their cause, to the death, because they _believe_ that they will be rewarded, soon and in paradise, for their sacrifices here and now.

Arresting these people and hauling them into a court of law is not going to slow, much less prevent their attacks.  They believe they are _doing the right thing_ - many believe they are doing their god's will.  That's powerful stuff - arresting one true believer doesn't deter the others.  We need to destroy their will.  First we need to destroy their will to attack us; then we need to destroy their will to resist our attacks on them and their leaders and their _â ?baseâ ?_ or bases, in several so-called friendly states.

----------

* See: http://muslim-canada.org/muslimstats.html


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Jul 2005)

From today's _Globe and Maiil_.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050723/COCITIES23/TPComment/?query=Brittle+cities


> Brittle cities are easily broken
> *The rigidity of our financial, energy and transport systems make them prime terror targets, warns conflict analyst THOMAS HOMER-DIXON. Let's stay flexible*
> 
> By THOMAS HOMER-DIXON
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Jul 2005)

OK, the _iman_ of one (of about 30 (?) - http://www.arabtoronto.com/arabcommunity/mosques2.htm ) Toronto mosque says a half dozen young men have come to him asking about _fighting_.  Maybe that means there are as many as 150 young men in Toronto who want to _do something_ to _strike a blow for Islam_; let's say there are only 1/3 that many: 50.  Suppose just 2% - 1 of those 50 - decides that the best place to strike a blow is somewhere in Toronto; what do we protect?  How do we prevent the attack?  What do we do after the fact - besides reaffirming that Islam is a peaceful religion? 

From today's _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050725.wxthreats25/BNStory/National/


> Imam warns Ottawa to back off Muslims
> By COLIN FREEZE
> 
> Monday, July 25, 2005
> ...


----------



## Britney Spears (25 Jul 2005)

I'm as left wing as you can get around these parts, but if the Muslim community knew what was good for them they'd send guys like this back to Saudi Arabia or Pakistan or whatever, since he's being "terrorized" so much in Canada. Does he even know what that word means? :


----------



## Andyboy (25 Jul 2005)

"'Our young people, we can't control," Aly Hindy, the head of Scarborough's Salaheddin Islamic Centre"

Personally I take this as a threat. He and the rest of the Muslim leadership in Toronto better start controlling their young people. They may want to start by speaking out publically about non-violence such that when something happens they can at least say they did all they could to prevent it, assuming of course they do want to prevent it.

I live pretty close to a couple of Mosques...and I take the subway.

Edited to add: Perhaps someone should remind the various Muslim leaders that if they think getting "terrorized" by the RCMP and CSIS is bad, the alternative would be much worse. I want to be clear. I'm not advocating violence against muslims, but there can be no doubt that if pushed hard enough Canadian citizens will push back. By definition vigilantes operate outside of the law.


----------



## Britney Spears (25 Jul 2005)

> Personally I take this as a threat. He and the rest of the Muslim leadership in Toronto better start controlling their young people. They may want to start by speaking out publically about non-violence such that when something happens they can at least say they did all they could to prevent it, assuming of course they do want to prevent it.
> 
> I live pretty close to a couple of Mosques...and I take the subway.



Exactly. Can't "control" your young people? Stop whining when we do it for you then.

Sometimes I wonder if these guys are working for Karl Rove too.


----------



## Andyboy (25 Jul 2005)

I heard Karl Rove invented militant Islam.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Jul 2005)

Andyboy said:
			
		

> "'Our young people, we can't control," Aly Hindy, the head of Scarborough's Salaheddin Islamic Centre"
> 
> Personally I take this as a threat. He and the rest of the Muslim leadership in Toronto better start controlling their young people. They may want to start by speaking out publically about non-violence such that when something happens they can at least say they did all they could to prevent it, assuming of course they do want to prevent it.
> 
> ...



I don't think  its his job to _control_ his young people any more than I think a parish priest or a rabbit are responsible for _controlling_ members of their congregations.

I do think he is responsible to teach them that killing people here in Canada in order to seek _revenge_ for perceived (or real, take your pick) Western _sins_ in the Middle East and West Asia is both a _sin_ (for which they will, presumably, rot in hell, without benefit of three-score plus virgins) and a crime for which they will, hopefully, rot in jail â â€œ maybe a jail in some dirty, sadistic third world backwater.

I also think it is time that we, Canadian society at large, made this responsibility crystal clear to Muslim leaders and teachers all across Canada.  Those who cannot see it our way should be shown the highway â â€œ some judicial use of the 'notwithstanding clause' to give effect to that will be immensely popular amongst 90% of Canadians.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Jul 2005)

This, from today's _Globe and Mail_ is, in my view, good stuff.  (My *emphasis* added)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050725.wxcospector25a/BNStory/specialComment/


> Lessons from London
> By NORMAN SPECTOR
> 
> Monday, July 25, 2005
> ...



Lots of meat here.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (25 Jul 2005)

Whatever happened to disenfranchised youth getting their frustrations out by spray painting the side of a building?


----------



## Britney Spears (25 Jul 2005)

Yeah, line those cockroaches up on the side of the ditch too.


I HATE HATE HATE vandals.


----------



## a_majoor (25 Jul 2005)

There is that mindset out there "If we pretend it isn't there, it won't hurt us". Mohammed Atta sounds like the sort of person who made the hair stand up on the back of people's necks, yet look at the response he got from an American government officia. The Australian hostage being upbraided by a newspaper editor for characterizing his captors as "arseholes" seems to ba another sigh of dementia:



> *Mark Steyn: Mugged by reality?*
> 
> 25jul05
> 
> ...



And Steyn is right of course, multiculturalism, as practiced, really has nothing at all to do with understanding other cultures. That gang rapes and "honour killings" take place at all is horrifying enough, to have these acts passed off with a shrug only emboldens the perpetrators to continue with even less restraint, or call for bigger and better atrocities, since "we" evidently don't care....


----------



## tomahawk6 (25 Jul 2005)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050725.wxthreats25/BNStory/National/

Canada remains one of the few havens left for islamic radicals. To keep it that way Canada has been warned by the radicals.


----------



## paracowboy (25 Jul 2005)

well, they don't have to concern themselves. We're not about to show a spine, now.


----------



## a_majoor (25 Jul 2005)

When the shoe finally drops, the Iman and his friends may find themselves being "_warned_" by the 10th (Mountain) Infantry division out of Fort Drum, since American tolerence for this kind of crap is rapidly declining.




edited to correct the Divisional title. Thanks for the reminder Brittney


----------



## DogOfWar (25 Jul 2005)

We dont need to show our spine. IF push comes to shove we'll rip out the imans and show it to him.


----------



## Slim (25 Jul 2005)

F**K him and the carpet he flew here on!


----------



## Britney Spears (25 Jul 2005)

I heard that the 10th MOUNTAIN division likes to be called that. 

But yeah, these so called representatives of the muslim community just won't stop shooting themselves in the foot.


----------



## Baloo (25 Jul 2005)

Oh no, God no, this isn't the voice of the Islamic faith. This is only the minority of individuals. Not in Canada. The Muslims have been mistreated long enough by our Gestapo, and so must be tended to! 

 :

Enough of this ****. Deport the bastard. Threats to the safety and security of people within our state.


----------



## Jungle (25 Jul 2005)

If he doesn't like to be under the microscope, he is invited, along with all the unsatisfied pricks, to move back to where he came from. When you have nothing to hide, you are not afraid to be looked at. These people cultivate trouble...


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Jul 2005)

Discussed this morning, at 09:15, here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/32640/post-243819.html#msg243819


----------



## Chimo (25 Jul 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> When the shoe finally drops, the Iman and his friends may find themselves being "_warned_" by the 10th (Mountain) Infantry division out of Fort Drum, since American tolerence for this kind of crap is rapidly declining.
> 
> 
> 
> I would doubt that 10th Mtn Div or any other American Div is going to go on offensive operations in Canada anytime soon. Perhaps I didn't understand the meaning of your response.


----------



## Gill557 (25 Jul 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> When the shoe finally drops, the Iman and his friends may find themselves being "_warned_" by the 10th (Mountain) Infantry division out of Fort Drum, since American tolerence for this kind of crap is rapidly declining.



Works for me.  
Think the 10th would mind some Canadian troops as well.  I can think of like 30 people off the top of my head who are getting sick and tired of this ****, and want to go do something about it.

Also, I don't know who said it but I agree.  If you don't like it here, go back to where ever you came from.


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (25 Jul 2005)

Slim said:
			
		

> F**K him and the carpet he flew here on!




LOL

im with slim.
When we're done with Khandahar, ask the terminated taliban what our spines are like.


----------



## a_majoor (25 Jul 2005)

> I would doubt that 10th Mtn Div or any other American Div is going to go on offensice operations in Canada anytime soon. Perhaps I didn't understand the meaning of your response.



We haven't had any terror incidents in Canada following the principle of "A buzzard doesn't foul its own nest". When they are ready to launch an offencive against the "Great Satan"; our value will be at an end, and I would suspect the "Little Satan" will be getting a dose of domestic terror at the same time.

Should Canada be implicated in a terrorist attack, especially a "spectacular" like 9/11 or something similarly horrendous, then all restraints will end, and I would have no illusions that US forces would not enter in strength to sort the problem once and for all. The legal reason would be "hot persuit" of the terrorist enemy, but they would be tracked, captured and perhaps fought by American forces, and the captured would *not* be sent to any Canadian prison or court for processing.

The late and unlamented Pierre Trudeau once said Canada is like a mouse living next to an elephant. What will we do when the elephant is enraged?


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (26 Jul 2005)

get stepped on.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (26 Jul 2005)

Wait a second here: first, we really must be vigilant to ensure that there is not a backlash against the muslim community.  The comments I'm reading here are unreasonable and even possibly racist: we really should be looking at ourselves to find out what the root cause of his anger is - surely his is reasonable reaction to how he has been wronged by our crusader past.


----------



## paracowboy (26 Jul 2005)

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> Wait a second here: first, we really must be vigilant to ensure that there is not a backlash against the muslim community.   The comments I'm reading here are unreasonable and even possibly racist: we really should be looking at ourselves to find out what the root cause of his anger is - surely his is reasonable reaction to how he has been wronged by our crusader past.


well said.


----------



## S McKee (26 Jul 2005)

Warn us! Warn us ! Yeah right! They won't do anything here. Why shit in your own yard?   Canada's a great place to raise money for your organization, sneak back to when you get wounded in some foreign land (free health care) ask the Khatar(?) family. What I can't understand is, whenever some terrorist act happens it's only a "radical few" who are responsible. Where are the "vast majority" of "peace loving Muslims" and why aren't those Muslims who allegedly oppose violence being done in the name of their religion marching in the streets denouncing the actions of their "brothers"? Bring on the 10th Mountain!


----------



## 1feral1 (26 Jul 2005)

Why doesn't some nutcase shoot him?
 ;D
Wes


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Jul 2005)

Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> Why doesn't some nutcase shoot him?
> ;D
> Wes



This is Canada. We don't have guns. ;D


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (26 Jul 2005)

Don't get our Western brethern started. ;D

Well at least he's nice enough to share his thoughts so we can watch him and his buddies even closer now.


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (26 Jul 2005)

I guess the people of pakistan are only an 'extreme few' as well.With their burning of yankee flags and widespread support for bin laden and all.

It does sound a bit extreme to a point, but im starting to agree with jumper.... this shit has gone on long enough, where are all the muslim protests and shameful curses on the bombers? I only ever see them defending themselves as saying its a radical few.

I'm not saying im predjudiced or anything, just that they could be making it alot easier for us to trust them, and they arent.They just keep playing the victim (or so the media makes it seem that way) I can only speculate, as there is barely a muslim population where I live.

No one cry racism either.Tell me you don't look twice at one on a subway on your way somewhere these days.It may be wrong, but it's true.


----------



## S McKee (26 Jul 2005)

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> Wait a second here: first, we really must be vigilant to ensure that there is not a backlash against the muslim community.   The comments I'm reading here are unreasonable and even possibly racist: we really should be looking at ourselves to find out what the root cause of his anger is - surely his is reasonable reaction to how he has been wronged by our crusader past.



It has nothing to do with race, it has everthing to do with two vastly differing ideologies. One that would enslave us under a world wide theocracy where "non-believers" are known as infidels; the other which believes in the rule of democracy, freedom and multiculturalism. Yes the Muslims have the crusades, (something that happened over a 1000 years ago) to blame the west for everything that happens to them today. Lets not talk about Muslim military incursions into the western world. What about the fact that Muslim countries are notoriously known for having corrupt governments, no democracy or human rights, where women are mere property? People like this Inman character come to our country yet detest and mock the freedoms they love to hide behind! And don't think for one minute if people of his ilk could install a theocratic government in Canada they wouldn't do it. Does that make me a little unreasonable? Yes!


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (26 Jul 2005)

"Tell me you don't look twice at one on a subway on your way somewhere these days.It may be wrong, but it's true."

I think that's called racial profiling and I'd rather be alive and labeled a bigot then dead and labeled in a paper bag.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (26 Jul 2005)

Jumper I have come to see that any race/religion can be corrupted or hypocritical.  Its not a white thing anymore.


----------



## S McKee (26 Jul 2005)

Your right on that one...


----------



## paracowboy (26 Jul 2005)

am I the only one who read John Galt's post as dripping with sarcasm?


----------



## S McKee (26 Jul 2005)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> am I the only one who read John Galt's post as dripping with sarcasm?



I KNEW yours was, unless jumpers are getting all PC these days, they're not, are they? I don't know about John, if so... well hey nothing like a good rant to clear the system.


----------



## paracowboy (26 Jul 2005)

Jumper said:
			
		

> well hey nothing like a good rant to clear the system.


very true. I try to have one at least three times a day. If nothing else, it amuses the heck outta my troops.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (26 Jul 2005)

it does sound like sarcasm to me.


----------



## Joe Blow (26 Jul 2005)

Although I read this as being well placed sarcasm as well:


> Wait a second here: first, we really must be vigilant to ensure that there is not a backlash against the Muslim community.



I do think that we really do have to guard against sweeping generalizations about Islam and Muslims, and I think that it is worth while saying so now and again just to remind those who might have a tendency to do so.

Islam has schools of thought and tradition just like Christianity and it is important to distinguish between them.  ..and I really think that we are beginning to do so.  News coverage seems to reflect the fact that Wahbisim for ex. is particularly toxic, and that much of the crap coming out of Afghanistan and Pakistan is has been no less harmful (to state the obvious).

Anyway, I honestly think it's worth saying.  However...

*THAT SAID..*

- I think that we should realize that - although not every Muslim is a terrorist - unfortunately all the terrorists that we need to be most concerned about at the moment happen to be Muslim.

- With that in mind we (broadly) *and also the Muslim quarter of our society (specifically)* should accept that this is a more-or-less   identifiable group and that security attention is reasonable apportioned in that quarter. ("More or less" being an important qualifier) 

ADDITIONALY:

- I really wish the imams would let the bodies cool before they trot out the "don't blame us all" line.  I would prefer it if that plea were implied by both their consistant, vehement and unconditional condemnation of these sorts of acts, and also their persistant, active combat against the lines of thought that lead to them ..which leads to the next point.

- I wish they would go further than condemnation of the acts after the fact and start combating this stuff preemptively in the Muslim community.  Publicly ID people that preach extremism ..let them rebut ..the debate is now out in there air and we can all see who peaches what.

Hope that adds.  Cheers.


----------



## Dare (26 Jul 2005)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> OK, the _iman_ of one (of about 30 (?) - http://www.arabtoronto.com/arabcommunity/mosques2.htm ) Toronto mosque says a half dozen young men have come to him asking about _fighting_.  Maybe that means there are as many as 150 young men in Toronto who want to _do something_ to _strike a blow for Islam_; let's say there are only 1/3 that many: 50.  Suppose just 2% - 1 of those 50 â â€œ decides that the best place to strike a blow is somewhere in Toronto; what do we protect?  How do we prevent the attack?  What do we do after the fact â â€œ besides reaffirming that Islam is a peaceful religion?
> 
> From today's _Globe and Mail_:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050725.wxthreats25/BNStory/National/


With a Public Safety Minister like Anne McLellan, who needs enemies!? How does this deranged woman keep getting into places of the highest responsibility?


----------



## Infanteer (26 Jul 2005)

Since, as I've claimed many times before, I believe this to be a War and not a criminal act I have no compunction against gearing up the heat on people like Imam Hindy and sending him to a cozy room in Gitmo....


----------



## McG (26 Jul 2005)

I recently crossed a book about racial profiling and internment during war (Japaneesse in WWII and today in the war on terror).  I did not have time to pick it up and I don't recall the title, but it seemed to advocate locking away the potential threats as being the lesser evil during war.  

I'd think that anyone that brings themself up on the radar should be fair game during war.


----------



## Spr.Earl (26 Jul 2005)

Colour?
 Our normal views count with Terrorist's,thats how they beat us,by being inconspicuous,that gray person in the back ground .We are all used to seeing Japanese,Korean's,Iranians,Sikhs etc. every day in our day to day lives,yes?Same in the U.K. more so London.
Our Achilles heel is our Multi Cult Society but how do we as a Nation deal with this with out persecuting one part of our Society while trying to defeat this enemy?


----------



## 1feral1 (26 Jul 2005)

Meanwhile in Australia, todays poll on www.johnlaws.com.au has it at 96% of Australians are opposed to further immigration of Muslims to Australia. Only 4% are in favour. 

Seems they are all being tarred with the same brush, and the comments from some LOSER skeik in Melbourne (on Sunday on Aussie 60 minutes), Mohammed Omran (do a google on this filthy skidmark) saying Washington orchastrated 9-11, calling OBL a hero, saying its okay to beat your wife, and saying muslims have a right to Australia to be their country, because they chose to come here, and Australians do not have this right as they were born here. He says one day Australia will be a islamic state, and its matter of time, and muslims have to be patient. Sewing seeds of hatred against the west (us all) is happening right now, right in your own country too.

Complete and utter BS, and its idiots like this WANKER who are indeed widening the gap between us and them. Yes, thats exactly what they want.

Yes, I am afraid (glad I am out of Sydney too, as I have been intimidated on a few occasions by muslim youth 18-25yrs old) and deeply concerned as the minds of young radical muslims are taking in what he says, and the recruitment drive is well under way. Our PM today called the shiek dispicable or deplorable (or similar word), and the opposition party too say the guy is doing nothing but inflaming the situation.

Being honest, I would not want to be catching public trains in Sydney these days, and thats the truth! Our ever vigilent secuirty force do indeed have their hands full, to say the least.

Sadly, our day is coming, and a thousand allah's won't stop the rath of mainstream Aussies if they conduct a cowardly attack here, and that scares me even worse.

Fasten your seatbelt Westerners, we are in for a bumby flight! 

Regards,

Wes


----------



## Infanteer (26 Jul 2005)

MCG said:
			
		

> I recently crossed a book about racial profiling and internment during war (Japaneesse in WWII and today in the war on terror).   I did not have time to pick it up and I don't recall the title, but it seemed to advocate locking away the potential threats as being the lesser evil during war.
> 
> I'd think that anyone that brings themself up on the radar should be fair game during war.



Sure, although I wouldn't be too quick to compare the two.  Canada simply rounded up Japanese wholesale and sent them to the internment camps in WWII, while I see no problem with picking out the rabble rousers and sending them on their way.



			
				Spr.Earl said:
			
		

> Our Achilles heel is our Multi Cult Society but how do we as a Nation deal with this with out persecuting one part of our Society while trying to defeat this enemy?



I'd say it is our greatest strength as well.  I think the necessary step is to watch, identify the actual trouble makers, and be ruthless with them.  No need to go after entire groups.


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (26 Jul 2005)

See! that right there!

about the Imam having young men asking him about attacks....
if he was against terrorism, he would have condemned them and reported the motherf**kers.

But no, of course not.Obviously theyre interested in blowing up some of our people, and if they can't get any information or ideas from 
him, theyll find them elsewhere.

Another thing i agree with, as soon as they 'show up on the radar' they should be fair game.
"How would I go about bombing a toronto subway?"

**ARRESTED**

Utterring death threats isnt legal in this country, so why is this?


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (26 Jul 2005)

MCG said:
			
		

> I recently crossed a book about racial profiling and internment during war (Japaneesse in WWII and today in the war on terror).  I did not have time to pick it up and I don't recall the title, but it seemed to advocate locking away the potential threats as being the lesser evil during war.



Are you thinking of _In Defense of Internment: The Case for 'Racial Profiling' in World War II and the War on Terror_ by Michelle Malkin?  The few excerpts & summaries I've read suggest that it makes for interesting reading. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0895260514/qid=1122397008/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-2014826-0592149?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
Quick 'n' dirty review here: http://instapundit.com/archives/016935.php

For the record, my previous post was indeed intended to be sarcastic, though it is rather telling that it could well be understood to be sincere ...


----------



## S McKee (26 Jul 2005)

John I take back all the bad things I said about you.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (26 Jul 2005)

Jumper said:
			
		

> John I take back all the bad things I said about you.



Heh - I have pretty much the same reaction when those same things are stated sincerely - rather sad that the mainstream doesn't seem to.


----------



## McG (26 Jul 2005)

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> Are you thinking of _In Defense of Internment: The Case for 'Racial Profiling' in World War II and the War on Terror_ by Michelle Malkin?


That is the one.  I hope to get to a copy one day.


----------



## Infanteer (26 Jul 2005)

It's fun enough reading the Amazon reviews on that book....


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Jul 2005)

More on this subject http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/32640/post-243819.html#msg243819 from today's _Globe and Mail_.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050727/IMAM27/TPNational/?query=Iman%27s+accusations+unfounded%2C+CSIS+says 


> Imam's accusations unfounded, CSIS says
> 
> By COLIN FREEZE
> 
> ...



A couple of days ago I suggested, at: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/32640/post-243107.html#msg243107 that, we have to take a variety of active and passive domestic _defensive_ measures including, _inter alia_:



> Changing what young Muslims are taught about the West in schools and mosques here, in Canada - that may mean deporting sheiks and imans and the like and prosecuting religious leaders for hate crimes (those laws are on the books to 'protect' everyone) and incitement to violence.  Some religious leaders/teachers may just have to disappear


 (emphasis added)

Iman Hindy is one of them; if he is not a Canadian citizen then he needs to be deported - the legal necessities, which need to look an awful lot more like Australia's, may requite the use of the Constitution's _notwithstanding_ clause although I doubt there is a political 'leader' (of any stripe) with the moral courage (maybe physical, too - _â ?these peopleâ ?_ are dangerous, after all) to do the job.  If he is a citizen then he needs to disappear - that doesn't mean he has to die, not necessarily, not if we have a secure 'holding' facility.

I agree with Tariq Abdelhaleem of the Dar Al-Arqam Islamic Centre in Mississauga when he says that our, the West's, aim is to _ â ?... try to change the face of the Islamic faith in the Middle East.â ?_  That is precisely what we should, in my view must be doing.  Forget about 'bringing democracy to the Middle East,' it is unlikely to take hold and endure until after there is an Arabic (and Persian/West Asian, too) _enlightenment_ which may not be possible until after there is an Arab-Islamic _reformation_ which, if our history is any guide, will take a generation or more to accomplish and will be extraordinarily bloody.


----------



## 48Highlander (27 Jul 2005)

> Mr. Hindy first raised the charges in a meeting in May with dozens of Muslim leaders and Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan. But he has also circulated flyers about the alleged incident, urging Muslims never to talk to CSIS. His subsequent interviews to newspapers and Toronto talk-radio stations have outraged CSIS leaders.



Looks like he's trying to turn people's view of CSIS into the same way they view the CIA.  It's exactly these sorts of baseless rumours and accusations made by influential figures which lead to all the myths about CIA death squads, assasinations, abductions, and experiments.  Eventually the rumours become self-sustaining, and no ammount of contrary evidence will ever dissuade people from beleiving them.


----------



## 1feral1 (27 Jul 2005)

These are th dangerous ones, and will do anything to cause unrest within Canada and continue to influence the youth of his religion. All one needs is ONE nutcase to listen to this purveyor of hate, to become a human ' non-elec det', and to put Canada up with London, Madrid, Kuta Beach and the rest. It's simple, this guy should quietly and discretly 'disappear' without a trace on his next trip overseas.

What Canada must do is ammend its laws for any migrant/naturalised citizen who so promotes hatred or influences any terrorist behaviour to be arrested, interogated, and then deported with a life ban from returning, but I prefer the 'disappearance method'. Australia is also considering ammending its laws,a s there is way too many radical muslims here, who do nothing but make the matters worse.

What wil it take? I think we know, and lets hope that never happens.

Wes


----------



## Slim (28 Jul 2005)

> "It was a wise decision by your predecessor, Mr. Chrétien, to disassociate Canada from such imperialistic practices. That decision was made to protect the Canadian public."



There is a prime example of someone trying to play on the publics fears and seperate us from our allies...Then , once they're defeated, the "terrorists" (Read: murderers and scumbags...Thanks Rick!) will turn their attention to us!

If they all hate the west so very much I for one would like to know what the heck they're all doing living over here!?

As far as I'm concerned they're most welcome to return to whaereever they came from...You don't see me going to the middle east and demanding that they take up christianity do you?!

What am I missing in all this?!

Slim


----------



## Joe Blow (28 Jul 2005)

Edward, 

That is a really thoughtful post.



> Changing what young Muslims are taught about the West in schools and mosques here, in Canada â â€œ that may mean deporting sheiks and imams and the like and prosecuting religious leaders for hate crimes (those laws are on the books to 'protect' everyone) and incitement to violence.





> â ?... try to change the face of the Islamic faith in the Middle East.â ?  That is precisely what we should, in my view must be doing.





> Forget about 'bringing democracy to the Middle East,' it is unlikely to take hold and endure until after there is an Arabic (and Persian/West Asian, too) enlightenment which may not be possible until after there is an Arab-Islamic reformation



I differ a bit from your post in that I think that an Enlightenment can be brought about before a Reformation.  However I agree completely that an Enlightenment is necessary.  We've rushed off to create new polities in other cultures without (it seems) laying the philosophical ground work for what we are doing. 

The desired changes to the polity in these regions - and the politics in Canadian mosques - are not likely to take hold unless there is a move away from accepting religious scholars as being on par with biologists, physicists or rational (read reasonably methodical) philosophers when questions of reality are at stake.  The fruits of our democracy (the liberties that we enjoy, the responsibilities to one another that we recognize, the debate about how we balance these - and the reasonably peaceful way we go about doing so) are indeed a result of the impact of the Enlightenment on our culture.  

(A quick aside:  The Enlightenment is a living thing. Lets keep it that way. - Advocate the teaching of the principals of reason in grade school.  We should be teaching how to reason methodically (ie. how to do philosophy) the way we learn how to approach mathematics... There is a right way and a wrong way... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_form)

Anyway, I think that a reasonable use of CSIS is to bring about those changes in that culture.  (Thank Muslim culture very kindly for preserving the wisdom of the Greeks through the European dark ages ..and then)  Introduce the Enlightenment to Islam.  Weeding out Imams in our own backyard that are inconsistent with that goal is a good start.  Let's nurture informants in mosques, let CSIS ID those imams preaching cultural toxicity, and change the laws so they can be deported post haste.  (Lets clean up our own yard first.)   An active foreign policy is a good follow through. (We need an intelligence service with a foreign mandate..)

However, if we are to *engineer* an Enlightenment in Muslim culture, we should be pressed to answer why we don't do it in other cultures as well, because - broadly speaking - this means discrimination based (not on conclusion, but) on the style by which one arrives at a conclusion.  (Applied more thoroughly for ex.,  it would mean deporting sundry members of my family. Devout Catholics and Baptists ..or at least infiltrating their churches ..and working to influence the cultures of religiously conscious governments everywhere.)  

The answer is that this is a big manpower problem.  Lets focus the attention where it is warranted.  As I have said above: although not all Muslims are terrorists, all of the terrorists that we presently need to be concerned about happen to be Muslim, so lets get to work.


----------



## Slim (28 Jul 2005)

> I think that a reasonable use of CSIS is to bring about those changes in that culture.



JB

I'm not sure that I understand where you're coming from.

CSIS is a domestic intelligence gathering agency. What you're describing is more along the lines of Welfare Canada.

Could you explain a bit better please.

slim
STAFF


----------



## Joe Blow (28 Jul 2005)

CSIS is domestic security agency, so  I think it is within thier province to establish informers in Canadian mosques to report on the brand of Islam that is being preached there (..and with the appropriate legal changes) do something about it.

Edit: ..and we need a foreign intelligence gathering apparatus and complimentary foreign policy to do the same on an international scale.

Edit Again" Whoa.. spelling.  Sorry.


----------



## Slim (28 Jul 2005)

Joe Blow said:
			
		

> CSIS is domestic security agency, so   I think it is within thier province to establish informers in Canadian mosques to report on the brand of Islam that is being preached there (..and with the appropriate legal changes) do something about it.



What you're getting at is only a small part of the intelligence gathering process.

The trouble will end only when young Muslim men and women are no longer brought up to hate everything that the west stands for and is. That is the responsability of the cultures they come from, not of CSIS.


----------



## Joe Blow (28 Jul 2005)

I agree with you but I think that we should use our intelligence services and structure our laws to help ensure that (at least to begin with) the Muslims of Canada are no longer brought up to hate everything that the west stands for.  

Ideally we should structure our foreign policy to further the same goals on an international level.  Infultrate foreign mosques the same way we should be infultrating domestic ones ..and be aware of who is promoting what ..and do something about it.

EDIT: 





> ..and do something about it


..work to remove from the community the influence of agents that preach a doctrine counter to our interests and *cannot be reasoned with *, because they (imams, politicians, etc.) are unswervingly motivated by their dogma.  Domestically, that means deport them.  Internationally, it means being either more direct ( :threat or more creative.


----------



## Slim (28 Jul 2005)

Joe Blow said:
			
		

> Infultrate foreign mosques the same way we should be infultrating domestic ones ..and be aware of who is promoting what ..and do something about it.



Again this is a function of intelligence gathering and is in all likelyhood already being done. Political solutions can only go so far. The responsability lies with the root culture to change the way things are being done. Political pressure can be applied in certain ways to either give incentive or wave the big stick as required. But in the end its not up to us to raise little Muslim girls and boys not to hate us for no other reason that being what we are.

Our govt's job is to protect us as people of this country. That means having a well trained and effective military with strong leadership and good equipment. It also involves backing the leaders of the military up when the bleeding heart PC crowd demand that we not be so "hard" on the poor disenfranchised "freedom fighters" who are in effect trying to kill us.

The fight must be aggressively taken to the enemy and they must be stomped on hard, so they know that when they start blowing up women and kids it won't be tolerated and they'll be dealt with in the most severe manner imaginable.

JB

I'm going to suggest that you really don't seem to have a clear understanding of the subject we're discussing. Perhaps some more reading and time on the search engine is required before you wade back in...

Slim
STAFF


----------



## paracowboy (28 Jul 2005)

I dunno, Slim. JB seems to have some sort of grip, he just isn't aware of the finer details of CSIS' role. A lot of what he's advocating is similar to what others have in the past. Change the way the enemy look at us, make friends, influence people, shoot them in the face.


----------



## Jungle (28 Jul 2005)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> Change the way the enemy look at us, make friends, influence people, shoot them in the face.


I like that... *Fight fire with Fire !!!* >


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Jul 2005)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> I dunno, Slim. JB seems to have some sort of grip, he just isn't aware of the finer details of CSIS' role. A lot of what he's advocating is similar to what others have in the past. Change the way the enemy look at us, make friends, influence people, shoot them in the face.



I am arguing for a nice, new age, _holistic_ approach: I want to upset the entire applecart - in mosques in Toronto and _madrasses_ in Pakistan, simultaneously.

First I want to ensure that we do adequate enemy identification so that we do not waste resources on non-existent 'targets.'  We have an enemy; it consists of many, very loosely connected _movement_ which share a handful of salient features.  They are, predominantly (but not exclusively)  (I am repeating myself here):

"¢	Arabic

"¢	Extremist

"¢	Fundamentalist

"¢	Islamic

My _holistic_ approach requires:

"¢	Excellent, SECRET intelligence - secretly gathered (at home and abroad), secretly analyzed and not shared with the press;

"¢	Active _defensive_ forces - military, police and _security_ who do not just react to an attack, but who can and will take the fight to the enemy -

               o	    in mosques in Toronto,

               o	    in caves in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and

               o	    in bank computers in London, New York, Paris, Toronto and Zurich; and

"¢	Active _defensive_ education systems - which we use to remind ourselves about who we are and what our _cultural_ (social and political) values are and why they *are superior* to the cultural values which our self-declared enemy wants to impose on us.

We need to argue with the _imans_ here in Canada - for the _soul_ of Muslims.  We have to explain that, in Canada, freedom and liberty cannot be constrained by beliefs - each person, man or woman, is free and equal in Canada, despite the tenets of any religion and that each man and woman can be a 'good Muslim' and a good Canadian, too, by adhering to the fundamentals of Islam while discarding the _Arab foundametalist_ (Irshad Manji's good, descriptive word from 'The Trouble With Islam') cultural baggage.

We need to pursue and kill other _imans_ in the Middle East and West Asia and shut down their maddrasses - which are, in too many cases, nothing more than incubators for terrorists.

We need to strengthen friendly, moderate Islamic states and set them to the task of sorting out the enemy states - we should pay Muslims to kill Muslims, and sell them the guns, too.

Then, when the dust has settled, in about 45 years, we can volunteer to _keep the peace_ - a peace which may have to be like that Calgacus ascribed to the Romans as: _"..they make a wilderness and call it peace.â ?_


----------



## 48Highlander (28 Jul 2005)

Slim said:
			
		

> Again this is a function of intelligence gathering and is in all likelyhood already being done. Political solutions can only go so far. The responsability lies with the root culture to change the way things are being done. Political pressure can be applied in certain ways to either give incentive or wave the big stick as required. But in the end its not up to us to raise little Muslim girls and boys not to hate us for no other reason that being what we are.



No, but it IS to our benefit to do it.  Just like it's not our responsibility to teach children about sex-ed, or to stay away from drugs, but it is to our society's benefit to ensure that they are taught that information collectively, instead of hoping that their parents will do it.



			
				Slim said:
			
		

> Our govt's job is to protect us as people of this country. That means having a well trained and effective military with strong leadership and good equipment. It also involves backing the leaders of the military up when the bleeding heart PC crowd demand that we not be so "hard" on the poor disenfranchised "freedom fighters" who are in effect trying to kill us.
> 
> The fight must be aggressively taken to the enemy and they must be stomped on hard, so they know that when they start blowing up women and kids it won't be tolerated and they'll be dealt with in the most severe manner imaginable.



I agree with that, however, as long as there are radical Muslims who hate us, there will be suicide bombings.  Through military action we may be able to severly limit their ability to carry out such attacks, but we will never completely defeat them.  The only way that we could discourage them through the use of sheer force would be to show them we have no compunctions with being 100 times worse than they are.  In other words, they bomb a subway, we nuke a town.  We'd have to be ready to kill a hundred thousand of their wives and children for every 10 of ours they kill, otherwise, they'll just use our military campaigns as an excuse to carry out more bombings.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating actually doing that, just stating that there's really nothing else we can do militarily that will have the effect you're talking about.  If we want to win this war withou that sort of mass slaughter, it's got to be done through numerous methods, not just combat.


----------



## paracowboy (28 Jul 2005)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> I am arguing for a nice, new age, _holistic_ approach: I want to upset the entire applecart - in mosques in Toronto and _madrasses_ in Pakistan, simultaneously.
> 
> First I want to ensure that we do adequate enemy identification so that we do not waste resources on non-existent 'targets.'   We have an enemy; it consists of many, very loosely connected _movement_ which share a handful of salient features.   They are, predominantly (but not exclusively)   (I am repeating myself here):
> 
> ...


that's what I said, Ed. Just used fewer words.


----------



## Andyboy (28 Jul 2005)

Good post Edward, I like your proposal, however, to steal a quote from another board, "unless we believe in our product, believe in our own way of life and convince ourselves that it is worth defending, there is scant chance of convincing anyone to do the same."

I think there are a lot of people in Canada, besides Muslims, that need convincing. 

Andrew


----------



## 1feral1 (28 Jul 2005)

Now here is gratitude for ya's. The two identified would-be bombers were not only living in a government supplied flat, but were also on wellfare to boot! Like I said, now thats gratitude.

We are hearing this am that up to 9 more arrests today, and some are charged with harbouring. As I have said on previous threads, the bad guys are indeed hiding and living amoung their own kind. Goes to show you where these poeple's loyalties truly are.

Gotta get to the shower, its after 0600. Hvae a good day Canucks! Mine is just beginning.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## paracowboy (28 Jul 2005)

interesting article on the phenomenon of Muslims biting the hand, etc...



> Washington Post
> July 27, 2005
> Revolt of Privilege, Muslim Style
> By David Ignatius
> ...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (28 Jul 2005)

Excuses, excuses, excuses.  Didn't trouble youths of the past take their dads car out or stay out late.  Don't tell me that bad parenting is leading to extremists.


----------



## Joe Blow (29 Jul 2005)

> I'm going to suggest that you really don't seem to have a clear understanding of the subject we're discussing. Perhaps some more reading and time on the search engine is required before you wade back in...



I understand that CSIS is a domestic intelligence gathering service (although admittedly my knowledge ends there (..I've read one book about CSIS - Covert Entry: Spies, Lies and Crimes Inside Canada's Secret Service by Andrew Mitrovica - but I can't claim to have read the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act).

All I am suggesting is that we use that service to ID which Imams preach the toxicity we are trying to remove. Additionally we should have in place legislation that allows us to remove them from the country post haste (ie. empowers the RCMP to put them on a plane ..like now.)  We should "weed the garden".

If we are good at doing these things (and if we are good at getting moderate Muslims to help us) we will go a long way - by the process of elimination - toward creating an Islamic culture in Canada that is more desirable ..ie. one that doesn't teach  





> young Muslim men and women are no longer brought up to hate everything that the west stands for and is.



Further we should have an international intelligence gathering agency that can do the same thing within the Islamic community abroad that CSIS does domestically ..and in place of 'deportation legislation', internationally we should employ military solutions to remove the offending agents.  I think we can learn from the Israelis here yes?

I like your holistic approach.  I think that the approach I am suggesting has a part in there.

Anyway, I wanted to clarify as I think I may have been misunderstood.  However if these are really not workable options for reasons that I would  understand better with more research, I promise I will shut up now.  

Joe

PS: I think the above article is a mildly interesting take.  I hadn't really considered it like that.  Spoiled rich kids are a bigger problem then just being repugnant I guess..


----------



## Slim (29 Jul 2005)

> I hadn't really considered it like that.  Spoiled rich kids are a bigger problem then just being repugnant I guess..



Always have been...Poor people don't have the time or resources to cause really big trouble, They're too busy just trying to survive from one day to the next.


----------



## 48Highlander (30 Jul 2005)

If you look at you average "anti-poverty activist" or "anti-war" protestor, or any of the save-the-blue-peckered-sea-worm types, who are they?  The majority based on my entirely non-scientific analysis seem to between the ages of 16 and 26, and come from middle-class or well-off families.  The more militant ones especially are more likely to have come from a fairly prosperous home.  So there's something they deffinitely have in common with your average suicide bomber;  they're angst-ridden spoiled rich kids looking for a cause to fight for and someone to lash out against.  The main difference is that North American organizations and the culture in general do not advocate suicide bombings, so that our "spoiled rich kids" stick to marching around, being a nuisance, picking fights with cops, and breaking store windows.  The Muslim version grow up being told that blowing yourself up in order to kill infidels will make you a hero.  If Canadian schools and churches taught children that blowing yourself up for a cause is honourable and heroic, we'd be seing the same sort of behaviour here.


----------

