# Harper says 'Islamicism' biggest threat to Canada



## Kalatzi (7 Sep 2011)

Harper says 'Islamicism' biggest threat to Canada
Prime minister says Conservatives will bring back controversial anti-terrorism laws
Link here http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/09/06/harper-911-terrorism-islamic-interview.html

E.R. Campbell made reference to this in another post. 

I respectfully submit the the imploding global economy is much bigger problem.


----------



## brihard (7 Sep 2011)

He's setting up to try to revive Bill C-17 form the last parliament, which is bloody bad law. More pandering to fear in ways that negatively impacts our freedoms. There's no demonstrable need for the provisions in question; traditional police and intelligence activities have thus far been extremely successful in protecting us from the rather vague threat of terrorism on our soil.

I'm not saying that terrorism presents no threat, but that we present at least as much threat to ourselves by suborning sound values and principles out of an amorphous fear. Destroying a few buildings or killing some people cannot in and of itself fundamentally alter the character of our society unless we allow it to.


----------



## PuckChaser (7 Sep 2011)

In Canada, I see our counterterrorist activities more to prevent their planning and easy passage from Canada to the USA. We're trying to stop them from planning stuff here and executing it in the US.


----------



## Redeye (7 Sep 2011)

Kalatzi said:
			
		

> Harper says 'Islamicism' biggest threat to Canada
> Prime minister says Conservatives will bring back controversial anti-terrorism laws
> Link here http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/09/06/harper-911-terrorism-islamic-interview.html
> 
> ...



I agree. I'd put the economy, and also environmental issues up there too - religious extremism is nowhere near the top of the list. I think the general public seems to think so too, I think it may be a gaffe.


----------



## Rifleman62 (7 Sep 2011)

> I'd put the economy, and also environmental issues up there too - religious extremism is nowhere near the top of the list.



When Iran gets a bomb, and it goes off anywhere in Israel or the USA,  and it will, the economy will tank and the environment will be contaminated.


----------



## canada94 (7 Sep 2011)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> When Iran gets a bomb, and it goes off anywhere in Israel or the USA,  and it will, the economy will tank and the environment will be contaminated.



China has the bomb? The Soviets had the bomb? Why is it that now the "bomb" has so much more potential to be used?

I am not saying that a nuke is something to kid about, but the chances of Iran actually using it are slim to none. They are not stupid as you might believe. They know for a fact they would get wiped off the world map if they did. 

I agree with the economy and spending more money then we have more of an issue as well.


----------



## Redeye (7 Sep 2011)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> When Iran gets a bomb, and it goes off anywhere in Israel or the USA,  and it will, the economy will tank and the environment will be contaminated.



I'm remarkably unconcerned about that ever actually happening.


----------



## a_majoor (7 Sep 2011)

The reason no one is overly concerned with the nuclear capabilities of Russia, China (or France, for that matter) is these are relatively stable nation states run by a professional class of politicians and bureaucrats who have little to gain and everything to loose if nuclear weapons are used. Iran has not exactly demonstrated that to be the case, and their known use of non state actors like Hezbollah and Hamas as their military proxies implies that nuclear capabilities might not be under control of rational or accountable people.

WRT Islamicism, the greater threat is blocks of unassimilated people and groups in the body politic who largely ignore or reject "our" values. The Hell's Angels, Native Canadians, Quebec separatists, radical Greens and some Sikh congregations have demonstrated various levels of "rejection" past and present. If unassimilated groups actively oppose the values of a Liberal-Democratic state, then they are a true danger, and radical Islam _has_ demonstrated an actively rejectionist stance.


----------



## canada94 (7 Sep 2011)

: still does not change the fact Israel has 300 nukes. "Unstable", they have a lower homicide rate then we do? They may not be free, but calling Iran unstable to the point of losing control of its nuclear weapons is not plausible IMO.


----------



## Brad Sallows (7 Sep 2011)

If any of the nations that has nuclear weapons reports one "missing" and it subsequently "goes off", there will be no rational excuse for a punitive response - after all, it went "missing".  The recipient will have to grin and bear it.  Alternately, steps can be taken to prevent such an occurrence.

A fact which receives too little attention is that the more advanced technologically we become, the more vulnerable we are and the more grave a disruption can be.  Next time you're in a high-rise with no power (lights, elevator, refrigerator, stove, perhaps no water pressure) or a major traffic jam, imagine if the disruption were extended (days or weeks instead of minutes or hours).

That aside, the real point of vulnerability is confidence and faith (ie. things we take for granted), not physical infrastructure.


----------



## Rifleman62 (8 Sep 2011)

Quote from: Rifleman62 on Yesterday at 18:43:31





> When Iran gets a bomb, and it goes off anywhere in Israel or the USA,  and it will, the economy will tank and the environment will be contaminated.




Redeye: 





> I'm remarkably unconcerned about that ever actually happening.



And why am I not surprised of your view of Utopia.


----------



## Sythen (8 Sep 2011)

canada94 said:
			
		

> they have a lower homicide rate then we do?



Homicide is illegal killing. I am willing to bet if you applied our laws to the majority of killing in that country you would see a totally different picture. They are unstable, and if you want to live under a rock, and ignore all the rhetoric and threats made by the Iranian regime then have fun. The rest of us don't want to keep our heads buried in the sand.


----------



## lethalLemon (8 Sep 2011)

Sythen said:
			
		

> Homicide is illegal killing. I am willing to bet if you applied our laws to the majority of killing in that country you would see a totally different picture. They are unstable, and if you want to live under a rock, and ignore all the rhetoric and threats made by the Iranian regime then have fun. The rest of us don't want to keep our heads buried in the sand.



Well said.

I don't believe these old and *re*-proposed laws are unnecessary or even harsh. 3 days sitting in a cell so that police can make sure that the 800 pounds of fertilizer you just bought for dirt cheap isn't being used to make bombs and you're not a threat to innocent people is well worth it. People have to keep in mind, ARRESTS do not go on your record and go against you, only OFFENSES IN WHICH YOU HAVE BEEN CONVICTED (charges of anywhere from assault, murder, to pissing in public haha) are placed on your record and go against you. After all, these laws are NOT just applied to those of Islam, they're applied to EVERYONE. Therefore not only are we protecting our nation against immigrants who for some reason want to hate our country and the way it's run because it's not like where they came from, but we're also protecting our nation against homegrown terror like the bombings and shootings that occurred in Norway - by Norwegians.

I've noticed that CBC gets more and more biased, yes Harper my say "Islamicism.. blah blah blah..." but is that _really_ all he said? It could have just been one line, he could have said "Islamicism... blah blah blah... and along with... blah blah blah" but we will never know because CBC always wants to paint Harper as a horrible person and a criminal. It's disgusting.

Israel and a lot of those nations around there actually have Honour Killings as legal homicide. That's why it seems they have a lower homicide rate (although, I don't know much about how Israel runs so they may have more civilized laws, maybe, but... I might still be in line), but like Sythen said, if it were to occur here, (or even there) with or laws applied, the murder rate would sky rocket (or you can just go to Coquitlam which currently holds Canada's highest murder rate at 365% higher than the nation average).

However, I will conclude: I still think they should be more focused on the economy and healthcare etc. as previously stated - more prominent issues to the everyday Canadian, however, if this is what's on their mind at this time - can we really stop them?


----------



## Redeye (8 Sep 2011)

Iran's rhetoric is primarily for domestic consumption, in the style of most tyrannical strongmen, Ahmadinejad blusters on at length but the likelihood of them actually using nuclear weapons against Israel or anyone else is remarkably small, because he's smart enough to know the consequences. Is it potentially a problem or threat that bears some watching? Yes. Is it a significant threat to Canadians? No, not really. By and large, Canadians, and rightly so, are more concerned about the economy, about the environment, about our health care system and how it will react to aging boomers, etc, than it is (or should be) about Iran.


----------



## Redeye (8 Sep 2011)

lethalLemon said:
			
		

> Well said.
> 
> I don't believe these old and *re*-proposed laws are unnecessary or even harsh. 3 days sitting in a cell so that police can make sure that the 800 pounds of fertilizer you just bought for dirt cheap isn't being used to make bombs and you're not a threat to innocent people is well worth it. People have to keep in mind, ARRESTS do not go on your record and go against you, only OFFENSES IN WHICH YOU HAVE BEEN CONVICTED (charges of anywhere from assault, murder, to pissing in public haha) are placed on your record and go against you. After all, these laws are NOT just applied to those of Islam, they're applied to EVERYONE. Therefore not only are we protecting our nation against immigrants who for some reason want to hate our country and the way it's run because it's not like where they came from, but we're also protecting our nation against homegrown terror like the bombings and shootings that occurred in Norway - by Norwegians.



So you'll tolerate an attack on basic ideas of liberty? "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Frankin

The idea of starting to trample on basic individual liberties in response to a vague threat is something that should be a national conversation.  I bet sitting in jail sounds alright as long as it's not you.



			
				lethalLemon said:
			
		

> I've noticed that CBC gets more and more biased, yes Harper my say "Islamicism.. blah blah blah..." but is that _really_ all he said? It could have just been one line, he could have said "Islamicism... blah blah blah... and along with... blah blah blah" but we will never know because CBC always wants to paint Harper as a horrible person and a criminal. It's disgusting.



 :facepalm:

More "OMG the CBC hates Harper" poutrage. As I understand it, it was a long, pretty continuous interview, not a bunch of cropped shots allowing for clever editing. Mr. Harper did also talk about other issues, but the statement about "Islamicism" stood out.



			
				lethalLemon said:
			
		

> Israel and a lot of those nations around there actually have Honour Killings as legal homicide. That's why it seems they have a lower homicide rate (although, I don't know much about how Israel runs so they may have more civilized laws, maybe, but... I might still be in line), but like Sythen said, if it were to occur here, (or even there) with or laws applied, the murder rate would sky rocket (or you can just go to Coquitlam which currently holds Canada's highest murder rate at 365% higher than the nation average).



Can we shorten this paragraph to "I have no idea what I'm talking about" or delete it altogether? Since you admit you don't know about how Israel runs (or that "honor killings" aren't legal there and never have been), maybe it'd be better if you just stay in your lane. Israel, apart from its appalling treatment of its Palestinian "neighbours", is a pretty civilized, moden democracy with laws generally like you'd find in Western countries.


----------



## Sythen (8 Sep 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Iran's rhetoric is primarily for domestic consumption



How willfully blind must people be? So UN speeches are for domestic consumption too? Every chance this guy gets he talks about destroying the USA and Israel in a wave of fire. People these days are so afraid of doing something beyond posting a facebook status that they are willing to let harm befall them and others.



> Is it potentially a problem or threat that bears some watching? Yes. Is it a significant threat to Canadians? No, not really.



Wonder how many people said that when Al Qaeda declared war on the US back in the 90's? Yea just ignore the problem, it will go away.. Bin Laden is just giving rhetoric for domestic consumption, he's smart enough to know the USA would kill him if he did anything, right?

Unfortunately, people like you all you do is watch and wait.. Then when shit hits the fan, you will complain about how the CIA knew and did nothing, etc etc.. So tired of it...


----------



## Sythen (8 Sep 2011)

> maybe it'd be better if you just stay in your lane. Israel, apart from its appalling treatment of its Palestinian "neighbours", is a pretty civilized, moden democracy with laws generally like you'd find in Western countries.



I think you should take your own advice. The fact Israel hasn't wiped out the Palestinian people is beyond restraint. I am not advocating them to do so or anything, but Palestinian people inside Israel have more rights then Palestinians inside Libya or Syria or Iran. Please do some fact checking. I know if my neighbor constantly attacked me, and everyone without any real insight said I was doing all sorts of horrible things to them, I would just start doing those things.


----------



## Redeye (8 Sep 2011)

Sythen said:
			
		

> How willfully blind must people be? So UN speeches are for domestic consumption too? Every chance this guy gets he talks about destroying the USA and Israel in a wave of fire. People these days are so afraid of doing something beyond posting a facebook status that they are willing to let harm befall them and others.



Yep. Understand that a tyrant must take steps to maintain his legitimacy against domestic enemies first and foremost. Look at any tyrant in history, and you'll see the same pattern. They pick an enemy they shape into an existential threat (the USA and Israel serve Iran's purposes well for this) and they bluster on and on about them - as in, "Look what I'm protecting you from."  As a state actor, he knows Iran cannot really do anything significant without receiving massive, decisive retaliation against the entire population. He can, however, fight proxy wars against Israel, which we all know he does by propping up Syria and arming Hezbollah, and will keep doing so at least until a two-state solution is settled there. I have my doubts that will solve much long term, though, sadly.



			
				Sythen said:
			
		

> Wonder how many people said that when Al Qaeda declared war on the US back in the 90's? Yea just ignore the problem, it will go away.. Bin Laden is just giving rhetoric for domestic consumption, he's smart enough to know the USA would kill him if he did anything, right?



The problem posed by Al Qaeda is different. They're a non-state actor. They don't have territory that can be easily threatened like Iran does. They don't have cities that could basically be levelled by retaliatory strikes, making them a much more insidious enemy.



			
				Sythen said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, people like you all you do is watch and wait.. Then when crap hits the fan, you will complain about how the CIA knew and did nothing, etc etc.. So tired of it...



Any more incorrect generalizations you wanted to throw out there? Go ahead!


----------



## Redeye (8 Sep 2011)

Sythen said:
			
		

> I think you should take your own advice. The fact Israel hasn't wiped out the Palestinian people is beyond restraint. I am not advocating them to do so or anything, but Palestinian people inside Israel have more rights then Palestinians inside Libya or Syria or Iran. Please do some fact checking. I know if my neighbor constantly attacked me, and everyone without any real insight said I was doing all sorts of horrible things to them, I would just start doing those things.



Palestinians inside Libya, or Syria, or Iran? What?!

What kills me about Israel is that they essentially turned the Gaza Strip and West Bank into giant prisons, keep the Palestianians from being able to exercise any sort of democratic rights (unless, of course, Israel approves), and have essentially strangled any hope for economic development in them. Until they stop doing that, and accept a two-state solution (which, incidentally, a good chunk of Israelis understand is the only way forward), they're not going to get peace.  And they're going to keep pissing off the world as they use things like collective punishment to deal with what happens as a result of the way they treat the Palestinians. Given the history which led to the creation of the State of Israel, arguably the most disastrous foreign policy decision in history, the irony of their use of such tactics is rich indeed. Fortunately, I think most people who live there are decent people, and I'm hoping that when Netanyahu is gone they might elect someone a little more reasonable and start actually working toward a solution.


----------



## Sythen (8 Sep 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> The problem posed by Al Qaeda is different. They're a non-state actor. They don't have territory that can be easily threatened like Iran does. They don't have cities that could basically be levelled by retaliatory strikes, making them a much more insidious enemy.



And in your diluted mind, when Iran finally does do something, you will come up with 100 ways to say the same thing.. oh it was different because blah blah blah.. Before 9/11, you would have been saying the same thing about a preemptive strike against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Its amazing the mental gymnastics some people can do all to preserve their notion of everything is good in the world, except Steven Harper. He is all that is bad, right? Him at that Tea Party...



> So you'll tolerate an attack on basic ideas of liberty? "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Frankin
> 
> The idea of starting to trample on basic individual liberties in response to a vague threat is something that should be a national conversation.  I bet sitting in jail sounds alright as long as it's not you.



Forgot to reply to this little gem. If the world was only so simple to make your little fantasy a reality, I would grow long hair, smoke weed and sing kumbaya..  I love when people misuse this quote. Tell this quote to the victims in NY and Washington.. or Madrid or London.. Tell them that they died so that shady characters making shady purchases can avoid being questioned about it.


----------



## Sythen (8 Sep 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Palestinians inside Libya, or Syria, or Iran? What?!
> 
> What kills me about Israel is that they essentially turned the Gaza Strip and West Bank into giant prisons, keep the Palestianians from being able to exercise any sort of democratic rights (unless, of course, Israel approves), and have essentially strangled any hope for economic development in them. Until they stop doing that, and accept a two-state solution (which, incidentally, a good chunk of Israelis understand is the only way forward), they're not going to get peace.  And they're going to keep pissing off the world as they use things like collective punishment to deal with what happens as a result of the way they treat the Palestinians. Given the history which led to the creation of the State of Israel, arguably the most disastrous foreign policy decision in history, the irony of their use of such tactics is rich indeed. Fortunately, I think most people who live there are decent people, and I'm hoping that when Netanyahu is gone they might elect someone a little more reasonable and start actually working toward a solution.



And I am done. Please come out of your cave and join the rest of the world. I will end by giving you a video to watch. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdH0XxDEjG4


----------



## Sythen (8 Sep 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Palestinians inside Libya, or Syria, or Iran? What?!



I will correct myself, I meant Lebanon not Libya


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Sep 2011)

Israel (the Zionists, first) has been negotiating, in one form or another, with the Arabs for 110 years - ever since the Jewish National Fund was established to buy Arab land for Jewish farms. The negotiations have borne some, but little, fruit. One problem is that a large, influential and increasingly powerful segment of the Arabs regards the existence of a Jewish state, actually any non-Islamic state, in the region as an abomination. For this group the only acceptable outcome is the dissolution of Israel as an entity. Jews are 'welcome,' after a fashion, to stay on as second class citizens (see your own favourite definition of "dhimmitude"). There are, I think limits to how much Israel must 'give' for whatever the Arabs will call peace.

That aside, Israel's response to attacks from Gaza and the West Bank is debatable in technique and it appears to be ineffective.

(I, personally, were I an Israeli, would advocate for a bigger, better fence - encompassing some of the settlements - leaving the others to their (sad) fate - that would *totally* isolate the West Bank and Gaza. No Palestinian who was not a citizen of Israel would be allowed to enter Israel, for any reason, under any circumstances. Attacks from the West Bank and Gaza would be countered with massive, bloody and totally indiscriminate reprisal attacks - one missile would net a return of 100 or so; repeat as necessary. I do not believe that the Arabs will ever reconcile themselves to a Jewish state in the _"ummah"_ so why bother trying? Lock them out - if they don't want peace then blow therm away.)

But, eventually, I believe that the Arabs will prevail. I do not think that Israel is strategically defensible - not even with nukes. I do not believe that America can or will defend Israel and I do not think that Israel can, time after time, every single time, defeat all its Arab neighbours and, as Israelis know, Israel must win every time; the Arabs just need to get lucky once.


----------



## Redeye (8 Sep 2011)

Sythen said:
			
		

> And in your diluted mind, when Iran finally does do something, you will come up with 100 ways to say the same thing.. oh it was different because blah blah blah.. Before 9/11, you would have been saying the same thing about a preemptive strike against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Its amazing the mental gymnastics some people can do all to preserve their notion of everything is good in the world, except Steven Harper. He is all that is bad, right? Him at that Tea Party...



Except I didn't. I had no problem with going after Al Qaeda long before in Sudan and Afghanistan. Nor do I have a particular problem with Stephen Harper. I voted for his party the first couple of times, after all.




			
				Sythen said:
			
		

> Forgot to reply to this little gem. If the world was only so simple to make your little fantasy a reality, I would grow long hair, smoke weed and sing kumbaya..  I love when people misuse this quote. Tell this quote to the victims in NY and Washington.. or Madrid or London.. Tell them that they died so that shady characters making shady purchases can avoid being questioned about it.



The quote isn't misused. There must be, in a free society, some semblance of balance. When we start using a threat which is still remote at the end of the day to start justifying a massive curtailing of basic civil liberties, there's a very serious problem. Frankly, the odds of being killed by lightning, a road traffic accident, medical malpractice, and various other things are substantially higher than the odds of being killed in a terrorist attack, so you'll have to forgive me for thinking that the use of fearmongering to impugne personal liberties is largely a problem.

One of the most remarkable things about the recent attack in Norway is that the King and Government basically stated that they won't let that one horrible event change the way they live, won't let it threaten their democracy or their liberties. That's a brave statement, and I was glad to hear it.


----------



## lethalLemon (8 Sep 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> So you'll tolerate an attack on basic ideas of liberty? "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Frankin
> 
> The idea of starting to trample on basic individual liberties in response to a vague threat is something that should be a national conversation.  I bet sitting in jail sounds alright as long as it's not you.
> 
> ...



1) Did I ever say it would be okay if it wasn't me? No, I did not. However, if I were ever to be arrested under these laws under suspicion of terrorism, I would cooperate because I know: 1) I'll never partake in such acts 2) I have no reason to not cooperate as it's for the collection protection of the nation. If that's what the law states, well, then it shall be done. I'd rather sit in a prison cell for 3 days and be told "Everything is okay, you can go home" than to have a bomb go off, killing my friends and family, or some crazed utopian freak like you, go gun down a bunch of children at a Summer Camp. If that's what you truly believe, then why not just invite the Taliban, or Hamas or Hezbollah or al-Qaeda into our country with open arms, treat them as every other immigrant/landed immigrant/permanent resident/and eventually citizen, and see what happens. Those f*ckers don't scare me because I know my government will protect me. That's what they're there for. Need we to remember the October Crisis? That is your classic example of Homegrown terrorism.

2) Okay, so the Islamicism statement stood out, but why should it stand out? Why can't those other issues stand out too? This is what I'm talking about, they don't report on the whole picture and just take one statement and paint him a bad man. I never said they are "Anti-Harper" or ALWAYS painting him as a bad man... it just seems IMHO that they do it FAR too often.

3) Whoa whoa whoa, cool your jets... That's why I said, *I DON'T KNOW.* I know that honour killings aren't legal in Israel, but I don't know how the rest of the country works... That's *ALSO* why I said that *OTHER NATIONS* in that area, have it legalized due to Sharia Law etc. It would really help if you didn't take things so personally, and read posts in their entirety before lunging at people.

EDIT: All in all, I don't want these laws to pass, from the deepest depths of my heart and mind - truly, madly, deeply, I do not. I want the them to focus on more pressing issues like the unemployment rates and stupid housing costs (economy) and healthcare. Am I not allowed to engage in discussion? I engage in discussions like these to *learn* not to be flamed and yelled at by people like you just because I said something you don't like.


----------



## lethalLemon (8 Sep 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> *FILLER*



These two posts that you quoted:



> Quote from: lethalLemon on Today at 07:10:25
> Wonder how many people said that when Al Qaeda declared war on the US back in the 90's? Yea just ignore the problem, it will go away.. Bin Laden is just giving rhetoric for domestic consumption, he's smart enough to know the USA would kill him if he did anything, right?



and



> Quote from: lethalLemon on Today at 07:10:25
> Unfortunately, people like you all you do is watch and wait.. Then when crap hits the fan, you will complain about how the CIA knew and did nothing, etc etc.. So tired of it...



Were not made by me. However I do agree with them.

Please fix thank you.


----------



## Redeye (8 Sep 2011)

lethalLemon said:
			
		

> 1) Did I ever say it would be okay if it wasn't me? No, I did not. However, if I were ever to be arrested under these laws under suspicion of terrorism, I would cooperate because I know: 1) I'll never partake in such acts 2) I have no reason to not cooperate as it's for the collection protection of the nation. If that's what the law states, well, then it shall be done. I'd rather sit in a prison cell for 3 days and be told "Everything is okay, you can go home" than to have a bomb go off, killing my friends and family, or some crazed utopian freak like you, go gun down a bunch of children at a Summer Camp. If that's what you truly believe, then why not just invite the Taliban, or Hamas or Hezbollah or al-Qaeda into our country with open arms, treat them as every other immigrant/landed immigrant/permanent resident/and eventually citizen, and see what happens. Those f*ckers don't scare me because I know my government will protect me. That's what they're there for. Need we to remember the October Crisis? That is your classic example of Homegrown terrorism.



Rich you call me "some crazed utopian freak" then later try to say you shouldn't be flamed for making a statement you clearly didn't put any thought into.



			
				lethalLemon said:
			
		

> 2) Okay, so the Islamicism statement stood out, but why should it stand out? Why can't those other issues stand out too? This is what I'm talking about, they don't report on the whole picture and just take one statement and paint him a bad man. I never said they are "Anti-Harper" or ALWAYS painting him as a bad man... it just seems IMHO that they do it FAR too often.



Are they critical of him? Sure. That's what media, ideally, is supposed to do. They were also critical of Martin, Chretien, etc.



			
				lethalLemon said:
			
		

> 3) Whoa whoa whoa, cool your jets... That's why I said, *I DON'T KNOW.* I know that honour killings aren't legal in Israel, but I don't know how the rest of the country works... That's *ALSO* why I said that *OTHER NATIONS* in that area, have it legalized due to Sharia Law etc. It would really help if you didn't take things so personally, and read posts in their entirety before lunging at people.



Honor killings aren't necessarily a sharia law thing (let me guess, that's something else you're not exactly "up on" - they've also been identified as an issue in several South American countries, including Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela, Peru, and Ecuador, and secular Arab states like Egypt.



			
				lethalLemon said:
			
		

> EDIT: All in all, I don't want these laws to pass, from the deepest depths of my heart and mind - truly, madly, deeply, I do not. I want the them to focus on more pressing issues like the unemployment rates and stupid housing costs (economy) and healthcare. Am I not allowed to engage in discussion? I engage in discussions like these to *learn* not to be flamed and yelled at by people like you just because I said something you don't like.



Then discuss we shall! That's good. But just don't go making too many assumptions, because clearly that doesn't help.


----------



## Redeye (8 Sep 2011)

lethalLemon said:
			
		

> These two posts that you quoted:
> Were not made by me. However I do agree with them.
> Please fix thank you.



Done - I cut and pasted the wrong trackback. Sorry.


----------



## lethalLemon (8 Sep 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Rich you call me "some crazed utopian freak" then later try to say you shouldn't be flamed for making a statement you clearly didn't put any thought into.


 I didn't say come out and say "you're basically pretty much an idiot because I didn't bother to read the part that says you didn't know, so you should just delete your post and never type on the interwebs again" - which, is what I interpreted from what you wrote.



> Are they critical of him? Sure. That's what media, ideally, is supposed to do. They were also critical of Martin, Chretien, etc.


Understood, however they could do a better job, like I previously stated they should have made ALL of the issues stand out, and not just nit pick on his statement of "Islamicism".



> Honor killings aren't necessarily a sharia law thing (let me guess, that's something else you're not exactly "up on" - they've also been identified as an issue in several South American countries, including Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela, Peru, and Ecuador, and secular Arab states like Egypt.


But I wasn't talking about South America. I said nations around Israel, and I said Sharia Law and *ETC* because there are other things that I am aware of that are a result of/attribute to honour killings. I know that they've been addressed as an issue in South America, but that was not the discussion at hand.



> Then discuss we shall! That's good. But just don't go making too many assumptions, because clearly that doesn't help.



I'm not making assumptions, I am making statements based on what I have learned/known - whether correct or not - and looking to gain knowledge through others, rather than just being told "No, you're wrong, shut up."


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (8 Sep 2011)

lethalLemon said:
			
		

> Understood, however they could do a better job, like I previously stated they should have made ALL of the issues stand out, and not just nit pick on his statement of "Islamicism".



In all fairness one must `pick on`that which stands out,......every talk show today in this region has been jumping all over Mr. McGuinty`s $10,000 `hire an immigrant`scheme, not the rest of his platform.


----------



## Redeye (8 Sep 2011)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> In all fairness one must `pick on`that which stands out,......every talk show today in this region has been jumping all over Mr. McGuinty`s $10,000 `hire an immigrant`scheme, not the rest of his platform.



Precisely. There will always be things that rise above other issues, regardless of political stripes.  Harper's statement in this interview got the most attention because it's probably the most controversial, particularly in the context of the laws he wants to reintroduce. The media making it a focal point of discussion is basically doing their job.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (8 Sep 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Harper's



Time for my rant....................why do "we" address the Prime Minister and provincial Ministers, etc., with so little respect. Would a Mister/ Ms. in front of our leaders and wannabe leaders names hurt that much?        Rant done.
[not just directed at you Redeye but folks in general]


----------



## Redeye (8 Sep 2011)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Time for my rant....................why do "we" address the Prime Minister and provincial Ministers, etc., with so little respect. Would a Mister/ Ms. in front of our leaders and wannabe leaders names hurt that much?        Rant done.
> [not just directed at you Redeye but folks in general]



Fair dinkum. I tend to do so, at least sometimes - but the point is well-made.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Sep 2011)

While the Prime Minister may be preparing the ground for State action to deal with the problem, as a libertarian I am in favour of DIY solutions. Given the diffuse nature of the problem and the limitations imposed by the "Local Knowledge Problem", DIY can be faster and more efficient:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/fighting-islamic-terror-a-personal-duty/



> *Fighting Islamic Terror: A Personal Duty*
> 
> Posted By Ryan Mauro On September 9, 2011 @ 12:00 am In Uncategorized | 4 Comments
> 
> ...


----------



## FlyingDutchman (9 Sep 2011)

Kalatzi said:
			
		

> Harper says 'Islamicism' biggest threat to Canada
> Prime minister says Conservatives will bring back controversial anti-terrorism laws
> Link here http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/09/06/harper-911-terrorism-islamic-interview.html
> 
> ...


I feel like he is targetting Islam, the religion, to closley with that statement.  I paintballed with those who practice Islam, nice group of students.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Sep 2011)

FlyingDutchman said:
			
		

> I feel like he is targetting Islam, the religion, to closley with that statement.  I paintballed with those who practice Islam, nice group of students.



He's not targeting the religion, or Muslims, in general. He's speaking about the radical fundamentalists. That should be more than obvious to any clear, level headed person that has at least a grade five education. About time too.

Too many people are are scared the PC police will come and lock them up if they call a spade a spade. There's a whole generation of namby pamby, don't speak ill of the devil, people out there that just don't get it.

The idea that people get all high and mighty and take offence at the merest _perceived_ slight is what is really offensive.


----------



## Infanteer (9 Sep 2011)

FlyingDutchman said:
			
		

> I feel like he is targetting Islam, the religion, to closley with that statement.  I paintballed with those who practice Islam, nice group of students.



Well, you've obviously targetted Muslims too....


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Sep 2011)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Well, you've obviously targetted Muslims too....


 :rofl:


----------



## FlyingDutchman (9 Sep 2011)

True, damn buggers moved fast too.


----------



## Redeye (9 Sep 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> While the Prime Minister may be preparing the ground for State action to deal with the problem, as a libertarian I am in favour of DIY solutions. Given the diffuse nature of the problem and the limitations imposed by the "Local Knowledge Problem", DIY can be faster and more efficient:
> 
> http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/fighting-islamic-terror-a-personal-duty/



Not that I'm surprised how crappy the content would be given the source, but I stopped reading this as soon as it referred to the "Ground Zero Mosque".  Which, of course, doesn't exist, will not exist. It's this kind of idiotic, fabricated hyperbole that is precisely the problem - attacking an entire group for the actions of a tiny fringe therein. The concept of Park51 is actually pretty good, a community centre incorporating space for all and a memorial. It's not surprising to me that it enjoys the support of the families of quite a few 9/11 victims, and I can't help but notice the thinly-veiled racism behind most of the attacks on the efforts of a group to develop space which they own.


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Sep 2011)

When I recollect the celebrations 10 years ago, I'm not convinced the fringe is tiny.


----------



## Redeye (11 Sep 2011)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> When I recollect the celebrations 10 years ago, I'm not convinced the fringe is tiny.



I have no idea how representative the few shots of revelry in the wake of the attacks were, since they were mainly presented to us to support a particularly point of view. From a pragmatic point of view, I can't say I wouldn't understand why some on the Arab Street would find something to cheer about with respect to America getting "a bloody nose", particularly in places like Gaza. However, I don't believe most of those people would actually support terrorism, much less participate in it. Most of them would likely rather just be left alone to live their lives.


----------



## PuckChaser (11 Sep 2011)

Sure they don't support terrorism monetarily, but going onto the streets to celebrate 3,000 Americans being killed just gives the impression to the fringe fundamentalists that they have the people behind them. They're supporting the ideology by doing what the extremists want them to do. If Gaza didn't want the Americans in their lives, maybe they shouldn't have elected a known terrorist group as their political heads of state. You can't be considered a legitimate country when you put people like Hamas into power (But that's a whole other thread).


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Sep 2011)

I don't care whether they support "terrorism" or not.  They were celebrating the deaths of people who were merely going about their lives.  There is no spin or nuance which can mitigate that and my respect for anyone who so attempts only diminishes; they are subhuman.


----------



## canada94 (11 Sep 2011)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Sure they don't support terrorism monetarily, but going onto the streets to celebrate 3,000 Americans being killed just gives the impression to the fringe fundamentalists that they have the people behind them. They're supporting the ideology by doing what the extremists want them to do. If Gaza didn't want the Americans in their lives, maybe they shouldn't have elected a known terrorist group as their political heads of state. You can't be considered a legitimate country when you put people like Hamas into power (But that's a whole other thread).



"Angry, young and poor"

Three sad little deviousness problems much of these countries that we paste as "terror states" are loaded with. I don't agree or want to defend them at all, but its easy to persuaded when you have nothing.


----------



## lethalLemon (11 Sep 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> He's not targeting the religion, or Muslims, in general. He's speaking about the radical fundamentalists. That should be more than obvious to any clear, level headed person that has at least a grade five education. About time too.
> 
> Too many people are are scared the PC police will come and lock them up if they call a spade a spade. There's a whole generation of namby pamby, don't speak ill of the devil, people out there that just don't get it.
> 
> The idea that people get all high and mighty and take offence at the merest _perceived_ slight is what is really offensive.



Couldn't have said it better myself


----------



## SeaKingTacco (11 Sep 2011)

canada94 said:
			
		

> "Angry, young and poor"
> 
> Three sad little deviousness problems much of these countries that we paste as "terror states" are loaded with. I don't agree or want to defend them at all, but its easy to persuaded when you have nothing.



I call BS on the poor part.  I have been to some of the poorest parts of the world, around people who have, what we in the West would consider "nothing" and never felt safer.  Being poor doesn't equal being a criminal or a terrorist in the making.  I say that there is more to radicalization than whether you can afford an Xbox or an iphone.


----------



## Infanteer (12 Sep 2011)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I say that there is more to radicalization than whether you can afford an Xbox or an iphone.



Actually, there is truth to that statement.  Marc Sageman found that hard core Salafists tend to come from middle-class roots.


----------



## canada94 (12 Sep 2011)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I call BS on the poor part.  I have been to some of the poorest parts of the world, around people who have, what we in the West would consider "nothing" and never felt safer.  Being poor doesn't equal being a criminal or a terrorist in the making.  I say that there is more to radicalization than whether you can afford an Xbox or an iphone.



I never once said that any of them alone all make everyone a "terrorist in the making" I am saying that they all play a role in countries with massive amounts of terrorism. 

"Affording an xbox.." is not what I was thinking, but moreover, affording an education.


----------



## Sythen (12 Sep 2011)

canada94 said:
			
		

> "Angry, young and poor"
> 
> Three sad little deviousness problems much of these countries that we paste as "terror states" are loaded with. I don't agree or want to defend them at all, but its easy to persuaded when you have nothing.



Mark Steyn has the best line he always says to people who say things like this. What is the capital on Saudi Arabia? What is the principle export of Nepal? I bet without google, you probably wouldn't know either answer. And without knowing simple things like this about a people, how can you claim to know what is the cause of their problems? 



> "Affording an xbox.." is not what I was thinking, but moreover, affording an education.



Most people in these countries do get educated, but their educators are the local Imam, and their source material is the Quran. One man's education is another man's brain washing.

*Modified for spelling


----------



## canada94 (12 Sep 2011)

Sythen said:
			
		

> Mark Steyn has the best line he always says to people who say things like this. What is the capital on Saudi Arabia? What is the principle export of Nepal? I bet without google, you probably wouldn't know either answer. And without knowing simple things like this about a people, how can you claim to know what is the cause of their problems?
> 
> Most people in these countries do get educated, but their educators are the local Imam, and their source material is the Quran. One man's education is another man's brain washing.
> 
> *Modified for spelling



A lot of good points, if you would like to continue PM me


----------



## Redeye (12 Sep 2011)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Sure they don't support terrorism monetarily, but going onto the streets to celebrate 3,000 Americans being killed just gives the impression to the fringe fundamentalists that they have the people behind them. They're supporting the ideology by doing what the extremists want them to do. If Gaza didn't want the Americans in their lives, maybe they shouldn't have elected a known terrorist group as their political heads of state. You can't be considered a legitimate country when you put people like Hamas into power (But that's a whole other thread).



In the eyes of many Palestinians, Hamas was as legitimate a contender, especially when their alternative was Fatah, widely viewed as highly corrupt. Southern Lebanon has the same problem with Hezbollah. What are people left to think when they're the ones that run the schools, patrol the streets, pick up the garbage, etc etc. They've become the de facto government because they've taken on those functions, where the "legitimate" government of Lebanon hasn't.

If democracy is the big objective with all these countries in the Middle East, what then gives us a say in who they elect? That's a rather hypocritical position statement.


----------



## Redeye (12 Sep 2011)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I don't care whether they support "terrorism" or not.  They were celebrating the deaths of people who were merely going about their lives.  There is no spin or nuance which can mitigate that and my respect for anyone who so attempts only diminishes; they are subhuman.



Again, I wasn't there - and neither were you, of course - so I don't know what they were celebrating. I would imagine the symbolism of the attack. Yes, that's just as contemptible, but put into context it's a little more understandable.


----------



## Redeye (12 Sep 2011)

Sythen said:
			
		

> Mark Steyn has the best line he always says to people who say things like this. What is the capital on Saudi Arabia? What is the principle export of Nepal? I bet without google, you probably wouldn't know either answer. And without knowing simple things like this about a people, how can you claim to know what is the cause of their problems?
> 
> Most people in these countries do get educated, but their educators are the local Imam, and their source material is the Quran. One man's education is another man's brain washing.
> 
> *Modified for spelling



Angry, young, poor (to an extent, anyhow) and ignorant above all. While the argument about Salafists being largely middle class makes a lot of sense, the people they get to do a lot of the wet work - suicide bombers, etc, are often pulled from poorer families where the promise of helping their family can add to the great attraction of becoming a shaheed. It's basically an exploitive process. The best hope, if it can be done practically, of dealing with a lot of the strife in places like the Middle East and Afghanistan, is improving access to education. In the case of Palestine and Israel in particular, a reconciliation process must be more detailed, and include a functional, economically viable (read: not blockaded) Palestinian state. There's been a lot of interesting stories of programs designed to bring together Palestinian and Israeli youth to interact on the theory that they'll see that really, they aren't that different and they actually can get along. Such programs also existed, as I recall, in Northern Ireland toward the end of the Troubles with some success.

I'd suspect that a generation of kids growing up with an education and prospects for their future being a bit brighter would have, generally, a lot less interest in fighting. But that's just my  :2c:.


----------



## Sythen (12 Sep 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> the people they get to do a lot of the wet work - suicide bombers, etc, are often pulled from poorer families where the promise of helping their family can add to the great attraction of becoming a shaheed.



Care to give any sort of reference for this?


----------



## Redeye (12 Sep 2011)

Sythen said:
			
		

> Care to give any sort of reference for this?



I'll try to find the study I read about three or four years ago - it was done, I think, by Tel Aviv University that was most detailed, but here's some interesting stuff. It made specific references to a subset of suicide bombers being enticed both by religious/community ideals but also the idea of getting their family out of poverty.

Here's a few quick hits that are interesting:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/GH23Aa01.html

A brilliant summary of a study out of Australia:

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/what-motivates-suicide-bombers-0

This is an interesting counterpoint - suggesting there's not clear factors:

http://nationalstrategy.com/NSFReview/PastNSFRIssues/Fall2007V16Issue4/Fall2007NSFRDemographicsofTerrorists.aspx

It's something I'd be fascinated to read more research on, but as a couple of reports have highlighted, the identities of the bombers are not always all that clear - particularly when they have come from outside the conflict zone to commit their act.


----------



## OldSolduer (12 Sep 2011)

Redeye and Sythen: Its also been said that the suicide bombers are recruited from among the "mentally challenged". 

Now I have no clear evidence of this other than reading it on here.....but it makes sense.


----------



## Redeye (12 Sep 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Redeye and Sythen: Its also been said that the suicide bombers are recruited from among the "mentally challenged".
> 
> Now I have no clear evidence of this other than reading it on here.....but it makes sense.



One of the links actually refers to that claim - in particular, a specific event in Iraq where it was claimed that two "mentally challenged" women were the bombers - but then it notes that the authorities in many cases have absolutely no idea who the bombers are and couldn't support the claim. But it's hard to say it doesn't make sense, when you think about it.


----------



## Journeyman (12 Sep 2011)

Sythen said:
			
		

> Care to give any sort of reference for this?


One of the most common references is Mia Bloom, _Dying to Kill: The Allure of Suicide Terror_. NY: Columbia University Press, 2005. 

She suggests that while poverty, _per se_, is occasionally a factor, a more common attribute is social standing; this ties in honour killings, as well as having had a suicide bomber in your family may permit other family members to marry into "higher" social circles, etc.

And yes, while there is recent evidence of recruitment from among the "mentally challenged," predominantly within Iraq, it's considered by many (Islamists and Tamils -- the two largest groups of suicide bombers) to be dishonourable.


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Sep 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Redeye and Sythen: Its also been said that the suicide bombers are recruited from among the "mentally challenged".
> 
> Now I have no clear evidence of this other than reading it on here.....but it makes sense.


Caveat:  only one doc, talking about what he sees, so I wouldn't extend the 80 % too far outside his lab:


> .... many of the bombers have one major thing in common. A senior Afghan doctor who examines their remains finds that most of them were disabled or sick.
> 
> In his classroom at Kabul Medical University, Dr. Yusef Yadgari keeps the eyeball of a suicide bomber in a glass jar. Attached to the eye is a tumor that, Yadgari says, left the attacker partially blind.
> 
> ...





			
				Journeyman said:
			
		

> One of the most common references is Mia Bloom, _Dying to Kill: The Allure of Suicide Terror_. NY: Columbia University Press, 2005.
> 
> She suggests that while poverty, _per se_, is occasionally a factor, a more common attribute is social standing; this ties in honour killings, as well as having had a suicide bomber in your family may permit other family members to marry into "higher" social circles, etc.
> 
> And yes, while there is recent evidence of recruitment from among the "mentally challenged," predominantly within Iraq, it's considered by many (Islamists and Tamils -- the two largest groups of suicide bombers) to be dishonourable.


Also, a bit more on this sort of thing in Afghanistan from a 2007 U.N. study on suicide bombers here.


----------



## Journeyman (12 Sep 2011)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Caveat...


So you have concerns about the validity of a pathologist's views, but you're OK with a UN report saying suicide attacks will go away through (surprise surprise) appropriate policy initiatives, and coalition forces being nicer?   ;D


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Sep 2011)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> So you have concerns about the validity of a pathologist's views, but you're OK with a UN report saying suicide attacks will go away through (surprise surprise) appropriate policy initiatives, and coalition forces being nicer?   ;D


Touché!

Only meant "don't know if 80% of EVERY suicide bomber in AFG is like these", not that the academic pathologist is out to lunch.


----------



## DBA (14 Sep 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I agree. I'd put the economy, and also environmental issues up there too - religious extremism is nowhere near the top of the list. I think the general public seems to think so too, I think it may be a gaffe.



You got suckered by the misleading CBC headline. He was specifically talking about the biggest *security * threat not biggest threat in general. Reading the article itself makes this very clear.


----------

