• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Daniel H's Derailment....

daniel h.

Banned
Banned
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
160
Zarathustra said:
That's how you see it ? To me Iraq was War on Al-Qaeda. When it was pointed out that Al-Qaeda isn't based in Iraq it became Hunt for Weapon of mass destruction. None were found, so we got a War to free Iraq. Now I have doubts on what this war is really about.

I'm OK with Graham's answer. Afghanistan then because of Al-Qaeda/Talibans, Afghanistan now to prevent Al-Qaeda/Talibans from making a come back. Makes sense to me.


I know it is not my position to critique military policy, but:

I think it must be pretty hard for the Liberals to say with a staright face that going to war and risking the lives of Canadian soldiers is going to make us "safer" from terrorism when it was the globalists Liberal Party that allowed Muslim fundamentalists to immigrate here in the first place....there didn't use to be any in Canada. Nobody here meant there was no threat.

As for the argument we are "rebuilding, securing" etc. that is interesting, but come on, as soon as we leave the Taliban will be right back in Afghanistan--not that it isn't already. Muslims have many children per family and there will be plenty more fundamentalists to take their place from the more than 1 billion Muslims on the globe.

I'm more worried about the low European birth rate than racing off across the globe begging everyone to get along, which is a waste of time . Afghanistan may be worth it for the practce, but I have yet to see any other justification.



 
Zarathustra said:
I'm OK with Graham's answer. Afghanistan then because of Al-Qaeda/Talibans, Afghanistan now to prevent Al-Qaeda/Talibans from making a come back. Makes sense to me.

Well I don't have a problem with why we are in Afghanistan either. I just do not feel that Mr Graham has been emphatic or clear enough to express it as simply as you have put it. More importantly, The CF needs the people of Canada to express this not just the MND. I would feel much better if the politicians spent more time leading and clearly stating the mission and less time on getting reelected and general baby kissing and hand shaking.

When the going gets tough, as it most likely will in future months, we are going to need the continued support from the Country.

Jed
 
daniel h. said:
I think it must be pretty hard for the Liberals to say with a staright face that going to war and risking the lives of Canadian soldiers is going to make us "safer" from terrorism when it was the globalists Liberal Party that allowed Muslim fundamentalists to immigrate here in the first place....
There didn't used to be any white people in North America either - what's your point?  In any event, Conservative governments have been as open to immigrantion as Liberal ones, and rightly so.  Indiscriminant immigration was the driving cause behind the US' emergence as a world power at the beginning of the 20th century.

As for the argument we are "rebuilding, securing" etc. that is interesting, but come on, as soon as we leave the Taliban will be right back in Afghanistan--not that it isn't already. Muslims have many children per family and there will be plenty more fundamentalists to take their place from the more than 1 billion Muslims on the globe.
You seem to have trouble telling the difference between "Muslim" and "Muslim fundamentalist".  One is a culture, the other is a choice.  Of course children of fundamentalists are more likely to become fundamentalists, but someone, somewhere decided to turn to violence and that decision is renewed with each generation.  You don't break that cycle by ghettoizing entire nations.

I'm more worried about the low European birth rate than racing off across the globe begging everyone to get along, which is a waste of time . Afghanistan may be worth it for the practce, but I have yet to see any other justification.
Europe's brith rate is Europe's problem.  Unless you just think the world needs more Europeans. You're drifting dangerously close to "bigoted white-supremecist" territory - not the sort of view that the forum of record for the CF really needs to have represented.
 
Jed said:
I would feel much better if the politicians spent more time leading and clearly stating the mission and less time on getting reelected and general baby kissing and hand shaking.

Here I tend to agree with you. They manage the country more than they lead it. But they get elected, so they might not be totally wrong.

On popular support though I think the Canadians support the war in Afghanistan. Here in Québec Taliban policies aren't very popular. We allow girls to attend school and we would prefer to keep it that way. And we like music too, and movie theaters. Plus the war is directly related to Al-Qaeda and his supported by the U.N. The war makes sense, so I doubt people will ask us to pull out our troops anytime soon. Will people join the CF and help, that I'm less sure...
 
hamiltongs said:
You seem to have trouble telling the difference between "Muslim" and "Muslim fundamentalist".   One is a culture, the other is a choice.  

As do you (telling the difference). Both are "religion," neither is "culture." Think in terms of "Muslim Fundamentalist" is to "Muslim" as "Christian Fundamentalist" is to "Christian."

In addition, "Funadmentalist" is not necessarily "extremist" and it's clear that the latter is what we are (or should be) concerned with.

Finally, my take on the reason why the political leadership has failed to explain the reasons for our involvement in Afghanistan is that they truly believe that we (the "commonfolk") won't understand. It isn't something that can be simply explained with a slogan (like "not just gadgets" or "speed kills") and I suspect the political elite think of the vast majority of us as reflections of Julian and Bubbles et.al.

Acorn
 
There didn't used to be any white people in North America either - what's your point?  In any event, Conservative governments have been as open to immigrantion as Liberal ones, and rightly so. 

That's your opinion, and I wouldn't assume the majority of Canadians share it. Naturally, Asians and Europeans came and went over the last several thousand years. That wasn't my point. The point being, we wouldn't need to be "making the world safer from terror" if we didn't let people from around the world live in Canada, or America, or Britain where you know who blew up a subway train. As for people who say we owe it to the world to help other countries--nonsense.

Indiscriminant immigration was the driving cause behind the US' emergence as a world power at the beginning of the 20th century.

Indiscriminant EUROPEAN immigration was the driving cause, as well as the motivation, hard work and inventiveness that only Europeans possess to that degree, using the advantages of the industrial revolution to revolutionize technology and society, as well as expanding on the British idea of multinational invesment in corporations to truly multinational branch plant subsidiaries of American corporations. The U.S.A. also had the "Protestant work ethic" (distinctly European) of the puritans of which the U.S.A. still embodies today in part.


You seem to have trouble telling the difference between "Muslim" and "Muslim fundamentalist".  One is a culture, the other is a choice.  Of course children of fundamentalists are more likely to become fundamentalists, but someone, somewhere decided to turn to violence and that decision is renewed with each generation.  You don't break that cycle by ghettoizing entire nations.

Yes, however, I referred to fundamentalists because these are the people Canadian and American leaders say they are making us safer from. It is nonsense of course, because there are hundreds of millions to take the place of current terrorists.

Also, it is commanded in the Koran that "Islam will expand and dominate the globe". This is not the kind of culture that assimilates much at all or adopts a new way of life, and is not a culture that is peaceful. Muslim fundamentalism is a religion of the sword, as any honest Muslim will admit, and it is not discriminatory to say so. If they are making us safer from religious terror, why are they (the Liberals) letting 50 different terrorist groups (Tamil Tigers, Al Qaeda) operate in Canada without deporting them? Why are they letting gangs like Chinese Triads and Jamaican Bidis operate in Canada? They are not only traitors, they are endanering our lives--especially in cities like Toronto and Vancouver.



Europe's brith rate is Europe's problem.  Unless you just think the world needs more Europeans. You're drifting dangerously close to "bigoted white-supremecist" territory - not the sort of view that the forum of record for the CF really needs to have represented.

If I remember correctly there were white supremacists in the Airborne, though I personally coulsnt' care less. We have supremacists in the form of every ethnic lobby under the sun in Toronto, all advocating for their own selfish interests in their newly-adopted home.

Europe's birth rate problem is also shared by Canada, Russia, New Zealand, Australia and to a lesser extent, the United States. Seeing as replacement level is 2.1--2.3, and most countries average now around 1.3 children per couple, YES I think the world needs more Europeans.

I woudln't cower in your boots if you feel pride in your own European heritage--which is largely what Canada's history is, as a country founded largely by the British Empire. Perhaps it would be better if Europeans, as a 10% minority of the world's population, stopped risking their lives in hopelessly backwards third world countries and sending money to increase third world birth rates more than they already have.



 
As do you (telling the difference). Both are "religion," neither is "culture." Think in terms of "Muslim Fundamentalist" is to "Muslim" as "Christian Fundamentalist" is to "Christian."

In addition, "Funadmentalist" is not necessarily "extremist" and it's clear that the latter is what we are (or should be) concerned with.

It states in the Koran that "Islam will spread and dominate the globe". This is the code the fundamentalists follow. Those are fighting words, not words of those capable of living in a multiculutral society. I also disagree that Islam is not a culutre--it has united different Arabic peoples under a common goal, so to me Islam is a religion and a culture. I also find it creepy that a religion that states "If you die for Allah, you will obtain 72 virgins" is considered equal under Canadian law. That is pretty screwed up by western standards. They should have every right to practice those values abroad--so long as we don't have to live with them.

Finally, my take on the reason why the political leadership has failed to explain the reasons for our involvement in Afghanistan is that they truly believe that we (the "commonfolk") won't understand. It isn't something that can be simply explained with a slogan (like "not just gadgets" or "speed kills") and I suspect the political elite think of the vast majority of us as reflections of Julian and Bubbles et.al.

Acorn


Either that or they are terrified that we'll realize they have no real plan and are simply biding time, lessening pressures on U.S. troops in Afhanistan so the Americans can fight battles for you know who in Iraq.
 
daniel h -

This
The editorial calls upon the prime minister to tell Canadians why the government is deploying our troops to Afghanistan.
is the crux of the thread.

Save your preaching for a thread focused on the fundamentals of Islam
 
Daniel H.

There are threads about Islam and culture. Suffice it to say you are way off track on both. Open a thread on it (or find the ones that have happened in the past) and I'll show you where you're wrong.

This thread is about the apparent inability of our leadership to articulate the reasons our Forces are engaged in Afghanistan.

Acorn
 
Acorn said:
As do you (telling the difference). Both are "religion," neither is "culture." Think in terms of "Muslim Fundamentalist" is to "Muslim" as "Christian Fundamentalist" is to "Christian."
Depends on your interpretation of the words "culture" and "religion".  I see "Muslim" and "Muslim fundamentalist" as being the same religion (Islam), but two very distinct cultures within it.  Ditto "Christian" and "Christian fundamentalist".  Just semantics, I guess.

In addition, "Funadmentalist" is not necessarily "extremist" and it's clear that the latter is what we are (or should be) concerned with.
True.  I slid into Daniel H's hazy thinking on that one.

Finally, my take on the reason why the political leadership has failed to explain the reasons for our involvement in Afghanistan is that they truly believe that we (the "commonfolk") won't understand. It isn't something that can be simply explained with a slogan (like "not just gadgets" or "speed kills") and I suspect the political elite think of the vast majority of us as reflections of Julian and Bubbles et.al.
Agreed - but I'm not altogether certain that they're wrong to think that way about the public at large.  Note the outcry that arose when the CDS dared to suggest that soldiers (gasp) occasionally kill people.
 
I wasn't going to reply to this, but I see a new thread's been opened for this derailment.  Train wrecks are always fascinating to watch.

daniel h. said:
That's your opinion, and I wouldn't assume the majority of Canadians share it. Naturally, Asians and Europeans came and went over the last several thousand years. That wasn't my point. The point being, we wouldn't need to be "making the world safer from terror" if we didn't let people from around the world live in Canada, or America, or Britain where you know who blew up a subway train. As for people who say we owe it to the world to help other countries--nonsense.
It's my opinion that Conservative governments have allowed immigration to Canada?  Wow.  As for the suggestion that only "furreners" do terrorism, I note that the Oklahoma City bomber was surprisingly non-swarthy for a terrorist.  I realize you're trying to advance an isolationist argument, in your limited way, but the thing about isolationism is that it just doesn't work.  If nations don't defend their interests abroad, they end up having to defend them at home.

Indiscriminant EUROPEAN immigration was the driving cause, as well as the motivation, hard work and inventiveness that only Europeans possess to that degree, using the advantages of the industrial revolution to revolutionize technology and society, as well as expanding on the British idea of multinational invesment in corporations to truly multinational branch plant subsidiaries of American corporations. The U.S.A. also had the "Protestant work ethic" (distinctly European) of the puritans of which the U.S.A. still embodies today in part.
It's true that the US benefited from a great deal of immigration from Western Europe, making the problems of cultural integration easier to overcome.  I do balk at the suggestion that Europeans have the market cornered on motivation, hard work, inventiveness, and work ethic, though.  Is this observation based on extensive personal experience?  If so, feel free to share with the class.

Yes, however, I referred to fundamentalists because these are the people Canadian and American leaders say they are making us safer from. It is nonsense of course, because there are hundreds of millions to take the place of current terrorists.
"All those a-rabs are the same."  I read you loud and clear.

Also, it is commanded in the Koran that "Islam will expand and dominate the globe". This is not the kind of culture that assimilates much at all or adopts a new way of life, and is not a culture that is peaceful. Muslim fundamentalism is a religion of the sword, as any honest Muslim will admit, and it is not discriminatory to say so. If they are making us safer from religious terror, why are they (the Liberals) letting 50 different terrorist groups (Tamil Tigers, Al Qaeda) operate in Canada without deporting them? Why are they letting gangs like Chinese Triads and Jamaican Bidis operate in Canada? They are not only traitors, they are endanering our lives--especially in cities like Toronto and Vancouver.
You show me where in the Koran it says "Islam will expand and dominate the globe" and I'll immediately concede this argument.  In any case, if it did say that (and I assure you it does not) that would make Islam exactly as dangerous and evangelical as Christianity.  Yeah, I heard that the Liberals are actually paying subsidies to the Triad to keep them from moving their operations south of the border - can you believe that?  I'd almost think you would.

If I remember correctly there were white supremacists in the Airborne, though I personally coulsnt' care less. We have supremacists in the form of every ethnic lobby under the sun in Toronto, all advocating for their own selfish interests in their newly-adopted home.
I think it's already abundantly clear that the thought of white supremacists working in the military wouldn't bother you.  But you're right about those lobby groups - first you give them the right to live in this country, the next thing you know they want the rights guaranteed to them in the Charter!  Give'em a hand and they'll take an arm, hey?

Europe's birth rate problem is also shared by Canada, Russia, New Zealand, Australia and to a lesser extent, the United States. Seeing as replacement level is 2.1--2.3, and most countries average now around 1.3 children per couple, YES I think the world needs more Europeans.
Don't get me wrong, a higher Canadian birthrate would be good for Canada.  I just don't care about the colour of those Canadians' skin.

I woudln't cower in your boots if you feel pride in your own European heritage--which is largely what Canada's history is, as a country founded largely by the British Empire. Perhaps it would be better if Europeans, as a 10% minority of the world's population, stopped risking their lives in hopelessly backwards third world countries and sending money to increase third world birth rates more than they already have.
You wouldn't cower in my boots?  What does that even mean?
 
One of the truly great accomplishments of WW2 was the rebuilding of Japan and Germany by the victors - at a stroke, changing two mortal enemies into trusted and secure friends.

This *should* be the model for all present and future conflicts. Fight the bad guys when they appear, then revitalize and rebuild his country, removing the animosity that stated the war in the first place and setting the example for all those watching.

The goal in Afganistan - rightfully invaded for supporting Al-Quaida - should be to transform it into the garden spot of the middle east; to do to it what the Marshall Plan did to Germany and Japan. That, more than anything else, will strike a powerful blow against international Islamic terrorism.

If the Yanks won't do it, it falls to us.

DG
 
daniel h. said:
Indiscriminant EUROPEAN immigration was the driving cause, as well as the motivation, hard work and inventiveness that only Europeans possess to that degree, using the advantages of the industrial revolution to revolutionize technology and society, as well as expanding on the British idea of multinational invesment in corporations to truly multinational branch plant subsidiaries of American corporations. The U.S.A. also had the "Protestant work ethic" (distinctly European) of the puritans of which the U.S.A. still embodies today in part.

They/we also had black and Chinese slaves.  But, ofcourse, all that free labour couldn't have accounted for the relative prosperity.  Must have been solely due to their "work ethic".  Yeah.

daniel h. said:
If they are making us safer from religious terror, why are they (the Liberals) letting 50 different terrorist groups (Tamil Tigers, Al Qaeda) operate in Canada without deporting them? Why are they letting gangs like Chinese Triads and Jamaican Bidis operate in Canada? They are not only traitors, they are endanering our lives--especially in cities like Toronto and Vancouver.

You seem to have forgotten the Russian and Italian mafia.  Also bars and businesses which served as safehouses and "fundraising venues" for the IRA.  Yes, it's true, white folks can be bad too!
 
Excellent point made wrt to positive results following WWII, DG-41 ! Hopefully our PRT (Provincial Reconstruction Team) in Afghanistan can aid in some small part to going down this path. Canada will have to get involved in a much bigger way, along with the people's support, being led by the politicians if we are to accomplish a feat of this magnitude.
 
Back
Top