Oh, Canada!--the arrests
Varifrank has a good roundup and summary of news about the Canadian explosives arrests.
The situation was potentially explosive in more ways than one. As Varifrank points out, not only was the alleged network international in scope, not only did it involve Canadian nationals and even minors, but the target was--Canada.
It's hard to imagine anything so logical as a reason for targeting Canada. But I supose the country represented what might be called a target of opportunity. Like Everest, it's there; although unlike Everest, it may have been tempting because it was thought to be relatively easy to operate in. It's also Western, of course, and America-like.
It's encouraging that intelligence and law enforcement worked together on an international scale to thwart this particular effort. The Canadian authorities have certainly not been lulled into a false sense of security because of their country's politics. Of that I--and many millions af Canadians--am glad.
The fact that we are all potential targets is not fearmongering, as many will no doubt say. It's a simple fact. And saying it doesn't mean the speaker is especially afraid--although it's not a pleasant prospect, to be sure.
But it's reality. And if that reality wasn't already as clear as the billiant blue skies of a certain Tuesday in September of 2001, then it certainly should be that clear by now.
posted by neo-neocon @ 10:45 AM
39 comments
39 Comments:
It was only a matter of time before Canada should be the subject of such an attempted attack because, from what I've seen in the news over the last several years, Canada has almost never seen a terrorist it hasn't liked. Canada is apparently chock full of terrorists of various stripes who find Canada's policies towards foreigners/immigrants very handy indeed. Add to this a very PC, multi-culti attitude and it looks like it may be almost impossible to have an intelligent discussion on the subject of Islamic terrorism in Canada because you might offend somebody.
Rampant anti-Americanism doesn't help either. You can get the flavor of what is going on in at least some parts of Canada by looking at some of the choice comments of recently resigned Liberal MP Carolyn Parrish, who famously said on the way out of a meeting discussing the imminent 2003 invasion of Iraq, "Damn Americans, I hate the bastards'" or her charming characterization of those countries interested in ballistic missile defence as "a coalition of idiots." Her November 17, 2004 appearance on the CBC's comedy show "This Hour Has 22 Minutes" featured her stomping and performing voodoo on the head of a Bush doll since, according to her, that's where "it would do the least damage." In July 2005 Parrish called Canadian Chief of Defense Staff General Rick Heller "dangerous" and a "testosterone-filled general" after he stated that the a soldier's purpose was "to be able to kill people" using as an example of possible targets, terrorists, who he called "murderers and scumbags.
Dear Carolyn has since resigned from Parliament to run for Mayor of the Mississauga area of Ontario, the same area she represented in Parliament. This Toronto suburb, with a large Muslim population, is the site of several of the recent terror arrests and of the Mosque involved in this case.
As wars go on, our perceptions change. Soon after 9/11; and again after the Afghan invasion; and again after OIF; the annointed left-side voices were telling us the Islamists were angry with the U.S. because of various misguided U.S. actions and policies. The list of misguided U.S. actions would, if it was needed for a particular conversation, stretch into infinity.
I hope, vainly, now, that a few on the left will notice, and acknowledge, that the Islamists cannot be appeased. The hard evidence of this has been around, yet this plot against Canada ought be an awakening slap in the face. If CANADA, friend of all that is politically correct, can be attacked, then the Islamists cannot be appeased. Its a certainty that Canada was not scheduled for attack because of any misguided Canadian policies or actions. Canada was scheduled for attack because they are INFIDELS. There may be extraneous, after-the-fact rationals thrown out by various interests, yet all of them will be HORSEHOCKEY. The Islamists looked at Canada, and they saw INFIDELS. That is why Canada was attacked. Anyone who claims differently is either lying, or ignorant. Take your pick.
The police and military in Canada has not yet been corrupted by the their political arrangements. The easy flow of Americans into Canada and people in Canada into the US, might have had something to do with this.
There's always a difference in the class of people you are talking, even if you are comparing Americans to Canadians. Because all nations have their factions and their internal disputes.
The Muslims also rioted in France, and you might want to ask yourself why that was logical for them to attack a country that is only overshaded in anti-Americanism by Germany.
The logic is simple. Those who treat Muslims well and give them doles, tax fares when they are found without passports, instant asylum like Canada, are basically presenting themselves as weak prey. To be slaughtered.
For the Muslims are predators, and either you are strong and therefore to be avoided like the US or you are weak and decadent and worthy of annihilation like France, Britain, and Canada.
Why does the powerful attack the weak, you might as well ask in addition to "why do terroists want to attack Canada".
I hope, vainly, now, that a few on the left will notice, and acknowledge, that the Islamists cannot be appeased.
Nobody died so that they won't really care. It'll pass by their consciousness because the media will work hard to make everyone forget, in time.
Out of sight, out of mind.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
In Tolkien’s Lord of the Ring, which is richly analogous the current war for world freedom, Eowyn does not care to wait around like a victim and declares:
1. “Those who have not swords can still die upon them"
or
2. “Compassion for Mordor!”
See, this is why you should understand your enemy and your allies. You don't want to go attacking Canadians and insult any friends you actually have in Canada.
As a Canadian I thank God every day for George Bush and for American troops in Iraq and around the world that keep us safe. But it is pious people like yourself that sometimes make me question whether or not America has the maturity to understand the fragility of its own democracy let alone how to play the role of world cop when you have so little understanding of global geo-politics. Our conservatism is growing. As Dr Phil says “how’s yours working for ye?”
nomdenet
People who have prejudices are always a problem, regardless of what they agree or disagree with you about.
There are always factions among every nation in this world. There are even factions amongst your enemies, the Sunni and Shia for example.
The more you base your judgements upon human psychology, and not the superficial entrapments of nationalities and "ideological" agreement, the more lethal you become concerning how to cleave apart the enemy.
To truely destroy, you must understand what you are trying to destroy. And one cannot destroy anything that one no longer understands.
The terroists understand America perfectly, thus their attacks are surprising, painful, and always psychologically stunning. Doesn't mean they are competent, of course, as Canada has shown.
Breaking the mutual support of AL Qaeda terroist cells, have allowed smaller cells to exist. However, those smaller cells have their own problems, which I suspect but don't know.
Britain, France. Those are safe nations to attack ideologically. I suggest not going on about Canada and Australia, those you should keep in reserve. You never know, but those countries with massive Muslim offenses in operation, are the important nations to keep an eye on.
Canada does seem to have their gear in order, for now at least. A miss is as good as a mile.
Perhaps the silver lining in all of this will be the puncturing of the comfortable illusion that neutral nations will be able to live peaceably with Islam.
..my my you lot are excelling yourselves with this one . All the classic neocononsense...
1. Neo starts with a seemingly rational point.Varifrank has a good roundup and summary of news about the Canadian explosives arrests. i.e. some other right winger explains the truth unsullied by the MSM impartial and, oh you know....right - in both senses of the word.
2. Then the real loony nonsense sparks up Canada has almost never seen a terrorist it hasn't liked. Canada is apparently chock full of terrorists of various stripes who find Canada's policies towards foreigners/immigrants very handy indeed. Add to this a very PC, multi-culti attitude and it looks like it may be almost impossible to have an intelligent discussion on the subject of Islamic terrorism in Canada because you might offend somebody.
Meanwhile canadian soldiers risk their lives in a real war away from the chickenhawks. And what the hell s wrong with multi-culturalism? Youo want we should all be mono-culturalists? i.e., like you.
3. And of course we could not be without putting all Muslims into the bag marked terrorist;
I hope, vainly, now, that a few on the left will notice, and acknowledge, that the Islamists cannot be appeased.
4. And the inability to acknowledge/understand that competing views may have some validity
The Islamists looked at Canada, and they saw INFIDELS. That is why Canada was attacked. Anyone who claims differently is either lying, or ignorant. Take your pick. oh yeah? maybe they just disagree with you.
5. And of course yrmdwnkr contributes his racist yanko-supremacist world view.
For the Muslims are predators, and either you are strong and therefore to be avoided like the US or you are weak and decadent and worthy of annihilation like France, Britain, and Canada.
6. ...and of course a touch of Tolkien
nyomythus said...
In Tolkien’s Lord of the Ring, which is richly analogous the current war for world freedom, Eowyn does not care to wait around like a victim and declares:
1. “Those who have not swords can still die upon them"
or
2. “Compassion for Mordor!”
4:18 PM, June 06, 2006
quality nonsense from the little apple thief
...have just shown this site to a friend who is still laughing. She would like to hear more stuff about the decadent french and wants to know why you never have a go at the spanish.
i just want to know if you ever read over this stuff afterwards.
Keep up the good work. You are rapidly becoming mass market comedy. Everyone i tell about this site thinks it is great.
Nomdeblog, you make a very interesting point. While I feel your pain - believe me, I do, since I'm battling the same hooey inside the country - I think it's not quite fair to blame international anti-Americanism on liberal American export of the sentiment. While much ammunition is manufactured here by feeble minded liberals, international sentiment seems to be fueled by much a more complex psychology. The Times Online has an interesting article about the subject on today's webpage:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,542-2212203,00.html
for more penetrating analysis, I refer you to "Anti-Americanism" by Jean Francois Revel. If you haven't already read it, look forward to an illuminating experience.
I refuse to see Fahrenheit 911. But all my liberal friends tell me I’ll change my support for Bush etc if only I’d see how Bush is in bed with the Saudis and how he helped OBL’s family escape. I have great difficulty fighting all the lies America produces.
We would get rid of these guys, but for some reason I don't think a lot of Americans would support summary execution. Although I would. it is incidents like these, that I start to thinking "why do we treat domestic enemies better than foreign enemies, and why do we treat terroists better than they would treat an AMerican child, Marine, or Iraqi child"?
How the fake liberal elites treat US Marines
Canadians get their pop culture and ideology from the Democrats in Hollywood, produced by the rich elites. They make lots of money in America because we don't have socialism, and then they use their money to promote socialism everywhere. That's like betting the max every time someone raises in poker. Eventually something will break.
Just as there is division in Canada, there is also division in America. There are two Americas. There is the Hollywood guys and then there are the US Marines. Totally different. Might as well be from different planets.
But, it is ridiculous that just because something comes from America, that you find it hard to defeat. Why would anyone in Canada believe this or that because someone in America said so? Individualism is a virtue that cannot be sold for meer glamor or glory.
America exports anti-Americanism and then you wonder why the world dislikes you. Get my point?
We already know why they dislike us. What we want to know is how come they love Hollywood but dislike people in the US military. Or why Hollywood dislikes AMerica so much.
The reason why America is disliked is too many for me to list. But some things, I will write about.
America is disliked because people believe we are all party goers and Hollywood decadent freaks that spend thousands of dollars on private jets and burn up thousands of tons of fuel just to go on vacation.
They like Hollywood, because Hollywood agrees with them. But it is Hollywood doing all the things that they complain that Americans do. Arrogance, silliness, stupidity, hypocrisy, environmental damage, getting into the business of others, etc. and etc. and etc.
People also dislike America because they believe we are not serious, that we are paper tigers, dancers in a kabuki play that should be laughed at instead of taken seriously.
Look at what Conned said as a closing remark. They laugh and laugh, about this and that, yet in the end what are they but the shallowness of despair?
Such people, decadent to a degree unseen in the history of humanity, cannot deal with true believers, fanatics, and religious zealots. They cannot deal with terrorism. No, they would have to take people's beliefs seriously, before they could deal with terrorism.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
My, I do seem to have touched a nerve here for some.
Some disclosure here-- I briefly worked for the Canadian Government almost forty years ago. At the time, I didn't much like the Canadian government's policy of accepting any U.S. draft dodger who wanted to run away to Canada, but, on the whole, the Canadian diplomatic types I worked with seemed like a nice bunch. (I put a couple of these dodgers on the bus to Canada myself and they were a pretty poor lot.)
In the last few years, I began to read more and more about Canadian resentments over U.S. "Cultural and Economic Imperialism" and I noticed that U.S.-Canadian military cooperation started to decline and that Canadian governments seemed less willing to pay for their basic defense needs (CIA Factbook statistics for Canadian defense expenditures put them, based on 2003 figures, at 1.1% of GDP, ranking them 128th in the world in military spending as a percentage of GDP; more recent budgets are somewhat higher). Meanwhile, I noticed a parallel growth in stories out of Canada about what I saw as lax immigration policies--apparently if you show up in Canada without any papers they allow you to stay and give you benefits pending adjudication some misty time in the future. According to news accounts, among such immigrants were people who had terrorist ties. Post 9/11 these trends did not bode well. For me, Carolyn Parrish's recent hijinks were just icing on the cake.
I wish the new Conservative government well and hope that they will be able to reverse some of the more pernicious and dangerous policies of the Liberals.
Having family on both sides of the border, I feel free to say that Canadians get an inferior sort of terrorist. Call it envy, call it sour grapes, call it whatever you like. It simply is not fair, and it puts Canadians at risk as well. Any terrorist worth his saltpetre knows that there is nothing worth bombing in Canada. Not only that, but if they are not careful, they will wake up the Canadian spirit, which they would certainly regret having done.
Canadians laugh at frostbite, scoff at snowy highways, make good use of long winter nights, and secretly make plans for world domination when global warming finally kicks in. You disrespect Canadians at your own peril, friend.
Can’t you make a High Noon in Baghdad movie with Bruce Willis?
Hollywood has a natural purge ability, so any conservative cannot gain power and resources enough to get a movie produced there. While there are rich conservatives, the Left has more rich billionares like Soros to fund their propaganda than the military does.
So, we have a natural titration. The Left has Hollywood, media, propaganda. The Right has military, guns, firepower, and hardline determination.
Now that is asymmetrical in form.
I’m impressed, but I don’t need convincing. We need something else out here in the hinterlands of Toronto to impress some fence sitters that just might start to get onside now that they know that being “nice” Canadians with our flag on the pocket of our jeans won’t necessarily keep us from being beheaded.
The only propaganda that favors Republicans is in the form of military blogs. Exchange propaganda for "good PR" if that makes more sense to you. Bush doesn't do propaganda, so until he goes away, the only good image you will have of our military will only come from our military and our military blogs and our pro-military bloggers. That is about it.
There is Babylon 5, Firefly, and some others, but they are not about current events.And they are not nearly as popular as say, American Idol. These reality shows show america at our best, of course, but it does not exactly show our military at their best. Band of Brothers is a good series, to show America at our best but that isn't recent. That is old WWII stuff, and people brush it away and say Americans today weren't fighting back in WWII or something.
In the end, Bush has the resources to make propaganda films about Uday and Qusay which would turn global opinion in favor of the US, but.... Bush doesn't do propaganda. So there you go. America, like the terroists, have gone cell based. In the sense that the blogosphere is now the Army of Davids. We're scattered amongst the blogosphere. One guy makes a movie there, and talks about it here. Harder to counter, but the resources are severely limited.
No Canadians have died from a terroist strike yet, so I can't verify whether what Al Fin says is a correct prediction or not. Even the fiercest of warrior spirits will dull with time and complacency. Spain has taken their hit, and they've shown their mettle, or lack of it.
Bush's wife keeps him sane. But the Washington mindset is not conducive to "good ideas". Like they said, you have to get out of Washington and hear Americans talk, if you want fresh ideas.
I don't know how much thinking people contribute to, let's say, running a superpower pseudo-empire. But the books I've read, and the topics I'm most interested in, have dealt with this in quite a lot of detail.
Just thinking about such a subject is not superior to actual experience, but it is better than not thinking about it at all and it does give people different perspectives. Out of the box perspectives, that people engaged in politics and the Presidency, would not come up with.
For example, no reporter has asked Bush this question.
'Why do you refuse to use propaganda to halt the pain that enemy propaganda has caused America?'
Can you imagine a reporter asking the one question that 90% of Americans are wondering?
Concerning democracies, the thing that evens up the odds for America at least, is the fact that America is a God charmed nation. If you look at the specific history of America, there are chunk loads of times and places and people that could have wrecked America. But it didn't happen. It's like someone is rolling a quantum dice that always picks the best possible of all alternative realities.
Even with Vietnam and Bush senior. If Bush senior had gotten a second term, Clinton would have been Prez on 2001. With Vietnam, we now know what not to do in OIF II. So that OIF II isn't the chance for the Left to create Vietnam all over again.
We won the Cold War even though we lost Vietnam. I don't think we can win the War on Terror if we lose Iraq however.
So that's what America has going for us, even if democracy is 51% heavy.
I'm just glad the bastards were prevented from detonating any bombs and killing Canadians. Canucks can be very aggravating, stubborn people but they are staunch allies. Canadian police have a very solid, good reputation, the Mounties in particular and the Canucks need to be really thanking their cops. They also need to further awaken from the stupor of their multiculturalism myth. We should give the Canucks a hefty discount on cigarettes as a show of sympathy. Immediately after 9/11, Canada allowed all kinds of diverted aircraft in and that was quite risky on their part. Lastly, a Canadian sniper holds the world's record for the longest shot, taken in Afghanistan about 2 years ago. Eh? Canucks are like Forrest Gump's box of chocolates - you really don't have clue of what the hell you're going to get when dealing with them. It's best to leave them alone in their frigid climate.
Neo,
I cannot undestand why, four years after 911, we--the USA, Canada, anywhere--continue to allow known radical islamists to live in our country. Deporting islamofascists is not the death penalty or permanent internment. If legislation is needed to acomplsh this, then let's get on with it.
Well, felix, if you deport them then you committ a crime worse than death. You committ the crime of insensitivity and racism in the eyes of the Left, and if the Left is in power in your country because the people are living on the dole from the gov, then they will punish you for doing criminal acts such as trying to deport people.
It is like racial profiling, removes people's civil rights dontcha know, can't be done.
The Canadian military accepts only the best. They have to, their funding is so low it might as well be the cost of R and D for one weapons system to the US Pentagon.
So basically anyone that wants to go into the Canadian military is doing so because of patriotism, and not because they had no other options.
Sort of like the US volunteer system.
The problem with rounding up and deporting the worst threats residing here in the U.S., beyond all the legal issues, is just the concept of rounding them up and shipping them out; you can be sure that the deportees, their lawyers, relatives and supporters, the MSM, the Left in the U.S. and worldwide, would play up the Nazis shipping Jews to concentration camps parallel ad nauseum.
It would not matter that they are not being shipped to concentration camps but are rather being sent to whereever they came from. Its the image that matters.
The only way I can see U.S. support sufficient to let U.S. authorities round 'em up and ship 'em out is if there is another terrorist attack on U.S. soil and I don't really want to pay that price.
"4. And the inability to acknowledge/understand that competing views may have some validity
The Islamists looked at Canada, and they saw INFIDELS. That is why Canada was attacked. Anyone who claims differently is either lying, or ignorant. Take your pick. oh yeah? maybe they just disagree with you."
Replies such as this simply demonstrate one's conviction that what they believe is so obviously the truth, that there is no need to explain, defend, or construct a logical argument about it. Hubris indeed.
I'm curious to know what you think the reasons behind this plot are, Conned. How about it?
"3. And of course we could not be without putting all Muslims into the bag marked terrorist;"
Referring to this:
"I hope, vainly, now, that a few on the left will notice, and acknowledge, that the Islamists cannot be appeased."
Note term "Islamists", which is by definition a subset of Islam- OH! unless you believe that all Muslims are Islamists! now I get it, thanks Conned.
"quality nonsense" indeed.
oh come on douglas that is not the smart argument you think it is.
1. I was making a point about the view that those who disagree are either stupid or lying. I really did not have time to go through the whole debate again as i have done many times on here. We both know that it is arrogance grade 1 to say that your opponents are liars or stupid. It is just lazy and i would not expect you to stand up for this kind of nonsense.
Sure have a go at my support of multiculturalism...but this? poor.
2. Read the comments in this thread there is a real sense that all muslims are trouble - "the Muslims are predators"
Perhaps the silver lining in all of this will be the puncturing of the comfortable illusion that neutral nations will be able to live peaceably with Islam.
When i was a lad an Islamist was someone who studied Islam and the term has always been very imprecise. The clear assumption on this thread is that all muslims are trouble.
This is dangerous nonsense and goes against the practicalities of real world diplomacy. After all even Bush has the sense to be negotiating with Iran.
Let me be clear. The terrorists are evil and should be stopped, arrested, deproted, imprisoned, or if needs be just plain shot.
BUT
1. Not all muslims are terrorists.
2. Endless military "solutions" often provokes more terrorism and will never solve the problem.
3. Situations such as the oppressionof Palestinians endlessly inflame opnion.
4. You might not like the UN but have no better system to offer to manage international relations.
5. Oh and while we are at it, The MSM (this is the dullest term) is not a socialist cabal trying to overturn Bush. In the USA it is a largely right wing, dominated by the interests of Big Business. It mainly wants to make money and defend it's own interests. None of which involves supporting the establishment of socialism in teh US.
....another day another load of neoconmadness to read :-)
Confude: Isn't that comic everything you accuse us of being (except imperialist)? Self-rightous, "inventing others' opinions for them again", "good vs evil and black vs white", "in the 'right or wrong' style", "peddling hatred", "attempting to subvert the truth", "quite nauseating", "stereotyping for cheap propaganda purposes".
Then you have the gall to say
"i've never had much time for extremism."
But you've got time to send us that?
"I actually don't give a flying one, mate"
Well, maybe I do- so in your own words: "If you know the problems and have a solution that is both practical and palatable to the international community, we'd love to hear it. Truly."
Ahhh, that's more like it...
"there is a real sense that all muslims are trouble - "the Muslims are predators"
Perhaps the silver lining in all of this will be the puncturing of the comfortable illusion that neutral nations will be able to live peaceably with Islam."
It might be difficult to live peaceably with Islam if it still has an Islamist component, no?
Perhaps there's a real sense of 'all Muslims are trouble' here through your glasses, but not mine. There are a few comments here and there that get close to that, but I think it's clearly not the case for most here, and only possibly implied for others. That quote is just sloppy, as your earlier comment was...
"The clear assumption on this thread is that all muslims are trouble."
Beware 'clear assumptions'- they might not be so 'clear' to others...
"In the USA it is a largely right wing, dominated by the interests of Big Business. It mainly wants to make money and defend it's own interests."
Tell that to the papers that are watching their market shares swirl in the toilet... If you believe that the US MSM is right wing, you're pretty far left. If what you claim were true, CNN would've become Fox II a long time ago....
"Sure have a go at my support of multiculturalism..."
Okay, thanks for the invitation...
The problem with multi-culturalism (not cosmopolitan living- that I'm all for) is that in the end it's rather like Buddhism- it is nothing, does nothing, supports nothing. If all are equal, none are meaningful...
It's all well and good to have different cultures, but when people live in one geographic vicinity, they have to make the kinds of negotiations that make society work- and they have to agree on a culture (singular). You can't have little pockets of Sharia law in London, for example. It just negates the 'tolerant' society, and it reeks of bantustans, as I think someone mentioned finding distasteful earlier.
"Have a laugh at yourself. You might just see what others see in you."
Good advice. Take it.
hee hee, haa ha.
The same was said about the HUns, aka the Germans. Either they were at your throat or at your feet. Predators, in other words, with predator behavior. It is good thing they don't got Predator technology, however. If that happens, we'll need to get an Alien to vs their Predator.
Arab society is entirely tribal. This applies to Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kuwaitt, Saudi arabia, syria, Iran, Iraq, and so on. A tribe is inherently heirarchical. People who don't pay attention to Islamic culture, will never truly understand what predator means. Not that they want to, anyways. Understanding is not their forte.
Re deporting radical islamists, I think we will eventually get to that policy. I would rather we implement same before more jihad attacks are committed in the USA, rather than after. I also think that if presented in a sensible way--as self defense in the war with radical islam--those politicans who support it will do well. Whenever I discuss this policy with friends or relatives, they agree with the idea--but say "how can we do it legally?
They're just going to plot outside the country if you deport them. It will make things safer, but for whom I might ask. One country's terroist is another country's asylum seeker.
Not a cure, but perhaps a treatment. It will help, obviously, but Sami Al Arian is still out there, doing what he does. Who can say who he will get killed?
You know what they say brad. Misery loves company.
Brad --
You forgot one part: we get the trolls we "deserve."
I agree with yielding to their profound criticism that we are unintelligent, immoral scumbags. Hence, we should thank them for their venerable service, bid them adieu, and follow it up with deletions.
Iraq may now be a democracy, but there is no reason why a blog should be.
Confude--
If currently serving in the American military is your criterion of truth, then you should be taking any thing General Pace says as gospel, given he outranks all of us.
The left doesn't care if propositions are true or false. The merely care if the speaker is engaged, has authenticity, and illustrates a will to power for a perspective.
I'll point out that if I was a corporate criminal addicted to drugs who molests children and participates in other acts of dubious morality, it would have no logical bearing on the truth of the propositions I offer here.
But I'm wasting my time, since thinking obviously isn't your forte amigo.
Note -- I have no problems with the bin Laden family. Osama bin Laden wasn't anything out of the ordinary until he met Mohammed Qutb, brother of Sayyid Qutb. Sayyid Qutb is a thinker important to understand if you want a solid handle on why terrorists are attacking the west, including Canadians.
said this before Jason if you want debate then fine debate. If you want to dismiss ideas you do not agree with, or say they should be deleted because you don't agree with free speech on blogs then you can't be surprised if people start trolling.
Why not give up whining and stick to debating; you are quite good at it when you concentrate.
One bit of good news today anyway the murderous Zarqawi is dead - good riddance - wonder who will replace him?
Further on deporting islmofascists, if we are going to send our troops halfway around the world to fight radical islamists in Afghanastan, Iraq, and elsewhere, then the least we can do is deport radical islamists who are actully living in our home country.
free speech on blogs is a misnomer, this space isn’t publicly owned. The free speech of the property owner [neo-neocon] trumps the free speech of the guest. So, the notion that free speech is a blanket privilege to everyone that enters this publicly accessible forum is wedging at the truth.
One bit of good news today anyway the murderous Zarqawi is dead - good riddance - wonder who will replace him? I dunno maybe the same guys that replaced Kamikaze pilots, remember? How they terrorized us throughout the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s and how horrible it was, ohhh woe is me. :D
neoneoconned--
I shall continue to complain about your antics here, because there is no reason to tolerate them.
Over at my blog, you know why I deleted your last post; I left your others up as an example of how you operate. I also find it revealing you found the Lenin thread of greatest interest.
I have not deleted anyone who is critical, argues, or debates. I do delete the trolls. Only a vain person keeps them around to increase traffic.
Why does Confud calling Roosevelt, "The Decider"?
That don't make any sense.
ok then jason baby so you think neo is what?
I do delete the trolls. Only a vain person keeps them around to increase traffic.
vain? Or am i not a troll? One or the other boy.
I shall continue to complain about your antics here, because there is no reason to tolerate them. Yeah i get the impression tolerate is not a big word with you. Try talking to comrade wasp you guys have a lot in common, and it will be interesting to see who bosses who about the most.
The Lenin thread just happened to be the current one when i went on the site, and , to be honest I wasn't very interested by a dreary discussion of a long dismissed peice of work. I tried to engage you in debate, but it isn't your style so.... i got deleted. I will live :-)
As i keep saying if you want to argue fine; if you want to whine away about how it is not an argument and the other kids aren't playing fair then go for it.
Post a Comment
<< Home