Layton/NDP wants Canada to pull out of Afghanistan

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Hmm... have not heard that they wanted to re-conquer Spain...

I think if I were afraid of the re-emergence of the Muslim Empire stretching from Valencia to Jakarta I'd be the one wearing tinfoil on my head. Its just not going to happen. The West has a commercial, cultural, economic, and military lead on these ragtag rebels that is unparalleled.

If people need to be afraid of something, why not pick China or Russia? At least these states have the ability to take us on.

There is no state that can take the west on in a conventional manner.
This is very different and therefore a real threat. I'm not saying to head for the hills, but I do think that complacency in the west is a big weak point on our side.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by White Doors

There is no state that can take the west on in a conventional manner.
This is very different and therefore a real threat. I'm not saying to head for the hills, but I do think that complacency in the west is a big weak point on our side.

Ok... but are the only two options 'being complacent' and 'invading all their countries'?

I see terrorism as the symptoms of a problem, not the problem itself. People don't blow themselves up for no reason, nor do they blow themselves up to re-conquer Spain. These are symptoms of a greater, real problem that they face. Whether that is the decline of Muslim dominance in the Middle East (their own region), poverty, religious indignation at US presence in their holy sites (I don't think the US dismantling a few bases in Saudi 'fixed' everything), the belief that land was stolen from them, family members were killed by Israelis/Americans/Saudis, etc., etc.

We're attacking the heck out of the symptoms, but acting as if the real problem doesn't exist. Its easier to kill them than to try and understand them... at least, I think thats what the average Westerner believes.

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Ok... but are the only two options 'being complacent' and 'invading all their countries'?

I see terrorism as the symptoms of a problem, not the problem itself. People don't blow themselves up for no reason, nor do they blow themselves up to re-conquer Spain. These are symptoms of a greater, real problem that they face. Whether that is the decline of Muslim dominance in the Middle East (their own region), poverty, religious indignation at US presence in their holy sites (I don't think the US dismantling a few bases in Saudi 'fixed' everything), the belief that land was stolen from them, family members were killed by Israelis/Americans/Saudis, etc., etc.

We're attacking the heck out of the symptoms, but acting as if the real problem doesn't exist. Its easier to kill them than to try and understand them... at least, I think thats what the average Westerner believes.

Nicely put.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Ok... but are the only two options 'being complacent' and 'invading all their countries'?

I see terrorism as the symptoms of a problem, not the problem itself. People don't blow themselves up for no reason, nor do they blow themselves up to re-conquer Spain. These are symptoms of a greater, real problem that they face. Whether that is the decline of Muslim dominance in the Middle East (their own region), poverty, religious indignation at US presence in their holy sites (I don't think the US dismantling a few bases in Saudi 'fixed' everything), the belief that land was stolen from them, family members were killed by Israelis/Americans/Saudis, etc., etc.

We're attacking the heck out of the symptoms, but acting as if the real problem doesn't exist. Its easier to kill them than to try and understand them... at least, I think thats what the average Westerner believes.

Like in the pharmaceutical industry, there's no money to be made on 'cures', but 'treatments', well that's where the big money is.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Hmm... have not heard that they wanted to re-conquer Spain...

I think if I were afraid of the re-emergence of the Muslim Empire stretching from Valencia to Jakarta I'd be the one wearing tinfoil on my head. Its just not going to happen. The West has a commercial, cultural, economic, and military lead on these ragtag rebels that is unparalleled.

If people need to be afraid of something, why not pick China or Russia? At least these states have the ability to take us on.

It's not the small groups of terrorists that we need to be really afraid of. Its the small group of terrorists taking over their country or obtaining control of the military recources.

It was a rag tag group that ousted the Shau of Iran, It was a rag tag group that created the Taliban and eventually control of Afghanistan.

If we take a wait and see approach we will end up with more North Korea's

You are right tho when you say that we are creating more terrorists than we are destroying. The old way of ignoring the problem doesn't work nor does this idea that we can pound them into submission.

If the UN actually worked and people did the right thing instead of the political thing, the UN probably could have prevent this from growing to the point it is at.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by White Doors

I believe that there is a long term, serious threat to the 'wetern world', yes. I don't think converting to Islam has anythign to do with it. Can you try to keep the rhetoric to a minimum? I will try and have a serious discussion with you if you can try as well. I am not the only person who thinks this as well. I never even mentioned Hitler! Why do people insist on putting words in yoru mouth? I said that it is shaping up to be a clash of civilzations on par with that which was experienced in WW2 except with much different fundamentals. What is so inflammatory about that?

You said the threat was as serious as was faced in WWII. I don't think it was "putting words in your mouth" to bring up Hitler, since he/Germany were a rather signifcant portion of that threat during WWII.

It is not shaping up to be a clash of civilizations on par with WWII, so saying it is is inflammatory. It's not even close.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

The people that run these governments have one real goal. Global domination and conversion to Islam.

If this was actually true, which it isn't, do you think it is an actual threat?

I asked this question of another poster but he dismissed it as not being serious enough for his attention, so I'll ask you;

If you actually believe that in the next 15 to 25 years we will be under threat of Islamic global domination and forced conversion to that religion and our way of life could be taken away, why aren't you in the military? I mean the last thing I ever want to be is a soldier, but if I thought that in actual reality there was a chance that such a thing could happen by the year 2020, I'd sign up.

Anyone who believes such a thing is possible but doesn't do anything about it is really slacking off, IMO.

[Hakan]

Xenephobes begon.

I'm much more scared of people like White Doors and Jolinar than I am of every single muslim person I meet.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Hakan

Xenephobes begon.

I'm much more scared of people like White Doors and Jolinar than I am of every single muslim person I meet.

Why are you scared of me? Be scared of allowing sharia law being used to settle family disputes as it almost came to be in Ontario.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

If this was actually true, which it isn't, do you think it is an actual threat?

I asked this question of another poster but he dismissed it as not being serious enough for his attention, so I'll ask you;

If you actually believe that in the next 15 to 25 years we will be under threat of Islamic global domination and forced conversion to that religion and our way of life could be taken away, why aren't you in the military? I mean the last thing I ever want to be is a soldier, but if I thought that in actual reality there was a chance that such a thing could happen by the year 2020, I'd sign up.

Anyone who believes such a thing is possible but doesn't do anything about it is really slacking off, IMO.

Did you march in the anti-war rally's?

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by White Doors

Why are you scared of me? Be scared of allowing sharia law being used to settle family disputes as it almost came to be in Ontario.

I'm pretty sure he's not scared of you, he's concerned about the narrow-mindedness of the Us vs. Them mentality that a lot of North Americans seem to have. That 'They' are so alien and different from us that, rather than being engaged in a political or social conflict, we are in a War on Terror, a Clash of Civilizations. When you couch the conflict in those terms you sort of define it as an epic battle of good vs. evil... which really does a disservice to the nature of the conflict itself. Its a complicated situation that too many are eager to boil down to 'they hate our freedom' or 'they hate us because we have equal rights'. I think the concern is that these BS statements form the ideology of far too many North Americans these days. Scares the hell out of me too (more, even, than allowing Muslim cultural values into the legal system, if you can believe it).

And by the by, I'm pretty sure you won't see stonings in Ontario any time soon.

[Scorponok]

I don't really like or trust Jack Layton. Something about that moustache of his....

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Ok... but are the only two options 'being complacent' and 'invading all their countries'?

I see terrorism as the symptoms of a problem, not the problem itself. People don't blow themselves up for no reason, nor do they blow themselves up to re-conquer Spain. These are symptoms of a greater, real problem that they face. Whether that is the decline of Muslim dominance in the Middle East (their own region), poverty, religious indignation at US presence in their holy sites (I don't think the US dismantling a few bases in Saudi 'fixed' everything), the belief that land was stolen from them, family members were killed by Israelis/Americans/Saudis, etc., etc.

We're attacking the heck out of the symptoms, but acting as if the real problem doesn't exist. Its easier to kill them than to try and understand them... at least, I think thats what the average Westerner believes.

I agree with most of this. Terrorism is a problem itself, not just a symptom of another problem. Regardless of what the original problem was, the fact that they chose to resort to violence without even talking is another problem. As much as people bash Israel and the US for their actions, at least diplomacy was attempted.

I don't believe that the average Westerner believes that it's easier to kill them than to try to understand them. I believe that the average Westerner does not know much about the average person in the middle east, but also believes that if someone is willing to blow themselves up to attack "us" then we might as well kill them before they get to "us".

Trying to understand "them" (the terrorists who are willing to blow themselves up) is incredibly hard and takes a boat load of time. What would you propose we do in the meantime? The current drastic attack measures sure aren't helping the understanding process, and I'd say that they are severely delaying it, but allowing "them" to grow, train and prosper unchecked is not an option either. There has to be a middle ground somewhere....

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by calculoso

I agree with most of this. Terrorism is a problem itself, not just a symptom of another problem. Regardless of what the original problem was, the fact that they chose to resort to violence without even talking is another problem. As much as people bash Israel and the US for their actions, at least diplomacy was attempted.

Weellll... thats a bit of a stretch, in my opinion. Since the roots of ME terrorism go back farther than 5-10 years, it can't necessarily be said that 'terrorists chose to resort to violence without even talking to us'. I'm sure when initial greivances were sustained, they complained loudly. If no one listens to you... does that mean you never tried talking about it? I think to assume that they instantly grabbed up a gun/bomb after being slighted marginally by Israel/US is wishful thinking.

I disagree, terrorism is 'a problem', not 'the problem'. Terrorists don't fight because they like to fight, and they don't blow themselves up because they prefer death. They do it for political/social/cultural goals. The way they're going about it (especially suicide bombers) is wrong... but its not like we're taking the moral highground, we descend to response by violence instantly (if not before the violence is even sustained by us). We assasinate them from miles away, taking out innocent families at the same time. There are plenty of instances where 'we struck first', in their opinions (do their opinions matter at all? As much as ours? Less?).

I don't believe that the average Westerner believes that it's easier to kill them than to try to understand them. I believe that the average Westerner does not know much about the average person in the middle east, but also believes that if someone is willing to blow themselves up to attack "us" then we might as well kill them before they get to "us".

Sure... but the average Westerner probably can't discern who 'they' are, and HOZ/White Doors/Jolinar types seem to paint the entire region with the broadest of strokes, declaring the religion and the people themselves are inherently drawn towards terrorism more than anyone/where else on the earth. I think this ignores the 'reasons' for terror. Completely.

When Bin Laden hit the towers people in the US said 'its because he hates our freedom'. Thats flat out inaccurate. He even stated specific reasons on several occasions as to why he supports attacks against the US... we just never cared to listen (or dismissed the reasoning outright as unimportant... oddly enough).

Trying to understand "them" (the terrorists who are willing to blow themselves up) is incredibly hard and takes a boat load of time. What would you propose we do in the meantime? The current drastic attack measures sure aren't helping the understanding process, and I'd say that they are severely delaying it, but allowing "them" to grow, train and prosper unchecked is not an option either. There has to be a middle ground somewhere....

Well... if what we're doing now is the only, best way to treat the disease (not just the symptoms), then it looks like its incurable. These people are resisting local despots and international exploitation (I know, I know, Westerners are saints, how could I even suggest that we take advantage of other regions, I'm such a liberal...). When you take the jackboot to them you don't 'cure' them of their will to fight. You just put a gun into the hands of the kid who just saw his dad get wasted by US fighter planes. Its a bad, bad cycle, and the US/West is going to come out of Iraq/Afghanistan with a bloody nose for all its troubles. Waste of money, waste of resources, and a waste of an opportunity presented at 9/11 to gain worldwide momentum to examine the actual roots of the problems, rather than the symptoms.

What would I do instead? I'm not sure, I don't have the military/intelligence/economic appartus of the most powerful country at my disposal. They have people from Harvard and Yale formulating policies... I have a few years at the U of C.

What would Al Gore have done? Would he have invaded Afghanistan and Iraq? I'm not so sure...

[White Doors]

Sure... but the average Westerner probably can't discern who 'they' are, and HOZ/White Doors/Jolinar types seem to paint the entire region with the broadest of strokes, declaring the religion and the people themselves are inherently drawn towards terrorism more than anyone/where else on the earth. I think this ignores the 'reasons' for terror. Completely.

My goodness. I did not paint all the region/muslims with the same brush, in fact, I took my time to make sure that I did not.

In other news, I like Bill Oreilly too!

Are your people's arguments that weak that you either have to call people stupid or bigots in order to get your point across?

It would seem so.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Weellll... thats a bit of a stretch, in my opinion. Since the roots of ME terrorism go back farther than 5-10 years, it can't necessarily be said that 'terrorists chose to resort to violence without even talking to us'. I'm sure when initial greivances were sustained, they complained loudly. If no one listens to you... does that mean you never tried talking about it? I think to assume that they instantly grabbed up a gun/bomb after being slighted marginally by Israel/US is wishful thinking.

I disagree, terrorism is 'a problem', not 'the problem'. Terrorists don't fight because they like to fight, and they don't blow themselves up because they prefer death. They do it for political/social/cultural goals. The way they're going about it (especially suicide bombers) is wrong... but its not like we're taking the moral highground, we descend to response by violence instantly (if not before the violence is even sustained by us). We assasinate them from miles away, taking out innocent families at the same time. There are plenty of instances where 'we struck first', in their opinions (do their opinions matter at all? As much as ours? Less?).


Sure... but the average Westerner probably can't discern who 'they' are, and HOZ/White Doors/Jolinar types seem to paint the entire region with the broadest of strokes, declaring the religion and the people themselves are inherently drawn towards terrorism more than anyone/where else on the earth. I think this ignores the 'reasons' for terror. Completely.

When Bin Laden hit the towers people in the US said 'its because he hates our freedom'. Thats flat out inaccurate. He even stated specific reasons on several occasions as to why he supports attacks against the US... we just never cared to listen (or dismissed the reasoning outright as unimportant... oddly enough).


Well... if what we're doing now is the only, best way to treat the disease (not just the symptoms), then it looks like its incurable. These people are resisting local despots and international exploitation (I know, I know, Westerners are saints, how could I even suggest that we take advantage of other regions, I'm such a liberal...). When you take the jackboot to them you don't 'cure' them of their will to fight. You just put a gun into the hands of the kid who just saw his dad get wasted by US fighter planes. Its a bad, bad cycle, and the US/West is going to come out of Iraq/Afghanistan with a bloody nose for all its troubles. Waste of money, waste of resources, and a waste of an opportunity presented at 9/11 to gain worldwide momentum to examine the actual roots of the problems, rather than the symptoms.

What would I do instead? I'm not sure, I don't have the military/intelligence/economic appartus of the most powerful country at my disposal. They have people from Harvard and Yale formulating policies... I have a few years at the U of C.

What would Al Gore have done? Would he have invaded Afghanistan and Iraq? I'm not so sure...

I'm not either by any stretch of the imagination, but I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have sat back and patiently formulated an intelligent response to curb the violence and promote overall understanding/awareness. After 9-11, the USA was pretty ****ed- and it almost seemed like they went to war based on raw patriotic emotion rather then a secure plan of attack. Does this sound inaccurate?

I agree wholeheartedly with most of what your saying, but there are other issues involved in the conflict and communication breakdown that you haven't taken into account. One of which is the financial incentive the U.S. receives out of the regions. My understanding of the history in terms of Afghanistan, is that the U.S. supported Bin Laden through multiple ways to drive out the U.S.S.R. They had bases in Saudi Arabia to aide them, and then after this task was accomplished the United States were supposed to leave Saudi Arabia, but because of oil interests- they remained in the region even after the war. The oil of Ghawar was light sweet crude, it was the largest reserve in the world- and the US wanted insurance they could get a piece of it by staying put. This was considered to be the holy land of Bin Laden, and thus he became infuriated with the U.S. If this understanding of the situation is wrong- let me know.

But if the U.S. (or I guess West..) DID leave S.A.... it'd sacrifice its ability to be a global superpower- at least not receiving that ability and that access to the oil right? Surely the circumstances would have been different, and probably not as profitable obviously. Sure the States look evil, but its moves like this that keep them on top of the world stage isn't it?

Perhaps it may end up being the decline of United States supremacy too however. I know that the BRIC economies (Brazil, Russia, India, China) are expected to pass the US at some point in this or the next decade. So saying the States could be on the decline isn't so far off. I can try and find that report for you too if you'd like.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by White Doors

My goodness. I did not paint all the region/muslims with the same brush, in fact, I took my time to make sure that I did not.

In other news, I like Bill Oreilly too!

Are your people's arguments that weak that you either have to call people stupid or bigots in order to get your point across?

It would seem so.

Meh... I'd respond, but everyone here knows who you are and what you're about.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Meh... I'd respond, but everyone here knows who you are and what you're about.

ahh... marginalize the poster, not the post.. I see.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by White Doors

ahh... marginalize the poster, not the post.. I see.

I showed you far more civility in this thread than I believe you deserve. Still am.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

I showed you far more civility in this thread than I believe you deserve. Still am.

civility? I am trying to have a debate and you had to show me civility? How sad for you I guess? I thought aninternet message board was allowed to have differing opinions?