Canada dodged a bullet

[Abraham]

Originally Posted by scandium

Of the dozen or so newspaper articles on this attempt I'd looked at, none had the quote from the PM. A few allocated a paragraph on the bottom half of their article to what the leader of the Cdn. Islamic Congress had to say. In the face of an attempted act of terror I had no reaction to the words of our PM because I had not seen those words - until AL posted that ridiculous "Little Green Footballs" article that accused the Cdn. Islamic Congress leader of blaming Canada. My reaction to this was to point out that it is utter BS and that I agreed with the Cdn. Islamic Congress leader as far as his point about rhetoric goes. Again, this goes to your "us" and "them" mentality that you could equate that with "attacking the PM" which is total nonsense.

OK, but don't you think the leader of a government has to unite the nation in moments of peril? Would you consider the war speeches of Churchill just retoric or even BS? I think your P.M. drew the line between "us" and "them" where he should. Because there is a line that was trespassed; the attempt to commit a terror attack.

Originally Posted by scandium

Believe it or not I can see terrorism for what it is, not condone it, be completely opposed to it and yet still separate the acts of the few who practice it or encourage it from the many whose only crime was being born into a Muslim family and who have never and will never encourage or commit such an act.

I believe you on this of course. But don't you see you start immediately completely unfounded retorics yourself by saying stating "whose only crime it was to be borne in a Muslim family". Who is tating that? Not me, and such remarks pollute the discussion.

Originally Posted by scandium

I read it the opposite way, that he was asking the PM not to make this into a Muslim vs non-Muslim issue. As to the rest of what you're saying, I have no idea what you're even basing that on other than obviously not the same remarks I had read earlier.

Again, the P.M. wasn't. The retorics guy was the Muslim leader and I think I pointed out his obvious motivation. You just fell for his retorics, which is a pity.

Originally Posted by scandium

What's wrong with your "them" is that it seems too often to include Muslims in general, except when as now you are being disengenous. What's wrong is that it has every appearance to me of being grounded firmly in bigotry against a very large group of people whose identity I don't see as defined by the acts of a few the way you do. You say you feel "manipulated" by my remarks into this, I say its because my remarks perhaps come a little closer to the truth than you are willing to admit to yourself.

Let's say we differ greatly on this. I see no bigotry in identifying a group with a huge problem. And isn't it a bit selfrightious of you to pretend that your remarks come a little bit closer to the truth than I am prepared to admit to myself?

I have no problems with Muslims in my country as long as they are loyal citizens, which the majority is.
However I am not blind and I see a growing extremism amoungst the second and third generation of immigrants, who were never properly taught how to behave in a free society and are now being hijacked by radical imans.
I also clearly undrerstand the philosophical problem for the Islam to operate for the first time as a minority religion in a mainly secular environment; a role it is definitely not prepared for to play. This - the constellation of our western free society with its individual freedoms - creates great uncertainty and the sense of being threatened amoungst fundamental (= the majority of) Muslims. Some adapt, or lose interest in their religion, others want to destroy the free world and build a perfect umma.
I further see a problem of loyality for many Muslims. They should stay on the right side of the line separating "us" from "them" (the radicals). But too many linger or try to avoid hard choices. Toomany pretend to be against violence but immediately point at Israel or the United States, thus excusing the terrorists. Toomany say they support their new country but refuse to inform the law enforcing agencies about what happens in their midst. Toomany refuse any soul-searching about the fundamental issues that makes the Islam a religion that can so easily lead to or be used for violence.

It's really the Muslim community itself in many countries that has to determine whether they are with "us" or with "them".

And don't forget, this Salafi jihad is not your average terror organisation like the ETA, the IRA, the Tamil Tigers and so on. Those are local organisations with limited political objectives and a high percentage of criminal influence (from drugs trafficking to extortions). The Salafi jihad has no less objective but to conquer the world and kill or suppress all infidels. We can laught about them, but because they take their struggle serious and will do anything to reach their goal we better take them serious as well.