Canada dodged a bullet

[Abraham]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Discussions of these kinds only cause one thing - that the attention after an intended or successful Islamic terror strike against the West immediately is distracted towards a debate based on political correctness, that attention shifts away from the crime and it's victims and towards plenty of reasons why an Islamic attack on the West is not an Islamic attack on the West, and that the ideolgy that does very little or nothing to prevent such attacks being conducted from the grounds of it's teachings, immediately is cleaned of all responsebility, so that it can go on with expanding...

Well said, Skybird!
It further serves to create a feeling of solidarity within the Muslim community. A sense of: "It is really them against us (the Muslims), just as the imans predicted..."
But then, taking individual responsability for one's actions is not something Muslims are known for, to say something politically incorrect for a change...

[Skybird]

I said that before, and I remind you of it again: during the age of the rivalry between the Spanish and British kingdom, before the Spanish built their armada, the British send bucaneers to bring up and rob and destroy Spanish gold transports. These bucaneers were not labelled as being official part of the Royal navy, but nevertheless they acted on demand and with explicit acceptance by the crown. That way Britain was able to hurt Spain and fight a hidden war, without the Spanish being able to declare war on britain, for the attackers "were not part of the British navy", were "private enterprises" only. Clever. Deliver them a hit, but don't get hit yourself. The same strategy was used by Denmark in it's confrontation with the Hanse in the Eastern sea - Denmark did not send it's own warships, but supported pirates to attack ships of the Hanse.Today Islam conducts attacks against the communities in Western nations, and escapes being held responsibole for it by saying that it is no true Islam what the attackers represent. Unfortunetyl, thse attackers are more in conformity with the orders and demands of their religion, than the socalled moderate Muslims. It is an evasion maneouvre to avoid Western counterattack.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Abraham

to say something politically incorrect for a change...

Lost your moderator hat?

[Abraham]

@ Skybird:
And what do you think of this:

Originally Posted by Abraham

A way to stop this kind of planning of terrorism was promoted about a year ago by a Dutch Islamist of the University of Utrecht Prof. Hans Jansen. He said that if anybody would be arrested for planning a terror attack his whole family or clan should be send back to the country of origin (deported), only the ones who inform the police should get permament residence. They would not be able to hide within their own community anymore, as they do now. They would be betrayed by their own brothers before they could ever flick a switch or press a button... And this kind of collective punishment would be very well understood by them.
Just a thought, perhaps not yet for now, but for the future...:hmm:

as a riposte?
Their own families don't want to be send back...

[scandium]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

1. Exactly what did Harper say? Can you find me the verbatim quote?

2. What's wrong with "us or them"?

But of course. But of course. Rhetoric.

This is the quote:

"Their alleged target was Canada, Canadian institutions, the Canadian economy, the Canadian people," Harper said. "We are a target because of who we are and how we live, our society, our diversity and our values values such as freedom, democracy and the rule of law. The values that make Canada great, values that Canadians cherish."

Such a speech is fine if its being delivered to a non-Canadian audience that is not that familiar with Canada. In this case it was being delivered to Canadians who already know what our values are and don't need a lecture on them from the PM. But such speeches are not meant to explain, they are meant to stir nationalistic sentiment by rallying "us" against "them". To me its rhetoric because I don't need a "them" to value my country. And its rhetoric because in this case the "them" that he's talking about happened to be among "us"; at least some of them were Canadians which makes the facts in this case at odds with rhetoric. But that is the problem with rhetoric, that the facts are often ignored when they get in the way of a good speech.

The problem with "us" and "them" rhetoric is that it leads to scapegoating and the rationalization of the unjustifiable. Islamic fundamentalism thrives on this kind of "us" and "them" dichotomy where the world is simplified into only two groups of people: "us", the true believers, and "them" the infidel. If that's something that appeals to you then you're welcome to it, but I'll pass.

[scandium]

Originally Posted by Abraham

@ scandium:
I find it difficult to follow this discussion.
Who uses rethoric? The Canadian Prime Minister? I only know that the chairman of the Canadian Islamic Congress did not quote him but edited him as: "to paint today’s arrests as a battle between “us” and “them”." That certainly sounds a bit rethoric to me, just as his next line: "Such statement puts all Canadian Muslims in great danger."...

And even if the Canadian P.M. made a distinction between "us" and "them", who did he mean?
Are "us" just the non-Muslim Canadians or all the decent, law abiding, hard working Muslim and non-Muslim citizens of Canada?
Are "them" all Canadian Muslims or just a bunch of radical totalitairian extremist Muslims?

That is one of the problems with "us" and "them" rhetoric, you need to create nice neat little categories to put people into only to find that they often don't even fit into these categories. The "us" the PM is referring to are Canadians in general, the "them" he referred to were the 17 arrested, at least some of whom also happen to be Canadians. I dislike such rhetoric because I see the world in full colour and not black and white little categories, although this particular example of it is, in itself, trivial and not something I'll lose any sleep over.

[Abraham]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

Lost your moderator hat?

You are the first who is complaining...
Please send a p.m. to John Channing or Drebbel.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by scandium

Islamic fundamentalism thrives on this kind of "us" and "them" dichotomy where the world is simplified into only two groups of people: "us", the true believers, and "them" the infidel.

Just the opposite.

Islamic terror has thrived on people like yourself continually blaming the victims and constantly blathering about a minority of extremists ad infinitum and failing to study the historical and theological foundations of Islam.

Finally, the world is waking up, though apparently comatose is still rampant.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Abraham

@ Skybird:
And what do you think of this: as a riposte?
(...)
Their own families don't want to be send back...

Fully acceptable for me. I admit I did not always see it like that. But I saw myself in need to change some earlier assessments of mine. I also can see it in no violation to the kind of ethics and "spiritual convictions" I live by. So, no problem for me to go this way. I personally am willing to stress even tougher sanctions against Islam in the West. I finally accepted that Israel may have been right in raising that damn wall and using the ammount of violence it is using in dealing with the Palestinians. I have not always accepted that. The enemy's tactics are changing, so do I change mine.

[Abraham]

Originally Posted by scandium

That is one of the problems with "us" and "them" rhetoric, you need to create nice neat little categories to put people into only to find that they often don't even fit into these categories. The "us" the PM is referring to are Canadians in general, the "them" he referred to were the 17 arrested, at least some of whom also happen to be Canadians. I dislike such rhetoric because I see the world in full colour and not black and white little categories, although this particular example of it is, in itself, trivial and not something I'll lose any sleep over.

Thanks, that clarifies my questions.
Conclusions:
1. The P.M. wisely made a big category of all the decent, law abiding, hard working non-Muslim and Muslim citizens of Canada and a little category of people that (try to) place themselves outside the legal framework of the society they live in and thrive on. Just as I expected. I fully agree with the guy.

2. The Canadian Islamic Congress leader was the one using rethoric after all, trying to make this a 'Canada against all Muslims' issue. Just as I expected.
:p
3. You fell for his retorics. Just as I expected.

4. I see the world in color at least as well as you do, but for observing events like this I take off my shades.
Terrorism is such a dark crime that I don't see any color left in it.


You should forget that neat little pallet of colors of yours for once and have the guts to take a stand based on principles without losing any sleep about making a choice between good and evil, scandium!
Have you REALLY considered for more than a second what would have happened had this attack succeeded?
What misery it would have brought to Canadians, non-Muslims and Muslims alike?
How much hope it would give to extremists and how much inspiration for would-be terrorists, seeking their own second of glory in their worthless life?
There are some evils on this planet that make people who nuance them sometimes perpetrators in the mind...

[scandium]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

Just the opposite.

Islamic terror has thrived on people like yourself continually blaming the victims and constantly blathering about a minority of extremists ad infinitum and failing to study the historical and theological foundations of Islam.

Finally, the world is waking up, though apparently comatose is still rampant.

I blame the victims? Where? As the would be victims were Canadians, and I am Canadian living in Canada, your accusation makes about as much sense as my calling you a Nazi. Get a grip AL, your hatred is out of place and unwarranted.

[Abraham]

@ Skybird:
Please edit this:

Originally Posted by Skybird

I finally accepted that Israel may have been right in raising that damn wall and using the ammount of violence it is using in dealing with the Palestinians.

into:

I finally accepted that Israel may have been right in raising that damn fence and ... (etc.)

Just to save you the wrath of your new girlfriend, The Avon Lady...
:rotfl:

[scandium]

Originally Posted by Abraham

You should forget that neat little pallet of colors of yours for once and have the guts to take a stand based on principles without losing any sleep about making a choice between good and evil, scandium!
Have you REALLY considered for more than a second what would have happened had this attack succeeded?
What misery it would have brought to Canadians, non-Muslims and Muslims alike?
How much hope it would give to extremists and how much inspiration for would-be terrorists, seeking their own second of glory in their worthless life?
There are some evils on this planet that make people who nuance them sometimes perpetrators in the mind...

Quote me the passage in this thread, or anywhere on this forum, where I condone terrorism. You won't find it because I do not condone it.

Of course I considered what would have happened if the attack had suceeded. Have you not considered that as a Canadian I might have friends or family that could have been hurt or killed if this had happened? Do you not realize how outrageous you are being here? Please, being scolded and lectured on the consequences from someone an ocean away is absurd and offensive. You're almost as bad as AL with your patent on righteous preaching that is totally out of place and out of line.

Editted for typos.

[Konovalov]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

Just the opposite.

Islamic terror has thrived on people like yourself continually blaming the victims

Where the heck did he blame the victims in any of his postings? You are out of line on this one Avon Lady.

[The Avon Lady]

The B O O M that could have been.