Canada dodged a bullet

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Konovalov

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

My full response to Scandium was:

• "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."

I will provide you with an alternative rendition:

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

[Abraham]

@ scandium:
Don't get upset or personal; I am only criticizing you for what you wrote.
I have nor said, nor suggested, nor do I think, that you condone terrorism.
It's just that I get as sick as Skybird and some others on this forum of people who as a first reaction to an act of Muslim terrorism (or the threat thereof) start soul searching for a non-obvious cause.
That you are a Canadian yourselves doesn't change this a thing. I think it is sometimes a well known psychological reaction of some victims to excuse the perpetrators and blame themselves. (I mean 'blame' in this sense: the victim's doubting or soul searching his/her own attitude as a possible cause for the motivation of the perpetrator; and 'victim' in the widest possible meaning, including all who could suffer: an ethnic group, a people, a nation i.e. Canada). Skybird might know the psychological name for it...
You just fell hook line and sinker for the rethoric of the Canadian Islamic Congress leader blaming your P.M. of retorics. Your Prime Minister was damn right: it is "us" - you and me included - against "them" - the force of destruction.
Your remark that I am almost as bad as The Avon Lady could perhaps be considered offensive by that lady...
As far as the "righteous preaching that is totally out of place and out of line" I would say: you are right, but we all have our faults. This is one of my leftist antics or traits that I sometimes find hard to suppress.
Since terrorism is a world wide problem I find your remark that I should keep quiet unjustified. Your added argument that I am "an ocean away" doesn't make much sense given the issue (terrorism) and the platform (a subsim forum...)

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Abraham

Your remark that I am almost as bad as The Avon Lady could perhaps be considered offensive by that lady...

I'm badder than bad!

[StdDev]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

I'm badder than bad!

Thats Good!!!!!

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Abraham

@ Skybird:
Please edit this:
into:

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

Pardon? Maybe it is becasue it is holiday in Germany, and I am lazy today, and my brain is slow, but what do you mean?

[Abraham]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Pardon? Maybe it is becasue it is holiday in Germany, and I am lazy today, and my brain is slow, but what do you mean?

Oops...
Having to explain a joke is the ultimate proof that it failed.
Here I go:
You showed understanding for Israels actions versus the Palestinians. Now you have a new girl friend, The Avon Lady.
But you spoke about the wall, and many Israeli's make an issue of pointing out that about 90 % is actually a fence.
It is a known fact that The Avon Lady doesn't compromise with anybody, friends or not. So I suggested a little editing to keep this new friendship alive...

Ahw, probably The Avon Lady being a bedder woman gives (*edited*) about how you call it, as long as it gets finished...

[Skybird]

Since I have seen images both of high metal fences and solid concrete walls, I think it doesn't matter. And since she already cut off my lips and hands, there is not much more she can threaten me with.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Since I have seen images both of high metal fences and solid concrete walls, I think it doesn't matter.

I agree. Fact is, however, that something like 90% of it is fence.

And since she already cut off my lips and hands, there is not much more she can threaten me with.

/avon emits evil laugh: BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Skybird

And since she already cut off my lips and hands, there is not much more she can threaten me with.

Well there is one more thing she could cut off...

[Abraham]

"You took the words right out of my mouth..."

And I bad she would in see deemed it necessary for the safety of the State of Israel.
:rotfl:

[scandium]

Originally Posted by Abraham

@ scandium:
Don't get upset or personal; I am only criticizing you for what you wrote.
I have nor said, nor suggested, nor do I think, that you condone terrorism.
It's just that I get as sick as Skybird and some others on this forum of people who as a first reaction to an act of Muslim terrorism (or the threat thereof) start soul searching for a non-obvious cause.
That you are a Canadian yourselves doesn't change this a thing. I think it is sometimes a well known psychological reaction of some victims to excuse the perpetrators and blame themselves. (I mean 'blame' in this sense: the victim's doubting or soul searching his/her own attitude as a possible cause for the motivation of the perpetrator; and 'victim' in the widest possible meaning, including all who could suffer: an ethnic group, a people, a nation i.e. Canada). Skybird might know the psychological name for it...
You just fell hook line and sinker for the rethoric of the Canadian Islamic Congress leader blaming your P.M. of retorics. Your Prime Minister was damn right: it is "us" - you and me included - against "them" - the force of destruction.
Your remark that I am almost as bad as The Avon Lady could perhaps be considered offensive by that lady...
As far as the "righteous preaching that is totally out of place and out of line" I would say: you are right, but we all have our faults. This is one of my leftist antics or traits that I sometimes find hard to suppress.
Since terrorism is a world wide problem I find your remark that I should keep quiet unjustified. Your added argument that I am "an ocean away" doesn't make much sense given the issue (terrorism) and the platform (a subsim forum...)

Abraham, where do I excuse the perpetrators? As far as I know the leader of the Canadian Islamic Congress wasn't one of the perpetrators and his remark was the only thing I agreed with. That is another problem with your "us" and "them" mentality, that the "them" has a tendency to expand to include those whose only crime is that they are of the same ethnic group as the perpetrators, or in my case, happen to agree with something that was said by a Muslim.

[Abraham]

Originally Posted by scandium

Abraham, where do I excuse the perpetrators? As far as I know the leader of the Canadian Islamic Congress wasn't one of the perpetrators and his remark was the only thing I agreed with. That is another problem with your "us" and "them" mentality, that the "them" has a tendency to expand to include those whose only crime is that they are of the same ethnic group as the perpetrators, or in my case, happen to agree with something that was said by a Muslim.

I am not saying that you excuse the perpetrators. What irritated me and made me react, perhaps overreact, is the fact that in the face of an attempted act of terror you reacted to the words of the Canadian P.M. by attacking him for talking about "us" and "them" and started to make nuances.

If you see this kind of terrorism in the face, religiously motivated, totalitarian (no limits to political objectives or human targets) and only capable of destruction than you have to take a principle stand: this can't be condoned. As soon as you do that, you are in an "us versus them" situation whether you like it or not. And that line is very clear. No need for nuances here!

Now the leader of the Canadian Islamic Congress - a racist and would be terrorist himself if we should believe his statements about Israeli civilians as legitimate targets - tried to nuance that line and make this into a Canadian non-Muslims and Canadian Muslims issue. His reasons seem obvious, he probably adheres the same ideology as the would-be terrorists. His tactics are also clear; attack the clear statement of his own P.M.; scare the Muslims into a minority and victimized role and try to divide the country along religious lines.

Skybird rightly complained about that standard approach of many (not all!) Muslim communities. A total lack of soul searching what brings their sons and brothers to come to free nations, built by succesfull people, get adopted into new societies and then start their destructive work. That's what the rest of the world expects the Muslim communities to do.

Terrorism is a black crime for me and I think I am smart enough to make a distinction between black and all the other colors of the spectre. In situations like this what's wrong with "us" and "them" as The Avon Lady said. I felt manipulated by your remarks into a group of people who are dangerously stupid to include every Canadian Muslim into the "them" group. I am not doing that. The issue at hand is whether the Canadian Muslims are doing that themselves. Seen in that light the remarks of the jeader of the Canadian Islamic Congres don't forebode much optimism.

[scandium]

Originally Posted by Abraham

I am not saying that you excuse the perpetrators. What irritated me and made me react, perhaps overreact, is the fact that in the face of an attempted act of terror you reacted to the words of the Canadian P.M. by attacking him for talking about "us" and "them" and started to make nuances.

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.

If you see this kind of terrorism in the face, religiously motivated, totalitarian (no limits to political objectives or human targets) and only capable of destruction than you have to take a principle stand: this can't be condoned. As soon as you do that, you are in an "us versus them" situation whether you like it or not. And that line is very clear. No need for nuances here!

A strawman. 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.

Now the leader of the Canadian Islamic Congress - a racist and would be terrorist himself if we should believe his statements about Israeli civilians as legitimate targets - tried to nuance that line and make this into a Canadian non-Muslims and Canadian Muslims issue. His reasons seem obvious, he probably adheres the same ideology as the would-be terrorists. His tactics are also clear; attack the clear statement of his own P.M.; scare the Muslims into a minority and victimized role and try to divide the country along religious lines.

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.

Terrorism is a black crime for me and I think I am smart enough to make a distinction between black and all the other colors of the spectre. In situations like this what's wrong with "us" and "them" as The Avon Lady said. I felt manipulated by your remarks into a group of people who are dangerously stupid to include every Canadian Muslim into the "them" group. I am not doing that. The issue at hand is whether the Canadian Muslims are doing that themselves. Seen in that light the remarks of the jeader of the Canadian Islamic Congres don't forebode much optimism.

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.

[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.

[scandium]

Originally Posted by Abraham

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.

Yes, a good leader should unite the nation. Period. Not just in moments of peril, but at all times. The natural reaction to a terror attack, by the way, is I think twofold: on the one hand people tend to come together, to unite, in their condemnation of such horrificly deviant behaviour; on the other hand, because of the shadowy aspect of terrorism they can also become suspicious, paranoid, and because of the wrongful nature of the attack, may take their fear and anger out on proxies. These are natural human emotions. At the same time, you cannot create a situation where this is allowed because (a) it is morally wrong, and (b) the minority that is scapegoated in this fashion may then begin to identify with the terrorists and become radicalized, creating a vicious cycle.

A good leader then, in this situation, is faced with a delicate balancing act. On the one hand he needs to calm people's fears and suspicions and demonstrate that justice is (or will be) forthcoming. At the same time, he also needs to restrain society's natural inclination toward vigilante justice and retribution so that it doesn't lead to attacks on proxies and create the vicious cycle. A comparison to Churchill is not valid because Britain's enemies were external and so the dynamic was different.

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.

It seemed to me simply as though the Muslim leader was pointing out the line Harper was walking and cautioning him not to cross it, lest Harper inflame sentiment among ordinary Canadians and among Muslim minority groups in Canada. On this I agreed with him for the reason stated above and in previous posts.