March 22, 2006

"We have no creative presence in the world"

For those who cannot understand how it is that the big-government, nanny-state "liberal" left finds kinship with fundamentalist Islam and fascist dictators - an interview with poet Ali Ahmad Sa'id, who is known by the pseudonym "Adonis";

Interviewer: "What are the reasons for growing glorification of dictatorships - sometimes in the name of pan-Arabism, and other times in the name of rejecting foreigners? The glorification comes even from the elites, as can be seen, for example, in the Saddam Hussein trial, and in all the people who support him."

Adonis: "This phenomenon is very dangerous, and I believe it has to do with the concept of 'oneness,' which is reflected - in practical or political terms - in the concept of the hero, the savior, or the leader. This concept offers an inner sense of security to people who are afraid of freedom. Some human beings are afraid of freedom."

Interviewer: "Because it is synonymous with anarchy?"

Adonis: "No, because being free is a great burden. It is by no means easy."

Interviewer: "You've got to have a boss..."

Adonis: "When you are free, you have to face reality, the world in its entirety. You have to deal with the world's problems, with everything..."

Interviewer: "With all the issues..."

Adonis: "On the other hand, if we are slaves, we can be content and not have to deal with anything. Just as Allah solves all our problems, the dictator will solve all our problems."


"I don't understand what is happening in Arab society today. I don't know how to interpret this situation, except by making the following hypothesis: When I look at the Arab world, with all its resources, the capacities of Arab individuals, especially abroad - you will find among them great philosophers, scientists, engineers, and doctors. In other words, the Arab individual is no less smart, no less a genius, than anyone else in the world. He can excel - but only outside his society. I have nothing against the individuals - only against the institutions and the regimes.

"If I look at the Arabs, with all their resources and great capacities, and I compare what they have achieved over the past century with what others have achieved in that period, I would have to say that we Arabs are in a phase of extinction, in the sense that we have no creative presence in the world."

Interviewer: "Are we on the brink of extinction, or are we already extinct?"

Adonis: "We have become extinct. We have the quantity. We have the masses of people, but a people becomes extinct when it no longer has a creative capacity, and the capacity to change its world."

(Emphasis mine.)

The only portion that puzzles is why Ali Ahmad Sa'id doesn't quite make the connection to "understand what is happening in Arab society today". The two traits he mentions in the quote I selected (dependency on "higher" authority and lack of creativity) are not simply related - the latter is the expected consequence of the former.

The rest at Memri.

Posted by Kate at March 22, 2006 12:09 AM

Very sad really, a billion people drifting on grievance, for nothing.

Insightful article. Not surprising he chooses anonymity, the mullahs would fatwa his butt real quick.

Posted by: infidel at March 21, 2006 11:48 PM

This is why the Islam worries me...

Rahman, a father of two, was arrested last week and is now awaiting trial for rejecting Islam. He told local police, whom he approached on an unrelated matter, that he had converted to Christianity. Reports say he was carrying a Bible at the time.

"They want to sentence me to death, and I accept it," Rahman told reporters last week, "but I am not a deserter and not an infidel."

Love to know what all you peaceniks think about this. Shameful man converts to Christianity and is found with a Bible. He should be brought to Canada and indoctrinated in our places of higher education about freedom of thinking and how to giving BJ's to a Capitalist Pig.

Posted by: tomax at March 21, 2006 11:55 PM

You can contact the Afghanistan embassy here:

Government of Canada "Rebuilding Afghanistan"
(but that is probably as useless as t*ts on a bull)

Posted by: tomax at March 22, 2006 12:16 AM

Liberal? Unemployed? Arabia awaits.

Posted by: Bernie at March 22, 2006 12:26 AM

Typical rightie...bringing a poet to a gunfight.

Funny...I read that and it confirmed that it was for those who cannot understand how it is that the small-government, control-state "Conservative" right finds kinship with fundamentalist Islam and fascist dictators. Fascism is right wing.

I'm ready for my diagnosis now.

Posted by: steve in bc at March 22, 2006 12:53 AM

Yeszz. Fascism is right-wing. That's why Hitler's party was called the National Socialist German Workers Party, and used the same hammer-in-fist iconography as Mao and Stalin.

That's an interesting, thought, Kate, that freedom is terrifying to leftists because they're not up to snuff. I've never understood why leftists always seem to find common ground with brutal dictators like the ronery Kim Jong Il, and brutal Islamist theocrats, or why they have always been so spectacularly, pointedly indifferent to the horrifying conditions in North Korea today, just as they were to Maoist China or the former Soviet Union.

Maybe they consider freedom to be beyond their ability to deal with, and that it's a form of cruelty and abandonment. As a working theory, it would explain why they yearn for control over all things, and why they constantly, tireless organize to set up an overarching state which, in their dreams, will control everything.


Posted by: EBD at March 22, 2006 1:10 AM


That was a pretty intelligent stringing together of labels all-in-a-row "big government nanny state liberal left.

Say it quickly and it becomes even more meaningless. Lazy writing. c minus!

Posted by: John Daly at March 22, 2006 1:19 AM

John, Muse through your wps files and present an example of your un-lazy writing. Writing with vigor, humour and insight..OK?

Posted by: TonyGuitar at March 22, 2006 1:45 AM

Related article here:

Toward the end of the article Thomas Lifson writes:
"At its heart, the Islamist vision is opposed to all technological change. Rather than a society characterized by continuing discoveries in medicine, telecommunications advances and new applications of micro-electronics to further delight the mind and body, these Islamists prefer (or think they prefer) a steady state society, roughly fixed at the seventh century, when Muhammad received divine revelations and laid down the optimal way to govern human existence for all time."
He then refers to the comparisson that Jack Risko, of makes between patent activity in the nations of Islam and the west:
Saudi Arabia, which only established a patent office in 1990, has not granted a patent in six years. Iran in 2001 granted only one patent. Egypt, home to a quarter of the world’s Arabs, is only now getting around to mandating the task of undertaking a substantive investigation of patent claims before granting patents.
The basic machinery of technological innovation is absent. Indonesia, with almost a quarter billion people, has totaled 30 patents in the last five years.
The US granted 157,000 patents last year, and has a cumulative total of seven million. Jack Risko comments:
Imagine: over a billion people, and they have fewer patents in their entire recorded history than did the citizens of Utah last year.
Jihadists have proven adept at using cell phones, air travel, the internet, and satellite television. We now fear their developing prowess in biotechnology and nuclear technology. Clearly their hostility to technology has not prevented them from using it.
I have to ask myself if they truly would give up all these fruits of science and civilization, originated in the west but now embraced throughout the non-Muslim world. No more al Jazeera? No more cell phones?
How about no more air-conditioning?
If they get their way, do they envision getting rid of all post-800 AD innovations? Or will they try to hold onto what exists, while allowing no further innovation? The mind boggles. Who will train the air conditioner repair men? How will they keep up with what already exists if nobody is interested extending in such knowledge? Everyone might as well just study the Koran in madrassas.
And that is the point."
Freedom is the catalyst that makes creativity and innovation possible in society. Profit and the possibility of gain are the incentives that allow dreamers dare to take a risk.

Posted by: Daniel at March 22, 2006 3:07 AM

Rejection of personal responsibility and dependancce upon the nanny state (or the dictatorial one) has created driven creativity and innovation from the soul of many on the left. Ali Ahmed Sa'id sees this but, as you commented, doesn't make the connection.

What's the adage? "Give a man a fish...."
Might as well end with "...and soon he'll be flopping around on the beach."

Posted by: joated at March 22, 2006 7:10 AM

Slouching towards sanity. +

Afghan convert to Christianity unfit to stand trial

Associated Press
Published: Wednesday, March 22, 2006

KABUL, Afghanistan -- An Afghan man facing a possible death penalty for converting from Islam to Christianity may be mentally unfit to stand trial, a state prosecutor said Wednesday.

Abdul Rahman has been charged with rejecting Islam, a crime under this country's Islamic laws. His trial started last week and he confessed to becoming a Christian 16 years ago. If convicted, he could be executed.

But prosecutor Sarinwal Zamari said questions have been raised about his mental fitness.

"We think he could be mad. He is not a normal person. He doesn't talk like a normal person," he said in an interview.

Moayuddin Baluch, a religious adviser to President Hamid Karzai, said Rahman would undergo a psychological examination.

"Doctors must examine him," he said. "If he is mentally unfit, definitely Islam has no claim to punish him. He must be forgiven. The case must be dropped. +

Posted by: maz2 at March 22, 2006 8:09 AM

"Fascism is right wing."


Castro say's he's a socialist just like you steve in bc
Mugabe say's he thinks like you too.
China says they're commie's just like Jack Layton.

Steve in bc Diagnosis: You think you're rebelling against something,you're stuck in the 60's ,your brain shut off, you have no capacity to reason nor critical thought, only default modes that you allowed flakes to install into your physche.
The good news is we're not all like you, your presence here tells of an attraction to the right.

Go with that.
And make another appointment with the rceptionist in the lobby.

Posted by: richfisher at March 22, 2006 8:31 AM

They really are forgetful.
Arabs invented suicide bombing and hitting themselves in the head during parades whilst screaming and bleeding.

Posted by: richfisher at March 22, 2006 8:46 AM

so maz2, this fellow in Afghanistan that converts from Islam to Christianity, must be insane?

thank you for making sense of it all for me. sarc/

Posted by: marc in calgary at March 22, 2006 8:48 AM

A relevant column by David Warren in the Ottawa Citizen today, available online at:

'An editorial in this newspaper yesterday called attention to the case of a man in the “new Afghanistan”, named Abdul Rahman, who is being tried for apostasy under Shariah law. He secretly converted to Christianity 16 years ago, while working with a Christian aid mission, and now members of his own family have outed him. Under Shariah, anyone who converts from Islam is guilty of apostasy, which has always been punished by death. It is the reason Christian missionaries have had so much less success in the Islamic world than elsewhere -- for the Muslim convert must choose Christ and martyrdom in a single step. He can save his life by reconverting to Islam, but then he is denying Christ, as Abdul Rahman refuses to do.

I mention this case because it perfectly illustrates the impossibility of establishing a Western secular order in a country where Shariah is recognized as law. Or as the learned Bernard Lewis put it, as discreetly as he could, in his book Islam and the West: “The primary duty of the Muslim as set forth not once but many times in the Qur'an is ‘to command good and forbid evil’. It is not enough to do good and refrain from evil as a personal choice. It is incumbent upon Muslims also to command and forbid -- that is, to exercise authority.”

This is at the root of the “clash” between the worldviews of our West and the Islamic East. Because our societies were built on Judaeo-Christian foundations, we take it for granted that it is wrong to kill someone for his religious beliefs. Whereas Islam holds it is wrong not to kill him, for abandoning Islam. (On the other hand, the right to convert TO Islam has been universally affirmed.)

Shariah is logically coherent, and cannot be argued with on its own premises. The clash is therefore of premises. At the end of the day, we are attempting to impose our premises on societies that are conditioned to reject them.

But of course, the Bush administration must pretend that our premises are universal, or at least, that men anywhere would embrace them given a free choice. The latter proposition may be true, but not the former. And it is in the transition that all National Security Strategies, presidential speeches, and the like, are bound to founder...

Any way you look at it, the “democratization” project asks Muslims to cease to think as Muslims, and think as post-Christian “seculars” instead. This was the project Kemal Ataturk embarked upon, in trying to modernize Turkey after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. In Turkey, it involved the suppression of nearly every visible manifestation of Islam in public life -- and it worked, for a while. Turkey became modern. But now, nearly a century later, Islam is visibly resurgent even there.

The Bush administration does not know how to square this circle. Does anyone?'


Posted by: Mark Collins at March 22, 2006 8:54 AM

Nein, mein marc in calgary/ das devil, aka Satan, made hims mad. )Sarcasm: irony is great, praise Irony.) And in Darfur, there is no irony. Point: There are no mosques/mullahahas on the list, so far, Darfur. +

Practical blasphemy

In the toss up between cartoons and killing people, one might conclude that ending the lives of the children of God might rank as a greater offence than mocking either God or God's prophets. So, one might expect that a few Sudanese embassies have been put to the torch by crowds angry at genocide in Darfur, but apparently not.

The protests against mass murder in Darfur have been impressively peaceful. A number of religious institutions have started displaying banners calling for the Darfuris to be saved. A list is here. Oddly, one kind of religious institution appears to be missing. Interestingly, many institutions that will soon commemorate pharaonically induced mass pedestrianism are well represented. How will Harvard explain that? +

List here:

Posted by: maz2 at March 22, 2006 9:00 AM

OK, TG, I will do that. Just as soon as I figure out what a wps file is. But..your crabby response aside, or included (as you like) I would suggest my comment had some relevance, because you responded to it.

I'm not dissing your site, by the way. I like your site, or I would not be reading here. Simply saying I prefer descriptions more vivid than "nanny state".

Using those kinds of labels reduce discussion the level we used to enjoy at recess, while playing dodge ball.

Posted by: John Daly at March 22, 2006 9:30 AM

What a choice-choose Christ and be killed, choose Islam and kill others and yourself with a bomb. Only difference I see is that as a Christian, when killed, there are no virgins waiting for you. No one has ever told me what a female suicide bomber gets when she reaches paradise.

Posted by: maryT at March 22, 2006 9:37 AM

Mary, I can't resist: "Screwed?"

Posted by: Agitfact at March 22, 2006 9:47 AM

("The quality of mercy is not strained, it droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven..." Portia: Merchant of Venice. Shakespeare.) +


Soldiers save Afghan boy

Namatullah, a six-year-old boy with a suspected case of cancer (centre), sits while his grandfather Taj Mohammed (left) discusses his case with Canadian army doctor Capt. Adrian Norbash in Kandahar, Afghanistan on Thursday, Feb. 23, 2006.
Photograph by : CP PHOTO/Les Perreau

Richard Foot, CanWest News Service
Published: Wednesday, March 22, 2006

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan -- One month ago, a dying, six-year-old Afghan boy arrived at the gate of the Canadian army base in this city, brought by his grandfather in a desperate effort to find help for the suffering child.

Horrified by the huge, infected tumour on his face, and the cancer that had spread to his lymph nodes and liver, Canadian medical staff said they couldn't save the boy's life but would try to ease his pain until he died.

On Tuesday, the boy came back to the base for the first time since that fateful introduction -- his tumour gone, his cancer in extraordinary retreat, and a small, shy smile upon his face -- a living testament to the power of human kindness in this hard and unforgiving land.

"When he first came here there was no indication that he would survive," says Cpl. Brian Sanders, one-half of a miracle-working Canadian tag team that appears to have saved the boy's life.

"Instead of certain death, he now has a 70-per-cent chance of survival."

When the boy, named Namatullah, first came into the orbit of the Canadian mission in Kandahar, he was grotesquely disfigured by facial cancer and in severe pain from the disease that had metastacized in his abdomen.

His grandfather Taj Mohammad, a former mujahedeen warrior from Kandahar who once fought against the Russians, had been turned away from local hospitals here and in Kabul, by doctors who said the boy was beyond treatment and recovery.
Sanders belongs to a church back in Canada, the North Edmonton Christian Fellowship, that had been looking for a worthy cause to support in Afghanistan. He e-mailed photographs of Namatullah to the congregation, asking for help.

Within days, the church, along with other Canadians who heard about the boy's plight on the television news, had raised $10,000 to give Namatullah whatever medical care he needed.
With the help of his uncles (his father is an opium addict), he was also brought triumphantly back to the Canadian base on Tuesday, where he sat for an hour in the army medical clinic -- a tiny, heralded hero -- a tad bewildered by all the fuss, but surrounded by an admiring swarm of smiling soldiers. +

Posted by: maz2 at March 22, 2006 9:48 AM

Mark in Ottawa, this is the same David Warren who gloried in Iraq II, trumpeted how swimmingly things were going there according to his "American sources," and declared that Bush was "de man."

Why is he now using the terminology of Sir Robert Thompson describing US efforts in Vietnam as trying to "square the circle." Will Warren continue to the next Thompsonean insight, that the application of more force merely "squared the error?"

Posted by: Agitfact at March 22, 2006 10:07 AM

For those people who believe that we should not be imposing "our way of life" on other societies, I believe that Basic Human Rights should be Universal

Posted by: Lanny at March 22, 2006 10:42 AM

Of course the Afghan Christian convert doesn't talk like a 'normal' person: Christians tend to talk about turning the other cheek, and loving their neighbours as much as themselves.

Compare that to years of Taliban rantings about soaking the land with rivers of Infidel blood, etc - heck it would sound insane to the average Afghani.

Posted by: sooz at March 22, 2006 10:44 AM

I think John Daly is correct in his assertion that the term "nanny state" is lacking in vividness.

What people should be talking about is the anal retentive nanny state. :)

Posted by: Joe Canuck at March 22, 2006 10:49 AM

John Daly:
More about the "Nanny Stae" here
"...a derogatory term for government intervention, especially in social issues."

Posted by: Daniel at March 22, 2006 10:50 AM

Ah, the connection. Former LIEberal leader of Canada goes to Libya, probably to pick up some new tips on how to "control" the minds{?} of left thinking{?} people! Just what's needed by people too afraid to think for themselves and follow their leaders blindly while being fleeced by same! When you have an entire people too afraid to step out of their bubble and think/act for themselves, you have a pretty sad state of affairs. Muslim fundamentalists? It's just too easy to recrute when your pool is composed entirely of people under the impression that they will be looked after without having to bother looking after themselves. Same as the LIEberals and NDP! Sad.

Posted by: Coyote at March 22, 2006 10:59 AM

"While Europe turns Muslim the children of the West burn the evidence of its Christian past."

"The French authorities fear that rioting students have destroyed unique manuscripts from the library of the Sorbonne University in Paris. According to today’s Catholic newspaper La Croix precious religious manuscript collections disappeared during the recent occupation of the Sorbonne. The books are mediaeval ecclesiastical chartularies: registers documenting property rights and temporary privileges pertaining to a church or monastery. The documents may have been burned on barricades which the students made near the Sorbonne chapel during the night of 10 March."

Can there be any clearer example of the mentality of leftists?

They are as intolerant, arrogant and destructive as the Islamofascists.

Posted by: penny at March 22, 2006 11:06 AM

Daniel, You have written a little gem there old man. At 3:07 am I had no idea and I suspect many others were illuminated as well.

Interesting in that Liberals and fundamentalists will be encouraged to think carefully and some will quietly see the light. TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at March 22, 2006 11:12 AM

Mark Collins at 8:54 writes another excellent piece of clarity. Very good! Is it the first day of spring, or something in the water? TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at March 22, 2006 11:23 AM

Ooops, guess I meant for recognizing the worth of David Warren's written work. TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at March 22, 2006 11:27 AM

If you don't like the words: "big-government, nanny-state "liberal" left"

Prove it doesn't exist or at least that you are not one. Otherwise accept the label.

RE: the topic here, there is one flaw that Adonis cannot shake. His belief in any future for Islam. Islam is fundamentally corrupt.

The Truth About Islam

Posted by: Doug at March 22, 2006 11:37 AM

MaryT, A female suicide bomber, when she goes to the great mosque in the sky..[not sure how to spell heavan].. gets total freedom from oppression and never has to see a burkah again.

Posted by: TonyGuitar at March 22, 2006 11:39 AM

Let's see.. heaven, damn I'll have to look it up. TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at March 22, 2006 11:41 AM


By TONY BLAIR (I ain't no panty waist socialist)

March 22, 2006 -- Below are excerpts from British Prime Minister Tony Blair's speech yesterday to the Foreign Policy Center in London. The full text is on the Web at:

VICTORY for democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan is a vital element of defeating global terrorism.

I recall the video footage of Mohammed Sadiq Khan, the ringleader of the 7/7 bombers. There he was, complaining about the suppression of Muslims, the wickedness of America and Britain, calling on all fellow Muslims to fight us.

And I thought: Here is someone brought up in this country - free to practice his religion, free to speak out, free to vote, with a good standard of living and every chance to raise a family in a decent way of life - talking about "us," the British, when his whole experience of "us" has been the very opposite of the message he is preaching.

And in so far as he is angry about Muslims in Iraq or Afghanistan - let Iraqi or Afghan Muslims decide whether to be angry or not, by ballot.

There was something tragic, terrible but also ridiculous about such a diatribe. He may have been born here. But his ideology wasn't. And that is why it has to be taken on, everywhere.

This terrorism will not be defeated until its ideas - the poison that warps the minds of its adherents - are confronted, head-on, in their essence, at their core.

By this I don't mean telling them terrorism is wrong. I mean telling them their attitude to America is absurd; their concept of governance pre-feudal; their positions on women and other faiths, reactionary and regressive.

And then, since only by Muslims can this be done: standing up for and supporting those within Islam who will tell them all of this but more - namely that the extremist view of Islam is not just theologically backward but completely contrary to the spirit and teaching of the Koran.

But in order to do this, we must reject the thought that somehow we are the authors of our own distress; that if only we altered this decision or that, the extremism would fade away. The only way to win is to recognize this phenomenon is a global ideology; to see all areas, in which it operates, as linked; and to defeat it by values and ideas set in opposition to those of the terrorists.

THE struggle against terrorism in Madrid or London or Paris is the same as the struggle against the terrorist acts of Hezbollah in Lebanon or the PIJ in Palestine or rejectionist groups in Iraq. The murder of the innocent in Beslan is part of the same ideology that takes innocent lives in Saudi Arabia, the Yemen or Libya.

And when Iran gives support to such terrorism, it becomes part of the same battle, with the same ideology at its heart.

The conventional view is that, for example, Iran is hostile to al Qaeda and therefore would never support its activities. But as we know from our own history of conflict, under the pressure of battle, alliances shift and change. Fundamentally, for this ideology, we are the enemy.

Which brings me to the fundamental point. "We" is not the West. "We" are as much Muslim as Christian or Jew or Hindu. "We" are those who believe in religious tolerance, openness to others, to democracy, liberty and human rights administered by secular courts.

This is not a clash between civilizations. It is a clash about civilization.

It is the age-old battle between progress and reaction, between those who embrace and see opportunity in the modern world and those who reject its existence; between optimism and hope on the one hand; and pessimism and fear on the other.

And in the era of globalization - where nations depend on each other and where our security is held in common or not at all - the outcome of this clash between extremism and progress is utterly determinative of our future here in Britain. We can no more opt out of this struggle than we can opt out of the climate changing around us.

T HIS is why the position of so much opinion on how to defeat this terrorism and on the continuing struggle in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Middle East is, in my judgment, so mistaken. It ignores the true significance of the elections in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The fact is: Given the chance, the people wanted democracy. OK, so they voted on religious or regional lines. That's not surprising, given the history. But there's not much doubt what all the main parties in both countries would prefer, and it is neither theocratic nor secular dictatorship.

The people - despite violence, intimidation, inexperience and often logistical nightmares - voted. Not a few, but in numbers large enough to shame many western democracies. They want government decided by the people.

And who is trying to stop them? In Iraq, a mixture of foreign Jihadists, former Saddamists and rejectionist insurgents. In Afghanistan, a combination of drug barons, Taliban and al Qaeda.

In both countries, the armed forces and police service are taking shape so that in time a democratically elected government has, under its control, sufficient power to do the will of the democratic state. In each case, people die lining up to join such forces - determined, whatever the risk, to be part of a new and different dispensation.

So here, in its most pure form, is a struggle between democracy and violence.

PEOPLE look back on the three years since the Iraq conflict; they point to the precarious nature of Iraq today and to those who have died - mainly in terrorist acts - and they say: How can it have been worth it?

But there is a different question to ask: Why is it so important to the forces of reaction and violence to halt Iraq in its democratic tracks and tip it into sectarian war? Why do foreign terrorists from al Qaeda and its associates go across the border to kill and maim? Why does Syria not take stronger action to prevent them? Why does Iran meddle so furiously in the stability of Iraq?

The answer is that the reactionary elements know the importance of victory or defeat in Iraq. Right from the beginning, to them it was obvious.

For sure, errors were made on our side. But the basic problem from the murder of the United Nations staff in August 2003 onwards was simple: security. The reactionary elements were trying to de-rail both reconstruction and democracy by violence.

Power and electricity became problems not through the indolence of either Iraqis or the multinational force but through sabotage. People became frightened through terrorism and through criminal gangs, some deliberately released by Saddam.

These were not random acts. They were and are a strategy. When that strategy failed to push the multinational force out of Iraq prematurely and failed to stop the voting, they turned to sectarian killing and outrage - most notably February's savage and blasphemous destruction of the Shia Shrine at Samarra.

They know that if they can succeed either in Iraq or Afghanistan (or indeed in Lebanon or anywhere else wanting to go the democratic route), then the choice of a modern democratic future for the Arab or Muslim world is dealt a potentially mortal blow.

Likewise, if they fail, and those countries become democracies and make progress and, in the case of Iraq, prosper rapidly as it would - then not merely is that a blow against their whole value system; it is the most effective message possible against their wretched propaganda about America, the West, the rest of the world.

That to me is the painful irony of what is happening. They have so much clearer a sense of what is at stake. They play our own media with a shrewdness that would be the envy of many a political party.

SHORTLY after Saddam fell, I met in London a woman who, after years of exile (and there were 4 million such exiles), had returned to Iraq to participate in modern politics there. A couple of months later, she was assassinated, one of the first to be so.

I cannot tell what she would say now. But I do know it would not be, "Give up." She would not want her sacrifice for her beliefs to be in vain.

Two years later, the same ideology killed people on the streets of London, and for the same reason: To stop cultures, faiths and races living in harmony; to deter those who see greater openness to others as a mark of humanity's progress; to disrupt the very thing that makes London special would in time, if allowed to, set Iraq on a course of progress too.

This is, ultimately, a battle about modernity. Some of it can only be conducted and won within Islam itself. But don't let us in our desire not to speak of what we can only imperfectly understand; or our wish not to trespass on sensitive feelings, end up accepting the premise of the very people fighting us.

The extremism is not the true voice of Islam. Neither is that voice necessarily to be found in those who are from one part only of Islamic thought, however assertively that voice makes itself heard. It is, as ever, to be found in the calm, but too often unheard beliefs of the many Muslims, millions of them the world over, including in Europe, who want what we all want: to be ourselves free and for others to be free also; who regard tolerance as a virtue and respect for the faith of others as part of our own faith.

That is what this battle is about, within Islam and outside of it; it is a battle of values and progress - and therefore it is one we must win.

Posted by: Fred at March 22, 2006 11:43 AM

Yes, the proof is NOT in the NAME the PROOF is in the actions of the FASCISTS. You have to ask yourself what they actually did.
Socialists do not put socialists in concentration camps
Socialists do not put homosexuals in concentration camps
Socialists do not make deals with Capitalists to give them slave labour
Socialists do not put Communists in jail
Socialist governments do not attack Communist governments
Hitler's FASCIST government did all of those things.
He was aided and abetted by large international Capitalist corporations. It would be impossible to arm and outfit a state of the art military without working closely with large corporations--some of them American(IBM,FORD,GOODYEAR)

Posted by: steve d. at March 22, 2006 12:04 PM


Heaven is spelled "Canadian Senate"

You only need to die from the neck up to get their.

Posted by: Duke at March 22, 2006 12:13 PM

On a related note, check out this post at The Western Standard's Shotgun blog.

Tim Denton and I have co-authored an essay entitled "Allah's Holodeck: How the Islamic Worldview Deals with Contrition", in which we examine the problem of free will within Islam and its consequences in relations with Western societies.

Posted by: Paul Canniff at March 22, 2006 12:17 PM

Oops ... Their is actually spelled 'there'

Daly ... FYI

.WPS file is a word prefect text file
.doc is a word for windows text file

AND ...

'nanny state' is a perfect description of the over bearing, in your face, over taxing government we have here is The Socialist Dominion.

Posted by: Duke at March 22, 2006 12:17 PM

Arabs have been emasculated in the last century by the two economic and military superpowers of the time, England then America.
Their foreign policy is dictated by their economic interests. In this case oil has been increasingly important. To ensure that oil is delivered reliably you must have order and control of the supply. The Americans can control the supply if the locals could supply the order. It doesn't matter who gives you the necessary stability as long as they leave you to exploit the resource. So deals were made and are still being made to ensure political stability.
In summary, it is superpower meddling which while making a small number of Arabs immensely rich keep the vast majority impotent. Obviously, these days it becomes more of a challenge to maintain this stability because it was set up by outside forces.

Posted by: steve d. at March 22, 2006 12:21 PM

Tony Blair:

Likewise, if they [Jihadists] fail, and those countries become democracies and make progress and, in the case of Iraq, prosper rapidly as it would - then not merely is that a blow against their whole value system; it is the most effective message possible against their wretched propaganda about America, the West, the rest of the world.

The extremism is not the true voice of Islam.

It is, as ever, to be found in the calm, but too often unheard beliefs of the many Muslims, millions of them the world over, including in Europe, who want what we all want: to be ourselves free and for others to be free also; who regard tolerance as a virtue and respect...

There is a world conference attended by moderate Muslims and Muslim leaders in progress right now.

Their purpose is to come up with effective ways to stop fudamentalist cleric leaders from twisting the peaceful teachings of Muhammad to violence for their own personal power grab.

The outcome will be important! TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at March 22, 2006 12:25 PM

I've seen the word FREEDOM liberally thrown about this topic...I'm starting to believe mankind will never trully be FREE until he can break FREE of this ancient, cross-cultural need to believe in an after-life.

I live my life without imposing my beliefs on others yet am constantly oppressed by "believers",from facing threats of terrorist attacks,to watching friends being manipulated
by religious pitchmen(often for cash,of course).

I am sooooo sick and tired of watching,at ANY given time,innocent people from somewhere in the world,suffering horribly in the name of someone's GOD.
Will mankind ever break FREE of these CHAINS?

Posted by: Canadian Observer at March 22, 2006 12:29 PM

Bravo Fred!

Posted by: Lanny at March 22, 2006 12:37 PM

Maz2 "...mentally unfit to stand trial, a state prosecutor said Wednesday."

Hmmm...I recall King David pulling a madness stunt when he was before a court


Guess this is the best way to settle this in the worlds eyes, win-win for both parties. One doesn't die, and the other doesn't change its laws.

Just hope the locals are as accountable...

Posted by: tomax7 at March 22, 2006 12:39 PM

steven d, I agree with you that by definition fascism isn't socialistic or Communistic - that fascism in history is more a product of the extreme right. Others may make a better case that I'm wrong.

I disagree with you that the root of Arab's problems at this point in time is their emasculation by others. Until they burn Islam to the ground and embrace incompatible concepts like secularism, science, women's rights, modern commerce(Islam forbids charging interest on lendings) and freedom of expression they will always be doomed.

In Arab history the rich were always a small number. Wealth belonged to the tribe on top. Nothing has changed over centuries.

Posted by: penny at March 22, 2006 1:06 PM

To Canadian Observer,
RE: "watching,at ANY given time,innocent people from somewhere in the world,suffering horribly in the name of someone's GOD."

Innocent people are suffering because of their own terrible GOVERNMENT.
Nowhere in Canada or America are people suffering because of "someones God"? The truth is actually the opposite. Canada and American were founded on the recognition of our own citizens God given freedoms that our GOVERNMENTS may not take.

Posted by: concrete at March 22, 2006 1:06 PM

Steve D., either you've never picked up a book in your life, or you don't own a TV... which is it?

Stalin was a socialist, and he killed 30 million other socialists, imprisoned countless millions more.

Ever hear of the "Cultural Revolution"?

Ever hear of the unpaid Merc. armies provided to Angola by Mr. Castro?

How bout' the poor bastards "shot", running across the demark line in Berlin in the 60's and chasing the wall in the 70's...

And of course, the Cheks were just liberals begging the Russians to come and free them from their oppressive way of life in 58'.

Dude, you want to tear away at rightwingers, fine. Try using better examples though.

Posted by: William Macdonell at March 22, 2006 1:26 PM

"watching,at ANY given time,innocent people from somewhere in the world,suffering horribly in the name of someone's GOD."

Somewhere in the world, at any given, time some innocent person chokes on a pill or dies because of an incompetent doctor, so should we eradicate medicine?

You may hate religion but it is a source of comfort to many. Billions of dollars are donated to Christian/Jewish charities and put to good use in helping others. Statistics show that private faith based charities do a better job than government.

Any thoughts on just what religion specifically, as we speak, is inflicting violence on others globally? And the religion of Islam's victims?

Posted by: penny at March 22, 2006 1:29 PM

The Sikh's can get pretty nasty on occassion Penny.

Posted by: William Macdonell at March 22, 2006 1:31 PM

Daniel has a very cogent point about the paucity of patents in Muslim countries.

Here's another one that seems to me to correlate.

Cairo, Egypt has been since the 19th century the book printing and publishing capital of the Muslim world. I can't now find an excellent article I read on that recently but it detailed the significant and steady decline of the numbers of books published in Cairo over the last few decades. (Cairo not being replaced in publishing and printing by any other cities, either.)

Those two factors: the dearth of Muslim patents (and presumably also copyrights and trademarks) as well as the steady decrease of book publishing seem to me to be excellent empirical evidence of a declining culture.

Posted by: Dave at March 22, 2006 1:39 PM

Penny, I would suggest that although the political right are often described by the left as "fascistic" or of having fascist tendencies, the vast majority of real world fascists are on the left, and coming from the left.

Using Webster's definition of fascism as a political philosophy, movement or regime "that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation and forcible suppression of opposition" -- don't you think that Mao, Stalin, Kim Jong Il, and Castro perfectly fit the bill?

The left says that chimpy McHitler Bush is the fascist, because the left's descriptions of the right are usually in the form of perjoratives and accusations. Whereas (steve in bc) the terms Kate used to refer to the liberal-left -- "big-government" and "nanny-state" -- are accurate descriptions of the liberal-left's avowed policies and goals. And of course "Liberal left" itself is no more insulting a term of description than "right" or "conservative".

Perhaps the left would prefer that everyone use the left's approach to labeling, in which case the description of the left would be "whiny myopian-kleptocrats."

Posted by: EBD at March 22, 2006 1:39 PM

hey Steve D . .

"Socialists do not put socialists in concentration camps
Socialists do not put homosexuals in concentration camps
Socialists do not make deals with Capitalists to give them slave labour
Socialists do not put Communists in jail"

ever heard of China, the Soviet Union (Huurah Joe Stalin) Cuba, East Germany etc etc etc. All glorious Socialist republics et al.

back on your meds buddy, reality is too much for your obvioulsy limited sensibilities.

Posted by: Fred at March 22, 2006 1:54 PM

I would like to agree with you but lets go down the list.
Stalin- was called a communist, that is why Hitler hated him and his regime. However, he was neither a communist nor a socialist. He was a despot or autocrat or tyrant, take your pick they all mean the same thing. So was Mao, Saddam Hussein, and so is Castro.
These people used some elements of socialism and Capitalism. Whatever, they fancied to attain their goals of complete power.

For the record, there has never been a Communist government, an equal sharing of resources among the people. The leadership required(Mother Teresa like) for such a government has never been found. That is why the more practical and possible socialism evolved. Socialism is practiced differently in every country. Canada's socialism has evolved,out of a religious movement, into a mild almost centrist philosophy. You won't see five penny a litre gasoline in Canada under a Socialist government like they have in Venezuala.
With the increasing gaps between the rich and poor, socialisms time may be coming sooner rather than later in Canada.

Posted by: steve d. at March 22, 2006 2:27 PM

Steve d
"Arabs have been emasculated in the last century by the two economic and military superpowers of the time, England then America."

There is no doubt that both England and America have interests in the middle east. To say that Arabs have been emasculated by them is rubbish. The Arabs have been emasculated by their own Emirs, Sheiks, Sultans and now Ayatollahs, Imams, and Clerics.
I get so tired of people like you blaming all the worlds ills on America and now England in this case. Where is your evidence? You drive by and smear with anonimity and expect everyone to swallow the nonsense.
Greed is not something that the United States has invented. Did you happen to notice the hundreds of millions, perhaps billions that Sultan Sadaam had lining the walls of his palaces. I didn't see any great outpouring of benevolence on his part towards his people as he robbed them blind and continued to line his own bank accounts.
The wealth in the Arab countries has by and large settled into the hands of a few who hold positions of power and influence, mostly because of history and tribe. From what I have seen, there is very little coming down from the palaces to the common people. bet it is, by those in a position to best take advantage of their own people and squeeze the last dinar out of them.

Posted by: Daniel at March 22, 2006 2:28 PM

Concrete,you need to look at the big picture.

You said..."Nowhere in Canada or America are people suffering because of "someones God"?"

I point out all the grieving families of the 9/11 attacks,the thousands of soldiers fighting and dying in a foriegn land,defending us against religious fanatics.These people believe their God is directing them to do these brutal deeds.They don't care that you don't believe this!
BTW, I said "in the name" of someone's God.There is a big difference.

Penny,I am really dissappointed in you!Am I not allowed to state an opinion if it differs from yours?Please show me where I demonstrate ANY hatred towards religion.I will gladly apologize.Around my Christian friends,I try to keep my yap shut.I don't want to undermine their faith as I KNOW how important it is to them.How about at least a little respect in return?After all,you will die with more peace of mind than I.Is that not the COMMON THEME in ALL religions even though there are many different God's worshipped?

I was simply pointing out that alongside some definite good,religion has also created a lot of suffering in it's name,not a stunning revelation...just look at the HEADLINES these days.....Penny,both our freedoms are presently being threatened by someone's religion fed hatred of us.That is just simply a fact.

Posted by: Canadian Observer at March 22, 2006 2:32 PM

Steve d, re: "In summary, it is superpower meddling which while making a small number of Arabs immensely rich keep the vast majority impotent. Obviously, these days it becomes more of a challenge to maintain this stability because it was set up by outside forces."

Steve, in western democratic countries, generally speaking 'the cream rises to the top' and our citizens allow themselves to be governed in a civilized, non-violent, and free society. In the Muslim countries, more often than not, 'the scum rises to the top' and their citizens learn to grudgingly live under oppressive regimes (tribal, religious, and national) because to do otherwise would be courting a death wish.

My question to you wrt your 'superpower meddling' statement is this: what would be your solution to the problem? Who should western leaders deal and negotiate with in the Muslim world.? Who are the good guys over there that you would feel comfortable in dealing with?

And please keep in mind that it is more the inertia and self-interest of the Muslim leaders themselves that keeps their citizens oppressed and impotent, NOT the 'meddling' of western superpowers.

If it were not for the 'meddling' of superpowers as you put it, in all likelihood warring tribes of Arabs would still be wandering the deserts on their camels in search of the next watering hole. Perhaps in your mind, that would have been a preferred historical path??

Posted by: Joe Canuck at March 22, 2006 2:59 PM

UN on Wrong Side of Cartoon Jihad

Danish toy maker Lego is upset with the United Nations, after the Office of the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights published an “anti-discrimination” poster that uses a Lego building block to smear Denmark: Lego Caught Up In Racism Poster Row.

“We feel that the message of this poster can be interpreted as if we are a racist company,” Lego spokeswoman Charlotte Simonsen said. “I don’t know if that’s what’s intended, but it’s definitely one way of interpreting it.”

However, the UN said no affiliation to Lego was intended and apologised for the misunderstanding.

“The poster is in no way a comment on the specific situation in Denmark or on Lego,” a spokesperson said. “It is unfortunate that the poster has been interpreted as such.”

Right. +
via LGF

Posted by: maz2 at March 22, 2006 3:00 PM

I need government to do one only thing for me - protect my right to live. the rest is useless and waste.

Posted by: george at March 22, 2006 3:03 PM

Before the dawn

There's an ambitious article by JR Dunn at American Thinker which tries to sketch out where the long struggle with radical Islamism is headed. The excerpts below give a flavor of its principle argument.


This belated flurry of strategic thinking means it is increasingly accepted that September 11 wasn't simply a gigantic crime -- an Oklahoma City bombing writ large. It was the end of an era and beginning of a new one. We are not, as JR Dunn so eloquently put it, about to "go back to everyday life, the way things were before all that unpleasantness in lower Manhattan and Washington those long years ago". That may be terrible news for those who believe the 1960s never ended, but there it is. We are adrift on a dark sea and the mariners are breaking out the compasses.

It's not surprising that thinkers all along the political spectrum are beginning to seriously consider what the new era portends and the strategies they should adopt to survive within it. Mainstream politicians have not as yet made the mental adjustment, but with any luck the 2008 Presidential campaign will be the first since September 11 to move beyond the "stolen election" of 2000 and openly debate what course we should follow in the long war ahead. It's a debate that will touch on everything: military preparedness, our core beliefs, demography and the structure of civilization itself because we have finally come to accept that in the end nothing will be the same in the way that it was. It's been a long time coming. It's going to be a long time gone.

posted by wretchard

Posted by: maz2 at March 22, 2006 3:08 PM

Canadian Observer,
Your blaming religion for the ills of the world puts you right in with the signers of the Humanist Manifestos I & II, which would put you in the company of some of the major left wing nut cases in the western Hemisphere.
It might be helpful for you to learn to discern between true religion and false religion. From God's point of view, there are only two religions in the world: "He that hath the Son hath life, and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life." I John 5:12 (simple, isn't it?)

Posted by: pastorwally at March 22, 2006 3:32 PM

Socialists do not put socialists in concentration camps

No, they put them in gulags or prison.

Socialists do not put homosexuals in concentration camps

No, they just put them in prison or asylums - hello, Cuba!

Socialists do not make deals with Capitalists to give them slave labour

No, they cut out the middlemen and make their own slave labourers.

Socialists do not put Communists in jail

Depends how you define your terms. But if not, perhaps they should have!

Posted by: Dudley Morris at March 22, 2006 3:32 PM

Some individuals naive faith in socialism/big government never ceases to amaze.

Posted by: Kevin at March 22, 2006 3:36 PM

After driving back nearly non-stop from Louisville, Kentucky - where I put in four 16 hour days showing dogs - I actually find a few minutes to put up a post and this John Daly twit has the nerve to criticize my writing???

You have no idea how close your ip address came to being added to a global spam filter, dickhead.

Posted by: Kate at March 22, 2006 3:41 PM

Canadian Observer,

The Islamist-Fascists we are fighting in this war are based in GOVERNMENTS.

This war came about because of the GOVERNMENTS of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Posted by: concrete at March 22, 2006 3:44 PM

Stalin- was called a communist, that is why Hitler hated him and his regime. However, he was neither a communist nor a socialist. He was a despot or autocrat or tyrant, take your pick

Whatever you want to call thse bastards is up to you. They all come from a collectivist mentality. You won't see a true free enterprise, right of center, democratic leader doing any of those things. They are simply too busy making sure the economy is brisk and conditions are right for business.

Why is this so? Because they are smart people who understand human nature and the requirement that there be opportunity for the people to feed themselves and better their lives in peace and freedom. Business is the only way to provide the necessary funding and opportunity for a happy prosperous society. There is no other way.

I am aware that this concept is not understandable by the left. But it is a fact and can't be denied without being dillusional.

I may not have education or intellect of Noam Chumpski (and it appears wasted on him) but I do possess common sense and an understanding of human nature.

Posted by: Duke at March 22, 2006 3:50 PM

Daniel and Joe Canuck
Yes, these Arab countries are run by their own people. BUT they were supported and abetted by the Superpower at the time. There was no talk back then of Democratizing them. It is only when these appointed and or approved despots begin to lose countrol of their people and, therefore, perhaps the oil too, that suddenly we want them to be like us.
The Arabs, like all cultures, deserve to be respected and treated humanely. If it was there choice to live tribally in primitive fashion then they should have been given that opportunity. However, oil companies need to deal with legal entities for contractual purposes. So they helped create them. Now they are beginning to refashion them, starting with Iraq. The USA will have a LARGE presence in the middle east until either the oil is gone or the instability is gone, whichever comes first.

Posted by: steve d. at March 22, 2006 3:54 PM

Canader is not a target? No, non, nyet,nono; the Yew SS$ is though.


CTV drags in Aunty-American in the 3rd paragraph of this item.

Canada is not a target? "highly unlikely"? ...

Bali was "highly unlikely" & Madrid and... etc.

Dream on, djkytrfgs. +

T.O. subway most feared target of terrorism: study

Canadian Press

OTTAWA — Canadians believe a terrorist attack on their country is unlikely but feel if one did happen, the Toronto subway is the most probable target.

That's the picture painted by a federal focus-group study of views in several major cities on the prospects of a 9/11-style assault.

Overall, Canadians interviewed during the sessions felt an attack was "highly unlikely'' given the proximity of other, more attractive targets -- namely the United States. +

Posted by: maz2 at March 22, 2006 4:10 PM

Steve d, you can't be serious. Haven't you learned from these serious cons that altruism guides the affairs of states? It's not the oil, it's the White Man's Burden.

Posted by: agitfact at March 22, 2006 4:10 PM

Haha, yeah right, agitfact. I forgot George's talking point. What was I thinking? Yeah, we love the Iraqis so much we will lay down our childrens lives so they can live in Freedom! Yeah, that's it. Now I am back on track.

Posted by: steve d. at March 22, 2006 4:16 PM

Concrete, the very thing that defines this "war on terror"IS the ABSENCE of an opposing GOVERNMENT to DEFEAT!...BTW,the governments you name are now history.Why then does the killing continue in these countries?

PastorWally,your remarks betray your handle.I put forth some ideas for consumption by the readers here and the first point you make is to insult me? Thank you for your kind words.

Posted by: Canadian Observer at March 22, 2006 4:18 PM

The natural end result of


Tyranny, Destruction and Death. +

The Evolving Al-Qaeda Threat
By James Phillips
Heritage Foundation | March 22, 2006

Jemaah Islamiah, captured in Thailand; and Hamzah al-Rabbiyah al-Masri, a key operational leader killed in Pakistan. More than 4,000 suspected al-Qaeda members have been arrested worldwide since September 11, 2001. Al-Qaeda cells have been uncovered, dismantled, and disrupted in Europe, the Middle East, Asia, and Africa. More than $140 million of its assets have been blocked in over 1,400 bank accounts worldwide.

Al-Qaeda remains a potent threat to the United States, its allies, and a wide variety of other states. But al-Qaeda's leaders increasingly must focus on their own personal security and have less time for plotting mass murder. It is more difficult for bin Laden and his lieutenants to recruit new members, train them, communicate with them, or carry out new operations. The isolation of al-Qaeda's top leaders, believed to be hidden along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, has reduced their ability to supervise the network's activities in other regions. They often must resort to unsecure low-tech communications such as letters carried by couriers. A letter from Ayman al-Zawahiri, bin Laden's second in command, to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaeda's operations in Iraq, was intercepted last year. Zawahiri chastised Zarqawi in that letter, dated in July 2005, for unleashing indiscriminate violence on Iraqi civilians, whose political support would be important for turning Iraq into a radical Islamic state.

Despite their tactical differences, al-Qaeda's leaders share the same long-term goal: the creation of a single, unified Muslim state governed by a harsh brand of Sharia (Islamic law). To recreate a version of the caliphate and build a radical Islamic empire, bin Laden and his associates seek to play the role of a vanguard party that will serve as a catalyst to inspire other Muslims to join in building their new utopia. Just as fascist and communist revolutionaries were willing to kill tens of millions of people to impose their utopian schemes in the 20th century, al-Qaeda's leaders are willing to spill the blood of millions to create their own radical vision of an Islamic empire in the 21st century.
Defeating Al-Qaeda + more

Posted by: maz2 at March 22, 2006 4:22 PM

steve d, "Now they are beginning to refashion them, starting with Iraq. The USA will have a LARGE presence in the middle east until either the oil is gone or the instability is gone, whichever comes first."

Indeed, but isn't it high time many of these countries are 'refashioned"? Otherwise, how will they ever get rid of the 'instability'? How will the world ever be free of their instability and human rights atrocities, unless someone takes the bull by the horn and does something?

The sad fact is that the coalition in Afghanistan and the US led forces in Iraq have to work with the indigent human resources available in helping those countries reshape their governments and their citizens lives, just as previous western governments had to do in other troubled countries in the past. To pull out now would leave a tremendous vacuum, which would soon be filled by the Taliban, al Qaeda, and every variant of Islamofascist thug that one could imagine.

" There was no talk back then of Democratizing them"

What has this got to do with anything?? That is your justification in laying all the blame at the feet of the western countries who are trying to help?

Posted by: Joe Canuck at March 22, 2006 4:33 PM

That big government takes care of a lot of your needs; the need to have roads, affordable health care, protection, clean water, law and order, pensions, employment insurance, sewage, garbage pickup and disposal, mail service, education, electric energy supply and distribution, passports, airports. That is just off the top of my head. You could stop using all of these things, out of principle, and walk into the bush about 30km and build a house for yourself I am sure big government wouldn't bother you.

Posted by: steve d. at March 22, 2006 4:43 PM

maz2: "T.O. subway most feared target of terrorism: study" would probably be more accurate if ya dropped the "subway" part of the above sentence...


Posted by: tomax at March 22, 2006 4:47 PM

Steve d
So which is it. You would rather have them live as wandering desert bedouin nomads or do you want the oil companies to be able to shake hands with the sheik and be able to develop the oil reaerves? I don't see that you can have it both ways. Once there is development, it will continue and the wandering nomads will settle into cities because of developing infastructure brought about by developing the resource. Once development comes, you can't put the genie back in the bottle. I am thinking that you probably like to drive your car, enjoy a little heat in your home on a winter day. It is unlikely that you cook over an open fire. These are all things that each of us enjoy day to day because of the development that took place. Oil has fueled our industries here and made a good living for many of us possible. Which of these things do you want to do without? How would you do it differently?
Blaming the USA for doing what democratic capatalism does best is hypocritical unless you are living as a mountain nomad in the rockies and blogging from a solar powered laptop.

Posted by: Daniel at March 22, 2006 4:54 PM

Well thanks for the info Steve, didn't realize they dabbled in all those areas!

How good a job do they do in all those areas? At what cost? At what point do they stop involving themselves? Are you suggesting that everything the government involves inself in is an unmitigated success? That government should continue to get more & more involved with every aspect of its citizens lives?

Nothing like good old central planning to help the great unwashed masses, hey Steve? Just one more program to help foster dependency!

Posted by: Kevin at March 22, 2006 4:55 PM

Steve D. Utopia is an unachievable farce... give it up and go get yours, cause ain't nobody gonna hand it to you.

You can equate Socialism to an untested, yet to be achieved form of communism, and that's cool, but impossible.

You forget to put one little thing in your equation Steve D. The "human" factor.

It's like when I was a kid, and I asked one of the nuns what the point was in asking God for "Peace on Earth". You might as well ask him for "Donuts for all"... because at least the donuts are doable.

As long as mankind is mankind, Utopia is but a dream. What your asking for, just like the Nun asking God, is for Mankind to become something other than what he is.

The obvious answer is that we wouldn't be Mankind anymore, we wouldn't be Human. We'd be something else.

I won't hold my breath waiting for that evolution to come in my life time. Nope, RRSP's and 401's for me.

If the great evolution happens, don't wake me, I'll be on the beach.

Posted by: William Macdonell at March 22, 2006 5:16 PM

The transient god of our temporal world is now the race for thermonuclear domination. If an international outlaw is successful in securing a nuke along with a delivery capacity, the whole, global network is at a catastrophic risk. The name of the game is who maintains nuclear dominance.

If we keep dominance, the world will be imperfect, but secure. We will continue to struggle with our qualified freedom, enjoying whatever benefits independence and self-reliance bring. If the outlaws are successful, pray that you are never even near the mushroom cloud.

At 9/11, one of the players stood up and kicked over the table. Now arguments that might have mattered are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is who shoots quick and straight and true.

As the Rubiyat instructs us,
"The Bird of Time has but a little way
To fly -- and Low! the Bird is on the Wing."

And at this juncture, those who like to second-guess don't matter.

Posted by: Greg (outside Dallas) at March 22, 2006 5:18 PM

I think Churchill put it extremely well - "Winston Churchill Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

Posted by: Kevin at March 22, 2006 5:24 PM

That big government takes care of a lot of your needs; the need to have roads, affordable health care, protection, clean water, law and order, pensions, employment insurance, sewage, garbage pickup and disposal, mail service, education, electric energy supply and distribution, passports, airports

steve, almost everything on that list would do better in the hands of private enterprise and many are privitized in places. Government monopolies have no reason to be cost efficient or competitive.

Government needs to provide for the common defense, enforce laws, maintain infrastructure where appropriate and collect the taxes for those services - which would be a hell of a lot less - if it weren't for funded wasteful socialist programs. We are bright enough and prudent enough, if taxes were diminished, to allocate our wisely. Bush's vision was for private faith-based charities, not government, to pick up the load on social services. They are more efficient and competitive. They must answer to the public or the spigot gets shut. The Red Cross after 9/11 screwed up badly and it severly not getting the donations it did in the past. Can we do that with any screwed up gov't agency? Gov't programs live on, sucking our money, regardless of performance.

'He who governs least, governs best".....Thomas Jefferson

I still agree with the point you were making about historic ideological roots. When I think of fascism I think of it as arising from the severe right - Pinochet, Franco, Hitler. Socialism seems to me as Communism the Lessor(sans the gulags), a flawed and incompatible mesh of Capitalism and Communism or Communism sucking off Capitalism.

It's toxicity can be illustrated in France. How doomed can you be when your focus is on life long job protection and you are simultaniously staring down the barrel of dhimmitude in a few generations?

Socialists never seem to me to get it, here and abroad. Their pc multi-culti garbage has killed free expression, numbed survival skills and vilified individual achievement.

Posted by: penny at March 22, 2006 5:43 PM

Churchill, that's the same guy who said "I'm easily satisfied with the very best":)

Posted by: William Macdonell at March 22, 2006 5:53 PM

He also said "History will be kind to me, for I will write it".

Gotta love Winston, he always told it like it was... the evil bastard.

Posted by: William Macdonell at March 22, 2006 5:57 PM

Fascism "arising from the severe right." Penny, for once I agree with you on something. Where were you when MSYB and I were debating that point hot and heavily 10 days ago?

Posted by: Agitfact at March 22, 2006 5:58 PM

Forgive my typos, left-handed and a bad proof reader. What more can I say.

Posted by: penny at March 22, 2006 6:00 PM

What does the Afgan government and it's sharia courts have to say about the Canadian solidiers in their country that happen to be Christians? Do they care that Christians at their behest are engaging in combat operations against their fellow countrymen to keep the elected Afgan government from coming apart? Do they think our Christian soldiers looney tunes too? Shouldn't our soldiers have to stand trial in a sharia court if they're breaking an law that carries a death sentence punishment?

If anything happens to Abdul Rahman (the Afgan Christian convert) or others like him...I swear I'll push HARD to get our troops the hell outta there!!! We don't need to be propping up another intolerant murderous regime hiding under a thin guise of democratic freedom. Without basic human rights for everyone, Afganistan's democracy is a MEANINGLESS SHAM!!!

Posted by: Martin B. at March 22, 2006 6:15 PM

Canadian Observer,
Didn't mean to insult you. The more I think about it, you are right that many wars are fought in the name of a god. However, most folks cannot differentiate between the One True God and the many counterfeit versions out there. God is at work; he has a plan; world affairs are working out just as is outlined in the Book.
When Sir Walter Scott lay dying, he asked his servant to bring 'the book.' The servant said: "Sir Walter, you have a library, which book should I bring" to which Sir Walter replied: "There's only one Book."

Posted by: pastorwally at March 22, 2006 6:16 PM

Martin, when in Rome, you do as the Romans.

Although I'm none to pleased by it either. Remember, the court is dealing with a law created under Taliban rule, they might not have had a chance to ammend all the shitty ones yet.

Regardless, I wouldn't be too concerned. I don't think the Government of Afghanistan is going to give up all the goodies it's getting for the sake of killing one Christian.

2 Christians maybe...

Posted by: William Macdonell at March 22, 2006 6:27 PM

Penny and Steve,
I like to think of forms of governance like a circle. From where we are, if you swing too far to the extreme right(Hitler), you will end up with fascist dictatorship. If you swing too far to the extreme left (Stalin), you will also end up with fascist dictatorship. It can arise out of either extreme as either kind of governance taken to its extreme produces in kind. As far as I know, extreme fascist dictatorships have always produced horrible governments for the country and its people.
It seems to be the day for Winston Churchill quotes. The one that I like that relates to this is "Democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

Posted by: Daniel at March 22, 2006 6:38 PM

PM calls Afghan President over Christian convert's trial

"I called President Karzai today to express my deep concerns regarding the Raham case and the issue of freedom of religion in Afghanistan," Mr. Harper said in the statement. NEW

Bardot Receives Cool Canadian Welcome

"I made a gruelling trip only to be turned away by the prime minister. I am very disappointed. He will not even talk to me by telephone," the animal rights activist said. Bardot said she was detained for more than two hours by Canadian customs and immigration staff upon her arrival last night. +

BB here:
Boycott Bourque.

Posted by: maz2 at March 22, 2006 6:41 PM

William, if the Afgan government expects Canadian troops to spill blood over there to stabilize the region they have to address human rights now. It's not just the murder by decree of some poor Joe standing up for his religious freedom that has me spitting mad. It's that nobody has done anything to address human rights problems through 3+ years since the Taliban got kicked out.

Women are still in Burkas, Christians are loonies to be put to death (unless they're foreign soldiers which makes it o.k...for now) and injustices continue against unfortunate individuals under government supported sharia law. How much has Afganistan changed? Doesn't look like it changed much at all.

If Christians are being murdered by government courts for their beliefs we should leave now. They can call us when they've signed a Bill of Rights.

Posted by: Martin B. at March 22, 2006 6:43 PM

by Ludwig von Mises


We do not need to deal in detail with what the Nazis have achieved in this regard. The Nazis have succeeded in entirely eliminating the profit motive from the conduct of business. In Nazi Germany there is no longer any question of free enterprise. There are no more entrepreneurs. The former entrepreneurs have been reduced to the status of Betriebsführer (shop manager). They are not free in their operation; they are bound to obey unconditionally the orders issued by the Central Board of Production Management, the Reichswirtschaftsministerium, and its subordinate district and branch offices. The government not only determines the prices and interest rates to be paid and to be asked, the height of wages and salaries, the amount to be produced and the methods to be applied in production; it allots a definite income to every shop manager, thus virtually transforming him into a salaried civil servant. This system has, but for the use of some terms, nothing in common with capitalism and a market economy. It is simply socialism of the German pattern, Zwangswirtschaft. It differs from the Russian pattern of socialism, the system of outright nationalization of all plants, only in technical matters. And it is, of course, like the Russian system, a mode of social organization that is purely authoritarian.


The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.

What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.

De facto government ownership of the means of production, as Mises termed it, was logically implied by such fundamental collectivist principles embraced by the Nazis as that the common good comes before the private good and the individual exists as a means to the ends of the State. If the individual is a means to the ends of the State, so too, of course, is his property. Just as he is owned by the State, his property is also owned by the State.

Posted by: ol hoss at March 22, 2006 6:57 PM

The government of Afghanistan is facing a tremendous amount of presure from foriegn governments over this issue. Maninly from the US, Canada and Great Britian. (basically the countries that are holding Afghanistan together right now) Whatever anyone says about the war in Iraq, the Afghans (especially their political leaders) want us there, to keep the country from falling under Taliban rule for another 2 decades.

The insanity arguement is a way for the government of Afghanistan to get this guy off, appease the occupational forces, and save face with the largely fundamentalist public. Freedom of religion may be addressed at a latter date, right now they have a tough enough job holding the country together. Unfortunatley I don't believe that reformation is possible under Islam, its qiute clear on the subject; any follower of Islam who leaves the religion is subject to death.

Posted by: Ryan at March 22, 2006 7:19 PM

nice work ol hoss i was hoping you would weigh in on that topic.

Posted by: Ryan at March 22, 2006 7:24 PM

martin B, re: "If Christians are being murdered by government courts for their beliefs we should leave now. They can call us when they've signed a Bill of Rights."

Easy, Martin. Not too much too fast. Their collective psyche will overload and short circuit.
Give them at least another century before Muslims, acting on their own, can make an honest attempt at anything approaching a Bill or Charter of Rights as we know it.

In the meantime, expect the usual sharia judgements of stonings, amputations, and executions for the most inane and contrived 'crimes' against Islam.

Posted by: Joe Canuck at March 22, 2006 7:36 PM

Ryan, if the Afganistan government wants us there then get a Bill of Rights now. We have stroke but not the balls to use it. I can't support our troops propping up lie.

Abdul Rahman isn't the only Afgan Christian and if harm comes to him or others like him we have to leave. We must fight for what we believe and I don't believe in a government that leaves it's citizens out to hang in the wind of sharia courts. If at the end of the day we leave a stable but selectively oppressive quasi-democratic regime, then we've failed miserably on the most important point of all...bringing freedom to the people. All our sacrificed Canadian blood would be for not.

Posted by: Martin B. at March 22, 2006 7:45 PM

I don't have much truck with ideological discussions, because ideologies neither exist per se nor make things work - people do.

To the comment about technology and creativity functioning only in "freedom," I would reply with a question: How come Nazi Germany developed the first jet and unguided missiles, not to mention that envy of the Allied armies, the jerry can? Freedom is not the mother of invention, necessity is. There also was some good architecture: Speer's design for the Nuremberg grounds did receive the gold medal at the 1937 Paris World Fair.

As to business and the economy functioning best under free enterprise, the "Zwangswirtschaft" did manage to increase production to unprecedented levels in 1944, despite years of allied bombing designed to bring it to its knees. I suspect that your average free enterpriser would have shut down and left for Switzerland long before 1944.

Just be careful of your labels and 'isms, they may not be totally adequate explanations.

Posted by: agitfact at March 22, 2006 7:58 PM

Martin B

That's part of the reason we are there, to help the Afghans get a functiuonal society off the ground. I know we live in a society of instant gratification but since when did the political process move at light speed? How long did it take Canada to get a Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Yet you expect people who have been essentially living in the stone age to define their own bill of right, over night? Or else.

Posted by: Ryan at March 22, 2006 8:14 PM

An excellent post at the German site, "Atlantic Review": "Why is Abu Ghraib a cover story again, but not Darfur?",-but-not-Darfur.html

If you want cartoon, look at the Der Spiegel covers.


'Popular German magazines such as Der Spiegel frequently put US critical pictures on their cover. Critical reporting about the world's sole superpower is necessary, but statements like "Torture in the Name of Freedom" (as seen on a recent Spiegel cover) appear to be malicious distortions to sell more copies rather than critical, ethical journalism...

Although Darfur is much closer to Europe than the US, the mass murder, expulsions and rapes in Darfur (some call it "genocide") seem to be covered more extensively in the US than in the German media. American NGOs devoted to Darfur are more vocal than German NGOs. Do Germans care more about alleged torture, abuse, human rights violation and inhumane living conditions in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib than about much worse conditions in Darfur and many other war zones?..

Darfur is more outrageous in both magnitude and intensity than Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib, but the US scandals are more in the news because the media is more interested in the perpetrators than in the victims. US perpetrators are more sexy than Sudanese perpetrators, it seems...'

The full post has a great deal more interesting and substantive content. Comparisons with Canadian media welcome.


Posted by: Mark Collins at March 22, 2006 8:31 PM

steve d.

"Arabs have been emasculated in the last century by the two economic and military superpowers of the time, England then America.
Their foreign policy is dictated by their economic interests. In this case oil has been increasingly important. To ensure that oil is delivered reliably you must have order and control of the supply. The Americans can control the supply if the locals could supply the order. It doesn't matter who gives you the necessary stability as long as they leave you to exploit the resource. So deals were made and are still being made to ensure political stability.
In summary, it is superpower meddling which while making a small number of Arabs immensely rich keep the vast majority impotent. Obviously, these days it becomes more of a challenge to maintain this stability because it was set up by outside forces."

Just having a little fun here - I'll do a SNL.

Steve, you ignorant socialist slut ... where do you think that the US buys most of their foreign oil from? Don't know? ... think one province over.

Posted by: ural at March 22, 2006 8:41 PM


Abduhl Rahman case:

PMSH Has Balls

Posted by: Doug at March 22, 2006 8:41 PM

Papa Bear said...

Alan Johnson [...] passionately argues that the Left has blinded itself to the obvious fact that radical Islamism is the chief totalitarian menace in the world today.

I don't think that the Left is blind to Islam. I think the Left is in love with Islam, and wants Islam to succeed in conquering the world, just as decades ago they wanted Soviet Communism to prevail.

Some think that Islam is incompatible with the Left. I disagree. Islam is incompatible with feminism, with gay rights, with a number of other issues that the Left embraces, but these issues are not the core of the Left.

The core of the Left, the center of the Left's worldview, is the advocacy of a society where the State controls everything, where there is a law or regulation for every activity of life, and where there is no place for individual accomplishment outside of the confines of the Group.

The essence of the difference between Leftists and classical liberalism is that the classical liberal sees the Group as a way of keeping its member individuals secure and providing a stable framework where individuals may persue their own goals, while theLeft views the individual as the property of the Group, to be used to promote the goals of the Group as articulated by the Group's leadership.

As such, there is not a huge difference between Stalinist Russia, and Iran's theocracy +

Posted by: maz2 at March 22, 2006 8:52 PM

Timely comment Doug! Ryan...not much has happened to forward the cause of human rights after more than three years post Taliban. That's not acceptable on any level. We can't be sacrificing Canadian lives in that country without consistent, significant and continued advances in the human rights of Afgan citizens.

My fear is that if Canada and other Western democracies don't push a Bill of Rights, nothing will change. We have an opportunity to do it right and that doesn't mean giving the Afgan government more time to do nothing. If nothing significant is being done now we have to go home! Anything less is weakness and failure.

Posted by: Martin B. at March 22, 2006 8:52 PM

Kate, I felt bruised, reading the tripe about your writing, posted by someone called John Daly. Me? I loved your pithy, spot-on comments. Later, I was delighted to see your kick-butt response: "dickhead", indeed! How about "poltroon", to boot?

Posted by: lookout at March 22, 2006 8:53 PM

steve d.: The Arabs were emasculated by the Muslim Ottoman Turks for 400 years (1517-1918).

Tamerlane (Muslim) sacked Baghdad in 1401. And the Mongol Hulagu Khan sacked Baghdad in 1258 ("end...[of} the Abbasid Caliphate, a blow from which the Islamic civilization never fully recovered").

By comparison, the Europeans hardly did any emasculating at all. That was done by fellow Muslims and the Mongols.

Learn some history.


Posted by: Mark Collins at March 22, 2006 8:53 PM

steve d.

Don't let the facts stop you from posting your drivel.

Posted by: ural at March 22, 2006 8:53 PM

Well of course the the Muslim world gave us the construct known as Al Jabr; schoolkids learn it as Algebra.

By 2000 BC the Babylonians had a well-developed algebra which was capable of solving quadratic equations by using a general formula as well as completing the square. This Babylonian algebra and the one developed by the Muslims in the 8th through 12th centuries AD were based on words rather than the symbolic type which arose in the 16th century AD in Europe and is now used. The very name of the subject, algebra, comes from the title of al-Khowarizmi's book on the subject, Hisab al-jabr wal-mugabalah, the science of reunion and opposition. In its everyday usage, al-jabr meant "reuniter of broken bones" or "bonesetter." The Muslim mathematician Omar Khayyam (better known today as a poet and author of The Rubricat) even developed geometric algorithms (another word with a Muslim origin) for solving some cubic and quartic equations.


My father used to march past the hangers which contained the ME-262 Schwalbe as a youngster inducted into the Hitler youth. At age 14 he was sent to sniper school destined for the Russian front. He is lucky to be alive, as he went to the west instead.

You are correct that technological prowess is not a test for moral fibre.

Posted by: Hans Rupprecht at March 22, 2006 9:10 PM

How come Nazi Germany developed the first jet and unguided missiles, not to mention that envy of the Allied armies, the jerry can?

Off of the fear for their lives and smarts of their Jewish scientists before they got out and joined the Manhattan Project.

Read Solzenitzen's "First Circle"(he lived it) and the "Gulags" to see how the Communists extracted science from their imprisoned.

The Soviets were a fraud...a Potemkin facade, my friend. They went down in flames when push came to shove. The US, via German emigre Jewish scientist from Germany, surpassed Hitler in military technology quickly because they were free.

I suspect that your average free enterpriser would have shut down and left for Switzerland long before 1944.

Really? German speaking Switzerland maintained its "neutrality" by banking the Third Reich's loot and every thug since then banks there. They didn't open their arms to the masses fleeing Germany.

You really need to read more on WWII.

Posted by: penny at March 22, 2006 9:23 PM

steve d: And a relevant guest-post at "Daimnation":

"Fast Eddie Said"

Played fast and loose with the truth about the Middle East in maligning "orientalism"...


Posted by: Mark Collins at March 22, 2006 9:24 PM

"Do Germans care more about alleged torture, abuse, human rights violation and inhumane living conditions in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib than about much worse conditions in Darfur and many other war zones?.."

The short answer, Mark, is "yes." Remember,they were condemned internationally for those very things during and after the Second World War. The "tu quoque" defence ("you did the same thing")was denied to the accused at the Nuremberg Trials, so you have to understand that the knights in shining armour blotting their copy book does have a certain interest to the German public. Most of them may have been born after the War, but they've carried the can for decades.

There is another factor that may come into play. A lot of the troubles in Africa (and the Middle East) have a colonial past, so there may be a tendency to let the former colonial powers deal with them. I suspect that Germany would support international efforts at solutions, but I would not expect them to try to lead the way.

Just another of my attempts to show that reasonable explanations can be found for apparently strange things.

Posted by: agitfact at March 22, 2006 9:28 PM

Hans: I always enjoy your comments, and I have to say that my father remembered the Me-262 Schwalbe as well. Parked on a tarmac. He was a U.S. Soldier in the XX Corps of Patton's Third Army. It was one kick-ass machine, that's for sure. Say, what ever happened to Schwarze-Tulpe? He used to post here.

Posted by: Doug at March 22, 2006 9:37 PM

Ural I like it when you call me a slut, it shows your good breeding.
Ural I know Canada is the USA's largest supplier of oil. I also know two other things. One, Canada cannot supply US needs. Two, the USA's own supply just may have peaked and their supply will only decrease from now on while of course, their need for more oil will only increase. So guess what URAL? They are going to need increasing amounts of middle east oil. We in Canada have a stable population. We appear to be as constant and regular as the sun. So they don't have to send in the troops on some pretext. The middle east is quite the opposite kettle of fish.

ol hoss
I like your Fascism piece. I agree. The government did have immense control over orders etc. This is mainly because most of their spending was for armaments. Most big spenders get a lot of say when they order armaments.
The USA doesn't have as much say about price because they can't allow the military industrial complex to start bringing in slaves. The government does have a say about most other things though, as they should.

If there was no left then the Liberals would have to go farther right to pick up Conservative voters. Liberals wouldn't have to to have any policies that please the Left because the Left would have no choice but to vote Liberal or not at all. The Conservatives would be forced to move farther Right where the Fascists are.
The presence of the Socialist left pulls the Liberals left. The Conservatives have more room on the Right. They don't have to court the FAR right because they don't need to.
So you see the political setup in Canada is very healthy. The Socialists on the left help prevent
the politics from swinging too far Right. The presence of the Conservatives helps keep the country from swinging too far left. The vast majority don't want either political extreme. That is what Canadians are basically politically moderate. Everybody gets a little attention but nobody runs away with everything. We are far luckier than the Americans politically. They don't have a Left. The Democrats and Republicans are both right of centre. I think there is always a danger of the rise of American Fascism.

Posted by: steve d at March 22, 2006 9:43 PM

agitfact: Perhaps you might read "Germany admits Namibia genocide":

That was the territory formely known as German South West Africa--"a colonial past".

But the point of the post I mentioned was that it is odd the German media should go berserker over whatever the US does, while paying much less attention to much more serious abuses by others.

By the way, the Germans may do something, briefly, in the Congo--but not try to lead about Darfur. Why?

"Darfur: NATO willing to help UN; EU eyes Congo"


Posted by: Mark Collins at March 22, 2006 9:45 PM

Regarding that Reichmerchwatchamacallit- Presumably they hadda come from Germany, and speak German, to get onto that. (SNC Lavelin and Bombardier, anybody?)Jesus loves you! Go to your church and wait!)

Posted by: dave at March 22, 2006 9:46 PM

Do Germans care more about alleged torture, abuse, human rights violation and inhumane living conditions in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib than about much worse conditions in Darfur and many other war zones?.."

Did they care about Saddam's or the Taliban's genocides? Are they active in making a difference in the ME in a constructive way? Why has virulent anti-Semitism resurfaced in Germany if they are so contrite? Why did Schroder accept an immediate position at Gazprom upon retirement when Putin's thuggist human right's violation of Mikhail Khordorkovsky and his Yukos company are well known?

Basically, who gives a damn about Germany which with France are the two most useless countries in the western hemisphere.

Living conditions aren't inhumane at Guantanamo. The creeps are lucky thay are living as non-uniformed captures in a field of battle. International Law says they could have been executed then and there. They have no Geneva Convention rights.

Posted by: penny at March 22, 2006 9:51 PM

Oh, Penny, you are so drearily pernicious.

1. I don’t think that there were many Jewish scientists working in Germany after 1938, and it would be safe to assume that none would have been working on sensitive projects during the war. How would you account for the ungodly rush between the Russians and the Americans to get their hands on German scientists at the end of the war and to "persuade" them to work in their respective countries?

2. Do you suppose that unlimited resources and manpower have something to do with superiority of military technology?

3. When “push came to shove”, the Soviets destroyed over 160 German divisions on the Eastern Front. The most the Western Allies faced between Norway and North Africa was 70. Some “Potemkin façade,” some going down in flames (to borrow from a well-known orator.)

4. Swiss borders always were permeable to money, not to fleeing masses. I think that the average German "capitalist" could have managed it.

As to my reading more about the War, Penny, so far I’ve had no problem putting the boots of fact to your opinions.

Posted by: agitfact at March 22, 2006 10:06 PM

Kate, Kate, Kate,

You need to exercise that index finger a bit more.

You, know, the one that hits the "ban the moonbat" button?

If you don't, your bandiwth will eventually be all consumed by quotes from Marx, Moore and Marcuse.

How utterly boring.

Posted by: Doug at March 22, 2006 10:07 PM

Mark, the Germans had to turn their colonies over to the Entente after WWI, and Hitler never got a chance to get them back, so why should they be concerned about subsequent events in Africa?

Penny, I have already gathered that you don't give a damn about France and Germany and other European countries (UK excepted.) Nearly two weeks ago I asked you how you developed your expertise in European affairs, but you never answered whether it was fact-based or "x"-hand.

I agree that Gitmo prisoners do not have rights under the Geneva Convention, but that is a matter of force-majeure fact, not entitlement. When you don't shoot a franc-tireur out of hand, you have to make him a POW.

Posted by: agitfact at March 22, 2006 10:23 PM

doug, as always I second your request.

Posted by: penny at March 22, 2006 10:36 PM

Steve from BC,

"Ural I like it when you call me a slut, it shows your good breeding.
Ural I know Canada is the USA's largest supplier of oil. I also know two other things. One, Canada cannot supply US needs. Two, the USA's own supply just may have peaked and their supply will only decrease from now on while of course, their need for more oil will only increase. So guess what URAL? They are going to need increasing amounts of middle east oil. We in Canada have a stable population. We appear to be as constant and regular as the sun. So they don't have to send in the troops on some pretext. The middle east is quite the opposite kettle of fish."

I'm guessing you are a retired teacher. Maybe re-read what I posted. Do you have any FACTS do back up your babble? If so, please post, prove me to be ignorant (proviso ... something that is real ... like, fact based).

Posted by: ural at March 22, 2006 10:36 PM

"Harper has proven himself more nimble at international politics than the White House this week. This case provides a clear example of the difficulties in bringing democracy as a guarantor of human rights to the ummah, and it puts the US in the position of criticizing the government it desperately wants to support. Understandably, Washington does not want to give the impression that Karzai lacks our support. It could undermine Karzai and the democratic government we have worked hard to build if we start issuing ultimatums."

Posted by: penny at March 22, 2006 11:03 PM


Here for proven oil reserves in North America:

Here for world picture on oil:

Notice: that the US oil supply has already peaked some time ago
also even though Canada has an excellent supply of oil it is only 1/5 of the middle east reserves
It is easy to see why the US has a very large presence in the middle east.

Posted by: steve d at March 22, 2006 11:09 PM

End of a long thread. Few will notice this..

The problem is the profit in opium and the gang leaders that wealth creates. Transition away for those crops will be slow and bumpy.

Taliban twisted Khoran law enables Iran influenced clerics to hold Afghani and Iranian people in an iron grip.

The grip allows them to milk the people's wealth and hold total power.

Iran is now nervous however... They released dissident writer Ganji and…

The Sunday Times March 05, 2006,,2089-2070420,00.html

Nato may help US airstrikes on Iran
Sarah Baxter, Washington and Uzi Mahnaimi, Tel Aviv
WHEN Major-General Axel Tüttelmann, the head of Nato’s Airborne Early Warning and Control Force, showed off an Awacs early warning surveillance plane in Israel a fortnight ago, he caused a flurry of concern back at headquarters in Brussels.

It was not his demonstration that raised eyebrows, but what he said about Nato’s possible involvement in any future military strike against Iran. “We would be the first to be called up if the Nato council decided we should be,” he said.

Nato would prefer the emphasis to remain on the “if”, but Tüttelmann’s comments revealed that the military alliance could play a supporting role if America launches airstrikes against Iranian nuclear targets. TG

Well that's a blah ending.. must be more to it.

Posted by: TonyGuitar at March 22, 2006 11:11 PM


One more important number. 20 million barrels a DAY were needed by the USA in 2003.

Posted by: steve d at March 22, 2006 11:18 PM

I am having a difficult time with the case of Abdul Ramon. Are we not in Afghanistan to help the citizens of that country to stabilize and possibly bring democracy to them. To prevent this country from being a training ground for the terrorists. I understand that each country has their own court systems and rule of law, but does this attitude even sound civilized. Even if he is freed his life will be in danger. I know Christianity in the middle ages did their share of absurdities, but it matured. I am beginning to wonder if sacrificing our own soldiers to this cause is worth it. Seems our men and women would be considered infidels - so why should we help those who's intentions would be to eliminate us.

Why are the Canadian Muslims so quiet about this. They were vocal when it came to cartoons. If the Muslim community expect to ever be considered part of our nation by those who have blended in then they had better start speaking up soon. This is definitely a war of Religion and it will escalate till we are all involved.

I am pleased that our Prime Minister has spoken up. If this attitude cannot be changed then I will have a change of heart about our enlisted being in that country.

Posted by: jypsy ontario at March 22, 2006 11:19 PM

steve d,

"It is easy to see why the US has a very large presence in the middle east."

I am a simple country boy ... I can't join the dots. Please show me why the US's biggest supplier, can't supply them ... and why reserves matter anything? Can anyone tell me why Saudi is pissed at the US because they suggested alternative fuels? ... just asking.

Posted by: ural at March 22, 2006 11:27 PM

When “push came to shove”, the Soviets destroyed over 160 German divisions on the Eastern Front.

With the help of Lend-Lease.

Posted by: ol hoss at March 22, 2006 11:37 PM

Martin B

"If nothing significant is being done now we have to go home! Anything less is weakness and failure."

Let me get this straight, anything less than turning tail and running, at the first sign of adversity, is weakness and failure? I really don't understand this attitude of surrender. Are you just a troll trying to diseminate you message of pascifism?

We've been there for 3 years! That's not very long in military terms, the US still has personel in Japan and Korea. I just don't understand, you claim that you want the military to accomplish something there, but you would deny the time to do so.

As far as the deaths of Canadians in Afghanistan, I don't want to downplay the sacrifices of our troops but so far there have been 10 casualties, thats not exactly WWII numbers.

Our noble objectives must be accomplished, anything less shows weakness and failure.

Posted by: Ryan at March 22, 2006 11:45 PM

The Middle East has over 700 billion barrels of oil in reserve. The US has 40 billion left. Canadian producers are planning to build a pipeline to the west coast so they can sell some oil to the Chinese.

The Saudis are sitting on the largest reserves in the world. They have big plans to sell for many more years. They don't want alternatives just yet. They have been very loyal to the US at some cost to the Saudi family within the country. They would like their loyalty returned.
The US would like to centre their Middle Eastern bases in Iraq. They build as we speak. Then they could remove them from Saudi Arabia. This is a big complaint of the Muslim fundamentalists. They resent American bases in the Middle East to begin with but Saudi Arabia has the Holiest sights in all of Islam. They think it is scandalous the Great Satan sits close to Islams holiest sights. So maybe if the Americans move their bases off Saudi soil things will cool down a bit. At least that was the theory before all hell broke loose in Iraq.

Posted by: steve d at March 22, 2006 11:56 PM

The Saudis are sitting on the largest reserves in the world.

Well no, they're not. According to the USGS unconventional oil such as Venezuelan heavy crudes are approximately equal to the identified reserves of conventional crude oil in the Middle East.

The catagory of "proven reserves" doesn't include all oil. Only that which is, at present, economic to extract.

Posted by: ol hoss at March 23, 2006 12:26 AM

Steve d,

Now you understand how ignorant I am. I thought that Saudi would be interested in their biggest customers ... not the smallest.

Never even heard about the pipeline to supply China ... I thought THEY were buying from the ME for now anyway.

What I learned on this board today:

1) Everything is for the US oil requirement.
2) If the US doesn't require the ME oil they are bad.
3) If the US requires the ME oil they are bad.
4) The US is bad.
5) May as well throw it in ... PMSH is scary ... can't figure out if Canada is in the same boat as 1), 2), 3) above ... we import oil also.

Is bananas a bad thing? We don't grow them here?

Posted by: ural at March 23, 2006 12:30 AM

Ryan, my attitude is far from surrender. You think I'm a troll pacifist? I don't think I am but I also don't believe in losing people for nothing. Please try to comprehend what I'm saying (backed up tonight by a good piece by Rex Murphy, if you care): the current Afgan government isn't much better at this point than the Taliban one it replaces. Unless there is dramatic improvement in how the Afgan government treats its' citizens Canadian soldiers dying to defend it is an utter waste.

I don't want our soldiers dying for nothing. As said by Stephen Harper, Canada's main mission four our soldier's must be to bring freedom to the Afgan people. That mission cannot be accomplished without the Afgan government supporting full basic human rights of all its' citizens.

I believe Canada doesn't want to lose another one of our soldiers if all we are doing is propping up a government unmotivated to establish a Bill of Rights. There's no other option. If the Afgan government won't act then it must be allowed to die instead of our soldiers.

Posted by: Martin B. at March 23, 2006 1:16 AM

thanks "ol hoss" for the direction to I think the way they explain econ. without too much emotive garbage is very helpful... especially on a topic such as the lack of a substantial difference (in freedoms) between socialism of the Germans or the Soviets.

The official estimates of the amount of RECOVERABLE oil in the Alberta tar sands (175 billion b.), are based firstly on those 300 billion b. thought to lay in the top 100 metres of earth. So the US Geological Survey isn't too keen on guessing what lays under that... after all it could be... another + 300 billion barrels... Or not.
Of course it's going to take a few years to really clear away and burn the top layer and by then, "cold fusion" or something will have come to my kitchen.

I'd expect cold fusion, before I expect a muslim reformation... although at this moment either would be ok for me. I cannot believe that the USA is in the ME over secure oil, it is a lazy discussion. There are too many other things.

Going back to the original string here, I remember proud lands, glorious and free, not too much red tape, where people from all over the world came to find freedom from tyranny. And where we stand now, a land where the govenment MAY still decide it is better at raising children than parents. It is something in our society and theirs that has brought the civilizations to each other's throats. It is freedom. of expression, of thought, of religions (plural here), to doubt, and to prove what is correct by having that ability to doubt, without fear of being blasphemous or an infidel.
Freedom, what a concept.

Posted by: marc in calgary at March 23, 2006 1:18 AM

Iraq oil..oil platforms off Basra..let me dig that out..

Iraq Oil Under Marine Guard,,9072-2072762,00.html

The key to Iraq's economic future
By Michael Evans

Our correspondent joins the multinational forces protecting the offshore rigs that are crucial to maintaining Iraq's flow of oil

FOURTEEN miles off the southern coast of Iraq stand two oil platforms. Huge 48in- diameter pipes snake along the seabed towards them. Above them, on the surface, military forces including the Royal Navy do everything that they can to protect them, because those platforms and the pipelines that feed them hold the key to the economic survival of Iraq.

Suicide bombers in a fast craft have tried once to attack them and the assumption is that others will try, too. Understandably, the world’s attention is on the mainland, where multinational forces are trying to hold the country together and prevent all-out, bloody civil war, but the social and political troubles besetting Iraq are overshadowing the potential vulnerability of its economy. [Michael Evans] TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at March 23, 2006 1:55 AM

Now I get it! Hitler = Stalin = Ed Broadbent

Posted by: John A. at March 23, 2006 2:11 AM

Back to the powerful Canadian Jewish Lobby for just one moment.....You right wingers are getting sucked in....big time....Are you just a bunch of war mongers? What's wrong with you...Don't you understand that blind right wing extreme rhetoric is just as bad as the Liberalist side?

For those of you who are not yet convinced: Here is a quote from this article from the Canadian Jewish Congress.

"With Iran showing no sign of backing down, Mr. Harper may soon have to decide whether to involve Canada in a western military response if the United Nations is unwilling or unable to rein in Iran's nuclear ambitions."

Read the entire article. It's scary, only from the sense that the powerful Jewish lobby in Canada is moving us increasingly to choosing sides and away from our position of neutrality.

And what follows are my comments about all of this, especialy the dangers of the powerful Jewish lobby in Canada -

Of the four last judges appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada three were Jewish. Martin appointed three judges, one French and two Jewish, and the one appointed by Harper was also Jewish....Rothstein. Now, out of nine judges, four are French, three are Jewish, and only one is an anglo/saxon/celt. There are reports all over the Internet that at least Martin was harrassed by Jewish lobbiests to the point where he just got fed up and made the appointments they wanted.

Now, we have a list of potential candidates for the federal Liberal party. It is an interesting list when one checks the ethnic backgrounds of some of the candidates. Rae, as reported on Wikipedia is considered to be Ontario's first 'Jewish' premier. Godfrey is Jewish. Stronach is a HUGE BACKER of the Jewish community, as evidenced by her speeches. Ignatieff writes a lot of material for a Jewish based magzazine in the USA, and has talked often about being a 'zionist'.Not that there is anything wrong with the Jewish community....but let's get real, they form LESS THAN ONE PERCENT OF CANADA'S POPULATION. They probably also control a hugh amount of Canada's wealth. Just how much is the big question???? Ralph Klein is Jewish. Most of the people who want to replace him are Jewish. Most of Canada's current wealth is in Alberta. Many of the country's finance ministers are Jewish.....

Why do our prime ministers acquiesce so much to the Jewish community that forms less than 1 percent of Canada's population??? Is it because, through Canwest, they control a massive amount of Canada's media. With a minority government were Martin's and Harper's hands tied?

Maybe this is the real reason so many high profile potential leaders of the federal Liberal party are choosing to stand aside. Face it, would you want to deal with a powerful Jewish lobby that is determined to take our women and men soldiers, most of them anglo/saxon/celts, practially none of them Jewish, into terrible military action in the middle east, to see Canada forced to choose sides when we never had to before??? Could you, as a prime minister faced with such decisions, actually get any sleep at night? Who has been moving Canada closer to terrible consequences in the middle east? Harper? Martin? or a sinister and powerful Jewish lobby?? And are they using this crap about anti-simetism to shield their true agenda? I certainly hope not, but all of Canada should be concerned, and should not be afraid to express their opinion about this. Maybe the real problem with the Liberal party is not that it is in shambles, but rather, is the Jewish community attempting to take over complete control of the party?

Read all of the article I linked to and judge for yourself....The Jewish lobby in Canada is so powerful, possibly the most powerful lobby in the country.


Canadians must not be afraid to speak up about the powerful lobbies operating in Canada, and the culturally biased media that supports and shields them.

Posted by: dddkinnear at March 23, 2006 4:05 AM

Der Joos are coming...der Jooooos!!! Same old, same old crap.

Posted by: robo at March 23, 2006 6:11 AM

A Left Lady Speaks Out.

"Some of the women's 'sexual crimes' were having been raped by one of Saddam's sons.

One of the women executed was a doctor who had complained of corruption in the government health department."

Pamela Bone joins with Christopher Hitchens in rejecting the Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Come out, lefties; Walk on the sunny side. +

The Humanitarian Case For War In Iraq (Jeff Jacoby On A Rare Liberal Defense Of The Iraq War Alert) ^ | 03/23/06 | Jeff Jacoby

Posted on 03/22/2006 10:57:12 PM PST by goldstategop

"I wondered at first whether the women were exaggerating."

The writer is Pamela Bone, a noted Australian journalist and self-described "left-leaning, feminist, agnostic, environmentalist internationalist." She is writing about a group of female Iraqi emigrees whom she met in Melbourne in November 2000.

"They told me that in Iraq, the country they had fled, women were beheaded with swords and their heads nailed to the front doors of their houses, as a lesson to other women. The executed women had been dishonoring their country with their sexual crimes, and this behavior could not be tolerated, the then-Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein, had said on national television. More than 200 women had been executed in this manner in the previous three weeks.... Because the claims seemed so extreme, I checked Amnesty International's country report.... Some of the women's 'sexual crimes' were having been raped by one of Saddam's sons. One of the women executed was a doctor who had complained of corruption in the government health department."

Bone's words appear in an essay she contributed to "A Matter of Principle: Humanitarian Arguments for War in Iraq," a 2005 collection edited by Wellesley College sociologist Thomas Cushman. To read her essay this week, with the war entering its fourth year, is to be reminded of the abiding moral power of the liberal case for the war. While most of the left was always opposed to liberating Iraq -- a subset of its comprehensive opposition to President Bush and all his works -- a small but honorable minority never lost sight of the vast humanitarian stakes: Defeating Saddam would mean ending one of the most unspeakable dictatorships of modern times. Wasn't that a goal anyone with progressive values should embrace?

That was why, "in February 2003, when asked to speak at a rally for peace, I politely declined," Bone writes. "But I added, less politely, that if there were to be a rally condemning the brutality Saddam Hussein was inflicting on his people . . . I would be glad to speak at it."

But condemning Saddam's brutality, let alone doing something to end it, was not a priority for most of the left. I remember asking Ted Kennedy during the run-up to the war why he and others in the antiwar camp seemed to have so little sympathy for the countless victims of Ba'athist tyranny. Even if they thought an invasion was unwise, couldn't they at least voice some solidarity with the innocent human beings writhing in Saddam's Iraqi hell? Kennedy replied vehemently that he took a back seat to no one in his concern for those who suffer under all the world's evil regimes, and demanded to know whether supporters of war in Iraq also wanted to invade North Korea, Burma, and other human-rights violators.

It was a specious answer. + more

Posted by: maz2 at March 23, 2006 7:17 AM

Since I didn't get banned overnight, let me summarize my interest in this site (and some of its worthy bloggers)by citing a few words of wisdom from to-day's Ottawa Cititzen's editorial on the crusades:

"The difference between propaganda and history is that one is black and white and the other has shades of grey. Propagandists don't like nuance and ambiguity, which explains why they too often are the enemies of historical truth."

When there is no need to agitate against your propaganda with historical facts and questions, agitfact will happily fade away.

Posted by: Agitfact at March 23, 2006 8:55 AM

the Jewish judges appointed to the Supreme Court are liberals, so there is a flaw in your logic. The majority of so-called powerful Jews in Hollywood and the media and the Democratic party and the Liberal party are all left-leaning, anti-American, and basically anti-Jewish and anti-Israel. They have swallowed, hook line and sinker, that the Jews "stole the land of the ancient Palestinians and the poor poor ancient Palestinians who lived there since time immemorial are the victims of Zionism". The majority of my post-Jewish liberal-leftie family feels this way.
You will find Jews on all ends of the political spectrum though - they tend not to be monolithic in their political (or any) views.
Did you ever think that Israel and Canada have lots of things in common? both are democracies, same heritage, values, etc.
Only in some universe of moral relativism would Canada be able to remain, as you seem to long for, "neutral". Canada does need to pick sides and decide if there is right and wrong.

Posted by: ex-liberal at March 23, 2006 9:34 AM

The reason statists of all stripes, and the bureaucracy-worshipping secular left, have a ideological kinship with the despots of Islamic theocracy is simple..... hero worship.

Hidden deep in the heart of your secular control freak ( social activist/social engineer) lies a suppressed envy of the power these Islamo-fascist despots have to inflict their will on a helpless, cowed and reliant public. Call it a professional courtesy of ideological despotism...statist socialists will understand this affinity....for sceptics and objectivists, try this experiment:

Next time you hear some statist twinkie (utopian leftist) spouting off about all the needed state enforced changes we need to socially engineer his socialist utopia, ask him what he would have the state do with dissenters....will they be allowed to openly dessent, resist or opt out of his state enforced utpoia or will they be arrested and sent to re education gulags? ;-)

Posted by: wlyonmackenzie at March 23, 2006 10:23 AM

Thought you faded away.
Commence with the facts any time, agit.
Your "boots of fact " are Dorothy's ruby slippers.
"There's no one like Noam ...There's no one like Noam.. There's no one like Noam"

Doesn't work in real life, just like socialism.

Also your bloviating third person references to yourself are nice.

Posted by: richfisher at March 23, 2006 10:40 AM

dddkinnear or is it kkkinnear?

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

dddkinnear you said...


"...dangers of the powerful Jewish lobby in Canada..."

"a sinister and powerful Jewish lobby?? And are they using this crap about anti-simetism to shield their true agenda?"

Have you listened to yourself lately? When Kate ran a thread about our most recent supreme court judges nomination you tried to hijack that discussion into a diatribe about the great Jewish conspiracy. Now she runs a thread about Islamic creativity or the lack of it and here you are again spouting racist conspiracy theories.

According to the definition in section 15 above, why shouldn't you be charged with promoting hatred with your public anti-semitic comments?

I am not Jewish, I am an anglo-saxon-celt, one that you keep bringing into the discussions, trying to make it "us against them". There is just "us". We are all Canadians.
As for your quote from the CJC on "Harper may have to make a decision", well duh, of course he will at some point have to make a decision if things continue to go the direction they are. They are merely pointing out the obvious.
"...away from our position of neutrality." What makes you think that Canada is neutral? Last time I checked, our soldiers were still in Afghanistan helping to fight the war on terror on that front. It is hardly a position of neutrality. I'd like to see you argue after 911 why we should be neutral? We are number 6 on the Al Queda "hit list". Doesn't seem like much room to be neutral there.
It is your kind of world view that gave rise to the Nazi's ability to dehumanize a people and nominate them for extinction. I am not calling you a Nazi, only that promotion of this kind of rhetoric is dangerous.
Why do you suppose that the Jewish people formed lobbies in the various countries where they lived after WW2? I suppose the said to themselves "Never again!" 6 million of their own slaughtered because of their race. If it were me, I would try and find ways (lobbies, public office, etc) to have my voice heard as well.
I don't know what others think on this site but I don't think it is right to boil everything down to "the Jews are to blame for everything".

Posted by: Daniel at March 23, 2006 11:00 AM

Richfisher, stick to gutting yellow perch, but don't run with the knife.

Posted by: agitfact at March 23, 2006 11:16 AM


There is a deep anti-semitism strain in Canada.
This is not unusual. I believe it is present everywhere. A Christian legacy that just won't go away. Our anti-hate laws and public condemnation of those would blame 1% of the population for 90% of its ills. The hopeful part is that much of this anti-semitism is unconscious and seeps out in ignorance as opposed to hate.

Posted by: steve d at March 23, 2006 11:29 AM

So, at least you acknowledge the existance of the powerful Jewish lobbies. That's a start....The REAL problem is that there are NO powerful anglo/saxon/celt lobbies, nor do we anglo/saxon/celts control ANY OF CANADA'S MEDIA. The Jews control much if not most of Canada's media, and nearly 100% of America's media. That control, in combination with their powerful and rich lobby groups is DANGEROUS. They have only one percent of Canada's population, but a HUGE amount of power and voice. It is mostly Anglo/saxon/celt soldiers who are dying in Afghanistan and Iraq. How many Jewish Canadian/American soldiers are dying? I demand a voice for my people, and if this is the only way to get it, I will take it.

Furthermore, why is the Jewish controlled Canwest taking over control of much, if not most, of IRELAND'S media? A country full of idealistic celtic warriers!

And there you go again with your anti-semitism crap..........trying to shut people up. If Germans controlled all of America's media and most of Canada's media, and if they also had the most powerful lobbies in either country .....everyone in the world would be screaming about it.

I am only concerned about Canada moving away from its historic position of neutrality in the middle east. That's all. Don't ready any more into this.

Posted by: dddkinnear at March 23, 2006 11:50 AM

"The hopeful part is that much of this anti-semitism is unconscious and seeps out in ignorance as opposed to hate."

I was over to visit Cerberus's site yesterday. Ted is running a thread now that started with a report about one of the Bush ancestors having Nazi money in the institution that he partly managed. I think he was an investment banker or something similar. Ted had all of the Bush electoral victories won by Nazi money (no mention of huge oil money in the family) I was reading through the comments in the thread. They had the Bush family responsible for the Kennedy assasination, the attempted assasination of Ronald Reagan, etc. In Liberal thought, the Bushes are villified and responsible for everything, perhaps including the common cold.
The point is, it is no secret that the Liberals hate Bush and will use any opportunity to promote that hate because they feel it suits their agenda. I am not sure what dddkinnear's agenda is but it seems that this anti-semitic rhetoric is not "unconscious and seeping out in ignorance". There is a deliberate attempt to demonize the Jewish race and create suspicion based on ones own prejudices. I don't see any evidence (if there is, take it to the RCMP) of wrong doing or law breaking on the part of the Jewish people that dddkinnear points out. They all appear to be successful pillars in our societies who have stepped up and taken the weight of responsibility on their shoulders. Perhaps in some Liberal circles that is a crime.
Perhaps if dddkinnear wants to discuss this he/she should lobby Kate to start a discussion and we could all sign in as Daffy Duck, Mickey Mouse and Dumbo, put on out tin foil hats and discuss conspiracy theories but until then I think it better to leave the racist rhetoric out of public discourse.
(Sorry Kate for straying so far off topic,there are some things I find provoking, public promotion of anti-semitism is one one of them. Have a great Day!)

Posted by: Daniel at March 23, 2006 12:03 PM

Sorry, I posted before your last post came through. The "anti-semitism crap" happens to be a part of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
You wanna compete...go start a newspaper, nobody is stopping you, it is a free country.
As for the lobbyists. It is no big secret. There are lobbyists for all kinds of things. Again, get your group together and go lobby. No one is stopping you. It is a free country.
My point is you don't have to continue to spout anti jewish rhetoric in a public discourse. You are, in my opinion promoting hatred against an identifiable group (race). It seems to me that this is dangerous legal ground to be walking on. Just my opinion.

Posted by: Daniel at March 23, 2006 12:17 PM

I hate it when people don't know what they are talking about, so I'll educate all of you courtesy of the Oil Sands Discovery Centre.

The recoverable oil from the Oil Sands could keep Canada, at it's current rate of consumption, and with it's current rate of growth, fed for 435 years. The Oil Sands could feed the entire world at current rates of consumption for 15 years without skipping a beat.

Alberta's oil sands contain the biggest known reserve of oil in the world. An estimated 1.7 to 2.5 trillion barrels of oil are trapped in a complex mixture of sand, water and clay. The most prominent theory of how this vast resource was formed suggests that light crude oil from southern Alberta migrated north and east with the same pressures that formed the Rocky Mountains. Over time, the actions of water and bacteria transformed the light crude into bitumen, a much heavier, carbon rich, and extremely viscous oil. The percentage of bitumen in oil sand can range from 1% -20%. The oil saturated sand deposits left over from ancient rivers in three main areas, Peace River, Cold Lake and Athabasca. The Athabasca area is the largest and closest to the surface, accounting for the large-scale oil sands development around Fort McMurray.

Since the 1920's, open pit mining has been central to oil sands development. Mine equipment from the early years was scaled up significantly when large commercial operations started to come on line. The first large scale commercial operation, Great Canadian Oil Sands (now Suncor Energy), introduced German manufacturer O&K bucketwheels from the coal mining industry when they opened in 1967. Syncrude Canada Limited opened in 1978 and introduced gigantic draglines 60 times as large as the bucket on display from Bitumount, the first commercial oil sands plant. These large machines were connected to the processing plant by a system of conveyor belts. Today, large trucks and shovels have replaced draglines and bucketwheels as a more selective, and cost effective way to mine oil sands. The process begins by clearing trees, draining and storing the overburden and then removing this top layer of earth to expose the ore body. The equipment must be durable and strong enough to withstand extreme climate and abrasive oil sand. Mining never stops, the trucks and other equipment work day and night, every day of the year. Planning is an essential and continuous part of the process.

Geologists, surveyors and mine engineers play a considerable role in the mine planning process before any heavy equipment is introduced. The mine plan must commit to return the area to it's former environmental condition. G.P.S. is used extensively to pinpoint mining areas.

Dr. Karl Clark, a scientist working for the Alberta Research Council, developed and patented the hot water extraction technique. Building on earlier experimentation by Sidney Ells and others which used hot water to separate oil from oil sands, Dr. Clark's work brought the process to a commercial scale. Oil sand is mixed with hot water creating a slurry. Early methods used large tumbler drums to condition the slurry. Today, hydrotransport pipelines are used to condition and transport the oil sand from the mine to the extraction plant. The slurry is fed into a separation vessel where it separates into three layers - sand, water and bitumen. The bitumen is then skimmed off the top to be cleaned and processed further. Secondary recoveries are made with the middlings zone of the separation vessels to return the smaller quantities of bitumen that would otherwise flow to the settling ponds. Ph levels and temperature are key variables in the process.

About 80% of the oil sands in Alberta are buried too deep below the surface for open pit mining. This oil must be recovered by in situ techniques. Using drilling technology, steam is injected into the deposit to heat the oil sand lowering the viscosity of the bitumen. The hot bitumen migrates towards producing wells, bringing it to the surface, while the sand is left in place ("in situ" is Latin for "in place"). Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) is a type of in situ technology that uses innovation in horizontal drilling to produce bitumen. In situ technology is expensive and requires certain conditions like a nearby water source. Production from in situ already rivals open pit mining and in the future may well replace mining as the main source of bitumen production from the oil sands.

Challenges facing in situ process are efficient recoveries, management of water used to make steam, and co-generation of all (otherwise waste) heat sources to minimize energy costs. Other methods of in situ recovery look promising, and are in research stages of development.

The oil in oil sand is called bitumen, a complex hydrocarbon made up of a long chain of molecules. In order for bitumen to be processed in refineries, this chain must be broken up and reorganized. Unlike smaller hydrocarbon molecules bitumen is carbon rich and hydrogen poor. Upgrading means removing some carbon while adding additional hydrogen to make more valuable hydrocarbon products. This is done using four main processes: coking removes carbon and breaks large bitumen molecules into smaller parts, distillation sorts mixtures of hydrocarbon molecules into their components, catalytic conversions help transform hydrocarbons into more valuable forms and hydrotreating is used to help remove sulphur and nitrogen and add hydrogen to molecules. The end product is synthetic crude oil, which is shipped by underground pipelines to refineries across North America to be refined further into jet fuels, gasoline and other petroleum products.

It must be noted that some of the oil companies pipe their bitumen south in diluted form for upgrading at other refineries. Others produce either a single high quality synthetic crude oil or multiple petroleum products to suit market feedstock demand.

Once the final product is shipped by pipeline to refineries, an environmental footprint remains. This can include open pit mine holes, process water dykes and emissions. Minimizing the impact to the environment begins by understanding the complexity of eco-systems. This information is used to help develop reclamation plans that determine how to return productive areas, to a self- sustaining, productive state, as required by all lease agreements. An important part of this process is state of the art environmental monitoring programs and communication with stakeholders including environmental groups and aboriginal people. This is an area of ongoing research activity, and while improvements in environmental stewardship have been made, huge challenges remain. Protecting the environment is a shared responsibility involving industry, government and consumers of hydrocarbon products. These products include gasoline, fuel for our homes, and petroleum chemical products like plastics, fleece and even toothpaste!

The primary difference between crude from places like Saudi Arabia and Venezula is the type of crude, lighter and sweeter, therefore less costly to refine, as opposed to our, which requires much more in the refinement process. As well, the Saudi stuff for example is in shallow basins, quickly accessable.

There is so much oil in the world, it's almost impossible to quantify it. We haven't even begun to scratch the surface of our own reserves.

What makes Alberta special in this regard is several factors:

1) We are a stable country. You can spend money developing resource here and you don't spend your time paying off corrupt officials, bandits, rebel armies etc...

2) We have a market economy, so you don't worry to much about some yahoo coming in and nationalizing your company.

3) Heavy infrastructure and development is already available. You don't need as many roads etc... most are there, and just need expanding on.

4) Edmonton, a metropolis of over 1 million people, provides all the major raw labor, parts and materials, and infrastructure support a company could ask for.

5)Calgary, a metropolis of over 1 million people, provides the crucial planning, development, engineering, and banking resources that you might need.

6) Pipelines already exist, and more are being built. No one blows up our pipelines, so it's safe to turn your back on them.

7) It costs money to ship fuel. It costs money to pipe it too, but you can pipe more than you can ship for less than you pay to ship. There is 300 million thirsty consumers south of the border, who spend a shit load of money on their military, insuring supply, when they could just spend that money on Alberta's Oil Sands.

Long and short of it is as long as oil stays above $45 dollars a barrel, we are digging it up. We'll keep digging it up, and we won't stop digging it up even when newer energy sources become available, because your talking about retooling an entire world.

We still haven't actually finished converting North America over to things like Natural Gas... so there's no worries about sales or supply for quite a while yet.

Posted by: William Macdonell at March 23, 2006 12:20 PM

Oh, one other thing, Ural, and I think it's SteveD, and Marc from Calgary (who should hang his head in shame for not knowing this:),

Canada provides approximately 10% of the current US requirements.

Canada is not an importer of Oil.

Saudi Arabia currently provides 25% of the US consumption.

Alberta, in the next 4 years, will increase it's export to the US by approximately 200%, accounting for 30% of it's consumption needs by 2010.

We are also in throw's of a new pipeline being built to the Pacific Coast, where our Gas will be frozen and shipped to Southeast Asia.

Until the MCkenzie Delta Pipeline project is settled out and built, the Americans are taking absolutely nothing from the Anwar, as they have no way to get it home.

Posted by: William Macdonell at March 23, 2006 12:34 PM

hmmm... "thanks" I'm not slighting the USA... if you think so.. nope. I hope they are in the ME for more reasons than "only the oil".
There is some oil imported into Canada.. it isn't significant. and we remain a "net exporter"

I know the Oil Sands Discovery Centre has something to say about this. I am pointing out (now) that the financing of these projects, is largely dependant on the US Geological Survey saying that Alberta has this or that much recoverable oil. Alberta could have 10 trillion?, but it wouldn't exist until the Geological people in the USA say it's so; also, I think that with new technologies, a much higher percentage of oil may be extracted from this area than we think.
The USGSurvey is looking at updating the amount of oil it says we can recover.. June 2006 I think.

additionally, the oil from Venezuela is light, but not sweet. It is real high in sulphur, and when exported to the USA, needs to go to refineries designed to handle this, (and owned by CITGO) Which makes Hugo's persistant threat to send "his" oil somewhere else like China, a non-starter, as they don't have refinery capacity for this sour oil.. at least not for the next 2 - 3 years.

as an aside to this conversation, Encana recently sold its out of country holdings (in Ecuador for example) reasoning... why should we look for oil? It is all here.
I agree.

Posted by: marc in calgary at March 23, 2006 1:17 PM

So Daniel - It's only okay to be able to blast away at Muslims. It's not okay to hear the opinions of people who are disinterested parties, apart from the fact that it is their own people - the anglo/saxon/celts who are dying in the middle east.

I am merely pointing out the fact that the Jewish people control most of America's media as well as much if not most of Canada's media. In addition, at least in Canada they have demonstrated that they have powerful government lobbies that are now seeing their own people put into the Supreme Court and taping telephone conversations with Harper about Hamas. These are Canadian Jews lobbying about mideast matters. Seems like they are not disinterested parties to the mideast problems. So....I point out the danger of having the Jewish population control our media comgined with having the most powerful government lobby groups in the country....a fact that they seem unwilling to report on to Canadians in their media..... Let's think of it this way. If Germans controlled Canada's and America's media and had the most if not ONLY cultural lobby groups in the countries, everyone in the world would be screaming about it....Yet I can't even talk about this????? And so many people spew Muslim hatred on this and other media outlets in Canada...They're not called racists, but I am, when I am neutral, standing outside of this conflict.

You are right, there is a need for an anglo/saxon/celt media outlet, especially since it is our boys and girls who are doing most of the dying in the middle east for someone elses hatred and foreign causes. And don't doubt it for a moment, one of the issues to be addressed in that media source will be the question of who controls the media in the countries where we anglo/saxon/celts have the greatest population, along with the fact that we anglo/saxon/celts seem to be the people who are being dragged into the middle east hate wars.

Posted by: dddkinnear at March 23, 2006 1:26 PM

william Macdonell

I don't remember numbers as high as you indicate. As my link indicates my numbers were from the Alberta government and the American government. If I remember correctly I believe the Alberta reserves were given to be about 700 billion barrels, while the American reserves were about 40 billion.

Posted by: steve d at March 23, 2006 1:30 PM

Re: dddkinnear's "And what follows are my comments about all of this, especialy the dangers of the powerful Jewish lobby in Canada -"

Oh Jeesh!! The Jewish Conspiracy thing again!
I suppose you would be a lot happier if that powerful minority you keep alluding to were
not Jewish, but instead let's say for arguments sake, Imams or Mullahs, or Third Reichists, or ...
oh the hell with it, why don't you just tell us???

Posted by: Joe Canuck at March 23, 2006 1:36 PM

No, I wish there was more balance to the media control in Canada AND the USA. And if the Jewish cultural groups can have direct access to the prime minister then I think Canada's other cultural groups should as well....especially anglo/saxon/celts who are doing most of the dying over there, who have NO control in Canada's media, and who do not even have an organized lobby group. We certainly need one.

And in case you want to know, I'm equally pissed that the land of my heritage and ancestry has become a dangerous place to visit, especially since the bombings in London. I don't like the extremists suicide bombers any more than you do? All I am saying is what is making them do this??? These people are just as intelligent as the rest of the world, if not more so. They educate amazingly brilliant Muslim doctors and scientists and engineers....But, that is not the point I am trying to make here....It's about the dangerous combination of powerful Jewish lobbiests and their massive media control. That's all.

Posted by: dddkinnear at March 23, 2006 2:03 PM

I didn't say "it's okay to be able to blast away at did.

You said, "They're not called racists, but I am, when I am neutral, standing outside of this conflict." You hardly sound neutral.

I guess if this is an issue that you feel passionately about, then lobby, protest, do whetever you have to do. As long as you continue to frame the discussion in "Jewish terms", I think you are going to meet resistance in western societies because of the holocaust. (Your message would be better received in Tehran these days. When the fellows in the uniforms come to take you away down the Jim Keegstra road to the Ernst Zundel highway and put you on a bus for a date in court, I'll be there to say "I told you so".

Posted by: Daniel at March 23, 2006 2:08 PM

William Macdonell,

Canada is a net exporter - it does import. Although a litle dated (2005) - here is some info from the US DOE.

Canada importing:

US imports from Canada (they claim Canada is No 1):

US imports from Saudi:

For up to date source check:

Posted by: ural at March 23, 2006 2:20 PM

who owns The Toronto Star and The Globe and Mail and CTV? The Aspers were always Liberal.
Name me one prominent Hollywood Jew who is not anti-American, anti-Israel, anti-Jew. You are barking up the wrong tree. Israel is your friend in this battle, not your enemy. And you might want to take a look at history - whose side would you rather be on - the Jews side, or the other

Posted by: ex-liberal at March 23, 2006 2:52 PM

Okay, anything we import barely registers on the map, and we are not considered an importer.

The reserves you mention are the proven reserves based on current recovery technologies, and includes the Athabasca region, it does not include the majority of the oilsands... or for that matter the majority of the "hard to get to" oil in other parts of the country, including Alberta.

Just because you play out a field with conventional reclimation, doesn't mean it's done paying yet. In Manitoba for example, there are extremely valuable leftovers, just waiting. I have friends making a killing at tie ins all over there.

Anyway, the long and short of it is we can provide oil for us, the yanks, the Chinese, and a few others for the next 150 years without breaking to much of a sweat, and they discover more all the time... there is not going to be a great rush to replace fossil fuels.

Posted by: William Macdonell at March 23, 2006 4:29 PM

That's not to say manufacturing and industry in general won't be looking to lessen their costs, but for that industry weans itself off oil, the general population is going to get more and more addicted to it. In the end it will balance itself out, and Alberta will still make a shit load a dough.

Posted by: William Macdonell at March 23, 2006 4:31 PM

Afghan Clerics Demand Convert Be Killed
AP ^ | March 23 2006 | DANIEL COONEY

Posted on 03/23/2006 1:23:54 PM PST by jmc1969

Senior Muslim clerics demanded Thursday that an Afghan man on trial for converting from Islam to Christianity be executed, warning that if the government caves in to Western pressure and frees him, they will incite people to "pull him into pieces."

"Rejecting Islam is insulting God. We will not allow God to be humiliated. This man must die," said cleric Abdul Raoulf, who is considered a moderate and was jailed three times for opposing the Taliban before the hard-line regime was ousted in 2001 +

Posted by: maz2 at March 23, 2006 4:52 PM

Very interesting discussion, perhaps I can offer some perspective from the "Huns", Europe, Iraq and Iran.

As I recall from my foreign affairs readings Henry Kissinger, a fellow of Jewish extraction, once stated in respect of Iraq and Iran battling back in the 1980s: "It is too bad they both can't lose."

Recall the Iranians were prior to the big battles, in the grip of the Shah of Iran who was supported by US foreign policy. The secularist Iraq supported by the USSR. A lot of Cold War foreign policy contributed to the current morass that the Middle East finds itself in.

During the 1980s both sides contributed mightly in arms sales to the belligerents on either side of the Iran/Iraq conflict.

For a fuller discussion see here:

If you scroll down the page you see Donald Rumsfeld gleefully shaking hands with Saddam Hussein.

The NY Times recorded the 1983 meeting as follows:

Donald Rumsfeld meeting Saddām on 19 December – 20 December 1983. Rumsfeld visited again on 24 March 1984; the same day the UN released a report that Iraq had used mustard and Tabun nerve gas against Iranian troops. The NY Times reported from Baghdad on 29 March 1984, that "American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with Iraq and the U.S., and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been established in all but name." NSA Archive Source

Kind of hypocritical of the US now to say Saddam was a bad guy when all the Cold War belligerents were flogging Iraq and Iran all the hardware they needed. So if people in the West are so gung ho, one also needs to take a long look in the mirror at the foreign policy one conducted and engaged in that in many respects are precursors to the present state of affairs.

So if Saddam was okay to do business with in 1983/84 even though he gassed the Iranians and Kurds, the only thing that made him a bad guy was the invasion of Kuwait? Suddenly, international law became a priority, when Saddam's britches got too big. Hence Gulf War I, in 1990/91, in which they kept Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf on a short leash and hauled off the dogs before he waltzed into Bagdad. Meantime geopolitics took over, as the reason to leave this reasonable man Saddam in charge of Iraq was to act as a bulwark against Iranian fundamentalist Islam as promulgated by Khomeni and company.

When Saddam threatened to upset the "delicate geopolitical balance" he had to go; because he was no longer playing by the hegemonic rulebook if Saddam ever had one.

Now the old Cold War belligerents switched sides and you have the US now installing/supporting the Iraqi regime; whilst the Russsians,etc. now are flogging technology to the Iranians. Confused yet? Trouble is the Russians didn't figure that the Iranian President Amahdinejad Whackjob would like to make the Holocaust occur even though he asserts it never happened.

Geopolitics as Gen. Lewis Mackenzie rightly observed has precisely nothing to do with morality. What it does have a lot to do with is control, money, power, who has it, who doesn't and why.

The general rubric in times most recently passed is that as long as the bodies are not piling up on your doorstep one can conduct business.

Very ugly but true. The UN Iraq "Oil for Food" scandal would be a case in point.

The proposition that the parties involved in the Iraq/Iran morass are blameless is shortsighted and completely obviates the belligerents complicity in creating the situation in the first instance. While it is trite to blindly apportion blame to one side or the other it is an error both in logic and fact. In some senses they deserve each other.

Having said that, now that they are engaged, they unfortunately have to see it through as the colossal power vacuum created by initiating a full US withdrawal from Iraq would likely be even more catastrophic. The Iranians would likely just set up shop, sponsored by the Russians. Given the instability and provocative nature of the Iranian regime I don't think I want to seem them brandishing nuclear weapons anytime soon.

Lastly, why the hell does Iran need nuclear technology at all when their energy needs are conclusively met by their vast and enormous oil and natural gas reserves? What possible pretext can Iran use to justify nuclear energy when it is sitting on the Bashehr gas fields?

There is much more at work here, given the proposed Iran, Pakistan, India pipeline. Pres. Bush recently recommended India for nuclear energy as he wants to ensure a cheap supply of conventional fuels for America, by reducing India's need for conventional fuel in a post Cold War world.

I would hesitate to leap to simplistic conclusions about the moral veracity of one's cause as the broad picture would call that modality into question.

However, having one's family members on the wrong end of a bullet, IED, or suicide bomber immeasurably alters one's perspective. Most would agree that they would want them to come back in one piece.

As an individual you sometimes find yourself placed in a situation, not of your making, but charged with resolving it. For those advocating a simple life, I would recommend the TV show of the same name, it has about the same depth.

Posted by: Hans Rupprecht at March 23, 2006 4:53 PM

Islam: The religion of the sword and Dr. Death. +

thursday, march 23, 2006
Doctor from the Dark Ages

Here’s today’s story of utter depravity: Insurgent doctor killed dozens of wounded soldiers.

And notice: Western media has morally neutered themselves so thoroughly that not even a doctor who murders wounded patients is called a “terrorist.”

When policemen, soldiers and officials in Kirkuk who were injured in insurgent attacks arrived in the emergency room of the hospital, they hoped their chances of surviving had gone up as doctors tended their wounds.

In fact, many of the wounded were almost certain to die because one of the doctors at the Republic Hospital was a member of an insurgent cell. Pretending to treat the injured men, he killed 43 of them by secretly administering lethal injections, a police inquiry has revealed.
“He was called Dr Louay and when the terrorists had failed to kill a policeman or a soldier he would finish them off,” Colonel Yadgar Shukir Abdullah Jaff, a senior Kirkuk police chief, told The Independent. “He gave them a high dosage of a medicine which increased their bleeding so they died from loss of blood.”

Dr Louay carried out his murder campaign over an eight to nine-month period, say police. He appeared to be a hard working assistant doctor who selflessly made himself available for work in any part of the hospital, which is the largest in Kirkuk.

He was particularly willing to assist in the emergency room. With 272 soldiers, policemen and civilians killed and 1,220 injured in insurgent attacks in Kirkuk in 2005, the doctors were rushed off their feet and glad of any help they could get. Nobody noticed how many patients were dying soon after being tended by their enthusiastic young colleague.

Dr Louay was finally arrested only after the leader of the cell to which he belonged, named Malla Yassin, was captured and confessed. “I was really shocked that a doctor and an educated men should do such a thing,” said Col Jaff. +
via LGF

Posted by: maz2 at March 23, 2006 5:10 PM

To ex-liberal

You just made my point:

"whose side would you rather be on - the Jews side, or the other"

I don't want to be on either side. I want Canada to remain neutral like it has been in the past. But with the powerful Jewish lobbies AND their control of the media Canada will be lead down a tragic path. That is unless a neutral government can form some kind of coalition to thwart the powerful Jewish lobby and unless anglo/saxon/celt Canadians become very wary of the fact that it is OUR boys and girls, be they American, British or Canadian, who are dying over there in that foreign Muslim/Jewish hate war.

You know, I talked to an American collegue today about the rescue of the three people in Iraq today. I showed him the Canadian 'spin' which would neither confirm or deny our involvement. I then showed him the American spin which indicated that 'coalition' forces were involved, which, I indicated to him, probably meant that Canadian forces were very involved. Do you know what he said to me? He said he wished the Americans had never gone into Iraq...that he knew Sadaam was a bad guy, but that Sadaam had NEVER DONE ANYTHING TO AMERICANS. This American collegue has always been an AVID SUPPORTER OF America's involvement in Iraq. He basically came right out today and blamed the Jewish controlled American media for the events that put the USA in Iraq.... Believe me, this man is as Republican as you can get.

This is also the new trend in the USA. They are no longer so eager to be in Iraq. They don't see oil as the issue; more and more are seeing the problem of massive Jewish lobbies and almost complete Jewish control of their media as a growing problem.

It's really sad to see Americans come home in body bags. The massive majority are anglo/saxon/celts.

Yes, anglo/saxon/celts need to form a unified cultural group and we need to start informing one another about just who is doing the dying in the middle east. They're not Japanese, Chinese, Indian, African, South American or Jews....Nope, they're anglo/saxon/celts, and I believe we are being set up. We need lobbiests and a news source that speaks to us and for us.

Posted by: dddkinnear at March 23, 2006 6:06 PM


You are advocating cultural polarization; hardly a recipe for a lasting peace.

A policy of constructive engagement will lead to a viable and durable peace. Blaming the Jews of the world is neither helpful nor constructive.

One needs to break through cultural impasses not erect them.

Posted by: Hans Rupprecht at March 23, 2006 6:40 PM

Hans: I heard there was a conference between Muslim and Jewish leaders in Spain recently. That is the only ray of light I have seen lately. I hope they continue with this. This conference should have continued on until they came to some kind of resolution of their differences. It did not last long enough.

I am not advocating cultural polarization (good term by the way). I am sorry if the rest of the world does not seem to understand that we need to start taking a hard look at just who is dying over there. These are problems for the middle east to solve....not we anglo/saxon/celts. I believe very strongly that we are being used. Have you not checked to see who controls our media???? It's not us, not by a long shot....Whos controls China's media? The French? Nope. Who controls India's media. The Mexicans? Nope. Why is it that Jews control so much of the anglo/saxon/celt's media throughout our world? And is it a coincidence that it is OUR anglo/saxon/celt boys and girls who are dying in the middle east??? I don't think so.

Posted by: dddkinnear at March 23, 2006 6:54 PM

dddkinnear: take your crap somewhere else.

Posted by: Kate at March 23, 2006 7:54 PM

dddkinnear, re: "That is unless a neutral government can form some kind of coalition to thwart the powerful Jewish lobby and unless anglo/saxon/celt Canadians become very wary of the fact that it is OUR boys and girls, be they American, British or Canadian, who are dying over there in that foreign Muslim/Jewish hate war."

" that foreign Muslim/Jewish hate war"

The violence in Iraq and Afganistan is almost exclusively the result of extremist Islamics who hate any culture that is different than their warped fundamentalist extremist version of Islam.
These medieval thugs/nutbars have vowed to kill any westerners at any opportunity they get simply because the feel it advances their goal towards acheiving a world-wide Muslim society. Just how you manage to stretch that situation into 'that foreign Muslim/Jewish hate war' is beyond reason.

Posted by: Joe Canuck at March 23, 2006 9:12 PM

Joe Canuck:
I have travelled the world and seen poverty and poor education systems everywhere. We are so lucky to have been born in the west. I don't have the answers, and of course I abhor the violent extremism of the mideast. But, having travelled to this region decades ago, the only difference between then and now is the availability of weapons. The real hate of that region was always against Israel. I remember that students with us always had to get new passports issued if they had ever visited Israel. Everyone else was safe. It is still the core of the issue, and to wander from that is a mistake.

I wish we could be the middlemen, and broker a solution. Canada is in the best position to do this, but will not be able to do so should we choose sides.

You don't seem to think there is a peaceful solution. I have been to that region, and I believe there is a peaceful solution. The meeting between Muslim and Jewish clerics recently is a start.

In addition, the entire Muslim world must bear the bulk of the responsibility for what is happening in the middle east. The region is swimming in oil, yet most of the people live in terrible poverty. Muslims are best suited to reach out to other Muslims, especially the terrorists and extremists and fundamentalists, and get these people to neutral ground. Adressing poverty and education issues may go a long way to solving the problem, but it's up to Muslims to take the lead, not us.

The military solution in Iraq is proving to be another Vietnam, sadly. I know you all hate Kinsella, but did you read his post about his trip to the USA? I really feel sorry for our American friends.

You cannot imagine how much respect Canadians have in the world. The way the world views us is so different from the way they view Americans, and I am not sure why. But this makes us one of the most well suited countries to help bring peace. But, make no mistake, peace in that region will NEVER be achieved unless we have the majority of the Muslim population onside. They are great warriers. We cannot achieve peace through war. Quite frankly, they'll kick our butts. The only option is weapons of mass destruction, and I don't want to go there, because it appears Iran is already thinking about doing just that.

Anyway, it appears the host of this site is truly pissed at me. Too bad there is no freedom of expression in Canada anymore....

So I guess I have to move on to other things.


Posted by: dddkinnear at March 23, 2006 10:11 PM

hey kkk-kinnear I see you're back!

Freedom of speech is one thing. Hatred of a race like the Jews is another.

I too have travelled a lot and I too see the poverty and I too see how they like "Canadians".

But ask you this, like me, who'd you want in charge of the world right now?

Canada? Give me a break.

Obviously you don't know about the Liberal Party of Canada or their NDP bedmates.

Oh, let's bring the Shira law into Canada...

Posted by: tomax at March 24, 2006 6:13 AM

Kate, I see you deleted a couple of my posts. You had better do some sole search girl....because you are no advocate of free speech. You are nothing more than a hypocrite.

Posted by: dddkinnear at March 24, 2006 9:27 AM

I can do better than that. You just got your ass banned out of here.

Posted by: Kate at March 24, 2006 9:42 AM


Thanks Kate,
What good is having an index finger if you can't use it once in awhile?

Posted by: Daniel at March 24, 2006 10:31 AM

Gee, Hans R., I've patiently been waiting for reaction to your post of 4:53 PM yesterday, and there really hasn't been any. Congratulations on having snuck a bit of realism past the guardians of ideology.

Posted by: agitfact at March 24, 2006 7:57 PM