Those Moderate Muslims!

54 Replies to “Those Moderate Muslims!”

1. Ah, what’s the big deal, they paint swastika’s on Jewish tombstones over here.

2. Ah, I miss the good old days when the only thing Arab we’d see was either the Adventures of Tin-Tin or Where’s Waldo.

3. ‘Slums gotta be ‘Slums.

4. Makes complete sense to me. Fascists sympathize with fascists, whether they carry a crescent or swastika.
   What makes less sense is why we facilitated the rise of Islamofascism in the region.
   The West really just needs to disengage from the Islamic world, develop our own energy sources and if they want to join the current century, great; if not, well, good luck to them.

5. “Dressed in combat gear and armed with guns, the extremists filmed themselves rampaging through the Benghazi cemetery as they smashed up headstones and tore down the Cross of Remembrance with a sledgehammer.”
   They will do the same thing in Europe once they’re in control.

6. I agree with Chip.
   Let’s get the heck out of the whole area and let them fight among themselves, which they will once we aren’t around.
   And stop letting them immigrate here…
   They have no redeeming qualities to bring to the west. Just hate and extreme backwardness.

7. Prey tell, when did any nation have to be respectful to the tombstones of a bunch of soldiers who came to fight their own war in another nation?
   I wouldn’t give a fig about the tombstone of a Libyan soldier who had been fighting an Egyptian soldier in my backyard in Canada. Neither, I suspect, would most of you.
   WWII was a global war, yes, but it was still a war between a bunch of western nations, with a wannabe western nation (Japan) also getting involved in the east. Those brave western soldiers weren’t in Libya fighting for Libyans. They were fighting for King and country. I doubt that nuance was lost on Libyans, what with the colonial tendency towards treating people as second-class citizens in their own country. At the most, from a Libyan (or even Indian/Malay/Chinese)perspective the war would replace a bunch of English-speaking overlords with Japanese and German speaking ones. Colonies were hardly havens of freedom. Life would continue all the same with minor tweaks in the level of oppression.
   Who’s at fault here? We are, for not bringing our dead back. They weren’t fighting for the Libyan people. They were fighting for us. Burying them and expecting them to be reverred there as they rightfully are in Canada, is evidence of baffling logic.
   Bring them home, I say. Libya – or any part of Africa and Asia – is no Vimy. We never treated the inhabitants of those areas the way we treated contemporary frenchmen. Its no surprise that they don’t see it as much more than a western symbol still standing around in their country, one worthy of attack everytime they want to let off steam.

8. 1. Make obscene profits selling them weapons.
   2. Incite and encourage them to kill each other.
   3. Let the civilized world live in peace.
   Because they are really 7th century savages marinated in a violent religion that encourages mass murder.
   The only step beyond their 7th century mindset is they can use cellphones to record their barbaric activities.

9. I agree with Texas. Since their “religion” also happens to be a political and social construct, classify them as anti democratic and bar them from immigration.

10. If you think this can justify Canada being sucked into these proteacted wars to |spread democracy” fageddabowdit!
    The bug wits are just doing what unevolved culturally retarded morons do – destory their country. So let ’em go at, it’s no threat to us unless we foolishly import this violent inertia through immigration from these crapholes.
    I say close the immgration gates, close trade and finance with these fools and let them steep in their own self destruction.

11. “At Norman’s Spectator, video at link bottom:”
    What does that even mean … I followed the link and wound up that pretender’s web site … it I cannot make sense of whatever the reference was. Can anyone tell me why that link is even there? What was the point … what am I missing?
    Spector’s website is the worst pile of rubble and nonsense I have ever seen. It doesn’t even have a freaking domain .. it’s the freebe you get when you use Shaw’s IP service.
    I think Spector is either too cheap or too stupid to have a real website.

12. Perhaps we could ask the current SAS if they would like to go to Libya to discuss the treatment of their fallen comrades.

13. At least we are not jumping into it with eyes wide shut like we did in Lybia and Egypt. Let them kill each other off and if the winners want to talk to us, we can talk. Maybe. If the Muslim Brotherhood takes over I would suggest we just give them the bird and slam the door in their face.

14. ” I doubt that nuance was lost on Libyans, what with the colonial tendency towards treating people as second-class citizens in their own country” Johnston
    Your logic is not lost because you are part of the UN/NGO’s initiatives that are fermenting hate in the ME. The UN’s hate on with the Colonial Era is a feeble excuse for individual failure; yep it was those darn colonial buggers that held us back… and back.
    The world would be a better place if you all were arrested & simply disappeared…

15. …over the military accidentally burning a few copies of the Koran that had already been defaced BY THEIR OWN PEOPLE.
    I should run for president, just so I can head over to the Middle East and show them how effectively we can insult and offend them when we’re TRYING to.

16. Slap Shot & Alyric
    Precisely mine own sentiment.

17. Cripes I just woke up.
    I think I should get some more sleep before I go completely “internet ballistic”.
    dwright(about to have violent dreams/ nightmares)

18. Of course it would be no use to point out that you cannot kill the dead twice. The cretins are obviously trying to re-fight WWII, because for them 50 million dead wasn’t enough.
    Psalm 116:9-10
    9 I walk before the LORD in the land of the living.
    10 I kept my faith, even when I said, “I am greatly afflicted”.
    Cheers
    Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
    1st Saint Nicolaas Army
    Army Group “True North”

19. “Your logic is not lost because you are part of the UN/NGO’s initiatives that are fermenting hate in the ME. The UN’s hate on with the Colonial Era is a feeble excuse for individual failure; yep it was those darn colonial buggers that held us back… and back.”
    Hmmmm? I don’t think its fair to say colonial buggers held anyone back. All of those countries have benefitted from the injection of legal systems and technology. That doesn’t detract from the fact that they were often brutally surpressed in their own countries, causing as it were, some resentment.
    Resentment that makes them not give a fig about desecrating the graves of non-natives who’s claims of fighting ‘for’ the local population are tenuous at best.
    “The world would be a better place if you all were arrested & simply disappeared…”
    How very Argentinean Junta-esque. Or for that matter, North Korea-esque. Very sound logic, you have. It would be nice if everyone who disagreed with you disappeared, eh? Perhaps we should arrange for you to live in North Korea? Carry on.

20. Hey Johnston,
    Two questions:
    1. Who are you talking to?
    2. What are you talking about?

21. Good response Abe.
    THE Gillard Government. Demands an aplogy. They need to contact the White House that is where he lives not libya.
    To continue on about johnston, us crackers have not been calling the shots there for years. So maybe they really are that backward.

22. Savages.

23. Rupert Brooke would not have liked this; Remember!
    “And there’s some corner of a foreign field/That is forever England”

24. johnston – what you are ignoring is that, with reference to WWII, there was an enemy – the Axis.
    That is, the Allies weren’t fighting ‘their own war in another nation’. Libya, as I’m sure you know, was a colony of Italy – not an English colony – and many Libyans fought with and for the Italians in WWII. The war freed Libya from Italy.
    Like it or not, the colonization of these non-industrial areas in Africa and America brought industrialism in – a transformation that would never have occurred otherwise. With regard to Libya, the post war allied occupation, which ended in 1951, rejected returning these lands to Italy and enabled its independence – with that industrial infrastructure remaining, and a trained Libyan administration.
    Colonization of non-industrial lands is a ‘biological tactic’ of rapidly transforming one area, which is ‘out of sync’ with the economic and societal development of other areas, into a mode that enables equal interaction.

25. Proof, if more was needed, that islam condemns its adherents to perpetual toddler-hood. All we have seen lately are infantile temper tantrums of people so steeped in their mohameddan barbarism that they cannot produce anything of worth to humanity.

26. Churchill wrote of the Mahdi’s jihad, the succession of the Khalifa and Omdurman in a two-volume book published by Longmans in 1899. Entitled “The River War: An Account of the Reconquest of Sudan”, Churchill wrote on pages 248-250 of the second volume:
    “”How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. “

27. Two things. First, it says a lot about these brave Libyan rebels that they can only nerve themselves up to attack Canadian and British soldiers who are -already dead-. It fails to make me nervous, know what I mean?
    Second, I’d be more outraged if Muslims weren’t pulling this exact same cr@p on British war memorials IN BRITAIN.
    I’d also like to LOUDLY AGREE with ET at 1:39pm. There would not be a single railway in India, the Middle East or Africa without the British Empire. As evidence I offer the Indian rail system, which hasn’t added a single major line since the Brits left, and they’re still using the same freakin’ steam engines the Brits left behind on many routes.
    Africa is worse.
    The Arabs would all still be Bedouins living in goat wool tents if not for Europe, USA and Canada building every scrap of infrastructure in the Middle East outside of Israel.
    Maybe we should just let ’em burn it down and starve in the wreckage, seeing as how we’re such b@st@rds and all…

28. To quote (sorta) an Iranian General over the handbook burning:
    This will not be acceptable until their homes are burned and each one of them is hung.

29. I wouldn’t read too much into it. Just a bunch of young Islamist thugs doing their thing – just like Canadians boys occasionally pee on our war memorial or steal from our poppy boxes. Still – can’t help but notice that they lacked the planning, tools and will-power to actually take the Brit monument down. Looks like they lost interest when it became hard work.
    Final point – the real tragedy – how many Canadians, Brits or Aussies knew about or gave a flying F about our war graves in Libya until now? Precious few.

30. Just a year ago these bastards were begging NATO to send planes to bomb the Khadaffi forces that were slaughtering them. NATO, including Canada, heeded their pleas. This is their thanks.
    I say no more interventions when Muzzies are killing each other. They are barbarians and we can do without all of them.
    Imagine an world without Islam

31. Obsolver :I agree, and when we deliver the “Sales” we do it from 40,000 ft.

32. @ Obsoiver at March 4, 2012 4:19 PM
    At least Fred had a opinion with which you could agree….or not.
    All you had was a brainfart which you tried to put into words (fail). Fred 1….Troll 0.

33. Fanaticism, Islamists are not our friend and they never will be. Roll up the carpet, and tell them to sod off we don’t care what offends them.

34. Rose.. You wrapped it up.

35. Yep. Let them rot all by themselves. Let them exhaust the remaining supply of munitions that were provided by civilizations that could actually produce something more technical than a hookah. Let them be seduced by China and Russia. They’ll end up hating them and fighting them also. That’s all they ever want to do anyway.

36. ET (since someone apparently needs to be told who each post is intended for)
    “That is, the Allies weren’t fighting ‘their own war in another nation’. Libya, as I’m sure you know, was a colony of Italy – not an English colony – and many Libyans fought with and for the Italians in WWII. The war freed Libya from Italy.”
    I am, indeed, aware of that. But for the Italians (and Indians and even some Americans and Canadians prior to Pearl Harbor), WWII was a battle between a bunch of western nations jockeying for territory.
    Would a British-controlled Libya have gained independence any faster? Not if Churchill had his way. He didn’t want to let go of India. He only let go because of the US and the fact that the war and its economic aftermath, combined with an independence movement building up steam, forced him to let go. I don’t think the Libyans were expecting the Brits to come to Libya to bring them freedom. And I don’t think the Brits were planning on doing that either – at least not until colonialism became passe. I think you and I agree can agree on that, yes?
    Nor do I think leaving bodies behind in these countries and expecting them to be treated with reverrence is realistic. When the Canadians showed up there, they weren’t planning on bringing independence and self-rule to the locals. They were simply planning on imposing a new colonial government. For a Libyan, that amounts to trading one oppressor for another.
    Part of the problem here is the degree to which WWII resonates to this day. It is living history for us. But look back down the line. What happened in Libya was no different to what happened in Southern India during the Anglo-French wars. Two sets of armies, who couldn’t give a damn about the locals (and the missionary accounts of the time are truly horrific) duking it out. Should the Indians be thankful that the Brits won that particular round? Perhaps. Perhaps not. At the end of the day, it heralded an era of colonial oppression that brought with it much that makes India one of the growing superpowers, but it also brought a resentment towards the British that continues to this day in India. That is, quite simply, the reality of national narratives. And the Libyan national narrative will remember WWII the way India remembers the Anglo-French wars. The only difference, of course, is that at the end of it, Britain was too weak to hold on, and the Americans were insistent that colonialism end. Without the American pressure, or the debilitating effects of WWII, history might not have been so kind to the Libyan independence movement.
    “Like it or not, the colonization of these non-industrial areas in Africa and America brought industrialism in – a transformation that would never have occurred otherwise.”
    No one is denying the many benefits of colonialism. Technologically, and industrially, and even in terms of education and legal systems, it generally improved the lot of people. But it was poorly concieved insofar as it did so by insulting their history and traditions, and generally treating people as inferior beings. THat, and not other contributions, have scarred the national psyche of the former colonies. Take a look at India. The Indian National COngress, the first proponent of self-rule, was created by a Britisher named Hume. He gradually recruited an army of philosophers and lawyers, mostly Indians educated in the British legal tradition in England(including one named Gandhi), who went back and used British philosophy, wit and legal finesse to batter British rule. What stands out in the Indian national narrative is how badly the British treated Indians, not how much the British contributed to the Indian intellectual re-awakening, as well as the independence movement.
    Let it be clear that I fully agree with the benefits that colonialism brought, but that doesn’t mean that it won – or indeed should win – the battle of, excuse my American, ‘hearts and minds’. What it achieved on the ground, it squandered in goodwill.
    That goodwill, incidentally, is what many expect here from the Libyans who are acting like savages in monuments. It is deeply unfortunate, but it is not as surprising as some might think it is. After all, we have witnessed this several times over. One need only visit Rome or the Parthenon to see what destruction has been wrought by the people who ruled them after their heyday. The removal of Greek gods, the destruction of pagan buildings – that is the reality of the human condition.
    What we are seeing in Libya today is simply a continuation of that long tradition. A new set of rulers brings with it a new stance on history.
    The problem with the discourse on colonialism is that you have one set who can see no good in it, and one who can see no wrong in it. You, I suspect, fall in the latter. As is often the case, the truth is somewhere in between.
    The Phantom,
    “As evidence I offer the Indian rail system, which hasn’t added a single major line since the Brits left, and they’re still using the same freakin’ steam engines the Brits left behind on many routes.”
    A quick glance at the Wiki page on Indian rail suggests that your evidence is not quite as watertight as you think it is. They appear to have bought some new trains, created some new lines and even electrified them. And they’ve even gone a built a metro system in Delhi. How the world changes.
    I always wonder why there is such a knee-jerk reactionism to any criticism of colonialism. Like I said, the good it brought was great, but the damage it wrought has been equally bad. At the end of the day, the Brits are as remembered for the oppression of colonial rule as they are for giving the subcontinent its first universal religion – Cricket.
    Can one be critical, while acknowledging the good?

37. The Iranian Ambassador to the UN had just finished giving a speech and
    walked out into the lobby of the convention center where he met U.S. General
    Patraeus.
    They shook hands.
    As they walked the Iranian said, “You know, I have just one question about
    what I have seen in America.”
    The General said, “Well, anything I can do to help you, I will.”
    The Iranian whispered, “My son watches this TV show called Star Trek and in
    it there is Chekhov who is Russian, Scotty who is Scottish, Uhura who is
    black and Sulu who is Oriental, but no Muslims. My son is very upset and
    doesn’t understand why there aren’t any Iranians, Iraqis, Afghans, Syrians
    or Pakistanis on Star Trek.”
    The General laughed, leaned toward the Iranian ambassador, and whispered
    back, “That’s because it takes place in the future”.
    Got this by email a while ago and found it in my deleted. Seems appropriate for this thread.

38. johnston –
    I disagree with your reductionism of WWII to ‘western nations jockeying for territory’. I don’t think that the British (or Commonwealth or USA) went into the war to gain territory.
    And Italian fascism cannot be equated to North Americans prior to Pearl Harbour.
    Also, I don’t know what you are referring to with your comment about the British and Libya. They were administering it, after the fall of Italy, during the post war era, but had no intention of retaining it – and put no obstacles to Libyan independence in 1951. And the post war administration was not colonialism – so, we don’t agree.
    As for India – I’m again, not sure of your point in bringing it up in this discussion of Libya. I disagree that the US was instrumental in ending the colonial Era of Britain in India. And, as I said, Britain never colonized Libya – that was the Italians that did that.
    I also disagree with you that the Americans ended the British administration of Libya.
    What WAS going on in this post war era, was the discovery of oil reserves in these nations and, the necessary technological expertise and wealth of Britain and the US to extract and process the oil. This can’t be understood as a colonial phase but as an industrial phase – and, it’s a reality that the Middle East and N African nations didn’t have the technological expertise or investment wealth to deal with oil. It was left, therefore, to the West to do it.
    I don’t know what you mean by colonialism ‘squandering in goodwill’. I think also that you don’t understand the societal phases that occur during the transformation of a society from a non-industrial local agricultural economy to an industrial economy. At first, this transformation is guided and funded by the external agents (the colonists).
    But, eventually, the local population skills and population size and urbanization and economic mode reaches a critical threshold where it can take over the administration of the new industrial economy on its own. It’s not an easy transition – but – it’s inevitable.
    So, I disagree with your narrative of ‘how badly the British treated the Indians’, and also, disagree with your incorrect assumption that the British colonized Libya.
    As for ‘insulting their history and traditions’ – that is, frankly, not relevant. Are people bringing in industrial expertise supposed to deal with the non-industrial life modes of the local people? Why? Apart from curiosity and patronizing attitudes – why? What you are ignoring is that a non-industrial societal organization doesn’t ‘talk with’ an industrial societal organization. And vice versa.
    As for the Libyans destroying the WWII monuments – that is amoral and unethical. Not because of WWII – though why they don’t feel grateful to the British who released them from Italy is a question – but – because of the lack of respect for the dead that ought to be displayed by any ethical human being.
    As for my discourse on colonialism – I see it in an entirely different analytic perspective than you do. You seem to focus on the ‘feelings’ of those who do the colonizing and those who are colonized. I’m not interested in this rather superficial level.
    I’m focusing on the deeper infrastructure, which refers to the economic organization and the population size. That is, my focus is on how a population sustains itself – and I’m interesting in how a new method disseminates and diffuses across the terrain. So, industrialism arose in the West (for population and ecological reasons) – and – then spread across the globe. It had to. You can’t have it isolate. But -How did it spread, understanding that it had to occur rapidly.
    In some cases, by colonialism, which is an external top-down introduction of it, forcing a non-industrial indigeneous population to urbanize and change its economic mode. Then, when a critical threshold is reached, the external agent leaves – willing or not.
    In other cases, by internal revolution as in, for example, China and the Soviet Union, which imploded its old agricultural system, massacred the old ways and essentially, forced the population to change.
    In very few cases is a pre-industrial mode transformed to an industrial one without force. Why? Because of the need for speed. The West took 400 years. The two world wars and the various revolutions compressed this time requirement into one generation for the global transformation.
    So – my focus and analytic perspective is totally different from yours and has nothing to do with the ‘feelings’ of colonization.

39. johnston somehow thinks the British were fighting a colonial war in Libya. I simply don’t get it. It was not a simple situation with a large Italian population screwing up the works. The UN set the date for independence and the British were gone.
    So the US forced the UK to grant India’s independence despite Churchill’s desire to keep it? Churchill was not prime minister and the US helped re-establish many other colonies. Simply put, the UK’s task post-war was to rid itself of colonies. The Labour Party led the way but the rest didn’t protest too much.

40. Like Gaza, events in Libya are the result of contending gangster clans looking for easy cash or
    some advantage over their rivals in the race for loot. Never get sidetracked into trying to analyze
    the smokescreen of reasons offered for their actions.

41. ET
    We are indeed operating on different wavelengths.
    What you call ‘feelings’, I call the national narrative. The living history being passed from generation to generation that is at the crux of national identity and essential to the modern nation state.
    Your analysis is fair, but it fails to see humans as humans, choosing merely to see them as impersonal components of ‘society’.
    That is where your analysis has its shortcomings. History books in those nations are very clear about their assessment of colonialism. THat is what is being passed on to these youth, as well as the current and future leaders of the former colonies. For them, colonialism is far from impersonal. It is still part of their identity.
    As abstract as this may seem, it is a critical driver of these nations. Ask Indians what they think of Tata, and you will hear nothing but outpourings of national pride. It stems from a history of an ironically non-Indian ‘Indian’ industrialist (of Iranian/Zoroastrian ancestry) who was refused entry to a British owned hotel in Bombay. He responded by building the Taj Mahal hotel, the grand icon that was attacked in 2009. Every Indian will tell you, with little-concealed pride, the story of the hotel. And without skipping a beat, they will remind you that those British icons – Jaguar, Land Rover, even Tetley Tea – are now owned by Tata’s nephew. A man not fit to stay in a British hotel that was explicit in its criteria “Dogs and Indians not allowed”, continues to define India’s pride and global aspirations. And it still breeds resentment towards the inherent racism involved.
    That’s a side of colonialism that lives and breathes today, even if it doesn’t lend itself to a technical analytical framework that refused to acknowledge the impact of experience on humans.

42. Scar
    “johnston somehow thinks the British were fighting a colonial war in Libya.”
    No, the British were fighting against the Italians and couldn’t give a damn about the locals.
    Now we’re surprised that the locals don’t give a damn about the fallen British, which is odd to say the least.
    “Simply put, the UK’s task post-war was to rid itself of colonies”
    Indeed, after Churchill lost. But read his diaries and see what he has to say about Roosevelt on India. And read what he has to say about Indian independence.
    To his credit, he realized later that he had erred. On a visit to India after independence, he said to India’s then PM, Nehru, “Sir, I have done you great wrong”. However, that said, one must not forget that he was strongly anti-independence or self-rule when the British were pushing the axis out. A late judgement of error can atone for error, but it doesn’t mean that the errors didnt exist; in fact it confirms their existance.
    Britain eventually gave in to independence because of many factors, not least a sophisticated independence movement that was gaining traction and support in the west because of its ability to speak “western”. British-educated Indian lawyers – Nehru, Gandhi and Jinnah – were at the forefront of these mevements. Where would they have been wihtout the British education? A question worth asking the staunchest anti-colonialists every now adn then, I think.

43. Johnston – I disagree with your focus on a ‘national narrative’ which in your case is not a factual historical narrative but a subjective mythic narrative. That is not, I suggest, a national but always and only, a local and mythic narrative. It is oral and anecdotal rather than supported by hard factual evidence.
    As a people move out of an oral culture, and into a literate culture, they are obliged to focus on facts rather than fiction.
    The analytic frame that I am explaining, which is akin to ‘la longue duree’ historical method of analysis – does indeed focus on long term events, on the deep structures of societal actions, institutions, economic, political and population shifts.
    Focusing on the individual, or ‘human’ perspective ignores and totally misses this deeper infrastructure – to its detriment in understanding what is going on in these broad societal transformations. So- I don’t accept that such a ‘long duree’ focus has shortcomings; such an analytic frame is, in my view, enlightening.
    If the history books are viewing the colonial era only in terms of subjective feelings, then, they are hardly historical analyses! To understand the colonial era, requires that one understand the demographic and economic upheavals of Europe from the 13th c on, the gradual ideological shift from the collective to the individual, the growth of individual reasoning and empirical observation, the enormous increases in population, the necessity for innovative technology etc, etc…and..the resultant search for more resources..which led to the mercantile era and the colonial era.
    THEN – one has to understand the ecological and demographic nature of the colonized lands and examine why they weren’t undergoing the same tectonic shifts as Europe was undergoing. And then, one has to examine the transformation that colonization and industrialism brought to these lands – and the ‘critical threshold’ reached when the colonial phase was over. That explains ‘Tata’ – that critical threshold when the indigeneous peoples have reached the industrial and organizational level of the ‘colonizers’ – and can take over the nation.
    It happened during the Roman era – when Rome brought water, irrigation, roads, currency, markets to previously isolate tribal groups – who finally, increased their populations and economic institutions enough to take over the administration on their own.
    I’m not interesting in people who live, emotionally or intellectually, in the past; who carry all the baggage from the past, who live within the resentment of ‘they did this to us 50, 500, 1,000 years ago’ and I hate them for that’.
    I’m interested in analyzing how our species has organized itself into societies, how it has changed its economic, political and societal institutions as its technological knowledge has increased, as its populations have increased – how we have moved from isolate and adversarial tribes to living within a complex adaptive system, ie, a globally networked world.
    Again, I’m not interested in people who carry the baggage of past generations under their arms and who refuse to consider the opportunities and morning skies of today…rather than yesterday.
    And with regard to your Libyan comments, why should the British ‘give a damn’ about the locals during the war, fighting the Italians..and I’m sure you are aware that many Libyans were fighting alongside the Italians.

44. ET,
    Its much too late to carry on this conversation, but I will simply state that when acts like the one that inspired the thread come along, they are attributable to the subjective myths (and indeed you are right – there are few experts on the nation-state who do not acknowledge that the national narrative is mythical). That doesn’t change the fact (ironically enough) that these myths shape the worldview of the youth who go around carrying out acts like the one above. For what its worth, any historian worth his salt will tell you that the history taught in schools is not based on historical fact – it is based on pragmatism and national agenda. Witness the different narratives surrounding Louis Riel in Canadian textbooks across the country. This mythbuilding is a crucial component of nation-building.
    What, by your analysis, is the cause of these acts, and the SDA contributors reaction to these acts? We are shocked precisely because of some kind of intangible connection to Canadians who fought in a bygone era. Those Canadians weren’t too interested in the locals, they were interested in getting at the huns. Today we see them as heroes who fought to liberate the world That is our own national myth – they were interested in nothing of the sort, even if they were told otherwise. England did not go to WWII to liberate Libya from the Italians. It went war to protect itself, and the war fanned out from there, not out of desire to liberate people, but to deprive the enemy of resources.
    The Libyans don’t owe our fallen soldiers anything. They don’t see them as martyrs. And yet the Australians are offended. As indeed are some here. Why?
    Did the Canadian troops fight in WWII to liberate Libya? Or did they go there to protect Britain? Why should we expect them to revere our troops, when our motives were less altruistic than self-serving?
    Its easy dealing with technicalities and deriding ‘feelings’, but nations are built on feelings and national myths (narratives) reinforce those feelings. Factual history has never been a part of it. It is for academics. The rest get to pick and choose and manipulate history to suit their needs. Good, bad or ugly, that is reality.

45. “And with regard to your Libyan comments, why should the British ‘give a damn’ about the locals during the war, fighting the Italians..and I’m sure you are aware that many Libyans were fighting alongside the Italians.”
    Indeed. And many Indians fought against the British. And yet the Indian National Army holds a special place in Indian history, for doing exactly the opposite of what some 2 million plus Indian soldiers did for the British empire – fighting alongside the Japanese against British India.
    It leads me to conclude that when the Libyans or Indians were fighting alongside the English, their motivations were hardly as clear as the English. Many of them were simply putting food on the table.
    Such is the reality of the post-colonial world. A reality that draws from a resentment of the racism inherent in colonialism.

46. We have a simple solution to medieval fanatics going berserk – neutron bombs. Lovely little devices causing minimal blast damage but sterilizing an area for miles around. Just the thing that is needed to prevent damage to sensitive oil operations infested by islamofascists.

47. johnston – I guess we’ll continue to disagree.
    First, I disagree with you that there is any ‘racism inherent in colonialism’. Your opinion reflects your adherence to the leftist post-colonial ideology – and I reject that academic stance. Its basic axioms, which have their ground in Rousseau’s ‘noble savage’ are in my view – empty.
    Your assumption that the British troops in WWII should only be in Libya for ‘altruistic’ purposes is naive. They were there because one of their fascist enemies, Italy, was there, using that region to destroy Britain and Europe. You consider that ‘self-serving’. What a strange term to use when it is really ‘self-defense’. Hmm.
    The Libyans, as civilized people, DO owe our fallen soldiers something. It’s called respect for the dead. Period. That’s an essential part of ‘being human’ – an attribute to which you frequently refer.
    As for your claim that nations are built on feelings and national myths – of course they are, but these feelings and myths must be grounded, repeatedly, in facts. That is the job of the historian and the information purveyors – to constantly sift through and update what facts exist and ensure that current experience is not too disconnected from reality. If a population moves out of touch with reality, if it moves into pure narrative – then, that population is ill-equiped to deal with the world.
    The top-down energy required to keep a people living in a mythic world is heavy – as we can see in N. Korea, in the Soviet Union, in the Third Reich. But in our modern electronic and Internet world, it is more difficult to maintain these myths. The Libyans who desecrated the cemeteries were acting within mythic tales – but, the real world can’t support their beliefs.
    Colonialism, by the way, was the movement of one economic and political mode into a less complex one. There’s nothing ‘racist’ about this, for an economic and political mode is not tied to ‘race’ – even though the post-colonial viewpoint DOES link these modes to race.

48. The Arabs built everything modern in the ME & NA – Trains, planes and automobiles.
    All the guns and bombs, and all the modern architectural wonders in Dubai, it never ends with their wondrous accomplishments.
    Ya gotta love the oil refineries they built, the rigs and oilfield facilities to pump out all that oil along with the cell phones, computers, internet and other telecommunications to make help it all happen.
    We are blessed to have the Arab contribution to our multicultural world, let’s continue to bring them into the west by the millions to share and enrich us with all of their great accomplishments, their passive love and peace for their fellow man.
    /Liberal Progressive history lessons 101.

49. Is it only me, but does anyone care about Muslims… do we really believe that they can ever have a functioning democracy in the future….and do we really care. Is there such a thing as a democracy in the Middle East…
    We should break off all contact, development, aid with Muslim countries….they all hate us now so lets give them a reason for this hate. How many times do they have t slap us in the face before we get the message….are you listening Mr. Obama or are you still kissing up to these people.

50. I hate Muslim’s, I can get along with and find common ground with everyone else but them.