[shmerek]

This article kills me especially this bit

The report even takes issue with the name of the 2002 law - the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act - saying it "serves as an indication of the prevailing concern for or priority placed upon civil liberties in Canada."

Geez, I guess we better nip that one in the bud, concern for civil liberites what were we thinking

[FeLiZeCaT]

I will not be the door keeper of the U.S. of A.

No one has asked the basic questions regarding the source of these attacks. Nobody has questionned seriously why terrorists would be interested, coming from the Middle East, to the OTHER SIDE OF THE PLANET, to terrorize America.

No one dared to ask.

Ah yeah. I forgot.

"They envy us".

USA: clean up your house and be square and nice to ALL your neighbours and there will not be terrorism. Just stop thinking that because a country has oil and you made a deal with a certain individual of that country, that the rest of the country should comply...

[Phat Bastard]

Originally posted by FeLiZeCaT:
USA: clean up your house and be square and nice to ALL your neighbours and there will not be terrorism. Just stop thinking that because a country has oil and you made a deal with a certain individual of that country, that the rest of the country should comply... [/B]

Great message, but who's listening? I highly doubt Dubya and his cronies read this forum. And if they did, they wouldn't care.

[Spheric Harlot]

:: waits for invasion ::

[Dudaev's Corpse]

stop your knee-jerk rantings. Canada has serious problems with who it lets into its country and how it keeps track of them. It's an open house, come-one-come-call invitation for terrorists and evil-doers.

[FeLiZeCaT]

Quote from Phat Bastard:

Great message, but who's listening? I highly doubt Dubya and his cronies read this forum. And if they did, they wouldn't care.

_______________________________


Ok..

1) Thanks. I needed that and it made my day.

2) What do you suggest as an alternative? I am in as long as it is non-violent and not criminal in nature.

[gadster]

Originally posted by Dudaev's Corpse:
stop your knee-jerk rantings. Canada has serious problems with who it lets into its country and how it keeps track of them. It's an open house, come-one-come-call invitation for terrorists and evil-doers.

Evil-doers . . .

Sheesh.

I can imagine them now, these 'evil-doers' skulking around looking for opportunitiesd to do evil. Like, stealing candy from kids, scaring little old ladies, tying people's shoelaces together and letting off really stinky - but silent - farts in elevators.

Evil-doers, they're everywhere, looking to do evil.

The only people I hate more than your evil-doer, is your do-gooder, don't get me started on do-gooders!

[Developer]

Well, you can't deny Canada did let this mass-murderer into the country. That incident proves poor screening at the customs.

[FeLiZeCaT]

quoted from gadster:

letting off really stinky - but silent - farts in elevators.
_______________________________

Actually, I do not use elevators... I use staircases. And it gives the farting quite a rythm as well!

So not only are they stinky, but their echo is.... erhh.... "echoing" a long long

time...


time...



time...



time...


Edit: I feel this thread will be closed in no time...

[shmerek]

Originally posted by Developer:
Well, you can't deny Canada did let this mass-murderer into the country. That incident proves poor screening at the customs.

Which murderer?

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by FeLiZeCaT:
USA: clean up your house and be square and nice to ALL your neighbours and there will not be terrorism.

If those guys in the Whitehouse were nicer then ETA wouldn't be blowing up tourists on the Costas?

Naive in the extreme.

[FeLiZeCaT]

quote from Sherwin:

f those guys in the Whitehouse were nicer then ETA wouldn't be blowing up tourists on the Costas?

_______________________

I do not get it.. Please explain.

But maybe I did not make myself clear enough. For that I apologize.

Here it is in a few words:

If you did not have all those guys (corporations) so much into fulfilling their needs as capitalists and 1) undermine the work of the UN and 2) controling the WTO (and the IMF with the same token) so the rest of the world fall under the category "to acquire" in some corporative agenda, you would have the reputation as the greatest country of the world.

(I believe that)

But some of you guys either do not care, or live in the comfort of some self-glorification.
(Land of the Free and blablabla). So while you drive your fuel hungry SUVs, some people are being exploited for a good business deal.

No one seems to have found WHY 9/11 has ever happened. It is strange as well that this was the only terrorist act committed against the US on its territory by outsiders. It is also very strange that following that act of terrorism, Ben Laden seems to be the least mentionned (if not to remind us of its existence once in a while) terrorist in the media since the war in Afghanistan.

You think I am naive?

Look at yourself in a mirror: there is another naive right in front of you.

[Developer]

Originally posted by shmerek:
Which murderer?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2293945.stm

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by FeLiZeCaT:
quote from Sherwin:

f those guys in the Whitehouse were nicer then ETA wouldn't be blowing up tourists on the Costas?

_______________________

I do not get it.. Please explain.

You postulated that if the US was nicer to its neighbours, there would be no more terrorism. This is quite clearly inaccurate, as demonstrated by the fact that there are plenty of terrorists out there who have nothing to do with the US.

Moreover, the reason for terrorism is not always to do with the "big guy" oppressing the "little guy". ETA, for example, use terrorism to try to gain a Basque homeland simply because they want one - not because their masters in Madrid are oppressing them in any visible way or that being part of Spain is a bad thing (Catalonia seems to be doing OK without blowing people up).

If we do away with what can be seen as the main causes of terrorism, the activity will not cease - there'll always be someone out there trying to get their own way using whatever means possible. It's just human nature.

To extrapolate: "We don't want any red cars driven in our county and we'll use any means necessary to get what we want, including blowing people up".

[Spliffdaddy]

heh.

Terrorists are targeting westerners - not specifically Americans. It isn't about US foreign policy nor Canadian foreign policy. and it ain't about Dubya. It's because YOU aren't a fundamentalist Islamic militant. To a Islamic fundamentalist terrorist there isn't much difference between a German, a Canadian or an American. When it becomes too difficult to terrorize Americans, they simply attack somewhere else. They hate you because you're a westerner, remember. America is the most obvious western nation...but there are many many others (that are less protected).

[FeLiZeCaT]

Quoted from Sherwin:

If we do away with what can be seen as the main causes of terrorism, the activity will not cease - there'll always be someone out there trying to get their own way using whatever means possible. It's just human nature.

____________________________________

Oh man...

Everyday I hear people talking of their human nature.

And what I hear is "fairness". "Justice". "Respect".

I even heard victims of murder attempts (survivors really) forgiving their attackers because they felt they could understand them and their pain...

Human Nature is not about murder. Human Nature is about feeling good.

And sometimes people feel they have to go to extreme to achieve that, and it is pretty much always because of prior escalation.

Whoever started the whole thing is open for debate.

But it cannot be stopped by more oppression. It cannot. Because people have to compete in their extreme ways to be listened to, until they forget the messaage and remember only that they need to make a lot of noise.

There is something like "Comfort and Indifference" you know. And a lot of intolerance comes from that. Terrorist may be terrible people for their actions and not less condemnable than criminals. But there are terrorists who fill their gas tanks everyday and have no idea of the consequence of that simple action...

Do you really believe I am so naive, still?

[Face Ache]

Perhaps the US Government should assist the 9/11 "investigation" before casting aspersions upon their neighbours. Hmm?

[FeLiZeCaT]

Quote from Sherwin:

Moreover, the reason for terrorism is not always to do with the "big guy" oppressing the "little guy".

_________________________

Makes sense. Like liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussein. Or Afghanistan from the Taliba

And of course, allowing some corporations from the US to do some repairs (let's call that "renovations") is not a form of terrorism.

About the Basque, truthfully, I do not know.

But these days, it seems to be so easy to target the US government... I wonder why...

And I also appreciate your deviation from the topic.

Let me specific about the term "neighbours". I mean:

THE REST OF THE PLANET.

[FeLiZeCaT]

To Developper: Please explain yourself because your post means nothing: you suggest the murderer was from outside the country? I do not see that in the link. Please be specific.

Or accurate.

[Dudaev's Corpse]

Originally posted by FeLiZeCaT:
Makes sense. Like liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussein. Or Afghanistan from the Taliba

what planet do you live on if you don't think Saddam and the Taliban were the 'big guys' and their oppressed peoples were the 'little guys'? I've never seen such an obvious disparity.

[shmerek]

Originally posted by Developer:
Well, you can't deny Canada did let this mass-murderer into the country. That incident proves poor screening at the customs.

I am not aware that he is an immigrant do you have a link?

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Dudaev's Corpse:
stop your knee-jerk rantings. Canada has serious problems with who it lets into its country and how it keeps track of them. It's an open house, come-one-come-call invitation for terrorists and evil-doers.

As it should be.

[Dudaev's Corpse]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
As it should be.

then maybe their permissiveness and weak morals allow them to tolerate things like the huge corruption scandal brewing at the highest levels of their government. A New York Times article, right here.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by FeLiZeCaT:
But these days, it seems to be so easy to target the US government... I wonder why...

You missed the point entirely.

There are thousands of terrorist groups out there targeting other governments to achieve their own ends. The US and her government isn't even in the equation with these conflicts.

The US government being easy to target? Give me a break. They have one terrorist organisation (admittedly a reasonably effective one) going after them at the moment. No more than the Spanish, or the Greeks, or the French, or the Russians, or the Japanese, or the Colombians. The US just happens to speak the World's main language and happens to have a reasonable international news outflow.

There's a terrorist for every reason. And not a sane reason for every terrorist.
We can't hold a government responsible for every single fanatic who disagrees with them. If we did, no governments would exist.

[shmerek]

Originally posted by Dudaev's Corpse:
then maybe their permissiveness and weak morals allow them to tolerate things like the huge corruption scandal brewing at the highest levels of their government. A New York Times article, right here.

It has nothing to do with permissiveness and weak morals just a bunch of political back scratching and we are not tolerating it. The PM has been forced to launch every type of inquire possible due to pressure from the public hardly "tolerant" behavior.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Dudaev's Corpse:
then maybe their permissiveness and weak morals allow them to tolerate things like the huge corruption scandal brewing at the highest levels of their government. A New York Times article, right here.

Doing the right thing in the face of adversity takes strong morals, not weak ones. Something the US could stand to learn.

[Dudaev's Corpse]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Doing the right thing in the face of adversity takes strong morals, not weak ones. Something the US could stand to learn.

so being lax in checking who comes into one's country and allowing nutjobs in is doing the right thing? Hardly.

[shmerek]

Originally posted by Dudaev's Corpse:
so being lax in checking who comes into one's country and allowing nutjobs in is doing the right thing? Hardly.

Do tell which nut jobs are you referring to? I guess the US didn't let in let's say 19 nutjobs?

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Dudaev's Corpse:
so being lax in checking who comes into one's country and allowing nutjobs in is doing the right thing? Hardly.

Promoting freedom is the right thing. What's the need for closed borders?

[Yandi's Carcass]

Originally posted by shmerek:
Do tell which nut jobs are you referring to? I guess the US didn't let in let's say 19 nutjobs?

The US has serious problems as well. At least it has tightened things up a bit. The Saudis are still allowed in like fair-goers through a turnstile, but in general it's harder for would-be terrorists to enter through legal means.

[Yandi's Carcass]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Promoting freedom is the right thing. What's the need for closed borders?

And you want totally open borders? Any criminal, terrorist, or sympathiser can just walk right in? I suppose we're in the business of 'promoting' freedom to these wackos?

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Yandi's Carcass:
And you want totally open borders? Any criminal, terrorist, or sympathiser can just walk right in? I suppose we're in the business of 'promoting' freedom to these wackos?

Yes, open borders and equal protection under the law for everyone, whether they're a citizen or not and whether they're in the US or not.

If we're not going to go that far, we shouldn't be interfereing the affairs of other countries at all.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Promoting freedom is the right thing. What's the need for closed borders?

Ask China about the Mongols.


(edit: spelling. It is pretty late over here)

[Yandi's Carcass]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Yes, open borders and equal protection under the law for everyone, whether they're a citizen or not and whether they're in the US or not.

If we're not going to go that far, we shouldn't be interfereing the affairs of other countries at all.

The West cannot be the free range of the world's population. It does not have that responsibility or duty under morality or treaty. I am not my mullah's keeper. My brother's, perhaps, but not for Ishmail, Ahmed, Kung Lao, Oleg, or Jose.

Countries interfere with each other all the time. You see, it's this new wave called foreign policy. Yeah, it's been sweeping the globe now for, oh, about A HUNDRED THOUSAND YEARS! The policies of other nations impacts other nations, therefore giving the latter the right to attempt to influence the former.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Yandi's Carcass:
The West cannot be the free range of the world's population. It does not have that responsibility or duty under morality or treaty. I am not my mullah's keeper. My brother's, perhaps, but not for Ishmail, Ahmed, Kung Lao, Oleg, or Jose.

Countries interfere with each other all the time. You see, it's this new wave called foreign policy. Yeah, it's been sweeping the globe now for, oh, about A HUNDRED THOUSAND YEARS! The policies of other nations impacts other nations, therefore giving the latter the right to attempt to influence the former.

People have murdered, raped, and pillaged for oh, about A HUNDRED THOUSAND YEARS! I guess that makes it right.

[Dudaev's Corpse]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
People have murdered, raped, and pillaged for oh, about A HUNDRED THOUSAND YEARS! I guess that makes it right.

pursuing the best interest's of one's nation is now wrong? By extension, fighting for freedom, liberating Europe from Fascism, and winning the Cold War were all WRONG because they were part of FOREIGN POLICY.

[nonhuman]

Doh, double post. I blame my proxy server.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Dudaev's Corpse:
pursuing the best interest's of one's nation is now wrong? By extension, fighting for freedom, liberating Europe from Fascism, and winning the Cold War were all WRONG because they were part of FOREIGN POLICY.

Pursuing your own interests in such a way as to prevent others from doing the same is wrong. Fighting for freedom, especially the freedom of others, is about as noble a pursuit as I can think of (that involves fighting). But if you're going to claim to want freedom for all people, then live up to that claim damnit.

[Dudaev's Corpse]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Pursuing your own interests in such a way as to prevent others from doing the same is wrong. Fighting for freedom, especially the freedom of others, is about as noble a pursuit as I can think of (that involves fighting). But if you're going to claim to want freedom for all people, then live up to that claim damnit.

Wanting freedom for the world is quite different than handing it to them at the West's expense and on a silver platter. Those who have freedom have worked hard for it or, in the case of older nations, have given their lives so that their progeny can enjoy what they could not. It is not the responsibility--ethically, morally, or under law--for the West to provide for the well-being of the rest of the world.

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime. The world, nonhuman, needs to fend for itself, and learn that they are in control of their future, and waiting on the West to give it is a weak, cowardly excuse.

[FeLiZeCaT]

Quote from Sherwin:

You postulated that if the US was nicer to its neighbours, there would be no more terrorism. This is quite clearly inaccurate, as demonstrated by the fact that there are plenty of terrorists out there who have nothing to do with the US.
_________________________________

Let me rephrase that. And I apologize for not making myself clearer.;

I postulate that that if the U.S. government had a better control over its corporations, and more respect for the integrity of other countries, there would be less terrorism.

That is without counting on the possibility that some terrorist attacks may very well have been orchestrated by some subversive Intelligence service actually blamed for it's apparent lack of intelligence.

Let me give you an example.

Bolivia and Bechtel (San Francisco).

At some point, they (Bechtel) owned all waters and even the raining water and were charging its already very poor population for it.
The population reacted and the Army tried to stop the manifestations. Many people died. Women. Children. Not many soldiers of course. Then the people took over.

This is one example.

How could a population not react? How could someone not be inspired to become a terrorist?

Do you want a few more examples?

Here is a collection of them:

http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/free/imf/

Let me add as well that the US is the target of this post because of the post beginning at the head of this thread. I do not believe the US government is the cause of all terrorism on this planet, nor do I believe there are no other countries doing what can cause, in the short or long term, terrorism. What I am trying to express here is that is a lot of power is concentrated in a few hands and because nothing (apparently, it is helped sometimes!) is done to stop them, they create more trouble than necessary. The US is easy to target because a lot of that power is there. But it is definitely not the only country where you have a lot of power concentrated and acting at the detriment of others, and I believe this is one of the roots for terrorism.

I hope I am clearer here.

[FeLiZeCaT]

Quote from Dudayev's Corpse:

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime.

__________________________

Indeed.

As long as they have access to the sea and they are not trespassing private corporate properties.

As long as someone did not get the rights over the fishing technologies.

As long as there is access to the boats.

As long as there is fish in those waters...

[Logic]

Originally posted by Dudaev's Corpse:
Wanting freedom for the world is quite different than handing it to them at the West's expense and on a silver platter. Those who have freedom have worked hard for it or, in the case of older nations, have given their lives so that their progeny can enjoy what they could not. It is not the responsibility--ethically, morally, or under law--for the West to provide for the well-being of the rest of the world.

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime. The world, nonhuman, needs to fend for itself, and learn that they are in control of their future, and waiting on the West to give it is a weak, cowardly excuse.

Then what was the US doing in Iraq?

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by Dudaev's Corpse:
Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime.

And slapping a man about the face with a haddock while yelling "EAT THE ****ING FISH" gets you...

[Logic]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
And slapping a man about the face with a haddock while yelling "EAT THE ****ING FISH" gets you...

[gadster]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
And slapping a man about the face with a haddock while yelling "EAT THE ****ING FISH" gets you...

Nice.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Dudaev's Corpse:
Wanting freedom for the world is quite different than handing it to them at the West's expense and on a silver platter. Those who have freedom have worked hard for it or, in the case of older nations, have given their lives so that their progeny can enjoy what they could not. It is not the responsibility--ethically, morally, or under law--for the West to provide for the well-being of the rest of the world.

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime. The world, nonhuman, needs to fend for itself, and learn that they are in control of their future, and waiting on the West to give it is a weak, cowardly excuse.

Oh yeah, I've worked sooo hard for my freedom. I mean, it took so much effort to be born in the US as a white straight male! And since I worked so hard for it, obviously everyone who doesn't have the same freedoms as me is lazy and I shouldn't care that they aren't free because they don't deserve it as much as I do.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Developer:
Well, you can't deny Canada did let this mass-murderer into the country. That incident proves poor screening at the customs.

And you can't deny that the US let ALL of the 9/11 terrorists into the country. That incident proves poor screening at the customs.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
heh.

Terrorists are targeting westerners - not specifically Americans.

If that's the case, and Canada is so easy to get into, why has nothing blown up here yet? Seems to me that the only targets have been American. Sorry, but I don't interpret attacks against the US as attacks against "Western Civilization".

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
If that's the case, and Canada is so easy to get into, why has nothing blown up here yet? Seems to me that the only targets have been American. Sorry, but I don't interpret attacks against the US as attacks against "Western Civilization".

The only reason they didn't attack Canada is, they [Canadians] are feared the world
over. Where else would they get their treasured "Pure Maple" syrup?

Can you imagine the prices of PMS? Oh, I made a double-funny.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
The only reason they didn't attack Canada is, they [Canadians] are feared the world
over. Where else would they get their treasured "Pure Maple" syrup?

Can you imagine the prices of PMS? Oh, I made a double-funny.

I think in your attempt to sling mud, you actually made my point.