Lesson of 93 - Terrorists, Victims Are Not Moral Equivalents

Now here is racism if I've ever seen it. Where are those moderators when real racists make such blatant posts. Just ask those hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens protesting in the states yesterday, or natives trying to survive, or blacks in ghettoes, or pot activists trying to save cancer patients, or the rapidly expanding working poor populations about that 'equal opportunity'. Anybody who thinks the roman republic had 'equal opportunity measures' knows little of history, and less of the present. "Great" is of course highly speculative. The societies deemed great in our history have generally been the most violent. Ask a native whose millions of ancestors were wiped out when the country was colonized about how 'great' their conquerers are. As for the 'anglosphere', whatever that is,(perhaps this post would be more welcome at the 'stormfront' website), 'greatness' is even more highly speculative. In the annals of history I doubt more than a footnote will be given New Zealand whose chief claim to fame is that a really popular movie was made there. Canada likewise has little even of the 'violent greatness' that characterizes the history that victors write. Britain is a sagging power on the world stage, the US is the only 'anglo' country that would be deemed 'great' by many standards-most of which are that it is the most violent-as the british, Spanish, French, Roman, etc., were before them. However, there are great things about the US, we've had this discussion at the direct democracy site. Second to Switzerland they have the most democracy, however, as we are seeing, all it takes is a powerful federal state to override ALL democratic gains. This is why in setting up democracies around the world the US makes sure not to mimic it's own society closely. You'll notice when these conquered territories get 'democracy' things like citizens initiatives are not among the available tools. Anybody that thinks a religion that encompasses close to a billion is 'one thing' knows even less than they do about history. The reality is so far from the case presented there is no point in even discussing the delusion. I've never seen this entirely fictional movie, if anything, the act of the planes attacking the US are ones of the aggrieved finally attacking those who have made their lives miserable for so long. It wasn't the people of Iraq who kept Saddam in power, it isn't the people of Saudi Arabia that keep the brutal royal family in power. It isn't even the jewish people that form Israeli "foreign" policy. That has been the result of American foreign policy. The ones who created the taliban in the first place, and still arm their warlords. If anything the arabs learned from history, that the "anglosphere", meaning the US, is such a rogue state that it will not even listen to the judgments of the highest court in the world. The extremely sad, and unfortunate factor is that the US forced this onto themselves, and should be held accountable. When the Nicaraguans brought their grievances to the UN and international criminal court, the US was found guilty, told to pay reparations, and get out of Nicaragua. Not only did they not listen, they actually expanded the war to include 'soft targets', meaning agricultural communes, hospitals, schools, etc. The press in the states carried on as if this was 'sensible policy'. Even the 'left', meaning liberal elite democrats, maintained that its the right thing to do, kill thousands of innocents, so long as the end is the right outcome. So countries all over the world now know there is absolutely no point in taking the US to criminal court, they'll just laugh. They know there is no point is playing the weak and feeble card showing the world their innocence, because US media will just give it the correct 'spin'. Every country in the world that isn't frighteningly towing the line, hoping for scraps, and tolerating their ignoring their own trade laws (as Canada does) knows that the only way to fight back, is with force. That's why people all over the world expressed sympathy for the victims, but press in Ireland, Africa, South America, and Asia, even some in the US at that time, said that they weren't surprised. When you rule the world by force, you can expect retaliation. There's a very good reason these planes didn't crash into buildings in Switzerland or Norway, not because they aren't 'great' (by many measures Switzerland is the most successful nation to have ever existed), but because they aren't arming thug dictators and attacking indiscriminately. So peddle your hatemongering elsewhere, perhaps the KKK will buy into such grandiose ideas of what the 'anglosphere' is, but to a good percentage of the world, the only thing 'great' about them, is the rampant descruction they are causing the planet to serve the wants of a tiny percentage, their tendency to more violence than anybody else, their utter disdain for anybody else with a different idea of what a society should look like, and their acceptance that 'freedom' means choice between various consumer products. Do a little research on Islam, and you will find almost all the stereotypes are completely false. For example, just do a search on 'islamic banking' and you will find financial institutions which operate on a system similar to early christian and even hebrew doctrines-ideas that have long been abandoned by every 'modern' society.

[QUOTE BY= Algonquin Pk Vis] The movie showed that Western politicians are failing us by not making us and, more importantly, our children proud of just how different and better we are. Sorry, all is not relative. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] Now here is racism if I've ever seen it. Where are those moderators when real racists make such blatant posts. [/QUOTE] Sorry, but I'm perhaps just 'missing' it. I don't see anything in his post that would consitiute 'racism'. I read it a few times, just to be sure. It seems to me he's simply making a 'western society' vs 'islamic totalarianism' argument, not 'whites' vs 'little brown people' one. Please correct me if I'm not seeing it. But I'm sure the movie is a wonderful bit of fiction.

"the fact that the Islamic world is just the opposite. It is wrapped in medieval fear, hatred and blood feud. Sometimes the operative rhetoric changes; for a moment in time they are "Ba'ath socialists", "pan-Arabs" or "Islamists". The common denominator remains the same; fear, hatred and xenophobia." "The English-speaking world has all of the above characteristics of equality of opportunity, openness and freedom." "racism-a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race"

[QUOTE BY= Marcarc] "racism-a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race"[/QUOTE] Exactally. How does that relate to a discussion of political ideologies? Race was never discussed. Nor language, nor country of origin.

- sorry couldn't add earlier; but he is dead wrong that 'English=Democracy'. Democracy also come French, Italian, German, Ukranian, Polish, Afrikkan, Swahili, Farsi . . . Am I mistaken to think that the Islamofacists are responsible for corrupting Islam and creating the Homicide-Bomber culture?

"Islamic world" is clearly meant as raced based, particularly as mentioned, opposing "anglosphere" (again, whatever that is). To say that the post is 'political' and not 'race' based is nonsense, we can likewise say that ALL comments about race are meant as political issues, not race issues. All we have to do is look at the thread locked by StThompson claiming that is clearly racism, when it can just as easily be described as immigration. So clearly there is 'certain' types of racism that is quite acceptable and a 'matter of interpretation', namely when it is about those of the middle east, and simply not tolerated when it of the type mentioned in that other thread. Personally I don't care, it's unfortunate to see the heavy handed moderation on some threads and its non existence on others. As said elsewhere, it is easily debated that these "Islamofascists" (I guess we can be as derogatory as we like as long as we don't attack a 'race') are in fact freedom fighters. It is not their military in our countries, and suicide bombing is simply a military tactic. Yes, it involves a human sacrifice, this was also common in Vietnam as well as China and Japan. Of course western military's also had many soldiers who went on 'suicide missions', in fact any war can be called that since those who fight have no idea whether they will die or not. So a suicide bombing has nothing to do with Islam, it is common in virtually every military strategy manual. It's usually as a last resort, and this has been shown to be true in the middle east as well. If palestinians had the weaponry the Israelis do, we'd certainly be seeing a far different war there. As far as sacrificing yourself for your country, faith, family, whatever,that is not restricted to Afghanistan-one hopes. Those who claim that the US is engaged in a christian fight of course have to overcome the reality of Jesus' extreme pacifism. Muslims do not have to do that, just read the Quran and see. So if anything, active rebellion against foreign fascists is far more conducive to Islam than it is Christianity, which is no doubt why we are seeing the membership of that religion exploding worldwide.

To get back to the lesson of 93, what did the NTSB investigation show, oh thats right, there wasn't one. Is that because we live in a free, democratic society or is it because we live in a corrupt medieval quasi dictatorship where the media makes up stories of how great we are and glosses over the millions our western civilization has exterminated? The real lesson of 93 is that we don't know what happened because all the evidence has been confiscated and no competent official investigation has been undertaken.

[QUOTE BY= Marcarc] "Islamic world" is clearly meant as raced based, particularly as mentioned, opposing "anglosphere" (again, whatever that is). To say that the post is 'political' and not 'race' based is nonsense, we can likewise say that ALL comments about race are meant as political issues, not race issues. [/quote] A decision was made by the editors long ago that we would follow the Criminal Code of Canada's guidelines on what is racism. That eliminates our opinion on the matter, and provides a concrete, unchanging guideline. If every time someone mentioned 'communism' or 'neo-con', I deleted it as 'racism', we wouldn't have long conversations would we? As far as 'angloshpere' whatever that is, I prefer not to attribute to racism what can be more accurately attributed to poor english. [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] Personally I don't care, it's unfortunate to see the heavy handed moderation on some threads and its non existence on others. [/quote] Seriously? I haven't moderated a single comment in nearly 3 weeks, yet we are both 'heavy handed' and 'missing in action' at the same time? [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] As said elsewhere, it is easily debated that these "Islamofascists" (I guess we can be as derogatory as we like as long as we don't attack a 'race') are in fact freedom fighters. [/quote] "Islamic based facism". How more racist do you want to get? "Constitutional Monarchy?" "Buddist Anarchist"? <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/smile.gif' alt='Smile'> You need your racism detector re-tuned, bud. Freedom fighters do not kill civillians and children in crowded markets. 'Freedom Fighters' require the sympathy of the people in order for the people to covertly support their cause. Killing them does not make them condusive to your cause. Conversely, 'Freedom Fighters' that don't have the support of the people must turn to stealing from those people in order to keep fighting, as the people will stop supporting their cause. Wow. I just described 'Hamas'. [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] Of course western military's also had many soldiers who went on 'suicide missions', [/quote] Name one. G'head. Just one. See, there is no such mission, because they were all expected to come back, although the probability was low. Homicide bombers do not intend to come back. And they want to kill as many women and children as possible when they do it. [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] in fact any war can be called that since those who fight have no idea whether they will die or not.[/quote] Wow. Then so can driving your car to work each morning. [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] So a suicide bombing has nothing to do with Islam, it is common in virtually every military strategy manual. [/quote] Name one. [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] As far as sacrificing yourself for your country, faith, family, whatever,that is not restricted to Afghanistan-one hopes. [/quote] Don't change the subject. Afghanistan is a country. Islamo-Facism exists in others, such as Malayasia and Saudi Arabia. [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] Those who claim that the US is engaged in a christian fight of course have to overcome the reality of Jesus' extreme pacifism. Muslims do not have to do that, just read the Quran and see. [/quote] Totally agree with you there. There is no 'turn the other cheek' in the Q'uran. [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] So if anything, active rebellion against foreign fascists is far more conducive to Islam than it is Christianity, which is no doubt why we are seeing the membership of that religion exploding worldwide. [/QUOTE] No, it's not. Muslims are just as pacifist as Christians. At least, in theory. It's the 'Islamists' that have corrupted it, just as 'Skinheads' use distorted Christianity as their weapon.

There is no such thing as 'racism' under the canadian criminal code. I can be as racist as I want to be, that's part of the price of living in a free country. Perhaps you are thinking of this: " s. 181 of the Criminal Code, which provides that "[e]very one who wilfully publishes a statement, tale or news that he knows is false and causes or is likely to cause injury or mischief to a public interest is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment . . ." This was struck down as being unconstitutional and against the charter. You may recognize it as the Zundel case, which is why Zundel was held under the new 'terrorism laws' until Austria conveniently came up with a more convenient law and he could be extradicted. I don't give a rat's ass who locks the threads, or even if they do, this is not personal. It was StThompson who locked the other thread, and there was no 'racism' evident there at all. There is one or two lines where that idea can come from, but as said, the lines have more to do with immigration than race, and anybody doing research on Canada's immigration policies knows there is LOTS there that deserves to be openly discussed. But if every time it is brought up, somebody says 'that's racist', then clearly it won't go far. "Anglosphere" is far from improper english, it is very common usage among white supremacists and racists, just type it in your browser and see what comes up. Whether moderation means actively closing a thread or just making the mention that it is racist-or even borderline racist, after the site just went through a two week period where 'moderation' was everywhere seems worthy of mention. I got suspended for just saying the word "locked", which has nothing to do with racism at all. Like I said, everything can be open to interpretation, I can make derogatory remarks about any race and claim its just 'bad english'. As said, the difference is in the threads that get locked, and the ones where nothing is said at all. Even terms like 'islamofascists' are convenient uses of racism. Freedom fighters are of course exactly what the term denotes, they fight for freedom. You fight for freedom with whatever means are necessary. If civilians are killed, then a muslim knows they are going to heaven- people DIE no matter what, its just a question of when and how. If in a war zone those fighting against occupiers had to make plans of "OK, we'd better use tranquilizer darts in case some civilians are hit because we need their sympathy", that would be stupid. The occupiers are under no such guidelines and during the advance killed indiscriminately. The argument also misses the key point that we have no idea what goes on in these countries, we get news through numerous filters, most of which are heavily editrialized. In Afghanistan just about every attack and suicide bomber has been going where troops are, not in crowded marketplaces killing children. If you even think you have any idea of what 'hamas' is about, clearly you've never been to Palestine and know only what you read in newspapers. Again, its all interpretation, you may call people 'islamists' who want occupying forces out, and may see it as a distortion of the quran, but I'm thinking you haven't actually READ the quran. There is no 'theory' of pacifism in there. The term islamist makes no sense, I don't even know what it means, every muslim is an islamist. In fact, it can be easily argued that the 'freedom fighters' are the true 'islamists', and those who stand around and say "heh, we could use a few burger king joints here anyway" and do nothing are the transgressors. Much as if a christian is asked for a dollar and says "ah, you'll just use it for drugs". Jesus was pretty clear what to do in such cases, as is islam, which is why virtually every new 'objectionable leader' the media comes across is usually a cleric. It isn't a distortion at all, which is why every military strategist told Bush and co. that illegally attacking Iraq would multiply the number of 'terrorists'. That tends to happen -when you commit international terrorism and invade countries illegally-lots more of the people affected get angry and get armed. As far as the concept of suicide missions, just because 'our' side doesn't call them that, doesn't mean they don't exist. It comes down to a question of odds, if you are dumb enough to think that the odds of you dying in your car in the morning, are about the same as advancing across a field in a war zone to gain a stronger position, then clearly there is no arguing with such delusions-or paranoia, depending how scared you are of your car in the morning. Take during the second world war, there are even more examples in the first world war, in fact the first world war was literally suicide mission after suicide mission. Extreme numbers of soldiers were needed because of the new use of the gatling gun. To advance to the next trench simply meant the front line died, and usually the first ten lines died, in fact in most cases the WHOLE damn line died because it was hoped that the gatling gun couldn't keep up with the number of soldiers being thrown at it, which turned out not to be the case. In the british military even during the second world war you had a guy whose only job was to carry a flag and walk in FRONT of everybody else. When he was shot, then another soldier dropped his weapon and picked up the flag and continued on. Man, if THATS not suicide we've got very different ideas of what suicide is. Sure, there's a very slim chance the enemy won't hit a guy with a huge colourful marker walking in front of everybody else unarmed, but then there's also a chance that a suicide bomber won't die in the explosion! Chances are about the same. During the second world war, here's how british infantry was done. When an attack was decided, the officers, who stood at the back, got out their pistols and blew their whistles (that was REAL smart, it's like ANNOUNCING the 'suicide missions'). The guy with the flag would start out, followed by the front line of infantry. As said, when the flag guy fell, another picked it up. In case you didn't know, the officers didn't need pistols since they were at the back, they had pistols because any soldier who thought twice and tried to bolt or refused to go forward was shot. So you've got a double suicide there, from what I've read, islamic suicide bombers actually sign up, they aren't forced by their own 'commanders'. That's western military, right up to the last major war we were involved in. If you don't believe me, by all means head to the library, hit some military history websites, or talk to a veteran-they usually like the company anyway. What I found so strange was the fact that most of these guys would have thought it an honour to carry the flag, but perhaps they just thought they'd be expected to say that. On the field it could have been very different. You can say that the guys on the front line 'may not die', and of course there is that 'chance' they won't. But just look at the casualty list and you can easily see that's not the case. In the first world war, of front line soldiers the mortality rate was about 95% and a new soldier lasted about two weeks. As said, that's about the odds of you not dying when your incidiary device goes off. The 'kamikaze' strikes of WW2 are often credited to Japan's 'culture', which is untrue. A good book on this is "the Divine Wind". Japanese military leaders argued this policy for a long time, the decision to use it was based on the knowledge of the allied superiority in arms and men, and the certainty of its results. In other words, like in all cases, it is a last resort. The primary distinction is that in the british military, it's not 'called' suicide, because then every soldier would figure he's better off running for it. It is, of course, implicit in military training that no matter what one is commanded to do, a soldier must do it or face court martial, and that is no less true of our military than of the japanese. That's why, as said, british officer carried guns. Most people don't realize this, but the primary reason for the seemingly illogical european formation during the numerous wars of the 1800's was not meant to replicate Roman maniples (who were heavily shielded) but because its far easier to control the group. Those men who were deemed more 'trustworthy' were placed around the periphery, while the new recruits and potential malcontents were in the middle, making it impossible for them to flee, something that is extremely common in warfare. That is also why new recruits were placed at the front, they had not yet proven themselves, and were 'dispensible' because they had no experience. Again, you might want to pretend that an advance under such conditions is not suicide, but I think if you were one of those recruits in formation, in a trench called to muster, or on a desert field when the whistle is blown, you'd have a far different interpretation of what 'suicide' means. So for 'examples' of it, there are thousands, perhaps millions. As said, from a military strategists point of view, it is unfortunate, but necessary. I doubt british officers really wanted to shoot their own men, but it was necessary under the conditions. If they wanted to advance, then the front lines were expendable. No strategist WANTS it, but it's necessary. Similarly, if you are in an occupied country, all kinds of decisions need to be made and I doubt many of those making the decisions are thinking that 'if we do this people may not like us'. In Afghanistan we see far fewer suicide bombings, because they are not as necessary, hell, I think I heard one canadian soldier was killed with an axe, but that might not be true. In Palestine it is far more common because these people are outside a giant wall and literally have no way to get at the people opposing them. So again, 'suicide missions' are not relegated to islamic groups, they have a LONG history. The difference in the west is simply in semantics and idealogy-they didn't TELL the soldiers it was suicide, which perhaps says a lot about it.

[QUOTE BY= Marcarc] There is no such thing as 'racism' under the canadian criminal code. I can be as racist as I want to be, that's part of the price of living in a free country. Perhaps you are thinking of this: " s. 181 of the Criminal Code, which provides that "[e]very one who wilfully publishes a statement, tale or news that he knows is false and causes or is likely to cause injury or mischief to a public interest is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment . . ." [/Quote] No, I'm thinking of sections 318 and 319. "Hate speech" 318. (4) In this section, "identifiable group" means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin. 319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of: <a href='http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/c-46/41491.html'>Link</a> [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] I don't give a rat's ass who locks the threads, or even if they do, this is not personal. It was StThompson who locked the other thread, and there was no 'racism' evident there at all. There is one or two lines where that idea can come from, but as said, the lines have more to do with immigration than race, and anybody doing research on Canada's immigration policies knows there is LOTS there that deserves to be openly discussed. But if every time it is brought up, somebody says 'that's racist', then clearly it won't go far. [/quote] And that's exactally my point here. Susan felt that thread was racist, as did I. I saw no point in dignifying that thread with a response, and the editors did recieve complaints about that thread. So, Susan locked it. It's not personal, I'm just trying to establish ground rules for everyone. Because a couple words can be attributed to standard 'white power' mantra, does that make the person racist? Does that make the comments they made racist? Does every post by that particular person need to be moderated as such in the future? We can't have discussions about racism and how to combat it without using such words, just like we can't have discussions about political ideologies if people consider that the discussion about those ideologies is directed at the people who practice them, and thereby to be racist. Non-sequitr. [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] "Anglosphere" is far from improper english, it is very common usage among white supremacists and racists, just type it in your browser and see what comes up. [/quote] Be that as it may, does that make the rest of his argument irrelevant? In order to be considered <a href='http://www.vivelecanada.ca/multifaq/index.php?topic=&qt_id=105&getlevel='>unacceptable</a> it needs to meet certain criteria. He may have used "Anglosphere. That portion of the world community that speaks English and subscribes to certain principles of law and human rights." but that does not provide the pre-requisite discrimination because it is defining a certain population or area of the world. [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] Whether moderation means actively closing a thread or just making the mention that it is racist-or even borderline racist, after the site just went through a two week period where 'moderation' was everywhere seems worthy of mention. [/quote] Again, my point. A couple words and phrases does not make this thread racist. It still goes back to intent, and all I see is someone who, while possibly misguided in other areas, just wants to discuss his love of democracy vs the portrayal of opression represented by fundemental Islamists that the movie "Flight 93" highlights. And, yes, heavy moderation does tend to come in cycles. We try not to be overbearing, but with the whole 'Census' thing, we needed to be squeaky clean from a legal standpoint. By promoting and allowing the promotion of total non-compliance with the Census this month, we may be opening ourselves personally to charges of promoting the comission of a crime. Vive needed to be absolutely beyond reproach everywhere else. [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] I got suspended for just saying the word "locked", which has nothing to do with racism at all. [/quote] Racism? I was hoping you understood what happened there. If you go out in public, dressed in an RCMP uniform, driving a reproduction police cruiser and start arresting people - it's not a joke. While I and everyone else knows you were kidding, someone else didn't think you were. Determining it's not a joke by the written word is much more difficult that the case of the fake police officer. There had to be limits set to maitain the trust and integrity of the moderators here by the general readership. That's why you were asked to stand in a corner for a while. [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] Like I said, everything can be open to interpretation, I can make derogatory remarks about any race and claim its just 'bad english'. As said, the difference is in the threads that get locked, and the ones where nothing is said at all. [/quote] No, as above, derogatory remarks about a particular 'race' are quite clear. The difference in these threads is no one chose to dignify the other one with a response. [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] Even terms like 'islamofascists' are convenient uses of racism. [/quote] Again, you may choose to equate 'Islam' with Arabs, and therefore with a particular 'race', but I've known many muslims who weren't Arab, therefore I don't make that connection. Just as I don't equate 'english' with 'caucasians'. I also don't subscribe to the concept of 'race', as it's simply a social construct used to describe people with general physical attributes, nothing more. I use 'Islamofacism' as a description of a particular political ideology and the people who wield it over others, not of the people who are subject to it. [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] Freedom fighters are of course exactly what the term denotes, they fight for freedom. You fight for freedom with whatever means are necessary. [/quote] Uhhh, no. 'Freedom Fighting' is as you say, fighting for one's freedom. 'Guerllia Tactics' are what is used when one is fighing a vastly superior force. When you start using 'whatever means nessecary', you cross the line away from 'Freedom Fighter' to 'enemy of the people'. [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] If civilians are killed, then a muslim knows they are going to heaven- people DIE no matter what, its just a question of when and how. [/quote] As above, when 'whatever means nessecary' becomes 'Ok to target non-military targest, civillians, women, children' then it's a line that shouldn't be crossed. [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] If in a war zone those fighting against occupiers had to make plans of "OK, we'd better use tranquilizer darts in case some civilians are hit because we need their sympathy", that would be stupid. The occupiers are under no such guidelines and during the advance killed indiscriminately. [/quote] Please see: Geneva Convention. [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] The argument also misses the key point that we have no idea what goes on in these countries, we get news through numerous filters, most of which are heavily editrialized. [/quote] You may get your news filtered (although not near as much as you might suspect), but I have 'inside lines'. [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] In Afghanistan just about every attack and suicide bomber has been going where troops are, not in crowded marketplaces killing children. [/quote] To their credit, they are following the 'Freedom Fighter, Guerella Rules'. They see what is going on in Iraq, and how it's turning the Iraqi people against their own. The troops know they are targets. It's the civillians who should be left alone. [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] If you even think you have any idea of what 'hamas' is about, clearly you've never been to Palestine and know only what you read in newspapers. [/quote] Hehehe. Well I was going to leave this subject well alone, because I don't believe ethier side is has any moral high ground to stand on, but let me say: no one has been to palestine, because no such place exists. I have been to Isreal, and you're right, no one here can comprehend what it's like to be there. Myself included. But Isreal, unlike Hamas, is not calling for the genocide of an entire people. [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] Again, its all interpretation, you may call people 'islamists' who want occupying forces out, and may see it as a distortion of the quran, but I'm thinking you haven't actually READ the quran. [/quote] I have, translated in English. My Arabic, what little I have, sucks. [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] There is no 'theory' of pacifism in there. The term islamist makes no sense, I don't even know what it means, every muslim is an islamist. [/quote] Traditionally, the follower of the religion 'Islam' is the 'Muslim' (eg: Judaism - Jew, Christianity - Christian). The 'Islamist' refers to the hard line Muslim, those who follow a rather extreme interpretation of the Q'uran. (Shi'ite vs Sunni) eg: a womans hair should be covered exept in the home, vs A woman must be covered totally, even the ankles, and escorted by a male family member when outside the home. Since the Q'uran says 'To kill one innocent man is as bad as killing all of mandkind' and 'to be tolerant of the christian and the jew' (forgive the paraphrasing here, I'm a little rusty) but it also says 'to kill an infidel [unbeliver] is riteous' one could say these are conflicting ideologies; one calling for pacifism and harmony, the other to kill any non-muslim on sight. [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] As far as the concept of suicide missions, just because 'our' side doesn't call them that, doesn't mean they don't exist. [/quote] Again, because the odds of survival are low, does not make it 'suicide' or that soldiers don't perform selfless acts in their service (falling on a grenade to protect their comrads, for example). The difference, is the mission is not intended to be a one way trip, and a sucessful outcome is where the soldier does return. Homicide bombers have no such intention. [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] It comes down to a question of odds, if you are dumb enough to think that the odds of you dying in your car in the morning, are about the same as advancing across a field in a war zone to gain a stronger position, then clearly there is no arguing with such delusions-or paranoia, depending how scared you are of your car in the morning. [/quote] Having been in the Balkans, and Edmonton rush hour, I'd give you better odds in Serbia. I've nearly been rear-ended by gravel trucks several times this spring. [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] Take during the second world war, there are even more examples in the first world war, in fact the first world war was literally suicide mission after suicide mission. [/quote] That was normal warfare, for those times. Just like the advancing line of riflemen was standard tactics in the 1700's until the invention of the Tennesee Sniper. [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] Extreme numbers of soldiers were needed because of the new use of the gatling gun. ... [/quote] Again, examples of old tactics. But still not 'suicide' missions. [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] In the british military even during the second world war you had a guy whose only job was to carry a flag and walk in FRONT of everybody else. When he was shot, then another soldier dropped his weapon and picked up the flag and continued on. [/quote] Yep. The piper, and the flagbearer go back thousands of years in combat. But times change. Just as the Lancer obsoleted the Cavalry rider, thngs change. You won't find the front line piper post WWI. [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] Man, if THATS not suicide we've got very different ideas of what suicide is. [/quote] Being a symbol of courage for your comrades has come a long way. But strapping explosives to your chest and walking into a crowded market is still my definition. [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] During the second world war, here's how british infantry was done. ... [/quote] No, you're thinking 1st WW. That type of trench warfare ended the day Canadian Generals commanded Canadian troops, and we invented the 'creeping barrage'. Look it up. [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] I think I heard one canadian soldier was killed with an axe, but that might not be true. [/quote] It's not. He lived. He was negotiating with the villiage elder, and took of his helmet and set down his gun as a sign of good faith and respect. One of the villiage teens hit him from behind with an axe. Since nothing happens in small villiages without the knowledge and permission of the elder, then the elder knew it was coming. Not friendly at all. So, the teen was of course worm food (should not have brought a knife to a gunfight). But the villiage is now no longer a stop for relief supplies. [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] In Palestine it is far more common because these people are outside a giant wall and literally have no way to get at the people opposing them. So again, 'suicide missions' are not relegated to islamic groups, they have a LONG history. [/quote] Indeed, they do. However, not so far back as 'the Art of War'. [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] The difference in the west is simply in semantics and idealogy-they didn't TELL the soldiers it was suicide, which perhaps says a lot about it.[/QUOTE] No, your incorrect. A soldier is told (in Western armies anyhow) the odds of survival, and asked to volunteer. Typically.

Clearly if the intent is to be 'squeeky clean', and since 'hate speech' identifies religion, and if, as said, the word 'locked' resulted in action just because an individual commented that they thought their thread was locked even though the 'post reply' button was clearly displayed, then that validates the concern about editorial consistency. And yeah, it's EXACTLY the same as dressing up as a police officer. In fact, it's as if I had dressed up as a police officer and SHOT somebody. Puhleeze. In the one case, as I've said, it's 'debateable', and since the moderators tend to agree with the poster then there's no problem. In other words, there is no consistency here, that's my point and there really is no point labouring it further. "Intent" IS the issue, and it's a tricky one, in the one case there is no debate to examine 'intent', the thread is simply locked, in the other, the 'intent' is simply assumed to be "his love of democracy". That's pretty specious, as the comment didn't even contain the word 'democracy' and had nothing to do with it. Most of the rest is simply arguing points of view, and everybody is entitled to that. However, one point is completely wrong, and that is that somehow it took until 1920 for people to learn to 'creep'. I didn't say anything about trenches, I said how british infantry operated. I don't NEED to look it up because I've got over a dozen members of my family and friends who were IN World War 2 in the british infantry. They still used pipers in world war 2 as well, the gordon highlanders are just one example. As said, if you want to define terms in a certain way that's fine, nobody else needs to accept your definition. Every scottish soldier who held the flag and walked onto the battlefield in front of everybody while the officers blew a whistle to announce their attack knew damn well it was as much a suicide mission as any guy with a bomb. There is also the easy argument that in warfare it is the opinion of those present that there ARE no 'innocents'. If you aren't fighting against the occupying forces then you are 'with' them, which makes you just as legitimate a target. People who are thousands of miles away from the bomb line can argue semantics all we want. To focus on the relatively few people killed by terrorist bombs and not discuss those who have killed millions, seems to me to be simply ludicrous. The other error is that Hamas wants to commit 'genocide', which is patently ludicrous. Not recognizing the state of Israel is not even close to 'genocide'. And of course we can look at the Isrealis who ARE in the throes of committing genocide, which makes it even sillier to be talking about the 'intent' of a people with zero military or political power. And if you think a soldier in the canadian, american, or british army is "told the odds of survival and asked to volunteer" then clearly you have NO knowledge of military life and have watched WAY too many movies. That is so far from being the case it is literally the opposite. You think all those soldiers in Afghanistan are volunteers? You think all those american soldiers in Iraq are volunteers? If people weren't actually dying that would be hysterical.

Holee crap, we need to pick a topic and stick to it. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/wink.gif' alt='Wink'>

Sorry, didn't have the energy to reply last night . . . [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] Clearly if the intent is to be 'squeeky clean', and since 'hate speech' identifies religion, and if, as said, the word 'locked' resulted in action just because an individual commented that they thought their thread was locked even though the 'post reply' button was clearly displayed, then that validates the concern about editorial consistency. And yeah, it's EXACTLY the same as dressing up as a police officer. In fact, it's as if I had dressed up as a police officer and SHOT somebody. Puhleeze. [/quote] Puhleeze. Our policy is quite clear, however interpretation of whether those conditions have been met is left up to very different individuals. I'd like to see if anyone else on the site thinks Algonquin's coments are racist, just for comparison. Ask 10 people, you'll get 10 answers. You simply found a crack in the policy no one had before. It won't be mentioned by anyone again, unless you bring it up. It's over and done with. [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] In the one case, as I've said, it's 'debateable', and since the moderators tend to agree with the poster then there's no problem. In other words, there is no consistency here, that's my point and there really is no point labouring it further. [/quote] That's why there is more than one moderator. We may not always agree with each other, but we will always stand behind each other. [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] "Intent" IS the issue, and it's a tricky one, in the one case there is no debate to examine 'intent', the thread is simply locked, in the other, the 'intent' is simply assumed to be "his love of democracy". That's pretty specious, as the comment didn't even contain the word 'democracy' and had nothing to do with it. [/quote] "Most citizens of countries that have made themselves great through allowing people to make something of themselves, regardless of class of birth, religion, and race, and that allow maximum freedoms of thought and association, are the great societies." Perhaps he didn't use the word, but the implication is clear. 'Intent' is indeed difficult to examine sometimes, but one thing Algonquin's post lacks, is the factor of 'discrimination'. [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] Most of the rest is simply arguing points of view, and everybody is entitled to that. However, one point is completely wrong, and that is that somehow it took until 1920 for people to learn to 'creep'. I didn't say anything about trenches, I said how british infantry operated. [/quote] Perhaps we're thinking in different directions then. I have always been told that the tactic of 'going over the top' to take the next trench position was made moot by the perfection of the 'creeping barrage' by Canadian artillery, just as an example of how tactics change. http://collections.ic.gc.ca/audio/infintry.htm With this, officers at the back didn't need the threat of a pistol to get men to become German gattling gun fodder. [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] I don't NEED to look it up because I've got over a dozen members of my family and friends who were IN World War 2 in the british infantry. They still used pipers in world war 2 as well, the gordon highlanders are just one example. [/quote] My bad. I forgot an extra "I" in that 'not been used since WWII'. I too have heard the stories from family of the pipers, especially on D-day. [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] As said, if you want to define terms in a certain way that's fine, nobody else needs to accept your definition. Every scottish soldier who held the flag and walked onto the battlefield in front of everybody while the officers blew a whistle to announce their attack knew damn well it was as much a suicide mission as any guy with a bomb. [/quote] Indeed they did. Please see: Bomb vest in a crowded marketplace. [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] There is also the easy argument that in warfare it is the opinion of those present that there ARE no 'innocents'. If you aren't fighting against the occupying forces then you are 'with' them, which makes you just as legitimate a target. [/quote] Again, please see: Geneva Conventions (1949) [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] People who are thousands of miles away from the bomb line can argue semantics all we want. To focus on the relatively few people killed by terrorist bombs and not discuss those who have killed millions, seems to me to be simply ludicrous. [/quote] I totally agree. [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] The other error is that Hamas wants to commit 'genocide', which is patently ludicrous. Not recognizing the state of Israel is not even close to 'genocide'. [/quote] Too easy. [quote] Details released by the Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) on Tuesday revealed that graphics appearing on the Hamas website call for the destruction of Israel in a nuclear holocaust. <a href='http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1139395459377'>link</a> [/quote] [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] And of course we can look at the Isrealis who ARE in the throes of committing genocide, which makes it even sillier to be talking about the 'intent' of a people with zero military or political power. [/quote] [quote] Israeli police have forcibly evicted three Jewish settler families and supporters from a Palestinian house they occupied a month ago in the ancient West Bank town of Hebron. The Israeli Supreme Court ruled that their purchase of the house was illegal. Hundreds of security officers were involved in carrying out the court's order. <a>[/quote] Yep. Giving land back, as promised, sounds like genocide to me. [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] And if you think a soldier in the canadian, american, or british army is "told the odds of survival and asked to volunteer" then clearly you have NO knowledge of military life and have watched WAY too many movies. That is so far from being the case it is literally the opposite. [/quote] Hmmm. Perhaps then my father was lying, when he told me certain high risk missions he was asked to volunteer for in the RCAF were 'optional' and would be carried out by some other person, should he refuse. I am quite aware that most missions are not optional. Perhaps I should use the more correct term - 'voluntold'. [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] You think all those soldiers in Afghanistan are volunteers? You think all those american soldiers in Iraq are volunteers? If people weren't actually dying that would be hysterical. [/QUOTE] Unless someone enacted conscription while we weren't looking, yes. Yuk it up.

Go look at the website for the military. Perhaps you've seen the commercials, nowhere in there does it talk about offensive manouvers of occupied territories. It says 'be all you can be'. Notice in the commercials there is never a picture of a weapon? How exactly joining the forces is 'volunteering for foreign occupations' is beyond me. Just because you 'want a career in the forces' is a far cry from volunteering to go to some hick village where somebody is going to try to put an axe through your head. Ask that soldier if he 'volunteered'.

There isn't too much military action that begins like the Monty Python skit in The Meaning of Life: "whose got something better to do that marching up and down the square?....right, off you go to practise the piano" You follow orders, or you are court martialed, simple as that. In the RCAF it might have been 'optional', at least to the point when it's discovered that NOBODY 'volunteered'. THen that officer has a choice to make, it's doubtful his commander would take keenly to "yes, we're going to have to cancel that mission, it's awfully dangerous and nobody really wants to go"

In case you missed it, this is a 'war on terror', there have been no declarations of war, which is why the US is capturing and torturing people and killing civilians all over the place. And the Taliban wasn't even a signatory to the Geneva Convention. So again, point fingers at the group who kills ten people, or look at the occupying force that killed thousands. It's pretty tough to ask people to abide by the Geneva Convention when the people who took over their country ignore it. Sort of like wacking a guy in the head with a bat and having him punch back: "hey, no fair!"

As for Israel, READ that link: "Every few seconds there are repeated images of a nuclear explosion destroying the Star of David." How exactly is that a 'position'? A picture on a website? What's next, Harpers child care program will be outlined in caricatures? Perhaps happy meal pictures on our tax forms. A graphic is just that, it's ludicrous to assume a 'policy' from a picture. However, we can easily see it's value as a symbol of resistance. In case you didn't know, Palestine doesn't even own a tank let alone a nuclear warhead. The only country nearby with LOTS of nuclear warheads who have been massacring Palestinians for decades, is...you guessed it.

As for taking ten miles of land and giving back two, that's hardly grounds for congratulations to Israel's beneficience.

Finally, yes finally, infantry does what it always did and there is always a front line. In WW2 there were not as many trenches but soldiers still had to advance pretty much the same way as before. The officers in WW2 still stood at the back of the battalion. With increased use of psychological training this became less necessary, in WW1 the vast majority of troops refused to kill, which is also what protracted the war, in the second it was less, but Vietnam it was up to 90% would kill, and look how fucked up they became afterward.

[QUOTE BY= Dr Caleb] [QUOTE BY= Algonquin Pk Vis] The movie showed that Western politicians are failing us by not making us and, more importantly, our children proud of just how different and better we are. Sorry, all is not relative. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] Now here is racism if I've ever seen it. Where are those moderators when real racists make such blatant posts. [/QUOTE] Sorry, but I'm perhaps just 'missing' it. I don't see anything in his post that would consitiute 'racism'. I read it a few times, just to be sure. It seems to me he's simply making a 'western society' vs 'islamic totalarianism' argument, not 'whites' vs 'little brown people' one. Please correct me if I'm not seeing it.[/quote] You're quite right. I am the furthest thing from a racist. I am, in fact, an attorney at a leading bankruptcy firm. My firm is the only majority firm of any speciality or general practice to have a minority partner (one of three, Jamaican black female). She works on files of all race clients, and she supervises white as well as black employees. Some people talk the talk of tolerance. I walk the walk. [QUOTE BY= Dr Caleb] But I'm sure the movie is a wonderful bit of fiction. [/QUOTE] The only fiction I saw was the imagining of on-plane dialogue. Otherwise it was true; too true.