| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Just how nice to the terrorists do we have to be? |
| 2007-03-04 |
| By RACHEL MARSDEN NEW YORK -- While Canada's Liberal party is busy pandering to terror suspects, an NYPD report this week actually named my street as a potential target of Mideast terrorists. Such an attack wouldn't even rattle Liberal leader Stephane Dion's champagne glass, but it would transform my neighbourhood into Beirut. This might explain why Dion cares more about trees than I do. In the wake of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision to have Parliament rework the security certificate program for foreign terror suspects on Canadian soil, Dion said that he "never liked" the certificates, used to deal with our suspected wartime enemies. Spoken like a true Frenchman -- as in France. Then, in a recent vote on the anti-terror provisions brought into force by the Liberal government after the September 11 terrorist attacks, Dion and his party struck down the ability of police to hold terror suspects for even three days. Would it really be too much to ask people who might want to blow stuff up to forego a few home-cooked meals? Mind you, three days may seem like a long time to Dion. France barely lasted much longer before surrendering to Germany in WWII. If the terrorists were planning to detonate some ferns in Vancouver's Stanley Park, you know Dion would be all over it. What's bogging down both the U.S. and Canada in the war on terror is the fact that people want to conduct a war under the rules of basic law enforcement, worrying about the rights of those who manage to arouse enough suspicion to create a blip on the intel radar. (By the way, if you think that intelligence officers are so masochistic as to want to listen to the average, non-suspicious phone chat, you've never sat beside an idiot with a cellphone on the bus.) Here's a thought: How about someone whose passport (Canadian, American or otherwise) is loaded with stamps from terror-sponsoring states, or who hangs out with people spotted doing monkey bars exercises with AK-47s, should have to think twice about coming to Canada or the USA? Otherwise, you're fair game. Don't like it? Too bad -- try Cuba, or something. In today's ridiculous, politically correct climate, had 9/11 terrorist Mohamed Atta actually been hauled off his flight before ramming it into the World Trade Center, he'd probably be a member of the millionaire's club today, while having the cops apologize to him. Everyone could use a bit of a pep talk in the war on terror. U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney made a trip this week to give Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf a nudge in the right direction. Musharraf, who is supposed to be rooting out bin Laden and his boys, instead cut a "peace agreement" with terrorists, allowing them to hang out in the northern part of his country, with easy access to the U.S,, Canadian and U.K. troops in Afghanistan. JUST LIKE HOME Cheney didn't even have to use a Power Point presentation to drive home the message that Musharraf has fumbled the ball, since al-Qaida conveniently set off a bomb during Cheney's stop in Afghanistan, nearly fulfilling every far-leftist's wet dream. For Cheney, it must have felt just like any other day at the office: Folks who don't shave, don't bathe, and want him dead. Wow, feels just like back home! Meanwhile, here's hoping the only bomb Dion will ever have to face is his performance on election day. Rachel - always a breath of fresh air! |
| Posted by:Thinemp Whimble2412 |
| #10 To take Darrell's reasoning to its logical conclusion, we must allow the slaughter of 3 billion people in order to avoid harming however many ostensibly moderate Muslims there might be lurking among Islam's 1 billion adherents. If he is to interpret my statement as he does, we must interpret what he say in exactly the same fashion. What happens if there are no moderate Muslims? Time and again this continues to arise as a potential fact. Will we let 3 billion die for fear of killing a few million or hundred thousand moderates? The safety and the security of the West must be foremost above all other considerations. Moderate Muslims must take back their religion by force or face up to the fact that they are indistinguishable from the terrorists. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-03-04 23:50 |
| #9 not sure, but I think Zen was just using stats/numbers to expose the disparity in numbers. most likely not suggesting the literal death of all Muslims. your point is taken tho Darrell for it focuses on the distinction, we must never become savages. Zen is quite capable of answering himself so I'll shut up. |
| Posted by: RD 2007-03-04 22:57 |
| #8 Of the 70 million Germans, 11% died from all causes inflicted by both sides. So the question is: "Should the Allies have killed the 62 million German survivors too?" Zenster's logic would say "yes". |
| Posted by: Darrell 2007-03-04 21:31 |
| #7 Okay answer5 this, "What percentage of Germany's population did we and other Allies Kill, as compared to what percentage of Germany's population did the Nazi party under the late unlamented Adolf Sthickelgruber kill? Simply put who was the more deadly? My bet is Adolf and company. That's what we face now, unrestrained "Nazism," or Squash the Facists now. |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2007-03-04 21:16 |
| #6 There were approximately 70 million Germans and 70 million Japanese at the start of WWII. Zenster would have killed them all. Think about it. |
| Posted by: Darrell 2007-03-04 20:41 |
| #5 They will kill millions, maybe billions, if we let them, in the name of Islam and take the entire world back to 700 AD. My Iranian friend and I agree that something on the order of half this world's entire population will perish with the advent of a global caliphate. I invite you to do the math. Do we lose three billion of this world's general population or one billion of its Muslims? |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-03-04 20:02 |
| #4 Here is exactly how nice we all have to be - We have to die! Not even total conversion of our entire populations and submission of our governments to Islam and abject national abeyance and obescience before Ayatollah Khomenei's Iranian Revolution will be enough for some of these murderous animals. They will kill millions, maybe billions, if we let them, in the name of Islam and take the entire world back to 700 AD. A world with no electricity, no cures for disease, no science, medicine, healthcare, no space programs, no dreams of bettering oneself ever except for the ruling elite (ie the mullahs). A world of death, disease, poverty, mass executions, barbaric punishments for trivial crimes, racial hatred and ethnic cleansing, and the uneducated masses of pathetic survivors scratching out a living against a bleak and blasted landscape. That's exactly how "nice" we have to be to the terrorists. The power of their hatred is so strong that the choices are clear on how we have to act. This is harsh, but I am convinced that it is true - we must kill them or conquer them or they will conquer us and kill us! I no longer believe that there can be any sort of reconcilation or accommodation between civilization and those I have come to believe are barbarians barely removed from a state of complete animalism. Again, we must become wolves! We've been acting like monkeys for far too long already. |
| Posted by: FOTSGreg 2007-03-04 18:37 |
| #3 Heh ZEN good to see ya back! ;-) |
| Posted by: RD 2007-03-04 18:13 |
| #2 Just how nice to the terrorists do we have to be? Only nice enough to make all their dreams of martyrdom come true. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-03-04 18:07 |
| #1 Just how nice to the terrorists do we have to be? Kill Them Politely? |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2007-03-04 17:58 |