Bring the Troops Home?

[xsbank]

"A man whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War Two owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism.

"Very few people were true Nazis "he said," but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools.

So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories."

We are told again and again by "experts" and "talking heads" that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace.
Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectre of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam. The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history.
It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder or honour kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. The hard quantifiable fact is that the "peaceful majority" the "silent majority" is cowed and extraneous.
Communist Russia comprised Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China's huge population, it was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.

The average Japanese individual prior to World War 2 was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing, that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel and bayonet.

And, who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were "peace loving"?

History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence.

Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak up, because like my friend from Germany, they will awake one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.

Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late.

As for us who watch it all unfold; we must pay attention to the only group that counts; the fanatics who threaten our way of life.

Lastly, at the risk of offending, anyone who doubts that the issue is serious ... can contribute to the passiveness that allows the problems to expand. So, extend yourself a bit ... - think about it -... before we find the suicide bombers killing us in our shopping centres, recreation areas, schools, government/civic centres and we have to fight them in our neighbourhoods!"

sent to me by a friend.

[5400AirportRdSouth]

What kind of makes you think though, is that you could easily replace Muslim / Islam with American / Christian and the story would ring true to as many folks.

Some obvious exceptions being the brutalities currently accepted as being unique to the muslim extremists, ie beheadings... I'm sure one could find nastiness perpetrated by " our " side that could compare to some degree if you were on the receiving end ( Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, Rendition, etc. )


Not refuting or saying its right in any way, just playing devils advocate.

I've always considered the fact that culturally, our norms are so different from some other cultures that being objective to " extremism " can be a big challenge.

Personally I was very intrigued to finally do a little research on what exactly Fascism is. All my life I grew up being told it was Bad, but never really understanding the idealogy. Check out the Wiki on it, particularly the bits about Corporatism, Militant right wingers and the suspending of democratic rights if the authoritarians deem it neccassary for the " good of the people "

My favorite;

Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion

Food for thought....

I'm sure a lot of germans thought they were doing the eastern european countries a favour by "solving" their little ethnic tussles by occupying, ahem.... " uniting " them under the common banner of a united europe....

[sky's the limit]

5400,


You saved me the trouble.

stl

[Nark]

Consider the source though.

Wikipedia has some neat stuff, but thats as far as it'll go. It has no scholary credibility.

[sprucegoose]

Nark: I agree about validity of the source. But do you do you disagree of what being said. I don't have access to any other ''scholary'' source. But to last I checked wiki definition of Fascism was still pretty close.

(even though i do agree that waving wiki as being ''THE'' reference troubles me)

[corporate joe]

What kind of makes you think though, is that you could easily replace Muslim / Islam with American / Christian and the story would ring true to as many folks.

Some obvious exceptions being the brutalities currently accepted as being unique to the muslim extremists, ie beheadings... I'm sure one could find nastiness perpetrated by " our " side that could compare to some degree if you were on the receiving end ( Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, Rendition, etc. )


Not refuting or saying its right in any way, just playing devils advocate.

I've always considered the fact that culturally, our norms are so different from some other cultures that being objective to " extremism " can be a big challenge.

Personally I was very intrigued to finally do a little research on what exactly Fascism is. All my life I grew up being told it was Bad, but never really understanding the idealogy. Check out the Wiki on it, particularly the bits about Corporatism, Militant right wingers and the suspending of democratic rights if the authoritarians deem it neccassary for the " good of the people "

My favorite;

Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion

Food for thought....

I'm sure a lot of germans thought they were doing the eastern european countries a favour by "solving" their little ethnic tussles by occupying, ahem.... " uniting " them under the common banner of a united europe....

The ability to think outside the box you were raised in, and actually look at things from the other side for a second, to put everything in perspective, allows for a better criticism of your own positions. You'll find not enough people do this, especially on this forum.

Good post.

[Sheila]

It's not easy to appreciate this letter because our troops did not remain consistent in it's missions. The Afghan mission is a result of severe bullying and severe punishment by you know who. I am glad to hear the troops will re-think, and retrain, but it won't be soon enough.

No desire to extend Afghanistan mission past '09: Harper
Jason Fekete, CanWest News Service
Published: Tuesday, July 10, 2007
CALGARY -- Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Tuesday his government has no plans to prolong Canada's combat role in Afghanistan beyond its February 2009 commitment, arguing any extension would be for a new mission and contingent upon beefed-up NATO support.

Harper reaffirmed his government's plans to seek a "reasonable degree" of parliamentary support before considering any extension to the current Afghan mission or agreeing to a new one.

But when asked whether he has any desire to prolong the combat mission in southern Afghanistan beyond 2009, Harper said: "No."


Email to a friend

Printer friendly
Font: ****"I think Canadians are expecting that if we're in Afghanistan after 2009, it would be a new mission," Harper told a Calgary radio talk show on Tuesday. "Canadians have been fairly clear that if we were to be in after 2009, that they would expect our participation to evolve in some way."

That evolution requires NATO to substantially increase the number of its soldiers in the country from the roughly 30,000 currently stationed there, he said.

Additional NATO forces would be a critical factor in renewing Canada's mission in Afghanistan or pursuing a new commitment in the country beyond February 2009, the prime minister added.

"The truth of the matter is NATO still is not putting in near the amount of forces that are necessary to really bring permanent stability to Afghanistan," Harper said. "Canadians have been clear they want to see a more equitable burden-sharing in Afghanistan."

Dutch NATO troops patrolling a crowded bazaar in southern Afghanistan were the intended target Tuesday of a suicide bomber who killed 17 Afghan civilians, including 12 school children. Some 30 people, including seven Dutch soldiers, were wounded in the attack.

Back in Canada, Liberal defence critic Denis Coderre said Harper is lying to Canadians when he suggests his government won't continue its combat role beyond February 2009.

The prime minister, he argued, is only selling the message to woo voters who are becoming increasingly concerned with a mission that's already killed 66 Canadian soldiers and one diplomat since 2002.

"I don't believe the prime minister. He's given the signal from Day 1 that he wants to extend it," Coderre said in an interview. The government, he noted, has invested billions in new military equipment that won't be delivered until 2009 or later.

Some political observers have suggested the Harper government has softened its stance in recent weeks on whether to extend the Afghanistan mission due to eroding public support.

David Bercuson, director of the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary, said Harper would almost certainly extend the mission if he had a majority government.

But he's rethinking his strategy as it becomes clear there won't be majority support in the House of Commons for the initiative, and might be publicly negotiating with the Liberals and NATO, he said.

"He's clearly feeling a lot of heat from the public opinion polls," Bercuson said Tuesday. "If he's asking himself what's more important -- that I maintain governance or that I get approval for a combat mission, then a combat mission is coming second."

Harper said he doubts the NDP will agree to an extension or any new role, but suggested the Liberals and Bloc Quebecois "have given some signals" they're open to some degree of Canadian involvement in the Afghanistan mission.

Coderre said it's "inappropriate" to pull Canada's 2,500 troops out of southern Afghanistan prior to 2009, as the NDP have suggested. He concurred with Harper that any continued military effort in the war-torn country would require a new mission for Canadian troops.

"We don't want to abandon Afghanistan. Rotation is in order," he said.

And while the country's involvement in future Afghan missions remains uncertain, the prime minister served notice his government will continue to expand Canada's military presence in the Arctic and exercise its sovereignty in the region.

"Some countries, even our friends, have been less than fully accepting of our sovereignty claim so we want to make sure that Canada is present there at all levels," Harper said. "You can't assert sovereignty in this world unless you have a military presence prepared to defend that sovereignty."

Harper revealed this week the government will purchase up to eight Polar Class 5 Arctic offshore patrol ships and establish a deep water port in the Arctic.