It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Harper says 'Islamicism' biggest threat to Canada

page: 6
22
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


Weakness and Fear. They fear an internal uprising, just like Europeans. Expect stricter laws to heat up the war against the people as their wealth is being drained.

Interesting and more difficult times are just about to begin, people who think Arab regimes are bad, wait till you see what they got cooked for you.

Once more American and Western abandon ignorance, the stricter the government will get. A recent report suggested that more than 1/5th of Americans and English population believe the US government was behind the attacks.

What does that mean? Either more people are denying ignorance, or it shows the complete distrust between the regime and its people. Either way, it poses a threat to the regime and they will try to contain it.




posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Terrorism is a huge threat in Canada....I mean I can't drive to my local Tim Horton's without passing at least 10 Al-Qeada Jihadists.....


This is ridiculous...

Canada's NDP
300 - 279 Laurier West
Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5J9

Phone: 613-236-3613
Toll Free: 1-866-525-2555
Fax: 613-230-9950

Only the squeeky wheel gets the grease.....so be it. Fellow concerned citizens please do your part in making some noise in Ottawa...it only takes a phone call. Hopefuly they gang up against the tories again to get rid of this crap. And if they don't, we will have to make a field trip to Ottawa.

Not that the POTUS doesn't already have power to deem anyone around the world a terrorist already but ya know...


P.S. I gave the NDP number only...call the party you want.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   
I admit to not reading this whole thread through and through.......that said I say screw Harper and his yes men.
There I feel better now

Regards,Iwinder



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Atlantican
 


I was just called crazy this past labour day while sitting around a camp fire. I told a couple guys that the PM has no say over the Queen or the Governor General David Johnston. They said "oh you're one of those conspiracy theorists who think we are all controlled by the queen".

So I tried to explain the difference between the Executive Branch and Legislative Branch of government in our country and they had no clue what I was talking about. I am the crazy one though. We have Crown Land, Crown Corps, Crown Attornies, "Royal Canadian Mint", "Royal Canadian Mounted Police"......etc etc but no no....I am crazy.

It was all in good fun though....once I realized there was no point in ruining their night by telling them the queen owns them, I cracked another beer and had a great night as well....

We have it so good here (or at least the majority thinks we do) that we just never fight back. Or no-one knows about government structure. Last real protest I was at was for Mike Harris to get out of office here in Ontario...there was over 500,000 people....and guess what?? No sound cannon's, no violence and no damage. Huh imagine that....



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Love IS the answer.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 04:11 PM
link   
"After the monarchies have lost their prestige, we will elect Presidents among persons that can be obedient servants. The elected ones must have some black spot in their past in order to be able to keep them silenced because of fear of being discovered by us. At the same time tied by the acquired position of power, enjoying the honors and privileges of a President, make them feel anxious to co-operate, not to loose it". - Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion [1776] - (Illuminati doctrines)
edit on 7-9-2011 by AboveTopZecret because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by petrus4
Any single, universal definition of rights, will also, by definition, have a single, universal, non-challengeable organisation acting as arbiter or guarantor of them.

Virtually nobody ever thinks of this, because they're too busy with the fog of endorphins that the concept initially generates, before they actually start to think about it. What it really means, however, is making every last man, woman, and child on this planet, the property of the United Nations.


Yes, I think that the intended worldwide implementation and enforcement of a single, universal body of ''human rights'' is just the sly extension and evolution of Western colonialism.

People tend to believe that the historic, large-scale Western acts of colonialism are over because almost all of the former colonies have gained self-rule. Yet, old style colonialism has just been superseded by ''intellectual colonialism'', where a mish-mash of Western philosophy has been twisted in to a supposed universal body of ''human rights'' - a set of ''rights'' which a minority of people in power have decreed that every person in every country on Earth must live by, despite not offering any rationale to back up why these supposed ''rights'' need to be enforced.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Originally posted by petrus4
Any single, universal definition of rights, will also, by definition, have a single, universal, non-challengeable organisation acting as arbiter or guarantor of them.

Virtually nobody ever thinks of this, because they're too busy with the fog of endorphins that the concept initially generates, before they actually start to think about it. What it really means, however, is making every last man, woman, and child on this planet, the property of the United Nations.


Yes, I think that the intended worldwide implementation and enforcement of a single, universal body of ''human rights'' is just the sly extension and evolution of Western colonialism.

People tend to believe that the historic, large-scale Western acts of colonialism are over because almost all of the former colonies have gained self-rule. Yet, old style colonialism has just been superseded by ''intellectual colonialism'', where a mish-mash of Western philosophy has been twisted in to a supposed universal body of ''human rights'' - a set of ''rights'' which a minority of people in power have decreed that every person in every country on Earth must live by, despite not offering any rationale to back up why these supposed ''rights'' need to be enforced.
Great post and thanks for saying what I was thinking but could not possibly put into words like you did.
Regards, Iwinder








posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 05:46 PM
link   
Hmmmm, not sure what to make of all this.

Perhaps he is looking to Britian, France and other european countries that are facing difficuties amongst their minorities and assuming it will be a problem here too. Perhaps it will, but not for years. Our Muslim population is growing, but certainly no where near were it is in the UK.

I believe this is an overreaction and the measures introduced or re-instated, especially holding people without trial or only on suspicion is certainly wrong and dangerous. But i would not be against stricter immigration measures, people with criminal histories must be turned back.

As rediculous as this all is, i dont see any options aside from the tories at the moment. Liberals are a shadow of their former selves and i do not want to see a federal NDP party decimating our economy with their usual tax and spend policies and massive deficit budgets.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 06:10 PM
link   
I can't say Harper is wrong per-se....

I do believe that Islamic terrorism is indeed a huge issue with national security, however, detaining of "supicious entities" as it were is on the extreme side.

Fear mongering, perhaps, but maybe it just gives the general populace some sense of security in this crazy world we now live in.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 04:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
you might be wise to learn a little bit about Judaism, and also Christianity.


Jesus gives instruction to create a ministry; but he also says that if people don't convert, to "shake the dust from your feet." That could arguably be seen as elitist and obnoxious, yes, (which is why I don't believe he really said it, truthfully. I think it was one of the things inserted by Catholicism to justify their existence) but it still only advocates shunning, which is very different from murder. There are apparently passages in the Qu'ran which advocate the murder of those who do not want to convert, in particularly gruesome ways.

Something that is very important to understand about Christianity, is that strictly speaking, almost every denomination is actually heretical to some degree or another. Virtually all of Dominionist theology, as one major example, is completely non-Biblical.

The legitimacy of the papacy was woven from whole cloth, as well. Peter may or may not have been intended to be an evangelist, but external sources refer to James as being the leader of the early church; and even then, that's a long way from calling him a pope. The papacy is a fundamentally imperial institution.

Jesus Christ was not a monarch, at least in the corporeal or Earthly sense of the word. If anything, he was and advocated the complete opposite. The Piscean (ergo, Christian) energetic complex was conducive to spiritual advancement via the *denial* of the ego, and the *denigration* of the individual. That is also the reason why old school shamanism, from our current perspective, also seems to focus so heavily on self-degradation.


Harper is a moron and does not speak for the majority of Canada, sadly, we've let our government run amok just like the US and have no ability to control it without a full on revolution.


Revolution isn't the answer. People consider government necessary. People today also don't think they have the right to do anything without relying on external "authorities," to tell them what to do. So you could throw Harper out all you want; someone identical would immediately replace him, because contrary to what you might think, it *is* actually what people want.


We're not allowed to do that to the Jewish religion, or Christianity, how is it we can broadly generalize Muslims?


A Christian might accuse me of being in league with Satan, but these days at least, he generally isn't going to kill me if I don't convert to his belief system. There's a much greater probability that a Muslim will.

If I was a woman, I also wouldn't have to worry about a Christian man raping me, to anywhere near the same extent. On the other hand, Norway's rape statistics, from what I've read, have climbed almost in exact proportion with its' Islamic population. From everything I've been able to find on the subject, rape in particular is an almost iconically Islamic crime.

In other words, Christians are less associated with violence than Muslims, in general terms. Contemporary Christian *rhetoric* is generally very ugly, yes. You can be accused of association with Satan and condemned to Hell if you don't agree with them. As a general rule, however, (although there are of course exceptions) contemporary Christians are not usually physically violent. From what I've been reading, Muslims *are*, on a fairly routine basis; and as a result, in people's minds Islam is viewed as a correspondingly greater source of danger.

Christianity is also currently headed for extinction, while Islam is trending towards its' historical ascendancy.


Canada, unlike the US, LOVES it's multicultural society. Yes there are bumps and hiccups, but Canada has always been known as a country you can move to and immediately you are "Canadian", we don't expect you to completely lose your culture, we thrive on it, with in reason.


Although they are generally not prepared to consciously admit it, a very large proportion of the white American and Australian populations, are in fact white supremacist racists. The degree of horror that has been expressed over the comparitively higher Islamic birth rate, can largely be explained as a residual echo of Manifest Destiny and the White Man's Burden. The Anglo/Celtic and Germanic ethnic groups still fundamentally view themselves as the epitome of the human race.

So that is the main reason why you see so much hostility expressed towards immigration on this forum.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 04:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
Morality being relative does not mean it is equal, that word has a specific meaning. It means it is relative, simple as that. There is no standard against which it can be compared as "equal".


I think we're getting into semantics here. Yes, all-encompassing philosophical ideologies may not be equal in a mathematical sense, but they are in a taxonomic one. Just as all dogs are equal by virtue of belonging to the same species, but the variety of breeds within the species may lead to subjective definitions of one breed being ''better'' than another.

In any case, it's not really that important, because the point still stands that without a definable mechanism which could provide objective support to the notion of one particular philosophy being - in whole or in part - ''wrong'' or ''right'', then the imposition of a theological philosophy, such as Islam, on members of a society is no different to the imposition of a secular philosophy, such as a happy-clappy, self-refuting morally universalistic ideology.


edit on 8-9-2011 by Sherlock Holmes because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 05:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 




In any case, it's not really that important, because the point still stands that without a definable mechanism which could provide objective support to the notion of one particular philosophy being - in whole or in part - ''wrong'' or ''right'', then the imposition of a theological philosophy, such as Islam, on members of a society is no different to the imposition of a secular philosophy, such as a happy-clappy, self-refuting morally universalistic ideology.


Yes, current status quo in philosophy is that from the strict philosophical sense there is no universal objective morality due to is-ought problem, so nihilism, or for example the opinion that nazism was actually good can also be justified (or cannot be objectively refuted), since we dont know what is "good" and "bad" objectively.

There are theories that dispute this notion of course, and very good ones IMHO, so I wont be so sure its true.

Of course this is all mental masturbation of detached nihilist salloon intelectuals, which does not hide the fact that according to western moral standards, islamic law is evil, and thus westerners, as a majority have every right to stop the spread of such ideologies into their territories.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 06:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
Yes, current status quo in philosophy is that from the strict philosophical sense there is no universal objective morality due to is-ought problem


My perspective is that it isn't so much actions that are absolute, as it is motivations. The most effective ethical model I've come across yet, (aside from, and actually subordinate to, the Golden Rule) is the division of motivations into two broad camps; the desire to serve (that is, commit actions which will be primarily beneficial to or promoting of) the self, and the desire to serve others. (Others can be defined as all other life forms, including plants and animals)

The desire to serve the self usually also implies that said service to self will occur at other individuals' expense. The 9/11 attacks are a good example. From my perspective, those attacks were conducted on behalf of the corporations of the American military industrial complex. They wanted to gain the final degree of support that would be necessary from the public, for a widening campaign of international wars, (for oil, and money from defense contracts) and also to remove the last vestiges of freedom and the public's political power, so that they could continue to maintain their own autonomy indefinitely, and public opinion would no longer matter.

So in addition to having motivations which were only going to benefit themselves, the actions were also taken at the expense of those who died in the attacks, and their families.

An example of service to others, would be the firefighters who attempted to rescue people or otherwise deal with the attacks, on the day. As service to self presupposes benefit to the self at the expense of others, so service to others usually presupposes benefit to others at the expense of the self.


Of course this is all mental masturbation of detached nihilist salloon intelectuals, which does not hide the fact that according to western moral standards, islamic law is evil, and thus westerners, as a majority have every right to stop the spread of such ideologies into their territories.


Most of what I've seen of Sharia, (when Muslims themselves actually follow it, of course) would imply that it isn't so much evil, as it is socially obsolete or anachronistic. Then again, an Islamic response would probably be that although we might consider amputation of a hand to be a barbaric and medieval penalty for theft, it is still highly effective as a deterrent. This may or may not be the case; I don't have access to actual research on Sharia's real effectiveness for maintaining social integrity.

I will generally agree with what I am sure would be the Islamic (and to a lesser extent, Christian) perspective that Western society is currently genuinely degenerate, and that to a very large extent, Cartesian/non-animistic socialism can largely be blamed for that.

Feminism is also a serious problem at this point. There were a number of ways (occupationally, politically, and educationally, primarily) in which women needed to achieve equality with men; but in the West, the pendulum has swung too far, and we have now reached a point where feminist excesses have begun to cause social damage. Ironically, if challenged on this, Western feminists usually cite Islamic abuse of women in such countries as Afghanistan or Iran, as justification for their continued dominance in non-Islamic societies.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 

While the conversation here has been insightful, I need to point out the fact that "Islamicism" appears to be a made up word.
It is not listed in any dictionary and has very few recorded uses if you dig deep enough.
What troubles me is the headlines use "Islamicism" but the body of the article translates it to "Islamic Terrorism". No one seems to have noticed that they have just witnessed the birth of a new political neologism and that we have accepted it without question.
The very discourse caused by Harper's statement is giving validity to what is essentially a made up word.

By the way:
In psychiatry, the term neologism is used to describe the use of words that have meaning only to the person who uses them, independent of their common meaning.[2] This is considered normal in children, but a symptom of thought disorder (indicative of a psychotic mental illness, such as schizophrenia) in adults.[3] People with autism also may create neologisms.[4] Additionally, use of neologisms may be related to aphasia acquired after brain damage resulting from a stroke or head injury.[5]
Sourced from Wikipedia - Neologism


edit on 8-9-2011 by Vitres DeLaver because: Fixed link



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vitres DeLaver
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 

While the conversation here has been insightful, I need to point out the fact that "Islamicism" appears to be a made up word.


It *is* a made up word. It's the sort of politically correct BS that sycophantic hard right politicians use in PR on the one hand, and cultural Marxists within electorates use on the other.


What troubles me is the headlines use "Islamicism" but the body of the article translates it to "Islamic Terrorism". No one seems to have noticed that they have just witnessed the birth of a new political neologism and that we have accepted it without question.


Speak for yourself. I haven't accepted it at all, because I know it's moronic. I'll either use the terms "radical Islam," or just plain Islam. The whole point of the term "Islamist," is to try and imply that fanatics are different to mainstream Muslims. To a degree, from what I've been able to figure out, that's true.

The more I read about Islam, the more I start to realise that it's essentially two religions in one; just like Christianity is to a lesser extent. In one place, the Qu'ran does genuinely advocate peace, love, light, and being nice to people in general. In another, however, it advocates completely the opposite; death to the infidels wherever they hide, etc.

The commandments to behave yourself, however, seem to come earlier within the book, than the commandments to act like a genocidal maniac. The sane, rational Muslims tend to go with the first lot of commandments, and said positive ones are what they'll quote to you, if you ask them what Islam is like.

The other group who enjoy causing mayhem, on the other hand, go with the second, violent passages; and even more, they claim that a practice called abbregation means that because the compassionate message came closer to the front of the book, it was actually invalidated by the later ones if there is a contradiction, which means that the directives to kill everyone who doesn't want to convert, are supposedly theologically legitimate, rather than the compassionate message.

They're also the passages that the likes of Richard Dawkins and Pat Condell prefer to focus on; because their agenda is destroy theistic belief entirely, and Islam's ugly bits unfortunately provide them with large amounts of ammunition.

Islam theologically, seems to be more heavily polarised than just about any other religion on the planet that I've come across. The good stuff is absolutely amazing; not only is it incredibly positive, but it's very articulately worded, as well. The bad stuff, however, is as bad as the good stuff is good; it's unspeakable.

In other words, Muslims, before you get upset because you think I'm bashing your religion, realise that I'm not. Like I said; the more I read about it, the more I learn that there's some truly awesome material there. It's just that, like literally anything else that exists, you have your signal, and then you have your line noise.
edit on 8-9-2011 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-9-2011 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   
Since the conservatives have a majority in Canada Harper can pretty much do whatever he wants in Power, the one issue I see is it is going to get to the point that people who don't practice Islam are going to be intolerant of those who do because of the fear mongering, the arresting thing w/o a warrant etc.

I don't even know if Little Mosque on the Prairie helped Canadians learn a bit more about Islam or not or if people are a bit intolerant of them, but it was on CBC and the Conservatives kinda wanted to get rid of that network.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Sure Steve. I believe you.

It's got nothing to do with your horrible leadership and draconian Policies. Oh no it's the Muslims that are the problem right? We dint have an economic problem. Or a jobs problem. Or a healthcare problem. Or an education problem.

Just gotta get those damn Muslims out of the country.

Give me a break.

~Keeper



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 12:50 AM
link   
Supporters of the Conservatives/Republicans often indignantly ask what civil liberties have been infringed upon since 9/11. Well, here is the most glaring example.

I guess this is what they mean when they say "those that forget the past are doomed to repeat it."



The power of the Gestapo most open to misuse was called Schutzhaft—"protective custody", a euphemism for the power to imprison people without judicial proceedings.


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


Research?

A simple 1st week lesson in political science (or the back of a random candy bar wrapper) illustrates, clearly, that Harper is 3rd in the chain of command under the parliamentary system in Canada.
edit on 10-9-2011 by Atlantican because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
22
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join