Recent events in Canada show that if you don't pose a threat, your children just might.....

Submitted by Tyler (Canada), Jun 30, 2006 at 19:59

"how many muslim soldiers are there in the army who are loyal? Did that guy even do it for religious reasons or was he getting personal revenge or some non-"religious" reason? I don't know."

Yes, you don't know.

"Yes, make your enemy even bigger, its all muslims now not just a minority alienated from the mainstream"

Most muslims are the author of their own alienation from the mainstream by ' ghettoizing' their existence in free states....look at France, Holland, Belgium, Germany, for example. You and Ahmad may be the exception, as the current situation in Europe and around the world shows, integration is not the norm when it comes to muslims.

"I am a teacher, my wife is a surgeon, we participate in our democracy and oppose the attacks on it, why in God's name should we be locked up or forced to move away when we have ties in Australia going back nine generations with the birth of our daughter? Why should our property be confiscated to appease a bunch of chickens like you who would sell their liberties for a few more minutes of life?"

A few questions about your faith: As a muslim I assume you believe in 'absolute truth' as opposed to reletavistic truth so prevelant in western society today. Does your absolute truth come from the Koran? If not, then from where do you derive your tenents of faith and doctrine? Do you pick and choose what you want to believe based on what feels right or comfortable to you? Do you hold the Koran to be true and without any error in it's entirety? What are your views on countries not yet under Islamic rule? I'm curious as to what a moderate muslim believes and how their faith is justified verses the wahabiist view. What is your views on Jews? Christians? Final judgement? According to the Koran, will the trees and rocks that the Jews are hiding behind really yell out 'there's a Jew hiding behind me, kill him"? Do you adhere to ALL of Mohammad's teachings? What about those on women who he claims are stupid and menstruate? Or that in court, the testimony of 1 man is worth that of 2 women?

Also, what exactly do you teach? As an educated person (teacher) do you think that name calling advances your argument against internment verses profiling? I believe that calling someone 'chicken' does not further your argument against internment. In fact, it reflects poorly on your viewpoint.

I'm just trying to be pragmatic about this problem, both logistically and economically. I'm sure if someone did a true cost-benefit analysis of internment-verses profiling, which incidentally, is what this thread is supposed to be about, they would find a HUGE savings both in monetary, manpower, and reduced risk of attack.

Any true muslim who subscribes to the Koran and ALL that it teaches and ALL the tenents of the Islamic faith, is a threat to all free democracies that are not under muslim rule. Period. And as such, they should be interned or deported until after the war is over. Even 'moderates' (I'm guessing you are one) like yourself might someday wake up or to use another term, become 'born again muslims' taking the commands of Mohammad to 'kill the infidels where you find them' seriously. If you won't become 'born again' then your children certainly present this risk. This risk is very real as was clearly demonstrated in the 17 Canadians that were arrested in Ontario for allegedly plotting terrorist attacks on the dominion of Canada and even plotting to behead the prime minister, Stephen Harper. The majority of them were young adults and five of them were under the age of 18. Their parents weren't alleged terrorists but their children were a different story. Had Canadians interned muslims this wouldn't have happened. It's pretty hard to get three tons of explosives when you're properly interned.

The confiscation of your property is not to appease 'chickens' but rather, to pay for the internment so that the overburdened tax payer does not have to cover yet another program. Fair is fair; why should I have to pay to intern someone who is a risk to my country? This would free up money for the war on terror or other important social programs like health care, education, etc.

By the way, It's not 'my liberties' that are for sale here but rather the liberties of a small minority that inherently, by virtue of what is written in the Koran and preached by Imams, threatens the vast majority. The idea that minority rights, even if detrimantal to the health and safety of the majority, is the product of liberalism and is wrong. I see no problem with temporarily curtailing certain freedoms for certain minorities if it means saving millions of lives.

"The geatest threat these people pose to us is not loss of life, it is the loss of our way of life."

Really? How about those three thousand who died on September 11? I guess they all lost their way of life didn't they? What about those who died in the Bali nightclub attack? What was their greatest threat? I guess you're right, they lost their way of life, in fact, they will NEVER again be able to party in a nightclub. I guess now that they're dead they won't be able to have much of a way of life. I could go through the last 1400 years for numerous examples but these two examples will have to suffice for now.

So now what if one of those adherants to the 'peacefull religion' obtains a thermo-nuclear device and detonates it in Sydney harbour? I'm just guessing here but perhaps you might concede that people(thousands upon thousands) will lose more than just 'their way of life', pehaps they might even just lose their LIVES!!!!

By the way, non-muslims, ie the majority, would not lose their way of life by temporarily interning a small minority of people who represent a significant threat to the majority, in fact, their way of life will greatly improve because they won't have to worry about terrorist attacks. Better for the economy too.

"If you love concentration camps so much move to China or North Korea, they will love you there."

I don't love 'concentration camps' at all, in fact I loathe them and what they represent, the logical outcome of the teaching of evolution; survival of the fittest, that man evolved from slime and therefore has no morals or eternal consequences for his actions, master races, etc. The internment of the Japanese differs greatly from the 'concentration camps' of Hitler's Germany. As a 'teacher', you should know this, unless of course you are using the Islamophylic-liberal revised history of the world. In case your liberal teaching plans don't include this information, let me enlighten you as to one minor difference between concentration camps and internment camps: after WW2, the U.S. of A. released the Japanese very much alive, the Jews, on the other hand, didn't quite fare so well. The Jews were systematically exterminated, something called the Holocaust; perhaps you have heard of it?

In fact, the billions of bucks that the Saudi's spend on promoting Islam in the U.S.of A. could be used to provide for quite comfortable internment camps, more than just humane. And only the right of free movement would be curtailed, muslims would still be allowed to pray and enjoy all the religious freedoms they want, just so long as they are interned and not posing a threat to the rest of society.

I'm pro-choice on this matter. Those who don't want to be interned are free to leave the country until after the war is over. Those who choose to remain, can be humanely interned. I did not mention anything about concentration camps, that was a figment of your imagination. I'm sure that adequate facilities can be built once the Saudi investments have been expropriated. Once the threat of terror has been mitigated, we can release all those who chose internment over deportation. Choice is what makes this proposal more palatable to the lefties since they always seem to favour pro-choice.

"By definition, a war can only be waged on a state. What we are engaged in is international policing with war rhetoric. terrorists are criminals and should be treated as such."

I think you need to do your homework and define the word 'jihad'. Jihad is more than just the 'struggle within'. As the last 1400 years has shown us, Jihad is waged on ALL unbelievers no matter their geo-political situation. It can be waged on a state or an individual, or a group of individuals. It is Islam that has declared 'war' on the remainder of the world not yet under Islamic rule. Like the crusades of the middle ages, western democracies are just responding in kind to this Islamic aggression, and responding a little too slowly for some people's liking.

Your name calling (ad hominem attacks), appeal to seniority (9 generations) in a non-union country, improper definition of terms(jihad), red herrings(concentration camps), and appeal to emotion, only support the internment option verses the profiling option. In fact, you haven't given me any reasons why the internment option is less valid than the profiling option for controlling the Islamic threat.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".