blevkog

How, pray tell, does the post you link to suggest that "invading countries like Afghanistan and Iraq really is just a case of white man's burden"? ... or that we go to war, "just because"? or, for that fact, that "war is cultural imperative?"

Your reading comprehension seems to be lacking.

Oh, I don't know, maybe I was unduly swayed by by references to "negotiating with terrorists", "anti-arab racism", etc throughout the citations after the commentary? Or maybe it was the references to Spanish voters after the Madrid bombings? I think that these firmly connect the article with the "long war", the "war on terrorism", the "iraq war", the "afghan war", don't you?

And then there is the line, ...the dogma that all religions and cultures are equal, and therefore compatible with democracy, is boilerplate to the Euro-elite and they refuse to let go of it. This is as bald a restatement of the 19th century white man's burden as you'll likely see outside of a KKK glossy, don't you think?

I believe all I did was rephrase the author's post. Is it my reading that needs help, or your inability to connect dots. Dots that are pretty close together and pretty clearly numbered, I might add.

"This is as bald a restatement of the 19th century white man's burden as you'll likely see outside of a KKK glossy, don't you think?"

Now that is a leap; although you do have a sense of humor. And, you did rephrase, rewrite, and re-define the post. Why not argue it on what it said and suggests, not on what you may in your wisdom "think" it said.

By the way, since when did reading between the lines make for accurate commentary?

1) The moment I start offering "accurate commentary" is the moment I start charging for my service using pop ups or other foolishness like that. And it will also be the moment I ask people to shut their faces because I have all of the answers. This blog is for our opinions, which we think are accurate, but which I know are as subjective as anyone's.

2) What lines are there to read between? (Aside from the fact that I'm trying to interpret some pretty turgid prose?)

The following is a sampling of European elitist commentary as it attempts to explain away the Muslim threat in Europe and the world.

I have a feeling you might be defending your own writing here, which is fine. How else should I read that line but as an attempt to write off any attempt at finding middle ground between Europe and the "Muslim threat" as "elitist"?

This is at best paranoic and at worst possibly acceptable to a large chunk of the population.

Thanks for confirming my reading of the article, Bri. I don't like getting in the position of calling someone racist, and I was worried that I had misread it, but I've been unable to read it any other way. Also, there appears to be a cloaked "call to arms" there which really concerned me.

The real problem is that I've seen that kind of argument in other places and it appears to be some kind of undercurrent of the events of the day.

Re; debate topic - well of course it defends Canada - as long as CSIS keeps reminding Al Qaeda that they're supposed to be terrorizing us and as long as our illustrious leaders keep fanning the flames by hopping over there for photo ops a la Bush, we will eventually get them to attack us and then we can justify being there - isn't that how it works?