armyvern said:
Ill thought out comments such as the one above do little to establish your credibility, knowledge or experience in this area of discussion.
Be careful who you equate to being as equally mindless and unknowledgeable as yourself in this forum, as many of those you have decided know nothing or who 'mindlessly repeat' as you do, have in fact the experience and the first hand knowledge to back themselves up. That is something which you do not have. They will not be disclosing their knowledge of this to you in this forum...but just be advised that it is there.
Do not profess to assume that because 'you' personnaly have not heard or seen, that it does not exist. Not all is disclosed publicly, with very good reason. I do not think that you are high on the notify and contact list of CSIS and the RCMP etc.
While others, due to their lines of work, do have the ocassional privy to some of this info.
Tell me, what evidence do you have that a student such as yourself would possibly have more accurate information, knowledge and first hand information on a terrorism-related matter which many member's in this forum deal with on a daily basis in their many and varied lines of work? They, not you, are the experts, although I just know you will argue this as well.
You seem to have a God complex - holier and haughtier - and always right although you have yet to place a single shred of evidence on this forum to secure your spot as a SME (Subject Matter Expert) on Al Quaida or the threat of Terrorism to this country. Contrary to what you might think about yourself, you are not one, I believe that is why, each time some-one asks you for proof or substantiation of your claims, you revert to the same old 'lack of evidence or flimsy evidence' arguments over and over and over again. You have nothing constructive or concrete to add...just the same old rumblings so I believe that you like to hear yourself talk, therefore I have placed you on ignore.
I lend more credibility to those who speak from experience and first-hand knowledge over a person still in school any day.
You've got serious problems if you're just going to assume people here know what they're talking about because are or were in the military and may possibly be privy to secret information. Then again, it seems to be that you just believe anything that already agrees with your views. I don't claim to be an expert on terrorism; I've never once said or implied it. A student such as myself has no more access to the kind of information you can have access to, and as someone who goes to school and doesn't work, I obviously have no first hand information. However, I do go to school to learn about this sort of thing, and the professors who lecture as theses classes are widely regarded to be experts.
What proof would you like me to post to support my claim that terrorists won't attack Canada? Would you like a sworn statement from every terrorist on the planet? There's no proof that terrorists will attack Canada, there's no evidence to suggest that terrorists will attack Canada, and there's no evidence that terrorists are plotting attacks on Canada.
RDBZ said:
ROB, you are hiding behind a missapplied and archaic definition of "concentration camp" that bears no resemblance to the contemporary meaning of the word. You know that. By your "interpretation" of the word, schools, and infectious deseases wards of hosptials are concentration camps.
No, they aren't, because students and patients aren't sent to schools and hospitals, respectively, against their own will, where they are subject to imprisonment under harsh conditions.
RDBZ said:
You ignore the reality that illegal immigrants are given the choice of returning to a country where they have legal residency. No one forces, or even encourages, them to take up the option of temporary detention untill their status is reviewed. In fact, every effort is made to discourage them from taking that option.
First, they don't always have legal residency. In fact, a number of them don't, which not only makes it nearly impossible for them to apply to legally enter Australia, it also means they cannot return to their home country. Also, a number of them stay because they feel they're far less likely to be granted permission to reside in Australia if they leave.
RDBZ said:
Your comments about "harsh conditions" and the centres' supposed location in "Northern wastelands", reveal your ignorance, as do your comments about Australia generally.
Do you dispute the fact that they're kept under harsh conditions? Would you I prefer it if I referred to the "Northern wastelands" as Australia's "picturesque boreal solitudes" from now on?
RDBZ said:
Only one country in the word has a higher proption of foreign born residents and citizens than Australia (that country being Isreal). Believe it or not, very few migrants return to their country of origin. The only exception to this being immigrants from the UK.
Where did you get those statistics from? The nation with the highest proportion of foreign residents is Luxembourg, and the country that granted the most new citizenships was Canada, both based on 2000 statistics. If you have something newer, I'd like to see it.
Infanteer said:
I've put my evidence up in a logical and comprehensible manner - sure, it was open source and general, but it could get far more detailed if it was worth the time. You've offered nothing in rebuttal; you only state that it is "a "low standard of evidence". Strike 1.
My rebuttal is that what you consider to be evidence shouldn't be considered evidence at all. It's not enough to justify what you suggest it justifies.
Infanteer said:
When dealing with criminals - I've stated that the law-enforcement mentality is inapproriate for approaching terrorists - terrorism is a tactic that is used by an enemy. Again, you dismiss my statement and offer nothing in return. Strike 2.
The "law enforcement mentality" is the only appropriate mentality a western democratic nation can use. What Michael Schuer proposes not only borders on war crimes, it is also unjustifiable with by a county that is supposed to respect law and order.
Infanteer said:
Well, you said "They have to account for these kinds of things so that they don't end up looking incompetent if something were to happen." - if that doesn't imply "hedging" or "Covering Your ***", then I don't know what does. Have you read these documents? If you had, you'd have known that the focus on domestic attacks by ideological networks was a prime focus and not an "account for almost any possiblity". Strike 3.
Again, I never said "hedging," you did.
Infanteer said:
Three strikes - I'm forced to believe that your persistent chatter (what some call crap-disturbing) on this thread combined with your inability to back any of your claims at best puts you in violation of the "substantion" clause of the Conduct Guidelines (meaning you're just dumb) or at worse makes you an abject troll (meaning you have ill intent for these forums). You're on the ramp and the green light is on - did you pack your chute? Keep it up and you'll find out soon.
You need to force yourself to believe something? If you try to ban me using a rule that was probably written to keep people from making libelous unsubstantiated comments, you'd be attacking the fact that I disagree with you.
What do I need to substantiate? The fact that what you consider to be evidence isn't evidence in the eyes of the Canadian judicial system? You agree with this, but you seem to think that for terrorism, Canada's standard of evidence can be thrown down a toilet and replaced with something much lower, which you haven't defined.
