Saturday, 3 June 2006 - 11:09 PM BST

Interesting information DY.

Why do you think that Canada might be under attack? I thought the countries that were under threat were the ones who had troops in Iraq.

Also, what do you think the soloution is to defeat/stop these crazy people?

Sunday, 4 June 2006 - 6:43 PM BST

For a long time, it was the countries that opposed sending troops to Iraq that got attacked! Turkey and Russia for instance. The shoe bomber, Richard Reid, got on board a plane in France for his failed attempt to blow himself up on a flight. I don't think that Portugal, Poland or El Salvador ever got hit. The US hasn't had a big attack since 9-11 either. The closest it had was the 'Beltway assasin' who shot at people from a hole in his car.

The people arrested in Canada were all home-grown. The people behind the July attacks in Britain were UK bred too. And the ringleaders behind the 9-11 attacks were mostly living in Europe before they moved to the US. And the so-called '20th hijacker' Zacharias M, was French-born and later moved to Britain where he was radicalised.

The common-factor? I find it interesting that the US has a large Arab and other muslim population but generally doesn't generate this. And I think it's the stronger economy and reduced level of welfare that's to be thanked. The stronger economy means that more people have a shot at working and being assimilated into society. Contrast this with France and Germany where unemployment and welfare payments are high: hatred and loathing are incubated in the minds of the young muslim males while they have no rewarding work to do. The welfare payments allow them to sit around during the day planning a jihad.

So my advice? Copy the Americans! Have a more dynamic economy with less red tape and social protections and cut unemployment benefits. The European social model is a disaster on so many levels, as we saw during the riots in France last year. America integrates its Arab\Muslim populations better than we do. It's the economy, stupid!

DY

Sunday, 4 June 2006 - 11:18 PM BST

David, what is wrong with deporting Muslims? After all, they do not belong in our society.

We should have camps for the fanatics and their sympathisers. Every other Muslim should be deported.

Monday, 5 June 2006 - 8:57 AM BST

That is why the west has been doomed by the PC brigade.

Imagine if we had appeased Hitler all the way.

Or given in to the Communists.

And yet, that is exactly what we are doing with Islam.

Nazis were interned during the 40s until the war was over.

Communists were tracked night and day.

Today there are millions of Muslims living in the west who live in their own society within our society.

Can we do the same in Islamic countries? NO!

There is no War on Terror because we were beaten (by ourselves) before it started.

Monday, 5 June 2006 - 9:01 AM BST

Did you see Panorama last night?

US democracy at its finest!

Here's another nail in the coffin right here...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1790500,00.html

Monday, 5 June 2006 - 2:50 PM BST

Mark Steyn puts it best:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn04.html

By the way, if people want to post links, can they please do them as 'hot links' please. I mean that others should be able to click through rather than being expected to cut and paste.

DY

Monday, 5 June 2006 - 4:43 PM BST

Poor David.

Living in a world that never existed.

Dreaming of a world that can never be.

Monday, 5 June 2006 - 5:26 PM BST

Dreaming of a world that can never be.

But here's the funny thing. We accept things today that seemed unthinkable 10 to 30 years ago.

When I was in secondary school Germany was divided, The Soviet Union was in existence, Yugoslavia was one country, South Africa had apartheid, most of South America was under some sort of undemocratic rule and Nicaragua was torn by violence.

By the time I was in my mid to late 20s, Germany was one country, the Soviet Union was disbanded, Yugoslavia was in civil war, South Africa was democratic, South America was heading towards being almost entirely democratic and Nicaragua was at peace. Peru was in the midst of a violent Maoist insurgency.

And last week Montenegro peacefully broke off from Serbia and Yugoslavia was finally gone - split into six nations all of which had been republics before. Today Peru has voted in a rightwing government that aims to cut taxes:

Peru votes for the right

Things change. So keep an open mind.

DY

Tuesday, 6 June 2006 - 12:54 AM BST

Yes, things are indeed changing.

Less democracy. More corporate states.

Monroe Doctrine is alive and well. Expect a heavy US boot clamping down in South American when necessary.

The Soviet Union is gone but most of the new states are either Stalinist or certainly not your idea of democracy.

Is South Africa democratic? Seems more like a one-party state to me. No wonder it cuddles up with Mugabe.

And we can add countries/"states to be" to replace the ones you mention. Zimbabwe, Burma, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, East Timor, Colombia, Northern Pakistan, Kashmir, Kurdistan (ex-Iraq), Belorus, Catalunya, Basque region, Sudan and so on...

Tuesday, 6 June 2006 - 2:07 AM BST

No wait, the future does look good.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldbriefing/story/0,,1791089,00.html