Comments on: Al-Qaeda’s Moroccan Swedish Iraqi Leader

By: Andy

Andy — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 20:29:34 +0000

Canada’s prosperity existed long before the flood of third-world immigrants that the Liberal party let in beginning in the 1960′s. Canadian cities now have much higher rates of crime. You all seem to act as if immigration is a right. IT IS NOT. Immigration is a privilege.

By: salem s

salem s — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:34:04 +0000

Check the BBc story about Yemen arresting a terrorist cell which Yemen says is linked to the Israeli intelligence.

By: salem s

salem s — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:07:00 +0000

Muslims are of so many racial groups not one racial group!Albenians are Europeans and also Muslims,so are the Bosnians who lived in Europe for centries.What would you suggest to do about them since they disrupt the homogeneity of Europe!?

By: salem s

salem s — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 21:57:59 +0000

“Europe could and should have stayed homgeneous, just like Japan did”?!

How Europe could be homogeneous with so many diefferent languagges, so many different ethnic groups that have fought each others?

By: The Infamous Oregon Lawhobbit

The Infamous Oregon Lawhobbit — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 19:21:46 +0000

Seems more like “wearing a red shirt on the Enterprise.”

By: Brian

Brian — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 17:45:10 +0000

If you’re going to gon about supporting racial homogeneity (i.e., racism) being the panacea of any coutnry, Japan or otherwise, I’d like to ask you two things:

How do you explain Canada’s peace and prosperity?

Are you aware that the Japanese are themselves immigrants and that they repress the native Ainu population? And the Korean minority, etc.? Finally how do you respond to the fact that Japan’s homogeneous country became militarist dictatoriship bent on regional domination and which led to a policy of self-destruction at every level? By your arguments anything that happens in Japan or Sweden seems to happen there ‘because’ of their racial make up. You’re cherry picking ‘good’ examples, no?

By: P Jerome

P Jerome — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 16:56:25 +0000

There is no “Al Queda in Iraq.” The very name was the basis of a US propaganda campaign, initiated with al Zarquawi in 2004. This fake boogie man was already dead before he supposedly made a splash in Iraq. US military sources have admitted that they “exaggerated” his role as a psyops tactic, yet our servile press (and blinded populace) accept whatever they are spoon fed.

Get it straight: “Al Queda” is an American invention. The crew of muslim zealots, drug dealers, and guns for hire was organized by the US military intelligence for use in Afghanistan, the former Soviet republics, and later in Bosnia, Kosovo and even Lebanon. There is ample evidence through the Clinton years that even the infamous “Osama Bin Laden” was on the US payroll for his work with the Kosovo Liberation Army, the gang of muslim drug dealers and murderers who were eventually rewarded with the keys to that province.

The idea of “Al Queda in Iraq” is neither logical (a murderous Sunni movement allegedly fostering indiscriminate murderous rampages against Shiites, and Americans in Iraq in the name of fostering divisions) nor factual. Please, dear readers, think two, three, ten times, or whatever it takes, to decipher reality from these reports. Whose interests do they serve? Does the occupying army gain by the idea of a Al Queda in Iraq, on whom it can blame all the assassinations, indiscriminate murders, and sectarian atrocities happening in that godforsaken land? Of course they do. This is why they made it up.

By: richard vajs

richard vajs — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 12:16:49 +0000

Note: Just because I dislike hostility based solely upon geographical nationalism doesn’t mean that I approve of hostility based upon religious or racial differences. Religious hostility like that between Shiites and Sunnis is just more craziness. Hostility based upon race, a prime example being Zionism, is just a throwback to an earlier evolutionary time – like maybe the Stone Age.

By: richard vajs

richard vajs — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 11:58:57 +0000

Nationalism is a 20th century malady. My Grandfather was a journeyman butcher in Europe before emigrating to the US in 1912. He had told me how he was able to travel all over Eastern Europe without concern for national borders. Closed and protected borders must have come with the war hysteria and general madness of “The Great War”. Tribal and ethnic hostlities have always been around, religious hostilities also. But hostilities arising from which side of an arbitrary geographical boundary one lives on is sheer craziness. Why should a Cuban be my enemy but if he climbs on a raft and floats to Florida, he is now my brother. Ditto the Arabs, the Russians, etc. What else is nationalism except emotionalism based upon geography? Einstein called nationalism an infantile disease similiar to measles in that it affects mostly the childish. When I see a person like Lou Dobbs getting so steamed up about “illegal immigrants”, I just see an unhappy person totally confused as to his real place in the universe. A few friends, knowing my attitudes, ask “Well, Richard, what are you going to do when all of the Mexicans are up here”? My answer is “Move to Mexico when it gets too crowded”. It will be a happy day for the World when we get over nationalism, and people like Ms Palin are treated as the sociopaths that they are.

By: Squirrel

Squirrel — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 10:27:27 +0000

Since we’re all human, aren’t we all the same race?

Anyway, to attempt to answer Andy’s question. Here in Australia immigration is needed because our population is actually decreasing – as is most of Europe’s if I am not mistaken. Apparently (I’m no expert) our economies rely on growth to be successful – growth which at the moment can only come from immigration.

So if all or most Western countries need immigrants for growth, it follows that these immigrants will be from non-Western countries.

Another answer is probably the fact that Sweden is very generous in accepting refugees.