🚀 go-pugleaf

In article (Dans l�article) <51usd9$1v1@hendrix.postino.com>,
danny@hendrix.postino.com (Danny Aldham) wrote (�crivait)�:

> X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
> 
> Fawzi (fawzi@vir.com) wrote:
> 
> : If there ever is violence, bigots like you who can't make the difference
> : between a simple change of political status and throwing violent comments,
> : will be to blame.
> : And people like you, and the one before you, who hunger for violence and
> : want to kick ass before even trying to understand what motivates the other
> : side, are the most dangerous threat to the integrity of your precious
> : nation, either with or without Quebec...
> : Try to think about it without bursting to many braincells... 


> I don't know where you get any of these ideas from my post. I was trying
> to calmly and rationally discuss a real possibility.

I don't know how you can possibly discuss calmly and rationally about what
you consider a real possibility.

First, what you don't seem to realize, and this is what is so infuriating,
is that by considering it a real possibility and by spreading that idea,
you are making it a possibility.
And to give you a very simple example: No one would have thought of making
a bomb from an atom, if no one would have considered it a real
possibility.

Second, by making such statements you and others who think like you, are
implicitely making threats.
What M.Pickell stated is as close as you can get to the "Go ahead, make my
day!" type of statement.  And you seem to agree with him.
But you are a bit more devious in your statement... You're saying:"Well,
Quebec wants to become an independant state?  Well you know it could mean
war don't you?"


> The Southern United
> States democratically decided to seceede from the Union; It lead to one
> of the bloodiest civil wars in world history. The former Yugoslavia claims
> to be fully democratic, but look at what the division there has lead too.  
> Ireland is a democracy, but that hasn't stopped the bloody divisions there.

Please compare what is comparable.  You are comparing Canada with a
conflict that's over a century old and with countries who've had centuries
of animosity and conflicts.
In Canada we have always, in the modern era, resolved our conflicts in
respect and in democracy.  And always the results of our democratic
processes have been respected.
And again, it is by comparing us with absurd situations that you are
promoting the idea that the possibility of war applies to Canada.

> Are we to follow our political masters, and hide our heads in the sand to
> the possibility of war? As your knee-jerk post shows, this is a very
> emotional issue, and emotions often boil over.

The issue of sovereignty is not what made my emotions "boil over".  What
did is that there is people like you who actually believe that a change of
political status of a portion of your country makes war a possibility.
Quebecers of a sovereign Quebec will not go out and strangle your children
and rape your wives for heaven sakes!  It will change absolutely nothing
to the way you live: There won't be less money in your pocket, you'll
still have your home, you'll still feel canadian.  So what's the big deal?
Quebecers won't close down english schools or close down english radio
stations, every acquired right of any minority in a sovereign Quebec is to
be respected...  So again what's the big deal?


> We need to discuss and
> prepare for that possibility.

No,you need to discuss and go see a psychiatrist.

> As a father, war is the last thing in 
> the world I would want to see. But I do not believe that talking about war 
> makes it more likely.

It does.

Because when you evoke the possibility of it based on the result of a
democratic vote.  You're implicitely making a threat.
And what's more you give justification to those who do not want to respect
the democratic vote of the people.  You're telling them that if they
respect the choice, that the people will have democraticaly made, war
might be a possibility.
Thus your comments are calling for a non-respect of democracy, which is a
very good premice to war.
That is why your comments are not only stupid, but irresponsible as well.


> It is usually a lack of dialog that leads to war.

No, it's ignorance.


> But let us try to keep the discussion above name calling & personal attack.
> 
> Danny 

I realy have nothing against you personaly, only against the stupidity of
coments such as yours, that's all.

The conclusion here is:  By a comment stating that both sides are
preparing for the possibility of war, and that we should prepare for it.
You are making a threat, thus you promote violence.  And you promote
non-respect of democracy, and again promote violence.
And it is plain stupid to talk about the destruction of human lives
without thinking of the consequences of what you're saying... 


Fawzi Dormeyer