re: arctic patrols: while it seems silly to patrol what realistically is a frozen wasteland, if we don't patrol it we could potentially lose it.

Denmark is already up there claiming everything on the tectonic plate Greenland sits on, and if we're not there to say "excuse me, these ones are ours" they could end up in control of resources that are ours.

It seems a bit silly, but then wars have started over less.

a "knob" replies with a fullish argument, at least more of one than "victimary Sean" has yet given us.

a "knob" replies with a fullish argument, at least more of one than "victimary Sean" has yet given us.

Sean, give up and go away. You're a fool here, and that should be sufficient for you vanity. If you really missed the point, ask someone smarter than yourself for the commonest understanding of Peer's query; and finding someone of that calibre won't be difficult. The kid sitting on the sidewalk is a good bet for you, Sean. Just about anyone will do. Trust me, Sean. I mean it. I know more than you. I have your interest at heart. Find someone to help you get home and go to bed. Wake up later. Wipe your chin. See, it's all good, Sean. Smile. There, there. All better now, right?

Hey is this where i come to get my hate on?
Oh, hey buddies....let's get hatin'......

wtf?! all these neo con trolls....

"So we may serve our community better, would visitors here please tell us what an ordinary reader of www.beyondrobson.com is likely to know or think about Islam and terrorism?"

Its just the holier-than-thou arrogance of this question and this site that I find repulsive. That being said, I'm not a victim. I'm a antagonist. I enjoy linking to inflammatory sites like yours, because inevitably you will hang yourself with your own rope. For example: "Trust me, Sean. I mean it. I know more than you". And you call 'us' smarmy?

If anyone is "hyper-victimary" (whatever that means) it is the Israeli apologists. At the first sign of criticism, you cry antisemitism. Ever heard the story of the boy who cried wolf?

"Denmark is already up there claiming everything on the tectonic plate Greenland sits on, and if we're not there to say "excuse me, these ones are ours" they could end up in control of resources that are ours.

It seems a bit silly, but then wars have started over less."

True enough... but if the government is keen on protecting our resources you'd think they'd shell out for ships that could operate as icebreakers.

"True enough... but if the government is keen on protecting our resources you'd think they'd shell out for ships that could operate as icebreakers." Moreover, they would stop shipping raw logs, bulk water, oil and gas, and hydro to the behemoth down south.

Sean,

antisemitism is a very real and pervasive phenomenon. We should point to it and try to understand it. I am happy to discuss it any time. We should also try to understand victimary thinking, which is the desire or habit of understanding the political or cultural world in terms of victims, intead of ideas or values which transcend the victimary process. If you study Judaism you will see that the whole point of that religion is to teach us to move beyond our need for victims. WHile that doesn't stop some Jews in this victimary age from playing victimary politics, on the whole I find most Jews really don't want to be victims, to be treated like victims, or to cry like victims. They don't go about killing Infidels in their God's name.

But, of course, sometimes there really are very real victims in this world. The problem with over-doing the victimary thinking is that in making everying into a question of victims, we diminish the reality of those who really are.

You say you are an antagonist, not a promoter of victims. But in this post alone you figure victims of: Ottawa spending, the Covenant Zone bloggers, the Harper government wary of the injection site, mandatory treatment in Alberta, media concentration, the MSM, two kinds of police, and Japanese corporations.

Note, you don't actually rationally discuss these victimary figures that you draw, in an attempt to justify their drawing. You just take it for granted that cool people like you know you're cool (i.e. close to what you all realize is sacred, or cool: i.e. the victim at the centre of attention) by the simple gestures you make. This is a highly religious state of mind, you know.

"They don't go about killing Infidels in their God's name".

King David Hotel, Irgun, Stern Gang.

"Note, you don't actually rationally discuss these victimary figures that you draw, in an attempt to justify their drawing".

I fully admit that. I don't really have the time to go into detail, and I realize that Morning Brew is nothing more than pithy, leftist, punditry. But I'm OK with that.

"You say you are an antagonist, not a promoter of victims. But in this post alone you figure victims of: Ottawa spending, the Covenant Zone bloggers, the Harper government wary of the injection site, mandatory treatment in Alberta, media concentration, the MSM, two kinds of police, and Japanese corporations."

Don't forget the heat. I also mentioned that i was a victim of the heat. Perhaps I'm less of an antagonist and more apt to "challenge the old elites, parties and media middlemen".

"King David Hotel, Irgun, Stern Gang."

That's not killing infidels in your God's name; that's fighting to found a nation, on a small piece of land which is the only land in the world you claim for your religion/nation, as justified by your history in the place. Killing infidels in your God's name is when you go about the world, to lands where you have no historial connection, and kill people because you believe your God wants the whole world to worship him in the particular terms of your political religion, or at least to submit to those who do. Or it's when you kill because your God wants the lands you already control to be entirely free of other believers. COmpare, say, the fate of Muslims in Israel or America today with that of Christians or Jews, let alone polytheists, in the Muslim world. Google Brigitte Gabriel for starters.

Italics be gone! I hope that's better.

"That's not killing infidels in your God's name; that's fighting to found a nation, on a small piece of land which is the only land in the world you claim for your religion/nation, as justified by your history in the place."

Justified? Justified? That's the problem right there. you justify killing in one sense, but abhor it in another. Would the native indians be justified in acts of terrorism because of their history in the place?