There is also another possibility. The government is deploying our troops to Afghanistan at a time when the level of resistance is expected to increase. This will potentially increase the risk of terrorists here in Canada. Reports of "incidents" in Canada have suddenly been provided to the media. Both could be means of stirring up fear and anger, in order to increase acceptance of the need to adopt U.S. security standards and integrate our economies.
There are Canadians who are ready to succumb to whatever arbitrary power the government wants to exercise in the name of security. If Canadians can be made to feel insecure, more will accept arbitrary rule and deep integration will take place without debate.
We need to be vigilant. The biggest danger may not be from terrorists, but from a government seeking to manipulate public opinion in favour of its integrationist agenda.
– Phyllis Wagg is from West Bay, N.S., and holds a PhD in history.
http://www.airdrieecho.com/story.php?id=173605
[Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on July 23, 2005]
Note: http://www.airdrieecho....
http://www.airdrieecho....
Fear-Mongering About Terrorism Could Be Meant To Manipulate Public Into Supporti
Posted on Friday, July 22 at 10:11 by sthompsonContributed By
Topic
Article Rating
(0 votes)
Options
Stumble It!Comments
view comments in forum
Page 1 2
---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?
---
Now call it extreme if you like, but I propose we hit it hard, and we hit it fast, with a major, and I mean major...leaflet campaign.--Rimmer, Red Dwarf
What, A brilliant string of words?
Yes and no
As pointed out there is no example of the type of fear-mongering nor is there a definition of ‘fear-mongering about’.
‘could be’ in its self is a scare tactic as used within the context used.
‘could be’ also indicates possibility . In this case slight possibility
A moon ‘could be’ made of green cheese.
THE moon however is not!
‘certain people’ is an implied reference but implied towards whom?
“anarchy’ has become an emotionally charged word usually now-implying chaos
As always points for *trying* as id the *trying* of patience.
Again … No seegar!
---
Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boy.
-Parliament of Whores
Key to these developments, IMO, are that the Task Force is an unelected body of business people, who are making recommendations which apparently our governments are following. How's that for democracy?
---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?
Canadians and Americans used to have virtually identical incomes and standard of living but Canadian standards stagnate while the Americans are more progressive. This is the direct fault of our interventionist governments that promise everything to everyone and pay for it by overtaxing Canadians, even while they don't deliver the basics.
Integration is a good thing as it would mean that our politicians would be less able to interfere in the economy in order to buy votes for their re-election, it would take a while but our living standards would finally start to improve.
- protectionist, interventionist and anti-competitive economic policies
- massive social engineering schemes (e.g. Multiculturalism, bilingualism)
- cultural and business subsidies tied more to cronyism than merit
- resource confiscation from non-Liberal provinces (i.e., the NEP)
And they acheived all this back then despite the fact that their fearmongering was about a country that has not posed a military threat to us for almost 200 years. Today's terrorist threat, on the other hand, is real and immediate. Maybe we've been scared of the wrong thing all this time.
---
Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boy.
-Parliament of Whores