Venandi

What if they fly over it... ring any bells? Guess we're not talking about mink anymore eh? Same mentality though... and that's the problem. Your lady friend next door had the option of moving, Israel doesn't. I'd also observe that you and your cats (metaphorically speaking) are representative of the world at large and most of the comments on this forum.

Hard to compensate for the war crimes of opposing forces, this is multi layered (several separate threads actually) and they're doing much better than expected in a challenging, high density, urban environment.

That is the essence and objective of the response. Minks and chickens... maybe only farm folk get that eh?

Like many here, you need to let go of history and deal with the here and now. History is interesting from a clinical perspective and it can certainly shape the cultural topography but as a dog would observe, you can't eat it or screw it... and that's all the dog cares about. I'm not trying to be harsh here BTW, I don't like any of this any more than you do, it's just that I've spent enough time there to think that without a binding (and incremental) plan, Palestinians (and mink) will remain incapable of doing the very nothing that it takes to achieve an amicable resolution. Watch the video of that Canadian Hamas supporter and keep in mind he's in Canada, the Jews he attacks are in Canada, none of them have the slightest amount of influence on the situation and I've probable spent more time in Gaza that he has. How do you fix that?

I think you're right. We can simplify things even further though. Farm boys will immediately get the analogy of peace negotiations with a mink (assuming you have chickens of ducks). You can buy proprietary mink food and put it in a silver bowl as a peace offering and it won't work. The mink will kill every single chicken (and or duck) it can get its teeth into. Not just one BTW, each and every one he can get a hold of before you or the dog can get there. You don't negotiate with a mink, and they're territorial too... they aren't going away and they can't be appeased. I trap them or shoot them on sight... here's the thing though, give me a workable plan and I'll happily stop doing that. This is that. In reality, all the Palestinians have to do is the same thing that mink has to do... NOTHING. As a bonus for doing fu%$#@ nothing, breakfast lunch and supper is on me. Reality and painful experience suggests there will be no mink or Palestinian takers though.

Given the circumstances, they are indeed. Considering the population density and the fact that total numbers also include Hamas fighters, it stands as a model for any (and all) future operations in high density urban environments. And that's in spite of the fact that Hamas routinely (and deliberately) uses human shields... which is a war crime. I have repeatedly asked those opposed to the Israeli action how they would negotiate with Hamas to no avail. Hamas is not driven by political objectives, they're driven by religious ones and there is no negotiating with them IMO but I stand ready to be schooled by outstanding ideas. Don't bother even replying until you have one BTW, it's a dead issue without one. There's a video floating around here of a Canadian Hamas supporter with a radical FU attitude directed at Canadians. People should watch that video and outline their plan for negotiating with him... If you can't do that, you bring nothing to the table except strong opinion and reality suggests it will be ignored. On the other hand, if you have a workable plan, there's a Nobel Peace Prize with your name on it. In the absence of that, Hamas will convert most of the aid they receive into missiles, tunnels, training and population beat downs until they are strong enough to strike Israel again. I't the way of things and wishing it wasn't so doesn't make it not so.

The same research (by Pew) shows that Islam is projected to be the fastest growing major religion in the decades ahead. They point to the fact that between 2010 and 2015 that births to Muslim parents made up 31% of all babies born around the world. At the same time, they also acknowledge that world wide Christian births would likely continue to exceed Muslim births (in total) until 2045 when a reverse of that trend would become apparent. They also made projections about global population growth that's worth considering here, the highlight being that the worlds least developed countries are on track to double their populations while ours (actually some 60 countries in total) would actually decrease due to falling fertility. All of that is off the point I was trying to make though, the issue is old grudges and simmering ethnic hatreds that spill over into new countries as if those new countries were the original homeland that spawned the events that created the grudges in the first place. It's not even just grudges, there are ethnic customs and traditions to consider too. I simply used Muslims to illustrate the point, there are others. By way of example we took in a lot of single mothers from the Horn of Africa without considering that in their own country they enjoyed lower status than their teenage sons. I'm not suggesting that's good BTW only that it's a reality. They needed extra help to integrate into Canadian society yet those who pointed that out were deemed racist and xenophobic at the time and they didn't get it. Instead (just like in other "enlightened progressive countries) they were warehoused vertically in ethnic enclaves. Culturally, they were (and often remain) wary of government, police, and military forces... and with damn good reason. Without the help they needed, they lost control of their sons and the demographic concentration did the rest of the job. That's only one piece of the ethnic gang equation in Toronto but it wasn't that hard to anticipate for the racist xenophobes who actually spent time in such places. None of this is quite as simple as it seems, and thinking that first breath of Canadian air solves generational issues like this remains the domain of those who never anticipated the possibility. And, as I said above it's usually the domain of people who have never been off the vacation circuit. They go para sailing in the Maldives (or wherever) and return with a profound understanding of radical Islam. All IMO of course, I'm neither a scholar or an expert in cultural topography. I'm not even saying don't do it... I'd just recommend more caution and less (I'll call it) ridicule and name calling when considering options, levels, concentrations, security clearances, available resources and a bunch of other things that would fill a new thread. Got to run... cheers

When demographic concentrations reach critical mass, the question will become how do you negotiate with him? I worry more about young second generation immigrants from volatile regions than I do their parents who fled with only the shirt on their backs. Regardless though, expecting new arrivals to abandon old grudges, particularly religious and ethnic ones simply by breathing Canadian air is a uniquely progressive idea that will eventually prove just as disappointing as JT himself. It will just take longer to achieve. I have yet to meet a single progressive with strong opinions who have even set foot in the region that they have strong opinions about. Those who have tend to be the ones urging caution... those who haven't tend to be the ones ridiculing them for doing so. It always takes time to figure out who's right, we're beginning to get a few hints now and like other countries who got the same hints at the same point in the process, we'll ignore them.

I think a lot of people don't accept the reality of that and would argue that it isn't the case by virtue of the fact that there was a response to a 911 call. Police are considered to be the "guardians of society" rather than the protector of individuals... there's a big difference. The guardian of society concept usually comes to the fore in cases where a clear and obvious failure to protect (say spousal violence with a peace bond in place) is challenged under the notion of their having been a duty to protect that went unfulfilled... or perhaps not fulfilled in a timely enough manner. The person would be arrested and charged in that example but at the time of the occurrence, the victim is actually more alone than you might expect. It doesn't mean there isn't a coded response to the 911 call, only that the duty to protect prior to the occurrence isn't actionable. Making the case that it is, or should be, is a losing proposition in virtually all instances that I'm aware of. I think this came up while training with the OPP back in the day, I was a bit surprised by it... I suppose it makes sense if you think about it though. Where's a lawyer when you need one eh.

You forgot something... let me get that for ya: Boo Hoo, sucks to be a LOSER like you LOL. Tsk Tsk Tsk Poor baby... Sad sad little man...You have fallen so far ..... So sad that all you got left is to whimper and whine Sad Sad Sad Ho Humm ...... Guffaw Guffaw Guffaw Ha Ha Ha LOL LOL LOL Chuckle Chuckle Chuckle 🍿🍿🍿 [munch munch] 🍿🍿🍿

Modified slightly and entered into my collection of wise sayings... TY

Yes it does.... and yet: We all clearly saw the effects of what can be done during the trucker protest. Before that happened, if I had suggested to you that joint bank accounts could be frozen (FROZEN is well worth shouting BTW) simply because one of the account holders contributed $50 to a legitimate Go Fund Me cause you wouldn't have believed it. If I would have suggested that bogus media reports (about funding from foreign bad actors) would be used to justify it you wouldn't have believed that either. You would rightly point out that government has its own intelligence sources and wouldn't use open source reporting for such an unprecedented seizure. Taken a step further, you would never have believed (and perhaps still don't) that the media and government would actually collaborate on that effort in a manner that both entities could easily walk back after the fact. Nor would you even acknowledge that the "walk back" plan is actually formulated in advance of deployment. And when I say you wouldn't have believed it I include myself... and a whole bunch of other people all around the globe. Hunters laptop and the signatures of 50 high level retired analysts is a classic example of what I mean. Anyone with a tarnished secret decoder ring knew exactly what was going on there the minute it happened. The media participation in that was what surprised me... but that's another thread entirely. Habeas corpus has an easily invoked caveat once a national emergency is declared for cause... "unless lawful grounds are shown" is pretty powerful when used in that context. From a simple soldiers perspective, invoking the act itself has a high (meaning very high) threshold because of its power to suspend/modify the rights you refer to, that's the point of it and in this particular case, it's misuse, misapplication, and over the top intrusion was on full display for the entire world to see. Given your quote above, you should be even more horrified by it all than I was. Again, from a simple soldiers perspective (I'm no lawyer) it was a horrid example of the very abuse of power your quote (appears) to deem unlawful... I would add sneaky and immoral to that as well, but that's just me. If you want to examine all of the legal parameters and the overlap of other acts like the National Defence Act and the CSIS Act you'll have to do it with someone smarter than me. From a soldiers perspective, The JAG provides thoughtful guidance/opinion on such matters in advance of any contemplated action being taken. The JAG folks Know all about such things, they even have a seat in the TOC to provide advice/guidance on the Law of Armed Conflict. Seems to me that there's more to all this than meets the eye and blanket pronouncements about complicated legal issues which have caveats on the caveats is the foundation upon which disappointment is constructed in the real world. To say that I was disappointed in the government's action would be a huge understatement.

Cool, me too. It just seems like there was a polar shift and the ground moved under my feet... conservatives have now become the liberals of old.. Close enough to halfway for IBA lunatics who sleep in church parking lots and drive to Mexico for coffee. If you can dig those folks up and want to do it I'd make the trip.

Not intended as insulting or derogatory regardless of how it sounded, I actually think we could solve most of this stuff over a six pack... I'm a scotch fan too BTW. Not withstanding the amusing Fox / Flyer diversion and the Herb/Doggie vitriol, the written word almost always seems harsher than what's intended. Has anyone ever suggested a motorcycle type reunion (of sorts) for forum members? I'll alert the riot police... Cheers

I recommend it... the 20 somethings will keep you humble.

See post above. One short eh? Send him a kitten that likes its fur brushed backwards...

Yes, that about sums it up for me too. An arrogant lack of tolerance for the beliefs (be they religious or otherwise) of other people. It's especially irksome when those "other people" actually supported your quest for the equality and peaceful acceptance that seemed fair and reasonable AS ORIGINALLY ARTICULATED by those seeking it. The actions of the radical side of this equation strikes me as disrespectful, unnecessary, and counterproductive... at a personal level it rubs my fur in the wrong direction. Even a cat knows when someone does that deliberately, and they don't like it either.. Stand by for incoming fire from Herb...

Nice try. I think you know exactly what I mean so I'm not sparring with you. Freedom of expression doesn't force the object of that expression on others. Tolerance is extended out of respect and kindness. It should be accepted in the same spirit and with the knowledge that tolerance, by any definition, isn't indicative of eagerness to participate in the activity (or belief) being tolerated. Religious freedom of expression is a thing too but nativity scenes in the public square, after school bible study clubs, and secret baptisms conducted without parental consent might find you humming a different tune. I don't force my faith on others, in fact, I rarely even mention it. The fact that I don't know a single gay or trans person who thinks radical activism is beneficial to them or even tolerant of people who don't happen to share their views (or lifestyle) is enough for me to suggest you pushed this too hard, too far, and too fast. They would be the first to tell you that too. The tolerant people you now point and laugh at have ample cause to suck back and reload, and that's exactly what my (albeit few) acquaintances were fearful of. Bad tactical decision, you should have taken yes for an answer, done your own thing and minded your own damn business. Just like you expect Christians to do.

Fair enough, but the radicals and their supporters come from both camps, that group previously even included lots of college aged women who utterly failed to realize that they would suffer the loss of scholarships and championship rings due to their support. Even after being warned about it. I bet some of them regret that support now too. Actually a few, but only in the military. I've previously deployed with one of them prior to their conversion. It's a limited sampling to be sure but from what I've seen they hold the same non radical views as the gay people I referred to in a previous post. Nary a one of them (from either group) favoured such things as insisting menstrual products be placed in male locker rooms. Statistically the number of radicals is small but they've had a huge and ultimately ruinous effect on the majority... and the majority still remains a small minority of the population with much to lose because of it. The radical elements should have been forced into their own life raft, cut adrift and ignored. Instead they ended up being embraced by people who feared a backlash but also feared turning on perceived allies in a cause they only supported marginally. All IMO of course and the sample size is clearly too small to represent much of anything anyway. But my point was, and remains, that the pending backlash not only was predictable, it was easily avoided. The reluctance among progressives to set radical elements of their group adrift is a huge failing that most conservatives don't share. Only now are they beginning to see it, some may even be starting to regret it.

See....

Certainly for some but that wasn't it for me. Drag Queen story time, compelled speech and forcing communities to fly pride flags pushed me firmly into "hell no" territory. And perversely, the people most likely to rage against my new, far less tolerant self are actually the very ones who caused that change of heart in the first place. They will say things like: "well, you don't even know any gay people you homophobic redneck." Which only annoys people who do all the more. If you work in the airline industry and regularly hang out with any of the male FA's on lay overs you would know that's just not the case. Not only are these folks some of the nicest, and kindest people you will ever meet, some (actually most I think) see this radical militancy as something they fear will work against them. They just want to live their lives, have the same rights and freedoms everyone else enjoys and not be bothered, vilified etc. Exactly what I wanted for them too. The radicals should have just minded their own damn business... or better yet, much better yet, have been condemned and vilified by all sensible people to the point that all credibility was lost. Instead, left wing loons embraced the lunacy and created the backlash we now see simmering.

Agreed. But I also think it's evolved (or at least part of the threat has) beyond simple inspections now, which is not to say they aren't still important, required and the obvious first line of defence. If I were of a mind to smuggle guns and fentanyl into Canada, I would have pioneered the latest trend of using drones years ago. 3D printing is taking off now too after being statistically insignificant for much longer than I expected. We wasted far too much time, money, and energy persecuting law abiding gun owners. The liberals were fond of screaming "domestically sourced crime guns" a few years ago and shamelessly manipulated those statistics to support the course of action they've embarked on. Trouble is, it's as easy now as it was back then to foresee a time when Canadian criminals wouldn't need, or even want the hassle of importing them over the border or stealing them from lawful owners. That time is at hand now and the people who failed to foresee it simply weren't paying attention. 3D printing technology (and most importantly availability), will likely render that cross border activity more risk than reward soon and potentially, it's a huge growth industry for organized crime. The worst part of it is we wasted an eye popping amount of time and money on feeble, ineffective wedge issues and will now spend many times more than that catching up to where we should be right now. I don't blame the government for that either because I'd be laying wedge issues as if they were minefields too if I were in JT's boots. I blame voters... specifically agenda driven voters who refused to listen or even take the time to school themselves on these issues at a 10 year old level of comprehension. Patently foolish chants of "nobody needs an assault rifle" (as if they weren't already illegal) are now destined to backfire on them... because criminals actually do need/want them. Was it even possible to have anticipated a different outcome here? Put another way, WTF did you think was going to happen?

So the state deemed him guilty of "spreading online disinformation," he arrived unable to speak the language and without the relevant skills to find employment, and as a result of all that finds himself virtually homeless. Certainly has a familiar ring to it eh? Sounds like the sort of thing Jordan Peterson has been speaking against. Maybe this guy should have watched a few JP videos, heeded the warnings and stuck around to vote JT out in the next election lest we firmly entrench the same thing here in perpetuity. Sounds like he got a taste of what life in Canada would be like if JT gets re-elected.

The act provides the PM and cabinet the powers to respond to 4 different categories. -Public welfare - natural disasters, epidemics and the like -Public order issues - civil unrest... bouncy kingdom emergencies for example -International emergencies that effect Canada -War and armed conflict emergencies - pretty broad in scope but can include things like sabotage, terrorism, and violence in support of overthrowing a duly elected government. The National Defence Act, CISS Act and a couple of others (as I recall) have some overlap too. Lot's of reading there and enough overlap to make situational vagaries confuse the heck out of me. Luckily, the JAG provides interpretive opinions on a case by case basis if/when required. Not only are blanket statements above my pay grade, they usually are the first to get mortally wounded on first contact. I'm guessing that your's could easily be overtaken by circumstances and prove incapable of keeping you warm... even on a summer night. Good luck with all that reading.... it's too deep for me.

No doubt, I simply rounded up the Parliamentary Budget Officer's own estimate. People who support this action will argue tooth and nail to discount and dismiss realistic estimates and will also dismiss previous cost explosions out of hand. They think the government is right... the government on the other hand knows full well that it's being wildly optimistic. There's a reason we've seen no action to date, it's a cheap, easily achieved wedge issue for JT. The 800 million price point and the 98% vs 2% issue should be sufficiently eye popping for any 10 year old with a hand held calculator to question the cost vs efficacy equation. Letting them chew on their own numbers just seemed more effective than trying to defend my own estimate from a full frontal attack. Anyone who doesn't get it at an 800 million price point is sufficiently removed from reality that reality will hide itself from their gaze anyway.