Venandi

Personally, that doesn't bother or even affect me, I can still put a candle in the window anytime I want. I still call Canada Day "Dominion Day" and if you're coming to my house on 1 July that's what the email will say in the subject line. If you're offended by that and/or think it should all be cancelled because of 215 graves that remain undiscovered then cool, stay home and mind your own damn business. I don't think that's unreasonable. Things like white poppies (and other such forms of protests) though are different, they're intended to be disrespectful and they serve as one example of what I mean. I don't do that to others and I expect the same consideration in return. So... expecting me to wear a hockey jury with a rainbow coloured pride flag emblazoned on it will ultimately lead to disappointment, I'm not going to do that. In return for that consideration I don't demand that people stand up during the national anthem, I don't throw rocks at people who burn the flag, I don't insist other people's kids attend remembrance day ceremonies, wear T-shirts that say "Jesus saves" etc etc and on and on. So really, it comes dow to picking a fight when all you have to do is.... absolutely nothing.

Those celebrations don't require, expect, or assume mandatory participation though, so... I guess you either get that or you don't, I seem to have foolishly assumed that it was a given in a country like Canada. The Santa Clause Parade isn't mandatory and suggesting that it should be would likely garner a laugh or two from the very conservatives you (appear to be) obliquely slamming here. If schools were to demand attendance at bible studies or start conducting secret baptisms without parental consent I would object as well... for exactly the same reason and in spite of my own faith. What does it take to drive such a simple concept home? I wonder if drag queen bible stories in grade schools would do the trick by causing liberal / progressive heads to explode. Instead of searching for that detonation threshold, how about the concept of you do you with my blessings, you simply mind own business and extend the same courtesy to me? If that doesn't appeal to you I'd say that it falls to you to suggest something else, because in the absence of a compelling "something else", it's about as much as you can reasonably expect from me.

Indeed... And it's breathtaking to me that this seems to be such a difficult concept for some people to download. I can't help but wonder what benefit woke boosters hoped to achieve by alienating the very people whose tolerance and good nature helped them achieve the freedoms they now seek to force on others via "mandatory participation." It seems to me that some (actually many) people who initially supported transgender / gay rights out of tolerance, respect and good nature now feel duped and regret extending that support in the first place. In terms of measurable backlash, the real question for activists to reflect on is "what did you think was going to happen?" It seems bizarre, all ya had to do to was nothing, live your life, quietly enjoy the freedoms gained, not be crazy, mind your own business and extend that same courtesy to others. I think most people simply assumed that was the goal and that's what they thought they were supporting. I perceive that there's now an underlying sense of betrayal and that's what's fuelling the backlash. There's a potential cost associated with that (I'll call it) betrayal too, in future, the respect, tolerance and goodwill freely given will likely be replaced suspicion, intolerance, and division... not a good trade IMO. In short, what seems to have gotten lost here is a simple concept wisely summarized below, something I thought was a given in Canada:

Been there done that actually, albeit briefly. Forestry too but to my knowledge there was no cameras on the trees... I never fully trusted the squirrels though, always felt like they were spying on us. High security Ops centres in diverse vacation spots too, radio, telephone and secure chat conversations all recorded, internal movements recorded on video and by ID/swich key access logs. I love this part BTW, thanks for your service: If we're comparing resumes, for me it's mostly military and commercial flying where every word you say and every control input you make is recorded on CVR/FDR and mission computers. But the CVR/FDR doesn't follow you into the lav, it doesn't record flirty conversations with FAs at Tim Hortons, it isn't in the crew transport, the taxi or in the hotel room at the end of the day. It doesn't' follow you to the restaurant to make sure you didn't have a glass of wine within 12 hours of show time and it doesn't gallop behind the car on the drive home from the airport. I didn't say it couldn't be done, I said the idea was silly. And speaking of silly, all of this off topic stuff has created knots in "Mr Offtopic's" underwear.... It's actually the first post he appears to have gotten right though and I don't want to ruin the moment for him. I'll leave ya to it.

Maybe you should be wearing the camera so you can see how silly that sounds. From today's news... almost as if it were on cue eh? https://www.yahoo.com/news/5-takes-hunter-biden-laptop-100036555.html BTW, some of those former analysts were rewarded with Biden administration jobs after they signed the letter. Here's a quote from the article (in bold below)... it appears that Politico is now distancing themselves from the story they ran using the self same "plausible deniability" option that I suggested would be a likely first choice. There was a reason that only ex-members of the intelligence community were recruited to sign this letter and act as spokesmen for the Russian hoax angle. Here it is in today's news. But the thing that is truly news worthy here is that 51 intelligence analysts were actually able to agree on something (meaning anything). It's a bloody rare thing and I remember laughing at the idea the very first time I read about the letter they signed. Now is that paranoia or does recognizing the humour in it come from drinking beer with argumentative intelligence analysts during extended vacations. When asked for comment, Politico stressed that its article made clear that claims of potential Russian interference were the opinions of the former intelligence officials, not the outlet itself.

I would accept that as a given, but it's not my heartache with the whole thing. There was a lab a few blocks from the hack point, it was doing GOF research on the self same virus, in the fall of 2019 two lab workers were hospitalized with Covid symptoms (that became open source in early 2020), but anyone making that connection... saying "wait a minute now" was punished. Leading Phd's were de-platformed, people fired, careers ruined, information deliberately suppressed, ridicule abounded etc etc, all for merely suggesting a causal connection. Now it's simply a working hypothesis, we patiently await a conclusive determination, and the issue of suppression and punishment gets a nonchalant shrug as if it never happened. My fear is that we learned nothing and all that personal and professional pain was for naught... if so, we'll do this again at the very first opportunity.

I could probably write a book here but this is a condensed and hastily rendered version of how I see it and it's not as off topic as it might appear at first glance. If you don’t believe that governments partner with willing and ideologically aligned media outlets, or that security forces (including intelligence) are above being weaponized for specific purposes then so be it, I’ll leave you to it. But, as you might expect there’s a bit of subtlety at work in all of this, they aren’t going to hit you over the head with a club… the intent is to do the exact opposite. First off (and IMO of course) the timing of the laptop story strikes me as deliberate and predictable. There’s always some bombshell released in October intended to impact elections in November. Both sides do this, and their war rooms deliberately time the release for maximum effect. It’s not a surprise that the defending war room will then counter the allegations and use their own assets (media, ex-intelligence analysts, subject matter experts, etc) to do so. Time is always short and IMO liberals/democrats are better at playing this game than their conservative colleagues… I don’t know why that is but given the events in the US right now, I suspect they'll be stepping up their game in the future. In any case, these releases are every bit as predictable as that horrible story about a veteran being denied benefits10 days before Remembrance Day… it happens every year, and every year we try to guess (locker room conversations) what it will be. The opposition leader is going to tell you all about it with an outraged gleam in his eye but you know full well he’s been sitting on that story since May. My two questions are the same every year: “where the hell ya been bro?” and “just how stupid do you think we are?” We now know that the entire laptop saga of “classic Russian disinformation” spin was false… right? If you don’t believe that stop reading now and move on because I won’t be sparing with you about this anymore. I tend to work these issues backwards because plausible deniability starts pre-deployment, not after the fact. So, it’s noteworthy (at least it is to me) that the analysts, and virtually all of the frontmen asserting “classic Russian disinformation” in the media, were ex-members of a community (communities actually) that simply don’t get this stuff wrong. So how is that to be explained? Well, as ex-members they likely never examined the evidence beyond a superficial level (meaning what they were given) because it’s unlikely that they would have (or have been granted) full access. So asserting that something bears the hallmarks of “that which it isn’t” is not the same thing as conducting an investigation, examining the computer in detail, analyzing the contents and then arriving at the same conclusion based on findings of fact. BTW, have you ever tried to get 51 intelligence analysts to agree on anything? Imagine doing that over the course of a couple of days? Try it with 51 meteorologists… pretty much the same thing I think That alone draws my attention and suggests a second glance is warranted. In short, top level organizations don’t make these sort of mistakes when they have physical evidence to examine. If you listened carefully to what was being said and who was doing the talking, it was always highly credible but still ex-members front and centre the whole time. I’m guessing the question these folks were asked is “here, look at this, are you willing to certify that it (meaning the evidence they were given) is a classic example of deliberately planted disinformation by foreign actors hoping to disrupt an election process?” The answer is easy: “yes that’s how they do it, we’ve all seen it before, OK, I’ll sign to that effect.” Armed with that, a compliant media then steps in and sells it. Watch the interviews, no one is saying our experts examined the computer in detail and after careful analysis we determined it was fake… they’re simply saying things like this is “a classic example of Russian disinformation” and they’re right. I watched in awe as the anchors didn't even bother to ask the sort of basic questions you and I would ask if we were given the opportunity. The talking points are clearly established, they're packaged, they're carefully synchronized for release, and they’re repeated over and over again usually with the same phrasing (like threat to our democracy). But it’s done in a way that implies there was careful consideration by expert analysts with full access. That effort gives the assessment more validity than it deserves and also supplies a venue for saying it was only “in our opinion and based on past experience” after the fact. The process works in reverse too, the media reports something that’s not true (usually deliberately leaked and always beneficial), the government then acts on the information as if it were gospel. Case in point was the assertion that foreign entities were funding the freedom convoy when they clearly weren’t. After the fact it can (and was) sold as “we had credible reports of foreign funding by bad actors and had to move quickly to protect the interests of Canadians.” There were never any credible reports at all and we know that now. It was simply a tool to freeze bank accounts as a deterrent measure and even I can make that stuff up. How else could you possibly justify the action taken? In closing I’ll just paraphrase their own words here, “these are classic markers of disinformation” and I’ll also suggest that doing it isn’t overly difficult or complicated.

It sounds like you're asking me to believe that they got it wrong because of incompetence. I don't believe for one second that they're incompetent though, far from it in fact and that's the point. They're experts in intelligence collection, analysis and dissemination. Dissecting and analyzing computers is what they do. Same level of professionalism and competence at the FBI, they have some of the top subject matter experts in the world at their disposal. I think you need a cause factor other than gross incompetence here. Other than political interference at the highest levels, what do you think accounts for them getting it so wrong when they're simply not in the business of getting things like this wrong? Or are you even prepared to admit that they did?

50 analysts (might have been 52... don't recall) signed a document attesting that in their opinion the laptop contents were a hoax. I would have to believe that all of them were incapable of doing their jobs and recognizing Russian disinformation when they saw it... I don't. I would have to believe that the FBI, with all of the assets at their disposal, on a topic of national significance prior to an election, were incapable of determining the authenticity of a laptops contents in the course of a single mourning.... I don't. I would have to believe that in the most surveilled building in the world, that the SS was unable to determine who it was who placed the cocaine... i don't. Then we come to the lab leak theory and the punishments handed out for suggesting a possible connection now readily admitted as likely. I would have to forgive regulatory/certification bodies for their actions and the media for theirs.... I don't. Following the NS shooting (there's a separate thread BTW) I would have to believe that it takes many days to discern whether or not a person had a PAL or R-PAL..... It doesn't, and anyone who's had a brief conversation with the CFO knows it. I suppose we could pursue a "one question at a time" socratic development process here but I don't have time to do that. I can tell you though that this stuff is hard to shut down even when it starts up by accident, that's why I absolutely adore the NS wolf hoax thing. Had the government and media played along with it, no telling how much fun could have been had. That was just a couple of people with a few letterheads, a loudspeaker system and some free time on the weekend.

The agreed upon sales slogan was that the laptop was a: : "classic disinformation campaign," and the Russians were likely the ones behind the laptop... In fact, it was a classic information management technique applied in prime time with the full and premeditated cooperation of all three members of the unholy trinity. The Idea that the FBI was unable to determine the laptops authenticity is in the same slop pail as the Secret Service being unable to determine who left cocaine in the White House (likely the most surveilled structure on the planet). And here's the worst part IMO, the authors of this know full well that the deception will be discovered eventually so they work out plausible deniability strategies in advance of deployment. They also know it will take about two years to unravel it and that most political supporters will have moved on by then... in fact, most supporters will actually parrot the deniability talking points and do most of the work for them. We see that right now with the Covid origin/lab leak debacle. The most strident defenders of de-platforming, silencing and firing proponents of the lab leak theory now simply say "oh well, where it came from changes nothing in terms of our coordinated response to keep Canadians safe. Even I can write that stuff. To maintain the facade though It's important to have all outlets report the same thing using the same phrases. Remember "threat to our democracy"? Did you ever hear that repeated so many times by so many individuals? It's not an accident and it's not random coincidence, there are courses in it. I'd love to see a video collage of various network anchors repeating that over and over with a background musical score as accompaniment.

It's not just the CBC either, it's pervasive... Even though CBC is the topic at hand, what really hurts us collectively is the trinity alignment between government, media and security forces (which includes intelligence). The laptop deception in the US is a case in point, even if one member of the trinity refused to play along, the outcome would have been different and the election result might have been different too. At this level, it's not a simple misunderstanding either, all of the players knew what they were doing as they did it. The video is fun to watch: https://www.foxnews.com/media/video-viral-democrats-media-members-doubting-hunter-biden-laptop

For Egypt (and others), this is not (as you seem to be implying) just any old "mass influx of refugees" with the standard (meaning routine) security concerns that attend such things. There are some specific considerations here. The only parallel with Canada's rejection of Jews 75 years ago is that it was Jews fleeing and I'm guessing that's your underlying point.... the shoe is on the other foot now (so to speak). If so, I'd submit that the circumstances, events leading up to them, and the reasons behind decisions made along the way were completely different then. I simply used Egypt as aid to understanding your thought process and the effect of racism on current events.... essentially isolating a specific threat to a specific country and attempting to show that in this case, acceptance of refugees comes with an identifiable and specific threat worthy of sober consideration. And, (big AND here) that those considerations have, had, and will almost certainly continue to have, absolutely NOTHING to do with racism. As I said earlier, Egypt has said no to accepting refugees for two reasons, the main one being concerns about Hamas extremists (assisted by other bad actors) attacking Israel from Egyptian territory in the Sinai thus triggering Israeli defensive strikes within Egypt. Hamas wants to continue this fight and they would love to draw Egypt into the fray. Egypt doesn't want any part of that. Egypt's concerns are valid and they have nothing to do with racism. As to what happened or didn't happen 75 years ago, unless you've finished that time machine and are willing to go on an extended vacation, historical events are largely irrelevant in terms of the available options today. So, if you want to do this, stay in the "here and now" and at least do the damn thing properly. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/palestinians-gaza-canada-support-struggling-1.7224646 This weak sister effort by virtue signalling liberals reminds me of the plight of single mothers from Somalia. Doing it right comes with a cost, so does doing it wrong... you just pay for it later. And BTW, objecting to doing it wrong isn't racism, I call it common sense. This may not be racism in the strict sense of the word but it sure smells of hypocrisy and incompetence. If you want to be annoyed about something happening right now and within our realm of control, that should qualify IMO.

I don't know what you mean.... Are you now suggesting that Egypt's hesitation is a choice we (whoever that is) forced on them? That if they had the option they would want Hamas operating in the Sinai? Well, I see only two choices for ya here, hop in your time machine and fix it or deal with the realities of today as they exist in the present. Never mind history lessons, pretend you're the king of Egypt.... are you at all concerned that a mass influx of Palestinians will lead to attacks originating from the Sinai? I happen to think that Hamas would love to set up shop in the Sinai and drawing your kingdom into the fray would be a bonus to them. What key factors am I missing here, those would be the ones that suggest my concerns are groundless and brand me a racist for even thinking it.

They did, they chose no. And given the peace deal they have I'd say it was a wise choice. It's not that nobody wants to help, the likelihood of getting (and having to keep) extremists, with all that entails is a cost too high and a bridge too far for them. The Palestinians had a choice here too, and they made a bad one. I don't know what that means and it doesn't matter anyway. The situation is what it is and the tools you have to work with are such as they are. If wishes were places, we would be where we are not. It was a question. Is Egypts refusal to take in refugees based on racism? Well that's not going to happen... and I think you know it. Hamas is predominantly a religious movement with a religious ideology... that's a problem. If they were a political movement with political goals you could negotiate with them. - So POOF- go full throttle left wing and secular or; - Give up, get out of Dodge and send the refugees to Canada to prove we aren't racist. Did I get that right? And somehow that's better than removing Hamas (an entity you can't negotiated with) and allowing a new one (that you can) to emerge? This is why I don't usually discuss these issues... it seems our only choices are secular leftists or nuclear war. Neither strikes me as serious or worthy of debate so I'll yield the floor to others willing to engage the proposed options.

Since you brought them up, Egypt's concerns here are a case in point... they're right next door, they need only unlock the fence and yet they won't do it. Any sage advice for them? Right now they're worried about importing extremists and having those extremists launch attacks against Israel from the Sinai. They know Israel will have to respond to the attacks and that would mean incursions on Egyptian territory... they have a lot invested in peace and don't want to jeopardize their investment. Are you suggesting that their concerns are groundless? That their thinking is flawed? That their threat assessment is unrealistic? That it simply wouldn't happen? Or, is their reluctance to help their "Arab brothers" simply based on racism that's supported by manufactured reasons and weak justifications as you suggest below: One things for sure, somebody has this wrong... meaning BIG TIME WRONG. Given the very real possibility that Israel will indeed block the right of return for Palestinians who leave (that's what I would do) and the fact that Egypt (or others) would have to keep these folks in perpetuity, is their hesitancy based on mindless racism or are there some potential long term problems they're trying to avoid? Instead of staggering all over the map and making me dizzy in the process, perhaps you could simply provide a convincing argument that suggests those Egyptian concerns are groundless. If you can do that, Canadian objections would be a whole lot easier to address. Simply screaming racist, or asking "Oh ya, well what about this?" type questions reminds me of in-laws digging up long dead relatives during Christmas dinner. Unless you enjoy this sort of unproductive banter for its own sake you are going to have to move beyond it and address the underlying concerns. If Egypt has this wrong then maybe others do too, convincing them of it will now take more than shouting racist. Those days are over IMO. In fact, I think you have your work cut out for you and not just on this issue. The epidemic of madness on a litany of issues no longer resonates with people. It seems to me that progressives have traded on the good nature and tolerance of Canadiens in a way that now has consequences for them. One of those is that name calling no longer works. If that's all ya got then get a full length mirror and shout at yourself. Apparently I'm not alone... https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/agar-conservatives-appear-to-be-steaming-toward-victory If you think about it, all progressives had to do was not be crazy, they couldn't do it though. I suspect the backlash here will run deeper and last longer than some expect, even if it doesn't, I think the days of getting results through screaming and intimidation are over... they sure are with me.

I find all of this astonishing... even though it's more tragic than funny, I couldn't help but laugh. It's a remarkable perspective and one I would have thought difficult to maintain for anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear. One need only look around at random and ask a few basic questions that are prefixed with "wait a minute now" or "let's just think about this for a second." Here's the first item of news I saw for the day (over coffee) as an example of what I mean... https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/shootings-three-gunned-down-in-hamilton-three-in-bowmanville-one-in-toronto Off topic by a country mile, but the ability to associate this sort of thing in any (cause effect) way with duck hunters from PEI is nothing short of breathtaking. I can't even imagine a casual consumer of daily news sincerely believing that JT's gun grab is money, time or effort well spent. yet here we are. It's the very definition of "narrative driven opportunity cost" and there's a heavy price associated with it. Even when the opportunity cost can easily be measured in lives lost, lingering voter support (I'll just call it narrative) for such things as BC's vax mandates (health care workers) and the safe supply debacle still exists. And unfortunately, it exists in sufficient quantity to make a reasonable person inquire as to "how much is enough?" and at what point do we all agree to select emergency braking on this speeding train to achieve track speed for the looming curve ahead? Over the last 13 months estimates suggest that some 31,000 Canadiens have died on medical waiting lists while awaiting surgery or diagnostic procedures, all while we have at least as many doctors per capita as we did back when that sort of thing didn't happen. We now have waiting lists to get on waiting lists... At what point will progressives stop blaming Trump for a series of predictable derailments and begin to ask themselves the same question I ask them all the time? WTF did you think was going to happen if you fire 1500 health care workers during a shortage of..... health care workers.

Well there ya go.... Palestinians are just too darn liberal and progressive for them eh? Some contrary minded folk might suggest that there are (at least) two issues at play here. One is the fear that Israel will force permanent exile on the Palestinians who leave and not allow the "right of return" to any of those who depart. Essentially that means the country that takes em keeps em forever with all the potential instability that could come with that. But that's a secondary issue to the Hamas factor itself and the difficulty in vetting out extremist elements within the population. Egypt (as a for instance) has concerns about stability in the Sinai and the possibility (actually the likelihood) of it being used to launch attacks at Israel that would then force retaliatory strikes on Egyptian territory trashing the existing peace deal in the process. Other Arab countries have similar concerns about a destabilizing extremest presence and the potential for having to keep the very extremists that they don't want and can't afford in the first place. These countries would certainly prefer that places like Canada take them in. And since Palestinian extremist are renowned the world over for being progressive and liberal minded, what could possibly go wrong, go wrong, GO WRONG with that... right? Taken a step further, when you factor in things like the Abraham Accords, first baby steps in the normalization of relations with Israel, and the slippage of Arab support (in general) for the Palestinian cause, the whole thing becomes even more complicated. Incredibly, at the same time that's happening our own capacity to over simplify all of the long standing animosities in play here continues to accelerate at a hysterical pace. The typical liberal / progressive Canadian viewpoint here is Interesting from a clinical and historical perspective I guess, but I'm at a loss to explain the sort of thinking that suggests all of these animosities will somehow magically evaporate on touchdown in Toronto. If only the same wishful thinking actually worked on in-laws eh?

Cheap labels tend be the hardest to remove, I always have to cut the damn things off apples. Do you find it odd that Arab / Islamic states, especially those with monarchies don't accept Palestinian refugees? By your own assessment, wouldn't that qualify them as the worst possible example of bigotry or is there another possible reason for their reluctance? As a personal observation, I would suggest that it's difficult to get immigrants or even expats to leave behind the grudges, opinions, prejudices, customs, traditions (etc) of their homeland. More militant populations (and that's not a commentary on the legitimacy of the cause) tend to be... well, more militant. For good or ill, the customs of the homeland tend to be followed in the new country, especially when the immigrant populations are (what I call) stored vertically in segregated neighbourhoods without the support needed to successfully integrate. That's starting to ring a few bells in Europe now... took long enough eh? Not surprising IMO, simply a function of human nature. At the lowest end of that observation I can tell you that most Canadien expats in Islamic countries continue to celebrate Christmas. Off topic (a bit) but here's a specific for instance, single mothers that came to Canada from Somalia had less status in their home country than their own teenage sons. I'm not suggesting that's good or bad, only that it is what it is, some call it reality. As a group, they also tended to mistrust the government and security forces (with good reason IMO). They needed extra support in Canada and never got it. In fact, the support they needed is being begged for in the article below... and here's the thing, anyone who cautioned that they would need that support (by virtue of a brief vacation in their country) were routinely branded as racist bigots and xenophobes. Is it any wonder that these young women lost control over their sons? What did you think was going to happen? Is it a surprise that Somalian street gangs are an issue in some locations now (here and in the US)? Are you surprised that young Somali men are dying or that their families and the communities they live in are distraught over it? It may be Old news now (from 2012 actually) but here's a link to the first story that popped up when a I did a search to refresh my recollection. https://www.thestar.com/news/crime/toronto-somali-community-s-cry-our-kids-are-dying/article_1c316e46-c996-5adc-a73a-95f584acb1a9.html IMO, it's the ridiculers and the name callers who own this, and that's largely because of their own narrative, lack of sensitivity to the needs of the refugees they seek to admit, and there unwillingness to pay for doing it right. Wouldn't you think that the people doing the name calling would be leading the charge to do it right and not the evil, Christian, right wing Trumper bigots? It's almost enough to put me off apples. .

Ok.... I think you and I are done here. Cheers

I doubt that would be acceptable to either of the parties now, I'm rooting for ya though. I asked if you had a potential solution that didn't involve removing Hamas from the equation... I hope that wasn't it. I didn't say that. Utilizing human shields certainly qualifies (and the Palestinian people won't forget about that any time soon either) but the events of Oct 7th (in Israel) eclipses that and serves as clear statement of intent. Going door to door and systematically killing and raping the occupants is a step above what most agencies and organizations define as terrorism. It's a form of ethnic cleansing and on a larger scale would qualify as genocide (the crime of crimes). That said, if a viable peace process is to emerge from the rubble of this, both sides will eventually need to move beyond the pain of today. The posts right here show the difficulty of achieving that because of the "oh ya, well what about this effect." I get it, but if ever there was a waste of band width it would be the effort expended there. Any solution will take time, commitment and courage to say the least... a huge and difficult ask of both parties by any measure. And it absolutely won't happen with Hamas at the helm. IMO of course.

Nothing in my experience causes me to agree with that. It does reinforce my opinion about the elusive nature of solutions though: The post above was simply my own perspective on the matter (for what that may be worth) and I won't pursue the matter further. I suspect I could write a book on the subject to no avail. I am curious what your solution is though. What do you recommend? How would you proceed ? What would you do as King of Israel and why? If you want to keep Hamas as a governing entity how do you propose to proceed? Yes, it will certainly take a while to remove an entrenched Hamas ideology, a generation has grown up under it and they will need to see a measure of success to conclude that there is the possibility for more. IMO though, removing Hamas capabilities, and Hamas as a functioning entity is a worthy effort. Frankly, I've never been a fan of regime change objectives but I see no alternative, there is literally no road ahead with Hamas at the helm. They have turned this into a religious / ideology based event and for them, only the destruction of Israel and building on the rubble will suffice. If they had political objectives they could be negotiated with, they don't though... religious dogma will prevail until such time as it doesn't. It's an obstacle to be overcome and the question is how do you propose to do that? The bottom line in this is the Palestinians (meaning the people, not Hamas) can have peace anytime they want it but supporting Hamas is not the venue for achieving it and wishing won't make it so. For many there (more than you likely think), wishes are defined as a state of being where they are not, unfortunately, these folks have little influence with the granter of wishes.

IMO, the comments here actually provide a glimpse into the difficulties of obtaining a negotiated settlement. After 34 pages, those opinions appear to be just as entrenched as they were at the start. Worthy of reflection I think. If everyone can agree that any peaceful (and lasting) resolution boils down to the willingness of belligerent parties to achieve it, then there are a few fundamental questions that should come immediately to mind. If Hamas is allowed to remain as a governing entity: - Does anyone actually believe that they will change the political objectives and stated goals that are clearly reflected in their motto? - Do you believe that Hamas will acknowledge Israels right to exist as a nation? - Do you believe that they will stop diverting foreign aid toward munitions of war? - Do you believe that they are now ready to negotiate the legitimate grievances of the Palestinian people in a constructive and peaceful manner? Personally, I'd assert that a sincere yes answer to any of the above questions is just as unlikely as achieving any sort of consensus of opinion on this thread within an imposed limitation of (say) 40 pages. When considering the establishment of any road map toward lasting peace in the area, it eventually boils down to the willingness of the partners to achieve it. So, if peaceful resolution is the objective here, Hamas sympathizers are pretty much forced to support the idea that Hamas (as a governing entity) is now willing to accept the existence of the Jewish state and that they are ready to negotiate on behalf of the Palestinian people. For the record, I don't believe that for a second. I know quite a few multi-tour veterans of various missions in the area. Some of us go back as far as UNEF II circa 1977. That certainly doesn't qualify any of us as experts in the geo political forces or cultural topography in play there... and lest there be any confusion, I'm not suggesting for a second that it does. But, BUT , I don't know a single veteran who believes that any sort of future peace deal is possible if Hamas is left as a viable entity. I would suggest that most of these folks are (and were) neutral observers, or at least they were when they arrived in theatre. Their opinions were largely forged by non partisan experience in the area, they had eyes to see and ears to hear. In fact, watching, listening and low level conflict resolution was a big part of the collective effort there. In any case, the consensus of opinion that I've observed (while clearly anecdotal) is at least worthy of passing consideration isn't it? How can so many people who initially arrived there with no dog in the fight all end up having the same opinion? And why does (non native) support for Hamas seem to be (anecdotally again) the exclusive domain of those who have never set foot in the area? Could it be that experience is an essential part of forming an opinion? For the most part though, humanitarian issues are a shared concern here and those who advocate for eliminating Hamas (and establishing an entity willing to actually negotiate) certainly aren't blind to the cost of doing it. Accusing them of warmongering is usually the beginning of the end of productive discussion and it's usually more of an argument technique than any sort of sincere belief in the accusation itself. If you can find anyone who has actually served in a TOC or CAOC position during an active conflict, they will all tell you that great efforts are taken to avoid collateral damage. They will also tell you that the term itself is more than a euphemistic reference to women and children. There is an entire section of people (24/7) that provide advice to the commander on everything from under ground infrastructure (electricity, water, sewage, fiberoptic etc) above ground infrastructure (type, use etc), and all of that is a bigger consideration than most would think. There are also lawyers present specifically to advise the commander of the rules of armed conflict as they pertain to specific engagements. In short, it isn't a blood thirsty, vengeful free for all and those who think it is would likely be surprised by the efforts undertaken to ensure that it isn't.

Thanks, you saved me a bunch of searching. I hate to admit it, but I hadn't looked into those numbers at all until this morning, I simply took the "massive shortage of doctors" story on faith, I should know better by now I guess. Still, it seems the numbers are better than I expected, or at least good enough to suggest that rationalizing a clearly irrational system has potential short term benefits (and efficiencies) while simply throwing money at it probably doesn't. I expected to be horrified at the per capita numbers... and I wasn't. Maybe grabbing this issue by the throat and choking it is in order. Has full tuition and living expenses in return for a period of obligatory service ever been considered...something like the military does with pilots, doctors and chaplains? That might help with some of the rural issues and encourage more GPs to stay GPs. Maybe the capital gains tax could be selectively modified to encourage GPs as well. Just imagine the howling if that happened eh? It will be interesting to see if the conservatives walk that back, I'd like to think they will but at best, I'm guessing it will be dangled in front of voters for years to come. LOL, look how cynical I've become...

Just because countries, organizations (NATO UN EU etc), or individual citizens agree on something doesn't make it right... or good, or advantageous for the people either here or elsewhere. Most will assert that there's a severe doctor shortage in Canada, I found out this morning that there isn't, we have more per capita than at any time previously. Most people (over 70%) of Canadians thought mandates were a good idea and cheered when their neighbours got fired. I can't think of anything those folks got right BTW. With 1500 health care workers still off work in BC during a shortage people are literally dying because of it. You were expecting a different result perhaps? Voters thought vilifying police and defunding the departments was a good idea, crime is through the roof. They thought safe supply sounded like a peachy idea too, how many did they kill with that? OUP Libya helped dethrone Ghadaffi, everyone thought the Libyan people would be better off, they weren't. The WMD thing in Iraq seemed like a good idea to most people too. Coalition of the willing eh? Canada doesn't need heavy lift helicopters... until we do Canada doesn't need tanks until we do.... Canada doesn't need shore bombardment, we'll use TASMO, followed immediately by Canada doesn't need fighters.... Remember "I will write zero helicopters...Chretien." Everyone cheered. And my personal fave, we managed to replace the Taliban with the f------ Taliban and equip them in the process. The Israel / Palestinian thing is now worse than it was when I went there for the first time in 1977, and if Hamas remains a functioning entity that trend will continue. And if you think murderous terrorists will suddenly embrace Jews because a collection of woke countries all shout "WE SEE YOU" in unison, I have a few relatives I'd like you to talk to. I could go on at some length but I'll spare you, from what I've seen of the world, as a function of foreign policy, particularly in Arab/Muslim lands, going along with the majority hasn't worked out so excellently. Western people seem to think everyone else in the world shares their love of democracy, or freedom, or their belief in human rights, equality of the sexes... and on and on. They don't.

Just this morning I got to thinking about years gone by when everyone had a doctor, access was pretty quick, yearly physicals "were a thing," going to the emergency department wasn't a 24 hour marathon event, etc etc. Many of us remember those days. All the talk about shortages lead me to a quick search of doctors per capita. First up on the search was this: https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/doctor-supply-cihi-1.5298005 This quote from the article jumped out: The report found that in 2018 there was equivalent to 241 physicians per 100,000 population, the highest number per capita ever, said Ballinger. Have to say I was a bit surprised.... unfortunately though I'm out the door in minutes and won't have time to look deeper at it for a few days. But, if the article is even close to being true it makes me wonder how the current state of affairs can possibly be anything other than self inflicted.