daddyhominum

Good guesses, but no. It comes from the Laugh at Liberals Web Blog. Link? Link. It certainly made me laugh! Statement after statement about waht liberals believe or think or say and no quotes of them saying anything. It certainly is funny how many people think that the Strawman fallacy represents cleverness.

I like that. Quite clever. Certainly applies to me. I have no sense of fear of terrorism or anticipation of an attack on me or my loved ones. I don't say it can't happen but that I have no sense that it is an imminenet danger.

There is the rub. UNLAWFUL is arbitrary.Who ever writes the history books is on the side of the law. I could tell you that ALL uses of force or violence are unlawful but I do not write the history books. Evil despotic governments could change laws to permit violence they themselves commit. Defining terrorism just becomes a circular argument no more profound than saying: "You are either with us or against us." Written history and written law is not the same thing. Law is written before the fact. The law may be international as the Geneva Convention, military as in the courts martial of offenders at Abu Graib, or national as in the trial of General Pinochet but terrorist acts must break existing law. To communicate about terrorism we need to agree on the meaning of the word. If the word means only what the Red Queen (Alice in Wonderland) says it means, nothing less and nothing more, the word has no purpose in communication because each of us will mean something different. The whole point of law is that it is not arbitrary and that happens to be true of the meaning of words as well.

A terrorist is any person who engages in an act of terrorism. The dictionary defines terrorism as: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.(http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=terrorism) As you see, the meaning depends on the act and the purpose of the act. OTOH, the term,” state -terrorism", is used in a number of different ways that seem to depend primarily on the opinion of the world community for acceptance. Events such as the "shock and awe" bombing of Baghdad by the USA that are intended to intimidate or result in unnecessary civilian casualties are often referred to as "state-terrorism" as is the 'disappearing' of opponents during the Argentine Junta's rule. There appears to be no agreed usage for the term, which makes it practically useless in communication. So, I think M. Dancer's list provides examples of recognized terrorist according to the dictionary meaning of terrorist. It does not refer to state-terrorism so it is not subject to the indefiniteness of that term Social movements are usually the source of terrorism and terrorists. While not all social movements include terrorism theones liste did and/or do.

IMO it's far worse than that. The "indefinite nations" are either Israel or Sunni Arab countries in the area. The real danger is it makes them invulnerable to conventional attack. Japan was a rare case where offensive use of a nuclear weapon could work, because of the concentration of people and industry on Japan's East Coast. In most cases, nukes are more for creating an insuperable obstacle to a conventional attack, as was their use in Western Europe during the Cold War. I do not think an unattackable Iran is in anyone's interest. Then Iran has a right and a duty to defend itself by developing the best defensive measures it can. That right is assured by tradition and coded in the UN Charter. If we can't find a way to make Iran secure by negotiation , it will make itself secure by nuclear missiles capable of reaching everywhere on earth as provided by that right.

I think you are right and I think that it is a global fact, not just Canadian. For the sake of some analysis, assume that separate cultures, typified by language, developed because of geographical separation only. That is certainly close to the truth if not the complete truth. Simple analysis reveals that without geographic separation separate cultures would never have developed. If mankind had always had at least the communication technology of today's world, there would never have been an opportunity for the 'other culture' to develop. Accepting the fact of technology, therefore, implies recognition that independent cultures are as doomed as the reign of the Pharaohs. Accomodating communication technology means accommodating other's cultures. Multiculturalism is recognition of global fact rather then a political policy. Remember Marshall McCluhan's dictum that, "The medium is the message". Instant communication is the medium: intertwined cultures is the message. If one pushes the analysis to relate current events to the facts, a new cause for 'fundamentalism' is recognizable. Whether religious, language, racial, military, artistic whatever was culture is under stress all over the world resulting in diehard conflicts. Ironically, bin Laden defends his view of traditional values employing TV, cellular phones, and the Internet. Nothing his enemies do will undermine his efforts as seriously as the technology he himself spreads among his chosen people. Similarly, we extend our culture through military means led by the USA and supported by the Western Democracies. In doing so, we make available all the technology that enables everyone instant communication with everyone and, thus, weakens our own language and culture. So what is a growing boy to do? Hasten the inevitable. Free cell phones to all the citizens of the world. Broad access to the Internet even in the most remote communities. BTW, I love the irony created when some argue to defend "Canadian" culture in the same Forums that others are calling for Indian Nations to assimilate!

I don't know that many that have that type of entry fee. And seems to me that if they do, they probably do speak English or French. Considering the populations of Eastern Asia, I suspect that there is an unending supply of such investors because 0.5% of a billion people might be millionaires leaves yo with some 50 million potewntial investors. It was amusing to us poor people when the change for Hong Kong became imminent and Hong Kong businessmen bought palatial properties in West Vancouver for multiple millions and the bulldozed them and built new homes. The outrage of Canada's elite was a joy to behold!

When you use your own coded words to provide denotations not shared by dictionaries, your meaning becomes unclear. Is the Charter of Special Rights the UN Declaration, the Canadian charter, or the American Bill of Rights. I want to note that all criminal law in every country of the world is a limitation of 'right'. I also want to note that the only rights any person obtains is solely depended on the government providing that right, protecting it, and adjudicating it. Even the idea that what is not forbidden is permitted is subject to court review and adjudication when the exercise of non-forbidden 'right' results in damages to another. The fact is that rights are the provenance of the state whether coded or common.

Do you think Israel should attack Iran? Maybe wipe out the nuke research facilities. It may be that Iran may attck a neighbour or Israel or the USA some day. It may be that Iran will launch a nuclear attack against another nation some day. But I don't think you can attack some one for what they may do at some indefinite time to some indefinite nation. The situation between India and Pakistan is far more dangerous and immediate in consiidering future nuclear war. Iran may be a theocracy but the country seems to be far more stable and much better governed then Pakistan, imo. Finally, though Iran has a large educated population, it just does not have an economy that can produce a war machine capable of doing damage to western nations compared to the devastation that would result in Iran if an attack was ever launched from there. imo

I "No nation can donate liberation to another nation." <end quote> She must be unaware of the results of the Second World War and the defence of South Korea. She said no nation can donate liberty. World War 2 donated liberty to most of western europe. The defence of S.Korea donated liberty to S.Korea. Joya could not have said that no nation can donate liberty to another nation if she was aware that liberty had been donated to western european nations by World War 2 allies and that S. Korea had maintained its liberty becuse of the United Nations war against N. Korea.

Nice to know that someone born in 1933 can be so rational about threats to Israel. Every battle will end in negotiations. Your friend realizes it is the best way to start a battle as well. In fact, the UN and the nuclear powers are negotiating with Iran now in the hope of maintaing a peacefull relationship against a backdrop of sanctions and possibly war. Iran says it wants nuclear power for peacefull purposes but most of us disbelieve that. So why should Iran want nuclear weapons? The coalition forces in Iraq publicly accuse Iran of supplying arms to Iraqi insurgents. Israel, whom Iran believes has nuclear weapons, blames Iran for the Hezbollah attacks and some Israelis believe Iran should have been attacked for that. Glenn Beck calls for the USA to attack Iran everyday on his program on Channel 33. US politicians have openly called for attacks on Iran. There is a large ex-patriot Iranian population with support inside Iran who constantly call for the overthrow of the regime. Perhaps Iran wants nuclear weapons to balance the threats made against them. Maybe Iran 's security could be guaranteed by arrangements reached through negotiations and Iran would not feel the necessity to continue its arms build up. I agree with your realist friend. After years of war, the Middle East is no more secure then it was in 1950. Real negotiations can have better results then threats of war.

That is true for skilled worker and family classes. No, actually it is not. You get a certain number of points for having Canadian language skills under the Skilled worker class, but it's not necessary to speak English or French in any category. And especially irrelevent in terms of children and spouses - there is no requirement they have any language skills whatever. Actually, it is true. You need an adequate knowledge of an official language to obtain citizenship and become Canadian as jdobbin surmised. Points are used to assess an applicant for acceptance to immigrate.

Apparently she did call for the withdrawal of foreign troops as reported on the NDP website. Copied from: http://www.ndp.ca/page/4194 <begin quote > Afghan politician says NATO mission has not brought more peace to the region Fri 8 Sep 2006 QUEBEC CITY - Malalai Joya, the youngest member of the Afghan National Assembly, today appeared at the NDP Federal Convention in Quebec City supporting Jack Layton and the NDP's criticism of the NATO-led mission in southern Afghanistan. Joya, who was elected in 2005 in Farah province, has worked to protect women's rights and is the head of the Organization of Promoting Afghan Women's Capabilities. She brought a clear message: foreign troops in Afghanistan have not achieved any fundamental changes. "When the entire nation is living under the shadow of the gun and warlordism, how can its women enjoy very basic freedoms?" asked Joya. "Contrary to the propaganda in certain Western media, Afghan women and men are not 'liberated' at all." Joya expressed her sorrow for the deaths of Canadian soldiers, and voiced her support for Jack Layton and the NDP as they call for the withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan. "I think that if Canada really wants to help Afghan people and bring positive changes, they must act independently, rather than becoming a tool for implementing the policies of the US government." Joya noted that her country needs help to rid itself of corruption and to rebuild after years of violence, but she said that foreign soldiers under this mission are not the ones who will bring peace and stability to Afghanistan. Joya summed up her views in a single sentence: "No nation can donate liberation to another nation." <end quote> She must be unaware of the results of the Second World War and the defence of South Korea.

I thought all immigrants who wished to be Canadian citizens had to be able to speak English or French. That is true for skilled worker and family classes. You can take the test at http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/skilled/assess/index.html and see if you would get enough points . But an entrepreneur who invests $400,000 or more in Canada can get in without a successfull test, afaik.

Extracted from Jack Layton's speech to the NDP Convention which you can read at: http://www.ndp.ca/page/4283 <begin quote> Friends, Canadians believe in peace. That doesn’t mean we think Canada is an island. There is a time and a place for answering the call. Canadians are prepared to fight wars that are right for our country. We’ve done so proudly. That’s why we’re so proud of our veterans. But on this mission, Stephen Harper is out of touch with ordinary Canadians. Canadians are not warmongers. Canada does not commit its soldiers to war just because that will get our prime minister in good with an administration of a certain sort in Washington. Canada doesn’t commit soldiers to war without clear goals. Canada doesn’t commit our soldiers without a plan. Canada doesn’t commit our soldiers without a fraction of the numbers or resources needed to make a difference. Canada doesn’t commit our soldiers without knowing what victory is. And Canada doesn’t commit our soldiers without the certainty that their efforts are part of a carefully constructed and balanced mission that holds real prospects of making the world a safer place. Canada doesn’t do those things.<end quote> There are very serious errors in the speech, imo. The first error is his implication that Canada is 'warmongering' by supporting the NATO mission and the elected government of Afghanistan. In fact, cooperation with other nations was a stated policy of the previous government and continues as a policy today. Canadian foreign policy requires multilateralism for military engagement, at present. A second error is his claim that the mission lacks goals. As he cannot be that poorly informed, one must assume he is deliberately misleading the delegates. In the multilateral effort borne by Nato under the UN guidance and with support of the elected Afghan government goals are very clearly established, including specific goals for Canada's forces within the multilateral action. A third error is his claim that there is no plan for the Afghan theatre. That is so egregious that it defies description. A fourth false claim is with regard to troop levels and equipment and supply. I have no doubt that Canadian soldiers are among the best equipped in the NATO effort and that still leaves room for improvement. But his comment on troop numbers is ridiculous. Canada sends troops into dangerous duty as peacekeepers and instructors in very small groups compared to the numbers sent to Afghanistan. He must be unaware of the role special forces from Canada played in the defeat of the Taliban. Fifthly, he suggest that Canada doesn't know what victory is. He could ask Army Guy who stated what victory was pretty clearly in this thread. Finally, his grandiose claim that Canada only engages to make the world a safer place is insulting to us all. Canada has militarily supported all kinds of efforts to make a few people safer and Canadians are honoured world wide for that. Jack Layton is just not ready for the big tent. He obviously lacks any appreciation or understanding of the Canadian soldier, military and its importance in furthering the national goals of Canada and the Canadian desire to help others achieve what this country has achieved .

Notice that Joya does not call for Canada's withdrawal but for independent action by Canada in Afghanistan. It would be good to hear precisely what policies the US is following and Canada supporting, that are in contention. According to the Canadian government and military, Canada is following the policies established by NATO rather then those of the USA. I suspect that Joya wants Canada to help remove all warlords from public life whether they were elected or appointed and quite rightly so. OTOH, I expect NATO and the US need the co-operation of the warlords to prevent insurgents from taking over Afghanistan and re-establishing a taliban type government.

All those learned men should have corrected him. The courts, followed by Parliament, ruled on the basis of equality under the law. The issue was not marriage itself but that some citizens were excluded from the benefits of Canadian citizenship. As the Pope is God's voice on earth, it makes you wonder how well God understands the idea of one law for all.

The purpose of the Charter of Rights, whether Canadian, UN, or other, is to establish limits on what may play a role in the social position of individuals. Individuals will use whatever technique or information they find usefull to establish a social position. The most common is the accident of birth over which no individual has any control. So establishing a pecking order (or any social restrictions) based on the accident of birth is made illegal in moral societies. Social position may be a driving force in human kind but the means of establishing social position are widely varied by law and custom.

I agree with outcome measurements. Suppose we turn Army Guy's statements into outcomes. 1.Is the environment secure? 2.Has a government taken root? 3.Are Afgans rebuilding their lives after decades of war? 4.Are children attending school? 5. Are people working? 6. Do women have rights? Each outcome is to be rated by comparison to the Taliban era and the years of war prior to them as: A. A lot worse. B. Somewhat worse. C. No change D. Somewhat better . E. A lot better. More such measurements can be added. My rating at present would be: 1. D; 2.D; 3.E. 4. E; 5. D; 6. E.

In my opinion the poll is meaningless because most Canadians could not identify a single foreign policy the USA applies to the middle eat. Nor could most people in the middle east. Nor could most Americans. The phrase represents a successfull slogan widely used by opponents of the USA in Iraq and elsewhere. It sounds good but has no specific meaning. I would like to be straigtend out if anyone can quote foreign policy statements by the USA that caused the 9/11 disaster.

What is the source for the casualties claim? And the claim that security is worse is unsupportable because the Southern provinces of Afghanistan have been completely at the mercy of the Taliban until recently. Nato has increased forces in those provinces specifically to help restore the rule of the national government in the area so that development could proceed. The fact that the Taliban have been removed from Kandahar and hundreds of towns and villages in the South is a vast increase in the level of security in the area.

Thank you for expressing yourself here and thank you for your work. It is well to realize that the growing distaste for the Afghan misiion is directly related to the casualties being suffered by you guys. We just don't like to see our children wounded and killed far from home for an outcome still unpredictable. That said, I am a strong supporter of the mission in Afghanistan because it is a battle to allow for human rights to improve for Afghanis. But the character of this war remiinds one of the IRA campaign against Britain more then of the set battles of Allies against Axis in WW2 So, given the situation, what would it take to bring peace to this region, in your opinion? More military resources? More educators? More economic aid?

As far as I know, a business can refuse to serve anyone for any reason. Within reason and within the law. You can't refuse to serve someone becuase of the race, etc etc Richmond's insular Chinese community was a major source of complaint on the program, especially not being served. And many of those complaining were themselves immigrants from India or non-Chinese areas of South Asia. It is a large, quite wealthy community, with enough talent and clout to maintain a very independent status. Is it a problem? or is it freedom of choice?

Nor does the Quebec law outlaw foreign languages from all use, only from public usage.

Mordechai Richler's mother used to get frustrated over the fact that someone could live their entire life in Montreal and not know how to speak yiddish. Immigrants are required to learn the language....if they want to succed. I meet with immigrants almost every day....true if you meet their parents or grandparents, they might not speak emhlish so well, but the sponsors who brought them here, the engineers, the doctors, programmers and entrepreneurs....all speak well. So no....let market realities rule That seems sensible to me. I remember 1947 better then I remember 1997. In 1947, I played with children whose parents spoke neither English or French and still spoke three or four languages. They lived together with others from their homeland in prairie settlements or city neighbourhoods. They bought and sold without a problem and they were productive taxpayers. Their children and grandchildren became the hockey stars, judges, and politicians of the next generation. My dad was always frustrated by what he saw as the stubborn refusal to learn English after immigrating to Canada but he had an ear for language. I have a great deal of empathy for those who come to Canada and are unable to learn spoken English because I have no ear for language. I can read most German and don't do too poorly reading French but if someone starts talking to me in either language, I understand nothing. I admire the people who take the risk of immigrating to Canada. I think it demonstrates a determination to succeed that was so much in the character of the pioneers.