daddyhominum

The situation in Iraq is quickly becoming like a civil war. There's no business being there if the country begins fighting with itself. At the moment, 100 people a day are being killed. It is starting to become sectarian violence. Afghanistan still might have a hope but there is no way that any country can afford to fight a 20 or 30 of 40 year war there. I suppose it is a civil war to the extent that most of the fighters are Afghan nationals. But it also has elements of a defensive war against an invading force because fighters have entered the country to fight for the Taliban and the NATO forces are there to support the current government. The reason is that there are two political ideologies competing for the support of the population because the radical form of Islam is also a strict political ideology where rule is the privelege of the religious leaders as it is in Iran today. So this is just another war of competing ideologies where one says that people need to be ruled over by an elite and the rest of us say that people need to be able to select their leaders and make their laws by vote. It is not a lot different from the war between the Fascists and the democracies or the Cold War between the democracies and the 'dictatorship of the proletariat'. It is a civil war locally but there is an ideological war between the polical goals of radical Islamists and the democratic interests in human rights, rule of secular law, and governance by the people.

Makes no sense to me. By definition, MODERATE Muslims are people who do not support RADICAL muslims. Why don't we just assume that no individual Muslim supports militant acts unless we are shown evidence to the contrary? Are all Irish supporters of IRA murder? Are all Catholics supporters of IRA murder? At the same time, any person who preaches or teaches hatred that may cause harm to others should be jailed, whether they do it as a act of terror or an act from beliefs.

And Presidents eventually have to decide whether such wars should continue or not. Get it? Nixon out of Vietnam. Reagan out of Lebanon. Clinton out of Somalia. Iraq and Afghanistan have already lasted as long as most of the world conflicts have and even though they are low grade conflicts, both have accelerated intensity. Do you think that Afghanistan or Iraq can be brought to a peaceful resolution or at least one where they can handle things for themselves? Hope you don't mind if I give an answer to that. No nation in the world can handle things for themselves when attacked by an enemy with unlimited resources from outside that nation. Simply imagine that the native Warriors or similar group, dedicated to the liberation of all native lands were were given, by other national governments like Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba, and others, unlimited military resources , armaments and permitted volunteers to join the them in Caledonia against Canadians police and military. Imagine further that this dedicated band of warriors was ideologically dedicated to the return of all contested lands to native people as an inherent right that included a responsibility to kill all, native or non-native, who opposed them. Imagine further that this organization had been indoctronating aboriginal peoples all over the world to believe that it was better to die then endure another day of democracy instead of the traditional rule by a hereditary Chief. That groups existed across Canada and throughout the world dedicated to the same goal and each time you supreesd them in one place, they sprang up in another. Canadian leaders and MPS, MLa's etc. subject to assisnation and kidnap. That local populations were intimidated through murder, extortion and kidnap into supporting the insurgents. I don't think Canada would be able to manage on its own to stop the flow of weapons and manpower or stop the intimidation of the population. We need to work to restore security and a civil society in Afghanistan and Iraq before those people can be free to determine their own future. We need to form alliances that maintain that freedom and security far into the future. The threat to Afghanistan and Iraq are not simply internal threats on security. The insurgents are well financed, broadly supported by an ideology that calls for establishment of rigid theocracies in all Muslim lands first and in the balance of the world as it becomes practical with out regard to cost in life or treasure. The free world needs to build mutual protection alliances around the world to defend each other against that threat and to enable the spread of human rights including the rule of non-religious law. That is my opinion based on the facts as I see them in the current broad conflict across the Middle East. Dennis

Not looking for a war of any kind. I thought you asked me to produce evidence that Hizbullah was determined to wipe Israel off the map, so I did. For example on Lebanon 'The Muslims rule of Lebanon is artificial and easily undermined. A Christian state ought to be set up whose southern borders would be Litani River. Then we'll form an alliance with it." Ben-Gurion On what is considered modern Palestine "I am satisfied with part of the country, but on the basis of the assumption that after we build up a strong force following the establishment of the state--we will abolish the partition of the country and we will expand to the whole Land of Israel." Ben-Gurion On the plans for establishing Israel, a land not as currently defined but as biblically defined as the land of milk and honey which measures most of the middle east. "No Zionist can forgo the smallest portion of the Land Of Israel. [A] Jewish state in part [of Palestine] is not an end, but a beginning ..... Our possession is important not only for itself ... through this we increase our power, and every increase in power facilitates getting hold of the country in its entirety. Establishing a [small] state .... will serve as a very potent lever in our historical effort to redeem the whole country." Ben-Gurion "I don't regard a state in part of Palestine as the final aim of Zionism, but as a mean toward that aim." Ben-Gurion "the borders [of the Jewish state] will not be fixed for eternity." Ben-Gurion On Transjordon "The acceptance of partition does not commit us to renounce Transjordan. One does not demand from anybody to give up his vision. We shall accept a state in the boundaries fixed today--but the boundaries of the Zionist aspirations are the concern of the Jewish people and no external factor will be able to limit them." Ben-Gurion I could go on for a while but if your more interested in the philosophies of what many consider the father of modern Israel then I suggest you read one of the many good books on the man. So lets move on to another man who many consider to be one of the forefathers of Israel. In many ways Moshe Sharett was one of the most moderate of the Zionists and so I would hate to paint him with the brush of many others but perhaps it should be understood that the following is the thoughts of a man who perhaps more then any other Zionist had compassion for the resident Arabs in Israel. On the formation of Israel We have forgotten that we have not come to an empty land to inherit it, but we have come to conquer a country from people inhabiting it, that governs it by the virtue of its language and savage culture ..... Recently there has been appearing in our newspapers the clarification about "the mutual misunderstanding" between us and the Arabs, about "common interests" [and] about "the possibility of unity and peace between two fraternal peoples." ..... [but] we must not allow ourselves to be deluded by such illusive hopes ..... for if we cease to look upon our land, the Land of Israel, as ours alone and we allow a partner into our estate- all content and meaning will be lost to our enterprise. Moshe Sharett On the first of the transfers of Arabs, the ethnic cleansing designed to bring about a Jewish majority in Palestine "The proposed Jewish state [referring to the proposed 1937 Peel Commission partition plan] territory would not be continuous; its borders would be twisted and broken; the question of defending the frontier line would pose enormous difficulties .... the frontier line would separate villages from their fields .... Moreover the [Palestinian] Arab reaction would be negative because they would lose everything and gain almost nothing ..... in contrast to us they would lose totally that part of Palestine which they consider to be an Arab country and are fighting to keep it such ... They would lose the richest part of Palestine; they would lose major Arab assets, the orange plantations, the commercial and industrial centers and the most important sources of revenue for their government which would become impoverished; they would lose most of the coastal area, which would also be a loss to the hinterland Arab states..... It would mean that they would be driven back to the desert ('Zorkim Otam') .... A Jewish territory [state] with fewer Arab subjects would make it easy for us but it would also mean a procrustean bed for us while a plan based on expansion into larger territory would mean more [Palestinian] Arab subjects in the Jewish territory. For the next 10 years the possibility of transferring the Arab population would not be 'practical'. As for the long-term future: I am prepared to see in this a vision, not a mystical way but in a realistic way, of a population exchange on a much more important scale and including larger territories. As for now, we must not forget who would have to exchange the land? those villages which live more than others on irrigation, on orange and fruit plantations, in houses built near water wells and pumping stations, on livestock and property and easy access to markets. Where would they go? What would they receive in return? ... This would be such an uprooting, such a shock, the likes of which had never occurred and could drown the whole thing in rivers of blood. At this stage let us not entertain ourselves with the analogy of population transfer between Turkey and Greece; there were different conditions there. Those Arabs who would remain would revolt; would the Jewish state be able to suppress the revolt without assistance from the British Army?" Moshe Sharett It is at this point which it becomes important to understand the conditions under which early Israel existed. Only Jews could own land, only Jews could vote, and only Jews could have any kind of job of significance. Quite literally this may have been the most singularly racist country in the world in the 20th century. Moshe Sharett didn't want bloodshed, he wanted a peaceful expulsion of Arabs from Greater Israel (an intermediary between current Israel and "the land of milk and honey"). However he had no reservations about the issue that Israel (greater or the land of milk and honey) is Jewish and everyone else should leave. I'm tired its late so I am going to give a few more names and maybe come back and make a few more comments but I grow tired of debating this with people who's knowledge is to say the least shallow and peripheral. Ze'ev Jabotinsky Chaim Weizmann Yosef Weitz I hold that extinguishment of Israel is different from expanding the state of Israel and that killing Israelis is far different from Israel including Arabs in the state of Israel. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Isr...d_its_aftermath The Arab Higher Committee of Amin al-Husayni Main article: Amin al-Husayni The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin al-Husayni, the Chairman of the Arab Higher Committee collaborated with Nazi Germany during the Second World War. In 1940, he asked the Axis powers to acknowledge the Arab right, "to settle the question of Jewish elements in Palestine and other Arab countries in accordance with the national and racial interests of the Arabs and along the lines similar to those used to solve the Jewish question in Germany and Italy."[citation needed] He spent the second half of WWII in Germany making radio broadcasts exhorting Muslims to ally with the Nazis in war against their common enemies. In one of these broadcasts, he said, "Arabs, arise as one man and fight for your sacred rights. Kill Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion. This saves your honor. God is with you."[19] [20] In the immediate aftermath of the Holocaust, such statements by Arab leaders (along with the Mufti's violently antisemitic history) led to a widespread belief that the Israelis were facing a new “warrant for genocide.”[citation needed]

Sure, just as soon as you produce a statement from one of Israel's neighbors saying that they want Israel destroyed. Its not just "a faction" its a very powerful faction directly descended from the founders of modern Israel. As for the reasons for Hezbollah to exist, again have to disagree. Hezbollah are in large part nationalists in a nation with many enemies, Israel is just the most obvious, without Israel Hezbollah would probably exist in some form to fight off the influence of Iran. Kind of ironic really. The situation in the middle east is infinitely more complex then most want to believe. We need a large stone wall with a clean zone of several hundred meters on each side maned by UN troops for a generation or two until the hatred dies. Unfortunately nobody seems patient enough for that. Sorry to be so laggard in my reply. Here is the information you asked for regarding the intent of Sheik Nasrallah from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasan_Nasrallah. If you are unable to accept the sources linke at the end of the article, you may need to read Arabic to find the originals online/ <begin Quote> Views on Israel Speaking at a graduation ceremony in Haret Hreik, Nasrallah announced on October 22, 2002: "if they [Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide."[7][8] The New York Times qualifies this as "genocidal thinking"[9], whereas the New York Sun likens it to the 1992 Hezbollah statement, which vowed, "It is an open war until the elimination of Israel and until the death of the last Jew on earth."[10] Michael Rubin qualifies his goal as genocide too, quoting Nasrallah ruling out "co-existence with" the Jews or "peace", as "they are a cancer which is liable to spread again at any moment."[11] The Age quotes him like so: "There is no solution to the conflict in this region except with the disappearance of Israel."[12] Despite declaring "death to Israel" in his public appearances, Nasrallah said in an interview to The New Yorker, "at the end of the road no one can go to war on behalf of the Palestinians, even if that one is not in agreement with what the Palestinians agreed on." [13] When asked whether he was prepared to live with a two-state settlement between Israel and Palestine, he said he would not sabotage what is a Palestinian matter. [14]. In another interview with the Washington Post, Nasrallah said "I am against any reconciliation with Israel. I do not even recognize the presence of a state that is called "Israel." I consider its presence both unjust and unlawful. That is why if Lebanon concludes a peace agreement with Israel and brings that accord to the Parliament our deputies will reject it; Hezbollah refuses any conciliation with Israel in principle." [15]. <end quote> Can you now support the claim you made in a similar manner? Two other observations to make. 1.Suggestions from Israel that the Olmert goovernment may be in trouble for being to restrained in pressing the attack against Hizbullah. Rosner's blog on Haaretz works throygh the questions at http://tinyurl.com/qauan 2. It appears that the UN resolution will fail because Nasrallah and Hizbullah will not withdraw beyond the Litani nor disarm, both of which are stipulated in the UN resolution and required by any UN force as well as Israel.

Here is a list of Ministries and my grading of each:3 Ministry of the Environment - Grade E The rejection of international air quality agreementwithout a real alternative. President of the Treasury Board--not graded Minister of Industry--not graded Minister of Labour and Minister of the Economic Development Agency - Grade C No visible impact Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities - Grade C No visible impact President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister for Sport Tony Clement seems to be making all the sports decisions in the Min of Health Grade E Minister of Health and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario Don't know about Northern Ontario but I can't identify any improvements to Health nor any issues settled. Grade D DAY, Stockwell Burt Minister of Public Safety Again very little imact in spite of the security issues and policing concerns in Canada. Grade D Minister for International Trade and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics A for effort. Emerson got a settlement on the softwood issue which marks a big change in a difficult matter. Grade A Minister of Human Resources and Social Development We are still waiting for the shoe to drop. No impact but lots of threatening of existing sservices. Bad policy. Minister of Finance Budget decreased revenue and will result in further income reduction. Unable to deliver on the equalization issue. Grade E Minister of Public Works and Government Services No impact so no grade Prime Minister Some major foul-ups like the recent escape from the Aids conference and the muffling of government members. OTOH, the personality is much better then expected. Grade C Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Still a catastrophe on the West Coast. No impact = no grade Leader of the Government in the Senate No impact-no grade Minister of Natural Resources Along with Finance, has buggered up the equalization scheme and not proposed a solution. Grade D. Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency Big impact changing Canada's foreign policy to a clearer, cleaner guidelines. While to aggressive for some, I applaud the New Foreign Policy. Grade A. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform Democratic reform has died since the Gomery has died. A ministry for self inspection now. No impact;no grade. Minister of National Defence Active role with the Foreign Affairs Department in changing Canada's world view. Increased spending and determination long needed . Defence acted boldly. Grade A Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women Terrible. Minister has disappeared. Was she told to stay in the kitchen? Grade E. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Metis and Non-Status Indians Very good work in minimizing the impact of aboriginal dissatisfaction. Appears to be working hard and heading toward solutions. Grade A. Minister of National Revenue and Minister of Western Economic Diversification Part of the screw up on equalization. Not doing very well so far. Grade D. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Obviously on a steep learning curve. What can he come up with that will satisfy the Conservative grass roots. Nothing. Grade D Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board Threatening the marketing methods that have kept Canada's farmers alive for the past 50 years. Demographically a large part of Conservative support, this ministry is only fit for a mugwump. And that was what Chuck did in the last Parlieament. As being non-controversial is the mark of success in this portfolio , he does well. Grade B THOMPSON, Gregory Francis Minister of Veterans Affairs No impact;no grade Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Failed to put any Conservative promises on the floor, the Minister spends a lot of time baiting small l liberals. He is either testing the mood of the country or a major problem looking for a place to explode. No impact; no grade. Minister for International Cooperation and Minister for La Francophonie and Official Languages No impact-no grade. Overall, I can see no reason to give the current government a C overall unless one were to weight the successful portfolios heavier then the unsuccesfull ones. No doubt a majority government would be more decisive but I fear that would lead to more failing grades. BTW, I am a classical liberal in belief with a fairly wide lean to the left on social policy. I imagine my grading reflects that bias. Dennis

Your first question on neutrality begs the question: Can one be neutral about terrorism? I note that all the nations of the world have condemned terrorism but many countries supply armaments, money and training to terrorism. The rationalization is simply to define terrorism as freedom fighters. IMO, there is no hope that there can ever be neutrality with respect to terrorism because it is the 'winner' who defines terrorism. The Irgun were terrorist and freedom fighters. The second question on peace with terrorism is possible to answer in the positive. Peace among nations has been best served by a 'balance of power' between contesting entities. Current strategy in Israel is to make the attacks on them so costly that the opposition can not afford them. The terrorists have the same strategy; to make the defence of Israel too costly and weaken the national will to fight. In the fifties, sixties and seventies the balance of terror existed between the USSR and the USA to give a kind of peace. Eventually, the USSR could no longer sustain the cost of maintaining its terror and was forced to change its ways. It seems possible that the price paid for terrorism is not high enough to stop it. Already aid is pouring into Lebanon as the Western democracies again undertake to save people from the consequences of their own actions. The effect is to mitigate the price paid and to render meaningless the efforts of the IDF over time. IMO, those nations that support terrorism must feel the full consequence of their acts if a balance that favours peace or a needed change is to occur. As we were with the dictatorship of the USSR, the west should be with respect to all nations supporting violence toward Israel. Germany and Japan were reduced to rubble before they surrendered but now they are peaceful. I don't like it. I wish people and nations could sit and talk out differences. But it doesn't work. Neutrality won't stop terrorism but the so-called 'Powell-doctrine' will.

You refer to a large faction in Israel. But the state, the government, of Israel has made such a claim afaik. Could you cite any official statements from Israel making such a claim? It would be relatively easy to find quotes from terrorist leaders of Hezbollah such as Nasrullah stating they desire to wipe Israel off the map. I don't think a 'faction' of the Israeli population translates into the national objective. OTOH, without the hatred for Israel, Hezbollah has no reason to exist.

If we look at rape in the studies of sexuality , and depend on the scientific approach rather then the political approach to decision making, it seems we need to improve the social programs, especially the education of males in dealing with sexuality. Science suggests that the conservative, dominant-male, hard-line attitude in a society that has cultural and religious values encouraging male-dominance, that is directed overwhelmingly by male politicians , is more likely to have higher rates of rape. It seems unlikely to me that incarceration in a facility dominated by males, removed from normal sexual contact, and an atmosphere totally drenched with unrequited sexual urges would do much to turn a man from a rapist to a respectful person with regard to sex. The crime of rape will not disappear because of education, social programs, legislation or incarceration no matter what political ideology drives it. But it is pretty obvious from the scientific literature what is the most likely way to reduce it: thorough sex education programs in schools from the earliest age. If only the Conservatives could use science instead of religious bias to form policy !

I note that you do not call for the settlement of native land claims and other issues by negotiation but by declaring what settlement you wish Canada to impose on the aboriginal nations within Canada. Hopefully that arises out of frustration over the 100 year plus failure of Canada to include the native peoples in the larger polity without leaving them as economically damaged as they are today. I believe the nut of this problem is that the current, (and evolving), system of land-holding and resources management of Canada and all successful modern economies is unadaptable to the traditional, static system of land use and resource management central to traditional native culture. Many readers will recall the book by Hernando de Soto of a few years ago entitled "The Mystery of Capital" in which the professor explains how a failure to organize a successfull system of land tenure and resource management has doomed most of the world's poor countries to continual poverty. (Those of you unfamiliar can get a good idea of the book by reading the first chapter at: http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/d/desoto-capital.html) As I understand the current discussions between Canada, federal and provincial) concerning the settlement of issues between the the Crown and the tribal governments, they hinge on negotiating settlements that secure the traditional, static land tenure scheme with additional resources in cash and rights that can create an income that will support the culture for an indefinite period of time. However, if de Soto is correct, the traditional methods of land tenure and resource management that are so central to the aboriginal position are those very methods that will guarantee poverty forever to those communities. The setttlement that you have proposed to whitewash all native peoples into Canadians is unacceptable to natives and most Canadians who respect the cultures at risk. On the other hand, insisting on retaining land tenure and resource management in the traditional form is uneconomic in the long term and will destroy the cultures eventually. In my opinion, discussions and negotiations must produce outcomes that are economically viable over a long term or the cultures are doomed. I believe that a new model for land tenure on reserves and corporate structure for other native-owned resource management that might include limitations on ownership to tribal members according to a geneaological registry would have the potential to bring aboriginal nations the success of the capitalistic culture that surrounds them. Dennis

Sharia law clearly demands execution for apostasy for males but women seem to have more leeway. Interestingly, the site, http://muslim-canada.org/apostasy.htm, displays an article by Syed Mumtaz Ali, (who was involved in the lobby for sharia based dispute resolution) that finds a basis or an agreement with this particular law in the laws of Canada. <begin quote> (2) The Canadian Charter of Rights (Section 1) also requires that any reasonable limits on the guarantees of the Charter have to be demonstrably justified. It is our position that in view of the above arguments that the limits prescribed by Islamic law, with regards to blasphemy/apostasy, do satisfy both the Charter requirements. Namely (i) the Islamic limits are reasonable limits, and are (ii) demonstrably justified within the meaning of Section 1 of the Charter on these grounds: a) The provision of the Preamble regarding the Supremacy of God, the constitutional obligation to interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians, c) that over one billion people (Muslims) worldwide consider those limits to the freedom of speech/expression to be reasonable, d)(i)what such a large segment of the Canadian minority believes as a precept of their faith/religion ought to be fully recognized if the Charter's provision respecting freedom of religion are to have any real meaning. (ii) Adherence to Islamic principles in this context, ought to be accepted as sufficient enough to satisfy the Charter Requirement of demonstrable justification. Recognition of Islamic standards of reasonable limits on the freedom of speech by the Canadian courts does not necessarily entail any obligation to enforce the Islamic punishment for blasphemy/apostasy within the Canadian jurisdiction. The Muslims themselves (with the exception of the small Shi'ite minority) do not generally believe or insist on any extraterritorial rights to enforce Islamic Hadd punishment in non-Islamic countries. (See footnote 1, under II, Abingdon Dictionary of Living Religions). <end quote> It is an interesting argument that the reference to God in the Charter of Rights provides a source of restriction on freedom of thought and belief that can culminate in justifying the death of a man who denies Islam and switches to another belief. While the article states that the application of Sharia, by executing an apostate, cannot be enforced in a non-muslim country, the argument is made that the laws of Canada do support such a requirement by referring to the supremacy of god as over-riding the charter. I have to agree with the argument. If God's law is superior to the charter, as the preamble to the Charter clearly states, and where God in the Koran has clearly required the execution of apostates, there is a clear duty under the Charter provisions to execute apostates as God has required, and as the Charter agrees. As the Charter does not bother to define God, it must be up to the reader, or to lawyers, or believers, to determine just what represents the mind of God. Perhaps, there would be some wisdom in completely separating our politics from God. As it now stands, a man apostate from Islam in Canada could be not be charged because no Canadian law exists for that purpose, but the Charter would not prevent the passage of such a law.

I think this was the issue that led to the court case in Quebec resulting in a ruling that an individual had a right to obtain private care when the public care was too slow. As FTA related, the Canadian system is excellent protection for critical care and financial cosequences. But, as you relate, it is currently providing inadequate service to many needs not identified as critical. It is a good system that was once much better.