betsy

And anyway, if you do have any irrefutable proof that it was indeed an "inside job"....I urge you to contact CBC pronto. They just did a special segment on conspiracy theories in remembrance of 9/11.....and nothing came out of it. And remember that this is the CBC...who seem to thoroughly enjoy the sport of bashing the USA.

No I mean those who actually did blow up entire cities. They (BinLadens) still have a long way to go to catch up though. "In latter periods, “Hashashis”, another brutal organisation, emerged; this was a “terrorist organisation” made up of ignorant and fanatical militants bereft of a profound understanding of the essence of Islam and thus who could be readily influenced by simple slogans and promises." http://www.yementimes.com/article.shtml?i=...culture&a=1 Suicide bombers are said to be motivated by promises! Promises such as....the 70 virgins awaiting in the afterlife.

Can you support this allegation?

I did not see any letter from the link you gave above.

Condemnations are for those already proven guilty.

If I follow that rationale.... You mean a straight guy can be turned to sodomize 14 year olds, thereby turning him into a homosexual? Homosexuality, like pedophilia, can actually be an acquired lifestyle?

No I mean those who actually did blow up entire cities. They (BinLadens) still have a long way to go to catch up though. It's gotta be this then! Bin Laden's been said to spout off verses from the Koran. "The “Kharijis”, who had no comprehension whatsoever of the essence of Islam or of the virtues and the values of the Qur’an, waged war against all other Muslims and based this war on a few Qur’anic verses about which they made distorted interpretations. Furthermore, they carried out “acts of terrorism”. Ali, who was one of the closest companions of the Prophet and was described as the “gate of the city of knowledge”, was assassinated by a Kharijite. In latter periods, “Hashashis”, another brutal organisation, emerged; this was a “terrorist organisation” made up of ignorant and fanatical militants bereft of a profound understanding of the essence of Islam and thus who could be readily influenced by simple slogans and promises. The Actual Source of Terrorism: The Third World Fanaticism These examples from history are enlightening for a better understanding of the phenomenon, the so-called “Islamic terror”, which is nowadays on the top of the international agenda. That is because those who emerge and carry out acts of terrorism in the name of Islam or those who back such acts –these people, no doubt, represent a minority in the world of Islam- stem from this “character peculiar to Bedouins”, not from Islam. Failing to understand the essence of Islam, they try to make Islam, essentially a religion of peace and justice, a tool of barbarism, which is simply an outcome of their social and cultural structure. The origin of this barbarism, which may well be called the “Third World Fanaticism”, is the benighted initiatives of people who are devoid of love for humans." http://www.yementimes.com/article.shtml?i=...culture&a=1

Congratulations!

What discussion is that? And especially, what discussion "so critical to our democracy?" Please explain.

Harper is just stating the obvious. He trying to emphasize and be clear about it. At least he was not like the Liberals, trying to depict our troops as the 'boogey-men" standing on every street corner in Canada....and Harper is not like the NDP, who likened our troops with terrorists. Harper is the only one who had shown a genuine support for our troops! If there are any phonies trying to use the troops AGAIN....look to the Liberals and the NDP. Their craftiness in low-down exploitation knows no boundaries. They have no qualms in using grieving parents and grieving spouses as well!

I personally hardly drink bottled water (my husband does). But mine does not stem from any religious or ethical reason....I just think that I only weaken my system by OVERLY protecting it from pollutants. I think that my system should evolve with the times. Besides there are nutrients in the water that you lose when you drink bottled or filtered water. Btw, have you heard of bottled Oxygen? It's being promoted on tv sometime last month... Well, as usual...crafty business men will create a "need" in order to have something to sell.

When asked to comment regarding Chavez' theatrical debut, Condoleeza Rice just sort of shrugged and said to this effect: she wouldn't dignify such remarks which is clearly unbecoming of a political leader. Wonder if that was why they were quiet during the Chretien and Martin era of Bush-bashing fest. Back to Chavez at the UN...gotta admit...he makes a good court jester.

You mean this one? "I will inspire terror in the hearts of the unbelievers; you smite them above their necks and smite all their fingertips off them." -Koran 8:2

Wait a minute, we're talking Hiroshima and Nagasaki during WW2. Vietnam, Guantanamo, Iraq has nothing to do with those WW2 bombings. So let's not try to put everything in one neat packaging.... Saving of Americans and allies was enough justification for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And if we talk of morals, legalities, conventions etc....if I'm not mistaken, Japanese diplomats were hardly finished talking or signing a peace treaty with the Americans when the bombing of Pearl Harbor happened. In other words, Japan threw out morals and conventions when it attacked the USA on the sly!

Sorry, but that's no comparison. You're talking peace-time. I'm talking war!

There're lines that people who (consider themselves) acting on the side of law will never cross. Prisoners were being tortured! Women being raped. Villages being pillaged and burned! Men being picked out to be killed! My father was among those lined up to be shot in the town square....luckily, pandemonium ensued when some planes came strafing. I sure am glad that the Americans decided to cross that line...whatever kind of line that is at war-time! The Americans should've done it sooner!

The incident I related happened to a friend of mine. He is Canadian, btw. So this happened on Canadian soil. And it seems to support what was claimed by the investigative report. It is sickening, isn't it...so I don't blame you. I, myself, feel more than a little sick. But that doesn't mean all homosexuals are such. Like all groups, we have our own share of bad apples. Having the authority and power wielded by a priest is understandably attracting predators to this job-title. It's more compelling than a school...or daycare. I won't be surprised if we also have cliques of pedophiles who'd found their little niche in this institution as well.

That two cities were filled with civilians when bombed was sad....however, let's not forget who the aggressor was. Thousands of other civilians were getting killed and being devastated in other neighboring Asian countries that Japan was systematically occupying. The occupation was brutal. Thousands more would have died if the war was prolonged. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had put an abrupt stop to what could be a long drawn out war. All wars have their price and their death tolls. What other options do you suggest in preventing more deaths and the end to that war?

Happy New Year and all the best wishes to you too!

Personally, providing education should be one of the responsibilities of parents. If we're talking of investment towards the future, as a non-parent I find it makes more sense for my tax to be invested in an adult who is already on the threshold of being productive. Children are raw materials....still got a long process to go. And some can turn out to be duds.

In what way have I shown that "I can't stand anyone saying anything bad about me saying "alleged bad" things about them?" Have I threatened to blow up anyone? Or joined any violent protest? Or indulged in any childish display of tantrums by waging on a vandal spree....and stompin' flag-burning bouts of fits? Don't you find it curious though....the similarities between the Cartoon Affair, The Pope's Quotations and this so-called "Insulting Turkishness?" They've all touched free expressions....and quoting someone else. So they are sensitive....who else? Does that mean one should not give any opinions just because a particular group is sensitive about it? And come to think of it.... Is arguing and expressing one's point of view...views that are opposed and contradictory.... not considered acceptable by liberal thinkers anymore? Is this how we are supposed to be now? If that is so, no wonder a lot of people do not see the importance of our troops being in Afghanistan.

It's not enough it seems that we're being censored even from quoting anyone or anything from history because that gets some overly sensitive folks getting all worked out. But now, there is such a thing as offending "Turkishness." They say things comes in threes...just like the three Eurpean Stooges of WWII...or the Holy Trinity of Chavez, Castro and that Coco-guy. What's following this Turkish offense, I wonder? Or, do we count the Cartoon Affair as the first one?

Well, it's true...the pontiff is a head of state. If other heads of state or other diplomats have diplomatic immunity, why can't he? Surely no one is suggesting he, as a head of state, be stripped of diplomatic immunity granted to others...simply because of the religion he stands for?

You tell me. I know for a fact the ex-bishop of our parish did move priests around when they got into trouble abusing children. He told me at a meeting that "we didn't know any better." When he was named in a law suit, his lawyers kept postponing the discoveries and other legal meetings. Records are hard to get from the Catholic church. Cops don't seem to do anything unless a victim complains or lays a charge. I think the Bishops use their canon law to justify most of their illegal activity and hire fancy lawyers to stall litigation and settlement. The amounts of awards are kept confidential in order to deter others from filing "false" claims and to not set precedents. That to me is their justification. I am currently under a restriction not to reveal the particulars of a recent settlement but I have a lot to tell if I could. I understand about the need for confidentiality of settlements and possibilities of false claims. I don't agree with perverted priests being moved around. There was a finding in a investigation, published around the time of the big scandal. The church had been "infiltrated" by those whose purpose is not really to serve God.....but rather to use their position to prey upon their victims. It is like a clique with this bunch...protecting one another. Positions of authority hold such great power and can be easily abused....what more when it is perceived to come with the awe and reverence of the divine. The minors and the children are easy prey. I too, know of a man who was abused by a homosexual priest (protestant) when he was 14 years old. He said the priest took him to another city and met with another priest, also a homosexual or who approved of what was going on because of knowing looks and banter between the two priests. You see, this priest took the time to gain his parents' trust and confidence....that he was even invited often for family dinners. So there was no concern when this priest invited to take the boy to an event (I think a sporting event) that was happening in another city. The parents gave their permission. That was when the abuse took place. Where the boy was helpless being in a strange city with no one to turn to for help. But going back to the obstruction of justice....that is the law enforcers' job. Why would the law enforcers not act upon it if a person had obstructed justice? Surely it is not simply because the alleged suspect is a priest.

When has the Catholic church ever turned over pedophile priests to the cops? Victims have to come forward and the cops have to do the investigation. Remember Cardinal Law of Boston. What a joke. He obstructed justice by covering up the abuse in his diocese and was not held accountable. Oh, he resigned but he still remained Cardinal. In the case of civil claims, the church will have victims sign a letter of confidentiality not to disclose outcomes or amounts of awards on threat of lawsuit. I have first hand knowledge of the latter. Usually, a victim has to come forward before any alleged criminals are taken into custody. Isn't that the case? I wonder if the Cardinal or any higher ups are above the law. If there was indeed an obstruction of justice....wouldn't criminal charges be laid on the person who did the obstructing? As for amounts of awards being confidential....is there any law against that?