AndrewL

In edmonton they build entire neighborhoods of crappy combustible homes jammed way too close together. The residents refuse all services (stores) and all public transport because they say they can drive anywhere they want to go and they will only stay for a couple of years anyway. It is ridiculous. Andrew

It was a rhetorical question meant to express the fact that i don't care. whether or not serving members do is their business. Andrew

Sorry, Who the &^%&*$*% cares! Andrew

***Yawn*** Who the &^%*$ cares. Andrew

I said before smarty pants. Learn how to read. Andrew

Police offers attempted to incite other protestors to violence so that there would be an excuse for police violence. That is beyond dispute. Only the pathetic and mentally challenged would defend their conduct. But hey, look who im talking to. Andrew

It does not matter one whit if it has ever happened before from you own personal experience or anyone elses. The fact is it did happen this time and whoever is responsible should be held to account. What those cops did was totally unacceptable. Andrew

What an excellent argument for why Iran might be seeking nukes. Andrew

Palestinians and Israeli human rights groups have regularly complained that Israel uses human shields to stop youths from throwing stones at them, but there has often been no proof. In March, Israeli human rights group accused Israel's army of using two young Palestinians as human shields during an operation in the West Bank. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6554487.stm In addition to this Israeli politicians have always used the settlements as human shields and they have always admitted as much. The settlement are a security buffer they always say. And then they place IDF soldiers in them knowing that the settlements are an aggravating factor in the conflict. I find rules for war to be a joke. The purpose of war is to win. And all nations and groups have shown they will do whatever they can to win. The only important rule for war that exists is the one that forbids all wars of aggression. I condemn any institution that kills innocents, and not once in this discussion have i taken either side. Im arguing against those who say israel is blameless. We all agree that Hezbollah deserves blame. Anti-semitism? Did i say anything remotely disparaging against the semitic races of the middle east? Appealing to the Geneva conventions rules for dressing yourself properly when committing or receiving violence is pathetic. I mean, do you really think those pilots flying at thousands of feet can make out uniforms in the urban areas they are bombing? Have you never even thought about what you are actually saying? All corporations are engaged at some level in ecocide. Ecocide is the same as genocide. And all nations have committed genocide at some point or another. Hezbollah is actually pretty minor compared to the great powers and their crimes. The goals that Israel set out at the beginning were to eliminate hezbollah, eliminate the rockets, and get the soldiers back. They failed on all counts. Their only accomplishment was to terrorize the lebanese civilians who played no role in the conflict. This makes them the same as Hezbollah but with deadlier weapons. And early in the conflict Hezbollah would have agreed to the cease fire, sparing many deaths in both israel and lebanon. Prolonging the conflict was pointless. Andrew

Choose whatever word you want. This conflict does not have a genesis in one violent event. If you want to understand this conflict you really have to pull back and see it in its entirety. Andrew

The fact is Hezbolah still possesses that ability. Andno, i don't wish for this. Oh i see, anybody who criticizes israeli policies wants to see all israeli's murdered.. is that right? Actually it is the children who often get excited about war as they run around playing guns. Is that you? Whati expect from grown adults is total condemnation of war to solve differences. In todays world it has become more than obvious that the methods of the madmen of decades ago no longer apply. When you are done glorifying violence maybe you will grow up to see this as well. Are we done with the personal attacks yet, can we actually discuss the issue? Thats not weird at all, for those of us who understand how politics work. The US congress is investigating but i would hardly expecting anything genuine. The UN and HRC have both accused Israel and Hezbollah of war crimes, on many occasions. Where is the moral equivalency? Im accusing both sides of being immoral. Certainly they are at least equivalent in that. But neither has achieved my standard of morals. They both have a long way to go before they rise up out of the moral deficiency of religious bases conflicts they constantly engage themselves in. Andrew

A common israeli practice. Israel used cluster bombs in civilian areas. And they did this after they agred to a cease fire. This is pure terrorism. lol... i wont defend myself in the wrong clothes.... no. Absolutely. And i would add the UK, Canada, US, Russia, Australia, most of europe, most nations and corporations actually. Because there is no military solution to israels problems. This is obvious. They were engaged in punishment through violence. They were trying to sway the minds of the lebanese by causing them to suffer. Your welcome. Exactly. So instead of artificially beginning this conflict at the moment the israeli soldiers were captured, lets pull back and look at the wider conflict they are engaged in and how that came about and what sort of options we think can help solve this equitably for all sides. Andrew

Legally Israel violated both US law and international 'norms' by using cluster bombs in civilian areas. The fact that they did this after the cease fire only speaks to the moral depravity of whoever decided that was appropriate. In general there is nothing moral or ethical in any war by any side. Yes, rockets fly into israel quite often, still do. This is a crime. If a military response could stop this i would agree. But it is obvious, and has been for some time, that a military solution to this problem is not available. So essentially Israel is engaged in punishment of innocents for lack of political will, i.e., terrorism. Israel is not safer. They are currently in the worst position with respect to security they have ever been in besides their first war. The fact that Hezbollah fought them to a standstill has rekindled the idea on the Arab street that slowly over time Israel can be defeated by military force. (this is false of course, but the perception is far more important). Hezbollah gained popularity as a result of this. They did not lose prestige. Your last sentence just shows how morality depraved you are. Andrew

Nice pointless rant. Are you suggesting that Israel was fully justified and deserves no blame for killing hundreds of innocent lebanese civilians and destroying their infrastructure because a couple soldiers got killed and kidnapped? And where are these soldiers now? Is Hezbollah weaker or stronger? Do they still have rockets to launch? Did the actions taken by Israel accomplish anything at all worthwhile or improve their security? These are fair questions. When a nation resorts to terrorism to achieve their goals (however legitimate) is it too much to ask for results or competency? Cause and effect? So are you suggesting that everytime Israel kidnaps or assassinates poeple it is fully justified for the victims to respond with the same level of violence that Israel relies on? Or do you want to bring cause and effect all the way back to the 40's? Andrew

Odd that you no longer see israeli rockets landing in lebanon. Nasrallah was just as successful as Olmert by your reckoning. Funny how that works eh? Andrew

Olmert could not stop it even when he tried. According to Gwynne Dyer in "The Mess We Made: The Middle East After Iraq" Israeli border guards exchanged sattelite photos of Hezbollah positions for massive quantities of narcotics. So Hezbollah knew ahead of time where Israel would strike and and they simply moved their positions. Olmert became impotent, and Israeli guards sold their own people out. Andrew

I never said it did remove responsibility from Hezbollah. I was arguing with the notion that Israel should not be held responsible as well. And Israels military strategy for this region is never irrelevant. Without provocation? That is debatable. Israel kidnaps and assassinates people all the time. The response to Hezbollah did not match the crime. Its easy to say this was an act of war and deserved such a response, but it is also easy to see how utterly cruel, counter-productive, and stupid that response was. Andrew

Im not saying people who believe in human rights cannot hold the bible dear. Im just saying that if such things were inspired by the bible they would have taken place long before the last two centuries. The bible certainly has not changed, but peopel did, for reasons unconnected to religion. Andrew

Its simple.. They are commandments. A person found not resting on the 7th day would have been punished in some way (and were for hundreds of years all the way up to my lifetime). This is not a right, it is an absolute requirement. I never said anything about labor laws. Im talking about definitions and whether or not biblical scripture can be viewed as a treatise promoting human rights. I think it cannot and that our morals have evolved beyond scripture, and indeed many of our morals are even contrary to scripture. No i didnt. I said the bible contains no expression of human rights as we would define it. You provided that one quote which was close but it still made everybody a christian in a backhanded way. "For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus" Bullshit. So glib. Perhaps there are some seeds in scripture that gave meaning to some of our later values, sure. But my point is that we also hold values that transcend these ancient texts. At some point we needed new values that worked for us that would not have worked for them. Human rights is one of those things. As is abolishion of slavery. As is acceptance of homosexuals. As is acceptance of atheists. And so on. Scripture is nothing more than what the people who lived at the time made it. Andrew

add gender as well then and whatever else you can think of... the point is unchanged.. Human rights has always been defined as universal. Otherwise it would not be called human rights. It would be called american rights, native rights, women rights, child rights, jewish rights... human rights encompasses them all and absolutely has to be universal. Andrew

Nonsense. The bible has always been used to limit the rights of people. Still is today. Gay rights, stem-cell research, condoms, divorce, and so on.... Andrew

Ok so call it the Abrahamic religion or whatever, it really makes no difference to the fact that commandments cannot be considered rights. They are conceptually opposite. Here is a commandment: But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns. You shall not..... it does not say you have the right to take the day off fi you wish.... it says you must take the day off and force others who may be visiting to do so as well. That would be considered a violation of human rights more than anything. .At least now you are calling them laws and not rights. It is clear in the reading of the ten commandments and in the entire history of christianity which has always been evangelical. Here: You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me How could one commandment demand through the threat of generations of child abuse that you must worship only this one god, and at the same time extend the same status of those who believe to non-believers. That does not make sense. Yes. In fact i would argue that the duty and obligation in our society seems to be the exact opposite. Our duty is to go to school, get a job, consume like a glutton, etc.... That hardly constitutes a duty to protect the environment. Our duty is to keep the economy going, which in its current form is what poisons the world. I wish the majority people considered it a duty to promote a healthy environment, but sadly it seems like people think it as a duty to ridicule those who ask for such things. Andrew

I had to read this part again because it does not make sense when the history of religion is considered. I would say modern secualr morality is what is still being forced on the bible. Whether we go back a to women's suffrage, enfranchisement of slaves, indigeneous rights, etc... the bible has long been an obstacle to these things. Many people used to use scripture to justify the status of women as chattel, the status of slaves, and the forced conversion of native peoples. Andrew

Show me an example please. MLK got his non-violence from Ghandi who got it from Jainism. He got his desire for freedom from the secular american constitution. MLK was not an author of the bible. He is far too recent. lol.... Please show me some passages from the bible that allude to, mention, hint at, or describe universal human rights for all sexes and all peoples regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, etc... Andrew