bleeding heart

Yes, I saw that he wildly misread what you were saying about Jewish and Arab expulsions, for one obvious misunderstanding.

I just said--in the post to which you think your were responding--that I haven't reported anyone, for any reason. Hey, here's a good plan, Rue-y boy: learn to read. It's fun and educational.

I have elsewhere deemed Hamas rotten leaders, killers of Jews and oppressors of Arabs. You would know this if you cared to pay attention to what anyone says, rather than relying on your bent little imagination. Maybe you could, I dunno, leave me out of your sanctimonious little hate-fests from now on? At least get your facts staright....a tall order, evidently, but I would argue not an unreasonable one.

double.....

Yeah...I've never reported anyone, but that particular crossed line might do it for me.

I don't know. It would appear the "Westernized" 9/11 hijackers must have been lying continually, through omission and commission.

Not to mention his penchant for sexually-engaging little teenaged girls...an acitivity that he once actually boasted about, but has since grown silent on the matter, no thanks to the evils of "political correctness," presumably.

The second question is a fair one, and it is a subjective matter, no doubt. As to the first question: a person who says "he who weakens gun regulations (or legalizes pot) gets my vote" is disengaged.

I have been to the United States many, many, many times. I like it there very much. But then, I don't paint my every experience as profoundly related to battles between Tory/Liberal and Republican/Democrat.

The baby zombie bit was already done in the reboot of Dawn of the Dead, though to be fair, it didn't eat its way out of mommy's belly.

This from a guy who not only has no idea about the history of Libertarianism...but throws tantrums at his own ignorance of the concept.

i posted earleir on this thread about an incident in which an American horror filmmaker was stopped, everything searched, and he was detained for ten hours, on stated concerns about "transporting obscene materials" ( a copy of his horror films). Just incidentally, that too sounds to me a bit outrageous. But obviously it's not unprecedented, and I think Dre's remarks are lent some credence by the fact.

Well, while the op claimed not be referencing any single incident (fair enough) it was certainly influenced by the recent, and no doubt temporary, media cycle about teen suicide in North America. Mostly it's an unsubstantiated paen to the glories of earlier generations; no doubt with some truths to it (and some baloney) but useless as a thesis about suicide.

Just as a point of order about the "should we send them to military school" bit: according to Stripes, the suicide rate is higher among the military than for similar demographics outside it. So, no, that does not appear to be the solution to this particular problem.

Oh, sure; wealthy and powerful predators are exactly the same as silly people, mathematically challenged, who are informed by the predators themselves that they can truly afford their "dream home." There's obviously guilt to go around (everyone has conceded this, except for "the gubmint did it!" apologists for bad, profitable behaviour) but there's no equivalency of guilt..

I agree; but murdering somewhere between a sixth and a third of the populaiton, using rape as a tool of war, torturing and slaughtering civilians...all under the auspices of a war of aggression...certainly constitutes "State Terrorism" by any measurement I've ever heard. If not, then "terrorism" has no meaning, none at all. And the State variety, by virtue of its power, is a heck of a lot worse than the radical-group variety that currently has us so exercised. Supply weapons for an aggressive regime, while it's committing it's aggression, and knowing full well it is doing so...is material aid for the horrors. How could it be otherwise? Hell, I looked up a Hansard's debate from, I believe, '96 (should have linked it, but I'll find it again) in which an Opposition Member said we should stop supporting the "genocide" in East Timor. There were no objections to the term, none at all, but instead a sort of agreement that crimes were ongoing... and that the Canadian Government was doing everything to blah blah blah.

Just so. I had a recent discussion about "anti-Americanism," and opined that it is an overblown phenomenon, mostly trivial, and too-often used as a pejorative term for even legimtimate criticism of the superpower's international behaviour. But what you're talking about is genuine anti-Americanism, and it's silly at best. Or: when the double standard is invoked: "America is wrong to be in Afghanistan." Well, ok, maybe so...but we're there too, for crying out loud.

A single-issues voter is asking--begging--for a rotten, terrible government that will throw them their one obssessive bone, and then boot them in the face in a myriad of other ways..

Yes. thanks to some (rather wavering) eyewitness accounts (which are notoriously unreliable in the best of cases, not so incidentally)...and a confession which may well have been coerced under torture. Mr. Arar "confessed" to being a terrorist operative, I remember. (And who can blame the poor guy?)

Proof that you remain unable to offer. "Sufficient evidence" being your emotional response. The little Hogwarts poltergeist is losing his temper, I see.

They were "controlling and subjugating the enemy" in the same way other military aggressors "control and subjugate." I don't quite know what you're getting at here; are you suggesitng the two countries were at war, with legtimate grievances on both sides? It's akin to Nazi and Soviet aggression. No exaggeration. East Timor wasn't an enemy; it was a helpless, peaceable nation, in the process of democratically declaring independence during Portugese de-colonization. Indonesia decided they wanted the territory and resources--without any sort of legal, cultural, or historical claim--and invaded. Given a green light from Ford and Kissinger, who met with General Suharto. (And they asked him to keep their permission quiet, because the American people might not support a murderous invasion.) And then over 25 years, from '75 till '99, they killed somehwere between 100 000 and 200 thousand people. That is, up to a third of the population. You're pretty cavalier about a situation that is probably in the top ten of worst atrocities in the postwar era (which is no small achievement, given the competition.) Certainly, it was about a thousand times worse (literally) than what occurred in Kosovo...while we proclaimed our "humanitarian intervention" there, moaning about "the new era" of "Responsibility to Protect," precisely as the killings in East Timor were at one of their peaks...with our assistance. It's jaw-dropping. Here's a bit from ETAN, the action network working towards a Truth and Reconciliation process...which is impossible, since both Indonesia and the Western powers balk at discussing the issue at all. (Little wonder: gangsters don't generally discuss their crimes.): ....... Selling weapons and weapons parts (right into the 1990's, btw) for a proto-fascist military aggressor, committing mass murder with those very weapons...while our government(s) knew it is occurring--is not "encouragement or support"? And opposed three. Because...well, who can say? International politics (and support for attempted genocide) is all very comlicated...for us; not when we're talking about the behaviour of enemies, mind, none of whom in sixty years has been worse than our ally Suharto. It's true, of course--a truism, in fact--that we were schizophrenic about the relationship; as was the US (so that the Pentagon had to do an end run around a Congressional ban) and doubtless all the enablers of the Suharto regime. So some noises were occasionally made. but at the same time, efforts were also made to stop a diplomatic solution. This was most obvious with the Americans, these successful attempts to keep the Indonesian aggression going forward, notably by Ambassadors Paul Wolfowitz and, moreso, Daniel Patrick Moynihan: Nice stuff, no? Well, I see you take a different view on Iran, especially as concerns Hezbollah and Hamas, as most people consider Iran guilty, including our monumentally hypocritical government (both Liberals and Conservatives, considering the timeline). Unless you think the much-worse terrorist atrocities are simply not as bad as the lesser ones...a position actually held by people with whom I've discussed this subject, a stance presumably generated from the moral cowardice inherent to nationalism. However, I disagree with you: you're talking about "looking away from atrocities," a common occurrence, and one that, I agree, is a complex matter indeed. But that's not the case here; here, we're talking about intentional material aid for murder. Quite a different theme. Since Canada, the UK, Japan, Australia, and especially the US materially aided the ongoing State terror, fully cognizant that they were doing so, then by definition they (we) are guilty. It's not "by association"; it's direct complicity. Doctrinal "truths" about how Canada Simply doesn't Behave This Way are worse than useless; they're damaging. If it makes you feel any better, the UK and the United States were far more materially involved. Imperial States don't balk at a little mass murder, aside from the bad political metrics. And as I said, Ford and Kissinger directly and explicitly encouraged the invasion, which makes them, by definiton, parties to War Crimes of the sort that resulted in the Death Penalty at Nuremberg. (And if you think any of this last passage is crazed exaggeration and unfair rhetoric...I think this would be a good time to explain exactly how and why I'm wrong about this.)

Nor the burglar, unfortunately for the Hang 'em High Brigade. Well, that's quite a scenario, rather different from your original remark about cavalierly "wanting to" stab an unconscious person. (I see your referecne, yes, but since you are continuing with the hypothetical....). At any rate, since you brought up the possibility of the assailant being a junkie, we could no doubt paint a pretty poignant picture of his own harrowing life...which doesn't excuse the crime, but it rather complciates it from the "creep" idea of Bad Guys versus Good Guys, i think.

TIt has nothing to do with "the government line." Kimmy, and other critics, have been doing nothing more radical than holding people responsible for their own behaviour. You cannot 100% blame the government, of either party. Because that is trying to pass off responsibility. Even as far as this is true, the private entities remain responsible for their own behaviour. Period.

??? Whether or not you inferred it, only you can say. But you obviously implied it.

Who? when? I've heard this charge before, and have noted a peculiar reticence to provide any evidence for it.