Rue

Ooops there it is. Yah scrapes and bows. Eisenhower sure scraped and bowed over the Suez Canal crisis. Yah don't tell me you have one of them neat scarves with the black checkers and think its cool to wear. Its a tired cliche. Do better then that. What next the Zionism is Racism mantra, the Jew banker world conspiracy control the media cliche? How original. Just so you know-it's our bagels. We use our bagels to control Bush Chaney. He repeats whatever I want him to on this forum because he is a salivating idiot like all Americans. I throw him a bagel and he says thinks like "oy" and "my back hurts" just like a Zionist.

No one right now. However Uncle Moe (Mummy, Mumsie) Ghaddafi aka kaddafi, aka Bug Eyes says he will blow up the oil fields if he has to. I for one thing he is a raving mad man and may do just that. I also think given the dependence of Spain, Italy and France on Libyan oil, I can't see NATO just watching the oil go kaboom. You saw how fast NATO and the US went in when Hussein started blowing up Kuwaiti oil wells. You think its a stretch to think they would not do it again and present themselves as saviours of the people while doing it? The optics is there and in this day and age, optics is everything. I sound cynical because I mean it. Thousands will continue to die. No one cares. We saw it in Sudan, Rwanda, etc. The only time people get involved is if someone's oil supply is endangered. China has no problem protecting Sudan and its policy of genocide as long as its oil is sae. China has no problem protecting Iran as long as its oil from them is safe. Its business. The only reason Chavez is not dead by now is he has not cut the oil off to the U.S. If he does that, poof he will go. Libya produces 2% of the world's oil. If it was producing more, NATO would already have been in there protecting the oil fields. Tot hink at one point Uncle Moe was rumoured to be working on nuclear weapons and is said to have chemical weapons.

All those Ortega boys look the same. Say Jack now its Al Quaeda Moe claims is trying to get him. I thought he and Osama were an item at one point. Go figure.

Well if you are suggesting Bob has warts I don't know I have never seen him in a shower, and probably don't want to. Criticizing Israeli state policies in itself would not be anti-semitic. Using references that demonize all Jews or makes generalizations about all Jews could be. Making sweeping generalizations about all Zionists or all Israelis could also be anti-semitic if it engaged in references inter-changing the word jew for Israeli or Zionist as many do. In fact I never fail to read the criticism that starts off directed at Israel but soon engages in references negating all Jews and then justifying such anti-semitic practice saying since Israel is a Jewish state its o.k. to refer to Israelis as Jews and make sweeping generalizations about the jewish religion and then pronounce those myths about Judaism to claim that is what Israel stands for or that is what Zionism stands for. In fact its rare to find people who discipline themselves into avoiding anti-Jewish references when criticizing Israel not to say it can't be done and isn't done on this forum. I know many who do but others who do not. Sometimes I think its intentional bigotry other times quite unintended and caused by ignorance and confusion as to how to define the Jewish collective identity which is confusing since its a bit religious, a but cultural, a bit ethnic, a bit national. Its got many components and in a world where people want simplistic black and white sound bites they often are too lazy to differentiate and understand it. Then again they do the same thing exactly with Arabs, Muslims and Palestinians inter-mixing all three definitions incorrectly to make sweeping negative generalizations. Here's the point though. US foreign policy like any other nation's foreign policy is based on putting its financial interests first. This naive notion Bud has that it spends money on Israel before it spends it on its own people is just intellectually insulting. The US would not have a relationship with Israel if it was not beneficial to it. To suggest all of the US administration and congress are a bunch of fools controlled by Jews or Israelis or both to take money from road projects and send it to Israeli is precisely the kind of simplistic stereotype that incites anti-semitism-this notion that Jews and Israelis unfairly suck money out of the US and prejudice its people, so Israel can get fat. Its an insulting proposition based on the anti-semitic myth that Jews and Israelis conspire while gentiles sit around like retards and are leeched of their blood by us. The US formed an alliance with Israel for two basic reasons. One because Elenor Roosevelt for 3 years single handedly worked to save Jews from the holocaust and fought for a homeland. She took on the entire US establishment including her husband then Truman and the entire congress who were more concerned about not alienating Saudi Arabia and its oil. She worked grass roots. Her single handed devotion is the major reason Israel can exist and she was supported by average Americans the same ones who still support Israel not because they are fools or brainwashed by bagels but because they are a genuine friend who saw Jews as a people who have a right to a homeland. Over the years Israel also morphed into a second parallel relationship with the U.S. as a counter-weight to communism in the Middle East and anti American terrorist interests and became a trusted ally in both regards and as a military tester and researcher for its products which then as a result of that work could be completed and sold to other countries for billions. The US government has provided its military industrial complex huge amounts of tax rebates for trading in Israel which in turn have kept hundreds of thousands of Americans employed and enabled the US to sell military technology in the trillions to many countries. So it is absolutely assinine to say the US has to go without roads because of the financial arrangements it made with Israel. Israel is now paying back all its loans with interest and the tax benefits and profits generated from the trade with Israel has far outweighed any money sent to Israel. Anyone who takes the time to understand the relationship could see that. However if we want to operate in simplistic black and white concepts where we ignore how the economy and trade works and ignore it-well I suppose we will continue to get the Buds of the world promoting the Israel as leech parasite myth which is nothing more than a recycling of the Jew as vermon on the world myth. Eisenhower had it right. He warned the US economy being swallowed by the military industrial complex would dominate its foreign policy needs and he was right and it is the exact same case for France, the UK, China as well, who just also happen to be permanent members of the UN security council as well as the US. In fact all one has to do is look at the no.1 economic activity of all European nations and they will see it is the export of military weapons. Even Canada relies heavily on military trade. If anything by the way it is we Canadians who play at being righteous with our foreign policy.We want the whole world to see us as nice fair people. We have a refugee policy that screams of righteousness and saving the world while it is nothing more then an apperatus to let in cheap labour. If we were serious about refugees we would not have created this fake definition that pretends they are not economic refugees.

What is clear from watching him on t.v. is he is mentally deranged. He has been for years. He has stayed in power because Italy depends for 90% of its oil and gas from him and France, Britain and Germany are all dependent on Libyan oil. How long ago was it Sarkosy invited him to Paris and Tony Blair was kissing his hand in Tripoli making all Brits cringe thinking this lunatic who killed in cold blood so many passengers over Lockerbie now had the British Prime Minister kissing his hand literally. Oh we in Canada got in on the act. we went there kissing his hand too. A lot of nations did. He may be mentally ill but he was not stupid. What is ironic at this point is seeing Noriega in Nicaragua, Chavez in Venezuela and Castro in retirement try sing his praise as a revolutionary. Politics. It makes strange bed fellows. This man make no mistake is a psychopath. He will go out violently and killing thousands. Eventually NATO may send forces in. They may have no choice if they think the oil fields are in danger or there are seriously dangerous weapons about to change hands. I am sure we will get a cover story about concern over Libyans though. The fact is thousands will die unless the Western nations think their oil is endangered. I am waiting. Oh come on. Someone blame Israel or Obama for this.

The Oleg Bachian movement requires a while to understand. I would not refer to Oleg Bachianisms Oleg shares as peculiar but rather one of a kind. They defy conventional labelling. Oleg Bachian analysis sees everyone and everything equally as tainted with disease. Other then that you need to leave the rest to Oleg. He comes from a world where he never met a politician he could trust. I can't say I blame him for that. I did hear a rumour someone saw Oleg laughing once. Mind you it was a rumour. I tease him but out of respect because he always says it like he feels.

Pssst. Hitlers' house guest during World War Two was the Grand Mufti Of Jerusalem who also was considered a close friend of Benny Mussolini and Frankie Franco. So I am not sure about that. They had and neo Nazis today have no problem getting into bed and engaging in yoga with Muslim extremists. Unless of course you are suggesting your branch is still Muslim extremist alliance free. Lol. Listen you are entitled to your opinions. I respect your right to your opinions. I am a pinko Tory blue Liberal in the Canadian sense so to you that means wuss middle of the roader and I don't expect you to agree with me and that is fine. I am not attacking you personally. I am reading back the posts and I am teasing you a bit but no insults intended. The fact you are honest enough not to hide and couch your opinions and say it exactly as you believe is something I respect. I may not agree, but I respect you don't manipulate with your words. However come now, lets not pretend fascists won't get into bed with a wide range of wing nuts when it suits them. As Oleg Bach would say, who you fooling yer all whores.

I didn't say the above was not true or that the US does not share British common law roots or even incorporated some aboriginal concepts. However I do think it is a valid contrast to state something you unintentionally pointed out to back my case. Before I do that don't get me wrong, I defer to all the comments you made as excellent points and dont' argue the-excellent points but the one major difference I did not express well was this-you used the word "conquer" when describing the US experience with aboriginals, i.e., its conquering and incororating of tribes and bands. That is the precise difference. In Canada we did not "conquer" or even "incorporate" as was the case in the states. In Canada we had no settlers with guns establishing their land title by brute force over aboriginals. We had no rule of law evolving from gun fire. That is a huge difference. In the U.S. the gun is the foremost precursor and agent of creating the melting pot US identity. However in Canada we did not have guns. We were not allowed to have hand guns. We sent the North West Mounted Police who did not have guns most times unless it was a special circumstance and politicians to meet with the aboriginals and enter into treaties. Yes we had some violent uprisings like the Riel rebellion and we did have wars between the British and French with natives siding with each respective army prior to our creation in 1867, but we did not have the war the US did wit its native peoples or between itself in the civil war and therein lies the huge difference in concept of identity. In fact our legal system was designed to prevent a civil war like in the U.S. or a war with aboriginals for land as in the U.S. We did not want that. We in fact rejected that. We in fact turned our noses up at it choosing to remain with the King precisely because we found the Yanks to uncouth and violent. We did not confront and wipe out native peoples with gun warfare and violence. We much preferred instead to shake their hands and talk them into reservations after signing treaties with them we would then blatantly violate. No guns for us. We moved them into reservations quite civilly after some tea and biscuits. In Canada, we have never seen ourselves like the Americans, i.e., as having to be loud and violent and needing to conquer people. You see when we send our army into Afghanistan we go to "help" the native peoples not fight them. This is why our late Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson won a Noble Prize. He was a typical Canadian. He sent our army oversees as peacekeepers not invaders or warriors. That is the key difference in our identity. Americans see themselves as warriors-Canadians as nice gentle peaceful people. Its a huge collective psychological difference. Because we like to see ourselves as so civil, we think of our selves as all things to all people. We think we are inclusive people who welcome everyone and smile. So we have a refugee system that believes we can save everyone on the planet and we are shocked if people mistake us as Americans or don't like us. The US on the other hand has a brash, in your face,rebellious, frontier, outlaw devil may care warrior attitude at its roots. Where we were conservative and internal, Americans were and still very much are external and militant in outlook. US law may be rooted in common law but its first and foremost characteristic is that it is "activist"-it constantly challenges, whereas in Canada our legal system does not challenge or activate new ideas, it prefers to reform or refine old ones and is reluctant to scrap things and start from scratch. This reflects in our laws and even the conduct in our courts. We are not as demonstrative or adversarial or as litigatious as the American system. Some argue our lesser confrontational in your face style is also the result of the vast size of our country and thee need to work with one another to cross it or survive its winters. Its why we created a nation that loathed hand guns and welcomed a common medical system-the weather and our culture caused us to turn inword and conserve and share. In the U.S. it was much more individualistic every rugged man for himself. I am making sweping generalizations of course but the major difference that causes the US to be an American firt and anything else melting pot concept, and the Canadian one of being a hyphen Canadian comes from I would argue and only for discussions sake, this non confrontational nation of nations concept. Our country was founded trying to accommodate 3 nations, a native one, British one and French one in the beginning. We did not envision conquering aboriginals, or the French who lost the war to the British for Canada. We created a legal system to avoid confrontations, civil wars and conflict and try accommodate all three groups. It was post 1867 when the federal Canadian government then decided to slowly over a span of 70 years or so violate almost all its treaties with the native peoples. There is a difference. To this day Canadian history will not refer to itself as a conqueror of natives. The closet we have to a Geronimo is Louis Riel and whereas the US had many Geronimos and Sitting Bulls we did not. In reality our government didn't have to shoot anyone. We perfected the art of lying and the native people did not for the most part engage in terrorism as a response. They still haven't not even after we forcefully took their children away to try assimilate them and sexually abused them. Even then they did not choose violence against us. With the exception of the Riel rebellion and isolated skirmishes there was no killing of natives by non natives and vice versa. For the most part no one had or needed guns like in the U.S. Our identity did not come from the barrel of a gun and might and force, it came from imitating the British and French colonial powers, i.e.,drinking tea while we screwed aboriginal communities. In the case of the French they literally screwed the native people creating the Metis people-half breed French-natives. The one thing about the French is they will sleep with anyone. The British and Spanish might rape bu consensual sex, uh no. It was all terribly civilized you know-even when we raped the native children we did it in the name of Christ-it was for their own good. I make no bones about my take on multi-culturalism. I find it to be a farse in Canada when the only true Canadians are ignored and treated as invisible by us. The only people who could morally have the right to lecture about Canadian identity are our native people and unlike us non natives, they have never shoved themselves in our face. They have only fought back when we have spit at them or urinated on their sacred grounds. I am a Canadian. Its not as fierce an identity as being American and it won't ever be. When we reconcile our mixed identity with our true origins it will resemble the word Kanata, it will be a village of villages. That is how it works in Canada. To tell you the truth we don't get as choked up when people sing Oh Canada as when they sing Owe Say Kin EWE Cee... You won't find us too demonstrative. Even our military ceremonies are low key. Half of us can't understand the French words to our anthem half way through it or even the second verse since we are still learning to pronounce Canada, and the majority of us want to change our anthem to the hockey song by Stompin Tom Connors who is I do not hesitate to say as close to a Canadian as you will find there is such a thing.

Of course its a rant. as for Gilles Duceppe he has a fat head.

Well I am another "ethnic" but I am not a Canadian Jew. I am not even a Jewish Canadian. Don't hyphen me. I am simply Canadian. If someone asks I tell them I am a Jewish person but that to me is an ethnic cultural thing that comes second to being Canadian and is subordinate to being Canadian. don't hyphen or qualify me. I believe as a Canadian I should be able to speak both English and French. My French is o.k. but I can't write it very well and my children are fluently bilingual. I also believe as a Canadian the first Canadians were the aboriginal peoples not the British or French and as such the true founding culture from which all others flow is the aboriginal one which I choose to respect and defer to. I believe the concept we are a nation of nations (unlike the U.S. melting pot out of many comes 1 concept) comes from our choosing to incorporate this aborginal holistic concept to accommodate both the British and French influences that came after. Our British legal origins in all of Canada but Quebec and our Quebec civil law system were envisioned to co-exist as nations within a nation precisely because we learned from the native peoples that it was possible to be a nation of nations and operate on many levels of co-existence and we did not have to be only one or the other. We chose to be many. We embraced as many aboriginal legal concepts as we did British and French ones and that makes us different from the U.S. which rejected its aboriginal origins. Many of our laws are still based on aboriginal principles. This aboriginal origins difference I believe makes us far different then the US in how we view Canadians and the fact is other then our aboriginal peoples, we are all waves of immigrants who came here. To me we are a mosaic in progress with obvious aboriginal, British and French historic and legal traditions and the key to our collective survival will come from whether we choose to continue to embrace our aboriginal roots and holistic approach to being a nation of nations or reject it and adapt a totalitarian singular entity model. I believe it is possible to put Canada first and still retain other levels of identity. The two do not have to be incompatible if we are willing to put our vision of Canada at a different level and one that precedes and supercedes our ethnic or religious one. I personally believe if my Jewish collective identity clashes with my Canadian one, I can not be a Canadian citizen and put my Jewish identity first. If I feel that way I have to move to Israel. I don't. So I put Canada first because Canada gives me the right to practice and feel like a Jew and not fear being Jewish so you better believe I put Canada first. Canadian soldiers and other Canadians died so I could live in the country I do now. I honour that. Canada gives me my freedom, my standard of living my life where I do not fear any slaughters and where I can walk down the street and not fear the police or army. I honour and cherish that. Canada is a place where I can openly criticize my government and when I am sick I get medical care I do not have to pay for. You bet I put Canada first. I can be a jew and honour by ancestors who perished and died. One way to honour them is to know they could only dream I their children's children could live in a country of freedom like Canada. It is because I am Canada I can be a Jew and not die simply because I am a Jew. So you bet I put Canada first. I will also say this. Canada has certain fundamental principles that must come first. If you want to marry four wives because your religion says you can-tough no you can not. Further, if you believe in your culture or religion women must be subordinate to men this is not putting Canada first and its not acceptable. Its incompatible with being Canadian. You want to cover up and refuse to show your face no you don't vote, no you don't get your driving license and no you do not testify in court. You will not opt out of Canada. You will not put Canada second. No this is not a country that should have to condone and assimilate anything anyone wants or believes they are entitled to. No. Canada has limits. Yes I believe Canada has to draw a line and be intolerant of intolerance. Yes I believe tolerance has its limitations. No I do not think people should opt out of our laws or pick and chose only those obligations of citizenship that suit them. Canada is not some buffet you nibble on. Sure I believe as much as possible in individual freedoms-go practice your religion but don't tell me you are entitled to beat your wife or won't take your face cover off to vote or won't wear a motor cycle helmet because it won't fit on your turbin. Common sense says there are limitations and if you are not willing to assimilate and conform and expect everything your way, I say leave. One last thing. No Gilles Duceppe or any other Canadian new or old, don't collect federal money and a federal pension and claim to be a seperatist or another citizen at the same time. That makes you a two faced Canadian like so many who come to this country and demands rights and entitlement that puts this country second to you. You don't want to put Canada first get the f...ck out. Also if you want to teach your kids your culture and language you do it on your own time after school. The official languages in Canada are English and French. Also don't pull the I am a real Canadian card on me. No one is but aboriginal people and I never had one native Canadian call me an immigrant. Not one. On the other hand I have heard many non native Canadians say that to aboriginals or say they demand entitlement for themselves before Canada. That is b.s. They were the founding people-they do not have the same experience and relationship with Canada as the rest of us who came after. When we started this country our laws as a basic for creating Canada recognized their pre-existence as the starting point from which all other Canadian things would follow. we enshrined this in treaties that defined the aboriginal peoples as our founding people whose rights preceded Canada's and would continue within Canada as one nation in a nation of other nations. That is the concept we used to define Canada. That is what our treaties set out and which we then violated. We have yet to complete resolving the broken treaties acknowledging the pre-existence of aboriginals and their becoming a nation within our nation. Until we resolve through resitution those broken promises we live a lie. We live as a nation that ignores its true identity of a nation of nations. We will remain fractured and confused. If anything the aboriginal peoples are the only truly second class Canadians and will remain that way until we resolve the treaties we broke with them and fairly determine how we will define our interaction as nations within another nation. So don't bitch to me about their being unfair because they want the treaties we broke with them remedied. Unlike the two faced Canadians that came after them they didn't come to Canada and upgrade their lifestyle to something far better then they could have been without Canada. Unlike the rest of us they don't benefit from what you and I take for granted. They live without water and proper homes and facilities. They live without work. They live in third world conditions many Canadians flee from and transcend. To me multi-culturalism is a moot point. The entire world is made up of many cultures. We are all a mix of something. No one is pure. But don't ask me to call myself a Canadian first if it means I remain unresolved with my Canadian origins, i.e., the nation of aboriginal peoples. Until they are full Canadians I am not really a Canadian. I am proud of this nation and what it has given me and I am grateful but no I can't appreciate my benefits knowing the people who made this possible for me can't. I share this nation. I do not own it. I share it. I am fortunate enough to share it. It belongs to know one. The earth is not owned by us. It is shared by us.The portion of earth known as Canada is just a part of the earth we choose to share. I wish to share it in a way that honours all its different forms of life and not just a select few.

Bud you stated: "israel's system is a mixture of advanced democracy and retrogressive discrimination, combined with clumsy attempts to hide the discriminatory reality." This Zionist is willing to admit the above. There has been discrimination against not just Arab Israelis but non Orthodox Jewish Israelis, Beduins and between Askkanazi and Tsfardic and Felashie Jews. There is no doubt Israel has its problems. It is not all smooth sailing. I am not about to make a sweeping pronouncement that there is no discrimination. There is. What I will say though is it is not all simply against non Jews its against so many people and its not always caused by religion. For example the assimilation problems of the Beduins is identical to Israel as it is in Egypt, Syria, and many other Arab countries. The Beduins have resisted assimilation into urban collectives and so find themselves caught like aboriginal peoples in Canada, in a no man's land. Much discrimination in Israel comes from another practical problem. In Israel everyone is called into the armed forces for two years and is on call until they retire. So from 18-65 you are in the reserve if not on active duty. You can choose to opt out of service if you are a Muslim Israeli,Arab Israeli, non Jewish Israeli, or ultra-orthodox Jew. However if you choose to opt out, you don't get security clearance and this means from a practical reality you can't get many jobs in Israel because in this small country, most jobs now need military security clearance so whether you are Jewish or non Jewish, you are discriminated against equally if we must use that word in that if you don't have security clearance so many jobs will not be available to you. The fact though is the IDF has had Beduin and Arab and Druze soldiers and in particular heros have come from all three. Men of valor who fought and died for Israel in its IDF came from all three groups. Now in regards to religious discrimination, the Rabbinical courts have made discriminatory findings against Felashies and Reform Jews like me and humanist and atheist Jews and non orthodox Jews. They discriminate against us with who is a Jew and marriage concepts more than they do Muslims and Christians who they stay hands off on when it comes to marriages or divorces. If anything I suffer more discrimination in Israel by the Rabbinical courts then any Muslim or Christian. Then we can get into complex sub issues such as women and gays. Women in orthodox Jewish or Muslim communities are more likely to suffer from domestic abuse that is left unchecked then women in the rest of Israeli Jewish society. why-because the abusers can opt out of the regular family court system and go to religious Jewish, Christian and Muslim tribunals which favour archaic anti women laws. So in that sense discrimination of women is far more complex than Jew or Muslim. In terms of gay Israelis well the state of Israel has human rights legislation, tribunals and courts that will defend their rights against discrimination but the reality is a gay Israeli if he is orthodox, Muslim, or orthodox Christian suffers discrimination. Again its complicated and its not black and white as to who does it against who. So my point is the pro orthodox Jewish laws in fact discriminate more against non orthodox jews in many cases then they do Muslims or Christians and so its misleading to say its a theocracy in the sense where Jews are discriminated in favour of because of our religion. Its just not true. Its become far more complicated then that. Some of the discrimination is gender orientated, gender preference orientated-fundamental orthodox religious v.s. progressive modernist religious and some is because of the security clearance issue. Unlike Jews in Muslim countries, Muslim Jews can own land in Israel and have had their land rights upheld in the courts. Muslims in Israel openly vote. Some say municipal funds are not shared with them fairly but againt there is another reason for that. Muslims are less likely to pay taxes. In fact most don't. They don't pay taxes and so there is no money to give them back for municipal development in their quarters. Some of it is a cultural difference in viewing government and the importance of paying taxes as a citizen. Its not anti Zionist-its an apolitical cultural one that existed long before Israel was created and is a clash between Western and Eastern views as to the role of government and taxes. Some of it, particularly in East Jerusalem is complex. Some of the disputes in East Jerusalem have come about because Arab residents have illegally seized land that was not owned by them. Some times to be fair, discriminatory government practices make it practically impossible for Palestinians to live in certain areas as permits are given to Jewish Israelis to expand. Both sides have been guilty of suspect behaviour. There are no shortage of Israeli court decisions making findings of discriminatory practice against Muslim Israelis by the Israeli government as well so to deny that is pointless. Its true and the courts had to step in to protect Arab Israelis and probably will in the near future again over certain land title disputes. So I will concede your point. I will debate you yes, but I will be open and fair minded as well to your comments.Your comment I think for the above reasons is a fair one to say. I believe Israel struggles. On the one hand it wants to be a progressive modern democracy on the other however are fundamentalist religious tendencies and historic land disputes and the need to protect the Jewish collective identity through state institutions which is the pith and substance of Zionism with the democratic concepts of fairness and equality and seperation of state from religion. The two most certainly conflict at times and present real existential challenges to the future of Israel. Ironically if Zionism remains true to democracy, then necessarily Arab Israelis will eventually outnumber Jewish Israelis and vote theJewish nature of the state out of existence. Therein lies the irony and explains why some Israeli politicians believe if Israel is to survive a way to cap Arab Israeli population growth to assure Jews remain the majority in Israel must be achieved. How that would be achieved democratically is anyone's guess. It may not be possible.

Yep.

Glad to see I am not the only one who seems to remember the Gen.Franco-Monsieur Canada conection. In any event I am an Oleg Bachian. I hate all totalitarians I don't much care what we call them. HOWEVER I do hope Egyptians can find a form of fair democracy one of these days. I hope everyone can come to enjoy it. I know my ancestors couldnly dream of living in a country like I do now in Canada. I cherish it. I think what I enjoy people in Egypt literally just died for.

The war going on in the South and Darfur has never stopped. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/southern-sudan-political-leader-blames-khartoum-arming-rebels-20110215-025652-731.html http://www.helpdarfurnow.org/news.php http://www.darfurdaily.blogspot.com/

I do get your point but I am not sure how sodomizing the sodomizer would make me feel better if you catch my drift. The dilemma Oleg is what is the appropriate response because for the vast majority of us yes bioth socialism and fascism as you are well aware, are all the same totalitarian bull shit. So what does a civilization do when it loaths sodomy or group imposition of will? A society could not function without a certain level of group coercion so what form should this cocercion take and how involved should it be in our individual lives? Its easy to say what it should not take-but what form should it take? Its easy for Egyptians to say NO NOT Mubarak but those same people have no clue what to replace it with at this point. You know the expression..its easy to know what we don't want but difficult to know what we do want. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Turkey, Sudan,Libya,Jordan still cling to their hybrid Muslim religious-and totalitarian states. Nothing really changes not even in egypt where the military continues in charge as it always has.

I was thinking Franco myself but hey what do I know. By the way once we are on the topic and this is directed back at Mr. Canada, fundamentalist Islam has never been compatible with socialism to suggest it was or is, is absurd. Iran openly arrests and tortures its communists, socialists and trade unionists. There is a reason there are no socialists in Saudi Arabia, the Gulf Arab Emirates or for that matter anywhere in the Arab world. Islam or theocratic rule associated with Sharia law is most compatible with a dictator, one party state and a religious council. Since most socialists and communists are atheists they don't tend to get along with Islamic fundamentalists and this explains for example why in Egypt its socialist and communist parties never got along with the Muslim Brotherhood and why in fact the Muslim Brotherhood was recruited by the CIA to fight the Russians in Afghanistan and counter the spread of communism in Egypt and Yemen. The closest thing the Middle East had to alleged socialism was pan Arabism championed by Gamel Nasser and that was really a Middle East version of Nazism. Nasser's political party and the Bath parties of Syria and Iraq were all copied on the Nazi model right down to the Gestapo (Mukbarat), uniforms and goose stepping and the thousands of Nazis brought to Egypt, Syria and Iraq after World War Two who ran those nations propoganda ministries, police, security and armed forces. The closest thing to socialism in the Middle East was the original Labour party of Israel but by 1967 its dependence on military development as its most important financial activity eclipsed its agrarian vision of a socialist state paving the way for a non socialist style of politics that we see today. Socialists don't exist in the Middle East if for no reason in Islamic culture no one questions authority in the form of the military and their sense of collective is based on being told what they must do even when they have opem revolts- dictatorships have always emerged from revolts because there are no collective councils, coops, unions. The Muslim Brotherhood does talk of equality and yet in the next breath defines certain Muslims and all non Muslims as less equal to others. That is how fundamental Islam works. It creates classes of people. Always has. Classes of people is the antithesis of a classless society. In Islam the Koran is used to justify the classes. Socialism is no more compatible with Islam than it would be with Hinduism and for the same reasons-class structure is presented by the religious principles as a given. Do you really think in Iran the theological fundamentalists do not promote a class system? Of course they do. The elite theologians on the ruling council do not live like the average Iranian. They are not adverse to luxuries and material benefits the masses do not have. You think in Arafat's version of Palestinian society he had any problem giving himself billions in money sent for his poor? of course not. It was quite compatible with his religious beliefs. The Saudi monarchy has no problem justifying its elite status with Islamic principles.

The largest influence on Hertzl would be what some call Austrian humanism. see; http://www.springerlink.com/content/l770726463rm1553/ Today's Zionism has many complex components. It is the belief that Jews are a collective and have a right to universal sufferage through a state institution to protect themselves from persecution and extinction. This is it in a nutshell. Those who believe in Zionism because of Jewish religious beliefs are but one kind of Zionist and religious Zionists can be either Jewish or Christian and those who are Jews can be orthodox, conservative, reform, ultra-orthodox in religious belief. There is not any uniformity there. There are then ultra-orthodox Jews who believe the state of Israel can not come about until the messiah comes back first and many of them are mistaken as Zionists because they live in Israel (i.e., Jerusalem( or in the Hebron area of the West Bank. The religious Zionists of the West Bank who are settlers are not all the same. Some believe that all of Judea and Somaria belongs to Israel others are willing to flex on where the borders should be. The vast majority of Israelis are still not religious and best described as cynical existentialist if you must use a ridiculous label. Their belief of identity comes from constantly being told they are hated and will be wiped out or should go poof and disappear. The early Zionists came from European climates of pogroms and the Drefus affair. Their sense of identity came from being hated not loved. In the Arab world of dhimmitude their sense of identity came from being segregated as second class inferiors subhect to extortion and violence. In Europe the hatred was based on the passion play of Christ as justification. In the world of Sharia Law and Islam the hatred was based on passages from the Koran depicting Jews as evil and infidel. If Zionists only defined themselves by the religious concept of the Old Testament they would be far different in consistency and make up than the range of Zionist essays and literature that exist from its origins in Europe or in its later reincarnations after the holocaust.

Many claim to know the origins of Zionism and come on this board like Dre and misrepresent it precisely because they do not know. Why Dre said what he did I do not know but here are the actual facts about Hertzl and the choice of Israel for the jewish sttae. Herzl who was non religious and was a journalist with a doctorate in law, did meet with the Sultan of Turkey in 1896 to ask for a Jewish home in Palestine, true. The Sultan told him to kiss off. In 1897, the First Zionist Congress was held in Basel, Switzerland and Hertzl was elected President. Then In 1898, he organized an effort to create a Jewish state but Palestine was only one location considered and if he was the religious Zionist Dre misrepresented him as being he would have only considered Palestine. The fact is however he was not a biblical Zionist and this is why in 1902-03, he tried Herzl negotiating with the Egyptian government to have the Jewish state created in fact in in Al Arish, which is in the Sinai Peninsula. In fact in 1903, the British government offered Herzl British East Africa, a.k.a. Uganda, to be the Jewish state and he actively considered it. A biblical Zionist would have rejected it outright. In fact Herzl was in favor of taking Uganda as the Jewish state and proposed just that at the Sixth Zionist Congress. At the 7th Zionist congress the choice of Uganda was rejected by other Zionists who said it should be where the original Israel was, i.e., Palestine. So to say Herzl was a biblically envisioned Zionist is a crock. He was not. Furthermore the notion of creating the new jewish state from where the old one was, was not necessarily based on the concept of believing Judea and Somaria belonged to Jews. It was as much if not more a political motivation then a religious one, i.e., that this was where Jews belonged as a collective because that is where they came from. So it was a notion not just of a Jew as told in the Bible, but a Jew as defined as a semitic people of the area then called Palestine who were not always Jews but would become Jews. It was in fact the other co-founder of Zionism, Eliezer Ben Yehuda who would more appropriately be descibed as maintaining a Jewish religious concept as part of the jewish collective concept behind Zionism.

No he was not. I would like to know where you got the impression his vision of Erezt Yisrael was motivated by the Bible. Please quote your sources because I am telling you that is just not true. In fact Hertzl was not a religious man nor was his family. He was not religious at all. He in fact was a socialist and his vision was of a socialist state for Jews and if you do your research you would know he never said it had to be in Israel. He openly considered the Sinai, Cyprus and even Uganda. Did you just make that up? I want to know why you would try depict him as a biblical Zionist. He was anything but. His concept of the Jewish collective was a political one not a religious one. He felt jews needed a state institution to protect it from anti-semitism and to guarantee Jews would not be a persecuted minority. It had nothing to do with the biblical version. The people who argued the state should be in Israel were later Zionists and most of the original Zionists, the majority were not religious and did not follow a religious Zionist version. Religious Zionists whether they be Jewish religion Zionists or Christian religion Zionists were not the majority who started Israel or who live in Israel now. The religious Zionist you are mistaking Hertzl for and can now be found with about 33% of the Jewish settlers on the West Bank are a minority in Israel and reject the socialist Zionism of Herzl. The orthodox Jews of Israel who are members of extreme parties such as Shas or who have clout in the Likud party have a complex range of religious and non religious beliefs that make up their Zionist beliefs. Zionists such as myself and the majority of Israelis are not religious Zionists and never were. Please read up on Hertzl and don't reference him in such a manner. Its completely inaccurate. How about before you claim to be an authority on Hertzl you start with the basics: http://www.suite101.com/content/the-early-zionist-movement-a106433

You have just described the majority of political systems all over the world? So what is your point that politics is about political interest groups that seek to influence politicians? Those of us from the Oleg Bach school of philosophy figured out long ago all politicians are equally for sale. Therein lies the absurdity Oleg often talks of on this board and I laugh at along with him and have decided to use in a campaign to get him elected to office. There is an absurdity surely in thinking politicians that exist anywhere are not influenced by self-interestthat will come their way if they support certain views. That is what politics is about. So the US is not unique in that sense other then it does not hide it. As well Obama won his election by in fact getting non lobby votes by utilizing the internet to incite the highest turn out of Americans ever including young Americans and Americans of all colours and ethnicities. It was a genuinely democratic vote using popular opinion and not lobby interests. To also be accurate there is very little substantial difference in the foreign policies of McCain and Obama. Obama is not as radical as some state and McCain was not as extreme as many stated. Both are middle of the road politicians who fully respected the power and role of the establishment in their country. Neither expected to blow up anything. Both got to where they were by being middle of the roaders. McCain was no stranger to reaching out to Democrats and Obama to republicans. That is the American way, negotiating to somewhere just right of the centre or as they spell it center. There is an irony however when we look at third world countries and belittle them for their rampant coruption but then call the people who bribe our governments, lobbyists in the first world. There is a fine line between a lobbyist on Capital Hill and some shmo in India paying off his government official to get a driver's license. Bush-Chaney has never denied the American democratic system is not influenced by lobbyists nor would I about Canada. Its a fact. We openly register them and try put ceilings on how much they can contribute and of course they find ways around that. In Canada to stay in power you play to the Quebecois and minority groups of one kind or another. We all know it. We saw the Liberals do it for years to stay in power then the Tories do it. Now we see Harper genuinely playing to his right wing Christian support base. He doesn't hide it. Neither do our other leaders hide their pandering. Kind of hard to miss. The point though is not all lobby groups are the military industrial ones or the oil ones or the pharmaceutical ones although those three certainly are the biggest. The greatest one in the use is the National Rifle Association which is fueled by a basic fundamental belief in the right to arms a political ideology. Another of the largest and most influential groups lobbies on behalf of seniors. The Red Cross And various medical charities have great power too.The largest nation lobby groups are the United Kingdom, China, Taiwan and Japan. AIPAC which is given much credit for its mythical influence doesn't have as much as you would think. When it is able to influence foreign policy it is only because it lines up with sufficient military industrial lobby interests that precede it in power and influence. Its strategy is top try get Israeli foreign policy to match and conform to the military lobby's interests not the other way around. It wishes it had the power some think it does. In fact ironically support for Israel comes from Christian groups and gentiles in the U.S. not Jewish Americans. Such people vote for Israel for many reasons and one would think one of the reasons would be they might work for a company related to one of the lobby interests or its just genuine or a bit of both but there is nothing sinister about it. People openly demand of their politicians certain things and in this day and age of polls, internet and tweet, they can connect and hold their politicians accountable far better then they could in the past. The military industrial lobby network by the way is no sinister secret conspiracy. Its blatant and in the open and it has such power because it employs so many people and therefore through these people pays so much taxes and renders votes. Eisenhower knew after WW2 that the military industrial complex that grew to win the war for the US would continue and become so big it would become permanent and he feared it would have an unhealthy impact on political will. Whether it does or not I leave to others but what I am saying is your comments about the US are meaningless-they can describe any nation including the state monopoly run China with layer upon layer of corrupt kick backs and politicians on the take. If I may refer to my guru Oleg, I would state the entire world's political systems are based on some form of prostitution. The only thing we are really talking about is how much we pay to get our interest supported not whether we have to pay it. We know the primary function of politicians is screwing someone and finding themselves hard to swallow. There take that analogy and run with it.

I am. Whether its Shas in Israel or Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, they both have men with beards and extreme views not just as to external but internal policies. However the differentation I would make is Israel has existing institutions, i.e., an independent judiciary, independent popularily elected Knesset, free press, hundreds of human rights organizations, that provide a checks and balances for any extremists. In Egypt such apperati do not exist or play the role they do in Israel and so the likelihood of extremists being able to gain power and influence state policy is far greater than in Israel with Shas or Lieberman or a portion of Jewish settlers on the West Bank who are extremely intolerant and undemocratic in tendencies and whose views are countered and contained by popular expression. I would say ironically there is a similar role played by both countries' militaries at this point. They are both seen as the tristed caretakers of their respective countries in times of crisis.

Lol well to make sure you are a commie you must verify the following. If you answer yes to more than 2 you are a commie; 1-Do you have facial hair or are unshaven? (man or woman the test holds equally as valid) 2- Do you own or have you ever worn a beret? 3-Have you ever used the word Mao, Che, brother Fidel, comrade, or Yankee in a sentence? 4-Have you or anyone in your family voted for the NDP or attempted to justify anything Olivia Chow or Jack Layton or any union leader said? 5-Were you upset over the recent election outcome for Mayor in Toronto? 6-Have you ever used these references in a sentence, "Zionism is racism", "oppressor", "expansionist", "reactionary", "neo" (unless you were discussing the Matrix movies); 7-think Oleg Bach is the name of a musician or a counter revolutionary; 8-work for the Chinese government.

Nothing has really changed. All that has happened is a popular uprising was given the consent of the military to serve as the vehicle to jettison Mubarak and it is given the people a signal that uprisings can lead to the ouster of leaders-a dangerous precedent that once condoned repeats itself again and again if there is no stable infrastruture from which to implement democracy. The military still has its intelligence chief and senior officers in charge. They will do what is done in Egypt, find another face as figure head. The institutions needed to create and support a democracy do not exist in Egypt. Until they are created and that would take a great deal of hard workand major change in the culture of day to day Egypt, democracy can't come about. Democracy requires a judiciary uncontrolled by the government or military. It also requires a government genuinely run by civilians not the military. Itrequires the shedding of political police and the extensive network of coruption that have always run the Egyptian government. They also require a facility to assure bribe free, genuine voting. People who have never lived in democracy don't just suddenly engage in it. They need the required institutions to implement it for them. These institutions require specific expertise and professionalism that needs to be recruited and nurtured and can take years if not centuries to construct. Going on a street and revolting in itself is not democracy though it might be a precursor to it if there is momentum to then build the required institutions and support structure for democracy. The most probable outcome is a military officer will emerge as the next leader and pretty much do what Mubarak did...use the system to buy his support and play off feuding political interests to keep himself in power until like Mubarak it catches up on him. The euphoria will soon wear off and the masses will be back to soaring food prices and shrinking incomes and the anger that bubbled to the surface will seek emergence again. In unstable economic times, extremists feed on the instability to raise their profiles by offering hope. We have yet to see who will emerge in a country where most potential leaders left the country out of fear Mubarak's secret police would get them. The West is solidly propping the Egyptian military. As such, that in itself would seem to indicate the Muslim Brotherhood is not going to have an easy time trying to take over if that is their agenda. Also don't understimate 30% of Egypt's population that supported Mubarak. They are still there and will want their opinions and interests protected. They still will have their connections in government and the military for exerting influence.

Where was Jordan carved out of? Poof it just appeared from nowhere. The Egyptians created the Gaza strip as an open air corridor to trap and contain Palestinians from moving into Israel. But hey you knew that.

As one of your most devoted followers I would like to think I new you were from out of this world. Also your philosophy clearly proves it. The Oleg Bachian movement is spreading. Long live the Oleg Bachians.