Rue

Well I am glad its Miss Saskatchewan getting it. Usually Israel is blamed for all false flag operations. I am waiting for the usual Zionists are to blame for it theory. With due respect the Americans have been restraining themselves and doing anything but flag waving. The entire point of the latest theatrics is because the U.S. has stayed low and refused to talk with North Korea and said, any talks will be with South Korea and China and Japan present. The U.S. has been a model of restraint. Had the U.S. wanted an excuse to bomb or attack North Korea it could have done so years ago.

Then good let me engage in relativism and no it does not mean I condone those Muslims who engage in extreme fundamentalism nor did it mean the other poster did. What we are saying is ALL religions have their extremist fundamentalists and to blame all Muslims for the views of extremist Muslims is as illogical as blaming all Jews for extremist fundamentalist Jews or all Christians for extremist fundamentalist Christians and so on. No because Klu Klux Klan members claim they engage in their philosophy based on Christian religion does not mean all Christians are racist bigots. That is the relativism the poster was engaging in. He is saying it is illogical to smeer an entire population of Muslims for the extremist views of some of its population and neither you nor JBG or anyone else is in the position to break down the entire population of Muslims in this world and tell me which ones are terrorists and extremists and which ones aren't. That was the point. Now you state Islam is bad for us. Speak for yourself don't speak for me. This Jew unlike JBG was brought up to be respectful of Muslims, Christians, Hindus, atheists whoever. No they are not bad for me. People who are bad for me are not bad for me simply because they are Muslim. They are bad for me because they use their religion to justify hating me. In that respect a Jew or Christian or Hindu could be just as bad for me if they preach hatred and intolerance. In fact I believe JBG is very bad for me precisely because he preaches a form of hatred and it could be assuemd if we used his reasoning that he does against Muslims, that all jews are as hateful towards Muslims as he is. That of course would be illogical. I believe he makes a mockery of the Jewish religion and everything it teaches. Judaism does not teach us to hate Muslims and disrespect their religion or make negative generalizations about them all. Christianity never taught its people that. Individuals in the name of their religions choose to take their religions and distort the meaning to justify their own personal opinions and need to be intolerant of others. It is illogical and hateful to set about to deliberately generalize in negative terms the entire religion of Islam or any other religion. There are beautiful passages in the Koran that talk of love, peace and harmony. It has questionable passages just as the Bible does and other religous books do and yes all these books also have some very disturbing passages as well. All of them. You want to set out to define something as "bad" then that is what you will find. Its call ed a slef-fullfilling prophecy. No thank you but I am a big boy and I don't need you to tell me what is bad for me. Dog you know me well enough-I will criticize Islamists if I believe they are using their religion to promote hatred, violence, war but no I will not hate all Muslims or discriminate against them all or make negative remarks about them all because of the acts of others. That is wrong, illogical and unfair. It is done against Jews I am the first to challenge it as anti-semitism and I do not like it when people make all kinds of negative generalizations about me because I am a Jew and a Zionist no more then a Muslim or Palestinian likes it when people negatively stereotype them. If someone wants to discuss a specific issue do so but to continually generalize in negative terms all Muslims is bull. I was taught as a Jew and a Zionist to respect the Arab peoples and Muslims and I intend to do just that. I do that the same reason Christians were taught the same thing or why atheist humans do that. We were all taught the same golden rule, the same rule of respect for each other. I use relativism to point out the lack of logic and absurdity in stereotyping an entire people or their religion and for you to suggest it can only be used to condone the bad parts of Islam is bull. Show me once above where I condoned extremist intolerance by Muslims. What I have said is its wrong to engage in extremist intolerance whether it be by a Muslim, Jew or anyone else and if you can not take the time to be clear in criticism of Islamic principles that it is specific to those principles and not the entire religion or people then I say thanks, but no I find any exercise designed to dismiss all Muslims and their religion as being illogical and inciting intolerance towards Muslims. This is not the first time JBG has ran his anti Muslim threads and it won't be the last I make the same point. There is a way to discuss and criticize religious precepts without dismissing an entire people or their religion. If you can't find the intellectual discipline to differentiate between precepts and an entire people or entire religion, then may I suggest you try find that discipline otherwise you lower yourself to engaging in hate mongering. Clearly we have enough of that in this world.

Actually I didn't. Nor probably do most Canadians need you to lecture them on who a Canadian is. This Jew tells you, that to do as you do and that is to engage in a platform to try rationalize negative generalizations against Muslims as you do, is a crock. You trot out all the stereotypes people use against we Jews only you do it against Muslims. If a Muslim chooses to marry a Muslim according to their religion it does not make them any less a Canadian then a Jew who feels they should marry a Jew or a Christian a Christian and so on. Give it a rest.

Yes in many cases. You are proving that point. If you need further clarification let me know. Here's a hint-people like to use the Bible to speak in absolute terms to justify their intolerance of others. In your case, of course, you manage quite well without quoting the Bible.

I would agree and add this on to the end of your sentence...that could adversely impact on their jurisdictional powers. As well the United Kingdom could pass a law in its parliament allowing Charles to abdicate not withstanding the objections of Canada and that would make Canada's forcing the issue a moot point, so in practical reality of Charles wanted to abdicate or in fact never succeed Liz, a law would easily be rubber stamped. No parliament is going to question it realizing the U.K. could act unilaterally and then what? Chuck remains King of Canada but not the U.K.? Let's get real. Mr. Bambino you know I appreciate your constitutional knowledge but pratice trumps theory when it comes to the constitution and its many protocols and doctrines.

Well now I must slightly disagree with your take on history. There is no doubt in the past the British and other colonial powers exploited China true. No one denies that. No one doubts either the horrendous things Japan did to China during World War Two. In 1949 when Mao came in he managed to kill 20 million of his fellow citizens however. Some say many more then that. Some say he killed 20 million simply during the Cultural revolution period but many more before and after that. So need I remind you China victimized itself. The government now in place in China would you paint it as a sweet innocent angel? It controls its 1.5 billion to 2 billion people with a facist dictatorship. Everything is controlled by a central organ that is no different then the very corupt mandarin empires that ruled before it. Today's mandarins are communist party members and the Emperor is the Communist Party Chair. Ironically in the name of communism, China is a worker's prison. It keeps the majority of its population under house arrest and forced to work as cheap labour while an elite, tiny, bloated upper class feeds off the asses no different then in the days of the mandarin empires. China is a corupted, tyranical facist state that brutalizes its people and keeps them under control through violence, terror and slavery and to paint this country as benevolent or a victim of the West is a crock. China uses its central organ to dump cheap, dangerous, inferior goods into the market places of all nations. It floods the markets using predatory pricing and artificially controlled currency to create huge trade deficits in its favour. China's legacy is to pollute the world with inferior, toxic goods it has its slave labour make. It went into Mozambique, Angola, Sudan, Iran and soon Brazil, and buys oil and natural gas far cheaper than any Western nation using its predatory pricing to exploit these nations and by bribing their corupt governments. That is quite a legacy. A country that props genocide in Sudan, props a facist brutal regime in Iran and of course liberated Tibet. It is an unethical, corupt, facist nation. It is the epitome of big brother gone crazy and it will stop at nothing. Now you want to talk North Korea as a poor victim? Give it a reality check. North Korea has been run by a brutal facist dictator, then his fat perverted, drunk son, and now his soon to be fat boy son. There is nothing communist about China or North Korea. They are brutal tyrannies. The lunatic who runs the country is its leader by cultivating a personal cult and enforcing a state run terror cell that kills people or tortures them into submission. Its people starve because the entire state is run for and by the military who keep their fearless leader happy. Its like watching a Tudors episode. The only difference between Henry the 8th and the little putz in Korea is one still is alive. Victim? North Korea? It is no victim. It brutalizes its people. What would happen if the dictatorship crumbled is anyone's guess. The little fat boy due to succeed his father looks like he will shrivel up if Dorothy spills some water on him. There's a mad man in North Korea and he is desperately trying to set the stage for his son in a world that prefers to bribe people then shoot at them wherever possible. I am sure the fat boy will catch on after his beloved fearless father dies if he's not shot and replaced by some lunatic ambitious colonel in the Korean army.

But did he have Alzheimer's at that point? You ask me surely he could have done better then Nancy. She looked like the Joker in drag. Let's get serious. One should only rule if they are good looking. Charles is a hideous product of incest. His wife is a man in drag. Willy is a goofy looking dude but he is in good physical shape and unlike his father he is not a wimp and he is marrying a babe so that is all that counts. Its a no brainer. Kate is a babe Camilla Parker is a bowels or whatever her last name is. As for Ronnie, he called his wife Mommy. Clearly he was a sick perv. As for Nixon, it wouldn't surprise me if he had a golden showers fetish and had some fat call girl on call to pee on him. That reminds me. Can you imagine if Charlie Sheen were elected President of the U.S.? Seriously, Chuck is a goof. The thought of that drag queen wife of his being referred to as the Queen of Canada is ridiculous. There is only one queen of the United Kingdom who I have advised of repeatedly and that Queen already owns a residence outside Toronto-Elton John.

Eyeball you could have at least made an effort to determine the state of the insurgent's medical condition before you uttered the above opinion. The facts which were not in dispute indicated the insurgent was so severely injured that it was determined his wounds couldnt be treated on the battlefield. Further Afghan government forces declined to offer medical care to him. Your assumption Samrau should have ordered a helicopter to come on a mission to try save a person so severely injured he would have died long before the helicopter could get there makes no sense. No you do not missapropriate valuable resources and endanger the lives of a helicopter crew for such a nonsensical mission. The rest of your answer which then switches focus from the issue as to whether this was a mercy killing or a cold blooded murder to the issue of whether the Canadian forces should be in Afghanistan is not germaine to the legal issue Semrau was tried for. Semrau's conviction or the disciplinary action to be handed out should not be determined by your politican partisan view of being against Canadian military service in Afghanistan. Your assumption you can scapegoat him politically is illogical. Semrau did not control the decision to go to Afghanistan. He was simply a soldier placed in a theatre of war who as the circumstance arose followed an ancient code of honour. What your partisan political views are is irrelevant to this issue. You also missed the very point of the issue and that is, one day if you lie dying and suffering and ask to be allowed to die you had better hope you don't run into a physician with your political views. He'll walk away from you and leave you to suffer.

The Canadian officer charged with homicide in the Semrau case was a model officer. Commendable performance. Solid leader. Family man. Community man. In fact the role model for the ideal human and a true officer and gentleman. This man found himself not in a civilian situation but a combat theatre. A taliban lay dying slowly and in pain with his stomach hanging out. He shot him to put him out of his misery. The alternative would have been that this terrorist would have layed suffering in unbearable pain for a few more hours before dying. How is what this officer did a crime or offence? What kind of insane reasoning says we leave a man with his stomach hanging out to die slowly? In war, whether it be the first, second or Korean wars, soldiers were faced with similiar situations and did the same thing. No you do not leave a man who must die, to die alone in pain even if he is a terrorist. That is the difference between a human with compassion and a cold blooded psychotic or sociopathic killer. This soldier did the honourable thing and he knew he would be court martialed for it. The person who reported him had their own agenda. The politics in this decision is blatant. This officer was stripped of his repuation and rank because the military and Candian society as a whole will not define death and deal with it. No you do not leave someone who must die to umbreable pain. It is that simple. No the fact the person with his stomach hanging out is a terrorist does not disqualify him from being treated like a human. We are not terrorists. We are better then that. We do things based on compassion and love not just hatred like terrorists do. What does it make us if we leave a man with his stomach hanging out moaning in pain to die alone and in fear? What does that make us? What are we asking this soldier to be for us? We ask him to carry a gun and kill for us. Now we want him to be not just someone who kills for us but a cold blooded one who has no compassion or follow a code of honour? This soldier should not have been placed on trial. He was a scapegoat once again for our inability to deal with this issue and make clear guidelines. I commend this soldier's actions. I commend his putting his own career in jeopardy and his own needs to the side, and placing the dignity of this wretched soul first. He did what Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddism, Taoism, Jainism, Siekism, and so many other religions and disciplines teach, he put the need of his fellow man first and did what a compassionate, loving, caring human would do at a time when being unfeeling and dettached would have been considered the norm. For the person who feels because he was a terrorist he sould suffer-remember this-its easy for you to sit in an arm chair far from the field of battle telling this soldier he should be the cold blooded killing agent you want. You were not there. You live far from the reality. You could not hear this Taliban moan and gurgle. You did not see his stomach full of insects and smell his pain and see his breaths cause his insides to flow out. You think this man should suffer needlessly and this soldier should assure that happens for you? You want blood? You want suffering? You want misery? Is that what you want? How are you expect this soldier deliver it then I say. This soldier is a man with a code of honour. He is a professional. He was not taught to kill without reason. He is not a robot. Yes he follows orders but if those orders are not based on a code of conduct, he would be nothing more than the terrorist he has been asked to contain. If you can not see how he would have become a terrorist by walking by this man and doing nothing then I ask you to think again. This soldier could have easily lied to protect himself and claim the terrorist was reaching for a gun. He did not. He acted openly. He was and is prepared to live with his decision as Latimer did. Pray you do not end up faced with the same decision and have someone far removed from your life sitting in the distance demanding you be demonized for the decision you must make.

A study was conducted by the Canadian senate that did an excellent job considering the pro's and cons of euthanasia. It now sits collecting dust because our politicians are gutless and do not want to deal with the issue. In the meantime in the States of Washington and now Oregon a law exists in which people can submit a request to die to a medical panel and if it is determined the person suffers from an incurable disease and has severe pain and is of sound mind and legal capacity, they can choose to die by injection. The system screens out those with depression or who still have quality of life or whose pain is determined manageable. The system works. The rest of the U.S. states and Canada ignore the issue. In Australia mp's have tried twice to legalize euthanasia and at one point succeeded only to have it repealed. In Eastern European states inclunding Poland and Russia, euthanasia is given a lighter sentence than regular homicide. In Holland, the law is so contraversial that if you can find a doctor willing to do it, you pretty much can ask them to help you die. In the U.S. Dr. Kevorkian a former pathologist was turned into an evil demon for creating a device that allows a terminal patient to administer their own drugs to die without pain or complication and he deliberately allowed himself to be charged with homicide and served time in jail to try bring attention to the issue. In Canada in B.C. and Quebec parents of children have been aquitted for assisting their terminally ill children die. In Halifax a case proved the present problem with our inability to deal with euthanasia. A doctor on emergy room duty was called to a room. A man in final stage lung cancer asked to have his breathing tube be removed so he could pass away. His family was there and he made his peace. The doctor removed his tube. Then instead of gently passing away he slowly choked and gagged and screamed out that he needed help to die. Under the current law a doctor is told by their physician code to vigorously apply pain medications to ease suffering but can not assist death. So what does that mean in such situations? It means the doctor is left in limbo and placed in the impossible situation of doing the wrong thing whatever they decide in such cases. The doctor had already administered a heavy dose of morphine. Nothing was working. The doctor injected more morphine and the patient died. The family was relieved and no doubt that patient was eternally grateful to the doctor. She was then charged with murder and the Halifax Crown Attorney's office refused to drop the case when told the facts. It became a political battle with disabled and religious groups painting the doctor as a murderer but the patient's family claiming she did no wrong. Luckily in this case the Judge pulled a fast one. He said he would never be able to tell if the earlier injections of morphine or later one was the one that actually led to the patient's death so based on that reasonable doubt the case could not go to trial. However each day doctors are faced with issues where patients find themselves in unbearable pain with no hope of recovery and pain medication no longer working. If they assist such patients with an overdose they would be charged as murderers and have their licenses suspended. So some do so in secret and others do not. Have you ever had a loved on in such a situation. I did and watched her drown in her lungs riddled with hopeless pain from cancer. Her kidneys, liver, lungs, all were failing. She was in total and utter pain and they could not get an injection in her collapsed veins. She could have gone on hours, days, weeks, like that. I thank the doctor that day who applied a deliberate overdose so she could stop thrashing and die. In fact no one questioned the dose and luckily because this person was jewish no autopsy was allowed. How many others must go through this? How many Canadians are dying in pain and not allowed to die because some of us fear death or the disabled and rightfully so, fear this could set a precedent to make it easier to kill them off. Is it not possible to balance the concerns of the disabled with protocols and assure only those with genuine hopeless and painful conditions be allowed to die? Or as the Civil Liberties Association says, should it go further and be left up to the individual. I favour the model used in Washington and Oregon. The Civil Liberaties Associations of the U.S. and Canada feel only the individual should get to decide. Our politicians in the U.S. and Canada remain gutless and refuse to deal with the issue. In France they have rejected euthenasia but in very close decisions reflecting the fact that the Roman Catholic monopoly on controlling the issue is slowing giving way. Likewise in Italy and other Christian states across Europe. In Israel, Muslim and Jewish religious laws do not condone euthanasia but interestingly both are pretty much the same and leave it open for the person dying and persons administering to them to act compassionately and so it is quite possible if someone assisted someone die but it was shown to be without malice even the most orthodox of Muslims or Jews have the religious room in the wordings of the Koran and Old Testament to escape punishment. Compassion for those suffering is seen as the paramount consideration. Hinduism is confused on the topic. Technically it is against euthanasia but then again there are numerous references referring to assisting people in dire consequence which would also suggest compassion trumps any other consideration and it is the Hindus who invented medicine. Buddism technically not a religion but a philosophy pretty much is the same as Hinduism. Vague and cryptical and inexact but it too like Jainism, Siekism, Hinduism, Bahaiism and many other Eastern faiths, does seem to suggest compassion for the suffering is the paramount consideration. In Christianity some argue it is absolutely prohibited but their is now heated debate by certain Christian scholars that the compassion in the message of Christ based on the principles of Teekam Olum from the Talmud that Christ promoted and updated, would allow under special circumstances compassion to prevail if someone was in unbearable desperate pain and suffering needlessly. The issue is far from clear religiously or ethically and we need to define it because medicine is at the point where all of us, each one of us is going to live long enough to be caught in limbo and living a life of extreme pain with no escape from it wondering how much longer do I do this? When does quality of life get the same consideration as quantity of life? cont. next post

Comparing the Latimer case to the Semrau case is illogical. They are not the same at all. Completely different fact situations. In the Latimer case, the child was suffering from incurable diseases that had left her trapped in pain. She had the i.q. of someone at about age 1-just enough to recognize her parents and feel pain in its totality but not understand why her parents could not hear her cries of pain and stop them. The Latimer child had a disease wear her bones grew into one another as she grew meaning every joint was a site of inbearable pain and the only thing being done for her was to forefully break the bones. Her digestive system did not work so they would force fluids into her stomach through a painful inflicted opening for the tube that constantly became infected. Latimer took his child to numerous doctors only to be told they could not treat the pain. The reason Latimer was sentenced to jail is simple if you read the case. Disability groups intervened who should not have been allowed to intervene and changed the case from one of father and daughter to the girl as the symbol of all disabled people and Latimer was turned into the symbol of everything disableds fear from society and turned him into the scapegoat for the fears of the disabled community that the able bodied want to get rid of them. The rhetoric and political inflammatory arguments used by the disabled groups had nothing to do with the Latimer child and everything to do with turning her into an extension of disabled people who feel victimized by mainstream society. The court proceedings were a disgrace. Interestingly the future Supreme Court Chief justice in that case did not agree with the decision and in fact it was only decided by one Judge, Sopinka who I would contend was a well known religious Catholic and because of his own religious beliefs had a bias against any notion of mercy killing. The jury in the latimer case was misled. Read it for yourself. They were outraged when they found out Latimer was getting life. They thought he would be found guilty of a lesser charge based on what the trial judge told them. The Latimer case is a monumental disgrace. It was a miscarriage of justice. The will of the jury was misled. The actual issues germaine to the case were hijacked and the courts allowed Latimer to be retyped as a demon by disabled groups complete with their projecting on to him evil selfish motives. Ironically the disabled groups that turned Latimer into their scapegoat missed the most crucial point of the case and that is, those with incurable painful illnesses with no hope of escaping the pain are just as disabled as any of the disabled who turned Latimer into a demon. For them, access to qualify of life would mean the right to a peaceful death. Disabled groups so blinded by their fear of being killed by the able bodied forgot that for some disabled the right to access and dignity means the right to decide when and how to die. No this case was not even remotely close to the Semaru case. The person dying and found by the Canadian soldier was a terrorist who chose to place themselves in a situation they knew could kill them. The Latimer girl did not and her father was not an agent of the conflict that had directly inflicted her suffering on her-the exact opposite. It is a travesty the courts treated Latimer like a criminal. He had no mens rea-criminal intent. His intent was to end his daughter's hopeless pain because there were no other options. He acted out of compassion, mercy and love for his daughter and anyone of us as a father in the same situation would not sit and watch our daughter with such a vulnerable i.q. and who was slowly starving to death in pain continue like that. At best he should have been sent home under house arrest and been put on probation. Instead he was turned into a scapegoat and turned into the demon to be punished to alleviate the fears of the disabled and the refusal of the Supreme Court of Canada to set out clear and precise standards for when they will consider mercy killings unique to each fact situation. The Latimer decision is poorly written by Sopinka who probably was one of the greatest litigators of all time showing he made up his mind because of his religious beliefs and then worked his way backwords to justify his decision. I will continue this in the next post.

Hmm I am trying to figure out what grain you eat. Are you serious. Long haired hippy type pinkos? Get real. That is something out of a 1970's sitcom. If you want to advance a stereotyoe of a trendy leftist you want to hate the last thing they will be is a hippy...some may be goths with vampire long hair, but more likely they might shave their heads, have particular hair cuts and dyed hair. The days of long hair which made a come back with grunge for a bit are not exactly mainstream with leftists. Neither are beards anymore. In fact it can be very difficult trying to find the difference between a leftist or rightist on looks alone. They both can be fat, skinny, baggy eyed and incoherent. Now take someone like me. I am smack dab in the middle. I am basically boring, pink, male. I could pass as a rightist or a leftist depending on how much I feel guilty or whine in a given moment. Chances are the only way you will know where I stand is whether I emphasize being powerless or powerful. If I am forced to use but one stereotype or generalization I would say people on the right are more likely to talk about wanting and enforcing their power whereas people to the left are more likely to complain about being victims and being powerless and needing help. I hate even to go that far. Now on the dialogue with Iran. Some of the most crack pot right wing extremist political interest groups have shown up supporting North Korea, Iran, and other such nations. You might want to look at the coalition of people getting into bed with one another. In the case of people who support Iran, its not just those sympathetic to Islamic extremism, but trendy guilt ridden liberals (small L), neo Nazis, Ron Paul and certain Libertarian supporters. Some of the groups who lobby hard against the current Iran regime are communists and trade unionists inside Iran facing death if their views become open, activist students who believe in a democratic nation but are far from right wing or left wing, they are just interested in free speech and democracy, gays, feminists, non Muslims, moderate Shiites, on and on. Its dangerous to stereotype people. Now me I find the notion of Iran, North Korea, Pakistan having nuclear weapons truly problematic. Then again I find China, Russia having them just as problematic. The fact is nuclear weapons are the tip of the iceberg. Nations such as Iran already have the ability to send a missile head with toxic chemicals into Israel to kill the population without taking down the buildings or having the same widespread fall out from nuclear radiation that would kill Muslims as well as Jews. Let's also get real. Any lunatic can go on the internet and get enough info to make a dirty bomb and explode it sending radioactive debris into the air capable of killing many. Any lunatic could go now into our water systems and spread germs or spread airborne virus, etc. On the one hand no I am not happy Iran has a nuclear weapon, but no I am also not happy anyone has them and could sell them or their technology to the wrong people. Me I don't like the Iranian regime. To me they are facist lunatics. But I do not hate Iranians. I want Iranians to be free of them and their fundamentalist extremism. So I balance what I say. It doesn't make me a hippy. Hippy? Most hippes I knew turned into fat corporate executive sell outs. The few that didn't look ridiculous these days with their bald heads and pony tail in the back. The only hippy that still looks good is Joan Baez. I saw a picture of her. Not bad for a communist.

Your lack of credibility shows with the above words. Provide the proof for the above statement. Show proof the state of Israel censors its press let alone freedom of speech within Israel. I would suggest you fabricated the above-you tossed out a subjective assumption because of your anti-Israel bias. No one is asking you to support Israel or agree with its policies but making such comments are pointless. The Israeli press is volatile and openly, daily, by the minute, challenging and criticizing each and everything its government does. Pick up an Israeli newspaper. Listen to its radio and t.v. shows. The press is hardly censored. It is a constant fire that burns. There are hundreds of human rights organizations, interest groups and political groups in Israel that openly challenge and criticize its government and initiate law suits in its courts. IDF soldiers have been sued in civil as well as military courts. Your knee jerk reaction suggesting Israel can not handle opposition or allow it is an absolute crock. Here is the issue. There is we all concede the APPEARANCE OF a conflict of interest if the IDF investigates itself. This is the same arguement people make about the police investigating themselves. That is one issue. However to automatically infer as you have that the IDF is bias without proof simply because it investigated itself is as baseless as making statements such as the press is not free in Israel and the government represses free speech. If you bothered to investigate the IDF it would dawn on you it is a civilian army. This means its soldiers are all civilians-many openly challenge and criticize their armed forces and do so openly and join groups to do so. Israel is a tiny nation that depends on every citizen from 18 to 65 to be on call. How long do you think a civilian armed force could survive if you tried to take all its soldiers and tried to shut them up? You even think that is possible? Soldiers go back to work. They go back to school. They talk. Everyone knows someone who has died, been injured and has served in the armed forces. No you do not understand the IDF or how it deals with its soldier. You do not understand how on the street level its soldiers talk and discuss and challenge and question. You assume you do. You want to send someone genuinely neutral to investigate go on...who will you send-the UN? Human Rights Watch? Amnesty International? The Red Cross? Right. Why don't you go research those agencies and organizations that claimed to investigate the conduct of the IDF who were not from Israel and see how partial they were and how they all violated basic protocols to assure neutrality when obtaining info and how they relied on unsubstantiated second hand untested testimonials. Go find out how some of these agencies openly admitted their errors and biases. You want to talk about anything the UN has produced in the last 10 years may I suggest you actually read it and find out the protocols that were NOT followed during the investigations. Now I can't wait for your proof that the state of Israel censors freedom of speech of the press, how the court system has not awarded damages to civilians suing the IDF,how the IDF has the entire country under lcok down from speaking. Can't wait. By the way find someone genuinely neutral and I would agree with you 100% having them investigate would be of help to clear the air. By the way who will investigate Hamas or the links the current Turkish government has with Hamas and funding it and the organization whose members it deliberately allowed onto Turkish boats who the Turkish government new had planned an armed confrontation. who investigates that? You? Moe Ghaddafi? I mean after all he was the Chair of the UN Human Rights council was he not? He sounds like a distinguished senior spokesperson.. Excuse me but just once I would like someone who criticizes Israel to actually propose someone neutral investigate them. Just once.

Rich white male? Labels. You use them you live with them. Rich white male as a label is no different then using any other stereotype label. Its a stereotype. No more, no less. I don't like them. Most white males I know to start with are shades of pink. Secondly they are not rich. Thirdly the last time I looked ethnic groups of all kinds are not tied to just one party and are evenly split. In fact in my riding which is predominantly Siek, they will make sure they have candidates running for every single party. This rich white male stuff is a crock. An absolute crock. Who defines what rich is let alone white and how did they ascertain such creatures only vote Tory? Is someone suggesting non rich white people or non white people do not vote Tory? Give my kidneys a break.

Correct me if I am wrong but was not one MIG in the series called a Fagot? I kid no one. Not that there is anything wrong with calling a MIG that but I don't k now about MIG's. The few pilots I know from Israel said they were inferior pieces of manure. The Israeli pilots and American Pilots I spoke with all agreed on the F-14 as their favourite and praise for the Phantom. F-16's and 18's you don't hear Pilots fawning over. I haven't heard anyone singing the praises of any Russian aircraft like the Foxbat or whatever its called these days Mig 28's is it..the next generation, etc. We need a get that can do long range yes but to say we could use F-5's is stretching it a bit. Why not bring back the Voodoo fighters then. Come on. What we do need and I am surprised no one has mentioned it, are a lot more submarines and surveillance aircraft to look for illegal fishing or illegal entry onto our waterways from drug smugglers, people smugglers or even friendly nations seeking to establish regular use of our North to push access claims to the resources. We also need search and rescue helicopters, more naval ships, long range cargo transportation aircraft, on and on it goes. We have the second largest gepgraphic zone in the world. No you don't enforce your sovereignty with F-5's or with due respect because I respect them, our Rangers who go out in canoes or whatever it is they are forced to do now.

Many other nations have also bought this plane including Britain, Israel, Australia and it appears Saudi Arabia and Turkey and Holland. There is some contraversy now as to w hetehr its the best plane out there or hyped. I suspect some of that may be from competitors yes. I am also not so sure why the deal was done so quickly and privately. One never knows with these back door lobbying results who rattled whose cage and called in what favour. That said it should not be a surprise Canada would want to buy the same fighter the US is committing itself to. That should be no surprise. Is it long range enough? Should we have two engines given the huge geographic distances between air stations and the need to assure the plane can get back? Is it configured for the right kind of roles we need? I have read some stories saying it is and is not. So Wild Bill I will say until you get up in one, fly it and report back to me, I will stay neutral on the choice of this craft. For those of you who do not know, Slim Pickens the man riding the missile at the end of Dr. Strangelove was based on Wild Bill. I hope I am not blowing your cover their Wild One.

I have read your posts long enough these last few years do know you hate everyone equally and for the same reasons lol, and yes the example you give is precisely one that for me epitomizes everything I hate about the NDP. That said, those kinds of issues dealing with cultural assimilation to me should be seperated when discussing immigration issues from the ones dealing with how we make sure people are working and contributing to our tax basin. I think people willing to come and work hard and pay taxes we want. How to assure we bring those kind of people and not people who are going to bring negative baggage with them incomptable with our Western views is a special topic. It is a tough one because for me it makes an exception to the rule. Yes I would agree Argus someone who comes to Canada and works hard and pays their taxes but brings hatred and spreads it no I do not want him or her here causing problems for us all. I also am not naive and know some very pro Canadian new immigrants contribute nothing to Canada and never will but then we can say the same thing about Canadians born here and equally about bigoted and non bigoted people. Let's face it Argus, we will always have a percentage of our population who will not work and figure out the systems and play them. I am not sure you can ever find a way to sift them out and its a delicte act not to hurt innocent people in the name of cracking down on some parasites. I also get upset with people who come to Canada and have no loyalty to it and just use it as a temporary residence and suck it for all its good and leave nothing behind. However I do not want to negatively stereotype anyone. Not because I am a guilt ridden Liberal but because I am a reasonable person and I know there is good and bad and a bit of both in all groups we care to define. I get annoyed with either extreme-the one that says we can't talk about a unified Canada first vision because it will be unfair and intolerant but I also get upset with the other extreme that paints all immigrants as bumbs or ungrateful or a drain on society. I am in no position to engage in negative stereotypes of new Canadians or old Canadians. I have enough problems governing my own affairs and me personally, I believe the only real Canadians were aboriginal peoples and then while the english and the French then came and I consider them the second wave, its the aboriginals I consider the original Canadians. I see this country as a mix of the original aboriginal combined with the Anglo-French as the second wave, and then all the rest of us shmucks in the next never ending wave. So I see Canada as having 4 components, aboriginal, Anglo, Franco and for want of a better word the rest of us shmucks. Mix it all up that is what we have. For me though all Canadians should understand first and foremost the aboriginal traditions, then the Anglo and Franco and how those three were the foundation from which the rest of us could then come and build on to. I see nothing wrong in a mixed bowl of soup with many spices added but to be realistic, it has to be mixed and made into a uniform and consistent formula called Canadian if it will ever work. Cosntantly putting a hyphen before Canadian means its boiling over and not being mixed properly I want a clear Canadian identity not this constant confusion of it can be whatever it wants to be at any moment. I want it to be aboriginal, Anglo and Franco with a mix of et al but it has to be Canadian and put Canada first and I can't see it doing that ignoring the aboriginal cultural traditions and then the British and French experiences. There is no way a person born in Canada like me who is from a family of refugees and immigrants who came to escape oppression is anything but Canadian first precisely because I learned the aboriginal, British and French histories and know they are at the pith and substance of what Canada is and the freedom I am able to have. I myself could not imagine a Canada without those 3 references and building onto them and thanking the peoples from those 3 for creating the foundation for a country for me and others.

Thanks for that clarification. I thought so. I never heard he would cancel the contract. He is not as dumb as some would have us believe, lol. There is a contravery over the nature in which the F-35 contract was tendered not just here but also in Israel, Australia and in Europe. The process was done behind closed doors and in a rush. Some of the complaining may be coming from competitors for sure, but in this situation the contravery is not so much over whether we need a new fighter as much as it is the TYPE of fighter. I am no military expert but some argue its the best craft available while others say its not the right fit for Canada which needs a longer range craft and two engines, etc. I think most Canadians if I may be so bold as to say are like me. We are in the middle. We are not comfortable with either Harper or Iggy and we are certainly not NDP-we are smack in the middle. We see a lot of broken promises and questionable dealings by Harper's government and the longer he stays in power the more like the very Chretien regime he claimed he would never be down to the arrogance and questionable Ministers and back room deals and fudging of the economy. With Iggy we have no idea what he stands for. When he does give talks he seems to say very little and both he and Harper are with due respect poor public speakers and not very dynamic. Neither captures the imagination or presents a clear vision. Harper likes to use the negative and divide and conquer tactics and appeal to the negative in people, and darned if I can figure out what Iggy stands for other than he looks bored and out of touch with me and you the average shmuck on the street. Who does that leave me to vote for? Russell Peters I guess.

That is an extremely complex question. To start with immigrants or new Canadians are becoming poorer and poorer for the exact reason people born in Canada are becoming poorer and poorer-world market conditions that have made Canadian businesses less competitive in a competitive world market. Part of the above phenomena can easily be seen in the loss of manufactoring jobs to countries with cheap land abundant labour such as China, India, Mexico, Vietnam, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Kampuchea, and on and on. As our technology changes so do education requirements which are now becoming highly specialized and requiring continuing education on a permanent basis. The days of going to school, coming out with one degree only and staying at the same job for ever are over. Today's Canadian must constantly be studying and upgrading their education and become specialized so new Canadians like old Canadians who do not have the proper skills to continue to up-grade and keep up with their speciality are left behind. There are also new and old Canadians who can not speak or write the two working languages of Canada or ideally both fluently and that shuts them out of the work place. In many new Canadian communities the new Canadians live in extended families. They buy a large home and the collective family's members all contribute to the mortgage and many are willing to take cheap, menial or minimum wage jobs Canadians born here will not and their collective income pays the mortgage and then goes into a rereve fund to pay the mortgage and if one or more of those members is unemployed they are carried until they find a job. They do without any luxuries and sacrifice. Not all new Canadians come, fail and become impoverished. Certainly it makes sense that a sector of new Canadians who can't read or write and work in the English or French languages are doomed to be marginal but even many of those do not stay here that long as they move on to the U.S. or they become part of the underground economy and are used as cheap slave labour by their own people or others. Its a highly complex question dealing with social, economic and other factors and there is no one quick and easy way to define what you ask. What we do know is many jobs immigrants take are not jobs what "older" Canadians will ever take. What we also know is any one of us can be made expendable and lose our jobs from constant changes in our market place. Many professionals are losing their jobs not just immigrants. The manufacturing sector in Ontario of course has been hard hit. It was near sighted and not prepared to deal with changing world market forces. The car industry is a classic example. That had nothing to do with new Canadians. Now its easy to say Canada should only take in qualified candidates. SO who decides that? That is the question. What will be the criteria to decide who is qualified and needed? That is the basis of discussions. That and whether the refugee laws have had too many loopholes which of course they did and still do. The fact is had the world been serious about refugees a bunch of guilty sheltered types who had no clue what a refugee was would not have drafted the laws the UN uses now for refugee determination. They are a farse. True refugees are caught in camps within a day or so of the conflict zones they flee from and their major issue is dying from diaheria, cholera, malnutrition or being killed by hostile guerillas or government forces. The refugee determination laws drafted by arm chair guilt ridden individuals, some who I had the misfortunate to have to work with and dialogue with had no clue as to the real world. They created a fantasy system where Canada became the messiah of the down trodden but in fact simply created a system where every p ervert, criminal, corupt politician and political abuser could be the first out of their country and into Canada claiming refugee status. If we had been truly serious about refugees we would have been funding services at the refugee camps and funding programs to repatriate people and develop their job and life skills. Those are the kinds of issues that need to be discussed and I can tell you some of the most incompetent bureaucrats and questionable lawyers with a financial interest in their practices to promite immigration will be the first calling for reforms trying to distance themselves from the idiocy they have created as the current legacy. This country needs more population to replace the aging baby boomers if it is to have a tax basin to pay out for the social services for the aged in the years to come. That is not the issue. The issue is how do we assure people work and contribute to the economy and pay taxes if we are to sustain our social services.

Please do not stereotype me. I am by no means a Harper conservative but I believe new fighter jets and up-dating the military are a necessity.

Well said. Precise, susinct. You have made me expendable in this world. Fine I will disappear and let you take over. The piranha analogy was dead on. I tend to use baboon tribe analogies but in this case I think your analogy is better.

Non Part I agreed with the rest of your statement but personally think you went too far with the last statement and I will tell you why I think that keeping in mind I appreciate why you said it. There is a very very fine line in a democratic state between deciding when something someone says advocates engaging in a crime, violence, terrorism, and simply being unpopular. You would be hard pressed to start holding back ALL extremist intellectuals because many are actually well respected academics who never step over the line and advocate anything violent, criminal, or terrorist although I suppose some would say they do it indirectly or by couching their terms of reference and using coded expressions. Still if we start screening out people merely because of their political beliefs being unpopular its a slippery slope and what lithmus test would you use? I think right now the Immigration policy tries its best to indentify the content of the speaker coming in and if it contains advocacy of crime, terrorism, violence or hatred of a specific group, then that is blocked. I am not sure though we would want to try screen out libertarians or anarchists who advocate no government if they don't advocate hate or crime. A democracy tries to balance its security needs with free speech. Its not easy. Some of the fools who protested and call themselves Black Boc anarchists I personally think haven't a clue who say Kropotkin was or any other anarchist philosopher-I think they are simply angry young people who blame the world for their own failures-children having tantrums-no more no less-it would be hard to screen them out. I agree though if a supposed "anarchist intellect" (is that an oxymoron?) openly advocates violence then that is grounds to say, no, stay out. There are far too many angry fools out there looking to come to this country to scream and incite anger and violence. I would also like to point out that the majority of protesters as much as I personally may disagree with some of their views, have a right to peacefully march and did and were no problem. I also sympathize with people protesting environmental concerns, health concerns, poverty concerns. If they do not do so at such meetings where else would they? They have a right to try speak out however futile it may be.I think the organizers of the demonstrationscould have done a better job of controlling their participants and screening out these fools though and I think with such events they should try work with the police by having volunteers cleary indentified to lead their people away from hooligans who emeerge and keep them calm and let the police do their thing. I also think there is no way these events should be placed in large cities. They should be placed in the same place each time which is isolated and so easy to control. In fact some would argue these things belong at the United Nations. I personally think all these events are-are expensive photo ops. In this day and age not to have a conference by tele-video is ludicrous. Its simply an opportunity for the host country's leader and other leaders to try get some brownie points with his or her domestic audience. I saw everyone fighting to stand next to Sarkozy so they can look taller. Also my only lasting impression of the G-8 or G-20 is that Stephen Harper has a very large balloon like head compared to the others. Also the Russian leader looks like a little pervert. Also next time can they at least show more of Carla Bruni maybe let her sing a song?

I agree with your comments 100%.

I missed the above analogy. Are you equating a bunch of hooligans with rape victims? What a nonsensical comparison.

Yes. In actual fact Zionism was created as a non religious political statement-its definition of Jews as a collective identity entitled to universal sufferage was a political one not defined by religious precepts. Most people do not understand that or the fact that most Zionists have never been religious and that those Jewish Zionists who are religious Jewish Zionists are a minority not a majority of Israelis. In fact it is probable most religious Zionists today are Christian Zionists not even Jewish ones. Zionism is not necessarily analgous to Judaism. You are exactly right and this is precisely why about 50% of the ultra-orthodox Jews today, many who live in Hebron on the West Bank or in Jerusalem and have lived their since ancient days, state that Israel is an abomination because it should not be created until the Messiah comes back and they claim the Messiah has not yet come back. This is why they are anti Zionist and a handful of them went to Iran and allowed themselves to be used by the Iranian leader at the anti-holocaust symposium which invited anti-semites from across the world to engage in holocaust denial and advance theories that Jews invented the holocaust as a Zionist conspiracy tool. Thank you for stating that. As I have told you before,I appreciate your efforts when you state comments such as the above.