Rue

So how do you explain Paris Hilton?

In all fairness he has said he is and I totally respect his beliefs just completely disagree with them. Leafless never has hidden his agenda. He us upfront about it. I will strongly debate his views but respect his right to have them. Leafless I do not thing Canada has anything to be ashamed of or to apologize for nor has it turned into a "third world country" as you have suggested because it takes in non caucasian or non Christian immigrants. Also you really should try a bagel and lox or some tandoori chicken or maybe some Jerk fish. Maybe all that boiled meat and potatoes is making you cranky. I mean there's Italian, Korean, Chinese, Japanese, Greek, French, German, Hungarian dishes, just to name a few waiting for you. The waiter can help you pronounce the words for the dishes. Try some putines. It will put a smile on your face. Now me as a young man before I settled down Leaf, I sampled many dishes. I have special memories of an oriental dish, an Israeli dish, this Quebecois dish, a Latvian dish, an Irish dish, a spicy Latino dish. Man you just have to love those variety of dishes. They were all tasty. Its like wine Leafless. You need to appreciate each one has its own special body and characteristics. Some are tempermental and have a bite, others smooth and understated. Some are dark vintages, others white, but they all are good man.

How indecent of you to say that! Bottom line is as we can now see from this thread Peter you were dead on. It was just another opportunity for Leafless to complain there are too many non Christian, French speaking, gay, Liberals with sun tans in Canada.

I apologize. I only meant your introductory comments I got lost trying to follow. The plan you mentioned in my humble opinion I believe is an honest attempt to propose a peaceful and fair resolution for both sides. Sorry I did not mean to diss the plan just show confusion over your intro comments. I appreciate your attempt to provide a positive suggestion and one that tries to be balanced and not take sides. Thank you for that. I respect your efforts for doing that.

Maybe he just is a frustrated real estate agent. They have enough problems what with the global recession and now this.

You mean 5 hundred billion times. There you go again.

No like me he just gets annoyed with the usual approach you and some others take where you restate the conflict in one sided, simplistic, emotional and partisan terms that dismisses anything but your opinion as evidenced by you continuing to call people foolish simply because they disagree with you.

First off I have a clear and open political bias against Netanyahu and Likud and support Labour-Kadima and in particular Tipi Levni so my answer is going to reflect that bias. As a result I believe in a two state solution and believe settlements on the West Bank are a serious obstacle to peace and in an overall comprehensive peace settlement Israel would have to be willing to take back in settlers from the West Bank in exchange and as part of a comprehensive and fair two way settlement where Palestinians would agree in exchange to give up returning to Israel. My personal fear is neither Hamas or other Palestinian terror cells are ready for that yet. I believe and call me naive that the majority of Israelis time and time again in polls have indicated they would be willing to accept the above if there was a guarantee of an end to terrorism. However yes we both know there could be a string back-lash from a segment of the Israeli population that is extremist and fundamentalist in terms of religious beliefs as to their right to ownership of land on the West Bank and many of them aresupporters of Netanyahu the current Foreign Minister Lieberman who I personally believe is a racist thug. That said, I think Netanyahu says one thing to the public and one thing behind closed doors no differently then Mr. Abbas, and other Arab and Palestinian leaders so its hard to know what is rhetoric and inflexible and what is flexible. I would guess Netanyahu may not be as rigid as he sounds and some of that is posturing but am I happy he was elected or that horrible man Lieberman was made Foreign Minister, of course not although I was relieved to see Ehud Barak is still the Defence Minister although I believe he will not last in the existing coalition and it is only a matter of time until he and Lieberman go at it. That said and back to your question, I believe Israel as a state as is any state, accountable under both its relevant domestic laws and military laws as well as pursuant to international law or its actions. Of course. It would be hippocritical of me to argue that Israel can do what it wants and break laws. The question often becomes in the debate, does Israel violate international law when it engages in certain actions to defend itself against terror. My argument is not that it should be allowed to violate international law if it did, but that often when it is accused of violating international law in defending itself it has not and the accusers are simply engaged in political partisan rhetoric. I do not condone anyone Israeli, Palestinian, anyone of deliberately engaging in violence, terror, criminal behaviour and no I can not on one side of my mouth argue against terrorism and then on the other side of the mouth say laws can be broken to fight terrorism- that is the dilemma all democractic nations struggle with. I have always maintained if it can be proven an Israeli soldier exceeded their authority and violated theircode of behaviour they should be tried before a military tribunal and or civil Israeli court and held accountable the same reason I believe terrorists should be arrested and tried before courts. The problem is these issues are not black and white. Hamas will not abide by any law, Israeli have to. It is not a level playing field. I do not doubt some Israeli military actions have been excessive and need to be held accountable and may not have been. There is no doubt in my mind from what I witnessed certain actions generate violent responses which only make things worse. I have seen situations where IDF soldiers over-reacted unintentionally and intentionally just as I have seen the same behaviour from both Israelis and Palestinians. There is as you know so much heat and tension and people one step from attacking each other at any given moment lose it. Everyone is under continued and prolonged stress and pressure from unresolved conflicts on both sides of the conflict and developing self-defeating and violent behaviour patterns as well as other behavioural patterns reflecting their trauma. Am I happy Likud was elected? Of course not. I do not approve of certain of their followers who demonize Palestinians but that is only a portion of their party although no doubt others in their coalition like Lieberman's party are extremist and hateful. As I said I am a Labour-Kadima supporter. My vision of Zionism was based on sharing the Middle East with Palestinians living peacefull side by side them not getting into a race war and you bet I think Lieberman is a racist hate monger and not worthy of the way Moishe Dayan and others in the past understood and lived and respected the ways of the Beduins or their Arab neighbours. But I also do not believe for a second that Lieberman's intolerance is indicative of the average Israeli's desire for peace any more then I believe the violence Hamas embraces is indicative of the average Palestinian's desire for peace. Am I naive? Yes and no. I realize Netanyahu got into power with an alliance of some very extreme people just as I know Abbas is part of an organization with extremists and they both are compromised to an extent by the extremists they rely on to cling to power. But I also believe the hate mongers on both sides make the most noise and get the most attention they are not the majority on either side and no I can not give up on peace simply because I see Lieberman where he is or Netanyahu making his usual chauvenistic noises just as I take it the same way when Abbas makes flippant Israel can call itself whatever it wants but he won't recognize it as a Jewish state, just a state. Its rhetoric and hot air and posturing. I am not sure what to tell you other then the above and be as blunt and honest as I can with you and make it clear to you someone like me can be a Zionist but not be anti Palestinian or anti Muslim or believe either side is better then the other. The vision of Zionism I was taught did not demonize Palestinians and wish them to live in a nightmare called Gaza or as second class citizens on the West Bank. No I can not blindly defend Israel when I think Israel does things that are wrong. Its not what Israelis or most Jews I know do. We are candid about things that have gone wrong. Its just sometimes we are careful what we say and to who because we know it could easily be exploited the wrong way to justify anti-semitism against all Jews and terrorism against Israel. Finally you have read my earlier posts. I want to live in a world where no one can use weapons let alone white phosphorous ones or nuclear ones or missiles and shit like that. We all bleed and explode the same way. No I do not want any Palestinian's skin burning from white phosphorous the way I would not want an Israeli's or any other human's burning the same way. I know Palestinians have been dehumanized in Gaza and I do not doubt Hamas exploits the conditions of dehumanization to incite more terror and violence. You find a way to disarm the terrorists on your side and find Palestinians who can engage in meaningful peaceful dialogue I will find you the peace supporters on the other side. You know many people like me. When we do fight we do so reluctantly and consider the fact we must fight a failure we are not proud of.

Curious where did you get the above figure from? (I by the way agree that I think if there was no terrorism, Israel having turned into a state that is virtually one large military-industrial complex would not have evolved to the extent it has-I mean had there been peace maybe they would have stuck to diamond trading and exporting oranges and maybe just medical research)

Werll I guess it is no longer a secret.

The Bush regime deliberately violated the U.S. constitution by trying to re-write the law to state cruel and inhumane treatment of prisoners despite being against the U.S. constitution was not by trying to redefine what the definition of torture and cruel and inhumane was. It did not fool the U.S. Supreme Court. Waterboarding constitutes a clear violation of international legal treaties on torture as well as U.S. constitutional law. For those of you that claim it is necessary may I suggest you and I are not in the position to know what in fact is available to government agents to be able to interogate terrorists or suspected terrorists. I suspect there are other methods that could be used as well. Yes there is a real issue-if you can save innocent lives by being able to torture a confession out of someone some would argue the ends justifies the means. Others would argue in the long run it simply blurs the line between terrorist and the interogator and simply incites more terror and turns the interogator and the system he represents into just as much of a terrorist. Some would argue it is crucial to maintain a moral high ground if we are to be able to argue against terrorism. It is a complex issue and it brings up the age old question-to defeat a terrorist do you literally need to become one.... I personally am not naive-I know there may be a need to use certain methods to save lives-on the other hand do we want our nation turned into a police state that tortures the innocent and becomes inhumane? Do we want to become the very fundamentalist terrorists we are trying to resist? I say no, we have to maintain a moral high ground and balance it with more effective ways to interogate such as medication. Let's face it, to try get info from a terrorist however, may require something other then hugging them and asking them to understand where we are coming from man and maybe a group hug. Part of me is a lawyer that says obey the law or we become animals. Part of me is tempted to say, use a phone book so you show no bruises. Its tempting to want to put the law to the side. All I am saying is it is a slipperly slope that can lead to a Nazi Stalinist state very quickly.

I agree with you. There should be a trial in Canada or what I believe should have in fact actually happened in the first place myself and I know you probably may not agree with, Kadr should have been held as a prisoner of war. I believe the U.S. frigged it up by trying to create a new domestic civilian law with military like qualities which violated the U.S. constitution and was rejected three times by the U.S. Supreme Court. Based on the current domestic laws of Canada and absence of international laws to the contrary, Canada is legally obligated to take him back and try him. At best all the current political regime can do is stall that. The Supreme Court of Canada has already made what you said a fait accompli and tied the current government's hands and said keep their political beliefs and partisan agenda out of the legal system. Can't say I give 2 sh..ts what happens to Kadr but I do care that the legal system is properly followed and adhered to because others who are innocent could suffer if we don't follow the law properly and violate basic fundamental legal precepts simply because Kadr is what he was and may still be. That said the Canadian legal system needs no lecture from anyone or some poster confusing his own political partisan views with what the role and function of the judiciary is. The judiciary's role is to assure legal procedures and doctrine are applied as per the rules and precepts set out in the Charter and they have to date on the Kadr matter. I may not agree with Harper's approach on this one and consider him blinded by his ideology and distrust of the law and legal process but Harper has done nothing illegal and if we don't agree with what he did we can vote him out. We need not apologize to anyone for anything. Some people have no idea what it is to live in a country where its actions are truly dispicable let alone in need of apology. Some of us run off at the mouth the moment we disagree with our politicians and disparage all of Canada and all Canadians. To me such a blame game is needless melo dramatic prattle characteristic of someone who becomes so melodramatic precisely because they have it good thanks to the very system they criticize. The G-Bay legal process and prison was flawed and legally unacceptable from the get go but the finger can be pointed at a lot of people, particularly those in the Bush regime not just Harper. I personally believe Harper should have followed what the British did when they took their prisoners out of G-Bay. That to me was a serious political mistake but not something Canada need apologize for-it was a political call Harper made and he wishes to stand by it and continue to stand by it. The Supreme Court has given him his marching orders. He is not stupid. He knows he can appeal or bring Kadr home. No one suggested Harper is going to break the law or flaunt it. The law may work slowly but it will work in this case to bring Kadr in front of the appropriate legal system and lest anyone pee their pants over Kadr he will be given legal credit for any day he served.

That as not very decent of you to say.

I found your response garbled and could not follow it. I am not sure what point you were trying to make. What I can tell you is that when 2 parties conflict, it is irrational and illogical to think you can achieve conflict by asking one party to cease to exist and simply give the other party everything it asks for.

The fact you ask this question reflects you should have at least tried to make an effort to research it before you asked it. Of course they have and continue to have stated this since Israel came into existence as a state and long before they came into existence as a state. May I suggest you go read and research the topic then you won't ask such questions and simply reflect your ignorance as to what has transpired.

No they did not and you are very well aware theydid not. In fact what Hamas did announce on Monday, April 2l, 2008 was that it would accept a Palestinian state on land seized by Israel in the 1967 war but would not recognize Israel. In fact what Khaled Mashaal did state was that Hamas might offer a 10-year truce with Israel. They have yet to come out and state they recognize the state of Israel's right to exist and you know that. Any reference they have made to the state of Israel's existence have been couched in meaningless rhetoric and baffle gab no matter how you try spin it or misrepresent what they said. This is precisely why Hamas leader Mahmoud a-Zahar stated on Al-Aqsa t.v. on Jan.4, 2009 that Hamas "must lay the foundation for a tomorrow without Zionists." On January 12, 2009 Kaleel Mashall another Hamas leader stated; "We will not accept a permanent truce, because it will take the right of resistance from the Palestinian people." The full text of his speech can be found at http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=3368 and makes it clear Hamas continues to make it clear it does not and will never recognize the state of Israel. The rhetorical game Hamas plays can be followed as it plays out in the press but you fool no one with the above misrepresentation: http://middleeast.about.com/b/2008/04/02/h...n-of-israel.htm http://www.israelnews.net/story/351009 http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/apr/2...-of-concession/ http://www.aljazeera.com/news/articles/39/..._to_exist_.html http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid...icle%2FShowFull http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/121818 http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/67249/-d...ize-israel.html http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/jpost/access/1666260441.html? dids=1666260441:1666260441&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&author=CAROLINE+B.+GLICK&pub=Jerusalem+Post&desc=Hamas's+free+lunch&pqatl=top_retrieves http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/message/65151 http://israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=9785 http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_mul...amas_mm0206.pdf http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle...leeast&col= http://www.voanews.com/tibetan/archive/200...-03-03-voa8.cfm http://www.nysun.com/foreign/hamas-chief-w...-to-exist/40128 http://www.elitestv.com/pub/2006/Feb/EEN43f251cbae45b.html

By the way does anyone think Hamas has its "fighters" sit and openly discuss their regrets and sorrow at what they have to do? Here's a hint-no.

Tell you what. You have Hamas held to the same standard and I will call Benjie Netanyahu and arrange it on his side. Until then don't hold your breath. By the way, if the IDF had something to deny do you think it would allow its soldiers to go to universities or other places and talk openly and candidly about their anxieties and reactions? Did it not dawn on you the very reason you know about these comments is precisely because they are not hidden? Here's another thing to question as you point the finger at Israel and lecture the IDF. What the soldiers say has been taken out of context. You will not understand what they were saying and why they were saying what they did until you read the entire words they stated and the full context in which it was presented. What you have read are segmented phrases taken out of context. When a soldier speaks often what they say is subjective and uncorroborated and simply their feelings being expressed-they feel guilty and remorseful for what they had to do-so they vent-to hold them verbatum to what they say and simply assume it is accurate and can be taken verbatum is with due respect illogical. They are unloading guilt. Much of what they feel may be unwarranted and unfounded and until they can express it and talk it out, they then can not examine it and reality test it to see how much of it is accurate and how much of it is simply guilt distorting what they did. You would understand that if you were a soldier who came back from such a spectacle. You are not. So please don't think you can understand a soldier or assume anything about them. A soldier's words after war can only be understood by another soldier and in particular another soldier who witnessed what they did or something similiar to what they did. May I respectfully suggest you do not try exploit the feelings of soldiers for your own political partisan exercise. If war crimes have been committed, they can not be ascertained by you reading second hand, remorseful words of guilt ridden soldiers taken out of their original context. By the way, has it not dawned on you yet if Israeli soldiers were the monsters some paint them to be, they would not speak this way? Imagine that concept. Israeli soldiers have feelings and sorrow for what they have to do. What next, does this mean Canadian or U.S. soldiers are not necessarily evil? Where will this thread end? Uh now.

It was certainly used and it certainly is a weapon that causes horrible pain and suffering and I would think we all would like to see outlawed but the problem is it wasn't used unlawfully-that is precisely the problem that you seem to keep missing which is why it can be used. There is zero proof it was used to intentionally attack civilians. That is why ALL countries have it and use in during armed conflict as part of their arsenal of missiles and shells including Hamas and Hezbollah.

I think your biting criticism is well stated and warranted. You were very specific as to the context and I appreciate your being precise and exact as to who you are criticizing and why. Bang on. My only mild smile or laugh was the shot at unthinking lefties. After the fiasco with that idiot MP from the UK trying to get into Canada I was feeling very Argus like myself in regards to unthinking lefties. But unfortunately Argus there are unthinking centrists like myself and righties who equally deserve a slap some days when we underestimate the intolerance of certain people in our zeal to defend our own beliefs as well as project them on others intentionally or unintentionally. Nothing like an Argus critique to get the day going. Like snapping a wet towel on a chubby dude's butt.

The Indian Navy apparently had no problem with your suggestion. Currently the international law works like this; the navy ship of a particular country can only arrest pirates if they are attacking a ship of its own country, so this is why when the Canadian navy ship caught the pirates trying to attack the Norweigan ship they could not arrest the little douche bags. All they can do is get rid of their guns and weapons and send them on their way at the present time. However if those same douche bag pirates had civilians as hostages they are allowed to kill them to save the hostages. The reason this current idiocy exists because there is no international law as to piracy. For there to be one, a treaty would have to be drafted and then signed by nations before parties to that treaty could then enforce the international laws set out in the treaty as to piracy-until that happens, a navy ship can only arrest pirates attacking its own nation's ships and remember many ships carry flags of convenience such as Panama which has far less regulations then say France or the U.S. and so the French Navy could not arrest douche bag pirates attacking a Panama flag ship even if it is full of French crew. To date the pirates who have been killed by the French, and Americans were killed because they had hostages and India blew up a pirate ship precisely because it was attacking an Indian ship. Now I know some of you believe we need an international law that would allow navies to blow the pirates out of the waters. I would imagine if this ever does lead to an international treaty the treaty would state pirates should only be killed if endangering hostages or as a last resort and instead the navy must take all steps to try first capture the pirates given the fact we are such civilized people. That said here's a hint, don't go near an Indian, French or American ship. One reason why ships do not carry armed crews is because the ship owners can't get insurance if they do this. Speak to Lloyd's. I do not make the underwriting rules. Personally I would arm the ships with some ex soldiers. However from what I understand most ports of call's countries won't allow merchant ships to enter if they are armed-unless of course they change their domestic laws. One thing is for sure. The law as it is, is a joke. When a bunch of douche bags can hijack a huge ship with a couple of grenade launchers its ridiculous. For those that feel sorry for the pirates I have this to say-they hijack ships bringing food to starving people-save your tears for the people whose food they robbed. In the interim the question is will any nation go into Somalia and blow up some pirate sites. Don't count on it. No one wants the political and moral baggage associated with such a move and the outcries that poor innocent people were killed forced to piracy because they were starving or in the alternative innocent fisherman were killed mistaken as pirates.

Well I think its obvious to say they are coming to Europe to find work which they can't find in their own countries but I am not so sure they are all leaving because they are fleeing fundamentalist type Islam and I believe that is what the focus Jerry was referring to. I do not doubt some flee for religious or political reasons but I would suspect the vast majority or on the move for the simple reason of looking for work and therein lies the problem-when they do find work, they may not be willing to change their own beliefs as they settle in their new countries to be more compatible with those of the host country. I think the same can be said of any new arrival in any country where they move from a more fundamentalist society to a more "Western" secular one. In Europe the particular emphasis is on how Islamic peoples are assimilating because they seem to be struggling with assimilation into certain social values. One the one hand as a Jew whose relatives from Europe were always on the run and fleeing stereotypes I am loath to stereotype anyone who is not Christian trying to assimilate into Western democracies on the other hand I would be candid and say whether it is a fellow Jew or a Muslim or anyone else I believe if they are not willing to assimilate to certain specific values and expect to maintain their "old" values, they can expect problems and intolerance in reaction to their refusal to change. On the other hand, I am not sure where we draw the line between people who come to Western countries who are trying to maintain intolerant fundamentalist beliefs and those who come to Western countries and are not Christian and are not trying to maintain intolerant fundamentalist beliefs but are being stereotyped as intolerant simply because they are also Muslim. All I am saying is I think its dead on valid to criticize intolerant people whether they be Muslim, Jewish, Christian, etc., but it is not logical to assign culpability to all Muslims for being intolerant and causing problems in Europe simply because they are the same religion as others who practice a more fundamentalist brand of it. I for one, don't think its easy knowing who is what until I actually speak with people or witness their behaviour. The problem with these group acts of violence by idiots claiming to be Muslims is that non Muslims witnessing them behave this way tend to allow it to incite them into believing all Muslims are like this. That is unfortunate. It just fuels the on-going cycle of intolerance by both sides. As I have said in earlier posts I believe the best solution is to simply arrest anyone with a beard (man or woman I am not sexist) and lock them away. Even Santa Claus.

No apology needed. We are just both debating intensely. No swet. I am just zapping your zip. Nothing personal intended to you either. Neither of us likes wp weapons. We agree on that and that they should not be used. Our debate as to Israel is honest and candid. No swet. Once we are on the topic I hate missiles of any kind. There is no such thing as an accurate missile. I admit that. Even laser technology is suspect. We need to find a way to disarm the whole friggin Middle East. Just don't see that happening. Yes Israel is armed to the teeth but so is Egypt, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. By the way as much as people point the finger at the US for the origins of these weapons they should also be looking at China, North Korea and Russia and then to a less intense but still certain extent, Britaim, France, Belgium, Canada, yes Canada, the Czech Republic, Turkey to name but a few countries. The fact is the world is full of arms dealers.

On January 14, the newspaper Haaretz reported that Hamas had fired a White Phosphorus mortar shell which exploded in an open area in the Eshkol area in the western Negev of southern Israel. No injuries or damage were reported-reference:http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1055472.html

His selective outrage is transparent. If Hamas used white phosphorous he would of course remain silent as he does to their terrorism. He is just another one trick pony who tries to use anything he can find to engage in partisan moral name calling. As I said Danceboy I hate the weapon. I wish the IDF would not use it. I am a proponent of laser technology. Much more precise. Of course Mr. Outrage would not even have a clue or appreciate the irony in his being silent on the fact that Hamas and Hezbollah use weapons with it.