Rue

It is a damn shame. No good can come from this. Innocent Gaza civilians will die. Brave IDF soldiers will die. A conventional army can not hope to win any sustained war on the ground against guerilla terrorists. I just hope to hell Israel does not stay in there too long. The longer it stays the more it risks. I am not sure what the ground war will do. To try track down Hamas terrorists in a sea of civilians is like looking for needles in a hay stack. Hamas will use the civilians like shields and deliberately put them in harms way. Enraged civilians who are not Hamas terrorists will see them as underdogs and many will protect them and in particular young boys will die as Hamas uses them as shields and deflection targets. Nothing good can come of this. Nothing. I wish the same people who are so quick to condemn Israel would be so quick to condemn Hamas and spend as much energy condemning what they do as the IDF does. If they took half the energy they spend pointing the finger at Israel and engaged in peace rallies demanding Hamas disarm and engage in peace talks, this would be the best way to turn the IDF into a moot point and get them out. I personally am not in favour of a ground war. I do not think it can eradicate Hamas. Only non Israelis going into Gaza and demanding Hamas disarm and engage in passive resistance can do that. This tribal war and escalation of tit for tat never bodes well. I favour Israel's right to exist and defend itself against terror and I detest Hamas but sending in conventional armies to try fight terrorists never works. What we need is diplomacy. What we need are neutral parties offering to step in today and act as observers on the ground and disarm Hamas. What we need is the Arab League once and for all saying enough with the terror talk to Israel. For Israeli moderates to be able to talk down their own right wing and pro military supporters at this point is moderates in the Arab world doing the same with Hamas. Is that possible? Can any moderate Palestinian speak out against Hamas without fear of looking like a traitor and collaborator? Can any moderate Israeli speak out for peaceful dialogue at this point as long as the missiles never stop? The answer is yes but unfortunately innocent people will first have to die. Hamas is not an entity that will engage in dialogue. Whether the followers of Mr. Abbas can remains to be seen. What we do know is the rubble of Gaza can only generate the kind of grass roots hatred among the traumatized Gaza civilians that Hamas wants precisely to fuel polarization and the next generation of terrorists. What is proportional response to Hamas missiles? I am not sure. I am not a military expert. I am not there on the ground. I can not presume to know but I fear a prolonged street war is not the solution.

My father flew one in WW2 so I am bias and would agree with you. Honourable mention to the Arrow, Spitfire, Kfir Jet Fighter, F-14, and the good old Sea Otter-all for the same reasons-excellent design. The most bad ass looking one is the tank busting wart hog from Desert Storm. You want ugly its ugly.

Congrats. You have responded to a question by criticizing it for being intolerant by uttering an anti-semitic slur. By the way next time you want to slur an entire group of people try do a better job then using the phrase "abrahamic religion". If I did not know any better I would think you used that expression to make yourself sound like a Muslim in a further effort to stir the pot. If I were to guess I would think you are neither a Muslim or a Jew but are a member of the cult known as the "Putzites" that not so obscure cult known for its Putzim ( also referred to as putzs) who frequent many places in North America and often go skinny dipping this time of year. pBy the way next time Please signal next time you turn into my lane on the 401 and you might want to pull up your pants because when you crouch or kneel I see the cracks in your arguement.

Can't happen for several reasons; 1-Canada does not have the military strength or capacity to engage in such a war; 2-the physical geography of Afghanistan makes it impossible to conquer or control; 3-Canada has sent in a conventional army to try address guerilla warfare and so necessarily can not win and at best can engage in a temporary series of battles or a temporary occupation with limited theatres of confrontation. Afghanistan can not be physically controlled by a conventional military occupation force. All that happens is the soldiers stay isolated and locked in their forts. When a conventional army such as Canada's then engages in hit and run missions by temporarily leaving its fort is no different then what happened to the US Army in Vietnam or Iraq or the Russians in Afghanistan or Chechyna or East Europe or the British in India, French in Indochina, Duch in Indonesia or Beglians in the Congo etc., the occupying nation can not financially maintain the occupation and supply lines without eventually going bankrupt. The attempt to secure Afghanistan to build a pipeline that can travel through it has proved physically impossible. Pipelines are not defensible by conventional armies. They are too long, too isolated and too out in the open not to mention too easy to blow up. The only way to fight terrorists is with quick moving, specially trained commando units that do not have a known site of residence and who are continuously on the move and can strike from anywhere at anytime and whose movements can not be watched and predicted as is the current case. To properly combat terrorists would require a united nations force of many nations willing to commit to these commando units and be willing to travel to many nations and follow the terrorists wherever they go. That will not happen.

Because quite simply Canada is in the most dangerous sector doing the most dangerous of exercises. With the exception of the Dutch, British and Americans, all other NATO forces have simply stayed in posts and not moved about and have little if any interaction. Canada is a sitting duck in its operations because when it patrols any place it patrols can be booby trapped to blow up as they travel along. They are literally sitting ducks when they patrol in their armed carriers or in convoys.

The Senate can be abolished by a majority vote in the Commons but would also need unanimous agreement from all 12 provincial assemblies as well.

BC Chick you know my position on this. I think you are unfairly bias for one side of the conflict. I think you are quick to point the finger at Israel without pointing the same finger equally at Hamas and the other terror groups. If peace is to come about Hamas must be disarmed. It has shown once again it is using its own people in the Gaza as pawns to be killed to try gain sympathy. BC they started this latest round of violence just as they have time and time again in the past and no Israel can not sit back and watch 300 missiles and more be launched into its nation. It is a miracle only 15 civilians died in its initial air strike which is testament to how skilled the IAF is. Hamas killed two children with its own missles and will expose its people to death quite intentionally to gain public sympathy. More to the point the comments from Hamas as of today are referring to taking back all of Israel and Jordan as it has from day one. Interesting how the word fighting against the "occupation" means one thing to Palestinians and another to you or those who pretend it only means Gaza. In case you haven't noticed Israel hasn't been in Gaza for some time but the missiles never came to a stop. Ask Kuzadd how shooting missiles at Isral and referring to Israel as occupied Palestine land will bring peace to the people of Gaza. Even as Israel tried to send in humanitarian aid two days ago to the Gaza they were shot at. Sorry BC I am very sympathetic to the plight of Palestinians particularly in Gaza which is a large cesspool. But there is a reason why Israelis committed to giving back land for peace and who tried to make peace with Palestinians like Ehud Barak, the Defence Minister who was laughed at by Arafat when he tried to enter into a peace agreement with him and Tipi L. the Foreign Minister are now forced to be warriors. Hamas has laughed in their faces and called them weaklings deliberately. Hamas is fueling a war to get Benjamin Netanyahu elected in 6 weeks. It is exactly what they want, get the peaceful moderates voted out of office and have Netanyahu elected in a backlash so as to fuel the war not bring it to an end. Hamas has chosen terror over peaceful dialogue. You can blame Israel all you want but it has the right to defend itself from attack. The sooner Hamas is disarmed the better. The peaceful moderate Palestinians must be allowed to take over the dialogue but they can't as long as Iran fuels Hamas with weapons and money to finance war. Hamas is deliberately assuring moderate Israeli politicians like Tipi Livner and Ehud Barak can not win an election. With such moderates gone and Netanyahu back in power they can revert to the usual terrorism and claim Netanyahu is not interested in peace and that is why Israelis voted him in. Its a transparent game. Everytime Israel is faced with an election, Hamas has attacked it and launched terror attacks to provoke its right wing to win the election and futther polarize the situation. I hope Tippi kicks ass and wins the election but I doubt that will happen.

Oh there we go on cue. Continued occupation of what. According to Hamas its continued occupation of Israel not just the Gaza and West Bank. Do me a favour Kuzadd try a new one. The double talk reference which means Israel to some and the West Bank for others no longer works. We all see through it.

She wasn't being anti-semitic. She was referring to the word shyster. I hope you were being sarcastic. Its one of those accusations someone can not defend which is why am saying what I am. I am under the impression BC was in fact questioning such stereotyping. I debate BC on many issues which I do not agree with but she is a very respectful person from what I have read.

Send me money. Then I will shut up.

Easy now. Don't get too close with BC Chick. Its liable to cause some issues with certain bars although personally if I owned a Bar both of you could come in even if you were holding hands. However I have rules. If you are not a Montreal Canadiens fan you wait in line with the Leafs fans until the Habs fans are seated. We do allow Calgary fans in to because they are after all Flamers.

Nonsense. Go look at how much aid Palestine gets and what it does with it before you make the ridiculous comment that Israel is getting aid from o ther countries. Israel does not get handouts from anyone. Why don't you find out what the price is on the loans it gets. You think the U.S. simply hands out money without interest being charged? You think Americans do not directly benefit from the technology Israel helps test and develop for them. Your simplistic depiction of the Israeli economy is one thing but it is also telling you compare it at all with the Palestinian one. In fact the financial aid given to the Palestinians is intercepted by Hamas or various cell leaders within the PLO and very little of it makes its way to the masses. It has been placed in Swiss and French bank accounts or has been squandered on guns and missiles. Your selectivity is interesting. There is absolutely no doubt the Israeli economy is based on security technology an ironic result of being under constant terror attack but that has not arisen because it is simply handed money. That is absolute stereotypical bull. As for the Palestinian world, it has no economic network. The little it had Hamas deliberately shut down in Gaza and the PLO choke holds on the West Bank. Do the average Palestinian and Israeli want peaceful co-existence? Probably but at this point it is all a moot point. As long as Palestinians live with no fresh water, open sewage pits and zero jobs and as long as Israelis are under constant threat of terror attack, neither society will evolve past what they are today. Palestinians need water, jobs and electricity. Israelis need security from terror attacks. Israel's standard of living is far different then with the Palestinians. Look no further then the role of fundamental religion in each country. Ironically Israel functions because its secular or non fundamentalist or non religious Jews run it not the fundamentalist wack jobs. Even right wing chauvenists like Benjamin Netanyahu and Likud keep their fundamentalist wing nut supporters in check. On the other side of the fence the fundamenalists call the shots these days and fundamentalists are not good with economics-to busy preaching ideology to understand a person needs a clean place to crap and eat if their soul is to be able to evolve.

I certainly do not think that way. Then again many feel I am a Jewish fraudster. In fact if we Jews sat around pissing our pants over the dumb things our fellow Jews do we would run out of panties very quickly. Do give some of us Jews some credit. We don't all have bladder problems. Also let's talk about Anderson Cooper for a second. I don't trust any man with such perfect hair and who looks that crisp and clean. He can't be human. He must be an alien. Back to the original topic, can you see my point at how these ridiculous generalizations get out of hand? So now the conspiracy question-was 9-11 a pretense for the oil war? Is Caroline Kennedy Lindsay Lohan's real mother?. Are Canadian soldiers imperialist running dogs? All these questions need to be answered but the only one who can answer them that true Canadian political analyst, Brent Butt is going off the air.

That's the problem Kuzadd you don't read what other people write you "skim", i.e., you don't read it at all. In fact not only did you not read what I wrote, but you now attempt to tell me what I meant. Kind of silly don't you think telling me what I meant and not even reading it? What I said was you are mixing up the role of the soldiers and why they are there with your own political views which you then project on them and assume is what they think and what motivates them. That is why I said don't presume you know what they think, what their motives are or that you can label them all and assign them the rigid, simplistic stereotypical attributes you do. Those are your words and sentiments not theirs. That is why I said redirect your comments back to the politicians you criticize and your own lifestyle. Redirect your comments back to yourself and how you live, Your lifestyle man, look at it, Look at how you live. Its easy to say no one should be involved in oil pipeline wars but are you going to change your lifestyle? You going to walk everywhere? Well? My point is precisely this-you are so busy lecturing you don't see how your own actions are causing what you criticize and you have made no indication in any of your threads you are willing to adjust your lifestyle. That is what I said. Then again I didn't expect you would read it or understand it. As for Canadian soldiers and their mission no they are far more complex then your simplistic and rigid stereotypes of them.

Merry Christmas Sir B.* *as expressed by the Zionist Imperialist Hollywood movie producer banking czar money lenderer illuminati member Rue of the Hebrew Cynic Peoples Collective of 1 p.s.s. I do not speak on behalf of any other Jewish frauds just myself

Interesting theory. Well it gives new meeting to why politicians are such jerk offs.

I am not sure why I am even bothering responding. I appreciate your Hanoi Jane, Toyko Rose broadcast. "Go home Joe you can not win". Here is the problem Tokyo; 1. the soldiers in Afghanistan contrary to what you think did not go there to "WIN"-this concept of winning or losing is your own and what you assume others also believe in-those are your thoughts that you now try project on others; 2.Canadian soldiers were not drafted-they are there because they are committed to helping build a country free of violence-no more, no less; 3. yes I do not doubt you are convinced that Afghanistan will always be a society run by violence and tribes and that will never be changed by "foreigners"; 4. yes most of us including Canada's fighting soldiers are intelligent enough to know a conventional war is not being fought and so a conventional war ending will never happen; 5. yes most of us are well aware that the interest in Afghanistan is deeply related to securing oil pipelines as well as some people believing by keeping the theatre of confrontation in Afghanistan it diminishes its likelihood of coming to our borders-yes we all know that thank you. Yankee go home. GI Joe go home. Been there. Done that. Heard it. Now tell me Kuzadd when do you stop using oil, gas, and living the lifestyle you do? You planning to move to Kabul and become a fundamentalist Muslim and live by the values of these warlords? Do you think you live the lifestyle you do in a vacum?....that it just happens? Could it be the lifestyle and values you take for granted and allow you to write the thread you do are also part of the reason we have such conflicts? You think it is as black and white as GI Joe picking on peasants? You probably do. Canadian soldiers as well as some of us Canadians are capable of seeing many things Kuzadd not just your black and white constructs. The difference between us is while I may question the military tactics or assumptions of politicians, I do not confuse it for the spirit and value in each and every soldier. You underestimate the idealism in our soldiers. But that is o.k. They probably don't take people like you seriously-I can not imagine they take what we civilians have to say so far removed from their reality seriously when it is negative. Excuse me but I have only positive thoughts and wishes for our soldiers. Until I readjust my way of life and you do yours-they do what they do because you live the way you do and take it for granted as a given-that is just comes without anyone sacrificing for it to be. Before I criticize these soldiers, I have some readjusting of my own lifestyle to take care of.

Excellent comments Kimmy and quite frankly the kind of tough questions and points that will unfold in future debates on the limits of freedom of speech if there are to be any. Yes I know we started off discussing fictional characters, i.e., cartoons. But that is the very point. Today's computer animation is no different then cartoon animation-it does not use real humans however it will soon become impossible to know that. The law is going to have a very hard time drawing a line between obvious animated charictatures and such realistic holograms that the human eye will not be able to tell the difference. That is the point I am making-that technology has now brought us to a new dimension of depictures and the law has to struggle to keep up with new technology and it will not be easy to tell fiction from non fiction, real from unreal. You stated; "Argus indicates that we already censor words. Having the wrong words on your website, or your bookshelf, or your hard-drive could, apparently, get you in a lot of trouble." Hold up a bit on the last comment-it is not as black and white as you suggest. Its not actually the words that may be subject to regulation or criminal law-what we are really talking about is the context in which they are being used. That is the key-the context of their use-not the words themselves. That is why when you ask; "There are any number of utterly horrific things that could be written about, or drawn, or made into television or film. Yet it seems as though the only one which is treated in this way is child pornography. Why is that?" I would answer by stating the reason why you are detecting what appear to be conflicting signals or inconsistencies or what appear to you to be artificial or arbitrary definitions of acceptability or moral decency is precisely because of how people interpret the CONTEXT of how the words are being used, not the words themselves or how they see the CONTEXT for the use of the images being shown on t.v. Yes you make a good argument. In one sense, when we watch let us say, CSI and look at mutilated bodies or watch shows where people beat others and rape them-the question becomes how is that any different then the real thing? All I can tell you is this-society defines what they will find acceptable. They find violence on t.v. and depictions of mutilation or death acceptable but of course not frontal nudity. Today there is more swearing on t.v. and in the past the standards were such that there was no swearing or for that matter you would have the Dick Van Dyke Show showing Dick and Mary Tyler Moore with two seperate beds and always going to bed in their pajamas, today showing people having sex, and being partially nude is acceptable. Moral values change as the people in the society change and some would argue become desensitivized to certain things. All I can tell you is it is felt that the context for violence on t.v. is "different" then with real snuff films because people assume people know on t.v. it is not real. That may be an absurd argument for you but that is what in fact is behind the reasoning process for the broadcasting regulations you see and of course those regulations change as the public lobbies sponsors to put pressure on the powers that be to censor certain things. Here is another argument that would be raised Kimmy in response to your point. You can turn off the t.v. You can refuse to go see certain movies or buy certain magazines but children or victims of crime can not say no-they are forced into what they do. There is no turn off button.

Your point is nonsensical for the following reasons; 1. the above engages in an illogical, subjective stereotype or generalization you attribute to ALL Jews; 2. "we" is a ludicrous reference-it is illogical and irrational because you do not speak for "we" just yourself do not presume you speak for me or any other Jew; 3. pursuant to 2. your assertion on behalf of "we" is intended to do what..suggest "we" are morally more righteous then other groups or that other groups do not discuss their foibles in public and only we Jews do? 4. it is absurd to try suggest we Jews discuss our foibles publically as if we are the only people to do it; 5.your very premises for this thread is anti-semitic and based on the anti-semitic stereotype that when one Jew acts like a jackass or engages in crime, all we Jews are morally responsible for it; 6. further to 5, the fact that you express the opinions you have in this thread, does not mean me or any other Jew thinks the same way you do or is morally or otherwise responsible for your behaviour or actions; 7. your assertions miss the obvious point and that is we are all as INDIVIDUALS responsible for the decisions we make no people do not have to defend themselves because another Christian, caucasian, gay, woman, Muslim, Jew, engages in criminal or other immoral behaviour-more to the point we all should and we all do speak out when people engage in immoral, criminal or other anti-social behaviour because its wrong-period. I loath your continued attempt to manipulate the Jewish collective identity for your agenda which to me appears to promote Jews as being superior to others-that is presumably why you wrote in, to suggest "we" Jews openly discuss when other Jews act like jack-asses-I agree with Peter F or some others when they commented what was the point of suggesting that-are you deliberately looking to incite anti-semitic responses or suggest we Jews do something others do not? I appreciate the posters did not take your bait and saw right through it particularly Sir Band and Peter F and some others. Also BC Chick I share the point you made-if you follow this original thread to its logical conclusion then what-do we profile all Jews? Blacks? Christians? I had a good laugh with the reference to bankers with penises. I think that would work too. This thread was not started to discuss fraud indicators. It was started by someone making it a point as he has done in the past to come on this post and discuss his Jewish identity in a way that is intended to brag and boast. Its actually exactly what the Jewish religion forbids-we Jews referring to ourselves as being superior to others or being morally righteous-the Talmud and Bible actually state a person who brags about themself and their righteousness is an immoral person who brings shame to himself, his family, God and the society he lives in. A truly spiritual person who honours God and the ways of God in the Jewish religion, does not preach. We are supposed to keep our mouths shut and be quiet and manifest good deeds with our actions and not words and never bring attention to any godo deed we do-that is the essence of Tikum Olam or what Jesus later continued to teach in his gospels-that to heal the world one does positive things not expecting anything in return and not bring attention to their good deeds. In fact virtually every religion teaches the same thing.

Could be. Here is a problem for you to consider-exact same one they are faced with in the U.S. By the way our Charter of Rights and your U.S. constitution's doctrine on freedom of speech/ thought is pretty much the same with the difference that our federal government regulates the internet and airwaves and criminal laws while in the US while the feds do govern the internet and airwaves each state unlike in Canada creates its own criminal laws. Also in the U.S. your feds have a residual power that allows them to pass "hate laws" while in Canada they pretty much will be drafted into our criminal code and not be stand alone legislation although it does get confusing with each province having its own human rights laws and codes. The problem with child porn or sexually violent porn gets confused with an issue as to whether it causes or reduces people from engaging in acts of sexual violence or pedophilia. Its not really the issue. What the issue is to make a long story short is that statistics from Interpol, the U.S., Canada, Britain, France, Belgium, Germany, etc., show that child pornography provides a network for pedophiles to meet children. They use the distributors of porn for more then purchasing or downloading porn. They use it for finding children through pedophile rings. They also will take that porn and use it as a method to lower the inhibitions of the children they molest. They will show these films to the children they have captured and will molest as foreplay. More to the point the children in those child porn movies are victims. They are real. They are victims. People forget when you pay or down load a child porn video you provide a financial incentive for some sob to abduct a child and force sex on them. The kind of organized syndicates that engage in child porn do not kid yourself they sell the same children to the highest bidding pedophile. They set up junkets to Sri Lanka and Thailand and yes they dispose of children they have no more use for. Thousands of children are abducted by these sob's precisely because there is a price for them and a price for selling films mutilating and molesting them. I repeat those same comments about snuff films and films that show violent sex. Yes we can get into a debate as to whether someone who watches them is provided a release from acting out on them or is incited to do them. Its probably a bit of both. It desensitivizes some to violence and leads them to believe it is acceptable behaviour and for others it releases their urges. Look do not get me wrong. There are numerous sado-masochist sites but there is a reason the "professional" sex sites make it clear the people in their films are actors and in fact at the end of their sado-masochist fetish tapes have all the actors sit and tell the audience it was fantasy. Some porno producers believe it or not do not want to be mistaken as condoning real violence. Yes I appreciate there is a difference between fantasy and role playing and the real thing but its hard to expect the law to make a clear cut difference. There have been real films of women being mutilated, i.e., abducted prostitutes or run aways being actually killed and then those tapes sold. There are also very real tapes of people who have been abducted being beaten and raped. Today's internet encourages sexual predators into posting real crimes. So yes it may seem like Big Brother wants to censor everything. Again I myself don't want people censored if we can help it, but yes we have to draw a line with child porn and sexual violence I think. I think there are limits to freedom yes. I also think when you limit freedom yes it can set a dangeous precedent and when you give up a right its hard to take it back. I do think though we have to err on the side of protecting children and the vulnerable. You know it was interesting you discussed Kimmy with good analysis the issues of drawing the line with sexual communications through literature, etc. Given our Charter of Rights I doubt we will ever see anyone censor words-but when we get to actual pictures of children, real children being molested or hurt or real humans being raped, beaten, mutilated, I think you will find Canadians like Americans or other Western nation citizens, want a line drawn-and so the debate becomes, where to draw that line.

Yegads you have to ask? 1. Learn to play hockey. 2. Learn to drive in snow. 3. Learn CFL football rules. 4. Learn to line up in one cue even when there are 5 other available counters. 5. Become addicted to Tim Horton's coffee. 6. Have sexual thoughts about Celine Dion. I just threw the last one in to see if you were listening.

Geez all this time I thought it was short for Ruben or Rubenstein.

Oleg you stated: "Almost every young face of the wasted was of old white Chirstain anglo stock..few of these men have children - and the dead ones will never replenish this great breed of human..we will continue to kill our best and continue to immigrate in the worst from other nations. " You use the death of soldiers as an opportunity to advance your own racist political agenda. That makes you in my opinion a hate mongerer of the worst sort. Where do you get off using the sacrifice of men who die to uphold democracy and freedom and a way of life where we respect respect each others differences for your own self-serving racist agenda? These soldiers died trying to prevent the very same primate tribal behaviour you engage in. You Oleg look at brave young men and see only what you want to see and that is your own reflection-the reflection of a frightened weak man who feels overwhelmed by anything and anyone that does not look and sound just like Oleg. You just don't get it Oleg. The soldiers who died and will die all bled and will bleed the same colour.

Actually the legal issue is a little more difficult then just animated characters. We are at the point where technology can replicate humans with computer images where it will be impossible to know the difference between real from fictional. So then we are faced with this legal question-if someone replicates humans to the point of almost absolute or in fact absolute similiarity to real humans and then uses these replications to produce pedophile sexual scenes and movies or movies of humans using sexual violence, etc., against other humans then what? Its one thing to talk about cartoons where its clear the character is not a human but what about the new technology I talk of? The law will be faced with having to review whether the fact something that is not human means its automatically not to be regulated or in fact whether it may still have to be regulated because the nature of what it depicts is considered by our society to be unacceptable. I am not a lover of censorship or undue regulation but I have already becomne aware of replicated violent and child pornography that I think could be extremely problematic and may intentionally or unintentionally fuel and incite certain crimes. It will not be an easy issue to resolve. There are limits to freedom of speech and yes when we limit freedom of speech it can be a threat to freedom, democracy, etc. but sometimes it is necessary to protect the innocent or the vulenrable from harm or exploitation.