Rue

Girl you also need to get out too.

Son you really need to get out more often.

Pretty good cyber-c if you don't mind I am going to agree with you. The only thing I might disagree with is I do not think the Greens will elect anyone.

1. No its not a shock I read your posts. 2. Yes I have criticized Israel on this forum many times for actions I thought were adding to the problem or I thought counter-productive-quite a few times actually. 3.I don't throw your name about in Israel is poo rants. If I have criticized your positions I have been very clear to state why and if you read them I have never suggested you are evil or closed minded, lol. But now that we are on the topic, you are a communist swine. Just joking! 4. Unlike some of the other persons from the political spectrum you appear to come from, I find you refreshingly fair and open-minded and respect very much what you said above and in past posts. I try make an effort to tell you when I agree with you too and why. 5. For example, when I made that I agree with BC comment, it was a kind of back handed complement. You should have written back and said of course I do I am finally beginning to gain some common sense by listening to you. 7. I have a problem of not laughing at myself so yes when I ask others to I appreciate I am a sanctimonious bozo for saying so. 8. On this current issue, the thing I think most of us from any perspective have on this kind of discussion is that generalizing an entire people because of the negative behaviour of people within its community or society or group inevitably and necessarily leads to the inciting of intolerance. 9. Besides BC Chick, we all know all men are idiots. Oops I did it.

The fact that he is underage does not mean he could not under the Geneva convention be detained as a pow. The intent of the Geneva Convention was to detain any combatant regardless of age. There are those suggest that in the interpretation of the Geneva Convention on POWS, to assure it is enforced in a humane manner, children should be seperated from adults in POW camps. To answer your coment about child combatants in ww2, when a child in the underground or partisans was caught by the Nazis they were killed on the spot if they were lucky, otherwise tortured then killed or used as sex slaves by soldiers before being killed or sent to concentration camps to be used as sex slaves by the camp commanders and their guards. In regards to the allies, well the Red Army simply would shoot them. They had no facilities or food for them. All armies raped them and then killed them if they caught them. Some were placed in allied pow camps with adult pows where they became of course the sex victims of pows. The Japanese Imperial Army used alleged child combatants as sex slaves. Towards the end of the war when Hitler recruited children into the regular army, they were simply placed in pow camps. There are many books on how child combatants were treated in world war two. Of course it was a different time. With the case of Kadr, he may have been 15, but at the time of his actions, he was fighting as a combatant. The notion we treat him under the Youth Offender Act the way we do domestic criminals in Canada (give them a 6 month sentence for violent crime and send them to a half-way home) misses the point that he was engaged in criminal acts(violating the domestic laws fo Afghanistan), terrorist acts and war. Canada has zero jurisdiction for what he did and this notion he should be brought back to be dealt with under the Youth Offender Act is absurd. Its the same mentality of missionaries who go across the world thinking their laws and doctrines should be the ones used on us all. He was no teenager in Canada. He was fighting overseas and a member of a terrorist organization dedicated to fighting not just conventional armies but killing innocent civilians as a means to express political opinion. The domestic laws of Canada do not apply. They are subject to the sovereign laws of the nation he was in at the time he committed his crimes whether they be domestic or international or both which is the case. He belongs in a pow camp under military detention since there are no other international laws at this time to deal with terrorist children who then turn to adults as he has. Ideally he should have been treated by a psychiatrist and someone to try rehabilitate him with a job skil and try help reconstruct his approach to life. The practical reality is however, that no therapy or rehabilitation can truly undo the emotional and psychological conditioning that has turned him into what he now is. At best it might contain the more violent tendencies. His emotional and psychological damage and political and social conditioning is compounded by some other factors preventing any kind of rehabilitation; i-the fact he was isolated so long; ii-the fact his family and certain Muslim Canadians feel he has done no wrong and try act to enforce what he did as acceptable. More to the point, he's no victim. Its tempting to say since his father brain washed him he is a victim but he is no victim. That is not the word to use. He is someone who was trained to kill. Trained killers may have been made thay way in a manner that did not obtain their consent but they should not be classified with the same term as the people he and other terrorists terrorize. We must use a different word. To call him a victim allows him the same moral equivalency as the civilians he and his fellow terrorists have viuctimized and that is insulting to them not to mention absurd. Let's call him what he is, a criminal and a terrorist and stop trying to cloud what he is. The guilt feelings for his being turned into a criminal and terrorist won't help him, they will only harm him and feed his criminal and terrorist beliefs by reinforcing this notion he is somehow not to blame for what he did and the consequences of his actions. Until he can look at what he did and accept his responsibility for it, unconditionally, he will remain what he is, a criminal and a terrorist. No I don't cuddle pit-bulls. A pit-bull at the best of times comes from a genetic history where it was born to kill and has a volatile mix of genetic predisposition for violence. No I will not suggest his dna code has components that make him a killer. I will accept the arguement he was made that way just as a pit bull by being placed in a cage, prodded with a stick, starved then fed live animals, is bred to be a killer. But what we all know is you can't undo a pit-bull's killer drive once its been entrenched and quite frankly no therapy can undo what has been done to Kadr or other children who grow into adults. At best if you are lucky you can make very small attempts to contain some of their anti--social behaviour and violent tendencies. This notion you can simply stick him back in society with a hug and some adults watching him is sheer nonsense. The first people likely to come into contact with him are a few Muslims with a negative, pro-terrorist political agenda and his mother deep in denial. Then he will encounter well meaning liberal guilt players both in and outside the Muslim community who try down play his extremism and tell him he is o.k. and a nice man and the only thing he did wrong was try kill. All he will pick up on is hippocracy and that the consequence of what he did is negative, simply because he was caught not because what he did was anti-social. Been there, done that. I have seen children and youth first hand when they are let back into society. The only ones that change are those who have had the fortune not to come into contact with people who molly coddle them. It is why I am a strong supporter of the native healing circles of the native people. They require the offender to apologize to the whole community and directly accept responsibility to the whole community. What we do in our legal system is to isolate such people from society during their alleged rehabilitation phase and focus on their individual rights-which in fact prevents healing by making it easier for the criminal to see himself as a victim and not a victimizer. Now as for his being entitled to medicare or other Canadian benefits I can only say this to Peter F. in my respectful opinion you are mixing up the concept of treating prisoners humanely with the rights people are entitled to as citizens of a country. I agree he must be treated humanely including being afforded proper medical care, but probably unlike you, no I do not see him being entitled to any right of citizenship. I believe terrorists once convicted of terrorism, should lose the rights of citizenship in any country until their term to be served for the terror acts is completed. I personally believe anyone convicted of a crime, domestic or international, should be afforded basic human rights but not anything else. I do not understand this notion that people who engage in acts that say they have no respect for the citizenship rights of others, can use those same rights to protect themselves from the consequences of what they have done. This to me makes no sense. To allow prisoners to vote and enjoy access to rights of normal citizens to me is bullshit. My arguement all along is that the legal process Bush's cronies came up with is fundamentally defective and flawed and violates both the US constitution and Canadian Charter of Freedom of Rights. My arguement is that the legal system he is now being treated under is defective and beyond repair. However no I do not see Kadr as a victim. I see people who suffer from the indiscriminate killings of the Kadrs of the world, the victims. I see people like Kadr as agents of terror. Terrorists necessarily must be segregated from humanity and contained so they can not harm others, first and foremost and yes if need be killed before they can kill others. In regards to typecasting them as victims, heroes, misunderstood freedom fighters, sorry that kind of emotional liberal guilt others can have. I have seen what they can do and I would hope like hell if I was faced with the situation I would not hesitate to shoot dead a child terrorist before he could detonate a bomb. I doubt I could and that is why I do not morally judge police or soldiers who we put in that position and why we owe those soldiers or police as much concern as we do people like Kadr. Does anyone care about the soldiers he shot and killed? In regards to rehabilitating Kadr, with due respect the people who seem to offering to rehabilitate him are precisely the kind of people that probablyhelped turned him into a terrorist. You really want to help this person-send him up north to live with aboriginal people and learn their customs and traditions and get back in touch with his soul and that of course is not going to happen. His mother, and certain members of the Muslim community (a few nasty people) will see to it he is depicted as a victim and go out of their way to resist anyone's effort to address his anti-social training. If you think you can magically undo the kind of conditioning that terms someone into a killer I have this advise for you, stop trying to hug pit-bulls they are going to chew your guilt ridden face right off its hinges. I respect the point Peter F was making. I know Peter F is trying to argue he should be treated humanely.

As usual your comments make no sense. It does not raise an issue as to the freedom of the press. No one has said she had no right to write her article nor is anyone trying to censor the article so as usual you completely missed what is being questioned. Its not her right to have an opinion, but the implications as to what she said if she wants to represent the Liberal Party of Canada. No one is saying she is not free to have such opinions what is being said is they are not compatible with the Liberal Party's platform. As for your assumptions and inference of course that Jews are controlling Canadian politics and have too much power trust me, you are free to run for office with Ms. Hughes, form your own party and have a ridiculous haircut. As for your trying to turn this into an issue about Christ, as usual you try hijack the thread for your own personal obsession which has nothing to do with the thread. Go start a thread on how you are persecuted. Go start a political party. Citizen and Ms. Hughes can join you.

You believe? Instead of presenting opinions without knowing what she said, how about you try find out what she actually said and what the source of contraversy is. This is precisely why you lack credibility. You inject yourselfs into threads without having a clue what the issue is and stating opinions based on assumptions that have nothing to do with what is at issue.

Actually once again you make a comment as if it is a fact,. Prove he did what he did because the CJC wanted him to. Did it ever dawn on you Mr. Dion made that decision because he is a principled man and he would have done it had the comments been about Muslims, gays, blacks, women? As well you once again made a comment about her comments not being racist but you of course quoted the comment no one was questioning. Once again you show you have no clue what the issue is you are talking about. Why don't you try find out the actual words that are being questioned.

Well leave it to you again to insert your foot in your mouth. The comment she made that is now being questioned is as follows: “Israeli businesses, which had offices in the Towers, vacated the premises a week before the attacks, breaking their lease to do it. About 3000 Americans working there were not so lucky.” No the above comment is not obvious nor is it true. In fact it is a classic example of what you are now doing-repeating something and presenting it as “obvious” or a “fact” when it is not either. First let me try explain to you why the above comment is neither true nor obvious and for that matter neither is your comment that only 3 Jews died in the 9-11 incident. May I suggest you go to Robert E. Reis’s article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/31/national...745&ei=5070 entitled, “ How Many Jews Died at the World Trade center on 911 which I will now repeat. What we do know is the New York Times published 1,800 descriptions of the people who died and the official count is 2,937 although its quite possible others died and were missed in this count. The above writer in the face of people like you and Ms. Hughes engaging in the comments you did tried to find a way to repudiate such unsubstantiated remarks. What he did was to take the list of 1,800 people reported in the New York Times as having died in 9-11 which were all substantiated by contacting the relatives was to then engage in a word search using the words Jew, Jewish, Temple, Synagogue, Israel and Mitzvah. When he then got a list from those 1,800 names he removed individuals incorrectly identified as Jews. He then searched the list using the terms; Catholic, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu and Muslim. The then found 250 named victims resulted from using his search terms, i.e. 250 victims out of 1800 were identified by religious affiliation as being Jewish. That means 18% f the named victims were Jews and 82% non Jews. Try now to multiply 1800 by .18, and see what number you get. You should come up with 324 Jews. This seems to be close to what the United States Department of State. Reported. The State department reported a total of 2,071 occupants at the WTC who died Sept.11. On Oct. 11, 2002 the Wall Street Journal reported roughly 1,700 people had listed the religion of a person missing in the WTC attacks of which approximately 10% being ewish. The Jewish Week, also analyzed the list of names, biographical information compiled by The New York Times, and information from records at the Medical Examiner’s Office, and reported finding at least 400 death victims either confirmed or strongly believed to be Jewish. What is also known is that a partial list of 390 Cantor Fitzgerald employees who died (out of 658 in the company) listed 49 Jewish memorial services and before you engage in any further comments that 3 Jews died go to http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005.../14-260933.html Here is the point. Ms. Hughes engaged in unsubstantiated remarks and posed them as facts. The remark’s context necessarily suggests Israelis working in the building were warned of the attacks by Mossad and thus were saved and the words stir up resentment towards these alleged Israelis surviving but the other “3000” dying. Not only is there absolutely zero proof Mossad knew the WTC would be attacked that day, but to suggest they would engage in a conspiracy only to warn Israelis and let Americans die is absolute bullshit. More to the point, had you or Ms. Hughes had the decency instead of engaging in unspeculated rumour and conspiracy mongering bothered to find out who actually died you would know the comment you and she made is despicable because it suggests Israel deliberately let humans die including about 300 Jews. It is precisely because of such unsubstantiated comments by people like you and her they need to be exposed and challenged as bullshit and doing nothing but inciting resentment against not just Israelis but Jews. I also do not doubt you feel you are not an anti-semite and neither does she. That to me is neither here nor there. I am sure you and Kengs can explain to us how innocent she is and how she is being picked on. Me personally I think Dion did the right thing. People who write this kind of piffle and try pass it off as journalism show poor judgement and the kind of defective reasoning process that is precisely what people like you then use to keep spreading nonsense and justify your statements that are not based on fact. Should she be censored no. It is her opinion. But such opinions have no place in any political party claiming to represent all Canadians. Yes she should run as an independent. Or maybe you would like to form a political party with her and Keng. By the way, you will note I do not take a day off for the New Year. I am a Golem. We don't get days off.

Gilles Duceppe controlled the debate from the get go. He is a skilled debater in either language and has shown that many times in debates. What I find interesting though is the French debate ignores French Canadians outside Quebec as if they do not exist and just assumes if any discussion as to French culture comes up it means only Quebec. That said, I thought Duceppe was excellent although his platform is clearly limited and narrow. Dion I agree with Cap came across as a Priest. He is not warm. He is stiff, rigid and looks angry and bitter. His smile is forced and insincere. His physical presence is clearly a hinderance. It is easy to see how his non verbal mannerisms coupled with his style of speech distorts and prevents people from hearing what he says. He tried hard to point out Liberal policies but he is like the geek professor no one takes seriously but is forced to take his class for credits. Dion did not harm himself in Quebec but what happened was there was clearly no difference in his platform and Mr. Duceppe's and that is what Mr. Duceppe set out to do and did hands down-show Quebecers he is no different than the other Quebecer running. Mr. Layton is one smarmy sob. He is a greasy guy. He just oozes slime. He just does not come across as anything but some elitist professor who has contempt for everyone and is only interested in looking at himself in a mirror. While Mr. Dion and Duceppe clearly made their points, and Mr. Layton speaks good French, and Mr. Layton did do the best job questioning and debating Mr. Harper, other then getting some good shots in at Harper failed to advise of his party's platforms and policies. He spent too much time looking for a knock out punch to Harper to spend any time on his own policies and platforms. Mr. Duceppe and Dion balanced their shots with explaining their policies. Despite Ms. May's broken French and annoying hand flapping, she was a crucial player in the debates and I am glad she was there. She was a crucial player in challenging Mr. Harper's comments. Steven Harper had a fixed grin on his face the entire night I would best describe as the face of the Flying Monkies from the Wizard of Oz. I am sure he was coached to smile and look friendly and that he did but he looked very petty calling a doctor who criticized his party's handling of the listeria problem as a Liberal. Now mind you Stepane Dion came across like an idiot when he scolded him for that and saying Dion welcomed the recession. The way Dion scolded him made Dion look like a fool. In fact Harper's passive approach and constant smile was a meta-message saying to the audience he was the smartest one there and didn't take any of them seriously. Harper looked bad trying to defend his environmental policies and comments about artists and I think he made a serious mistake not speaking directly to Quebecers about the economy and instead trying to play up his referring to Quebec as a nation. Quebecers don't need tokenism. They want to hear about taxes and jobs. I do note Harper continually stated the Green shift would increase taxes and its a misrepresentation that has been repeated so many times by him, it is now simply accepted as a fact. Harper is playing it cool. He is using all the buzz words people want to hear-he won't tax people, he will put nasty teenagers in jail, he won't do anything and people don't need to do anything. I think Haper is a nasty liar and has a very clear agenda but of course he won't state it he knows if he did, like Dion it would blow him out of the water. So I score it as follows out of 5, Gilles Duceppe, 4; May, 3; Harper, Dion, Layton, 2. Not enough to get votes for Dion or Layton away from Duceppe.

Let me respond to both of the above concepts. In regards to 1, the convenant with God Jews are supposed to have, is in fact an obligation they are alleged to have by what God told Jews. This obligation has been referred to as a covenant or in terms of Jews being chosen, but what we are talking about simply is a concept continually misrepresented and misunderstood by non Jews. All we are talking about is the belief followers of the Jewish religion have that they have an obligation to God to worship God and nothing else. Jews believe God ordered us to obey this obligation. It is not something where jews engaged God in dialogue over a cup of coffee. In this concept it was commanded by God. This concept of God is a God that demands obedience unilaterally and can not be questioned. Now as part of this demand Jews are supposed to worship God following certain processes and procedures and one of them is supposed to be through a nation, i.e., through a collective nation not just on an individual basis. Trust that once again clarifies that concept so you don't keep rolling your eyes. In regards to 2, you have once again completely missed the point. You lecture JBG that he has an obligation to send money to Palestinians. Really? Why? Because he is a Jew? Let's see now. If I follow your logic then, Jews must send money to Palestinians if they send money to Israel. Now do you hold anyone else to that standard? Oh but of course not. See we Jews, we have a collective responsibility to Palestinians right? That is what you suggest. So tell me following that logic do you send money to aboriginals because you are Canadian? Do you send money back to the country you were born in and have them pay it in repatriation to the descendants of people of that nation who they engaged in conflict with? Well? Do you? Where do you get off lecturing Jews on who they should be morally responsible for when you do not practice what you preach? Is that the Christian in you? I do note many people in the name of Christianity demand others follow a moral code they themselves do not...how about you...is that what you are doing, preaching to Jews to be Christian and full of tolerance for the people they are conflicted with? How righteous of you. Care to share us examples of how you do that so we can be inspired? I know a heathen like myself needs such inspiration. Israel has a moral responsibility first and foremost to its citizens and for you to suggest otherwise is bullshit. Secondly Israel's moral responsibility to assist Palestinians find peace does not magically mean no one else has a responsibility. To start with Palestinians must first accept responsibility by renouncing terrorism as a means of political expression and instead of taking the money charities of given them to arm themselves with weapons and to finance terrorist activities invest it in their infrastructure. Let's get real. Billions of dollars was sent by the world community including Israel and Jewish charities to Palestinian organizations. Where is it? Well we know what Arafat and his cronies did. Maybe you would like to go to Switzerland and France to see the banks it sits in and find out how it was stolen by corupt Palestinians. Secondly why don't you save your preaching for the Arab League. Remember them. They are the ones that ordered Palestinians into refugee camps and told them they would never be allowed citizenship in any Arab League nation and would remain in these camps as a reminder to the world that they will stay their and multiply until Israel was disbanded. This same Arab League that deliebrately created them and the camps they placed them in have not sent one penny to Palestinians not one damn penny. All the money has come from nations and charities other than Arab League nations, the very nations that created them. But do lecture us on why Jews must give Palestinians money but are remarkably silent about the Arab League. Tell me what about Britain and France? Do you feel they have any moral responsibility for the roots of this conflict? How about Germany? Maybe you should try find out why these particular nations might merit some consideration for their roles. Say here is another wild thought. Maybe you might want to find out just how much money the Israeli government has sent to the PLO and Hamas over the years in an attempt to live peacefully. How about you do that. Maybe you would like to do some research and find out that in the past when Hamas renounced terrorism openly as a means of political expression, the Israeli government funded many charities in Palestine affiliated with Hamas and built roads, community centres, an elaborate greenhouse system to feed Palestinians, schools, government buildings and hospitals. Then maybe you might want to find out who blew all those things up. My problem you see is I hate people who lecture me when their fly is undone and I can see all their short-comings Oleg. Now as for you JBG, the Day of Atonement for me still has meaning. I reject all conventional and fundamentalist approaches to Judaism. I am far more a Buddist-Taoist-Unitarian in actual religious approach to the concept of being civil and at one with the thing beyond all things. I don't see God in the Old Testament sense of an abgry, forboding, vengeful authority that has tanrtrums and blasts people to shreds. I also don't like stoning people for being gay nor am I into growing a beard and no I really do not like wearing black nor do I want women segregated from me and yes I do believe in engaging in sex other than to procreate and I believe there are many mystic traditions from Judaism that have been misplaced and shunted by conventional Jewish worship similiar to how the gnostic traditions of Christianity were misplaced and shunted to the side by a council hell bent on fusing paganism with Christianity to create a central organ of control. To me religion is a personal and individual thing. I take no solace in worshipping in a crowd or organized manner. I find that too political and invariably subject to humans trying to dictate to others how to think and feel. As a Jew I see it as a collective responsibility to remember the suffering of Jews. As a Jew the Day of Atonement means I should remember I am an idiot-asshole-imperfect and make mistakes and instead of hating myself for that, using it to learn humility and to remind me to try harder not to be such an ass. Its also a time to rememebr all the Jews that have suffered and who may suffer again if I do not remember. God? To me it is an abstract concept I do not define other than the thing beyond and behind everything and anything-the reason patterns emerge from chaos-the concept that by exercising free choice and striving to be have positive prevail over negative, this creates this thing called God. I am not so sure praying works for me. I need to be in the woods watching nature or seeing something in nature for it to connect to me. Chants don't work for me. The Kol Nidre music does. That deep melody most certainly does. I can hear all the sadness and misery but also the hope of better things to come.

Greetings fraternal comrade Lenny Brezhnev. My girlfriend Sarah Palin is watching you with binoculars from her home just across the water in Alaska. Do go on the internet and see the picture of her in her bathing suit holding a rifle. Now my dear fraternal combrade and fellow ally in the struggle to rid the world of neo-reactionary imperialist expansionist counter-revolutionary oppressive elitism, may I suggest that democracy means a lot more than just elections. I appreciate your information sources do not have much on democracy but may I suggest you ask your handlers allow you to surf the web so you can find out what democracy is. Comrade if you want to discuss democracy at least try come to the 21st century and stop trying to dust off those old Pravda-KGB scripts. They are full of mould that could cause you nose bleeds. One other thing. The KGB or whatever you like to call yourselves now, I hear you need get new cars. May I suggest you buy Fords or GM's. We are having problems in Ontario and you would help us out buying some big SUVS from Ford or GM. We can make them all black and scary just the way you guys like them. Think about it. I can get you some good deals with Mr. McGuinty our Premier. Our oppressed peoples in Oshawa, Ajax, Oakville and Windsor would appreciate some business. Regards, Fraternal Comrade Rue, agent against imperialist neo reactionary counter revolutionary oppressive expansionist colonialist plutocratic tyrany p.s. who me a Zionist? who told you that....must be those silly Georgians.... p.s.s.s. yes I know Uncle Joe is said to be a Georgian then again Hitler was technically not German now was he...

Your first comment/question I find poignant and to the point. Its precisely because he was engaged in a war with the US Army, a lot of the discussion has become clouded and why I believe you raise a good point about a possible double standard. Now in regards to your second question it is my personal and legal opinion that he engaged in acts of war and as such should have been detained as a prisoner of war subject to the convention regarding the detention of prisoners of war. It is precisely because international law has no law or convention that deals with a civilian engaging in conventional war but who may also be engaging in terrorist activities, i.e., attacks on civilians that we have this mess. What we have is someone who is a hybrid. He is both a terrorist as well as a combatant who could be defined as per the Geneva convention. The problem is he is both, not just one or the other, and so until the international laws clarifies such a situation and how it wishes it to be treated in a convention which countries then agree to abide by, the only international law we have is the one referring to conventional combatants. The United States felt since he was a hybrid of both and international law does not deal with such a hybrid they can unilaterally create a hybrid law and that is what they set out to do. Only the process trying Kadr which mixed elements of civilian and military law has not worked. The major problem with the U.S. law is that it violates the constitution of the United States to which all American laws must conform. It violates the U.S. constitution in regards to preventing the accused from having full disclosure of the information that is being used to prove his guilt. That is a serious flaw. Conventional U.S. military law by the way demands full disclosure. This is why I would argue the Americans should not have attempted to engage in trying to create a hybrid law for terrorist combatants that takes bits and pieces of civilian and military law it likes, but throws out the rest. That was a defective exercise reflected by the political biases of the Bush regime which openly stated they feel it is acceptable to ignore the U.S. constitution if they pass legislation saying they can. They have tried this time and time again and each time they have, the US Supreme Court has told them they can't and no legislation is above the US constitution. To me he should have been imprisoned as a POW because at the time of the combat for which he was engaged in, during the actual actions that led to his detention, he was engaged in combat with US soldiers, not civilians. That to me defines it as a conventional combat act contemplated in the existing Geneva convention for enemy combatants. Had he been engaged in attacks on civilians at the time the US soldiers caught him, then I would argue he was engaged in criminal actions as per the domestic criminal laws of the country in which he attacked the civilians and therefore should have been arrested and tried as a criminal in that country of the site of the crime. The problem still remains, until we h ave an international law dealing with terrorists and that defines what a terrorist is - we have the domestic criminal and civil laws of the country of the site of the incident, or the Geneva convention to follow. The US decision to try create a new hybrid law for terrorists is still a US domestic law and there was no law with the site country that stated if he commits a crime in that country he should be deported to the US and stand trial under US domestic laws. Clearly what we have is an example of the US trying to impose its own domestic law on other nations which violates the basic rule of sovereignty of nations. In fact the US has acted as an international outlaw by doing what it did and morally it makes it difficult to arrest, try and detain terrorists when the country doing that, is engaging in the same actions as terrorists in regards to certain aspects of what terrorists do when they violate laws. I am sympathetic to what the US was trying to do but feel their legal exercise was defective because of its political agenda which tainted its ability to be fair and impartial and provide the basic fundamental rules of natural justice which include right to full disclosure and right to trial within a reasonable time period. This is why I argue had he been detained as a pow, then the reasonable time period and full disclosure requirements are simplified and expedited under the pow process-he'd still be in a prison but we wouldn't be engaged in all this bullshit that makes a mockery of the US legal process.

My problem with your comment that we should only Judge a country by what it does in the present or recent past is that it assumes collective behaviour can magically be explained and understood by drawing a politically convenient and arbitrary time line. I suspect the reason you would prefer to draw that arbitrary time line for how far back we are allowed to go to consider present behaviour comes from political expedience, i.e., it makes it easier for you to ignore certain things. An understanding of who we are and why we do what we do would be in my opinion tragically flawed if we limited our consideration to such an artificial and limited perspective. It fuels revisionism and people seeking to avoid responsibility. Been there. Heard that. As a Jew being told by someone like you I should forget what happened to my family in Russia because it may have happened prior to 1980 is bullshit. Its who I am and why I am. Go tell aboriginal people in Canada they should ignore their past and all the treaties they signed that were breached. See for some of us our memories are what make us who we are and why we choose to be who we are. It reminds us of what we do not want to be and should not be as well. History doesn't end because it might seem inconvenient to you. Life is not that easy and sanitary. Sometimes to resolve conflicts we must dig through many layers of learned behaviour that took centuries to develop. You seem to be advocating denial. Thanks. Not interested. I also suspect you may be confusing people who use past memories to refuse to move on to do positive and constructive things with the need to remember the past. The fact that some people use their memories or past to justify violence or ignorance or hatred to me is a seperate issue. I would totally agree with you that using history as justification to hate and remain angry is bull. So I agree but I don't agree too.

That's down right indecent of you. Kind of ironic. This obsession with being decent is a decidedly Canadian characteristic. Me I love running naked all through Leaf's bushes and scaring his cats. Its the evil foreign blood in moi that causes me to do that,

I believe thta is what they refer to as a beeyitch slap. Ouch. Which reminds me, I am not sure what's worse, a politician no one understands, or a politician everyone things they understand. Both equally as problematic if you ask moi.

True. But the actual inception of junk bond traders and moving away from bank regulations to allow the large brokerage houses, mortgage houses and hedge fund operators to operate outside banking regulation and run started with your dear friend Ronny, then George Sr., then Billy Boy, and then Georgie Jr. They all had regimes that facilitated this current debacle and it comes down to one ironic thing - this blind American obsession not to regulate because that would be socialist has led Georgie boy to do what? Why nationalize of course! Say isn't that socialism? Can it be? Point is, the the decision of Reagonomics to prevail is what is at the roots of all of this. Reagonomics believed competition alone would self-regulate greed and dishonesty. Uh yah. Fat chance. Y'all don't have to be a genius to figure out what fueled these debts. Whether you were a business or person, in the U.S. suddenly unregulated traders running amuk were offering junk bonds, junk mortgages and credit to anyone and everyone. Now people who could not afford things and still can't suddenly could get loans for anything they wanted. Unlike here in Canada with we pinko communists where our regulations prevented this from happening, in the US y'all had thousands of questionable banks and money lenders suddenly spring up. Hey look around. Less than 12% of the US GNP comes from manufacturing! Its all coming from trading these junk securities! Hey when we pinks here in Canada and for that matter the British, French, Dutch, Belgians, Germans to name but a few, not to mention numerous bank and financial associations tried to warn George Jr. to put some controls down on these traders he stated no way and that it was not a problem! Uh huh. Now this same monkey boy is saying psst, I need to socialize and guess what, my buddy Bush Chaney is gonna pay out of his taxpayer pocket for the 700 billion I want and never mind when my bail our request is done that will bring the US debt to $18 trillion. And the 17 to 18 billion currently being spent to finance Afghanistan and Iraq each month, oh well. Look I am not beings mug. We Canadians have our own serious problems and are on the verge of re-electing some guy who thinks Bush economics are wonderful because he is a Reaganomics fan. Good Lord, the US collapses and we are going to elect someone who wants to engage in the exact same policies leading to this collapse. Its enough to cause hemmeroids. The solution? Well gosh darn it I think that nasty R word, and I do not mean Reagan but regulation seems to be part of that solution. That and all of us learning to stop borrowing for things we can't afford. I would also like to see all the oil day traders castrated.

Argus asked me if I thought reports of international sex crime involving child porn and pedophila were overblown. All I can ask him try find out for himself by starting with; Top Ten Reviews ™ “Internet Filter Review” an online resource that reviews Internet Safety. (Reported that CP generates $3 billion annually) “Child Pornography Possessors Arrested in Internet-Related Crimes: Findings from the National Juvenile Online Victimization Study” (Alexandria, Virginia: National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, 2005) page 4. Internet Watch Foundation, United Kingdom “Internet Sex Crimes Against Minors: The Response of Law Enforcement, November 2003. (Alexandria, Virginia: National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, November 2003) page 3. “Child Pornography Possessors Arrested in Internet-Related Crimes: Findings from the National Juvenile Online Victimization Study, 2005”, page x. “Child Pornography Possessors Arrested in Internet-Related Crimes: Findings from the National Juvenile Online Victimization Study, 2005”, page 4. “Child Pornography Possessors Arrested in Internet-Related Crimes: Findings from the National Juvenile Online Victimization Study, 2005”, page 5. “Child Pornography Possessors Arrested in Internet-Related Crimes: Findings from the National Juvenile Online Victimization Study, 2005”, page 5 Argus may also want to ask himself why credit cards are used to purchase child porn and why that finances the commission of pedophile crimes and is the financial incentive fueling a billion dollar industry that necessarily sells the acts of pedophile crimes. This is why for example Ernie Allen, President and CEO, National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC) stated and I quote; “The fact that child pornography can be purchased using a credit card, or traded at no cost on the Internet, is causing an exploding global problem and an immeasurable impact on the sexual exploitation of children.” Over blown? Perhaps Argus may want to consider that a 2002 report by ECPAT International and the Bangkok Post, estimated that 100,000 child pornography web sites existed on the Internet in 2001 and since 1997, the number of child pornography images on the Internet is estimated to have increased by 1500%. The CMEC’s CyberTipline received 21,603 reports of child pornography in 2001, and then in 2004 received 106,176 reports. Do the math that is an increase of 491% increase in four years. Anyone can go to the NCMEC website at www.missingkids.com or they can contact Metro Toronto Police, Project P to get info. To suggest this is overblown, wow.

Argus I am going to stop talking in circles with you. You keep stating there is no proof a pedophile becomes a pedophile from watching child porn so based on that fact say there is no harm in it and keep insisting that is what the issue is. No of course not. The issue is and remains whether sending and receiving child porn on the internet serves as a pathogen for the crime of pedophilia because it incites or promotes access and opportunity to molest children. I actually provided you studies that directly address both issues to deliberately show you they are seperate issues and should not be confused. I.e., your assumption that because a pedophile would be one whether he watched child porn can not be used to leap to the conclusion that child porn causes no harm and therefore should not be regulated and in my opinion criminalized. I said it makes sense to regulate and try prevent child porn for a couple of reasons the most important being and which of course you ignored and that is child porn requires the act of pedophilia to be committed and a child molested for it to exist. Your consideration of that issue, that practical real issue of how children must be molested to be able to film the child porn is completely absent. I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt on that one when another poster asked why you were defending child molestation and now I wonder are you? Why have you not acknowledged the filiming of a child having sex is a crime we must try prevent? I think that earlier poster's question with due respect needs answering by you or at least clarified by you don't you think? To me it is a crucial weakness in your argument. A glaring one if I may say so. Let's go to the next assumption you have made and that is child pornography is not used as a pathogen to commit pedophilia. What is absolutely known from interviewing pedophiles, rapists, and a wide range of sexual deviants is that they can and do use pornography to engage in crime and facilitate crime. They tell us that. So do their victims. In the specific case of pedophilia, pedophiles and children have both corroborated that its used by child molests as a method to lower the child's inhibitions and/or to show them what to do and these testimonials are recorded and screened to prevent prompting or avoid people with issues that could cause them to fabricate. For example in information I provided to you I provided information that referred to an archival study that reviewed case notes from 78 children who contacted a United Kingdom telephone help-line for children over a six month period. That study found that 41 percent of those childrenreported that their sexual abuse occured either while being shown pornography magazines or videos or becoming involved in the making of them. Would you believe they are all liars? If just one of them is telling the truth does this not warrant some kind of consideration? In fact I find it hard to believe you would pretend you are unaware of the plethora of studies whereby both pedophiles and victims testified as to how child porn played an integral role in the committing of pedophile crimes and how it leads us back to the question you keep refusing to ask and that is - how do you think child porn tapes get made? A child has to be abducted, molested and filmed being molested. If someone makes money selling child porn tapes, that finances the crime of pedophilia and for you to deny that is astonishing. For you to suggest the corelation between getting paid to make, sell and distribute child porn tapes is nonsense with due respect makes no rational sense. The facts speak for themselves. Who are in the tapes? What is the system used to distribute them? You think all child porn tapes are done for free and the children are midgets? In your reasoning, we just completely ignore who gets paid, why they get paid, and what crimes they commit to get paid let alone the victims of these tapes. No harm you say? No harm? Tell that to the child being filmed! I provided information to indicate in a study done by Prof. Belanger which analyzed 55 sex rings, he found that adult pornography was shown to children in 62 percent of the cases. The rings he s tudied recorded the abuse of children (their pedophile crimes) through the creation of pornography. How you can keep stating say there is no corelation to acts of pedophila and child porn and how one is used to carry out the other is beyond me. You live in this selective world where you ignore the studies shown to you and the obvious, that child porn is evidence of a crime and distributing evidence of that crime is provides financial incentive for it to continue. There are also no shortage of testimonials from pedophiles to state how they use the internet and child porn to trade not just evidence of crime but the very children used to make more porno tapes. Where do you think these children come from? Who do you think is filming them? I suppose when you have been in a room sitting across from a pedophile like I have you learn things about how they operate that seem obvious but I guess may not be to you or others. I think it would be common sense to understand when you film a child having sex that this is evidence of pedophilia and the pedophilia occurs because someone is going to get paid to distribute that tape if not for the tape itself a related crime that tape's distribution sets up, i.e., trading of children, travel to Sri Lanka on a sex junket.. Do all pedophiles use child porno> No and I have not suggested that. But that is not the issue. Many child pedophiles I have met need the real thing and don't use them at all. So? That does not change for a second what we are talking about and that is, as long as there is even l child being filmed being molested we have an obligation as a society to try prevent that from happening. I say the same thing about the commission of any crime including sexual crimes and its why I do not believe in the regulation of porn with adults who are consensual unless they depict crimes that are clearly not delineated as not being crimes. There are numerous sex tapes out their showing s + m and the pornographers at the end of the tape clearly indicate it was fabricated and no one was hurt. I say that because some pornographers seem unlike you to accept responsibility for the harm their tapes could encourage and I commend them for at least taking responsibility and trying to do something about it.

I would be one of the first to argue that fundamentalist Islam has promoted violence and intolerance. But then again I would be the first to argue that exact same point about my own religion, Judaism and Christianity and for that matter Hinduism and Sikhism as well. What we do know is humans (usually men) of all religions who engage in strict, rigid and literalist views and particularly those that teach people they are to repress their natural feelings create the pathogen for violence. Yes I think it could most certainly be argued that since fundamenalist Islam is prevalent in much of Muslim society it is responsible for violence and intolerance both within Muslim societies and when such Muslims come into contact with other societies. But no, if you are asking me to stereotype Muslims with the preconceived idea they are all violent and intolerant no thanks. I hate it when people do that with Jews or gays or women or other groups for the same reason I hate it when its done to Muslims. These posts of course provide stories where people share both positive and negative experiences of interacting with Muslims? Uh yah? Could we not do that with any group we choose to identify? I am just not comfortable with any exercise that tries to suggest in general terms one society is more violent then the other even if it is true. How does it help prevent violence making it more acceptable to think badly of an entire group of people? To me that does the exact opposite-it enables negative stereotypical thinking which is a fuel for violence. Oy I agree with BC Chick on this one. Lord what next. No I will not vote for Jack Layton. Stop that. But I do agree with her point. Canadian society has its share of violence. I am not to quick to point fingers at this point. I still see a lot of us men walking around on our knuckles shooting and killing and flinging our poo. I of course would never suggest women are like us. I am a gentlemen and defer to their graces although I do know some women who fling poo with the rest of us swine.

Yah but under the right circumstances so would you. Your point? If it is don't upset 6'2" angry men, I figured that out already. Then again I know some nasty short guys too.

I will respond to your comments Argus which I will place in quotation marks; "If you are sexually attracted to children, then whether or not you can gain access to porn is really not going to affect what seems to be an inate psychological disorder." That is not the issue. I again repeat the issue is not whether child pornography will turn someone into a pedophile. It never was. The issue is and I have provided you clear evidence to support my position and you have provided none to repudiate mine, that child pornography does the following; 1-promotes and increases both actual acts of and the oppotunity and access for pedophiles to molest children; 2-finances criminal organizations and organized behaviour that increases and enables the actual acts of pedophilia to be carried out on an international scale 3-empowers pedophiles to feel that engaging in pedophilia is acceptable 4-requires acts of pedophilia to exist and therefore serves as a pathogen to enable the act of pedophilia 5-provides assistance in enabling the abduction and movement of children across borders. You stated; "I clearly did read them otherwise I would not have pointed out how they contradicted you. " With due respect you did not otherwise you wouldn't keep responding to the points I am raising with a point that is not germaine to the issue. You again keep trying to argue child pornography will not make someone a pedophile. Why I do not know. You also provided this response; "It points out that the results of any study can be grossly distorted depending on the means of selection." Again had you read what I provided you would know that the studies I quoted deliberately safeguard the means of selection to prevent the distortions you accuse them of. The studies I quoted right here from Toronto were not distorted. Please show me how they are. As for crime rates there is nothing distorted about them. The statistics the UN and Interpol keep and the statistics and information police forces keep that track the movement of pedophilia through the internet are not twisted. Actually the methodology Interpol and the FBI and the Metro Toronto Police ( a leader in internet sex crime investigations) to name but 3 organizations use are not hidden from the public neither are the methodoly used by criminologists and forensic psychiatrists. I think we should also clear something up. A lot of statistics may come from two areas-one is actual convictions, the other is the actual self-reporting by pedophiles. You asked me; "Would you disagree with the statement that 99% of child molestation has nothing whatsoever to do with "networks of pedophiles" exchanging their dirty pictures and videos, that in fact, most of it involves family members who have nothing to do with such "networks"?" Argus absolutely not. Let me make this as clear as can be. I absolutely agree with you that a pedophile doesn't suddenly become one because he watches a child porno tape. Absolutely. However no I must tell you the statistics and studies now available clearly show that pedophilia has always been about access and opportunity. Those 2 factors are what predicates whether a pedophile will commit an act of pedophilia. We know pedophilia happens in families precisely beause there is opportunity and access but incestuous pedophilia is only one of many types of pedophilia and to be very specific its more common for incest to happen once a child develops sexual features which is technically yet another kind of pedophilia different from pedophilia where a child with no sexual features is molested. To get clear and accurate statistics and understanding of such sex crimes its really important not to mix the kinds of sexually deviant behaviour we are talking about. That said, when child porn allows pedophiles to network to gain access to children and finance acts of pedophilia and enable pedophiles to organize their access to get to children it most certainly has everything to do with why pedophilia has flourished and is now easier to get away with. There is a reason so many organzied rings of pedophiles from Spain, Denmark, Holland, Canada, the U.S., Russia, Belgium, Thailand, Sri Lanka, even China are now able to provide hotels and junkets to come and screw children or buy and sell them. Let's face it Argus, the internet plus today's international travel together create a far different opportunity to commit sex crimes then say in the 19th century when yes you would probably be right, most of the child molestation would have occurred in families and cities and not in such an organized manner although there is ample history to show organized religion was a primary pathogen that enabled pedophiles to network. You stated; "I'm saying that child pornography - the real kind, not the kind as defined in the Criminal Code of Canada - is the byproduct of child molestation, and eliminating it will have no affect whastsoever on the child molestation itself because that is inspired by the sexual drives of the people involved, not by porn.' On that particular point I would agree with you that in terms of a clinical cure for pedophilia no, stopping a pedophile from watching child porn will not cause them to suddenly stop being a pedophile. Of course not. In fact what we know as of today, is that there is no known therapy that has ever been known to prevent pedophiles from having their sex drive. In fact when the testacles of some pedophiles were removed they went out and purchased hormones to create erections to go on to molest children - which would suggest in addition to testosterone there are other things going on in the pedophile's brain driving them on. However again you have missed the point. The purpose of regulating the internet to try prevent the dissemination of child porn has nothing to do with trying to clinically cure pedophiles and everything to do with trying to prevent it from creating opportunity and access to children. It is not meant to be a cure for pedophilia but one of many tools used to combat and try prevent or at least contain pedophilia. You asked; "Do you really think that if all the cameras in the world were to magically disappear there would be no more child molestation?" Absolutely not. No more then if we were to magically prevent regular pornography there would then be no consensual adult sexual intercourse. Of course not. That is not the point. The point of regulating child porn is to reduce it and contain it as much as possible by restricting the opportunity and access it enables. It is not meant to be a cure simply one of many approaches I would suggest a healthy society needs to engage in to protect itself from disintegration. If we can not protect our children from sexual molestation what kind of society do we expect to see continue? Do we not have enough emotionally scarred people engaged in repeating cycles of dysfunctional behaviour? You stated; "It has been shown over and over again that pornography, even extreme and violent pornography, does not cause violence against women." Actually no on that one you are dead wrong. There are now numerous studies that show the corelation to men who feel empowered by watching violence against women in porno which then serves as part of the social process that leads them to take the next step. What we do know is that people who watch violence whether sexual or non sexual, become desensitive to the acts of violence they watch which then means they are more able to carry out those acts of violence and not be affected by them. Now where you draw the line between how much of the pathology of a disturbed person comes from what they watch and become desensitivized to and how much is genetically pre-ordained in their dna no one knows for sure. But what we do know is a child who witnesses their mother brutally beaten has a far higher rate of probability of going on to become an abuser of women. Is that because they inherited a gene? Maybe. Studies have shown certain tendies towards violence are inherited but many others are simply learned and then some a mix of both. Surely you don't need me or any study to tell you the obvious - person brought up in a culture that promotes the belief that sexual violence is acceptable, will assimilate and pursue those cultural values in their relationships. What we do know is that in our society where we are taught to purchase and dispose and then purchase again as a precept of our cultural values and measurable means of defining value (which of course fuels our economy predicated on us buying and not not holding on to things) we have been programmed to dispose. This programming of disposing material products has of course infected and spread to our human relationships. We dispose of relationships with other human as we do our products and the reason for that is we have most certainly been desensitivized by our media. You only need look at the cultural of music to see how it promotes violence against women to understand how it would be assimilated by both young men and women and go on to become socially acceptable behaviour in their culture. When I have dealt with young men who have raped, what I have encountered are people who have a whole range of factors that could have made them what they are but they certainly I can tell you feel empowered by cultural messages to do what they do. It would be far easier for me to work with young men teaching them respect for women if they couldn't counter what I say with their own cultural values that continue to teach them violence against women is o.k. I am not some crazed lunatic who wants to castrate everyone and control humans. I am more likely to be sympathetic to your classic concerns as to freedom of expression which you have mentioned in other posts and I know underline most if not all your arguements. No I do not want thought police and castration squads. But I do think we need to regulate certain behaviours and child porno is one of them and sexually violent porno is the other. For me I focus on those 2 subject areas and for me the crucial one with children flows from the fact they are vulnerable and can't consent and so need added protection. as for sexual violence against anyone I personally, and this I admit is my personal opinion, I believe it is a red flag that something is seriously wrong if the only way a human can express affection is to hurst or mutilate someone. I am not sure if that requires any further explanation on my part. I do not relish a society that molests its children and engages in brutal violence against women or the vulnerable. Its the same sort of reason I would argue we also have a higher standard of care to protect the disabled or seniors. I am trying to argue it Argus not from the classic Liberal approach but the classic Conservative one where possible as I believe the classic conservative approach is more likely to try promote regulation people choose rather then have imposed on them. I am not sure if it is possible though when it comes to criminal behaviour and in particular violence whether we can ever expect humans to behave in an enlightened manner and evolve past our primative behaviour. I am just not sure whether the only life form on this planet that indiscriminately kills will ever learn. Hope I have given you spirited debate on the matter.

Batman. Yes I see a theme emerging. I prefer the Phantom Stranger or Elastic Man (figure that last one out).

I don't think Russian people are villains. I differentiate people from their politicians and governments. Do I think Russia should be punished? No I am not a dominatrix. Not into spandex and mouthpieces.

I personally don't think Argus is defending kiddy porn as being acceptable that is a different issue. I will let him speak for himself but my impression is he is making a point about the dangers of censorship based on jumping to conclusions that may be premature. Also one of the arguements is if you try censor it, it will go underground. Another point is if you are too strict with regulation of the internet it punishes the innocent and prevents freedom of speech. I think that is what Argus is getting at. I think with due respect he is taking a classic Libertarian approach which I disagree with but really are disagreement is over the extent of regulation. I believe we need some, he may not believe we need any. Like Argus though I would never want regulation to be so severe it does things other then what it was intended to do. That is the slippery slope with these kinds of issues. Child porn though I believe is an exception. There are studies by a person in Australia suggesting if pedophiles were given compuerized films of child sex he thinks it can be used to control pedophiles. I disagree with that. There is also a police chief in England who said he did not feel child porn causes pedophilia. Me personally I strongly disagree. Pedophile rings in Dennmark, Holland, Spain, Belgium and cells in England, Canada, the U.S., the Phillipines, all used the child porn internet sites to network and grow in strength. Its a serious enough topic the UN is meeting regularly about it.