Rue

Sharkman I forgot to respond to you. I admit my theory may be out to lunch. In regards to whether it tips Israel's hand or not, sometimes one tips their hand deliberately to avoid having to go the next step. There is precedent for it, i.e., deliberately tipping your hand if its in fact intended to stop something else from happening that hasn't yet been decided. Could Israel be sending the clerical council in Iran a message to control its President? Far fetched? Maybe.Maybe not. I mean who the f..ck really knows what's going on other then its always been a quagmire and tinder box of possibilities.

Sulaco, I wonder, is this the only massacre or have there been others....I suspect there have been many more....why some people over look Syria's behaviour towards its own people I do not know...the mukbarrat and the use of the government to brutally repress its people remains ignored-I wonder sometimes why the press does not find any interest in such things.....the notion of Syria being a peaceful innocent country minding its own business makes me want to puke...but then I am an infidel and dream of a day when there are democracies in Syria and Lebanon and those two nations and Jordan and Israel form an economic common market. Yah I know. I will go back on my medication now.

The problem with the Liberal party is that it was run as a dictatorship by Chretiens who stayed in too long. This then forced Martin's hand at ousting him, and divided the party. Asdd to that staying in power too long corupted the LIberals and under Chretien's years of dictatorship, they became a pathetic third world patronage system unaccountable and out of touch. The party still has not acknowledged its coruption and lack of morality. The party still continues its feud between Chretien and Martin camps. Add to the equation is an arrogant ego maniac called Michael Ignatieff who will not stop until Dion is out of his way and he takes what he sees as his. Dion was simply a compromise candidate. He ended up being selected for only two reasons-no one wanted Rae or Ignatieff and he was the only other one available. Everyone knew Gerard Kennedy was a lightweight. Dion's failure as a leader is simple. He is an academic. He has no people skills. He is a prickly, stiff, academic. Ignatieff is no different. To run a party one needs more then an academic. People feel Trudeau was an academic but he was far more then that, he was someone who understood people and knew how to ignite peoples' passions. He knew how to work a crowd and use his charisma. He was not just an academic. He was a player of people. Lester Pearson again to many was just a civil servant and an academic, but he was not just that. He knew how to appeal to people's feelings. Academics like Ignatieff and Dion are all about repressing feeling and showing everyone how logical and erudite they are. Rae has the same problem. So that is what is missing, is someone with a common touch, a vision people can feel. Dion can not capture anyone's imagination and neither will Ignatieff with his oevrwhelming narcissism and need to play with himself in public. The Liberal Party is undergoing a second Chretien-Martin feud only now Dion and Ignatieff are the proxies and Rae sits in the wings hoping to sneak up the middle. None of those three are inspiring. The LIberals are destined to the wilderness while some unknown leader of the next generation no one even knows of is years away from his or her destiny. What ails the LIberals is having no natural leader, and a party still full of morally delinquent corupt nasties who haven't found jobs elsewhere yet.

Responses to bold&cold'; "Just what do you think we should do with repeat offenders....they deserve to be put in jails." The issue is simple as this. If you want to make moral judgements and believe people belong in jail then the reality is you have to build jails for them and then pay a minimum of $60,000 per prisoner a year just to feed and clothe them. Willing to do that? That is the point. You might also want to ask yourself does repeatedly placing drug addicts in jail do anything beneficial for society. I would suggest to you it does nothing but cause more crime and to find that out you need to check out the stats and try understand cycles of criminal behaviour and what feeds them and what can contain or reduce them. To genuinely, contain, reduce, and get to the underlying cause of drug addiction would require we spend money on treatment intervention programs. Politicians don't want to do that. They have whipped people like you up into seeing drug addicts as worthless scum that need to be punished. What they don't tell you is in the long run, your need to punish them costs society more money then in the short term if money was spent to treat them as being ill not criminals. Drug addiction is a health matter in need of health regulation in my opinion. You are confusing a health issue with organized drug trade. Take a look. The people who end up in jail are the low end petty addicts, not the organized criminals. What Harper's proposals do is to focus on drug addicts not the organized drug syndicates. You think you are doing the police a favour focusing in on petty drug addicts? Talk to them. What they need support with is organized drug syndicates and getting at the people at the top not some pathetic junkie. The point I am making is the same politicians who ignite your moral indignity and feelings of moral righteousness towards junkies and get you all riled up wanting to imprison junkies do NOT allocate any money to more prisons or police enforcement of organized drug syndicates. To do that they would need to increase taxes. So what they do is get people like you all whipped in a frenxy hating junkies and petty criminals so they look like they are doing something while they do sweet fuck all about organized crime. They get you all hot to trot, focus your attention away from the fact they are doing diddle swat about organized crime get you to vogte them back in office by getting you to feel good about yourself by thinking you are better then junkies, then once elected, their proposals to amend the bills they get you all hot about never make it to the third reading because when they are told to pass the bill they will need to raise taxes to build more prisons to house them, they let the issue fade. By then you have been manipulated and they got what they wanted another 4 years in office. Meanwhile the real problem, the organized crime syndicate operations, once again are not dealt with and do not have to be dealt with. Why bother? They have you Mr. Voter all primed on junkies. "You spout off and yet you do not even know just what Harpper has in mind when it comes to more prisons." No actually I am studying it carefully right now along with many other lawyers and I "spout off" precisely because I actually made a point to research what Harper said and what he did not say. Perhaps you should try the same. Do your own research and come back on this post and tell me where in any of his comments or proposed amendments he has earmarked funding for more prisons and where in his proposals he says anything about organized crime and providing more funding to police for intelligence operations as to organized crime syndicates. You won't find any. " He may well decide that the country needs a large super jail to be put in some remote area of the country, and he may well have it staffed winth in the present prison budgets." Now you are being silly. No there are no plans for a super jail and no the present prison budgets can't even afford to maintain the crumbling prison system we have. More to the point there is no such thing as a "super jail". "Super jails" as you refer to them would cost a fortune to run and that is why prison systems have in fact stayed away from them. So this is not junk food you super size. No you can't create super dumps for your refuse. Doesn't work that way. See if you create to large a site for your decay, it can't be controlled. There are limits to how many prisoners you can dump in one place. Its time you do research on the state of federal and provincial penitentiaries, understand the over-crowding, the lack of funding, and the decay of the buildings and what it requires to manage one. You might want to start by visiting a prison and speaking with its guards and the people who work there and are faced with danger every day precisely because of what I am saying. "Have you seen or heard what he will say on this? " Yes. And like most people who have analyzed what he said, we realize he is just blowing hot air for a quick sound bite thinking he was headed for an election. "Again, where do you get your facts?" The same place you can. You can go to Statistics Canada and look at the crime statistics they keep in Juristat. Or you can simply type into Google or Yahoo, "funding for prisons" and take it from there, "Harper can easily put a referendum in any election call for a reformed and elected senate," Uh no he can't. There is an amending formula in s.'s 38, and 41-44 of the Constitution Act, not to mention a Veto Act, and many judicial decisions that have made it clear, the federal government can not unilaterally change the Senate's composition or for that matter term without provincial consent. There is a specific formula that must be followed requiring the approval of at least Ontario, Alberta and Quebec. So no there will be no referendum. You can't hold referendums on whether people want to commit unconstitutional acts and Harper is well aware of that fact. "Harper has been quite vocal about senate reform and the big difference is he will probably consult the people before making it a action, where liberal would just act on there own thoughts..." Harper can be as vocal as he wants-he knows the provinces will never agree on what he says. Its easy to spout off at the mouth when you know it will never be taken seriously. Your notion that Harper consults the people is kind of silly don't you think? Have you seen anything in the way he runs government that suggests this is a man that consults with his own Ministers let alone "the people". You are funny. By the way, the very same polls you refer to inr egards to senate reform and you should read them, show that the average Canadian hasn't got a clue what the Senate does or why it was created and what should replace it or how it should be reformed. For that matter there is no consensus on how it should be reformed or whether it should be abolished. The popular perception it must be changed stops at the concept something is wrong with the Senate, after that people do not know why there is something wrong. I think before you rely on the masses you should realize they haven't a clue what it is they want other then they want or don't want something. In regards to your comment that Harper was seeking a consensus come now read what he says. if you read what Harper has said, you would know it was deliberately provocative and designed to alienate Ontario and Quebec not get them on board. You don't make deliberately provocative comments that alienate the majority of the country's population if you are seeking consensus. No he was show boating for the West. "he senates are there for a sober second thought" From what I hear trying to keep them sober is wishful thinking. On a more serious note, there is no doubt Senate committees over the years have done some interesting work questioning and discussing bills but the fact is they do not do anything House of Commons parliamentary committees don't already do. Its true they do such work in a less blatantly partisan way, but none the less they don't do anything a parliamentary committee does not do or a legal counsel in the civil service can't do. So they are a costly exercise in providing the kind of advise that is already done. Senators can't deny bills back to foil the will of the people. At best they can delay passing of bills and the constitution limits what they can delay and why. They have no role in any money bills. You really should try understand why 5 provinces abolished their Senates. There was a reason for that. "But if they pass a law that is in some way against the Charter of Rights," The Charter of Rights was passed precisely because of the amending formula I have told you about. When you read it, please go to s.38, 41-44 of the Constitutin Act and check out the Veto Act, you will see one thing the Charter did was alienate Quebec precisely because it set a new stage in constitutional law. It basically said the judiciary can now overrule federal and provincial legislation based on individual rights notions superceding group right notions. This places the federal system in a direct conflict with Quebec or say the aboriginal collective when they try to pass legislation to protect or recognize group rights. English Canada sees the Charter as the protector of individual rights but if you are aboriginal or a French Quebecer you see it as a device that can threatens your very existence. Also keep in mind there are nuemrous unwritten rules and conventions that are technically NOT law, that form part of this equation and you have not mentioned or considered and have a strong role in what the feds and provs do and do not do. Myself I personally believe the senate is an outmoded chamber no longer needed and should be abolished. I also repeat again I think Harper deliebrately blows hot air to make himself sound tough. Its all huff and puff and bluff and he knows it and its designed for your benefit and I am glad it gets a rise out of you. Vote for the guy if rocks you. To me he is just another politician saying what he thinks will get him a vote. Me I don't like politicians. Find them all smelly. Too much gas. It causes global warming.

Of course not. Absolutely no mention or reference to it.

Here are some web-sites as to the Nazi connection Higgly knows nothing about: http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/medigest/may00/arabnazi.html http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/isreport/au...rafatnazi1.html http://www.sullivan-county.com/immigration/nazi_arab.htm http://www.jcpa.org/phas/phas-eiteneier-s06.htm http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/is...6e-a3c06a460e73 http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3248081,00.html http://media0.terrorismawareness.org/files/NaziRoots.pdf http://www.nyjtimes.com/cover/03-22-05/Ara...CanItBeTrue.htm http://geocities.com/arabracismandislamicjihad/Mufti1.html Now since it is Higgly’s m.o. to dismiss any such web-sites as being Zionist and therefore untruthful I ask any one you to take any of the facts I provide below and prove they are untrue, be my guest: • In 1937, Adolf Eichmann and Herbert Hagen were sent to Palestine to establish a framework to provide the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, with military and financial aid by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy • In 1940, King Ghazi (son of King Faisal I) died, leaving only his four-year-old son to govern; Emir Abdul-Illah, his regent for the young Iraqi king, appointed Rashid Ali al-Kaylani as Prime Minister and Ali Al-Kaylanu, was a string supporter if Nazi Germany and guaranteed the supply of natural resources to Hitler while the Mufti acted as Iraq`s representatives with foreigners • Kaylani requestedfrom Hitler his right to "deal with Jews" in Arab states - a request that was granted and the exchange is documented in released documents • Haj Amin al-Husseini, issued a fatwa (Islamic religious ruling) calling on all Muslims to help the pro-Axis government in Iraq • in May of 1941, David Raziel, leader of the right-wing Irgun, and a set of commandos set out for Iraq to assassinate the Mufti on a mission sponsored by the Churchill government but Raziel was killed by a bomb dropped from a German plane and the Mufti fled to Europe dressed as a woman • on November 28, 1941 the Mufti was received by Hitler, who agreed to establish a bureau for Husseini that then spread propaganda on behalf of Nazi Germany, organized spy rings in Europe and the Middle East, and established Muslim Nazi SS divisions and Wehrmacht units in Bosnia, the Balkans, North Africa and Nazi-occupied Russia • the Mufti was named SS gruppenfuehrer by Heinrich Himmler and referred to as the "Fuhrer of the Arab World" by Hitler • the largest of the Muslim Nazi SS units was the 13th division, known as Hanjar • the Mufti also set up Waffen SS divisions known as Skanderbeg (Albanian Muslims) and Kama (Yugoslavian Muslims) • Husseini "organized Croatian units that massacred hundreds of thousands of Serbian Orthodox Christians. • Jacenovac, the third largest death camp, where more than 200,000 people met their death, was run by Croatian Ante Pavelic who was ab aid Husseini • 800,000 Yugoslavian civilians were murdered by Pavelic's pro-Axis Ustaschi regime • an Arab Legion was founded and fought under the German flag but were sent to the Russian front, where they were wiped out in the Caucasus region • Sami al-Joundi, founder of the Ba’ath Party in Suria was a Nazi ally and supporter • a popular WWII song in the Middle East include the words: Bissama Allah, oria alard Hitler - in heaven Allah, on earth Hitler • in October 1933, the pro-Axis Young Egypt Party and had a storm-trooper unit, and included Gamal Abdel Nasser • Nasser's brother, Nassiri, was the translator of Hitler's Mein Kampf into Arabic, describing the Fascist despot in glowing terms • when Nasser became leader of Egypt he appointed Joachim Daumling, the former Gestapo chief in Dusseldorf, to build the Egyptian secret service • the Gestapo chief of Warsaw organized the Egyptian security police • Anwar Sadat • The Mufti brought in a former Nazi commando officer into Egypt to teach Yasir Arafat • Nazi agent, Adam Vollhardt, went to Palestine in July 1938, and worked with Palestinian and Arab leaders • Dr. Franz Reichart, worked with Palestinian and coordinated Arab and German propaganda and headed the German Telegraphic Agency in Jerusalem

I guess going and finding out for yourself is out of the question. Its easier to just huff and puff at others right? Try find out for yourself and then maybe some of us will take the time to debate you in a manner that doesn't always come across like you hold the monopoly on truth and if you don't feel like acknowledging something, it can't exist.

Its the same air defence system. It has nothing to do with balls. The system in Iran is not fully functional, the one in Syria is. Its a matter of practicality. Also keep in mind my theory is just that. I am the first to admit I could be wrong and it was in fact a mission that wiped out a nuclear facility in the early stages of development. Either way you call it an act of aggression? That's nice. Love the selectivity in who you define as aggressive. Syria is in a state of war with Israel remember? It's also kind of silly to classify it as an act of aggression when Syria spends all its time funding and housing hundreds of terror cells dedicated to wiping Israel out and assisting them plan and carry out operations against Israel. Would you have us believe Syria is a passive, gentle, peaceful state sitting around minding its own business when it was suddenly violated? Give me a break puhleeze. Trying to portray Syria as a victim is a joke. But then I suppose in your world, Syria is just an innocent, peace loving victim of bad bad bad Israeli aggressors who have nothing better to do then attack it for NO REASON AT ALL just because they are nasty.

As usual you have no idea what you think you compare to make your justification for blurring the line between Jews and Israelis. First of all not EVERY synagogue contrary to your generalization, have references to Israel in front of them. Now let's try explain what you do not understand but think you do about Judaism. The link between Judaism as a religion and Israel as a nation is religious. In the Jewish religion, Jews are believed to have a responsibility to honour God's wishes and one of the ways to do this is through a nation. thus the link to Israel and no that does not give you the justfiication to blur the line between Jews and Israelis, Judaism and Zionism or anything else, if your generalizations are to be negative and try simplify Jewish thought and reduce it to your subjective negative belief that Jews can not be self-determined, but everyone else can. Its far more complicated then that. More the point your comparison makes absolutely no sense. If you understood anything about Sharia law and Islam, you would understand,a Mosque does not need to make a specific reference to Libya or Egypt or Morrocco or any other Muslim nation because in Islam, there is no distinction between state and religion and so no need to single out a specific name to the nation but there is a concept for the Muslim nation in Islam and there is a concept that Muslims be self-determined through nationhood no different then Jews in Judaism or say what the Christians did with the Vatican and countless Christian states. So your suggesting they are different in that regard is nonsense. In fact in the Jewish religion the nation of Israel does NOT define non Jews within the nation as inferiors as is the case with Sharia law within the Muslim states. There is no concept of dhimmitude in the Jewish religion. The Jewish reference to its ties to an Israeli nation from which it then symbolizes its honour to God was never defined as was the case in Islam as a concept that excluded non Jews from the right to peacefully co-exist. So not only is your comparison nonsensical in that it tries to suggest apples are oranges because they are both fruit, it fails to grasp the basic premises for the reason for the link between Jews and their spiritual expression through a nation and it gets us to the pith and substance of why when you criticize Israeli policies, you think you can rationalize that this allows you to criticize the Jewish religion and people who follow Judaism.

Feminism is simply the study and analysis of how things specificaly effect women as a gender differently then they do men. You mistake feminism for the specific manner in which it may be used by certain people. Feminism like anything with the word "ism" at the end of it can be used in many manners and for many different reasons and purposes. Sounds to me like you have a preconception of what feminism means to you and so make the above sweeping generalization. Feminism may be quite sane for example if it contributes to understanding for example how medications react differently in a woman's body then they do a man's. Using it in this manner, it saves lives and makes perfect sense. Feminism to me is an ambiguous word and until you specify what it means to you, its pretty difficult to address your perceptions of it. Sounds to me like you have this stereotypical image of feminists being angry, ball busting diesel dykes. Either that or sounds like you never had daughters or grand-daughters. Ease up. It may be not all "feminists" are lookin for yer balls. In fact I the feminists I know don't need your balls, they got their own already. My daughters understand certain issues effect women differently then men and there's implications to that they should be aware of. If that makes them insane, so be it.

Its all bullshit. Any politician can get easy brownie points sounding like he's all for law and order. Its a cheap cheap way to get a vote but its pure bull shit. Why? Because the same politicians, i.e., as is the case with Harper this time, love to puff and huff over arresting bad h=guys and putting them in jail but listen closely, do you hear Harper saying he will spend money to build more prisons? Of course not...and that is why he is so full of shit. Its easy to say jail people, its not easy to say, oh by the way I will have to raise taxes to build the prisons for these people we will now keep in jail. Until Harper acknowledges let alone indicates how he will build more prisons, his huff and puff is simply bullshit because what you don't see is the laws will not be changed because when push comnes to shove he will be told, if you want the laws you claim you want Mr. Harper, you have to give us more money for more prisons, then he as is always the case with all politicians wiill shut up, abandon his huff and puff and move on to some other populist sound bite. Another example of this bullshit. The way Harper huffs and puffs about Senate reform. He deliberate calls for it knowing the amending formula to allow any reform will prevent it from ever happening-so he can huff and puff and make it sound like Ontario and Quebec are evil and don't want to share power in the Senate when the real issue is why the fuck do we need when if all it does is serve as an expensive patronage chamber and does the kind of work parliamentary committees already do. If its such a prized institution why were 5 provinces able to get rid of them with no side effects. Again it serves as a way to be a populist and make nice farting noises to attract the population's attention but its just smelly gas being spewed about and like people who fart I try stay up wind from them.

Of course. What does that have to do with Israel? Are the Israelis also responsible for the Japanese war criminals the US took in? I think the point here is, that Syria and Egypt took in many Nazis and the Nazis were out in the open running the Syrian army and mukbarat for many years. Nazis played a prominent role with many Palestinian terror cells and groups. The kind of anti-semitism we see in the Middle East today was deliberately cultivated and spread by the Nazis in the Middle East. I think its a stretch suggesting since the US took in German or Japanese monsters after World War Two makes it acceptable for Syria to have done the same with Nazis. Not only do 2 wrongs not make a right but it doesn't change the basic nature that its wrong whoever does it. I hate these arguements that say, its not so bad, everyone does it...know why? Because when I hear such arguements they never ever are used in reference to Israel. The lax standards never do seem apply to Israel, just everyone and anyone but Israel. For example, if anyone else tries to defend themselves and seek existence, we find that acceptable, when Israel does it....hmmmmm. I know you disagree but I think the double standard for criticizing Israel flows from a thousands of year old concept that Jews should not be self-determined because Jews as a people are undesireable and the last thing we want from undesireables is their self-determination. Ironically Palestinians found themselves placed in the exact same position. You no doubt like to blame Israel for it. I prefer of course to trace it back to its two creators, the Arab League who had a choice to create a second Palestinian state for Palestinians but instead used them as fodder and when they lost their war, deliberately caged them as political pawns to display to the world thinking it would get them back what they thought belonged to them. This all comes down to one thing-the Arab League's refusal to allow Israelis less then 1% of the Middle East to live in and forcing the situation we have today. It to me is remarkable how in this equation the person who started and lost the war causing this mess is now conveniently ignored and one of the two victims of their idiocy is portrayed as a villain because it struggles to exist in the face of constant terror. I say it again, the Arab League created this mess, and its time the Arab League did more then sit silent as it always does, and sit down with Israel and make a concerted effort to disarm terrorists in its nations. Its time the Arab League attone for its decision to cage Palestinians and use them as pawns.

In response to Canadian Blue; "As compared to calling Palestinians modern day Nazis?" I have never once referred to Palestinians as modern day Nazis. Palestinians are people. If your point is Palestinians are human beings and should not be negatively characterized because terrorists use their name I agree with you. "Have you paid any attention to the poster I responded too and how he believes Palestinians should be treated. Perhaps the point was lost on you as the poster said that the Palestinians deserve anything that comes their way due to the actions of the Mufti. " I have to made it very clear in all my posts that I do not believe Palestinians or Israelis "deserve" to suffer. "So please explain to me how building a huge wall, and occasionally bombing the Palestinians resulting in a large proportion of collateral damage is productive?" If the wall prevents terrorists from coming in and killing people that is its purpose. Any killing of an innocent Palestinian can never be productive, only tragic. Is it an inevitable consequence of fighting terrorists-at this point I honestly say to you without trying to say its acceptable-I truly believe the IDF does not do it deliberately but as a necessary consequence of having the moral responsibility to defend its people from terror. Can they do a better job? Yes. Should any innocent Palestinians die, no, no and no just like no Israeli should have to die. Again I say to you, if we could find a way to disarm the terrorists, the IDF becomes a moot point. "Which is why I believe in negotiation instead of bombing the shit out of the Palestinians. " Please I implore you, do just a bit more reading. You are mixing up some concepts. Was the aerial war in Lebanon the best way to deal with Hezbollah, no. But you are mixing that up with what is happening in Gaza right now. In fact each day there are a minimum of 33 missiles or more shot into Israel. To Canadian readers this seems like nothing because they do not live with missiles coming in to their feet daily. May I remind you what Canada did during the alleged FLQ crisis with an alleged bomb in a mail-box. Canada invoked a War Measures Act. In fact they suspended far more legal rights of their citizens then what Israel does today. Is it right the IDF shoots back? If I shot missiles at you today, do you think you would not go running to the police? They have to do something. They have a moral responsibility to defend their people. If they stayed silent it would only get worse. The fact is if the IDF did not use restraint far more Palestinians would be dead. To understand that you need to go there and see the tiny size between where the Palestinian missiles are shot from to where they are sent and where the populations are on both sides of the border. Israel does not bomb the shit out of the Gaza. It uses low flying helicopters with missile strikes based on sattellite photoes on specific targets or it has its people go undercover and place remote control devices in specific places. Innocent people are dying yes. They die because Hamas has a deliberate tactic of shooting its missiles from homes, hospitals, community centres, schools, then asking children to bring back the rocket launchers after they flee. Hamas deliberately places civilians in harms way so that they get shot and killed when Israel responds. Its a deliberate tactic to use its peoples' deaths to incite and inflame people such as yourself. Is it right Israel kills Palestinians caught in the fire? You mix up "right" a moral concept with unfortunate. Of course Israel has a right to defend itself from extinction. Is it unfortunate, yes. Is it tragic, yes. Is it horrible, yes. Again all I can say is if these terrorists who use their children as fodder can be disarmed, there is no need for the IDF to shoot back. "As long as both sides continue those actions their will never be peace in the middle east. " Yes all conflicts are tit for tat and the key to resolving them is seperating the parties. Everytime Israel has disengaged and withdrawn Hamas has escalated. Find away to neutralize the terror cells and the IDF will withdraw and become a moot point. Good luck doing that. "However it seems you have already absolved one side of all guilt." No not at all. See I know Israeli soldiers. I can't absolve their guilt. I can't speak for them or Israelis. All I can say is many are burdened with a guilt you can not understand but I feel they have no reason to feel guilty about wanting to live and fighting for survival. You mistake my feeling that Israelis have a right to exist and live without terrorists constantly attacking them with absolving them of guilt. I can't do that. I sound like an arrogant jackass but don't mistake my passion with humility underneath all the words. I can only speak for myself. If you read what I write, you would know I feel much regret as to what I have seen there byt my sentiments mean sweet fuck all. What these two conflicted and victimized parties need is not someone to morally judge them but help them find ways to heal. Guilt is something that comes with being exposed to trauma. To help someone heal you can't help them let go of their guilt until you help them survive their trauma which they relive over and over. The last thing they need are people like us judging them whether they be Palestinian or Israeli. No don't mistake my existential concept of what the Israelis are struggling with as absolving anything. For generations to come both Palestinians and Israelis will have to live with themselves but what I do know is its not up to me to judge them. I save my wrath and judgement for terrorists. "My point was about how frivilously the term terrorist is used." I think the word terrrorist has been misused by people who do not understand what terrorists are. My point is terrorists are not romantic figures. This is not Lawrence of Arabia. Nelson Mandela who you mentioned did not condone at any time the use of terror or violence and he did not hate white people and preach for them to be exterminated. Please don't suggest Hamas has anything in common with him. If you want I can give you names of Palestinians involved in the peace movement who if you want to use the word freedom fighter are far more deserving of it and no they will not engage in terror or violence. I know Israelis just like that as well. Those are the people I choose to think about as role models. "So were you against negotiations with the PLO as well?" Do you think anything I have written remotely would suggest that? All I would say is this. Its not realistic for you to think someone will sit down with someone who will not renounce their belief they want the other side exterminated. Until the side that makes it clear it believes in extermination renounces such a conviction only a fool would sit across from them. What's to negtoiate-how many days it will take them to exterminate you? Also may I please ask you read what Arafat did before, during and after the Oslo accord negotiations. Please read what Bill Clinton and Ehud Barak wrote. Then go read Arafat's own words. What emerges is a story of a man (Arafat) who negotiated in bad faith and never intended to achieve peace with Israel and all along wanted to take all of Israel and Jordan. "Which those on the right conveniently do." I think what you might be seeing some times is what I am saying-people who feel sitting across from terrorists who will not renounce certain beliefs is impossible. Its no different say then the IRA who before they sat down for peace talks were asked to renounce on-going terror activities an disarm. Do some people classify all Arabs or Muslims as bad people-probably. No I embrace and talk to any human who believes in peaceful negotiation no matter how hopeless it may seem. "I'm simply showing that atrocities have happened on the other side." Be my guest. If I think they are imbalanced I will debate them. I confess I ramble. Its fun. I love to ramble. "Perhaps, however groups turn violent once terror is used by the state. Ex. Sharpeville Massacre by electing Arial Sharon?" If you in fact take the time to see what, who and why Sharon did what he did you will see not just a fat, violent man, but someone who was stuck picking up the pieces at a time when Ehud Barak gambled and put the very existence of Israel on the line only to have Arafat ridicule him and say to him right to his face-"I was joking I don't want peace...this was just a game..". Israel was left with Arafat admitting all his negotiations to that point were done in bad faith. Then as Arafat's power crumbled due to his aids and dementia, Hamas and other groups came to the forefront. You want to portray Sharon as an ogre, be my guest. His warts are there. Yithak Rabin he was not. Was he an angel? No. However the simplistic analysis of this man as a brute and pig is I would suggest not entirely true there are sides of this man you do not see and he will never want you to see that would suggest otherwise for if you were to see that side of him, then that would mean so could Hamas and that would then have been interprated as weakness and invite death. In regards to Arafat, I see him for what he is-someone who ran a drug cartel, then used the cover and pretense of the PLO to consolidate his power and become nothing more then a drug lord who used the PLO as a cover. I see him as a criminal and a charlatan. There are many others in the PLO I would prefer to concentrate on because I know people in the Fatah moderate faction who would never agree to violence and who I know one day will find peace. Did Sharon make a mistake allowing the SLA to get into a Palestinian Refugee camp and engage in a massacre of refugees, yes but the suggestion it was deliberate and premeditated on his part has emerged as not being exactly what happened-what we now see emerging is a man who genuinely did not know what to do, not someone who sat there and said, go kill them but someone faced with the belief that he genuinely could not get involved. Was it wrong, yes. Many things Israeli politicians have done have been wrong and will continue to be wrong. They are human. The difference between them and terrorists though, is they do not set out to engage in violence and terror to express themselves. The differences between a conventional soldier and a terrorist are best left for another post. " So you talk about how blood is blood, yet you absolve one side of any crimes." I never have. As I said blood is blood. "I recognize that Israel is not 100% innocent, and the same goes with Palestine. " No one said Israeli policies have not been defective. What I am saying is please differentiate between specific policies you criticize and I humbly suggest you don't let them fuel you into seeing bad guys and good guys. To me this is a simple matter-what happens when terrorism can not be disengaged. "You talk about sugar coating, and then state that Israel is somehow completely innocent, as is the United States with regards to the middle east. " No I have never stated Israel or the US are completely innocent. "Odd you didn't use the same rambling for a seperate poster who obviously views the deaths of Palestinians as lesser than those of Israelis. " I have already chastized many on this forum for doing the above. I responded specifically to you not the other poster. "So your solution is do nothing." No that is not what I have said. What I have said is the key is to disengage the terrorists so that both sides can negotiate. That is possible. "You mean the bombardment and rocket attacks in Palestine don't come from Israel. " The rocket attacks on civilians come from Hamas and Islamic Jihad in the Gaza at Israeli civilians. Israel does not bomb or rocket attack Palestinian civilians delibertaley and premeditadely as does these terror cells. Its responses are specific not sporadic and certainly not daily and indiscriminate as is the case of Hamas. "This is why right wing ideology is so bankrupt. It doesn't matter how many millions get killed because the ends always justify the means. " You make sweeping generalizations based on your own subjective concept of what you think right wingers believe. May I suggest classifying people as right or left then assigning tem subjective characteristics you assume might not be accurate. "You still can't figure out what the appropriate punishment for Palestinians is?" Why would I want to punish Palestinians? What I want is for someone to disarm terrorists and make them go away so that both Palestinians and Israelis can live in peace.

No when I do not like the way you mistate facts I counter them. You sir do not have a monopoly on telling us what the facts are. Now move on before I apppoint you the Grand Poopbah of the Order of Water Buffalo. Do you really want such responsibility for humanity?

Canadian Blue, you trot out some tired, simplistic statements; "How many Palestinian civilians have been killed since 1948 as compared to Israel?" The above question is and let me say it clearly idiotic not just absurd. Your question infers if more Palestinians have died then Israelis then the deaths of Palestinians has superior moral meaning to the deaths of Israelis. That is bull-shit. You insult the deaths of both Palestinians and Israels when you do this. The point is, one death on either side is too many. The point is ANY death is unacceptable. The point is your taking deaths and using them like goals in a hockey game exploits the real issue, that innocent people have died and no yoru turning this into a pissing match with my deaths are bigger then your deaths is not the way any moral, decent, logical, rational human being looks at a conflict. All your question does is indicate the obvious-that you seek to exploit this conflict to incite and present one side as suffering more then the other. Each suffer equally. Also get this straight. In a country with a small population. When a person dies, it has a different impact then in a country with a huge population. In your nonsensical inference that number of deaths alone is a way to understand impact on a society you reflect an absolut ignorance as to the impact a death has on either Palestinian or Israeli societies. "One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. Many considered Nelson Mandela a terrorist as well, while at the same time completely ignoring apartheid and the other devestating actions committed by the South African government. " Again you trot out an unoriginal and nonsensical phrase. To start with Nelson Mandela did not consecrate a constitution calling for the systemic extermination of all caucasians in South Africa. To compare Hamas's charter and agenda, to compare the Palestinian terrorist groups' agendas and tactics to those of Nelson Mandela are ridiculous. The point is, terror by anyone for any reason including expressing political will does not achieve freedom-it traps people, it traps them to a never-ending cycle of retaliation. That Sir is the point. Freedom fighting? You want to try couch what terrorism is at least be original and come up with some new way to do it. "That's quite the stretch, so should we ignore the massacre of Palestinians by Christian falangists whom were allowed to do so with ease." You again select massacres to match your political agenda like dishes at a buffet at some restaurant. I will take this massacre and this one, but not this one. When someone chooses dish a, I will counter with dish b. You trivialize these massacres when you compare them against one another. Its precisely why I have come on this forum and chastized people for trying to turn the word holocaust into a generic word for massacre and why I am in your face. Each massacre is tragic and stop exploiting them like scores in a morality match. You want to discuss the conflict then do so that does not turn these massacres into convenient dishes for you to order up to try establish higher moral ground. There is none. You want it straight here it is-the fact is simple and simple as can be. 80% of Palestine was illegally seized by Britain and turned into a Palestinian state called TransJordan that to this day has a law of return that allows any Palestinian to go to Jordan and automatically become Jordanian. The fact is the remaining 20% of Palestine has been fought over ever since. The fact is Syria and Lebanon were carved up for the French and Iraq and Jordan were carved up as pay backs to the Arab Feisal klan for their helping the British defeat the Turks in World War One. The fact is each of Fesisal's boys was given a country, one Jordan the other Iraq. The fact is the British and French carved up the Middle East in artificial little colonies and the British deliberately did so with premeditation to prevent a Jewish state from being created. The fact is Feisal would have allowed a Jewish state, and had plans to create an Arab state to work side by side with a Jewish state when the British and French intervened and did what they do, create a series of artificial dysfunctional empires they could rule by divide and conquer. The fact is Israel did not come about illegally and you can spin away all you want but Jews had just as much a right to live in Palestine as the Muslims who Britain flooded into Palestine. The fact is Jews coming to Palestine were no more foreign then the Muslims the British deliberately flooded into Palestine. The fact is Jordan is a Palestinian state and always has been. The fact is Israel came about because the Arab League gambled and felt it should engage in war and drive Jews into the sea rather then come up with two more countries in the remaining 20% of Palestine. The fact is had the Arab League not waged war the Jews in Palestine would have settled for a tiny country in less then 5% of what was originally pledged to them by the League of Nations. The fact is the arab League gambled and lost and the 1949 to 1967 Israeli border came about de facto from war not from peaceful negotiation. The fact is Syria to this day remains in a state of war with Israel. The fact is the Palestinian terror cells you refer to as freedom fighters do not just want all of Israel they want all of Jordan. The fact is the Israelis have tried repeatedly to disengage from the West Bank and Gaza and encourage a second Palestinian nation there and every time they do, every time they withdraw, one of over 300 terror cells uses that opportunity to attack it. The fact is there is no freedom fighting going on. What is going on are over 300 terror cells each with its own leader, fighting for control of empires and using Israel's existence as a pretense or cover. The fact is Israel is a pretense for violence and terror. The fact is Islamic Jihad, Fatah, Hamas don't give a rat's ass about their people. They burned and destroyed their green-houses, schools, hospitals, roads, community centres when Israel indirectly funded them and established grass roots projects with Palestinian officials and enabled Palestinians to go to work in Israel proper. Hamas, Fatah, Islamic Jihad, and countless other cells deliberately blew this all up and killed any Palestinian collaborating and working with Israelis. You can spin this any way you want but it comes down to this. True freedom fighters would denounce terror. They would work openly with Israel and Jordan in creating a second Palestinian state for Muslims and form an economic common market. But they won't and they won't because this would mean admitting they have to live side by side Israel-that is what it all comes down to-the fact that after all these years terror still continues because the existence of Israel is still disputed-no more no less. Let's put it on the line and stop couching it-people are dying because terrorists deliberately want them to. As long as Palestinians die from the IDF retaliating against terrorists, it gives Hamas and Islamic Jihad the fuel they need to continue to exist. They can not afford to have Palestinians peacefully co-exist with Israelis-if they did, they would be out of business. You want to talk statistics and suffering-I say bullshit. Blood is red no matter who dies. What this comes down to is terror. Disengage terror, and people will find solutions. Allow terror to prevail and have people like you try sugar coat it and rationalize it, and we have conflict. You want to talk origins of conflict, then go find out why the Arab League chose to put Palestinians in refugee camps. Read what they said. Read what their intention for doing that was. Find out why no Arab country offered citizenship to refugees or paid one penny to look after them while Israel and the evil US did. Find out why we have refugee camps. Find out whose political agenda created them and why. Then come back and lecture me about freedom.

"There's(sic) been bo arguements so far...." Thanks. I am glad you can take history and simplify it into such simple, subjective opinions then pronouce them upon us as the absolute and only version of truth.

King Abdullah commanded the strongest/largest Arab army, the Arab Legion. The Arab Legion consisting of an estimated 10,000 and trained and commanded by British officers. There is documented evidence to indicate in the time period of 1946-1947, Abdullah was not at that time openly against a further partition of the remaining 20% of Palestine other than the 80% alreadly illegally annexed by the British and turned into the Kingdom of TransJordan. In 1946-1947, Abdullah of coruse supported partition because it was his opinion the areas allocated by the British in the remaining 20% of Palestine could then be annexed to Transjordan. So yes Abdullah had meetings with the Jewish Agency (and future Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir was only one of manydelegates to these meetings, and yes they worked on a mutually agreed upon partition plan independent of the United Nations with the full incitement of the British. However it is a fact that by 1948, the neighboring Arab states, particularily, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq, convinced Abdullah to form a coalition of Arab armies to prevent the partition of the remainder of Palestine. Abdullah was not some benevolent angel as Higgly time and time again tries to revise history to portray. He was in fact the supreme commander of the Arab League armies that would attack the Jews to prevent them from forming a nation. The Arab Legion the largest of the Arab Armies (Jordan's army) had 4 infantry/mechanised regiments , 40 artillery pieces and 75 armoured cars. In addition to its 10,000 or so forces, it also had another 3,000-in its Transjordanian Frontier Force. The Arab Legion joined the war in May 1948. It allowed the rest of the Arab League armies to mass on its border. Abdullah focused his troops on the two additional areas he wanted control over; the West Bank and East Jerusalem. In fact British General John Glubb headed the Jordanian Army and RAF pilots flew Egyptian Air Force jets.

The above is absolute nonsense and I would caution people to find out for themselves what happened prior to 1948. The above is one individual's personal views as to what he thinks happened not what necessarily happened. For one to debate history they should quote a neutral source, not try revise it with their personal subjective opinion as to what they think history should be and then challenge others who question them when they become revisionist.

Well in theory it could that is why we have an amending formula but in practicality to pass amendments its quite tricky and political to get the right people on side to agree. The Canadian constitution of course took on a minimalist approach. It said as little as possible for two reasons; i-its creators were trying to take the exact opposite approach of the Americans when writing the constitution to avoid conflict by keeping things as simple as possible; ii-there was a genuine belief that what-ever was not known at the time the original constitution was written, would be sorted out in England. Look the constitution has always been a mix of written documents, case law and many many unwritten conventions. Hell the Prime Minister's powers are not in the constitution at all. The Governor General is simply a figure head. Any real power is vested in the PM and the Cabinet and our concept of responsible government requires real power be accountable to the public through elected representatives. The Queen is simply a titular figure and in her absence the GG does the same. Its simply titular. The Queen gets no money from Canada. That is ridiculous. No tax from Canada goes to the Queen although our government does pay for her when she is in Canada since the Queen does need toilet tissue, diapers, or what-ever else one would imagine she would need. Getting one's colon twisted over the kinds of symbols we use to represent our state to me is not something I worry about. I actually do not mind the Queen although I find Camilla Parker Bowels ugly as sin and Charles a loser. I think his son seems to be on the verge of marrying a cute young woman so hopefully some of that inbreeding can be stopped. I also think the GG is a fine looking woman. Her husband mind you is a tad too old and wrinkled for her.

Its a complicated answer. In short-because under our constitutional framework the FN is considered a collective of collectives or a nation of nations with a right to represent its collectives or nations as one collective entity dealing as an equal with the federal and provincial governments. That said, nothing would preclude them from forming political parties or as they have in the past run as candidates for political parties or engage in innovative government administration such as in Innavut.

Criminal statiistics from Juristat (fStatistics Canada) have shown that crime rates on reserves are higher than crime rates outside reserves. Some of this difference can probably be attributed (at least in part) to differences in the nature of policing in these communities and disparities in how the police record such incidents. What the stats do indicate is that in 2004, there were about 93,000 police-reported Criminal Code incidents on reserves across Canada, representing 4% of the national total . Over half (55%) of on-reserve incidents were classified as "other" Criminal Code offences, i.e., mischief and disturbing the peace, while 25% were violent and 21% were property offences . In 2004, about 18,800 adults were charged with crimes committed on reserves across Canada. Nearly half of these charges were for violent crimes, followed by other Criminal Code violations (41%) and property crimes (10%). The crime rate for offences committed on reserves was 28,900 per 100,000 population compared to 8,500 per 100,000 population for crimes committed elsewhere. Overall, rates of violent crime committed on reserves were much higher than rates elsewhere in the country. In particular, compared to the rest of Canada, on-reserve rates were eight times higher for assaults, seven times higher for sexual assaults and six times higher for homicides. It appears the only violent crime with a higher rate in off-reserve areas was robbery, which had a rate that was almost twice that of the on-reserve population. The above statistics did not single out particular reserves nor are there statistics kept as per incidents per reserve. The criminal statistics above in Ontario and Quebec came for self-policing sources, while for the rest of Canada they came from the RCMP. One does not have to be a genius fo figure out a combination of unemployment, poverty, lack of health, social, education, recreation and community services and facilities, geographic isolation, inferior housing and poor diet are just some of the soci-economic factors underlying these rates. To try use these rates to suggest aboriginal people by nature are criminals is a racist inference. To suggest it indicates serious socio-economic problems and failures and the inhumane conditions on reserves would make more sense but no doubt I am sure some of you will see what you want to see.

Let's get this topic back on track. Vladimir Putin has staked his reputation on selling allegedly state of the art are defence systems to Syria and Iran and yet we know Israeli fighter jets, specifically F-15's and F-16's penetrated Syrian air space without being detected. So naturally there is speculation that the Israelis tested an airborne network attack system, perhaps one similiar to or the latest version of say the US's Suter system (which is a product of BAE Systems). There's also been speculation the Israelis and Americans have used such technology in unmanned aircraft already and in the cas eof the US in the Iraq and Afghanistan theatres. Supposedly this technology allows the pilot to see what the enemy's sensors see and some say hack into their systems to manipulate the sensors to manipulate them into the wrong positions so they can not see the aircraft. The name of the game is to locate the sensory emitter then send them false data. What we do know is these systems sold by Mr. Putin consist of Tor-M1 launchers with 8 missile capacity adn the Pachora 2A system. Iran spent $750 million for 29 Tor-M1 launchers to guard their nuclear sites. The above system is also supposed to be merged with yet another toy from Russia with love, the S 300/SA-10 which Iran has yet to buy. So was the bombing of an alleged nuclear site in Syria just a cover story. Could it really be Israel just sent a message to Iran? That seems more probable. It seems more probable by deliberately making a mockery of the Syrian air defence system, the same state of the art Russian system Iran bought for both Syria and itself, Israel has sent a message to both the Russians and Iranians not to fuck with them. If Iran was getting cocky that it could safely protect its nuclear missiles they hav now been given a message from Israel they can not. Such activity is vitally important not to just state of the art US air defence technology development which Israel tests and perfects, but it is part of the dangerous game of brinksmanship that goes on in the Middle East and is unfortunately necessary.

I once again find the above level of debate Higgly continually must engage in repugnant. At no time have I ever suggested in anything I have written that Israeli actions were either pefect or sanctioned by God. More to the point I have never written any post where I make any negative generalizations about people simply because they are Arabs. I want Higgly to find but one post where I have suggested or stated anything Arab people do is wrong. When I engage in criticism I do not engage in negative gernalizations about anyone because they are Arabs and its precisely why time and time again I am disgusted with Higgly's attempts to always turn such dialogue into inferences that its about either Israeli people or Arab people. It is he not the above named people who have chosen once again to try turn this into a race issue by throwing in the race card and trying to suggest if one criticizes the syrian government this is a racial attack against Arabs as a people. I ask people when they dialogue about Israeli policies not to malign the Israeli people. I have said the exact same thing to others including JBG that when we criticize political policies of particular Muslim countries or religious concepts associated with Islam we refrain from making negative generalizations about Muslims or Arabs as a people. I say this as blunt as I can, the record of who writes what and how they blur the line between criticizing an alleged country's policies and its people is there for anyone to read. They can go back and read Higgly's past posts and mine, to Judge for themselves as to what we have said. I say it again, the fact that I criticize the Syrian regime a a repulsive, terrorist empire, does not mean I have slurred Arabs as a people and my words take care not to blur the line. It is absolute bullshit to play the Arab race card to suggest if one criticizes Syria as being a rogue state this is anti Arab. Now when Higgly wants to criticize Israel as a rogue state and not blur the line and make deliberately negative statements that go to describing the motives/characteristics of all Israelis and Jews, I will be glad to hold off my wrath with him. Some of us don't have a conceptual problem keeping politics and criticisms of nation and people seperate. Others do and obviously some want to use it when-ever they can to try gain some sort of moral ground in debate.

And your point? What that France is a whore nation and sold a nuclear reactor to Israel then in 1967 to be exact announced to the world it decided it would now support the Arab fight against Israel because its financial interests were better served siding with the Arab world? Its right there in their foreign policy doctrine. No suprises. No one ever denied France assisted Israel. The post office of Israel was created with French assistance and that is why old post offices till have French on the face of the buildings. Much of the original Israeli administrative structure of its civil service is from France. Your point? France does what France has always done, sell to anyone and everyone if it thinks it can make money. So? All nations do this. Your point?

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/13/afr...pons.php?page=3 The above is a link to a story now being circulated that the IDF bombed a nuclear facility Syria was building. Be my guest. Sometimes such stories are deliberately planted to mislead. Who knows. What I do know is the person who started the above story also spread a story that proved to be quite false that Israel had created a germ that would only attack and kill Arabs. Indeed. So sinister.