Rue

And just to refresh that foggy memory of yours the control switchs for Dimona came from Tracer Labs via a Beglian subsidiary and the actual military technology came from Israelis learning it at American universities and then obtaining speed switches from Nixon. What France supplied was a nuclear reactor-the actual technology to make bombs came from Israeli scientists and American technology. But then you knew that because you know just how devious those Israelis can be right?

Let see some sites. Yah right. We know the game Higgly. They are all Zionist liars. http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/003216.php www.wisconsinproject.org/countries/syria/chem.html www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Syria/Chemical/3048.html www.state.gov/t/us/rm/24135.htm www.meforum.org/article/510 www.acpr.org.il/english-nativ/04-issue/shoham-4.htm meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2004/issue3/jv8n3a5.html freelebanon.org/testimonies/t75.htm weltpolitik.net/Regionen/.../Syria and the Question of WMD.htm bioterrorism.slu.edu/bt/official/congress/tucker110701.pdf www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Syria/Missile/index.html cns.miis.edu/research/cbw/ttuck2.ht www.thewednesdayreport.com/twr/syria/syria.htm dtra.mil/documents/asco/publications/comparitive_strategic_cultures www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID= www.wadinet.de/news/iraq/newsarticle.php?id=188 www2.foi.se/rapp/foir1290.pdf www.cns.miis.edu/pubs/reports/pdfs/tuckcwc.pdf www.tau.ac.il/jcss/sa/v1n1p2_n.html

Oh but before I go can I help jog just a bit more of your foggy river banks; If you want a list of terror groups operating in Danascus and who are funded by the Syrian government why not start with; HAMAS Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine General Command (PFLP-GC) The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) The Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) Abu Musa Organization (AMO), The Popular Struggle Front (PSF) Hezbollah Islamic Jihad. Its a regular jamboree of who's who in the anti-Zionist world. But hey, no need for any concern. Syria has stated just because all these people have offices in Damascus isn't any big deal because all these offices do are engage in press releases. No no no where would you get any idea they plan terrorist attacks. They just sit around, shoot the shit, discuss how bad Zionists are, have a Turkish coffee, maybe smoke some hash. Nothing serious. Bah.

Here I want to help unfog some minds as to Syria's military capacity. Oh let's start with every one's favourite; nuclear weapons; Syria's nuclear R&D program has been actively trying to acquire dual-use technologies from China, Russia, North Korea, Brazil, France, the black-markets and even out in the open from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Technical Cooperation program. Russia and Syria have agreed to a joint porgram on the development of civil nuclear power. It is an open fact that the Syrians have a Chinese-supplied “miniature†research reactor under IAEA safeguards situated at Dayr Al Hajar. Syria continues to refuse to discuss whether it will ever sign the IAEA Additional Protocol required to verify compliance with NPT safety obligations and thta would allow the IAEA the ability to act in regards to undeclared nuclear materials, facilities and activities. Oh how about chemical toys; SHould someone advise Higgly that for over 30 years everyone has been aware that Syria has been buusy developing a wide range of chemical weapons. Thanks to such nations as China, France, Russia, Germany, to name a few, it has been able to amass a large quantity of the nerve agent sarin which it has the capability of dispending by xonventional aircraft, ballistic missiles, and hey just for the hell of it by people sent over the border posing as innocent civilians. You could even transport it on a rat or camel. But you know why stop at sarin gas when you can use VX. Syria's continuing active chemical munitions testing, is not a secret. It deliberately let this capacity capability out presumably to frighten Israel and the US from attacking it. And just so there is no foogy recollection of the next fact; no Syria is not a party to the Chemical Weapons Convention. Hey how about that old toy we all remember, missiles. According to Jane's and other military journals, Syria is estimated to have over several hundred Scud and SS-21 SRBMs, with an unknown number of chemical warheads available to put on them. Thanks to their good friends and another peace loving country, North Korea, they have developed the Scud D the latest version of its long distance missile.Now for those of us engaged in Zionist conspiracies, we tend to be aware that missiles usually rely on either some sort of liquid propellant or a solid fuel. If syria needs liquid propellant it goes to Iran. If it looks for solid fuel well it can go to Iran, China, Russia or most likely North Korea. Vlad Putin, the man of the hour who also has a treay with Turkey and Israel in regards to certain military technology has also made it clear to Syria he would sell them SA-10 and SA-11 air defense systems, MiG-29 and Su-27 fighters, and T-80 or T-90 tanks, as well as upgrades for its existing aircraft, armored weapons, or air defense systems but it appears unlikely as Syria still owes a lot of money from the old days when it bought countless military junk from Russia. Bottom line. Syria is an economically depressed nation, but like North Korea spends most of its money on military and no one knows for sure what its capacities are. What most of us know is that all this talk about nuclear weapons is interesting but if someone wanted to strike terror in the heart of Israel it would be cheaper and easier and make more sense to simply use a nerve gas or biological weapon not a nuclear weapon that would have fall out that would blow back into Mr. Assad's kingdom and heaven forbid make him sterile.

Memory is a little foggy he says. This is precisely why Higgly has little if any credibility in my opinion. As if he is unaware that Syria has been a major supporter of terrorist activities against Israel including the arming and training of Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and over 300 other terrorist organizations all operating out of Damascus with full state funding. Is his memory foggy or is it selective as usual. Right. Syria is in a state of legal war against Israel. More to the point it makes it clear daily by its decision to house, fund, feed and cloth terrorist organizations whose mandate is to destroy Israel as well as using its territory as a launching site as well as logistics support to enable terrorist attacks is precisely the reason it is a target. But then in the foggy world of Higgly Syria is an innocent little lamb and for absolutely no reason is being attacked and picked on by those evil Zionists. Yah right. Heard it. Foggy my ass. Now for those of us who live in the real world we would suspect the stories that have come out that Israek struck at a weapons shipment heading to Hezbollah or a nuclear facility site being built by the North Koreans might be true, or then again could be typical cover or misinformation stories. It could be Israel was simply testing a flight path to Iran. The flight path of the Israeli aircraft followed coincidentally, the shortest and straightest line over the Mediterranean Sea to Iran. The dropping of munitions on an empty building seems a deliberately intended move to draw attention from the obvious. Now as Higgly frets over the attack no one was hurt and the building struck was empty. If the evil Zionists wanted to kill children or innocent civilians they sure blew their opportunity now didn't they.

Lol thanks. P.s. I have testacles. I just suck them up cuz Scott likes to pinch them. He's wacky you know.

Actually I never discussed what is or is not suitable immigration policy but now that you ask I would say and excuse me because I am a lawyer and so think like one, that law should be based on objective criteria not subjective criteria. You want to come up with an Immigration Statute that decides what are desireable characteristics be my guest..can't wait to read it. Immigration Act of Canada S.C., 2008, C.666 Preamble Be it resolved that Canada seeks to assure that anyone coming to Canada be the holder of particular characteristics as defined by ScottUSA including but not limited to; a nose of particular width, length skin colour of consisting of a tone ranging from absolute snow white to medium pink no uni-eyebrows no sloping foreheads no webbed fingers no undue facial hair, back hair, leg hair, arm hair no funny hats no robes no jewellery that ressembles thumb tacks in one;s nostril or more then one ring her hand no pierced nipplies, scrotums, belly buttons. Be it also resolved all pesons seeking citizenship will be required to renounce any or all allegiances to anything or anyone except the following; Don Cherry Brent Butt Shania Twain Anne Murray Celine Dion. All female applicants are to rename themselves Anne, Celine or Shania. All male applicants are to rebame themselves Don, Brent, or in the alernative Jean, Steve, Gilles or Jack.

Psst-Arnold is gay. I knew it. Remember all those references to girly men? I always thought he was just a bit too butch in those terminator movies. I suspected he and Jesse Ventura for a long time but never had any prove. Now I have it.

1. the Statute of Westminister was recognized 2. Canada is soverign 3. Canada has a right to make its own constitution 4. Canada has been defining on an on-going basis federal and provincial powers 5. please give names of the corupt Judges and how you know they are corupt 6. your obsession with the Queen is caused by what? The Queen is simply a symbolic figure for head of state-that is all it is-its a symbol, if you no like change it to Paris Hilton, go out and start a petition. Go check the amending formula requirements. I am sure Quebec would be on side right away. Me I could care less who the TITular head of state is. I personally think it should be Shania Twain.

Excuse me but if someone wants to engage in sado-masochism with their partner, its none of your business.

Responses to Scotty: "I think you must misunderstand the point of the protest." No I actually took the time to look at the political agenda of the people who organized it and what they stand for, "I have nothing against individual Muslims except for their association with Islam. Islam is in my view evil at its root. " On the one hand you say you have nothing against individual Muslims then you state Islam is evil and you hold it against individual Muslims if they associate with Islam. So your comment you have nothing against individual Muslims is silly. You just said you do. "I don't know if you've taken the time to read the Koran, and do so with the concept of abrogation in mind, at the source, not through apologia and rhetoric coming from the soothing salesmen of Islam. " Lol. I am far from a salesman of Islam. However when I read the Koran or any book written by humans, particularly books that are based on edited heresay, I criticize them all using the same critical standards of objectivity. You are mistaking the fact that because I keep my intellectual opinions of the Islamic religion seperate from my human relations with Muslims, that somehow this means I support Islam. I repeat again. It is possible to criticize Islam without hating Muslims or assigning them all negative characteristics because I have problems with certain precepts in their religion. To me the two are seperate and distinct issues. For that matter my problems with Islam are the exact same problems I have with ALL human religions. " If you have, you'll note that Islam is, at its very core, fundamentally different from, and more barbaric than, Christianity." This is where I strongly disagree with you. In my critical analysis of organized religions, I find Christianity and for that matter all organized religions have been barbaric. I do not think it is particular to Islam. Its kind of ironic saying to a Jew whose people have been subject to Christian barbarism for over 2000 years that Christianity is less barbaric then Islam. Its laughable in one sense because as a Jew I am tempted to say, its like comparing two chronic diseases that will both kill me and asking me to define which one is worse. On a more serious note, Judaism, Christianity and Islam all have passages that have been used by fundamentalists to engage in terror and violence. I make no qualms in saying the Old Testament is a barbaric piece of work with an angry God engaging in mass murder and having temper tantrums. Judaism over the thousands of years has had time to evolve and develop critical thought and with age has come the evolution of thought which no longer sees things as black and white. That said, within our community we still have fundamentalists. They may not engage in terror, true, but thousands of years ago they did in the name of God. If you ask me to say my people are more civilized then Muslims I won't. I have no desire to claim religious superiority. All religions to me are necessarily equally as fucked since they are made by humans. Never met a human whose religion eventually didn't turn sexually perverted and violent. "Is a moderate Muslim..." In my personal opinion a moderate human would be one who believes violence is never acceptable, and that humans must exist peeacefully in co-existence and respect each other's differences. To me a moderate is someone who believes in the rule of law and reason over irational impulse. To me a moderate is someone who can see more then one side of an arguement and can flex and seek compromise. To me a moderate human is simply one who tries to find harmony from balancing conflicting views. "So yes, I lump all Muslims together as believers in a death cult. Does that mean I "hate" all the individuals who are Muslim? Of course not...." Now how does one lump all Muslims in a death cult, and then in the next comment tell me he does not hate all Muslims/ if you think they are ALL in a death cult, do you really expect me to believe you then do not hate them? Puhleeze. " Does that mean I hate Islam? You bet." So you don't hate Muslims. But you hate their religion. You don't hate Muslims but you are against them associating with Islam and if they associate with Islam you have a problem because the religion is a death cult and evil and barbaric. But you don't hate Muslims. Hmm that's not inconsistent at all. It makes perfect sense to me someone who feels people who associate with an evil death cult, would not be people he would hate. Uh yah. "Now, to the demonstrations: They are against the "Islamification of Europe." " If that makes it sound antiseptic and politically appropriate for you, bully for you. See some of us Scott don't couch what it is. The marchs were about Muslims being Muslim and how Europeans want Europeans to be Christian. Don't couch it. We know what it is. The agenda is out in the open. Assimilate and become Christian or get the fuck out of Belgium. "That is, as above, quite distinct from being against "Muslims," " Right you again make logical sense. People March telling Muslims to assimilate or get the fuck out and its not against Muslims. Sure. Here is the point. These marches were all about blurring the line between criticizing fundamentalist aspects of Islam with the people as a people and you know it. The line was deliberately blurred. "although they probably want a halt to Muslim immigration post haste as well." That is precisely the point. The line was crossed when immigration was raised. The issue of immigration based on "desireable" characteristics is necessarily subjective and not limited to simply saying if you are Muslim, if you come to Europe don't be fundamentalist-it went way past that-its about not wanting Muslims because they have beards and have tans and don't look like white people. It is not just religion -its physical characteristics and assumed negative characteristics about Muslims that have nothing to do with fundamentalism "They want to keep their countries Judeo-Christian".... Please do not put the word Judeo in this. It has nothing to do with Jewish culture at all. Europe made it clear for centuries it will never ever allow any Jewish concepts in its society. The holocaust was simply the culmination of that fact. Please do not ever say Europeans want to preserve Jewish culture. That is a joke. The people who march want nothing to do with Jews the same reason they want nothing to do with Muslims. " and exclude the incremental movements toward accomodating a tyrannical deathcult." Sounds like a couched way of simply saying -Muslims bad get rid of them. I hate people who beat around the bush and try use baffle gab to couch what they say. "Let me ask you this, and I'll hope for an honest answer instead of Sophistry: If German Jews got together in 1933 and peacefully demonstrated against Nazis, claiming they didn't want Germany to fall prey to totalitarianism, would you mount the same defence for the Nazi SA when they broke up the demonstration, claiming that lumping fanatical Nazis and moderate Nazis together wasn't "fair?" Because really, you know, not all Nazis shared the radical anti-Semitism of the hard core. I bet even most of them were "moderates." For starters for a guy who accuses me of sophistry you not I are the one who engages in it when discussing his animosity towards Muslims. More to the point your question above is ludicrous. You are equating Muslims with Nazis. Muslims are not Nazis. Muslims are simply Muslims. Nazis were Germans who chose deliberately, a political belief system that said many things. For you to simplify Islam as being Nazism shows why you and I disagree. For me your decision to equate the two as being the same shows a complete lack of understanding as to what Islam is and what Nazism was and remains. You refer to the Nazi SA as analogous to the Belgian police. Teh Nazi SA were a political unit of the Nazi Party. They were in fact a vigilante force. They were not a police force. In fact when the SA operated they did so in blatant violation of the German constitution. They were an illegal vigilante force that engaged in crimes, i.e., property damage, assault, battery, rape, homicide, theft. For you to compare them to the Belgian police is absurd. The Belgian police do nto wear their uniforms as the SA did. They did not put on those uniforms because it was their express political beliefs that they needed to go out and kill anti-Muslim protesters. The Belgian police were and are not part of a political movement that operates outside the laws of its country and whose purpose is to round up and kill anti-Muslims. The Belgian police are assigned the task of assuring no citizen, Muslim or anti-Muslim engages in crimes such as assault, battery, property damage. Did they use excessive force to break up the demonstrations? I do not know. Were you there? Do you know what caused them to do what they did? Were you on the ground? Its easy for you to refer to the Belgian police as Nazi SA but to me that is odious. It also reveals you have a problem with the rule of law when it does not suit you and will refer to police as facists. That to me is extremist and precisely why I challenge you. if you have no respect for police and think they are Nazi SA because they enforce peace and you see no difference between them and vigilante groups formed to violate the constitutions these same police try defend, then of course I have a problem. I also have a real problem with you engaging in holocaust inversion to try turn racial intolerance into Jewish victimization. That Sir is pathetic. It is precisely the same reasoning that is now being used on Muslims in Europe which was used for centuries on Jews in Europe and culminated in the holocaust and the creation of the NAzis and groups such as the Nazi SA. It is precisely the exercise of protecting their culture and heritage that saw such groups form and be able to exterminate. In the name of protecting their culture, they first demonized Jews. Once they were demonized as sub-human it was easy to kill them. When you lump all Muslims as followers of an evil religion and death cult, you do nothing new. Christians did that for centuries with Jews and many still do. You want to typecast Muslims as Nazis and Belgian police as Nazis, don't take the name of the victims of holocaust in vain to do so. Jews died precisely because of the same reasoning process you are now trying to justify. The only thing that's changed is there are no jews left to burn. The scapegoat has simply changed. To try suggest these anti-Muslim marchers are the moral equivalent of Jews in Nazi Germany is absurd.

Maybe Jessie you are projecting what you want to see. Sometimes what we think is a vision could simply be us creating a self-fullfilling prophecy,. You tell me you keep seeing the same ugly white man's face in the vision, I say, I am not suprised but how much of that is you wanting to see that? No the people who want aboriginal people to go away and call aboriginals terrorists have nothing to do with Israelis in Israel faced with their lives being threatened every day by terrorists. Sorry but the people in Caledonia who call aboriginals terrorists are not Israelis saying the same of Palestinians. I think your more serious defect in this analogy is assuming Palestinian Terrorists are engaged in the same tactics as Mohawk Warriors. They are not. Mohhawk Warriors don't attack children or use the elderly to engage in attacks for them. MoHawk Warriors do not shoot missiles at innocent civilians or andomly attack and kill civilians. The last time I looked aboriginal peoples do not have a manifesto calling on all non aboriginals to be sent out of the country or driven into the Hudson's Bay. If aboriginals did take on such attributes I would be the first to fight them. So with due respect you are really projecting something that may not exist into a conflict because you see Israelis as the ugly white man. That is unfair to our culture and aspirations and the fears we have of being exterminated. Read my words. In no way do I suggest ever that killing an child or engaging in any violence is acceptable. I have never said it was o.k. for aborignals to be violent. I have never said it was acceptable for anyone to be violent. I have never said killing one Palestinian child is ever a good thing or acceptable thing. Its a tragic thing. But what I say and I say it again-what causes their deaths is the choice of humans to engage in violence. No I will not couch this conflict or any conflict as one where one side is right and the other wrong or one side is justified in using violence. Interesting how people see what they want to see. Sorry, but this time, you might be mistaking me for someone else. And you know what? You know damn well I would never support any violent action of anyone. So why pretend otherwise.

Deliberately so for exactly the reasons you state above. That our perspective when it comes to children is never to discuss them in a way that divides them, but instead treats them all with the same universal standard. I am deliberately harsh because I believe her approach deliberately exploits the suffering to present only the suffering of one group of the children suffering in this conflict to advance a political agenda to suggest the suffering is caused by only one thing. I am harsh because I believe the description and references to what is going on there, on the ground can not be helped by trying to describe the conflict by simply only reporting one group's children's suffering and ignoring its underlying causes. I am harsh because the suffering of the Palestinian children is being used as an exercise not out of genuyine concern for them in my opinion but as a cheap and crass tool to try gain a moral high ground from which to be able to not just criticize particular Israeli policies, but the right of its people to defend their own children from terror. I believe the suffering of the children in Gaza in this thread were misappropriated for a narrow political agenda and that is why I challenge her as I would anyone. I will say it again, what is happening on the ground affects children on both sides of the Gaza equally. It all ties back to one thing-the decision of terrorists to deliberately choose to use children as cannon fodder as part of their terrorist campaign. I will not criticize Israeli policy as the cause of this suffering. It is not. The cause isd terrorists and their decision to use their people as cannon fodder and place them in harm's way and to exploit their safety. Its about the egos of fundamentalist men who believe they are right and everyone else must conform to their wishes and if that means subjecting their children to death so be it. When I criticize Israeli actions, I do so contextualizing them not as isolated incidents simply that come out of nowhere for no reason because Israelis simply are demons who want to kill Palestinian children, but because they are caught in a deadly game they did not start, which requires them to protect their own children and in so doing, places them in a situation where if they are to defend their children, they must try stop Hamas and to do that, ends up killing innocent Palestinian children precisely because Hamas puts them in harm's way as a political tool. I have yet to see anyone oome on this thread and show me how Israel is to defend its children from terror and the people who cause it in a better way then what they are doing. I never will. Its easy to sit in the comfort of a bed-room and ponitificate about other people's suffering when the person ponitificating is not being shot at has their life threatened. You bet I am harsh. I can't stand righteous people who think they can take the suffering of a people and use it to preach to us all about right and wrong. To me there is no right and wrong-just idiot humans bent on shoving their beliefs down another's throat setting off chain reactions of compensatory defence. How does it end-tracing it back to where it started and in this case, the decision to use children as cannon fodder and the decision to believe the only solution is to shoot missiles and pursue a policy to eradicate and wipe out Israel not live in peaceful co-existence. Want to stop the killing in Gaza? It can be done in literally minutes. Simply take every idiot adult with their guns and terrorist beliefs out of the Gaza. Take away all the weapons and terrorists. Engage in peaceful dialogue not violence. Stop engaging children in the violence by having them carry weapons and bombs or get rid of the missile launchers after the missiles are shot and be used as shields. Yes I have been on the ground. It is easy to talk about the suffering when you are not there and see how the children are used or placed in harm's way. Yes its easy for some to lecture how Israeli soldiers are bad bad bad. They have never been there. They have never seen what they actually do. They make up stories on this forum of having been there when they haven't as one poster did or they lecture from a distance. Me, I have seen Israeli soldiers f..ck up. I have also seen them die. I have also seen Palestinian children with guns and weapons and being used as political tools. So excuse me if I sound harsh. See to me I have seen them all blown up. You get harsh because when they die, and they all end up smouldering, smelling goop, this b.s. distinction as to whose children they are means sweet f..ck all. Once they are dead, these children become indistunguishable. That is the point and you bet it makes me harsh..

Given the history in Canada of how aboriginal children were forefully kidnapped and placed in Christian schools that molested them I would think it should serve as a sober reminder to all of us what happens when state funded religious institutions have their way with people. It is one makor reason why I do not trust religion mixed into public schools in anything other then a neutral academic course to study. I personally believe aboriginal culture should be taught as a core curriculum subject just as English and French history and languages are. That said, I believe public schools should be neutral. But this does not mean after school, the government can't provide funding for specific heritage and religious classes where numbers warrant and its optional. It is absolute b.s. to suggest Catholic schools should be funded publically but no other religion. That is discrimination of the worst kind. You do it for all or none. I believe children should go to school with people of all faiths and cultures and learn to respect difference and not have one person's culture or religion shoved down their throat. In terms of aboriginal, British and French history, these are the founding cultures of our country so I believe we all have to learn about them. In regards to religions, they all should be taught but in a manner that treats them all with equal time and respect. Immigrant cultural heritage belongs after school within the particular culturalc ommunity. Dalton McGuinty is a large overgrown hippocritical wart. I think John Tory was trying to be honourable must went about it the wrong way. I really do not think he set out to court Jewish or Evangelical votes at all. I think his muddled entry into the school issue comes from his guilty feelings of playing a central role in how Bill Davis pooled the wool over everyone and snuck in privileged status for Catholic funding. I also have nothing against Catholics wanting religious schools at all. All I am saying is if you fund them, you have to fund other religions. If you want to make that formula based on population, then fine. That is my way of telling Catholics they are not the problem in this debate and never were. I just don't like religion in public institutions. It leads to nothing but trouble unless you manifest it in an inclusive non discriminatory way. I myself would never send my child to a Jewish public school. I believe sending my child to learn Hebrew or Jewish culture is my responsibility in my own community, its not a public thing the public should pay for. Then again I hate all organized religions for the same reasons. They are usually run by smelly old men with beards whod on't make good role models and tend to molest people or hide in caves.

That JBG is exactly the point. Balance. Now whether humans will stay calm enough to use reason and logic not anger to find that balance remains the question. There is one Joker or wild card left as to how this ends up and the Joker in this deck I think is called God or the creator or mother nature or something beyond it all and despite it all. I believe atheists would calll it an irrational belief in the concept that things will turn out o.k. in spite of humans. But that's the thing. Being irrational can at times be quite rational. Its just confusing. So in this case it might mean for example, that terrorist Scotty is convinced will end up on his door step on the way to blowing up his carcass might be distracted as he sees Paris Hilton on the street and in that brief moment he looks over to see her bumb get exposed from the wind blowing up her dress with no underwear, presto bango a car drives over him and kills him preventing him from completing his destiny.

What you believe about me is of course your prerogative. I would suggest though if you actually read anything I have written, you would see the arguements I made as to the need for a state of Israel was never based on the notion of wanting to hate others and keep them seperate and apart. Zionism is not about racism and never was. Its concept that Jews express self-determination through a state apperatus is based on the belief it needed to do this to survive constant hatred and mass extermination and a constant hatred that continues to this day. It was never based on an ideology of superiority, or of stating one creates a Jewish identity by negating the right of another to have a Muslim or Christian one. I have never once varied on that point. I have never in my support of Israel ever suggested I was against democracy, hated Muslims as people, and feel the need for Jews to create a nation to protect and assure their existence should be based on a doctrine that hates Muslims or considers them inferior. Zionism is about Jews wanting to be self-determined, no more, no less. I have raised and willl continue to raise a spirited defence of Zionism, precisely because it has never suggested Jews are superior to Muslims and it is precisely why in Israel's constitutional laws and legal system it affords the exact same legal rights to Muslims in Israel as it does Jews. My problem is with terrorists who refuse to allow both Israelis and Palestinians the right to self-determination of their respective identities, peacefully. Let me spell it out. Israel is a democratic nation. If the majority of its citizens vote to dismantle it because they are not Jewish that is the irony and there is no point denying it. The fact I support Israel does not mean I do not understand that or would deny that. I am not so naive as to think self-determination through a state organ is a guarantee against assimilation. So no please don't suggest because I support Israel I have to phrase political ideology using the framework you do. I respect Muslims as human beings first and foremost. If there are Muslism who are terrorists or who use their religion to support fundamentalism or intolerance I will fight that as I would that tendency in any human of any group. My problem Scott is the line has been blurred between criticizing intolerant tendencies within Muslim society with Muslims as a people. I personally believe the demonstrations in Europe blur that line. Do I want to be forced to be a Muslim fundamentalist, of course not. But I believe the way to resist such tendencies is to sit with moderate Muslims and form a coalition not alienate them by failing to distinguish them from terrorists or fundamentalists. I think the blurring of the lines fuels terrorists and alienates moderates, no more no less.

You miss the point as usual. He prefers given his desires, to keep his mouth open. Its just he only opens his mouth when he doesn't think anyone can see him swallowing and that is why everyone finds him hard to swallow. It is not his open mouth that has gotten him into trouble, its pretending he doesn't open it that has. Now that is a mouthful.

But he has such nice eyes. I also like the idea that he is Catholic, went to a Catholic publically funded school, is married to a woman who teaches at a publically fudned Catholic school and sends his children to them but on public t.v. says this does not affect his credibility on the issue. AHAHAHAHAHAHAH. And the thing is the majority of voters are going to put this pathological liar and utmost of hip-oh-grits back in power precisely because he panders to their ignorance as to ethnics to distort what John Tory said. I am completely against any funding of any religious schools. However I find Tory's position a hell of a lot more honest then McGuinty's. Does anyone here believe his own personal religious views have not given him a conflict of interest on this issue? People know he has one but they c ould care less. That is the way it is in Canada. We are so friggin timid of confrontation, we would prefer to keep a man in office rather then confront him and tell him to his face he's a pathological liar and hip-oh-grit. Can't do that now can we. Someone may mistake that as being anti Catholic. This has nothing to do with Catholicism and everything to do with how McGuinty uses Catholicism to cloak himself in it to get votes. I say to all Catholics, your having public funding was never the issue. Its the fact no one else is allowed what you have that is. McGuinty can kiss my anti-organized religious butt. I would vote Green but their economic policies are idiotic. I would vote for John Tory as a person but his party is full of idiots. I would vote for Howie Hampton as an individual but his party is full of idiots. So who does that leave me? In my riding with no one. Bah.

Why is it laughable? Why is letting people have a free vote laughable? The man has stood up for an issue based on his honest belief as to what is right and wrong. He is then faced with people like you that laugh a lot and find someone who has a conviction and is willing to state it, funny. Ahahahah. He has said he would have a free vote because he knows his view is unpopular. Ahahahah. He has not changed his view. AHahahahah. He has called peoples' bluff and said-look here is where I stand, you hate it-fine don't vote for it then - but stop turning me into a l issue politician-let's talk about other issues. Ahahaahah. This province is run by a pathological liar. Ahahahahah. That pathological liar is going toget re-elected because people like you are going ahahahahah.

Bull. He did not say he no longer backs faith based schools. In fact just today he again repeated he backs faith based schools. What he said was he would allow a free vote on it. You are as usual wrong.

People using drugs illicitly to me is the wrong focus. The focus to me should be on the people selling the drugs not the people using them. I am all for serious criminal sentencing for organized drug sales crimes. To me though the actual user has a health illness and to me an illness needs to be regulated and controlled by a social facility not punished. Its like punishing someone for having sex with a whore. Who cares? I do not care. I only care if the whore is a child or being forced to do it without her/his consent, or a disease is being spread. To me the person having the sex is not a criminal, just someone not fortunate enough to have Met Paris Hilton. Quite frankly I do not give a shit what they do as long as they do not spread a disease to their wife or anyone else. As for the whore, I am concerned they find another way of life, but I don't see them as criminals. With drugs, I see druggies as sick people not criminals. I see the people selling them drugs the same way I do pimps-people who exploit others' illnesses and vulnerabilities. Those are the people I would spend the criminal law's energy on. So where do we start? Let us start first by examining who the drug syndicates and cartels are, who their leaders are and which governments support them. So now then oopsy. Some of those drug war-lords seem to be our allies in Afghanistan now don't they? Hmmm.

I agree with you. What we do know from the statistics kept on criminals in both the US and Canada is the vast vast majority of people placed in jails have sentences for 30 days or less and of thsoe being placed in jail the most common reasons are alcohol and drugs. Then when these actual crimes are broken down the people arrested and placed in jail have done petty crimes. Look I am not excusing it at all. Like you I want people off drugs and I am not condoning crime at all. What I am saying though is the statistics seem to back you up and yes you state the irony of it all, when you place a druggie in jail all you do is place him in a place where its easier to get any drug he wants! More to the point, law and order campaigns such as Harpers are popular because they make him seem tough and like he is doing something but its bull. There is no physical place to put these people! We have no more jails for them. Its easy to say you will put them in jail, but the same guy saying he will put them all in jail will not allocate any money to building more jails! More to the point jail is not what they need- diversion programs addressing their lack of employment and mental illnesses is. See what Mr. Harper does not want to talk about is that these same druggies are unemployed and come from cycles of poverty related behaviour and mental illness. Poverty and mental illness are not addressed in jail. In fact jail compounds povery and mental illness related issues maing them worse not to mention focusing all the energy on the petty druggies and not the people making the money off the drug trade. Taking some miserable junkies off the street may make a few of you feel safe but come on, it means nothing to the huge drug cartels. All it does is divert attention away from the fact Mr. Harper finds it easier to arrest a junkie then he does cracking down on organized crime. I would take Mr. Harper more seriously if he focused in on measures to address the organized crime syndicates, i.e., money laundering, disclosure of offshore finances, etc. Then again Mr. Harper's hands are tied on that one because that would require international cooperation. I know good people in the DEA and Bureau of Tobbacco and Firearms in the States or Justice there fighting openly with the CIA and aother agencies as foreign policy interests collide with domestic drug issues. Come on let's get serious. The UN is full of leaders whose regimes are propped by drug cartels. Drur cartels are big business. They fuel not just world terrorism but thousands upon thousands of legitimate cover businesses that of course make it their point to influence government. Bottom line-these pathetic junkies they will round up will be out on the street on bail and simply stay there skipping bail. You think the police will be in a rush to arrest them? They have no where to put them not to mention, a street cop's no.1 concern is preventing violence. He may not like junkies particularly when they engage in robberies or physical fighting, but cops have better things to do then round up pathetic junkies sitting in some alley killing themselves. This is a health issue. Its a health issue because it spreads aids and other communicable diseases. It needs to be regulated not as a crime, but as a health illness dangerous to the public. That means spending money on facilities to treat these druggies not simply hide them from public view. That won't happen. Junkies don't vote and when they do they certainly don't vote for Mr. Harper. More to the point the average person could care less about them-out of sight out of mind, as long as they don't have to step over them on the street or get mugged by one, they don't care. That's the reality.

Beam me up Scotty here are my responses to you; "1 However Enoch Powell may have misphrased his speech, I agree wholeheartedly not only with his sentiment, but his apparent prescience as well. " I find Enoch Powell to be a racist hate monger and deliberate and open about that fact. He's never denied it. "2 Vlaam Belang is a seperatist party which attended the demonstration as invited participants. To my knowledge it is in no way anti-Semetic...." Oy Vay Scotty! Trust me they are. Read up on them.Trust me they don't want me playing golf with them. Its not made up Scotty. Just go find it out for yourself. In fact from what I know of you from what I read in all seriousness, you would have problems with some of their platform. "3 "Racist agenda". If by that you mean..." I find it racist when an entire people is tarred with the same general negative descriptions. When the political opinion being expressed portrays all Muslims in a negative way, yes I call that racist or prejudice or what ever ist or ism it should be called.. Do I think is an ism or ist to criticize certain concepts no-all I ask is the person criticizing them not use that as a platform to assign negative characteristics to an entire people. "8- they want to stop the Islamification of Belgium" Actually what we have is a debate to get rid of Muslims as citizens. Its not simply about intolerant fundamentalist beliefs. The debate as to fundamentalism belongs in courts and in schools being debated by educated and calm people, not on the streets with people who can't differentiate their opinions from hatred for others they think have opinions different then theirs-at least in my opinion. "4 Rue, you argue the same points against my alleged "racism" as your opponents argue against you in regard to Israel. Would you want hordes of Muslims to become citizens of Israel? " That is the irony Scott. I may be a sympathizer of Israel but I also believe in democracy and if in fact the democratic majority vote it out of existence, irony of ironies, as a believer in democracy I would not resist it. I sympathize with Israel yes most certainly but don't mistake that. Even we Zionists can be principled people you know! Lol. Now you ask me is Zionism racism, no but it certainly can be used by Jews incorrectly in a racist manner just as any human can use their nationalism that way. We all must guard against that.

Blackdog I would suspect that what may come across to you as the wallowing of Jews when they react to criticism might be something else-something as simple as feeling existentially threatened. You underestimate the link between the Jewish psyche and how it feels threatened by certain comments. Serious Blackdog if people had your discipline so that when they were criticizing Israel they make sure to differentiate between Israelis and Jews and the policies as you do, and keep the criticism as you do (except for this one) remarkably apersonal, they probably would not feel so anxious? Think about that. Because I think you assume anxiety as self-pity. It may not be. It may be in fact just anger at constantly seeing the line blurred. In that sense its no different then Muslims on this forum who I do not blame for getting pissed when the references to them constantly attacks them as a people and simply being Muslim. I don't find their anxiety with this kind of stuff suprising and all I can do is tell them they are not alone in that regard and that no one likes to be generalized in a negative way simply because they belong or are indentified with a group. Interesting but the other day I was in a heated discussion with a Russian over the current goings on in the Ukeraine. He said the Ukrainians still wallow over the famine-his exact words. Right. 20 million starved to death and he thinks remembering that and not trusting Russians to be wallowing. One person's anxiety may be another's wallowing. Me-I had relatives die there in WW2 so I have bad memories of the Ukraine but I also know what Stalin did to Ukrainians so for me I tend to keep it simple and say, there's reason for people wallowing. Not sure though when we call it self-indulgent and when we call it post trauma know what I mean?

Reverse onus clauses. In Civil law countries across Europe you are guilty and must prove innocence but in common law countries our criminal laws do the opposite. The provinces however are allowed to pass summary laws that sound like criminal laws and act like criminal laws but technically are not since they don't replace them. As long as such laws simply complement or supplament criminal laws, provinces can pass them. So they do and this is why they pass reverse onus summary offences-because they can. Politically it makes them look tough on crime. Its a political device to make the government of the day sound tough. Yes there are huge issues involved with reverse onus. As a lawyer they make me nervous. I don't like them, All I can tell you is the rational for them is they are used where it is felt there is little room for the assumption that what the oerson was caught doing was wrong and that the need to protect the public over-rides the need to protect the individual. I am not saying I agree with it just explaining it. Can such reverse onus clauses be used to abuse the innocent? That is the question. Do they set a precedet to do this with other laws thereby eroding the cornerstone of our democractic principles of fairness? That is another question. Its a complicated question. You do it once, the tendency for politicians is to keep doing it in other areas and before you know it presto you could have a police state, true. What we do know is the current Highway Traffic Act with its harsh measures for speeding and drunk driving is in direct response to what is perceived by politicians as a popular demand from the public and one that can get them votes not to mention it takes peoples' minds off the fact that the criminal legal system has collapsed and has no money or buildings to place any criminals. Oh why worry about that when we can take cars away. In that sense it makes people feel safe. Problem is that same shmuk they take the car from starts driving around in another without his license. Not sure how you stop that short of cutting his head off.