Rue

Interesting the selectivity as to which Facism upsets Scotty. Of course Vlaam Belang the party that organized the marches does not seem to make it to his radar screen of concern of facist things in Europe-just people who are Muslim who live there. Hmm. Oh I know who Flip Dewinter is do you Scotty? What a nice tolerant man. Peace loving. Kind and caring and tolerant of those who don't agree with him. Hint: I don't thing my kind can live in his neighbourgood. No what I mean wink wink nudge nudge say no more? Oh but let us do talk of Vlaam Belang. Last time I looked they reconsituted their name because under their previous name their shennanigans and advocacy of racism got them in a tad bit of difficulty. So Scotty are they paragons of democracy and warriors against facism? Of course. You can tell...because they are anti-immigrant and want to seperate the Flems out of Belgium. They also want to deport anyone who does not assimilate. AH yes. Resistance to assimilation is futile. Borgs. Hey you probably should let Leafless know that Vlaam Belang want a Christian state and are against sam sex marriages and abortions. In short they have the same platform of the Christian Heritage Pary does here in Canada. They hate the French language and consider the French the enemy. You know who I really really love about their members? well its got guys like Roland Raes. What a guy! Of course he denies the holocaust ever existed and when asked about it said and I quote; " whether it was planned that they should all die during the war is another question.." I just love revisionists. Hey that reminds me, Vlaam Belang has a platform calling on all Nazi colaborators to be forgiven from war crimes. Sounds good to me!!! Here is the point. Yes in a democracy, marching and expressing one's political views is essential and no I do not advocate resricting freedom of speech. But what Scotty has conveniently ignored is that this demonstration was organized by people with an openly racist agenda. These aren't innocent freedom loving democrats interested in preserving free speech, these are people with a hate agenda. Its a hate agenda because they label ALL Muslims in one negative category. Tell you what Scott. You want to debate honestly and criticize those aspects of the Muslim religion you find anti-democractic, fine do that and I probably will agree with most of them. Here is my problem. That is not what you are doing nor was it what Vlaam Belang was intending to do. What Vlaam Belang intended with its march and what you are now doing is to advance a gross negative generalization that ALL Muslims are demons and evil. See that is precisely my problem and of course you couldn't resist turning it into an attack against ALL Muslims with reference to 3rd world barbarians. I am the first to criticize anyone of any fundamentalist religion that preaches intolerance for the same reason I am the first up in your face criticizing you for the exact same fundamentalist intolerance. In my opinion, you are precisely the demon you claim exists in Muslims when you engage in such tactics. Yesterday it was Jews in Belgium, today Muslims, who next? WHat gives you the right to assume all Muslims in Brussels or Belgium are all Borg and all think the same way and are all engaged in a conspiracy to take away democracy? Who died and made you Captain Picard? Sorry if I have something to criticize, I do not engage in words I know call on people to hate an entire people simply because they are Muslim. That was precisely the concern in Belgium. They feared for public safety. They were not as sure as you were that these lovely decent gentle civil warm caring people seeking to confront facism marching under the songs and ballads of Vlaam Belang would be able to differentiate a Muslim from the demons they think they fight. See me I get a tad nervous when I see someone yelling and screaming about Muslims or anyone else. I don't liek crowds. Reminbds me of all those nasty people with their torches who ganged up and killed poor Frankenstein. I mean so Frankly looked different. So would you if someone sewed your head back on! Is that any reason to burn and pillage or put on those silly hoods and scream about preserving culture and white supremacy? Kind of reminds me of a Baboon that establishes its terrritory by bouncing up and down and sticking its butt out. Me I like otters myself. They may be all wet but they are cute and just mind their own business swimming around, eating some fish. Me when I see a bunch of baboons making noise cuz come Camels come to close to their trees my tendency is to do what any otter does, tell the camels to watch where they step. Now Scotty to be selective who you portray as paragons of virtue would you? Bet you just adore Enoch Powell. What a guy. By the way the Deputy Mayor of Brussels is cute. You should be so lucky to have her take you out. The Algerian women I know are all babes. Can handle themselves too. This one happens to be very well respected and has brains to match her face. Careful now. She may be Muslim but speaks four languages and probably can kick yer butt.

I guess it takes one to know one. The very same thing you think you are criticizing you are engaging in. Some of us distinguish between repugnant politics and innocent human beings who simply by virtue of their religion we do nto assume automatically can be negatively characterized as having these beliefs. That's precisely what facists do. What next? Oh I know let's round them all up and? 1 Gas 2-Guantanomo Bay 3-reservations 4-place them all on transport planes and kick them out when the plane flies over Somalia 5-parachutes-no that would be too liberal.

Get serious. A nation has a moral responsibility to protect its citizens. Just as Americans have a nasty tendency to try tell us how to handle our country and we don't appreciate it, don't try speak ob behalf of Canadians and do the same in reverse its equally as preumptious. More to the point of course any idiot could get into the US from Canada and it must be a concern we share with them. That's what friends do. You take your friend's concerns for their safety seriously and if you are contributing to their legitimate concerns of security threats, you deal with them together in a cohesive and unified manner. Security is not a one way thing by the way. Unfortunately people like you take your freedom for granted and just assume it is without giving any thought to ther security that must be put into place to keep it that way for you. Here is the point. When faced with a rude US Customs officer at the airport and some naive smug twit standing behind me telling me as we wait in line that its unfair he has to open his bag-I at least know one annoyance is for my own good.

Maybe one of the differences between the US and Canada is we take our constitution a little more seriously. We don't just make a mockery of laws we don't like - we tend to keep following the laws no matter how much we do not like them until we can change them legally. Don't tell me we should ship them all to Guantanamo right? Out of sight out of mind. Or as George Bush would say- " Constitution no I prefer a Cadillac or when I' tooling around town". Bah. Yankee Doodle Dandy once again tooting his/her horn and telling us how we must handle things. Thanks.

..and it is precisely because of that I bloody well will listen TO YOU

Yes it was a perfect country. Full of harmony between all its peoples. No problems at all. Perfect. Utopia. Yes I remember the days of Sadaam (Papa) Hussein. Ah the trains ran on time and so did those Kurds when we shot at them. Ah the good old days. Damn those allies. Had they stayed at home and let Hitler do what he wanted things would have been swell. You know guys with funny mustaches and bad hair cuts and who are into gas and mass murder oh say like Adolph, Joe, Sadaam, why can't they be just left alone. Things were fine. Kurds Ukrainians, Jews, who the f..ck cares. Things were just fine. Bah. Go away.

Buffy you jump with the labels of right and wrong and who is morally superior to the other. Shh. Stop. Take a breath. The fact that I ask you to challenge yourself and come out of your comfort zone and discuss conflict in a more neutral manner where you can discuss it without playing on emotion, without trying to shove your formula of who is bad and who is good down your audience's throat - is the point. On the one hand you lecture me about your compassion but when I read your language it sounds anything but, i.e., judgemental. What I am saying is true compassion may require us to construct dialogue and concepts that refrain from bad v.s. good, or presenting conflicts as one sided things. That is what I am saying. You know you can go on the iner-net and find articles to present only those opinions that reflect where your head is at - lots of people do that. The point is, unlike others, you don't do so based on thinking you are better then others, I think for sure you do it because you think you are being compassionate and doing the right thing. Unlike some others, I truly believe your lack of flexibility is mistaken idealism not ignorance and that is why I time and time again chide you and for that matter no differently then I do JBG-for the exact same reason. Each and every time you point out what the IDF has done wrong you have to challenge yourself to push past that. Its not the complete story and you know its not. It is not as simple as saying IDF bad, what they do is bad bad bad. You know that. Does anyone want Palestinian civilians killed? Well? Have you read anything in what I said that says that? Come on. What I am saying is the IDF who you criticize, could actually be killing a hell of a lot more civilians then the ones you see, if they didn't exercise restraint and discipline. You can't understand that because you do not understand the theatre of conflict and the space and proximity of the population to understand that. Is it right that children die. No. Its not right any child dies. But its wrong for you to exploit such death for politically partisan purposes is what I am saying. The IDF does not deliberately kill children and you know it. They kill them yes. Deliberately no. In your world, you skip the fact that the IDF is placed in a moral position of having to defend its people from missile attacks and that includes its children. It doesn't go into the Gaza because it wants to and your demonizing these soldiers and what they do misses the point - that they are as caught up in the cycle of never ending violence as are the Palestinian children and civilians and the Israeli people and their children. See to me Buffy the huge difference is as imperfect as the IDF is - there is a moral difference between what it does and what Hamas does. It may not seem that way to you who honestly believes Hamas are just a bunch of nice freedom fighting guys who sit around trying to defend their people but to me there is a huge difference. I have had comrades in the IDF die precisely because they endangered themselves to protect civilians. As much as you think they sit around wanting to kill Palestinian children they do not. Their job is to stop Hamas. If you really have compassion show it not just for one side but both sides. Now ask me, why do I refuse to show compassion for Hamas? Because they deliberately choose to kill. They deliberately choose violence. They deliberately and with great thought place children and civilians in harms way as a political tool. That is why. You want me to show compassion? I show it for Palestinian civilians and children, for Israeli civilians and children and the IDF or for that matter any conventional army faced with having to defend its citizens from harm. Hamas does not defend its people. If it was interested in defending its people it would denounce terror and never place them in harm's way. It is precisely because they choose to put their own selfish political interests first and their peoples' needs second that they do not defend them and never have. Those Palestinian officials who really defend and care about their people do not engage in violence and they will not succumb to it and you do them and the children of Palestine an injustice using them as a play toy to trot out to try gain moral ground in a debate. You remind me of charities that trot out pictures of children with flies going up their nose to get a donation. The problem with such visions is that they exploit the suffering of the children. Check the preaching Buffy is what I am saying. Otherwise be prepared to wear a white suit, cut your hair like Wayne Newton and travel with an entourage.

I believe truth is something each individual soul must decide and define and create for themselves. You say you tell the truth. Well no doubt you think what you state is truth but whether it is truth or not depends on how each individual cares to assimilate what you say and interpret it. Could it people what you refer to as truth is in fact opinion? Me-I haven't a clue what truth is. I mean I could give you my opinions on it depending on the context but nah I laugh at the idea I could be infallable and so would be in the position to claim what is absolute truth. (did I spell that right lol-me spell!) You sort of sound like you are omnipotent with your above comments. I guess growing up with two daughters, it taught me how imperfect I was. What can I say. They have a tendency to do that but of course only after they got their allowance.

Why would you compare them though? I can see the point of such comparisons for scientists or maybe even actuaries for specific purposes such as funding or determining risk probability but in terms of equating whose suffering is worse its kind of pointless don't you think.

Well there you have it. The Fellini Theory on Breasts.

It is a very crucial point you make. How we speak literally structures how we think. Wittgenstein the German philosopher spent most of his life on this point. Gene Roddenberry the former police officer turned sci fi producer who wrote all the Stak Trek stuff was fascinated by this point and often wrote scripts playing out his fascination with it and how it causes conflict. It is of course a source for much of the misunderstandings but it shouldn't be. However while I do notice aboriginal peoples seem to have learned the English, French, Portugese and Spanish languages and evidenced advanced negotiating skills in these languages, the reverse doesn't seem to have happened suggesting to me there might be some cause and effect between people with superiority complexes and their reluctance to learn different languages/cultures. Please feel free to use the Yiddish word "putz" to describe such people. Has a nice sound to it doesn't it?

My problem with the Buffy;s of this world is they live by proxy. They sit in sheltered safe cozy rooms and rely on reality to be imparted to them from going on the inter-net and looking for articles to back up their preconceived beliefs. They do nnot attempt to see both sides of the conflict and see all the victims. They pick and choose. They pick their victims and they choose their heroes. When they talk they like to sound full of self-righteousness and its always in a tone that they know better and they are in the position to be morally indignant and lecture others and the short-comings of those they choose as their trend of the moment to hate. In this present case, Buffy yet again comes on the forum to present her usual mantra-please read articles I agree with-if you don't see the conflict as I do then you are wrong. My point is as follows; 1-the children who suffer are on both sides of the Gaza not just within Gaza 2-the civil war between Fatah and Hamas that kills and rapes and violates its people and its children was not created by nor can it be ended by Israel 3-the poverty and despair in Gaza has been brought on by the deliberate decision of Hamas to engage in a rocket war against Israel rather then declare a truce with Israel-its intentions are blatant and stated out loud and that is, it will not stop until Israel and Jordan become a Palestine state it controls. Buffy's attempt to exploit the suffering of Gaza's children for her own political agenda is in my opinion morally bankrupt and its precisely why when she pretends she is on moral high ground as she pontificates and portrays Israel as evil, I bluntly say she has no credibility. What we all know is Hamas are blood thirsty terrorists who deliberately kidnapped soldiers and shoot missiles to provoke Israel to prevent peace. Yes when Israel retaliates innocent Gaza people suffer. They suffer each and every day Hamas exists and uses them as cannon fodder. Its easy for Buffy the Moral Purveyor of Absulute Truth to point fingers. It is not her children faced faily with missile attacks she has to defend. Israel has made many mistakes in Gaza. So has Fatah. But they are trying to forge a peaceful relationship. The future of Gaza is in their hands not Hamas'. Hamas chose to throw its people out into the line of fire rather then cherish and protect them. Until Buffy talks of the children on both sides who suffer equally she will continue to receive this kind of response from me. It is lazy to simply come on this post and repeat one sided diatribes. But of course if someone is expecting Buffy to come on this post and propose a peaceful solution that respects both sides of the conflict equally they can hold their breath. In her world its easy to be shrill and criticize, that is precisely what we do when we have nothing positive to contribute. Disarm Hamas, and the children of Gaza will breath. It is that simple.

Then don't forget to reach out to non Muslims too. Some of us including this Jew wish you well if this is your true spiritual destiny and purpose and would and will support you as well. Your family does not end with just peace loving Muslims it just begins.

On this one I must respectfully agree with you and everyone knows my faith. One can not illicit understanding for their feelings by negating the feeling of others. In fact the point of the post was to play the victim card. As a Jew I do not feel for a second the hippocracies extended towards me and my people in any way shape or form can be effectively criticized by trying to point the finger at others who suffer. I just don't buy the thread JBG. Judaism teaches us to heal the world (tikam olum) by reaching out and creating positive actions without expecting anything in return and without expecting any one to appreciate us. Jewish religion does not teach us to become woe is me I am being picked on its not fair weaklings. It teaches us to transcend such self-indulgent behaviour and push ourselves. Your mistake JBG is expecting what you say to bring sympathy. All it does is incite anti-semitic feelings. You want people to admire you for being Jewish? don't use such a sacred time of reflection where we are supposed to lament our limitations, to point out what you think are the limitations of others. If people scapegoat us so? Are you not strong enough to stand and debate with decency? A Jew does not point out another's weakness to gloat, only to share a common foible and laugh. Time for you to go back to Isaac Bolshevic Singer, Eli Wiesel, Bernard Malamud, Ann Frank, to name but a few and ask yourself what has turned you into the very gentile you ridicule. And believe me JBG I criticize myself for the exact same shortcomings as hard as I do you.

The point is you can't equate and compare that which is not relative to start with. Further to the first point, it really doesn't f///cking matter, they both have serious consequences. Mammory glands being cut off will not necessarily cut sex drive, chopping testacles off will. One is a primary sex organ the other is a sex object. If you rid the body of testacles you would need to inject it with chemicals to keep the sex drive going. If a woman loses her breast(s) she could in theory continue to have her sex drive without the need for chemicals. In the case of a masectomy there are now operations to replace and remold. In regards to castration there artificial balls to be inserted. Either way a patient suffers tremendously. However here is the next point. Prostate cancer is not testacle cancer. The worst that happens is the peepee can't get erect and they can insert a pump or a silicone hinge device. Now testacle cancer is a bummer if it gets both of them. But you have chemical alternatives these days.

If the original ost was intended to incite Muslims it worked. Me I found it funny and originally did not respond to it referring to Muslims in any way. Now that it has become an opportunity to hurl sheeyit at Muslims for being Muslims or moi for being circumsized, I pass.

The point is when ever there is a discussion as to anything to do with Islam, someone like this will someone tie it in to Jews and something negative about Jews. Typical and predictable and I doubt you will find a link. Me thinks it was a made up in the moment response because like I said, when in doubt, throw in something about a Jew. Like that changes the whole point of the intiial comment. Other then try deflect attention on Jews and make them seem "just as bad" what was the purpose of the comment? See this "well Jews are just as poo poo as Muslims when they are in jail and making food demands" new level of debate proves something all we Jews know-when we get arrested and are put in jail, we are stupid enough to tell everyone we are kosher and whine about it cuz you know the skin head-Aryans, nd the Muslim brotherhood in prison oh they will just love that. What a crock.

I found your comments very interesting. I made it a point to respond with another post containing excerpts of an essay on the concept of warrior in aboriginal culture because I just get the feeling for most people responding they assume it means someone violent. Now your comments are interesting because elders and aboriginals kind enough to let me learn from them when they have discussed the concept with me provide a very fluid notion and I think many of them have tried to explain to me that asserting rights requires many tactics or methods but certainly physical violence is not something I was shown as the way to resolve conflict-what I was shown was that physical confrontation when it does happen is a last resort and seen as a defensive response not something one necessarily initiates. Its a complicated concept and just because some refer to themselves as warriors or live in a warrior society doesn't mean they have developed spiritually to the level of a true warrior yet. Many are only learning. Some warriors of course make bad mistakes because they lose their temper but they do not necessarily reflect what a warrior is intended to be any more then a police officer who engage sin brutality represents what he was taught to be as a police officer. I criticize any act of violence. I do think in some cases some Mohawk Warriors or some young aboriginals have lost it. But if you are asking me to lump them all into one negative category I can't because the people we are talking about do not reflect either the warrior society or the wide range of spiritual beliefs of the aboriginal peoples that can not be simplified with John Wayne stereotypes. I share the concern of many of their people and band leaders in feeling more physical restraint can be shown during confrontations. That however for me is a different issue then the concept of the decision to for example assert their rights by seizing land. To me the seizing of land is a warrior concept that comes from feeling there is no other way and if they do not do this it will literally lead to their demise. That may seem militant to someone who takes their rights for granted and then feels others are trying to take them away but to me it is a decision that has flown from a repeated series of treaty breaches by our provincial and federal governments and a repeated violation of our constitutional conventions and unwritten constitutional principles that recognize the aborigininal peoples as a nation of nations that has a collective identity and rights flowing from that collective indentity. This has also since 1982 been written into our constitutional law in the Constitution Act of 1982 and repeatedely recopgnized by our Supreme Court of Canada and yet in practice on the ground, our governments have chosen to break it and ignore it and this has caused some aboriginal peoples to believe they must adapt a warrior concept in their approach to trying to resolve these issues. The warrior concept does not mean they are going to kill people and be violent. It means they are going to asset themselves rather than sit and do nothing. That doing something is a form of political resistance. It is not a form of resistance that attacks our children or our vulnerable people nor does it randomly try frighten and hurt civilians. It is specifically controlled to a specific land area and it is about asserting control over land. If you do not physically fight them, they will occupy the land and sit until the legal courts and the proper representatives from both sides come to agreement. Warriors are about asserting land control, no more no less. They are not interested in hurting you or anyone else if they can help it. They will not use violence on you. This notion they go around looking for people and beating them is b.s. You and I do not know what happened with that man who was seriously injured. It is highly possible he made racial comments before he was beaten or did something first which then triggered the response. Does that justify the response, probably not. I am not here to justify violence of any kind. Any violence by either side to me is not the way to do it. There I totally agree with you. All I am trying to do though is explain that I prefer people like you who when they criticize-are clear they criticize the violence but they understand the context behind the conflict. Your concern they do not use violence is based on your enlightenment not hatred. I applaud that.

These posts continue to illicit responses from people who assume they understand what an aboriginal warrior is. I would respectfully suggest some of you responding may be relying on the concept of warrior they saw on television. If you are genuinely interested in the aboriginal concept of warrior may I respectfully suggest you consider the following essay; Warrior Societies in Contemporary Indigenous Communities by Taiaiake Alfred, Ph.D. and Lana Lowe, M.A. The essay can be found at; http://ipperwashinquiry.ca/policy_part/res...ed_and_Lowe.pdf Here are some excerpts; “Contrary to the militaristic and soldierly associations of the term in European languages—and in common usage—the words translated from indigenous languages as “warrior” generally have deep and spiritual meaning. This deeper sense is exemplified, to use one example, in the English-Kanien’kehaka translation, rotiskenhrakete, which literally means, “carrying the burden of peace.” The construction of the word is an indicator of the philosophical framework for understanding the role of the warrior within traditional indigenous cultures. The word is made up of roti, connoting “he”; sken in relation to skennen, or “peace”; and hrakete, which is a suffix that combines the connotations of a burden and carrying. ” “There are many related words at the core of traditional indigenous cultures that, due to the relative simplicity and limitations of the English language, can only be translated using the single term “warrior.” In fact, the single English term has multiple connotations and a much broader usage in indigenous languages and in the traditional cultural life of indigenous societies. ” “There is in fact great consistency in indigenous cultures on the idea of the warrior. What follows are a few illustrative examples from among the many different indigenous cultures:6 • Kuna (Central America): napa-sapgued, “one who protects or guards the land, or nature.” • Dakota (Plains): akicita refers to those who have engaged in war combat, though linguistically the word is related to akita, which means “to seek.” • Wsanec (West Coast): stomish means those who protect the territory and defend the names with honour and discipline. • Pawnee (Plains): heluska, “the warrior, the war dance, the war, battle, struggle.” The Pawnee saying tu-da-he, as explained by a Pawnee language teacher, beautifully exemplifies the traditional indigenous idea of being a warrior: Tu-da-he, “the war, the battle, the struggle is good, sacred, right.” Life and the everyday struggles of living, good or bad, is the epitome of life. It is how you know you are living. Nothing is easy, and because it isn’t easy, one should truly value the blessings. In a warrior society the warrior ideal is how life is lived. It is what you do, it is who you are—you fight. Defeat is painful, but it is only temporary because you still live to get yourself up and see the dawn. ” “Since the warrior society first pierced Canadian consciousness in the 1970s, the indigenous warrior has been characterized as both the Noble Savage—“a heroic champion of native rights ready to die for the cause”—and the bloodthirsty renegade—a “testosterone-driven gun junkie out to die in a blaze of glory.”17 Falling back on hackneyed stereotypes and one-dimensional portrayals of indigenous existence, the Canadian media, governments, and citizenry invariably cast indigenous warriors, whether heroes or tyrants, as misguided and irrational malcontents who have taken Canadian law into their own hands.”

Tory's actual comment was taken out of context. He has never advocated creationism.

pssst Buffy there are gays in Iran really! pssst Buffy, the holocaust did happen really!

Gosh that figures. Eleven years ago, The Houston Chronicle ran a story reprinting Ron Paul's newsletter which stated: "Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action, “ “politically sensible blacks are outnumbered "as decent people." "Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal," "we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their "We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." “Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficultly avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color of their skin. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for many, entirely unavoidable.” “If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." This is someone when said because Bill Clinton had a red nose, and I quote, " this would explain certain mysteries about the president's scratchy voice and insomnia.” This is someone who states as part of his political platform that the US Federal Reserve Bank, US Department of Education and US income tax system are “Marxist” and will be abolished when he is elected. This is someone who in 2005, introduced the Sanctity of Life Act, a federal bill that defined human life as beginning at conception and defines embryos and fetuses as persons and would redefine abortion as murder and outlaw fetal stem cell research and some contraception and fertility treatment This is someone who wants to bring back a 2001 bill he tried to introduce, the Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001, that would allow the President to commission private citizens and non-government groups to specifically target Osama Ben Laden and his supporters and kill them. Gosh I wish we could have a politician like this in Canada.

Man I better stop thinking about Paris Hilton.