Rue

Here is the origins of Hamas as seen by Mahas historian Dr. Firoz Osman, Executive Secretary of the Media Review Network, an advocacy group based in Pretoria, South Africa. I dliv=berately use his version since Giggly Higgly will say I am a Zionist and heaven forbid we should believe anything I said. Now tell me how when reading Hamas's version of its own origins does anyone come up with the concept that Israel created them and funded them? The decision of the Islamic Association to allow its splinter cells of terrorists to become predominant was clearly their making not Israel's. Giggle giggle giggle. "Between the years 1981 to 1987 this local social movement was transformed into a powerful political body rivaling the ineffective and secularist PLO. The progression to start an armed struggle against Israeli occupation materialized practically through the formation of Al- Mujahidoun Al-Filistiniyoun (The Palestinian Fighters). This was the military wing of the Muslim Brotherhood in Gaza, on account of which Sheikh Ahmed Yassin was arrested in 1984. The formation of Haraqat Muqauw’amah Islamiyya (Hamas) or the Islamic Resistance Movement was declared on December 14, 1987, a week after the outbreak of the first intifada. Hamas was able to mobilize people around its Islamic ideological line towards resisting the Israeli occupation. It believed that occupation breeds resistance, and that international law allowed any nation under occupation to adopt all possible means to defend itself and its land. The principles and objectives of Hamas appealed to the oppressed masses who felt betrayed by the United Nations, Britain, United States of America, the servile Arab leaders more interested in protecting their thrones, and the secular PLO. The upright and committed Hamas leadership, involved with its people in the trenches against a brutal foe, was the only option that could restore the dignity, rights and freedom of the Palestinians" Now I am finished with this idiot topic and constantly having to deal with giggling hyenas.

Here for Giggly Higgly the following words; The following comes from www,palestinefacts.com a Hamas internet site; What is Hamas? The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1928 in Egypt and for many years was one of the principal Islamic revivalist movements in the Middle East. They were primarily a social and religious group, although in Egypt four of their members were the assassins who killed President Anwar Sadat for his peace treaty with Israel. Then in 1987, after years of concentrating on social and educational activity in the Palestinian Arab areas, the Muslim Brotherhood was confronted with fundamental challenges in the wake of the intifada in Gaza and the West Bank. As the uprising became the main focus of the Palestinian Arab population, the Muslim Brotherhood's leaders found themselves detached from the events which were being led by Islamic Jihad and the PLO from their headquarters in exile in Tunisia. Their response was a new organization, founded December 14, 1987 at the beginning of the intifada: Hamas (Harakat Muqawama Islamiyya — the Islamic Resistance Movement). The Hamas Covenant was drawn up in 1988, explaining the organization's Islamic ideological sources, its ideas on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, its approach as a Muslim-Palestinian movement, and its attitude toward the PLO. The following comes from the Jaffee Center Fpro Strategic Studies, an Israeli center. BOTH SIDES state the same thing in their articles as to the origins of Hamas. Nothing absolutely nothing about the origins of Hamas has anything to do with Israeli funding. Giggle Giggle Giggle. While the Muslim Association was not involved in the events that marked the beginning of the uprising, on occasions when its leaders did take a stand, the broad support they enjoyed was apparent. Hence, the Islamic Resistance Movement was a power to be reckoned with in the intra-Palestinian political arena virtually since its appearance. The Political Background In the wake of the Intifada, in December 1987, the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood in the Gaza Strip embarked upon a direct and violent confrontation with Israel. The operational turn was marked by an organizational change - the establishment of Hamas. The eruption of the Intifada confronted the Muslim Brotherhood in the West Bank and Gaza Strip with unprecedented challenges. After years of concentrating on social and educational activity, the movement's leaders found themselves detached from the events which were electrifying the Occupied Territories. The challenge was made all the more acute by the major role of the Islamic Jihad, Hamas' adversary in the Islamic camp, in fomenting the demonstrations. Members of the Brotherhood defected to the rival organization, and the standing of Brotherhood leadership in the Territories declined accordingly. Criticism, voiced by the Islamic Jihad and some members of the Palestinian nationalist camp, was primarily directed toward the Brotherhood's stand on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which consisted, basically, of avoiding active involvement in the national struggle. In response to such criticism, and in order to explain their belated entry into the arena of the armed struggle, the Hamas leadership pointed to the Brotherhood's educational activities in Palestinian society, claiming it was equal in importance to the violent course of action. Thus, they contended, during the Israeli occupation after the 1967 war, Brotherhood education helped the Palestinians cope with what they termed as the corrupting influence of Israeli society. Therefore, Hamas spokesmen argued, before launching militant anti-Israeli activity, it was imperative to protect and entrench Muslim values in Palestinian society by building mosques, mobilizing and unifying the population, and deepening the principles of the Islamic spirit. Once these primary goals were attained, Palestinian society, strong in spirit and faith, would be able to confront the occupiers. Hence, the years preceding the eruption of the Intifada were termed by Hamas spokesmen as the "stage of the institutions," in which the people were mobilized to the Islamic camp which became politically strong, and the consciousness emerged which engendered the Intifada. Organizational Roots and Base of Support Hamas operates within a broad infrastructure created by the Muslim Brotherhood in the Gaza Strip. Until late 1987, the Brotherhood carried out its activities through the Muslim Association, the Mujema al Islami. The Association was founded in the mid-1970s by a group of notables, headed by Sheikh Ahmad Yassin, a handicapped man of considerable charisma among the masses, with a degree from Ain-Shams University in Cairo. The Association, the platform of which contained no nationalist clauses, obtained a permit from the Israeli Civil Administration in 1979 to conduct its activities. The permit was apparently consistent with the Israeli policy of strengthening Islamic bodies as a counterweight to Palestinian nationalist groups. The Association's activities focused on efforts to persuade the Palestinian masses to lead lives based on the tenets of Islam, emphasizing the religion's social and political goals. The Association became involved in social, charitable, and volunteer activity throughout the Gaza Strip. With the help of contributions, mostly from the Gulf states, community institutions such as clinics, clubs, and day care centers were established. The Association worked vigorously to deepen its spiritual and religious hold on Gazans, and on the eve of the Intifada, an estimated 40 percent of all mosques in the Gaza Strip were under its control. Hamas marks December 14 as its founding date; it was on that date in 1987 that its first Intifada leaflet appeared. Hamas operates through various mechanisms which religious activists created in earlier years. The Military Wing - Izz a-Din al-Qassam squads, began to operate in the early 1980s within the framework of secret Muslim Association cells. Its activities were frozen following the first arrest of Sheikh Yassin, in 1984, but later renewed within the Hamas framework. The military wing operates against Israeli civilian and military targets. The Security Wing was established in 1986, primarily to deal with Palestinians suspected of engaging in activities inimical to the principles of Islam. It has targeted Palestinians suspected of collaboration with Israel. Many alleged collaborators were abducted and interrogated. Sometimes, the accusations constituted grounds for execution. Another unit that began to operate prior to the eruption of the Intifada, with its powers expanded following the founding of Hamas, is the Information and Political Wing. This unit has been responsible for issuing Hamas publications, including bulletins, sundry information and research material. The role of the Events Unit, set up after the founding of Hamas, and active mainly during the Intifada, was "to participate in the uprising and to escalate it." Its activists, organized in popular committees, were responsible for running the mass civilian aspects of the Intifada. This involved initiating and enforcing strikes, inciting street riots and demonstrations, blocking roads, writing nationalist and religious graffiti on walls, assisting families that suffered losses in the uprising, and burying the people killed during clashes with the Israeli security forces.

They were part of Jordan. Jordan denied their right of self-determination. They became not part of Jordan only after Jordan had an oops moment and attacked Israel. At no time in hiostory has there been such a thing as a "Palestinian homeland". This "right of self-determination" you speak of applies by its own criteria to Jews too, even more so than the Palestinians, since Jews are loosely speaking an identifiably recognized 'race' AND a religion, whereas Palestinians are just Arabs. Yet this meme of "self-determination of the Palestinians foiled by the creation of the state of Israel" presupposes that Jews ought not to have had a homeland. Don't you realize that accepting this argument is a condemnation of the region to perpetual warfare? In case you haven't noticed we have the same Three Stooges, Larry, Curly and Moe who write in, giggle, act like experts on the creation of Israel but could care less about history. This is about Israel bad bad bad. Jews finance Israel and control the world and the US congress are bad bad bad. Besides you are a US imperialist zionist supporting evil person. USA gave you away. You bad bad bad. You probably like the New York Yankees too. Shame.

Heh heh... I love it. NO AT NO TIME DID ISRAEL FUND HAMAS. Come on Higgly. You want to giggle, show us your documentation that Israel funded Hamas. Once again Higgly you giggle because you haven't a clue what it is you think you are an expert on. You are so blinded by your hatred for anything Jewish and Israel it can not possibly be accepted by you that Israel funded a benevolevent Islamic Association that did not engage in violence and because it did not engage in violence was able to get 19,000 Palestinians funded for employment by Israel. Keep giggling.

Just so I understand here, Rue. Are you saying that Hamas did not emerge from the Islamic Association? No of course it did. What I am saying is that it did NOT emerge with Israeli funding or support. It emerged with Iranian and Syrian funding. Look at why it emerged. Arafat sensing the Islamic Association had replaced him suddenly tried to revive his prominence and role as the leader of Palestine by suddenly changing his tune and saying he was no longer a terrorist. This obliged Israel to at least speak with him. Also keep in mind Arafat has always been a puppet of France's Deuzieme Bureau. He was a puppet for French intelligence interests in that region. Please understand Arafat was always and never stopped being a drug pusher. His posing as a freedom fighter and head of a terrorist organization, etc., was purely for convenience. Arafat came to be by running brown heroin from Iran and Afghanistan through Syria and Lebanon to Marseilles, France. In return for being allowed to sell heroin and hash hish through major drug cartels to France and then on the US, he did what the Deuxieme Bureau wanted. He basically kept his hands off Tunisia, Morrocco, and Lebanon. Chirac openly supported the PLO and Al Fatah and saw its support of the PLO as the best way to be the primary power of influence from the West in the Middle East. The Islamic Association spun out of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood a very conservative fundamentalist Sunni organization dedicated to the overthrow of both the Syrian and Egyptian regimes and replacing them with Sunni Muslim theocracies,. The Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic Association considered Arafat a scum for two reasons-one he was a drug pusher which they were dead against, and two it was a well known fact he was a homo-sexual. When Arafat played the French intelligence p.r. card and went back to Israel realizing he was a spent force and now needing to portray himself as a non terrorist the Islamic Association felt they were about to be pushed out by the PLO not Israel. The Islamic Association had up until then resisted any armed struggle but when Arafat made his overtures to Israel, at the same time, Al Fatah was given a green-light by the French to turn on the Islamic Association and as Arafat told the world he was a peace loving man and wanted to talk to Israel forcing Israel to talk to him, Al Fatah moved in on the Islamic Association and started seizing their property, schools, money and shooting their followers. The Islamic Association felt it had no choice but to arm to fight Al Fatah. Up until that point, any terrorism against Israel was not from Islamic Association it was Al Fatah, Islamic Jihand and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Hamas came about as members of the Islamic Association decided they had to fight Al Fatah. Iran and Syria then funded the military wing because the French funded the PLO and Syria and Iran wanted to counter the French. Hamas came about primarly to combat Al Fatah. It turned on Israel for a simple and basic reason. How could it win the hearts of Palestinians in a stuggle with the PLO if it was seen as weak. Al Fatah, was saying to Palestinians it would not stop until it eradicated Israel while its alleged non military wing at the same time told the Western Press Arafat was a peace loving man who only wanted peace. Two messages one for the Western press and one for Palestinians. Hamas felt it had to out-do Al Fatah and show it was tougher and to this day Al Fatah and Hamas are engaged in a civil war and both despise each otehr but are locked in this cycle of violence and believe if they both don't show their people they are dedicated to the eradication of Israel they won't be popularly supported. So what I am saying loud and clear is Israel at no time created, supported, or funded Hamas. That is pure and utter b.s. What Israel did and what you should give it credit for is it supported a non violent initiative which only failed because terrorists were able to take control once again.

Thanks for that nice to see someone standing up to veiled anti semitism. You know what I find sad? when Israel does something genuinely right, i.e., support Muslims engaged in rebuilding Palestinbe using peaceful means, its twisted around as supporting terrorists because the people who twist it around just can not stand the idea that Israel and Palestinians could do anything together without violence-it doesn't play into the Israel evil demon stereotype and for that matter it would kill these same revisionists to once admit when Palestinians do not engage in terrorism they can do incredible things for their people and no amount of terror or hating Israel can change that fact.

"Hamas was orginally funded by the Israeli Admin as a counter to Arafat's PLO. Divide and conquer." ABSOLUTELY WRONG. In 1978, Israel’s immediate threat to its existence was Arafat and the PLO and as a political tactic seeking to undermine Arafat’s popularity them Premier Begin arranged it so that the then 42-year old quadriplegic religious leader in the Gaza Strip, Sheik Ahmad Yassin, would be allowed to run a humanitarian organization called the Islamic Association. Israel did not and never at any time funded Hamas. It funded the Islamic Association which was not a military or para-military unit. It was in fact a social charity that built schools, roads, and ran hospitals and denounced any form of armed struggle or violence. At that time it was in fact the PLO and in particular its Al-Fatah Organization as well as the Islamic Jihad and Popular Front For The Liberation of Palestine engaged in violence not the Islamic Association. At that time The Islamic Association was in fact a benevolent charity that created schools, hospitals and businesses and provided an alternative to the PLO which was in fact a drug cartel shipping brown heroin from Iran and Syria to Marseilles, France and was taking this drug money and stolen international development funds and re-routing them to French and Swiss bank accounts with the full assistance of the Swiss and French governments the the Deuzieme Bureaus full involvement in preventing Interpol and the French national police from busting up the drug cartel. Unlike the corrupt French stooge Arafat , the Islamic Association at that time provided benevolent services to its people and because it was firmly opposed to violence of course would be supported by Israel as a peaceful alternative to Arafat's Al Fatah and the Islamic Jihand and PFLP,. In fact Hamas did not evolve until 1988 after it ws formed to fight Al Fatah and engage in war not justw ith Israel but the PLO. Hamas was in fact created and funded by Iran and Syria and the Wahabui sect in Saudi Arabia NOT Israel. In fact during the Islamic Association's peaceful reign, Israel funded the salaries of 19,000 Palestinians including 11,000 teaehrs, social workers, nurses and doctors. So go on and roll your eyes or feign ignorance but as usual you haven't a clue what you are talking about. Israel had every reason to believe the Islamic Association would continue to refrain from violence -look how much it was able to achieve by refusing to engage in violence! More to the point, why do we once again have to deal with this two-faced hippocritical double standard as to alleged Israeli behaviour with this b.s. inference that Israel was hippocritical for forming an alliance with a peaceful benevolent organization, simply because it then turned on it. where do any of you get off inferring Israel is the only nation in the world to try make an alliance with a group or leader that would later turn on them. Tell me you eye-rolling geniuses, whose side was Stalin on at the beginning of World War Two and which nation had Senators and prominent businessmen assuring its American citizens Hitler and Mussolini were o.k. guys and preventing it from forming an alliance with Britain? How about Gamel Abdel Nasser, Mummar Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, all financially funded by the CIA in their coups and all who turned on the US? How about the Taliban who were created and funded by the CIA to fight the dirty Russian commies in Afghanistan? You think Valerie Giscard D’Estang and then Jacques Chirac of France had and have any problems openly supporting the terrorist actions of the PLO and supporting Hezbollah even after Hezbollah attacked and killed French soldiers in Lebanon? You think the French had any problems supporting the Popular Front For the Liberation of Palestine and turning on its supposed allies in Lebanon the Phalangistes? You think France has any problem funding the Syrian government? You think Germany and France had any problems selling chemical weapons and nuclear technology to both Iraq and Iran? You think the Chinese have any problem protecting the Sudanese government and funding its genocide in Darfur or funding the current Iranian regime? You think Tony Blair had any problem going to Tripoli and kissing Gaddafi’s feet? Give it a rest with your pathetic attempts to infer Israel is the only country to have a quetsionable ally or an ally that turned on them.

Wendy yyou have depressed me. I keep having visions of Arnold Schwarnegger being Emperor of the United States of North America. Considering we are a pseuto country with 90% of our economy controlled by the US and Gary Bettman dictating when we watch hockey, I am not sure if at this point what you are saying will really make a difference. We are all coca cola slaves. Its over. Resistance is futile. The Borgs have swallowed us up.

I think many Canadians don't have a clue that to maintain your countries current freedoms and democracy comes at a PRICE. While it is true IMO that Canada's interest in Afghanistan should possibly be limited to a peace keeping role but world pressures demand otherwise. These pressures dictate Canada take a more active (combat) role in maintaining Western ideologies and standards especially when asked to do so as an ally. I have no problem understanding this as a Canadian and also realize that perhaps we should have been in Iraq right from the start. If you don't wish to support and possibly die for your country, I really don't know why you want to live in a country like Canada. I agree with your sentiments although I would not go as far as you did with the last sentence. I do not question people's loyalty to Canada because they question why we are there and do not want us there. I personally believe our reason for being there is because we are trying to defend a way of life other then fundamentalist terrorism. Is that unrealistic? Maybe. From a tactical point of veiw I do not believe using conventional armies to fight terrorists makes sense. I have said it before and I will say it again. I do not believe in using conventional armies as anti-terrorist units. I believe in creating small, fast moving, highly trained commando units that go in and out quickly after destroying their targets. I believe the idea we can use our troops as a visible symbol of cultural imperialism does nothing but make them siting ducks for terrorists. We have to resist the arrogant Christian missionary tendency of Canada to think we can go to such countries and proseltyze people with our Tim Hotons values. Our soldiers are not Christian crusaders but that is what they have been turned into and its b.s. This is not a war where your army will win people's hearts and souls by handing out maple leaf flags. Aint gonna happen. Its time to grow up. You want to deal with terrorists stop f..cking around with these modern day cultural missionary crusade concepts. Create elite, fast moving commando units-get in and out, and yes move not just in Afghanistan but whereever the terrorists go-Pakistan, the Philippines, Indonesia, Sudan. Terrorists hide behind boders. The war against them must ignore borders. Legally the UN needs to create an anti-terrorist commando operation that is empowered on behalf of all nations, to do what it has to do to take out terrorists. This is not about using conventional armies as police or political agents. It is about using commando units for a specific and deadly purpose. Of course what I say will never happen. For starters the UN is a gutless apologist for terrorist nations. Secondly, politicians can't get credit and get votes for a world anti-terror commando organization. Finally I talk a lot, but I am the first to say, since I am not dying and my life is not on the line, all my talk is just my opinion and it means f...ck all since I am not dying and the Canadian soldiers over their make it possible for me to be able to spew off like I do. I have my opinions, but that is all they are. know they are shared by some soldiers I have spoken with while others think its too impractical. What I will say is, as long as the troops are there and dying I will respect what they are doing and I am grateful for it as much as I hate seeing them die. I also agree with Argus that until we clearly define what the f..ck we are doing, it will continue to be a confusing continuing series of soldiers dying and Canadians repeating the word "eh?".

Isn't it obvious? When you live in a world where you take it for granted and simply assume living in freedom without war and terror is normal and a given, you ask such questions. If you lived in a country or witnessed an incident where someone blew up from a bomb or was beheaded or tortured or if you lived in a country where you are killed or tortured or mutilated when you disaggere with someone's version of a religion or political system, you wouldn't ponder such questions. Let me give you a hint. A terrorist is someone who believes it is legitimate to kill indiscriminately, to kill innocent people, to kill people who can't fight back or defend themselves, to use mass murder to scare people. Terrorists are not legal entities. Terrorists are not people who want to debate with you, have tea with you or engage you in an exercise of speculating on what is right and wrong. Their purpose is to kill you and your family and do it in a way to scare and humiliate and traumatize as many people as is possible. A terrorist is someone who believes and will use violence and murder and slow torture to coerce others into doing what he/she wants. So your question-should we kill terrorists, is like saying, gee when I get a tumour, is it o.k. to take chemotherapy or should I let it just spread and kill me? Get out of your sheltered soft world and try use some common sense. Taliban are not boy scouts. Hamas and Hezbolah are not boy scouts. In an ideal sheltered safe cozy Canadian shopping mall world, we can arrest them. We send police men in white cars and arrest them and then hire Eddy Greenspan to represent them and we argue that society victimized them and they committed crimes because they are victims of society. Uh hello-its NOT Canada. This is not your cozy world of good and bad, charter of rights, inalienable rights, 3 meals a day, a toilet that works, and being released in less then 6 months after you rape someone. This is a world where the people you deal with think you are evil demon scum. They want you dead but they want you to die slowly. They truly believe you are evil and sub human and it is religiously their duty to pull the limbs off you slowly. You are infidel. You are disease. You are vermin. You are nothing more then a disease carrying rat. O.k.? No hugs. No kisses. No group encounters where you sit with these people and talk about your feelings...its not Canada. Its the real world. It is a world where civilians and soldiers a liek blow up into millions of fleshy pieces. It is a world where if you don't shoot to kill these people they will simply kill you. Sorry to burst your bubble but no the Canadian soldiers can't say. "psst Mr. Taliban, could you stop making that bomb, I want to sit and talk with you and find a way for us to love one another". In the real world, its not all hugs and kisses or quoting what you think are Christian virtues.

"Aboriginal title presumes that natives own all of the land..." No it does not and never has. aboriginals have never believed they "own" the land. That is you projecting your values of land ownership on their culture. You really should try learn about their culture and how they preceive the human relationship to land. Until you do you will continue to make such comments that are not just patently false but continue to reveal either your refusal or lack of willingness to try understand that which you think you are talkinga bout. "...and that non-natives are obliged to compensate (i.e. pay taxes) them for using it..... I see no difference." Well of course you can't you have from the get go made up your mind that there is only one way to "see" and it is your way. You are right the aboriginal antions seek compensation for use of certain land, but what you deliberately or selectively ignore is that the compensation the aboriginals seek is simply what was promsied to them when they agreed in the past to accommodate the British and French settlers and their governments. All aboriginals seek is for the promises placed in treaties be honoured not because they feel they "own" land but because they were displaced and exposed to hardship. It is not based on believing they own the earth, its based on the simple legal concept that they cooperated with the British and French and they simply want back what they gave in a fair exchange. Its not about owning land, its about recognizing aboriginal customs and laws as equal to British and French laws. its that equality that you just can't stand The idea that aboriginal legal traditions are as valid as your beloved British ones is something you will not agree to because when it gets down to it you have made it quite clear you are not interested in recognizing aboriginal rights. "Collective rights of aboriginals are no different from the 'collective rights' enjoyed by the feudal lords in most of Europe. " Are ou that oblivious to history that you make such sweeping comments that are patently absurd? The feudal Lords of Europe were part of a syystem of monarchs who used these lords as their lackies to control the peasants and assure they would be good slaves and work the land and pay their taxes. That is not even remotely close to the system of using and sharing land in North America with the aboriginals whose people did not pay taxes or defien the land as owned by their elders. Again you have no clue what you are talking about and are trying to claim concepts that are not remotely close as being one and the same-that again is your refusal to see aboriginals as distinct from you-you just can't discuss them without imposing and projecting your values on them and saying they are the same as yours. They aren't and never were. Your attempting to pretend oranges are apples is past absurd. "The feudal lords have been stripped of the privileges in Europe and nobody considers it a problem." Qwhat areyou babbling about and how is that even remotely related to the treaties aboriginals entered into with the Canadian government? Can someone please tell you the House of Lords still exists and no one in england has taken any land away from the Lords or Barons or the Queen nor does the feudal system in England or in other European nations that still have monarchies have any comparison to aboriginal rights unless you get your analogy right and find us a country where aboriginal people of a European country are engaged ina legal dispute with their ruling government over broken treaties. Oh but why make an analogy that makes sense. Lets just continue to spin fiction and pretend Europe is full of aboriginal peoples. "The Queen recently lost her tax exempt status because the people of Britain decided that no one should be exempt from taxes because of who their ancestors were. I don't think many British people are feeling guilty about that. " Now you ar ebeing deliberately dishonest. You have switched the topic from aboriginals seeking to have treaties they signed honoured with an entirely seperate issue, their tax status. Then you try suggest their tax status can be equated to them being privileged monarchs who should now pay taxes. Get a life. Now you would have us believe aboriginals have tax exempt status because for centuries they used people as slaves and amassed their fortune by claiming in the name of Jesus that they had the right to treat people as slaves? Boy talkk about twisting history around to project ridiculous comparisons. The taxt status for aboriginals as you are fully aware is as a result of a series of legal developments that had nothing to do with aboriginals being privileged monarchs amassing money unfairly. Nice try. See it always comes back to you and your resentment of what you think are aboriginals enjoying privileges you can't have. That is all this is about-no fair why do aboriginals get that and I don't..wah wah wah. See the problem with your petty resentment is you selectively ignore all the shit that comes with being an aboriginal. All you see is something you think they have that you want. The tragedy is you haven't a clue who they are and what comes with being aboriginal. Man I wish someone would send you to live on a reserve with no fresh water or a job or any future and see how fast you changed your tune after a few days of thinking that is something you want. Until you are willing to suffer the same shit they did and do, your resentment is absurd. Its easy for you to resent them you take your status as a white dude in a Christian world as a given.

"]If Canada was a civilized nation it would recognize that 'aboriginal title' and the 'right to own slaves' are racist concepts invented by people long dead that have no place in our society today." This mantra you continue to repeat over and over that the collective rights of natives is a racist concept has been pointed out to you over and over again as being disingenuine but you trot it out over and over. I suppose if you think you repeat it long enough someone will agree with it? For those of us who care to recognize the law and history and actually a definition of racism that is not arbitrarily expropriated and taken out of context, what we know is aboriginals existed prior to the British and French coming to Canada. When the British defeated the French and decided to turn Canada into a crown colony of the King and deem all of the land belonging to the King that same Christian King who thought nothing of being a white supremist racist and simply assume aboriginals were inferior savages and so he could just set forth on the continent in the name of his inbred family with a history of using people as slaves on the land to pay his taxes and of course also in the name of Jesus 9who for sure would believe in land ownership for a monarch) and deem it all his, well that King entered into legal treaties with the aboriginals. In your world, you hink its racist for aboriginals to try enforce their collective rights and precisely because of your racist selectivity- simply assume you can erase any legal system other then the one you want and of course it would be one where we entrench the racist that an inbred allgedly Christian King owns all the land of Canada. Its not racist to come to a continent and claim the land in the name of a King and his God, but it is racist for aboriginals to want to be treated as equals. Yah that sounds perfectly logical to me. See in your defective and may I come right out and say racist depiction of Canada, aboriginals are not equals and never were equals nor should ever be equals. Right now anytime they insist on being treated as equals your convenient memory shuts down and calls them racist for not wanting to be treated in a racist manner. Oh yah makes perfect sense to call someone a racist because they do not want to be treated in a racist manner. Talk about twisting history. You live in a racist fantasy world if you think you can simply ignore history and the racist treatment of aboriginals and simply start from today as if nothing happened. Got news for you, your Christian heritage still needs to be addressed. As long as you believe in a system that assumes the Queen of a foreign land owns all the land of Canada, this matter will not be fully settled. That racist assumption of crown ownership is what is racist and your attempts to call the people most victimized by this racist assumption as racist is laughable if it did not have so much blood on your hands and the hands of all Canadians who want to simply ignore what happened. Those blood stains don't disappear simply because you say they no longer exist.

"Natives rights are feudalism by another name." Congrats you have been able to demonstrate with just 7 words you haven't a clue about what native rights are about. Usually you need many more paragraphs. Native rights has nothing to do with feudalism. The feudal system assumed the King owned all land and the unwashed masses were allowed to live on it provided they work the land for him and pay him taxes. How your brain thinks such a system has anything to do witht he collective rights of aboriginals guatanteed to them in treaties with our government and its predecessors is anyone's guess. It seems you just pull these terms out of the hat and use them in what ever context you think they mean but has nothing to do with the law or history. Ah intelligent debate/

Nothing is happening. The world is fine. I know this because tt snowed this morning. Al Goreis fat and fat people are always angry-he is angry because he lost to George Bush. Polar Bears are just fine. So is Greenland. David Suzuki is a liar. You can tell. He trys to look like Che Guevara.

You are a liar. You are a false prophet. You and fat Al Gore are liars. Just go away and leave me alone. Why just yesterday I saw a bee. Sorry I couldn't resist. Exxon has paid me to say that. Bye.

"The photographer, Australian marine biology student Amanda Byrd, didn’t think the bears were in any jeopardy: [/b] Oh well there you have iut, if Amanda Byrd says so then its o.k. Never mind the myth you are trying to debunk did not refer to ice caps melting in August-never mind you got it wrong-lets just blame fat Al. The point fat Al raised, and is NOT being disputed by anyone is that polar bears are becoming exitinct because of global warming and the fact they have no ice to live on in the winter. Nice try. Next time try attack what was actually said, and use some facts. Also if you are going to qote a photographer/student make sure you quote the full context of what they said and point out it was in regards to a very narrow specific point, not the concept that polar bears are becoming extinct because of climate changes which by the way Amanda Byrd agrees with. Nice try recruiting her into a denial story she never initiated.

"Well here's a newsflash, Rue - the Bible could be interpreted to forbid blood transfusions." well Higgly nice to see you come back on this post, read what I said out of context and try infer I stated that criticism of Israel is always anti-semitic. Then again I would not expect you to debate honestly as the history of your previous comments have made it clear in your world, anyone who supports Israel is part of a greater conspiracy to manipulate the world. "One again we have Rue hacking away with the gory old anti-semitism axe at the first sign of any legitimate discourse other than the pro-Israel party line..." Ooopsy Higgly maybe you should read what I wrote. If I was doing the above, why would I have stated what I did about Carter? Oh but don't let logic get in the way of your diatribe. "even though "I do not believe that was his intention". LOL." Gosh Higgly our nose out of joint about something? Could it be we still feel a bit prickly about being challeneged about making generalizations about all Jews and all supporters of Israel? "And by the way Rue, there are lots of non-Jewish Israelites" Now Higgly you are lowering yourself to absurdity. If you want to try back peddle your way out of your previous Israelite comment, back peddle. Its pathetic. Be a man and admit you got caught once again using a coded word for slandering anyone who is favourable to the existence of the state of Israel. "Blindly supporting Israel while it continues to steal land...." Higgly the mantra is tiresome. We know you feel Israel bad demon nation. But its tiresome. All it does is manifest you have a hard on against Israel, nothing else. Its boring. We get it. Israel bad bad bad. "Since you responded to my post about the leaked Israeli government documents showing that 85% of the land under Ma'ale Adummin is rightfully owned by Palestinians, and that the same can be said for some 45% of land under all Israeli settlements, you know what I mean when I talk about Israel stealing land, Rue." No I do not and I have no clue what you are referring to other then once again you are trying to revise history and then engage in the kind of response that infers I have agreed with your revisionist opinions. Of course I do not and my debates with you in the past over the legal issues associated with who owns what greatly differ from yours not to mention this latest simplistic attempt to demonize Israel as the bad guy and portray a complex legal series of issues into "those bad bad Israelis stole it.." "And finally, to the matter of Mr. Carter's presidency. Carter lost a second term because of the Iran hostage crisis...." Again you seem to have simplistic answers for everything. Some of us would also believe Carter lost not just because of the Iran hostage event, but economic problems in the U.S probably caused by world wide economic questions...but then in Higgly's world of bad guys and good guys and demon Israel stealing things, where everything is as you say Higgly delicious, its all Israel's fault because I mean they were part of some sinister conspiracy with Olllie North right? Can't forget those delicious sinister behind the scenes Israelis and their cionspiracies and manipulations and shape-shifting right Higgly. Please go watch the documentary about you.You shouldn't wrestle naked in public either.

The problem is not all weight induced problems are caused by lifestyle. You seem to have type cast all weight related illnesses as having been a result of people who decide to eat bad food and too much food. Well I would like to see you enforce your exemption. Because not only would you need to tell fat people who eat too much junk food to go away and die without any medical care but you will have to add; 1-all humans who drink alcohol 2-all humans who smoke anything 3-all humans who drive cars 4-all humans who work in any job related to polluting the planet 5-all humans who buy products that pollute the environment. In 1-5, all of these activities are man-made and result in medical problems. The only thing I will say about fat people is I think they should pay more on an airplane and should not wear spandex. Other then that, I will say nothing else since I am holding in my stomach as I write this.

"The government has the power to extinguish any and all treaties should it choose to do so." Actually it does not. That is a legal concept you just don't want to accept. I suppose its easier for yout o cling to such simplistic concepts of power. In your world, the government simply arbitratily imposes unilateral pronouncements as long as it has majority vote. So using your rasoning, we do not need a constitution, supreme court, case precedent system, or anything else. We simply go from majority vote to majority vote on any law. "In some cases a constitutional amendment would be required..." Oopsy are we actually referring to the legal system you seemed to have inferred is irrelevant because mjority rule prevails? Guess what., It wouldn't be in "some" cases as you have stated. It would be in ALL cases, but then let's not let understanding and representing the legal system accurately get in the way of your comments. "however, the government has the power to pass constitutional amendments if that is what the majority of the people in the country want." There we go. It didn't take you long to get back to the thesis the government can simply ignore the constitution by a majority vote. "The only penalty that we would have to worry about is a bunch of angry natives that would likely resort to terrorism." Well there we go. It didn't take long for your racism to manifest itself. You just couldn't resist turning this into a scapegoating of "angry natives" and for that matter "terrorists" at that. What would happen if you wrote in one post without trying to alienate natives from the rest of Canada and ceasing and desisting in your stale attempts to depict natives as violent terrorists and us agin them. I will say it one last time. Not all of us Canadians who are non native can be lumped into one category just like your pathetic attempt to stereotype natives is equally as invalid. if the best you can do in this debate is turn this into a racist exercise of depicting natives as terrorists go away. We get it. You hate natives. Yay. Goody for you. "The idea that Canada would lose title to the lands is question is absurd." What is absurd is your attempts to reduce a complex series of legal issues into black and white racist categorization and an "us" against "them" tribal war. Your attempts to alienate native peoples and deny their legal rights is nothing more then a reflection of your own personal resentment against natives. You think they getting something you can't have. It is that simple and it is that ridiculous.

I don't think there is anything wrong with the planet, I think there is something wrong with peoples heads. http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/1318 Saturday night brought snow flurries amounting to over 20 cm by Sunday morning, stalling the regular duties of the Easter Bunny in his east-coast route. The head bunny is on strike because of unworkable conditions, claiming climate change has made its work close to impossible. Bunny says it will not return to egg hiding in Canada until it sees more effort from both the government and Canadians to help tackle climate change. There is no consequence to burning coal. There is no consequence to burning fossel fuels. There is no consequence to emitting toxic chemicals into our air and water supplies. The air pollution and smog we create has no consequence. Yuk yuk. Hah. Hah. Hee. Hee. It snowed today. There you go. I just thought I would add that to your Easter Bunny its snowing comment. You seem to have forgot to add it on.

To answer Besty's question it is human nature when faced with a crisis as to a situation we feel powerless to stop to deny it. As part of that denial we go into another phase called submission which is a passive way of saying, its too late. In fact the anti-climate change lobby would love you to feel its too late. They are spending a fortune to get you to believe just that. Its not too late, just as its never too late to stop smoking cigarettes. It is not too late to find alternative sources of clean energy and to cut back on coal burning, fossel fuel consumption and using certain chemicals. We have the technology to do just that. The only thing stopping us is the oil lobby which does not want us to stop using their product or our own lifestyle which has addicted us into wasting energy. It does not take much to change our habits.

when we are at the point od debating scientific phenomena with people who say since its snowing there is nothing wrong I seriously wonder if you really believe such people get it. They won't get it until its in their back-yard-until it effects them personally they won't get it. That unfortunately is human nature. Until someone dies in front of their eyes or they are personally inconvenienced they will deny. Its what we humans do best.

Hold on to your hats, but as I've stated before, perhaps actually having the will to win has been the only difference between us and the bad guys so far - the dems can't wait to lose a "Bush War" - but maybe now we're on the path to victory... Gosh and I thought it was more complicated then that. Silly me. Good to know the war will be over in a few days. Imagine me thinking the surge was just pouring oil on fire.

You have to be joking. The satellite positions and quadrants Iran produced were verified by Iran when they released them before they realized they should not have released them. The satellite posiitons were already authenticated by China and Russia. So your trying to engage in this ridicukous britain is a liar because its tied to the and I quote "Buschista" regime can not change that fact. Iran fabricated a crisis and then of course releaed the soldiers as it always intended to do as a propaganda ploy to make it look good. I am extremely annoyed today with former Iranian Ambassador Ken taylor and his absolutely idiotic statement to the Canadian press, that Iran did the right thing and acted reasonably and gave a message it wants peace. Listen up you idiot Mr. Taylor, they did the wrong thing-they invaded iraq, illegally abducted British soldiers in the lawful execution of international law asnd then paraded them about humiliating them for political purposes. Releasing them means sweet fck all. You don't give brownie points to a terrorist for backing down. That is what cowards do. Doing the "right thing" after doing the wrong thing, should not be rewarded or applauded becasue all that does Mr,. Taylor you gigantic twit is fuel Iran into doing it again thinking it can get kudos if it kidnaps people then releases them. You don't under any circumstance when a country releases people it held illegally send them a message they are good people and did the reasonable thing. You remain absolutely silent because they are watching every movement you make during the release seeing how you react to decide if they should do it again. God this Taylor is a twit. I can not believe he was an Abassador let alone got people released. He is parroting the exact reaction iran wants-look at us.....look at how wonderful we are releasing your soldiers-this is like a thief after being caught red handed with the stolen goods asking people to acknowledge him as being a good honest person since he admitted he was a thief after he was caught. Give me and my stomach a rest. As for all these posts that ignored the original post-the point is Iran acted like an outlaw state, and like the coward it is backed down because the British understand the game and did not blink.

So ,Posit , you are First Nation . Ok, thats fine, it just makes things so much clearer . I have followed along on these posts and you interchange "we" and "them" . Clarity is all I was seeking. Why does it make things much clearer. I agree with his views 100% because I am a lawyer who has bothered to try read the law and understand it.