Rue

If directly asked (and I will never raise it or discuss it unless spefically asked to) I would say from a spiritual perspective I don't feel comfortable at all with the concept of abortion if it is deliberately induced by a human. But that is simply my opinion. I also happen to believe what a woman does with her body is strictly her business, so ideally I would like her to know she has options other then an abortion, but what she does with her body is none of my friggin business unless of course she is my mate/wife and even if it is my sperm that created the child I believe my rights are limited to simply stating my preference but no more then that. Sorry boys, we don't have the responsibility that comes with carrying the child so we don't get the final word, and if you don't like it, then park that magic wand and stay out of trouble in the first place. My spiritual beliefs begin and end with me and most importantly I do not have a womb so its easy for me to say what I say, I do not have the responsibility to carry a child. Sure I do not like the idea of a deliberately induced abortion but what about a woman raped by her father or some sob on the street or what about a woman carrying a seriously deformed child or a child she knows will be born with down's syndrome or huntington's korea, etc. You think I would dare pontificate to a woman in suchs ituations that she must carry a product of incest etc., to full term? Nope. With medical ethics and medical care as advanced as it is today, its too complicated an issue for we people to start shoving religion in each other's face and imposing what we want on other peoples' bodies- rape is bad enough, please don't ask me to force my beliefs on them either-decisions as to the womb and what is in it rest with the woman, her doctor, and who-ever else she wants to confide in and trisy-if she asked me for advise I would definitelykeep my spiritual views to myself and remain strictly neutral and simply be non-judgemental and help them know what all the options are BUT THAT IS AS FAR AS I WOULD GO. Yes from a spiritual point of view I worry when life actually starts and so abortion makes me very nervous but on the other hand there is an issue as to the sanctity and control of a woman's body so for me, I feel I have to qualify and contain my opinions. I think am an example of many people who support a woman's right to control their body but still do not necessarily completely agree with abortion but see the two issues as distinct. I do not have a rigid belief that makes me feel I can impose it on others.

Yes, definitely. But that is a separate issue. A mother should be required to inform the father as soon as she is pregnant and give the father an opportunity to request that she have a abortion. If she refuses for whatever reason then the father should be freed of all support obligations. The father is also freed of support obligations if a woman waits until it is too late to get an abortion before informing the father.If a woman wants to have a child without the consent of the father then she should be prepared to raise that child on her own. Sheesh I am not evena feminist and I want to cut yer bawls off for being so silly! Get real dude. The moment you or me or any guy sticks his magic wand where it can make babies we assume a responsibility that we could get a woman pregnant. Man you got it figured out huh. Hit and run. Impregnante them and then demand they abort or you don't pay. Man what rock did you crawl out of. Following your arguement women are simply servants for our magic wands and have no rights unless predicated by what we men need or do not want to be responsible for? GET REAL. Either wear a safe or if you shoot off your wazoo be prepared for the consequences and responsibilities that come with being a man. Sounds like you need to grow up emotionally before you ejaculate further.

Multi-culturalism in its simplest sense is the act of a society trying to accommodate more then one set of cutlural values. Whether it is done by a state promulgated policy or simply by individuals on an individual or collective but non state sanctioned basis gets off on sub-categories of types of multi-culturalism. France would argue that even though it does not want Muslim women a wearing the traditional clothing, that they are still multi-cultural. The U.S. would too although the federal government has openly come out against Spanish being used in schools or having the anthem sung in Spanish. Quebec at the peek of its movement to promulgate laws clearly designed to discriminate against and turn English as a language into a second inferior class of communication and despite its clear and blatant attempts to give state preference to franco-phones over anglo-phones always referred to itself as multi-cultural and even when the corpulent Jaques Parizeau blamed Jews in Quebec for the seperatist loss in the referendum he continued to refer to himself as a multi-culturalist. So did Charles DeGaulles in between referring to Algerians as Pieds-Noirs and scum and referring to the English and Americans as inferior in culture. The point is multi-culturalism is all about nuances and degrees of how much a state or an individual is willing to tolerate with groups or individuals from other cultures other then the main-stream one. I think a classic example of a multi-cultural society is the gay culture. By definition people who are gay identify with each other and their prevalent culture as being gay, and yet they could be men, women, transgendered and from every religion, shade of skin colour, ethnic group, etc. Is Canada multi-cultural? Yes and no. I think it most certainly is say within its gay communities or large cities-but in its more rural areas-well not necessarily. Also aboriginals would argue Canada is not genuinely multi-cultural as long as it seperates aboriginals from mainstream culture. So I guess it all depends in who you ask and whether that person feels they are part of mainstream society or feel alienated from it. That will govern their perspective on whether they feel the society they live in is multi-cultural. Using the gay example, gay people could argue if they are not allowed to marry, this is an example of mainstream society not being multi-cultural. Me, I am a typical Canadian. I loath being hyphenated and yet I am quite used to Canadians being everything and anything imaginable. The only cultural I out and out reject is the culture of terror and/or violence and of course any culture that condones portraying or using children as sex objects.

Hannah Arendt for your interest was in fact Jewish...and a confused one at that. She studied under the well known existential philosopher Martin Heidegger an open sympathizer of Nazism. She actually became romantically involved with him and until she died defended him. She also studied under another noted existentialist Karl Jaspers and wrote many books and essays on totalitarianism, Stalinism, Nazism. She was noted for her history books. She fled France in 1940 to escape the Nazis after fleeing from Germany earlier and was active helping Jewish refugees through-out the world during World War Two and yes probably helped the Zionist movement get many Jews to Israel during and after World War Two. What makes her life story confusing is that after the war, when she reported on the trial of Adolph Eichmann for The New Yorker magazine, (which she then turned into a book) she raised the concept as to whether evil could be considered a " radical " concept or was in fact just a neurotic tendency ordinary people have where they need to obey orders and conform to mass opinion without critically thinking about the results of their actions or inactions. Many Jews and people openly critical of Nazism felt she was trying to make up intellectual excuses because she was still in love with Heidegger and as a Jew was a tad confused trying to reconcile his Nazi and Facist ideology and anti-semitism. So in fact I think you are dead on suggesting Arendt was an apologist for Nazism because of her probably misguided conflicting feelings of love for a Nazi and her being Jewish. So I personally think her comments as to Eichman and Nazism and terrorism suffered and can not be taken seriously although she is a noted historian and written excellent non political history books on World War Two and its origins and the History of Jews in Europe. That said, I always find it interesting to listen to a soldier's definition of terrorism which is almost always classical in definition and one I subscribe to. I think we have needlessly clouded what terrorism in this day and age. Terrorism is in fact simple to define. It is the act of violence to promote a political view-no more, no less. Terrorism is the action of using violence to express political will. If a soldier disobeys conventional rules of war (i.e., the Geneva convention) then they could be committing acts that constitute international crimes against humanity. International crimes or war crimes against humanity are often described as being terrorist in nature but it is more appropriate to refer to them as war crimes or crimes against humanity as they are beingc onducted by soldiers violating the Geneva convention or other coventions. In its pure sense, a terrorist act is committed by a civilian and it can be against other civilians, the public, public property and/or governments and their representatives. The notion of state terrorism is inaccurate. We have seen people mix these concepts but in fact state terrorism should more accurately be referred to as state promulgated acts of political violence that may have in addition to violating international standards of human rights, broken domestic criminal and constitutional laws and/or manifested their behaviour in forms of torture and violence. Terrorism in its classic sense, is a tactic a political group engages in to frighten the public or goevrnment. It is by definition a psychological attempt at scaring people into agreeing with the political views of the terrorist(s). It is an act intended to coerce. An act of terror is any act against an unarmed civilian by another civilian where the attacker claims he or she has engaged in that act of violence because of their political beliefs. All acts of terror by their very nature are crimes of homicide, and/or assault and battery and/or kidnapping. In today's environment people have clouded the issue of terrorism by stating it is understandable and we should look at its root causes. Well we can look at its root causes but the moment we make the determination that terrorism is understandable then what we are doing is legitimizing it. The fact is no act of terror for any reason can be considered legitimate by a civilized human. We are supposed to use reason and use our intellectual capabilities and abiliti to reason, to solve problems peacefully-terrorism is in fact the failure of humans to think and act rationally. It is an expression of our most basic primative or primal tendency to be violent and kill. As humans we were given the ability to understand right from wrong and reason unlike animals which supposedly makes us superior, and yet ironically we are the only species on the planet that kills indiscriminately. Excuse me if I respect whales more then I do humans! Go figure it.

Someone correct me if I am wrong but don't we already have private couriers? Why another? And doesn't Canada Post own Purolator? At this point I would say just sell it off to UPS or another courier.

You are right! Does it help if I say, it should be legalized but carefully controlled and taxed like booze or tobbacco>

But does the terrorist have a "plan" to committ genocide? I'm not sure I can be convinced of it. Hitler did not just send the odd bomb or kidnap a couple of people. He had a (twisted) purpose and a definite plan to execute it. These terrorists are disorganized and stupid. Do not refer to Hezbollah as stupid. Please read up on them. They are anything but stupid. Hezbollah are made up of university graduates...men with training in sciences, engineering, medicine, Muslim literature. They are not all savages. In fact many are highly educated in their society. They are also far from disorganized. Their operations are the epitome of high efficiency. They have developed a hybrid organizational style which mixes Maoist guerilla warfare, Viet Cong Warfare and organizational structure once made famous by the FLN in Algeria who defeated the French. Hezbollah's command structure and grass-roots organization including multi-national corporations and shell companies is elaborate. This is not a bunch of hillbillies. Please read up on them and if nothing else understand that these are not stupid people. These people are as intelligent and as well organized as it gets.More to the point they are fueled by their dogma and belief in fundamentalist Shiite Islam not coruption. There is nothing more dangerous then a group of men who believes God gives them the right to kill and that is precisely what Hezbollah is.

No that was not what was said. You may want to spin it that way but that was not what was originally said. What was said was that Israel was responsible for state terrorism and that Hezbollah are considered heroes by Lebanese. What was also said is that since the Lebanese people support them, they should be talked to. Now what you don't seem to understand probably because you live in Canada and have never survived a terrorist attack or witnessed one or ever read Hezbollah's manifesto and memorandums or spoken with its officials is that it has nothing but contempt for you-yes you and all your touchy feely, lets talk and understand one another feelings and if given the chance would think nothing of killing you. No these are not cuddly little misunderstood creatures who only react when those sinister Zionists insist on living in the Middle East. Hezbollah is a terrorist group... let me spell that out for you...T E R R O R I S T group. This means they do not want or believe in peace with Israel and if you take the time to read their literature are at war not just with Israel or Jews but with you and all your Western values and everything that you take for granted and assume they would have no problems with. These are people who believe in a Shiite Muslim state with no seperation between religion and state and who want clerical councils ruling the country, women covered up, and laws imposed through clerics. They want this world-wide and no they do not want to talk with you or could care less what you think of them. They will manipulate naive fools such as yourself as a propaganda tool while laughing at you behind your back so may I kindly suggest you not try spin the naivite of these MP's. They went into Lebanon on a propaganda tour designed to sucker them in and they were suckered. No one is blindly supporting Israel simply because they say it makes no sense to negotiate with terrorists. The moment you send a terrorist a signal you will talk with them-all you do is empower them to keep commiting more terror. The way to deal with a terrorist is simple-you insist that before you will talk with them, they MUST renounce violence and give up their weapons and in the case of Hezbollah delete their genocidal references to Jews and Israel. And no they are not just angry with Jews or silly Zionists and no one else and if we make nice they will go away. They are a cancer that is spreading and its only a matter of time until they blow up something close to you and suddenly you too will not think talking with them is too bright an idea. No terrorist can be spoken to and please understand this-do not understimate Israel-if there are people they need to talk to in Lebanon or elsewhere, they have their way of talking with them discretely-in this case however Hezbollah and Hamas and Jihad and Amal and all these other lovely boys cout groups have made it clear to their people they believe in genocide and will not stop until it is achieved. You want to play with people like this you will be burned.

Uh they may not be that smart but if in fact you read their manifesto and articles from their spiritual leaders they do actually want to see that the world is fundamentalist Shiite Muslim and that religion and state are not seperated and that in their philosophy, spreading world-wide is only natural. Now I suppose for Star Trek fans Hezbollah could have been referred to as Borgs instead of Nazis but the fact is they use the same genocidal references as Nazis so if the shoe fits...of if it walks and talks like a duck...etc.

Ignatieff's proposals are no different then what believe it or not some Republicans are also talking about when they propose the US find an alternative to dependence on Middle East oil. Even Bush has made some speeches going in this direction. I do not doubt what Ignatieff is saying is simply hot air at this point because he is seeking leadership of the Liberals and needs sound bites but eventually all countries will have to look at how alternative fuels are funded. The fact is provinces like Alberta which depend heavily on oil need not panic. They will continue to swell on their oil wealth for years to come. And besides you Albertans have lots of land to set up refugee camps for Ontarians who you assume will continue to finance the rest of Canada. As for me I just love watching you rich dudes in Alberta watch the rest of us struggle. I am a displaced refugee from Quebec who went to Truntah. I should have kept going. I hear the streets are paved with Gold in Calgary and you guys sent all your drug addicts to Vancouver.

I have said far too much but I will add this to the debates. Islamic fundamentalism is not a new phenomena. It has existed since the inception of Islam and there is a very simple reason for it. Islam is ayounger religion then Christianity and Judaism and most of us forget that. From an anthropoligical point of view, it is still in its infant stage. From that perspective, Islam is still collectively at a fundamentalist stage and is yet to evolve to a stage of critical thinking where its followers will question the religion, try reform it, and begin to question things and not see things in black and white terms. One of the reasons Islam is not developing to the critical stage where people question rigid dogma and fundamentalist beliefs is a socio-economic one. The lack of seperation of religion from state, causes Arab or Muslim states to be bogged down with incompetence and coruption. Show me a country where religion and state are not seperate, and I will show you a corupt, repressive regime...and that is no different then what happened in the Christian world of the 1400-s to 1990-s and of course you want to go back in the Bible, at one point even the Jewish world and kingdom became corupted by a repressive hierarchy that of course Jesus challenged and other reformist Jews challenged. Islam is not year near the stage of critical development and it won't be for another 400 or so years. The lithmus test is simple-determine the level of literacy of the countries in which Islam is the religion. As long as that literacy rate remains low, this critical evolution can not happen for the simple reason that as is the case now, as long as the majority of Muslims can not read and write, they need to depend on their clerics to tell them how to think and as long as that continues these clerics have raw power and control...and absolute power corupts. As we can see the regime in Iran and all the fundamentalist regimes corupt power by concentrating it in the hands of a few who make pronouncements. Until the average Muslim learns to read and write, he or she can not begin to question and come to the conclusion there may be a way to do things other then the way they are told by their clerics. One of the reasons the US was doomed to failure in Iraq was because it naively thought it could just march into Iraq and impose democracy. You can't impose democracy on people who can not read or write. Such people necessarily simply follow orders and of course they will not follow orders from aliens or Westerners who they have been told come from the land of the infidel and even some of us Westerners wonder if coke and macdonalds are the devil's tools. So all I am saying is Islamic fundamentalism is old and its to be expected.In the West we do see Muslims who have learned to read and write and of course go on to become successful academics, professionals, etc., begin to question fundamentalism...but let's be realistic...it took hundreds of years for Christians to stop burning witches (and some days we still see fundamentalist Christians in the West engage in some very scary things) and evolve, and it took thousands of years for Jews to evolve and both Jews and Christians still have many rigid fundamentalists so why be so suprised that the Muslim world is rigid, dogmatic and a flourishing environment for terrorism. Now back in the West, we also have to look at ourselves. Uh yes we have evolved but into what? The fact is we have a set of social values and culture that is far from perfect. We tend to take for granted our individual rights and that they just didn't come about..if they have come about it has been as a result of brave individuals fighting to get those rights for us.

There wqas never a state of Israel prior to 1948 either. It had always been just a part of something else. yet for some reason, the UN felt compelled to create such a state for the purpose of housing a large group of displaced Europeans that none of the member states wanted to take. Why not extend the same courtesy to Palestine. Again: you mentioned Jordan and Egypt as two countries that Israel has made peace with. Yet both these countries were, at one point, intent on Israel's destruction. Yet Israel was able to make peace and return land to those nations. Why? All this time and you still don't have a clue. My point was simply returning land is not a guarantee of peace, unless you're actually returning that land to someone with teh ability to ensure peace. So was Egypt not intent on destroying Israel? First: wipe the spittle off your keyboard. You're losing whatever semblance of coherence you may have had. Second: you dodge the issue of how Egypt went from being at war with Israel from 1948 to 1978 to being peaceful neighbours. Third: Israel can hunker down and continue to act unilaterally, but that won't help them acheive any lasting peace. If you prefer Israel to exits in a state of perpetual war, thus providing its enemies with fuel for the hatred and alienating and marginalizing moderates on all sides, well, no friend of Israel you. Of course there was a state of Israel prior to 1948! See your problem is you continue to selectively ignore history and want to look at it from a very narrow selective perspective as if Jews suddenly went to the Middle East in 1949. The fact is Jews lived in a nation in what is now Israel for centuries and then were displaced and forced out by Muslim warriors, Romans, Christians, Greeks, etc., but never stopped living in what is now Israel continuously since the Bliblical days and long before today's Arab nations and the Muslim religion existed. You like to ignore this and pretend Jews just sort of wanted to go their for no reason. Think about it. Try open your mind. Jews could have lived anywhere and at one point Churchill even suggested they move to Uganda and start a country there. There is a reason they went back to a piece of dirt with no natural resources. There is a very real reason you have chosen to deliberately ignore in previous posts and said so in your posts. You keep stating when I try explain to you that Jews are aboriginals to what is now Israel and returned to this land because of their religious beliefs that they are spiritually connected to the land because of a promise from God to Moses to let them live there-that you found such a notion irelevant. Well that is precisely why Jews fight for this piece of land and started a country. After 3.500 years persecution at the hands of Christians in Europe (try learn that part of history) and thousands of years of dhimmitude (second class segregation and yes sometimes slaughters) in the Muslim world, you wonder why Jews wanted a country? Yes you can pretend Jews are Europeans and a European problem simply created in 1949 and dumped on Arabs but this is pure b.s. and just not a fair depiction of history. The fact is Jews have as much of a right to live and claim historic rights to Israel as do the Muslim people and Christian people of the Middle East. And that is why I debate you and say, no stop being selective and denying Jews have any rights to a state. The fact is to be fair and open-minded, Christians, Muslims and Jews, all should have rights to co-exist in the holy land. The fact is that if you take a look at Muslim history you will see Muslims deliberately destroyed Jewish synagogues and holy sites and rebuilt their Mosques on top of them and this is precisely why we have such a problem in Jerusalem. The Mosque of Oman was built on top of the Jews' most sacred Temple after it was destroyed. The Wailing Wall is the last reminents of that Temple. Now you for sure would not care to know but prior to 1967 Jordan occupied East Jerusalem by seizing it in the 1949 war. It sezied the area and the West Bank illegally. Trans Jordan or the Jordan we know today was never supposed to control or occupy the West Bank. You ever wonder why Israel went in therein 1967? Oh sure you trendy leftists with no clue as to history because you do not choose to read it are unaware that prior to 1967, the West Bank and East Jerusalem were launching pads for continuous terrorist attacks in West Jerusalem. Not only that but were you aware Arab people would urinate on the Wailing Wall to deliberately show hatred towards Jews that went and tried to pray there? Israel took East Jerusalem because it felt this part of Israel was sacred and holy to Jews and was being desecrated by Arab people and they went into the West Bank to once and for all stop attacks from the PLO and in particular Al Fatah, Al Fedayeen, the PFLP and and an assortment of over 50 other terrorist groups. Israel does not want to be in the West Bank. It set up communities in the West Bank as a political attemptto create frontier posts or buffer zones to discourage terrorist attacks. This was a disaster. These settlements were mostly populated by fundamentalist Jews who still believe that Judea and Somaria, (please do look that up in the Bible to see where its borders were) is the rightful territory of Israel wrongfully taken away by Muslims, Greeks, Romans, Turks and the British. Now you can dismiss these fundamentalist Jews, but the fact is they in fact do have a legal claim that could be argued in international law and can not be summarily dismissed although it is by people from your generation who have no clue as to the history and legal rights that flow from these ancient borders. One could make a successful legal arguement that the Roman, Greek, Turkish, British, French and now Muslim borders are all illegal and were only achieved through war and violence. Now let us get real. This pre 1967 border is legal fiction. It came about in 1949 only after the entire Arab League denied Jews the right to a homeland. You say for some reason Jews were given a country....is that insensitivity or ignorance that causes you to make such remarks so casually. Uh hello, 6 million Jews are exterminated across Europe with the active participation of numerous Europeans from many nations and an elaborate train network that required the full awareness of millions of citizens and you want ot know why the UN gave Jews a homeland? Uh hello, who do you think took the property and money of the millions of Jews that were exterminated or displaced? It wasn't ahandful of Nazis. It was millions of every day, common folk across Europe who looked the other way and knew what was going on when they were given the money and shops and property of Jews. So please you want to have a selective memorty be my guest but the fact is the UN felt like it had a serious issue. It had the survivors of the worst extermination and genocide known to man and it could not simply expect these people to return to Europe. There was no where for them to return to and not only that you think the European nations wanted them back? Have you any clue that Canada, anad Europe were refusing to take in or back Jews? These European countries and yes Canada refused them and did not want them. No one gave Jews anything. The UN was paralyzed and doing nothing. Britain was in Palestine and found itself refereeing disputes between Arabs and Jews. Britain earlier on thought it could divide and conquer and by keeping two feuding factions of Jews and Arabs in tiny enclaves jammed together, would always be needed to administer Palestine. Only what the British did not count on is after they suggested two enclaves one for Arabs and one for Jews, the Arab world unanimously said not a chance. It was the Arab League's decision to say all or nothing and in 1949 try drive all Jews out of Palestine. That decision you seem to always skip over. The displaced Palestinians how do you think they became displaced? Oh again trendy Leftists like to pretend they simply fled in fear of their lives. The fact is they were asked by the Jewish Zionist movement to stay and most fled on orders from their Mullahs and broadcast speeches over loud-speakers telling them to leave and that they would return as soon as the Arab League rid the place of Jews. Yes some Palestinian Arabs were bought out and you can question those deals. Yes some Palestinians ran and who could blame them...but what did you expect these Jews to do? They had nowhere to go and that is what history is all about...events that transpire, often tragically that place people in each other's way...and no amount of selectivity can change that fact. How does this end? How do you think? As long as it is the cultural norm in the Arab world to believe Jews should be eradicated and Israel wiped off the map, this will never end. It can only end when typical, average Muslims and Arabs from across the Middle East say once and for all, that trying to wipe out Israel is not the solution, co-existence is. If you put down the terrorism and weapons, then the solution comes about. What makes the Arab world so short-sighted is that there institutionalized hatred and anti-semitism and belief that Israel is an occupying nation and evil, is pointless. They could have easily defeated Israel had they adopted Ghandi's tactics and simply used passive resistance. They out-populate Israel by 1000 to 1 and a passive peaceful resistance would have made it impossible. In a way, by choosing violence and intolerance, the Muslim world not only cursed itself to always having Jews in its midst, but as doomed it to failure because terrorism never builds it can only destroy. It doesn't build a vision. It is not a coincidence all the Muslim countries that to this day remain at war with Israel....which again you seem to forget...are all economic basket cases and run by corupt police regimes. That is what terrorism breeds. So you ask why did the UN do what it did, pick up a history book. Try understand 1949 did not happen in isolation. It was one of a never ending cascading series of events that have led us to where we are today and it is precisely when we ignore history and the origins of conflict that we fan the flames for future conflicts. The only way peace will be achieved in the Middle East is if Palestinians and Jews can live side by side. And for those who say Israel is making that impossible, I look squarely in your eyes and say, travel to Israel before you make such statements, understand how small the nation is and why it is at war with Hamas and Hezbollah. It is at war not because it won't live side by side with Palestinians...it is at war because Hamas and Hezbollah have stated there existence is created on the belief that they will not rest until all of Israel is wiped off the map. Before you lecture Israel not to go into the West Bank, Gaza, South Lebanon and detain terrorists-kindly suggest what you would do if you were faced with someone with a gun pointed in your face saying he will kill you. My comments above are general discussion comments and not meant directly at B-Dog. I am just debating in general the other side of the coin.

Try to grasp the nuance here. I've no doubt people who want the land back don't care how they get it back. But, from Israel's strategic standpoint, it's vital they give the land back to someone who can run the place and not allow it to turn into a security threat to them. You can't absolve Israel of responsibility for what happens when they bug out and then whine about the unsavoury parties that set up shop in the turf they vacated. But you can't ptretend it was part of a "land for peace" deal whichwas the point you were trying to make in the first place. There's your problem. You think Israel can do as it pleases and act with as much force as possible and will not face any long term repurcussions because it can't possibly be any more hated. Be careful what you wish for. You're contradicting yourself. You've clearly acknowledged that an increased application of force to solve problems will increase antipathy towards Israel (you just say that it is an irrelevant consideration). Now you're saying that increased force will "keep the tide of hatred down to an acceptable level". Which is it? You certainly can't be suggessting that more force will make Israel less hated. The problem with your analysis is that you are trying to view Israeli counter-actions in isolation and as having no cause and were simply initiated unfairly. The reason why your analysis always runs this way is because you simply start with the belief that Israel should not exist and therefore it is not allowed to defend itself. Since it should not exist, Arabs are justified in attacking it but it is not justified fighting back. That is all your arguement boils down to and so it is ludicrous. Israel's actions are as a direct result and reaction to terrorism, pure and simple. For you and the other simplistic poster who want to portray Israel as the bad guy and the Arabs in the Middle East as sweet innocent people just trying to defend themselves, please continue. You perhaps can go on tour with our idiot MP's as well. I will say it one last time. Every time Israel has gone into land other then what is in the pre-1967 borders it has been in direct response to terrorist attacks. When it has then left, terrorists once again attack within pre 1967 borders. People like you refuse to acknpowledge this and even have the nerve to argue that the vacum of Israel leaving causes terrorism! One the one hand Israel is not supposed to leave its pre-1967 borders to prevent terrorist attacks but if it does and then leaves in an effort to achieve peace- it is still wrong! Give it a rest. Your double standard is tiresome. Until you take the time to understand that the pre-1967 border is a de facto border you will never understand what is going on in the Middle East. Your simplistic analysis of looking at the Middle East as an isolated snap shot that can simply be dismissed as Israel invading is pure and utter selective ignorance. For those of us who take the time to read and talk to people in the Middle East and live there and try take the time to read Jewish and Islamic history, and understand the chain of events that has been going on since Biblical days, your simplistic analysis is laughable. It is the product of a lazy mind and someone who does not want to take the effort to understand the cause and effect and chain reaction of conflict that is not isolated but cascades after thousands of years of historical events. What it will take to get you to understand what a de facto border is, is anyone's guess but I will say it once again-the pre 1967 borders of Israel are recognized by only Egypt and Jordan, all other Arab states are still at war with Israel and do not recognize even those pre 1967 borders. So all this bs about Israel invading and wanting the Gaza and West Bank is just a crock of sh..t. This is about Israel surrounded by terrorist groups and countries that will not recognize it under any circumstance. Why play this game that the Arab world's refusal to recognize Israel is logical, acceptable and without consequence? Why-because at the heart of the matter you will not accept Israel's right to exist and so everything you say after that to me, is hippocritical, one sided and contradictory. In a conflict there is no right side. There are simply people with competing interests. Since you do not accept Israel's right to exist, you see only the Arab world as having the right to exist and so end up doing what is trendy these days, apologizing for terrorist acts and trying to depict them as acts of freedom fighters. The fact is Israel was not in Lebanon when Hezbollah went into Israel and attacked it. The fact is Israel has no interest in the West Bank and Gaza and simply wants to be left alone. It did not go into the West Bank of Gaza for any reason other then to pre-empt terrorists from entering Israel. That is a fact not an opinion. Each and every act Israel has done in Gaza and the West Bank can be documented back as a response to a terrorist attack and for that matter has been. I defy you are anyone else do describe one military excursion by Israel that was not done in response to a terrorist attack. I would love to hear you twist the truth on that.

The real issue isn't whether muslims are mostly moderate, but whether they acqueisce in the face of militant islam. Anyone who knows alot of Irish people (I used to belong to the Irish club in a prominent Alberta city) knows that many of them quietly supported the IRA and it's cause. Is the same true amongst Muslims? This is a valid question. Of course. With any ethnic group, whether they are Tamils from Sri Lanka, Somalis, Arabs, etc., if they speak out against violence and terrorism they are seen in their communities as traitors. Its no different then why many decent, hard working black people stay silent and will not speak out against the minority in their community who make it bad on them all. Ethnic groups are afraid to criticize for fear it makes them look like sell-outs and that is too bad. One thing I will say about we Jews, we have many who are anti-Zionist and loudly criticize Israel and even supporters of Israel who are Jewish will criticize it but we too are afraid people will mistake it or use it or exploit it to fan hatred against Israel and Jews in general so someone say like myself who is a moderate won't explain my views when I am faced with anti-semites and people spewing blatant anti-Israel statements. I think many moderate Muslims and Arabs feel the exact same way. They are afraid of they criticize terrorism, people won't listen to what else they have to say. Muslims are like any other ethnic group. They have insecurities as to what they can say and how they will be portrayed. I think as Canadians we all have to find the courage to denounce terrorism no matter who advocates it. I mean how do we expect moderate Muslims to feel confident to speak out when they see elected MP's going and sucking up to Hezbollah to try get some ethnic votes? How would you feel seeing that? I will say it again-I think only a minority of Muslims embrace terrorism but I do believe the vast majority have embraced anti-semitism as a cultural right and as long as they embrace anti-semitism and the inner belief that Israel is the enemy, nothing will change. The fact is even mainstream Islam still teaches that Christian and Jewish religions are mistaken and that all other religions are mistaken. This is no different then many mainstream Christians who truly believe unless you believe in Christ, you go to hell. Many moderate people are not so moderate because they accept their religions fundamental views not thinking this makes them intolerant. It is precisely the reason I do not embrace fundamentalist Judaism even though I am Jewish. I do not want to live in a ghetto and I do not think I am better or worse then anyone.

Well it wasn't too long ago Gilles Duceppes and Bloc Quebecois Members, Liberals and NDPers marched with people carrying Hezbollah flags and screaming out that Israel should be destroyed so why the surprise. This is a classic example of the kinds of morons we elect to office. They have no awareness of what si going on so a lobbying group takes them to Lebanon shows them blown out apartments, tells them how evil Israel is and how the Hezbollah are only trying to defend Lebanon and presto they come back believing everything they are told. Of course they are sniveling, sheltered idiots who listen to what-ever they are told and do not think critically. Its fashionable to condemn Israel. These MP's are whores. They want to pick up anti-American, anti-Jewish, anti-Israeli sentiment and use it to win over ethnics they think will vote for them if they condemn Israel. There was a fat whore in Mississauga who has sinceleft the seen who made a specialty of stomping on George Bush dollars and pandering to her high Palestinian population by making anti-Israel statements every chance she got. Now she wants to be Mayor of Mississauga thinking these same voters will put her in after Hazel McCallion dies. Its cynical politics at its worse. What makes it repulsive is that these MP's have not bothered to read the Hezbollah Charter or take the time to find out what it stands for and how many innocent people it has killed. These idiots think because it has a political wing if you suck up to it, they won't want to commit terrorist acts. This is idiocy to the extreme. These idiots think you can sit down with Hezbollah and make nice and act all gushy. I mean after all its only Israelis they hate and golly gee we all know Israelis er Jews are trouble makers anyways right? Its putrid and its morally unacceptable and their political parties knew they went over on a paid lobby trip and would be turned into dupes and said and did nothing. The Liberals and NDP walked into this because they are trying to get votes pure and simple and they think if they pander to anti-Israel voters it will win them the next election. They make me want to puke. What truly angers me is that they can dare compare this terrorist group to Irgun and the Ira. Talk about not understanding history and comparing apples to oranges. Irgun was a terrorist group and in spite of its terrorism, the majority of Jews fighting for an independent Israel denounced it and when it merged into the Israeli Army was required to denounce its ways and no one but no one in Israel has ever argued Irgun's actions were acceptable and anyone who suggests they are condoned or forgiven by Israel and justify Hezbollah haven't a clue about the majority of Jews who fought to obtain a free Israel and did NOT engage in attacks on innocent children. As for the IRA it was a terrorist organization and the UK never capitulated until it gave in its weapons. More to the point the IRA simply said it wanted independence for Ireland. Like Irgun, it did not have a manifesto calling on the genocide of Jews, Christians or anyone else. Neither Irgun or IRA had a manifesto calling for the extermination of a group of people as Hezbollah does. Let us get something clear about Hezbollah, Hamas, Jihad, Amal and all the other terrorist groups. They are not interested in Western democracy, they are not interested in peaceful coexistence with Israel or Jews anywhere, and if any of you are stupid enough to think they only hate Israelis and Jews but won't harm Christians if we just leave them alone and let them kill Jews, I have news for you-they are laughing at the way you live and everything you take for granted in Canada. They are laughing at these idiot MP's the same way they laughed at that insane gay activist who went running to Iraq only to be kidnapped and requiring valiant soldiers put their lives on the line saving his sorry ass. Did anyone not tell him Muslim fundamentalists kill gays? They have no time of day for our Western values. Their hatred for Israel doesn't end there and sucking up to these people is absolute stupidity. I wish these MP's sit through and experience a terrorist attack. The only thing these sheltered idiot MP's understand is when there is a terrorist attack in their own neighbourhood. Then they are the first to run and hide and demand the police and army protect them. This idiocy makes Canada a laughing stock and what it will do is fuel terrorists world wide into thinking they can manipulate us. What did these idiot MP's think they were doing when we have soldiers in Afghanistan with their lives on the line fighting terrorists? How about they travel to Afghanistan and embrace Osama Ben Laden and the Taliban. The fact is Irgun, Ira, Hezbollah, Hamas, Jihad, any of these groups are absolutely unacceptable. Violence and the killing of civilians as a means of political expression is not justified. Until Hezbollah renounces its code of violence, renounces its Charter calling for the destruction of Israel and genocide of Jews world-wide it can under no circumstances be negotiated with. This is like saying we should sit down and listen to Clifford Olson and Charlie Manson and Paul Bernardo. These three are victims of society you know. Please lets help them. Man there are days I am so ashamed to be Canadian. This is one of them. I will never until I die ever vote NDP or LIberal. That I swear on.

Whenever I listen to people talk about abortion as an issue, I always seem to come across people who feel it is their right to impose their beliefs on others. To me that is the issue. The issue isn't whether abortion is acceptable or not, it is the notion that one human has the right to impose their spiritual beliefs on another because they think they are absolutely right and the other person wrong. See I am not interested in anyone's religious beliefs, genetic theories, arguements as to cancer, etc. To me it comes down to a simple issue-a woman and her body. The decision what that woman does with her body is between her, her conscience and if she allows it, her doctorn and mate. The bottom line is an embryo as long as it is part of a woman's body IS her body. You want to start telling women how to manage their bodies then make sure you have police officers or abortion enforcement officers sitting with them through-out their entire 9 months of pregnancy and of course during their initial copulation so you can make sure no sperm gets wasted. And while you are at it, post these abortion enforcement officers all over the world because many of these women smoke, drinka nd do horribloe things that could cause their babies to abort or be killed including flying, driving a car, breathing in polluted air, etc. To me this entire debate is absurd. None of you is in the position to tell a woman how to manage her own body. You can pontificate all you want about what is right and what God wants but the bottom line is each woman as an individual has to make the choice to remain pregnant or end it. My personal beliefs are besides the point. So I say to all women, what you do with your body is your business.....however I would suggest if you want to listen that given the rate of AIDS and other communicable diseases past on by sex, you should practice safe sex and in that manner, if you do get pregnant by accident, at least there is less of a chance you are gong to die from AIDS. As for what each woman does with her body, that is her business and its between her and her doctor not me. I keep my religious opinions to myself. Its more sanitary that way. Spreading religious views is a lot like farting in a crowded elevator. It is not appreciated.

Uh hello how did you manage to turn this debate into what you did? This is a debate about abortion. Your suggesting a cell or an undeveloped embryo is a baby is silly. It is deliberately misleading. No one is talking about killing cuddly little babies. So relax. Go have a few.

Now on this last point, I will never debate you or Black Dog or anyone else if you argue the IDF should have used commando strike forces not a prolonged air war. Now I can understand. See now you are not attacking Israel's right to defend itself, simply how it chose to do so. So on that, I can concede and from a strictly military point have to come back to your position and say yes there was an alternative. The problem with the commando strike approach is that you also need conventional armed forces on the ground creating a 30 mile buffer zone to neutralize missile attacks from getting into Israel. The options are limited. If you don't want to use your air for attacking, you have to do it on the ground, The problem right now was that Israel's commando elite strike attacks would have had limited success as long as the logistic supply lines from Iran and Syria remained as they were. All that aside, I think it is important we all realize this latest conflict was a costly show. It was posturing between Iran and Israel. Its part of an on-going deadly display of poker between two foes. The wide spread destruction in Lebanon as disgusting as it is, was part of a show put on to tell Iran, Israel means business. The wide spread destruction is meant as a message for Iranian clerics now leading their country. In terms of a long term war against terrorism, its a mere blip in history.

Of course they did, bombing apartment complexes will without a doubt kill civilians. That's attacking indiscriminately. Indiscriminate means not discriminating between the good guys and the bad guys. That's what Israel is doing. They are punishing everyone for the actions of a few. They are killing mostly innocent civilians. No Hezbollah leaders were harmed in that entire campaign, it accomplished nothing. So you tell me. So I will tell you.....if we follow your logic, as long as a terrorist uses a human as a shield, the person being attacked by the terrorist, has no right to defend himself- that makes no sense. What you are doing is assigning culpability on Israel for the fact that Hezbollah deliberately placed civilians in harms way as shields. That is illogical. The problem with your anology is that it is simplistic and ignores the moral culpability component. If civilians die it is squarely as a result of Hezbollah's decision to have placed them in the line of fire, and now as thousands of Lebanese go back to their rubble, they are beginning to realize they were used by Hezbollah. This notion you can simply state Israel is not allowed to do anything because Hezbollah uses humans as shields is b.s. Israel has a moral responsibility to defend its citizens and yes even if this means killing Lebanese civilians-is it preferable...no...does anyone truly want it to happen no...but there are no choices in such conflicts. See it is easy for you to say Israel was indiscriminate but I notice you remain silent on Hezbollah...why? why the double standard? The fact is Hezbollah used civilians indiscriminately as human shields and that led to their death-simple as that. You want to blame Israel for defending itself....go ahead...its precisely what Hezbollah wants you do to do...its precisely what terrorists are good at, killing people then manipulating their deaths for political shock value and you walk right into it... Here is also why I do not take what you say seriously...people like you shoot off at the mouth about how Israel is indiscriminate....but never will someone like you explain what it is Israel is supposed to do to defend itself from extermination....that you remain silent on...you buy into this double standard that Hezbollah and Muslim terrorists can do what-ever they want with no consequences, but if Israel tries to defend its right to exist, its evil. Well guess what-when people are surrounded by terrorists threatening to kill each and every last one of them...they could care less what some soft, sheltered, naive, Canadian living in the suburbs and getting his slice of reality from t.v. or web sites has to say. So you asked me to tell you...I did.

Well I think the point is a ten year old has to be accountable for his behaviour. Yes at 10, you can place a child in an institution emphasizing education and hard labour. Ideally a 10 year old who commits a serious crime should be placed on a collective farm and when he is not in school under strict military rules be out doing physical labour. Discipline, physical labour, education are the 3 elements of rehabilitation absolutely non existent in our system. Now as for adults, and by that I mean anyone 16 or older, it is absolutely insane they are allowed to murder people and then be let out after 5 years on parole. It is insane we allow them to vote and sue the government for millions of dollars because they become drug addicts in jail, contract aids or contract lung ailments from second had smoke. Its pure b.s. and everyone knows it. You murder someone, you get a minimum 25 years. After the 25th year, you wear a leg bracelette the rest of your life and you are required to work and pay a certain percentage to the dead person's family until you retire. Instead of putting people in over crowded prisons they should be sent up North to build homes and roads for our natives and build roads for our military so it can establish its sovereignty up North. Hard labour. No sitting on asses smoking and engaging in anal sex and doing drugs. Work. You don't want to work, fine, then you are left up North with a simple basic subsistence diet and left isolated. No right to vote. No right to t.v. No right to drugs in prisdon. No right to law suits. No parole after 2 years for murder and rape. Finally for the disperportionate number of aboriginals arrested and placed in jail for alcohol related offences, they should be relased to their community elders and treated by their communities-for the most part these are crimes of poverty and substance abuse related to that poverty. This should be differentiated from organized crime or violent crime. Show me a punk criminal and I will show you a young man who had no male role model and grew up having no one tell them NO. Yes it is that simple. Discipline and restraint is what we are talking about. If you don't instill it in children is it a wonder they kill and rape?

Perhaps not. But it does take the edge off of such analogies when you realize that Israel and the west are he one's in the position of strength. But no one here has said anything about appeassing Hizbullah. It's possible to marginalize Hizbullah without engaging them at all. Its interesting you say the West and Israel are in positions of strength. I have no idea why you say that. Israelis certainly do not feel that way and perhaps that is why you constantly seem to mistate or misunderstand the psyche of an Israeli soldier or civilian. Israelis are not stupid people. They do not see themselves as being in a position of strength. They are well aware they are a small minority in a small land surrounded by far greater numbers of persons who want them wiped out. They are vividly aware that with the exception of the U.S., they can not really count on anyone. So please do not think they think they are invincible and look down upon the Muslim world. They do not and never underestumate their vulnerability. More to the point if you speak to anyone who is in intelligence or in military planning, anywhere in any Western nation, they all know that the West is dependent on oil and this makes them weak. Behind George Bush's public posturing is his Navy and Army intelligence telling him he's involved in civil wars he can not win and that the country's dependence on oil makes it vulnerable to venezuela, Iran, and extremists who could topple Saudi Arabia or seize the Gulf States. So please, I am not sure who you are talking to, but those people I know in the military and who do political risk forecasting have some intelligence. Give them credit. Terrorism can happen anywhere at any time. So maybe you think the West is invincible but even most civilians in the West now realize how volnerable we all are.

You are dead on with your analysis and Benjy is manouvering as we speak exploiting the vulnerability Israelis are feeling. The reality is though for any government to rule in Israel including his, it will still require the formation of a precarious coalition with Labour so any way you slice it Netanyahu will get elected sounding tuff, but from a purely practical point of view, there is a limit to what he can do. Olmert however is toast. His decision to rely on an air war as opposed to a ground war is already being widely dismissed.

Black Dog just loves to state his personal unsubstantiated opinions as if they are gospel truth. Anyone who knows anything about how the IDF operates and has read anything it has actually said, in regards to the latest conflict will not find any of its statements stupid enough to under-estimate Hezbollah. The IDF is well aware anything it says could be used to hype Hezbollah so please give them some credit. No what we in fact see happen is people in the Western press who want Israel to screw up, build up its in one paragraph only to tear it down in the next. A classic example is to call the IDF invincible and then go on to state how Hezbollah was able to beat it. The IDF is a conventional army. And so it has the same weaknesses any conventional army does when fighting guerillas and terrorists. When it achieves success against guerillas and terrorists it is because it uses commando strike units that are highly mobile and quick striking using the element of surprise. You can say this about the British, US, Chinese, Russians or any other conventional army as well. Its not rocket science. Conventional armies are too large and dependent on supply lines to be able to be sufficiently mobile to track down and hunt and kill terrorists. What Israel did in this latest conflict was to resist bringing in troops on the ground and rely heavily on air bombardment similiar to what NATO did in Yugoslavia. It didn't work well for the simple reason Hezbollah modified its ground movement similiar to what the Viet Cong did when the US Air Force tried to blow Vietnam to smithereens. The bottom line is this conflict is suspended. Eventually the IDF will have to send in elite teams to take out strategic terrorist cell leaders. That will not change as long as Hezbollah plans to exterminate Israel and uses the lull simply to re-arm. What the Western Press is oblivious to through-out all this was that Iran was testing Israel's new PM and used Hezbollah as its proxy army. Iran may or may not be interested in a war with Israel. Its hard to know. a lot of what it is doing is posturing like North Korea. Like North Korea it is economically in trouble and so trying to focus attention away from its collapsed economy. Whether it actually has a nuclear weapon and intends to use it is anyone's guess. What is clear is that as much as Hezbollah will say it gained a victory Iran was given a message that Israel doesn't give a hoot what the world thinks and will do what is necessary to defend itself. Olmert will not last another 6 months in office. Already Likud is manouvering to replace him with a right wing back-lash to Hezbollah. Israelis feel Hezbollah has only been temporarily suspended and have no confidence in the UN. Would Iran use a nuclear weapon? On the one hand one says they would not because this would kill as many Arabs and Palestinians as it would Israeli Jews and then of course the retaliatory strikes would be devastating. On the other hand Iran's ruling clerics are divided int0 3 camps and two of those camps have no problem engaging in a lethal war. Its the third conservative clerical faction which does not want to kill Muslims that is holding back the current leader who for all intensive purposes is a loose canon who likes to posture but has no intention of engaging in a ground war as his tropps have no logistic supply line to enage in a conventional war not to mention Israel would never be stupid enough to try engage in a ground war in Iran. Its far too large and far too removed from Israel. Would Israel do a lightening strike. Maybe. The problem with lightening strikes is they are not accurate contrary to what people believe and are high risk and in this case would require Israeli jets flying over Jordan and Iraq meaning Russians or Chinese satellites could pick them up and advise Iran. Right now China, North Korea and Russia are heavily involved in providing satellite intelligence to the Iranians- so it is certainly a deterrent.

Hezbollah unlike Arab armies is highly trained. Its fighters suprisingly are quite old. Their average age is mid 30's to early 40's. Many of these Hezbollah are engineers. They have built elaborate trenches that neutralized the Israeli air force making it difficult to find missile sites as they have been able to blend into the trenches and get to under-ground tunnels. As well, Hezbollah has learned by using hand carried anti-tank launched missiles it can neutralize Israeli tanks and shoot down Cobra helicopters. The fact is, the only way a conventional army like IDF can fight it is to suffer major casualties as it tries to chase after them. Israel's other option is to use elite, commando forces of 10 to 20 men, operating by suprise and usually in the dark. Israel's conventional military operations like any conventional army fighting guerillas does not work. Its commando units however have had great success. That said, Hezbollah are fueled by religious belief and not finances and drug profits like the PLO. In that sense they are deadly. They are fueled by their hatred for Jews and religious beliefs. That is a poweful and combustable mix. As for this notion the IDF is invincible, this is a Western myth created by the Western Press. If you travel to Israel, Israelis don't believe in such stupid things. They know Hezbollah and Hamas are deadly and that is precisely why they take them so seriously and some posters do not understand why Israel is so worried and feeling like it is being threatened. Hezbollah are not boy scouts. They are professionally trained killers.

I will say this. Trying to suggest Harper is not at the Aids conference because he hates gays is b..s. I also think it is b.s. spreading anti-gay slurs that Aids is a homo-sexual disease. Yes anal sex spreads aids. But the fact is in the majority of the world it is spread by hetero-sexuals so back off the gay people on this one. Now back to the topic. I personally don't think Steven Harper had to be there. The reality is if he shows up he is booed and it turns into a free-for-all over issues regarding gay marriage and AIDS becomes a side show. You ask me by not showing he prevented the AIDS issue from being usurped by the gay marriage issue. More to the point the federal Health Minister is there and this government has pledged 250 million. The Governor General is there. I think its a crock to say the PM must show up simply because Stephen Lewis is there. The fact is if Harper shows up at this conference, he has to go to every conference in regards to cancer, heart disease, liver disease, on and on. I personally do not think politicians should use such conferences as photo-ops and an opportunity to get votes. It's the Minister of Health's job to be there not the PM's. Again I think if anything Harper did the right thing by laying low. My only criticism of him is not that he is not there, but that he has remained silent. He should have said something. I find it interesting when Chretien was a no show there wasn't half the noise. My favourite though is Jack Layton saying he was shocked Steven Harper wasn't at the conference. Layton is the buggest putz Canadian politics has ever had. His mock self-righteousness is to die for. Anyone who lives in Toronto who has seen him riding his bike in his little spandex shorts knows he is a gay wannabee and has been a gay groupie for years and someone should remind him his opportunism is transparent as it comes, sort of like his spandex bike pants.