Rue

Very tough situation for you. All I can say is I believe the guardians or parents of a child that clearly can not make decisions and raise children independently should have the right to decide what is best for their children and this should be a matter between them and their doctors. I do not like the State getting involved in such things. If a parent feels they have no problem with a disabled child having a child of their own, that's fine but they should not expect the state to look after their child or the child's child. I know that will upset people who feel the state is an endless source of aid but I believe there are limits and sometimes we expect too much from the State. It may sound idealistic to say that its unfair to discriminate against the disabled but the reality is people who can not make decisions for themselves have to have someone do it for them. The cold hard reality is people with serious developmental disabilities that render them low i.q. have serious difficulties and challenges raising children and eventually their children end up having to look after them far too early in that child's life. Forced sterilization no. The right for parents and guardians to make their own decisions, yes. If someone has strong religious reasons for not sterilizing their child, etc., then fine, but don't complain if the State intervenes and takes the child of the disabled person away when things get out of control. I think it takes courage to sterilize your loved one in such situations. Its not cruel.

Now that we all agree I think we should send the Canadia Army into the US and help them develop a democratic state. It won't be easy at first...and we will have to teach them to spell properly let alone pronounce words properly. Trying to teach an American to say car instead of CAH won't be easy. They also have this thing about guns. Could be so many of their citizens feel insecure about the size of their pee pees. They also are a tad confused. They consider John Wayne an icon. Bug tuff guy but he walked around like someone was a bit too friendly with him while his back was turned. Likewise, George Bush tries to sound all tough, i.e., "bring it on!" when he talks about the iraqi insurgents but we know he got that line watching a chearleader movie with his daughter. Very confusing country to say the least. Then again this is a country that loved having someone with Alzheimer's Disease run the country. They love politicians who use words like God Bless America. They act all suprised when non Americans do not agree with their views as to the world. Its not that hard to disagree. Most Americans have little awareness of what happens outside their city or town or American Idol, nor do they care. So all this talk is just fine but the bottom line is Canadians don't hate Americans anymore then Americans hate Canadians. There are just as many disagreements between Americans over the same issues we Canadians disagree with Americans over. As for the hockey game and idiot fans booing the American junior team, the point? How many times have Americans booed the Canadian anthem? Each country has its share of idiots. Many Canadians used to boo when the anthem was sung in French. Ignorance does not mean you hate Americans, Here is what I say to Americans who come to Canada-Get over it. Spend your money here and of course we will love you. Duh.

8 billion dollars has been sent to Afghanistan to allegedly rebuild its economy. In reality most of that has gone to paying off warlords who keep the present regime in power. 80% of Afghanistan's 31 million people are subsistence farmers with no skills. Only 12% of their land is arable and more then one third of its economy comes from opium and hash hish. The country has 647,500 square k's which is about the size of Texas and has no natural sources of water and is landlocked. Since the Arabs brought Islam to Afghanistan in 652 AD it has never been governable. Persians tried it, Mongols, Arabs, the British, Russians and Americans but no one has been able to do anything but control some military posts near Kabul. The reason is simple, it is a bug mountain impassable and impossible to control. The best the Russians could do was bomb the crap out of it with their monster helicopters. When the Americans came they tried even bigger bombs but nothing changed. As for the British, their Gherkas, the world's best army was unable to control it. And you think the Canadian Army will? It is precisely because we think we are better then the Americans we sent our soldiers there. We think we will show the Yanks we can do what they didn't. So just what are our soldiers doing? Do you know? You've been given two party lines; i-they are hunting and killing Taliban, ii-they are talking to villagers and assisting them build democracy. Let's talk about the first party line. Canada is not there as peacekeepers as one poster said. Its General and our politicians have made it clear that was never their mandate. They are then to hunt down and kill Taliban. We have sided with the government power in a civil war against the Taliban. It is that simple. We are a proxy army. We have been brought in because the existing Afghani army would lose in a war to the Taliban. A poster has called the Taliban foreigners and Pakistanis. Some are. Some are from other Arab nations and many are Afghani. Most importantly what you have failed to grasp is that to fuindamentalist Muslims borders such as Pakistan and Afghanistan are the invention of Christian Europeans. In the fundamentalist Islam world there is no seperation of state and religion and the Islamic world spreads from the tip of Morrocco to the shores of the Philippines and Indonesia, to Asia, Europe, etc. Afghanistan is not a democracy. It is a fundamentalist Islamic state that practices dhimmitude. It treats anyone who is not Islamic as an infidel without equal rights or treatment. We are proppring a secular government that fully supports the same kind of fundamentalist ideology the Taliban does. So who is kidding who. Just what is the difference? The difference is the people behind the current government are the same drug lords the Taliban once put out of business. The Americans now need them to prop up a puppet government. When the Taliban fought the Russians, they were America's ally. Now suddenly they are the enemy. So you can buy into this party line that Taliban are terrorists but they had no relation to 9-11. There relationship with Osama was barely in existence. They do not like him and what he stands for. Because they were fundamentalist Muslims they were forced into a corner and could not out of principle turn him over. That is the only reason they are now the enemy. Now you tell me how such people are the enemy when they shut down the opium trade and Afghanistan was not invading anyone and minding its own business until Osama hid there. That is the only reason the Americans went in. Now that he is gone how does killing Taliban fight the war on terrorism. Wake up people. It wasn't too long ago the Green Berets were sent into Vietnam to save the people from Commies and develop democracy. You have been fed the same recycled imperialist b.s. Our army is there to prop up a government perceived to be pro-American. This is done because strategically oil pipelines have to go through Afghanistan. We are not there to save anyone although I am sure that makes you feel good. As for the second party line, how is it we expect our troops to hunt and kill Taliban and then also expect them to have tea and befriend the natives who are also fundamentalist Muslims. What makes you think simple people, living without water and electricity and who believe in fundamentalist Islam will identify with Canadian soldiers sent to kill their fellow Muslims? I mean it is utter navite to think Afghanis will want our soldiers killing fellow Muslims and no they do not think of them as foreigners or Pakistanis. That is what your press and your parties tell you to sell their presence there. To the average peasant, whether these Taliban are Pakistani, Aran, etc., they still practice the same religion, wear the same clothes, follow the same traditions and have much more in common with them. So let us not pretend an army we have sent to take sides and shoot and kill Muslim fundamentalists wil win over the hearts of other Muslim fundamentalists simply because we can't imagine anyone not liking us. This is precisely the same misguided impersialistic b.s. that causes the Americans so much trouble when they invade nations. They can't imagine anyone not liking them. Now how many of you have stopped and taken a look at the country you think the Canadian army will help build democracy in. First of all the Canadian army is not building schools, hospitals, libraries or like Mao's Red Army walking around with little red books with Maple Leafs lecturing the masses about democracy. That is not happening. Why? Stop and understand that Afghanistan is nothing more then anarchy. It is a series of factions constantly at war with one another; here is a list of the political parties approved by the Afghani Ministry of Justice so this does not include hundreds of illegal organizations: Afghan Millat [Anwarul Haq AHADI]; De Afghanistan De Solay Ghorzang Gond [shahnawaz TANAI]; De Afghanistan De Solay Mili Islami Gond [shah Mahmood Polal ZAI]; Harakat-e-Islami Afghanistan [Mohammad Asif MOHSINEE]; Hezb-e-Aarman-e-Mardum-e-Afghanistan [iihaj Saraj-u-din ZAFAREE]; Hezb-e-Aazadee Afghanistan [Abdul MALIK]; Hezb-e-Adalat-e-Islami Afghanistan [Mohammad Kabeer MARZBAN]; Hezb-e-Afghanistan-e-Wahid [Mohammad Wasil RAHEEMEE]; Hezb-e-Afghan Watan Islami Gond; Hezb-e-Congra-e-Mili Afghanistan [Latif PEDRAM]; Hezb-e-Falah-e-Mardum-e-Afghanistan [Mohammad ZAREEF]; Hezb-e-Hambastagee Mili Jawanan-e-Afghanistan [Mohammad Jamil KARZAI]; Hezb-e-Hamnbatagee-e-Afghanistan [Abdul Khaleq NEMAT]; Hezb-e-Harakat-e-Mili Wahdat-e-Afghanistan [Mohammad Nadir AATASH]; Hezb-e-Harak-e-Islami Mardum-e-Afghanistan [ilhaj Said Hssain ANWARY]; Hezb-e-Ifazat Az Uqoq-e-Bashar Wa Inkishaf-e-Afghanistan [baryalai NASRATEE]; Hezb-e-Istiqlal-e-Afghanistan [Dr. Gh. Farooq NIJZRABEE]; Hezb-e-Jamhoree Khwahan [sibghatullah SANJAR]; Hezb-e-Kar Wa Tawsiha-e-Afghanistan [Zulfiar OMID]; Hezb-e-Libral-e-Aazadee Khwa-e-Mardum-e-Afghanistan [Ajmal SOHAIL]; Hezb-e-Mili Afghanistan [Abdul Rasheed AARYAN]; Hezb-e-Mili Wahdat-e-Aqwam-e-Islami Afghanistan [Mohammad Shah KHOGYANEE]; Hezb-e-Nuhzhat-e-Mili Afghanistan [Ahmad Wali MASOUD]; Hezb-e-Paiwand-e-Mili Afghanistan [said Mansoor NADIRI]; Hezb-e-Rastakhaiz-e-Islami Mardum-e-Afghanistan [said ZAHIR]; Hezb-e-Refah-e-Mardum-e-Afghanistan [Mia Gul WASEEQ]; Hezb-e-Risalat-e-Mardum-e-Afghanistan [Noor Aqa ROEEN]; Hezb-e-Sahadat-e-Mardum-e-Afghanistan [Mohammad Zubair PAIROZ]; Hezb-e-Sahadat-e-Mili Wa Islami Afghanistan [Mohammad Usman SALIGZADA]; Hezb-e-Sulh-e-Mili Islami Aqwam-e-Afghanistan [Abdul Qahir SHARYATEE]; Hezb-e-Sulh Wa Wahdat-e-Mili Afghanistan [Abdul Qadir IMAMEE]; Hezb-e-Tafahum-e-Wa Democracy Afghanistan [Ahamad SHAHEEN]; Hezb-e-Wahdat-e-Islami Afghanistan [Mohammad Karim KHALILI]; Hezb-e-Wahdat-e-Islami Mardum-e-Afghanistan [ustad Mohammad MOHAQQEQ]; Hezb-e-Wahdat-e-Mili Afghanistan [Abdul Rasheed JALILI]; Jamahat-ul-Dahwat ilal Qurhan-wa-Sunat-ul-Afghanistan [Mawlawee Samiullah NAJEEBEE]; Jombesh-e Milli [Abdul Rashid DOSTAM]; Mahaz-e-Mili Islami Afghanistan [said Ahmad GAILANEE]; Majmah-e-Mili Fahaleen-e-Sulh-e-Afghanistan [shams ul Haq Noor SHAMS]; Nuhzat-e-Aazadee Wa Democracy Afghanistan [Abdul Raqeeb Jawid KUHISTANEE]; Nuhzat-e-Hambastagee Mili Afghanistan [Peer Said Ishaq GAILANEE]; Sazman-e-Islami Afghanistan-e-Jawan [siad Jawad HUSSAINEE]; Tahreek Wahdat-e-Mili [sultan Mahmood DHAZI] (30 Sep 2004) Jamiat-e Islami (Society of Islam) [former President Burhanuddin RABBANI]; Ittihad-e Islami (Islamic Union for the Liberation of Afghanistan) [Abdul Rasul SAYYAF]; there are also small monarchist, communist, and democratic groups Now how do you suggest the Canadian Army will get all these factions to sit down and be one big happy family when no one else has ever been able to do so? With Tim Horton's coffee and doughnuts? Afghanistan has no economy. Its not like you can go into the country and build up its industries so as to employ everyone and make everyone happy. It has nothing but subsistence farmers and so of course it will have hundreds if not thousands of factions no different then in Somalia. So sorry I do not buy into the party line that by killing Taliban and having tea with Afghanis, Canada is helping to build a democractic nation. That is pap. We are there as part of a strategic need to protect oil supply lines and to prevent American retaliation. Our people have been sent to Afghanistan to gain favour with the Americans, pure and simple. You want to fight terrorism? Let's not play games. You don't send a poorly equipped army to Afghanistan and have it patrol like sitting ducks in falling apart equipment and then after telling its soldiers to shoot and kill at 9 a.m., tell them at 4 p.m. to go drink tea with the natives who might very well be Taliban sympathizers. The longer our army stays, the more soldiers will die and the more likely our soldiers will commit an autrocity against civilians. Armies trained to hunt and kill placed in prolonged wars of attrition and placed in civilian communities kill civilians. Its inevitable. Our soldiers did it in Somalia and every conventional military force sent to civilian areas has also done it no matter how well trained they are. This is why I say grow up. Don't mix up our immature need to be good guys and show the Americans we are better with our mission. If we are there to help build roads, hospitals, schools, then of course that should be done by non profit organizations not the army. If we are there to fight a war against terrorism then we should have elite, fast moving, commando units who do not interact with the public and civilians and who operate in secrecy and strike unexpectedly and do not telebroadcast their movements for public consumption. We expect our soldiers to be nice guys and killers. That is b.s. Nice guys do not hunt and kill terrorists, trained killers do. Now the soldiers want to stay, fine. what happens a year from now when internal morale starts to change after one too many deaths or attacks from the shadows? What do you think happened to the American army in Vietnam, the British Amry in Northern Ireland, The Israeli Army in the Gaza and West Bank, the Indonesian Army in East Timor, the Chinese in Tibet, the Syrians in Lebanon? How many lessons in history do we need to show us conventional armies that try occupy cities and towns are doomed to failure? Part of having courage is knowing when to pick and fight your battles and conflicts. Its easy to go along with something for fear of looking like a coward if you otherwise disagree but I think in this case it would not be cowardly to say Afghanistan will not be helped in the manner in which we are being asked. We have jumped on defective Bush foreign policy that did not work in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Vietnam. The US had no problems making a quick retreat from Somalia. If there is no oil, the Americans know when to cut their losses and run. Why we are caught up in this exercise of trying to out do them I do not know. I say engage in an anti-terrorist war with elite commando units but do not bog your army down in foreign countries. Spend our resources assisting non profit organizations teach self-sufficiency. Our soldiers are not social workers. I believe our forces would be better served in Darfur as true peacekeepers for the UN and I believe our finances should be spent on rebuilding our armed forces, particularly our Navy and Air Force so they can protect our own natural resources and soverieignty from the US's clear intention of contesting our Northern sovereignty.

I used to thing Angelina was hot. Then I saw her in an interview and she kid of came across like a skank so I am sorry but she has slid down my list. Halle Berry and Stacey Kiebler are right up there with Kiera Kightley. If Angelina starts showering again I might put her back on the list. All kidding aside she is a wierd celeberity and her using her celeberity status and money to wip about the planet and lecture people is a bit presumptious but she's at least not Paris Hilton. WHile Ms. Jolie may be a bit too self-righteous I can handle her more then say Paris Hilton or that generation of spoiled rich idiots. I mean having a social conscience and doing good things is cool. Where it gets nauseating is where you use it to build your own publicity. Charity should be done quitely and without bring attention to yourself otherwise you defeat the purpose of it and what it means.

If you'd read my response again, you'd see that my point is actually the same as yours as posted above...except that I stressed that "good christians who think they are christians...etc..." for in truth, those heinous acts are not that of true Christians who believe and follow the teachings of Christ. And if reports are true that some chieftains do line their own pockets instead of spending the money the way they should...then that is not only a mistreatment....but a terrible betrayal of their own people as well. Yoh Betsy I agree with you. My comments were not directed at you! but at the original premise which has of course brought on some statements that can only lead to racial misunderstandings...I just like that expression Heavens to Besty. I 100% am with you on this! No worries! By the way the person whor eported 80% of gang related crimes are by Jamaicans, this is exactly the kind of response that comes from such a premise. (am I spelling it right) What this person quoting the stats doesn't consider is that what he calls a "Jamaican" is in fact a human being who probably is a Canadian citizen and more to the point that gang violence did not start nor will it end with Jamaicans...that every ethnic group in this country has had its share of gangs and will have its share of gangs. There is a direct corelation between gangs and generations of ethnic groups that find themselves unemployed and not assimilating into the mainstream cutlure. In the case of these so called Jamaicans, of course the person maintaining the 80% statistics would be the first to be unable to give me the percentage to what racial and ethnic groups dominate white collar corporate crime and which group's crimes cost society more money in the long run. And no I am not Jamaican or black...but I am a human who bleeds red like everyone else.

This man clearly has untreated third stage syphilis that has spread to the brain.

"The fact is if you guide kids in the right direction with the right information, they can make their choices correctly. " LOL. I suppose you decide what is the "right" direction and the "right" information since you figured out what oral sex is. I feel better knowing you will be their to guide the next generation..at least when you are not busy generalizing and writing them all off.

Give me a break with the word "truth". Your truth is an opinion just like the other side's. Say by any chance do you have a beard and like to climb mountains or perform miracles?

No one has said it isn't your right to say what you wish. Just don't be surprised when someone else finds some of your opinions offensive and says so. That's their right. Whether someone disagrees with my opinion is one thing, whether they challenge my right to say it as youd id is another. I am suprised when someone does not find what I have to say offensive. I try to please.

Dion will not win. There is no French conspiracy at work behind the scenes. I am a Liberal but sick of the party and think it needs a complete enema from top to bottom and should not be in power for a minimum of 6 years until all the corupt sob's fly the coop. Until then Harper can kick ass. I regret however that Harper is abandoning much of his platform and adapting the corupt ways of the Liberals and beginning to show an arrogant dictatorial style like King Chretien. I am a blue Liberal or extreme centralist so I am not happy with anyone running. I also think Bob Rae is a friggin joke. Being a Habs fan I suppose Ken Dryden has to be my choice although he is about as charismatic as a dead moose.

However good, or admirable the intentions may be they are naive and misguided. Afghanistan's geography and lack of natural resources condemns it to being nothing more than an impoverished, ungovernable state that at best will grow poppies. Sorry but this won't be the last missionary who goes to a country trying to help and then getting his idealistic head blown off. Canada is trying to play nice guy in a part of the world where no foreigner has lasted. Tim Horton's coffee is not going to win over the hearts and minds of Afghanis. I admire what our soldiers are trying to do and I support them as long as they are there but I also think its completely misguided and going to end up nothing but a disaster.

Your question is inherently racist. While I hesitate to guess what you mean by "slaves" I will guess by slaves you mean unskilled labour. So lets talk bluntly Mr. Ghalehnoii. In the Middle East, Saudia Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and many other Islamic nationsm cheap labour or unpaid labour is imported from the Philippines, Indonesia, Pakistan and Africa and other third world nations. In fact Mr. Ghalehnoii, slavery is alive and well in the Middle East and poor black Africans are being abducted from Africa and shipped to the Middle East daily. So? Do you want me to hate all Muslims and all Islamic nations because of these practices? Are you suggesting only countries with "Anglo-Saxons" import or use cheap unskilled labour? As for China, do you really need an explanation why they do not have to complain about shortages of unskilled labour or slaves? Say now do you blame Anglo Saxons for how the Chinese treat their own citizens who are used as slave labour? And no I am not Anglo Saxon.

Sorry to hear. If you want my legal opinion, you could in theory sue if you could show a direct co-relation between the actions of a human being and the damages you incurred. Proving who did it and establishing a nexus or direct connection could prove tricky. Eventually it will take someone's death from one of these kinds of things to get anyone's proper attention.

He is afraid of what they might tell in regards to why they call it Royal Canadian MOUNTED Police.

I question all organized religions and the power they may have over individuals but I do not question people's need to have faith and their right and preference to choose to have faith through an organized system that may in fact serve as a conduit for them to practice their faith through a central organ. If someone has a particular value system I respect it. I only an a pain in the ass if they tell me their way is superior to mine and if I do not do it their way I am going to hell or am condemned to suffering, etc. If the Da Vinci Code can encourage healthy religious dialogue I am all for it. I personally think within a month no one will remember it and will have moved on to the next trend.

Heavens to Besty. How we mix the topic of serial killers with the history of mistreatment of the aboriginal peoples of North America I do not uunderstand. My point was that "normal" people and people who believed they were religious and in touch with God and good civilized people slaughtered aboriginals and broke treaties with them, not mass murderers or serial killers in the sense of how we refer to them today. It was ordinary folk like you and me...the same ordinary folk that went to work and carried on with their lives as 6 million Jews were sent to their deaths. The same ordinary folks who sit by as genocide is committed in Darfur, Cambodia. Rwanda, Burdundi, etc. That was my pt. and I believe Betsy picked up on it. I certainly did not mean by the way to infer it was because of their Christian religion. Christians do not have a monopoly on feeling they are superior to others and killing them. If you care to look at forensic psychiatric studies you will see that serial killers are persons with a pathological disease and a cluster of personality disorder features. Studies are beginning to indicate that there is a genetic profile predisposing certain serial killers to being twisted killers. Others develop that way from circumstances and events in their lives and others are a mix. Serial killers, killers who stalk and then usually torture and/or mutilate or commit violence usually of a sexual nature on people come in all colours, races, religions. What makes them a serial killer is not their race, but their inherited defective genes and life events. There have been behavioural psychologists who have tried to infer that certain races are less intelligent then others are more prone to crime or promiscuity but each and every one of these studies has been revisited and contradicted for its inaccuracies. The fact is there just is not evidence that empirically proves if you are white or black you are more prone to being a serial killer. I suppose you could make an arguement if you wanted, that aboriginal peoples have a high rate of alcoholism because they may inherit the same gene from their Mongolian ancestors that does not break down certain enzymes in alcohol very well...lust like you could argue blacks seem to have higher rates of high blood pressure then whites and seem to suffer from sickle cell anemia while whites don't just like Ashkanazi Jews seem to be prone to Tay Sachs disease, or caucasian children from Scandinavia seem to have higher rates of a particular kind of child arthritis. Yes medicine can and does research in understanding how genetics and race may come into play but correct me if I am wrong, when it is done in this manner, its not to negate anyone's race or suggest it makes them inferior, its done to help better treat a disease. Forensic profiling will identify race as a characteristic to help make it easier to catch someone but its not done for political reasons. Forensic psychiatrists don't make moral judgements when they estimate whether the person is white or black. It also stands to reason that certain races do stick out in crime statistics. Only a fool would deny that aboriginals are jailed more then any other group in North America. But then if one looks at the fact that they are the only ethnic group with the reservation phenomena and the particular treatments they have been afforded there is cause and effect. Yes they have high rates of alcoholism but it is inter-related to the socio-economic conditions that set off the behaviour in the first place. Interestingly Orthodox Jews have low rates of alcoholism. Some say it is because their religion uses alcohol (wine) as part of the prayers so alcohol from a cultural perspective is not seen as a recreational agent. So you can speculate maybe one's cultural or religious upbringing may have something to do with it. But here is the point. Rich people, poor people, men, women, gays, straights, people of all ages can be alcoholic. Likewise the propensity to be a murderer is in all of us. We all under the right circumstances can and will kill. Surely you remember the psychological studies conducted in the 60's where a person was placed in a room. Next door a student was given a buzzer and told to keep increasing the voltage. The person in the other room would increase their screaming....yet the person on the other end would keep running up the dial even though they knew what they were doing could be fatal. The study proved it is very easy to convince someone to kill another. How about organized religions? How many mass murders have come about because people were incited to feel non believers were evil and deserved to die? How many Jews died as a result of Christians viewing the Passion Play. How many non Muslims or Muslims from a different sect have been killed by Muslim fundamentalists? How many people have been killed by organized groups because of politics, religion, etc. Name me a society that is NOT inherently racist...Jews and Christians...one only need read the Bible to say how intolerant they were....not that they had or have amonopoly on religious or tribal warfare. As for aboriginals, if you do take the time to learn from them they don't hide the wars between their nations or the problems between their nations of people. They have never claimed to be perfect before Europeans came but I think the point is they would look at all cultures other then there own that came after them and wonder- why did so much death come with these waves of people from many religions and cultures. So to me you can specifically focus in on the mistreatment of aboriginals or perhaps if you want certain sects of Christians or Jews or women or gays or what-ever group it is you want to select but to me I personally believe other then the name of the group you are studying....I think you will see the same patterns of hatred emerge and the hatred that escalates enough to allow mass murders comes about from mostly sane people who think what they are doing is right. Most mass murderers are politicians, generals and citizens like you and me who do not want to give up a certain lifestyle so if it means sending troops in to secure oil supplies so be it. I started off unhappy with the original premisis because when I myself study serial killers I see humans, not whites. When I see mass murder I see it done by humans not Christians or Muslims or what-ever. The name changes but the pith and substance of the behaviour remains the same and that is because when you think about it, we all bleed the same colour.

Actually, I think you are reading a bit much into the post. There have been some anti-Native commentary, but I'm trying to quell any racist comments and just focus on serial killing and mass murder in this country, and the overrepresentation of the caucasian Canadian community in this issue...and nothing more. Rue: I, too, have worked in the court system, and I agree with your insight that genetics and learned behaviour have much to do with criminality. Now, to focus even more, is it possible that a mix of genes and learned behaviour contribute to serial killings and mass murder? What is the thread between Bernardo, Pickton and Olsen? What set them off and not someone else? Do you have any thoughts on that? I hope you don't assume I'm passive-agressive? I'm pretty much all aggressive, and this is not fake B.S. about serial killers. This is a candid discussion that I intend to do my best to prevent from degrading into some racist drivel, and right now you are helping that much Rue. You obviously have a lot to offer, so I would like to see more insight from you...I, for one, appreciate it. maybe some time later I'll start a thread about preceptions in discriminatory treatment, but we've just been through the whole Six Nations ringer and I'd prefer to give it a rest for the time being. Thank you for your measured response. I admire your restraint. I also admire anyone who cares to educate all of us on the treatment of our native people over the years but I myself will not mix it with the issue of serial killers. The mistreatment of aboriginals was often done by good Christians in the name of Christianity not serial killers and most if not all Canadians who are not aboriginal have few insights as to the myriad of laws and treaties that have been broken violating aboriginal rights. That said, having tracked and gotten into the heads of pathological personalities or people with personality disorders I can only say the following; there is no limit to the depravity in which any human can commit but on the other hand there is no limit to the good we can commit either. As for my other comments, reading them back they sound to personal. I did not mean to get personal. I could have written my responses better to indicate that I felt the logical consequence of responding to them would get too personal. They target you too much as a person. That I regret. and you are a good man for laughing off the passive aggressive comment. Shows character.

The moment someone poses a question in terms of "us against them" they are in fact promulgating the very kind of racism or hatred they feel is being expressed against them. Its a confused way of them saying they feel unfairly treated by imitating the behaviour they feel is being done to them and trying to throw it back in the face of who they feel is the oppressor. It never works. It does not leave the person who feels they are a victim feeling satisfied at all. All it does is create a never ending cycle of name calling. To learn from our behaviour we must ask questions that try help us learn the origins of our behaviours and conflicts. Questions that are deliberately ambiguous are nothing more then passive aggressive attempts at expressing anger through rhetoric. We have to transcend this kind of anger if we are to ever look our perceived enemy in the face and learn. You can't get the respect you want from your perceived enemy or oppressor when you have so much hatred for yourself. Part of your problem is you blame your own people for being what you think is helpless. They are not. But that is the source of another debate and discussion and I am afraid this present one is futile.

I found the original post hilarious. The writer clearly has a sense of anger flowing from how he perceives aboriginal people have been treated by white people and in particular white Europeans so makes a delibertaley racist and provocative comment to see if someone will take the bait and say something anti-aboriginal back so he can then use that as an opportunity to rationalize his anger and continue a tit for tat of name calling. Sorry if I do not play the blame game. By the way for those of us who have worked in the court system and have profiled serial killers and the profiles of criminals we will all tell you what you already know - the propensity to kill and commit crime is inherent in all humans regardless of gender, ethnicity, culture, etc. Some feel most of this is predetermined genetically others feel it is a mix of genetics and learned behaviour. I lean to the latter. I also think it would be more productive if the original post rather than engage in passive aggressive hatred towards European and whites, really raised an issue dealing with the perceived discriminatory treatment against aboriginals in this country. Probably be a lot more productive then this fake b.s. discussion about serial killers.

The United Nations certainly has problems. There is indeed internal coruption both financially and morally, reflecting the human beings who work for it and who represent many ideologies. I think it is stretching it to refer to the UN as socialist or influenced by socialists or Euro-socialists. The UN has always been quite frankly devoid of any political ideology. That is precisely its problem. It has never been able to advocate let alone inunciate a vision of what it stands for. The only thing consistent about the UN is that like any corupt organization it is full of people fueled by greed and self-interest and the many agendas of nations spying on one another and competing for industrial and technological secrets or strategic advantage in international trade. I particularly blame the UN's current failures on; 1-The U.S.'s lack of financial responsibility in paying its dues; 2-its current Commissioner who has been able to stay in power as long as he has because no one wants to run the risk of appearing racist criticizing his corupt behaviour and lack of vision 3-the lack of moral integrity and vision in the foreign policy of the member nations particularly Japan, India, China, the United States, Russia, France, and Britain 4-the influence fundamentalist Islamic ideology has on the third world countries foreign policy as reflected in many councils and agencies at the UN 5-coruption of third world leaders 6-the negative impact multi-national companies and the International Monetary Fund have had on trying to achieve a global vision.

This is a typical example of everything wrong with organized religion. The Church still feels it can control peoples' minds and tell them how to think. How is this different from any cult? How is this different then what the Church has doen for centuries, i.e., repress things that do not suit its agenda? Doesn't this fit right in with the concept that the Church represses that which it fears contradicts its version of truth? What else does the Church try to repress and why? What next, will they burn people at the stake for seeing the movie? Quere; how does a religion that allegedly preaches tolerance and love so easily issue such edicts? Does this sound loving and tolerant?

The Sabbath was changed to Sunday in honour of Christ's resurrection. This practice went back far before Constantine came into the picture. The tradition started with Christ's apostles. (See Acts 20:7) Not only did Christ's apostles refer to Christ as the Son of God, but so did the Old Testament Prophet Isaiah, and reference was also made in Psalms (also in the Old Testament). If you're claiming that Christianity is just a repackaged version of Greek Paganism, then I would suggest that it may be the other way around. The true ways of the gospel were perverted and became paganism. The fact that Christ would be born of a virgin was probably known by prophets throughout history--and when the prophecy reached the wrong people it became legend, and later mythology. Not true at all. Constantine was around in 272-337 ad. The earliest dated Christian records are the Dead Sea Scrolls--which date back to before 100 ad. Don't tell me Constantine changed those as a political exercise. They've been left untouched for several centuries. I don't see what differences you're talking about. The dead sea scrolls contained copies of books from Isaiah and even Mark. Well the Old Testament refers to the coming of a Son of God--Whether or not you believe that Jesus is the Son of God, that's another story. But according to the prophets who believed in the God of Israel, a Son of God is coming. If you believe them, then it must be happening some time. I believe that that Son of God is indeed Jesus Christ. Anyone who doubts this, all you have to do is some research, study, and prayer. The divinity of Christ is a testament to the Love of God. "For God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son... that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." That's pretty important to me. With due respect; 1-Your version that Sunday was chosen because it is in honour of Chist's resurrection is the Church's version. The fact is SUN day is a Pagan holiday and that is why it was used. The version that it honour's resurrection was devised to cover the true reason Sunday was chosen and not Friday night or Saturday morning as some Christian sects still use. 2-Isaiah may not have originally referred to Christ as the son of God - that is open to debate that comes when passages get re-written and then people read what was rewritten not originally written. You can quote all of the accepted gospels as truth as you are doing or as I am doing simply stating they are rewrites and the fact that they are presented as truth doesn't make them truth it simply means that is what the Church wants you to believe is the truth - that is the version of truth they edited and rewrote and wish you to accept without question as part of your faith. If you believe Christ is the son of God then that is what you will see when you read back anything. I am sure to if you see an ink stain it may look like Jesus to you as well. How much is projection from a thought already planted in your mind and that has you conditioned to see it whereever you look, and how much is the actual truth remains subject to debate. I respect your beliefs but I can not simply suspend objective analysis and simply accept your values without more questioning and debate. If they are true as you believe them to be, then the truth as you know it will prevail. The question you must ask however is this-if it is true, why the fear of people asking questions and wanting to try understand the gnostic origins of Christianity? Why the supression of the lost gospels and so many other pieces of work and science? 3-The Dead Sea Scrolls are not Christian and were never Christian. They most certainly contradict the New Testament as many scholars have now been able to ascertain this and pin-pint the contradictions and indeed the exhibit of the Dead Sea Scrolls brought this out in the open. 4-You claim the apostles referred to Christ as the son of God. Of course they did they were written and edited precisely to say that. That is the point. Interesting you don't mention the countless gospels the Church did not see fit to place in the Bible that referred to Jesus as a mortal. Also interesting to note that all the gospels you would quote to say Christ is the son of God contradict each other as to where he was born, what he said, and what he did and are all versions according to these apostles but not acually written by these apostles. 5.Your reference to the Old Testament saying the Son of God is coming again is but one interperatation that may fit your belief system and orthdox Judaism's belief of what the passage said, but the Old Testament like the New Testament was rewritten. The Old Testatement was re-written by a council of Rabbiahs so again the original version of what may have been written we do not know. So the true original words we do not know and what you quote is a rewritten version. "Messiah" may very well have referred to a more gnostic or pagan like abstract concept of each one of us being able to save ourselves on an individual level and the good of us all prevailing over the evil in us all. You and the main-stream choose to see and re-write and interperate Messiah as meaning one human. It could have been a more abstract phrase simply meaning each one of us having the potential individually or collectively to prevail over our savage tendencies. That is also part of the debate from the beginning of Zoreastrianism and not just Judaism or Christianity. You see Jesus as that Messiah and that Messiah as being a human so when you read backwords of course you see Messiah as being a human. The fact that fundamental Judaism sees the Messiah as being a human does not necessarily make it so - it just expresses what the conventional or prevailing opinion of that religion has presented. Your views basically are those of the Conventional Church and while I respect them and your right to deeply believe in them I challenge them as I do any work of literature that has been constantly rewritten. The fact that it has been rewritten and repeated as truth and that you continue to repeat it as truth does not make it true although for you I do not doubt it is absolute truth and so when you repeat it, it has the power to reaffirm what you already see and convince you yet again it is true. That is called auto-suggestion. If you keep repeating something, it becomes second nature in your mind and then becomes unquestionable and just is.

Its actually recycling an old practice done by Muslims in the Middle East for centuries. I believe in the past Christians had to wear blue and Jews yellow. Interestingly there is no mention of colour for Bahais, probably because they have all been killed off. Such a warm and cuddly country.