kraychik

More acquiescence from the left to demands from Islamists to destroy freedom of speech and expression. In France, the socialist government tried to pressure a private newspaper not to publish cartoons depicting Muhamad. The French government subsequently shut down embassies and consulates in many Muslim majority countries out of fear of terrorism. FRENCH MAGAZINE EDITOR UNDER ARMED GUARD AFTER PUBLISHING MOHAMMED CARTOON Here are more calls for destruction of the first amendment from the usual suspects in Dearborn, Michigan, demanding a criminalisation of "defamation of religion", and we all know what that really means. ISLAMIC LEADERS IN DEARBORN MICH. PLAN RALLY TO SUPPORT SPEECH PROHIBITION The Obama administration is sympathetic to the same efforts being pushed via the UN, coming from the OiC. Religious Tolerance Resolution Backed by Obama Administration Aligns With Islamic Bloc’s Interests

Nobody is forcing anyone to pay attention to anything. What's been done here, and what you support as a communist, is vandalism/destruction of property and harassment.

This isn't news to anyone. We all know you're a communist and naturally despise freedom of speech and expression. Of course you support vandalism and suppression of basic freedoms. Eltahawy actually echoed the very same lack of comprehension over freedom of speech and expression you revealed earlier in this thread. You think freedom of speech and expression empowers you to vandalise and destroy private property, as well as harass people.

Don't be so optimistic, leftism is like herpes... once you get it, it always comes back. So just because the leftism is a little more controlled now than in decades past doesn't mean Canada doesn't have more cold sores to come in the future.

For bleeding heart, the left and the right are relative. Of course he is absolutely wrong, but let's examine his view briefly. What's true is that society can move in either direction, what isn't true is that popular opinion or consensus gets to redefine the terms. Like you said, using bleeding heart's "logic", if a majority of Cubans are in favour of the communist tyranny, then Cuba is somehow a centrist country, rather than only a centrist country in its own delusional collective mind. Canadian society has, for decades, been shifting to the left. The reasons for this shift are complex, but it has a lot to do with how we've been transferring more control to and vesting more authority in the government over time.

Thank you for proving my point. The conflict has nothing to do with the post 1967-settlements, but has a lot to do with good old fashioned anti-Semitism.

Except, Argus *isn't* a conservative.

It's a function of the left, they are not aware of their own ideological leanings. As I've said before, the left tends to view itself as balanced, objective, pragmatic, and sort of outside contemporary labels. They sincerely believe that they are nuanced, complex, layered... sort of post-ideological. This is the delusion within which people like Michael Hardner live. In his own mind, he's a "centrist" and a "moderate".

No, that is not "what I well know". That is your imaginary narrative in order to play the moral relativity game. If you fear having your fantasies challenged, why do you come to this board? Hiding behind false accusations of "trolling" when you are called out for your indefensible positions doesn't make for a compelling argument. If the settlements are a primary cause of conflict (and they are not), then explain how the mass murder and terrorism against Jews began almost a century earlier in the pre-Israel Palestine Mandate. It's actually quite revealing, and sick, that you're trying to tell us that the 1929 Hebron massacre was a result of "Israeli intransigence". I suppose you think Ambassador Stevens was murdered because an obscure YouTube film trailer, as well?

No, it isn't. What's necessary is for more criteria to be used to screen for applicants/candidates based on values. You oppose that, because it seems too difficult, so you're comfortable with Canada destroying itself via immigration and "multiculturalism" policies. Your position is clear, no need to reiterate it.

The video in the opening post is more than enough evidence that we are importing Islamists. You can bury your head in the sand all you want.

It's telling that you'll use the same term to describe Pamela Geller as you'll use to describe mass murdering terrorists.

Bleeding heart, ANSWER THE QUESTION - what caused the violence and wars and terrorism BEFORE 1967?

Your position is clear. You believe that the settlements are a cause of conflict. You were incredulous that a contrary position could be advanced. When pressed to explain how the conflict began before the year the settlements came into existence, you retreat. Might as well admit you're wrong, rather than continue deflecting.

So it "works", as long as you look at a short slice of time and remove the future context. That's like me giving you a $500 thousand credit card and you spending it on a new home and saying that you're more wealthy in the short term, until you fall behind on interest payments and have your home foreclosed on. And, that is not what the business cycle is. The business cycle is a naturally-occurring phenomenon in a truly free market, you're trumpeting government manipulation of the economy as something it isn't. Again, the government CAN NOT stimulate the economy via borrowing and spending. Sure, we can debate with economic illiterates that think borrowing and spending can stimulate the economy, while they tell us that a phase of deregulation that never took place is to blame for the financial decline starting in 2008.

Let's have some fun here.... Our dear user bleeding heart is contending that the 1929 Hebron Massacre was caused by the settlements of post-1967, events that were about forty years into the future. Or, perhaps he's telling us that the murder of most of the Fogel family was caused by the settlements, while the mass murdering Arabs in Hebron in 1929 had different reasons. Interesting.

Translation - You can't address what's being said. If the settlements are indeed a primary cause of conflict, as is your contention, what was the cause of conflict before June of 1967? Did the causes of the conflict change after June of 1967?

No, they're not. They're a red herring, and now that it's been thrown in your face you're embarrassed. You didn't even know what a settlement was before I had to explain it to you. The settlements didn't exist in the first half of 1967, 1956, 1948, or decades before. I suppose the pogrom of 1929 in Hebron was a reaction to the settlements of post-1967? Tangentially, it's funny that you describe the USA as Israel's patron, when the "Palestinians" are among the highest per capita recipients of foreign aid, with American being their biggest single-state donor. Of course, America is never described by dishonest and ignorant people as the benefactor of the "Palestinians", right? After all, you're informed. You read the dust jacket of "The Israel Lobby"!

So the 1500 murdered Israelis of the second Intifada were a declaration of the "Palestinians" recognition of Israel? Actually no, the Oslo Accords obligated the "Palestinians" to do much more than just that. Moreover, you can't recognise Israel in one breath and then deny it in your next hundred breaths. The "Palestinians" have broken their obligations under both the Oslo Accords many times over.

How many Israeli political parties can you list without running to an internet search? It doesn't matter what you think the consensus is. What matters are the facts. If the settlements are a core cause of the conflict, what was the problem in 1967? 1956? 1948? Or the decades of pogroms murdering Jews in Hebron, Haifa, and Jerusalem before 1948? I guess this was all a consequence of events that hadn't yet occurred? Interesting. So you revel in the stupidity of your position that the War of Independence in 1948-1949 was a result of post-1967 settlements. Interesting.

I'll say it again, the settlements have nothing to do with the conflict. They're a deflection, and a dishonest one, which many folks on the left have bought into. Moreover, they don't even know what the term means.

The government cannot stimulate the economy through borrowing and spending. Period.

Right, because you describe ideologues in non-ideological terms. We all know that you're blissfully unaware of your own leftism. You just keep putting that obliviousness on display.

Except, that isn't true. And if it was true (it isn't), g_bambino would see it as an infringement on freedom of speech and expression. Which again demonstrates how the left not only has contempt for freedom of speech and expression, but often doesn't even understand the concept.

Anyways, I have to run, so I'll define it for you, since you obviously don't even know what the term actually means. After the War of Independence (which you probably refer to as Al Nakba) concluded in 1949, and armistice agreement was signed to delineate barriers across which hostility would cease between Israel and the Arab invaders: Egypt, (Trans)Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq, and other terrorist groups. These lines held until June of 1967, when Israel secured control over what's known as the West Bank, the Sinai, and the Golan Heights. They are often nonsensically referred to as the "1967 borders". Now, very soon after the Six Day War, Israel annexed the remainder of Jerusalem (known nonsensically today as "East Jerusalem") and began construction of settlements across the Green Line (the 1949 armistice lines). These developments are referred to as "settlements". So, if these settlements are at the core of the conflict, why did hostilities begin long before 1967? Indeed, they began long before May of 1948. Answer that question honestly and you'll grieve less over your sacred cow narrative having just died.