Machinations

If ye knew anything at all you'd know Kingston is'nt Club Fed - your friend picked that up from some old gangster movie, after the Capone-era gangsters like Dillinger (he may have coined the phrase, the dapper fellow). Kingston is aka Disneyland North. just fyi

One thing I am sure we all agree on: this science is highly unpopular with certain industries. Any fossil fuels-related industry, for starters. I for one prefer to get my science from independent commissions instead of industry committees. When you remove the industry sycophants from the picture, it becomes evident that the data is there, and that the only disagreements remaining are how this warming trend will affect the globe. Last year, with global sea waters warming, 1/3 of the known old growth coral in the Caribbean died, en masse. Some of these corals had been around since well before Colombus arrived in America. Warning signs are adding up. I am hardly optimistic enough to assume that the rich and powerful will do the right thing. That being said, once the science is vindicated, perhaps we can plot a more successful course for the future.

Actually, the second largest military contigent in Iraq are private military contractors. You know, mercenaries. That being said, overall troops levels are dropping, just in time for tea and civil war. Oh, those police and army units we trained? Both are filled with rabid Sunni / Shiite partisans (though mostly Shiite). Once the civil war heats up, those police units are going to be used against civilians - using bullets we bought and paid for. In fact, it already started - yesterday some 50 people were abducted in Baghdad by people in police uniforms and driving police vehicles. The Interior Ministry is investigating, they're not sure if they were real police - but, if they were'nt, the real police did nothing to stop them during the hour the whole operation took. LINK

Well, its not every day you get to see a drunk in charge of the most powerful nation on earth.

My current understanding is the RCMP were notified by legimate sellers about a suspicious order. The RCMP then told the sellers to go ahead with the sale and the RCMP would take responsibility for delivering it and arrest the buyers.If that version of events is accurate then I think the RCMP did nothing wrong or shady in this particular operation. If that version of events is accurate, I concur.

I think though, the RCMP facilitating the sale of the 3 tons of ammonium nitrate to these people is a little - shady, at least. No matter what, anyone purchasing that volume of ammonium nitrate would have raised red flags. Us coming along and offering it to angry people seems anagalous to handing someone on the street a gun then arresting them when they aim it to fire. Could'nt we have just arrested them on conspiracy charges? Oh, then it would'nt be the big, slam-dunk, snipers on the courthouse (how theatrical!) event that it is. Which, politically, was desperately needed.

One again you completely missed the point and try to use a simplistic North American concept of racism to try suggest why this law has been promulgated. This has zero to do with skin colour. This is all about citizenship and who is defined as a citizen of Israel. Yes it is about an Israeli government struggling with the idea of trying to maintain a Jewish state when its population of non Jews continues to reproduce and may become the majority. Is it racist? Well is it racist for Christian churches to forbid Christians from inter-marriage which they do? Is it racist that throughout the entire Muslim world, Muslims are not allowed to marry Christians of Jews? Is it racist in Canada or the US when Immigration laws deport people because they find the marriages to be shams designed to circumvent citizenship laws? You make it seem like Israel is the only nation that does things like that and in reverse in the Muslim world, Jews can marry Muslims. Is it unfair and discriminatory. Of course. What religious or immigration laws aren't inherently? Sounds to me you just like to knee jerk react and take things out of context to suit your fixed notion that Israel bad Palestine good. Sorry, but this law does nothing for security. Yes, it is blatantly discriminatory, and yes - you cant have it both ways. You can't criticize those same Arab nations for being racist and discriminatory and yet do the same yourself. Israel holds itself up as an example of Western democracy - when this is far from the truth. If Israel stopped calling itself a democracy then yes, I could get into this moral equivalency thing with you. Fact of the matter is Israel's policies are an embarassment to Western government and sensibilites. A wall? Yeah, cuz it worked sooooo well in Berlin.

I contend that the media has a very pro-Liberal basis, in both Canada and now in the U.S. too. Censor it? I don't think that's possible anymore with blogs and the such. If there is something worth knowing, you can figure it out without some profit driven machine telling you the stories that sell. And the stories that sell right now is Bush's failures and Harper's fighting with the press. So that's what they publish. If people wanted to read stories about the successes of Iraq, the media would very quickly display a right leaning bias. It's all profit driven. The media reflects, to a major extent, what people want to see/hear/read. Censorship doesn't happen because of political reasons, censorship happens because a story isn't economically worth while to tell. I disagree. You can only cover a school opening so many times - meanwhile, theres mass religious based killings in the streets, constant bombings - so they're supposed to report only the good news? I don't know what good news in Iraq you want them to report. Besides - is'nt electricity and sewer still intermittent if not completely out to much of the country - YEARS after the occupation? What kind of story is that? Is it biased to report that? You know, typical tactic - shoot the messenger. I happen to think that CBC and the BBC are good news organizations, typically providing a balanced picture if you're not a rabid partisan, unlike, say, Fox News.

They wouldn't though. Our two countries are on the same path theolgically, even if they are thousands of miles apart. BTW, how much do we send them? Canada, I don't know and to be honest I am lazy and am not digging a source right now. The United States, you can quote me, something like 2 billion USD$ in pure military aid a year. Once you start looking into it, you're like - why? They produce their own main battle tanks (they have over 5000) which are comparable to Challenger or Leopard models in use. They have nuclear weapons. They have mandatory military service. On the theological thing - religion is personal, last time I checked Canada was a secular democracy. Israel is not. I see no reason to align ourselves with Israel because of belief in a particular variety of invisible superman.

Guess what? In war, sh*t happens. When they invade your country, and then kill your family, I'm sure you will be satisfied with that incredibly arrogant and ignorant response. The Haditha thing is bad, really bad. No one is happy about it, get your facts straight. Spitting out this kind of venom is sub-human. We're talking a serious, deliberate murderous rampage, not a accidental discharge. This is likely to have repercussions in a negative way for the stability of Iraq as a whole. Meanwhile, the religious violence is hitting a new crescendo. Not against us, mind you - against each other. This is not good.

I think most reasonable people ask this. Why do we shake hands and smile at the Saudis, when Arabia is the capital of this kind of extremism, but invade others? Because the simplistic reasons given for the way the 'war' has been fought are paper-thin. By the current logic in vogue, democratization is necessary in these 'extremist' countries. Why then ignore the #1 problem? More importantly, to the OP's question - how can you declare war on a word? The whole endevour to me has been about as effective as the war on 'drugs'. Not exactly a sparkling track record. Hows the opium crop in Afghanistan this year? Oh, ANOTHER record crop? Really!

Identity is not history. Identity is you. We are not bound by the actions of our fathers. People are people, distinct and individual, and need no backstory or context to be relevant. They simply are.

That is crazy talk. I lol'd. I approve of this thread.

They don't need a justified reason to hate the west and what it stands for they just do because it's not their way. If it's not their way we are the enemy, the infidels. Support for Israel is not a valid reason for them to hate us, it's just another excuse they use.. I never said it was justified. What I said was, their reasons. Are you saying they have no reasons? Simply, they are murderous and hateful? Lies, I say. People rationalize doing evil things all the time - for revenge, jealousy and many other human failings. I am not justifying their actions, merely pointing out what they see as reasons - and they are as varied as the people that espouse them.

Right after you name "lots' of them. The only window is between 1991-93 with Mulroney....and you were already calling him a Bush-bot as well. I agree with that....I'd also say it's a little premature to judge the mission in Afghanistan but it seems you guys are always clammering to do it. . Huh? You know, saying things like 'you guys' really diminishes the value of anything you say. I never said anything about Afghanistan - so saying 'my people' are always 'clammering' (sic) to 'judge' it is a stretch - you know, sort of an unfair accusation, would'nt you say? He posted a link trying to back up his argument, and his link turned out not to support it. Oops, I laughed at the idiocy involved. You're actually wrong, I cited a reference from that list, and there are several more - many more perhaps, since most of the arrival dates are not listed. That's more than your friend did, since we got NO examples from the link. To be honest, I don't think he bothered to read it - in fact, I don't think you did either. But way to go, knee-jerk reactions always amuse me. Rushing to the beleagured clown's defense is admirable. PS. The Mulroney 'window', as you call it, was 1984 to 1993 - 9 years.

Let's not get into the ballistics systems required to lob missiles across the earth - equivalent to launching a satellite or other object into space - few nations have the technology. For one, it is enormously expensive. Two, it would require a deliberate, years-long research effort even with the benefits of reverse engineering (which they are not likely to have bits of ICBM systems, they're just not found lying around) Rocket science is used as a metaphor for complexity for a reason: it's complex. To date, Iran can launch a missile something like 300 kilometers. Wow, I nearly fainted with excitement. The missile shield is more likely to be used as leverage over more conventional, potential foes like China, who both possess the necessary ICBM technology and are likely to come into conflict with US interests in the future. The Chinese are not stupid. They know this. My objections to the missile shield scheme (Son of Star Wars, if you will) are mostly based on technological hurdles. I simply don't think its feasible to be able to detect and destroy incoming ICBMs with anything near an acceptable accuracy rate. To date, all the Pentagon tests have been spectacular failures. Further, even if - and its a mighty big if - it were possible to get even 95% knockout rates - which would be about the minimum acceptable accuracy - it would only provoke an arms race, with enemies creating new, different types of nuclear delivery systems to counter the shield. This seems to me a path we don't want to go down.

In the last 5 months? Gold medal-wishful thinking there. No I think since the Liberals were in power for the last 12 years we're safe to look their direction on this issue. As far as these 'alleged bomb plotters' they all came to the country while the Liberals were in power too. I'm not saying Harper will necessarily be any better, but you really can’t equate the two parties when only one has had monolithic control of the country for nearly a decade and a half. . I'm talking specifically about this list he linked to - lots of them entered the country on the conservative watch. Please explain to me, again, how thats the Liberal's fault. You added the 'last 5 months' bit. I'm talking about what our OP brought up, you know, the topic. Now, if you're saying NO terrorist, or potential terrorist, has entered the country in the last 5 months, well, great. A separate discussion but one worth having. I'd say it's a little premature to judge how successful any current security protocol is in keeping these individuals out, and, lacking any sort of evidence, don't know why I would automatically assume Harper is doing a better job. Because he says he is? C'mon now.

Refute me then, genius. You know, since it's 'spin'. Grab a clue, accepting mistakes and being a good loser is part of being human. I know, in your little world, you never make mistakes - in your own mind. Here though, you did, and others can plainly see. You remind me of the guy who just can't stop talking, even though he's already dug his own grave. Thats not my smugness filling your screen. It's called the light of reason. It's an amazing thing, independent thought.

Er...this was good old fashined police work in action. Beefing up the military would do sweet F.A. killjoy: These suspects were homegrown. The London bombers were homegrown. Ditto Madrid. Foreign terror networks aren't the problem. Anyway, I think this undermines one of the fundamental precepts of the "war on terror": that we must fight "them" over "there" so we don't have to do it here. Well, as these arrests and other recent successful attacks have shown, "they" are here already. The conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq appear to be serving as rallying points, current examples of the western war against Islam that is central to the radical ideology which uses terrorism as its weapon of choice. IOW the "war on terror" is ultimately counterproductive. Hey BD, Any irony for you in the idea that these guys had their communications monitored? Just asking. No irony at all, if it was done LEGALLY. You know, like, getting a warrant and stuff? Oh, silly me, they DID that. What's the fuss about, again? Seriously now. Edit: Link to above quoted article

Yes, you're a troll. Ah, so even though they were detained and deported during times of Liberal power, it's the Liberal's fault? I am also to hold the Conservatives accountable for every immigrant who turns out to have espionage links that slips through? Oh silly me, your list contains some of those same people! They came in when the Conservatives were in power! OOPS! Do you get now why your argument has no logic behind it whatsoever? If I'm a Troll to a Liberal like you then I'm doing what I do best. "Crushing The Liberal Spirit" Face it Liberals let in these Terrorists with their Policies for years, that's over now as their out of power. When the Conservatives were in power they had to deal with the Liberals trying to force their policies on them which worked as it let these Terrorists into Canada.. I sense you're somewhat meltingdown because I'm speaking the truth? Methinks you mistake my laughing at the sophomoric nature of your post and argument for consternation. And, as a bonus, everyone who reads this thread gets a great example of your excellent logic. Bravo!

Yes, you're a troll. Ah, so even though they were detained and deported during times of Liberal power, it's the Liberal's fault? I am also to hold the Conservatives accountable for every immigrant who turns out to have espionage links that slips through? Oh silly me, your list contains some of those same people! They came in when the Conservatives were in power! OOPS! Brian Mulroney (spit) was in power from September 17, 1984, to June 25, 1993. As an example from your linked list: Do you get now why your argument has no logic behind it whatsoever? You really should think this out a little more before you post.

"We are a target because of who we are and how we live, our society, our diversity and our values," Prime Minister Stephen Harper said. Reducing it to a simplistic meme like this (they hate our values, they hate us) is disingenuous. The true situation is far, far more complicated than that. I find this kind of remark contemptible, since it is, in essence, dumbing down our discussion to this level. Any person with a modest education knows that there are many and varied reasons that differ even from individual to individual for wanting to engage in these sorts of acts of terrorism. While not trying to be comprehensive, religious extremists, cultural attitudes, support for Israel, constant war and hardship (and blame for this being transferred, rightly or not, to the Americans) are some good examples.

Another straw man - you need to go back to debating school, chummer. Where exactly in your link is the reference that any person, of whatever political disposition, deserves the right to stay in Canada? There is none, because no-one says they should stay, other than their lawyers. To turn it around for you: Holy Crap! The Right thinks these Terrorists have the right to live in Canada? Ridiculous. Oh, and a 0/10 for you, troll.

Well, given that you find the excerable Ann Coulter humourous, I'm surprised you don't see the hilarity in comparing Malkin to a terrorist. The fact that you whinge about the latter and apologize for the former shows your total lack of credibility on this subject. Colour me surprised. (Oh and as for "racial slurs...a far more common leftwing tactic" I'd be interested to see how you'd quantify that. But I know you can't.) Too bad OJ wasn't convicted. He was found liable, which is the term in civil law. The term convictions refers to criminal law. First: she never charged him: she sued him. If you're going to talk law, get the terminology right; otherwise you look like an idiot. Second, she dropped her suit, O'Reilly dropped his ridiculous countersuit and they agreed to an out-of-court settlement involving payment of millions of dollars to Mackris. I'll put it simply so you can understand: what does Soros' conviction have to do with the information presented on Media Matters? (Incidentally, you didn't even get that much right: Machinations did not link to Media Matters, but to the same Smoking Gun article I linked to above. Cue the tuba! *Wah WAH.*) Well, really: I've heard of the ping pong ball trick, but never have I heard it specifically connected to Asian hookers. In fact, the most high profile reference I can think of was in the South Park Movie, the target being caucasian actress Wynona Ryder. But since you seem to speak with such authority on the subject, I can only conclude you know something I don't. I've already talked about the anonimity confered by the internet and how it brings out the worst in people. Frankly, I don't see how it's any worse on left blogs than it is on, say, Little Green Footballs (where racial slurs are commonplace). Idiots will be idiots, and you'll have to do a helluva lot better than pointing to anonymous commentors on lefty blogs and fabricated Oreo incidents to prove that the left has a monoply on bad behaviour. Well, shit: racial slurs are clearly over the line. But considering Malkin's own checkered record on race, it's hard to take her sudden righteous indignation too seriously. (Thing is, crass it may be, the ping pong joke works on any female regardless of race.) As for Hillary, no they don't make the ping pong joke about her: they just call her "Hitlary" and indulge in endless speculation about her sexuality. When they are not accusing her of committing murder, of course. All class, you righties. Heh. Im late getting back to the party, but Black Dog is holding it down. With pinache. /approve In all honesty, most conservatives I know would find it hard to stomach the sort of bile these demagogues shovel out. If a so-called liberal commentator were to make some of these charges, they would be pilloried faster than you could say Bill Maher. (And yes, his show was brilliant - and the question was valid, 'is it more cowardly to fire a cruise missile from kilometers away or fly to your death in a suicide attack'. Unsettling to some, perhaps, but valid.)

History is full of examples of exactly that. Mankind has killed off millions of its own over which region or view of the world will dominate. My gods - so many people with so many opinions and so little knowledge! If you want to understand the depth and complexity of the situation in the middle east, it would help if you understood the context. Israel has not, and I may shock some of you, been around for more than 60 years. This means that many people living TODAY remember well the past, a past most of you have not bothered to research or certainly did not do so in depth. Now, don't take this as an argument justifying the killing of innocents - rather, as you, try to understand their motives. It can be eye-opening, and yes, the world is far more many shades of grey than black and white. When a family is killed, a completely innocent family, does it matter if the gun that killed them was in the hands of a jihadi or an American soldier? Only in the minds of the ideologues. And the family's relatives. They have memories, and this, as much as for 9/11 victims as for relatives killed in a 'collateral' airstrike, breeds a desire for revenge. You can say, too bad - but emotions such as this are primal and not easily quashed. I know if you killed my family I would hunt you down. Anyways, I have rambled - please, read history. It is only through understanding the past that we can have any sort of clarity on the present. Trying to reduce it to a simplistic meme like 'they hate our civilization' or 'they are evil' does a disservice to what should be a very important discussion.