myata

OK, I understand, we should read it as you have no proof that the blog represents the official position of the party, but have to insist on bending that line because otherwise it would look (the opposite of smart) just like any number of other times you were pushing obviously and demonstratably false statements and interpretations. Wrong again, I'm getting the facts that actually happened in this reality. Perhaps you aren't getting that one of the sides is using the pretext of these pseudo peace negotiations to strengthen its hold on the occupied lands? And why would it be that you perisistently fail to "get it"? Could it be because of less than enthusiastic will to observe the events which would not fit into the frame dictated by your ideology? I really liked your comment about lying. I never "loathed" to call things their own names, to which there's any number of proof in this very discussion, but I also see very clearly how some dearly wish to use ideological cliches to cover up their otherwise undefendable positions, and that certainly would have nothing to do with working for peace. What do you call then putting women and children into settlements in the occupied lands? Or perhaps, your ideological vision filters successfully eliminated that part of reality? Of course, you should have started with that, and we wouldn't have this discussion. There's no way you're going to do anything real about your friendly side's persistent violations, and that is a very clear demonstration of how convoluted your claim to peaceful involvement is, and how it has nothing at all with the genuine peace, and everything - with prompting your friendly party in whatever project they happen to be involved in. Of course I said (very many times) that policies should be applied regardless of which side is involved, but you conveniently left it out, or could be misunderstood?? because the whole idea of principle and fainess would be so foreign to your ideological stance? Of course, do you have any other choice? Have you ever admitted being wrong, even when factually proven so, in ths discussion? No, simply a refusal to comment on something that has no relevance to the discussion. Applying proper names to events goes a long way to understanding them. Enjoy. Where we apply our policies in accordance with the progress made toward deescalation and peace, based on principle and fairness, rather than ideological association. Could it be that you see it as "failing" because you find the ideas of "principle" and "fairness" very foreign, and perhaps, directly opposite to your ideology of "me or mine can do no wrong"? We have already been here, and I see no point in repeating what I already said, as it'll serve no purpose other than playing into your ploys. You obviously have exhausted all rational arguments, and just trying to brand the opponent with one of your cliches, as a last resort to discount their arguments (along with any inconvenient facts).

A very apt demonstration of the very issues explored in the movie.

Yes I agree. If one goes right of the center-left, where would it be? There isn't a different identity for the Iggy's Libs anymore, they are fighting over the same territory with the Conservatives with image optics and electioneering ploys. I've no idea who'll benefit of it, but I doubt any regular Canadian would notice a slightest difference.

I'm really concerned with Harper and I believe that handing him a majority would be a huge risk for all positive developments that happened in this country of late. However, I just can't fathom how Iggy's Liberals would be any better when on all major issues they want to mimic CPC. So I guess it has to come to this, i.e. tough love. If in this system we can't get any meaningful choice other than Ci PC and Li PC, then the only way that situation could work for me, i.e. for my view of what is the best for this country, is by LPC (re)learning to define and stand for its own principles. And if it takes LPC being parked in the opposition for a while longer, and even a risk of majority for the dreadful Harper, maybe it has to be so, for the better future of us all?

The movie (directed: Neill Blomkamp, produced: Peter Jackson) stands out as a certain achievement on many levels: as a valuable contribution to the SciFi genre, with innovative style of narration that draws viewer right into the story with documentary style opening scenes, making one (me) virtually believe the pictures of a massive spaceship over Johannesburg to be real, and spectacular visual scenes; as a non trivial retelling of some not so distant history, and more generally, in the words of another reviewer, "human ways of doing things". All entirely believable. And not in the least, as entertainment, with one of the most realistic so far, portrayals of aliens outside of Hollywood's epitomic invasion/conquest/horror paradigm, and a dynamic action sequence in the later part. And even above the immediate history parallels, the movie will long stand as a defining metaphor for for the ways in which we humans manage to give up, waste and trivialize the precious gifts of life and freedom in search of power, money and comfort. The synopsis of the story (on a very general level, as some wouldn't get it), a spaceship from a vastly superior civilization suffers a distress (the exact nature of which is not specified, but which renders most of its numerous crew and/or passengers/patients/etc?, mentally disabled and incapable of rational behaviour) and parks at our planet over the city of Johannesburg, South Africa. Humans offer the refuge and along with it, the normal, human ways of approaching problems. On that background, the story kicks of with a massive plan to relocate the alien settlers to another area, where they would cause less friction with the local population. Finally some reviewers were disappointed with the action sequence getting in the way of the moral story. I however would entirely disagree, seeing it instead as a powerful statement of an individual's role in the history, although may be on a slower scale than a move could realistically capture, again, having to employ a strong, well executed metaphor. Good stuff, Messrs. Blomkamp, Jackson et al.

Of course, Liberal MPs cannot have their own opinions and that's no doubt why you can't imagine the possibility of an individual, even MP, speaking for themselves. Why repeat stale arguments, Dobbin? We already found out that for every moved settler in that project, three new ones were added. That is how your convoluted measure of "sucess" catering entirely to the interests of your friendly party. You really can make excellent comments about lies, it all depends on context, I guess. But it does sound like your arguments are wearing thin, as they were for the major part of this discussion. Really, you can't argue to be an agent of peace, in all honesty, and standy by as a major form agression is being perpetrated, without as much as noticing it? That is a fact, and short of burying it into ground, just like other facts you'd rather not existed, there's very little you can do to counter it. But you're OK dealing with people who are involved in the form of agression, correct? That is obviously not a position of a peace agent. That is all I'm interested in, in this discussion. Ideological branding, argumentations created to support predefined position (by ideology, of course), selective visions, and such - are entirely yours. Not really, at least not in the act. There's military, financial and diplomatic assistance flowing disproportionally to one side. There're oath of eternal friendship and allegiance. All despite the fact it's been involved in major acts of agression. And of course, there're sanctions, accusations and isolation applied selectively on the other side. I think it's yet another case when your vision is drastically different from what's going on in reality. Poor memory, I see. How about you try to figure out yourself what I said and did not. It's all here. I can't comment on every bizzare idea you come up with. Dobbin, I said it already so many times in this very thread, but I understand that being stuck in the corner with nothing to say to support your failing position, you really have little choice but to pretend that nothing happened ad infinitum, in the hope that the opponent would give. 1. State clearly and officially the principles of deescalation. Maintain that Canada's position toward the parties involved will be in line with their following the agenda of deescalation 2. Call attention to acts of agression, regardless which side involved. 3. Official diplomatic reaction to acts of agression. 4. Economic response to acts of agression (against governments and / or private interests alike) 5. Diplomatic isolation in case of severe and persistent violations of agenda of deescalation. No, I just can't and won't comment on every bizzare statement you come up with, until you demonstrate that it has some relation to the topic being discussed.

Ignatieff could have taken Harper on principles - his (Harpers) little tricks with laws, democratic coalition, position on climate change, war in Afghanistan, international policy. Instead he's turning the party into a shadow of CPC on any important issue, and entering spin contest with its all time master. Godspeed.

There's nothing on that site that states it being anything but a blog of an individual who also happens to be an MP. Are you making things up again, Dobbin? The expansion of settlements is a fact. Attacks by Hamas are also a fact. "Terrorism" is not a fact, it's a label, brand name. You called me "hostile" to Israel because I'm drawing attention to ongoing expansion of settlements. Then you questioned whether it's a fact. And now, of course, you're confusing and distracting. Certainly, things change, do they? They changed in Israel itself, Northern Ireland, Kosovo, anywhere people start actively looking for solutions for real peace, as opposed to ideological cliches to continue with their ideologically predetermined policies. Not on other countries, but its own policies with respect to those countries. We can do that no? Unless, in your new Liberal view we can only confine ourselves to proudly following in another's tracks? Wherever they would lead us? Reading my mind for me, again, Dobbin? Let me tell you that I really like your comment, the other one, about lying. I'm afraid that only you can interpret that kind of convoluted text, it's entirely your creation, I've nothing to do with it, and I cannot comment other than by advising to seek some form of assistence. Canada exercising its principles in its own policies, "colonialism"? Wow! I hope it's your own opinion and Ignatieff isn't going to spill anything of the sort in public, it might very well be the end of his political career. Why would I want to answer anything so (opposite to smart) and bizzare as that? No, it's only your limitless imagination.

I thought that fighting episode was entirely unrelated to the visit of parliamentarians (against Islamic church or something, ally of Al Quaeda Guardian: Hamas destroys Al Quaeda group in Gaza), so it may be another creative "extension" on your part. However I couldn't bother to get involved in yet another case of separating truths from another interpretations. No, it still does not make her private blog the official statement by the party, unless it explicitly says so. I know, hard to imagine, when one's every word (and maybe even thought) has to be dictated by the supreme leader. Yes that's your safe fallback position (if you can make your words match the reality, question the reality) we already know it all too well. Hamas was involved in agressive and terrorist activities before its election in government, just as many Israeli leaders were before establishment of their state. This situation had to be reevaluated following their democratic election. This is of course not the way of ideology based policies, like yours would be a very good example. In there, principles only stretch as far as they serve their purpose, and can be discarded on demand if they get in the way. Hence, "bad" democracies, and good ones, "terrorists" and "freedom fighters" and so on. Of course not, and I can't understand where you're getting all these ideas? I only want Canada to apply its own principles (peace and justice) to its own policies, period. Now, has it been made clear enough, so that we can avoid any possibility of confusions or misinterpretations in the future? That summarises it very nicely, thank you for honesty. Indeed, your position has been all, 100% pure talk. That was such an apt comment, you know the one about lying, in that other thread. Indeed it was.

Everybody interviewed was a supporter of Hamas? Are you just saying that, or have some evidence? You can certainly see more than from you chair here, and if you deliberately limit your vision, it also limits your chances of making informed decisions. But informed decisions is not what the current Liberal position is about, is it? She is a thinking individual entitled to present her opinion anywhere she deems necessary. That does not make her blog the official posion of the party. The possibily that one can be a member of a party, even an official, and still have an independent opinion obviously escapes you. Probably for already pointed reason. If merely pointing obvious facts is "hostility", than your truth is a lie, Dobbin, and your peace is war, obviously. You may have said that, but it in no way means that that is what I expect. I expect acts consistent with pronouncements and declared principles. It may not be easy, but it's the only way to real peace. Ha-ha, you're really funny here. So it's perfectly OK (nothing "colonial", really!) to vote to give a part of somebody land to someone else, but a big fat No-No to have one's own policy based on principle and justice, is it? Just because we cannot be "colonial", we simply have to accept your one sided, hypocritical approach that has nothing to do with peace for the obvious reason that it's all about catering to the interests of your friendly party? Long before such sanctions had to be put in place (if ever), we would have already created trust and respect with our balanced and principled position, not to mention the benefit of deescalating all hostilities by, correct, exposing them regardless of what side is involved. I already explained that it's just a creative wording. There's no meaning in "negotiating" while continuing acts of hostility and agression. As a friend, and self declared agent of peace it would be your responsibility to bring it to the attention of your friendly party, and make them understand that you mean it. The responsibility that was obviosly, and miserably, failed. I already said that addressing historical roots of the conflict wouldn't really belong in this discussion, and sorry I can't get what you're trying to gain by pulling it in, over and again? Even if you'd deny that the way in which the state has been established was a major factor in creating the conflict (I wouldn't be surprised one bit, as there's been multiple instances of your denying facts in this very thread), we'll have to address somewhere else.

Yet they seem to be able to speak to many people and see many sites. How is it not a first hand information? For your party now though, ideological optics are more important than finding out the truth first hand. No Dobbin, you are mistaken here, anybody can write a blog without implication for a wider group of people they associate with. It's called "freedom of thought", thing becoming increasingly rare in the Harper's party, and by extension, the new Liberal, built on its model. Without doubt, the principal cause of your confusion. You comment about lying in that other thread was really well spoken. I tried to explain awhile back that the question isn't as simple as you think, but you weren't interested maybe because ideological stamps to whitewash the dirty business of your friendly party is all you want to see and hear. Of course I did. As an option in the array of possible measures to ensure balanced and even handed approach, with a goal to achieve cessation of all hostilities, not only those you care to notice. I just don't like your creative interpretations and simplifications. I'm waiting (maybe without hope) for you to get tired of popping up that obvious ruse. The question was, why you did nothing about obviously hostile and agressive behavior of your friendly party, which certainly worked long ways to enhance popularity of extreme groups like the same Hamas. Oh that one, indeed. But haven't we established that "table" that results in one side (your friendly side btw) dealing behind the back of their partner (with you entirely unconcerned) has nothing to do with genuine peace negotiations? Negotiations require some level of trust. Trust cannot exist while major hostilities are going on. Massive annexation of land is an act of hostility and agression. Therefore, the "table" you keep citing is not the real peace table. The sides continue to exchange acts of agression. And you excuse, apologise and by extension, and absolute inaction, tacitly support the acts of agression perpetrated even as we speak, by your friendly side.

I thought your principal objection was "propaganda by Hamas"? If it was the genuine concern for the efficiency of the mission, then there would be some evidence of attempts to make it work, e.g by insisting on visiting certain sites (from the blog, I don't see any restriction on who to talk with, or particulars of itinerary). However your party has summarily refused the opportunity to find out facts for themselves, and therefore a credible position as an agent of peace. Just like your only ally in this decision, Harper's Conservatives. And I don't think it to be a coincidence. I noticed a lot of facts, and one MP does not speak for the party, so how should we call this yet another little misinterpretation? Pointing out obvious facts, "hostility"? Seeing only what you want to see, peace? Truth is lie? War is peace? Way to go. Now you're fully conditioned to vote the new Liberals! Dobbin, we had an opportunity to discuss this question at length, but you weren't interested. You only want to use coined stamped labels to support your ideological position that has nothing to do with deescalation of hostilities and genuine agenda of peace. I really admire that comment you made about lying in another thread. Not when it refused to recognise democratically elected government. Nor when it declared diplomatic blocade of it. But certainly did nothing about onging expansion of settlements, since Day 1 and for decades. That disbalance is very obvious, however hard you try to pretend it does not exist. Really? I can't recall ever hearing those, so could you be so kind as to remind me (and everybody)? To MB: We already discussed the "talking" point at some length. Talking while continuing acts of hostility behind partners' back is hardly meaningful. There's been no real peace dialogue yet, and both sides are responsible that it did not happen. Until we find courage to admit it, and insist on cessation of all hostilities and by all sides, the problem won't be wished away. and And on the second point, by all international standards these settlements, now to the extent of some 10% of Israels' population, are fully and unquestionnably illegal. There's also little doubt that continuiation of this policy that's been in place since Day 1, is an act of hostility and agression. Why do we (i.e. Canada's two largest parties) continue to support the side that is continuously and methodically involved in perpetration of acts of agression, and what does it do to our proclaimed goal of achieving peace, are the questions I'd like to raise here.

It's got to be one of the two, "propaganda" or "fighting". Please decide which one (I can't do it for you, unlike yourself I'm missing that capacity to read minds), and post references appropriately. If your concern has been squarely with predefined itinerary, and you had a genuine intent to find out facts first hand, you'd show some evidence of attempting to make this mission work, otherwise it's just an excuse. And therefore they cannot claim to have a first hand knowledge from all sides in the conflict, and be true agents for peace. Their concerns are obviously ideological and electoral. And now you appear to be reading the beliefs of NDP and BQ? It's not the meeting and talking, Dobbin, it's acting. And the act clearly shows where your allegiances lie. You never acted, nor would ever act against obvious acts of agression, which is the expansion of illegal settlements. Everything else is your peaceful smokescreen. I offered to have this discussion awhile back and you weren't interested, so now it's lame and pathetic for you to bring this stale argument back up again. Your memory does not serve you well. It is an established, proven statement now, and it is proven by the absolute, total lack of any real, practical act against acts of agression in the form of illegal annexation of land by your friendly side, that has been going on incessantly for decades, and that you, until very recently, refused to even notice. That's their ideological preferences, obviously, that can be pulled out and put in as needed. They are also the democratically elected government of the land. The first governments of Israel had members of before then terrorist organisations, and few had qualms about that, but of course it's all different now. Why would it be all different? Because our folks can do no wrong, and vice versa, could it be? Noticed your righteous tirade against lying in another thread, Dobbin. Good stuff! So, why the difference of attitudes toward clear acts of agression? No, you can't answer that, can you?

So, your story changes on the fly. Would it mean that there were in fact some valid security considerations, that had to be interpreted by Liberals as "being used for propaganda"? Yet despite troubles on both sides, Liberals only seem to have problems visiting Gaza. Wouldn't that prove beyond all doubts that their choices are dictated ideologically, rather than "limitations of freedom of movement"? BTW are there any records of Liberals also visiting settlement sites, or they normally confine themselves to friendly itineraries devised by their hosts? If you prove that their position is one-sided, I would argue with it also. The problem with your position is that it only wants to see only one side of the conflict, and most certainly, its mirror image would be equally wrong. The path leading to peace is that of balance, justice and principle, and that is certainly not your path, we'll have to see about NDP. Another pathetic attempt to distract from a clear question that you cannot answer, Dobbin? One more time, why agressive acts by both sides result in starkly different action by you? Diplomatic isolation and condemnation vs oaths of friendship and gentle taps on the shoulder. Could it be because your real position has nothing to do with peace, but with ideological allegiance, gang, that you try to disguise by any means available to you, as some convoluted peace process?

I'll certainly vote the way I deem right, but many thanks for a thoughful advice. And that's just you saying it. And we should know (by now) the worth of your plain word, unconfirmed by any factual reference. Does she mention anything about (attempted) inability to negotiate the freedom of movement in Gaza? Unfortunately we simply cannot find that out because the reference to the blog somehow went missing from your earlier post. And where did it go? Everybody's guess. Anywhere there's a picture of a smiling Liberal MP shaking hands with Israeli officials just as those massive expansion projects are rolling ahead full steam. It tells them load and clear that they are on the right track don't mind (really) those half hearted conditional reservations that have to be squeaked out once in while to maintain the claim to "peaceful" position. Congratulation Dobbin, you did it again. Now your chances to get that Nobel are really flying high. My point though, as should be obvious to anybody caring to read and understand, is not "Israel", but the obvious unmistakable difference in attitudes you display towards acts of agressions perpetrated by the two sides. One deserves isolation and condemnation, another - friendly visits and gentle tap on the shoulder. Why is there such a stark difference of attitudes toward obvious acts of aggression? Your new Liberal ideology should be able to enlighten us now, and so:

And building of settlements has happened since Day 1, is going on as we speak, and for all we know "will happen again this time" (and the next time and in forever time, till someone finally finds the courage to notice it and act). Yet, Liberal MPs have no issues visiting Isreal. Why so, Dobbin? Because in the new Liberal ideology (which looks, smells and quacks every single bit like its Conservative counterpart), one kind of agression is better than another? Because its ideologically closer to what the new Liberals are? If Liberals tried to negotiate the "freedom of movement", I would believe you, as it stands thought, it's nothing more than a lame excuse to cover your obvious reluctance to act caused by clear ideological biases. BTW how much "freedom of movement" MPs have to go to the settlement cites on their all too common visits to Israel, official and otherwise? But they don't appear at all "concerned" that their ever friendly visits to Israel would be used as "propaganda tool" to excuse and justify continuing, ongoing and massive expansion of illegal settlemetns, from Day 1? Why such a difference of attitudes to acts that are both obvious and clear examples of agression? Because, in the new Liberal ideology, would one kind of agression be better, because it's perpetrated by the friendly side? That question has been following you for a long time in this discussion, and you have yet to present a rational answer to it. High five, you did it again! (reading other individual's mind). Just demo it to a bunch of scientists, and you may yet get a Nobel. With which you could hire a bunch of writers and lawyers who would attempt something that's still eluding you, i.e. the proof that stinky deed committed by your buddy actually smells like poisies and rosies and should be cheered and praised (rather than condemned and acted upon, as per your own oldtime talk).

And how would you know for certain what's actually going on in those places if you yourself refuse to find out first hand? By reading your ideological crystal ball? Perhaps, not unlike Harper and Co? What else do you believe that I believe? And how would that relate to the topic? Other than an obvious distraction from it? We elect all MPs to find out first hand information for us. Some parties however, are obviously more concerned with ideological and electoral considerations, than triffle matters of establishing the truth or standing up for principles they themselves proclaimed, but have no will or courage to follow through upon.

I have to "look up" proofs to your statements, Dobbin? Are you trying to be funny, again? Anyways. So we better not have any first hand information and (because it'd make it so much easier?) just press on with the party line? There it goes, folks. You elect your Liberal MP. They will not go out and find out the truth for you. Instead, they'll read you a prepared statement thought out by Iggy to maximise his chances of electability at the moment. Looks like somebody likes Harper's approaches to party discipline, and wouldn't mind to try them; potentially making Libs even closer to being an identical twin of the Conservatives. And so, we have a real chance to end up with the total and absolute triumph of democracy: - the only two parties that could ever be elected to govern; - identical in any practical point of policy; - and party organization; - could only be distinguished by slight variations of terminology and polemics ("free market" vs "social policies") We're really privileged to live to see this!

Yes, it always works that way: selective visions lead to selective understanding and thinking, and then the reality returns to complete and perfect harmony with the way it should be.

While the Liberal seems to be all about unnamed fears and well known labels and nothing of substance. As a way of convincing, and the way to the achieve the "peace". Liberals just want to tread one tiny degree softer than the Conservative policy in throwing their support squarely behind one side in the conflict, and as an obvious consequence, bending all and everything to ignore its obvious violations and acts of agression, just as we're seeing in this very thread. Really, what can be more ridiculous: examining situation first hand, by invitiation of UN, branded as "support of Hamas"? Isn't that (finding out situation first hand, rather than from the the hands of government spinners) one reason we elect representatives? Not Liberal, obviously. Ministry of truth defines the party line of day, and any deviation is treated as a taboo. Why does it remind me of something else here, could anybody help?

And?! What would be Mr Wrzeshewsky's alleged crime? Visiting the zone of a recent humanitarian disaster with other parliamentarians, and by invitation of UN? Looks like the Liberal ministry of truth is gathering momentum. Combined with absolute dead silence on ever expanding illegal settlements, it turns into a serious factor for "peace" (in the truth ministry sense of the world), certainly worthy, if somewhat belated, followers of their Conservative policy leaders. Unlike yourself, I believe that admitting a problem is a necessary first step in addressing it (your new Liberal strategy appears to be that not seeing it should do the trick). So if I see a proof that certain policies of certain country(ies) indeed bear resemblance to the infamous aforementioned ones, I wouldn't be dismissing it as some kind of impossible taboo simply because my party line says so, or my frame of mind prevents me from admitting the reality. But maybe, being a Liberal these days translates not only in inability to perform some public functions (like finding out the situation on the ground in the zone of conflict), but to even having a view on any matter that is different from the party line. Who knows?

I see, nameless MPs, vague and unexplained "fears" and all too familiar standard coined labels on anything that wouldn't fit party line (no less false and groundless for that matter, but who cares really) as justification of New Liberals abandonment of principles and rejoining the cheering pack led by New Conservatives. What a harmony! But guess what. Between two identical devils many may just choose the more familiar one. There will be a cost for abandoning core principles, and it appears that New Libs are just about to discover that. Good sailing.

And why would they have to fear that "tilt", would there be any ground for that statement? The policy in place under Dion has been posted, there's certainly very little about love for Hamas in there. Unless, of course, any attempt to maintain a balanced and principled position will be branded and "feared", by some, as that diabolical "tilt". A great justification, no doubt, for abandoning it (principles and balance that is), and joining the ranks of the cheering band for one side in the conflict. Just like their purported arch rivals.

And, with the shift in mind, in what way would that government differ from the one that's in place now?

Shift to the right led by the current Liberal leadership has been noted already. Policy on Israel may be just one more indication of this shift. Another reason, as already pointed out by somebody, could be attracting donations from some business interests. Interestingly, before this recent shift, Liberals were sometimes branded centre-left, while Tories - centre-right. Given that pure ideal "centre" may not exist (other than as indication of accomplished political apathy), where would this recent change of direction take the party? Correct, and that would certainly explain virtually non-existent differences in essential policies (as opposed to worthless polemics) between the two parties. I found this official statement of Liberal policy on Middle East (Liberal - questionnaire Oct 2008) It dates to the times of Dion though. I could find surprisingly little on Ignatieff current position on the issue. Perhaps he's deliberately avoiding specific comments.