myata

It may very well be an incompetent government with a narrow militaristic agenda. Which in no way exonerates past injustices that created the conflict; or ongoing injustices of occupation and ever sprawling illegal settlements; or complicity of foreign states, this country including, in the continuation of conflict by giving support to one side instead of insisting on a fair settlement.

I know, these "people" (why being shy, all of a sudden?) particularly excel in drawing laws, moral codes and guideleness, though only for others. Their own acts being true and right and therefore above all morality. Because they themselves define true, right and moral. Now, it's really easy to reconcile the otherwise quite puzzlesome notions that e.g. abusing albanians in Kosovo is morally wrong because its democracy, but doing the same, and more to palestinians in West Bank and Gaza is OK because it the right to defence. But if I say, here look, it really simple: this is OK because "blabla", but that, there is very very wrong because "boobla", now having said the majic words, the difference becomes nice and clear to us, who cares that they look and smell quite the same?

Indeed a very unfortunate, but no less predictable for that, product of treating fellow human beings as "savages" unworthy to keep their own land. And we want, no demand, hugs and kisses in return. And we even show a very convincing example how to go about that (see Iraq). Our, broken player's, moral stance is invincible (not to mention logic or commonsense).

The logic of a broken cassette player goes on primarily like this (variations and/or deviations possible): 1. I'm right. There can be no question or doubt about that. Always. 2. "They" are saying that I'm wrong. They're wrong (see #1). There must be a simple way to prove it (to myself). 3. The simple way of proving it (to myself) is that "they" are enemy. Proves completely and without a shred of a doubt that I'm right and they are wrong. 4. Repeat ad infinitum (makes it lot more convincing)

And the drone (of the broken player) will go on. No amount of information, logic, numbers, statistics, arithmetics, figures, facts, etc, will be able to change the steady progress of the tune that goes on its x zillions round. Till it (we can always hope) runs out of battery. "I am good; You are bad; I kick your bu..; It's just too sad" (not really).... The above is only illustrative of a certain pattern of thinking and does not apply to any particular individual(s).

Yep, they (Canada's Conservatives) are doing it - again (after Mulroney's old 40 bil record). Is it some kind of unfortunate curse? Or a pattern?

There's no way of telling what it'll do to his brain. We can see a completely new Harper, Stephen reborn, one nice (pre election) morning.

There we go... what a beautiful "discussion". Perfect mutual understanding, and no inconvenient facts in the way. Or, shall we put it this way, once the offending facts (objects, people, etc) have been dealt with, there'll be no obstacles to perfect understanding, (democracy, peace, etc).

On this particular point, I have to agree, entirely. No, it isn't possible to have a meanigful discussion with a broken cassette player, nor would it serve any purpose.

Is it possible to have a meaningful discussion with a broken cassette player?

OK, a start already. So, how many of them lived there for generations, as opposed to moving in the short period of a few decades, from 1890 to 1940? How did the demographic balance of the region change during that time? And through whose efforts? Again, statistics can help. Let us know if you need help taking in a few obvious and self explanatory numbers. Much of it happened long before "Mufti" got to prominence. Or did he get to prominence in a part due to the immigration project? It's not as uncommon in our own, liberated and democratic lands, compare to raise of nationalist anti immigrant parties in Europe. BTW congrats on another use of default "Nazi" argument, indeed speaks volumes about credibility of your point.

I see, those were just virgin lands void of any population altogether? You should hurry to claim your discovery as it seems to contradict current understanding of demographic situation in the region before British mandate (here's one: Wikipedia: Palestine; and very telling at that).

Why (can't they be), sorry? Did you miss that part?

Quote (from the link, graciously supplied by DoP): "Progressive emigration through the 1920s and 1930s followed the League of Nations sanctioning of Balfour's statement, expanding the Jewish population by over 400,000 before the beginning of the Second World War.[2] " Should we interpret the posting in the sense that the engineers of the project (who are also named in the article - the British and French colonizers) were fully justified by the "Mufti" (and by extension, the entire original population of the lands - correct?) future crimes? Or maybe, should the "Mufti" (and by extension, the entire original population of the lands) have made a better decision in throwing his support in the war, the resettlement project could / would have been recalled? Whatever creative interpretation we chose, it's pretty obvious that this kind of "argumentation" can be used to justify any act by anybody anywhere. And it was, and is being used (Iraq war being the latest example). No surprises.

True, but to what? Help against overwhelming, obliterating foreign aggression? Or our own democratic desire to change and reengineer everybody in our image?

Of course, those later "sins" completely exonerate our earlier ummmm dubious "affair" around populating and creating the "new state". Like we knew who we're dealing with from the start. And they didn't deserve any better.

Harper's folks really struggle with notions like "principle"; "fairness" and "justice". They understand "pro" and "anti" much better.

And this hypothetical statement should suffice to justify whatever "we" do, forever? No questions asked?

Of course not. It happened on exact same date as promised (scheduled, etc - all for the sake of no less than Greater Accountability). Our great champtions of openness transparency and unbroken promises.

And then, there're promises that didn't have to be made, didn't have to be broken, and were broken still. Like, fixed election dates.

Yeah sure, lawless wild west is lot better. Nobody to tell you what to do, and nobody whatsoever to protect you if somebody decides that the thing to do is to take your house, wife, etc and kick you out or worse. Sure you can prove how it leads to more constitutional freedom be given, just try.

To treat violence with more violence? Sounds like an explosive idea. I'd rather try something common sense. There must be a real, practical sanction for any non trivial offence. If it cannot be violence, on one hand, or empty words on another, then fine would be a most obvious alternative. Why couldn't we start with something simple and obvious, and see where it'd take us? Is there any problems with this solution?

No don't have to do this in all, or even any of the hotspots. Just do this, or nothing at all, thank-you. I.e., no self imposed, unasked for, bloodletting and infrustructure destroying nation building, democracy educating, and so on "peaceful" "assistence".

Of course, it's a no brainer to deduce that children learn by example, and violence against them increases possibility of them turning violent in the future, to a significant degree. Cash sanction has a number of great advantages: it's very clear to everybody, parents and children; it gives delinquent parents greater incentive to get involved with their children; it sends clear, unmistakable, and hard to ignore signal to change behaviour (where other alternatives may be ineffective). Overall, the sanction doesn't even have to be hard (in the early stages; I'd agree with super heavy fines of tens of grands, for serious crimes such as gun possession or drug trafficking - again, as alternative, or in conjunction with jail), the most important thing is that it's there and it's real, not some pointless lecture kids learned to filter out years back.

Why is it that "what you hear is not whay you get"? I mean you (we) hear all we need to hear about "Somalia and Rwanda" as a greatly illustrative cause for democratic intervention, and where also nothing happens (not in this Universe, at least), but we do get Afghanistan and Iraq? A Liberators paradox, feel free to ponder it. Sorry I haven't been clear. UN forces would have a clear operating objective. Protecting civilian population from worst excesses until a more or less stable government emerges. Nothing to do with democratic education, it's no different from colonization by another name.