myata

Now if only the state (and the future) of "liberated" Iraq could inspire as much joy. But no, come on. It's better than nothing to show for four years of occupation by the biggest military power on the planet.

Do China's activities in Tibet (and Jinjaweed in Dharfur if it matters) make Israel's illegal activities in the occupied territories any more legal?

State of war does not make annexation of territory any more legal. These settlements are illegal under international law (see the article in question), so Israel's actions are illegal war or not.

You mean, absense of such declaration is a proper justification for Israel to grab more of the land they occupy illegally? Building of illegal settlements never ceased no matter what the condition of the affairs was. For Jerry, I would agree with you 100%, except there's this question of U.S.A. which is the biggest military power of this planent and also happen to unconditionally support one side in this conflict.

Like others of the kind, you (conveniently) forgot to post references to the sources of your information. And frankly, it doesn't appear very plausible.

Well yes I believe many here are in agreement that recognition of Israel and peace in exchange for return to 1967 borders is the way to go. We only have to wait till people in the region come to the same conclusion. However I'm not sure that these incidents can be simply written of as "bluff". Building up settlements on the occupied lands is a consitent (and persistent) policy of Israel that did not cease (and even accelerated) during the periods of serious peace negotiations such as Oslo. I do not believe that it contributes to the building of the trust that is already on the very low level and wouldn't automatically assume positive intentions behind it. Maybe "what you see is what you get".

Well, I understand it's a bit too challenging to comprehend even a simple parallel when all we can do is to think in one line categories. That's the whole point. This kind of thinking should never be allowed to get anywhere near power controls. When it does (and did) the disaster is guaranteed.

FYI: regarding Israel's intentions (Israel approves new West bank settlement: BBC story). Reminds me of the late Oslo accord in 8 years of which population of the settlements grew by several hundred thousands. Looks like peace talk is coming from one end of the mouth while land grabs continue from the other.

Yesterday I went for a walk and there was that middle aged guy with several dogs walking them off leash. One of them (rottveiler if I'm any good at telling dogs) started going at me then circling around barking like mad. Luckily for me there was an impressive stick lying around and I got hold of it till the owner come running and pulled off the dog. Do you think I got an apology? He was a white and middle aged guy. I got his license plate and if it ever happens again, he's going to talk to the police. Is it a one time incident or do we have a "middle aged white people with dangerous animals" problem? Only unbiased data can tell. Without it, there's no point in discussing these issues because there's no line that can distinguish real problem from malicious hearsay (that can be coming from ignorance, personal problems, hatred, you name it).

Outside of this topic's context - but even if that other country is right and your country is wrong? Sonds like a recipe for disaster after disaster.

Whatever. You can pump yourself up and out in your moral superiority, but it has no meaning because you're talking to yourself.

Well, no. I don't give one of two answers to be true because the question has no meaning to me. Or, to make it more precise, gods do not exist for me - because I've no need for them and they don't affect me in any way. But I find it totally useless to go on a mission to prove that they don't exist (or existed) for someone else. To even think of such an undertaking one would have to start with undisputed definition of God (or gods) and that in itself is very much godforsaken affair. People can have different beliefs (or none for that matter) but for that very reason in their dealings with each other they should stick to that part of reality which they all agree upon. BTW and FYI the bicycle you had was a "Miyata", Japan's fine export.

Well you see there has to be a way to find out what's going on in reality. Just "some say it's 80% ... but no one knows for sure" isn't good enough. E.g. there're convictions, those should be on the record, at least for adults. I just can't see how any approach to any solution could even be discussed if all the information available is hearsay.

Now where we differ is that you think that your belonging to this elite club makes you morally superior to them (on a one-dimensional scale) while I believe that we/they are just different (think of two dots on a sheet of paper). The best way to establish trust between people who don't know each other is openness and honesty (and peaceful attitude that goes without saying). Not much of the above have been present in our relationships with these people over the late, so no wonder the result is less than desirable. I wonder how long it can take to understand this simple truth.

I'm not a faint-hearted leftie and if it were to be so, it should be brough out into the open and dealt with promptly and with adequate force. However, it's even more important to base our assumptions and actions on facts and not on perceptions.

I'd take exception equating atheism (more precisely, the non militant form of it) with a "belief". The latter means, taking something on faith because it cannot be proven or objectively observed. The "rational" atheism (i.e. the one which does not make its goal to disprove existence of gods), to the contrary, means that decisions and considerations should be based on reason and objective reality. Therefore, if anything, its the opposite of a belief, at least conceptually. The other, militant form is fully irrational and is worse than formal religion because it denies its (religions's) benefitial functions to the society while providing no benefits of its own.

You mean, proven because you say so? I'm so impressed!

?????

Now, here's a fact: crime rate is consistently going down across Canada (Stat Canada site); so, things can't be so terribly worse than they used to be of old; Now, I'm not saying all is nice and well; I agree that braze violent crime, especially gun crime including illegal posession should receive more severe and more importantly, persistent, prosecution; but to blame a problem that isn't very well defined and understood, on a particular ethnic group, or groups, without evidence, just isn't right (and also counter productive). BTW I think I heard on the radio that a police program to record ethnic statistics has been reestablished (I missed which province / municipality it was, Kingston?). Collecting such stats may give grounds for interesting, and meaningful analysis in the futute.

Now all we need is proof. Numerical, statistical proof that crime rate in ethnic communities, per capita, is significantly higher than in the local population. Please note that without such evidence your statement does border on hardcore racism (i.e they are for blame for all my problems).

Welcome onboard, Argus. Now you can tell all those people here who believe that it"s enough to bust in and say the magical word as the things will change in an instant and forever good, how deeply mistaken they are.

If someone turns to shit whatever they touch, does it mean they"re full of it too?

Actually, that is the entire point. It is not enough to give someone a medicine and seee if they get better because often the belief that they are taking a helpful medicine is enough to stimulate the healing process. As a result, drugs must do better than than the placebo before they can be considered to be useful drugs. IOW - the placebo effect is real evidence that belief has an effect on the physical body. You agree then that rationalism (medicine) does better then faith (placebo). The only question is whether faith does in fact have any measurable effect. This can be easily resolved by a statistical study. Personally I haven't heard of such studies and think that if they were existed, it would have made quite a big splash. If you know of any, please post a link.

Well, you see, you need that concept of "another power" to justify the need for God to guide you in struggle against it. It sounds a bit convoluted. If we assumed that there isn"t any such power, but only people with their weaknesses and problems, it would eliminate the need for the first, and consequently, for the second. In sciense there"s a notion of "Occam"s razor" - meaning that where there"s a simpler explanation, it should be taken as the correct one. However logic has little value in the domain of faith. Regarding placebo, I thought that it"s widely used in medical tests as a factor of "zero efficiency" to compare the effect of various drugs. I.e. a drug is considered to have effect only if it"s statistically proven to have better (significantly and consistently) results than placebo. Which kind of puts in doubt that mysterious effect.

You could also say that if a teacher was any good, all his/her students would have A's. But it doesn't work that way. The student has free agency to do well or to do poorly. The bad in our world is a result of our negative choices. Then ... if all that happens in this world is the result of our choices ... why do we need the concept of God? What does it add to this world? If one can make bad choices bypassing God's will, one should be able to make good ones too - all without any divine interference. What is it that existence of God would have added to this picture?