myata

Too bad Olson and the bunch weren't advised, they'd be interested I'm sure.

Fortunately (for the rest of us), only in your imagination.

Oh, I'm sorry, you must be having terrible time living in this country which is 100% "morally" and "culturally" relative in its criminal code. Surely, someone who harms or kills because they "love" or "care" should get a better treatment than the scum who do it because of hate, or money, or for the thrill? Perhaps, even exempt from punishment? Perhaps, rewarded? Right?

If memory serves me well, in his last year Saddam was sitting put afraid to move a finger, granting every wish of the inspection teams scouring the country for WMD and whatever else. Then, how many did die as a direct (i.e. "collateral damage") or indirect (destruction of civilian infrastructure, hunger, disease, crime) consequence of the "liberation"? And how many more will if it ends up in civil war? Why don't we just leave aside those high and floppy and therefore meaningless words and just look at the deed, end result? Why should 1000 dead of unasked for liberation feel any better than those killed by a suicidal maniac? In our criminal justice here we don't make any concessions for the "morality" of the killer.

Please state how many suicide bombings were recorded in Iraq in the year before the US lead coalition barged in to liberate.

I won't be surprised if that's word to word (maybe with replacement of terrorist-> infidel) what Osama Bin Laden is preaching to his followers. But I'm sure the parallel won't bother you. You know you're on the right side. And they all keep marching on.

How does one "resolve" anything with the authors of 9/11? That may very well have been the words of Bin Laden (or his ideological masters) in response to creation and continous support of Isreal, installation and proping of the friendly regimes, daily suffering of Palestinian civilians, etc (no I'm not saying we should negitiate with the authors of 9/11. Just that continuation of imperial. self-centered and self-righteous foreign policy will inevitably breed more followers and increase the likelihood of further atrocities).

Are you being sarcastic when you use the term "social movement" for terrorist scum? Now, doesn't just finding the right word answer so many questions!

It's not the fact that he made the comments about Canada's policies that is strange to me (we've freedom of speech here and in his position he's expected to talk about moral and ethical matters) but the essense of the comments themselves which shows: a. profound misunderstanding of the nature of democratic government (i.e. politicians representing values of the populace, not their own); b. no less profound lack of touch with the mindstate of the modern Western societies (where huge majority of people are no longer interested in maintaining "dominant morals" as long as behaviours do not cause provable harm - re decision of the Supreme Court on swingers clubs); c. something what I consider a profound arrogance toward regular citizens like myself - if the Pope has issues with our morals, why would he try to influence it through politicians (i.e., impose them?) as opposed to try to help us accept his position? Unless he sees no hope of ever achieving this.

Hi jbg, you're making a very common mistake of personalizing the truth, i.e. identifying all that is right, true and good in this world with yourself (and your people) and, obviously, the direct opposite with your opponent. While very common and respectable point of view, it nevertheless does not always reflect the factual side of the matter, and even more importantly, is a very poor position from which to search for a resolution (if that latter is what actually being sought).

Does it make the comments in question any less offensive to the affected minorities? Now, as far as I understand, Mecca is a religious site so I wonder if political or judicial control has any relevance. If an (obvious) pair of same sex partners walked into Catholic church, would it be possible that they'd be forcibly removed (if refused to obey)? Remember, there was a case when two kids weren't allowed to go to prom in a Catholic school? Would that be a reason enough for any reasonable and so on?

CBSCrowding? Of course. Exclude pious Islamic women. ---- I simply cannot understand why any "progressive" would defend such a viewpoint. No self-respecting woman, no feminist, should be associated in any way whatsoever with Islam, if this is Islam. Am I wrong? Wrong for three reasons: 1. You're generalizing comments of some specific officials in one particular place to somehow reflect on the entire religion, which as has already been pointed out multiple times, is far from monolithic and does not have single power hierarchy. 2. It's wrong to pick one particular religion. Top official of another (and well known) one as recently as yesterday made public comments, which to me at least, were a very fine match in backwardness, exclusion and arrogance. 3. Faith (including choice thereof) is a complex matter of which external "official" side is only one (and I'm not sure how important) part.

Yeah, me too wonder what exactly he had in mind ... "Hmm, dear constituents, it was a hard decision ... but I have to follow my morals ... and the call of my priest ... so I have decided ... here, bear with me another second ... to indroduce a private member bill ... (oh God) ... to prohibit ... CONTRACEPTION!" I wouldn't question "why would anyone ..." because as someone already pointed out, being a private matter, it would be no more polite than "why do you wear green underwear". However, these ideas, in this time and age, indeed sound quite out of date.

You seriously believe in it, do you?

To me, the difference between "ethnic" prejudice (religion, ethnicity, race), and racism coincides more or less with the boundary between thought and action. I can't see how someone who may consider themselves superior to others for any reason, but always acts fairly and equitably, be branded as racist. On the other hand, even "progressive" racial prejudice expressed in public (e.g. a notion that all white people are by definition racist, widely entertained on some progressive sites) would, witout doubt, itself be racist. A good way to deal with a prejudice (before it evolved into racism) is to bring it in the open. E.g. try to explain rationally, why seeing an officer wearing a turban causes you inconvenience?

The difference is, prejudice or dislike is private, while a public statement of superiority based purely on one's ethnicity, religion or race constitutes racism. We can privately believe in all kinds of bizzare things. However, making a public statement requires some kind of rationalization. In attempting to rationalize their inacceptance, dislike, misunderstanding or fear of certain practices (e.g. wearing a turban), some make trivial logical mistake (fallacy) of generalization, i.e., extending obviosly wrong action attributed to someone with a certain trait to everyone with that trait (i.e, bomber in xyz country wore turban; my neighbour wears turban => my neighbour is a bomber). This is one way a prejudice can evolve into racism.

I'll venture to propose a solution: create a list of countries which are considered "stable" (but not necessarily safe). The only way to apply for a refugee status from a stable country is to submit application locally, in that country (kind of like immigration). Anyone else who sneaked in here for any reason whatsoever and tries to claim gets a one way ticket back (Canada's courtesy), instantly. It'll be fair to real refugees (who have one heck in the hell to buy a ticket here) and to the taxpayers of this country.

I too draw a thick yellow line between understanding (and admitting) that some things in the past were wrong (maybe, very very very wrong) and feeling personally responsible for them. The past is to learn from, and attempt to do better, not to live in it.

You can't really contrast the two. The state has taken children from their parents by force and gave them into care of an organization known to turn a blind eye on "minor" sins of its members. I agree that the truth about much of what's happened there is probably lost for good, but as a practice it should be remembered as an utmost disgrace. BTW illustrates very well where the "moral and ethical superiority" attitude will end up if allowed to propagate from private thoughts into practice.

Inasmuch as it compares to the impact of the Western colonialism (occupation, imposition of colonial administrations, violent suppression of any resistance, exploitation, removal (theft?) of natural resources, arbitrary creation of border lines, creation of new states, ethnic cleansing, etc, you name it) I agree that others should aslo bear some responsibility. In my estimate, it pales by far in comparison to the West's legacy. British Navy was OK to prevent it's own citizens from participating in slave trade. British crown had no right to occupy other countries, and so on (see above). There's neither moral no ethical justification for that, just the law of brute force. If that's OK with you, stop whining now than the same is applied to you and bear the burden of the white man stoically with grim determination as you ought according to the ancient tradition. No, not all. Specifically when certain goverments go outside of their jurisdiction and try to teach others how they should live (which, for some strange reason, almost never comes by without use of superior military technology - why I wonder, if their moral and ethical superiority should be so obvious to everybody?), those do qualify. (Edited - quotations)

Hi Argus, you surely only listen to your own argument. Many, many conflicts in today's known world are either direct result, or side effect of earlier interference from the West. It's only natural to expect it to contribute to the solution. Not China or Saudi Arabia that had nothing to do with them whatsoever, no matter how rich they may be. As to moral, etc superiority, one may think whatever they wish to themselves (it's philosophical question if/how it affects their "moral" or "ethical" side), but the moment this kind of thinking translates into real world actions - aggression, violence, meddling, etc, all the moral ethical etc posture is lost - what remains is a domineering power sick entity that imposes itself on others - I don't see how you can see much positive in that, unless you're one of those people who belive that somehow they have the right to drag others to salvation by force.

Of course there's no clamour in China because Chinese had nothing to do with Africa. Never imported slaves, installed colonial administrations, suppressed locals, cut arbitrary borders, created new states. For a change, white man wants to be seen as doing the good (and right) thing - only old habits die hard. And contrary to the earlier misunderstanding, I'm all for the trade, as long as it doesn't serve as a mean to project power and influence. Leave your money at the border and pick up the goods, the old fashioned way. Eventually and over time trust may develop to expand the exchange if both parties so desire. Actually, I must admit that it doesn't serve much good to paint all West in one colour. There're nuances and flavours. Maybe if the West (both old and new) only agreed with the rest of the world on a few very basic principles (responsible trade, non-interference and freedom of migration), it'd do a lot more good to the peace and stability. Unfortunately, the human rights and democracy agenda is so much tainted by (some of the) West's selective interpretations that they are probably viewed by too many now as simply another tool in the on-going struggle to continue domination.

Could it be though, that we actually do need something from them (i.e. resources, oil), as Argus has pointed out? And much of that "civilization", "democratization", etc activity is actually driven by plain and simple capital interest (aka greed)? Gold and spice in the middle ages, wood and furs 18-1900, oil more recently? And all that do-good thing just an attempt to mask that (to ourselves more than to everybody else)?

Well, then the mess, and hatred for the West will continue no matter what do-goodies we turn up once in a while, and it's as simple as the second law of Newton. No reason to complain about uncivilized character of some and intolerant religions of others either. Just understand. They are the way they are. And they did not ask us there. So, either try to change your ways (and you're right, the prospects of that do not seem to be very promising even now) or continue to carry the burden of the white man without complain - till the hard truth finally dawns.

I propose to leave them alone (for real). Stop selling them arms (e.g. casset bombs). Stop supporting unpopular but friendly to West regimes. Bring back troops. Wait a while (maybe as long as took to create the mess?). And then, if they ask for your help, give what is asked.