WestViking

Bingo - the Pope directed his comments to Catholics as he should. Why would you care when one Catholic speake to another? It is really none of your concern. You appear to be opposing our freedoms of belief, association and expression.

You referred to a "textbook definition of a terrorist organization". I simply gave you one and it does not fit your posted hypothesis. It is hardly subversive for the head of the Catholic Church to ask Catholics to adhere to their teachings when making decisions. That is his job. You are entitled to your opinion but that does not render your opinion of any particular value. Calling people or groups names and hurling out accusations does not validate your opinions. Our elected representatives are bombarded with requests from various groups to ‘do the right thing’. The definition of the ‘right thing’ depends on the agenda of the particular group. They seem able to chart a course between the extremes.

The United Nations definitions are: “Terrorist organization” means a group of two or more persons, including unauthorised armed groups and paramilitary groups, whose objectives or activities are directed toward the commission of terrorism; “Terrorism” means the commission of one or more of the following offences, as defined in the applicable law, with an intent to create a serious threat to public order, to coerce a government or international organization, or to intimidate or endanger a civilian population: (i) murder; (ii) grave bodily injury; (iii) hostage-taking; (iv) kidnapping; (v) unlawful detention; (vi) poisoning of food or water; (vii) causing general danger; (viii) destroying or damaging public utilities; (ix) making or procuring weapons or instruments; (x) unlawful possession of weapons or exploding substances; (xi) endangering internationally-protected persons; (xii) hijacking of aircraft; (xiii) jeopardising the safety of an aircraft’s flight; (xiv) unauthorised acquisition or use of nuclear materials; or (xv) jeopardising safety by nuclear materials. I am not aware of any mainstream religious organization operating in western democracies that quality. Your concept of terrorism, amongst other issues, seems a bit warped.

Favouring the principles of Kyoto is one thing. Agreeing to the painful costs of meeting Kyoto targets is another kettle of fish. No one wants to be seen as not supporting a 'save the earth' campaign; however facing constituents with higher costs, loss of jobs, and pumped up inflation is not nearly as comfortable.

Because to do otherwise is to smeer innocent people and is no different then saying we should hate all blacks because some commit crimes. Why-because if you don't make an effort an d continue to smeer and alienate moderate Muslims, who do you intend to call on to help you defeat these terrorists? Can you speak Arabic? Do you understand their customs? More importantly why would I want to hate all Muslims and not try to make an effort to reach out to moderate Muslims? I would do that with anyone. Life is too short to go around hating or fearing people or harbouring negative assumptions about people. It is a waste of energy. I am not sneering at anyone and do not hate anyone. Those are your perceptions, not mine.. I flatly reject your innuendo. There is no onus on me or on anyone else to try to sort out radical from moderate Muslims. They will, by their actions and behaviour, solve the riddle for me. Condoning terrorism and hiding terrorists is not moderate. Who is "we'? You sound like Queen Elizabeth. Get off her horse and use the word "I". Now then. You just finished asking me why you shoud try sort out moderate Muslims from radical ones, which suggests you do not and will not. So then, how do I take you seriously when you now state you see no evidence of moderate Muslims isolating and shunning radical elements in their societies? You can't have it both ways. Don't sit there and tell me you will not make any effort to distinguish a moderate Muslim from a terrorist and then in the same breath say you can't see any evidence! You are not looking and making no effort to look! Wrong. I do not have to try to understand or sort out Muslims. I did not travel to their nation; they came to mine. It is not incumbent on me to try to adapt to immigrants to Canada. It is incumbent on immigrants, including Muslims, to understand Canadians society, its standards, and values, and try to fit in. Why would I be wasting my time reaching out to alleged moderate Muslims? If they are moderate, law-abiding citizens, how do they differ from my other neighbours? I don’t ask my neighbours and acquaintances about their ethnic background or ask about their religious beliefs. They have the benefit of the doubt until they prove otherwise, which is really quite rare. I categorically reject your accusations of bigotry. That accusation is hurled out to avoid rational argument and stifle debate by demeaning an opponent. Calling me names is not valid argument and does nothing to further you cause. Moderate Muslims in Canada should not be tarred and feathered because of corupt Arab governments or Muslim terrorists. Many came to Canada precisely to get away from them. The fact that someone is a Palestinian, Syrian, Lebanese, Egyptian, Iranian, etc., does not automatically make them evil because their government(s) may suck or engage in terror. You are quick to smeer people with negative assumptions. I am sure you would not like it if it was done in reverse to you. Think about it take the word Muslim out from your comments and insert Canadian or Christian or caucasian and tell me would you accept such comments about you? What do you propose we do with radical Muslims in Canada? How are we to tell the radicals and the moderates apart? Muslims in Canada have been very slow to denounce Muslim terrorists and terrorism. Are Muslims in Canada threatened, coerced or otherwise terrorized by their countrymen? If so, why are the moderates not complaining? I have not expressed hatred for all Muslims. I have not 'smeared' anyone. I rejected your premise that it was up to me to seek out and break bread with moderate Muslims. There is no such requirement. If Muslim immigrants wish to become Canadians, adapt to our society, and reject terrorists and terrorism, they will have no problem fitting into our communities. If they do not, their actions and behaviour will speak for them.

Not if a skilled professional such as David Anderson is controlling the weather. Perhaps you have a point - controlling the weather may be easier than controlling Iran's President. However the risk of nuclear stupidity remains.

It makes no sense to lump people who accept evolution science with a god caveat with people that completely deny the evidence for evolution. The 'Bubbas' you speak of are the latter group - only 26% of Canadians fell into that category. OTOH - 47% of Americans fall into the 'Bubba' category. Offhanded disparagement of those who hold different views is not valid argument or debate. Mindlessly demeaning people for their beliefs is despicable.

We are much more likely to blow up a major portion of the planet than learn how to control weather.

Muslims can worship as they please, that is of no relevance in world affairs. Muslim politics is another matter entirely. When Muslims Mullahs and leaders call for the destruction of or subjugation of non-Muslims, they and the people they govern are our enemies. We do not need Muslims to understand anything. Muslims prepared to accept us as we are, and accept out social standards and values are not a problem and never have been. Those who want to live apart in our society, insist on accommodations for their religion, and insist on living under Sharia law are not welcome. Why should we try to sort out moderate Muslims from radical Muslims? We have not seen any evidence of moderate Muslims isolating and shunning radical elements in their societies. We do see Iran, Syria, Pakistan, the Palestinians and others roll out the welcome wagon to greet radical Mullahs and terrorist leaders. We see what they do and it does not fit with what they say.

What is unique about turning despotism into a religion? Dictators do not suffer criticism gladly. When you hold power by force of arms, your first priority is to ensure the loyalty of the palace guard. If you don’t, you will soon be a dead dictator. The next priority is to ensure the serfdom of the population and things like the freedom of religion and expression are dangerous. People without fundamental freedoms and rights have a difficult time mounting a rebellion. Someone please explain to me the difference between the six most savage dictators in history and the Islamic Mullahs who control most Muslim nations.

Good one jbg. Glad to see you using your time constructivly creating laws to curb the violence of kirpan wielding sikhs (not reported by the MSM of course). We need more laws to punish those who aren't a problem. Obviously. We are running out of farmers and duck hunters to harass. We must add some Muslims and Sikhs to the mix - multiculturalism rules, eh?

New world or old, multi-culturalists have to go. Now. Turning our nations into cultural ghettos is a recipe for conducting all the world’s ethnic and religious wars in miniature on our home ground. We don't need the casualties or the victims of murderous vendettas.

Well, we can't have apes and pigs wandering in and out of mosques, now can we? Especially ones who think their wives are their equals. Let's be reasonable here...I mean, Islam is a religion of peace and all, but there are limits y'know... Most any group can be very peaceful if it gets its way and fealty from non members.

The measure of poverty (and riches) includes a lot of intangibles that cannot be measured. What is the value of good health, a warm and loving family, long-held solid friendships, and a spouse with whom you have shared and survived both catastrophe and triumphs? How do you measure the satisfaction of an ethical and moral person who does what is right because it is right. Measuring 'poor' and 'poverty' based solely on income levels and ownership of 'stuff' is a bit ridiculous. The notion that all 'poor' people lack dignity, pride and respect is not accurate. I discovered long ago that not everyone wants to climb the ladder of success. For one think, they may not measure success in the same way that I do or the way that mainstream society does. We like to wax eloquent about the beauty of liberty and freedoms, and part of that revered liberty to live as you wish in accordance with measures and goals that matter to you. It is not relevant what the sociology department at the university or the experts in some think tank believe, they are not going to live your life for you. My quarrel with 'poverty studies' is that they dehumanize the people they study. "Poor' people become cyphers without personalities, principles, standards and values. The only people who can accurately study the poor are people who we suspect to be poor. I submit that if those we think are living in poverty ever did a self-study, mainstream society might find itself questioning its value system, not theirs.

I wonder what influence Dion's candidate quota system plays in this: Corrigan will take 'bizarre' rejection to Dion By CHIP MARTIN, SUN MEDIA LONDON FREE PRESS Sat, June 30, 2007 Upset at what he calls his "bizarre" rejection as a Liberal nomination candidate, Ed Corrigan is complaining to federal leader Stephane Dion. Meanwhile, a nomination meeting in London-Fanshawe riding has been set for July 14 and the contest is among three women candidates. ********************************************************************** Are we to conclude this is another Liberal 'white males need not apply' program?

At least that appears to be your own words instead of someone else's. Your attempts to control what I post and how makes your opinion worth exactly what I paid for it.

Your advice, and opinion, is noted. Have a nice day.

Baloney. I am talking about you copying and pasting this: http://www.conservative.ca/EN/2874/52688 And this: http://www.conservative.ca/EN/2874/55290 It is a Conservative talking points site. You deny that you took it from there? This is the citation I am referring to. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/index.p...&CODE=01&HID=17 Are you too lazy to write your own response? And if you are too lazy, do you not at least want to credit your talking points site rather than taking credit for writing it yourself? There are a couple of tiny problems with your high dudgeon: 1) The material I posted is not under copyright, it is in the public domain; 2) You cited a ‘Liberal motion’, but could not be bothered to provide either details or a reference; and 3) The main points of the material posted all had clear citations or I would not have used it. I suppose that getting in a snit over citations is the only alternative you have since you cannot challenge validity of the material posted. I’ll give you an “E” for effort though.

How does all this relate to patriotism and the pledge of allegiance? That was the subject of this thread.

You should show your citations if you are going to quote from a site. We are to take it that you have written this all down yourself? I suspect you have gotten it all down from the Conservative talking points site. If that is true and you have quoted the whole thing, it is a violation of forum rules and you can be banned for it. As for the substance of what obviously was pasted from another site, It seems to me that the Liberals have supported the mission till 2009. They re-affirmed it. What exactly is your problem with that? Citations for the points made are clearly stated naming the media and print dates. The Journals records are readily available on the Parliament Internet site.

Assuredly, there have been motions: NDP Members vs. Jack Layton on Afghanistan September 18, 2006 Today NDP Leader Jack Layton continued his attacks on Canada’s mission in Afghanistan and once again called for Canada to withdraw (CP, September 18, 2006). Interestingly, Layton does not even have the support of many NDP members, including two of his own MPs!.: The facts: • NDP MP Peter Stoffer says he doesn't agree with his leader's call for Canadian troops to be withdrawn from Afghanistan. “…to do an immediate pullout, or a very quick pullout, is also wrong,” said Mr. Stoffer, his party's veterans affairs critic. (Globe and Mail, September 2, 2006) • NDP MP Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, Man.) told The Hill Times in an exclusive interview at his party's policy convention in Québec City on the weekend that he does not support his party leader on the controversial issue of Afghanistan. (The Hill Times website exclusive, September 11, 2006) • "I'm more of a Manitoba New Democrat point of view, which [is that] we don't support the idea of the immediate withdrawal of troops. The Taliban train Al-Qaeda to bomb North America and this has been the reason for the international community to try and stop the Taliban. Therefore, it's a good reason for Canada to be part of that initiative," said Mr. Martin, referring to Manitoba Premier Gary Doer's comments also on the weekend to CTV NewsNet that, "The Taliban that we're fighting basically protected the terrorists that were involved five years ago in the 9-11 attack-which included the killing of innocent victims from Manitoba-and so I don't like any anti-military talk." (The Hill Times website exclusive, September 11, 2006) • NDP Premier Gary Doer said pulling Canada's troops out of Afghanistan ignores the reasons we went there in the first place, and does a disservice to the men and women serving Canada in the conflict. (Winnipeg Free Press, September 7, 2006) • Doer said the Taliban at the very least harboured and trained terrorists in Afghanistan and bringing the Taliban down remains a valid role for Canada's military. (Winnipeg Free Press, September 7, 2006) • NDP Premier Gary Doer said pulling Canada's troops out of Afghanistan would be a mistake. "From day one I supported (the mission) and I continue to support it," said Doer. "The desire to eliminate terrorists in training and the Taliban is legitimate." (Winnipeg Free Press, September 9, 2006) So, what does Layton do? Journals Thursday, April 26, 2007 BUSINESS OF SUPPLY The Order was read for the consideration of the Business of Supply. Mr. Layton (Toronto—Danforth), seconded by Ms. Black (New Westminster—Coquitlam), moved, — Whereas, (1) all Members of this House, whatever their disagreements about the mission in Afghanistan, support the courageous men and women of the Canadian Forces; (2) the government has admitted that the situation in Afghanistan can not be won militarily; (3) the current counter-insurgency mission is not the right mission for Canada; (4) the government has neither defined what ‘victory’ would be, nor developed an exit strategy from this counter-insurgency mission; therefore this House condemns this government and calls for it to immediately notify NATO of our intention to begin withdrawing Canadian Forces now in a safe and secure manner from the counter-insurgency mission in Afghanistan; and calls for Canada to focus its efforts to assist the people of Afghanistan on a diplomatic solution, and re-double its commitment to reconstruction and development. Debate arose thereon. The motion was lost Monday, April 30, 2007 - 28 Yeas – 225 Nays

Assuredly there have been motions: Dion's Hypocrisy on Afghanistan October 11, 2006 Today Liberal leadership candidate Stephane Dion (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville) continues his hypocritical attacks on the Conservative government over Canada’s mission in Afghanistan, even going so far as to attack Liberals who support the mission: "It is very sad that some of us voted with them," said Dion. (Toronto Star, October 11, 2006). Yet despite Dion’s spin, Canadians remember that it was his Liberal government that sent Canadian troops to Afghanistan in the first place and that Dion was sitting in cabinet when the decision was made to undertake the current mission: The facts: • Dioin was a member of the Liberal cabinet under Jean Chretien when Canadian troops were first sent to Afghanistan. He was in the Liberal cabinet under Paul Martin when they decided to move Canadian troops from Kabul to Kandahar. How can he now criticize a mission that he endorsed as part of the Liberal cabinet? • Dion himself keep insisting that he supports the mission: Quebec-based Stéphane Dion said his support for the mission would remain strong until there was a clear indication the troops were no longer required by the Afghan people. “There is no way that Canada will be an occupying force. I'm supporting the mission because I'm still convinced that most of the people of Afghanistan want our protection. The very moment I know that is not the case, I will not be there,” he said. (October 10, 2006) • Mr. Dion said he still supports the mission because he believes the majority of Afghans want the protection of Canadian troops. (Globe and Mail, October 11, 2006) • Despite the hypocrisy of Liberals like Dion, 24 Liberal MPs kept to their principles and supported the continuation of the Afghanistan mission, including interim Liberal leader Bill Graham and Liberal leadership contenders Michael Ignatieff and Scott Brison • As Scott Brison said: "I don't think Liberals ought to be seeking to differentiate themselves on a mission that we actually started. We initiated the Afghan mission. We did it for the right reasons. Those reasons have not changed. (Globe and Mail, June 27, 2006) • As Michael Ignatieff said: "Liberals need to remember this is a Liberal mission," he said. "We're in Afghanistan because of the leadership of the two previous Liberal governments ... We, as a party, cannot abandon what is right or what we believe for political convenience." (National Post, June 17, 2006) So, what happened to the commitment to the Afghan people and the commitment to do what is right and avoid taking a position for political convenience? Journals Thursday, April 19, 2007 BUSINESS OF SUPPLY The Order was read for the consideration of the Business of Supply. Mr. Coderre (Bourassa), seconded by Mr. Ignatieff (Etobicoke —Lakeshore), moved, — That, (1) whereas all Members of this House, whatever their disagreements may be about the mission in Afghanistan, support the courageous men and women of the Canadian Forces; (2) whereas in May 2006, the government extended Canada's military commitment in Southern Afghanistan to February 2009; (3) whereas it is incumbent upon Canada to provide adequate notice to the other members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) of our intentions beyond that date; (4) whereas by February 2009, Canada's military mission in Southern Afghanistan will represent one of the largest and longest military commitments in Canadian history; and (5) whereas Canada's commitment to the reconstruction and security of Afghanistan is not limited to our combat operations in Southern Afghanistan; this House call upon the government to confirm that Canada’s existing military deployment in Afghanistan will continue until February 2009, at which time Canadian combat operations in Southern Afghanistan will conclude; and call upon the government to notify NATO of this decision immediately. Debate arose thereon. The motion was lost Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 134 Yeas – 150 Nays

If you wish to counter my arguments, fair enough, but do not try to tell me what I said or what I meant. My comments in the thread above do not need your interpretation. I object to the considerable political rhetoric on the Afghan mission made by MPs made outside of the House of Commons. Commons debate on issues is vital to a democracy, even when the process is abused for partisan purposes. Public debate on the Afghan mission is heavily covered by TV newscasts of the ceremony when a dead soldier's body leaves Afghanistan, again when the body arrives home, and once more when the body is buried. There is rarely anything on successful fire-fights when our military wins battles, or on the construction and completion of hospitals, roads, schools and wells amongst other reconstruction going on. We hear about 'roadside bomb' killing people; apparently the terrorists who planted the bombs are blameless. We hear about civilians killed in combat with terrorists with the implication that allied forces are at fault. There is no mention of terrorists using occupied dwellings to mount attacks, or of Afghan civilians murdered by terrorists as reprisals for cooperating with allied forces or for not supporting the terrorists.

I knew we were going to hear a but to this. You'd like a debate on this issue but not on the mission in Afghanistan. You "knew" no such thing. For a debate to take place in Parliament, there has to be a bill or motion put forward. Opponents of the Afghanistan mission are not debating the issue - they are making public pronouncements outside of Parliament and using question period to promote a viewpoint rather than opening a debate. They will not put forward a bill or motion to open legitimate debate. Bill C-288 calls for specified government action. When it tables the plans required, the plan has to go to committee for review and then to Parliament for a debate. If the plan requires changes to legislation, the government must prepare an enabling bill which must be debated in the house, unless of course all parties agree to passage without debate, which is highly unlikely. You are, or should be, well aware of the Parliamentary procedures involved. I do not accept that you do not know better than your comments indicate.

Well, it may seem a small differnce, but they didn't elect leaders who then turned to terror, they elected leaders who promised to continue already sufficiently demonstrated terror. They didn't elect them so they could build schools and community centres, they elected Hamas because Hamas promised to kill the pigs n' apes in Israel. With respect, I submit that the Palestinians have been coerced by, and under the control of, armed terrorists for decades. The PLO under Arafat was a terrorist organization that has morphed into Fattah. Arafat held sway over the West Bank and Gaza becuse he had money, plenty of arms, lots of gunmen and was absolutely ruthless. Hamas chafed under Arafat, but could not dislodge him. Fattah is less militant than the PLO and Hamas has managed to out-gun them, at least in Gaza (so far). I recall seeing television coverage of the last Palestinian 'election'. There were roving bands of gunmen everywhere, clearly armed with RPG launchers, automatic weapons and assorted military hardware. There were truckloads of armed thugs everywhere. I could not believe that no one commented on so much obvious intimidation in an alleged free election. Why western nations chose to accept the results of that election eludes me. Why we think we can negotiate with terrorists is unrealistic. Palestinians will never see peace as long as they are controlled by terrorist groups run under the table by militant neighbour states. They have no voice while under the guns of amoral, ruthless gunmen who retain control by murdering anyone foolish enough to oppose them. Any viable peace plan must be contingent on excluding the terrorists, not including them in any way shape or form. The terrorists seized control of the Palestinians; they are not frustrated Palestinians expressing anger. The terrorists are the sharp end of the stick Iran and Syria want to use against Israel.