Figleaf

The only thing offensive is you trying to portray yourself as a defender of Arab culture. "Portray myself as a defender of Arab culture"? Is that what I'm doing? I thought I was making a factual point to correct a factual inaccuracy appearing in a post. I had no idea that simply pointing out the facts of history and archaeology would challenge anyone's prejudices. I'm a kind and patient person who tries to give everyone a fair chance to express themselves. Figures you'd find that worthy of mockery.

Round and 'round and 'round we go. For you, the obvious civility and civilization of Israel does not trump the fierce, sadistic violence of the Arab world. Indeed, even if your characterization were fair, there is no such 'trump'. International law, the Declaration of Human rights, the facts of history, and basic justice require that the Palestinian people be allowed their state, yet successive governments of Israel have speciously contrived to deny it. Your need to speak falsely of me is pathetic.

Well conveyed? Nonsense. The point is obscured in most of these trashy translations. I AM THAT I AM says something specific. Matching colors, it means: I exist through the agency of (my) existence.' It's a primum mobile describing itself.

Our Canadian foreign policy is not so sophisticated. We deployed the forces to Afghanistan initially because {a} treaty obligations did appear to require it; {2} being deployed in Afghanistan gave political cover for the absolutely right choice to stay the f... out of Iraq; and {3} the military has an instititutional desire to be deployed. Okay, that would be 'imperialism', if it applied in this case. Afghanistan was harboring a demonstrated threat to our ally the United States, and thus a threat capable and perhaps inclined to apply itself to us. Canada's participation in the overthrow of the Taliban regime was, in my view, 100% legit. Our presense there now is approved by the internationally recognized government which, though it is beholden to western states, is certainly no less legitimate than any other claimant to government. So, still legit. That is a better argument, I think. The futility, the infelicity, the cost; all make further participation wrong for Canada.

Probably quite accurate. They accomplished worthwhile things beyond becoming experts in demolition and cultists in death. You pick ~interesting~ subjects for your plaudits.

Imperialism. Not colonialism. Colonialism is establishing your own people or sovereignty over territory not your own. We are (arguably) involved in imperialism by having troops in Afghanistan or (arguably) on peacekeeping missions of any kind.

??? Colonialism and occupation are terms with actual meanings. They do not apply willy-nilly to any foreign deployment. Currently none of our foreign deployments fall within the concept of colonialism or occupation.

My personal opinion is that children are more robust in this respect that they are given credit for. But since you think differently, obviously your solution is to shield them from media. You can shield them from the media at a very young age, but not when they get older. I am not sure what the solution would be, or even if there is one. 1. Why can't you shield them from media later on? 2. You responded quite quickly, so I don't know if you noticed the questions I added to that post by editing. I'd be interested in your response. 3. May I recommend that you use the signature function thru the 'My Controls' link to tack your name to your posts. When you type it, it is included when your post is quoted, which is inconvenient.

My personal opinion is that children are more robust in this respect that they are given credit for. But since you think differently, obviously your solution is to shield them from media. Since all advertising is in some sense manipulation, are you arguing that the forces ought not to advertise for recruits? I like the idea of Canada having a uniformed altruistic corps ... perhaps even deployable alongside military forces in appropriate cases. NATO obligations are the price of the enhanced security the alliance has been perceived to provide. Are you disputing the validity of that perception, or objecting to the price of the quid pro quo?

There is no shame in discussing the army, both good and bad. They are a public institution as open to real criticism as any other public institution. It is absolutely necessay for the public to always scrutinize the army, especially in (but not limited to) situations where the army is involved in colonialism and occupation. Of course, our army is not, in fact, involved in colonialism or occupation at this time.

I'm not going to parse all of your posts. Suffice to say that both Rue and I consider you to be anti-Jewish. Well I'm not. I tell you again, you won't find a hint of anti-Jewishness in my posts. How can I be sure? Because I don't hold any anti-Jewishness. It's troubling and disappointing that you can't hear honest criticism of Israel without groundlessly imputing anti-semitism.

Frankly, I'm shocked and saddened by the apparent lack of theological erudition on the board (at least based on the few replies here so far). Aren't they teaching a decent survey of theology in public schools these days? What gives?

Sounds like he's got a good plan for Ann. I wonder if she'll take him up on it.

It is against forum rules to cut and paste an entire copyrighted article. You should also provide a link to the originating article. Finally, your chosen thread title says nothing about the topic.I have reported your post. Weaponeer, there is indeed a rule against posting copyright material in toto on the forum. However, failure to post a link is only an inconvenience and not using a descriptive title is August's private hobby horse and you can feel free to ignore that.

Because it is self-defeating, indeed suicidal, for Israel (and indeed the US) to be held to impossibly high standards. Both have serious enemies, and the issue should not be whether Israel/US fights with one hand tied behind their back, or both hands, while their enemy fights with missilized civilian aircraft, exploding 17 year olds, etc. In the other regional conflicts, i.e. Dharfur, all parties fight with gloves off. Israel is asking to be compared against a standard where others are far more villainous than Israel. It strikes me as an easier matter to defend against 17year olds with bombs strapped on than against cruise missiles travelling at hundreds of miles per hour fired from hundreds of miles away. The problem with your stance, jbg, is that when analyzing the right or wrong of a conflict, the choice of weaponry is only an ancillary issue to the rightness of the participants' respective causes.

While Lenin read a book on Marx the quartet practiced in the park and we sang dirges in the dark the day the music died. And they were singing:___________________ (fiill in the blank). Bye bye, Miss American Pie.

No, the ads don't mention that. Neither do hockey night in Canada ads mention Todd Bertuzzi's sucker punch, nor do Microsoft ads mention system crashes, nor do Toyota Prius ads mention the 6 month wait, nor do NDP ads mention the absolute vaccuum of practicality in the party, nor do KFC ads mention transfats. They are ads. Maybe approaching them from that understanding would keep this discussion on a useful plane.

Argus is Zionist, imperialist, apartheidist, running dog Bush Lover. He should be re-educated. I think there's a necessary step before he can be re-educated.

Which is it, Rue? Which statement is the lie? I must confess when I respomnd toyou I write quickly because I consider you a petty annoyance. Your credibility is shot. Neither of the two comments was originally directed to me. It's really very simple. Just answer -- which of your contradictory comments was the lie? So you are saying your second comment was the lie. Okay fine. Now that's established, can you please cite a documentary source for this promise you say the British made? I'd like to read about it further. You make less sense by the minute. How can they have promised nothing if in fact they promised something? Your problem is you can't seem to write a straight word. And now we have one of your old tired lies, rather than the fresher variety. I have never written a word against Jewish people and I defy you to prove me wrong or eat your false malicious words, you dirty (proven) liar.

Not in the least. If it seems important enough for someone to suggest that Arab cultures oppressed Jewish people in the past, surely it is important enough to point out the the fact that such suggestion is plainly incorrect. Your contention that the difference between one culture and another is merely semantics is ludicrous and offensive.

You really are an oaf. Reported to moderator. Accuracy is not foolish. Ancient Egypt and Babylonia were not Arab cultures, that's the fact.

Not a word in Marx about this. What you speak of is doctrinaire Leninism. Are you sure? I've never read Lenin, but I have read Marx.

It has recently come to my attention that several versions of the Bible have wrongheadedly converted JHVHs self-description: "I AM THAT I AM" into some watered-down nonsense such as 'I am who I am' or other like idiocies. What kind of Biblical scholarship is this? How can such so called professionals be so obtuse as to ignore that 'I am that I am' is a succinct formula to describe a self-created being? (Whereas 'I am who I am' sounds more like a philanderer's excuse.)

??? Which is it, Rue? Which statement is the lie?

You ask those questions as if you think they have no answer, but in fact they do. Ways that the forces fight fear, distress, and chaos are exemplified in the ad. The right kind of recruit is a person with altruistic motivations and sound ethics coupled with a kick ass attitude, an appreciation for heirachical organization, and a strong propensity for groups and teams. I'm afraid I don't find this sort of sloganeering very persuasive. It's a simplistic sort of moral relativism that fails to acknowledge that resistance to injustice is just. I believe I heard somewhere that in modern warfare it is, per capita, the junior officers who bear the highest casualty rate.