Figleaf

Sounds just like the right wing. Most people never really create any enterprise. maybe - but at least the right wing doesn't consider it the enemy Are you sure about that? I mean, what is so enterprise-oriented about cronyism, nepotism, classism, deference to tradition, self-delusion and resistance to reason?

Pwned!

Sort of like his new columns, then.

Look at the choices you offered in your poll. Either way the Conservatives are bad guys as a result. Naw a leftist would never offer a false choice to make a party of the right look had.... I'm quite sure a leftist would want to make the right look bad, but when the right already looks bad, you can count on a classical liberal such as myself to point it out too.

Sounds just like the right wing. Most people never really create any enterprise.

Rue, stow the misplaced hostility. (And just FYI, I disavowed Christianity as a moral arbiter quite some time ago, so your attempt to use religion as a weapon is wasted on me.) Doubt it. I think you are going insane. My comment has nothing whatsoever to do with how Muslims administered anything, anywhere, ever. I can't imagine what connection my ignorance or knowledge of it might have to the point I made. Okay, that's bad. So what's it got to do with this discussion? Speaking of shooting your mouth off, contrary to your groundless accusation, I actually am well aware that Israel is credited with generally doing a very good job of protecting heritage. That perception is in fact fundamental to the comment I made, that Israel could likely be accepted as a custodian of Jerusalem in a settlement of the middle east condundrum. Really, I don't get what you're on about. Did you misunderstand my position, perhaps?

Now you're on to something! Though for many states it's probably sufficient to simply reconstitute them minus archaic religious references, rather thant to dismantle them completely.

I agree. it's just as absurd as belief in the Ressurection of Christ, Muhammed's asscension to heaven or the world existing on the back of a giant turtle. But I don't see how that helps your case. (Though, let's be honest, most of what Rue writes on this subject doesn't help his case.)

Sorta like how the CPCers have hissy-fits whenever someone correctly points out that Harper is a neo-con? You don't even know what a "neo con" is, much less own the ability to compare it to conservativism. As far as you're concerned anyone not on the left side of the political spectrum can be dismissed with the all enclusive pejorative sneer "neo con". And there's Argus, helpfully delivering the predicted hissy-fit. Tell us why you're ashamed of being a Leftist. You think I'm a leftist?!

Can anyone cite for me the source of the idea that states have a 'right to exist'? Please don't be obtuse. All states have a right to defend themselves. The reason that people are sayign that Israel has a right to exist as it is the only one where a significant amount of people think that it does not. Including you I presume. Rather an unfair comment there, frankly. You already know I challenge the notion of a 'right to exist' for states, so your presumption has a hint of correctness, but Israel-specificity is certainly not part of it. If you are saying that you meant 'self defence' rather than 'exist', then I suppose I agree that states, including Israel, have a 'right' to self-defence.

Technically, I don't see how the Unknown Soldier can qualify for this award. It is specifically awarded for conspicuous bravery. Being Unknown is axiomatically not conspicuous.

Terrorism will only continue and Iraq and Afghanistan is a good indication what will be resolved and that is 'very little' relating to the root cause of terrorism and obliterating it. A major conflict appears inevitable, as Iraq and Arab countries are all playing the same ball and want to dictate their terms against the current political establishment. It's a no win situation in trying to implement a peaceful solution because, it is obvious they are not looking for one. ? ? Sorry, but who is not looking for a peaceful solution to what? The internationally recognized government of Iraq is not at war with any Western states. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Yemen, Tunisia, Morocco, Jordan, Algeria, Egypt, and Lebannon are all peacefully disposed with 'the West'. There is no grand Arab coalition arrayed against the knights of Christ, as your fevered imagination seems to envision.

Withdraw to the Green Line. Ex-Jerusalem of course. Realistically, I think Israel could hold Jerusalem de facto with little objection from anyone, if they were willing to acknowledge/accept that they thereby hold a trust for all humanity (and behave accordingly, of course).

If you mean the ancient captvities in Egypt and Babylon then it's not accurate to call them Arab cultures. why is it not accurate to call them arab cultures? they are part of the Arabian Peninsula (well except the egyptians) It would be inaccurate to call them Islamic. Recheck your geography. Mesopotamia (i.e. Babylon, Akkadia, etc.) is to the north of the Arabian peninsula. It wasn't until Mohammed led the wars of Islamic conquest that Arabs and Arabian culture was noticeably felt anywhere outside the Peninsula.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national...5c88b10&k=32293

If there's no victim, how is there a crime? Someone is busted for operating a crystal meth or crack lab and has no direct contact with the lives he screws up, does that mean there is no crime? Do we have to go out and find each addict that bought some of his stuff before there is? You have anticipated exactly where this line of analysis leads. If there is no victim, what harm has been done? If no harm can be seen, what makes the act a 'crime'? That is to say, on what premise is the state purporting to punish someone for it? And that leads us directly to the question of 'vice' crimes like recreational drug use or prostitution.

Hopefully FTA can chime in on this one too. A couple of years ago a man was arrested at the CNE with a "shoe camera" taking "upskirt" shots. He did not coerce nor jostle any woman to get the shot. He simply manipulated his camera to see where the sun dont shine. The women were oblivious. Thus they had not lost anything, nothing was stolen from them nor were they harmed in anyway. Couple that with public domain and they could be photographed in public anyway, and assuming they fell down they too could be photographed with their undies showing, I was wondering how was that a crime ? Stay with me here. The women had no idea , thus they were not harmed physically nor mentally. It was not until it became public did anyone step forward and say they were violated . All of them had no idea . But the guy was charged , cannot remember with what, and IIRC he was convicted. But essentially there was no "victim" , but there was a crime. What am I missing? Seeing how the papparazi can hide in bushes to take shots of celebs, how is this different? How was Brittany pantiless shots any different other than the angle? In this particular case, I cannot agree that there was no victim. The victims were women whose expectations of privacy were violated. I don't think it matters that much that they didn't know. Even if some women at the tower never heard this story and are still unaware, they are victims of the behaviour as their personal freedom of privacy (to cover a part of their body) was circumvented. So IF the state has promulgated a constitutionally correct law that has the effect of criminalizing the circumventing of a person's modesty, THEN lack of an identifiable victim wouldn't be a problem here. {On the other hand, we might find such a law unconstitutional for other reasons, eg. restricting freedom to make video, or too harsh for the minor intrusion involved.}

There may not be a "lawful basis" only because there is nothing written in our law books which says so. However, there can certainly be a moral basis if the criminals and the victims agree to negotiate a settlement. As FTA just pointed out, this is already available through civil proceedings. Civil courts, however, typically don't consider themselves to be capable of addressing any punitive or rehabilitory function as regards the wrongdoer. Criminal justice, on the other hand, appears to be about the condition of the relationship of the offender with the state brought about by the 'criminal' conduct. That is, crimes are not just offenses against the victim, they are offenses against society or the state. So, Charles, I think before we can assess negotiated criminal justice it's necessary to consider the rectitude of the state/criminal concept.

Sorta like how the CPCers have hissy-fits whenever someone correctly points out that Harper is a neo-con? You don't even know what a "neo con" is, much less own the ability to compare it to conservativism. As far as you're concerned anyone not on the left side of the political spectrum can be dismissed with the all enclusive pejorative sneer "neo con". And there's Argus, helpfully delivering the predicted hissy-fit.

It's like someone issued a special 'Project Get Dion' phrase-book to party members when they rolled out the negative ad campaign.

Well, I can't speak for the left, but indeed, let us stop and think about consequences. Can Afghanistan be re-envisioned, given the resources that are available to be brought to bear?

If you mean the ancient captvities in Egypt and Babylon then it's not accurate to call them Arab cultures.

Can anyone cite for me the source of the idea that states have a 'right to exist'?

I'm not against religious people, I just disagee with their beliefs.

And Christianity is a religion-no? But I'm not anti-Christianity in particular.