Black Dog

VIP? I'm flattered, but I don't think I have any influence on what goe sopn here at MLW. I'm just this guy, you know? And FYI, the exact statement was: Which was supported by a reference to contemporary immigration quotas and Thomas A. Kolsky's work ""Jews Against Zionism: The American Council for Judaism, 1942-1948". You can also check out Peter Novick's "The Holocaust in American Life", which touches on the popular association of Jews with communism and the resulting reluctance of political leadership to admit more Jewish DP's. If I erred it was in not making it clear that the resitance to jewish immigration was but one factor, not the singular one.

You've sure got nerve boyo. Anthony is dead. So is LLL. And so is Greyhound. All of these brave men suffered the same fate. A bullet. In the back. Seeing as how Argus took on their cause in this thread, I'm surprised he's still standing. What's the matter, Blck Dog, losing your touch? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> WTF?

Here's an idea: why don't you try reading what was written for a change? Here it is again. I can try to make it easier to understand for you, but I think its pretty clear: Not that they are not pursuing nuclear weapons. Just that there's no evidence they are. And, just so you know, those terms are the same as those used by the Internatonal Atomic Energy Agency. IAEA report says no evidence of Iran trying to develop nukes

Just to be clear, Liberal != leftist. As far as I'm concerened, there's no real difference beteween the Liberals and the Conservatives, so this really isn't much a of a shock. That there are reactionaries in the Liberal caucus just isn't news. Finally, some interesting facts and figures: -The percentage of Christians is in rapid decline in Canada, dropping at 0.9 percentage points per year. -Non-Christian faith groups are increasing in number and popularity. -The percentage of Atheists, Agnostics, Humanists, secularists, and persons of no religious adherence is increasing rapidly. -The Pew Research Center's 2002 study "The Pew Global Attitudes Project" revealed that 30 per cent of Canadians say religion plays a very important role in their lives. -People who report themselves as Agnostic, Atheist, Humanist, secularist, or simply "no religion " represent the second largest religious group in the country, after Protestant/Catholic

Oh boy: a MEMRI article. You also have to remember there's no credible evidence that Iran is actually pursuing nuclear weapons. On top of that, it's never wise to take the rabble-rousing speeches from the pulpit as serious policy declarations. Ah yes, the "madman theory" of foreign policy popularized by Nixon. Of course, there's no credible reason to think they actually would start a conflict that would result in their own destruction. Authoritarian regimes are self-limiting in that way. They are no stupid and suicidal. And before Argus decides to tyrot out some nonsense about suicide bombers etc, let me ask this: why do you suppose its always the adherents, the lackeys, the grunts who end up being the one's doing the dying? In othr words, why did Osama bin Laden not fly a plane into the WTC? Why did yassir Arafat never blow himself up on a bus in Jerusalem? The idea that suicidal fanaticism is deeply ingrained in all Muslims is as ridiculous as saying all Christians are willing and able to firebomb abortion clinics.

The creation of Jordan was entirely seperate from the creation of Israel. And its hard to argue that the former really caused much fuss and bother. Liek squabbling children? What about self determination? What about a single, democratic, secular state where all citizens have equal rights regardless of ethnicity or religion? Not as many. Immigration to Israel was encouraged by Zionist movements since before 1948. Israel has encouraged this. But that's kind of academic at this point. Please see my previous statements on the inadmissability of territory acqyuired in war. Plus, I think you mean genocide. Ethnic cleansing is the act of expulsion of an "undesirable" population from a given territory. Kinda like what happened to the Palestinians in 1948 and wih Jews in other parts of the Arab world. Let's be clear: when I speak of partition, I'm talking about the 1947 UN act that created Israel. What claim does Israel have on Jordan? It was never "Israel's" land in the first place. No such state existed prior to 1947. And I'm fine with a one-state solution, provided Palestinians enjoy the same rights and priviledges as their Jewish bretheren in a secular democracy. But the Israelis don't want an additional one million+ Arabs to deal with. What I question is the dubious nature of Israel's claim to the territory. I don't think the claims of their holy book are automatically valid, nor do I think race, religion or tenuous ancestral attachment to a area are recognizable ways to claim land. That would be like me demanding a chunk of land in Ukraine becaus eof my grandparents residency there. It's silly. Again, you're using colnialism as a refuge for your argument. I reiterate: why should anyone who's been residing on the same patch of land for generations pack up and move elsewhere simply because a colonial power has declared your land part of someone else's state? Which still means that any land seized without compensation was, essentially, stolen. I'm trying to come at this from a point of consistency. I don't believe stealing land is right under any circumstances, regardless of the perpatrator's identity or intentions.

Wot NC said: If only Bev Dejarlais would follow suit.

Good riddance, really. I don't think O'Brien sold out, however, but deserves credit for standing by his beliefs (no matter how mule-ignorant I think they are).

Given the stain which the creation of Israel by UN (read: colonial) decree has left on the regional makeup, on Jew/Arab relations and on Muslim/Western relations, I wonder if the post facto assessment that partition was the "best solution" is even remotely accurate. The way I see it, though, if you accept Israel's right to exist as a prori then the issue of who actually owns the land is irrelevant. Notions of proprietary rights and self-determination can be cast by the wayside in favour of the greater goal. I don't see it that way. I don't believe conquest, decree, tradition or talmudic mandates are sufficient substitutes for the just aquisition of land. In cases where land is aqcuired in an unjust fashion, then compensation should be available (that applies to those Jews expelled from Arab countries, though that fact is entirely unrelated to the Palestinian/Israeli issue: the Palestinians are not responsible for the actions of some Arab states.) It is a valid point. Does it seem just to allot just over 30 per cent of the population just under 60 per cent of the land? No it wasn't. The state does not own land, less so in the case of absentee colonial governance. No Palestinian referred to everyone in Palestine. Today, Palestinian is a recognized national movement. So if I waas homeless and the theft of your house solved a bigger problem, that would be okay? But the same logic applies in both situations. You're contradicting yourself. Again, the land was no more Britain's as your house is the property of the government of Canada. Or why is that UN decisions vis a vis Iraq are valued, but multiple censures of Israel are ignored? The actions of the world body (which is mostly a tool of powerful western interests) are not always right or always wrong, necessarily. It is theft. Just as my prior analogy about kicking you out of your house is theft too. Same thing. As for the argument that the "free world" was built on colonialism (theft), so? Does that make, for example, the genocide of the American native population right? No it didn't. Britain was the administrator, not the owner of the territory. I challenge you to prove otherwise. In such cases, people are entitled to compensation for the loss of property. If there's no compensation following expropriation, it is theft.

The same argument could be made that the European Jews who formed the vanguard of post World War 2 immigration, by their actions (such as the of Arab villages and expulsion of their populations), showed little regard for sharing and that continued instragience by Israeli leadership represents a congenital inability by Jews to share. But that would be a rascist statement and I don't beleive Zionism is ionherently rascist. The big flaw with the notion that "everyone had their own state" is that it fails to account for the "facts on the ground": why should anyone who's been residing on the same patch of land for generations pack up and move elsewhere simply because a colonial power has declared your land part of someone elses state? Remember, even after Israel proclaimed its existence as a state, Jews were still less than one-third of the population of Palestine. The point is the land was never Britain's to give, but belonged to the inhabitants. Again: under the UN plan, the Jews got more than 50 per cent of the land. Your use of the term "Israeli side" is disingenous as no such side existed pre 1947. How about this: if I walk into your house, remove you at gun point and declare all your home and property to be mine, is that just? Would it be any more just if I had a warrant from the police authorizing me to do so? That's what we're talking about: the land was not the UN's to give. At least hardcore Zionists like Morris recognize the inherent injustice of Israel's founding: they simply acknowledge it as a necessary evil. You're defending colonialism and outright theft.

Army Guy, there's many excellent, non-partisan NGO's working on some of the issues we've discussed, vis a vis Israel and Plaestine. I think it's important to find these middle ground voices and question the commonly accepted narrative. Gush Shalom is a Israeli jewish peace organization that opposses the occupation. Arab Association for Human Rights is a group focusing on Arab/israeli relations within Israel. They have soem good information on issues such as land development. I found this particular piece of information interesting in light of your contention taht Israel just keep sgiving and giving:

Back to Fallujah for a sec: Little Stalingrad The fundamental point that all war-bosters seem to miss.

IIRC, the balfour Declaration did not outline a partition plan, but was simply expressing British Support for the establishment of a Jewish homeland. Furthermore, the 1947 partition plan which established Israel was the one accepted by the UN and the jewish community and thus more relevant to the discussion. Your map actually shows the expansion of Israeli territory. And, as previously noted, the 1947 plan gave the Jews a disproportinately large share of the land. This is a comon version of the story. It's Israel's own creation myth with the unspoken assumption that the Jews just wanted a bit of land and peace, but were opossed by the greedy and anti-Semetic Palestinians and Arabs. This totally discounts the massive population transfer which occurred, which included foricble expulsion and war crimes committed by Israeli militia forces against civilians. Most historians put the number of Palestinains forced out of the territory at around 700,000. Everyone recognizes Israel's rihty to exist within secure borders. the debate is where that border should be. I'm simply saying Israel should withdraw to the pre 1967 armistice line.

Then why the constant comments on gay sex? Either you hate gays or you're incredibly fascinated with the uh.."ins and outs" of gay sex. What about the abolition of slavery? Giving women the vote? Both instances where laws were changed for a miority. No they don't. They don't have the right to marry. How does what two consenting adults choose to define their relationship as hurt or afect you in any way? Let's put it in economic terms: because the marketplace was artificially limiting the supply of a product despite demand. SSM opnes the door to gay marriage and gay mariage alone. There's nothing currently stopping anyone who wants to marry their sister, 12 women or a goat from lobbying for their right to do so. Anyway, we already have numerous threads on this subject in teh archives where pretty much every argument has been hashed out. I sugest you check 'em out.

A vote that would be about as meaningful as legalizing the Easter Bunny. If the curent SSM bill passes, a Con government would first have to overturn it. Then they'd have to find a way to get all the provinces who've legalized gay marriage to cut it out (how they plan to do this without violating provincial juridstiction is something I'd like to see). Then they'd have to convince those provinces to declare all gay marriages so far null and void. Then brace for the deluge of lawsuits from families joined under provincial law who's unions were torn a sunder by interference from the Cons. Good luck with that, guys.

I maintain it's easy to draw such a conclusion from the original statement: But I am willing to concede that takeanumber may not be guilty of rascism. I also maintain this "Canadian/unCandaian" business is a pile of rubbish. Either you believe in the spearation of church and state or you don't. If you don't that's fine, but don't expect to see your views reflected in a country with a system of government founded on secular ideas.

Oil for food scandal revalations Why is "you don't" an "irrational" answer? War is an irrational activity.

Whether they were right or not is irrelevant. The fact is they believed they were right and were fulfilling the demands of their religion. Ergo, the 9-11 attacks were religiously motivated.

Okay: it's official. I'm in Bizzaro world. RightWinger backing allegations of rascism? NDP supporters calling for totalitarian suppression of speech? Liberal-leftists using nationalism as a club to beat down opposition? Is it Opposite Day on MLW and I didn't get the memo? What next? Will Hugo be calling for state control of the means of production? I need a nap. Who the heckare you to decide who's "truly Canadian" enough? I thought defining that was Molsons' job... Seriously though: this ain't cool. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them any less a citizen. Attack the argument on its own merits, don't attack the person holding the opiinion. Inclusiveness and diversity are Canadian values. Paradoxially, defining who is and who isn't Canadian is very unCanadian. And I'd hate to quibble, but Canadians don't have sole ownership of the secular humanist ideal of church and state separation. That's old school Elightenment shit. False dichotomy. "Render unto Ceaser etc etc." Why do you hate gays so much?

The concepts of right and wrong evolved from basic survival needs. It's funny: most religions have, historiclly, had no problem with murder or theft, provided it wa sthe "infidels" being victimized. Then they probably should avoid marrying someone of the same sex. Huh? The people responsible for 9-11 were religious fanatics.

Simple. Laws against murder and theft infinge the rihts of others. Th eidea is that we shall do no harm. Gay marriage doesn't infringe anyone else's rights. It only affects those gays who wish to marry. No one else. The idea behind public decency standards is that some things can be harmful in ways other than physically. I think there's reasonable limits to this. Nudity or say public masturbation is not something we need to see. But once you start dictating what symbols people are allowed to display, you're crossing th eline from decency to authoritarianism. GET IT? Ramesh doesn't seem to be a Chrisitian. Between the name and an earlier reference, I'd guess Hindu? Can you see how your comment that he/she is not a real Canadian could be construed as rascist? Rascism aside I think such sentiments are shitty anyway. You'r e making a soild argument when you say Don't muddy the waters by getting into what makes a "real" Canadian.

On a strict numbers basis, this occupation has cost the Palestinians far far more than Israel. Yes, both sides have doen wrong. But someone needs to take a stand and stop the cycle of violence. Seeing as how Israel holds the cards, i'd say the onus is on them. Most of the occupied territories remains under de facto Israeli control. Under Sharon's Gaza "disengagement" plan, Israel will maintain control over Gaza’s airspace, its territorial sea, and all border crossings and the Israeli army and security services will continue to have a free hand to operate there. In other words, Gaza will become a prison state for Palestinians, while Israel continue sto use the wall to effectively annex large portions of the West Bank. You're incorrect. The original 1947 partition plan gave the Arabs 43 percent of the land and the Jews 57 percent. Moreover, at the time, Jews made up less than one-third of the population of Palestine. Well, I beleive the original partition plan, which was enforced without the consent or approval of the majority of people in the Mandate, was unjust, but it's too late to undo that now. And no the "population transfer" was not mandated by the UN, but came about as a result of the ensuing conflict. And that economic paralysis would have nothing to do with the occupation, would it? Economic aspects of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. The occupation is also costing Israel. Where have all our shekels gone? Key word there: relative. Al of Israel is a Zionist experiment, in as much as it is the end result of Herzl's call for Jews "to be a free people in our own land." As for your numbers, they are off, as I pointed out above. Did I say "let the terrorists run free?" No. But end the occupation and you take away a significant plank in the terrorists platform. As i pointe dout, Egypt and Jordan have made peace with Israel. Abbas, th enew palestinian PM, seems willing to push for more non-violent solutions. here and now, i'd say there's more of a push for peace coming from the Arab side than the hard-right government of Sharon... And there are many moe brutes just like him who we call friend. No I think the selective condemnation of "bad guys" by the west is the problem. We have a tendancy to push for bad guys and deny otehrs teh right to self-determination in order to serve our own interests. And then we're surprised when soem of these thugs turn against us? Interesting you mention Rwanada. i've long said the West failed Rwanada, starting with the Belgians. We ened to be working to correct colonialism's errors and atone for our sins. I don't see that happening. You can't seriously be comparing a worn down, two bit pisspot dictator like Saddam to one of the mightiest war machines in history, are you? What's funnier is that Germany was an aggressor who invaded countries that posed no threat to them. As far as Iraq goes, it's the U.S. that wears that mantle.

Yeah I know I can't walk by a church or temple wihout being seized by the urge to beat someone's head in with a baseball bat. Seeing as how I live across from a very nice synagogue, you can imagine the trouble this causes me. And for an alleged NDP'er to argue in favour of entrenched social norms? Fuggetaboutit. Those are the same norms that once deemed homosexuality a crime. If someone is wearing a turban, a burka, a yamulke or a crucifix and minding their own damn business, how is that hurting you?

I think this warrants an apology. Or is rascism okay if you don't agree with someone's position? I'm not that interested in AGMT, but how do you figure?

Yes. But the government has no obligation to give their opinions any more weight than any other. In the case of SSM, most of the reasoning against it is rooted, not in practical concerns, but in religious dogma. But not everyone is religious and what we're seeing is religious groups trying to use their views to halt what has been deemd a necessary change to our legal framework. That's not cool.