Black Dog

Uh..because so many Muslims world wide live under regimes that, if tehyu spoke against the actions of other nominally Islamic regimes, they'd be silenced. See, Argus, your whole argument is predicate don th ebeilef that the prevelance of despotic regimes in the Islamic world and the rise of religious radicalism are events that occurred in a vacumn. The reality is, as I've pointed out so many times before, religious extremism is a reaction to the opression and poverty inflicted by western-backed regimes. Not to mention that those who want to bring about Islamic theocracies remain in the minority. Most Muslims want pretty much the same things as the rest of us: freedom, stability and prosperity. But they've been betrayed by hundreds of years of colonialism. As for the example of the Saudis funding terror schools, it doesn't take a genius to see that teh Sauds are trying to harness forces that would otherwise threaten their own hold on power. So instead, they formet hate against the west that would otehrwise be directed at them, even while they continue to rule with the blessing of the west.

A sex toy store is not a porn site. And what's more: These people have an agenda here. By their own admission, they don't want kids to get comprehensive sex education. And so they're using this spurious claim to shut it down. Of course, abstinence-based sex ed is a demonstratable failure. The recent issue of lies and misinformation being propegated by government-funded sex ed programs in the States is an example. Story.

An empty statement if there ever was one. What is apeasement and van you give any examples of such a policy in a modern-day context? So what are YOU doing about it? yetyou ar eperfectly willing to live in fear of terrorism. Your statements bely that fear, a fear that is being exploited and manipulated for political purpose. Shouldn't that piss you off more than the ramblings of a cave dwelling autocrat? What place is that? Why this obsession by the right with status. We're not angling for the slot of homecoming king; it's not a popularity contest. What other nations think of us should be irrelevant when considering what policies would best benefit Canadians first and foremost. [quibbble] OBL is a Saudi [/quibble] What's more an act of cowardice: neglecting important priorities in favour of paranoia-driven militarism? Or simply going about the business of building a better society, a society that could be a benchmark of fairness, justice and reason for the world.

There's definitely soem good arguments to be made for beefing up Canada's domestic security (and I don't mean illegal detentions without trial or secret tribunals, or any of teh otehr heinous practices we're adopting under the radar). Our borders need to be watched, our coasts and ports secured, no question. But none of this requires a big military investment, particularily at a time when there are so many other funding areas that should take precedence (health, education, infrastructure). Our security is not based on our ability to go to war, be it on the coattails of imperial aggression or under the guise of "peacekeeping." Indeed, Canada faces only one potential threat that can be addressed through military might and that's the U.S. So it can be reasonably assummed no amount of investment in the armed forces would could that threat (though an AK-47 under every bed seems to suffice). Similarily, it's been shown that military force is no defense against those determined to commit acts of terrorism. In that case, a big military is only good for vengance: not exactly a value to build a policy around. Therefore, our focus should be on updating our military and civil capabilities soley for the purposes of countering real, demonstratable threats to our security, soverignty and territorial integrity.

Nonsense. The U.S. is depolying a system that has never been adequately tested and has failed even the heavily controlled testing it has undergone. It's a white elephant and to say "we should support it because, well, it might work someday" is unpricipled support. Just as World war One produced poison gas, the machine gun and tank, World War Two produced the atom bomb, Vietnam napalm etc?? Give me abreak. the risk of annihalation of the entire human race is hardly worth the potential benefits. Which kinda renders the whole missile sheild concpet moot. Myth. Regan's aggressive stance actually prolonged the reign of the Soviet hardliners and nearly brought the world to nuclear destruction. A threat which does not exist today. Conforting in the sense that it is a recipe for unbridled aggression and a guarantee of reprisals. That's a recipe for disaster. Sheer madness, not to mention distressingly callous and anti-human.

For one thing, it's common sense to anyone who has even a rudimentary knowledge of the area. Just look at the ethnic tensions between Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds and others. Or the Lebanese Muslims, Christians, and Druzes. So, to say Arab culture is heterogenous is like saying there's no differnce between European or North American cultures. It's a statement born of ignorance and racism. It's racist to suggest that the sentiment is shared by the majority of Muslims or Arabs. You don't speak for all 1.6 bllion Muslims, nor do "the terrorists". No. Anti-Muslim racism is far more insidious here. The frequuent equivilance of Islam and terrorism is one example. The gola of racism in the western press is to minimize and obscure instances of western terrorism against other peoples while pumping up the actions of the "other". 9-11 was a great example. Less than 3,000 people died in those attacks, a fraction of those civilians killed in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine. Yet those deaths are dismissed as "collateral damage", unfortunate, but justified in the name of freedom. So we have folks like Ann Coulter, David Horowitz, Rush Limbaugh, Michael "Savage" free to peddle anti-Muslim rhetoric (withjout ever making the key distinction I mentioned above). As for Israel, there's a potent argument to make that the founding ideology of Israel is predicated on racism, as it calls for the establishment of a state built upon "the principle of the purity of the nation and race". Such sentiment still exists today (see Weinglasses "formaldahyde", as well as talk to the average Brooklyn accented settler), yet is seldom reported.

Google search American isolationism

Sure, you can take the 6 Albertans who'd go for that.

Actually, negative campaigning works. Which is why Bush pushed an agenda of fear: a Kerry win, according to the G.O.P rhetoric, would have turned the U.S. into a socialist republic run by the UN, with free commie health care, mandatory gay marriage and abortions for all and regular terrorist attacks.

Pshaw. Again, the only reason you find Fox News "refreshing" is because they are telling you what you want to hear. Which is how I came to my current political mindset: I realized today's conservatives are, by and large, unprincipled hypocrites. I've seen and heard enough of Fox News' bilge to say that its level of debate is only marginally better than Springer's. But such is the case throughout America's political discourse.

These aren't new nukes though, these are anti-nuke defensive weapons. Do you object to soldiers wearing helmets too? Use your head: Russia has already announced it's developing nukes to counteract the missile sheild. So the missile sheild is already spurring a new arms race.

The only way to end the threat of nuclear war is to dismantle existing nuclear weapons. Not build new ones.

So Quebec, BC for sure. And everywhere else except Alberta and Sakatchewan. Oh and my personal fave: Good company you keep. I'm flattered and, sure, maybe a little curious, but I'm afraid I just don't swing that way.

You didn't ask a question, but were clearly making a facetious remark. Really, as much as try to educate you, there's only so much I can do: why don't you try educating yourself. No: MEMRI's agenda is to purposefully choose the most egregious articles and editorials in order to push the extreme-right political agenda of its founders. A good overvew of N.A. media and Islam. I don't speak hebrew, so I have to rely on the AAD's English language site here. One doesn't have to look very far, too, in order to encounter real-life examples of racism in Israel. lIKE THE Jewish settlers’ graffiti SLOGANS: “Arabs to the gas chambers”; “Arabs = an inferior race”; “Spill Arab blood”; and, of course, the ever so popular “Death to the Arabs,”

Great so all we have to do is wait for the dinosaurs to die off. Let's see: I did. A majority of Cnadians support same sex marriage. You can quibble over the breakdown, or the demographics to your black heart's content, but the fact remains: you are wrong. You'd think you'd get tired of being so very wrong so very often. But you just keep coming back.

You're an idiot, but at least you're an honest idiot. It's nice to know that conservatives really have no interest in freedom of speech or expression.

That was addressed to Argus. Nowhere have I denied teh prescence of anti-Semetism in the Arab press, only that we get an incomplete picture, as well as that similar racist rhetoric in the Israeli or North American press is ignored. To say Israel is "defending itself" through its aggressive policies of expansion and population transfers to occupie dlands is a bit disingenous. Further more, nowehre Ihave I stated that Isral has no right to exist, only that Israel should abide by the basic standards of behavior for a liberal democracy. Barak had five positions that were non-negotiable: no Israeli withdrawal to pre-1967 borders; Jerusalem to remain undivided and under Israeli sovereignty; no other power to be established west of the Jordan River; most Jewish settlers to remain under Israeli sovereignty even after a final agreement; Israel to accept no moral or legal responsibility for the problem of Palestinian refugees. As well, his proposal included no territorial contiguity for the Palestinian state, no control of its external borders, limited control of its own water resources, and no full Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories. Furthermore, Barak's "negotiating" skills left much to be desired: during 15 days at Camp David, Barak and Arafat met for only one hour, and even then they talked mainly about the weather and the food. In his book, former Israeli justice minister Yossi Beilin blames his former boss for failing to develop a personal line to Arafat despite the latter's approaches. Beilin also reports that, on Barak's orders, the Israeli negotiating team never submitted anything in writing to the Palestinians, who were always faced only with the black-and-white choice of accepting the proposals or rejecting them. So, based on the intractability of Israel's position and teh apparent contempt for the process shown by Israeli negotiators at the time, Barak was never interested in making a fair deal. It was, and has ever been, a matter of Israel's way or the status quo. Obviously you didn't bother following up on Dov Weinglass, the top SHaron aid who explicitly stated the purpose of the "withdrawl from Gaza" In other words: no settlement; not now, not ever. WHat are you talking about? UNSCOM destroyed the Iraqi productive foundations related to the different Iraqi nuclear programs. It destroyed the Scud-type missiles and 19 mobile launchers. In addition, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) removed the plutonium, the highly prolific uranium, and the radioactive uranium previously possessed by Iraq. Iraq lost the capacity to convert uranium into nuclear fuel -- building a cascade facility for enriching uranium requires large amounts of highly specialized metals and machinery. As for Iraqi chemical weapons, UN inspectors destroyed hundreds of chemically armed warheads and artillery shells. UNSCOM’s incinerator burned tons of mustard gas and nerve agents as well as the precursor compounds used to make them. The committee announced that it had supervised the destruction of 76 chemical Scud missiles, 113 warheads, over 60 fixed launching bases, 40,000 munitions, 480,000 liters of chemical munitions, 1,800,000 liters of chemical precursors, and 8 types of delivery systems including missile warheads. Regarding Iraq’s biological weapons program, the committee revealed that it destroyed the Iraqi seeds stockpile and the biological weapons factory in Alhakam. The UN special commission had destroyed all of Iraq’s known biological munitions, and much of the equipment needed to make new ones. Your statement is just false. From a linterview with NBC: But iraq never attacked the U.S. and was never affiliated with those who did. So to paint the invasion and occupation of Iraq as self-defense is a monumental mischaracterization. This completely falls apart when you consider the many, many cases where those who allegedly champion "our values" fail to live up to them themselves.

So Layton, who was attempting to speak in his turn, is the one wasting time here? Sorry, but your rigorous attempt to indict Layton and the conspicuous absence of any criticism for the hecklers betrays your predjudice. See? From Hansard: It's hardly Layton's fault the gibbering apes of the Conservative caucus couldn't control temselves. No they can't. That's why there's such a thing as protocol. Dumbass. (BTW: spelling flames? So lame.)

Muslims do not hate America's freedoms, but its policies This is something many on the anti-war left have been saying pretty much since 9-11, yet the percepetion among the mainstream press and public is mired in the black/white rhetoric of Bush and the "war on terror". But this report, written by a taskforce of "military, diplomatic, academic and business experts, assigned to develop strategy for communications in the 'global war on terrorism'" shows that the lefties have had it right all along.

Environics. Leger Marketing Pollara

Difference is, of course, I never approved of the idea of heckling Bush. I simmply wouldn' have shown up. You on teh otehr hand, are defending what could be a breach of parlimentary protocol simply becasue you don't agree with the speaker. So much for the right's belief in freedom of speech. (Not that conservatives have any principles anyway...)

Whatever. Every time you and I have tangled on this subject, you've ended up slinking away. I never said MEMRI lied. They are a propaganda organization which cherry picks the Arab press for content that shows the Arab world in a negative light. It's even run by a former Israeli intelligence officer. Which is pretty much beside the point, as you can have a government controlled press and still have a range of viewpoints. But you wounldn't know that from MEMRI's work. Uh..no. The mainstream Hebrew language press regularily features extreme anti-Arab/Muslim rhetoric, while the language of the "war on terrorism" here is permeated with racism. As Chomsky said: Arabs are the last "legitimate" targets of racism. So the oppressiv epolicies of Likud are the Palestinians' fault for not acceppting unreasonable demands? Sounds a lot like "she was asking for it: did you see what she was wearing?' But I've already shown that Likud is not interested in negotiations: only expansion of the West Bank settlements, the encirclement of Gaza and the "freezing" of th epeace process. It's a shame the new Palestinian leader will have no partner for peace. "Spoils of war" aren't recognized anymore.While it is true that victorious powers can legally occupy hostile territories seized in the course of conflict foreign occupation should be a temporary situation. As well, internaional law reuires the occupying Power to comply with international humanitarian law during its occupation. International law is very clear on the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the prohibition of population transfer from the occupier to occupied land. The Israeli occupation has violated all of these principles of international law. Furthermore: the people who are living in the occupied territories were not responsible for the past actions of Arab states, yet you expect they should bear the consequenses? Not only is that a poor justification for collective puniashment, it is also tinged with the rascist reasoning that all Arabs are the same. Denial of the existence of the targetted population is always part of any campaign of ethnic cleansing. One could make an even stronger argument that there is no such thing as the Israeli people. But you fail to addres why hese governments are the way they are in the first place. Most repressive regimes in the Islamic world were born of postcolonial western intervention and owe their continued existence to material support from the west. Your intervention is simply a continuation of the policies that led to the failure of most Islamic states and the rise of radicalism. Nowhere is that better summed up by Iran, where a secular, democratic government was overthrown by western forces, a tyrannical regime installed in it's place, which led to the rise of the radical Islamic movement and subsequent revolution. But the policies you are pursuing are already demonstratable failures, and the, in the long run, wiill serve only to radicalize more of the Muslim world against the west. You're speaking the language of crusade (not to mention macho jingoism, which is , in itself, abhorrant). Rolf Ekeus, the former head of the UN weapons inspectors in Iraq, has declared that under his direction, Iraq was "fundamentally disarmed" as early as 1996. Hans Blix, who headed UN weapons inspections in Iraq in the months before the invasion in March 2003, stated that his inspectors had found no evidence of either WMD or WMD-related programs in Iraq. Russia did not believe Saddam had WMD, while French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, declared in January 2003 that "we know for a fact that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs are being largely blocked, even frozen." So the claim that "everyone thought Saddam had WMD" is, at best, dubious. David Kay, The CIA’s top weapons adviser in Iraq, reported that Iraqy possessed no stockpiles of WMD nor related production facilities. His only conclusion was assertions about Hussein’s “intentions” with claims concerning Iraqi scientific research into weapons or “weapons concepts.” Ah yes: "action". So manly! Thing is, sometimes inaction, or at least a careful assessment of a situation, is less dangerous than rushing into action. Iraq is a prime example. Anyway, the right-wing obsession with their own masculinity is quite immature. False dichotomy. Depends: is it a Halliburton office? Really, I don't see what my personal viewpoint has to do with anything. Absolute declarations of right and wrong sound stupid to me. Better to live without than to settle for living with a "positive and compelling vision" based in chauvanism and grounded in a bed of lies.

Thanks for the insightful analyisis. No dumbass: the point is that its not appropriate to boo down members of Parliment. This is especially ironic giventhat Bush skipped out on addressing parliment because his handlers and quislings feared he'd get heckled.

Of course, that would entail displaying some sort of emotion, which Harper is incapable of doing. Probably because, as we all know, he is a robot. Made, of course, in the U.S.A. Seriously though: it doesn't matter. If anyone had the nerve to boo Hareper down, you'd call for their heads.

"Values" march on: Gay book ban proposed