M.Dancer

And we know that according to the giant brains like Pat Robertson, it is the decline of our morals that caused God to allow the US to be attacked.....Now whether the Islamic Militants believe it is the decline of their morals that caused God to allow them to be attacked is anyone's guess......ersonally, the sooner they get some arab porn into their hands, the sooner they will be holding something other than an ak 47....

Okay, I will put aside that we did fund the mujeehadeen, but did not fund the taleban, or alqaeda ( but I got to say....the global research article needs more alcan and less partisan clinton bashing opinion beyond what is factual and documented and not be "sources" speaking to whomever......) I'm not sure who the "we" are...are you an american? That being said, why is defending your interests hypocrisy? Would you prefer to be undefended but morally pure? What is hypocritacal about opposing Hezbollah? Would you rather we support all terrorist groups? Or would you rather we attack all terrorist groups? Who do you plan on deciding who the terrorists are? Personally, my first litmus test is: Do they want me or my friends dead..... Are you suggesting that because in the past the US engaged in dodgy behavior, they can't act now? Bugger that noise....

I can't be sure but I'm pretty certain that the promise of virgins is not the main reason they blow themselves up. Being finally taken serious by the cool kids must certainly be up there too.

I agree. Aside from the nationalism espoused by the Conservative christians, the two groups, fundamental islamics and fundamentalist xtians have a lot in common, notably their intolerance of opposing viewpoints and a desire to subvert what they can't oppress.

Bah....I can turn into an asshole at the drop of a hat.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/afghan.html Afghan energy potential. None of which can be exploited till the fighting ends.

Allowing Afghanistan the peace it needs so it can even trundle along in a 19th century economy would be a start. Afghanistan used to be a profitable agricultural enterprise, but unfortunately the fields are sewn with mines. If and when it's energy potential is exploited, the opportunity to better the people will be huge.

There goes your reading comprehension again...I'm calling you a historical revionist...but hysterical revisionist would probably be more accurate. Where have I revised history concerning the history of Canada? Perhaps you can produce a link that describes how France conquered and won Canada. Quebecers are only a group of people left over from when French elites retreated back to France and left these people with virtually NO RIGHTS or entitlement to the land other then what Britain gave Quebec in the form of the 'Quebec Act'. I'll say it again because today is BKTIs day... 18th century politics has no place in 21st century canada.

Do you pull these gems out of your arse or do you have someone to assist you? I got news for you, I'm not sure what part of the hinterland you are currently squatting in, but DVD players are obsolete or will be in the next 5 years....and the last I looked "jap" cars are in demand so I don't know what you intend to mean when you sputter so. Perhaps you are like that urban legend fellow Charles H. Duell who urged the President to close down the patent office because everything had already been invented. The "technology" that has propelled India is not new. It's called education. India has seen a boom in knowledge based industries like programming. Not to mention it's becoming an outsourcing capital. So be it. What has happened in India can be replicated anywhere there is education and capital. Your gloomy and near sighted predictions are hilarious. We had a good chuckle in the office, keep them coming.

Really? What evidence do you have to support that? Would you say that 25 years ago someone would have predicted that India would be a player in the global economy? Or Korea? Would you say that someone 50 years ago would have predicted that Japan would become the world's leading auto manufacturer? Where does, Malaysia or Singapore fit in to your already antiquated opinion?

The US no longer "occupies" germany. The US as part of NATO has bases in Germany.

In my opinion it is the governments duty to protect the rights of Candians to worship as they choose, whether it is a minority or a majority religion. To do otherwise would either be a step back 200 years and put us on equal footing with religious paradises like Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Somalia or to create an anti religious paradise like the USSR. Any religion that needs gov't support doesn't deserve to survive anywhere outside a museum.

Canada has a language question? Que la question? Vous voulez la réponse maintenant ? You don't seriously think that Quebec's desire for more power is about language do you? Then explain Alberta's desire or Newfoundland's.......

There goes your reading comprehension again...I'm calling you a historical revionist...but hysterical revisionist would probably be more accurate.

Rwanda, before it was a Belgium colony, was a German colony. At least that's the written history. The oral history may differ, but oral history is only as reliable as the ether its written on.

What's wrong about making jokes about Hitler? Okay.... Layton, Mao and Hitler are having a drink in a bar.......

I would have said.....

Well the name "al qaeda" may not have existed in 1989, but Osama and his buddies (now called al qaeda) did exist in 1989 and were fighting the soviets. That's what I meant when I said al qaeda. P.S. I found this on wikipedia: Link other translations lists Alqaeda as the outhouse, the base, the organization

Good idea.....why not start hitting the local malls begging for spare change to pay for it.

I suggest you bone up on ol' firewall Harper The only province in Canada that is firewalled is Quebec along with harbouring and applying discriminating racist language policies. I take it then you don't know what you are talking about and prefer to go just with the usual anti quebec bullshit.... Here....next time don't bother coming unarmed to a battle of wits.... http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes2004/leadersp...r%20firewall%22

Have you considered buying shares of alcan to help you with that? The phrase you are struggling with is historical revisionism .....and it seems that's what you are asking for. Unless of course you have some secret masonic documents that show the impetus for confederation came from Britain and not from here. I'm simply dying for the geocities url on that....... I'm not sure what problems you speak of....get back to me when you can flesh them out logically.

Not only do I not see the hypocrisy and don't know what you are referring to.

We funded the Mujahideen which fractionned after the soviet retreat and the main group became know as the Taliban. link This information is of public record. So why are you choosing the least credible source? True, 5 years after the soviet departure the Taliban emerged, and 2 years later gaiuned power, but to say that they were once the Mujeehadden is a stretch....considering that the Northern Alliance has a much better claim on that lineage. Am I agreeing with you? No. Because the US did business with Pakistan and pakistan saw the Taliban as useful does not mean the US funded them. That is tin foil hat thinking. The funding that the US gave was one time and was mission specific.

Kinda except we never funded the Taliban and the Taliban never fought the Soviets. Oh..and the US never funded the Taliban either. No, that was al qaeda that the U.S. funded to fight the soviets. Although correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that Pakistan funded/aided the taliban, and they were funded by the U.S., so the U.S. was indirectly funding the taliban. Wrong again. Alqaeda didn't exist in 1989. The Taliban did recieve funds from Saudia Arabia and Pakistan (and yes they got US$$$ for their heroin eradication programmes....) At the time it was in the interest of Pakistan to prop up the Taliban because the Taliban was seen as the best group to end the anarchy and chaos in the country. After the soviets left the counrty was plunged into civil war and lawlessness...... I correct myself, Al Qaeda was founded in 1988...the Soviets finally pushed off in 89, but the war had all but ended....the US funded "the muhjeehadeen"...which was basically anyone with 10 friends and a musket.....

Kinda except we never funded the Taliban and the Taliban never fought the Soviets. Oh..and the US never funded the Taliban either. No, that was al qaeda that the U.S. funded to fight the soviets. Although correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that Pakistan funded/aided the taliban, and they were funded by the U.S., so the U.S. was indirectly funding the taliban. Wrong again. Alqaeda didn't exist in 1989. The Taliban did recieve funds from Saudia Arabia and Pakistan (and yes they got US$$$ for their heroin eradication programmes....) At the time it was in the interest of Pakistan to prop up the Taliban because the Taliban was seen as the best group to end the anarchy and chaos in the country. After the soviets left the counrty was plunged into civil war and lawlessness......