White Doors

Which as you can see above - if you were interested in listening to others as opposed to only listening to yourself - is exactly what I stated. Care to keep going or would you like to continue to make an ass of yourself? The USA never complained to the League of nations about Kamikaze pilots. They just killed them. Both perfectly legal.

More to the point it is the burden of those who have to fight for a civilized society. Yes very true, but also for the country that is asking them to fight and win. It would be much easier to carpet bomb the whole country and just start over. But then we would be the bad guys.

Black Dog you need to take a big breath and read slowly. I'll type slower for you if that helps: I said: Then you say: Now be a man and own up that you are SO VERY wrong on this issue. Thanks

Don't get me wrong, I know they don't care and I could care less that they don't. I'm worried about our 'useful idiots' over here.

You can judge them anyway you want but it won't matter because they don't care, will be dead and therefore beyond your reach. Regardless of how you feel about suicide bombing this bill is a useless waste of time. Good point but I get the impression he fears more restrictions being put on how he is allowed to fight people who recognize no restrictions. I think that is always a valid fear for people who play by the rules when they are forced to fight those who don't recognize any rules. Such is the burden of belonging to a civilized society. I like to think our superior training, tactics & weaponry more than make up for these operational restrictions. In truth, Army Guy should be more worried about black dogs opinions becoming mainstream in Canada. That is the only thing that can really defeat Canada in Afghanistan.

So the Geneva Convention does not, as you claim, prohbit suicide bombing per se. What it does is define who is considered a combatant in war time and govern how combatants and non-combatants should be treated. IOW, a suicide bomber who dresses up as a civilian and targets civilians is violating the Geneva Convention because of the fact that he's dressing up as a civilian and targeting civilians, not because he's using abomb belt instead of a machine gun. It is not an "illegal tactic" and nothing in your post or link says it is. Sorry, but you're just wrong. No I am not wrong. A suicide bomber is not dressed in a military uniform acting on behalf of a national governmnet. Therefore he/she is an illegal combatant and what they are doing is nothing more than murder regardless of who they attack be it civilian or military. That is an illegal tactic. Get it?

I'm not defending suicide bombing but I do see Army Guy's point. Before you know it, his actions could be declared criminal by the politically correct. Too late - that has already happened. But it is a moot point. What CDN soldiers are doing is perfectly legal and moral. No doubt the Taliban also see themselves as defending their country and way of life from the invader. I doubt they see suicide bombing as cowardly or illegal, therefore they will care less about a Bill presented by a political appointee in a country on the other side of the world. That is valid - but how they see themselves does nothing to make their actions legal in any sense. It is irrelevant how they see themselves. They are welcome to obey the laws of war at ay time but do not. I judge them by their actions as does the law. Whether their actions are legal or not will mean nothing to someone about to blow themselves up, particularly someone from a different country, religion and culture who could care less what the Parliament of Canada thinks. Just another Bill that sounds nice but means nothing and will accomplish nothing. I think the law may act to pre-empt the very thing that you are afraid of: Before you know it, his actions could be declared criminal by the politically correct.

Cite? There's nothing inherently less moral about suicide bombing per se, versus any other act of violence. It's a tactic and launching an organization to oppose suicide bombing makes about as much sense as launching a war on an emotional state of being like terror. It's an illegal tactic. Because you may say there is no difference does not make it so. You have to learn that your 'opinion' as legitimate or in this case as preposterous as it is, does not count for squat. "Guerrillas who follow the rules spelled out in the Geneva Conventions are considered to have combatant status and have some of the same rights as regular members of the armed forces. In international conflicts, guerrillas must distinguish themselves from the civilian population if they are preparing or engaged in an attack. At a minimum, guerrillas must carry their arms openly. (Protocol I, Art. 44, Sec. 3) Under the earlier Geneva Conventions, which are more widely recognized, a guerrilla army must have a well-defined chain of command, be clearly distinguishable from the civilian population, carry arms openly and observe the laws of war. (Convention III, Art. 4, Sec. 2) In the case of an internal conflict, combatants must show humane treatment to civilians and enemies who have been wounded or who have surrendered. Murder, hostage-taking and extrajudicial executions are all forbidden. (Convention I, Art. 3)" Link: http://www.genevaconventions.org/

What constitutes a suicide attack? History is full of instances where attacks have been made by military units of all nations when although suicide was not their intention, they knew survival was unlikely if not impossible. The Spartans at Thermopylae knew it was a one way trip before they left home. Were they criminals? Well besides that predates the geneva conventions but just a few years... The spartans were the army of Sparta. They were in uniform etc. They were 'legal' combatants if we were to apply geneva conventions upon them. Suicide bombers disguise themselves as civilians which is why it is illegal not to mention cowardly. You know, I have heard of moral equivelancy, but this clap trap is goin a little far here people. Even the UN would think you guys are leftie radicals for god's sake.

Or to build on that... isn't it kind of hard to draw a line between a bomb that's dropped from a plane, or propelled by a rocket, to one that's hand-delivered?No it's not hard to draw a line. The plane or what have you is legally marked as per the guidleline of warefare. It belongs to a recognized armed forces of a sovereign nation etc. It seems somewhat fake for us to declare "our" kind of fighting to be "ok" while declaring "their" kind of fighting to be a "crime against humanity". It does? It may be hard for you, but the internationally agreed to rules of engagement are clear. perhaps you can explain that comment, do you think there is not enough restrictions, or to many ? I think he's pointing out that we declare actions good or bad all the time. I think it would be just as bad if we started launching suicide attacks against the taliban. it is illegal. give your heads a shake people. -k

According to the Geneva conventions a suicide attack even against a military target is illegal. Also, your actions are very legal.

They can charge fees if they want as long as we have the right to subscribe to individual channels rather than 'blocks' as we currently have to.

That is about the stupidest argument going, and it's going strong these days! And that's saying a lot, because there's a LOT of stupid arguments fronted by the denail/deceit crowd. It's not an argument, it's a fact. The global warming crownd was singing bloody murder the year before about the hurricane season. They are strangely quiet on this fact this year. hypocrites.

Yeah, but you can't tell the difference between yourself and the influence you wield, and that of an American Senate committee chairman. Think on it awile. What you say does not shape the opinions of others. You aren't endangering anyone with your "nothing to worry about here folks" ignorance/deceit (whichever it is), whereas Inhofe is. He's delayed action through his actions. That's a crime. No it's not. Any idiot knows that. It may be a crime in your little head, but it certainly isn't in the real world.

In a related note - the 2006 Hurricane season closed without a single hurricane striking land. An inconvenient lie?

I watched it the day it came out. Should be required watching in schools. Inhofe is more than just ignorant...he's willfully ignorant. He is knowingly spreading misinformation from his influencial pulpit that endangers us. It's time to stop allowing it. If you or I misinform people about something that endangers them we can be held criminally liable. You better call the police on me then because i do not believe in man-made global warming.

Have you seen the price of new cars recently? Or computer chips? If you can provide an example of prices going down in a field because of tech advances, I'd be interested in hearing it. Healthcare is not based on the profit motive, and in my mind, except for cosmetics, it should never be. The consumer Electronics Industry

Not really..

August, I think Dyer may be right. I have just finished reading about Charest making that absurd assertion that first nations belong to the 'Quebecois' nation (whether they like it or not is the implication). I knew there was going to a disconnect between the meaning of Quebecois in English Canada and the Francophone definition but I expected that both sides would be polite enough to let it rest. Unfortunately we are now on a collision course and that will make the row over distinct society seem down right civil. English Canadians unequivocally reject the notion that Quebec the 'province' represents a nation although many English Canadians do accept that French Canadians/Quebecois are a nation. Any French politician that demands that English Canadians accept Quebec the Province as a nation is going to be disappointed. After reading Charest's words I wonder if he is really a separatist or if he is simply the dumbest politician on the planet. Well that's good. The first nation and the quebec nation at each other throats? The social democrat elite left will be tripping over each other to see who they support while trying to support both at the same time. Can't wait!

Once people start telling me to be afraid of one candidate, the more likely I am to vote for the 'scary' candidate.

You should contact the National Academy of Science with your information. This could turn the scientific certainty about Global Warming right on it's head. I'll get right on that when you go to any Geologic department at any University saying that the Earth's temperature and CO2 levels were at X level all throughout Geologic time and only now have been rising and are sky high. You are right. 4 billion years ago the Earth had different levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, it fact it had no atmosphere at all. Since that was perfectly "natural", we'll do just fine in such conditions. The current levels are not the highest ever. What's highest is the rate of change in temperatures that is occurring. The CO2 levels and temperatures have varied over time but they went up or down over thousands of years. What's happening now is that they are going up real damn quick, thanks to us digging up carbon and putting in the atmosphere. See, the key here is that if the temp. goes up slowly over 10 years, species adapt to it. If it goes up the same amount over 100 years, then there is no way to adapt - species just get wiped out. All our problems come from the fact that we and our economy won't be able to adapt fast enough without suffering huge damage. It's that simple. How do you explain the fact that in drilling ice cores they found that the concentration of CO2 always went up after a warming trend? CO2 is not a cause it is a symptom. Man has nothing to do with the world warming up slightly. These global warming scaremongers are going to feel foolish quite soon.

Thanks for the link. It confirms that the Greens favour outright legalization with taxation and regulation. This will be a hard sell with most of Canada favouring decriminalization. Harper continues to marginalize the Conservatives with his so-con policy of permanent criminal records and even jail sentences for possession of a few grams. That is not correct. you will not get a criminal record for simple posession and if you do get a criminal offence you can apply for a pardon like everyone else.

No the devil is on your rabid ideaology. It blinds you to the issues. Israel offered today to forego the settlements for peace and this is not the first time that they were met with rocket fire in response. grow up

With all due respect Rue, I think this flippant comment by Higgly demonstrates his Anti-semitism more clearly than your examples: Again I repeat, the best way to establish a homeland and avoid disputes as to ownership of land in the West Bank is to give the IDF no reason to be there-get rid of terrorists and then the innocent Palestinian people of that region can be left alone and not have to deal with the IDF or anyone else. The IDF will always find a reason So there ya have it. Israel will do it anyways. I'd recommend ignoring his posts.

very good, missed that - thanks.