Catchme

It seems that that thread got all side tracked away from the topic at hand for some reasom, and looks like it is beyond repair. Revealing Harper 's actions of spending tax dollars trying to sell us the war in Afghanistan is not propaganda, the propaganda in this equation is Harper's, that he paid 76k for from tax payers dollars. That is the height of arrogance. If this would've been the Liberals, the apologists for Harper, and indeed Harper himself would'been screaming for weeks. Oh, in fact he did, in 2003 when Sheila Fraser, scolded the Liberals for commissioning polls about themselves from tax payers dollars and told them not to do such things as it is a breech of public trust and monies. The same holds here, in an even greater capacity. What's capitalism, or anti-capitalism got to do with Afghanistan? That comment makes NO sense. Neither does the anti-American comment, as Harper was told from his well paid "focus groups" to stop being Bush, as ALL Canadians did not like it. So, apparently the apologists for Bush are well into the minority figures in Canada, and they, including Harper thought/think Canadians think like them, we do not, and there is not a thing wrong with being against Bush, 85% of his own country is even. It is a terrible thing when people are so partisian, they willingly allow themselves to be lead by false conduct and words, garnered from tax payer funded focus groups. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Now geoffery how about actually debating the points/topic instead of labelling it with a personal opinion, that is partisian to the nth degree. How about some honesty in reflection of what you would say had the Liberals undertaken such a thing?

You really don't think such things as terrorists exist, do you? Or do you think that arresting one and keeping him behind bars for 24 hours is too much a sacrifice to keep yourself safe? I really don't get the opposition. This isn't the Patriot Act, this is common sense. If you don't think it can happen to us, look at London or Madrid. It can, and it likely will if we elimate every possible way for us to fight terrorism. Well, that is something that I would never have thought i would see a Harper apologist quoting Annie got your guns. Of course she would defend it, she put it in place. Geoffery, apparently you DID NOT read the BCCLA report on these 2 items, nor did you read the deliberations that went into them in the first palce, as to why there was a sunset clause. Nor did you apparently read, what the SCC said about them NOT meeting HUMAN RIGHTS litmus tests, not just in canada but according to the greater Human Rights world wide. Nor did you pay any attention to the fact those 2 points are NOT needed to have a preventative sweep before someting happens. The 2 points presume guilt, and ask the person to implicate themselves, and if they have nothing with which to implicate themselves, they can still be jailed if the police/judiciary do not believe them. They can be arrested without warant or without even any actual proof or cause. And it is up to them to try and prove their iinnocent, even if the state has nothing upon them. They are presumed guilty and the burden of proof is upon them to prove their innocence Perhaps in someone's perceptions of a facist state, this type of sending to Siberia, would be wanted, but NOT in a democracy. BTW, it is NOT just 24 hrs, that is misinformation, that is the minimum, they can be held a year without review, then they can be held longer yet again after a review. Remember, we already have 3 who have been held now for over 3 years that are starving themselves to death because there is no evidence, no trial no anything happening to help them.

Oh, it's just Serbs and Kosovars. We should just let them kill each other, their lives... right? Or do you apply different standards based on some random set of values? Or do you in fact support sitting back while ethnic cleansing and religious wars decimate innocent populations? geoffery, I have asked you before not to put words in my mouth, and to stop discussing me as opposed to the topic, and am doing so again. Thank you! You have gone off on a tangent that does not exist in my words. Nevermind the fact, that the USA started it all in the first place. And nevermind the fact that there is ethnic cleansing and civil wars going on all over the world, so why is the USA and yourself being selective to Iraq only? The USA's reason is oil, and should we just invade the whole world and tell them to behave just like us, or else? The west's interference for decades has caused this mess in the ME, it is about time the west stopped, got out and people stopped their colonialistic intent to tell everyone how they should be "just like us". Suicide bombers have lost hope, faith, family and their lives, and perhaps even their sanity, they are a minority, and I would rather forgive them and their actions, for they know not what they do, rather than condemn them as "evil" people. It is criminal to harm innocents, such as the suicide bombers do, but it is very much more criminal to invade a country illegally based upon lies, and kill 10's of thousands of innocents, destroy a country, its infrastructure, it's everything, and to leave depleted uranium shells laying everywhere to kill the generations to come. On a scale of 1-10 for crimes against humanity, with 10 being the worst, I would say the USA is at 10, while the suicide bombers are at 5 -6.

Alexandra, you're trying much to hard to deny something that is undeniable. It does not matter if we know they belong to the CPC or not. They are ALL most ALL Evangelical. There is NOT a mix of Lutheran, UCC, Catholic, Anglican, Methodist, Baptist, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, etc etc, they ARE ALL Evangelical. Canada is NOT Evangelical, it is a bias, that is inexcusable in a democracy. Harper is also Evangelical. It is obvious he is creating a theo con judiciary that is inherently Evangelical. Do not know what you are carrying on about Bush and the USA, tis a bit odd.

Mr. Goodale should make a special apology to former RCMP commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli for taking the position that the allegations of a leak were an "invention" of the Mounties. Sure they were. No, the RCMP press conference announcing this was unheard of for the RCMP to do ever. Not only that they had faxed Judy the info hoping she would open it up for them, when it sat in her office for 2 weeks, the RCMP finally phoned her and told her it was there. Then she went public. Now, those actions by Zacardelli are not an usual thing to do for an RCMP investigation that has not yet started in anyway, now are they? So, who was pushing his buttons to get this exposed at a inopportune time during the election campaign? First bets are Harper and the CPC, it benefited no one else, and Harper tried desperately to cover up, or rather keep the lid on Zacardelli's complicity in the Arar case, and he did not fire him when Zarcardelli should've been for lying. But hey with zacardelli gone now we will never know for sure eh? Unless we see a fine government appointment on the books for him. The RCMP owe Goodale an apology, if NOT Canadians as a whole.

http://www.ameu.org/page.asp?iid=35&aid=427&pg=9 Concluding remarks by the Israeli Historians from the Univrsity of Haifa, Israel, who have done a indepth research and analysis of the history, over the last 50- 60 years and have concluded the Zionist redition that has been fostered over the years is incorrect.

geoffery, oh if it was just a simple comment that the military was neglected it, it would still be criticism, which is not allowed either. But Hillier took it to anothet level, and lied by inference. So you see, he named a party labelled it in a negative manner and thereby juxpositioned the CPC and gave support to the to them by labelling the Liberals negatively. This was also a lie, stating it was JUST the Liberals when Mulroney had started the cute, remember the helicopters sold to the Dutch, by Mulroney, which we are now buying back. This was mentioned earler in the thread as well. Then after he was done labelling it erroneouly the "dcade of darkness" he conntinued on berating the Liberals. Face it he broke the rules and came out partisian for the CPC, a huge NO NO!

Please do refrain from appearing to be put upon, as if you always had to chase stuff down, when in fact you never do. It lowers the level of discussion and is almost unworthy of a response. Ms. Kilburn - Evangelical Vic Toews - Evangelical Garth Smorang - Evangelical Chester Cunningham - A good appointee IMV Barbara Pollock - Evangelical W. Brent Cotter - Evangelical Allan McEachern - nominee from the Canadian Judicial Council {though he is most likely also evangelical as well but is quiet about it}. Joe Comartin, New Democratic Party of Canada Anita Neville, Liberal Party of Canada Jewish Ellen Campbell - Evangelical Not sure who the police appointees are. But, nonetheless the tale is told by the committee stacking of Evangelicals for Harper's theo con judiciary. Talk about partisianship, and bad practices at best! 7 Evangelicals sitting on the committee.

Well Hillier has over stepped his bounds within the military rules, with impunity, and he is way wrong in doing so, and it speaks much to his character, or lack thereof. His speaking in support of the CPC, and condemning the Liberals, or indeed any regular forces military person speaking in support or denigration of a Canadian government, is breaking the military rules. Hillier made a politcal speech, to us, the electors on behalf of the CPC. So he broke both 7 a and b. Got to love, how the CPC condemn others for iimpugning the law, but it is quite fine when they do it. Much like Harper's spending 76k of our tax money, on trying to sell us the phoney mission/war in Afghanistan. Even though they railed at the Liberals, who were taken to task by Sheila Fraser in 2003, for using government tax dollars to fund self serving polls. Which is something much less serious than using tax dollars to pay for propaganda to use against us.

No, it is not hyprocritical to blast the Americans, as if they really wanted to minimize casualities, or even cared about casualities, they would not have launchd an illegal war based upon lies. I am not trning a blind eye, I am just being realitic in realizing this mess would NOT be going on if not for the USA's initial heinous actions in Iraq. The USA is the ROOT causational factor. If the Sunnis and Shia's are fighting between themselves, then that is their business. Their country, their lives. My condemnation of them means nothing to them, or indeed anyone else. It is just words. This whole silly argument if you're condemn 1, then you have to condemn all, or you are not being fair is ridiculous. The reason you did not specify why, I should condemn, says it all. There is NO reason why I should. My not doing so, does not mean I am supportive of their actions, or agree with them even, it just means, I have been fully cognizant from the very begining, of where all this would lead. And I feel it is Iraqis country and their own lives, to choose to do so what they will. If they want to kill each other, it is their business. I feel sadness that this is a choice they are making, and that they have come to this. Or perhaps reverted to this, as Sunnis and Shias have long been in opposition to one another, and there is nothing I could do or say, or anyone could do or say, that would change their feeling towwards each other, that must come from within them. Uttering condemnation at this point means nothing to them so what would be the point? If they want to drive the occupiers out of their lands it is their business. I feel power to them if they want to do that, it is their country afterall. If they want to put down their weapons and greet each other in peace, and reconciliation that too is their business. I would stap up and cheer and give thanks that they saw a better way. If they want to establish business relationships that fair and reasonable with other countries, then I support them and say power to you.

Now isn't this special, we are now paying for ourselves to be propagandized so that we agree to war. To sell Canada on war, try `hope' but not `liberty' Focus groups advised Harper not to echo Bush Feb 17, 2007 04:30 AM Allan Woods Ottawa Bureau So, they are wasting our tax dollars on trying to find ways to "sell" us a war we do not want to be involved in, but they want us to be, even though we have NO reason to be and they full well know it. And so much for Harper yelling accountability, look at him doing something even worse that what Sheila Fraser condemned the Liberals for. Shame!

Osama was CIA trained, the Bush family has a long history with the Bin Laden family even. In fact, George Sr was having breakfast with some of them the morning the Towers went down. "OSAMAGATE" by Michel Chossudovsky Professor of Economics, University of Ottawa Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG), Montréal Posted at globalresearch.ca 9 October 2001 However, apparently, it is not blowback at all: http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO110A.html And still more, and it was revealed in a US court case nonetheless, so much for no proof, or proof only being at conspiracy sites. LOLOLOL. http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0...rticle_continue The Taliban is NOT al Qaida al Qaida was alleged to have committed 911 not the Taliban

Oh, I was hoping someone would point that out, as there is a reason why they did not use them. If you would have read all the links you would have noticed they do not meet the measure of the Charter of Rights Litmus. There were already laws in place that covered this type of thing without suspending human rights. The only reason to use them is to override Charter Rights, and that is a no no and why the Liberals have changed their minds, as it is a human rights breach. So, if we have that type of measure it must mean that the CPC want to be able to over ride Human Rights. Again conveinent for when, after the police have picked the judges, they will be bringing the people to whom they have stripped of their Human Rights to the very same people they had picked to be judges. Little to cozy for me personally, what happens if we get another Trudeau? Sure, the CPC supporters may think it is great when Harper is in power, but he won't be for long, and they should think about things then. Unless of course they are going for a theocracy and don't figure Harper will ever leave.

Well, having just had a long conversation with my friend, who was in the Airborne, I find that it isn't any much clearer than before. He was of 2 minds about it. He felt that in some circumstances, it might be sobering for any new young hot shot recruits who think they are going all gung ho over to fight, might well realize they could be on the receiving end of the shooting, just as well as they could be the shooter. And he said it may well prompt them to be more cautious instead of thinking they were invincible. But he said on the other hand, there would probably be the same amount who it would instill fear into, and prompt them to be over zealous because of fright, and that some would even dwell on it in a negative manner and feel demoralized. From this persective he said how the PM's words would impact would be on an individual basis. In the end, his conclusion was that those type of comments would be better off coming from military command and officers so they could better judge the reaction those words were met with by the enlisted men. As, he said; those who reacted badly to it should be screened out, or more evaluation done before they enter a combat situation, as they are dangerous to themselves and others. And he said in all the years that he was in Airborne, he never heard his commanding officers word anything in that type of negative format, though they all knew it was a possible reality. ______________________________________________________________________________ Those who are trying to excuse the shootings are sounding more and more like the US soldiers who were in Iraq trying to explain away their fear jerk response and killing civilians needlessly.

Sure it is, when you have 4 more CPC theo-cons sitting on the committee as well.

You see, he was NOT a civilian, he is a Canadian military veteran, if you would've bothered to read his blog you would have found this out. A career veteran at that. In fact, it makes me wonder, how an alleged former military person could/would be so denigrating/disparaging about another publically viewable career veteran's opinion. And really, Canadian blue, that is the bottom line. I know he was a veteran, I however do not know that about you or the people you referred to. You could be, or you may well not be. Who is to know for sure. And I know how I would've felt had I heard that, so again, I tend to lean towards that which is provable to me. However, I am going to speak with a friend of mine, who was Airborne, when of course we had Airborne, when he gets home later, and see what his opinion is on it, as I am am willing to be open to discussion about this. His wife said she would've been apalled had she heard the PM make non-moral boosting comments like that before he and his regiment were deployed to Cyprus, and later to Somalia. But that is not a military person's view.

Well, now we got our first high profile theo-con sitting to pick out our judiciary. Harpers theo-coness is definitely rearing it's scaley head. And she has absolutely NO qualifications other than being "Evangelical", but they are trying to sell her kidnapping as her qualifications. Wonderful! Biased emotionally driven Evangelical to pick judges.

Well for starters ONE politicion said that. And that politicion was refering to the might American war maqhine as you certainly know. Good correction, funny how some seem to always get it wrong in the face of overwhelming evidence to the proving other. There can be no doubt that what the Bush admin did to Iraq and innocent Iraqis, was pure evil. Stating such things does not mean one supports terrorism either. It is not an either or thing. Iraq HAD NOTHING to do with 911, and people keep trying to mud the water when they try to connect the 2. They stopped hunting for Osama in 2003, so they ARE NOT hunting those connected with 911 in Afghanitan either. Again why are we there? Oh, right Karzi and Oils private militia. The Taliban does not = Al Qeada, they are 2 separate groups. again some seem to want to cloud the issue there too. Moreover, like drea stated, the all the apologists for Bush, were gnashing their teeth over Bush's failure to thank Canada the last time too, all because of Chretien, they said. Now it is Steve and its all okay if Bush fails to thank Canada, we are just whoosies cause we want to be acknowledged. Talk about speaking out of both sides of their mouths, eh bayleaf? Amazing isn't it?

Oh, here is southerncomforts missing link, to what she cited and did not link to. And here is a critical missing piece of info: Will Not Stand up to Human Rights Laws, unless of course we are willing to let them go, just as they did in the USA

http://www.ameu.org/page.asp?iid=35&aid=427&pg=1 Again, this link above is to the University of Haifa and it is a 7 page or so treatise on the "actual" true accounts of what happened when Israel was created. Zionists in Israel, have a tendancy to speak for all Jews, this is why prominent Jews the world over are taking a stand and saying; "you do NOT speak for ALL Jews" and followed by; "we are not in agreement with actions of Zionist Israel against Palestinians" The proof of this is in the British Jews Take a Stand thread.

Here is the BCCLA's take on those 2 clauses that are sunsetting. and the other This was their conclusion: And first they came for.....

Oh, I would say Dave was angry, justifiably so, and as a matter of fact, I have seen Canadian Blue write something very similiar to Dave's angry blog, right here at mapleleaf fourms and using almost exactly the same profanities and perhaps a worse tone. Dave is publically out, and is for sure a Canadian military veteran, I think, I will still believe Dave and his very angry words. And here is another reason why: Two unarmed Afghans killed by NATO troops Updated Sat. Feb. 17 2007 1:48 PM ET Canadian Press Canadians Shot first ask questions later and more Afghan civilians die

Exactly Hiti, unlike Harper, the CPC and their supporters. Dion, made the correct move with this one, PQ will line up solidly behind him on this, and he will have the support of the Bloq and the NDP as well on it, without a doubt. Sounds like the neo-con branch of the Liberals is acting up. This is the 2 points in question: Here is a description of them: Gov Site on committee reports on sunset clauses Sweet, so we could have Police officers, arresting people without a warrant and then taking them before the very same judges that they have chosen themselves!

How "some", Canadians bow down. And yes, it is sickening that they still insist that speaking truth about Bush et al, and their heinous actions, is bad. It gets to the point that one wonders if they are getting paid! Then one realizes they just have an agenda they are NOT willing to let go of, they think GWB is the second coming and armageddon is going to happen and they will be swept up in the rapture and will be watching all us heathens, be torn to shreds, all of that you know. Even though Bush has proved himself to be consummate evil, they still won't let that false image/idol go. I agree the USA is in it's decline, the death throes are ugly, too bad we have blood on our hands from supporting them.

No, sorry it is NOT men like Hillier, who allow me to enjoy the freedom I have, it was men like my grandfathers and uncles and other men of their calibre. Big difference than the Hilliers of today IMV.