Peter F

From the SCC link provided: I love juries. I love the S.C.C. I hope we never get rid of them.

Except that none of these things did go away. Apparently, the government cooked up 9/11 to cover up Corporatist crimes. Then the government prosecuted the corporatists anyways. Sorry. Doesn't make sense.

Certainly. So does Betsy. It's not hard to find people who hate others morals. So what is particularly marvelous about the mid-eastern woman hating someone elses morals?

Is this what you are referring to? The banker-conspirators somehow made the black boxes useless? Sure. Why not? Now just find some facts to substantiate the theory and your on your way.

I agree. However, my point is that our morals are not going down the drain...our morals have been down the drain for many many many years. The only difference is that these days people can actually talk openly about it without being censored. Actually your morals are just fine. So are mine. So when I say "our" morals I really mean "some other peoples morals", regarding sexual behaviour anyways. But morals don't only apply to sex. Morals apply to many things. Fantin and yourself have claimed that Western Society's morals have gone down the drain. I'm actually claiming that Western Society's morals havn't budged an inch for centurys.

At this moment...prior to the 'cellphone calls were faked' pages...lets review what we have so far regarding the possibile explanations of the events on 9/11: Plausible explanation A) 4 planes were hijacked - 1 plane flew into WTC1 (hijacked by Muslim fanatics) - 1 plane flew into WTC2 (hijacked by Muslim fanatics) - 1 plane crashed into a field in Pennsylvania (hijacked by Muslim fanatics) - 1 plane flew into the Pentagon (hijacked by Muslim fanatics) Plausible explanation only 1 plane was hijacked - the hijacked plane crashed in Pennsylvania (hijacked by unknown persons) - 1 plane flew into WTC1 (no explanation yet of how) - 1 plane flew into WTC2 (no explanation yet of how) - a missile hit the Pentagon (no explanation yet of where the missile was fired from) edit: not my smileys. I don't use smileys. I don't know how they got there. Do please carry on.

You really should get out more. That sort of lasciviousj and sex-focused activiy has been going on for many many years. The only change is that now people talk about it openly.

I understand national pride. National pride is an emotion. There is nothing rational about it - it is pure emotion. I got over it during my stint in the navy. So yes, you're going to have to explain Steyn's re-action to me because Steyn's story makes no rational sense: Some angry folks burn a canadian flag. Steyn gets choked up. Why? because the angry folks are treating the Canadian flag like the American flag. Steyn's tears flow because finally Canada is equated with the USofA. Steyn feels national pride in Canada at that moment because Canada has become (to the folks who burn flags) America. A kind of American Mini-me. Do you find Steyn's experience understandable? If so perhaps you could explain your emotional reaction to the flag burning. Once upon a time...I was on a frieghter heading across to Europe. I tuned into Radio Belgium. The announcer was reading the news and reported the results of Canada's election as a headline. I, like Steyn got choked and tears welled up in my eyes. That is National Pride. and just as ridiculous.

Actually, it is. There are literally hundreds of valid reasons to show a lack or, or opposition to, "patriotism". But it is not an excuse for rudeness and disrespect to the soldiers. If your not a patriot to ones country, then you are a cowardly traitor. Geez, now I'm gonna have to change my moniker to 'Cowardly Traitor'

Well finally somebody's eye's are being opened. Too bad past and present governments have not faced reality's in thier eagerness to score political points.

my apologies. You are quite correct that internment procedures and policies in England during the war are not the issue here. No need for me to be there. I'm sure somebody suggested that the government extend the internment to Germans and thier familys. Howerver the government (I assume) rejected such things out of hand as being unnecessary. Yes, that is the funny part. The Canadian governments internment of Canadians on the west coast in 1942 did include Japanese, Canadians, women and ugly children. My question (again) is why only those of Japanese heritage?

I can't be so sure. However, I think that some sort of evidence to support the assumption that Japanese Canadians would follow the dictates of the Emporer of Japan would be proper before we incarcerate them and sieze thier property. What kind of evidence would suffice for you? How do you propose that we - being in the middle of war in the Pacific and Europe - would have the resources to waste following each and every Japanese-Canadian - just waiting for that evidence to surface? Maybe in our own harbor at Halifax. Or Vancouver. Oh Peter.... but it was ok to waste resources on your mother-in-law because she was Canadian-not German. But it was a waste of resources to suspect a Japanese Canadians daughter? Here's the goon (again) it was unfair and unjust to incarcerate those of German/Italian parentage. It was not unfair/unjust to incarcerate those of Japanese parentage. Why the difference? Considering Canada's naval committments and geography in 1942 I would suspect that there was far more danger from Canadians of German heritage on the East Coast than the danger from Japanese Canadians on the West coast. Yet only the Japanese Canadians were encamped. What was the logic of that?

and that is all bullshit. Your original post said : followed by links to NYtimes stories Not a peep about fierce loyalty to sect or tribe.

Betsy: I can't be so sure. However, I think that some sort of evidence to support the assumption that Japanese Canadians would follow the dictates of the Emporer of Japan would be proper before we incarcerate them and sieze thier property. Sorta like every other Canadian is treated - even in times of war. We don't and otherwise have never siezed people and thier property because of thier parents nationality. Thats something our enemies did and our Stalinist allies did. You can't be sure that any Muslim is not a terrorist. Shall we incarcerate them and thier families and sieze thier property?

here, here. We don't have the right tanks, we don't have the right helicopters, we don't have the right transport, we don't have the right IFV's, we don't have the right support from the home front, we don't have the right support from the non-governing political parties, we don't have the right budgets, we don't have the right media support. Hell, we don't even have the right form of government. But nevertheless its really good that Canada is in afghanistan and we should remain indefinately continuing what we don't have neither the material nor moral resources to do. and we should continue to do so indefinately. And not only that - we're going to do it on a shoestring and we're going to supply it from the other side of the world. ...and that's a good thing. Only good can come of it.

I see. I have no problem with anyone pointing out mans inhumanity towards man. However, jbg claims that the two NYTimes articles are examples of Islams good side. But, jbg's thread title "the Tender Gentle and loving side of Islam" followed by storys of Muslims killing Muslims indicates that jbg considers the murderous behaviour of a few bad muslim apples to be the best that Islam can do. That is bullshit. jbg was engaging in bullslhit and lies to equate the best of Islam with murder and mayhem.

There is no evidence that I am not a terrorist and/or supporting terrorism. I should be arrested forthwith. That applies to you too...and BC2004 and everyone else on this board and in this country including General hillier and Stephen Harper. But we havn't been arrested because the assumption is we are not terrorists. We are at war and that assumption is an unnacceptable risk. So again I should be arrested forthwith. I could in fact be a terrorist. Prudence demands it. Osama bin Laden himself issued a fatwa calling on all faithfull muslims to kill Americans ergo we should arrest and intern all Muslims. Lets just hope the Pope doesn't say something stupid...or Ian Paisley...or Pat Robertson...or Micheal Moore...or Stephan Dion...or Paris Hilton... Why wasn't she (your mother-in-law) interned also? If her farther had have been Japanese she would have been interned...but he wasn't, so she wasn't. Isn't bigotry grand?

For the sake of argument...how would that apply to internment of Canadians in 1942?

but...but, he's right!

You are assuming that Japanese-Canadians would act upon the words of the Japanese Emporer. What evidence was there to support that contention? Attendance at secret meetings? Some sort of Rally? A Japanese underground? Anything at all? I contend there was nothing at all to back up your assumption. The war-measures act gave the government the power to arrest who-ever they wanted for what-ever they wanted when-ever they wanted...but with the Japanese even that was insufficient. All Japanese were the enemy. In the rest of the country anyone who had been a German citizen was also interned. But not those who were born here. That only applied to those of Japanese parentage. Now why should there be a difference in internment procedures between one enemy national and another? What was particularly frightening about those of Japanese descent that wasnt particularly frightening about those of German descent? Why did the government determine that the immense legal power granted by the war-measures act simply couldn't cut it in regards to Japanese Canadians? In those bigotted days, one could not escape ones parentage. Those with german names were suspect. Those with Japanese names were the enemy.

From June 15, 2007 New York Times (link): and what do these two storys have to do with the religion of Islam? Not quite clear what you're trying to say.

Right on.... Back in 1969 Red Skelton said that the Pledge of Allegiance would be someday considered a prayer and be eliminated - he's not far off The Founding Fathers hated tyranny as much as they loved fundamental rights and gave the U.S. the pledge, nothing wrong with being proud of your country. Nothing wrong with uniting the country with a sense of pride and nationalism which gives people a sense of pride and identity. I suppose Canadian anti-Americanism gives some people an assumed sense of moral superiority - kind of a feel good thing - Again, please explain the logic underlying the conclusion that I am Anti-American. I re-iterate; Mr Steyn is pleased that someone somewhere is treating his nations flag just like they treat the American flag. Oh happy day. My point is Mr Steyn relies upon other peoples retarded and meaningless actions in order to get warm fuzzies - Why? Because he feels that he is being treated just like an American! Would he have pissed himself with glee if it was the Belgian flag being burnt before the Canadian? No. Such patriotism simply shows a total lack of patriotism. Nuthin Anti-American about it. A A

But we arn't talking about everything in the world. We're talking about internment. The whole internment thing was based on bigotry. Those of Japanese descent were shipped off to the camps for the duration. With zero evidence to support the suspicion. Half of Quebec, who's loyalty's were suspect, were left alone. What was the difference between the two?

I see where you are going, but a. Lebanon is not considered too much a threat, at least not relatively. b. The big ruckus was raised over dual citizens residing in Lebanon who kept a Canadian Passport in case the level of instability in Lebanon sky rocketed and they needed a "backup". I don't think anyone (except a few "special" characters from this site perhaps) put into question the loyalty of the typical Lebanese family who has been living here for the past 20 years and considers themselves Canadian, and for whom Lebanon is now at most considered a "tourist" destination. I had no intention of using my example of Lebanese Muslims in reference to those events. To be clear, I pulled Lebanon off the top of my head to indicate Muslim immigrants from Middle Eastern countries.

You're talking about the exclusion of others...you spoke of pride in the tribe. You excluded those who are not in the Tribe. as for following the existing traditions of Canada - What are those? and why must immigrants follow them when I, a citizen born in this country, am in no way required to follow these undefined traditions?