Peter F

But if, as Wolf and Sienfeld claim, Victory is the only legitimate basis for all and any entitlements then only fools would accept defeat. The logic of their position justifies continued resistance. If the Arabs deserve nothing because they lost various wars, then thats precisely what they have to lose: nothing. So why in the world, under this line of reasoning, would they accept defeat?

So if Palestinians continue the war with the aim of being victorious then you have no complaints.

yes, round and round we go Jerry. All you are asking is to be left to your own beliefs which apparently include that gays should be denounced as immoral, wrong and just plain-ol' sicko's. And that, Jerry, is precisely how I think you should be treated!

What? You have the freedom to express things and I don't have the feedom to express my belief that you gotta get some sensitivity training?

Ohhhh...that explains why so many grocery store produce managers are older women...

Oh Damn! I voted for creationism by mistake!

Probably would never have heard about it. Apparently its perfectly alright to kill whoever you want on a battlefield - See Haditha. (Haditha) and no, I do not think subjecting a juvinile to Gitmo is OK. The shootemup at Khost is entirely unrelated to the treatment of juveniles at Guatanamo. I am sure you are not suggesting that prisoners - because they are captured and not killed - can be treated in any damn manner thier keepers please. I understand that you despise the little f***er and I understand that if he had have died at Khost then none of these silly posts at MLW, let alone federal court cases, would have occurred. ...but die he didn't and now he is a prisoner. Does the concept of treating prisoners justly and humanely apply to only prisoners you like or all prisoners wether you like them or not? How do the Taliban treat thier prisoners? Humanely or not? If not should we then be allowed to skin our prisoners alive (not all of them mind, just the ones that really piss soldiers and/or contractors off). After all, prisoners are lucky to be alive! They should be on thier knees thanking us keepers for treating them like the shit they are! matter of fact when those couple of airborne guys had thier prisoner their real mistake was killing him - the torture/highschool hijinks they subjected their prisoner to was fine because the kid was lucky to be alive. If they had kept their prisoner alive there'd have been no problem, right? The fact that you can legally kill somebody doesn't mean the law does not apply. As you say, if you kill him within the confines of the ROE you are not guilty of a crime...or so has determined our silly legal system. You can kill whoever you like within the confines of the ROE - do please help yourself. A battlefield is not a court of law. Nor should it be. So why cant our nations laws make charges stick? Well, actually they can - our prisons are packed full of people who found our nations laws made charges stick. Seems to be a pretty regular occurence. Mind you, our courts tend to rely on evidence; doubts the veracity of statements made under duress; Hearsay is normally not allowed; witnesses can be questioned by the accused etc etc and on and on. The charges against Khadr may or may not stick should he be charged in Canada, but apparently neither the PMO's office, CSIS nor the RCMP are convinced that any crime widdle Omar is charged with could hold up in court against normal court procedures that regularly lock away hundreds upon hundreds of people. You know what that makes me think? It makes me think that any evidence against Khadr has been so tainted by the American military's free-for-all against terrorism, that little of such evidence would survive a regular courts scrutiny. What? Canada doesn't have 'Security Certificates'? oh...yes we do Security Certificate The real problem is that Canada has no seperate system for trying accused terrorists outside of the normal courts system. Perhaps Canada should create a seperate system with modified rules to make it easier to charge terrorists and modified rules of evidence to make it easier to find terrorists guilty. We can look south to the Military commssions for an example of such a system and how it went over like a lead balloon.

You speak of mens rights, Jerry. If a man should have the right to compel a pregnant woman to carry through the pregnancy til birth, Does he also have the right to compel a woman to have an abortion?

Huh? Women Dont earn what men do because they get pregnant? What, pray, has one got to do with the other? Perhaps, despite biology, if a woman is not pregnant should she earn equal pay for equal work? If she is pregnant and working she should then earn less? Are you insane?

Please, jbg, do please explain how "the West is groveling to the 911 perpetrator peoples". Seems to me that the USofA and allies have declared war on those peoples and are killing quite a few of those peoples and some other non-perpatrating peoples to boot.

Nobody's said much for your mentality or integrity lately either. Separatist mentality alive and well in Quebec? Who knew?

Respectfully, Muddy, I don't value a Canadians life more than an Americans. Nevertheless, the government appeared to have doubts wether any treason charge (or any other charge for that matter) would hold up to scrutiny. That was the point.

Federal Court of Canada That says it all, I think.

So you think Flanagan is in agreement with present Conservative thought? I thought folks were castigating dobbin for that implication.

Flanagans article is a load of crap. Are we to be satisfied that over time discrimination in the private sectoris self-liquidating because of the costs it imposes on discriminators? Apparently so. Not to worry, he says, you may be unjustly discriminated against now but in 20 or 30 or 40+ years time be happy that such discrimination will be 'eroded'. Hurrah Hurrah. If this is present day Conservative thought - I want nothing to do with it.

BC: And it rises to another level of comedy altogether to proudly commit troops to combat ops with no idea that hammers are required at all! Can someone please explain why, in light of the above thread, its a really good idea to extend the mission?

I don't read any wavering in his statement. He seems to be saying that he has not been able to support his theory with absolute proof and that critics could very well - and correctly so - use the few examples he provides to criticize his theory. But lets assume you're correct and Darwin wavers. So what? Is it a weakness in his theory that he may not be 1000% positive of its correctness? or that others may actually find means of criticizing his theory? Is doubt proof that the theory is incorrect?

Yeah. So? How would this truth be incorporated into our knowledge of reality?

I beleive Canadiens question was : care to name the gene that makes Blacks less intelligent than Mongoloids? and I must ask, If you're right - so effing what?

There it is folks, post of the year.

PETER F'S SCORE Your scored -5 on Moral Order and 4 on Moral Rules. The following categories best match your score (multiple responses are possible): System: Socialism Ideology: Social Democratism, Activism Party: No match. Presidents: Jimmy Carter Of the 538,203 respondents : 5% are close to you. 76% are more conservative. 7% are more liberal. 3% are more socialist. 6% are more authoritarian. I deny everything!

I too would call that a clear sighted man. But Lictor says a clear-sighted man see's others as incompetent, shiftless, the criminal, ugly, diseased and degenerate venerated. I would not call Lictors definition a clear sighted man. Wich was my point. As to your point, the poor clear sightedman being hated and despised...clear sighted men accept that others are may not be clear sighted. They don't whine uselessly about it. Lictors clearsighted adonis' would have the ugly degenerate unmanly types like me treated as dogs (as in sled dogs). Lictor doe's not describe clear sighted men, but tyrants.

The clear sighted man see's the incompetent, shiftless, the criminal, ugly, diseased and degenerate venerated while he is unrewarded. Maybe the clear-sighted man should remove the log from his eyes.

So why the wait to set off the thermite? and why wasn't the lower floors blown first? The allegation is silly. The results of torture I suspect.

are you talking to the four year old or the parent/s?