ScottSA

Europe is a disaster in the process of happening, both economically and socially.

Check your watch. It's April, 2007. To what previous track record are you refering? Second, as I hear it, the Canadian offensive around Kandahar just started this spring. Have you heard differently? Have you noticed that we've been in Afghanistan for years and until recently took more FF casualties than casualties from the enemy? I wonder if there's a correlation between the casualties and the fact that we just started an offensive? Like I said, we just started. Just because we're taking incoming is no reason to run away. At least lets give it some time, ok?

Two little problems here. First, the obvious one, is that this position is hardly the best way to win the Jewish vote, and second, there's a little thing called the NPT, which Iran is a signatory to. What he is in effect saying is to scrap the NPT because some folks broke it, and allow unrestricted nuke procurement. That is insane.

That could be reported then. I am only saying that the guys identity should be subject to the ban. We could still have stories telling all about his run in with the police, the concerns of his instructors and anything else that would tell people why he did what he did. But we don't need to know his name and we don't need to see his pictures or hear his words. Fair enough, although I suspect his identity, pictures and extended family would be on the internet in about ten seconds.

You are missing my point. I am not saying that the pictures should be banned. I am saying there should be a complete ban on any information that can identify the guy. He should be anonymous. Can you prove that this guy was not motivated by publicity surrounding Columbine and Dawson? Probably not. I can't really prove he was either. However, there is enough circumstance evidence that suggests a link. This evidence is enough to justify a ban on publicizing his identity. We ban numerous things in the name a public safety with a lot less evidence. What if his motivation had been something else? What if he were motivated by on of Mohammed's suras? I'd certainly want to know.

The entire post above is sophist nonsense. For instance: "That's like pointing out that forest fires were occuring millions of years BEFORE arsonists even existed. What's does that prove though? That forest fires today cannot be caused by arsonists? Same thing with the above argument. The planet has warmed and cooled naturally plenty in the past for reasons not connected to greenhouse gases, but how does that mean the planet cannot be warming via increased greenhouse gases today? It's an illogical argument." But how is it in any way evidence that the forest is on fire, or that an arsonist started it? In effect you're saying that arsonists exist, therefore it must be arsonists who started the fire. That's illogical.

The people who plan the missions are smarter than you myata, and don't need lectures from armchair generals on cultural sensitivities. No one ever said Afghanistan will become a Jeffersonian democracy the first time it holds an election. To imagine that this was ever the game plan is to simplify the situation and intention of the occupation and warfighting to the point of simplemindedness. They first have to destroy the Taliban by making it untenable for them. That takes time. In the meantime they need to begin the process of democratization. There is no bin George al-Washington hanging around, no continental congress, nor anything else, so they need to do what is possible, as they did in Japan, to strike a balance between the old and new. But first they need to win the war, and our forces will achieve that a lot faster if they have our backing than they will if a lot of people bitch and moan that it's a lost cause before it even gets going. How do you imagine that these people are going to achieve basic survival and security if the war isn't won?

You can't stop conspiracy nuts hijacking other threads even if the conspiracy theories are confined to a seperate forum.

It's not ideal, but it's like linking to Time magazine in an academic treatise. It hurts the credibility of the writer, but what are ya gonna do? I'm far more distracted by Figleaf running around tattling on everyone. Is there something that can be done about that?

I vote "all of the above". If this was a cheesy '80s sitcom, you two would be totally making out by now. And whose leg would you be humping by now?

Woody woody woody...what do you propose to call a stand of douglas firs? A "firest"? Here's a braintwister that ought to keep you occupied for the rest of your life or so: Is it better to wait till a 500 year old tree burns down, releasing all it's dreaded CO2 into the atmosphere, or cut it down and keep the CO2 locked in it for another 100-200 years? Then lets move on, in your next life, to the specific attributes of 500 year old douglas firs. Is there something special about them? If so, what?

Yes, thank you woody.

Seems to me that calling a war lost while it's still being fought is traitorous. And hyperbolic.

Or you could have just taken my word for it.... If you had inserted all that logistic stuff, I would have. Maybe.

buckpassing seems to be their favorite game - cheerleaders aren't involved in the real competition - just ask Shrub Actually, it is you and your ilk who have tried to play the blame game, by blaming Bush 6 months into his presidency.

That is nothing less than a police state mechanism. It will backfire in about a million ways, and in Canada it would never in a million years clear the Charter.

Psssst...I think there's a Nazi Jew banker over behind that bush to the right --------->. You better go investigate.

http://www.examiner.com/a-683849~Reid__U_S...tary_Fight.html

Well, that explains it about as well as anyone could have hoped. Thanks for taking the time.

To everyone who thinks that this can be somehow prevented by screening, like those who somehow think 911 could have been prevented by screening, how exactly do you propose to do it? At the campus level? The municipal, state or federal level? Round up everyone who some panel of psychologists deems "weird"? And then what? Forbid then from coming on campus? Forbid them from buying guns? Lock them up without charge and without having committed a crime? Electroshock therapy? Platoons of psychologists descending on schools everywhere to round up the "potentially" dangerous kids and browbeat counsel them into normalcy? The truth is that for every whacko who goes off his rocker and kills someone, there are thousands just like him who don't end up killing anyone. "Warning signs" are always seen in retrospect, but there are millions of people displaying the same "warning signs", and no one really knows what the "warning signs" are anyway until after the fact. Until such time as psychologists are able to divine the future, there is simply nothing to be done.

Perhaps the property reference is an acknowledgement of the existence of private property itself. Since it's not enshrined in the Charter, for some reason, perhaps the Law Society of AB decided to make it more than a tacit recognition. Dunno, maybe that's stupid...I'm not a lawyer.

Is that really Cahaya?

What is going on here???The Children Of Satan by Luther Blissett plagiarism reported You mean that turgid bombast is actually published? Why?

I really wish you guys would look at the evidence. I would answer the above post by cybercoma but it has so little to do with the evidence, why bother ? Melted pools of steel have been reported by eyewitnesses, there are pictures that show melted metal and 100+ other pieces of evidence, but its a waste of time looking at this because the government that steals trillions of dollars from tax payers, lets the banks enslave its own citizens, lies about WMD's all the time, starts illegal wars & tortures people would never kill 3000 of its own citizens to make money from a war where its aditted that 600,000 people have been killed already. Governments never go corrupt and turn on their own citizens, that is crazy. Just because it happens all the time in history they would never do that to us. Movies like 911Mysteries & Terrorstorm are not from the corporate mainstream media and they go against government therefore they can't be true. And what exactly does any of this have to do with the 9/11 attacks? The only thing you've mentioned is eyewitnesses seeing molten pools of metal. Did they test the metal? Was it analyzed to see what type out of all the different varieties of metal they could be? You've given no evidence whatsoever of anything. Now you're ranting about how corrupt the government is, which just goes to show you're trying to justify your own opinion rather than actually examine what's right in front of your face. You think the government really needed to strap WTC 7 with explosives to justify its war on terror? Wasn't the attacks on towers 1 and 2 enough? How about the list of terror attacks on American targets that I listed earlier in the thread? If they wanted to justify a war, wasn't that justification enough? Hell, the Bush Administration wanted to invade Iraq and they sure as hell didn't need to use 9/11 to justify that (although the allusions helped). All they had to do was bitch and moan that Saddam was a threat because he refuses to cooperate with weapons inspectors. Saddam didn't co-operate by showing the inspectors where the weapons are because Hussein didn't have any. That was their excuse, with their carefully crafted satellite images and sound files. War justified. And not a single person was killed for that. What is the United States doing in Afghanistan now? Afterall, that's what was justified by the terror attacks. The US is doing sweet f all. Canadian soldiers are dying over there in an effort to bring security to a nation that is on the brink of succumbing to radicals again. We must be over there for the oil contracts, right? Christ, you're dense. Good post. Now watch Polly switch gears and throw something entirely unrelated at you and try to suck you into another go round.

Really? What's this then? On appointment to office, and thereafter, public office holders shall arrange their private affairs in a manner that will prevent real, potential or apparent conflicts of interest from arising ... 7. (1) In addition to the specific compliance measures provided for in this Part, the Ethics Commissioner may impose any compliance measure, including divestment or recusal, in respect of any matter or asset which, in the Ethics Commissioner’s opinion, creates a conflict of interest or the appearance of same. http://www.parl.gc.ca/oec/en/public_office...docs/code_e.pdf That doesn't mean it has to be fireproof against spurious lawsuits by troublemakers. There is no appearance of impropriety here.