ScottSA

What can you say to this kind of rhetoric? It's like a bunch of kids in the 60s chanting reductionist slogans while angsting over adolescent worries. Virtually every element of it is factually wrong, including "illegal" and "breaking iternational law", but it plays so well to teenage ears. And provides an amazing outlet for pubescent rage.

Excellent post. I wish the opposing side could see through their self hate long enough to make as considered and well thought out posts as this. It's quite likely that the soldiers were in disputed waters, thereby making both sides right, or at least not wrong. Canada has the same disputes, having made the largest land grab in history by extending a 200 mile limit to its territorial waters in a treaty not ratified by all members of the UN. In fact, Canada often claims it must "protect its northern regions", yet no one asks why that is. If intl law were clear about it, there would be no need to "protect it"; what Canada is actually doing is enforcing a claim that is functionally non-binding. However, and it's a big however, when one takes prisoners in disputed waters, and then threatens to try them for espionage, that is way way up the escalation ladder. There are a whack of ways to end an intrusion; the most common being to shoo the perceived intruder away and resolve the incident later. This is direct confrontation by Iran.

I'm not taking sides on this one, but that's not an argument. That's the same kind of anti-American demagoguery practised by the NDP and Liberals for the last few decades. Sooner or later they may realize that mocking a country that has out-successed Canada by virtually every conceivable measure is not a particularly convincing argument, but I'm not holding my breath on that one. Oh, and by the way, since when is fixing election dates tantamount to "getting rid of the Westminster model and adopting a copy of the US Presidential model with a split executive/legislature"? That's an extremely flammable strawman.

If by "degree", you mean scale and popularity, then don't you find that a tad relevant? Your arguemtn is analogous to saying that the Andy Griffith shot someone once as Sherriff of Mayfield, thereby demonstrating violent capabilities and intent, so Mayfield is morally equivalent to Nazi Germany and differs only by degree. Forgive me for thinking that's a silly argument. I'd be happy to draw that conclusion if you can show me where, in the New Testament, for example, Christ assures his disciples that they will go to heaven for slaying the infidel, or where Christ advocated the rapine and slaughter of his Jewish foes, or.... Tell me that atheism is not central to humanist Marxism, or Leninism, or any other humanist transformative ideology. It's not only central to the philosophy, but it's a necessary condition.

Hubris? Oh, you must mean their own notion that the Liberal Party is the "natural governing party"? The notion that led them to decide they could mug the treasury, lie, steal and cheat, all for the "good of Canada"? The Libs ran on a platform of "RuN aWAy forM tEh rIhgTwING!!!" for a decade and a half, sprinkling the platform with lies and false promises so utterly cynical than after a while even the CBC started ignoring their red books. Until finally it all blew up in their faces with the 'soldiers-in-the-streets' ad, and the final kicker which starkly outlined the cynicism; that the Libs felt the need to tell Canadians that "we're not making this up", like they had so many times before. In fact, like so many times before, it turned out the Libs were making that up too. I believe the last election probably WAS a protest vote against the Liberals, as CBC and established Canadian milquetoast political culture was quick to assure us. But not the next election. The next election will be for the Conservatives.

That's exactly it. The Tories have a huge surplus, but by far the lion's share of the alleged "largesse" is simply giving it to the provinces, who have always had de jure jurisdiction in the first place.

I can't get over the degree of nonsense to which the apologists of Islam are willing to stretch. Christ "may have been a totally violent person"? Yeah Maybe. That's hardly worth dignifying except with a resounding "Doh". Canadian Blue, I told you I'm not going to do your research for you when you demand to see what is for anyone with a tad of education common knowledge, but because it's so easy to find, here's a small number of them. Before you start flinging shit at the source, let me help expand your knowledge a bit. There are 5 major accepted translations of the Koran, and this website uses those sources. If you don't like this website, because you classify it as "hate" on the grounds that it doesn't say what you what, then you truly are lost in Neverland. You'll notice that they are arranged by different translators one after the other: Suras commanding war against unbelievers appear throughout the Koran, but the one that is short and clear is 9:73: Muslims are also promised heaven if they fight for the "cause of Allah" in many places. Suras 9:86-90 are clear: TERROR is a pervasive theme in Koran - inflicted both by Allah and by Muslims on those who don't believe. Here are several suras. SLAYING UNBELIEVERS is specifically commanded, though they can also be made slaves and their property can be confiscated. Non-muslims have no legal rights in Muslim societies. If unbelievers are not killed, they can be made to pay "Jizya," a tax to buy back rights like owning property, working, or going to school. http://www.citizensoldier.org/koranone.html Now, I could go on. There are hundreds of these passages in the Koran. Not one even remotely similar is to be found in the New testament. The closest apologists have been able to come is Christ's statement that he comes not to bring peace, but the sword. I'm not a biblical scholar, but that's not exactly an incitement to create mayhem, rapine and slaughter. The Koran is. On almost every page.

Ahhh..there we have it from your mouth. I agree, Christianity, regardless of how it has been used, is at its root non-violent. But Mohammed's teachings are not non-violent. His life was not non-violent. His actions were violent. He personally killed people. Allah told him, verbatim, to kill people. The Koran is chock full of advice on who to kill and how, which women to kill and how, and which unbelievers to kill and how. There is nothing remotely peaceful about Islam.

Please state the rules of engagement for going into Iraq, given that there was no imminent threat? Also where are the rules for taking out Saddam, a dictator the U.S. financially supported for years, a dictator gasing his own people using U.S. aid under the watchful eye of the U.S.? ROE are not what you think they are.

Cooks helpers don't count... Canadian Blue, why do I have such a hard time believing that you're in any military. More of an admin role? You either is or you ain't. Are you a civvy attached to the forces?

No it's not. I'm sure you've been told this countless times and blithely ignored it, but it's an impossibility. It takes weeks to wire a building for demolition, using big noisy impact drills and lots of spitting and swearing workmen with plumber's bum. Buildings don't get wired by shifty men in black slipping into the place in the dead of night and dropping nondescript gym bags in out of the way corners. No one ever reported anything like that. No one. Were they all bribed, along with the countless government agencies and Jewish plotmeisters and various banking cabals who also haven't breathed a word of it in 5 years? Listen son, I know you think you're in possession of some illuminating TRVTH, but take another couple years in university, learn how Occam's razor really works, and I'm sure things will settle down for you. Maybe get a summer job on a construction crew and learn just how hard it is for crews of workmen to do a job quietly when polite society babes are walking by.

I agree with you Dobbin.It is true that Quebec has taken a (small) right turn by giving so many votes to the ADQ. LMAO...here come the spin doctors...teensy little turns to the right are when the popular vote swings ten points to the right. When a party surges from 5 seats to over 40, that's a seachange.

Because it generalizes the entire muslim population as terrorists. It's similar to Stormfront. You're similar to Quasimodo in intellect. What an idiotic thing to say. Stormfront is an anti-Semitic chatroom full of skinheads. This is a site which is devoted to cataloguing Islamic atrocities. Where exactly do you see the similarity? Actually, your anti-Christian diatrabes are far closer to Stormfront than ROP is. And like you were asked...do you think the numbers are incorrect?

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=54b3d383-f0f9-4a92-a720-6f39217063ee&k=0 Bit of an upset tonight. The CBC, as usual, calls it a "protest vote", which is what they call it anytime anyone to the right of Che pulls out ahead, but it's obviously more than that. It's part of a sea change in politics.

Well, you continue skipping along with your head in the clouds...imagining all the peehoople... But it is tragic that all those decades of hard won peace bred such a large herd of sheep in the west. I guess that's why those 60 year cycles happen...

Well, it could be the uninterrupted state of chronic warfare it's been in since about the time of the rise of Babylon on...but of course that's not the answer your smarmy question is looking for, is it?

After one year as a minority government they've done as much as the LIberals have done with 3 majorities over a period of 13 years in power. That's not what figleaf wanted to hear. Figleaf wanted to hear: "arrrRgHHHHh run! tEh armaggedON tORIeS!!! But yeah, why that pesky years-long softwood problem is gone, Japanese reparations are over and done with, accountable government is now assured, the GST has been reduced after 13 years of Liberal promises to abolish it or reduce it, according to which day of the week they made the promise...

You think Iran invading Iraq is the best thing? I don't think it is predictable what Iran would do if provoked. I think Iran is attempting to become a regional hegemon, and I think it's under the impression that the US and UK are harmless. I think it's wrong. I also think it would be better for all concerned if it found that out now rather than later when it can crouch under what it thinks is a nuclear umbrella.

Oy vey...

That's nonsense. War usually leads to a resolution. What you really mean is that you wish it wouldn't. How do you know where I've been and what I've done and seen? I know precisely what I'd "do" if I had to fight...only someone who has never been in that situation would have the gall to applaude the "great moral courage" of being fed to lions without a fight. What rot.

You were the one calling us "pseudo intellectuals". No, I'm the one shaking my head at you. Astounding, truly.

*waving hand* I know I know, pick me! The Grand Mufti of the KKK in a dark alliance with the Templars!

You don't even realize this thread is about a joke, do you? You probably actually believe it.

Very lame...

Well, Occam would perhaps suggest that if 6 billion people watched in realtime as two airplanes smashed into two buildings, and those building subsequently fell down, followed by confessions by both the immediate culprits and the planner, that maybe things are just as they seem. I'm fairly certain that Occam wouldn't reach out and grab fragmentary half-facts and paste them together to a backdrop of sinister music and announce that the probable is the impossible and the ridiculous is the truth.