ScottSA

The problem is that even if we flood the arctic with nasty fighting machines, we are not going to pose a significant threat to the US. What are we going to do, sink a US ship and get TO bombed for our pains? Short of reaching military parity with the US, they can do what they want no matter what.

Oh hell, I've been attacked daily here for holding strong and unpopular opinions. Yet I've never, not once, had to resort to making false claims or posting reams of agitprop masquerading as journalism, and doing it without links. Aras has, it seems to me, proven himself intellectually unequipped to defend his own unpopular opinions, in spite of highly doubtful claims to posessing a Phd, and that's where the problem lies; not in a bunch of nasty bullies.

Well, it's like this. There's nothing wrong with criticizing Israel. I criticize israel for not acting more decisively against the thugs next door, for example. But a lot of people with no doubt coincidentally Muslim names run around "criticizing Israel" while entirely ignoring the facts involved, or better yet embracing made up facts about Israelis. And what most of those people, with no doubt coincidentally Muslim names, really mean is "GawdamnedJoooosrotinhell." That I suppose is why The Protocols of Zion make such good reading in Islamic nations...that and the fact that hardly anyone in Islamic nations actually writes books of their own. But you know what? Cair uses this tactic of painting oneself as a victim awash in a racist society, and while it may work well for American and canadian elites, don't expect it to work with most Canadians. I'm sure the Taliban would like your help against us infidels. Why not go help the Ummah?

So, Drea, where do you stand on eugenics? He's vilified because he's a moron who makes up or repeats unsubstantiated claims, posts reams of Islamofascist agitprop without links, creates multiple threads calling Joooos terrorists, and has obviously spent far too much time banging his noggin on the ground in preparation for the 12 Imam or the second coming of the pathological murderer he worships or whatever...what did you call it? "Sky pixie?" I don't care if he's a pastel shade of puce with hot pink polka dots...this is the type of person we want more of in Canada?

No, but that statement was the death knell of your already floundering reputation for knowledge of intl relations, since if true, the demise of the program is directly linked to the fear in the hearts of petty tyrants generated by Afghanistan and Iraq.

link preeze?

Oh dear, you hate Mohammed? Better keep it to yourself or "youths" might show up and burn down your neighbourhood.

The problem is not a lack of firepower in the North, it's a lack of recognition of our claims. Our claim to the "Canadian" arctic rests upon a select and minority interpretation of the Law of the Sea, which tends to be fairly unclear as to exactly what the limits are. a few countries use the 3 mile offshore limit; most use a 12 mile limit; and a few, including Canada, use a 200 mile limit. The US not only doesn't recognize Canada's claims, but hasn't even ratified the treaty. Besides, realistically, Canada isn't going to fare any better in a hot war over the far North because it has a couple of ice breakers. In fact, the presence of icebreakers is going to do precisely nothing to enforce our claims of sovereignty. A few nukes might, but not a few icebreakers.

Man, I look at a perfectly good thread, then I look at "last post by:", and when I see your name I cringe. Why don't you find a new trick; like claiming that Satan put all those angels on the head of a pin or something?

I tend to think some aspects of eugenics can be beneficial. With an eye to Theodore Damphryl's (sp) reminder that just because something once got out of hand doesn't mean that its opposite is good, there is something to be said for artificial Darwinism under certain circumstances with severe limitations. Just because Nazis killed mental patients doesn't mean that eugenics is all about nazis and killing people. Just because Nazis killed mental patients and Nazis were bad doesn't mean that the opposite of eugenics is good. The problem is, as Riverwind said, that you're a little too suspect to spend the time of day talking to about eugenics or anything else remotely connected to nasty history stuff.

It makes sense if one is peaking on Red Dragon microdot. I can hardly begin to count the fallacies in this argument, but as starters, the amount of money made by drug companies servicing mental illness pales beside what they make from paying customers with everyday medicines, and the welfare segment of that market reduces it by leaps and bounds even further. Not to mention that state bought medecine is far more likely to be generic, thus cheaper. And why would these nefarious Richy Riches want to erode the taxbase that's paying for the welfare cases in the first place by trying to drive more people into welfare and mental illness?

Oh wow, I understand now. So like, when Chretien shook hands with the Chinese premiere, it means that like Canada is keeping him in power, and like when Churchill and Roosevelt shook hands with Stalin, and Chamberlain with Hitler? Wow, things are getting clearer now... Handshakes are the key to foreign policy!

Nothing pro-Israeli about my post at all. It's anti-Islamic, actually. And how ridiculous that you respond with madeup press releases about Israeli soldiers raping Palestian women. Given the dress standards, it would be like buying a pig in a poke, so to speak, with the added excitement of a possible explosion. Yuck.And you counter the animal behaviour of Islam all over the globe, including bagged and stoned women with "sexism in Israel?" What more need be said? Talk about throwing handgrenades from inside glass houses!

Kengs has already said it was just a flippant remark...Christ, I don't blame him for reacting that way to Rue's loud bombastic bellows. All Rue needs to do is start making his words rhyme like Nasty Nazi Nutters, and we'll have our very own forum mascot.

Well, look at that...all the pressure on them may actually have worked. Good thing the peace crowd wasn't in control, eh wot?

That's not relevant here, is it? The degree of hostility is not impacted by the wherewithall to act on it. I don't even know why I allowed myself to get dragged into this conversation, quite frankly...I just get sick of watching Rue produce volumes of ill-written bombast and coming across like a cross between a flummoxed Goat and and a snarling and snapping Waz.

Poor Muslims. Maybe they ought to stop sawing heads off and crying victimhood everytime someone points out that their "culture" is the product of psychopathy matched to 7th century barbarism. Maybe they ought to stop burning things everytime someone draws a picture of their rapist, pedophilic, murderous genocidal "prophet." Maybe they ought to stop raping Swedish women, slaughtering Blacks, stoning women, and generally trying to take the world back 1000 years. Maybe, just maybe, if that happened, someone might actually give a shit what happens to the deluded morons commonly refered to as the 'Ummah.' However, in real life, as opposed to fabricated victimologies and imagined Phds, the rest of the bloody world is bending over backwards to accomodate the ridiculous demands made by Muslims. Rapine is something non-Muslims have to be worried about; not something Muslims need to worry their variously bagged heads over.

Honestly? As to this specific subject, I haven't really read Keng's posts in any detail, but those I have read contain no overt anti-semitism. I have read the first few paragraphs of some of yours, at least until you get bogged down in baboon allegory or I start gagging, whichever comes first, and I find your posts long-winded, turgid, pompous, and usually 90% clumsy sarcasm. I think your logic changes depending on what the subject is, often with downright silly results; I think your every thought goes through a lens of victimization; and I find your bigotry toward baboons alarming. Half the time I find your writing incomprehensible to boot. Take, for example, the following: ScottUSA’s decision to try justify Keng’s comments by deflecting the subject raised and introducing the aguement that Jews persecuted Christians, again I would argue was selective and by being selective takes historic events out of context in a manner that necessarily suggests if Jews persecuted Christians, then Christians have a right to feel negative towards Jews and make the kind of sweeping generalizations Keng does about Jews always having been hostile to Christians and would be hostile against them if they were in the majority because as Keng says, at the pith and substance of the dispute between jews and Christians is the refusal of Jews to accept Jesus as the Messiah. You can extrapolate anything you want from this, but it seems to me to be historical fact that Jews have been historically hostile to Christians. It seems to me that it's an historical fact that Jews don't recognize Christ as the Messiah. These are hardly leaps of logic or faith. Now, I have no idea whether Keng took this as some kind of justification for disliking Jews, but I know enough about your tendency toward hysterical hyperbole to know that chances are that conclusion is more likely to be a fabrication of your mind that what Keng actually said. What I've found from spending time on these boards is that people like you, Rue, are Judaism's worst enemies; constantly crying out that you're being abused everywhere and always, trotting out not so vieled references to historical oppression at the drop of a hat, bombastically attempting to bully everyone around you into embarrassed submission, and generally creating resentment that often simmers and evolves into real anti-semitism. As esra levant once said: if one is riding on the back of a tiger and constantly complaining about the danger of being bitten, sooner of later the tiger is going to turn around and bite.

I see Bush Derangement Syndrome is leaching across the border and clinging to harper now...

Excuse me? It seems you aren't quite clear on the meaning of unilateral, not to mention the fact that "unilateral" has no value attachment anyway. What are you trying to say by leveling this claim of "unilateralism" against the tories. If you're refering to the intl level, you're wrong, because an association is by definition multilateral. If you're talking about the toies unilaterally joining, you are misusing the word. The Tories are the government, so they don't require the other parties to sign on. This isn't the UN, thank God.

Please, wouldn't you love to have Chavez run things here? I don't spose you know he's holding a plebescite tonight to see whether he can be more or less a dictator? So much for your beloved democracy and "Statute of Westminister." Hell, I'd rather be "enslaved" by the queen than by some two bit banana republic strongman, wouldn't you?

Damn, I thought we were going to get through an entire 3 pages without Queenie mentioning the sta...well, you know. We didn't even make it through 2.

Not to mention Gandhi molesting his nieces. But no doubt Higgy thinks that's enlightened too?

Oh don't mind Rue. Basically all the other 5.9999 billion people on the Globe who don't agree precisely with whatever inconstistency he's pushing at any given time are "bigots." I think he thinks Bigots and Baboons are synonymous, judging by the number of times he's managed to drag them into discussions of bigotry.

What a load of PC hogswaddle. The woman has the choice to boink and then abort or not, and the man has the choice to boink. Thereafter he has no choice at all...everything thereafter is the choice of the woman. If she decides to abort, she aborts, regardless of what the man wants. That's the end of the story. If she decides not to abort, the man has no choice, but is faced with paying child support, regardless of his choices, for the next 18 to 21 years. Everything is the woman's "choice."