segnosaur

Ummmm... Richard Kemp, who (according to Wikipedia) served 14 tours of duty in the British military, and who fought in 6 different battles/wars over more than 2 decades. Seems to me that he would have at least a little knowledge of military tactics, etc. Oh, and while you're praising Goldstone, remember that he wasn't in Gaza either when the invasion happened. Furthermore, Goldstone himself admits that at least one of the people he had working on his report (Christine Chinkin) would have been considered biased/ineligible if this had actually been a legal case, because she had signed a letter criticizing Israel even before 1 bit of evidence was collected. From: http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=77618 If it had been a judicial inquiry, that letter she’d signed would have been a ground for disqualification...

Let me give you some advice... Avoid using "youtube" and other similar sources (including favorable organizations, and blogs/opinion pieces) to prove your point. Stick to mainstream sources (like national/syndicated newspapers, national/international news services and TV channels, government/university publications, respected international organizations, etc.) I'd also recommend avoiding fox news. And Wikipedia should be used for at most background information. (And if you do happen to see something from a youtube video or blog, try to look up the information in other places.) Frankly, I find that using youtube videos and blogs to justify someone's position is weak. Let people like naiomiglover use such sources to try to "prove" her sources. All it illustrates is that she can parrot what other people think without bothering to dig into the real facts. Its mindless and shallow. Leave those sorts of things to the friends of Hamas. The fact is, there is plenty of reputable information out there to justify Israeli actions in its dealing with Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups. There is enough information out there to debunk Goldstone and point out problems with the UNHRC without ever resorting to a youtube video.

On which thread do you believe you're spouting the talking points you've plagiarized from reactionaries? Have you not watched, here, Regev's concession? Why are you asking questions for which the answer is supplied in one of the videos on this very thread? I have watched the videos... at no point did Regev ever say that Rocket/mortar attacks were not at least part of the reason for the invasion. So, try again... Please point to any statement from the Israeli government, military, or senior politician that said that the rocket/mortar attacks had no bearing at all on the decision to go into Gaza. Fifteen non-lethal rocket attacks, outside of official Palestinian jurisdiction, constitute justification for the murderous war? I notice that once again you have avoided the question. So, let me ask this again... how many rocket/mortar attacks must Israel be subject to before you feel they are justified in taking actions to defend themselves militarily. Its a simple question. Give me a number. Nope, all it proves is that: A: There are a significant number of 'useful idiots' in the world and B: That the Palestinians have a more effective PR machine Sadly, the 'majority' is not always right. I can point to case after case where 'the majority' has engaged in beliefs that have shifted over time. So... you agree Hamas should have been stopping the rocket attacks, but shouldn't.... And you think Israel should what, just sit back and let rockets fall on its cities, in its school yards, etc? Except it wasn't "open season" on innocent Palestinians. Hamas has been very effective in using its own citizens as human shields. Things like that tend to increase the casualty count. By the way, ever hear of Jenine? If not, perhaps you should read up on it. It provides some very valuable lessons. Difference is, the people that Israel took tended to be engaged in terrorist activity (you know, launching rockets, kidnapping, etc.) The Israeli soldier was taken was not engaged in any sort of military action. The reason why I consider your views "one sided" is that while you claim you are pointing to Hamas' culpability you do things like: - make statements that Israel should just accept rockets/mortars falling on its territory because it was "just 15". - make statements that it was "open season" on Palestinians", without considering the fact that Hamas was using human shields No, the Palestinians did, by: A: Launching rockets/mortars into Israeli territory (something that was against the ceasefire, unless you can point to me any section of the piece agreement that allows the Palestinians to do so). B: Digging secret tunnels under the boarder C: kidnapping Israelis Israel should not be blamed for reacting to those activities, when it was the Palestinians who provoked them

Well, you are missing the obvious third option, which is to rely on their families (their children, grand-children, and great grand children). That will work for some people, but will not work for those that are either childless, or who are estranged from their children. (Not to mention the fact that if the parents are irresponsible with their money, there's a good chance that the children will be likewise irresponsible.) Because children make a good renewable food source? Yes, there are options for people to at least survive. But, not sure how far 'charity' will go. I'm unfamiliar with any charity that, for example, pays rent/utilities for people on a regular basis. Yes that certainly would be an improvement. Just having the money actually stay yours, in an account which you can check on at any time, and not be transferred to some black hole in the government for 50 years, would be a big improvement. Also has the advantage in that if you haven't spent all your CPP at the time you kick the bucket, the leftover can be transferred to your kids.

I probably could too. Most people probably could. The question is, if you allow people to opt out, what happens if people opt out and don't invest at all? (Decide to spend the money instead of save.) Or they decide to invest their retirement funds in Bre-X and Nortak shares? Such people could be left with nothing when it comes time to retire, or be forced to use welfare (which is, of course, paid for by the taxpayer.) The libertarian in me says we should minimize government interference, but the idea of people starving in the streets (or having to work until they're dead) doesn't appeal to me either. edited to add: Perhaps a program that allows people to opt out, but only if they put a matching amount into particular investment types might be in order, which would at least give partial ability to choose where your money goes.

Ah...so you take officials' contradictions as evidence of their honesty. Awesome. So, please point to me an official statement from the Israeli government, military, or senior politician in power that said that rocket/mortar attacks had no bearing at all on the decision to go into Gaza. Oh, by the way, I notice you seem to have ignored some of the questions I asked in post 20. Just to remind you, I had asked: - How many rocket attacks are necessary before you think military action was justified? You seem to think 15 wasn't enough, so how many is enough? - If Hamas (you know, the people voted into power by the Palestinians living in Gaza and the group that controls the police their) isn't responsible for stopping rocket attacks launched from Gaza territory, who is? - How many 'cease fire' agreements contain clauses that allow one of the countries/territories to dig secret tunnels into the other territory and kidnap people? Also notice you never responded to the fact that I debunked your claims that "Israel ended the ceasefire" when I pointed to multiple web sites showing it was Hamas who stated that the cease fire was over.

Keep in mind that the CPP has changed over the years. When it was created initially, payments to pensioners were taken out of payments from current workers (with any extra revenue stored in government securities). So, back then you didn't really "get much" from the plan. But back in the 90s, they changed the structure. CPP now invests in various stocks and bonds (some Canadian, some Foreign). So they are getting a 'real' return similar to mutual funds. (Personally, I think this is one of the smarter things Martin did as finance minister.) You can see the investments here: http://www.cppib.ca/Investments/

It should also be noted that water tested by the private lab did find evidence of contamination, and the Lab did fax the results to people working for the utility, but the head of the utility didn't know about it for 4 days. Perhaps the only thing that was needed was a rule that required the private testing labs to fax results to the public health officer as well as the utility. That might have made the difference.

Also may be more capable of traveling faster/further (useful if you need to intercept something in a hurry), capable of carrying more weight (useful if you need to carry larger bomb loads, etc.) They don't? Then why was the U.S. able to overthrow the Taliban largely by using air-power (directed by a small number of ground troops)? Not that I expect Canadian fighters to ever engage in dog fights, but the idea shouldn't be discounted totally. Just out of curiosity, what makes you think that Afghanistan is the last war in which they're "probably valid"? Are you assuming that there will never be any more wars, ever again?

Actually, the federal government did very little to help the banks out. They did purchase some mortgages from the banks, but that wasn't primarily to help the banks (since we didn't have the same problems with our markets that they had in the U.S.) It was to improve credit availability. The reason our banking system didn't have a crisis is probably because: - We didn't have as big a 'housing bubble' (overheated prices) as they had in the U.S. - Regulations keep our banks from taking higher risks

unless you've lived in a cave you're entire life you can't be that dumb, you know exactly what I mean... Yeah, I know what you meant. I've also notice that you actually failed to answer any of the questions.... Is it 'provocation' if we engage in trade with "the great satan"? Is it 'provocation' if we vote in the U.N. in a way that a terrorist group disagrees with? Is it 'provocation' if we send humanitarian aid to a region, if some group doesn't like who we're giving the aid to? You seem to be under the impression that military intervention is the only think that can cause others to not like us. Tell me after removing the Taliban did you think it was OK for young boys to be raped by afghan police? Ah yet another straw man. You really do love building those up, don't you... First of all, you seem to be suggesting that we replaced poor treatment of one group (women) with poor treatment of another (young boys). That's not true. In fact, the abuse of boys is something that, sadly, likely predates the taliban. From: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Former+Canadian+soldier+speaks+against+disgusting+child+rape+Afghanistan/2014450/story.html In July 2008, a UN special representative spoke out against the Afghan practise. “What I found was nobody talks about it; everyone says, ‘Well, you know, it’s been there for 1,000 years, so why do we want to raise this now?’ ” Its a disgusting practice, and hopefully one that will be eliminated (in fact, the above article actually points to Afghanistan soldiers getting arrested for the practice.) Fortunately, since we actually are involved with trying to rebuild Afghanistan, at least we have the chance of helping to stop the practice, whereas if we just stat at home in Canada our ability to intervene is severely limited. So, once again, why don't you answer the question: prior to the overthrow of the Taliban, did you think it was OK for women to be stoned for leaving their homes in Afghanistan? you're in fantasy land, Little Red and the Big Bad Wolf is for children... Not sure why exactly you would think its 'fantasy land' to think there might be a military conflict between North and South Korea... recall the sinking of a South Korean sub earlier this year. Yes, and al Quaeda was using Afghanistan as a base of operations, operating with impunity. The Taliban was not going to stop them. Ummm... the fact that some attacks come from stable states does not mean that all attacks come from stable states. Different threats call for different tools/tactics. Use traditional police/spy techniques to handle threats in western, modernized countries, use military force to handle threats coming areas outside the reach of "law". As I've said multiple times before, when necessary you use the appropriate tool in the appropriate situation. Umm...because it can... Nope, it can't. bin Laden was out of reach of the police in the U.S. The Taliban was not going to turn him over. And that's just one example. I can point to many more... - Milošević was not arrested despite some horrible human rights abuses until after NATO military action - Thousands of people were slaughtered in Rwanda. you have no response to the truth... I have plenty of response for the truth... just haven't seen much from you. Perhaps you don't know what a "straw man" is. A "straw man" is when you attack someone not by attacking their actual claims, but on made-up claims that you falsely assign to them. At no point have I said that terrorists will fly advanced fighters or invade our arctic. What you are doing is creating a 'straw man' when you say I did. What I did point out is that: - Advanced fighter planes (e.g. the F-35) will be helpful if we need to engage in military action against ground targets, should we decide to engage in roles similar to Afghanistan/Kosovo. - Fighter plans will also be necessary if we should we find it necessary to express our claims over arctic territory against other modern nations. Our actions in, for example, the Turbot war are a prime example of that. With the possibility of a 'clear' northwest passage and potential oil discoveries in the maritime areas, the ability to defend such areas becomes important. Or do you magically think that every country will automatically accept any claims we make just because we say "pretty please" - Planes are still needed in an interceptor role. No, not because I expect bin Laden to put together an air force, but because situations like 9/11 may happen again. paranoid fantasyland scenarios, about as realistic as needing to protect ourselves from alien invasion... So, what you're saying is that 9/11 didn't happen, and that there was no need for the U.S. to scramble planes on that day in an attempt to intercept airliners? So what you're saying is that from here on in, there will be no more people attempting genocide or other horrible rights abuses that need to be stopped militarily, and we just have to say "pretty please"?

Then why did you, in post 116, use the phrase "Hamas wouldn't be here now if it wasn't created by the Mossad"? Sounds like you're talking about creation to me... Ummm, "fighting"? I've already pointed out that in those early years Hamas was not engaging in violence. Don't you think that non-violent groups should be, you know, encouraged? No, the difference is that, back when Hamas first existed, they were not launching rockets at Israel and kidnapping its citizens.

From what I understand, one of the main characters (Edward) is supposed to be in love with Bella, a student. Which brings up a couple of issues: - Isn't that borderline pedophelia (or hebephilia, depending on how picky you are about definitions.) Edward is supposedly something like 100 years old (even though he doesn't age, mentally he's an 'adult') Bella is a teenager who hasn't even finished high school (she's what, 17)? - At one point Edward admits he has been watching Bella, even sneaking into her room when sleeping. Umm.... Isn't that sort of stalking? Most people would be more than a little creeped out if they found out that people were doing that.

http://headtripcomics.comicgenesis.com/d/20080505.html http://headtripcomics.comicgenesis.com/d/20080915.html http://www.punchanpie.net/cgi-bin/autokeenlite.cgi?date=20090105

Unlike the glory days of the early 90s, when the Labor party ended up with less than 35% of the vote, but still managed to gain power, in part due to support from the Shas party (a conservatively religious party). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_legislative_election,_1992 Now, I don't think there's anything wrong with coalitions of this type. I'm just pointing out that criticizing the current government for not winning majorities and aligning with religious groups is a bit hipocritical, considering such activities are common (and probably necessary, given the political system) in Israel.

Just in case my last post didn't do enough to debunk your flawed assessment of the situation, here is a official Israeli military web site: From: http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Terrorism+and+Islamic+Fundamentalism-/Aerial_strike_weapon_development_center+_Gaza_28-Dec-2008.htm The Air Force activity came as a result of the continuation of terror activity by Hamas terror organization from the Gaza Strip, and the duration of rocket launching and targeting Israeli civilians. See that part in bold? So it looks like rocket attacks were, according to the Israeli military, a reason for military action in Gaza. So, where exactly are your quotes from those officials claiming rocket attacks were not the cause? Nope, no contradictions. There were multiple reasons to send the military into Gaza... rocket attacks, kidnappings, the digging of illegal tunnels, statements from Hamas saying "the cease fire is over". The fact that someone mentions only one reason does not necessarily mean that those other reasons don't exist and aren't also valid.

Wrong. It was Hamas that actually declared the end of the cease fire. Israel wanted to extend it. The links given in my post to bloodyminded illustrate this. Oh, and just out of curiosity, how many ceasefire agreements do you know give permission of one side to dig secret, illegal tunnels to the other side to kidnap people? After all, that's what Hamas was doing. Personally, I think most countries would frown on that sort of thing. Can you point me to the part of the Israel-Hamas cease fire agreement that says "Hamas has the right to dig illegal tunnels into Israeli soil in order to kidnap soldiers"?

Ummm... once again... Hamas formed the government in Gaza. As such, they are responsible for law and order. Firing rockets off into foreign territory is an act that most governments would attempt to put a stop to. So, who do you think is responsible for providing law and order in Gaza? If you seem to think Hamas has no responsibility to stop attacks from Gaza soil, then who does? Oh, and you seem to think "fifteen rocket attacks" can be ignored. So, tell me, how many rocket attacks is a number before you'd agree military action is justified? Give me a number.... What about 20? 50? 100? Well, the kidnapping of Israeli citizens might have something to do with it, yeah. Most countries would frown on seeing people taken like that. Really? So what exactly do you think Hamas meant when they said: "The ceasefire is over and there won't be a renewal..." And what do you think the Hamas spokesman meant when they said: "there is no chance of extending the calm"? And what do you think Israeli spokesman said when they said "We hope the truce can be applied again"? You know, if someone actually looked at the statements made by Hamas and Israel, they'd actually conclude that Israel was the one wanting the cease fire to continue. I guess they don't have the awesome mind reading ability that you do. Oh, and by the way, how many peaceful governments, in the middle of a truce, decide to dig secret, illegal tunnels into the territory of the country they are "at peace" with and kidnap people? How dare that Evil Israeli government, actually trying to protect its citizens from kidnapping! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7791100.stm http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28298689/ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7712552.stm Oh, and by the way, here's a time line which also shows that it was Hamas that declared the end of the truce, even before it officially expired.... http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE50423320090105 Edited to add: I know you claimed that "rocket attacks were not the reason for the war", but keep this statement in mind from their defense minister: We have no intention of accepting the situation as it is developing in Gaza and we have no intention of accepting a continuation of fire on the Gaza envelope communities. (Defense Minister Ehud Barak... see: http://www.haaretz.com/news/strikes-on-negev-drop-as-hamas-holds-24-hour-truce-1.285531) So, it looks like the defense minister himself has said that the rocket attacks are at least part of the reason for Operation Lead Cast.

Once again, since you don't seem to have understood... Anyone who claims that "the occupation" began in the 1940s (i.e. when Israel is founded) and that said 'occupation' is wrong is denying Israel's right to exist. And that's what Libby said. The only rational defense that could be offered is to claim she mis-spoke and/or is ignorant of specific details. And if that's the case, then why is someone speaking out when they're as ignorant of the facts as she is?

Its quote possible that some of the reaction has been pure politics, and it was just a case of ignorance/foot and mouth disease on the part of Libby. However: - She had been given 2 dates; even if trying to remember specific years can be diffuclt, she should know enough about the situation in the middle east to know that the occupation didn't start at the earlier date - In the video, she made a point of talking about her visits to the West Bank/Gaza, so she was attempting to portray herself as someone who's "knowledgeable" about the situation. Yet if she doesn't know the situation well enough to know when the 'occupation' began, then she's relying more on emotion than facts/logic, something that is counterproductive in the situation. - She is the deputy leader, and as such you'd expect that she'd be a little more competent at handling situations like that.

The problem with that argument is that you seem to be assuming its an all-or-nothing situation. Israel is a democracy, and usually it treats Palestinians with more regard than Hamas. (Remember, during the Gaza invasion Hamas was willing to use schools as cover for launching attacks, and its members infiltrated hospitals. Not to mention Hamas' actions to seize aid and kill dissenters. Israel's record is not perfect by a long shot, but The myth that "Mossad created Hamas" is one that seems to get passed around with no critical examination. The fact is, Mossad did not create Hamas. It was actually founded by Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. Now, it was true that Israel allowed the organization to continue without interference in its early years. But in those years, the group was non-violent. They provided social services to the population. That should be the type of activity that Israel should support. (Its not like they hired a bunch of religious fanatics, gave them guns, and let them loose.) Uhh... keep in mind that the 'monster' that won the Gaza elections was not the same organization that was primarily concerned with building hospitals and schools back in the 80s (when Israel was supposedly "supporting" them.) Hamas changed (in their actions, if not their intent). Nope, they didn't. Hamas won the legislative elections in January 2006. They named their cabinet in March of 2006. Israel did not start its blockade until September 2007, over a year since Hamas first won the elections and many months after Hamas managed to consolidate power (and only after they had been subject to numerous rocket attacks from Gaza.) Note: here are some links giving the dates when these events happened. (They are from Wikipedia, which I don't usually use as a source, but we're just looking at dates here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza%E2%80%93Israel_conflict http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Hamas#2007_takeover_of_Gaza_Strip

There are actually different types of Security Council resolutions... Chapter 6 resolutions (of which 242 is one) is considered 'non-binding'. It is basically a recommendation, and carries no actual 'weight' in law. (And there is some truth to the idea that such resolutions must be accepted and acted upon by all parties. The fact that the Palestinians didn't recognize Israel does make the issue null and void, since no group is required to react unilaterally to Chapter 6 resolutions.) There are also Chapter 7 resolutions. These resolutions are binding, and can require unilateral action. For example, several of the resolutions against Iraq under Saddam were Chapter 7 resolutions.

Yeah, you're missing a lot of things... like the ability to apply critical, unbiased thinking over the situation. The state of Israel was founded in 1948. At the time, the West Bank/Gaza was not 'occupied territory'. If her goal was to suggest that Israel should end the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, they should return to the 1967 borders. By stating that the occupation began in 1948 (the year Israel was founded, and in far less territory than they have now), she's suggesting that all of the land of Israel is "occupied", and ending that occupation would end the state of Israel.

What a completely idiotic and retarded statement. You do realize that Hamas, as the 'leaders' of Gaza, are responsible for internal security, and as such it is their job to prevent attacks on adjacent territory, even if they did not launch the attacks.

I know given your rampant ignorance and bias against Israel you probably didn't know this, but since the initial claims were made, the U.N. has actually backtracked, and admitted that indeed Israel did not attack the school. Edited to add: Anyone else find it rather ironic that naiomiglover would try to use statements regarding the school attack to discredit Regev, even though Even the U.N. itself has admitted there was no attack on the school? From: http://www.haaretz.com/news/un-backtracks-on-claim-that-deadly-idf-strike-hit-gaza-school-1.269314 The United Nations has reversed its stance on one of the most contentious and bloody incidents of the recent Israel Defense Forces operation in Gaza, saying that an IDF mortar strike that killed 43 people on January 6 did not hit one of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency schools after all. ... Questions about the veracity of the claims that the school had been hit by the IDF were also raised last week by the Canadian newspaper The Globe and Mail. The newspaper said that a teacher in the UNRWA compound at the time of the strike "was adamant" that no people had been killed inside the compound. Additional links can be found here: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/un-disseminates-lies-to-willing-media/story-e6frg71f-1111118746706