JB Globe

I'm not going to bite on your strawman: Israel can defend itself. The question is - what is the best way? Do you want Israel to lower itself and start adopting unethical methods in the PR campaign? Or do you want Israel to take the high road? Personally, I think that the country that constantly lauds itself as "the only working democracy in the Middle East" probably should take the high road. It's not only the more ethical thing to do, it's probably the more effective thing to do.

But as far as I know this is the first time a democratic state that has a free media has been doing it. I know China has been using it's Communist Youth Party to do similar things for a while now.

See how easy that was? So let me get this straight - you're essentially making the claim that you know my reality better than I do. Supposedly because I'm "liberal" and you're "conservative" and thus any of my experiences are invalid, versus yours which are always valid . . . Essentially - you're right because you say you're right. Great, airtight ish right there. Any body who's learned & lived experiences that cause them to arrive at a different worldview from you MUST be naive, because you can't be wrong, because you're you, and you're always right. But of course, you're really reaching here, because you know nothing about me, it's all unsubstantiated speculation. And nice job at not responding to any of my actual points, let's lay it out for you . . . 1 - Islam has no worse of a history of anti-semitism than Christianity does (as I've discussed with you before) 2 - The main cause of anti-semitism in the Muslim community is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If you had bothered to ask me about my experiences with Muslims rather than assuming, you might have found out the following: - Bigotry exists, but rarely are these people with these views hostile, and most of the time they actually listen to what I have to say. - People are less on-edge once they realize I'm not an ultra-nationalist Zionist - People actually WANT to discuss controversial things with me, because for some of the older guys, they never get a chance to talk with someone who's Jewish. - I'm friends with people who hold bigoted views about something or other, I just don't hang out with people whose bigotry is overwhelming. Now let me ask you something, rather than make assumptions: How is it that someone who holds such negative views about Islam, and is distrustful of Muslims in general, has so much regular contact with Muslims and so many deep discussions with them? After all, you were the guy who said that a Muslim neighbour of yours would have to prove himself to not be an extremist before you would bother socializing with him. I have to admit I find it odd that someone who admits to being prejudiced and antisocial towards a group has so many friends from that group.

Everyone? Care to back that up?

This is cute and everything, but I'm still waiting for you to answer the following points: 1 - How do you know more about the Courtenay incident than the police, to the point where you can claim that the black male is the instigator? What evidence do you have that is motivating you to defend those white males charged with assault? And why aren't you turning it over to police? 2 - Where is a link to a reputable English source about this "hate crime" in Montreal?

From the Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...-ministry-media Apparently this effort even asks people to pose as a local resident of a town served by a local paper and send letters to the editor, posing as a town resident in support of Israel. Quite disingenuous. And this is now being done by the foreign affairs ministry? Pretty sad if they have to resort to this behavior.

Then Toronto should be rife with anti-Hindu sentiment . . . But it isn't . . .

Actually, they were seized because their parents taught them that it was okay to kill people that weren't white, among other criteria such as terrible sanitation, bad nutrition, etc. From what I've seen, read, and experienced directly first-hand for 15 years that attitude is about as widespread as it is in my own Jewish community. Well, actually being Jewish, and visiting mosques, Muslim weddings, etc - that has not been my experience at all. I've definitely met Muslims who are somewhat hostile towards Jews, just like I've met Jews who are hostile towards Muslims. You know why? Israel-Palestine. Subtract that deeply polarizing conflict and there would be as much tension between Muslims and Jews as there is between Christians and Jews. I explained this more in-depth a few months ago. I'll agree to investigating Muslim schools for inciting ethnic hatred when the same is done at Jewish Day Schools that teach that Muslims are barbarians.

I get it - you don't believe it was a hate crime, and you're totally entitled to think that. But unfortunately for you, your opinion is insignificant when compared to the findings of the police who investigated the incident, who found through video and witness testimony that yes, this was a hate crime. Why should anyone listen to you? You know much, much, much, less about this than the police do, so why is that you say of any value to anyone? Your argument thus far has been: "This isn't a hate crime because I say so and I'm always right, because I'm me!" If you're going to behave like a little child, don't get angry when people don't take you seriously. You really should have cut your losses a long time a go and left, now you're a laughing stock.

This is the first case I've heard of where a government is paying people to target comment sections on news websites and blogs as part of a coordinated PR campaign. I have some problems with it: I don't think it's ethical to pose as John Q Public and make a political argument if in fact you are being paid to make those arguments. That's pretty blatant deception, but I guess they're rationalizing this as the ends justify the means? I think that's pretty bankrupt myself. I'm not sure if it's going to work or not, I'm sure news of this is going to spread, and it may end up backfiring. People may just start assuming that hardline Israeli-nationalist arguments come from a professional commenter, and may start writing everyone off, including people who aren't getting paid, and dismissing those comments out of hand, rather than at least engaging with them. Also, I think that if any political movement or government has to resort to paying people to say they agree with what they're doing, than it reflects that their policies simply do not appeal to the general population. It also says a lot about the leadership of a group that does this that would rather try and use manipulation rather than being bold and trying to re-shape their policy.

I admit I don't know much about Montreal's history in terms of racism, but I can tell you that Toronto was definitely more racist in the past than it is now. The Christie Pits riots and the actions of the Swastik Club in public parks being a prime example. Back then racists focused on what was considered the "most other" in society: religiously it was Jews, ethnically it was Southern Europeans. Their focus shifted as "more different" groups started to immigrate from South Asia and the Caribbean. This continued right up until the 70's, when police bowed to public pressure finally started seriously prosecuting a lot of the crimes committed against minorities, such as swarmings on the subway and White Nationalist groups promoting violence against minorities.

That's because it's not a hate crime just because the perp and victim happen to be of different races. You know this, right?

Which "White Nationalist Misinformation Handbook" edition are you using? 1982 or 1976? see section 24-156: "Racism only exists because minorities keep it going. ie - if the Jews would stop whining when we beat them up there wouldn't be a problem." Looks like the pot is calling the kettle black - pun fully intended. Oh this is classic! You're claiming that the police are wrong in their conclusion that this is a case of an assault motivated by racism against the black victim. You're claiming that the witness statements are false, and that the video doesn't show what the police, every media outlet, and the general public of Courtney and Canada believe it to show: that a black man was assaulted by 3 white men yelling slurs. Essentially: You're claiming you know more about this incident than police because the police are part of the international (Jewish?) conspiracy against white people, and they only prosecuted this crime because of their secret anti-white mandate that only you and your White Nationalist buddies are wise enough to see. And we're all supposed to believe you because . . . Because why exactly? Why should any of us believe some random person on the internet whining about: "The black guy was the perp! Trust me! I'm right about this because I'm me and I'm right about everything! That's what my friends on Stormfront say!" Solid argument there. Like I said before, I didn't know about that incident, and I don't speak French, hence why I'm not going to comment on it UNTIL I read something about it from a reputable source in English. I'm not going to "take your word for it" that the incident is what you say it is. If it turns out that these youth beat up the girl because she was white, than I will surely call it a hate crime. Why aren't you going to spend 10 seconds and post an article so that we can all verify the incident really is what you say it is? Are you hiding something? Perhaps it isn't a hate crime but you're doing some more White Nationalist misinformation to make it appear that it is?

Really? Why?

The fact that witnesses confirmed that they drove up to him yelling racial slurs and telling him they were going to lynch him. Absolutely. You're trying every angle to get around the fact that three white men committed a hate crime. The reason being is because you're a White Nationalist who sees the world in absolutes: and since white people are the good guys, they can't do anything wrong, so in order for your worldview to be airtight you have to deny any instance of white people being racist or downplay it. That's why you started by claiming the video showed the victim was the aggressor, and when it became clear no one agreed with you (including the police) you gave up and went ahead and started trying to convince us that the attack was okay because somewhere else black people beat up a white kid. Now I'm not familiar with that case, but I am familiar with hate crime laws, and in order for something to be a hate crime race has to be a motivating factor in committing the assault. That's why when an Indian guy robs a Chinese guy or vice-versa because they need money it's not a hate crime - race was not a factor in committing the crime, it doesn't matter what the race of the victim/perp is, they could both be the same race. It's still not even enough if 3 white guys beat up a black guy, and as they're beating him they yell slurs. It's not enough because in court this isn't enough evidence for a hate crime - people say all kinds of things when they are emotional, if the victim was white and fat, they may have called him a fatty instead. Using a slur means the person might have racist tendencies, but it doesn't prove that the crime is a hate crime. You have to show that prior to the crime they had a pre-meditated plan to commit the crime against someone because of their race. Pre-meditated could mean they planned it out days in advance, or they were cruising down the street and said "hey let's beat up that black guy" Basically it's any evidence to suggest that at any time prior to the actual crime they made it clear they were singling out the victim for attack because of their race. In the case in BC, it was absolutely clear that's what they were doing. I don't know about that case in Montreal, and I don't speak French, so you're going to have to get something for me to look at that is from a reputable newspaper or TV channel. I absolutely will not accept any "reports" from White Nationalist sources. But of course, at the end of the day, I don't see how what happened in Montreal, hate crime or not, excuses what happened in BC, which seems to be what you're trying to do.

WRONG It is illegal. As stated in this news item on racism at Calgary Bars which I posted earlier, in Canada owners of establishments CANNOT prevent entry to, or deny service to someone based on race. To do so is illegal. Please stop peeing on our feet and telling us it's raining. . . . The news stories again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plQpLPy1eao http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgHelRCSxQw...feature=related

No he isn't. The police have seen the tape as well, and they don't think so. They also took statements from witnesses who said that the whole thing started when these guys drove up to the man and started hurling racial slurs and threats of physical violence against him. No, a hate crime happens when race is a motivating factor in committing a crime, and given the witness statements and the video, police have already stated it appears that race is a motivating factor in this crime. So, yes, this is a hate crime. But you already know that, because you read the same reports I did, so you're not really ignorant about the facts of this incident, it's just that your level of bigotry is so extreme that you are not thinking rationally. That's why instead of just not commenting here, because it's a no-win situation, you're frantically throwing all kinds of s**t at the wall and hoping something, anything sticks.

Because . . . He's black? Because he wears clothing you don't wear? At least you made yourself obvious in your first sentence, lots of folks here try to hide it and bury it in the post and it takes it longer to discover their White Nationalist tendencies.

Okay, but then you would have to seize many Jewish and Christian children as well. I'm not sure what you mean by the "orthodoxy" of Canada. If you mean mainstream Canadian values (which at their most basic are good government, rule of law, justice, civil society) I completely disagree with your statement that Muslims in general are opposed to them. That has not been my personal experience growing up among Muslims, nor is there any statistical evidence to support such a statement.

Don't worry, that wasn't cynical in the slightest. There are practical reasons why AI spends their resources in the way they do. They are more likely to spend money where their findings will influence change in political policy. North Korea could give a rat's ass about an AI report, because it's a police state that doesn't care about human rights, so doing a huge investigation there won't affect any change. So why spend the money? They don't have a limitless budget. It would be better spend investigating human rights in India where the findings of a report might cause a political firestorm and result in public pressure that changes policy and eventually the situation on the ground. They will still investigate countries that have limited access to information and lots of censorship if they feel they can still get enough information to influence international policy and the issue at hand is severe. ie - Sudan & Darfur. They also investigate "closed nations" in the context of proving or disproving allegations made by another government which was using those allegations as a pretext for their own policy (ie - war, sanctions, etc) AI did this with Saddam Hussein and found many of the allegations to be true, and Bush even quoted from their reports in his press conferences. And that brings me to another point, lots of governments tend to quote AI reports that criticize their enemies but claim "propaganda" when AI uses the same methodology to compile a report on their own side. ie - "AI reports on Saddam were correct, but AI reports on the US occupation of Iraq are totally wrong" AI still investigated Hamas and criticizes them in their report on the Gaza Conflict, but I really think your opinion of AI on this issue has more to do with how you view the conflict (good guy vs bad guy, rather than a deeply polarized conflict where both sides have committed abuses and violations of international law) rather than how AI conducts itself.

I'm sorry people, but you can't do a big song and dance about "Hamas propaganda" if you're going to use IDF statistics to back up your argument. I'm not sure how you can trust the IDF to be truthful about stats considering their deception during the conflict about their various tactics, remember the whole: "We don't use white phosphorous . . . What footage of us using it on CNN? . . . Okay, okay, we use WP, but only in accordance with international law . . . What? International law says we can't use it in civilian areas? But it's special WP that only hurts evil people, so it's okay." In a deeply polarized conflict you can't trust either side to be objective, especially when the stats they provide are not compiled in a TRANSPARENT MANNER, but using methods and raw data that remains secret because revealing it would be "a security risk" This goes for Israel-Palestine, Sri Lanka, or any other long-running conflict where emotions run high on the regular. When you must win at all costs, people on either side tend to stop caring about what's true, and start caring only about what makes their side look good. Please find an objective source next time.

No, I read that part where you theorized that most of the dead were Hamas fighters. I'm not sure how your personal hunch invalidates the findings of one of the world's most respected international organizations.

Than why are people in this post dumbing things down so much? Why not just go all the way and re-name the post: "The Problem with people who don't think like me is that they are evil"

Why would the state seize three or four hundred thousand Muslim kids?

Israel absolutely does not face a daily struggle for its existence.