JB Globe

Agreed. Religion is a red herring. Quite frankly people who are oppressed, disposed, poor or otherwise and flock to radical religious figures as a means of empowering themselves wouldn't stop if religion suddenly disappeared one day. They'd just flock to a radical nationalist, or someone that exploits ethnic pride for their gain, etc. What many fanatical athiests (as opposed to regular athiests) don't understand is that there are underlying issues to conflicts where religion is a factor, and those are often more important than religion itself. Fanatical athiests deserve that title because like Fanatical Christians, Muslims, etc - they believe utopia will occur once everyone starts to think like they think.

Actually, there's never going to be peace so long as people who support "one side" continue to believe they're angels and "the other" are devils.

That's a half truth, the whole truth is that the influence of those Egyptian and Jordinian lobbyists is a joke when compared to the Israeli lobby.

The US is usually one of the last nations to call on Israel for "restraint" when it initiates a campaign in Palestine or Lebanon. Next time one happens, watch which nations respond first, and what they say - the US is usually at the bottom of the pack and out of step in world opinion. And for the record - the ongoing cycle of violence that Israel submits to does noting but contribute to future violence in the region. The only thing retaliation does is satisfy a fearful or vengeful Israeli public and therefor keeps the careers of Israeli politicians safe for the time being. That of course, has nothing to do with the Israel-Palestinian conflict. In general, in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict the US tends to favour Israeli demands and Israeli claims more so than Palestinian. This is a result of several factors, the most influencial being the Israeli Lobby in Washington. To give you something you're familiar with, you may want to watch Christiane Amanpour's "God's Jewish Warriors" which aired on CNN - it's available on Youtube. The piece on the Israeli lobby, and how it softens US criticism of things like the security fence which was built in violation of the "roadmap to peace" is good, and stands as the only such investigation of the lobby I've seen on American television. The reason being of course is that to merely question the nature of Israeli-American relations is to invite a chorus of criticism not limited to, but including claims of anti-semitism.

Again, how cute - but the fact of the matter it's your personal opinion that Arar wasn't tortured isn't backed up by any factual information versus the findings of the Canadian judiciary, Parliament, and security agencies that say he was. These findings are supported by the Canadian public & all Canadian political parties. If I was ever proven this dead wrong on something, I'd probably save face and just be quiet. Of course I know it was on purpose. That doesn't make it right. Are we talking about security certificates? No. Than why are you bringing it up other than to distract from the issue at hand? Next time a security certificate post pops up, I'll be there criticizing that process as well, otherwise let's stick to Arar, shall we?

What he should have said is it's illegal under international law. And international law is the legal representation of a set of morals that the international community has agreed upon. ie - Genocide is wrong . . . Torture is wrong / Genocide is illegal . . . Torture is illegal

The US has exerted more pressure against both states than they have against Israel, even though Israel is the one that's been violating UN resolutions for decades now. Israel even dictates policy to the US through it's lobbying groups, can't say the same about Egypt and Jordan.

What I meant was that every political party acknowledges that Arar was tortured. A large majority of Canadians acknowledge this, and so does our judicial system. And in the other corner we have . . . You. That's cute, but I look at things on a case-by-case basis. And in terms of the Arar case, there was enough factual evidence to convince all major political parties, the Canadian public, and the judiciary - that's a one-two-three punch - your whining about it being "all lies" just doesn't stack up, sorry. It's not about my standards, it's about international law, and under international law, Arar was tortured. End of story. Is it a pre-requisite that neo-cons posses a complete inability to admit mistakes and learn from them? Is your ego that fragile that you can't admit that you were wrong about doubting Arar's story? How do you expect to grow as a human being if you can't recognize a mistake? How do you expect to not make the same mistake again if you don't learn from it? We're all wrong sometimes, get over yourself already.

That's your own personal "hunch," and nothing more, sorry. The O'Conner inquiry found that he was tortured, and the Conservatives, Liberals, NDP, Bloc & Greens have all accepted these findings, as well as the Canadian public. I mean, really - do you know something Harper doesn't? Do you have access to information O'Conner didn't? Or did you arrive at this conclusion because you dismissed all evidence to the contrary as "lies?"

How so? Explain.

And that's the problem. You never give any ally a blank cheque, ever.

I've always found it cute how xenophobes can go on emotional diatribes for 4000 words yet can't scrounge up a single stat (that hasn't been taken out of context) to prove any of their garbage. Case in point - this thead.

Have you ever stopped to think that perhaps, the way you're seeing the world is wrong? I've vigorously questioned my own beliefs on a number of topics - have you? Or have you just always assumed you're right because you're you and you're never wrong? I mean, after all, you can't seem to provide any factual evidence to back up your claims. So how true is something if it can't be proven? How accurately are you seeing the world?

Do you have any factual evidence to support this claim? You wouldn't let someone say "all white people are violent racists" without asking them to back it up. So why do you think you get a free pass?

You'reout of touch with non-Anglo Canadian society if you think that any national policy aimed at eliminating non-Anglo culture will DECREASE instances of communal tension. It would be a disaster - you'd push everyone who isn't Anglo into a corner, and they would feel threatened (and rightly so) for their survival as a community. Now does that sound like a scenario that would be peaceful? Or violent? But I'm actually interested in seeing how this policy idea of yours actually looks like. Does it look like what France is doing? Because it doesn't look like a success story there. Are Anglo-Canadians immune from this ethnic volatility? Really? Compared to which nation are we failing so miserably? Which nation that has a diverse population is doing a drastically better job than we are? There's a hell of a lot we can do better, but you don't through out the baby with the bathwater.

And where are these facts? Because I just read your entire response and there wasn't a single piece of factual evidence present. It consisted of a rambling narrative about some day in the future where the end will come and Canada will explode or implode on itself because we let too many of "them" in "our" home. We just have to "trust you" that these claims of yours are true. You're really not helping dispel the observation that White Nationalism is a purely emotional response to an irrational fear of difference. The main problem with this line of thinking is it prevents any rational discussion of issues such as this gang assault, that obviously involved an ethnic rivalry/hatred.

Personally I think he's a prick - he seems to enjoy being an ass while making his arguments. But I'd love to know just what info they have that deems him a national security risk.

Not excusing what happened, because it was wrong and needs to be rectified - but don't you think you're overreacting here? I mean, when there's a bar brawl involving a bunch of white Canadians - do you immediately recommend they be shipped out? Or are you applying different standards of decency to different Canadians based on their ethnicity? Please explain how you'd go through the process of legally deporting a Canadian citizen - because I'm not aware that you can do that without violating someone's constitutional rights.

Not exactly the same - any of those groups are not suspected by majority society of being "the enemy" and a source of bloodshed. Neither can religion be used against them in an effort to bar them from purchasing property in certain neighborhoods. Although I will admit, seeing as how the initial creation of Israel was a colonial enterprise, it did bear a few similarities to the kinds of things that happened to natives when Canada was being settled.

It's alright, the big apology wasn't necessary. Simple mistake. And although I've never been to Israel I generally don't chastize Israelis as I chastize Canadian Jews who are as removed from the day-to-day of the conflict as I am. When I speak to Israelis I speak practically about the inevitability of a two-state solution, and how any moves to sabotage the Palestinians just prolong the outcome and cause more bloodshed on both sides.

Just like antisemitism in the Arab world is a lot more complicated than "Arabs hate Jews" - of course, I don't have the time for an expose of either subject. My point is that life as a minority in Israel is worse than life as a minority in other countries based simply on the amount of economic and social marginalization they face. And we shouldn't be comparing Israel's treatment of it's minorities to other dictatorships, we should be comparing it's treatment to other democracies, and when you do that it's clear Israel has a lot of work to be done.

I disagree, for someone who prides themself on being "a good Jew" to be consistently doing things which go against the fundamental teachings of our religion makes such a comment appropriate. I don't lecture folks on personal wrongs, but taking joy in violence, even between perceived enemies is a big no-no. I don't see anything wrong with it, just like I don't see anything wrong in making the point to other Jews that to support the Occupation is a betrayal of the hardships faced by our ancestors who were themselves oppressed for thousands of years.

On paper yes, in reality no. According to the Charter, all Canadians have democratic rights too - yet some of us live in 400 000 dollar homes and some of us live in trailers on reserves without access to clean water. Are you really denying that there is societal discrimination by the majority against minority groups within Israel?

I agree. I agree, I was using a shorthand, I didn't have the time for a lengthy post. I don't see anything patronizing about it. I find it inspiring how they have maintained their identity in the face of occupation by Israel and marginalization by the Arab states. They're not doing anything Jews didn't do in Europe for centuries in that sense when faced with oppression - except their circumstances are in general more severe (save say, the Inquisition). In fact you see this in any case where a group is oppressed and their future threatened - there's always a renewed interest in history and a new commitment towards protecting that history and customs. And since I acknowledged that Palestinians have also had a part in creating the situation in Palestine (Fatah's corruption and ineptitude, Hamas' extremism) I assumed that would make it clear that I don't view them as "helpless"

Actually, in an ideal world the "animals" you're referring to would see the error of their ways and embrace non-violent means of change. You should hope for that before you hope they wipe each other out - because the later case involves something the former doesn't - innocent civilians getting caught in the crossfire. But you're right that there are warmongers and peacemongers on both sides, with the warmongers having the upper hand in both camps.