Kitchener

Or spend a few days wandering around Mexico City, or East St Louis. Or just give up on foolish cherry-picking to shore up pernicious bigotry.

CanWest springing for a scientifically incompetent survey about evolution? Who could have called it?

Source So as it turns out in this recent poll t hat most Canadians want immigrants to adapt to Canadian ways of life instead of us accommodating them to no end. I'm personally shocked by this but am happy about it. It shows just how out of touch the Canadian Federal, provincial and city government are to real Canadians. Yet they continue to push for us to accommodate them when 81% of don't think we should. Actually, since recognizing sharia law as a basis for settling family disputes is entirely consistent with adopting mainstream Canadian beliefs, it shows only your obsessive-compulsive hysteria about Islam and poor reading comprehension. (Ontario recognized Orthodox Jewish family law for over a decade. Did that mean that Jews just weren't adopting mainstream Canadian beliefs?) It's perfectly clear what the most dangerous attitudes expressed in your post are.

There was not yet a war. (It's also unclear just what Union army you think was sufficient to militarily occupy a state so large and populous as North Carolina, with an entire frontier also to garrison at a time when Lincoln had only just asked for forces to be assembled.) Shouldn't you learn something -- anything -- about these events before pontificating on them? The "island-hopping" strategy in the Pacific was undertaken precisely for the purpose of gradually securing the ability to strike Japanese mainland cities. (Um, except Midway, which, you might recall, was a Japanese attack, not an Allied one. ) The African campaigns were undertaken substantially because those were the only places where the Germans and (at the outset) the Italians were not sufficiently fortified to block the landing of troops. (See Dieppe.) More to the point, however, the Allies undertook the bombing of civilians before their attacks on Egypt and Italian East Africa; the first of those African offensives beginning a month after the British renounced their erstwhile notional commitment to bombing only military targets. By the time the war in Africa heated up and dragged in the Germans fully, the British (and Americans) had been devoting massive resources to the wholesale destruction of German cities for some time. As just shown, you haven't a clue what you're talking about. Since both sides clearly intend to be the ultimate victors, following your advice means total war from all sides. Funny, though, how total war tactics by the other guys are so standardly taken as evidence of their evilness, while you characterize only the "good guys" as being humane in their massacres of civilians. Then you are advocating neither (i) total war nor (ii) what the Allies and Sherman did. Of course. So we should say that the Germans were being humane in their bombing of Rotterdam. It was every bit as humane as the bombing of Dresden, after all... Yet somehow I doubt that's your intention. Rather, as your choice of examples and your postings on other threads demonstrates, this sort of thinking isn't meant to excuse attacks on civilians generally -- no, no, the bad guys are still bad because of their attacks on civilians. It's just that the good guys are good because of their attacks on civilians. Our total war is humane. Their total war is terroristic. The whole thing could have been much shorter, more honest, and have spared us the history tour through a parallel universe, if you had just said: My side is Good, so it's not an atrocity when we do it. No single slogan could more aptly capture most of MLW's current glib dismissal of civilian casualties in Gaza, quite frankly.

Stopped reading at delusional strawman.

Good one. I'm sure the civilians targeted and killed by some Jewish militants were far less dead because it didn't happen at the Olympics. Rockets, artillery, automatic weapons, tanks, bulldozers -- yes, on many occasions since the founding of the modern state of Israel. Not to my knowledge. Car bombs and murder worked well enough for the militants at first, and their military has had access to more sophisticated means of payload delivery ever since. I don't know. I do know (as you would, if you cared) that massive amounts of private money have been raised over the decades to support violent "settler" incursions and land grabs into land owned by Palestinians, including funds to support the families of settlers killed in these occupations. Is the "telethon" the morally repugnant element, or the raising of private funds to support the families of people who die violently in the course of committing premeditated acts of violence? Ooh, they did some things! How intellectually forthright of you to put this fine a point on it! And of course the Palestinians aren't "trying to create their nation, as all citizens do". Seriously, you should read what you write before clicking "Add Reply". You might notice your incandescent double-standards at work if you did. Nothing you've written has indicated any such conclusion. But in any case, I made neither of those claims. I just pointed out the absurdity of your contrived claim that Jewish militants "never did anything like what has and is being done to them and for those reasons no comparison can be made". You can twist and evade all you like, but the reality is utterly uncontroversial: they did much that was very like what's been done to them, and comparisons can very clearly be made.

Some of them planted car bombs, killed civilians, targeted police officers, murdered other Jews suspected of assisting the British... There were good reasons why the British referred to them as terrorists in their official reports. What do you mean by the claim that those settlers/militants never did anything like what has been done to them?

Those civilian casualty numbers? They only included women and children civilians. UN briefing transcript, Dec 29:

The resulting rightwing brownout that would result from following this prescription might cause MLW to fade away...

:lol:

But don't let facts get in the way of your story about how Hamas started with attacks on Fatah. Somehow it doesn't count that Hamas won properly conducted elections -- even though Fatah, and not Hamas, were permitted to campaign beyond Israeli checkpoints -- because, uh, why again?

Gosh, really? Does it say it in your head when you listen really hard? Because, I know this is probably cheating or somesuch, but I actually read the entry -- the actual words, I mean -- and it doesn't say a thing remotely like the bold-faced claim. The only mention of killing is: "Fatah leader in the West Bank Marwan Barghouti, who was in prison in Israel after being convicted for a number of intifada killings", and the only reference to violence associated with the election is the observation that Israeli forces opened fire on a schoolhouse polling station. So maybe reading your own sources before posting your LOLs would be a good idea, eh? Making you look at least marginally less like a crank?

No, no -- I didn't ask for a goofy evasion. Just a year range. Let's have it, now: 1400-1600? 1850-1890? 1935-1950? You're the one who's full of big claims about what we have to go back to. Sure, sign me up! Just as soon as you tell me when we're going back to, so I can investigate a bit and find out just what these "family values" you're burbling about really amounted to. And if there's no such time -- if it's just a vaguely imagined article of faith you've internalized from one too many AM radio drive-time talk shows -- shouldn't you be keen to discover this and lose your delusions? It's win-win! So... what's the time you want to go back to?

That "Pallywood"! Making Israel ban journalists, so that any reports could be dismissed as "only Palestinians". How sneaky of them! Then making Israel change its story about the Grad rock- I mean, the materiel... that had formerly been stored... in some place that, um, used to have rockets, honest, in it! Man, Pallywood sure does deceptive stuff, huh? Fortunately, it's a cool sounding word. You can just keep saying it, sort of like a mantra, until the uncomfortable data fade from your mind. Pallywood. Pallywood. Liberal media. Major Avital Leibovich, said: "Quite a few outlets are very favourable to Israel." Doh! I mean -- Pallywood. Pallywood... cognitive dissonance fading... Pallywood...

Can you give a year range during which you think all this was being done basically right? What time, exactly, do you want to go back to? Because it seems pretty clear that you don't want to go back to some earlier time. You want to go sideways, into TV-Tropolis, where it's always Little House on the Prairie, and Half-Pint's only going to cuddle with Manly after they're married, and neither Ma nor Pa drinks nor beats the crap out of the kids or each other, and the kids don't work long hours from the time they're eight years old, and marriage isn't the outcome of pregnancy rather than vice-versa... I mean, if you're going to crusade with your Big Plan For How We Should Live, shouldn't you have at least some small fraction of a clue first? The past you're raving about -- did it ever actually exist, or did you dream it with the help of TV, movies, and various literal and figurative sermons?

For instance. Profession of faith that BBC, grieving father, photographic evidence, and Israeli group B'Tselem are all terrorists/unreliable/pro-Nazi in 5, 4, 3...

Of course. It's all about publicizing y- uh, I mean, the little babies.

First night, just in case. Naturally. But if she's still giving you blowjobs after two weeks, why, then she's marrying material! Keep talking. I can feel that sympathy building as you show off your worldview and all its grand subtleties!

Allowing people to take aspirin for their hangovers is unacceptable, because it breeds further irresponsibility. Oh, and also, extra, additionally to irresponsibility, NOT RESPONSIBILITY!1!111!

I'm sure you will get precisely the sympathy you earn with remarks about how "loose" women are for "fellatio duty" only. Rabidly sexist wingnuttery FTL!

Plausibly, people "miss" this because it's an obvious falsehood. "The area" was productive and populated; it was a known exporter of olive oil, fruit, and other products, and it was wanted by the people who lived there, tending crops, and orchards, and their homes.

Evidence currently available makes it unwise to say of any mistake that Sarah Palin could not make it.

Yes, calling them radicals was pretty supportive of me, huh? Granted you only have that hammer; but it still must be hard to make everything look like a nail, eh?

I really couldn't say. Just from reading, it's impossible to tell what the cause is -- but the effects are clear.

You got that right.