Moonbox

In some cases you can. Border outposts are extremely useful for surveillance, checkpoints and buffers. The 'punishments' are not directed at palestinian civilians and it's foolish to indicate as such. They're directed at militants (Hamas etc) that insist on launching attacks from WITHIN civilian populations. When retaliatory attacks end up hitting civilians, the vast majority of the time it's because of Hamas' use of human shields. The civilians have Hamas to blame, and themselves. Hamas for hiding behind them, and the Palestinians at large for doing nothing to curb their militants. International law is a subject generally open to interpretations. The land itself has no real and rightful sovereign owner, and it hasn't for almost 100 years. It was largely taken from Jordan and the Jewish settlers are not forcibly being transferred there. It would be a pretty shakey argument to suggest that Israel would be wise to give these lands up without any firm commitment to peace from the other side. Like I said, International Law is a pretty fluffy concept. I can't argue that Israel hasn't broken a number of International Laws, but the other side is certainly not operating from within that framework and you can't even pretend they are. Two wrongs don't make right but the hypocrisy is galling when people focus exclusively on Israel's violation and ignore that they ARE INDEED being attacked and the other side is committing widespread violations themselves.

Sometimes the best way to respond to a stupid analogy is to provide an equally stupid analogy from the opposite perspective. It helps clarify the vast logical errors and omissions made. Analogies are a generally weak form of argument regardless, especially when they're dumbed down to this level. All of this, and the sarcasm intended, were lost on you, which speaks volumes about who is 'retarded' around here. Don't see why the insults were necessary.

Hamas and Hezbollah etc should apologize for attacking Israeli targets and then attempting to avoid retaliation by hiding in populated areas. When Israel is attacked they have a right to retaliate. If its enemies cared they COULD hide away from hospitals and schools etc.

This is a terrible analogy because it ignores most of the issues at hand... Let's expand upon your analogy shall we? First, let's say your brother is older than you. He had the room all to himself at first. Then you were born, and your parents moved you into the room and split it between the two of you. Since then, your brother has on numerous occassions beat on you for being there but interestingly enough but you took self defense class and learned to defend yourself. Last time he tried to take over your half of the room you sent him back with his tail between his legs and you built a fort (on his side) to keep him out of your half of the room. Since then, he has filled his room with school children and has been lobbing snot rags over the fort into your half of the room. Unsurprisingly, the ladies you bring home are unimpressed. As retaliation, you throw snot rags back at his half of the room. Unfortunately, the school children also get hurt, but what are you supposed to do about that?

Despite the slur Dancer that was REALLY funny! One of the funniest things I've read here so far.

That's exactly how it is. The thing is that one side is largely content to live inside its borders (aside from tiny settlements here and there) and the other side is determined to wipe the other off the face of the planet. Think about it. If you have outlying settlements they can basically act as security outposts for you. It pushes friendly territory outwards and makes certain that any rocket attacks on big Jewish population centres have to be conducted further away than if the settlements were not there. The settlements themselves are not really in danger of rocket attacks. It would be a waste of rockets to fire salvos at villages and hamlets. It's not a human shield at all. The whole point, however, is that one side is not interested in an end to hostilities by their OWN ADMISSION until the other side no longer exists. Easy. Of the two sides, Israel seems largely content to be left alone in peace within its own borders. Israel's aggression has been highly reactive rather than proactive (it has the means to vastly expand its territories but doesn't) and of the two sides it is the one NOT calling for the overall death and destruction of the other side. It is NOT advocating the murder of innocents and it is NOT refusing to acknowledge the other side's right to exist. Finally, Israel, being the area/country in question, is a very real entity with a very real interest in the peace process. It's Israel's territory and people that get killed during attacks. Iran and the frothing clerics calling for the death of Israel have ZERO interest in the peace process. It's their overall GOAL to foment violence and instability in the area. My position is quite explicit. This, however, does not exclude the possibility that my rationalization is sound. I've already eplained why the side engaging at least in the dialogue of peace and the side restraining its aggression is on the better side of the conflict. I'm ridiculing how moronically naive your suggestion is. The world 60 years ago was very different than today. Palestine was divied up and handed to the Jews in the same sort of way conquerors and imperialists had been doing for thousands of years. That SPECICIC area has been conquered and reconquered more than anywhere in the world since the beginning of civilization. Back then, that sort of thing was commonplace. Today however, with a vastly more educated and engaged world at large, it would not be permitted. It was an injustice in today's (and my own) moral sense. Having said that, it is not an injustice that can now be reversed. The bottom line is that there are 5-6 million Jews living in Israel right now that are simply not going anywhere. Most of these were born in Israel and have lived there all their lives. Similarly, this is not an injustice that can be realistically redeemed. What sort of restitution do you think would be acceptable for an area of land populated by 7+ million people? Do you believe that the Israelis can buy their enemies off? At what price? What do you feel an apology would accomplish? The reason Israel was chosen as a homeland for the Jews was because they at least have ancient ancestral ties there which give them at at least SOME legitimacy for being there. When the sticking point for Israel's enemies being the elimination of Israel proper and a refusal to acknowledge its right to exist, it's idiotic to suggest Israeli born Jews apologize for their ancestors and apologize for existing, thus erasing any shred of legitimacy they feel they have. My arguments here are based on about 3000 years of world history and a firm grip on reality, which is clearly evading you. You don't seem to understand how deep the fears, anger and hurts run over there. You're not the sage, level headed and neutral philosopher you're pretending to be. Your notion of 'fair dealings' and 'good faith' is incredibly twisted and based on 'injustices' approaching a century old. Israel's enemies (their real ones, meaning not just the people of Lebanon/Palestine etc, but rather Iran, its allies, and the rabid clerics calling for Israel's destruction), are simply NOT interested in peace. If they were interested in peace, and there was something they actually felt would be WORTH an end to hostilities, it's reasonable to assume they would ask for it. They're not doing this. With this in mind, your suggestion that Israel makes apologies and concessions for the land it currently occupies is brainless. All it does is weaken Israel and strengthen its enemies. You're saying that it would be a good idea for Israel to further endanger itself in 'gestures of good faith' with the knowledge that they'd be receiving nothing good in return. It's like dropping your gun to offer a candy bar to a starving lion in the hopes that it will leave you alone. As far as we in the West are concerned, it's not like we're condoning Israeli aggression. Things like the Lebanese war and the Gaza offensive were criticized HEAVILY. The West also supplies large amounts of aid etc to Palestinians. The main problem the west has with Israel's enemies, however, is that they're operating in shadows and the only dialogue they're offering is one of violence.

No, you responded with another stupid one-liner. You haven't made a valid point as long as I've been following this thread.

Go back to page 69 of this thread. I asked you a few very clear, very practical questions that simply cannot be ignored in this discussion. I've asked them more than once in this thread. Maybe you missed them....several times....but before you even TRY to criticize dobbin for misrepresentation maybe you could get your head out of your fairyland and come up with some REAL and practical answers to the questions we've been talking about.

Benny is just spamming. He hasn't added an intelligent post longer than 1 sentence in this whole thread as far as I can tell.

Why shouldn't it?

'Christian' values are in no way superior to 'Islamic' values. Islam is a religion of peace. There are simply a lot of people who have distorted and perverted its teachings, just like people have done for Christianity.

That's the legal definition of citizenship. It is, however, a citizenship of convenience, regardless of what his documents say. It's something that should have been dealt with years ago you're right. It's way more a mess now that it was 6 years ago.

This is a really good point.

Exactly how I feel. Khadr is not, as far as I'm concerned, a Canadian. He has no business here, despite whatever technicalities people can come up with. Canadian Citizenship is a privilege, not some shield that dirt bags should be able to hide behind.

Business leaders respected him because they financed his campaigns and he rewarded them for it. As for respect throughout the world, I'd love to see something to back that up. That's news to me.

When you use words like, "might" and "could," it means you're talking about scenarios. In this case he wanted to ensure that Canada remains relevant as a world trading partner and that these things WOULD NOT happen. OMG THAT IS SO EMBARRASSING. If we're going to talk crack pots and credibility, you should maybe practice some critical thinking skills and learn the meaning of cogency. Look it up in the dictionary.

You quoted in bold the people I'm scared of. I am afraid of people who hide behind religion to justify evil and intolerance. There's lots of bible-thumping Christians I'd say, to some degree, that I'm scared of, whether for my life or for society. The problem with the Islamic faith, unfortunately, is that entire countries and cultures have perverted its teachings towards such ends. Countries we mentioned before like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan etc have all warped and manipulated the religion towards unwholesomeness. When large populations buy into this bullshit, you end up with mindless weapons who instead of thinking for themselves are taught to have 'faith' in nonsense. When the 'faith' is strong enough and indoctrinated enough, they can justify anything. That's what scares me. I'm not scared of you. I'm not scared of your parents or friends. I don't wet myself every time I see a hijab or a funny beard. I am scared, however, of how far people will press their religious convictions, particularly some of the ones in the Middle East etc.

I hope they don't let him back in. He has no business here.

Pretty sure he didn't do that at all. That's more just wishful thinking and you making things up and exaggerating the significance of mundane events.

It wasn't my word, nor was it your word. It was the word of previous governments who knew nothing about the realities of today. When you get down to it, the Aboriginal Ministry is a farce. It's more a welfare ministry than anything else. It's not like the Aboriginals are largely happy with the situation there and throwing more money at them isn't going to fix it either. If the people there have no livelihoods they get bored and invariably the money will be spent on drugs and alcohol etc.

Far be it for me to be defending Jdobbin normally but Myata your argument has been as fluffy and insubstantial as they come. You HAVE dodged and deflected very critical points in the discussion and your answer for them has been full of "maybes" and "shoulds". I understand what you are saying and that you're not choosing sides but maybe we can ask the question in more neutral terms: 1) Do you think that if Israel completely stops settlement encroachment and lets up on their security restrictions in Gaza and the West Bank that they will largely stop being attacked and their major and identifiable enemies will offer any sort of guarantees to stop the violence? 2) If no, then would you say that security restrictions and settlement buffers offer at least some measure of protection to Israeli centres of population? (I can explain why they do if you want to try and say no) Take it one step further and then ask, 3) If your answer to 1) is 'no', and your answer to 2) is 'yes', why would Israel have any desire/incentive to offer concessions to its enemies? Should they be giving away/back land, loosening security etc all as gestures of 'good faith'? Does that seem wise to you? Would you want to make 'gestures' of good faith that potentially could result in dead citizens? Do it all on blind faith right? It'll work out...for sure.... Answer those questions, especially number 3, before you call Jdobbin out for mercurial arguments and trying to confuse the issues. You're dodging legitimate, practical questions that Israeli leaders are balancing LIVES on. I'm not saying Israel is blameless. They've commited their own share of violence and aggression but the formation of the state of Israel CANNOT be the issue anymore. The past is the past and we can ONLY look now at things we can change. Israel is not going anywhere. There's no possibility that Israel is going to apologize for being there because all it does is validate its enemies. The suggestion itself is incredibly pompous and naive. "Hey umm...we're sorry our parents moved here 60 years ago. It was wrong. Really sorry. We cool now?" Your position is exactly the reason WHY peace isn't going to be achieved. If we're going to dwell on what happened 60 years ago and insist that the people currently living there did something 'wrong' by fleeing what was literally millenia of persecution to settle in the only homeland they EVER had, you cannot move forward.

I'm not more scared of a Muslim person doing it. I'm equally as revolted when a white dude kills his wife. What I don't like is when people move to Canada from Pakistan or Iran or whatever and feel that it is OKAY to practise Sharia law in Canada when it's quite clear from the outset that they cannot. It's the culture that SOME people bring with them to Canada that scares me. I went to a highschool with a big ESL program and subsequently we had a large number of Afghan immigrants there. They threatened to kill my friend on one occasion because during a snowball fight one of them landed near one of the Afghans. Sure enough, after school the Afghan posse shows up with bats and tire irons looking for my friend. The good part was that he took their threat seriously and the cops had been waiting for them. You didn't understand my text then. I'm unsettled by people coming to Canada from cultures that CONDONE violence against women (ie. you kill your wife and don't go to jail because you trade in a goat to avoid the sentence). If people are coming to Canada with THAT sort of mentality and they think that it will fly here then it IS scary. I just gave you extreme examples but there's a ton of different reasons why certain cultures don't fit well in Canada. I realize that. I already said I don't fear Muslims. I find the draconic adherence and/or perversion of Islamic teachings that some people follow extremely disconcerting and in some cases scary. I feel the same about a lot of fundamentalist Christians. I agree with you. What scares me is how people from certain cultures feel they can justify evil acts by hiding behind their religion. This is not exclusively Muslim, but AT PRESENT the scale of the problem in a lot of fundamentalist Islamic cultures dwarfs everything else. I'll say one last time, I DO NOT hate/fear Muslims. As an overall group they're as benevolent as any. There is simply a LOT of rabid nuts WITHIN the overall sphere of Islam who've grown up on perverted teachings and violence. Those people scare me. There's not many in Canada you're right. They do exist though and they're a legitimate danger.

You didn't read what he said. In some countries Muslim populations are permitted to exercise Shariah law instead.

I am not afraid of Muslims. I have Muslim friends aplenty. Anyone who hates Muslims for being Muslim is retarded. Having said that, the cultures and values of a lot of people coming from fundamentalist Islamic States are VERY scary to a lot of people, myself included. In Saudi Arabia, for example, I've read it's illegal for a woman to be out and about by herself with a group of guys. Not too long ago there was a case where a woman was raped by a group of guys and while the guys themselves were punished, the woman HERSELF was also sentenced to getting lashed for being alone a man that wasn't her fiance. What the hell? There was a case in Pakistan I read about where a man murdered his wife for cheating on him. He was sentenced to jail but he traded a goat for his freedom. His wife's life was worth a goat. It's not the Islamic faith that's the problem, it's the people that bring draconic and fundamentalist values from places like Iran, Pakistan etc to the West. For VERY obvious reasons these values clash with ours. When you have indoctrinated fools believing anyone who doesn't follow Islamic Law is evil, THAT's where the negative perceptions begin to develop.

We don't need Harper acknowledging or in any way getting involved in partisan American politics. The only way to defend the Canadian Health Care system is to compare it to the Americans', and that's basically an attack on American politics and values. When you're the leader of the country, it's your responsibility to maintain good relations with your neighbours. Getting involved in squabbles with the American media and politicians serves ZERO productive ends. Canadians know better than to believe what Americans say about our system. When I had a problem with my eye years ago I got a CT scan the following day and an MRI the following week. Sure there are mistakes and problems with our system, but it's a lot better than having something like 20-25% of the population with no health care coverage at all. Some partisan hack down south came up here SEARCHING for a person who had a bad government health care experience. I could do the same down south and find tons of horrible examples of people with terrible and debilitating health conditions that are easily fixed but only for people who make enough money. It's only the idiots that put any credence in the sort of attacks the American media fires on our system, and there's no point in our PM getting involved with idiots. Edit: Just to add, the Toronto Star has absolutely no credibility when it comes to federal politics. It's rides harder on the Liberal pole than any newspaper in Canada and does so without shame.