Sir Bandelot

It apears that at least 1/2 of them don't. But for a moment there I thought you were talking about America

Hint- when MDancer knows he cannot really defend his position, he goes for the nasty. A pathetic attempt at winning his baseless arguments... and also very boring

I haven't heard the liberals say islamic terrorism is not a threat to Canada, so don't know what you're going on about. When I read the first story about this several days ago, it became apparent that he was part of a sting operation, just as others have been in the past few years. Security agents use these methods to seek out those who might be interested in conducting terror attacks, which is a pretty good strategy in one way. In the other way though it could lead to entrapment. So let the courts carefully examine the evidence, without inciting undue fear or propaganda in the media. We've had enough of that, right?

You'll get used to it. After he's had a few drinks, he'll calm down. After the wife tells him to shut up

I already told you before, dude. But for the sake of clarity for those further down the food chain, I will repeat myself.-

That would be... a little hard to find

Although I will not try to defend Ahmadinejad, I doubt he means all jews. I have read that there is a certain population of jews living in Iran, and apparently they are tolerated. Quick check on google confirms this- In the midst of tensions between the U.S and Iran and between Iran and Israel, Iranian-Jewish Americans and Israelis offered money to the remaining Jews in Iran in order to help them relocate to California and/or Israel. In August 2007, the Iranian Jews in Iran, responded by saying they "resent such transparent political enticements." Iran's Jewish community is officially recognized as a religious minority group by the government, and, like the Zoroastrians, they are allocated one seat in the Iranian Parliament. In 2000, former Jewish MP Manuchehr Eliasi estimated that at that time there were still 30,000–35,000 Jews in Iran, other sources put the figure as low as 20,000–25,000. Today Tehran has 11 functioning synagogues, many of them with Hebrew schools. It has two kosher restaurants, an old-age home and a cemetery. There is a Jewish library with 20,000 titles. Iranian Jews have their own newspaper (called "Ofogh-e-Bina") with Jewish scholars performing Judaic research at Tehran's "Central Library of Jewish Association". The "Dr. Sapir Jewish Hospital" is Iran's largest charity hospital of any religious minority community in the country; however, most of its patients and staff are Muslim. Conditions The Constitution of Iran says that Jews are equal to Muslims. Imam Khomeini visited with members of the Jewish community and issued a decree ordering the adherents of Judaism and other revealed religions to be protected. Jews are entitled to self-administration and one member of the 290-seat Majlis is elected by only Jews. Jewish burial rites and divorce laws are accepted by Islamic courts. Tehran has over 20 synagogues. Iran has one of only four Jewish charity hospitals in the world. The hospital has received donations from top Iranian officials, including President Ahmadinejad. Kosher butcher shops are available in Iran. There are Hebrew schools and coeducation is allowed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Jews Thus, your assessment of the jewish situation in Iran, or the attitude of the government and people of Iran toward the Jews at large, seems full of hooey.

Civilian deaths from coalition vs. the Taliban has been about 50-50, until very recently when general McChrystal announced a stronger effort to avoid killing civilians. http://www.casualty-monitor.org/2009/08/ci...ue-to-rise.html

http://conservativeamerican.org/wp-content...dafi_070909.jpg http://i.thisislondon.co.uk/i/pix/2009/07/...afi-415x334.jpg http://aftermathnews.files.wordpress.com/2...afi_nam_nwo.jpg http://d.yimg.com/bg/p/090822/reuters/btre...00i50942520.jpg Lockerbie Bomber

I dont see anything specifically wrong with song 1, and song 2 could be for any president, not only obama. Hardly a "National Program" though, is it So is ths all the news we get out of you these days? Times are tough for right wingers I guess.

What do you mean, "could be"? Whats that got to do with this thread anyway? I'm sure we both know what a tangled rats nest politics is. There are deals that have to be made, concessions, compromising our values for the "greater good", as defined by someone else. Is it wrong to distrust government? I look at it this way- when someone is in a position of authority, when they have access to secrets, and the keeping of secrets, and control the money... thats a recipe for corruption if there ever was one. And if you don't play along with the team, you'll be quickly eliminated. An honest person cannot even survive among them. An honest person, could never even make it into that level of government. Why? Because they would be politically killed off, in the constant power struggle that always exists in these places. In politics, ruthless ambition is the road to success. Underhandedness and deceitful manipulations are totally commonplace. These are the facts of life son...

The tone of the majority of these criticisms is not racist. But a small percentage of it is. We do ourselves a disservice by paying too much attention to this small percentage.

Here is the text of Ahmadinejads speech. He doesn't talk about jews very much at all... but he does talk about a small group of "zionists" and their influence over the economy, http://www.salem-news.com/articles/septemb..._un_9-23-09.php I believe thats what your news article means by his "small minority". Of course, no one bothered to criticise Ghadaffy, the new darling boy of the western political elite... despite the fact he openly supported terrorist financial funding and training, and was probably involved in the Lockerbie bombing. But, thats all water on the bridge now, isn't it. They even let the bomber guy out of jail a few weeks ago... I'm sure it made Ghadaffy very happy. "What we don't know keeps the contracts alive and moving."

But so has practically everybody else, right? And some of our other trading partners might not think suicide attaks are bad... Iran is no world leader in this either. Maybe it is the threat of closing the straight, or maybe a genuine fear of making nukes. So hard to tell when our leaders are being genuine.

Why would he do that? Such an act would probably be suicide. I have read some of Ahmadinejads blogs, and he is not a stupid person. But he is an intelligent and dangerous person, shrewd. He uses his propaganda well. I suspect that much of this coming from him too, is mostly theatre. Ahmadinejad is a threat to our leaders, not because he says bad things about Israel but because he has the power to damage our economy. Or is there something else? The media picked up on this saying all he was ranting on about was Israel. I have read the text of the speech he gave in the UN. I think it should be read by anyone who posts in this thread- http://www.salem-news.com/articles/septemb..._un_9-23-09.php These are things they don't want you to read. And if he was so important, or so dangerous, why hasn't Iran attacked other countries in a long time? Because Ahmadinejad himself is the threat... much more than Iran.

He could have, but then he would probably have to point the same criticisms to some other people who are attending, and that would sort of put a damper on the party. Canada is capable of being silent and polite... if the price is right.

Could have been Ghaddafy. He was lookin like a punked out rock star, with the blackened beard and hairdo. As to walking out on Ahmadinejad, no doubt that it scores good political points on some sort of Israeli business contract. Otherwise, what the hell do we care what this nut job is talking about.

And what was the outcome for those celebrities? They were punished, ostracized. Their careers damaged. And this because they criticized Bush in a public forum, to the media, yes, but not even directly in front of Bush. http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/021207.html With war hysteria then sweeping America, the right-wing attack machine switched into high gear, organizing rallies to drive trucks over Dixie Chicks CDs and threatening country-western stations that played Dixie Chicks music. Maines later apologized, but it was too late to stop the group’s songs from falling down the country music charts. On April 24, 2003, with the Iraq War barely a month old, NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw asked Bush about the boycott of the Dixie Chicks. The President responded that the singers “can say what they want to say,” but he added that his supporters then had an equal right to punish the singers for their comments. “They shouldn’t have their feelings hurt just because some people don’t want to buy their records when they speak out,” Bush said. “Freedom is a two-way street.” --- Here, Bush uses his position of supreme power to encourage his supporters to damage the Dixie Chicks. After that, the public criticisms toned down quite a lot. People knew, Bush was a petty man who would sometimes personally seek to get revenge, though he preferred to stand smiling on the sidelines while is attack dogs did the dirty work. You would not want to piss of Mr. Bush... I don't believe it was racially motivated, but I do believe it was calculated, for the purpose of harming Obama and raising public distrust. This is not some hollywood coke sniffing superstar giving their opinion. this is another leader, a representative of government takes the bold step to shout out on a televised speech, that the president is lying to the people. It reinforces what all the extremist groups are trying to say. It does way more damage, by incensing ALL the groups... including the racists. What this is, is theater, carefully crafted to manipulate public opinion. It's not about the truth, it's all about the 15 second sound bite. Oh yeah and youtube

If democracy in the United States is dead, it died long before Obama.

Those things were said, ABOUT the president. They were not said, DIRECTLY TO the president. I would have been quite surprised if someone had done to Bush what Wilson did to Obama... especially if they got away with it. No, something tells me this incident was fundamenally different somehow. Georgia congressman: Wilson's outburst 'carefully calculated' Rep. Hank Johnson is standing by his comments that Rep. Joe Wilson's "You lie!" outburst at President Obama "instigated more racist sentiment" and could lead to a resurgence of the Ku Klux Klan. This is the debate. No matter whether you agree or not, this is what they're talking about these days.

No, thats true Bush was not a cult of personality. But Bush commanded respect. For example I don't remember anyone jumping up and shouting out "You Lie!" when Bush was speaking on national television... probably because we all knew he was lying.

No, because I see him as a young kid who could have had a great future, and who did his duty and died, despite the fact he had personal objections to the mission. I would like to be able to say, "He had to give up his precious life, but it was for a good cause". But the mission objectives became too broad and vague, and we (Canada) got sucked in while others bailed or carefully avoided the scenario.

And yet it seems to me, the attitude under George Bush was to give him the utmost respect, follow him anywhere, even into the abyss if he so ordered. Which they soon did

The glorious America of old you dream of never existed. America was created out of violence and bloodshed right from day one. Revolutionary war, civil war and slavery deeply affected the US culture. I think the election of Obama, if anything has brought to light the serious problem of racism in large percentages of society. However it could be argued that liberalism leads to a kind of permissiveness, that ultimately brings about the destruction of a society. The irony is, without that very liberalism in the first place, you would only have harsh theocratic regimes.

Evidently not. Remember the news is always worse than what they tell you. Excerpts from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32946768/ns/wo...ashington_post/ He repeatedly warns that without more forces and the rapid implementation of a genuine counterinsurgency strategy, defeat is likely. "Failure to provide adequate resources also risks a longer conflict, greater casualties, higher overall costs, and ultimately, a critical loss of political support. Any of these risks, in turn, are likely to result in mission failure." McChrystal warns that in the short run, it "is realistic to expect that Afghan and coalition casualties will increase." "Eliminating insurgent access to narco-profits -- even if possible, and while disruptive -- would not destroy their ability to operate so long as other funding sources remained intact." His call for more forces is predicated on the adoption of a strategy in which troops emphasize protecting Afghans rather than killing insurgents or controlling territory. Most starkly, he says: "Inadequate resources will likely result in failure. However, without a new strategy, the mission should not be resourced." So a new strategy should be adapted, one which sounds like cutting back, withdrawing to a defensive position. NOT, hunting for Al-Qaeda in the southern region, as our troops have been doing. What can I say... I mean its distressing. This General does not support the mission... how do you expect us to support the mission. Wrong. Wrong wrong. The last guy who died, clearly stated he did not support the mission. Fallen soldier thought Afghan mission 'useless' And may I say his death shocks my conscience more than any so far. I am sorry this young fellow had to give up his life, for the sake of these indecisive political assholes.