Lenny_Bruce

Permanently? They didn't take over Lebanon in 2006 did they? They don't have the ability, but neither as it turned out did Japan. Israel is much more pragmatic and slow moving with their expansion. They've held onto the Golan Heights, the West Bank, and Gaza for decades, but they were unable to hold the Sinai. Israel may be slowly expanding imperialists, but they are pragmatic at doing so, and so far haven't screwed up totally like the Imperial Japanese. It also helps when their biggest backer is America as opposed to their opponent being America.

I've traveled through about most of the Middle East including most of Israel and Palestine (the West Bank, not Gaza). Its totally nuts. Its worse than apartheid there. Israel treats the Palestinians like dirt,and makes their lives a living hell. It attacks their neighbours constantly, and on a whim.

Boges see above, Israel has attacked invaded, and occupied parts of all those countries with the exception of Iran (really only, because its out of reach).

Uh Hello Israel already did the Sinai gig, and has attacked all of those except Iran overtly. Israel still holds Syrian territory ie. the Golan Heights, and Palestine was formerly a part of Jordan. They were finally ejected from the Sinai by Sedat.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22408341 There was also a really good National Geographic Article recently about Ocean acidification. http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/04/ocean-acidification/kolbert-text http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-ocean-acidification/

You guys started the comparisons with Pearl Harbour. Don't complain if not every analogy can be based on December 7th 1941. But now that you mention it Israel's attempt to dominate the Middle East is similar to Japan's attempt to dominate East Asia.

Free Nadezhda Tolokonnikova whose only 'crime' was to challenge Vladimir Putin with free speech. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22317771

Pearl Harbour was an actual attack. Israel attacking Syria in this scenario would actually be the equivalent of the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbour.

How would you like to be a Palestinian who can get shot at will and on a whim from sniper towers just for going to work in the morning?

Once again Roy questioning Israel to you = anti fanatic hate for Israel. Reality Roy questioning a governments' actions is healthy. Its those who don't question governments that end up being fanatic authoritarian types, who might you know support murderous attacks on sovereign nations. That wouldn't describe you or Mr. Baird would it?

Lenny_Bruce, on 06 May 2013 - 23:06, said: "It's not a fine way, but it can be very effective." - Bush/Cheney. Thanks Bush/Cheney/Uncle Joe

Hamas (now a legitimate political group in Gaza) was not the target of the attack. Furthermore Israel has a cease-fire with Hamas recently signed. So killing Arabs in another country has nothing to do with Hamas. Israel is not peaceful, and never has been. The Israelis invented the car bomb and used terrorism as a tactic to found the country, and has waged continuous wars of aggression against its neighbours and even inhabitants ever since. Nor is it particularly democratic, when over a couple million of its claimed inhabitants have few if any real rights and are treated like subhumans. "Hamas uses it arms for one purpose to kill jews. So Israel has every right as a democratic and peacefull country to defend it's self." Lenny_Bruce, on 06 May 2013 - 22:19, said:

Yes I don't see why Canada should have bombed Serbia. And you think murder is a fine way to advance your ever changing 'interests,' just like Uncle Joe.

That was what Nazi Germany believed that the best defense was a strong offense. Not all of us like our country to be mass murdering war criminals or supporters of mass murdering war criminals. Especially when we aren't really defending ourselves against any real threat. Libya was never a threat to Canada. Syria is not a threat to Canada. etc. etc. If we don't have enemies. The Neocons have to invent them, because they are at root primal bloodthirsty war mongerers waging eternal war for eternal profit and power.

Published on Monday, May 6, 2013 by The Guardian/UK Israeli Bombing of Syria and Moral Relativism by Glenn Greenwald On Sunday, Israel dropped massive bombs near Damascus, ones which the New York Times, quoting residents, originally reported (then evidently deleted) resulted in explosions "more massive than anything the residents of the city. . . have witnessed during more than two years of war." The Jerusalem Post this morning quoted "a senior Syrian military source" as claiming that "Israel used depleted uranium shells", though that is not confirmed. The NYT cited a "high-ranking Syrian military official" who said the bombs "struck several critical military facilities in some of the country's most tightly secured and strategic areas" and killed "dozens of elite troops stationed near the presidential palace", while the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said that "at least 42 soldiers were killed in the strikes, and another 100 who would usually be at the targeted sites remain unaccounted for." http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/05/06-5

You saw nothing. You bought into all the propaganda wholesale. There was no existential threat from Syria here. To suggest there was is ludicrous. How the hell is Israel attacking Syria in Canada's best interests?

How much of it did you see from Haifa? Israel needs to follow international law. It does not. Canada has no business blindly cheerleading international acts of murder carried out against sovereign nations, especially when such politicians are so obviously doing so cynically to gain votes at home.

Was there an actual attack coming from the target of Israel's attack? No there wasn't. Selling arms isn't a reason to commit an attack of terror and act of murder on real people and a sovereign nation.

Realy Bush/Cheney? So tell us about your having seen the region. Where do you get your stellar information on the region? Protecting one's interests by any means possible is simply unacceptable. Germany claimed it was just protecting its interests when it was invading and annexing nations left right and center in the 30s and 40s, an idea which went back to Bismarck's statement, "We have no friends, we have no enemies, we have only interests." The Nuremberg Trial showed that just protecting interests and following orders is not a defense for the violation of international law and for murder.

Israel has the ability to shoot down any rocket fired at it, with the Iron Dome. Israel's attack was not prophylactic. Israel's attack was simply to frighten Syria, which is already in chaos. In other words it was a murderous terror attack.

That's the problem Roy with your type and Bush Cheney (lol) You can't even understand the difference between being critical of Israel's actions and being anti-Jewish. You have such an utterly simplistic view of the world that hell you might even vote for Bush/Cheney. You are so ignorant about the region on top of that Roy that you actually think Israel is the only democracy in the region!!!! Hello look at Turkey, which in the 20th century was actually more secular than Israel (which treats much of its claimed inhabitants as third rate not even citizens.) I'll bet none of you have ever been to the region. Your whole perspective of the region is based on the 'stuff' (euphemism) you regurgitate from third hand resources. You have no idea of what the reality is like on the ground there.

Now the neocons aren't using anti-semite, because it doesn't make sense so its anti-jew now. Yeah any criticism of Israel's actions = anti-jew. In the twilight zone that is... We should all just cheer lead everything Israel does. If Israel attacks sovereign nations. That's great! If Israel kills innocent people that's great! If Israel treats much of its claimed citizens as subhumans that's great!

I don't think there are any anti-semantics on this board, but let's talk about semantics. What I'm sure you meant to say was 'anti-semitics.' An anti-semite is a person who is opposed to semites, ie. speakers of Semitic languages and their descendents. Since the Arabs are semites then this attack on Syria was an anti-semitic attack, and John Baird's statement was an anti-semitic statement. If that seems strange, its because people have been conditioned to believe the semantics of the term semite as to refer strictly to jews, and how convenient when that ignores the fact the majority of semites aren't jews at all, and are discriminated against on a level that in many ways makes apartheid look tame.

Yet another International Embarassment for Canada. Our government praising an Illegal Act of International Murder. http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/05/05/john-baird-backs-israeli-airstrikes-raises-concerns-about-radical-jihadists-in-syria-2/ Addendum: Once again Canadian Neo-Conservatives end up on the opposite side of Scientists. Stephen Hawking joins academic boycott of IsraelPhysicist pulls out of conference hosted by president Shimon Peres in protest at treatment of Palestinians Last week he wrote a brief letter to the Israeli president to say he had changed his mind. He has not announced his decision publicly, but a statement published by the British Committee for the Universities of Palestine with Hawking's approval described it as "his independent decision to respect the boycott, based upon his knowledge of Palestine, and on the unanimous advice of his own academic contacts there". http://www.guardian....cott?CMP=twt_gu

It may not be important to one personally, but there's a lot of people these laws effect. Many people have had their lives heavily affected by such laws.