KeyStone

It seems that the concept that you are having trouble with is that we have a double standard. We have one set of rules for terrorists/militants and another set of rules for US troops. For instance, when US troops kill children, rape teens, or throw puppies off of a cliff, we get upset. But when the Taliban do even worse things, noone particularly cares. The reason is that we do have a double standard, you are right. We expect US troops to behave more honorably than terrorists. We do not think that because the Taliban does it, it makes it Ok for the US to do it. In other words, regardless of that fanatical terrorists do, US troops have a higher standard to adhere to.

The attack comes weeks after Mr Galloway, of the Respect party, described Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak as a "tyrant" and "criminal" and demanded that he be overthrown by his country's armed forces.

"The Nazis had some good points, too. Spare me your BS re: Hamas and Hezbollah. They're anti-semitic Nazis whose roots date back to the Grand Mufti's bloodlust." I'm really not that interested in tracing the lineage of Hamas/Fatah leaders back eighty years. Why don't you just make your point? "Not for lack of trying. Israel has top-notch civil defence while the terrorists only provide bunkers for their fat-cats while letting civilians act as sand-bags." Shouldn't all this top-notch technology that Israel has, make it even easier to avoid civilian casualties. Shouldn't their superior military be able to march into the occupied territory and seize the alleged terrorists, without killing children and leveling neighborhoods? "Saddam used Russian weapons. Not American or otherwise. George's chumminess with Saddam is well documented. Other leaders were not so chummy even though we have Saddam and Rumsfeld shaking hands (as Reagan's special envoy to the ME). A ninety minute one time meeting. They weren't friends. More both Iran's enemies. All the chumminess ended once Saddam thought invading Kuwait would be fun." Well Saddam was trained and equipped by the US. As for what weapons they used in their defense, I'm not sure. I kept waiting for the mustard gas to be released. Yes, you are right - chumminess ended with the invasion of Kuwait, which took place in 1990. The Kurdish massacre took place in 1988, and the world remained chummy with Saddam. It was not until the West needed an excuse, that suddenly the Kurdish massacre was of the utmost importance. "You apologize well for those lads openly threatening his life on camera. Maybe there's a future as a scum-bag lawyer awaiting. Geert Wilders is not a hate monger, rather a victim of radical Islam in his own country. He's been under police protection for longer than just since Fitna. His association with Hirsi Ali netted him that." I've made no reference to those that threaten him, so that is in your own imagination. But answer me, do you think if a Muslim MP in Canada suggested that we charge a $1500 tax, for all keepahs and menorahs, that people would think that to be a reasonable dialogue or do you think the CJC would want that individual tried with hate crimes? Do you honestly think it's unreasonable for a country to deny entry to a person being charged with hate crimes in their own country? If you actually stop and think, instead of your usual Muslims are evil 'kneejerk response' you will find the UK stance to be quite reasonable. "George Galloway is on camera giving tens of thousands of dollars to Hamas along with a convoy of supplies and trucks. The Egyptians nearly lynched him for this act. " The Egyptians nearly lynched him because he was critical of the leader of Egypt. As for the donations, giving food to starving people in Palestine is the right thing to do, even if it interrupts Israel's plan to starve them out. The money is a little different, but you have to realize: The world encouraged Hamas to try to effect change through politics rather than violence. Then when they actually win the election, the nations pull all of their aid. So, Galloway gave to the government of Palestine to help rebuild etc, after all the damage that Israel did. Good for him. This hardly makes him a terrorist, despite what our current sycophantic government says.

Hi Lictor, The 'horribly disturbing' video you show, has a British Muslim MP who is proud of the increasing Muslim representation in British parliament. Similarly, women and visual minority groups are usually pleased to see their numbers increasing to the point where their percentage of parliament mirror their percentage of society. He is making a joke about all Mps being Muslim one day. His goal is twenty, and considering there are over 600 British MPs, it isn't unrealistic for them to strive for that goal. I can not think of any reason why a non Islamophobe would find this video disturbing.

While Canada lists Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organizations, we are one of only a handful of nations to do so. Keep in mind, that both Hamas and especially Hezbollah have other non-military components that do good work. It is possible to support some of the things that they do, without agreeing with all of their actions. The two combined have killed far less innocent children than the IDF. Being chummy with Sadam was pretty normal for international leaders, prior to the US suddenly deciding that he was evil. They continued to supply Iraq with arms, after the Kurdish massacre. As for Wilders, he has basically hated that he hates Islam. While this is not racism, it is religious intolerance. It would be like saying one hates Judaism, and suggesting that a head tax be imposed on keepahs. Do you think B'nai Brith would have something to say about such a suggestion. Furthermore, he is being tried in his home country for hate crimes. Generally, that's a red flag when it comes to letting someone into the country. Anyways, the ban was overturned. So again, I think we have much bigger problems when it comes to denying free speech than the UK. Of course, if you want one policy for Judaism and one for Islam, then free speech isn't really the debate.

"Iran didn'r need any such approval from the USA when it bungled an attack on Osirak before the Israelis got it right." That's because Iran wasn't worried about the US decreasing their aid to Iran. .....which would be in great contrast to current military aid that includes conventional GBU-28 and GBU-39 "buster" munitions. Neither of which are nuclear weapons. The world has a special fear/respect of nuclear weapons. As long as the device is not nuclear, Israel can probably get away with it. The question is whether or not the GBu-28/39 is enough to penetrate or whether they will have to rely on nuclear. I believe that if Israel thinks they can take them out with non-nucleaer weapons, and if the US gives its approval, then they will make the strike. Otherwise, they will not. Naturally, the US will still come out and publicly condemn the attack, but will take no action.

It all depends on the US. When Israel attacked the Osirak reactors, they faced virtually no repercussions from the international community. Sure, there were some verbal lashings, but no military interventions, aid reductions, sanctions, or even talk of compensation. Obviously, the US had given the green light to the whole operation. Given that, it seems that Israel will do the same to Iran if given an opportunity. There are only two obstacles. Firstly, they need to know that the US won't take punitive action against them. They already know that the rest of the world will do nothing. The other obstacle is whether they can succesfully strike at these facilities without using nuclear weapons. It has been a long time since a nuclear weapon has been used for any purpose other than testing. That would be crossing a line, and Israel knows full well that there may be real repercussions from that even if the US does nothing. And with the current administration, it seems highly probable that the US will reduce aid, or take other action should Israel use a nuclear weapon in Iran.

Hey politics. I definitely think that you should submit this to one of the Sun Media papers. This is exactly the sort of story that they love to print. Don't bother with more reputable papers, as they won't be interested. Some people feel that November 11th is a bit ridiculous, because it glorifies war. I think that in the case of WW I and WW 2, we had a clear and present danger, a real threat to survivial, and our existence. Now, however, the wars that we enter seem to be optional and don't have the moral authority of the World Wars, and there is a sense that we are simply trying to make war seem noble, when in fact, those that go to war are often teens that have few other career options that are bullied into it by recruiters. Canada's military is obviously quite different than that of the US, but even so, the idea that someone is a hero, simply by being in the military is no longer valid. The motives for entering into war are not as pure as they once were. Many Conservatives felt upset that we were not joining the Iraq war - not because they felt it was a just war, but simply because they feared it would harm relations with the US. Trade relations is not a just reason for entering war.

We have our own freedom concerns right here in Canada, as George Galloway was too much of a threat to be let in the country.

It's a clever (although intellectually dishonest) argument to say that the Palestinians that oppose Israeli settlers want 'ethnic cleansing'. How about we let Jews live in Palestine, but with the same rights and priveledges as the Palestinians? I doubt many Jews would be interested. Palestinians, rarely, if ever get any building permits. Israel administers building permits and denies pretty much everything. Then when some building does occur, they seize that as an opportunity to say that the Palestinans have broken the law, which generally results in their entire home being demolished. Then of course, there is more land and room for Jewish settlers to build. Imagine that you are a Palestinian living in the occupied territories. You are not allowed to build. You have ten people living in your house. Your son needs a home of his own. Meanwhile, just a few hundred meters away, you see lavish homes being built by the Jewish settlers, along with pools, libraries, schools and hopsitals - all of which of course, is only open to Jews. Meanwhile, Israel actively encourages Jews from all over the world to move to Israel? Where do you think they intend to put those people? Do you think you might get a little bit upset? Honestly, just think about it, instead of your usual kneejerk Israel=good, Arabs=bad reaction. Research it. Understand what is really going on. Try to imagine what would cause people to be so upset with Israel that they would risk their life and that of their family to lob an ineffective misguided rocket at Israel (not that it is justified). Try to expand your thinking beyond (they are all brainwashed and want 77 virgins). Do Arabs and Persians that come to Canada behave like that? Do they go around killing Jews for Allah? Why do you think that Arabs in Canada behave differently than the ones in Palestine? It's called desperation. They are being treated unfairly, and they have no hope and nothing to lose. I realize it's a bit of a Catch 22, but to them it seems that Israel is trying to push the Palestinians into the sea. Of course, when you have established rabbis, saying that it is OK to kill Palestinian children, because they will grow up to be evil, it doesn't do much to assuage the fears of the Palestinians that they are being systemically eradicated. Here is a good article for you: http://www.btselem.org/English/Planning_and_Building/Index.asp

Sure, the aide shouldn't have done it. But I don't think they held the kid down while he struggled against it. I think there was some cooperation involved. But, now, you'll see the family try to sue the school board for millions of dollars, claiming that his spirit was in his hair, and it has been violated and a bunch of other malarkey. The very worst thing that would be done by marginally reasonable people will be to dismiss the aid. But watch, that won't be enough. They will want big cash$. What should happen is that the aide should apologize and offer to shave his/her hair for cancer. Then, perhaps the aide should be suspended without pay until he/she takes some cultural sensitivity courses, and some basics in what is appropriate behaviour with the students. It's really a shame though, as this is just a person trying to make it easier for the child to see the computer screen, and who is now being villified. A bit absurd frankly.

Well, one thing that we all seem to agree on is that Khadr should get a trial, rather than be kept in limbo. I recommend he shave off the terrorist beard before setting foot in the courtroom. As for guilt or innocence, he was defending a country from invaders. Perhaps he was on the wrong side, but that does not make him a murderer, that makes him an enemy combatant, which is very different. I would not be surprised if he is released for time served. Of course, Harper will do everything possible to avoid bringing him back to Canada.

Well, I don't think the Danish goverment frames this policy as 'buying off immigrants to leave'. I think they frame the policy as helping those who don't fit in return to their country of origin. However, I strongly suspect that the right wing minds behind the policy really just want Denmark to be pure Danish people, and this is their way of circumventing EU laws. Although, I am somewhat curious as to how they prevent new immigrants from coming in. Despite all the good things that Scandinavia has going for it, and how progressive it is in many areas, this is the one area that really sets Canada apart. Canadians are much more tolerant of other cultures than any Scandinavian nation and I we do a much better job of accomodating them and making them part of Canadian society. The danger with a policy such as the ones that the Danes are proposing is that it really makes immigrants feel unwelcome, and makes the populace bitter towards the immigrants, as it suggests that they are liabilities.

In terms of social programs, I think the goal should be: 1)To provide all Canadians with the opportunity to succeed. While most would agree with this statement, the conflict comes into how equal that should be. When we have the wealthy getting private tutors, attending private school, and spending 400,000 on a 4-year education, it's never going to be completely equal. 2) To provide all Canadians with their basic needs. Again, it seems that some here believe that if people are able to find work but don't - they should starve on the street. Personally, I'm not envious of someone that gets $520/month to pay rent, utilities, and buy food. I think if someone chooses that they have problems that we can't easily identify. They need more help than a paycheque once a month. They need counselling and support to fully enjoy life.

I hate smoking as much as pretty much anyone, but as long as I don't have to suffer second hand smoke, I don't care. The idea behind banning smoke from work-places is so that workers do not have to choose between employment and an 'unsafe' workplace, which I think is quite reasonable. The only person being harmed by second-hand smoke is the truck driver, and I'm fairly certain that he isn't too concerned about it.

I don't think that censorship vs non-censorship is the problem here. The real problem is that the Reisman-Schwartz monopoly in the retail bookmarket exists. They should never have allowed Chapters/Indigo/Coles to be owned by the same people.

How about just making it illegal to deny an allegedly raped victim her/his day in court. The idea that they can actually put that into a contract is absurd.

"The Iranian government held it's annual anti-America rally outside the former US embassy (which by the way was sovereign US soil attacked by Ahmedinejad and his buddies at the time). The rally shouted "death to America"." Yeah, anti-US rallies have been known to happen in nations where the US creates a coup against a democratically elected leader, and replaces him with a cruel dictator. Don't let history get in the way of your hatred for Arabs though. "Meanwhile the Ayatollahs have rejected the notion of negotiating anything with respect to nukes." Iran has full right to develop nuclear energy. In fact, the NPT says that the US has to help them. Nuclear weapons is a different story, and there is no clear evidence to suggest that Iran is building nuclear weapons. "How's that extended hand doing, hanging out there in the wind, Obama?" He hasn't actually done anything. No real policies have been changed. The US is still fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sanctions are still up against Cuba. They still prop up the corrupt regime in Saudi Arabia. So, if you are looking for all the evil Arabs to suddenly start a love-affair with the US, because you don't have an idiot in the White House calling them the axis of evil, then you're out of luck. "1. It's not working." Remind me how much progress Bush made in 8 years. Now, how long had Obama been in office? It amazes me that you think Obama would have solved the world's problem in one year. "2. There is an uprising of true democracy brewing in the country, and if he wants to "negotiate" or "extend a hand" to the Mullahs, he'd better not piss them off." What do you suggest, Einstein? Should the US go in there with guns blazing and liberate the people, just like they liberated (from their lives) the Iraqis?

The public is so easy to deceive, it's almost laughable. They are so fixated on business tax, that payroll tax doesn't even get a mention. In actuality, it's a payroll tax that is going to drive businesses under, far more than an income tax. Income tax only kicks in, if a company is profitable - after all wages, expenses, COGS and re-investment is paid. Payroll tax hits every business - even those breaking even or losing money. If you really want to help businesses it makes much more sense to lower payroll taxes and increase income taxes.

Yes, the rest of the world did not immediately stop all violence the moment Obama became President. Clearly, the softer approach is a failure. Kill 'em all.

Third world interests such as: Extending life expectancy to greater than 40 years? Reducing maternal mortality and children dying under the age of five? Ensuring that all people have enough food to survive on, and that everyone has access to education? Making sure that wealthy nations to not bribe 3rd world governments to extract all the resources for next to nothing? Are those the sort of things that those evil third world countries are doing?

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, you want to ensure that poor people have very limited options, so that the wealthy can exploit them as near-slaves. One of the many innumerable flaws in your suggestion, is that most of the wealthy people don't really want the 'welfare class' in their homes. Do you really want someone incapable of getting a minimum wage job looking after your kids, or being alone in your home when you are not there?

The problem is that Ignatieff assumes that the common masses are blitheringly stupid. So, he expected us to believe that it was just coincidence when the brief Liberal lead in the polls, just happened to coincide with the Liberals decision that they could no longer support the government. His feeble grasp at power, for no reason other than wanting power was so transparent to Canadians, that they punished him in the polls. Now, he is painted into a corner. If he suddenly decides that he can put up with the Conservative government for a while longer, then it's going to be pretty obvious that his ability to support the Conservatives has a direct correlation with how the Liberals are doing in the polls. Of course, he can pretend to be taking the principled position while the NDP backpedal and pretend that they suddenly think the Conservatives to be quite reasonable. But, if the NDP change their minds on supporting the Conservatives, it's going to be interesting to see how the Liberals spin the fact that they will once again support the Conservatives.

Well, Argus, I'm not quite sure where to begin. 1) He isn't president for life. He changed the law to end term limits, so it is the same as those other dictatorships Canada, UK, Australia etc. 2) I'm not sure why you think that buying weapons is a bad thing. Do you think the US is evil? 3) Not that I expect you to read the news much but there was a coup in Venezuela where the government was overthrown. Generally, that is reason enough to call for greater security and military. Add to that the fact that Columbian gangs make frequent incursions over the border, and that various Americans and right wing loons routinely call for invasion - and there is plenty of need for some weapons. Incidentally, the USA has made many little covert field trips to Latin America over the last 50 years - most often to assist right wing thugs to depose leftist leaders.