KeyStone

Well, it's a bit of a gray area. Let's look at it from the other side. To criticize Israel is not anti-semitism, although many seem unable to tell the difference. To criticize Judaism would not be appreciated, but perhaps would not be considered anti-semitism by those criticizing it. But the CJC probably would consider it anti-semitism. To criticize Jews, would be considered anti-semitism. For instance, if I made the statement: It has a population of 10% Jews, this is when the problems begin as demonstrated, then I would be labelled an anti-semite and rightfully so. So, while you claim to be criticizing Islam, you are actually criticizing Islamic believers, which does constitute Islamaphobia.

Name any other historic event that can not be questioned, without risking imprisonment. Can we question World War I? Can we question evolution? The dinosaurs? Should people who don't believe in dinosaurs go to jail. Believe it or not, there are more important historic events in the history of our planet, than the the holocaust. My point though, is to show the hyrpocrisy of those that protest protection of Islamic beliefs, while at the same time justifying laws that protect Jewish beliefs. Is it a stretch? Sure. But that's really an argument about hate speech. Where do we draw the line - regardless of whether it is directed towards Christians, Hindus, Moonies, Jews, Arabs, Persians, Chinese, gays etc. The fact that Holland has decided to invoke hate crimes laws does not mean that it is an Islamic state, any more than Canada prosecuting David Ahkanew for his anti-semitic rants makes us a Jewish state. Well, at least now you are expanding it to other religions. Good for you, it's much easier to hide your Islamophobia if you mix it in with the Catholic church etc. Well, first of all, religions don't make laws -governments make laws - so Islam doesn't make it a crime for Muslims to leave the religion. Muslim governments make it a crime - and not all Muslim governments make it a crime - some do and some don't. Granted, Muslim followers get angrier than other religions. But, it can be avoided pretty easily. Just don't make disrepectful cartoons about Mohammed. Ahmadinejad had his "holocaust denier conference" to prove a point. You either allow free speech, or you make some exceptions. I don't think Jews would very much like some funny cartoons about the Holocaust. Would they protest in the streets and break windows? No. They would try to have people arrested and charged with hate crimes. Is this better? I don't know.

Dancer perhaps I was mistaken...perhaps you really are that dumb. You don't seem to be able to discern what is a non-biased source from what is a biased source. Let me give you some examples. If CNN reports that Al-Qaeda says that Jews drink the blood of Arab children. Simply because CNN is a credible source, does not mean that we can deduce it is likely that Jews drink Arab blood. Likewise, when a credible news organization reports what Israel says or claims, that does not legitimize what Israel claimed - it is simply reporting on the claims that Israel is making regardless of their validity. In the case of Electronic Infatada, if they were to give eye-witness accounts, expert opinion or quotes from unnamed sources, that would not be credible. However, if all they are doing is publishing lists of numbers, timelines and facts - that is somewhat more credible because it can be proven false quite easily. You must realize that almost all sources that track numbers are biased - one way or another - but that does not mean that all information they supply is a lie - it simply means that they are not objective and their opinions should be ignored.

Dancer isn't that dumb. He/she is choosing to play a game of semantic ignorance rather than admit he/she was wrong.

Roo, I think you are missing the point with your 'poo-flinging' post. First of all, there are several posters here engaging in similar tactics. "When in Rome..." However, you chose to single me out, as well as other pro-Palestinian posters, which again takes away from your credibility as the net nanny to tell us what leads to constructive debate aka playing nice. Second of all, I suppose, I could have prefaced it with some Israeli supporters, instead of Israeli supporters, so that people did not assume the term to be preceded by the word 'all', and I could have added a nomenclature and several disclaimers, but given that I am neither qualified to be a lawyer nor am I being paid to be one, I thought I would skip the formalities. Thirdly, you have to realize that I am talking about SOME Israeli supporters who systemically accuse each and every video of a Palestinian child being killed as a fake. I find this practice to be horrendous and emotionally upsetting. If someone were to come on here, and claim that the Holocaust numbers were not real, and that all the videos were faked, I'm sure the responses would be very nice and civil. So, if you want to have preachy little lectures on etiquette and cooperation under the false pretense of being impartial, then at least have the wherewithal to cover up your evident bias at least a little.

Ah I see, so after years of occupation, and thousands of dead Palestinians, Israel feels that a single rocket is enough to abandon the peace process, and trample the rights of the Palestinians. You see, there will never be a time when no rockets are fired at Israel, unless Palestinians are exterminated. This is because after so much strife, the hatred runs deep and there are many, many rockets . If Israel will not change their behaviour, unless ALL the rockets stop than either: a) They are incredibly stupid not to realize that there will always be someone in Palestine who wants to get back at Israel. They are fully aware, and in fact even count on the occasional rocket, so that they can continue to take the best land from the Palestinians and increase their settlements. "The perfect is the enemy of the good". If Israel gives no recognition to progress, and only cares about perfection - they they are not looking for peace - they are looking for justifications to ignore the peace process. You know, I keep asking this question, but for some reason people like you seem to avoid answering it... I did answer it. You just ignored my answer. When has Palestine been given it's own country for 2+ years. It's a situation of give and take. Which comes first? Again, not all Palestinians can be controlled. Progress needs to be recognized. Yes, Israel has always been subject to threats, but when Palestine is able to reduce rocket fire by 98%, and Israel responds by killing 6 Hamas leaders during a ceasefire, that's not really rewarding their progress or efforts. Yes, that's right. Because we all know the only way to fight fair is to wear uniforms and stand in a field where no civilians are so that Israel can bomb the shit out of them with their billion dollar warplanes. Of course, if the Hamas military won't comply, they'll just bomb the shit out of everyone, and blame it on Hamas for not standing out in a field wearing bright shiny uniforms so that the IDF can slaughter them. What a joke. I never disputed the source, so I don't see why you think that is something wrong with my argument. It is certainly disconcerting, but again I don't know all the issue. Perhaps those they detained were relatives of the police. Perhaps they managed to convince the launchers not to do it again. Perhaps they informed, so that Hamas was able to shut down a more serious operation. Perhaps the men had their children killed by the IDF, and Hamas was sympathetic. Again, I don't know all the issues. It certainly does look bad, but never the less - they did limit 98% of the rocket fire so something they did was working. Well, I am sure that just being a member of Hamas is a crime in Israel. So, it stands to reason that being a member of the IDF is a crime in Palestine. As far as I know, the only prisoners that they took were members of an organization responsible for killing hundreds of civilians. Are you kidding me? Is that a joke? AT THE TIME of his capture, he wasn't involved in any operations? Who cares? Does Israel only target Hamas members when they are actively involved in operations? Is it sort of like when a puppy shits on the rug? If you don't catch him right then, it's too late? Oh, that's right, IDF aren't terrorists because they wear uniforms, and they don't TRY to kill civilians. Of course, since they actually kill 8 times more civilians than Palestine kills Jews, they must be pretty f*king inept. Frankly, Hamas could just say that they are launching rockets trying to kill IDF. Oh, guess they missed and killed civilians. That's ok, because they were trying to kill IDF so that makes it totally legit. That seems to be Israel's practice. I don't know. If Israel was so interested in peace, why didn't they open their cells and let everyone go free? Hamas was trying to use Shalit as a bargaining chip to free Palestinians. So, let me see if I understand your logic. 1) Hamas did it before, so it is reasonable to assume they are doing it again, even though there is a ceasefire on. 2) Israel claimed they found the tunnels, and since the Times printed what Israel told them, you view that as a valid source. 3) Israel knew exactly that the tunnel was being built for kidnapping purposes and not for smuggling of basic supplies. 4) There was no way to remove the tunnel or engage in diplomatic relations. Killing Hamas leaders was the only way. Hmm, gosh - that's a tough one. They could: 1) Tell Hamas to shut down the tunnel or else Israel will be forced to bomb it. 2) Involve the international community so that international forces go in and investigate. 3) Figure out where the tunnel comes up and wait for Hamas to show their true colours. There are limitless things that they could have done, but instead they chose to kill several Hamas members, effectively ending the ceasefire.

You can call me a Palestinian apologist if you like. You really should look up the word apologist before you get your panties in a knot. If you want to call me a terrorist enabler, then can I call you an infanticide advocate?

Enough of your Islamophobia. In Europe, people go to jail all the time for anti-semitic statements. Not believing in the holocaust is a crime in several countries in Europe, for instance. Now, whether you agree with these limits to free speech is one thing, but suggesting Holland is an Islamic state because of this is ludicrous. Nobody asks if Germany is a Jewish state because they jail holocaust deniers.

Dancer, nobody has an issue with them using it as a smokescreen device, providing they take care to avoid harming people directly with the phosphorous. As someone else pointed out, most militaries use it for one reason or another. But, since none of the Israeli apologists have even had the courage or decency that to admit that using it to burn off the skin of people is wrong, there isn't really much point in attempting to demonstrate how they are using it, since in the eyes of the apologists Israel can do no wrong. Hell, Israel could kill every Palestinian there, and the apologists would still find ways to defend them.

The answer to all of your points is that that the one-world government needs to collect taxes so that it can raise an army and redistribute wealth. It needs to be able to enforce its laws, just as the federal government of Canada would step in if Alberta suddenly decided that it was going to kill all its first nations people.

Well, it's just one more level. We could get rid of the Federal government and only have provincial governments, but that would create its own problems and disputes. There are two reasons why we would want a one-world government 1) There are things that need international rule - the oceans, the environment, international disputes etc., flow of labour and capital etc. 2) There needs to be a concentrated effort to bring about human rights as well as some level of prosperity worldwide. It doesn't mean that national borders get erased - just as provincial borders didn't get erased in 1867. It simply means that there is a higher authority that the nations have to listen to, and there is a recognized mechanism to resolve international disputes and determine what is fair. There are 5 reasons why the UN will not take us down this path and coincidentally, they are all permanent members of the security council. If we get there, it will be because of the EU. They are the ones pushing for human rights and greater economic equality among its member states. But of course, all of this is moot, if we can't defeat the Zargon invasion in the Year 2034.

Well, since you don't seem to think that there is anything wrong with such an intensely painful death, that burns the skin off of people - it appears that you really only see this conflict in terms of good and evil - such that no mercy should be shown to the evil people. So, it's really a moot point. There really isn't any atrocity that Israel could commit against the Palestinian people that you wouldn't try to justify. It amazes me that Israeli supporters talk about the stress and anxiety that Israelis experience when they are so quick to dismiss people getting their skin burned off as a necessary act.

Hmmm let's see. We have Palestinians saying that Israel is using white phosphorous in their bombs. We have Israel saying that they are only using it for smokescreens and to mark their targets. Can we at least agree that using white phosphorous against people (military, terrorist, or civilian) is wrong. Having people burn to death in horrible pain is wrong. Can we agree on that? Otherwise there is no point in having this discussion. Let's establish that before moving on to debate how Israel is using it.

Of course they did. All good patriotic Germans found ways to close their eyes to what was going on and/or justify why it was necessary. It was only the traitors who were against these things. You should support your country no matter what - everyone knows that.

Well, if you want to take the Darwinian approach, I suppose. So then, are the disabled also the problem of the disabled and not societies? Should society, in your opinion, take responsibility for anything, or just let the chips fall where they may? Well, that would basically force the compassionate to shoulder a disproportionate share of the burden. Yes, a police state where we lock people up for stealing food sounds like a country to be proud of. Excellent suggestion. But sure, I see your point. Perhaps we can condition the desperately poor to accept their lot in life. Teach them how to be a proper Epsilon. It isn't a payoff. We are not bribing people not to commit crimes. We are creating a more equitable society, such that people are less desperate. There is a difference. Helping the poor isn't waste. If you felt sorry for them, then you wouldn't be arguing to take away their $550 dollars per month so that we can take home an extra $20/month. You're new at pretending to be a compassionate conservative, aren't you? Now, there are various objections to social assistance, and your particular objection seems to be that you don't feel that people should have to contribute to something that they don't believe in. Well, this is what government does. They take a little from everyone, and spend money. If we only spent money on things that we all believed in, then the government would be taking no money at all, and it would be up to individual donations for everything. I don't really think that we need to spend too much on national defense for instance. Why don't we leave that for charities. Let's get the people that think it's important to pay for it. I don't really think that we need to bail out the banks or the auto industry. Let's just pass the hat around to fix that problem. I'm young and healthy, so I'll opt out of contributing taxes for health care now. Take the money from the old and sick people. I've already got an education, and I'm not having kids - I won't chip in for education. I don't have a car. I don't want to chip in for highways etc.

Well, first of all, the suggestion that welfare is 'bad luck', is only true if you include: - Whether you have one parent or two - How much money your parents have - How much focus your parents put on education - How smart you are Now, Renegade, your idea that welfare should be treated like insurance basically describes EI. EI, has its own problems - but it is essentially insurance for those with 'bad luck'. Welfare is different. There are people who from birth have a very high chance of going on welfare. No insurance company is going to cover them. Likewise, there are people who have no chance of going on welfare, because they are well-educated and have a wealthy family. Even if they take a couple years to 'find themselves' - they can still rely on mommy and daddy to pay their way. Welfare is intended to make Canada a civilized society, so that those who can not find work have an existence without having to resort to crime, prostitution etc. With all the money that Canada wastes, quit crying because someone gets a 'free ride' of $550/month. I sure as hell wouldn't want to trade places with them - and for me I feel sorry for them. I don't feel jealous because they get a 'free ride'.

This is not going to be controversial. This is going to be an open and shut case and this guy is going to serve many years in prison, as he should. You don't shoot unarmed prisoners. Soldiers are not the ones who get to makes these decisions. You don't just get to kill people because you think they are the bad guy. If I go to a prison to visit Clifford Olson or Paul Bernardo and I shoot them - I am not a hero - I am a criminal. It doesn't matter if those are bad people, we have laws, and we have standards for military conduct. Every crime should have a victim. In this case, there are two victims. The first was a severely wounded unarmed man. The second victim, and the reason why Semrau needs a lengthy prison sentence is the reputation of Canada's military.

I know that you are from Alberta, so I don't hold you to the standards of the other posters, but... 1) It's there not their, in this context. 2) Take a look at a map (current), and tell me where West Germany is.

Whether Hamas actually fired the rockets themselves or others did it from within Gaza, as the governing body Hamas has a responsibility to control the area. I've already indicated to you that Hamas reduced the rocket fire by 98%. They stopped firing rockets themselves, and they made an effort to stop others. While they do control much of Gaza, they are not the only actors. There are other groups who did not agree to the terms as well as dads who had children killed by the IDF and now have nothing to live for. Instead of acknowledging this, you have claimed it is not enough. Israel did the same. Both actions tell me that you are not looking for peace - you are looking for excuses to continue with your settlements, occupation and barbaric treatment of the Palestinians. Ok, but let's say that it's Canadian Arabs instead. Let's say that they start launching rockets and Canada is doing everything it can to stop them - including arresting those responsible, asking for witnesses, trying to cut off the supply of weapons. Now, the US would be blameless if it targeted those terrorists yes - but they would not be blameless if they killed thousands of innocent Canadians in the process. I think that's a no-brainer. We aren't going to sit back and say - well, we deserved that because we couldn't find the terrorists. It's a fair assessment. They were taking steps towards that. But again, progress doesn't interest you - only excuses. On July 10 at least three members of the Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades were detained for firing rockets. All were later released however, and no charges were brought against them I don't know the situation, maybe they had no proof. Maybe they promised not to do it again. If the latter, very irresponsible. Oh, is that right? So, Israel doesn't have any Palestinian prisoners? (other than all of Palestine) No women or children in their jails? Surely, you aren't complaining that Hamas had one SOLDIER? You expect Hamas to let him go so he can start killing women and children again, just like a good little IDF terrorist? Sorry, but when 300 children are dead, I have a hard time crying about ONE IDF SOLDIER. Again, no proof. Israel can just do whatever they want and make up a reason after. Allegedly, there was a tunnel, and allegedly Israel just happened to know about it, and allegedly they were going to kidnap someone, and allegedly Israel just happened to intercept that conversation and allegedly Israel had no other way of dealing with it, and could not prepare themselves for the kidnapping attempt. I've seen a few of the videos that go around on the Jewish mailing lists about the Arab culture. They both do the same things - the only difference is that the Arabs don't dominate the media enough to have hour long exposes on Jewish propaganda.

Correct. I think that collective central planning will serve the overall interests of the people of Canada better than individuals acting independently of eachother. Good for you. Really? Well considering that you don't even know what I am proposing, I would say that you don't really know. Programs that encourage home-buying <> Let's force banks to lend to people with bad credit. <> means does not equal, in case you were getting confused.

I predicted this. This is exactly why I didn't sign up. You see, the telemarketer needs the list so that they 'know who not to call'. But, they do everything offshore, and outside the legal jurisdiction of Canada. This allows them to make robocalls over VOIP dirt cheap. And now they have a nice active list to work off of.

Well, we know this, because other groups (Martyrs Brigade) claimed responsibility. Generally, if Hamas launches rockets, they aren't ashamed to acknowledge it.

Well, those didn't come from Hamas until just recently in response to Israel killing 6 Hamas members. In fact, Hamas, attempted to stop other groups from launching rockets. During the ceasefire, rocket attacks were reduced by 98%. If you are going to ignore everything that Hamas did, simply because a few rockets got through, then you aren't interested in peace, you're interested in justifying further settlements etc. You need to realize that with all the dead Palestinians, and with all the weapons caches - there will always be someone firing off the occasional rocket. It will take both time and cooperation to change the culture, ease the hatred, and remove the rockets.

Well, while I appreciate the intention. 1) It already is illegal to give arms to the Palestinians, but it still gets through. 2) Israel already has its own arms industry so effectively banning the sale of weapons, would essentially mean that only Israel can have weapons. But hey, I am all for unarmed combat. UFC style.