KeyStone

Israel has been playing that game for awhile now. If the people they talk to don't have the power to stop all attacks on Israel, then they aren't worth talking to. Of course, if they do have the power, then they must be terrorists, so Israel won't talk to them. There will ALWAYS be attacks against Israel. There will always be extremists filled with hate, because their children have been killed or they hate Jews or whatever. You can not blame all Palestinians for an action of a few and allow a few actions to setback the peace process. That depends entirely on how civilized the nation is that is attempting to play by the rules. A civilized nation differentiates between terrorist and civilian. A terrorist does not allow a great deal of collateral damage and then blame it on the terrorists for not making it easy to find and kill them. The problem that most Israeli apologists have is that they are unable to differentiate between civilian and terrorist. They simply see them as all Arabs. So, when they kill Arabs because Arabs fired missiles at them, it was the Arabs fault. I am asking you to suggest how else Palestinians could fight against the IDF child-killers? You seem to be offering two options: 1) Accept whatever Terms Israel gives you as they are superior. 2) March in nice neat lines with uniforms and flashing neon lights, so the billion dollar warplanes can disintegrate you. The goal of the militants is to get Israel to regret the poor treatment of the Palestinian people. How do you expect them to do that? I am saying that vastly inferior military capacity, combined with unjust conditions, and a complete lack of ability to make changes through non-violence will ulimately lead to civilian casualties. If you want to call it murder, then let's call all the deaths of civilians murder, so that our language is consistent. If the Canadian government treated the Inuit people so poorly that nations of the world suggested that the international body investigate their living conditions, then I would absolutely welcome the UN investigation. But then Canada is a nation with nothing to hide. If you read it says peaceful revolution. A revolution is nothing more than a sweeping change. Yes, all civilized oountries must allow a mechanism for peaceful revolution. The Palestinians have none, making violence inevitable.

Wow, Elongated man couldn't make that much of a stretch. So, there is some connection between the Nazis and the Baathists in the 30's and 40's and therefore it is Nazi sympathy that is the heart of Arab hatred of Jews? Yes, that makes sense - it has nothing go do with millions of people being displaced, or the thousands of dead Arabs lost over the past decades of fighting or the occupation. You are talking about something that is eighty years old. I'm pretty sure that Germany, Japan and Italy all have slightly stronger ties to the Nazis. Do you apply the same hatred of Jews to them as well, still, such that all their actions are measured through an Islamofascist lens, or does this only apply to Arabs?

Let me see if I understand this. Firstly, you seem to be cherry picking through international law, suggesting that the Geneva conventions are important, but perhaps some others aren't relevant. Would that be an accurate description? Secondly, it seems that you don't deny that some innocent Palestinians are killed directly by Israelis. But you blame the terrorists for the deaths of the innocents, not the people who actually killed them. And your reasoning is that the terrorists broke the Geneva conventions, and therefore Israel has the right to kill innocent people in their pursuit of these terrorists? Is that about right? So, it's kind of like a cop chasing a bank robber on a high-speed chase. If a family of five dies as a result of the high-speed chase, it's the fault of the bank robber and the police don't have to assume any responsibility? Would you say that's a fair analogy? If not, what are the differences?

Well, since you're going to be pulling the 'war crimes' card here, thus suggesting that international law and the will of the UN are relevant, I expect you to be consistent, and not dismiss the UN as irrelevant, and disregard international law as unreasonable in future discussions. I will certainly explain my justification of 'war crimes', just as soon as you acknowledge that international law is relevant and should be adhered to, since that is the premise of your argument. If on the other hand, you don't feel that international law or the UN are relevant, then there is really no need for me to defend the position.

Just so I'm clear, Dancer, do we think international law and the will of the UN is important or not? Let's be consistent on this, and not just use international law when it suits our purposes.

Ahh, using the standard 'all criticism of Israel is anti-semitism' defense. How novel. Sadly, it's a step up from your previous post.

It's like having a boss. If you ask for a raise, the boss claims that he would have given you one, if you hadn't been so pushy and aggressive. Of course, if you don't ask for a raise, then your boss is only too happy not to give you one. If you say nothing, Israel does nothing for the Palestinians. If you say something, they use that as the justification for doing nothing for the Palestinians.

Yes,that is what makes him great, not perfect. He has made mistakes and will continue to do so. But he will in all likelihood own up to them, as oppose to compounding his mistakes by trying to pretend they don't exist. Do you actually understand anything about taxes or do you just regurgitate the drivel spoon-fed to you by right wing talk show hosts? Taxes are on profit, not on revenues. So, assuming that a business' main goal is to maximize profit, the tax won't affect them whatsoever. They will still make the same profit. The only question is how much of that money will they be able to keep to reinvest etc. Businesses do not have to shut down because taxes are too high. Businesses do not have to lay people off because taxes are too high. If businesses are greedy, they may decide to locate elsewhere where they can pay smaller tax bills and hire $3/hour engineers. You can credit the free trade brigade with that problem. I see. So, if the majority are white, does that make it a white nation? If the majority are male, does that make it a male nation? A nation is only a Christian nation if the government bases its laws on the beliefs of Christianity, and openly favours one religion over another.

Wow! I haven't seen a strawman torn apart so badly since the flying monkeys took apart the scarecrow in Wizard of Oz. There is a significant difference between 'crying about fairness' and explaining why Hamas fighters don't march in a neat little line in open field with flashing green lights to make it easy for the Israeli drones to annihilate them. If anyone cries about fairness, it's Israel, which is why it's all so absurd.

So democracy=good, non-democracy=bad. Therefore Israel=good. Is that your logic? If not, please explain the relevance. Allow me to paraphrase. Palestinian militants should make it easy for the IDF to track them down and kill them after they launch rockets. If they do not, Israel should have the right to kill as many civilians as it needs to, as long as they are 'trying' to kill the terrorists. Let's put that in a North American setting. Some black people killed a white woman. Therefore, the black people should identify themselves, so we can punish them. If they do not, we have the right to demolish an entire area where black people live. If innocent black people die in the process, it is the fault of the black killers. So, you are suggesting that if People A have superior military to People B, People B should not have any rights or recourse if People A do not treat them fairly. No, they are not. They don't even have the capability. Perhaps we should give them the ability to shootdown unmanned drones, and direct their missiles into military areas? Would that make things better? But for the sake of argument, let's say that they were aiming at military targets with their crude targeting. Would that make a difference, or would the results(ratio of civilians killed to military) have to be different. Hmm, statistics would say otherwise: Civilian Casualties I am sure that we can bicker over the meaning of uninvolved. Truly remarkable. I suppose they don't use white phosphorous or depleted uranium either? He was a member of the IDF. As such he is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Palestinian children. Similarly, members of Hamas and Hezbollah are responsible for the deaths of dozens of Israeli children. No, Hamas is a terrorist organization. Or had you not heard? Surely, we can hold Israel to a higher standard than a terrorist organization. If your intention is to exonerate Israel by showing them to be better than Hamas, then you do Israel an injustice. Do you know that Israel and the US blocked a UN resolution to investigate the conditions in Palestine? Do you know that Israel blocked all media during the most recent incursion into Palestine? What options do you think they have when all normal channels of change are blocked by Israel? As JFK said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable" We know full well that Israel is mightier, but the Arab people have a proud, defiant spirit, and they will fight to the death against impossible odds rather than accept perceived injustice. If you really want peace: 1) Make peaceful revolution possible. 2) Administer collective punishment and rewards in a transparent manner such that all of Palestine works against missile attacks 3) Stop allowing the extremists to undermine the peace process and stay the course.

"Excuse me but just once I would like someone who criticizes Israel to actually propose someone neutral investigate them. Just once" Why? So you could suggest that whatever organization that gets tapped to do the investigation is not neutral and is actually against Israel? We all know very well that no matter what organization is suggested, the defenders of Israel will always accuse any organization of anti-semitism. There will always be some link with five degrees of separation that will be proof enough. Otherwise, any organization that has been critical of anything Israel has done in the past, immediately loses credibility. Just once, I would like to see someone who defends Israel actually allow someone neutral to investigate without declaring them anti-semitic before the investigation has actually occured. Unfortunately, the supporters of Israel actually believe that the IDF is the only neutral organization in the world. Just once.

Not a bad idea at all, but clearly over the heads of most of the posters here. A little protection for domestic products, and a deterrent to shipping long distances (better for the environment) seems like a good compromise. I don't mind paying 10-20% more for local goods, but when you are paying 2 to 3 times as much for the same product, that's too much.

Yeah, making the census voluntary sure did wonders for the Conservatives in the poll. Wonder who the brain trust was, with that brilliant idea.

How absurd you have become. Please change your tagline, for it is clearly inaccurate. While I don't know if you have been disbarred, you certainly are no leftist, so stop pretending to be one. The US, like most countries, has made mistakes. One does not become a better person by rationalizing and justifying past mistakes but rather by admitting to past mistakes, attempting not to repeat them and possibly making amends. That is what makes Obama great. He can accept that America is a great country, without living the illusion that it is perfect and can do no wrong. I can assure you that if Obama had spoken to Chavez or Ortega, the right (such as yourself) would have become outraged that he had lowered himself enough to address such foolishness. Incidentally, America is not a Christian nation. It is a religiously neutral nation, that allows for freedom of all religions. This is a little something called separation of church and state, which Jewish and Muslim nations do not have. The rest of the points supporting the false hypothesis that Obama hates America are trivial whiny little points, that don't deserve mention.

"No that is how asymetrical warfiare is done and why it is considered illegal is precisely why so many civilians get killed." Illegal? Don't tell me you suddenly care about pesky things such as international law all of a sudden. Next thing you know, you'll think that the Geneva conventions is a relevant document. "When guerillas fought the germans in Yugoslavia, they wore identifying marks and holed themselves up in the mountains and fought the germans there. When the Philipinos fought the Japanese, they did it in the jungles..." Great examples from seventy years ago. The key difference is that in 1942, neither the Japanese nor the Germans had F-15's with heat-seeking missiles etc etc. "Of course, those men we can call brave...." I know you think the guy in Tel Aviv controlling the drones to kill militants and civilians is brave. And no doubt, the guys launching missiles from 200 km away are very brave. Wikileaks certainly gave us a great video to demonstrate just how brave those US soldiers are. According to you, the only way a Palestinian can fight bravely is if he wears a uniform and stands out in a field with a big target on his head, to get shot down by a drone. Like I say, anytime the cowardly IDF child-killers want to fight without their weapons, I guarantee you that there are plenty of Arabs who would love to step up. But we all know that Israel doesn't want a fair fight. when the plaestinians do it it is behind the dresses of women

"So you're saying it's O.K. for Israel's opponents to fight asymetrically but if Israel kills any civilians in an attack aimed primarily at military targets it's offensive? You'll have to explain that." Israel likes to make the rules of what is fair, and what is not fair. According to Israel, the fair ways for the Palestinians to fight would be to wear uniforms, and march in a nice little line, far away from any civilians. The response to this would be for Israel to decimate them with billion dollar warplanes. They really don't have any choice but to blend in with the civilian population. This is how guerilla warfare is done. This is why Vietnam was such a problem for the US. If Israel wants the Palestinians to fight fair, then put down the billion dollar warplanes, and the drones, and the thousand dollar guns, and the nightvision goggles, and the tanks. I can assure you that Palestinians would love to fight the IDF barehanded. Would the IDF be willing to do the same? Of course not. They would prefer to use drones to kill Palestinians. As for the killing of civilians, Israel kills far more Palestinians civilians than Palestians kill Israeli civilians. Israel kills far more children than Palestinians. So what if the missile was intended for a terrorist. What if the Palestinians made some crude attempt to target IDF in Israel? And if they missed and hit a school, or a bunch of civilians - oh well, at least they are trying to hit the IDF child-killers, so I guess that makes it OK? Would that appease your sense of need to be trying to target the military? Besides which, it doesn't seem to make a difference if Palestine targets the IDF child-killers or civilians. When they kidnapped the IDF child-killer Gilad Shalit, Israel still responded by bombing civilian populations, did they not? Whether you or Israel choose to admit it or not, Israel engages in collective punishment of Palestinians. When they can not figure out who is responsible for a missile attack, they do not just throw up their hands and say: 'Darn, I guess they win this round' - they reciprocate against whoever is convenient, fully aware that many civilians will get hurt or killed along the way. That is how they play the game, regardless of their 'intentions' to go after terrorists. Israel believes that because they are superior militarily, that the Palestinians must accept peace under the terms that Israel offers them. They believe that Palestinians should not be able to leverage any power through military means, and that they have the right to reciprocate tenfold, even if that reciprocation is not accurately directed at the right targets.

Ford has made some hateful comments in the past regarding gays. He has never apologized or admitted those were wrong. Until he does, every member of the gay community has the right to refer to him as a bigot. I'm not a huge fan of Rob Ford. That does not mean that I think less of people who voted for him. It simply means that being 'politically correct' was not the number one priority for people at the ballot box. That being said, Ford could win over a lot of people, and put a lot of his skeletons to rest, by simply acknowledging that what he said was wrong, and not reflective of his views about gays.

Hey Williat, There is a great deal of misinformation out there, on both sides. Let me disspell some current myths. 1) The seal hunt is sustainable. Despite what animals groups say, there are no shortage of seals. 2) Despite what the DFO says, The only reason for the hunt is the pelts. All other seal products are intended solely to obfuscate the fact that young seals are being killed for the pelts (and their carcasses are usually dumped in the ocean.) 3) 95% of seals are killed below the age of three months - as that is when the coat is softest. Now, many people suggest that the only reason the seal hunt faces such opposition is because seals are cute. There are several things which make the hunt different from other animal slaughtering practices: 1) The sheer numbers wiped out in a matter of days. 2) Young (2 weeks is a baby) animals being killed for their pelts. 3) The carcasses being left to rot on the ice (although for PR purposes, they now dump them in the ocean). 4) Wild vs Domestic 5) Out in plain view vs behind closed doors. 6) The intelligence of the animal (and thus capacity to feel pain and suffering) The alleged brutality is really no worse than the many methods of slaughtering animals in various abattoirs - something which gets almost no notice. Part of the reason it gets little notice, is because the practice is hidden, and without undercover work, these practices rarely see the light of day. I assure you that if one of these slaughterhouses for pigs, cows, or horses did a mass killing out in public view, there would be a huge outcry. As for the legality, it should absolutely be legal for a country or the EU to ban products made from something they deem to be cruel, as long as the standards are applied equally. The EU needs to a step further and ban bullfighting and shark fin soup.

Alright, I'm a self-professed socialist. But, there are a few misconceptions that you may have. Just because I like many of the things that socialism offers, does not mean that I agree with all policies that are socialist, nor does it mean that I need to defend and support all instances of socialism being applied. In the case of Greece, as well as some of the other European countries, there are two main problems. 1)Many people are finding illegal ways to avoid paying taxes - through encouraging customers to pay cash etc. All this money from small business is not taxed, and therefore these businesses are not paying their fair share. 2) The public sector in Greece is offering ludicrous benefits, such that anyone who has worked for the public sector for twenty years can retire with a full pension for the rest of their lives. When someone can retire at age 38, after having worked twenty years, and get a full pension for the next fifty years, there is a problem. There is a problem with government running businesses. The problem is not that they are lazy or incompetent. The problem is that most government jobs are unionized. This, in turn means that they often get paid far more than their skills would get in the private sector, and get far greater benefits. Essentially, this means that the cost of a public employee vs a private employee can often be double. This is what needs to change. We are coming into a time when private jobs grant less benefits then ever, and salaries are not rising quickly. At the same time, government jobs continue to rise in pay unabated, while demands for additional benefits are brought up in each session of collective bargaining. The divide between the public and private sectors is growing too substantially, to not be addressed. If there are not significant reforms, there will be greater and greater demand to privatize everything, which brings its own set of problems.

It's very odd how the Conservatives will raise things like EI premiums and payroll taxes. These are things that could actually put a company out of business as they have to pay these regardless of the profit made. Meanwhile, they keep dropping corporate taxes, which are only paid by corporations making a profit after all other expenses are paid. A raise in corporate taxes may provide a disincentive to investment, but it will never put a company out of business. Despite this, the Conservative government touts their tax breaks as being business friendly, when in fact, it is merely rhetoric designed to show lower taxes, while screwing businesses through less visible taxes.

Yeah, the disturbing thing here, is that the military thinks that it is acceptable to kill people that are trying to help the injured. This wasn't a couple of rogue soldiers, this is standard protocol. The fact that they mistook cameras for weapons, and didn't know their were reporters with the others is perfectly understandable. But to kill unarmed people that were only engaged in helping the wounded is absolutely unacceptable. It also seems a bit surprising that they believe that possession of a weapon is enough to justify a death sentence, but allegedly there were events that took place just prior that suggested a high probability that these men had acted against US or civilian forces. Even so, it seems quite cowardly to open fire from a distance, without at least offering these men a chance to surrender. The US seems to value about 100 Iraqi lives to one of their own, which is part of the reason that they will never win hearts and minds.

+ It was hardly critical of the Jews. Yes, there were a couple of bad guys in the movie, that happened to be Jewish. You might be interested to know that Jesus was also Jewish. However, even having a Jewish character in the movie that is bad, is enough to ruin a career. It's like saying that any move with a black criminal in it, is critical of black people.

It's really about how you insult the religion. B'Nai Braith and the CJC continually assault Islam, and try to pinpoint Islam as the source of all evil. Judaism on the other hand is off-limits. Ever seen a movie critical of the Jews? A TV show? Every time everyone so much as hints that Israel might be less than perfect, there is an inquest. You can criticize Islam etc, but when you suggest that Mohammed was a pedophile etc, you are jumping into the camp of people who didn't think the holocaust existed, etc. What we need to do is understand the difference between valid criticism and dialogue intended to induce fear and hatred of the religion.

Well, according to your requirements, the only immigrants that we would be taking are English speaking persons with a trade that is in demand. So, great. We take immigrants from Australia, UK and the US. What you fail to realize is that Canada is not taking immigrants to be nice to the immigrants. We take immigrants because we are not replenishing the population on our own fast enough to make up for the continuous passing of debts and obligations to the next generation. Add to that the fact that no Canadian-born wants to work the krap jobs. Sure, people will work in Fast Food and retail as students, but who will do it M-F 9-5. Do you want a job at Second Cup in Toronto during the week? Canada is letting immigrants in to put downward pressure on wages, fill jobs that nobody else wants, and grow the population enough to make up for the retiring baby boomers, which will cripple us with health care costs, once they all become seniors. The list that you have provided is good for fast tracking people, but not so good for addressing the needs of Canada in regards to our immigration policy.

It seems that most of you haven't watched the entire video. Let's discuss the first round of shooting. There have been insurgents in the area. They see some men walking in Baghdad, with what appears to be guns and they open fire. While it's understandable that the reporters are killed given that they were not wearing proper press attire, and given that they were embedded with weapon carriers, it does seem odd that the rules of engagement allow for the killing of anyone with a weapon. At no point do the shooters verify the identity of the shooters, or suggest that they have committed some sort of crime. The only information that they seem to have is that they have weapons, and they are not US soldiers. Other than that, they don't seem overly concerned about their lives. If the US military is to cowardly to get within range of the alleged insurgents to confirm either their involvement in wrongdoings or their ill intentions, then they should not be in Iraq. When you are trying to win hearts and minds, that sometimes means putting yourself in additional danger to gather the information necessary to avoid killing innocents and offering the enemy a chance to surrender. In the second shooting, they open fire on people that clearly have no weapons, and are just loading the wounded into the van. To open fire on these people is simply inexcusable and cowardly. The general US attitude seems to be that they are the 'bad guys', and therefore killing them, or their supporters is completely acceptable. Neither the wounded man crawling on the ground (while the shooters pray he finds a weapon so they can justify killing him) or the people loading wounded into the van, posed a threat of any kind. The rational thing to have done here would have been to have US ground soldiers advance on the position, secure the area, and then assist the wounded. The final thing to consider is the ramifications of this. Firstly, the people shown on the video show a complete disregard and detachment for the lives they are taking. They seem to be having fun killing people, as if they are playing a video game. At no point in the video, does anyone suggest being cautious about killing innocent people, offering a chance to surrender, or attending to the wounded. If this video is any indication, that would seem to be standard operating procedure for the US military. I would be curious to know if any punishments were doled out as the result of this video. Clearly, the US military has had this in their possession for some time. If these actions are out of the ordinary, then it would stand to reason that someone would be punished. But, it would seem that is not the case, as I have seen US military figures defend every action taken on this video. This is how the US military operates. This is not how hearts and minds are won. The US seems to consistently need reminding that its current reason for being in Iraq is for the people.