Gabriel

Regardless of the article's points, the fact remains that mammography saves lives. All reputable organizations regarding this mater advocate screening for women starting at age 40 (except for governmental prevention task force). So, the large organizations that are the authorities on this matter advocate regular testing for women beginning at age 40. Case closed.

I don't have an Ipsos-Reid poll to give me an idea to what degree these savage and barbaric practises are supported among the Afghan population, and neither do you. I am concerned, however, that a sizable portion of the Afghan population do subscribe to the barbaric traditions we've discussed in this thread and probably cannot be civilized. But who knows? Perhaps I am too sceptical. Still, you and I both know that not all Afghans are supporters of Taliban-esque ideology. I'm confident that there is a significant portion of the Afghan population worth salvaging and bringing into the 21st century. What you mentioned above is one reason why I am very sceptical of referring to civilian casualties in Afghanistan as "innocent", though. If they perpetuate the barbaric practises of the dark ages that must be destroyed, I believe that them being dispatched serves a greater good. We don't need any more people on this planet like that. You're STILL not acknowledging that the Afghan population cannot be painted with one broad brush stroke. I am making distinctions that need to be made, you aren't.

That's a good point - one I can't believe I overlooked. He was doing the Sikh thing, and not the Hindu thing. And clearly Hindus are a much larger group in Canada. I still think it's naive to suggest there aren't any political motives. But on the other hand of course Harper is a human being taking a few moments to enjoy some of the sights while overseas. Who said being PM doesn't have to have any cool and fun moments? I hope to go to India someday and check out a bunch of cool places like that temple.

The radiation produced from mammograms when used on the basis prescribed by a physician/specialist is inconsequential. Please stop spreading pointless facts that only serve to misinform.

My mistake, I thought it was a spin-off of Islam.

Yes, yes... we must avail ourselves of the burden of the monarchy. As if we're suffering so horribly in Canada under the rule of a foreign entity. :rolls eyes: Stupid leftists and treasonous separatists, more concerned with image than reality. I think we're doing just fine under the dictatorship of the monarchy, and see no need to change it.

All of your links are reporting on the new, and highly disputed, guidelines released from the American government task force (I forget its exact title, something along the lines of prevention task force). Major medical associations have already rejected these new guidelines - the American College of Physicians, the American Medical Association, and American Cancer Society (for starters). Canada's official guidelines also reject the new government guidelines. As do, I imagine, virtually all reputable international organizations. Nice try masking the truth with bullshit, though.

It's hilarious how Topaz states the obvious and Sir Bandelot runs in to shower him praise. Clearly Harper is, partly, attempting to appeal to the Indian voters of Canada. That being said, I believe that Harper does genuinely feel a solidarity with certain Canadians with Indian heritage. The vast majority of Indians I've met (and befriended), and I've met many, have been hard-working, highly-educated, intelligent and pleasant and warm people. They believe in self-sufficiency and freedom and family. Although I'm hardly a partisan, the Conservative party nowadays most closely reflects these values. I think Harper , being a Conservative and a somewhat capable politician, recognizes that he will have a greater likelihood of success in his message connecting with successful, educated, and intelligent groups of people rather than the underbelly of society (including many useless arts majors). The NDP can cater to the unemployed and chronically underemployed, and the Conservatives can cater to those who actually take advantage of the abundance of opportunities available in Canada. Harper's being smart - appealing to the type of demographic that will appreciate some of his message. Why waste his time on white trash who live in subsidized housing or Francophone separatists or terrorist-lovers? That being said, Harper did play the fool when trying to buy the union vote by throwing money away at GM. And I'm pretty sure union voters are typically supportive of the NDP and Liberals. But I'm starting to really go off-topic, now...

Did you honestly think I was unaware that there are Taliban animals serving in the Afghan government headed by Karzai? Did you honestly think I was unaware that differing degrees of "negotiations" have taken place between the Afghan government (and by extension America and the coalition) and terrorist scum? I'll say it again - thanks, tips.

Thanks, tips.

How many times do I need to clarify that when I use the terms "barbarians and savages" I am referring to the extremist segment of the Afghan population (and other Arab/Muslim populations)? I have stated clearly that I do not see the Taliban and other terrorist organizations as one-in-the-same as the broader Afghan population. I am not naive, however, to the great degree to which Taliban-style ideology permeates Afghanistan's population (and other Arab/Muslim populations). Let's not pretend that extremist Islamic ideology is some ultra-tiny fringe minority of these populations. For the last time, stop mischaracterizing my statements. This reminds me of the same people that describe Lou Dobbs as anti-immigration when he is anti-ILLEGAL-immigration. It's as if you are unable to discern between the Taliban and other extremists and the broader Afghan population. I will not apologize for describing the Taliban as barbarians and subhumans.

Nazi Germany could have surrendered. Aside from that, they deserved it. Imagine how many millions of lives they destroyed! If there was ever a case where revenge was justified, then WWII was it. The Nazis were vicious and treacherous and showed little mercy to anyone. They also enjoyed strong internal support among Germans. If anything, Germany got off easily considering how evil its actions were.

So since you've got nothing to contribute to the thread, you illustrate your ignorance by not recognizing a common figure of speech? It's not uncommon to describe vast differences between things, for example between the civilizational progress of different societies, as being light-years apart. If you've got nothing to contribute, then don't post. Do I really need to prove this point? Go spend a second or two on Google and YouTube, they absolutely have operational points. Of course that's not their entirety and many of them are mobile and embedded among the broader population - the common tactic of treachery utilized by fundamentalist Islamic animals. Why am I even responding to you?

What's hard to understand? We're not crushing their towns out of some sick vendetta. We're there to annihilate a threat to our freedom and values. It's about removing a serious threat! How can you not realize that we ARE better? We promote freedom and democracy, civil rights, opportunities, education, and everything else good. We're not going in there and trying to convert people to Nazism or Islamism or other barbaric, savage, or subhuman ideologies that turn people into animals. We're promoting civilizational advancement. When those values are finally integrated into the Afghan culture, and enforced by sturdy civil infrastructure, our mission will be complete. It is maddening when I hear this type of argument advanced - that somehow the only thing that distinguishes us from the animals is that we don't kill civilians. Civilians will, on occasion, become collateral damage. It is never our intention nor desire to harm civilians, but it is a consequence of conflict when the enemy and civilians are intermixed and impossible to distinguish from one another in a reasonably safe manner. Forget about that fact that we are light-years ahead of the animals with respect to moral development (human rights, civil structure, values of equality, freedom, democracy), education, technology, etc, etc, etc. Yet in your mind we're all the same once we're forced by our enemies to engage in military actions that can harm civilians. Insanity! Once we nuke all of Afghanistan, you MIGHT have an argument that we've become comparable to the enemy with respect to morality. Just MAYBE. Until then, our morality has nothing to prove to animals.

Put simply, Nazi Germany started it. Nazi Germany employed brutal and vicious methods, as well - far more brutal than the methods of the Allied. Bombing London and other civilian areas, mass executions of captured towns and villages, the siege of Leningrad, etc, etc, etc. Nazi Germany deserved everything it received. Only Nazi Germany and its allies and supporters were at fault. Even in the heat of the brutality that was WWII, Nazi Germany's conduct was contemptuous - the Allies always maintained moral superiority and have virtually nothing to apologize for.

I have no idea what you're talking about. I've stated my opinions quite clearly and then explained them further. What's confusing? I'm simply opposed to putting our soldiers at extreme risk in order to satisfy extremists on the left under the guise of reducing the likelihood of harming civilians. If a town or village or anything is reasonably suspected of being hostile, why in the world are we sending our soldiers in to go door to door and attempt to discern between combatant and non-combatant? As we do this the enemy exploits these methods by pretending to be a non-combatant when defeat and/or capture is imminent. This is insanity. If there is hostility in an area, destroy it. The blood of all the civilians lies on the hands of the terrorists. Do I need to paint a picture with an easier to digest analogy? What about the hostage taking at Beslan with the Muslim Chechen terrorists? Were the casualties (over 800, I believe) the fault of the Russian paramilitary response? Of course not - the murder of hundreds of children and civilians are completely the responsibility of the terrorists. The same is true in the theatre of combat in Afghanistan. The Taliban is responsible for all civilian deaths and injuries. The Taliban still has the option to surrender and cease terrorism. Clearly they are more committed to their violent Islamic ideology than they are to the values of freedom, democracy, and peace.

That wasn't the logic of my statement, at all. What's I was suggesting was that the Taliban and other similar terrorists put the safety of the children at risk by conducting their operation among them. The responsibility for all civilian casualties lies with the Taliban, unless negligence can be illustrated on behalf of Canadian forces or our allies. That being said, our conduct and morality cannot even be compared to the treacherous methods of our enemies, although we've all seen the extremists on the left make absurd claims that we are the moral equivalents of the Taliban and other similar terrorist groups. If you don't understand what's I'm implying, ask for clarification. Don't mischaracterize my statements. I'm not even sure how you inferred that I was advocating for the killing of children because they weren't cared about by the Taliban. With respect to Dresden and Nagasaki, they were necessary. The enemy didn't surrender until afterwards. If only we had the same resolve today, we could end many conflicts much sooner.

That type of conflict only serves as an advantage to the terrorists. The entire area should be destroyed if the enemy doesn't surrender and hand over its combatants and leaders. Surrender or be annihilated. Rather, we sacrifice out soldiers in order to reduce the likelihood of "innocent" civilians becoming collateral damage. Perfect examples of extreme leftism and apathy allowing for the massacring of countless people. The violent groups should have been annihilated. I am not advocating genocide. I am supporting measures that will destroy the enemy and OPPOSED to absurd measures that result in the deaths and injuries of our soldiers in order to somehow protect "innocent" civilians. Of course there are some reasonable measures that can be taken to reduce the likelihood of civilian casualties - but sending our soldiers into towns and having them go door to door is completely irresponsible. As much as we need to win the hearts of minds of certain segments of that Afghan population (the segments that can be integrated into civilization), we also need to break the hearts and crush the hopes of the enemy.

If the Taliban value the lives of innocent children, they're welcome to surrender and cease their terrorism. The responsibility for this conflict and its perpetuation lies with the enemy. Of course it is terrible when children die in war. Of course they had no choice regarding where they'd be born or who their parents would be. This is the tragedy of war, though. I am not willing to put our soldiers at a greater risk of being killed or injured by telling them NOT to destroy operational spots of the enemy OR by putting them at EXTREME risk by having them try to painstakingly differentiate between combatant and non-combatant - especially when the terrorists CONSISTENTLY exploit this by claiming to be non-combatants when captured. With respect to the arbitrary definitions of what groups do or don't qualify as some group protect under international law from being annihilated... let's not be ridiculous. Should the Nazis have been seen as a political group protected from "genocide" during WWII? Let's not be ridiculous. This is garbage we're talking about, not humans.

It's a war. There is a greater good to be considered. I am not advocating absolute reckless abandon when attacking the enemy, but I am absolutely opposed to putting our soldiers at extreme risk in order to preserve fantasy ideals. When I see images and videos of American soldiers conducting urban warfare in Iraq, going house to house, risking being killed around every corner from subhumans that embed themselves within the civilian population and hide their weapons and pretend to be civilians when captured... my blood boils. We have soldiers who aren't permitted to engage the enemy until they've been shot at. The entire area should simply be carpet bombed. Stop letting our soldiers get killed in order to reduce the likelihood of civilian casualties. We send soldiers in to kill the enemy, and then we criticize them for doing their jobs. You don't think our soldiers are nervous when they advance on towns and villages in Afghanistan? You want them to give all of these people the ebenfit of the doubt, assume that they are non-combatants, and then get shot in the back? Let's not be naive to the EXTREME treachery of the enemy. And let's stop romanticizing the civilians! They are more than likely supporters of the enemy.

The average illiterate Afghan raised in an extremist culture comprehends philosophical double standards between Canada and our enemies that you claim exist based on CBC reports of allegations of detainee abuse at the hands of Afghan security forces? Can you stretch and twist reality any further? Give me a break. According to MacKay, over a hundred million dollars has already been invested in addition to serious efforts to upgrade the standards of detainee management. In other words, conditions for detainees are improving thanks to the efforts of the Canadian government. I have no doubt that this is true. I'm not about to believe anything you say about anything. How do you know the Red Cross isn't already involved? How do you know the Red Cross hasn't already made improvements to the way the Afghan security forces manage detainees? Will the average Afghan be aware of this and be able to recognize that this is a small part of the massive sacrifices that Canada has made towards benefiting the Afghan people? I'm uncertain. Yes, yes, how rude of me to condemn a culture that sells off children, that denies education to girls, that support suicide bombings in busy bazaars. How dare I denigrate this wonderful and distinct culture. That being said, I am not equating savagery and barbarism (terms you are afraid to use when describing the sick cultural traditions that we see in Afghanistan) to the entirety of Afghan culture. Certainly there are segments of the Afghan population that know that there is a better way to conduct themselves. Perhaps the "moderate Taliban" you speak of are the same Taliban that supported and passed a law legalizing rape? The same Taliban that refuse to implement a minimum age for sexual consent? Your coddling of animals isn't an endearing quality. Let me spell it out for you - extreme leftists believe that animals can be negotiated with. They believe that animals can be made into humans. So they give animals seats in the government. That is why we see Taliban represented in the new Afghan government. The enemy has legitimized itself thanks to folks like you that attach labels like "moderate" to extremists/fundamentalists. Insanity.

The Taliban isn't some group that is defined by criteria applicable to genocide. In other words, the Taliban isn't some distinct racial, ethnic, religious, or cultural group. This is getting silly... are you suggesting that the Taliban NOT be dispatched?

It's not genocide. Not even close.

The turban is a Sikh thing. Sikhism is a religion related to Islam. Those dudes have LONG hair underneath those turbans. EDIT - I'm far from some expert of Sikhism, so any Sikhs in here (or other knowledgeable folks) can obviously feel free to elaborate if necessary.

So you've got a problem with that? You'd prefer that we NOT destroy operational points of the enemy in order to preserve possibly non-Taliban civilians?