Bob

And in the meantime, before those camps that you want to build are operational, what do you propose the Canadian forces to do? This is the question that is never, ever answered by the anti-Harper leftist automatons. That's to say nothing about the absurdity of concern over detainee abuse. The left is silent about these types of abuses until it can use them as a political attack against their sworn domestic opponents., by implying Canadian military complicity (basically accusing Canadian soldiers of committing war crimes) in these abuses. You think that even for one second we believe your concern about these detainees is sincere? Fellowtraveller is right to call this guy out on his continuing evasion of the question. You don't give a damn about these Afghan terrorists, so stop pretending to. Lastly, there's not one shred of meaningful evidence beyond Colvin's "interviews" with a couple of former detainees who may or may not have been transferred to Afghan security custody by Canadian forces. He's just a leftist patsy who got played by the enemy.

I love how you just make shit up and get fellow fools to buy into it.

Remember the name of the video?

Well, the Muslims around this part of the world often hold strong contempt towards Jews, Christians, and other minority faiths in the region. That's the kinda thing I expect from them. I should find that Journeyman video, they have lots of interesting stuff online.

I was gonna say that, too, that I must've missed "water" as a driver of these conflict when reading historical statements from political/military leadership of the time. Still, the Arabs were conducting attacks on water-infrastructure (as well as other infrastructure) for many years before 1967, and also there were Syrian plans and undertakings to divert water from rivers that supply the Galilee and Jordan River. Water's an issue, but of course this conflict would exist with or without water scarcity concerns in this area. Reading dre's posts, however, one would be left with the impression that if this region was as abundant in water as Canada, that these conflicts wouldn't exist. Of course that is a particularly stupid position.

Although he's right that water security was an important issue contributing to the Six-Day War, he is ridiculously reductionist when describing the wars. As if issues of independence, religion, territory, security, and historical tensions are irrelevant or even secondary concerns. And moreover, it's always Israel's fault. The "Palestinians" are always non-actors who are victimized by circumstances beyond their control.

I didn't want to be the one to say it, because I find GostHacked such a repulsive poster. Aside from the obvious use of paintball guns seen in the video DogOnPorch shared on this very page of this thread, several soldiers were stabbed and severely beaten. Anyone who uses the term "peace activists" to describe the mob on the Mavi Marmara is either lying or clueless. But of course, GostHacked doesn't "buy it".

What "International Court"? What are you talking about?

No, I'm not disgusted at all. I am not obsessed with process and protocol. I focus on the bottom-line, and I can why the Harper government tried to obstruct the disgusting attempts of the opposition to smear the military and throw around rhetoric about "international standing" and accusations of "war crimes". It's too bad you can't see the broader issues at play here. Rather, you want to consume yourself with the minutiae of technicalities than on what was at stake.

God forbid we might have our own ideas about this before the Supreme Court makes a decision. You are seemingly implying a sort of infallibility of the SCoC. As far as the OP goes, I can't say I'm surprised. In a free and democratic country like Canada that unfortunately seems to welcome all peoples, you're bound to have that freedom abused by the lowest of the low.

Ya, who are we to question the decision of a "committee"? Especially considering they're making the decision based on "decades-old criteria". Only the fringe extremists on the right would have the gall to question taxpayer money going to niche interests. After all, a committee made the decision - they must know they're doing.

You'd have a point if this was the only pet project funded by the federal government, and if all Canadians were gainfully employed and paying back more in taxes than they were receiving. Although I found Erickson's interview style unpleasant, there are valid criticisms to be levied against federal funds going to these types of programs. For some reason you are trying to obfuscate that and speak to this forum as if we're all idiots. $100K per year to a foundation is quite a bit of money.If it worth it? That's debatable. But don't play mathematical games with us to try to pull the wool over our eyes - this is but one of many thousands of examples of taxpayer funds going to niche interests of questionable public utility.

Krista Erickson moves her hands while she speaks a bit too much. Her contentious demeanour is almost an amplified version of certain Fox News and MSNBC personalities. And yes, that was definitely uncomfortable to watch. Erickson could've made her point, which I think is a valid one in a broad sense, in a much more effective way. As far as whether or not she should be terminated, of course that's in the hands of Sun TV.

So basically, WIP, you're standing by your ignorant descriptions of Israel as "theocratic" and criticizing its democratic nature, while parroting the typical false assertions of a class-based society based on religious/ethnic identity - with Jews at the top and Arabs/Muslims at the bottom. How have you arrived at this conclusion? By reading the occasional Haaretz article, one of the less-popular and left-leaning newspapers in Israel. I can see you're also standing by your argument that since the IDF evacuated Gush Katif without casualties, that they should have been able to stop the infiltration into our land from an angry mob of agitators from a country we are war with - who were promised money from Assad in the event of their injury or "martyrdom". You are so delusional as to think these two scenarios are in any way comparable. Put simply, you think the Israeli evacuated from Gush Katif reasonably posed the same risk to the IDF soldiers as the Syrian mob. Do I really need to spend more time explaining how absurd this argument is? Moreover, it illustrates the extent to which you'll engage in mental gymnastics to characterize Israel as unjustifiably aggressive in defending its sovereignty.

If the IDF had any sense it would give clear instructions to the angry mob on the deck of the ship to lay down on their stomachs and place their hands behind their backs before boarding the ship - and if they don't comply, open with live fire. They will comply with simple instructions quite quickly once they are being shot. If the IDF sends soldiers, again, one-by-one, rappelling onto a deck filled with raging Islamist Jihad-seekers while armed with paintball guns, only to put the soldiers in a position where they are easily injured or murdered... well, I hope the Israel public calls for Ehud Barak's blood if he messes this up again. The Mavi Marmara fiasco was yet another example of Israel playing politics with the soldiers, giving them terrible operational instructions and RoE. Thank God no soldiers was murdered. Part of me almost feels that the defense establishment wanted to sacrifice a soldier on the altar of political optics - as if we need another dead Jew to hold up to the "international community" to prove that our description of this ISM Islamist group as violent agitators is accurate. In my view, the fact that the soldiers were injured and almost murdered displays what a total failure that operation was.

It's funny listening to people like WIP, who don't know the first thing about Israel, commenting on Israeli society. How much do you think your analysis of Israeli society is worth, WIP? Your commentary on the "radicalization" of Israeli society and our lack of willingness to engage in a "realistic" peace process is based on a rich understanding of history and contemporary events, I assume? T also find it quite rich that you criticize the IDF for being too aggressive with the "unarmed demonstrators" during the recent Golan breach attempt. Even better, you suggested that the incident was comparable to evacuation of Gush Katif. Please feel free to show us YouTube videos from each incident and draw the parallels. Reading your posts, one is left with the impression that the IDF responded differently in similar incidents. The IDF has good reason not to worry about Israelis stabbing them, shooting them, or blowing themselves up to become Shahids. Not so with the Syrian invasion attempt. Nevermind the fact that one would naturally expect one's own military to conduct itself itself different with its own citizens than with people from a state with which we are still technically at war with, and a state that materially and politically supports terrorists that murder us with widespread support from its population. Like I said, there are plenty of YouTube videos illustrating both events: the evacuation of Gush Katif and the recent border hostilities from the Syrian agitators. Feel free to back up your silly assertion that the two incidents were comparable and that the IDF conducted itself in an overly aggressive manner. Ah to hell with it, I'll post some videos myself. Good luck comparing this: with this: Let's also conveniently forget the fact that the evacuation of Gush Katif was a forceful transfer of thousands of people whereas as the recent tensions as at the Israeli/Syrian border were a few hundred agitators being kept OUT. Of course, to you these two events are somehow comparable an indicative of "radical" Israeli policies of self-defense of protection of sovereignty. And at this point I think the reports has suggested that about a thousand Syrians had been killed in their "ant-government protests", with thousands moving into Lebanon and claiming to be refugees. The Arabs sure are good for a laugh!

That's my view. More often than not, it's accidental and ignorant, and not particularly malicious. I think it's true of most bigotry, as well.

I saw that video before, and he's mischaracterizing Zionism. Either way, I don't want to get into a dialogue about Hitchens on Zionism. I mean really, what do I care what Hitchens said with Charlie Rose so many years ago? Towards blame levied towards the left or the right, you're right - I forgot to mention this awhile ago. The right is responsible for what the right does, and the right is responsible, in my view, for accepting and deferring to the left on vital issues. Still, in the context of a democracy everyone has a vote, but I can still blame the left for seducing people with its idiocy and compelling them to vote in a self-destructive manner. That's happening in the USA, in Canada, and in Israel.

So in one breath, they don't deserve a do-over, and in the next breath, they deserve independence? Which is it? Either they go back to the increased autonomy that they had between 1949 and 1967 (when we didn't hear a peep about Jordanian or Egyptian "occupation"), which they used for launching hostilities against Israel, or they remain under military rule. We're not going to gamble with our lives so that the "Palestinians" can try YET AGAIN to conduct themselves civilly. This isn't some theoretical social science project. They're under military rule because of their history of violence against us, and for no other reason. And they remain under military rule because of their ongoing violence against us, and for no other reason. First of all, who cares if they're stateless? They have passports, they have civil and security administration over their major population centres, they've got Palestinian passports, they've got electricity, water, waste removal, hospitals, Swiss chocolate, movie theatres, universities, and everything else a society needs. The military administration of Judea and Samaria is a consequence of their commitment to violence, both historic and current. They have nobody to blame but themselves. You've advanced the false argument about "Palestinian" independence being in Israel's best interests, before. As if somehow Israel will be "allowed" to act more decisively to crush terrorism in the event of a sovereign Palestinian state. You even go so far as to suggest that Israel (and the West, I presume?) should build up a "strong government capable of taking on extremist elements". There are some clear false suppositions here. First of all, you must assume that the Palestinians and their government WANT to stop terrorism. That doesn't exactly jive with their regular support of terrorism and incitement. Consider the Fogel murders in Itamar, after Abbas "condemned" the terrorism (in which he suggested that Israel does similar things when he condemned "both sides", as you regularly do), the PA official newspaper (all Palestinian media is state-controlled) spread lies about the Israeli police searching for some aggrieved "foreign thai worker", and suggested that the murders were committed by some foreign worker and being blamed on the Arabs for political purposes. This lie is still alive and well, despite the admission and NO REMORSE of the two convicted murderers. That's just a small example among many demonstrating that the Palestinians and their leadership have no intention of combating terror. Indeed, they support terror materially and politically. Not that it's too relevant, but Israel and America have been training and arming Palestinian "security forces" since the Oslo Accords. Has that yielded tangible security benefits? Of course not, all improvement to the security situation are the product of Israeli security and intelligence. So in summary, you're assuming the Palestinians and their leadership are sincere about tackling terrorism, when the reality is the opposite - they support materially and politically. You're also assuming Israel and America haven't taken concrete steps to strengthening the PA towards these false hopes. You're wrong about that, too. Lastly, this assertion of yours that someone "Palestinian independece" will change that nature or logistics of this conflict is ridiculous. How exactly would the PA having independence change the security situation for Israel? Would having a seat at the UNGA suddenly stop the terrorists from embedding themselves within the civilian infrastructure? Are the terrorists suddenly going to start playing nice? Will the "international community" stop condemning Israel for defending itself? With you, reality is flipped up on its head. Perhaps the security situation in Afghanistan would be improved if we armed the Taliban and gave them independence. And once they have independence, America will be allowed to use nuclear weapons when another 9/11 happens, right? The "breeding ground" is their own culture and historical narrative, as well as the ever-increasing incitement and indoctrination. Israel bears not one iota of responsibility for their commitment to violence/Jihad/terrorism. They are the ones teaching it to their children with Hamas versions of Mickey Mouse praising martyrdom. They are the ones spreading hatred of Jews and Israel on their television and radio shows. They are the ones who author the textbooks and compose curriculum at all levels of their educational system. They are the ones spreading their propaganda. We've seen this commitment to Jihad from all levels of Muslim society, including all sorts of professionals from Canada (remember the Ottawa and Toronto arrests?), America (Nidal Hassan at Fort Hood and Faisal Shezad from Times Square come to mind), and across Europe. People like you try to blame others for the actions of the terrorists. We've seen this before, a million times over. As if somehow we are responsible for this mass murder, as if these terrorists have legitimate grievances and as if their sensibilities can or should be appeased by us. It's [/]our[/] fault they murder us. Nevermind the fact that they were murdering long before the Six-Day War. What was causing the terrorism during the Arab riots of the 1920s? Take your time, I'm sure you'll find a way to blame the Jews for those pogroms, as well. I wonder, do you make such vile suggestions in the presence of the Israeli family you claim to have? What a shameful embarrassment you must be. Lastly, the idea that we can bride the Arabs into behaving reveals your own contempt for the people you pretend to champion. Do you not get it, yet? The Arabs think this land belongs to them. No amount of money is going to make them give up their commitment. Did the endless suicide bombings and their proud proclamations of loving death as much as we love life not convince you of their commitment? The Arab nationalism isn't for sale. Many Arabs have refused Israeli citizenship and Israeli compensation for lands seized for security purposes. Their self-respect isn't for sale. They don't strap bombs to themselves (including young children and persons with mental disabilities) because they want a pay raise or a decrease in unemployment levels. You literally make shit up as you go along. Every post of yours on this issue is an attempt to demean Israel, or at best, to drag Israel into the same mud as the Arabs, with dishonest (or ignorant) parallels drawn between our society and theirs. As if somehow Israel doesn't retain the moral high ground in every single dimension.

Just one worthless post after another with you, I see.

Spell it out for us, share your deep knowledge of history and make a point.

It's our land because we need it to be secure. The Arabs have shown us many time what they do with this land when they control it - they use it as a base of terrorism against us. We're not going to accept that, anymore. A people have no legitimacy to their nationalistic claims when those claims are predicated on the destruction of another nation and state. Not only did they forfeit their claims to this land when they used it to wage wars and campaigns of terrorism against us, but they renew that forfeiture every day with their ongoing terrorism and political warfare. Ah, now you're being more honest with us. Jewish culture is now inherently racist.... because we retain our identity and refuse to be made extinct by Arab/Muslim imperialism. Why don't we just assimilate and accept the benevolent domination of the Arabs/Muslims? No thanks. This was a fantastic statement, bud, I wish you were more honest like this more of the time. We all know how you really feel, it's about time you stopped masquerading as some sort of "human rights" fanboy. Exactly, Israel is a mistake and was born in sin - this is your view. Now we must "deal with what's in front of us", which really means you want to undo this historical mistake that is the reestablishment of Israel and the Jewish people's seizing of our own independence and self-determination in our own land. You could've said this many months ago, we all know this is how you feel - but I guess you couldn't hide your own sentiment forever. What you see as an unjust and immoral historical event I see as a beautiful story of the liberation of the Jewish people from oppression, and the development of a wasteland into a strong economy with a beautiful culture and society. Modern Israel is an inspiring story of national rebirth, and a resounding defeat against Arab/Muslim colonialism. We're not gonna take any more of your shit, and it pisses you off that the Jewish people are no longer a weak and fragmented people to be pushed around. Israel is this beautiful beacon of modernity and civilization among a sea of savagery. You view Israel and our history with contempt (because you're either a) an Arab and/or a Muslim, and/or c) some empty person with an inexplicable vendetta against Israel in order to give your life some meaning), as mistake that needs to be undone. Too bad you're dreams will never come true, regardless of how much fake passion you put into your posts. As I've already said, a Jewish person who's never set foot in this land has more connection and claim to this land than a tenth-generation "Palestinian". This attempt of yours to disconnect segments of Jewry as having "no tie" to Israel just shows how little you understand about Jewish unity and Zionism. The Russian Jews were the biggest portion of the early Jewish Yishuv that came here in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries to rebuild Israel. They were very much connected to this land and remain so. And they fight for this land in our army. The Middle East is virtually exclusively Muslim, and the spread of Arabism and Islam wiped out many cultures and societies. Why are you asking me about the Crusades? What relevance does that have to do with what I just said? I don't care about Europe, let them do or not do whatever they want. You keep regurgitating this 10% figure, what relevance does that have? That is before the return of Jewish people. Israel was reestablished to once again become the Jewish homeland. It's not 10% anymore, is it? We need to keep working toward getting that number to 100%. This bullshit about "living peacefully" is such a joke. Jews lived under subjugation among the Muslims. You know who the most right-wing Jews are, typically? The Jews that came from the Arab lands. Take a guess why that is. Arabs can't even live in peace with themselves, for heaven's sake. This fantasy of all being swell between Jews and Arabs until Zionism is typical anti-Semitic bullshit - we're not going back to that subjugation, no matter how much you want us to.

And jbg, nevermind the fact that these lands were captured by Israel in a defensive war against an enemy that has launched two wars against it in the two decades prior, as well as continually used the lands as launching areas for hostilities. Before the capture of Judea and Samaria during the Six-Day War, the "border" (1949 armistice lines) were no-man's lands with many incidents of violence. We're never going back to those borders again, and they're irrelevant in the context of a possible future final-status agreement. As long as the Arabs keep crying over spilled milk and ask for a do-over, the status quo will continue. People like dre love to completely wash over these facts and portray the capture of these lands as if Israel just did it for the hell of it. As far as I'm concerned, the "Palestinians" forfeited their hollow claims to control of the land when they rejected the 1947 Partition Plan (as Arabs, before the modern invention of "Palestinians"). And before that, there were doing their "Arab revolts" (otherwise known as pogroms) decades earlier. Subsequently, they launched another war in 1956, and again in 1967 after which they issued the famous "three nos" from Khartoum. And then we had the Yom Kippur War, the first Lebanon War, the first and second intifadas, terrorism from Gaza and southern Lebanon, and ongoing terrorism and political warfare. Nothing's changed, except for us having fortified our positions a little more. I'm not telling you anything you don't already know, jbg, but listening to these schmucks in here you'd think these Arabs were peace-loving folks like the Native Americans in Dancing With Wolves. To hell with the Arabs and their claims to land. If they can't conduct themselves in peace, then they have no right to any land at our expense. Call me a racist all you want, but they have shown no evidence that they can be trusted with increased autonomy. The disappointing truth is that the opposite is true - they continually reinforce what we already know about them.] Don't believe me? Go read their media and use Google Translate. For starters, read the Al-Jazeera Arabic version. Go to the Arab discussion forums online (there are plenty) and use Google Translate if it's in Arabic. Watch Memri or Palestine Media Watch videos. Go into chat rooms with Yahoo! of Paltalk and listen to the Arabs in their own words. And this is just words. Forget about the terrorism and mass murder. But of course these Arabs are to be seen as innocent little puppies suppressed by the evil Zionist entity....

I agree with this 100%, but I would have more aggressively attacked the Canadian left for trying to demonize our military in order to score political points against the Harper government with their radical base. I was sickened when I watched that rat Colvin give his spiel, and subsequently in the following question periods when Dosanjh and the other "foreign affairs critics" tried to smear the Canadian military and launch accusation of war crimes. It was so fucking despicable.

You don't owe me anything. But you're ignoring the crux of this issue, because answering it honestly would be politically inconvenient to your leftist ideology. You pretend as if the question you were asked to answer simply doesn't exist. Fellowtraveller originally asked you the question, and we'll continue pretending to wait for the answer that you'll never deliver. You've got a 100% success rate on dodging and evading in this thread. You're doing great. But hey, keep doing what you're doing and try scoring political points by shedding crocodile tears over allegation of abuse of Afghan detainees in order to denigrate the Conservatives, while pretending to be a humanitarian concerned with "international law" and "Canada's reputation".