Bob

Eric Holder still holds the opinion that the trial should've been done in civilian court. So although the decision was made to more Khaled Sheikh Mohammed's trial (as well as a few others high-profile terrorists, right?) to military tribunal, it wasn't done without strong opposition from the Obama crew. It's really sad, but Obama has surrounded himself with persons of a particular ideology, and Eric Holder is no exception. Here's of Eric Holder doing the semi-180.

There's really no point in wasting time with Chippewa, as it's clear he or she knows little to nothing about this complicated history. Of course, if you've got the patience and willpower, go for it... but I knew from the very first post from Chippewa that we're dealing with another person who has never read anything longer than a headline regarding this history and these issues. Moreover, we're certainly not dealing with someone who has a sincere interest in learning about this history or these issues. Instead, we've got someone who wants to shape this conflict into a pre-existing political paradigm, perhaps viewing this as some sort of left versus right issue.

When have I ever castigated another democratic state with an ethno-religious component? Personally, I don't care whether or not other countries define their national identities with an ethnic or religious component. I don't need to point to other examples to justify Jewish independence. If the entire world except Israel was one massive entity of atheists, it wouldn't matter. I don't need parallel examples outside of Israel for legitimacy. Of course, in today's context you're completely wrong, as there are more than enough states out there with a strong ethnic and/or religious component to their identities. And they certainly are not ever castigated, let alone even known about - as your post illustrates. If your feelings are hurt, and you feel excluded, you can always convert to Judaism or marry a Jewish girl. You're trying to accuse me of practising double-standards, and you'll be hard-pressed to find any of this type of inconsistency from me. Ironically, your post reveals the very double-standard you accuse me of holding, in the sense that I'd wager that you've never made even one post in here criticizing the national identity of any country other than Israel's that was based on an ethnicity or religion.

Is that what you're hoping for? They need to be given more autonomy in order to more effectively wage their hostilities against us and further their aims towards the destruction of Israel as the Jewish state?

"Arab deaths are so plentiful"? Where? What exactly are you talking about? As far as which deaths "get 500 times more press", it depends on the media outlet. Canadian media will report on Canadian deaths, American media on American deaths, Arab media on Arab deaths, and so forth. I don't think anyone in here besides you understands what you're trying to say....

I don't think you understand what's at stake here, or what the objective was of this specific military operation. The buildings that were selected for destruction by the IDF that Rachel Corrie was attempting to protect are near (usually within a kilometre of) the Gaza-Israel border. These buildings are typically used as cover for snipers against Israeli soldier border positions, as well as other terrorist operations. These buildings presented a danger to the lives of Israeli soldiers serving in the area, and needed to be destroyed. Allowing them to remain places Israeli soldiers at risk. Rachel Corrie, knowingly or not, was interfering with a military operation that was being conducted to save lives. Her intentions were to preserve buildings that place Israeli soldiers at risk. Considering this, in my view, it is irrelevant whether or not the driver saw her. Unfortunately, the IDF often engages in actions that place its soldiers at increased risk in order to appease political opponents. In other words, it's not uncommon for the IDF to tolerate increased risk to its soldiers in order to lower the risk to non-Israeli civilians (and terrorists, and those in between). If the IDF would have allowed Rachel Corrie's interventions to stop their operations, where would that leave us? She was deliberately protecting terrorist infrastructure. What's next, more young women like her standing in front of mortar launchers and snipers? She was literally just inches away of doing just that. As far as I'm concerned, if we could rewind time and do things over, the only thing that should be subject to review was the behaviour of Rachel Corrie, and not the soldiers. "Activists" like her have already done a lot of damage to Israeli security by shaping the way the IDF operates. Given the intense hatred and animosity towards Israel that generates agitators like Rachel Corrie, dealing with such interference is now something the IDF spends quite a bit of time addressing in training and in adjustments to its conduct. The IDF has already allowed too much of its operations to be dictated by such persons, there is no need to go further and allow these people to literally stop defensive operations simply by standing in front of our people and equipment. It's this comment that suggests to me that you don't completely grasp what's at stake here. Although I completely reject your assertion, let's assume for a moment that the bulldozer operator had seen her. What do you propose he should have done? He has a mission to carry out, a mission to protect the lives of other soldiers, and in between him and success is a young woman named Rachel Corrie who is voluntarily standing in front of your vehicle. Tell me what he should have done differently had he seen her.

She's not an innocent person, and whether or not she was armed is irrelevant. She was deliberately interfering with a military operation carried out to SAVE LIVES. Her actions put Israeli soldiers at risk. That's it, that's all. Every minute that these buildings remain standing is another minute that they can be used as cover for enemy snipers against Israeli border positions. It's really quite simple. As an aside, whether or not a person is carrying a weapon isn't relevant in a military context. Forget about Rachel Corrie for a moment and consider scenarios where an unarmed person is still operating for the enemy. They become legitimate targets in the sense that they must be neutralized - that may or may not include violence. In a time-sensitive emergency situation, consider being in conflict where an unarmed individual is operating as a scout for the enemy - where killing him/her immediately is necessary to protect you and your own. I'm only bringing this up to mention that possession or non-possession of a weapon is often irrelevant with respect to these types of discussions.

OK I'm gonna get on my soapbox right now because I'm sure you're all dying to know what I think. I think the one thing we can all agree on is that Harper did a pretty bad job screening this guy to become one of his advisers. According to a CBC article, Harper says all he knew about Carson was that he had been disbarred from practising law because of fraud, and served time in jail. All this happened thirty years ago. If that's not enough in and of itself, here's an excerpt from My link. In fact, by the time Carson became a senior adviser to Harper in 2006, he had been convicted on another three counts of fraud, had gone bankrupt twice and was repeatedly in arrears on his taxes up to and including the time he was working in the Prime Minister's Office. You gotta admit, it's kinda funny, at least superficially, that this guy would get vetted out so many simple jobs just based on his record, yet he was able to secure a pretty good and exclusive gig with high-level government. In my view, I would think Harper is, at the very least, a bad judge of character in this regard. It reflects poorly on him any way you slice it. It's almost funny. More importantly, does this story have the power to push independent voters away from the CPC? I'll still cast my vote Conservative. As far as Ignatieff is concerned, he's doing what he can by attacking Harper for this. He doesn't have much else to offer Canadians aside from taking advantage of such an opportunity where Harper justifiably looks bad. I think the presence of such a Carson-character would be fair game from the CPC if the tables were turned Liberals formed the current government.

double post.

Without question.

Some blogs I check out reported on their first impressions of Sun TV, which mirrors what you're saying - it looked and felt really cheap and low-end. At least the content is likely to be somewhat better. I think the only people that will watch it in the short-term are really committed conservatives who have simply lost patience with the the CBC and CTV.

I really like the Michael Coren clips I see on YouTube. He seems like a sharp and fair-minded guy. What's your problem with him, exactly? Not cohesive enough?

That may be the official line from the Israeli MFA regarding the home associated with the Rachel Corrie incident, but it's all the same. Security is security. Every minute a security threat continues is another minute that puts Israeli lives at risk. Whether it's a smuggling tunnel or a sniper spot (and most like both because the IDF only bulldozed homes on the edge of Gaza, unless in the midst of combat to clear a path for troops to enter targets. Anyways, the fact remains - Rachel Corrie is entirely responsible for what happened to her. Ironically, even in death she continues to be a source of spin and lies for anti-Israel advocacy. Her memory lives on just as did her life. And expose themselves to sniper fire? You think that's more reasonable than her simply not committing suicide? IS the IDF to allow itself to be placed at increased risk due to civilian who CHOOSE to obstruct its operations? Rachel Corrie isn't the same as some civilian who happens to live in a home that is being used as terrorist base of operations and didn't have really have a choice. Rachel Corrie went to great lengths to put herself in the circumstances that killed her, as opposed to civilians who really are in the wrong place at the wrong time due to no fault of their own. She certainly wasn't "murdered". That's ridiculous. First of all, I'm not really religious. As far as what God wants, who knows? She's dead. And it's due to her own actions. What is immoral is Rachel Corrie acting as a human shield in order to force the IDF to choose between the lives they are meant to protect and her own. She forced the choice on the soldiers. It was either her life, or more risk to the lives of Israeli soldiers. In my eyes, it's an easy choice every time, and unfortunately it always comes with a terrible outcome. In my view, this incident really illustrates how sick the ISM is, preying on naive and ignorant youth like Rachel Corrie, while continually using her memory to continue a dishonest campaign against Israel. Anyways, I guess that's all her memory is good for, anyways.

Why should Israel deal with Hamas, exactly? You think there's a likely outcome of positive developments in speaking with an organization openly committed to our destruction? Get real. And please, Israel doesn't need to soften its stance on anything. We never committed ourselves to genocide, as Hamas have towards the Jewish people. We don't need to take steps back from such hatred, because we never walked those steps in the first place. So just because Hamas has said a few "softer words" for the exclusive release in Western media doesn't mean Israel needs to reciprocate a softer approach towards such an organization. If you declare your intention is to destroy me and I express distaste for your organization, if you go back on your words (but leave your wishes explicit in your charter) a little, don't expect me to be enthusiastic about talking to you. Don't you see how you desperately try to compare Hamas and the Israeli government? You cannot make one statement about Hamas without pathetically trying to draw some non-existent false parallel with the Israeli government. You'll never get respect from anyone worthwhile with such an approach to this conflict. Ok, let's get something straight here, in case anyone believes this bullshit of yours - Hamas has NEVER accepted the concept of an Israeli state on ANY piece of this land, forget about the 1949 armistice lines (what you misleadingly refer to as the 1967 "borders"). All Hamas had offered would be an undefined truce is such an arrangement is made. More importantly, such an arrangement is impossible because we will never see those lines again. Any future final status agreement will certainly not be a resumption to those lines. You're confusing a Hamas statement that was willing to accept a Palestinian state on "1967 borders" (the CFR really should be better than using such politicized and INACCURATE language), NOT that it was willing to accept an Israeli state. Moreover, Hamas clearly stated that it would not mean a cessation of hostilities or a peace agreement with Israel. So Israel should surrender land on which live half a million Israelis, land that is essential for security and for society, accept millions of Palestinian "refugees" (the overwhelming majority of whom were born after 1949, and still massive proportion of those born after 1967), in order to secure.... what exactly? A temporary interim where Hamas commits NOT to engage in violence? As if the word of Hamas is worth more than your comments in this forum? And again, you're trying to draw a parallel between the Israeli government and Hamas.

Israel does not regularly receive three billion dollars a year. It is obvious that you are throwing around numbers that you are unfamiliar with. I'm not sure Israel ever received three billion dollars in any one year, either. With respect the the Palestinians, they have perhaps received nearly as much total dollars in aid as Israel has, at least over the past fifteen to twenty years. ***Ok, I looked it up - the only years Israel received more than three billion dollars in a given fiscal year were 199, 2000, and 2003. Foreign aid since 1949 to Israel from the USA has been 1.71 billion dollars. Israel's been averaging close to three billion per year from the USA in total aid since 1997 - 2.85 billion dollars on average. That is about .0002% of America's GDP. Don't get me wrong, it's a lot of money, but i don't know if I'd phrase it like your did: "a big chunk of" of America's taxpayer money. Well, I'm not an unconditional supporter of what you describe as the "extreme right Israeli government". First of all, I don't see the government as particularly right-wing. More importantly, however, is your inability to understand that water and land issues are security concerns. Perhaps not in the traditional sense, as in terrorism, but they are matters of national security. I also don't think you and I would agree on exactly what water and land belongs to who.

Bud, I don't need to prove anything to you. They have received BILLIONS of dollars, and receive hundreds of millions of dollars every year directl and indirectly (for example, and primarily, from the UN) from places like the USA, Canada, Mexico, the UK, France, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, etc. I am NOT talking about pledges. The controversy around what was pledged against what was actually given was only a real issue from ARAB countries who try to excuse not following through on their commitments by stating that giving money to the Palestinians would constitute compensating the Palestinians for the crimes of Israel. I doesn't matter to me whether you want to believe me, these are facts you can EASILY find. Remember, the Palestinians receive hundreds of millions of dollars every year, and have received BILLIONS of dollars over recent years, and are the highest recipients of foreign aid on a per-capita basis in the world. Furthermore, they are entirely dependent on it as it composes about half of the value of their entire economy. Well, this is a complicated subject that cannot be summarized by someone like yourself in a few lines. There is certainly a connection between Israeli restrictions on Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank and negative impacts on their economies. Moreso in Gaza, but again, it's complicated and certainly not as simple as "it's Israel's fault". Of course, you make no mention of legitimate security concerns that are behind these policies.

That's unsurprising to me, because they get informed primarily through the mainstream media. This is ironic, considering that Israel should be viewed as an excellent contemporary example of an ultra-minority securing real independence and resisting destruction by all means. You would think that passionate advocates for Native rights, at least those who call for increased independence, would admire the example set by Israel. And yes, I've certainly noticed the same thing at least among certain aboriginals, and certainly those who loudly take up their cause - who often aren't natives but just rebels without a clue.

Yes, we all know you're unable to differentiate between Rachel Corrie's deliberate interference with a military operation, which lead to her death - and civilians at the bus stop who get murdered by a suicide bomber. Of course, standing at the bus stop waiting to go to work demonstrates the same complicity in one's death as standing in front of a military bulldozer during an IDF mission.

I didn't say the government didn't choose to give the money. Let me clarify, I wasn't suggesting the Gay Pride Parade was stealing money from the government, rather that the government is stealing money from the taxpayers by willingly giving away money to an unworthy cause. Consider the recent example of corporate welfare south of the border, where GE didn't pay any income taxes this year despite large profits - that is another example of theft, although still legal. I wasn't using the term in the legal sense. Anyways, it would appear that you're deliberately being obtuse.

First of all, it isn't billions of dollars from North America, its from the USA. And it isn't "along with WMDs", foreign aid from the USA to Israel is primarily in the form of military aid - meaning money that must be used to purchase weapons and defensive systems (almost always from American manufacturers and service providers). Military aid is the overwhelming majority of funds transferred to Israel. Of course, nobody ever mentions the billions of dollars transferred to the Palestinians, who are actually entirely dependent on foreign aid and much more worthy of the title "welfare state", considering about fifty cents of every dollar in their economy comes from foreign aid - whereas about 1% of Israel's economy is composed of American foreign aid. Did you really just parrot the Islamic propagandist accusation that Israel is a front for modern crusaders?

Yes. I'm not happy she's dead, but I'm certainly not upset about it either. I've clearly explained how I and many others feel about her and other like her. Her death is her own fault. One cannot go around interfering with military operations as a human shield and then blame others when bad things happen.

No, it wasn't a typo. I am saying clearly that the bulldozer driver cannot simply stop the operation even if he saw her. The IDF cannot be bullied around by foreign agitators who endanger foreign security. This operation is not a joke. Every moment that the building remains standing is another day that places IDF border officer at increased risk of sniper fire. So rescheduling the operation isn't really an option, considering that Rachel Corrie will simply return and willingly be a human shield every time. Do you not understand that she is placing her own life at risk in order to defend things that place Israeli lives at risk? It is simply a decision between her and us. Moreover, she is WILLINGLY choosing to be in that position. The bottom line is that this building was a threat (I'm not sure some people in here understand what that actually means: LIVES ARE PLACED AT RISK), it was a building with a clear view of border towers along the wall within sniping distance. Again, nobody is happy she died, but not ounce of responsibility lies with the IDF. As far as I'm concerned, there was absolutely no failure from the IDF on this issue.

My point was that WIP seemed to imply that the bulldozer driver that drove over Rachel Corrie should've been able to see her (which in my opinion is irrelevant anyways), just as a tank engineer driving on a flat and open road with perfect visibility facing a man who is standing idly in his path. Beyond that, I also would recognize that a soldier in China is not in any position to disobey an illegal order, whereas in Israel we would expect soldiers to ignore blatantly illegal or immoral orders - we live in a free society, and they do not. What do you think would happen to a soldier in China do defied an order? Lastly, why are you trying to imply that somehow Israelis are happy with Rachel Corrie's death? The sarcastic suggestion that Israel would award a medal to the bulldozer operator involved with Rachel Corrie's death. Do you think he was happy or pleased to have been forced into that situation by Rachel Corrie, where he had to choose between legitimate instructions to protect him and his own and some foreign agitator who continually harass and disturb Israeli soldiers? You think he's happy to know he ran her over? Just because his actions are entirely justifiable, and just because the entire responsibility for Rachel Corrie's death lies on her own shoulders, I'm sure it brought the soldier no pleasure to know what happened afterwards. This kinda thing has become so pervasive that many soldiers receive special training and equipment for dealing with these agitators. Rather than spend all their time preparing for conventional and military threats, they have to dedicate significant their efforts to foreign activists.

You will see a lot of Zionists oppose Rachel Corrie and demonize her because her endeavours directly delegitimized Israel and Jewish national rights. Her actions, statements, and affiliations illustrated how anti-Israel she was. I know I speak for many other when I reject labels describing her as a "peace activist". Whether or not she realized it, and whether or not wanted to accept it, her actions went towards supporting terrorism. Opposing military operations in Gaza where buildings are destroyed that provide cover for terrorist snipers to shoot at Israeli border officers is not peace activism, even if she never physically attacked anyone. The same is true for Vittorio Arrigoni - he is no peace activist. They are both part of the ISM, which is a virulently anti-Israel and dishonest organization. The sad thing is, I suspect, is that these people often sincerely believe in their cause and their statements, even if they do necessarily need to practise some self-deception. Since these two and thousands of other like them directly advocate on behalf of persons that murder us, and support policies that would endanger Jewish/Israeli lives and Jewish national rights in Israel, people like myself feel animosity towards people like Arrigoni and Corrie. They're not peace activists, and they're not heroes. At best, they were deeply misguided and committed individuals. At worst, they were knowingly engaging in dishonest propaganda campaigns to undermine Jewish security and national rights in Israel in order to fill some emptiness in their lives. Look, an armored bulldozer in the midst of a Gaza building-demolition is a much different scenario that the tank in Tianenmen Square. Either way, the bulldozer cannot and should stop for Corrie even had he saw her. What is he supposed to do, allow the building to continue standing and place Israeli officers are greater risk? Is he supposed to step out of the vehicle and expose himself to sniper fire or other violence? She was given ample warning, and the bulldozer certainly doesn't move too quickly. Her death is absolutely unequivocally 100% her fault. She stood in front of a bulldozer and killed herself. Full stop.

You saying I'm wrong in my assessment of Canadian public sentiment?