TheLastCanadian

Sorry, caught up in the moment. You see, in context, not following God is a crime according to the bible, punishable with eternal damnation in the lake of fire. If you really want to get particular, justice is largely considered apt consequence for an action, or something of a morally acceptable result from a given situation. Under any of the following definitions, which constitute the majority of abstract definitions of justice, my argument holds. jus·tice   [juhs-tis] –noun 1. the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness: to uphold the justice of a cause. 2. rightfulness or lawfulness, as of a claim or title; justness of ground or reason: to complain with justice. 3. the moral principle determining just conduct. 4. conformity to this principle, as manifested in conduct; just conduct, dealing, or treatment. 5. the administering of deserved punishment or reward. Not following the law of a God when it is out of your power to do so cannot justly be punished. Fortunately, the Qu'ran even has a little bit on this. I'm afraid I can't spell it, it's some concept starting with a T which essentially allows a Muslim to disregard some aspects of the Qu'ran to protect themselves or others, so long as no harm comes to anyone. Sharia is covered under this. So it's nothing off of their skin if they don't get to practice it. Ultimately, your argument on the standard of justice is incorrect. For the Bible to be in any way useful, it has to be a work within the scope of human interpretation and understanding. As such, it would be in our language (more accurately, its original publishing language), within our abilities to comprehend. If words do not mean the same in the Bible as they do in real life, which is actually impossible given the fact that the bible was written down by humans, and as such, it could only be in the scope of human language and understanding that these words can be interpreted. We don't have a divine language of understanding that we mutually share with God. As such, it is correct to go by our definitions of words, in fact, it is the only way to go about it. Also, keep in mind that the King James, one of the most widely used bibles/translations in Christendom (which in theory would also constitute it as one of the most accurate and widely accepted), was originally published in English, so we can be quite sure of its meaning.

The bible is the communication of a perfect being. As such, it should be perfect (and as stated by the Qu'ran, the holy book of Islam, it is perfect, well, the Qu'ran, anyhow). If it is perfect, there should be no troubles in understanding it, for it would have no flaws that needed examination. It could be taken literally. If the bible has some hung up definitions that only God is privy too, won't it be a cruel joke when a bunch of Christians land in hell simply because they didn't know he had a different definition of the word? God is just. The bible is written for mankind. It would, as such, carry its words according to OUR definitions, as a perfect being would know that we would not have any hope of understanding his message otherwise. If it's flawed due to its human interpretation, well then, why do we take it so seriously when it's just a bunch of misguided recollections? Your logic does not account for the fact that if the bible is to be of any use to anybody, it must be understood according to human definitions. Otherwise, how do we know what the heck we're supposed to do? ANY WORD could have its own meaning if you want to use your logic. Thou shalt not kill could mean absolutely anything if that's the case. The bible isn't 50/50 God's definitions to our definitions. It is one or the other. If it is God's, there is no hope of understanding the bible. If it is ours, as it is intended to be by any logical assessment, then it is in our language and scope of understanding. After all, a large part of its message was gifted to us by the son of God, as a path to mankind's salvation. The rest was God appearing or sending messengers to the different writers of the books, yet again for the purpose of a doctrine to guarantee our salvation. As it stands, justice, to humans, means a fit punishment for a crime, even in ancient times. Certainly, we think them a little excessive, but the holy books are timeless examples, or at least, to be worth anything they are. The central flaw with your reasoning is the fact that either we are to understand the message of the bible, which would make it useful to us, or we are to mindlessly guess at faith as it is only by God's idea of its meaning that matters, which is totally useless to us because we cannot read his mind. Oh, and just so this remains abundantly clear: I talk about this literally, but I don't think any of it is real.

It's God's word. If it's perfect, it should be universal and understood by all. Even if it is written down by humans, for a perfect god to get the communication so screwed up in the process is just ludicrous. There's no definition of just in our language or any other that allows for such enormous punishment over such trivial matters. God communicated the holy works for us, so they would be written for our understanding, not so he could have his own private definitions, then when we get up to the pearly gates just say "Tricked you, funny, eh? *doing the finger pistols and winking*" before we fall down. That would certainly be conducive to his love of human suffering though. You're right, my mistake. So yes, if God would punish on such a matter, God is not real. Would you beg to differ that justice is a proper punishment for an offence? This thing is a supreme being, supposedly higher than us! How is it that his standard of justice is even worse than ours? Plus, at any rate, for the Christian God anyhow, people could just ask for forgiveness. After all, the only thing you're stuck in hell for is blasphemy against the holy spirit. That, or not believing in Christ. Pity, at least four billion people are going to burn in hell for all eternity in excruciating pain..... Six year olds, stillborns, non-believers, Muslims, Jews, Bhuddists, Sikhs, you name it, those heathens get to enjoy their punishment! Does that honestly sound like a God that loves us all? That's what I thimk.

Cheney, yes. What happens happens. There's not a lot we can do about that. Debate would be dead with your aspiring method of tackling it. When one questions Israel's right to exist, it is not out of doubt in their capacity to defend the land they have. It is whether they have any proper claim to that land in the first place, and the reality is, from that perspective, they don't. Ability to control land does not make it right, not by today's standards anyhow, and I'd have hoped we'd have grown out of the standards of a hundred years ago. The difference between scolding Israel for their actions, and scolding places like Canada for the actions of the Europeans is the fact that one is akin to scolding a child that didn't know better. The other is akin to throwing an adult in jail. The Europeans and early Canadians saw nothing wrong with what they did. Yes, from today's perspective, that isn't right. But the fact is, they did it without any inkling that what they were doing was wrong. Just look at people like Kipling. By no means was what the Europeans perpetuated in Africa right, but they certainly thought they were doing the native populace some good. The Israelis on the other hand not only have an acute experience of what being forced off of your land is like, but they are also a modern nation state in an age that has clearly condemned that whole might is right philosophy. They should know better, especially given their extensive history in the matter. The Canadian government has made considerable efforts to redress what was done to the natives, even though most of it was the responsibility of the Europeans. We know what was done is wrong, and while I personally see no reason we should be accountable for the mistakes of our forefathers, I'm willing to accept the fact that they were wronged. Honestly, the Residential schools are the only thing we should have any role in compensating them for. That was intentional and malicious, especially given that we knew it was wrong at that point in time. Destroying native cultures was misguided, but certainly intended for their benefit at the time. Those people thought they were doing them a service. What past generations did in their misguided efforts cannot be undone. Yes, our roots are the illegitimacy of conquest. But we've tried to fix that and work with these people to make up for it. It's not practical to ship us out, and at the very least we try to work with them rather than asserting our authority over them as the Israelis have done. They just antagonize the Palestinians constantly, and don't kid me about the Autonomous region. The Israelis still call the shots. Plus, there's still the land the natives signed over. That is legitimate. If they were too stupid to read the fine print or make sure they understood it, well, that's too bad for them. The Israelis have yet to make any attempt at redress for what they have done to the Palestinians. The Palestinians didn't even get to sign it over, they weren't even consulted on the matter.

I didn't really mean it from that exact perspective. I meant along the lines that if something is to remain good, you will not find it under a non-secular government. They all inevitably twist them to their religious edicts, most of which are extremely discriminatory in their message and equally cruel in their laws. Religious government quashes all good it encounters. The Vatican is one exception, though they really don't have the apparatus to enforce the will of God. Otherwise, bad things would happen. Perhaps that was an overstatement. I'll rephrase: Any right to do with religion should never eclipse any other right an individual has. I have a right to equality under the law. This is a reasonable human right. The "right" religion gives its followers to attempt to force faith on others through undermining my right is a supernatural, irrational one. Obviously, one should take priority over the other. Otherwise, you get nothing short of Iran, which as I've shown, is a wonderful place with unicorns and rainbows and all things good. You know, not child hangings, stonings, amputations, or anything silly like that. It is an unimaginable crime to humour religion to the point it would interfere with the rationally derived rights we have as human beings through natural law. That is what I am talking about when I call it that. Nobody is hurt by not being allowed to follow the laws of their gods. After all, the majority of them claim they are just, so if it was out of the power of their follower to practice some aspects of the faith, they should have nothing to worry about. There's good rational and theological argument against using religious law. If a god would not be just, well then, that just means they can't be real because that's what their books say about them. It's a win-win. I don't risk having every freedom I hold dear being destroyed, and they can still go to the good place. Frankly, I have very little respect for religion. If people want to believe in something so stupid and transparently false, that's up to them. But the second they try to push that bull over other people, they've crossed the line. If given power, religion always falls into evil ways, by simple virtue of the fact that we can take it to mean whatever we like. Who's to say the LRA in Uganda is wrong about what God wants them to do? Sounds like a wonderful time to me. You get to rape, kill and murder, unleash your primal instinct, and at the end of the day you go to heaven. Sounds like a sweet gig.

Also, that wasn't part of my argument against you. The user above questioned why I would call Sharia evil. That is why. It hangs children, oppresses women, and destroys lives all in the name of a God, that, as far as I'm concerned is as real as Humpty Dumpty. And those images are logical. While it may appeal slightly more to the emotional side of things, they still represent the reality of Sharia. Allowing a law that can become that dangerous into society is simply not a risk I'm willing to take. By legitimizing it through funding it, we show that we support it and what it stands for. What it stands for is one of the single greatest crimes perpetrated in the modern age, the destruction of the right to equality under the law. You might doubt sharia can force its way through the door. Look at the desperate fight the British are waging against it on their own shores. Look at the Islamic Declaration of Human Rights, to override the UDOHR, to give the Islamists a tool they need to violate the sanctity of humanity. Sharia is no different than Nazism. It came in parts, first by winning seats in elections, then with the among the worst genocides humanity has ever seen. Nazism inched in. What's to say Sharia can't, especially given what it has already shown it wishes to do? One Law for All is a good place to start. Check out their reports on just how discriminatory Sharia law is. Plus, why do we need to legitimize religious law anyhow? It doesn't have a place in this world when we have secular court systems. There's no logical reason that we should support religious law what when have a legitimate court system based around a law which holds that everybody is equal. It's not going to kill anyone that they can't practice religious law, especially when it is so dangerous to the rest of us. When government funding goes to religious institutions, it is a very dangerous risk to take. ____________ It's OK for an institution to teach religion, as its an elective. The problem is that when we put government money towards it, that legitimises religious law. It strengthens the push to allow it as a legitimate system of law, which anything based on religion simply is not. Between religion and its secular counterpart, there should be no question which one is allowed.

And the Palestinians in the illegally occupied lands. They were there for a good slice of history too. @Cheney: You've gotta look up your history. Last I checked, it was the British that mercilessly exterminated the natives in North America. After confederation, we had no systematic attempts at it like the USA did with groups like the Sioux. Admittedly, we are guilty of taking advantage of the treaties they signed to go onto their land, but otherwise, the only thing we are guilty of against the natives is the residential schools. Israel on the other hand has destroyed homes, killed hundreds of innocents and illegally settled occupied territory when it is largely agreed that is a deeply unethical thing to do. They are also a state based around protecting a religious group, and as such have absolutely no legitimacy, especially when they carry themselves on as they have. Theological arguments are useless to justify any action in this world, and as has been shown, the Israelis have nothing that any rational person would construe as a historical claim to the land. If I give you a cookie, you leave it alone for over 800 years, and then someone eats it before you come back, do you actually think you would have any right to get mad at them? Better yet, since we're in the habit of restoring territories based on loose historical claims, why not get all of those dirty Christians out of Spain and let the Muslims recreate the state they lost. Why not give the Italians Turkey, after all, the Roman empire (later east Roman) certainly has a claim on that land, so by extension, the Italians do. Nevermind it's been about 800 years. Better yet, why don't we give the Natives a state controlling all of our land, especially when they aren't accountable to us? They just get to bulldoze our homes and blockade goods whenever they like, does that sound acceptable? By your philosophy.... Nazi Germany had a right to take over France and keep it? If they could have fended the British off? Look, Cheney, where you seem to be losing me is that you don't recognize why I take issue with these things. Yes, that's how the world works. But that does not make it morally justifiable. Might is not always right.

I just dislike the people that think Israel has any legitimate claim to that area specifically. The fact is, people live there right now, and they are not interested in being subjected to Israel. You have the diaspora, the Jews move out for over 800 years, then they expect they can come back and act like it was their land all along?

If we're going to imprison convicts, we the better if we feed them. Otherwise the jails might get a little stinky, and the poor warden doesn't deserve that. The natives can support themselves, they aren't in a prison. And yes, many of those things could be appropriately subbed into the statement, especially when you consider our politicians love falling head over heels for anything that makes them money or gives them power. I also strongly disagree with public servants getting covered for so much. ^I almost didn't notice I typed agree! As for the game, you seem to know how to fill in the blanks, how about another go?

If only our politicians saw it that way. Can I have a rant? [rant] The Canadian politicians, regardless of party all value one thing over the proper governance of their people, power. They will gang up on one another to get it, fight to win it, promise whatever they need. They will do the same to gain it from outside sources, and they all need to get a spine. They were elected to represent us, not their pocketbooks and power hunger. [/rant] Needless to say, that's where I intend to go. Ottawa. You know the reality. To worry about Canada, one needs to worry about Washington.

Religious law exists from barbaric times, and carries on the tradition. Make no mistake, Judaism and Christianity are just as evil as Islam when it comes to the legal sphere. Any sort of religious law lends itself to an assertion over my fundamental right to equality under the law. Anything that violates human rights is pure, unadulterated evil. I could cite it for more than that, but I don't want to bore you with the exhaustive list. Also, when Sharia can degenerate into what happens in Iran, with thirteen year olds being hanged, I don't see how any sane person can justify it as ok. Islam and Christianity aren't evil. The law they speak of is, unless you'd like to tell me amputation and stoning is ok. Here's a couple links to pics of what Sharia has done for us, check it out. Be warned, they're graphic. http://childrenofiran.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/boys-hanging.jpg http://change-production.s3.amazonaws.com/photos/wordpress_copies/criminaljustice/2008/10/iran_hanging1.jpg What do you reckon they did? I'm betting they were involved in a massive violation of human rights or desertion. Maybe they killed a bunch of people! Those children are so insidious, always trying to kill everybody. Good thing sharia sees fit to string em up. I'll bet they weren't that old either. Just as well you get them young! Oooh! Must be a beach day: http://www.beholdthebeast.com/286f4370.jpg But she doesn't look too happy She's probably just got sand in her eyes, that's all. I hate it when that happens to me too, and with my arms buried, I can't wipe them :< If Sharia can degenerate into this, it is evil. The day I accept it as a legitimate legal system is the day I die as a human being. There is no loss in only practising fair, court sanctioned law based on the natural order and human reason, not the supernatural. Only part of Sharia law is practised you say? Hindenburg only started with one presidential decree. I fight it not only based on what it is, but what it has the potential to become. I will not give in to the ignorant doctrine of political correctness, for as was said by Gandhi: "A 'No' uttered from the deepest conviction is better than a 'Yes' merely uttered to please, or worse, to avoid trouble." If you like, I can cite a couple less poignant examples and reports on how it discriminates against women's rights, for which I'm equally apt to dislike it. http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/new-report-sharia-law-in-britain-a-threat-to-one-law-for-all-and-equal-rights/ @Michael: This is government money. It falls under government, and arguably education. If we legitimize religious law through supporting it with public funds, we shoot ourselves in the foot. If you've read the holy books, the ultimate intention is to spread the rule of their God. Religious law has the potential to destroy all we hold dear, and for that reason, I won't let it in the door. ____________________________________________________ Secularism is the sole defender of good on this Earth. To allow religious law in is to open Pandora's Box. Look, I'm sorry if I sound hateful, but there is the potential danger here, and to risk it is simply something I will not do. I'm purposely exaggerating to make a point. Though, those photos of what religious law can become are by no means fake. This is my central position on faith I will never be shifted from: But we must never, for all that is good in this world, allow it to supersede the rights of others and justice in this life. If we have religious law? My way of life and all I hold dear in this world risks being destroyed by religious fascism. No religious laws? A couple people go boo-hoo, but the world is right and we all get to live under the freedoms which make life worth anything. To all of you who still maintain the hunky-doory illusion of religious law as something peaceable that cannot be a danger here, I hope you've woken up. At any rate, it's an insult to the soldiers who have died in Afghanistan to undermine their efforts by bringing the evil they fight here.

I am so tired of the Natives getting a free ride on the Canadian taxpayer's money for something we simply did not do to them. Wanna get technical? I say take all the money, and bury it with the ancestors we "wronged" so badly. What have we done to the modern natives that they deserve it, you know, aside from the heinous benefits of western technology. By all means, they deserve reasonable compensation for the horror of the residential schools, but beyond that, I see no reason we keep paying them. We have long rejected the concept of collective guilt. How am I guilty of something I have not even the faintest connection to? My parents are both Europeans who immigrated long after this mess. Stop it with the tax cuts and the protection payments (face it, that's all they are). They need to be treated like every other member of society. Equality in rights. Plus, at this point, the government has payed them all over tenfold for whatever land we "stole", never mind what was signed off.

That "you know" wasn't nearly as deep as you must think it was supposed to have been. Canada should tell the UN to fuck off. If you look at it, the UN is totally flawed as both an organization and an idea. Nations will not agree with one another, and all it is doing is leeching off of everybody. If something were truly so important as to require an international body, the players would find ways of working it out amongst themselves. Their economy is not what kills the Iraqi children, subjugates peoples or leaves houses burning, Cheney. I do not take issue with that aspect of America. What I take issue with is the wars it fights and the destruction it has caused, along with its arrogance in world affairs. Power should be used properly and responsibly. Neither has been done in the US. The US helps enrich the world through its economic innovation, and while my country is more dependent on that than I would like, I shun nothing that helps others. It's when it comes to the first things I mentioned that I take moral issue. For that aspect of my philosophy, I give you a quote from Gandhi: "A 'No' uttered from the deepest conviction is better than a 'Yes' merely uttered to please, or worse, to avoid trouble." Good day.

Religion has no place at all public institutions. Government, law, schools and all other institutions run in the public interest must remain secular. If we begin to allow religion into any public sphere, we see the unparalleled evils of this age. In Government? We see theocracy, the empowerment of individuals to commit the worst evils of their holy books and bring the hatred of a faith's enemies against them without second thought. This is the single greatest evil we face in this modern age. The modern example: Iran, with its leadership's unmitigated hatred of all things free and right in this world. Law? We see inequality and total enslavement to the edicts of a book. If one religion is given precedence, others will want the same. After this, there will only be religious law, as they will complain about the discrimination of normal law against their religious edicts, or invoke the false divinity of their Gods to justify their barbaric systems. Eventually, we will all be held under the oppressive hand of religious fascists, with no escape. The modern example: The push for Sharia law. School? We see the most criminal folly of them all. Indoctrination of youth before they have understanding, which is no better than the Hitlerjugend. This is the second greatest evil we have in the modern age. Poisoning a child to believe before they can understand what it is they believe in, then keeping them from exposure to any contradictory sources so they are enslaved by their God is unacceptable. I support the right to freedom of religion, but never before the freedom of choice based on proper investigation. The modern example? Communes of the different groups. We tread a fine line with religious tolerance, and it does not take much to slip. Iran is the primary example of this. If we do not maintain secularism, the sole guardian of all human morality and all that is right in this world, we will fall into a dark age never before seen, where human life is worthless. Doesn't hurt that your God tells you to kill him either, simply by virtue of his lack of belief in your faith. I'm an atheist, and I support the right to freedom of religion. But we must never, for all that is good in this world, allow it to supersede the rights of others and this life. That's my stance on religion in government, and I would say the world. It is private, and so long as it never interferes with the rights of others, it should be allowed. But in the institutions listed, it can do nothing else. This is why it must be barred from them now, and for all time to come, so long as humanity wishes to exist.

While the absolute childishness, really, that G20's protesters have acted with, I'm ashamed. Before I continue, take note: Many of them do deserve their arrests. But this frankly terrifies me. We have a right to protest this without anywhere near the opposition we have been given. That it is behind closed doors alone is unacceptable, this is policy that guides the future of our country! G20 and G8 are just ceremonies by which Canadian sovereignty is whored off to the highest bidder. Our country is being subjugated, and at the same time, those benefiting from it are doing everything they can to use the law against their own people. This isn't too far from turning it into a police state. That's the scariest thing about rights. They don't exist. They're a convenience accorded to us so long as the government is willing to tolerate them. All you need is a ratification or two, perhaps the invocation of the war measures act, and the people can be crushed under the weight of the state for decades.

I don't find your reasoning in any way convincing on Iraq. Perhaps peacekeeping is not the most fit term to describe it. A euphemism, in all likelihood. But what we've done in the vast majority of these missions is not an all out war. The US has started these wars on a regular basis. As for nations attacking one another, there is the reality that it will happen. What I don't like about Iraq is the simple fact that it is not a just conflict. The US was wronged in no major way by Saddam after things settled down, and even if they had been, you play with fire, you get burned, and you have nobody but yourself to blame. A war does not become just because it is signed into law. Hitler's word was German law. He went to war, and declared the people should do the same. Does this mean that WW2 was justified? The same point stands with the US army. The German Army was big enough to complete Hitler's mission of destruction (at the onset), does this make it right that it did so? Dallaire was deserted by the UN as a whole. He was not called to lead by the Canadian Army, he was called for it by the UN. He could not guarantee CF support. The mainstay of the mission, the Belgians, deserted him. As for Martin, it's clear that Afghanistan was going ahead anyway, why not make some more money to fluff his own pockets. He had fun doing that with sponsorship too. Canada's involvement in Afghanistan is not self interest. As a country bound by such treaties, we have neither the influence nor the military might to shirk them. It was not our option or in our interests (the Canadian national interest, at any rate.) to enter Afghanistan, but we did. That the soldiers support it is to be expected. Their friends have fought and died in that war, and they know first hand what evils the Taliban has committed. The Canadian public has been kept largely ignorant of it. For Jean-Bertrand Aristide.... I see. Care to tell me who did the forcing out? You can ask. Doesn't mean you can enforce it justly. Look at Musharraf. Or what of Arbenz? His successor? The thousands who died in the civil war created by the power vacuum the US made? Also, the council may have not voted on a ceasefire, but do you think the US would have listened? They already went to fight a war unsanctioned by the UN. Don't kid yourself, the US carries itself like it can do whatever it wants, and sadly, that's the truth of the matter. UN and NATO are nothing but ineffectual bodies that Canadian tax dollars are used by, simply because the Canadians are too damn scared to be shunned for doing the right thing and telling the UN to ... you know. As for Nato, sadly, in our position, it's necessary, but by no means should our politicians be so hunky-dory to deal with it in the manner they have. We've taken the constant abuse of our military allies in Afghanistan, followed their retarded war plans, and all because it would look bad if Canada had the sense to speak up and say that the way this war is being conducted, we're just going to put off losing. Look, while I won't be convinced Iraq is just, at least consider that now it has started, I want the US there to make sure it succeeds. Otherwise, it fails on one more aspect of just war theory, and probably the most important one of all. That..... and we'll just be there again in another ten years, our parliamentarians will have the same debate, and we'll just have this whole wonderful debate again

The only part of those billions I wouldn't call a loss is whatever we might have gleaned from research into alternative fuels. As I've said before, it's a matter of time before we run out, best we figure out how to deal with it while we still have something to fall back on. Renewable fuels have further implications than just cleaning up some of the crap we throw out into the ecosystem. The ecocars aren't terrible either. CO2, Smog, regardless of what they do to the environment, we certainly know what they like to do with our lungs.

Why could we have been so vain as to fight something that wants to destroy our way of life? If you want to fight a war, you cannot fight it piecemeal and expect and hope of success. Yes, civilians might die, yes, some might suffer. But it is ultimately for the greater good. If we kill a couple civilians, we can work around it. If we surrender to them, we will be destroyed. Maybe not now, maybe not even in 50 years, but religious fascism will grow out of the middle east as a cancer and begin to consume the nations of the world. Look what it has already done to Britain and Spain! What it is doing in Somalia! We fight against our very destruction in Afghanistan. It's sad, but Afghanistan is them or us. They have no mercy for us, nor does the God they fight for. They will kill every last one of us if given the chance. To leave Afghanistan is to subject ourselves to an evil even greater than Nazism. ____________________________________________________________________ If the civilians believe in a God so heartily that they will kill for it, they are no less a combatant than the Taliban. I have no respect for religion, especially one that seeks to destroy everything I hold dear in this world. If not for the liberty of the free people of the world, see it for what it is: The front-line in defending Canada and all that we hold dear. If they believe in theocracy, they are insane. We must save them from themselves.

I agree with you this obsession is idiotic. But what I've seen from this is it's helped to focus people on the issue that we are affecting our environment, perhaps not in such a fashion, but nonetheless. Where else will we get the jolt we need? Simple. When it is too late. This may look like a flight of fancy, but if we don't get something to scare us into action, it will be the reality. http://www.history.ca/video/default.aspx?releasePID=3BZ4tIDRmYNF4BjqMeZOoB3bsqaYLisn As a species, we're appallingly stupid and arrogant. This will happen if we do not act now.

I was against Afghanistan. I thought it was a mess the Americans needed to fix, lord knows they caused it. But it's bigger than that. It is the liberation of a people from the single most dangerous force on this planet today: Theocracy. It combines the unequalled oppression of millions with the unequalled cruelty of the divine scriptures towards its enemies. It combines the worst religion has and gives man the power to act on it. We must fight Afghanistan, and we must win. We must destroy Iran as well, and any other religious state. Otherwise, it will consume us for the cancer it is. A fanatic has no inclination than to die for his God, a nuclear holocaust means nothing to them. That Harper would cower from continuing the most important moral crusade of the modern age is sickening. We fight nothing less than what Nazism represented in the earlier half of the twentieth century, and what communism represented in the later half. We fight a force which could mean the total destruction of all that is good in this world and all that is good in man. Afghanistan has come at a cost. But leaving comes at a toll far greater than we could imagine. It's not like it's impossible either. We need only three things for Afghanistan: Proper government support, military mobilization, and total suspension of the laws of war. The former are easy to comprehend. As for the third, it is simple: Our ignorant westernised "chivalry" is everything the Taliban and radical religion could ask for. Our unwillingness to fight them gives them total reign to destroy what we will not fight for in the name of their God, and our distaste for "unethical" means of carrying on a war works perfectly for a guerilla movement. If we capture these people, destroy them. Drive them mad with pain, and throw them in a cellar to starve. The Taliban relies on recruiting. Let's see how many recruits they'll have once this gets out. If we destroy their support base, we destroy the Taliban. Until then, they are invulnerable to any weapon man has yet to draw upon. They will give us no mercy. It is naive to do anything other than return the favour. _____________________________________________________________ As for government treatment of the injured, it is disgusting. These men have incurred these injuries to protect us from the single greatest evil we have yet known. They deserve everything to ease their pain.

Global warming. Perhaps a hoax, perhaps not. Regardless, there is no doubt what we do here is having adverse affects on the environment, perhaps not by baking us all, but by destroying the delicate balance of nature. I say it's just as well we get something like this to scare us into action. Humans won't act until they're scared, and often with tragic results. We'll have to deal with our environmental destruction eventually, or even the total loss of oil. Better we do it when we can fall back on it then when we have nothing.

Government funding should never go to support a religious institution. Secularism preserves all that is good in humanity. It is not something to be chipped away at, and funding things like this Sharia law courses is the first step. By all means, learn about other faiths. It builds understanding. But do not encourage the encroachment of faith on the public sphere. It's too bad that our level of tolerance and multiculturalism has come so far that we are willing to risk throwing people to the jaws of religious law. Take the law based in reality, not something on a work of fiction. People are better than that, and considering how incredibly outdated religious law is, it's ludicrous to even allow it, much less consider it. The greatest danger that there can be to humanity is when law is no longer universal, when we are no longer equal and subjected to the whims of whatever law might claim authority over us. It's a slippery slope to total enslavement. It starts innocently, but soon enough, religious fascism will win the day if we allow it continued victory by way of political correctness and an idiotic level of tolerance. It's also a slippery slope. Once we start to encourage the legitimacy of one evil religious edict through funding courses about it, others will demand the same privilege. I thought we'd left the barbarism of religious fascism and law behind. It seems the government believes we could do to keep it sticking around. Why do we encourage the faith that is trying to destroy us?

Alright, sorry about the date. 2001 didn't seem right. We have done many things to help. Afghanistan is an American mess, as are Iran and Iraq. I would support any measure of war against the two former nations. As for dictatorship, well, while it is terrible, I hardly think that it is practical to start a crusade against it, especially when the US is so keen to prop it up to preserve their own interests. There are only three theocratic states (maybe not Afghanistan, but that's only if we win). It's something we can destroy before it comes to full flower and spreads its evil among all peoples of the Earth. Communism has lost its expansionist attitude. Theocrats have not. It's a threat to all peoples of the world, and simply too oppressive to allow anyone to live under. I don't preach. I intend to join the Forces and hopefully get my opportunity to combat this scourge. You know we don't have an army for that kind of undertaking, Cheney. We would lead the charge if we could. But as it stands, there are two major things in the way: Our army is intended to do peacekeeping, and there are too many countries who are eager to undermine that work by propping up dictatorships to aid their own interests..... not to name names. And US law? Where does law give the US any right to attack a nation without provocation, especially someone they propped up in the first place? You can't properly justify such a destructive war using that logic. By extension, if Canada screwed up the US epically by pushing Bush ahead in the polls, we would have every right to attack you to rectify the shortcoming (THEORETICAL, I don't actually mean we could). All we have to do is get the Governor General's signature on it, and then it's all OK? We can do whatever we like? Yes, maybe it's public law to overthrow Saddam. But the question to be asked is why? What justification did they have, and if this cause was so just, why did they market it as "Democracy" and "WMD's"? Saddam was in no hurry to attack the Americans. There is simply no reasonable justification for Iraq except petty self interest. This speaks of a just war, I'm certain: ^^^Oh, and you can save yourself some time if you decide to actually watch that clip, after he mentions racism the first time, he just kind of focuses it on that. It's what he says at the start I'm concerned with. As for your Afghanistan comment.... seriously? Chretien welcomed that conflict, despite the fact it was as good as a death blow to his government? You don't understand Canadian politicians then. They're in it for power, the people be damned. If it would cost them power, they wouldn't do anything for us. There was no reason or obligation to go to Iraq on Canada's part. The US was not attacked. You think we were baying for blood, praying we would get dragged into this conflict? You've got another thing coming if you honestly believe that. We didn't start that war. We didn't create the government that started it. We are fighting for the people. The US is too, but they're also concerned with vengeance. That war meets all criteria of just war theory. Iraq is sorely lacking. A war for the people of a nation is always worth more than one for selfish geopolitical reasons. Don't kid yourself. Geo-political is just a useless buzzword for self interest. A war fought to preserve the rights of people is much more just than the idiotic geopolitical wars you speak of. It's wonderful Britain and Australia were stupid enough to follow you into that cesspit, but the rest of the security council, and the countries it represents condemned the war. I'd say good old democracy wins out there. 2 for - 3 against, not to mention a majority of the countries without a permanent seat. Also.... you clearly misunderstood my statement about "asking Saddam nicely". That was meant in the sense of "Even if they had asked, we both know Saddam wouldn't have said yes". You have my agreement that Afghanistan had to be fought. Yes, our government was dragged into it for the wrong reasons, but ultimately to do the right things. To be dragged is much worse than to step forward, and it is lamentable that our government did not step forward. Iraq is a moral travesty. It is the selfish, conniving attitude of a nation, so dedicated to getting its way that it will crush not only a leader, a country, but its people as well. Oh well, I guess I can rest assured, should my misgivings be wrong, no harm. If the US is truly right to be in Iraq, things will turn out OK. Otherwise, it will reap its just desserts. If it should be the latter, I only hope it is visited upon those responsible, and not by association. It is one thing that a leader should be hanged. It is another that civilians should perish in the ruins of a jet. The lie of God makes a poor judge, as does his book. Fortunately, there are those that ensure justice is done. ____________________________________________________ Oh, and as this will inevitably come up: I am anti-american. Not in the sense of any misgivings against the people, but I stridently oppose its government. I cannot accept that I would hate by virtue of a people, but I am quite content with my disdain for the US policymakers. My opinions on the matter will change when the US changes its tune.

Because, we're not obligated to follow the US. I don't control my nation's policy, that's the parliamentarians. Notice how I had doubts about it when it started, I, as with many others, saw it as a US war which was their mess to fix. I still think they ultimately caused it, but I'm past that. I've thought a lot about that war and come to the conclusion that, US or not, it is necessary to liberate these people not out of any shallow self-interest, but as a moral duty of the free world. And no, Cheney, they did not tell the world why they attacked Iraq without provocation in 2001. They came up with bs about needing to spread democracy, and that he was somehow a threat based on WMD's that did not exist. The fact is that they went in because Saddam had become a liability. He was beginning to be seen as a US puppet, or at the very least somebody with his hands tied by the evil American infidel. But the US knew they couldn't just ask nicely for him to step down. The WMD's have long been proved to have been total propaganda. The US lied to make their invasion seem like it was done for the right reasons, not the petty self-interest that motivated it. They don't want to take flak for their real reasons.

Ok, on the original topic: I wear a maple leaf pin, not so much out of any attempt to distinguish myself, but as a simple gesture of my pride in my country. I wear it at home as well, not just abroad. I've often heard this, and while I think it's largely just propaganda that Americans wear them. Alright, now for the rest of this stuff: What's up with the inferiority, superiority complex? I can't speak for Americans, but I find nothing lacking in my own country that would give me any reason to be jealous of them. We have spineless politicians, economic sellouts and plenty of others that the Americans have to deal with too. I think the overall reason a lot of Canadians take issue with America is the level of integration we face. I'm fine with working with America, but I'm often deeply worried by how gung-ho the Canadian politicians are to go along with them. We need to forge a unique policy from America, not follow them, which is what our politicians seem to prefer to MAKING THEIR OWN DECISIONS *GASP, YOU SPEAKETH THE DEVIL'S WORD! Now, as for Iraq and Afghanistan, I take issue with Iraq on the point that the US couldn't go about it like a man and say what they were really in there for. To spread democracy is bullshit. If that was their motive, why the hell did they not go there sooner? Why are they not fighting Myanmar or China? To depose a dictator? the same question stands. Say it like it is, Saddam was a liability and a class-one asshole. Take flak for your real decisions, don't lie about it like we're all too stupid to figure it out. As for Afghanistan, I used to have strong misgivings about it. I thought it was an American war, and it was provoked by their reckless foreign policy (mind you, I still hold the latter position that America's policy had a huge role to play in 9/11). I strongly believed it would fail. Make no mistake, if it keeps on like this, there is no question it will. If you fight a conflict like Norway, you're going to get a Norway, with similar successes. As it stands, Afghanistan needs three major things: Proper government support, Commitment of troops sufficient to hold the country and keep it secure, not this half-assed measure they've introduced, and finally, total suspension of the laws of war. We give them mercy when we can expect none. These laws are not only disregarded by our foe, but work to his benefit. They are ruthless fundamentalists with no inclination than to die for Islam, and will not be won over by any kindness we display. As guerillas, they can take advantage of our dislike of harming them in "unethical" ways. Afghanistan is a necessary war. Not because the US was attacked. Not because terrorism is dangerous, but simply because of the inordinate evil religious government presents. Nothing on this Earth is more dangerous than theocracy, the medieval fusion of religious fascism and dictatorship. It liberates humans from any compassion for their fellow man, as those in power are solely accountable to a higher power, most of which are indifferent to our suffering, so long as their will is done. Given my own position on faith, I say that to quash humanity for a life that never comes is the height of folly and utterly criminal. It is not some crusade. Afghanistan is as necessary as the destruction of Nazism was. These people must be liberated from the evils they have been subjected under. I only hope the nations of the world follow suit with Iran and all other religious states.