Tawasakm

Eureka, you suggest that this action could lead to the President of the United States of America being arrested in Canada? That would seem insane. Your casual dismissal of the consequences: ...seems a little underated.

I agree, Choke, that Iraq is better off without Saddam. Its harder for people to believe, I think, because of Bush's lack of credibility. The single most damaging thing he has done in his presidency (in terms of international relations) is to destroy his credibility by doctoring evidence for WMD, suspending Geneva conventions, not staying on target with Bin Laden etc. How different things may have been if he behaved differently... Its only speculation I know but what might have happened if he had 1) staid on target with Bin Laden 2) Recognised and scrupulously adhered to all of the Geneva conventions then 3) Presented a case to the UN for the liberation of Iraq based on the violations of the ceasefire agreement which are readily apparent (I am referring to non-WMD related violations - of which there are many), Iraq's lack of co-operation with weapons inspectors, the continuing and apalling plight of the Iraqi people, the obvious ineffectiveness of sanctions (which were hurting common Iraqis), the ineffective of oil for food and other aid programs to alleviate the suffering due to the corruption of the dictatorship, human rights violations etc. He wouldn't have to cook anything up to present that case. He would have had more credibility for really staying on target with Bin Laden and for scrupulously following the Geneva Conventions and supporting human rights as far as possible (it being difficult to support the right to life of soldiers you are shooting at in battle). Even if the UN hadn't supported his idea for regime change I don't think he would have faced such a backlash for going ahead with it anyway (and probably would have received more assistance). Why? There would have been no reason to doubt that he would have liberated the Iraqis and set up self-governance. Because he would have had credibility based on previous actions. As it is he doesn't have that now. What is the result? Alot of doubt and mistrust which, I think, was avoidable. It might have taken longer to get into Iraq but the result may well have been better. Well I guess thats enough of my rambling speculation.

Yes but is this particular story of importance or interest? To me it seems only a matter of interest. The charge isn't going to go anywhere anyway is it? Now if charges were raised in the International Court that would be important and news worthy. But of course that won't happen since the US is exempt from war crimes. That is also newsworthy. But a charge laid in court with no kind of jurisdiction at all over the President of another nation? It just can't go anywhere. So while it would be interesting to follow I don't see how it can be important to follow.

Surely if their links worked at the time then they have already demonstrably backed up their opinion with evidence. You are correct that it seems harsh to make the research it again and again. Given that links worked at the time surely you could simply link back to the earlier thread and accept that the statements were backed up? Theres always something else to make the guidelines more difficult aren't there?

How times change...

There is an active thread on mainstream media on this on this forum here. Theres also a poll there. Perhaps you'd like to comment there?

But TTS you would be doing that without any evidence of such behaviour on my part either as an individual or as part of an organisation. Since there is no evidence of me as an individual behaving that way you have no reasonable grounds to investigate my conduct. Since I am not part of an organisation under any suspicion of behaving in the manner I have been describing there is no reasonable justification for investigating me for being part of an organisation. A further point is that I've only been advocating monitoring of actual religious services. Where and when did I suggest anybody should be bugged at their private residence? I said: Note the bit where I say we shouldn't spy on the whole religion? Do you also note the bit where I say I'm not advocating phone taps? Now please note the part where I say we should monitor the religious services. Your example is not in anyway analagous to what I am suggesting. Judging by some reactions you'd almost think I'm on a witch hunt here. I'm saying that it needs to be determined whether or not there are sections of the Islamic religious community in Canada that are inciting violence through religious indoctrination. There seems to be a good chance this is actually happening (in some mosques at least). My idea is: hey lets find out about it! I haven't actually advocated anything beyond being aware of what is occuring AND only in the actual religious services! I don't understand why this is such an objectionable concept.

You are correct Newfie Canadian. It seems I skimmed the article too fast. My apologies. I seem to have even misread the last paragraph in my haste since I had thought it said the ABC had accepted the ad. I will strive not to make such silly errors again. On another vein I accept your apology Cartman and proffer one in return for my apparent lack of humour. So many apologies so little time...

There has been much condemnation on these boards for the USA's interest in oil - which may supercede their interest in human welfare. I can't believe nobody has an opinion on what is occuring in East Timor - which again may be a case of a governments interest in oil superceding its interest in human welfare. I emphasise the 'may'. There is certainly a case for it though. Does nobody have any thoughts or opinion?

I'm not really advocating 'spying' on the 'whole religion'. This, no doubt, would involve phone taps on all religious leaders and so on and so forth. I said 'monitoring'. I think observers should go along to religious services every now and then and be aware of what is being preached. I don't necessarily agree that this particular religion should not be singled out fo scrutiny (bearing in mind that I'm not talking massive espionage here - just scrutiny). Any organisation in society should be open to scrutiny if there is reasonable reason for that scrutiny. Now there has been evidence presented that, in at least some mosques, there is indoctrination amongst Islamic faithful promoting violence against the 'infidel'. I think this is potentially dangerous and we really need to know what is going on. If it turns out not to be a problem thats fine - but how do we know without first investigating? A very good point. I DO only want the dangerous sectors monitored. But there must be some period at first with a broader area of inspection in order to be able to isolate the fanatics who should then come under more intensive scrutiny. Yes there should be the same procedure for any religion (or part thereof) which promotes such an agenda. If you know of fanatical christians using that same methodology and going unnoticed then report it because they should be monitored too.

Actually accentuating the negative can be a big vote winner. Provided you are managing to accentuate (or create) that which is negative about your opponent.

It appears that most networks accepted the ad. The article only cites one network (singular) as rejecting the ad.

Thats never happened to me or anybody I know. Rather my experience is that gay people are fighting for acceptance and rights. However I do not want to discount your experiences as they may very well differ from my own. Can you provide evidence (even anecdotal evidence) of homosexual people trying to convert you, or anyone you know, to homosexuality?

This thread seems to have lost impetus. Why don't we try expanding the subject matter a little? I originally created this hypothetical to isolate the more practical aspects of the religious debate. I was specifically avoiding any debates over creation etc which this argument normally seems to centre around. Since it appears that we have exhausted the area I was hoping to isolate lets remove that restriction. If God, the Bible, creation and so forth can be proven then the hypothetical society is an automatic failure. So lets see people prove their religion as 'the truth'.

Before I read such arguments as the one I linked to I thought the war was illegal. However KK makes a very good legal argument. Not commenting on other aspects but in purely legal terms they seem safe. Caesar you said this: I may have missed it but I didn't see you providing evidence in the argument I linked to when you were asked to (I do recall you making that same assertion though). KK provided evidence with which some people disagreed but failed to prove. If you can then please do so - I would like to see it. If I missed it could you please tell me roughly where it was in the discussion (page number and vaguely where it sits on the page is good enough).

I was all set to make an intelligent response to this but, unfortunately, because of the thread title I couldn't get 'The Imperial March' out of my head. All I could seem to think of after that was some kind of speculation on what would happen if 1) George Bush was ever greeted anywhere with that music playing full blast and 2) what would happen if America changed its national anthem to the Imperial March (which would be kind of neat since theres no song to accompany the music - you can just stand there nodding your head to the tune).

Take your time Greg. The wait won't cause us to spontaneously combust - although with your workload it would seem that hurrying it could cause you such a problem.

There are long discussions on this forum regarding the legality of the war in Iraq. One of them can be found here. (It starts on the second page and keeps on going on). It seemed clear to me after reading through it all that while the legailty could be questioned it couldn't actually be proven illegal. I am not a lawyer though. I hope you enjoy reading it - it certainly becomes a very good debate.

caesar, I believe you continue to misinterpret me. You keep bringing up Bush - I have not been disagreeing with you! Of course you should be concerned and should watch him - I have said that is sensible. I have said that more then once. Somehow I don't think we share quite the same relationship with the US that Iraq did. Also (and I realise I may be wrong) I was not aware of any mutual defence treaty between the two nations. I didn't single them out. This thread is discussing that specific issue. I support the logical arguments indicating a potential danger from religious indoctrination within Canada's own borders. It has also been discussed that this particular siuation appears to pass unnoticed and unmonitored. I am arguing that it should be monitored. If there was a similar situation developing in a different religion (indoctrination with potential to create violence and not being monitored) my response would be exactly the same. My logic is not confined to Islam but is based upon the arguments and information available in this thread and would be applicable to any similar situation. Why can't this be considered a valid problem which requires at least some level of monitoring? I have not said anywhere that the religion should be repressed. I have only said that I think efforts need to be made to raise awareness of what is occurring (or may be occurring) within that community.

I don't take these discussions personally although I do take them seriously - they are an excellent opportunity for me to learn. I wasn't offended. I was only asking you to show a bit more respect since the things you view as 'futile' may seem quite meaningful to others. As to internet piracy - it is against the law. Broadly speaking breaking the law should be construed as wrong. I'm not sure why people seem to think that the validity of law ends whenever you dial in to your server.

You worry over the fate of Iraqi people. And rightly so. I think (trusting my memory here) you once said, "We are all people" or something very like it. Is that only applicable for you? Why can't I share concern over Canada? Why can't I be interested and have an opinion? If I can't (on the grounds of being of another nationality) then surely, logically, you have abrogated your own right to express views about any nation outside your own borders. Secondly I don't mean to 'butt in' and be some know it all outsider. I meant only to respectfully submit my opinion/views as part of the discussion. Thirdly I do worry about my country. Its the reason I seek to become better informed and to exchange views. This site is a more then excellent place to do so and I have been fortunate to be able to participate here. Fourthly you haven't addressed my points - you have simply dismissed me on the grounds of nationality.

I'm sure the majority of Canadian would support the ideal of a self-determined Iraqi government controlling their sovereign nation independently. Unfortunately after that it becomes alot more complicated. While people may support the ideal the actual practical aspects of what is occuring in Iraq can create grave doubts that that ideal is, in fact, actually occurring. Perhaps the US should ask Canada to support the ideal in principle and help to make it possible. In my view the US should get a neutral country(s) to set up the elections and assist the new government in drawing up its charters, powers, laws etc. It would seem advisable, to me, for the US not to be involved too much in that process beyond supporting it.

My apologies, August, I seemed to have missed the last part of your post the first time around. You said this: Just to give a specific example of something I could call 'Islamic spin' would be the denunciations of Australia's involvement in East Timor as an 'attack on Islam'. There was talk of jihad at the time. Who was drumming up such talk? Religious fundamentalists. We all knew about it at the time but there are, it seems, instances where similar incitements are being made but not being heard - even within Canada's borders. I think people should act to get a good angle on exactly what IS being said. I definitely call it spin as Australia had no interest in attacking 'Islam'. Incidentally nobody (well almost nobody) was worried about a jihad against Australia materialising. Why? Because of our mutual defence treaties with the US and Britain. People here have a strong faith in them. That was also the reason many thought Indonesia would not fight Australia over East Timor. Which is a strong part of the reason Australia supports the US in military matters such as Iraq in my view.

August, I was not saying that there are no valid arguments for the invasion of Iraq - either now or before. There are. Just as there are valid arguments against. My point related to Bush's 'disinformation' in that it appears that he attempted to cook up intel to suit his goals. As a result of this I believe an intelligent person should never take anything he says on faith - but instead analyse it first. Nor do I believe anybody should automatically disbelieve everything he says. Since his administration was involved in this the same philosophy should be extended to them. The real point I was making was that anytime you have evidence that organisations are providing disinformation with the potential of creating violence then they should be monitored. It seems many only want to think of Bush in this regard. Well he's being scrutinised. But within Canada's borders are organisations which may be fostering that potential for violence - there is certainly evidence that this is occurring. I believe this needs to be monitored. From Canada's point of view I think they should be monitoring this as or more closely then Bush - since Bush poses no direct threat to the safety of any Canadian. Basically I'm trying to drag peoples focus away from Bush to other problems that exist within their own borders. Lets not be be caught unawares because of tunnel vision.

You have been contributing to exactly that topic. Have you been insisting that you, yourself, contribute futiley to the discussion? Your priorites and areas of interest may well be very different to those people who are discussing such 'futile' subject matter but, nonetheless, please show a little more respect.