GostHacked

Not at all. Since your using international law to defend your position, I'll use the same. A Canadian solider has legal rights under Geneva, a terrorist does not. Not that I like the whole Geneva idea anyways, but in order to protect us from terrorists, I have no problem with terrorists being tortured. Taliban insurgents are protection anything but their failed theocratic system. As one of the Coalition countries in Afghanistan (with the Canadian Military is now head of security for the country for the time being) and wearing the Canadian uniform, you should with respect follow the Geneva Convention. The Terrorists (for the most part) do not recognize the convention. That does not make it right for you to throw away all your standards. Once you throw a few standards away, you become no better than the terrorists themselves. And this is what you REALLY want to avoid.

So it is wrong or right of me to wave that beautiful RED MAPLE LEAF around in the air? This is now forcing me to get a huge ass Canadian Flag and put it in my front yard. I think overall (my humble opinion) that Canadians are proud of being Canadian, we are just not vocal about it, but confident in our pride that we do not need to have a huge outward display of it. America - USA USA USA USA Canada - would you like a beer? Could you explain your point a little more please?

After the replies I see here, you had no need to apologize in the first place.

I cannot say for sure about WTC 1 and 2, but WTC 7 was suspicious. And yes all buildings came down and near free fall, this in itself is astonishing. Even if you watch the impacts again, where those fireballs happened, most of it was outside each tower. If you want to see what a real hard core fire does to a building check the fire that happened in Spain, the fire lasted for 24 hours, and the structure still stood tall. Now again it could be just the way the WTC 1 and 2 were designed, but this does not explain WTC 7 which was never directly hit. And if 7 fell, 6 and (directly under 1 and 2 and between 1,2 and 7 should have been crushed to the ground, but those buildings were still standing, and were demo'd later. The Windsor Tower in Madrid. http://www.spainherald.com/241.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Windsor_Building. They are going to demo the building now. They deem it not safe to even fix up.

While I of course have no issue and completely support the effort to stop those that prey on children, I wonder if this isn't more of a religious hunt on pornography in general? I wonder what the parameters are around "preventing access to online pornography" I am glad they netted people from this operation. Proves it works for the most part. Good stuff.!! But the Google thing does disturb me. They could have solved alot of the problems with creating a .XXX domain, but that was shot down. Google was the last one to cave in, and they are now ordered to. MSN Yahoo caved right away and gave the results to the govermnent. The .XXX domain would have been easy to impliment and easy to track. You could keep your kids safe just by that, restricting your PC or your childs not to access those sites. So much the end user can do to help protect their child, but they are not knowlegable in the Internet to protect themsevles. Also the parents need to get involved with what their kids do online. Nothing works better than the Parent Monitor. We all know there is more than just port 80 to get porn on. I am surprised they are not aware of it.

Well there isn't a link. The best chance you'll find would be the fact that there are some American's teaching at the U of C where Harper went to school. There isn't a real connection though. That is about all I came up with through initial searches, I am still lookin, but I really doubt I will find anything important.

I am wondering if there has ever been some link between Bush and Harper. I would HOPE to think there is not. And the tinfoil really just makes it easier to read your mind (if it was possible to read some of your minds in the first place) Is there a link? Where would someone start?

Ahh,, now I see what the fuss is about. http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscont...hp3?artid=12192 Just. Seems . Fishy.

So this means the validation of using torture? Does this validate holding people indefinately and without a charge brought against them? Eventhough you know you have innocents among the guilty? So the western world was brought up on 'Innocent until proven guilty' (from what I have learned). Looks like almost an old cold war USSR mentality where guilty untill proven innocent. This is a dangerous point of view. If you want to be better than the terrorists, then BE better than them. You are now playing by their rules and not yours. They win.

Thelonious, I tend to agree with you, but I'm no snob. I rarely if ever watch TV in part because I find the advertisements more interesting than the programmes. Television is produced so quickly that it's more technique than art. Telling any story, real or imagined, is about technique and art. I too rarely watch TV now. I'm not entirely sure why I lost interest. Was it that I grew more sophisticated, or that the level of humour, art, and sophistication of television programs deteriorated since the days I used to actually read TV Guide to see what was going to happen with my favourite shows? There used to be a lot of good programs, many of which were ahead of their time, dragging a backward culture with them and arousing national debate. What do we have now? The Rick Mercer report? The West Wing? (which has been cancelled, damn it). I once read that in their desperate attempt to appeal to a younger audience (whose minds are considered more maleable by advertisers) the main networks wound up hiring younger "hip" writers, so that the average age of a television show writer now is something like 24. Not to be insulting to youth, but a lot of the dialogue and characterization they think is clever were cliche'd before they were born. Those of us over 40 have already seen the same plots dozens of times over. Add in pretty faces instead of good actors and the glut of "reality" shows, and television is largely a wasteland. Again, I am not talking about West Wing...... This is the thing Greg wants to avoid, and I agree. I won't even object of having the new topic pulled due to that kind of talk. Let me start. I wanted to read more on the history of the US and the Middle East for the last 40 years. I was pointed to a book called 'Epic Encounters - Culture, Media and US Interests in the Middle East since 1945' by Melani McAlister. It is a very complex book, it took her 40 pages to outline her thesis. Yikes! She is an associate professor of American Studies and International Affairs and George Washington University. I am not even 50 pages into this book, but it shows me things I have never noticed. Or would not have noticed if I had not picked it up. I understand that books, like MSM can be slanted/biased/spun, and I think it helps sometimes. I am still not sure if this book can be thrown into that new category I am looking for, but at least I would know what you people read and why. And that I am wanting to read other books or watch other compelling documentaries on the politics.

This thread has really irked me. And I have lost some respect for some of you. 'blah they are terrorists, they have no rights' <---this attitude sets a bad example/precident. Maybe we should read the Geneva Convention to familiarize ourselves with it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_convention and we are really talking about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention You can strip their rights away just by deeming them an Enemy Combatant? Sorry no more rights for you. Does this make it right? Of course not. Eventhough the US is a major contributor as to why the Geneve Convention exists in the first place. You could be in Afghanistan for whatever reason. 100% innocent. You are detained, not charged, and tortured. But to most of you this is ok, even without a fair trial. Just because you are in the wrong place at the wrong time and not even know it. Now before you jump all over me, this is not the case all the time, a good deal of the detainees are guilty of some terrorist action. But come on, be the better man and show respect for the uniform you wear and the conventions/agreements you are supposed to uphold. To me it seems like alot of you support the conventions when it is convenient, otherwise I hear it blaring from the hiltops when one of these is violated from the other side. Hypocracy abound.

I blame both sides really. As a Palestinian I would be pissed to if some people were given a chunk of your homestead (without you having any say in the process (Israel was created after WWII for the displaced jews. Then slowly bit by bit, that is taken away. You find out that your new neighbour that has been placed is starting to take over your land. And they take more, and more and more. Then they say that the Palestinians are terrorists and must recognize Isreal's right to exist. I don't think they should recognize Isreal. Isreal does not seem to have recognized Palestine. So to ME ... Israel is the real problem. Call me whatever you want. But until you understand how/when/why Israel was created, you won't understand why the Palestinians go to the extremes that they do. If all else failed, and diplomacy failed, It is a good gesture from Israel to get out of some of the settlements. But sends a horrible message when they level the place after evacuating. Leaving what exaclty behind? Nothing. I am against the grain on this. I know alot support Israel, but I cannot. I personaly do not recognize Isreal's right to exist. Just so we are clear on this. This is my view on this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4806714.stm Israel and Palestine are neither committed to peace, or the road map anymore. Seems kind of wierd to me that the UN monitors were pulled out of that prision ony days ago (March 8th) due to security concerns. What concern would that have been? Someone knew, and gave them the heads up. This goes back and forth, back and forth. The monitors claim that the prision was not safe for them. Israel attacks, Palestine answers, Palestine attacks, Israel answers. When was the last time you heard the term 'Road Map to Peace'? It has been a while.

I'm personally ok with that, I've got nothing to hide. That doesn't mean that it should be ok to do though. Taking evidence to a judge saying "look! this guy is a terrorist, lets tap his phones" is not a big deal. Get your warrants, then spy the hell outta those terrorists. The laws are there for a reason, to protect citizens from crazies, and to protect citizens from their government. You support it and refute it in the same post. I am ok with it, but it does not mean it is right. Confliction there it seems. I think the warrents should come first THEN start tapping the phones. They should not be able to tap my connections on the whim that I may be a terrorist. They should have some proof first before that happens. But you are right when you say the laws should protect the citizens, but it should not violate their basic rights in doing so. The NSA wiretapping violates the constitution. Most of the Patriot Act violates your basic rights. I do not see how this is to protect the people.

Agreed! Thanks for considering it Greg.

From Monty Wait, he knew about it in advance? Who told him? Also, since he knew about the upcomming war, why would he send all his stuff to Syria or Lebanon and not use it on the invading US forces? He made so many threats that he would use them, then we all find out it was empty threats. Then you will probably claim he sent some stuff to Iran. Sigh. We all know how well Iraq and Iran have been getting along in the past few decades. I agree, let's open those suckers up and see what is in them. Only one way to find out. When the US uses it and sells it to people it is called pesticide, but if the same thing is used by a madman, it is poison. Russia took some of the articles in question off everyones hands for safe keeping. That is to beleive that Russia moved the stuff in the first place. ' No problem, we can do it for, some good vodka, some anthrax and a few aluminum centrifuge tubes. Despite all this there has been no hard proof either to support your claim. We both lost this last one ok?

Also Monty, the government is tapping your phone and Internet connection. They are monitoring everything you do. Everything you say, type, they are listening. Even if you are not a terrorist, they can do this. Without a warrent. Anytime. They could be listening to you right now. This very instant. Are you comfortable with that?

Allright Kids Taken from THE BBC Great, legislation was passed and no one read a damn word of it. Screw it , sign it into law anyways. Eventhough you hate Wikipedia, I present one article that was struck down and a list of states and cities bringing legislation condeming the Patriot Act. Notice how you see New York in that list making legislation opposing the Patriot Act. A city that was shaken to the core from 9-11. It happened right in NEW YORK. Why do they oppose it then? You figure out of ANYONE that they would be the first to sign on to something like this. So why did they oppose it? No answer right Monty?

Hee hee. A leader showing resolve against radical Islam. I knew that would get under the skin of progressive liberals. Let the seething begin. No where did I mention Islam. Maybe you missed it, I am really getting at the same old rhetoric of supporting the troops. I do support them. I have 2 close friends that have done 2 tours each there. One of them has done a tour in Bosnia as well. My uncle is a retired paratrooper. Now if one of these good friends of mine dies in vain, and all for naught, should I support that? And first you call me a conservative democrat, and now I am a progressive liberal. Let me tell you I consider myself a centralist socialist. Just so you get it right in the future.

Are you kidding me? My liberties slightly affected? What is next? And do not call me an alarmist or anything like that, bit by bit, your liberties will be removed for more security. But overall it is in the best interest of the people. NO F'N WAY. Never will I want someone south of the border to dictate what goes on in Canada. As much as I am hating to say it, I would rather the liberals screw me out of a couple hundered million dollars than to sell off the whole country to some wack job in the White House. Canadian liberties will stay as such unless you agree to these little admentments. How long before you see the Canadian Patriot Act? I poredict 6 months before something like this is intriduced, I may be wrong, but if it happens, you can't say no one warned you. I would rather it never get to that point.

Attack? Possibly (I think it is slim however) On the same scale as 9-11 or the Oaklahoma bombing? Not a chance. If Canada went around doing the same shit as the US, then yes. But just because we are 'on the list' does not make us a worth while target. Just scare tactics. Forget out terrorism, go on about your daily lives and live your life. If you give in to the mentality that 'we may be attacked TOMORROW or TODAY, OR RIGHT NOW AT ANY SECOND. How do you live if you are constantly woried about things you will never live your life the way you want to.

Liberation can only come from within. It is really not liberation of Afghanistan when you consider the US really supported the Taliban to fight the invading Russian forces. Just does not sound like liberation, sound more like they got it in the ass. Ok now that the Russians are gone, you can't have any more weapons and we feel now our relationship is at an end, and you are no longer welcome here, if you say anything, I am going to slander the hell out of you and make you look like a complete jerk. Eventhough it was us who did this all, we are going to do this anyways. End of story. I am having a hard time trying to figure out who the bad guy really is anymore. I say they are both terrorists.

This is a political forum, and Greg makes it clear that it is to remain as such. I am sure you could start a thread discussing the impact of literature on politics, but if you start telling everyone how moved you were when Curious George had to get x-rays to remove a puzzle piece, I am guessing the thread would be deemed 'not relevant'. I am not talking about Tom Clancy novels here dude. or let's say TV shows like 24, or the West Wing. I am talking about books written by political leaders, present and past, and university professors and such. Part of the reason the site here exists (to me anyways) is to educate along with debate. People who are IN the process, books by them, who make and influence the process. Could talk about the merits of the book ect. Also those books are out there to tell their side of the story. We all could learn alot by what we read and passing vital information along to others. The reason I am asking this is because I want to read more myself. I want to know what books influence your views/desicions on the political landscape. We can scour the MSM all we like, but sometimes it helps to consider other avenues.

The prime minister recently blasted critics who demanded a vote on the issue in Parliament, saying it's not acceptable to send troops into danger, then question that decision.

Exactly. Fact is, there is no proof of any real ties, just your assumptions. We all know if there was any real evidence of Al Qaeda/Iraq cooperation, the U.S. would be trumpeting from the mountaintops. But they've done nohing but backpedal away from their earlier claims of ties between the regime and AQ. Why do you suppose that is? Why the hell would the Bush administration sit on information that would benefit them imensely? I've asked that many times before (in relaton to this, the WMD issues etc.) and you've never once answered why that is, which leads me to beleive you know very well you're claims are unsupportable, yet you cling to them anyway in a staggering display of intellectual dishonesty and partisan blindness. How pathetic can you get? Seriously. What do you want? Photographic evidence? Bush has spoken numerous times about Al Qaeda links to Saddam's terrorist haven. What the hell? Do you think Bush should have daily addresses to the nation, or daily press conferences? Read a book about Bush. He doesn't think the press speaks for the country. I agree. Also, he's got work to do instead of playing immature political games. Like Harper, he knows that the press is hostile to conservatives. Only the most stubborn pigheaded partisan would deny that Al Qaeda had numerous ties with Saddam's Iraq. They've even found documents in Iraq proving this. The 2 chairmen of the 9-11 commission said that there was numerous links between Iraq and Al Qaeda; they just couldn't find enough proof that Saddam collaborated with Al Qaeda in 9-11. But Bush never said Saddam was involved in 9-11 (although a federal judge made a legal ruling that Iraq was involved in 9-11). It's difficult to take you seriously... And even Bush himself after some time said there were no links between Iraq and Al-Queada The 9\11 report said there were no links. Difficult to take you seriously when you keep managing to refute everything that is going on and still give evidence to support the other side. Saddam was linked to 9\11, then not linked. Saddam harboured terrorists, but not enough proof to show any clear links. A single federal judge does not represent the reality that is out there. He has a metric shit tonne of WMDS, but we are really tired of looking for them, so we gave up the search. NOW we know why we cannot find them, it was all moved to Syria. We will be in and out in 6 months and the Iraqis will welcome us as liberators. Monty is a Bush YES MAN, and supports him without question. I think it is about time we liberate the U.S of A. They have been an oppressed people for so long by the Industrial Military Complex. Propaganda from the war machine to keep the economy going. ect. I think GWB is a terrorists and is harbouring WMDs, and has the ability to use them. He must be removed from office. I think the American people will welcome us as liberators.