Grits, Tories battle for Jewish support in next election

[benny]

The accomplice you have makes you an access.

Your choice is in between torturers (like Ignatieff) and their victims ("the terrorists").

[DogOnPorch]

It's really quite simple. If/When the state of Palestine is formed, these Jewish settlers become Palestinans. Or are no Jews allowed?

[jdobbin]

And the massive expansion of settlements everywhere else, and overall. You being so shy about it, I'll have to say it for you, no thanks needes.

The roadmap was to go from one area to the next. I know you don't like it because you want it all done at once but that is what the parties agreed to.

Oh, I see your point. Area by area. So you're saying that attacks against Israel from anywhere outside Gaza should also be ignored in that creative approach? Please say clearly, yes or no.

Hamas led the attacks from all areas because they wish to push Israelis out of the entire middle east. You believe they are right in this approach? Yes or no?

You've got to share with us one day how do you divine that somebody "indicated that they think". But what is on record here, is the description of peace agendas, and one of them is reduction of hostilities, both military and militant. So my position is very clear, and has been that way since the first posts of this discussion. I'm sorry I have to repeat, that if you couldn't read, or understand clrearly the meaning of read, or hold it in your memory long enough, or hold yourself against deliberately misinterpreting what you read, it's your problem and it'll be made as clear as I can possibly make it in this discussion.

Your position is anything but clear except that you believe Israel is to blame.

You can't even admit that Hamas is a terrorist organization.

Dobbin, you still haven't answered the question, why your acts against serious and massive violations of peace agendas, differ so drastically depending on which side have committed it. And now, with that recently found focus on "terrorism", I had a glimpse of something that may lead to a hypothesis, let me share it with you right now: the "terrorism" Dobbin, is a word that helps you to reconcile what psychologists would call a cognitive dissonance, in plain words, a gap between the reality and what you think it should be.

Answered it many times. Israel has agreed to be part of the process. Hamas has not and has sent young boys and girls into civilian areas to kill themselves and others. That is what I call cognitive dissonance from supporters of Hamas.

You see, in reality both sides behave in a nasty manner to each other, and both sides violate peace agreements, each in their own, different way. But that is not the picture you have in your mind, correct? In your mind, you represent the side of eternal good that simply cannot be wrong. As so, are, by association with you, your various friends and associates. So something needs to be done to explain why acts otherwise wrong and inexcusable (by your own admission) should be ignored, excused, pardoned, understood, defended, and so on, in this particular case here and now.

Admit that Hamas has not been part of the process for peace. They don't just want the end of settlements. They want the end of Israel. They are prepared to kill over and over again to it.

And then, one precious morning, you "succeed"! You come up with a word, apply it where it needs to be applied, and all paradoxes, gaps and dissonances are instantly healed. The principles, rules, justice, fairness, etc, yada, they simply would not apply because of the (word). Could that be a reasonably close summary of why you think that word is so important in this discussion?

It is important because you believe that Hamas is not a terrorist organization.

Because otherwise you'd have to deal with the fact that in your peace process, any meaningful practical act only extends to one side. And until you explain, at least to yourself, the nature of that puzzling visual and actual imbalance, I think your plan would continue to have very little to do with genuine peace mediation, no matter how many words you say to make it sound so.

I have explained it over and over again. You want all settlements ended immediately and think Canada should disengage. Your unilateral approach ignores that the process that was agreed to by all parties save for Hamas. I support the process of one step at a time. It removed the settlements from Gaza but there was not a reduction in violence which Israelis believed was essential to their security.

Hamas has made its goal the removal of Israelis from the Middle East.

Your choice of not recognizing their terrorism and their objectives therein is revealing.

[jdobbin]

Your choice is in between torturers (like Ignatieff) and their victims ("the terrorists").

Don't recall Ignatieff torturing anyone.

[punked]

Don't recall Ignatieff torturing anyone.

Here is a nice little article form Prospect for you. It was written by Iggy himself. It is titled "If torture works...."

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article...ils.php?id=7374

The jist is as long we call torture "coercive interrogation." Then it just fine by Iggy.

[jdobbin]

Our aid only prolongs suffering. By constantly being supplied with international aid, people don't bother to try to fend for themselves. They even lose the skills to do so, and the population balloons ever higher than what the local land and infrastructure can support. Just look at Africa, for how many decades have we been shipping ever-increasing aid over there, and yet the situation is not improving at all, while the population keeps growing and growing. People need to be able to support themselves. And surprisingly benny's one-liner is quite right in this case, those who live off the eternal charity of others rather than the products of their own labor do lose their self-respect.

I understand what you are saying but there is no scientific link to poor economies and aid.

Even the Financial Times points that out"

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/06/04/f-vp-stewart.html

Even the generally conservative Financial Times observes that "the book does not establish in any scientific way the link between the hundreds of billions of dollars poured into Africa over decades, and the poor performance of economies. It also studiously ignores evidence of development assistance working.

This is the debate over Dambisa Moyo's book.

As Jeffrey Sachs points out:

"The big opponents of aid today," says Sachs, are people like "Dambisa Moyo, an African-born economist who reportedly received scholarships so that she could go to Harvard and Oxford but sees nothing wrong with denying $10 in aid to an African child for an anti-malaria bed net."

If we wanted to help the people of Gaza, the thing to do would be to topple the Hamas government and install one that is more concerned with improving the quality of life of its people than with perpetuating terrorism and victimhood. But Canadians don't want to help the people of Gaza - Canadians just wanted to throw money at them so we can feel good about ourselves.

Nation building is not an easy task. Ask the installed governments of Iraq and Afghanistan.

The aid Canada sends to Gaza is not to prop up Hamas. It is to assist people to challenge Hamas. For example, the aid helps train judges and people at various levels at good governance. These are areas that will help the people become independent.

[jdobbin]

Here is a nice little article form Prospect for you. It was written by Iggy himself. It is titled "If torture works...."

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article...ils.php?id=7374

The jist is as long we call torture "coercive interrogation." Then it just fine by Iggy.

I know that the NDP doesn't like any interrogation methods but even Human Rights Watch says they are important:

Kenneth Roth, of Human Rights Watch, argues that "respect for the Geneva conventions does not preclude vigorously interrogating detainees about a limitless range of topics."

[Bonam]

The aid Canada sends to Gaza is not to prop up Hamas. It is to assist people to challenge Hamas. For example, the aid helps train judges and people at various levels at good governance. These are areas that will help the people become independent.

The aid Canada (and other nations) sends Gaza supposedly relieves the conditions of the people there. As such, it cloaks the utter shambles to which Hamas government and policies have driven Gaza. If people had to live the consequences of their actions (electing and supporting Hamas), rather than feasting* on free foreign food, they might have greater incentive to rid themselves of their oppressors (Hamas).

*slight exaggeration, for purposes of alliteration

This is the debate over Dambisa Moyo's book.

I haven't read that book and it could very well be flawed in the way described. That doesn't mean that aid is working. Also "development assistance" isn't the same as just shipping over food/supplies. Development assistance is when you send people there that help to build schools, water facilities, etc. This may happen and may work in some parts of say, Africa, but it certainly isn't what we're doing in Gaza.

[punked]

I know that the NDP doesn't like any interrogation methods but even Human Rights Watch says they are important:

Actually what Human Rights watch says is and I quote:

"Ignatieff argues that an absolute ban on torture might prevent our intelligence services from gaining “timely access to information that may save lives.” The “ticking-bomb” scenario, as it is usually known, can seem persuasive. If someone knows of a vast bomb primed to explode in the heart of central London, how could one not torture him, to save thousands of lives? Exposed to reality, however, the hypothetical is no longer so neat. It has damaging consequences for individuals and societies alike."

They wrote a whole piece about how Iggy is wrong. Although I know you eat it hook line and sinker.

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2006/04/26/torture-doesnt-work

[jdobbin]

Actually what Human Rights watch says is and I quote:

And Human Rights Watch didn't clarify what it meant by vigorous interrogation. According to you that is torture.

[jdobbin]

The aid Canada (and other nations) sends Gaza supposedly relieves the conditions of the people there. As such, it cloaks the utter shambles to which Hamas government and policies have driven Gaza. If people had to live the consequences of their actions (electing and supporting Hamas), rather than feasting* on free foreign food, they might have greater incentive to rid themselves of their oppressors (Hamas).

A people that have no experience about the outside world and the possibilities don't avail themselves of those possibilities.

Canada's aid is not there to prop up the government but to train the people who will eventually replace it.

I haven't read that book and it could very well be flawed in the way described. That doesn't mean that aid is working. Also "development assistance" isn't the same as just shipping over food/supplies. Development assistance is when you send people there that help to build schools, water facilities, etc. This may happen and may work in some parts of say, Africa, but it certainly isn't what we're doing in Gaza.

That is exactly what we were doing in Gaza.

[punked]

And Human Rights Watch didn't clarify what it meant by vigorous interrogation. According to you that is torture.

You just have to read the article. I think I will quote a little more from it.

"The US administration has not been shy about its abandonment of the rules, based partly on a version of Ignatieff’s argument that “moral prohibition comes at a price.”

[jdobbin]

You just have to read the article. I think I will quote a little more from it.

"The US administration has not been shy about its abandonment of the rules, based partly on a version of Ignatieff’s argument that “moral prohibition comes at a price.”

And Human Rights Watch said vigourous interrogation techniques were needed. Think the U.S. took note of that as well?

[punked]

And Human Rights Watch said vigourous interrogation techniques were needed. Think the U.S. took note of that as well?

Nope what they said was that we need to define torture becuase we can call torture "vigourous interrogation" and everything will be fine and danndy. Just like Iggy says we should do.

That might be why they wrote a whole article about how Iggy is wrong.

Edited July 19, 2009 by punked

[jdobbin]

Nope what they said was that we need to define torture becuase we can call torture "vigourous interrogation" and everything will be fine and danndy. Just like Iggy says we should do.

But then Human Rights Watch demurred and then didn't do the defining.

[punked]

But then Human Rights Watch demurred and then didn't do the defining.

Actually Kenneth Row wrote a whole piece on it. He was pointing out in that piece that people like Iggy justify things that are clearly torture like physical punishment and that it usually leads too poor information, that could have be gotten another way.

[jdobbin]

Actually Kenneth Row wrote a whole piece on it. He was pointing out in that piece that people like Iggy justify things that are clearly torture like physical punishment and that it usually leads too poor information, that could have be gotten another way.

I saw his piece and all he talked about what was physical abuse. It didn't define vigourous interrogation beyond that.

And Ignatieff himself said to avoid the slippery slope.

If the NDP is against all interrogation be forthright about it.

[punked]

I saw his piece and all he talked about what was physical abuse. It didn't define vigourous interrogation beyond that.

And Ignatieff himself said to avoid the slippery slope.

If the NDP is against all interrogation be forthright about it.

Yep we are against Torture something Iggy has made perfectly clear, in any piece of writing he wrote before he wanted to be President of Canada, he is fine with. Kenneth Roth has taken the opposite of Iggy's position many times and makes it clear physical abuse is a no no. Although Iggy does not do the same thing in his book the "Lesser evil".

The NDP is against Torture as is the UN http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html

That is what we believe Iggy has said as long we don't call it torture then it is within the UN CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE. He might forget the rest of that title though "and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment." Sorry the NDP sides with the UN and your leader doesn't.

Sometimes you play by the rules because the rules are what you are fighting for.

Edited July 19, 2009 by punked

[jdobbin]

That is what we believe Iggy has said as long we don't call it torture then it is within the UN CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE. He might forget the rest of that title though "and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment." Sorry the NDP sides with the UN and your leader doesn't.

The NDP doesn't believe in any interrogation including that used by police in Canada.

[punked]

The NDP doesn't believe in any interrogation including that used by police in Canada.

Where are you getting this from please cite where I said that.

Here is how a typical conservation goes between us:

Punked:

"I think the Senate should not exist"

Jdobbin:

"The Senate is part of Canada, so you must mean Canada should not exist"

Punked:

"No I think Canada is great and could be just as great if not greater with out a Senate"

Jdobbin:

"Yah Canada is great so why do you want to destroy the whole country becuase the Senate is part of that country"

Seriously I am all for the arguement but can we please use what I have said.

[jdobbin]

Where are you getting this from please cite where I said that.

Police in Canada use vigourous interrogation to get confessions. The NDP is against that because they believe it is a form of abuse and therefore torture. Or do you deny that?

What do you think is permissible?

Edited July 19, 2009 by jdobbin

[punked]

Police in Canada use vigourous interrogation to get confessions. The NDP is against that because they believe it is a form of abuse and therefore torture. Or do you deny that?

What do you think is permissible?

Do they use "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."?

[jdobbin]

Do they use "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."?

The NDP certainly think our police use some of those tactics and are against interrogations.

[punked]

The NDP certainly think our police use some of those tactics and are against interrogations.

Which ones?

[jdobbin]

Which ones?

Any form of interrogation or intimidation.