The_Squid Posted April 15, 2013 Report Posted April 15, 2013 And I have read the natives is a offspring of a earlier migration of european people. Not quite... Asians actually. But we are all African, if you go back far enough. Quote Science flies you to the moon, Religion flies you into buildings.
hitops Posted April 15, 2013 Report Posted April 15, 2013 Not quite... Asians actually. But we are all African, if you go back far enough. There you have it, we should go back even further and just give the whole place to the Africans. How far can we take this nonsense? Quote
The_Squid Posted April 15, 2013 Report Posted April 15, 2013 There you have it, we should go back even further and just give the whole place to the Africans. How far can we take this nonsense? Why don't you start a settlement in the USA and try taking some of their land away.... see how that goes for you.... Settling land that is not yours is not a good strategy for peaceful relations... Quote Science flies you to the moon, Religion flies you into buildings.
hitops Posted April 15, 2013 Report Posted April 15, 2013 Why don't you start a settlement in the USA and try taking some of their land away.... see how that goes for you.... Settling land that is not yours is not a good strategy for peaceful relations... No I can't do that because that land originally belonged to bacteria. Quote
g_bambino Posted April 15, 2013 Report Posted April 15, 2013 Why don't you start a settlement in the USA and try taking some of their land away.... see how that goes for you.... Settling land that is not yours is not a good strategy for peaceful relations... Well, then, it seems that it's not settling land itself that's the issue, it's how one goes about it. The US managed to incorporate territory without much or even any violent repercussions. Quote
g_bambino Posted April 15, 2013 Report Posted April 15, 2013 No I can't do that because that land originally belonged to bacteria. And some bacteria will not hesitate to kill you! Quote
jbg Posted April 15, 2013 Report Posted April 15, 2013 Why don't you start a settlement in the USA and try taking some of their land away.... see how that goes for you.... Settling land that is not yours is not a good strategy for peaceful relations... Didn't Britain, Canada's predecessor in North America, do just that in the portion of "Oregon Country" now known as "British Columbia"? Do you see any murderous attacks going on between Washington State and British Columbia? In fact, quite the contrary (link, excerpts below); The Odd Existence of Point Roberts, WashingtonThe town sits about 20 miles directly south of Vancouver, on a little peninsular tip of land, jutting just below the 49th parallel. That's the line, as you probably know, that generally demarcates the separation between Canada and the United States, at least from the middle of Minnesota westward. This borderline cuts between Blaine, Washington, and White Rock, British Columbia, the two counterpoint cities of this west coast end of the U.S.-Canada border. But through the waters of Boundary Bay, the line keeps heading west, true along the 49th and directly through the peninsula at this tip of British Columbia. To the south of the line sits Point Roberts, a 5-square mile fingernail of B.C. that is actually part of the United States. Known as an exclave, Point Roberts is a bit of an oddity in that it’s not an island and yet it’s completely separated from the rest of the U.S. The only way to travel from Point Roberts to the rest of Washington and the U.S. is by passing through one international border crossing into Canada, driving 25 miles, and passing through another international border crossing into the U.S., which is a daily trek for schoolkids above third grade. Cars – a fair amount, but not a crush – regularly line up at either side of the border crossing at Point Roberts. Another 20 miles past the border at Blaine is Bellingham, Washington, the seat of Whatcom County, which oversees this unincorporated town in a strange bit of almost international bureaucracy. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
GostHacked Posted April 15, 2013 Report Posted April 15, 2013 The "Palestinians" are Arabs. That's it. Most of the Arab countries, with the partial exception of Egypt (and maybe Yemen), have no national identity, no real history, no cohesion. Zero, zip, nada. They had an identity, just not a national one until partitions were made by foreigners creating a divide among them. And many places did not have 'cohesion' before countries like the UK, Spain, France, Russia ect started going round the world colonizing those who had no national identity, or real history or cohesion... as you put it. Canada's history is only a couple hundred years at best. But that was due to European colonization (Before Canada) and immigration (after Canada was created). Before that there were nothing but a bunch of savage natives acting uncivilized waring with each other. Glad that all changed with the colonists............. Quote Google : Webster Griffin Tarpley, Gerald Celente, Max Keiser ohm on soundcloud.com
Archanfel Posted April 15, 2013 Report Posted April 15, 2013 Well before the natives peoples made it to North America, there were only animals here. Maybe we should just ship everyone out and leave it as it's true original state as a nature reserve? Ok but we'll accept they are just animals. Now we have to carefully track every little tribal war and massacre that took place over thousands of years before Europeans arrived, all land exchanged, restitutions need to be paid etc. Cause we need to restore everything to it's 2000 BC state. Canada, looking foward! I am going to go out on a limb and assume that you thought I was speaking for the natives? On the contrary, I was simplying pointing out how hypocritical the notion of righteousness in international relationships. Having said that, all these moral/international law crap, while hypocritical, is not without their purposes. My point was simply that our diplomats' are not under any moral obligations. They simply should do what is necessary for the benefit of Canada. If that means pretending to be righteous, so be it, but we shouldn't forget the reason why they are paid with tax dollars. Quote
Hudson Jones Posted April 15, 2013 Author Report Posted April 15, 2013 Despite Canada's stance on not recognizing Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem. Despite the decades that all western countries, including the United States, agreeing not to meet in East Jerusalem and despite the Canadian embassy diplomats' opposition to this action, Baird goes on to meet an Israeli official in the illegally occupied and annexed East Jerusalem.. A senior Israeli Foreign Ministry official said that Baird made both visits despite opposition from diplomats at Canada’s embassy in Tel Aviv. A nongovernmental Israeli source involved in Israeli-Canadian relations noted that Baird also violated the East Jerusalem taboo last time he was here, by visiting Jerusalem’s Old City with an official Israeli escort. “Baird recognizes the sensitivity, but he wants to set a precedent,” this source said. Canada’s current government is widely considered Israel’s best friend in the world today, and Baird is considered one of Israel’s greatest allies within this government. link Quote When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they can seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall. Think of it--always. Gandhi
PIK Posted April 15, 2013 Report Posted April 15, 2013 Despite Canada's stance on not recognizing Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem. Despite the decades that all western countries, including the United States, agreeing not to meet in East Jerusalem and despite the Canadian embassy diplomats' opposition to this action, Baird goes on to meet an Israeli official in the illegally occupied and annexed East Jerusalem.. A senior Israeli Foreign Ministry official said that Baird made both visits despite opposition from diplomats at Canada’s embassy in Tel Aviv. A nongovernmental Israeli source involved in Israeli-Canadian relations noted that Baird also violated the East Jerusalem taboo last time he was here, by visiting Jerusalem’s Old City with an official Israeli escort. “Baird recognizes the sensitivity, but he wants to set a precedent,” this source said. Canada’s current government is widely considered Israel’s best friend in the world today, and Baird is considered one of Israel’s greatest allies within this government. link Hudson, you are just repeating what you have been told by some anti-semitic teacher. Baird has the courage to do what others won't and working for peace, is alot better then this whinning over nothing. It is these little nothings you come up with that actually cause the unrest. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
Guest American Woman Posted April 15, 2013 Report Posted April 15, 2013 (edited) As far as I can see, only Palestine has criticized Baird for meeting with Justice Minister Tzipi Livni at her office in East Jerusalem; has anyone read of any criticism outside of Palestine? Edited to add: I think I do recall criticism from the NDP. Edited April 15, 2013 by American Woman Quote
Hudson Jones Posted April 15, 2013 Author Report Posted April 15, 2013 Hudson, you are just repeating what you have been told by some anti-semitic teacher. Recognizing Canada's official stance and international law is not anti-semitic. It's comments like that which have ruined the meaning of anti-semitism. Quote When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they can seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall. Think of it--always. Gandhi
PIK Posted April 15, 2013 Report Posted April 15, 2013 Recognizing Canada's official stance and international law is not anti-semitic. It's comments like that which have ruined the meaning of anti-semitism. But your comments and they way you pile on with out knowing what really happened can be seen as anti-semitic. So what about non stop mortors being fired into israel , now I know the MSM does not like to report those attacks. So what is your opinion. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
jbg Posted April 15, 2013 Report Posted April 15, 2013 Recognizing Canada's official stance and international law is not anti-semitic. It's comments like that which have ruined the meaning of anti-semitism. Israel's actions seem uniquely subject to an unheard of level of criticism. Beyond those even of North Korea and Iran. What gives? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
g_bambino Posted April 15, 2013 Report Posted April 15, 2013 Hudson, you are just repeating what you have been told by some anti-semitic teacher... I didn't see where he once mentioned anything about Semitic people. Quote
Guest American Woman Posted April 15, 2013 Report Posted April 15, 2013 Again. I've seen no international criticism of Canada/Baird over this meeting. Quote
hitops Posted April 16, 2013 Report Posted April 16, 2013 I am going to go out on a limb and assume that you thought I was speaking for the natives? On the contrary, I was simplying pointing out how hypocritical the notion of righteousness in international relationships. Having said that, all these moral/international law crap, while hypocritical, is not without their purposes. My point was simply that our diplomats' are not under any moral obligations. They simply should do what is necessary for the benefit of Canada. If that means pretending to be righteous, so be it, but we shouldn't forget the reason why they are paid with tax dollars. Agreed! Quote
Charon Posted April 16, 2013 Report Posted April 16, 2013 How is making obvious political blunders in a volatile overseas region to the benefit of Canada? Quote
Bonam Posted April 16, 2013 Report Posted April 16, 2013 How is making obvious political blunders in a volatile overseas region to the benefit of Canada? How is it a blunder to be seen supporting an ally? Quote
eyeball Posted April 16, 2013 Report Posted April 16, 2013 Sometimes it's better to be neutral, which might leave us in a better position help both sides out of their dilemma. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Bonam Posted April 16, 2013 Report Posted April 16, 2013 Sometimes it's better to be neutral, which might leave us in a better position help both sides out of their dilemma. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Who is to say which of those times this is? Canada stood by an ally, as it has done many times in the past and will do again many times in the future. None know whether acting otherwise would lead to a future that would have been better or worse, but what we do know is that there was nothing blunderous or shameful about how Canada acted in this case. Quote
Hudson Jones Posted April 16, 2013 Author Report Posted April 16, 2013 (edited) How is it a blunder to be seen supporting an ally? Friend or not, Canada should take a strong stance against violations of international law. Something that they had been doing before the Harper government came to power. Unfortunately, the Harper government has done some things that has lowered Canada's moral standards and its reputation of championing human rights. There is a reason why Canada did not get a security council seat. Canada's hopes of returning to the top body of the United Nations ended in crushing disappointment Tuesday when it withdrew from contention, handing victory to Portugal. The defeat marks a significant embarrassment for Stephen Harper's government. It is the first time in more than 50 years Canada has not won a campaign for a temporary seat on the Security Council. Link Edited April 16, 2013 by Hudson Jones Quote When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they can seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall. Think of it--always. Gandhi
eyeball Posted April 16, 2013 Report Posted April 16, 2013 ...there was nothing blunderous or shameful about how Canada acted in this case. I think in this case it was more aggravating than anything else. Like the idea of neutrality I guess. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
The_Squid Posted April 16, 2013 Report Posted April 16, 2013 Israel's actions seem uniquely subject to an unheard of level of criticism. Beyond those even of North Korea and Iran. What gives? Simply not true. You're just playing the victim. Quote Science flies you to the moon, Religion flies you into buildings.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.