Liberal contenders slam Harper for 'anti-Israeli' accusation

[watching&waiting]

There is nothing wrong with getting behind the PM and saying he did the right thing at the right time. Even the others attending the Franco summit said they were moved by Harpers speech and found him a credible person. So it is a shame that the Canadian people, will let politics cloud over what should have been common sense. Harper is and will be for many years in future a good speaker on the the rights of people. He can and will show his own brand of passion, in many of his speeches, but we then know that there will be those who then will try and pick things apart and make them mean other things. Let face it, that is the down dirty level our political members have sunk to.

I find Harper refreshing as well because he tries to lift up out of the muck and smear tactics and at least give an effort to showing us that we can be civilized. Yes he has at times also took shots at his adversaries, but when he does he at least does so with some wit and class. Something I do not even think of when it comes to liberals. Harper has done a very good job considering his minority status and I believe he will continue to do so for a while yet, as I do not think the Liberals will be the ones to set the time and date of the next election, as I think it will be Harper allowing it to happen when he feels he wants to.

If the liberal were to rush ahead once they have their now leader, and push an election, it would be crazy for them as their party is still too fractured that they will be seen members contradicting the leader etc over policy of almost everything. They will first need time to gel, and to get all members in-line of the party policies. That will take quite some time. Depending on who is the leader of the party after dec. the NDP will be doing much of their own manouvering as well. If any pushes an election here they will pay at the polls for it.

[M.Dancer]

If the liberal were to rush ahead once they have their now leader, and push an election, it would be crazy for them as their party is still too fractured that they will be seen members contradicting the leader etc over policy of almost everything. They will first need time to gel, and to get all members in-line of the party policies. That will take quite some time. Depending on who is the leader of the party after dec. the NDP will be doing much of their own manouvering as well. If any pushes an election here they will pay at the polls for it.

I think the liberals should wait a year before Rae topples the Harperite gov't

[Figleaf]

... Harper ... has at times also took shots at his adversaries, but when he does he at least does so with some wit and class. Something I do not even think of when it comes to liberals.

Nonsense! John Stuart Mill was a classy guy and Adam Smith had them rolling in the aisles.

If the liberal were to rush ahead once they have their now leader

You mean Liberals, don't you?

[newbie]

But I have yet to hear any denunciations from any spokespeople of the Muslim worlds....or any Imams...denouncing SPECIFICALLY those kill-the-Jews protests and rantings of extremists in warring countries.

I cited some links but obviously you only read what you want to, if you even read them at all. Here are some clips for you:

And so it was there, among other locations, that terrorists struck killing some 37 people

and injuring dozens more Thursday. The perpetrators claimed to be propelled by an

Islamic ideology, believing that somehow, killing underground commuters in London

will accomplish something for their cause. Presumably the killings were justified in their

twisted minds because those people somehow constitute the enemy.

Beyond the sheer barbarity of the attacks there is an irony that will likely be lost

from macnet.ca

“As Canadian Muslims we unequivocally condemn terrorism in all of its forms. Canada is our home and we are deeply concerned about the safety of our country,” says Karl Nickner, CAIR-CAN’s Executive Director.

Saturday, 29 July 2006

ImageThe Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), a grassroots organization of American Muslims, strongly condemns the attack on the Jewish Center in Seattle. ICNA offers condolences to the families of those killed or injured in this attack. In a statement, Naeem Baig, Secretary General of ICNA said, "These violent acts by those who claim to represent Islam, are against the teachings of Islam and the practices of the prophet Mohammad". We ask the authorities to step up security measures of religious institutions such as synagogues, mosques and churches. ICNA also urges people of all faith and cultures to show patience and restraint in such time difficult times.

# ISNA urges all Muslims in the U.S. and Canada to exercise the utmost self-control and to never let their understandable anger lead to any un-Islamic and irresponsible act towards their fellow citizens. In fact, they should continue their ongoing dialogue with their Christian and Jewish friends, many of whom have condemned Israel’s terrorism perpetrated under the guise of “self defense”.

# ISNA condemns any act of deliberate or reckless targeting of innocent non-combatants by any party to the conflict.

[Figleaf]

I think the liberals should wait a year before Rae topples the Harperite gov't

You mean the Liberals, don't you?

[jbg]

You just love a red-herring, don't you jbg? Suicide bombers are hardly the only manifestation of violence in the world!

The unique horror of homicide bombing is the randomness, the indiscriminate nature of the slaughter. One gets the feeling that these people are in love with death. In fact, one of their tapes, at the time of the Spanish train attacks was "you love life, we love death". My preference, almost, is to give them what they want; in spades.

In the case of Israel, behaviour that detracts from claims to being peaceful include military occupation, collective punishments through home demolition, bombing civilian infrastructure, and launching attacks on neighboring states.

These measures were not preceded by some pretty despicable acts, such as those I described above? Come on, I'm not that dumb. Nor are you.

[Figleaf]

You just love a red-herring, don't you jbg? Suicide bombers are hardly the only manifestation of violence in the world!

The unique horror of homicide bombing is the randomness, the indiscriminate nature of the slaughter.

What in heaven's name does 'homicide bombing' mean??

Anyway, your aesthetic revulsion to a particular manifestation of violence is completely irrelevant to the point here.

In the case of Israel, behaviour that detracts from claims to being peaceful include military occupation, collective punishments through home demolition, bombing civilian infrastructure, and launching attacks on neighboring states.

These measures were not preceded by some pretty despicable acts, such as those I described above?

If 'homicide bombing' is your amusing new term for suicide bombing, then yes, usually (we are told at least) the criminal act of house demolition is preceded by a criminal act of suicide bombing. What of it?

[jbg]

What in heaven's name does 'homicide bombing' mean??

Homicide bombing is the proper term for "suicide bombing". The death of the bomber is incidental to the bomber's goal, which is killing people.

If 'homicide bombing' is your amusing new term for suicide bombing, then yes, usually (we are told at least) the criminal act of house demolition is preceded by a criminal act of suicide bombing. What of it?

That is a pretty horrible piece of violence and since the family generally gets paid for the attack, they deserve to have their house razed.

[gerryhatrick]

Homicide bombing is the proper term for "suicide bombing". The death of the bomber is incidental to the bomber's goal, which is killing people.

It is less descriptive of the act though.

A better term would be "terrorist suicide bomber", which explains not only who was specifically targetted (civilians) but also how the bomb was delivered.

If you had to choose between suicide bomber and homicide bomber though suicide bomber would be better, since it can usually be assumed the goal of a suicide bomber is to kill others.

[jbg]

If you had to choose between suicide bomber and homicide bomber though suicide bomber would be better, since it can usually be assumed the goal of a suicide bomber is to kill others.

The Buddhists that immolated themselves in response to the US's Viet Nam policy in Saigon were more akin to "suicide bombers". There, the goal was to educate by dieing. With the Arabs, the goal is not to educate, it is to kill people with zero connection to the alleged "offense".

[Figleaf]

[

Edited July 22, 2007 by Figleaf

[Figleaf]

The Buddhists that immolated themselves in response to the US's Viet Nam policy in Saigon were more akin to "suicide bombers".

That's just stupid. The monks had no bombs.

[betsy]

Are you really so removed from knowledge of current events and ethno-geography that you don't know the difference? If so, you have even less basis for commenting on these issues than your earlier posts have suggested. FYI, 'anti-semite' in current usage refers to bigotry against Jews, regardless of their nationality or place of residence; 'anti-Israel' would refer to being against the state (or perhaps residents) of Israel which is absolutely not co-equal with all of Judaism.

So?

The first time I heard of Harper's comment, the news anchor had used the word "anti-semite."

You'll be nitpicking at exact meaning of words... to back up what? What issues are you talking about?

Are we going to go the merry-go-round (as usual)....distracting from the real issue?

I'm talking about Harper and his comment about the Liberals....that they were not baseless comments at all!

It's understandable to get sidetracked...but c'mon....getting sidetracked by the proper usage of words?

This brings to mind another topic in which someone tried to give me lessons on the proper usage of "eh?" And tried to dismiss my argument on the basis of my being an "American" because of the way I used "eh."

[betsy]

Second, he didn't 'spell it out', he made a passing slur.

Yes. He was responding to a reporter.

That it was made "in passing" (slur or not)....means it was candid. UN-REHEARSED. I would call that a "plus." Oh yeah, definitely that's a plus for me!

As for saying it...to me he did spelled it outright in just a few words...a very vivid and accurate description of how the Liberals treated the Jews. Whether he "spelled it out" or made "a passing slur"....the message was still clear.

Speaking of rehearsals. Hang out with MDuffy Live and you'll notice something so obvious. About a week or so ago, started at the Commons the words "Harper is MEAN-SPIRITED" was first introduced. Then, surprisingly right after that...practically all Liberal representatives that appeared on MDuffy Live had been spouting the same line "Harper is mean-spirited" at every chance they got.

They all looked like they were auditioning for the same role....everyone of them was reading from the same script!

I can't help thinking of the flock of sheep in the movie "Babe." The leader says baaaa...everybody says baaaaa. The leader speaks "bo-ram-you." Everybody says "bo-ram-you."

Remind me too of that great game, "Lemmings."

I guess there goes, "nuanced." It's now passe.

[betsy]

Third, it was a barefaced falsehood.

Why do you say it is a falsehood?

[betsy]

# ISNA urges all Muslims in the U.S. and Canada to exercise the utmost self-control and to never let their understandable anger lead to any un-Islamic and irresponsible act towards their fellow citizens. In fact, they should continue their ongoing dialogue with their Christian and Jewish friends, many of whom have condemned Israel’s terrorism perpetrated under the guise of “self defense”.

# ISNA urges all Muslims in the U.S. and Canada to exercise the utmost self-control and to never let their UNDERSTANDABLE ANGER lead to any un-Islamic and irresponsible act towards their fellow citizens. In fact, they should continue their ongoing dialogue with their Christian and Jewish friends, many of whom have condemned ISRAEL'S TERRORISM perpetrated UNDER THE GUISE OF "SELF-DEFENSE."

For a while I was thinking gee, at least here's one that's speaking out. Then I got to this part.

What do they mean by "understandable anger?"

Why do they need to insert that in?

"Israel's terrorism?" "Under the guise of self-defense?"

If you're calling for calm and reason...why do they need to point those out?

Looks like some group is trying to convince the world that they "denounce" the killing of Jews...then can't resist adding the very things that could and would INCITE!

I get the feeling the speaker of this thing is doing a nudge-nudge-wink-wink..."let the world's pacifiers suck on this one fellas".

Seems like this is just some double talk to me, Newbie!

[Figleaf]

Are you really so removed from knowledge of current events and ethno-geography that you don't know the difference? If so, you have even less basis for commenting on these issues than your earlier posts have suggested. FYI, 'anti-semite' in current usage refers to bigotry against Jews, regardless of their nationality or place of residence; 'anti-Israel' would refer to being against the state (or perhaps residents) of Israel which is absolutely not co-equal with all of Judaism.

So?

So, you seem to have a way of posting stuff aligned more with your biases than with the facts.

You'll be nitpicking at exact meaning of words... to back up what?

In this case it's not mere nitpicking, for the reasons already discussed.

What issues are you talking about?

Are we going to go the merry-go-round (as usual)....distracting from the real issue?

You seem to choose incorrect terms to support your poor arguments. I call you on it.

I'm talking about Harper and his comment about the Liberals....that they were not baseless comments at all!

They were bullsh*t.

[Figleaf]

Second, he didn't 'spell it out', he made a passing slur.

Yes. He was responding to a reporter.

That it was made "in passing" (slur or not)....means it was candid. UN-REHEARSED. I would call that a "plus."

You called it 'spelling it out', but now admit it was off-hand. Thank you for correcting youself, however belatedly.

...a very vivid and accurate description of how the Liberals treated the Jews.

That comment lacks connection to reality. You say 'Jews', but Harper said 'Israel'. And there is no scrap of evidence that the Liberals are anti-Israel.

Whether he "spelled it out" or made "a passing slur"....the message was still clear.

'Spelling out' suggests he supplied a level of detail or fact which in fact he did not (how could he, after all, since it was false). You chose the incorrect description 'spell out' because it sounded better, but it distorted the facts.

Edited July 22, 2007 by Figleaf

[Figleaf]

Third, it was a barefaced falsehood.

Why do you say it is a falsehood?

Because the Liberals are not anti-Israel. Even Iggy's comment is not 'anti-Israel'. Israel is more than the acts of its government. You can condemn a government without disliking a nation.

For example, I like and respect America, but revile the Bush administration.

[betsy]

Are you really so removed from knowledge of current events and ethno-geography that you don't know the difference? If so, you have even less basis for commenting on these issues than your earlier posts have suggested. FYI, 'anti-semite' in current usage refers to bigotry against Jews, regardless of their nationality or place of residence; 'anti-Israel' would refer to being against the state (or perhaps residents) of Israel which is absolutely not co-equal with all of Judaism.

So?

So, you seem to have a way of posting stuff aligned more with your biases than with the facts.

You'll be nitpicking at exact meaning of words... to back up what?

In this case it's not mere nitpicking, for the reasons already discussed.

What issues are you talking about?

Are we going to go the merry-go-round (as usual)....distracting from the real issue?

You seem to choose incorrect terms to support your poor arguments. I call you on it.

I'm talking about Harper and his comment about the Liberals....that they were not baseless comments at all!

They were bullsh*t.

Why were they "bullsh*t?"

[betsy]

Third, it was a barefaced falsehood.

Why do you say it is a falsehood?

Because the Liberals are not anti-Israel. Even Iggy's comment is not 'anti-Israel'. Israel is more than the acts of its government. You can condemn a government without disliking a nation.

Although saying Iggy's comment being not "anti-Israel" is also debatable....but we're just not referring to Iggy's comment, are we?

[betsy]

You'll be nitpicking at exact meaning of words... to back up what?

In this case it's not mere nitpicking, for the reasons already discussed.

Discussed? We have not had a real discussion. All you did was give your comment: that it's falsehood what Harper said.

[Figleaf]

[qu

Edited July 22, 2007 by Figleaf

[Figleaf]

[q

Edited July 22, 2007 by Figleaf

[betsy]

In this case it's not mere nitpicking, for the reasons already discussed.

Discussed? We have not had a real discussion. All you did was give your comment: that it's falsehood what Harper said.

Please at least try to follow the discussion. I discussed why the idifference between 'Israel' and 'semite' is not mere nitpicking.

Okay.

But whether it be "anti-Semite" or "anti-Israel" really depends on Iggy's motive when he made that comment.

If he is criticizing the Israeli government policy of how they handled the war...same way as he would criticize the Lebanese government (which btw he never did, right?)...or French government etc.., then we could say it is "anti-Israel"

But if he is criticizing a nation for retaliating to terrorists....bearing in mind that the government is representative of the people...then I would say there is some anti-Semitism involved. For how can one really take the side of terrorists...and in a way that's what he is doing.

If there should be any castigating to be done, the finger should definitely be first pointed at the government of Lebanon: why are you letting your citizens be used as shields by a terrorist organization? Why are you letting this happen?

Do you think our Canadian troops should hide amongst civilians....especially among children... in Afghanistan to prevent any retaliations and escalating numbers of casualties among our soldiers?