percy

One would think that a world leader hearing of innocent civilians from their homeland being killed abroad would prompt stinging criticism of the policies of the country involved, or at least would seek out an explanation as to why a country has killed its citizens.

But not Stephen Harper. Apparently the innocent Canadian civilians killed by the Israeli's are secondary at least to the well being of Israel and it's citizens.

What a fucking, fucking moron.

Since when does a Canadian Prime Minister take a back seat to his country and to the people of Canada by prompting more vigour for a foreign country than he does for dead Canadian civilians.

Are the Israeli's so fucking important in terms of world significance that our leader can't even ask how and why this happened. Oh my gosh,...would we offend the Israeli's or just side track them from terrorizing other innocent civilians.

Fucking sheep.If he wants to align himself with war criminals like Bush and Olmert, go ahead. He not only lost my vote, he lost something worse.My respect.

Any thoughts.Anyone else feel like a second class citizen next to Israeli's?

Canadian deaths in Lebanon do not change Ottawa's view of Mideast crisis BRUCE CHEADLE
48 minutes ago



ST. PETERSBURG, Russia (CP) - The deaths of seven Canadians - including an entire family with three preschoolers - during Israel's bombing of Lebanon have not changed Prime Minister Stephen Harper's position on the crisis in the Middle East.

The return of Israeli soldiers kidnapped by Arab extremists, not an immediate ceasefire, is the key to ending the current conflict, Harper said Monday as the G8 conference concluded.

"We are not going to give in to the temptation of some to single out Israel, which was the victim of the initial attack," Harper told an abbreviated closing news conference.

In the meantime, evacuation of Canadian nationals from Lebanon is to get underway by midweek, "in line with the Americans and British," said Harper.

The government is leasing six commercial ships that can evacuate up to 4,500 Canadians a day. There are a total of about 50,000 Canadians in Lebanon but many live there permanently and likely won't want to leave, officials in Ottawa said.

Harper said he has not contacted Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert seeking an explanation of the air strike that killed the Canadians on Sunday, nor had his officials.

"The onus remains on the parties that caused the conflict to take steps to end the conflict," said Harper.

"But obviously we urge Israel and others to minimize civilian damage. It is difficult, though, we recognize it is difficult when you're fighting a non-governmental organization that's embedded in a civilian population."

Critics say that is exactly why Harper's statements on the conflict have been rash.

The Canadian Arab Federation issued a release holding Harper responsible for the dead Canadians because he had not urged restraint on Israel.

"I don't think that warrants a response," Harper shot back Monday. "It's a bizarre accusation."

Several Canadian Jewish organizations have supported the government's position.

Harper initially called Israel's military action, including bombing Beirut airport, a "measured response" as he travelled to Europe last week.

Asked twice Monday if he still thinks Israel's military reaction is measured or whether he regrets that characterization, the prime minister was clinically dismissive.

"I think our evaluation of the situation has been accurate," he said. "Obviously there has been an ongoing escalation and, frankly, ongoing escalation is inevitable once conflict begins."

The cold calculus of his argument may be correct. The G8 leaders agreed on the weekend that the actions of Hezbollah and Hamas in entering Israeli territory and killing and abducting Israeli soldiers sparked the latest conflagration.

The Mideast situation overshadowed the summit of world leaders, held for the first time on Russian soil. Russian President Vladimir Putin had hoped to use the summit to burnish his country's standing on the global stage, but saw his summit priorities overshadowed by the crisis.

Harper's seeming lack of nuance, empathy and people skills are making his week-long diplomatic foray, which included a visit to Britain before attending his first G8 meeting, an excruciating exercise.

During a meeting with the Queen in London, the pool camera picked up Harper awkwardly commenting that the final leg of his junket - through France, starting Tuesday - "may not be quite as easy."

Given differences still evident Monday between Harper and French President Jacques Chirac, that may have been prescient.

Chirac says an immediate ceasefire in the Middle East is needed for peace. Not Harper.

During the two-day summit, Harper asked Putin at a bilateral photo opportunity to "explain to me how to maintain my popularity at high levels."

The Russian president and former KGB agent has been harshly criticized for what some in the White House call democratic backsliding, including the suppression of public dissent and control of the state media.

Throughout the trip, Harper has distanced himself from reporters. Since leaving Ottawa last Wednesday, he has spoken to media travelling with him only three times, including a brief encounter on the plane.

It appears that his handlers consider every media encounter an element of their larger political "strategy," not as a way of keeping Canadians informed about the government's actions.

That may be one reason behind the perception in some quarters that Harper's government hadn't done enough to plan for the Lebanon evacuation. He simply declined to talk about it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/cpress/20060...n_na/harper_g8

Yakk

I elected a Conservative Government, and all I got was this lousy penny.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

Charlatan

I can't say I am surprised by his take on all of this.

While I am sure he feels for the canadians that were killed they are but motes in a storm compared to the larger picture -- a larger picture that Harper has no idea how to deal with.

He is showing his lack of international experience at a very terrible moment. He has fallen back on his old saw of, "being decisive" (he likes to be a "decider" too). It isn't surprising that he is parroting Bush's position on all of this (only that he went a step further in his support of Israel).

I have a feeling Harper won't make these mistakes again.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Antikarma

"Hurry Up Georgie, my press conference is in 15 minutes and I still haven't gotten my lines! What? You just faxed em? Lemme look over this.....

Are you sure the Canadians would believe I'd use a word like onus?


Sigh, ya know, I like being Canadian because it means I'm Canadian, not anything else. I feel like a little bit of that died, now.

__________________

"Whoever you are, go out into the evening,
leaving your room, of which you know each bit;
your house is the last before the infinite,
whoever you are."

aberkok

Oh...so you're the one who voted for him!!!

Harper clearly shows his inablilty to see beyond a good guys/bad guys scenario. I'm glad I didn't vote for him.

Funny...when I got into fights in school, I don't remember ever getting off the hook when I accused the other person of starting it. This situation and the far less serious Zidane headbutt confirms what my wife's been saying lately: "as teachers we try to teach our children how to behave...and everywhere they look in the news they see the opposite..."

__________________
!check out my new blog! http://arkanamusic.wordpress.com

Warden Gentiles: "It? Perfectly innocent. But I can see how, if our roles were reversed, I might have you beaten with a pillowcase full of batteries."

percy

OK I have cooled off a bit. Can't but feel worried for the rest of the Canadians trying to get out of Lebanon when our government seemingly think that all that is going on is a "measured response."

I still feel like a second class citizen. I would feel that way a lot more if I were trying to get out of Lebanon also. Forget about poor me Canadian saving my skin. My Prime Minister feels Israeli's lives are more important.

Have to wonder what Harper's response would be if 8 Israeli Canadians were killed in Israel. Somehow I think it wouldn't be the same. After all rockets that kill civilians from the good guys are not comparable to rockets that kill civilians from the bad guys. It's nice to know that to some, terror has a face.

I would have figured that a gesture of sympathy from the Israeli Prime Minister would be due diligence, but apparently not. Why would he give a shit about Canadians being killed by his army. Lebanese Canadians at that.

I'm sure good ole Stevey will be the first to extend his condolences when the next Israeli dies from a suicide bomber. After all to not do so would be insentitive, not to mention probably being labelled as anti-Israeli to boot.

For the record, I am not anti-semitic or anti-Israeli. I don't agree with her neighbours wanting to wipe Israel out but at the same time I don't agree with Israel's continued stance that it can get away with everything they want and be ,not only above international law but being able to maintain a level of elitist sovereign hierarchy, that being held in a position where they are not accountable to anyone and have the distinct honour that their actions cannot be criticized for fear that hatred will build towards them.

One Planet.One people.We are all equal. To bad this last statement is the least bit true of them all.

Ustwo

*buzz buzz* whats that, oh its a US gadfly!

While I of course agree with Harpers stand on this what exactly did you expect him to do? Use harsh words? Threaten NAFTA unless the US got Israel to back off? Canada is not a world power, you can not protect your citizens anywhere outside of Canada without someone elses help. No one hates you, (as far as I know) but no one worries about you either.

So again, what did you want him to do?

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Charlatan

Ustwo... what we expect Harper to do is strike for the middle ground. It is *not* a cut an dry situation in this conflict (as much as you would like to think it is).

Canada has a self image of being a neutral broker in the Middle East (sadly this hasn't been the case since the 50s and is even less so today since we pulled our troops out of the Golan Heights).

What does Harper gain from taking this stance? He gets to be Bush's pal "Steve". He gets the appearence, at home, of looking decisive (as opposed to waffling). He gets to curry favour with a large part of the Jewish vote in Canada (interestingly outnumbered 2 to 1 by Muslims).

Canadians do not want Canada to take a stand on this particular issue because the issue is one where there is no clarity in who it right and there is nothing to gain from taking a stand.

It wouldn't surprise me if, we are hit with some sort of terrorist reprisal because of this.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Sticky

Harper made those comments priror to the G-8 summit not long after the conflict errupted.
After the statments groups condemned the PM.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl.../BNStory/Front
Near the end of the G-8 conference, after the conflict escalated more, the G-8 nations issued a joint statment in which the Canadians played a role in drafting, was agreed to by all 8 leaders including Harper.

The statement from teh G-8 does exactly as the National Council on Canada-Arab Relations requested.

Full text: http://www.g8.gc.ca/m_east-en.asp

Is Harper saying the same thing as he originaly stated? or has signing this changed his statement?

_______________________________________

This is most Probably right.

This is no help if the general population is not happy with the decision. (note: we don't know how the population feesl in general. We can only guess.)

You have to figure that a guy that would want to keep his job would try to curry favor with the Muslim-Canadian population as this would give him more needed votes than placating the Jewish-Canadian Population.

So why does Harper say what he says? That is a good question.


While in this case (as in most cases) one may or may not agre with what Harper (or any PM) says, it would be a real shame if we let the thought above creep into our minds, even if it is true.

A possible terrorist act against us should not keep us from making statements. Should we let this thought enter our minds and should it hinder us from stating what we want then the terrorist has already won even without attacking.
In this case Harpers comments are controversial amongst Canadians.
What about our role in Afganistan? We are probably a target for that too.
What about the fact that we are, in general, on friendly terms with the US? I am sure that makes us a target as well.

__________________
Sticky The Stickman

pornclerk

I always vote Liberal. Sorry but I can't stand the Conservative government!

__________________
Who wants a twig when you can have the whole tree?

Charlatan

The G-8 statement means nothing. It is just wishy-washy enough that any one of the leaders can go home and claim it supports their position.

For example, Chirac says it is supports his support of Lebanon and Harper says it supports his condemnation of Hezbollah.

I completely agree.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Sticky

I know that it means only what people want it to mean.
My point was that in the Globe and Mail article that statment is exactly what the National Council on Canada-Arab Relations asked for.
My other point was more of a question. Does this statement mean that Harper has modified his opinion (even a little) as the situation has progressed. I don't know. I thought that it did not but on the way in to work I was listening to a talk channel with a respected local newsperson (host) who was saying that Harper was flip flopping.



This is nice to hear.
When people say that Spain and London were attacked becuase theysupported the US war efforts it is a problem.
People around the workd may have been unhappy (very unhappy) with their support of the US war efforts but they were attacked becuase terrorists chose to terrorize them.
What makes a free society great is that we can pretty much go around saying and acting as we feel (within leagal and societal limits).

__________________
Sticky The Stickman

Ustwo

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/19072006/...ome-plane.html

Well I can't say I expected that, but it sure beats not taking a stand on the issue to look good.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Ace_O_Spades

I personally think that Canada's role in the entire Middle East conflict should be that of protecting the innocent civillians involved in these disputes and being completely neutral in an epic conflict that has spanned millenia in which we have no part. Give aid and protection to refugees and other non combatants.

I think Harper's move is rather interesting. It led me to investigate past Canada Israeli relations to attempt to determine his motive. Is he acting in concert with past policy, or diverging?


My research led me to a website that spelled out much of Canada's policy during key moments involving Israel in the recent history. Here are some exerpts.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/.../canada.html#1

^Take the validity of this website at face value, I am, but it is the only direct information I've been able to find. And it has extensive citation and documentation.

So it appears the USA has a history of pressuring Canada into siding with Israel in middle eastern conflict. This leads me to grant a modicum of credibility to the claims that Harper's strong stance in favour of Israel despite the deaths of Canadian life at their hands is in part to appease the USA in their mutual alliance with Israel.

I'm afraid I just don't see the benefit of choosing sides in a conflict which can very easily jump to Canadian soil. Especially in the face of Canadian blood spilled by Israeli soldiers.

Harper IS working on getting Canadians out of there with haste, and that is impressing me. *UPDATE BELOW*

I fear I'm being too critical of Mr. Harper. While he was slow in reacting, he has rebounded nicely with the commitment of cruise ships and even his personal plane. It was nice he gave his photographer a ride. Can't miss that photo op eh?

[edit]

It appears as of Thursday's press-time, the Globe and Mail reports that under 300 of the 2000 Canadians stranded have made it on their way home.

For shame.

FURTHER UPDATE

It appears Mr. Harper's office wanted to keep the situation in Beirut out of the news. Sandra Buckler (PM's communications director) issued an edict from the top that the situation was to be kept under wraps.

Also, it appears that SIX of the seven cruise ships have been stopped by the Israeli blockade. Since the Prime Minister has to micromanage everything, all orders had to be run through the PM. This resulted in large scale delays and more than a fair share of frustration.

The PM's office also delayed so long that they were almost last in line to charter cruise ships. This combined with the fact Canada cannot provide a military escort (not the PM's fault) caused the delays at the port. We chartered Lebanese flagged ships and didn't provide an escort. Of course the Israelis were going to give them the rubber glove.

All in all I'm disgusted. Poor poor poor management of the situation.

And does anyone else think his personal trip there reeks of publicity stunt? Why did he himself have to go at all? Just send the plane! Also, he brought far more of an entourage than he first released:

- Three senior communications aides
- Official photographer
- Logistics chief
- Tour director
- Doctor
- RCMP bodyguards

Seems like a lot of unnecessary baggage on that flight.

also:

Countries who have evacuated citizens from Lebanon:

Canada 40,000 - Evacuated: 280
Australia 25,000 - Evacuated 200
United States 25,000 - Evacuated 1500
Britain 22,000 - Evacuated 510
France 20,000 - Evacuated 800
Denmark 5,000 - Evacuated 4000
Sweden 5,000 - Evacuated 1,300
Germany 3,000 - Evacuated 3,000

MacKinnon, M 2,000 wait in port camp for leased ship to arrive. (2006, July 20). The Globe and Mail, p. A1.

Albeit, most of these countries don't have the logistical problems that Canada has trying to get their citizens home.

__________________
Feh.

Ustwo

Mmmm apparently whining isn't just a US problem

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/n...97&k=99475&p=1

Warzone can't be all that bad then.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Charlatan

I was gobsmacked at the reactions of some of those who were rescued from Lebanon... Fucking ingrates!

a)The government is not obligated to rescue you.
b) Given a, take what you can get.

Of course, it is going to uncomfortable. What were you expecting -- the love boat?


The more are read about this and think about it... I have had the reverse reaction to Pery's OP. Harper has been quite assertive in his stance. Hezbollah is in the wrong. There is no grey on that issue.

Has Israel's response been "measured" perhaps, perhaps not.

Harper has taken a stand against agression by a force that crossed the line. His words to Israel were that they should take all steps to limit civilian casualties.

Perhaps he should be calling for a "cease fire" as well. I am not convinced that Hezbollah wants this.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

ShadowWraith

What really pisses me off is that a large percentage of the 50,000 were Canadian citizens in name only; they lived and worked in Lebanon on a permanent basis and Lebanon was where they called home. Now after abandoning Canada to live somewhere else they wave their passports around, expect to be rescued by the Canadian government and they STILL have the audacity to bitch about it... ungrateful bastards.

percy

Well I almost choked on my danish this morning (yeah a stale Danish cuz I had to go into work) when watching one of the tv's, a woman was saying she would rather be in Lebanon being bombed than the apparent nightmare she fled to safety from.

What an ungrateful bitch. Maybe Immigration Canada can track her down, put her on a plane back to Damascus but not before she pays in full what that trip to Canada costed me and every other Canadian who is picking up the tab.

In other news--At least the Israeli Prime Minister called Harper with his condolences albeit a week later.Better late than never.

But my main state of angst is with the media and just not getting it right, especially this time. A little while back I was asked to monitor multimedia conglamerates and report back my findings as to the spin regarding randomly picked events, (I know Charlatan will like that term) and to field the response or opinioned mindset of those who took the time to formulate an opinion.

The results blew me away regarding the opinions of those in relation to an event within the specific happenings of any given event. In other words,what was repeated as fact as originally thought anyways by the respondents, had little bearing as to the actual facts as to what happened. Hence multimedia spin.

I almost don't want to bring this up because by my own admission,the point may be moot. And although blame will be laid, it is the media who I fault.

The current crisis in the mideast was started by the Israeli's, contrary to every single news report that names Hamas and Hesbollah as the perpetrators. Hamas vowed revenge after a family of 7 were killed by the Israeli's during a standing ceasefire. Subsequently Hamas vowed revenge, killing Israeli soldiers and taking one hostage. And here we are.

This isn't meant to be an attack against the Israeli's in the least, but a testament to how collective mindsets are altered by misinformation. The media is to blame.An overwhelming percentage of people support the Israeli's actions. Would they be so supportive if they knew the reason for the conflict was in large part due to the Israeli's for starting it?

The following link is added not to convince people of my words.I saw almost everything in this article on CNN long before I hunted for it. It is to show how the media intentionally or not decide what is or isn't the truth. I'm not saying this article is entirely true, so will only paste as to what I viewed and heard accordingly.

And again, this is an attack on the media for not getting it right the first time. Period

---------------------------------------------------------------

Few readers will be aware that on June 24, the day before the "kidnapping", Israeli commandos had entered the Gaza Strip and captured two Palestinians claimed by Israel to be members of Hamas. (See our Guest Media Alert by Jonathan Cook, 'Kidnapped by Israel'; http://www.medialens.org/alerts/06/0..._by_israel.php)

Nor have the press suggested that the one-sided nature of the killing in the weeks leading up to the capture of the Israeli soldier might have "sparked" Palestinian actions.

On June 8, the Israeli army assassinated the recently appointed Palestinian head of the security forces of the Interior Ministry, Jamal Abu Samhadana, and three others. On June 9, Israeli shells killed seven members of the same family picnicking on Beit Lahiya beach. Some 32 others were wounded, including 13 children.

On June 13, an Israeli plane fired a missile into a busy Gaza City street, killing 11 people, including two children and two medics. On June 20, the Israeli army killed three Palestinian children and injured 15 others in Gaza with a missile attack. On June 21, the Israelis killed a 35-year old pregnant woman, her brother, and injured 11 others, including 6 children. Then came the Israeli capture of two Palestinians, followed by the Palestinian capture of the Israeli soldier and the killing of the two other soldiers.

After the beach deaths, Hamas, the ruling party in the Palestinian Authority, broke an 18-month ceasefire and joined other militant groups in firing Kassam rockets into Israel. The Financial Times reported on June 23 that the missiles, principally targeted towards the Israel town of Sderot, have caused damage and some casualties but no fatalities in the recent barrages. A June 29 Guardian leader noted that the home-made Kassam rockets are "not in the same league as Israel's hi-tech (though not always accurate) weaponry". (Leader, 'Storm over Gaza,' The Guardian, June 29, 2006)

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0607/S00253.htm

It should be noted at this time a small contigent of Palestinian militants were firing rockets from Gaza into Israel to protest the widening of illegal settlements being built in the West Bank with retaliation from Israel

Ustwo

Percy - If you want to talk about media spin, you would be best served by not getting your news from a site that seems pre-spun.

That medialens site is a classic example of how one should not get their news.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

percy

Actually the piece I posted was a find I made just before I put it here. It was a summary of what I had already heard and seen prior to not only web browsing, but before by viewing the mainstream.

Anyways who cares. It's summer time.see ya

But let's have one last quote. Canada's Foreign Affairs minister Peter MacKay;

"A ceasefire and a return to the status quo is a victory for Hezbollah," MacKay warned. "Let's not forget that this was an unprovoked attack by a terrorist organization . . . . The discussions have to focus on the long-term end of violence in the region."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/cpress/20060...ast_cda_mackay

I'll comment later when I think about.

Leto

Just to clarrify for those of us who are not "up" on where to get our news, why is this a classic example? This is the first time that I've heard of medialens, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.


thx in advance...

__________________
You said you didn't give a fuck about hockey
And I never saw someone say that before
You held my hand and we walked home the long way
You were loosening my grip on Bobby Orr

http://dune.wikia.com/wiki/Leto_Atreides_I

Sticky

Oh, Israel started it, now I see.

Come on. Who really started anything? How far back do you want to go. This has been going on forever. Putting my opinions aside for a minute (and I have my opinions) and looking at it from the point of view of someone who knows nothing on the situation, if I pick a single point in time I can say who started it as well, I can then go back a few minutes and pick the other side, I canthen go back a few minutes more...and so on.

And about the June 8th beach bombing in Gaza. Like the Mohammed Al-Dura and Jenin incidents, the Media went for Israel rigth away. UnlIn the case of the beach bombing the Israelis, becuase they were shelling in that area earlier in the day, came out and appologized. Afte an investigation they later said that it was not them who was responsible. The world media then quited down on the subject.
See this:
http://www.honestreporting.com/artic...edia_Storm.asp
If you read German (which I don't) there is a link on that page to a German article questioning the possiblity that it was Israel and claiming that it was staged.
By the way, the link above is to a site that fights ensure Israel is represented fairly and accurately. Take it as you will.
In the article they do link to other mainstream media sites

Ok, so let's ignore the Gaza front just for a minute.

What about Hiballah bombing over the border then crossing into Israel and killing several soldiers and kidnapping 2 soldiers. What did Israel do to start that?

__________________
Sticky The Stickman

Ustwo

First time I saw it too, but a quick look at what stories they cover, and their political viewpoint in all of them shows it is nothing but a political propaganda type of website no more trust worthy than Newsmax.com or truthout.org.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Ace_O_Spades

I haven't visited the site yet, and I don't really plan to, but that doesn't make my comment any less pertinent:

If a website writes a non-opinion piece citing reputable sources and drawing logical conclusions, do you think the overall bias of the site will still make the points they make invalid?

Not all articles from a given site can be immediately discredited. It just gives you a little more warning to check that what you're citing is actually worth citing as opposed to simply an opinion. Ad hominem attacks don't suffice.

The scientific method doesn't care about your political views.... it serves us all equally.

__________________
Feh.

Ustwo

It should be up to those who believe what that website professes as truth to verify it as truth. As it is an untrustworthy site, accepting it at face value is silly. I have used such sites before but only to focus on where to look for the truth. If their stories can not be verified then they should be discounted.

In other words, no one should get their panties in a bunch over what is in a very biased, very political web site without some sort of independent corroboration.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

percy

Ustwo, show me the truth and I'll show you a lie within.

Truth,...truth,..are you for real.What truth?

And sticky, believe me pal, I've crucified the other side with the same brush many times. Usually this is when my Jewish friends return my calls and not so much my Arab friends.

I'm not taking sides. Do I know the intrinsic details of this conflict? No. Tell me who does

It is really sad though that the media decide what is fact and not, especially when alot of so-called fact is ed-oped by speculation, pure hypothetics, bullshit and the balls to present something that is passed as the truth. By both sides equally.

Even worse is this cavalcade of people who not only accept what nonsense is being spoon fed to them, THEY REPEAT IT VERBATIM, with passion alone that would garner at least some to believe the world has true clarity regarding good vs.evil.

I think I'll go back to Bugs Bunny cartoons. At least the flagrant violence had a point to it.

Sticky

Here are pictures from a protest in Montreal against Israel, the US, and Canada (maybe Harper and teh Conservatives)
http://www.sammcgill.com/hate.html

Free speech is great.
Where is the line that should not be crossed? The line where it becomes hate speech and threatening to others?

I am posting this in this therad because it is on the same subject.
Also, the discussion seems to be more civilized than what we often see on the politics board. That being said, this may need its own thread.

__________________
Sticky The Stickman