babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Globe and Mail supports Rock at UN

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Globe and Mail supports Rock at UN
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 02 December 2004 08:26 AM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Globe editorial

A balanced view.


From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 02 December 2004 09:18 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hold on a minute, Mac: gotta go retrieve the print version from the recycling pile.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bubbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3787

posted 02 December 2004 10:13 AM      Profile for Bubbles        Edit/Delete Post
It is another sign of Martin tilting more towards US foreign policy. I wonder why? It seems to me that US and Israeli policies are such obvious losers that only can be maintained by armed force. Next he will tell us we need more arms.
From: somewhere | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
miles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7209

posted 02 December 2004 10:27 AM      Profile for miles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here is exactly what Allan Rock -- Canada's UN Ambassador said during the debate on Fifty-ninth General Assembly Proclaiming new hope for the Palestinian-Israeli peace process ahead of elections set for 9 January 2005 to choose a successor to late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.

quote:
ALLAN ROCK (Canada) said the prospects for peace were rapidly opening up in the Middle East, and even though there had been outbreaks of violence and loss of life, there was hope for real progress on the peace front. Canada appealed to both Israel and the Palestinian Authority to focus on the goals of peace. The international community must likewise be prepared to act so as not to miss this burgeoning opportunity. Canada was pleased with the actions of both sides to put in motion the process for the holding of free and fair elections and an overall resumption of the broader negotiation process.

Detailing Canada’s policy on the situation in the occupied territories, he said the international community must recognize Israel’s right to live in peace and security with its neighbours. Canada supported Israel’s right to protect itself but stressed that such actions must be proportionate means and in line with international law, particularly international humanitarian law. At the same time, Canada supported the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination, as well as their aspirations to live in a secure, peaceful and independent State. He added that a just solution to the Palestinian refugee issue was also central to the overall settlement. Still, violence on both sides continued to undermine efforts to achieve overall peace. All acts of violence –- both those associated with Israel’s continued construction of a security barrier in parts of Gaza and the West Bank, as well as continued suicide bombings and killings of civilians –- would never lead to a comprehensive settlement.

Canada had long-standing concerns on many of the resolutions that annually came before the Assembly on these matters, he said. The texts did not contribute to furthering dialogue or to enhancing trust between the parties. Indeed, the objectives appeared more rhetorical than results oriented. And those objectives appeared to be divisive, no matter how artfully they were written. Indeed, Israel’s security concerns were often overlooked, as were calls for the Palestinian leadership to reign in extremists, or to make concrete efforts to reform Palestinian political and administrative institutions. Canada sought a more innovative approach in the drafting of the texts, ensuring that they were reality-driven and contained concrete follow-up mechanisms.

Canada would oppose two of the drafts under consideration today –- respectively on the Special Committee Investigating Illegal Israeli Practices and on The Palestinian Rights Committee. The value added by consideration of the texts was questionable, and for many years, neither had enjoyed the broadest support of the international community. Canada believed that the time had long since come -- especially given the renewed hope for the peace process -- to determine whether United Nations efforts to promote that process should be re-evaluated and if more could be done to foster trust and dialogue between the parties. The Organization could play a greater role in the spirit of collective effort and cooperation, he said.


All i see is that instead of Canada's usual sitting on the fence and abstaining they voted a yes. But Canada's policy has not changed regarding either issues of security for Israel or Statehood for the Palestinian people.


From: vaughan | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
miles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7209

posted 02 December 2004 10:36 AM      Profile for miles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here are the 6 issues that were voted on at the UN yesterday.

Canada voiced:

3 in favour or yes votes (with the majority of members)

1 vote against

2 abstentions

Vote 1:
Vote on Palestinian Rights Committee
The draft resolution on the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People was adopted by a recorded vote of 104 in favour to 7 against, with 63 abstentions.
Canada votes against

VOte 2:
Vote on Palestinian Rights Division
The draft resolution on the Division for Palestinian Rights of the Secretariat (document A/59/L.35) was adopted by a recorded vote of 103 in favour to 8 against, with 64 abstentions
Canada abstains

Vote 3:
Vote on DPI Special Information Programme on Palestine The draft resolution on the special information programme on the question of Palestine of the Department of Public Information of the Secretariat (document A/59/L.36) was adopted by a recorded vote of 162 in favour to 7 against, with 9 abstentions.

Canada in favour

Vote 4:
Vote on Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine The draft resolution on the peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine (document A/59/L.37) was adopted by a recorded vote of 161 in favour to 7 against, with 10 abstentions, as follows:
Canada in favour

Vote 5:
Vote on Jerusalem The draft resolution on Jerusalem (document A/59/L.39) was adopted by a recorded vote of 155 in favour to 7 against, with 15 abstentions
Canada in favour

Vote 6:
Vote on Syrian Golan
The draft resolution on the Syrian Golan (document A/59/L.40) was adopted by a recorded vote of 111 in favour to 6 against, with 60 abstentions

Canada abstains


From: vaughan | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 02 December 2004 10:41 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
First, I think that we need to see the texts that Canada is voting both for and against. I understand that there are several resolutions coming up, and Canada is voting one way on two (?) and another way on a third (?).

[Edited to say: thanks for the outlines, at least, miles -- see miles's corrections of my tallies above. We still need texts, though.]

As for the purely rhetorical, though: that's a laugh. Rock's own language, as usual, gives us little more to work with, and expressions like "balanced" or "even-handed" (from the Grope editorial) mean less than nothing without concrete illustration -- some "balance" is pure mindlessness, whereas other kinds of balance may be fair, but Rock and the Grope are not helping us to see which is which.

The Grope editorial takes a predictable position in the mulberry-bush debate: it says that the UN resolutions conventionally omit the context of the horrors being visited upon the people of the OT -- and the Grope's notion of context is the four-year-long intifada.

One of the reasons people are parsing this speech of Rock's and the changed voting is that many are aware of a statement signed (last year?) by a number of powerful people in the new Liberal caucus that argued for a definite tilt towards Israel. (There's a link to that statement on an earlier thread -- perhaps someone can remember where?)

And then, as Bubbles notes above, many are also feeling wary of a possible tilt towards the foreign policy of the current U.S. regime and all that that entails -- as in shared responsibility for the commission of war crimes and torture, etc.

[ 02 December 2004: Message edited by: skdadl ]


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bubbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3787

posted 02 December 2004 11:48 AM      Profile for Bubbles        Edit/Delete Post
Miles,

Thanks for the text. I had got my info from the morning CBC, which was rather brief. I think Martin's attemt to void one of the few Palistinian voices on the UN, can only skew the issue even more then it already is towards US and Israeli interests. Which amounts to ignoring the pain of the victims.


From: somewhere | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
gula
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6474

posted 02 December 2004 03:30 PM      Profile for gula     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
When I heard this on the CBC this morning, it only confirmed my growing conviction that our government is becoming more and more Israel "über Alles" in their attitude. Just the other day Pettygrew was on the news spouting off about Israel and about how it was the only democracy in the region. Their actions are definitively becoming ever more unfair and unbalanced, as is the CBC's coverage of the conflict. It really burns me and I seem to spend more and more time yelling at the radio or turning it off altogether. I do have to laugh at their stupid automated reply to my emails, though, as if they actually read them.

On another note, I read this great article over on Vive and I would have liked to post it but couldn't figure out where to put it. So here it is: Seven Pillars of Jewish Denial
http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20041201180009137


From: Montréal | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 02 December 2004 04:12 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by gula:
When I heard this on the CBC this morning, it only confirmed my growing conviction that our government is becoming more and more Israel "über Alles" in their attitude.
This is a nazi allusion that is distasteful , offensive and should be removed if the author of the post has any sensitivity.

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 02 December 2004 06:00 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It could refer to California.
From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 02 December 2004 07:07 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It certainly doesnt surprise me that you would find humour in nazi rhetoric.
From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 02 December 2004 07:14 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
What? We're banning the use of the German language in this forum now? C'mon, Macabee...keep your eye on the prize. Little distractions like this are meaningless.
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 02 December 2004 07:14 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So you're calling both me and gula nazis, Mish?

Fight the good fight, Credibility Boy.

[ed.] And what "nazi rhetoric"? gula used two German words, or are you demonizing all Germans now too?

Moreover Mish, who died and made you Babbelsprechenwortenführer?

[ 02 December 2004: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 02 December 2004 07:19 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
So you're calling both me and gula nazis, Mish?

Fight the good fight, Credibility Boy.


It amazes me how easily you can lie on this board. Please point out EXACTLY where I called anyone in this thread a nazi. Once you cant do that I expect an apology to this board and to me. I wont hold my breath.

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 02 December 2004 07:21 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As I've asked many times in the past, Mish, do something to prove you aren't an idiot.

Please.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 02 December 2004 07:23 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
Ah, ha ha ha. Ha ha ha. Oh, ho ho ho...hee hee...heh, heh...whooo, boy!

Oh, God, Macabee, you're incredible. You most certainly did call Al-Q a nazi. Who do you think you're fooling?

...remember, keep your eye on the prize!


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 02 December 2004 07:26 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
This is a nazi allusion that is distasteful , offensive and should be removed if the author of the post has any sensitivity

Say, Big Mac, are you aware that Das Deutschlandlied (a.ka. Deutschland ueber Alles) is the current German natonal anthem? Quick, better tell 'em about the Nazi allusion.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Bubbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3787

posted 02 December 2004 07:39 PM      Profile for Bubbles        Edit/Delete Post
I guess the nazi like tank warfare tactics used in occupied territories is less distastfull?
From: somewhere | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 02 December 2004 07:48 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
Actually, the Deutschland, Deutschland, über Alles was part of the first verse of the German anthem that was removed after WW2. The current German anthem starts with the second verse Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit...
Unity, and Rightness, and Freedom..." I understand Macabee's bristling at the term "über Alles", but I think it's trivial.

[ 02 December 2004: Message edited by: Hinterland ]


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 02 December 2004 08:48 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hinterland:
Ah, ha ha ha. Ha ha ha. Oh, ho ho ho...hee hee...heh, heh...whooo, boy!

Oh, God, Macabee, you're incredible. You most certainly did call Al-Q a nazi. Who do you think you're fooling?

...remember, keep your eye on the prize!


Amazing ...you feel that lying is ethical? Again stop being stupid (as hard as that may be for you) for just one moment and show us all here where I called anyone a Nazi. Im still waiting...

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 02 December 2004 08:51 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by black_dog:

Say, Big Mac, are you aware that Das Deutschlandlied (a.ka. Deutschland ueber Alles) is the current German natonal anthem? Quick, better tell 'em about the Nazi allusion.


Dont be obsequious, you know full well what was meant. What a bunch. That you dislike me is one thing that you would allow that to colour your ethics is sad very sad. And you call yourselves progressives. Give me a break.

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 02 December 2004 08:51 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
All right, all right. Don't make me stop this car!
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 02 December 2004 08:52 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Bubbles:
I guess the nazi like tank warfare tactics used in occupied territories is less distastfull?
This is a troll...an ugly troll...a sick troll...a stupid troll an offensive troll but a troll nonetheless

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 02 December 2004 08:57 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Amazing ...you feel that lying is ethical? Again stop being stupid (as hard as that may be for you) for just one moment and show us all here where I called anyone a Nazi. Im still waiting...

First of all, it's immoral to accuse me of thinking lying is ethical. You know I don't, Macabee. Second, it's immoral to call me stupid; you know I'm not. Third, you called him a Nazi, and it's immoral for you to deny it.

Wow. 3 strikes.

[ 03 December 2004: Message edited by: Hinterland ]


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 02 December 2004 09:01 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Okay. First of all, the "uber alles" (sorry, I don't have the umlaut chart here and can't be bothered anyhow) comment was not worth all the handwringing on Macabee's part. Secondly, Macabee didn't call anyone a nazi.

Can we continue with the thread now, or shall I close it?


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 02 December 2004 09:06 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
You mean, if we continue the dialogue in this manner, the thread will be closed?

Do what you want.

[ 02 December 2004: Message edited by: Hinterland ]


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 02 December 2004 09:17 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thank you Michelle for at least confirming what we all know. I suppose some will see my reaction to nazi allusions here as an over reaction. I understahd that but I would also ask you have some understanding for where I come from.

My entire family in Europe including 7 aunts and uncles numerous cousins and two half brothers were gassed to death by nazis in the Treblinka death camp in November 1943. I guess I'm touchy about nazi illusions.


From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 02 December 2004 09:24 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
And it is awful and I feel terrible for you, Macabee. I remember visiting Bergen-Belsen, Dachau, and Auschwitz-Birkenau and each time, being stunned and in shock and almost immobile at how inhuman humanity can be. I often think of the 250 million native Americans who disappeared after first contact.

Will we ever stop doing this?

[ 02 December 2004: Message edited by: Hinterland ]


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 02 December 2004 09:33 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thank you Hinterland. On this we agree.
From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
gula
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6474

posted 02 December 2004 09:37 PM      Profile for gula     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
Thank you Michelle for at least confirming what we all know. I suppose some will see my reaction to nazi allusions here as an over reaction. I understahd that but I would also ask you have some understanding for where I come from.

My entire family in Europe including 7 aunts and uncles numerous cousins and two half brothers were gassed to death by nazis in the Treblinka death camp in November 1943. I guess I'm touchy about nazi illusions.


I am sorry you read it as a Nazi allusion. It isn't to me, it is simply a term I use when I see an obvious bias. That may be because my mother tongue is Swiss-German and I forget that some words may have a meaning to people other than what they simply say.

And I am sorry to hear what happened to so many your family. I am also saddened by the fact that we have learned nothing from it and that wars and genocide live happely on.


From: Montréal | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 02 December 2004 10:19 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
War is lucrative for the rich. Always has been. War culls the herd and lowers inflation. It tends to keep our wandering minds off of revolution, too.

We should raise taxes on Canadian and American arms manufacturers who've realized a five fold increase in arms shipments to the middle east since 1991. The rich are not immoral. They are amoral. Where there's chaos there is profit. Chaos is their way.

[ 02 December 2004: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 03 December 2004 12:51 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So! The idea is that Israel gets blanket acceptance, no matter what it does. This is a balanced policy? Of sourse we wont actually here a peep about this out of the NDP, or even an attempt by the NDP to take over the former posaition of the Liberals
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Bubbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3787

posted 03 December 2004 01:17 AM      Profile for Bubbles        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
This is a troll...an ugly troll...a sick troll...a stupid troll an offensive troll but a troll nonetheless

Macabee

Who is the troll here? You started this discussion, but have absolutely nothing to say about it, other then 'a balanced view'. All you do is troll for the words "nazi, holocaust, zionist and then blast away with vitriol and if that does not work come up with a tragic story. Woopi, we can all come up with some tragedy. I too lost relatives in that war, on both sides of the conflict. I even had a Jewish great grandfather, who did not die in the holocaust, but died from a brain tumor at age 36, leaving his wife and three small kids.


From: somewhere | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 03 December 2004 01:22 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
So! The idea is that Israel gets blanket acceptance, no matter what it does. This is a balanced policy? Of course we wont actually here a peep about this out of the NDP, or even an attempt by the NDP to take over the former posaition of the Liberals

Cueball, snap out of it, man. The right wing in Israel have been practicing apartheid for several years now in the OT's.

As for the NDP, they are against fascism. TC Douglas was the first politician in North America to speak out against Hitler at a time when American industrialists and banking elite were shovelling money and equipment to the Nazis hand over fist until almost 1943!.

Are you saying that the NDP, with all of 19 seats in the House of Commons, are pro-fascist mouth pieces by virtue of what they aren't saying about the Israeli situation today ?.

[ 03 December 2004: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 03 December 2004 03:49 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That was history. Where is Layton's opposition to the liberals on this issue.

Have you read what Layton thinks about this issue? He thinks that suicide bombing should be defined as an extra special 'war crime,' on the other hand he thinks that he would "prefer" that Israel would not use targetted assassination, when dealing with these "war criminals," but that "much of what is being done by Israel is necessary."

Those are quotes.

I am saying that Layton doesn't perceive that fascist elements of Sharon's game plan as fascist.

[ 03 December 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 03 December 2004 03:55 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Cueball, I believe that Jack's comments reflect a fair and impartial view of the Israeli-Palestinian situation. And to be clear about my own leftist view on the rotten situation there is that both Jews and Palestinian's have rights in Israel. Rabbi's and Hamas leaders have admitted as much. Jack's remarks were rather non-inflammatory, I thought. Jack referred to a need for a "Palestinian state" which I believe would be enough to start a riot in the Knesset at the same time.

Not all Jews are fascist pigs just as not all Palestinian's are suicide bombing fanatics. There are groups on both sides of this conflict who are becoming extremely well off by the sale of arms and enforced impoverishment in general and at the expense of poor Palestinian's and Jews who have to live in the most dangerous areas of the conflict.

Yes, one side of this conflict is much stronger militarily than the other, and the atrocities committed by the Israeli's are nothing less than fascist in nature. But there are so called religious leaders with political agendas thruout the Muslim world who are also promising social justice to the masses. But when they seize power, for example the Ayatollah's of Iran, the result is quite different for the people who have been promised social democracy as a reward for obeying the tenets of their militant Islam.

It's not as simple as what African apartheid was, a clear case of racism with an obvious solution: embargos and trade sanctions. If we support the right wing as we're doing now in Israel, then the Pal's will find militant Islam appealing. Push the Israeli's in defiance of the U.S. military industrial complex and real American government operating out of the Pentagon, and they could turn us into one frozen Puerto Rico of the North up here.

These times are as dangerous as any during the cold war, I believe. Speaking out against Hitler didn't seem to do Tommy Douglas any good way back when. As Pierre Burton once said, the only reason we had volunteers from Canada to fight fascism in Europe was because of backwards conservative policies implemented across Canada at the time.
Our soon-to-be billionaire families were busy making their first millions on illegal booze and dealing with the mafia.

Young Canadians were bored to death and couldn't buy booze anywhere during the dirty 30's. I think my dad and his brothers felt the same way and just wanted to get the hell out of Canada for a while. Army life was a step up for many as the Canadian army had to turn away thousands of emaciated young Canadians who were unfit for combat in 1939. Many of them were socialists who chose to pick up a rifle, Cueball. Things are not what they seem in the M.East or Asia right now. I can't say that I understand it all myself. But I do think that the military industrial complex was running out of enemies until they declared war on militant Islam. Religion is a powerful motivator, and I think OBL is a friend of powerful elitists here in the west. They bet on Hitler and his Nazis to occupy the Kremlin in six weeks time, and OBL is the current bogey man, imho. He's worth hundreds of billion$ to them. They've become fat on the blood and souls of martyrs and little children as usual. Predatory capitalism must go.

[ 03 December 2004: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 03 December 2004 04:55 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So you are saying that suicide bombing is a war crime and targetted assasination is not? Because according to Layton targetted assassination, is not the preffered course of action, but he does not charachterize it as a war crime. He does however characterize suicide bombing as a war crime. You think this is a balanced perspective on the conflict?

PS: I didn't say anything about Facist pigs -- you did.

Layton's exact quote and the question that was asked:

Mark Gold, President of the Canada Israel Committee

quote:
Mr. Layton, I’d like to turn to a question concerning Israel and it’s simply this: Do you accept Israel’s absolute right to take all necessary steps to protect her citizens against the terror and the threat of terror in the same way that Canada and its allies are currently engaged in the war against terror internationally in Afghanistan for example?

[Layton goes off on tangent about nuclear proliferation and is then redirected to the actual question, by Mark Gold, President of the Canada Israel Committee:

quote:

Well, if I may, the question… let us just agree that the question refers certainly to the means that Israel is currently using to protect its citizens in the current circumstances and I wonder with that qualification if you could respond to it.


quote:
Jack Layton, Leader of the New Democratic Party

Much of what is being done is necessary. Some of the actions we have had to speak out against, assassination is one. We prefer the world court as a strategy for addressing crimes against humanity and we have expressed some concerns about the fence, whatever the appropriate term is to use, and the placement of it and so on but these are all issues that in our view should be discussed in the context of the negotiations that are going on. We think that progress on the roadmap is… we’re cautiously optimistic about that roadmap. We’ve expressed that optimism, and see that as a framework for continued efforts. The withdrawal from Gaza that’s being developed is I think a positive set of initiatives.


Look at it, nothing even suggesting that Israel is in in controvention of international law by occupying foreign territory, as per UN resolution 242, nothing strictly suggesting that the wall is illegal unless placed clearly inside Israel's internationally recognized boundaries, and not even a clear condemnation of targetted assasination as a war crime, itself. Look: He even calls the wall a fence!

The historical traditions of the NDP, and Tommy Douglas are irrelevant to the position that Layton is putting forward.

From the record, of Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy Conference Call

[ 03 December 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 03 December 2004 05:15 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No, I won't say that. I'm saying that the Israeli's are digging a deep hole for themselves geopolitically with respect to Muslim relations. And the colonialists in America and elsewhere have been simply using the Israeli's in a massive money laundering scheme. The global in scope military ind. complex has armed the Israeli's to the eye teeth as well as their enemies who surround them on all sides. They did the same thing with Saddam.

I don't like saying it, but the apartheid situation in the occ. territories is just a side issue. The MIC and colonialist pigs need to foment hatred among the two ethnic groups in order to maintain the conflict and keep the weapons and loan guarantees flowing. 80% of all US foreign aid goes to Israel, if I'm not mistaken. It's a round trip deal like the frickin IMF does with right wing despots in poverty stricken nations....still poverty stricken in spite of the IMF's strict economic austerity plans for those nations. It's not about progress. It's about colonialism and corruption at the highest levels.


Jack Layton isn't going to be able to stop what's happening in that region of the world from where he's sitting. I'll be thankful to Jack if he can help prevent our fascist pricks from privatizing our effin health care ... ffs.

cheers Cue!


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 03 December 2004 05:30 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If you don't think that is fair to characterize Palestinian suicide bombing as a crime against humanity and then not characterize Israeli measures of collective punishement as being a crime against humanity, how can you say that Jack's postion is fair? Because Jack does characterize them differently.

Look at what he says that I posted above.

Israel is in the main, except in a few details, acting justly to protect its citizens from 'war criminals.' That is how what Jack has said reads. Jack would like to see these criminals in court, but... oh well... blow them, (and whomever else happens to in spitting distance) up if you have too, we just "prefer" a different approach.

Where does he suggest, for instance, passing legislation that specifically defines targetted Assassination as a crime against humanity? no where. On the other hand he clearly states that he thinks he might support legislation that specifically defines suicide bombing as a "crime against humanity."

As for the NDP's inability to impact events in the Israeli/Palestine conflict this musing about his stand on suicide bombing as "crime against humanity," attests to Layton's belief that NDP can have an impact on "what's happening in that region of the world from where he's sitting."

[ 03 December 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 03 December 2004 05:54 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

[ 03 December 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 03 December 2004 09:13 AM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Bubbles:

Macabee

Who is the troll here? You started this discussion, but have absolutely nothing to say about it, other then 'a balanced view'. All you do is troll for the words "nazi, holocaust, zionist and then blast away with vitriol and if that does not work come up with a tragic story. Woopi, we can all come up with some tragedy. I too lost relatives in that war, on both sides of the conflict. I even had a Jewish great grandfather, who did not die in the holocaust, but died from a brain tumor at age 36, leaving his wife and three small kids.



I take it you have never won awards for understanding or sensitivity. Your post speaks eloquently for itself.

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 03 December 2004 09:19 AM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Cueball did you agree with the signatories to the letter to Jack accusing Jewish organizations of having exerted "undue influence" on the NDP? I mean hey I understand...I get it..that must be it. I mean it looks like they did it to the Globe as well. How else to explain the change (if indeed there is one). It just cannot be that Jack actually believes in looking at this sad and devestating issue in a fair manner...naaaa it has to be a conspiracy.
From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 03 December 2004 09:28 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
John Ibbitson, in today's column in the Grope, certainly is not discussing this as a new position of "balance."

He is openly talking about the Israel "lobby," and purports (how do I know?) to give us a backroom view of hasty discussions that went on just before the Bush visit and the first of the UN votes -- according to Ibbitson, the PMO openly pressed for a position that tilted more towards Israel.

I'm sure that his column is available on the Grope site for anyone who is willing to go there. I'm not; I'm on strike.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 03 December 2004 09:43 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
skdadl, ALL Globe columns are verboten to non-Globe subscribers. Thanks again to Sharon for getting us Heather Mallick!
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 03 December 2004 10:47 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
Cueball did you agree with the signatories to the letter to Jack accusing Jewish organizations of having exerted "undue influence" on the NDP? I mean hey I understand...I get it..that must be it. I mean it looks like they did it to the Globe as well. How else to explain the change (if indeed there is one). It just cannot be that Jack actually believes in looking at this sad and devestating issue in a fair manner...naaaa it has to be a conspiracy.

How many communists did you say are in the Whitehouse, again Macabee?

Did I reference any letters here? Did I say I agreed with any supposition that you have about any letters anywhere, here? No. Why don't you stop projecting your infantile paranoias onto others. You would like it that anyone who raises an objection to Israeli policy is simply an anti-semite. I know that it would be convenient for you, but no, sorry no conspiracy theories, Jewish or otherwise, here, just the facts -- however much you would like to shrink from them or destract from them, they are there.

I referenced a Jack Layton pre-election interview with the CIC, and the CJC. I mentioned no letters -- what on earth are you on about? The interview is part of the wirtten record, provided by the CIC.

Actually, in your effort to apply a cheap Mcarthyite smear, you have hit the nail on the head.

I agree "Jack actually believes," this tripe about how Israel's 'security measures' are "necessary," and that he believes that they are something other than the perputation of fourty years of repressive occupation, whereby the means used by the IDF amount to the same kind of collective punishement, in which innocent civilians pay for the crimes of Palestinian militants, in just the same manner that innocent Israelis pay for the crimes of the IDF when someone straps a bomb to themselves and blows themselves up in an Israeli shopping mall. My problem is that Jack does not see that except for manner of execution that both are exactly the same kind of war crime.

It is that Jack Layton believes these things that is my problem. That is the exact point I am making. And I also think that the fact that you believe that Jack's position is "fair" should indicate to anyone reading this thread, that Jack's position actually is biased -- the fact that he is honestly not aware of this is the problem.

In short, what I am saying is that Jack should be made aware that you are full of shit.

[ 03 December 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 03 December 2004 12:31 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Cue wow touchy touchy, "full of shit?" hmmm is that nice to say about a fellow Babbler just prior to the winter solstice?
From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 03 December 2004 12:33 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What did you think of Ibbitson's column, Mac?
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 03 December 2004 12:37 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
Cue wow touchy touchy, "full of shit?" hmmm is that nice to say about a fellow Babbler just prior to the winter solstice?

Did I say you were full of shit?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 03 December 2004 12:51 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
Cue wow touchy touchy, "full of shit?" hmmm is that nice to say about a fellow Babbler just prior to the winter solstice?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Did I say you were full of shit?



Yup

quote:
In short, what I am saying is that Jack should be made aware that you are full of shit.



From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 03 December 2004 12:54 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
What did you think of Ibbitson's column, Mac?

From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 03 December 2004 01:19 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Quite right, there it is, Cueball calling MaCabee "full of shit," referenced five times now, in black and white. More often the better. Excelent. Three of them served up in Macabee's own posts no less.

Did I mention I always liked that part in Tom Sawyer about painting the fence?

Time for lunch, Mac:


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Bubbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3787

posted 03 December 2004 02:08 PM      Profile for Bubbles        Edit/Delete Post
Macabee

quote:
I take it you have never won awards for understanding or sensitivity. Your post speaks eloquently for itself.

Maybe I do not have perfect understanding and sensisivity, but at least I do not use the death to justify censorship or the theft of land from the living inocents.


From: somewhere | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 03 December 2004 06:51 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Bubbles:
Macabee

Maybe I do not have perfect understanding and sensisivity, but at least I do not use the death to justify censorship or the theft of land from the living inocents.


This is as bastardly low as you have gone. In fact I was speaking about why I react so adversly to nazi imagery. Go to hell Bubbles. Go directly to hell. Do not pass heaven ...do not collect a conscience.

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 03 December 2004 07:18 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

[ 03 December 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 03 December 2004 07:19 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
What did you think of Ibbitson's column, Mac?

From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 03 December 2004 07:41 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[QB][/QB]

What did I think of Ibbitson's column? Not much. Usual innuendo. Schwartz's statement was pretty definitive.

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 03 December 2004 09:02 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:

What did I think of Ibbitson's column? Not much. Usual innuendo. Schwartz's statement was pretty definitive.

Mac, you are a hoot!

Here is Gerry Schwartz's statement, in full, for those who had already recycled:

quote:
"I have not personally intervened in any way with anyone in the government on the issue of UN votes or any other aspect of its Middle East policy.

[I want everyone to know that I washed catfood off the printed page and then let it dry in order to retrieve Ibbitson's column. I am definitely not breaking my strike against the evil online Grope and Flail edition.]

So, Mac, of what would you consider that statement definitive? I gotta tell you, typing it out here fairly put me to sleep. As in: it says nothing, Mac.

Earlier on, mind, Ibbitson (not my favourite person) says:

quote:
But from the day he came to office, Prime Minister Paul Martin has been under intense pressure to make Canada's Middle Eastern policy more overtly pro-Israel. One of the most powerful voices in that campaign belongs to Gerry Schwartz, chief executive officer of Onex Corp. Mr Schwartz was a major financial contributor to Mr Martin's leadership campaign and, by all accounts, exerts considerable influence on the PM.

Mr Schwartz is also a financial backer of the powerful new Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy, created in part to lobby the federal government on Israel's behalf. ...


And what follows that quote in Ibbitson's column is the sleep-inducing statement from Schwartz quoted above.

I can't believe I just wasted that much of my life typing out words from from John Ibbitson and Gerry Schwartz!


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 03 December 2004 09:12 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
Dont be obsequious, you know full well what was meant. What a bunch. That you dislike me is one thing that you would allow that to colour your ethics is sad very sad. And you call yourselves progressives. Give me a break.

When you can't even use a word properly, I have to shake my head in amazement.

Hint: I think you meant "obnoxious", not "obsequious".

Additionally, Macabee, I for one find it tiring to see you constantly act all put-upon and offended and willing to derail the thread by recitals of the tragedies your family has suffered. No one denies that you and your family's tragedies are real and deserve sympathy.

However, just for once can you try to restrain your impulse to go bonkers and practically foam at the mouth that we're all Nazis?

[ 03 December 2004: Message edited by: DrConway ]


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
MyName
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6174

posted 03 December 2004 10:49 PM      Profile for MyName        Edit/Delete Post
Goodness,I've been so busy celebrating in the real world I've missed important babblings here in never-never-land.

So Jack said Israeli can defend itself?

I always did like the man. But jeez Alexa must have shit her drawers.


As far as I can tell from a quick skim, no one here has a clue what's going on with Canada's new foreign policy.

Martin is pursuing the traditional Canadian multi-lateralism. The UN is an important multi-lateral forum. If the UN is ever to be taken seriously it has to achieve a higher purpose than Israel-bashing.

Ergo, Canada is voting against Israel-bashing motions.

Actual policy toward Israel has nothing to do with this and in fact remains unchanged.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 04 December 2004 12:02 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The historical traditions of the NDP, and Tommy Douglas are irrelevant to the position that Layton is putting forward.

Don't put words in Tommy Douglas's mouth. As far as I know, he never expressed any support for Palestinian terrorism. In fact, I believe he visited Israel a number of times since his adopted second daughter (who he raised as a Jew because she was born to Jewish parents) married an Israeli and moved to Israel! In the 50s and 60s and 70s, people on the Left tended to be very pro-Israel. The only people who were pro-Arab in that era were rightwing Arabists who thought "well the Arabs have all that oil so we better suck up to them".


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 04 December 2004 12:39 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I know more than a few Canadian leftists who were pro-Arab in the 60s and 70s. A little of their support had to do with Fatah's and Nasser's avowed socialist leanings.
From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 04 December 2004 01:17 AM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:

And what follows that quote in Ibbitson's column is the sleep-inducing statement from Schwartz quoted above.

I can't believe I just wasted that much of my life typing out words from from John Ibbitson and Gerry Schwartz!


Skdadl, other than innuendo and supposition what proof does Ibbitson actually offer? It is no wonder he is not your favourite writer.

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 04 December 2004 01:59 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by MyName:
Goodness,I've been so busy celebrating in the real world I've missed important babblings here in never-never-land.

So Jack said Israeli can defend itself?


So you think that someone blwing themselves up in a shopping mall is a crime against humanity, and drop a bomb on a block of flats to get one guy, is not a war crime?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 04 December 2004 11:43 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here we go again. Everything is "just as bad" as everything else. Who are we to call Auschwitz a war crime - after all the allies bombed Berlin and people died there too! We are just as bad as the Nazis!
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 04 December 2004 12:22 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Let's see if I can do the impossible here.

(Grimaces as he strains the speak the unspeakable.)

Auschwitz was a war crime. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Berlin was also a war crime. This all according to the same law of war.

Wow, I can't believe I managed that feat. From the sentiments above, one would think that moral judgements can only cut one way. I guess they can be universalized after all, thank heathens.

Now, Stockholm, you try!

[ 04 December 2004: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 04 December 2004 01:28 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Berlin was also a war crime.

What about targeted DIScriminate bombing of civilians in Berlin?? Is that a war crime?

Should the allies not have bothered fighting World War Two for fear of committing a war crime and then being "just as bad" as Hitler?


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 04 December 2004 01:43 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There is much trouble trying to morally define war crimes. Can one compare the bombing of Berlin, an act the allies believed would bring an end to Hitler's war, to the deliberate attempt by Nazi Germany to murder every living Jew, Roma and Sinti, the mentally handicapped and gays and lesbians? Are these two brutal deeds morally equivalant? I dont believe so.
From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 04 December 2004 01:53 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Precisely because there are so many different kinds of war crimes, and on top of those, there are crimes against humanity -- precisely because there are different kinds and categories, we don't compare them: we define them.

See the Geneva Conventions.

An unprovoked war of aggression is a war crime. Hitler and his cronies did that, and some were convicted and executed for it.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
MyName
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6174

posted 04 December 2004 02:02 PM      Profile for MyName        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
Precisely because there are so many different kinds of war crimes, and on top of those, there are crimes against humanity -- precisely because there are different kinds and categories, we don't compare them: we define them.

See the Geneva Conventions.

An unprovoked war of aggression is a war crime. Hitler and his cronies did that, and some were convicted and executed for it.


Excellent. Now could you explain all that to Cueball.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 04 December 2004 02:07 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh, they were convicted of other things and executed for those too.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 04 December 2004 02:09 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh, I see your point. I was originally responding to Mac, who seemed to be saying that we discount some things because some other things are more serious, which I do not believe.

But in answer to MyName: you seem to think that only Hitler and his cronies have ever done these things, and I am most unlikely to agree to that.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 04 December 2004 02:11 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What is of course disturbing is the fact that the NDP does not seem to be able to distinguish Israel war crimes from Israeli security needs, but that the NDP does not seem to be interested in asking the Liberal party why Canada does not support exerting "all efforts to promote the realization of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people," as per the most recent UN resolution.

Its offensive actually.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 04 December 2004 02:34 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Auschwitz was a war crime. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Berlin was also a war crime. This all according to the same law of war.

I agree with skdadl in that there are different categories that need to be defined.

While the Holocaust was a crime against humanity, it was of a whole other order than a "war crime", which I think should be a term used to define strictly military actions. The Holocaust may not have been possible without the screen of war to cover it, and the war made it possible for the nazis to gather victims from all over Europe, but I disagree with calling it a "war" crime.

One could argue, however, that Auschwitz was part of a "war on Jews" and thus call it a "war" crime, I suppose.

[ 04 December 2004: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 04 December 2004 02:37 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That was exactly the way the Nazi described it.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 04 December 2004 05:13 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Who cares/ The NDP position on the Middle East (and for that matter the Canadian position) should just be a recorded message that says "we recognize Israel's right to exist and we recognize that Palestinians should have a second state (Jordan already being one) and we deplore violece by everyone".

Other than that who cares what Canada does. The quickest way to get 99% of Canadians to tune out whatever a political party has to say is to start babbling about the Middle East.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 04 December 2004 05:50 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
to the deliberate attempt by Nazi Germany to murder every living Jew, Roma and Sinti, the mentally handicapped and gays and lesbians? Are these two brutal deeds morally equivalant?

Against what 'moral' standard? You speak as though there is some objective standard which may be applied. For instance, a Buddhist might say that any act of violence is morally condemnable. A good Christian might say, "He who keepeth the law and sin in part, sin in all" - with "the law" suggesting that killing anyone is a bad idea. Now what?

[ 04 December 2004: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 04 December 2004 05:53 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
[QB]

I agree with skdadl in that there are different categories that need to be defined.


Absolutely. I was simply trying to point out the slippage possible with loosely applied terms like 'war crime'. Your responses leave one problem: the possible confusion of 'definition' and 'valuation'.

Another question: How do we make these valuations? How is it that one set of murders can be considered morally 'necessary' to stop another set of murders without diving into a deep, murky paradox?

If there is some kernal of 'humanity' in each one of us which makes us subjects and objects of moral protection, and the principle on which the protection is based is the universality of this kernal of 'humanity', then how can any life deliberately or negligently taken be less valuable than any other without undermining the entire system of values we are using?

Perhaps there is some other principle on which to build an ethics that could protect all equally as humans?

Anyone? Without addressing all of this, we are all talking a big load of shit.

[ 04 December 2004: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 04 December 2004 05:59 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Who cares/ The NDP position on the Middle East (and for that matter the Canadian position) should just be a recorded message that says "we recognize Israel's right to exist and we recognize that Palestinians should have a second state (Jordan already being one) and we deplore violece by everyone".

Other than that who cares what Canada does. The quickest way to get 99% of Canadians to tune out whatever a political party has to say is to start babbling about the Middle East.


Right, so since jordanians and palestinians are the same people, both being Arabic, then Canada might as well be part of the US, since in the main they are white European societies. I don't know how many times people have to tell you that Palestinians come from a distinct ethnic group that is entirely different than the Hashemite rulers of Jordan.

I guess, also, the fact that even when Jordan claimed the West Bank as theirs, Israel showed no interest in giving up then, makes no difference to you.

Would it even cross your mind for a second that Palestinians might not be interested in being ruled by a King.

Simply put: you are an idiot.

Day after day I read people on this site state that the NDP defends the rights of gay people to marry on principal, as an inalliable human right. A just position to be sure, but when it comes to the inalliable right of Palestinians, whether they be Jordanians or not, to not live under a military dictatorship imposed by a foreign power, people like you come up with a million excuses to justify the contiunance of that opression.

Frankly, 10 years ago the quickest way to get people to tune out from a political party, was to babble about same sex marriage. That neither justifies the position, nor excuses supporting policies that lead to the direct opression of others.

And if the NDP doesn't take an interest in the issue, why is it that Jack Layton bothers to talk to the CJC and the CIC in depth on the issue, and then muse about having suicide bombing declared a wnot just a war crime, which it is, "but a crime against humanity?"

Wanker.

[ 04 December 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 04 December 2004 06:10 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Right, so since jordanians and palestinians are the same people,

They ARE the same people. The original mandate of Palestine consisted of all of what is now Israel, the occupied territories and Jordan. In 1923, the British split Palestine and named the eastern half (which was 70% of the territory) "Transjordan"(aka Jordan). They also barred any Jews from living in Jordan. (Interesting that Jews were explicitly barred from Jordan, but Arabs were never explicitly barred from any part of the the western half of Palestine). The whole raison d'etre of Jordan as a country was so that Arabs could have the option of living in a totally "Judenrein" part of Palestine and they wouldn't have to worry about any Jews moving into their neighbourhoods and depressing property values.

If only the British had named the two halves of Palestine "Palestine East" and "Palestine West" all of middlea east history could have been different. Instead they decided to be cute and give eastern palestine its own little name and that has propagated this absurd myth that there is such a thing as a Jordanian nation that is distinct from Palestine.

Now the Palestinisn want THREE states. They already have (Country Number 1) Jordan where the vast majority of the population is Palestinian and where Jews are barred, then they want a country (Number 2) carved out of the West Bank and Gaza that Jews would be barred from living in. The they the "right of return" to Israel proper so that they can demographically swamp the Israelis (country number three) and its onoy logical to assume that they would only endure the presence of Isrealis in Israel as long as they are still the majority, but as soon as the Palestinan population in Israel outnumbered the Isreali population - they would probably kick them all out as well.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 04 December 2004 06:17 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You are absolutely brain dead. The rulers of Jordan are Hedjaz, the Palestinian Assyrian.

The Cree are not the Ojibwa. You, "nice" middle class Canadian gentlman that you surely are, can not simply determine they can both have the same reserve.

Amazing that you would even bring up the original UN partition as evidence, given that if Israel were to return to its original mandated size, it would lose more than just the West Bank.

And none of that has any baring on the right of any group anywhere, to not have their land take and setlled by force. Self determination, freedom from occupation and the right of refugees to return to their homes after a war are simple principals of Human Rights, just as is the right of SSM.

[ 04 December 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 04 December 2004 06:24 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The rulers of Jordan are Hedjaz, the Palestinian Assyrian.

Yes, the British imposed a foreign royal family in Jordan are "Hedjaz", but they are a tiny minority of the population. Something like 90% of the population of Jordan are Palestinian. Big deal, the House of Windsor are of German descent.

I wasn't referring to the UN partition in 1947. I was referring to the partition by the British in 1923 when they created a Palestinian state on the east bank of the Jordan that Jews were barred from settling in. Where is the outcry over this discriminatory injustice! What if I was a Jew in 1925 i wanted to by a nice semi-detached pile in Amman - I am barred just because of my religion! Its like segregagtion in the deep south!


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 04 December 2004 06:28 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Anyways Cueball, maybe you are getting a bit too overwrought about the Middle East. Why don't you give it a rest, shift gears and maybe spend a year concentrating on some other petty ethnic conflict - like maybe telling the world about the terrible oppression of Catholics in Northern Ireland or the plight of the Tutsis in Burundi or something like that.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 04 December 2004 06:28 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You are not a Jew in 1925. That situation no longer exist and is not relevant.

What does exist is a population of Arabs who have lived under a foreign imposed military dictatorship for the last forty years.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 04 December 2004 06:31 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And since you have no interest in anyone elses rights but your own, why don't you stop telling people who do care about other people human rights, what they should be interested in.

You might also stop trying to prove how greedy the Arabs are because the British determined, without even the slightlest bit of conusultation, what should be done with the land that they were living on, and who should rule it.

[ 04 December 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 04 December 2004 06:32 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Right, Simply put: you are an idiot.

And if the NDP doesn't take an interest in the issue, why is it that Jack Layton bothers to talk to the CJC and the CIC in depth on the issue, and then muse about having suicide bombing declared a wnot just a war crime, which it is, "but a crime against humanity?"

Wanker.

From another post.."You are absolutely brain dead."

[ 04 December 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


Cueball, firstly can you not engage in debate without namecalling.? It really is childish and it demeans your argument.

Secondly, are you suggesting that the CJC and CIC "exerted undue influence" on Jack? Or is it just possible that, unlike you, he understands fully what a "crime against humanity" really is?

[ 04 December 2004: Message edited by: Macabee ]


From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 04 December 2004 06:35 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You are not a Jew in 1925. That situation no longer exist and is not relevant.

Oh really? You mean Jewish Israelis are free to buy property and live in Jordan now???


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Frac Tal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6796

posted 04 December 2004 06:46 PM      Profile for Frac Tal        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Anyone? Without addressing all of this, we are all talking a big load of shit.

Way to go. Courage.


From: I'll never sign it. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 04 December 2004 06:46 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Macabee:

  • Are you saying that publicly available interviews between members of Jewish organizations should not be discussed in public forums?
  • Are you suggesting that it is some how unseemly for Jewish people to speak to non-Jewish politicians?
  • Are you suggesting that Jewish people do not have the right to make their opinions known to politicians in public, or in private?
  • Are you suggesting that Jewish people should not be allowed to ask pertinent questions of public figures, in regard to issues that concern them?

  • Are you suggesting that it is simply not done in polite company to publish those interviews and then discuss the answers to those questions.

Just what are you trying to get at Mac?

[ 04 December 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 04 December 2004 07:01 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:

Oh really? You mean Jewish Israelis are free to buy property and live in Jordan now???


This has nothing to do with the Palestinians, in that first of all, as we have both agreed, Jordan is ruled by a monarchy imposed by the British.

How are you willing to cast your net of collective responsibility, it is really hard to tell. Perhaps, I should also point out that the Palestinians are also not responsible for the atrocious living condition of First Nations reservations in Canada, and nor is the conditions of First Nations people here (who do not live under a military dictaroship any longer) have anything to do with Israel's MILITARY occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Nor did they invent the strip mall, nor the internal combustion engine, nor did they have a hand in the genocide in Rwanda, nor did they have a hand in the massacre at Srebrenica, nor are they reponsible for Ireland racist immmigration laws or the erruption at Pompeii. Sorry, none of those things can also be used to justify Israel's forty year occupation of the West Bank and the removal of the basic civil rights of 3.5 million Arabs.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 04 December 2004 07:01 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Macabee:

  • Are you saying that publicly available interviews between members of Jewish organizations should not be discussed in public forums? No you seem to be suggesting that this is not kosher
  • Are you suggesting that it is some how unseemly for Jewish people to speak to non-Jewish politicians? No you seem to be suggesting that this is not kosher

  • Are you suggesting that Jewish people do not have the right to make their opinions known to politicians in public, or in private? No, you seem to be suggesting that this is not kosher
  • Are you suggesting that Jewish people should not be allowed to ask pertinent questions of public figures, in regard to issues that concern them? No you seem to be suggesting that this is not kosher

  • Are you suggesting that it is simply not done in polite company to publish those interviews and then discuss the answers to those questions.
No you seem to be suggesting that this is not kosher.

Just what are you trying to get at Mac? A question that you, Im sure know the answer to.

[ 04 December 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]



From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 04 December 2004 07:02 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

This has nothing to do with the Palestinians, in that first of all, as we have both agreed, Jordan is ruled by a monarchy imposed by the British.

How are you willing to cast your net of collective responsibility, it is really hard to tell. Perhaps, I should also point out that the Palestinians are also not responsible for the atrocious living condition of First Nations reservations in Canada, and nor is the conditions of First Nations people here (who do not live under a military dictaroship any longer) have anything to do with Israel's MILITARY occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Nor did they invent the strip mall, nor the internal combustion engine, nor did they have a hand in the genocide in Rwanda, nor did they have a hand in the massacre at Srebrenica, nor are they reponsible for Ireland racist immmigration laws or the erruption at Pompeii. Sorry, none of those things can also be used to justify Israel's forty year occupation of the West Bank and the removal of the basic civil rights of 3.5 million Arabs.



At least you answered this one without calling him a name. Maybe we're getting somewhere.

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 04 December 2004 07:07 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
This has nothing to do with the Palestinians, in that first of all, as we have both agreed, Jordan is ruled by a monarchy imposed by the British.


Well then why do the Palestinans keep wasting time and money in a hopeless and futile effort trying to destroy Israel when all they have to do is bump off a few royals in Jordan and all of Jordan will be theirs!


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 04 December 2004 07:12 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No. In fact I am always very very happy to read the research and interviews made by members of the Jewish community, of which I am nominally a member by the way. This inteviews was well conducted and to the point, with real information being elcited. I particullarly like the way the rep from the CIC nailed jack on the security issue when Jack tried to retreat into a general speil about nulcear arms control. Jack squiriming was most indicative.

I would like you little campaign of innuendo to stop. So I would like you to site for me where I have suggested, in any manner whatsoever that I did not think the interview was thoroughly appropriate.

What leads you to believe I have suggested such. In fact if you read the interview you will see that it is an interview, not a briefing, by the CJC and the CIC. The CJC and the CIC ask questions, and Jack answers. That is all. An interview, by its nature is not a means to "influence" the interviewed, quite the opposite in fact it is the person interviewed who is trying to do the influencing.

So fuck off!

Again, it is nothing said by the CIC or the CJC that disturbs me but Jack responses to the questions asked.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 04 December 2004 07:22 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Well then why do the Palestinans keep wasting time and money in a hopeless and futile effort trying to destroy Israel when all they have to do is bump off a few royals in Jordan and all of Jordan will be theirs!


So you are saying that the demanding the right self determination, freedom from occupation and the right of refugees to return to their homes after a war is actually a plot to destroy Israel.

Kinda like saying that demanding the right to of same sex marriage, is actually a plot to destroy the Christian family, isn't it?

[ 04 December 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 04 December 2004 07:51 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
So fuck off!


And here I thought we were getting somewhere. Silly me.

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 04 December 2004 07:57 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
At least I insult you directly and respond to what it is you say as opposed to engaging in leading innuendo designed to paint me as an anti-semite. It is a direct and honest comment, as opposed to decietful unreferenced innuendo, of the kind you like to say that you are opposing?

Where now did I 'suggest' that Jews don't have the right to, say, inteview Jack Layton? No where! "Fuck off" is being polite given the manner of your sick little inuendos.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 04 December 2004 08:03 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
Secondly, are you suggesting that the CJC and CIC "exerted undue influence" on Jack?

Nowhere in this thread has Cueball suggested that. And unless you can come up with an actual reason for implying such a thing, then lay off with the innuendo.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 04 December 2004 08:10 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Cueball, firstly can you not engage in debate without namecalling.? It really is childish and it demeans your argument.

Yeah silly.. Follow Mac's lead and call him a "liar" out of the clear blue instead.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 04 December 2004 08:12 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
At least you answered this one without calling him a name. Maybe we're getting somewhere.

This is so tedious. Mac, you're tedious. You're immoral in you're tediousness.


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 04 December 2004 08:16 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:

Nowhere in this thread has Cueball suggested that. And unless you can come up with an actual reason for implying such a thing, then lay off with the innuendo.


So then the simple answer would be "no" wouldnt it?

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 04 December 2004 08:18 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hinterland:

This is so tedious. Mac, you're tedious. You're immoral in you're tediousness.


Hinterland given the PM you sent me you should be the last one to call anyone immoral.

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 04 December 2004 08:19 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
In fact, I don't know why Macabee is still here. He might be conforming to Babble's rules, but it's quite obvious that he's tried to suppress debate with baseless accusations of anti-semitism and, when all else, fails, self-serving appeals to the memory of the people he's lost, which is vulgar. Really, how much more should this forum have to endure? It's not that I disagree with Macabee, so much as I think he's trying to control discussion through manipulation and intimidation, not through reason.
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 04 December 2004 08:23 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Hinterland given the PM you sent me you should be the last one to call anyone immoral.

Eh? What was immoral about that? I told you my brother had died of AIDS and that a lot of people suffer personal loss. I don't have the PM anymore, but what purpose can you possibly think you're serving by intimating that my PM to you was immoral, in such a passively-aggressive way, no less?

[ 04 December 2004: Message edited by: Hinterland ]


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 04 December 2004 08:24 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hinterland if you were moderator free speech would be non-existant this Board. Your above suggestion is frankly the height of intolerance on a Board that prides itself in freedom of expression.
From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 04 December 2004 08:25 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
No, no. Answer my question.
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 04 December 2004 08:27 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, Macabee, I think you should answer Hinterland's question too. I'm sure you want to discuss the problems with Hinterland's private message to you, since you decided to bring it up publicly here.

Please tell us all why his private message to you was immoral.

Either put up or shut up.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 04 December 2004 08:31 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
So then the simple answer would be "no" wouldnt it?

No, the simple answer is, if you keep implying that people are anti-semitic, or that they've said things they clearly haven't said, then you're soon going to be needing to find other boards to harrass people with your insinuations.

Why not try FD? You might actually find REAL cases of anti-semitism and racism there for you to sink your teeth into, unlike here.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 04 December 2004 08:49 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Frankly, I think that referencing PM's is immoral, given that they are "Private" Messages, and that would the person want the information in them to be public they would have published them to the board.

This bizarre method of debate has essentially forced Hinterland into revealing sad personal information that Hinterland may not have wanted divulged (for whatever reasons) into the public domain -- how otherwise would he respond to the charge of "immorality," except by revealing what was said in the PM?

Very low. Not even worth a hardy fuck off frankly, but instead a very, very cold shoulder.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 04 December 2004 08:58 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I agree. The only reason I said that Macabee should continue what he started is because Hinterland wanted him to do so, and frankly, I do too.

Now that Macabee's brought it up, though, I'd really like him to explain to everyone here why he thought that Hinterland's private message was immoral.

And if, as it turns out, Hinterland's private message WASN'T immoral, and Macabee has forced Hinterland into the unhappy choice of either having people think he is abusing the private message feature, or clearing himself by divulging such personal information publicly, then I think that's something that should be brought to Audra's attention.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 04 December 2004 09:09 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
While we're asking Mac for explanations, if this:

quote:
It certainly doesnt surprise me that you would find humour in nazi rhetoric.

isn't Mac calling me a nazi, what exactly does he mean then?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 04 December 2004 09:13 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, he's not calling you a Nazi, but he's certainly implying you're anti-semitic.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 04 December 2004 09:29 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:

No, the simple answer is, if you keep implying that people are anti-semitic, or that they've said things they clearly haven't said, then you're soon going to be needing to find other boards to harrass people with your insinuations.

Why not try FD? You might actually find REAL cases of anti-semitism and racism there for you to sink your teeth into, unlike here.



There was a whole discussion in another thread pertaining to the NDP letter. You all know that. It is perfectly reasonable to believe that the "undue influence" argument has merit here.
Michelle, you want to ban me over this? Go ahead. It will be clear that it is an attempt to rid Babble of a presence and a coscience you may not like. I guess I will have to live with that. But if those are your rules so be it.

If you have a complaint otherwise PM me.


From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 04 December 2004 09:31 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
I agree. The only reason I said that Macabee should continue what he started is because Hinterland wanted him to do so, and frankly, I do too.

Now that Macabee's brought it up, though, I'd really like him to explain to everyone here why he thought that Hinterland's private message was immoral.

And if, as it turns out, Hinterland's private message WASN'T immoral, and Macabee has forced Hinterland into the unhappy choice of either having people think he is abusing the private message feature, or clearing himself by divulging such personal information publicly, then I think that's something that should be brought to Audra's attention.



In his PM he was accusing me of sharing my familis story to gain sympathy.


quote:
I get angry when people start crapping to me about personal and "heartfelt" losses, generations removed.
That is how I interpreted it and I consider that immoral. However if you are so insistant on reporting me to Audra then go ahead. Sheesh seems that the guns are out huh?

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 04 December 2004 09:41 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
In his PM he was accusing me of sharing my familis story to gain sympathy.

Well, actually, I have accused you personally of doing that publically, in fact in this very thread...but...


YOU FUCKING LIAR! YOU GODDAMN FUCKING LIAR!!! I NEVER ACCUSED YOU OF EXACTLY THAT! YOU COCKSUCKING GODDAMNDED LIAR!!!!

..boy, that felt good.


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 04 December 2004 09:43 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 04 December 2004 09:48 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Well, he's not calling you a Nazi, but he's certainly implying you're anti-semitic.

I certainly love the way you can read my mind. You make assumptions and then accusations and feel perfectly correct doing so.

I have no idea why Al finds humour in nazi rhetoric. Perhaps that might have been a better way to express it. However I have not shyed away from calling people on anti-Semitism so dont go suggesting Im beating around the bush. Believe me if I had reason to call Al an anti-Semite I would. Also remember what they say about people who assume.


From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 04 December 2004 09:49 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You've been abusing this space in three different threads today, Macabee.

In this thread, you're implying in several places that people are anti-semitic, or saying things they haven't. I've already outlined it above.

And then in two other threads today, which aren't in the Middle East forum, you are continuing with your usual crap.

In this thread, you claim to be "sad" because so many of us are trying to find excuses for a homophobic e-mail. That was your theme throughout the thread, despite the fact that nobody made excuses for homophobia, and most of the people in the thread said they didn't UNDERSTAND the e-mail.

Then when I asked you to tell us names of the people who were making excuses for this person, you said that no one had condemned him. Well, gee, Macabee, that's not quite the same thing, is it? No one condemned him because no one UNDERSTOOD him, which we told you over and over in the thread. But no, you had to keep on with your insinuations.

And then, most despicably of all, in this thread, you are an out-and-out troll, saying, "NPP, why must everything come down to something anti-Israel for you. Do you hate Israelis that much?"

It's disgusting. You're being called on it, and I want it to stop, and so do the many others who have complained to me (and probably Audra) about your manipulative, shitty behaviour around here.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 04 December 2004 09:51 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
deleted

[ 04 December 2004: Message edited by: Hinterland ]


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 04 December 2004 09:54 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I see, so the York Excalibur editor certainly seemed to see it but if I bring it up here Im being maipulative.

If I confront NPP who I believe sees things through a certain prism and if you or others here disagree with me Im trolling. OK I guess I will have to watch everything I say here since the limits are pretty clear. I on;ly hope the same applies to all. Like those who like to use profanity against Babblers, or namecall and engage in personal disruptive and insulting behaviour. I will guard my words and watch my phrasing so as to adhere to the rules and sensitivities. I will hope that others do as well.

[ 04 December 2004: Message edited by: Macabee ]


From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 04 December 2004 10:03 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post

From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 04 December 2004 10:05 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'll take that as a hopeful icon.
From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 04 December 2004 10:13 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
There was a whole discussion in another thread pertaining to the NDP letter. You all know that. It is perfectly reasonable to believe that the "undue influence" argument has merit here.

Well then, if you are so exercised about the "undue influence" letter, why don't you take it up with the people whom you are quoting? It seems that my arguements about the clear immorality of the Israeli occupation, and Jack Layton's pro-Israeli bias, are so rock solid that you have to defend your views by arguing with people, whom are not even posting on this board on the basis of letters that arrived through second hand sources.

I believe that Tarek Fatah is one of the people who signed that letter, my understanding is that he has a phone in TV show about "issues in Islam," or some such thing. Why don't you call him up when he is on the air, and talk to him about your concerns?

Or go back to that thread and try and find a quote from me carping about the "undue influence" of the CJC, you wont find one. I could't give a shit about the CJC. If they lobby they lobby, so what? That is their friggin job.

At least they generally have the good sense to stay way from the knid of stupid innuendo, you seem to indulge in.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 04 December 2004 10:16 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I'll take that as a hopeful icon.

From an immoral person such as yourself? Hardly. Remember, you told me in response to my "immoral" PM that you feel this way: "And my sister in law, my mother and my uncle all died well before their time of Cancer. I grieve for them every day."

...Nice that you've tarnished their memories with your self-serving propaganda.

How do you like that?

[ 04 December 2004: Message edited by: Hinterland ]


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 04 December 2004 10:21 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Like those who like to use profanity against Babblers, or namecall and engage in personal disruptive and insulting behaviour. I will guard my words and watch my phrasing so as to adhere to the rules and sensitivities. I will hope that others do as well.

quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
You are an asshole!...asshole

From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 04 December 2004 10:29 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
That is how I interpreted it and I consider that immoral.

- Macabee

quote:
When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.

- Humpty Dumpty

From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 04 December 2004 10:29 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hinterland:

From an immoral person such as yourself? Hardly. Remember, you told me in response to my "immoral" PM that you feel this way: "And my sister in law, my mother and my uncle all died well before their time of Cancer. I grieve for them every day."

...Nice that you've tarnished their memories with your self-serving propaganda.

How do you like that?

[ 04 December 2004: Message edited by: Hinterland ]


Nice but expected. So sad ....

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 04 December 2004 10:31 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
I know. But fuck you anyway.
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 04 December 2004 10:45 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Gosh, but this has been a nice thread. Let's end it on this high note.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 04 December 2004 11:05 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
Well, the thread did deal with Macabee's total contempt for my dead brother's memory. How much higher a note do you want?

[ 04 December 2004: Message edited by: Hinterland ]


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 04 December 2004 11:11 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh, I know. That wasn't aimed at you.

And in other news, I forgot to close the thread after writing that. I'll do it now!


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca