What baggage am I bringing with me? am I fighting against the Walloons and preaching death to them? Taking down the orangemen?
Jewish group claims protests violated Canadian laws
- Thread starter Praxius
- Start date
What baggage am I bringing with me? am I fighting against the Walloons and preaching death to them? Taking down the orangemen?
I'm no lawyer, but if I was a bettin' man, I'd say the IDF doesn't fall under Canadian jurisdiction.
The IDF recognizes no legal jurisdiction as can be seen by it's permanent contempt for every global legal body.
The Blame Game in Gaza: Covering for Israel, Concealing War Crimes
Wall Street Journal Op-Ed Page Pro-Israeli Zealots
They appear daily in editorials and guest op-eds but never as easy reading. A January 5 editorial says "Israel can't afford to lose its second war in two years." It echoes poor Israel, surrounded "by enemies on all sides (so it) needs to maintain an aura of invincibility if it is to have any chance for peaceful co-existence."
Task one - "eliminat(ing) Hamas rule in Gaza (and) its military threat." Then on to "the broader Middle East issue....expansion of Iranian influence and terror. Hamas has become part of Tehran's bid for regional hegemony (like Hezbollah in Lebanon and Sadrist 'special groups' in Iraq)."
Bush is on board for their elimination. It's now up to Obama. He must show Israel and Iran "that the new president understands the US stake in the success of Israel's Gaza" offensive and assure no efforts are made to halt it.
On January 5 hawkish Max Boot was back with an "Israel's Tragic Gaza Dilemma" op-ed. Again, poor Israel:
"There is little doubt that Israel is morally justified in its offensive against Hamas. No nation can sit by and allow its territory to be rocketed with impunity." As for "accusations of (IDF) brutality, (Israel's) conduct has been exemplary by historical standards. They have shown far less propensity for indiscriminate killing or torture (than other nations) confronting insurgencies. The only comparable example of restraint is the conduct of the US armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. The United States, too, earns worldwide opprobrium for alleged brutality rather than approbation for its humanity."
Millions of dead Iraqis and Afghans might disagree. Thousands of others incarcerated, tortured, and brutalized. Palestinians also after six brutal decades of occupation and repeated war crimes committed with impunity. "Restraint (and) humanity" indeed.
Never mind, Boot voices concern, not over mass slaughter but "on how the offensive turns out." It's not likely "they will be able to defeat the terrorist organization on their southern border." That requires a much greater and prolonged effort. A better choice is to depose the Hamas government and for Israel to administer the Territory itself. If Israel's troops leave, "Hamas will rebuild its infrastructure, forcing Israelis to go back to the future."
Boot calls it a "quagmire," but "Israel has no choice. It cannot simply pack its bags and go home....Israel is one battle away from destruction....If (it's) to continue to exist, it will have to continue to wage low-intensity war for a long time to come - definitely years, probably decades, possibly centuries." In other words, permanent war instead of the alternative - "annihilation." Off the table is the obvious solution. Never mind the simplest and most righteous: A just peace, Palestinian self-determination, respect for human rights and the rule of law, and stop attacking them so they'll have no need to respond in self-defense.
A Bret Stephens January 6 "Endgame for Israel" op-ed says: "If Israel is going to achieve a strategic victory in this war, it will have to stand firm against (the) global wave of hypocrisy and cant. (It) will have to practice a more consistent policy of deterrence than it has so far done. One option: For every rocket that falls randomly on Israeli soil, an Israeli missile will hit a carefully selected target in Gaza." Stephens calls this "proportionality (and) the endgame that Israel needs."
Not explained is that Hamas responds only in self-defense to Israeli preemptive attacks and killings. No Journal contributors say this or provide fair and accurate commentary.
On January 7, former CIA officer Reuel Gerecht shared op-ed space with Benjamin Netanyahu's "Militant Islam Threatens Us All" in which he equated Hamas rockets to "the same terror goal as Hitler's blitz." The old Hitler analogy again.
Gerecht addressed "Iran's Hamas Strategy" and accused "Tehran (of) aiding Hamas for years with the aim of radicalizing politics across the entire Arab Middle East." Hamas gives Iran "an important ally. Through Hamas, Tehran can possibly reach the ultimate prize, the Egyptian faithful....With Gaza and Egypt conceivably within Tehran's grasp, the clerical regime will be patient and try to keep Gaza boiling....In 30 years, they have not seen a better constellation of forces (with Gaza in conflict and the prospect of their being) "nuclear-armed....just around the corner."
That said despite the unanimous conclusion of 16 US intelligence agencies that Iran stopped pursuing a nuclear weapons program in 2003 even though no proof shows it ever had one.
On January 9, military strategist Edward Luttwak's op-ed headlined: "Yes, Israel Can Win in Gaza." He downplays Hezbollah's impressive 2006 performance saying it was "thoroughly shocked by the Israeli bombing campaign (in spite of Israel's) inconclusive ground actions."
In fact, Lebanon was shocked, not Hezbollah. According to researcher Andrew Exum of Kings College, London: "Hezbollah, far from being weakened in the 2006 war or subsequent (Beirut) political battles, is stronger than ever."
Israel can do to Hamas what it did to Hezbollah, says Luttwak - weaken it with further ground operations "that cannot be attacked by the air - typically because they are in the basements of crowded apartment buildings - and by engaging Hamas gunmen in direct combat. Hamas will claim a win no matter what happens, but then so did Hezbollah in 2006....yet (it remains) immobile. If Israel can achieve the same with Hamas in Gaza, it would be a significant victory."
Ask the Rhawandan who was convicted for insighting genocide if there is a global legal body.
I don't have any. I see the Israeli conflict as a series of facts and moral imperitatives. It has no religious or ethnic sway.
So you would you mind if people are cheering when your family is on the chopping block? You might begin to actually feel something when you pick up your a loved one and find it difficult to tell which end is which. At that point you can call somebody a murderer/
So by yelling things in Canada the protesters can incite people to act in a certain way in the middle east? That's too stupid for words.
Oh I have no problem with people chanting "Murderer" If you would read before commenting, you would no I specifically have no issue with that, beyond it may classify as slander (a civil offense) if I name someone specific. Calling somone bad names is fine.
If I said "You are a murderer and you should be murdered yourself" then I am not making death threats and inciting others to murder. There is a big difference.
Are you seriously this, as you put it, Stupid? Have you not read anything here? the middle east is not Canada's jurisdiction.
This is not "Stop Israel" signs that causing the problems its "Murder all the Jews" signs that are problems. You do know that Canada has Jewish citizens right? One who can get murdered on their way home from work, or have their house or business set fire to.
As I pointed out, it would be no different than someone telling people to "Murder all Arabs" for the actions Arab Nationalists and Colonists are doing in Darfour. What it does in that part of the world isnt' as important to what happens to Canadian citizens of Arab descent.
Hate crimes cause problems in our own country by telling other people to commit crimes. Organizing a mob to break the law in violent means is illegal and should be.
Yeah, BS from the Jewish lobby. This stuff pisses me off..........freedom of speech means freedom for everyone to speak, not just those that agree with you.
On a more serious note, I read in the Globe and Mail today that the Israeli Knesset are trying to ban two Arab Israeli political parties from the upcoming election. They each now have 3 seats, so 6 Arab MPs would be effectively bounced......now, that IS outrageous behaviour by the Israeli gov't......fortunately, the matter is before the Israeli Supreme Court (which often decides in favour of Arab citizens), and I trust they will strike down any regulation banning Arab political parties.
Yeah, it really is me, and yeah, I still strongly support Israel.....
Well that makes sense, to me, support for something doesn't just mean completely agreeing with them without question. If you're truly a supporter, then you should feel justified in expressing the truth as you see it so to at least help them see potiential downfalls from their actions.
What sort of friend or supporter would you be if you knew the mistakes they were going to make but said nothing?
There is no such thing as freedom of speech. It's freedom of lawful speech that we have, which doesn't sound as neat.
Freedom of speech is an oxymoron when we have numerous laws (fraud, slander, purgery, etc.) framing what is permissible.
contract law also comes into play of freedom of speech, If I say I'll pay you $20K for that car you give me, why can't I accept that you gave me the car as a gift, why am I bound to my speech by law? doesn't sound very free...
Freedom of speech doesn't mean you arent' responsible for the actions of your speech.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean you arent' responsible for the actions of your speech.
Yes, but nobody else should be held responsible for other people's actions which may or may not have originated in anything that you have said.
Like the situation with drinking and driving where the driver dies in the crash, but the bars are sued for his actions of drinking and driving...... it's not right and it's stooping to a simple blame game situation to satisfy those who want to punish someone to make themselves feel better that they're doing something and that someone didn't get away, regardless of their real guilt or involvement in the situation.
Hypothetically, if I wanted to go out and rant off about how I hate a paticular group of humanity...... as an example, let's go with the Irish since I'm Irish (and everybody loves picking on the Irish) ...... I go on about how much I hate them, how much of a gross infection apon society they are and suggest that everybody go out and kill the Irish.
I don't have any authority over anybody, I am not speaking the law, I am not forcing anybody to do anything, and if peopel don't like what I have to say, they can walk away or ignore me and it'll go away.
But let's say some guy decides to go and drive by a local Irish Pub and kill a few people, then claim I told them to do it...... somehow the blame goes to me? Why? They're the dumbasses who shot the place up and took what I said seriously...... I didn't pay them, force them to do any of these things.
And besides..... many of us (if not all) are adults, capable of making our own decisions and should be willing to accept the consequences of our own actions..... how do I get arrested and charged for the actions of another dim-witted adult?
You know Z, I think you purposely try to piss me off with these trivial piles of tripe that prove you never read anything I said. It's not working by the way.
If you're not going to read what I post, then don't waste my time in responding.
I said:
"I don't have any authority over anybody, I am not speaking the law, I am not forcing anybody to do anything.......
......I didn't pay them, force them to do any of these things."
^ Now if you hired/paid a Hitman and told them to go kill someone, that disqualifies you under my above reasoning, which I clearly laid out.
Come on Z, you're much smarter then this.
Not as I see it.... but then again, I suppose minors can or do venture these forums. I don't have a problem with swear words being shown, but then again..... forums are not a democracy and you really don't have a say in what happens other then your own input.
The rules of the real world don't always line up with the rules on the internet.