Canadian Coalition for Democracies:
Ottawa, Canada – The Opposition Liberal, NDP and Bloc Quebecois parties called for the convening of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development during Parliament’s summer recess for the purpose of challenging the government’s Middle East policy and the evacuation of Canadians from Lebanon. Such a committee requires that notice be given on the internet, and any potential witnesses can contact the Clerk of the Committee to request standing to provide testimony.
Several groups applied to be witnesses and were accepted by the Clerk of the Committee. These witnesses travelled to Ottawa from across the country on short notice and at considerable personal expense.
The committee met on August 1. In the morning, the committee MPs had an opportunity to question the Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Peter MacKay. In the afternoon, the Opposition MPs, mainly led by Alexa McDonough of the NDP, put forward a procedural motion calling for committee business to be dealt with before the witnesses were heard. The government MPs responded that concluding the committee business before hearing from the witnesses was like passing a verdict in a trial before calling witnesses.
Ms McDonough went further, stating that the witnesses were identified with a single well-defined, narrow position, and challenged their credibility. It should be noted that Ms McDonough made these damaging allegations against witnesses approved by the Clerk of the Committee while knowing neither the witnesses nor the content of their testimony.
Below is the list of witnesses scheduled to give testimony that afternoon whose right to speak was effectively revoked by Ms McDonough and other Opposition MPs:
Canadian International Development Agency
Canadian Red Cross
Canadian Lebanese Human Rights Federation
World Lebanese Cultural Union
Monastery Saint Anthony the Great
Canadian Assembly for Lebanon
Canadian Coalition for Democracies
Khal Ishraki, as an individual evacuee
The subject matter for the hearing was specifically Lebanon, yet Opposition MPs passed a procedural resolution that effectively denied all Lebanese witnesses the right to speak. These witnesses included people with family members in the southern war zone of Lebanon and those directly affected by the evacuation. The Opposition used a procedural motion to silence these voices. As a result, Opposition MPs, with no first hand knowledge of the situation, were able to criticize the government without fear of contradiction from Lebanese witnesses or by CIDA and the Red Cross who were directly involved in the evacuation and humanitarian effort.
CCD strongly condemns Alexa McDonough and other Opposition MPs for excluding Lebanese, CIDA and Red Cross voices with first-hand experience on the situation in Lebanon from providing testimony to a committee whose mandate was specifically the tragic situation in Lebanon.
Full press release.
I caught an interview this evening with Alastair Gordon, president of the CCD on The World Tonight with Rob Breakenridge (770 CHQR) while I was easing my way down Glenmore Trail River. Gordon is a lot angrier than even the press release lets on. Anyone who was determined to speak in support of the government had a big black line drawn through their names by McDonough and her cohorts.
new kid – nice letter. I sent one to the same set, but added
MacKay.P@parl.gc.ca
By the way, Harpers can simply be sent to
pm@pm.gc.ca
The more letters we send, the better.
Way to throw in that anti-American insult about acting more like a Canadian president than Prime Minister. Anti-American,always gives your argument legs.
Don’t forget that under the Liberal regime’s of the last century the PMO became an office that had more personal power in governing a nation than the office of the American President.
P.S. I stand with Israel.
Bob said:
“Peter Van Loan (CPC-Bmfk. West) repeatedly claimed during committee that 68% of his felow Canadian citizens are Hesbollah supporters.”
I have taped the majority of that day’s meeting and am waiting for the ‘blues’ to be printed….
I never heard him say that, let alone repeatedly, but am reviewing the hours I do have…
Surely you will have proof, Bob….for you have made it more than once now.
I look at everything in this world as a matter of right and wrong. In my world gray doesn’t exist but for someone unable to make a decision. Those on the right will fight argue and discuss any subject to arrive at a sensible and hopefully workable solution. The left are the lemmings of this world blindly and collectively following the leftist dogma no matter where it leads or if it works. All I can say to the lefties is, don’t give up your Government job, reality is hell, even if you are only visiting.
It always amazes me that when the Queen of the left talks she states that this is what a majority of Canadians want & believe.
I guess they do there polling in downtown Toronto, I to have sent a letter to PM Harper & Minister MacKay thanking him for having the balls to stand up to Alexis & Co. & for the job that his dept. has recently done.
Aw, cmon…don’t be too hard on Middleton…I presume he’s trying hard, since he has probably just made the switch from “Simpleton”.
Sorry, couldn’t resist.
Of course Alexa always speak for the majority, thats why her party has the most seats in parliment. Bwaaaaaahhhh
Good One Tom LOL
GODWIN’S LAW: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.
Canadian Version: As an online discussion with “progressives” grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving America or Bush approaches one.
All we need now is a name!
I hope you letter writers will keep your pens/fingers busy and consider writing to the Minister of Justice et. al regarding the deal RCMP made with Whitmore. See reader tips thread from Aug.3, spec. my post today @ 12:05
ET,
I obviously cant name the people. They re in the Department. The ambiguity is there because these are opinions of only a handful of individuals, not everyone in the department.
Yes, I do think the Department is full of intelligent people. Do you have any idea how stringent the requirements to get in are? I do. I m not going to list the requirements to become a foreign officer.
” not by the office of the PM. You are quite wrong on this. The bureaucrats in the foreign affairs office, intelligent as they might be, are unelected and unaccountable. It is the duty of the elected representatives of gov’t, to make decisions. Not the unelected. That’s the very essence of democracy. ”
The office of the PM is also made up of unelected officials other than the PM himself. The Dept has an ELECTED minister, who, one of my contacts STATED, had been rebuked on previous occasions by the PM. THe bureaucrats are accountable to the Foreign Minister.
“Invalid Correlation – that the decisions on foreign policy reflect Harper’s personal beliefs, not Canada’s ‘interests’.”
The implication here is that he didnt even consult the FP hacks at the Department. I stand by my contention that the Department folk are better suited to identifying Canadian interests. The PM’s ad hoc policies have been maade without consulting the Department – Is it unfair to suggest that they might be heavily tainted by Personal beliefs?
” Because X-person has an area of expertise does not automatically lead to their decisions about actions being correct. Expertise is vital, most certainly, but, future-oriented actions, in non-mechanical situations, cannot be reduced to: Expert–>Correct Answer. Why not? Because societies are not machines; they are complex and multiple areas must be considered in decision-making.”
Expert –> More likely to be “correct” (not my term), because of availability of extensive information related to the area, unlike a Party leader who is more concerned with staying in office, and is unlikely to have a) the resources, and b) the time to sift through them.
“Use of anecdotal, unverified ‘gossip’ as evidence. Surely, as a student, you must know that what you’ve heard, as unverified, is spurious and can’t be used to come to any conclusions. You are attempting to sway your conclusions and your readers, with gossip. Unacceptable.”
I m not writing a paper here, buddy. I was just repeating things I ve been told without exposing who I ve been told by. That wasnt my thesis. If it was, I d name my sources. Frankly, I dont htink they want to be named. Its up to readers here to decide on whether they want to believe it or not – I m not stuffing it down their throats as fact. I heard them and I know they were said.
“And yet another invalid correlation, when you assert that Harper is ‘just toeing the US line’. Your fallacy here is first, that his beliefs and actions are not his (which by the way, contradicts your early assertion that they are)”
Two different people said two different things, and somehow I ve managed to contradict myself without having said either.
Yes I did provide gossip – things I ve heard. I ve only posited them here because they seem to contradict what was said earlier, so quit the ” I m a teacher, I can tear into your argument ” BS because I ve written papers for “teachers” a lot more demanding than you, and I was not trying to publish an academic paper here. You can go around tearing into it on technicalities, but that doesnt mean that those things havent been said. They have. There are people in the Department saying that. Call it gossip or whatever you want. I dont know if you re trying to help me write academic papers (which I am not particularly fond of publishing on blogs)or just plain trying to criticize everything I say. I m almost convinced that its the latter.
middleton – again, your data is gossip, not evidence and again, your conclusions are invalid because they are not substantiated with evidence or logic.
1) Because admission requirements are ‘stringent’ (explain) doesn’t mean that the decisions of this department are valid. That’s a logical fallacy of ‘circular reasoning’.
2)The fact that one of your contacts stated ‘X’ doesn’t make it valid.
And – Did the PM rebuke MacKay in front of this individual? No? Do you know what it was about? Do you know if it is relevant to this issue of Canada in the ME? Was it about something else?
Do you know the infrastructure of gossip and how statements change person by person, and minute by minute?
3) Your complaint was that Harper was making decisions on his own. Now, you are stating that his office has unelected officials. So? Are you now saying that it is these unelected officials who are making the decisions?
4) The Foreign office bureaucrats are accountable to MacKay. And MacKay is accountable to the PM. Again, your complaint was that it was the PM, rather than the Foreign Office, that was making decisions about foreign policy. You still haven’t dealt with this issue.
5) You have no proof that Harper is making decisions without consulting the foreign affairs office. You have no proof that he is not consulting OTHER experts, non-governmental employees, with as great if not greater expertise in the ME.
What’s your proof? Is the department of foreign affairs miffed because Harper is consulting other experts? Have you checked this out?
6) Yet another fallacy. You state that Harper is making ‘ad hoc’ policies. That’s quite an accusation and a very serious one. It means ungrounded, unfounded spurious decisions.
Provide proof. Has Harper, so far, made any decisions that are without grounds, without knowledge, and are made ‘on the spur of the moment’ without any knowledge about the situation whatsoever? That’s what ad hoc means. I suggest you provide some proof.
7) Provide proof that Harper’s decisions are based on his personal beliefs. I, for example, have a lot of personal (ie, they are mine) beliefs. However, they are based on an extensive knowledge about the situation. Your unexamined assumption is that personal beliefs are also uneducated beliefs. And, that they are incorrect beliefs. Is this a valid claim?
So, yes, it is unfair and illogical of you to claim that Harper’s conclusions are ‘tainted by personal beliefs’. You don’t know this; you have no proof, you don’t know whether/not he knows anything about the ME situation; and therefore, your conclusions are unfounded and invalid.
8) And here we go again – yet another invalid correlation and more invalid assumptions. It is incorrect to assert that a political leader is ‘more likely’ to be concerned only with staying in power and therefore ??? doesn’t have the time to gain any knowledge…. This is quite a set of invalid links.
A politician won’t remain in power if his decisions are based on nonsense. And a leader does have the time to gather knowledge. His staff present the key items. That’s their job. An article that is 50 pages long may only have one basic item of value…even if its author blathers on forever.
A bureaucrat who is concerned only with his pension and doesn’t take the time to gather knowledge or analyze it…is also not able to come to valid conclusions.
9) You aren’t writing a paper? (And don’t call me ‘buddy’). So what? You are presenting conclusions and therefore, must be held accountable for those conclusions. And don’t start with the ad hominem. The point is – you provided a whole host of simplistic fallacious assertions that you expect or hope or wish we might accept as valid. Why should we? Just because you say so?
Do you think that ONLY academic writers should be accountable? Shouldn’t journalists be accountable? Shouldn’t news reporters be accountable? Shouldn’t bloggers be accountable? Only academics????
So what if people are saying things? They also say that there are monsters in the Loch Ness; that aliens have populated the earth. So what?
I’m calling you to account. It is quite something for a blogger to inform us of conclusions, which he wants us to accept as valid conclusions – but they are based on spurious gossip, on possibly disaffected bureaucrats, on reams and reams of illogical and false correlations – and all, all, without a shred of evidence.
You should be critiqued on all of that. Why do you think we should accept it without a word, without question???
Middleton, i’m curious. What decisions has Harper made without checking in with the bureau first? His strong support for Israel? Those you speak of in the bureau, do they feel he should have stayed on the fence? If so, doesn’t this run contrary to Canada’s long standing support of Israel in past conflicts? I fail to see how Harper is running hog wild on the foreign affairs file without any solid standing. Can you elaborate on your insinuation?
Middleton, your ignorant degenerate anti-Americanism, for which there can be no rational intellectual support, fundamentally contaminates all your ramblings. Who knows its basis? Archaic Marxist thought? Trudeau cultism? You have an agenda, global totalitarian government, the end of capitalism, whatever, you can suck around the edges of the bloated and unelected bureaucracy but hopefully your ilk will be spat out into the real world soon enough. The appliance department at Sears needs salesmen.
Scott,
I did, in fact, ask. And the response was interesting. It was generally an “Israel is right, but they have used to much force, there is a need for an immediate ceasefire” type deal. The differences with Harper generally came on the Ceasefire issue – the folk I spoke to want one right away, as opposed to what they percieved as Harper’s stance – fighting to the end.
Yes theres support for Israel, but there is also strong support for an immediate ceasefire. They didnt sound too happy about the “fight to the end” deal. One of the most common criticisms – there are only a handful of folk I spoke to- was that Harper sounded too much like Tony Snow.
Now I ve been accused of Anti-Americanism again and again and again, but those were not my words, they were the words of those I spoke to.
ET, where you a teacher in a previous life? Remind me not to pass gossip on to you 😉
Like Buff Bean, I too listened (while working) at the Queen Alexa show on CPAC and couldn’t believe the pompous arragance and attitude shown by the opposition.
BTW: Anyone heard from the deposed King Paul?
Middleton, how do these people propose to stop Hezbollah from firing more missles into Isreal. Fact is the UN and other governing bodies have asked for a ceasefire before and Hezbollah has not stopped with no reprecussions. Why would they stop now? I’m interested to hear how they think that an Isreal ceasefire will not just put us right back into the same situation as before this war broke out with Hezbollah firing rockets into Isreal unchecked.
Hezbollah will not stop until someone makes them stop. Isreal is in the process of doing that and they are trying to do it with a minimal loss of Isrealy lives, just like any other nation would do. They do not have the population to occupy Lebanon, so they must take this chance to wipe out as much of Hezbollah as they can. They won’t make the mistake that the US did in the gulf war. Win the first battle but leave the leadership in power to rebuild and create the same problems a few years later.
I would really like to know how a ceasefire would work or be enforced because the UN has watched the Hezbollah garbage for a long time and not done anything. All the Hezbollah try to do is kill civilians and hide when someone comes to make them pay for it.
Middleton,
As a democracy, the dept of foreign affairs is there to advise the government, not make policy.
The government (i.e. those people we voted for) are mandated to make the policy of Canada.
If Stephen Harper is making policy, it means he’s doing the job we are paying him for.
As for Foreign Affairs, it’s just another vested interest with leftist sentiments just like the rest of the government bureaucracy. No better, no worse.
Undoubtedly there are smart people there. But so what? Harper was berated as being an overly cerebral cold-hearted policy wonk by the media. If he’s so cerebral and interested in policy, don’t you think he’s capable of forming an opinion on what Canada’s position should be on any given issue? Harper is plenty smart enough whether you agree with him or not.
I think your posts must be practice for your job interview at the Globe and Mail because that’s who you sound like. They’re always trying to disguise their opinions as hard news. The reality is that you are just voicing your own opinion and trying to grant it added credibility by pretending it’s just what you’ve heard from “some people” and quoting vague notions of what there is “some concern with,” etc.
Everyone has an opinion. You do not gain added credibility for yours because some “un-named sources” supposedly agree with it.
ET,
I really have better things to do.
Listen, assuming that you are a teacher, I m sure you have plenty of time on your hands, what with summer vacations going on. Go visit the Department and talk to folk yourself. I really have nothing to prove to you. I heard somethings and I repeated them. If you dont want to believe them, then DONT.
“And – Did the PM rebuke MacKay in front of this individual? No? Do you know what it was about? Do you know if it is relevant to this issue of Canada in the ME? Was it about something else?”
Not the ME. Something else. And not just in front of one individual. There were a number of occassions when it happened (apparently). Its what I ve heard.
“1) Because admission requirements are ‘stringent’ (explain) doesn’t mean that the decisions of this department are valid. That’s a logical fallacy of ‘circular reasoning’.’
Go check up the website. Theres a series of tests in Math English and Judgement. Plus educational background – minimum Bachelors degrees – though many hold Masters.
“1) Because admission requirements are ‘stringent’ (explain) doesn’t mean that the decisions of this department are valid. ”
Then whose are? They re best equipped for it. If they cant make valid decisions, then, well, I suppose we should leave it all to you.
“3) Your complaint was that Harper was making decisions on his own. Now, you are stating that his office has unelected officials. So? Are you now saying that it is these unelected officials who are making the decisions?”
The PMO is not one individual. Harper’s surrounded himself with his groupies, like every other PM. They mirror his views, if thats what you re getting at. Yes, the PMO is full of yes-men – powerful yes-men.
“4) The Foreign office bureaucrats are accountable to MacKay. And MacKay is accountable to the PM. Again, your complaint was that it was the PM, rather than the Foreign Office, that was making decisions about foreign policy. You still haven’t dealt with this issue. ”
Not sure what you re getting at…
“5) You have no proof that Harper is making decisions without consulting the foreign affairs office. You have no proof that he is not consulting OTHER experts, non-governmental employees, with as great if not greater expertise in the ME.”
Sigh. Do you have any proof that he is?
“Yet another fallacy. You state that Harper is making ‘ad hoc’ policies. That’s quite an accusation and a very serious one. It means ungrounded, unfounded spurious decisions.”
Not my accusation. Its come from the Department. I repeated it.
“Provide proof that… Is this a valid claim?”
Person specialising in Foreign Policy vs Party Leader. On the basis of time alone I d suggest that Harper isnt as informed as the former. I tend to prefer informed opinion.
“So, yes, it is unfair and illogical of you to claim that Harper’s conclusions are ‘tainted by personal beliefs’… you have no proof, …therefore, your conclusions are unfounded and invalid.”
I didnt accuse him of anything. And I m not going to defend the people that did. But just for the hell of it, what proof do you have that he wasnt driven by personal beliefs? Its really a moot point. Those are the accusations coming from people in a strong position to make them.
“8) And here we go again – …. This is quite a set of invalid links. ”
No its perfectly logical. If a person doesnt have time to educate themselves, how can they?
“An article that is 50 pages long may only have one basic item of value…even if its author blathers on forever.”
Dont ask your students for papers in the future. They might as well tell you their one line thesis to your face.
“The point is – you provided a whole host of simplistic fallacious assertions that you expect or hope or wish we might accept as valid. Why should we? Just because you say so? ”
And why should anybody believe anything you say? I ve listed what I ve heard. I m not telling you to believe it. If you dont want to dont. Those werent my conclusions.
“Shouldn’t journalists be accountable? Shouldn’t news reporters be accountable? Shouldn’t bloggers be accountable? Only academics????”
Wow, you re extrapolating like crazy. I dont feel inclined to name my sources to a man/woman who calls himself/herself ET. Can you blame me?
“I’m calling you to account. It is quite something for a blogger to inform us of conclusions, which he wants us to accept as valid conclusions – but they are based on spurious gossip, on possibly disaffected bureaucrats, on reams and reams of illogical and false correlations – and all, all, without a shred of evidence. ”
Fair enough, but why is this criticism reserved solely for me. I dont see you pouncing on others, and I ve read some seriously laughable stuff on this blog. Go right ahead. I m accountable for what I said, but not for what I have repeated. You can hold me accountable for my opinions, but not for the opinions of others, as you have done so far. I wish I had jotted down things word for word. Maybe you d get off my case. All the same, I m flattered by the attention.
middleton- the problem with an immediate ceasefire is that you have two different agendas on each side.
Israel simply wants to exist, as Israel.
The other side, is not Palestine, but Hezbollah-Hamas, which are currently acting as proxies for Iran. IF it were Hezbollah/Hamas simply as themselves, as terrorists for Palestine, then, an immediate ceasefire might be relevant. But, that’s not the reality.
It’s Iran’s agenda which must be acknowledged, and many of our leftists – and the Canadian bureaucracy is filled with Liberal/NDP leftists – are ignoring this real agenda.
Iran is the agency behind Hezbollah and Hamas; it is providing them with all arms and missiles and military personnel and advice. That’s the situation that must be acknowledged.
Iran wants to insert itself as Emperor of the ME. This includes its domination of Lebanon by re-inserting Syria back into Lebanon. It includes preventing Iraq from democracy, for Iran is behind the insurgency in Iraq. It includes, as an ‘extra’, wiping out Israel, though I consider this agenda a catalyst rather than basic agenda (I know that sounds strange).
So, calling for an immediate ceasefire will not mean that Hezbollah as Hezbollah will stop its agenda. It simply means that Iran will re-arm Hezbollah – to start the whole thing up again.
Well, yes, you certainly do sound anti-American. You cannot hide behind a claim that it is ‘other people who are saying this’, because YOU DON”T CRITIQUE THEM. You accept their words as valid, rather than critiquing and analyzing them.
You claim that Harper is simply copying Bush. You not only have no evidence for this, but, claim it as a fault – which shows that you dislike Bush. You claim that Harper is ‘president’ rather than ‘prime minister’, without explaining this.
Has it ever occurred to you that you are listening to people grouching, people who themselves are anti-Harper, are anti-American, are anti-Bush, and therefore, are making invalid accusations and correlations, asserting ungrounded and unfounded actions, accusing Harper of ‘adhoc’ and so on – all without evidence – and simply because THEY are Liberals, or are anti-American and etc? Why are you accepting everything they say as ‘scientific truth’ – when it isn’t?
Texas – of course I was a professor – and even taught methods and critical thinking, among other things. I used to tell my students that I wasn’t interested in their opinions; opinions belong in the coffee shop; but, with me, they have to provide data, facts, logical correlations and conclusions. It gave them the power, and I mean that word, to think…rather than be sucked up by the emotive honey of words, words, words.
Paul Who? Incredible how he’s disappeared from sight and sound. At one time, all he did was trumpet ‘my values are Canada’s values’..and on and on. Now, who knows. And who cares. And note how Chretien slithered out of responsibility for Adscam.
Ahh, the Liberal/NDPers.
RagingKozak
Short Answer: Peacekeeping force (Albeit with more powers- R2P style). They re concerned that this kind of action on Israels behalf will scare away potential contributors.
Warwick,
I m not trying to give it validity and I m certainly not going to defend their views. If those were my views, you could bet every cent you have I would defend them. They arent mine.
As for your views on government, well, even if the Department is there simply to be advised, the accusation suggeests that it hasnt been used.
Middleton,
Please stick around. We need you as a shining example of the mindset of the left. Your illogical arguments, mistruths, and hateful diatribes reveal to the rest of us what your ilk are like.
I would assume that ET’s criticism has been directed at you because your ranting is easily revealed and fisked for what it is. In other words, you make it easy.
enough
People, people, people, please leave the trolls alone. Their only claim to fame is that they make you waste time by inciting and argument which they are unable to intelligently respond to. Read what they have to say and understand that most of them have been brainwashed from a very tender age which has LEFT them in the valley of the sheep. No amount of discourse will sway them into cognative ‘stand alone thinking’. Our education system over the last forty years has eroded their ability to divide the wheat from the chaff. Just leave them alone.
A peace keeping force would not be kept there indefinately and would simply give Hezbollah the break it needs to re-arm. In addition to Iran shipping in more arms for Hezbollah, they would use the war to drum up more support against the “bad” Isrealies because of the destruction of part of the country. This would just create another situation where Hezbollah could become stronger and continue their terrorist activities with new recruits.
Plus, where would the peacekeeping force come from. A lot of the world powers are getting stretched thin already and would have a tough time lending a lot of support. The Lebanese will have to step up to the plate sooner or later if this will ever be resolved. They have to take control of their country if they want to be a nation. Letting terrorist groups run your country or pieces of it will cause nothing but grief for the people in your country.
middelton – if you have better things to do, then by all means, go do them.
1) The fact that you are repeating things here, without critiquing them, is a major problem. Why are you a parrot? I think you have the brains to be your own thinker.
So- One can only assume that you support these conclusions, since you provide no criticism or questions about them. Therefore, your attempt to hide your own lack of questioning these assumptions by asserting ‘all I’m doing is repeating’ – is empty.
2) So what if Harper has rebuked MacKay? How is that relevant to this current situation?
3) Again – those entrance requirements are hardly stringent (a BA is nothing) and again, even a PHD doesn’t mean that the individual’s conclusions are right.
It would be completely irresponsible for our elected representatives to simply accept what the bureaucrats said. We have not elected the bureaucrats to make our decisions.
Your attempt to assert that only the foreign office has the expertise to make valid decisions about foreign policy – is, in itself, completely invalid. Not all experts are within the foreign office. And not all foreign office decisions are necessarily valid.
4) You are unquestioningly accepting what some few are saying against Harper. You are not criticizing or questioning their statements and aren’t examining why they claim that they know better than Harper or Harper’s other advisors.
5) No, don’t try the Fling Back Tactic – which is used when you can’t prove your own point and so you insist that the Other Person prove you wrong. You claimed ad hoc decision making. So, don’t ask me to prove that he isn’t making ad hoc or personal belief decisions. Those are YOUR claims (and it’s irrelevant if they come from you or you are, happily, repeating them).
6)How do you know that Harper knows nothing about the ME situation because, according to you, he ‘has no time’.
7) Don’t start with ad hominem; stick to the issues. I’m sure you’ve read and written enough papers to know that a lot of words are filler or support and the key points are basic and few.
8)You are accountable; you are now hiding behind the claim of ‘All I’m doing is repeating things; I myself don’t have any opinions on the issues; I’m just repeating…”
Nonsense. Of course you have opinions and they are identical to those whose words you copied. Otherwise, you would have copied those words AND THEN, criticized them. You didn’t criticize them. That means you approve.
9)You are accountable. And I DO pounce on others. And some, I don’t pounce on. Why you? I think you are young, you are ‘swamped’ (a nice word for brainwashed) by our educational system, but I think you have the brains and the curiousity to get out of its clutches. It’s the brains and the curiousity to which I am talking.
Read Karl Popper’s The Open Society. If you don’t read another book this summer – read it.
antenor and enough. I don’t think that middleton is a troll. He’s told us he’s young (in his 20s) and a student. Now, if he’s not lying, then, he’s been brainwashed by our educational system, which is 9/10th leftist – but- he’s not stupid, not a troll, and is exploring. How many of us, at that age, were debating current affairs?
He’s obviously never had a course in critical thinking – and I’d suggest he either take one or go online or go get a book on it. Might I suggest
Alex Michalos ‘Improving Your Reasoning’.
Thanks, ET, for the reminder to send a copy of my e-mail to Peter MacKay.
I think someone else has already mentioned this, but don’t “Middleton’s” posts sound an awful lot like steve d.’s posts?
When you start seeing his posts taking over the thread, it’s time to cut your losses and RUN! 🙂
Sucks to be you, Kate’s gonna open up a can on you for “forumizing”.
Maybe Kate could use her good graces and command of the blogosphere to obtain statements from the groups that were so summarily silenced. Free speech will prevail over the lies and half truths of the left it we set them free of the oppressive bias.
ET,
I dont for a minute doubt that you have plenty to teach me, and that I am “swamped” by an education that is a fair bit unbalanced. I dont engage in debates to get a rise out of people(though admittedly, that is a lot of fun and I do engage in it from time to time). I want to hear the other side I genuinely do. And being called a troll and mocked is not something I care much for.
I have my views. I m pro-Israel and I want them to fight it to the death. It has to be done. And it ll set a precedent that has to be set. Terrorists cannot be allowed to hide behind borders that they themselves do not respect. I dont think of the Hizb as anything but terrorists.
That said, I m not particularly impressed by the Israeli brand of collective punishment. Too many civilians are dying in a war that is not theirs. I dont like it. And I dont have to. There will always be another side to the story, and I prefer to remember that this isnt an us vs them, Israel versus terrorists scenario. There are civilians in there, and we must keep that in mind. As I ve said earlier, I believe that the innocent should take precedent. It isnt their war. Yes, contradictory as it may sound, I do believe that Hizbollah has to go, but that the innocent should take precedent. Even a temporary ceasefire will suffice – if only to let the population get out of there.
What are my views on Canada’s response? Harper was spot on. He was right in cutting funding to Hamas, and now he is correct in supporting Israel. And I told the diplomats as much. But Harper, it seems, has conveniently forgotten that civilians are trapped in the midst of it. He doesnt seem to care. Everythings “unfortunate”. In my opinion, it sounds like he believes an Israeli civilians life is more precious than a Lebanese citizens life. Call me a lefty nutcase, but I will forever believe that ever human life is equal. I would rather he call for a temporary cease fire and get all the civilians out of the south. Then carpet bomb the place if you have to.
I do have an issue with Harper directing FP from the PMO. I distrust the PMO, because, I believe, that strong PMO’s resemble presidencies. The PMO should not become an institution on par with the Parliament. The moment it is, its practically a Presidency. I hated Trudeau for it – he practically destoryed the Liberal Party by running the show from the PMO. And frankly, if Ignatieff wins, hes going to do it, too. Harper’s also doing it. Hes concentrating power in the PMO. His rebukes of Mackay in the presence of Department officials is very disturbing. Powerful PMOs do affect parliamentary democracies because they affect party dynamics. And I will hold it agianst Harper. And I will hold it against Ignatieff, if he ever becomes PM. The PMO is not supposed to be a center of power. The Prime Minister is supposed to work through government institutions, not around them. I dont know how well I m explaining this.
I ve never claimed to be a leftist or a rightist. I dont care much for labels. I dont want to be bound by the constraints of ideology. However, I do believe, perhaps like every generation before me, that we are entering a new stage – not just as a nation, but in terms of humanity. I am sick of the neutered idealism/cosmopolitanism that we ve adhered to thus far. Its time for some Machiavelian pragmatism mixed with age old idealism. Sounds a lot like neoconservatism, eh? Perhaps it is, albeit only after a consensus has been built up, not the go-it-alone American brand that is neither thought out, nor indeed practical.
While you may think I m misguided, I m only interested in seeking views here, and that certainly doesnt mean that I intend to adopt them.
What can you expect from McDonough and those of her ilk in the opposition. We certainly can’t have Canadians forming independent opinions (whatever they might be) after being provided with all information possible, both pro and con. It is after all compulsory that we depend on the “ELITES”, in this case our elected talking heads, to tell us what we think.
This woman and the supporters of her motion should be sent a copy of any credible English (or French) dictionary with the words democratic and democracy highlighted from every citizen in the country.
I would personally like to thank her for showing me that democracy in Canada is nothing more than a fleeting concept.
Every one of them should hang their heads in shame!
canadiancoalition.com/forum/messages/18211.shtml
Interview with McDummahew and one referred to by Kate.
Not to gang up on you, Middleton (and sorry about the cheap shot earlier…it was there, I was compelled to take it) but…
I take from your posts (on this thread and others) that using civilians as shields is, although reprehensible, a good ploy for the terrorists in that folks like you would counsel against attacking them lest the civilians be injured.
So…I guess there’s no other choice but for Israel to give up? Knowing that using civilians or the UN as human shields will protect them from attack, the terrorists could continue with their genocidal attacks on Israel without fear of reprisal. Or do you counsel negotiating with the rockets?
Can’t you see that this is untenable? Can’t you see that Israel is faced with the choice of either possibly killing less-than-innocent civilians (to get at the terrorists) or collectively commit suicide by not reacting?
Do you have another solution? A peacekeeping force to surround Israel forever? What happens when the terrorists get their hands on longer-range missiles? A peacekeeping force would be useless in the defense of Israel. Any other solutions?
“When four UN peacekeepers died in Lebanon on July 25, the world spoke out in condemnation. But not Canada. Though one of the dead was a Canadian, Stephen Harper callously brushed off the incident and even suggested the peacekeepers were to blame. It’s the response of a Prime Minister who has badly lost his way.
Before the deadly airstrike, UN staff pleaded with Israel to stop shelling near its outpost. What happened next? If it was a deliberate missile strike, that’s a flagrant violation of international law. If it was an accident, that only underscores the grave danger that civilians face daily as “precision” strikes fall off target.
We don’t know what happened. But Canada’s Prime Minister rubber-stamped the account given by the country that fired the missile. This is the blind faith of a man who has made the mistake of taking sides in a complicated, explosive conflict.
Mr. Harper went further still, questioning why the UN post “remained manned during what is now, more or less, a war.” Why? — because they were doing their jobs. Major Hess-von Kruedener was part of the UN Truce Supervision Organization. It is outrageous for this Prime Minister to publicly attack a peacekeeper for putting his life on the line.
Canadians have long championed the principle of applying pressure to end conflicts to protect civilians and enable negotiations. A Canadian peacekeeper, the very embodiment of this approach, has been killed in the line of duty. And with the ruins still smoldering, Mr. Harper’s officials were in Rome undermining the principles Major Hess-von Kruedener defended.
The Rome Conference was called to find a path to a ceasefire — an end to Hezbollah assaults on Israeli targets and to the Israeli bombardment of southern Lebanon. To my great dismay, Foreign Affairs Minister Peter McKay lined up dutifully as the US Administration’s sole supporter, stalling and blocking proposals for ceasefire.”
-By Alexa McDonough, MP Halifax, NDP Foreign Affairs Critic
“I would rather he call for a temporary cease fire and get all the civilians out of the south. Then carpet bomb the place if you have to.”
Whats yours called – a Crusade? Its a tricky situation, but they re using Dayan’s philosophy of collective punishment very well – make it too costly for the Arabs to do anything – for every tree Israel loses, cut down a forest in Arab lands. Killing civis wont help.
middleton – thanks for your very nice answer. No, you aren’t a troll. I had actually sent a post claiming that you aren’t one but it was caught in the spam filter.
Don’t let it bother you; I’ve been called that and worse.
I agree with you about Israel and your rejection of its ‘collective punishment’. I’m in favour of a two-state solution and strongly criticize Israel for its long occupation and its settlements. But the Arab states, in their rejection of a two-state solution, have actually set up Palestinians as refugees. If the Arab states had OK’d a two state solution, Palestinians would, by now, have their own state and would be getting over a generation of brainwashing propaganda of hate.
But Hezbollah isn’t, now, a Palestinian group; it’s being run by Iran – and the major problem in the ME is the emergence of Iran’s ambitions to establish an Iranian empire.
As for a ceasefire, remember that Hezbollah are not identifiable; they are not the military of any nation. Therefore, you can’t assume that the ‘real civilians’ would leave and the ‘fake civilians (Hezbollah) would remain, to be bombed! Instead, Hezbollah, as they are now doing, would prevent any civilians from leaving, so that bombings would harm the civilians. That makes for great photo-ops for Hezbollah, who are skilled at propaganda.
As for running Canada out of the PM’s office, I fully agree with you. That was how Chretien and Martin ran the place; they effectively almost destroyed the House of Commons. Remember that in our system, the majority of authority is NOT elected; it’s appointed, 3,000 appointments to 300 elected. Without vetting.
That couldn’t happen in the US, where appointments must be vetted by Congress, and where the President doesn’t have as much power as our PM. For example, the President of the US can’t go to war without Congress approval; in Canada, such approval isn’t required; it’s done out of the PMO. The US presidency has far more checks and balances than the Canadian PM.
Harper is restoring the House of Commons to power. He had the new Supreme Justice vetted by the House; he takes decisions to the House – which Chretien and Martin never did. He tried to have an accountability chair vetted by a committee and the committee (Liberals and NDP)trashed a very good proposal, out of partisan politics, not principles.
Note also, that Harper is saying that he won’t be guided by polls but by principles. That’s a first for a long time in Canada; Chretien and Martin didn’t have principles; their only agenda was to remain in power.
You remember Trudeau? You said you were in your 20s; don’t you mean you know about him?
The behaviour of McDonough and the other leftist parties points up the inherent instability of leftist thinking. Since their positions are arrived at emotionally versus by analysis of facts and reality with consideration of realistic options, any potential to inject reality into a discussion represents a potentially catastrophic threat to them. Thus prohibiting witnesses who were actually there on the ground from testifying makes perfect sense to a leftist. Since the leftists reached their emotional conclusions at the outset, having first hand witnesses interject facts that could undermine those conclusions offers no advantage and potentially a huge risk i.e. they could invalidate the emotional state vis a vis an object of hatred (Israel/the U.S.) or affection (Hezbollah). Excluding eyewitnesses from the discussion and substituting an emotional rant therefore makes perfect (leftist) sense.
“leftist thinking”
what you talking at ?? Can’t be a leftist & think, only filter feed through the myopic lens of socialism.
Middleton: I don’t understand much, but one thing I REALLY don’t understand is your repeated references to Israel’s ‘collective punishment’ of the Lebanese. Isn’t war, by it’s very existence, a form of ‘collective punishment’? Are you referencing the Geneva Accord……doesn’t that primarily refer to such things as ‘those resident in areas controlled by an occupier should not be shot for sabotage by others’?
Israel does not occupy Lebanon. Hezbollah are Lebanese, they are the fathers, sons, uncles of those who ‘may’ be civilians and those who only claim to be civilians…….Hezbollah are Lebanese and the Lebanese in the area being attacked are, for all intents and purposes, Hezbollah……..it is impossible to separate the wheat from the chaff, and that impossibility is the fault of Hezbollah and their ‘civilian’ supporters……SOMEBODY provides succor for these terrorists.
There are/were, perhaps, some innocents, and their deaths are unfortunate, but, in war, excrement occurs.
Todd (for Toddler) Middleton says he’s pro-Israel and then spouts the following MSM, left-libby propaganda:
“That said, I m [sic] not particularly impressed by the Israeli brand of collective punishment [sic]. Too many civilians are dying in a war that is not theirs [sic]. I dont [sic] like it. And I dont [sic] have to. There will always be another side to the story, and I prefer to remember that this isnt [sic] an us vs them [sic], Israel versus terrorists [sic] scenario. There are civilians in there, and we must keep that in mind. As I ve [sic] said earlier, I believe that the innocent should take precedent. It isnt [sic] their war. Yes, contradictory as it may sound, I do believe that Hizbollah has to go, but that the innocent should take precedent [sic: you need a noun here]. Even a temporary ceasefire will suffice [sic] – if only to let the population get out of there.”
(Remember that contractions need an apostrophe for the missing letter[s].)
Read this, Todd and see just what “population” you’re very likely talking about.
This, from David Warren today–I’ll tell you in advance, Todd, that the Foreign Affairs guys and gals hate his guts:
“Meanwhile, [a reader] forwards a six-minute clip of CNN interview with Brigitte Gabriel, Christian from South Lebanon now living in States. In case
you can’t call up the video link, Hezbollah uprooted her Christian village in south Lebanon; she has written a book, & her message is Thank You Israel. She also suggests Shia civilians & Hezbollah are indistinguishable, that in
the last 25 years through multiple wives, &c, they’ve bred a complete Shia “terror culture” (like the Sunni Palestinian one), & that the rest of the Lebanese know this, & were they not terrorized they’d be openly cheering for
the [Jews]. She implies they would like the Israelis to exterminate the lot of them, with American help if possible.”
Over the past many years, Todd, UN (UNIFIL) troops in Lebanon have been utterly useless in curbing the growth and strength of Hezbollah, a terrorist group, which stage manages and then exploits–for useful idiots (count yourself in!) in the West–the deaths of civilians. Hezbollah has no respect for human life and is more than willing to use even fellow Muslims–dead ones–as political pawns.
A unilateral ceasefire–for that’s what it would be: only the Israelis would be held to it, while Hezbollah would simply rear its snake head again–is, as Warren Kinsella has pointed out, equal to suicide for Israel.
And, Todd, you say you’re pro-Israel. You’d like to reconsider perhaps? (To spell it out for you because you need it spelled out: Either your stated opinion is incorrect or your reasons for it are. Too bad you didn’t notice the discrepancy yourself.)
I relented in a recent post and wished you good luck in a certain endeavour. Like ET, I’m a teacher. I care about young people. (That’s why I cut you some slack.) I set high standards in my classroom and there are serious consequences for sidestepping or ignoring them. I have testimonials from many parents and students for not allowing “my kids” the easy way out. A critical mass of students mature in my class and begin to achieve their potential. That’s one of the most exciting things about teaching: I don’t give self-esteem, my students EARN it.
Todd, it doesn’t seem that you’ve had a teacher like that–at least not recently. I’m offended at your sneering attitude to ET. This professor is taking all kinds of time to give you a free tutorial. You’d benefit if you’d resist being a smart *ss and tried to live up to the high standard being required of you here. MEAN WHAT YOU SAY AND SAY WHAT YOU MEAN. AND DAMN WELL KNOW WHAT YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT.
Very sadly, with all the propaganda by which young people are surrounded today, not to mention the low standard of most public education, that’s a tall order and one for which most young people are quite unprepared. Middleton, like ET, I discern potential here. But, unless you’re willing to take fair criticism and learn from it, that potential’s going to continue to be undermined.
Middleton, I read your analysis of the power of the PMO after I posted my comments. I altogether agree with you on that. (But PMSH can’t be faulted for this set up, which was firmly put in place by the Liberals.)
Oh the poor civilians, sitting there for the past month watching rockets and shells flying by in both directions. Besides the fact that there are almost daily leaflets dropping from the sky saying that bombs will be coming next, they still can’t get off their asses and leave. Can’t find a way out? Follow the CNN news crew as they go to the front every day and leave every evening.
UN Observers of the Truce are there too. Why? There is no truce, the Hezbollah rocket launcher is parked in their front yard and they don’t expect to get hit? Somebody’s commander should be roasted for keeping them there.
War is hell alright but to expect no colateral damage (yeah, I mean civilians) in nieve, after all this is not played in a soccer pitch. This isn’t a school yard where you can say time out, I don’t want to play anymore.
And why is it that if you agree with some of the same things as President Bush then you are a mere follower but if you agree with , say Hillory or Jesse Jackson then you are a free thinker?
For the record: this is what NDP leader Jack Layton said a year ago about Gen. Hillier’s “scumbags” remark concerning the Taliban and their ilk:
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/004571.html
‘”Controlled anger, given what’s happened, is an appropriate response,” NDP Leader Jack Layton said. “We have a very committed, level-headed head of our armed forces, who isn’t afraid to express the passion that underlies the mission that front-line personnel are going to be taking on.
“A bit of strong language in the circumstances, I don’t find that to be wrong.”‘
This is the current NDP position:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060804.AFGHANCAN04/TPStory/
‘Dawn Black, the party’s defence critic, said “this is a huge issue for the NDP.”
New Democrats voted unanimously in the House this spring against a Conservative government motion to extend Canada’s military involvement in Afghanistan.
Nothing has changed since to alter the party’s view that Canada should not be fighting a counterinsurgency war in Afghanistan to support U.S. policy in the region, Ms. Black said in an interview…’
What changed the party’s mind? And we’re now under NATO command anyway.
Mark
Ottawa
“You remember Trudeau? You said you were in your 20s; don’t you mean you know about him?”
I dont remember Trudeau. I ve studied him quite a bit in Canadian history (minored in it, actually), though I have to admit that my Canadian history is a lot stronger for the 1867-1945 period (the period I focused on most), and is fairly weak from Mulroney onwards. I do however remember reading about Trudeau- which is what I meant. In particular, the quote that stuck with me the most, and I just managed to fidn it again was:
“Pierre Trudeau is sometimes blamed for having won power at the expense of his party. He believed in appealing directly to the voters over the heads of the party and quite deliberately allowed the Liberal Party to decline in the west” I also remember reading about the numerical increase in the size of the office under him.
As for Harper, well, I m waiting to see and not quite ready to believe yet. Its early days yet.
As for the Hizbollah, well, its such a tricky situation, and I ve had my share of shouting matches that flourish on university campuses. Its almost reached the point where academics arent diagnosing the situation, they re adding fire to it by coming up with grievances that the both sides dont (in reality) have, but somehow SHOULD have. The only thing I have to say about it is: Rememeber that theres human beings in there, not statistics. I cant propose a solution. But then again neither can people the people who re right in the thick of it.
Middletown, is it in you to console the deaths of Israeli civilians? Haven’t heard that side of you yet. And in a ceasefire would the terrorists allow the civilians to leave. Why would they? It’d be suicide. They could care less about the Lebanese people.(Palestinians also for that matter) This is the Party of God. Human shields are God’s will. A special place in heaven for them perhaps. Southern Lebanon just happened to be a good place to set up shop. And easy. Right along side the UN. Perfect. So shouldn’t we all be wishing Israel success. Lebanese especially! And the rest of the Arab world. You ain’t seen occupation till you’ve seen mad Iranian mullah occupation. Explain please how that would make the Middle East, and the world, a better place.
heya lookout,
You re right. Yhe sneering attitude was uncalled for and I suppose I should apologize to the professor. I ll tell you what though. I mistook it as criticism for the sake of criticism and responded accordingly. Not very mature of me, but certainly a lot more mature than going around belitittling people by calling them toddlers.
Keep patting your own back. Good for you. Do you call people toddlers in class, too?
Anyway, yes I m still pro Israel. The only point which you and I disagree on is how Israel should deal with Hizbollah. You say, as do many here, that Israel should descend to Hizbollah’s level and ignore the difference between civilian and fighter/terrorist. I disagree. Does that make me anti-Israel. I think not. I think Israel would be better off for it.
UNIFIL cannot be blamed for following a UN mandate that was agreed upon by the nations that make up the United Nations. For a teacher, you re inclined to forget that the UN is as strong as its member nations let it be. It is not some kind of independent army. They are limited by mandate. And not unilateral ceasefire. Temporary ceasefire.
Kate is not going to be happy with me.
Alexa McDonough , Dawn Black et al in the NDP are true to their socialist Hug-A-Thug philosophy. The actions of the whole opposition , led by NDP have dealt an affront to our democracy. We have to demand an explanation for such despicable behaviour in this special circumstance and ultimately an apology.Really, it transends petty politics and that is the game they were playing. Someone was wondering what the D in NDP stands for, it’s obviously Dunderhead, National Dunderhead Presidium would work.
“That said, I m [sic] not particularly impressed by the Israeli brand of collective punishment [sic]. Too many civilians are dying in a war that is not theirs [sic]. I dont [sic] like it. And I dont [sic] have to. There will always be another side to the story, and I prefer to remember that this isnt [sic] an us vs them [sic], Israel versus terrorists [sic] scenario. There are civilians in there, and we must keep that in mind. As I ve [sic] said earlier, I believe that the innocent should take precedent. It isnt [sic] their war. Yes, contradictory as it may sound, I do believe that Hizbollah has to go, but that the innocent should take precedent [sic: you need a noun here]. Even a temporary ceasefire will suffice [sic] – if only to let the population get out of there.”
(Remember that contractions need an apostrophe for the missing letter[s].)
While I appreciate that proper spelling and good grammar are important, isn’t attempting to point out all the real and nonexistent errors taking things just a little too far? Could we perhaps concentrate a bit more on content rather than on form? Thanks.
Middleton, I really appreciate your admission about your response to ET. Thank you for that.
However, your attention to what I posted about Israel and Hezbollah (HB) appears to have wandered. Therefore, your subsequent analysis doesn’t quite square.
I’d NEVER advocate that Israel descend to HB level. So, how come YOU keep falling for their propaganda? Please reread paragraph 6 of my post. It’s a primer on HB and civilians. (And I don’t just post for you: I know there are lots of sda readers who might benefit from the information.)
(And I’m with Bruce. Do you have any compassion or concern–you are, you say, pro-Israel–for the countless, DELIBERATE Israeli civilian casualties?)
Yes, I talk to my students about toddler behaviour. They know exactly what I mean and actually agree with me.
It’s good that you have opinions: I believe more Canadians need to have them, rather than sit on the fence. However, uninformed opinions are dangerous. With due respect, Middleton, many of your opinions are unsubstantiated and even contradictory.
I’ve done a lot of writing about controversial issues in my time. A good rule of thumb: Put yourself in your opponents’ shoes and, in their mindset, rebut what you’ve written. Then rewrite, often many times. I guarantee that such an approach will improve the integrity, content, and bite of what you have to say.
Alexa McDonough , Dawn Black et al in the NDP are true to their socialist Hug-A-Thug philosophy. The actions of the whole opposition , led by NDP have dealt an affront to our democracy. We have to demand an explanation for such despicable behaviour in this special circumstance and ultimately an apology.Really, it transends petty politics and that is the game they were playing. Someone was wondering what the D in NDP stands for, it’s obviously Dunderhead, National Dunderhead Presidium would work.