It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Canadian and Israeli Family Values...

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 22 2005 @ 03:30 PM

I don't get it. OR MAYBE I do.. you see, Canada (long ago) helped with the slaughter of the indiginous population of North America. There use to be 30 million members of various indian tribes scattered all over N.A. and now, they exist only in small concentration camps which we call "reserves". Perhaps Israel got some ideas along these lines and came up with a final solution to ensure the survival of their country... give them some 'room to breath' so to speak. Perhaps blankets with small pox in them or something?

On the other hand.. MOST Canadians, could NOT care less about that part of the world. Really. We don't have 'religion' as you U.S. citizens have it. We don't bicker about it, and we don't really.. even.. go to church.. they are for the most part empty these days. Do you believe a bunch of people who believe in keeping TO THEMSELVES (or otherwise we'd be in Iraq with the U.S. and U.K. troops - but we arn't) and keeping their beliefs to themselves are going to get involved in a war based on ethnic and religious arguements? We also still have Christmas here.. we don't worry much about "offending" anyone, because no one up here really gets all that offended like... you guys seem to - what is it about U.S. citizens that has them at each others throats all the time? 10,000 hand gun deaths a year all over feeling "offended" (most likely) and PERHAPS sometimes even possibly threatened (what do you want to bet in most cases it was the threat of being offended - heheh) - thats "feeling" a little too much if you ask me.

And I TOTALLY BELIEVE, that if you asked MOST Canadians (and any other liberal european country - Holland and France and the like) who actually know a little something about the subject (saddly, our educational system is now following the U.S. one and I've met 20 year olds who have NO CLUE what an Israeli is for that matter.. hell some of them think that they are Arabs) would agree that the "holy" land would be better off in the hands of the UN itself and made an international city where all faiths have an equal say in how the land is SHARED and lived on instead of ONE FAITH controlling all of that land which has been under some type of seize or another for the last 2000 years... however back then only the people in the city died over it. These days a major war in that area OVER THE SAME DAMN RELIGIOUS ARGUMENTS that have been at issue all this time, could start WW3. Which is a good reason to disallow any one group from controlling it.. and a better reason for everyone on this planet to get involved in working out a solution that allows EVERYONE THERE TO LIVE THERE PEACEFULLY FOR THE REST OF ETERNITY.

But the zionists would never go for it.. so we're on a path to destruction here with the appeasement process.. oh yeah, and...

..there isn't much time left I don't think. Ark or no ark.. lol.. things are not looking good for the future of humanity..

"What starts out wrong, ends up wrong."


[edit on 22/11/2005 by Vis Mega]

posted on Nov, 22 2005 @ 03:41 PM
An example of convolusion at is finest. Where did you get the title for this thread, anyway? What, exactly, are you attempting to assert? Please, answer this question in a bullet-sentence form; it'll have a greater chance of being clear and concise.

posted on Nov, 22 2005 @ 03:46 PM
if im offended, i probably ignore what you would say.
but i am dam offended!!! j/k
seriously, people use guns because its more civilized way than using 2x4 wood or a knife. but mostly people use guns for robbing and raping. not just to be offended. if most Americans are offended so easily we be invading Canada by now.

posted on Nov, 22 2005 @ 03:50 PM
Mis Vega,

My educated guess is that the reason you are speaking up now (based on your avatar) is that the aliens are back and looking for BS.

[edit on 11/22/2005 by centurion1211]

posted on Nov, 22 2005 @ 03:57 PM
[Mohamed Elmasry is a professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Waterloo and national president of the Canadian Islamic Congress. He contributed this article to Media Monitors Network (MMN) from Ontario, Canada.]

Author of the article is President of Canadian Islamic Congress.

[But the zionists would never go for it.. so we're on a path to destruction here with the appeasement process. quoted from Vis Mega]

Hum! Seems very apparent where this is coming from.

posted on Nov, 22 2005 @ 04:18 PM
Ment to go somewhere with that and changed my mind. Fixed, happy now?

Actually.. I wouldn't be surprised if Mr. Martin (based on what he has said here) has been paid enough to believe that the values of the two countries are the same. Only money could make someone this blind. His allegences are clear now obviously.

Hum! Seems very apparent where this is coming from.

You care to explain that? I believe strongly that if the WORLD does not get involved in that mess that is Israel and 'break it up' and figure out a way TO MAKE EVERYONE WHO WANTS TO LIVE THERE EQUAL UNDER THE EYES OF THE LAW (God forbid.. at least in the Talmud anways) getting rid of the bombings and attack choppers and rockets and all of the crap.. clean up the mess that has been held over from the LAST "big one" before we have another one (that is how this usually goes down isn't it.. whatever left overs from the last war trigger the next one - its just perpetual war, and almost like someone worked it out to happen like this.. ensuring they can always make a buck off the situation) .. and if you DOUBT that this is the way MOST Canadians feel about this situation..

Mackenzie King’s first and lasting inclination was to stay clear of the Palestine debate. He and his government “showed little interest in the area and were content to let the British govern Palestine and attempt to cope with an increasingly complex set of issues there… (Mackenzie King) greatly feared Canadian involvement in an increasingly violent conflict between the British, Jews and Arabs.”10

Canada’s policy of non-commitment was compromised by Britain’s decision to transfer the Palestine question to the UN in the spring of 1947. Despite Mackenzie King’s wishes, Canada found itself thrust into the very heart of the debate. The United States, intent on denying the Soviet Union a foothold in the strategically vital region, drafted Canada to a commission of “smaller powers with no history of Middle East interest” to recommend a resolution to the question of Palestine. The Canadian delegation to the General Assembly had received explicit instructions from the Prime Minister and External Affairs Minister Louis St. Laurent to avoid any Middle East commitments or entanglements. But the US maneuvered the Canadians into “a position where refusal to serve on the commission [the UN Special Commission on Palestine – UNSCOP] would have been awkward and embarrassing.”11

Having been forced onto a commission that it had not wanted to join, to deal with an issue that it had sought to avoid, the Mackenzie King government appointed Supreme Court Justice Ivan C. Rand to UNSCOP but designated him as a non-governmental representative free to use his independent judgment. Therefore, Mackenzie King could claim that any decision reached by the Commission was not binding on his government.

The majority of UNSCOP members, including Justice Rand, recommended the partitioning of Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states, a proposal that senior officials in Canada’s Department of External Affairs came to view as the least objectionable of the options for resolving the Palestine question. They recommended that Canada support the partition plan when it came before the General Assembly in November 1947 – a recommendation that was grudgingly accepted by Mackenzie King.12

In the final analysis, Canada’s support for partition was motivated primarily by the Prime Minister’s concern that the dispute between Washington and London about the Palestine issue would adversely affect negotiations toward forming the strategic North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).13 Canada was less interested in the specifics of the formula for addressing the Palestine question than in finding a compromise that its two major allies could live with. This became an enduring feature of Canada’s Middle East policy.

A whole page about it right there.

More here..

The man just does not know his history... and can't see the future apparently either.

So did you want to explain yourself WHOFLUNGGUM?

posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 03:02 PM

Originally posted by Vis Mega
But the zionists would never go for it.. so we're on a path to destruction here with the appeasement process.. oh yeah, and...

Ahhhhhhhh ... yet another anti-jewish bigot?
Gotta' love when they throw the word 'zionist' around
like it's an illness or something .. that outdated term
is a dead give away!

Oh ... and since we are discussing certain groups who
'would never go for it' ... Let's talk Hamas and Arafat.
They absolutely refuse peace ... refused a magnificent
deal Clinton scored for them at Camp David ... all because
peace would put those terrorists out of business. They
couldn't handle that. If there was peace they wouldn't
be able to kill anymore. They wouldn't be able to whine
anymore. They wouldn't be able to spend vast amounts
of $$$ on their terrorist empires .. money that SHOULD
go to the Palestinian children for school and medical care.

new topics

top topics


log in