Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« The World’s Whiniest Band | Main | Huseyin Celil . . . »

Wednesday, August 09, 2006

The Rise of Quebecistan

From Barbara Kay in the National Post:

In his Montreal Gazette column yesterday, Don MacPherson projected a worrying Quebec trend with startling candour: "It's finally becoming respectable again to express support for terrorists."

So it has. On Sunday, 15,000 Quebecers, mostly Lebanese-Canadians, marched for "justice and peace" in Lebanon. That sounds benign, but in fact the march was a virulently anti-Israel rally, and scattered amongst the crowd were a number of Hezbollah flags and placards. Leading the parade were Bloc Quebecois chief Gilles Duceppe, Liberal MP Denis Coderre, PQ chief Andre Boisclair, and Amir Khadir, spokesman for the new far-left provincial party, Solidarite Quebec.

All four politicians had signed a statement by the organizers the day before the march, in which Israel is lambasted for its depredations in Lebanon, Gaza and the West Bank — but the word "terrorism" is never mentioned, nor Hezbollah assigned any blame for the war.

In their speeches at the conclusion of the march, Messrs. Coderre and Duceppe did not condemn terrorism, did not mention Israel's right to defend itself, and spoke only of Lebanese civilian suffering. As a sop to the Quebec-Israel Committee, which had taken out full-page ads calling on the march's leaders to condemn terrorism, however, they called for the disarming of Hezbollah as part of a negotiated ceasefire.

For this, they were roundly booed by the crowd.

There's much more in the full column. I wrote to Barbara Kay, complimenting her on the column. She replied,

Thank you so much for this validating feedback. If nothing else, I hope it will provide a moment's aggravation for those pusillanimous Quebec pols who wouldn't know a moral compass if it smacked them upside the head in the shower every morning.

Posted by EclectEcon on August 9, 2006 in Canadian Politics | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Rise of Quebecistan:


Until this Country either puts it foot over quebec’s mouth or we throw them the hell out this insult to freedom and Canada will continue. In the next quebec provincial election I would suggest we all contribute to the parti qubecois campaign fund and provide ads that will help their cause for independence

Posted by: Western Canadian | 2006-08-09 9:16:34 AM

"[Coderre and Duceppe] called for the disarming of Hezbollah as part of a negotiated ceasefire. For this, they were roundly booed by the crowd."

Sounds about equivalent in shock value to the trampling of the Quebec flag in Brockville 15 or so years ago. Yet I don't recall seeing the above incident ad nauseam on the national news. I'm guessing I won't, either.

Posted by: Joan Tintor | 2006-08-09 9:20:28 AM

The same National Post that lost their last shred of credibility when they published the fake holocaust story? Is this the National Post your refer to?

When Barbara Kay says "terrorists" here, are we sure she didn't really mean "Diasporas"? :-)

In any case her disregard for human suffering in Palestine and Lebanon goes well beyond repulsive.

"In May 2006, Canada's National Post ran a sensational story by Benador associate and Iranian exile Amir Taheri. The piece claimed that Iran's government had passed a law requiring Jewish residents to wear a yellow insignia -- reminiscent of the policies of Germany's Nazi regime. The story was quickly debunked and the National Post apologized. Eleana Benador admitted that her PR firm had planted the piece."

Posted by: Fizz | 2006-08-09 9:24:13 AM


A few points:

1) The Post retracted and apologized. The other media who have done far worse, far more often never do.

2) The suffering of Arabs is brought on by Arabs. If they behaved themselves like civilized humanity they wouldn't be suffering. Germans and Japanese suffered in WWII. If they didn't want to, they shouldn't have started the war. Ditto for the Arabs.

You show mercy to your enemy only once they have been defeated. Until then you give them death.

Posted by: Warwick | 2006-08-09 9:34:13 AM

What did you expect from a bunch of stupid communist Frenchmen anyway?

This was predictable. Whatever comes down the pike that is objectionable to sane, thinking people is completely embraced by these f**king wogs.

Separation now!

Rid Canada of Quebec and do something about these useless drum-beating Indians while we are at it and perhaps we can then be rid of our idiotic bent toward the suicidal idea of multiculturalism.

If you think my comments are not politically correct that's because I have the power to get rid of political correctness in my own world and have done so. It's called free speech and the right to call a spade a spade. AKA honesty. I suggest you do it too.

I am aware that honesty may not be legal anymore in Canada, but I will give it a shot anyway.

I can't do much about the multi-culti thing, but I will continue to rant that it must be tossed on that large and growing trash heap of failed Liberal ideas.

What we might consider for a start, is refuse to do business with anyone who hasn't bothered to learn to speak enough English to be easily understood.

This isn't rasicm since I don't care what race they are, it's cultural bigotry since I believe my Canadian culture and language should prevail. Just like others do in most countries around this world.

In Canada we are Candian and speak English In Quebec they speak a horrid dialect of french.

I'm pissed!

Posted by: Duke | 2006-08-09 9:34:22 AM


I will happily chip in on your one way ticket to Iran. You islamo-dupe.

Posted by: Duke | 2006-08-09 9:45:15 AM

Quebecistan - Hey, I like the sound of that.
Call it like is !

Posted by: Frico | 2006-08-09 9:46:47 AM

Get your yellow and green markers out. take a napkin. Draw little Hisbollah flags. And then burn them all!

One of those things burnt a day is as good as an apple a day! Good for your health AND your freedom at the same time!

Posted by: Lady | 2006-08-09 9:50:14 AM

Quebec will always be a thorn in the side of the ROC. We'll just have to put up with outbursts and all manner of nonsense from pompous little windbags like Dennis Coderre and many of his ilk. That will be it until they seceed or we force them to make up their minds and do it for them. They want acceptance and respect without reciprocation.They are the difficult child in the family, they need more tough talk and less pandering to.

Posted by: Liz J | 2006-08-09 9:57:25 AM

Quebec is the disgruntled whore who will sleep with anyone.
The easiest and most cost effective way to deal with her is to cut her off economically.
To achieve that all one need do is stop buying any goods that come from Quebec.

Posted by: in ques t | 2006-08-09 10:13:07 AM

Maybe some enterprising lefty will consider opening a tourist bureau enticing their Muslim counterparts to take up residence in Quebecistan. Suggessted slogan; 'We'll make you feel at home' Come stump and be outraged here and don't forget to bring your flag.

Posted by: Frico | 2006-08-09 10:26:48 AM

Interesting how the so called moderates, on the one hand, have a fatwa against terror (see lower left of site, on link) and yet continue to not see a link between hisbollah and Israel's right to fight back.

If that is what they call moderate, well, as I said, there is no such thing!


Posted by: Lady | 2006-08-09 10:54:33 AM


They fail to see hisbollah as the terrorists. If they did, AND they say they have a fatwa against terror, they would also have a fatwa against hisbollah!

Posted by: Lady | 2006-08-09 10:56:37 AM

It won't happen but the members of Canada's government, twits like Coderre and Duceppe , should be booted out for showing up at a so-called parade for justice and peace while Hezbollah flags and anti-Israeli placards were well represented. If they support terrorism or appear to support it they should not be allowed into our Parliament.

Posted by: Liz J | 2006-08-09 11:02:33 AM


Naw. No need to boot them out.

No need to ban anybody or anything.

As long as we have this forum for free speech, that's all we need to protect ourselves from these totalitarian jerkoffs.

Marxist, National Socialist, Jihadist ... when defined by their tolerance for opposing opinions, they're pretty much in the same camp of thought control.

Posted by: Set you free | 2006-08-09 11:14:08 AM

Duceppe's former Maxist-Leninist Communist party ties are too strong and ingrained for him to any longer hide. Front and centre with jihadists is exactly where he wants to be.
No one should be surprised at Gilles Duceppe joining in with anti -Semitic rallies.
In Canada!

Posted by: Joe Molnar | 2006-08-09 11:29:53 AM

Not all francophones think alike, although Québec Solidaire, the P.Q. and their ilk
are nuts

Posted by: John Palubiski | 2006-08-09 11:30:41 AM

Isn't it funny how these atheist communists and ultra-religious (muslim) nutsacks make nice bedfellows when it serves their interest. During the cold war, the islamic "freedom fighters" were on our side against the Soviet "godless horde". Now, that they are gone, they ally with the remaining commies against us.

I heard a poll in Quebec found that although Quebecers were least supportive (out of all the provinces) of any military action against islamic terrorists, they were conversely the most likely to harbor dislike or even hate against muslims. I think the only thing that poll forgot to mention was that they hate Jews even more. Ever wonder why the froggies gave up so quick in WWII?

Posted by: Big Makk | 2006-08-09 12:01:29 PM

Big Makk,

The French surrendered so quickly because they put all of their eggs in one basket, the Maginot Line. They were able to stop the German advances in WWI by flooding the Sedan area and making movement on the battlefield impossible. Therefore they thought they could do it again, if need be, with the same result. The French made the mistake of thinking they could fight WWI all over again.

The Germans captured Sedan first with a glider borne vertical envelopment using K-troops(airborne commando) and seized the controls to the floodgates.

That put the French Army out of position using WWI methods and the Germans followed up with Panzer thrusts in a pincer movement lead by Guderian on one side and Rommel on the other. The Germans used combined arms(Blitzgrieg) with the amalgamation of new tank and airpower tactics.

Posted by: Speller | 2006-08-09 12:25:39 PM

Not just gave up in WWII, but they pointed out the French Jews so that the Nazis could deport them to the concentration camps!

Posted by: obc | 2006-08-09 12:26:04 PM

SYF: Right,they could never be banned, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and all we stand for is their right. It is disturbing to have them in our government when they appear to support what our soldiers are fighting against in places like Afghanistan, terrorism. Never fear, they will always find a stage and an audience in the Canada of today.

Posted by: Liz J | 2006-08-09 12:58:25 PM

It is interesting how the article illustrates the dilemma of Stephen Harper as between selling his soul for the Quebec votes he needs, or remaining true to his principles.

Harper's pro-Israel stance in the Lebanese war, and his anti-terrorist stance in the Afghanistan one, are causing his numbers to go down in Quebec.

Now if Harper was a Liberal, there is no question that he would not let something as tribvial as principles stand in his way. No Liberal government would ever even think twice about selling a soul that they never had in the first place.

But isn't that the biggest weakness of democracy, after all? Principles have that annoying tendency of getting in the way.

It's sad to think that all that is now left of Quebec's Catholic heritage is just that nasty old streak of antisemitism.

And isn't it ironic that the Albertans that the whole country were once accusing of being antisemitic rednecks during the Keegstra affair (even Day was not left untouched with that brush, compliments of the CBC)are now the ones that are Jewish Israel's strongest allies.

Posted by: Darryl | 2006-08-09 1:15:52 PM

It comes down to this age-old question: If you were in trouble, penniless, homeless and hungry, where would you rather find yourself? In liberal Manhattan, N.Y. or Mormon, Ogden, Utah? Where are you most likely to find assistance from a stranger?

Lefties talk a nice game, but when it comes to extending themselves, they abdicate all responsibility and expect the government to do all the work.

That's why in the USA, the greatest charity is given in states like Mississipi and Alabama, while the least amount is in the northeastern blue states like Massachusetts and Rhode Island.

The greatest tolerance in Canada is among the Western provinces - the least is in Quebec and the Greater Toronto area.

In Canada, charity is given in greater proportions in Newfoundland than in Quebec.
Leftist talk a good game but when it comes to action. . .

Do the parks in Montreal still have the graffiti that was seen in the 1930's on city signs where it said: NO DOGS (AND JEWS) ALLOWED? Wouldn't surprise me one bit.

Posted by: obc | 2006-08-09 1:30:39 PM

From the "it's about time" file .....

Jewish leader in Canada wants ban on Hezbollah demonstrations in Canada
1 hour, 10 minutes ago

OTTAWA (CP) - The vice-president of B'nai Brith Canada says his organization wants police forces and the federal government to curb pro-Hezbollah demonstrations.

Frank Dimant says the streets of Canada should not be taken over by radical Islamic forces supporting terrorist activities.

Dimant was among Canadian Christian and Jewish groups calling for a national day of prayer on Aug. 20 to support Israel and peace in the Middle East.

Charles McVety, president of the Canada Christian College, says it's time for Christians to stand by Israel, the birthplace of their religion.

Alan Baker, Israel's ambassador to Canada, says Israel is being blamed for deliberately targeting civilians.

But he said Hezbollah rockets are being aimed at civilians and causing vast ecological damage to biblical forests in the north of Israel.

Posted by: Canadian Infidel | 2006-08-09 1:50:41 PM

"But he said Hezbollah rockets are being aimed at civilians and causing vast ecological damage to biblical forests in the north of Israel."

Good one. This is sure to get the eco-moonbats on side.

Maybe not.

Posted by: Speller | 2006-08-09 2:03:38 PM

"Not just gave up in WWII, but they pointed out the French Jews so that the Nazis could deport them to the concentration camps!"

There's plenty of guilty parties there, including the Zionists. Read Zionism in the Age of the Dictators by Jewish historian, Lenni Brenner. The Zionists in Palestine did not want Europe's Jews and opposed unrestricted Jewish immigration. Only young, healthy, qualified and committed Zionists were wanted.

***In 1934, Chaim Weizmann, head of the Jewish delegation to the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, president of the World Zionist Organization from 1920-1929 and again from 1935-1946, and the first president of Israel, created restrictions to determine which German Jews would be allowed to immigrate to Palestine. Those to be denied entrance included �former businessmen, commercial travelers, artists, and musicians,� and those who were �over 30, and possess no capital and no specific qualifications.�

According to Israeli Scholar Abraham Margaliot, the next year Weizmann told the Zionist Executive, �the Zionist movement would have to choose between the immediate rescue of Jews and the establishment of a national project which would ensure lasting redemption for the Jewish people. Under such circumstances, the movement, according to Weizmann, must choose the latter course.�

In 1938, after Kristallnacht, the British government proposed admitting thousands of Jewish children from Germany into the United Kingdom. David Ben-Gurion, member of the Zionist Executive since 1920, Secretary General of Histadruth (General Federation of Jewish Labor) in 1921, chairman of the Executive of the Jewish Agency in Palestine in 1935, and the first prime minister of Israel, opposed the British plan. He told a meeting of Labor Zionist leaders,

"If I knew that it would be possible to save all the children in Germany by bringing them over to England, and only half of them by transporting them to Eretz Yisrael, then I would opt for the second alternative. For we must weigh not only the lives of these children, but also the history of the people of Israel".***

Posted by: DJ | 2006-08-09 2:09:29 PM

If not this issue then philosemites would find some other reason to condemn French Canada as anti-semitic.

It is folly that Quebecers are endorsing the cause of Arabs living in Quebec simply because they speak French. Inassimilable mass Arab immigration today threatens Quebec's ethnic interest as much as inassimilable mass Jewish immigration threatened Quebec a century ago.

A century ago Jewish immigrants in Canada, sometimes utilised 'brute' force to rebuff the assimilative advances of Protestant missionaries.


That action was acceptable according to BB because it was in defence of Jewish ethnic interests. However, French Canadians, who feared loss of jobs to more ethnocentric Jews,


are condemned as racist anti-semites.

More folly of the propositional nation.

It is however, irrational, for Quebec nationalist not to support Israel. As the BNP's Lee Barnes asserts,

"Israel is the only living organic nationalist state on the planet. They live only as they still have the will to fight and wage war. The West is now a senile culture, it sleeps in dreams of its former glory whilst a new generation of barbarians is beseiging its gates. In its quest for gold it has ignored the real dangers it has created for us all."

Mass non-traditional immigration is the bane of Quebec separatists. They are trading political expediency for the survival of the Quebecois people.

Posted by: DJ | 2006-08-09 2:45:58 PM

There sure isn't a shortage of antisemites in Quebec - nor on this thread.

Posted by: obc | 2006-08-09 2:48:40 PM


DJ has an obsession, please don't feed it.

Posted by: Speller | 2006-08-09 2:57:33 PM


What are you trying to say?

You know, those Lebanese Quebecers you are referring to? How many of them are the whinny types, who complained about how long it took the conservatives to rescue their sorry butts?

So, I got to pay for them to come to Canada, to schmooze with Denise and Duceppe ca-ca poutine!

We know you don't like Jews DJ. We have heard your opinion before, and quite frankly, it is getting very very boring.

You sound like one of those terrorist sympathizers who go on these rants, where they claim justification for sending rockets into villages, towns and cities, just to kill the Jews.

Well, you can have all of those anti-Zionists, and anti-Semites. I am certain (cough-can-not-lie-cough) that they would really love your sorry pathetic bullocks buttocks (cough-can-not-lie-cough).

It was not the Jewish people who made the decsision to restrict the number of immigrants to Israel. The Israelis were fighting to save as many folks as possible. It was the British, on request of the Arabs, who limitied the numbers who were able to go to Israel.

You are merely making up stories, from rhetoric, that has no basis in relaity.

In terms of today, you need to deal with facts, and not your stupid fiction.


Short little flick, with some real facts. Sure, they will be hard for you to swallow, but if you go real slow, maybe you might make it!

Posted by: Lady | 2006-08-09 3:00:02 PM


Please don't fill the tread with the same argument with DJ. There is no need to defend your people at the Shotgun. Have you ever heard of an anti-semite who actually said, "Gee, you're right, the Jews really are a good respectable people!" "Why have I obsessed over them for so long?"

Posted by: Speller | 2006-08-09 3:06:31 PM

I think your 2:45 comment was very well argued, DJ. I'm not being satirical. It's a good argument (in the sense of valid, I can't judge how correct it is), and you stuck to the high road and avoided exploding words ;-) It was worth reading, thanks.

And I do think Barnes's point is well taken. It will be interesting to see the degree to which various micro-cultures coalesce out of the dynamics (as the soup boils, if I may), and which micro-cultures they end up being, versus the degree to which humans will become some sort of gray commonality.

There is a good semiotic argument to be made that complex systems naturally avoid uniformity, for the benefit of the system. We shall see.

Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-08-09 3:15:10 PM

Fair enough, however, argumentum ad personam, which is very popular in the blogosphere, does not refute the facts put forth by Lenni Brenner.

Possibly Lawrence Auster says it better. He asserts that "a key component in the possible salvation of the West, namely the possibility of race-conscious white Westerners defending Jews and Israel, and of Jews realizing they are on the same side as white Westerners."

As long as diaspora Jewry [Abe Foxmen, Bnai B'rith, ADL et al], continues to assail white Nationalists in the west, yet disingenuously support nationalism in Israel, the hatchet will never be buried. If Israel has a right to survive as a Jewish state then why is it unethical for the West to survive as white states?

Posted by: DJ | 2006-08-09 3:29:28 PM

Um, I wasn't trying to refute, I was trying to agree. After everyone misread your previous comment but me, you could have at least read my comment carefully. Or are you just looking for a fight?

Anyway, you've lost me now, you've gone from culture to race, and I think you're wrong about that, and I'm not going to argue about it on your terms. Free speech is like that ;-)

Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-08-09 3:48:33 PM


I cannot believe you just agreed that DJ had a point.

The term "white" is itself a conjured up notion, that what is 'best' is based on skin colour.

Every single race out there has had an arguement, whether for or against, on the basis of some notion that there is such a thing as a white culture.

Civilized people come in all shapes and sizes.

And any people can stoop to commiting crimes.

Although you say that he has a right to his opinoin, all he is doing is spreading the notion that lenner has a legitimate opinion. And that clearly is mere rhetoric.

I am sick and tired of people going around suggesting there could be any virtue in the west only being white. That is garbage! There are nations that have histories of only white, and they are not placing their nations statehood on the table for discussion in the context of whiteness. They have the rights to their lands, according to historical rights. The same is true of the Israelis, and their right to their own homelands, and it is not a matter of the colour of their skins.

If the palestinian Arabs wanted to have a nation that was only them, they could have had it. But they walked away fromt he table! They did not want just their own place. They wanted to destroy israel. nothing has changed in that regard, the same as nothing has changed in relation to the white supremacists, who see themselves as continueing on in a push for their own supremacy.

If the white movements really saw israel's right to ehr own state, as being in their own interests, they would have come out and said it. They have not. And, instead, they have sided with the Iranians! Why? Because if anything, it is clear, they hate the Jews equally!

And, it looks to me as though the white supremacists and the Iranians deserve eachother! Sooner or later, the islamofacists were to take over the original homelands of the whites. And now that they have made this bed for themselves, they can sleep in it!

Posted by: Lady | 2006-08-09 4:22:57 PM

Look, Lady, I said he had a point about a previous post (he did not mention race in his 2:45 comment). I disagreed with him on the latter post, when he introduced race into it.

If people are not going to read what I write, then I think they have passed from selfishness to greed, and I think they should carefully consider exactly what their purpose is.

Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-08-09 4:31:21 PM


So, you either agree with me, or you agree with DJ.

I know you disagreed with the latter part, but you gave me a greater brush-off than you did him.

How do you think that makes me feel?

If I be greedy to want to know the truth, and get clarity, then you can assign me the whole hog treatment. But free speach is about knowing the truth. And for that I have thirst that abounds!

And, I thank you for stating what was on your mind.

Posted by: Lady | 2006-08-09 4:52:02 PM

Speller wrote:The Germans captured Sedan first with a glider borne vertical envelopment using K-troops(airborne commando) and seized the controls to the floodgates.

It was Eben Emael that was captured by paratroops, not Sedan

Posted by: No Spin Zone | 2006-08-09 4:58:50 PM

I'm not going to play this silly game of offended one-upsmanship, Lady. It is not the case that I either agree with you or someone else, I agree only with me unless I explictly state otherwise. I didn't brush you off, I chastized you for not reading what I wrote (and I may have been a little strident there, sorry).

But there's a deeper problem here (not you Lady, in general). Truth will not be found in blogs. Churches, some say, laboratories, some say, the department of philosophy, maybe, or maybe the battlefield, or a combination of those sorts of things, but truth will not generally be found in blogs (unless of course you are studying blogs per se, but that's tautological).

Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-08-09 5:04:52 PM

Yes, it was Eben Emael not Sedan by the K-troops.

I got them confused. Still, Sedan was next and only made possible by Eben Emael and the seizing of the flood controls.

Posted by: Speller | 2006-08-09 5:11:57 PM

Sorry to go on about this, but, well, free speech, and I do try to contribute, and this matters to me. What I very carefully aforethought said at 3:15 was:

"I think your 2:45 comment was very well argued, DJ. I'm not being satirical. It's a good argument (in the sense of valid, I can't judge how correct it is), and you stuck to the high road and avoided exploding words ;-) It was worth reading, thanks."

Not only did I not say "agree", I went out of my way to note that I can't judge whether or not his argument is correct enough for me in my opinion to "agree" with it. I also mentioned later that I was trying to agree with Barnes's point, but Barnes is not equal to DJ.

This is one of the big problems with blogs. A lot of people come here looking for any reason to chatter; I'm not particularly surprised that they have a habit of finding such reasons where there are none.

Either that, or I'm just really not very good at all at expressing myself, which is always a possibility, I mean, at least in theory, I could be delusional and not know it.

Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-08-09 5:26:21 PM

You're right as rain, Vitruvius. Relax.

Posted by: Speller | 2006-08-09 5:36:36 PM

What the hell are you people doing discussing your personal feelings and hurts and wasting space trying explain to others what it is you have said.

Say it in plain English ... use small words where possible and make the point.

If you don't like someone's point, don't get your shorts in a knot and get all teary eyed, just fight back with your point.

If the regulars who comment here lose the ability to understand each other then the Muslims will win for sure and the Liberals will get back in power.

Now smarten up y'all.

Posted by: Duke | 2006-08-09 5:38:14 PM

I wasn't hurt, Duke, I was attempt to correct a misrepresentation of my position. The reason people discuss their personal perceptions on blogs, Duke, is because they are humans, not machines. We are the cyberspace voices of flesh and blood entities. If all we ever do is fight for the sake of fighting, what's the point? There's no humanity in that. If that were the case, then I might as well read an article at Strategic Forecasts, than interact with my fellow Shotgunners. I'd like to argue against that approach.

Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-08-09 5:55:25 PM

The point is, DJ has stated material, in his arguement, that is false. It is a very well stated yet false arguement.

Pretty words do not the truth make!

British mandate was in control over how many people went to Israel.

British mandate gave the British the control.

And sadly, the British cowed to the pressure from Arab groups, who wanted the return of the Jews slowed down, if not stopped altogether. They did not want Jews to return.

The Arabs knew for centuries, whether they lived in Israel or not, that the Jewish people, the children of Israel, would one day return to the lands of Israel. This is why they, through Arafat's Uncle, made a well documented deal with Hitler. The Arabs made the deal, that they would provide intelligence to Axis, in exchange that once Hitler had killed all the Jews in Europe, that he woudl kill all the jews in israel, and the Arabs would get Israel.

(Not only were there prophesies, but the return of the jews is substantiated in the documents of Judaism, Islam and Christianity, in various forms. The Jewish people would one day return. And they have been returning for decades!

The position of the British, since they realized what happenned, as a result of their decsision to limit the numbers of Israelis to return to the lands of Israel, meant more Jews died in the concentration camps, the gas chambers and at the hands of the execution squads.

And the Arabs, they then rejected the re-instatement of the state of Israel. They rejected the independence of Israel, and have rejected it ever since. They also rejected the partition! Not just once. Not just twice! But many times over!

They, right now, still reject partition. They will not rule with Jews, so they have maintained their dedication to kill all Jews. It is the very same butchery as it has always existed!

Well, except for the very few, who actually decided to join with Israel, at the reinstatement. they do not hold onto those same beliefs.

And the lands, called Palestine, were named that, by the British themselves. before that, the lands were ruled through the Ottoman Empire. When that fell, the lands were in limbo, so as with most other locations at the time, the British, more than happy to, stepped in and took over the region.

The deals were, ion effect, suppossed to retain the deals between Britain, and the region. That is, of course, another topic!

Posted by: Lady | 2006-08-09 5:56:52 PM

That's not "the" point, Lady, that's "a" point. That was part of DJ's second comment. I did not address it. I agreed with his first comment. I disagreed with his third comment. It's not about pretty words (talk about a brush-off ;-) If you want the truth, on blogs, you'll find that the truth is "a says x", "b says y", et cetera.

If you disregard even that, then you will not only not find "the truth", you will find nothing at all. Don't say "the point is", implying I would disagree, say "my point is", and I may or may not let you know whether or not I agree, as will everyone else.

Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-08-09 6:21:51 PM

Sorry, now I'm getting sloppy. I did not agree with his first comment, I said it was a good argument. Sheesh.

Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-08-09 6:24:09 PM

It's amazing what forty years of Liberal rule can do to a country. Who'd have dreamed that open hatreds would emerge en masse from behind the Liberal smiley-face flag, or that half the country would back a violent group of theists whose stated goal is the destruction of Israel? Who ever would have thought that we would see so many of our fellow Canadians craning their necks and thrumming their fingers in excitement at the possibility that anti-semitism might finally grow some real teeth in our country?

The Liberals have encouraged the war against our founding values, happy so long as the shooting resulted in a hole beside "Liberal" on the ballots.

Gee, what's that flapping sound we hear? Could it be...chickens coming home to roost?

Posted by: EBD | 2006-08-09 6:29:13 PM


You are still trying to explain yourself. Try stating clearer messages. Some of us are high school drop outs.

No explanations are necessary if points are clear and concise.

What I mean to say is that blah blah

Just say it for christ sakes. I know you are the center of all things Vit, but I wan't specically directing my comment to you. That's what I meant by Y'all.

There now you have me doing it. Perhaps the problem IS YOU!

Posted by: Duke | 2006-08-09 7:02:09 PM

Perhaps there is no problem.

Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-08-09 7:11:57 PM

1 2 3 4 Next »

The comments to this entry are closed.