if you burn an american flag, what your basically saying is that you advocate destroying american by force

who will be the drunk person who will stumble in and be like "nooooo marry ME instead!"

i'd defintely go if i had a car

Is being self-centered (being primarily concerned with oneself, and viewing the world in relationship to oneself) good or bad?

that picture is hot

you can go to Time Rift AND Sonar!

the animatrix is awesome, at times it seriously is hard to tell between the animations and real life

unfortunately, the movie dreamcatcher is pretty bad though

This was a great party on so many levels: the music, the awesome peeps that showed up, and of course the enourmous blunt to end the night :)

Concord Dawn is da bomb! First 3-4 tracks I wasn't really feeling it, but from that point on it was one and half hours of pure amazing mixes and chaos on the dancefloor!

Local DJ's were great too, I really enjoyed Stalker's set and hearing some of his tracks. After that the energy was depleted so time to chill on the couch, nice to see soyfunk, liam, alex, meeting vince, fred (passed out) and everyone else!

Finally, big thanks to Galaksy and Simon and everyone else for all the effort they put into this, thanks alot!

I definetly agree with Voidnull that at least part of the motivation for attacking Iraq is the somewhat naive beleif that the American way of life is the best way, and by introducing this way of life to the Iraqis, we will improve their lives.

However, there are many people living under totalitarian regimes just as brutal as in Iraq, and the United States never speaks about this because some of those countries are allied to the US. Examples: Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and others. Basically, the US will only act as a 'liberator of oppressed people' when it is convenient to do so, and when it coincides with other strategic goals.

Furthermore, Iraqis lives will only improve in the best case scenario: a quick, painless transition to democracy. On the other hand, if there is a urban fighting in Baghdad, or the various factions (Kurda, Sunnis, Shiites) end up turning on each other after Saddam is gone, we could end up seeing a prolonged and brutal civil war. If this happens, can we really count on the US to stay and sort things out, even after Saddam is gone?

Finally, the U.S. should learn from Europe's history of colonization that imposing foreign values on a people rarely works. Britian, France, and others probably thought that colonizing Africa, and introducing Christianity to African people, was doing a great service to them. The reality is that people tend to resent foreign rulers trying to impose their value system, and we have a history of brutal de-colonization wars that attest to that.

props to Iza!

location anyone?

that was MY donkey!

and now he's traumatized *sniff*

i saw two random candykids on the metro today and tried to convince them to come to this party..

...they just looked at me kinda weird

bring on the ottawa dj's!

the lineup is dope

sam is right

big UP to the drunk dancing librarian!!

that is a nice flyer

i kinda doubt gen was being serious

let's start an unorganized religion

nice avatar fred hehe

getting drunk in that pub was TOO funny

my sides are still hurting from laughter

actually its technically legal for the U.S. to kill Saddam because in addition to president, he's also one of the generals

no, he is a very funny dude!

Yes, I fully agree with you that the pictures "look" staged. But when you are trying to judge the authenticity of a photograph or newsstory, the reliability of the source, as well as the variety of sources that report the same thing, is a much more important factor then the appearance of the photographs.

That an American peace protester with the ISM was killed by a bulldozer is beyond doubt. The story was carried simultaneously by American, Israeli, and Palestinian newsources, and confirmed by several eye witnesses. So the only unverifiable fact is whether the pictures are, in fact, authentic. So there are basically two scenarios to choose from:

(1) the pictures are authentic. the protester was part of a larger group of protesters, one of whom took the photographs, without making a special effort to keep the angle consistent between the photos

(2) after the protester was killed, the ISM (the peace group) decided that photographs of her death would have a far greater impact than just a story. therefore, within one day, they found a lookalike, a bulldozer, and staged the photos, while doing a horrible job of making them look real.

Personally I beleive scenario (1) is much more likely than (2). And Ze'ev, thanks for posting that story, because it confirms a few facts about false journalism:

- that article from WorldNetDaily (a source I never heard from before) bases its information from Whistleblower magazine (another source I have never heard from before) which in turn bases its information, according to the article, on an obscure French book written by a correspondent of the ISRAEL-BASED (?) Metula news agency, again I've never heard about them

- this story did not appear in any other media outlet

- if you read the article carefully, the quote which illustrate the conclusion of the book is as follows "One thing is certain: Given the position of the protagonists during the firefight it is impossible that the child was hit by Israeli bullets. Mohammed al-Dura was not killed by Israelis. And the bigger question remains: Was Mohammed really killed?" Note that the last statement indicates the book makes no claim that Mohammed was not killed, only suggests that his position would make it impossible (based on the angle) for Israeli soldiers to have shot him. However, the headline of the article is "martyrdom 'staged'", which is a clear internal contradiction in the article

- I happen to be familiar with the story in question. The truth is that after Mohammed's death, the Israeli millitary conducted an official inquiry into his death (that was as the intifada was just starting. now they don't bother). The conclusion of the Israeli inquiry was that, indeed, the angles involved suggest that Mohammed was most likely killed accidentally by Palestinian fire than by Israeli fire (he was in the middle of a firefight). In other words, even if you accept the ISRAELI position, there is no doubt that Mohammed was killed in the firefight, the only question is which side's bullet caused the death.

those are defintely the real pictures cause they come straight from the ISM website [ www.palsolidarity.org ]

she is wearing a bright orange jacket deliberately so the bulldozer will notice her. unfortunately that didnt help

15 PAGES!?!?!?!?

8 ounce burger for 2 bux is a sweet deal

count me in if yall still going

50% english canadian
50% israeli / iraqi jew

sensing that the world is getting more fucked up by the day

nuclear waste glowsticks

I'm sure most of you have heard about this. An American activist with the ISM tried to prevent an Israeli bulldozer from destroying a home in Gaza. In responce, the driver ran her over.

US did not put Sadam in power. They supported him during the Iran-Iraq war.

Iraq did not set his own oil fields on fire. He set Kuwait's oil fields on fire.

The 'weapons of mass destruction' that Sadam posseses is basically a whole lot of nerve gas and anthrax that could potentially be attached to a missile or used in a terrorist attack.

France, Germany, and other countries do not deny that he has these chemical agents. They beleive that the presence of inspectors can effectively keep tabs on Sadam to prevent him developing more powerful weapons, and keep him contained.

Am I the only person who remembers back in spring the hawks in the Bush administration were openly calling for "regime change" in Iraq? The reason has less to do with an imminent threat to the US as it has to do with disposing of an enemy at a perceived oppurtune time (the hawks beleived that after Sept 11, the US could do what it wanted and the world wouldnt protest).

The reasons the US is attacking Iraq include: the intention to correct the "mistake" of allowing Sadam to stay in power after Gulf War I, and the beleif that Sadam, in the long term, could emerge as a threat to U.S. interests, and allies (gulf states + israel) in the region. Furthermore, I wouldnt be surprised if Bush beleives some of his own propaganda.

If you oppose this war (which you should) please try to have more intelligent arguemnts than "war is bad because innocent people will die".

- this war sets a dangerous precendent for counties to unilaterally attack other countries whom they perceive as threats, without any provocation. (ex who says India can't attack Pakistan on the same grounds?)

- an American occupation of Iraq will turn much of the Muslim world against the US, thus worsening the threat of terrorism in the future.

- Iraq has the potential to degenerate along ethnic/religious lines (Kurds/Shiites/Sunnis), possible resulting in an unpolicable region that will breed future conflicts. (the Balkans, anyone?)

- CIA intelligence indicates that Sadam is unlikely to use chemical weapons against the US if unprovoked. That all changes once he knows he is gone.

- The longterm presence of inspectors effectively contains Sadam, making millitary intervention unnecesary.

anyone else find it ironic that the lowest category is "the church is too corrupt for me" ?

i hereby retrack my previous statement

feel free to post all the personal conversations you like, as long as they are this entertaining

this is going to be a BIG night for all the montreal junglists

shouldn't you learn to be at least half-decent at dj'ing before spinning at a party?

HAVAL AL HA'ZMAN!!!!!

psytrance + drum n bass

this deserves a BUMP!

and yet, it has 10 replies in about 10 mintues