cybercoma Posted November 19, 2011 Report Share Posted November 19, 2011 (edited) This is likely the modern result of the original need to make as cohesive a society as possible out of two linguistically, culturally, and religiously different groups. ...and the Natives get left out, yet again. I'm not criticizing you, rather our culture that fosters this perception. Edited November 19, 2011 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olp1fan Posted November 19, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 19, 2011 I can imagine him joining Chretien in smug satisfaction or happiness at the September 11 attacks. what does that even mean? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 19, 2011 Report Share Posted November 19, 2011 I can imagine him joining Chretien in smug satisfaction or happiness at the September 11 attacks. I can't imagine what you're talking about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted November 19, 2011 Report Share Posted November 19, 2011 I can imagine him joining Chretien in smug satisfaction or happiness at the September 11 attacks. You can imagine who "joining in," and what "smug satisfaction or happiness" are you referring to in regards to Chretien? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted November 19, 2011 Report Share Posted November 19, 2011 You can imagine who "joining in," and what "smug satisfaction or happiness" are you referring to in regards to Chretien? His interview a year later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted November 19, 2011 Report Share Posted November 19, 2011 His interview a year later. That doesn't answer either of my questions - Who? Or what was said by Chretien that expressed "smug satisfaction?" I'll add a third question as it's not really clear to me what you are speaking in reference of - "smug satisfaction" and "happiness" that 9-11 happened, or that he "knew" why it happened? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted November 19, 2011 Report Share Posted November 19, 2011 That doesn't answer either of my questions - Who? Or what was said by Chretien that expressed "smug satisfaction?" I'll add a third question as it's not really clear to me what you are speaking in reference of - "smug satisfaction" and "happiness" that 9-11 happened, or that he "knew" why it happened? He said we earned it by getting "too rich". The interview was horrific. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted November 19, 2011 Report Share Posted November 19, 2011 He said we earned it by getting "too rich". The interview was horrific. Why do I feel as if you're not answering my questions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted November 19, 2011 Report Share Posted November 19, 2011 I can imagine him joining Chretien in smug satisfaction or happiness at the September 11 attacks. I like threads that are largely based on a closet Republican's paranoid imagination. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted November 19, 2011 Report Share Posted November 19, 2011 I am supposing jbg is referring to this interview with Jean Chretien where he said something to the effect of: In a CBC interview taped in July and aired last night, Mr. Chrétien suggested that the root causes of the Sept. 11 attacks were global poverty and an overbearing American foreign policy."It's always the problem when you read history -- everybody doesn't know when to stop. There's a moment when you have to stop, there's a moment when you are very powerful," he said. Immediately following Sept. 11, Canadian politicians rejected the "root causes" argument, saying the attacks were the work of irrational fanatics that had nothing to do with legitimate grievances. But Mr. Chrétien told CBC that religious fanatics are using the anger and resentment of the world's poor to fuel their terrorism. "I do think that the Western world is getting too rich in relations to the poor world," he said. "And necessarily, we're looked upon as being arrogant, self-satisfied, greedy and with no limits. And the 11th of September is an occasion for me to realize it even more." He sounds almost as bad as, gasp, Ron Paul. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olp1fan Posted November 19, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 19, 2011 (edited) What Chretien said was right... you can't constantly bomb countries and then not make any enemies so yes foreign policy played a huge role I guess the truth hurts? However Chretien was not smug nor was he satisfied 9/11 happened prove he was smug and SATISFIED Edited November 19, 2011 by olp1fan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted November 20, 2011 Report Share Posted November 20, 2011 (edited) Why do I feel as if you're not answering my questions? I apologize. MSJ quoted it here (link). I was a bit exhausted and knew Chretien's "blame the victim" interview occurred but was too lazy to dig it up. To be exact this is what was said, and we've had this discussion, with you on my side (link) before. And I give you enough credit to doubt you've changed your mind. Excerpts: "It's always the problem when you read history -- everybody doesn't know when to stop. There's a moment when you have to stop, there's a moment when you are very powerful..." "I do think that the Western world is getting too rich in relations to the poor world..." "And necessarily, we're looked upon as being arrogant, self-satisfied, greedy and with no limits. And the 11th of September is an occasion for me to realize it even more...." "I told them: When you are powerful like you are, you guys, it's the time to be nice..." "And it is one of the problems -- you cannot exercise your powers to the point of humiliation of the others. "And that is what the Western world -- not only the Americans but the Western world -- has to realize." Edited November 20, 2011 by jbg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted November 20, 2011 Report Share Posted November 20, 2011 I like threads that are largely based on a closet Republican's paranoid imagination. I am not a Republican, closet or otherwise. And I didn't start this thread. Next? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted November 20, 2011 Report Share Posted November 20, 2011 He sounds almost as bad as, gasp, Ron Paul. That would be hard. Ron Paul is f*****g insane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted November 20, 2011 Report Share Posted November 20, 2011 What Chretien said was right... you can't constantly bomb countries and then not make any enemies so yes However Chretien was not smug nor was he satisfied 9/11 happened prove he was smug and SATISFIED To quote Chretien, "a proof is a proof". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted November 20, 2011 Report Share Posted November 20, 2011 I am not a Republican, closet or otherwise. Closet cases are always filled with such denial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted November 20, 2011 Report Share Posted November 20, 2011 I cant decide. I agree people should be able to think what they want. On the other hand, I worry about putting people in charge that have radical beliefs. I agree... Would radical Atheists count? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukin Posted November 20, 2011 Report Share Posted November 20, 2011 I agree... Would radical Atheists count? You mean like Mao, Stalin, and Hitler? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted November 20, 2011 Report Share Posted November 20, 2011 (edited) You mean like Mao, Stalin, and Hitler? Not necessarily,unless you are lumping those 3 into the same ideological camp? Jim Jones,anyone? By the way,there is at least one "God hater" here who tried (in vain) to tell me that Hitler was a radical Catholic,seemingly on orders from The Vatican... By the way,you do realize that General Francisco Franco called himself a "Conservative Monarchist",right? Edited November 20, 2011 by Jack Weber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olp1fan Posted November 20, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 20, 2011 To quote Chretien, "a proof is a proof". is a proof is a proof Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukin Posted November 20, 2011 Report Share Posted November 20, 2011 Not necessarily,unless you are lumping those 3 into the same ideological camp? Jim Jones,anyone? By the way,there is at least one "God hater" here who tried (in vain) to tell me that Hitler was a radical Catholic,seemingly on orders from The Vatican... By the way,you do realize that General Francisco Franco called himself a "Conservative Monarchist",right? Anyone who thinks Hitler was a Christian is definitely of his/her rocker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted November 20, 2011 Report Share Posted November 20, 2011 is a proof is a proof Did you mean: "Is a proof a proof"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted November 20, 2011 Report Share Posted November 20, 2011 I agree... Would radical Atheists count? Yes I already answered that question on the last page. The difference is that ALL religious people have somewhat radical beliefs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted November 20, 2011 Report Share Posted November 20, 2011 Yes I already answered that question on the last page. The difference is that ALL religious people have somewhat radical beliefs. Ummmm. No. Not true at all, any more than ALL atheists have somewhat radical beliefs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted November 20, 2011 Report Share Posted November 20, 2011 Yes I already answered that question on the last page. The difference is that ALL religious people have somewhat radical beliefs. The difference being what?? That even hardcore Atheist's can be "radical"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.