gerryhatrick

You really got a hate-on for Muslims, huh Jerry? Lovin' the cartoon demo violence I guess? Mmmmmm Muslim bashing. Ugly.

Flame thread.

Well, Argus did not say anything that your link is relevant to. I think you missed something there, but don't worry about it. I will address the meat of your post...your link: The majority of attacks are against coalition forces. That is the point I made. I said the VAST MAJORITY of the violence is against US troops. Your link points out that the civilian toll is higher than military, but if civilians are getting killed by roadside bombs which are targetting US convoys, that is still violence against US troops. And to put this in context of the topic for you, it goes back to the point that if the Americans leave the violence will drop.

When I read comments like yours it makes me wonder if it's real ignorance or willfully done. Are you ignorant, or do you just dislike Muslims so you take pleasure in your dishonest slander? Just wondering.

Telling portion of your hypothetical exchange.

I heard nobody complained to the ethics commisioner over Belinda switching. edit: There were complaints this time, none then. That is why. The ethics commisioner doesn't act on his own. So, your claim that he has bias or is ineffective is sour grapes. suck it up.

Do you have a source for that? Everything I've read says it is never used as a weapon.

What about all the non-violent protests we've seen? Do you have free reign to generalize all Muslims as "violently sensitive" now because of the actions of a few? The cartoons were innocuous to you, perhaps. For racist anti-immigrant folks they're a godsend. They're loving the opportunity to insult Muslims.

Your own opinion. The foreign fighters are in the minority in Iraq, according to the US military. The bulk of the fighting the US is engaged in is against Iraqis. Where are you getting your false information? The VAST MAJORITY of the violence is against US troops.

Now you're adding qualifiers to what Harper said? Get real. He made a promise, and now that he's been reminded of it he lashes out at Canadians for not "supporting the troops". Typical Bush-style Orwellian bullsh#t. Should be a fun 18 months.

They perhaps didn't know who they were getting, but after they got them the nationality became relavent. And I think that is the real point that you missed. Regardless of who they might have thought they were grabbing, once they know they are Canadian they will utilize that reality as best they can. It's bizarre how some posters here believe hostage takers in Iraq would be ignorant of all media and questions of nationality.

Sorry if you got the wrong impression, but I'm not one of the hostage-takers holding the Canadian hostages. But I'd remind you that the purpose of hostage takers is political. I know you believe that a lack of a big bank roll and huge military means Canada isn't worth anything, but in fact we are worth a great deal. Canada is a fantastic nation admired around the world, and hostage takers would raise the profile of thier cause if they drag Canada into it. I'm amazed you don't understand the relevance of Canada in the world.

Yes. The comment was not concerning something that hadn't happened in Parliament yet. The comment was about a caucus meeting. Try to keep up.

Good try Geoffrey, but it's not really relavent. Harper promised discussion in Parliament about deployments. He's breaking that promise also. What's wrong about discussion, hmm?

Oh yeah, those stupid Muslims don't know anything. They're probably too stoopid to even know which Country those hostages are from! I mean, they don't even speak or read English, so they can't ask the hostages anything or read anything seized from them. Stupid Muslim extremists, huh?!

Are we allowed to say that now? Or make cartoons about it? Hey Western Standard, how about this for a cartoon: Show a couple of Jews sipping champagne and eating caviar in the lobby of a human rights museum. One is whispering to the other "Great building and good eats, huh? All we had to do is invent the holocaust!" That's illegal in this Country. I'll wait for the knock on the door now I guess.

What's "typical leftwing BS"? The truth? It was Harper who PROMISED during the election that Parliament would be responsible for overseas deployments. That means the issue is discussed in Parliament. Another broken promise by Harper on the heals of Emerson and that other guy...the one he appointed to the Senate AND the Cabinet. He's looking to distract small minds from his hypocrisy, so he gets up on his soapbox and acts like he's outraged over his own lie of Liberals not supporting troops. Cheap American-style politik.

Well, they care enough to take hostages, do you think they don't care about how they can leverage those hostages? Your argument that the hostage takers don't pay attention to what the government of thier hostages has to say about the situation is bizarre. My answer to your factual claim that "No one in Iraq even heard the statement" is simply that you don't know that. Therefore, you cannot make any conclusion about damage caused, as you did. Damage might have been caused, that is undeniable.

Your "take" on it is that you don't know what it means? If there is "media buzz" it generally means a story has been picked up and has a reasonable amount of legs...and the story morphs. This story went from 1. Mackay has new intelligence which indicates the hostages are alive. to 2. Mackay backs off from claims to 3. Mackay apologizes for what he said. It buzzzzzed for a few days as the story changed. Similar to how a story about an employee getting fired for pinching a girls a$$ might buzz around the office with different versions and new information for a few days. Hope that helps.

So our long-standing involvement in Afghanistan is not a role in the "global battle against terrorism", in your opinion. Now THAT'S supporting the troops!

Oh, here's a classic from the other day. Harper was giving a news conference...and started chastising Canadians about "support" for the troops. So now - like Bush - supporting the troops requires that you also support the mission. If a person was of the opinion that we shouldn't be in Afghanistan, then they're not supporting the troops. This is basically what he said. Typical rightwing BS, and it's been exemplified over and over again by Bush. Harper is a good student!

I notice some folks on this forum have already started accusing others of being "Harper haters". Accusations of "hate" have also been made towards anyone who critisized Bush since the beginning of his term as President. Coincidence, or typical attack by rightwingers?

What argument is a "straw man"? Be specific. You call the entire thread a straw man. That's ridiculous. It's a valid question by Betsy...Mackay was critisized for his comments. How is that "straw man"? And after accusing the thread of being a straw man you run off inventing new debates by yourself from what I can see. It's not 1) Do we or do we not know what's going on in hostage takers heads or.. 2) Do terrorists listen to the CBC. It's niether of those things. Stop whining about "straw man". You're the one guilty of inventing false issues here.

Well, I'm still waiting for you to explain which part is deniable shoop: This isn't junior high school, it's the internet. You can behave that way if you like I guess, but realize it is bad faith and you're not fooling anyone.

Well, you're making the point that sectarian violence could increase if the Americans leave. I suppose it might. There is a great deal of expert opinion at the moment which says the Americans are also increasing sectarian violence with thier presence because of the resentment it's causing (ie. Sunnis see Shiites as being supported by Americans). I think the violence will drastically decrease if Americans leave. My opinion, but I think there's a lot more evidence to back it up than there is for your own.