gerryhatrick

No prob, everyone makes mistakes. Your premise that leaving Iraq = not pursuing terrorists is false. Iraq, by the US militarys own admission, is largely a homegrown insurgency. Spain had the right idea. Now America needs to catch on, and it appears they're starting to. Now lad, nobody is whining here. 'Cept maybe betsy about poor Peter Mackay. No, I'm critisizing what he did. And I laid out the undeniable logic above. Are we now not allowed to critisize a member of the Harper government? Is this the accountability ya'll were talkin' about?

The Kurds are living peacefully in the North. The fact that 16% of them approve of attacks on American forces is still quite surprising. Differentiating between the Shiites and Sunnis is interesting, but the conclusion is the same. 41% is still a VERY high number of people to be saying they approve of Attacks on American forces. Do you agree that an American presence is increasing violence?

You complained about straw men arguments, and then floated one yourself. It is irrelavent if terrorists care what a man says or not. The issue is could drawing uneccessary attention to a hostage situation (as Peter Mackay did in this case) endanger the hostages. Obviously it could, which is why it's generally accepted that it should not be done. I think you mean Spain, and the reason the governing party got booted was because they lied about the terrorist attack that had just occurred...tried to blame it on the Basques when they knew it wasn't them. the revisionist version is the one your peddling. The new left leaning Spannish government has pursued terrorists without mercy.

Actually, no. He had said: "Stop being so egotistical to believe that anyone gives a shit about what MacKay says to the point that it gets broadcast on al-Arabia or al-Jazeera." And both you and Geoff miss the point anyway. It doesn't matter that it was the CBC (or reuters, or Globe & Mail, or Sun Media...all of which covered Mackay's comments and apology). It's the media buzz. If you google Canadian Hostages you get quite a lot of media buzz thanks to Peter Mackay. You're turning quite ugly shoop. Your denial of the obvious has been called out, and it seems to have made you quite angry. Pretty much every post of yours is including name-calling now. The simple and UNDENIABLE point is that making comments to the media as Mackay did creates media buzz. That cannot be disputed. The next simple and UNDENIALBE point is that nobody can predict how this increased media buzz might affect the behavior of the hostage-takers. Knowing thier hostage-taking has reached a higher profile could affect thier behavior. That is why it's generally accepted that authorities do not draw uneccessary attention to these situations.

No, get out and give them a chance. Get out and reduce thier suffering. It's quite simple. When almost half of the population says it's OK to attack US troops and 80% want the US out it's time for the US to leave. Regardless of intentions they're no longer effective...no longer able to rally any positive movement. Stop speaking in purely rhetorical terms and address the realities. Please.

You got me. It's nearly half: "Nearly half of Iraqis support attacks on U.S. troops, poll finds" http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews...aq/13750156.htm 80% of them want Americans gone. Do you have something to base this on or is it just your opinion? Oh, it's very easy to tell which is which. Insurgents attack coalition troops. Terrorists target civilians. I'm surprised you didn't know that. It's interesting how Bush likes to blur the line between them, don't you think?

It's not necessary for them to watch the CBC. They google, perhaps? It's beyond the pale to think they're not in tune to the reaction to thier hostage taking. Do you believe they're in a cave without electricity? Egotistical? Exactly how is it "egotistical" of me to say that Mackay might get noticed by the hostage takers? That makes no sense. And it's not necessary for what Mackay says to get "broadcast on al-Arabia or al-Jazeera". Don't be so naive.

It's not relevant. The principle that my scenarios explain..the concept behind them is common sense. Why do you not address that? As I wrote: "Put that asside though and honestly consider if you think drawing attention to the hostages as he did is - as a rule - considered helpful, unhelpful, or neutral in terms of endangering hostages." If you consider that a question, what is your answer? The fact that you haven't seen any is also irrelavent. The idea that if you draw attention to something you create more attention which can be noted by the hostage takers is undeniable. The effect of that on the hostage-takers is unknown, but common sense tells you it might be negative. That's why it's generally considered a bad idea to talk about hostage situations in public. How could anyone think that creating buzz in the media could possibly be a good thing??

Yes, I'm being sarcastic. But there is truth in it. Until the Americans leave, the violence will continue and grow. Bush screwed up by starting an uneccessary war and not planning for the aftermath. That's done. Now the desire to leave Iraq better than it was found is an honorable one...but unfortunately it's not possible for the Americans to accomplish that. Americans are the common enemy. It's not over there just fighting "terrorists", a MAJORITY OF IRAQIS feel attacks on Americans are justified. So, how is it possible for the Americans to broker security and peace there? It's not. America needs to leave. If civil war is going to break out, America can't prevent that. In fact, resentments caused by the American presence will only inflame sectarian violence. If Americans leave then insurgents that are focussing all energy fighting Americans will be able to turn thier attention to rooting out real terrorists in thier midst who's only goal is to kill Iraqi civilians to create unrest.

I'd love to debate things with you monty, but you always run off on false tangents. It's a well accepted truth that the majority of people held in Abu Garab and other American gulags are innocent. This is the opinion of more than one American intelligence officer. So, your defense of American torture by claiming that the victims of it are "Islamonazis" is empty. Your President (who you do march lock-step in with....the ports deal is one of the RARE times the US rightwingers take a bite out of each other) has completely f#$%ked up your future. The Iraq war and the torture of prisoners has only succeeded in creating more terrorists and enemies for your Country. That was YOUR canard, not mine!

The minister also said he believed the hostages had been moved several times. How was that giving encouragement to the families? Look, you can toss out that you think Peter Mackay was trying to offer encouragement and hope to the families. That's all very nice. Bravo Mr. Mackay. Put that asside though and honestly consider if you think drawing attention to the hostages as he did is - as a rule - considered helpful, unhelpful, or neutral in terms of endangering hostages. Do not continue to argue as you have....that unless there is specific proof of specific harm caused (ie. "hostage takers hear this, so decide to harm the hostages"), because obviously at this point there isn't any. It is not neccessary to prove the harm though. Mackay was critisized for making comments that MIGHT endanger the hostages. The fact that his comments might endanger the hostages is common sense. Here are possibilities in regards to that: Hostage takers get wrong impression (as others did) from Mackays words that new information is being gathered on them. They decide to cut and run, kill the hostages and flee. or... Hostage takers hear Mackay say "we" think they've moved several times. Hostage takers start to feel vulnerable and kill the hostages and flee. Or decide not to move anymore....which is perhaps the most opportune moment to rescue that might present itself. or... Hostage takers realize that they have a lot of attention from Canada...helped to that conclusion by Mackay opening his mouth. They decide to make new demands as a result. Do you see the common sense in these scenarios? Don't tell me you don't see the folly in what he did from a hostage safety standpoint. I'm not "screaming" partisanship lad, but it's hard to see any other explanation for your defense of the undefensable.

But you don't address the other point. Why not? Is it because...beneath your partisanship...you know it's true?

Oh, so THAT'S what getting up in front of the press and running his mouth was...an attempt to rescue them! Thanks for explaining that for us shoop.

Here's a clue. He was giving the same response given by the US Rightwingers who support the deal. See...you made a compartitive joke, and so did he! Oh no...we're all so grateful that an American honors us as you do by your presence here! America is so much better than Canada, really! Allow me to apologize to you for all of Canada for being smug and morally superior! Clearly you are morally superior! You have led the way in moral superiority with uneccessary war and widespread torture in foreign gulags. You ARE American, correct? You're not one of those self-loathing Canadians who wants to live in America but is too lazy to move so you tear down Canada, are you?

Exactly. Drawing attention to hostages is unhelpful, to say the least. Shoop is kidding himself; and losing credibility, to claim otherwise. It's stupid on many levels besides just the false hope he provided to the families. Hey Betsy & Shoop, have you heard the latest? http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...PStory/National http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentSe...72154&t=TS_Home

It would be nice if there was anything to this beyond accusations by Daniel Pipes. What a joke. Obviously you couldn't even be bothered to read the article, since it was written by Mira Boland, not Daniel Pipes. And you are claiming that Daniel Pipes is not an expert on the Middle East? What a joke! I'm claiming that he's a hateful, racist, POS. And regardless of who wrote the "article" my point stands. It would be nice if there was anything beyond accusations. I see you stole your headline from other blogs that have posted this tripe. Is the question mark at the end supposed to provide the neccessary rationalization for making an unfounded accusation? Guess so. How about this: "Pedophile ring being run from Stephen Harpers office?" Wow. Breaking news.

It would be nice if there was anything to this beyond accusations by Daniel Pipes. What a joke.

See my last post betsy. Same advice for you.

Well, I guess Peter McKay himself realizes it. He apologized to the families today for the very reason I expressed above. Guess I not only "made the case", it's proved true: http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...ckay060222.html Next time you're planning on jumping to the defense of someone purely for partisan reasons, stop and ask yourself if it's such a good idea. Consider all the gloating that will happen when the obvious truth is established and you end up looking....well, blindly partisan!

You CANNOT be serious. If you don't think a story like this: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...Story/National/ is....shall we say "unhelpful", then you're not much on international politics or personal respect (for the families). He is speaking as a Minister of our Government now...the Foreign Affairs Minister. If he thinks musing about the state of hostages and referring to "information" to that matter is innocent chit chat then he's got a learning curve he needs to get to work on. The media cannot be blamed. They reported his comments as follows: "“The most up-to-date information that we have leads us to believe that there will be — and we remain very optimistic — a safe release of these individuals,” he said in an interview." OBVIOUSLY that is going to be interpreted as "information" the Government of Canada has rather than public domain information. Surely you see that?

Intelligence?

What's to add? Commenting about "promises kept" in regards to Conservatives looking to scrap the gun registry is like commenting on the grass growing or the paint drying. I'm quite serious, who cares?

Still here I see betsy. When you talk about "Liberals", are you really referring to "gays"? You're all about the homosexuality, huh betsy? "easy-going" is code for "gay sex". "live and let live" is code for sex with children. But then, "gay sex" and "sex with children" are pretty much synonymous in your world, right betsy?

Does a bear shit in the woods? Who cares?

I think the allpoliticsnow.com site is talking about two Winnipeg papers being one-sided. Where is the one taking an opposing view?? The Toronto Star? It's got the biggest readership in Canada, you can't disagree that it holds the most power (or can you?). Well, if the Toronto Star was published in Winnipeg I guess that would be relavent. Duh. Winnipeg might be only 1/30th of Canadas population, but The Sun is pretty widespread and it's editorial attitude is repeated in all it's affiliates. You can't disagree with that.