bleeding heart

I agree.

The Scandanavian countries are more regressive and oppressive on this matter than Canada is.

He's been incarcerated for quite some time, and remains so.

I said "the current government notwithstanding." The current government is not a typical Canadian Conservative government on matters of firearms. Your remark, if anything, adds credence to my claim, rather than refutes it. Sure, occasionally. But I think it's rare. And to be blunt, I would consider both such single-issues voters to be morons.

Yes, everyone keeps talking about these examples, but oddly, no one wishes to pony up on irritants like facts and details. The details matter. Every time a criminal is killed, it is not an identical situation. I assume you're joking, because in this hypothetical, the stabber is a far worse and more repugnant criminal than is the burglar.

for one of the most egregious examples, Canada's military aid to Indonesia was expressly used for massive state terror--terror far worse than anything Hezbollah or Hamas, those contemporary demons which cause such consternation have ever managed. Canada's military aid was for the purpose of Indonesia's ongoing slaughters in East timor...which were understood all along to be occurring. This is direct, intentional complicity in State Terrorism; this is intentional collusion in mass murder, which makes Canada as bad as the Indonesian Generals themselves, as well as the terror Militias (which received training from American forces, bypassing American law through some preposterous semantic acrobatics). The UK, and especially the US, were even more eagerly helpful to the killers and rapists...but morally, I'd place us all on equal footing; that is, awful. Hell, part of the justification for a war on Iran is based on far, far less severe aid to terrorists. Now, I'm predicting a "Cold War" justification, not necessarily from you...but terrorist-apologists always pipe up in this way, and at this point. So while I can easily argue against that silliness as justification, I'll for now only point out that it's moot to the main argument: the existence of Western backing for massive terrorist atrocities, and (thanks to knowing about it, not caring, keeping publically mum, and supporting it all) making us a "terrorist state," at least so far as Iran or Pakistan are. (Though that's unfair...to them, since the terrorism we materially aid and diplomatically support is way worse.)

For the sake of this discussion, I am avoiding the word "terrorism" for matters that it well might apply: say, the assault on Fallujah, or Nixon's "anything that flies on anything that moves" dictum. I am sticking with designations that are broadly agreed-upon: either state or sub-national agents intentionally killing and terrorizing civilian populations for political ends--outside of direct, conventional warfare. I am taking what I think is a more-than-fair, even generous stance for the sake of the argument, in other words.

Have you made a similar suggestion to those labelling Official Enemies in the same way? A rhetorical question; I don't think you have. Why not? Since it's flatly untrue, it doesn't exactly touch a nerve. At any rate, since I am wholesale opposed to all terrorism--period--it would be a pretty rich allegation. Especially coming from posters who do endorse terrorism--provided it's for a "good cause" (ie "lesser evilism," as we battle the sinister forces etc etc....) Are you saying I should not verbally oppose Western terrorism...and shouldn't even name it as such? Seriously? In that case, how do we rename Western terrorist actions?

http://en.wikipedia....Toetag_Pictures Let's wait and see what happens before we declare the End of Free Speech as we know it.

[ No...Peeves' remarks were based on the lovely idea that if anyone is accused--by anyone--of anti-semitism, then they are in fact anti-semites. Meaning if I accuse Peeves of it, it is therefore accurate. Of course I disagree with this craziness--so do you, as you've sanely pointed out more than once. Glad you enjoy my posting style. I aim always to please!

Well, Canada, The United States, the UK, for starters. (I single them out only for the sake of brevity, and because of the close political and international-military relationship.) And to clarify, I'm not personally crazy about the term "terrorist states," since terrorism alone doesn't define them (any of them) and because it's so widespread as to make "terrorist states" close to useless as a descriptor. But if we are going to use the term--for Official Enemies, in the usual formulation--then I think we have to be as objectively even-handed as possible, to avoid discussions being entirely predicated on nationalist propaganda...but more to the point, for the simple sake of honesty and accuracy.

What I'm trying to get at is the fundamental disconnect: how can terrorist states be conducting a "war on terror"?

dp again...sorry!

dp

It would be--I mean literally--suicide. I don't recommend it either.

Or "Two buttocks on the same fat gentleman." (I think that's the late Christopher Hitchens, but am not sure.)

No one has "proven" that the law "needed" changing; only that it was. Tell that to those who disagree with the "need" for any alteration of any laws. Start with abortion, I guess, and go from there. My point being: proof has been requested, and offers of evidence have been declined. As usual, we are left with a single example, and claims of a handful (at best) of others.

Hey, thanks for the spoiler, bro'! (Just kidding...threads like this one, you takes your chances.)

I'm not sure there's any genuine appetite to win a "war on terror," and I don't really think any such thing actually exists, anyway. Besides, if the world's dictators declared a "War on Dictatorships," I doubt many of us would take the claims of the "war's" directives seriously.

No one will convince Shady, or kraychik, or a few others. On the other hand, some of us appreciate and listen to the more sane voices...so keep it up!

Well yeah, especially since she already responded, explicitly, to this very charge. You'd think she didn't even respond at all, if Shady's answer is any indication.

But again, this is a single example. And even given the fact that there are no doubt others, to assume that "the courts don't work in favour of the victim" means that some sort of ongoing trend is needed to support this allegation.

You'd think that might be a slight issue for "the leader of the free world," and for an American Imperium generally.

To say that anarchists don't believe in law and order is only selectively true, and there are plenty of debates among anarchists. Certainly, the matter is, let's say, intellectually-underdeveloped, but the debates and discussions rage on, which is only proper. At any rate, you migth be too easy on right-leaning libertarians; they are also highly remiss about articulating their favoured social order, too-often degnerating into a (by default) anarcho-libertarian stance....a more savage project outside of formal tyranny would be hard to imagine. Unlike left-libertarians (who doubtless too have all kinds of unanswered problems), right-wing libertarians are usually self-damaged either by social conservatism (which is almost always statist) or their anarcho-capitalist tendencies...which is almost deterministically predicated on unelected de facto rule by the wealthy.

Wow. What the hell?