bud

double post.

*ding*

the sanctions on iraq created much suffering to the civilians but it never brought down saddam. so if the sanctions on iraq didn't work, why do you think they will work this time?

you accept that bombs from airplanes will fall and kill innocent civilians, like the weddings that were bombed by NATO forces in afghanistan. i wonder how disfigured the women and children were after the 2 ton bombs were dropped on them. you live in an illusion that you're morally civilized. you're not.

your acceptance of the loophole of killing innocent civilians is 'collateral damage'.

you're no better than those who accept others killing innocent people under whatever loophole the killers present.

and they accept civilian losses under whatever loophole that they've created. you're no better.

see. you accept it.

we're talking about our cultures and the moral gage. when we accept and condone pressing buttons while knowing that innocent civilians will be killed (whether it's 98% or 50%), then our announcements on moral superiority have absolutely no weight.

my point was that we have shitty things in our culture as well. we need to accept that our moral standard is lacking as well. for example, there are people who condone and accept imperialism and military attacks while knowing that these attacks will kill civilians and bring pain and misery to people. the drone attacks in pakistan have a 2% success rate. meaning that of 100 people killed by these drone attacks, only 2 people are terrorists. our governments are okay with this and many people in the western culture are okay with this. i'm sure there was a time when europeans also looked at crusades to be acceptable as well. one day we'll look back in history and acknowledge the problem with our western culture where we accepted the disgusting acts of militarism and colonial savagery. our acts are directly linked to our behaviour in different parts of the world.

seeing the reaction of the people who accept this type of response to a photo (or videos or words) is a reminder how ugly the culture of some of these people can be. i'm also reminded everyday in how ugly our western culture can be when our governments and some of the people condone and cheer violent attacks, usually done by the military, that kill thousands of innocent people.

hey look, i am responding by pressing reply, otherwise, i have added nothing.

these drone attacks are as cowardly as lining 50 people up in front of a firing squad just so they can kill 1 so-called terrorist. the double standard and hypocrisy by those who, in one breath are so outraged by terrorist attacks committed by 'those people', while at the same time, they defend these savage attacks which leave so many more innocent civilians killed or maimed, is astounding. of the 98% innocent people being killed by american drones in pakistan, i wonder how many of their family members will now be turning to groups who want to take revenge on the west.

doesn't matter how much outrage you have, at the end, he was a child soldier.

this is a last ditch effort to save the liberal party. trudeau winning the leadership will be good for he conservatives as the ndp will lose some of the votes they gained from the liberals in the last election. i'd hate to see it happen, but we might even have a merging of the two parties, much like the reform and the pc did. trudeau has the charisma and the potential to be the prime minister, but it's more than likely it won't happen in a few years.

yes. people cannot have a discussion with him. you should spend less time being a hypocrite and trying to project your own shortcomings and more time responding to discussions which you've left unfinished. you can start here.

ooh! the anti-semite card and mention of protocols of the elders of zion for suggesting that the israeli lobby has influence over harper. look at these anti-semites who happen to be semite canadians:

essential viewing: a review of the documentary:

legal experts at stanford and new york university are obviously working for the terrorist PR department. The expansive use of "double-tap" drone strikes is just one of a number of more recent phenomena in the covert war run by the US against violent Islamists that has been documented in a new report by legal experts at Stanford and New York University. The product of nine months' research and more than 130 interviews, it is one of the most exhaustive attempts by academics to understand – and evaluate – Washington's drone wars. And their verdict is damning. Throughout the 146-page report, which is released today, the authors condemn drone strikes for their ineffectiveness. Despite assurances the attacks are "surgical", researchers found barely 2 per cent of their victims are known militants and that the idea that the strikes make the world a safer place for the US is "ambiguous at best." Researchers added that traumatic effects of the strikes go far beyond fatalities, psychologically battering a population which lives under the daily threat of annihilation from the air, and ruining the local economy. They conclude by calling on Washington completely to reassess its drone-strike programme or risk alienating the very people they hope to win over. They also observe that the strikes set worrying precedents for extra-judicial killings at a time when many nations are building up their unmanned weapon arsenals. link

you're absolutely right. they flew those planes for no reason and now we're the victims here. sorry women and children, i wish we weren't the victims, but we are. i need mr. canada here to drive home the message.

based on what, it's suspect?

Iran agency picks up Onion article as fact

you're an awesome character.

who are the terrorists again?

that's where you're wrong. my comments have never been about 'jews'. some of the leading activists against the zionist ideology and aipac's power over us' foreign policy are jewish. there are many jews who are against zionism. so no, that's not what i mean. despite not seeing eye to eye on different issues, i'm glad to see that you've not only spoken out against the anti-holocaust laws, which you also believe is censorship and against freedom of speech but you also agree that anti-semitism is overly used. that said, pam geller is a racist and the name "stop islamization of america" is racist. a racist person such as geller should never be given the benefit of the doubt and all of her work should be looked at based on who she is as a person.