PocketRocket

For reasons I needn't get into here, I had to knock on the door of a complete stranger earlier this evening. He greeted me at the door, with 2 huge, male retrievers in tow. One looked to be a Chocolate Lab, the other a Golden Lab. Both big dogs sniffed intensely, which is part of their duty when checking out a stranger in their house. When I held my hand out, palm up, in front of their faces (not above their heads, that is a threat position), they both had a sniff, and made it quite obvious that they were receptive to friendly advances. Within about 2 minutes, both of them were laying on the floor with me squatting over them, scratching one behind the ears, while the other was on his back accepting a belly-rub. Seriously, chum, I cannot recall EVER meeting a retriever that I was not able to become friends with within minutes. Another short personal story. My (now ex-) wife, my (now dead)dog and I, out for a long walk in the woods, came upon a farm. Three huge Black Labs come charging up the hill from the farm. Unknowingly, we had trespassed on someone's property, and these 3 brutes were coming to tell us so. I told my wife to stand still and let the dogs smell her. She was about 25-yards away from me. I had a rifle, so was not unduly worried about the dogs, but I also wanted her standing still JUST IN CASE I would have to shoot the dog checking her out. I held my dog in such a way that she was forced to remain in a sitting position, so she would not give any appearance of being a threat. While the dogs were checking us out, I just kept talking to them in a calm voice, the usual things, "Aren't you a big boy", "What a good boy you are". Within a minute or two, all three of these huge brutes were capering about, playing with me, the wife and my dog. They followed us about 1/3 of the way home, like an escort. Total strangers, trespassing on their home, and they became friends in no time. We frequently went back there, and each time the dogs greeted us like long-lost friends. JBG: All I can say is you must have had a string of bad luck in the retrievers that you've met. I've messed around with MANY of them, and never had any sort of problem at all. Or, you're pulling my leg. If that's the case, maybe I'm exceptionally obtuse when it comes to this subject because you SEEM to be serious about it. Whichever......have a good one....

So when a 10-Year old girls gets upset about having to take a shower and go to bed, what's the solution??? According to one parent and one Arkansas Police officer, the solution is to taser the kid. Granted, she sounds like a little hellion, but I cannot see that a fully-grown man, who is a cop to boot, cannot subdue a 65-pound kid without resorting to a taser...... http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/728622--cop-tasers-girl-for-resisting-bedtime First of all, a kid throwing a tantrum and/or refusing to bathe is, to me, NOT a reason to call police. Second, a tantrum is, to me, NOT grounds for threatening to jail a kid. This was a purely domestic issue between child and parent. I don't think the cops should even have been called on this one. The mother who suggested tasering the kid is in the same league as this joke of a cop. http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/9828/48/ Good thing she "stopped resisting". Gee. A 10-yr-old girl. If she had NOT stopped resisting, that poor cop could have been maimed.....or worse Did anyone stop and think that perhaps a wee spanking might get the job done???

After reading through about 8 pages of this thread, I got too lazy to continue with the reading as by that point the thread had strayed well off-topic. However, up to that point no one had addressed this....... From a link provided (I believe) by Gabriel........ A report which was "flimsy, inconsistent and unreliable". Colvin himself admitting that he only spoke with 4 detainees, and did not even know if they had been captured by Canadian troops. Sounds like this Colvin guy is simply out to make a reputation for himself. What are our troops supposed to do with the captured enemy or those suspected to be enemies??? Is there some sort of agreement between Canada and the Afghan authorities obliging our boys to hand over those that we've captured???

I'm sure we all hope for that. The simple fact of the matter is it only takes a very small minority to cause any group to have a bad reputation. Earlier in this thread you asked "Is there a peaceful Muslim?". I am personally acquainted with a few who are completely and utterly appalled at some of the acts committed in the name of Allah. I've also read many online entries with the same attitude. Now you have read some of those entries yourself, or if' you've not read them, you at least know they exist. You simply cannot paint an entire population with the same brush. Anyone who believes the world is such a well-defined black-and-white is deluding themselves. We live in a world made up of shades of gray.

What, the fact that his constituents feel he is the best man to represent them??? If and when Muslim parliamentary representatives become a problem, I'm sure we'll simply stop voting for them. Until they do, they are citizens with the same rights as you and I. Let what happen??? Let someone run for parliament, or let people vote for him??? Are you saying the Muslim MP's are radical??? Wow, That IS frightening. We're going to have Muslim parliamentary representatives??? Unbelievable!!! Who would have ever thought that someone who is not a Christian or Jew would ever sit in Parliament. Next thing you know we'll have black people, and perhaps even native people. A terrible thought, that!!! :rolleyes: *ahem* I imagine that it would be unsettling for non-Muslims who live in the area where the demonstration is planned. But I also realize that..... So, the rally may not happen, it was called for by a tiny minority of Muslim extremists, and so until something actually happens, it's a non-issue. Personally, I am more frightened by the equally psychotic rantings of many white-supremacy groups. If you're interested I could probably find you some links to some such groups, if you're not already a member.....

Someone displaying enthusiasm and optimism, in saying ........ .....is hardly a "vow" to dominate parliament. Needless to say, the video did not make me "shudder", although my shoulders did shake a bit as I laughed at the unfettered hyperbole introduced by OP.

That would be one reason. Someone once said (and I do not remember who) that the best, easiest way to bring down a government is to make the general population realize that their government is not capable of protecting them. So, if you don't have a big army with big guns, but still want to overturn a government..... I don't like it, but I suppose some of these people seem to think it'll be effective.

Something that does not seem to have been brought up is this; what arrangements have been made between our military and the Afghan government regarding these detainees??? Are we obliged through some pre-arranged agreement to hand over any captured enemies or suspects??? If that is the case, then they are simply doing what they're mandated to do. If the "authorities" in Afghanistan who are allegedly committing these acts of torture are indeed under the umbrella of the Afghan government, then are they any better than the people we're over there fighting???

:rolleyes:

Re: AP's decision to investigate Palin's book......they are able to make their own decisions for their own reasons and are not answerable to you or I. If you think they are liberally-biased, then at least you have the comfort of knowing there's 24-hrs/day of Republican-biased news coming out of Fox to balance the books. As to the oft-argued relevance of Palin, it seems to me that most, if not all, of the news I've heard on Palin in several months has been primarily focused around her private life, ie; daughter breaks up with boyfriend, Palin's marriage in trouble, Palin goes hunting again, Palin buys new wardrobe, and other such highly politically-charged news. You can do the math regarding her relevance in the actual political arena.

*GASP* :lol:

Partly for fun, partly for the reasons you give, but also because I do believe in at least one thing I have posted repeatedly in this and other threads, and that's not to pre-judge. I believe what I said was "probably guilty", but this still leaves room for doubt. As previously stated we here do not have all the facts. And that is all I've been saying in this thread. Probably guilty. Highly likely. Not completely certain, though. For this reason too, his trial will be important. One way or the other, it will dispel uncertainty. I fully agree that justice should be served, and hope it truly will be in this case. However, I recognize that I do not have the answer to whether or not he is guilty, no matter how much I may suspect he is. For this reason, I hope the trial uncovers all the facts, and the verdict is based on the truth of the matter, whatever truths may be revealed. Gabe, with that one single line you just put us in total agreement. "In your view". Well done. Your opinion. That wasn't so difficult now, was it??? :D You like that "summer camp" phrase, don't you??? Must've used it at LEAST 3 times to date. Good line. Gave me chuckles a couple times. And yes, there are mountains of evidence, much of which I've not seen yet, but that's cool. We seem to have come to an accord. Back atcha, friend.

G'day to you, Gabe. Okay. You don't want to show me any evidence, but will call me "willfully ignorant". Understood. Yet when I provide some evidence, it's blown off as "defense team lies", or, in the case of the re-written report, simply ignored. So the remaining argument is that he MUST be a terrorist because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Gabe, my interest in this thread is not so much Khadr's guilt or innocence, but rather the danger of making assumptions of guilt before all the evidence is in. In this thread I am playing devil's advocate simply because when my participation in this thread began, virtually every post had been calling for Khadr's head. Makes for a boring debate when there are no dissenting opinions, don't you think??? But this simple fact remains, that a couple of the points of argument I brought up remained completely unaddressed, or were simply glossed-over with bluster that "He's scum", or "He's a terrorist from a family of terrorists" or some such. You are not the only one doing this, you're simply the only poster here who has repeatedly engaged with me directly. As I said repeatedly, if he is found guilty, I'll be the first to cheer when the axe falls. Re-writing??? I simply posted historical points, with some tongue-in-cheek comment added. Seeing as you don't want to engage on the subject online, you seem to be doing just that. To reply to this, I'll simply say that if you keep destroying homes and infrastructures, and leave people in barbaric conditions, do you expect less than barbaric behavior???

It is absolutely their right to do so, you are correct. But it does not make THEM right. But you missed the point of my initial post. The reason I brought it up in the first place was because one member on this board stated, about another member, something to the effect of "Anyone who questions whether someone who is there is a terrorist, is actually a terrorist supporter himself and an enemy". That was what my initial comment was addressing. Just because someone offers a dissenting opinion does NOT make them a traitor. Simply questioning the guilt of a man who has not yet had his day in court does not constitute treason, and spouting such nonsense only further lowers the tone on this message board.

The vid you posted was good, but this is the one I prefer as a promotional vid for Canada.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpxQp3Hy5nk

LOL. That's cool, you can be my neighbour, I'll be your neighbor. in much the same way as a road kill is funny Only when she's talking Truth to tell, I have a grand total of about 15 minutes of Coulter-watching time under my belt. I enjoyed what she had to say, until she said something. Actually, she does have quite a quick wit. Just WAY too over the top for my tastes. A true media whore, though, and proud of it.

No, the invasion of Iraq was based on existing US policy, Public Law, violations of Gulf War surrender instruments, and a Congressional war resolution with yes and no votes....no "traitors" necessary. Actually, what I was referring to was the vilification by such media personalities as Anne Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and many others, along with many MANY people online who continued with the "You're a treasonous traitor" mantra to/about anyone who questioned Bush or his motives or plans for Iraq. And sorry, my memory may not be all that great, but it ain't so bad that I do not recall the battles in forums back at that time regarding Bush, Saddam, and the quest for WMD's. If you honestly believe Bush was on the up-and-up, feel free. You know what, I believe you're right. My mistake, probably due to not enough coffee . Thanks for the correction. Irrelevant only in that we refused to send troops there. Very relevant in that it continues a legacy of meddling in the internal affairs of other nations. It also has now provided a safe haven for Al Qaida and other terrorist groups where there was none before. And yes, I am very relaxed, but I thank you for your concern Good post, and thanks again for the correction.

Didn't interfere enough??? You're kidding, right??? Lets keep it to the 20th century. 1918 with Britain and France divide the Middle-East between them in the Sykes-Picot Agreement. At the same time British promised the international Zionist movement support in creating a Jewish homeland in Palestine. This was the Balfour Declaration. Around the same time, Arabs founded an independent state in Damascus. But Britain and France put down this new state and divide the territory as they see fit. I guess it didn't occur to either Britain or France that the people already living there might not agree with having their lands divided up this way, but hey, that's just the start. We haven't even reached 1920 yet. Onward.... 1919, when Saad Zaghlul, later to become Prime Minister of Egypt, led mass demonstrations against the British colonial powers there. In repressing these demonstrations the Brits killed over 800 people. Syria and Lebanon became French protectorates. Britain took over in Iraq and Palestine. Britain also supports Ibn Saud in taking over most of the Arabian Peninsula to found Saudi Arabia. Enough meddling by the west for you yet??? No??? Okay, there's plenty more.... In 1920, Syrian and Iraq both revolted against their respective occupying nations, France and Britain. Both revolts were violently put down. Independent Kingdom of Egypt was created in 1924. It was a neutral country, but that didn't stop the Brits from occupying it during WWII. 1941, Brits invade Iraq.....again. Syria and Lebanon are invaded by a combination of Allied forces. No wonder we're all so popular over there. So after WWII was done and dusted, several of these countries, tired of being tossed about by the western nations, were quite pleased to receive some support from Russia. Of course the USA could not stand by and watch the USSR developing friends in the M.E., and so started courting friends of her own. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iran and the Persian Gulf emirates were among these new playmates. Of course the fact that their rulers were despots, murderers, liars etc etc etc, didn't matter then. It was quite alright to give money, weapons and ammunition to such countries so they could kill other Middle-Easterners who were getting THEIR arms and ammunition from the USSR. In the 1970's the worm started to turn. America, who had become quite good bedfellows with Saudi Arabia, had been walking a tightrope because as well as wooing the Saudi's, the USA was also supporting Israel in her ongoing struggle in the M.E. Tough job, playing both ends against the middle...... Anyway, the Palestine Liberation Organization arose, and started a violent campaign against Israel and her supporters in the west, including America. Iran, Iraq, Syria and Libya all provided varying degrees of support to the PLO. Interesting in that this is the point where weapons provided by the USA are now beginning to be use AGAINST the USA and her M.E. interests. This kind of sparring between USSR and USA continued on until the fall of the USSR. I'm sure we're all aware of the Iran-Contra scandal, the weapons provided to Saddam, and so many more little incidents of western nations trying to turn one dictator against another to further the interests of the western nations in this area. Is it any wonder that many of the people in this Godforsaken part of the world have a serious hate-on for the west???

That's possibly the smartest thing that's been posted to this thread to date.

Is that what he's doing??? Is that even him??? But hey, thanks for the link. I've been asking for more links to more info for 3 days on this thread. Any more links or info you can provide I would welcome. Whoops, missed your actual question which was how I feel about it. Well, my friend, if that is indeed him doing what you say he's doing, then may he burn.

Not stupid. Thanks, Gabe, that's the nicest thing anyone's said to me all day. I feel the same about you, an intelligent guy with whom I sometimes disagree. Ain't we both just wunnerful??? No, I think he was there because his family was there, and being somewhat aware of some Taliban attitudes, he was probably forced to be there by his father. Would not be the first time that a 15-yr old was somewhere against his will due to the command of his dad. Yes, you've said that before. But when I searched for quite some time online, I found little of the evidence you speak of. I have asked repeatedly in this thread for someone, ANYONE, to post some links showing some of this evidence. Instead, all I have to go on is the Wikipedia link, and a few others I found myself, which I have cited in this discussion. PLEASE show me a link to more evidence than I've seen so far. I may end up agreeing with you. I may not. But you cannot simply continue saying there is a huge amount of evidence and expect me to take your word for it, especially when all that evidence is so difficult to find online. See previous comment. As to the operational status of my brain, that depends on time of day and how much coffee I've had. What I do realize is that he was in Afghanistan, that he was with his family, and that he was found by a US soldier laying face-down in a pile of rubble with two gunshot wounds in his back. I realize the PENTAGON leaked evidence saying that the original report cited another Afghani as having thrown the grenade. I realize that the report was later altered to implicate Khadr AFTER the first man who was implicated died of his wounds. I have yet to see anything about his being glad he killed a US soldier except in your postings here. AGAIN I ask, PLEASE find me the link to this. I do not want to blind in this case, which is why I keep on asking for links. You say you learned most of what you know from Canadian internet media. Good. Show me some links. Please. My purpose in mentioning the, "With us or agin' us" was not to do with Bush's statement to other nations, it was more in regards to the way many of his sycophants took up the same cry when dealing with anyone who disagreed with the war in Iraq. That war, as we are all now aware, was based on lies. Yet in its early days, anyone questioning Bush's motives for going there was branded traitor, coward or worse. A few on this thread have mouthed similar attitudes, if not the exact words. The fact that I am debating this with you does not make me a traitor to Canada. It makes me someone who wants to know ALL the facts before I pass judgment. I agree to some extent. Yes, we should all be pitching in to help eliminate, or at least reduce, terrorism. But for Bush to say what he said, well, the man was a bloody lying hypocrite. If he was so intent on the "war on terror", why didn't he go after Bin-Laden and Afghanistan first??? Why Iraq??? WMD's??? That's what Bush said, but that was a crock, as were so many of his follow-up stories about why the USA was there. The only thing Bush really accomplished in Iraq, was to leave a power vacuum. Hussein HATED Bin-Laden and AlQaeda. By removing him, Bush effectively opened the door to Iraq to terrorists of all stripes. Yes, Hussein was a murderous ass, but as long as he was in Iraq, AlQaeda treaded very carefully in that area as they knew that he'd put them to the knife with no provocation. All these things considered, Bush's words ring hollow. We are indeed on the right side. I applaud the efforts of our troops in Afghanistan, and everywhere else that Canada's troops have served. A proud tradition. I agree that the world would be a FAR better place without Talibans and AlQaedas et al. But I question, based on the evidence I have seen so far, the guilt of one 15-yr old kid who was in Afghanistan because his father forced him to be there. So again, PLEASE show me links to more evidence than I have seen so far, because from what I've seen, this is nowhere near being the open-and-shut case you say it is. As an aside, good job with your comments. Well-spoken and respectfully delivered. It's truly a joy to debate with you.

He was "found" buried face-down in a pile of rubble with two bullets in his back. We have yet to see any conclusive evidence that he was fighting. Difficult to fight from that position, don't you think??? At fifteen years of age he would be where his parents tell/force him to be. Not his fault if he was there against his will. The fact that he was simply on the scene, especially at that age and still under the orders of his father, does not make him a terrorist. If ample evidence is brought forward and he is found guilty, I'll cheer right along with you when they draw the noose. But I refuse to put myself in the position of being judge and jury, as some here, yourself included, are doing, especially when all the facts are not yet in.

Please cite some examples, because that is certainly NOT what he said in the post in question.

Sorry, hit wrong button.

You are disgusting.....you call them freedom fighters??????? :lol: Deleted the rest of post since it was more of same, but, LMFAO. And to think I was accused of poor reading comprehension on this board. Um....WULF...eyeball is NOT saying that these people are freedom fighters. I'm not sure if I should help you with this or let you figure it out on your own. Meh. Since you're so sure that anyone who even suggests that Khadr MAY be innocent is "disgusting", you're on your own. Read the post again. If necessary, get someone to help you.