PocketRocket

This was in a response to Gabriel's post addressing something I had said, so I'll pick it up.Show me where I was defending an "animal"??? In another thread I was definitely speaking out AGAINST an animal, a violent chimp in the USA, and I don't mean Bush. In this thread all I have done is criticized the fact that many people are passing judgment when we do not have all the evidence, and where some of the evidence we DO have, ie; the report implicating Khadr, was, according to THE PENTAGON, changed after the fact. All I have said is that there is a POSSIBILITY that Khadr is innocent of the charge of throwing the grenade. In this regard I am absolutely correct. There IS that possibility. Unless you are in possession of some magical crystal-ball with which you can see events both past and present from far off lands, then you have no more evidence that the rest of us, certainly not enough to say with absolute certainty that Khadr threw that grenade. I simply do not buy into the "lynch mob" mentality. If he's guilty, hang him. If not, then address the situation appropriately.

:lol: Sorry, Gabriel. Your posts are generally pretty intelligent, even though we sometimes disagree. This, however, rings of GWBush's hardline, extreme-right supporters. "If you aren't with us, you're against us" It makes him a "terrorist supporter"??? Sorry, friend, but it's all a bit over-the-top. Too similar to the rhetoric we heard in the USA when some people suggested there were no WMD's in Iraq. While I do not think of Taliban as the Afghani version of the home guard, remember back in the 80's when the US government, among others, was helping fund the Taliban in their fight against the USSR. At that time they WERE considered to be defending their country from invaders. Now they're trying to keep the USA and her allies out rather than the Russians. At what point exactly did Taliban turn from baddies to goodies??? When their usefulness as against the USSR had expired??? When they started fighting "us" instead of "them"??? If the Taliban suddenly turned their attention against North Korea, would that make them "goodies" again??? Again, the world just ain't quite so black-and-white and speculating on various viewpoints, or even playing devil's advocate, are hardly grounds to call someone a traitor.

Gabriel & ba1614: What no one here seems to be addressing is the fact that..... ....and also the fact that the original report did NOT name Khadr, but the report was changed later. That was quoted in my earlier link. Not sure if you caught it or not. This is not the speculation of his defense lawyers, this is the Pentagon, you know, the big five-sided building????Now admittedly, I had not heard that he had confessed to the tossing of the grenade. If this is true, this puts an entirely different complexion on things. However, after googling the phrase "Omar khadr confession", I got this as the first link that came up......http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/11/14/omar-khadr%E2%80%94closer-to-home/ Kind of tough finding much on the circumstances surrounding the confession. We know there was torture in various forms at Gitmo. Is there truth in the suggestion that Khadr's "confession" was the result of torture??? We do not know this. So many facts that we do not have access to here. In any case, I hope the trial reveals truth, one way or the other, and that action appropriate to that truth is taken. My beef here, as in another thread a while back, is not what happens to him after he's had his day in court, but rather the immediate assumption of guilt when all the evidence is not yet in. Gabriel: You said that Khadr said he was "proud" that he killed a US soldier. I've not been able to find anything of that sort online. Can you give me a link to that, please.

Kudos to you both. Nice to see people who can argue a point vociferously, and then moments later still just sit down and have a chuckle with each other. Nice.

Absolutely right in saying many people in many nations believe their country is the best. Also correct in saying a lot (not all) of Americans are more boisterous about saying so. Good word, that; "boisterous". The arrogant are, as anywhere, a small minority, but a very vocal one. I think the outide perception of arrogance stems from the fact that many on-air and published personalities incessantly tout the USA as "The greatest country". This sort of thing, being broadcast around the world on a continual basis, surely would stoke the fires further. In the USA, as anywhere else, I believe the vast majority of people are good and kind, and would go out of their way to help out someone in distress. All in all, despite our differences of opinion and sometimes heated exchanges, I am proud to call the USA my friend and neighbor. Not sure how the USA at large feels about me personally. Perhaps you can ask Obama for me Which is further cause for the country being under the microscope. Well, we do have Anne Coulter. Not a politician, but certainly loud. Good post, AM, with some fine insights. I believe I comprehended most of it, too

LOL......who said I ever grew up???

Back to topic...... After checking out the link posted to the Oprah show, I hardly know what to say. I would definitely NOT be as charitable as the victim seems to be. The chimp's owners should be taken to the cleaners on this, especially after having been warned repeatedly, after having to weld the cage back together after the chimp had tantrums. I cannot fathom what goes through the minds of people who insist on keeping dangerous pets. I'm quite comfortable with my two housecats, thank you very much. One of them occasionally scratches, but seeing as he hides when anyone comes to visit, the only one I have to worry about him scratching is me.

I'm not sure if you're making a joke here, or if you're serious. In case it's the former, I've known many retrievers of both the varieties you mention among others. Can't recall any of them being particularly nasty. I've always thought of retrievers as being among the more tractable breeds.

Sometimes women can be....well.....incomprehensible

I started digging a bit deeper as I've spent some, but not much, time looking into this affair. Here's another link that gives the timeline of the attack by US troops, and how it supposedly went down.... http://www.thestar.com/specialsections/omarkhadr/article/717885--omar-khadr-innocent-in-death-of-u-s-soldier So the terrorist compound had already been attacked, presumably bombed as part of the attack came from the air. During this time, Khadr seems to have been already lying face down and half-buried in the rubble of a collapsed building, with two gunshot wounds in his back. Interesting........ .....this particular troop wants to see Khadr take the fall for the deed. He doesn't, however, seem to concerned over whether or not the lad was actually guilty as evidenced by this..... "I think he was part of it" So many people do, but again, a 15-yr old kid goes where his parents tell him to go. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time, no question. The question is.....Did he throw the grenade???

Well, he was living there, yes. Was he fighting??? That remains to be determined. As for WHY he was living there, he was brought there by his parents. A kid in his early teens hardly has a choice in the matter of where his family is going to live. As for him being guilty of "many more crimes", you have high expectations of such a young kid. As for this being a "case closed", well, that remains to be seen. There is a difference here. Major Hassan was seen by many witnesses carrying out his act. He has also admitted carrying out the act. Kadr has maintained his innocence, and the evidence against him, if so certain, would likely have resulted in a trial long ago. I already posted this but seeing as you either ignored it or missed it...... Why did they originally claim it was someone else??? Why did they, after the fact, change their report to implicate Kadr??? Is it because the guy they originally implicated was killed??? Were they simply looking for someone else to hang this on??? Was it a case of "Well, he's here, he must be guilty of SOMETHING. Let's place the blame in him". Wouldn't be the first time. Consider the 80-year old blind man that needs two canes to walk who has been held in Gitmo for years. I'm sure HE was a threat. Why is it that no one seems to think that it would be difficult to toss a grenade when you're buried in rubble, or did you not read that par either??? Was his father a terrorist??? Evidence suggests he was, but that does not answer the previous questions I've posed here. There were even suggestions that the soldier supposedly killed by the grenade supposedly thrown by Kadr may have actually been killed by friendly fire. Of course we can't be believing THAT now, after all, no one has ever been killed by friendly fire from US troops before It would be interesting to see what an autopsy would turn up. There is FAR more to this case than meets the eye, and this jackal-like baying for the boy's blood does nothing to help find the truth.

My, but we're a bloodthirsty lot. The case is hardly cut-and-dry. From the Wikipedia link provided by MadMax..... So the original report was changed to include the accusation against him. What prompted this change??? Find the answer to that and we'll be one step closer to the truth. This can be taken with a grain of salt unless an autopsy were to show that the soldier in question had died as a result of bullet wounds rather than shrapnel from a grenade. But it's lawyers doing what lawyers do. However..... So was he lying under the rubble when the grenade was thrown, or did this happen later??? Lot's of tough questions here. I don't envy the jury on this one.But one thing is certain, there is plenty of grounds for doubt. I applaud the lad being put on trial, but the assumption of guilt before he's had his day in court is simply not on.

But....but....but my English teacher gave me a gold star.....

Opinions can be expressed without tossing eggs, and would likely be taken more seriously if expressed in a less juvenile fashion. However, the protesters wanted attention, which they seem to have gotten, so now I guess everyone's happy, except for those who find such actions by their countrymen embarrassing.

GostHacked: I agree that keeping a close eye on this guy is a good idea. Still cannot say for certain he's a terrorist, though. Could just be some wise guy playing the "profiling" game for personal gain through lawsuits. But seeing as he broke some fairly serious laws in his border-crossing, there may well be adequate grounds to deport him, which would solve the problems that could arise as a result of either scenario.

Yup. It seems it has indeed been removed.

Based on this...... ....my tendency would be towards NOT believing him. Living in the USA for 17 years, he's certainly absorbed enough about their law, and probably ours, to know that carrying nearly a million in gold across a border is going to cause questions to be asked. Something smells fishy, especially in light of the fact that... According to that CBC piece, he says....... Maybe his acts were a deliberate attempt to provoke "profiling"-type behaviour to set himself up to be able to win another big lawsuit, this time at the expense of Canadian taxpayers. Luckily...... .....and in so doing may convince him that any such lawsuit is likely going to go against him.Don't know if this guy is terrorist material or not, but he's definitely playing some sort of game.

Seeing that American Woman's comment, to which this was the reply, was directed at me, I can only assume this comment is ABOUT me.... ....Someone once said that violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. On the internet, personal insults are about as close to violence as you can get. Do the math.

Try to comprehend what I'm commenting on ... and what I said I'm not interested in. And if you manage to do that, let me know ..... and then perhaps I'll read what you have to say ...... I would assume those two quotes are connected. And yet if you're not interested you still immediately follow with...... ....in which you're not only back to drawing comparisons, but also speculating on what you think Harper would become if HE were in charge of "another United States". I believe I comprehend quite well in this case.

For someone who could not be less interested, you seem to be like a rottweiler with a grip on the mailman's leg....you cannot seem to let go. Unfounded speculation, something for which you've scolded others. I expect better from you. I haven't made excuses for Harper. I don't see that he's done the job any worse than many others who've held his post. But regarding his election, even if he is as poor a choice as Bush, something upon which I do not agree, he has still not been elected to a second term, although if the competition doesn't get smart, that may well happen. Contrarily, there were some worthy opponents running against Bush.....

Back on topic, many say that the similarity between Americans and Canadians is noteworthy. I don't see it that way. Consider that the two countries were founded at virtually the same time, in the same way, with lots of cross-pollination between the borders. Both were built by immigrants who tamed wild frontiers. Both went through separation pains from their parent countries. Both saw internal wars fought. Both had cowboys, indians, buffalo, beaver, various wildcats, bears, wolves elk, deer, etc etc etc. Both began their existence based largely on their fur trades. If all else remained the same, but the two countries were on opposite sides of the planet, there would still be similarities; look at the Aussies, aside from their accent, not much to distinguish them from us. Is it any wonder the two countries are so similar??? As an aside which does relate to this thread, a friend and I were speaking a while back. It started with the NFL. He made the observation (tongue in cheek again, AM) that no matter what they are participating in, the USA is not satisfied with being anything but "world champions". He pointed out that whoever wins the Superbowl is declared "World Champions". Of course the fact that the game is not played on any other continent makes no matter here. But it doesn't stop with the NFL. The NBA......World Champs. Did anyone invite any European teams to compete??? World Series of Baseball......World Champs. Did anyone invite any Japanese teams to compete??? It's almost like professional wrestling where every regional promotion used to have their own "World Champ". Doesn't matter that there's another world champ less than 100 miles away. Back when Canadian teams dominated the NHL, we were quite happy to call them "Stanley Cup Winner" or "NHL Champions", in effect acknowledging the fact that not all the hockey-playing nations in the world had been represented. Why this need of Americans to affirm their superiority??? Someone earlier in this thread mentioned that Canadians suffer from insecurity. Isn't a symptom of insecurity the need to congratulate oneself constantly about how wonderful one is??? Hmmmmm. I don't see too many large groups of Canadians, on their home soil at large sporting events chanting "Ca-na-da". OTOH, you can barely turn to any sporting event involving American teams without suffering through the perennial "U-S-A.....U-S-A" being chanted by tens of thousands of people. Why this need of Americans to affirm their general wonderfulness??? Even back to the Atlanta Olympics. Tradition, for over a hundred years, has dictated that the winner of the 100-yard dash is known as "The world's fastest man/woman". And yet, when Donovan Bailey won that race in Atlanta, suddenly the American who won the 200-meter race was the world's fastest, at least in all the American media. America simply made itself look ridiculous in the eyes of the world by taking this stance. Change the rules, or at least the tradition, just to say "We have the world's fastest man"??? So tell me again, as a nation, who is more insecure??? Why is it that after any such event, there are tens of thousands of Americans chanting "We're number one, we're number one"??? Is a silver medal such a shame??? I know I'm Canadian. I know my country is great. (Does not necessarily make ME great, but...) I don't have to tell myself or anyone else how wonderful Canada is. Those that have been here know. Yes, I am a proud Canadian, and when Elvis Stojko wins silver at the Olympics, I have no shame in saying "We're number two".

Weeeeeelllllll....the crack about Bush was at least a LITTLE bit tongue-in-cheek. And I would content that Harper is not even CLOSE to being another Bush, at least not unless he got a lobotomy that no one told me about. For one thing he is semi-articulate....... If you really want to make that single one-liner an issue, we can go around in circles on this indefinitely, but to compare ANYONE to Bush is silly. He was possibly the least-intelligent, worst-spoken, most-self-contradicting and self-congratulatory waste of flesh ever seen as the leader of a free nation. I would tend to compare Harper more to Bush senior or Reagan that to Bush Jr. But we are drifting, for which I already scolded someone else. If you want a serious debate on comparisons of Harper vs anyone else, then open another thread on it. Personally, I am not interested.

I've always liked that joke, and all it's analogs. True again, but to many among the "unwashed masses", whoever is running is "the best available". There is some truth in that, if "available" simply means "has been pushed to the front of the party".

Two thumbs up for this. You beat me to it, but I left mine up anyhow.

Especially since, given your views that I should not have been allowed at the 2005 CPC convention, you don't want Americans to articulate anything about Canada. Or perhaps since you're so blitheringly inarticulate yourself. Are you still telling the same lie jbg? I said nothing of the sort and have pointed this out to you more than once. I have quoted exactly what I did say more than once. Your lies say more about you than they do about me. And I don't have to be anti-American to call you on it. I just have to be anti-liar. Your nationality has no bearing in the matter I am not going to dig back through posts made in July or August 2006 to expose the fact that you are lieing. Your response is a smokescreen, itself belied by the post I responded to. The purpose of the smokescreen is to avoid showing that you are intellectually incapable of saying anything about Canadian identity. You know jbg, I'm sick of this. I've proven time and again that you are lying. Enough, just enough. If you can't add to the topic, just leave. This personal attack is unwarranted and against the rules. You get what you give. Now, please express your thoughts on Canadian identity. It seems to me we have drifted a bit, but into two different issues. First we have JBG accusing FORTUNATA of being a liar, apparently for something said several months ago. Well, JBG, since this is a publicly-made accusation, and not all of us were here at that time, then the onus is on you to show evidence to back up your words, so kindly cite the posts in question, please, or else take your argument into private messages between the two of you. I am sure I'm not the only member who isn't interested in a "Youe lie", "Do not", "Do so", schoolyard-type spat. The second issue you've drifted into is the old Canadian Identity thing. Well, there is already a thread open on that issue, so why not discuss it over there???