Smallc Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 Do you support the Tamil Tigers who killed their own people and used them as shields? No, and Rae has said that he doesn't support them either. He supports the rights of the Tamil people Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 No, and Rae has said that he doesn't support them either. He supports the rights of the Tamil people You mean the ones who will vote for him? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 That's irrelevant to the point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 That's irrelevant to the point. ...sure it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Borg Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 (edited) ...sure it is. The lawyer has spoken B-C we should all listen Rae could stay out and canada would be a far better place - any thoughts on where we could leave him? Borg Edited June 10, 2009 by Borg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 Oh goody...Rae's wiki has already been updated: On June 9th, 2009, Rae was detained by Sri Lankan Immigration officials at the Bandaranaike International Airport, Colombo, Sri Lanka while attempting to enter that country with only a one-way ticket and without proper visa.[1][2] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 (edited) So much for Rae's "nuanced and balanced" approach to foreign policy. He's twisted himself into so many knots without actually taking a stand that he usually stands for nothing - the norm for Liberal foreign policy. It's nice to see that at least one country thinks he has actually taken a position on something. That's what I like about the current government's approach - they actually take positions and understand that you can't please all of the people all of the time. It's always right to stand on the side of true democracy and opposed to terrorism. It was right to support the Sri Lankan government in their fight against terrorism but it is also right to criticise them if facts become clear that they have taken undue liberties. But Canada has to take reasonable stands - we have to stand for something - we have to matter in the world. Wishy washy, mealy mouthed platitudes that we have heard for years from Liberals made Canada the "nice little country" that nobody listens to and everyone ignores. Countries are now starting to take notice of our positions and in a growing number of instances, following our lead. Edited June 10, 2009 by Keepitsimple Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 For all you non-Rae supporters and supporters, it seems the Tories are on Rae sided in this situation. http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/artic...65UIF6l_xIby0LA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 good for the government. It's the right thing to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Borg Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 good for the government. It's the right thing to do. Of course you would say that - perhaps I will invite myself to your house for tea some day - and you will let me in - after all it is the right thing to do Didn't we just keep some scumbag Pommie bastard out of canada a while back? Cannot support the government on this one Borg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 Didn't we just keep some scumbag Pommie bastard out of canada a while back? Yes, and I'm not sure whether or not we should have done that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 I think it's a bit of a stretch for anyone to label Rae a Tamil sympathizer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 I think it's a bit of a stretch for anyone to label Rae a Tamil sympathizer. The Sri Lankan government, rather than jumping around victoriously, seems to have gone into hyper-paranoid mode. This is mainly, I suspect, because civilian casualties were astronomical in the final days of the Tigers, and the government is absolutely terrified that the true body count will be confirmed. Rae isn't being singled out here, there's a very clear campaign to keep anyone who even by a stretch might be seen to support the Tamils, or even be concerned about the casualties, out of Sri Lanka. Believe me, I'm glad the Tigers are dead (though they'll probably live on for some time in Tamil communities around the world, where they have the luxury of being able to support brutal terrorists without actually having to live in a war zone). I'm not even so sure, at the end of the day, that it wasn't worth it to finally nail them in an all-out assault. We live in an age of total war. When you do decide to wipe out a well-armed military force that melds into the general populace, you ultimately are saying "civilians are disposable". The Allies took the same position about German and Japanese civilians in WWII. What I'm afraid of is that Sri Lanka will squander this victory. Better to take the lumps now, admit casualties and then work to rebuild trust with the Tamils (let's be honest, this wasn't simply a case of evil Tamils, the Tamils had some legitimate beefs). If you start off the whole process by basically denying what everyone knows is true, the reconciliation process isn't going to get too far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 Of course you would say that - perhaps I will invite myself to your house for tea some day - and you will let me in - after all it is the right thing to do Didn't we just keep some scumbag Pommie bastard out of canada a while back? Cannot support the government on this one Borg Hey Borg, maybe Rae read this......... http://www.srilankatourism.org/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Borg Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 Hey Borg, maybe Rae read this......... http://www.srilankatourism.org/ Now that is funny! Borg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted June 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 For all you non-Rae supporters and supporters, it seems the Tories are on Rae sided in this situation. http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/artic...65UIF6l_xIby0LA I don't have a problem with the Canadian government standing for a parliamentarian. In a statement, Canada's foreign affairs department said: "It is absurd to suggest that Mr. Rae represents a threat to Sri Lankan national security, or is a supporter of the LTTE.""We have registered to the Sri Lankan government our dismay and displeasure concerning this unacceptable treatment of a Canadian parliamentarian," it added. The ministry outlined that Rae had traveled to Sri Lanka on a "private visit with a valid visa issued by Sri Lankan authorities." Upon arriving, he was detained, "accused of being a national security threat" and refused entry. It is interesting that Rae's visit is termed "private", meaning he was not representing the Canadian Parliament. This is a desirable move as the Sri Lanka government cannot come back and accuse Canada of interfering in their internal affairs. In addition, had Rae had been a Canadian reporter, the government would probably have registered a similar complaint with the Sri Lankan authorities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 I don't have a problem with the Canadian government standing for a parliamentarian.It is interesting that Rae's visit is termed "private", meaning he was not representing the Canadian Parliament. This is a desirable move as the Sri Lanka government cannot come back and accuse Canada of interfering in their internal affairs. In addition, had Rae had been a Canadian reporter, the government would probably have registered a similar complaint with the Sri Lankan authorities. Rae should have gone to North Korea to talk to the little fat guy..I can see dear Bob cracking rocks for twelve years...he could write a bunch of white man spirituals about working on the chain gang....Where was Rae and the other careerists when the killing was going on in full force...I guess he wants to woe the bandits in Scarberia to vote liberal ONE more time -------------not going to work BOB.....Canadian Tamils have smart leadership if you have not noticed - wonder if BOB can orgainize a protest on that scale - or even an election>?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JB Globe Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 What I'm afraid of is that Sri Lanka will squander this victory. Better to take the lumps now, admit casualties and then work to rebuild trust with the Tamils (let's be honest, this wasn't simply a case of evil Tamils, the Tamils had some legitimate beefs). If you start off the whole process by basically denying what everyone knows is true, the reconciliation process isn't going to get too far. Exactly, I am extremely skeptical that the Sri Lankan government will embark on a real reconciliation process and as a result I think this conflict will simply take another form and will not end with the military defeat of the Tigers. I think they're looking at sustained domestic terrorism if they don't man-up and do the REAL hard political work of bringing together two peoples divided by a conflict for several decades. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 You can never re-build the trust of a son or grand son who lost a father due to this violence - They may as well remove all Tamils from the island..and that is exactly what they will do ------------as for the huge highly orgainized block vote that come out of the Canadian Tamil community - Harper had better open up the doors and let ALL their suffering relatives come over....THEN if there is a problem - they can protest on the behalf of the Conservatives -----good for the goose is good for the gander - why give this huge block vote to the liberals...may as well snatch it up - besides - The Tamils were very well behaved on mass as demonstrated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 You can never re-build the trust of a son or grand son who lost a father due to this violence - They may as well remove all Tamils from the island..and that is exactly what they will do ------------as for the huge highly orgainized block vote that come out of the Canadian Tamil community - Harper had better open up the doors and let ALL their suffering relatives come over....THEN if there is a problem - they can protest on the behalf of the Conservatives -----good for the goose is good for the gander - why give this huge block vote to the liberals...may as well snatch it up - besides - The Tamils were very well behaved on mass as demonstrated. BUT - better take the lead form liberals and tell all immigrating Tamils to vote conservative - because if you don't the LIBERALS will deport you... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canfan Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 Oh goody...Rae's wiki has already been updated: On June 9th, 2009, Rae was detained by Sri Lankan Immigration officials at the Bandaranaike International Airport, Colombo, Sri Lanka while attempting to enter that country with only a one-way ticket and without proper visa.[1][2] A good example of why wikipedia isn't always the best source. Rae did have a proper visa the article linked by wikipedia even says so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canfan Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 So much for Rae's "nuanced and balanced" approach to foreign policy. He's twisted himself into so many knots without actually taking a stand that he usually stands for nothing - the norm for Liberal foreign policy. It's nice to see that at least one country thinks he has actually taken a position on something. That's what I like about the current government's approach - they actually take positions and understand that you can't please all of the people all of the time. It's always right to stand on the side of true democracy and opposed to terrorism. It was right to support the Sri Lankan government in their fight against terrorism but it is also right to criticise them if facts become clear that they have taken undue liberties. But Canada has to take reasonable stands - we have to stand for something - we have to matter in the world. Wishy washy, mealy mouthed platitudes that we have heard for years from Liberals made Canada the "nice little country" that nobody listens to and everyone ignores. Countries are now starting to take notice of our positions and in a growing number of instances, following our lead. Saying that the Tamils had legitimate concerns that should be addressed and criticising the terrorist actions of the Tigers counts as standing for nothing? That position is barely nuanced yet people jump up and down and claim he's tying himself in knots with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canfan Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 This does not look good for the Liberal foreign affairs critic. I wonder if Ignatieff still has confidence that Rae can adequately perform his duties. How does this look bad on Rae? He's spoken out against the Tiger's terrorist tactics before while still supporting their legitimate concerns. He got permission to go to Sri Lanka from their government officials here in Canada. The Sri Lankan government has refused entry to all sorts of diplomats and government officials from around the world including a Conservative MP. Perhaps you should explain why this is a black mark on Rae. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 (edited) A good example of why wikipedia isn't always the best source. Rae did have a proper visa the article linked by wikipedia even says so. Inconclusive......"proper visa" is different from "visa". Alternately, I am sure that Sri Lanka can revoke any such visa at its pleasure. Edited June 11, 2009 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canfan Posted June 11, 2009 Report Share Posted June 11, 2009 Inconclusive......"proper visa" is different from "visa". Alternately, I am sure that Sri Lanka can revoke any such visa at its pleasure. That's not inconclusive at all. If a government gives you a visa it's presumed to be proper. And if you're going to claim the visa wasn't proper then you should have something to back that up and the cited article doesn't do that. There's no evidence the visa wasn't proper. Sure Sri Lanka can change it's mind and not allow someone in but that's got nothing to do with the visa. You seem to put too much faith in wikipedia. You didn't write that bit of the article did you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.