Justice Served!

DogOnPorch · November 15, 2009

I don't care either but there are a lot of stupid people out there.

I agree. Relativism is part and parcel with political correctness. In our world these days, we'd have apologists claiming Amon Goeth was a victim of secondary PTSD. Time served.

eyeball · November 15, 2009

These are NOT exclusively internal troubles of other nations. Islamic terrorism is attacking Western interests and our allies around the world and has been for decades. This is hardly a problem reserved to the inner working of Muslim/Arab countries. How can you be this naive?

How can you be so naive to the problems our side has been causing for decades by interfering in the Islamic world? This is the reason why Islaimc terrorism is retaliating against Western interests.

DogOnPorch · November 15, 2009

Nope, never said that. Are you saying our support for regimes like the Shah of Iran, the House of Saud or Saddam Hussein is the moral equivalent to fighting Hitler?

You're trying to be clever...but it's not coming across right. Try again.

It often seems I do.

In a pig's eye. You are either ignorant of the Holocaust or just plain stupid.

Gabriel · November 15, 2009

How can you be so naive to the problems our side has been causing for decades by interfering in the Islamic world? This is the reason why Islaimc terrorism is retaliating against Western interests.

Nonsense. The West didn't interfere enough. Islamic terrorism is the result of allowing them to operate naturally. The West never suppressed any democratic of freedom movements. The West simply engaged in trade with dictatorships that supplied an indispensable resource - oil. What would you have proposed the West to do - shut down our economies in order not to support dictatorships? Then extremists like yourself would argue that the West was levying collective punishment on the citizens of the Arab/Muslim countries. Why am I even talking to you? Every discussion with you boils down to blaming all of the world's problems on the West/Capitalism/Democracy.

Moving on....

DogOnPorch · November 15, 2009

How can you be so naive to the problems our side has been causing for decades by interfering in the Islamic world? This is the reason why Islaimc terrorism is retaliating against Western interests.

That's simply incorrect. Antipathy between 'East' and 'West' goes all the way back to the Ionian Revolt and Marathon. Thanks to folks like Ataturk, this became less of a problem for a while, but now it all comes back to raise its ugly head.

eyeball · November 15, 2009

You're trying to be clever...but it's not coming across right. Try again.

Are you saying our support for regimes like the Shah of Iran, the House of Saud or Saddam Hussein is morally defensible?

In a pig's eye. You are either ignorant of the Holocaust or just plain stupid.

I said it only seems I live under the Nazi's. Things haven't degenerated quite that far yet.

As for MY ignorance about the Holocaust you'd have to be particularily stupid to think it was a good idea to support a dictator don't you think?

eyeball · November 15, 2009

Nonsense. The West didn't interfere enough. Islamic terrorism is the result of allowing them to operate naturally. The West never suppressed any democratic of freedom movements. The West simply engaged in trade with dictatorships that supplied an indispensable resource - oil. What would you have proposed the West to do - shut down our economies in order not to support dictatorships?

No, I would have proposed we stand on our stated principles and moral values. The west has clearly suppressed many democratic freedom movements in the name of money starting with Iran in 1953. Its been a downward spiral into deparvity ever since.

Then extremists like yourself would argue that the West was levying collective punishment on the citizens of the Arab/Muslim countries. Why am I even talking to you? Every discussion with you boils down to blaming all of the world's problems on the West/Capitalism/Democracy.

If it quacks like duck...

Waddling on....

...quack quack...

eyeball · November 15, 2009

That's simply incorrect. Antipathy between 'East' and 'West' goes all the way back to the Ionian Revolt and Marathon. Thanks to folks like Ataturk, this became less of a problem for a while, but now it all comes back to raise its ugly head.

:rolleyes:

DogOnPorch · November 15, 2009

Are you saying our support for regimes like the Shah of Iran, the House of Saud or Saddam Hussein is morally defensible?

No...however, the West's realtionship with these various dubious fellows was/is because the alternatives were/are even worse. Often with a Cold War root or anti-Nazi root for the realtionship in the first place. Or simply the need for the oil to flow.

I said it only seems I live under the Nazi's. Things haven't degenerated quite that far yet.

So you feel that eventually we'll be doing nasty things like Auschwitz-Birkenau and Babi-Yar?

As for MY ignorance about the Holocaust you'd have to be particularily stupid to think it was a good idea to support a dictator don't you think?

Once again...you're trying to be clever...which dictator? Hitler?

DogOnPorch · November 15, 2009

Roll your eyes all you want. History is history. Before Marathon, things get pretty dim...but there were no doubt problems before then, too. Eventually, the Turks made it right to the gates of Vienna twice before being turned back.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Vienna

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vienna

eyeball · November 15, 2009

No...however, the West's realtionship with these various dubious fellows was/is because the alternatives were/are even worse.

So we were acting in a terrifed state? So terrified that we lost our senses.

This should go a long way to understanding why people inflict terror on others.

Often with a Cold War root or anti-Nazi root for the realtionship in the first place. Or simply the need for the oil to flow.

Your saying our feeling terrorized stemmed from not having enough oil? There was no larger principle than that at stake?

So you feel that eventually we'll be doing nasty things like Auschwitz-Birkenau and Babi-Yar?

I don't know, but its clear terror can make even the most principled people do terrifying things, like supporting dictators.

Once again...you're trying to be clever...which dictator? Hitler?

Any dictator. What possible difference could there be to a person who is having their nails ripped out, their testicles squished or their loved ones murdered?

Oh right I forgot, an empty gas tank probably trumps all these.

Edited November 15, 2009 by eyeball

DogOnPorch · November 15, 2009

You're not making sense anymore. Better call it for now.

eyeball · November 15, 2009

You're not making sense anymore. Better call it for now.

Sorry, I'll try to go more slowly for you next time.

DogOnPorch · November 15, 2009

Sorry, I'll try to go more slowly for you next time.

You're ranting...I'll wait until you calm down.

eyeball · November 15, 2009

You're ranting...I'll wait until you calm down.

No you won't.

capricorn · November 15, 2009

Lastly, with respect to Bush's infamous "with us or with the terrorists" comment - I largely support that statement. Perhaps it wasn't the bet choice of words in order to garner support from certain countries in order to prosecute the war on terror, but let's not be naive and expect that somehow the international community stands in ANY principles. There are only a handful of countries that make difficult choices for the greater good. In all seriousness, if you do not assist in the prosecution of the war on terror in order to pursue terrorists and their organizations in order to reduce the threat they pose, you are complicit in terrorism. Bush was right about that. There's really no middle point or half-way perspective with respect to right and wrong. I know extremist left-winger don't believe in right and wrong, but people with a moral compass understand that we're on the right side of this war. Complacency and apathy is virtually synonymous with complicity, if you ask me.

Whatever else we may think about W, he brought comfort to the American people in the days following 9/11.

In the immediate wake of 9-11, Bush's leadership inspired Americans to refuse to let the 9-11 attack demoralize the country. He inspired Americans to openly and flagrantly defy the terrorists' strategy of intimidating them into refraining from exercising their economic and personal freedom-- going to the malls, shopping, spending, saving, building and rebuilding businesses, traveling, flying, etc. (During the recent campaign, Obama foolishly mocked Bush for having urged Americans to "go shopping" as though such urging comprised self-serving, shallow politics rather than morale-building leadership.)
Bush's organization of, and his speech in, a convocation at National Cathedral within less than a week after the 9-11 attack provided comfort to Americans, and his inclusion of religious leaders of all faiths in such program also promoted religious ecumenicism and diminished the potential for religious bigotry being directed against Muslims generally. Despite my being non-religious, I found the program inspiring and comforting as did the vast majority of non-believers in contrast to the small minority comprised of fanatical secular fundamentalists.

http://polisat.com/DailyPoliticalSatire-Commentary/du20y09m01d20-01.htm

wulf42 · November 15, 2009

I wonder... are the American soldiers in Afghanistan really "freedom fighters" as they claim to be, or terrorists?

I guess that would depend on which end of the rifle one would be looking at....

American soldiers at least to my knowledge don't throw Acid in young girls faces

or behead prisoners and make videos of it for the world to see.

Edited November 15, 2009 by wulf42

eyeball · November 15, 2009

http://polisat.com/DailyPoliticalSatire-Commentary/du20y09m01d20-01.htm

...the most rabid form of what Charles Krauthammer (the pundit who's also a psychiatrist) later correctly diagnosed as "Bush Derangement Syndrome"...

Virtually no one is immune to Derangement Syndrome, its like the flu...

Whatever else we may think about W, he brought comfort to the American people in the days following 9/11.

No he didn't, he brought an infected hanky and passed it around.

eyeball · November 15, 2009

American soldiers at least to my knowledge don't throw Acid in young girls faces

or behead prisoners and make videos of it for the world to see.

Shining Beacons of the fundamentally human principles and values of freedom and justice at least to my knowledge don't support dictators/terrorists.

According to these principles there is little if any difference between a dictator and a terrorist. Put another way if you're with the former you are the latter.

capricorn · November 15, 2009

Virtually no one is immune to Derangement Syndrome, its like the flu...

No he didn't, he brought an infected hanky and passed it around.

I'm sure you prefer Obama's initial reaction to the Fort Hood massacre when he said the American people should "not jump to conclusions". Yet, he fingered Hasan as the perp even before all the facts were known and a trial held.

Late last week, Barack Obama urged everyone not to jump to conclusions about the Fort Hood attack, so it seems that one who claims to be so into “due process” would avoid jumping to these kinds of conclusions before all the facts are in:
President Obama began his weekly Internet and radio address on Saturday with these words: “This past Thursday, on a clear Texas afternoon, an Army psychiatrist walked into the Soldier Readiness Processing Center, and began shooting his fellow soldiers.”

Has the guy already been tried and convicted? If not, this assumption seems so un-Hope-like. But at least you’ll notice that at least Obama’s blanket statement of guilt didn’t go so far as to assume that the shooter was Muslim — that would have been just plain wrong.

Joe Lieberman is calling the shootings a “terrorist attack,” which is a lot more accurate and right than Obama’s “who knows what happened for sure, but we should at least praise the diversity of the victims!”
And let’s not forget the other conclusion that the president seems to have jumped to, which is that the shooter’s religion, and the apparent fanatical level of dedication to same, had nothing to do with this “tragedy.”

There’s are reasons the administration is being so adamant about not jumping to certain conclusions — because some of those conclusions lead to some fairly embarrassing connections.

http://dougpowers.com/2009/11/08/obama-dont-jump-to-conclusions-about-ft-hood-immediately-jumps-to-conclusion/

Obama is so out of tune with Americans, he doesn't need an infected hanky to spread disillusionment.

PocketRocket · November 16, 2009

Eyeball has defended these people more than once........he really thinks they are freedom fighters!

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

PocketRocket · November 16, 2009

The fact he was found with the Taliban makes him guilty, who cares if he threw the Grenade or not he was found fighting with a terrorist group which makes him the enemy. He deserves nothing from Canada but he deserves to be shot or hanged by the Americans.

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.

DogOnPorch · November 16, 2009

How do you feel about Omar building and planting mines that was caught on camera?

PocketRocket · November 16, 2009

PocketRocket - Look, you're obviously not a stupid a person.

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???

I'm not going to get into a debate about whether or not Khadr is guilty of supporting terrorists. You cannot honestly think that Khadr was in Afghanistan on some sort of summer camp adventure.

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.

Beyond that, thee evidence against is MASSIVE.

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.

Feel free to look at it for awhile and draw your own conclusion.

See previous comment.

If you're brain is operational, you'll realize that he was in Afghanistan with the clear intention of supporting our enemies. With respect to his confession of being proud that the grenade he threw killed an American medic (hardly a surprising comment from a terrorist, I'm not sure how anyone can find that hard to believe), I read it somewhere on CBC.

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.

Virtually all of my knowledge of this case has come from Canadian internet media. This is an open and shut case - to the same degree as the Major Nidal Hasan mass murder terrorist. If you don't want to believe it, fine. I don't care if you want to be blind.

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.

Lastly, with respect to Bush's infamous "with us or with the terrorists" comment - I largely support that statement. Perhaps it wasn't the bet choice of words in order to garner support from certain countries in order to prosecute the war on terror, but let's not be naive and expect that somehow the international community stands in ANY principles.

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.

There are only a handful of countries that make difficult choices for the greater good. In all seriousness, if you do not assist in the prosecution of the war on terror in order to pursue terrorists and their organizations in order to reduce the threat they pose, you are complicit in terrorism. Bush was right about that.

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.

There's really no middle point or half-way perspective with respect to right and wrong. I know extremist left-winger don't believe in right and wrong, but people with a moral compass understand that we're on the right side of this war. Complacency and apathy is virtually synonymous with complicity, if you ask me.

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.