Saudi Arabia expells Canadian ambassador

[Guest]

49 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Not even remotely.

Christ in a stick, wtf is wrong with conservatives these days. It's like you're all on LSD.

Perhaps I just misinterpreted you.  You seemed to say that terrorist retaliation is justifiable.  I assumed you meant that which targets innocents.

I wouldn't know about conservatives.  Being a liberal and all.  (Except for the voting of course.  Got to draw the line somewhere)

[eyeball]

5 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Perhaps I just misinterpreted you.  You seemed to say that terrorist retaliation is justifiable.  I assumed you meant that which targets innocents.

No, innocents are just caught in the crossfire - aka collateral damage.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

No, innocents are just caught in the crossfire - aka collateral damage.

Yeah, that too.  Still, if you're saying that's a justification for things like the Manchester bombing or the Ottawa shooting I would have to disagree.

[Army Guy]

 

Eyeball knows the difference between the two, he just likes the drama......everyone  knows the difference between Collateral Damage and most terrorist actions.....where they intentionally target women and children.... 

Edited September 3, 2018 by Army Guy

[eyeball]

49 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

 

Eyeball knows the difference between the two, he just likes the drama......everyone  knows the difference between Collateral Damage and most terrorist actions.....where they intentionally target women and children.... 

Well sure, but ike you guys I just don't give a shit anymore.

[GostHacked]

On 9/2/2018 at 8:18 PM, Army Guy said:

 

Eyeball knows the difference between the two, he just likes the drama......everyone  knows the difference between Collateral Damage and most terrorist actions.....where they intentionally target women and children.... 

You can explain collateral damage to us all you want. Try explaining that to the family of the ones killed via collateral damage.

[Argus]

8 hours ago, GostHacked said:

You can explain collateral damage to us all you want. Try explaining that to the family of the ones killed via collateral damage.

It's war and shit happens.

The military can't even keep from accidentally targeting and killing its own people sometimes during wars. What do you expect?

Edited September 4, 2018 by Argus

[Army Guy]

8 hours ago, GostHacked said:

You can explain collateral damage to us all you want. Try explaining that to the family of the ones killed via collateral damage.

You make it sound like collateral damage is a new thing, A thing I just made up.....it has been part of warfare, every where since man learned to pick up a stick and beat things with it.....It is a normal part of any conflict between to nations. Historically more civilians are killed in conflicts than soldiers....It is not going to change any time soon...

In normal combat,  civilian causalities are avoided where possible, NO WHERE  in the Geneva Convention does it say YOU CAN NOT KILL CIVILIANS, IT does say that it should be avoided , wonder what the French civilians in Normandy said on D day when the allied carpet bombed everything they could, I wonder what was said to their families......... ...Unless your talking total war then every thing is free game, nobody was complaining when the US dropped 2 atomic bombs on Japan....or fire bombed Germany, how many Germans complained about London when it was bombed.  

Western cultures have this idea that combat is some sort of surgical operation, where bullets kill only soldiers, soldiers kill only soldiers, and there is some kind of honor on the battle field.. when reality their very few rules...and accidents are common place.....Hard to understand that fact when your life is not under constant danger when every second of the day your mind is on survival , and trying to get back to "YOUR" family .....There is no room for anything else, including the family that is killed by collateral damage, ya it's cold .....it's very tragic...But if there was a definition of Hell...it would be armed conflict...where death is normal and seen almost every day....War sucks, and very few good things are ever born from it....

But do not pin this statement on our soldiers....by saying they are the same as terrorists....Soldiers , regular Canadian citizens do not start wars, they fight and die in them , .....elected officials start wars, they decide who is bad and who is good....point the finger where it belongs....If you think for one second terrorist spill one tear for those poor bastards your mistaken, they thrive on it, pray for it, they use it to their advantage.....

[Hudson Jones]

8 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

You make it sound like collateral damage is a new thing, A thing I just made up.....it has been part of warfare, every where since man learned to pick up a stick and beat things with it.....It is a normal part of any conflict between to nations. Historically more civilians are killed in conflicts than soldiers....It is not going to change any time soon...

In normal combat,  civilian causalities are avoided where possible, NO WHERE  in the Geneva Convention does it say YOU CAN NOT KILL CIVILIANS, IT does say that it should be avoided , wonder what the French civilians in Normandy said on D day when the allied carpet bombed everything they could, I wonder what was said to their families......... ...Unless your talking total war then every thing is free game, nobody was complaining when the US dropped 2 atomic bombs on Japan....or fire bombed Germany, how many Germans complained about London when it was bombed.  

Western cultures have this idea that combat is some sort of surgical operation, where bullets kill only soldiers, soldiers kill only soldiers, and there is some kind of honor on the battle field.. when reality their very few rules...and accidents are common place.....Hard to understand that fact when your life is not under constant danger when every second of the day your mind is on survival , and trying to get back to "YOUR" family .....There is no room for anything else, including the family that is killed by collateral damage, ya it's cold .....it's very tragic...But if there was a definition of Hell...it would be armed conflict...where death is normal and seen almost every day....War sucks, and very few good things are ever born from it....

But do not pin this statement on our soldiers....by saying they are the same as terrorists....Soldiers , regular Canadian citizens do not start wars, they fight and die in them , .....elected officials start wars, they decide who is bad and who is good....point the finger where it belongs....If you think for one second terrorist spill one tear for those poor bastards your mistaken, they thrive on it, pray for it, they use it to their advantage.....

This is what you're trying to justify. Thumbs up, buddy. 

41 men targeted but 1,147 people killed: US drone strikes – the facts on the ground

[Army Guy]

You don't have to like it....its reality, and it is not going to change anytime soon....

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, Argus said:

It's war and shit happens.

The military can't even keep from accidentally targeting and killing its own people sometimes during wars. What do you expect?

Terrorism. WTF were you expecting, a thank you sir can I have some more?

[eyeball]

On 9/2/2018 at 3:30 PM, bcsapper said:

Yeah, that too.  Still, if you're saying that's a justification for things like the Manchester bombing or the Ottawa shooting I would have to disagree.

I'm saying retaliating against the west for what its doing is not only justifiable its well deserved. 

 

[Guest]

56 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I'm saying retaliating against the west for what its doing is not only justifiable its well deserved. 

 

So you're picky about who gets retaliated against.  Those Muslims in Ottawa didn't deserve to pay for the sins of others, but those concert goers in Manchester did.  I respectfully disagree.  None of them did.

[eyeball]

8 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

So you're picky about who gets retaliated against.

Not at all, its simply us against them - our culture against theirs. And AFAIC we started it in the 50's.

Quote

 

Those Muslims in Ottawa didn't deserve to pay for the sins of others, but those concert goers in Manchester did.  I respectfully disagree.  None of them did.

 

Our culture deserves it.  I don't - as I said I'd be collateral damage.  I really wish the sphincters who support our side would start wearing uniforms and quit using people like me as a shield.

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

Not at all, its simply us against them - our culture against theirs. And AFAIC we started it in the 50's.

Our culture deserves it. 

 

So when should First Nations start getting in on this ?    Started long before the 1950's.

[eyeball]

That's up to them I guess.  Maybe if we start tearing up treaties.  You see more people implying we should amidst the whining about pipeline/oil politics these days - and we know how brutal those sort of politics can get.

[bush_cheney2004]

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

That's up to them I guess.  Maybe if we start tearing up treaties.  You see more people implying we should amidst the whining about pipeline/oil politics these days - and we know how brutal those sort of politics can get.

 

So "treaties" are the answer ?    Wow....what a concept !

Just force the Saudis to sign treaties, bless by the Queen of course.

But didn't they already try that ?

[eyeball]

Just now, bush_cheney2004 said:

Just force the Saudis to sign treaties,

Except First Nations used the force of law. The Queen had fuck all to do with it. You're just blowing stuff out your ass.

[bush_cheney2004]

3 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Except First Nations used the force of law. The Queen had fuck all to do with it. You're just blowing stuff out your ass.

 

No, I am just mocking your biased perspective on the history of the "West".

But really it has always been that way.....here a diddle...there a diddle...everywhere a diddle diddle.

[Zeitgeist]

8 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

No, I am just mocking your biased perspective on the history of the "West".

But really it has always been that way.....here a diddle...there a diddle...everywhere a diddle diddle.

I don’t understand your argument.  Are you suggesting that past failures justify future ones?   We also have to recognize that when we know better, generally, we do better.  There’s no context for your criticism.  It’s easy to cast aspersions on the policies of the past using the moral yardsticks of the present.  The important question is, What are we doing TODAY to be just?

[turningrite]

15 hours ago, eyeball said:

Except First Nations used the force of law. The Queen had fuck all to do with it. You're just blowing stuff out your ass.

You do realize that the law upon which Canadian First Nations rely to establish and assert their rights, including the treaty system, the Royal Proclamation of 1763, was imposed by one of the Queen's ancestors, King George III, don't you? The proclamation is in fact part of the Canadian constitution. Interestingly, it also asserts the sovereignty of the crown and tends to undermine the "unceded territory" argument put forth by indigenous activists. Oh well, history is complicated.

[GostHacked]

20 hours ago, Argus said:

It's war and shit happens.

The military can't even keep from accidentally targeting and killing its own people sometimes during wars. What do you expect?

Then the approach needs to be changed. Or we get this thing called terrorism happening in our borders, then we wonder WHY it is happening.

[Army Guy]

Man has been saying that since we first picked up a club and started beating things to death .. you think it's going to change anytime soon.....maybe that can be Justin's new campaign theme.

[Argus]

3 hours ago, GostHacked said:

Then the approach needs to be changed. Or we get this thing called terrorism happening in our borders, then we wonder WHY it is happening.

You have let me see now, something in the neighborhood of ZERO evidence that terrorism in the West is caused by collateral damage. I have yet to see a single instance of a terrorist murdering people in the West because his or her cousin, father, brother, son, daughter or friend was killed by a NATO bomb. The last attack, in Amsterdam, was by an Afghani refugee claimant outraged about a proposed new 'draw the prophet' contest which, as it turned out, had already been called off.

If there is any particular cause of the violence it is Saudi Arabia and the violent, anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, anti-western extremist religious views that they have spent tens of billions of dollars spreading through the Muslim world for the last several decades.

 

[GostHacked]

12 hours ago, Argus said:

You have let me see now, something in the neighborhood of ZERO evidence that terrorism in the West is caused by collateral damage.

It's not the collateral damage, it is the outright INVASION and devastation of several M.E. nations that are causing the terrorism in the west and Europe. Creating an absolute fucking hell for these people, so they are moving and creating problems else where. This was PREDICTED, by me years ago.

12 hours ago, Argus said:

I have yet to see a single instance of a terrorist murdering people in the West because his or her cousin, father, brother, son, daughter or friend was killed by a NATO bomb. The last attack, in Amsterdam, was by an Afghani refugee claimant outraged about a proposed new 'draw the prophet' contest which, as it turned out, had already been called off.

See above.

12 hours ago, Argus said:

If there is any particular cause of the violence it is Saudi Arabia and the violent, anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, anti-western extremist religious views that they have spent tens of billions of dollars spreading through the Muslim world for the last several decades.

And western nations SUPPORT Saudi Arabia which promotes the terrorism in the M.E.  We helped with creating the crisis in Yemen via Saudi Arabia.. We should be proud of ourselves.