Why Is McKay On The Hot Seat?

gerryhatrick · March 1, 2006

I think this whole thread is funny because you're all standing around taking turns beating the same straw man.
Does anyone really think that terrorists care what a single politician says? And a politician from a nation that as far as military force is concerned is impotent compared to the rest of the world?

You complained about straw men arguments, and then floated one yourself.

It is irrelavent if terrorists care what a man says or not. The issue is could drawing uneccessary attention to a hostage situation (as Peter Mackay did in this case) endanger the hostages. Obviously it could, which is why it's generally accepted that it should not be done.

Take a look at Italy. They elected a new left leaning government that pulled out (read:appeased) as demanded by the terrorists and still got hit multiple times in their subway system.

I think you mean Spain, and the reason the governing party got booted was because they lied about the terrorist attack that had just occurred...tried to blame it on the Basques when they knew it wasn't them.

the revisionist version is the one your peddling.

The new left leaning Spannish government has pursued terrorists without mercy.

Hicksey · March 1, 2006

I think this whole thread is funny because you're all standing around taking turns beating the same straw man.

Does anyone really think that terrorists care what a single politician says? And a politician from a nation that as far as military force is concerned is impotent compared to the rest of the world?

You complained about straw men arguments, and then floated one yourself.

It is irrelavent if terrorists care what a man says or not. The issue is could drawing uneccessary attention to a hostage situation (as Peter Mackay did in this case) endanger the hostages. Obviously it could, which is why it's generally accepted that it should not be done.

Take a look at Italy. They elected a new left leaning government that pulled out (read:appeased) as demanded by the terrorists and still got hit multiple times in their subway system.

I think you mean Spain, and the reason the governing party got booted was because they lied about the terrorist attack that had just occurred...tried to blame it on the Basques when they knew it wasn't them.

the revisionist version is the one your peddling.

The new left leaning Spannish government has pursued terrorists without mercy.

I was tired when I mad that post and you're right, my mistake. I did mean Spain. And I hardly call pulling all their troops out of harm's way pursuing terrorists without mercy.

And MacKay hasn't done a thing to endanger anyone. If the people who have the hostages listened to politicians, as you say, they would have released them by now. Why not go look for a real reason to whine about a member of the Harper gov't.

gerryhatrick · March 2, 2006

I was tired when I mad that post and you're right, my mistake. I did mean Spain. And I hardly call pulling all their troops out of harm's way pursuing terrorists without mercy.

No prob, everyone makes mistakes.

Your premise that leaving Iraq = not pursuing terrorists is false. Iraq, by the US militarys own admission, is largely a homegrown insurgency.

Spain had the right idea. Now America needs to catch on, and it appears they're starting to.

And MacKay hasn't done a thing to endanger anyone. If the people who have the hostages listened to politicians, as you say, they would have released them by now. Why not go look for a real reason to whine about a member of the Harper gov't.

Now lad, nobody is whining here. 'Cept maybe betsy about poor Peter Mackay.

No, I'm critisizing what he did. And I laid out the undeniable logic above.

Are we now not allowed to critisize a member of the Harper government? :lol: Is this the accountability ya'll were talkin' about? :blink:

shoop · March 2, 2006

That's where the problem is. It is only *undeniable logic* in your wee little mind. Take heart though. Looks like you probably have at least six years of whining about the Harper government.

Don't tire yourself out in the first couple months. :lol:

No, I'm critisizing what he did. And I laid out the undeniable logic above.
Are we now not allowed to critisize a member of the Harper government? Is this the accountability ya'll were talkin' about?

BubberMiley · March 2, 2006

Snoop always brings up how the CPC won the election whenever he loses a debate. That's how he concedes. :lol:

shoop · March 2, 2006

Uhhh, I think gerryhatrick's pointing to *undeniable* logic when he can't support his argument is more of an admission of error.

I commend you BM for continuing to show you have no ability to debate. You simply prefer to whine and snipe when the logical holes in your argument are exposed.

Thanks for staying true to form. :lol:

Snoop always brings up how the CPC won the election whenever he loses a debate. That's how he concedes.

Hicksey · March 2, 2006

I was tired when I mad that post and you're right, my mistake. I did mean Spain. And I hardly call pulling all their troops out of harm's way pursuing terrorists without mercy.

No prob, everyone makes mistakes.

Your premise that leaving Iraq = not pursuing terrorists is false. Iraq, by the US militarys own admission, is largely a homegrown insurgency.

Spain had the right idea. Now America needs to catch on, and it appears they're starting to.

And MacKay hasn't done a thing to endanger anyone. If the people who have the hostages listened to politicians, as you say, they would have released them by now. Why not go look for a real reason to whine about a member of the Harper gov't.

Now lad, nobody is whining here. 'Cept maybe betsy about poor Peter Mackay.

No, I'm critisizing what he did. And I laid out the undeniable logic above.

Are we now not allowed to critisize a member of the Harper government? Is this the accountability ya'll were talkin' about?

I still see this whole thread as a straw man set up for both sides to beat on.

First of all, you're both assuming we know what is going through the head of a terrorist kidnapper. I honestly don't think any of us have the slightest clue. Secondly, depending on your viewpoint and what causations we think might come from a certain action, any inference of outcome any of us might draw can at best be described as supposition, and probably more accurately as the product of an active imagination.

My personal opinion is that MacKay neither deserves to be scolded for speaking in as much detail and when he did nor does he deserve any credit--yet.

We're making a big deal out of a situation that if we're lucky all three of us (shoop, gerryhatrick and I) know about one full percent of.

I have no problem giving credit, or laying blame, when I have enough information to make a decision concerning which of the two is in order.

I think only time can tell on this one.

I'm not saying the discussion doesn't have merit, just that the time for getting too serious and deciding who's right or wrong has yet to come.

I think both shoop and gerryhatrick have made valid points. But, in the end because I feel that none of us knows what is going through the terrorists' heads, its all for naught. That one unknown I think is what makes the whole argument a straw man.

gerryhatrick · March 2, 2006

That's where the problem is. It is only *undeniable logic* in your wee little mind.

Well, I'm still waiting for you to explain which part is deniable shoop:

The simple and UNDENIABLE point is that making comments to the media as Mackay did creates media buzz. That cannot be disputed.
The next simple and UNDENIALBE point is that nobody can predict how this increased media buzz might affect the behavior of the hostage-takers. Knowing thier hostage-taking has reached a higher profile could affect thier behavior.

This isn't junior high school, it's the internet. You can behave that way if you like I guess, but realize it is bad faith and you're not fooling anyone.

gerryhatrick · March 2, 2006

But, in the end because I feel that none of us knows what is going through the terrorists' heads, its all for naught. That one unknown I think is what makes the whole argument a straw man.

What argument is a "straw man"? Be specific.

You call the entire thread a straw man. That's ridiculous. It's a valid question by Betsy...Mackay was critisized for his comments. How is that "straw man"?

And after accusing the thread of being a straw man you run off inventing new debates by yourself from what I can see. It's not

1) Do we or do we not know what's going on in hostage takers heads or..

2) Do terrorists listen to the CBC.

It's niether of those things. Stop whining about "straw man". You're the one guilty of inventing false issues here.

shoop · March 2, 2006

Let's look at your use of the term *media buzz*. Not really well defined, so here is my take on it.

wtf does it mean? Sure it got media coverage in Canada.

We do not know how the hostage-takers will react because the Minister of Foreign Affairs spoke to the media.

This is still no reason for Minister MacKay not to speak to the media. It is also *undeniable* that we don't know how the hostage takers would have reacted if Minister MacKay remained silent on the issue.

Either way, you still haven't provided any substantiation for your claim that it is"generally accepted that authorities do not draw uneccessary attention to these situations."

If it is truly "generally accepted" than it would be pretty easy for you to provide a credible source or two to support this, wouldn't it?

Well, I'm still waiting for you to explain which part is deniable shoop:
The simple and UNDENIABLE point is that making comments to the media as Mackay did creates media buzz. That cannot be disputed.
The next simple and UNDENIALBE point is that nobody can predict how this increased media buzz might affect the behavior of the hostage-takers. Knowing thier hostage-taking has reached a higher profile could affect thier behavior.

geoffrey · March 2, 2006

But, in the end because I feel that none of us knows what is going through the terrorists' heads, its all for naught. That one unknown I think is what makes the whole argument a straw man.

What argument is a "straw man"? Be specific.

You call the entire thread a straw man. That's ridiculous. It's a valid question by Betsy...Mackay was critisized for his comments. How is that "straw man"?

And after accusing the thread of being a straw man you run off inventing new debates by yourself from what I can see. It's not

1) Do we or do we not know what's going on in hostage takers heads or..

2) Do terrorists listen to the CBC.

It's niether of those things. Stop whining about "straw man". You're the one guilty of inventing false issues here.

I would argue the biggest issue is yes, do the terrorists listen to the CBC.

The original question was: "Peter McKay said he thinks the hostages are alive and well. Everyone is castigating him for saying that. That he endagered the lives of the hostages. Endangered how?"

He didn't endanger anyone because no one cares about Canada enough to put our foreign affairs guy on al-Arabia or al-Jazeera. No one in Iraq even heard the statement. No danger was caused.

Hicksey · March 2, 2006

But, in the end because I feel that none of us knows what is going through the terrorists' heads, its all for naught. That one unknown I think is what makes the whole argument a straw man.

What argument is a "straw man"? Be specific.

You call the entire thread a straw man. That's ridiculous. It's a valid question by Betsy...Mackay was critisized for his comments. How is that "straw man"?

And after accusing the thread of being a straw man you run off inventing new debates by yourself from what I can see. It's not

1) Do we or do we not know what's going on in hostage takers heads or..

2) Do terrorists listen to the CBC.

It's niether of those things. Stop whining about "straw man". You're the one guilty of inventing false issues here.

gerryhatrick:

I'm not whining. I'm being realistic. The whole argument that MacKay might have/not have endangered the hostages is a straw man. People are making all kinds of assumptions and than drawing conclusions based on the assumptions. Its a big debate based on no fact. Please, explain to me how you can have a debate without facts.

You're saying his comments MIGHT incite the kidnappers to do something rash. We're saying that we BELIEVE the comments would never make it to the kidnappers in the first place, and if they did, they don't care what the politician says because 99% of the time they plan on killing the hostages anyway.

Are you beginning to see how flawed the whole premise is?

I'm not saying that either your comments our ours are more right or logical, just that if you sit back and take a look at a debate that features no facts from either side you eventually see that its not the arguments that are the straw man, but the topic of discussion itself.

The reality is that neither of us have enough information about it to make a determination.

It has nothing to do with me being hesitant to criticize Harper or the members of his goverment. I was probably the first to start in on them for the Emerson and Fortier appointments. I still maintain they were bad moves.

I'm just hesitant to move to criticize here because I just don't have enough information to say anything with certainty. I don't come out and criticize or make inflammatory remarks about someone without some facts to back it up.

That's why I've not come out and called you wrong nor have I said that I am right.

gerryhatrick · March 3, 2006

Let's look at your use of the term *media buzz*. Not really well defined, so here is my take on it.
wtf does it mean?

Your "take" on it is that you don't know what it means?

If there is "media buzz" it generally means a story has been picked up and has a reasonable amount of legs...and the story morphs. This story went from

1. Mackay has new intelligence which indicates the hostages are alive.

to

2. Mackay backs off from claims

to

3. Mackay apologizes for what he said.

It buzzzzzed for a few days as the story changed. Similar to how a story about an employee getting fired for pinching a girls a$$ might buzz around the office with different versions and new information for a few days.

Hope that helps.

gerryhatrick · March 3, 2006

He didn't endanger anyone because no one cares about Canada enough to put our foreign affairs guy on al-Arabia or al-Jazeera. No one in Iraq even heard the statement. No danger was caused.

Well, they care enough to take hostages, do you think they don't care about how they can leverage those hostages?

Your argument that the hostage takers don't pay attention to what the government of thier hostages has to say about the situation is bizarre.

My answer to your factual claim that "No one in Iraq even heard the statement" is simply that you don't know that. Therefore, you cannot make any conclusion about damage caused, as you did.

Damage might have been caused, that is undeniable.

shoop · March 3, 2006

Ahhh, so it got picked up outside Canada?

Or are the kidnappers really paying that much attention to Canadian news.

still not proving anything....

If there is "media buzz" it generally means a story has been picked up and has a reasonable amount of legs...and the story morphs.

BubberMiley · March 3, 2006

Can you explain to me why you think someone who would bother to take Canadian hostages wouldn't be interested in Canadian news about the subject?

geoffrey · March 3, 2006

Can you explain to me why you think someone who would bother to take Canadian hostages wouldn't be interested in Canadian news about the subject?

Because they are Muslim extremists out to kidnap Christians?

I doubt if they even understand anything about Canada, there are far more tasty targets out there than a Christian peacemakers group from Canada.

gerryhatrick · March 3, 2006

Because they are Muslim extremists out to kidnap Christians?
I doubt if they even understand anything about Canada, there are far more tasty targets out there than a Christian peacemakers group from Canada.

Oh yeah, those stupid Muslims don't know anything. They're probably too stoopid to even know which Country those hostages are from! I mean, they don't even speak or read English, so they can't ask the hostages anything or read anything seized from them.

Stupid Muslim extremists, huh?!

geoffrey · March 3, 2006

Because they are Muslim extremists out to kidnap Christians?

I doubt if they even understand anything about Canada, there are far more tasty targets out there than a Christian peacemakers group from Canada.

Oh yeah, those stupid Muslims don't know anything. They're probably too stoopid to even know which Country those hostages are from! I mean, they don't even speak or read English, so they can't ask the hostages anything or read anything seized from them.

Stupid Muslim extremists, huh?!

Why would you pick Canadians? It's not like they can get anything from us.

Definitely sounds like they don't know the difference. You really overexaggerate the knoweldge of people that only have a 40% literacy rate. Thats right, they can't even read their own language let alone ours.

shoop · March 3, 2006

Do you actually think they picked those hostages specifically because they were Canadian???

Can you explain to me why you think someone who would bother to take Canadian hostages wouldn't be interested in Canadian news about the subject?

BubberMiley · March 3, 2006

Why else would they take them?

shoop · March 3, 2006

They wanted Western hostages? As it happens the easiest targets for them to grab were Canadians...

Why else would they take them?

gerryhatrick · March 3, 2006

Why would you pick Canadians? It's not like they can get anything from us.

Sorry if you got the wrong impression, but I'm not one of the hostage-takers holding the Canadian hostages.

But I'd remind you that the purpose of hostage takers is political. I know you believe that a lack of a big bank roll and huge military means Canada isn't worth anything, but in fact we are worth a great deal.

Canada is a fantastic nation admired around the world, and hostage takers would raise the profile of thier cause if they drag Canada into it.

I'm amazed you don't understand the relevance of Canada in the world.

gerryhatrick · March 3, 2006

Do you actually think they picked those hostages specifically because they were Canadian???
Can you explain to me why you think someone who would bother to take Canadian hostages wouldn't be interested in Canadian news about the subject?

They perhaps didn't know who they were getting, but after they got them the nationality became relavent. And I think that is the real point that you missed.

Regardless of who they might have thought they were grabbing, once they know they are Canadian they will utilize that reality as best they can.

It's bizarre how some posters here believe hostage takers in Iraq would be ignorant of all media and questions of nationality.

Hicksey · March 3, 2006

I can just imagine the conversation now.

T1: I thought you said these were Americans.

T2: They are.

T1: No, they're Canadian.

T2: You've got to kidding me.

T1: No, they're Canadian. YOU IDIOT!

T2: They're white, same difference, right? <Pause> Do you think they'll give us beer for them?!

T1: <Slaps the snot out of T2>

Do you actually think they picked those hostages specifically because they were Canadian???
Can you explain to me why you think someone who would bother to take Canadian hostages wouldn't be interested in Canadian news about the subject?