Guest American Woman Posted October 10, 2012 Report Posted October 10, 2012 I have to marvel at how many people are so quick to believe everything the Omar's of the world say, so quick to defend them even when it involves making assumptions in order to make their case, while at the same time they are so quick to believe the negative about our countries, no matter how outrageous the claim. Seems as if the Omar's get all the benefit of the doubt as people are only too eager to believe the worst about our governments. I've said it before and I'll say it again - I cannot understand defending someone who took up arms against his own country and its allies. I cannot understand how people can say that he didn't do anything wrong. He wasn't "just defending himself;" he was hanging out with people whose desire was to kill us, and not just because we were attacking them - they were perfectly willing to do it on our soil. Omar could have surrendered himself when the U.S. troops entered the compound. Instead he chose to throw a grenade - and now he seems to be blaming everyone except himself and his parents for his actions. Quote
eyeball Posted October 10, 2012 Report Posted October 10, 2012 Blah blah blah. I have to marvel at the capacity that the truly dedicated sycophants have for squirming and twisting their way around some really fundamental principles of human decency. As the old saw has it, just WTF do you...people...imagine Jesus would do? You almost make sentience itself something to be ashamed of. Even animals aren't this plain mean. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Guest American Woman Posted October 11, 2012 Report Posted October 11, 2012 American Woman, on 10 October 2012 - 05:39 PM, said:Blah blah blah. I have to marvel at the capacity that the truly dedicated sycophants have for squirming and twisting their way around some really fundamental principles of human decency. As the old saw has it, just WTF do you...people...imagine Jesus would do? You almost make sentience itself something to be ashamed of. Even animals aren't this plain mean. Try using the quote feature the way it was intended - and then try controlling your temper and responding to what I said, sans insults. I have no desire to waste my time with this juvenile crap. Clearly you cannot control your temper, as you criticize others. Ironic that you would speak of human decency. This is why I always end up putting you on ignore. This time it will be permanent. Quote
eyeball Posted October 11, 2012 Report Posted October 11, 2012 You didn't ...try controlling your temper... Tttthhhpppbbbttt! Go tell it to Jesus, I understand he had a bit of a temper on occasion too. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
eyeball Posted October 11, 2012 Report Posted October 11, 2012 (edited) This is why I always end up putting you on ignore. This time it will be permanent. Edited October 11, 2012 by eyeball Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
eyeball Posted October 11, 2012 Report Posted October 11, 2012 So as long as we're down this stupid little cul-de-sac, what if Khadr had been a white American child soldier who'd killed a Canadian Muslim soldier and was captured by us and imprisoned in a Harper Government gulag on Baffin Island - preferably with a bunch of sadistic sex starved 'bears'? What would Mohammed do? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
carepov Posted October 11, 2012 Report Posted October 11, 2012 I have to marvel at how many people are so quick to believe everything the Omar's of the world say, so quick to defend them even when it involves making assumptions in order to make their case, while at the same time they are so quick to believe the negative about our countries, no matter how outrageous the claim. Seems as if the Omar's get all the benefit of the doubt as people are only too eager to believe the worst about our governments. I've said it before and I'll say it again - I cannot understand defending someone who took up arms against his own country and its allies. I cannot understand how people can say that he didn't do anything wrong. He wasn't "just defending himself;" he was hanging out with people whose desire was to kill us, and not just because we were attacking them - they were perfectly willing to do it on our soil. Omar could have surrendered himself when the U.S. troops entered the compound. Instead he chose to throw a grenade - and now he seems to be blaming everyone except himself and his parents for his actions. I have to marvel at how many people give the benefit of the doubt (i.e. blindly trust) the US/Canadian government. We could have just followed The Law and we would have avoided all this mess and been on step closer to winning the War on Terror than we are now. I do not support Khadr any more than you, and I support our side on the War on Terror as much as you. IMO, your kind of inflammatory rhetoric and blatant disregard for The Law is making it harder for us to win! Quote
eyeball Posted October 11, 2012 Report Posted October 11, 2012 I do not support Khadr any more than you, and I support our side on the War on Terror as much as you. IMO, your kind of inflammatory rhetoric and blatant disregard for The Law is making it harder for us to win! Now that's poignancy . Poignancy. That's my word of the day. It's a good word to use around Omar Khadr. It's applicable when considering why Omar Khadr sucks to you people that hate his guts. I'm betting that sensation you're feeling is your conscience speaking. You can fist yourselves in the ear to your elbows and scream la la la at the top of your lungs to your heart's content yet Jesus' and Mohammed's whisper still gets through. I'm a freaking godless atheist and I still get the basics. So WTblankety-blank is your excuse? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Guest American Woman Posted October 11, 2012 Report Posted October 11, 2012 I have to marvel at how many people give the benefit of the doubt (i.e. blindly trust) the US/Canadian government. Sure, some do. No question. That's not a good thing either, of course; but given a choice between believing everything the Omar's say, even going to far as to write history themselves to present it the way they'd like it to be, and believing everything our governments' say, I'd prefer the latter. As I said, I don't get the need to defend him. One could criticize our governments without defending him - and some do so without being aware of the facts. That was my point. We could have just followed The Law and we would have avoided all this mess and been on step closer to winning the War on Terror than we are now. I guess that depends on what "Law" one is referring to; or perhaps what their perception is. I do not support Khadr any more than you, I don't recall saying that you did; most likely because I didn't. I have no idea what your stance is. and I support our side on the War on Terror as much as you. Again. Never said otherwise. IMO, your kind of inflammatory rhetoric and blatant disregard for The Law is making it harder for us to win! Let's recap. You don't support Khadr any more than I do and you support the war on terror as much as I do. So perhaps you could point out the "inflammatory rhetoric and blatant disregard for The Law" that you are accusing me of. Or are you just making noise with nothing to back it up? Quote
bleeding heart Posted October 11, 2012 Report Posted October 11, 2012 I have to marvel at how many people give the benefit of the doubt (i.e. blindly trust) the US/Canadian government. We could have just followed The Law and we would have avoided all this mess and been on step closer to winning the War on Terror than we are now. I'm not sure there's any genuine appetite to win a "war on terror," and I don't really think any such thing actually exists, anyway. Besides, if the world's dictators declared a "War on Dictatorships," I doubt many of us would take the claims of the "war's" directives seriously. Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
cybercoma Posted October 11, 2012 Report Posted October 11, 2012 How do you win a war against a methodology anyway? It's a stupid buzz phrase. Quote
eyeball Posted October 11, 2012 Report Posted October 11, 2012 I don't get the need to defend him. And that's what his defenders don't get. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Guest Peeves Posted October 11, 2012 Report Posted October 11, 2012 And that's what his defenders don't get. Often a 'defense' is more akin to another opportunity to attack someone or something. Liberals now attacking Harper re Khadr were once attacking Khadr Quote
eyeball Posted October 11, 2012 Report Posted October 11, 2012 (edited) Let's recap. You don't support Khadr any more than I do and you support the war on terror as much as I do. So perhaps you could point out the "inflammatory rhetoric and blatant disregard for The Law" that you are accusing me of. Or are you just making noise with nothing to back it up? Like fighting alongside a pissed off balroc, everyone gets a whipping. Edited October 11, 2012 by eyeball Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
carepov Posted October 11, 2012 Report Posted October 11, 2012 Let's recap. You don't support Khadr any more than I do and you support the war on terror as much as I do. So perhaps you could point out the "inflammatory rhetoric and blatant disregard for The Law" that you are accusing me of. Or are you just making noise with nothing to back it up? Oops, I’m sorry. I mis-understood your post, and probably your stance, and embarrassingly I must admit I was just making noise with nothing to back it up. … but given a choice between believing everything the Omar's say, even going to far as to write history themselves to present it the way they'd like it to be, and believing everything our governments' say, I'd prefer the latter. As I said, I don't get the need to defend him. One could criticize our governments without defending him - and some do so without being aware of the facts. That was my point. I'd also take the government side IF I had to choose, but this is clearly not a choice between believing one side or the other. I also don’t get the need to either defend or attack him. If you don’t mind me asking… in your opinion, was the US treatment of Khadr... ...legal or illegal? ...moral or immoral? ...productive, counter-productive or insignificant towards the goal of winning The War on Terror? Quote
eyeball Posted October 11, 2012 Report Posted October 11, 2012 Often a 'defense' is more akin to another opportunity to attack someone or something. Liberals now attacking Harper re Khadr were once attacking Khadr What's that old rhyme...Liberal Tory same old story? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
carepov Posted October 11, 2012 Report Posted October 11, 2012 How do you win a war against a methodology anyway? Well one way is to kill all people using or advocating that methodology. (Not that I recommend it.) It's a stupid buzz phrase. Yes it is a stupid buzz phrase but it is widely used and understood. Do you have a better phrase to describe the "War on Terror"? Quote
bleeding heart Posted October 11, 2012 Report Posted October 11, 2012 What's that old rhyme...Liberal Tory same old story? Or "Two buttocks on the same fat gentleman." (I think that's the late Christopher Hitchens, but am not sure.) Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
bleeding heart Posted October 11, 2012 Report Posted October 11, 2012 Well one way is to kill all people using or advocating that methodology. (Not that I recommend it.) It would be--I mean literally--suicide. I don't recommend it either. Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
bleeding heart Posted October 11, 2012 Report Posted October 11, 2012 (edited) dp Edited October 11, 2012 by bleeding heart Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
bleeding heart Posted October 11, 2012 Report Posted October 11, 2012 (edited) dp again...sorry! Edited October 11, 2012 by bleeding heart Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
cybercoma Posted October 11, 2012 Report Posted October 11, 2012 Well one way is to kill all people using or advocating that methodology. (Not that I recommend it.) Yes it is a stupid buzz phrase but it is widely used and understood. Do you have a better phrase to describe the "War on Terror"? It's stupid. It's like starting a war against stabbings. Quote
carepov Posted October 11, 2012 Report Posted October 11, 2012 I'm not sure there's any genuine appetite to win a "war on terror," and I don't really think any such thing actually exists, anyway. Besides, if the world's dictators declared a "War on Dictatorships," I doubt many of us would take the claims of the "war's" directives seriously. Even if it is mis-named, the War on Terror is real: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Terror Of course there is appetite to win, who starts a war to loose? Quote
bleeding heart Posted October 11, 2012 Report Posted October 11, 2012 Even if it is mis-named, the War on Terror is real: http://en.wikipedia....i/War_on_Terror Of course there is appetite to win, who starts a war to loose? What I'm trying to get at is the fundamental disconnect: how can terrorist states be conducting a "war on terror"? Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
carepov Posted October 11, 2012 Report Posted October 11, 2012 (edited) What I'm trying to get at is the fundamental disconnect: how can terrorist states be conducting a "war on terror"? I know. You are bringing up semantics and I agree with your point but IMO the semantics are irrelevant. By the way, which countries do you consider "terrorist states"? Edited October 11, 2012 by carepov Quote
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.