Subject:
|
Re: Not embarassed to be a Canadian anymore...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 26 Nov 2002 22:04:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
557 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> First, what does it matter which skyscraper was levelled?
Well, not to sound insensitive, but if OBL attacked Canada, I would care a lot
less than I do now. Part of that may be human nature. Millions of people die
every day, but I'd care a whole lot more if one of them was in *my* family.
>Show me that SH and OBL are in league together. Don't just say 'They're
> both *evil* so we can go after either one and achieve the same results' SH
> didn't fund the hijackers, SH didn't send them on this 'eliminate infedel'
> mission, SH had *nothing* to do with 9/11 and yet what's our focus right
> now? Even after OBL puts out another tape threatening more 'terrorist
> attacks', GW is *singularly* focused on SH to the *exclusion* of all else.
> At least that's what appears to be the case.
> So call 'em as I see 'em.
That may be part of the problem. Of course the US won't necessarily release
top secret info for security issues, and I know that sounds convenient, but we
do need to trust our government to some extent. I trust that President isn't
so wacked that he'd risk 1,000s of American lives for no reason, or a reason as
trite as "oil". Maybe you don't trust him that much. We can agree to disagree.
> Two wrongs don't make a right. Never did. That said, in the realm of
> politics and media, this sort of overheard private conversation makes for
> great media attention.
Only if it a) embarrasses our president, b) coincides with the media POV
> During another debate, I was, shall we say, slightly wrong on my stance.
> There were those that probably thoguht 'He said that??? What a moron!' I
> would have prefered 'He said that?? Obviously he just doesn't get it!'
> The aide is known for speaking 'everyday parlance' where 'moron' is another
> way of saying 'he who doesn't get it!'.
Ahh, so that's the way it is in that family...;-) Then I applaud them
(translation: they are a bunch of morons:-)
> She was specifically talking about the aforementioned issue of this
> 'digression' of the war on terror.
>
> But that still isn't the point. The point is that OBL is still at large.
> OBL is why this 'war on terror' started, and GW's policies today are
> moronic--they are clouding the waters with this SH tangent.
>
> Is like Dec 7, 1941 and FDR says "Oh, Japan just blew up a large portion of
> our midway fleet and we're angry about it--let's concentrate *all* our
> efforts on our war on Italy."
What if we learned that Mussolini trained the kamikazee pilots? What if
Mussolini was supplying the Japanese with Zero spare parts? And what if that
information was top secret. The point is you wouldn't know, and to speak out
against attacking Italy would be rather ignorant.
The point is that we are fighting a non-traditional enemy and the book is being
written as we go along. We may make misteaks along the way, but that will
probably be in seen in hindsight, not from kneejerk naysayers.
> Best example I could think of right off the top of my head.
>
> And no, I wasn't sarcastic at all--I really did appreciate a direct response
> to my post, instead of a digression--the issue was the moron quote, not the
> middle east issues--the war on terror was just showing the context of the
> quotation, not the actual debate point.
Gotcha.
-John
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Not embarassed to be a Canadian anymore...
|
| (...) Bull. I don't trust John Ashcroft to protect anyone's rights. Nor did I trust Janet Reno either. Did you even look at the "Habeas Corpus" post I posted? "sounds convenient" indeed. (...) I don't trust that the president isn't so wacked. (...) (22 years ago, 27-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Not embarassed to be a Canadian anymore...
|
| (...) First, what does it matter which skyscraper was levelled? If it was Bloor and Yonge that was 'ground zero' and a year+ later JC was going on some campaign against someone who wasn't even *involved* in the attack, of course we'd call his (...) (22 years ago, 26-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
51 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
