cbacon

Welcome back, Gabe.

Aww, can't come up with an actual response, so simply cry about 'typical conservative argument' ruining it for you. Sorry, nope. There's a difference between explaining the reasons the insurgency and trying to legitimize them. You were trying to legitmize them by saying that they weren't attacking civilians or didn't mean to. You were justifying why they would attack those targets in an attempt to discredit the idea that they didn't care about the civilian population and that they were attacking it with more fervor, both of which are very much false. My reading comprehension is the problem here? You are the one who seems to have problems understanding your writing. Hell, even Brian, a guy who I don't oft agree with on Iraq, thought you dug yourself a hole with this stuff. You are the only one who can't recognize what you yourself are saying. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Your responses so dramatically misinterpret what I'm saying that it seems pointless to bother responding only to have you make arguments about things I don't even believe. I'll try and spell this out as clearly as I can for you but if you don't at least make a half-assed attempt to respond like a reasonable, critically thinking human I'm not going to waste my time responding. Anyway, here goes: I think what the insurgents are doing is wrong. I think it's horrible. I don't really care what their reasons are, or who they're targetting, they shouldn't be blowing people up, shooting them, etc. I can't possibly be trying to justify their actions because I think what they're doing is atrocious. You said that they were targeting civilians. In the majority of cases that is factually incorrect, as I showed using your own sources, and I'd only have to go as far back as, say, yesterday, to show you more evidence that the insurgents are not primarily targeting civilians. What they're doing is horrible, but you were factually, objectively, and inarguably incorrect on that point, and trying to argue that point further makes you look like an idiot because there are no grounds on which a reasonable human being could possibly take a claim that goes against all available facts seriously.

12 years too late.

Oh man. Dear Justice - reading comprehension. Please work on it. And I'm not even going to get started with the typical conservative argument tatic of jumping to conclusions and wacky accusations (I state the reasons for Iraqi resistence, therefore I MUST condone their actions against civilians)

What was the set list like? I'll be seeing them on the 26th.

12 000 killed by the insurgents. How many total? Yeah. Let's take a look at the incidents cited in Justice's article: Attack on an "oil city", which could clearly be seen as an attack on foreign interests. An attack on the government, which the insurgents associate with the American occupation. Attack on foreign business interests again. Another attack on the government. Attack on police (also associated with the occupation). These two were both attacks on civilians. That puts the total at 5 attacks against the occupation, 2 attacks on civilians. That of course doesn't count the dozens of times U.S. forces come under attack every day, which would put the ratio far, far ahead. That being said, I don't know anyone who believes the insurgents are doing anything good, so I'm not sure what your point is.

Amnesty’s response To Bush:

I'm not going to bother looking up every single individual incident, but the insurgents in the vast majority of cases are not targeting civilians. The targets tend to be groups they associate with the U.S. occupation, like police and Iraqi security forces. As for Iraq being better under Saddam, that's not even arguable. The huge report I posted (that the current Iraqi government helped create) listed a whole slew of major things that have gotten worse since the fall of Saddam. The U.S. would never allow true democracy in Iraq, as a truly democratic Iraq would do two things that the U.S. can't let happen: 1 - establish closer ties with Iran 2 - become the Arab world's dominant anti-Israeli voice Some Iraqis as well as Americans and , oh yeah, the United Nations might disagree.

Blinded by EXACTLY what is going down in Iraq? Ok, if i'm being blinded from the alternate universe that you live then i guess you'd be right. Many Iraqi's are much worse off since the invasion then they were with Saddam at the helm, and that's a fact Since you had to sign-up to read the report I posted, here it is in full: But hooray for democracy! They're upset because they lost power? Interesting. At least you didn't bust out the 'they hate freedom!' rhetoric. How do you think they'd react with their country being occupied? You honestly think that after having their country being bombed to the ground that they'd just sit back without resistance?

Books are harmful?

Before you condemn Canada for this, take a look at the condition that was imposed. Personally, I'd have said fine, we'll incarcerate, and then not done it. But that's just crazy old me. If a government's duty is to protect its citizens, and the only choices offered are to let an innocent Canadian citizen be deported to face torture and imprisonment or incarcerate him here, it makes sense to look for a third option. For those unfamiliar with the story of Maher Arar: Info Mahers story

How exactly am I looking at Canada through rose-coloured glasses? It's an easy thing to say, but I doubt you could back that up with the same ease. The Liberals deserve to be elected out of office for their scandals (granted, despite their shortcomings, they're still the lesser of the 2 evils). Anyone could say that you look through your own rose-coloured glasses when looking at America's list of crimes, and it would be a much easier statement to back up. Or anyone could say "You look so hard for (canadain) corruption that you eventually see it everywhere because, well, that's what you want to believe.", just as you said to me. But, for the moment being, I'll give you the beneift of the doubt and a chance to clear my glasses for me. What exactly has Canada done that is deserving to be on America's "Hit-list" (assuming you weren't kidding)? I really can't think of an instance where Canada has committed a crime(or simply something really bad) on the international level where America didn't do the exact same thing. And I can't think of any internal problems our country has that aren't also found in America in equal or worse quanities. When I said I percieve the US to be a threat of Canada's sovereignty and World peace, I obviously wasn't referring to an invasion (....yet ) Propaganda? You mean statistics? That's fine with me. And when they starting financing them to the extent America is, I'll heckle them to the extent I heckle America. Excuse me? Ok, for the sake of this argument i'll refrain from directly calling the US an "empire". The fact that it is or isn't an exclusive thing doesn't make America "comparable" to an empire, it's the fact you're doing it in the first place that makes you "comparable" to an empire. The fact you're constantly using your influence to modify the situation in certain areas to fit america's needs makes you comparable to an empire. In regards to solutions for Middle East problems, first step, stop fucking around with the area in-general, most of the problems in the area can be traced back to European (mainly British), American and Soviet dominance. Stop support Israel and grant the Palastinians the right of self-determinance. Stop the embargo on Iran, which simply plays into the hands of the government, as it did in Iraq. Stop supporting the repressive regime of the Saudi Royal Family. You already screwed up on Iraq, and to a lesser extent, Afghanistan, so I really don't know what you can do with those countries now, other than continue to pull out troops and allow the local governments to take control of the sitiuation. If a "progressing democracy" are the case for US lead invasions, then they are always the answer, causes a set back. Therefore, the reality of the situation hasn't been created to make peaceful negotiating a task. Consider the indifference/animosity toward Bush is because Iraqis post-Hussein era want to control their own oil and not be exploited. Likewise, we'd be amidst civil war emerging if the US were to invade Canada for control over natural resources. No, I don't like the idea of Saddam in power, but given the alternative, Iraqis are in much worse condition since the US led invasion

Ya, Christian was tag champs with Storm on Smackdown before jumping to Raw with Test. IIRC, they brought the World Tag straps with them

If Christian is to have a program with Cena, he'd first need to go over a ME face on SMDN, relatively clean. I'm not sure how they could go about this unless they somehow convince Taker to put him over.

Silly Bush Actually I see the problems quite clearly. However, It's one thing to criticize one's country, it's another thing to declare war upon it. You're condeming me for the very thing that the US has done. I percieve the US to be a threat of Canada's sovereignty and World peace, therefore I view that as a much larger problem than who Belinda Stronarch is fucking. I don't think Iraq wanted them there. Ditto Afghanistan (unless you ask US client Karzai that is) and other Middle Eastern nations. It dosen't matter if some nations want military bases there. It's the goals set that are the problem. Like the Roman Empire who tried to use military power to support i's weaking hold over it's colonies, the US is inserting itself into new regions to prevent competitors from doing the same. The whole reasons for the 9/11 attacks were due to issues involving military bases in the dictatorship of Saudi Arabia. The ramifications of other bases could result in other huge consequences. In terms of an empire, the US is indeed one because it dominates the world through its military power. You don't have to call it an empire or even an informal one, but it still means puppet regiemes are being financed, supported and recieve military aid from the US. Just like Abu Gharib, right? What makes you think that all of the claims at Gitmo, are thus fabircated? Again, refer to the links I posted to get a bet understanding of what kind of reality we're talking about in this world of "good vs. evil". But go ahead and continue to be spoon-fed the same old rhetoric. I'd say this sums up the recent Amnesty/Conservative issue quite well:

Agreed. The fact this was posted in this folder baffles me.

America is great because it's done good things, which means it has and can never do anything bad or unjust. When an individual or group of individuals (in this place an entire country) holds enough influence and power, it will eventually become corrupt. Give me one instance in history where this trend never occured. The scale at which the US extends influence, be it cultural, economic, covert or full-scale militarism is drastically larger than any other country in the history of the world, this cannot be denied. Taking this into consideration, is it at all POSSIBLE that the US can do whatever the fuck it wants without suffering reprocusions. This may include breaking International Law, brainwashing citizens with meanlingless nationalism. This maybe true in certain regards, but wouldn't it be logical to assume that the US will one day become more guilty than these old-world European countries, given the current path of militarism the US is currently trending towards? Would it also be logical to use these countries as examples that growing too influencial militarly has a negative effect? Example: Napoleon's defeat, Russia's rise and fall of communism, Germany's two World Wars. These countries lost their power/influence because they expanded themselves too far economically/militarly. Is the US currently heading in such a direction, and are steps and countermeasures in place to deter such a 'fall of empire'?

Investigated by who? The Bush adminstration and its appointees? Because I'm sure they're going to be honest if they really are torturing people. I guess if you want to claim the US isn't engaging in torture, what they do is send people they want tortured to other countries like Syria Just about every industrialized nation in the world follows international law with more consistency than the U.S. (When was the last time New Zealand broke international law?)

1. Matthew Good - Lullaby for the New World Order (Live) 2. Green Day - Wake Me Up When September Ends 3. Q And Not U - District Night Prayer 4. Radiohead - Paranoid Android 5. Weezer - The Other Way 6. My Bloody Valentine - What You Want 7. Q And Not U - Line in the Sand 8. Matt Good - 21st Century Living (live) 9. Modest Mouse - Long Distance Drunk 10. Bloc Party - Pioneers 11. Radiohead - Climbing up the Walls 12. Bright Eyes - Train Under Water 13. Jimmy Eat World - Lucky Denver Mint 14. Jimmy Eat World - Polairs (live) 15. Interpol - Evil

Indeed. I'd also point out the Fifth amendment to the United States Constitution: Eighth amendment to the United States Constitution: Although though the US thumbing its nose at international law and rewarding human rights abusers is nothing new. But it dosen't make these sorts of stores less disturbing.

What about the innocents that were scooped up and held there for however many of horrible days? Fuck your sense of heirarchy. They're still human beings. Even if many are guilty of malicious intent, they still must be treated in accordance to the Geneva Convention. Amnesty have received no reply to its repeated requests to visit Guant�namo. If there is indeed nothing to hide, then there would be no reason to prevent it. Amnesty is useless? Tell that to the countless number of people who have been freed from human rights abuses around the world and the awareness it has brought to atrocities such as this. Yes, that's exactly why the US went to war . And yeah, the torturing of humans, many of which have not been proven guilty, should be the concern of everyone. Further reading: New revelations about Guantanamo Bay prisoners How I entered the hellish world of Guantanamo Bay What Really Happened at Guantanamo Bay? For the first time, an army insider blows the whistle on human rights abuses at Guant�namo Full Amnesty Report Some highlights: This goes without mention the detention centeres in Iraq, Afghanistan and other undisclosed locations.

Link Some may remember the same dicussion of a Family Guy DVD movie which of course led to the series being renewed.

Neat. What else did they add in the new DVD set?