Canada says no to missle defense scheme

[cbacon 0]

SOME OF THEIR REASONS FOR HATING THE WEST ARE JUSTIFIED.

 

THIS DOES NOT = "SOME OF THEIR REASONS FOR ATTACKING THE WEST ARE JUSTIFIED"

 

Jesus Christ your dense. Bill O'Reily would be proud at your selective interpretations though.

[Guest MikeSC]

SOME OF THEIR REASONS FOR HATING THE WEST ARE JUSTIFIED. 

 

THIS DOES NOT = "SOME OF THEIR REASONS FOR ATTACKING THE WEST ARE JUSTIFIED"

 

Jesus Christ your dense.

To say that terrorist attacks are a result of "Muslims hating freedom and democracy" is to say that you clearly have an unrealistic grasp of the world. If that were the case you'd be seeing attacks on places like Amsterdam and Sweden.

 

Seriously, all it takes is a bit of research and rational thought. Western culture isn't they're cup of tea, but the most obvious issues include the immense slaughter of Iraqi civilians during the Gulf War, the devestation of Iraq's population via US sanctions throught the past decade, the US's role in supporting Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories, it's support for brutal dicatorships throughtout the Middle East that repesss local populations and so on and on. Now, i'm not saying that all of their reasons are justified, some are , some aren't, but to totally ignore these issues and pass off terrorist attacks as a result of 'a hatred of Western culture and democracy' is just plain ignorant and a product of typical media rhetoric.

Shame you were discussing terrorist attacks and not hatred of the West.

-=Mike

[cbacon 0]

No, I was talking about the reasons, which incidently lead to attacks. If you notice in the second paragraph you conveniently quoted I specificall mention those reasons claiming that (read carefully now) some of their reasons for hating the west are justifiable. Comprendè?

[Guest MikeSC]

No, I was talking about the reasons, which incidently lead to attacks. If you notice in the second paragraph you conveniently quoted I specificall mention those reasons claiming that (read carefully now) some of their reasons for hating the west are justifiable. Comprendè?

No, you SPECIFICALLY were discussing ATTACKS. Note that I bolded the relevant portions of what you wrote --- and included all of the "context" that you claim gets ignored.

 

You WROTE that the reasons for "TERRORIST ATTACKS" --- even stating so AFTER you listed the reasons --- were justified.

 

You were, as tends to be the case, wrong. Oh well.

-=Mike

[cbacon 0]

I mentioned the attacks with the reasons being the focus of my comment. If you honestly believe I condone terrosist attacks against innocent civlians while at the same time spending most of my time on these forums condeming such actions, then go right ahead.

[Guest MikeSC]

I mentioned the attacks with the reasons being the focus of my comment. If you honestly believe I condone terrosist attacks against innocent civlians while at the same time spending most of my time on these forums condeming such actions, then go right ahead.

You don't condemn them. You justify them.

 

Or blame America for them. You're pretty predictable like that.

-=Mike

[cbacon 0]

I blame America when they act as terrorists, which they undoubtly have.

 

I have never, nor will I ever justify such terrorism by anyone. I've merely given a reason as to why terrorist attacks occur.

[Justice 0]

I blame America when they act as terrorists, which they undoubtly have.

 

I have never, nor will I ever justify such terrorism by anyone.

You mean like that time you showed us the video that claimed 9/11 was simply a response to a super-secret Neo-Conservative push for world domination through consumerism?

 

I think it's really, really funny to watch you backtrack like. It absolutely hilarious.

 

[cbacon 0]

Well, its not really that far of a stretch, although it's cute to use such colorful wording to describe it. 9/11 was a response/excuse to continue US hegemony by starting a war with a country that was no way affiliated with the attacks.

 

And how exactly am I backtracking here?

[Justice 0]

Well, its not really that far of a stretch, although it's cute to use such colorful wording to describe it. 9/11 was a response/excuse to continue US hegemony by starting a war with a country that was no way affiliated with the attacks.

That's not what it said.

 

This ghastly molecule aims to turn the world into its very own enslaved global market. And the plan is well underway. The attack by Al Qaeda on the World Trade Center was just one response to it.

 

Huh. That seems like it's justifying 9/11 as an attack against a megolmanical country bent on bending the world to it's consumerist goal. Wow, that sorta seems like an excuse, don't it?

 

Saying you support stuff like that and then saying "I never support terrorist attacks, no matter the reason" is an pretty good example of backtracking.

[cbacon 0]

jus·ti·fy

v. jus·ti·fied, jus·ti·fy·ing, jus·ti·fies

v. tr.

 

1. To demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid: justified each budgetary expense as necessary; anger that is justified by the circumstances.

 

The attack by Al Qaeda on the World Trade Center was just one response to it.

 

It was a response.

 

It was a reason.

 

It does not mean it was right. (aka justfying it)

 

You guys are really quite amazing at this whole spin doctoring business. It's amusing, yet terribly frightening at the same time.

[Justice 0]

jus·ti·fy

v. jus·ti·fied, jus·ti·fy·ing, jus·ti·fies

v. tr.

 

  1. To demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid: justified each budgetary expense as necessary; anger that is justified by the circumstances.

 

The attack by Al Qaeda on the World Trade Center was just one response to it.

 

It was a response.

 

It was a reason.

 

It does not mean it was right. (aka justfying it)

 

You guys are really quite amazing at this whole spin doctoring business. It's amusing, yet terribly frightening at the same time.

Perhaps you are dense, but it did justify it with the previous statement. It was a response to an evil megolmanic group trying to enforce corporate consumerism on the world. All it was was a response, retaliation for wrongs inflicted on it. It never says it was wrong in any way, shape, or form. In the context of the film, it actually goes a long way towards justifying it, especially with the segment I put in before it.

 

They obviously saved so many from becoming mindless mall rats! Dear God, bless those boys who took down those towers.

 

And hey, it's not spindoctoring, it's the truth. You just don't want to accept it.

Edited February 27, 2005 by Justice

[Justice 0]

Here, how about this: If you can explain where in the little video it condemns this sort of attack, I'll agree with you. It's light wording and placement, though, makes me believe, though, that it found the attacks on the WTC justified in part, if not wholely.

[cbacon 0]

Perhaps you are dense, but it did justify it with the previous statement. It was a response to an evil megolmanic group trying to enforce corporate consumerism on the world. All it was was a response, retaliation for wrongs inflicted on it. It never says it was wrong in any way, shape, or form. In the context of the film, it actually goes a long way towards justifying it, especially with the segment I put in before it.

 

My God.

 

Look:

 

It could have said the United States was neo-nazi regieme hell bent on enslaving all of mankind and that STILL wouldn't have been impying the attacks on the WTC were justified. It's saying that reasons behind the attacks were justified from an ideological perspective, not the acts themselves. There's a huge difference.

 

Example:

 

Someone runs you over in their car and you break your arm in the process. Now, your justified in wanting them to get run over or something equally bad. But if you go ahead and carry that action out, and end up killing them in the process, then that wouldn't be justified.

 

 

 

 

Here, how about this: If you can explain where in the little video it condemns this sort of attack, I'll agree with you. It's light wording and placement, though, makes me believe, though, that it found the attacks on the WTC justified in part, if not wholely.

 

First, link plz.

 

Second, i'm sure it dosent comdemn the attack and it shouldn't have to. It's not talking about the evils of radical fundmentalists, it's talking about the evils of US forien policy, they're two different things and if they wanted to make a point about radical fundamentalists then they'd make a peice that comdemns the actions of 9/11. Just because they don't mention it, dosen't mean they're justifying the attacks at all. It does not fit within the context. But i'm not surprised that your confused by 'light wording and placement' if it helps to further your inane cause.

 

And getting back on track since this thread was de-railed:

 

US foreign policy and the need for a missle defense system should be distanced from Canada since we are not the ones pissing off the Arab world, and thus not susceptible to any attacks, unless we go along and pander to the Bush Administrations reckless ideals for 'world peace' .

[Jingus 0]

Is is?

[cbacon 0]

Que?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

You WROTE that the reasons for "TERRORIST ATTACKS" --- even stating so AFTER you listed the reasons --- were justified.

 

You were, as tends to be the case, wrong. Oh well.

          -=Mike

I can't believe I'm saying this, but OWNED. Hard.

 

You almost never mentioned hating the West, C-Bacon. In fact, the few times you did mention it, you basically called it a scapegoat of the ignorant. While I'd agree with you on that fact, it was never the focus of your post beyond that point.

 

You basically said that there are reasons and positions and opinions that validate terrorism. Now, you are furiously backstepping with the "what I really meant to say" routine.

 

 

If history repeats itself, you will make a post in Hardcore Discussion about how you were playing us for fools and think we're all idiots anyway, before someone comes along and bans you.

[cbacon 0]

I can't believe I'm saying this, but OWNED. Hard.

 

You almost never mentioned hating the West, C-Bacon. In fact, the few times you did mention it, you basically called it a scapegoat of the ignorant. While I'd agree with you on that fact, it was never the focus of your post beyond that point.

 

My Statement:

 

To say that terrorist attacks are a result of "Muslims hating freedom and democracy" is to say that you clearly have an unrealistic grasp of the world. If that were the case you'd be seeing attacks on places like Amsterdam and Sweden. <-----Thesis

 

Seriously, all it takes is a bit of research and rational thought. Western culture isn't they're cup of tea, but the most obvious issues include the immense slaughter of Iraqi civilians during the Gulf War, the devestation of Iraq's population via US sanctions throught the past decade, the US's role in supporting Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories, it's support for brutal dicatorships throughtout the Middle East that repesss local populations and so on and on. ( ALL points about why they hate the West) Now, i'm not saying that all of their reasons are justified, some are , some aren't, ( Notice if you will, that i'm not saying that they are justified in attacking the West, but they're justified in being pissed off ) but to totally ignore these issues and pass off terrorist attacks as a result of 'a hatred of Western culture and democracy' is just plain ignorant and a product of typical media rhetoric. (re-iterating my previous statement)

 

I'm arguing his point in regards to the reasons why they hate the West. IF he said, they have no right in attacking us, then I suppose an argument that I'm an apologist for terrorist attacks could be made after posting that. But he didn't.

 

I stated there were more reasons for terrorist attacks. I stated they were justified in having some of these reasons. I nowhere said they were justified in carrying out the actual attacks. CONTEXT PEOPLE!

 

 

 

You basically said that there are reasons and positions and opinions that validate terrorism.

 

You fail at reading.

 

Now, you are furiously backstepping with the "what I really meant to say" routine.

 

Not backstepping, trying to explain what I was saying , because evidently i'm talking to a group of pre-schoolers here.

 

I stand by my statements 100% and if you choose to read them in an entirely different light, go ahead.

 

 

If history repeats itself, you will make a post in Hardcore Discussion about how you were playing us for fools and think we're all idiots anyway, before someone comes along and bans you

 

Thanks, Nostradaums! But I don't think i'll be posting such a message.

 

Seriously, at least chastize me for poor wording which led to the confusing. Even though that's not the case and you should be able to read within context, it's much more reasonable then claiming I supposedly claim the 9/11 attacks are justified.

 

Do however, enlighten me on this history you speak of , oh wise one.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

My Statement:

Hey kids, let's play interpret the post!

 

To say that terrorist attacks are a result of "Muslims hating freedom and democracy" is to say that you clearly have an unrealistic grasp of the world. If that were the case you'd be seeing attacks on places like Amsterdam and Sweden.

 

Okay, fair enough. I'm including this piece simply because it sets the subject of the whole. In this case, terrorist attacks.

 

Seriously, all it takes is a bit of research and rational thought. Western culture isn't they're cup of tea, but the most obvious issues

 

Translation: "Sure, there's a culture boundary, but you forgot about these other important issues that spark terror attacks."

 

Now, i'm not saying that all of their reasons are justified

 

Translation: "I'm not saying each and every one of these reasons validates terrorism..."

 

some are , some aren't

 

Translation: "...But some of them do."

 

but to totally ignore these issues and pass off terrorist attacks

 

Translation: The subject hasn't moved from terror attacks since it started.

 

( Notice if you will, that i'm not saying that they are justified in attacking the West, but they're justified in being pissed off )

 

In no way is that implied.

 

You fail at reading.

 

You fail at English, since there's no other logical conclusion from that statement, even though you're going around and telling us what you really intended now.

 

Do however, enlighten me on this history you speak of , oh wise one.

 

This is the beginning of the path that turned Kamui from irritating poster to hilarious punchline.

[cbacon 0]

To say that terrorist attacks are a result of "Muslims hating freedom and democracy" is to say that you clearly have an unrealistic grasp of the world. If that were the case you'd be seeing attacks on places like Amsterdam and Sweden.

 

Okay, fair enough. I'm including this piece simply because it sets the subject of the whole. In this case, terrorist attacks.

 

That's rather broad, the subject is WHY terrorist attacks occur. Herein lies the fallacy in your agruments.

 

Now, i'm not saying that all of their reasons are justified

 

Translation: "I'm not saying each and every one of these reasons validates terrorism..."

 

Never said it validated terrorism. I was implying they're hatred is valid. This is really getting quite redundant and now your putting words in my mouth.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

I've never understood how anyone could say 'yes' to a dangerous program that only encourages further weapons races as an attempt to protect a threat that doesn't even exist.

 

Because he's going to do it anyways, and it would be stupid to piss off your most important ally simply for moral reasons. The result is going to be the same anyways. I don't like the idea either, but basing policy on principles is idiotic.

 

We have been mentioned by terrorists as one of their targets of nations that they plan on attacking (and yes, France & Germany have been too). We can't afford to lose US military support. Our military can't defend us because the Liberals have slashed their budget for decades. I'm not saying that we should be spineless towards the US, but if you are willing to sacrifice that much, you better make sure it is worth it, and refusing to go along with something that is going to happen anyways (any attack on North America is a threat to the US, even if it isn't the US that is being attacked directly) isn't worth that sacrifice. We also could very well see economic sanctions.

 

Canada needs to remember that we need the US more than they need us.

[Vyce 0]

Canada needs to remember that we need the US more than they need us.

*wipes tear from eye*

 

You know, all we Americans have ever wanted was for you Canadians to acknowledge that.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

The US will always protect Canada. They have way too many interests up here to just ignore us. I think that _politically_ it was a dumb move by Martin because with this and the Iraq war, we really need something to show that "hey, we're best buddies".

 

If we were to get attacked, it would be in a 9/11 way. The Big Mighty American Military couldn't stop that either, so unless a _country_ declares war on Canada, whether or not our military could defend us is irrelevant. And if a country declared war on Canada, they would essentially be declaring war on the US. Infact, what's to be worried is that a country declares war on the US and Canada ends up in the crossfire. INFACT, I'm more worried about the US attacking us than any of the scenarios above.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

The US will always protect Canada. They have way too many interests up here to just ignore us. I think that _politically_ it was a dumb move by Martin because with this and the Iraq war, we really need something to show that "hey, we're best buddies".

 

They will protect us, but what's to stop them from closing the border to <insert resource or product here>? Or to stop coming up here and spending their money on tourism? Economically we need them. Like I said, the missile defence system is going to be built anyways, why not just be nice to them?

 

If we were to get attacked, it would be in a 9/11 way. The Big Mighty American Military couldn't stop that either, so unless a _country_ declares war on Canada, whether or not our military could defend us is irrelevant. And if a country declared war on Canada, they would essentially be declaring war on the US. Infact, what's to be worried is that a country declares war on the US and Canada ends up in the crossfire. INFACT, I'm more worried about the US attacking us than any of the scenarios above.

 

They won't now, but in 50 years who knows what things will be like. And I still hear some people claim (seriously) that we beat them back twice before and we can do so again. They need to remember that that was 200 years ago and when we had the strongest empire in the world backing us. We would get demolished now. And that's the problem. We need US to support to save us, but what if the US is backing an enemy power (like say Britain) or is invading us themselves? We're fucked.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

NAFTA? FTAA?

 

If America and Canada ever had problems where war would be involved, either two things would happen - 1. We'd surrender, or 2. We would fuck them up. I don't mean "fuck them up" in terms of actually winning a war, but how can you tell the difference between a Canadian and an American? It would be so complicated that it wouldn't happen, and things would have to change dramatically for even the idea to arise. It would be the middle east in North America. Also, don't you think that would be the perfect time for all the enemies of the US to gang up on them? There would be no better opportunity because Canada offers tactical positioning. I mean, shit, I live in Mississauga, we have like half the population of Pakistan... one call from an angry relative and we'd have them on our side.... think about it.

[Vyce 0]

Why the fuck would you be afraid that America would attack Canada?

 

You're like our younger, hippy brother who lives upstate. We get pissed off because all you seem to want to do with your life is drink beer, smoke your pot, and espouse liberal quasi-European ideology while watching hockey.

 

You annoy the hell out of us sometimes, and lately have been cock-blocking us on a few issues that we'd have liked your support on, but Canada is like the LAST country on our list of "nations we're gonna bomb just for the hell of it."

[KingPK 0]

NAFTA? FTAA?

 

If America and Canada ever had problems where war would be involved, either two things would happen - 1. We'd surrender, or 2. We would fuck them up. I don't mean "fuck them up" in terms of actually winning a war, but how can you tell the difference between a Canadian and an American?

When Americans talk, only their mouths move.

 

When Canadians talk, their head splits in half and the top part moves.

 

Er.....right?

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

NAFTA?  FTAA?

 

If America and Canada ever had problems where war would be involved, either two things would happen - 1. We'd surrender, or 2. We would fuck them up.  I don't mean "fuck them up" in terms of actually winning a war, but how can you tell the difference between a Canadian and an American?

When Americans talk, only their mouths move.

 

When Canadians talk, their head splits in half and the top part moves.

 

Er.....right?

Our asses are also on fire. Non stop.

 

Not to mention, all the maritimes folk just want to sodomize each other.

[Guest Brian]

But it's good cheap beer, and good reasonably priced pot. You can't dislike that.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

Why the fuck would you be afraid that America would attack Canada?

 

You're like our younger, hippy brother who lives upstate. We get pissed off because all you seem to want to do with your life is drink beer, smoke your pot, and espouse liberal quasi-European ideology while watching hockey.

 

You annoy the hell out of us sometimes, and lately have been cock-blocking us on a few issues that we'd have liked your support on, but Canada is like the LAST country on our list of "nations we're gonna bomb just for the hell of it."

I'm not afraid.

 

I said I was "more worried" than the above scenarios. Guess what? I'm not worried about the above scenarios from happening, cause they won't happen. But we have oil and water and energy. So... you know... you guys really love your oil.