I admit it Tim. You're right. The Canadians hate us. You wanna know why?

Since you seem to be most comfortable with the language of absolutes, that is what I will use.

Why Do The Terrorist-Loving Canadians Hate Us So Much?

1. They hate our freedoms.
2. They're either with us or against us.
3. America has the most perfect system of government that has ever been or ever will be.
4. We never act out of self interest.
5. We are doing the rest of the world a favor by importing all that nasty, toxic petroleum.
6. We went into Afghanistan to capture Osama Bin Laden, the perpetrator of the 9/11 attacks.
7. We went into Iraq to capture Saddam Hussein, the perpetrator of the 9/11 attacks.
8. Mission Accomplished.
9. They just want to cut and run.
10. Go to the Superdome where you'll be safe. The buses are on the way.

it is only obvious to your mealy mind. It is your opinion pure and simple (with the emphasis on "SIMPLE")

Nope, not at all, I support facts and truth, and of course (as do we all,) my own opinion.

I don't know for sure who this was directed to, (you didn't say), but I will answer. First, most, and primary, Stop mollycoddling Israel and insist that they start acting like reasonable human beings instead of the terrorists they have become.

Not for the attack but for doing things that CAUSED the attack. there is a great great difference in the two.

Now THAT is an idiotic statement which utterly ignores reality. If Israel were disarmed tomorrow, there would be no Israel. If Hamas, Hezbolah, Iran, and Syria were disarmed tomorrow, Israel and each of the countries it borders would live in peace!

Israel has done nothing but defend itself AGAINST terrorists. Unless you are going to call ALL acts of war "terrorism", then Israel is certainly no terrorist state.

And I say all this as someone who, had I been around at the time, would have been vociferously opposed to the creation of that state by the "world community". But that was over 60 years ago, the reality today is that it IS a sovereign state, and quite frankly the only one in the area with much in the way of moral authority.

Israel has been quite capable of utterly wiping out its enemies, but that is neither their stated goal, or intention, Israel would like nothing more than peaceful coexistence. The same cannot be said for their enemies by any rational and honest person.

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

So anyone who disagrees with you is reduced to a series of crude stereotypes and anyone who does NOT blame Americans for 9/11 is automatically a "super-patriot" fool? Why do you need to understand people in terms of crude stereotypes?

Do you deny that the foundation of the State of Israel was preceded by an extensive Jewish/Zionist terrorist campaign throughout the 1940's?

Do you deny that these terrorists targeted/killed innocent civilians for the purpose of publicising their political cause?

Do you deny that dozens of Israeli politicians (including Prime Ministers) have served many years in British jails for the crime of terrorism?

It is not my intention here to assert that Israel is inherently guilty and that their various opponents are angels. My only point is that Israel has a long and bloody terrorist history of her own and thus is in no moral position to assert that terrorism is evil. To pretend that Israel is some 'innocent' victim of Islamic aggression is a simplification of the issue that is intellectually untenable and politically dangerous.

Absurd. You really believe that if we are careful to placate, give in to and otherwise fawn over Islamic militants then they will stop hating us? Should we simply send them a request for a list of demands and then rush to do their bidding? Let's say we do that - what do you think their response will be? I can tell you: contempt.

I couldn't care less, that was 60 friggin' years ago, and most of those involved are DEAD and that has absolutely no moral relevance to the reality today, anymore than it would justify the invasion of Germany today because of what they were doing 60-70 years ago.



The U.S. used to permit slavery, does that mean we are in no moral position to oppose it in other nations today?

Talk about moral relativism. The moral authority for a position comes from the morality and justice of the POSITION and not from those espousing it. Had Mother Theresa called for the extermination of all muslims, it would not have been just merely because Mother Theresa called for it. Nor would a clarion call to give aid and comfort in the midst of a natural disaster by lacking in moral authority if it were uttered by a heinous dictator.

This is what many liberals failed to understand in criticizing the administation for cutting off aid to the palestinians after electing a terrorist organization. They incorrectly dubbed it as hypocritical for supporting the expansion of democracy, and then punishing a country for its democratic choices. This criticism was based on the faulty assumption that we promote democracy for democracy's sake, and that democracy confers moral legitimacy upon an action; it does not (as the democratic election of evil terrorists in Palestine demonstrates). What it IS based on is the fact that history has demonstrated that in the long-term, democracy is far more LIKELY to produce morally just outcomes than other, oppressive, forms of governemnt.


The long history of Israel's that you speak of was also LONG AGO history. There is nothing to support the position TODAY that Israel's goal is anything other than the peaceful coexistence with neighbors who recognize its right to exist (notice how Israel doesn't seem to have troubles with Saudi Arabia and Egypt). Rather it is in a protracted war AGAINST terrorists whose stated objective is NOT just "land for peace" or peaceful coexistence with Israel, but its annhilation. The only relevant question is whether Israel is morally justified in its actions TODAY in the face of an enemy that is seeking its utter destruction.

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

Which people?

The actual 9/11 attackers?

If that is the case, then we can reasonably take Osama's publicly stated word upon the topic given that he is widely believed to be the principal planner and financier of the operation. In his video where he claims responsibility for the 9/11 attack, Osama unequivically states that the attack was motivated as revenge against the USA for their military occupation of Islam's most holy place (Saudi Arabia) and for the US support for various secular dictatorships in the Middle East (i.e. Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait and UAE, though not named by Osama).

Apparently a majority of Canadians (according to this poll-thingie) believe this to be generally 'true'. That is to say, Osama and his boys did the 9/11 thing for the reasons that Osama gave when claiming responsibility for the 9/11 attack.

As for what motivates any other disparate group of people - such as the Bali disco-bombers, the Madrid train-bombers, the London train-bombers, suicide bombers in Middle East generally and/or the warring Iraqis? Who the fuck knows? What motives the American people? (methinks the groups are too large and disparate to make such vague generalisations)

While I'm inclined to agree that legal adjudication ought to consider 'the act' as far more important than any 'motive to act', in any general case, methinks your 'black & white' statement here is a bit too stark for actual legal application.

Indeed, there are several darn good reasons the US Government opposes the ICC (the International Criminal Court at the Hague) and has worked very hard to ensure that American citizens working on behalf of the US Government cannot be tried under that court's jurisdiction.

Or to put it another way, it takes some fairly delicate legal dancing around the issues to craft a legal definition of terrorism that effectively precludes some acts undertaken by the US Government over the years (outside US borders of course). Suffice it to say that 'terrorist' vs 'freedom-fighter' is a line of distinction that exists only by arbitrary (subjective) political decree. In the eyes of any legal system, they are identical acts.

Again, very tricky legal turf. In our present legal environment, without a motive, murder is only legally tried as manslaughter. Ergo, motive is considered a core principle of adjudicating the degree or extent of punishment/guilt.

That being said, I'm no fan of 'hate crime' legislations - particularly the American variety which is particularly ugly law. Canada's 'hate law' is far less odious (in my opinion) though far more comprehensive, though again, I'm no fan of such laws. Speaking of which, I'm no fan of anti-pot laws either, but that's life. I don't get to pick and choose what laws exist.

No, I'm generally dismissing them on the basis of the information that I've been able to disern regarding the case - the actual charges laid, the evidence shown to the media (the legal jurisdication of the case is sited about 30 miles from where I live and thus the case is watched particularly closely by the local Toronto media).

I'll agree generally with this. Particularly the last point. We are (generally) doing the last point - increasing border security, increasing monitoring of cross-border traffic, etc. And nobody really opposes this kind of stuff. People are willing to put up with a bit of extra security hassle if it means an effective safety/security response to a real threat of terrorism.

Indeed, this is where the Bush/Republicans have been most weak - and where the Democrats have been most aggressive. Where are the port-cargo scanners? (the ones that can spot nukes inside a cargo container) The Democrats have been pushing for this at least since 9/11 and nothing is happening.

That is the real kind of thing that is needed when confronted with serious potential terrorist threats - a police/monitor/security approach. Starting wars in Iraq is probably the absolute worst thing the USA could have done in the context of 'fighting against terrorists' in response to the 9/11 attack. That is like throwing gasoline on the fire.

I have NEVER supported any such silly notion as interfering with Iran's internal affairs.

Indeed, I have posted extensively upon the topic of the logic and rationale of nuclear proliferation and I see no rational reason to fear Iranian nuclear weapons any more than I fear Pakistani, Indian, Israeli, Chinese, Russian, British, French or American nuclear weapons. No rational reason at all. Lots of irrational ones are available though.

Bad example. N.Korea has developed nuclear weapons in a direct and rational response to a perceived threat from the US government. Now it is obvious that the government of N.Korea is a crackpot regime that is inherently dangerous to itself and its neighbours, but that does not negate the fact that US policy with respect to N.Korea has been an absolutely horrific failure (evidenced by N.Korean nuke weapons).

USA has consistently and constantly refused to sign either a peace treaty or a non-aggression pact with N.Korea - using only a relatively successful strategy of isolation - N.Korea is almost completely isolated diplomatically - yet the strategy has consistently failed to bring N.Korea to collapse or surrender or homage to Washington (or whatever it is that Washington has been pushing for on the issue for the last 45 years since the shooting stopped).

Absolutely not.

I will support negotiations to see if we can talk them out of it. That seems quite reasonable and rational and that strategy has worked previously (not bloody often, but it has worked).

Failing that, I see nothing seriously wrong. As I've argued in other threads upon the topic, the introduction of nukes in the long running bloody feud between Pakistan and India appears to have stablised and reduced the confict substantially. Israel's present possession of nuke weapons is assymetrical to a balance of mutual destruction and thus is inherently destabilising in the Middle East. Ergo, Iran's possession of a nuke weapon would return the Middle East to a position of 'mutually assured destruction' which increase regional political stability - which in the actual historical cases of Pakistan/India as well as USA/USSR, produced a (relatively) bloodless resolution to serious and complex conflicts.

That much may be true of Osama Bin Laden and his band of hijackers. I do not presume to dispute that.

But how you can rationally justify attributing the motives/actions of a small minority (9/11 attackers) and apply it to the whole of the Islamic peoples of the Middle East (or the planet) is totally beyond me. Indeed, such an action is only consistent with a desire for war or holy crusade (a jihad as it were).

Yes, probably true. Hindsight is always 20/20.

And I have no objection to any US actions to pursue/apprehend/prosecute anyone who engages in such terrorist attacks against the USA. I don't see how anyone can object to that.

But what is 'good for the goose, is good for the gander'... and this does bring us back to 'blowback can be a real bitch'. Sometimes, the other guys are going to perceive US actions as terrorism and they are going to strike back (seeking justice). Their methods may differ, but the principle is the same.

Blowback is the term the CIA uses to describe the potential for retributive or revenge attacks against the USA or US citizens 'caused' by various clandestine CIA actions (that may not have turned out so well).

But that doesn't change the basic underlying fact here (attested to by Osama's public reasons for the 9/11 attack) that US foreign policy was the ultimate driving force of his holy enmity.

That doesn't excuse Osama or his actions. He's a criminal and a terrorist and I hope the US Government would please feel free to catch/prosecute/execute him as soon as possible.

But the fact that Osama is a dangerous fanatical bastard, or that he's a radical Islamic terrorist, doesn't change the fact that US foreign policy actions in the Middle apparently do drive some Islamic people to extremist behaviour in response (evidenced by Osama's actions).

Yes, as noted above, hindsight is 20/20 and thus rather effective. Such things are not always so clear-cut back when they were happening. In retrospect, it would have been nice if Osama was apprehended back then (if it was ever actually possible).

Notwithstanding partisan rhetoric and media talking points, the historical record is no where near as 'cut and dried' as you might like it to be in blaming Clinton as the arch villian here when it comes to US security failures.

And in my books, a failure of omission (such as Clinton's) is less of a comparative failure since there are literally billions of things that Clinton's Administration failed to do (purely theoretical) than a failure of commission (such as Bush's) - which is a specific act and thus a clear distinction against a theoretical infinity of optional non-acts (my apologies for being philosophic and/or semantic here).

I would really love some documentation for that sickening assertion.

I don't remember Israel targetting any civilians. Any documentation? (this is getting dull).

Marcus1124;797977]Now THAT is an idiotic statement which utterly ignores reality. If Israel were disarmed tomorrow, there would be no Israel.

That is likely true. but who has suggested they be disarmed??

If Hamas, Hezbolah, Iran, and Syria were disarmed tomorrow, Israel and each of the countries it borders would live in peace!

Your opinion doesn't follow. actually I suspect Israel would then take on expansion of it's borders but it certanly would not bring peace to the area unless Israel became king.

Israel has done nothing but defend itself AGAINST terrorists. Unless you are going to call ALL acts of war "terrorism", then Israel is certainly no terrorist state.

In a word, "BS" read the history of the area.


and quite frankly the only one in the area with much in the way of moral authority.

Once more, that is BS they have on moral authority. They might have had, but they DON'T

Israel has been quite capable of utterly wiping out its enemies, but that is neither their stated goal, or intention, Israel would like nothing more than peaceful coexistence.

[i] More BS, Yes, with the continued help of the US, they could wipe out much of the middle East, but in the doing would destroy themselves as well.[/I}

The same cannot be said for their enemies by any rational and honest person.[/quote]

Of course not, they don't have a powerful big brother like the US.

MY MY MY, you certainly have a knack of expanding a persons words to fit your meaning.

Fortunately you are all wet. I have never said, suggested, nor considered placating them I have simple said that I undrstand their reasons. that doesn't mean that I approve of them.