American forces free Canadian hostages; Canadians immediately blame America

Will, you lie more than Bush.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4839172.stm

They blamed the US troops?

said it was "great to be free".

Your boys?

week-long operation led by British troops and involving US and Canadian special forces.

 

You are probably right, but Will is not an active liar in my opinion, he's one of the most honest persons here on DP. I don't agree with everything he says, but I agree on 95%.

 

LOL. This must the funniest post this year.

What does it mean he is not active liar, is he a passive liar or lies just comes so naturally to him that it is not considered a lie anymore?

 

Did a "Canadian" make the statement? Yes. Were two of the hostages Candian? Yes. Was the Canadian speaking on their behalf? Yes.

And while he mentioned "our boys," you portrayed it as "the forces who rescued them were largely British, with help from the US military." Who is misleading whom?

A Canadian makes statements in Canada about Canadian hostages, but there is no tie to Canada? Sure, that works!

Nope, just calling you on your own inaccuracies and how such trivial things can be used to overshadow the bigger story.

Not at all. I'm sure more information will be forthcoming on the events and perhaps an explanation of why they are praising the people that murdered one of their members. It just depends on what you want to make important out of the story.

 

It DID bring a smile to my face. Funniest post? Someone should start a poll.

 

That is because you don't know little willy as much as the rest of us, otherwise you will be rolling on the floor with uncontrollable laughter.

 

His "report" made NO MENTION of British hostages, NOR British rescue forces, NOR (conveniently) Canadian rescue forces.

"British Defense Secretary John Reid said British troops "spearheaded" the rescue operation. The U.S. military confirmed that U.S. special forces took part and said the operation was continuing and coalition forces were looking to gather further intelligence from the house where the men were held."
Source
So, do you believe it to be accurate to report Americans saving Canadians with no mention of the brave men and women of the British forces or the brave men and women of the Canadian forces? Or was Will's report inaccurate, in your view?

 

With the quality of the report that started this thread, I can certainly agree with you on that one, GTech.

 

The Yahoo story I posted didn't mention Canadian forces either. It was a breaking story. The bottom line of the story was not who assisted who.

And now go back and read the story from Yahoo I posted. I'm sure you or I could pick stories off all day long that have varying details. Who assisted who was not the heart of the story. But for some, covering up the heart of the story is all that matters

 

I'd say the same about yours as well. Though the big part of the story remains quite accurate, despite trying to cover it up.

 

Are you provocing me, as you use to do?

You are certainly 100 times less honest then the Great Will considering your way of arguing with your phsyco-half-intended-insults. We, the users of DP have had enough.

Don't take this the wrong way, but please shut up if you don't have anything useful to say.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, here, GTech, but it looks to me like...

I am saying...
"Let's look at all the facts."

And you are saying...
"Let's look at Will's facts."

I read the Yahoo story you provided (Thank you for that, BTW.), but I didn't limit my information gathering to Yahoo. I prefer to look at a number of sources and then compile the information into a coherent collection.

 

You should follow your own advice, Spanky!

 

What do you mean, you posted that he is not an "active" liar, so I wondered what do you mean, what kind of liar is he in your opinion?

 

Reformed liar maybe?

 

I don't know if you are accusing ME of the cover up or Will.

If you are thinking I want to cover up the facts on this, then you only need to consider my willingness to look at ALL the information and not just the inacurate information that Will began this thread with.

 

That is why I am confused, there are too many options:

passive liar, off-duty liar, reserve liar,...

 

Just because he isn't an active liar doesn't mean that he is a liar at all.

Also, he make great posts in the SEO section <gworld>while you don't do a shit over there, I think.</gworld>

 

I didn't get the impression you were saying "let's look at all the facts" at all. My impression was that you were upset that Canadians were involved and perhaps your recent ordeal with Will was leaving you some feelings of animosity. You chose to attempt to correct what you perceived as inaccuracies and I chose to correct your inaccuracies. Were I saying let's look at Will's facts, I would not have said:

But then I'm not trying to cover up the heart of a breaking story.

 

What did I say that wasn't useful? Where's your proofs?