American forces free Canadian hostages; Canadians immediately blame America

SOME of your neighbors to the north. SOME of our neighbors to the south are pretty damn appalling too...

SOME of your Northern neighbors. There are a number of things that Canadians are unhappy with the US about too (hint: softwood lumber and refusing to recognize at least three decisions in favor of Canada from the World Court, just because you can - this is "free trade"?; hint: blaming us for mad cow disease and banning our beef when the US has had more cases of mad cow than we have).

I told you the anti-US voices in Canada were noisy. making a lot of noise doesn't make anyone a spkesman for me. Neither does being a politician I didn't vote for and don't even like or support.

Re-read what ccole wrote above:

And re-writing history doesn't help the situation. I acknowledge the significant contribution that the US made in the battle of Europe in WW2. But let's not forget that by the time the US entered that war Britain and Canada and Russia and Australia and several other countries had been fighting that war for 4 years. I think that just maybe that might have contrubuted something to the Allied victory, especially considering that for most of the participants the war was on their front steps and over their heads, which wasn't the case for most Americans (or Canadians, granted).

 

That's why this discussion is about patterns.

Note that the Canadians don't tend to say "Private Jones invaded Iraq" or "Sergeant Smith bombed Tikrit." Why don't they day that? Why don't they talk about individuals? Why? Because it would be senseless to do so.

People have conflicts, but nations also have conflicts. This isn't a personal conflict, it is a national conflict. Or, it was until ccole decided to let his ongoing temper tantrum flood into this thread.

Minstrel, the hotheaded anti-Americans in your country are making your whole country look bad.

Americans are smart, we realize that not every Canadian is a complete lunatic. We also realize that the lunatics get a lot more air time than the average Canadian.

However, if the Canadians devote all of their air time to screaming about how Americans are baby killing rapists who eat their own dead -- there isn't ever going to be very much air time left to discuss soft woods, bovine diseases, and missile defense systems.

 

"Q: As someone who repeatedly put your life on the line, did some of the most hair-raising things to protect your country, and to see your country behave this way, that must be ...

A: It's pretty galling. But ultimately I believe in the good and the decency of the American people, and they're starting to see what's happening and the lies that have been told. We're seeing this current house of cards start to flutter away. The American people come around. They always do."

Eric Haney, a retired command sergeant major of the U.S. Army, was a founding member of Delta Force, the military's elite covert counter-terrorist unit.

http://www.dailynews.com/ontv/ci_3641046

Canadian are expressing the same feelings that is shared by decent American or any other caring human being. The majority in USA is now sharing the same disgust with what is happening to their country. Are you going to claim that majority of Americans are anti America?

little willy, you and people like you are not America. You are just bunch of hateful little people that always run after this kind of governments because it gives them an outlet to express their hate against other human beings. People like you are the one who are trying to steal the title Americans because you would like to pretend that world opposition is against your country, instead of war profiters in your government and their little bigot supporters.

 

And herein lies the problem:

How can:

and

-(emphasis added) - Come from the same logical universe? How can you one at the same time say that the opinions of some individuals (whether you agree with the substance of their argument or not) make an entire nation look as one, and then, in the next paragraph, say the exact opposite - that we Americans can discern that the viewpoint of one is not the viewpoint of all? How can you say: one equals all; one does not equal all?

Again, aside from any substantive argument: you have lumped together a mass of people over one supposed viewpoint, and moreover, you have disrespected the lives and honor of those men and women who are putting their lives on the line - whether they fly our flag or not.

 

Well, I am about to unsubscribe from this thread. I hate political threads

But one last comment (or three):

I could use the same words about the US or virtually any other country in the world... a few hotheads should not make an entire nation "look bad" in the eyes of sentient human beings.

In your country as well as in ours.

Actually, the majority of our air time is devoted to sports, South Park, The Simpsons, Oprah, music, and US reality TV. That's a lot scarier than even politics.

 

northpointaiki:

That should be obvious to even the most casual reader.

I will attempt to use an analogy to explain this to you.

"the weevils in this bowl of rice are making the whole bowl of rice look bad."

and

"Americans are smart, we realize that not every item in this bowl is a weevil."

Now, seperated from the emotion -- can you not clearly see how the two statements are completely compatible?

This is one reason why we utilize symbols in deductive logic. People often become confused when they cannot seperate emotion from logic.

 

Will, thank you for the lesson in high-school syllogisms, but on the face of your writing, well...

You cannot say one makes all look bad, and then say, we can discern, because not everyone is (in your case), a weevil, that your country is a-ok. If one makes all look bad, then, well, one makes all look bad - and no discernment on anyone's part can remove the first proposition when attempting the second. Again: how can an entire country be bad, and not bad, at the same time, whether what we base it on is one person's viewpoint or not?

My only emotion here is that I tire of the arrogance which has taken hold of my country over the last course of time, as displayed by the flawed logic and inflammatory language I see above. I believe we are headed in a woefully wrong direction and need to return to a community of nations.

 

I am afraid that it is impossible to make this language any more simple.

As you still fail to understand, I can only reason that your failure is purposeful, and not the result of some lack of reasoning ability.

You have restated my comments in such a way as to completely alter their meaning. That is not an honest tool of discourse.

You say "Again: how can an entire country be bad, and not bad, at the same time, whether what we base it on is one person's viewpoint or not?"

First, your usage of the word "Again" is completely and entirely misleading. You cannot rightly utilize the word "Again", because you are attempting to utilize it to introduce an entirely different argument. And worse, the argument is an obvious straw-man argument which you are attributing to me!

Second, your straw man argument was horribly constructed. "how can an entire country be bad, and not bad, at the same time" -- think back to the bowl of rice. Are all of the items in the bowl rice? No. Are all of the items in the bowl weevils? No. You have changed the meaning of my argument 100% with very ham-handed manipulation.

Either you are quite stupid and did these nefarious deeds accidentally, or you are a very sneaky debater with no concern for truth or honesty.

If you are going to continue to participate in this debate, please try to do so utilizing a higher standard for your arguments. If you do not, then all rational posters will cease to take you seriously and begin to treat you as a troll like ccole or gworld.

 

Will, Will. "Again," as I restated my original problem with your post. Again means, again.

Let's cut the crap: you said that one person or one group of individuals (let's call him, or it, "your idiot") is making an entire nation look bad. And then you said that we Americans can discern that your idiot is just mouthing platitudes or vitriol which have no bearing on how we really feel - that the nation in question is o.k. And I say (sorry, again), you cannot say your idiot can make a nation look bad, and then say, we can see that your idiot is acting on his or its own volition, and has no bearing on how we feel about the nation.

I'll close with this, Will. I do not subscribe to your worldview. As to my intellectual capacity, I don't use it as a weapon in pointless contests of rhetoric.

 

Once again you restate my words in a manner which completely changes their meaning.

Would it not be more honest to accept their intrinsic meaning at face value?

If you truly seek to discern the truth, you are following the wrong path to do so. Your use of shady debating techniques is the path away from truth.

 

Could you repeat that, Will?

 

Mr. Will and Mr Ccole you both should start your revenue sharing blogs.

 

Oh my God, I just realized that you have not the faintest idea whata shady debating tactic is. You just referenced a post that:

1. Did not feature shady debating tactics.
2. Was not part of a debate.

This must be terribly embarassing for you.

I recommend you do a lot of reading.

 

I believe that, if I were to engage in such a venture, I would select a more worthy opponent.

 

That's twice that you've made me laugh today. Cut it out.

 

OK, I like Minstrel, I like the Canadians I work with in Toronto, Vancouver and Winnepeg, I like the Canadians I work with at Sun, and I like the Canadians I work with at Qwest... but I suddenly find that I love this Canadian. I am right now forcing myself not to send him a bouquet of flowers.

Peacemakers are misguided ingrates
By PETER WORTHINGTON

Pardon me if I don't cheer for the three survivors of the Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT) freed in Iraq, whom I consider misguided, arrogant and foolish and who cause more problems than they solve.

Of course, I never wished them dead and, like everyone else, am relieved they were rescued from a situation they brought on themselves. Four of them were kidnapped in Baghdad Nov. 26. Their American colleague was murdered because of his nationality.

Nice guys.

Not all of the 400 or so who've been kidnapped in Iraq escaped so lightly. In Sault Ste. Marie, Jim Loney's mother calls his rescue "a miracle," while Loney's pastor says, "God saved them."

Sorry, folks, it was soldiers who saved them -- the very soldiers scorned by the CPT.

CPT co-director Doug Pritchard's reaction is both idiotic and churlish. "They knew their only protection was in the power of the love of God and of their Iraqi international co-workers," he said.

What nonsense.

Their salvation was American, British and Canadian soldiers, working with the RCMP, who risked their lives to rescue these clots who seem to despise their liberators.

Mr. Pritchard added: "We believe that the illegal occupation of Iraq by multinational forces is the root cause of the insecurity which led to this kidnapping, and so much pain and suffering in Iraq."

Not a word of thanks or gratitude to the soldiers who carried guns and were prepared to shoot or be shot to save them.

Not a word about Saddam Hussein, who, more than any, is the "root cause" of misery in Iraq. Not a word about the suffering Saddam inflicted on Iraqis -- the mass graves, genocidal bio-chemical attacks on Kurds, wars against neighbouring countries, torturing Iraqis, homicides and fear that was imposed.

Christian Peacemakers didn't protest the 30 years of Saddam's imposed "insecurity ... pain and suffering." Why?

Because they'd have been gobbled up, that's why.

In their initial reaction, Loney's family expressed sorrow that Fox had been murdered, but "we don't bear any grudge or ill-feeling towards (the captors)."

Oh? What sort of people are these "Christian" zealots? Do they suppose the Swords of Righteousness Brigade assassins who kidnapped their loved ones are just ordinary Iraqi patriots who want to live quiet lives and praise Allah?

The CPT philosophy is selective -- and oriented towards anti-Americanism and anti-Western values wherever possible. Great injustices are tolerated, but American involvement must be protested, just as they protest Israel's defensive measures.

CPT's motto of "Get in the Way" boomeranged for them in Iraq. In Canada, CPT protests mostly on behalf of Indians in disputes in Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and B.C. Any opposition is branded "racist."

SHOULD HOSTAGES PAY?

Now that the two Canadians and a Brit are rescued, one can safely note that CPT's presence in Iraq encourages violence, resistance and even suicide bombings against the "occupiers" who are their rescuers. That verges on betraying their country.

A CTV poll asked the question whether hostages should be required to pay the costs of their rescue if they were kidnapped in a country they'd been advised not to visit. Of the first 6,479 responses, 74% said they should pay, 26% said they shouldn't have to.

On a CBC radio phone-in show, a caller opined that the hostage ordeal was phony and that the U.S. military had the individuals in custody so as to garner publicity when they were released. The host didn't demur -- par for CBC.

Now we'll have to endure the inevitable book honouring the Christian Peacemakers and a movie glamourizing them. But reality remains: They are imprudent and foolish pacifists consumed with their own righteousness who depend on those they disparage to rescue them when they get into trouble.

 

Add Celine to the list. We'll hang onto Pam for a while instead