Harper joins U.S. in Iraq, with support of Liberals

616 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sean in Ottawa

Paladin1 wrote:

Pondering wrote:
Trudeau has said we should help in various non-combat roles.

 

What kind of non-combat roles do you think Mr Trudeau envisions us helping with?

Labling something non-combat wouldn't remove the level of danger.   On the streets over there cars are driving up to other cars and randomly shooting into them. Then dragging the passengers out and killing them.

[ graphic video of drive by shootings  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMrM9X3zPlc  ]

Anyone delievering humanitarian aid would need to be escoerted by armed and armored force security vehicles. They may not be technically filling a combat-role (seeking out the enemy) but it's combat never the less. Canadoan advisors in Afghanistan saw a hell of a lot of combat while they were embeded with and advising the Afghan National Army.

Are we just getting wrapped around termonology and semantics at this point?

What I read into that was not a presumption that Canadians would deliver it direct to the people but rather fly it to some authority in the country. I don't think the implications are the same.

I am assuming Trudeau is favouring aid perhaps like what Canada deliverd to Ukraine. I have not heard Trudeau say he was in favur of having military advisors there as part of the aid-- did he say that?

wage zombie

Pondering wrote:

Trudeau spoke in favor of sending advisors not participating in combat. 

What kind of advisors?  Scientists?  Sociologists?  Or Military personel?

Sending military personel = a military excursion.

Paladin1

Pondering wrote:
Trudeau has said we should help in various non-combat roles.

 

What kind of non-combat roles do you think Mr Trudeau envisions us helping with?

Labling something non-combat wouldn't remove the level of danger.   On the streets over there cars are driving up to other cars and randomly shooting into them. Then dragging the passengers out and killing them.

[ graphic video of drive by shootings  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMrM9X3zPlc  ]

Anyone delievering humanitarian aid would need to be escoerted by armed and armored security vehicles. They may not be technically filling a combat-role (seeking out the enemy) but it's combat never the less. Canadian advisors in Afghanistan saw a hell of a lot of combat while they were embeded with and advising the Afghan National Army.

Are we just getting wrapped around termonology and semantics at this point?

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
1) Pondering I want to make it clear, in case of ANY doubt that I am not asking you to post more. I am questioning why you singled me out to respond to when I was the least hostile to Trudeau in that thread (other than you of course).

I single out comments I feel are interesting or worthy of response. How hostile someone is or isn't to Trudeau is immaterial.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
2) Then your responses to the media article links -- the ones I provided were far, far more relevant than the stuff you produced a month ago to attack the NDP over the Martin government falling in spite of clear objective evidence to the contrary. I am not going to respond to your specific rebutals but the noting of your hypocrisy is irresistable.

I have no need to participate in a "my links are better than yours" debate.

That debate can be evaluated here: http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/national-child-care-program?pa.... I think readers are capable of evaluating respective arguments for themselves.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
3) Flip flop you call a term popularized by the Tea Party. This one is also irresistable. It is an old term way popular before the Tea Party and would be used in Canada regardless of whether they ever used it or not.

Be that as it may "Flip flop" is still a perjorative immature and aggressive term.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
How patriarchal is that. I wonder how people feel about you whipping out that card when you have a conflict even when it is irrelevant. Patriarchy is a serious issue. You trivializing it for your own purposes is quite sad.

You forgot to put 4). I totally stand behind my comment that:

The notion that even with controversial issues a leader should pick a position then stick to it dogmatically right or wrong is an old-fashioned patriarchal attitude.

There is nothing trivial about it and it is relevant. Patriarchal attitudes and structures permeate our society and politics is no exception. The term "patriarchal" is eminently suited to the notion that leaders should not alter their position (or even have a nuanced one).

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
I really wish that the next election would turn on a debate between you representing Trudeau and me representing the NDP. The result I am confident would be an NDP majority and the Liberals without party status.

What a relief your ego is still intact after being all tied up in knots just last night with all the ground shifting and rabbit holes and not being able to share your feelings because it's taboo. You seemed quite distraught.

Paladin1

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Paladin1 wrote:

Pondering wrote:
Trudeau has said we should help in various non-combat roles.

 

What kind of non-combat roles do you think Mr Trudeau envisions us helping with?

Labling something non-combat wouldn't remove the level of danger.   On the streets over there cars are driving up to other cars and randomly shooting into them. Then dragging the passengers out and killing them.

[ graphic video of drive by shootings  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMrM9X3zPlc  ]

Anyone delievering humanitarian aid would need to be escoerted by armed and armored force security vehicles. They may not be technically filling a combat-role (seeking out the enemy) but it's combat never the less. Canadoan advisors in Afghanistan saw a hell of a lot of combat while they were embeded with and advising the Afghan National Army.

Are we just getting wrapped around termonology and semantics at this point?

What I read into that was not a presumption that Canadians would deliver it direct to the people but rather fly it to some authority in the country. I don't think the implications are the same.

I am assuming Trudeau is favouring aid perhaps like what Canada deliverd to Ukraine. I have not heard Trudeau say he was in favur of having military advisors there as part of the aid-- did he say that?

There is a few problems with not delievering aid directly.

1. It can find it's way (much easier) into the hands of criminals who then extort locals selling them the aid at exorbitant prices.

2. Aid organizations (red cross was bad for this in Afghanistan) contract out the actual delievery of supplies to local companies which as you may imagine aren't always that piticular on delivering it to those in need.

3. Bad guys (sorry for the lack of a better term) intercept it and use it themselves.

I understand the theory behind people wanting to send aid but not take a "combat role" however there's a good chance that the aid can just end up in the hands of the people committing these mass murders.

I'm not sure what Mr Trudeau said regarding advisors.

Pondering

Paladin1 wrote:

Pondering wrote:
Trudeau has said we should help in various non-combat roles.

What kind of non-combat roles do you think Mr Trudeau envisions us helping with?

Labling something non-combat wouldn't remove the level of danger.   On the streets over there cars are driving up to other cars and randomly shooting into them. Then dragging the passengers out and killing them.

[ graphic video of drive by shootings  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMrM9X3zPlc  ]

Anyone delievering humanitarian aid would need to be escoerted by armed and armored security vehicles. They may not be technically filling a combat-role (seeking out the enemy) but it's combat never the less. Canadian advisors in Afghanistan saw a hell of a lot of combat while they were embeded with and advising the Afghan National Army.

Are we just getting wrapped around termonology and semantics at this point?

Getting involved in direct combat has multiple implications only one of which is endangering Canadian troops. If Canadian lives are to be endangered then we owe it to our military to know exactly what our objectives are and the reason for our participation in trying to stop this particular atrocity as opposed to other atrocities.

As I understand it our CF-18s are in dire need of replacement. Is sending CF-18s the best use of our limited dollars and equipment? Bombing runs are less likely to result in Canadian casualties than providing ground troops to defend refugees trying to escape but that is not justification for choosing to help by bombing instead. How about providing defended military medical units to help the Kurds? Maybe sending CF-18s is the best contribution we can make but that case has not been made. We don't really have our own specific objective. We are basically working for the Americans even if it isn't official.

Irwin Cotler has been pushing to bomb Syria for 4 years but he is still against Harper because he doesn't think we should be doing it at the behest of the Assad regime. Other people in this thread have condemned support for the "freedom fighters" as undermining an elected leader. AC has pointed out that Saudi Arabia should be taking care of it. I don't know that it is that simple but they should certainly be paying a greater share. Why should Canadian coffers be tapped for this? Even the Kurds have oil wells.

Trudeau is not saying we shouldn't send CF-18s. He is saying the case hasn't been made for it and he is right. There was no serious debate. The level of discourse is "ISIS bad, we go shoot".  Maybe we should go shoot but it is a complex situation and it is not obvious that bombing Syria will be helpful over the long run.

We have about the population of California. I don't want us to just be a mini US army. Maybe the whole peace-keeping thing didn't work out or maybe we should go back to it but if not then I think we need to specialize more so we can fulfil specific needs. Maybe a greater percentage of our military should be special forces whatever that means. Maybe we could specialize in providing fully functional medical treatment units staffed and defended by Canadian forces.

The decision to send CF-18 seems to be based in diplomacy, everyone else is participated so we have to join in. That is not a good reason to go to war. As Trudeau said we should have our own stance on foreign affairs.

The rhetoric that ISIS is targeting Canada is cheap seeing as they only said that after Canada sent advisors. They are threatening us due to our participation.

Again, I am not saying that we shouldn't send bombers, only that the case has not been made for it. Discussions in this thread have pointed out the complexity of getting involved. Supporting helping the Kurds beat back ISIS was uncomplicated because ISIS was clearly an invading force from outside the territory.  ISIS is a cross border movement but in some places it has indigenous support which is a complicating factor.

The whole "root causes" thing can't be ignored.

 

Pondering

wage zombie wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Trudeau spoke in favor of sending advisors not participating in combat. 

What kind of advisors?  Scientists?  Sociologists?  Or Military personel?

Sending military personel = a military excursion.

At the beginning of all of this when Harper was just sending military advisors Trudeau said this:

Quote:
"I support the current mission as designed, with the caveat — the important caveat — that we continue to have parliamentary oversight, that we continue to have debates on this mission to make sure that it continues to be a mission that Canadians understand is important."

"And for me, training (the) local army and providing a support role, non-combat, is perfectly acceptable as something that Canada has expertise in and should be able to share."

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/09/17/mulcair-harper-iraq_n_5837620.ht...

 

 

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

You forgot to put 4). I totally stand behind my comment that:

The notion that even with controversial issues a leader should pick a position then stick to it dogmatically right or wrong is an old-fashioned patriarchal attitude.

There is nothing trivial about it and it is relevant. Patriarchal attitudes and structures permeate our society and politics is no exception. The term "patriarchal" is eminently suited to the notion that leaders should not alter their position (or even have a nuanced one).

This is something I did not say and you need to stop pretending I am saying things I did not say. This is the third time in the last day or so that you have pretended I have said something I did not say.

What you have put there in italics suggesting is a quote from me is entirely made up by you and I have not even said anything like it.

I don't flag posts often but I am flagging this as it is completely out of line beyond baiting and trolling.

***

--- Your quote: "Flip flop" is still a perjorative immature and aggressive term. ---

Perhaps you might want to make sure that you educate: The CBC, The Globe and Mail, the Toronto Star and others that this is a term you are offended by. Since I used the word it comes across as suggesting I am being immature and aggressive for using it. As well upthread you said I was being patriarchal as well.

I don't accept any of that. And I should not have to put up with these kinds of accusations for expressing opinions here in the same terms that are being used widely in the media and even by others across this board.

It is you that is being aggressive here.

 

 

eastnoireast

 

MM wrote:

Only fools, which includes you and most of the public, imagine that there is.


NorthReport wrote:

MM

Please lay off the personal attacks. Tks.

 

i think fools is a a pretty generous descriptor, given the ease with which people have leapt, yet again, to bombing for peace and supporting the troops. 

 

blind, wilfully or otherwise, to any sense of history or context, it's about stroking some deep primordial-in-the-worst-sense-of-the-word ritual -

see images / listen to ogg grunt and wave club

everyone else is doin' it / conform = safe

lets bomb / smash heads of others with different fur.

now i feel better. / and look, clean white shirt!

-

 

 

Pondering

Pondering wrote:

You forgot to put 4). I totally stand behind my comment that:

The notion that even with controversial issues a leader should pick a position then stick to it dogmatically right or wrong is an old-fashioned patriarchal attitude.

There is nothing trivial about it and it is relevant. Patriarchal attitudes and structures permeate our society and politics is no exception. The term "patriarchal" is eminently suited to the notion that leaders should not alter their position (or even have a nuanced one).

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
This is something I did not say and you need to stop pretending I am saying things I did not say. This is the third time in the last day or so that you have pretended I have said something I did not say.

I did not quote you or attribute anything to you in that statement. I expressed my view of the expectation that leaders should not change their minds on issues.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
What you have put there in italics suggesting is a quote from me is entirely made up by you and I have not even said anything like it.

I referred to it as "my comment".  How you translate that into suggesting you said it is beyond me.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Perhaps you might want to make sure that you educate: The CBC, The Globe and Mail, the Toronto Star and others that this is a term you are offended by. Since I used the word it comes across as suggesting I am being immature and aggressive for using it.

I find journalistic use of the word equally pejorative, immature and aggressive unless they are quoting someone. In my opinion it's intended to be insulting and inflamatory which is immature, aggressive and pejorative. I am referring to the term "flip flop" nothing more and nothing less. How you interpret that is up to you.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
I don't flag posts often but I am flagging this as it is completely out of line beyond baiting and trolling.

That's amusing coming from you. I could make a clever comment but I will bite my tongue and await the judgement of the moderators should they choose to act.

NorthReport

I'm not big on this going to war stuff but let's try to disagree without the personal attaxks as all we are each doing is just giving our opinions. 

eastnoireast wrote:

 

MM wrote:

Only fools, which includes you and most of the public, imagine that there is.


NorthReport wrote:

MM

Please lay off the personal attacks. Tks.

 

i think fools is a a pretty generous descriptor, given the ease with which people have leapt, yet again, to bombing for peace and supporting the troops. 

 

blind, wilfully or otherwise, to any sense of history or context, it's about stroking some deep primordial-in-the-worst-sense-of-the-word ritual -

see images / listen to ogg grunt and wave club

everyone else is doin' it / conform = safe

lets bomb / smash heads of others with different fur.

now i feel better. / and look, clean white shirt!

-

 

 

eastnoireast

NorthReport wrote:

I'm not big on this going to war stuff but let's try to disagree without the personal attaxks as all we are each doing is just giving our opinions. 

 

 

opinions that are "just" supporting and enabling the killing of people we've never met, thousands of miles away.

 

Slumberjack

eastnoireast wrote:
opinions that are "just" supporting and enabling the killing of people we've never met, thousands of miles away.

This should be on a banner unfurled above the Canadian political scene.  This system that we're all knuckled under lurches from one killing field to another.  When the authorities of our faux opposition complain about there not being enough information as the rationale for not supporting the latest obscenity on the world stage, its more to do with domestic political posturing than being opposed in principle to armed aggression.

MegB

Sean and Pondering, stop filling up the abuse queue with your petty spats. The report abuse button is for serious offenses against babble policy.

Unionist

Slumberjack wrote:

eastnoireast wrote:
opinions that are "just" supporting and enabling the killing of people we've never met, thousands of miles away.

This should be on a banner unfurled above the Canadian political scene.  This system that we're all knuckled under lurches from one killing field to another.  When the authorities of our faux opposition complain about there not being enough information as the rationale for not supporting the latest obscenity on the world stage, its more to do with domestic political posturing than being opposed in principle to armed aggression.

What Slumberjack, eastnoireast, and (earlier) Michael Moriarity said. That is what this is all about.

My real fear: With the virtually complete absence of consistent, popular-driven political opposition in our country, anything is possible.

A few weeks of horror stories, complete with photos and video, could lead to Good Canadians (say, 65% of them) answering "yes" or maybe "undecided" to polls asking if we should place restrictions upon, or intern, or slaughter Muslims, or Jews, or Indigenous folks, or whoever. At home or abroad (though admittedly, abroad is easier, more sanitary).

That's how genocides and aggressive wars have always happened. They came seemingly from nowhere, overnight. I'm not going to bother to list examples, because they are ubiquitous.

People who never heard of ISIL/ISIS/IS/Da'ash/ISAL a few weeks ago, and now favour Canadian air strikes and boots on grounds to wipe them out, cannot be described as progressive. We should learn to think for ourselves, remember history, and apply its lessons. And we should build a movement that doesn't leave such reflection to each individual, facing alone the onslaught of the rich and powerful and their media and education system and religion and "culture".

 

TiradeFaction

... (Basically was already addressed. If a mod could remove this, thanks!)

Sean in Ottawa

MegB wrote:

Sean and Pondering, stop filling up the abuse queue with your petty spats. The report abuse button is for serious offenses against babble policy.

"Filling up" implies that I flagged more than one post. I only flagged one post. I am not sure what the need is to suggest otherwise. I was told to do exactly that. I can't find the written policy anywhere. Is there a link to it? -- that would be helpful as I certainly thought that the post in question violated policy.

And thanks for clarifying that the moderator direction that I flag a post I was concerned with would be handled in such a constructive way as this. I appreciate all this.

A_J

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

A_J wrote:

Listening to Mulcair on As it Happens last night, it seemed that the sticking point for the NDP is simply that this campaign is not being carried out under the auspices of NATO or the UN.

He said NATO? The two are not interchangeable.

I would absolutely disagree with him there.

I have some tolerance for UN sanctionned missions but none at all for NATO missions that go into non-NATO territory. The NDP used to oppose NATO altogether.

I know, it really surprised me too.  My immediate impression was that by equating NATO and UN leadership/authorisation, Mulcair has eliminated any lingering NDP opposition to NATO and retroactively alligned the party with past Canadian military intervention that it traditionally would have opposed, such as the NATO-led actions in Afghanistan and Serbia.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I would not agree to anything the UN asks but I would say that UN sanction would be the minimum condition to operate a combat operation in another country.

Legally, the situation with Iraq doesn't seem to even engage the United Nations. If we accept that a government is free to use military force within its own territory (Responsibility to Protect supporters may argue otherwise), then that same government would also be free to invite others the U.S., France, Canada, etc.) to do so as well. The UN wouldn't be precluded from endorsing or supporting such action; but its authorisation also wouldn't be necessary, either.

But of course, regardless of whether it is legal or if the UN has approved it, that doesn't mean anyone has to take them up on the invitation.

Sean in Ottawa

A_J wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

A_J wrote:

Listening to Mulcair on As it Happens last night, it seemed that the sticking point for the NDP is simply that this campaign is not being carried out under the auspices of NATO or the UN.

He said NATO? The two are not interchangeable.

I would absolutely disagree with him there.

I have some tolerance for UN sanctionned missions but none at all for NATO missions that go into non-NATO territory. The NDP used to oppose NATO altogether.

I know, it really surprised me too.  My immediate impression was that by equating NATO and UN leadership/authorisation, Mulcair has eliminated any lingering NDP opposition to NATO and retroactively alligned the party with past Canadian military intervention that it traditionally would have opposed, such as the NATO-led actions in Afghanistan and Serbia.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I would not agree to anything the UN asks but I would say that UN sanction would be the minimum condition to operate a combat operation in another country.

Legally, the situation with Iraq doesn't seem to even engage the United Nations. If we accept that a government is free to use military force within its own territory (Responsibility to Protect supporters may argue otherwise), then that same government would also be free to invite others the U.S., France, Canada, etc.) to do so as well. The UN wouldn't be precluded from endorsing or supporting such action; but its authorisation also wouldn't be necessary, either.

But of course, regardless of whether it is legal or if the UN has approved it, that doesn't mean anyone has to take them up on the invitation.

Yes I thought about the issue of governments inviting others because it will get used in Iraq and in other places where fragile governments friendly to a super power are set up-- I know that has meaning but the UN would not sanction every government to invite others to use force within its borders. Consider the USSR entry into Afghanistan (invited by Amin). Consider invitations of the US into various puppet regimes they have controlled over the years.

Of course there is a meaning to invitation but not all that much. In the case of a civil war who has the right to request help? It is not unusual for more than one entity to claim that it is the legitimate government of a given territory. And of course who gets to decide when a boreder has changed or a new state has emerged that wants help.  The idea of invitation does not work in terms of most conflicts that exist today -- it is an idea based on conflicts between established nations such as what happend more often 100 years ago.

An international voting body with wide representaiton is the only type of authority that could sanction interference. the NDP used to limit approval for all international combat engagements to UN sanction for this reason.

MegB

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

MegB wrote:

Sean and Pondering, stop filling up the abuse queue with your petty spats. The report abuse button is for serious offenses against babble policy.

"Filling up" implies that I flagged more than one post. I only flagged one post. I am not sure what the need is to suggest otherwise. I was told to do exactly that. I can't find the written policy anywhere. Is there a link to it? -- that would be helpful as I certainly thought that the post in question violated policy.

And thanks for clarifying that the moderator direction that I flag a post I was concerned with would be handled in such a constructive way as this. I appreciate all this.

Sarcasm duly noted. The link to the policy is at the top of this page.

swallow swallow's picture
Slumberjack

The policy is due for an update, spurred on I believe by recent events.  For inclusion I suggest PMs to the mods should remain PMs, and abuse queue notifications should remain anonymous beyond the complainant and staff.  The precedence of associating babbler names to moderator PMs and Abuse reports here on the board might be a deterrent for others.  Unless that is the aim, in which case let’s put it all out there while I grab some popcorn.

Also, if we're going this way I have a list of people I'd like to complain about.

Sean in Ottawa

Thanks -- I was looking for it along the bottom and did not see it up there.

The complaint I sent raised issues in the policy. You can dispute my allegation as you like but the following is true:

1) I beleived the post was a violation and still do

2) I flagged one post for the first time in a very long while -- as I had been instructed to do with this particular person's posts.

The response was to tell both (myself included) not to "fill up the abuse queue." Since I only did this the once the message is that flagging posts when I think there is a violation is not an option. I can only assume that I should accept that no policy applies with respect to this poster's behaviour in her posts towards me me and I should accept that with the blessing of the board.

That has been understood . Since there is nothing further to say about this, I will do something else with my day.

 

 

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

If my memory is correct, the first time 'flip-flop' was used anywhere in the world to define a political about-face was here in Canada, and regarding P.E. Trudeau I. Expressions like this and 'pork-barrel' are scooped up by Americans without a blink, and they soon become known as American expressions. There was also 'fuddle duddle' and 'Just watch me'.

As a general rule of conduct on this board, please do not mention another person's name in your posts. You can slam what they said until the cows come home, but don't get personal. Remember, in the House, we address the Speaker, and not the other party. There is a reason for this, and it is in that parliamentary spirit that we should operate here.

When you write something, you are addressing the whole world of rabble babblers, both active and lurking. As the Canadian media needs us for their content, try to have an original comment based on externalities and not solipsism. The world does not revolve around what you say. Addressing someone personally is taking a private conversation public, which is embarrassing for all.

If there is a person who flails (and there are a few here), let them flail. It is far funnier when the post is left to hang out to dry and everyone else changes the subject, or does not engage the flailer.

I spoke to a very right wing individual the other day. This man has never voted anything left of the PC Party in his life.  He said "We need to start spending money on the people, and although my parents would roll in their graves, I am voting NDP".

A lot of people in Ontario voted Conservative to stop Jack Layton more than to stop the NDP. There were all these rumours and lies about Layton which were pretty persistent around the Toronto area. Quebec, seeing Layton for what he really was, responded favorably. I was lucky enough to meet Jack a couple of times, and I liked him a lot. This personal thing about Layton is now gone, and it was vicious. The only thing left the NDP has to worry about is the memory of Bob Rae, and that, I fear, is still visceral in some circles.

Social-democratic Liberals (and there are a few) need to follow Mulcair into the NDP. If Conservatives are saying very odd things like the above, I think there is flux.

Mulcair keeps upping his game in the Commons, scoring direct hits on the Government. When the election comes, we will have been at war for some time, and there will be more and more people calling to bring our troops home. If Harper thinks a war is a way to get elected, I think he is beginning to lose his mind. Trudeau seems to want to play both sides of this issue, which is not a nice thing to do when so many peoples' lives are at stake. Again we see that Justin Trudeau is not suitable Prime Ministerial material, and as more people realize that, the Liberal vote should continue to fall.

MegB

There is no private abuse queue. PM is a private message, not up for discussion on the board.

Brachina
Paladin1

MegB wrote:

There is no private abuse queue. PM is a private message, not up for discussion on the board.

 

On average how many times per week do posts get reported?

Unionist

WTF is this thread drift?

Beheadings aren't getting people outraged any more?

World peace isn't sexy enough?

Anyway, here's my contribution to this conversation. Somewhat bad taste, I know, but I'm just trying to melt into the crowd until I think of something else to say about Canada quietly going to war in Iraq and Syria.

Paladin1

I'm hessitant to envoke Godwin's law but I can't help but I can imagine the same "it's not our problem, it's none of our business, how can we bomb for peace?"  responses in 1939.

Pondering

Well the mods have succeeded in uniting Sean and I on one issue. I wasn't flagging posts until I was told to follow the process and when I did I specifically stated I didn't want any action taken, no bans, no public or private warnings, it was just a heads up and I noted I wasn't sure how to respond. I still haven't responded to the post in question.

Apparently both Sean and I have been told to flag posts so that's what we did. I'm fine with not flagging, I wasn't before and I won't do it anymore. The other times you intervened in the past I had not flagged.

If a mod had responded saying the post I flagged recently was perfectly acceptable that would have been informative, or even told me not to respond. It would give me some clue as to where you draw the line. Often times by the time a mod steps in it is completely out of hand so the warning is harsh or it's a ban.

A while back I asked if we should go ahead and flag the spam posts or if that would spam the abuse cue and was told to go ahead and flag because whatever system you have allows them to be easily dismissed from the queue.

You're the board gods so you can do as you please but I don't think it's fair to tell us to flag, then pubically chastise us for doing so. Feels a little like entrapment.

swallow swallow's picture

Well, maybe there'a thread for reations or something. 

Anyways, the beheadings are outrageous. 79 people beheaded lasy year, Amnesty reports. Yes, time to stop it. When do we start to bomb Saudi Arabia? 

Paladin1

swallow wrote:

Well, maybe there'a thread for reations or something. 

Anyways, the beheadings are outrageous. 79 people beheaded lasy year, Amnesty reports. Yes, time to stop it. When do we start to bomb Saudi Arabia? 

 

In Saudi Arabia's defense sorcerers like Mohammed bin Bakr al-Alawi were execuited for black magic.  

Brachina

 I'm tired of the Nazi and IS comparesons, the Nazi's were roughly the equal technologically of the US and its allies at the time, IS does not have that technological advantage, the Nazi's and IS operate and function in totally different ways, Nazi Germany was a massive conventional army with killer tactics and powerful allies, like Italy and Japan. IS does not have millions of soldiers, it does not have technological suppiority. Its a group of terrorist/resistance cells, abit extremely successful at what they do, but you can kill as many as you want to they will just reform in some form later.

 

 People still don't get it, you can't fight an idea with guns or bullet and knives or nukes (well okay maybe nukes not a whole lot of ideas will continue if humanity went extinct). Its the same as the taliban, well guess what, the fucking taliban are still there and they could be just as brutal as IS. 

 

 Its time to either let the middle east fix thier own conflicts or go into talks with IS. Or we can keep doing the same fucking thing again and again and agakn and expect a different result. People only support the war because they don't know what else to do, they see IS murdering people and they feel that needs to stop, but the truth is only the people in the region can make it stop. 

 In Northern Ireland it was talk that made the violence stop, in the West Bank it wasn't isreali bombs that made Abbas seek peace.

 And I know people are mad about the murdered journalists, it was disgusting and vile, but at some point someone has to say enough with vengence.

 I believe there is a saying, I think its Confusious: "When starting a journey of vengence first dig two graves".

Brachina

Paladin1 wrote:

swallow wrote:

Well, maybe there'a thread for reations or something. 

Anyways, the beheadings are outrageous. 79 people beheaded lasy year, Amnesty reports. Yes, time to stop it. When do we start to bomb Saudi Arabia? 

 

In Saudi Arabia's defense sorcerers like Mohammed bin Bakr al-Alawi were execuited for black magic.  

 

 What fucking kind of excuse is that? 

Paladin1

Brachina,

Pretend you're opening talks with some ISIS fellows.  What do you say to them?

 

Paladin1

Brachina wrote:

Paladin1 wrote:

swallow wrote:

Well, maybe there'a thread for reations or something. 

Anyways, the beheadings are outrageous. 79 people beheaded lasy year, Amnesty reports. Yes, time to stop it. When do we start to bomb Saudi Arabia? 

 

In Saudi Arabia's defense sorcerers like Mohammed bin Bakr al-Alawi were execuited for black magic.  

 

 What fucking kind of excuse is that? 

 

Haven't you seen Harry Potter?  Or played Dungeons and Dragons?   The Craft?

Pondering

Brachina wrote:
  People only support the war because they don't know what else to do, they see IS murdering people and they feel that needs to stop, but the truth is only the people in the region can make it stop.

This is true. It's very confusing and heart-breaking. It seems as though there are good people arguing every perspective.

NDPP

MegB wrote:

There is no private abuse queue. PM is a private message, not up for discussion on the board.

A question. Can you tell me or ascertain if it is possible for mods to have access to PMs of babblers?

MegB

NDPP wrote:

MegB wrote:

There is no private abuse queue. PM is a private message, not up for discussion on the board.

A question. Can you tell me or ascertain if it is possible for mods to have access to PMs of babblers?

I'm sure it's possible, but no, we don't have access to babbler's PMs. nor would we want to unless there is an issue of significant violation of babble policy. Not talking nuance here, SIGNIFICANT violation of babble policy.

Brachina

Paladin1 wrote:

Brachina wrote:

Paladin1 wrote:

swallow wrote:

Well, maybe there'a thread for reations or something. 

Anyways, the beheadings are outrageous. 79 people beheaded lasy year, Amnesty reports. Yes, time to stop it. When do we start to bomb Saudi Arabia? 

 

In Saudi Arabia's defense sorcerers like Mohammed bin Bakr al-Alawi were execuited for black magic.  

 

 What fucking kind of excuse is that? 

 

Haven't you seen Harry Potter?  Or played Dungeons and Dragons?   The Craft?

 

 Yeah, but that's TV and other forms of media and we don't behead the actors!

Paladin1

Brachina wrote:

Paladin1 wrote:

Brachina wrote:

Paladin1 wrote:

swallow wrote:

Well, maybe there'a thread for reations or something. 

Anyways, the beheadings are outrageous. 79 people beheaded lasy year, Amnesty reports. Yes, time to stop it. When do we start to bomb Saudi Arabia? 

 

In Saudi Arabia's defense sorcerers like Mohammed bin Bakr al-Alawi were execuited for black magic.  

 

 What fucking kind of excuse is that? 

 

Haven't you seen Harry Potter?  Or played Dungeons and Dragons?   The Craft?

 

 Yeah, but that's TV and other forms of media and we don't behead the actors!

Just an unsuccessful attempt at sarcasim on my part to try and show I don't agree with how Saudia Arabia treats their people either.

 

NDPP

Battle For Baghdad: ISIS Now Within 8 Miles of Airport Armed With MANPADS

http://rt.com/news/195072-baghdad-airport-isis-manpads/

"Islamic State's offensive on the Iraqi capital intensified as the jihadist fighters advanced to as far as Abu Ghraib, a suburb only 8 miles away from Baghdad's international airport.

There are reports by the Iraqi military that the militants are in possession of MANPAD anti-aircraft missiles that can shoot down airplanes within a range of 15,000 feet..."

MegB

Paladin1 wrote:

Brachina wrote:

Paladin1 wrote:

Brachina wrote:

Paladin1 wrote:

swallow wrote:

Well, maybe there'a thread for reations or something. 

Anyways, the beheadings are outrageous. 79 people beheaded lasy year, Amnesty reports. Yes, time to stop it. When do we start to bomb Saudi Arabia? 

 

In Saudi Arabia's defense sorcerers like Mohammed bin Bakr al-Alawi were execuited for black magic.  

 

 What fucking kind of excuse is that? 

 

Haven't you seen Harry Potter?  Or played Dungeons and Dragons?   The Craft?

 

 Yeah, but that's TV and other forms of media and we don't behead the actors!

Just an unsuccessful attempt at sarcasim on my part to try and show I don't agree with how Saudia Arabia treats their people either.

 

Babble is a difficult medium to convey sarcasm unless people know you well. For instance, whenever Sean directs a comment at me that is at all appreciative or supportive sounding, I know it's sarcasm. Laughing

Brachina

http://abcnews.go.com/International/top-syrian-warns-congress-moderate-r...

 What a fucking mess, born of short sighted American policies.

 

 And it doesn't seem the bombs seem to be working, IS's advance isn't stopping.

 

 And how did we go from wanting to over throw Assad to wanting his premission to conduct missions in the region.

 Please remind me why Obama won a noble peace prize again?

Sean in Ottawa

MegB wrote:

Paladin1 wrote:

Brachina wrote:

Paladin1 wrote:

Brachina wrote:

Paladin1 wrote:

swallow wrote:

Well, maybe there'a thread for reations or something. 

Anyways, the beheadings are outrageous. 79 people beheaded lasy year, Amnesty reports. Yes, time to stop it. When do we start to bomb Saudi Arabia? 

 

In Saudi Arabia's defense sorcerers like Mohammed bin Bakr al-Alawi were execuited for black magic.  

 

 What fucking kind of excuse is that? 

 

Haven't you seen Harry Potter?  Or played Dungeons and Dragons?   The Craft?

 

 Yeah, but that's TV and other forms of media and we don't behead the actors!

Just an unsuccessful attempt at sarcasim on my part to try and show I don't agree with how Saudia Arabia treats their people either.

 

Babble is a difficult medium to convey sarcasm unless people know you well. For instance, whenever Sean directs a comment at me that is at all appreciative or supportive sounding, I know it's sarcasm. Laughing

I am capable of acknowledging anyone with a comment that is supportive and appreciative they just have to do or say something worthy. I have in fact directed supportive comments to you in the past. No cause to do so recently.

I stopped posting here abruptly two days ago because of your obvious bias and yet you, as a moderator, do this. This is after you effectively sanctionned a personal attack, made it clear that I did not have the option of flagging posts since mine was not trivial, and suggested in an open forum that I was flagging multiple posts which I was not. You can ignore this post:

http://rabble.ca/comment/1461765#comment-1461765

But to ridicule me is going too far.

Making jokes about people on this site or about conflicts with them is not constructive for a moderator. Doing so when the person is not actively posting becuase of their unanswered concerns about your own bias does not seem to be according to rabble policy. It is a difficult argument to make to demand respect and yet do this.

Yet here you are in a thread where you made it clear that a personal attack on me is fine by you, here you are effectively encouraging others to engage in an attack on me or at least laugh at my predicament as someone who cannot feel comfortable posting here becuase of moderator bias (in addition to a conflict with a poster who you have effectively given the green light to say anything that person wants to say so long as nobody bothers you about it) -- or did you not recognize that would be the function of your post?

You are pursuing a vendetta against me while demanding that I respect you.

 

 

 

Brachina

 Rabble needs an ignore button, it would help to avoid some of these conflicts and hurt feels perhaps Pondering and Sean could apologize to each other (that is not about asigning fault rather, its about accepting what has been said and showing a willingness to move on) and the same with the conflict between MegB and Sean.

Brachina

http://deadwildroses.wordpress.com/2014/10/11/us-support-of-fundamental-...

 

 Its ironic how our buddies in Saudi Arabia seem to be waist deep in radical Islam, and how all of it seem to lead back to Saudi Arabia and yet the MSM doesn't bother to mention this.

Brachina

Brachina wrote:

http://deadwildroses.wordpress.com/2014/10/11/us-support-of-fundamental-...

 

 Its ironic how our buddies in Saudi Arabia seem to be waist deep in radical Islam, and how all of it seem to lead back to Saudi Arabia and yet the MSM cheerleaders doesn't bother to mention this.

NDPP

and speaking of the  Saudi Oilygarchy...

 

Why Oil is Plunging: The Other Part of the 'Secret Deal' Between the US and Saudi Arabia

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-10-10/why-oil-plunging-other-part-sec...

"Two weeks ago, we revealed part of the 'Secret Deal' between the US and Saudi Arabia:

namely what the US 'brought to the table' as part of its grand strategy in the middle east, which proudly revealed Saudi Arabia to be 'aligned' with the US against ISIS, when in reality John Kerry was merely doing Saudi Arabia's will when the WSJ reported that 'the process gave the Saudis leverage to extract a fresh US commitment to beef up training for rebels fighting Mr Assad, whose demise the Saudis still see as a top priority.'..."

 

The Oil Weapon: A New Way to Wage War  -  by Michael Klare

http://oilprice.com/Geopolitics/International/The-Oil-Weapon-A-New-Way-T...

"To control oil flows across the planet and deny market access to recalcitrant producers is increasingly a major objective of American foreign policy..."

 

Pondering

NDPP wrote:

The Oil Weapon: A New Way to Wage War  -  by Michael Klare

http://oilprice.com/Geopolitics/International/The-Oil-Weapon-A-New-Way-T...

"To control oil flows across the planet and deny market access to recalcitrant producers is increasingly a major objective of American foreign policy..."

This was also in that article:

The most dramatic instance of this came on September 23rd, when American aircraft bombed refineries and other oil installations in areas of Syria controlled by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS, also known as ISIL or IS).  An extremist insurgent movement that has declared a new “caliphate,” ISIS is not, of course, a major oil producer, but it has taken control of oil fields and refineries that once were operated by the regime of Bashar al-Assad in eastern Syria. The revenue generated by these fields, reportedly $1 to $2 million daily, is being used by ISIS to generate a significant share of its operating expenses. This has given that movement the wherewithal to finance the further recruitment and support of thousands of foreign fighters, even as it sustains a high tempo of combat operations.

I read that they also gain support through providing for their communities. They don't just support their fighters they support their families.

I've been reading some articles about recruitment in the west and I think the threat of terrorism here is very small. Young people, girls too, are attracted to the romanticism. They don't want to come back here and commit some random crime like a crazy person and get caught like the Boston bombers. They want to be part of something larger than themselves. They want to be with comrades and walk around with weapons in a foreign land. Getting killed or captured by police is not so appealing and it is more difficult to act when they are back living in Canada and not surrounded by like-minded revolutionaries. I'm not saying there is no risk, but if the risk were significant it would be happening a lot more frequently. What the Boston bombers did was easy and there are countless easy targets that would injure or kill just as many people or many more. Our trains would be transformed into rolling bombs if the tracks are damaged. There has been time since 911 for thousands of people to be trained and sent back to commit some atrocity.

Pages

Topic locked