Another 'hope it ain't true...'
- Thread starter Squiggy
- Start date
A.B.Normal
New Member
Winky
Well-Known Member
So ya like my cartoon Gonz
If you look closely you'll see bad guys getting their just deserts in Abu, Evil wedding parties being eliminated and pali\hamas hideouts being leveled in Gaza these are good things.
My question is why would all these Canadians be on the side of the terrorists and against their only ally in the world, that's the part I don't get?
With the Canucks being on the side of the terrorists
sure they will howl as their side loses, that’s to be expected.
They are half French up their right???
If you look closely you'll see bad guys getting their just deserts in Abu, Evil wedding parties being eliminated and pali\hamas hideouts being leveled in Gaza these are good things.
My question is why would all these Canadians be on the side of the terrorists and against their only ally in the world, that's the part I don't get?
With the Canucks being on the side of the terrorists
sure they will howl as their side loses, that’s to be expected.
They are half French up their right???
A.B.Normal
New Member
The fact is our men fighting terrorism in Afghanistan have been killed by your boys being too fucking quick on the trigger , thats why we have more than a little skeptism of what your military says after it blows the shit out of someone.
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
Winky said:
Funny how you keep missing that statement about the day after the attack took place. One question also comes to mind...If this was a cover-up, then why wasn't that stuff removed the same day? If it was an attack on a wedding, why was conspicuous evidence left lying around so anybody could film it?
MrBishop
Well-Known Member
Joining the enemy? Where exactly does it say that Canada is joining the enemy? Ya know...I'd just love to see you come up here and explain that to my brother-in-law just before he goes back to Afghanistan for his second tour. I could being my videocamera and everything.Winky said:
Ya know what the problem is...the attitude that "If you're not with us, you're against us."
So...anytime that anyone critiques the good ol' USA for giving it a good cluster-fuck...they suddenly become cowards and the enemy? Great plan!
Gonz-the reason that the troops weren't critiqued during WWII was because the news that actually hit stateside had been so whitewashed that it barely resembled the truth...same goes for Vietnam. You can't get away with that nowadays because there are too many holes to patch for GVT control to be effective.
oh...and Gonz...
You make it sound like Canada isn't more than a little lap-dog following along in your footsteps. Perhaps we should go on down there and burn down the White House for the third time and kindly remind you that we are not.
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
MrBishop said:
Make sure you post the pictures.
Bish said:
Happens in every war, Bish. You have to demonize both the enemy, and those who seem to side with the enemy. Not fair, but it works.
Bish said:
Depends on why they say it.
Bish said:
1. Canada is not a little lap-dog following along in our footsteps. More like a Newfoundland nipping at our flanks.
2. The White House was only burned once during the war of 1812. If you know of a second time, I'm all ears...
MrBishop
Well-Known Member
Of course it does...but it's the assumption that we seem to 'side with the enemy' that rubs me the wrong way. I prefer "If you are not my enemy, then you are my friend"...which assumes that you have to actually do something before being declared an enemy. As to claiming that we side with your enemy...I don't see that. Criticising or pointing out what shouldn't have happened shouldn't be labeled as choosing sides...unless you're saying that we're on the side of the careful application of force.Gato_Solo said:Happens in every war, Bish. You have to demonize both the enemy, and those who seem to side with the enemy. Not fair, but it works.
If Canada was providing arms or money or political support to Iraq, or circumventing the American trade embargo with Iraq etc... then yeah. I could see us being labaled as 'siding with the enemy'...but that just isn't the case.
1. At least we brought the WhiskeyGato_Solo said:1. Canada is not a little lap-dog following along in our footsteps. More like a Newfoundland nipping at our flanks.
2. The White House was only burned once during the war of 1812. If you know of a second time, I'm all ears...
What I meant to say is that Gonz seems to be discounting all the military efforts by Canadians, and all those who died during the World Wars, and in other wars, and peace-keeping efforts the world over...and he's doing it in one fell swoop with
.
It's insulting and disrespectful!
2. I couldda sworn that we'd done it twice in the 1812 war... shit happens. The point was...don't discount us. We don't have nukes...but we've got heart.
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
MrBishop said:
Like I said...It may not be fair, but that's the way it's always been done. It hasn't been just singling out Canada, either, although the Canadian government seems to take geat delight in it's 'moral superiority' in this conflict, just as it had during Vietnam.
Bish said:1. At least we brought the Whiskey
It's insulting and disrespectful!
2. I couldda sworn that we'd done it twice in the 1812 war... shit happens. The point was...don't discount us. We don't have nukes...but we've got heart.
Why do you think we haven't taken revenge for 1812? Can't fight a country that provides the world with Canadian Mist.
As for insulting and disrespectful, I've seen that sort of behavior from both the US and Canadian citizens during this war. Need I bring up the past with sbcanada and S4?Nope. Just once. In fact, all the federal buildings, except the patent office, were burned. Seems the head of the US patent office browbeat the British troops that were leading the Canadians into bypassing that building.
MrBishop
Well-Known Member
I havn't been around that long, i'm afraid...my firs tpost on JJR's board was after S4 and SBcanada left..I believe. Those names don't ring a whole lotta bells, ya know?Gato_Solo said:As for insulting and disrespectful, I've seen that sort of behavior from both the US and Canadian citizens during this war. Need I bring up the past with sbcanada and S4?.
I know that I'm not about to start calling the US military cowards...or saying things like 'they avoid conflict' or 'they've never fought for their rights'. That'd be patently wrong.
BTW...what'd you think of Bush's latest speach...where he's compared the Iraq/Afghani conflict with WWII and the fight vs. Nazism and communism?
And the 9/11 attack to that of Pearl Harbour?
That's a bit of a stretch.
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
MrBishop said:
Not entirely. It's a war about how we should live our lives...much the same way naziism and communism were ideas. Just because you can't entirely single-out a country, doesn't change the fact that it's still a big fight. Did you forget what Osama said we, as in the western world, had to do to stop his terrorist attacks? Read this and pay attention. That's what he said. Are you willing to let him do that to spare yourself? How about your neighbor? Are their lives less important? How about your freedoms? They're next. One by one...piece by piece...we're doing it to ourselves already, but at least it's us, and not some fanatic whose only claim is that he killed 3,000 Americans...more than Pearl Harbor, I might add...
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
One more thing before this completely submerges into the past. The aircraft responsible for the attack was an AC-130. That is well known, and not disputed. What may not be well known is this. The AC-130 does not carry bombs. The pieces they showed 'proving' that the US bombed the wedding party were from a MK-85 500 pound bomb. Now pay attention, and I'll re-iterate what I said.
1. The pictures of the wedding show shrapnel from a 500 pound bomb.
2. The only aircraft involved in the attack was an AC-130 gunship, which does not carry bombs.
Now, please explain, how did bomb fragments get to that wedding if the aircraft responsible for the attack does not carry bombs?
1. The pictures of the wedding show shrapnel from a 500 pound bomb.
2. The only aircraft involved in the attack was an AC-130 gunship, which does not carry bombs.
Now, please explain, how did bomb fragments get to that wedding if the aircraft responsible for the attack does not carry bombs?
ResearchMonkey
Well-Known Member
Quit distorting the good fodder with facts!
(nice point)
(nice point)
Winky
Well-Known Member
Another it ain't true...!
Nah they were disassembling the dud 500 pounder
to fab up the coming weeks IED's for their bro's.
Even if this was a rollicking good old fashioned shoot AK's in the air at 02:30 AM wedding party and we mistakenly blasted em' (WHICH IT CLEARLY WAS NOT!)
We deserve a pass. Just like the frat pranks at Abu.
We are the good guys don't ever forget that.
If we wanted to, we could build ovens and shovel them in.
We sure aren't using the techniques that Saddam used to keep these people in line for 30 years. Maybe that will be our downfall? Bust out the wood chippers!
Nah they were disassembling the dud 500 pounder
to fab up the coming weeks IED's for their bro's.
Even if this was a rollicking good old fashioned shoot AK's in the air at 02:30 AM wedding party and we mistakenly blasted em' (WHICH IT CLEARLY WAS NOT!)
We deserve a pass. Just like the frat pranks at Abu.
We are the good guys don't ever forget that.
If we wanted to, we could build ovens and shovel them in.
We sure aren't using the techniques that Saddam used to keep these people in line for 30 years. Maybe that will be our downfall? Bust out the wood chippers!