Weblog Awards
Best Canadian Blog
2004 - 2007
Why this blog?
Until this moment I have been forced to listen while media and politicians alike have told me "what Canadians think". In all that time they never once asked.
This is just the voice of an ordinary Canadian yelling back at the radio -
"You don't speak for me."
homepage
email Kate
(goes to a private
mailserver in Europe)
I can't answer or use every tip, but all are appreciated!
Katewerk Art
Support SDA
I am not a registered charity. I cannot issue tax receipts.
Support Our Advertisers
Want lies?
Hire a regular consultant.
Want truth?
Hire an asshole.
The Pence Principle
Poor Richard's Retirement
Pilgrim's Progress
Trump The Establishment
Wind Rain Temp
Seismic Map
What They Say About SDA
"Smalldeadanimals doesn't speak for the people of Saskatchewan" - Former Sask Premier Lorne Calvert
"I got so much traffic after your post my web host asked me to buy a larger traffic allowance." - Dr.Ross McKitrick
Holy hell, woman. When you send someone traffic, you send someone TRAFFIC.My hosting provider thought I was being DDoSed. - Sean McCormick
"The New York Times link to me yesterday [...] generated one-fifth of the traffic I normally get from a link from Small Dead Animals." - Kathy Shaidle
"You may be a nasty right winger, but you're not nasty all the time!" - Warren Kinsella
"Go back to collecting your welfare livelihood. - "Michael E. Zilkowsky
PT: “You’ve killed so many civilians.” That’s their tough luck for being there.
Well if that is a valid argument for the wholesale slaughter of innocent civilians then I suppose we could say about those at the WTC on 9/11, it was just their tough luck for being there too, que sera sera.
Of course if one puts on the usual spin of the conservsative right one might say that wiping out an entire city with a single bomb is fine just as long as that it is a city of wogs.
Best quote…..
“PT: Let’s put it this way. I don’t know any more about these terrorists than you do, I know nothing. When they bombed the Trade Centre I couldn’t believe what was going on. We’ve fought many enemies at different times. But we knew who they were and where they were. These people, we don’t know who they are or where they are. That’s the point that bothers me. Because they’re gonna strike again, I’ll put money on it. And it’s going to be damned dramatic. But they’re gonna do it in their own sweet time. We’ve got to get into a position where we can kill the bastards. None of this business of taking them to court, the hell with that. I wouldn’t waste five seconds on them.”
wow, loads of effort went into this post.
Yo Raymi – there must be some body part you own that the internets haven’t seen. Why don’t you run along and look for it and let the grownups talk?
Apparently albatros would be quite content to speak Japanese and worship the emperor today.
Sorry, dipshit, I’m going to kill them before they kill me AND you.
Now run along and play little boy.
“wow, loads of effort went into this post.”
One of Kate’s virtues, in this world of unpunctuated run-on sentences, is her brevity. And after all, who can match “raymi”‘s deep and brilliant prose:
“today me an fil went to a place to eat food it was so gay i had chicken omgomg it was so GROSSS and smaller than fils peepee i have pictures and stds oh look a car so i purged the chicken in the shitter then took pictures of “ironic” stuff oh look a person IHATEBABIES!!!” here is a pic of me frowning:
Well if that is a valid argument for the wholesale slaughter of innocent civilians then I suppose we could say about those at the WTC on 9/11, it was just their tough luck for being there too, que sera sera.
In some people’s morally stunted world that would be true.
Tibbets crew was specially selected for their ability and lack of remorse in the killing of civilians, that’s a fact.They did not want a man who would second guess himself, and either not drop the bomb, or be haunted by his act in the years to come.
ol hoss..this is want you get when history is not taught in schools. You have a twit trying to figure out the ties between Aug 6,1945 and Sept 11,2001.There are no ties. Alby speak Japanese? hell,he doesn’t even know English!
Well if that is a valid argument for the wholesale slaughter of innocent civilians then I suppose we could say about those at the WTC on 9/11, it was just their tough luck for being there too, que sera sera.
Of course if one puts on the usual spin of the conservsative right one might say that wiping out an entire city with a single bomb is fine just as long as that it is a city of wogs.
There was a war back then that you probably haven’t read about that led to this bombing. You might want to research it before engaging any further in historical revisionism.
And FYI the unfortunate pejorative in that era was “Japs” not “wogs.”
PT: “You’ve killed so many civilians.” That’s their tough luck for being there.
Well if that is a valid argument for the wholesale slaughter of innocent civilians then I suppose we could say about those at the WTC on 9/11, it was just their tough luck for being there too, que sera sera.
Of course if one puts on the usual spin of the conservsative right one might say that wiping out an entire city with a single bomb is fine just as long as that it is a city of wogs.
Posted by Albatros39a
See, there IS a difference here Alby, perhaps you need it pointed out to you. In 1945, the US and Japan had been at war for 3 1/2 years, and the US military was facing the possibility of having to invade the heavily fortified island of Japan with the resulting civilian AND military deaths numbering up to a million. They dropped the bomb in an attempt to avoid most of those deaths.
The attack on the WTC was neither during a time of war nor at a military target. The difference, Alby, is that one sought to limit casualties and end a war, the other sought to inflict casualties and start a war.
Not that I’d expect you to see the difference.
Ah Doug once again the voice from the right fails to look at the bigger picture.
In 1945 the Japanese were close to being on their knees. They may have actually fought to the last man, as the US would have had us believe, but it is doubtful. Don’t you find it odd that after being told that Japan would not give up easily and would fight to the last man, that they the emperor ordered the surrender after only two cities were destroyed? It strikes me that perhaps the emperor would have surrendered Japan shortly after the invasion if one were to have taken place. He was well aware of the American capability of destroying Japanese cities without the use of nuclear weapons after he saw the destruction of Tokyo using conventional bombs.
The Americans said an invasion of Japan would have cost a million US and allied lives. By the time the first bomb had been dropped, Japan had no more navy to speak of and the air force had been all but destroyed. Japan had been cut off from the needed resources to carry on the war for much longer. There is no way that in on July 5th 1945 Japan posed any further threat to any person or nation beyond her shores. Still the US decided to drop the bomb killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians and unleashing the threat of nuclear war on the world. Let’s assume for a minute that the invasion would have cost a million lives, how many lives are today at risk seeing the US let that nuclear genie out of the bottle?
It seems that any other nation today that develops nuclear weapons is branded rouge state by the only nation which has resorted to using them. It also seems that any nation that develops nuclear weapons today do it purely to protect themselves from the US.
As a rule, liberal democracies don’t start wars, but they sure do know how to finish them. Of course it’s terrible that thousands of civilians suffered such a terrible demise at Hiroshima and Nagaski, but if you need a little context (yes, YOU albtros39a) I’d recommend reading “The Rape of Nanking” by Iris Chang.
Oh good Lord, alby is now rewriting history. The Japanese said themselves that they would have fought to the last man, woman and child.
Tibbits had a job to do and did it. It was not his call to say if this was a moral thing or not. Like the grunt that has that enemy soldier in his sights, he isn’t thinking if the soon to be dead man has a family or the like. It is kill or be killed, that’s war dude.
BTW, this 11th of November, go to a legion and listen to a vet. Most will not moralize but say that it was their job although some survivors of Hong Kong will tell you the ruthlessness of the Japanese troops.
“The attack on the WTC was neither during a time of war nor at a military target. The difference, Alby, is that one sought to limit casualties and end a war, the other sought to inflict casualties and start a war.” -Andrew at November 4, 2007 5:55 PM –
Are you trying to tell me dropping nuclear bombs discriminates between the civilians and the military targets? Did they do that in Hiroshima and Nagasaki Andrew?
But it doesn’t matter what the war is all about, it’s Tibbets that is saying that it is the civilian’s bad luck when they get caught in the crossfire of war. In the WTC when using his words, they were simply unfortunates caught in the crossfire.
Whether the American population knew it or not they were already at war with Islamic extremists. The extremists knew it and the government obviously knew it, but didn’t take it seriously. The WTC attack simply woke up the American people as to what was going on. If you think about it and stand back to really look without a biased eye at the reasons behind the WTC was chosen as a target, you’ll see that it was very much a valid target in a war against a financial powerhouse and superpower.
A valid target????
That is one of the sickest statements I have ever read on here.
Who in the hell do you think you are?
“Oh good Lord, alby is now rewriting history. The Japanese said themselves that they would have fought to the last man, woman and child.”
So then why didn’t they? One would think that after a statement like that a little thing like nuclear weapons would have had little consequence to fanatics.
It was nothing but sabre rattling on their part, just like the “mother of all battles” as declared by Saddam.
Remember, it was the generals who were screaming the propaganda they the Japanese would fight to the last, but it was the emperor that declared the end to the war. After an invasion of the Japanese mainland, he would have sought an end to the war knowing they no longer had the capacity to wage a war with the Americans. Hirohito was not a stupid man.
I post the following Mark Steyn article that seems particularly apropos:
Iraqi wacky woo
from The Irish Times, August 1st 2005
Until 60 years ago, all Nagasaki meant to most westerners was the setting for Madame Butterfly and a novelty pop song from the 1920s:
Back in Nagasaki
Where the fellers chew tobaccy
And the women wicky-wacky-woo…
Fats Waller, Cab Calloway, the Mills Brothers, Benny Goodman, Django Reinhardt – there was no shortage of recordings of “Nagasaki” through the 1930s and early 1940s – up to, oh, about two minutes past 11 on the morning of August 9th, 1945. And since then, well, you don’t hear the song too much anymore. Nagasaki joined Hiroshima as a one-word shorthand for events beyond the scale of Tin Pan Alley exotica.
Sometimes the transformative event comes in an instant, as it did out of the skies from a B-29 60 Augusts ago. Sometimes the transformation is slower and less perceptible: The United States that so confidently nuked two Japanese cities is as lost to us as the old pre-mushroom cloud Nagasaki. In what circumstances would Washington nuke an enemy today? Were we to rerun the second World War, advisers to the president would counsel against the poor optics of dropping the big one, problems keeping allies on board, media storm, congressional inquiries, UN resolutions, NGOs making a flap, etc. And chances are the administration would opt to slug it out town for town in a conventional invasion costing a million casualties.
There’s no doubt the atomic bomb wound up saving lives – American, Japanese, and maybe millions in the lands the latter occupied. The more interesting question is to what degree it enabled the Japan we know today. They were a fearsome enemy, and had no time for decadent concepts such as magnanimity in victory. If you want the big picture, the Japanese occupation of China left 15 million Chinese dead. If you want the small picture, consider Tarawa in the Gilbert Islands. It fell to the Japanese shortly after Pearl Harbor, when the 22 British watchkeepers surrendered to vastly superior forces. The following year, the Japanese took their British prisoners, tied them to trees, decapitated them, and burned their bodies in a pit. You won’t find that in the Geneva Conventions.
The Japs fought a filthy war, but a mere six decades later America, Britain and Japan sit side by side at G7 meetings. The US and Canada apologise unceasingly for the wartime internment of Japanese civilians, and a historically uncontroversial authentic vernacular expression such as “the Japs fought a filthy war” is now so distasteful that use of it inevitably attracts noisy complaints about offensively racist characterisations. The old militarist culture – of kamikaze fanatics, and occupation regimes that routinely tortured and beheaded and even ate their prisoners – is dead as dead can be.
Would that have happened without Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or the earlier non-nuclear raids? In one night of “conventional” bombing – March 9th – 100,000 civilians died in Tokyo. Taking a surrender from the enemy is one thing; ensuring that he’s completely, totally, utterly beaten is another.
A peace without Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have been a different kind of peace; the surrender would have been, in every sense, more “conditional”. Japanese militarism would not have been so thoroughly vanquished, nor so obviously responsible for the nation’s humiliation and devastation, and, therefore, not so irredeemably consigned to history. A greater affection and respect for the old regime could well have persisted, and lingered to hobble the new modern, democratic Japan devised by the Americans.
Which brings us to our present troubles. Nobody’s suggesting nuking Mecca. Well, okay, the other day a Republican congressman, Tom Tancredo, did – or at any rate he raised the possibility that at some point we might well have to “bomb” Mecca. Even I, a fully paid-up armchair warmonger, baulked at that one, prompting some of my more robust correspondents to suggest I’d gone over to the side of the New York Times pantywaists.
But forget about bombing Mecca and consider the broader lesson of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: an enemy folds when he knows he’s finished. In Iraq, despite the swift fall of the Saddamites, it’s not entirely clear the enemy did know. Indeed, the western peaceniks’ pre-war “human shields” operation was completely superfluous mainly because the Anglo-American forces decided to treat not just Iraqi civilians and not just Iraqi conscripts but virtually everyone other than Saddam, Uday and Qusay as a de facto human shield. Washington made a conscious choice to give every Iraqi the benefit of the doubt, including the fake surrenderers who ambushed the US marines at Nasiriyah.
If you could get to a rooftop, you could fire rocket-propelled grenades at the Brits and Yanks with impunity, because, under the most onerous rules of engagement ever devised, they wouldn’t fire back just in case the building you were standing on hadn’t been completely evacuated. Michael Moore and George Galloway may have thought the neocons were itching to massacre hundreds of thousands, but the behaviour of the Baathists suggests they knew better: they assumed western decency and, having no regard either for our lives or for those of their own people, acted accordingly.
Was this a mistake? Several analysts weren’t happy about it at the time, simply because Washington and London were exposing their own troops to greater danger than necessary. But, with hindsight, it also helped set up a lot of the problems Iraq’s had to contend with since: not enough Baathists were killed in the initial invasion; too many bigshots survived to plot mischief and too many minnows were allowed to melt back into the general population to provide a delivery system for that mischief.
And in a basic psychological sense, excessive solicitude for the enemy won us not sympathy but contempt. Better Nagasaki than a lot of misplaced wicky-wacky-woo.
The main victims of western squeamishness in April 2003 were not American or coalition troops but the Iraqi civilians who today provide the principal target for “insurgents”. It would have better for them had more Baathists been killed in the initial invasion. It would have been preferable, too, if the swarm of foreign jihadi from neighbouring countries had occasionally been met with the “accidental” bombing of certain targets on the Syrian side of the border.
Wars fought under absurd degrees of self-imposed etiquette are the most difficult to win – see Korea, Vietnam or even Northern Ireland – and one lesson of Germany and Japan is that it’s easier to rebuild societies if they’ve first been completely smashed. Michael Ledeen, a shrewd analyst of the present conflict, likes to sign-off his essays by urging the administration, “Faster, please”. That’s good advice. So too is: Tougher, please.
“…he would have sought an end to the war…”
Rewriting history AND a mind reader to boot! This alby character has to be God’s gift to humanity. That last sentence was sarcasm if you didn’t get it.
Now Sid no hissy fits needed, but I guarantee that if the WTC was in an enemy’s territory the Americans would had a few smart bombs blow the crap out in an attempt to cripple the economy to the whatever nation they happen to be fighting.
The point is that the Islamic extremists were at war with the Americans, whether or not the American people were aware of it. When faced with an enemy you try to hurt their capacity to fight. To hurt a financial and military superpower you have to hurt them where it counts when you have limited resources to wage a war. The WTC was the financial centre of the US, which made it a logical military target. It was a weak point in the American system and the attackers realized it and capitalized on it. Have your little emotional fit over it if you like, but American business, government and military now realize the mistake the made in having this one weak point.
When you break it down the attack was ingenious. For a group working with very limited resources, they carried out an attack on a superpower that cost the Americans over a trillion dollars so far when you factor in the costs of Iraq, Afghanistan and the increased cost of security within their own borders. Don’t forget the emotional costs and insecurity it has brought to the American people.
Can you imagine if you could perfect a military tactic that would have that kind of psychological impact that has occurred just within the US borders for the cost of a few thousand bucks?
Texas Canuck, it’s not mind reading, it’s logic.
HA! Logic and Alby in the same sentence, too funny!
Amazing how some trolls can spend so much time masturbating mentally in public and all it does is prove their extremely limited mental abilities. How about another 600 word masturbation? We’re not watching anymore.
some say the nuking of Nagasaki&Hiroshima was because of the Russkies..?
With regard to the Japanese:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=491548&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source=
“Painstaking research by British historian Mark Felton reveals that the wartime behaviour of the Japanese Navy was far worse than their counterparts in Hitler’s Kriegsmarine.
According to Felton, officers of the Imperial Japanese Navy ordered the deliberately sadistic murders of more than 20,000 Allied seamen and countless civilians in cold-blooded defiance of the Geneva Convention”.
I still think a couple of well-placed cruise missiles in the government halls of both Damascus and Tehran might change the perspective of those that support terrorism around the world. No troops on the ground, no [heaven forbid] long-term commitment and as PT said, TOUGH. Better them than us and our children with the obvious home grown exceptions.
Guys/Gals…stop feeding alby. Yeah,I know,it’s fun to make fun of an idiot,but just ignore it,and it will go away.
Oh yes, I have a great time making fun of you Diesel.
Methinks albatros39a is the new nom de jerk of a certain troll previously bounced out of here by Kate.
Nemo2, thanks for posting that info and URL about Japanese Navy atrocities.
I’d never read anything before about Japanese Navy involvement in atrocities. Everything I had read was about Japanese Army and Imperial Marines being the main culprits in their war crimes.
Incidentally, the Japanese also had a military medical experimental unit in remote Korea that developed Biological and chemical weapons. They had a large facility and in it, they tested the weapons on captive Koreans, Chinese and Allied POWs. There was also at least one incidence in which the Japanese bombed a Chinese village to test one of the bio-weapons developed at this facility. Most of the people living in this village were killed.
Neither the doctor who commanded that facility nor any of the other doctors under his command there were ever brought to trial.
In fact, after the war, the commanding doctor founded a medical corporation that became very big in post-war Japan. He became a very wealthy and honored figure in Japanese society, at one time serving as an MP in the Japanese Parliament.
“Let’s assume for a minute that the invasion would have cost a million lives, how many lives are today at risk seeing the US let that nuclear genie out of the bottle?” – albatros39
Yes, let’s assume that million lives lost. It’s probably not a bad assumption. We are staying a few miles North of the Iwo Jima memorial right now. Iwo Jima was an eight square mile island which was invaded by US forces in February/March 1945 – “The battle was the first American attack on the Japanese Home Islands and the Imperial soldiers defended their positions tenaciously. Of the 21,000 Japanese soldiers present at the beginning of the battle, over 20,000 were killed and only 216 taken prisoner.””The Allied forces suffered 27,909 casualties, with 6,825 killed in action. The number of American casualties was greater than the total Allied casualties on D-Day (estimated at 10,000, compared with 125,847 American casualties during the entire Battle of Normandy).[5] Iwo Jima was also the only U.S. Marine battle where the American casualties exceeded the Japanese.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Iwo_Jima)
As far as blaming the U.S. for letting the genie out of the bottle, do you think that not dropping the bomb would have changed that once the bomb was developed? Do you think that the Russians would have stopped at Germany if they had not seen the results of the bomb? The bomb was patented in England in the 1930’s. Generally speaking, technology is ready when it is ready and for every “inventor/developer” of a technology there is somebody else that was not far off from getting there. Can you think of a more benign nation at the time to have been first developer of the bomb?
Speaking as a Canadian, I shudder to think what would have happened if the outcome of WWII had been a different nation as primary victor. Japan? Germany? Russia? Talk to anybody who was in a territory occupied by their forces.
Lets not forget the firestorms made by conventional bombs. But I guess that was okay because we lost thousands of bomber crews in the process. I guess that was more fair.
Read the article they dropped the bomb on Horishima and waited then dropped it on Nagasaki and waited, there was a third but they didnt have to use it because they surrendered. They could have save both those cities if they would have surrendered earlier.
One has to remember to civilians though not in military uniforms build the planes, make the bombs etc. Im sure everyone killed in Dresden or london werent in uniform when they died.
Damn shame there aren’t more people like Tibbets on this continent. God rest his soul and thanks go out to all men like him that have fought for the freedoms we now take for granted and cede to the government with barely a second thought.
Paul A.
You can’t compare the Japanese mainland with Iwo Jima. As you said Iwo Jima was a small island, and being a small island it was actually easier to fortify and defend than an entire country the size of Japan would have been. One artillery piece on Iwo Jima had the range to cover the whole island. The island of Iwo Jima had been prepared as fortress in anticipation of being invaded and caused a 24% casualty rate for the invading Americans.
In comparison, Okinawa due to its size and civilian population couldn’t be defended as easily, reducing the Allied casualty rate to 9%.
By the time the invasion of Okinawa took place, the Japanese didn’t even have enough fuel left to refuel its navy. The actual invasion of Japan wasn’t planned to take place until November 1945 so that the Japanese infrastructure could be sufficiently bombed. By the time Operation Downfall was to have taken place, the Japanese wouldn’t have been able to put up much resistance past the initial invasion.
‘Que sera sera’ should just be adopted as the motto (and official song) of the right wing. If you could just get the mothers of the dead soldiers (and all the dead civilians and their children) singin’ it. This is actually about people. Our experience in this country must be entirely too sterile and distant for anyone to experience any feelings of humility.
‘Que sera sera’ should just be adopted as the motto (and official song) of the right wing. If you could just get the mothers of the dead soldiers (and all the dead civilians and their children) singin’ it. This is actually about people. Our experience in this country must be entirely too sterile and distant for anyone to experience any feelings of humility.
They started it, we finished it. There is nothing more that needs to be said. As you sow, so shall you reap.
Wow, alby, wow. Even for you, that’s outright ridiculous.
In one post, you’ve managed to re-write history, political science, anthropology and military history. Congratulations. Perhaps you should stick to the global warming posts, where you can butcher only one field of study.
Don’t forget the unspeakable moral equivalence of comparing terrorists who represent NO legal constituency and NO morality short of naked barbarism who murdered only civilians …. with our own nations efforts to build a stable and free world.
The incredible inability of the left to differentiate between good and evil.
And the pathological need to to confabulate.
Too bad KAte deleted my earlier post…..on exactly what a sick excuse for a human being is that tries to justify the acts of terrorists.
Use you imagination.
Tibbets displayed a profound understanding of war. War is when you HAVE to do things like blow up a whole city with one bomb. Because if you don’t, worse things will happen.
Contemplate that for a while, eh? Nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the best possibility they had available. That’s some scary sh1t.
Wanna think about something much scarier? The Japanese regime was thinking the loss of a whole city in a second was ok. They were going to fight on to victory.
That’s why I like Harper and Bush. They understand this stuff enough to go fight the war overseas, so we don’t have a big flash over New York or Toronto.
Jane, you still have difficulty reading don’t you, that “Que Sera Sera” quote was from your buddy Alby. You know your friend who said the WTC was a valid target, that his, and by transference, your friends did a brilliant job in killing all those Americans. Bravo Jane Mckinley, terrorist supporter, friend to Alby and Al Queda, hopefully the FBI and CIA have harvested your name for your next overflight of the US to Cuba…
Nice to see a female troll from the left demonstrate that the affliction is not only in re-writing history but falsely attributing quotes, what you meant to say was maybe we could get all the surviving families from the WTC to sing Que Sera Sera…
Not to worry about the Lefty troll types. They will change their tune PDQ should something terror-ish happen to them personally. There’s no bigger hawk than a mugged liberal.
Its just that they live in this warm, comfy little mind space where they can think Paul Tibbets is the same as Osama Bin Laden is the same as George Bush is the same as Stephen Harper. Kate keeps pulling the door open and they’re complaining about the cold breeze of Reality blowing under their blankie.
In the mean time just ignore them and presently they will go away.
Phantom
What are you worried about terrorists for, it’s a minor problem. Ask yourself this, how many people have been killed in terrorist attacks compared with how many people have been killed in things related to global warming? If you do the unthinkable and say that Katrina was as a result of GW, plus the 2003 heat wave in Europe, plus all floods (not including the tsunami) in the world from storms, plus droughts and all the other factors related to a warming world then divide all those deaths since 9/11 by ten. You will still dwarf the number of people killed by terror attacks around the world in the same time frame. That is of course if you don’t include the number of innocent Iraqis the Americans blew the crap out of in their little ongoing quest for the American oil inconveniently buried under the Iraqis soil. The problem is you are told to be scared of terrorists because it’s profitable for those telling you to be scared. Remember, it’s the same people that tell you that there is no such thing as AWG and then turn around and tell you to be afraid because there’s a terrorist, pedophile and a Liberal behind ever tree. These also happens to be the same people who told Americans they could protect themselves from a nerve gas attack in their own homes by purchasing duct tape and plastic sheeting.
Here, listen to Lewis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ngWJDCHHgE
Again with the confabulation … when’s the last time YOU got shot at by The American Military? GWBush…a conservative? … and yet you spend your days polluting the air with your BS. alby tool
“when’s the last time YOU got shot at by The American Military?”
Never actually shot at, but I did get locked on by an F-14 over the Persian Gulf in 1998. We didn’t think it was very amusing at the time especially considering we were there to give him gas to get home to his boat.
Great post, Kate.It gave me chills to read this riveting interview, and Paul Tibbets died a legend, a patriot and a great man.I hope he is finally laid to rest at Arlington National, where he deserves to rest among the bravest and most noble of warriors.
Well Alby, given that no one has ever been killed by global warming, I’d say your argument is somewhat hollow.
Also, given that you can’t tell the difference between premeditated murder and accidental death by inclement weather, I can only conclude you are an idiot.
I don’t debate idiots, Alby. A battle of wits with an unarmed man is no challenge.
“Well Alby, given that no one has ever been killed by global warming…”
So where do you get that information from phantom? Do you just sit there in your darkened living room blinds drawn and fingers in your ears yelling lalalala so that you can remain in denial?
How many people have been killed in terrorist attacks over say the past 25 years? Come now phantom, you are so wrapped up in you fear of terror attacks, you must have that info at hand.
Do you know the estimates for people killed due to global warming? Oh it’s a few more than terrorist deaths. But tell us Phantom, what is the difference between a premeditated murder and ignoring climate change that’s killing innocent people around the world? Is there a difference? Well of course there is, terrorists make war profitable to those who make the bullets. Terrorists make convenient invisible enemies for politicians to get elected when they convince their voters (like you) to be afraid of that terrorist boogieman. So the difference is, premeditated murder of a few innocent people is profitable, but thousands of deaths from global warming distracts from the terrorist killings and costs money to control emissions.
Alby, you argue like a five year old. Repeating what you’ve already said does not a convincing argument make.
Ignoring global warming is the same as ignoring UFOs. Neither exist outside the fevered imaginations of a few nut. Evidence for my view is posted here by Kate every single day, but my favorite remains the barbecue next to the NASA weather station thermometer. That’s the perfect encapsulation of the inconvenient truth about global warming.
Unlike terrorism, which is a real thing done by real people. I prefer those people should be found and killed far away from where I live, so that my nice calm life which I worked hard to have is not disturbed.
That’s why I vote CPC Alby. Unlike the Liberals, the Bloc and the NDP, they spend my money on stuff I approve of. Bullets. Then they send it all over to Afghanistan and blast the crap out of bad guys with it. If Abdul the goat farmer buys it in an IED explosion, I can live with that a lot easier than if some pricks blow friends of mine up here.
That’s just the way it is with me. I think Paul Tibbets is a hero and Algore is a self serving, lying POS.
Sorry if that upsets you Alby. (/.sarc)
Phantom, you are a very ignorant person. Here is how a five year old argues. They make silly claims but don’t know how to back up what they say after they say it. Now I’ve asked you twice how many people have been killed by terrorists but you continue to dodge that question. You can’t back up your statement so you make ad hominem attacks. That is how a five year old will argue.
Now as far as deaths from global warming is concerned. The source I am quoting is the World Health Organization who estimates that since the year 2000 there have been 150000 deaths per year and is expected to climb to 300000 by 2030. You go ahead and Google that because I would hate to put up a link that you wouldn’t approve of, so you go ahead and can pick the source as you see fit. I suggest the Washington Post as they have the same information in their article and should be sufficiently right-wing for you to cancel any doubts of the source.
I find it absolutely hilarious that you can look at this so called evidence that you find on this site as legitimate evidence. This “evidence” as you call it is neither credible nor accurate and is quite frequently outright lies by the originator. It’s funny that you used the analogy of UFOs because in reality UFOs do exist. A UFO is nothing more than something in the air that an observer has no explanation for, but when presented to a expert eye there is always a logical explanation and that explanation is never little green men. Just like a good UFO story, this disinformation over climate change that you find here always is always presented without an expert’s interpretation. When somebody with some knowledge of the subject does come and poke holes in the story, the deniers resort to the usual ad hominem attacks the way you did above.
Let’s take the expanding sea ice in the southern ocean as an example. Antarctic sea ice is expanding to record levels this winter. To the uninformed observer it doesn’t make sense that a warming hemisphere, warming water and expanding ice is caused by global warming. It’s just easier to deny global warming rather than it is to try and understand it and let’s face it, AL Gores movie is aptly named.
So now I have told you the estimate of how many people have been killed by the changing climate, it’s time for you to answer me how many people have been killed from terrorist attacks (not counting the American attacks). So again, if many, many more people are being killed from a changing climate, including in Canada, why are you so concerned with terrorists. Particularly when there has been nobody killed in Canada from any terrorists? It seems to me that you like many people like you have you priorities mixed up.