And fully one third of the “news” report is devoted to editorial comment by CTV’s Craig Oliver.
Video of Harper speech.
Full text in the extended entry.
Good evening. Today is the fifth anniversary of the terrible events of Sept. 11, 2001.
I am speaking to you from the Hall of Honour in the Centre Block of Parliament.
With me are some Canadians whose lives have been touched by 9-11 in ways that most of us can’t even begin to imagine.
Men and women who lost loved ones in the attacks on the World Trade Centre. Tanja Tomasevic, who lost her husband, Vladimir; Danny Eisen who lost his cousin, Danny; and Maureen and Erica Basnicki, who lost their husband and father, Ken.
I asked them to join me because words alone are not enough to express what needs to be said today.
As we pay tribute to the 24 Canadians who lost their lives on that infamous day five years ago, their family members remind us that they were real people with real lives.
Lives that were cut short — deliberately so — by a murderous act of terrorism.
Like most Canadians, I have a vivid memory of that morning.
As my wife, Laureen, and I watched the second tower collapse on television, as the enormity of the events began to sink in, I turned to her and said: “This will change the course of history.”
And so it has.
In the years that followed, terror struck Bali in Indonesia, Madrid in Spain, London in Great Britain. And security forces in many countries — including Canada — have foiled alleged terrorist plots before they could be executed.
The targets and tactics were different in every case, but the objective is always the same. To kill, maim and terrify as many people as possible. Not in the name of any idealistic cause, but because of an ideology of hatred.
And while this war of terror has displayed some of the worst of which humanity is capable, so too has it revealed the greatness and generosity that lie at the core of so many ordinary people.
Something which was on display for all to see when Canadians opened their arms and homes to thousands of travellers whose flights were diverted on 9-11.
And because of this war of terror, people around the world have come together to offer a better vision of the future for all humanity.
For this vision to take hold, the menace of terror must be confronted.
And that is why the countries of the United Nations, with unprecedented unity and determination, launched their mission to Afghanistan to deal with the source of the 9-11 terror and to end, once and for all, the brutal regime that horribly mistreated its own people while coddling terrorists.
And that is why I invited the families of some of the Canadian soldiers who are currently serving in Afghanistan to join us here today.
I want to thank Raquel Hounsell, Janice Shaw and Jane Hill for being here. Their husbands are currently serving in Afghanistan. And Capt. Edward and Judy Kosierb, whose son is serving in Afghanistan.
Their presence here reminds us that real people — Canadian men and women with families and children — are courageously putting themselves forward to make that part of the world a better place.
It is the desire to make a better and safer world which compels our soldiers to put their lives on the line.
There are Canadian heroes being made every day in the desert and the mountains of southern Afghanistan.
These are the stories we don’t hear — the countless acts of courage and sacrifice that occur every day on the battlefield.
And in the towns and villages where Canadians are reconstructing the basic infrastructure of a shattered nation.
Because of their efforts, the Taliban is on the run, not the charge.
Women now have basic rights as human beings. Youngsters are getting a chance to go to school. And many — but not yet all Afghan families — are beginning to rebuild their lives with our help.
Because we are a country that has always accepted its responsibilities in the world, from two great wars in Europe, from Korea to the Balkans, Canada has acted when the United Nations has asked.
And as the events of Sept. 11 so clearly illustrate, the horrors of the world will not go away if we turn a blind eye to them, no matter how far off they may be.
And these horrors cannot be stopped unless some among us are willing to accept enormous sacrifice and risk to themselves.
I would ask that, tonight, you keep in your thoughts and prayers the victims and families of 9-11 and all those ordinary people who have died or lost loved ones in related acts of terror.
I would ask as well, that you keep in your thoughts and prayers the personnel and families of the extraordinary people in Afghanistan and elsewhere who have put themselves on the line so that the world is a better and safer place for all of us.
Good night.
clinton also sold blood to the Canadian Red Cross, very humanitarian. except it came from Arkansas prisoners who in turn infected many of the recipients of said blood with AIDS and Hep C. it’s slightly OT but clinton boils my blood literally.
there was a blog thing way back comparing craig oliver to an albatross. you know, the side by side picture thing. a true resemblance, the kind of ‘squashed’ look.
God bwess us evweone.
ah gotta love those heart string tuggers.
tug tug tug. brings a tear to the eye, pining for the olden days when men were men and women were in the kitchen. and God King and Country were supreme.
aaaaand then WW I came along and resoundingly proved that in the business of war, things can turn ugly quickly and the chest thumping ‘mission accomplished’ crapola of the likes of george dubya needs to be looked at very warily.
(psssst: its called ‘propaganda’)
And Clintons buddy Captain Paulie Liberano was on the board of directors at Connaught Labs, who O.K’d it for use by the Red Cross….Anyone catch Craig Magoo misquote defence minister O’Conner on QP? He claims O’Connor said “We can’t defeat the Taliban militarily.” When he actually said “We can’t defeat the Taliban by military means alone”
…And he was so close to a Senate seat!
just remember all you harper worshippers, despite their attempt to create a psychological barrier, an perceived ‘break with the past’, the present PC party is the standard bearer for the legacy of brian mulrooney. at one point voted the most hated former prime minister alive. proof is the unprecedented collapse, never before in canadian politics, of the party in the election called by the great kimmy kim campbell, fall girl of the 90s.
what is it about you right wingers you whine about ndpers blind allegience to dogma and ideology, then turn around and defend george dubya at every turn?
can the man do no wrong? have you *ever* felt the need to criticize him even once? are you all sychophants?
better take a hard look at your hero worship inclinations. if you want I will list the worst offenders and save each of you the anguish.
schmuck, “pining for the olden days when men were men and women were in the kitchen.” Yes, let’s do discuss the plight of women under Dubya and under your friend Mohommad Omar. Please do compare and contrast.
Did anyone see the “Path to 911” on ABC? I guess Billy C. can go jump in a hole and hide his head – like Sadam. He could have stopped Ben Laden by helping the Northern Alliance defeat the terrorists before they got a foothold. I watched the documentary with the memory of all the entries I have read on the Internet over the years – I could not find any fiction in that Production – only great sorrow and regret – for us and for the Freedom Fighters in Afghanistan. For the people in Iraq and Iran who hate terrorists and for our soldiers being killed for the freedom of the rest of us.
President Bush has been derided and accused and criticised for his actions – I think he is a very brave man and a Great American President. He has never given up, why have some of the American people? Why are some people so willing to sell themselves to the terrorists so cheaply? I listened to the speech George Bush made to the American people – it was a plea to them to save themselves.
Our Prime Minister made much the same speech to Canadians, we have a choice; get a backbone, die, or be the slaves of terrorists. I have read many books about the life of the average person in Russia under Communism, China as it is today, German people under Hitler…. I lived in British Columbia under the Liberanos(Federal) and the NDP (Provincial). Why do we think it is easier to fold than to DEFEND our freedoms? Why did Canada allow Turdo to ignore Property Rights in our Rights and Freedoms, why do owners of businesses allow themselves to be bankrupt because of anti smoking legislation? Are we all so easily pushed? Why to we fine smokers and bare headed bicycle riders while we allow thieves and child molesters and murderers to run around Scot free? Why do we allow terrorists to demand passports? Why do we allow public figures to ‘air’ the idea that they would negotiate with terrorists?
Today is a day for sorrow but it is also a day for thanks – we should Thank the Lord for the fact that President Bush, not Al Gore won the 2000 election and the 2004 election instead of the Kerry defeatest. We should be very thankful here in Canada, that Stephen Harper and the Conservatives won the 2006 election. I could not have held my head up today if Martin had been our Prime Minister. I was proud of our Prime Minister and I was proud of our Minister of Foreign Affairs today. I am still thinking in the back of my mind, that I will probably be ashamed to be a Canadian because of some left wing loony spewing anti American, anti freedom rhetoric all over the air waves and befouling Canada, my beautiful country. It is just the msm who shame me – the msm shames Americans too. I think ABC grew up though – they are in the adult world it seems – I hope they keep up the good work.
It’s despicable that Harper has to resort to emotional manipulation in the manner of the American administration by inserting family members of victims into his PR moment. It absolutely cheapens the whole affair. Why can’t he have a one-on-one with citizens of the country and express his opinions and beliefs in a normal fashion? Why the big show and emotional manipulation? Why the need to exploit suffering?
Surrounding himself with victims is a clear intentional action to cloud our reason with emotion, and remind us that to disagree with him – say, regarding his justification for Afghanistan – is akin to denying the tragedy and siding with the perpetrators. This type of manipulative underhanded subterfuge is exactly the cause of the devaluation of politics and the resulting social and national polarization.
It is also a clear indication that Harper either puts no stock in rational discourse, or lacks confidence in his abilities.
It’s despicable that Harper has to resort to emotional manipulation in the manner of the American administration by inserting family members of victims into his PR moment. It absolutely cheapens the whole affair. Why can’t he have a one-on-one with citizens of the country and express his opinions and beliefs in a normal fashion? Why the big show and emotional manipulation? Why the need to exploit suffering?
Surrounding himself with victims is a clear intentional action to cloud our reason with emotion, and remind us that to disagree with him – say, regarding his justification for Afghanistan – is akin to denying the tragedy and siding with the perpetrators. This type of manipulative underhanded subterfuge is exactly the cause of the devaluation of politics and the resulting social and national polarization.
It is also a clear indication that Harper either puts no stock in rational discourse, or lacks confidence in his abilities.
It’s despicable that Harper has to resort to emotional manipulation in the manner of the American administration by inserting family members of victims into his PR moment. It absolutely cheapens the whole affair. Why can’t he have a one-on-one with citizens of the country and express his opinions and beliefs in a normal fashion? Why the big show and emotional manipulation? Why the need to exploit suffering?
Surrounding himself with victims is a clear intentional action to cloud our reason with emotion, and remind us that to disagree with him – say, regarding his justification for Afghanistan – is akin to denying the tragedy and siding with the perpetrators. This type of manipulative underhanded subterfuge is exactly the cause of the devaluation of politics and the resulting social and national polarization.
It is also a clear indication that Harper either puts no stock in rational discourse, or lacks confidence in his abilities.
It’s despicable that Harper has to resort to emotional manipulation in the manner of the American administration by inserting family members of victims into his PR moment. It absolutely cheapens the whole affair. Why can’t he have a one-on-one with citizens of the country and express his opinions and beliefs in a normal fashion? Why the big show and emotional manipulation? Why the need to exploit suffering?
Surrounding himself with victims is a clear intentional action to cloud our reason with emotion, and remind us that to disagree with him – say, regarding his justification for Afghanistan – is akin to denying the tragedy and siding with the perpetrators. This type of manipulative underhanded subterfuge is exactly the cause of the devaluation of politics and the resulting social and national polarization.
It is also a clear indication that Harper either puts no stock in rational discourse, or lacks confidence in his abilities.
It’s despicable that Harper has to resort to emotional manipulation in the manner of the American administration by inserting family members of victims into his PR moment. It absolutely cheapens the whole affair. Why can’t he have a one-on-one with citizens of the country and express his opinions and beliefs in a normal fashion? Why the big show and emotional manipulation? Why the need to exploit suffering?
Surrounding himself with victims is a clear intentional action to cloud our reason with emotion, and remind us that to disagree with him – say, regarding his justification for Afghanistan – is akin to denying the tragedy and siding with the perpetrators. This type of manipulative underhanded subterfuge is exactly the cause of the devaluation of politics and the resulting social and national polarization.
It is also a clear indication that Harper either puts no stock in rational discourse, or lacks confidence in his abilities.
Wow…computer error, my apologies for the repetition.
Folks, the Schmuck is a leftist troll who has no respect for the victims of evildoers. He/she dishonors the innocent victims of the evil Islamofascist jihadists.
Trolls are meant to be ignored, we must remember.
Ignore them to frustrate them.
Myself, I’d be inclined to simply ban the Schmuck for such dishonor. We don’t need to have this sort of thing.
Like most leftists, Schmuck probably knows nothing about Islam, except the lies such as it’s supposedly a “religion of peace”, which we know it isn’t.
Let’s ignore the Schmuck. Begone, Schmuck. You’re not welcome.
Leftists do precisely the sort of thing of which Absolution speaks.
I guess Absolution has no feelings whatsoever and doesn’t understand that feeling is human, a very important part of who we, as human beings, are… something the enemy, the Islamic fundamentalists, are dead set against. This is what we’re facing.
Why should we abandon that which makes us human to appease the enemy and the ultra-extremely stupid left? We shouldn’t, and we won’t. So the enemy, leftists and Dhimmis can put up or shut up.
So excuse the PM, Absolution, if he’s a little emotional. He’s human. Aren’t you? Or are you a Dhimmi?
How ironic… Mr. Harper has been criticized for being unemotional. Now he’s slammed for being emotional.
We human beings just can’t win, can we?
I think that leftists have only one emotion: anger. That’s pretty much all they show most of the time. Sad.
What did the 7:00 a.m. news on the CBC lead with?
An analysis of President George W. Bush’s speech–unfair and unbalanced, as usual.
Just when I was beginning to wonder if I’d wakened up in Canada or not–you’d think that the great Canadian Broadcaster: “Trusted, Connected, Canadian,” (remember that slogan?) might have led with Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s speech–the newscaster finally did a hatchet job on it.
I knew I was in Canada.
As usual, it wasn’t a news report; the reporter felt compelled to make editorial comments every few seconds, mentioning graciously (/s) that Mrs. Ken Basnicki did not feel like a political pawn while standing behind our Prime Minister as he made his speech.
When I’m confronted with all the spin, which daily undermines the very real, very noble, very necessary war Canada is in for the long haul–thank you, PMSH and PGWB, for understanding the gravity of our situation and for valiantly standing in the gap despite the withering criticism you’re subjected to in the MSM day after day–I’m reminded just how prescient the Judeo-Christian Scripture is about these things: “…our struggle is not against enemies of blood and flesh, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers of this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.”
It’s clear that what we are fighting is pure evil. Not the people themselves, but the impetus that compels the Taliban to maim and destroy other human beings who do not share their twisted Islamist views, which would force all of us “infidels” to submit to slavery, oppression, and death.
The solution is not merely man-made; it does not lie solely in writing letters to the CBC ombudsman, to our MPs, to the editor, in electing the CPC to a majority government, even in sending our brave men and women into the fray in the ME, as important as all of these endeavours are. They must be done.
Ephesians offers more: “Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his power. Put on the whole armour of God, so that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.”
Absolution
It is also very clear you don’t have a clue as to what you are talking about.
Perhaps he didn’t have enough persons of colour,
persons with disabilities, transgendered persons of various hues and homosexuals displayed for your liking.
Maybe after the next terrorist attack, he will keep that in mind.
I’m not sure there is a coherent argument anywhere in your post – it is mostly childish, spittle-soaked invective and ranting – but let me try to address some of the points in an even-handed fashion.
“Leftists do precisely the sort of thing of which Absolution speaks.”
You’re right, people have used similar tactics on the other end of the spectrum, albeit I must admit it happens much less frequently and I can’t remember a time that a tragedy of this magnitude was exploited. In any case, whether or not Liberals or NDPers or Greens do it as well doesn’t detract from the point I was trying to make: it cheapens the political discourse and shows a great disdain for reason in favour of emotional manipulation.
“I guess Absolution has no feelings whatsoever and doesn’t understand that feeling is human, a very important part of who we, as human beings, are… something the enemy, the Islamic fundamentalists, are dead set against. This is what we’re facing.”
There is very little that could be called a point here, and there isn’t much connection either. It sounds like you first try to discount my argument with an attempt at an ad hominem by claiming I have no feelings – as if that insult a) makes any sense, or b) would really upset me. You follow that childish attempt at an attack with some amazingly deep ontological insight about feelings and the nature of being human that sounds like the level of philosophy espoused by a 12 year old girl. You then rally the troops with another absolutely meaningless claim that Islamic extremists are ‘against feelings’. How does one go about being ‘against feelings’?
“Why should we abandon that which makes us human to appease the enemy and the ultra-extremely stupid left? We shouldn’t, and we won’t. So the enemy, leftists and Dhimmis can put up or shut up.”
Following your feeble connections between meaninglessly broad concepts, you again insult me, and complete the thought by making up a whole new compound adjective. Good for you. But really, “Put up or shut up”? Exactly what are you referring to? Are you in your teens? Is this how you plan to conduct discussions forever?…because if you do, you might find that people belittle you, and sometimes right to your face. Perhaps you’d be wise to learn to interact with others in a more rational and less ploddingly incomprehensible fashion – you might find you can actually get the person to consider your point of view occasionally. You will also learn not to SERIOUSLY underestimate people.
The very fact that you see ‘leftists’ as the enemy is pretty illustrative of the intellectual level we’re dealing with here. I have news for you: normal people with reasonable political views don’t have paranoid delusions that they are victims, and that the rest of the world is their enemy.
“So excuse the PM, Absolution, if he’s a little emotional. He’s human. Aren’t you? Or are you a Dhimmi?”
I didn’t ONCE make a claim about whether or not the PM is ’emotional’…and it is not even related to my original claim: that manipulating emotion to disguise weak rationalizations is a cheap, underhanded tactic that is destroying politics. I understand if the subtelty of my point was missed on you, because clearly you haven’t figured out how to form coherent thought, let alone interpret it. I would suggest more work on ‘reading comprehension’. A good way to start is with more reading.
Furthermore, since you have gone to the effor to type out your screed, do you even know what a dhimmi is without looking it up in the dictionary or consulting the Little Green Footballs blog? Seriously, are you actually asking me if I belong to a particular class of non-Muslim free subjects that live in a state governed by sharia law? Because I should inform you that the ‘dhimmi’ were around mainly from the 7th to 12th century AD, and that after the Ottoman empire severly relaxed the restrictions on non-Muslim subjects around 1830 or so, the term really isn’t used anymore except by crazy people who want to hurl a rather obscure insult.
“How ironic… Mr. Harper has been criticized for being unemotional. Now he’s slammed for being emotional. We human beings just can’t win, can we?”
I didn’t make any claim on whether or not Harper is emotional (For the record, I think he’s like most people in that he reserves his emotions for his private life), so none of this makes any sense or is related to my point at all. Also, I should point out that this is not ‘ironic’. In the strict symbolic or literary sense, ‘irony’ is when the intended meaning is different from the actual meaning, not when someone makes a self-contradictory claim.
“I think that leftists have only one emotion: anger. That’s pretty much all they show most of the time.”
It’s funny, because I’m not the least bit angry right now – and nor was I in my original post – but you sure sound like you are. That psychological phenomenon is called ‘projection’. Just so you know, I’m pretty satisfied most of my life because I’ve taken the time to think pretty hard about my beliefs and I rather enjoy solidifying them by discussing them with others. I listen to others and consider their beliefs to have merit – without judgement – because I’m not paranoid or insecure and I’m always willing to change my beliefs if I find them to lack the strength of reason. I also appreciate that every person or situation is a complicated mix of subtlety and nuance.
“Sad.”
It really is very sad that human interaction and our national character has descended to these depths. I hoped that what originally posted would elicit passioned response, but not lunatic attack. Surely, people who support Harper are capable of seeing that there is something wrong with capitalizing on tragedy in that fashion.
9/11/2006: Bear Witness
I deliberately waited until after work hours to post this recently released video from YouTube, taken by a tourist couple from Seattle staying in a hotel 100 yards away from the World Trade Center on 9/11 … because it shows many people jumping from the buildings, much more graphically than anything ever seen on mainstream media in this country.
Parents, this is your warning.
Here’s a story about it, from May 2002, at NBC’s Seattle affiliate: Exclusive: Couple Captures WTC Attack On Tape. Their tape was apparently used by the prosecution in the Zacarias Moussaoui circus. I have no idea how it ended up on YouTube.
The media has made a unilateral decision to be our collective nanny, and they’ve hidden all of their most disturbing footage away in archives. But as I wrote near the first anniversary of the attacks, if it were me standing 100 stories up, after breaking a window that was never meant to be broken, on a ledge that was never meant to be stood upon, making the nightmarish decision to die in a fiery inferno or leap into space, I’d want the world to bear witness to my choice. …-
Links and more at:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/
Ralph:
Are you presuming to tell me who I am and what I believe? Have you ever heard of a strawman argument?
“It is also very clear you don’t have a clue as to what you are talking about.”
I thought that you might clear up exactly where you think I lacked knowledge, but you didn’t, so I have to assume that this is only a rhetorical statement.
“Perhaps he didn’t have enough persons of colour,
persons with disabilities, transgendered persons of various hues and homosexuals displayed for your liking.”
Sorry, but you entirely missed my point, primarily because you can’t seem to imagine someone opposing you who doesn’t also fit the cliched stereotype of a cappucino-drinking, crooked-little-finger, effete liberal elitist who spends every waking hour trying to balance every aspect of society in accordance with strict political correctness. This is what happens when you read too much Ann Coulter or listen to too much Limbaugh or Lowell Green. You see, the world is full of nuance that you have conditioned yourself not to see – and because of this habitual way of seeing the world you force your perception to be limited by your expectations, and you miss the underlying motives and themes all around you. It is strangely amusing, however, that you talk about ‘minority diversifying’ one’s PR, since Bush goes to *great* lengths to pepper his PR moments with the right amount of racial variation – especially around election time.
To be clear once again: I was very simply making the claim that capitalizing on human tragedy to try to convince others of the strength of your argument is cheap, and that such tactics are destroying politics and dividing the nation.
“Maybe after the next terrorist attack, he will keep that in mind.”
Here we go again: I notice that you make sure to bring the terrorist attacks into your point somewhere, just to punctuate it with that necessary emotional connection to tragedy. That way, you can make the insinuation that if I don’t agree with you – or by extension with Harper’s methods – then I must not care about terrorist attacks, and I’m not with us, so I’m against us. Plus, I probably don’t support the troops.
One question for everyone here: aren’t blogs supposed to be a place for discussion? I only ask since I don’t see anything but comments from nodding yes-men who cheerlead for each other and mount absolutely ridiculous attacks on someone who just drifts by to make a point. Surely this is not the future of media.
After watching President George W. Bush’s speech last night (I couldn’t get myself to watch ANY CBC news, as I knew it would be puerile, bordering on blasphemy, and quite possibly treason), I decided to watch the documentary “The Falling Man.”
It was powerful and, of course, disturbing. At the end of the sleuthing concerning who this man might be–whose image was only fleetingly viewed after 9/11, as it seems that the media and “the people” couldn’t handle seeing someone fall 1,000 feet to their death–it appears that he might have been, and quite probably was, a young man called Jonathan, son of a Baptist preacher.
Sadly, his father felt he could not view the photos that might be of his son, because he felt that if his son had jumped to his death it was somehow shameful, because it would be a “suicide.” Those are not his exact words, but that was the implication of his decision not to look at the photos of “the falling man.”
I can only say, as a Christian myself, that jumping from the towering inferno that day cannot be seen as suicide. The people hanging out of those windows, standing on those ledges, faced imminent death, either from a conflagration of flame and smoke or from jumping–quite possibly into the arms of God.
Seeing the photo of this man falling through space, knowingly to his death, seeing the still, almost contemplative, position of his body, not resisting, not flailing, just falling, left me with a feeling of sorrow, awe, and–I have to admit it–admiration. The photo says “acceptance.” Not acceptance as defeat, but acceptance as grace, acceptance that his choice was preferable to being burned alive.
This is very difficult to comment on. There is a deep mystery at work here. My heart and my prayers go out to his family, who have lost a dearly loved son and brother. Jonathan’s sister was interviewed, a woman full of grace and strength.
In the end, the only fitting thing to say is:
Rest eternal grant unto him, O Lord;
And may light perpetual shine upon him.
And on all those who lost their lives at the WTC five years ago.
absolution – I think you are grandstanding, i.e., pontificating rather than making an argument.
Harper was right to show Canadians people who are directly affected by terrorism. These include those who lost relatives in 9/11 and those whose family members are now involved in fighting terrorism. It has nothing to do with propaganda, as you are claiming; it has nothing to do with using people, as you are claiming.
It is an empirical reality; there are real people, who have and are, really affected by terrorism. Terrorism is not a ‘conspiracy’ of the Oil Barons; it isn’t a myth of the Evil Zionists. It’s real; it affects real people in real ways.
This wasn’t emotional manipulation of anyone – of them or of us. The fact that you view it as such, is your view. In my view, it was focusing on reality – that terrorism is real, not a TV show; that it affects real people in very basic ways. We must stop thinking of terrorism as something that we see on the TV.
I also disagree with you that results in polarization and also, that it is proof that Harper is incapable or unwilling to engage in rational discourse. Those are your conclusions and are shallow.
As for your constant use of the term ‘nuance’, that is irrelevant in this situation. You cannot make decisions that are nuanced; the nature of a decision is that it might, in the beginning of analysis, observer nuances, but then, as thought progresses, various options are rejected, until one intention is chosen. Therefore, nuanced reality is simplified to a chosen reality. You, as does everyone else, display that in your comments – you have made your choices about the nature of Harper, for example. These are not nuanced but specific – and that is the way thought operates. You can acknowledge that reality permits you to move north and south, but I suggest that in the real world, you select only one direction.
Today I was proud to be a Canadian. A feeling I have not had for a long time. Thank you Prime Minister Stephan Harper
God Bless Canada and God Bless you Sir
as for Craig Oliver ………
I watched Gen.Lewis Mackenzie & some professor squaring off, then Craig Oliver after the PM’s speach. It never cease’s to amaze me how intellects & reporters with no hands on experience know more about the military & a current op. then a man with more hands on then those 2 would ever have.
Iam proud of our military, Proud to be a Canadian, Proud that we gave a helping hand on that tragic day 5yrs ago & Proud of our Prime Minister in showing compassion to the families of 9/11, Strength & Support of our military & their families & A Prime Minister That Has The Balls to speak up against terrorism. NOT BURY THERE HEAD’S IN THE SAND & THINK THAT IF WE LEAVE THEM ALONE THEY WILL GO AWAY.
Why is white flag Craig still on TV?
As much as I agree with the Canadian Afghan mission, and I also agree to a point with Craig Oliver ( Lord help me) that the use of 9/11 and military families as “props” was cheesy ( reminded me of the time the Liberals marched the montreal massecre victims into the house as a prop for the final vote on their duck gun registry)….all in all Harper was correct. I didn’t see Oliver critcise Chretien and martin for committing troops to the Afgahn mission….he only became critical when Harper extended the mission with the support of the liberal opposition.
What pissed me more than anything was that dullard old leftist gate keeper Oliver using national TV to state that “we were losing the war in Afgahnistan” when nothing exists to support such a claim. It echoed the insane rhetoric of the anti-Bush, anti-America European lunatic fringe.
Oliver’s staement was constucted to destroy any validity in Harper’s message and did so with a personal partisan/ideological bias backed by a fallacious claim for which there is no factual support.
Oliver should be held accountable for his staements…..which are provably false and serve only to undermine the political support needed to give our troops victory in Afghanistan.
In my eyes Oliver is a lying dog and should face massive public censure for telling such false opinion as “fact”.
If Canada is “losing the war” then let him supply proof…get a credible military opinion to back that statement…..or face the Dan Rather walk in the snow!!!
It is interesting that voices on the Left rise up in righteous indignation at the emotional manipulation of having the families of 911 victims appear onstage with Stephen Harper, considering the similar outrage they expressed at the banning of media fromcovering repatriation ceremonies of Canadian soldiers killed in Afghanistan. Apparently, displays of extreme emotion are only acceptable when they support the liberal agenda.
ET:
“I think you are grandstanding, i.e., pontificating rather than making an argument.”
If you’re referring to my reaction to some of the posts here, I’ll admit that I strayed from explaining my original post – when I was bombarded with caustic and ill-reasoned personal attacks – in order to react somewhat in kind. As for ‘pontificating’, it seems to me that you’ve chosen to make that accusation solely for the purpose of dismissing my (albeit expressive) writing on the basis of pompousness. As you’re no doubt aware this is another ad hominem (you are attempting to invalidate my statements or arguments by attributing a characteristic which is – in this context – offensive). Since you don’t explain *why* you’ve dismissed my arguments other than because you claim I’m pompous, then clearly this qualifies as a textbook ad hominem – and therefore has no bearing on the matter at hand.
Strangely, I don’t feel I was ever the first person to start hurling insults, but it seems to be the first thing I get in every reply so far. Considering I wasn’t attacking any of you, but rather Harper, this is somewhat illuminating. Why so defensive as to resort to attacks? Clearly you have a substantial emotional investment in the topic.
“Harper was right to show Canadians people who are directly affected by terrorism. These include those who lost relatives in 9/11 and those whose family members are now involved in fighting terrorism. It has nothing to do with propaganda, as you are claiming; it has nothing to do with using people, as you are claiming.”
Had Harper visited with them in televised PR stunts (which he did already with the soldiers), rather than hauling them on stage with him while he justified Afghanistan on the basis of 9/11, I might have felt differently. In my mind, this would have been the proper way to go about ‘showing Canadians…directly affected by terrorism’. You are making the claim that it has nothing to do with propaganda, but upon what do you base that claim? He could have given the speech without the backup, but he chose to include the backup to create a mood, or an emotionally charged connection to his words. You say that he wanted to show ‘Canadians…directly affected by terrorism’, but that doesn’t mean that it wasn’t propaganda. In fact, I’m sure he DID want to show them, because he needed them to create the atmosphere that would affect our perception of the event. Are you claiming that you seriously believe that there was no intentional calculation on his part, or the part of his handlers, to increase the emotional weight of his speech? If you concede that there might have been some intention to do so (which I’m not sure how you could deny, as I’m pretty sure he was aware of the effect), then you must concede that it was emotionally manipulative. The presence of an emotional-charged atmosphere never IMPROVES the conditions for reasonable discourse.
“It is an empirical reality; there are real people, who have and are, really affected by terrorism. Terrorism is not a ‘conspiracy’ of the Oil Barons; it isn’t a myth of the Evil Zionists. It’s real; it affects real people in real ways.”
I appreciate the obvious statement at the beginnig of this paragraph, and I couldn’t help notice your presumption – you had to include some reference to the ‘no blood for oil’, anti-corporate conspiracy theme so that you could create an atmosphere whereby I appear to be just like every other Chomsky-reading, Moore-watching stereotype that you may have pulled out of the now-strangely-stuck-together pages of a Coulter book. The problem is, I’m not an idiot; I do acknowledge that there are many root causes of terrorism and many forms of it – and that many states have practiced it in the past by any normal definition of the term. Further, I’m MORE than aware of the impact of terrorism and the fact that it ‘affects real people in real ways’. The type of person you are creating in this paragraph doesn’t exist and never will – he is at best a charicature; a bloated collage of cliches.
“This wasn’t emotional manipulation of anyone – of them or of us. The fact that you view it as such, is your view. In my view, it was focusing on reality – that terrorism is real, not a TV show; that it affects real people in very basic ways. We must stop thinking of terrorism as something that we see on the TV.”
You keep saying it wasn’t emotional manipulation but you have yet to offer any premises to support that conclusion (note: your opinion does not count as a premise). The fact that I view it as such is based on more than just my view. Let me break it down for you:
Premise #1: The presence of victims of extreme tragedy automatically creates an emotionally charged atmosphere in the given context.
Premise #2: There was an intention, by Harper in his speech, to offer justification for the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan with respect to the events of 9/11 (i.e., to explain his actions and offer the reasoning behind his beliefs).
Premise #3: The presence of victims of 9/11 during a speech that discusses 9/11 will further increase the emotional strength and gravitas of the speech.
Premise #4: Harper is aware of #1 and #3.
Conclusion #1: Harper is aware that the presence of the families of 9/11 will create an emotionally charged atmosphere during a time when he is explaining the reasoning behind his beliefs.
Premise #5: Reason is clouded by emotion, and it is easy to whitewash flimsy reasons with strong emotions.
Premise #6: Harper is aware of the power of combining emotional (pathos) pleas with reason(logos) (he is an educated man, after all, and I’m sure he’s read Aristotle, among others).
Conclusion #2: Harper is aware that inviting the families to the stage will create an emotional atmosphere that will give undue strength to the reasoning in his speech.
It is akin to using children to sell things – you know it works because they look so damn cute and people can’t resist, so you use it.
As for thinking of terrorism as something on TV, I don’t know where you got the idea that any sane person would still believe that things on TV aren’t ‘really happening’ in the world.
“I also disagree with you that results in polarization and also, that it is proof that Harper is incapable or unwilling to engage in rational discourse. Those are your conclusions and are shallow.”
I’m glad you disagree, but again, you have given no argument here. The polarization is occuring right now, on this blog. Emotional manipulation is very offensive to some people – I personally wish that Harper would separate his PR from his discussions of foreign policy. Also, I don’t know what you mean by saying that my conclusions are ‘shallow’. Conclusions may be ‘valid’, meaning that they follow from the premises, but not ‘shallow’.
I’ll admit that my speculations as to why Harper took the actions he did cannot be supported by fact, so I’ll gladly withdraw them. Although the argument has been made that Harper was aware of the emotional impact of his actions, any conjecture as to deeper intentions are just that.
“As for your constant use of the term ‘nuance’, that is irrelevant in this situation. You cannot make decisions that are nuanced; the nature of a decision is that it might, in the beginning of analysis, observer nuances, but then, as thought progresses, various options are rejected, until one intention is chosen. Therefore, nuanced reality is simplified to a chosen reality. You, as does everyone else, display that in your comments – you have made your choices about the nature of Harper, for example. These are not nuanced but specific – and that is the way thought operates. You can acknowledge that reality permits you to move north and south, but I suggest that in the real world, you select only one direction.”
Decisions aren’t nuanced and I didn’t claim that they were – situations are. Contexts have nuance. Narratives have nuance. Explanations and underlying reasons can have nuance. This last one is what I was referring to: the presence of subtle alternative explanations and different ways of seeing a situation (or an explanation, or a narrative, or underlying reasons or meaning behind events). I was specifically referring to the fact that habituated mental conditioning to a very narrow perspective limits the capability to see nuance – in my character for example, or in the underlying root causes of terrorism, as another example. If there is one thing that can be said about events that occur in our world, they are full of nuance and subtle details that are easy to overlook.
I think you are misuing the word nuance, but probably because you thought I was misusing it and you were correcting me in the definition you thought I was using.
“These are not nuanced but specific – and that is the way thought operates. You can acknowledge that reality permits you to move north and south, but I suggest that in the real world, you select only one direction”
Here’s a perfect example of nuance: I’m quite certain that the theories of consciousness, or of rational thought structure and process, are quite a bit more complex and subtlely detailed than a simple comparison to a binary choice can capture. In any case, your last statement is confusing: clearly you are making the point that a decision causes me to always select one of two choices, and you contrast this with reality where I could move ‘north and south’….but how would reality suggest that I could move both north AND south simultaneously, in order that it contrast with your example of selection? I disagree that I could ever move both north and south simultaneously in reality without redefining what I mean by north and south.
mr sentinel: its george dubya lacking respect sir, dispatching an equal number of dead servicemen and women as were lost on 9/11. and for what? where is the touted cakewalk from the mind of ‘the war president’?
also, have you read the koran cover to cover? I have. lots of repetition.
have you ever once in the past 6 years criticized george dubya for anything? if not you are some sort of groupie or cult worshipper.
and put away the ‘troll’ arguement finally, its run its course.
here it is one more time for you peabrains:
I’m anti-bush.
I’m pro-american taxpayer, pro-canadian military and pro- a great deal else you are unaware of.
looks like you are the troll here sir.
robfromalberta:
“It is interesting that voices on the Left rise up in righteous indignation at the emotional manipulation of having the families of 911 victims appear onstage with Stephen Harper, considering the similar outrage they expressed at the banning of media fromcovering repatriation ceremonies of Canadian soldiers killed in Afghanistan. Apparently, displays of extreme emotion are only acceptable when they support the liberal agenda.”
What is the ‘liberal agenda’? Seriously, are you suggesting everyone with small-l liberal views shares the same morals, goals, plans and perspective on the world?
The difference between the two is that Harper was taking the time to rationalize action in Afghanistan and was therefore offering discussion of policy. I may be wrong, but I don’t think there were any policy discussions surrounding the war dead – although I will admit that both sides played politics with the coffins…that is, they both expressed their views that the other side was the one doing the exploiting, and that they were the ones that were pure of heart and deed.
CP, aka Communist Press, issues a press release, free, at no charge, absolution, to/on behalf of Jack “Taliban” Layton/NDP.
The left liberal/socialist agenda: Suicide.
CPravda gives absolution to Jack “Taliban” Layton/NDP. “Taliban” Jack/NDP is the epitome of the left liberal/socialist’s pact/treaty/agreement with Muslim Islamist terrorists. No matter, CP, abets/aids the Taliban.
CP says to Jack “Taliban” Layton/NDP: Absolve.
Absolution, free, at no charge from Canadian Press, aka Communist Press. …-
By CP. OTTAWA — Prime Minister Stephen Harper used the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks yesterday to stoke support for Canada’s contentious military mission in Afghanistan, surrounding himself with ..
absolution – rubbish. My description of your comments as pontificating and grandstanding wasn’t ad hominem, which would only be valid if the tone and content of your argument was irrelevant. They are relevant to the argument; your comments are filled with emotive metaphors and suggestive adjectives, and therefore, my critique of your style is not ad hominem.
The fact that you are not the first person to ‘hurl insults’ is not relevant and is setting a ‘stage’ for your pontification. Your comment that I am ’emotionally invested’ in the topic is spurious and without evidence and is itself ad hominem.
I disagree with you that Harper ought to have visited them and I object to your metaphor of ‘PR stunts’, which is derogatory to both Harper and the victims. He didn’t ‘haul’ them on stage – another emotionally loaded and derogatory term you use.
Of course he could have given the speech without backup! In my view, that would have been a different speech; his intent was to remind viewers that terrorism is not a fiction ‘out of the mouths of politicians’ but is real, it affects real people. I disagree that this is ’emotionally charged’ – with your choice of words denigrating; it is ‘reality-charged’.
What is wrong with ‘affecting our perception’ of the event – if that perception is the correct perception? Should a scientist not show a correct chemical interaction because he doesn’t want to ‘affect our perception’ of the realities of this chemical?
I am claiming that Harper’s intent was to show that terrorism is real; that it is not a fiction created out of the mouths of politicians – a view held by many – but is real. Period. No, I don’t involve emotional manipulation in the intent, unless you want to add that viewing reality and acknowledging reality IS also an emotional act.
Your assurance that you are pretty sure of Harper’s being ‘aware of the effect’ and being ‘pretty sure’ that it was an emotional manipulation – is your view. Not mine.
Don’t jump to invalid conclusions. That’s, as I’m sure you are aware, a logical fallacy. You have no evidence that I was ‘creating an atmosphere’ (you discuss creation of atmospheres quite a bit!) likening you to Moore, Chomsky, etc. I wasn’t. I was referring to the Common Leftist. Whether you are within that group – I have no idea and I wasn’t referring to you. I was referring to the audience. Don’t make the logical fallacy of referring every statement to yourself. Harper was speaking to a whole lot of people, not just you or me.
What are you referring to ‘strangely stuck together pages of a Coulter book’???
No, you are quite wrong. The fact that I view Harper’s speech as not emotional manipulation can only rest on my analysis. Same with you. Neither you nor I have interviewed Harper.
Your premises are actually conclusions that are themselves unsubstantiated in fact. As you are aware, premises can be factually false.
Premise 1 does not have an automatic result.
Premise 2 is a valid correlation. The attacks of 9/11 were caused by terrorists, and Afghanistan was/is the home site of the Bin Laden terrorists. Enabling the Afghan people to move into a democratic state disables terrorism.
Premise 3 is invalid, and based only on your conclusion. You are ignoring facticity; the presence of real victims of real events will only increase the awareness that these are realities to be dealt with.
Premise 4 is invalid because there is no evidence for it; same with Conclusion 1. Invalid.
Premise 5 is a tautology. So what?
Premise 6 is equally invalid because you are claiming facticity without knowledge and further, you are claiming intention, without providing proof of such intention.
Conclusion 2 – invalid. No evidence, other than your claims.
Your statement about polarization was itself, in your original comment, provided without argument.
Now wait – are you now saying that discussion and debate are bad, because they ‘polarize’???
Rubbish – conclusions can be shallow. Don’t insert a red herring. By shallow, they can be valid but trivial. If it rains then the grass will get wet; it rained; the grass is wet. That’s valid and shallow.
Oh, don’t pontificate about cognition; it does come down to a selective choice, and when the field is narrowed from, let’s say 5 to 3 to 2, that’s a final binarism. I never said you could move north AND south; you are trivialing the argument. I said that cognition requires decisions and therefore, nuance disappears. Period.
Busharper have no friends, ‘cept one: Karl Rove-Emerson. It’s Karl Rove-Emerson’s fault, again. Rove-Emerson crossed the floor, again. …-
(GW, aka Greg says:)
Help from his friend.
And, yes, no settlement could have been reached without more than a little help from Harper’s new best friend in the White House.
At a private lunch recently, a senior American official confided that Bush had expended “an extraordinary amount of personal and political capital” to gain the critical support for the deal among U.S. legislators and industry.
“He was calling people in from all over the place.”
But the official was emphatic that if the Canadian lumber industry had turned thumbs down on the deal, there would have been no more help from the Bush administration.
“And without that,” the official said, “you guys would still be writing about softwood lumber for a long, long time.”
Thank heavens for small mercies. (GW) …-
You know that SDA is getting important when CBC designates one of their full time editors to counter the blog’s influence. Absolution’s posts remind me of a response that I received from a CBC executive over a complaint I made regarding their media spin. It was apparent that much more time and thought went into the defense of their spin job than did to did in the original broadcast. If absolute isn’t the same bureacrat, he surely took some of the same classes from some of the same professors.
His posts remind me of those long ago school days, when we used to try and stretch out an essay with “filler”. Impressive displays of wordcraft, but not a lot of protein, if you get my drift. A “wordslinger” for hire, as it were. The only problem is, his posts are so high in carbs that that reading them makes me sleepy, so I have to skim for actual content.
Harper used real people? So what? He may have learned that you need to keep it simple for the public and the media. He stayed on the plane in Cyprus for the Lebanese evacuation and was attacked in the media for not showing his face. If he does a photo op, then he is attacked for being a publicity whore.
The fact that absolute thinks that Harper is despicable for using real people is laughable, when him and some of his less literate ilk have milked the human costs of the fight against terrorism for all it’s worth. The fact that he spends so much of his time posting his “intellectual arguments” here tells us more about absolute’s “intellectual ego” then it does about the psychological honesty of Harper’s speech.
Harper is the most honest PM we have had in office that I can remember, and to cast him as a sinsister master of psyops is laughable.
I’m surprised that “Absolution”‘s comment in response to ET didn’t get caught in the filter. I’ve commented less long than that and was caught.
Nevertheless, Asolution, I’d recommend brevity rather than that literary diarrhea above, for then you’d be forced to get to your point(s) and actually have to seriously back it all up. Which hasn’t happened.
You merely gave opinion, which was rebuked, to which you uppitily, snootily responded as if you were right, which you aren’t necessarily (but go ahead and believe you are; I know you do), and as if those who believe in standing up for freedom, democracy, the rule of law and human rights are wrong.
You write very well. Good for you. But being a good writer cannot compensate for being an opinionated moonbat windbag. Much like Noam Chomsky and Ward Churchill, who comprise but two examples of your apparent ilk.
Have a nice day, Asolution. 🙂
Damn there is a LOT of troll crud to scroll thru before I can start reading again!!!
Jack “Taliban” Layton is reported, by anonymous sources at CeeeBeeSea, to be flying to Van/BC to pickup/hijack Svend Robinson and Bruno (for security). They will fly, with Hedy Fry, to Afstan, Kabul, with ten suitcases of Starmuck’s latte. They will exchange 1,000 lbs. latte for Heckyourmahfriend’s freedom. Have a good flight, Jack. …-
Gulbuddin Hikmatyar Captured | September 12th, 2006
Kabul – In an operation launched by Afghan coalition forces in eastern Afghanistan, a known al-Qaeda facilitator and six other suspected al-Qaeda associates were detained, coalition forces said.
The commander of the Hizb-i-Islami militia in Hafezan in the eastern province of Nangarhar, Gulbuddin Hikmatyar, was arrested after credible intelligence led Afghan and coalition forces to his compound, the statement said.
No shots were fired and there were no injuries reported.
Hikmatyar, the former prime minister of Afghanistan, announced jihad or holy war against what he called the US invasion of Afghanistan four and half years ago and the joint opposition of the Afghan government by Taliban and al-Qaeda in the fight against coalition forces.
[…]
o Note: This man is a really big catch. Who says we aren’t making any progress in Afghanistan?
http://www.jacksnewswatch.com/
Dear SDA contributers: Just make the following analogy: “t schmuck esq” equals “Robert J BSC BA”…respond accordingly.
Do you think these trolls are actually CBC people trying to waste Kates bandwidth?
Did anyone else notice (or am I imagining it) that on the CBC radio’s report of Bush’s speech they said that he was speaking to a “captive audience”? Did they have people chained to TV sets, force-fed his speech? I must have missed that. Thanks, CBC…
What on earth would we do without Craig Oliver’s unmatched expertise and wisdom on Afghanistan and the Taliban? What a treasure!
Been around the block said:
“I can only say, as a Christian myself, that jumping from the towering inferno that day cannot be seen as suicide. The people hanging out of those windows, standing on those ledges, faced imminent death, either from a conflagration of flame and smoke or from jumping–quite possibly into the arms of God.
Seeing the photo of this man falling through space, knowingly to his death, seeing the still, almost contemplative, position of his body, not resisting, not flailing, just falling, left me with a feeling of sorrow, awe, and–I have to admit it–admiration. The photo says “acceptance.” Not acceptance as defeat, but acceptance as grace, acceptance that his choice was preferable to being burned alive.
This is very difficult to comment on. There is a deep mystery at work here. My heart and my prayers go out to his family, who have lost a dearly loved son and brother. Jonathan’s sister was interviewed, a woman full of grace and strength.
In the end, the only fitting thing to say is:
Rest eternal grant unto him, O Lord;
And may light perpetual shine upon him.
And on all those who lost their lives at the WTC five years ago.
Posted by: ‘been around the block at September 12, 2006 08:40 AM ”
I, too, watched the Passionate Eye on The Falling Man and it disturbed me as well… yet, it was soothing to actually see his posture as he fell…. he was resigned in his decision not to burn and gave himself up to the act… nothing about it was suicide… just someone in charge of his own fate in an impossible situation.
It has been said by a famous psychic that many angels were seen on that day at the WTC carrying those who died up to Heaven.
Of all the horror we saw on that day, THAT is something these sad eyes would have dearly loved to have seen. … I am sure if they were in NY they were in that Pennsylvania field and at the Pentagon too…
Now, more than at any time in history, the world needs leaders like George Bush, Tony Blair, John Howard, and Stephen Harper.
Freedom, democracy, our life as we know it are in a struggle for their very survival against the dark forces of tyranny and barbarianism.
Pity the poor, deluded fools who were and are swayed by the likes of Jack Layton, Jean Chretien, Paul Martin, and now most of the aimless Liberal leadership wannabees.
I thank God I live in Canada and can still express these sentiments freely.
Now that Craig Oliver has demonstrated less-than-properly-professional conduct in pushing his own biased opinion as if it were fact, can we say he looks like a bird?
Surely if he can dish it out, he can take a little in return?
ANNOUNCING A MEMRI FILMS DOCUMENTARY ON 9/11
MEMRI ^ | 9-12-06
ANNOUNCING A MEMRI FILMS DOCUMENTARY ON 9/11
The Arab and Iranian Reaction to 9/11: Five Years Later
Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Middle East Media Research Institute has been monitoring, translating, and recording statements from the Arab and Iranian media about what took place on that day. Among these statements are conspiracy theories, by prominent journalists, members of academia, leading religious figures, and even Arab government officials, about what “really” happened.
To mark the five-year anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks, MEMRI has created a new film and book exposing conspiracy phenomena surrounding these events in the Arab and Iranian media.
MEMRI has a new website devoted to this project: http://www.memrifilms.org
The documentary film by MEMRI Films about the Arab and Iranian reaction to 9/11 incorporates footage from various TV and satellite stations in the Middle East. It was made with Interface Media Group and is narrated by acclaimed actor Ron Silver.
To view the entire film, visit: http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ClipMediaID=233961&ak=null
To view Part I, visit: http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ClipMediaID=233964&ak=null
To view Part II, visit: http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ClipMediaID=233957&ak=null
To view Part III, visit: http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ClipMediaID=233952&ak=null
The carefully documented book is now also available as a PDF. It includes a compilation of articles and editorials from the mainstream Arabic and Persian language press, as well as transcripts from television programs.
To download the PDF book, visit: http://memrifilms.org/
From the MEMRI Archives – “A New Antisemitic Myth in the Middle East Media: The September 11 Attacks Were Perpetrated by the Jews,” September 10, 2002.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1700104/posts
Harper was absolutely RIGHT to humanize 9/11 and to humanize the war in Afghanistan. The Left does everything possible to dehumanize these events, presenting them as abstractly as possible.
The Left should wake up to the fact that REAL PEOPLE died on 9/11, REAL PEOPLE killed them, and REAL PEOPLE are now fighting this enemy to preserve our way of life. Harper did the only decent thing to do on the anniversary of 9/11: pay tribute to the REAL PEOPLE who were and are directly affected.
“I just don’t know what to believe. I don’t trust the Tories. History has made it so. You can’t trust the Americans. History made that so also.”
Sure. I understand. It’s alright. You just go ahead and trust the Taliban, the Islamofacists, the communist Chinese and Fidel. They’ll all tell you the truth.
After all, didn’t Pol Pot, Stalin and Hitler tell the truth to and about tens of millions of people just like you – before they murdered them?
No one is without sin, but you’d better recognize who your real friends are.
The message I got from seeing the people behind P.M. Harper was-WE WILL NOT SURRENDER TO YOUR TERRORIST TACTICS.We have been hurt, but we are not defeated. We support our country and our leader. These people are not victims, they are survivors.
And, has anyone noticed after all the hullabaloo re the returning caskets that now that it can be covered, the media only has about a 30 sec clip instead of covering the whole ceremony. It is all about the media and their agenda and when our PM does it his way they have a temper tantrum. They are just a bunch of sissy losers who are mad that their senate seat has gone up in smoke.
What is the ‘liberal agenda’? Seriously, are you suggesting everyone with small-l liberal views shares the same morals, goals, plans and perspective on the world?
Not in all things, but there are certain characteristics that all liberals share; knee-jerk anti-Americanism, the naive view that all people can be reasoned with, disdain for Christian beliefs, blind faith in multiculturalism and the UN.
I don’t have enough time in the day to defend myself here anymore. What’s more, it’s clear to me that I’ve been prejudged – indeed, that there are a lot of people here who are incapable of accepting the fact that people never fit into a simple mold, and that the world is not black-and-white. Everyone has created tidy little categorizations, and they limit your perspectives.
Harper is not a god people. He knows how politics works and he chooses his moments and how to conduct them in a certain way for a certain effect. To claim that he is unlike every other politician is hopelessly deluded and naive.
At least I can admit when the politicians I have voted for in the past make mistakes, and I’m aware of the fact that they ‘play the game’, as it were. I’ve never seen such a level of blind, unflinching adulation. I wonder if anyone has ever criticized the man or his actions.
“naive view that all people can be reasoned with”
Clearly, you are wrong on this.
absolution – you have not been pre-judged, since no-one here knew a thing about you before you posted. The only basis for judgment about you has to be based solely on what you wrote.
What does people ‘fitting into a simple’ or complex mould have to do with anything you wrote? And what does the world being complex rather than black and white have to do with your invalid conclusions?
Indeed, yes, your own categorization does limit your perceptions; the categories you use, which some people disagree with, have been pointed out to you.
The fact that you admit that politicians whom you have voted for in the past have made mistakes is utterly irrelevant to your claims made against Harper’s 9/11 speech.
Oh, do all politicians ‘play the game’ – and do they do that ‘all the time’? What is your proof of this? Or is it one of your own tidy little categorizations into which you have slotted people. But, didn’t you say that people don’t fit into a simple mould? But that is exactly what you have done with Harper.
Criticism without grounds is not criticism; it’s propaganda. And, your switching the argument to whether or not anyone has criticized Harper is a diversion from the realities that your own criticism of Harper was empty and invalid.
And don’t move into the insults – ‘naive view..etc, etc’. Stick to the issue.