Monday, September 24, 2007

Your Canadian mainstream media in action.


Shorter Stephen Harper: "It's important that we stay in Afghanistan because, as long as we're fighting the terrorists over there, it is, as anyone can see, logically impossible for any of them to attack us over here."

Shorter Canadian MSM: "Yeah, sure, I'll buy that. Hey, is the bar still open?"

13 comments:

thwap said...

Actually, the more people we anger over there, through our callousness and stupidity, the more likely it is that one individual out of millions will decide to try to blow us up.

And, truth be told, even if the Harperites and people moronic enough to take them seriously do piss off enough people to cause a terrorist attack, ... it will be one isolated incident that causes less carnage than driving on our highways.

So, we're pissing our pants, shredding our civil liberties, killing people, dying, and spending billions, for fucking nothing.

Southern Quebec said...

By sending troops to Afganistan, Stephen Harper is basically standing in the bull ring with a red cape saying pick me, pick me. Before we were anonymous, now we are not. Thank you, Stevie. Not only has he made us targets, he is pissing our money away. In neo-con speak this is win-win!

fergusrush said...

Gee, I guess "southern quebec" missed Osama's video where he names Canada as a target. What was that, five years ago? I forget, who was the PM then?

Don't let facts get in the way, sq.

Ti-Guy said...

Gee, I guess Fergusrush believes Osama Bin Laden's analysis of geo-politics is authoritative.

How Islamofascist of you.

Anyway, Ferg...Are you enlisting? I'm too old, so chop, chop....I'm not getting any safer or freer with you squatting at a computer all day.

Southern Quebec said...

Fergie: Afganistan has nothing...I repeat nothing...to do with Canada. Paul Martin sent the troops there to shut up the whiney-titty-ass babies to the south of us. I didn't see OBL's video, but I would guess that he mentions Denmark, New Zealand and Lichtenstein also. Like George Bush, he would also be spreading his troops pretty thinly.
But, don't let reality get in the way. Fight them there, so we don't fight them here. Keep repeating it.

E in MD said...

Logically impossible?

Apparently someone's not paying attention. The 'Coalition' is fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Why would it be logically impossible for terrorists to strike on two fronts as well? Especially since they lack supply lines, centralized command structures, rules of warfare.

What saddens me the most is that all these warhawks STILL don't understand the enemy after all this time. Yet they still claim to be the best defense anyone has.

Blind leading the blind.

fergusrush said...

Tigger, was there something incorrect in what I said? Did I get my facts wrong? Did bin Laden not say those things? And if I don't enlist, does that mean I can't have an opinion? You see, I'm too old as well, and if I can't have an opinion because I'm not enlisted, where exactly does that leave you, my logic-impaired friend? Perhaps you should try using both halves of your brain at once. Let it be noted for the record that I did you the courtesy of assuming you have both halves.

sq, you can dress your comments up anyway you like, but you stated that "Stephen Harper is basically standing in the bull ring with a red cape saying pick me, pick me. Before we were anonymous, now we are not" and I demonstrated that you had your head up your ass. At least try to pull it out before muttering some muffled bullshit about reality. Surely even you do not think that you can see "reality" clearly from inside your own arse. I think even tigger will back me up on that one. Well, maybe not.

thwap said...

So, because the Liberals got us into this mess, Stephen Harper's stupid "fight 'em there so we don't fight 'em here," and the media's lazy acquiesence to this discredited stupidity, ... is not, ... stupid?

If you want to trash the Liberals, I'm fine with that, but Harper's statement is still imbecilic.

M@ said...

was there something incorrect in what I said? Did I get my facts wrong? Did bin Laden not say those things?

Taking OBL at his word -- especially to the point of forming foreign policy around it -- is ludicrous. It gives credence to OBL, and legitimizes the rest of what he says. Unless you want to get on board with at least some of the other things he says (how does "the White House gangsters are the biggest butchers of this age" sit with you? or "Donald Rumsfeld... killed more than two million people [in VietNam]"?), and give at least some of them equal credence, you can't use OBL's threats to defend your foreign policy ideas.

It's ironic that the ones in the political sphere who are most belligerent in the war on terror are also the ones who hang on every one of OBL's words as though they represented anything but the rantings of a violent lunatic. (I am not implying that you are among them, FR -- I mention that only in passing.)

There are plenty of good reasons to be in Afghanistan, and plenty of good reasons to get out. I don't think fear of terrorism is compelling enough to be taken seriously on either side. There are plenty of other issues -- and I don't see them discussed all that much.

fergusrush said...

m@, I can't see how you think I'm defending foreign policy ideas with OBL comments, unless you are reading things I didn't actually write (there are pills for that, so I'm told). I was simply having fun at "southern quebec"'s expense, since he was dumb enough to make a statement so easily refuted by anyone with long-term memory and a willingness to keep up with current events. All OBL's words prove is that Canada was already on a terror shitlist before anything that Harper did.

We'll leave your logically fallacious idea that one cannot seriously believe the threats of a raving loony alone for now. Give you some time to rethink, as it were.

thwap said...

Fine, but Harper is still a moron, and the media is complicit.

Which was the point of the blog entry I'm sure.

M@ said...

(there are pills for that, so I'm told)

Again, we descend into silly ad hominems and non sequiturs. I wonder why I bother, in Latin.

All OBL's words prove is that Canada was already on a terror shitlist before anything that Harper did.

No, OBL's words probe exactly nothing. If you choose to dance to his tune, well, dance, puppet. Dance. My Kool-Aid tastes like grape. Yours?

We'll leave your logically fallacious idea that one cannot seriously believe the threats of a raving loony alone for now. Give you some time to rethink, as it were.

So, you: willing to ascribe to the rantings of someone we both appear to agree is a lunatic; me: not so much. Kindly explain how this puts you in a position of authority on all this.

Just glad to be counted alongside to non-lunatics, here. You?

fergusrush said...

"Ascribe"? I really don't think that's the word you meant to use.

I guess we have to go slowly for you, m@: OBL is a terrorist; OBL names Canada as one of his intended targets, therefore, we are on his "list"; southern quebec says we were anonymous before Harper put us in the spotlight with his actions; I point out that Canada was already on a terrorist's "list" long before Harper formed his government, therefore southern quebec is incorrect. QED. Since you love the Latin.

Unless you can prove that anything in the chain above is incorrect, it stands. Everything else you went on about is superfluous.