tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post6787975318839542862..comments2024-03-17T03:55:21.696-04:00Comments on Canadian Cynic: The Geneva Convention is so quaint.CChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11406057201126015750noreply@blogger.comBlogger157125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-8814216335989381412008-02-08T17:21:00.000-05:002008-02-08T17:21:00.000-05:00Red, check your website comments.Red, check your website comments.Raphael Alexanderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14635417096024081504noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-59269732576950289082008-02-08T17:19:00.000-05:002008-02-08T17:19:00.000-05:00RA — Just for the record, while I most certainly d...RA — Just for the record, while I most certainly don’t like to make egregious mistakes, and I’d be a complete liar if I didn’t say that it does pain me somewhat to admit having made one. Otherwise however, I really have no problem confessing to getting things wrong from time to time — especially in matters of judgment. Such is the way of things and, after all, nobody’s perfect. Of course it can be embarrassing to get basic facts wrong, but as inexcusable as it may be, it does happen and we’re all prone to such errors now and again for various reasons. <BR/><BR/>I find it somewhat amusing that you would raise the old case of mistaking JoJo for a commenter on SDA with the same name. This was an incident I’d completely forgotten about, but somehow seems a bit fresher in your memory banks. What strikes me as funny about that particular incidence is that when it was brought to my attention, I immediately issued a retraction and an apology, as well an explanation of how/why I had dropped the ball. And yet… NOT GOOD ENOUGH! No sir, Joanne had to milk that for a few days and call me a lying hypocrite.. or whatever (I really couldn’t be bothered to go digging through her turdpile to confirm the actual terms she used. Whatever it was it certainly provided a lot of jolly good fun for everyone who hates my guts to jump on the bandwagon and denounce me as a complete shithead.). And even after I issued yet another apology and clarification, she still continued to beat me over the head with the purported outrage I’d inflicted on her. But yet, as I said, curiously would not herself denounce the sentiments expressed in the comment, or state openly that she, in fact, disagreed with them. <BR/><BR/>So, it’s a little amusing you’d bring up that hoary old chestnut. <BR/><BR/>Aside from pointing out that I wrongly attributed a comment on your site to you rather than another commenter, I see you still haven’t addressed a single one of the other things I pointed out here. My comments weren’t “pure nonsense” (unless of course you take issue with the assertion made by Mr. Gorman which you had the opportunity to do so but appeared not to have seen as worth doing); you did in fact attempt to whip up some sort of “controversy” over an issue where none existed regarding climate change having “stopped” as Whitehead wrongly contended (then later snuck in the NS disclaimer that you’d oddly left out originally); you did accuse me of behaving in a manner of falling in the crowd that isn’t supported by the facts; you did say on the one hand that you’re not a “Harper Conservative” but at the same time said you think the focus of the CPC should rightly be on Harper and that you support him; and, most recently, you did retail a complete howler purporting there’s no relationship between terrorism and poverty based on some pretty shoddy (and I would contend deeply dishonest) "evidence" in this regard.Red Toryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00422305796158017027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-59648709718394170552008-02-08T16:34:00.000-05:002008-02-08T16:34:00.000-05:00RA — I stand corrected. That comment you cited whi...RA — I stand corrected. That comment you cited which I had wrongly attributed to you was actually written by Andrew Gorman and not you. He had prefaced it with a previous comment of yours and I mistakenly conflated the two. I do note however that you addressed one subsequent to it to take issue with the point raised, but not this one. So do you agree with the contention of Mr. Gorman here?<BR/><BR/><I>Just as you didn't fact check whether Joanne on SDA was JoJo or not when you accused her of spewing bile.</I><BR/><BR/>Of course the facts in that matter were that the assumption was made by another commenter and, yes, I did neglect to fact-check it and took the individual's assumption at face value. However, I will note here there that when I asked Joanne whether she disagreed with the assertion being made in that comment, she refused to address the matter and wouldn't actually come out and admit that her own opinion diverged from it in any way. <BR/><BR/><I>You could also take up this argument with Paul Krueger, who used demography to prove this point. The left [include yourself if you like] enjoy using capitalism as a means of explaining socioeconomic deprivation and terrorism, when under scrutiny that argument falls flat on its face. Much like you have, I'm afraid.</I><BR/><BR/>It's a completely ridiculous argument and one that's based on "country-wide" GDP rather than per capita GDP. To use these figures and claim that ipso facto there's no correlation between "terrorism" (a term of some convenience) and economic deprivation or poverty is, as I said, either plainly stupid or deeply dishonest.Red Toryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00422305796158017027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-14527496441768269492008-02-08T16:20:00.000-05:002008-02-08T16:20:00.000-05:00Well if anyone can recognize a glass house ... I'm...Well if anyone can recognize a glass house ... I'm sure it's you.LuLuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03412312541969320536noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-60968696676637967772008-02-08T16:12:00.000-05:002008-02-08T16:12:00.000-05:00Lulu, I was just addressing my friend Martin here ...Lulu, I was just addressing my friend Martin here as he continues to throw bricks from his glass house.Raphael Alexanderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14635417096024081504noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-38430555027783472582008-02-08T16:06:00.000-05:002008-02-08T16:06:00.000-05:00a) I can't believe people are still playing down h...a) I can't believe people are still playing down here; and<BR/><BR/>b) Why don't you go have your oh-so-offended hissy fit somewhere else, Raphael? Any credibility you might have had died a very quick death with your constantly shifting position.<BR/><BR/>How's that lack of spine working out for <I>you</I>?LuLuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03412312541969320536noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-68664384912160751282008-02-08T15:19:00.000-05:002008-02-08T15:19:00.000-05:00Now you're claiming that “the correlation between ...<I>Now you're claiming that “the correlation between socioeconomic inequality and terrorism appears to be one which is largely absent of evidentiary support” because "insurgency statistics” that have been “collected of captured insurgents display that demographics indicate the largest number [44%] come from the country of Saudi Arabia, a nation with a very high GDP.”</I><BR/><BR/>Evasion of argument noted, Martin. You could also take up this argument with Paul Krueger, who used demography to prove this point. The left [include yourself if you like] enjoy using capitalism as a means of explaining socioeconomic deprivation and terrorism, when under scrutiny that argument falls flat on its face. Much like you have, I'm afraid.<BR/><BR/>How that's retirement from blogging coming along?Raphael Alexanderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14635417096024081504noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-68476321393008799612008-02-08T15:16:00.000-05:002008-02-08T15:16:00.000-05:00Martin, speaking of wretched dishonesty, did you b...Martin, speaking of wretched dishonesty, did you bother telling readers that I never wrote this comment you attributed to me?<BR/><BR/><I>I suspect that a good part of the reason our government has done nothing about Khadr is that they don't have any confidence in our legal system to deal with Khadr's case. (Either because our legal system really doesn't have any mechanism to deal with his case or they simply don't trust it not to treat him as a poor little misunderstood boy who's really innocent and will go work with Katimavik when he gets out).</I><BR/><BR/>But of course you didn't. Just as you didn't fact check whether Joanne on SDA was JoJo or not when you accused her of spewing bile. And then you promptly washed your hands of the dishonest affair by saying no harm done, she's a douchebag anyway [or something to that effect].Raphael Alexanderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14635417096024081504noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-64142449988747391362008-02-08T08:55:00.000-05:002008-02-08T08:55:00.000-05:00RA — You scarpered off the first time with no resp...RA — You scarpered off the first time with no response and didn't address how you can claim not to be a "Harper Conservative" when what you've written in the past clearly contradicts that assertion (notwithstanding that you plaintively moan a bit from time to time about his poor communication strategy and certain other quibbles with the party), you failed to address how I just like to "fall in with the crowd" even though I listed numerous examples of how that's a baseless assertion, and now you won't address how what I wrote was "pure nonsense" even though I've amply shown how it was nothing of the sort, but an accurate summary of what you had, in fact, written. <BR/><BR/>Additionally, you did attempt to manufacture a phony controversy over those two articles written recently in The New Statesman and I note you surreptitiously went back after the fact and added the paper's disclaimer in its entirety (which essentially destroys the whole "controversy" you were seeking to whip up over whether global warming had "stopped" as Whitehead claimed based on a fundamental misreading of the data). <BR/><BR/>Now you're claiming that “the correlation between socioeconomic inequality and terrorism appears to be one which is largely absent of evidentiary support” because "insurgency statistics” that have been “collected of captured insurgents display that demographics indicate the largest number [44%] come from the country of Saudi Arabia, a nation with a very high GDP.”<BR/><BR/>You're either stupid or wretchedly dishonest. Or, possibly both.Red Toryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00422305796158017027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-6279132902860282262008-02-07T23:08:00.000-05:002008-02-07T23:08:00.000-05:00Let's look at my "pure nonsense" shall we? Here's ...Let's look at my "pure nonsense" shall we? <BR/><BR/>Here's what Raphy wrote earlier today: <BR/><BR/><I>This should clear up a few things for Canadians interested in the case, since it shows that Omar Khadr is being charged as an accessory to the murders in part of the firefight. Now the only thing that remains isn't the participatory evidence, which is now irrelevant, but his status as a "child soldier". Oh, and for those concerned about his welfare, Omar Khadr is being held in Camp 4, a detention facility reserved for "compliant" prisoners in which they live almost as freely as in a regular U.S. prison.</I><BR/><BR/>And in the comments: <BR/><BR/><I>Define "OK" for me. Do I approve? No. Do I care? No. Do I approve of torture? No.</I><BR/><BR/>And another response: <BR/><BR/><I>I'm glad you asked that question. Let me ask you one in response. Would you care if Paul Bernardo were butchered in his cell? Or do you care that Jeffrey Domer got shanked? Your answer is immaterial here, but let's assume that for the sake of argument there are people who might say they don't care if such a possibility arises. They don't condone it, but they don't care if it happens.</I><BR/><BR/>And this: <BR/><BR/><I>I suspect that a good part of the reason our government has done nothing about Khadr is that they don't have any confidence in our legal system to deal with Khadr's case. (Either because our legal system really doesn't have any mechanism to deal with his case or they simply don't trust it not to treat him as a poor little misunderstood boy who's really innocent and will go work with Katimavik when he gets out). </I><BR/><BR/>Let's re-cap my "nonsense": <BR/><BR/><I>On his site he sort of gives an obligatory nod of acknowledgement to this point, but goes on to reiterate that he doesn’t care. This, after noting that the conditions in Gitmo aren’t really all that bad, suggesting that the reason the Harper government won’t take action is because they have no faith in our justice system to deal effectively with the situation, etc.</I><BR/><BR/>Sounds pretty much like an accurate summary of what YOU wrote there Raphy.Red Toryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00422305796158017027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-38068810213008102042008-02-07T22:39:00.000-05:002008-02-07T22:39:00.000-05:00Oh really, "Raphy"... how so?Oh really, "Raphy"... how so?Red Toryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00422305796158017027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-14699120544665832772008-02-07T21:54:00.000-05:002008-02-07T21:54:00.000-05:00Nonsense, Marty, pure nonsense.Nonsense, Marty, pure nonsense.Raphael Alexanderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14635417096024081504noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-38469497606445316602008-02-07T21:02:00.000-05:002008-02-07T21:02:00.000-05:00On his site he sort of gives an obligatory nod of ...On his site he sort of gives an obligatory nod of acknowledgement to this point, but goes on to reiterate that he doesn’t care. This, after noting that the conditions in Gitmo aren’t really all that bad, suggesting that the reason the Harper government won’t take action is because they have no faith in our justice system to deal effectively with the situation, etc.<BR/><BR/>Besides, he’s onto bigger and better things… He’s got other fish to fry, you know. Like serving up a completely disingenuous “controversy” over the debunked notion that global warming has “stopped.”Red Toryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00422305796158017027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-87797212467202423332008-02-07T20:09:00.000-05:002008-02-07T20:09:00.000-05:00I know the conversation's pretty much over, but do...I know the conversation's pretty much over, but does RA even understand the term "child soldier"? He doesn't show any sign of it up there.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06583242351453043902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-8807916767410282082008-02-07T18:52:00.000-05:002008-02-07T18:52:00.000-05:00I don't see how Americans torturing a Canadian end...<I>I don't see how Americans torturing a Canadian endangers our troops.</I><BR/><BR/>Wow. I haven't seen such a stunning display of totally brain-dead stupidity in...wow. Ages.<BR/><BR/>"They tortured one of ours, let's get even by torturing some of theirs, since they've showed us it's open seasion and we don't even have to have proven their guys guilty of anything to justify it! Woo hoo!"<BR/><BR/>Colossally stupid or (more likely) sensationally evil. Congratulations, RA, smug little demon.Phylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11847701912261320347noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-86696770648811905502008-02-07T11:13:00.000-05:002008-02-07T11:13:00.000-05:00Holy crap. 141 comments? I go sleep for a couple o...Holy crap. 141 comments? I go sleep for a couple of hours and you guys get into a scrap without me?<BR/><BR/>*pout*E in MDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10327814892445709779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-85508338959340597572008-02-07T10:21:00.000-05:002008-02-07T10:21:00.000-05:00And have you spoken up about every injustice you'v...<I>And have you spoken up about every injustice you've ever seen in the world? </I><BR/><BR/>No, I haven't. But when one DOES speak up about something, and when what one says is, "I don't care about this," then I really don't see how that's functionally different from approving it by implication.That guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12254412890551965391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-62374149144842714042008-02-07T04:31:00.000-05:002008-02-07T04:31:00.000-05:00I think, if anyone is still paying attention aroun...I think, if anyone is still paying attention around here, that we can now safely say that RA has jumped the shark and can be safely seated with Patsy, Weiner and Five Feet of Ignorant Bigotry at the hateful-but-irrelevant table of the internet cafe.Rev.Paperboyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14561796588927776371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-84177896990455613902008-02-07T02:11:00.000-05:002008-02-07T02:11:00.000-05:00I think he's scarpered...I think he's scarpered...Red Toryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00422305796158017027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-68468929820796155352008-02-07T01:22:00.000-05:002008-02-07T01:22:00.000-05:00RA, this constant comparison you make of Khadr's t...RA, this constant comparison you make of Khadr's torture at the hands of the US government to hypothetical musings of what could happen to Paul Bernardo or Jeffrey Dahmer at the hands of a fellow inmate is intellectual dishonesty to the nth degree. But no surprise, you're a master at it. Or just blithely and blissfully dense, but I'll go with the former.<BR/><BR/>One is the action of an individual, the other is an action of a state. Big difference, very big difference.Frank Frinkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05727863730658037306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-63572192999670665422008-02-07T01:19:00.000-05:002008-02-07T01:19:00.000-05:00RA — Well, seeing as during the course of this cha...RA — Well, seeing as during the course of this charming little exchange you’ve called me a liar, deceitful, and a two-faced backstabbing prat who just likes to fall in with the crowd, allow me to point out that it is not me that’s attempting to pigeon-hole you, but your own words that are doing a rather excellent job of that all by themselves. You say one thing one day and another thing the next day, or even within the span of minutes. You write certain things and then plainly contradict them with something completely contrary and then blame the reader for misunderstanding your intent. Being fickle is one thing, but when you state that you’re not a “Harper Conservative” and yet write that you feel the focus of the party should rightly be on Stephen Harper and that your write a blog that’s Conservative and endorses Stephen Harper… well, you know… even a simpleton like me can connect those dots. Here in my deeply cynical neck of the woods, there’s a little thing called “intellectual honesty” and I’m afraid that you seem to be sorely lacking in this respect sometimes. <BR/><BR/>Regarding all of the hoo-ha here concerning Omar Khadr, quite frankly, I could give two shits about this person or his despicable family, but there is a more important and overarching principle that transcends him and the sordid particulars of his case and this is simply… the rule of law, and more importantly in this case, how it has been flouted by the Bush administration and largely ignored by our own government (and the preceding one, I should note). I’ve said before that this is not a sympathetic person and no one will lose a moment’s sleep worrying over his fate, but that said, we should be concerned about the principle involved and perhaps give some thought to how “expendable” people can become when it suits the expediency of the powers that be. That’s something worth getting exercised over and guarding against and why this case matters — maybe more than it should strictly on the circumstantial merits. Oh, and this isn’t a “liberal” thing, it’s not a left/right “partisan” thing… it goes well beyond that. You know... speaking as a "thoughtful moderate"...Red Toryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00422305796158017027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-37708647151488379922008-02-07T01:13:00.000-05:002008-02-07T01:13:00.000-05:00RA - Are you sober? You're drinking, aren't you.T...RA - Are you sober? You're drinking, aren't you.<BR/><BR/>That would explain your confusion -- the "apologist rhetoric", as you call it, hasn't "evolved" at all. The Rev's comment about shooting back is very similar to one I made way, way up the thread.<BR/><BR/>The only apologist rhetoric that seems to be evolving is that of the torture apologist. Hint: that would be you.JJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09458917081261136618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-35832369587162623642008-02-07T01:04:00.000-05:002008-02-07T01:04:00.000-05:00The Canucks play? I always thought they were a gro...The Canucks play? I always thought they were a group of uniformed millionaires out for a free-skate.Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03203592149876300192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-73438893095491785572008-02-07T00:58:00.000-05:002008-02-07T00:58:00.000-05:00A SOUP! Sacrilege! Legions of Montreal Canadiens f...A SOUP! Sacrilege! Legions of Montreal Canadiens fans will get you for that -- but what can one expect of someone living in a city where you have to watch the Canuck play shinny.<BR/><BR/>Niven, its all yours, but you may want to invite your friends over for green beer and stewed prunes first.Rev.Paperboyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14561796588927776371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-13415556450812160182008-02-07T00:57:00.000-05:002008-02-07T00:57:00.000-05:00Okay Raphael, I read Wiki, and still haven't found...Okay Raphael, I read Wiki, and still haven't found anything he was found guilty of that would make you think he should be tortured.<BR/><BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Khadr<BR/><BR/>In fact there is surprising little evidence that he has done anything criminal at all, if in fact he was subjected to torture, as most of the evidence is his own testimony, which we can assume was forcibly coerced.Filcherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09515720302942668270noreply@blogger.com