- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Please post all replies to the Irresponsible Opposition Editorial here.
LeonTheNeon said:Why is it that people cannot see that extreme fundamentalist Islamics are a threat that have to be stopped and the cost of stopping them is war?
zipperhead_cop said:Political correctness has run amok, and is an effective gag on open dialogue. The cumulative effect is the erosion of common sense.
Digging up Dead Children to Bury Israel
I had missed this story from a couple of days ago, but I am writing this post to gather some of the links and discussion for myself. If you were not aware of these developments, I suggest you follow the links and read carefully, eyes wide open.
A rising number of questions, mounting evidence and previous events suggest that as many as half of the reported deaths at Qana were planted bodies brought to the bombed building for the benefit of world reporters. Lets us recall that the desacrations of these children are being orchestrated, managed and executed by God’s Partisans in the name of Allah.
The editorial in the NP this morning (accessible here) points out at the existing macabre tradition:
Twenty-eight civilian deaths is certainly horrible enough — especially when 16 of them are children. But this total is less than half the figure originally reported.
Israel’s terrorist enemies have used such tactics before. During the 2002 Battle of Bethlehem, which began after Israel lifted a Palestinian siege at the Church of the Nativity, a fearsome firefight occurring on that town’s streets. Palestinians claimed Israeli forces had shelled a hospital and killed dozens of defenceless patients. Later it was discovered, however, that most of the dead were in fact corpses disinterred from a nearby cemetery and smuggled into the hospital — likely in the back of ambulances — to be strewn among the damage and so lend credibility to Palestinian propaganda claims that a civilian slaughter had occurred.
The EU Referendum [1, 2, 3], American Thinker, Confederate Yankee have posted some thoughtful questions and the issued raised by a careful analysis of the crafted images from Qana. Haaretz raises more questions here. Michelle Malkin summarises the deeds.
zipperhead_cop said:Because for decades Canadians have seen themselves as the tolerant, nice guys of the planet.
Dosanjh has it wrong about the Afghan task
Liberal defence critic Ujjal Dosanjh says Canada's mission in Afghanistan should be refocused. "This has become almost totally a combat mission, and that was not the intention," he said Thursday after four Canadians were killed.
That is an astonishing thing for a leading member of the Liberal Party to say. It was, after all, a former Liberal government -- his government -- that decided to send Canadian troops on their dangerous mission in southern Afghanistan in the first place. That government made it clear that this was not just a peacekeeping mission. Its ministers told Canadians quite clearly that there would be fighting and there would be deaths, but that the goal of stabilizing Afghanistan and giving its people a chance to live a decent life was worth the risk. Mr. Dosanjh was a leading cabinet minister in that government. Now that he has the luxury of being in opposition, has he suddenly decided that his government was wrong?
The intention of this mission has not changed. It is the same as it was when Mr. Dosanjh was in office. It is to make the Canadians' corner of Afghanistan safe enough that the Afghan government can extend its authority and get on with the job of rebuilding. The Taliban, seeking to regain control of the country they lost in 2001, are trying to wreck that effort. They are burning down schoolhouses. They are killing Afghan government police, soldiers and officials. They are sending suicide bombers to blow themselves up in streets packed with innocent people. If they succeed, it will be impossible for the country to get back on its feet. That is why Canadians are fighting the Taliban -- not because they love a scrap or have become slaves to U.S. policy, but because they know that the aid that Afghans so desperately need won't get through unless someone confronts those who are standing in the way.
To say that Afghanistan has "become almost totally a combat mission" is nonsense. Canada is spending $100-milliona year on aid to Afghanistan. That money is being used to help women acquire the skills they need to work, to distribute loans to people who want to start small businesses and to help clear the heavily mined Afghan countryside. As Canada's military commander in Afghanistan, Brigadier-General David Fraser, pointed out the other day, Canadians are not just fighting the Taliban over there. They are building schools and treating the sick.
The one cannot happen without the other. This was always going to be a dual mission, with armed force clearing the way for aid and development. The Liberals' interim leader Bill Graham seems to understand that. He says that "we knew this was going to be a very tough mission." Why doesn't his defence critic understand it?
infighting has become more important than preserving the nation. One takes a look at Byzantium in the later years, and one fears greatly.Echo9 said:I find it interesting how parties of the left have seemingly decided to take so many steps on the road to oblivion. If you look at the Democrats in the US, Liberals/ NDP here (Ignatieff excepted- he may be the saviour of that party), Labour in Oz/ Britain- they all look at the world through the lens of opposing responsible leadership. Heck, in the case of the British labour party, they're opposing their own leader.
It's as if they've forgotten that the true enemies of the West are the foreign threats, not their democratic opponents with whom they contest elections. I read an interesting interview between Hugh Hewitt and Marty Peretz the other day. For those who don't know him, Peretz is the editor of the New Republic, which is one of the leading old line liberal magazines in the US, and Peretz is a strong supporter of Democrats. When Hewitt asked him if he was looking forward to a Democratic takeover of congress, his only answer was that he found the prospective committee chairmen to be a disturbing bunch. He couldn't quite side with Republicans, but he clearly thought that his side had lost its way.
I think that, at its root, the degradations of moral equivalency have led the left to cease to be able think critically. There are exceptions (see my Ignatieff comment above), but I think that they really only prove the rule.