@redstorm72 said:
@GazaAli said:
@Stesilaus said:
CANADA, AT WAR FOR 13 YEARS, SHOCKED THAT ‘A TERRORIST’ ATTACKED ITS SOLDIERS
I personally used to think of Canada as the more "refined" part of NA. Apparently it succumbed to the same irrational, unjust and absolutely self-destructive mentality and now it brought the "enemy" to its own home.
Irrational, unjust, and self-destructive? Just an FYI, we're not the ones taking pride in beheading civilians on camera and murdering our own citizens by the boat load, that's your neck of the woods buddy.
Also, this is a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" situation for the west. Either they intervene and everyone hates us for fucking around in the Middle East, or we do nothing and everyone hates us for not helping the Middle East.
What I'm discussing here is the legitimacy of western involvement in what's happening at the other end of the world, something that has absolutely nothing to do with the western world. Try to stick to that point instead of attempting to divert the discussion into the legitimacy of what ISIS is doing. That's hardly a topic of dispute to sensible men.
As such, why would anyone hate Canada, Denmark, The Netherlands, Belgium...etc for not getting involved in such a clusterfuck taking place halfway across the world? Neighboring countries that can be said to be affected in a potentially very real way had the sensibility to abstain from entering that U.S-led coalition. How does Canada have no choice but to get involved in others' business and to go out of its way to poke the hornet nest with a stick for no apparent reason? Besides, I didn't know that governments and nations base their strategic decisions on public opinion outside their own territories, if they include public opinion in the decision making process of matters of national security at all to begin with.
I'd be very interested in knowing how they make you believe in that poorly fabricated nonsense, other than the "they hate our freedoms" drivel.
Log in to comment