Mudcat Café message #2024371 The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #98444   Message #2024371
Posted By: Dickey
13-Apr-07 - 02:07 PM
Thread Name: BS: Give em shit, Canada
Subject: RE: BS: Give em shit, Canada
The circles are caused by your refusal to answer. You drum up excuses for not answering and try to discredit the person that asks.

If I were to say such a thing it would be a lie. If you say it it does not matter because it was said 2 months ago.

For example the US military said an Iranian visited the 5 Iraninas detained by the US in Iraq. Then they corrected it
"On Wednesday, US military spokesman Major General William Caldwell told reporters that a team from the International Committee of the Red Cross met the five detained Iranians and that one of the visitors was "an Iranian."

But on Friday, the military clarified that no Iranian had been in the ICRC team that visited those held.

"The ICRC committees that visited the five Iranians detained in Irbil on two occasions did not contain an Iranian national," military spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Christopher Garver said in a statement.

"One of the two committees contained an individual who speaks Farsi and lived in
Iran, but he is a British citizen by birth.""

You said that was a lie.

I don't think you have the facts you need to direct other people to give shit to America and you ignore similar behavior by the Canadian Government. If you read the Arar report you will see that things were hevilt redacted for security reasons.

While I can't say it is true, I think it is possible that The Canadian officials directed that Arar be sent to Syria. If not. why wouln't they ask for him to be sent to Canada. If they did ask for him to be sent to Canada and the US refused they would certainly say so.

"...But buried deep, in most stories at least, is what the public isn't seeing. Sprinkled throughout the public version of the report are more than 50 sets of three asterisks. Each set represents an omission -- a decision by the government that the hidden words could damage Canada's national security or foreign relations.

And those are only the visible cuts. O'Connor had already stripped the public report of any material he thought represented a threat to national security. That material was bundled together with the public report to create a second, private-eyes only, document.

But the government demanded O'Connor go further. Before the public document was released, officials made 53 additional cuts..."