He would be wise to consider going back to being a faceless nobody who is perfectly free to revel in his own nonsense but have the decency not to annoy others with it.

As for the debate between Jonathon and Sean, Jonathon is batting a 1000 while as for Sean….well he is not even in the ball park.

But the two are not mutually exclusive. The latter is a result of the former.

I am not a Bush supporter.
But I did support the invasion of Afghanistan and its ongoing mission, which is UN-authorized and has the objective of ridding a country of a thuggish, fascist group that provided haven and material support for Al Queda, which did carry out the 9/11 attacks.

My calling Potvin an Al Queda stooge doesn’t mean that I think Potvin is a terrorist. Obviously, he isn’t.

I’m using the definition of stooge in line with the American Heritage Dictionary as follows: “One who allows oneself to be used for another’s profit or advantage; a puppet.”

I believe that someone who shows sympathy for the 9/11 attacks, casts doubt on the very existence of Al Queda or its role in that attack and seems to be far more concerned with the evils of Western imperialism than with the very real threat that Islamic fanatacism and terrorism pose to our own society, is allowing themselves to be used by Al Queda, affiliated groups and their supporters.

People in this part of the world ought not to feel pleased when terrorists attack us. Potvin did. I’m glad you’ve decided to stop wasting your time defending him. The left is better off without him.

When conspiracy-theorists and reflexive anti-Western demagogues like Potvin are no longer seen as the true face of the left in the West, you will see a huge rise in this country in participation by the majority of the population against the Iraq war and related issues.

And I don’t really want to be defending Potvin, so any concession I give is not a sign that “the underpinnings of my whole ideological framework are starting to fall apart”.

I’m just saying that its too easy to call him an Al Qaeda stooge and it betrays objectivity. It just falls into the whole “with us or against us” jingoism.

Oops. Had Darfur on the brain, since I was at the rally downtown yesterday. My point stands, though. I didn’t cheer during the Rwandan genocide. But Potvin cheered when terrorists killed thousands of people.

“No, but Osama didn’t go and shoot World Trade Centre employees in the face, he created a world wide media spectacle…”

Yes, he created a spectacle by killing a whole lot of innocent people, which made Potvin want to pump his fist in the air. Nice.

“I can’t believe you lured me into this trap. But yes, he should have been dealt with as a criminal. Instead your man Dubya turned it a clash of fundamentalisms.”

What trap? And why exactly do you think that I’m a fan of George Bush Jr.? Is it just a desperate slur on your part by someone who is starting to see the underpinnings of his whole ideological framework start to fall apart? I sincerely hope so.

No, but Osama didn’t go and shoot World Trade Centre employees in the face, he created a world wide media spectacle because he knew that was the best way to get attention.

I can’t believe you lured me into this trap. But yes, he should have been dealt with as a criminal. Instead your man Dubya turned it a clash of fundamentalisms. The US has been playing chess with the middle east for decades. I could go into more detail But I don’t want to confuse you again:

“I didn’t cheer when millions of Rwandans were slaughtered, not because of Western squabbling but because of Chinese and Arab support for the Sudan regime.”

The Arabs were responsible for Rwanda? Thats a new one.