Harper attacks Justin

[Topaz]

The PM attacked what Justin said about the Boston bomber/s and the question was he right to do it? Anyone has the right to question what one says but I understand what Justin was saying but I think his timing was off. and Harper was right to a degree. The problem is that the Western governments are more on sending in the military and killing as many as they can, but spend little time on the reason behind why certain people or groups are ready for war against certain countries. Thoughts? http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/pulseofcanada/stephen-harper-justified-attacking-justin-trudeau-164541576.html

[jbg]

Chretien made similarly moronic remarks about the September 11, 2001 attacks, about the need to "understand" the motivation of the people who attacked and the West's "alienation" of those people. Don't Trudeau and Chretien get it? A massacre is a massacre.

Guess not.

[BubberMiley]

The "morons" are the ones who can't read and put words in other peoples mouths.
this is what Trudeau said:

We have to look at the root causes. Now, we don't know now if it was terrorism or a single crazy or a domestic issue or a foreign issue. But there is no question that this happened because there is someone who feels completely excluded. Completely at war with innocents. At war with a society. And our approach has to be, where do those tensions come from?[/size]

He is not justifying. He is not making excuses. He is saying we should determine what the motives are, try to determine what happened and why. There is a good likelihood, given this week is the anniversary of Waco, that this attack was caused by domestic right-wing extremists. Do you think we should now shut down any complaints right-wingers might have about being excluded from our society?

Harper's approach is weak and dangerous. Anyone who would refuse to understand the root cause of such an attack will never be successful at eliminating it.

And "understanding" in this context does not mean empathy.

Edited April 19, 2013 by BubberMiley

[RNG]

The timing of that response is the very questionable thing. First we grieve, then we analyze.

My fear is that often "understanding" is used as shorthand for appeasement.

[BC_chick]

Well, seeing how people were out beating up "Arabs" within hours of the bombing, I don't think Justin is too off-base.

[Shakeyhands]

The timing of that response is the very questionable thing. First we grieve, then we analyze.

My fear is that often "understanding" is used as shorthand for appeasement.

Exactly right... oh wait.

"It's also sobering for a country like Canada that shares values with Norwegians and a demonstration of ... the volatility that's still there, the vigilance that we have to demonstrate and persevere and work together to try to find the root causes but also try to pre-empt and interrupt these types of attacks." Peter McKay on the Oslo shootings

http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=n7579464

[WWWTT]

The "morons" are the ones who can't read and put words in other peoples mouths.

this is what Trudeau said:

He is not justifying. He is not making excuses. He is saying we should determine what the motives are, try to determine what happened and why. There is a good likelihood, given this week is the anniversary of Waco, that this attack was caused by domestic right-wing extremists. Do you think we should now shut down any complaints right-wingers might have about being excluded from our society?

Harper's approach is weak and dangerous. Anyone who would refuse to understand the root cause of such an attack will never be successful at eliminating it.

And "understanding" in this context does not mean empathy.

Actually he was providing an answer that went beyond Mansbridge's question.

Canada is in no position toi dictate to the US how to conduct their investigation/approach and actions taken as a result.

WWWTT

[Archanfel]

"Men should be either treated generously or destroyed, because they take revenge for slight injuries - for heavy ones they cannot."

Amazing how we are still learning the lesson over and over 600 years later.

[BubberMiley]

Canada is in no position toi dictate to the US how to conduct their investigation/approach and actions taken as a result.

WWWTT

So then how do you feel about Peter McKay's quote above? Is that a question you'd rather not answer?

[WWWTT]

Don't know what quote you are talking about?

But I know that the conservatives are more than happy to do whatever the US asks of them,which is very wrong!

WWWTT

[BubberMiley]

Don't know what quote you are talking about?

Uh...the one Shakeyhands just provided. Are you not reading this thread or are you just going to pretend it never happened?

[carepov]

Chretien made similarly moronic remarks about the September 11, 2001 attacks, about the need to "understand" the motivation of the people who attacked and the West's "alienation" of those people. Don't Trudeau and Chretien get it? A massacre is a massacre.

Guess not.

jbg, in your opinion are people that commit horrific crimes/massacres:

a) born "evil"

b.) choose to become "evil" at some point in their lives

c) weak-minded people that are converted to the dark-side?

d) other

Edited April 19, 2013 by carepov

[Shakeyhands]

Chretien made similarly moronic remarks about the September 11, 2001 attacks, about the need to "understand" the motivation of the people who attacked and the West's "alienation" of those people. Don't Trudeau and Chretien get it? A massacre is a massacre.

Guess not.

MacKay made similarly moronic remarks about the Oslo shootings, about the need to "understand" the motivation of the people who attacked and the West's "alienation" of those people. Doesn't McKay get it? A massacre is a massacre.

Guess not.

See how this works JBG?

[Guest Derek L]

MacKay made similarly moronic remarks about the Oslo shootings, about the need to "understand" the motivation of the people who attacked and the West's "alienation" of those people. Doesn't McKay get it? A massacre is a massacre.

Guess not.

See how this works JBG?

Actually his comments after the shooting:

http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=n7579464

Defence Minister Peter MacKay said the bombings and shootings in Norway "demonstrate that the world is still a very volatile place" in which military and security forces play a vital role.

"We have to remain vigilant in Canada," MacKay told reporters after welcoming the soldiers home.

"In so doing, we also express our solidarity and support for those who have lost loved ones in Norway and we commit ourselves as a country to work with them and our allies in doing all we can to protect citizens around the globe."

A little different then Justin’s intellectual verbal masturbation……..

[Guest Derek L]

Actually his comments after the shooting:

http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=n7579464

A little different then Justin’s intellectual verbal masturbation……..

And another source for the MND remarks:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/07/22/oslo-blast.html

Defence Minister Peter MacKay said the attacks speak "to the volatility everywhere and anywhere when people who are so driven, so ideological, so willing to kill indiscriminately."

"This reminds us to be vigilant. It reminds us that we have a broader responsibility outside our own country to work in the international community and it does overlap with our efforts in Afghanistan. Clearly the training mission … will allow Canada to continue to make a very positive contribution to what we hope will be a more peaceful and more secure world," he said on CBC's Power & Politics.

Wa-wa-wee-wa.......what a moron

[WWWTT]

Uh...the one Shakeyhands just provided. Are you not reading this thread or are you just going to pretend it never happened?

Oh OK I see it,thanks for clarifying.

As I noted before in the other thread I started about the attack adds on Justin.There is nothing wrong with finding out the root causes.In fact,that must always be done to determine the motive which is standard procedure for such criminal cases.

All is good with preventing as well.

But that's not what Justin was asked and he added an extra amount into.

He arrogantly delivered his reply as if he was asked what he would do if he was the president of the US!He was asked what he would do if he was the PM of Canada.

I can see how he made that mistake,but think about that,do you want a guy who makes simple mistakes running the country?

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

And another source for the MND remarks:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/07/22/oslo-blast.html

Wa-wa-wee-wa.......what a moron

Actually the quote that McKay makes is even more odd and partisan that Justins!

WWWTT

[PIK]

It seems that harper is not allowed to go after the wonder boy, it is funny how everyone ( media included) is trying to protect the poor boy.

[PIK]

The "morons" are the ones who can't read and put words in other peoples mouths.

this is what Trudeau said:

He is not justifying. He is not making excuses. He is saying we should determine what the motives are, try to determine what happened and why. There is a good likelihood, given this week is the anniversary of Waco, that this attack was caused by domestic right-wing extremists. Do you think we should now shut down any complaints right-wingers might have about being excluded from our society?

Harper's approach is weak and dangerous. Anyone who would refuse to understand the root cause of such an attack will never be successful at eliminating it.

And "understanding" in this context does not mean empathy.

PM's job is not to be a shrink. And nobody has a clue to any root cause on anything. They attacked and killed, the only root there is what is going to cover thier bodies when buried. And it seems to be chechens(SP) that might be invovled.

Edited April 19, 2013 by PIK

[Guest Derek L]

Actually the quote that McKay makes is even more odd and partisan that Justins!

WWWTT

Well perhaps odd and partisan to you........But when a interviewer has on the program the MND in relation to Canada's role in A-stain at the time and ask for comment on the Norway attack (then not known if it was a terror attack), it's obvious that the MND will respond in relation to such threats and how they relate to national security.

Edited April 19, 2013 by Derek L

[Shakeyhands]

You guys are really deflecting now.

[g_bambino]

He is saying we should determine what the motives are, try to determine what happened and why.

Yes, that is indeed what he said. And there's a certain validity to it. However, saying it alone at the time he did was a mistake; your first public comment after an event like that is simply a call for analysis of the perpetrators' motives? That couches an implication that the fault for their actions lie somewhere other than with themselves. Put another way, it's not simply what Trudeau Jr. chose to say in the particular context, but also what he chose not to say: glaringly absent from his comments is any call for those responsible to be indentified and held responsible, which, in itself, is fairly insensitive to the victims of the attack. "Sorry those people blew your legs off; we must first discern what socio-political factors made them do it." Bleh.

[Moonlight Graham]

It seems that harper is not allowed to go after the wonder boy, it is funny how everyone ( media included) is trying to protect the poor boy.

The media has been all over Justin for his comments.

[Moonbox]

He is saying we should determine what the motives are, try to determine what happened and why.

The optics of what he's saying are terrible. His timing and judgment were poor. At this point in the game, nobody even knows who did the bombing, so talking about their motive or the root causes is pointless and stupid. This is basic common sense, so when this bag of hot air starts saying stupid stuff like this you start to question where he's coming from. Asking what the 'cause' was for cowardly acts like this implies that the attacks were deserved or that there's some sort of rationalization or justification for it.

Harper's approach is weak and dangerous. Anyone who would refuse to understand the root cause of such an attack will never be successful at eliminating it.

Harper's approach is common sense. Show solidarity with the victims and your allies and go with what we know as fact. Someone blew a bomb up in a crowd of innocent civilians and there is NEVER justification for it and universal condemnation is the most reasonable response.

And "understanding" in this context does not mean empathy.

The whole point of an investigation is to find out who and why (ie. understanding). It literally goes without saying that this is what the authorities are trying to find out. They're trying to discover the culprit, the means and the motive. When Trudeau opens his big dumb mouth, what he's basically saying is either:

1) You guys need to find out who did this and why. (THANKS CAPTAIN OBVIOUS! You'll make a great national leader).

or

2) There's a reason this happened.

Either he's a ditz, or his judgment sucks. You decide.

Edited April 19, 2013 by Moonbox

[Moonlight Graham]

I saw nothing wrong with Justin's comments. I think he ideally should have spent a bit more time talking about the victims etc. but I generally don't know what the fuss is about in his comments. He wasn't trying to excuse the terrorists' violent actions, he was saying we should try to understand their actions (so ie: we can prevent future terror violence). He wants to know the roots of the problem.

Medical analogy: A doctor might diagnose a patient's chest pains as a heart attack, and he might solve this problem by performing heart surgery and prescribing cholesterol medication to prevent future heart disease. The doctor is addressing the problem, but if the root cause of the heart disease and high cholesterol is poor diet by the patient then the surgery and meds are simply Band-Aid solutions that don't properly address the source of the problem. The doctor must understand the root cause of the heart disease in order to most effectively eliminate it. Same with terrorism.

My fear is that often "understanding" is used as shorthand for appeasement.

See my comments above. I see your concern, but one doesn't necessarily mean the other. Now I do think Justin, in wanting to understanding the root causes, also expressed sentiments to feeling empathetically concerned as to understanding what would drive a person(s) in society to commit such horrible acts against other humans. He never said we should hug the criminals & buy them a fancy gift then let them go free, but to understand their motives and context so that people stop blowing up other people. That people in society treat each other with kindness and not hatred/violence. Justin never said anything about "appeasement" though.

Chretien made similarly moronic remarks about the September 11, 2001 attacks, about the need to "understand" the motivation of the people who attacked and the West's "alienation" of those people. Don't Trudeau and Chretien get it? A massacre is a massacre.

How exactly can one effectively solve a very difficult and complex problem without understanding its root causes?

Edited April 19, 2013 by Moonlight Graham