Harper attacks Justin

[PIK]

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 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.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.

I seen a cartoon that said it all. 2 people standing over a coffin with justin standing behind saying, ''is this the wrong time to talk about root causes.''

[PIK]

And this root cause is nothing but a red herring.

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.

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.

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

[Shakeyhands]

I seen a cartoon that said it all. 2 people standing over a coffin with justin standing behind saying, ''is this the wrong time to talk about root causes.''

Was the other character Peter McKay?

[The_Squid]

Right now, the 20% of the Liberal Party faithful who didn't vote for Trudeau are hollering "I told you so!!!!"

But in all seriousness, the comments are rather benign....

[BubberMiley]

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.

No, it doesn't do that at all, and it's offensive to exploit a tragedy like this to try to make such obviously political hay from it. As I said before, "understanding" does not necessarily mean "empathy." It also doesn't mean tolerance or mercy. It means attacking a problem by understanding all the facts so that the problem can be successfully eliminated at its source.

Just like Peter McKay espoused, but no CPCer, including Harper, would ever now admit because they want to use this tragedy to gain political points.

[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.

Norway attacks where always a terror attack,just like the Boston one and 9/11.The perpetrators identity and motives were not always clear,but was always a terror attack.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

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.

Sounds like you and Justin forgot that we live in a democracy.

True that the US foreign policy probably creates more problems than it solves.

But here's the zingger,Justin thinks he can dictate to everyone what US foreign policy should be.But at this time when it actually reality it would be best to wait to a more stable period to actually stear foreign policy in a more palitable mannier.

WWWTT

[Moonbox]

No, it doesn't do that at all, and it's offensive to exploit a tragedy like this to try to make such obviously political hay from it.

Justin's comments were offensive. Not only were they offensive, but they were also stupid. If a man beats his wife into a coma, is the appropriate response: "Why did he do it?"

Why he did it isn't relevant.

As I said before, "understanding" does not necessarily mean "empathy." It also doesn't mean tolerance or mercy. It means attacking a problem by understanding all the facts so that the problem can be successfully eliminated at its source.

In Justin's case, he precisely stated that we need to empathize with the bombers and find out 'where their tensions are coming from'. Look up the definition of 'empathy' and then reread Justin's comments.

Understanding the motive behind murder is one of the most important part of an investigation. It goes without saying that US authorities are doing everything they can to figure it out. Justin's knows this, or he's an idiot. So when he says things like this, wording it the way he does:

“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, okay, where do those tensions come from?”

He's either vaccuously stating the obvious, or he's implying that the attacks can be attributed to something the Americans did or failed to do, which is a terrible public response for our closest ally.

Edited April 19, 2013 by Moonbox

[PIK]

No ,just the 2 parents of a dead boy.

Was the other character Peter McKay?

[hitops]

No, it doesn't do that at all, and it's offensive to exploit a tragedy like this to try to make such obviously political hay from it. As I said before, "understanding" does not necessarily mean "empathy." It also doesn't mean tolerance or mercy. It means attacking a problem by understanding all the facts so that the problem can be successfully eliminated at its source.

Just like Peter McKay espoused, but no CPCer, including Harper, would ever now admit because they want to use this tragedy to gain political points.

It's a little odd that you don't recognize this is standard for all parties to do in all occasions.

[Archanfel]

There was an article on Boston Globe: They just hate us. The author was shocked somebody was questioning the root cause behind the bombing and said he doesn' want to feel guilty.

I am not sure why as soon as you talk about root cause, they feel guilty about it. To them (and to JT), it's a moral thing, yet it should really be a hard cold calculation of what they may have done wrong. Maybe they shouldn't have granted immigrantions to certain people. Maybe they should have helped the Russians. Maybe this, maybe that, but not willing to face the problem doesn't mean the problem does not exist. Finding these two guys aren't going to solve the problem. Unless of course they make such a terrible death and nobody would dare to try it ever again, but I doubt they have the guts for it. Maybe that's the root cause of this.

"He waits until his wife and kids are in the ground, and then he goes after the rest of the mob. He kills their kids. He kills their wives. He kills their parents and their parents' friends. He burns down the houses they live in and the stores they work in. He kills people that owe him money. And like that, he's gone. He becomes a myth, a spook story that criminals tell their kids at night."

[WWWTT]

Justin's comments were offensive. Not only were they offensive, but they were also stupid. If a man beats his wife into a coma, is the appropriate response: "Why did he do it?"

Actually in a court of law,the crown at some point will have to establish a motive or a "Why did he do it".

Also in any investigation,motives must be established.

WWWTT

[silver72]

Do any of you see Oprah's show, after 9/11, what do they hate us?? They went around the world, asking what they thought of the USA and it wasn't pretty and it will probably take a couple generations in the Middle-East for some of those countries to have the hatred die. A country can't have a foreign policy like the US has and not make enemies.

[Moonbox]

WWWTT, on 19 Apr 2013 - 15:54, said:

Actually in a court of law,the crown at some point will have to establish a motive or a "Why did he do it".

Also in any investigation,motives must be established.

Did you read my entire post, or did you just start drooling after you read the first sentence of it?

Finding these two guys aren't going to solve the problem.

Finding these guys IS the immediate problem. The immediate problem is that a bunch of people were cowardly murdered in cold blood and the bombers are still at large. Now that we seem to have an idea of who they are, Justin's suggestions are becoming more and more vapid. We're looking a couple of Chechnyans who came to the USA as refugees and likely were brainwashed over the internet by a bunch of yahoo-clerics from home. As far as 'finding out what the root causes are', I don't think we'll be surprised what we find out.

Edited April 19, 2013 by Moonbox

[BubberMiley]

Justin's comments were offensive. Not only were they offensive, but they were also stupid. If a man beats his wife into a coma, is the appropriate response: "Why did he do it?"

The appropriate response is "Let's find out how this happened so we can prevent it from happening again." That was also Trudeau's response. Your response is "How can we blame this on our political opponents so that we can profit from it?" Which is more appropriate?

In Justin's case, he precisely stated that we need to empathize with the bombers and find out 'where their tensions are coming from'. Look up the definition of 'empathy' and then reread Justin's comments.

Where did he use the "precise" word "empathy"? You made that up because you don't have a leg to stand on, but want to continue to exploit this tragedy for political purposes.

How many times do I have to remind you that gaining knowledge does not mean gaining empathy?

[WWWTT]

Did you read my entire post, or did you just start drooling after you read the first sentence of it?

Not sure if I did?

But I know that you got the part that I highlighted wrong!

WWWTT

[Moonbox]

The appropriate response is "Let's find out how this happened so we can prevent it from happening again." That was also Trudeau's response. Your response is "How can we blame this on our political opponents so that we can profit from it?" Which is more appropriate?

That might be how the Trudeau fan-club might interpret it, but in the wake of attack that's probably not how the American president or the people of Boston would. Let's go back to: "this happened because there is someone who feels completely excluded." In other words, they blew up a bunch of people because somewhere along the lines Boston or the USA did something (or failed to do something) that made him angry. Brilliant.

Where did he use the "precise" word "empathy"? You made that up because you don't have a leg to stand on, but want to continue to exploit this tragedy for political purposes.

How many times do I have to remind you that gaining knowledge does not mean gaining empathy?

Did you look up the definition of empathy? I'm betting you didn't, because you don't seem to understand the word! If the authorities are investigating the tragedy and trying to find out who committed the crime, where they're from and why they did it, does that not satisfy the 'gaining knowledge' part of the process? Saying something like, "We need to get to the bottom of this." is one thing. Saying, "This happened for a reason." is something entirely different, and can easily be viewed as a swipe at American foreign policy.

[Moonbox]

WWWTT, on 19 Apr 2013 - 16:35, said:

Not sure if I did?

But I know that you got the part that I highlighted wrong!

WWWTT

Your response was a red herring. Nobody was talking about the courts involvement yet.

[Archanfel]

That might be how the Trudeau fan-club might interpret it, but in the wake of attack that's probably not how the American president or the people of Boston would. Let's go back to: "this happened because there is someone who feels completely excluded." In other words, they blew up a bunch of people because somewhere along the lines Boston or the USA did something (or failed to do something) that made him angry. Brilliant.

More likely, the USA did something (or failed to do something) that made him angry enough, but not afraid enough.The solution is not always to appease to people.

[Moonbox]

You're right. What Justin and his supporters fail to realize is that it takes a REALLY different and skewed view of the world to decide that blowing up a bunch of completely innocent people is an acceptable way of getting a message across.

[BubberMiley]

Saying, "This happened for a reason." is something entirely different, and can easily be viewed as a swipe at American foreign policy.

You're saying that when police try to establish motive, it's a swipe at the person who got murdered?

[Shakeyhands]

No ,just the 2 parents of a dead boy.

Oh my heart strings ...

[Shakeyhands]

Justin's comments were offensive. Not only were they offensive, but they were also stupid. If a man beats his wife into a coma, is the appropriate response: "Why did he do it?"

Certainly not in a singular situation, but if men all over the world are randomly beating their wives, the root cause becomes a very pertinent question that needs to be answered in order to correct the situation.

All of this is verging on TDS with you guys!!!!!!

[BC_chick]

This 'story' somehow found its way on my newsfeed on Facebook through the Globe and Mail. For the record, I've never 'liked' G&M to get anything from them in my newsfeed so it was blatantly aimed at me because I follow Trudeau (or maybe my age, gender, location etc).

The vast majority of the comments under the 'article' were in support of JT and critical of G&M.

I get that some people think the timing of the sentiment was bad even if the question may be legitimate, but it's a little pathetic the way the CPC is going about their attempt to make it into something bigger than it is.

This tactic worked on Dion and Iggy because both were not very likeable characters to begin with so alienating them was easy. JT has proven himself to be a bit of Teflon though.

IMO the CPC should pick their battles more carefully because things like this make them look scared. And desperate.

Edited April 20, 2013 by BC_chick

[Jerry J. Fortin]

They are scared. They should be.