Harper attacks Justin

[Keepitsimple]

Trudeau is still just a leader of a third place party that has only 40 seats. In time, Mulcaire and the NDP will have to have a feisty scrap with the Liberals and Mulcaire will be the Trudeau attacker. The Conservatives should be able to sit back and watch the two of them split the Left votes again. The issue that I see is whether the CBC and other mainstream media will facilitate this logical battle. The Liberals, as a third place party in Parliament should be getting next to NO airtime or media attention - other than their attempt to become the official opposition. In an unbiased media, the NDP should be fighting the Conservatives, while the Liberals and NDP should be locking horns as the NDP try to protect their Center Left Flank. Mulcaire HAS to join the Conservatives in attacking Trudeau - not just because it's Trudeau - but because we all know that the NDP was the beneficiary of a perfect storm that allowed them to roll through Quebec. Attacking Trudeau and the Liberals in a manner that continues to paint them as the same bunch of power hungry elitists that they have always been - is the only way the NDP can hope to hang on to their gains.

[jbg]

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.

Certain people have always romanticized tribes, rebellions, and activities that are harmful to and undermine civilized society. Justin fits that description quite neatly.

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

Does it have to be either/or? Or could it be both?

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

No, that's a different thought process entirely.

The purpose of establishing a motive is a lead-up to demonstrating the requisite criminal intent. That's far from a "blame the victim" mentality shown by Justin Trudeau and Jean Chretien.

Edited April 21, 2013 by jbg

[Argus]

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.

You're evidently unfamiliar with the people who regularly contribute comments on the Globe site. The fact is if Harper criticized Satan the Globe comments section would issue forth with furious defenses of Satan and denunciations of Harper. They really are that crazed. Whoever is seen as anti-Harper is blessed, as far as that lot are concerned. And I'm no great fan of Harper myself.

For my part, Trudeau's comments were generally in synch with the cheap, shallow sentiment which has marked almost all his public statements on all subjects. No real ideas, no real contribution or thought, just empty mouth noises.

[Argus]

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.

No? The foreign policy of the USSR, and now Russia, as well as that of China, have been and remain as bad if not worse than that of the US, and nobody around the world seems to hate them -- other than their immediate victims.

Edited April 21, 2013 by Argus

[Moonbox]

The purpose of establishing a motive is a lead-up to demonstrating the requisite criminal intent. That's far from a "blame the victim" mentality shown by Justin Trudeau and Jean Chretien.

Exactly. If Justin was merely interested in preventing this sort of thing from happening again, he would have said that. He would say, "We need to find out how and why they did this."

When you say, "this happened because", you're going beyond simply wanting answers. You may still want answers, but you've decided that some sort of wrong was committed that led to the crime itself. You're saying that someone/something other than the attackers is also to be blamed.

Edited April 22, 2013 by Moonbox

[Moonlight Graham]

And this root cause is nothing but a red herring.

I don't understand why it's a red herring. Explain.

[jbg]

I don't understand why it's a red herring. Explain.

It's a "red herring" because the root cause, however supposedly just, doesn't allow the slaughter of innocents having no connection or culpability to the underlying ill.

[Moonlight Graham]

It's a "red herring" because the root cause, however supposedly just, doesn't allow the slaughter of innocents having no connection or culpability to the underlying ill.

Knowing the root causes (or maybe more accurately, the factors that greatly influenced the bombers to do what they did) doesn't mean the act goes unpunished. The bombing was still a conscious act (unless both were mentally ill). Knowing the roots of why/how the bombers did what they did is key to preventing such events in the future, period. Jailing or killing them is fine, but by itself it doesn't prevent future terror attacks. I also don't see what's wrong with feeling empathy for the victims but also feeling empathy for the 2 guys that felt such hatred they decided to kill. Empathy doesn't mean appeasement or not severely punishing the killers.

[jacee]

Exactly. If Justin was merely interested in preventing this sort of thing from happening again, he would have said that. He would say, "We need to find out how and why they did this."

I think that's what he did say.

[Moonbox]

jacee, on 22 Apr 2013 - 06:27, said:

I think that's what he did say.

He said more than that. Read the rest of the post genius.

[Shakeyhands]

Excellent article by Heather Mallick today.... Some on here should read it.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2013/04/22/justin_trudeau_digs_deep_on_terrorism_harper_draws_a_cartoon.html

Terrorism is the most complicated of tangles but trying to untangle it is a potential lifesaver. Why — and how — they did it.

[Moonbox]

Moonlight Graham, on 22 Apr 2013 - 04:33, said:

Empathy doesn't mean appeasement or not severely punishing the killers.

At least you know what the word means. The problem I have with Justin's statement isn't that he's empathizing or wants to find out how and why this happened. My problem is specifically the statement, "this happened because". He's already decided that there was a rational cause and effect relationship here. You can pull all sorts of implied statements out of that.

Personally, I'm willing to believe that this was just your typical warm and fluffy liberal statement. Realistically, however, I don't think it's a huge stretch to see it being a swipe at American foreign policy, especially considering his father's relationship with our neighbour.

Either way, all anyone needed to say about this at first really was, "This is aweful and unforgiveable and our hearts and support go out to the victims." Read the statements from the rest of the world's leaders. They all knew that. Justin, however, decided to add his own analysis of the situation. At best, it was poorly worded and poorly timed.

[PIK]

Excellent article by John Robson.... some on here should read it.

http://www.ottawasun.com/2013/04/20/root-causes-of-terrorism-is-terrorists-and-their-wacky-ideas

But the question of root causes would be interesting if the phrase were not clearly code for "it's our fault."

[Moonbox]

Shakeyhands, on 22 Apr 2013 - 09:37, said:

Excellent article by Heather Mallick today.... Some on here should read it.

I wouldn't say it's a very good article. It's an opinion piece for someone who obviously really doesn't like Harper. You are reading the Toronto Star, however, so I can't expect you to know any better or what a good article is Edited April 22, 2013 by Moonbox

[cybercoma]

At least you know what the word means. The problem I have with Justin's statement ...

... is that he's a Liberal.

[PIK]

... is that he's a Liberal.

Or is thinking like a liberal. Just like chretien and martin,'' it is our fault.''

[roy baty]

Root cause? One simple term describes it best: Jihad.

As for JT, his response is the usual we can all expect from him: Useless and stupid. This guy really needs a media filter for what the CBC doesn't succeed @ filtering.

[Moonbox]

... is that he's a Liberal.

Whatever you say bud. If you have an actual argument to make, then make it. I've explained why I don't like Trudeau's position, and I wouldn't like it if Harper or anyone else made it. As I already said, the response from the rest of the world's leaders (barring the Taliban and similar groups) was unanimous and explicit. Justin the drama teacher, however, managed to make his statement confusing.

His age, looks and name, however, are enough to get him out of any trouble his dumb mouth lands him in, and the average voter is too dumb and ignorant to care.

[Keepitsimple]

Perhaps some of our posters haven't actually watched the interview. It's at the end of the interview. It's not so much just the mention of "root cause" - it's the prattling on and on and sounding more like a first year college student. Normally, a guy like Mansbridge might offer the odd nod in agreement but I think he was getting more and more astounded by what was coming out of JT's mouth. If you haven't watched, it's a must see.

Link:http://www.cbc.ca/news/petermansbridge/2013/04/peter-mansbridge-interviews-justin-trudeau.html

[WWWTT]

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

Nope not at all.

All I was stating was that some of what Justin was stating in his Mansbridge interview was logical

WWWTT

[Moonlight Graham]

Excellent article by Heather Mallick today.... Some on here should read it.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2013/04/22/justin_trudeau_digs_deep_on_terrorism_harper_draws_a_cartoon.html

Both Harper's and Justin's responses to the tragedy were inadequate. A combination of the 2 approaches should be made. Harper said the proper response to the bombing was "to condemn it categorically, and to the extent you can deal with the perpetrators you deal with them as harshly as possible". Yes, but you can't stop there. You have to investigate the bombing, look at motives, WHY and HOW the bombers did what they did and help the US in making sure it can't happen in again, or happen in Canada. This could mean filling holes in security policy, immigration policy, FBI surveillance etc. It could also mean more social/psychological/economic factors that could be dealt with depending on the motives of the attackers. ie: You can put as many aboriginals in jail as you like, but that doesn't mean there aren't social factors (like poverty & cultural fragmentation) that influence aboriginals in making bad decisions that can be addressed to reduce aboriginal crime-rates.

At the end of the day, yes it's criminals who commit crimes (people have free will and are responsible for their actions, hence punishment), but punishment alone will not prevent similar attacks from occurring in the future.

Edited April 22, 2013 by Moonlight Graham

[Spiderfish]

I also don't see what's wrong with feeling empathy for the victims but also feeling empathy for the 2 guys that felt such hatred they decided to kill. Empathy doesn't mean appeasement or not severely punishing the killers.

I have no interest in trying to understand the emotions or feelings of a terrorist killer and rationalize why they would pursue the destruction of innocent human life to express their emotional sensitivity. I don't believe I could put myself in such a place, even if I thought it would help end evil. Murder is murder, plain and simple, and there is no circumstance in my mind that would justify such action.

[cybercoma]

Explaining things and understanding them is not the same thing as justifying them.

[PIK]

It is a red herring, nobody will be able to figure out a root cause.

[cybercoma]

And that's a self-fulfilling prophecy.