Justin Trudeau: terror and terrorists

[Moonlight Graham]

The root cause of ignorant opinions is Pierre Poilievre.

[jacee]

Thats not technically correct, the United States and British Commonwealth (Canada included) did actually target German and Japanese civilians during the war through strategic bombing, not for the sake of killing women and children, but to slow enemy war production through killing the civilian workforce and demoralizing the populace.All sides did it

Japan didn't.

And to keep things in perspective, there was next to no insurgency after the allied occupation of Germany and Japan.

And you're suggesting that's because the Japanese people were happy to be occupied by the US?

You don't think perhaps the terrorism of the A-bombs terrified and intimidated the population into fearful compliance, as intended?

[Guest Derek L]

Japan didn't.

And you're suggesting that's because the Japanese people were happy to be occupied by the US?

You don't think perhaps the terrorism of the A-bombs terrified and intimidated the population into fearful compliance, as intended?

Ahh, yeah, the Japanese bombed the living snot out of China, even using chemical weapons on civilian populations.

[Keepitsimple]

That's a pretty glib response about massive civilian attacks, the impacts of which are still apparent today.

Just to recap ...

AW: Americans didn't go into Japan, targeting and purposely killing Japanese civilians.

Japanese civilians disagree.

Jaycee - you have a habit of defeating your own arguments. You and others have brought up how the US bombed Japan, how they firebombed Germany and how Japan ransacked China. Yet after these acts of terrorism (your position), we don't see Japanese or German people bombing Americans - nor do you see Chines people committing terrorist acts in Japan. Why is that? Why is it only the twised, jihadist version of Islam that can continually harbour such hatred? That's a rhetorical question....it's the terrorist mindset!

[jacee]

Ahh, yeah, the Japanese bombed the living snot out of China, even using chemical weapons on civilian populations.

True. I overstated.

Just still reeling from AW's bold-faced delusions of US eternal self-righteousness.

[Guest American Woman]

True. I overstated.

Just still reeling from AW's bold-faced delusions of US eternal self-righteousness.

As I reel from yours.

Try reading what I said. There's nothing "self righteous" about it. Here's the thing. There's more than "self-righteous" and condemnation. Perhaps not in some people's world, but in the real world, there's stuff in between.

[Guest Derek L]

True. I overstated.

Just still reeling from AW's bold-faced delusions of US eternal self-righteousness.

Like I said, right or wrong, everybody did it, just as the old cliché states, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter……It all boils down to perspective……I’m certain if I where a Muslim goat herder in DirkaDirkastain and US/NATO forces just killed one of my four teenage wives via a drone strike well out at the local market, when word of a successful Islamic terrorist operation against the West came to pass, I’d likely be supportive of said action.

Is it moral justification? Obviously not, but then again (Wo)Man is hardly a moral creature in all instances.

[jacee]

As I reel from yours.

Try reading what I said. There's nothing "self righteous" about it. Here's the thing. There's more than "self-righteous" and condemnation. Perhaps not in some people's world, but in the real world, there's stuff in between.

So where does this stand?

AW: Americans didn't go into Japan, targeting and purposely killing Japanese civilians.

And do you really believe the US 'spread democracy' to Iraq?

Edited April 29, 2013 by jacee

[Guest American Woman]

So where does this stand?

AW: Americans didn't go into Japan, targeting and purposely killing Japanese civilians.

And do you really believe the US 'spread democracy' to Iraq?

By "Americans," I wasn't referring to the military. If I were, I wouldn't have said "Americans," I would have said military. Which is why I spoke of "Americans" and "the military." Separately. But way to edit what I said - I went on to say "it wasn't the goal of the U.S. military to 'kill as many civilians as possible.'" And in case you're unaware of it, it wasn't. The bomb wasn't dropped with the purpose of killing as many civilians as possible - it was dropped with the purpose of ending the war, and hopefully resulting in less deaths than if the war dragged on and on and on. See the difference?

And what I believe regarding Iraq is exactly what I've said - that Saddam was taken out of power, the people can now vote. Do you really believe that they were better off under Saddam?

[Guest Derek L]

By "Americans," I wasn't referring to the military. If I were, I wouldn't have said "Americans," I would have said military. Which is why I spoke of "Americans" and "the military." Separately. But way to edit what I said - I went on to say "it wasn't the goal of the U.S. military to 'kill as many civilians as possible.'" And in case you're unaware of it, it wasn't. The bomb wasn't dropped with the purpose of killing as many civilians as possible - it was dropped with the purpose of ending the war, and hopefully resulting in less deaths than if the war dragged on and on and on. See the difference?

And what I believe regarding Iraq is exactly what I've said - that Saddam was taken out of power, the people can now vote. Do you really believe that they were better off under Saddam?

Agreed 100%. If the war had of continued and the invasion of the Japanese Home Islands had of taken place, aside from the estimated 500K+ Allied deaths, the Japanese civilization would have received 10s of millions of deaths and quite possibly could have put the continued existence of the Japanese culture into question…..

As Bull Halsey said on entering Pearl Harbour after the Japanese attack:

It’s fortunate is a sense an invasion never took place of the Japanese Home Islands, and if this required the firebombing of Japanese cities to accomplish, so be it.

For a little perspective, the United States Military still issues Purple hearts to wounded personal, said Purple Hearts were manufactured in 1945 when it still looked as if Japan would be invaded, luckily the abundant supply was never needed in ‘45 and said supplies have seen through all US conflicts since

[cybercoma]

The root cause of ignorant opinions is Pierre Poilievre.

Pierre Poilievre has an opinion? I thought Stephen Harper just had his hand up Pierre's backside and moved his hand to make him talk.

[WWWTT]

Jaycee - you have a habit of defeating your own arguments. You and others have brought up how the US bombed Japan, how they firebombed Germany and how Japan ransacked China. Yet after these acts of terrorism (your position), we don't see Japanese or German people bombing Americans - nor do you see Chines people committing terrorist acts in Japan. Why is that? Why is it only the twised, jihadist version of Islam that can continually harbour such hatred? That's a rhetorical question....it's the terrorist mindset!

I guess you forgot about Iraq,Afghanistan,Libya,Pakistan,etc,etc.

WWWTT

[PIK]

By "Americans," I wasn't referring to the military. If I were, I wouldn't have said "Americans," I would have said military. Which is why I spoke of "Americans" and "the military." Separately. But way to edit what I said - I went on to say "it wasn't the goal of the U.S. military to 'kill as many civilians as possible.'" And in case you're unaware of it, it wasn't. The bomb wasn't dropped with the purpose of killing as many civilians as possible - it was dropped with the purpose of ending the war, and hopefully resulting in less deaths than if the war dragged on and on and on. See the difference?

And what I believe regarding Iraq is exactly what I've said - that Saddam was taken out of power, the people can now vote. Do you really believe that they were better off under Saddam?

The people are better off, except the ones that supported saddam, who is probably resposible for the killings now. Afganistan would be alot better off if we stayed a little longer. Leaving there early is a mistake.

Edited April 29, 2013 by PIK

[Moonlight Graham]

Pierre Poilievre has an opinion? I thought Stephen Harper just had his hand up Pierre's backside and moved his hand to make him talk.

Hahaha. Pierre is such a little weasel brown-noser it makes me ill.

[WWWTT]

Here's Pierres backing comments

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/04/29/pierre-poilievre-root-causes-terrorism-liberal-pseudo-intellectuals_n_3178980.html

WWWTT

[roy baty]

Don't forget the some 600,000 Germans who died during WWII in fire bombings.

WWWTT

Your arguments are getting weaker and weaker on this.

[roy baty]

Like I said, right or wrong, everybody did it, just as the old cliché states, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter……It all boils down to perspective……I’m certain if I where a Muslim goat herder in DirkaDirkastain and US/NATO forces just killed one of my four teenage wives via a drone strike well out at the local market, when word of a successful Islamic terrorist operation against the West came to pass, I’d likely be supportive of said action.

Is it moral justification? Obviously not, but then again (Wo)Man is hardly a moral creature in all instances.

Anyone calling a terrorist who intentionally targets innocent civilians for their religious or vengeful reasons a freedom fighter is either brainwashed or ignorant. By the way, The problem is that the goat herder would rather blame the West rather than their leaders who harbour the fanatics that are the root cause of the problem in the first place. It's like being a German in WW2 and blaming the Allies for all their problems during and post war instead of pointing the finger at the lunatic who instigated it. Fortunately the Germans are civilized enough to understand the root cause and move on.

Btw, if everyone did follow the "moral" path, there would be peace on Earth now wouldn't there? Unfortunately human beings don't seem to get it hence history always repeats itself.

Edited April 30, 2013 by roy baty

[Guest Derek L]

Anyone calling a terrorist who intentionally targets innocent civilians for their religious or vengeful reasons a freedom fighter is either brainwashed or ignorant. By the way, The problem is that the goat herder would rather blame the West rather than their leaders who harbour the fanatics that are the root cause of the problem in the first place. Apparently you don't get it either. It's like being a German in WW2 and blaming the Allies for all their problems during and post war instead of pointing the finger at the lunatic who instigated it. Fortunately the Germans are civilized enough to understand the root cause and move on.

Btw, if everyone did follow the "moral" path, there would be peace on Earth now wouldn't there? Unfortunately human beings don't seem to get it hence history always repeats itself.

No? How about an asymmetric freedom fighter then? One side bombs the others cities, the other side blows themselves up in coffee shops or transit buses in the other sides homeland…….Like I said, it’s a mater of perspective.

[TimG]

You don't think perhaps the terrorism of the A-bombs terrified and intimidated the population into fearful compliance, as intended?

Actually, no. Both Japan and Germany had functioning civil societies that were taken over by a military rulers that used the civil society for nefarious ends. When the war ended most Germans and Japanese were glad to be rid of military rulers and willingly collaborated with the Americans to rebuild their countries. There is local anger over US military bases in Japan but little resentment towards the Americans for dropping the bombs.

This did not happen in Iraq or Afghanistan because there was no tradition of civil society to build on. They are basically tribal cultures that are not ready to create the kind of society that we take for granted in the west. They will eventually get their in there own time but there is nothing outsiders can do to speed up that process.

Edited April 30, 2013 by TimG

[eyeball]

There is a lot outsiders can do to slow it down and even reverse it.

[Michael Hardner]

This did not happen in Iraq or Afghanistan because there was no tradition of civil society to build on. They are basically tribal cultures that are not ready to create the kind of society that we take for granted in the west. They will eventually get their in there own time but there is nothing outsiders can do to speed up that process.

Actually - there was an article last year, I believe, that showed that the majority of Afghans support the occupation, chiefly in the cities. Or they did...

[TimG]

Actually - there was an article last year, I believe, that showed that the majority of Afghans support the occupation, chiefly in the cities. Or they did...

A majority is not enough since a large minority can cause problems. In Germany and Japan it was a overwhelming social consensus to work with the occupiers to rebuild their countries - in Japan this was despite the fact that the US dropped two atomic bombs and annexed Okinawa (things that would definitely be used to justify violent opposition to the occupiers in a different cultural context).

In short: the success of an occupation depends a lot on the culture and mindset of the people being occupied.

That is why is generally a waste of time to get involved in places like Syria. Sitting by and watching people being butchered offends many but occupying the country would not make these things better.

Edited April 30, 2013 by TimG

[eyeball]

Sitting by and watching people being butchered offends many but occupying the country would not make these things better.

Especially when the occupiers have repeatedly proven they lack the ethical and moral background the job requires.

[Keepitsimple]

A good example of how backward and midievel middle east tribal culture can be is right here in Canada. Many of our more than 600 Aboriginal tribes are arguably living in the past - and have legitimate grievances with people who could be viewed as "occupiers". Yet not one person has stooped to the level of indiscrimate murder and mayhem.

Edited April 30, 2013 by Keepitsimple

[guyser]

Yet not one person has stooped to the level of indiscrimate murder and mayhem.

pssst....google Ipperwash.