Justin Trudeau: terror and terrorists

[WWWTT]

Wwwt my Liberal friend you are delusional. Jihad is the root cause of Muslim terrorism. Period. You and the rest of the Libs who blame the "evil west" for their acts just shows us how out to lunch the left really is.

Here's a question.

What's the root cause of terrorism in Switzerland?

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Same thing. Fanaticism. I don't however recall Christian terror groups being a problem globally do you?

I guess you never heard about Christian based suicide cults?

And what about Waco and that guy at the centre of it?

WWWTT

[Guest American Woman]

Yes exactly.

What other means do these enemies have?

So you believe that when one has 'no other means,' it's acceptable to target and kill children - and cheer about it. To make that the goal. It's just using "simple means" to achieve their goal. Do I have that right?

[Michael Hardner]

I've seen no evidence that these two were "true believers" of anything or that anyone "sent them out". What I've read is that the older one was disillusioned, angry and didn't feel like he fit in. The younger one seems to have been influenced by his older brother. If you have evidence, post a link.

Your post betrays the standard stereotypes and typifies why these acts will continue. If we want them to stop, we will understand them and the reasons behind them.

I wasn't thinking of the Boston attack, because we don't know enough about that yet. I was thinking about the primary terrorist group that people think about - AQ. Gwynne Dyer, I believe, laid out their strategy for toppling weak regimes by using young men who were motivated by religion.

What do you think the reasons behind terrorism are ?

[Topaz]

Couldn't any country or group become terrorists? Are there good and bad terrorists? So say we have a country that decided it wants to take power over another country and it invades and take over. Certain groups within that country decide they are not going to let that power take over and they attack, is that a terrorist?

[Guest American Woman]

Couldn't any country or group become terrorists? Are there good and bad terrorists? So say we have a country that decided it wants to take power over another country and it invades and take over. Certain groups within that country decide they are not going to let that power take over and they attack, is that a terrorist?

Of course it's not terrorism to fight back against an invasion - but if those who decide they don't want the other power to take over go to said county and start targeting and killing the innocent civilians, then it is terrorism. Countries fought back against Hilter, for example, and that wasn't terrorism; but they didn't go into Germany targeting and purposely killing innocent civilians. That wasn't the goal; quite the opposite. The U.S. fought back against Japan when Pearl Harbor was attacked, too; but Americans didn't go into Japan, targeting and purposely killing Japanese civilians. And it wasn't the goal of the U.S. military to "kill as many civilians as possible." Furthermore, it wasn't the goal of any of these countries fighting against the invasion to impose their will on the civilians. Same with the 9-11 attacks. NATO determined that we had the right to fight back against an attack on our soil; to fight back against the declared 'war' against the western world after we were attacked.

Terrorism is the targeting of civilians, with the purpose and intent of killing as many civilians as possible. That's the goal of terrorism.

Edited April 28, 2013 by American Woman

[Michael Hardner]

Couldn't any country or group become terrorists? Are there good and bad terrorists? So say we have a country that decided it wants to take power over another country and it invades and take over. Certain groups within that country decide they are not going to let that power take over and they attack, is that a terrorist?

Yes, it's problematic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism

Under the UN definition, I believe that Nelson Mandela is/was a terrorist.

Kofi Annan:

"The following year, the then Secretary-General of the United Nations Kofi Annan endorsed the High Level Panel's definition of terrorism and asked states to set aside their differences and to adopt that definition within the proposed comprehensive terrorism convention before the end of that year. He said:

"It is time to set aside debates on so-called "State terrorism". The use of force by states is already thoroughly regulated under international law. And the right to resist occupation must be understood in its true meaning. It cannot include the right to deliberately kill or maim civilians. I endorse fully the High-level Panel's call for a definition of terrorism, which would make it clear that, in addition to actions already proscribed by existing conventions, any action constitutes terrorism if it is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a Government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act. I believe this proposal has clear moral force, and I strongly urge world leaders to unite behind it and to conclude a comprehensive convention on terrorism before the end of the sixtieth session of the General Assembly."[46]"

[Guest]

Here's a question.

What's the root cause of terrorism in Switzerland?

WWWTT

Cuckoo clocks!

[cybercoma]

For all those people that agree, "the root causes of terrorism are terrorists, period."

Can you explain why Stephen Harper is dumping $10 million dollars into investigating the root causes of terrorism? For someone not terribly interested in "committing sociology," it's funny to see Harper's team committing funding to sociological inquiry.

So why would he say the things that he said, but go and do the opposite?

He's banking on the notion that his base is stupid, to put it bluntly. That's right. If you support the conservative party, Stephen Harper thinks you're a moron. He will say whatever it takes to get you to continue to support him, only to turn around and do whatever the hell he wants. Which frankly in this case is great. We should be investigating the root causes of terrorism.

Just know that his messages to the media are not to secure new voters though. It's to keep the voters that he has completely in the dark. He hopes that you're too stupid to actually pay attention to what he does, rather than what he says.

At the end of the day, what he does is mostly quite pragmatic, as opposed to the sabre rattling rhetoric he tosses to his base.

Without a doubt, Stephen Harper is quite divisive, but I would be a liar if I did not also acknowledge that he's also not as bad as some people claim.

[Guest American Woman]

For all those people that agree, "the root causes of terrorism are terrorists, period."

Who ever said "period?" Speaking for myself, I've been discussing it in the context of the quote, since that's the topic.

Can you explain why Stephen Harper is dumping $10 million dollars into investigating the root causes of terrorism? For someone not terribly interested in "committing sociology," it's funny to see Harper's team committing funding to sociological inquiry.

Harper said, emphasis mine, "This is not a time to commit sociology..." and it was in reference to how the Canadian PM should react to the Boston bombing. I agree. That's not the time to try to figure out why he did it; that's not a helpful reaction. IE: That's the time to react to the threat of terrorism, not the "whys" of terrorism. At that time "why" terrorists have the mindset that they do is not important; dealing with the mindset is.

So why would he say the things that he said, but go and do the opposite?

Because he didn't say that there was never a time to commit sociology; he said THIS is not the time .... IOW, he's not said one thing while doing another. That's just your erroneous take on it.

He's banking on the notion that his base is stupid, to put it bluntly. That's right. If you support the conservative party, Stephen Harper thinks you're a moron.

Wow. So you're speaking for Harper now, eh? I'm sure he really appreciates that.

Edited April 28, 2013 by American Woman

[jacee]

Harper said, emphasis mine, "This is not a time to commit sociology..."

Because he didn't say that there was never a time to commit sociology; he said THIS is not the time ....

You don't actually take that phrase seriously do you?

How does one "commit sociology"?

I mean seriously ...c'mon ...

Because in actual fact, it just betrays his ignorance.

Edited April 28, 2013 by jacee

[Guest American Woman]

You don't actually take that phrase seriously do you?

How does one "commit sociology"?

I mean seriously ...c'mon ...

I take is seriously in the way it was presented in the post/quote I was responding to. I take it seriously in the context it was intended.

Seriously.

[jacee]

I take is seriously in the way it was presented in the post/quote I was responding to. I take it seriously in the context it was intended.

Seriously.

Seriously?

You can't be serious.

Because it isn't serious.

It's asinine.

[Guest American Woman]

Seriously?

You can't be serious.

Because it isn't serious.

It's asinine.

Guess what? That's just your opinion. I'd give my opinion of your opinion back at'cha, but it's not worth it.

[Guest]

Seriously?

You can't be serious.

Because it isn't serious.

It's asinine.

It's not asinine. It's mocking. Quite right too.

[roy baty]

I guess you never heard about Christian based suicide cults?

And what about Waco and that guy at the centre of it?

WWWTT

Comparing the very "rare" Christian cult insanity to the very common Jihad killing of innocents is as ridiculous as it gets. Is that the best you can do to compare Jihad with Christian terrorists? Again you confirm just how out to lunch you lefties are about terrorism.

Edited April 28, 2013 by roy baty

[cybercoma]

I've been discussing it in the context of the quote, since that's the topic.

As you like to tell Canadians who wade in on American foreign policy, your opinion is utterly irrelevant as an American.

I don't actually believe that. I welcome all kinds of informed opinions on any topic in Canadian politics, both foreign and domestic. So citizenship isn't a problem.

Edited April 28, 2013 by cybercoma

[jacee]

Of course it's not terrorism to fight back against an invasion - but if those who decide they don't want the other power to take over go to said county and start targeting and killing the innocent civilians, then it is terrorism.

...

The U.S. fought back against Japan when Pearl Harbor was attacked, too; but Americans didn't go into Japan, targeting and purposely killing Japanese civilians. And it wasn't the goal of the U.S. military to "kill as many civilians as possible".

Are you actually saying that with a straight face?

Are you possibly forgetting Hiroshima and Nagasaki ... 'Little boy' and 'Fat man' ... ?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

Following a firebombing campaign that destroyed many Japanese cities ... the United States deployed two nuclear weapons developed by the Manhattan Project. American airmen dropped Little Boy on the city of Hiroshima on 6 August 1945, followed by Fat Man over Nagasaki on 9 August.

Within the first two to four months of the bombings, the acute effects killed 90,000-166,000 people in Hiroshima and 60,000-80,000 in Nagasaki, with roughly half of the deaths in each city occurring on the first day.

And then there's Iraq ...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

The Lancet Survey estimated 654,965 "excess deaths" to June 2006; and the Opinion Research Business Survey estimated 1,033,000 "deaths as a result of the conflict", to April 2009.

Don't even try to pretend ... ! :X(:

Eta ... And "the root cause of terrorism" just might be ... terrorism.

Edited April 28, 2013 by jacee

[WWWTT]

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

WWWTT

[jacee]

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

WWWTT

London was bombed too, so I guess I see that as fair play in war.

Japan bombed the US fleet, not civilians.

Saddam killed his own people, not Americans.

The US was after resources - God help any country that tries to nationalize and own their own - and killed more Iraqi civilians than Saddam ever did.

Our soldiers died in Afghanistan defending a US imperialist pipeline!

[Guest Derek L]

London was bombed too, so I guess I see that as fair play in war.

Japan bombed the US fleet, not civilians.

Saddam killed his own people, not Americans.

The US was after resources - God help any country that tries to nationalize and own their own - and killed more Iraqi civilians than Saddam ever did.

Our soldiers died in Afghanistan defending a US imperialist pipeline!

See Japan versus Shanghai….250k Chinese killed in just over 3 months.

[Guest American Woman]

As you like to tell Canadians who wade in on American foreign policy, your opinion is utterly irrelevant as an American.

I don't actually believe that. I welcome all kinds of informed opinions on any topic in Canadian politics, both foreign and domestic. So citizenship isn't a problem.

Only one problem with that. I've never "[told] Canadians" that.

But for the record, I welcome all kinds of informed opinions on any topic in American politics, both foreign and domestic etc., too. So take that as you will

[Guest American Woman]

Are you actually saying that with a straight face?

Yep. Unless it's obviously sarcasm, I'm saying it with a straight face. Hope that helps clear things up for you.

[Guest Derek L]

Of course it's not terrorism to fight back against an invasion - but if those who decide they don't want the other power to take over go to said county and start targeting and killing the innocent civilians, then it is terrorism. Countries fought back against Hilter, for example, and that wasn't terrorism; but they didn't go into Germany targeting and purposely killing innocent civilians. That wasn't the goal; quite the opposite. The U.S. fought back against Japan when Pearl Harbor was attacked, too; but Americans didn't go into Japan, targeting and purposely killing Japanese civilians. And it wasn't the goal of the U.S. military to "kill as many civilians as possible." Furthermore, it wasn't the goal of any of these countries fighting against the invasion to impose their will on the civilians. Same with the 9-11 attacks. NATO determined that we had the right to fight back against an attack on our soil; to fight back against the declared 'war' against the western world after we were attacked.

Terrorism is the targeting of civilians, with the purpose and intent of killing as many civilians as possible. That's the goal of terrorism.

That’s 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, though not a justification, it was effective to varying degrees………And to keep things in perspective, there was next to no insurgency after the allied occupation of Germany and Japan.

[jacee]

Yep. Unless it's obviously sarcasm, I'm saying it with a straight face. Hope that helps clear things up for you.

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.