dre Posted October 30, 2014 Report Posted October 30, 2014 As is anyone with more than half a brain. Its not that simple... noun: terrorism the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. What sets terrorism apart from other violent acts is that there is a political objective. I dont know what was inside this guys head, but it seems to me that its possible this was more about anger then trying to achieve any kind of political goal. Funny that someone talking about other people having "half a brain" would not even aquaint himself with the basic definition of a word hes so fond of throwing around. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Keepitsimple Posted October 30, 2014 Report Posted October 30, 2014 Its not that simple... What sets terrorism apart from other violent acts is that there is a political objective. I dont know what was inside this guys head, but it seems to me that its possible this was more about anger then trying to achieve any kind of political goal. It's only complicated if you choose to make it that way. Can't say I truly understand his "goal" but what could be more political than trying to kill the politicians? Quote Back to Basics
dre Posted October 30, 2014 Report Posted October 30, 2014 It's only complicated if you choose to make it that way. Can't say I truly understand his "goal" but what could be more political than trying to kill the politicians? He might not have even had a political goal though... He might have been angry because his passport was taken away. I wouldnt say im complicating it. Its not my fault that words in the english language mean stuff. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Argus Posted October 31, 2014 Report Posted October 31, 2014 Its not that simple... What sets terrorism apart from other violent acts is that there is a political objective. I dont know what was inside this guys head, but it seems to me that its possible this was more about anger then trying to achieve any kind of political goal. The political objective is the establishment of an Islamic Caliphate across the middle east. ISIS has instructed its fanboys to attack western governments which are opposing them. Why does this confuse you? Has there been a shred of evidence in support of the notion that absent Islam and ISIS this bozo would have gotten a gun and started shooting soldiers and storming parliament? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted October 31, 2014 Report Posted October 31, 2014 He might not have even had a political goal though... He might have been angry because his passport was taken away. It wasn't taken away. He was simply having trouble getting one. And he was angry because he was desperate to get over there and start killing people for ISIS. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
hitops Posted October 31, 2014 Report Posted October 31, 2014 (edited) Oh. Now it's worldwide and only the religious-motivated violence, which actually isn't religious motivated at all but geopolitically motivated (at least if you take the word of the intelligence community, but why would you?). lol. The offenders are directly, specifically, and repeatedly citing Islam as their entire motivation and raison d'etre. What other definition do you need? It would be like if you said you support Mulcair because of his polices, but then I said no, you like him because of his beard. It doesn't matter what I say, since YOU are the subject, YOU are the one who defines your own motivations, not me. Nevermind the fights between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland that killed tons of innocent people. Not even a drop in the bucket compared to Islamic death counts. Wiki says the IRA killed around 1800 people in the entire conflict. ISIS alone is at 5000 in the first 6 months of 2014. It's laughably incomparable. Obviously nobody can ever touch Stalin or Mao's tens of millions, but in the category or religions violence, nobody comes close to Islam. Nevermind the Jews in Israel disproportionately responding to half-assed attempts by Palestine to attack them. Ummm no it's not 'the Jews', it's the IDF, the formal army of a democratic secular state of many religions. You don't have to be Jewish to be an Israeli citizen, nor to fight in the army. Nor does the army fight for Jewish causes or claim they fight on behalf of God or against any group based on their religion. Nevermind the Christian butchers in Central Africa. They don't count. Forget the Burmese Buddhists that were murdering Muslims. Nope. Not part of your biased view on violence. LRA actually counts as religious violence, you're catching on. Not even a drop in the bucket compared to Islamic death count. Nevermind the Mexican drug cartels who behead people because, well, that's not religiously motivated. Correct, it's not. Maybe you just don't understand what violence in name of religion is vs other types of violence. Sure. If you ignore most of the violence in the world other than the violence committed by Muslims, then most of the violence in the world is committed by Muslims. Well since the initial claim I was responding to was specifically about religious violence and that 'all religions do it', that is why I'm focusing an answer specific to that. Regardless, Islamic-motivated violence actually DOES, at the present time, kill more people than any other kind of violence, religious or not, in the world. That's not even counting Assad, since he was killing for his own self-interest rather than in the name of God or a particular religious group. Edited October 31, 2014 by hitops Quote
dre Posted October 31, 2014 Report Posted October 31, 2014 It wasn't taken away. He was simply having trouble getting one. And he was angry because he was desperate to get over there and start killing people for ISIS. Like I said.. if he was just lashing out because he was angry then its not terrorism. If he hoped to accomplish some kind of political goal then it was. In any case the governments idiotic decision to let the AXIS OF OOPS wave our flag around the middle east has gotten Canadians killed now. Maybe the happless supports of our latest unprovoked bombings in the middle east should buy flowers for the victims family or something. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
The_Squid Posted October 31, 2014 Report Posted October 31, 2014 Because crazy crackheads are always trying to start Islamic caliphates! lol One crazy guy does not a terrorist attack make. Quote
dre Posted October 31, 2014 Report Posted October 31, 2014 Regardless, Islamic-motivated violence actually DOES, at the present time, kill more people than any other kind of violence, religious or not, in the world. That's not even counting Assad, since he was killing for his own self-interest rather than in the name of God or a particular religious group. Religion is at most a co-motivator, and most of the time its just a tool used appeal to the masses. There is almost always real tangible things behind all these struggles and wars. Leaders with real-world goals. Religion just makes people easily lead to support them. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 31, 2014 Report Posted October 31, 2014 Does Canadian bombing for human rights violations only apply to other parts of the world ? Sorry Middle East...no bombing for you !! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
dre Posted October 31, 2014 Report Posted October 31, 2014 Because crazy crackheads are always trying to start Islamic caliphates! lol One crazy guy does not a terrorist attack make. True but as you can tell from reading some of the posts here, most people dont even know what that word means. Its become a universal epithet for everything bad... Probably the second most misused word in history behind fascism. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
jacee Posted October 31, 2014 Report Posted October 31, 2014 (edited) He might not have even had a political goal though... He might have been angry because his passport was taken away.His passport wasn't taken away: He wasn't on the list of 90 'suspects'.He was waiting for it to be processed. This debate could be endless. IF he got treatment for his addiction and for his mental illness, then his stated motives might be relevant. Literal interpretation of the words of someone in such mental distress are hardly relevant. And yet I don't hear Harper addressing the desperate need for addictions and mental health care, just playing up his glorious 'war on terror' aspect. Pathetic. While the only 'help' available to street addicts is going to jail, and he tried to do that. . Edited October 31, 2014 by jacee Quote
eyeball Posted October 31, 2014 Report Posted October 31, 2014 Probably the second most misused word in history behind fascism. With radicalization angling for third place. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Argus Posted October 31, 2014 Report Posted October 31, 2014 (edited) True but as you can tell from reading some of the posts here, most people dont even know what that word means. Its become a universal epithet for everything bad... Probably the second most misused word in history behind fascism. Yes, we're just not up that cool, intellectualism which can blithely explain away any uncomfortable fact we don't want to confront. Edited October 31, 2014 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted October 31, 2014 Report Posted October 31, 2014 This debate could be endless. IF he got treatment for his addiction and for his mental illness, then his stated motives might be relevant. What mental illness are you speaking of? Could you guys get together and give us the name of the mental illness you've decided to make up for him so you can tell yourself this had nothing to do with Islam? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
jacee Posted October 31, 2014 Report Posted October 31, 2014 What mental illness are you speaking of? Could you guys get together and give us the name of the mental illness you've decided to make up for him so you can tell yourself this had nothing to do with Islam? No we can't. He wasn't diagnosed or treated. Carry on calling an unbalanced addict a terrorist. Send more planes to Iraq. That'll really solve mental health and addictions problems in Canada!! lol . Quote
Argus Posted October 31, 2014 Report Posted October 31, 2014 No we can't. He wasn't diagnosed or treated. Carry on calling an unbalanced addict a terrorist. Send more planes to Iraq. That'll really solve mental health and addictions problems in Canada!! lol . I see, so all you guys talking so calmly and intelligently about his mental illness basically just made it up and assigned it to him so you could brush aside Islam and terrorism as motivating factors? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
eyeball Posted October 31, 2014 Report Posted October 31, 2014 Definition of Addiction Bookmark and Share Public Policy Statement: Definition of Addiction Short Definition of Addiction: Addiction is a primary, chronic disease of brain reward, motivation, memory and related circuitry. It's quite possible he was self-medicating in an attempt to quell a moral dissonance of some type. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
dre Posted October 31, 2014 Report Posted October 31, 2014 Yes, we're just not up that cool, intellecutalism which can blithely explain away any uncomfortable fact we don't want to confront. I wouldnt say that you really need to be an intellectual to understand that words in any given language have definitions. noun: word; plural noun: words 1. a single distinct meaningful element of speech or writing, used with others (or sometimes alone) to form a sentence and typically shown with a space on either side when written or printed . Pretty neat stuff it turns out... you make em with letters from the alphabet, and they mean stuff! You can even arrange them into sentences! How cool is that!? Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Icebound Posted November 1, 2014 Report Posted November 1, 2014 The political objective is the establishment of an Islamic Caliphate across the middle east. ISIS has instructed its fanboys to attack western governments which are opposing them. Why does this confuse you? Has there been a shred of evidence in support of the notion that absent Islam and ISIS this bozo would have gotten a gun and started shooting soldiers and storming parliament? Is there a shred of evidence to preclude the notion that Canada is safer today than a month ago...not because of any changes in laws or increase in armed security.... but because there are two fewer nutjobs with guns in the country? ... Quote
Big Guy Posted November 4, 2014 Author Report Posted November 4, 2014 It was revealed to-day that there is video of what was going on in the Hall of Honor during the shooting. It was also announced that it will not be released. Why not? Why do we have to trust the second and third hand descriptions of what really happened. I can see where the video may be required for the investigation but the guy is dead. He is not going to go to court. What is wrong with releasing a video of a fire fight in OUR house of parliament? Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Argus Posted November 4, 2014 Report Posted November 4, 2014 I wouldnt say that you really need to be an intellectual to understand that words in any given language have definitions.Yes, and sometimes if you're intellectually dishonest enough you can even alter the definitions. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
cybercoma Posted November 5, 2014 Report Posted November 5, 2014 What is wrong with releasing a video of a fire fight in OUR house of parliament?Because regardless of how happy it will make some sick individuals, the parents of the shooter don't need to see their child being killed all over the news and internet for days. Why on earth would you want to see the video? What difference does it make whether you see it or not? Quote
Big Guy Posted November 5, 2014 Author Report Posted November 5, 2014 There have been different descriptions of what happened. We have a person who has been nominated for honours and who others claim shot an already dead person. I would like to see and hear if the shooter said or did anything. That might go a long way to assist in deciding on his motives. Also, if the shooter was a raving maniac or a cold blooded killer, the video might show his state of mind. If you choose to accept the "official" version of what, if anything, was said or not, then that is your prerogative. What if the shooter was prepared to give himself up and was not given the chance? A video would show that. The evidence is there. Why not share it with the public? If you are not interested then don't watch. Let those "sick individuals" and those who trust the best evidence to view this piece of history. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
On Guard for Thee Posted November 5, 2014 Report Posted November 5, 2014 It was revealed to-day that there is video of what was going on in the Hall of Honor during the shooting. It was also announced that it will not be released. Why not? Why do we have to trust the second and third hand descriptions of what really happened. I can see where the video may be required for the investigation but the guy is dead. He is not going to go to court. What is wrong with releasing a video of a fire fight in OUR house of parliament? He had already murdered one guy and was now running loose in OUR house with a loaded 30-30. "Death by cop" who needs to see it? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.