Terrorist Kills 6 in Philadelphia

[dre]

One of the issues involved in these types of discussions is that people with a determined western secular mindset who are not at all religious (and tend to be fairly unimaginative) quite literally cannot believe people would commit extreme acts for a purely religious reason.

Oh I dont think its impossible that someone would commit extreme acts purely because of religion, its just that when thats alledged it almost always turns out to be easily and demonstratably false.

When you actually look at the movements around the world that are described as "terrorism", youll see that the underlying goals are almost always geo-political in some way. This is true of Alqeada, Isis, Hamas, Hezbolla, the Red Army, Mexican Narco terrorists, the Tamil Tigers, the IRA, the Red Hand, etc, youll see that theres almost always some kind of underlying factor thats political in nature.

[Michael Hardner]

And some people will deny it endlessly, no matter what the terrorists say, because they see it as their noble calling as white liberals to defend those poor, misguided, ignorant brown people.

Isn't that right?

No, not exactly. Many conservatives also recoil from condemning people on the colour of their skin if that's what you're getting at. It's a good stick to use against categorizing people of a certain religion, providing that the person doesn't agree with that kind of pre-judgement...

[Topaz]

I don't think the government, and others, are doing enough to protect Canadian because there are what 90-100, people who have gone over to train with terrorist and they are walking around free. WHY? I'm not sure if their Rights are all that valuable if their thinking is against Canadians. Harper is at war with terrorists , so they should be rounded up and held OR send them packing out of the country.

[Moonbox]

In general, such pathetic attempts at moral equivalency simply show the person has no judgement and no sense of morality whatsoever.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

The question of the danger of terrorism in Canada is the platform for this federal legislation. It seems that my post did generate some discussion of just what can or should be attributed to terrorism. It has satisfied the intent.

In your own ham-fisted way, maybe.

But some people today subscribe to a NEW definition which goes something like this... "Terrorism: Acts of violence by Muslims against the west".

Sure, these 'some people' indeed exist and pretending that terrorism is a purely Islamic phenomenon is pretty stupid. It's equally stupid, however, to pretend that the Islamic brand doesn't constitute the most clear and present danger to on the geo-political scene. Their threat is an existential one and their violence is far more indiscriminate.

Its kinda funny because these people go on and on about how terrorism is an Islamic phenomenon, but they ignore the hotbed of terrorism right here in North America, in predominantly christian Mexico. Hundreds of thousands have been killed, and people routinely have their heads cut off and bowled into local bars with the express purpose of spreading fear and intimidating.

It's sad that you can't see the difference between cartel and the Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. Obviously neither hold any real moral advantage, but the former has far more narrow goals, ideology and reach, whereas the latter poses an existential threat to the majority of the world and targets indiscriminately.

Edited December 16, 2014 by Moonbox

[dre]

It's sad that you can't see the difference between cartel and the Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. Obviously neither hold any real moral advantage, but the former has far more narrow goals, ideology and reach, whereas the latter poses an existential threat to the majority of the world and targets indiscriminately.

Well... I dont believe ANY of that. The biggest threat Islamic terrorism poses to the rest of the world is that it makes us dangerous to ourselves. In reality its a relatively small problem, and to suggest its an existential threat to the world is GROSS hyperbole. All of these movements are to a practical extent localized, and they dont even get along with each other.

We face a lot more danger from our own actions... Things like the trumped up "War on Terror", that has seen us set fire to trillions of dollars only to make the problem worse.

Islamism is not even one of the biggest 100 threats to my life or my person or my livelyhood.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Islamism is not even one of the biggest 100 threats to my life or my person or my livelyhood.

That's great...but it isn't all about you. The perp in Philly was a threat to other people...now he isn't. Canadian Federal Politics can now relax.

[Moonbox]

The biggest threat Islamic terrorism poses to the rest of the world is that it makes us dangerous to ourselves.

One of the stupidest, most nonsense things you could have possibly said. Good job.

In reality its a relatively small problem, and to suggest its an existential threat to the world is GROSS hyperbole.

Why are you talking about 'reality'? Your version of reasoning operates outside its scope. There was no hyperbole. You just aren't good at interpreting written English. If you knew what ISIS' goals were and how tolerant they were of non-adherents to their crazy brand of wahhabism, you'd have a clue.

Islamism is not even one of the biggest 100 threats to my life or my person or my livelyhood.

Nobody said it was. Unless you're a wahhabi Muslim, however, ISIS poses a threat to you, however impractical that may be. That you exist and you don't adhere to their beliefs is enough to make you a target. They don't care about your bleating and complaining over the Western way of life.

I can assure you, however, that the drug cartels in Mexico don't give a whiff about you, or me, or 99.9999% of Canadians and Americans. They're not even on of the biggest 1,000,000 threats to your person or livelihood.

[scribblet]

I don't think the government, and others, are doing enough to protect Canadian because there are what 90-100, people who have gone over to train with terrorist and they are walking around free. WHY? I'm not sure if their Rights are all that valuable if their thinking is against Canadians. Harper is at war with terrorists , so they should be rounded up and held OR send them packing out of the country.

If Harper is at war with terrorist, he's got it right. As far as doing more to protect us what would you like him to do because the left doesn't don't want increased surveillance because - you know - he's spying and taking away our right etc. etc. etc. How will they know what people are planning to do in order to round them up and ship them out, wouldn't want to violate their rights would we.

They are probably not rounded up and sent home for the same reason the Jihadist in Australia wasn't sent home - bleeding heart judges and the system.

Islamism is one of the biggest threats we are facing today

Jihadism: Tracking a month of deadly attacks

Jihadist attacks killed more than 5,000 people in just one month, an investigation by the BBC World Service and King's College London has found.

Civilians bore the brunt of the violence, with more than 2,000 killed in reported jihadist incidents during November 2014. Islamic State carried out the most attacks, adding to the spiralling death toll in Iraq and Syria. Explore the map to find out more.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-30080914

[eyeball]

I think an objective observer would concede that terrorism would have something to do with political or religious motivation. This incident does not.

It would be like calling a Mob Hit terrorism.

OTOH the sort of people who are quick to holler terrorism give the impression that installing dictators is like an exercise in nation building.

[Argus]

Oh I dont think its impossible that someone would commit extreme acts purely because of religion, its just that when thats alledged it almost always turns out to be easily and demonstratably false.

The problem with using 'demonstrably false' is what you mean is it's demonstrably false to your satisfaction, and you're clearly determined to find that there is nothing about Islam responsible because of your noble calling to protect brown people from being denigrated.

When you actually look at the movements around the world that are described as "terrorism", youll see that the underlying goals are almost always geo-political in some way. This is true of Alqeada, Isis, Hamas, Hezbolla, the Red Army, Mexican Narco terrorists, the Tamil Tigers, the IRA, the Red Hand, etc, youll see that theres almost always some kind of underlying factor thats political in nature.

And yet if you care to look below the geopolitical, you find religion again. You find "We want to kill Israelis so they will leave Palestine" on the top and then "We have to rid the world of those filthy, stinking Jews at any cost!" underneath.

Why have the Arabs been up in arms over Israel for two generations? Because they're JEWS. If they weren't Jews there would be peace in the middle east. To therefore say that the terrorism of Muslims is 'geo-political' is so much bullshit. To think Iran is sobbing in heartbroken misery over the lack of human rights of Palestinians is ludicrous. They fully support Syria and it's brutal human rights abuses. No, the only problem Iran has with Israel is Israel is full of JEWS.

[Argus]

No, not exactly. Many conservatives also recoil from condemning people on the colour of their skin if that's what you're getting at. It's a good stick to use against categorizing people of a certain religion, providing that the person doesn't agree with that kind of pre-judgement...

Nobody is condemning people on the colour of their skin. What I'm saying is that a number of pasty white Liberals feel it is their moral calling to defend 'brown people' from any and all accusations regardless of the reason for those accusations, and regardless of the actions of the 'brown people' in question. If Muslims were mostly white instead of non-white liberals would not be defending them at all. In fact, they'd be attacking them for their barbaric and backward social beliefs as well as their violence.

As for 'pre judging', to quote Dennis Miller, I'm not pre-judging them, I'm judging them.

Edited December 17, 2014 by Argus

[Argus]

OTOH the sort of people who are quick to holler terrorism give the impression that installing dictators is like an exercise in nation building.

Really? Name these people.

[Moonbox]

OTOH the sort of people who are quick to holler terrorism give the impression that installing dictators is like an exercise in nation building.

/yawn.

We've heard all of your angsty anti-Western ramblings before. I'm pretty sure nobody here advocated installing dictators, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. It appears to be more of your demented moral relativism, where you're essentially saying, "Well DUH! Café shootings in Australia and school shootings in Pakistan are all the result of western imperi....."

*barf* The thought is too stupid to even complete.

Edited December 17, 2014 by Moonbox

[eyeball]

Nobody is condemning people on the colour of their skin. What I'm saying is that a number of pasty white Liberals ....

As for 'pre judging', to quote Dennis Miller, I'm not pre-judging them, I'm judging them.

ROTFLMAO

[GostHacked]

One of the stupidest, most nonsense things you could have possibly said. Good job.

It really is not stupid at all. What happens to our government and laws every time something like this happens?

What legislation was passed after 9/11, under Bush? PATRIOT Act.

what legislation was passed under Obama? NDAA.

Why are the police very militarized now?

Why did the government allow warrant-less wiretapping?

I feel more threatened by my (or your) government taking away my (or your) rights and freedoms based on the actions of terrorists, all under the guise of keeping me (and you) safe.

I can assure you, however, that the drug cartels in Mexico don't give a whiff about you, or me, or 99.9999% of Canadians and Americans. They're not even on of the biggest 1,000,000 threats to your person or livelihood.

Mexico drug cartels are a real issue, and a much closer issue. The Fast and Furious gun running to Mexico via the US actually helped the problem get bigger. But on that note, the US government does not give a whiff about you or me either.

Terrorism from ISIS here at home is even less of an issue than Mexico drug cartels.

[dre]

One of the stupidest, most nonsense things you could have possibly said. Good job.

No its not stupid at all. The west has spent more than 5 trillion dollars on the fake global war on terror and by all accounts have accomplished nothing, and based on estimates by intelligence agencies may have even made the problem worse. More westerners have died in the war on terror than have been killed by terrorism in the last 20 years combined. The damage we have caused ourselves in our REACTION to terrorism is so great its hard to even attach a number to it. In the US alone you have the patriot act, the 40 billion dollar DHS, and trillions spent on ill-advised nation building projects in Iraq and Afghanistan. Americans will be paying for this idiocy for many decades to come.

The threat to the west posed by terrorist is not even statistically significant, and most of it is the result of our own behavior. This is what our own intelligence agencies have told us.

There was no hyperbole. You just aren't good at interpreting written English. If you knew what ISIS' goals were and how tolerant they were of non-adherents to their crazy brand of wahhabism, you'd have a clue.

It was pretty much PURE hyperbole. ISIL is a tiny regional player that has only been able to occupy areas with sunni majorities that dont want to be ruled by Assad, or the Iranian proxy government that runs Iraq (Thanx to the war on common sense... err terror). The idea that it poses an existential threat to the world is such a silly statement its worth of laughter. They are surrounded by regional powers that make them look like a gnat.

ISIL provokes emotionalism and irrational reactions from people like you... on purpose. But that does not mean they pose any kind of existential threat.

I can assure you, however, that the drug cartels in Mexico don't give a whiff about you, or me, or 99.9999% of Canadians and Americans. They're not even on of the biggest 1,000,000 threats to your person or livelihood.

I disagree completely. Mexican drug terrorists are distabilizing a country on our continent that we have a major trading relationship with, and they engage in all kinds of operations that impact Canadians and Americans. Everything from the drug trade to sexual slavery and human trafficking, to extortion, murder, etc.

[dre]

The problem with using 'demonstrably false' is what you mean is it's demonstrably false to your satisfaction, and you're clearly determined to find that there is nothing about Islam responsible because of your noble calling to protect brown people from being denigrated.

More talking to people inside your own head.

I could care less if Islam is responsible. In fact I detest the entire idea of Islam, and the idea that anyone would allow their behavior to be governed by a magical man in the sky is pure silliness.

As for Israel and Palestine, thats a classic, garden variety dust-up over land and resources. Both sides want a state on the same piece of land. The idea that things would be different over there if Palestinians believed in a different magical man in the sky is too stupid to even debate.

[Moonbox]

It really is not stupid at all. What happens to our government and laws every time something like this happens?

What legislation was passed after 9/11, under Bush? PATRIOT Act.

what legislation was passed under Obama? NDAA.

The question, really, is how would things have turned out without these measures? Are you a big enough goof to suppose that 9-11 was a singular and isolated incident, and deeper security measures were not required? You could make a case that they went too far, but going back to the pre-Sept 11th days is not a realistic option.

Why are the police very militarized now?

What are you basing that on? Media coverage of Ferguson? I wonder how white cops treated black people in the 50's....

I feel more threatened by my (or your) government taking away my (or your) rights and freedoms based on the actions of terrorists, all under the guise of keeping me (and you) safe.

You make light of the threat of terrorism because of how unlikely it is you'll be hurt by them, but then you're fearful of the virtually non-existent (and extremely vague) threat of the government interfering with your personal freedom? Interesting logic.

Mexico drug cartels are a real issue, and a much closer issue. The Fast and Furious gun running to Mexico via the US actually helped the problem get bigger. But on that note, the US government does not give a whiff about you or me either.

A real issue, sure. Closer? Maybe geographically, but otherwise no. The drug cartels are not encouraging, nor undertaking, indiscriminate violence against the general population - at least not in Canada or US .

Terrorism from ISIS here at home is even less of an issue than Mexico drug cartels.

Forget just ISIS, tell me how many World Trade Centers, Pentagons, subways, theatres, Parliament Hills etc the cartels have attacked.

[GostHacked]

The question, really, is how would things have turned out without these measures? Are you a big enough goof to suppose that 9-11 was a singular and isolated incident, and deeper security measures were not required? You could make a case that they went too far, but going back to the pre-Sept 11th days is not a realistic option.

I believe it was a singular event. You won't see something like that happen in the USA again. Run more of a risk of something escaping these centers that study viruses and things like anthrax and other chemical/biological agents. Reminds me that the whole anthrax scare after 9/11 was actually perpetuated by the US and not radical Muslims.

What are you basing that on? Media coverage of Ferguson? I wonder how white cops treated black people in the 50's....

It's not just the Ferguson police using MRAPS and armour clad riot police.

http://kielarowski.net/tag/militarization-of-police/

Under the pretense of reining in police militarization in the aftermath of the crackdown on protests in Ferguson, Missouri, the Obama administration has called for a review of the federal government’s programs to transfer military weapons to local police departments. In reality, such a review is intended to regularize and professionalize the militarization of domestic police forces, which has been spearheaded by the federal government.

One senior White House official told the Washington Post that the administration’s review, which will take place together with a series of congressional hearings, will assess “whether state and local law enforcement are provided with the necessary training and guidance; and whether the federal government is sufficiently auditing the use of equipment obtained through federal programs and funding.”

Attorney General Eric Holder wrote in a statement provided to the New York Times, “It makes sense to take a look at whether military-style equipment is being acquired for the right purposes and whether there is proper training on when and how to deploy it.”

The premise of Holder’s remark is that there is a “right” purpose for the police to be militarized, and thus that the program is entirely legitimate. The concern is that local police departments may be insufficiently trained as to “when and how” to deploy the billions of dollars in military assets that they have been given.

Police or military? LRAD was tested in Iraq. Now used at home. Why?

You make light of the threat of terrorism because of how unlikely it is you'll be hurt by them, but then you're fearful of the virtually non-existent (and extremely vague) threat of the government interfering with your personal freedom? Interesting logic.

Actually I do not treat terrorism lightly. However if you been paying attention to legislation that the Canadian gov tried to get through , starting with C-30, and subsequent articles that encroached on our civil liberties. Even the SCC said that the last one was unconstitutional.

I am at more of a risk of losing my freedoms from an overreacting government due to a threat (not the real act) of terrorism. I have a better chance of winning millions at the lottery than my chances of dying in a terror attack of some kind. You have to be realistic about your approach. How many people a day are killed in motor vehicle accidents compared to terrorism?

A real issue, sure. Closer? Maybe geographically, but otherwise no. The drug cartels are not encouraging, nor undertaking, indiscriminate violence against the general population - at least not in Canada or US .

You are right, it is not indiscriminate, it is deliberate targeting. It's quite bad in Mexico. Police chiefs are killed less than a week into the job, countless children recently being kidnapped/killed. Scores of dead in several towns. It's a weekly thing going on down there. So bad you had seen a major influx of illegal immigrants crossing the border into the US.

Forget just ISIS, tell me how many World Trade Centers, Pentagons, subways, theatres, Parliament Hills etc the cartels have attacked.

How many times can 'blowback' be understated? Every action has a reaction, or so I am told. The reaction was the 9/11 attacks, what was the action that triggered it? You think there is no reason other than they hate us for our freedoms? Freedoms that our government is slowly and systematically trying to erode through various pieces of legislation?

Dre is right too when she talks about the billions wasted on this war on terror. Reminds me how the Russians spent themselves into oblivion trying to keep up with the west during the Cold War. Now western nations are doing the same. Billions wasted on death and destruction machines instead of doing things that can help. Bring a town fresh water. Basic electricity, roads, infrastructure, ect ect.

Bombs don't bring security and peace. Building cities and homes, delivering fresh clean water and good food, bring security and peace.

Libya was a great place before the UK helped bring down Gaddafi. Now it's a shithole just like Iraq and Afghanistan. Again it is important to note how the west props up rebels against Assad but squashes them in Bahrain. That inconsistency is a threat to the west.

Recall back in January when I started the thread about going back into Iraq? I was easily 6 months ahead and predicted that it would happen. Why was that easy to predict? And why was it sloughed off as an 'Iraq' issue before Al-Queda/ISIS started to FSU.

[eyeball]

Forget just ISIS, tell me how many World Trade Centers, Pentagons, subways, theatres, Parliament Hills etc the cartels have attacked.

All of them in sense. Anyone else recall an old anti-drug ad that depicted a dealer loading a gun with syringes? The cartels have attacked us, they've created tens of millions of casualties and caused freedom loving liberty-minded governments around the globe to curb both freedom and liberty.

Now that said, take notice of just how close American government policies are to the heart of what's empowering the cartels and galvanizing terrorists.

[GostHacked]

All of them in sense. Anyone else recall an old anti-drug ad that depicted a dealer loading a gun with syringes? The cartels have attacked us, they've created tens of millions of casualties and caused freedom loving liberty-minded governments around the globe to curb both freedom and liberty.

Now that said, take notice of just how close American government policies are to the heart of what's empowering the cartels and galvanizing terrorists.

Ah, the forgotten 'War on Drugs'. Have drugs been eradicated yet? NO? So another fail.

[Argus]

As for Israel and Palestine, thats a classic, garden variety dust-up over land and resources. Both sides want a state on the same piece of land. The idea that things would be different over there if Palestinians believed in a different magical man in the sky is too stupid to even debate.

Really? Why aren't they attacking Jordan then? Jordan was a part of Palestine which the British simply drew a line around and then gave to the Hashemites. Saudi Arabia was created in an identical fashion. Neither has created the slightest botheration amongst the world's Muslims. To pretend that Israel being given to Jews is unrelated to the decades long conflict is preposterous, gibbering idiocy.

[GostHacked]

Jordan and Saudi Arabia are in their sights. It just takes time to get to a mission accomplished type goal. Saudi Arabia has also played a critical role in the division that is happening among Muslims. If you want put Iran on the other side of that, you can see that both Iran and Saudi Arabia are BOTH contributing to the strife. It's the Sunni-Shiite thing again and again.

It could be that Saudi Arabia and Jordan are already friendly to these ISIS/Al Queda types. Let's not forget where most of the 9/11 hijackers came from. Also let's not forget who helped train and supply them when they set up camp in Afghanistan.

[Moonbox]

All of them in sense.

So none then. Good to know.

Anyone else recall an old anti-drug ad that depicted a dealer loading a gun with syringes? The cartels have attacked us, they've created tens of millions of casualties and caused freedom loving liberty-minded governments around the globe to curb both freedom and liberty.

The cartels caused tens of millions of casualties in Canada and the US? Please explain. This is like going to see the carnival oddities.

[Moonbox]

Jordan and Saudi Arabia are in their sights. It just takes time to get to a mission accomplished type goal.

60+ years and counting with no moves yet...As Argus said, that's preposterous, gibbering, idiocy.

It could be that Saudi Arabia and Jordan are already friendly to these ISIS/Al Queda types. Let's not forget where most of the 9/11 hijackers came from. Also let's not forget who helped train and supply them when they set up camp in Afghanistan.

No, it could be said that there are people within Saudi Arabia and Jordan that are friendly to them. Saying Saudi Arabia is friendly to ISIS when they're actually at war with them is moronic. If you consider Saudi Arabia to be friendly with ISIS because they may be getting funding and recruits from among its people, you probably consider the United States friendly to them as well for the same reason.