On Guard for Thee Posted March 7, 2015 Report Share Posted March 7, 2015 the guy was a terrorist first. Sure its possible for him to be other things too but he was a terrorist first. He knew right from wrong. He would be criminally responsible for his actions. Very clear cut. I doubt we will ever know what he was first as you put it, but he is dead now so dont fret about him anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted March 7, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2015 Notwithstanding how he chose to act on his feelings it's highly likely they were based on an informed and accurate sense of right and wrong. Moral dissonance can be a real bitch to overcome, which probably explains his addiction problems. The relationship between root causes to blow back has been so clear cut for almost 15 years now it must be getting embarrassing for the conspiracy nuts who subscribe to the ideology-of-hate theory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted March 7, 2015 Report Share Posted March 7, 2015 Sad as it is, I am sure there are a few crack addicts within our borders who will end up somewhere in the headlines, just as this guy did. C 51 will be impotent to stop them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted March 7, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2015 You must have misunderstood me, I'm suggesting his addiction was an effect of his apparent distress not a cause. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted March 7, 2015 Report Share Posted March 7, 2015 You must have misunderstood me, I'm suggesting his addiction was an effect of his apparent distress not a cause. I guess that is a bit of a chicken or egg discussion. In this particular case though, I dont buy that ISIS etc, is the cause of either one of those problems he suffered. He just fell through the cracks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted March 7, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2015 What's ISIS got to do with anything? It's no less an effect that's cut and dried from the same fundamental wellspring of moral dissonance that Michael Zehaf-Bibeau fell into. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ron Young Posted March 28, 2015 Report Share Posted March 28, 2015 Funny how it all plays out. We go into someone else's yard armed to the teeth, participate in destroying their way of life so we can continue driving SUV's and pick up trucks and now we need new legislation to protect us against their anger and or perceived wrath. The security of this Country and its citizens is being used as a political weapon by every politician both for and against this latest piece of legislation. It may be a simplistic view of what is happening on my part in the world post 9/11 but I think a little simplicity is exactly what we Canadians need. Simply replace politicians with real people who lack vested interest and we can fix things I mean really the elitist garbage that hold the power will never do what is right for the majority of Canadians. Until we come to this realization as a people we are stuck with what we have whether it be Conservative, Liberal, NDP, Green. When in power they are all the same to me. To me our government fits at least one of the definitions of the word radical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted March 31, 2015 Report Share Posted March 31, 2015 Most people seem to find it fairly easy to determine what a terrorist act and a terrorist is.. Evidently not. It seems no one wants to acknowledge the elephant that's stomping all over their toes. The other defendant, Raed Jaser, indicated that it was his desire to conduct multiple missions so that people in Canada would realize that they would not be safe until they left the lands overseas. Sounds to me like a more rational reason why someone radicalized would be targeting Canadians. What do you think came first; Islamic terrorism in Canada or Canadian intervention in Middle East civil wars? Why are we in the Middle East dropping bombs and creating more terrorists? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted April 9, 2015 Report Share Posted April 9, 2015 (edited) Funny how it all plays out. We go into someone else's yard armed to the teeth, participate in destroying their way of life What way of life is that? Please, explain that, and then explain how fantastic things were prior to us "destroying" it. and now we need new legislation to protect us against their anger and or perceived wrath. Well, when the threats are explicit and the deaths are real, it's not really 'perceived' anymore. Good try though. Edited April 9, 2015 by Moonbox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted April 10, 2015 Report Share Posted April 10, 2015 (edited) What way of life is that? Please, explain that, and then explain how fantastic things were prior to us "destroying" it. Omar: This is so fatuous, not mention amoral! The USA only gets to decide what countries to destroy because it is the equivalent of the worst of Nazi Germany, with none of the good aspects. ------------- SIX US PRESIDENTS HAVE DESTROYED IRAQ It doesnt take a PhD in Sociology to conclude that Iraq was better off with Saddam Hussein than it is today. Its not that Saddam was a great leader without blood on his hands. Its just that what six US presidents have done to Iraq over the past 35 years has been much worse than anything Saddam ever did to the people of Iraq. Under Saddam, Iraqis had a thriving economy that included a wealthy middle class, a high functioning infrastructure on par with the most developed nations of the world, and free healthcare and free education through graduate school. Today, Iraqis have an effective unemployment rate of 50%, a difficult time getting water and electricity, and bombed out hospitals and schools. In Saddams Iraq, womens rights were guaranteed in the constitution, religion played virtually no role in government, Sunni and Shia got along relatively well, and al-Qaeda didnt exist. Today, Iraqis are facing Sharia law, Sunni and Shia are killing each other, and al-Qaeda in Iraq (now known as ISIS) has become arguably the most powerful non-government force in the world. READ ON, as I know a critical thinker like you will, at, http://original.antiwar.com/chris_ernesto/2014/07/03/six-us-presidents-have-destroyed-iraq/ ------------------------- Moonbox: Well, when the threats are explicit and the deaths are real, it's not really 'perceived' anymore. Good try though. Typical nonsensical memes. What do so many people have against thinking? Western powers, most notably the USA, has been terrorizing myriad countries for well over half a century. Edited April 10, 2015 by Je suis Omar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 10, 2015 Report Share Posted April 10, 2015 ...Western powers, most notably the USA, has been terrorizing myriad countries for well over half a century. Yes...the USA strives to be more notable after your royal empire hosed the region and went belly up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted April 10, 2015 Report Share Posted April 10, 2015 Yes...the USA strives to be more notable after your royal empire hosed the region and went belly up. Yes, everyone seems to forget that everything from the creation of Syria, Iraq, Jordan and Israel were all done by the Brits and French, and that even the restoration of the Shah was done at the behest of Britain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted April 10, 2015 Report Share Posted April 10, 2015 Typical nonsensical memes. What do so many people have against thinking? I don't know. You should ask the goof who's posting garbage anti-war.com articles as worthwhile citations. My favorite part of the article was: "Sunni and Shia got along relatively well" in pre-Bush Iraq...which is 100% bologna and ignores the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians Saddam murdered during his rule. Yeah...things were just peachy before the US came...for Saddam and his friends. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted April 10, 2015 Report Share Posted April 10, 2015 I don't know. You should ask the goof who's posting garbage anti-war.com articles as worthwhile citations. My favorite part of the article was: "Sunni and Shia got along relatively well" in pre-Bush Iraq...which is 100% bologna and ignores the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians Saddam murdered during his rule. Yeah...things were just peachy before the US came...for Saddam and his friends. All the while Saddam was murdering folks he was a USA puppet dictator. And what Saddam did doesn't come close to what the USA/UK collection of war criminals have done. How you can even show your face here trying to defend the USA is beyond the pale. --------------- The American Genocide Against Iraq: 4% of Population Dead as result of US sanctions, wars A new household survey of Iraqis has projected the civilian death toll from the Bush administrations invasion and occupation of Iraq at roughly 450,000. Passive information-gathering techniques like logging deaths in the Western press have produced estimates closer to 150,000, but such techniques have been proven to miss a lot of people. (To my knowledge no one was counting all the deaths reported in the some 200 Arabic-language Iraqi newspapers in the 2000s, so even the passive information-gathering was limited. And, the Wikileaks US military log of civilian deaths did not overlap very much with e.g. Iraq Body Count, so both of them were missing things the other caught.) Of those extra deaths beyond those who would have died if the US had never invaded, some 270,000 died violently, with US troops responsible for about 90,000 civilian deaths and militias for another 90,000. Of those killed violently, 60 percent were shot, and 12 percent died from car bombs. Some 180,000 died because of the destruction of the public health infrastructure (lack of access to hospital treatment, e.g.). Despite the horrific total, this estimate for 2003-2011 is smaller than the Lancet study of some years ago, which was done under wartime conditions. The authors admit, however, that the death toll could have been even higher; this total is a projection based on 2000 interviews. The US/ UN sanctions on Iraq of the 1990s, which interdicted chlorine for much of that decade and so made water purification impossible, are estimated to have killed another 500,000 Iraqis, mainly children. (Infants and toddlers die easily from diarrhea caused by gastroenteritis, which causes fatal dehydration). So the US polished off about a million Iraqis from 1991 through 2011, large numbers of them children. The Iraqi population in that period was roughly 25 million, so the US killed or created the conditions for the killing of 4% of the Iraqi population. If Iraq had killed 4% of Americans, it would be 12 million people dead. Iraq did not attack the United States. ... http://www.juancole.com/2013/10/american-population-sanctions.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted April 10, 2015 Report Share Posted April 10, 2015 All the while Saddam was murdering folks he was a USA puppet dictator Funny how he wouldn't do anything they told him to do then... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 10, 2015 Report Share Posted April 10, 2015 Iraq did not attack the United States. Technically it did....Iraqi missiles attacked the USS Stark (FFG-31) in 1987. UN sanctions against Saddam's Iraq were supported and enforced by Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 10, 2015 Report Share Posted April 10, 2015 Funny how he wouldn't do anything they told him to do then... Yeah...funny how that works ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted April 10, 2015 Report Share Posted April 10, 2015 Funny how he wouldn't do anything they told him to do then... Yeah, funny that the USA thinks it has the right to dictate to other countries what they should do. That makes the USA nothing more than gangsters, the mafia. What is this propensity you have that makes you want to support war criminals/the biggest and worst terrorist group on the planet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 10, 2015 Report Share Posted April 10, 2015 Yeah, funny that the USA thinks it has the right to dictate to other countries what they should do. That makes the USA nothing more than gangsters, the mafia. Wait...it gets better...the world loves to watch violent movies about American gangsters ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted April 11, 2015 Report Share Posted April 11, 2015 (edited) How you can even show your face here trying to defend the USA is beyond the pale. If you say so, though I can't really take anything you say seriously. You're referencing opinion blogs. The fact that you don't realize how worthless they are for a debate like this speaks volumes about how reasonable and thoughtful a human being you are. Edited April 11, 2015 by Moonbox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted April 11, 2015 Report Share Posted April 11, 2015 Technically it did....Iraqi missiles attacked the USS Stark (FFG-31) in 1987. UN sanctions against Saddam's Iraq were supported and enforced by Canada. Sanctions, not war. There is a difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted April 11, 2015 Report Share Posted April 11, 2015 If you say so, though I can't really take anything you say seriously. You're referencing opinion blogs. The fact that you don't realize how worthless they are for a debate like this speaks volumes about how reasonable and thoughtful a human being you are. I'd be interested to see your sources, which, you have to note, are nonexistent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted April 11, 2015 Report Share Posted April 11, 2015 (edited) I'd be interested to see your sources, which, you have to note, are nonexistent. If there was any worthwhile argument to be had here, I might bother. I don't need sources to tell you that referencing opinion blogs is foolish. That should be self-evident. Since, however, you clearly don't realize this, it's unlikely that anyone's going to be able to engage you in any sort of intelligent and productive debate. Edited April 11, 2015 by Moonbox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted April 11, 2015 Report Share Posted April 11, 2015 If there was any worthwhile argument to be had here, I might bother. I don't need sources to tell you that referencing opinion blogs is foolish. That should be self-evident. Since, however, you clearly don't realize this, it's unlikely that anyone's going to be able to engage you in any sort of intelligent and productive debate. That's seems like quite the original excuse, MB. Did you think it up yourself, steal it from Fox News, or did your meme generator pump it out? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted April 11, 2015 Report Share Posted April 11, 2015 That's seems like quite the original excuse, MB. Did you think it up yourself, steal it from Fox News, or did your meme generator pump it out? Speaking of meme generators, well done with the Fox News cliché. For you this is one of those instances where the more you say, the more you're going to embarrass yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.