Liberal support for terrorism

[Argus]

CTV Interview with Public Safety Minister Anne McLellan.

Interviewer: Many people find it strange that the Tamil Tigers, one of the world's most ruthless and murderous terrorist organizations has again escaped being named to Canada's terrorist list. Can you explain this?

McLellan: Oh sure. There are a lot of Tamil voters in key Toronto ridings we own.

Interviewer: Uhm, but surely you're not saying you'd exempt a terrorist agency from sanction for political reasons.

McLellan: What planet are you from?

Interviewer: What I mean to say is that there are numerous reports that the Tamil Tigers are raising money in Canada, intimidating local Tamils, and using Canada as a base of support for their activities.

McLellan: So?

Interviewer: Well... surely that isn't good for Canada.

McLellan: So long as it helps us win those seats it's good for the Liberal Party.

Interviewer: But what about Canada?

McLellan: Well, we all have to have priorities, you know.

Interviewer: But aren't you almost condoning terrorism?

McLellan: I suppose, but so long as it doesn't cost us votes there's no harm in it.

Interviewer: What about harm to the people the Tigers murder?

McLellan: Are they Liberals?

Interviewer: It doesn't sound like a very principaled position.

McLellan: Get real. We're Liberals. We have no principals and neither do our supporters.

[The Terrible Sweal]

We're Liberals. We have no principals and neither do our supporters.

That's right, tories. Just keep on abusing the voters' intelligence and integrity. That's the way to earn support.

[Argus]

We're Liberals. We have no principals and neither do our supporters.

That's right, tories. Just keep on abusing the voters' intelligence and integrity. That's the way to earn support.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you buy McLellan's serf-serving reasons for exempting the world's most vicious terrorist group from any sanctions in Canada then you have no integrity or intelligence, and we don't want your support.

[The Terrible Sweal]

We're Liberals. We have no principals and neither do our supporters.

That's right, tories. Just keep on abusing the voters' intelligence and integrity. That's the way to earn support.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you buy McLellan's serf-serving reasons for exempting the world's most vicious terrorist group from any sanctions in Canada then you have no integrity or intelligence, and we don't want your support.

I don't even know what McLelleans reasons are, since you were too afraid to post them and criticise them directly.

And btw, I really do want you tories to keep on insulting and denigrating Canadians. It continues to guarantee you'll get nowhere at the polls (and it's just your speed).

[PatM]

The Tamil tigers are one side of a civil war. How does that make them terrorists?

Methinks we're back into the "We dont like them so they're terrorists" area.

[Argus]

The Tamil tigers are one side of a civil war. How does that make them terrorists?

Methinks we're back into the "We dont like them so they're terrorists" area.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Uh, because they set off suicide bombs in crowded markets? Because they kidnap children and force them to be soldiers? Because they are responsible for massive bomb attacks on completely innocent people? That is not war, that is terrorism, and so far as I know every western nation labels them a terrorist organization except Canada.

[Shakeyhands]

Besides being pretty unfunny...

This link explains the reasoning and I think it makes sense and is not a knee jerk response to an issue.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...13609_103899113

Moving now to put the Tigers on Ottawa's proscribed list of terrorist organizations could disrupt delicate efforts to negotiate peace in Sri Lanka, Pettigrew said Tuesday.

[August1991]

From CTV report above:

Moving now to put the Tigers on Ottawa's proscribed list of terrorist organizations could disrupt delicate efforts to negotiate peace in Sri Lanka, Pettigrew said Tuesday.

This is a joke. Canada is involved in "delicate efforts to negotiate peace in Sri Lanka"? These people just make this stuff up as they go along.

----

I remember a previous Liberal PM who asked the question "Where's Biafra?" (Incidentally, that PM had travelled in the area and knew the region well. His question was rhetorical. He meant to say that he had no intention of supporting an independence movement. But that PM had some political principles.)

Apart from terrorism, I think the issue is whether this government will support a secessionist movement abroad for political gain at home. The issue is whether this government has any principles at all.

[I Miss Trudeau]

This is a joke.  Canada is involved in "delicate efforts to negotiate peace in Sri Lanka"?  These people just make this stuff up as they go along.

Got anything to back up your claim, or should I just dismiss it as the usual anti-Liberal rant?

[PatM]

Uh, because they set off suicide bombs in crowded markets? Because they kidnap children and force them to be soldiers? Because they are responsible for massive bomb attacks on completely innocent people? That is not war, that is terrorism, and so far as I know every western nation labels them a terrorist organization except Canada.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That would make them guerilla fighters, not terrorists.

By your definition, the American revolutionaries weren't revolutionaries at all - they were terrorists.

By your definition, Every resistance movement in WWII were terrorists.

By your definition, Kamakazi pilots were terrorists

By your definition, Every western nation involved in the bombing of German factories and cities is a terrorist state.

You guys aren't even using a broad brush - you're using a chicken cannon.

[August1991]

This is a joke.  Canada is involved in "delicate efforts to negotiate peace in Sri Lanka"?  These people just make this stuff up as they go along.

Got anything to back up your claim, or should I just dismiss it as the usual anti-Liberal rant?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A quick search of DFAIT's web site gave me this list on which the first reference to a peace initiative consists solely of a really funny photo of Bob Rae, pukka sahib style, conferring with the locals in November 2004.

Maybe the "delicate efforts" are so delicate they're secret (or were secret until Pettigrew blabbed).

[PatM]

Kilgour 2002

Kilgour 2003

Graham 2002

Pettigrew 2005

And thats just in the first page of the first search. Google is your friend.

[August1991]

The Pettigrew link explains how he has met people in the Tamil community in Canada.

The Kilgour links explain how the peace process is unfolding.

Nowhere do I see any indication that Canada is doing anything other than "monitoring" the situation. (It seems to me the best place for a search is not Google but DFAIT's web site.)

As to your 2002 Graham link, I found this quaint tidbit:

Mr. Graham recognized the crucial role played by the Government of Norway in this achievement.

----

IMO, the Sri Lankan civil war is messy for an outsider. Canada has a large Tamil population and I think this would compromise us as a possible broker.

To get back to the thread's purpose, the next election campaign seems to have started.

[cybercoma]

The Tamil tigers are one side of a civil war. How does that make them terrorists?

Methinks we're back into the "We dont like them so they're terrorists" area.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Uh, because they set off suicide bombs in crowded markets? Because they kidnap children and force them to be soldiers? Because they are responsible for massive bomb attacks on completely innocent people? That is not war, that is terrorism, and so far as I know every western nation labels them a terrorist organization except Canada.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You mean those aren't perfectly acceptable forms of military combat?

Shit, Arafat is rolling over in his grave.

[The Terrible Sweal]

From CTV report above:

Moving now to put the Tigers on Ottawa's proscribed list of terrorist organizations could disrupt delicate efforts to negotiate peace in Sri Lanka, Pettigrew said Tuesday.

This is a joke. Canada is involved in "delicate efforts to negotiate peace in Sri Lanka"? These people just make this stuff up as they go along.

----

I remember a previous Liberal PM who asked the question "Where's Biafra?" (Incidentally, that PM had travelled in the area and knew the region well. His question was rhetorical. He meant to say that he had no intention of supporting an independence movement. But that PM had some political principles.)

Apart from terrorism, I think the issue is whether this government will support a secessionist movement abroad for political gain at home. The issue is whether this government has any principles at all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

August, get a grip. You're losing it man!

Every action of govenrment need not be seen through the soveigntist psychodrama.

The issue is not buggering up someone's negotiations by inciting one side or the other.

[August1991]

Every action of govenrment need not be seen through the soveigntist psychodrama.

In a thread about Sri Lanka, you call a sovereignty movement a "psychodrama". Now, that's rich.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Every action of govenrment need not be seen through the soveigntist psychodrama.

In a thread about Sri Lanka, you call a sovereignty movement a "psychodrama". Now, that's rich.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Let me speak more precisely then: every action of the Canadian government on the wolrd stage need not be seen through the prism of Quebec soveignty.

[kimmy]

Uh, because they set off suicide bombs in crowded markets? Because they kidnap children and force them to be soldiers? Because they are responsible for massive bomb attacks on completely innocent people? That is not war, that is terrorism, and so far as I know every western nation labels them a terrorist organization except Canada.

That would make them guerilla fighters, not terrorists.

Guerilla fighters attack strategic targets.

By your definition, the American revolutionaries weren't revolutionaries at all - they were terrorists.

The American revolutionaries attacked strategic targets.

By your definition, Every resistance movement in WWII were terrorists.

Strategic targets.

By your definition, Kamakazi pilots were terrorists

There's a big difference between an aircraft carrier or naval harbour compared to a village market. Strategic targets.

By your definition, Every western nation involved in the bombing of German factories

Strategic targets.

and cities

The firebombing of Dresden and Hamburg, and the nuclear strikes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been hotly debated in recent years as atrocities.

You guys aren't even using a broad brush - you're using a chicken cannon.

...on strategic targets.

-k

[kimmy]

Moving now to put the Tigers on Ottawa's proscribed list of terrorist organizations could disrupt delicate efforts to negotiate peace in Sri Lanka, Pettigrew said Tuesday.

This is a joke. Canada is involved in "delicate efforts to negotiate peace in Sri Lanka"? These people just make this stuff up as they go along.

Got anything to back up your claim, or should I just dismiss it as the usual anti-Liberal rant?

Mr. Graham recognized the crucial role played by the Government of Norway in this achievement. He expressed Canada's support for the continued involvement of Norwegian facilitators in the peace process and the presence of international observers from Nordic states to monitor the implementation of the agreement.

Well... I guess cheerleading for the Norwegians could be considered "involvement"...

-k

[kimmy]

Every action of govenrment need not be seen through the soveigntist psychodrama.

In a thread about Sri Lanka, you call a sovereignty movement a "psychodrama". Now, that's rich.

Let me speak more precisely then: every action of the Canadian government on the wolrd stage need not be seen through the prism of Quebec soveignty.

Who brought Quebec sovereignty into this? I'm not an expert on Tamil immigration patterns, but I believe it's Toronto ridings we're discussing here.

The contention in this thread seems to be that the Liberals are unwilling to join the rest of the civilized world in classifying the Tamil Tigers as a terrorist group because it could cost them votes in certain GTA ridings with large Tamil populations.

In another thread, Sweal, in response to the charge that "winning and staying in power is all that matters" to the Liberals, you replied "It is precisely this characteristic that makes the Liberal party such an boon to Canada... The Liberals are the voters' gopher. Our lackeys, our national concierge service."

Which sounds like a fine idea (if you're a prairie populist...) but this is what it looks like in practice.

-k

[The Terrible Sweal]

Every action of govenrment need not be seen through the soveigntist psychodrama.

In a thread about Sri Lanka, you call a sovereignty movement a "psychodrama". Now, that's rich.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Let me speak more precisely then: every action of the Canadian government on the wolrd stage need not be seen through the prism of Quebec soveignty.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Who brought Quebec sovereignty into this? I'm not an expert on Tamil immigration patterns, but I believe it's Toronto ridings we're discussing here.

Read last para., post #8.

The contention in this thread seems to be that the Liberals are unwilling to join the rest of the civilized world in classifying the Tamil Tigers as a terrorist group because it could cost them votes in certain GTA ridings with large Tamil populations.

In another thread, Sweal, in response to the charge that "winning and staying in power is all that matters" to the Liberals, you replied "It is precisely this characteristic that makes the Liberal party such an boon to Canada... The Liberals are the voters' gopher. Our lackeys, our national concierge service."

Which sounds like a fine idea (if you're a prairie populist...) but this is what it looks like in practice.

So you dismiss the possiblity that unhelpful opinions from abroad may negatively affect he negotations?

[kimmy]

Who brought Quebec sovereignty into this? I'm not an expert on Tamil immigration patterns, but I believe it's Toronto ridings we're discussing here.

Read last para., post #8.

This one?

Apart from terrorism, I think the issue is whether this government will support a secessionist movement abroad for political gain at home. The issue is whether this government has any principles at all.

uh, I think he was referring to the Tamil's secessionist movement, not the Quebec one. I think he was referring to the Liberals shaping policy based on holding a few GTA seats rather than on principle. If someone who had no opinion at all on Quebec had written the quote you refer to, it would make complete sense and bringing Quebec into it would be completely irrelevant. But because it came from August, you apparently feel that bringing Quebec into it is a convenient way to dismiss his statement.

The contention in this thread seems to be that the Liberals are unwilling to join the rest of the civilized world in classifying the Tamil Tigers as a terrorist group because it could cost them votes in certain GTA ridings with large Tamil populations.

In another thread, Sweal, in response to the charge that "winning and staying in power is all that matters" to the Liberals, you replied "It is precisely this characteristic that makes the Liberal party such an boon to Canada... The Liberals are the voters' gopher. Our lackeys, our national concierge service."

Which sounds like a fine idea (if you're a prairie populist...) but this is what it looks like in practice.

So you dismiss the possiblity that unhelpful opinions from abroad may negatively affect he negotations?

So you dismiss the possibility that the Liberals' position is based on politics and not doing what's right?

Do you dismiss the possibility that this is a situation where being the voters' lackeys is a little less noble than you made it sound in the other thread?

-k

[Army Guy]

I've read the interview, and the other referances...Not very flattering for the liberals....and a slap in the face for all Canadians...

And yet there are liberals on this forum that are defending the statements that were made.... The fact that these statements came from a member of the Canadian Goverment makes me sick to my stomach....The leaders of this nation only concern is votes...not the Nation,not you or me but votes...

The leaders of this Nation needs to make decissions based on what is good for the Nation not what will capture the most votes....

the remarks about not condenming the tamil tigers as a terorist group because it might upset delicate negotations is BS...we are either again'st terrorism or we're for it...take a stand thats what true leadership is all about making a decission that is best for Canada whether it is popular or not....

But this seems to be what the majority of Canadians do now walk around with thier pants down around thier knees because they are tired of taking them down every time the liberals decide to give it to us...

All any voter can ask is for the elected party to lead the nation...you call taking the middle road leadership.

[I miss Reagan]

Can anyone verify that this interview with McClellan was real? I'd like to see the video in it's context. While it is clearly obvious that this is the Liberals' way of thinking, it seems odd that she'd be so openly accepting of terrorists and admit that it is because of voters. It's pretty frightening.

[The Terrible Sweal]

I think he was referring to the Liberals shaping policy based on holding a few GTA seats rather than on principle. If someone who had no opinion at all on Quebec had written the quote you refer to, it would make complete sense and bringing Quebec into it would be completely irrelevant. But because it came from August, you apparently feel that bringing Quebec into it is a convenient way to dismiss his statement.

No, quite honestly, I thought he meant that the Liberal position was based on a calculation of how it would be perceived in the newly reinvigorated Bloquist world.

The contention in this thread seems to be that the Liberals are unwilling to join the rest of the civilized world in classifying the Tamil Tigers as a terrorist group because it could cost them votes in certain GTA ridings with large Tamil populations.

In another thread, Sweal, in response to the charge that "winning and staying in power is all that matters" to the Liberals, you replied "It is precisely this characteristic that makes the Liberal party such an boon to Canada... The Liberals are the voters' gopher. Our lackeys, our national concierge service."

Which sounds like a fine idea (if you're a prairie populist...) but this is what it looks like in practice.

So you dismiss the possiblity that unhelpful opinions from abroad may negatively affect he negotations?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So you dismiss the possibility that the Liberals' position is based on politics and not doing what's right?

Do you dismiss the possibility that this is a situation where being the voters' lackeys is a little less noble than you made it sound in the other thread?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes. The Liberals don't need to make this sort of move to cater to Tamils in Toronto for two reasons. First, the Liberals practically own Toronto (and most of Ontario again). Second, a large proportion of Tamils in Toronto are refugees from LTTE (Tiger) abuses in the secessionist territory. Disignating or not designating the Tigers as 'terrorists' is not going to change much in the way most Toronto Tamils would vote (i.e. already Liberal (if at all)).