Liberal support for terrorism

[August1991]

Can anyone verify that this interview with McClellan was real?

Argus, the thread's creator, has a bizarre sense of humour. He switched Pettigrew for McLellan. You're probably searching with the wrong name.

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.

Many years ago, Nigeria suffered a civil war when the Nigerian state of Biafra tried to secede:

According to Mr. Newman, one of Trudeau's "deep insights" was his riposte "Where's Biafra?" He explains, "Trudeau was trying to underline his view that, legally, Biafra didn't exist and that questions about it were comparable to asking him about `Laurentia'--the name French-Canadian nationalists gave their dream of an independent state." Mr. Newman assures us that Trudeau was something of an expert on Biafra, so presumably he understood that Biafra seceded from Nigeria because the central government was intent on (and eventually succeeded in, at the ...

Generic news service

It is an old story to claim that the Liberal Party has no principles except power. Well, my point was that the Liberal Party under Trudeau in fact had a few principles. One of them was the integrity of a federal state. Trudeau would never have sought votes from a secessionist movement. With as much as a phone chat to a Tamil Tiger, any minister in Trudeau's cabinet would have been hailing a taxi the same day.

I raised the point because I wanted to compare a previous Liberal leader with the gang we've got now.

And as I've said elsewhere, IMHO, the Liberal deals, compromises and games occurring now do not augur well for Canadian federal politics.

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)).

Sweal, you'll never make it as a Liberal. A true Liberal never leaves any vote behind.

[Political Joke for those who have read this edited post:] Im Il Hung, pres of People's Korea, holds election. Vote? 99.992% in favour. Advisors report? The people love you - only 341 voted against, what more could you want. Hung's response? I want their names.

----

BTW, mapleleafweb makes a first page google! (Google "where's Biafra" with quotes!)

And Sweal, would you please get the quotes right? If you can't get a minor techno issue right, how can we trust your judgment on broader geo-political questions?

[Argus]

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.

It truly is sad when people for whatever reason, be it lack of morality, ideological fanaticism, or plain stupidity, are unable to identify something as clearly as terrorism for what it is.

Guerrilas attack military and government institutions in order to defeat the government. Terrorists attack the people in order to terrorize them into forcing the government to change its direction. The Tamil Tigers engage in massive brutalities against civilians for the purpose of inciting terror. They are terrorists. Every western country, so far as I know, labels them terrorists.

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

The Americans formed military units and attacked British military units. How you get the idea this makes them terrorists is beyond me. I'm guessing you simply hate Americans - not an uncommon form of bigotry on this site.

Then again, I would expect nothing else from someone who evidently is more than willing to have Canada's government support terrorism if it garners ethnic votes.

[Argus]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I want people who have some measure of intelligence to consider the above statement. To consider how Canada putting the Tamil Tigers on their list of terrorist groups (which the US, UK, and India have already done) would somehow affect the "peace process" there. This is like suggesting that if Madagascar sided with Quebec seperatists it would affect Canada/Quebec relations. On a scale of importance to Sri Lanka and the Tamils, with India being about 100, and the US being about "60", Canada rates up there around, oh, a "3" maybe. We supremely unimportant to the possiblity of peace in Sri Lanka. And we are completely uninvolved in any kind of negotiations.

The only reason why the Liberals refuse to put the Tigers on their terrorist list is because of large voting blocks of immigrant Tamils in Toronto.

[Argus]

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}>

Got anything, ANYTHING to back up the suggestion the Canadian governrment is involved in any negotiations of any kind with the Sri Lankans?

Or like other Liberal supporters are you so credulous you believe anything your party tells you, no matter how unlikely?

[Argus]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jesus Christ, Reagan. How obvious does a sarcastic post have to be anyway? Do you believe the news items you hear on Air Farce are real too?

[The Terrible Sweal]

The only reason why the Liberals refuse to put the Tigers on their terrorist list is because of large voting blocks of immigrant Tamils in Toronto.

That is just sooo far-fetched. Tamils just aren't that big a group, and they don't support the Tigers that much.

[Argus]

The only reason why the Liberals refuse to put the Tigers on their terrorist list is because of large voting blocks of immigrant Tamils in Toronto.

That is just sooo far-fetched. Tamils just aren't that big a group, and they don't support the Tigers that much.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Like most ethnic communities of immigrants, they are concentrated in certain geographical areas. And they don't have to be the majority in any riding to determine the riding's representation. Example, locally, we have a riding with a one third francophone population. The representative of that riding is ALWAYS a Francophone. It doesn't matter that they only make up 1/3 the population. They will not vote for a non-francophone, so either you have three Francophones running as the three main party reps (because they all recognize politcal reality), or whoever is not a Francophone gets left behind. If you get most of 1/3 of the votes, then you only need to get a little more than 1/3 of the rest to win. And unlike Francophones (or Tamils) mainstream white anglos generally don't vote on racial or linguistic lines. As for supporting the Tigers - the fact is that in that community you support the Tamils or you shut up.

[The Terrible Sweal]

The only reason why the Liberals refuse to put the Tigers on their terrorist list is because of large voting blocks of immigrant Tamils in Toronto.

That is just sooo far-fetched. Tamils just aren't that big a group, and they don't support the Tigers that much.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Like most ethnic communities of immigrants, they are concentrated in certain geographical areas. And they don't have to be the majority in any riding to determine the riding's representation. Example, locally, we have a riding with a one third francophone population. The representative of that riding is ALWAYS a Francophone. It doesn't matter that they only make up 1/3 the population. They will not vote for a non-francophone, so either you have three Francophones running as the three main party reps (because they all recognize politcal reality), or whoever is not a Francophone gets left behind. If you get most of 1/3 of the votes, then you only need to get a little more than 1/3 of the rest to win. And unlike Francophones (or Tamils) mainstream white anglos generally don't vote on racial or linguistic lines. As for supporting the Tigers - the fact is that in that community you support the Tamils or you shut up.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You pretend to a lot of knowledge in this matter, but I doubt that it is backed up with direct information or experience.

[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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jesus Christ, Reagan. How obvious does a sarcastic post have to be anyway? Do you believe the news items you hear on Air Farce are real too?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm sorry but, when I read your posts I have no way of hearing the tone of your voice, the look on your face, or any other body language. I don't know who you are or what you are about. Obviously, parts of the post had some truth to it. No need to be an asshole.

[The Terrible Sweal]

You know, actually, it's kind of funny that you would think that interview really could be for real.

Not a big fan of Annie, are you, IMR?

[I miss Reagan]

Not a big fan of Annie, are you, IMR?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You know me well. Come on now admit it though, it was a stupid post.

[daniel]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jesus Christ, Reagan. How obvious does a sarcastic post have to be anyway? Do you believe the news items you hear on Air Farce are real too?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm sorry but, when I read your posts I have no way of hearing the tone of your voice, the look on your face, or any other body language. I don't know who you are or what you are about. Obviously, parts of the post had some truth to it. No need to be an asshole.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There were no credits or references made on that post indicating the original source of the interview, except that it was a ctv interview. So nobody would have really known it might have come from Air Farce or some other comedy troupe. If that had been clearly identiffied, any reader would or should reasonably acknowledge the true satirical nature of the interview. But because this piece of information had been left out, one would have automatically assumed it was a serious (and slanderous) in nature although obvious fictitious.

[I miss Reagan]

Thankyou Daniel.

[Argus]

Thankyou Daniel. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You didn't notice the part where he said "obviously fictitious", did you?

Look, I'm not trying to get on your case, but man, how credulous can you be?

Do you actually think that a government cabinet minister would talk like that? That she would flat out, openly tell an interviewer that her party had no principals and neither did her supporters?!?

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.

Sorry man, but I figured this was so obvious no one would believe it was real.

[daniel]

Obviously fictitious, yes but I too had a lot of trouble with it. I scanned through all three pages of this thread trying to find its source because, I wouldn't be at all surprised if it came from some right-wing fundamentalist web page. (Who knows what % of the information in the internet is false, anyways.)

It's happened before with the likes of Harper calling Martin a child-porn supporter, the Ontario Tory campaign team calling McGuinty a reptilian child-eater and then Eves with the pointy-headed remark.

If the interview was serious, it was on the verge of slander and I too wanted to know where it came from. Even a rightwinger like I Miss Reagan couldn't believe it.

Although I am a fan of the Royal Canadian Air Farce, I do not have the ability to remember every singe skid they did. This is important information that should not have been omitted.

[Argus]

Obviously fictitious, yes but I too had a lot of trouble with it.  I scanned through all three pages of this thread trying to find its source because, I wouldn't be at all surprised if it came from some right-wing fundamentalist web page. (Who knows what % of the information in the internet is false, anyways.)

It's happened before with the likes of Harper calling Martin a child-porn supporter, the Ontario Tory campaign team calling McGuinty a reptilian child-eater and then Eves with the pointy-headed remark.

Uhm, those were politicians saying bad things about the other party. This was a cabinet minister saying bad things about her own party. There IS a difference, you know. I don't think any politician in the history of this country has ever brazenly told an interviewer that her party has no principals and neither do their supporters.

It happens to be pretty much true, so far as the Liberals go, of course, but no one would believe Maclellan would say it.

[I miss Reagan]

Yes, and we didn't believe it. You slandered her. You gave no indicatation as to what your tone was or what you were implying.

[daniel]

...This was a cabinet minister saying bad things about her own party. There IS a difference, you know. I don't think any politician in the history of this country has ever brazenly told an interviewer that her party has no principals and neither do their supporters.

It happens to be pretty much true, so far as the Liberals go, of course, but no one would believe Maclellan would say it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ok then. You make it sound as if that were a true interview. Then show us the exact source or link in which this interview actually took place. I'm not looking for Air Farce or some other parity. I want the exact interview in which McClellan took part in and said exactly these words you reproduced here. The only reference you made was that it was from ctv.

I want to see the transcript of this interview from the official CTV website. Otherwise, you may be crediting the wrong source.

[Argus]

...This was a cabinet minister saying bad things about her own party. There IS a difference, you know. I don't think any politician in the history of this country has ever brazenly told an interviewer that her party has no principals and neither do their supporters.

It happens to be pretty much true, so far as the Liberals go, of course, but no one would believe Maclellan would say it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ok then. You make it sound as if that were a true interview.

Only if you've IQ of a drunken seal.

[daniel]

... This was a cabinet minister saying bad things about her own party.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Those are your words. Prove they are true. Show us the CTV transcript of the interview.

...

Only if you've IQ of a drunken seal.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

When all else fails, resort to personal attack. Typical.

[Darth Buddha]

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 world's most vicious terrorist group, or a legitimate player in a civil war where BOTH sides commit butchery? Even if you debate the latter point, it STILL isn't the "world's most vicious" by a damnsight. Nice hyperbole, though. Flags your demagogue's rant quite nicely.