Seriuosly folks,Anne McLellan

[I Miss Trudeau]

In order to suggest that their foreign policies were responsible for the attacks you have to accept that the bombings were a reasonable, or logical or understandable reaction to some aspect of those foreign policies.

Foreign policy isn't "responsible," per se, for the bombings. It would be more accurate to say " predictably related."

I don't see it that way. I don't see putting bombs in subway cars as a reasonable reaction to anything at all.

I don't see anyone suggesting that blowing up subway cars is a "reasonable reaction" to foreign policy, do you? What exactly are you trying to argue against?

At the most, I've read posts suggesting that acts such as blowing up subway cars are predictably related to certain foreign policy, though not in those words.

Again, I put it to you that these individuals are not behaving in any kind of logical or coherent fashion. You might almost call them insane. And you can't design foreign policy around the angry, murderous rage of insane people.

Suppose I engage in "sexual congress" with another man's wife. He later finds out and murders me for my indiscretion. He clearly is not acting in any kind of "logical or coherent fashion," and he may even be considered insane, at least temporarily. But you can design "foreign policy" around such an angry, murderous rage, by not engaging in sexual relations with other peoples spouses.

In other words, you can believe that murdering someone in that instance is a far cry from a "reasonable reaction," but still have the wit to realize that death, or at least injury, is a reasonably probable result of such an action, and for that reason, seek a different course of action. Doing so doesn't in any way suggest that you've accepted that murder is a reasonable reaction.

[mirror]

As for people thinking the US and Londoners "deserved" the attacks, that's just pure, unadulterated horseshit. There's a world of difference between understanding the reasoning or motivations behind the attacks and endorsing them. It's too bad that clear distinction is so tough for some to grasp.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I believe there are a number of people in Canada who not only feel the US deserved 911 but are heartily glad it happened and wish it would happen again.

Some of them, perhaps, on this web site.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Strange then, isn't it, that we haven't heard from them?

[kimmy]

Does Anne McLellan have too much power?  I've always kind of had the impression that Deputy PM was one of the crappiest jobs in Cabinet, but I honestly don't know. Does the Deputy PM do anything other than serve as a human shield for the Prime Minister?

If something were to happen to pm the pm,then she would become am the pm.

Do you think she'd be a worse PM than Paul Martin?

I'm not even sure that THELIBERAL would be a worse PM than Paul Martin.

-k

[Argus]

I did not say that the London suicide bombers are heroes, but violence begets violence.

The connection between those London bombs last week and the UK's behaviour in Iraq is quite clear.

Britain has now paid a price for invading and dropping their bombs in Iraq.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So if they hadn't taken part this wouldn't have happened. Is that what you're saying?

[Argus]

Again, I put it to you that these individuals are not behaving in any kind of logical or coherent fashion. You might almost call them insane. And you can't design foreign policy around the angry, murderous rage of insane people.

Suppose I engage in "sexual congress" with another man's wife. He later finds out and murders me for my indiscretion. He clearly is not acting in any kind of "logical or coherent fashion," and he may even be considered insane, at least temporarily. But you can design "foreign policy" around such an angry, murderous rage, by not engaging in sexual relations with other peoples spouses.

Poor analogy. In fact, I perfectly understand how a man kills a man commiting adultery with his wife. I might not agree, but I understand that this is not a completely atypical response (violence).

A better analogy would be that, upon finding out that a man is having sex with his wife, the wounded party goes downtown and starts shooting people at random to express his indignation.

[Black Dog]

No not at all. I completely understand the difference between gaining an understanding and being an apologist. The problem is anytime a terrorist attack occurs you justify it by turning the topic to US foreign policy or the motivations behind the attack. It's not like we're talking about you starting topics in the morality/ religion section of the board on why Islamic Fundamentalism exists. We're talking about your justification of Islamic terrorism.

How can one gain an understanding (which is okay in your book) without examining the motivations? You're contradicting yourself.

I think the Bernardo analogy fits quite well. An individual displaying sociopathological tendencies who feels justified in inflicting pain on others because of selfish desires and justifies his acts by blaming the victims.

That would stand up if anyone (even the perpetrators) were actually blaming the victims in this case. The individuals who were killed and maimed were the victims, not their government. Therefore, tracing responsibility to the actions of the government is not blaming the victim. I can't possibly make this any clearer for you.

Oh Black Dog, you're so beyond my capacity to understand all of these difficult concepts.  Is this why you resort to name calling like "moron" and say "bull/ horseshit" every time you're losing a debate?

I dunno, having not "lost" a debate to you.

In order to suggest that their foreign policies were responsible for the attacks you have to accept that the bombings were a reasonable, or logical or understandable reaction to some aspect of those foreign policies. I don't see it that way. I don't see putting bombs in subway cars as a reasonable reaction to anything at all.

I don't think its hard to grasp. remember Beslan? In the words of one of the Chechyan militants involved: "You killed our children, we've come to kill yours."

The people involved were, apparently, Muslims of Pakistani origin who grew up in Britain. They were apparently treated well by their new homeland, were given every right and opportunity, and had the chance to protest, to organize against, and to vote against any kind of governmental policy with which they disagreed.

Individual motivations are tricky. Despite adopting the trappings of their new homeland, many immigrant communities still indentify with their societies of origin. The insular nature of thses communities (fueled in part by unacceptance and rascism in their new lands), plus the possibilities of global communication mean that the grievances of the old world find root in the new.

Robert Pape, an associate professor of political science at the University of Chicago, conducted a study of the 315 known suicide terrorist attacks that occurred in the world between 1980 and 2003, attacks carried out by Muslims, Tamils, Sikhs, and Kurds. Pape concluded that "what nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland. Religion is rarely the root cause, although it is often used as a tool by terrorist organizations in recruiting and in other efforts in service of the broader strategic objective."

I believe there are a number of people in Canada who not only feel the US deserved 911 but are heartily glad it happened and wish it would happen again.

Some of them, perhaps, on this web site.

Where are these people?

[Argus]

In order to suggest that their foreign policies were responsible for the attacks you have to accept that the bombings were a reasonable, or logical or understandable reaction to some aspect of those foreign policies. I don't see it that way. I don't see putting bombs in subway cars as a reasonable reaction to anything at all.

I don't think its hard to grasp. remember Beslan? In the words of one of the Chechyan militants involved: "You killed our children, we've come to kill yours."

Except none of the London bombers had any such grievances against the British government. They all lived confortable lives in their host country.

The people involved were, apparently, Muslims of Pakistani origin who grew up in Britain. They were apparently treated well by their new homeland, were given every right and opportunity, and had the chance to protest, to organize against, and to vote against any kind of governmental policy with which they disagreed.

Individual motivations are tricky. Despite adopting the trappings of their new homeland, many immigrant communities still indentify with their societies of origin.

So you're saying even though they were born and raised there they weren't really British because Britain has allowed its immigrant communities to grow so large even second and third generations grow up as foreigners in their midst?

Gee. That was dumb. Good thing we never did that, eh?

[Black Dog]

Except none of the London bombers had any such grievances against the British government. They all lived confortable lives in their host country.

Obviously someone or something convinced them to strike against thei rhost country. Did they do it because they hated the freedoms they enjoyed as UK citizens, then?

So you're saying even though they were born and raised there they weren't really British because Britain has allowed its immigrant communities to grow so large even second and third generations grow up as foreigners in their midst?

Gee. That was dumb. Good thing we never did that, eh?

I don't think Canada's immigrant experience and that of the UK are analagous.

[I miss Reagan]

you reap what you sow in foreign affairs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You do? So if you are good and kind then no one will ever harm or hurt you?

Even people who are unreasonable and illogical? Even people who are, in some ways, insane?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ya, I wonder what seeds Tibet has sown to "reap" what they've gotten from China.

Robert Pape, an associate professor of political science at the University of Chicago, conducted a study of the 315 known suicide terrorist attacks that occurred in the world between 1980 and 2003, attacks carried out by Muslims, Tamils, Sikhs, and Kurds. Pape concluded that "what nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland. Religion is rarely the root cause, although it is often used as a tool by terrorist organizations in recruiting and in other efforts in service of the broader strategic objective."

Definitely a large part of it but it flies in the face of your premise that the terrorists want to provoke the US and UK into invading.

The individuals who were killed and maimed were the victims, not their government. Therefore, tracing responsibility to the actions of the government is not blaming the victim.

In the West we tend to elect our governments. When we don't approve of those governments we usually get rid of them. Remember they re-elected Blair.

I believe there are a number of people in Canada who not only feel the US deserved 911 but are heartily glad it happened and wish it would happen again.

Some of them, perhaps, on this web site.

Where are these people?

I heard a reporter saying the other day that it was 1 in 7 Canadians or 13%. I can't say whether it was someone's opinion or an actual poll but it sounds about right to me. I've heard plenty of people justifying the attacks. Of course those on the forum don't want to be accused of condoning murder but they offer plenty of euphemisms saying basically the same thing.

[I Miss Trudeau]

A better analogy would be that, upon finding out that a man is having sex with his wife, the wounded party goes downtown and starts shooting people at random to express his indignation.

To complete the analogy, lets add in that the man who is sleeping with your wife has been elected to another term of doing so, and a number of these people have supported him sleeping with your wife.

At any rate, my analogy was constructed to demonstrate that this claim:

And you can't design foreign policy around the angry, murderous rage of insane people.

is 100% wrong. You can design foreign policy around the "angry, murderous rage of insane people" by refusing to incite it.

[I Miss Trudeau]

Except none of the London bombers had any such grievances against the British government.

How on earth could you possibly know that? And to be frank, anyone that doesn't have a grievance with the British government over the thousands of civilian deaths caused by this war is not human.

[Bro]

? And to be frank, anyone that doesn't have a grievance with the British government over the thousands of civilian deaths caused by this war is not human.

I would hold liberal governments like ours more responsible for any deaths that have occured,because in not showing a united stance that terrorist actions will not be tolerated,they are allowed to continue their killing ,thinking that they do have support from a liberal government such as ours.Any vote of confidence for them,like Canada is giving them ,via the liberal party,will allow them to grow stronger and when Canada is hit,where will most Canadians go crying for help?You guessed it,the war mongering states and the puppet british.

[I Miss Trudeau]

I would hold liberal governments like ours more responsible for any deaths that have occured,

Yes, thats right. The hands of our liberal government are far more bloody from the deaths of Iraqi children than the people actually dropping bombs on them. Naturally, the government that refuses to go to war on intentionally manipulated "intelligence" bears far more responsibility for civilian death than the governments actually causing the deaths.

Any vote of confidence for them,like Canada is giving them ,via the liberal party,will allow them to grow stronger

Yes. Unlike the massive recruiting blitz that the Iraq war has caused, Canada is producing more and more terrorists by the minute!

[newbie]

I would hold liberal governments like ours more responsible for any deaths that have occured,because in not showing a  united stance that terrorist actions will not be tolerated,they are allowed to continue their killing ,thinking that they do have support from a liberal government such as ours.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Argus]

A better analogy would be that, upon finding out that a man is having sex with his wife, the wounded party goes downtown and starts shooting people at random to express his indignation.

To complete the analogy, lets add in that the man who is sleeping with your wife has been elected to another term of doing so, and a number of these people have supported him sleeping with your wife.

So are you saying the train bombers weren't innocent and got what they deserved?

At any rate, my analogy was constructed to demonstrate that this claim:

And you can't design foreign policy around the angry, murderous rage of insane people.

is 100% wrong. You can design foreign policy around the "angry, murderous rage of insane people" by refusing to incite it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Okay, you "can" design your foreign policy around the wishes of a sullen group of ignorant, backwards religious maniacs, if you're a gutless, snivelling coward with no sense of responsibility.

[Argus]

Except none of the London bombers had any such grievances against the British government.

How on earth could you possibly know that? And to be frank, anyone that doesn't have a grievance with the British government over the thousands of civilian deaths caused by this war is not human.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think we can be fairly certain their children weren't killed by the British government given they grew up in Britain and were originally from Pakistan anyway. Is that clear enough?

[I Miss Trudeau]

Okay, you "can" design your foreign policy around the wishes of a sullen group of ignorant, backwards religious maniacs, if you're a gutless, snivelling coward with no sense of responsibility.

Give me a break. This sort of dichotomy is absolute nonsense. Your view seems to be either blow the f!@%^s up or be a "snivelling coward."

Maybe the US, instead of manufacturing evidence to justify the invasion of another nation, should have refused to quit propping up middle eastern dictatorships and supporting genocide against the Palestinian people.

Sure, there is no guarantee that it would have worked. But its hard to imagine it turning out much worse than the recruiting blitz they've succeeded in providing for radical islamic groups.

But I suppose that not going in guns a blazin' and bombs a droppin' would make the US "snivelling cowards."

[Argus]

Okay, you "can" design your foreign policy around the wishes of a sullen group of ignorant, backwards religious maniacs, if you're a gutless, snivelling coward with no sense of responsibility.

Give me a break. This sort of dichotomy is absolute nonsense. Your view seems to be either blow the f!@%^s up or be a "snivelling coward."

If you decide that your policies will be based, not on what you think is right, not on what is best for Canada, but out of fear some Muslim wacko is going to get offended then there seems to be little other way to describe you.

Maybe the US, instead of manufacturing evidence to justify the invasion of another nation, should have refused to quit propping up middle eastern dictatorships and supporting genocide against the Palestinian people.

Suppose the US had, instead of manufacturing evidence, said something like the following:

"The Muslim world is a big shithole. Someone needs to change it, and it's obvious none of the local dictators will. Since Iraq is run by one big murdering scumbag, its people crushed beneath the heel of tyranny, and since it's conveniently located right between Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia, we're going to go in and take over. We'll set up a model democracy which the citizens in all those surrounding countries can't help but notice. This will cause them to put pressure on their governments to bring about more democracy and freedom in their countries. Hopefully this will provide another outlet for Muslims who are frustrated at the miserable state of life and conditions in their lands and they will work for more constructive ends."

How would the world have reacted? More to the point, how would OPEC have reacted?

And I do wish people would abandon ludicrous hyperbole about "genocide". If the Israelis of all people, had intended genocide there'd be no more palestinians left. Such a thing is easily within their capability, and has been for decades. The Isrealis have killed a few thousand arabs over the course of the last decade. More people were slaughered by Syria's government during the Muslim brotherhood uprising in Hama. In one week.

And believe me, if there were riots and attacks on Syrian troops similar to what the Palestinians are doing to Israeli troops the carnage would be far, far greater. The Syrians would simply level entire cities to teach the locals a lesson.