Why Pick a Fight With Canada?

Discussion in 'World Events' started by Tiassa, Oct 22, 2014.

  1. youreyes amorphous ocean Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,830
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,411
    So, as I was saying about violent disgruntled loners and their attacks on society...

    As the closest nation to much of that territory and the first to have explored and surveyed much of it as well, why would Canada have any less of a claim than Drunkistan? Idiotic threats and accusations like yours are the reason the West will continue to possess thousands of nuclear warheads for at least another century, if not many millenia, and why Canada should probably construct an arsenal of its own (we already have the technology, much harder to make civilian reactors than it is to make a basic A-bomb).

    No comrade, you miss most important point. Canada and Sweden unite to make Putin look like small-dick weasel midget and stop his experiment to turn Atlantic into vodka reservoir, is most unacceptable and inappropriate.
     
    joepistole likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    Lee Harvey Oswald would never have kicked a dog.
    What's happened to America?
     
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2014
    joepistole likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    S
    This is true. It's an expression of simple radicalism. There's no explicit necessity for a group to be behind the attacks of every -ism, whatever they might share in ideology.
     
  8. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,411
    As I was trying to imply, if the killers from these two recent incidents had written manifestos about fighting the government to uncover all its UFO secrets, we would almost certainly dismiss the attacks as one-offs. We'd accept that our society has its share of violent lunatics and we can't keep them all monitored and locked down without turning into a police state, and from time to time these sorts of crimes will occur or be attempted (thankfully with seemingly decreasing frequency). Sure, ISIS can inspire someone with a few screws missing from their brain to commit a violent act, but so can Mike Tyson. The majority of would-be criminals tend to be deterred by our justice system and a vigilant society, and I don't see why it's any different just because a new terrorist organization du jour emerges.

    The most relevant issue from a Canadian perspective is to ask how it is that our security protocols broke down with such apparent ease, especially in the second case where a man can brazenly shoot a soldier in broad daylight and then walk past multiple security layers to make it right to the doors of the main Parliamentary chamber and various cabinet ministers' offices. This was a scenario the nation's security services and police have trained in and prepared for extensively, yet it all broke down and we're just lucky that our ceremonial soldiers and officers are trained in more than merely ceremonies.
     
  9. The Marquis Only want the best for Nigel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,562
    You really don't understand them at all, do you, Tiassa?

    Still think everything has to do with lines on a map?
     
  10. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    I think he implied that national boundaries weren't relevant in this case. Hence, 'domestic'.
     
  11. The Marquis Only want the best for Nigel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,562
    So, you're inferring that he thinks along the lines of the idealistic as opposed to the nationalistic?
    Not sure I agree. Unless, of course, it suits him to do so. Idealism can be a rather convenient camouflage when it aligns with the philosophy of the day.

    I'm not sure why you're not standing by your first post. You were absolutely correct.
    I suppose I should mention that when I refer to "boundaries on a map", I'm doing so in the loosest possible terms.

    Do you know, that when the dissenter manifests himself in such a way as to lend himself to categorisation, he's already lost the fight?
     
  12. Landau Roof Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    598
    So he's dating Jody Foster, is he? Lucky SOB!
     
  13. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    As to the last phrase I can't say. I see what you mean about the first post, however. Allow me to clarify: I can see why an organisation would strike Canada - easy target, infidels to slay, still a Western nation, etc etc. This particular attacker doesn't seem to have any funding connections to an organisation thus far - but I've seen reports that he was Facebooking or whatever the hell it was with other radicals. I don't doubt he was urged to do it by them, and I'm sure he'll be widely hailed for his actions. So there is a commonality in objectives and I think one could say he was encouraged to make this attack by those in such a group. It's a win-win: they got an attack on people they hate, and it was essentially 'domestic'. Ultimately it doesn't matter because there's a common philosophy that connects the movement or ideology that wants this. The average jihadi on the street is not really too different to the typical ISIS stooge: he merely hasn't taken up arms yet.

    Tiassa's taking the position that it was domestic, which I think would be most similar to the 'idealistic'. But there is a commonality of purpose here. He's no simple rogue idiot. And all this 'mentally disturbed' nonsense: so they're all mentally disturbed, are they? The guy who ran over the soldier. This idiot. The next one. The ones who wanted to storm Parliament and behead Harper. They're all insane? Sure they are.
     
  14. The Marquis Only want the best for Nigel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,562
    And you'd be absolutely right.

    Even the base motivation isn't dissimilar.
     
  15. The Marquis Only want the best for Nigel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,562
    Never make the mistake that I would ever buy into the "insane" party line.

    I don't really think anyone is. Or at least, not as many as they'd have us believe.
    "Insane" is a copout for those who have no imagination.
     
  16. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,411
    I think anyone willing to kill based on a fairy tale qualifies as insane, at least insofar as that word has any meaning to it.
     
  17. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    The march through Berlin broke the back of organised Naziism. What exactly is going to break the back of jihadism? Or whatever one calls it.
     
  18. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,411
    Well, we can stop trading with any nation that finances or supports violent Jihadism, whether directly or indirectly. Just one example: it took an American to go to Pakistan and develop an ideal potato species for their soil (via crossbreeding) so as to more than double existing production; imagine how many millions would have starved to death without it. All of the Middle East nations which come to my mind are immensely dependent on Western imports, exports and especially technology, to the point that halting Western trade with any of them -along with any nation, big or small, that tries to help bypass such sanctions- would cause more devastation than all the bombs the US has ever dropped in that region throughout history.

    What a joke a country like Iran is, living off the fruits of the Great Satan like it's a heroin addiction (on that note, I hear heroin addiction is a major problem in Iran that the government works very hard to conceal). Why is it Satan can successfully sanction such godly people, and they can't successfully sanction him in turn? The only thing that makes the West vulnerable to Jihadists and their like is that we're too busy enjoying ourselves in our free, secular democracies to willingly sacrifice anything necessary to win fights until they become legitimate crises.

    And of course, along with the stick comes a nice juicy carrot. I don't think violent Jihadism will carry much appeal in the future if the nations supporting it also happen to be the poorest nations in the region, while their more tolerant neighbours enjoy unprecedented prosperity. We may also have to consider treating certain kinds of religious propaganda the same way we treat hate speech and incitement, otherwise the neo-Nazis might as well declare their faith as a religion and seek the same incitement rights that some of these hairy barbarian violent Imams are getting away with in the West.
     
  19. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    Although Jody is an atheist, I prefer Meg Foster. Jody Foster is a Lesbian.
     
    joepistole likes this.
  20. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,612
    One word: Hockey.

    I saw in the news yesterday that when two American NHL hockey teams (Philadelphia at Pittsburgh I believe) were having a game on the evening of the Ottawa attacks, they played the Canadian anthem 'Oh Canada' over the PA before the game, and the American crowd stood and sang in solidarity with their northern friends. I like that.
     
  21. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    That was awfully nice, really.
     
  22. !!!!!batman!!!!! Registered Member

    Messages:
    30
    i agree with the lone wolf theory. in terms of the level of sophistication, it wasn't very well carried out considering the target. a more organized attack with muiltple people involved would have have more redundancy in place in order to cause larger death tolls and property damage against such a target.
     
  23. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    The whole lone wolf vs. organised attacker thing - God, how the media loves to chew on that. What's the point? It wouldn't particularly matter if was an actual member of the Nazi party or just someone with a really tuned-in amateur interest in them.
     

Share This Page