Huffy Flounce

Dalty wrote:Hmmmmmm, yes. A little thought of jungle nation somewhere in SE Asia.....

Not to mention Iraq itself. People tend to forget that after the Gulf war, the US never really left. They were bombing targets at various times during the Clinton years(no doubt to divert attention from ongoing bimbo eruptions), and as late in the game as Feb 2001, during Bush II's first month in office. Not to mention the ongoing covert ops and support for anti-regime elements.

Within 2 years, the occupation had begun in earnest.

But reality does not allow total isolation. Just a devils advocate viewpoint but true.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ottawa- ... -1.2808710

So this is what it takes for Canada to get on American news...

What's the deal with all these Westerners wanting to join the jihadist extremists anyway? I guess life in Canada must be too comfortable.

It's a long story.

Harper's neocons want to intervene more deeply in the Middle East, even with all that we now know about the repercussions of such policies. They will use this event to drum up support for an expanded, costly mission in Iraq and who knows where else. Not to mention an expansion of federal surveillance and police powers at home. The left will blather on about the need for more gun control, more cultural sensitivity etc. Meanwhile more copycats will likely emerge in major Canadian cities.




Yukon's starting to look good right about now.

Sorry, I didn't mean to single out Canada specifically, but the incident occurred there, so I was just referring to the most recent event. It's still a bit puzzling, however, to keep hearing reports of young Europeans and Americans buying plane tickets and heading to the Middle East to join the fight.

I caught the tail end of some news program last night where they were talking about how these people who join the extremists often aren't even interested in the ideology as much as they just want to feel like they're part of a group. That's the scary part. If you want to be part of a group, join the fucking Boy Scouts! I feel like back in the 1930s they would have joined the National Socialists just "to be part of a group." It just kind of pisses me off.

I always cringe when I read the word "blather." No idea why, it's just always provoked that reaction in me.

I also cringe now when one of these events happen and the American Right immediately....I don't want to say "assumes" because that would imply they were admitting to guessing....guarantees that the perpetrator is an Islamic extremist. Never mind say...Newtown or Aurora or that fucked up kid in California who hated women (Berkeley? I can't remember) for three recent examples of mass shootings done by white people who weren't doing anything on behalf of/against a religion.

I dunno, I'm just not wild on stereotyping this sort of thing, but that seems to be the standard for everything now, I guess. Sad.

Didn't one of the gunman's friends say that he was mentally unstable and had been talking about joining the militant extremists in the Middle East?

Oh, yeah, that does seem to be the case in this shooting. Sorry, I had to rush my post before my boss walked back in the room.

I got into it a little with somebody in the office yesterday who was loudly proclaiming that this had happened because Canada was bombing in Iraq, which they were only doing because Obama was too slow to get after ISIS. I asked him if they had identified the shooter, he said no. I asked him why it couldn't just be an anti-government extremist like Tim McVeigh, he said "Hey, Adam, I'm just telling you what I heard on Fox today." I told him I knew that the second he blamed Obama for a mass shooting in Canada. That was pretty much the end of the argument.

While it turned out he was right, I just hate that that's the immediately leap both he and all the others who follow the right wing media as gospel automatically make before any facts come out. That's all.

Any better or worse than those who blindly follow left wing media agenda?

Mal has hit on something there. There is a definite parallel with the growth of gang culture throughout history. Right at the top are people getting mighty rich of others ideological zeal and fervour too.

Our open-ness and freedom also makes it very hard to crack down on those doing the radicalising until it presents a problem too.

Both of these points could equally be applied to anti-government militia types too.

Dalty wrote:Any better or worse than those who blindly follow left wing media agenda?

Yes, with the caveat that right wing media's agenda seems to be one of fear, hatred and paranoia. Left wing's agenda (if there is one) is basically "Government is good! Everything is good! Everyone is the same and everybody is good!"

Blindly following any agenda is bad, I fully grant you that, but in this case, I'd vote for the lesser of two evils.

Adam54 wrote:Blindly following any agenda is bad, I fully grant you that, but in this case, I'd vote for the lesser of two evils.

Adam54 wrote:

Dalty wrote:Any better or worse than those who blindly follow left wing media agenda?

Left wing's agenda (if there is one) is basically "Government is good! Everything is good! Everyone is the same and everybody is good!"

Depends on how you define "left-wing." That term has been used to describe everyone from Bill Clinton, a pro-corporate, capital-punishing, Baghdad-bombing president; all the way to Noam Chomsky, an anti-authoritarian socialist. We should rethink our use of these terms altogether.

These wings are big wings.

Run by big wigs.

One of them used to be run by big Whigs.

I make the obvious jokes so you don't have to.

Space Tycoon wrote:Depends on how you define "left-wing." That term has been used to describe everyone from Bill Clinton, a pro-corporate, capital-punishing, Baghdad-bombing president; all the way to Noam Chomsky, an anti-authoritarian socialist. We should rethink our use of these terms altogether.

I agree. They are almost past helpful now.

Oh, and Adam. You dear, sweet naive little leftist Estonian pudding.

So the situation unfolding in France today plays like a thrilling movie....... if it wasn't real and real people are dying.

After the magazine attack and the second attack, plus the robbing of the gas station with shots fired of the last couple of days, today has seen a high speed chase with shots fired that has ended up with the two guys from the first attack holed up with hostages in an industrial unit near CDG airport.

Meanwhile ANOTHER gunman reportedly has six hostages (five of them children) at gunpoint in a supermarket on the other side of town.

Bad times.

Haven't really been following it. I read one article on the day, but it was mostly facts. It was pretty light on editorial. Are pro-gun folk saying, "How could all these criminals in France possibly have *guns*? I thought guns were heavily regulated in France!"? Are the anti-gun folk saying this is different, listing the many ways this is different, and then accusing the pro-gun folk of changing the subject? Are the pro-gun folk responding to this by saying this could have been avoided if the cartoonists had their own guns? Are the anti-gun folk responding to this with statistics reinforcing the dangers of gun ownership in general?

Are some saying the only good Muslim is a dead Muslim, and are others responding to this by saying something about how all Muslims can't be blamed for the actions of some extremists? Is this point being counterpointed by the assertion that you can't trust any of the Muslims to be non-extremists because Islamic belief requires extremism of all Muslims, and because they've successfully integrated into/infiltrated Western society and are "passing"? Are they reinforcing this assertion with pictures of the Boston Marathon bombers in Western dress, followed by testimonials from those who knew the Boston Marathon bombers and had no idea they were extremists? Is this counterpoint being counterpointed with examples of Christian extremism and asking whether or not any Christians can be trusted?

Are some people saying all speech should be free, and are other people saying if you're going to play with a rattle snake, you're going to get bit? Are a few people responding to all this with "The issue is way more complicated than you're trying to make it!" and doing their best to peacekeep and approach things rationally?

Is that the way all this is playing out in articles' comment sections, or is the Democratic Western World temporarily unified in its dislike of the gunmen?

The Swollen Goiter of God wrote:Are some people saying all speech should be free, and are other people saying if you're going to play with a rattle snake, you're going to get bit?

Bill Maher was on some late night show and was insisting on precisely the point that all speech should be free.

I see why he as a comedian and satirist would defend that point, but one's right to exercise free speech should also be seen as a responsibility in the way that this right is exercised. I'm not saying that it's acceptable to kill people over cartoons, but that we should question whether the things we say are offensive to others. Just because one has the right to say these things doesn't mean that one absolutely needs to exercise it.

All good, fair and absolutely correct points Mal. However if one thinks that, in response to a cartoon they don't like, that the proportional response is walk into the publishers with an assault rifle and kill 12 people, then one is a cunt!

Even if that cartoon is Family Circus? Because that cartoon is really shitty.

Even Family Circus! Good God man, if we followed that logic, Seth McFarlane would be........ well, it wouldn't be pretty!