Domestic Terrorism/Public Attacks on CAF Personnel

[opcougar]

Wow.....Yes Christians in Canada and the US have been around for ever, but that hasn't stopped them from attacking planned parenthood etc. Yes we know what to expect, but is it right i.e. we should just rollover and accept it? In the same token, minorities have been around for ever in Canada, yet racism persists (subliminally and blatantly) in Canada.

You are right that we are influenced by images and what we hear / see in the media.....does that mean minorities need an active PR to ward off racists and xenophobes then???????

The difference is though, that Christians in Canada have been around for generations, so people know what to expect. Islam is new as a major western religion, and needs an active PR campaign to show what it's all about. I would expect the Canadian Jewish congress to stand up publicly against terrorism if they had a fundamentalist group suicide bombing, and cutting people's heads off that were non-believers. That's how western society works, we're so influenced by images we see in media, and so quick to tar everyone with the same brush, that an active campaign needs to be held to distance from the crazies. One only needs to look at the fear campaign against Harper and his Christian values. Social media would have made you believe he was going to personally bomb an abortion clinic.

 

[Jed]

Wow.....Yes Christians in Canada and the US have been around for ever, but that hasn't stopped them from attacking planned parenthood etc. Yes we know what to expect, but is it right i.e. we should just rollover and accept it? In the same token, minorities have been around for ever in Canada, yet racism persists (subliminally and blatantly) in Canada.

You are right that we are influenced by images and what we hear / see in the media.....does that mean minorities need an active PR to ward off racists and xenophobes then???????

I think you are bass akwards on this. Thanks to the BS Media the common person needs PR to ward off those that call ordinary folk racists and xenophobes.

 

[opcougar]

"ordinary folks"...is that how we refer to people who can see past colour now? I think you know what am talking about, and just trying to shy away from reality. By the sound of things, you seem to think Canadian society is full of people that just get along???? Right, and then we all wake up

I think you are bass akwards on this. Thanks to the BS Media the common person needs PR to ward off those that call ordinary folk racists and xenophobes.

 

[vonGarvin]

Wow.....Yes Christians in Canada and the US have been around for ever, but that hasn't stopped them from attacking planned parenthood etc.

These "attacks" are largely just vocal opposition to a group that performs legally protected homicide.
There are a few cases of arson and murder, but these are mostly years ago and are the exception and not the norm. Typical "attackers" are people like the woman who is constantly jailed for silently protesting at abortion "clinics". To compare their opposition to planned parenthood to the acts of Muslim terrorists is shady at best and blatant lying at worst.

Instead use the IRA as an example, or that Catholic terrorist Guy Fawkes. 

 

[opcougar]

Vocal...where have you been living; you haven't heard of petrol bombs, graffiti , etc?

These "attacks" are largely just vocal opposition to a group that performs legally protected homicide.
There are a few cases of arson and murder, but these are mostly years ago and are the exception and not the norm. Typical "attackers" are people like the woman who is constantly jailed for silently protesting at abortion "clinics". To compare their opposition to planned parenthood to the acts of Muslim terrorists is shady at best and blatant lying at worst.

Instead use the IRA as an example, or that Catholic terrorist Guy Fawkes.

 

[Brad Sallows]

If you have a hard time seeing a distinction, think about the number of provocative people willing to openly slag Christianity and the number willing to openly slag Islam.

Domestic terrorism takes many forms, with varying objectives.  But most eco-terrorists and hardcore pro-lifers  and separatists/nationalists aren't a danger to uniformed soldiers (or most other agents of the state, except when the terrorists are cornered).  Furthermore, most - nearly all - past terrorism in Canada supported specific aims and was fairly narrowly targeted.  This idea that we should never feel safe because disenchanted losers recruited to the cause could run amok at any time is novel.

 

[opcougar]

Mate...the problem is Christianity gets slagged by other Christians let alone other faiths. A terrorist is just that period...lets not start nit picking and saying it's OK for one form and not the other. This is akin to stealing and burglary....is it OK to shoplift vice break into a home? Both should deserve the same punishment regardless...period.

 

[c_canuk]

I know this comment was made nearly a year ago, but I can't let it lie. It's pretty offensive for you to expect that a certain people conduct themselves a certain way in order to not be lumped in with the extremists of any group, religion, classification, or organization to which they belong. You might be Christian, for example, but I don't expect you to speak out against the loony tunes who harass women outside sexual health clinics to prove you're not one of them.

I've seen time and time again people posting in these very forums, referring directly to pieces of legislation which instruct us that persons are innocent until proven guilty. Expecting Muslims to meet your standard of behaviour goes against this.

"It is sad that they waited this long"? No one was looking for this message before the media sought it out. What's really sad is that they feel they have to do this to not be seen negatively. Anyone with half a brain knows that what Middle Eastern terrorists are doing and preaching is a bastardisation of Islam that is unrecognisable to Muslims.

horse shit, any time someone pulls something despicable in the name of Christianity all social media is full of Christians loudly announcing "THIS IS NOT WHAT WE STAND FOR!"

Anytime a Christian leader says something prejudiced and discriminatory you will see a huge debate in public if that person has a point or not, and you will find the majority of people are freely open about mocking them and dismissing their beliefs as not representative of the majority.

If someone comes forward and does something heinous in the name of your chosen group of associates, regardless of their name, it is your duty and responsibility to come forward and loudly proclaim "THIS IS NOT WHAT WE STAND FOR!" regardless of what the name of your org is.

If we don't know where you stand when something happens, and you don't clarify, we have to assume you have no strong feelings one way or another.

If you don't protect your trademark, someone will appropriate it for their own needs. The assumption is that if you don't assert your control over your trademark, you are giving consent.

Deal with it.

 

[a_majoor]

Ultimately, the objective of terrorism is about power. Power over the population, power to force changes to the policy of governments and even power to overthrow the State (often the stated aim of the terrorist groups, even if there are huge gaps in their abilities to do so).

Historically, terrorism has been conducted under all kinds of flags and in the name of virtually every religion, ideology and idea imaginable. Probably the main difference b between today and the past is people are far more empowered, so individuals have access to information and equipment that would be unimaginable to even '70's era groups like the Red Army Faction, the FLQ or the Badder-Meinhoff Gang. In relative terms, the State is weaker vis a vis terrorists (much like the decaying Russian Empire was wracked by terrorist groups in the 1800's), giving then that much more of an edge.

So blaming religion or other ideas is stopping short of where the real issue is: people who are looking for ways to achieve power outside of existing social, economic and political structures. The fact they can wrap themselves in various flags or cloak their actions with rhetorical devices is just a way to justify their actions to the larger audience and perhaps gain adherents to the cause. Discrediting the ideologies or "causes" is an important step, isolating the active members from possible resources and support, but in the end, it does not take too many people to put us at risk (one might contemplate that the British Army was engaged in a long running war with the PIRA from the "Troubles" in the 1960's until 2007, and it was estimated that the PIRA's active shooters only numbered about 250 altogether).

 

[jollyjacktar]

I know this comment was made nearly a year ago, but I can't let it lie. It's pretty offensive for you to expect that a certain people conduct themselves a certain way in order to not be lumped in with the extremists of any group, religion, classification, or organisation to which they belong. You might be Christian, for example, but I don't expect you to speak out against the loony tunes who harass women outside sexual health clinics to prove you're not one of them.

I've seen time and time again people posting in these very forums, referring directly to pieces of legislation which instruct us that persons are innocent until proven guilty. Expecting Muslims to meet your standard of behaviour goes against this.

"It is sad that they waited this long"? No one was looking for this message before the media sought it out. What's really sad is that they feel they have to do this to not be seen negatively. Anyone with half a brain knows that what Middle Eastern terrorists are doing and preaching is a bastardisation of Islam that is unrecognisable to Muslims.

If the adherents of any particular faith/belief system can get out in the streets to shout and decry cartoons or what is offending them from an outsider, then they can do the same for what is offensive from within.  It cuts both ways.  Fair or not, it appears some are all to ready to wail about the one side and keep mum on the other.  The silence is seen by some as a silent approval.

 

[ArmyRick]

I think thucydides hit the nail right on the head!

Terrorism is about gaining and retaining power. I do not believe for a second that those at the top of the whole Islamic state are truly driven by "some religious calling"  but rather a grab for control of populations. Chances are they whip up a frenzy of anger and excitement amongst people living in desperation or as I watched on a BBC documentary, IS was detaining and brainwashing children. They also had a nice display of heads stuck on poles in the streets and then claimed to be "functioning normally". Right.

To sum it up, I think the leaders use religion/or whatever cause they want to recruit/force the desperate to fight and die for them.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Thucydides is only partially correct. Terrorism is a tactic ... it is a tactic normally favoured by the weak because it is cheap, simple and, sometimes, effective. As the organizations employing terrorism become more powerful they, usually, adopt other, better tactics. Consider, as a good example, the Viet Minh: from mid 1941, when they were formed they employed terrorism against the French, from 1942 to 45 they employed the same tactics but expanded into guerrilla warfare against the Japanese and then against the French again, but by 1954 the Viet Minh army that defeated the French at Dien Bien Phu was just that, an army, which, later, resorting, sometimes, again to guerrilla tactics, met, engaged and, arguably, beat the US in the Viet Nam War.

The move from terror to guerrilla to convention warfare tactics, and back again, as necessary, is a measure of the relative strengths of the contending parties.

 

[Loachman]

the loony tunes who harass women outside sexual health clinics

Who is more "loony" - those who protest against organized mass-murder of the innocent, or those who wilfully participate?

One party with a pretty valid interest in the "Pro-Choice" argument gets absolutely no choice whatsoever, just death.

Rather a hypocritical selection of movement name - just like "Liberal" or "Progressive".

 

[Jed]

Thucydides is only partially correct. Terrorism is a tactic ... it is a tactic normally favoured by the weak because it is cheap, simple and, sometimes, effective. As the organizations employing terrorism become more powerful they, usually, adopt other, better tactics. Consider, as a good example, the Viet Minh: from mid 1941, when they were formed they employed terrorism against the French, from 1942 to 45 they employed the same tactics but expanded into guerrilla warfare against the Japanese and then against the French again, but by 1954 the Viet Minh army that defeated the French at Dien Bien Phu was just that, an army, which, later, resorting, sometimes, again to guerrilla tactics, met, engaged and, arguably, beat the US in the Viet Nam War.

The move from terror to guerrilla to convention warfare tactics, and back again, as necessary, is a measure of the relative strengths of the contending parties.

So as an extention of this thought, where a less powerful, but more determined force like the Viet Cong can take down a very powerful, but internally divided force like the USA Military.

Maybe we should be taking very hard line approaches to forces like ISIL to protect our own country of Canada similar to the way Israel takes on their Enemies?

I do believe ISIL is starting to project beyond the middle East. The Western world should annilate them now before they become powerful.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Maybe we should be taking very hard line approaches to forces like ISIL to protect our own country of Canada similar to the way Isreal takes on their Enemies?

I like the new spelling of the name for the tiny, tough nation state. Pretty much reflects their reality when the roof knocker comes calling:    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roof_knocking ; https://youtu.be/n7VqGMMpMPI

 

[opcougar]

So kinda like Racism then i.e. the "objective is about power"????

As for the other poster that said...if someone from a certain group does something heinous, the group they belong to should come forward and separate themselves from it. When was the last time majorities spoke out about racist cops beating / kicking / punching a minority?

Ultimately, the objective of terrorism is about power. Power over the population, power to force changes to the policy of governments and even power to overthrow the State (often the stated aim of the terrorist groups, even if there are huge gaps in their abilities to do so).

Historically, terrorism has been conducted under all kinds of flags and in the name of virtually every religion, ideology and idea imaginable. Probably the main difference b between today and the past is people are far more empowered, so individuals have access to information and equipment that would be unimaginable to even '70's era groups like the Red Army Faction, the FLQ or the Badder-Meinhoff Gang. In relative terms, the State is weaker vis a vis terrorists (much like the decaying Russian Empire was wracked by terrorist groups in the 1800's), giving then that much more of an edge.

So blaming religion or other ideas is stopping short of where the real issue is: people who are looking for ways to achieve power outside of existing social, economic and political structures. The fact they can wrap themselves in various flags or cloak their actions with rhetorical devices is just a way to justify their actions to the larger audience and perhaps gain adherents to the cause. Discrediting the ideologies or "causes" is an important step, isolating the active members from possible resources and support, but in the end, it does not take too many people to put us at risk (one might contemplate that the British Army was engaged in a long running war with the PIRA from the "Troubles" in the 1960's until 2007, and it was estimated that the PIRA's active shooters only numbered about 250 altogether).

 

[c_canuk]

So kinda like Racism then i.e. the "objective is about power"????

As for the other poster that said...if someone from a certain group does something heinous, the group they belong to should come forward and separate themselves from it. When was the last time majorities spoke out about racist cops beating / kicking / punching a minority?

I'm not sure what you're asking, but the answer is, every time it happens.

if you are implying otherwise, I don't know what to tell you.

In every accusation of police brutality people from all race creed and colour come together to most emphatically state, "THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE, THIS IS NOT WHAT WE STAND FOR"

If you are implying otherwise, I dont' know what to tell you. Come out of your cave and join reality once in a while maybe?

 

[ArmyRick]

opcougar, care to back up your statement? Examples? Specifics?

 

[Jarnhamar]

When was the last time majorities spoke out about racist cops beating / kicking / punching a minority?

:

 

[opcougar]

Is that why the cops end up on leave with pay, only to get their job back after another police body concludes that it was just? If what you say is really true, then perhaps majority should join demonstrations like "Black lives matter", and ask for racist cops to be fired.

I'm not sure what you're asking, but the answer is, every time it happens.

if you are implying otherwise, I don't know what to tell you.

In every accusation of police brutality people from all race creed and colour come together to most emphatically state, "THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE, THIS IS NOT WHAT WE STAND FOR"

If you are implying otherwise, I dont' know what to tell you. Come out of your cave and join reality once in a while maybe?