Terrorism in Canada

freestyler540

freestyler540

Active member
As we all know (if you didn't well listen up) 4 Muslim teenagers had the intention of blowing up the parlement, attacking and kidnapping parlement members and killing our prime minister.

I hear both sides: "they are kids with nothing else to do" and "We should lock them up for life without parol".

Then, when watching documenteries on CBC, all they talk about is fear. One reporter tried to rationalise with the failiure of multi-culturism and social suppression that leads to extremism. Then, I hear a bunch of other Muslims that say they are a minority and their religion forbids them for violent action. A man blows up behind them screaming the name of Allah.

And then we get the fucked up solutions: kill all muslims, created an anti-muslim partie in defend our culture, ban religion in all (except Christianism) ect...

Well I guess this did turn into a rant. But, my point is that the media is turning this story to a horror story, people are becoming paranoid and the media can't get enough of it.We all agree something must be done, but what? If we done something, it will aggravate the situation, but if we do nothing, the situation could get worse.

great, this has become a third world war.

 
why would anyone want to attach canada? thats just a waste of suicide bommers.

nah, jk. but yeah, all muslims should be killed if they don't become....well, actually christianity is also fucked, so lets all become atheist.
 
im not very political but when it comes to terrorism in my home country even provence i take great offence to it. so i think we should get capitol punishment back and hang the people involved on parliment hill for every one to see
 
their attacking canada because they want the canadian soldiers out of iraq.

and also there were more than 4 people who wanted to raise terror upon canada. it was 4 people of the 17 who were captured. their plot was to bomb the parliament buildings, the CBC building in toronto, take many politians hostage and behead Steven Harper.

its not really much a matter of religion. it does play a roll as to their beliefs. it is said that in iraq during many of the shootings they were screaming "we love god, we love allah" (obviously in their language). i personaly think its blasphemy to say such a thing it cant be part of any religion to terrorize innocent people.

but for the matter of canada, the terrorists are here trying to get the canadian soldiers out of iraq. this is my point of view anyway if i missed something just say so
 
oops my bad. yea i knew that im typing this during business class while the teacher is talking. warped my mind a little
 
Incase you havn't noticed, it is the medias tendency to blow things out of proportion. Also, what most people dont acknowlege is that the media always shows one view of the story it is reporting. This is how every media source you look at will be bias in one direction or another. In the US, 90% of the media is liberal, so everything reported is going to be pointing out the weaknesses in conservativism, and never the flaws of liberalism. This is why there is such a large anti-Bush population in the US, because people listen to the liberal media and beleive everything it says, leaving out all the strengths of the President, which are greater than those of liberal presidents in the past 20 years. It is the same in Canada. I don't live there, so I may not be correct about this, but the media in Canada is generally bias in one direction like the US media. It may not be the same direction, but the bias exists. What you're hearing on the news and in the news papers is what they want to tell you, and they could very well be leaving out a huge peice of information about the story that the media left out because they felt it shoots down their side of the government.
 
ya, canada is a nice country that doesnt start stupid wars for oil. i wish the terrorists would send the suicide bombers at bush
 
in the words of Maynard james keenan, "everything you read or wear, see or hear on tv is a product begging for your fat ass dirty dollar."

The news media today is fighting just as hard for ratings as your average sit com. what i am saying is you have to think what is the news selling? advertising minutes, the more people watch there more that network can make selling advertising. So you must take all news with a grain of salt, there will always be some exageration or sensationalism add to keep the viewer atentive.

i am not say that everthing is blown out of porportion but just realize (if only in the back of your mind) what is the news selling you. then you can take in the information and make your own opinions.

there is my deep thought for the day.
 
you see thats the wrong ay to go about it, those people cant rationalise... attacking canada just makes me want to go in there and show then that suicide bombings cant to shit... the great thing about going into war now is that the rules of engagement have changed... now if you feel threatoned you cant shoot to immobalize... where as before you couldn't soot untill they shot, becasue of new things like suicide bombers, and so on and so forth... but attacking canada is their worst misteak, because every country has deplomacy towards canada, and we have every other country behind our back. so as for the person that said it is going to be WW3 you may be right... as that philosipher wrote it will be a war to end all wars not neccisarely the end of the world, but the world will soon be at peace as it should be, either lifeless, or as one.
 
Time out...think about what you are saying. If the media was 90% liberal, why do we have so many republicans? You really shouldn't make assumptions loosely based on a concept that is opinionated by many people. Sure the media is biased, but they don't all talk bad about Bush. The STORIES they present are Bush's mistakes (he has made quite a bit of them). I would also like to point out that the geographic reason has a huge impact on whether the media is liberal or not. You can't group a whole corporation as being "liberal". They are simply people looking for a good story. A media corporation isn't "liberal" or "conservative" they are a corporation, not a political character.
 
the US media on a whole has a huge liberal bias, ther are a few standouts such as fox news ( but fox is farther to the right then cnn is to the left) you have to be aware of its bias as well. its well well known and documented that most of the media is liberally slanted, so it is not ones opinions but well documented. i actually took a entire class on this very topic in college. when i get home i will look up all the studies and document them for you.

the point is it is for the the viewer to enterperate the actuall news from propoganda the validity from the sensationalized.
 
slanted, biased its the same thing. which ever way you want to say it, most of the US media is liberaly swayed.

here is how the networks rank

left ------to-----Right

CNN,CBS,-ABC,---NBC,----------Fox news

lets take a look at two most biased in particular CNN, and FOX

CNN was started by hippy pinko Ted Turner is it any wonder that they have the most liberal biased of them all.

FOX started by mr starches his underwear Rupert Murdock who macks Rush limbaugh seem like a moderate.

but at the heart is why is most of the media have a liberal stance stems from the first amendment. Freedom of the press, speech. and all of the other indidual's rights that extend off of the 1st amendment. is it really a stretch to see that journalizm is in it self a profession that tends to attract people with a more liberal mindset?

so yes the media has a liberal bias. is it right? should they be more moderate to fairly inform the genral public? that my friend i feel should be the more important debate, not whether or not they have a liberal slant or not.
 
yes could you do that? i always hear so much about the liberal media, but this is usually from people that like to make shit up (the guy who said 90% is liberal).
 
The bigger issue is that everything about our cultures and laws (canada and the us) is aligned to make us perfectly vulnerable to a minority of a religion that wants to do terrible things.
 
Exactly, and the liberal media can also be seen in most of the countryes news papers as well, ie the New York Times. They tend to point out the presidents mistakes ofer his stong points, however many mistakes he has made. Can you honestly say that after listening to and reading all the stories adn articles on the president thatyou have heard more about the good thing he has dont then the bad? No, you cant, and if the president had actually done more bad then good then this country would be noticable falling into the gutter. Another thing to point out is that a large portion of the country is not smart at all. This can be seen in those random interviews on the street where they ask people who the vice president is, where iraq is, who the political figure in a given picture is, and all are answered incorrectly. These "not very smart people" are the ones who take everything the media says to heart. i.e. The 42 year old female columnest from D.C. who had sex with her husband and forgot to put in the diaphram. She then got pregnant and supposidly "looked everywhere for an abortion doctor" but couldn't find one (planned parenthood is in EVERY major US city and is open 24-7). She then wrote an article in the Washington Post blaming Bush for everything that happened to her, complaining that Bush did away with the abortion clinics so she was forced to have an unwanted baby. The truth of the matter is that Bush has only talked about abortion, and not done anything about it (pro or anti). It was her fault that she didnt use protection and her fault she couldnt get an abortion, but since she wrote an article about it, all those "not very smart Americans" read this and all the undersrtand is "Bush is bad".

And dont say I make things up as i go along, thats not true. 90% may have been an exageration, but the general idea of it is true.
 
you think the terrorists care that every country has canadas back? they dont give 2 shits their terrorists they dont even care about their own lives. they believe allah will provide them salvation for their lives (this is actually true). it is the reason they said they were in canada and it is perfectly legit. why else would they be in there? canada did nothing to them...until now. now that they sent troops into afganistan...coincidence? i think not.
 
why should canada as a country stay out of peoples business? i personally disagree with any war or form of violence, but canada's mission in Afghanistan is important, i think many of us forgeet or were too young when canada first went into Afghanistan, to realise what the taliban government was like. similarly i believe that the US mission in Iraq is important, it isnt for oil because oil is traded at the international market price regardless of who the country is controlled by. Nobody can argue that Hussein was a bad person. and do i think the US should have gotten a UN sanction, yes, should they have made up BS about WMDs, no. they should have moved soldiers in, not gone around to try and find Saddam, they should have supplied aid. they should have created a revolution now a war, similar to what they did in Iran in the 50s (it might have been the 60s i dont remember), only that didnt work out too well because they abandoned the country after they created a secular democracy, and without the US support it turned back into a facist muslim state. war itself is bad, but as the a wealthiest and most privledged society on earth we have an obligation to help those less fortunate...

If you say we should stay out of other countries' business, i would like to look at your wardrobe and see how many of your cloths were made in sweatshops vs. how many were made locally in canada, and i wonder if you dont eat fruit all winter because you only eat organic local food. so before anyone says we should not go around fixing other peoples problems maybe think for a minute that we may actually be the problem.
 
Well there is a reason you see more about the bad things the president has done than good things. It's because the bad things far outweigh the good. One thing the media does do is use facts (most of the time), and if the facts point to the conclusion that the president has done more bad than good, then that's what will be shown. Sure the president has done some good things, but he has done many monstrously bad things that can't be balanced out with a tax cut or visit with the troops.

Besides, is it the media's job to constantly praise the government? No, it's (in part) to criticize and point out things using facts, even the bad. That's why it's referred to as the fourth branch of government, because it's a check on the other three.
 
Ok, the premise that the media mostly shows bush doing bad things cannot lead to the conclusion that 90% or any percent of the media is liberal. Conservatives would bash a conservative president if he was still a bad President. Further more, the premise that one has heard more bad things than good cannot lead to the conclusion that the media has a liberal bias. Again... If Bush did bad things that doesn’t mean the whole country would fall apart, it would mean he has done some bad things.

Your last example is just one case that can be found that proves there are some stupid things in the media but much like the rest of your statements proves nothing.
 
one of my frieds girl frieds is a muslim. if you didnt know her you wouldnt expect it. she wears all of the same clothes that the rest of the girls wear and she looks like everyone else. just her parents are really protective.
 
You are a perfect example of my point. What you said is exactly what the liberal media wants you to beleive, but if it were true then Bush would have been impeached, or the country would be falling under in a noticable manner. All of the "bad" things he has done are seen as bad by the liberal media and translated to you this way.

i.e The phone tapping: Americas public was told by the media that it is an invasion of privacy. The truth however is that there are significant background checks preformed before any ohone is tapped into, and it is tapped into to ensure the US security. In looking at the results of the program including the arrests and convictions made, top US officials, including some left wing ones have agreed that it was a success.

Katrina: How the fuck is that Bush's fault? I still dont understand that one. Yet the media is telling you it is.

Iraq: The US had full premise to go into Iraq under suspision of nuclear weapon possesion or creation. I wrote a 12 page research paper on this, so trust me. All the other countries currently in Afganastan (Canada, UK, Russia, France, Germany) have been paid off by Sadaam to not get involved there.

Abortion: He hasnt done anything wrong here because he hasnt touched the subject, merely talked about it.

If you want me to continue the list of alleged bad decisions or make a list of good decisions, let me know.
 
Get off NS and go to fox news.

just kidding.

the government should not be allowed to tap phones.. i dont give a damn what they think this person will do, nobody has the right to listen to what another person wants to say without permission.

But i dont think they blamed katrina on Bush, i dont know what news stations you watch but i watch cnn all the time and not once have i heard them blame katrina on bush. maybe the fact that there should be more aid, with the cost of one cruise missile the government could get every katrina victim shelter and food. that is a common criticism, but they do not blame the weather on the president you silly right winger you.

and the country is falling in a noticable manner.. look at the value of the american dollar, it has been going down retardedly fast faster than the canadian dollar did in the 90s.

your right about all the other countries being payed off by saddam to not go into iraq. i am ashamed to be canadian after my government was payed off by such a bad man.

^^^I am sorry but after saying something like that, the mods should give you an IP ban, that was by far the dumbest thing i have ever encountered.

I dont think many people rip on bush for his views on abortion. i think when the topic comes up it is generally said by the media that bush said "blah blah abortion blah" and it is left at that.
 
May I ask why you don't agree with acts of violence? It is impossible to avoid violence. Unfortunately we could never fight a war over rock paper scissors or something, because war is the ultimatium of competition. There is no more extreme. If you lose, you lose. If you lose in rock, paper, scissors, you will take it to the next level if you lose...it's human nature.

The Taliban government was completely elaborated into being "terrorists" by media and other US point of population sources. The Taliban wasn't who we thought they were. They were a newly formed government that won a civil war. Yes, they may have suppourted terrorists. We also had no substantial proof they did, but what does the world care...they don't have a voice. Think about how America won the Revolutionary War...it certainly wasn't by traditional means. We scraped, hid in trees, behind rocks, and in houses. I believe the Taliban was a whole wrong place, wrong time scenario. I don't think we should have directed our force specifically at them without proclaiming our interest in just Osama and Al Qaeda's deaths.

Sure oil is traded at an international market price. That's why we have something called free trade. Hey, now that we established your police force Iraq, we can trade you some guns for oil.

What we did in Iran in the 50's is TOTALLY the opposite of what we are doing in Iraq now. This is what put our relationship in jeopardy. We suppourted a dictatorship and the deaths of thousands of innocent Iranians. They WERE in a revolution, and we intervened on the wrong side (what's new). The Iranian people wanted us to leave. They wanted a "free" land. The imperialistic British that controlled Iran at the time were abusing Iranian people for their oil. The Iranian people won their revolution, and we installed the Shah as a monarchy. This is a huge factor in why present-day Iran hates us.
 
Bush has not gotten impeached because there is a republican majority in congress. Your assertion that the country would be falling under noticeably is not very logical, although it could be debated that it is falling under.

phone tapping: That is one side to the story, but the bottom line is this: Bush broke the law, and lied about it. Whether or not domestic wiretapping is a justifiable thing to do, it is against the law if there is no warrant (if they did extensive background research then a warrant should be easy enough to get). Bush could have easily done this legally, or if there was significant reason (of which I see none) not to obtain warrants, then he should have proposed a bill to congress. What he is doing is setting a precedent for other presidents. If Bush is allowed to domestically spy with no evidence, then so is every other president yet to be elected. A success or no, this is a breach of American freedoms and should not go uncorrected. And, no, this isn't the liberal media speaking.

Katrina: The hurricane is not Bush's fault. That's just a stickman republicans use to defend their side. It's the response to Katrina that was so horrible. A president who won the election based on the promise that he could protect Americans better than his opponent should really do a better job giving aid to Americans in need of protection, don't you think? The response was absolutely horrifying. Blame Bush, blame FEMA, blame Nagan. None of them were able to step up and help. They talk and don't execute. That's what bothers people about Katrina.

Iraq: That one is debatable. I know that the administration cherrypicked evidence for WMD. They, in many cases, used uncredible sources which were countered by many very credible other sources. The UN weapons inspectors found nothing. There was someone from the UN who came to my school before the invasion and said (although I didn't see him speak) that the US will not find any WMD in Iraq. I haven't heard about the bribery before, maybe you could elaborate more.

Abortion: You're right. It's an election topic that he won't do anything about. Same as gay marriage. Maybe that's why so many people are against Bush now. Not because of the liberal media, but because of his inability to execute the platforms they voted for him on. Why else would so many poor people vote against their interests?

I would like a list of good decisions, if you don't mind. I'd like to hear about these good stories that the liberal media is keeping us away from.
 
Phone Tapping: There is no truth, or right in this matter. If I feel it is a violation of my privacy, then it's a violation of my privacy. No one can tell me what does and doesn't violate my privacy. That is an OPINION. Yes, it may have been used for terrorists, criminals, etc. This doesn't mean it is not an invasion of privacy to other people.

Katrina: Essentially, the hurricane is not Bush's fault. It's the clean up and lack of aid that people blame on him. While I do agree that's why we have people who have jobs for these things. I'm jsut looking at it from the other side (you need to do that too).

No...Iraq was not about nuclear weapons. It was about Weapons of Mass Destruction. WMD's can be scuds, bio-bombs, chemical weapons, etc. You couldn't be more wrong. Saddam did not pay people off. Iraq has been a long term oil trader with most of the world. This is not "paying" them off. The UK had placed a trade embargo on pre-existant Iraqi trade.

Yeah, he hasn't made any laws about abortion...to my knowledge.

I would love to hear some more of your defending statements.
 
who would want to attack canada, they dont do shit to anyone, i mean they barely have an army
 
Phone Tapping: I don't think you are aware of what they did. They didn't "tap" phones. They simply located calls to certain numbers. While I agree it is invasion of privacy, they technically didn't "tap" phones. They didn't listen in on conversations.

Katrina: That is not Bush's job. Sure he has say in it, but there are people hired for these kinds of natural disasters.

Iraq: We did use credible sources. We used our on CIA documented files. We funded WMD'S for Iraq, while we destroyed most of them in the Persian Gulf War, some still remained. We just gave them too much of a forewarning. They had over a month before weapons inspectors arrived on scene. This is why there are numerous accounts of mass trucks heading into Syria.
 
yo... why dont i agree with acts of violence??? good fucking question. dipshit why the fuck do you think i disagree with violence, obviously there are times it is neccesary but in iraq it most definaetly wasnt, especially considering that the rest of the UN said it wasnt.

I didnt say the taliban was a group of terrorists, not once, my point was that they are very against womens rights and were a religiously oriented government, and i personally disagree with laws being made from a book such as the bible or quran. that is why i beleive that they should not have been allowed to stay in power because outdated religious laws are very sexist, and againt those of other beliefs.

and oil being traded at an international market price is not why there is free trade.. maybe you should take an economics course before you debate about these sorts of things, and after the international market price comment i made you still go on to follow common mis conception that the US will trade guns for oil.. which again goes against what i just stated about trade at an international market price which is how i know you have never studied international economics.

I said that what the US should have done was what was done in Iran.. you just bitched at me for saying that what the US is doing is the opposite of what happened in Iran... NO KIDDING THATS WHAT I FUCKING SAID. so i am glad you agree woth me on that point.

PS- i am not american
 
Phone Tapping: Does that change what I said at all? That is still an unreasonable search or seizure. I was aware of what they did, wiretapping is just the common word everyone uses to describe the case.

Katrina: Bush's job is to protect the American people. It is his responsibility as to whether the people he hired and the things he set up do their job.

Iraq: I'll believe you when we find weapons in Syria. I'm positive we have people looking right now.
 
i think that it is important to note that these muslim terroists, or revolutionaires planning to attack Canada where born in canada. This means that they are unhappy about something, or just fucked in the head, i would really liek to know more of what they wrere thinking about and why they wnat to do these things.
 
Dude you lost all credibilty with that statement. go do your homework on the Taliban before you type any more grabage.
 
What strikes me as amazing is how ever some of the most right winged americans dont really know why they went to war in Iraq.

there are no WMDs and there havent been for quite some time, if you want to know why your country is at was look up a rightwing think tank located in washington DC, it is called "New Americn Century", basically every high ranking Republican is a member of this think tank. and its not that they are war mongering evil doers (ok maybe dick cheney), but they just think that what they are doing will save the world. so before all you right wing americans go defending your president about his lies, realize what he is actually doing, the lies were to make the left wing people and the general public argee with what he was doing. anyone who is truely right wing will know the real reason your country is at war.

so i am generally considered left wing, even as far as canadians go, but i am sick of all you right wingers backing up a lie, if you want to be right wing and fuck over the world for your personall benefit thats your decision, but at least know that facts.
 
First off: Chill the fuck out.

This is exactly what you said "i personally disagree with any war or form of violence"

That is exactly what I promulgated my argument to. Unless you emant something else (which surely wasn't shown with that steatement" I can't accept any form of tyraid against my argument.

"to realise what the taliban government was like."

This is exactly what I said. I said what the Taliban government was like. I wasn't stating your opinion on the matter, just mine. That's great you disagree with their society, but it's not germane to what I was saying.

Misconception that we trade guns for oil? My god...would you like me to state all the known times we have established weapons agreements for discounted/free oil? Well let's see we did it for Kuwait in the 90's. We also did it for Saudi Arabia for god know's how long. I don't need to take an economics class to debate on such incomplicated manners like this. I did not state oil was the reason for free trade. I said that's why we have something called free trade. As in side deals of TRADING items FREELY for other items. IE...guns for oil. I find it funny that you insult my economic knowledge over your misconception of my statements.

Chill out again, I may have misinterperated what you said. I'm pretty sure I'll let that one slide, but your logistics on that one are very confsuing.

Doesn't matter if you are American or not...I'm not trying to belittle you, I'm just playing devil's advocate and enrich your argument potentiol.
 
im so glad someone is trying to keep this tread on topic...

i agree with you. i personally just think they did it for attention, i mean its not hard to buy fertilizer. i also think they are a little fucked on the head... its kind of how associating with black people and listening to jazz music was bad becuase thats what was displayed in the media as bad, now terrorism is bad so kids will pretend to do that for attention and stuff.. although i think this particular situation goes quite alot deeper than that.
 
Phone: Yes it does phone tapping is generally stated as "listening in" I didn't mean to say it wasn't wrong. I was just making sure you knew they were watching numbers called and not listening in.

Katrina: In a sense yes, but it's also the responsibilty of a CEO to make sure his company follows all the laws, but he has people that do that for him. Just like Bush's case.

Iraq: There is NO doubt that there are WMD's in Syria. Now the potetency of the WMD's may be low, but they are still WMD's and exist. It's very hard to search weapon facilities in Syria, but I'm sure we'll get something soon.
 
On what grounds are you accusing my credibility? Please state why it is "garbage".

I could sit here all day and say "you are dumb and have no clue what you're talking about", but with no facts you are the one that needs to go do your homework. It is apparent when you make statements like that.
 
I think our immigration laws need to be amped up. I mean they keep discovering terrorists and we keep having this image has a mosaic rather than the US melting pot. We need a melting pot instead of letting all these dam terrorists into our country
 
im not saying either of you are correct, because he didnt exactly say anything about the taliban that could be considered factual.. however i have also seen you argue things that you dont know alot about.

like asking me to provide reasons as to why i disagree with violence.

quite frankly if someone agrees with violence they are sick and require professional help.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top