123

Pierre Poilievre commits sociology on the floor of the House of Commons

The Conservative MP engages the debate about root causes


 

Yesterday, hours after the Prime Minister had said that now was not the time to commit sociology, Pierre Poilievre opined on television that “the root causes of terrorism is terrorists.” This comment caused a bit of a stir and so, this morning, Mr. Poilievre stood just before Question Period to respond to that stir.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, a small army of Liberal pseudo-intellectuals had a collective spasm after I said that terrorists are the cause of terrorism. The Liberal leader had touched off the debate when he said that the Boston bombings happened because someone “feels completely excluded.”

However, were the Tsarnaev brothers excluded? The United States included them by giving sheltering their family with formal asylum from the wartorn Dagestan . The younger terrorist was included in equality education at a state of the art school, which boasts an amazing 11:1 student to teacher ratio, after which, the city gave him a $2,500 scholarship. America also included the older terrorist, Tamerlan , with a taxpayer funded welfare benefit that continued even after the main U.S. counterterrorism agency had added him to its watch list.

Excluding these facts is not the mark of a nuanced intellectual, but of an ideologue who is in over his head. Let us follow the facts, not Liberal ideology, and let us target the root cause of terrorism. They are called terrorists.

The reciting of these facts for the purposes of considering the lives and livelihoods of the Tsarnaev brothers would likely be enough to get someone convicted on a charge of committing sociology. And so as to avoid committing the same crime, one should probably not engage Mr. Poilievre’s consideration: Mr. Poilievre’s words might be treated as one would a dangerous suspect on the loose (do not attempt to apprehend, but seek shelter and contact local law enforcement immediately).

But for the sake of not excluding facts, here is a report of the Los Angeles Times.

Tamerlan Tsarnaev, 26, and Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev, 19, came to America from central Asia about a decade ago and appeared to have embraced their new life — attending school, holding jobs, playing sports and, in the older brother’s case, aspiring to represent the United States as a boxer in the Olympics. But there were signs of discontent from the two suspects in the Boston Marathon bombings.

“I don’t have a single American friend, I don’t understand them,” Tamerlan Tsarnaev said, as reported in an online photo essay that shows him training for a boxing competition. Their aunt, Maret Tsarnaev of Toronto, told Canada’s CTV the two were “very normal men,” but also said Tamerlan Tsarnaev “seemingly did not find himself yet in America because it’s not easy.”

And a man who lived in the same Cambridge neighborhood as the brothers and speaks Russian said the older one told him “he was upset with America because America was in Afghanistan and other Muslim countries.” The man, who declined to give his name, added, “Should I have called someone to tell them this guy doesn’t like America? I’m having second thoughts.”

Here is the BBC.

By many accounts, Tsarnaev was a loner with flashes of anger. People at the mosque on Prospect Street, where he used to come alone to pray, found him difficult. Once, says Nichole Mossalam, who works for the Islamic Society of Boston, he became outraged during a sermon. “The person giving the sermon made a comparison between Martin Luther King and the Prophet,” Ms Mossalam says. “He made a verbal outburst.”

Here is Reuters.

But about three years ago, Tsnarnaev abruptly dropped off the scene. He removed his Facebook page. Vasquez no longer saw him around the streets. “He kind of disconnected himself,” Vasquez said. He asked mutual friends if they had seen Tsarnaev, if they knew what he was up to. Some said they had heard he went back to Russia. But no one had details. No one knew he had married or had a child.

And here is the New York Times.

After Mr. Tsarnaev’s visit to Dagestan and Chechnya, signs of alienation emerged. One month after he returned to the United States, a YouTube page that appeared to belong to him was created and featured jihadist videos.

Did exclusion or alienation lead Tamerlan Tsarnaev to detonate a bomb that killed and maimed his fellow human beings? I have no idea. The Wall Street Journal and Anne Applebaum seem to think there might be something to this. Those and and a lot of other theories are likely to be aired and tested in the ensuing weeks and months as new evidence and testimony is discovered and considered and put in context. (Five years after Columbine, we were still sorting out the causes of that massacre.)

But at least Mr. Poilievre was brave enough this morning to engage the discussion. Yesterday was not the time to commit sociology. But today, apparently, is a new day. So let us follow Mr. Poilievre’s lead. Let us follow the facts. And let us not be afraid to consider and debate what those facts mean for what happened and what we might do now in hopes of ensuring that such horrors are only rarer in the future.


 

Pierre Poilievre commits sociology on the floor of the House of Commons

  1. And now Wherry compounds the felony by “committing journalism”. Mainstream journalism, in all probability.

    Wherry, why do you feel included?

    • He’s asking Why! Now that IS committing sociology.

      • Yabbut he’s doing it in a mainstream medium. So, if anything, that’s “committing journalistic sociology”…pretty much the most reprehensible kind of felonious sociology known to humankind.

        If he’s not careful, he could get deported for that.

        • “felonious sociology”…that’s more Ezra’s field, innit?

          • Ezra Pound?

          • That guy could write a bit couldn’t he?

  2. “Excluding these facts is not the mark of a nuanced intellectual, but
    of an ideologue who is in over his head. Let us follow the facts, not
    Liberal ideology, and let us target the root cause of terrorism. They
    are called terrorists.”

    Well, he’d have to work damn fast then, since his comments were mere hours after the blast and you’ve had how long to dig up those facts PP? Partisan to the core these guys…dumb too.

    Trudeau did not say that the bombings happened because “someone felt completely
    excluded”. Although that could be inferred, particularly someone of ill
    will, like PP.

    Nor did he say being excluded “justified” taking
    those action. Although that too could be inferred by someone of ill will
    – like PP.

    • PP and his ilk aren’t constrained by actual facts. They create made up facts so that they can refute them.

      In the plain English they claim to cherish, it’s usually called lying.

      • Yabbut Zippy – the little guy, is sooo cute. Isn’t it adorable how he says stuff?

    • You better watch the interview again before you mislead these comment boards any further!

      • Where do you get your magic mushrooms? Sounds like quite the trip!!

    • If one were to use reason, it must be concluded that Justin’s approach to terrorism would in fact make the risk of producing terrorists higher.

      Here is why: Justin believes that there must be some underlying cause to terrorism and that such cause must be found in why people feel excluded. Logically for Justin, that would mean that the feeling of exclusiveness leads to terrorism. Supposedly, once Justin has found the root cause as to why people have become feeling excluded, measures must then be taken to remedy the possibility of feeling excluded.
      But the feeling of being excluded can only be individually assessed. Must we therefore remedy all possible feelings of exclusion by delivering individual programs with which those feelings of being excluded can be prevented?

      But when we start catering programs to try and rectify individual feelings of exclusion, then any such individually catered program may, in turn, bring about others to become feeling excluded. As such, the search for finding root causes to feelings of exclusiveness will in fact set in motion a direction of spreading higher probabilities for feeling excluded. “Look” some will say: “Those were being individually catered to, and why not me?” Now we will have more chances of people feeling excluded, not less.

      • That’s like saying the feeling of being discriminated against can only be individually assessed.

        It completely ignores that there may be systemic reasons for those feelings, such as being forced to sit at the back of the bus because of your color.

        • No, what I am saying is that when people are discriminated against, it is impossible to say beforehand who will act out violently in response to being discriminated against.

          And which one of the two brothers were asked to sit at the ‘back of the bus’ when they received money from government institutions and when they were awarded scholarship? Please do tell.

          • And your argument is that because we can’t say beforehand exactly which person might react violently, talking about investigating any sort of root cause which might make people feel discriminated against is a waste of time. ie, you’re just fine with it if they’re forced to sit at the back of the bus. Obviously that has no connection to being discriminated against or any feelings that might arise from such.

            I doubt either of them was in that particular situation. But you highlight why we need to investigate their whole situation in greater detail.. so that we can figure out what particular event or system *did* ask them to.

      • Pardon.

      • This post supports the notion that logic + assumption can equal anything you want. If you already have a position on something absolutely any fact pattern can be logically formed to support your conclusion.

        Because one says that something should be considered does not mean that in doing so they will follow YOUR logic through that thought process and that they will then take the action that YOU would take as a result. No, reasonable and intelligent people working on the big problems is the only way we move forward.
        Fear of anything that is not black and white or that might be mentally challenging is okay – but getting past that fear and engaging is even better.

  3. And who could be more qualified to judge someone as an ideologue in over his head than PP? Ooops. I meant “nuanced intellectual” Pierre Poilievre, BA, U Calgary.

    • Somebody needs to ask Joe Oliver about the increasing carbon footprint of Pierre Poillievre’s hair.

      • The oil in PP’s hair is Alberta light crude. That’s what makes it shine.

    • If Justin thinks that searching for root causes as to why people feel excluded is possible, then it is Justin who cannot reason properly.

      It is impossible to search for root causes as to why people are left feeling excluded. Each and every human being is an individual, and unless Justin believes that there must be over 6 billion root causes for people feeling excluded, he will never find with any degree of certainty that root cause we should be on guard for. Never!

      Justin is way in over his head if he believes such root causes for people feeling excluded can be found. For if Justin would use reason/logic to come to conclusions on this, he must come to the conclusion that searching for root causes as to why people feel excluded is an unending search; everytime an individual is in question, an new root cause must be searched for, and that would be for naught, because the next go-around there will be another individual who feels excluded for whatever…….and so forth. If Justin does not understand that basic logic, he is not fit to govern this country.

      • Justin is way in over his head – FV

        Why do you repeat conservative talking points? That’s so lame. This discussion is not over people feeling excluded, even though you have weakly pounced on it, it’s about root causes of attacks on the west, what you call “terrorism” – a meaningless term.

        Is it the position of your party that root causes are unknowable?

        • Have you not watched the video at the beginning of this article?

          Here is what’s being heard at the beginning of the video when you watch the video:

          “Mr. Speaker, yesterday, a small army of Liberal pseudo-intellectuals
          had a collective spasm after I said that terrorists are the cause of
          terrorism. The Liberal leader had touched off the debate when he said
          that the Boston bombings happened because someone “feels completely excluded.”

          The Liberal leader referred to is Justin Trudeau.

          Could you please tell me what you are referring to when you write “my party”?

          • Sure that’s easy. The “love to argue and denigrate, at all costs, on the internet, party”.

            There are many members.

          • There you go again.

            You state within your previous post that:” This discussion is not over people feeling excluded,”

            I then point you in directions for finding out that this discussion is indeed about people feeling excluded, to which you then reply more non sense. Always evading the topic under discussion, that is all you are capable of.

            And you think my behaviour is sad?

          • My position is that you are being too literal. Yes, that was all he said, but my position is that it is impossible to make a cogent argument in the time available. You might know this, (I am not sure – as I have serious reservations about your capacity to reason) but in any even that is the case. For instance you just said I am trying to stop you posting. Seriously? Are there other members of this conspiracy? Or is it just me?

          • I am being too literal? Such a strange observation coming from you, because if you were informed enough, you would have known that Justin did not lack in time for trying to make his argument.

            No one has been stopping Justin from taking the time to explain fully; not Peter Mansbridge during the interview, and not the rest of Canadians when Justin’s comments were being discussed out in the open. In fact, Justin has had almost a week of time in which to make his argument more cogent.

            Let me show you how little time it takes for setting records straight: I apologize to you, for you indeed have not tried stopping me from posting. I hereby take back those comments made in that regard.

            See, I am able to make corrections when needed. And you have expressed serious reservations about my capacity to reason. So if you think that my capacity to reason is lacking, how much capacity to reason does Justin possess if he is not even capable of setting his record straight?

          • You seem to have figured out the root cause of Justin’s actions. You have established that he did not “correct” your interpretation of his comments and so therefore he is not “capable of setting the record straight”. In this case it is requiring some significant assumptions, which likely reflect you more than the subject, but at least you are sharing your root cause analysis and your resulting conclusion. All is not lost.

          • There is only one person evading the topic under discussion. Somebody is in over their head but it is not Justin

          • So you’re independent?

          • I don’t know. You tell me. Or ask Bill Owen. He’s the one who made the comment. Or is Bill Owen also you, JanBC?

      • You’re wrong, and my comment above illustrates why.

        In short, certain situations or displays can encourage groups of people to have certain feelings. You’ve heard of advertising, perhaps?

        If our society is causing such situations where feelings of exclusion are being encouraged.. (or perhaps more intelligibly, inclusion is being discouraged), then it is possible we can adjust these.

      • You are very stupid.

        • Thank you for being so smart to have read my comments. I appreciate it.

          Please feel free to read my comments anytime your heart desires.

      • There seems to be a depth issue here.

        • Good point: when searching for root causes as to why terrorists do what they do, and as to why they feel excluded, is an endless search. One must go deeper than endless bottoms for finding what Justin is searching for. Deep, deep, deep, down there, at a bottomless pit he may find something, but it won’t be the answer he is looking for because beyond one of Justin’s possible answers exists another explanation to be searched once more for deeper answers.

          A bottomless pit does have nothing at bottom.

  4. “the root causes of terrorism is terrorists.”

    That’s as dumb & pointless as pointing out the root causes of murder are murderers.

    The only appropriate response to that is, Duh!!!

    • Why won’t you tell us then what the root causes are to feeling excluded?

      • If we knew that, they wouldn’t need investigating.

        • But not all people who feel excluded turn out to be terrorists. So why do we need to know why people become feeling excluded? If we have found 100 people who have become feeling excluded, how many of those 100 people will be terrorists?

          • You’ve answered your own question there, Francien. Congratulations!

          • And to what question would what answer be, JanBC?

          • Read what you wrote over and over until you figure it out. You keep telling us how intelligent you are…

          • Ah, so you are afraid to spell out what it is you are thinking. That’s ok with me. If you are too afraid to spell it out, then be like that. No problem here.

          • This is the same mentality that says “throw them all in jail.” In my view this reflects laziness or impatience. Throw away the drug addicted (unless it’s a socially acceptable drug like alcohol), the petty thieves (unless it’s socially acceptable theft – like participating in the underground economy) etc. etc.
            Sometimes you have to be willing to think about it and not just stick to your position. Interests are more important than positions but it is hard work. Not for the lazy or impatient.

          • Ok, let me try again (I don’t want to come off seeming lazy after all!)

            Let us suppose there are two sisters. They grew up in the same family. The went to the same schools, studied the same subjects, shared the same friends, attended the same church, dressed the same.

            At age 21, one sister has a job which pays not well, but she believes it will get better if she works hard at it. She finds a boyfriend and is happy for the time being (because you never know, right?)

            At the age of 21, the other sister has no job, does not get paid, lives her life from sleeping on this couch until she finds a better one (and she believes she will find a better one, eventually), she had five boyfriends, but she wants to keep her options open, you know what they say……………………..she feels excluded, for the time being, but does not know how much longer she can hold out…the tension, the tension….someone will tell her how to get past feeling excluded……sooner or later….

          • You’re getting there… this is the start. You’ve gone a little deeper (albeit into a hypothetical story). We could create a thousand different scenarios and none may fit the case at hand but at least we are recognizing that there IS something deeper. Now, with your scenario… what if we started asking “why?” What was it that caused one sister to go in that wrong direction and (in order for the exercise to have value) what was it that got her past it? Obviously, in the case of the brothers they did not get past it without killing people.

          • Oh, you want me to go deep.

            The sister who slept on couches had turned her life around because while sleeping on the couch one night, she understood that if she would go out there and find a lob, she would be much better of. And that sister did find a job and she did earn some money and she could rent her first apartment after a while and her other sister had told the sister that she could stay with her untill she found her own apartment now that they both had a job.

            And years later, when their neighbours turned out to be a Boston bombers, the sisters could not believe that such young men, both having gone to school, both having had financial help from others, would have turned to killing people at random for trying to make their lives worthwhile. The sisters knew that by living life, one has to face the struggles life throws at us, and by throwing bombs, nothing can be accomplished.

          • Excellent. Keeping in mind that this is your scenario and just one of many possible outcomes, when we look at this particular outcome, why did that sister come to that realization and what was it led to her success, and most importantly, how is that different from when it doesn’t work out so well? How does it differ from the story where the sister becomes a homeless drug addict, or commits suicide or is part of a bomb plot?
            Let’s learn about what are the causes of certain outcomes. This may help us in terms of parenting skills, school programs, counseling programs, immigration programs, service club activities and even, until we get it perfect, rehabilitation programs.
            The exploration you are engaged in has value. It is what will advance the human race.

          • Only when people take responsibility for their own actions will the human race be able to advance.

            The sister took responsibility for her own actions. The terrorists should take responsibility for their actions as well.

            That’s how simple it is.

            But keep asking the questions, Bill, as to why people don’t take responsibility for their own actions. The scenarios will be different each and every time. It cannot be predicted why someone will not take responsibility to be a good citizen. Some just want to bomb others.

            Keep searching for them root causes as to why some people turn out to be bombers and others do not. You will be searching forever and not be able to come up with one predictable answer as to why people want to bomb!

      • I’d rather not commit sociology right now thanks.

        • It’s only logical to follow the leader’s orders: Justin is being quiet and so his followers will be quiet. Such a good solid strategy. Brilliant!

          When the news about Justin’s latest gaffe has cooled down enough, then the time will be right to do some more talking.

          Can’t wait till Justin starts speaking again. Have been waiting all week. But I’m being told Justin will speak again! And that’s a good thing.

          LOL

          • “It’s only logical to follow the leader’s orders: ”

            Quite right. I’m following PM’s orders.

          • Why then do you keep pretending Justin has not said what he has said?

            This is what Justin has said:
            “There is no question that [the Boston attack] happened because there is someone who feels completely excluded, completely at war with innocents,” is how Trudeau put it. “And our approach has to be, where do those tensions come from?”

            And you have not commented on that particular Justin approach (yes, he does say ‘approach’!) Why keep beating around the bush?

          • “Over the coming days, we have to look at the root causes. Now, we don’t know if this is terrorism or is it a single crazy [person], or a domestic issue or a foreign issue, I mean all those questions… there is no question that this happened because there is someone who feels completely excluded, completely at war with innocents, at war with a society. And our approach has to be, okay, where do those tensions come from?

            I mean, yes, we need to be sure that we’re promoting peace and security, and we’re keeping our borders safe, and monitoring the kinds of violent sub-groups that happen around [the world], but we have to monitor and encourage people to not point fingers at each other and lay blame for personal ills or societal ills on a specific group, be it the West or the government or Bostonians or whatever it is.”

            Here’s the full context of that exchange with Mansbridge. Now will you stop lying, parsing without context and cherry picking from this event and JT’s reaction to it a mere matter of hours after it occurred. .

          • So do you agree with Justin’s long statement?

      • To say the root cause is terrorists is to demonstrate ignorance of what a root is. Or it is simply another way of saying… I don’t want to know. Sometimes you need to dig deeper (pardon please).

        • And so I will beg you: please explain to me what Justin means when he says:

          “There is no question that [the Boston attack] happened because there is someone who feels completely excluded, completely at war with innocents,” is how Trudeau put it. “And our approach has to be, where do those tensions come from?”

          Tell me how to read into this!

          • I can’t tell you how to read into it. To me, it looks like he is saying that the attackers are likely not feeling connected with the society to which they belong to the point where they could kill their fellow human beings… in this case, their fellow Americans.

            He then appears to say that he would like to see our approach be around understanding the problem, which is the first step to solving it. He could say we should hunt them down and make them face justice but a) obviously we are going to do that and b) that only solves the urgent issue. It does NOT address the real problem. That’s just my interpretation.

          • Read up on this.

            “Children who have overprotective parents are more likely to be
            bullied by their peers, according to new research. A review of 70
            studies looking at 200,000 children across the U.S. and Europe suggests parents who “buffer” children from negative experiences make them more vulnerable. However, the research also suggested that children who have harsh or negative parents are the most likely group to be bullied.

            Professor Dieter Wolke, from the University of Warwick in England, said everyone looked at schools, but his study found that bullying really starts at home. Professor Wolke said he was expecting to find that children with the harshest parents were most likely to become prey to bullies but was somewhat surprised to discover that children with overprotective parents were also at an increased risk of bullying.
            Overall he found that 32% of children said they had been bullied over the previous six months. And ten to 14% went on to be chronic bullying victims. The study was published in the journal of Child Abuse and Neglect.”

            So, which is it: parents being too protective or not being protective enough???
            http://www.edmontonsun.com/2013/04/29/overprotected-children-more-likely-to-be-bullied-study

  5. The root cause of Pierre Poillievre is voter apathy – best comment I saw yesterday

    • His riding is split between Ottawa suburbs and rural areas south of the city. Some think that overworked farmers might be letting their livestock vote.

      • @ Mark Shore

        Kudos. I spit up my drink reading that (he is, unfortunately, my MP).

    • Or, it could very well be, of course, that PP makes a very good point.

      What to think of this sort of sociological debate?

      “Children who have overprotective parents are more likely to be bullied
      by their peers, according to new research. A review of 70 studies
      looking at 200,000 children across the U.S. and Europe suggests parents
      who “buffer” children from negative experiences make them more
      vulnerable. However, the research also suggested that children who have
      harsh or negative parents are the most likely group to be bullied.”

      http://www.edmontonsun.com/2013/04/29/overprotected-children-more-likely-to-be-bullied-study

      • I don’t understand the link. and I am pretty sure that PP is so ideological he has become mentally handicapped in some way.

        • Of course you don’t understand the link since the link I provided you with is self explanatory, and something self explanatory is not something you are capable of grasping.

          Justin’s search for root causes turns out to be self explanatory as well, namely that his search can only lead to more searches which in turn will lead to more searches……………………….pretty self explanatory, for those who understand the meaning of endless searches.

          The same holds true for those who believe that bullying is being caused by overprotective parents and under-protective parents all at the same time……………………….how could one go wrong with wanting it both ways…………………………….

          What was Justin thinking!

  6. Exclusion and alienation are two very different things; the latter can happen with even the most accommodating states. Canada and USA bend over backwards to accommodate, even giving scholarships and welfare to non-citizen terrorists who are married with children and are hostile to western nations, for example. Who’s to say the PhD student accused of terrorism in Canada wasn’t promoted & advanced because of diversity targets?

    Consequence of diversity? I have no idea.

    • Good point. We will never know which programs will produce terrorists or which program will prevent people from becoming a terrorist. Searching for why people will feel excluded is impossible because each and every human being is ultimately an individual. And thank god, most individuals on this earth do not reason that terrorism is a good thing!

      • Except for state terrorism of course, that’s just fine.

      • Because the entire fields of sociology and behavioural sciences simply don’t exist, right?

        Are you really that dumb?

        • Of course I believe that the fields of sociology and behavioural sciences exist. I also believe that the political science is a field which exists. Do you believe that?

          • I’ve never questioned it.

          • But you apparently think they are akin to witchcraft or fortune-telling…

          • Where does that come from – an answer such as yours, making the assumptions (unwarranted) that I would think that those fields are akin to witchcraft or fortune-telling…………

            Why the need for you to want to lose credibility?

            Are my comments that unbearable to you?

            Why not engage into a debate of how it could be possible to search for root causes as to why people feel excluded?

            Why not do Justin proud by showing us how such a search could be done?

          • Well, while you admit they exist you don’t seem to give them a lot of weight or put much faith in them – see all your attacks on JT over “root causes” and your claims that identifying who will become terrorists is impossible.

            And let’s face it – a good Harperite like yourself would never be caught committing sociology.

          • Hey, use psychology. Use biology. Use sociology. Use whatever tools you have at your disposal. That’s what I do.

            I like philosophy the best for finding answers to complicated questions. And I use philosophy to find answers.

            The answer to Justin’s approach is, that it’s the wrong approach because it is impossible to find what he is searching for.

            You seem to think it is not impossible to search for root causes as to why people feel excluded. Well, then use the tools as I do, and tell us how Justin’s approach would work?

          • As to engaging in debate – with you, it’s kind of pointless. Your mind is already made up, and your mission is to be Harper’s mouthpiece. Talking points R us…

          • And still, after all this time, KeithBram must avoid the debate at any cost.

            Throw empty slogans instead. That’ll show ‘m!

            Thank you KeithBram for reading my posts. I appreciate it!

  7. indeed. If only America had more terrorists living amongst them, maybe these 2 poor lads wouldn’t have felt so excluded. I mean, if they can’t feel as part of the community at a moderate Mosque, clearly the solution is to bring in more radical Imam’s so that poor unfortunate soul’s like these two terrorists don’t feel so excluded. That’ll work, I’m sure.

    • Good sarcasm. Well used, too. Of course it is impossible to come to an understanding why particular individuals turn out to be terrorists. And if Justin Trudeau thinks that the feeling of exclusion will turn into terrorism, he should explain to us all how we would find out when someone feels excluded and secondly why such excluded individual feels the need to become a terrorist. It cannot be done!

  8. It matters, really matters, that we understand what motivates people to attack America. The answer is obvious but cannot be spoken within the narrow confines allowed in politics and the media.

    It’s fools like PP who support terrorism, in that as long as our policies are formulated with no understanding, then they will never be effective.

    • Bill Owen: if you think it really, really matters that we understand what motivates people to attack, then why don’t you offer an example of what such motive could be? Just offer us one example of what such motive could be.

      So far you have offered us nothing but empty rhetoric: that PP is a fool, who believes in formulating policies with no understanding.

      What then, according to your intelligence, is wrong with the policies this government has put in place?

      Why are you so silent on offering substance of any kind??

      • Silly question. My point was narrow. What do want a thesis?

        Read my friend Glenn Greenwald, if you want the long form argument, we disagree on very little.

        Since Glenn rarely writes about Canada, I will say this much – for starters Canada needs to stop playing bum boy for the Empire….

        I suppose that you think they hate us for what’s left of our freedoms?

        • “Canada needs to stop playing bum boy for the Empire……”

          Just a hollow statement without any further explanation!

          Dare to debate; put some teeth into those hollow statements!

          • Hollow to the hollow men… hollow to the Harperists. You know what I mean, stop playing games.

          • I just read as much of your oeuvre here as I could stand. It’s bleeding obvious that you are one of those types we find so often on the internet who use the comments sections to “demonstrate” your putative superiourity.

            Now you will accuse me of ad hominem and not having any arguments. I have seen this before, it’s childish, pathological and tiresome. Not to mention sad.

          • You have nothing of value to offer. You constantly feel the need to attack me with empty slogans.

            You offer no argument.

            You are like all the others who think that name calling and trying to put me down with empty statements, will make me to stop commenting.

            Why would I do that? Why would I stop commenting here or anywhere else if we have so many of people like you lurking on the comment boards offering nothing of substance? Someone will have to prove that human beings are still willing and are still capable of participating in a reasonable debate. I am someone who is capable and who is willing to counter emptiness such as displayed continuously by people like you.

          • You poor dear, you sound like you feel excluded.

          • You are incredibly stupid.

          • Ah, another day, another comment by someone who feels the need to throw insults around. Welcome to the new world!

            Does it feel good to live in an empty minded world? Never been there but they say it is bliss!

  9. It bothers me tremendously that opinion writers such as Aaron Wherry do not understand that within one article they manage to provide proof against what the article sets out to demonstrate. Wherry may think that the various news sources he brings in are in support of his understanding to be correct that root causes as to why people feel excluded exist. But those news sources quoted in fact prove the opposite, namely that root causes for feeling excluded and for such feelings of exclusion having been turned into the act of terror, are proving only that each and every individual reacts out of an individual will. Therefore, if it were possible to find root causes as to why people feel excluded, each and every time such search will lead in directions of individual will and there are over 6 billion individuals living on this earth, therefore there must be at least 6 billion root causes as to why people could be feeling excluded. Such would be a non starter, a non sense search, to say the least!

    The root cause of terrorism is terrorists. We can never know why some people turn into terrorists. It is impossible to find out beforehand if the exact actions of people are not under constant surveillance. And we cannot keep each and every individual under constant surveillance.. Hindsight is 20/20, but when standing in front of history, one can never say with certainty what comes next, specially not when taking individual will into consideration. And if anything must be taken into consideration, it is the will of the individual!

    • Let us assume (because it can never be certain) that one individual feels excluded because such individual is not in sink with his fellow Americans and the individual was against the war in Iraq.

      In order to have made such individual feel less excluded, should American citizens have been more accommodating toward the individual, to somehow be more in tune with the feelings of exclusiveness, or should America have decided to just not go to war, ever?
      And if Americans think that they have become more accommodating towards people who feel excluded, and if Americans had never waged war, ever, would we then be assured that this individual would not have felt excluded, and that the individual would not have turned into a terrorist to commit terrorism?

      Of course not, because the next individual may feel excluded because his ancestral graves were overridden by highways or new subdivisions and such individual had lost his child just the year before, and became more and more isolated, and then decided to become a terrorist……………………and so forth.

      • The root cause for terrorism is terrorists!

        The root cause as to why people feel excluded and therefore turn into terrorists, is not knowable. Ever!

    • Are you some kind of “judo-intellectual” performing a takedown of Aaaron Wherry?

      • No, I am tired of journalists trying to cover for Justin. If Justin feels his words were taken out of context, or if Justin feels the need to do some further explaining about his response to terrorism, then let Justin speak.

        It is not a journalist’s role to try and pick up Liberal leader Justin. PP took the chance to clarify himself after the comments he made yesterday. Justin has had ample time to clarify his position. Why has Justin not done that???

        I don’t like for journalists to play partisan politics.

        • No, you don’t like for journalists to play non-CPC politics. There’s a difference.

          • No, I don’t like journalists picking up after Justin. They don’t do that for any other politician. Why the sudden need for journalists to pick up after Justin? Let Justin speak for himself. He’s had ample time for setting his record straight. In fact, I have been waiting all week for Justin to explain to us what he means, if you and others think that Justin’s comments have been turned and twisted beyond recognition. Let Justin tell us what his reason is for believing that root causes as to why people feel excluded must be found when speaking about terrorism.

            Why is Justin not clarifying himself?

          • Bullshit. They actually did that for Harper all the time. The only difference is that since you’ve already drunk the kool-aid for him, when they do it for Harper, they’re simply reporting facts. When they do it for Justin, they’re obviously slanting the coverage.

          • Show me one article in Macleans this week or any other week in which Harper’s points of view has been regarded positive by any one writer? Or any article in which Harper’s comments are defended without Harper having had to lift a finger?

            Harper is a true leader in that respect. He did not shy back after Maggy’s funural to speak out against what he believes is wrong.

            What Justin said in his comments after the Boston bombings was wrong! There was a need for Harper to correct such wrongs. There is no need for Macleans writers to try and build up scenarios in which Justin’s comments could be right. Wrong is wrong.

  10. Wherry says: ”

    Here is the BBC.

    By many accounts, Tsarnaev was a loner with flashes
    of anger. People at the mosque on Prospect Street, where he used to come
    alone to pray, found him difficult. Once, says Nichole Mossalam, who
    works for the Islamic Society of Boston, he became outraged during a
    sermon. “The person giving the sermon made a comparison between Martin
    Luther King and the Prophet,” Ms Mossalam says. “He made a verbal
    outburst.”

    And what exactly, Wherry, does this say about why the person felt excluded?

  11. Wherry says: ”

    And here is the New York Times.

    After Mr. Tsarnaev’s visit to Dagestan and Chechnya,
    signs of alienation emerged. One month after he returned to the United
    States, a YouTube page that appeared to belong to him was created and
    featured jihadist videos.”

    And what does that say about WHY the individual in question felt excluded? It says nothing about that.

    Justin was very clear in his interview with Peter Mansbridge. Justin tried to reason that the solution is to be searching for root causes as to why people feel excluded.

    But the article of the NYT does not talk about such root causes at all. The NYT article merely talks about how the individual in question behaved on his road to becoming a terrorist. Signs of alienation may have been apparent but WHY he became alienated is not being discussed within that NYT article.

    • You keep focusing on a very brief statement that Trudeau made, excluded, excluded, excluded, excluded, excluded.

      You give us 15 words in answer to a question. See how you do in the time available. Then we’ll have some fun picking one word from your “answer” and ridiculing it.

      Chomsky’s concision problem is always an issue when promoting a counter-narrative.

      You impress me as a propagandist, not a serious interlocutor.

      Given the time and space I am sure that Trudeau could give a more comprehensive and satisfactory reply.

      Harper’s men spout idiotic tautologies in response to the same question.

      • But if that was Justin’s instinctive first response to a terrorist attack, then it could be said with certainty that Justin’s instincts are wrong!

        Does Justin now want to withdraw the words he spoke during that interview? Or does he want to expand on those thoughts at first having been spoken?

        Why is it that Justin does not want to clarify his position if he and others like you feel that he has been mis-understood. Let Justin explain himself further.

      • People like you never have answers – just statements coming out of an inability to reason properly.

        There are too many like you around. People like you who have no interest in discussing topics belonging to us all within a political realm.

        You are the propagandist, sir. A propagandist who is void of substance and therefor you can only offer insults to others who are debating in good faith.

        Fluff is all you are. Puffed up fluff trying to pose as some superior being by trying to talk others down. You should be ashamed of yourself!

  12. “As in the cases of other now infamous young men
    from immigrant backgrounds – like France’s Mohammed Merah, who died in a
    shootout with police a year ago after killing seven people on a gun
    rampage in Toulouse – it may be impossible to disentangle the
    psychological demons from political motives.”

    As in the Reuters article, Wherry!

  13. “”It’s a complicated mix of reasons, usually as
    much personal as they are transnational or global,” says Rafaello
    Pantucci, who studies such cases at London’s United Royal Services
    Institute, a defense and security think tank.”

    Also in the Reuters article, Wherry!

  14. “The agency first looked into the suspect, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, in 2011 in
    response to a request from Russia, which told the F.B.I. that he “was a
    follower of radical Islam.” But once investigators closed the background
    check on Mr. Tsarnaev after concluding that he posed no terrorist
    threat, a senior law enforcement official said, it would have been a
    violation of federal guidelines to keep investigating him without
    additional information.”

    Also written in that NYT article, Wherry!

    • Goes to show we have a way to go before we can nail down root causes and likely suspects reliably. Are you saying we should give up the hunt because someone missed the signs?

      • No one, absolutely no one has said that we should give up the hunt because someone missed the signs.

        But someone (leader Justin) has said that we should be looking for signs of tension caused by feeling excluded. Those signs will not be there for the uptaking!

        Anyone can feel excluded.

        Most people who feel excluded do not turn into terrorists.

        Not all terrorists are terrorists because they feel excluded.

        Some terrorists may become terrorists because they don’t feel excluded enough!

        How is anyone to know beforehand? It is simply impossible.

        • Yadda yadda!

          You’ve already flailed the flesh off the bones of this dead horse FV. Time to move on…

          • “Yadda yadda!” is all KeithBram has to say on the question of exclusion. Justin must be proud.

            No wonder Justin wants to move on……………………………………

          • Like I said – a dead horse. You made your points; I and a good many others countered them; you are deaf to our counterpoints so why waste our time? Feel free to continue to spout CPC propaganda if you wish – that’s what they pay you for – but endless repetition of talking points grows old…

          • You have countered my arguments as to why it is useless as an approach to search for root causes of exclusion? I have wasted your time? Are you not free, my man, to come and go as you please? Farewell then, as they say:

            “There is a tide in the affairs of men, Which taken at the flood,
            leads on to fortune.

            Omitted, all the voyage of their life is bound in shallows and
            in miseries. On such a full sea are we now afloat. And we must take the current when it serves, or lose our ventures.”

            William Shakespeare

  15. “Posting such videos alone, without overt threats of violence, should not
    necessarily sound alarms, some counterterrorism specialists said
    Monday.”

    Also written in that NYT article!

  16. PP – say that again with a Texan accent.

  17. PP – Say that again with a Texan accent.

  18. Ask this arrogant little twerp why the Cons are spending 10 million dollars on finding the root causes of terrorism. Yes, that’s right, 10 million dollars over five years to find the root causes of terrorism. See Glen McGregor’s blog at the Ottawa Citizen. Obviously the root cause of studpidity is this shameless little conservative twerp.

  19. That is sociology?
    Certainly there exists a rational distinction between scientific and non scientific sociology.

  20. Why is everyone tip-toeing around the elephant in the room? If Mr. Verhoeven wants root causes for terrorism, why not start with the US interference in the Middle East? For no other reason than to control the oil reserves. Who benefitted from this? George Jr. and Dick Cheney, of course. How many Arabs and Muslims were killed in these conflicts? Thousands? Hundreds of thousands? How about the unwavering US support for Israel? The same Israel who is committing atrocities to the Palistinians with little or no criticism from the West. As terrible as the Boston bombing was, it was minuscule compared to the death, maiming, and poverty caused by America’s imperial actions in the Middle East.
    So, Mr. Verhoeven, maybe Mr. Trudeau was being a little opaque in his comments following the bombings, but Mr. Harper is following in the same footsteps that have long frustrated Arabs and Muslims to act. Try for a brief moment to empathize with the plight of these people – why would they be so violent and reactionary if they weren’t being persecuted?
    Let’s now take a brief moment to reflect on Mr. Harper’s record as a leader. He denied the world-wide recession, leading to his proroguing of parliament to avoid being defeated by a non-confidence vote by opposition parties that feared for Canada’s future. He has steadfastly

  21. Harper has steadfastly eroded any environmental protection laws in order to pursue the expansion of the tar sands at any cost. This imbalanced fiscal approach has been a weak economic policy. Canadians do not believe that Harper can lead this country to prosperity in the one area that he claims to be an expert in. Canada’s international reputation has taken a nose dive, democracy is disappearing at an alarming rate, secrecy and muzzling of information is at an all time high (despite the claims of transparency that Harper promised per-election), Harper has failed to unite the country in any way, and the rich and the large corporations continue to prosper at the expense of the middle and lower classes of Canadians.
    Mr. Verhoeven, arrogance is not leadership. Bullying is not being clever. Silencing criticism will not kill the truth. Cheating will not prevail.
    Like it or not, the great majority of Canadians are not going to tolerate this behaviour any longer. We want our country back. We want to be proud of being Canadian once again.

    • The Liberal Party of Canada thanks you for your post and for your support.
      We especially like the way that you’ve managed to fit so many of our favourite anti-Harper talking points into a single post. Well done!

  22. Somebody commits sociology in the Commons and the wire is in a flutter.

    Meanwhile Paul Martin Junior is on National Public Television telling the world Canada is guilty of genocide like the barbaric regime of Adolf Hitler.

    And nobody bats an eye.

    What about our war dead and the veterans of WWII?

    Do you think our combat soldiers appreciate being told the country is guilty of genocide by a retired Prime Minister and recipient of the Order of Canada?

    What is the matter with the Paul Martin Junior family?

    Are they not capable of keeping that senile old man out of trouble?

    Obviously his sons are three stooges.

    And to hell with Canada Steamship Lines.

    I surrender: I will never talk about Paul Martin Junior again.

    Only a profoundly sick man accuses the greatest country in the world of genocide.

  23. And still, we continue to strive and to seek ideological confrontation. While we must remain determined to understand terrorism, it isn’t only terrorism we are fighting is it? It’s the beliefs that motivate terrorism. Justin’s point. And, what purpose does this serve? Trudeau has offered that there IS a new ideology of hatred and intolerance out there and it is serious and continues to surface and challenge the very core of our Liberal democracy. All Poilievre has pointed out to Canadians is, just how eloquent and relevant Trudeau’s ‘root cause’ statement has been, how elevated the discussions have become about terrorism and how important our debates must be to tackle the elemental issues of not only our own Canadian family values, but also how we have to start valuing families on an international level.

Sign in to comment.