Thomas Mulcair on terrorism and root causes -

Thomas Mulcair on terrorism and root causes

The NDP leader on what is appropriate


From the NDP leader’s scrum this afternoon, in which he was asked whether this was the wrong time to be having a discussion about root causes.

The question is what terms are you going to be using and what the analysis leads to. Sometimes, you have to take a step back from these situations and try to understand what it involves internationally. But the root cause of an eight-year-old child being killed at the Boston Marathon is that somebody who doesn’t care about other people’s lives placed a bomb. And that’s what we have to look at, that reality. Beyond that, of course you can have discussions about all sorts of things but I think that it’s unwise to go beyond the immediate fact that human life was lost that day and that’s what we’re looking at…

It’s part of the analysis and the ongoing work that every government does, that every person does. That’s not the question. I think we have to be wise in our timing of these things. Don’t forget, this was in the immediate aftermath. When you find out what the situation is, that’s what I was concentrating on in any event. I’ll let other people explain what their words have meant.


Thomas Mulcair on terrorism and root causes

  1. in which he was asked whether this was the wrong time to be having a discussion about root causes

    What’s wrong with you people? Is that a question you even have to ask? FFS, you KNOW what the root cause is ALREADY.

    Why are you so desperate to help Trudeau extricate himself from the mess he’s made of this?

    • What is it then genius? Say it.

      • Ok, I will reply then:

        The difference between the terrorist and the none-terrorist is the capacity to reason. Reason is bonded onto our emotions (by means of love) in order to lead the being of human into the right directions, individually and group wise.

        Christianity and Judaism, over time, have come to the realization that religious beliefs, too, must come to stand in front of this bonding between reason and emotion. That does not mean that all Christians and all Jews have understood that message, but overall, most of them have understood. Therefore, reason and religion can co-exist in the presence of religion and science.

        But a large part of the Muslim community (mainly in the Middle East, but not exclusively so – Africa is severely effected by it as well) has not reconciled the idea that mankind is all about this bonding of reason onto emotions for finding progress. The Middle East (including countries such as Iran and Iraq), are engaged in this struggle to try and understand the need for bonding reason onto human emotions for going ahead. .

    • At the time Trudeau made the statement, no one knew who made the attack. He nor you – could have said at that time what the root causes were.

      • Again, you don’t need to know WHO made the attack to know that anybody who commits a terrorist act is by definition, a terrorist. The root cause of a terrorist attack is the fact that there are terrorists.

        And then there’s the fact that while nobody knew who had perpetrated the attack, Trudeau’s response would have been to contemplate “root causes”. But how can you contemplate the “root causes” of an attack if you don’t know who committed it? Which is another reason why in the aftermath of such a tragedy, you don’t talk “root causes”, you hunt the SOB’s down. THEN, and only then can you think about “root causes”.

        • Given the attack occurred in the US, don’t you think it would be inappropriate for a Canadian PM to try to usurp US jurisdiction? Because that seems to be what you (and Harper) suggest we should have done.

          • Yes. Clearly I was suggesting we “usurp US jurisdiction”. If that’s what take away from my statement, then you need some reading comprehension practice.

          • You say we should hunt the terrorists down. How does a Canadian PM do that when the terrorists are in the US, other than by usurping US authority?

            Mansbridge was talking to Trudeau about the terrorist attack in Boston, correct?

          • “Hello President Obama. On behalf of all Canadians I’d like to offer my deepest condolences for the attack on your nation and the people of Boston. As our countries closest friend and ally, we’d like to offer our assistance in bringing the attackers to justice. Be it investigators, police officers, or emergency personnel, be assured that you have our full support. And as usual, our intelligence agencies will be glad to provide any information that your country requires.”

            See, that wasn’t so hard.

          • Who are you quoting? If that’s Harper, I missed it – give me a link.

  2. PARIS — An escapee from a psychiatric institution slashed a rabbi and his son with a box-cutter on Tuesday, prompting witnesses to tackle and subdue the attacker after a chase through a Paris synagogue, officials said…

    The assailant was of Iranian origin, and an official investigation was underway to determine a possible motive, Prasquier said…

    Agnes Thibault-Lecuivre, a spokeswoman for the Paris prosecutor’s
    office, said the two victims had been wearing Jewish skullcaps, and the
    attacker was detained after a chase through the synagogue. The Simon
    Wiesenthal Center, which monitors anti-Semitic incidents worldwide, said
    in a statement that the assailant screamed “Allah-u-Akbar” — or “God is
    great” — during the attack.

    This was in the Washington Post. I’m serious…what’s wrong with you people? Do you seriously not know what the “root cause” of this stuff is? Why are you pretending that you don’t know?

    • The fact of having just escaped from a psychiatric institution seems like the most relevant clue in this case. The bits about the presumed religions and ethnic origins of the parties involved is gratuitous detail at this point, conjecture inviting prejudice, until such a time as it is shown to be relevant. Saying that God is great is not an indication of antisemitism.

      • “Saying that God is great is not an indication of antisemitism” of course not, that’s not what John is suggesting. But “saying that God is great” in Arabic while attempting to murder two Jewish people definitely hints at an anti-Semitic motive. Would you honestly say the same thing if a guy were to walk into an African American church in Chicago and start yelling “White Power” while attacking people in the church?

    • Leave your idiotic racism at the door.

      • Yes, of course it’s “racist” to suggest that an attack could be religiously motivated, especially when the attacker is reciting religious words.

        • Why do people like John g feel the need to speak in code? Say what you mean, John. Let the light shine on you.

          • What code? Are you that incapable of reading? The fact that you’re incapable of condemning anti-Semetic attacks makes it clear who the real racist here is.

          • I’m condemning john’s hinting that all Muslims are responsible for terrorist actions, you lying jackass.

          • Nowhere did he “hint” that all Muslims are responsible for terrorist actions. You’r the lying jackass, spinning other people’s words to mean things they didn’t intend, just so you can self-righteously label others as “racist”, while wilfully turning a blind eye to the racism that’s actually resulted in violence.

          • “FFS, you KNOW what the root cause is ALREADY. ”

            ” I’m serious…what’s wrong with you people? Do you seriously not know what the “root cause” of this stuff is? Why are you pretending that you don’t know?”

            You don’t need to be a mind-reader to know what john is saying here, jackass.

          • That the “root cause” of an Islamic fundamentalist committing a random act of violence might be his fundamentalist Islamic ideology?

            Do you find that to be controversial? Racist? I think most people would see it as calling a spade a spade.

            What’s really stupid is to suggest that the person calling a spade a spade is a racist, just because you’re such an intellectual lightweight that you need to resort to calling everybody a racist any time they point out something obvious that doesn’t jive with your ideology and predetermined world view.

  3. Mulcair said, wisely so: “I’ll let other people explain what their words have meant.”

    Amen to that!

  4. Question to any journalist asking Mulcair or Harper a question along the lines of “when can we talk about root causes?”…

    What possible reason is there for your question OTHER than hoping Mulcair or Harper make a mistake that can be used to help with Trudeau’s damage control efforts?

    I can’t believe Harper almost walked into this trap. And kudos to Mulcair for an excellent answer to a very loaded question.