redblacks game this weekend should be cancelled also ?

[DanoT]

I have feared the day this stuff would happen as our PM declared war on islam just like the PM of Australia, UK and the US military followed by President Obama.

The PM has got exactly what he wanted.

Mr. Harper who was fearing a potential loss in the next election has just guaranteed himself a win.

He will campaign on the Bush narrative that only HE can prevent and stand up to terrorists. He will take Justin Trudeau's measured comments and twist them as weakness.

He has announced today in the House that he is going to tighten our laws just like the USA did post 911 both guaranteeing that terrorists win and that he gets to stay in office.

There is no national security interest in the Middle East but the PM has wanted to do since Bush took on Iraq. Canadians will act like sheep and vote this guy back in for sure now.

Calling the joining of a coalition to help combat the terrorist ISIS as a war on Islam is well, a bit extremist. OTOH your entire post reads like it was written by someone with a political agenda.

[KnowItAll]

I have feared the day this stuff would happen as our PM declared war on islam just like the PM of Australia, UK and the US military followed by President Obama.

The PM has got exactly what he wanted.

Mr. Harper who was fearing a potential loss in the next election has just guaranteed himself a win.

He will campaign on the Bush narrative that only HE can prevent and stand up to terrorists. He will take Justin Trudeau's measured comments and twist them as weakness.

He has announced today in the House that he is going to tighten our laws just like the USA did post 911 both guaranteeing that terrorists win and that he gets to stay in office.

There is no national security interest in the Middle East but the PM has wanted to do since Bush took on Iraq. Canadians will act like sheep and vote this guy back in for sure now.

didn't declare war on "islam". ISIS, terrorists, etc, but not Islam

[South Pender]

All life, whether human or not, comes down to a single choice in any moment...Love or Fear...I have written a book on this subject as it is so important and yet so few people seem to understand this. Like two magnets placed together, Fear cannot exist where Love is present...Fear is repelled by Love; however, the reverse is true as well.

That's an interesting theory, MLF, one I hadn't run across. The more usual two-factor model that many psychologists favor (describing behavioral orientations) is one with two separate and independent dimensions: (a) love-hate (or in some forms, warmth-coldness) and (b) competence-incompetence (or strength-weakness). Elaborations of this two-dimensional model are legion, with one widely-held one: Agency (competence, achievement)-Communion (warmth, closeness to others), often seen. Business researchers often modify this to Person (warmth)-thing (competence) or Consideration (warmth)-Initiating Structure (competence). I haven't seen any of these applied in the way you suggest, though, as guiding a decision, although we might infer this from a behavioral orientation or tendency. I'm not sure just where Fear (or fearfulness) would fit in this model, but could probably be placed at some position within the Warmth-Competence two-dimensional plane--undoubtedly at some point reflecting low competence.

Sorry, way off-topic....

[Toppy Vann]

I have feared the day this stuff would happen as our PM declared war on islam just like the PM of Australia, UK and the US military followed by President Obama.

The PM has got exactly what he wanted.

Mr. Harper who was fearing a potential loss in the next election has just guaranteed himself a win.

He will campaign on the Bush narrative that only HE can prevent and stand up to terrorists. He will take Justin Trudeau's measured comments and twist them as weakness.

He has announced today in the House that he is going to tighten our laws just like the USA did post 911 both guaranteeing that terrorists win and that he gets to stay in office.

There is no national security interest in the Middle East but the PM has wanted to do since Bush took on Iraq. Canadians will act like sheep and vote this guy back in for sure now.

Calling the joining of a coalition to help combat the terrorist ISIS as a war on Islam is well, a bit extremist. OTOH your entire post reads like it was written by someone with a political agenda.

I have no political agenda but I know something about politics as I've been close to that including running campaigns and actually a candidate for Parliament many years ago.

A nation's foreign policy is supposed to be based on a nation's national interests. ISIS has nothing to do with Canada and the mess in the Middle East while long standing for centuries has been made worse with US meddling and funding and propping up of regimes like Egypt and all the while being buddies with the Saudis who have funded ISIS and other terrorist groups.

The PM was risking a possible loss. He has wanted to fight in the Middle East with the Americans since taking office.

As critics of Obama have suggested - shut up and stop telling their enemies what they will do. Just do it.

What part of that do you see is not going to happen?

Mr. Harper will run on terror and will position himself as the ONLY leader capable of standing up to terror.

He will portray Justin Trudeau and Thomas Mulcair as weak on terror.

Bottom line for me is that we didn't need to bring this crap to our country getting these whack jobs active like this shooter and the other clown. BUT put nothing down to out of the norm when it comes to political attacks.

I am not demonizing the PM - just saying what he has done for Canada is bad policy. There is no national interest in this phoney attack. Yes, support the work against terror but act in your nation's interests. This is just good for a re-election campaign.

Reminds me of the 60s-70s riots when Van Mayor Tom Campbell ranted and raved at the hippies and yippies and the police had battle after battle in the streets - English Bay, Jericho, etc then Gastown.

[South Pender]

I have feared the day this stuff would happen as our PM declared war on islam just like the PM of Australia, UK and the US military followed by President Obama.

The PM has got exactly what he wanted.

Mr. Harper who was fearing a potential loss in the next election has just guaranteed himself a win.

He will campaign on the Bush narrative that only HE can prevent and stand up to terrorists. He will take Justin Trudeau's measured comments and twist them as weakness.

He has announced today in the House that he is going to tighten our laws just like the USA did post 911 both guaranteeing that terrorists win and that he gets to stay in office.

There is no national security interest in the Middle East but the PM has wanted to do since Bush took on Iraq. Canadians will act like sheep and vote this guy back in for sure now.

I find it hard to believe that Canada has no national security interest in helping to stop the advance of Islamist terrorism. For us to believe that we, unlike the other Western democracies, are immune to terrorism (and hence have no national interest in it) would, I think, be naive in the extreme and potentially very dangerous. It's not just Middle Eastern-born terrorists we have to fear, but also home-grown wannabes who convert to Islam and see themselves as disciples of the likes of Osama bin Laden. It appears that their numbers are increasing. Militarily engaging ISIS and other Middle East terror organizations seems to me clearly in our best interests as limiting their advance and influence at the very least and ideally ending their predations will depress similar actions both there and at home.

Further, the notion that Harper has joined the effort to fight ISIS only to boost his re-election chances really seems to me like conspiracy theory. Unless I'm seriously missing something here, the reasons for this action are not only in our best interests, but also transparently so. Canada has generally held up its end of things militarily as a Western ally, and to fail to do so in the present instance would seem to our allies (and, I believe, to most Canadians) as shirking our responsibilities. Since Canada will benefit from the defeat of ISIS et al., it seems only right that we contribute to that end rather than having our neighbors to the South and in Europe do our fighting for us. In my view, that is the real reason Harper has taken the action he has.

The tightening of security in Ottawa is clearly needed, given events of the last couple of days. This was immediately apparent from the chaotic series of events on Parliament Hill. How that signals a terrorist victory is beyond me. And how that improves significantly Harper's re-election prospects similarly eludes me. Civil libertarians will be screaming about this, and you can bet that Thomas Mulcair will milk it for all he can. Justin Trudeau is a cipher when it comes to foreign policy and has little to contribute to this debate.

Finally, I don't believe for a minute that this action by the PM will "guarantee [him] a win." I don't think Canadians are so militantly oriented that this alone will move the needle much--nor do I think, as noted, that this was the intent in the first place. I find it hard to believe that the majority of Canadians will see strong action by our government against the terrorist threat as wrong-headed or politically-motivated.

This discussion should probably be moved to the Lionbackers Pub, but since much has been posted already in this thread, I've included my views (and that's all they are; others will have different views) here.

[South Pender]

Sorry, double-post.

[dupsdell1]

You are saying that this is not a terror attack ? the exact same kind of person blew up the Boston marathon . this was planned and thought out did you not see the sir valence video , ?

this maniac wanted to be over in Syria fighting with the terrorist , he is a terrorist , this was a terrorist attack on Canada in fact I read in the Vancouver sun that a old room mate of his keep saying how he hates Canada and the Usa and wants to get out of here.

[DanoT]

I have feared the day this stuff would happen as our PM declared war on islam just like the PM of Australia, UK and the US military followed by President Obama.

The PM has got exactly what he wanted.

Mr. Harper who was fearing a potential loss in the next election has just guaranteed himself a win.

He will campaign on the Bush narrative that only HE can prevent and stand up to terrorists. He will take Justin Trudeau's measured comments and twist them as weakness.

He has announced today in the House that he is going to tighten our laws just like the USA did post 911 both guaranteeing that terrorists win and that he gets to stay in office.

There is no national security interest in the Middle East but the PM has wanted to do since Bush took on Iraq. Canadians will act like sheep and vote this guy back in for sure now.

I find it hard to believe that Canada has no national security interest in helping to stop the advance of Islamist terrorism. For us to believe that we, unlike the other Western democracies, are immune to terrorism (and hence have no national interest in it) would, I think, be naive in the extreme and potentially very dangerous. It's not just Middle Eastern-born terrorists we have to fear, but also home-grown wannabes who convert to Islam and see themselves as disciples of the likes of Osama bin Laden. It appears that their numbers are increasing. Militarily engaging ISIS and other Middle East terror organizations seems to me clearly in our best interests as limiting their advance and influence at the very least and ideally ending their predations will depress similar actions both there and at home.

Further, the notion that Harper has joined the effort to fight ISIS only to boost his re-election chances really seems to me like conspiracy theory. Unless I'm seriously missing something here, the reasons for this action are not only in our best interests, but also transparently so. Canada has generally held up its end of things militarily as a Western ally, and to fail to do so in the present instance would seem to our allies (and, I believe, to most Canadians) as shirking our responsibilities. Since Canada will benefit from the defeat of ISIS et al., it seems only right that we contribute to that end rather than having our neighbors to the South and in Europe do our fighting for us. In my view, that is the real reason Harper has taken the action he has.

The tightening of security in Ottawa is clearly needed, given events of the last couple of days. This was immediately apparent from the chaotic series of events on Parliament Hill. How that signals a terrorist victory is beyond me. And how that improves significantly Harper's re-election prospects similarly eludes me. Civil libertarians will be screaming about this, and you can bet that Thomas Mulcair will milk it for all he can. Justin Trudeau is a cipher when it comes to foreign policy and has little to contribute to this debate.

Finally, I don't believe for a minute that this action by the PM will "guarantee [him] a win." I don't think Canadians are so militantly oriented that this alone will move the needle much--nor do I think, as noted, that this was the intent in the first place. I find it hard to believe that the majority of Canadians will see strong action by our government against the terrorist threat as wrong-headed or politically-motivated.

This discussion should probably be moved to the Lionbackers Pub, but since much has been posted already in this thread, I've included my views (and that's all they are; others will have different views) here.

I'm with you South Pender and while I believe Toppy Vann when he says he does not have a political agenda, I still maintain that to me his posts on the subject still read like a political agenda.

[dupsdell1]

sorry everyone did not mean to interrupt football lions talk I am the one who posted this , just did not know were to put it,


god bless Canada.

[notahomer]

sorry everyone did not mean to interrupt football lions talk I am the one who posted this , just did not know were to put it,


god bless Canada.

No need to apologize, these threads are just that, threads that go everywhere. Your original question was whether the RedBlacks game should be cancelled.

I had hoped not but certainly want the decision to be upto the City & People of Ottawa. If there was some kinda event (natural disaster, murders etc...) here in Vancouver, I wouldn't want everybody else in Canada telling Lower mainlanders whether a sporting event should take place or not?

It sounds like it will be a go. It sounds like it will be an event to honour the military and the like. Watching the news on this story has been different for me based on a recent trip I had just taken to Ottawa to see the Lions play the Redblacks. So I feel I have a better concept than many of the inside of the buildings and even the outside of CentreBlock, simply because I was inside it just a short time ago. I feel anyone whose EVER been in Parliament probably remembers some of those inside pictures/photos. And, of course, one need not have seen the inside to have an opinion, I'm just saying all the news stories made sense. On our tour, the most amazing room I did not know about before is the Parliamentary Library. Knowing where that is and what is in it, gave me a perspective that my girlfriend only can see based on the photos I took....

I remember too how careful security was when I did take a tour of the faclity too. In fact, security was very FIRM, polite but ASSERTIVELY FIRM.

I would have watched the RedBlacks game regardless but it SEEMS just so much more important to do so NOW........

[TheLionKing]

Lions' game against Calgary is a tribute to the vets. It will be an emotional night.

[KnowItAll]

You are saying that this is not a terror attack ? the exact same kind of person blew up the Boston marathon . this was planned and thought out did you not see the sir valence video , ?

this maniac wanted to be over in Syria fighting with the terrorist , he is a terrorist , this was a terrorist attack on Canada in fact I read in the Vancouver sun that a old room mate of his keep saying how he hates Canada and the Usa and wants to get out of here.

planned and thought out...maybe, but not very well and not by isis. Two wannabe terrorists sacrifice their lives for two "enemy". Not very efficient of effective.

[Toppy Vann]

TLK:

I don't think for a minute that the PM started the war on ISIS to get re-elected.

But I do think he had to know or ought to have known that joining the rants of these other world leaders would bring risk to our soldiers here at home like in the UK where they were told not to wear uniforms out in public for fear of these whack jobs - and there are lots of them like these Canadian based losers.

I do think the attacks on our innocent military at home can be traced directly to the statements on ISIS, etc as this is what has happened in the UK with their troops at home, then in Australia where PM Tony Abbot did the same and now in our country. Note the pattern here.

When we had Mayor Tom Campbell in Vancouver ranting at hippies and yippies this let to riots in the streets that can be correlated with his rants.

As far as 1999 Foreign Affairs has lamented this sad reality on the part of the USA and it certainly has applied to the UK who followed the US blunder into Iraq fully only to wind up with a huge problem. I believe in national interest and national security like in the old days where we (unlike the USA which was isolationist then) joined two World Wars. We got it wrong in Korea and got it right by staying out of Vietnam.

Redefining the National Interest

"The "national interest" is a slippery concept, used to describe as well as prescribe foreign policy. Hence the considerable debate about it. Some scholars have even regretted the waning of the very idea of a "national" interest today. Writing in these pages, Samuel P. Huntington argued recently that "without a sure sense of national identity, Americans have become unable to define their national interests, and as a result subnational commercial interests and transnational and nonnational ethnic interests have come to dominate foreign policy.""


==
AMERICAN POWER AND PRIORITIES

William Perry and Ashton Carter have recently argued that we should rethink the way we understand risks to U.S. security. At the top of their new hierarchy they put "A list" threats like that the Soviet Union once presented to our survival. The "B list" features imminent threats to U.S. interests -- but not to our survival -- such as North Korea or Iraq. The "C list" includes important "contingencies that indirectly affect U.S. security but do not directly threaten U.S. interests": "the Kosovos, Bosnias, Somalias, Rwandas, and Haitis."

What is striking is how the "C list" has come to dominate today's foreign policy agenda. Carter and Perry speculate that this is because of the disappearance of "A list" threats since the end of the Cold War. But another reason is that "C list" issues dominate media attention in the information age.

What I do see happening thought is the PM running an election campaign on a narrative like Geo. Bush did and he will win: elect me as the other leaders of parties will be deemed either : too weak, too inexperienced or too soft all of the above.

If the PM doesn't run on that narrative, then I will be the first to give him great credit for not taking advantage of a terrific political opportunity as we know people don't change leaders in a crisis - real or whatever.

http://belfercenter.hks.harvard.edu/pub ... ve_defense

"Targeting Top Terrorists: How Leadership Decapitation Contributes to Counterterrorism"

Journal Article, International Security, volume 4, issue 36, pages 9-46

Spring 2012

Author: Bryan C. Price

Belfer Center Programs or Projects: Quarterly Journal: International Security


Several states, including Israel and the United States, have put decapitation tactics, which seek to kill or capture leaders of terrorist organizations, at the forefront of their counterterrorism efforts.

The vast majority of scholarly work on decapitation suggests, however, that leadership decapitation is ineffective at best and counterproductive at worst. Contrary to this conventional wisdom, leadership decapitation significantly increases the mortality rate of terrorist groups, although the results indicate that the effect of decapitation decreases with the age of the group, even to a point where it may have no effect at all. This finding helps to explain the previously perplexing mixed record of decapitation effectiveness.

Terrorist groups are especially susceptible to leadership decapitation because their organizational characteristics (they are violent, clandestine, and values based) amplify the difficulties of leadership succession. Additionally, in contrast to the conventional wisdom regarding the durability of terrorist groups, politically relevant terrorist groups (defined as those with at least four attacks including one attack resulting in a fatality) endure significantly longer than previously believed.

[dupsdell1]

sorry everyone did not mean to interrupt football lions talk I am the one who posted this , just did not know were to put it,


god bless Canada.

No need to apologize, these threads are just that, threads that go everywhere. Your original question was whether the RedBlacks game should be cancelled.

I had hoped not but certainly want the decision to be upto the City & People of Ottawa. If there was some kinda event (natural disaster, murders etc...) here in Vancouver, I wouldn't want everybody else in Canada telling Lower mainlanders whether a sporting event should take place or not?

It sounds like it will be a go. It sounds like it will be an event to honour the military and the like. Watching the news on this story has been different for me based on a recent trip I had just taken to Ottawa to see the Lions play the Redblacks. So I feel I have a better concept than many of the inside of the buildings and even the outside of CentreBlock, simply because I was inside it just a short time ago. I feel anyone whose EVER been in Parliament probably remembers some of those inside pictures/photos. And, of course, one need not have seen the inside to have an opinion, I'm just saying all the news stories made sense. On our tour, the most amazing room I did not know about before is the Parliamentary Library. Knowing where that is and what is in it, gave me a perspective that my girlfriend only can see based on the photos I took....

I remember too how careful security was when I did take a tour of the faclity too. In fact, security was very FIRM, polite but ASSERTIVELY FIRM.



very nice statement my brother served in Ottawa also 20 years ago and was standing right were that soldier was a gard too that is wy it is very emotional for me.


I would have watched the RedBlacks game regardless but it SEEMS just so much more important to do so NOW........

[Toppy Vann]

http://belfercenter.hks.harvard.edu/pub ... ve_defense

"Is America on the ISIS Hit List?"

Op-Ed, The National Interest

September 29, 2014

Author: Graham Allison, Director, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs; Douglas Dillon Professor of Government, Harvard Kennedy School


ISIS leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and his organization are unusual among terrorists in their explicit articulation of their ambitions, their agenda, their priorities, and their strategy. Analyzing their actions, one finds a high level of alignment between what they say and what they do.

Check the article for the target countries for ISIS. Canada wasn't listed and the USA according to this expert:

Notice who is not at the top of this list. For ISIS, the US is both far down--and far away.

What should Washington make of this?

First, if our friends and allies (and adversaries like Iran) to whom ISIS poses an imminent or even existential threat are unwilling to fight for themselves, to kill and to die for their own interests and values, Americans should ask: why should we?

Second, if by feigned, studied fecklessness, those who are threatened most directly can simply wait for Uncle Sam to do the job, is it not rational for them to do so?

Third, if those who are threatened most directly rise to the challenge, they will have more than enough foot soldiers to do the job. While officially excluded from the international coalition the US has assembled, Iranian-sponsored Shai militias, Assad's army, and others whom we rightly count as adversaries on other issues are doing more of the fighting on the ground against ISIS today than our traditional allies.

His conclusion though is what is now not working and has actually put a lot weapons in ISIS hands:

A US strategy that limits our role to air strikes and explicitly forswears American boots on the ground in combat provides just the right balance of incentives and assistance this issue requires.