• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Terrorism in Canada

The heavy bomber was the only weapon with which Britain had to strike back at Germany. So of course it was going to be used.
Yes, indeed. That explains, but doesn't justify, the use of bombers in area attacks directed at civilians. Such justification, if it is available, must be found elsewhere.

I would not accept from IS, even if it was fighting a just war (which it is not) the argument that "we must encourage random murders of innocent people by deranged fanatics because it's the only means we have of striking back at the West" as a justification of their encouragement of these crimes.

One reassuring thing so far. Only complete madmen have so far answered the IS call. They don't seem to have any organised cells capable of effective coordinated action. I hope that remains the case.
 
Just on this topic.

Has anyone else seen the Bruce MacKinnon Editorial Cartoon? I don't think... well I know... I have never seen a more fitting cartoon in all of my life.
http://time.com/3535207/ottawa-shooting-cartoon-bruce-mackinnon/

That's my provincial paper. And I have been seeing his cartoons since as long as I looked at a newspaper. For the longest time I just assumed every city had a cartoonist just as talented. As I got older I realized he is the best I have ever seen.
 
Just on this topic.

Has anyone else seen the Bruce MacKinnon Editorial Cartoon? I don't think... well I know... I have never seen a more fitting cartoon in all of my life.
http://time.com/3535207/ottawa-shooting-cartoon-bruce-mackinnon/

That's my provincial paper. And I have been seeing his cartoons since as long as I looked at a newspaper. For the longest time I just assumed every city had a cartoonist just as talented. As I got older I realized he is the best I have ever seen.

Thanks for posting that.
 
Just on this topic.

Has anyone else seen the Bruce MacKinnon Editorial Cartoon? I don't think... well I know... I have never seen a more fitting cartoon in all of my life.
http://time.com/3535207/ottawa-shooting-cartoon-bruce-mackinnon/

That's my provincial paper. And I have been seeing his cartoons since as long as I looked at a newspaper. For the longest time I just assumed every city had a cartoonist just as talented. As I got older I realized he is the best I have ever seen.

He did an amazing 3 day series after the September 11th attacks as well. It showed Uncle Sam being stabbed in the back on the first day and rising to his feet on the next two days. The man is brilliant and among the many things I miss from Nova Scotia.
 
Just on this topic.

Has anyone else seen the Bruce MacKinnon Editorial Cartoon? I don't think... well I know... I have never seen a more fitting cartoon in all of my life.
http://time.com/3535207/ottawa-shooting-cartoon-bruce-mackinnon/

That's my provincial paper. And I have been seeing his cartoons since as long as I looked at a newspaper. For the longest time I just assumed every city had a cartoonist just as talented. As I got older I realized he is the best I have ever seen.

It brought tears to eyes. As did this: http://www.cbc.ca/asithappens/popupaudio.html?clipIds=2568457500

From As it Happens -- http://www.cbc.ca/asithappens/episo...forts-to-save-downed-soldier-at-war-memorial/
 
Last edited:
Yes, indeed. That explains, but doesn't justify, the use of bombers in area attacks directed at civilians. Such justification, if it is available, must be found elsewhere.


Except for the fact that in a case of total war between industrialized nation-states the civilian is the foundation upon which the entire war effort rests. It is from the civilian population that new military recruits are drawn. It is the civilian population which works in the factories which produce the bullets, bombs, shells, rifles, cannons, artillery, torpedoes, mines, tanks, fighters, bombers, submarines. Without the civilian population none of the instruments of war could be built. It is the civilian who grew the food which fed the military. It is the civilian who toiled in the mines which provided the raw resources needed to produce the weapons of war. Without the civilian workforce the military would not be possible.

In a case of total war between industrialized nation-states, the equation is simple: no civilians, no economy; no economy, no military; no military, no war.
 
Except for the fact that in a case of total war between industrialized nation-states the civilian is the foundation upon which the entire war effort rests. It is from the civilian population that new military recruits are drawn. It is the civilian population which works in the factories which produce the bullets, bombs, shells, rifles, cannons, artillery, torpedoes, mines, tanks, fighters, bombers, submarines. Without the civilian population none of the instruments of war could be built. It is the civilian who grew the food which fed the military. It is the civilian who toiled in the mines which provided the raw resources needed to produce the weapons of war. Without the civilian workforce the military would not be possible.

In a case of total war between industrialized nation-states, the equation is simple: no civilians, no economy; no economy, no military; no military, no war.

Hey. I can participate in this derail as well. I remember listening to a call in radio show some considerable time ago about perfidious Albion deliberately terror bombing the cultural city of Dresden. Someone called into the show. She said, "Dresden had a ball bearing factory. I know. I worked there." A quick Google brings up https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/soc.history.war.world-war-ii/DbpLkqL0P7U wherein the whole thing is thrashed out.

Can we get back on topic for this thread?
 
In a case of total war between industrialized nation-states, the equation is simple: no civilians, no economy; no economy, no military; no military, no war.
Hey, that's the case in wars against non-industrial peoples too! No Herrero / Modoc etc, no war! Well done! The equation is simple.
 
Hey, that's the case in wars against non-industrial peoples too! No Herrero / Modoc etc, no war! Well done! The equation is simple.


So you don't dispute it then? Okay. We now take you back to our regularly scheduled topic...
 
So you don't dispute it then? Okay. We now take you back to our regularly scheduled topic...
No I don't dispute that if you massacre a people they can't go to war against you. That is well known. I don't dispute it.

What I think is that it may not be the best way of arguing that terrorism is a bad thing.
 

Back
Top Bottom