Skip to main content


Showing posts from February, 2015

Track Changes

Ceasefire and How to Destroy the Islamic State

Nafeez Ahmed takes a look at the roots of the Islamic State (No Piers Morgan. This Is How to Destroy the Islamic State, Middle East Eye, 8 February 2015), arguing that IS should not be seen as a natural product of some inherent violence unique to Islam.

Ahmed argues instead that the radical group uses Islam as a means to gain legitimacy and support from the large numbers of people who witnessed, and were affected by, the huge death toll caused by Western actions in Iraq and elsewhere since the First Gulf War. Many of the fighters that support the Islamic State are motivated not by religion, but by political grievances and/or lack of prospects in life. - See more here:

To cure a disease, one needs to first diagnose it correctly. A disease as mind-blowingly disturbing and insidious as IS requires a process of diagnosis that is commensurate.

Distorted pseudo-religious ideologies don’t become capable of conquering vast areas of land and indoctrinating thousands of foot-soldi…

Pew Research: Social Media and the ‘Spiral of Silence’

"Some social media creators and supporters have hoped that social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter might produce different enough discussion venues that those with minority views might feel freer to express their opinions, thus broadening public discourse and adding new perspectives to everyday discussion of political issues."


Read the  Pew Research Centre report here 

Who will watch the spies?

A video from Leadnow...

Do people really support a bill they haven't read based on questions that interpret this bill?

New poll finds Harper’s anti-terror bill is a political juggernaut? Here is the Globe and Mail article.

Here are the questions Angus Reid said they used in the poll.

And to support the Harper government Gordon Gibson claims The Supreme Court is a greater threat to Canada than Harper.

Tom Mulcair in The Tyee: "What Stephen Harper is proposing is a bogus choice," Mulcair told reporters in French. "We don't have to choose between our freedoms and our safety; we have to deal with both at the same time."

Elizabeth May in the Georgia Straight says the bill would create a secret police force.

And from Christopher Majka on
"As many astute commentators have pointed out "terror" is a tactic. It has been -- and continues to be -- employed by various groups in pursuance of political agendas.

Thus, a "war on terror" is a terminological absurdity. One cannot wage a war on a tactic. One cannot bomb a "tactic" out of existence. Nonetheles…

Roy Romanow & Ed Broadbent on Bill C-51

"They point out that it gives security agencies too much power to detain suspects without charge. They say it returns Canada to the days when the country’s spies spent much of their time playing dirty tricks against real or imagined threats.

They note that the bill’s definition of what constitutes a threat to national security is so broad that it “could include just about anything.”

Terrorism, they write, is “designed to provoke governments into making drastic mistakes.” Bill C-51, they imply, is one such drastic mistake."

Tom Walkom, Toronto Star: NDP history pushing Thomas Mulcair to oppose anti-terror bill: Walkom

Orthodoxy of War

On Canada’s military contribution to the campaign against Islamic state, Peggy Mason of the Rideau Institute said:

"We’re playing a symbolic military role, [within the context of ] a very short-sighted military strategy, when what we could be doing is playing a much more meaningful role in the broader political strategy that must be put in place if we are going to have anything other than a very long conflict, a quagmire."

Why would that be? Why would the federal government want to play a "symbolic" role instead of attempting to bring peace in such a dangerous area. How would we or the government of Canada benefit by this? What are we trying to attain?

William Astore in The Nation lists seven reasons why America will not be ending war anytime soon. That is to say that Washington intends to keep the war going on for as long as it can.

The reasons given in this article, are the privatization of war, embrace of the national security state by both major parties, "Su…