Russell Brand on Canada Attack and Media Manipulation of Fear

https://youtu.be/ALEaAAU3KAE

He is an idiot.

Sorry did he just try to make out cold blooded murder was not cold blooded murder?

I doubt very much the victims family would have taken too kindly to this video.

Nicko is right, he is an idiot

Normally a fan of Brand but he is wrong here.

First of all it was cold blooded, second, it could have been anyone he killed. Of course it is an attack of basic freedom and as an indiscriminate attack can rightly be called an attack on the Canadian nation.

Brand's whole wit, sarcasm and humour here is a disgrace and an insult considering how fresh this is. Real people have died. In this case fully agree with didge and nicko, an absolute idiot.

Is there any kind of murder? Is murder any better if it's carried out with emotion?

All 3 of you are examples of how people can be manipulated.

The Canadian government are definitely going to use this as an excuse to do many things. And the fearful will let then get away with it. Sheep! Bah!

A spontaneous murder or a confrontation which results in murder is significantly different to someone knowingly entering a government building and killing an innocent and unexpecting person. There can be manipulation, but facts are facts.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Is there any kind of murder? Is murder any better if it's carried out with emotion?

All 3 of you are examples of how people can be manipulated.

Nothing to do with manipulation, what he tried to argue was this was not cold blooded, where the victim was certainly random and a statement made by the fact he was a soldier, thus the act was premeditated to kill in cold blood as many people as possible. The fact is his response is a political response to the PM of Canada and what he says, we get that, but by doing so his view points are also wrong and so poor they show how he has allowed actually his emotions on the views he follows to have made such a poor video.

Eilzel wrote:A spontaneous murder or a confrontation which results in murder is significantly different to someone knowingly entering a government building and killing an innocent and unexpecting person. There can be manipulation, but facts are facts.

Yah? Tell that to the person who was murdered. Whoops! You can't.

Which means the added description of 'cold blooded' is only for the benefit of the fearful.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:The Canadian government are definitely going to use this as an excuse to do many things. And the fearful will let then get away with it. Sheep! Bah!

Now that would also be wrong and you would have a point, but not on the crap spouted within the video, espcially trying to claim it was not cold blood.

The real cowards are the terrorists who hide away and murder unexpecting innocent people Zack. If governments have to ramp up security so be it. They did in UK and I can't say myself or anyone I know has a problem with it. The only losers are the terrorists and proof can be seen in a total lack of successful attacks. You may call the people sheep, but better being sheep in a still enormously free and safe country than bomb fodder in a terrorist infested hell hole.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Eilzel wrote:A spontaneous murder or a confrontation which results in murder is significantly different to someone knowingly entering a government building and killing an innocent and unexpecting person. There can be manipulation, but facts are facts.

Yah? Tell that to the person who was murdered. Whoops! You can't.

Which means the added description of 'cold blooded' is only for the benefit of the fearful.

Was this planned and no emotion presented?
Yes.
Based on the fact he tried to kill more
Did the attacker show any sympathy or mercy to those being attacked?
No


Verdict


Cold blooded

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Is there any kind of murder? Is murder any better if it's carried out with emotion?

All 3 of you are examples of how people can be manipulated.

Nothing to do with manipulation, what he tried to argue was this was not cold blooded, where the victim was certainly random and a statement made by the fact he was a soldier, thus the act was premeditated to kill in cold blood as many people as possible. The fact is his response is a political response to the PM of Canada and what he says, we get that, but by doing so his view points are also wrong and so poor they show how he has allowed actually his emotions on the views he follows to have made such a poor video.

But the Canadian pm was using emotive language, which is then used to heighten fear. Which is then in turn used to pass policies against all citizens, which otherwise those same people would not normally accept.

That was his point. And it was valid. Makes him far from an idiot. But then you used that term, because you're emotional too.

You are arguing a politicians use of words? At least here he is describing it as what it is. Not to strike fear into people really, but to strip the cowardly killer of any 'heroism' copycats might choose to see in him. A 'cold blooded murderer' is far more cowardly than one that os not.

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:The Canadian government are definitely going to use this as an excuse to do many things. And the fearful will let then get away with it. Sheep! Bah!

Now that would also be wrong and you would have a point, but not on the crap spouted within the video, espcially trying to claim it was not cold blood.

Does it matter what type of murder it was? That term was used to heighten emotions.

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Yah? Tell that to the person who was murdered. Whoops! You can't.

Which means the added description of 'cold blooded' is only for the benefit of the fearful.

Was this planned and no emotion presented?
Yes.
Based on the fact he tried to kill more
Did the attacker show any sympathy or mercy to those being attacked?
No


Verdict


Cold blooded

Your verdict is an emotional one. Not a legal one. Proving my point.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


Now that would also be wrong and you would have a point, but not on the crap spouted within the video, espcially trying to claim it was not cold blood.

Does it matter what type of murder it was? That term was used to heighten emotions.

Yes it does matter.
The person has been targeted not for the individual they are but what they represent.
People will view this as an attack to themselves, because this figure is a representative of Canada like any soldier, politician etc are.

Eilzel wrote:You are arguing a politicians use of words? At least here he is describing it as what it is. Not to strike fear into people really, but to strip the cowardly killer of any 'heroism' copycats might choose to see in him. A 'cold blooded murderer' is far more cowardly than one that os not.

No, not really. I certainly don't think an emotional murder is brave.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


Was this planned and no emotion presented?
Yes.
Based on the fact he tried to kill more
Did the attacker show any sympathy or mercy to those being attacked?
No


Verdict


Cold blooded

Your verdict is an emotional one. Not a legal one. Proving my point.

Really, it is a fact, as a cold blooded murder is a murder carried out with no sympathy or mercy for those attacked, it is planned and with no care who is killed or injured.
You seem to rely on the word emotion to much when you have little understanding of psychology itself.

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Does it matter what type of murder it was? That term was used to heighten emotions.

Yes it does matter.
The person has been targeted not for the individual they are but what they represent.
People will view this as an attack to themselves, because this figure is a representative of Canada like any soldier, politician etc are.

Lol! This is like any Canadian being murdered?

You sound like the. Canadian pm. "This was an attack on Canada". what bull shit.

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Your verdict is an emotional one. Not a legal one. Proving my point.

Really, it is a fact, as a cold blooded murder is a murder carried out with no sympathy or mercy for those attacked, it is planned and with no care who is killed or injured.
You seem to rely on the word emotion to much when you have little understanding of psychology itself.

Ok - if you think I'm using the word emotional too much. Show me the legal act for a cold blooded murder?

Still Zack you seem to be more interested in the way a murderer is presented than the safety of citizens. I heard on the news that Canadian intelligence has been aware of 90 Islamist radicals and the recent killers were among those names. I'm sure like most in Britain after 2005, that most Canadians would prefer higher security measures to stop any future attacks. Call people sheep, but better 'sheep' than repeat occurences of these cowardly crimes.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


Yes it does matter.
The person has been targeted not for the individual they are but what they represent.
People will view this as an attack to themselves, because this figure is a representative of Canada like any soldier, politician etc are.

Lol! This is like any Canadian being murdered?

You sound like the. Canadian pm. "This was an attack on Canada". what bull shit.

It is an attack on Canada, because this soldier was a representative of Canada the intended target of the attacker, which you seem unable to understand and if anyone is being emotional it is yourself based upon any backlash of this attack. That shows you know full well what kind of attack this really was, an extremist indoctrinated with hate against western powers and in this case Canada.
You do yourself no favours here because none of us want Muslims stigmatized either, where Canadian Muslims would also view this as an attack on their country and themselves or do you want to see the responses made in regards to Lee Rigby by Muslims here saying basically the same?

An attack from radical religious fundamentalists on an innocent civilian IS an attack on the nation. It could have been anyone there, it wasn't a predetermined victim.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


Really, it is a fact, as a cold blooded murder is a murder carried out with no sympathy or mercy for those attacked, it is planned and with no care who is killed or injured.
You seem to rely on the word emotion to much when you have little understanding of psychology itself.

Ok - if you think I'm using the word emotional too much. Show me the legal act for a cold blooded murder?

Why does it have to be legal to be valid as a term?
Are you saying that now no murder is in cold blood?


http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadian_Criminal_Law/Defences/Provocation

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Ok - if you think I'm using the word emotional too much. Show me the legal act for a cold blooded murder?

Why does it have to be legal to be valid as a term?
Are you saying that now no murder is in cold blood?


http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadian_Criminal_Law/Defences/Provocation

Because we are arguing whether the term 'cold blooded murder' was used as an emotional term or a rational one.

You claim it was not emotional. Therefore rational implies it must also be a legal term for murder.

You of course, won't find a legal form of murder that is cold blooded. So logically, the term must be emotional, used to heighten the fear levels.

for my two cents worth......and stop having such interesting things to discuss today - this is putting me behind.
Both Brand and the PM are both right and yet both wrong.

getting down to the bottom line - the perp had a long history of conviction and long history of mental health and drug use. yes he converted to Islam, yes he probably got "radicalized" by seeing things in the media, yes he made a symbolic ttack on Canada in the form of a soldier and the Parliament and yes the media frenzy was way over the top and the PM used emotive language and it will lead to some trying to penalize Muslims in generous .......BUT......
this guy could have been converted to a domestic Supremacist group, another hard core Christianity group, any group in fact that preys on the weak and uses them for their dirty work while remaining safe in the background.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Why does it have to be legal to be valid as a term?
Are you saying that now no murder is in cold blood?


http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadian_Criminal_Law/Defences/Provocation

Because we are arguing whether the term 'cold blooded murder' was used as an emotional term or a rational one.

You claim it was not emotional. Therefore rational implies it must also be a legal term for murder.

You of course, won't find a legal form of murder that is cold blooded. So logically, the term must be emotional, used to heighten the fear levels.

No it does not require a legal term to be rational, by that stoning people to death because they are homosexual would be rational, which is nothing more than an interpretation and I am sure you do not define that as rational? . I would say a scientific view would be more rational over many views on law, where for example a view made on law could be at odds with the rational science view. We have clearly defined what cold blooded murder is by rational thinking. So I think you are taking decided upon legal terms to define rational views, which as seen is wrong.
So you are looking at this illogically, because the facts make this a cold blooded murder.

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Because we are arguing whether the term 'cold blooded murder' was used as an emotional term or a rational one.

You claim it was not emotional. Therefore rational implies it must also be a legal term for murder.

You of course, won't find a legal form of murder that is cold blooded. So logically, the term must be emotional, used to heighten the fear levels.

No it does not require a legal term to be rational, by that stoning people to death because they are homosexual would be rational, which is nothing more than an interpretation and I am sure you do not define that as rational? . I would say a scientific view would be more rational over many views on law, where for example a view made on law could be at odds with the rational science view. We have clearly defined what cold blooded murder is by rational thinking. So I think you are taking decided upon legal terms to define rational views, which as seen is wrong.
So you are looking at this illogically, because the facts make this a cold blooded murder.

Now you're being diversionary because you could not put forward a 'rational' use of the term 'cold blooded murder'. Legal was one example I gave to make life easier for you. You couldn't find any rational use.

The Canadian PM clearly used the term to heighten emotions. That's the fact.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


No it does not require a legal term to be rational, by that stoning people to death because they are homosexual would be rational, which is nothing more than an interpretation and I am sure you do not define that as rational? . I would say a scientific view would be more rational over many views on law, where for example a view made on law could be at odds with the rational science view. We have clearly defined what cold blooded murder is by rational thinking. So I think you are taking decided upon legal terms to define rational views, which as seen is wrong.
So you are looking at this illogically, because the facts make this a cold blooded murder.

Now you're being diversionary because you could not put forward a 'rational' use of the term 'cold blooded murder'. Legal was one example I gave to make life easier for you. You couldn't find any rational use.

The Canadian PM clearly used the term to heighten emotions. That's the fact.

Again the term cold blooded is clearly defined, I suggest you look it up, based off rational thinking.
No divergence, just a fact which showed the flaw in your view point it was emotional basing as you wrongly did off legal terms, which as seen can be at odds with rational views themselves.
No he used it to describe what it was, a cold blooded murder. He also went off patriotism, which does play off emotions and when you use patriotism with a murder, then you will have an emotional affect. That I do not disagree he did play on emotions, but lets face some realities to this also, it emotionally affects the whole nation such a crime. Its sole target with such a crime is to instill fear and divide a people. Such methods will in fact and do in fact unite people to carry on.
The fact is though "cold blooded" is used to describe many crimes where people do not react to in the news and thus thus it had no bearing on the emotions, what did was patriotism, that was the factor on emotions.

so fuzzy...people are not allowed emotion about this then....

perhaps they should just shrug their shoulders and say ah well....

you are a blithering idiot, and , I wonder just where you sit on all this....

I notice that WHATEVER response there is to these scum bags, you have got to have your (inevitably negative) "tuppence worth"

there was somebody like you around during the 2nd WW...ah yes...thats it
lord HAW HAW.....

are you of similar loyalties Fuzzy...are you playing the "taquia" game ???

victorisnotamused wrote:so fuzzy...people are not allowed emotion about this then....

perhaps they should just shrug their shoulders and say ah well....

you are a blithering idiot, and , I wonder just where you sit on all this....

I notice that WHATEVER response there is to these scum bags, you have got to have your (inevitably negative) "tuppence worth"

there was somebody like you around during the 2nd WW...ah yes...thats it
lord HAW HAW.....

are you of similar loyalties Fuzzy...are you playing the "taquia" game ???

Thank you for demonstrating how such events can make people so emotional that they are driven to an irrational response.

Even by raising this, you are questioning my loyalty. HA!

QED, baby!

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Now you're being diversionary because you could not put forward a 'rational' use of the term 'cold blooded murder'. Legal was one example I gave to make life easier for you. You couldn't find any rational use.

The Canadian PM clearly used the term to heighten emotions. That's the fact.

Again the term cold blooded is clearly defined, I suggest you look it up, based off rational thinking.
No divergence, just a fact which showed the flaw in your view point it was emotional basing as you wrongly did off legal terms, which as seen can be at odds with rational views themselves.
No he used it to describe what it was, a cold blooded murder. He also went off patriotism, which does play off emotions and when you use patriotism with a murder, then you will have an emotional affect. That I do not disagree he did play on emotions, but lets face some realities to this also, it emotionally affects the whole nation such a crime. Its sole target with such a crime is to instill fear and divide a people. Such methods will in fact and do in fact unite people to carry on.
The fact is though "cold blooded" is used to describe many crimes where people do not react to in the news and thus thus it had no bearing on the emotions, what did was patriotism, that was the factor on emotions.

Victors post (and his irrational and emotionally heightened state) above demonstrates my point.

victorisnotamused wrote:so fuzzy...people are not allowed emotion about this then....

perhaps they should just shrug their shoulders and say ah well....

you are a blithering idiot, and , I wonder just where you sit on all this....

I notice that WHATEVER response there is to these scum bags, you have got to have your (inevitably negative) "tuppence worth"

there was somebody like you around during the 2nd WW...ah yes...thats it
lord HAW HAW.....

are you of similar loyalties Fuzzy...are you playing the "taquia" game ???

That is unfair Victor, he is rightly concerned about any backlash which inevitably Muslims will face because of this, it is how he goes about arguing, that is the wrong way in my opinion.
He rightly as many of us do see, always see a poor portrayal of Muslims in the press and has reacted to the statement of the Canadian PM, but failed to see how such an act as you point out is seen as horrific, which as stated earlier has the one intent to make a statement of attack to Canadians, to instill fear.
Zack is falling into the trap of where other Muslims are making a views that there is a conspiracy in everything, when we know we have to stand up also to poor stigmatization. Where filing to do so is failing to understand there is a terrorist and extremist problem, which will not get resolved by arguments over how a nation reacts and mourns the loss of an innocent. People need to unite and say it is cold blooded crime and it is wrong and Zack should should say the same, not go off emotions as he is doing based off fear of a backlash to Muslims, that does not help Muslims either.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Again the term cold blooded is clearly defined, I suggest you look it up, based off rational thinking.
No divergence, just a fact which showed the flaw in your view point it was emotional basing as you wrongly did off legal terms, which as seen can be at odds with rational views themselves.
No he used it to describe what it was, a cold blooded murder. He also went off patriotism, which does play off emotions and when you use patriotism with a murder, then you will have an emotional affect. That I do not disagree he did play on emotions, but lets face some realities to this also, it emotionally affects the whole nation such a crime. Its sole target with such a crime is to instill fear and divide a people. Such methods will in fact and do in fact unite people to carry on.
The fact is though "cold blooded" is used to describe many crimes where people do not react to in the news and thus thus it had no bearing on the emotions, what did was patriotism, that was the factor on emotions.

Victors post (and his irrational and emotionally heightened state) above demonstrates my point.

His emotions come off other points, his dislike for Islam, which does not mean everyone else does.

Again look at what makes people react, we see cold blooded killers all the time, even extremists Muslims daily do so, what makes us react is something else, patriotism, innocent children or women ect.

Most people are saddened because such a thing does happen, mainly because they know Muslims like most of us do who are not like this and even though there is countless explanations and reasons provided as to why some people do, the vast majority of people still find it difficult to comprehend as to why. This more than anything brings about an emotion, where this emotion plays at the heart of most people, betrayal. That is how it is seen.

I thought the best point Brand made was that this is being subjected to a lot more hysteria than the right-wing movement members who have killed police officers in Canada and the U.S.

http://blog.adl.org/extremism/canadian-officer-killings-reminiscent-of-deadly-american-attack

http://www.vice.com/read/whats-behind-all-the-right-wing-cop-shootings

Taking North America as a whole, you'd have to throw in all the very-much-premeditated cop killings in Mexico by cartels. On this continent a police officer is far more likely to be killed by cartel or a right-wing group than an Islamic extremists, yet the media coverage is disproportionately tilted toward a fixation on the latter.

Ben_Reilly wrote:I thought the best point Brand made was that this is being subjected to a lot more hysteria than the right-wing movement members who have killed police officers in Canada and the U.S.

http://blog.adl.org/extremism/canadian-officer-killings-reminiscent-of-deadly-american-attack

http://www.vice.com/read/whats-behind-all-the-right-wing-cop-shootings

Taking North America as a whole, you'd have to throw in all the very-much-premeditated cop killings in Mexico by cartels. On this continent a police officer is far more likely to be killed by cartel or a right-wing group than an Islamic extremists, yet the media coverage is disproportionately tilted toward a fixation on the latter.

That kind of rhetoric also achieves nothing it attempts to steer away from the problem by looking at a another problem or the hypocritical view point of some people. Thus the victim becomes meaningless based on far right idiots, where the intention is about doing what is right showing hypocrisy, it backfires by demeaning the death of this innocent victim to terrorism, because those killed by the far right are the same completely wrong, cold blooded murderers. Again the problem here which does not help is the patriotism part, it can create a divide between communities where some will view them as not Canadians and where stigmatization leads to.
Diverting the crime by another crime just shows both are wrong.

you know what fuzzy, you are a tit...
you have yourself one of those "idiot arguments"

It doesnt matter what ANYONE replies with, you can say "ha! gotcha thats an emotional response"

your whole argument is predicated upon a falsehood...that reaction...of any sort is a purely emotional one.

and yet you cry if the logical response is mooted.......

To addresd the comparison with Cartel killers. Well there is an obvious 'reason' there isn't there. The Cartels are involved in massive drug operations. The police they murder, while still terrible and often cold blooded crimes, form part of the larger picture of a drug war.

When an Islamist kills we have to ask why? What message is intended?

An innocent, unexpecting soldier is murdered in cold blood at a war memorial in the parliament building. Those conditions are very specific. Is that 'just another murder'? Of course not. A message is intended from an ideology which has carried put attacks like this or planned to in the US, UK, Canada, Spain, Russia and elsewhere in the west and cobstantly in the ME.

People have a right to get emotional but it is clear what this attack is.

That's a good point, Les, and I found myself wanting to distinguish the cartel violence from the right-wing attacks in the U.S. and Canada on police officers, along with the recent attacks apparently motivated by sympathy for ISIL. But I had to ask myself, is it because it's over money rather than ideology? Why can't money be an ideology unto itself? From what I've seen, I'm increasingly convinced it is.

I had to conclude that whether you're murdering police because you want free reign to run and sell drugs, or because you're an anarchist, or because you want to establish a caliphate, it's the same thing, terrorism. I just don't think the media should pretend to be objective when it's judging one type of terrorism as worse than the next, and I think when it does, it's verging into saying it's better to kill in the name of profit or "down with the nanny state" than in the name of Islam. So I condemn the media for paying little attention to one kind while fixating on another, because that seems to be motivated by something extraneous to the anxiety over terrorism itself.

victorisnotamused wrote:you know what fuzzy, you are a tit...
you have yourself one of those "idiot arguments"

It doesnt matter what ANYONE replies with, you can say "ha! gotcha thats an emotional response"

your whole argument is predicated upon a falsehood...that reaction...of any sort is a purely emotional one.

and yet you cry if the logical response is mooted.......

Uh, you're post is clearly emotional.

Or do you reply like this to every poster.

Go calm down before you blow a fuse and do something violent.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:you know what fuzzy, you are a tit...
you have yourself one of those "idiot arguments"

It doesnt matter what ANYONE replies with, you can say "ha! gotcha thats an emotional response"

your whole argument is predicated upon a falsehood...that reaction...of any sort is a purely emotional one.

and yet you cry if the logical response is mooted.......

Uh, you're post is clearly emotional.

Or do you reply like this to every poster.

Go calm down before you blow a fuse and do something violent.

Pot kettle black.

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Uh, you're post is clearly emotional.

Or do you reply like this to every poster.

Go calm down before you blow a fuse and do something violent.

Pot kettle black.

That's no way to talk about your mother.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Pot kettle black.

That's no way to talk about your mother.

So even more childish by bringing into this my 81 year old mother, speaks volumes about your immaturity.
My view showed you were doing what you were accusing Victor of, you then lower this because you were exposed for being emotional, hey ho, if that gets you your kicks in life.
It was her birthday yesterday, so many happy returns to my adorable Mum.

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

That's no way to talk about your mother.

So even more childish by bringing into this my 81 year old mother, speaks volumes about your immaturity.
My view showed you were doing what you were accusing Victor of, you then lower this because you were exposed for being emotional, hey ho, if that gets you your kicks in life.
It was her birthday yesterday, so many happy returns to my adorable Mum.

Look at you play the victim card. Lol!

Now who's being emotional?

Shame your mother raised a complete idiot. Clearly not one of her high points over the last 81 years. Something for her to reflect on.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


So even more childish by bringing into this my 81 year old mother, speaks volumes about your immaturity.
My view showed you were doing what you were accusing Victor of, you then lower this because you were exposed for being emotional, hey ho, if that gets you your kicks in life.
It was her birthday yesterday, so many happy returns to my adorable Mum.

Look at you play the victim card. Lol!

Now who's being emotional?

Shame your mother raised a complete idiot. Clearly not one of her high points over the last 81 years. Something for her to reflect on.

No victim card played at all, only an immature person would bring into the debate someone not here a relative of the poster, that is a fact, so no emotions that again is being played out by yourself.
So you are blaming my mother for how I turned out, even though she raised me a Catholic and I am an atheist, which she does respect my choices, interesting. So by your illogical stand point every Muslim extremist can be blamed solely on the parents raising them and by this raising them in Islam?
You want to rethink your last point or do I have to keep making you look rather silly?

Happy to oblidge.

The funniest part also here is you think I am an idiot yet I had to educate you on what was emotive in the speech by the Canadian PM, the patriotism, you fail to understand psychology, which is funny and also ironic..
Not bad for as you call me a complete idiot.

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Look at you play the victim card. Lol!

Now who's being emotional?

Shame your mother raised a complete idiot. Clearly not one of her high points over the last 81 years. Something for her to reflect on.

No victim card played at all, only an immature person would bring into the debate someone not here a relative of the poster, that is a fact, so no emotions that again is being played out by yourself.
So you are blaming my mother for how I turned out, even though she raised me a Catholic and I am an atheist, which she does respect my choices, interesting. So by your illogical stand point every Muslim extremist can be blamed solely on the parents raising them and by this raising them in Islam?
You want to rethink your last point or do I have to keep making you look rather silly?

Happy to oblidge.

I never realised idiocy was a religion. Lol!

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


No victim card played at all, only an immature person would bring into the debate someone not here a relative of the poster, that is a fact, so no emotions that again is being played out by yourself.
So you are blaming my mother for how I turned out, even though she raised me a Catholic and I am an atheist, which she does respect my choices, interesting. So by your illogical stand point every Muslim extremist can be blamed solely on the parents raising them and by this raising them in Islam?
You want to rethink your last point or do I have to keep making you look rather silly?

Happy to oblidge.

I never realised idiocy was a religion. Lol!

Yes its called Christianity, Judaism, Islam etc
Always one step ahead mate, best you bow out gracefully you are already looking like a sore loser.

Brasidas wrote:The funniest part also here is you think I am an idiot yet I had to educate you on what was emotive in the speech by the Canadian PM, the patriotism, you fail to understand psychology, which is funny and also ironic..
Not bad for as you call me a complete idiot.

Correction: you're an arrogant idiot.

You really do think you're that intelligent. HA HA!

Now go take care of your mother.