155. Is Harper a softer Putin?

VIEWS@10829

"We are the best country in the world!" (Stephen Harper)
"You are either for us, or against us."  (George Bush)
And Vladimir Putin worked for the KJB...
And then there's the "War against Terrorists."

Every system is governed by those who manage to convince their peoples they are the ones who keep them safe and satisfied. Whether it is run as an oligarchy, dictatorship, communist, kingdom, or purported democracy, the cliche phrase is that the people are governed by those they 'deserve.'

The irony is that all is either black, or white. What is failed to be realized is the immense hypocrisy that reigns supreme. Happy, well-fed, accepted and integrated people do not kill; the Ottawa and Quebec 2 individuals were mentally un-well when they did; they were not terrorists.

Most 'Terrorists' are deeply dissatisfied individuals who believe their systems have failed them. So, with nothing to loose, they join those who fight back. Irony is, many come from the developed world.
The developed world that discriminated against, and looked down on them, as lesser humans.

"We are the best country in the world! We will do what is necessary...." What is running rampant here is HYPOCRISY! We live in a Doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde world. We say we are one thing, but we act another. We write Rules to adhere to, and then we break them.

We march by the thousands for freedom of speech and democracy. 'THEY' will not take that away from us! We are not scared of 'THEM."

What, in the name of Allah, Jesus, Buddha, God, after all am I doing here, expressing my freedom of speech? Am I going to be a terrorist?
DEF: 'terrorism'  > the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
DEF: "violence' > behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.
• strength of emotion or an unpleasant or destructive natural force: the violence of her own feelings.• Law the unlawful exercise of physical force or intimidation by the exhibitionof such force.
What's interesting is that 'freedom of speech' allows us a certain amount of 'violence' in the embodiment of being 'threatening.'
Politicians can express themselves violently. And under the guise of 'free speech,' this is allowed.

In much of the world conflicts expressed violently go un-hindered. If it doesn't effect us, it doesn't concern us. Now there's Paris: Je suis 'Charlie.' Suddenly, overnight, we stand united.
Again, what is missed out on here is the enormous hypocrisy of it all.

The 'FREE' have world feels it can insult the poorer NON-have world, by mocking their beliefs and systems. "WE" are allowed to express by "strength of emotion or an unpleasant or destructive natural force," our philosophical stance of 'FREE SPEECH! All the while we are taunting and demeaning the have-nots. 

Then, when the lesser world snaps, and explodes in to physical violence, because they can no longer absorb anymore abuse, we all unite under one brotherhood, deciding 'THEY' are now the terrorists. 

Reflecting upon my efforts here, I add: 'NON, je ne suis pas Charlie'. I see absolutely nothing funny in  ridiculing and dumping on the more vulnerable. It's cheap and degrading! 

Clearly I do not condone violence, but I can understand it. I see within my own environment, i.e. this marvellous country, a huge dichotomy between principles. I have experienced many in charge of our systems to be talking from both sides of their mouth!  

Until we are able to dispense with hypocrisy, matters will only get worse.