The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Did Stephen Harper cause ISIS supporting Muslims to attack Canada?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/23/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 908 times Debate No: 63817
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)




After the recent shootings, lock-downs, deaths, and other terrorist-like activities, one would believe that ISIS is starting to have supporters in Canada to attack the Canadian government. Yet what many people don't realize is that it is actually Harper's own doing that caused those supporters to hurt Canadians in the first place. I have come to start this debate to argue that all of these recent tragic events in Canada involving shootings, deaths, and terrorism is a result of Harper attempting to involve Canada in world affairs of other nations when Canada actually has no place in.

To start off, anybody who is emotionally weak or is emotional after such events should not argue with me. I need a worthy opponent that is still emotionally stable like myself and is neutral or at least not extremely supportive of Canada and extremely hateful towards Muslims and ISIS. I am just telling you right now, so if you are not worthy, do not argue with me at all - it is just a waste of time.

I declare that if Stephen Harper never decided to launch air-strikes and send the Canadian Military to go attack ISIS in Syria, Iraq, and other parts of the Middle East, none of these Muslims supporting ISIS would have attacked. I say this because Harper was actually stupid enough to involve themselves in international affairs in which Canada had absolutely no reason or authority to do so. Even the members of Parliament completely disagreed with such an irrational decision.

Like I said before, since Harper actually did do this, this has angered ISIS even more. Now that ISIS is angry that more of their members are dying and that they now have more enemies to deal with, they want to seek revenge in order to ease such suffering. So with revenge in mind, they decide to do so by indirectly attacking Canada by contacting or convincing the Muslims here to start the revenge plan.

Although revenge is stupid and makes them doubly wrong, they are only doing this since Canada started it first. Not only starting it first, but also got themselves in an unnecessary conflicts. You shouldn't snoop in and get involved with other peoples' businesses unless you are involved. That is a moral after all taught by many religions and people of all races, correct? Since Canada did, ISIS has now begun to take revenge, And they aren't done, they only begun to toy with us.

So if it wasn't because Canada stupidly decided to get involved in others' businesses that ISIS decided to get revenge, then why did they do it? Was it because they were insane? Clearly terrorists are not insane; they are unmerciful, radical, and cold-hearted,but they are not insane. They do not kill at random like the way serial killers do to get revenge or to satisfy their psychotic/sadistic personality.

If they were, then 9/11 would have happened due to Osama Bin Laden's insanity and not because the US was recklessly killing terrorists in the Middle East in the 90's just for the heck of it and using "but they're criminals" excuse as a scape-goat, right? You don't see them attacking Muslims who dislike ISIS, now do you? You don't see them attacking countries that don't get involved like China and Russia, now do you? You don't see them attacking nearby countries that are neutral with all parties, now do you? Why don't you think about that the next time you think terrorists are insane?

As an old saying goes, if you hurt others, others will hurt you back. This is especially true if you purposely do this when you have no reason to do so. Like if you try to get the mafia arrested even though they have never commited crimes against you, they will seek revenge and hunt you down because you have no life and decided to piss them off. Same goes with little Steve there in Ottawa deciding to do crap like that.


To start off, I won't argue with someone who lets emotions overcome arguments. So lets get started.

Did Stephen Harper cause ISIS supporting Muslims to attack Canada?

As Karl Max once said "History repeats itself", and it's true in the context of every terrorist and extremist attacks this world has seen. Terrorist/extremist attacks are usually caused by two conflicting sides that argue on religion, philosophy, and ideology, and one side wants to prove their point by using fear, violence and death. While terrorists, as we call them, usually fight for a cause ( a reasonable one, not money or something), they are often used by someone who wants to take advantage of the situation and reap the rewards for themselves. But in other cases, people who wants to cause violence for reasons that have no connection with the issue, also take advantage of terrorist/war issues.

In the case of the Ottawa attacks that coincided with Harper's decision to fight against ISIS, the news will soon state how the gunmen at Parliament Hill had no connection with the ISIS and were troublemakers (an understatement) looking to get revenge on the country, army, province etc. for problems of their own. Or it could simply be that, they were quite insane. Many will doubt my outlook on this issue, so here is an example.

G20 Protest:
I will not argue that many Canadians were angry towards the G20 meeting in Toronto for reasons such as, using taxpayer's money to conduct the meeting, the one billion dollar replica Ontario Lake, or just for how futile the meeting would be. In order to demonstrate the Canadian view on the meeting, we held a protest. Simple, peaceful and effective. Or it would have been. Troublemakers, thieves and criminals looked at this protest as an opportunity to create trouble, steal, and vandalize the heart of Toronto, and to get away with it. Did the G20 protest cause normal Canadian citizens to attack and vandalize downtown Toronto? No, it was the opportunity presented to criminals to make some mess.

All throughout history, many people wanted to change the world for the better. Whether Harper's decision to fight ISIS was good or not is another debate for another time, but one cannot blindly assume that this was the reason for terrorist attacks in Canada. When 9/11 occurred, Al-Quadia revealed themselves as the attackers, because they were extremists who wanted to get a point across. When this attack occurred, no one took credit. Does that say something here? Terrorists have a streak of bragging their power. Troublemakers do not.

One more thing. I do not believe that Muslims in Canada should be targeted this way. Especially the formatting of this question. I am an atheist myself, but to say that only Muslims support ISIS s stereotypical, racism at the borderline. I understand it was no the intention of the questioner to pose the question this way, but in the future caution is strongly advised.

Remember this readers. The world is a cycle of cycles. History, war, and peace is a cycle; it repeats itself. This issue is not different.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1


A nice argument you have there to prove that you are not emotionally vulnerable from those incidents. Yes, I agree that Stephen Harper did not completely cause ISIS to attack Canada, but I'm trying to prove to those that were emotionally scarred from those shootings that it is not ISIS' complete fault either. (I cannot believe somebody actually challenged me to this debate, but I will continue on anyways...)

Like you said, terrorists do fight for a legitimate cause but in an illegitimate way. But I never stated that ISIS directly was involved in those shootings. I simply stated that those that supported ISIS and/or were of the Muslim faith did those criminal acts to help ISIS avenge their fallen comrades due to Canada launching air-strikes against them. And the news did eventually say that those people may either have mental illnesses or were just wierd and not part of ISIS or the Muslim faith in any way. What I'm trying to argue and prove is that Stephen Harper has some of the blame because of getting Canada involved in something they didn't need to be part of, while ISIS has some of the other blame since they are terrorists and are trying to avenge their fallen comrades.

And what does history have to do with this? I know you're trying to say that this is a result of ignorant people not aware of past political mistakes, but what does that have to do with this? How did Canada angering ISIS have to do with Canada's past? It's not like they were involved with terrorists before, unless you consider that small terrorist group in Quebec during the 60's (or the 70's) that wasn't even terrorists...

You're saying that many people in history and now are taking advantage of such situations in order to commit crimes and get away with it by using the current threat as a scape-goat, correct? You also state that that's how it was in the G20 protest as an example and possibly for the shootings in Ottawa as well? But how does that even make sense and logically connect with that? Those shooters are most likely not criminals and actually either are insane and/or are mentally ill. Even if they were taking advantage of the whole ISIS situation, you still cannot deem them as criminals beforehand. How would you know and have evidence that those shooters are criminals and not ISIS supporters or insane people?

Though you say that this debate is not about whether Harper's decision was good or bad is irrelevant; I don't know about you, but according to the title, topic, and introduction of this debate, it actually kind of is. With my 9/11 reference, opponent claims that the extremists admitted to the crimes and wanted to get a point across, whereas Canada's situation with ISIS is different as nobody took the blame. But ISIS has not officially come to start attacking Canada yet; how would you know or have evidence from them that they accepted or declined those shootings? With 9/11, those terrorists admitted only after the bombings much later. Why does one blindly assume such things when not much time has even passed yet?

I also understand before even making this debate that specifically targeting Muslims is extremely racist, but that is how the media and many civilians say of such things. I am simply repeating what they have said as an argument for this debate. It is racist but not as racist as during 9/11 or how the Canadian government is now. They are now being extremely suspicious of Muslims simply because ISIS is Muslim and are even considering to revoke the passports of such individuals. This is unfortunate for Muslims, but that is the cruel, racist reality of the government after the Ottawa shootings.


Zeno here again,

Finally a worthwhile competition. So let's start this off with some explanations.

First of all, my reference to history was the fact that the Ottawa shootings are just like any other terrorist/extremist attack. As cruel as that may seem, it's true. Terrorists attack. People die. Troublemakers take advantage of the issue. More people die. Government reacts. More people die.

As for the G20 example, you got the picture. It was a typical Canadian example of trouble makers using an issue and cause violence. And how are shooters and gunmen not criminals? And if anyone is going to start to explain how soldiers use guns, and they aren't criminals, I would like to explain that we are not currently talking about the morality of guns, but normal people who used guns to kill people at Parliament Hill. These men shot and killed people. How are they NOT criminals? Mentally ill or not, these shooters are criminals for killing human beings,. So in my defense, I do believe that it makes sense and I can, in fact, logically connect with that. Also, in reference to your sentence, "How would you know and have evidence that those shooters are criminals and not ISIS supporters or insane people?", the point that I was trying to get across was simply that they are criminals. I do not have evidence or proof that they are not ISIS supporters. But similarly, may I ask you whether or not you have evidence that they are, in fact, ISIS supporters? I would like to remind you, that we are debaters, not investigators.

Also in reference to your phrase, "With my 9/11 reference, opponent claims that the extremists admitted to the crimes and wanted to get a point across, whereas Canada's situation with ISIS is different as nobody took the blame. But ISIS has not officially come to start attacking Canada yet; how would you know or have evidence from them that they accepted or declined those shootings?", I could once again ask you whether or not ISIS declined or accepted those shootings. Did you not think, perhaps that this information, being highly confidential, would be censored from the public. We as ordinary citizens, do not have access to this info. Much of this debate is made by assumptions of our ideologies, and surely you can agree with that. We are ordinary people, and we cannot have the evidences of ISIS shootings in Ottawa.

Now in reference to the formatting of your question, I once believed that you accusing the Muslims was purely innocent. But it looks like I was mistaken. Do not be like sheep, and blindly follow others. We all have a brain for a reason, so we must logically use it. Even if the media and many civilians say "such things" about Muslims being supportive of ISIS you just cannot always believe that. They (citizens), just like you and I, are ordinary citizens with no access to evidence that Muslim ISIS supporters are the core reason of the Ottawa shootings. There are has even been recent news that one of the gunmen was a Jew who converted to the Islamic religion. Do you not think that this oddly connects with me saying that troublemakers take advantage of the issue and use it as a cover up to make violence in Canada? I'm not saying that Jews are the reason why people died in Parliament Hill, but almost anyone could have converted as a Muslim and made some more problems at Ottawa or anywhere else. Even if the world is against you, even if, as you said "but that is the cruel, racist reality of the government", and even if the media is possibly hinting at racism , it does not mean that you should also go off remarking racist statements or questions.

Thanks for reading Zeno's view on this debate readers!

P.S I like this website and I'm always up for a Challenge. That's why I accepted your debate challenge. If you didn't expect people to go against you, then please do not make these sorts of challenges.
Debate Round No. 2


Shrek_sDrecKid forfeited this round.


Zeno here again,

So now I'll use this round to continue with my supporting facts on why Stephen Harper did NOT cause ISIS supporters to attack Ottawa.

I will safely assume that no matter what Canada or Harper would have done, Obama would have carried on the bombings on ISIS. While the rest of the world is fighting and sacrificing soldiers to ensure that another Al-Quadia doesn't reappear (ISIS used to be a small branch of Al-Quadia), I do not believe that it would have been appropriate for Canada to AT LEAST fund the campaign against ISIS. Even though we are a peaceful country, we merely never take part in wars or fights against two or a group of different countries. When the U.S was in the Cold War against Russia, look at Canada. We were the first ones to send journalists to Russia, and see their unique lifestyle! But when it comes to issues regarding the safety of Canada and it's citizens, it would not be appropriate for the government to sit back and relax. So Harper merely did what was right according to Canadian policies. He said, in behalf of Canada and it's population, that Canada would not stand for the ISIS expansion and it's war crimes. I strongly believe that this attack would have happened whether Canada spoke against ISIS or not. Maybe it would have happened at a later time, but rest assured that it would have happened.

Thanks again readers for listening to Zeno!
Debate Round No. 3


Oh man, I had to go through alot of crap, so I will be making it up for you by making a rebuttal for both of your arguments. I apologize for forfeiting the previous round, so now you know. You say I'm a worthy competitor; so you're telling me, all of these debates you had before, only I and a few others are actually good enough to debate with you and the rest cannot debate for crap? Okay, whatever, let us move on to the debate anyways...

When I said people who shooted in the G20 summit, I never said that both shooters and gunmen were criminals. I will restate what I stated earlier but in a different way. I meant to say that just because a person owns a gun, does not necessarily deem them a criminal. I have a couple water guns and toy guns at my house right now; does that automatically make me a criminal, whether or not those guns can actually kill people or not? I do agree with your logic or criminals, but I never meant to say it that way, as I was rushing that rebuttal, so please understand. And by the way, you just contradicted yourself right there, as you said earlier whether or not I have evidence to claim if they are ISIS supporters or not, yet you then say I don't have to since we are debating and not investigating (yet you ask me the first question again later in the debate so you have contradicted yourself twice).

You contradict yourself yet again so I will cut this short. You said that we are debating and not investigating, then you say whether or not I have such evidence to support such a claim. This time, however; you must have noticed your contradiction and quickly fixed that error by asking me whether or not I know that such evidence or information even exists in the first place at all. Yet you said earlier in the debate about morality of guns being off-topic and being rejected if being spoken in this debate. I would like to ask you a similar question: where is your evidence that they have censored such information from the media and the public? What if they have information but it is the media that is doing the censoring, and not the government or law enforcement workers themselves? Or what if they will release such information only after once ISIS or the shooters have been dealt with? Now you are going off-topic with censorship of information as that does not apply to whether or not Harper caused ISIS to retaliate by shooting in Ottawa and Montreal.

Why are you starting to get more personal with me now? I never stated that I beared any grudge against Muslims and simply stated that that was what the media and public says. I know that I am not supposed to blindly follow it, yet you still blindly contradict yourself and misinterpret many of my arguments. You don't see me telling you that, now do you (sarcasm entirely intended)? I understand that it may not necessarily be Muslims and some may just be taking advantage of the situation. Yes, I know that one of the shooters is a person that converted to Muslim and is just taking advantage of the situation, but that still does not disregard the fact that the Canadian government is now more racist towards Muslims as they are now being highly suspicious of them and may be revoking some of their passports soon. I know that I should not be racist as well and add more fuel to the fire, but as stated previously, you are going off-topic as we are partially talking about racism within the media, public, and government, and not morals and ethics regarding racism.

Wait, you are Canadian? Ah, no wonder you were able to argue against me when others have not as they were American and lacked the knowledge. But now I am starting to go off-topic as well, so I will apologize in advance for contradicting and going off-topic myself. (See, I may be a hypocrite, but I at least admit and try to avoid repeating the same mistakes - oh no, I am contradicting myself again...) I actually do expect people to go against me; it's just that I was extremely disappointed that nobody argued with me until you came along, so when you did show up, I was unprepared.

Stephen Harper is not innocent and should have already known and prepared for the coming of ISIS to Canada beforehand. Before they even sent air-strikes, the people in Parliament Hill even rejected and declined the military to support the United States in launching them against ISIS because they clearly knew the consequences it would bring for helping them. Harper, as naive and arrogant as he usually is with international affairs within these recent months, decides to launch them anyways as he has a majority government. If Harper never launched those, ISIS would have most likely not considered Canada as one of their man enemies and probably still be neutral with us. Now I know that it is not appropriate to just sit back and let the enemies invade, but ISIS has not even begun to officially invade Canada or any other country it considers its enemies except for those in the Middle East.


Zeno here again,

Do I really need to say what was wrong about that first paragraph. Nah probably not, but just for debating sake I will. Are you trying to tell me that the gunmen at Ottawa had toy guns? Water guns? Are you trying to tell me that these men shot and killed a soldier with a gun you can get at a dollar store? And in Canada, no one without special permission can own a gun. It's illegal (U.S.A laws are completely different on this topic). Meaning you are a criminal, if you own a gun. Not water or toy guns, mind you.

And I think we should really stop with this evidence nonsense. I can ask you again for evidence about censorship, but you and I will keep on going back and forth, so it's no use.

If you had read my last few arguments properly, you will have noticed that I took special care in NOT making any statements regrading you having a grudge for Muslims. I merely said not to blindly listen to others such as media, because like you said they could have censored information. And please do tell me how exactly Canada is being racist towards Muslims? The government is checking EVERYONE's passports. Muslim, Hindi, Mandarin, African it really doesn't matter. Do you see Muslims being branded or being especially targeted by police? Do you see more arrest cases with Muslims? Nope.

You also said yourself that Harper had the majority government, so it was as a result of his majority that he was able to pass the instructions to fight against ISIS. You are absolutely, completely, without a doubt right. But you used that fact incorrectly to support your argument. Think. Who elected that majority? Who elected the Harper government? Americans? ISIS supporters? No. Canadians voted for this government. Canadians knew who and what they were voting for, especially since Harper is in his second term. They knew it was Harper who pitted Canada in Afghanistan and they were prepared when Harper pitted Canada against ISIS too. Harper is a representative of this country at an international level. If we wanted to fight against ISIS then it's Harper's responsibility to report it to the world and ISIS.

Thanks for viewing readers!
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Shrek_sDrecKid 2 years ago
@Zeno2014: Just to tell you, in Canada it is legal to own a gun as long as the following conditions are met:
-You get trained by a qualified gun professional at a certified gun training facility.
-You successfully pass all tests, exams, challenges, etc., presented by instructor.
-You rightfully get a gun license card physically and legally proving you can use guns.
-You purchase your fire-arms legally at legally operated gun stores.
Of course, failing to meet any one of these conditions deems you to be a criminal for illegally possessing fire-arms. I think in certain states, you must also follow these rules, but in most states in the U.S., you just need to be of legal gun age (LOL) to legally purchase said weapons at a legally operated gun store.
Posted by Zeno2014 2 years ago
You don't have to be a political debater. Al you need to have is an opinion and some evidence. That's it. But listening is always a good way to start off debating.
Posted by FakeAmericansUr 3 years ago
I would but I know nothing about this even if i intended to be a political debater.Ill follow though might be useful to hear :)
Posted by Shrek_sDrecKid 3 years ago
Please do accept the challenge and start debating...
Posted by Shrek_sDrecKid 3 years ago
Update: That comment I made earlier is no longer invalid.
Posted by Shrek_sDrecKid 3 years ago
I would like to tell anybody reading my first argument and my opponent that I meant to say "NOT supportive of Canada and hateful of Muslims and ISIS" instead of "supportive of Canada and hateful of Muslims and ISIS"; that is all for now...
No votes have been placed for this debate.