Slashdot Mirror
Shooting At Canadian Parliament
CBC reports that a man pulled up to the War Memorial in downtown Ottawa, got out of his car, and shot a soldier with a rifle. The Memorial is right next to the Canadian Parliament buildings. A shooter (reportedly the same one, but unconfirmed) also approached Parliament and got inside before he was shot and killed. "Scott Walsh, who was working on Parliament Hill, said ... the man hopped over the stone fence that surrounds Parliament Hill, with his gun forcing someone out of their car. He then drove to the front doors of Parliament and fired at least two shots, Walsh said." Canadian government officials were quickly evacuated from the building, while the search continues for further suspects. This comes a day after Canada raised its domestic terrorism threat level. Most details of the situation are still unconfirmed -- CBC has live video coverage here. They have confirmed that there was a second shooting at the Rideau Center, a shopping mall nearby.
Dont let your idiots in parliment go all panic mode like the Raving Morons we have running this place in Washington DC.
This was a rare incident by a insane person, nothing more. Put more money into public mental health.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
It's important for non-Canadians to realize that Parliment Hill is not the White House or US Senate. Parliment in Canada is a public commons. There is no security at all on the ground of Parliment and the space is routinely used for large scale public protests and demonstrations, less than a couple of dozen yards of Parliment itself. It's a different ball game.
Crazed shooters are totally our thing.
--America.
Best Slashdot Co
The blurb is all over the place. The shooting is in Ottawa, Canada, Canada's capital. A man with a shotgun walked up to one of two soldiers posted at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, and shot one of the soldiers. He then ran off, got into a car, and drove to the gates of Canada's Parliament Buildings center block (you can't drive to the front door, not since 9/11). He ran in and shots were fired. The Seargent At Arms shot and killed the shooter, but there are more shooters in the building (RCMP and Ottawa police are all over it). The parliament buildings are about 2 blocks from the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. There is a large hotel about a block from Parliament, the Chateau Laurier. There was a shooter in there also, and there is also a large shopping mall about 3 blocks away "Rideau Center". There are shooters in there too. This all follows a 'lone wolf' Jihadist running over (with a car) two soldiers at an army recruiting center yesterday. He was later shot (and killed by police). Also yesterday 6 CF-18's left Canada to join the war on the ISIS (or ISAL or ass-hole, however you want to call them). Also, today Malala Yousafzai was to receive honorary Canadian Citizenship (she is in Ottawa).
A lot of the video is echos, only heard 9 actual. At least 3 at memorial.
Have only heard of 2 possible perpatrators, one is down.
Be safe, remember Canadians will never live in Fear, be strong.
(and to you in America, Canadians do know what to do)
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Canada raised their terrorism threat level, just before this happened. Clearly they were right. It's time to panic!
Unless they meant something else by "raising the domestic terrorism threat level" -- maybe they meant increasing the number of domestic terrorists, in which case the program appears to have been successful. Here in the US such a thing would energize the Republican base, so it's not unlikely that some politicians benefited greatly from this. Any Republicans in Canada?
Or, maybe in this case correlation does suggest causation. If they raise the threat level again, will another crazy guy shoot at Parliament?
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
So is "Domestic Terrorism Threat Level" a ranking of how disenfranchised the population feels beyond the level of "Peaceful Protest"?
Hmm, the humour and sarcasm seem to have been be lost on you.
We are in a total lockdown. No one gets in or out.
Agreed. I'm interested in this story, but I already read about it on sites that cover this kind of thing. I'd rather this not be here. Post something interesting that CNN/MSN/Everybodyelse isn't already covering better than you will.
This is a War memorial! You can't shoot people here!
Let me say this again, since it deserves repeating. Time and time again, posters on Slashdot talk about the 'fictitious' threat of terrorism that government uses as the excuse for encroachments on perceived liberties. You, the posters are the reason why an actual coordinated attack within a 'safe' democratic country is news on Slashdot.
....to not overact.
Could be some IS wannabe loser(s), maybe domestic terrorist or a person with mental health issues. We do not know yet.
What I do know is the country is NOT in mortal danger (not even close), no they are not coming for you women and children.
We do not need to give up more civil liberties, no lock-down is required.
Wait for the facts to surface, then deal with it accordingly.
If we give in to fear and hysteria....well they win...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
What makes you think this has anything to do with terrorism? If anything it seems personal. Why would they target a soldier from out of town, "guarding" a memorial first? If it was a terrorist attack you'd think they'd target something more significant than that, like the Prime Minister, MPs, etc.
I suppose Facebooks new Safe Check would be useful today - my family have already text me to let me know they're safe, but it would be great to know none of my friends have been hurt.
A recursive sig
Can impart wisdom and truth
Call proc signature()
"nerds" are often the ones who care about such things because they are intelligent enough to see the larger issues, like social justice. Mainstream media is all about the fear and the drama, rarely about the larger issues. That's less true of some Canadian media, but more and more it's going the way of the US fear machine.
Canada still is mostly a handgun free zone. This was a long gun (a double barreled shotgun), which are mostly unregulated, easy to come by, and pretty common in rural areas - especially Northern Ontario.
Well, this comes just a few days after one soldier was killed and another injured in what's being called an intentional attack by a "radicalized" Canadian. That attack was south of Montreal (about 2 hrs drive from Ottawa), so there may be no connection, but it does make one wonder. I'm sure people are worried that these two incidents are related, and might be harbinger of more to come.
A recursive sig
Can impart wisdom and truth
Call proc signature()
Gun free? LOL. We have one of the highest guns per capita rates in the world. We control guns, we don't ban them. And it works very well.
My guess is you haven't spent any time digging into this story or you'd retract your question. As the story currently stands, the shooter started at the memorial and then ran into parliament to target the sorts of individuals you referenced. You'd also know that there was another attack at a local mall at approximately the same time. You'd also know that a 'radicalized' individual mowed down two uniformed members of our military in Quebec just the other day. These could all be viewed as individual incidence, but reasonable people would come to the conclusion that someone is urging these individuals to carry out attacks, regardless whether or not they were highly coordinated.
There's no poisonous snakes native to Nova Scotia dontchano, so what ya be needing a gun for?
I hear hunting is quite popular in Canada so may be moose, ducks, or the most awful thing from Canada ever that need to be gunned down in mass.
If this is terrorism and Canada decides to wrongly go after something I suggest the Canadian Geese as that would at least be useful.
Time to offend someone
Well, yeah, blindly following anyone is stupid. That's true whether you're Canada, or the American electorate. We should both think more.
Ok i c....
So basically we should give up all our civil liberties, and live in a police state with harsher restrictions than sharia law WITH high tech tools to enforce it.
All in the name to "feel" safer? That is your solution?
I lived in Canada all my life. Do you know how many terrorists that wanted to kill me I have come face to face with? 0.
You know how many statistically speaking I am expected to come face to face with? 0
The probability of me being killed by terrorists in Canada is so close to 0, it might as well be 0.
If ever it happens, you know what, it's a tragedy, it sucks, I have the worst luck in the world, but at least I would die knowing he failed to scare us, he failed to take away the rights and freedoms so many others before me fought and died for.
For us to simply give them all up because we are scared due to a few crazed individuals is a disgrace to those who fought in WW1, WW2 and countless other conflicts, fighting against much more scarier threats....
Uh, no. You assume that making the country an even larger police state would help. But I'm sure the Canadians already had about as big a police state as it needed.
And the fuss over incidents involving two persons? Out of millions that live in and travel through Canada each year? Seems like their police apparatus is working pretty well from my point of view.
You talk as if we could bring an end to the threat of someone doing something nefarious, if only we just did something (think of the chil... soldiers). But you know what? We're doing enough. The actual count of terrorism deaths compared with just about any other cause should convince just about anyone of that. But when your argument is emotional, I guess facts don't matter (but still we try...).
So, no, neither Canada, nor the US, nor does just about any developed country need a bigger police, monitoring, border-controlling, etc. apparatus. They should probably try a bit harder to make sure that wealth and opportunity are distributed a bit more equitably and that people have a bit more say in what's being done for/to them and that might be a bit more cost-effective, but it's also a tangent along which I will not proceed further.
What is clear is that freedom is built on acceptable losses. You can debate acceptable loss levels, but the fact of those losses never go away. Talking about acceptable levels and what is needed to achieve those levels might generate a fruitful discussion but, somehow, I don't think you want to talk about things that way.
That is all.
This is what we get for blindly following the states^W^W^W^W being a Western democracy and refusing to be dhimmis to Islamist nutters.
FTFY.
It's 1, possibly 2 guys with long guns. Even if it is a "terrorist" attack, it's a rather pathetic and poorly organized/planned one. The "radicalized" Canadian was not a terrorist, he was a disturbed individual who latched onto the ideology on his own accord. There were no links to any terrorist organization, no indoctrination, etc - had he latched onto any other ideology (like aliens are real or the boogeyman is going to eat your children) and done the same the conversation would be very different.
Canadians have an estimated 7-8 million legal guns in circulation. Hardly a "gun free" zone.
How about self defense against against a nut job on a killing spree? The least successful spree killers in the US have all been stopped by an armed civilian, not a government employee.
I work at 55 Metcalfe st which is the corner of Queen and Metcalfe. I can see the parliament buildings from one of the corner offices. We are still locked down and cannot leave the premises. I think every police officer in the city is down here they are currently doing a grid search of buildings between Queen and Wellington streets.
Please stop APK.. you're only hurting yourself.
How the hell can any attack against soldiers (of all people!) ever possibly be an act of terrorism? Having your soldiers get killed is certainly something to be justifiably pissed off about, but it's impossible for it to be terrorism. Even if a self-proclaimed "terrorist" does it, the act isn't terrorism. In conventional war (ask anyone, whether they grew up in 1200 BC or 1200 AD or 1812 or 1944 or 1971), soldiers are legitimate targets. The definitions didn't suddenly magically change in 2003 (or whenever it was) that US soldiers started getting picked off in Iraq.
A gunman in a government building? In the USA there's be 100,000 cops, the national guard, a dozen tanks, 50 helicopters, CNN and Fox News screaming into the camera "OHMYGOD OHMYGOWD!!!!" and the area would be in lockdown for 72 hours at least and a hazmat crew sent in afterwards ---- all for one shooter with a .22 rifle.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
The radicalized Brits returning home would be free radicals, right? Aren't free radicals good for your health or something?
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
...This smells like false-flag propaganda designed to incite more hatred of the Muslim and Arabic peoples and draw Canada into another BS war in the middle east. This whole thing reeks. Peace.
Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
>> And apparently that gun control doesn't work out so well.
I know as much about what happened today as the summary says, but... if the "best" guns the shooters had today were shotguns, then gun control likely did its job.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
I've just paid attention to the warnings they issue that the "story is still unfolding ... there are conflicting reports ... very little can be confirmed at this point" etc. If it was a targeted attack as you suggest, shooting someone over half a kilometer away from any targets of importance is not logical. It's a 5-8 minute walk to Parliament Buildings from where the shootings began.
They haven't even been able to confirm that a second shooter exists. The only other person shot was a random staff person who was shot in the leg. The other person taken to hospital wasn't shot, just injured (probably tripping over their own feet).
I'm fairly certain the parent post was directed at Americans that are pro gun control (or anyone really).
If you're discounting what you claim the major cause of American gun deaths (illegally owned guns used by criminals) to be, you've got to do the same in Canada. In nearly every category Canada is better off, per capita, than the US in terms of crime.
Also, citation needed for the not counting gangland violence showing low murder rate. The closest thing I can find is a mis-cited report about Chicago that a US conservative site trotted out, sourcing a CDC report that shows nothing of the sort, via Reddit. Here's a well cited refutation of the idea that 80% of gun deaths are caused by gangs, not even after ruling out suicide is it close to true..
Keep on knockin'
https://robbiecrash.me
According to some reports, the NRA bought the rifle, ammunition, and smuggled the rifle into Canada. They're repeating their old tricks where they flooded the streets of Mexico with guns in order to help drug lords there.
No matter what, the NRA cares only about gun makers. They are making sure to scare people into buying more of those things. That is their way.
And if you don't count death, we all live forever.
Why the hell wouldn't you count "gangland" violence? We've got more people in prison than any other country in the world, so when I hear people talk about how there is really little violent crime (except for the violent crime) in the US, it's kind of a joke.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Given a choice between real liberty and perceived safety, I'll take liberty, thanks.
The people trying to keep us "safe" by stripping away our freedoms are the ones I really worry about, no matter what political party they're from.
"and shot a soldier with a rifle."
Is it ambiguous for others of whether the soldier was shot with a rifle or the soldier with a rifle was shot?
When I read it in my head, I naturally want to place a pause after "soldier", so I assume it should be more like "and shot a soldier, with a rifle".
Slashdot: News for nerds, stuff that matters.
Slashdot used to be the news aggregator and they would have info faster than anyone(I know right). It was the first of it's kind and as such slashdot did cover major events in great detail. Look back at Sept 11 http://slashdot.org/index2.pl?... the news on the site was amazing for the time. Ask CmdrTaco what he thought were some of the highlights of slashdot and I'm sure he would say that in his time here that this was one of the sites shining moments. Not news for nerds, but stuff that mattered.
So when you see a headline story pop up and you shoot it down, think this what slashdot was all about many years ago when it started. News for nerds, stuff that matters. A site made by nerds for nerds but not just about nerds, about the things that affect them. This news story affects people nerds non nerds.
Short memory? A crazy man stormed the white house.
They were complaining we didn't shoot the man 6 times as soon as he hopped the fence but after the dog had chewed on him a while so then Fox couldn't talk about conspiracies involving the "victim."
The difference here is we have a black democrat president. If it was Bush it would be another situation. If it was the amazingly unpopular congress that does not represent the public, the government would freak out while most the public would be disappointed no congressmen died.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
It's pretty easy to get a gun in Canada if you don't have a criminal record or mental illness, and can find people to vouch for you.
Not all types of guns - handguns are harder - mind you, but hunting is a pretty common sport and rifles or shotguns aren't a huge deal to get if you're patient.
What we *DON'T* have is stuff like carry permits etc allowing people to walk around in public with guns (which I still personally think is a bit crazy).
Bag 'em and/or lock 'em up until you're at the range or the hunting trails.
The US has one of the highest murder rates in the world (3.6/yr/100000 people)
Don't let facts get in the way of your hysteria.
We're not even in the top 10 of that. Places like Somalia, Venezuela (almost 100/100k), and other holes are far, far worse.
Actually, free radicals cause cancer. That is an interesting analogy considering that terrorists cause a similar thing to society.
You're right, the definition didn't change in 2003...it changed in 2001, because 9/11 changed everything, haven't you heard?
I remember sigs. Oh, a simpler time!
Your ratio is wrong. 90 guns per citizen X 300 million citizens = 27 billion guns.
I believe the correct number is 90 million guns, or 1 gun per 3 citizens.
One hot summer day in 2011 I took a walk through Carp west of Ottawa. To my delight, across the road on my way there I saw nothing less than a gun expo, complete with pickup trucks and overweight people. I'm not an expert in Canadian gun-ownership laws, but to me Canada didn't seem to be altogether "Gun Free".
You deserve all the positive moderation (and maybe a seat as an MP, since I have a sad feeling we'll desperately need rational and moderate voices very soon).
I remember sigs. Oh, a simpler time!
Full mod points for parent, please. This citizen gets it.
The radicalized Brits returning home would be free radicals, right? Aren't free radicals good for your health or something?
Actually, your description is apropos. Free Radicals cause cancer, and I can't think of a more fitting metaphor for radical Islam than it is a cancer with its adherents causing it to spread.
Look where all this talking got us, baby.
" Do you know how many terrorists that wanted to kill me I have come face to face with? 0.
Remove the "I have come face to face with" and that answer will certainly not be zero.
Trolling is a art,
Yep, because a single shooting proves every effort to reduce gun crime anywhere in Canada, ever, has failed completely.
I am a Canadian and I disagree completely with your isolationist position. The protection of innocent lives from aggression is the concern of every free person on earth. By ignoring the suffering of people in other countries all you are doing is reinforcing the idea that might is right.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Burke(maybe)
It could be happenstance that the two events happened so close together (another poster in the comments here mentioned many other events which could be justifications for today's shooting), but assuming we are talking about Islamic radicals again, I could see them taking advantage of the scare caused by the first event, thinking that they might induce more panic by chaining the two. If that's the case, we might have to deal with more attacks, depending on how organized they actually are.
This comes a few months after we've heard that a fair few Canadian citizens were suspected of having participated in jihads with ISIS before coming back into the country.
1. I think you mean 0.9:1, not 90:1.
2. Canada's murder rate is 1.6/100k people, not 0.5. The US is 4.7/100k. So, the US is 3x Canada, not 6x.
While I agree with your underlying point, your numbers are all wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Any good country would be appalled by the atrocities committed by ISIS and want to help stop them. Canada's reaction has nothing to do with the US. All you are advocating is ignoring other people's suffering.
How many people died in terrorist attacks last year? How many died in the hands of various authoritarian regimes?
I think even the most cursory review of history shows which threat deserves more attention.
We're the reason why coordinated attacks are rare enough to be newsworthy and why rushing in with a gun now counts as a coordinated attack? I think you give us too much credit.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
He was a soldier but he was not a combatant. Typically, terrorism is about targeting noncombatants, not non-soldiers (though non-soldiers are almost always noncombatants). Ottawa is not a warzone.
Was the bowl tipped over?
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
by the securistas to add more burden to the use of our civil liberties. Hey, one can dream.
Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
They did attack Parliament, and they attacked something symbolic (the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier) on the way there. You know? Symbolism? Equally important to terrorists as it is to governments.
Looking at the moderation that's appearing in this thread, all dissenting opinions and questions are being censored.
Not new of course, but interesting to see this much censorship this early in a thread.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
He did attack Parliament, and he attacked something symbolic (the Canada War Memorial) on the way there. You know? Symbolism? Equally important to terrorists as it is to governments.
FTFY.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
... a professional security agent who works for the government. If the shooter was letting as much lead fly as some have been saying, you would be delirious to think that an average Joe with a pistol would have been effective in this situation. We're not sure who the dead gunman is yet, but it seems quite likely he had a goal in mind.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
The gunman was using a double barreled long shotgun says otherwise. If that was the best weapon they could find to go on rampage with, I would say it is working.
See page #27: https://portal.chicagopolice.o...
It's also important to remember that not all inner city gun violence is officially "gang-related" (as in, involved someone who was ACTUALLY a member of MS-13 or some other Gang (capital "G") that's being followed by the researchers). Here in the Baltimore Metro area, the rate of handgun violence is orders of magnitude higher in the city compared to the surrounding suburbs, and the motives are almost always drug-related (even if those involved weren't actually part of an official "gang"). Of course, both Chicago and Baltimore have some of the strictest gun laws in the country . . . clearly the answer is to tighten those even further and ignore the root causes of the violence.
Only thing I could think of was Canada's relationship status on Facebook...
Anyway I have no problem with the Queen as a symbol etc... However there are a ton of wasteful APPOINTMENTS (not democratic even), that cost the taxpayers millions of dollars each year.
I do not see the need for A) A lieutenant governor of Canada, or B) another one for each Province.
Not only is it political pork, but they each have an office, staff, and budgets to spend... because why?
Discounting gangland violence seems appropriate to me because why should we care about those who die while disobeying the law and actively undermining our society? The point of law and order is to safeguard members of society while they obey and contribute.
So basically we should give up all our civil liberties, and live in a police state with harsher restrictions than sharia law WITH high tech tools to enforce it.
Yes, yes; now you're catching on!
This also comes the very day we send fighters to Kuwait to fight ISIS... which has been known publicly for several weeks that this was coming today...
I'm not saying it's ISIS, but it could easily be some nutjob who supports them.
" Do you know how many terrorists that wanted to kill me I have come face to face with? 0.
Remove the "I have come face to face with" and that answer will certainly not be zero.
No, that answer will almost certainly still be zero. The answer to "Do you know how many terrorists want to kill a generic Westerner?" would not be zero, but who fucking cares? There's a few white people who would be happy to see a generic black person dead (and vice versa); there's a few Irish who would be happy to see a generic Englishman dead.
The relevant question is not whether there exist some people willing to kill your countrymen, because that will never be an empty set. The relevant question is whether those people are likely to actually kill more of your countrymen than moose, sharks, or bed sheets. The answer is that you should be much more frightened of bed sheets than either terrorists or sharks.
He was on ceremonial guard duty over a memorial. By far not in a combat situation, the fact that he was carrying a weapon, it was a glorified club since he had no ammunition.
COMBO BREAKER!
I'm sorry but "man" is not a proper word for this sequence.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
No difference. If you embrace Islam and try to kill in the name of Islam, you're an Islamic terrorist. Trying to make a distinction between a crazy person and a Muslim is doomed to failure.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
The long gun registry was solely a tool for future disarmament attempts. It had no use in criminal investigations.
" Do you know how many terrorists that wanted to kill me I have come face to face with? 0.
Remove the "I have come face to face with" and that answer will certainly not be zero.
So?
Replace "terrorists" with anything from "transvestite midgets that want to fondle my feet" to "billionaires that want to patronize my painting career" and the statement still has no bearing on your life if you don't ever come into contact with them.
He's not claiming that terrorists don't exist. Only that he has never, and is not likely to ever, interact with one in any meaningful way. Structuring your life around incredibly improbable events is a waste of time. Ordinary citizens who make any changes to their routine in anticipation of a terrorist attack in Canada (or the US or most of the world) are very likely in need of therapy.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
The Tomb of the Unknown Soldier is at the Canadian War Memorial.
Cynical Idealist
Aside from the apt corrections from ClickOnThis, the memorial was not attacked; a single soldier near it was attacked. There's no symbolism in attacking a Canadian soldier.
Because Canada invented the Telephone, the Communications Satellite, Justin Bieber, and Astronauts Singing In Space.
OK, one of those was bad, but the others totally rocked.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Let me say this again, since it deserves repeating. Time and time again, posters on Slashdot talk about the 'fictitious' threat of terrorism that government uses as the excuse for encroachments on perceived liberties. You, the posters are the reason why an actual coordinated attack within a 'safe' democratic country is news on Slashdot.
I should point out this attack disastrously failed, due to Canada's strong gun laws and steadfast courage under fire.
Notice the lack of actual panic, and how bystanders did what they could quickly?
And a really cool Sergeant-at-Arms. Kudos.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Every difference. If you embrace Islam and try to kill in the name of Islam, you're an Islamic killer. Trying to make a distinction between a crazy person and ChrisMaple is doomed to failure.
FIFY
Here's one. And there are plenty more out there. The Clackamas mall shooting was one. The US media doesn't cover them as much, because the body counts tend to be low, and they don't fit the narrative of "guns are evil".
It's not a good idea to lie in such absolute terms, when the internet can so easily prove you wrong.
Maybe this guy was distraught because he couldn't find any maple syrup? You KNOW how Canadians can become if they don't have their maple syrup...
Hmm. Good point. Syrup d'erable is a national treasure.
But more likely a shortage of Tim Bits.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Canadians will never live in Fear.
Ever.
People who think they will have no idea who Canadians are.
Stay strong.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Well... damnit! Maybe it's that George Carlin adage about arguing with idiots. :o)
We have about 350M guns. We have about 330M people. Apparently wherever you're from, they don't teach math skills.
3.6 murders / 100k is pretty damn low. But most of those are drug crime related. Our rate drops by over 50% when not including drug crime, as I said. Apparently wherever you're from, they don't teach reading skills.
The FBI crime statistics from 1993 to 2013 show a clear drop in US violent crime and murder rates, while we've dramatically pushed back gun control. Apparently that's nonsense to you, because it doesn't support your preconceived notions. Just go back to sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "La la la la la...".
Saudi's blow up WTC - bomb Iraq.
Quebec guy snipes Ottara - bomb Iraq.
Hysterical.
Need Mercedes parts ?
Because the cause of most gang violence is the war on drugs. End that and the violence will plummet, just like it did after they ended alcohol prohibition 80 years ago.
Terrorism: n
the use of violence and intimidation, intended to cause fear, in the pursuit of political aims. Note the lack of any definition of targets.
Not terrorism: n
Just about every fucking thing that's reported as such by the US media.
The word is misused as much as "literally" these days. So much so that I can't even.
It may look like I'm doing nothing, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away.
--Scott Adams
Plus, they cancelled a hockey game. Canadians are lining up at recruitment centers for the chance to take ISIS down.
Have gnu, will travel.
Mod parent down for lying. Soldiers are only legitimate targets for other soldiers or organized, uniformed (or at least "having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance") militia members controlled by a responsible commanding officer. I suggest you check Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention for the requirements of being a lawful combatant (there are many others beyond the couple I referenced). And let's not even go into the fact that the person in question is a citizen of the same country the soldier is of and there is not a state of civil war.
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
Gun deaths are still not about guns; they're about culture. Switzerland is proof. Few countries have more guns per capita, yet gun violence is rare there. Why? Proper training of a citizen militia is a factor, but not a sufficient one. Its cultural differences with the US has everything to do with it, not gun ownership levels, which are comparable.
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
It's a gun free zone for all legal practical purposes because you're not allowed to carry in most circumstances. Outside of hunting (with hunting rifles only), your guns can be either in your home, at the shooting range, or on your person, bagged, and only if you're on or reasonably near a direct path between your home and the shooting range. Many types of guns are restricted to only your home, and many cannot be possessed at all.
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
If it happened more, certainly. The Klan was dealt with a long time ago, we even outlawed membership in the Klan. Not that it makes sense to include the Klan since their ideology is based on race first and foremost.
Anyway, I think you might not be familiar with the numbers with respect to Islamic terrorism. You have to look at worldwide numbers, not just acts in America. Thousands and thousands of people are killed every year in suicide bombings because they're Shia (and the Sunnis in Pakistan don't like them) or they're Christian (and all the Muslims in Egypt don't like them) etc.
Now compare that to how many abortion clinic bombings there are in the world.
Now consider that Christianity is still a larger religion than Islam.
and the statement still has no bearing on your life if you don't ever come into contact with them.
No, indirect contact still has a bearing on your life. Most (probably all) of the family members of 9/11 victims did not ever come face to face with a terrorist who wanted to kill them. The terrorists still had a big impact on their lives.
Ordinary citizens who make any changes to their routine in anticipation of a terrorist attack in Canada (or the US or most of the world) are very likely in need of therapy.
This is true and it's why counterterrorism has to be focused in places where it makes sense. No need to monitor everyone's emails or frisk everyone in airport security. Target the groups that are most likely to be terrorists (Muslim guys). Narrow it down as much as you can (Muslim guys who go to mosque a lot, or whatever, and are in a database). Let everyone else get on with their lives.
Umm you sure about that?
Here's one situation where trying to fight the bad guys with a gun turned out bad for the private gun owner. The cops ended up killing the couple so the sad fact is if this guy didn't try to handle the situation himself, he would still be alive. This isn't like the movies, in reality you don't want to be in these kind of conflicts.
http://www.bigwowo.com/2014/06...
Police have corrected that unconfirmed report. There was no shooting at the mall. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politic...
Magic doesn't work in my presence. My power of disbelief is too strong.
Fictitious and actual terrorism are not mutually exclusive.
I'm all for ending the war on drugs. Along with stricter gun laws, it will put a serious dent in the number of innocent people who get shot every year.
You are welcome on my lawn.
When will people realise that Islam isn't the religion of peace? I suppose one good thing to come out of this is that next time people suggest that we appease the Muslims, that maybe if we just let them take more sex slaves and kill more non-muslims they'd leave us alone we can point out that even a moderate country like Canada is targeted by Muslims
So, no, neither Canada, nor the US, nor does just about any developed country need a bigger police, monitoring, border-controlling, etc. apparatus. They should probably try a bit harder to make sure that wealth and opportunity are distributed a bit more equitably and that people have a bit more say in what's being done for/to them and that might be a bit more cost-effective, but it's also a tangent along which I will not proceed further.
Because billionaire Osama bin Laden was upset about the unequal distribution of wealth, he attacked the United States?
We, in Canada, also count simple assault (slapping, spitting, pushing, etc, which result in no serious bodily harm) where the US does not. From the US wiki article:
"The reported US violent crime rate includes murder, rape and sexual assault, robbery, and assault,[54] whereas the Canadian violent crime rate includes all categories of assault, including Assault level 1 (i.e., assault not using a weapon and not resulting in serious bodily harm).[43][44] A Canadian government study concluded that direct comparison of the 2 countries' violent crime totals or rates was "inappropriate".[55]"
From the articles you linked to, it looks as though Ontario has the lowest rate of violent crime (900/100K residents) with Nunavut as the highest (10K/100K) with an overall rate of 1100/100K. Again, these rates include all forms of assault, not just ones that cause injury like the US does. The US has an overall rate of 386/100K, but does not include simple assault nor sexual assault in that total. Looking at the overall numbers paints Canada as a lot less safe than the US, but digging in a bit suggests that we're actually over-reporting in relation to the US. After having lived in the most violent city in Canada (Winnipeg) for 20+ years, and in some of the most violent places in the US (Baltimore, DC, Richmond) I can say, anecdotally, while I may've been more worried about getting a punch in the mouth in Winnipeg for telling someone to go fuck themselves, I was a lot more worried about getting shot so kept my mouth shut in Baltimore.
Keep on knockin'
https://robbiecrash.me
That completely false. Unrestricted firearms can be transported anywhere so long as they are unloaded and in a lockable device or trunk. Unrestricted firearms includes any firearm that is not automatic, has a barrel of 470mm or more, and is 660mm in length or more (or specifically prohibited).
That includes:
M-14
Ruger 10/22
Mossberg 500
SKS
M305
Ruger Mini 14 & 30
Most sniper rifles except the Gepard oddly.
The rest, you can still own/transport/display/etc but there are more restrictions like making the device inoperable, obtaining special permits, etc
Or, it could be a copycat. Wingnut sees news about killing soldiers, thinks his time for glorious martyrdom has come, and jumps in his car. I mean he killed one guy, drove to the Parliament, hopped a security fence, and ran in. Doesn't seem like much of a plan.
Magic doesn't work in my presence. My power of disbelief is too strong.
Sums it up well.
Government is a bigger threat to your rights and liberties than terrorists will ever be.
Hear hear... My google news feed is packed with this stuff. I don't need slashdot to tell me what happened.
Buck Feta. You know what to do.
oh and I should point out, the lockable device or trunk is only when it's in an "unattended" vehicle. If it's on your person it's perfectly fine. What is illegal in Canada, without a permit, is the concealment of the firearm. ie: if you want to walk down the street with an unrestricted shotgun you're free to do so, just keep it in plain view and unloaded. Minor restrictions apply like not in public meetings, you can't point it at someone even when unloaded, and you can't be "careless" with it - but other than that, you can do as you want.
an actual coordinated attack within a 'safe' democratic
It's a single fool with a gun, not a group.
You can't take the sky from me...
Harper has been trying for a while to get people pissed off enough to hit Canada. It improves his chances of staying in power because people do not like to switch horses in the middle of a fight. He must be inwardly smiling.
had he latched onto any other ideology (like aliens are real or the boogeyman is going to eat your children)
Check out the hundreds of attacks listed at TheReligionOfPeace.com (the domain name is sarcastic, but the list is meticulously researched).
The fact is, there are no comparable websites for any other ideology -- nor would it be possible to create a comparable website for any other ideology, because there are no other ideologies that come anywhere close to inspiring that many acts of violence.
So why do you build up this strawman about "had he latched onto any other ideology"?
Indeed... it would make much more sense to make changes in your routine in anticipation of getting cancer, being hit by a car, or slipping in your bathtub. These are all serious issues that COULD have their risks significantly curtailed through known behavioural, technical and environmental methods, but for the most part aren't. Terrorists, on the other hand, by definition are in it to spread mass-FUD. If you don't fear them, then they have pretty much no means of accomplishing their goal, even if they kill a few thousand people. The only real way to defeat terrorism is to make sure terror doesn't gain a foothold.
Now it may be that some "terrorists" actually have other goals, such as invading and conquering a country.
Good luck with that in Canada, unless you've got a really really big army. It's like Hitler invading Russia: not going to end well for the invaders. Population density's just not high enough in Canada to depend on the herd mentality to do your dirty work.
I am from a country where the majority of the people are Muslims. I know what Islam is
On the other hand, you guys in Europe, in Canada, in America, in Japan, Korea, or the Argentine, the knowledge you guys have on Islam is what they are telling you - and when I say THEY, I mean the authority, the power that be
No matter if it is the government of the United States of America, or the British government, or that of France, Germany, Italy, will insist that Islam is a "Religion of Peace"
Day in, and day out, you are being indoctrinated with the notion that "Islam = Peace" by your own government, and that is not enough
Even those Muslims will tell you that their religion, Islam, is the Religion of Peace
That is why I can fault you for thinking that "Islam = Peace", because that is what you have been told
But for us, we know better
We have been living under the Islamic cruelty all the time. We have witnessed how cruel Islam is, to what extend those Muslims will go to further their conquest (their ultimate aim is to take over the entier world) and they will kill whoever dare to oppose them
I have thousands and thousands of examples to show you, but to make this message short, I will show you one - Warning: Please refrain from clicking the link if you can't stand the gory
In Thailand, they killed children ---
https://shariaunveiled.files.w...
As I said, there are thousands and thousands of proofs of the cruelty of Islam. All you need to do is to google for it
???
I think you'd do better to say that Canadian cities have very few guns, as you're allowed to carry all over the place in the country, which is a significant portion of Canada. Even as far as the city goes, people carry guns all over the place. You can even get a concealed carry permit, and some do.
The difference between the US and Canada is that a) fully automatic weapons and other weapons that serve no useful purpose are banned for common carry (but can still be carried with a special permit) and b) you need to be able to show a level of competency, a level of responsibility, or a reasonable cause to carry any specific firearm. That, and there's no "right" to bear arms. You have the same issue with carrying around pretty much any weapon, be it a sword, a compound hunting bow, or a blow gun. In general, people don't have a problem with that.
I'm more than happy to leave that job to security professionals. They tend to do a good job of it too.
What about to enable armed revolt against a runaway government? Isn't that why the US has the right to bear arms?
There has been what- 8 people associated with abprtion clinics who have been killed for that asdociation? I have found no indication that any church or church leadership was behind it or endorsed it or encouraged it either.
The Klan never was a church either. Of course christians made up the KKK and they attempted to use the bible yo justify their hatred but i do not exactly think it is the same.
Westboro is interesting though. As vile and insane as they were, they never advocated violence.
I think you missed an operative statement the parent made. "And try to kill in the name of". While the KKK might fit in there, or maybe at one time they would have, its only the idiots who try to kill in the name of that could be comparable.
So this excludes westboro. Would include a number of but not all klansmen, and about five anti abortionist in the US. I think you missed the limiter he put there "kill in the name off".
canada geese are actually pretty bloody delicious roasted with root vegetables and spinach.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
You have got to be shitting me. Comparing ISIL to the Nazis and demanding troop deployments gets voted down by some ISIL-loving nancy boys?
The world has truly gone to fucking hell. Cowards and sympathizers for the most atrocious acts in the modern world everywhere.
Sickening.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
... yeah, or not.
At least one indubitable fact today was that the only thing that stopped the bad guy with a gun was a good guy with a gun.
Oh? And the gunman running around shooting up Parliament doesn't qualify as a terrorist attack? Or the gunman at the nearby mall?
Sure, only a soldier ended up dying, but that's only because the attackers were poor shots.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Of course he was "disturbed". That's the very definition of a "radical" -- someone who takes an ideology to an insane degree. All of the terrorists from ISIL to Boko Harum and around the world are insane. Every single one of them.
But the problem is not Islam. The problem is the crazies. I've read the Koran -- and it, like the Bible, is mostly a document of peace and tolerance. The problem is that the radicals are claiming to be following a "religious ideology" and the legitimate Imams around the world are not doing enough to quote the passages and phrases that condemn the actions of the radicals, leaving people to accept that what the radicals claim as "religious justification" is, indeed, valid when it is anything but.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
He was blocked from traveling to Turkey because they "suspected" he was radicalized and they theorized he might want to join ISIS. There was never any confirmation/evidence that was his intent or that he ever made contact with anyone. "ferrying from Turkey to Syria" could be as innocent as someone "ferrying" someone from Mexico to the US - doesn't mean they have links to terrorist groups.
That's not what the police said when it was being debated. I suspect they might have some authority on the subject of what is useful in criminal investigations.
Do you have any evidence to support your assertions?
Fanatically anti-fanatical
And just how, precisely, do you think a new terrorist cell springs up if not from someone going crazy over the ideology and following it regardless of whether there is already a local cell or not?
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
The facts seem to disagree, see the Global Terrorism Database. While Sunni are the main perpetrators of terrorist attacks globally, Muslims are the primary target. What's interesting about this fact is that we (US/Canada/Europe) count those as terrorist attacks but do not count mass-shootings/bombings/etc unless they are carried out by a Muslim. They are "murders" if carried out by a non-Muslim.
Looking at the US data:
http://www.washingtonsblog.com...
7% of attacks by anti-abortionists vs 4.6% of attacks by Jewish terrorists vs 2.5% by Muslim terrorists. Who's the real threat?
I know of many disturbed individuals who are not radical and of many radicals that would not be considered disturbed (just misinformed or working an angle).
...are insane. Every single one of them.
Is this your medical opinion? Somehow I suspect a good number of ISIL joined out of fear or simply due to the fact that ISIL would pay them a wage. Sure we see the craziest/worst of them in the media, but that'd be like saying all US troops are insane because of things like the Panjwai massacre, the so called "Kill Team", Guantanamo torture, etc.
By that definition we're all terrorists waiting to happen. While it's true that we all can be painted with that brush, that fact does not make us terrorists until we actually join/form a terrorist organization. As the RCMP so wisely said, it's not a crime to think something. Whether you want to call running over a soldier an act of terrorism, a mental disorder/fixation that was not diagnosed/treated, a political statement, or simply a hit & run - it's really immaterial to the larger issues. There was no instruction given, there was no organization, there was one guy who did a bad thing. Trying to link him to another guy who did a similar bad thing, without a shred of evidence, for the sole purpose of pushing a point of view is no better. In fact they are both crimes in Canada.
This sort of thing happens in Europe all the time. And Europeans want more of it. They love Muslim immigration. Anybody who is critical of Islam, or immigration, is called a hater by the overload of PC mush-heads in Europe.
I wonder if this is a staged event to drown out the fact that four BW members were found guilty of the Nusoor Square shootings?
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
This sort of thing happens in Europe all the time. And Europeans want more of it. They love Muslim immigration. Anybody who is critical of Islam, or immigration, is called a hater by the overload of PC mush-heads in Europe.
To true - to the extent they tell rape victims to go away because to prosecute one of the many Muslim rape gangs would be islamaphobic.
You're an embarrassment to your country.
It was in large part Canada's willingness to stand by Britain and allow it's airmen to support it against Hitler's attempted advances in World War II. Canada was a major factor in helping prevent Britain losing the Battle of Britain, a defining moment which crushed Hitler's ability to spread West outside of Europe (and guess who would've been next if Britain fell?) by decimating his airforce and navy.
If you think isolation is a solution in an increasingly globalised world you're deluded. It wasn't 70 years ago when America learnt that the hard way at Pearl Harbour, and is most certainly isn't now.
That doesn't mean every intervention is sensible, effective or just, but absolution isolationism is just complete stupidity - it merely delays the inevitable and makes the inevitable worse because the delay allowed the enemy to gain more strength than they would have if they were just dealt with sooner before they reached your shores. This is reality, and it's been proven time and time again by every nation that's attempted the isolationism that you propose.
You can have them I don't much care for duck or goose but will hunt goose and give it people in the party if they eat it. I understand it is better when smoked for a long time as that helps with the greasiness of it which is what I don't like.
Time to offend someone
Are you inferring that it is only terrorism if the target is important enough or the number if victims is high enough? You are sadly mistaken then.
This was textbook terrorism, a loud public statement and nothing at all personal. The terrorist shot and killed a ceremonial military guard at the cenotaph, a monument honouring our fallen soldiers. If that doesnt make a statement of hatred and distain for a nation then what does?
The terrorists very next act was to proceed directly to the centre block of parliament, where the prime minister and his cabinet were meeting. He was fatally shot by the seargant at arms, who found the criminal roaming the halls looking for more victims.
There is no doubt here at all.
The West certainly got involved in Syria. The rebels received funds, aid and weapons from the West. Had we not been involved, the rebels would have been defeated and none of this would have happened. Our actions have repercutions beyond what we can predict.
We have just spent more than a decade in conflict, and for what? We've all heard the definition of insanity. It would be insane to think this will be any different than our previous failed attempts to bring peace to the MIddle East. This isn't about sticking our heads in the sand. This is about refraining from repeteadly bashing our heads against a brick wall.
And we have been told time and time again that they just want us out of there. Why don't we... get out of there? They will not come to our shores if we stop meddling in their affairs, that's just ridiculous. It's hard to motivate people to blow themselves up when there's no imminent threat.
In short, our actions are both futile and dangerous to ourselves.
In Britain, for example, her family has given their land to the public for an annual stipend of £40m. The land generates £200m a year, so that's a pretty decent deal right there.
And while she might have power on paper, the last monarch who tried to screw people over got killed for it. She knows her place, and is a consummate statesperson.
How it is in Canada I do not know.
My passport may say "Canada", but the flag in my room is bearing the fleur-de-lys. I don't really care if my opinions "embarrass" you, especially if the offending attitude is my desire for peace.
There was strong opposition to the conscription in my province for both World Wars, and I am proud of that. We are not warmongers. By the way, it was the Russians who did most of the work. When Canadian and American forces landed in Europe, they were battling a heavily weakened enemy. They would have had a much harder time making their landings if the Nazis had had enough troops to protect them. Their foolish attack on Russia is what defeated them. And the Russians were right to counter-attack since, at that point, they were directly concerned.
You're deluded if you think the fight against ISIS will accomplish anything. Have you been living in a cave for the past ten years? Why don't you tell me about the resounding successes that were Western interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lybia?
You are aware that these positions are appointed by their political masters right? The Gov. Gen, is appointed by the PM, and the LG by their Provincial Premier... I am not sure what kind of sanity check or emergency break they are seeing as they owe their very position to the one they are supposed to be limiting.
Case and point PM Harper proroguing government multiple times to avoid having to face scandal or answering uncomfortable questions, to which each time requires the GG approval, and she did it every single time, even with public protest to the contrary.
As to the public relations, the last one was involved in a scandal that basically had her spending close to 50 million dollars for what amounted to a bunch of parties with political leaders, private jet trips, etc...
So no, they are totally useless positions that spend money, that are undemocratic, that are pork handed out by political leaders to flunkies. There is absolutely no need for them. They were in the past, the Queen's hand within government, however now that that hand is totally symbolic, it is just a left over anarchism that has position, power, money, to be doled out for political favors. Git rid of them all already.
Surely Britain gets more from the Monarchy than Canada or Australia, but it's no bargain. Usually there is a comparison of _some_ expenses versus all of the revenue they can possibly attribute to the Monarchy. For example, The Monarchy makes a salary of what.. 50million pounds a year in the UK (I'm pretty sure that is the Queen alone with salary + estate charges)? She buys up land and releases it to the public and claims it's charity. But without the funding from the public there would be no funding to buy land and give it away, so in reality she is a middle agent making profit and claiming "for the greater good". People fall for it.
If you consider all of the expenses for sustaining a monarchy, it's enormous! The secret service, travel costs, estate costs all over the world (separate from UK embassies and not including the enormous land holdings in the UK), salaries, clothing, the "Royal Guard", media, various positions to manage all of the royal bank accounts, etc.. etc.. etc...
What does the average citizen in the UK get in return? A parade a couple times a year? Grounds that you can look into, but you sure as hell don't get to live there like they do? A long standing tradition of someone looking down on you because of their family tree?
In other words, the Brits are getting screwed over just like other people. It is easier to justify when the person flogging you for your money actually lives within your borders.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
The police lie. News at 11. When pressed in hearings, as I recall, they couldn't come up with even a couple of examples where the registry actually helped them solve a crime.
You're in a great hall where hundreds of conversations are going on. You walk into the middle of a small group of people to tell them you don't approve of what they're discussing?
Why does the US, with so many gun-toting civilians present to stop people from getting shot by other gun-toting civilians, have such a high gun-related murder rate?
No. You cannot say "we're a country of low violent crime except for all the violent criminals".
I'll bet you see the fallacy in that argument.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Nope it doesn't. There is no clear political aim. Being a political location does not give the attacker a political aim. That's what an organization, manifesto, or statement of claim is for - to give a political reason for the act, making it a terrorist act, rather than just a crazy person shooting up a location for no particular aim/goal.
How about self defense against against a nut job on a killing spree? The least successful spree killers in the US have all been stopped by an armed civilian, not a government employee.
You do know there's only been seven such "nut jobs on a killing spree" in all of recorded history in Canada. Only 1 in the past 25 years.
But you don't get peace by giving violent people free reign to be violent. You say you're proud, but there's no pride in being willing to be subservient to whoever is willing to come and violently take your liberties from you, and being happy to leave others to suffer when you could act.
"There was strong opposition to the conscription in my province for both World Wars, and I am proud of that."
Ah so you were a fan of the spread of Nazism and do not believe it should have been stopped - it's becoming clear why you have such a crackpot view of the world.
"By the way, it was the Russians who did most of the work."
On the Eastern front yes, with the support of the Western World War II arctic convoys.
"When Canadian and American forces landed in Europe, they were battling a heavily weakened enemy."
Canadian and American forces landed at very different times, the Americans didn't enter the war until about 4 years after Canada, and Germany's Western front had been weakened by that alliance of the likes of Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Poland, Free France and so on. It was success in the Battle of Britain that crippled Hitler's ability to advance beyond Western Europe. You're right that the Nazis were weakened by the time America entered the war, because it was that anglo-alliance that weakened it.
What's really astounding is the incredible lack of a grasp on history you have, but similarly your complete ignorance of history probably explains your astoundingly ignorant and monumentally stupid viewpoint - as the say goes, those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and it would appear you don't even know your history let alone have any ability therefore to learn from it.
"You're deluded if you think the fight against ISIS will accomplish anything."
Your deluded if you think that not fighting ISIS will magically make it go away. Guess what we've been trying for the last 2 years? They only got stronger and managed to spread into even more countries.
"Have you been living in a cave for the past ten years? Why don't you tell me about the resounding successes that were Western interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lybia?"
What does it matter? They're a mixed bag. Iraq was stupid, a massive monumental mistake. Afghanistan was far from a resounding victory but has left the country in a better place than it was - contrary to popular belief life was still far worse and more brutal under the Taliban than it is now and what about Libya? you can't even fucking spell it right, is it suffering from militancy too? absolutely. Is that better than the other option of widespread Gaddafi led massacres that were and would've continued to claim far more lives than fighting now is causing? sure, no question about it. Sometimes when you're faced with two bad options it's better to take the least bad than allow the most bad to come to fruition.
You have an incredibly naive world view, you don't see the million shades of grey in the middle, you believe that if 3 military interventions weren't resounding successes then no intervention can ever work. It's wrong, it's false, and it only takes counter-examples such as World War II, or on a smaller scale, Sierra Leone to show that military intervention can in fact sometimes make things better. You can only have peace if both sides are willing, when one side is not you either give up and get raped, or you fight back for those hard won freedoms. What's particularly sad is that you can only even say the things you are because people far braver than you, far smarter than you, and far more sensible than you actually did put their lives on the line to do what's right, and rather than thank and support that you sit here pretending they're somehow wrong? They're not- you are.
Like it or not, here's the thing with bombing ISIS- tens of thousands of Yazidis, Christians, and Kurds alone have already been saved by those actions. Even if we stopped right now we've done more good in our actions than you would seem
There was strong opposition to the conscription in my province for both World Wars, and I am proud of that.
I have never understood that. How could you be proud of the fact that Quebecois wanted to turn their back on their mother country, their history and the basis for their entire society?
We are not warmongers.
There is a difference between being a war monger and coming to the aid of countries who ask for help.
When Canadian and American forces landed in Europe, they were battling a heavily weakened enemy.
Weakened by the constant bombing by British and American forces. Weakened by constant sinking of merchant ships. Had the US not interviene, first with arms/supplies and then with men, England would have fallen. Had England fallen Germany could have concentrated all is forces going East and could have won. Even Stalin agitated for a Western front as he knew he could not win unless Germany was forced to split their forces. In the end, had the now Commonwealth countries and the US followed Quebec's lead and not helped Great Britain Europe would probably be German.
Their foolish attack on Russia is what defeated them.
You really need to learn your history before you make statements. The Russians were planning to attack Germany and Hitler just attacked first. Hitler attacked when thr Russian forces were organized to attack not defend. Hitler made many mistakes in WWII but attacking Russia was not one of them.
Why don't you tell me about the resounding successes that were Western interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lybia?
The interesting thing about that statement is that it never goes into what might have happened if the West had not intervened. What do you think would have happened if Saddam had taken Saudi Arabia and controlled the Straits of Hormuz? What do you think would have happened if the Taliban had been left alone in Afghanistan and allowed to train terrorists and send them to the West? The intervention in Lybia was to stop Qaddafi killing civilians during the civil war. Even if the outcomes of intervention were not all positive the results of not intervening could have been much worse.
It is clear that the Rideau Centre shooting never happened... also there was only one shooter, not two. But the RCMP kept the city on lockdown for a day, a school system kept in shelter-in-place, and everyone told to keep indoors, away from windows. It was a lot of excessive panic, and the RCMP failed to recognize the number of shooters. The PM was quiet all day, then gave a speech in the evening with a red/white tie, in front of two flags. The very next day the gov't tried to introduce new security legislation. Total waste of money, and clearly hosing down the security services with money for 6 years has not made them any more competent. It isn't a case of terrorism or Islamic radicalism - this guy was not part of the "Muslim Community". It seems clear he was schizophrenic and unconnected to anybody.Why are we considering a response at all? There are shootings everyday. Its terrible a soldier was shot, but wives, children and innocent men get murdered every day. This is hardly a serious event, even in Canadian history. Canada lost more to terrorism at the Air India incident and at 9/11. I don't know if Canadians will swallow the need for greater powers for the RCMP, who are totally incompetent.
While Sunni are the main perpetrators of terrorist attacks globally, Muslims are the primary target.
Does that somehow excuse the terrorism and make it not count? I don't get it.
A lot of the intra-Muslim terrorist attacks are actually inter-sect terrorist attacks. They are attacking people they see as blasphemous or not "true" Muslims. A great example if you want to read more is the plight of the Ahmadi Muslims in Pakistan. There is a lot of violence against them, and actually it's part of their Constitution that Ahmadis cannot be considered Muslim.
Or check out Sunni/Shia violence.
What's interesting about this fact is that we (US/Canada/Europe) count those as terrorist attacks but do not count mass-shootings/bombings/etc unless they are carried out by a Muslim. They are "murders" if carried out by a non-Muslim.
Things like the Oklahoma City bombing are counted as terrorism. Murders are different.
7% of attacks by anti-abortionists vs 4.6% of attacks by Jewish terrorists vs 2.5% by Muslim terrorists. Who's the real threat?
To who? It depends. If you're in Puerto Rico, definitely the separatists are the biggest threat. If you work in an abortion clinic, the anti-abortionists. If you work in an animal testing lab, the "extreme left wing" groups are your biggest threat.
Muslims are the biggest threat to the biggest part of the population.
The point is that a lot of the stuff we classify as murder is classified as terrorism because it's perpetrated by Muslims. Guns are the weapon of choice in America, explosives in the Middle East. A gang vs gang shooting isn't much different from an intra-Muslim terrorist attack when you abstract it a little.
Muslims are the biggest threat to the biggest part of the population.
You ask "To who?" (To whom) when it's broken down within the US but then lump them in globally? Within the US the greatest religious based terrorist threat is anti-abortionist Christians. The greatest non-single issue religious based terrorist threat is Jewish terrorist groups. The greatest terrorist threat overall is actually left wing single issue extremists. Within the Western Hemisphere the greatest terrorist threat is drug cartels. Globally, the greatest terrorist threat is not religious based - it's political. Different factions fighting it out for control over territory.
Africa - Nigeria north/south conflict, Somalia recently split into north/south, Mali Tuareg separatists
Asia - Israel+Palestine, Yemen civil war, Georgia/Russia, the political mess that is East India through to West of Myanmar, etc.
Yes there's still religious terrorism and you can characterize some as both religious and political... the point is the largest terrorism threat for the west has never been Muslims - they've just had the highest profile attacks.
The point is that a lot of the stuff we classify as murder is classified as terrorism because it's perpetrated by Muslims.
I know that's your point, but it's not supported.
A gang vs gang shooting isn't much different from an intra-Muslim terrorist attack when you abstract it a little.
Yes, it's very different, because at an abstract level gang vs gang violence is violence between equals. Both gangs have the power of guns and violence at their disposal, both gangs have their own territory and power base, both gangs have relatively equal revenue generators like intimidation, prostitution, drugs, gun running, etc.
How on EARTH is that not much different than when the majority Muslim group in Pakistan (Sunnis) targets religious processions of minority religious groups (e.g. Shias, Ahmadis) and suffers little or no consequences for it?
Honestly I think your statement shows that maybe you just don't know much about the extent and type of terrorism going on in the Muslim world. Sunnis vs Shias in Iraq (perhaps this is where you got your gang vs gang analogy) is very different from Sunnis vs Shias in Pakistan, or Sunnis vs Alawites in Syria, or any other conflict. It's a mistake to think of even sects within Islam as monolithic.
You ask "To who?" (To whom) when it's broken down within the US but then lump them in globally?
That's because Muslim terrorism is global in nature. Even among domestic Muslim terrorist incidents in the US there is generally a link to foreign groups. The US is the target of many Muslim groups around the world. Compare that to something else... how many times did IRA separatists attack domestic targets in the US? (I don't know, but I suspect never.) How many times did Mexican drug cartels attack NYC? (Never.)
MOST threats are local in nature and can be dismissed by people who aren't right there in the target area. For instance there are zero local terrorist threats that I'm aware of where I live. Puerto Rican separatists are absolutely not going to attack the city I live in, I would wager a lot of money on that. The only real threats are global, and Muslim terrorists are the biggest global threat.
Globally, the greatest terrorist threat is not religious based - it's political. Different factions fighting it out for control over territory.
Africa - Nigeria north/south conflict,
I don't understand this.. are you not aware that the conflict in Nigeria is based on the south being predominantly Christian and the north being predominantly Muslim? That's the basis for all of the terrorist attacks by groups like Boko Haram.
Somalia recently split into north/south
I thought you were going to give non-religious examples of terrorism? Somalia's tensions are between a relatively secular central government and the very radical Islamic Courts Union. (Among others.) But what does this have to do with terrorism?
Mali Tuareg separatists
I didn't know terrorism was a big factor in Mali.
Asia - Israel+Palestine
You're joking, right?
Georgia/Russia
Yes, finally a good example of non-religious terro... hold on. Terrorism? What happened in the Georgia/Russia conflict that was related to terrorism?
Ukraine would be a better example since they had some terrorist incidents (though people speculated a lot that the downing of that airliner was unintentional, so it wouldn't really count).
I think you've forgotten that you said "Globally, the greatest terrorist threat is not religious based - it's political." and then you were going to list examples to demonstrate that.
You aren't listing non-religious terrorist threats, you're just listing threats. I never said terrorism was a bigger threat than war, or disease, or poverty, etc.
The point is that a lot of the stuff we classify as murder is classified as terrorism because it's perpetrated by Muslims.
I know that's your point, but it's not supported.
It is supported. Take Pakistan, 9,374 recorded incidents (1970-2013). Of those only 4,684 of them would meet the US definition of terrorism. Yes, it's still a LOT, I don't mean to undermine the volume/gravity of attacks - simply that the data is skewed. By example, a racially motivated shooting in the US is just a racially motivated shooting - where as it's a terrorist attack in the Pakistani data.
A gang vs gang shooting isn't much different from an intra-Muslim terrorist attack when you abstract it a little.
Yes, it's very different, because at an abstract level gang vs gang violence is violence between equals. Both gangs have the power of guns and violence at their disposal, both gangs have their own territory and power base, both gangs have relatively equal revenue generators like intimidation, prostitution, drugs, gun running, etc.
How on EARTH is that not much different than when the majority Muslim group in Pakistan (Sunnis) targets religious processions of minority religious groups (e.g. Shias, Ahmadis) and suffers little or no consequences for it?
Honestly I think your statement shows that maybe you just don't know much about the extent and type of terrorism going on in the Muslim world. Sunnis vs Shias in Iraq (perhaps this is where you got your gang vs gang analogy) is very different from Sunnis vs Shias in Pakistan, or Sunnis vs Alawites in Syria, or any other conflict. It's a mistake to think of even sects within Islam as monolithic.
Since when are all gangs equal? Stronger gangs wipe out weaker gangs all the time. 498 attacks of the data set mentioned above were intra-Terrorist/Violent Political Party attacks. 1,093 of them were against the police (aka gang vs police shootings in the US), in all 4,793 of the attacks were directed at governments/government institutions/government infrastructure. Far more than the 2,653 targeted at religious/personal targets.
You ask "To who?" (To whom) when it's broken down within the US but then lump them in globally?
That's because Muslim terrorism is global in nature. Even among domestic Muslim terrorist incidents in the US there is generally a link to foreign groups. The US is the target of many Muslim groups around the world. Compare that to something else... how many times did IRA separatists attack domestic targets in the US? (I don't know, but I suspect never.) How many times did Mexican drug cartels attack NYC? (Never.)
MOST threats are local in nature and can be dismissed by people who aren't right there in the target area. For instance there are zero local terrorist threats that I'm aware of where I live. Puerto Rican separatists are absolutely not going to attack the city I live in, I would wager a lot of money on that. The only real threats are global, and Muslim terrorists are the biggest global threat.
The data does not support that. Attacks against the US, 1970-2012: 60 attacks were by Muslim groups. 118 were by Jewish groups. 120 Puerto Rican groups (which hit Chicago, NYC, Camden, etc). Mexican drug cartels - you are in fact making my point here. They are known to operate in over 270 cities in the US but any deaths/attacks by these groups are not considered terrorism in US statistics. A group in say, Afghanistan, attacking another group/government/etc over the opiate drug trade would be considered terrorism. In fact there are only 2 incidents in the database from Mexican cartels in any country
Globally, the greatest terrorist threat is not religious based - it's political. Different factions fighting it out for control over territory.
Africa - Nigeria north/south conflict,