Soldier shot at National War Memorial in Ottawa

[crazy canuck]

That he lashed on to poorly understood Islam, as opposed to shittily articulated Satanism, badly mangled misogyny and MRA BS, some kind of white nationalism, homophobia, anarchism, or any other kind of ideology is neither here nor there.

Of all the groups you mention there is only one that is calling on believers to attack Canada.  That cannot be ignored.  But also am not sure more needs to be done other than have a greater awareness of the possible threat.

[Jacob]

Strikes me that "terrorism" is simply a description for the motivation of the attacker - that is, whether or not the attack was designed to create terror, in the service of some sort of ideology.

The analysis of whether the guy was mentally unstable is somewhat besides the point. Most terrorists are likely to be at least somewhat mentally unstable - particularly the ones who don't care if they live or die. In any event, sane or crazy makes no difference to the threat they pose.

The issue of what actions, if any, we should take in response is another issue. I'm not a big fan of 'security theatre', and I'm not convinced that anything can really dissuade a lone attacker from killing people anyway; we should definitely avoid the temptation to sign away civil liberties.

Yeah, the taxonomy of causes and intents sometimes muddles the water on what an appropriate response is.

As I see it, there's a spectrum of sorts.

On one end, you have your lonely individual who acts out violently against society in the service of some sort of ideology they've mainly picked up from the media or developed themselves. I think this guy fits in there, as does some of the various misogyny mass shootings (Eliot Rodgers, Marc Lepine), the Unabomber, and those dudes at the Boston Marathon (though there were two of them). At that end, I think it's a matter of alienation and an attraction to drastic action rather than the ideology itself; as in, the ideology is tacked on and sought out to justify the action - almost on aesthetic grounds - rather than vice versa.

On the other end of the spectrum, there are large organizations with actual leadership cadres, funding mechanisms, and political objectives that explicitly embrace terrorist actions as a form of warfare. I mean groups like Al Qaeda, the IRA etc. I think they actively try to recruit from the group mentioned above, and that they turn out propaganda, theory, and social environments that can provide ready-made justifications for disaffected individuals to latch on to due to their high profile.

In between, I guess, I'd place smaller groups like the German Red Army Faction, the FLQ etc, where personally disaffected individuals and ideologues have found each other and crystalized their cause and plan of action and aim to use terroristic actions to influence the course of politics but lack structure outside of their own cell.

While each of these can be termed terrorism in that they aim to create political change through violence and terror, the difference in organization and coherence of goals suggests to me that different responses are appropriate.

... and yeah, we're in agreement on security theatre, signing away civil liberties, and the response to lone attacker types.

[Barrister]

... and yeah, we're in agreement on security theatre, signing away civil liberties, and the response to lone attacker types.

I don't think that taking specific steps to improve security at Parliament should be considered "security theatre".  Security there seems bizarrely arcane - why are there separate House of Commons and Senate security forces?  Why are there not better controls at the main entrance?  I mentioned before that my local courthouse has better "perimeter security" than Parliament appears to have.

[Malthus]

... and yeah, we're in agreement on security theatre, signing away civil liberties, and the response to lone attacker types.

I don't think that taking specific steps to improve security at Parliament should be considered "security theatre".  Security there seems bizarrely arcane - why are there separate House of Commons and Senate security forces?  Why are there not better controls at the main entrance?  I mentioned before that my local courthouse has better "perimeter security" than Parliament appears to have.

Sensible, specific and measured security improvements are not IMO "security theatre".

[Jacob]

I don't think that taking specific steps to improve security at Parliament should be considered "security theatre".  Security there seems bizarrely arcane - why are there separate House of Commons and Senate security forces?  Why are there not better controls at the main entrance?  I mentioned before that my local courthouse has better "perimeter security" than Parliament appears to have.

Yeah for sure. I have no specific insight into any proposed changes to the security procedures at Parliament to label them "theatre" or "appropriate".

EDIT: to add - as Malthus says, specific, measured responses are completely appropriate.

[Jacob]

That he lashed on to poorly understood Islam, as opposed to shittily articulated Satanism, badly mangled misogyny and MRA BS, some kind of white nationalism, homophobia, anarchism, or any other kind of ideology is neither here nor there.

Of all the groups you mention there is only one that is calling on believers to attack Canada.  That cannot be ignored.  But also am not sure more needs to be done other than have a greater awareness of the possible threat.

Sure, fair enough. I just personally think that if someone decides more or less by themselves to go shoot a bunch of people in Canada, that while some foreign types rage on about the evils of modernity and the West and that the proper action is to attack Canada may provide their personal justification, they may latch on to something else as well. Maybe they decide to shoot some women instead, like Marc Lepine.

That said, I agree that we should definitely be aware that radical Islam is a more likely cause for alienated individuals to justify their violence than, say the Anarchism or Marxism that was popular in the 1920s. I think the appropriate response there is to focus the appropriate human resources on the environments where radicalization make take place, for example, and to work with the non-radical parts of those communities to minimize the possible catalyst points for radicalization; and yeah "Islam" is definitely the sexy thing right now for disaffected alienated youth to latch on to if they're attracted to violence, so lets govern ourselves accordingly.

[viper37]

So question.

Are we maybe over reacting by calling this a "terrorist act"?
given that what we know now, that he was a lone shooter. While he was Muslim and had plans to travel to the Mid East to "study Koran", he wasn't directly, or indirectly, tied to any terrorist organization. He was mentally unstable. In other circumstances, we may just say he "went postal."
this is not, of course, to down play the death of the soldier or the serious risk to the prime minsiter and other government people and staffers that took place (surprised the head of RCMP hasn't stepped down yet) and that a serious look at the security of government buildings needs to taken immediately.

But is it an act of terror? the Harper government plans on tabling new bills that will give CSIS more power. Does this act justify it?

La Presse, on its scientific blog, had a good piece on this.  It links to this newspiece in english

Terrorist and mass shooters aren't really different in terms of psychology.

However, there has been a call from terrorist organizations to strike at targets in Canada & elsewhere, and these should not be ignored.  They will create a catalyst for such deranged individual to strike, they will give them focus for their hatred.

[viper37]

From news reports it seems the police wanted to detain the fellow who killed the soldier in Quebec but lacked the power to do so.  I am not sure what power they didnt have that they thought they needed.

they needed more evidence that he was really going to strike at someone in Canada to detain him.
They had sufficient evidences to take his passport, not to keep him locked.

It's something we will have to reflect on, not just for terrorists, but for any kind of mentally hill people.
Though there are huge potential for abuse, we will have to thread carefully.

EDIT:
in the case of the Quebec shooter, family/friends warned the authorities he was dangerous, yet they couldn't convict him to keep him under watch.  He was depressive and turned to Islam, and he quickly radicalized as he was already prone to believe in conspiracy theories.

Maybe if they had power to lock them for a short period of time and force them to be evaluated by a psychiatrist to determine his level of threat would be a good idea.

[Malthus]

Seems there is a lot of agreement among Canadians here (and generally, from what I'm hearing) that, while these attacks are of course a hugely upsetting tragedy, they should be responded to in a measured and sensible manner - not by demonizing Muslims, and not by taking measures that will erode our civil liberties.

Now the question is - are our leaders up for this challenge, or will they over-react with sweeping and intrusive legislation? 

[Admiral Yi]

What a shocker that no one has come out in favor of demonizing Muslims. 

[Barrister]

Seems there is a lot of agreement among Canadians here (and generally, from what I'm hearing) that, while these attacks are of course a hugely upsetting tragedy, they should be responded to in a measured and sensible manner - not by demonizing Muslims, and not by taking measures that will erode our civil liberties.

Now the question is - are our leaders up for this challenge, or will they over-react with sweeping and intrusive legislation?

Of course no one is in favour of 'eroding our civil liberties'.

Depending on what is suggested however, I may well support increased police surveillance or detention powers, if they can be shown to have specific effect on our ability to prevent attacks such as these.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

Now the question is - are our leaders up for this challenge, or will they over-react with sweeping and intrusive legislation?

Canada seems to have a history of bucking the Anglo world trend on that matter, so I see no reason this event will change anything.

[Barrister]

Now the question is - are our leaders up for this challenge, or will they over-react with sweeping and intrusive legislation?

Canada seems to have a history of bucking the Anglo world trend on that matter, so I see no reason this event will change anything.

We really haven't been subjected to any sort of terrorist attacks for over 40 years however.

[viper37]

Now the question is - are our leaders up for this challenge, or will they over-react with sweeping and intrusive legislation? 

At the very least, the Conservatives will beat the drums of war.

Then, I don't know.  There's a bill under study, details are vague so far though.

[Malthus]

What a shocker that no one has come out in favor of demonizing Muslims. 

Not so cut and dried - there is the Grallon contingent out there.