Soldier shot at National War Memorial in Ottawa

[crazy canuck]

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.

Not sure what criteria you are using. There have been a number of attacks over the last 40 years.  To name but one - the Air India bomb in 1985.  More recently there was the explosions which damaged the pipelines in about 09.  Not to mention the high profile cases in which the police stopped the acts before they occured.

[Jacob]

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

You mean other than Grallon and Martinus and Viking?

[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.

Not sure what criteria you are using. There have been a number of attacks over the last 40 years.  To name but one - the Air India bomb in 1985.  More recently there was the explosions which damaged the pipelines in about 09.  Not to mention the high profile cases in which the police stopped the acts before they occured.

Air India?  Good point, but for right or wrong that was always perceived as being "different" - it involved an Indian airliner, fought over Indian political issues, and killed people of Indian heritage (even if many were Canadian citizens).  It didn't involve "us"

Pipelines, incidents where terrorists were stopped - no one was hurt and all could be taken as "the system is working".

[Jacob]

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.

Yeah, that's kind of my view of this stuff as well.

[Admiral Yi]

You mean other than Grallon and Martinus and Viking?

I meant no one.  No one ever says "I think it would be a good idea to demonize Muslims."

Of course, whether the acts of Muslims are rooted in their religion is subject to vigorous, and repeated, debate.

[Jacob]

Air India?  Good point, but for right or wrong that was always perceived as being "different" - it involved an Indian airliner, fought over Indian political issues, and killed people of Indian heritage (even if many were Canadian citizens).  It didn't involve "us"

Pipelines, incidents where terrorists were stopped - no one was hurt and all could be taken as "the system is working".

Given the specific targeting of women and the tirades against feminism, would you consider the massacre at the École Polytechnique in 1989 terrorism as well? Because if we do, then it's 16 years since the last terrorist attack from a homegrown.

As an aside, doing a bit of research I learned about the 1984 attack on the Quebec National Assembly. Though three people were sadly killed, that situation was at was ultimately handled by the Sergeant-at-Arms as well. Seems to be a theme that those guys are solid.

[Malthus]

You mean other than Grallon and Martinus and Viking?

I meant no one.  No one ever says "I think it would be a good idea to demonize Muslims."

Of course, whether the acts of Muslims are rooted in their religion is subject to vigorous, and repeated, debate.

You are right, no one (or at least very few) ever says "I think it would be a good idea to demonize Muslims."

What that point has to do with my post is a trifle puzzling, though.

[crazy canuck]

Air India?  Good point, but for right or wrong that was always perceived as being "different" - it involved an Indian airliner, fought over Indian political issues, and killed people of Indian heritage (even if many were Canadian citizens).  It didn't involve "us"

I think that view reflects the part of the country you were in at the time and perhaps not a very good understanding of what occured or the impact on the local community.  The terrorists were Vancouver based.  At the time their actions were a signficant issue within the local Sikh community which is quite large and vibrant.  It also had a signficant impact on people in the community who spoke out against the violence with many being threatened and, in the case of one media personality, badly beaten.  And then to state the obvious.  Many (most) of the people killed were Canadian.   It certainly did involve "us".

Pipelines, incidents where terrorists were stopped - no one was hurt and all could be taken as "the system is working".

That is a different issue.  Your claim was that there have been no acts of terrorism for over 40 years.

[crazy canuck]

You mean other than Grallon and Martinus and Viking?

I meant no one.  No one ever says "I think it would be a good idea to demonize Muslims."

Of course, whether the acts of Muslims are rooted in their religion is subject to vigorous, and repeated, debate.

You are right, no one (or at least very few) ever says "I think it would be a good idea to demonize Muslims."

What that point has to do with my post is a trifle puzzling, though.

Yeah, exactly.  No one ever says we should demonize Muslims but one need only go upstream a bit in this thread to find people who think it is right and proper to do so.

[Jacob]

I meant no one.  No one ever says "I think it would be a good idea to demonize Muslims."

That's a pretty pointless observation then.

[Jacob]

I think that view reflects the part of the country you were in at the time and perhaps not a very good understanding of what occured or the impact on the local community.  The terrorists were Vancouver based.  At the time their actions were a signficant issue within the local Sikh community which is quite large and vibrant.  It also had a signficant impact on people in the community who spoke out against the violence with many being threatened and, in the case of one media personality, badly beaten.  And then to state the obvious.  Many (most) of the people killed were Canadian.   It certainly did involve "us".

Yeah. Air India is definitely "us" if you're in BC.

[Malthus]

Air India?  Good point, but for right or wrong that was always perceived as being "different" - it involved an Indian airliner, fought over Indian political issues, and killed people of Indian heritage (even if many were Canadian citizens).  It didn't involve "us"

Pipelines, incidents where terrorists were stopped - no one was hurt and all could be taken as "the system is working".

Given the specific targeting of women and the tirades against feminism, would you consider the massacre at the École Polytechnique in 1989 terrorism as well? Because if we do, then it's 16 years since the last terrorist attack from a homegrown.

He counts as a terrorist as far as I'm concerned. The only difference is, he wasn't responding to a call to arms from an organized group.

As an aside, doing a bit of research I learned about the 1984 attack on the Quebec National Assembly. Though three people were sadly killed, that situation was at was ultimately handled by the Sergeant-at-Arms as well. Seems to be a theme that those guys are solid.

Agreed - I never read the details of that attack, and the Quebec Sergeant at arms' response was awesome.

The National Assembly's Sergeant-at-Arms, René Jalbert, was informed that there was a man with a gun in the Assembly Chamber. Upon stepping out of the elevator, Lortie fired at him. Seeing that Lortie was in a military uniform, Jalbert told him that he too had been a soldier with the Van Doos (slang for the Royal 22e Régiment), and that if Lortie would allow it, he would show him his discharge card. Lortie agreed, after which Jalbert persuaded him to show his own identification.

After this exchange, Jalbert persuaded Lortie to come into his office to discuss the matter, and release the other civilians in the Assembly Chamber. Jalbert talked to Lortie for over four hours, ultimately persuading him to surrender to military police (since he was unwilling to surrender to civilian police) at 14:22. For his heroic act which likely prevented further death, the Canadian government awarded Jalbert the Cross of Valour several months later.

An award well deserved.

[Admiral Yi]

That's a pretty pointless observation then.

It's an observation about the use of loaded language in attempt to banish a line of argument beyond the Pale.

[Jacob]

It's an observation about the use of loaded language in attempt to banish a line of argument beyond the Pale.

You think grallon's comments upthread should be considered within the pale?

[crazy canuck]

That's a pretty pointless observation then.

It's an observation about the use of loaded language in attempt to banish a line of argument beyond the Pale.

You mean like this?

Homegrown or imported - this is what you get when you allow this pestilence of a death cult religion anywhere near civilization.