I’m reading lots of media and lefties getting in a bunch about whether the shooter was or wasn’t a terrorist. Whether he was ‘just’ mentally unstable, a dope-head and a criminal.
He was a terrorist. He attacked two symbols of the country.
The first a symbol of our military and the bonds between soldiers, sailors and airmen through all generations. A place where those who come after can give thanks and have an understanding of the sacrifices of those who went before.
The second, outside of the flag, the strongest symbol of our country, our democracy. Where, as Mr Mulcair stated, yoga must go on, because it is us. It is ours.
His goals, deformed though they were, was not ‘just’ murder, it was to deface those symbols. The result is that he failed.
But yes, he meant to terrorize.
Terrorism? No, it’s simple workplace violence. (/sarc)
I would rather see the word terrorist disappear as it is the ultimate in weasel words. Jihadist is the word we should be using to describe his actions given his “reversion” to the ROP.
I was disgusted with the CBC coverage I saw today where they basically victimized the shooter.
I have heard the third argument that he had a poor early life. Have you heard his mother isn’t exactly destitute.
No, this is a middle class guy who is a Jihadi by choice. He is a muslim, just like the so-called Pierre Lepine (of Montreal woman massacre fame). His enemies are non-muslims. Full stop,
And I refuse to dignify “muslims” with a capital M, even though spell-check suggests I should do.
Sorry, my error, Marc Lepine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_L%C3%A9pine
“Jihadist is the word we should be using ”
Agree 100%. I would also like to see the word “radicalized” punted. He was islaminized.Full stop.
Lance, the narrative is all, and the left will do anything to twist it to exonerate their allies, the jihadists. He was a nut ( and thus his actions were clouded by a diseased mind, and are not a true expression of a Muslim personality, at all.
The answer is to point out the absurdity of their BS narrative as you do: he chose his targets rationally.
And it should be pointed out, over and over, that even with the advantage of surprise, he was stopped by Canadian institutions, functioning as designed ( SAA Vickers ).
And that thought should be carried out to its logical conclusion, with the monitoring and closing of radical mosques, jail for radical imams, and expulsion for any radical émigrés.
Even this loser had no acceptance of Islam’s basic goal of world domination, this was definitely a terrorist act since the attack was carried out where Canada’s democracy is carried out.
We’re going to have to get used to this phenomenon of the crazy jihadi. What sane person would choose that course of action, in particular, if they had not been raised exclusively in that world and known nothing different? (that just transfers the mental illness aspect to a larger societal group, in any case).
I would expect that mental illness will feature in the background of most if not all jihadis that come to our attention. They might have convinced themselves that the religious aspect was a “true calling” but the personality type is recognizable from earlier times when the same kinds of people gravitated towards the far left or sometimes the far right, or (as with the Unabomber) radical environmentalist perspectives.
The danger is radical chic intruding as it did with Omar Khadr, a guy who has never been labelled mentally ill by anyone, but in his case, brought up in a little bubble of mental defect apparently.
When I hear the designation “mentally ill” I do not take it as an excuse or diminution of any kind, even if it is intended that way. Our modern concept of mental illness is of course at variance with the older (and possibly more significant) perspective of spiritual malaise. Jesus never talked about the mentally ill, but only of demons that had possessed people, and we were told to expect them en masse in the end times. This is perhaps why so many evangelicals believe that these are in fact the end times.
An eruption of demons from the abyss — more or less the theme of the daily news in our recent past (and not so recent).
There is no “get out of jail” card for Islamist organizations or preachers in any of this. To exploit the mentally unstable is worse than just a blank appeal to all and sundry. The on-line presence of “radical Islam” (if you’re willing to accept the distinction, for me, it’s more of a peel the onion proposition) is guaranteed to catch the attention of every mentally unstable person out there and the message is, “you are fed up and want to strike back, join us, we know how.”
Much like the radical left of my younger days (the appeal was minimal as one can see).
By definition, jihadists are mentally unstable.
Perhaps those who try to explain this away can explain this. All religions have converts, but only converts to Islam seek to kill and destroy non-believers. Now why exactly is this? It is because unlike all other religions Islam is an imperialist totalitarian ideology like communism that seek to impose their agenda on the whole world through violence, or in Islam through jihad. Just as there are nominal and cultural Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. there are nominal or cultural Muslims. They represent a minority among Muslims living in the West and are considered apostates by the Muslims who are at war with us. A good rule of thumb is that any Muslim here who calls for Sharia, preaches or practises hostility and intolerance of our laws and culture and seeks to impose their beliefs by demanding special treatment belongs to the group who have no business being here.
What I find most reprehensible is that the media are allowing the usual Muslim apologists to start the “we are victims, watch people turn on us” b.s. machine that requires swift termination.
I could rock on about this, but pretty sure by now this point is widely accepted on this side of the political divide. Perhaps the light is dawning elsewhere too.
This is just a propaganda term, which countries have studiously refused to define.
Both struck military personnel, and one the literal seat of government power. This after the pan-state caliphate which both identified was slated for targeting by Canada’s military.
So, no, not terrorism, not in a precise, philosophical sense, or the word loses all meaning.
There are plenty of bona fide Islamic terrorists who strike at soft targets and civilians. These guys, while enemies of our nation and culture, struck the sort of targets our military would strike (enemy personnel) in combat. They could have killed civillians, but did not.
My best guess for why not is it was either a strategic decision with handlers or, more likely, they acted mostly on their own and their western mores mixed with their newfound cause resulted in them being comfortable attacking the targets they did, rather than civilians.
They’re still enemies and can be defeated just as vigorously, but we don’t have to drop properly-descriptive language and reason to do it.
Terror is a characteristic of almost all violence, including military and guerrilla violence.
Well said Alain and Lance.
John may have something in replacing the word “terrorist” with Jihadist.
What is the definition of the word terrorist as it relates today in light of historical terrorists. The Social Democrats of various degrees in the late 1800s in Russia were terrorists, assassins, bank robbers, etc. Whatisname Princip was a Serbia terrorist who killed the Arch Duke Ferdinand. Golda Meir, Israeli Prime Minister, was at one time a terrorist in a terrorist Jewish organization Haganah (?). Were the men who assassinated Reinhard Heydrich terrorists or patriots? Was Booth a terrorist or a Confederate patriot?
Got the below in an email a few minutes ago.
http://cherylgallant.com/condolences/
There you go. That’s accurate.
I’m actually kind of impressed that the government of Canada, unlike the knee-jerk reaction common in the USA, did not go to pains to minimise the Islamic radical angle in either of these attacks.
Granted, that’s both a low bar and too little, to late, arguably. But it’s still better than the Americans did it.
I really don’t think these soldiers should be seen as victims of terrorism as it is commonly understood, but rather what they are–war casualties (in the campaign against ISIL and Muslism extremism generally).
There is no less honour in that. It’s just being accurate.
Afterthought:
Although it does beg the question about arming Canada’s soldiers while this war is ongoing, or at least in this hot phase with ISIL and they are being attacked at home.
“I’m actually kind of impressed that the government of Canada, unlike the knee-jerk reaction common in the USA, did not go to pains to minimise the Islamic radical angle in either of these attacks.”
You may not have too much access to Canadian media, but the MSM, espeically the CBC, is very busy trying to spin both of the soldier killings as the work of deranged individuals and ignoring or minimizing his Islamic, most likely ISIL, connections.
Of all places, he was living at a Christian Mission for the homeless, where he tried to convert other clients. He seemed lucid as far as a responsible jihadi goes.
I think Islamist is the term for these Muslim extremists while the law abiding followers of Mohammed are Muslims. I know it’s a fine line but the extremists are a political movement while the moderate peaceful Muslims (if they really exist) are members of a religion, which they are free to do as long as they obey our laws
Shooting a ceremonial guard in the back is by no means a “military” action. If it’s not terrorism, then it’s cowardice and anti-social nihilism, which is basically terrorism.
To elevate this goofball to the stature of soldier would be to dishonour the memory of our own fallen. Even our opponents in the great wars fielded men of a higher calibre than this jerk.
I beg to differ bdoggins, and so would this man: https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=881491725194515
Muslim = Jihadi = Islamist; the law-abiding people you are referring to should rightfully be called “Canadians” rather THAN “Muslims” – and my respect to them for it.
BTW, that video was the first time I learned that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has a PhD in Islamic Studies. It really does beg the question: does Obama actually think he knows more about Islam than Caliph Ibrahim? Does Justin Trudeau? Do trolls like Kt and rabbit? Pardon me while I ROFLMAO at the idea.
They are mental defectives, not mentally ill.
http://www.photius.com/rankings/national_iq_scores_country_ranks.html
Compare against this list of 50 Muslim countries.
http://www.religionfacts.com/islam/places/top_50.htm
I like to call them Jihadis the best. George W. Bush did us no favours calling it ‘the War on Terror’ and ‘Islam the Religion of Peace’.
Considering their low IQs, it’s no wonder the seething resentment they have of their betters. Especially since their ideology tells them they should be ruling over us.
We’ll bomb troops in their barrack, etc. It isn’t that different. It isn’t like we’re going to hand ISIL equal weaponry before the CF-18s swoop in.
(The fact is, there was always likely to be armed police nearby; it’s Ottawa. He did shortly thereafter die in a gunfight, vastly outnumbered. He had a 7-shot lever rifle. It is what it is.)
He wasn’t a uniformed soldier. The closest descriptions for him would be something along the lines of guerilla, insurgent, traitor, or turncoat. I’m just saying terrorist doesn’t fit.
They (or he) made a strategic decision to strike soldiers for whatever reason instead of civilians. The exchange ratio, despite poor or weaponry, was slightly in their favour due, counting injuries, to surprise, and of course it forces Canada to spend a lot more resources on internal security of soldiers, institutions, etc. So it’s a tactical victory, at least.
Now, Canada will join our allies and strike blows against ISIL and the Kurds are standing their ground admirably. I’m not saying we built a shrine to the guy. We can curse him as a traitor, etc., but there should be some nomenclature difference between someone who attacks soldiers whose nation is engaged in hostilities vs. going after civilians. Apparently, according to a media report, he ran by a mother and daughter, for example.
I’m glad he didn’t strike them; I’m glad he was stopped. We’ll see what happens next.
*or
*build
“Shooting a ceremonial guard in the back is by no means a “military” action”
Peter – while I honour the sentiment, I feel in some way it was a military action in that, at the moment of his death, Cpl Cirillo accomplished, unknowingly and unwillingly, his goal of becoming a combat soldier.
As for the motivation of the shooter, who gives a s**t was his excuse was – but his sympathies were no doubt seditious which he played out in his brutal and cowardly way.
But one cannot deny in the two attacks this week, they clearly used the very methods AQ propaganda expoused, so in a way they were directed even if they were in fact self-radicalized, which I willing to accept as the case for now barring further contrary evidence.
This. A million times this.
Quite frankly, the terminology of “War on Terror” was always fantastically stupid. I’m suggesting we drop the stupidity and get real.
Enemy combatant
Peter O’Donnell >
“We’re going to have to get used to this phenomenon of the crazy jihadi.”
Phenomenon? A poor choice of words, if intended to relay an extraordinary event.
This is a very ordinary event in the Muslim world or any other country with a large Muslim population since it’s inception or at least the last 1000 years.
Take a look back in the SDA archives, even a week ago. This event or one like it was “miraculously” predicted well in advance.
Actually it’s pretty disgusting that anyone in Canada was “shocked” by this event, by way that they actually have a low information vote in the direction of our country’s leadership.
I’ve been calling it “The War On Barbarism” for a while now; works for me.
@Dollis, regarding your comment “..that the government of Canada ….did not go to pains to minimize the Islamic radical angle in either of these attacks.”
But the Liberal,NDP and Green Party leaders are waffling on Harper’s strong statement that these were radical Islamic attacks. Gutless morons as usual.
I behoves me to make a coupla comments….
There really do exist moderate muslims, the SUFFIs, but the are largely Indonesian and a minority under attack by the majority WAHIBIs/Salafists (who will slit yer throat at first opportunity)…..
ISHMAILIs are the sweethearts that were originally the ASSASSINs…
It is suicidal to assume by projection that all religions are similar….they are not.
While it is fashionable to denounce the culturecide(is that a word) of the NA FNs but it would be difficult to find support for a resumption of the Aztec sacrifices….
The British in India used force to end the Hindu practice of SUTEE….burning the widow on the deceased’s funeral pyre….then for good measure they hunted down, imprisoned or hung the THUGGEE…..
Google them, then come back and explain about how all religions have equal merit.