Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
ISIS was making threats against this country before Canada signed up for the mission.
They were coming no matter what our foreign policy is.
|
You've had great insight into the ISIS issue in another thread CC. I've enjoyed reading your posts on the subject, and the difficulty in addressing the threat, particularly where individual actors are concerned.
A question I'd like to pose to you is where you draw the line (or whether you draw a line at all) between: (1) a person who sees some appeal in ISIS, learns about them and believes in their cause, gets in touch with them, gets direction from them, and conducts an attack like today's; and (2) a person with mental health issues and a propensity for violent or anti-government thinking who latches onto ISIS-inspired ideology as a basis for carrying out an attack like today's, but without a real understanding or genuine attachment to the ideology itself.
Obviously person 1 is what you'd think of as your classic single-cell or lone-wolf terrorist; while person 2 might be your run-of-the-mill survivalist-paranoiac-freeman-on-the-land type who doesn't really belong to or even fully understand the ideology he's serving.
Is one a terrorist and the other not? Are they both terrorists? Does it matter?