Probably not in a legal sense but we won't be able to put either scum bags on trial for terrorist related charges.
However the commonality is that both men had tried to go and fight with ISIS and had their pass ports seized.
The attacker on Monday had a face book and twitter feed that had proclaimed support for ISIS and justified their actions.
ISIS makes a statement not to long ago that told their followers around the world that they should kills soldiers and use knives and cars, and basically whatever they can get their hands on.
In this form of terrorism they're inspired by a terror group like ISIS
As I mentioned before the day and age of terror cells is probably over and is being replaced by the day and age of the lone wolf inspired terrorist.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
This was addressed. They said they can't be looking at all the screens at once.
Are you kidding me? Unacceptable. This isn't some random office building with a $15/h security guard.
Whatever...instead of 7 months of government red tape with inter-departmental inquiries and the like, to point fingers at other departments, save that time and resources and money and spend that on adding some more cameras, more manpower, and at worst, another CUPE/RCMP employee to watch half of the screens, immediately.
The Following User Says Thank You to browna For This Useful Post:
Interestingly enough they are completely avoiding the subject. Probably because it is the one country that would unequivocally and ruthlessly destroy them at this point.
Keeping the dog on the chain so to say.
I would agree that ISIS probably wouldn't really want to have Israel paying attention to them.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
ISIS makes a statement not to long ago that told their followers around the world that they should kills soldiers and use knives and cars, and basically whatever they can get their hands on.
I've heard this mentioned a few times but I have never saw a real story confirming this. Not saying it's not true, just can't find a source.
As mentioned, really odd (and not sure we'll ever know) how the guy waltzed within a door of caucus meetings deep into the Centre block.
He strolled past McIver (I assume after shooting the solider) through a big open square/parking lot structure, after he drove his car as close as he did, so its not as if he tried to sneak in.
Is there not camera security around our Parliament that could've seen a guy carrying a shotgun, coming? Cameras at the War Memorial may have also helped prevent another shootout (sadly, not the tragic and senseless loss of life).
Not to turn this into a big brother issue, but on Parliament Hill, Federal Buldings and monuments, there should be absolutely full camera scrutiny 24.7...really, all of downtown Ottawa in my opinion.
Just speculation here, but I assume security on Parliament Hill is much like airport security and bike locks... they stop the honest people.
A motivated criminal/terrorist isn't going to be stopped by a metal detector or camera.
Probably not in a legal sense but we won't be able to put either scum bags on trial for terrorist related charges.
However the commonality is that both men had tried to go and fight with ISIS and had their pass ports seized.
The attacker on Monday had a face book and twitter feed that had proclaimed support for ISIS and justified their actions.
ISIS makes a statement not to long ago that told their followers around the world that they should kills soldiers and use knives and cars, and basically whatever they can get their hands on.
In this form of terrorism they're inspired by a terror group like ISIS
As I mentioned before the day and age of terror cells is probably over and is being replaced by the day and age of the lone wolf inspired terrorist.
Me saying 'Canada is at war' was simply a statement to those people who have not yet realized why we are in Iraq fighting the ISIS. There is a strong connection here, even just in terms of how much influence ISIS had on these guys.
The terror cell deal is completely overblown. Even early Al Queda informants said that no terrorist organization operating in the middle east has the resources to carry out another 9/11. The ISIS is rich though, and they can inspire lone wolf type attacks.
I subscribe to the interpretation of threats in this case and not motives. You need to cancel the threat first in this case.
While I agree that nations are going to have to deal with root causes that create what seems to be a fairly fertile recruiting base. Once their radicalized and preparing for an action, whether they're mentally ill or a loner or whatever to me isn't relevant in the face of public safety.
Also sometimes its too easy to label people with the "Mental Illness" label when they do something that we don't see as rational in our mind set to justify and feel better about humanity as a whole. The whole "a sane person" wouldn't do that.
I don't know if I'm answering your question, however to end that string Osama Bin Laden was a very rational human being in his personal world view, and his sense of right and wrong was defined by his interpretation of his religion and a twisted world view, he wasn't by most definitions insane, however his actions by some could be interpreted as Insane.
But to me, in both cases they're terrorists because they committed an act of terror and they could justify it as the right thing to do.
The proper question of number two though to be honest and it defines state of mind, does he has an understanding of the consequences of his actions?
I think your answer addresses the question well: you're looking at the consequences for a definition, which is a practical approach since the ultimate effect is what's important from a public safety perspective.
I just question whether we should have a different reaction based not on consequences, but on causes. For example, Vincent Li (the bus beheader) isn't someone we think of as a terrorist, but if he was linked to ISIS (perhaps because his diseased mind gravitated to anything that appeared powerful or fearsome, and he adopted their superficialities) we might then label his attack terrorism or an attack on our country.
My question, I suppose, is really about our response to these two different kinds of actor. Because if our plan is to stop lunatics, we would be better off targeting lunacy rather than terrorism.
Are you kidding me? Unacceptable. This isn't some random office building with a $15/h security guard.
Whatever...instead of 7 months of government red tape with inter-departmental inquiries and the like, to point fingers at other departments, save that time and resources and money and spend that on adding some more cameras, more manpower, and at worst, another CUPE/RCMP employee to watch half of the screens, immediately.
I agree. Mind boggling that the shooter made it as far as he did. Response time being what it is, I still find it strange that he got to where he did.
I think your answer addresses the question well: you're looking at the consequences for a definition, which is a practical approach since the ultimate effect is what's important from a public safety perspective.
I just question whether we should have a different reaction based not on consequences, but on causes. For example, Vincent Li (the bus beheader) isn't someone we think of as a terrorist, but if he was linked to ISIS (perhaps because his diseased mind gravitated to anything that appeared powerful or fearsome, and he adopted their superficialities) we might then label his attack terrorism or an attack on our country.
My question, I suppose, is really about our response to these two different kinds of actor. Because if our plan is to stop lunatics, we would be better off targeting lunacy rather than terrorism.
I think a good example to probe with this question is the Waco Siege. Most people would agree that David Koresh was a terrorist, but would you label his followers of Branch Davidians as terrorists, or as victims that were brainwashed into believing what they were doing was right? If the 76 fighting with him didn't die in the siege, would they have been charged and convicted of terrorist acts?
I agree. Mind boggling that the shooter made it as far as he did. Response time being what it is, I still find it strange that he got to where he did.
Makes me wonder who the hell missed what.
Modern democracies often suffer from the traditions of fixing the barn doors after the horses have escaped.
Democracies often learn lessons the hard way.
People confuse our openess and trusting nation for weakness and it is since we literally define a balance point between freedom, openess vs security and safety.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Under normal circumstances prior to today, how close can you get to Centre Block while Parliament is in session? Right up to the doors of the building?
Under normal circumstances prior to today, how close can you get to Centre Block while Parliament is in session? Right up to the doors of the building?
Yes, most often most if not all gates to the lawn are open, anyone can walk up to Centre Block. It's not like the Palace of Westminster where the closest you can get is across the street.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to J epworth For This Useful Post:
Just speculation here, but I assume security on Parliament Hill is much like airport security and bike locks... they stop the honest people.
A motivated criminal/terrorist isn't going to be stopped by a metal detector or camera.
Pretty much dead on with that assumption. If you're doing the tours of Parliament you've got to go through a series of metal detectors, bag checks and line-up with a ticket, so it'd be pretty difficult to sneak something in.
But give how "open" the whole are around parliament is in general, on a sleepy October Wednesday it is apparently not difficult to bum rush parliament.
