I’m pretty sure that the Argyll Sunderlands will have a prominent role at the Cenotaph on November 11, as well as the unit that the soldier in Quebec belonged to.
I’m sure he wasn’t thinking ‘up the proletariat, down with the capitalists’ when he went on his killing spree. More likely he was thinking of how many virgins he was getting when he got to paradise. Power had little to do with it.
Highway of Heroes is one of the YouTube searches that is pretty much guaranteed to make me cry - also love the song by the Trewes. There was a Remembrance Day piece put out by Edmonton media a few years ago that was also very well done (can’t search right now at work)
Stand Easy, brother. Your duty is done.
Just tweeted out - the procession is heading out along the Highway of Heroes now
As a devoted dog lover, I find that very moving.
Once again I fear I have to disagree with you. I share many aspects of what I gather to be your cynicism about media, but not everything is to be dismissed and ridiculed. If it makes you feel any better think of it as symbolic. A young man, a good man, was taken from us, and he is missed. It’s amazing how strong the emotions are about this young man even among complete strangers, so we need this as a symbol and a marker of a stage of mourning. Would you prefer that the media invade the privacy of his grieving family and post pictures of them instead?
And one of the things all his friends and family mentioned about this soldier was how soft he was when it came to his dogs, how much he loved them, what a pleasure it was to see them together.
I too find it a touching photo.
(Glad I’m not as cynical as some!)
More dog pictures (and others) are making the rounds. Look at the sixth one down on this page:
http://www.hlntv.com/article/2014/10/23/nathan-cirillo-ottawa-shooting-victim?hpt=hp_t2
In the US, soldier stands on guard. In Canada, soldier stands on guard for thee.
You guys are taking this worse than the locals did when a crazy Islamist killed a soldier here in my home town.
Really? It was literally the very seat of our democracy.
And we’re not taking it right?
What’s wrong with you?
It was meant to be commiserative. I apologize if I did not explain myself well.
Official version from the RCMP is that he came through the front doors of centre block.
Looks like you may be right.
Have they said where the other security was inside Parliament? I’ve read the MP’s were literally sharpening wooden poles to defend themselves and PM was hiding in a cupboard. Were there no guards in that building at all? I know the Sergeant at Arms (a ceremonial position) shot and killed the bad guy. I know everyone in that building is thankful he reacted. But, where were the police guards?
Sorry if this was covered. It’s a six page thread and I’m not getting any younger. 
You have to understand Canada. I’m not sure there are police guards inside Parliament typically. The sergeant-at-arms appears to have a half dozen or so security guards reporting to him, and I think that’s about it. The grounds outside are patrolled by the RCMP, but when nothing happens in like, forever, you kind of get complacent. I may be wrong, but the above is my knowledge of security on the Hill at this time, and even that is beefed up after 9/11 and after a nutbar drove a bus onto the Hill in the late 80s/early 90s.
I thought they at least had a couple cops at each entrance. I knew things are more relaxed in Canada. Thanks Leaffan
There is a limit what security can do in a public building. For example the US White House recently had an intruder get inside. That’s in spite of all the security procedures. Mistakes happen no matter how many people are assigned. A trade off has to be made between making it an impregnable fortress and actually using it as a public building. The President can’t do his job if people can’t get inside to meet with him.
I’m not sure if this has been mentioned, but even ceremonial guards should have real weapons, and not an unloaded rifle. Just by virtue of the uniform, guards (ceremonial or otherwise) are more of a target than others, and in my view this should mean they should have the means to actually defend themselves.
If his gun had been real, would he not still be dead now?
I take your point, but clearly it would not have mattered.
Doesn’t giving him a gun make him more of a target? Couldn’t three people overpower him and take his gun?
I’m not sure it’s a good idea.
I don’t know. Do we know if the first shot hit him?
I thought he already had a gun, it just was not loaded (it was a ceremonial weapon).
Well, that’s easy to say in hindsight. It had never happened before, and even in this case, Nathan Cirillo would still be dead. He was shot from point blank from behind and the guards had no idea what was happening until it was too late. And then the assailant would have had a loaded C7, rather than the old shitty rifle he did have. Whoops!
I can tell you from person Canadian Forces experience that issuing ammunition is a big freakin’ deal. There’s an administrative burden and tt’s a security issue you have to be constantly worried about. I would have HATED being issued ammunition for ceremonial duties. I wouldn’t have even wanted the rifle to have its bolt in it.
A ceremonial guard is not a security guard. Cirillo’s job was not to shoot people, or threaten to shoot people, or enforce the law. His job was to engage in a ceremony.