So, you are also taking the stance that his religious views had nothing to do with his actions. That religion, or any other idea for that matter, has no influence on his behavior?
He’d do exactly the same thing regardless. It was his destiny to kill and other’s to die.
I think it’s wrong for that to be the focus when it seems transparently obvious that he’d have just glommed on to some other hated and feared barbaric group. Who, by the way knew nothing of this guy, had no hand in his actions. And he was, in fact, tossed from a mosque near Vancouver for being scary, well prior to these actions.
Laying this on Islam, or Terrorism seems horribly misguided to me when it was pretty clearly a mental health issue.
Many mentally ill people get to being convinced the government is out to get them. Should we waste time and money focusing on that connection? No, we acknowledge that this is a common manifestation of delusional, severe mental illness.
But, it should at least be investigated, to see if any group helped push him over the edge or gave him some encouragement or helped him in some way. I see no reason it can’t potentially be both terrorism and a mental health issue
Again, what you are saying is that there are no external factors that were at play in his decision to kill people. It is all internal. He would have attacked the same people, in the same way he did so regardless? Is that what you are saying?
There were external factors in the same sense that the white album was an external influence for Charles Manson, I suppose.
So a direct call from ISIS for lone wolf attacks against France, the US and their allies, is the same as some mumbo jumbo from a song?
We have a direct call for action from a terrorist group, then we have action by people supporting said group shortly after Canada says it will join the bombings against ISIS, yet you say there is no relation between the two. How do you justify this to yourself and, more importantly, why?
Thanks Muffin, you said what I obviously failed miserably at trying to.
Rickjay and Leaffan, I must retract my statement about the mental health cuts as I couldn’t find the evidence I was looking for. I conflated Alberta’s health woes with the ROC and that was a mistake.
My concern, so ineptly expressed earlier, is less to do with the attacks (which are horrific and I have nothing but sympathy for the families of Cpl Cirillo and WO Vincent) and more with what happens after the fact. Link to Bill C-44, and a synopsis. This is not the delicate balancing act that Muffin alludes to.
IANAL but when this is added to the powers that already exist for CSIS and the RCMP, you could be in a world of hurt if you were ever falsely accused. If I understand it correctly you could be accused, detained almost indefinitely, and never be able to face your accuser because of informant confidentiality this Bill allows for. Isn’t this basically the complete antithesis of what this country’s rule of law was built on?
Here’s an article from the Globeabout a fellow who is in the process of being given the boot out of Canada. It’s well worth reading, for it deals with the subtleties of proactive efforts. With subtleties comes a lot of grey concerning the state’s actions, rather than the pasteboard black and white following a terrorist attack.
And here’s an article from LawTimes on a fellow who works with the police by intervening to steer young men away from terrorism when it appears that they are moving toward it. He notes that there tend to be three types of people with terrorist-like inclinations:
-
Hard-core, middle aged men who are brainwashed and with whom it is impossible to rationally talk;
-
Young men from good families who are upset with what they see happening in the world and who still may be swayed toward steering their frustration into civic engagement; and
-
Mentally ill people who are lost, isolated, unemployed, with no previous cause or strong values, who convert to Islam and take up religions as a protest.
For a lot of the sudden islamic radicals from families and communities with no association with islam I do think this is the answer.
I think these people are basically lost in life and carry a lot of pain from the past and are angry at society, they see that radical islam(or even regular islam) has become a boogyman to mainstream society and latch onto it as a way to strike out at and basically troll society.
Remember the famous nut Lee Harvey Oswald? Same kinda deal except at the time the societal boogeyman was communists and Russians, so he becomes a communist and then runs off to Russia and when he finds no one gives a shit he decides to strike out in a bigger way.
I think that’s a fairly appropriate analogy grude. This nutbar could have, in all probability, killed our Prime Minister and members of his cabinet.
Ontario Provincial Police report finds that RCMP / security forces reaction was appropriate: OPP report exonerates Hill security in killing of Zehaf-Bibeau.
Did anyone in Canada feel the security forces weren’t justified in killing the guy? Did the police really have to justify their actions? I would think they would be focused on whether there was enough security
I would hope that all killings by police/security are reviewed for justification and appropriateness. Certainly I agree that this killing was both justified and appropriate. It should still be reviewed.
That’s a separate issue. I expect that there is a separate review of that. I’d be astonished if there isn’t.
I’m not astonished. Security issues were part of the report.
Of course the RCMP must, procedurally, go through the process of confirming, if a human being is shot to death, that it was justifiable, but of course they were going to and this isn’t really a news story worth reporting.
I would investigate to determine if they used enough bullets.
If you do it right, you only need one.
I suppose in Canada that’s enough. Not in America, though. Every cop within a quarter mile has to empty his gun – it’s mandatory. 
Only if the suspect is black!