Canadian foiled massacre "not terrorism"

[The Green Bean]

There was no link to terrorism, Peter McKay, the police and justice minister, announced on Saturday.

“This appeared to be a group of murderous misfits that were ... prepared to wreak havoc and mayhem on our community,” he said.

“The attack does not appear to have been culturally motivated, and is therefore not linked to terrorism.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...valentines-day-mass-murder-plot-10046983.html

In other words, is it terrorism only if it's linked to Islam? Makes me wonder if the Mullahs in my country are right: the war on terror is actually a war against Islam.

On the other hand there a lone shooter in Copenhagen was a terrorist act.

Investigator Jorgen Skov told reporters that “nothing at this point suggests there were other perpetrators” in the two shootings that had also wounded five police officers.

Denmark’s prime minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt described the first shooting, which bore similarities to the deadly attacks at the newspaper Charlie Hebdo’s offices, as a terrorist attack.
In a press conference on Sunday, Thorning Schmidt said: "Denmark has been hit by terror.

"We do not know the motive for the alleged perpetrator's actions, but we know that there are forces that want to hurt Denmark. They want to rebuke our freedom of speech."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...attacks-on-a-cafe-and-synagogue-10046859.html

So what am I supposed to tell the Mullahs?

 

[Blue_Max]

So what am I supposed to tell the Mullahs?

Tell 'em we don't want to convert and we don't want sharia.

Finding offense in things that have nothing to do with you is paranoia.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Finding offense in things that have nothing to do with you is paranoia.

That's the Muslim way!

So what am I supposed to tell the Mullahs?

How about telling them to stop spreading hate and that if you're going to migrate to a western nation, don't enforce your medieval beliefs on others.

 

[Jaskalas]

Canadian foiled massacre "not terrorism"

Did they self proclaim a political / cultural motivation, did they associate with a larger group who shared those goals? No? Hard to call it terrorism if they have no greater motivation, and/or stand alone.

Frankly, I doubt western countries have settled on an exact term for terrorism.

 

[Bowfinger]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...valentines-day-mass-murder-plot-10046983.html

In other words, is it terrorism only if it's linked to Islam? ...

No.

So what am I supposed to tell the Mullahs?

Tell them you need a dictionary. Terrorism is violence committed for a political or ideological cause. You want to kill a bunch of people just for the sake of killing people? Not terrorism. You want to kill a bunch of people for your religious beliefs or a political cause? Yes, that is terrorism.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

So what am I supposed to tell the Mullahs?

Tell their congregation to follow true Islam as prescribed by the Quran and be the peaceful Muslims they're required to be. Also tell the Mullahs to take a stand against those who are bastardizing/do evil things in the name of their religion.

 

[The Green Bean]

No.


Tell them you need a dictionary. Terrorism is violence committed for a political or ideological cause. You want to kill a bunch of people just for the sake of killing people? Not terrorism. You want to kill a bunch of people for your religious beliefs or a political cause? Yes, that is terrorism.

It's the West that needs a dictionary. 1) You don't wreak havoc on a country or community unless you have a motive to do so. 2) The Denmark PM labeled the "lone perpetrator" attack as terrorist despite conceding he had no idea of the motivation.

The Canadian suspects had "some beliefs and were willing to carry out violent acts against citizens,” In essence, must the beliefs must be "religious/cultural" for it to be a terrorist attack?

I think it has more to do with the fact that no Muslims were involved in the Canada attacks while a Muslim killed a Jew in Copenhagen. I don't think there is a worst crime!

 

[The Green Bean]

Tell their congregation to follow true Islam as prescribed by the Quran and be the peaceful Muslims they're required to be. Also tell the Mullahs to take a stand against those who are bastardizing/do evil things in the name of their religion.

Only if you promise to tell Americans to follow true democracy as proscribed by the UN and stop their illegal wars in Iraq and Pakistan. Also tell them to take a stand against those who are baztardizing/do evil in the name of freedom and democracy.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Only if you promise to tell Americans to follow true democracy as proscribed by the UN and stop their illegal wars in Iraq and Pakistan. Also tell them to take a stand against those who are baztardizing/do evil in the name of freedom and democracy.

What war in Iraq or Pakistan? Guess we know you're mad when terrorism is called out for what it is............TERRORISM!!! My bet is you support these terrorist actions as well.

 

[The Green Bean]

What war in Iraq or Pakistan? Guess we know you're mad when terrorism is called out for what it is............TERRORISM!!! My bet is you support these terrorist actions as well.

Iraq War: based on lies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War)
Pakistan war: Around 277-435 civilians have been killed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_strikes_in_Pakistan)

I support neither AlQaeeda's nor ISIS's terrorism. Their kind have killed my colleagues and threatened my family. I don't support state "terrorism (or whatever the fuck you want to call it)" by the USA even though it has not bought me or my family under mortal danger.

I think (some of) American action is necessary, but their justification for it and they way they are going about it is not. On the one hand they fund the Saudis and on the other they kill the people who the Saudis pay to kill Americans and "minorities" like myself.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

There is no ongoing war in Iraq and limited drone strikes are not considered a war.

 

[Bowfinger]

It's the West that needs a dictionary. 1) You don't wreak havoc on a country or community unless you have a motive to do so. 2) The Denmark PM labeled the "lone perpetrator" attack as terrorist despite conceding he had no idea of the motivation.

The Canadian suspects had "some beliefs and were willing to carry out violent acts against citizens,” In essence, must the beliefs must be "religious/cultural" for it to be a terrorist attack?

I think it has more to do with the fact that no Muslims were involved in the Canada attacks while a Muslim killed a Jew in Copenhagen. I don't think there is a worst crime!

You are being willfully dishonest. Based on the articles YOU provided and presumably read, you are misrepresenting both incidents to flog your own biased agenda. Again.

The only motive described for the Canadian trio is they were obsessed with murders and mass killings. They planned to attack a shopping mall. Shopping malls are noteworthy for having many people in one place, but not for any political or ideological meaning.

The Denmark attack, in contrast, appears to have a distinct political intent:

"The gunman used an automatic weapon to shoot through the windows of the Krudttoenden cultural centre during a freedom of speech event at around 4pm on Saturday, killing a 55-year-old man and wounding three officers.

"The event was hosting Swedish artist Lars Vilks, a cartoonist who had received death threats for depicting the Prophet Mohammad on the body of a dog in 2007."
​

While it is possible this was merely a coincidence, no honest person will start with that assumption. It seems highly likely the attack was motivated by these political targets.

 

[Nebor]

So what am I supposed to tell the Mullahs?

You don't tell the Mullahs shit. They tell you, because so many adherents to your religion are illiterate. That's part of what makes it so great.

 

[Subyman]

People certainly get into a tizzy over semantics.

 

[Whiskey16]

In other words, is it terrorism only if it's linked to Islam?

Despite who started this thread, he has made a valid point. The current federal government of Canada is in an election year, and the ruling Conservative Party of Canada has a sordid history of playing wedge politics and senior members who have routes to rather bigoted foundations......... A bogeyman of fear mongering politics is being strongly played out, where terrorism is of an 'extreme threat' and terrorism is proclaimed by government ministers if only involving 'Jihadism.'

The past year had seen two other notable terrorist incidents in British Columbia and New Brunswick, perpetrated by individuals committing to lethal shootings against the RCMP (federal and law enforcing representatives) for a Freeman cause. Yet the feds were clear not to classify such as terrorism. Federally, little was spoken of those acts of terrorism, unlike the lone-crazy events upon Parliament Hill and Quebec.

That said, here is Section 83.01 of the Canadian Criminal code concerning terrorism:

“terrorist activity” means

..






(b) an act or omission, in or outside Canada,

• (i) that is committed
  • (A) in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause, and
  • (B) in whole or in part with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public, with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act, whether the public or the person, government or organization is inside or outside Canada, and
• (ii) that intentionally
  • (A) causes death or serious bodily harm to a person by the use of violence,
  • (B) endangers a person’s life,
  • (C) causes a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or any segment of the public,
  • (D) causes substantial property damage, whether to public or private property, if causing such damage is likely to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to (C), or
  • (E) causes serious interference with or serious disruption of an essential service, facility or system, whether public or private, other than as a result of advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage of work that is not intended to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to (C),

and includes a conspiracy, attempt or threat to commit any such act or omission, or being an accessory after the fact or counselling in relation to any such act or omission, but, for greater certainty, does not include an act or omission that is committed during an armed conflict...

Yesterday's arrests in Halifax certainly do satisfy legal terms of 'terrorism.' I expect prosecutors to fully apply the law and avoid minimisation of the planned actions. It's just that for the feds, not having a 'Jihadist' at the centre does not play well with their bogeyman politics, therefore terrorism is only publicly reserved for such visible scapegoats.

Those wishing to avoid the legal language law and play semantics (here's looking at you Subyman, and even possibly Bowfinger) have a goal to single out and vilify a targeted and visible group, rather than honestly recognise that not one entity has a singular claim to terrorism.

 

[rudeguy]

People certainly get into a tizzy over semantics.

People often search for reasons to be outraged.

 

[Whiskey16]

Tell them you need a dictionary. Terrorism is violence committed for a political or ideological cause. You want to kill a bunch of people just for the sake of killing people? Not terrorism. You want to kill a bunch of people for your religious beliefs or a political cause? Yes, that is terrorism.

Nope.

In such causes for debate, I skip the dictionary and will directly cite the law.... Read my previous post, and try again, Bowfinger.

 

[Whiskey16]

People often search for reasons to be outraged.

In an election year in Canada, most of what comes out of Federal ministers' mouths is for partisan politics.

Playing with the terms of terrorism, to downplay acts of terrorism, and for the Justice Minister Peter McKay to rush in to a Halifax press conference to play politics is all of rational cause to angst by Canadians. No tabled legislation would've helped with the arrests. Public tips to Crime Stoppers and possibly an already existing RCMP investigation avoided terrorism.

There is plenty of outrage by the majority of Canadians against the current ruling federal party. Their regular politicising of near tragic events such of yesterday and applying any excuse to legislate unconstitutional laws to meet yet more beratings by the Supreme Court of Canada are of great concern -- even "outrage."

 

[Blanky]

Tell their congregation to follow true Islam as prescribed by the Quran and be the peaceful Muslims they're required to be. Also tell the Mullahs to take a stand against those who are bastardizing/do evil things in the name of their religion.

You know full well the koran is full of blessings to kill non-believers. That doesn't sound peaceful to me. We should all be glad there are very, very few "true muslims".

 

[rudeguy]

You know full well the koran is full of blessings to kill non-believers. That doesn't sound peaceful to me. We should all be glad there are very, very few "true muslims".

ok

Quote them.

 

[Bowfinger]

Nope.

In such causes for debate, I skip the dictionary and will directly cite the law.... Read my previous post, and try again, Bowfinger.

This is not a court of law. It is a forum with conversations. The Canadian incident may well meet the requirements established by Canadian law, and that's fine. I have no issue with these guys being prosecuted unde such laws. Based on initial reports, however, there is no indication of motive beyond being lunatics that wanted to kill people for the sake of killing people. That does not meet the classic English definition of terrorism.

That said, I am not suggesting for a moment the use of the word should be limited to Islamic extremists. Terrorism can be spurred by all sorts of political and ideological causes.

 

[Whiskey16]

Based on initial reports, however, there is no indication of motive beyond being lunatics that wanted to kill people for the sake of killing people.

Not true, no motive nor ideology has been mentioned -- just the mould for Islamic extremism has been alluded to having no role -- hence, no 'terrorism.'

A group getting together for "the sake of killing people?" Let's be honest -- without a motivating ideological and anguishing cause, groups of people don't plan and get together, particularly with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public, and cause death or serious bodily harm to persons by the use of violence,while targeting public/private property (a shopping mall in this case).

This is not a court of law. It is a forum with conversations. The Canadian incident may well meet the requirements established by Canadian law, and that's fine. ... That does not meet the classic English definition of terrorism.

Indeed, you're still wrong. We get it. You wish to continue to play semantics to minimise publicly violent and extremist terrorist actions that were to be committed by an apparently united ideological group.

Others that are quite incorrect are:

CBC: Neither Brennan nor Halifax Regional Police Chief Jean-Michel Blais would characterize the alleged plot as terrorism. They say their investigation shows the plan had nothing to do with ethnic or political motivation.

As I have supported, an act of terrorism does not require simple political and certainly not that of ethnic bigotry (terrorism involves 'in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause').

As Minister Peter McKay and conservative minders were quickly on hand for the dissemination of information to the press, it is quite likely that the RCMP were directed not to publicly classify this as terrorism. With a new security bill coming before parliament, the regular government spin and media orchestrations have ONLY stuck to the scrip of fearing 'Islamic Jihadism."

 

[Omar F1]

You know full well the koran is full of blessings to kill non-believers. That doesn't sound peaceful to me. We should all be glad there are very, very few "true muslims".

We're ordered to kill while we're at war (normal human behavior I guess), it's an obvious thing which doesn't need to be precisely explained in Quran.

But beside that, the Quran is also full of wisdom, ethical rules, stories of old nations, even some scientific miracles, which you could some day also read more about such subjects 🙂



As far as I know, first Islamic century wars did mainly exist to spread the word. That said, should we launch a new future wars to spread Islam? absolutely doesn't make sense. Simply the Islam is already there in almost every developed country around the globe, in addition that they're allowed to practice their religion freely (to some extent of course).
Beside the right to defend ourselves, I think true Islamic wars are long over.

 

[Chaotic42]

Only if you promise to tell Americans to follow true democracy as proscribed by the UN and stop their illegal wars in Iraq and Pakistan. Also tell them to take a stand against those who are baztardizing/do evil in the name of freedom and democracy.

It falls on deaf ears. I've long been a proponent of developing energy independence and leaving the Middle East completely alone. We seen entrenched.

 

[nickqt]

We're ordered to kill while we're at war (normal human behavior I guess), it's an obvious thing which doesn't need to be precisely explained in Quran.

But beside that, the Quran is also full of wisdom, ethical rules, stories of old nations, even some scientific miracles, which you could some day also read more about such subjects 🙂



As far as I know, first Islamic century wars did mainly exist to spread the word. That said, should we launch a new future wars to spread Islam? absolutely doesn't make sense. Simply the Islam is already there in almost every developed country around the globe, in addition that they're allowed to practice their religion freely (to some extent of course).
Beside the right to defend ourselves, I think true Islamic wars are long over.

I'm an agnostic, and I don't have a problem with Islam, and I don't consider it any more violent than any other religion. What has happened is that the countries/regions/areas where Islam dominates have been dominated by Empires and dictators for a really, really long time now.

Islam acts like a banner for rallying to overthrow Empire, or dictators. Unfortunately, there are plenty of people who will use it for other means, such as having power and privilege, or for carrying out their sociopathic desires.

The difference between Islam and Christianity, at least in the sense of it being used to get people to do bad things, is that the "west" changed after the 30 years war and the Treaty of Westphalia basically made "secular" government dominant in Europe.

Once secularism took hold and people weren't being tortured, disfigured, murdered, burned alive, etc, for their beliefs, people started to temper their religious beliefs and how much they would go out of their way to hurt other people for not believing in what they believe.

Islam still has to do that, to some extent. Islam hasn't really had its treaty of Westphalia, at least in the mid east proper.

One place you can see where Islam was tempered and where the politics today are pretty moderate, is Turkey. Ataturk was a really smart guy.

The whole arab/iranian/pakistani regions need an Ataturk-like figure. But before a new Ataturk can arise, the west needs to stop screwing around over there. For some reason, the west does actually believe that if we just drop enough bombs and bullets on people, that they'll adopt democracy.

Democracy is almost always internal, even if there are starts and stops and sputtering. The west just continues to drop bombs though, as if more death imposed by outsiders is going to fix things up.