Can't be Islamists.. that violence is just a myth according to the other thread here.
RIP to the soldier and my condolences to those affected by today's attack. Just horrible.
Could be Islamists. Or the boogeyman. Or a radicalized Buddhist (they exist). But to make a suggestion so pre-emptively without any semblance of evidence (even with historical grounds) seems outrageous, and is letting your preconceived notions drive your decision-making process (aka, societal indoctrination).
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Don't you love how the press is already calling the shooter a "terrorist"- just like that, in quotes. It's like they're saying, Well we wouldn't want to come to any "conclusions" but you never know about this sort of "thing" that these "people" are up to. There's probably just as much accurate news reporting in the Sunday paper horoscope these days.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Story developing... read some article saying that ISIS posted something about the shooter on their media website or some shit like that (a bit drunk, lol). Didn't check the source though. Not sure if true.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Don't you love how the press is already calling the shooter a "terrorist"- just like that, in quotes. It's like they're saying, Well we wouldn't want to come to any "conclusions" but you never know about this sort of "thing" that these "people" are up to. There's probably just as much accurate news reporting in the Sunday paper horoscope these days.
NOTHING surprises me anymore when it comes to this shit. Amazing, first there was multiple shooters (as always) then there's ONLY 1. Ya I know, everyone was confused and didn't know at the time there was only 1 shooter. Yet news reports ALWAYS say "shooters" and somehow mysteriously it becomes 1 shooter DEAD and no one can ask questions. ALWAYS. It's becoming comical with the media. I agree with you brian.
That's why these types of occurrences are extremely rare, You guys should follow our lead... exercise the most basic level of common sense... and find the same level of peace for yourselves- it's very comforting walking down our streets and not assuming people have handguns under their jackets.
You should come up here for a PJ show when they come around again and spend some time here. You might be surprised at how safe you would feel......even in our "gun-free" zones.
Criminals prefer their victims to be defenseless. I wouldn't be surprised if Canada had more of these, much like our US "gun-free" zones.
Not to be provoking unsung but really, implying that Canadians would be safer armed is not good for your argument. Guns are banned and far less prevent in Canada than in the U.S. and their violent crime is lower. Suggesting that Canadians arm themselves is like suggesting they increase their violent crime rate. Unless that is the objective, why do it?
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Can't be Islamists.. that violence is just a myth according to the other thread here.
RIP to the soldier and my condolences to those affected by today's attack. Just horrible.
Could be Islamists. Or the boogeyman. Or a radicalized Buddhist (they exist). But to make a suggestion so pre-emptively without any semblance of evidence (even with historical grounds) seems outrageous, and is letting your preconceived notions drive your decision-making process (aka, societal indoctrination).
Actually there were some early reports that it was terror related so wasn't really a preconceived notion. And guess what? It was a convert to Islam.
Three shooting incidents now - war memorial, in parliament, and in a nearby shopping centre. Not sure if anyone was actually shot in the mall. Just says there was a shooting incident there. Obviously more than one shooter, and sounds like only one of them is caught/dead. Way too much speculation on it being some kind of Islamic-inspired terrorist attack. I'd say the reason for this is that Canadian war planes and troops just left Canada yesterday for the Middle East to begin their active military involvement against ISIS (which I am somewhat against btw). WAY too early to assume that that is anything other than a coincidence though.
The shooting at the shopping centre never actually happened and the Parliment Buildings and the War Memorial were the same guy who police say was acting alone. I live in Ottawa and it was crazy the number of extra stories that the media was reporting that weren't actually true (shooting in the shopping centre, shooters on rooftops, cops chasing a suspect on a motorcycle down the freeway).
Three shooting incidents now - war memorial, in parliament, and in a nearby shopping centre. Not sure if anyone was actually shot in the mall. Just says there was a shooting incident there. Obviously more than one shooter, and sounds like only one of them is caught/dead. Way too much speculation on it being some kind of Islamic-inspired terrorist attack. I'd say the reason for this is that Canadian war planes and troops just left Canada yesterday for the Middle East to begin their active military involvement against ISIS (which I am somewhat against btw). WAY too early to assume that that is anything other than a coincidence though.
The shooting at the shopping centre never actually happened and the Parliment Buildings and the War Memorial were the same guy who police say was acting alone. I live in Ottawa and it was crazy the number of extra stories that the media was reporting that weren't actually true (shooting in the shopping centre, shooters on rooftops, cops chasing a suspect on a motorcycle down the freeway).
Yes, obviously that is the case. The reporting was all over the place yesterday. I don't understand where the shooting reports from the mall even came from.... car backfiring? lol. Or maybe just their vivid imaginations. SMH. The media gets so ridiculous during these kinds of moments. Yesterday morning I was getting really annoyed with this statement they kept making about how this would change the lives of all Canadians forever, blah blah blah.... Ummmmm, melodramatic much?
Okay, well NOW it's responsible to say this is a terrorist attack, knowing who the shooter is.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Criminals prefer their victims to be defenseless. I wouldn't be surprised if Canada had more of these, much like our US "gun-free" zones.
Really? Is that why this guy attacked a military officer and Parliament, where there are armed guards? Because those folks are so helpless? SMH Unsung.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I find that photo a bit embarrassing. I wish Canada would drop all the stupid British tradition bullshit in Parliament. However, I find it quite endearing and kind of cool (and maybe a bit hilarious, even though that's a callous reaction on my part) that it was THAT guy who brought down the shooter. Good for him! I think maybe he deserves a few days off though? He did just kill a man yesterday....
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I find that photo a bit embarrassing. I wish Canada would drop all the stupid British tradition bullshit in Parliament. However, I find it quite endearing and kind of cool (and maybe a bit hilarious, even though that's a callous reaction on my part) that it was THAT guy who brought down the shooter. Good for him! I think maybe he deserves a few days off though? He did just kill a man yesterday....
How long before the "it turned out it wasn't him that took him down" reports start to come out ala jessica lunch? I'm not saying he didn't take him out. But I'm not gonna say he did. At least not right now
I find that photo a bit embarrassing. I wish Canada would drop all the stupid British tradition bullshit in Parliament. However, I find it quite endearing and kind of cool (and maybe a bit hilarious, even though that's a callous reaction on my part) that it was THAT guy who brought down the shooter. Good for him! I think maybe he deserves a few days off though? He did just kill a man yesterday....
How long before the "it turned out it wasn't him that took him down" reports start to come out ala jessica lunch? I'm not saying he didn't take him out. But I'm not gonna say he did. At least not right now
I won't doubt that he is the one who killed the terrorist until there is reason to do so. It would be very uncharacteristic in this country for them to make someone the so-called hero when he's not... and for this guy to take the credit when he doesn't "deserve" it. If people are legitimately confused or misinformed, that's one thing. But actually lying about it? Not a chance. Why do you doubt it btw? Because he's wearing that silly outfit?
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Glenn Greenwald wrote this article prior to the shooting...it was in reaction to Monday's car attack on a soldier in Quebec. I'm curious what people think about the second point he makes regarding labelling attacks against military personnel, serving a country at war, as terrorism? (edited for character limit - see link for full article)
Canada, At War For 13 Years, Shocked That ‘A Terrorist’ Attacked Its Soldiers https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/10/22/canada-proclaiming-war-12-years-shocked-someone-attacked-soldiers/ .......... Second, in what conceivable sense can this incident be called a “terrorist” attack? As I have written many times over the last several years, and as some of the best scholarship proves, “terrorism” is a word utterly devoid of objective or consistent meaning. It is little more than a totally malleable, propagandistic fear-mongering term used by Western governments (and non-Western ones) to justify whatever actions they undertake. As Professor Tomis Kapitan wrote in a brilliant essay in The New York Times on Monday: “Part of the success of this rhetoric traces to the fact that there is no consensus about the meaning of ‘terrorism.’”
But to the extent the term has any common understanding, it includes the deliberate (or wholly reckless) targeting of civilians with violence for political ends. But in this case in Canada, it wasn’t civilians who were targeted. If one believes the government’s accounts of the incident, the driver waited two hours until he saw a soldier in uniform. In other words, he seems to have deliberately avoided attacking civilians, and targeted a soldier instead – a member of a military that is currently fighting a war.
Again, the point isn’t justifiability. There is a compelling argument to make that undeployed soldiers engaged in normal civilian activities at home are not valid targets under the laws of war (although the U.S. and its closest allies use extremely broad and permissive standards for what constitutes legitimate military targets when it comes to their own violence). The point is that targeting soldiers who are part of a military fighting an active war is completely inconsistent with the common usage of the word “terrorism,” and yet it is reflexively applied by government officials and media outlets to this incident in Canada (and others like it in the UK and the US).
That’s because the most common functional definition of “terrorism” in Western discourse is quite clear. At this point, it means little more than: “violence directed at Westerners by Muslims” (when not used to mean “violence by Muslims,” it usually just means: violence the state dislikes). The term “terrorism” has become nothing more than a rhetorical weapon for legitimizing all violence by Western countries, and delegitimizing all violence against them, even when the violence called “terrorism” is clearly intended as retaliation for Western violence.
This is about far more than semantics. It is central to how the west propagandizes its citizenries; the manipulative use of the “terrorism” term lies at heart of that. As Professor Kapitan wrote yesterday in The New York Times:
Even when a definition is agreed upon, the rhetoric of “terror” is applied both selectively and inconsistently. In the mainstream American media, the “terrorist” label is usually reserved for those opposed to the policies of the U.S. and its allies. By contrast, some acts of violence that constitute terrorism under most definitions are not identified as such — for instance, the massacre of over 2000 Palestinian civilians in the Beirut refugee camps in 1982 or the killings of more than 3000 civilians in Nicaragua by “contra” rebels during the 1980s, or the genocide that took the lives of at least a half million Rwandans in 1994. At the opposite end of the spectrum, some actions that do not qualify as terrorism are labeled as such — that would include attacks by Hamas, Hezbollah or ISIS, for instance, against uniformed soldiers on duty.
Historically, the rhetoric of terror has been used by those in power not only to sway public opinion, but to direct attention away from their own acts of terror.
At this point, “terrorism” is the term that means nothing, but justifies everything. It is long past time that media outlets begin skeptically questioning its usage by political officials rather than mindlessly parroting it.
UPDATE: Multiple conservative commentators have claimed that this article and my subsequent discussion of it are about this morning’s shooting of a solider in Ottawa. Aside from the fact that what I wrote is expressly about a completely different incident – one that took place in Quebec on Monday – this article and my comments were published before this morning’s shooting spree was reported. So unless someone believes I possess powers of clairvoyance, the claim that I was commenting on the Ottawa shooting – about which virtually nothing is known, including the identity and motive of the shooter(s) – is obviously false.
Then there’s also the extremely predictable accusation that I was justifying the attack on the soldiers. I know from prior experience in discussing these questions that no matter how clear you make it that you are writing about causation and not justification, many will still distort what you write to claim you’ve justified the attack. That’s true even if one makes as clear as the English language permits that you’re not writing about justification: “The issue here is not justification (very few people would view attacks on soldiers in a shopping mall parking lot to be justified). The issue is causation.” If there’s a way to make that any clearer, please let me know.
One more time: the difference between “causation” and “justification” is so obvious that it should require no explanation. If one observes that someone who smokes four packs of cigarettes a day can expect to develop emphysema, that’s an observation about causation, not a celebration of the person’s illness. Only a willful desire to distort, or some deep confusion, can account for a failure to process this most basic point.
UPDATE II: In that brilliant essay I referenced above, published just three days ago in The New York Times, Professor Tomis Kaptian made this point:
Obviously, to point out the causes and objectives of particular terrorist actions is to imply nothing about their legitimacy — that is an independent matter….
That point is so simple and, as he said, “obvious” that I have a hard time understanding what could account for some commentators conflating the two other than a willful desire to mislead.
I find that photo a bit embarrassing. I wish Canada would drop all the stupid British tradition bullshit in Parliament. However, I find it quite endearing and kind of cool (and maybe a bit hilarious, even though that's a callous reaction on my part) that it was THAT guy who brought down the shooter. Good for him! I think maybe he deserves a few days off though? He did just kill a man yesterday....
Not a photo, it's a video. You should watch it, it hits a bit in the feels.
I find that photo a bit embarrassing. I wish Canada would drop all the stupid British tradition bullshit in Parliament. However, I find it quite endearing and kind of cool (and maybe a bit hilarious, even though that's a callous reaction on my part) that it was THAT guy who brought down the shooter. Good for him! I think maybe he deserves a few days off though? He did just kill a man yesterday....
Not a photo, it's a video. You should watch it, it hits a bit in the feels.
I did watch it, on the morning news before I saw this post (I knew this was from the video, but it's a still, so I called it a photo). I felt for the man himself, but I still had the thought about how stupid our little British traditions in Parliament are. And I was also off-put by seeing a bunch of those motherfucking politicians all in one room running on a high caused by a tragedy. So yeah, I've got mixed feelings here, lol. I am glad this dude stopped the attacker, and that people are thanking him. Seeing Stephen Harper ride the wave is making me sick to my stomach.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I find that photo a bit embarrassing. I wish Canada would drop all the stupid British tradition bullshit in Parliament. However, I find it quite endearing and kind of cool (and maybe a bit hilarious, even though that's a callous reaction on my part) that it was THAT guy who brought down the shooter. Good for him! I think maybe he deserves a few days off though? He did just kill a man yesterday....
Not a photo, it's a video. You should watch it, it hits a bit in the feels.
I did watch it, on the morning news before I saw this point (I knew this was from the video, but it's a still, so I called it a photo). I felt for the man himself, but I still had the thought about how stupid our little British traditions in Parliament are. And I was also off-put by seeing a bunch of those motherfucking politicians all in one room running on a high caused by a tragedy. So yeah, I've got mixed feelings here, lol. I am glad this dude stopped the attacker, and that people are thanking him. Seeing Stephen Harper ride the wave is making me sick to my stomach.
100% agree. I hope this doesn't help Harper get another majority gov.
I find that photo a bit embarrassing. I wish Canada would drop all the stupid British tradition bullshit in Parliament. However, I find it quite endearing and kind of cool (and maybe a bit hilarious, even though that's a callous reaction on my part) that it was THAT guy who brought down the shooter. Good for him! I think maybe he deserves a few days off though? He did just kill a man yesterday....
Not a photo, it's a video. You should watch it, it hits a bit in the feels.
I did watch it, on the morning news before I saw this point (I knew this was from the video, but it's a still, so I called it a photo). I felt for the man himself, but I still had the thought about how stupid our little British traditions in Parliament are. And I was also off-put by seeing a bunch of those motherfucking politicians all in one room running on a high caused by a tragedy. So yeah, I've got mixed feelings here, lol. I am glad this dude stopped the attacker, and that people are thanking him. Seeing Stephen Harper ride the wave is making me sick to my stomach.
100% agree. I hope this doesn't help Harper get another majority gov.
I find that photo a bit embarrassing. I wish Canada would drop all the stupid British tradition bullshit in Parliament. However, I find it quite endearing and kind of cool (and maybe a bit hilarious, even though that's a callous reaction on my part) that it was THAT guy who brought down the shooter. Good for him! I think maybe he deserves a few days off though? He did just kill a man yesterday....
How long before the "it turned out it wasn't him that took him down" reports start to come out ala jessica lunch? I'm not saying he didn't take him out. But I'm not gonna say he did. At least not right now
I won't doubt that he is the one who killed the terrorist until there is reason to do so. It would be very uncharacteristic in this country for them to make someone the so-called hero when he's not... and for this guy to take the credit when he doesn't "deserve" it. If people are legitimately confused or misinformed, that's one thing. But actually lying about it? Not a chance. Why do you doubt it btw? Because he's wearing that silly outfit?
I just don't believe ANYTHING these days. But that's just ME.
Comments
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
That's why these types of occurrences are extremely rare, You guys should follow our lead... exercise the most basic level of common sense... and find the same level of peace for yourselves- it's very comforting walking down our streets and not assuming people have handguns under their jackets.
* Cool moment in Pittsburgh: http://www.cbssports.com/nhl/eye-on-hockey/24763859/video-penguins-fans-sing-canadian-anthem-in-tribute-to-ottawa
Actually there were some early reports that it was terror related so wasn't really a preconceived notion. And guess what? It was a convert to Islam.
Okay, well NOW it's responsible to say this is a terrorist attack, knowing who the shooter is.
However, I find it quite endearing and kind of cool (and maybe a bit hilarious, even though that's a callous reaction on my part) that it was THAT guy who brought down the shooter. Good for him! I think maybe he deserves a few days off though? He did just kill a man yesterday....
(edited for character limit - see link for full article)
Canada, At War For 13 Years, Shocked That ‘A Terrorist’ Attacked Its Soldiers
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/10/22/canada-proclaiming-war-12-years-shocked-someone-attacked-soldiers/
..........
Second, in what conceivable sense can this incident be called a “terrorist” attack? As I have written many times over the last several years, and as some of the best scholarship proves, “terrorism” is a word utterly devoid of objective or consistent meaning. It is little more than a totally malleable, propagandistic fear-mongering term used by Western governments (and non-Western ones) to justify whatever actions they undertake. As Professor Tomis Kapitan wrote in a brilliant essay in The New York Times on Monday: “Part of the success of this rhetoric traces to the fact that there is no consensus about the meaning of ‘terrorism.’”
But to the extent the term has any common understanding, it includes the deliberate (or wholly reckless) targeting of civilians with violence for political ends. But in this case in Canada, it wasn’t civilians who were targeted. If one believes the government’s accounts of the incident, the driver waited two hours until he saw a soldier in uniform. In other words, he seems to have deliberately avoided attacking civilians, and targeted a soldier instead – a member of a military that is currently fighting a war.
Again, the point isn’t justifiability. There is a compelling argument to make that undeployed soldiers engaged in normal civilian activities at home are not valid targets under the laws of war (although the U.S. and its closest allies use extremely broad and permissive standards for what constitutes legitimate military targets when it comes to their own violence). The point is that targeting soldiers who are part of a military fighting an active war is completely inconsistent with the common usage of the word “terrorism,” and yet it is reflexively applied by government officials and media outlets to this incident in Canada (and others like it in the UK and the US).
That’s because the most common functional definition of “terrorism” in Western discourse is quite clear. At this point, it means little more than: “violence directed at Westerners by Muslims” (when not used to mean “violence by Muslims,” it usually just means: violence the state dislikes). The term “terrorism” has become nothing more than a rhetorical weapon for legitimizing all violence by Western countries, and delegitimizing all violence against them, even when the violence called “terrorism” is clearly intended as retaliation for Western violence.
This is about far more than semantics. It is central to how the west propagandizes its citizenries; the manipulative use of the “terrorism” term lies at heart of that. As Professor Kapitan wrote yesterday in The New York Times:
Even when a definition is agreed upon, the rhetoric of “terror” is applied both selectively and inconsistently. In the mainstream American media, the “terrorist” label is usually reserved for those opposed to the policies of the U.S. and its allies. By contrast, some acts of violence that constitute terrorism under most definitions are not identified as such — for instance, the massacre of over 2000 Palestinian civilians in the Beirut refugee camps in 1982 or the killings of more than 3000 civilians in Nicaragua by “contra” rebels during the 1980s, or the genocide that took the lives of at least a half million Rwandans in 1994. At the opposite end of the spectrum, some actions that do not qualify as terrorism are labeled as such — that would include attacks by Hamas, Hezbollah or ISIS, for instance, against uniformed soldiers on duty.
Historically, the rhetoric of terror has been used by those in power not only to sway public opinion, but to direct attention away from their own acts of terror.
At this point, “terrorism” is the term that means nothing, but justifies everything. It is long past time that media outlets begin skeptically questioning its usage by political officials rather than mindlessly parroting it.
UPDATE: Multiple conservative commentators have claimed that this article and my subsequent discussion of it are about this morning’s shooting of a solider in Ottawa. Aside from the fact that what I wrote is expressly about a completely different incident – one that took place in Quebec on Monday – this article and my comments were published before this morning’s shooting spree was reported. So unless someone believes I possess powers of clairvoyance, the claim that I was commenting on the Ottawa shooting – about which virtually nothing is known, including the identity and motive of the shooter(s) – is obviously false.
Then there’s also the extremely predictable accusation that I was justifying the attack on the soldiers. I know from prior experience in discussing these questions that no matter how clear you make it that you are writing about causation and not justification, many will still distort what you write to claim you’ve justified the attack. That’s true even if one makes as clear as the English language permits that you’re not writing about justification: “The issue here is not justification (very few people would view attacks on soldiers in a shopping mall parking lot to be justified). The issue is causation.” If there’s a way to make that any clearer, please let me know.
One more time: the difference between “causation” and “justification” is so obvious that it should require no explanation. If one observes that someone who smokes four packs of cigarettes a day can expect to develop emphysema, that’s an observation about causation, not a celebration of the person’s illness. Only a willful desire to distort, or some deep confusion, can account for a failure to process this most basic point.
UPDATE II: In that brilliant essay I referenced above, published just three days ago in The New York Times, Professor Tomis Kaptian made this point:
Obviously, to point out the causes and objectives of particular terrorist actions is to imply nothing about their legitimacy — that is an independent matter….
That point is so simple and, as he said, “obvious” that I have a hard time understanding what could account for some commentators conflating the two other than a willful desire to mislead.
"RCMP say the suspect in the attack on Parliament Hill was not one of the 90 high-risk travellers subject to police investigation."
(as opposed to what was earlier reported by the spazzed out Cdn media... so it this right? Were the earlier reports right? Who knows.)