Domestic Terrorism/Public Attacks on CAF Personnel

[Colin Parkinson]

This not about a comparison - it is a contrast, 'a spectrum'. It does not surprise me that someone might not get it - bureaucrats, military and homeless people - are we not all equal?

The answer is clear, no we are not. Why does a politician get armed security when a guy running a all night store down near Jane and Finch does not?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Without taking away from ANY person's contribution to keeping folks safe this week, am I the only one thinking it might be a touch early to single out any one individual?More from Sun News here.

I'll bet that this presentation, if it happens, will be absolutely supersonic compared to the years that a soldier, receiving a similar decoration, would have to wait for theirs.

We'll see.

 

[jollyjacktar]

I'll bet that this presentation, if it happens, will be absolutely supersonic compared to the years that a soldier, receiving a similar decoration, would have to wait for theirs.

We'll see.

To be fair, however, how rare is it to have the heroic deed of said soldier caught on national TV or by any camera for that matter?  The only thing I can think of off the top of my head of a medal worthy deed being caught on film would be Maj. Currie VC of the SAR.

Not demeaning any past, present or future deeds of galantry by members of the CAF.

You're point is well taken and of course has been pointed out before, the glacial pace of recognition for said deeds by our honours and awards system.  One of it's major failings in my opinion.

 

[kratz]

I'll bet that this presentation, if it happens, will be absolutely supersonic compared to the years that a soldier, receiving a similar decoration, would have to wait for theirs.

We'll see.

I was having similar thoughts, but as noted did not want to voice it and take away from what was done.

 

[Treemoss]

The procession is pretty gut-wrenching and solomn.

 

[PanaEng]

Yes and both agencies (amongst others) are presumably involved in the country's counter-terrorism efforts, which is what DandB and I were referring to.  Are the RCMP only going to look at their piece of the pie, or the whole pie.

The RCMP will only get to look at the relevant pieces of the pie as ascertained by a, maybe joint, review of the information. They will not and should not have access to all of it.
(as much as that may pain some ppl, the RCMP is not in the business of intelligence - in a broad sense -  but law enforcement)

 

[McG]

Without taking away from ANY person's contribution to keeping folks safe this week, am I the only one thinking it might be a touch early to single out any one individual? More from Sun News here.

Is security, including with a firearm, not his job?  Should every infantry private who did his job in contact be up for the Cross of Valour?  Every police officer who had to return fire?

This is looking like organized small scale terrorist attacks. A man attacks 2 soldiers in Saint Jean Sur Richelieu killing one injuring the other, not to long after a man attacks and kills a soldier in Ottawa then enters the parliament buildings probably in an  attempt to go after our leaders, and now there's reports of an armed man near Brunswick and Duke streets in Halifax. This can't just be random attacks they're happening to soon after ISIS threatened Canada and are happening to soon after each other.

Lesson from insider attacks in Afghanistan: one incident acts as a catalyst to others.  A guy sitting on the fence over doing one of these attacks is emboldened upon learning somebody else has just done it.  After an insider attack, there is a period of weeks of statistically significant higher risk ... and then things settle as the fence-sitters continue to dither.

At worst, I suspect the second attack was inspired or catalysed by (but not coordinated with) the first attack.  It may also have just been coincidence.  Regardless, hightened vigilance against domestic attack is reasonable for a few weeks.

 

[stonington]

This not about a comparison - it is a contrast, 'a spectrum'. It does not surprise me that someone might not get it - bureaucrats, military and homeless people - are we not all equal?

The question is too vague.
Equal before the law?
Access to equal opportunities?
Equal outcome?
These each have different meanings.

 

[Gunner98]

The answer is clear, no we are not. Why does a politician get armed security when a guy running a all night store down near Jane and Finch does not?

The guy running the all night store does so at his own financial and personal risk, and other than financial cost there is nothing that prevents him from hiring a type of security.

 

[RedcapCrusader]

The guy running the all night store does so at his own financial and personal risk, and other than financial cost there is nothing that prevents him from hiring a type of security.

But not Armed Police Sentry like Mr Muclair will receive... That's the difference.

 

[Gunner98]

But not Armed Police Sentry like Mr Muclair will receive... That's the difference.

The difference...the difference is Mr. Muclair chose to run for politics and his constituents elected him.

Mr. 7-11 was not elected (although he may have run for office) and chose to sell Slurpees in a dangerous part of town.

 

[jollyjacktar]

No, we are not all equal or born equal for that matter.  Some of us are gifted in their abilities and can leverage them to their advantage to get ahead.  Others are in the right place at the right time, or are ambitious to do what is needed to get ahead.  Or it might be a matter of choice and career path or not as they're disadvantaged somehow due to birth, physical/mental limitations etc.

Someone will always have the upper hand or better side of town than the others.  Life is like that and no, it's not fair, but that's life.  The big wheels will and always have had protection assigned to them to protect them from those who would do them harm.  Tis the way of the world.

 

[Loachman]

The difference...the difference is Mr. Muclair chose to run for politics and his constituents elected him.

Mr. 7-11 was not elected (although he may have run for office) and chose to sell Slurpees in a dangerous part of town.

So what is the difference?

Both made choices to accept employment that may put them at some level of risk. Being "elected" is irrelevant. Nobody forced Mr Mulcair to seek election, and he could quite easily have found alternate, less risky, employment.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms recognizes that "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice." It does not recognize that Mr Mulcair has a greater right, or that somebody has a lesser right because they run a convenience store.

Mr Mulcair seeks to deprive honest citizens of the best means of protecting their rights to life, liberty and security of the person by banning defensive firearms while at the same time whining that he should be entitled to be protected by defensive firearms. He is a hypocrite.

If he is serious about self-protection, he can take a firearms safety course, get an RPAL, buy a pistol, and apply for authrization to carry just like any other citizen and have exactly identical chance of self-defence.

That's equality that I can support.

 

[Gunner98]

Loachman,

Both leaders of parties in the opposition voted against Canada`s involvement in the combat mission against ISIL, so it is not surprising that he is seeking and being granted armed protection.  When I saw Mr. Harper hugging them in the House of Commons, when they reconvened, IMHO it almost as an apology rather than a sign of solidarity. Considering the best security forces could come up with to protect the PM from a loan gunman was to hide him in a closet-like anteroom.  Was that really the SOP?‏

Sources:  http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/after-losing-vote-on-isil-combat-mission-opposition-scrambles-for-position
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/10/23/stephen_harper_had_to_hide_in_closet_during_gun_fight_on_the_hill.html

 

[Loachman]

And the convenience store operator would not likely even have the ability to hide in a broom closet during a robbery attempt.

Is his life and safety of any less value than Mr Mulcair's?

In the absence of a specific threat directed to Mr Mulcair, he can take advantage of all of the self-defence methods and tools available to every other citizen. Equality for all.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I find it interesting that, whenever we feel that we have lost control over the ability to effectively deter/ kill/capture the evil doers, we always tend to focus on criticizing/judging the innocent victims/targets.

I guess that's why Dirty Harry movies were so popular. That, and the huge calibre hand guns of course.  ;D

 

[TCM621]

The difference...the difference is Mr. Muclair chose to run for politics and his constituents elected him.

Mr. 7-11 was not elected (although he may have run for office) and chose to sell Slurpees in a dangerous part of town.

Also, killing the guy at 7-11 doesn't present the symbolism killing the head of the official opposition (or any parliamentarians). MPs and soldiers are symbols of canada where as the 7-11 clerk is a symbol of slurp es.  If one wanted to make a statement, killing a member of the legislature of a country will do it.

 

[Treemoss]

I think we're all starting to under value slurpees and 7-11s now.

 

[YZT580]

I see that Mr. Mulcair has called the shooter on Monday a criminal and not a terrorist.  So does that mean he was just after the guard's wallet and then was entering the House of Commons to try and collect some more?  The chap left a tape explaining his actions and claiming solidarity with Islam.  Until people will acknowledge the problem we haven't got a chance of finding a solution.  Several things we know.  1. He was a Muslim. 2.  It is likely that he was slightly deranged but not enough to be classified as insane.  He knew what he was doing.  3.  He was influenced by the extreme sentiments expressed by the leaders of ISIS and took action as a result.  Those leaders have exhorted their followers to make Jihad wherever they may live (including Canada).  Thus this susceptible young man committed a terrorist act as a result.  By anybody's logic (except left wing types like Mulcair who like to blame the system or his parents or the like) that makes his actions those of a terrorist. 4.  One murder could possibly be passed off as insanity but a second within a couple of days puts the odds heavily in favour of another explanation: namely Islam. 

A few years back the operator of an abortion clinic in the states was gunned down by a person that the press gleefully identified time and time again as being an evangelical and made no bones about connecting the faith with the action.  Peculiar isn't it that although multiple murders have been committed both in Canada and the States by individuals declaring themselves as acting for Allah the press, the politicians and many others go out of their way either totally ignore this fact or point out that these folks don't really represent Islam.  They say they do so the very least the press is doing is branding them as liars or they (the press) are saying that they don't know anything about their own faith.  How did so many politicians become such experts on Islam?  Have they even read the Koran or Mohammed's other writings?  If they had they would know that what the terrorists are saying is far more accurate than what the press is declaring. 

Finally, criminals are being falsely maligned by Mr. Mulcair even suggesting that this chap was a criminal and should initiate legal action against Mulcair for damages.

 

[Gunner98]

YZT580,

Most of these deranged, radicalized converts have not read the Quran; they have generally had it interpreted by a radicalizing Imam. Have you read it?  I have tried to read a respected translation and it is not easy to comprehend or follow from one section to another.

The individual was forgiven for frequently breaking into an Alberta mosque to sleep there.  These actions were not reported to the police.  He had been committed of drug and robbery offenses.  Therefore, he was a convicted criminal even before he became a shooter.