Terrorist Shooting at Parliament

[A_Britishcolumbian]

the constant and increasing suppression of information by 'government' and associated entities must come to an end.

RE: A PARLIAMENTARY INVESTIGATION INTO THE ATTACK ON OUR PARLIAMENT AND THE MURDER OF TWO SOLDIERS

Dear Mr. Rankin,

What do you think of the idea of a Parliamentary Investigation into the attack on our Parliament?

Right now Canadians are being told a story by Harper, CSIS, The RCMP, and the Corporate Media. A lot of Canadians do not believe this story. I think it important that our Parliamentarians, whose building was attacked, immediately begin your own investigation, on behalf of the people you represent, into what really happened with the attack that killed two soldiers and shut down our Parliament.

The official Government / Media story may be correct in all areas. But maybe not. We have been misled by these people before. Certainly this attack is so important that we must find out the truth, and not rely on people who we have no reason to trust or believe, such as CBC, CTV, the RCMP, the Government, and etc.

I think a lot of Canadians would like to see an Independent Investigation of all events surrounding this attack. I think that perhaps Parliament can do it. I hope that Parliament is both interested and capable of taking on this very important job.

I’m going to try to publicize this idea. I’m going to suggest others also contact their Members of Parliament. I will show this letter as a possible template, and mention that I am awaiting a response from my own MP.

I know we have some GREAT members of parliament. This is a time for heroes. The British Parliament stood up a year ago and stopped their Prime Minister from joining the Americans in an attack on Syria. It’s time OUR Parliament stood up as well. This is a very dangerous time for Canada and we desperately need our Parliament to do something. I hope our Parliamentarians are able.

Thank you Murray.

Your constituent,

Jack Etkin

http://www.globalresearch.ca/canadian-c ... gs/5412824

[the truth]

give it up, suppression of what ,we all saw what happened on the video and what this scumbag did, hes dead, CASE CLOSED

[FreeRights]

I think we already decided that a terrorist is someone who spends $4 trillion
blowing stuff up in a mid-east country loaded with oil.

The big terroists in this world are the ones that spend $trillions on wars.

Those criminals/killers in Muslim countries are not terrorists. They might be idiots.
They might be fools. They're not real Muslims. A real Muslim is a sort of sheeplike person
that does what he's told by his religious leaders. A real Muslim is not a terrorist. It's like
when a Catholic priest abuses children - he's not a real Christian. Real Christians
are basically, overall good people - who happen to love money more than they love God.

Actually, not necessarily true as due to the difficulty in defining the actions and intentions behind what terrorism is.

Depending on who you ask, the definition changes - some do not include state actions as terrorism, because there are also international criminal doctrine classifying it as other terms like "war crimes".

There is no internationally recognized definition, but the scholastic definition has something like 6 or 12 points that have to be satisfied for something to be defined as such. It is the most accepted definition of terrorism by those scholars who study the field.

[Donald G]

10/10 The truth in a nutshell from The Truth.

[Donald G]

Sometimes the only difference between a hero and a murderous traitor is which side you are on.

[maryjane48]

Actually, not necessarily true as due to the difficulty in defining the actions and intentions behind what terrorism is.

Depending on who you ask, the definition changes - some do not include state actions as terrorism, because there are also international criminal doctrine classifying it as other terms like "war crimes".

There is no internationally recognized definition, but the scholastic definition has something like 6 or 12 points that have to be satisfied for something to be defined as such. It is the most accepted definition of terrorism by those scholars who study the field.

so was the oklahoma building being blown up terrorist? or the attack on the american navy vessel by the israelis ?

[FreeRights]

so was the oklahoma building being blown up terrorist? or the attack on the american navy vessel by the israelis ?

Again, depends on the definition of terrorism that you subscribe to.

[Treblehook]

Amazing how people can get so damned side tracked in regards to incidents like this one. The truth is that a man, mentally unbalanced or not, shot and killed one of our soldiers and then stormed into the Parliament buildings and commenced an armed assault within the very seat of Canadian democracy. Fortunately, he didn't kill anyone else and ended up shot dead by the people who we entrust to protect Parliament, Parliamentarians, civil servants and the general public. Debating the definition of a terrorist is pretty lame at this juncture. Our government and her agents must now go about the business of trying to determine what led this madman to commit those despicable acts and to develop strategies to prevent similar acts in the future.

[FreeRights]

Amazing how people can get so damned side tracked in regards to incidents like this one. The truth is that a man, mentally unbalanced or not, shot and killed one of our soldiers and then stormed into the Parliament buildings and commenced an armed assault within the very seat of Canadian democracy. Fortunately, he didn't kill anyone else and ended up shot dead by the people who we entrust to protect Parliament, Parliamentarians, civil servants and the general public. Debating the definition of a terrorist is pretty lame at this juncture. Our government and her agents must now go about the business of trying to determine what led this madman to commit those despicable acts and to develop strategies to prevent similar acts in the future.

Debating the definition of terrorism at this juncture is not lame at all. Defining this particular act allows us to prepare and prevent this or a similar act in the future. If this is deemed an act of criminality, then assets may be put forward as such to ensure preparation and prevention; if this act is that of terrorism, then the appropriate resources would be put toward to accommodate that. To suggest that failing to define this particular act properly and efficiently is the way to go, is absolutely asinine and illogical at best.

[Glacier]

Fortunately, he didn't kill anyone else and ended up shot dead by the people who we entrust to protect Parliament, Parliamentarians, civil servants and the general public.

Indeed.

[the truth]

for all you junkies there's a real man were looking at people-ABOVE-

[Static]

Freerights, what other definition of terrorism is there? In debating a topic such as terrorism, should there not be a standard definition to which we can base our arguments on?

[A_Britishcolumbian]

from c-46

“terrorist activity” means

(a) an act or omission that is committed in or outside Canada and that, if committed in Canada, is one of the following offences:
(i) the offences referred to in subsection 7(2) that implement the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, signed at The Hague on December 16, 1970,
(ii) the offences referred to in subsection 7(2) that implement the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, signed at Montreal on September 23, 1971,
(iii) the offences referred to in subsection 7(3) that implement the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 14, 1973,
(iv) the offences referred to in subsection 7(3.1) that implement the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 17, 1979,
(v) the offences referred to in subsection 7(3.4) or (3.6) that implement the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, done at Vienna and New York on March 3, 1980,
(vi) the offences referred to in subsection 7(2) that implement the Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation, supplementary to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, signed at Montreal on February 24, 1988,
(vii) the offences referred to in subsection 7(2.1) that implement the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, done at Rome on March 10, 1988,
(viii) the offences referred to in subsection 7(2.1) or (2.2) that implement the Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf, done at Rome on March 10, 1988,
(ix) the offences referred to in subsection 7(3.72) that implement the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 15, 1997, and
(x) the offences referred to in subsection 7(3.73) that implement the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 9, 1999, or
(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 and that, at the time and in the place of its commission, is in accordance with customary international law or conventional international law applicable to the conflict, or the activities undertaken by military forces of a state in the exercise of their official duties, to the extent that those activities are governed by other rules of international law.

[Donald G]

The definition of "Terrorist act" suggested in C-46 would seem to fit the bill. No pun intended.

Thus making a Terrorist a person or group who perform any such actions.

[the truth]

yup,case closed