Terrorists?

[Atomoa]

Uh, yeah.

Political motivation + violence (in hopes of forcing government to change views) = terrorism. Textbook basic definition.

The coles notes version for you.

I get your little point. Only if they are from the middle east or their political motivations were middle eastern - THEN it's terrorism, right? When a crazy gun nut that hates socialism and the government wants to bomb gas stations and ends up killing 3 RCMP members that's just crime I suppose.

[FreeRights]

Uh, yeah.

Political motivation + violence = terrorism.

The coles notes version for you.

I get your little point. Only if they are from the middle east or their political motivations were middle eastern - THEN it's terrorism, right? When a crazy gun nut that hates socialism and the government wants to bomb gas stations and ends up killing 3 RCMP members that's just crime I suppose.

I'm not sure where you got that "point" from, because it wasn't from me. Was this terrorism? Probably, but it depends what the actual intent of the crime was. For the record, as it looks like you are confused about terrorism vs crime, is that they are essentially the same thing, judged essentially the same way in court, but the intent of the crime is different.

The point I very clearly made was that the actual details in this case (as many are known) do not "mirror" the shootings in Ottawa. You're submitting that they are almost the same (ie. "mirroring") and I'm saying that they are not.

But at no time did I say that this one wasn't terrorism.

[Atomoa]

Was this terrorism? Probably, but it depends what the actual intent of the crime was.

Canadian government immediately said it was not terrorism (while the NRA made statement saying how Canada needs less gun laws because events like this show the need for more guns in people's hands)

The intent was to start a uprising (given his political motivations) and kill authorities. To cause terror. His own words.

If you believe this was terrorism, then you have to ask why it was classified as a crime and why the Ottawa shooting (in which we have LESS information about the shooters political motivations) was immediately classified and a "jihadist terror attack", and, within weeks, new "anti terror" laws were drafted and we basically went to war.

We *still* dont know the Ottawa shooters political motivations, especially compared to Justin Bourque's motivations.

What was the government's reaction to Moncton? #PrayforMoncoton?

I believe this is a shining example of how the government can be ruthlessly picky-choosy about what they define as terrorism. I wonder if Justin Bourque would be a terrorist if his views were different from the CPC, instead of aligning with some of their values? We all know how the CPC loves guns and hates socialism!

Imagine if a Greenpeacer got some guns and did what Justin did under the "green" political motivation?

[FreeRights]

Canadian government immediately said it was not terrorism (while the NRA made statement saying how Canada needs less gun laws because events like this show the need for more guns in people's hands)

The intent was to start a uprising (given his political motivations) and kill authorities. To cause terror. His own words.

If you believe this was terrorism, then you have to ask why it was classified as a crime and why the Ottawa shooting (in which we have LESS information about the shooters political motivations) was immediately classified and a "jihadist terror attack" , and , within weeks, new "anti terror" laws were drafted and we basically went to war.

We *still* dont know the Ottawa shooters political motivations, especially compared to Justin Bourque's motivations.

I believe this is a shining example of how the government can be ruthlessly picky-choosy about what they define as terrorism. I wonder if Justin Bourque would be a terrorist is his views different from the CPC, instead of aligning with some of their values?

You're missing something. "Terrorism" is still a crime. So Ottawa was classified as terrorism, but it's also a crime.

This one is a crime, and is likely also terrorism.

I can't speak for the government on how they classify activities that appear to be linked to terrorism. For example, you do not require any links or contact with a terrorist group at all for your actions to be considered terrorism.

We don't know the circumstances of the intention for the Ottawa shooting. The government might, but I don't. As a result, you can fairly be certain that the attacher did not specifically plot to kill that particular soldier, or a particular person in the House. If he did, that would be a crime as the intent was to kill the people he killed, or tried to.

If the intent is not to kill the victims of the attack, then one can argue that is terrorism.

So this issue in Halifax, obviously not enough facts are present for you or me to come to any conclusions whatsoever (breaking news syndrome often results in facts being misreported, misrepresented, out of sync, etc) and it typically takes days for relevant details to become public knowledge.

Based on the few details we have now? It sounds like terrorism, but that isn't to say that they don't have information that suggested the opposite.

One curious thing though, you would think the government would classify this as terrorism to further the election campaign, like you're continuously alleging. But they didn't. I wonder why?

[Atomoa]

One curious thing though, you would think the government would classify this as terrorism to further the election campaign, like you're continuously alleging. But they didn't. I wonder why?

I don't have any opinion on this current Halifax foiled incident as I have not investigated the issues and facts enough. They have only been classed as "murderous misfits" and no confirmation on speculation as to their intentions as of yet.

I believe the only thing that separated the Moncton and Ottawa shootings was the "type" of political motivation, aside from the fact the Moncton shootings were much more violent and terrorizing for the people of the city it happened in. One was instantly before the facts were in classified as terrorism and one was not within the exact same timeframe. The Moncton shooter is still alive and telling us specifically that he wanted to start a uprising. The Ottawa shooter is dead and his only testament to his motivations are still-yet-to-be released, but have been acted upon to the degree that we re-wrote our laws and re-directed our entire intelligence apparatus.

If the suspect or "crime" is from a group that the current government can easily separate and demonize (a minority populaltion that lives across the globe for example), and also does not align with their views (greenpeace and jihadists rather than gun-nut anti-socialists) they can be classed as a terrorist.

Consider Timothy McVeigh and why there was not a "war on terror" after he blew up that government building and killed 168 people. He was a hardcore right wing gun nut, *bleep* off about how the ATF raided Waco to take peoples guns away. The worst and most brutal terrorist attack on US soil before 9/11.

They didn't create the Department of "homeland security" then and start considering groups like the NRA terrorist supporters, did they? Tap everyones phones "in the name of...". Torture american militant groups based in Montana to extract information? Pre-emptive drone strikes on trucks with confederate flags with suspected american "terrorists" inside, in Missouri, with no trial or judge?

Consider all the death threats Obama gets from these groups. 400% increase in death threats compared to other presidents. Guess where those are coming from? Hint : they have white skin. Why is there not a huge war on terror in the southern US?

[Atomoa]

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015 ... alkom.html

I guess I should be writing for The Star and getting paid? I'm betting I'd actually care a little more about grammar and structure.

Halifax murder plot shows absurdity of anti-terror laws: Walkom

According to Ottawa, murderous Muslim misfits are terrorists. But murderous Nazi misfits are not

According to police, three alleged plotters planned to shoot and kill dozens Saturday at a Halifax shopping mall. Had such a plan succeeded, the effect would have almost certainly been mass terror in the Nova Scotia capital. Yet Justice Minister Peter MacKay says this was not a terrorist crime. “The attack does not appear to have been culturally motivated, therefore not linked to terrorism,” he told reporters Saturday.

MacKay’s comments caused some puzzlement. Why would the government deem the murder of Cpl. Nathan Cirillo in Ottawa last fall an act of terror, but not this? In fact, except for his inexplicable use of the word “culturally,” MacKay was technically correct. Canada’s anti-terror laws don’t criminalize actions that might cause terror. Well before the current law was enacted in 2002, it was illegal in Canada to murder people or blow up trains.

Rather, they criminalize intent. It may be illegal to kill people in Canada. But it is even more illegal to kill people for a religious, ideological or political purpose. More important, it is left to the state to decide — in the first instance at least — which murderous conspiracies have a political motive and which do not.

Thus Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, the Muslim gunman who killed Cirillo, is deemed a terrorist for the simple reason that the RCMP and government say he was.

Conversely, alleged Halifax plotters Lindsay Souvannarath and Randall Shepherd (the third suspect, James Gamble, died before he could be arrested) are not terrorists because the federal justice minister says they are not.

Had police found Islamic State propaganda on their computers, Souvannarath and Shepherd almost certainly would have been charged with terrorism. But social media sites said to belong to the suspects show an interest only in Nazis and violence.

That, it seems, is insufficiently ideological to merit a terror charge.

So that’s the first point about the terror laws: They are unusually arbitrary.

Apply the second last line of the quote to what I was saying earlier. Apparently a anti-socialist, anti oil, gun enthusiast looking to start a political uprising by directly engaging and killing 3 members of the security forces of Canada, locking down a major Canadian city for days in the process isn't politically ideological enough to merit a terrorism charge either.

[maryjane48]

no but 2 crackheads in victoria are apparently lol even though without police help the most they would blow up is someones cell phone

[alfred2]

you know these two , that is why you can make that statement?

[ValB58]

*removed*