Terrorist Act?
- Thread starter SkyRider
- Start date
Neither the Canadian nor the U.S. Constitution is a suicide pact.The right to freely exit and enter Canada is enshrined in the Charter. Denial of passport without charges is very troubling.
If you sacrifice freedom for security, you end up with neither, as in this case. Two passports pulled, two excellent Canadians dead. It would seem that NOT following the Constitution is a suicide pact.Neither the Canadian nor the U.S. Constitution is a suicide pact.
Sounds like this the result of a Harper policy that inflames angry people.If you sacrifice freedom for security, you end up with neither, as in this case. Two passports pulled, two excellent Canadians dead. It would seem that NOT following the Constitution is a suicide pact.
The victims are now those Canadians who serve us well.
Sounds like a pathetic clown who refuses to blame disgusting murderers for their actions.Sounds like this the result of a Harper policy that inflames angry people.
The victims are now those Canadians who serve us well.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Sounds like this the result of a Harper policy that inflames angry people.
The victims are now those Canadians who serve us well.
A clear example of grog justifying and promoting terror, blaming democratic nations for violent extremist terrorism. His support for outright terror is so thinly veiled that every time an islamofascist gets killed committing a terror attack in Canada, I wonder whether we'll see any more posts by Grog after.
Well said,...^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
A clear example of grog justifying and promoting terror, blaming democratic nations for violent extremist terrorism. His support for outright terror is so thinly veiled that every time an islamofascist gets killed committing a terror attack in Canada, I wonder whether we'll see any more posts by Grog after.
FAST
wait for it
Under international conventions:
Being a soldier does not automatically make someone a valid target. For example medics are soldiers but are non combatant.
This was a politically motivated act of violence against non combatants this makes it terrorism.
There has been no formal declarations of hostility with a foreign government so it is not war.
The terrorist was not under arms to a foreign government so he was not a soldier.
The terrorist was not wearing a recognized uniform making him an unlawful combatant.
None of this is opinion or politics it is simply a matter of accepted international conventions.
Maybe you should educate yourself on what big words actually mean before you try to use them in conversation with adults.
Under international conventions:
Being a soldier does not automatically make someone a valid target. For example medics are soldiers but are non combatant.
This was a politically motivated act of violence against non combatants this makes it terrorism.
There has been no formal declarations of hostility with a foreign government so it is not war.
The terrorist was not under arms to a foreign government so he was not a soldier.
The terrorist was not wearing a recognized uniform making him an unlawful combatant.
None of this is opinion or politics it is simply a matter of accepted international conventions.
Maybe you should educate yourself on what big words actually mean before you try to use them in conversation with adults.
Groogy is likely taking pleasure from the death of these 2 soldiers...in none of the threads he expresses displeasure or sadness or even anger over these criminal/terroristic acts. Its always condemning the West, Canada, Harper etc. No heart whatsoever, I'm sure he was happy when 9/11 happened.Sounds like a pathetic clown who refuses to blame disgusting murderers for their actions.
What a load of crap. Your first statement makes it clear the second is just you talking out of your ass.I don't give a rats ass about international conventions.
Soliders are a legit military target.
If a soldier isn't engaged in military duties, they are not a legitimate target because they might do so in the future. You could make a fair argument that being assigned ceremonial guard duty is an official government task but the other guy was in the midst of civilian activities.
In the cases where they attacked civilians yes. When they were attacking active duty soldiers, no.So i guess those resistance fighters in WWII are all a bunch of terrorists than. Oh but er uh ...fuck you.
No, it's a matter of what you target. Terrorists attack civilian targets. Freedom fighters attack military targets.However I am not daft enough to understand that the difference between say a terrorist and a freedom fighter or a partizan is whose side you are on.....
Interesting statistics regarding "terrorism" in Canada.
Brief summary: since 1970, and not including this weeks activity, there have been 68 attacks in Canada, with 337 deaths (the majority of those involving Air India Flight 182).
: of the 68 attacks, only 9 targeted gov't. military or police (13.25%)
: foreign diplomatic entities were targeted more often than Cdn gov't, with 13 attacks (19%)
: private citizen or business, 19 attacks (28%)
: infrastructure (transport, utilities, etc) , 13 attacks (19%)
: institutions (educational, religious, medical, media, etc) 12 attacks (18%), of which 5 are deemed "abortion related"
http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search...t&ob=GTDID&od=desc&expanded=yes#results-table
Brief summary: since 1970, and not including this weeks activity, there have been 68 attacks in Canada, with 337 deaths (the majority of those involving Air India Flight 182).
: of the 68 attacks, only 9 targeted gov't. military or police (13.25%)
: foreign diplomatic entities were targeted more often than Cdn gov't, with 13 attacks (19%)
: private citizen or business, 19 attacks (28%)
: infrastructure (transport, utilities, etc) , 13 attacks (19%)
: institutions (educational, religious, medical, media, etc) 12 attacks (18%), of which 5 are deemed "abortion related"
http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search...t&ob=GTDID&od=desc&expanded=yes#results-table
We are not 'bombing Iraq'. We will bomb ISIL in Iraq if the situation dictates it.Today was supposed to be the start of the ISIS campaign.
Instead we get more attacks on Canadians.
How can this plan to bomb Iraq work out any better then the last two attacks?
A CSIS official said that it's hard to prosecute such persons of interest or terrorist suspects when they haven't committed a crime yet, or haven't conspired or planned to commit a crime (which is a crime), SO making a law against ISIL applicants or members would make sense. Restricting travel may be the only tool in our arsenal, subject to a Constitutional challenge.The question is what constitute a threat? His behavior did not merit detainment. He broke no laws. Look, this is not rocket science. Designate ISIS(or whatever we call it this week) a terror organization and pass a quick law prohibiting Canadians from belonging to such organization, then nail returnees on their way back. Chances are, when facing a dime, they'll elect to stay in the war zone maybe even die there. Win-win, if you ask me. Instead, we're keeping them here, have no means to control them and we abuse our fundamental rights. And for what? What threat does such animal pose to Canada and his fellow citizens in Syria or Iraq? He's just another inexperienced body in a meat grinder, unlikely to survive the conflict.
However, how can we encourage 100 Canadians to join ISIL abroad so they can hack the arms of children or kill those who oppose them by allowing them to travel? IOW, who gives a fuck how many foreigners they kill. It's not our problem. Yet, don't we have a responsibility to nip the problem in the bud? What are the chances that all Canadian ISIL recruits will commit an act of violence here? Is this a risk we can tolerate?
Perhaps if these suspects renounce their Canadian citizenship and ask to leave, we may have no choice.
All of the above assumes of course, that we have sufficient evidence to suspect them to harbor extremist views with an intent to commit violence.
I warned him that Big Brother might be too (lol). However, it's okay if it's in the bounds of free speech.Actually I'm disgusted .
Yes, let him leave the country so he can kill or maim with impunity and little or no resistance. (Why should we give a fuck about non-Canadians abroad? *sarcastic smile*).actually, this incident happened because authorities had zilch on the murderer. Had he left the country, the victim wold be alive and the government would had a solid case, if he decided to come back. If he even survived the war. However, now a good Canadian is dead, our rights have been diminished and we have nothing to show for it. If the powers that be have a case, then make it. But, don't make bad situation worse by low level harassment.
That happens all the time. Freedom is not absolute. Remember the FLQ Crisis? How about the R.I.D.E. program?If you sacrifice freedom for security, you end up with neither, as in this case. Two passports pulled, two excellent Canadians dead. It would seem that NOT following the Constitution is a suicide pact.
The revocation of travel privileges might be a reasonable limit of one's freedoms in this case. Such affected persons still have the right to appeal. The alternative is to let ISIL sympathizers travel abroad so that they can possibly maim and kill many, many more human beings.
It seems that his main motivation was his mental instability. (Many terrorist recruits it seems are disenfranchised, impressionable, and perhaps psychologically unstable.)Sure, but we'll never know if Marcel was a crazy wacko, someone who was pissed off at Harper bombing ISIS, the RCMP taking his passport or a religious wingnut.
Did Harper's encroachment of civil liberties give buddy his motivation for this horrid crime?
Whatever.
But tell me why you want to give Harper the power to take away your passport should he find something he doesn't like about you, like perhaps some hobby or vacation for hobbying?
Would you support Harper checking your email to find out if you hobby after C36?
Apples and oranges.
Canada should not encourage or permit ISIL recruits to join terrorist organizations abroad. Not only is it illogical in light of our efforts to fight terror, but irresponsible as a free and democratic nation that wishes peace around the world.
(Having said this, I don't accept interception of emails unless there is a court-ordered warrant or law that justifies it).
