What the hell is happening in Canada?

GameboyRMH wrote: Looks like the Ottawa shooter was both an Islamic nutjob and a regular ol'-fashioned nutjob: http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/22/world/canada-shooter/

The funny thing is that the CBC, "CNN's partner", isn't reporting anything about the first. Just that he's a vanilla nutjob with a criminal record.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/michael-zehaf-bibeau-slain-ottawa-shooter-had-criminal-record-in-quebec-b-c-1.2809562

He may have changed his last name from Hall to Zehaf-Bibeau, but coincidentally his mother's last name is Bibeau and his stepfather's last name is Zehaf.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ottawa-shooting-police-rule-out-2nd-gunman-mother-of-shooter-cries-for-victims-1.2810113

We'll see how it shakes out - speculation in the place of information only leads to confusion and fear. Some people are sick in the head. That's never going to change.

My parents, sister and her three kids live in Ottawa. My brother-in-law works for the government. He reports that when they were on lockdown and told to stay away from the windows, everyone was in the halls gossiping. In other words, business as usual for his office...

Well you knew this was coming. Never waste a good crisis, right?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/23/us-canada-attacks-shooting-idUSKCN0IB1PY20141023

GameboyRMH wrote: Well you knew this was coming. Never waste a good crisis, right? http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/23/us-canada-attacks-shooting-idUSKCN0IB1PY20141023

You do know that this guy (who killed the soldier) was already on a watchlist, right? But the gov had no power to do anything about it.

I'm a pretty conservative guy, but I have a tough time arguing against policies that would prevent this EXACT thing from happening. Also, the policies they are talking about fast tracking were already being put into motion... this will just give them more momentum.

In reply to HiTempguy:

I thought the guy who hit the soldiers with the car was the one that had been detained and subsequently released because they couldn't legally hold him. BBC news might have just been confused, idk.

yamaha wrote: In reply to HiTempguy: I thought the guy who hit the soldiers with the car was the one that had been detained and subsequently released because they couldn't legally hold him. BBC news might have just been confused, idk.

Zehaf-Bibeau’s Quebec criminal record includes 11 charges dating back to 2001.

Also, his passport had already been seized PRIOR to this happening derp derp (that is for our government, not for you).

I am getting sick and tired of these people getting away with this crap when our government ALREADY knows what they are doing. And I feel it is the government's RESPECT for our laws of the land that prevent them from doing more.

If somebody needs to have their passport pulled, AND has a criminal record, that person should PROBABLY not be allowed to have a gun and/or be under surveillance.

Edit- And while this is sensationalist, it still happened in New York this year: http://www.tpnn.com/2014/09/30/shocking-nyc-muslim-day-parade-videos-and-pictures-will-leave-you-wondering-what-country-this-is/

If I went around with a "colored" person hanging by a noose, I'd be in jail for hate crimes faster than you could say racist.

Nice to see a little "Thank You" to the old guy that saved your ass.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BI4sQQdhP0

HiTempguy wrote: Edit- And while this is sensationalist, it still happened in New York this year: http://www.tpnn.com/2014/09/30/shocking-nyc-muslim-day-parade-videos-and-pictures-will-leave-you-wondering-what-country-this-is/ If I went around with a "colored" person hanging by a noose, I'd be in jail for hate crimes faster than you could say racist.

I get the feeling this is supposed to be a specific person. The message intended might still turn out to be horrifying, but that effigy seems oddly detailed to represent an entire race. What's with the orange and white and that seal?

Edit: Almost right. Meant to represent the current Egyptian government:

http://observers.france24.com/content/20140918-muslim-day-parade-sissi-new-york?page=26

So they were a bunch of thinly veiled Muslim Brotherhood supporters.

HiTempguy wrote:

yamaha wrote: In reply to HiTempguy: I thought the guy who hit the soldiers with the car was the one that had been detained and subsequently released because they couldn't legally hold him. BBC news might have just been confused, idk.

Zehaf-Bibeau’s Quebec criminal record includes 11 charges dating back to 2001. Also, his passport had already been seized PRIOR to this happening derp derp (that is for our government, not for you). I am getting sick and tired of these people getting away with this crap when our government ALREADY knows what they are doing. And I feel it is the government's RESPECT for our laws of the land that prevent them from doing more. If somebody needs to have their passport pulled, AND has a criminal record, that person should PROBABLY not be allowed to have a gun and/or be under surveillance.

That E36 M3 happens down here still, and we're supposed to be alot more jumpy when it comes to this stuff. Down here it is incompetence, but there, idk. I figured they held people until they apologized up there.

Streetwiseguy wrote: Nice to see a little "Thank You" to the old guy that saved your ass. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BI4sQQdhP0

The look in his eyes says, "I just want it all to be normal again".

N Sperlo wrote:

Streetwiseguy wrote: Nice to see a little "Thank You" to the old guy that saved your ass. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BI4sQQdhP0

The look in his eyes says, "I just want it all to be normal again".

Yeah. "Sit down, I was just doing my job"
He doesn't look like the sort of guy who will have bad dreams about putting the guy down, that's for sure.

HiTempguy wrote:

GameboyRMH wrote: Well you knew this was coming. Never waste a good crisis, right? http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/23/us-canada-attacks-shooting-idUSKCN0IB1PY20141023

You do know that this guy (who killed the soldier) was already on a watchlist, right? But the gov had no power to do anything about it. I'm a pretty conservative guy, but I have a tough time arguing against policies that would prevent this EXACT thing from happening. Also, the policies they are talking about fast tracking were already being put into motion... this will just give them more momentum.

Be careful, it was this exact line of thinking that helped put the USA where it is now.

Kenny_McCormic wrote:

HiTempguy wrote:

GameboyRMH wrote: Well you knew this was coming. Never waste a good crisis, right? http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/23/us-canada-attacks-shooting-idUSKCN0IB1PY20141023

You do know that this guy (who killed the soldier) was already on a watchlist, right? But the gov had no power to do anything about it. I'm a pretty conservative guy, but I have a tough time arguing against policies that would prevent this EXACT thing from happening. Also, the policies they are talking about fast tracking were already being put into motion... this will just give them more momentum.

Be careful, it was this exact line of thinking that helped put the USA where it is now.

"Those that would trade liberty for safety deserve neither and will soon lose both"

I think I'm paraphrasing a little so please look up Franklin's quote if you want to know exactly what he said.

I know, I know, but I even mess around with Yoda qoutes so it's nothing personal.

RX Reven' wrote: "Those that would trade liberty for safety deserve neither and will soon lose both" I think I'm paraphrasing a little so please look up Franklin's quote if you want to know exactly what he said. I know, I know, but I even mess around with Yoda qoutes so it's nothing personal.

I don't know. This is such a philisophical debate on this subject.

In a dream world, there is no reason why certain freedoms can't be given up at certain times. Im a believer in a slippery slope, but do I REALLY think a slippery slope is this guy (in particular) having been surveyed a LITTLE more closely? To have viewed his emails, or phone calls?

Its tough.Do you simply accept what happened as just "being", and it can't be changed?

I dont know the answers to these questions, but one thing is for sure IMO; NOBODY that is on a watchlist should be able to carry out such a horrible attack. Because wtf is the point of a list if it isnt used?

Streetwiseguy wrote:

N Sperlo wrote:

Streetwiseguy wrote: Nice to see a little "Thank You" to the old guy that saved your ass. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BI4sQQdhP0

The look in his eyes says, "I just want it all to be normal again".

Yeah. "Sit down, I was just doing my job" He doesn't look like the sort of guy who will have bad dreams about putting the guy down, that's for sure.

I appreciate the fact that he wasn't placed on desk duty until they completed an investigation. They gave him a job to do, he did his job and he is now continuing to do his job.

RX Reven' wrote: "Those that would trade liberty for safety deserve neither and will soon lose both"

Original quote:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

The quote is used out of context when referring to Civil Liberties and/or the Bill or Rights. It was, as turns out, about taxes. Go figure.

Source: Benjamin Wittes, The Brooks Institute. http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/07/what-ben-franklin-really-said/

Kenny_McCormic wrote:

HiTempguy wrote:

GameboyRMH wrote: Well you knew this was coming. Never waste a good crisis, right? http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/23/us-canada-attacks-shooting-idUSKCN0IB1PY20141023

You do know that this guy (who killed the soldier) was already on a watchlist, right? But the gov had no power to do anything about it. I'm a pretty conservative guy, but I have a tough time arguing against policies that would prevent this EXACT thing from happening. Also, the policies they are talking about fast tracking were already being put into motion... this will just give them more momentum.

Be careful, it was this exact line of thinking that helped put the USA where it is now.

Exactly. So the guy was on a watchlist and had his passport confiscated on suspicion of trying to go fight for ISIS. Are you OK with confiscating his guns over being put on a government watchlist? And would that have prevented him from similarly killing a soldier seconds before being thoroughly ventilated in a hail of bullets? He might have been able to stab the guy or use a crossbow.

IMO this attack was actually handled quite well - even though it was a surprise sneak attack that apparently nobody was expecting, he only managed to kill one person before being taken down immediately.

It's similar to the axe attack in NYC today. And the only way to prevent surprise sneak attacks from happening is total surveillance. And even the USA's digital panopticon and widespread, nigh-unaccountable security apparatus wasn't able to save them from a number of such attacks in the last few years. So when you get to the point of trying to stop lone-wolf attacks, you're so deep into the diminishing returns that we haven't yet discovered just how much more security is needed to achieve any gains at all. And after you theoretically stop the Islamic nutjob lone-wolf attacks with total surveillance and powerful watchlists, what could you do about the conventional nutjob lone-wolf attacks? Can you get the James Holmses and the Adam Lanzas on a watchlist before it's too late?

So yes, you might want to consider just accepting that this sort of thing is possible.

GameboyRMH wrote:

Kenny_McCormic wrote:

HiTempguy wrote:

GameboyRMH wrote: Well you knew this was coming. Never waste a good crisis, right? http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/23/us-canada-attacks-shooting-idUSKCN0IB1PY20141023

You do know that this guy (who killed the soldier) was already on a watchlist, right? But the gov had no power to do anything about it. I'm a pretty conservative guy, but I have a tough time arguing against policies that would prevent this EXACT thing from happening. Also, the policies they are talking about fast tracking were already being put into motion... this will just give them more momentum.

Be careful, it was this exact line of thinking that helped put the USA where it is now.

Exactly. So the guy was on a watchlist and had his passport confiscated on suspicion of trying to go fight for ISIS. Are you OK with confiscating his guns over being put on a government watchlist? And would that have prevented him from similarly killing a soldier seconds before being thoroughly ventilated in a hail of bullets? He might have been able to stab the guy or use a crossbow. IMO this attack was actually handled quite well - even though it was a surprise sneak attack that apparently nobody was expecting, he only managed to kill one person before being taken down immediately. It's similar to the axe attack in NYC today. And the only way to prevent surprise sneak attacks from happening is total surveillance. And even the USA's digital panopticon and widespread, nigh-unaccountable security apparatus wasn't able to save them from a number of such attacks in the last few years. So when you get to the point of trying to stop lone-wolf attacks, you're so deep into the diminishing returns that we haven't yet discovered just how much more security is needed to achieve any gains at all. And after you theoretically stop the Islamic nutjob lone-wolf attacks with total surveillance and powerful watchlists, what could you do about the conventional nutjob lone-wolf attacks? Can you get the James Holmses and the Adam Lanzas on a watchlist before it's too late? So yes, you might want to consider just accepting that this sort of thing is possible.

Not only possible, but inevitable. Sure, stop the guys that can be stopped, and shoot the rest of them in the head. I'm not concerned with the miniscule chance that I, or someone I love, is going to going to die at the hands of a gun toting lunatic. I am far, far more concerned with getting taken out by a suburban teenager who was never taught how to concentrate while driving.

I don't want to have to produce my papers. I don't want to have to justify my reason for standing somewhere. I want to be able to rant about the stupidity of our governing officials without fear of a visit from the authorities. I want to be able to drive a rusty sports car without having to run it through a safety inspection to get a sticker. I want to be able to quickly climb on an aircraft with the knowledge that I may be required to tackle an idiot with a pocketknife. I want to be held responsible when something I do causes real pain to another human being.

HiTempguy wrote:

RX Reven' wrote: "Those that would trade liberty for safety deserve neither and will soon lose both" I think I'm paraphrasing a little so please look up Franklin's quote if you want to know exactly what he said. I know, I know, but I even mess around with Yoda qoutes so it's nothing personal.

I don't know. This is such a philisophical debate on this subject. In a dream world, there is no reason why certain freedoms can't be given up at certain times. Im a believer in a slippery slope, but do I REALLY think a slippery slope is this guy (in particular) having been surveyed a LITTLE more closely? To have viewed his emails, or phone calls? Its tough.Do you simply accept what happened as just "being", and it can't be changed? I dont know the answers to these questions, but one thing is for sure IMO; NOBODY that is on a watchlist should be able to carry out such a horrible attack. Because wtf is the point of a list if it isnt used?

I am pretty conservative/libertarian myself and you can count me as divided on this issue also. For pete's sake, if we are already going to spend the money and manpower to pick these people out of the crowd, why not stop them?

But then again, there are a whole lot of idiots in gummit who would abuse the hell out of this kind of responsibility.

It is devastatingly horrible what happened to those two soldiers this week. But we need to realize, the system did work. According to a crisis expert on the CBC this morning, the shooter on Wednesday was stopped about 3 minutes after he fired his first shots. The situation was over. Of course the police did not know this and needed to execute their plans. But the system worked. The Monday guy was also stopped relatively quickly.

Stopping the initial attacks are extremely difficult. I do believe it's time to bring in the 100 or so folks CSIS and the RCMP are watching for 24hrs for questioning. I think they have a strong probable cause to do so.

But I don't want to see to many other changes. As a US citizen living in Canada now for the past 4 years, I don't want this country to respond the same way the US did after 9/11. It's not needed, it does not make you any safer, it just makes some folks feel safer. It's not worth it.

9/11 was an outlier, completely different from these lone wolf type attacks. 3000 people dead, four aircraft crashed, two huge buildings down, the Pentagon was attacked and badly damaged and the US Capitol narrowly escaped a similar fate. For that reason comparing the responses is not apples to apples. It required a much bigger response since it really exposed the chinks in the wall.

That's not saying I like all that was done. I'm glad we are more vigilant. I thought much of it was, honestly a lot of you won't like this, way too damn stupidly PC, don't wanna hurt someone's feelings. I don't care if someone's feelings get hurt because they wind up on a watch list somewhere and get their passport yanked because of their actions, I want to get where I'm going which is my right as an American citizen. Don't want to be on the watch list? Stay the hell away from situations and people who might put you there. It's called personal responsibility. I don't care if someone speaks out against the US government, I do that myself. It's not a problem. Now if someone's gonna act on those impulses and start doing stupid stuff that leads to harm of others, put that berkeleyer behind bars quick. I don't think that's a hard concept to grasp.

The fact that these guys up there were on the Canadian government's somewhat less stringent (I am guessing here) watch list tells me they were deemed worthy of restrictions, no different than down here. The hit and run driver was on the watch list, the gunman had his passport lifted as I understand it. Yet both managed to hit their lone wolf targets.

I have a feeling this won't be the last of this type attack, think of it as the death by a thousand cuts. Waiting to see how the axe attack in NYC plays out.

Curmudgeon wrote: The fact that these guys up there were on the Canadian government's somewhat less stringent (I am guessing here) watch list tells me they were deemed worthy of restrictions, no different than down here. The hit and run driver was on the watch list, the gunman had his passport lifted as I understand it. Yet both managed to hit their lone wolf targets.

Exactly. As I said, the current regulations are fine, but why weren't they acted on? I feel it is because the government is hamstrung in attempting to do anything beyond having them on the list.

I know that not everything can be planned or accounted for... BUT THESE TWO INDIVIDUALS WERE ACCOUNTED FOR. Thats the irritating part. Either somebody didn't do their job, or the system isn't adequate IMO. I'm not advocating huge change, it just seems like a bit more could have been done to prevent this.

Which, by the way, Canada has GREAT success in preventing these things, as outlined in a previous article mentioned in this thread.

In reply to Streetwiseguy:

I think I love you.

I think a failure of all of the various watch lists and black lists and super secret probation lists shows us that it doesn't work anyway, and all that it does is cost a ton of money and take away freedoms.

More hatchet control. That's what is needed. If we only allowed people to have hatchets that passed strict hatchet background checks and closed the Hardware Store Loophole, incidents like NYC wouldn't happen.

There's like 7 billion people here, supposedly. Of those 7 billion, there's going to be some shiny happy people. You can't avoid that. You can discourage people from becoming shiny happy people. When they show signs of being shiny happy people, you can try to re-educate them, or incarcerate them, but that's about it. Punishing the other 6.9999 billion of us because of a few shiny happy people is not a solution, only an excuse for totalitarian power monsters, who are also shiny happy people.

I liken it to traffic on the Interstate. Let's face it, the majority of people using the Interstates who at least act like they have some sense. They are using the I properly, maybe making some small errors in judgment but for the most part all is well. We will ignore texting, eating etc while driving. While dangerous and stupid, these are not done intentionally to endanger fellow travelers.

Now here come someone who is doing something really stupid, perhaps speeding a lot more than is safe, weaving in and out of the lanes, but not really being overtly dangerous. (There's gonna be a few of these, by the way.) So the police will pay extra attention to these folk, perhaps pull them, write a ticket, perhaps suspend their license (pulling passports,travel restrictions, no fly list, etc). We will liken these people to those who hang around the jihadi web sites etc, they make a lot of noise but are basically harmless.

BUT! Of those few, there might be one or two who are biding their time, looking for the right time while speeding and making as much noise as possible to suddenly twist the wheel into oncoming traffic while speeding and taking as many of their innocent fellow travelers as they can.

Their motives aren't really important, it's the fact that they have suddenly acted on them. These are like the Navy shipyard guy, the guy who beheaded the kid in New Jersey, the two attackers in Canada and perhaps the ax guy in new York.

So the question is: how do you tell ahead of time which ones sticking out will go past the whooping and hollering stage to some sort of action?

Answer: you can't. No one can. There's no such thing as a crystal ball. Either you slam the lid on everyone with those tendencies or you step back, take some precautions and hope for the best.

In reply to Dr. Hess:

When hatchets are outlawed, only outlaws will have hatchets.