Parliament Hill under attack

[Joey]

What are you saying? We should be neutral in all armed conflicts?

Nope. Not saying that at all.
Only equating a governments decision to being ultimately responsible for the lives and well being of its Military. Thats all.

What makes you think we can stay neutral in world conflicts? Let's just give few military bases to Russians, let's give up arctic as we've just heard that Russians deployed 6000 troops in arctic region. Let's stay neutral in every conflict and we'll see what happens.

Thats not AT ALL what being neutral means.
Switzerland has one of the best funded, well equiped Militarys in the world. And you better believe it will fight for and defend what belongs to the Swiss. Furthermore, it also has operations in Darfur where it is operating in a support effort to assist in restoring order. Being Neutral does not mean being a push-over, or not involving one self with the World Issues. It just means you don't meddle in other countries affairs, when doing so would bring unwanted actions upon you and your citizens.

Our country is too big to stay neutral. Interest in our country would be much higher than in Switzerland. There'd be no safe heaven for refugees like it was in Switzerland during world wars.

Again, not saying we should be 'Neutral'. I am however saying that Canada should not be in an 'offensive' position with this current situation in the Middle East. If we were opertating in a Humanitarian capacity, and providing Aid to the millions of displaced peoples, then by all means, I'm in and support 100%.

Canada was dragged into World War 2 for the most part because of England. Not because we were at all effected by it or at all related to it; or wanted to.

[Doc]

Sergeant-at-Arms Kevin Vickers receives standing ovation this morning.

[rocwell]

Sergeant-at-Arms Kevin Vickers receives standing ovation this morning.

Free drinks for Kevin Vickers act. Do we have one?

[Bendit]

Nope. Not saying that at all.
Only equating a governments decision to being ultimately responsible for the lives and well being of its Military. Thats all.



Thats not AT ALL what being neutral means.
Switzerland has one of the best funded, well equiped Militarys in the world. And you better believe it will fight for and defend what belongs to the Swiss. Furthermore, it also has operations in Darfur where it is operating in a support effort to assist in restoring order. Being Neutral does not mean being a push-over, or not involving one self with the World Issues. It just means you don't meddle in other countries affairs, when doing so would bring unwanted actions upon you and your citizens.



Again, not saying we should be 'Neutral'. I am however saying that Canada should not be in an 'offensive' position with this current situation in the Middle East. If we were opertating in a Humanitarian capacity, and providing Aid to the millions of displaced peoples, then by all means, I'm in and support 100%.

Canada was dragged into World War 2 for the most part because of England. Not because we were at all effected by it or at all related to it; or wanted to.

And also dragged into that monstrosity WW1 which was one big totally unnecessary clusterfuck of all time. Why? Because of some notion of empire and allegiance. Even it's settlement was such a screwup which gave rise to Hitler and Nazism because they felt humiliated by the victors.

2 of the best decisions ever made by Canada not to kowtow to the big boy down south was not going to Vietnam and Iraq. One was a total misread of geopolitics in SE Asia and the other ....well choose your description for Iraq. That took balls and wisdom by our Prime ministers of the day.

I will just add on the topic of Harper's message and some underlying concerns....that the worst thing that can be done is over-reaction and using the proverbial sledgehammer to swat the fly....like the Patriot Law and the carte branch legislation in the States to go to neverending war whereever "interests" are threatened. Both Iraq and Afghanistan which got invaded as a response to 9/11 are arguably in worse shape today 12 years later and it seems to me that on a certain level Osama Bin Laden far exceeded his expectations....primarily because of the over reaction and erosion of civil liberties.

I am still waiting on a succint definition of this term "interests" (of nations in the context of going to war/attacking another country) and who adjudicates this. Technically it's the UN...but do the big boys listen to them?

I also noticed a reference to that great appeaser Neville Chamberlain. According to my reading of the period and the man, this is a canard...and used in modern times by those who prefer war (but not don on the uniform mostly) as a first response than avoidance. NC was really a man who preferred peace. His Munich agreement with Hitler avoided WW2 for a brief period with the Czecheslovakia of the day ceding some territory in dispute to Germany (a WW1 regurgitation). He felt this was a better alternative than having a world war. However a few months later when Hitler reneged on the agreement by invading Poland Chamberlain declared war as he promised. This is a brief summation...but how this can be described as "appeasement" and used contextually as it was a multitude of times in the runup to Iraq is beyond me.

[mcHAPPY]

Right on cue a knee jerk reaction.

(Reuters) - Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said on Thursday the government will expedite plans to give more powers of detention and surveillance to security agencies in the wake of an attack on Parliament.

"They need to be much strengthened, and I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that work which is already under way will be expedited," he told the House of Commons, one day after a gunman launched an attack on Parliament and was shot dead.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...0IC1RA20141023

Politicians never let a serious or tragic event go to waste.


The two questions that should be asked are:

1) why didn't CSIS, RCMP, and local police be more aware of the shooter/terrorist considering:

The gunman who killed a soldier in Ottawa and stormed Canada's parliament had been put on a terror watch list, it has emerged.

The attacker, identified as Michael Zehaf-Bibeau by Canadian media, was considered "high risk" and had seen his passport confiscated to stop him travelling abroad to join Islamic State terrorists in Iraq or Syria.

But the 32-year-old was able to strike at the heart of his home country's capital, shooting dead Corporal Nathan Cirillo before he was himself gunned down by Sergeant-At-Arms Kevin Vickers as he launched his assault on parliament.

http://news.sky.com/story/1358709/ca...-was-after-him

2) What would have happened if the authorities did a better job? How did the current checks and balances fail? Who was watching the cameras? Where were police and security on duty?

On the other hand, instead of giving the government even more authoritarian power to do with civilian liberties as it sees fit and appropriate, perhaps the government's agencies could have simply done their work better under the existing laws and regulations, especially after the Sky News report that the Ottawa shooter, Canadian born Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, was already on a terror watch list.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-1...ion-and-survei

It is a very slippery slope when you start granting the authority to lock up people who are deemed a threat. Of course the government would never abuse their powers or get away from original intentions over time.... would they?

[Joey]

First off, I'd like to say that this "Sprechen Sie Über" has turned into one of my favourite go to Conversation spots.
We've got our little private Reddit, right here.

Right on cue a knee jerk reaction.

(Reuters) - Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said on Thursday the government will expedite plans to give more powers of detention and surveillance to security agencies in the wake of an attack on Parliament.

"They need to be much strengthened, and I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that work which is already under way will be expedited," he told the House of Commons, one day after a gunman launched an attack on Parliament and was shot dead.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...0IC1RA20141023

Politicians never let a serious or tragic event go to waste.

Ya I saw that coming from a mile away. Sad really.

The two questions that should be asked are:

1) why didn't CSIS, RCMP, and local police be more aware of the shooter/terrorist considering:




2) What would have happened if the authorities did a better job? How did the current checks and balances fail? Who was watching the cameras? Where were police and security on duty?

On the other hand, instead of giving the government even more authoritarian power to do with civilian liberties as it sees fit and appropriate, perhaps the government's agencies could have simply done their work better under the existing laws and regulations, especially after the Sky News report that the Ottawa shooter, Canadian born Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, was already on a terror watch list.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-1...ion-and-survei

It is a very slippery slope when you start granting the authority to lock up people who are deemed a threat. Of course the government would never abuse their powers or get away from original intentions over time.... would they?

Exactly what was written there. There was nothing in the existing laws that would have stopped them spotting this guy. They f*cked up. All there is to it. He should've been spotted the minute he stepped foot onto Parliament Hill.

[Bendit]

There should be an independent commission setup to investigate how Bibeau walked from the street across the lawn area to to the library area....with a loaded exposed rifle in his hands. Someone was asleep at the monitors or at their posts. The current laws are fine until they address this screwup first.

[Joey]

There should be an independent commission setup to investigate how Bibeau walked from the street across the lawn area to to the library area....with a loaded exposed rifle in his hands. Someone was asleep at the monitors or at their posts. The current laws are fine until they address this screwup first.

I don't know if any of you have tried to get into Westminster in London, or any American Embassy around the world... you can't get within 50ft without going through check points, security checks, running into several armed men ready to blow you apart. How this isn't a thing with our Parliament is beyond me.

[mcHAPPY]

Say it however you please.......

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Ben Franklin

”Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.”

”He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.”

”He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.”

”People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.”

”If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both.”

”Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”

”He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither.”

”Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither.”

”Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security.”
Ben Franklin

Enacting authoritarian measures in response to religious based attacks is letting the extremists win.

[Superjudge]

I don't know if any of you have tried to get into Westminster in London, or any American Embassy around the world... you can't get within 50ft without going through check points, security checks, running into several armed men ready to blow you apart. How this isn't a thing with our Parliament is beyond me.

Because a show of violence creates violent incidences.
If the idea is to beef up your forces, then, you give the impression there is need for it.

Listen this is very simple, a guy walked right into Parliament, shot up a Soldier, and then got into a gunfight and died. He could be anyone really. There are people there already to stop this, they failed. Canada is no less safe today then it was yesterday, the day or week before. Nobody cares when a homeless man is gunned down or stabbed. we don't see the federal government going crazy with concern when a young kid is caught up on the wrong end of a gang bullet either.

Its optics.
Its opportunistic Bullshit by a right wing fanatic (Harper).
It's sensationalized crap.

I feel terrible for the guy that got killed, I do, but this was no more than that and instead to turning the eye on us Canadians, the government needs to turn it inwards to its own processes. Their Security forces screwed up something Doormen at the local Nightclub would have saw coming a mile away.

[Bendit]

I don't know if any of you have tried to get into Westminster in London, or any American Embassy around the world... you can't get within 50ft without going through check points, security checks, running into several armed men ready to blow you apart. How this isn't a thing with our Parliament is beyond me.

During that TV Q&A yesterday with the RCMP honcho on the dais he said the Parliament operated under a "medium threat security" condition. Whatever that means. At the risk of repetition....no matter the condition or the level, htf did the guy walk across that large expanse of grass at 10 in the morning (I hear fairly sparse if any of people) and with a rifle in his hands. He shoulda been cocked before he even got to the building....or am I asking for too much.

[Joey]

Because a show of violence creates violent incidences.
If the idea is to beef up your forces, then, you give the impression there is need for it.

Disagree. There is ALWAYS a need to maximize the protection of those making decisions for, and representing your country on an international level.

Listen this is very simple, a guy walked right into Parliament, shot up a Soldier, and then got into a gunfight and died. He could be anyone really. There are people there already to stop this, they failed. Canada is no less safe today then it was yesterday, the day or week before. Nobody cares when a homeless man is gunned down or stabbed. we don't see the federal government going crazy with concern when a young kid is caught up on the wrong end of a gang bullet either.

Its optics.
Its opportunistic Bullshit by a right wing fanatic (Harper).
It's sensationalized crap.

Only difference though is that this has very clear politically driven motivations. There is a message to be read here. A statement they were hoping to make. If him doing this even made one person sit up and say "its that easy?! Amazing!!", then I disagree that we are no less safe. Mind you, I do not see that as reason to deteriorate all Rights and Freedoms we have as a people.

Their Security forces screwed up something Doormen at the local Nightclub would have saw coming a mile away.

This. I can't even get into the ACC with a Water Bottle ...

[KeonClark]

The security at this game was ridiculous. At one point we counted 32 security guards on the court, as well as some in the tunnels with security dogs as well. There were police in almost every section, I haven't seen a raptors game ever be locked down like that. Scary times with all these terrorist threats.

There's been "terrorist threats" since 9/11. And crazy people since people walked the earth. Dont believe the hype!

[Superjudge]

haha true

[Miekenstien]

Who are these people? ISIS? Sure that is deplorable, in my opinion. But who am I to tell another culture what is right or wrong? Where do we draw the line on what is appropriate and just in our own society let alone another?

these people are extremists, all of them. from all walks of life and places. kill people cause they are gay, we don't need you. cut the clitoris out of a young woman, we don't need you. cut people's heads off and film it to terrify, we don't need you.

we get to say what works, because we have worked it. our nations, western in general, are multi-cultural and better for it. we know that if everyone engages in talk and treats each other with respect, that it works. we have gay pms, black mayors, black presidents, the biggest fan of the raptors is a sikh.

the uae is a country that at least we can talk to and open dialogue with, and they are now one of the more moderate muslim lead countries. i don't want this to be just islamists because then we are lumping them into one group. in the example of isis, yes we supported them before, just like the cia trained the taliban how to fight the russians. then the minute our views weren't aligned we were the enemies and needed our heads cut off. we can't talk with them, we can't negotiate with them. simply "disagree and cut off our heads". that is a rabid dog.

ebola is a form of life too, who knows how it governs itself. why hunt it down and kill it if all it is doing is what ebolian society has taaght it? boko haram? who needs those guys. if i was the prime minister of canada we would have answered the call for help issued by the nigerian government for help.