Posted on 10/29/2014 12:14:57 PM PDT by Kaslin
PARIS -- Some warped minds believe that when a nation suffers a terrorist attack, it somehow deserved it and should set about doing some soul searching. Implicit in this argument is the notion that the attacker was somehow justified in his heinous actions -- there was no other option but to lash out violently.
Except that there is. Even the Islamic State could choose to exercise unofficial diplomacy through a sympathetic Persian Gulf country. But it doesn't, because the Islamic State isn't interested in diplomacy -- yet some critics expect Western democracies to suck it up whatever terrorism comes their way, as a matter of due course.
Last week, a domestic jihadist perpetrated a terror attack right at the heart of Canadian democracy in Ottawa, the nation's capital. After fatally shooting a soldier who was guarding the National War Memorial, Michael Zehaf-Bibeau entered Parliament and started shooting up the place while elected representatives, including Prime Minister Stephen Harper, went into hiding. Sergeant-at-Arms Kevin Vickers successfully eliminated the problem through skilled marksmanship, killing Zehaf-Bibeau.
Already the predictable whining has started. Here's a compilation of some of the most prevalent complaints that I heard while in nearby Toronto at the time of the attack:
-- "He wasn't a terrorist; he was just a criminal." Members of Parliament from Canada's opposition Liberal Party were peddling this type of nonsense on television news programs even before heart rates could return to normal. While Zehaf-Bibeau was known to police for acts unrelated to radical Islam, his links to jihadism and others involved with it were well-documented. It is indeed possible to be both a terrorist and a criminal; these two things aren't mutually exclusive. The Islamic State is involved in kidnapping, extortion and other acts of criminality to fund their terrorist activities, for example.
-- "Zehaf-Bibeau wasn't a jihadist, he was mentally ill." How offensive. People who struggle with mental illness might object to the suggestion that they're prone to acts of terrorism.
-- "Canada was targeted because of its military intervention in the Middle East." This implies two other possible options:
Option one: Canada should stick its head in the sand and ignore the actions of extremists who are beheading journalists and aid workers, slaughtering civilians, and exploiting women and children. This would be unacceptable for a country that's supposed to be a defender of human rights -- even if it means disappointing the people for whom there is apparently never a justification for striking back at terrorists.
Option two: Canada should act, but more discreetly. I can't disagree with this alternative, as there is significant merit to the French military approach of eliminating the chest-thumping in favor of quietly smothering the problem. Canada hasn't been averse to that approach in the past -- most notably when Canadian Special Operations Forces' Joint Task Force 2 (JTF 2) played a critical role alongside American allies in a 2001-2002 campaign in Afghanistan. It was a top-secret six-month mission known only to leaders in the upper reaches of the Canadian government and military. But discretion implies the absence of transparency, and the same people who complain about overt Canadian military intervention tend to be the same ones who demand transparency in matters of national security. You can't have it both ways.
-- "A spectacular failure for Canadian intelligence." This was really rich, particularly since it was a headline in Britain's Guardian newspaper, the flagship publication for former NSA contractor Edward Snowden's gripes about the overreaching of Western intelligence agencies. If that's how the Guardian staff feels, perhaps it should stop its crusade to render intelligence activity useless.
-- "Oh, great. Now Canada is going to have an excuse to clamp down harder on civil liberties." Why not go have a word with the terrorists about how their actions are infringing on your civil liberties? Modern warfare is largely asymmetric and of a guerrilla nature. While it's important to balance civil liberties with national security interests, no threat should be exempted because it chooses to entrench itself inside a democracy and attempt to hide among its loopholes. Relax: There has to be violation of an actual law in the criminal code to trigger an arrest, and those laws are created by legislators, not by shadowy agencies.
It would be nice if just once in the wake of such an attack, the naysayers would give the benefit of the doubt to the victim rather than the terrorist.
This is why I didn’t believe in all the reports that Canadians “had all come together.” I knew from 9/11, there would be one week of togetherness followed by years of denial, contention and suppression of the truth.
If I recall correct it only took a couple of days; if that long for the left wing lunatics to come out and praise the terrorists. That moron Bill Maher comes especially to mind
I may have forgotten it was 15 minutes rather than a week! I have a terrible memory!
How about picketing the media outlets and academic institutions that encourage this crap? How about naming and shaming and disgracing those teachers who pour this politically correct poison into our childrens’ heads? This attitude is a bigger threat than the terrorists themselves.
The classic “blame the victim” defense.
Astonishing.
.
I don't like Maher, but he did not praise the terrorists. He said that it was absurd to call the terrorists cowards. And it is absurd. These men embarked on a mission that would surely end in their deaths, so they were anything but cowardly. We can call them wicked, ruthless, lacking in humanity or medieval in their outlooks, but cowardly is an inappropriate epithet.
Many of those were granted land in Ontario by the King of England.
I was watching the live coverage on cbc.ca just a couple hours after this happened, and idiots were already making these sorts of arguments before Sgt. Cirillo’s body was even cold.
The argument that we shouldn’t be involved in fighting the IS because it will bring terrorism on us is the argument of a coward, plain and simple. The argument that guys like the attacker in this case are somehow justified in killing their fellow countrymen is the argument someone who thinks that the IS is in the right. I don’t even know what to say to these people, other than “pull your head out of your arse”.
As a Canadian myself, I agree that it does explain a lot. I hate Tories.
Canadian and British history books tell the story from a completely different perspective. Citizens who were loyal to the British Empire, post-Revolutionary War, called themselves United Empire Loyalists. American colonists called them traitors and treated them harshly, homes destroyed, goods and property stolen. Between 40 and 50,000 left voluntarily for all parts of Canada east and west; this, the largest number, arrived in Canada in the years 1783-4.
In those days all land in Canada was granted by the Crown, mostly free, to encourage settlers to go to the "New World". In the case of the Loyalists, the British Parliament awarded 15 million pounds for their immediate relief, since most arrived with nothing. The standard package included a "Lot" of 200 acres, food for 3 years, farm implements, seed, tools and some household necessities. The immigration numbers were unprecedented for those times.
I have Canadian relatives, as you can no doubt detect!
With a Republican congress, Obama will see foreign policy as an area where he can act alone and create a legacy... his concept of what a legacy is.
Will Obama seek to bring ISIS to the bargaining table? Will Obama with the stroke of his pen allow ISIS to take the equivalent of the Sudetenland? and then the equivalent of Austria? always with the promise that that is all they want?
Watch for Obama to shoot for photo-ops for his legacy.
All to keep a flawed world trade regime and the hopes of a few for some sort of new economic world empire going. I disagree with it very much. Such an empire is overly centralized government and is no better than its brother, fascism, or its cousin, communism.
Canada should finish the task of becoming an independent nation and put the boot to the U.K. citizenship paradigm and Lawrence of Arabia with it. We don’t need no stinkin’ new world empire slavery.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.