So what’s the takeaway from the current situation? That we want ISIS flags to fly in Iraq and Syria?
You think people in those countries (fundamentalists and non-fundamentalists alike) don’t know about drone strikes? If anything, these kinds of strikes are recruiting tools for extremists, as opposed to an effective means of deterrence.
Hitting back with superior military force, as a response to what is effectively --crime–, is a clear indication of their having instilled fear, or given those who would foster fear (portions of any society “More Americans foster fear of terrorism in more Americans than any terrorist ever did”) to such an extent that a national government would go to such extremes…
Sending drones doesn’t just mean they won & will get stronger, it means they won on their own terms. Find them, -with police-, lock them up, -with criminals-, put them before the courts. Let then have their say then, on the terms of the judiciary.
The proper, effective response to oppressive, regressive things like militant theologians that keep much of their own society oppressed is airdrops of blue jeans, iPads & iPhones loaded with music & video games, all of Wikipedia and literature that explains that all they need to create such wonders for themselves is an open mind.
Do that for a while & watch them fall.
Yeah, most reporters are assignment-only, and unless on a specific orders refuse to use their skills on events unfolding in front of them. I remember September 11, 2001 – there were SCORES of unassigned reporters hanging around lower Manhattan chanting “scab! scab! scab!” at those they were shooting pictures and video or interviewing people. That’s the media union, for ya!
This doesn’t really smell like a planned terrorist attack at all: a chap with a rifle (not a readily concealable handgun, not a concealed bomb) shoots a soldier (a reservist, like most on that duty) who’s essentially posing for the tourists at the War Memorial, runs across Wellington and clambers over the railing onto Parliament Hill, finds his way to the main hall in Centre Block, and gets himself cut down in a firefight with (the very numerous) Parliamentary security personnel.
Cripes, the Armenians who assassinated the Turkish military attaché back in the early '80s planned better. Hell, Patrick Whelan, who assassinated D’Arcy McGee on Sparks St. in 1868 (about a block from Parliament Hill, eh?) planned better. This, I think, was a lone nut job.
@toriauru, security did its job, and they had the lockdown in place very quickly. If things change, it will be because an increasingly authoritarian government really wants them to change to bolster its grip on power.
Hey, I’m not the one who said this reporter was “assigned” the “task” of “recording footage of the unfolding situation.”
There’s no doubt that reporters do many things of their own initiative, but to suggest this reporter was “assigned” with recording footage of an active gunfight is a bit absurd. I don’t know of any media organization that would assign its Parliamentary correspondents and reporters with this.
We’re going to use drones on our own citizens in our own country? That would be a great way to win hearts and minds. The gunman was a Canadian convert to Islam.
So what’s the takeaway from the current situation?
No, that we will bomb the fuckers the second they try to lay claim to anything of strategic value. As we’ve been doing.
don’t know about drone strikes?
I’m merely reminding I.S., who in all of their propaganda try to bait world powers into sending troops, that we care so little about them that we’ll minimise our response to their threats to a mere video game. If they were a serious threat we’d be sending troops.
these kinds of strikes are recruiting tools for extremists, as opposed to an effective means of deterrence
In places like Pakistan you’re correct. In places like Kobani you’re probably not. Anyone who is inspired to join their cause because of drone strikes is likely to be killed in a drone strike. The poetry is beautiful.
As a reporter, his assignment is: cover news-worthy events, and don’t make us micro-manage you. Show some f****g initiative.
I bet his editors right now are chewing him out right now.
Yes, that’s entirely what I said. In places where the rule of law exists it’s obvious you don’t need drone strikes. Why do I have to explain this?
Places where the rule of law obtains don’t use drone strikes.
Capturing military hardware and operating as a military is a mere crime? I don’t think so. Have you seen what these assholes are doing to anyone who challenges them (even simply through ideology)? They kill innocent civilian men and boys by the hundreds. They’re summarily executing Iraqi soldiers by the score. They would have killed thousands of fleeing Kurds had we not stepped in. We’ve responded to them now, because they finally became a threat that would become much more capable if not nipped in the bud.
You and others seem to be separating these acts from the things that are happening in Iraq and Syria. It’s the same ideology, made stronger by their successes over the last year.
Find them, -with police-, lock them up, -with criminals-, put them before the courts. Let then have their say then, on the terms of the judiciary.
When entire bases of soldiers flee when threatened by I.S. (as occurred in Iraq) are you seriously suggesting we get police to find them? Obviously this is exactly what we should do in places where the rule of law exists. Newsflash: it clearly doesn’t exist in parts of Iraq and Syria.
Yeah maaaan, it’s like… the system is breaking our niceness and good vibes… you dig?
Cmon guy, If you accept that there is an acceptable use of a military you can’t wholesale discount drone strikes as part of that. Would you rather americans or canadians risk their lives to stop some jerky fucks? I wouldn’t. I’m perfectly happy for them to be smooshed into bloody messes from above. It shows how effective their AKs are going to be against us.
Are Syrians particularly stupid or something, such that they would be in the dark about drones?
The poetry would be substantially more beautiful if drone strikes only killed “bad guys.”
Right. Nobody ever targeted with drones, as opposed to boots on the ground, is a serious threat. Apparently nothing in Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, etc. is a serious threat.
How did random places in Syria suddenly become of strategic value, and susceptible to bombing, when they haven’t been for the previous few years?
I bet that if he had been shot or injured they would certainly not been claiming that they had assigned him to do things like this, and that they would be telling him not to jeopardize his safety. And I actually suspect his editors are telling him that he shouldn’t have done anything to put himself in harm’s way.
You are aware that we’re discussing literally one or two people in Canada, a country where rule of law (all of them, not just enforcement) works to protect the public so well that it’s actually quite embarrassing to our neighbours?
Do you think Brevik should have had his self-proclaimed bona fides recognized? Because doing otherwise was hella more effective at getting people to listen the fuck up & realize he isn’t worth it, just another criminal with issues.
Why should self-radicalized people in Canada have their bona fides recognized when by our standards they are as illegitimate as someone like Brevik?
Why shouldn’t the proper response be, the message sent be, your actions il-legitimize your cause, which is disconnected from here, where we won’t recognize a right you don’t have, that you claim to have acted upon? Jail for you.
Again, we aren’t talking about what is going on in Syria et al, it’s happened in Canada, it was rather small, it was in one instance a self-radicalized citizen & probably will be the same in this current incident. It isn’t a war, in Canada.
So why should everyone get all warred up and hawkish over a few homegrown -criminals-? When they have lives to live that can be lived without daily fear of MICROscopic threats that never materialize significantly, except in daily newspapers & other media?
You think we want to live FOX style?
We’re talking about the actions of individuals who appear to be acting on behalf of I.S.
So you find their actions to be legitimate, recognizable as the actions of a foreign sovereign state or force?
Why? They were, so far, people born in Canada, misled by their own perceptions to joining a criminal organization & committing crimes.
Their claiming to be something doesn’t actually make it so.
A few things come to mind:
If you’re going to lecture me on Realpolitik, I think you may need to account for these questions, especially the very last one. (One last hint: if you tell me that the American people are benefiting, I will laugh in your face.)
And, of course, this. It is the city’s 5th homicide of the year. It is roughly on a par with our first (and only) drive-by shooting a few years go. It was so poorly planned and stupidly executed that I can only see it as a nutcase doing something “in support of” ISIS.
Edited for typo.
No where is safe. 
You really have no idea at all, sorry! Journalists are expected to “run toward the sound.”
Game journalists can just hold W down, of course.
Especially when those sounds are gunshots, explosions, the whistling of incoming mortars, etc. Find me one editor or employer who expects their everyday political journalists covering legislative events to insert themselves into the line of fire.
That a journalist would take the personal initiative and reflexively film the gunshots isn’t surprising, and inherent journalistic tendencies is a decent explanation of why this journalist did so. But saying that he did so because he was tasked with filming this unfolding event is pretty ridiculous.
