It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Terror attack in Canada

page: 3
19
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 10:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: all2human
off the top of my head a terrorist attack is the intent/act of killing on a mass scale
this was not a terrorist attack.


Noun 1. terrorist attack - a surprise attack involving the deliberate use of violence against civilians in the hope of attaining political or religious aims.

Well they weren't 'civilians' so maybe this was an act of war?




posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: all2human

Wrong.



According to the FBI, terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.


-Google

**Edit**
a reply to: SLAYER69, you beat me to it.
edit on 21-10-2014 by Auricom because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 10:26 AM
link   
LOL

"Terror Attack"

Yeah ok.

One disgruntled and confused guy, totally part of a terrorist plot.

FFS. Canadians aren't that dumb.

~Tenth



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 10:27 AM
link   
Without the media spin,Attempt to commit murder 239
Hello..this guy drove a car into people
Not a roadside bomb waving a ISIS flag with a severed head on top.
he just happened to have a knife(eye roll)
Its the media and their handler's fault for politicizing it or making it religious and those eating it up,
not this idiot's.

edit on 21-10-2014 by all2human because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: all2human
Nope! A terror attack is one designed to instill fear. As fear is the actual weapon and end game for terrorists.
Whether it kills 2 or 22 is irrelevent.

One guy targetting our soldiers to illicit fear in our servicemen, yes even here in Canada, that they will not be the last, that there will be more like him to do these things in the name of Allah.

This therefore was a terrorist attack. People, don't be so blind...
edit on 21-10-2014 by palg1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 11:08 AM
link   
a reply to: palg1
Then the media is guilty, not the dead guy


edit on 21-10-2014 by all2human because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 11:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: all2human
a reply to: palg1
Then the media is guilty, not the dead guy



What? Explain yourself!



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: palg1
There would be nothing to 'fear' if the media didn't sensationalize it!
this guy didn't storm the parliament.
now if there are more attacks of this nature, then I will stand corrected
until then, a one-off 239
edit on 21-10-2014 by all2human because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Monitoring of the individual seems required in order to make such a claim as being 'radicalized.' Bought a pressure cooker while shopping?

"We'll just watch how they operate, and we can plan exercises to make it look like we are indeed providing security"...

Handling operatives are we?



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 11:43 AM
link   
Why is it when it is 20 guys it could not be coordinated and when it is one guy it could never happen either. Is it going to take a force of 200 Allah Akbars to attack somewhere in North America to make a difference?

If someone is radicalized it means that before they can do something they believe in they can radicalize others. It is a scary prospect and it is rampant in the US. Disillusioned people who want to be part of something no matter what it is. Toss in a #ty government and you have a recipe for homegrown terror.

This was a deliberate act from what I can read. Hope both of the servicemen recover with no other issues.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 11:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: SLAYER69

originally posted by: AccessDenied
Even elsewhere in the world, who has ever heard of a "Terrorist hit and run while wielding a knife


The guy intentionally runs over two people with an automobile *wielding a knife or not, is besides the point. Is it possible that had he other means in which to inflict harm he would have used it?

Intentionally running people over is a pretty direct act. Also back to his knife, it wasn't what most consider a simple pocket knife.

So is it the act itself that denotes a terrorist attack to you,or the fact it is claimed his radical beliefs were behind it? I'm only trying to point out the difference between what should be labelled a terrorist attack,and what should not.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: AccessDenied

The soldier has died according to latest reports.

www.thestar.com...

1. He was being monitored (one of 90)
2. He was waiting in a parking lot where veterans are taken care of for over 2 hours...contemplation and waiting for right victim
3. He attacks someone who is in uniform in said parking lot
4. Recently had his passport revoked as I would bet he needed to travel to join the others who are already there

It was an attack based on religious ideology meant to incite terror....a terror attack....



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 12:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: AccessDenied
So is it the act itself that denotes a terrorist attack to you,or the fact it is claimed his radical beliefs were behind it?



That was exactly what I was trying to find out myself when I asked you and some others earlier here


originally posted by: SLAYER69

Also, just out of curiosity, What in your opinions would constitute a 'Terror attack in Canada'





I'm only trying to point out the difference between what should be labelled a terrorist attack,and what should not.


So, Again, what is or isn't considered a terrorist attack to you as a Canadian?


edit on 21-10-2014 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)


+1 more 
posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 12:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: AccessDenied



It was an attack based on religious ideology meant to incite terror....a terror attack....

I say it was an attack based on revenge and brought on by mental illness. He WANTED to be part of a larger whole, but he wasn't.

Martin Rouleau ‘died like he wanted to’


Whether it was psychological troubles or honest zeal, Martin Rouleau — the friend to all and father to one young boy — was lost to a world of conspiracy theories, hatred and religion-fuelled anger.


MONTREAL—For more than a year they tried. For more than a year they failed to help their friend, Martin Rouleau, see the light of day. —
Whether it was psychological troubles or honest zeal, the young entrepreneur from St-Jean-sur-Richelieu, the friend to all and father to one young boy was lost to a world of conspiracy theories, hatred and religion-fuelled anger that led to what intelligence and security experts have been fretting about for years: a homegrown, radicalized terrorist acting out on Canadian soil.

LINK

IMHO...he was a deranged wanna be.



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: AccessDenied

IMO your'e right.

ISOLATED INCIDENT, is NOT a terrorist event.

It was not this long and planned out event, made to create some kind of political statement, or incite fear.

He wanted revenge. Just because the military was involved doesn't make it terrorism. Had this happened to two people in a 711 parking lot in Scarborough, we never would have heard about it.

~Tenth



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 12:43 PM
link   
If there are follow up attacks or it is proven and verified he had close connections to a known terrorist group then this could go down as an act of terror, Until then..bang bang fear over.

edit on 21-10-2014 by all2human because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 12:50 PM
link   
From French interviews of the people living on his father street, here's what that info yields:

Martin was a contractor who owned and ran a water pressure cleaning company, cleaning high office windows and cars, etc.

He had been in a relationship from which a child came into the world. There were children's toys in the father's back yard (since he moved back into his father's place?) That conjugal relationship apparently went on the fritz recently.

The neighbours said they and his father were distressed by the negative changes in him, and neighbours began to keep their doors locked. Martin changed his name to Ahmad, grew a beard and wore a long Arabic garb.

He was on an RCMP terror watch list and his passport had been revoked. He posted lots of pro jihadi stuff online and warned infidels in the name of Allah.

Yesterday morning he was seen waiting in the parking lot for at least two hours before suddenly driving deliberately at his victims, two soldiers only one of whom was in uniform, and that uniformed soldier, Patrice Vincent, aged 53, has since died. RIP Patrice. The other injured soldier is expected to recover.

Police are asking the public for eyewitnesses to come forward who witnessed any part of what happened, including seeing him in the parking lot as they piece the story together.

**I am struck by the amazing coincidence of the local police witnessing what up till now would appear to be a hit and run driver fleeing the parking lot and racing towards the military garrison, whereupon the local cops gave chase. His car flipped over into the ditch 400 yards from the base entrance. Was it his intent to head there all along and perhaps the reason for his waiting two hours in that parking lot? Was he busy in prayerful preparation for something he was about to do? That is not far-fetched thinking, imo, for a hard core newish convert would be expected to do that, would he not? We have such stories from Iraqi jihadists doing that. I would love to know what if anything they found in his car. Perhaps the parking lot incident was just 'an added opportunity bonus' to what might have been another plan altogether?

Think about it. You have to admit that if he was in close contact with jihadists that there was another plan, one that could have involved explosives and/or most probably his huge knife. If his intent was to kill only one person, then he perhaps could have done that in the parking lot and used his knife there, forgive me for that gory image.

Public safety minister says the event was linked to terrorist ideology, and said that's as far as he would go while the investigation is under way.

Some stories here
edit on 21-10-2014 by aboutface because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: SLAYER69

originally posted by: AccessDenied
So is it the act itself that denotes a terrorist attack to you,or the fact it is claimed his radical beliefs were behind it?



That was exactly what I was trying to find out myself when I asked you and some others earlier here


originally posted by: SLAYER69

Also, just out of curiosity, What in your opinions would constitute a 'Terror attack in Canada'





I'm only trying to point out the difference between what should be labelled a terrorist attack,and what should not.


So, Again, what is or isn't considered a terrorist attack to you as a Canadian?


If I knew for a fact his actions were ordered by a radical Islamic group, and not just a personal vendetta of his, I could be swayed to believe it. Then again, were that true I'm sure he would have been supplied with something more deadly than his own car, and some type of organized back up support here on Canadian soil. I see none of that. I see a guy hell bent on revenge for a wrong done to him personally that teetered his sanity to the brink, and if what his friends and family say is true, he was very easily sucked in. We all know here on ATS that even amongst the conspiracy community that there are some that just go too far and above and beyond. To me he went nuts, about a religion that he never had thought of previously. That doesn't make him a terrorist, it just makes him a nutter. As for the act itself, people get run down everyday even deliberately, and are not labelled as such.To be honest, I despise using the term "terrorist act" to label this incident based on his beliefs alone, as I find that to be a sign of religious intolerance and I don't like to judge others that way. I can judge him on the act. I can judge him by his past behaviour as quoted by his family and friends. But I will NOT judge him based on his religious belief no matter how radical because that is why people connect terrorism with Islam and I refuse to fuel that fire.
edit on 21-10-2014 by AccessDenied because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 12:57 PM
link   
I am done with the 'he had mental issues' garbage. It is a lame excuse. Wanting to be part of something bigger and trying to make a difference is not a mental illness, it is the motto of most of these who decide they can leave their mark and further their ideology and hope it will inspire more. If he showed up naked screaming Allah Akbar and pissed on the floor of the veterans office I will go with mental illness. This was calculated. He waited...crazy simply reacts.

I am suspecting that big knife was the behead a few and he decided to try to run a few down. That makes more sense than he was 'off his meds'.


edit on 10pm31pmf0000002014-10-21T12:57:20-05:001220 by matafuchs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: AccessDenied

Excuse me I'm trying to make some sense here.

So according you a 'Terrorist attack' has to only be religiously motivated/affiliated? I'm asking because you've interjected a fair bit of information about his religious beliefs/association or how it may or may not be extensive enough or something to the effect.

I haven't mentioned religious radical groups etc etc etc


But I will NOT judge him based on his religious belief no matter how radical because that is why people connect terrorism with Islam and I refuse to fuel that fire


Couldn't an average 'Joe' carry out a terror attack?


I see a guy hell bent on revenge for a wrong done to him personally that teetered his sanity to the brink


What harm was done to him?

Would that wrong be justification enough to run down [killing one] two people?



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join