It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 01:29 PM
Oklahoma City was a terror attack that killed 168 people. NO religion. NO mental illness. Hate of his own government timed 2 years to the day after Waco.

Also, there is no fire to fuel when speaking of Islam and terror attacks. It is a fact.

Not all Muslims are terrorists.
Not all terrorists are Muslim.
But a Muslim can be a terrorist,
and a terrorist can be Muslim.

posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 01:34 PM
This fits any definition of a terrorist attack.

This is the stuff we should be worried about. Single individuals acting on their own do cause harm. I have confidence, misplaced or not, for the security and intelligence services in Canada to stop large scale planned attacks. These types of attacks are impossible to stop, unless they announce their intentions straight up before they do it. Getting up one morning and saying to themselves, yup, today's the day I do it. Whatever that may be, like this guy, running down soldiers or something like the attack were Lee Rigby was beheaded, even if they are on a watch list or under scrutiny by our intelligence services, it is almost impossible to stop.

RIP WO Vincent.

posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 01:50 PM

originally posted by: babybunnies
To call this a terrorist attack just because a couple of soldiers got run over is a complete over reaction, typical of the ridiculousness over terrorism right now.

The definition of terrorism also involves the use of religious or political ambitions, in other words, if someone is attacking others for a religious or political belief it can be correctly described as terrorism.
In this case, there are reports that the perpetrator of this incident had been radicalized and had extreme religious and political ideology, that's reason enough to believe that this was most appropriately described as a terrorist attack.

posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 01:54 PM
a reply to: GAOTU789
vehicular assault, knife or gun attack
hell lets even reduce it to plain assault, could be a terrorist attack?
Somehow I'm less afraid now
one guy killing another guy
spooky stuff
edit on 21-10-2014 by all2human because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 02:09 PM
a reply to: all2human

Nope, of course not but you know that already I assume( probably a bad idea on my part ). His espousing of extremist views online and in real life, enough so that his passport is revoked and he is put on a watch list makes it a terrorist attack. He wanted to leave Canada and join ISIS...

His dad, Gilles Rouleau, called police this past summer, concerned his son wanted to join ISIS. A Twitter profile under the name @AhmadRouleau is adorned with the ISIS flag. Last month, ISIS spokesman Muhammad Al-Adnani called on followers to kill Canadians and others by various means including to "slaughter him with a knife, or run him over with your car."


You may choose to call it what you want but again, whatever definition of terrorism you find, this fits the description.

posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 02:18 PM

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

posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 02:21 PM
a reply to: GAOTU789

I'm not as hung up on the definition part of it, as much as I am with the results of calling it such a thing.

Calling it a 'terrorist' attack will no doubt start the same kind of discourse in Canada, that we see after terrorist attacks in the US or other nations.

More often than not, this leads to reduced freedom in exchange for 'safety'. Which as you had pointed out, there is NO way to stop these 'lone wolf' type scenarios unless they are dumb enough to expose themselves outright before hand.

We do not need as a nation to have a conversation and then action, regarding actual "Terrorism". It's a non issue for Canada and pretty much always has been.

I worry the conservatives will use this as another excuse to trample our freedoms.


posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 02:39 PM
I think we should clear a few things up here.

-Just because one person was murdered does not mean that it wasn't terrorism.
-There is no "set number of casualties" that make or break the definition.

-If the guy was mentally unstable (and there in NO proof of that as of yet) It is still an act of terrorism.

Look folks, at this point the writing is on the wall.
He's an ISIS supporter, He was radicalized, he had his passport cancelled, he was on the watch list, he killed and injured people to forward his political cause.

We have to recognize what terrorism is. This is terrorism. No ifs, ands, or buts.

posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 02:52 PM
I really hope Canadian Citizen dont fall for this fear hearding.. it all leads to our lives becoming restricted(look at US).

Terrorist have no real reason to target Canada.

Get the flippin Harper out of there.. he is nothing but US governement ass kisser(reason we are even in the terrorist's crosshairs).

edit on 10/21/2014 by luciddream because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 02:58 PM

originally posted by: SLAYER69
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?

The media is stating his acts were religion/ faith based, and that is what my reference is. As for his motivation, perhaps you should read the link in my previous post, in it's entirety.Are you accusing me of justifying his actions simply because I do not believe it should have a label of "terrorist attack"? Of course not. If he WERE an average Joe though who drove down two people, civilian or not, this discussion wouldn't be happening. Just because he worshiped radical Islamic views does not mean he was affiliated with anyone.Not to mention, because he is dead, we have no idea of knowing if it was his faith that motivated him to a violent crime, or his life circumstances. This is all very wild speculation on the part of the media, and of us here.

posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 03:09 PM
Sounds like some here are in a severe form of denial and simply do not want to acknowledge it for what it is out of some misguided belief that if it's ignored the developing problem will simply go away. Fear of it being exposed for what it is, is simply foolish and very naive.

Meanwhile, it is what it is.

No matter how one attempts dodging that reality.

posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 03:26 PM
At least Canada has the balls to call it a terror attack. In America, Ft Hood is workplace violence.

posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 03:51 PM

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

posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 04:30 PM
a reply to: all2human
But your wrong... Fear was created based on this one event. I personnaly fear that this is going to act as a springboard for others who may have been to timid to act. Others, specially those living in that community may now fear that they are targets for others, or that this one man may not have been acting alone.

You cannot bury your head in the sand and wish that no others will be radicalized. It will happen again.
Because of where I work, I know that myself and my workmates have also been mentioned as potential targets.
Should I not be more vigilant? That extra vigilance btw is in reality based on fear.

This one terrorist will not stop me from showing up at work but he has sure as heck made me more be more aware of my suroundings when I get close.

posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 04:44 PM
a reply to: palg1
And as long as you and others fear or are affected by it ,they have won
And In a twisted way you are vicariously supporting their cause.
nothing to fear except fear itself
Don't give these crazy people the podium, it will encourage more.
I personally don't think this incident is a terrorist act
As mentioned in my earlier posts, if more are to follow, or more than literature connects this guy to a terrorist organization, i will gladly about face
edit on 21-10-2014 by all2human because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 04:57 PM
I don't fear terrorists personally, but have no problem giving the government the green light for crushing them.
Call me a shill if you like, if labeling these wackos "terrorists" gives Canada the right to infringe on their lives then imo that's great.
Thumbs up

posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 05:04 PM
Cant stop this with the same level of thinking that created it
comes to mind
by supporting war since 1991 against mainly Muslim nations, it will , as we may have witnessed, eventually show up at our doorstep.
To me semantics aside, terrorism turns into expectation rather quickly.
edit on 21-10-2014 by all2human because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 05:27 PM

originally posted by: all2human
a reply to: palg1

As mentioned in my earlier posts, if more are to follow, or more than literature connects this guy to a terrorist organization, i will gladly about face

Ahem. You called?

posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 08:08 PM
here is an credible expert confirming the terrorist angle

I've seen other interviews from him and he makes a lot of sense

posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 10:20 PM
a reply to: SLAYER69

I think what people are wary of here is the word, not the act. Terrorism is a word of pure manipulation, and its used to incite fear, to make people easier to control.

What makes one thing an act of terror and one violent act "normal"? Its absurd. Remember the south park episode about hate crimes? 'Are not all acts of violence crimes of hate?' Well, are not ALL violent act 'terrorizing' the victim?

But really, you dont know Harper like we do, he is just a traitorous, manipulative prick, and at best he is exploiting this for political gain

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in