Ottawa shooting: Canadian parliament in lockdown

[Palmares]

Key Points



Shots have been fired at the National War Memorial in Ottawa and inside the nearby parliament building
A soldier has been wounded in the attack at the war memorial
One gunman has been killed in the parliament building, local media are reporting
Several buildings are on lockdown and there are reports of shots fired at a shopping centre near parliament
Police have told local residents to stay away from windows and roofs as they search for the suspect or suspects



http://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-us-canada-29728503

[Art Vandelay]

Was just listening to CBC. The soldier shot is now confirmed dead. They played a clip of the shooting in the parliament building and it sounded like an audio clip from a war zone.

e: there was also an attack on soldiers earlier this week in Quebec, where two were run down with a car, one of whom died.

[BIXX]

Very interesting. Will need to look into this more.

[Spatula City]

One of the shooters was Muslim.
That's really not going to go over well.

[Red Son]

Awful and unneccesary loss of life. Another upsetting factor is that in the aftermath, the right will exploit it along the usual 'see? we told you these muslims were dangerous' lines.

[BIXX]

Awful and unneccesary loss of life. Another upsetting factor is that in the aftermath, the right will exploit it along the usual 'see? we told you these muslims were dangerous' lines.
I really want to hear the shooter's motives before saying its an awful and unnecessary loss of life.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I really want to hear the shooter's motives before saying its an awful and unnecessary loss of life.

Whatever the motives, its only consequence will be to give Harper and the Canadian government ammunition to rally their base behind war.

[Illegalitarian]

Imagine being the Sergeant at arms and not using your giant golden mace to kill someone

[BIXX]

Whatever the motives, its only consequence will be to give Harper and the Canadian government ammunition to rally their base behind war.

I hear this argument from anarcho-liberals all the damn time except in regards to the police.

"We shouldn't defend ourselves from the police cause it just lends them legitimacy!"

When really police are gonna get all the legitimacy they need regardless of our actions as our society sees then as the "good guys". Canadian government will go to war if it and/or its capitalists fucking want to. This guys actions will just be used to explain it away, instead of one of the other billion things they'll pull out of their ass as an e cause for war.

Again, the guy's motives would have been something worth hearing for me.

[consuming negativity]

When really police are gonna get all the legitimacy they need regardless of our actions as our society sees then as the "good guys".

Data is from America, but is interesting nevertheless:

http://s23.postimg.org/lya7tqror/confidence.png

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1597/confidence-institutions.aspx

Police were the third most supported institution in America, after the military and small business. :rolleyes::glare::unsure:

[Illegalitarian]

Why small businesses I wonder? Some sort of liberal notion of "small capital" being better than "big capital"?

That notion always confused me. I think south park did a good job showing why such logic is bullshit, in an episode where everyone burns down "wal mart" and starts shopping at a small local grocery store.. which starts to make the grocery store grow, and ends with it being a huge building with the towns people burning it down too lmao.


Of course this is simplistic and meant for a laugh rather than a serious analysis, but it really hits the soul of the issue.

[BIXX]

South park, despite some of the really serious liberal notions I get from it (as well as the libertarian makers) hits the nail on hit head sometimes.

[Lily Briscoe]

I hear this argument from anarcho-liberals all the damn time except in regards to the police.

And that poster's appraisal of the consequences of this 'action' was wrong in what way...? "It reminds me of what liberals say about this completely unrelated thing" isn't actually a counterargument. Never mind that you seem to be one of those people who use the word 'liberal', not as a political classification, but as basically a politically correct way of calling people "pussies" for not sharing your fetish for individualist violence.

No, the Canadian government doesn't need something like this to justify going to war, but the fact remains that it certainly has the effect of whipping up popular support for it, and already it is being used as a justification to ramp up security and surveillance measures (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-29743711).

[Illegalitarian]

And that poster's appraisal of the consequences of this 'action' was wrong in what way...? "It reminds me of what liberals say about this completely unrelated thing" isn't actually a counterargument. Never mind that you seem to be one of those people who use the word 'liberal', not as a political classification, but as basically a politically correct way of calling people "pussies" for not sharing your fetish for individualist violence.

It's referring to the political classification because it is a very liberal line, the belief that the state is set up with such a magnificent checks and balances system that they couldn't *possibly* do these things without justification, as if the state is only acting in such a way because it's being provoked to do such. That is the argument, that is why what he said was false.


No, the Canadian government doesn't need something like this to justify going to war, but the fact remains that it certainly has the effect of whipping up popular support for it, and already it is being used as a justification to ramp up security and surveillance measures (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-29743711).
[/QUOTE]


And Canada hasn't already been ramping up surveillance and "security" measures, right? It might be cited as a justification, but it's been happening regardless and this action does not somehow make it worse, just the same as the US had been planning a war in the middle east before 9/11.

[Lily Briscoe]

It's referring to the political classification because it is a very liberal line, the belief that the state is set up with such a magnificent checks and balances system that they couldn't *possibly* do these things without justification, as if the state is only acting in such a way because it's being provoked to do such. That is the argument, that is why what he said was false.

Except it isn't an argument that anyone in this thread has made.

[Bala Perdida]

South park, despite some of the really serious liberal notions I get from it (as well as the libertarian makers) hits the nail on hit head sometimes.
The show makes me laugh, but Goddamn I hate it's messages. It's not that they're always, but I have a cousin that thinks south park is the fucking bible and what they say is undoubtedly true. One of the more recent episodes had him spouting bullshit about Lorde being some musical liberationist who was gonna launch a social revolution with that song 'royals'.

Also I hate how the shooters motivates are disregarded. I saw a news report on it riddled with soldier fetishism. I remember how after a bomb went off in Chile, Bachellete called it a cowardly act. Despite all the risks they took carrying it out, and how she is constantly heavily guarded. These king fuckers always send others to do their dirty work, and they still feel entitled to say such shit.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I hear this argument from anarcho-liberals all the damn time except in regards to the police.

"We shouldn't defend ourselves from the police cause it just lends them legitimacy!"


I don't see how running people down with a car or gunning down a guard at a war memorial is "self defense" in the same way as, say, squatters hucking bricks at coppers to defend their homes. Apples and oranges.

Also, I met liberals who eat meat. Ew, liberals eat meat, I guess I should go vegetarian so as to not be liberal :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:.

[Bala Perdida]

I don't see how running people down with a car or gunning down a guard at a war memorial is "self defense" in the same way as, say, squatters hucking bricks at coppers to defend their homes. Apples and oranges.

Also, I met liberals who eat meat. Ew, liberals eat meat, I guess I should go vegetarian so as to not be liberal :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:.
I don't think it's supposed to be self defense. It's probably supposed to be insurrection.

You might not agree with the insurrection, but knowing the motives makes it easier to understand at least. Take Bengahzi for example, do you disagree with that?

EDIT: Disagree sounds bad, but do you think it was as barbaric and unjustified as the media says it was?

[Lily Briscoe]

I just wanted to add: in general, I don't think it's important to put much emphasis on the political consequences of stuff like this shooting, because a) the consequences are pretty self-evident, b) the media is already in a frenzy over it, and c) most people are against stuff like this so it's a moot point. But in the context of this forum, where we actually have people who are politically attracted to these kinds of actions, it's absolutely appropriate to point out how stuff like this plays right into the hands of the state.

And Canada hasn't already been ramping up surveillance and "security" measures, right?
Let me know if you ever feel like responding to something I've actually said.

[Palmares]

Never mind that you seem to be one of those people who use the word 'liberal', not as a political classification, but as basically a politically correct way of calling people "pussies" for not sharing your fetish for individualist violence.

Does remind me of the way some seem to use the word "reactionary" for those who contradict their own dogma.


I don't think it's important to put much emphasis on the political consequences of stuff like this shooting

I tend to agree. It's all pretty straight forward this situation. The shooter apparently was trying to get to Syria, but it didn't work out. They were a "lone wolf", but had some vague links with Islamists. Things are hardly going to get any better in regards to repression or similar. It's a bad time to be a Muslim, especially a non-white one. Racism and Islamophobia on the rise...

[Illegalitarian]

I just wanted to add: in general, I don't think it's important to put much emphasis on the political consequences of stuff like this shooting, because a) the consequences are pretty self-evident, b) the media is already in a frenzy over it, and c) most people are against stuff like this so it's a moot point. But in the context of this forum, where we actually have people who are politically attracted to these kinds of actions, it's absolutely appropriate to point out how stuff like this plays right into the hands of the state.
Let me know if you ever feel like responding to something I've actually said.

You've not said anything I didn't already respond to, saying that I've not responded to it doesn't make it true I'm afraid, nor have you responded to anything I said.


I am not a fan of "revolutionary violence", or whatever. I used to think it perhaps had a place, insurrectionism, but I've studied on it and I don't really agree with that.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Headline:

Two Soldiers Killed in Span of Week
Country that has been engaged in over a decade of racist war reacts with shock, horror

[Lily Briscoe]

You've not said anything I didn't already respond to, saying that I've not responded to it doesn't make it true
*shrug* You responded to arguments that no one was making. But whatever, it's a pretty short thread at this point; people can read it and see for themselves.

[Illegalitarian]

*shrug* You responded to arguments that no one was making. But whatever, it's a pretty short thread at this point; people can read it and see for themselves.

Yep. And for the record I am far from saying that violence such as that should be used, so I think it's a pretty dumb argument to begin with if both of us are on the same side of the crux of the issue