1) I post on a lot of different threads on this site, if you haven't searched them then you're free to make whatever assumptions you want. My intent is take part in a discussion.
2) The article said the Forensic Psychiatric Services Commission found he was troubled, but not mentally ill. That's one organization, who let's face it, is probably overworked and understaffed. It's clear he had SOME issues, whether or not they could officially qualify him as being "mentally ill" is not something I can comment on. However, as we find out more, we're getting a picture of a troubled individual with a criminal past and drug problems, and not what I would define as a your traditional politically motivated terrorist. So my point is that referring to this incident as "domestic terrorism" is premature. In the event that he was influenced by ISIS, the question remains, did he have direct contact with them? Did they help him plan this (if there was a plan at all)? Calling this domestic terrorism sets in motion a whole set of responses which may not be appropriate. Already Mr. Harper has referenced this incident as evidence that we need to expand the powers of CSIS, and need to continue our efforts in Iraq. It's far too early to say whether either of these comments are in any way relevant to this incident. The government is already cynically using this incident to further their own agenda (as governments do), and this thread referring to the attack as domestic terrorism follows that narrative.
