Domestic Terrorism/Public Attacks on CAF Personnel

[tomahawk6]

What's your source that they desecrated their own business?

Here is your source.How's yout French ? ;D

http://www.larepubliquedespyrenees.fr/2013/11/14/tags-a-la-mosquee-de-pau-l-imam-avoue-en-etre-l-auteur,1164851.php

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Je suis sexy.... Is all I've got

 

[Cloud Cover]

Je suis sexy.... Is all I've got

Oh my Allah, that's it, I'm filing for expedited divorce on Monday. 8 months of match.com and "the one" shows up on army.ca. Go figure.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

;D

 

[Cloud Cover]

I would question the legality of giving legal orders to do so. It might be highly recommended but I have not seen anything that specifically states "you will remove x photos."

I can think of better things to question the legality of, than that. There is nothing but the best interests in terms of persec behind that order. And, unless you are the CDS, or one of his direct 2 star minions, nobody stands around questioning the legality of things that are merely annoying.

 

[cryco]

Things that make you go "Hmmm ..." include this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from The Independent:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/ottawa-shooting-harpers-prous-agenda-has-turned-canada-into-a-target-and-divided-society-9811918.html

Now, I have no doubt that some people, some of them Muslims, oppose Canada's intervention in the Middle East. I have no doubt that some Canadians support IS** for any number of reasons, none of them good.

But consider this: "Canadians eventually forced Harper to withdraw their soldiers from Afghanistan." I have no doubt that one of the factors that led Prime Minister Harper to withdraw from Afghanistan was that Canadians' support for the mission declined over time. But I am fairly certain that several other factors weighed at least as heavily.

There's a Wikipedia page about Ms Pazira.

I get the impression that Ms Pazira doesn't get that a country can evolve or change their beliefs as a whole.
We may have had peacekeeping roles in the past, but as time goes by and remote conflicts become more, um, widespread I guess, and some pretty sick things and atrocities are committed, we cannot idly stand by or go and maintain peace. The aggressors do not want peace, they want death and destruction of anything not like them; and they place the west in their crosshairs. But that's just how I feel.
I sometimes feel guilty for thinking that way because I'm all for sending our military is some pretty hot zones, but that's you guys. I am part of the voices that want to send you guys into grave danger and it's kinda weird now that I've read alot of the comments you write; I see you're people too, not pawns on a chess board. So thanks. Like, a lot.

 

[a_majoor]

Things that make you go "Hmmm ..." include this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from The Independent:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/ottawa-shooting-harpers-prous-agenda-has-turned-canada-into-a-target-and-divided-society-9811918.html

Now, I have no doubt that some people, some of them Muslims, oppose Canada's intervention in the Middle East. I have no doubt that some Canadians support IS** for any number of reasons, none of them good.

But consider this: "Canadians eventually forced Harper to withdraw their soldiers from Afghanistan." I have no doubt that one of the factors that led Prime Minister Harper to withdraw from Afghanistan was that Canadians' support for the mission declined over time. But I am fairly certain that several other factors weighed at least as heavily.

There's a Wikipedia page about Ms Pazira.

The writer is an idiot, and one who fails to do even the most elementary research to boot. There were several rounds of public debate, which pushed the mission from the Sha-i-kot valley to Kabul, then back to Kandahar, then extended the mission to 2009, then 2011. While it is true public support of the mission declined over the years, the Government for what it said it would do and followed the timetables laid out and agreed to by Parliament. Hardly sounds like "forced".

Just for the record, I personally do not support the Canadian Mission against ISIS, because:
a. There are more pressing issues threatening the National Interest in Ukraine, the South China Sea, etc., and;
b. We are enabling our other enemies in the ME by taking up arms against their enemies (i.e. we are helping Iran, the Syrian puppet regime and Hesbollah). Far better to let them fight it out amongst themselves.

However, since the government evidently has weighed the options and come to a different conclusion, I will continue to carry out my orders and do the job. And now that we are "all in", *we* need to deploy all the resources of the modern state, including police, intelligence, military and using the PCO and other resources to craft messages that disarm or otherwise neutralize the message(s) of radicalism. Even thinking about one of the articles posted "upthread", *we* need to show people that radical Islam is *not* empowering for people who feel disenfranchised, and offer a better alternative based in Liberal Western culture and values.

 

[tomahawk6]

The fight against IS is important.Like other terrorist organizations they have their tentacles everywhere.The main focus for IS is in Syria-Iraq.After they secure a base of operations just like cancer they will spread.I prefer to fight them far from our own shores as long as possible.The jihadists so far have inspired attacks in Canada and NYC.They got some headlines and some martyr's.Canada has paid a price this week for standing up to the jihadists and for that I am proud to call Canada friend and I mourn for your fallen sons.Please continue to fight for freedom.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Recessional

God of our fathers, known of old—
Lord of our far-flung battle line—
Beneath whose awful hand we hold
Dominion over palm and pine—
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget—lest we forget!

The tumult and the shouting dies—
The Captains and the Kings depart—
Still stands Thine ancient sacrifice,
An humble and a contrite heart.
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget—lest we forget!

Far-called our navies melt away—
On dune and headland sinks the fire—
Lo, all our pomp of yesterday
Is one with Nineveh and Tyre!
Judge of the Nations, spare us yet,
Lest we forget—lest we forget!

If, drunk with sight of power, we loose
Wild tongues that have not Thee in awe—
Such boastings as the Gentiles use,
Or lesser breeds without the Law—
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget—lest we forget!

For heathen heart that puts her trust
In reeking tube and iron shard—
All valiant dust that builds on dust,
And guarding calls not Thee to guard.
For frantic boast and foolish word,
Thy Mercy on Thy People, Lord!

Amen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recessional_(poem)

 

[Kilo_302]

Can you please take your subtle anti-Harper crap elsewhere.  What makes you think you know more about goings-on than him?  Are you being briefed at the same level and by the same people he is?  Maybe the media isn't reporting everything that is known because they aren't privy to that info, so you don't see it in the news.

Indeed.  And for the record I am referring to your attempts to make political hay from a tragic incident.

How is pointing out Harper making political hay out of this akin to me doing the same thing? Would you prefer we stick our collective heads in the sand and allow the government to make false connections and distort reality to further their own ends? This is what politicians do, but it seems especially cynical in the wake of Wednesday's events.

IF Harper had seen some sort of report linking ISIS with Wednesday's events, it would probably be public knowledge by now, as it would further support government policy. OR, if for whatever reason, this report was sensitive, Harper probably would not have connected the two in a national address. John Baird has come out and said there was absoluteoly no connection between ISIS and Bibeau, so either the government has conflicting information or Harper was politicking in his speech. The latter is far more likely, and frankly I'm surprised that Canadians (or our media) aren't more concerned that Harper clearly tried to make a connection where there was none, only to have his own minister clarify there is zero connection a day later.

Your powers of observation are impressive, I do not support Harper. But that is not the central reason why I am concerned with his address, or our government's response. It's not rocket science. Governments often overreact in the wake of "terror" attacks, and enact laws which could potentially impact democratic institutions. Our current government has demonstrated they have little respect for democratic institutions or processes in Canada, so it might serve us all well to watch them like hawks in times like these.

 

[The Bread Guy]

This from the Toronto Star:

The RCMP has asked the Ontario Provincial Police to lead an independent probe into Wednesday’s attack on Parliament, during which police and parliamentary security staff shot and killed a gunman who stormed the government buildings, The Star has learned.

According to sources with knowledge of the request, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, which gathered evidence immediately after the attack, is seeking an independent third-party investigation of events inside and outside Parliament in which several of its officers were involved in the massive show of force that killed the gunman.

Mounties joined parliamentary security staff in the dramatic chase through Centre Block before Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, who minutes earlier fatally shot Cpl. Nathan Cirillo at the nearby National War Memorial, was himself brought down in a hail of bullets.

The independent probe comes on top of a sweeping security review already ordered by Commons Speaker Andrew Scheer. Sources say it will be led by a credible, respected individual independent of the agencies and institutions involved ....

 

[JS2218]

The term is 'lawful command'.  Are you even in the military?

Whether this is a lawful command or not I'll leave to a Legal SME.  Common Sense SME in me says it's stupid to ignore this advice, and it could be your family, kids and friends who pay the price.

Yes, I am.

I understand and agree that it would be a lawful command to order someone to remove photos that specifically compromise OPSEC/PERSEC, give away critical mission details, etc.

But not long ago the military attempted to get everyone to sign an "appropriate comments on social media" policy and it failed miserably.  It failed because the military has no jurisdiction over an individual's personal social media accounts unless they're taking/circulating the type of photos mentioned above.

My point is not to argue whether it would be smart and prudent for every military member to keep an eye on what they post; rather it was pointing out that the military does not have legal jurisdiction to order someone to remove photos. I too would be interested in a lawyer's perspective.

 

[George Wallace]

IF Harper had seen some sort of report linking ISIS with Wednesday's events, it would probably be public knowledge by now, as it would further support government policy. OR, if for whatever reason, this report was sensitive, Harper probably would not have connected the two in a national address. John Baird has come out and said there was absoluteoly no connection between ISIS and Bibeau, so either the government has conflicting information or Harper was politicking in his speech. The latter is far more likely, and frankly I'm surprised that Canadians (or our media) aren't more concerned that Harper clearly tried to make a connection where there was none, only to have his own minister clarify there is zero connection a day later.

Officially and technically you are correct, there is no official connection between ISIS and Bibeau.  However, if you look at the ISIS directives to Muslims who are also following their beliefs, Bibeau's visits to their sites, etc.; then there is a convoluted connection that had warped Bibeau's judgement.  It could well be the fact that the ISIS directives on the internet, did indeed drive Bibeau to conduct his acts of murder and violence.

Your powers of observation are impressive, I do not support Harper. But that is not the central reason why I am concerned with his address, or our government's response. It's not rocket science. Governments often overreact in the wake of "terror" attacks, and enact laws which could potentially impact democratic institutions. Our current government has demonstrated they have little respect for democratic institutions or processes in Canada, so it might serve us all well to watch them like hawks in times like these.

I would say you are being overly dramatic and paranoid in what our Government is doing.  So far, I have witnessed a lot of restraint on the part of the Government and an intent to maintain the 'openness' of Parliament, Parliament Hill, and the Nations' Capital.  I have seen concerns about physical security raised in the media and by officials, but no overbearing move to restrict personal freedoms, nor enact more restrictive laws.  I wonder what your opinions of the previous Liberal Governments over the past two or three decades have been under similar circumstances:  Enacting the War Measures Act; the OKA Crisis; sending our troops to Iraq; and later sending troops to Afghanistan.  What freedoms have Liberal Governments removed from the democratic society and institutions that you speak of?

It is the job of our parliamentarians, no matter what Party they belong to, to protect our freedoms.  In some cases, a minority of people will feel done in by.  Obviously you are one.  Does this mean we are a Totalitarian State?  I don't think we are.  The cost of freedom does come with some price.  We are still free, and I think at the moment that you are looking at something that is NOT there.  The sky is not falling. 

 

[George Wallace]

This from the Toronto Star:

This is just like any shooting that involves Police forces.  The [Edited to add:]an outside Police force/outside agency like the SIU will investigate .  Is that unusual?

JS2218

Again, we are pointing out that Common Sense is not that common.  Too many CAF members are too casual with their own PERSEC that they are their own worse enemy at times.  The population of Canada is very naive when it comes to PERSEC, so it should come as no surprise that most CAF members follow suit. 

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

The uniqueness may be that the RCMP is asking another police agency, to conduct an investigation. Just a guess

 

[ModlrMike]

But not long ago the military attempted to get everyone to sign an "appropriate comments on social media" policy and it failed miserably.  It failed because the military has no jurisdiction over an individual's personal social media accounts unless they're taking/circulating the type of photos mentioned above.

No, they asked us to sign an agreement not to post information relating to our TTPs on line, and to recognize that social media is not secure. There's a difference. The military does have jurisdiction - it's called the Official Secrets Act. There's also sections of the NDA that cover bringing the organization into disrepute, using threatening or insulting language towards or about a superior etc.

 

[The Bread Guy]

The uniqueness may be that the RCMP is asking another police agency, to conduct an investigation. Just a guess

I've seen OPP called in to check out municipal situations where the muni force itself was involved, so it makes at least that level of sense.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

I agree it sounds like a prudent COA

 

[daftandbarmy]

Ccunter-terrorism is not just an RCMP thing. There's a whole network involved, as we all well know. I wonder to what extent they'll just focus on the RCMP?

 

[Kilo_302]

Officially and technically you are correct, there is no official connection between ISIS and Bibeau.  However, if you look at the ISIS directives to Muslims who are also following their beliefs, Bibeau's visits to their sites, etc.; then there is a convoluted connection that had warped Bibeau's judgement.  It could well be the fact that the ISIS directives on the internet, did indeed drive Bibeau to conduct his acts of murder and violence.


I would say you are being overly dramatic and paranoid in what our Government is doing.  So far, I have witnessed a lot of restraint on the part of the Government and an intent to maintain the 'openness' of Parliament, Parliament Hill, and the Nations' Capital.  I have seen concerns about physical security raised in the media and by officials, but no overbearing move to restrict personal freedoms, nor enact more restrictive laws.  I wonder what your opinions of the previous Liberal Governments over the past two or three decades have been under similar circumstances:  Enacting the War Measures Act; the OKA Crisis; sending our troops to Iraq; and later sending troops to Afghanistan.  What freedoms have Liberal Governments removed from the democratic society and institutions that you speak of?

It is the job of our parliamentarians, no matter what Party they belong to, to protect our freedoms.  In some cases, a minority of people will feel done in by.  Obviously you are one.  Does this mean we are a Totalitarian State?  I don't think we are.  The cost of freedom does come with some price.  We are still free, and I think at the moment that you are looking at something that is NOT there.  The sky is not falling.

We likely read different papers:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/harper-vows-to-fast-track-boost-to-spy-policing-powers-after-shooting/article21282699/

From the article"

“Our laws and police powers need to be strengthened in the area of surveillance, detention and arrest,” the Prime Minister told the House of Commons. “They need to be much strengthened. I assure members that work which is already under way will be expedited.”

This is 24 hours after the attack. I don't think I'm being too dramatic or paranoid at all. History is replete with examples of governments doing this, just not usually at this speed.

I have no love for the Liberal Party, or the governments they have formed either. The War Measures Act is perhaps the worst overt violation of our rights in a democracy in modern Canadian history. I'm not aware of a Liberal government sending Canadian soldiers to Iraq on anything outside of the regular exchange programs between Canada and the US.  Similarly, Oka occurred while Mulroney was in office. As for sending forces to Afghanistan, I was initially in favour of the mission as well as the later role in Kandahar but became opposed to it as it became clear there was no clear definition of success. Nowadays, I would not support the deployment of Canadian Forces to fight "terror" outside of very specific direct actions designed to counter very specific and imminent threats to Canada. Otherwise it's counterproductive, as the Pentagon report detailed in this article explains:

http://www.salon.com/2009/10/20/terrorism_6/

"