Shot Fired on Parliament Hill

[GhostofPotvin29]

The difference between 'Attack in Ottawa' and 'Terror in the Capital' seem pretty stark to me.  I'm assuming the graphic is only there so that people tuning in on the fly know why there are 3 people on the screen discussing something.

And for the record, I see CBC use graphics like that for way more than simply these 'sensational' stories.  It seems like they have a graphic describing basically any topic they start to discuss at length.

It's at the point you can't have any sort of graphic with any reference to what happened without it being labelled 'branding' or 'sensationalizing' the event.  I mean, it was a 'big, scary fuss' a soldier was shot on Parliament Hill and a shooter was inside Parliament.  These things were known almost instantly and were confirmed almost instantly.

 

[Stickytape]

To be clear, the only reason I pointed out the graphic is that the linked article said there wasn't one. But there was, so I found a picture and posted it.

Yes, I'm a little disappointed, but only a little. I remember watching the news at the time and thinking "well that's kind of tacky" and that's about it.  I don't meant to sound like I think the sky is falling over this.

I mean, it was a 'big, scary fuss' a soldier was shot on Parliament Hill and a shooter was inside Parliament.  These things were known almost instantly and were confirmed almost instantly.

Just to nitpick, I think it's relevant to point out that this isn't all we were told. When I first tuned I was told that there had been 3 separate shootings in 3 locations, with hints that these could be one coordinated "attack". Later, there were murmurs about a possible 4th shooting or some other commotion at the hotel. (EDIT: I can't remember if this last detail came over CBC or if I picked it up somewhere else.)

"ATTACK IN OTTAWA" was chosen to describe what seemed to be a trio of simultaneous shootings by multiple suspects. The fact that it also happens to describe what turns out to have actually happened is barely relevant.

The point is - and again, I'm nitpicking, it's not a big deal - that live coverage of breaking stories like this is typically very unreliable, and that's part of what makes the rush to create these headlines and graphics come across as a little bit tacky.

 

[Highlander]

just a follow up a day later and no I wasn't trying to be funny or in the least, although the gunman was not one of the now 93 refused passports, he was "refused a passport" and that was why he was in Ottawa, to try and get one, not to go to Medico on a holiday or Vegas for a junket, but to Syria to join the other militent extremists.  So infacto he becomes another frustrated warrior hoping to join other ISIS buddies around the campfire toasting some infidels head.

I don't think my suggestion is all out of whack, let them go and even transport them there, but there will be no entry key when they return, no social benefits to reap.

To let these already disenfranchised people take their turns at potshots at our military or politicians and more than likely one of us at some point is not what our forefathers fought for in the least. What they would actually say, is this has to be stopped, as they are ruining what we fought for.
Unfortunately we are living in a brave new world.

 

[Kin]

just a follow up a day later and no I wasn't trying to be funny or in the least, although the gunman was not one of the now 93 refused passports, he was "refused a passport" and that was why he was in Ottawa, to try and get one, not to go to Medico on a holiday or Vegas for a junket, but to Syria to join the other militent extremists.  So infacto he becomes another frustrated warrior hoping to join other ISIS buddies around the campfire toasting some infidels head.

People with criminal histories are frequently refused passports. It doesn't mean anything special.

I don't think my suggestion is all out of whack, let them go and even transport them there, but there will be no entry key when they return, no social benefits to reap.

This may have escaped you but our Country is part of the growing international effort trying to fight ISIS. You're suggesting we transport additional troops for them. Does that disconnect at all reach you? 

What's going on in Iraq and Syria isn't a joke and it isn't a game. Think of what the people in those countries have been through in the last few decades and please, seriously examine how two relatively minor attacks by two criminals here have you saying we should give aid to the people committing atrocities in their countries.

 

[Highlander]

Nik, I would rather fight them in the middle east than in the streets of Ottawa or Richelieu or where-ever the next one happens.  The 93 + 1 passport refusals are all in reference to folks that want to be ISIS dudes.
Personally I'd take care of the problem internally.

 

[losveratos]

Nik, I would rather fight them in the middle east than in the streets of Ottawa or Richelieu or where-ever the next one happens.  The 93 + 1 passport refusals are all in reference to folks that want to be ISIS dudes.
Personally I'd take care of the problem internally.

It's opinions like yours here that scare me more than one mentally unstable person with a gun. Also... when did we start punishing people for crimes they haven't committed yet? When did we start to become a country that punishes people for what they believe, even if they haven't taken action on those beliefs?

As an example... Subject A says I want to go to a country, my country is at odds with and help them. By your madness this person should be "dealt with internally"
Subject B wants to throw as of yet innocent civilians out of planes without a parachute killing them because their potential future might have a cause for concern. Shouldn't that kind of person also be "dealt with internally"?

Punishing someone for a crime before it happens because you think it will or taking away the liberties and rights of the majority because 1... 1! damn minority went off a cliff and did something crazy are both idiotic outlandish and incredibly short sighted dumb witted things to think.

I can't express within the confines of this message board how selfish and pathetic this view is.
You'd rather fight them overseas? Ok... go enlist. Though I highly doubt this is what you had in mind. No, what you'd rather have is other people somewhere else dying and having their lives torn apart while you live in a nice little closed off environment where all the bad apples are dropped off a cliff for fear of the unknown.

I hope that there comes a point in your life where you can take a good long look at yourself and figure out what the hell went wrong with your priorities and ability to make rational decisions outside of your selfish emotionally slanted views of the world.

 

[brothert]

Nik, I would rather fight them in the middle east than in the streets of Ottawa or Richelieu or where-ever the next one happens.  The 93 + 1 passport refusals are all in reference to folks that want to be ISIS dudes.
Personally I'd take care of the problem internally.

It's opinions like yours here that scare me more than one mentally unstable person with a gun. Also... when did we start punishing people for crimes they haven't committed yet? When did we start to become a country that punishes people for what they believe, even if they haven't taken action on those beliefs?

As an example... Subject A says I want to go to a country, my country is at odds with and help them. By your madness this person should be "dealt with internally"
Subject B wants to throw as of yet innocent civilians out of planes without a parachute killing them because their potential future might have a cause for concern. Shouldn't that kind of person also be "dealt with internally"?

Punishing someone for a crime before it happens because you think it will or taking away the liberties and rights of the majority because 1... 1! damn minority went off a cliff and did something crazy are both idiotic outlandish and incredibly short sighted dumb witted things to think.

I can't express within the confines of this message board how selfish and pathetic this view is.
You'd rather fight them overseas? Ok... go enlist. Though I highly doubt this is what you had in mind. No, what you'd rather have is other people somewhere else dying and having their lives torn apart while you live in a nice little closed off environment where all the bad apples are dropped off a cliff for fear of the unknown.

I hope that there comes a point in your life where you can take a good long look at yourself and figure out what the hell went wrong with your priorities and ability to make rational decisions outside of your selfish emotionally slanted views of the world.

If they've done nothing wrong then we should be allowing them to have passports and travelling where they want to go.

 

[losveratos]

Nik, I would rather fight them in the middle east than in the streets of Ottawa or Richelieu or where-ever the next one happens.  The 93 + 1 passport refusals are all in reference to folks that want to be ISIS dudes.
Personally I'd take care of the problem internally.

It's opinions like yours here that scare me more than one mentally unstable person with a gun. Also... when did we start punishing people for crimes they haven't committed yet? When did we start to become a country that punishes people for what they believe, even if they haven't taken action on those beliefs?

As an example... Subject A says I want to go to a country, my country is at odds with and help them. By your madness this person should be "dealt with internally"
Subject B wants to throw as of yet innocent civilians out of planes without a parachute killing them because their potential future might have a cause for concern. Shouldn't that kind of person also be "dealt with internally"?

Punishing someone for a crime before it happens because you think it will or taking away the liberties and rights of the majority because 1... 1! damn minority went off a cliff and did something crazy are both idiotic outlandish and incredibly short sighted dumb witted things to think.

I can't express within the confines of this message board how selfish and pathetic this view is.
You'd rather fight them overseas? Ok... go enlist. Though I highly doubt this is what you had in mind. No, what you'd rather have is other people somewhere else dying and having their lives torn apart while you live in a nice little closed off environment where all the bad apples are dropped off a cliff for fear of the unknown.

I hope that there comes a point in your life where you can take a good long look at yourself and figure out what the hell went wrong with your priorities and ability to make rational decisions outside of your selfish emotionally slanted views of the world.

If they've done nothing wrong then we should be allowing them to have passports and travelling where they want to go.

Sure... that's why we allow reformed convicts to become mailmen, legally blind people to have drivers licences, incredibly rich people to have low bails while fighting a court case, and allow anyone from all countries a visa here with impunity.

Wait... we don't? Oh yeah... it's called risk assessment. These things aren't rights. They're privileges. Privileges we've given the power of discretion over to the government. We have not however, allowed our government to convict us of a crime before it happens. (Unless of course we're currently attempting it)

 

[brothert]

Nik, I would rather fight them in the middle east than in the streets of Ottawa or Richelieu or where-ever the next one happens.  The 93 + 1 passport refusals are all in reference to folks that want to be ISIS dudes.
Personally I'd take care of the problem internally.

It's opinions like yours here that scare me more than one mentally unstable person with a gun. Also... when did we start punishing people for crimes they haven't committed yet? When did we start to become a country that punishes people for what they believe, even if they haven't taken action on those beliefs?

As an example... Subject A says I want to go to a country, my country is at odds with and help them. By your madness this person should be "dealt with internally"
Subject B wants to throw as of yet innocent civilians out of planes without a parachute killing them because their potential future might have a cause for concern. Shouldn't that kind of person also be "dealt with internally"?

Punishing someone for a crime before it happens because you think it will or taking away the liberties and rights of the majority because 1... 1! damn minority went off a cliff and did something crazy are both idiotic outlandish and incredibly short sighted dumb witted things to think.

I can't express within the confines of this message board how selfish and pathetic this view is.
You'd rather fight them overseas? Ok... go enlist. Though I highly doubt this is what you had in mind. No, what you'd rather have is other people somewhere else dying and having their lives torn apart while you live in a nice little closed off environment where all the bad apples are dropped off a cliff for fear of the unknown.

I hope that there comes a point in your life where you can take a good long look at yourself and figure out what the hell went wrong with your priorities and ability to make rational decisions outside of your selfish emotionally slanted views of the world.

If they've done nothing wrong then we should be allowing them to have passports and travelling where they want to go.

Sure... that's why we allow reformed convicts to become mailmen, legally blind people to have drivers licences, incredibly rich people to have low bails while fighting a court case, and allow anyone from all countries a visa here with impunity.

Wait... we don't? Oh yeah... it's called risk assessment. These things aren't rights. They're privileges. Privileges we've given the power of discretion over to the government. We have not however, allowed our government to convict us of a crime before it happens. (Unless of course we're currently attempting it)

Part of your thinking is a little skewed. You seem to think that these people are irrational.  What right do we have in controlling what people want to do internationally? Isis has appeared because we decided to enforce an arbitrary Shia government on the people because the west felt it was more democratic. These people may feel it's their patriotic duty to join. Much like the Spanish civil war. Ultimately this is a war and we're either supportive of Isis or we want eliminate them. War is distasteful and forces us to make choices we would rather not make. Like WWII I would rather have these people detained than roaming the streets, spying or just getting up to no good.

 

[Highlander]

This is a really great discourse and I expect to see a division of opinion on whether we suspend a certain amount of our personal freedoms in order to keep our overall society safer.
For many including myself this is not so much a slippery slope to a big brother state, but an realization that the world we live in now is not the one I was born into.  The civil libertarians whom will fight every blade of grass to keep us from infringments of our personal freedoms are swimming in a pool that is no longer filled with the water we inherited from the Great generation that fought WW2.  The water has been tainted with the radicalization of members of our own society.  And we have to take a new course.

I have never had a problem with the idea that we take a DNA sample from every newborn baby that is fed into a Cray supercomputer, so when a crime happens: a rape, a murder etc. that we have instant access to whom the culprit is.  With the knowledge that we can be singled out for gross transgretions against the mores of society (and instantly), would this not serve as more of a deterrent than what exists now to these crimes. Do I have a problem if this was a practice, no, but our civil libertarian friends will not allow it. Why? For fear of Big Brother.  I don't have a problems with it as I will live a crime free life and I am not afraid if it helps us all keep safe and solve crimes in an instant.
Obviously our intelligance sources would not be refusing passports to the 93+++ and Bibeau without good reason. I think it has already been proven that this creates a ticking time bomb in our society, proven out with two dead soldiers in three days and an assault on our Parliament buildings  and a desecration of our most hallowed spot in the country, the War Memorial.  Now for those of you that believe that action should not be taken against the 93++ I have a question for you.  If you knew that their was an unexploded ordinance in your neibourhood and this ordinance is at 123 Riverside street, and this ordinance may or may not go off, would you not expect the authorities to visit said location and remove or disable the explosive? 

 

[Bullfrog]

The civil libertarians whom will fight every blade of grass to keep us from infringments of our personal freedoms are swimming in a pool that is no longer filled with the water we inherited from the Great generation that fought WW2.

For the love of cheese, it's who, not whom.

 

[Highlander]

whom, who, what, where, when, whatever,

 

[Tigger]

I have never had a problem with the idea that we take a DNA sample from every newborn baby that is fed into a Cray supercomputer, so when a crime happens: a rape, a murder etc. that we have instant access to whom the culprit is.  With the knowledge that we can be singled out for gross transgretions against the mores of society (and instantly), would this not serve as more of a deterrent than what exists now to these crimes.

Go one step further, determine the gene for crazy and just stamp it out at the start... [sarcasm]. None of that would have stopped Bibeau from doing what he did.

Obviously our intelligance sources would not be refusing passports to the 93+++ and Bibeau without good reason. I think it has already been proven that this creates a ticking time bomb in our society, proven out with two dead soldiers in three days and an assault on our Parliament buildings  and a desecration of our most hallowed spot in the country, the War Memorial.  Now for those of you that believe that action should not be taken against the 93++ I have a question for you.  If you knew that their was an unexploded ordinance in your neibourhood and this ordinance is at 123 Riverside street, and this ordinance may or may not go off, would you not expect the authorities to visit said location and remove or disable the explosive?

People are refused passports all the time, tick tock, and are generally ok in society. As far as the people under surveillance already, well, they're under surveillance... As far as I'm concerned the entire incident was handled very, very well overall.

 

[Highlander]

at the rate of 2 soldiers every 5 days we should have another 20+ dead by the new year.
Its working wonderfully so far, don't ya think?

 

[Tigger]

That's just silly.

 

[bustaheims]

at the rate of 2 soldiers every 5 days we should have another 20+ dead by the new year.
Its working wonderfully so far, don't ya think?

At the rate of 2 soldiers killed in domestic incidents in the last, what, 20 years or so? I think we'll be okay. Let's not let 2 incidents turn us onto the same restrictive, xenophobic and hateful mindset of those we're fighting against.

 

[bustaheims]

Like WWII I would rather have these people detained than roaming the streets, spying or just getting up to no good.

Instead of repeating the mistakes of the past, how about we learn from them instead?

 

[brothert]

Like WWII I would rather have these people detained than roaming the streets, spying or just getting up to no good.

Instead of repeating the mistakes of the past, how about we learn from them instead?

Fair enough. I see what your saying. But this whole event has feels like it was preventable. I can't imagine what the family of the the soldiers must feel to know that they died in vain and that it IS going to happen more and more as we go forward. I don't know what the right answer is but I don't feel all that comfortable knowing that these 93?  Are wandering around potentially planning their next attacks.

 

[bustaheims]

Fair enough. I see what your saying. But this whole event has feels like it was preventable. I can't imagine what the family of the the soldiers must feel to know that they died in vain and that it IS going to happen more and more as we go forward. I don't know what the right answer is but I don't feel all that comfortable knowing that these 93?  Are wandering around potentially planning their next attacks.

Well, this attack wasn't performed by someone on that list, so, I'm not sure how preventable it was. The incident in Quebec also didn't exactly scream "well co-ordinated attack," either. So, while I understand the concern around having a number of potentially radicalized individuals across the country, it doesn't appear as though they're really an organized group or even that they're working together. I'm confident that the RCMP, CSIS and everyone else involved around the world is tuned in enough to prevent anything organized and major from happening, but, I don't think there's any way to really prevent these small scale, individual attacks from happening without severely limited civil liberties and lowering ourselves closer to the levels of ISIS and other extremist groups, while simultaneously inspiring others who may not susceptible to radicalization by various groups, or even simply providing reason for those who simply have anti-government sentiments to lash out.

At the end of the day, fear really just breeds more fear, and actions taken out of fear are very rarely those that lead to good things.

 

[brothert]

Yeah that fear thing is a big one. I think the media over time has really amped up the fear mongering and sensationalism to the point where the public is continually in a state of anxiety. For example TSN started an off the record segment showing the parliament shooting spliced in with the Munich Olympics and 911.  Talk about misrepresentation of the scale of the events!  Ebola is in there too and that one is risky in that I feel that medical community is underestimating the level of mistrust that people have against the scientific community. There's alot of anger amongst people that I have talked with about how casual that attitude has been. Ie there's nothing to fear if proper procedures are followed with quarantine yet a doctor can fly back from west Africa and go jogging through the streets of NY with a fever. Or sick nurses can fly on a plane. People get very irrational when fear gets a hold of them. Look at the apt complex in Dallas nobody wants to live there anymore.