Terror?: I would, as usual, suggest healthy skepticism before deciding exactly what to call the guy. You know, the guy who - for some reason - decided to kill a Canadian soldier and threaten our government? However much it looks like it, we need to resist the temptation to conclude an act of terror. I question the conclusion based on the fact that no terror organization has yet claimed responsibility. One would think it would be a rather large feather in the caps of ISIL etc to owe up to one of their own making it so far into parliament. Second is the fact that a bomb wasn’t strapped to him. I mean, the guy just ran in the front doors and to the Library of Parliament before being taken down. Do you folks realize that our government could have been taken out with one bomb? No, sir… I am not ready to claim terror… frustrated Canadian, or maybe a fall-guy motivated by money from a political party in order to put the fear of terror into the hearts of politicians in order to pass a bill to invade more of our privacy. Well, why not? Why should extremists get all the attention, all the fingerpointing, all the suspicion? Especially since it’s starts to smell real bad when parliament was supposed to debate the very topic of terrorism the day it happened. It reminds me of what some security companies used to(?) do to convince potential clients to get an alarm system installed, by sending an employee at night to scare the crap out of them. Nothing kills resistance faster than fear. If it turns out (by real evidence, not the crap politicians tend to construct) that it was indeed a terror plot then I shall humbly accept the conclusion. Until then I will always be skeptical. Happy Friday!
Posted on: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 12:42:18 +0000