Killing of soldier in hit and run called "terrorist act."

Shrunk · #1 by **Shrunk** » Oct 21, 2014 3:14 pm

One of two soldiers wounded in a hit and run involving a "radicalized" 25-year-old man in St-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Que., has died, provincial police say.

Martin Rouleau, the 25-year-old suspect, was fatally shot on Monday after hitting two soldiers in a parking lot in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, a city about 40 kilometres southeast of Montreal.

The RCMP said they suspected he had become radicalized after converting to Islam about a year ago....

"This individual was known to federal authorities, including our integrated national security investigations team in Montreal, who along with other authorities were concerned that he had become radicalized," the RCMP said in a statement Monday evening.

The Prime Minister’s Office issued a new statement Tuesday, reiterating that federal authorities had confirmed certain elements clearly indicated Rouleau had become radicalized.

Canadians should remain vigilant, the statement read.

Radio-Canada reported that Rouleau's Facebook page, which is no longer active, identifies him as Ahmad LeConverti (Ahmad the Converted).

The Facebook page shows a young man who had become more and more radicalized over time....

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/ ... -1.2807078

I'm a little uneasy with this being called a "terrorist act." Is that the correct term to use for an action committed, as far as we know, by a single isolated individual, even if he was inspired by Islamist beliefs?

Some further context to this: Prime Minister Harper stood up in Parliament and referred to this as a possible terrorist action shortly after it was reported, in response to a question that had been deliberately planted to be asked by one of his MP's. This was before the police had released any information on the identity or background of the perpetrator.

Harper's gov't has recently decided to participate in the bombing raids against ISIS, a decision that was opposed by the other two political parties. The gov't's chief justification for that decision was that it was necessary to stop ISIS in Irag and Syria in order to prevent terror attacks here at home.

And there is an election in less than a year from now.

Weaver · #2 by **Weaver** » Oct 21, 2014 3:33 pm

Yeah, we get the same shit here.

Too early to determine that this is a terrorist act, as opposed to chance.

It could well be - killing soldiers always has that potential - but it could also just be someone who can't drive for shit or was impaired somehow.

Having the questioned planted is shitty, and shows how your PM is trying to politicize things.

Griz_ · #3 by **Griz_** » Oct 21, 2014 3:41 pm

I've been following this very sad story and I'm also very uncomfortable with the use of the term "terrorist attack". Based on what we know thus far, this was the act of a disturbed and radicalized individual. Unfortunately, this is going to be used by the hawks to justify the decision to join the military engagement against ISIS, a decision that I disagree with.

Former Prime Minister Jean Chretien spoke out about the Canadian decision recently. This is a man who I had strong disagreement with on many issues but I believe he made the right call when he kept us out of Iraq in 2003. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... e21134448/ I think that Canada is heading down a very dangerous road.

Shrunk · #4 by **Shrunk** » Oct 21, 2014 3:47 pm

Weaver wrote:Yeah, we get the same shit here.

Too early to determine that this is a terrorist act, as opposed to chance.

Even if it isn't just chance, and (as seems likely) he deliberately targeted the soldiers as a result of his Islamic beliefs, does that constitute a "terrorist attack"? If so, then I'm not sure what the utility is in calling something a "terrorist attack", other than to whip up public hysteria.

There seem to be a bunch of these guys who have the same sort of beliefs, watch the same websites, and every so often one of them goes of and tries to kill someone.

In the same way, that guy in Indiana who has just confessed to killing seven women probably has a lot in common with other serial killers. They all likely look at similar websites, choose similar victims, probably have other things in common with each other.

So why is one considered a "terrorist" and not the other? Why do our political leaders urge us to be "vigilant" about only one of them?

Weaver · #5 by **Weaver** » Oct 21, 2014 3:56 pm

Terrorism involves attacks for politically-motivated reasons. If he targeted the soldiers due to his religious convictions and connects those connections to a political position, then terrorism is an appropriate label.

mrjonno · #6 by **mrjonno** » Oct 21, 2014 3:58 pm

Never thought the word 'terrorism' was particularly useful at least to the public, its criminal simple as that.

The police using it internally might make sense as it can make it easier to catch the criminals if they know why they did it

Shrunk · #7 by **Shrunk** » Oct 21, 2014 4:01 pm

Weaver wrote:Terrorism involves attacks for politically-motivated reasons. If he targeted the soldiers due to his religious convictions and connects those connections to a political position, then terrorism is an appropriate label.

Fair enough. I'm still not sure of the utility of making the distinction between that and someone who kills a series of women because he's a psychopathic sexual sadist. The political response to each case, however, is very different.

Weaver · #8 by **Weaver** » Oct 21, 2014 4:04 pm

Desired political outcome is the difference between this sort of thing and a serial rapist, who doesn't want any political changes in response to his actions.

Griz_ · #9 by **Griz_** » Oct 21, 2014 4:07 pm

Shrunk wrote:
So why is one considered a "terrorist" and not the other? Why do our political leaders urge us to be "vigilant" about only one of them?

I think it's because the government can position itself as doing something about one and not the other. Protecting citizens from radical Islamist extremists is an easier to sell and easier to whip up public opinion over. Protecting us from the "he was such a nice young man" who lives next door is a much harder sell.

ED209 · **#10** by **ED209** » Oct 21, 2014 4:08 pm

Weaver wrote:Terrorism involves attacks for politically-motivated reasons. If he targeted the soldiers due to his religious convictions and connects those connections to a political position, then terrorism is an appropriate label.

Yes, and additionally it's irrelevant whether the attack is planned and carried out by one individual or a group (which is only relevant to whether 'conspiracy' is appropriate).

Griz_ · **#11** by **Griz_** » Oct 21, 2014 4:16 pm

Weaver wrote:Desired political outcome is the difference between this sort of thing and a serial rapist, who doesn't want any political changes in response to his actions.

That is of course the correct definition. I guess I have a problem with the inferences attached to it; the idea that it paints a lot of people with the same brush, the idea that the government can actually do something about it, and the idea that (in this particular case) it is used for political purposes. You've caused me to think however, which is always a good thing.

Shrunk · **#12** by **Shrunk** » Oct 21, 2014 5:09 pm

Weaver wrote:Desired political outcome is the difference between this sort of thing and a serial rapist, who doesn't want any political changes in response to his actions.

That's one of the unknown factors in cases like these: Does the violent act have any political intent, or is it just an acting out of personal hatred, as with the serial sex killer? That is to say, does the political import arise from the act itself, or from our reaction to it?

I think your characterization of what constitutes an act of terrorism is bang on. The issue is whether it applies to this particular act.

Griz_ · **#13** by **Griz_** » Oct 21, 2014 5:30 pm

Here is what the Minister of Public Safety, Steven Blaney had to say:

"The car attack that killed a Canadian soldier near Montreal is "clearly linked to terrorist ideology," Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney said Tuesday.

Speaking in this military town where a soldier was killed and another was injured Monday, Blaney denounced the "terrible act of violence against our country, against our military, against our values."

"This drama is a painful reminder that this threat is very real," the minister said. "All federal law enforcement agencies are closely monitoring the situation in order to keep Canadians safe."

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Crime/2014/ ... 20076.html

Is he stating the facts or is this politically motivated fear mongering?

epepke · **#14** by **epepke** » Oct 21, 2014 6:51 pm

Weaver wrote:Desired political outcome is the difference between this sort of thing and a serial rapist, who doesn't want any political changes in response to his actions.

Well, then, would Eldridge Cleaver be considered a terrorist by modern standards, then?

Weaver · **#15** by **Weaver** » Oct 21, 2014 8:08 pm

epepke wrote:
Weaver wrote:Desired political outcome is the difference between this sort of thing and a serial rapist, who doesn't want any political changes in response to his actions.

Well, then, would Eldridge Cleaver be considered a terrorist by modern standards, then?

If oranges are fruit, and apples are fruit, does this mean apples are oranges by modern standards?
His serial raping was unrelated to his desires for political change, and he did not use violence to achieve political change.

Byron · **#16** by **Byron** » Oct 21, 2014 10:42 pm

I've changed my mind about this one. Once, I was skeptical of the concept of making terrorism a crime, and thought it'd be better to charge terrorists with mundane offenses like murder and unauthorized use of explosives, both to stop attacks on civil rights, and to rob 'em of the glamor they seek.

Now, I agree there's something distinctive about crimes committed with the intention of inciting terror to effect political change, and doubt the perps, in hock to extremist dogma, will be deterred by anything but deadly force or, preferably, a pair of handcuffs.

OlivierK · **#17** by **OlivierK** » Oct 21, 2014 11:51 pm

Byron wrote:I've changed my mind about this one. Once, I was skeptical of the concept of making terrorism a crime, and thought it'd be better to charge terrorists with mundane offenses like murder and unauthorized use of explosives, both to stop attacks on civil rights, and to rob 'em of the glamor they seek.

Now, I agree there's something distinctive about crimes committed with the intention of inciting terror to effect political change, and doubt the perps, in hock to extremist dogma, will be deterred by anything but deadly force or, preferably, a pair of handcuffs.

There's a good essay on this by Benjamin Netanhayu in this book in which he argues that the response to terrorism must be a policing response, not a state response, because being acknowledged as actors at a state level is a victory in itself for terrorists. There's still scope for specific offences and sentencing for terrorist acts, but I think the principle is a good one in nations where the state is not itself pro-terrorist.

mrjonno · **#18** by **mrjonno** » Oct 22, 2014 12:52 pm

Byron wrote:I've changed my mind about this one. Once, I was skeptical of the concept of making terrorism a crime, and thought it'd be better to charge terrorists with mundane offenses like murder and unauthorized use of explosives, both to stop attacks on civil rights, and to rob 'em of the glamor they seek.

Now, I agree there's something distinctive about crimes committed with the intention of inciting terror to effect political change, and doubt the perps, in hock to extremist dogma, will be deterred by anything but deadly force or, preferably, a pair of handcuffs.

But does it need to be a separate crime as opposed to an aggravating factor when sentencing?. I'm not sure you need a separate crime for racist assault but I do think the punishment should be greater as its an attack on society itself

CdesignProponentsist · **#19** by **CdesignProponentsist** » Oct 22, 2014 3:04 pm

If it was politically/religiously/ideologically motivated and intended to shock or intimidate others then it is by definition terrorism.

mrjonno · **#20** by **mrjonno** » Oct 22, 2014 3:41 pm

CdesignProponentsist wrote:If it was politically/religiously/ideologically motivated and intended to shock or intimidate others then it is by definition terrorism.

Terrorism doesn't have a real definition bar cause terror which many non-political crimes can cause. The motivation for the crime mighty be slightly different but that's more relevant to the police in catching the person than the public as a whole