What religion should mold Canada boomer? Your religion perhaps or if you don't have one which would you prefer to take the lead in Canada's National Religion.
Shot fired in Ottawa
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
Oh, so this was Syria retaliating against Canada for shooting down one of out aircraft (over their territory, right? That could make a difference to some people) Seems like bringing it up would mean that we hold a grudge against the for shoot at foreign aircraft.
This seems more like a call to kill as many Muslims as possible and it doesn't matter where, just as long as it is a high number. WEhta was our retaliation in '74 because the attitude that is evident on the board would suggest we didn't write it off as 'why wars should be avoided'. Would you drive down a highway that has a sign saying 50% will make the journey okay and 505 will die in a crash. I'm going to assume if you go past that point you do so with your eyes wide open.
Not that I care that much but I just don't want what has infected some members to get on me.
Yeah Mexico is prominently Catholic but the Government of Mexico has Separation of Church and State ...
Historic Move: Mexico Introduces Separation of Church and State
We should not having politicians kowtowing to Religious bodies promising them to create laws around their religion in Canada, which circumvents Canada's justice system.
Like Justin Trudeau is doing.
Sure I know PM Harper has been with Israeli supporters.. but as far as I know, he hasn't promised to change Canada's laws to fit Israeli beliefs or their religion.
Sorry, I though you were up to speed that religion and government do interact. Nuff said, that's for 'the chat'. Would 'In God We Trust' be a reference to the Christian God of the Bible? Sure it is. Do 30M Evangelicans have a voice in Ottawa and DC, of course they do. If you want to play naive do it someplace else, I'm not in the mood for trolls today.
'In God We Trust' not to confuse you.. which I know is easy. But we live in Canada and we are talking about Canada.
I know you like to draw your arch enemy the USA into every agreement to blame them for something.
...and can we send him the way Twila suggested. :lol:
Is that compared to the head game you are trying to play right now? If ISIS is trying to take over Syria then that is the same agenda as the US via their Arab friends the Saudis, you know the country where women aren't even allowed to drive.
The Globe & Mail's Josh Wingrove says a second gunman has been killed by police.
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police is advising people to steer clear of downtown Ottowa following "several" shooting incidents.
They are asked to stay away from windows and off roofs.
Ottawa: Second shooter killed, military bases shut down, gun battle inside Parliament, shooter wearing black with scarf over face
or 4:35PM
Ottawa shooting: Live updates - Mirror Online
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police is advising people to steer clear of downtown Ottowa following "several" shooting incidents.
They are asked to stay away from windows and off roofs.
Ottawa: Second shooter killed, military bases shut down, gun battle inside Parliament, shooter wearing black with scarf over face
or 4:35PM
Ottawa shooting: Live updates - Mirror Online
Which religion should be the most powerful in (North America) as we are joined at the hip with the US for good or bad.
I mentioned their money and a term used on it. Are you suggesting that is a reference to a different God than the one in the Holy Bible?
Are you suggesting Canad deport people because they disagree with you personal view? Seems you have a bit of an ego issue in that you turn rabid instantly as soon as anybody disagrees with your call for mass upheaval against Canadian Muslims.
Personally baiting a barber into an argument so you could punch him out and send him to a hospital not enough for byou in that you seem to have a constant campaign against them. That is just going by the number of threads you have started that focuses on one group for the most part. At some point that is racist at best and hatred at worst.
Why does your profile say Texas, you visiting or are you a Canadian citizen?
Michael Zehaf-Bibeau name of shooter waiting for photo
Gunman killed in Parliament attack named as Michael Zehef-Bibeau, a Canadian born in 1982.
Gunman killed in Parliament attack named as Michael Zehef-Bibeau, a Canadian born in 1982.
Last edited:
Apparently we're doing the opposite by revoking their passports so they're stuck in Canada to cause trouble.
Problem was poor security.
Potential flaws in parliamentary security pointed out in 2012 report - The Globe and Mail
Fix the problem with better security.
Potential flaws in parliamentary security pointed out in 2012 report - The Globe and Mail
Fix the problem with better security.
Even if I were TRYING to headgame ya, Hurt, you'd be tugging on your lower lip making gurgly sounds in short order. Perhaps a remedial course in reading comprehension might draw you out of the headfog. Maybe you wouldn't have to hijack threads to further a faulty agenda
Yeah, heard about that. Seems we'll need to adjust our current method of dealing with radicalized invididuals. I think we need to revoke citizenship and ship them out.
Good opinion piece from the Ottawa Citizen
David Moscrop and Amanda Watson: The shootings in Ottawa won't change this country
Over morning coffee in Pacific Daylight Time, breaking accounts from Parliament Hill interrupted traffic and weather on The Early Edition and social media accounts of an attack flooded the Internet. It was shocking news. Residents of Canada are unaccustomed to hearing about shooting attacks on our capital.
In real time, people watched and listened as events unfolded, and before the attack was even over, they speculated why it had happened, how it had happened, and who was responsible. Rightly, many of us were alarmed.
One of the core functions of the state is to protect those within its borders. In Canada, every person should be able to live and go about their business each day assuming that they will be safe. While there is evidence that some people’s lives are less secure than others, before Wednesday’s shootings, many of us assumed we would wake up in the morning and go to bed at night without physical threat. The same is still true today. Wednesday’s attack, whatever it was, whoever perpetrated it, changes very little about how we conceive of the security of the state and its inhabitants as it relates to political violence — whether or not we conceive of this violence as “terrorism.”
At least it should change very little. What happens next remains to be seen. The day of the shooting saw a fast, coordinated, and generally effective response from law enforcement in Ottawa. It saw those in the streets and the buildings of downtown Ottawa remain, by and large, quite calm. In a lot of ways, it was a model of how a security apparatus and a population should respond to an emergency like this. But the true test of Canada’s resilience in the face of political violence starts now, and it rests on the question: What next?
We can feel shocked. We can feel saddened. We can feel angry. We can be concerned about the physical safety of those who work the Hill. We can mourn the loss of human life. We can entertain all of these responses, just as we can and should entertain them for everyone who lives and works under unsafe conditions, and there are many of these workers in Canada.
Our representatives and staffers might not feel the same in their offices. Visitors may stop making light of their open access to Centre Block. Surely, the lives of the family and friends of the fallen soldier will never be the same. These things are different.
We can consider improved, though limited, safety protocols for Parliament and the downtown community, just as we can reconsider access to deadly weapons, especially in the context of the destruction of records in the federal long-gun registry.
At the same time, in this moment, we might also proceed by targeting common, persistent, and significant risks to residents. Because what continues to change people’s lives are, for example, preventable accidents, circulatory diseases, and cancer. More broadly are the threats of environmental insecurity, income inequality, corporate unaccountability, police violence against poor and racialized communities, systemic racial, religious and sexual discrimination, past and ongoing colonialism, and the persistent acts of domestic violence that terrorize daily lives.
These insidious threats might not stun the collective with the same wrenching force as a public act of violence, but they are most urgent.
There are things that must not change. This attack must not be made an excuse to justify further acts of violence: physical, social, political, cultural. It must not be treated as an opportunity to overhaul the security system of the country in an attempt to guard against any perceived foreign or domestic threat, to reshape our foreign policy, to mount cameras in every nook and cranny, to try to redefine what it means to live in a safe city, province, or country. It might not seem like it, but this is a time for nuance and careful evaluation — a time to check our gut feelings and practise restraint. It is not a time for overreaction.
It doesn’t make sense to overreact, because we have been here before. This is not the first time we have “lost our innocence.” Conflict has always, unfortunately, been part of the history of this country. The colonization that birthed this country. The Plains of Abraham. The assassination of D’Arcy McGee. Two World Wars. Residential schools. The FLQ Crisis. The École Polytechnique massacre. The Air India bombing. The Oka Crisis. The war in Afghanistan. The looming battle with ISIL.
Neither heroes nor mass securitization will spare us from the threat of violence: nothing ever has. A careful, measured response to the changing nature of domestic and foreign threats can reduce the probability that any of us will be the victim of political violence, but nothing will fully eliminate that ancient and ever-present threat.
If anything at the macro level should change — that is, aside from introducing reasonable changes to the security of Parliament — it should be our investment in social provisions that mitigate common risk. Rather than calling for looser gun laws — many, in the name of vigilante justice, have already done so — or stricter immigration controls — again, predictably, this dialogue emerged before anyone even knew who carried out this attack — or any other measure to induce some vague feeling of “safety,” we should use the evidence we already have to improve health and safety through social and political programmatic changes. We know that social determinants of health like income and income distribution, employment and labour standards, social exclusion, aboriginal status, disability, and access to health and education services inform who is at risk.
There is a purposeful response that does not escalate violence or intensify intersections of discrimination and exclusion and securitization.
Photos that capture the image of a dying soldier being given mouth-to-mouth or terrified politicians barricading themselves inside a room are processed viscerally. They’re felt in the gut and they’re felt hard. But let’s not forget the images of hundreds of people practising yoga on the lawn of Parliament. Or of a crowd of Canadians gathered on the Hill for a light show. Or a small, huddled group taking in the Centennial Flame on a crisp fall evening. The former images are profound, but rare; the latter are the norm, and whatever we do next, we must struggle to ensure that they remain so without giving in to the temptation of mass overreaction.
David Moscrop and Amanda Watson: The shootings in Ottawa won’t change this country | Ottawa Citizen
David Moscrop and Amanda Watson: The shootings in Ottawa won't change this country
Over morning coffee in Pacific Daylight Time, breaking accounts from Parliament Hill interrupted traffic and weather on The Early Edition and social media accounts of an attack flooded the Internet. It was shocking news. Residents of Canada are unaccustomed to hearing about shooting attacks on our capital.
In real time, people watched and listened as events unfolded, and before the attack was even over, they speculated why it had happened, how it had happened, and who was responsible. Rightly, many of us were alarmed.
One of the core functions of the state is to protect those within its borders. In Canada, every person should be able to live and go about their business each day assuming that they will be safe. While there is evidence that some people’s lives are less secure than others, before Wednesday’s shootings, many of us assumed we would wake up in the morning and go to bed at night without physical threat. The same is still true today. Wednesday’s attack, whatever it was, whoever perpetrated it, changes very little about how we conceive of the security of the state and its inhabitants as it relates to political violence — whether or not we conceive of this violence as “terrorism.”
At least it should change very little. What happens next remains to be seen. The day of the shooting saw a fast, coordinated, and generally effective response from law enforcement in Ottawa. It saw those in the streets and the buildings of downtown Ottawa remain, by and large, quite calm. In a lot of ways, it was a model of how a security apparatus and a population should respond to an emergency like this. But the true test of Canada’s resilience in the face of political violence starts now, and it rests on the question: What next?
We can feel shocked. We can feel saddened. We can feel angry. We can be concerned about the physical safety of those who work the Hill. We can mourn the loss of human life. We can entertain all of these responses, just as we can and should entertain them for everyone who lives and works under unsafe conditions, and there are many of these workers in Canada.
Our representatives and staffers might not feel the same in their offices. Visitors may stop making light of their open access to Centre Block. Surely, the lives of the family and friends of the fallen soldier will never be the same. These things are different.
We can consider improved, though limited, safety protocols for Parliament and the downtown community, just as we can reconsider access to deadly weapons, especially in the context of the destruction of records in the federal long-gun registry.
At the same time, in this moment, we might also proceed by targeting common, persistent, and significant risks to residents. Because what continues to change people’s lives are, for example, preventable accidents, circulatory diseases, and cancer. More broadly are the threats of environmental insecurity, income inequality, corporate unaccountability, police violence against poor and racialized communities, systemic racial, religious and sexual discrimination, past and ongoing colonialism, and the persistent acts of domestic violence that terrorize daily lives.
These insidious threats might not stun the collective with the same wrenching force as a public act of violence, but they are most urgent.
There are things that must not change. This attack must not be made an excuse to justify further acts of violence: physical, social, political, cultural. It must not be treated as an opportunity to overhaul the security system of the country in an attempt to guard against any perceived foreign or domestic threat, to reshape our foreign policy, to mount cameras in every nook and cranny, to try to redefine what it means to live in a safe city, province, or country. It might not seem like it, but this is a time for nuance and careful evaluation — a time to check our gut feelings and practise restraint. It is not a time for overreaction.
It doesn’t make sense to overreact, because we have been here before. This is not the first time we have “lost our innocence.” Conflict has always, unfortunately, been part of the history of this country. The colonization that birthed this country. The Plains of Abraham. The assassination of D’Arcy McGee. Two World Wars. Residential schools. The FLQ Crisis. The École Polytechnique massacre. The Air India bombing. The Oka Crisis. The war in Afghanistan. The looming battle with ISIL.
Neither heroes nor mass securitization will spare us from the threat of violence: nothing ever has. A careful, measured response to the changing nature of domestic and foreign threats can reduce the probability that any of us will be the victim of political violence, but nothing will fully eliminate that ancient and ever-present threat.
If anything at the macro level should change — that is, aside from introducing reasonable changes to the security of Parliament — it should be our investment in social provisions that mitigate common risk. Rather than calling for looser gun laws — many, in the name of vigilante justice, have already done so — or stricter immigration controls — again, predictably, this dialogue emerged before anyone even knew who carried out this attack — or any other measure to induce some vague feeling of “safety,” we should use the evidence we already have to improve health and safety through social and political programmatic changes. We know that social determinants of health like income and income distribution, employment and labour standards, social exclusion, aboriginal status, disability, and access to health and education services inform who is at risk.
There is a purposeful response that does not escalate violence or intensify intersections of discrimination and exclusion and securitization.
Photos that capture the image of a dying soldier being given mouth-to-mouth or terrified politicians barricading themselves inside a room are processed viscerally. They’re felt in the gut and they’re felt hard. But let’s not forget the images of hundreds of people practising yoga on the lawn of Parliament. Or of a crowd of Canadians gathered on the Hill for a light show. Or a small, huddled group taking in the Centennial Flame on a crisp fall evening. The former images are profound, but rare; the latter are the norm, and whatever we do next, we must struggle to ensure that they remain so without giving in to the temptation of mass overreaction.
David Moscrop and Amanda Watson: The shootings in Ottawa won’t change this country | Ottawa Citizen
Last edited: