murdered soldier

ben27
23rd October 2014, 02:06
good day to moderators and fellow members,i just want to say on behalf of the canadian soldier murdered by terrorist,may he rest in peace.and send our condolences to his family and friends,regards ben27

Keltic Star
23rd October 2014, 06:14
Rest in Peace Cpl. Nathan Cirillo, our country thanks you for your service.

Varley
23rd October 2014, 10:36
Another life snuffed out by some adherent of baseless superstition (we are told the perpetrator was a recent Moslem convert).

I hope the Corporal's family will be well supported. It cannot benefit him now that his murderer was so swiftly dealt with. But Justice? Far too quick and short-reaching for that.

fred henderson
23rd October 2014, 11:27
I am sure that we all feel the same as Ben. May the innocent Canadian serviceman rest in peace.and we offer our condolences to his family and friends

tiachapman
23rd October 2014, 11:45
we can look forward to more of the same unless action is taken

rest in peace / brave man

lesbryan
23rd October 2014, 12:58
Action can and should be taken ,Bur when this is planned /talked about! the do gooders of this word jump om the band wagon

John Rogers
23rd October 2014, 13:30
A big pat on the back for the Sgt at Arms that shot the bastard.

george english
23rd October 2014, 13:46
What chance has the man in uniform got, he sticks out like a sore thumb
where to him everyone in mufti is enemy. He has no chance

John Rogers
23rd October 2014, 14:37
What chance has the man in uniform got, he sticks out like a sore thumb
where to him everyone in mufti is enemy. He has no chance

Also he had no ammo for his rifle.

tiachapman
23rd October 2014, 15:48
the 5th column is alive and well

CEYLON220
23rd October 2014, 16:16
R.I.P Soldier.

Tmac1720
23rd October 2014, 17:14
He gave his life for his country so deserves every honour and respect unlike the gutless bastard who killed him.

Keltic Star
24th October 2014, 04:08
In all the sad coverage of the mayhem in Ottawa, we must not forget the death of Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent and the wounding of another soldier who were run down by another "radicalized" home grown terrorist in Gatineau, Quebec, the previous day.

Scelerat
24th October 2014, 10:08
He gave his life for his country so deserves every honour and respect unlike the gutless bastard who killed him.

Gutless? Whether or not one agrees with his politics or beliefs, the soldier's killer was prepared to die for them, and did so. I don't think that gutless, any more than Japanese kamikazes were gutless.
Before people start venting their spleen, it doesn't mean that I agree with what he did!

Varley
24th October 2014, 10:22
Surely the baseless belief in being a heartbeat from paradise removes any appreciation of consequences that might otherwise make such a cowardly act (argue that description!) in any way chivalrous.

LouisB
24th October 2014, 10:37
Gutless? Whether or not one agrees with his politics or beliefs, the soldier's killer was prepared to die for them, and did so. I don't think that gutless, any more than Japanese kamikazes were gutless.
Before people start venting their spleen, it doesn't mean that I agree with what he did!

Without being involved in a war or fighting an armed opponent who is intent on doing you harm, he took a life to satisfy his OWN twisted logic. He did not imagine that he would be caught judging by the news feeds and that in my ever so humble opinion is gutless. To argue differently siting the 'divine wind' pilots of WW2 is just clouding the waters. We were at war, remember?

LouisB. (Scribe)

Scelerat
24th October 2014, 10:44
Without being involved in a war or fighting an armed opponent who is intent on doing you harm, he took a life to satisfy his OWN twisted logic. He did not imagine that he would be caught judging by the news feeds and that in my ever so humble opinion is gutless. To argue differently siting the 'divine wind' pilots of WW2 is just clouding the waters. We were at war, remember?

LouisB. (Scribe)

So are they. So are we. We're bombing Iraq aren't we? Are we only bombing people intent on doing us harm? How are they doing us harm in Syria and Iraq?

James_C
24th October 2014, 10:46
Surely the baseless belief in being a heartbeat from paradise removes any appreciation of consequences that might otherwise make such a cowardly act (argue that description!) in any way chivalrous.

You could say the same of anyone with deep religious beliefs and that includes Christians as well as Muslims.

Scelerat
24th October 2014, 10:47
Surely the baseless belief in being a heartbeat from paradise removes any appreciation of consequences that might otherwise make such a cowardly act (argue that description!) in any way chivalrous.

Denying qualities of humanity to our enemies, whoever they are, is always part of a country's propaganda campaign. Who is suggesting that what he did was chivalrous? When is warfare is in any way chivalrous?

LouisB
24th October 2014, 11:37
Denying qualities of humanity to our enemies, whoever they are, is always part of a country's propaganda campaign. Who is suggesting that what he did was chivalrous? When is warfare is in any way chivalrous?

I fail to find any quality of humanity in deliberately killing a defenceless person - soldier or civilian. Yes, there are none fighters being killed in the Middle East as collateral damage caused by attempting to slow down the head chopping, children burying lunatics of ISA. As with other battles in that part of the world they are mixing in with the civilian population as they are well aware of our well publicised sensitivities regarding civilian loss of life. The difference is of course that none combatants are not being deliberately targeted.

LouisB. (Scribe)

Scelerat
24th October 2014, 12:00
I fail to find any quality of humanity in deliberately killing a defenceless person - soldier or civilian. Yes, there are none fighters being killed in the Middle East as collateral damage caused by attempting to slow down the head chopping, children burying lunatics of ISA. As with other battles in that part of the world they are mixing in with the civilian population as they are well aware of our well publicised sensitivities regarding civilian loss of life. The difference is of course that none combatants are not being deliberately targeted.

LouisB. (Scribe)

Surely a uniformed soldier of a state that is engaged in warfare is a legitimate target? A member of the armed forces of that country, in uniform, certainly cannot be regarded as a non-combatant.

Tmac1720
24th October 2014, 12:26
Surely a uniformed soldier of a state that is engaged in warfare is a legitimate target? A member of the armed forces of that country, in uniform, certainly cannot be regarded as a non-combatant.

For a supposedly intelligent man you really are a complete ****. (Cloud)

Unless and until you have worn the uniform of your country and in doing so accept all that entails how dare you pontificate on the rights and wrongs of a "legitimate target"

I'll bet you don't even wear a poppy to honour those who gave their lives just so people like you could spout the crap you so often despoil this forum with. (MAD)

Sister Eleff
24th October 2014, 12:33
I would say that gunman was hardly brave, shooting a soldier on ceremonial duty with an un loaded gun and then going on a rampage to shoot unarmed people. Apparently he had a troubled personality (!) and a criminal past.

LouisB
24th October 2014, 13:07
Surely a uniformed soldier of a state that is engaged in warfare is a legitimate target? A member of the armed forces of that country, in uniform, certainly cannot be regarded as a non-combatant.


Engaged in warfare with whom? A rag tag and disparate group of people with no overall common interest, apart from medieval and inhumane treatment of others? You speak of them as a recognised and orderly regular group - tell that to the poor sods we have seen kneeling,and shown on our televisions about to have their heads torn off. I find your game of sleight of word and abstract logic totally disgusting. If it is done, just for the sake of it, then you, in my mind, are a most peculiar person. I have attempted to refrain from very bad language and have found it difficult.

LouisB. (Scribe)

John Rogers
24th October 2014, 13:24
We had another attack in NY,this nutter used an axe on two police officers,now the bastard is with his virgins.

Scelerat
24th October 2014, 14:52
For a supposedly intelligent man you really are a complete ****. (Cloud)

Unless and until you have worn the uniform of your country and in doing so accept all that entails how dare you pontificate on the rights and wrongs of a "legitimate target"

I'll bet you don't even wear a poppy to honour those who gave their lives just so people like you could spout the crap you so often despoil this forum with. (MAD)

Resorting to personal attacks are usually evidence of a limited argument.
Are you really suggesting that only people who have served, or are serving, their country can define a legitimate target? A very curious view if you are!

Scelerat
24th October 2014, 14:58
Engaged in warfare with whom? A rag tag and disparate group of people with no overall common interest, apart from medieval and inhumane treatment of others?

You, again, show a lack of understanding as to what these people are and what they want. Just because we don't accept, rightly, their aims as being legitimate doesn't mean that they share our view. They have a very clear common interest, which is why so many from the West have joined their ranks. Until we recognise their appeal, and counter that appeal, we won't be able to beat them.

You speak of them as a recognised and orderly regular group

No, I don't. I speak of them as a political group with whom Britain, and Canada, are at war. How they dress or behave, or how well they are organised, makes no difference at all.

- tell that to the poor sods we have seen kneeling,and shown on our televisions about to have their heads torn off. I find your game of sleight of word and abstract logic totally disgusting. If it is done, just for the sake of it, then you, in my mind, are a most peculiar person. I have attempted to refrain from very bad language and have found it difficult.

What does any of this have to do with what I've said or written?

John Rogers
24th October 2014, 15:10
You, again, show a lack of understanding as to what these people are and what they want. Just because we don't accept, rightly, their aims as being legitimate doesn't mean that they share our view. They have a very clear common interest, which is why so many from the West have joined their ranks. Until we recognise their appeal, and counter that appeal, we won't be able to beat them.

What is their legitimate aims, I thought it was to kill all non Muslims, and that also means you, or am I wrong.

Also I can see why young people want to go over there to help their cause, it's because of teachers like you.

LouisB
24th October 2014, 16:19
You, again, show a lack of understanding as to what these people are and what they want. Just because we don't accept, rightly, their aims as being legitimate doesn't mean that they share our view. They have a very clear common interest, which is why so many from the West have joined their ranks. Until we recognise their appeal, and counter that appeal, we won't be able to beat them.



No, I don't. I speak of them as a political group with whom Britain, and Canada, are at war. How they dress or behave, or how well they are organised, makes no difference at all.



What does any of this have to do with what I've said or written?

Before I bow out of this thread:- This is not a trendy liberal left wing diatribe, of scoring points. It is to do with a group who cut peoples heads off and bury families, including children, in the hot dessert sand. Our people - British people and anybody else who disagrees over the interpretation of their religious books etc seem to be a group that you would like to have in a debate with?? I certainly hope, probably forlornly, that your teaching syllabus does not indoctrinate your pupils with your apparent views of a headchopping liberal nirvana. Go along to the taxi drivers wife and explain how your views are valid. On a personal note regarding my thoughts, I would like to think you are keeping your ideas to yourself. Possibly a quick visit by Ofsted would clarify things somewhat.

LouisB. (Scribe)

Tmac1720
24th October 2014, 16:26
Resorting to personal attacks are usually evidence of a limited argument.
Are you really suggesting that only people who have served, or are serving, their country can define a legitimate target? A very curious view if you are!

It wasn't a personal attack I was stating my opinion and your still a **** albeit a stupid and ignorant one.

Mad Landsman
24th October 2014, 18:52
The Soldier who was murdered by an armed individual:

Was he engaged in an actual armed conflict situation? - No.
Was the soldier dressed in uniform indicating a combat role or purpose? - No.
Was he in a position to defend himself against an attacker armed with a loaded firearm? - No.
Is Canada at war with any other nation? - No.
Did the soldier present any form of threat to any person of differing religious beliefs, or anyone else for that matter? - No.

From that I believe that it is safe to say that the Soldier was murdered in cold blood by a possibly deranged and certainly misguided person for no other reason than the fact that the soldier happened to be wearing a ceremonial military uniform, was standing still and was an easy target.
There cannot, under any circumstances, be any justification for such an act; unless the person seeking to do so wishes the whole world to turn the clock back 1400 years.

James_C
24th October 2014, 20:12
A uniform is a uniform, ceremonial or not, it's purpose is to make the wearer instantly recognisable.
As for Canada being at war, it's worth remembering that legally the UK has not gone to war since 1945.

Mad Landsman
24th October 2014, 20:22
A uniform is a uniform, ceremonial or not, it's purpose is to make the wearer instantly recognisable.


I really hope that you are not suggesting what that implies - That a uniform, any uniform, makes the wearer a legitimate target, regardless of facts.

RayL
24th October 2014, 20:34
Given all the facts of this murder, including the perpetrator's past record and the fact that his own mother has washed her hands of him, I don't think we need attempt to dignify what he did with the kind of remarks scelerat made. Such people do not deserve our respect and must simply be fought and destroyed before they have a chance to achieve their evil ends. ISIS's murder of non-Muslims simply because they are non-Muslims, puts them on a par with the genocidal Nazis of WW2.

John Dryden
24th October 2014, 20:38
I,m a fighting man and somewhere along the line I think that the surreptitiously Scelerat bloke is.

James_C
24th October 2014, 20:54
I really hope that you are not suggesting what that implies - That a uniform, any uniform, makes the wearer a legitimate target, regardless of facts.

If the purpose of a uniform is not to highlight that the wearer is a member of the armed forces then what is its purpose?
Like it or not, armed forces personnel have been targets (legitimate or not) since time immemorial. You only have to go back a few years to recall the restrictions placed on personnel due to the threat from the IRA.
I would suggest it's perhaps time to revisit that approach, but then again many would say we're letting them win by doing so. However for those that do think that it is important to bear in mind the risks the wearer then faces.
A friend of mine who lives in Ulster is a member of the RNR and he dare not even carry his RN ID Card in his wallet just in case it's spotted by the "wrong people" when he's paying for goods at a shop or the like. If you suggested he travelled to his training nights in uniform both he and his fellow reservists would laugh at you.
That's the reality.

Mad Landsman
24th October 2014, 22:29
A uniform is a uniform, ceremonial or not, it's purpose is to make the wearer instantly recognisable.
.

People other than members of armed forces also wear uniforms - also, as you say, to make the wearer instantly recognisable.

A serviceman in plain clothes can also also be a target for a deranged murderer, as has happened.

Varley
25th October 2014, 10:16
You could say the same of anyone with deep religious beliefs and that includes Christians as well as Muslims.

That is exactly my line.

Scelerat
27th October 2014, 00:15
It wasn't a personal attack I was stating my opinion and your still a **** albeit a stupid and ignorant one.

And that, and this, isn't a personal attack?

Scelerat
27th October 2014, 00:16
I really hope that you are not suggesting what that implies - That a uniform, any uniform, makes the wearer a legitimate target, regardless of facts.

Facts? Real or yours?

Scelerat
27th October 2014, 00:17
Given all the facts of this murder, including the perpetrator's past record and the fact that his own mother has washed her hands of him, I don't think we need attempt to dignify what he did with the kind of remarks scelerat made. Such people do not deserve our respect and must simply be fought and destroyed before they have a chance to achieve their evil ends. ISIS's murder of non-Muslims simply because they are non-Muslims, puts them on a par with the genocidal Nazis of WW2.

What does this attack have to do with ISIL? Do you have access to information that we don't?

Scelerat
27th October 2014, 00:22
Given all the facts of this murder, including the perpetrator's past record and the fact that his own mother has washed her hands of him, I don't think we need attempt to dignify what he did with the kind of remarks scelerat made. Such people do not deserve our respect and must simply be fought and destroyed before they have a chance to achieve their evil ends. ISIS's murder of non-Muslims simply because they are non-Muslims, puts them on a par with the genocidal Nazis of WW2.

The only "remarks"that I originally made was to suggest that a bloke who makes an attack, for whatever reason, knowing that the attack will lead to his death, isn't a coward. That you, and I, as I keep saying, don't regard his cause as legitimate, doesn't change that. The Japanese Kamikaze pilots were fighting for an odious regime, but that doesn't make them cowards.

Scelerat
27th October 2014, 00:27
Before I bow out of this thread:- This is not a trendy liberal left wing diatribe, of scoring points. It is to do with a group who cut peoples heads off and bury families, including children, in the hot dessert sand. Our people - British people and anybody else who disagrees over the interpretation of their religious books etc seem to be a group that you would like to have in a debate with?? I certainly hope, probably forlornly, that your teaching syllabus does not indoctrinate your pupils with your apparent views of a headchopping liberal nirvana. Go along to the taxi drivers wife and explain how your views are valid. On a personal note regarding my thoughts, I would like to think you are keeping your ideas to yourself. Possibly a quick visit by Ofsted would clarify things somewhat.

LouisB. (Scribe)

I really can't se what the problem is. You're appearing to assert that I in some way support what was done, despite my repeatedly stating that I don't. I do wish that you'd actually read what I've written, rather than respond to what you think that I've written.

Scelerat
27th October 2014, 00:28
You, again, show a lack of understanding as to what these people are and what they want. Just because we don't accept, rightly, their aims as being legitimate doesn't mean that they share our view. They have a very clear common interest, which is why so many from the West have joined their ranks. Until we recognise their appeal, and counter that appeal, we won't be able to beat them.

What is their legitimate aims, I thought it was to kill all non Muslims, and that also means you, or am I wrong.

Also I can see why young people want to go over there to help their cause, it's because of teachers like you.

What?

trotterdotpom
27th October 2014, 01:22
The only "remarks"that I originally made was to suggest that a bloke who makes an attack, for whatever reason, knowing that the attack will lead to his death, isn't a coward. That you, and I, as I keep saying, don't regard his cause as legitimate, doesn't change that. The Japanese Kamikaze pilots were fighting for an odious regime, but that doesn't make them cowards.

See "The Reluctant Kamikazes. Daily Mail Online." Maybe the Kamikaze pilots weren't all the fanatical maniacs we tend to think they were. As you say, they certainly weren't cowards. I heard they got a fair bit of legover before take off, so it wasn't all bad.

John T

PS probably you could get out of Kamikaze service by being a sumo wrestler.

Satanic Mechanic
27th October 2014, 01:34
Hmmm tricky one, am I surprised that these attacks are happening - No, am I condoning them - absolutely not. But between a lot of countries we have destabilised a whole region, alienated a whole ethnic group of people, we have killed countless thousands of children, wives and innocents. Many had already moved to the west and while it is easy to decry them - imagine how you would feel if your adopted country was responsible in part for the carnage of your people, it is inevitable some will find it too much to bear.

I feel no more for the families of these soldiers than I do for every family who has lost a loved one due to the idiotic revenge fuelled wars waged in the middle east - and that is a feeling of great sorrow that it ever came to this.

And yes armed forces are easy targets - always have been always will be, the second you put on that uniform you are identifying yourself as a member of a countries armed forces and as such representative of that governments armed policy and maybe just maybe its better that way than for civilians to be the preferred target - don't go mental at that, just think about it a second. Of course it would be much better if there were no targets at all- on either side

Varley
27th October 2014, 01:58
Denying qualities of humanity to our enemies, whoever they are, is always part of a country's propaganda campaign. Who is suggesting that what he did was chivalrous? When is warfare is in any way chivalrous?

In what way is chivalry not akin to the bravery you claim for the murderer?

I will propose an answer for you. The belief, or forecast, that the likely outcome is oblivion for a just cause or, misplaced, that it will lead to paradise on a free pass.

Mad Landsman
27th October 2014, 09:46
Facts? Real or yours?

You may start with the five points I made above.
Which, if any, do you dispute as being not real?

I fully agree, and have said, that the man was an easy target - but shifting slightly and claiming that he was a legitimate target of what the deranged murderer sees as war is, surely, an entirely different matter.

Twocky61
27th October 2014, 11:20
Just to say rest in peace to Nathan Cirillo & also Lee Rigby, who both were murdered whilst not actually in active service (physically at war, that is)

chadburn
27th October 2014, 11:40
If the wearing of a Uniform signifies that you are a member of the Armed Forces thank God I no longer wear a Merchant Navy uniform as I doubt if these killers would know the difference especially if you were wearing a Burberry and all they could see was your Cap.

Tmac1720
27th October 2014, 12:14
And that, and this, isn't a personal attack?

You invoke so many I would suppose you must be a connisure by now or do you secretly like being a pariah?

cueball44
27th October 2014, 15:00
Just hope none of these fanatics get any ideas into their heads on Remembrance Sunday like attacking people in uniform.

tom roberts
27th October 2014, 16:56
Murder at the Cenotaph is not unfortunately an act of these murders today,the i.r.a did it in Nothern Ireland and none of the victims were in uniform,just decent people paying their respects to the dead of the two world wars and to make the memories of that atrocity worse,. the leaders of the i.r.a. are now sharing power in the province

surveychile
27th October 2014, 17:17
Well done with that fanatic, murderer and ignorant, I do not know why all the nations who accepts these muslim fellows allow them to do all what they want in name of their religion, I wonder when all this will have an end in which the peaceful people can enjoy and live in peace.

Regards

Tomi.

Twocky61
27th October 2014, 18:07
Well done with that fanatic, murderer and ignorant, I do not know why all the nations who accepts these muslim fellows allow them to do all what they want in name of their religion, I wonder when all this will have an end in which the peaceful people can enjoy and live in peace.

Regards

Tomi.

Exactly. If we westerners go to somewhere like Afghanistan, for example, we have to abide by their law & culture or end up in prison or even whipped or whatever. So why are we in the west pandering to these people who we are host to? My view is basically this: Visiting another country is like visiting someone's house. We are visiting & they are our hosts. So put simply, if we burgled their house, thus abising their trust, it would be similar to visiting another country and commiting crimes in that country: Abusing our hosts trust.

Sadly Tomi, I don't think we ever will live in peace, but you never know

chadburn
27th October 2014, 18:38
Murder at the Cenotaph is not unfortunately an act of these murders today,the i.r.a did it in Nothern Ireland and none of the victims were in uniform,just decent people paying their respects to the dead of the two world wars and to make the memories of that atrocity worse,. the leaders of the i.r.a. are now sharing power in the province

Especially when in my view those Leaders know where the missing are buried, one of whom was a young British Army Intelligence Officer who I have no doubt was tortured before his death.

Scelerat
27th October 2014, 22:26
The Soldier who was murdered by an armed individual:

Was he engaged in an actual armed conflict situation? - No.
But the country of which he was a uniformed member of their armed forces is bombing an Islamic country.
Was the soldier dressed in uniform indicating a combat role or purpose? - No.
But the country of which he was a uniformed member of their armed forces is bombing an Islamic country.
Was he in a position to defend himself against an attacker armed with a loaded firearm? - No.
But the country of which he was a uniformed member of their armed forces is bombing an Islamic country, and the soldier was carrying a firearm.
Is Canada at war with any other nation? - No.
But the country of which he was a uniformed member of their armed forces is bombing an Islamic country.
Did the soldier present any form of threat to any person of differing religious beliefs, or anyone else for that matter? - No.
But the country of which he was a uniformed member of their armed forces is bombing an Islamic country.

From that I believe that it is safe to say that the Soldier was murdered in cold blood by a possibly deranged and certainly misguided person for no other reason than the fact that the soldier happened to be wearing a ceremonial military uniform, was standing still and was an easy target.
There cannot, under any circumstances, be any justification for such an act; unless the person seeking to do so wishes the whole world to turn the clock back 1400 years.
Your opinion; a perfectly valid one, but not binding upon anybody else.

Scelerat
27th October 2014, 22:28
You invoke so many I would suppose you must be a connisure by now or do you secretly like being a pariah?

Can I assume that in this post you are seeking to justify your personal comments by the old schoolboy defence of "they did it too"?
Must try harder.

Scelerat
27th October 2014, 22:31
Well done with that fanatic, murderer and ignorant, I do not know why all the nations who accepts these muslim fellows allow them to do all what they want in name of their religion, I wonder when all this will have an end in which the peaceful people can enjoy and live in peace.

Regards

Tomi.

I think that you'll find that this particular Islamic fanatic was a home grown Canadian.

Scelerat
27th October 2014, 22:34
Exactly. If we westerners go to somewhere like Afghanistan, for example, we have to abide by their law & culture or end up in prison or even whipped or whatever. So why are we in the west pandering to these people who we are host to? My view is basically this: Visiting another country is like visiting someone's house. We are visiting & they are our hosts. So put simply, if we burgled their house, thus abising their trust, it would be similar to visiting another country and commiting crimes in that country: Abusing our hosts trust.

Sadly Tomi, I don't think we ever will live in peace, but you never know

But this particular individual wasn't a guest, and Canada wasn't his host. He was Canadian born, from Quebec.
http://www.vox.com/2014/10/23/7043845/ottawa-shooter-muslim-religion-does-not-matter

Mad Landsman
27th October 2014, 23:41
But the country of which he was a uniformed member of their armed forces is bombing an Islamic country.

But the country of which he was a uniformed member of their armed forces is bombing an Islamic country.

But the country of which he was a uniformed member of their armed forces is bombing an Islamic country, and the soldier was carrying a firearm.

But the country of which he was a uniformed member of their armed forces is bombing an Islamic country.

But the country of which he was a uniformed member of their armed forces is bombing an Islamic country.



So you don't actually dispute those facts then.
But on the other hand you seem to be attempting to justify the murder.
The murderer can hardly claim to be defending his homeland because, as you point out, he was a Canadian citizen.

Btw: The soldier's firearm was not loaded.

Scelerat
27th October 2014, 23:52
But on the other hand you seem to be attempting to justify the murder.
.

I've never attempted to justify the killing (he wearily reminded the readers).

Mad Landsman
28th October 2014, 00:10
I've never attempted to justify the killing (he wearily reminded the readers).

Saying five times that the man carried out the crimes because Canada is bombing an Islamic country tends to give a particular impression to your readers and carries certain reasonable inferences.

If not justifation as such then you are attempting to place a reason in his defence.
That is not a good reason. The only plausible defence could be insanity.

LouisB
28th October 2014, 00:27
Saying five times that the man carried out the crimes because Canada is bombing an Islamic country tends to give a particular impression to your readers and carries certain reasonable inferences.

If not justifation as such then you are attempting to place a reason in his defence.
That is not a good reason. The only plausible defence could be insanity.


Which one? Or maybe both.


LouisB. (Scribe)

Keltic Star
28th October 2014, 05:51
But the country of which he was a uniformed member of their armed forces is bombing an Islamic country.

But the country of which he was a uniformed member of their armed forces is bombing an Islamic country.

But the country of which he was a uniformed member of their armed forces is bombing an Islamic country, and the soldier was carrying a firearm.

But the country of which he was a uniformed member of their armed forces is bombing an Islamic country.

But the country of which he was a uniformed member of their armed forces is bombing an Islamic country.


Your opinion; a perfectly valid one, but not binding upon anybody else.

Since the liberation of Libya until today, could you please give me just one date and time that Canada has bombed an Islamic country?
As a teacher, you should put brain into gear before opening mouth. I'm glad my great Grand Kids are not exposed to your uneducated opinions.

Keltic Star
28th October 2014, 06:05
But the country of which he was a uniformed member of their armed forces is bombing an Islamic country.

But the country of which he was a uniformed member of their armed forces is bombing an Islamic country.

But the country of which he was a uniformed member of their armed forces is bombing an Islamic country, and the soldier was carrying a firearm.

But the country of which he was a uniformed member of their armed forces is bombing an Islamic country.

But the country of which he was a uniformed member of their armed forces is bombing an Islamic country.


Your opinion; a perfectly valid one, but not binding upon anybody else.

The Canadian mission supporting Iraq is still mobilizing in Kuwait. No operational missions have taken place yet. Consequently, to date, our armed forces are not bombing an Islamic country.

When they do, missions will be flown at the request and invitation of the duly elected Government of Iraq which, strange as it may seem, happens to be an Islamic county!

Scelerat
28th October 2014, 07:49
The Canadian mission supporting Iraq is still mobilizing in Kuwait. No operational missions have taken place yet. Consequently, to date, our armed forces are not bombing an Islamic country.

When they do, missions will be flown at the request and invitation of the duly elected Government of Iraq which, strange as it may seem, happens to be an Islamic county!

So Canada is preparing to bomb an Islamic country, having announced that it is going to, rather than currently bombing it. Whilst not asserting that that was the bloke's reasoning, and we don't even know that he made this attack for religious rather than Quebecois or personal reasons, does that mean that people who are about to bombed, who have been told that they are going to be bombed, are morally obliged to wait until the first bombs land before they can fight back?

Mad Landsman
28th October 2014, 09:36
................ before they can fight back?

Those words and the words deleted from #62 after posting are most telling.

(Your reference to apparent reciprocal 'military force' as you term it.)

Kaiser Bill
28th October 2014, 09:54
I wonder if these crazy bastards realise that the 72 virgins are not guaranteed to be female?

RayL
28th October 2014, 10:15
I notice that Scelerat's "global" #57 post made no attempt to include the points I made in my #34 post. The man was just a Bad Person whose actions do not warrant defending in the intellectual Jean Paul Sartre style that Scelerat seems so fond of.

Keltic Star
28th October 2014, 16:31
So Canada is preparing to bomb an Islamic country, having announced that it is going to, rather than currently bombing it. Whilst not asserting that that was the bloke's reasoning, and we don't even know that he made this attack for religious rather than Quebecois or personal reasons, does that mean that people who are about to bombed, who have been told that they are going to be bombed, are morally obliged to wait until the first bombs land before they can fight back?

When they do, missions will be flown at the request and invitation of the duly elected Government of Iraq which, strange as it may seem, happens to be an Islamic county!
Seems to me that we are being asked to bomb a bunch of sick arseholes who are the enemy of the State of Iraq, not their law abiding citizens.

Derek Roger
28th October 2014, 23:41
A big pat on the back for the Sgt at Arms that shot the bastard.

Yes John I agree . The other posters here who try to make light of the issue or make excuses are sick in the head . This type of anti social behavior should be put down in the manner Sgt. at Arms did .

Derek

ben27
28th October 2014, 23:50
good day dereck roger.super moderator.today.08:41.#72.re:murdered soldier.well said.i agree with you,we need more sgt, at arms,regards ben27

Boatman25
29th October 2014, 00:06
Yes John I agree . The other posters here who try to make light of the issue or make excuses are sick in the head . This type of anti social behavior should be put down in the manner Sgt. at Arms did .

Derek

The most sensible thing said so far, hear, hear, well said indeed

ferrandou
29th October 2014, 12:54
The most sensible thing said so far, hear, hear, well said indeed

... when the applause finishes the unfortunate soldier remains dead???

chadburn
29th October 2014, 13:09
... when the applause finishes the unfortunate soldier remains dead???

As indeed does the person who murdered him thanks to the bravery of the Sgt. at Arms who may well have prevented further Murders by taking positive action.

trotterdotpom
29th October 2014, 13:46
... when the applause finishes the unfortunate soldier remains dead???

Not only that, despite the accolades, the Sergeant at Arms probably wishes the incident had never happened.

John T

Boatman25
29th October 2014, 16:36
... when the applause finishes the unfortunate soldier remains dead???

So whats your problem, dont you appreciate bravery, what would you have done shaken the killers hand or patted him on the back, you lot of a.seholes make me sick, an unarmed soldier was murdered and a brave man killed the coward that murdered him and his bravery was acknowledged by his countrys Parliament and you lot pick holes, sad sad people you really are

ferrandou
29th October 2014, 17:43
So whats your problem, dont you appreciate bravery, what would you have done shaken the killers hand or patted him on the back, you lot of a.seholes make me sick, an unarmed soldier was murdered and a brave man killed the coward that murdered him and his bravery was acknowledged by his countrys Parliament and you lot pick holes, sad sad people you really are

I do not have any problems but you seem to have some.
I know quite a bit about bravery, there have been three awarded to family members plus my da-in-law was made a freeman of the town of Dunkerque. None of them would have accepted your ridiculous behaviour of screeching and yelling, calling people names and making false accusations.

Boatman25
29th October 2014, 18:02
Didn't hear my self screeching and yelling, if I had it would have been in capital letters - just like your other post way over the top - the Sgt at Arms was a brave man and deserved the applause, by your remarks you obviously think he did not or else why did you make such a sarcastic post

Satanic Mechanic
29th October 2014, 18:25
Yes John I agree . The other posters here who try to make light of the issue or make excuses are sick in the head . This type of anti social behavior should be put down in the manner Sgt. at Arms did .

Derek

what like shoot them

and you call them sick !!!!!

Boatman25
29th October 2014, 18:31
Yes shoot them, they wont do it again thats for sure, whats your cure then give them a 1 out of the poor box !!!!!!!!, you do talk some sh1t

Satanic Mechanic
29th October 2014, 18:37
Yes shoot them, they wont do it again thats for sure, whats your cure then give them a 1 out of the poor box !!!!!!!!, you do talk some sh1t

Soooo everybody who has a differing opinion about what happened should be shot


Ok folks back on planet earth where reality is we don't actually shoot people in civilised countries for having an opinion, which oddly is the sort of thing that people join the forces to protect . Of course in a caliphate or similar they may well do that, sort of odd that that after what has happened Derek should suggest that we become just like theses idiots and kill anyone who we don't agree with.

Right here is the real low down ya pair pair of drooling twats - don't f-ing suggest that people of differing opinions get shot - its extremely offensive given what just happened, not to the attacker but to the dead soldier.

Derek Roger
29th October 2014, 19:19
SM The country is still in mourning for the dead soldier . The Sgt at Arms did the right thing and shot the shooter before he could shoot others .
He didn't ask him his beliefs or any of that crap ; he just shot him as was his job .
What bit of the incident don't you get ???? People who support the shooter are sick in the head .

Boatman25
29th October 2014, 19:30
You know arguing with you SM and the other members of the Terrorist Appreciation Society reminds me of this very descriptive piece ' Arguing with some people is like playing chess with a pigeon....... No matter how good you are, you know the bird is going to sh1t on the board and strut round like it had won anyway...........

Hamish Mackintosh
29th October 2014, 20:02
I must say I felt very proud of the send off the Argyle and Sutherlands accorded one of their own, and if there is one thing the shooter did accomplish,it was, he pulled this country together, be it only in grieve, for a few moments at least

ferrandou
29th October 2014, 20:17
Ah nostalgia, sure does bring to mind having to listen to thick, ignorant British seamen going on and on spouting nonsense concerning that which they knew precious little about and therefore had to make things up, for no other purpose than to make themselves obviously thicker than they intended. I borrow a title of a very good book to describe them.
"Children of the Dead End".
Good night all.

Boatman25
29th October 2014, 20:30
I think you mistakenly put British there instead of Irish which would be much more believable

Satanic Mechanic
29th October 2014, 20:35
SM The country is still in mourning for the dead soldier . The Sgt at Arms did the right thing and shot the shooter before he could shoot others .
He didn't ask him his beliefs or any of that crap ; he just shot him as was his job .
What bit of the incident don't you get ???? People who support the shooter are sick in the head .

No one supported the shooter - but I reserve the right to question the world state of affairs that leads to this sort of thing - a situation which I consider to be to a large extent of our own making, without getting branded an anti social terrorist lover who should be shot - which is what you said.

If you want a reason the soldier was killed and all the soldiers and even more so all the poor innocent civilians, you need to look beyond the killer at the so called world governments that created this mess, they created the killer as much as any foaming at the mouth Imam.

In any general terms is there any difference between young arabs leaving Canada to go and fight in Syria than the young men who came to Britain to fight 75 years ago. The ideology may be different and maybe not as honourable but the underlying emotion is the same

Derek Roger
29th October 2014, 22:38
If you watched the funeral with the procession led by his widow and 5 year old son Marcus wearing a glengarry you would understand the Canadian sentiment .
I for one do not care what a terrorist killer believes ; his origin or ethnic profile . He / they have to be stopped ; by force if necessary . This tragic event ended swiftly with the killer being shot before he could do any more killing .
To support his actions and try and lever support from other world events does not impress me . Come to Canada and try to kill our soldiers and or police or civilians ? A bad idea ; we will kill them without remorse .
For acts of terrorism where killing occurs ; from what ever source I would be happy to see capital punishment again on a world wide scale .
If you don't get the point ; this behaviour has to be stopped and soon .
Derek

Satanic Mechanic
29th October 2014, 23:01
If you watched the funeral with the procession led by his widow and 5 year old son Marcus wearing a glengarry you would understand the Canadian sentiment .
I for one do not care what a terrorist killer believes ; his origin or ethnic profile . He / they have to be stopped ; by force if necessary . This tragic event ended swiftly with the killer being shot before he could do any more killing .
To support his actions and try and lever support from other world events does not impress me . Come to Canada and try to kill our soldiers and or police or civilians ? A bad idea ; we will kill them without remorse .
For acts of terrorism where killing occurs ; from what ever source I would be happy to see capital punishment again on a world wide scale .
If you don't get the point ; this behaviour has to be stopped and soon .
Derek


where has anyone supported his actions on here? but we would be stupid not to ask why he did what he did.

Go to Iraq and kill some police, soldiers or civilians - they do the same - amazing eh!

do you get it yet?

RayL
29th October 2014, 23:45
where has anyone supported his actions on here? but we would be stupid not to ask why he did what he did.
Go to Iraq and kill some police, soldiers or civilians - they do the same - amazing eh!
do you get it yet?

I say your premises are incorrect, so your compliant approach in issues of this sort verge on the unpatriotic--and dangerously so because your opinions closely match those amongst us who are 'the enemy within' and who may therefore end up wishing to do us harm, foolishly egged on by the few oddball Britons who want to see things their way rather than support their own nation's interest. Other than collateral (accidental) victims in surgical strikes, etc., and those murdered by indiscriminate car bomb explosions set off in market places and the like by murderous insurgents, just who are these "police, soldiers or civilians" you refer to as though we killed them deliberately? I say you are badly informed and consequently talking havers.

Derek Roger
30th October 2014, 00:59
SM missing the point . Stick to Marine Engineering and Rugby ; you make more sense on those topics .

Satanic Mechanic
30th October 2014, 15:17
I say your premises are incorrect, so your compliant approach in issues of this sort verge on the unpatriotic--and dangerously so because your opinions closely match those amongst us who are 'the enemy within' and who may therefore end up wishing to do us harm, foolishly egged on by the few oddball Britons who want to see things their way rather than support their own nation's interest. Other than collateral (accidental) victims in surgical strikes, etc., and those murdered by indiscriminate car bomb explosions set off in market places and the like by murderous insurgents, just who are these "police, soldiers or civilians" you refer to as though we killed them deliberately? I say you are badly informed and consequently talking havers.

I will state here and now that I absolutely abhor the actions of these murderers and I in no way shape or form support them. But to not ask how they came to be like that is dangerous in its own right, its a form of denial.

To me it is in part answered by what you said above. You have reduced 10s if not 100s of thousands of people maimed and injured in our attacks, not internal terrorist attacks, but our attacks - to 'collateral damage' - that's it, that's all it is to many - out of sight out of mind unfortunate victims of our pinpoint 'surgical' strikes.

Surgeon "well I'm glad to say the toenail surgery went well but there was some collateral damage"
Patient "What was that doctor"
Surgeon "we've removed both your legs"

We lose a soldier and are rightly outraged , and yes I am outraged, but in my mind there is always the thought of the now countless innocent lives we have destroyed - they are probably equally outraged, I am certain not one of them has said "we get a lot of comfort knowing our baby was collateral damage"

anyway the upshot of all that is - the soldier should be mourned but when asking why don't forget our (collective as a country) part in his death. It is not beyond the pale to say that a Canadian soldier got killed in some part due to actions of the UK as well as other countries and that grieves me immensely. It doesnt excuse the killers actions in any way but if we are to stop it we have to face up to our own responsibilities as well

Scelerat
30th October 2014, 17:41
I will state here and now that I absolutely abhor the actions of these murderers and I in no way shape or form support them. But to not ask how they came to be like that is dangerous in its own right, its a form of denial.

To me it is in part answered by what you said above. You have reduced 10s if not 100s of thousands of people maimed and injured in our attacks, not internal terrorist attacks, but our attacks - to 'collateral damage' - that's it, that's all it is to many - out of sight out of mind unfortunate victims of our pinpoint 'surgical' strikes.

Surgeon "well I'm glad to say the toenail surgery went well but there was some collateral damage"
Patient "What was that doctor"
Surgeon "we've removed both your legs"

We lose a soldier and are rightly outraged , and yes I am outraged, but in my mind there is always the thought of the now countless innocent lives we have destroyed - they are probably equally outraged, I am certain not one of them has said "we get a lot of comfort knowing our baby was collateral damage"

anyway the upshot of all that is - the soldier should be mourned but when asking why don't forget our (collective as a country) part in his death. It is not beyond the pale to say that a Canadian soldier got killed in some part due to actions of the UK as well as other countries and that grieves me immensely. It doesnt excuse the killers actions in any way but if we are to stop it we have to face up to our own responsibilities as well

That was very well said, and explains the points perfectly.

RayL
30th October 2014, 18:32
Only a naive person would imagine that military actions can be carried out totally without causing unintentional damage. What you seem to be insisting on, therefore, is that your country should behave as though it is paralysed, unable to take a positive action under any circumstances because somebody might be hurt. It's a kind of fatuous 'Health & Safety' approach to the topic of power manoeuvring.

The British Muslims who resent Britain's keeping out of the Syrian conflict have missed the point that none of Britain's interests are there so we have no reason to take a view or become involved (realpolitik). In most cases their own reason for going there and getting involved is the oomah, which they evidently choose to put above their loyalty to Britain.

Satanic Mechanic
30th October 2014, 20:57
Only a naive person would imagine that military actions can be carried out totally without causing unintentional damage. What you seem to be insisting on, therefore, is that your country should behave as though it is paralysed, unable to take a positive action under any circumstances because somebody might be hurt. It's a kind of fatuous 'Health & Safety' approach to the topic of power manoeuvring.

The British Muslims who resent Britain's keeping out of the Syrian conflict have missed the point that none of Britain's interests are there so we have no reason to take a view or become involved (realpolitik). In most cases their own reason for going there and getting involved is the oomah, which they evidently choose to put above their loyalty to Britain.

Could it be said that the dead soldier is collateral damage from those conflicts? It's not a nice thought but it is a genuine question

The Muslims who have gone to fight I can draw a certain parallel with the International brigades

RayL
30th October 2014, 21:09
Only in the mind of a person who gives house-room to IS and Al-quada, etc. Why would any Westerner do that, I ask myself.

Similarly with your attempt to compare with the 1936 International Brigade that went to help democracy to triumph in Spain. If you disapprove of people who have an agenda to turn the world Islamic by hook or by crook then you have to say that the two things are NOT comparable, for one ideology wants to imprison the world forever, whilst the other sought to bring freedom to humanity.

Scelerat
30th October 2014, 21:18
There is, however, no proof that the attack was carried out for religious reasons, any more than for Quebecois separatist reasons. Just because a bloke is a Muslim doesn't mean that he is a religious fanatic, killing for Islam.

Satanic Mechanic
30th October 2014, 21:22
Only in the mind of a person who gives house-room to IS and Al-quada, etc. Why would any Westerner do that, I ask myself.

Similarly with your attempt to compare with the 1936 International Brigade that went to help democracy to triumph in Spain. If you disapprove of people who have an agenda to turn the world Islamic by hook or by crook then you have to say that the two things are NOT comparable, for one ideology wants to imprison the world forever, whilst the other sought to bring freedom to humanity.

if you say so - up to you but I still say you are in denial. I am in Vancouver at the moment and watching the news its actually quite surprising how many people while expressing their sadness are also quite pragmatic and state that this sort of thing is to be expected if we get involved in conflicts.

Ah well it does rather depend on your point of view, the cause may be different but the call remains the same.

RayL
30th October 2014, 21:55
if you say so - up to you but I still say you are in denial. I am in Vancouver at the moment and watching the news its actually quite surprising how many people while expressing their sadness are also quite pragmatic and state that this sort of thing is to be expected if we get involved in conflicts.

Ah well it does rather depend on your point of view, the cause may be different but the call remains the same.

I do see and understand that we are at war, if that is fundamentally what you are saying. The difference between you and I is that I have little regard for our opponents and see similarities with the Nazi scourge of seventy years ago.

Satanic Mechanic
30th October 2014, 22:04
Oh I don't have any great regard for them, the best I can say is that they represent a moderately predictable reaction to two immensely stupid wars. To an extent we created them - but they themselves are looney toons of the highest order fuelled by out and out hatred. But how to combat them, if they themselves are a result of combat, how do you break that circle. Answer from me is we stay out of it militarily, push the arab countries into deciding what to do and pour our efforts into helping the refugees

RayL
30th October 2014, 22:21
Hindsight supports your case with Iraq, but I don't see what else we could have done with Afghanistan because the Taliban was entertaining Al-quada, who were plotting attacks on the West and had to be stopped. We are close as regards your last sentence--except that the IS blitzkrieg will succeed if it isn't confronted immediately, so from a practical point of view there isn't time to persuade the moderate Arab countries to send forces, and therefore the air strikes are needed.

John Dryden
30th October 2014, 22:24
SM missing the point . Stick to Marine Engineering and Rugby ; you make more sense on those topics .

You forgot the South Korean girl pipe bands Derek.(Jester)

Satanic Mechanic
30th October 2014, 23:16
Hindsight supports your case with Iraq, but I don't see what else we could have done with Afghanistan because the Taliban was entertaining Al-quada, who were plotting attacks on the West and had to be stopped. We are close as regards your last sentence--except that the IS blitzkrieg will succeed if it isn't confronted immediately, so from a practical point of view there isn't time to persuade the moderate Arab countries to send forces, and therefore the air strikes are needed.

except they actually weren't entertaining them - it turns out they didn't want them either. The Taliban are and were quite happy to be left alone with little to do with the outside - I think they are nuts but its up to them.

What I am not seeing is any great movement by the countries in the area - it should be happening.

Satanic Mechanic
30th October 2014, 23:18
You forgot the South Korean girl pipe bands Derek.(Jester)

Its a teaching thing - hey someone has to do it!!!

Keltic Star
31st October 2014, 05:36
SM The country is still in mourning for the dead soldier . The Sgt at Arms did the right thing and shot the shooter before he could shoot others .
He didn't ask him his beliefs or any of that crap ; he just shot him as was his job .
What bit of the incident don't you get ???? People who support the shooter are sick in the head .

Derek, don't waste your time reacting to SM, he'll only come back with another load of hogwash. He appears to have a histrionic personality disorder and needs serious medical help to stop his craving for attention and bullying.

Scelerat
31st October 2014, 09:54
Only in the mind of a person who gives house-room to IS and Al-quada, etc. Why would any Westerner do that, I ask myself.

Similarly with your attempt to compare with the 1936 International Brigade that went to help democracy to triumph in Spain. If you disapprove of people who have an agenda to turn the world Islamic by hook or by crook then you have to say that the two things are NOT comparable, for one ideology wants to imprison the world forever, whilst the other sought to bring freedom to humanity.

You mean the International Brigades that were composed of hard-line doctrinaire communists, who were used to crush the militias of genuinely democratic parties in Spain? Those International Brigades? Well, I suppose that you must, as the only International Brigades in Spain were those organised, financed, armed and controlled by Stalin's people, complete with Soviet Commissars. Are you really suggesting that the Comintern was seeking to bring freedom to humanity? I am surprised that you attribute such a goal to Stalin.

RayL
31st October 2014, 17:33
I can't claim to know much about that corner of history so I had better bow to your superior knowledge. Like most people, when I hear of the volunteers who went to Spain to fight, I have in my head George Orwell as the sort of idealist who did not want to see Fascism triumph and so was willing to put his life on the line. IMO such a person and his motives can be viewed as admirable, whereas a religious bigot who is acting to try and impose his or her fantasy world on us all, by brute force or by cunning stealth, is most certainly not.

Twocky61
31st October 2014, 18:05
But this particular individual wasn't a guest, and Canada wasn't his host. He was Canadian born, from Quebec.
http://www.vox.com/2014/10/23/7043845/ottawa-shooter-muslim-religion-does-not-matter

Good point Scelerat, he's a convert; I failed to notice that. I just assumed he was Muslim. I must have been (Pint)