Following a second attack against Canadian military personnel in the space of two days, both resulting in deaths and injury, the first at the hands of an Islamic convert, the second by an individual named by Canadian official identifies as ‘Michael Zehaf-Bibeau’, the Herald leads with the headline ‘The Gunman’s Motive is Unclear’.
Well, strictly speaking that’s true. The gunman is now dead, so perhaps we will never know the real motive for his attack on the military personnel, and then a subsequent attempt to cause mayhem and death in the Canadian Parliament before a security guard shot him dead.
It is probable that an investigation will reveal something in his background that would have lead him, and possibly his colleagues to carry out this attack.
Which begs the question as to why the Herald would bother making a statement like this. It echo’s President Obama post the Boston Bombings, warning that we should not ‘jump to conclusions’ as to the bombers motives.
As if we had any reasonable cause to do so.
And so along with the Herald, we reserve judgement until the background facts are revealed.
If other suspects are captured, it will be interesting to see if Canada treats this as a civil crime, as military personnel were specifically targeted. This has been Obama and Cameron’s response to Jihadist based atrocities committed on their soil, where military personnel were killed.
It is clear that in recent weeks the Islamic State in Iraq has been inciting their followers in the West to commit such atrocities. They view themselves to be at war with the West. Who can blame them when Western powers are busy bombing them; that is when they are not mistakenly re-arming them with airdrops intended for the Kurds?
If someone like the Islamic State declares war upon you, and you are bombing them, and just say for arguments sake, that one or more of their domestic followers kills military personnel in your homeland, is that a treasonous act or a civil crime?
To call it a civil crime is to make the pretence that these actions are unrelated to what is happening in the world of Islam. That somehow ‘we are not at war with Islam’ or its followers, no matter how many times the perpetrator shouts ‘allahu akbah’ while hacking off your soldiers head, or quotes from the Quarn after the killing, or belongs to ISIS, or some other radical Islamic group.
It’s one thing to have a conflicted foreign policy such as we have seen the USA exhibit in the Middle East, but quite another to resile from a coherent domestic terrorism policy at home, all for the sake of political correctness.
How long before we admit that while ISIS is not the only legitimate expression of Islam, it is at least one legitimate expression. We will never begin to hold the Islamic community to account for the jihadists in their midst until we are honest about the fact that at least one valid interpretation of Islam is motivating violent jihad at home and abroad.
Today it has been Canada and its people who have become victims of the West’s wilful blindness over Islam. How many more of these attacks do we have to endure before our political leaders engage with reality?
The man behind the Ottawa shootings is a Canadian convert to Islam whose passport had been seized by authorities, federal sources say.
Perhaps it is time to question the policy that prevents young men like this from leaving Western nations to fight Islamic Jihad overseas? Prevent them from returning by all means, but from leaving?
Especially when it is now clear that some will express their violence and hatred against local citizens. Isn’t it the first duty of the state to protect its citizens, not ensure that its cities remain havens for violent Jihadists whose passports have been cancelled to prevent them leaving?