Glen Greenwald Says Martin Couture-Rouleau Targeting Soldiers Not Terrorism

Glen Greenwald Says Martin Couture-Rouleau Targeting Soldiers Not Terrorism ---

Which side is Glen Greenwald on? Clearly against the government of US and Canada, and apologizing for their enemies.

CANADA, AT WAR FOR 13 YEARS, SHOCKED THAT ‘A TERRORIST’ ATTACKED ITS SOLDIERS TORONTO – In Quebec on Monday, two Canadian soldiers were hit by a car driven by Martin Couture-Rouleau, a 25-year-old Canadian who, as The Globe and Mail reported, “converted to Islam recently and called himself Ahmad Rouleau.” One of the soldiers died, as did Couture-Rouleau when he was shot by police upon apprehension after allegedly brandishing a large knife. Police speculated that the incident was deliberate, alleging the driver waited for two hours before hitting the soldiers, one of whom was wearing a uniform. The incident took place in the parking lot of a shopping mall 30 miles southeast of Montreal, “a few kilometres from the Collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean, the military academy operated by the Department of National Defence.” The right-wing Canadian government wasted no time in seizing on the incident to promote its fear-mongering agenda over terrorism...

http://discussions.seattletimes.com/comments/2024840571
nwexplorer 14 hours ago
NO. This was not a "terrorist" attack. This is propaganda, from Harper the Neocon.  No civilians were targeted. Indeed, the one known attacker had numerous chances for that, and deliberately left civilians alone. This was a causation. Glenn Greenwald picks this apart from the attack on two military personnel in Canada on Monday. He updated that today to respond to those who want to say the same thing about what happened today.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/10/22/canada-proclaiming-war-12-years-shocked-someone-attacked-soldiers/

Canada, At War For 13 Years, Shocked That ‘A Terrorist’ Attacked Its Soldiers

14 hours ago
@Ray Donovan From the article above: ...The point is that targeting soldiers who are part of a military fighting an active war is completely inconsistent with the common usage of the word “terrorism,” and yet it is reflexively applied by government officials and media outlets to this incident in Canada (and others like it in the UK and the US).

That’s because the most common functional definition of “terrorism” in Western discourse is quite clear. At this point, it means little more than: “violence directed at Westerners by Muslims” (when not used to mean “violence by Muslims,” it usually just means: violence the state dislikes). The term “terrorism” has become nothing more than a rhetorical weapon for legitimizing all violence by Western countries, and delegitimizing all violence against them, even when the violence called “terrorism” is clearly intended as retaliation for Western violence.

This is about far more than semantics. It is central to how the west propagandizes its citizenries; the manipulative use of the “terrorism” term lies at heart of that...

Time to end this charade. It does no one any good, except for those who profit from endless war.

Frank the Tank 14 hours ago
@Ray Donovan

First, I'm hardly a liberal

Second, perspective is your friend.  "Muslim atrocities" in the United States and Canada in the past decade have resulted in what, less than a half dozen deaths?  During that same period of time tens of thousands of Americans and Canadians have killed each other for various reason.  During that same period American and its allies have killed tens of thousands of Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and other places.

But no, you're right... we should all PANIC!!! and FREAK OUT!!! because one Muslim killed one Canadian.  If it's not time to panic now, then when will it be?

---