In Edmonton, Alberta, a 30-year-old Canadian is in custody after a police officer was hit by a car then "viciously stabbed" and hours later four pedestrians were "deliberately struck" by a fleeing U-Haul truck on Saturday night. The police found an ISIS flag on the front seat of the U-Haul truck. Although the police believe that the man committed the crime alone, the police department still put out a statement, urging everyone "to be vigilant and aware of their surroundings."
ISIS is one of the world's most infamous terrorist organization, and they are known to have many supporters outside of their Middle East territory. In 2014, ISIS has gained a territory about the size of Great Britain, with the population of 11 million people. However, as of 2017, ISIS has lost approximately 60% of their land, with their population cut down to 2.5 million. Therefore, in my opinion, if ISIS is struggling in the Middle East, is it unlikely that they will have the resources to initiate an attack in another country.
What do you guys think? Do you think this might be another terrorist attack from ISIS to gather the world's attention? How should the Canadian government better improve their security system to prevent another attack like this?
9 comments:
While I don't want to make assumptions, I do feel like ISIS is behind this attack mainly because the type of attack, "running over people with a vehicle," has been repeatedly used by them. In March of this year, a man belonging to ISIS plowed over pedestrians on the Westminister Bridge in London. Similarly, in June of this year, ISIS members used vans to run over pedestrians and other people on the London Bridge. A year ago, ISIS claimed the attack that occurred in Nice, France where a terrorist drove a lorry through a crowd of people celebrating Bastille Day. The actions of ISIS are deplorable and disgusting, to say the least. In order to prevent attacks like this from happening, I think that world leaders should come together and make a plan for destroying the group, not just Canada; because ISIS is a threat to everyone.
Of course ISIS will attack again, if not ISIS, some other radical terrorist group. It is a shame that organizations such as this gather attention by such mass murder, but in the grand scheme of things, terrorist attacks such as this one are not a threat to modern society. According to the Cato institute, only 3024 people died from from foreign terrorist attacks from 1975-2015. I do not believe it is worth resources for Canada, America, or any other country to try and prevent these attacks. Maybe resources attacking ISIS directly would make a difference, but preventative measures in the country fearing attack would do no good. I think ISIS need to be uprooted at their source, effectively wiped off the planet with as the upmost efficiency so as to not waste resources on another long war like Afghanistan.
Of course ISIS will attack again, if not ISIS, some other radical terrorist group. It is a shame that organizations such as this gather attention by such mass murder, but in the grand scheme of things, terrorist attacks such as this one are not a threat to modern society. According to the Cato institute, only 3024 people died from from foreign terrorist attacks from 1975-2015. I do not believe it is worth resources for Canada, America, or any other country to try and prevent these attacks. Maybe resources attacking ISIS directly would make a difference, but preventative measures in the country fearing attack would do no good. I think ISIS need to be uprooted at their source, effectively wiped off the planet with as the upmost efficiency so as to not waste resources on another long war like Afghanistan.
The danger about ISIS is that it's going from a place to an idea, and that it is impossible for an idea to defeat an idea. I agree with Tilman that ISIS should be completely wiped off of the planet, in fact, the U.S. have been helping the Syrian government to defeat ISIS for the past few years; however, with Trump's "America First" mindset, he might propose to pull our troops out of the Middle East. Either way, I believe the main reason that these terrorist groups continue to exist in the Middle East territory is because of their government's instability. Therefore, in order to prevent these terrorist groups from forming, I believe that the UN should step in and discuss about how we should reconstruct the government in those countries, rather than fighting these never-ending wars.
Though Tilman has some valid data in saying that only 3024 people worldwide have died as a result of foreign terrorist attacks over the course of 30 years, countries cannot be too safe - the nature of a terrorist attack is that it is (obviously) unexpected, so implementing any amount of resources and remaining vigilant proves some value. Additionally, I completely agree with everyone’s ideas that the world must attack ISIS directly in order to at least decrease the likelihood that organized acts of terror will occur. ISIS is like a hydra animal - once you cut it into pieces, it will continue to sprout and rise above from those segments, so it must be attacked at its roots to eradicate its effects on the world. I believe that the best course of action for Canada as well as other nations is to have world leaders gather together to craft a game plan to go against ISIS. That way, one nation is not left to deplete its resources by itself in order to benefit the well-being of the nation.
I think unity is the best idea when going up against an organization like ISIS. Countries that are against ISIS such as Canada should meet and discuss how they are going to take action to prevent future attacks. Chloe mentioned how ISIS is more of an idea than it is a tangible place. To try and defuse their ideas I think countries that are anti ISIS need to show that they are united against them. Just by demonstrating that the ani ISIS force is strong together could be very powerful. I agree with what others have said about attacking ISIS at its roots. If we can uproot them, then the rest of their followers will be far less threatening.
I agree with Brooke with the idea that unity is the best weapon to defeat ISIS, but I'm not entirely sure that countries meeting together to talk about how to fight against ISIS would work, mainly because each country has its own issues and own beliefs, and these may contradict with the other countries around the world. One main point of contradiction would be on how to determine whether people are terrorists part of ISIS or not. Some leaders of countries, like our very own President, believe that since ISIS is an Islamic group, targeting all Muslims and prohibiting them from coming into the country is bound to also keep out the Muslims that are affiliated with ISIS. This mindset could easily anger some highly Islamic-populated countries that have not experienced as many ISIS related terrorist attacks, like India. Contradicting ideals like this tend to drift countries away from each other, even if they might be focused on the same enemy. For this reason, I believe unity should come from within each country, and without the people becoming uncontrollable and divided, attacks from ISIS can be prevented.
I agree that it is a good idea to unite with different countries to strategize a plan to defeat ISIS, as it is not and easy task and the presence of ISIS has affected many nations. I think it's very difficult to create critical infrastructure that will be able to protect Canadians against attacks like this, as such attacks are highly unexpected and it is very very difficult to enforce safety. However they may be able to put cameras everywhere, in order to be able to identify any attackers in such situations to help them find and punish the attacker. However, implementing such a system of cameras may receive a lot of backlash, as it may be seen as infringing upon one's right to privacy, since people are being watched at all times. Regardless, I think it's very difficult to create a system in Canada that will protect Canadians from future terrorist attacks because of their sporadic nature, so their best bet would be to get to the root of the problem and work on defeating ISIS as a whole.
Sahith's point about countries putting their national interests first raises the difficult issue of international diplomacy in fighting terrorist groups. Thus far in the War on Terror, and especially after September 11, 2001, the US has led the fight against terrorism, spurring other nations to address direct combat with ISIS even before terrorism struck in their countries. However, if the US pulls out of the fight to pursue its own national interests, it sets an example of isolationism and will only assist ISIS in their quest for sovereignty. Conversely, the US has spent years at war already, and billions of dollars out of its budget to aid countries at war with ISIS and other rising terrorist organizations. It would be in the US's favor to both retreat from the fight and stay in it -- a paradox we cannot afford. Yes, attacking the root of ISIS is important, and yes, we should allocate more resources to quashing their war efforts. But how can we impose that positive change and set the example of a successful democracy in another country if we're stuck between full commitment to the fight and withdrawal?
Post a Comment