Canadian terror wave a modern-day Gladio
Tony Cartalucci Land Destroyer Report Thailand October 23, 2014
Visit this page for its embedded links.
As warned, after multiple staged incidents used to ratchet up fear and paranoia in the build-up to US and its allies’ military intervention in Syria and Iraq, at least two live attacks have now been carried out in Canada – precisely as they were predicted.
The first attack involved a deadly hit-and-run that left one Canadian soldier dead. AP would report in its article, “Terrorist ideology blamed in Canada car attack,” that:
A young convert to Islam who killed a Canadian soldier in a hit-and-run had been on the radar of federal investigators, who feared he had jihadist ambitions and seized his passport when he tried to travel to Turkey, authorities said Tuesday.
The second, most recent attack, involved a shooting in Ottawa injuring several and killing another Canadian soldier. RT in its article, “Ottawa gunman ‘identified’ as recent Muslim convert, high-risk traveler,” would report that:
While the name of the Ottawa gunman is yet to be announced, a number of officials told numerous media that the shooter is believed to be Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, a recent Muslim convert, allegedly designated as a high-risk traveler.
Michael Zehaf-Bibeau was born in Quebec as Michael Joseph Hall north of Montreal, two US officials told Reuters, claiming that American law enforcement agencies have been advised that the attacker recently converted to Islam.
AP sources also identified the man to be Zehaf-Bibeau. A Twitter account associated with Islamic State militants tweeted a photo they identified as the Ottawa shooter. The Globe and Mail reports that the shooter was designated a “high-risk traveler” by the Canadian authorities with his passport seized.
Clearly, both suspects were under the watch of not only Canadian authorities, but also US investigators, before the attacks.
That the FBI and Australian authorities had coordinated staged security operations in tandem on opposite ends of the globe to terrify their respective populations into line behind an impending war with Syria, and now two highly suspicious attacks have been carried out using the very script Western security agencies were using to lead suspects through “sting operations,” suggests a new “Operation Northwoods” or “Operation Gladio” of sorts is already being executed.
Staged executions on cue by ISIS in the Middle East of US and British citizens at perfectly timed junctures of the West’s attempt to sell intervention both at home and abroad, and now live shootings just in time to heighten a new “strategy of tension” reek of staged mayhem for the sole purpose of provoking war. Could grander and ultimately more tragic mayhem be in store? As ABC News’ article on Operation Northwoods and the Military Channel’s documentary on Operation Gladio suggest, there is no line Western special interests will hesitate to cross.
With the West attempting to claim ISIS now has a “global” reach, the US and its partners’ attempts to obfuscate the very obvious state-sponsorship it is receiving will become exponentially more difficult. That the FBI is admittedly stringing along easily manipulated, malevolent patsies who at any time could be handed real weapons and sent on shooting sprees and/or bombings – and now apparently have been – Americans, Canadians, Europeans, and Australians would be foolish to conclude that their real enemy resides somewhere in Syria and not right beside them at home, upon the very seats of Western power.
Canada and the War on Terror: The Ottawa shootings, what really happened?
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya Strategic Culture Foundation/Global Research Russia/Canada October 24, 2014/October 25, 2014
Prime Minister Steven Harper and the Canadian federal government are using the shooting rampage on Parliament Hill as a justification for imposing surveillance and detainment measures that they were already implementing and going forward with.
On October 22, 2014 a solitary gunman named Michael Zehaf-Bibeau (originally Michael Joseph Hall) from the city of Laval, Quebec went on a shooting spree in downtown Ottawa, the capital of Canada.
Firstly, it was reported that there were shootings in the Rideau Centre which from the northern side of the Mackenzie King Bridge faces National Defence Headquarters (NDHQ), the nerve of Canada’s Department of National Defence (DND). This proved to be false or wrong. The gunman had killed a reservist guard in front of the National War Memorial and then made his way northward to Parliament Hill.
Secondly, it was reported that there were multiple gunmen. As a result all government employees were not allowed to enter or leave their respective buildings throughout the interprovincial National Capital Region, which includes the city of Gatineau. Although the police did the right thing in taking precautions to make sure that there were no other gunmen and declined to give explanations, the public was led to believe that there were multiple shooters. This justified the lockdown and suspension of mobility that took place for hours.
A lot of important questions also remain unanswered. NBC News reported on October 8, 2014 that US intelligence officials told it «that Canadian authorities have heard would-be terrorists discussing potential ISIS-inspired ‘knife and gun’ attacks» inside Canada. Canadian officials, however, dismissed the report. Did US intelligence know something that its Canadian counterparts did not know? Why the contradictions?
Another important question is the following: how could an armed gunman that had already started a rampage make his way into the Centre Bloc of the Canadian Parliament unchallenged? Anyone that has been to Parliament Hill knows that there is a relatively large armed presence on the whole area and, specifically, at the entranceway and doors which is comprised of Canada’s national police force (the Royal Canadian Mounted Police), the local municipal police (the Ottawa Police Services), and two special federal forces (the House of Commons Security Services and Senate Security).
Also, if he was indeed in touch with terrorist groups, how was he communicating with them?
Framing: Media Discourse and Government Policy Links
Complicating the picture is the case of Martin Couture-Rouleau. Couture-Rouleau is a French-Canadian who became a Muslim in 2013. He deliberately hit two Canadian soldiers with his car in St-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Quebec on October 20, 2014. One of the soldiers would later die.
Couture-Rouleau would be chased by the police and then gunned down after his hit-and-run attack. Although the fatal hit-and-run murder in St-Jean-sur-Richelieu is a criminal act, it has been presented as terrorism and linked to Canada’s involvement in the fighting in the Middle East.
The two attacks respectively in St-Jean-sur-Richelieu and Ottawa have no connection whatsoever, but have been portrayed as part of some coordinated attack plan. The hit-and-run attacks have been added to the narrative of what happened on October 22 to construct the image of an all-out battle. This is part of what sociologists call a moral panic.
What exactly motivated the gunman in Ottawa? It appears that Michael Zehaf-Bibeau was not part of some intricate plot against Canada by the so-called Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). He had a criminal record and appeared to be psychologically deteriorating from increasing narcotics usage. He was troubled by hallucinations and heavy drugs, and became a Muslim relatively recently. According to information coming from people who knew him, it appears that he was upset with «the government» for not leaving him alone. This anger could be tied to the social workers and parole officers in his life and a suffocating feeling of being caught in a downward spiral.
Michael Zehaf-Bibeau had been staying at the Ottawa Mission, a homeless shelter, between two weeks and a month. Before he went on his rampage, he told other people at the homeless shelter to pray because the world was coming to an end. In this context, it is also important to ask: how a psychologically troubled man staying at the Ottawa Mission homeless shelter could get a weapon?
Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, however, has been portrayed to varying degrees as an ISIL member, which is being used to support the narrative that Canadians are under immediate threat from the ISIL by societal actors that sociologists call «moral entrepreneurs». The goals of moral entrepreneurs is to change societal norms, values, laws, and regulations. In this case the moral entrepreneurs want to sell a security agenda.
Although the gunman that attacked Parliament Hill was a French-Canadian (with the last name of his Arab-Canadian father — who had adopted him — and his French-Canadian mother’s maiden name) that spent most of his life as a Roman Catholic (starting off as a devout Christian and then falling out of practice over the years), he has been portrayed or framed differently. From the start there was a tacit drive to give him an Arab and Muslim persona. Even when his identity was discovered, his Arab-Canadian father who had adopted him was portrayed as his biological father. The adoption of his father’s Arabic last name was tacitly presented as a marker of his Muslim identity, even though he was a Christian when he adopted the Arabic last name alongside his mother’s maiden name for legal reasons.
Very telling was how the media initially described Zehaf-Bibeau. He was referred to as a «Canadian-born man.» This is very deceptive language and discourse that needs to be critically analyzed. When someone is called «Canadian-born» it means that they are not really Canadian, but are merely born in Canada. Referring to a Canadian citizen in these terms conceptually strips them of their Canadian identity and otherizes them as a foreigner that does not belong to the collective.
The Media Reaction
Many Canadians are proud of their media’s reaction and have contrasted it to the sensationalism of US media. Although the media in Canada was much calmer than how the US media would have reacted under similar circumstances if the same incident took place in the United States, it was still emotionally charging the atmosphere with a sense of siege on Ottawa. Headlines and news broadcasts included titles like «Ottawa under attack.» Ottawans were liberally afraid that the ISIL was attacking Canada’s shores.
Speculation about a Middle East connection kept being raised throughout the day. By the time that Prime Minister Harper spoke in the evening, it was clear that he wanted to link the events in St-Jean-sur-Richelieu and Ottawa to the Middle East and the terrorism panic to justify his national security agenda. When Harper said that Canada would not be intimidated, it was hollow posturing against an enemy being constructed in the imagination of Canadians
Important details have emerged that strengthen the case against the Harper Government as intellectually dishonest opportunists.
Although security can be cited for this, it can also be looked at politically as part of a means of keeping the public in suspense and allowing a state of shock to reverberate across Canada so that the Harper Government can justify its foreign policy and security initiatives.
Related: A year before a gunman stormed Parliament, the House of Commons rejected demands from its guards to be armed while on duty outside.
Commons guards rebuffed in demand for weapons
Bruce Campion-Smith Toronto Star Ontario Canada October 30, 2014
OTTAWA—A year before a gunman stormed the front doors of Parliament, the House of Commons rejected demands from its guards to be armed while on duty outside, telling them instead to “retreat” from any crisis.
The 2013 demand from the union representing Commons security staff related to the times when guards were working on the grounds of Parliament Hill, assisting RCMP officers at frequent rallies and protests.
The Commons guards work alongside Mounties to help identify MPs and get the politicians through security lines during events that bring large crowds to Parliament Hill.
But the Security Service Employees Association complained that the Commons administration was not providing employees with the tools needed to do the task safely.
The association wanted the unarmed Commons’ constables to be provided with a firearm to ensure they are ready to react in the event of a security crisis.
But in a reply to the association, Commons’ clerk Audrey O’Brien rejected the guards’ concerns saying that outside, at least, the security officials were only in place to support the RCMP.
And because of that, she laid out an explicit demand that Commons guards not get involved in any security situation that happens outside.
“House of Commons constables are not to respond to a security crisis should one occur; they are requested to retreat and let the RCMP manage the situation,” O’Brien wrote in an Oct. 28, 2013 letter.
She said that “adequate” precautionary measures had been taken by the employer and RCMP and that Commons guards “do not need to be armed in order to safely perform visual identification.”
Asked for comment on Wednesday, Heather Bradley, spokesperson for Commons Speaker Andrew Scheer, said the context of the association’s complaint “should be made clear.”
“This matter related to House of Commons Security Services personnel on the grounds outside the parliament buildings, which is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the RCMP,” Bradley told the Star.
She said the demand did not relate to the arming of Commons personnel inside the buildings. And Bradley said Commons security guards are responsible for handling a crisis situation that happens inside the building, a point driven home by last week’s attack.
Still, there have been serious questions raised about security on the Hill after Michael Zehaf-Bibeau barged through the main doors of Centre Block carrying a .30-30 Winchester rifle, past two unarmed, uniformed Commons guards.
And the brazen attack has put a spotlight on the jurisdictions that see four separate security agencies have a hand in protecting Parliament Hill.
At the time of the Oct. 22 attack, only plainclothes Commons security staff were armed, meaning the two uniformed guards at the front entrance of Centre Block had no weapons.
Zehaf-Bibeau had just shot and killed Cpl. Nathan Cirillo, who was standing sentry duty at the nearby National War Memorial, when he crossed to Parliament Hill.
As Zehaf-Bibeau entered the main entrance of Centre Block, Const. Samearn Son grabbed at the rifle barrel and yelled out an alert to other guards. In the tussle, the rifle discharged, wounding Son in the leg.
Zehaf-Bibeau continued down the main hall, where it’s believed he was wounded by a plainclothes Commons security guard before being killed in a round of gunfire led by Sergeant-at-Arms Kevin Vickers.
In the wake of the unprecedented attack, Scheer has launched several reviews of security procedures but the Commons administration has moved quickly with several changes to boost security
Since Monday, some uniformed Commons guards have begun carrying sidearms, adding firepower to the already armed plainclothes officers also on duty. The number of armed uniformed guards is expected to grow over the coming weeks as more and more are trained in the use of firearms.
Senate guards — authorized in June to carry firearms — will be armed once they are trained.
And armed RCMP officers, who until the attack had jurisdiction to guard the prime minister outside the Parliament buildings, now accompany him inside as well.