Was it an act or terror or was it terrorism?

This type of attack committed by a lone wolf with no formal ties to a terrorist organization is similar in nature to what we saw on Parliament Hill in Ottawa two months ago. Since that time, there’s been some debate as to how we should classify this act, and if terrorism is the right word.

Counter-terrorism expert Mubin Shaikh is a former CSIS informant who infiltrated and foiled a terrorism cell back in 2006. They talked about how to define the attacker: “He fits the profile in that he’s a lone gunman, completely deranged, comes from a criminal background you know self identifies with ISIS, he doesn’t have any formal links, but who really has a formal link? All you gotta do is believe in your cause and believe in their tactics and act on it and this is exactly what he did.”

(So is this terrorism?)

Mubin: “Yes it is. (Why is that?) It’s still a politically motivated crime that targets the public in public spaces. Whether the individual in mentally ill or not would only mitigate very slightly individual responsibility, but the end result is the same. It is a politically motivated crime acted out on the public in a public space, that’s pretty much the definition of terrorism.”

Shaik also said these types of attacks are changing the security game, because they’re so difficult to defend against.