Great discussion on the precise meaning of the word "terrorism" and whether it applies here. Honestly, I feel like I would have to have some idea of the shooter's own motivations before I feel ready to label him a terrorist, because as of right now we haven't really heard anything.
What bothers me about the whole mainstream discourse on terrorism is that it always seems to imply that the problem is simply "radical Islam" (or Islam as a whole from the bigot's perspective); the foreign policy of our countries never even comes up for discussion. Whether in Canada or the United States, the implication is that we were simply being peaceful and minding our own business when Islamic terrorists suddenly attacked us completely out of the blue for no reason, other than they "hate our freedoms" or some similar childish, nonsensical explanation. Again, as Greenwald notes, to point out causation is not the same as justification, which is typically how critics such as himself are smeared.
On another note, I would argue that Bolsheviks and anarchists had more support in Western countries during the first half of the 20th century than Islamic terrorists could ever dream of. Personally I find that comparison insulting, but it's undeniable that each of these groups at different times represented an official boogeyman demonized and targeted by the state.
Ironically, one of the reasons for the strength of Islamic terrorism today is that imperialist countries historically funded jihadists as a means of destroying the vibrant secular and socialist political movements that used to dominate the Arab world (aside from the U.S. funding groups like the mujahadeen in Afghanistan, Israel originally fostered Hamas as an alternative to the PLO, which it saw as its main threat at the time). Mission accomplished, I guess? And this isn't even ancient history; ISIS itself received funding and weapons from the U.S. and Arab dictatorships to fight the Assad government until very recently, and their atrocities didn't faze any government officials here until they turned against the American puppet state in Baghdad.
All this goes down the memory hole in popular discourse, naturally. But history illustrates that constant meddling in the Middle East has a tendency to simply create more terrorists. Strangely enough, people seem to react negatively when you bomb their countries. But regardless of the motivations of Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, Harper has labelled the attack an act of terrorism in order to justify and double down on his militaristic policies -- which I'm sure will only create more love for Canada among those at the receiving end of our CF-18s.
I'm pretty left wing, but the main problem I have with left wing ideology today is that with issues like this, there is a lot of hand wringing and finger pointing and very little in the way of real solutions to real problems.
Did the 2003 Iraq War create a power vacuum that allowed for a group like ISIS to gain the power it has gained now? Yes, but unless we have a time machine, that doesn't help us in the here and now. The fact the US failed war in Iraq helped create ISIS, doesn't do anything to deal with the issue today and ISIS, not the US, should be held accountable for its actions. ISIS doesn't get absolved of moral responsibility because the US' foolishness helped create it.
At the risk of invoking Godwin's law, lets look at a historical example of this: The fact that France and Britain imposed the Treaty of Versailles on Germany after WWI, is the major factor that led to the Nazis gaining power in Germany. So would you argue that France and Britain are responsible for everything Germany did after that? Of course, just because Britain and France created conditions that allowed for inadvertent creation of Nazi Germany, doesn't mean Nazi Germany should not held accountable for its own actions. Finding out causation with the Nazi movement, did nothing to stop them when they got into power, did it? After a certain point, causation becomes irrelevant, because the group that benefited from this causation has outgrew it and now pursues its own agenda that is far beyond the initial causation.
Both the West and the Islamic World are responsible for the various problems that afflict the Middle East, the relationship is toxic and we need to have long, well thought, mature conversation about that relationship and why it is not working, putting all the blame on one side or the other or hand wringing all the time over events we cannot change is not helpful.
None of this justifies what Bibeau did. Also lets not forget not every MP supported Harper's policies.
As for whether the West should fight ISIS, I am conflicted about that, ISIS is a repellent group and the world would be a better place if they did not exist. However unless the underlining issues are dealt with, I fear destroying ISIS will just be putting a band aid on a gaping wound.
But lets face some facts, Canada's role in this war is more symbolic then anything else, the six jets Harper's promised to send would not make in any real difference, the war would barely change if the Canadian government refused to take part in it. Also unless you have a third option, many innocent people will die in the Middle East, because either people will get killed by ISIS' rather genocidal campaign or they will get killed in a battle between ISIS and the West, so unless you have an option that is better then military involvement or just leaving ISIS alone, we are left trying to decide what is the lesser of two evils.
and so typically Canadian. Even the stupid parts. Especially the stupid parts. 
