• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, Toronto's largest and longest running online community. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register on the forum. You can register with your facebook ID or with an email address. Join us!

Anti-terrorist raids in Toronto?

Big Harv

TRIBE Member
DTD said:
Are you not familar with Racial Profiling?
Racial profiling occurs when race is used by law enforcement or private security officials, to any degree, as a basis for criminal suspicion in non-suspect specific investigations. Discrimination based on race, ethnicity, religion, nationality or on any other particular identity undermines the basic human rights and freedoms to which every person is entitled.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/racial_profiling/index.do

What is racial profiling? The most common example of police racial profiling is "DWB", otherwise known as "driving while black". This refers to the practice of police targeting African Americans for traffic stops because they believe that African Americans are more likely to be engaged in criminal activity.

also

What is racial profiling? The most common example of police racial profiling is "DWB", otherwise known as "driving while black". This refers to the practice of police targeting African Americans for traffic stops because they believe that African Americans are more likely to be engaged in criminal activity.

http://www.ethnicmajority.com/racial_profiling.htm
So we should ignore what happened in New York, Washington, London, Madrid, and Bali and ask that our law enforcement offers monitors every group equally?? Sorry, there are people that fit certain profiles that are way more statistically more likely to organize an attack against Canadian civilians than from others. Not simply on race, but religion, economics and age.

I don't think 'racial profiling' is useful, but I think we all have to be honest with each other and recognize that law enforcement/intelligence agencies face time and budget constraints and they must focus on the most serious threats.
 

man_slut

TRIBE Member
Fun little rant relating to Canada's role in the "War on Terror" *Big scary voice*

Canada's Chatroom Jihadis
Terror in Toronto or Tempest in a Teapot
By JOHN CHUCKMAN

The arrest in Toronto of seventeen men, mostly quite young, for conspiracy to bomb places in Southern Ontario has raised a storm of comment. Unfortunately, much of it has been either premature or wrong.

A Congressman from Northern New York, uninformed but still generous with his opinions, declared that Canada was thick with al Qaeda cells owing to its liberal (a truly filthy word in the United States) immigration and refugee laws. Sadly, the Congressman's big red-nose talents are appreciated only in Canada, his ignorance being taken for insight in many parts of the United States.

Pat Buchanan parodies are also taken seriously by some in Canada, particularly in Alberta, and there are people here eager for any opportunity to prove their anti-terror bone fides to America's unsmiling leaders. This strain in our society should alert us to the possibility, however remote, of skewed investigations where terror is concerned.

The New York Times, that tea-sipping, wealthy widow of American newspapers, went out of her way to recognize The Toronto Star for substantial coverage of events. That is not praise clear-headed people welcome, The Times often having been on the wrong side of human rights issues as well as having served as the official Wal-Mart Greeter on the path to war.

Condoleezza Rice, too, took approving note of events in Toronto, but that surely is the moral equivalent of a twinkle from the eyes of Joachim von Ribbentrop.

Members of any security and intelligence apparatus are not immune to such blandishments. Results or seeming results bring praise, promotion, and budget increases to establishments that normally enjoy little public recognition. I have no reason to believe there has been inappropriate behavior by officials here, but I emphasize the importance of healthy skepticism until a clear picture emerges. The lack of healthy skepticism in America is precisely what has reduced that society to a spineless acceptance of whatever authority says, no matter how uninformed or unreasonable.

The known facts of the Toronto case are simple. CSIS, Canada's intelligence agency, identified one or more of these fellows on an Internet chat room about two years ago. This prompted additional investigation, and a group of young men sharing angry dreams was discovered. Finally, when a 3-ton load of ammonium nitrate, a fertilizer that can be used as a component for an explosive, was offered by the watchers and accepted by someone in the group, a wave of arrests quickly followed.

My first observation is that any group of young men thoughtless enough to reveal violent intentions on an Internet chat site represent a pretty low-level threat. After all, these chat sites are monitored constantly by police and intelligence services of many countries for child predators, traders in child porn, threats to governments, and for extreme political statements of every kind. Doing what these young men supposedly did is comparable to trying to build a bomb in a department-store display window on a busy avenue.

Well, maybe they are not very bright, and we do still need to be protected from people who are not very bright, but the bizarre nature of the accusations against them is suggested by statements from a lawyer for one of the accused.

While formal charges have not been produced and lawyers for the accused have received no discovery information, the lawyers were permitted, in a Darkness at Noon fashion, to read (but not copy) a synopsis of accusations which I understand is typically prepared by police. Apparently, such synopses have a history of great inaccuracy when compared to actual legal charges finally submitted in court. I believe that it was with this in mind and with the intention of alerting the thinking public to some odd stuff that a lawyer for one of the accused stood outside the court and recited some of the accusations. The points include a wish to behead the Prime Minister, take government hostages, blow up part of Parliament, and attack the CBC.

Behead the Prime Minister? Doesn't that just sound like what you would expect from angry young men discussing violent fantasies in a chat room? How many pimply-faced young men annually express dire wishes for school principals, teachers, girlfriends' fathers or others with some authority?

It may not be much of a legal charge, but it's great stuff for the press, and we've had the words cell, al Quaeda, and terrorism repeated countless times. There is not the least justification yet for any of these words.

We must keep in mind that a group of unhappy young men can easily be manipulated by a clever intelligence agent or policeman. Seduction and psychological manipulation are at the very heart of producing what is called human intelligence. There is often a rather fine line between young conspirators being observed by undercover agents and foolish young men being manipulated into incriminating themselves.

The press loves turning to someone resembling authority at such times for incisive comments, so mysterious "terror experts" suddenly are everywhere on Canada's airwaves. God, they seem to have descended like a great ugly flock of grief counselors, another questionable kind of expert, following a school killing.

I heard two terror experts on CBC radio. One an ex-British soldier and another an ex-CSIS official, both earning their livings now by selling security to private firms and governments. Ask an insurance agent whether you have enough life insurance and what response can you anticipate with virtually one-hundred percent certainty?

These experts warn of undefined fears, as in, who knows how many others are "out there"? Well, who knows how many dishonest terror experts there are out there hawking fear? The ex-CSIS man did it more subtly and gracefully than the ex-soldier, but shadowy nonsense remains shadowy nonsense, no matter the tone and vocabulary. The ex-CSIS man questioned the future application to Canada of a favorite expression of mine, "the peaceable kingdom," while offering absolutely nothing of substance to warrant his statement.

Even if these young men are guilty of crimes, how is their case so different to that of a man in Montreal who shot fourteen women one day or a pig farmer outside Vancouver whose hobby for years was luring with drugs dozens of prostitutes to their deaths? Does political anger make it different? Religion? A violent crime is a crime, and those found guilty should be separated from society. What we have here is the demonstrated wisdom of keeping an eye on Internet chat sites and on people doing questionable activities, but that is the case for many crimes we emphasize more than we once did, as with child pornography. There is no reason for a special fear to take hold when the subject is terror. It is dangerous and destructive of our best values.

I've often wondered where people go to become "terror experts." Is there a graduate degree offered by Bob Jones University or at Jerry Falwell's Liberty U? We know that a true and effective terrorist organization like the IRA always keeps its business utterly secret. Those suspected of informing are murdered without hesitation.

Some of these "experts" have experience in Israel, but everything that comes out of Israel on the subject of terror resembles a script prepared by the state security apparatus. Israel vigorously promotes the idea of terror in the world the way some countries promote tourism. It is simply in its interest.

Many of the firms for which the experts work were founded by men like Henry Kissinger and William Colby as ways of keeping a high income in retirement and an oar in the waters of intrigue. The intentions of such firms are entirely suspect. In some cases the firms may well serve as ways for American intelligence to penetrate the existing security of unsuspecting firms and governments, at home and abroad.

America's extreme, erratic, and often-uninformed attitudes towards terror provide the powerful gravitational field influencing and distorting current events. Why do I describe American attitudes as erratic and uninformed? First, terror did not begin with 9/11. Outfits like the IRA, ETA, and The Shining Path have decades of history, much of it unknown to average Americans who remain indifferent to what does not directly affect them.

America's own history is rich with tolerated internal terrorist organizations. This starts at the beginning with the Sons of Liberty before the American Revolution beating and tar-and-feathering officials in the colonies who were just doing their duty for what was then the legal government. Often officials' homes were attacked and either burnt or torn down. The same fate fell to Loyalists after the war. They were beaten, often burned-out, always run from their homes, and had their property stolen.

The tradition of internal terror vigorously continued with the Klu Klux Klan, an organization active for about a century, and it continued down through the fascist Bund of the 1930s and to the many armed, private militias that were so popular for decades until Timothy McVeigh's shadow fell across them. There are many, many examples of this kind of terror in American history, another notable one being Cosa Nostra, whose violent operations were long ignored by an FBI busy tracking left-leaning school teachers.

America has never winced at supporting terror in other places for causes with which it felt sympathy. The greatest example of this was decades of lavish support for the IRA. Collections were openly made in Irish bars in Chicago, New York, and Boston to buy the IRA's guns and bombs. Politicians and police were aware of this and did nothing, indeed some of them undoubtedly were contributors.

The most dreadful terror associated with America has been the state terror of its long series of colonial wars after World War II. Sometimes the terror is delegated to proxies, financed, trained, and given weapons and intelligence by the American government. This was the case in Chile, Guatemala, El Salvador, and a dozen other hells. Millions were spent by the CIA subsidizing thugs in Florida who carried out bombings and shootings in Cuba.

In Indonesia, with the end of Sukarno's government in 1965, the U.S. supported what was then the greatest holocaust since Hitler's, with five-hundred thousand Indonesians having their throats cut and their bodies dumped into rivers just because they were suspected of being communists. State Department officials are reported to have been on phones late into the night transmitting lists of names for the slaughter.

Vietnam was "hands-on" terror. Countless carpet bombings, search-and-destroy missions, napalmings, night-crawler assassinations, and other horrors chalked up maybe three million victims in an undeclared war against people in their own land. Along the way, interrogated suspects were thrown from helicopters and unknown thousands of helpless village women were raped and murdered. The terror spread to Cambodia when America's secret bombings and incursions destabilized its government and gave the world "the killing fields" of Pol Pot.

The point of reciting these dark parts of American history is to demonstrate forcefully how often that nation has turned to inappropriate, violent responses, and it proved no different in the case of 9/11. A great crime was committed, and any criminals who survived deserved to be brought to justice. But that was not what happened. Instead two Muslim nations were invaded, tens of thousands killed, a giant, secret kidnapping-and-torture organization established, and many civil liberties cast aside. This is not a model for Canada or any civilized society.

No thinking person believes that Canada's foreign policy should be driven by threats from any group. However, that is not the same thing as recognizing that great numbers of angry young men, here and abroad, are a symptom of something being very wrong.

Unless they are psychopaths, people do not just suddenly decide to blow things up. If they are psychopaths, then what they do cannot be called political and cannot be labeled as terrorism. America was advised privately, before its invasions, by many who understood that one result would be a huge wave of anger and alienation in the Muslim world. As with so many other wise words, this advice was ignored by Bush's fanatics.

Canada's new participation in Afghanistan is a ghastly mistake. It associates Canada's good name with a failed, disastrous policy. The fact is that U.S. is already slowly, quietly withdrawing from the mess it created in Afghanistan. It has pressured a number of allies, notably Canada and Great Britain, to help cover this gradual withdrawal. That really is Canada's dirty task in Afghanistan. Canada is not there to help people find peace and stability (although I am confident that Canada's troops will do some of this wherever the possibility exists) because the truth is that the U.S. has already quietly given the task up as lost. It fought a "cheap" war in Afghanistan, using warlords every bit as nasty as the Taleban to gain a quick victory, and there is almost no possibility of constructing a modern democratic state from the remains.

I do believe we will see justice for the young men in Canada with nothing but facts determining their fate. Canadians are a sensible and decent people. All the rash and uninformed comments made in recent days will fade like yesterday's headlines about miracles and aliens in The National Inquirer.

At the same time, I hope Canadians consider more carefully the deeply flawed policies Bush has imposed on the world. Two ancient Muslim nations are occupied and smoldering with resentment amidst economic ruin. A great, world cultural treasure has been pillaged and destroyed, making the Taleban's thuggish destruction of statues some years ago seem small by comparison. Iraq has been driven into the destructive beginnings of civil war. The country still does not have even dependable water or electricity. The U.S. threatens a third Muslim country almost weekly. Palestinians are treated worse today by Israel, with smiling American acquiescence, than black Africans were under apartheid, and there is no hint of a just end to the situation. And the learning curve in guerilla fighting means nothing but more intense attacks against foreign armies in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Robert Fisk, the superb British journalist on Middle East affairs, had a fascinating column recently. He explained how at the Baghdad morgue, one of whose officials he knows, there are standing orders that bodies brought in by Americans are not to be autopsied. The bodies often come tagged with a cursory description of the cause of death along the lines of extreme trauma. This is the kind of gruesome, revealing detail you will never see broadcast on American networks.

Not only do America's trigger-happy soldiers shoot innocent people regularly at roadblocks and in raids, but there is a secret dirty war going on in which political Iraqis are assassinated by America's private mercenary forces. A large number of Iraqi scientists previously associated with weapons programs have been mysteriously murdered, almost certainly the work of Mossad being given a free hand in the country. Americans may be unaware of what is being done in their name, but the people of Western Asia are well aware of it, and memories in the Middle East are long.

The argument that Canada's withdrawal from Afghanistan would make no difference is utterly false because the most important difference to be made involves our integrity and deepest principles.

John Chuckman lives in Ontario.
 

atbell

TRIBE Member
Financial Times Does Terrorisim in Canada

Here's what is being sold to an audience of pinstripe suite wearing, trans-atlantic business types ;)

Why Canada is a terrorist target
By Christopher Caldwell
Published: June 10 2006 03:00 | Last updated: June 10 2006 03:00

"We are a target because of who we are and how we live," said Stephen Harper, prime minister of Canada, last weekend. It was on the day that 17 men and boys from Ontario were arrested in an alleged terrorist plot that was to culminate, according to one prosecution document, in the lopping off of Mr Harper's own head. It is striking that Mr Harper's explanation of why Islamists want to bomb his country should so resemble George W. Bush's explanation of why Islamists want to bomb his. After all, between September 11 2001 and Mr Harper's election in January, the notion that the US and Canada are polar opposites was the cornerstone of Canadian national identity. Canada prides itself on its respect for international law, its refusal to participate in the Iraq invasion (although it has 2,300 troops in Afghanistan) and its devotion to multiculturalism.


Its targeting by terrorists raises two important questions: first, are the small, semi-pacifist countries of the west fighting the same war on terrorism as the big, militarily active ones? Second, what makes a country a terrorist target in the first place?

Canada's approach to terror reveals a split personality. On security, it has been tough. Emergency arrangements argued over ferociously in Britain and the US - including wide powers to tap phones and intercept mail - are available to Canada's Communications Security Establishment. An upcoming Supreme Court case will decide the fate of three suspected terrorists who have been held without charge for years. But in other areas Canada has been easygoing. Its intercommunity relations have been marked by political correctness (the president of the Muslim Council of Montreal congratulated the authorities last week for "correctly refer[ring] to these acts as alleged criminal actions motivated by politics and hatred, not by any religion or faith"). Its diplomatic posture, at least until Mr Harper's election in January, has shown an unconcealed belief that Americans overreact to practically everything.

This split personality has its roots in Canada's two-sided experience of terror. At one level, Canadians do understand that "it can happen here". Osama bin Laden has singled out the country specifically in his communiqués. The most deadly terrorist attack in history before 9/11 was the 1985 bombing of an Air India flight out of Toronto, in which 329 people died. A poll taken in the wake of the London bombings in July showed Canadians felt less secure than Americans did: 63 per cent of the former saw a terrorist attack as inevitable, versus 57 per cent of the latter.

But this edginess competes with a tendency towards complacency. Press accounts last week stressed the amateurishness of the plotters, who trained by playing paintball in the Toronto suburbs and wrote childish messages in chat rooms. To take solace in their haplessness is foolish. Since terrorists are always fantasists of a sort, the moment their plan goes awry they will always look a bit ridiculous. But the alleged Canadian plotters were not ridiculous at all. According to prosecutors, their ringleader was a supporter of the notorious Ahmed Khadr of Toronto, killed by Pakistani forces in 2003 while fighting with al-Qaeda. The group found the resources to buy three tons of ammonium nitrate, three times the payload in the Oklahoma City attacks of 1996. They organised a large conspiracy with unusually few blunders. (The group was infiltrated thanks to a far-reaching investigation that started outside the country.)

One source of complacency is self-regard. A poll last year by the Pew Research Center found that Canadians tower above other western countries in their sense that people like them; 94 per cent say they are "well liked by other nations". Last week a letter writer to a Canadian newspaper noted: "Most Canadians question why anyone would want to attack us because, by and large, we do live in a decent and just society." Increasingly, Canadians measure their decency and justice by comparing themselves with the US. A year after the 9/11 attacks, two-thirds of Canadians told Maclean's magazine the US was "a bully". The evolution of attitudes since then is well summed up by a headline that the Ottawa Citizen ran in 2003 after a US State Department report expressed worry that Canada's privacy laws impeded terrorist investigations: "US Says Canada Cares Too Much About Liberties."

Some Americans do, in fact, assume terrorists up north have the run of the place. The Republican representative Pete King, chairman of the House homeland security committee, said last week: "There is a disproportionate number of al-Qaeda in Canada because of [its] very liberal immigration laws and because of how political asylum is granted so easily." Canadians were appalled by the statement but there is some truth to it. The first big al-Qaeda attempt on the US involved two north-African-born Canadian residents trying to drive a bomb across the border to blow up Los Angeles airport in 1999. By the end of 2007, Canadians will need, for the first time, to show a passport before entering the US.

Canada has the right to form any idea of itself it wishes, whether the US approves or not. The problem is that constant invidious contrasts may have resulted in a misassessment of the terrorist threat Canada faces. This is in contrast to Australia, which assumes itself to be a big al-Qaeda target. Canada has tried to avoid the wrath of radical Islamists by just keeping its head down and making clear that it is not the US. Terrorists do not seem discriminating enough to tell the difference. Two years ago, Israel's ambassador to Canada warned: "The openness of Canada might be interpreted by the various terrorist organisations as a sort of naiveté that can be utilised and abused." He was right. While specific grievances can certainly play a role in radicalising specific people, what we have learnt from the targeting of peace-loving Canada is that terrorists attack, above all, simply because they can.

The writer is a senior editor at The Weekly Standard
 

SellyCat

TRIBE Member
atbell said:
Here's what is being sold to an audience of pinstripe suite wearing, trans-atlantic business types ;)

Why Canada is a terrorist target
By Christopher Caldwell
Published: June 10 2006 03:00 | Last updated: June 10 2006 03:00

"We are a target because of who we are and how we live,"
I can't beleive anyone can actually still say that with a straight face. Yeah, Steve; "They hate our freedom." Go fuck yourself.
 
DTD said:
Anbody who is saying these poor kids are quilty before even having a proper trail are racists . Plain and simple you cant hide behind all your myths and theories. This is a race motivated event.
You can't buy this kind of humour.
 

atbell

TRIBE Member
DTD said:
Originally Posted by DTD
Anbody who is saying these poor kids are quilty before even having a proper trail are racists . Plain and simple you cant hide behind all your myths and theories. This is a race motivated event.
To turn things around, is it a race motivated event from the accused point of view?

Are those young men who were plotting (or simply talking shit) racist? They apeare to be angry at "Canadians" or "Caucasians". Maybe many of the tentions in the world are currently due to (or amplified by) racisim.
 

2canplay

TRIBE Member
atbell said:
To turn things around, is it a race motivated event from the accused point of view?

Are those young men who were plotting (or simply talking shit) racist? They apeare to be angry at "Canadians" or "Caucasians". Maybe many of the tentions in the world are currently due to (or amplified by) racisim.
I think what DTD is getting at is that the whole investigation, arrest and subsequent media frenzy following the arrest, is underwritten by a latent distrust of Muslims. Leaving aside DTD's most direct point that the police investigated and then pursued their sting operation on these individuals, because they are muslim (and I assume posted on an Islamic website), there are some obvious violations of our basic rights as citizens which should offend and alarm people...it has not, and I suspect, it has not, because people are really scared of terrorists, particularly, the type that are associated with Al-Qaeda (whatever that means)

Look, if Chris Caldwell's characterization of the events surrounding and leading up to the arrest of these malfeasants is even partially true, (and I have been led to believe that in general he isn't far off) then you need to really look at how this can happen in our country.

If the police and security forces monitored a web site that these individuals were posting on, brought them in for questioning 2 years ago, warned them, and then developed and executed a sting operation to bring them down, then I'd submit we have a problem.

The police and security forces are doing their job - they are supposed to do this type of work...if you post shit on line, are warned, and you continue to do it, you're asking for trouble.

However, what is so alarming is that the population of this country seems to think that the arrest and incarceration of these individuals, without charge and without much explanation, is A OK. Why? Because they're Muslims and they're men.

Think about it...we, the people, have almost nothing to go on, except that 17 people have been arrested for "terrorsim"...we don't know what happened, what was planned or anything. One of the attorney's was so outraged and flabergasted by the allegations, that he tried to publicize the weak content of the allegations in the hopes of gaining a sympathetic ear to his client's plight. It didn't work. The allegations amplified the hysteria gripping the country and have furthered the cause of "security hawks." Why? Because they are Muslim...anything is possible when it comes to Muslims...they are crazy. It's better to be safe then sorry, so locking them up without charge is better than being sorry later.

It's a sad thing when we scoop up people from their homes because they know someone who may have been a little loopy and was stupid enough to fall for a police trap, lock them up, seclude them from their family and then keep the allegations for their arrest secret.

Doesn't anyone see anything wrong with that?
 
Last edited:

man_slut

TRIBE Member
I have a strange feeling this case is going to blow up in the face of the CSIS... I think thier case isn't too strong and the only reason they created a media frenzy was to strengthen thier extremely weak case. I think one person may get charged... the guy who agreed to buy nitrate.
 

SellyCat

TRIBE Member
man_slut said:
I have a strange feeling this case is going to blow up in the face of the CSIS... I think thier case isn't too strong and the only reason they created a media frenzy was to strengthen thier extremely weak case. I think one person may get charged... the guy who agreed to buy nitrate.
eah, that's what DebkFile was saying from day one; that they're only gonna charge one guy.

And all thoseo ther guys who got named...well now they're branded as terrorists forever. Luckily the law was there to protect the identities of the minors. but you know how that shit is: word'll get around about them too. They're gonna get all the bitches for SURE!

"I'm Al Quaeda...wanna hit the sheets?"
 

Vincent Vega

TRIBE Member
~atp~ said:
I'm sorry, I still can't take this case seriously at all.
Have you been given access to evidence that has not yet been disclosed? Why is everyone so willing to dismiss this before ANY evidence has actually been presented? "This case" hasn't actually been made yet Keith. How can you be so sure of its failings?
 

SellyCat

TRIBE Member
Vincent Vega said:
Have you been given access to evidence that has not yet been disclosed? Why is everyone so willing to dismiss this before ANY evidence has actually been presented? "This case" hasn't actually been made yet Keith. How can you be so sure of its failings?
It's his intuition. You know how sometimes you jsut get a bad feeling about something because of your previous experiences with it...the signs just line up a certain way. We're all gonna have to wait and see how this unfolds anyway.
 

Vincent Vega

TRIBE Member
2canplay said:
the population of this country seems to think that the arrest and incarceration of these individuals, without charge and without much explanation, is A OK. Why? Because they're Muslims and they're men.
What do you mean "without charge?" They have been charged with a multitude of offences, ranging in seriousness and scope. They all have lawyers (and pricy ones at that), they will have their day in court, and there is not A SHRED OF EVIDENCE that this was done "because they're Muslims" and I wish some of you would get off this ridiculous and braindead nonsense that their religion and/or race was the reason they were busted! And how do you know what "the population of this country" seems to think?

As for your comment about "the hysteria gripping the country" (which you referred to twice in this thread by the way) so far the only hysteria I've seen is in quotes like yours, about "young men scooped from their homes," "arrested and incarcerated without charge because they're Muslim men," "fanning the flames of terror, hatred and racism" etc. Look even within this thread as evidence. Which side is appearing more hysterical?

I don't see the general public being hysterical at all. Most appear to still be going about their daily lives as they were before the arrests were made. Most appear willing to let the process play out as it should, in an open and just fashion, and will draw their conclusions from said process. The only hysteria I see is the same old tired bleats about racism and hatred that surface from predictable corners depending on the flavour of the month issue, be it guns, gangs....or alleged terrorism.
 

judge wopner

TRIBE Member
Vincent Vega said:
Have you been given access to evidence that has not yet been disclosed? Why is everyone so willing to dismiss this before ANY evidence has actually been presented? "This case" hasn't actually been made yet Keith. How can you be so sure of its failings?

agreed, i find it funny how people are using the fact that much fo the evidence or charges are being secret as their rationale for the case being shoddy.

theres security reasons for not divulging all info, especially considering there is the possibility that global security forces have been acting on information gathered in this case. (again speculative but there wer arrests in london prior to and just after this case that may have been coordinated)

its like the guy who was about to shoot someone in the head but the gun jams. its a case of intent, the inability to secure charges is function of both the evidence/facts and legal tactics. if they get off because there may be legal wrangling, or dudes got had charges dropped for givign information of value to the police, how exactly does this speak to their "innocence" ?

i dont know enough information to make a call on their innocence, though it looks like theres some good evidence something shady was in the works. i guess we can get a better idea in the next few months as things come trhough.

id say csis and the rcmp have learned a few things since the air india debacle in addition to the incident last year about dudes filming the CN tower or whatever. i think they were a bit more careful in how they built a case.

why is it that people expect sensistive security information shoudl be read aloud for all to hear just so the public can make their judgement on these people?
 

triplem

TRIBE Member
Has anyone noticed anything about the link behind the "alleged" terrorists and the young man being held at Guantanamo Bay?

The detainees are not the first terrorist suspects to be tied to the Salaheddin Islamic Centre; Toronto's infamous Khadr "terror family" were also members. Alleged "mistreatment" of the Khadr family by Canadian security services has been cited as a motivation for the 17 accused.

Family patriarch Ahmad Sa'id Khadr was a principal al-Qaeda activist, while his eldest son is awaiting extradition to the United States on charges of seeking to supply al-Qaeda with weapons of mass destruction.

Another son, Omar Khadr, is one of the youngest prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, charged with killing a U.S. serviceman in Afghanistan.

The middle son, Abdurahman Khadr, now a resident in Toronto, is a former Guantanamo Bay prisoner and claims to have acted as a CIA informant.

In a legal case that has disappointed many Canadians, last week a judge overruled a secret federal government decision to deny Abdurahman a passport on national security grounds. The government apparently now plans to issue the passport, before revoking it immediately. Abdurahman initially claimed that he needed the document "to seek work in the United States," but now plans to take a vacation in Barbados (CanWest News Service, June 10).
http://jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2370027

I've never heard of the website before, so I'm not too sure of the accuracy of the information.
 

kerouacdude

TRIBE Member
in case you haven't seen it, quite an interesting read

Hateful chatter behind the veil
Key suspects' wives held radical views, Web postings reveal
OMAR EL AKKAD AND GREG MCARTHUR

From Thursday's Globe and Mail

MISSISSAUGA — When it came time to write up the premarital agreement between Zakaria Amara and Nada Farooq, Ms. Farooq briefly considered adding a clause that would allow her to ask for a divorce.

She said that Mr. Amara (now accused of being a leader of the alleged terror plot that led to the arrests of 17 Muslim men early this month) had to aspire to take part in jihad.

"[And] if he ever refuses a clear opportunity to leave for jihad, then i want the choice of divorce," she wrote in one of more than 6,000 Internet postings uncovered by The Globe and Mail.

Wives of four of the central figures arrested last month were among the most active on the website, sharing, among other things, their passion for holy war, disgust at virtually every aspect of non-Muslim society and a hatred of Canada. The posts were made on personal blogs belonging to both Mr. Amara and Ms. Farooq, as well as a semi-private forum founded by Ms. Farooq where dozens of teens in the Meadowvale Secondary School area chatted. The vast majority of the posts were made over a period of about 20 months, mostly in 2004, and the majority of those were made by the group's female members.

The tightly knit group of women who chatted with each other includes Mariya (the wife of alleged leader Fahim Ahmad), Nada (the wife of Mr. Amara, the alleged right-hand man) Nada's sister Rana (wife of suspect Ahmad Ghany), as well as Cheryfa MacAulay Jamal (the Muslim convert from Cape Breton, N.S. who married the oldest suspect, 43-year-old Qayyum Abdul Jamal). The women's husbands are part of a core group of seven charged with the most severe crimes -- plotting to detonate truck bombs against the Toronto Stock Exchange, a Canadian Forces target, and the Toronto offices of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

The women were bound by the same social, political and ideological aims. They organized "sisters-only" swimming days and held fundraisers for the notorious al-Qaeda-linked Khadr family. With the exception of the occasional Urdu or Arabic word or phrase, their posts are exclusively in English.

After their husbands were arrested, most of the women refused to tell their stories to the media; reached at her home in Mississauga, Ms. Farooq would not comment on her posts.

But in the years leading up to the arrests, they shared their stories with one another.

She knows it freaks her husband out just thinking about it, but 18-year-old Nada Farooq doesn't care: She wants a baby. It is mid-April, 2004, and the two have been married for less than a year. In the end, the jihad clause was not included in a prenuptial agreement.

Like many students at Meadowvale Secondary School, Zakaria Amara is busy worrying about final exams and what, if any, university to go to. But Ms. Farooq -- the Karachi-born daughter of a pharmacist who now hands out prescription medicine to soldiers at the Canadian Forces Base in Wainwright, Alta. -- has already done a fair bit of daydreaming about what it would be like to have a child. She even has a name picked. If she has a boy, she wants to name him Khattab, after the commander of the mujahedeen in Chechnya who battled Moscow until he was assassinated in 2002.

"And i pray to Allah my sons follow his footsteps Ameeen [Amen]," she writes at the on-line forum she founded for Muslim teens in Mississauga's Meadowvale area. Her avatar -- an on-line symbol used to indicate personality -- is a picture of the Koran and a rifle.

(All postings in this story have been rendered as they appeared on-line.)

There is nothing casual about Ms. Farooq's interpretation of Islam. She reiterates the belief that jihad is the "sixth pillar" of the religion, and her on-line postings are decidedly interested in the violent kind. In the forum titled "Terrorism and killing civilians," she writes a detailed point-by-point explanation of why the Taliban is destined to emerge victorious in Afghanistan.

Virtually every other government on the planet, however, she only has disdain for.

"All muslim politicians are corrupt," she writes. "There's no one out there willing to rule the country by the laws of Allah, rather they fight to rule the country by the laws of democracy." She criticizes Muslims in places such as Dubai for spending money on elaborate buildings while Iraqis are being killed.

Ms. Farooq's criticism is often directed first at other Muslims. When another poster writes about how he finds homosexuality disgusting, Nada replies by pointing out that there are even gay Muslims. She then posts a photo of a rally held by Al-Fatiha, a Canadian support group for gay Muslims. "Look at these pathetic people," she writes. "They should all be sent to Saudi, where these sickos are executed or crushed by a wall, in public."

The majority of Muslims Ms. Farooq does admire are ones currently at war, and she reserves her most vitriolic comments for the people they are at war with.

In a thread started by Mr. Fahim's wife, Mariya, marking the death of Hamas leader Abdel-Aziz al-Rantissi after an Israeli missile strike, Ms. Farooq unleashes her fury: "May Allah crush these jews, bring them down to their kneees, humuliate them. Ya Allah make their women widows and their children orphans." The statement is so jarring that another poster complains it's not right for Muslims to wish such things on other people. Ms. Farooq's sister Rana is also in favour of violent resistance, posting often graphic photos of female militants and suicide bombers.

But while her heart may be in the battlefields and holy cities, Nada Farooq finds herself physically in Canada, a country the Karachi-born teen moved to after spending her childhood in Saudi Arabia. Her name is properly pronounced "Needa," and when she came to Canada as a child, some of the kids at her school teased her by calling her "Needa Shower." She'd often come home in tears.

The Farooqs, a Pakistani family, came to Canada in 1997 because they didn't like the idea of raising their children in the conservative society of Saudi Arabia, where foreign-born children don't have access to the same education as nationals, said Nada's father, Mohammad Umer Farooq.

When a Globe reporter contacted Nada's father at his home in Wainwright, and described some of his daughter's Internet postings, Mr. Farooq said he was "curious" and "concerned."

His daughter never expressed such opinions to him, he said, though he noted that he's worked in Alberta for the past five years and only makes it home to Mississauga a few weeks every year. He headed west because the pharmacist training hours required in Alberta were much lower.

His daughter has always been more religious than he and his wife, he said, and it was a faith that she developed in Canada, not Saudi Arabia. He described himself as 30 per cent religious and his daughter as 100 per cent.

"Occasionally. I pray. She prays five times."

While his daughter has used her Internet forum to lament the end of the Taliban, Mr. Farooq is a firm supporter of Canada's mission in Afghanistan. Many of the soldiers he serves at CFB Wainwright will eventually be joining the mission.

"They are there for the betterment of the people. They are there for the development of Afghanistan."

While she forms a close circle of Muslim friends, Ms. Farooq is never comfortable with life in Canada. She posts that her mother is often lonely because her father spends large portions of his time at work. She talks about going to the University of Toronto in Mississauga as fulfilling her parents' dreams rather than her own.

Ms. Farooq's hatred for the country is palpable. She hardly ever calls Canada by its name, rather repeatedly referring to it as "this filthy country." It's a sentiment shared by many of her friends, one of whom states that the laws of the country are irrelevant because they are not the laws of God.

In late April of 2004, a poster asks the forum members to share their impressions of what makes Canada unique. Nada's answer is straightforward.

"Who cares? We hate Canada."

In Cheryfa MacAulay Jamal's mind, every Muslim is another potential victim.

As a 44-year-old member of an on-line forum inhabited almost exclusively by teenagers, Ms. Jamal fits snugly into the role of maternal figure, and the advice she dispenses reflects her firm belief that the forces of evil are out to get every member of her adopted religion. She encourages Muslim youths to learn about herbal medicine and first aid lest they ever find themselves in a Muslim country under embargo, unable to receive proper medicine. Even in Canada, she says, one can never become complacent.

"You don't know that the Muslims in Canada will never be rounded up and put into internment camps like the Japanese were in WWII!" she writes in one 2004 post. This is a time when Muslims "are being systematically cleansed from the earth," she adds.

If she's looking for an example of such oppression, Ms. Jamal finds it in the Khadrs, the Canadian family whose patriarch, Ahmed Said Khadr, was killed by Pakistani forces and declared a martyr by al-Qaeda. In June, 2004, Ms. Jamal spearheaded a committee to help Mr. Khadr's widow, Maha. In Ms. Jamal's view, Maha Khadr and her family have committed no crime, only stated their opinion, and it is the duty of the entire Muslim nation to ensure the family's well-being.

Ms. Jamal's zealousness for homegrown Muslim causes is matched only by her rejection of just about everything Canadian. As the June, 2004 federal election draws near, she repeatedly advises Muslim youth to completely avoid the process. Voting, she tells them, inherently violates the sovereignty of God, making it the most egregious sin against Islam.

"Are you accepting a system that separates religion and state?" she asks. "Are you gonna give your pledge of allegiance to a party that puts secular laws above the laws of Allah? Are you gonna worship that which they worship? Are you going to throw away the most important thing that makes you a muslim?"

Ms. Jamal's list of forbidden institutions goes beyond politics. Banking, membership in the United Nations, women's rights and secular law are all aspects of Canadian society she finds unacceptable.

But her deepest outrage, like that of so many Muslims, is time and again sparked by the treatment of her brothers and sisters around the world. In a May, 2004 post titled "Behold Your Enemy!" she posts multiple articles describing the humiliation of Iraqi prisoners at the hands of American soldiers.

"Know what you will face one day," she warns fellow forum members. "Let them call you a terrorist, let them make you look like a savage, but know that THIS is the filth of the earth, the uncivilised destroyer of humanity.

"Know from this day that this is not an Iraqi problem, it is not an Afghani problem, it is not a Palestinian problem, it is not a Somali problem. IT IS YOUR PROBLEM!!!"

Often, the conversation was quite tame. The women post advice on make-up, organizing sisters-only events and finding restaurants that offer truly halal Chinese food. Fahim Ahmad's wife, Mariya, posts a warning to other women not to go watch the brothers play soccer, because it makes them uncomfortable."Yea, and besides, their OUR husbands!" Ms. Jamal concurs. "Go get your own to stare at!"

But inevitably, it would come back to Islam, the very purpose for which Ms. Farooq created the forum in the first place. When it comes to religion, the wives of Mr. Amara, Mr. Jamal, Mr. Ghany and Mr. Ahmad exhibit a commitment to hard-line fundamentalism that rivals and often exceeds that of their husbands.

In May, 2004, the Meadowvale students come across an extremely graphic video showing the beheading of a U.S. hostage in Iraq. Mr. Fahim, posting under the name "Soldier of ALLAH," praises the killers as mujahedeen who will be rewarded in the afterlife. Another poster maintains the beheading was actually carried out by U.S. forces as a ploy to direct anger at the Muslim community. It's this post that inspires Nada to prohibit any further discussion of similar conspiracy theories.

Three posts later, her husband reprints an article claiming the Americans were responsible for the beheading.

But such occasional bickering between newlyweds does not stop Ms. Jamal from seeing the bigger picture. In her 40s, she is more than twice as old as most of the other Muslims on the forum. But like her husband, she believes young Muslims are the only ones capable of standing up against non-Muslim oppression.

For the most part, the wives of the other suspects do not let her down. This is especially true of Ms. Farooq, who deeply believes that education, financial success and other such goals are relatively frivolous because they only help Muslims during their time on Earth, and not in the afterlife. When another forum member disagrees with her view, she describes him as being "too much in this dunya [world]," and not sufficiently concerned with what comes after.

"Those who are sincere in pleasing Allah will go to whatever length to help the true believers," Ms. Farooq writes. "Those who fear Allah more than they fear the CSIS. Those are the ones who will succeed in the hereafter." NEXT: The transformation of

Zakaria Amara

Husbands and wives

CHERYFA AND QAYYUM ABDUL JAMAL

Cheryfa's age: 44

Husband: Qayyum Abdul Jamal, charged with knowingly participating in the activities of a terrorist group, receiving training and intent to cause an explosion

On-line nickname: UmmTayyab ("Mother of Tayyab")

Quote: "You don't know that the Muslims in Canada will never be rounded up and put into internment camps like the Japanese were in WWII!"

RANA AND AHMAD GHANY

Rana's age: 19

Husband: Ahmad Ghany, charged with knowingly participating in the activities of a terrorist group and receiving training

On-line nickname: Al-Mujahidah ("The Jihadist")

Quote: "May Allah curse the jews.. Ameen"

NADA FAROOQ AND ZAKARIA AMARA

Nada's age: 20

Husband: Zakaria Amara, charged with knowingly participating in the activities of a terrorist group, receiving training, providing training or recruiting and intent to cause an explosion

On-line nickname: Admin (the website's administrator)

Quote: "Those who fear Allah more than they fear the CSIS. Those are the ones who will succeed in the hereafter."

MARIYA AND FAHIM AHMAD

Mariya's age: 19

Husband: Fahim Ahmad, charged with knowingly participating in the activities of a terrorist group, importing a firearm, receiving training, providing training or recruiting and intent to cause an explosion

On-line nickname: Zawjatu Faheem ("Wife of Faheem")

Quote: "I heard that some sisters were watching the brothers play soccer last time...just wanted to let you know the brothers dont feel comfortable playing while the sisters are watching, so please, refrain from going there inshallaah and find something that will benefit you."
 

Lurker

TRIBE Member
^^^ I saw that article this morning. Scary shit.

I can't understand why someone would travel to a western nation, in order to take advantage of it's western infrastructure, only to continue to hate everything it stands for?

If you hate it that much, LEAVE!

I wonder if these western culture hating women also drive cars on their own? That's a little bit of empowerment that wouldn't be afforded them under harsh Taliban-esque rule.
 

judge wopner

TRIBE Member
Lurker said:
^^^ I saw that article this morning. Scary shit.

I can't understand why someone would travel to a western nation, in order to take advantage of it's western infrastructure, only to continue to hate everything it stands for?

If you hate it that much, LEAVE!

I wonder if these western culture hating women also drive cars on their own? That's a little bit of empowerment that wouldn't be afforded them under harsh Taliban-esque rule.

lots of people who were born here hate the country. or at least aspects of the lifestyle here. its not a crime to say so.

acting upon it in a violent manner is, so is being caught about to act on it in a violent manner. its just hard to define intent for a crime that hasnt been comitted yet based on internet messages.

they are being homophobic and hateful w/ such statments which recnetly someone was charged for posting similiar messages on a website in milton non? (though id rather allow them the freedom to say such stuff no matter how ignorant)
 

Lurker

TRIBE Member
judge wopner said:
lots of people who were born here hate the country. or at least aspects of the lifestyle here. its not a crime to say so.

acting upon it in a violent manner is, so is being caught about to act on it in a violent manner. its just hard to define intent for a crime that hasnt been comitted yet based on internet messages.

they are being homophobic and hateful w/ such statments which recnetly someone was charged for posting similiar messages on a website in milton non? (though id rather allow them the freedom to say such stuff no matter how ignorant)
I guess that's the beauty of free speech. To me, the hypocrisy of living within the culture when you can't stand it at all is pretty lame. I guess these kids wanted the best of both worlds: All the hate, but all the perks too (cars, plentiful food, schools etc.)
 
Top