• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, the online home of TRIBE MAGAZINE. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register. Join us!

How badly do terrorists want to hurt Canada?

Boss Hog

TRIBE Member
Harper was just being interviewed on CBC, and the topic came around to terrorism. He said something to the effect of "the people who were responsible for 9/11 would like to hurt our country just as badly."

Do you think so?
 

judge wopner

TRIBE Member
Boss Hog said:
Harper was just being interviewed on CBC, and the topic came around to terrorism. He said something to the effect of "the people who were responsible for 9/11 would like to hurt our country just as badly."

Do you think so?
its very fashionable to be alarmist over the election of a conservative prime minister, claiming as some did that our nation would radically shift ot the right, and fret over the increasing instances of goverment invasion of our privancy and corporate control of the media,
yet the exact opposite sentiment is claimed by these same people when the very suggestion that canada is in harms way for terrorism, they say you are fear mongering.

people were quick to say the air india disaster was an attack not on indian canadians but canadians plain and simple, yet few continue said logic and view th eattack as a canadian terrrorist attack, planned on our soil. no it was a foreign issue simply played out on our soil, and away with the fear mongering that other threats may exist.

its long but read it, appreciate the existance of crime both organized and highly volatile in canada. its easy to view each passing day of stability as further proof taht no such threat exists, and call those who think otherwise fear mongers.

http://www.csis-scrs.gc.ca/en/publications/commentary/com85.asp
 

SellyCat

TRIBE Member
I had the privilege to attend--all expenses paid--the 2004 Canadian Association of Security Intelligence Studies (CASIS) annual conference in Ottawa. They addressed this issue there and the speakers--on this issue--claimed that an attack on Canadian soil is not a question of "if", but merely "when". They cited the attempted bombing of an Orthodox Jewish neighborhood in Montreal as evidence of the intent by Jihadists (the best phrase to describe them, either home-grown or International.)

The speakers cited Canada's 6--or so--major bridges across which most of our commerce with the USA is conducted, and that disabling any one of those bridges would cause severe harm to both ecnomies. It was a compelling argument--but that's all they had to back it up with. Aside from "trust us, we know shit".

On the other hand, I think it's certainly in their interest to claim that Canada will certainly be attacked. Although, these organisations are supposed to be obsessed with truth, their functioning administrations are focused on budgets and power. And of course it behooves any leader to cite threats to the population for the purpose of building consensus and support.

One thing I've often thought about is the danger that our government has put us in by having us lead the international force in Afghanistan. Canadians do a ton of fighting there and that major presence increases our profile as a potential target. No Canadians were asked whether we want to participate, and I will be enraged by that fact if it results in an attack against our civillians. The government will say that Jihadists were going to do that anyway, so it didn't matter what we got ourselves into. I think that's a bullshit argument that can be neither proven nor disproven. Just look at how the amount of Jihadist terrorism across the planet has proliferated since the invasion of Iraq.

The speakers at CASIS did point out that most Jihadist activity in Canada is in the form of clandestine logistics development for supporting operatives and their networks within the United States. The best example is the dood involved in the "Millenium Bombing Plot". He got pinched trying to smuggle a massive bomb across the border in BC (I think) which he was to bring to LAX airport for a huge attack that was supposed occur simulteneously with other attacks around the world, including the bombing of Jordanian hotels filled with Americans and Israelis. That attacks was put together by Khalid Shekh Mohammad, the same guy who planned 9/11 who is also the uncle of Ramse Yussuf, who pulled off the 1993 WTC bombing (which very nearly succeeded in bringing down the building)
 
Last edited:

atbell

TRIBE Member
I am not particularly concerned about terrorist activity here.

The reason is I just try to think like a terrorist. Why would me, terrorist, stop in Canada to attack when the golden goose is but hours to the south. It seems that with only a little more risk and effort a terrorist could hit a much bigger target.

I'm also of the opinion that Canadians have a less pronounced effect on the world then we would like to believe.
 

judge wopner

TRIBE Member
atbell said:
I am not particularly concerned about terrorist activity here.

The reason is I just try to think like a terrorist. Why would me, terrorist, stop in Canada to attack when the golden goose is but hours to the south. It seems that with only a little more risk and effort a terrorist could hit a much bigger target.

I'm also of the opinion that Canadians have a less pronounced effect on the world then we would like to believe.
you may be right, though why attack spain when the UK is right around the corner?
why bomb turkey?
why bombs in indonesia?

domestic extremist organizations may feel as strongly if not more so about their domestic situation vs. the central targets like the US or the UK.

again i think if you suggested people were planning on blowing up a plane from canada to india peopel would have said bullshit, not canada!! and yet it happened and we shit on csis/rcmp for not stopping it even though they had some knowledge of it, yet when they give further warnings we say "give us hard evidence, spill the beans on ongoing investigations, prove it prove it!!!" its a no-win situation for those services i think, you wont hear much about the stopping of a network that may have planned something, all you may see is a raid on a location rounding up suspects while the newspaper will say "what have these men done, they havent comit a crime" thats the difficulty in counter-terrorism, you have to stop people from commiting the crime, where they are in a position of not having done something illegal yet but about to.

just watch 24!!!!

anyways, ill admit i feel perfectly safe but more out of a general feeling that 'it wont happen to me" kind of selfishness that keeps soldiers in war thinking they are special and bombs wont tear them apart like it did to their buddies.

if being in afghanistan provokes a terrorist attack, i dont see it as different from us being simply part of the G7 and sided with the states as cause for violence, both are reprehensible.

people say we are more a base of operations so we are probally safe because of this, id say thats sickening to think that we do less to stop epope from colluding on our soil to plan attacks on other nations. we may shit on the US for this and that but if it was within our capacity to hamper or stop a terrorist attack on the US wouldnt we want to , or should we open up the borders and let whomever go through just as long as nothing happens on our soil?
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
judge wopner said:
you may be right, though why attack spain when the UK is right around the corner?
Spain has a historical muslim population and has a domestic organization that was perfroming attacks as part of a speratist movement. There involvement in Iraq was also very contreversial.

why bomb turkey?
Turkey has one of those human rights records that makes pol pot roll over in his grave and lick his own balls. After 40 years of beating on sepertist Kurds and with a strong push that Iraq remain one country (ie exactly not what the local turkis kurd community wants) they inspired some real hate within there own borders.

why bombs in indonesia?
So many reasons its hard to describe. But the Bali bombing were meant to preasure the aussies out of Iraq. Additionally Indonesia really does set a whole new standard on how to beat your people constantly with a stick without actually breaking bones as to prevent them from working for you. If you want to pick 10 countries that make no bloody sense what so ever Indonesia deserves two spots on the list.

However Indonessia has three regions that are currently in armed rebellions in regards to seperation.




In each of these three cases we have Muslim dominated seperatist groups who are trying to create a new state. The creation of a new state is far to tempting a prize for anyone to ignore. These three attacks to me made plenty of sense, the London subway bombings were the anomoly to me.
 

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
From 1963 to 1970, the FLQ committed over 200 violent political actions, including bombings, bank hold-ups and at least three deaths by FLQ bombs and two deaths by gunfire. In 1963, Gabriel Hudon and Raymond Villeneuve were sentenced to 12 years in prison for crimes against the state after their bomb killed Sgt. O'Neill, a watchman at Montreal's Canadian Army Recruitment Centre. By 1970, twenty-three members of the FLQ were in jail, including four convicted murderers, and one member had been killed by his own bomb. Targets included English owned businesses, banks, McGill University, Loyola College, and the homes of prominent English speakers in the wealthy Westmount area of the city. On February 13, 1969 the Front de libération du Québec set off a powerful bomb that ripped through the Montreal Stock Exchange causing massive destruction and seriously injuring twenty-seven people.

As a Marxist group, the FLQ was also opposed to the United States' ruling class and one cell supposedly plotted to blow up the Statue of Liberty, but they were apprehended before this could occur.
from wiki



Until the mid 80's American police conducted there bomb training in Montreal as Montreal was in fact the bombing capital of North America. Lets not forget that just over 30 years ago tanks were deployed and a state of martial law declared to inprison our own marxist seperatist party after they began kidnapping diplomats.

We look the other way and say not here, never in Canada. But we forget the Oka crisis in which armed natives took the road leading to there territory and made very clear they would shoot first.

The BC plot to bomb LAX was very real, we can't pretend that we are some how above this. Even though my personal belief is that its better to allow the attck than to spend resources preventing it. 3000 lives just aren't worth much to me.
 

judge wopner

TRIBE Member
Ditto Much said:
Spain has a historical muslim population and has a domestic organization that was perfroming attacks as part of a speratist movement. There involvement in Iraq was also very contreversial.



Turkey has one of those human rights records that makes pol pot roll over in his grave and lick his own balls. After 40 years of beating on sepertist Kurds and with a strong push that Iraq remain one country (ie exactly not what the local turkis kurd community wants) they inspired some real hate within there own borders.



So many reasons its hard to describe. But the Bali bombing were meant to preasure the aussies out of Iraq. Additionally Indonesia really does set a whole new standard on how to beat your people constantly with a stick without actually breaking bones as to prevent them from working for you. If you want to pick 10 countries that make no bloody sense what so ever Indonesia deserves two spots on the list.

However Indonessia has three regions that are currently in armed rebellions in regards to seperation.




In each of these three cases we have Muslim dominated seperatist groups who are trying to create a new state. The creation of a new state is far to tempting a prize for anyone to ignore. These three attacks to me made plenty of sense, the London subway bombings were the anomoly to me.
true, and that was kind of my point,

there are muslim communities in canada too, they may not be as historic as spain but there area a community nonetheless,
i dont see this community as the reason for potential bombing so much as that perpetrators of islamic extremist organizations may hide withint he fabric of these communities.

us being next to the cash cow doesnt mean we are immune, it just means we are one of many potential targets.

we may not have a large effect globally, but it was big enough for mr. bin laden to call out canada among others as enemies. our lead role in afghanistan doesnt help the situtaiton from that particular standpoint.
 

~atp~

TRIBE Member
The statement is void of any substantial meaning, aside from serving as a rallying cry for the cowboy conservatives in our country.
 

judge wopner

TRIBE Member
~atp~ said:
The statement is void of any substantial meaning, aside from serving as a rallying cry for the cowboy conservatives in our country.
in what sense? does admiting there are criminal elements in canada nothing more than feeding conservative images of a false war on terrorism?

or is there a way to be objectively cautious yet reasonably sound at the same time?
 
tribe cannabis goldsmith - gold cannabis accessories

SellyCat

TRIBE Member
judge wopner said:
people say we are more a base of operations so we are probally safe because of this, id say thats sickening to think that we do less to stop epope from colluding on our soil to plan attacks on other nations. we may shit on the US for this and that but if it was within our capacity to hamper or stop a terrorist attack on the US wouldnt we want to , or should we open up the borders and let whomever go through just as long as nothing happens on our soil?
Woah, nobody said we shouldn't prevent them from using as a base of support. That's a wild accusation. The whole reason for the giving the Millenium Bombing plot example was to show that we DO stop that stuff from happening. And non of the 9/11 guys had anything to do with Canada.

And JW, I find that you're bending over backward to justify the Prime Minister's statements by refering only to the most theoretical of explanations. Spain, UK, Indonesia have VERY GOOD reasons to be targets of Jihadist terrorism. Referencing the FLQ is totally inappropriate because they are not Jihadists. If they WERE Jihadists, they would have murdered hundreds and hundreds of poeple. During the '70s, there was terrorism EVERYWHERE; I'm talking mad hijackings all the time, where yes the people did get airplanes to Cuba and escaped. BUT those attacks rarely killed more than like 6 people. (Except for aircraft bombings which were a lot more rare than hijackings)

In the grand scheme of things, Canada is an ultra-low priority target. And yes, being in AFGHANISTAN, is worse than being a member of the G8! The countried in the EU that are in danger of attack have huge, poor, concentrated and isolated Musilim populations that have nothing better to do than go to the Mosque all day and be legitimately disgusted by the culture that surrounds them. We do not have anyting like that in Canada--there are no ghettoised Muslim Enclaved here.

Osama Bin Laden placed more calls to London than anywhere else in the world. The EU countries with large muslim populations have massive domestic tension. Before 9/11 you could go to Muslim bookstores in Europe and find one cheaply printed tract after another of burning calls to wage a bloody holy war against the west. And nobody cared or did anything about it. That's why European countries and WAY MORE a target than Canada could or would ever be.

Turkey -- They are pro-western allies of the US BUT ARE MUSLIM--that makes them "Apostates" and bumps them right up on the list of targets. Indonesia -- Muslims are Angry because the UN 'took' East Timor from them, while they were the ones who committed genocide against the Timorise and stole their land in a totally illegitimate action in the first place, and that on top of the reasons Ditto-Much gave you.

And again, referencing the FLQ is totally ridiculous.
 
Last edited:

judge wopner

TRIBE Member
SellyCat said:
Woah, nobody said we shouldn't prevent them from using as a base of support. That's a wild accusation. The whole reason for the giving the Millenium Bombing plot example was to show that we DO stop that stuff from happening. And non of the 9/11 guys had anything to do with Canada.

And JW, I find that you're bending over backward to justify the Prime Minister's statements by refering only to the most theoretical of explanations. Spain, UK, Indonesia have VERY GOOD reasons to be targets of Jihadist terrorism. Referencing the FLQ is totally inappropriate because they are not Jihadists. If they WERE Jihadists, they would have murdered hundreds and hundreds of poeple. During the '70s, there was terrorism EVERYWHERE; I'm talking mad hijackings all the time, where yes the people did get airplanes to Cuba and escaped. BUT those attacks rarely killed more than like 6 people. (Except for aircraft bombings which were a lot more rare than hijackings)

In the grand scheme of things, Canada is an ultra-low priority target. And yes, being in AFGHANISTAN, is worse than being a member of the G8! The countried in the EU that are in danger of attack have huge, poor, concentrated and isolated Musilim populations that have nothing better to do than go to the Mosque all day and be legitimately disgusted by the culture that surrounds them. We do not have anyting like that in Canada--there are no ghettoised Muslim Enclaved here.

Osama Bin Laden placed more calls to London than anywhere else in the world. The EU countries with large muslim populations have massive domestic tension. Before 9/11 you could go to Muslim bookstores in Europe and find one cheaply printed tract after another of burning calls to wage a bloody holy war against the west. And nobody cared or did anything about it. That's why European countries and WAY MORE a target than Canada could or would ever be.

Turkey -- They are pro-western American allies of the US BUT ARE MUSLIM--that makes them "Apostates" and bumps them right up on the list of targets. Indonesia -- Muslims are Angry because the UN 'took' East Timor from them, while they were the ones who committed genocide against the Timorise and stole their land in a totally illegitimate action in the first place, and that on top of the reasons Ditto-Much gave you.

And again, referencing the FLQ is totally ridiculous.
very good points indeed, too bad i never referenced the FLQ, go check out the post.

im exagerating when saying people are suggesting we do nothing to stop potential violent events from occuring but i hope you see the nature of what im suggesting.

again citing higher levels of domestic tension among certain groups or that Turkey is a more "critical" target compared to canada does put things in perspetive, and i agree with the need for comparative analysis of any given situation. but that being said, i think its irresponsible to rely soley on this comparative break down to suggest that we are only a minor target.

i havent said a word about stephen harpers statment, so im not interested in his or his parties politicization of the issue of domestic threats and extremist activity in canda.

my contention is that threats do exist in canada from multiple extremjst groups who do have operations here, this is well known, but the extent to which they exist the immediacy of the threat is unknown but i would agree that an terrorist or any sort of violent attack against canadian soil is minimal but still requiring addressing.

im not sure how much canadian operatives were involved in permitting 9/11 to occur and you probally arent any more sure either because so much is unknown about the planning. and besides itsnot really just about 9/11.

the air india bombing is my case in point, i think the existance of an extremist group taht planned and carried otu a bombing on our soil is underappreciated as the victums were largely "indo-canadians" and people mistakenly viewed the event as an international issue that happened to occur on canadian soil. its existance signals something wrong with how we deal with such issues.

it doesnt mean that acknowledging the existance of say punjabi extremist groups in canada should result in mass detention and deportation of canadian-punjabi's, nor does it mean that at any given moment they will attack. it doesn mean our secruity services have to continually watch out for this and similar groups acting within our borders.

and i think many muslim groups would disagree with your claim that muslim unrest had anything to do wtiht the terrorist attacks in the UK or turkey. turkey is a complicated one as the actual bombings had multiple claims by varying groups, its tought to say how complicit muslim extrmists were vs. curds and the like. but anyway, without going totally off topic, the suggestion taht teh conditions of UK muslims was a factor in the Tube bombings goes against the British Council of Muslis who has claimed these attacks had noting to do with islam or british muslims and were the work of misguided individuals. couple that with the fact that myuslims in britian live in much better economic conditions than many muslims in the mid-east and the comparative anyalis begins to change from your linear presumption about why attacks occur.

non?
 

Big Cheese

TRIBE Member
Ditto Much said:
3000 lives just aren't worth much to me.

yup

2998 of those will mean a little bit more, especially when the last 2 are immediate family members or friends, or loved ones

you'll mos def be singing a diff tune bro.
 

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
Big Cheese said:
yup

2998 of those will mean a little bit more, especially when the last 2 are immediate family members or friends, or loved ones

you'll mos def be singing a diff tune bro.

yup but it doesn't chnage the validity of the statement. Just because I'm hurt and I morn doesn't make the event more significant. The emotional response to loss is extremely powerful but I don't believe that emotions should guide government policy.
 

judge wopner

TRIBE Member
sorry i just realized i referd to the Kurds as "curds" in my last post and that was not intentional however funny in a racialistic way that was!!

i love kurds!!!
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

SellyCat

TRIBE Member
judge wopner said:
...i think many muslim groups would disagree with your claim that muslim unrest had anything to do wtiht the terrorist attacks in the UK or turkey. turkey is a complicated one as the actual bombings had multiple claims by varying groups, its tought to say how complicit muslim extrmists were vs. curds and the like. but anyway, without going totally off topic, the suggestion taht teh conditions of UK muslims was a factor in the Tube bombings goes against the British Council of Muslis who has claimed these attacks had noting to do with islam or british muslims and were the work of misguided individuals. couple that with the fact that myuslims in britian live in much better economic conditions than many muslims in the mid-east and the comparative anyalis begins to change from your linear presumption about why attacks occur.

non?
non...

1) The bombings were specifically and explicitly connected to one man, who escaped to Italy and was caught by police there. He was in the video tapes doing the dress-rehearsal with the suicide bombers. That man was directly linked AQ's international command and logistics structure. THAT is all that matters, not the fact that both ME and ATP claimed to have personally BEEN the suicide bombers at the time!

2) The idea that Kurds in Turkey blew up a SYNAGOGUE and a British Bank is completely ludicrous in every way. It is entirely outside the MO of the PKK to commid acts of mass murder. This is specifically a JIHADIST thing to do. The PKK, like the ETA, commit small carbombing that rarely kill ONE, let alone 200 people, and assassinations of specific officials, judges, police officers, etc.

3) OF COURSE the British Council of Muslims would say it had nothing to do with Islam!!! Are you joking! They're an official organisation! They're not going to come out and claim, on behalf of Muslims that the bombing represent ALL MUSLIM IN BRITAIN! Honestly, what they have to say is completely irrelavant. God, come on, that's retarded! And you're completely ignoring the fact that FOR YEARS Britain has had a cadre of EXTREMELY VIRULANT Muslim preachers in two mosques in particular IN LONDON and one guy who would sit EVERYDAY in that free-speech park and preech the most violent, extremist calls for ALL MUSLIMS to arm and train themselves for the HOLY WAY AGAINST ENGLAND AND AMERICA!

I suggest you watch the PBS Fronline episode called "Al Quaeda's New Front". http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/front/view/

The fact is that there are several, serious, ideological bases in Europe that promote Jihad against Europe!
 

judge wopner

TRIBE Member
SellyCat said:
non...

1) The bombings were specifically and explicitly connected to one man, who escaped to Italy and was caught by police there. He was in the video tapes doing the dress-rehearsal with the suicide bombers. That man was directly linked AQ's international command and logistics structure. THAT is all that matters, not the fact that both ME and ATP claimed to have personally BEEN the suicide bombers at the time!

2) The idea that Kurds in Turkey blew up a SYNAGOGUE and a British Bank is completely ludicrous in every way. It is entirely outside the MO of the PKK to commid acts of mass murder. This is specifically a JIHADIST thing to do. The PKK, like the ETA, commit small carbombing that rarely kill ONE, let alone 200 people, and assassinations of specific officials, judges, police officers, etc.

3) OF COURSE the British Council of Muslims would say it had nothing to do with Islam!!! Are you joking! They're an official organisation! They're not going to come out and claim, on behalf of Muslims that the bombing represent ALL MUSLIM IN BRITAIN! Honestly, what they have to say is completely irrelavant. God, come on, that's retarded! And you're completely ignoring the fact that FOR YEARS Britain has had a cadre of EXTREMELY VIRULANT Muslim preachers in two mosques in particular IN LONDON and one guy who would sit EVERYDAY in that free-speech park and preech the most violent, extremist calls for ALL MUSLIMS to arm and train themselves for the HOLY WAY AGAINST ENGLAND AND AMERICA!

I suggest you watch the PBS Fronline episode called "Al Quaeda's New Front". http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/front/view/

The fact is that there are several, serious, ideological bases in Europe that promote Jihad against Europe!
re turkey:

you make some valid points,

re london:

ha, ive seen that documentary and the biography of the that famous guy who's name i cant recall that is currently on trial.
these are well known facts, and i think it is relevant to consider what the british council of muslims says however relevant you feel their statments are just as we look to what the extremist preachers are suggesting.

i dont accept that the percieved poverty of muslims in the UK was the reason for the bombing, i also dont think the regualr muslim diaspora in the UK was complicit or encouraged the bombings, i guess we are both agreeing that zealots and extremist/violent preachers mis-led youth who were muslims to these acts. the resulting deaths say nothing to me about the overall picture of how muslims feel in the UK anymore than if a lower-middle class black guy blew himself up because of his claims about a global caliphate and such and such....

i do think the lack of awareness on the part of many to recognize legit discrimination exists against muslims may have seen some youth go astray and take drastic measures, but i cant agree with your claims about the state of muslim communities in london having much to do with the bombing, the only thing i grant is that the UK had up to then be very open about freedom of speech and allowed even violent protestors to speak publically. (i think it was right they did this and i think its wrong that they are now repealling some elements fo this law)

again i think this is veering off course, and you make many legit points,
but back to domestic issues of potential threats,
 

SellyCat

TRIBE Member
judge wopner said:
i dont accept that the percieved poverty of muslims in the UK was the reason for the bombing, i also dont think the regualr muslim diaspora in the UK was complicit or encouraged the bombings, i guess we are both agreeing that zealots and extremist/violent preachers mis-led youth who were muslims to these acts. the resulting deaths say nothing to me about the overall picture of how muslims feel in the UK anymore than if a lower-middle class black guy blew himself up because of his claims about a global caliphate and such and such....

i do think the lack of awareness on the part of many to recognize legit discrimination exists against muslims may have seen some youth go astray and take drastic measures, but i cant agree with your claims about the state of muslim communities in london having much to do with the bombing, the only thing i grant is that the UK had up to then be very open about freedom of speech and allowed even violent protestors to speak publically. (i think it was right they did this and i think its wrong that they are now repealling some elements fo this law)
I think these are ludicrous statements, with all due respect.

Do African Americans engage in suicidal Jihadist mass murder? No? How 'bout Iranian Jews? No? How bout, let's see here...any other oppressed group? No! The only exception are the Tamil Tigers, who technically invented suicide bombing.

Suicide bombing for the purpose of creating mass casulties is, therefore, exclusively a Muslim phenomenon. You CANNOT Take the Muslim out of Muslim Extremism! Not all Muslims are Jihadists, but all Jihadists are Muslim. That's a fact.

And nobody ever said it had anything to do wih poverty. Actually most suicide bombers in the West have been middle class, and not poor. OBVIOUSLY, their condition in these countries has to be the source of their rage. They feel sidelines by a society that is totally relunctant to take them. This causes an interplay of forces whereby one side finds it difficult to assimilate into a gross mass consumer culture that violates their muslim sensitivities. So they become insular in their own communities, while the native population resents them and feel insulted by their insularity. Borderline ethnic tension ensues.

You simply do not mass-murder your fellow citizens on their way to work if you think they are just like you. No doubt these people were taken advantage of, but they were in a perfect position social position for that to happen. They weren't about to recruit NON-Muslims to that kind of thing.

I think it's polically correct garbage to say that Jihadist terrorism isn't just a Muslim Extremist phenomenon. Of course it is! And I don't have to say the following: Islam--which i know a lot about--is a beautiful religion and should not be seen THE ultimate source of this phenomenon. It is more cultural than religious--having far more to do with identity than religion...except that when it comes down to it, the religion becomes part of that identity, but not it's source. Most suicidal terrorists were not devout muslims before getting involved in the process that made them into suicide bombers.

You can't legitimately argue that the state of Muslim communities any where in the world is irrelavent to them becoming terrorists. The conditions in Europe are RIPE for this kind of thing to happen. The communities are isolated, sidelined, discriminated against and made to feel unwelcome, while they themselves are pretty disgusted with what they see. They left their countries to escape exactly that which they found in Europe.

Now they fit perfectly into the Opressor-Opressed dialectic AND form the identity of Islam VS The West. It's the perfect social chemistry to produce desperate recruits for Jihadist organisations. And that is precisely why Europe is far more vulnerable to this phenomenon than Canada is.

Also...Europeans are extremely fucking racist.
 

junglisthead

TRIBE Member
The speakers at CASIS did point out that most Jihadist activity in Canada is in the form of clandestine logistics development for supporting operatives and their networks within the United States.

something to look into

Abderraouf Jdey- a canadian immigrant disappeared from intelligence november of 2001

about two weeks later flight 587, crashed in queens,

to this day, jdey is still missing
 

judge wopner

TRIBE Member
SellyCat said:
I think these are ludicrous statements, with all due respect.

Do African Americans engage in suicidal Jihadist mass murder? No? How 'bout Iranian Jews? No? How bout, let's see here...any other oppressed group? No! The only exception are the Tamil Tigers, who technically invented suicide bombing.

Suicide bombing for the purpose of creating mass casulties is, therefore, exclusively a Muslim phenomenon. You CANNOT Take the Muslim out of Muslim Extremism! Not all Muslims are Jihadists, but all Jihadists are Muslim. That's a fact.

And nobody ever said it had anything to do wih poverty. Actually most suicide bombers in the West have been middle class, and not poor. OBVIOUSLY, their condition in these countries has to be the source of their rage. They feel sidelines by a society that is totally relunctant to take them. This causes an interplay of forces whereby one side finds it difficult to assimilate into a gross mass consumer culture that violates their muslim sensitivities. So they become insular in their own communities, while the native population resents them and feel insulted by their insularity. Borderline ethnic tension ensues.

You simply do not mass-murder your fellow citizens on their way to work if you think they are just like you. No doubt these people were taken advantage of, but they were in a perfect position social position for that to happen. They weren't about to recruit NON-Muslims to that kind of thing.

I think it's polically correct garbage to say that Jihadist terrorism isn't just a Muslim Extremist phenomenon. Of course it is! And I don't have to say the following: Islam--which i know a lot about--is a beautiful religion and should not be seen THE ultimate source of this phenomenon. It is more cultural than religious--having far more to do with identity than religion...except that when it comes down to it, the religion becomes part of that identity, but not it's source. Most suicidal terrorists were not devout muslims before getting involved in the process that made them into suicide bombers.

You can't legitimately argue that the state of Muslim communities any where in the world is irrelavent to them becoming terrorists. The conditions in Europe are RIPE for this kind of thing to happen. The communities are isolated, sidelined, discriminated against and made to feel unwelcome, while they themselves are pretty disgusted with what they see. They left their countries to escape exactly that which they found in Europe.

Now they fit perfectly into the Opressor-Opressed dialectic AND form the identity of Islam VS The West. It's the perfect social chemistry to produce desperate recruits for Jihadist organisations. And that is precisely why Europe is far more vulnerable to this phenomenon than Canada is.

Also...Europeans are extremely fucking racist.

ha !!! ok where to start.

1. i still think sellycat is from that Friends song "smelly cat"

2. you make some very valid points,

3. that being said i think you have legit disagreements w/ some of what im saying but also are totally miscontruing other parts and proceeding to try and educate me about a topic from such an elementary level you are coming off as a bit patronizing.

-----

re: jihadists are all muslims but not all muslims are jihaddists and that muslim extremism is only commited by muslims:

this is equivilant to saying not all irish people are terrorists but all IRA terrorists are irish. youre tagging a name to something and washing out eveythign taht doesnt fit.

i dont see the critical distinction b/w the religious beliefs of a tamil tiger, a muslim (shia or sunni) who elects to blow themselves up in the name of their casue of their religion.

blwoing oneself up is not by nature "jihaddist", only those who beleive it ot be in the name of Jihad do so. tamils may have invented it but thats besides the opint, suicide attacks are ancient methods of warfare.

i agree that examining the relgionn and their socio-economic opinion is critical and part-in parcel of why peopel do what they do, but i dont believe islam as a religion is more pre-disposed to violent acts of murder any more than others. (and some on this board have acccused me of thinking otherwise, thanks to my poor ability at expressing my self in typing!! ha!)

the fact that muslijm youth commited these crimes speaks only minimally to the social dynamic of hte muslim community in the UK. that being said, i think in any social grouping there are always misguided youth, and some misguided adults who will take them down a path of violence against their percieved oppressor.

i agree that zealotry in any religion, and these days islam is in the focus tends to be mixed with the rhetoric of oppression and targeting the oppressors. i deny that any muslim who commited the london suicide bombings is a devout one and i think most muslims would agree with me.

we seem to disagree whats polically corect bullshit, im saying the politically correct bullshit is the notoin that poverty or discrimination of a particular group is the main cause and that the violence emanating from the tiny minority is indicative of their beefs at large with society.

again i wonder how some of the most poor in europe dont engage in suicide bombings and the like, why it was mainly muslim youth: muslim extremist organizations that prey on these false notions of oppression that they claim occurs against muslims because of their religion. yet the many muslims in the UK live in beter conditions than many muslims in the mid-east, this doesnt mean that the conditions themselves arent still bad in the UK, but i would bring this line of reason forward to say some suggest muslims in canada are livign sub-par to average canadains and are discriminated aggainst and "oppressed".

however affluent they may be compared to their UK counter parts it shouldnt matter by your accounts. yet still, you seem to insist (and tell me if im wrong) that the relative conditions of muslims in canada is such that domestic terrorism at the hands of islamic extremists/salafists is a non issue?
were the conditions of punjabi's in canada an issue with the air india bombing or does terrorism in all forms reach beyond state boundries and spill over?

and as someone just cut and pasted above in addition to your use of the word: "jihaddist" as a term to refer to suicide bombers, al-queda and the like is a total mis-use of the term and an inaccurate way to classify such people, there may be disagreements about what constitues jihad but using it as such is an unfair description of such violent activity. though im just being nip-picky:D smelly cat!!
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

SellyCat

TRIBE Member
judge wopner said:
and as someone just cut and pasted above in addition to your use of the word: "jihaddist" as a term to refer to suicide bombers, al-queda and the like is a total mis-use of the term and an inaccurate way to classify such people, there may be disagreements about what constitues jihad but using it as such is an unfair description of such violent activity.
You are literally completely wrong about this. Jihadism does not refer to the Koranic referent for "spritual purification". That is the Koranic definition of Jihad. JihadISM is something entirely different

Jihadism does, in fact, NECESSARILY AND EXCLUSIVELY refer to the likes of Al-Quaeda and Muslim extremists who seek to mass-murder Westerners and apostate muslims! This is the defintion of Jihadism. Period.


And as for UK/EU/CA muslims, it has little to do with the socio-ECONOMIC condition. It DOES have to do with the social condition
 

Onthereals

TRIBE Member
Maybe what Harper was trying to infer is that he is going to start following US foreign policy to a T, so that would make us become a terrorist target. War in Iran anyone? If we go to war in Iran I might just quit my job and move up to Ottawa and become a full time protester. I have never marched in a protest but Harper really motivates me for some reason.
 

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
Onthereals said:
Maybe what Harper was trying to infer is that he is going to start following US foreign policy to a T, so that would make us become a terrorist target. War in Iran anyone? If we go to war in Iran I might just quit my job and move up to Ottawa and become a full time protester. I have never marched in a protest but Harper really motivates me for some reason.

what did he do?

So far as best I can tell he has done away with paying for advertising the one tonne challenge. I don't mean to say that i like him or think he's a good choice for PM but I still don't get what he's done that would inspire that much fear. While in opposition he pretty much has to take the opposite view of the government, kind of like Jean had to say the GST was a bad idea and that NAFTA should be scrapped.

So why so affraid of Harper?
 

judge wopner

TRIBE Member
SellyCat said:
You are literally completely wrong about this. Jihadism does not refer to the Koranic referent for "spritual purification". That is the Koranic definition of Jihad. JihadISM is something entirely different

Jihadism does, in fact, NECESSARILY AND EXCLUSIVELY refer to the likes of Al-Quaeda and Muslim extremists who seek to mass-murder Westerners and apostate muslims! This is the defintion of Jihadism. Period.
we may have to agree to disagree on this.

any term such as Jihadism which is so clearly derived from the Koranic concept of Jihad should be in some way an extension of this concept.

applying it to extremist and violent groups who claim to act under the extreme interpretation (not accepted by any moderate muslim scholars) is unfair and in my mind mis-application fo the word.

i agree we know what the term refers to, but it is a continual mistake, much the same as US troops are fond of calling any enemy combatant in Iraq a "terrorist".

you see what im saying?
 

SellyCat

TRIBE Member
I see what you're saying, and unfortunately it's inaccurate. In all studies of this subject, the term "Jihadism" specifically refers to what Al-Quaeda is doing. They are Jihadists by definition.

I know you'd rather not label them anything, but the fact is that this is their label. They unequivocably preach...JIHAD. And THEIR defintion of Jihad is: complete rejection of the judeo-christian power structure via waging (usually) suicidal terrorist acts aimed at producting 1) massive numbers of casualties, 2) global media coverage and 3) to inspire Muslims to believe they can beat the west and have the courage to overthrow their western puppet-governments.

Hence, they are Jihadists. That is what they even call themselves. To say that we should call them "Jihadists" because it refer to a religious concept that they have taken and corrupted is to miss the point entirely. Furthermore it's a complete waste of time. It's the most appropriate, convenient and accurate term to describe them.

Al Quaeda = Jihadist. Hamas = NOT Jihadist. EIJ = Jihadist. Zarqawi = Jihadist. PFLP = NOT Jihadist. Do you see the difference?

PS US troops uise the term "insurgant" and the by-the-book definition issued to soldiers is "enemies of the legitimate government of Iraq". And BTW, those groups that TARGET civillians ARE terrorists--that's what a terrorist is, by definition. Insurgants attack military forces and their supply lines.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders
Top