It could never happen here, could it?-Canada a Target?

[muskrat89]

OK, I think everyone needs to chill the frig out.

Any more personal digs, attacks, barbs, or name calling, and I'm locking this.

 

[Infanteer]

Canada's no target. You don't know why Montreal information was on the computer, and you cannot claim to know why it was there. I don't know what standards you have for "evidence," but they're obviously incredibly low. No civilized nation would ever indict someone for merely having that kind of information on their computer.

Well, I'm going to use some deductive skills - you may learn them in your final year of university.  On the hard drive of a man associated with a group that used explosives to attack the Madrid subway system in order to prosecute a terror attack you find plans for a subway system of the city that happens to be the North American hub for Mahgrib Arab Salafists (said man also happens to be a Mahgrib Arab).  Furthermore, said city is in a country which has forces deployed to a couple Islamic countries (although state boundaries are not important to those who believe in the primacy of Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb) and is actively supporting "apostate regimes"; thus it represents both the "near" and "far" enemies that their Salafist ideology identifies as jahiliyyah.   Didn't have to dig too far to reason that one out....

Indictable evidence isn't what we're looking for - this is a key problem the Michael Sheuer was keen to pick up on.  These aren't criminals and this isn't an international game of Bonnie and Clyde.  This is the enemy, and we are at war - recognize it as such and recognize that what we have is actionable intelligence that indicates that targeting for an attack was a probability.  It is important to recognize this both professionally and morally - professionally for the reasons I described earlier (and you made no claim to) and morally to ensure that Canada doesn't ignore a movement that is hostile to its interests and prosperity.  

Besides, all this stuff is tip of the iceberg stuff that the media and academia gets their hands on - you criticize our leadership and national security establishments for fear-mongering and yet you have no access "below the iceberg" to information that they deal with everyday.   How can make any definitive statement like "it will never happen" when you have no claim to any authoritative or professional experience on the subject matter what so ever?

Anything Osama bin Laden says should be taken with a few grains of salt. He's said a lot of things, and he's made a lot of claims. How long has it been since he declared Canada a target? It's been a while, and still, nothing. It's not going to happen.

Why should we take what he says with a few grains of salt?  He lashes against the Saudi monarchy for trying to muzzle him and now the kingdom is rife with internal conflict (what a Foreign Affairs article aptly deemed the schizophrenic state).  He issued his Fatwa in 1998 and sure enough the attacks on the US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya and the USS Cole occured.  When he felt his fatwa was ignored, he issued the proclamation of greater bloodshed, and we saw September 11.  When Western forces invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, he threatened that invading forces (yes, that means Canada as well) would get wrath in return for the Muslims that died as a result of the invasions.  Sure enough, we see attacks in Turkey, Madrid, and London.  Now, we see his right hand man Zawahiri claiming that the next attack will be greater than anything we have yet to see (implying WMD) - many academic articles in journals such as Foreign Affairs tend to indicate that this threat is real.  The Islamic extremists that compose the global Insurgency are dedicated foes, and an examination of their ideology shows that we are very much an enemy to global Salafism.

Bin Laden hasn't said anything lately - there is a host of reasons and possibilites as to why.  But that doesn't mean we shouldn't take what has been said lightly - he has delivered to date.  As well, it is important to remember that this foe is a ideological network - bin Laden is the banner, not the movement.  He effectively forms the opinions of the global salafist network and of many millions of neutral muslims (see the Pew Center for the data) - the fact that our country has been proclaimed on multiple occasions, directly and indirectly, to be hostile to the interests of their movement should be enough to warn us of the probability of an offensive attack on our soil.

Remember that I'm saying that terrorists won't attack Canada, and not that there aren't any terrorists in Canada.

I can't understand where you find the logic to seperate these two points.  "I'm not saying that the Sword of Damocles is not over our head, I'm just saying that the rope won't snap".

Australia's "immigration detention centers" are more similar to concentration camps than they are to what Canada would deem a "detention center."

Have you been to a concentration camp or to Australia's detention centers?  I've been to a concentration camp (along with a mass grave or two) and I can tell you that the one I saw bears no resemblence to what the Aussies seem to be running.

The link you provided shows that the complaint is the heat (isn't it always hot in Australia?) and the lack of telephones.  Other than that, there is those rumours of abuse that opponents like to fling around but are usually baseless.  You're going to have to do better than a few internet news articles to prove that you are coming from a position of authority when discussing these detention centers.

 

[cobbler]

They don't want a flight home and they don't want to live in some other country on the way to Australia, they want to live in your socialist welfare state.

Beggers cannot be choosers. IF they are true refugees then they are coming here to escape danger in their own country. Refugees must claim asylum in the first safe country they reach, if their situation is truly that dire then they should grab on to the first oppurtunity they can.

There's a difference between a concentration camp and a death camp. Necessity is recognized as a legal defense in Australia, so any refugee or asylum seeker could claim he/she had to make it to Australia to avoid death or torture.
It's funny that Australia calls its whole concentration camp system the "Pacific Solution," when the Nazis called their death camp plan the "Final Solution." Actually, that's not funny at all. A few people have sewn their lips shut in your nation's fine detention centers. That's nice.

Yes but they could have avoided death or torture in any one of a dozen countries that they pass through. And they were safe in Indonesia while they waited for moneths to get aboard a human trafficing boat that they pay $thousands to get on.

There you go again comparing Australia to Nazi Germany.

The main complaint about the centres is the heat, well whoopdedooo, welcome to Australia mate. As for sewing their mouths shut, that is no fault of ours, and these are people who
a) sew their own mouths shut
b) burn down buildings in protest
c) place their children on unseaworthy, overcrowded, rtotting wooden boats for an illegal sea crossing over shark infested waters
Are these really people we want to enter the country freely and unchecked?

The majority of refugees and asylum seekers manage to come here legally. Why should these illegal immigrants be allowed in just because they have money and are willing to intimidate us in protest.
They should not be able to buy their way into Australia, there is a queue, jumping it is unfair on the less fortunate, and is not the Australian way.

They know the immigration process upon embarking their illegal, costly, and dangerous campaign, they should not complain when they arrive and are held in detention.

The detention centres are adequate, do they expect to be put up in the Hilton on the Park? They have all the services they needto survive whilst their illegal bid for residency is processed. If they don't like the heat, tough, they should have gone for Europe, or Canada.

Have you lived in a similar neighborhood in Canada, the US, South Africa, etc...? You haven't, so you cannot make that claim. You can say that in your opinion you don't believe racism in Australia to be a problem, but many of your countrymen and many career academics would disagree with you. I'd be inclined to accept their reports published in peer-edited academic journals because such reports are the work of experts who have done almost everything they could to ensure that their results are accurate.

Well you must be giving immigrants free mansions in Canada because life here is not too shabby. I have seen similar neighbourhoods in America, and it was much worse there. You mention South Africa, well excuse me for saying problems they have faced regarding race are much, much worse, i think that would be obvious to all. Never been to Canada, won't comment.
These acamdeics wouldn't have some sort of bias would they? I am not a fan of these "academic credentials", statistics and studies can be manipulated to support any contention.

I would say in Australia the only city that has neighbourhoods with any major race, money problems would be Sydney. But that is not a barometre of the wholse country (regardless of how the world sees it, Australia does not revolve around Sydney), and most of those problems relate more to Aboriginals, and they certainly are not immigrants.

 

[1feral1]

The fact that I'm a university student shouldn't even figure into this debate. What should matter is the fact that I'm going by information your beloved sword-banning government regards as authoritative.

I'd like to give you a lesson in Canadian/American slang but I figure you're the type of hypocrite who would ban me for it.

Swords have not been banned in Australia, and its only ONE state, the state of New South Wales that is ONLY looking into this. Although I live in Queensland, I have two swords, both Japanese Ww2 battlefield pick-ups. One officer and one NCO Shin-gun-to types. So I know, and understand the laws, WRT firearms (I am licensed), and edged weapons (no license required). So, your information is again wrong.

As for US/Canadian slang, I was born in Saskatoon, and spent the first 35 years of my life in Canada, thats 15 yrs longer than you have been alive! So don't go giving me any lessons.

Cold beers,

Wes

 

[R0B]

Well, I'm going to use some deductive skills - you may learn them in your final year of university.  On the hard drive of a man associated with a group that used explosives to attack the Madrid subway system in order to prosecute a terror attack you find plans for a subway system of the city that happens to be the North American hub for Mahgrib Arab Salafists (said man also happens to be a Mahgrib Arab).  Furthermore, said city is in a country which has forces deployed to a couple Islamic countries (although state boundaries are not important to those who believe in the primacy of Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb) and is actively supporting "apostate regimes"; thus it represents both the "near" and "far" enemies that their Salafist ideology identifies as jahiliyyah.  Didn't have to dig too far to reason that one out....

That's not reason, you're just guessing. Anyone could just as easily come up with an opposite conclusion. The deductive reasoning you've used above doesn't meet the standards of Canadian justice; it doesn't even come close.

Indictable evidence isn't what we're looking for - this is a key problem the Michael Sheuer was keen to pick up on.  These aren't criminals and this isn't an international game of Bonnie and Clyde.  This is the enemy, and we are at war - recognize it as such and recognize that what we have is actionable intelligence that indicates that targeting for an attack was a probability.  It is important to recognize this both professionally and morally - professionally for the reasons I described earlier (and you made no claim to) and morally to ensure that Canada doesn't ignore a movement that is hostile to its interests and prosperity. 

Acting on intelligence based on circumstantial evidence is nothing more than an exercise in jumping to conclusions. Take the example of the Montreal subway plans. Should it be investigated further? Yes. Should security be increased? Sure. Is it evidence of a planned attack on Montreal? By no means.
Finding plans for the Montreal subway system on a terrorist's computer doesn't indicate that an attack is probably. You're jumping to conclusions, and in doing so, ignoring what Canada has deemed to be justice.

Besides, all this stuff is tip of the iceberg stuff that the media and academia gets their hands on - you criticize our leadership and national security establishments for fear-mongering and yet you have no access "below the iceberg" to information that they deal with everyday.  How can make any definitive statement like "it will never happen" when you have no claim to any authoritative or professional experience on the subject matter what so ever?

I'm not really criticizing Canada, because our leadership has made frequent comments to suggest that Canada is not at any significant risk, which is the best they can say while avoiding any certain terms for liability purposes. It's the media who's doing a lot of the work to sell their infotainment, and it's the United States who's encouraging most of it. I can criticize our leadership and national security because we live in a liberal democracy where I'm afforded a certain degree of certain freedoms, and I'm only exercising them. I don't know what goes on below the iceberg, and you probably don't either, unless you work for CSIS or the CIA or something. I don't even know if "below the iceberg" exists, and you likely don't either.

Why should we take what he says with a few grains of salt?  He lashes against the Saudi monarchy for trying to muzzle him and now the kingdom is rife with internal conflict (what a Foreign Affairs article aptly deemed the schizophrenic state).  He issued his Fatwa in 1998 and sure enough the attacks on the US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya and the USS Cole occured.  When he felt his fatwa was ignored, he issued the proclamation of greater bloodshed, and we saw September 11.  When Western forces invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, he threatened that invading forces (yes, that means Canada as well) would get wrath in return for the Muslims that died as a result of the invasions.  Sure enough, we see attacks in Turkey, Madrid, and London.  Now, we see his right hand man Zawahiri claiming that the next attack will be greater than anything we have yet to see (implying WMD) - many academic articles in journals such as Foreign Affairs tend to indicate that this threat is real.  The Islamic extremists that compose the global Insurgency are dedicated foes, and an examination of their ideology shows that we are very much an enemy to global Salafism.

We should take what Osama bin Laden says with a grain of salt first because his statements are clearly made for propaganda purposes, and second, because he doesn't keep his promises. Just look at how many of his threats have panned out, and how they seldom meet his boastful calls to action.

Bin Laden hasn't said anything lately - there is a host of reasons and possibilites as to why.  But that doesn't mean we shouldn't take what has been said lightly - he has delivered to date.  As well, it is important to remember that this foe is a ideological network - bin Laden is the banner, not the movement.  He effectively forms the opinions of the global salafist network and of many millions of neutral muslims (see the Pew Center for the data) - the fact that our country has been proclaimed on multiple occasions, directly and indirectly, to be hostile to the interests of their movement should be enough to warn us of the probability of an offensive attack on our soil.

Virtually every country is hostile to their interests, the United States most of all, and any terrorist in Canada could almost just as easily attack the United States. That fact alone greatly reduces the significance of the terrorist threat to Canada. Terrorists don't attack to kill westerners, they do so to meet political ends, and if Madrid bombings have proven anything, they calculate when and where to best attack. Every country is a "target," but Canada is not a prime target, it doesn't have to fear an attack.

I can't understand where you find the logic to seperate these two points.  "I'm not saying that the Sword of Damocles is not over our head, I'm just saying that the rope won't snap".

The demarcation point is the fact that unless they're attacking Canada, they're not attacking Canada.

Have you been to a concentration camp or to Australia's detention centers?  I've been to a concentration camp (along with a mass grave or two) and I can tell you that the one I saw bears no resemblence to what the Aussies seem to be running.

I've been to the site of a former Nazi death camp, and I've never been to an Australian "detention center."

You'll find a lot of differences between a 1942 VW Beetle and a 2005 Holden Monaro, but that doesn't mean they're not both cars.

A concentration camp is defined as: A camp where civilians, enemy aliens, political prisoners, and sometimes prisoners of war are detained and confined, typically under harsh conditions. By this definition, the Australian "detention camps" are clearly concentration camps.

The link you provided shows that the complaint is the heat (isn't it always hot in Australia?) and the lack of telephones.  Other than that, there is those rumours of abuse that opponents like to fling around but are usually baseless.  You're going to have to do better than a few internet news articles to prove that you are coming from a position of authority when discussing these detention centers.

I found that internet article using Google, but the information on which I base my claims comes from peer-edited academic journals. Even if I were to cite them (and I can't off the top of my head, I'd have to go looking) you'd have no way of verifying what I say because I doubt you have access to them, given that they're not readily available.

Australia is a hot country, but these detention centers are mostly, if not exclusively located in Australia's northern wastelands, which are closer to the equator than the more temperate South. If you just take a look at pictures of these detention centers, you're sure to agree that they're unacceptable by western standards.

Beggers cannot be choosers. IF they are true refugees then they are coming here to escape danger in their own country. Refugees must claim asylum in the first safe country they reach, if their situation is truly that dire then they should grab on to the first oppurtunity they can.

Well, if they actually had to flee their country, they obviously can't accept a flight back, and refugee laws are different in countries on the way to Australia than they are in Australia. A lot of these refugees try to get in illegally because they can't make it in legally, so they're left with no other option.

Yes but they could have avoided death or torture in any one of a dozen countries that they pass through. And they were safe in Indonesia while they waited for moneths to get aboard a human trafficing boat that they pay $thousands to get on.

You can't blame people for seeing the best possible life for themselves, and for people without what it takes to succeed in a capitalist country, a socialist welfare state like Australia among the best options one could have. If they're trying to escape poverty, on the other hand, moving from one poor country to another isn't going to do much.

There you go again comparing Australia to Nazi Germany.

Not really, but I'm honestly disgusted that these similarities would even allow for such a comparison. Canada once maintained concentration camps, but thankfully, no longer.

The main complaint about the centres is the heat, well whoopdedooo, welcome to Australia mate. As for sewing their mouths shut, that is no fault of ours, and these are people who
a) sew their own mouths shut
b) burn down buildings in protest
c) place their children on unseaworthy, overcrowded, rtotting wooden boats for an illegal sea crossing over shark infested waters
Are these really people we want to enter the country freely and unchecked?

No, you definitely don't want these people in Australia. They're only looking for the quickest way to start collecting welfare or work without any intention of ever paying taxes. That doesn't change the fact that you keep them in concentration camps.

The majority of refugees and asylum seekers manage to come here legally. Why should these illegal immigrants be allowed in just because they have money and are willing to intimidate us in protest.
They should not be able to buy their way into Australia, there is a queue, jumping it is unfair on the less fortunate, and is not the Australian way.

I don't know what the numbers are, but they're trying to make it as soon as possible because they're in distress.

They know the immigration process upon embarking their illegal, costly, and dangerous campaign, they should not complain when they arrive and are held in detention.

The detention centres are adequate, do they expect to be put up in the Hilton on the Park? They have all the services they needto survive whilst their illegal bid for residency is processed. If they don't like the heat, tough, they should have gone for Europe, or Canada.

Whether or not they're aware of Australia's immigration process is probably best judged on an individual basis. The detention centers serve their purpose, and I don't debate that, but they're concentration camps, quite literally, and the conditions in which inmates are kept have largely been deemed inhumane by western nations.
It's harder to get set up in Europe than it is in Australia, and because you'd have to travel though a number of organized countries, it's harder to get there. It's very difficult to get to Canada, considering that these people probably don't have passports.
This is actually one reason, I suppose, why Australia gets some of the world's least desirable refugees.

Well you must be giving immigrants free mansions in Canada because life here is not too shabby. I have seen similar neighbourhoods in America, and it was much worse there. You mention South Africa, well excuse me for saying problems they have faced regarding race are much, much worse, i think that would be obvious to all. Never been to Canada, won't comment.

In mentioning South Africa, I made no attempt to suggest that Australia's racism situation is more severe. Illegal immigrants are treated by Canada far better than they are by Australia.

These acamdeics wouldn't have some sort of bias would they? I am not a fan of these "academic credentials", statistics and studies can be manipulated to support any contention.

I hope you don't dismiss their contentions just because they have academic credentials. I agree of course that statistics and studies can be manipulated to support any contention. That is why these academics post their work in journals where they are reviewed by their peers. If anyone is able to poke a hole in their studies, they do so. A lot of studies out there are complete crap, you need only visit a gun-control website to see hundreds of them, but there's a big difference between that kind of "study" and actual studies undertaken by serious academics.

I would say in Australia the only city that has neighbourhoods with any major race, money problems would be Sydney. But that is not a barometre of the wholse country (regardless of how the world sees it, Australia does not revolve around Sydney), and most of those problems relate more to Aboriginals, and they certainly are not immigrants.

I'm not really talking about racial problems Australia experiences with ethnic criminal gangs or the urban poor, but rather than more industrious immigrants feel discriminated against more in Australia than they do in elsewhere among western countries.

Swords have not been banned in Australia, and its only ONE state, the state of New South Wales that is ONLY looking into this. Although I live in Queensland, I have two swords, both Japanese Ww2 battlefield pick-ups. One officer and one NCO Shin-gun-to types. So I know, and understand the laws, WRT firearms (I am licensed), and edged weapons (no license required). So, your information is again wrong.

I realize that swords haven't been banned in Australia; that was just a comical remark about your nation's government. It's just a matter of time before spoons are illegal in the commonwealth nations.

As for US/Canadian slang, I was born in Saskatoon, and spent the first 35 years of my life in Canada, thats 15 yrs longer than you have been alive! So don't go giving me any lessons.

Cold beers,

Wes

You've got me there.

 

[Infanteer]

That's not reason, you're just guessing. Anyone could just as easily come up with an opposite conclusion. The deductive reasoning you've used above doesn't meet the standards of Canadian justice; it doesn't even come close.

Acting on intelligence based on circumstantial evidence is nothing more than an exercise in jumping to conclusions. Take the example of the Montreal subway plans. Should it be investigated further? Yes. Should security be increased? Sure. Is it evidence of a planned attack on Montreal? By no means.
Finding plans for the Montreal subway system on a terrorist's computer doesn't indicate that an attack is probably. You're jumping to conclusions, and in doing so, ignoring what Canada has deemed to be justice.

Well, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck then there is probably a good chance it is a duck - it's not a guess, it's a credible hypothesis made off of various academic, government, and media sources that highlight the psychology, motivation, tactics, goals of groups like the one discussed.   You're weak response offers nothing for rebuttal except that "it can't be proved in a court of law".   If you are not going to refute it with anything but generalizations based upon slothful induction, then quit wasting Mike's bandwidth.

As well, nobody is arguing about the danger of a specfic attack (ie: "the terrorists will attack CN tower at noon on wednesday with an IED...."); what is being pointed out is that there is an good deal of evidence that indicates that Canada is indeed a target and that there is a reasonable chance to believe that the enemy will attempt to kill Canadians in their home cities.   You continually dismiss both specific attack and general threat with your blanket statements of "it won't happen" and "we are not a target", and you continually fail to support that claim with any real evidence what so ever.   Put up or shut up.

Finally, you're off base with the notion of court admissable chain-of-evidence; this is the enemy, not a criminal.   We are looking to defend ourselves from attack, not find guilt of a felony.   Michael Sheuer (an SME and the source for my initial analogy) highlights this problem well:

"Instead of "painting the map red" as did Britain's Imperial elite, America's elites use U.S. law - to paraphrase the inane Woodrow Wilson - to "teach the world to make good laws."   A noted Harvard professor spoke for those eager to wage gavel-powered war, arguing that "[t]he most powerful weapon against terrorists is our commitment to the rule of law.   We must use courts to make clear that terrorism is a criminal act, not jihad, not heroism, not holy war.   And then we must no make martyrs of murderers."   The professor does not say who the courts would convince that jihad is a crime - Americans maybe, Muslims never - and also does not say how courts will stop attacks.   Helpfully, however, a colleague of hers has said, "If alleged terrorists are planning future attacks, these attacks can be uncovered and thwarted while law enforcement officials gather evidence."   You see, there is nothing to it.

The legalistic lens America uses to deal with the world causes confusion about what we are doing, and what we need to do, against bin Laden: Are we waging a war, or hot on the trail of Thelma and Louise?   As I said, we are predisposed by two-plus centuries of history to look for law-enforcement solutions to problems.   In bin Laden's case, this predisposition is encouraged by our leaders' insistence that bin Laden means to destroy our freedom, liberties, and democracy.   If that is what bin Laden intends, it is only natural we seek protection from the FBI and the Justice Department.   Here is more evidence of the danger that lies in our elites' inability or refusal to recognize bin Laden's goals and to respond effectively, rather than in ways they - and we - find intellectually comfortable.   "Five years of investigation and trials and appeals, as after the first World Trade Center [attack in 1993], deter nobody," William Safire wrote on 12 September 2001, and yet the chase-and-arrest technique still holds sway, only now the world's most powerful military is packing the handcuffs."

Michael Sheuer, Imperial Hubris pp: 185-186

I'm not really criticizing Canada, because our leadership has made frequent comments to suggest that Canada is not at any significant risk, which is the best they can say while avoiding any certain terms for liability purposes. It's the media who's doing a lot of the work to sell their infotainment, and it's the United States who's encouraging most of it. I can criticize our leadership and national security because we live in a liberal democracy where I'm afforded a certain degree of certain freedoms, and I'm only exercising them. I don't know what goes on below the iceberg, and you probably don't either, unless you work for CSIS or the CIA or something. I don't even know if "below the iceberg" exists, and you likely don't either.

Oh spare me with the "freedom of speech" act - this site demands an equal responsiblity to substantiate the bandwidth you are taking up.   If you're not up to this, you are a troll or a fool and will be shown the door quickly.   I have dealt with these people on a professional level before (as have many of the other soldiers on this board who've bumped into Islamic Jihad, Hamas, and a litany of other organzations in their travels).   I can guarantee you that there is alot "below the iceberg" that you, sitting in the dormroom, have not the foggiest about.

Both the Defence Policy Statement and the Chief of Defence Staff's Transformation Plan clearly highlight the implicit threat that militant Islamists (among others) make to the security of Canada.   Obviously, according to your logic, they are out to lunch - why, providing they have much more to go on than you, would they come to these conclusions in central policy documents?   Guess they should have consulted the UofT class of 2007 for advice.... :.

We should take what Osama bin Laden says with a grain of salt first because his statements are clearly made for propaganda purposes, and second, because he doesn't keep his promises. Just look at how many of his threats have panned out, and how they seldom meet his boastful calls to action.

Is your computer just stuck on repeat or are you just a natural troll?    :  

I've given a broad overview of his actions over the last 15 years to prove that his statement is more than propaganda and his speech belies his intent.   The proof is in the pudding in the fact that Al Qa'ida still conducts operations today and attacks those who it states it will target.

You repeat your line and again fail to provide anything substantive to back your claim.   Put up or shut up.

Virtually every country is hostile to their interests, the United States most of all, and any terrorist in Canada could almost just as easily attack the United States. That fact alone greatly reduces the significance of the terrorist threat to Canada. Terrorists don't attack to kill westerners, they do so to meet political ends, and if Madrid bombings have proven anything, they calculate when and where to best attack. Every country is a "target," but Canada is not a prime target, it doesn't have to fear an attack.

The demarcation point is the fact that unless they're attacking Canada, they're not attacking Canada.

The fact that you seem to have a total inability to understand the term "threat" and to gauge it based on the people we are dealing with, what they say and do, and what their goals are confirms my suspicions that you are talking through your hat.   I'm sure you've got a cousin in Madrid who was pointing at the United States and saying "prime target" and "no fear" on 10 March 2004.   Enjoy living in your threat free world - folks with mud on the boots got a job to do and we appreciate your support.

 

[2 Cdo]

Rob just to jump in here for a few seconds, I'd like to add that you keep referring to proof required in a justice system as some sort of measuring tape. We are at WAR with these terrorists. In WAR I don't need proof beyond a reasonable doubt to attack my enemy, I need information gathered from a number of sources both electronic and human which then get fed up the chain of command to be deciphered by all the Int types. If they decide it is a credible target (doesn't have to be beyond a reasonable doubt) then an operation is spun up and we go out to try and KILL the enemy. I am really not interested in arresting them or ensuring that their rights are not violated, I am trying to KILL them. There is a huge difference which you were ignoring.
You seem like a fairly intelligent sort but you don't seem to want to listen to anyone except your profs and their writings. Also your comment asking about someones major could be construed as you potentially dismissing anyones thoughts based on their education alone. I don't have a university degree but I am over twice your age (I have a daughter older than you! ) with far more experience in the real world. Hopefully you will finish your degree(s) and someday join us in the real world where things aren't quite as clear cut as the academic world. But I doubt that will happen as you seem to prefer being a pain and disagreeing or dismissing anything contrary to your pre-conceived ideas.
I honestly hope that you are correct in the idea that Canada will never be attacked but I think I would rather see us prepare for an attack that never occurs, then be attacked and not be prepared!
Have a nice day!

 

[George Wallace]

That's not reason, you're just guessing. Anyone could just as easily come up with an opposite conclusion. The deductive reasoning you've used above doesn't meet the standards of Canadian justice; it doesn't even come close.

And you are not just guessing with your surmised conclusions?

Acting on intelligence based on circumstantial evidence is nothing more than an exercise in jumping to conclusions. Take the example of the Montreal subway plans. Should it be investigated further? Yes. Should security be increased? Sure. Is it evidence of a planned attack on Montreal? By no means.
Finding plans for the Montreal subway system on a terrorist's computer doesn't indicate that an attack is probably. You're jumping to conclusions, and in doing so, ignoring what Canada has deemed to be justice.

Obviously you have no idea how the world works.   This is intelligence gathered and it does point to a serious threat.

I'm not really criticizing Canada, because our leadership has made frequent comments to ........... I don't know what goes on below the iceberg, and you probably don't either, unless you work for CSIS or the CIA or something. I don't even know if "below the iceberg" exists, and you likely don't either.

Lucky for you, many of us are very familiar with what lies below the iceberg.

The demarcation point is the fact that unless they're attacking Canada, they're not attacking Canada.

Naive

I found that internet article using Google, but the information on which I base my claims comes from peer-edited academic journals. Even if I were to cite them (and I can't off the top of my head, I'd have to go looking) you'd have no way of verifying what I say because I doubt you have access to them, given that they're not readily available.

I question this and will therefore call your claim inadmissible as any form of evidence supporting your position.   Any info that you, at your current position as a student, have sole access to, that is not Open Source, must be discounted as mere hearsay.

I hope you don't dismiss their contentions just because they have academic credentials. I agree of course that statistics and studies can be manipulated to support any contention. That is why these academics post their work in journals where they are reviewed by their peers. If anyone is able to poke a hole in their studies, they do so. A lot of studies out there are complete crap, you need only visit a gun-control website to see hundreds of them, but there's a big difference between that kind of 'study' and actual studies undertaken by serious academics.

You seem to quick to dismiss contrary views to your own, making you a very biased researcher who will never garner any credibility amongst your peers.   Dismissing evidence that is not in support of your argument disqualifies its as being credible.

 

[Pte. Bloggins]

What's wrong with UofT?
You honestly think that Canada is going to get attacked by terrorists? What's your major?

I think you answered your own question, yes I do asshat, and one that's better then yours, clearly. :nana:

(Sorry I just had to respond to that.)

Now back to our regularly scheduled discussion...

 

[cobbler]

Australia is a hot country, but these detention centers are mostly, if not exclusively located in Australia's northern wastelands, which are closer to the equator than the more temperate South. If you just take a look at pictures of these detention centers, you're sure to agree that they're unacceptable by western standards.

Mostly? If not exclusively?

Well until recently the largest, and most troub;ed detention centre in Aus was Woomera, in the state of SOUTH Australia. Most of that state is desert.
Another centre is Maribynong (near where i grew up) in the southernmost mainland city of Melbourne.

These pictures could not possibly be taken by activist who want to paint them in a bad light, or by the media after a story.

The immigrants burn down buildings often, we cannot build them a 5 start hotel only to have it set alight.

The standards of these centres is much better than you would find and a school (summer) camp. They have TV, internet, sports fields, beds, food, medical care. They have everything they need, and if their stories are true (and they are) then the detention centres are much, much better than what they have ever lived in before. And certainly adequate to support them relatively comfortably whilst they are processed.

 

[R0B]

Well, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck then there is probably a good chance it is a duck - it's not a guess, it's a credible hypothesis made off of various academic, government, and media sources that highlight the psychology, motivation, tactics, goals of groups like the one discussed.   You're weak response offers nothing for rebuttal except that "it can't be proved in a court of law".   If you are not going to refute it with anything but generalizations based upon slothful induction, then quit wasting Mike's bandwidth.

Don't automatically assume that he was going to attack Montreal just because he had their subway's blueprints or something. It's worth investigating and it's worth increasing security, but it's far from any acceptable level of proof.

As well, nobody is arguing about the danger of a specfic attack (ie: "the terrorists will attack CN tower at noon on wednesday with an IED...."); what is being pointed out is that there is an good deal of evidence that indicates that Canada is indeed a target and that there is a reasonable chance to believe that the enemy will attempt to kill Canadians in their home cities.   You continually dismiss both specific attack and general threat with your blanket statements of "it won't happen" and "we are not a target", and you continually fail to support that claim with any real evidence what so ever.   Put up or shut up.

Finding a schematic on a suspected terrorist's computer and Osama bin Laden's threats don't constitute a "good deal of evidence." At most, it's weak evidence. Whatever evidence you accuse me of lacking I lack because there is too little evidence to suggest a terrorist attack is imminent. That alone should be considered evidence for the unlikelihood of an attack.

Finally, you're off base with the notion of court admissable chain-of-evidence; this is the enemy, not a criminal.   We are looking to defend ourselves from attack, not find guilt of a felony.   Michael Sheuer (an SME and the source for my initial analogy) highlights this problem well:

"Instead of "painting the map red" as did Britain's Imperial elite, America's elites use U.S. law - to paraphrase the inane Woodrow Wilson - to "teach the world to make good laws."   A noted Harvard professor spoke for those eager to wage gavel-powered war, arguing that "[t]he most powerful weapon against terrorists is our commitment to the rule of law.   We must use courts to make clear that terrorism is a criminal act, not jihad, not heroism, not holy war.   And then we must no make martyrs of murderers."   The professor does not say who the courts would convince that jihad is a crime - Americans maybe, Muslims never - and also does not say how courts will stop attacks.   Helpfully, however, a colleague of hers has said, "If alleged terrorists are planning future attacks, these attacks can be uncovered and thwarted while law enforcement officials gather evidence."   You see, there is nothing to it.

The legalistic lens America uses to deal with the world causes confusion about what we are doing, and what we need to do, against bin Laden: Are we waging a war, or hot on the trail of Thelma and Louise?   As I said, we are predisposed by two-plus centuries of history to look for law-enforcement solutions to problems.   In bin Laden's case, this predisposition is encouraged by our leaders' insistence that bin Laden means to destroy our freedom, liberties, and democracy.   If that is what bin Laden intends, it is only natural we seek protection from the FBI and the Justice Department.   Here is more evidence of the danger that lies in our elites' inability or refusal to recognize bin Laden's goals and to respond effectively, rather than in ways they - and we - find intellectually comfortable.   "Five years of investigation and trials and appeals, as after the first World Trade Center [attack in 1993], deter nobody," William Safire wrote on 12 September 2001, and yet the chase-and-arrest technique still holds sway, only now the world's most powerful military is packing the handcuffs."

Michael Sheuer, Imperial Hubris pp: 185-186

Democratic western nations were founded in part by the belief of the supremacy of law. It's ridiculous to suggest that we should just abandon the law to deal with the state's enemies, not simply because criminals are also enemies of the state, but because this is the mark of unjust regimes. Not only is it cowardly to forego the law and liberty in hopes of achieving greater security, it's wrong, according to our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. What would you propose to do with a suspected terrorist found to have plans for say, the CN tower on his laptop? Would you detain him and charge him with a crime you suspect he will commit? And when will this end? Both the Canadians and the Americans interred their own citizens in concentration camps during the Second World War. That was done because some people thought it was more important to protect the nation than it was to protect its people. A major argument against private firearms ownership is fairly similar, that's it contrary to the good of the public. I'd rather place myself at risk than I would surrender my rights for what apparently would be more safety, especially in this case, where the threat of harm is negligible.

Oh spare me with the "freedom of speech" act - this site demands an equal responsiblity to substantiate the bandwidth you are taking up.   If you're not up to this, you are a troll or a fool and will be shown the door quickly.   I have dealt with these people on a professional level before (as have many of the other soldiers on this board who've bumped into Islamic Jihad, Hamas, and a litany of other organzations in their travels).   I can guarantee you that there is alot "below the iceberg" that you, sitting in the dormroom, have not the foggiest about.

I can only comment on what I know, which is based on what I've been told. The government hasn't mentioned that they've foiled any terrorist attempts. Had they done so, they'd almost certainly gloat about it.

Both the Defence Policy Statement and the Chief of Defence Staff's Transformation Plan clearly highlight the implicit threat that militant Islamists (among others) make to the security of Canada.   Obviously, according to your logic, they are out to lunch - why, providing they have much more to go on than you, would they come to these conclusions in central policy documents?   Guess they should have consulted the UofT class of 2007 for advice.... :.

They have to account for these kinds of things so that they don't end up looking incompetent if something were to happen. Plus, they likely have their own interest in mind, and are looking to secure increased funding in light of one threat or another.

Is your computer just stuck on repeat or are you just a natural troll?    :  

I've given a broad overview of his actions over the last 15 years to prove that his statement is more than propaganda and his speech belies his intent.   The proof is in the pudding in the fact that Al Qa'ida still conducts operations today and attacks those who it states it will target.

You repeat your line and again fail to provide anything substantive to back your claim.   Put up or shut up.

It attacks most states it targets. Canada and Italy haven't been attacked, despite being implicitly singled out by Al Qaeda. At best you could say he does some of the time.

The fact that you seem to have a total inability to understand the term "threat" and to gauge it based on the people we are dealing with, what they say and do, and what their goals are confirms my suspicions that you are talking through your hat.   I'm sure you've got a cousin in Madrid who was pointing at the United States and saying "prime target" and "no fear" on 10 March 2004.   Enjoy living in your threat free world - folks with mud on the boots got a job to do and we appreciate your support.

I support the Canadian Forces and what it does, that doesn't change the fact that I believe Canada won't be attacked by terrorists.

Rob just to jump in here for a few seconds, I'd like to add that you keep referring to proof required in a justice system as some sort of measuring tape. We are at WAR with these terrorists. In WAR I don't need proof beyond a reasonable doubt to attack my enemy, I need information gathered from a number of sources both electronic and human which then get fed up the chain of command to be deciphered by all the Int types. If they decide it is a credible target (doesn't have to be beyond a reasonable doubt) then an operation is spun up and we go out to try and KILL the enemy. I am really not interested in arresting them or ensuring that their rights are not violated, I am trying to KILL them. There is a huge difference which you were ignoring.
You seem like a fairly intelligent sort but you don't seem to want to listen to anyone except your profs and their writings. Also your comment asking about someones major could be construed as you potentially dismissing anyones thoughts based on their education alone. I don't have a university degree but I am over twice your age (I have a daughter older than you! ) with far more experience in the real world. Hopefully you will finish your degree(s) and someday join us in the real world where things aren't quite as clear cut as the academic world. But I doubt that will happen as you seem to prefer being a pain and disagreeing or dismissing anything contrary to your pre-conceived ideas.
I honestly hope that you are correct in the idea that Canada will never be attacked but I think I would rather see us prepare for an attack that never occurs, then be attacked and not be prepared!
Have a nice day!

I think we should prepare for an attack, just like I noted earlier, I wear seatbelts even though I doubt I'll be involved in an accident.
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt isn't needed for war; President Bush has already proven that to us. This entire argument about proof stems from the fact that I don't think anyone can consider Montreal plans on a suspected Madrid bomber as proof of an attack on Montreal. And I don't think it should. It grounds for investigation, but it's not proof of an intended attack on Montreal. It suggests the possibility of an attack, but that's all.

And you are not just guessing with your surmised conclusions?

I obviously can't predict the future.

Obviously you have no idea how the world works. This is intelligence gathered and it does point to a serious threat.

I hope you're not referring to the Montreal thing; all that constitutes is the possibility of a serious threat.

Lucky for you, many of us are very familiar with what lies below the iceberg.

You might be, but more than likely you just think you know what's going on.

Naive

Unless they attack Canada, they're not attacking Canada. Being a terrorist in Canada doesn't in itself constitute an attack on our nation.

I question this and will therefore call your claim inadmissible as any form of evidence supporting your position.   Any info that you, at your current position as a student, have sole access to, that is not Open Source, must be discounted as mere hearsay.

They're available to all people, but academic journals are typically only carried by research university libraries, due to their outrageous subscription costs, and most university libraries are not open to the public.

You seem to quick to dismiss contrary views to your own, making you a very biased researcher who will never garner any credibility amongst your peers.   Dismissing evidence that is not in support of your argument disqualifies its as being credible.

Keep in mind that my "peers" mostly agree with me. I dismiss evidence based on its value as evidence, rather than its objectivity. If Osama bin Laden blew up the Parliament tomorrow, I wouldn't try to dismiss it, I'd accept it. Trouble is, your standards for evidence are far lower than mine.

Why do you keep using the word 'concentration camp'? Literally, yes the Australian centres could be considered that. Just like lots of other things could be taken different ways when interpreted literally.

Because it is quite literally a concentration camp and "detention center" is just a euphemism.

However, Concentration Camp is, in the popular sense of the word, describing a place where people are brought to to die or are 'concentrated' to be removed from society premanently. The Australians call them Detention Centres because thats what they are. A place to detain somone until there status can be decided upon. The Australians are not being racist by doing this, they are simply protecting themselves.

I agree, but that doesn't mean they're not concentration camps in the literal sense of the word. The camps where Japanese-Americans were kept during the Second World War are also referred to as concentration camps, despite the fact that the Americans had no intention of exterminating them. It's just a term; don't let a few past cases prejudice you against it.

This whole 'concentration camp' thing is arguing 'tomato' from 'tomahto'. Everyone knows what the real connotation of 'concentration camp' is vis a vis 'detention centre'.

Exactly, that's what I've been saying.

Not acting on intelligence data, no matter how circumstancial, can be deadly. International intelligence gathering does not act like a court of law.  

We should act on intelligence data, even circumstantial intelligence data, but that data should not be considered proof, and one outcome should not be inferred from it. Suspicious activities can be investigated without automatically being considered part of some terrorist conspiracy.

Just because OUR gov't does not believe there is a terrorist threat does not make me feel any safer....

I'll agree with you that the media does blow things out of proportion more often the not, but that does not make the threat any less.

Maybe yes, maybe no. The government doesn't seem to think it's too much of a problem, and they're likely going by information beyond our reach.

I'll bet my whole month's pay thats probably what Spain thought too.

I'm pretty sure I've heard about Spain having trouble with Islamic terrorists in the past. In any event, they have a lot of trouble with ETA and formerly with communist terrorists, so it's not as if they didn't have anti-terrorist measure in place already, or that they didn't think any terrorist attacks would ever occur.

No one is inviting them...

A lot of "them" would consider that racism.

I think you answered your own question, yes I do asshat, and one that's better then yours, clearly. :nana:

(Sorry I just had to respond to that.)

Now back to our regularly scheduled discussion...

Yeah, I'm sure it's better THAN mine. I didn't know there was some sort of program hierarchy at UofT.

Mostly? If not exclusively?

Well until recently the largest, and most troub;ed detention centre in Aus was Woomera, in the state of SOUTH Australia. Most of that state is desert.
Another centre is Maribynong (near where i grew up) in the southernmost mainland city of Melbourne.

I'm not sure where the worst are, but putting them in a desert could only contribute to how bad they can be.

These pictures could not possibly be taken by activist who want to paint them in a bad light, or by the media after a story.

Of course, the photographs are biased, but the fact that their accommodations are worse than an American prison doesn't say much. There's only so much bias the camera can catch.

The immigrants burn down buildings often, we cannot build them a 5 start hotel only to have it set alight.

The standards of these centres is much better than you would find and a school (summer) camp. They have TV, internet, sports fields, beds, food, medical care. They have everything they need, and if their stories are true (and they are) then the detention centres are much, much better than what they have ever lived in before. And certainly adequate to support them relatively comfortably whilst they are processed.

They're probably better off in the concentration camps than they are from wherever they came, but that doesn't change the fact that they're in Australia, and conditions are poor enough to violate the human rights your government seems to think these immigrants have.

 

[Infanteer]

Don't automatically assume that he was going to attack Montreal just because he had their subway's blueprints or something. It's worth investigating and it's worth increasing security, but it's far from any acceptable level of proof.

Finding a schematic on a suspected terrorist's computer and Osama bin Laden's threats don't constitute a "good deal of evidence." At most, it's weak evidence. Whatever evidence you accuse me of lacking I lack because there is too little evidence to suggest a terrorist attack is imminent. That alone should be considered evidence for the unlikelihood of an attack.

Democratic western nations were founded in part by the belief of the supremacy of law. It's ridiculous to suggest that we should just abandon the law to deal with the state's enemies, not simply because criminals are also enemies of the state, but because this is the mark of unjust regimes. Not only is it cowardly to forego the law and liberty in hopes of achieving greater security, it's wrong, according to our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. What would you propose to do with a suspected terrorist found to have plans for say, the CN tower on his laptop? Would you detain him and charge him with a crime you suspect he will commit? And when will this end? Both the Canadians and the Americans interred their own citizens in concentration camps during the Second World War. That was done because some people thought it was more important to protect the nation than it was to protect its people. A major argument against private firearms ownership is fairly similar, that's it contrary to the good of the public. I'd rather place myself at risk than I would surrender my rights for what apparently would be more safety, especially in this case, where the threat of harm is negligible.

Nice firearms strawman.   Again, no claim was made of a specific threat - the statement was that the evidence is enough to indicate that a clear threat to Canada's domestic security exists; something you deny the existence of.   Since all you continue to offer up is "The Charter" and "court admissable evidence", I'll assume that you are talking out of your ass and that you have nothing to offer to this board except an uneducated assumption.   I'm sure Mr Sheuer, who has dealt with radical Islamists for decades, would appreciate the lecture on constitutional procedure.   Since as you can't seem to provide any responses to the criticism of your arguement, we'll let your slothful induction stand as is....

I can only comment on what I know, which is based on what I've been told. The government hasn't mentioned that they've foiled any terrorist attempts. Had they done so, they'd almost certainly gloat about it.

Well, you obviously haven't been told anything and you've yet to demonstrate that you know much at all, so we'll keep that in mind - stick to trying to bang the sorority pledges and leave threat ID to guys who deal with these folks day in and day out.

They have to account for these kinds of things so that they don't end up looking incompetent if something were to happen. Plus, they likely have their own interest in mind, and are looking to secure increased funding in light of one threat or another.

Good to know that strategic policy is based on hedging the bets.   Your opinion is duly noted....   :boring:

You might be, but more than likely you just think you know what's going on.

You better check your six before you start attacking Mr Wallace's credibility - the ground beneath you is starting to give way; your move.

 

[2 Cdo]

Rob you have lost any credibility you might have had. You constantly dismiss any opinion other than your own, and you insult and belittle the members on this site who are at the sharp end in dealing with terrorists and our enemies. I take back what I said earlier about being an intelligent person, you are merely a mouthpiece that regurgitates what his profs tell him, assuming that it is some holy writ. That alone makes you a f%cking twit!

 

[48Highlander]

Rob, that diatribe just killed any chance of anyone taking you seriously, or of anyone responding to your "points".  Why?  Because with that post you made it quite evident that you have no clear viewpoint on what's being discussed, you're merely disputing any and every point which you can think of a way to dispute.  That is what we refer to as trolling, and it won't be tolerated for very long.  Be happy I'm not DS myself, if it were up to me you'd be gone by now.

 

[a_majoor]

Bringing this bandwidth back to some serious discussion:

Canada has been the nexus for terrorist activities for several decades. The FLQ, the Sikh "Air India" bombers, The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam (LTTE), the Armenian Secret Army assassinating Turkish diplomats in the 1980s, the "anarchist" group which bombed Litton Industries in the 1980s, the Mohawk "Warriors" at Oka and so on.  Indeed, if we accept the purpose of terrorism is to compell government action by the treat or use of violence, then the "Mohawk Warriors Society" and the "Hells Angels" have certainly carved out "no go" zones for themselves where our Government (at all three levels) are reluctant to go.

We also need to think farther out of the box when looking at the aims of the terrorists. The LTTE sponsored a fund raising dinner and had Paul Martin attend. This is almost certainly a PSYOPS action, designed to demoralize both the government of Siri Lanka and the expatriate Tamil population in Toronto. The government of Siri Lanka would see that the government of Canada is not serious about combatting terrorism, when the then Finance Minister sits down with the LTTE for a fund raiser, and Tamil expatriates living in Canada would see the LTTE has co-opted a powerful government minister, which would make them more reluctant to approach the authorities against the depredations of Tamil tigers extorting "taxes".

The use of the internet is also a means of spreading terror. The videos of Jihadis beheading Westerners and Iraqis is certainly an implicit threat, and it is impossible to estrimate how many people might not either financially support NGOs or join them based on the threat.

In isolation, these actions might not mean much, but both the LTTE and the Jihadis also employ homicide bombers and more "conventional" terrorist actions to demoralize civilians and governments and compell actions. Certainly the use of the media and Internet to spread the message of the terrorists is a big part of the conditioning process. This is also a potent way of indoctrinating home grown terrorists (like the Underground bombers in London England), and spreading coded messages to cells operating here in Canada.

 

[R0B]

Nice firearms strawman.  Again, no claim was made of a specific threat - the statement was that the evidence is enough to indicate that a clear threat to Canada's domestic security exists; something you deny the existence of.  Since all you continue to offer up is "The Charter" and "court admissable evidence", I'll assume that you are talking out of your *** and that you have nothing to offer to this board except an uneducated assumption.  I'm sure Mr Sheuer, who has dealt with radical Islamists for decades, would appreciate the lecture on constitutional procedure.  Since as you can't seem to provide any responses to the criticism of your arguement, we'll let your slothful induction stand as is....

There isn't enough evidence to indicate a clear threat to Canada, unless your standards for evidence are incredibly low.
You'll assume that I'm making assumptions? That's good.

Micheal Scheuer was said to often have been frustrated with his superiors' inability to target terrorists and Osama bin Laden aggressively because of a law enforcement mentality. It's that law enforcement mentality that separates the United States from authoritarian regimes.

But anyways, here's a quote from his book, Imperial Hubris: "It is un-American to argue that only those with military experience can criticize military policy and operations."

Good to know that strategic policy is based on hedging the bets.  Your opinion is duly noted....  :boring:

That's not what I said, but quite obviously, they need to account for almost any possibility to avoid criticism should it somehow come about.

Rob you have lost any credibility you might have had. You constantly dismiss any opinion other than your own, and you insult and belittle the members on this site who are at the sharp end in dealing with terrorists and our enemies. I take back what I said earlier about being an intelligent person, you are merely a mouthpiece that regurgitates what his profs tell him, assuming that it is some holy writ. That alone makes you a f%cking twit!

I haven't insulted anyone who didn't first insult me, and even then, my comments could hardly be considered insults.
You might think that I just mindlessly repeat what I've been told, but I hope you don't think that you're any different.

Be happy I'm not DS myself, if it were up to me you'd be gone by now.

I'm quite happy you're in no position of authority.

 

[armyvern]

You might think that I just mindlessly repeat what I've been told, but I hope you don't think that you're any different.

Ill thought out comments such as the one above do little to establish your credibility, knowledge or experience in this area of discussion.
Be careful who you equate to being as equally mindless and unknowledgeable as yourself in this forum, as many of those you have decided know nothing or who 'mindlessly repeat' as you do, have in fact the experience and the first hand knowledge to back themselves up. That is something which you do not have. They will not be disclosing their knowledge of this to you in this forum...but just be advised that it is there.
Do not profess to assume that because 'you' personnaly have not heard or seen, that it does not exist. Not all is disclosed publicly, with very good reason. I do not think that you are high on the notify and contact list of CSIS and the RCMP etc.  While others, due to their lines of work, do have the ocassional privy to some of this info.
Tell me, what evidence do you have that a student such as yourself would possibly have more accurate information, knowledge and first hand information on a terrorism-related matter which many member's in this forum deal with on a daily basis in their many and varied lines of work? They, not you, are the experts, although I just know you will argue this as well.
You seem to have a God complex - holier and haughtier - and always right although you have yet to place a single shred of evidence on this forum to secure your spot as a SME (Subject Matter Expert) on Al Quaida or the threat of Terrorism to this country. Contrary to what you might think about yourself, you are not one, I believe that is why, each time some-one asks you for proof or substantiation of your claims, you revert to the same old 'lack of evidence or flimsy evidence' arguments over and over and over again. You have nothing constructive or concrete to add...just the same old rumblings so I believe that you like to hear yourself talk, therefore I have placed you on ignore.
I lend more credibility to those who speak from experience and first-hand knowledge over a person still in school any day.

 

[Zartan]

I though we had basically removed any major domestic terror threat (Hells Angels and Mohawk Warriors, groups who've actions could be referred to as terror acts)?

Don't know about the Warrior Society, but at least we've reduced the Hell's Angels to the point where they'll sue policemen for harassment over Christmas cards!! ;D

 

[TCBF]

it seems to me, after reading all of the above, that the solution to all of our illegal immigrant/terrorsuspect/passportofconvenienceCanadians is to set up Australian-style concentration Camps beside all of our indian reserves.  The indians could get jobs as guards, maintainers, 'intervievers' etc., and the detainees could look through the fence at Canada's future.

Tom

 

[a_majoor]

I though we had basically removed any major domestic terror threat (Hells Angels and Mohawk Warriors, groups who've actions could be referred to as terror acts)?

We don't hear too much about these guys, but they are still out there. It is not in the interest of the government of the day to highlight law enforcement failures. It is also interesting to note that well connected criminal gangs who either have international connections (the Hells Angles) or unfettered access to the border (the Mohawk Warriors and similar gangs) will have a great deal to offer the terrorist organizations. Groups like Hamas and the LTTE raise lots of money through bogus charities and extorting "taxes" so there is no problem paying for services rendered. Acts of violence are certainly not outside of the arcs of criminal gangs, so there are lots of opportunities for cross fertilization.

Although I don't have the reference handy, I do recall reading about the old PIRA attacking and destroying public transit (burning buses) in order to force people to take taxis, mostly taxis that they controlled. Terror was used both to change behavior, discredit a government service or agency (part of creating parallel structures strategy in revolutionary war theory) and generate a cashflow to support other activities. A side effect was there was correspondingly less government revenue to support anti terrorist activities. Many of the drug cartels also plowed their cash into "legitimate" enterprises, and I would not be surprised to see evidence that Hamas, Hezbollah or the LTTE did (or are doing) the same in Canada today.

This is potentially more worrysome than mass murder, because these people have had decades to insinuate themselves in Canadian society, create parallel structures in defiance or opposition to the government and now have a deep and broad network to dissapear into when they do strike. Perhaps the only bright spot is there do not seem to be many areas of overlap; Sihk terrorists on the west coast have little in common with the Jihadis, and neither would have common cause with the "Warriors Society" (except as a convenient middleman for certain tasks). We are therefore confronted with a number of fairly small parallel structures, each operating without much mutual support from the others. In terms of intelligence and potential military action, there are lots of small infestations to clean out, rather than one large hydra like monster.