Neutralizing Jihadist Terrorism and Bill C-51

104 posts / 0 new
Last post
Justin_Thyme
Neutralizing Jihadist Terrorism and Bill C-51

Let me be clear.

The prime perpetrator of 'jihadist terrorism' is NOT ISIS.

it is Wahhabism, from Saudi Arabia.

They fund mosques throughout the world, that use a Wahhabi-based curriculum.

They are well-funded, in the millions of dollars, backed by an unlimited bottomless pocketbook (Saudi oil money) and have surrounded themselves with layers of lawyers and politicians. Thus, Wahhabism can not be declared as a terrorist organization, and thus they are free to fund and promote terrorism throughout the world. Every Western government knows this, and Obama has even publicly recognized Wahhabism as part of the problem.

There is a certain Wahhabi-funded mosque in Toronto, for instance, that is known to produce terrorists. This goes back to the trials of the Toronto 18 - the gang that was convicted for a plot to blow up the parliament buildings. The radicalization of the main leader can be directly traced to a mosque in Toronto. Yet the mosque was untouchable under Canadian law. Too many lawyers. Too much money available to drag it out through court. Too much protection under the 'freedom of religious persecution' court actions.

The problem with identifying and labeling these Wahhabi-funded groups as terrorist groups is that they change labels at a whim. Al-Qaueda, ISIS, Daesh, and so on and so forth. And Wahhabi is essentially a religion, which can not be labeled as a terrorist group.

See, for instance,

'For more than two centuries, Wahhabism has been Saudi Arabia's dominant faith. It is an austere form of Islam that insists on a literal interpretation of the Koran. Strict Wahhabis believe that all those who don't practice their form of Islam are heathens and enemies. Critics say that Wahhabism's rigidity has led it to misinterpret and distort Islam, pointing to extremists such as Osama bin Laden and the Taliban. Wahhabism's explosive growth began in the 1970s when Saudi charities started funding Wahhabi schools (madrassas) and mosques from Islamabad to Culver City, California.'

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/...

or

You Can't Understand ISIS If You Don't Know the History of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

These are mainstream media publications, not biased special interest publications.

So, to combat terrorism, you have to get around the lawyers. Prevent them from arguing in a court that your actions against their client are unconstitutional and against the law. Religious persecution, as it were, allowing them to hide behind Islam. (Much like the IRA hid behind Catholicism). The way to stop it is through clandestine activities, activities that the lawyers can not challenge in a court of law. If, for instance, the bank accounts of these mosques suddenly vanish, so they can no longer fund their activities, they can no longer effectively promote radicalization.

Enter Bill C-51, that allows the Canadian government, and security agencies, to use clandestine activities against these institutions. If, for instance, these mosques could be effectively unfunded through misdirection of funds unlegally, these Wahhabi institutions would become ineffective. (Illegally is against the law, unlegally is beyond the law). The challenge is to stay one step ahead of them and to have the flexibility to respond immediately as they change coats.

Trudeau is well aware of this. He will support Bill C-51 as an effective way to deal with these scenarios. Trudeau Sr. used the War Measures Act (which gave him similar powers) very effectively against the FLQ. The problem arises with the trust the general public has in their government.

There is absolutely no doubt that an ideologically-based demagogue government like Harper can misuse the provisions of Bill C-51 to achieve it's agenda, beyond that of fighting terrorism. The 2010 G20 summit in Toronto, for example.

There is also no doubt that terrorism can be combated effectively with these provisions.

What is needed is legislation, similar to the WMA and Bill C-51, that can be used secretly, clandestinely, and specifically against publicly-identified and publicly-declared targets and only those targets, not indiscriminately against ANY target. Very similar to tactics that can be used against a declared enemy in times of war that are kept, for obvious reasons, secret.

If, indeed, there is a war against specific terrorists, then the enemy has to be clearly identified and targeted, and the threat to our security neutralized. We are, perhaps, too indoctrinated into the ways of the cold war (nation to nation) and have no experience against a non-national enemy (the way Britain has with the IRA). The Geneva Convention deals only with nation-to-nation warfare, not with a freedom-vs-ideology conflict. Only with the rise of an ideologically driven non-national movement that is not constrained by national boundaries and has more funding and power (political and military) than perhaps a majority of nations, has this become a problem that needs to be addressed with new and novel tools.

What is also needed is a government that all Canadians can trust, because it has trusted and independent non-partisan oversight (the Senate?).

 

NDPP

Could be tricky given that Saudi Arabia are allies in the US-led coalition we currently participate in to destroy Syria. But yes, Saudi/Wahhabism influence money and power is very much a problem. As is Israel/Zionism influence, money and power. And both support each other as well. I don't think you'll find Canadians up to the challenge frankly.

mark_alfred

Justin_Thyme wrote:
Trudeau Sr. used the War Measures Act (which gave him similar powers) very effectively against the FLQ.

My understanding is it was regular policing that was effective, rather than the WMA.  The WMA, as I understand it, was unnecessary and merely caused a lot of innocent civilians to suffer.

NDPP

That's putting it mildly. It was martial law from sea to shining sea...

 

Wisechoice

'Everyone's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's really an easy way: Stop participating in it.'
—Noam Chomsky

So, for example, stop selling weapons to Saudi Arabia. Stop bombing civilian populations. Stop manufacturing terror plots. 

Justin_Thyme wrote:

What is also needed is a government that all Canadians can trust, because it has trusted and independent non-partisan oversight (the Senate?)

Which officially makes this post satire. Thanks, JT.

 

Wisechoice

'Everyone's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's really an easy way: Stop participating in it.'
—Noam Chomsky

So, for example, stop selling weapons to Saudi Arabia. Stop bombing civilian populations. Stop manufacturing terror plots. 

Justin_Thyme wrote:

What is also needed is a government that all Canadians can trust, because it has trusted and independent non-partisan oversight (the Senate?)

Which officially makes this post satire. Thanks, JT.

 

Justin_Thyme

mark_alfred wrote:

Justin_Thyme wrote:
Trudeau Sr. used the War Measures Act (which gave him similar powers) very effectively against the FLQ.

My understanding is it was regular policing that was effective, rather than the WMA.  The WMA, as I understand it, was unnecessary and merely caused a lot of innocent civilians to suffer.

Since I was there, at the time, this is not just 'my understanding'. The FLQ terrorists were in the news regularly. They had evolved a new form of terrorism - the terrorist cell. And a new form of terrorism - placing bombs - (argueably the first widespread use of IEDs by terrorists) randomly in mailboxes (Canada Post mailboxes were the most widespread and universal icon of the Federal Government. and the most visible symbol of Federalism). Independent groups of individuals, with no central command structure, but a common goal. With no central leadership, they were hard to infiltrate. Every cell, in efffect, had to be individually targeted for intel. Cells did not know what other cells were doing. Each was auutonomous. Normal policing was virtually useless against this structure. There were not enough police to do the  job. It was truely a 'made and designed in Canada' terrorist movement.

To refresh your history, "The October Crisis (French: La crise d'Octobre) was a crisis that involved the kidnapping and murder of Pierre Laporte, a provincial cabinet minister, and the kidnapping and subsequent release of James Cross, a British diplomat, by members of the Front de libération du Québec (FLQ). The events took place during October 1970 in the province of QuebecCanada, mainly in the Montreal metropolitan area." from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Crisis.

Trudeau engaged the army to suportrt the civil authorities, striking across Canada to arrest and detain withouut access to the legal system 497 individuals, without regards to their civil or legal rights. They had no recourse in law, and their lawyers were incapacitated. They were held at the privilege of the Queen.

In only a few hours, the FLQ had been neutralized. The FLQ was never a factor in Canada again. What replaced the bombs being placed in mailboxes was politicians elected to the provincial and federal legislature.

It was the only time in Canadian history where the army was used in peacetime to arrest and detain individuals, and where non-police intel could be used to arrest people without recourse to court orders and arrest warrants. There was, and is, absolutely no doubt that civil rights were suspended and ignored. The court system was usurped. It was not legal, not illegal, but unlegal. No law.

It was effective. It completely neutralized the danger, it was swift, it was targeted against a specific threat, it was limited in duration, and it was bloodless. The difference in Canada was dramatic. Day before, very real fear of mailboxes exploding, and of terrorist kidnappings and executions. Day after, threat completely eliminated, terrorist actionns terminated, and Canadians were free of this terrorism.

But it depended on the Trust Canadians had in Trudeau, and the truust they had in this action being targeted, specific, time-limited. and non-ideologically driven against a specific, identifiable, publicly-declared real and deadly threat. Otherwise, it could have bred more terrorism. Because it was swift, surgical, and was followed up with political avenues and reforms, it ended FLQ terrorism in Canada. 

Justin_Thyme

a

Justin_Thyme

NDPP wrote:

 As is Israel/Zionism influence, money and power. 

 

Interesting connection - Wahhabism is to Saudi what Zionism is to Israel.

One very important difference, however. Zionism does not profess to demand that everyone convert to Judaism or be killed. In fact, pure Zionism professes, I think, the idea that Judaism is genetic, and that one can not convert to Judaism. It purports a homeland, but it does not purport that the entire world become that homeland.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Justin_Thyme wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Justin_Thyme wrote:
Trudeau Sr. used the War Measures Act (which gave him similar powers) very effectively against the FLQ.

My understanding is it was regular policing that was effective, rather than the WMA.  The WMA, as I understand it, was unnecessary and merely caused a lot of innocent civilians to suffer.

Since I was there, at the time, this is not just 'my understanding'. The FLQ terrorists were in the news regularly. They had evolved a new form of terrorism - the terrorist cell. And a new form of terrorism - placing bombs - (argueably the first widespread use of IEDs by terrorists) randomly in mailboxes (Canada Post mailboxes were the most widespread and universal icon of the Federal Government. and the most visible symbol of Federalism). Independent groups of individuals, with no central command structure, but a common goal. With no central leadership, they were hard to infiltrate. Every cell, in efffect, had to be individually targeted for intel. Cells did not know what other cells were doing. Each was auutonomous. Normal policing was virtually useless against this structure. There were not enough police to do the  job. It was truely a 'made and designed in Canada' terrorist movement.

To refresh your history, "The October Crisis (French: La crise d'Octobre) was a crisis that involved the kidnapping and murder of Pierre Laporte, a provincial cabinet minister, and the kidnapping and subsequent release of James Cross, a British diplomat, by members of the Front de libération du Québec (FLQ). The events took place during October 1970 in the province of QuebecCanada, mainly in the Montreal metropolitan area." from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Crisis.

Trudeau engaged the army to suportrt the civil authorities, striking across Canada to arrest and detain withouut access to the legal system 497 individuals, without regards to their civil or legal rights. They had no recourse in law, and their lawyers were incapacitated. They were held at the privilege of the Queen.

In only a few hours, the FLQ had been neutralized. The FLQ was never a factor in Canada again. What replaced the bombs being placed in mailboxes was politicians elected to the provincial and federal legislature.

It was the only time in Canadian history where the army was used in peacetime to arrest and detain individuals, and where non-police intel could be used to arrest people without recourse to court orders and arrest warrants. There was, and is, absolutely no doubt that civil rights were suspended and ignored. The court system was usurped. It was not legal, not illegal, but unlegal. No law.

It was effective. It completely neutralized the danger, it was swift, it was targeted against a specific threat, it was limited in duration, and it was bloodless. The difference in Canada was dramatic. Day before, very real fear of mailboxes exploding, and of terrorist kidnappings and executions. Day after, threat completely eliminated, terrorist actionns terminated, and Canadians were free of this terrorism.

But it depended on the Trust Canadians had in Trudeau, and the truust they had in this action being targeted, specific, time-limited. and non-ideologically driven against a specific, identifiable, publicly-declared real and deadly threat. Otherwise, it could have bred more terrorism. Because it was swift, surgical, and was followed up with political avenues and reforms, it ended FLQ terrorism in Canada. 

I was a law graduate doing articles of clerkship in Toronto in October 1970. I recall it very well, and I completely disagree with your interpretation of events. As someone who was practising criminal law at the time, I was well aware that the police powers under the Criminal Code were easily strong enough to handle a threat of this kind. There was, and is, plenty of power to arrest anyone, even on the flimsiest of suspicion. The only extra power the War Measures Act granted was to arrest people there was no reason to suspect of any crime, but whose political beliefs tended towards independence. There is zero evidence that this abuse of power was effective in any way. To claim that it was effective, as you do, is similar to G W Bush apologists claiming that after 9/11 he kept America safe, by means of torture, war crimes, and shredding Americans' constitutional rights.

Trudeau's invocation of the War Measures Act, in my opinion, was a purely political act, calculated to get votes outside Quebec, by giving an appearance of strength, and of doing something. It made me forever cynical about Trudeau's motives for everything he ever did. I remember 15 years or so later hearing Eric Kierans, who was a member of Trudeau's cabinet in 1970, on Peter Gzowski's CBC radio show, Morningside. Kierans explained that at the time he imposed the WMA, Trudeau claimed to his cabinet that he had secret information about threats the public hadn't heard of. Trudeau then promised his ministers that he would reveal this information in due course, but he never actually did so, at least to Kierans' knowledge.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

The War Measures Act was one of the worst things the federal government ever did. I can't find anything about it agreeable. Normal,competent police work would have thwarted the FLQ just as fast and muc h more efficiently.

Justin_Thyme

alan smithee wrote:

The War Measures Act was one of the worst things the federal government ever did. I can't find anything about it agreeable. Normal,competent police work would have thwarted the FLQ just as fast and muc h more efficiently.

 

I do not disagree with you. Suspension of civil liberties IS a very bad thing. However, normal competent police work had not solved the problem in over seven years. In fact, the problem was escalating.

"The day after the first arrests, the tide turned for the FLQ. On the night of October 17, an FLQ communiqué led police to a car parked near St. Hubert airport. In the trunk was the body of Pierre Laporte. He had been strangled to death.

It was the first political assassination in Canada since the murder of Thomas d'Arcy McGee 102 years earlier. Laporte's death would mark the beginning of the end of the FLQ as sympathy abruptly shifted away from the group."

From http://www.cbc.ca/history/EPISCONTENTSE1EP16CH1PA4LE.html

As contemptable as it was, it worked, it was effective, it quickly resolved the crime.

To quote Trudeau,

Trudeau: " There's a lot of bleeding hearts around who don't like to see people with helmets and guns. All I can say is 'go ahead and bleed' but it's more important to keep law and order in this society than to be worried about weak-kneed people who don't like the looks of..."

Reporter: "At what cost? How far would you go? To what extent?"

Trudeau: "Well, just watch me."

 

 

Justin_Thyme

Please  excuse my clumsy attempts at quoting and then editing of the posts. I am just getting used to this  thing. I will eventually become more proficient and neater at it.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

I don't care about your formatting issues, I care about the lies you are putting forth.

 

NDPP

Nor do I see any indication of a Canadian desire to 'neutralize jihadist terrorism.' Very much the contrary I'm afraid.

Canada's 'heavy lifting' in Libya under the NATO command of one of its own RCAF generals, Charles 'the Butcher' Bouchard, in support of the AQ takfiri separatists in E Libya was a quantum leap in the production of jihadist terrorism. It spread it, fully equipped and weaponized across the whole region of North Africa and beyond. Parliament voted unanimously in favour and congratulated and put medals on the chests of our mass murderers afterwards.

The refugee crisis that ensued as a result some time later - directly connected to the Libya project also - has Canada's dirty fingerprints all over it.  This flow of desperate humanity continues still from our adventures in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria where despite supposedly bombing ISIS for 15 months, it has steadily grown and expanded. Only after Russian entry did things begin to turn around because unlike us, they were serious about 'neutralizing jihadist terrorism.' not encouraging and strengthening it. Canada and its western coalition partners are only interested in using their creation as a proxy  battering ram to destroy Iraq and Syria and eventually to move on to Iran and Lebanon as well.

So, we continue to bomb in Iraq and Syria, without a shred of international law legitimacy, without any consent from the governments, and in the coalition company of known ISIS funders ,supporters, aiders and abetters such as USA, Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. We continue to bomb not ISIS but Syrian and Iraqi infrastructure, consistent with an obvious overall western objective of Syriaq regime change and the dismemberment of those countries.  And just as with Libya, the only excitement or interest, generated domestically, usually only comes when some trumped up atrocity such as the Ghouta gas attack 'red line' is manufactured and laid at the feet of whoever is being targeted and demonized, Gadaffi, Assad, Putin...

There is virtually no serious discussion or criticism of any of this in the alternative,  and certainly not officially by any mythical 'opposition' or mainstream media, and our planes are still bombing despite repeated promises this will end. Yesterday the Iraqi Army was bombed by  US coalition airstrikes. Was Canada involved? Has anyone asked? Does anyone care? It doesn't appear so.

Canada's NATO alliance partner Turkey has attacked RF airpower inside Syria after it was revealed by the hated Putin to be collaborating with ISIS to smuggle millions and millions of dollars worth of stolen oil, most of it destined for Israel. The coalition to which Canada still belongs, still includes Turkey. Were there in fact anything even faintly close to a 'progressive' or 'peace' movement, obvious and critical questions would now  be asked.  Why, after 15 months of supposedly bombing ISIS, were the most critical and important targets of all, the ISIS supply lifelines and oil caravans never bombed? Why is this and similar arising questions not being asked?

The answer can only be that the objective was never to stop ISIS, but to grow it and direct it - to destroy Syria and topple its elected president. Canada has participated in this malevolent project from the beginning. Instead of the obvious and important questions that clearly should be asked, they won't be. Instead Canada will now focus on the seasonal festivities. What a nice country we are with such a nice new Prime Minister too. This  will be relentlessly reinforced with endless coverage of the feel-good story of our great and gracious generosity to Syrian refugees. They will probably not entertain certain other more uncomfortable truths such as people having to flee a country our bombs, our sanctions, our deliberate destabilization and, our terrorists, helped to make unliveable.

And the studied indifference to it all from those who shouldn't be guarantees it almost certainly happens again.

Justin_Thyme

NDPP wrote:

Nor do I see any indication of a Canadian desire to 'neutralize jihadist terrorism.' Very much the contrary I'm afraid.

 

I have a personal acquaintance who is now doing a life sentence in a Canadian jail for his leadership in organizing a plot to blow up the parliament buildings and to assassinate the Prime Minister. Do not tell me that there is no Canadian desire to neutralize jihadist terrorism, especially the radicalization part of it.

Justin_Thyme

Michael Moriarity wrote:

I don't care about your formatting issues, I care about the lies you are putting forth.

 

Identify one single lie, backed up by fact. Everything I posted was backed up by references,

To simply say that what I said was a lie, without substantiation, is pretty much what I would expect from a troll. Irregardless, first and final warning - I do not respond to rebutals that are not fact-based and supported by references.

 

Justin_Thyme

NDPP wrote:

And the studied indifference to it all from those who shouldn't be guarantees it almost certainly happens again.

 

The one part of your diatribe that I agree with.

You see, the part of the situation that you have missed completely, is that this is not an us-them problem. Westerners are not involved with it at all, xcept as our roll as arms facilitators.

 

The Middle East is Not even about Israel.

 

It is about deep and century-long hatred between the Suunni and the Shia Muslims themselves.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Justin_Thyme wrote:

Michael Moriarity wrote:

I don't care about your formatting issues, I care about the lies you are putting forth.

 

Identify one single lie, backed up by fact. Everything I posted was backed up by references,

To simply say that what I said was a lie, without substantiation, is pretty much what I would expect from a troll. Irregardless, first and final warning - I do not respond to rebutals that are not fact-based and supported by references.

 

Your claim that the War Measures Act ended the October crisis is a lie. There is no evidence that it aided or speeded up the normal criminal investigation process in any way. It was a political grandstanding play by P.E.T., which caused great suffering to many innocent individuals, no more, no less.

I don't think I want to converse with you any more than I do with your U.S. wingnut buddies. Good night, and good luck.

mark_alfred

Justin_Thyme wrote:

Please  excuse my clumsy attempts at quoting and then editing of the posts. I am just getting used to this  thing. I will eventually become more proficient and neater at it.

Quotes are sometimes tricky in Babble for some reason, even for those who've been here for a while.  There are a couple of quotes here that are wrongly attributed to myself.  But, well, people should just look for the original post to verify anything here.

ETA:  Post #14's quote is incorrectly attributed to me.  It's not super important, but if you could try to correct that, I'd appreciate it.

NDPP
Justin_Thyme

mark_alfred wrote:

Quotes are sometimes tricky in Babble for some reason, even for those who've been here for a while.  There are a couple of quotes here that are wrongly attributed to myself.  But, well, people should just look for the original post to verify anything here.

ETA:  Post #14's quote is incorrectly attributed to me.  It's not super important, but if you could try to correct that, I'd appreciate it.

 

I agree that you had been mis-quoted in #14. it has to do with the hierarchy of quotes, and the proper deletion of the endquote ({/quote} but with square brackets) command. Let's try this one.

Justin_Thyme

Michael Moriarity wrote:

I was a law graduate doing articles of clerkship in Toronto in October 1970. I recall it very well, and I completely disagree with your interpretation of events. As someone who was practising criminal law at the time, I was well aware that the police powers under the Criminal Code were easily strong enough to handle a threat of this kind. There was, and is, plenty of power to arrest anyone, even on the flimsiest of suspicion. The only extra power the War Measures Act granted was to arrest people there was no reason to suspect of any crime, but whose political beliefs tended towards independence. There is zero evidence that this abuse of power was effective in any way. To claim that it was effective, as you do, is similar to G W Bush apologists claiming that after 9/11 he kept America safe, by means of torture, war crimes, and shredding Americans' constitutional rights.

You also have an interesting  revisionist history. Perhaps you were too busy atricling in Toronto to  know what was happening in Quebec. Before the October crwisis, FLQ had the upper hand. After the WMA, they were no longer a factor. Swift, decisive, surgical neutralization of the enemy. No need to drag it through the courts for years. No need for endless submissions by lawyers. Invoke the WMA, then end of story.

Yes, it did circumvent lawyers, but it saved the country. Left the lawyers wagging their tongues about 'judicial process'. But it ended the bombings, the kidnappings, the political executions, immediately. 

Your 'regular process' would have taken years. and still not have been as effective OR as efficient.

The Wahhabis will continue to export terrorissm, recruit radicals, and threaten our national security, unless somehow lawyers are pushed to the side, made irrelevant, and the scourge stopped unlegally.

Afterwards, when Canadians are safe and sound, free of the terrorist threat, you 'bleeding heart' lawyers can argue 'It wasn't necessary to circumvent us, the problem would eventually have been solved'. So, the whhabis have been at it since 1970. Why hasn't it been solved 'through the  normal process'.

Incidentally, Trudeau was no George Bush.

Justin_Thyme

Unionist wrote:

'

Oh, the mailbox bombs peaked in 1963, and the last one (one) was 1967. Quebecers were not living in fear of mailbox bombs.

Justin Thyme is not very sage.

"On the morning of October 5, 1970, four men posing as deliverymen kidnapped British trade commissioner James Richard Cross from his plush Montreal residence.

Cross was in the hands of Quebec's most radical separatist group, the Front de Libération du Québec (FLQ). Since 1963, the FLQ had been involved in over 200 bombings in Quebec. Now the self-described revolutionary movement was changing tactics."

"As the country watched, events continued to unfold in Quebec. On October 15, three thousand people gathered at Paul Sauvé Arena to show support for the FLQ's separatist ideas. The FLQ's lawyer, Robert Lemieux, fired them up."

From http://www.cbc.ca/history/EPISCONTENTSE1EP16CH1PA4LE.html

And 

  • June 24, [1970]FLQ bombing of National Defence Headquarters building in Ottawa kills Jeanne d'Arc Saint-Germain.[16]
  • July 3, [1970]bomb explodes at Petrofina Refinery at Point aux Trembles, East Montreal Island. A communiqué, written by Nigel Hamer, is published in Le Journal de Montréal two days later.[17

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Front_de_lib%C3%A9ration_d...

No, they were no longer bombing mailboxes. They went after bigger targets.

You have an interesting revisionist history.

Justin_Thyme

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Your claim that the War Measures Act ended the October crisis is a lie. There is no evidence that it aided or speeded up the normal criminal investigation process in any way. It was a political grandstanding play by P.E.T., which caused great suffering to many innocent individuals, no more, no less.

I don't think I want to converse with you any more than I do with your U.S. wingnut buddies. Good night, and good luck.

 

You must have missed 

"The day after the first arrests, the tide turned for the FLQ. On the night of October 17, an FLQ communiqué led police to a car parked near St. Hubert airport. In the trunk was the body of Pierre Laporte. He had been strangled to death."

from

http://www.cbc.ca/history/EPISCONTENTSE1EP16CH1PA4LE.html

 

I don't depend on luck.  I depend on supported factual information.

Justin_Thyme

Unionist wrote:

 

When you say "century-long", do you mean 100 years?

Or did you just fuck up and actually mean to say "centuries-long"?

You're new here, so I'm just trying to determine whether it's your brain, your heart, or your grammar which is wonky.

Please don't feel constrained to reply if you feel that my questions are not sufficiently fact-based, like the grotesque lies that you have been uttering.

Thanks in advance.

You are right, I meant 'millenium-long. As in thousand year. As in from around the seventh-eighth century.

I would appreciate a civil tone. Swearing has absolutely no merit in a logical arguement or reasonable discussion. It is usually representative of a troll who tries to keep the thread going. As in nit-picking. 

oldgoat

Hey unionist, check your PMs

Justin_Thyme

NDPP wrote:

Chess in the Age of ISIS

http://thesaker.is/chess-in-the-age-of-isis/

 

 

A very interesting link.

 

The national boundary lines in the Middle East were arbitrarily drawn on a map, randomly as it might appear, by a French and English diplomat in a  coffee house, during the first world war. They paid no atention to such details as ethnicity, tribal boundaries, or any other factor ecept that they lookked nice on paper.

"The Sykes–Picot Agreement /ˈsaɪks pi.ko/, officially known as the Asia Minor Agreement, was a secret agreement between the governments of the United Kingdom and France,[1] with the assent of Russia, defining their proposedspheres of influence and control in the Middle East should the Triple Entente succeed in defeating the Ottoman Empireduring World War I. The negotiation of the treaty occurred between November 1915 and March 1916.[2] The agreement was concluded on 16 May 1916.[3]'"

from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement

 

Maybe it is time to let the actual inhabitants of the Middle East decide their OWN boundaries?

lagatta

Justin Time, mange de la marde. I know or knew several people, trade unionists, artists and intellectuals, who were jailed under the War Measures Act.  In no way were they involved in the kidnappings or any other illegal activity.  In the meantime normal policing easily found the culprits, who were hardly "terrorist masterminds". Your racist anti-Québec shit belongs at the National Pest, not here.

Death to fascists and racists.

By the way, if it need saying for your ilk, no I don't support kidnappings, nor (accidental) killings of hostages. That sucks, as does your crap.

Justin_Thyme

lagatta wrote:

Justin Time, ...

 

Your profanity-laced personal attack on me is not worth a reply.

 

Since rabble is dependent on donations, I am sure it has a vested interest in maintaining a civil tone.

oldgoat

Justin, what can I say.  As far as profanity goes, there is no policy here against it.  It's kind of situatuonal. You were just sweared at in French.  That's kind of like being sweared at in iambic pentameter, in that in the English idiom you get a bit of a pass. You are clearly a passionate one issue poster, who apparently has a lot of time on your hands. Such posters tend to have a short life span here.

 

 

Paladin1

Justin_Thyme wrote:

NDPP wrote:

Nor do I see any indication of a Canadian desire to 'neutralize jihadist terrorism.' Very much the contrary I'm afraid.

 

I have a personal acquaintance who is now doing a life sentence in a Canadian jail for his leadership in organizing a plot to blow up the parliament buildings and to assassinate the Prime Minister.

Who's that?

NDPP

I thought the RCMP and CSIS organized that...?

Justin_Thyme

Paladin1 wrote:

Who's that?

Zak Amara.

Justin_Thyme

NDPP wrote:

I thought the RCMP and CSIS organized that...?

Which post are we talking about? The Toronto 18?

Sorry, but it was very real. No RCMP conspiracy theories. The material for the bombs had been purcchased. The detonators designed and built. Zak completely confessed, As I understand it, he produced the hardware. The target was established. They were probably weeksa, if not days,  away from doing it, had the amoonium nitrate not been intercepted. All of this is in the court records. Nothing new. 

here is a loink to the most recent legal activity. http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/09/26/canada-revokes-citizenship...

The RCMP cast a very broad net, because of incomplete intel. They over-arrested, on the side of prudence. But would you have them not go far enough in their arrests, and had one of the participants actually detonate a second bomb?

Like the WMA in 1970, when the danger is real, substantial, and imminent, you cast the net wide.

mark_alfred

re: post 38:

I don't recall over 400 people being wrongfully arrested for the Toronto 18. 

Unionist

lagatta wrote:

Justin Time, mange de la marde. <snip> Your racist anti-Québec shit belongs at the National Pest, not here.

Death to fascists and racists.

You got that right.

 

Justin_Thyme

oldgoat wrote:

Justin, what can I say.  As far as profanity goes, there is no policy here against it.  It's kind of situatuonal. You were just sweared at in French.  That's kind of like being sweared at in iambic pentameter, in that in the English idiom you get a bit of a pass. You are clearly a passionate one issue poster, who apparently has a lot of time on your hands. Such posters tend to have a short life span here.

Perhaps you are not familiar with Rabble posting policies. You know, the ones at the top of the posting.

 

Do

  • Tell the truth and avoid rumours.
  • Add context and background.
  • Report typos and logical fallacies.
  • Be respectful.
  • Respect copyright - link to articles.
  • Stay focused. Bring in-depth commentary to our discussion forum, babble.

Don't

  • Use oppressive/offensive language.
  • Libel or defame.
  • Bully or troll.
  • Post spam.
  • Engage trolls. Flag suspect activity instead.

You know the part about Don't - use offensive language, bully or troll, that kind of thing?

Or perhaps the DO side - Be respectful, Stay focused.

You are right, It does not make any difference if the words were in French, Iamnbic Pentameter, or Martian. You said yourself, I was sweared AT. Not at what I was saying, not the topic, not some expression of frustration, but it was directed at ME. THAT is the part that is offensive and disrespectful. It contributed nothing to the dialogue. It added no new commentary or perspective. The actual words, or language, does not matter. It was a personal attack. The poster disagreed with what I said, so he/she attacked me personally. I really think Trudeau said it best, and so did 70% of Canadians, when they turned their backs on that kind of divisiveness and vindictiveness. The rejection of attack adds in favor of civil dialogue.

I have been blogging longer than this site has been up and running. I have seen good sites (CBC, for instance) that are well-respected and well-read. I have been on very bad sites (Patheos, for instance). What I found was that the sites that had moderators who had any interest in keeping a wide readership, and who wanted to encourage a high caliber of discussion that focussed on the issues, policed their site on the side of caution. They kept a civil dialogue that was respectful, encouraging, and accepting. No personal attacks allowed.

Sites that tended to accept foul language, bully behavior, intimidation, disrespect, and other such troll behavior, ended up with a very limited readership, and a limiited group of people participating. Essentially, they existed for only the few. Everyone else had been bullied off of them. They ended up with a very narrow, biased audience of like-minded individuals. There was no discussion, only mutual admiration. Intelligence had left the building, as it were. Jerry Springer sites, I call them. Viewers are only interested in witnessing the violence and bloodshed, not the issues. No one goes to Jerry Springer for any kind of intellectual insight.

I suggest the reason why really good, productive bloggers (like the passionate ones) have left the site, and have such a short life span, is that we have no interest in spending our time fighting off bullies and taking the vindictiveness and vile that I have been subject to. We are interested in passoionate discussion of the issues.

I also suggest that your purpose here is NOT that of an impartial moderator, but to coddle and protect those bullies who want only to get their own way, because you have become a clique, a group of comrads, who will stick together even to the demise of the site. You obviously want this to be a site of 'old boys', where newcomers are not welcome. This certainly seems evident here. The victim (me) gets persecuted, while the perpetrator - you know, the one who swore at me, was disrespectful, contributed nothing to the discussion - gets praised.

Look at the posts that follow, directed at me personally. They have nothing to do with any relevant topic, only in bullying me off the site. 

CBC has to cut their response blogs off after only a few days, with sometimes 1 800 to 2 500 responders. I can get more than a hundred views on there in a few hours. Respectful comments in reply. The readership and response rate is so high because the moderating is so tight. People of all viewpoints feel safe in posting their position, knowing that they will not be attacked. Any and all personal attacks, and foul, disrespectful language is 'content disabled' immediately. Blog posts like the ones I protested would never make it to the public, let alone survive a challenge.

When I first saw this site, I was attracted by your posting policies as stated above. I wondered if you were serious about them. Obviously you are not. You don't even remember them. I quote, 'There is no policy against it'. Really? You have no policy against personal attacks? You have no policy that restricts people from swearing at, or calling other posters, names? Do you really know what 'Be respectful' means? Or do you really not know that is clearly stated in your policies?

This appears to be just another troll-trash site, like so many others. Hiding behind phony 'Policies'.

Justin_Thyme

mark_alfred wrote:

re: post 38:

I don't recall over 400 people being wrongfully arrested for the Toronto 18. 

 

No, and I never said there were. Not in post #38, and not anywhere. The 'over 400' applies to the number arrested in the FLQ crisis, in 1970. The Toronto 18 was in 2006. It is called the 'Toronto 18' because that was the number originally arrested.

 

The 'wide net' referred to the nature of the 18. There was a grad student arrested at McMaster university who's name was only mentioned incidentally, but he was rounded up anyway. Very quickly released when the police realized he had no connection. I believe Zak even told them he had no connection.

Justin_Thyme

mark_alfred wrote:

re: post 38:

I don't recall over 400 people being wrongfully arrested for the Toronto 18. 

 

No, and I never said there were. Not in post #38, and not anywhere. The 'over 400' applies to the number arrested in the FLQ crisis, in 1970. The Toronto 18 was in 2006. It is called the 'Toronto 18' because that was the number originally arrested.

 

The 'wide net' referred to the nature of the 18. There was a grad student arrested at McMaster university who's name was only mentioned incidentally, but he was rounded up anyway. Very quickly released when the police realized he had no connection. I believe Zak even told them he had no connection.

Out of the 18,  I think I recall thatr only six made it to trial, and only three were convicted.

mark_alfred

If the Toronto 18 was solved with regular policing, then it doesn't serve as support for enacting policies such as the WMA or Bill C-51 that breach civil liberties, right?

oldgoat

Justin_Thyme wrote:

oldgoat wrote:

Justin, what can I say.  As far as profanity goes, there is no policy here against it.  It's kind of situatuonal. You were just sweared at in French.  That's kind of like being sweared at in iambic pentameter, in that in the English idiom you get a bit of a pass. You are clearly a passionate one issue poster, who apparently has a lot of time on your hands. Such posters tend to have a short life span here.

 

Perhaps you are not familiar with Rabble posting policies. You know, the ones at the top of the posting.

 

Hi Justin.   I'm pretty familiar with them as I helped write the foundations of the policy back in the day.  There is policy, and there is the nature of the board which arises from the entire body of posters.. I always deal with the one with an eye to the other.  I serve both the policy and the community.  The policy has evolved to accommodate a level of heatedness, and occasional use of the vulgate as we address one another. Being sworn at does not always meet the bar of real abuse.This is just human reality, and will continue unless rabble wants to hire about 20 school marm type moderators.  I personally would not like the place to get too vanilla.  In terms of favourites BTW, I have suspended people I like quite a lot, and in a few cases banned them permanently.

Where yo find youself in supporting bill c51 is at odds with pretty much how everyone else thinks, and probably runs contrary to the stated progessive nature of babble itself.  

 

I'm also going to find myself very busy today, and I'm not sure if I'll have a chance to check in

oldgoat

try going to the Christmas thread i started and say something nice.

 

Slumberjack

oldgoat wrote:
 As far as profanity goes, there is no policy here against it. 

As good a reason as any to like babble after all.

Slumberjack

There seems to be a contradiction in play when someone professing to deal in reality and fact privileges an entirely sanitized/gentrified version of it where it concerns the political discourse of the commons.

Also

Quote:
Before the October crwisis, FLQ had the upper hand. After the WMA, they were no longer a factor. Swift, decisive, surgical neutralization of the enemy. No need to drag it through the courts for years. No need for endless submissions by lawyers. Invoke the WMA, then end of story. Yes, it did circumvent lawyers, but it saved the country.

The FLQ must have been quite the powerful group if the entire country was put at risk.  Or, is it the case that what we're encountering here is a flair for the dramatic that is not as grounded in fact as advertised?

Additionally, a country saved from it's own laws is a country that risks being rescued primarily for the fascist whims of whomever is in power.

oldgoat

That would be"specifically" against it Sj, it's situational.

 

So fuck you.

Slumberjack

Duly noted.

NDPP

 I don't agree with you on history or terrorism but found your analysis of the dynamics here of interest and not entirely off the mark.

Justin_Thyme

mark_alfred wrote:

If the Toronto 18 was solved with regular policing, then it doesn't serve as support for enacting policies such as the WMA or Bill C-51 that breach civil liberties, right?

 

Okay, let me backtrack. If you regard what I have posted herre and elsewhee. it is NOT the spying or investigative aspects of Bill C-51 or the WMA that are useful. Invoking the WMA added nothing to the intel. What the WMA, and Bill C-51, allowed, was for the authoorities to ACT on the intel they already posessed, with immunity from prosecution. They already knew who they were going to detain in the October crisis, they just needed the ability to go out and get them without arrest warrants, and hold them without bail, while they executed searches without search warrants.

It is the 'dirty tricks' allowed by the WMA, and bill C-51, that are effective against terrorism. The intel gathering part is just a red herring. 

With Zak, it was straightforward. They had inside information that he was going to purchase a large quantity of ammonium nitrate (you can't even buy small quantities of it without triggering an investigation, and a trruckload purchase by an individual set the alarms off full volume) and they were ready and waitig when he recieved the shipment. They had all the evidence they needed. No dirty tricks necessary. It was a straight criminal prosecution case. IOt helped that he confessed freely afterwards, and his conviction was based almost entirely on a mutuyally agreed statement of facts.

However, with the Wahhabi mosquues, the story is very much different. They can get evidence against specific individuals, and prosecute them, but the brains behind it are safely tucked back in Saudi Arabia. Just like the drug trade, take out a few expendable field workers, so what. The money still flows. The process still continues unabated. Since Saudi Arabia is politically untouchable, the money flow has to be stopped in some other, clandestine, unlegal way. The effects of the drug trade are subtle, and fly below the radar. A terrorist act, such as blowing up the parliament buildings, is not so subtle, and massively destabalizing.

With the October crisis, there was sufficient evidence to warrant the concern that the terrorist activities had escalated into a more destructive phase, one that seriously jeopardized public safety on a massive scale. Waiting for forensic results was not an option. Lawyers, you know.  In fact, one of the persons most responsible for whiping people into a frenzy was an FLW lawyer. (Sourced in one of my other posts).

In the 9/11 attacks, authorities were seriously hampered by delays inherent in the legal system. Again, the lawyers. If the authorities know that an attack of 9/11 proportions is under way, but you do not know the specifics, do you really want them to wait for a court order? Bush had no authority to ground the entire aviation system in the US until AFTER the attack occured. Intel gathering was NOT the problem. Being able to DO something, legally, with the intel was the problem. Check the timing of the events of 9/11, when and how Bush was notified, and exactly what he did, the script that was played out, afterwards. Really. Did Bush look surprised?

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

I wouldn't compare the FLQ with radical Islamists. They're not comparable.

I do agree with a crack down on Whabbism. Saudi Arabia should be held accountable for breeding this shit and funding it. Just like Turkey who are funding ISIS by buying their oil and treating their wounded.

Syria and Iraq are scapegoats. If our overlords weren't so deeply addicted to oil,we could focus on the cause of this cancer by starving SA economically and militarily.

Alas,that isn't ever going to happen. We (our governments) are in for the longf haul and quite happy with a perpetual war in the Middle East.

Question is,who benefits from this? I can only think of 2 countries.

mark_alfred

Justin_Thyme wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

If the Toronto 18 was solved with regular policing, then it doesn't serve as support for enacting policies such as the WMA or Bill C-51 that breach civil liberties, right?

Okay, let me backtrack. If you regard what I have posted herre and elsewhee. it is NOT the spying or investigative aspects of Bill C-51 or the WMA that are useful. Invoking the WMA added nothing to the intel. What the WMA, and Bill C-51, allowed, was for the authoorities to ACT on the intel they already posessed, with immunity from prosecution.

The Toronto 18 were arrested, and then tried in 2010, I believe, which is long before Bill C-51 and long after the WMA.  So it's a false argument to say that either WMA or Bill C-51 played any part in it.  It was regular policing.  Same is true for the October Crisis.  Even Robert Stanfield, who initially supported the WMA, later said he regretted his support, claiming he came to see that it was an unnecessary use of force.  And during a couple of inquiries (Keable Commission, Inquiry into Certain Activities of the RCMP -- see bottom of link under "Keable Commission") it came out from both Turner and Bourassa that the WMA was nothing more than an unnecessary show:

Quote:
The federal minister of justice in 1970, John Turner, justified the use of War Measures as a means of reversing an "erosion of the public will" in Québec. According to some, Premier Robert Bourassa similarly conceded that the use of the War Measures Act was intended to rally popular support to the authorities rather than to confront an "apprehended insurrection."

Your posts have basically said, bad stuff happened -- hey, check out these wikipedia links! -- then suspensions of civil liberties allowing a police state occur and yay! we're safe again.  Hardly an argument, given that the example given is generally viewed as having been solved through regular police work.

Anyway, if you wish to believe that setting up Canada as a police state is necessary for our safety, then go ahead.  I feel that police states are inherently more dangerous, period. Societies with well defined civil liberties and an accountable police force will always be safer, I feel.

I have nothing more to say on this issue.

ETA:  Anyway, it seems to be a very small part of the thread, which is primarily focussed on international issues.  I don't follow international issues much.  I had not heard of Whabbism before, I confess, so I'm glad to learn of something new.

Pages