A Non Terrorist Terrorist Act

WestCoastRunner · February 14, 2015

Ok great so you're tellingme that Latino terrorists are beheading people, suicide bombing places, bombing embassies and attacking cartoonists. Please post some proof of this so I can be sure.

So you are stating that: beheading people, suicide bombing, attacking cartoonists and embassies are the only attacks that are certified as 'terrorist attacks'?

I still don't get what you are debating?

Edited February 14, 2015 by WestCoastRunner

On Guard for Thee · February 14, 2015

You didn't read the articles did you? It's all about selling ad space and getting elected. People are more fascinated by muslim terrorist acts, not christian terrorist attacks, not latino terrorist attacks, not accidental gun deaths, not violence towards women and separatist terrorist attacks. It's all about muslim terrorists these days. Haven't you figured that out yet?

I found interesting the stat report in one of the articles that in the US in 2013 you had a better chance of being killed by a toddler playing with a gun than than by a terrorist.

WestCoastRunner · February 14, 2015

I found interesting the stat report in one of the articles that in the US in 2013 you had a better chance of being killed by a toddler playing with a gun than than by a terrorist.

Yes, you posted some great links. You should quote some of these to support your statements. Good links!

On Guard for Thee · February 14, 2015

Ok great so you're tellingme that Latino terrorists are beheading people, suicide bombing places, bombing embassies and attacking cartoonists. Please post some proof of this so I can be sure.

Ever heard of Anders Breivik, he certainly wasnt Muslim Matter of fact he murdered 77 people in Norway because he was anti muslim. Would those 77 be deader if he had beheaded them instead of shooting them.

WestCoastRunner · February 14, 2015

The article said this was not based culture or ideology. There has to be some criteria otherwise every violent crime could be called a terrorist act. This had no objective other than the crime itself.

Agree. It has been stated it was not based on culture or ideology, no mention of terrorism. It's only when politicians get involved that the word 'terrorism' comes up.

Justice Minister Peter MacKay said the alleged plot would have been "devastating," but was not linked to terrorism.

WestCoastRunner · February 14, 2015

Would those 77 be deader if he had beheaded them instead of shooting them.

On Guard for Thee · February 14, 2015

One more for good luck. Imagine someone being so bold to utter the phrase Christian Terrorist!

http://theweek.com/articles/534105/muslims-blamed-moderate-christians-terroristattacks

WestCoastRunner · February 14, 2015

One more for good luck. Imagine someone being so bold to utter the phrase Christian Terrorist!

http://theweek.com/articles/534105/muslims-blamed-moderate-christians-terroristattacks

A great quote from that article:

When you engage in collective blame, the finger will eventually point back to you — there's no tribe without blood on its hands, at least metaphorically.

Wilber · February 14, 2015

Agree. It has been stated it was not based on culture or ideology, no mention of terrorism. It's only when politicians get involved that the word 'terrorism' comes up.

Justice Minister Peter MacKay said the alleged plot would have been "devastating," but was not linked to terrorism.[/size]

Small point. Under our law, Crown prosecutors determine the charges, not governments.

WestCoastRunner · February 14, 2015

The popularity of muslim terrorist attacks not only headlines mainstream media but also political forums. When in fact, as has been pointed out in links posted above, there is a FAR greater possibility of being killed by other means.

WestCoastRunner · February 14, 2015

Small point. Under our law, Crown prosecutors determine the charges, not governments.

Yes, I get that.

On Guard for Thee · February 14, 2015

A great quote from that article:

When you engage in collective blame, the finger will eventually point back to you — there's no tribe without blood on its hands, at least metaphorically.

No tribe indeed. I would add that I have spent time in numerous Muslim countries, some as disparate as the UAE and Afghanistan for the better part of 2 years. That oil money in the former makes quite a difference as people are better educated, more progressive and you can even get a cold beer, although the religion is still front and center. Unfortunately in the latter I did get to experience that blood, both metaphorically and literally. And of course that whole mission seems a flop.

Smallc · February 14, 2015

Small point. Under our law, Crown prosecutors determine the charges, not governments.

Even smaller point (excluding Alberta): Crown Attorney or Crown Counsel.

Argus · February 14, 2015

That's good info.

What's the rest?

Do you have a link for that?

.

Here's a link for you.

The notorious Loonwatch.com site has been claiming for years that 94% of all terror attacks have nothing to do with Islam. What they aren't saying is

that according to their own source, Muslims are 35 times more likely to commit acts of deadly terror - and that's just in the United States...

...

As it turns out, much of the FBI list includes "violence" against property rather than people. In fact, the formula used by the agency to define terrorism is somewhat fuzzy. While it includes tree-spiking and bank robbery, for example, it somehow omits the Arizona assassination of a Sunni cleric by Iranian terrorists in 1980, the 1990 murder of Rabbi Kahane by an Islamic radical at a New York hotel, and even the killing of two CIA agents by a Muslim extremist at Langley in 1993.

http://thereligionofpeace.com/Articles/Loonwatch-94-Percent.htm

WestCoastRunner · February 14, 2015

Here's a link for you.

The notorious Loonwatch.com site has been claiming for years that 94% of all terror attacks have nothing to do with Islam. What they aren't saying is

that according to their own source, Muslims are 35 times more likely to commit acts of deadly terror - and that's just in the United States...

...

As it turns out, much of the FBI list includes "violence" against property rather than people. In fact, the formula used by the agency to define terrorism is somewhat fuzzy. While it includes tree-spiking and bank robbery, for example, it somehow omits the Arizona assassination of a Sunni cleric by Iranian terrorists in 1980, the 1990 murder of Rabbi Kahane by an Islamic radical at a New York hotel, and even the killing of two CIA agents by a Muslim extremist at Langley in 1993.

http://thereligionofpeace.com/Articles/Loonwatch-94-Percent.htm

Seriously, you are quoting from Loonwatch, a hate site against muslims. Glad to know where you gather your information from. That speaks volumes.

Edited February 14, 2015 by WestCoastRunner

Derek 2.0 · February 14, 2015

I guess it is up to our government to decide, according to the Conservative agenda, just what is a terrorist act and what is not.

Only so far as to confirm or deny that such Acts fit the definition, found within the Criminal Code, on what is (or isn’t) “terrorist activity”:

an act or omission, in or outside Canada,

(i) that is committed

(A) in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause, and

( in whole or in part with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public, with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act, whether the public or the person, government or organization is inside or outside Canada, and

I would assume in this case, it does not fit the definition of terrorism as found within the Criminal Code.......so why do you claim this a "non terrorist terrorist act"? Do you have some information that is not in the public sphere?

Wilber · February 15, 2015

Yes, I get that.

It seems that some don't. The government might define terrorism but the Crown decides whether a crime meets that definition.

Big Guy · February 15, 2015

To Derek 2.0 - thank you for your response but your recent posts have caused me to lose confidence in your ability to accept a civil disagreeing point of view as a valid point worth analysis and discussion.

I am not into cheerleading and/or denunciation.

I am not interested at the moment in arguing with you. I have lost respect for your methodology.

Derek 2.0 · February 15, 2015

It seems that some don't. The government might define terrorism but the Crown decides whether a crime meets that definition.

Exactly, and from what is known of this case, it doesn't match the legal definition of terrorism.

Derek 2.0 · February 15, 2015

To Derek 2.0 - thank you for your response but your recent posts have caused me to lose confidence in your ability to accept a civil disagreeing point of view as a valid point worth analysis and discussion.

I am not into cheerleading and/or denunciation.

I am not interested at the moment in arguing with you. I have lost respect for your methodology.

Your OP would tend to counter this most recent passive aggressive assertion.....whatever floats your boat.

Argus · February 15, 2015

Seriously, you are quoting from Loonwatch, a hate site against muslims. Glad to know where you gather your information from. That speaks volumes.

Seriously, I'm not quoting from Loonwatch but ABOUT Loonwatch.

Seriously.

Argus · February 15, 2015

I am not into cheerleading and/or denunciation.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

WestCoastRunner · February 15, 2015

Seriously, I'm not quoting from Loonwatch but ABOUT Loonwatch.

Seriously.

Of course you are.

On Guard for Thee · February 15, 2015

I trust by now the naysayers have familiarized themselves with the MAY, LIKELY, WITH OR WITHOUT SURETIES language changes in the proposed legislation that worries people who like their rights.