CSIS highlights White Supremacist threats ahead of radical Islam

[Argus]

oh, I don't know.... perhaps becasue the people who actually know these things say so? lol

You're like one of those science deniers... if it doesn't fit the narrative that is already in your head, then it can't possibly be true!

I know it's more fashionable to be scared of Islamic terrorists... and they're a threat, clearly... but not as much as other groups.

This has nothing to do with science and everything to do with reality. But fine, prove me wrong by citing some recent terrorist incidents in Canada involving white supremecists. None? Go ahead and instead recite white supremacists arrested for plotting some terrorist incidents.

[Smallc]

Why do you think only the Islamic threats would become attacks? Wouldn't the other groups, who are more likely a threat also become attacks?

I didn't say that. I'm not aware of much in the way of other threats though.

[Shady]

Some of the ones that are written in our constitution and charter.

Which human rights do you think are being violated?

[Michael Hardner]

He said attacks or prevented attacks, like the ones I brought up regarding Muslims.

I'm sure you have a list by now.

No I don't. Somebody else offered a list of threats, and you said you had one.

My understanding of the threat level comes from reading about US security threats.

I think this is the list that the others posted:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/03/15/csis-highlights-white-supremacist-threat-ahead-of-radical-islam.html

[Michael Hardner]

Are you changing your mind now?

"On the same scale" does not mean "equal"... and I have never thought nor said that the threats are equal.

If Islamist terrorism is graded at a 9% chance of happening, and white supremacist at 6% we're in the same order of magnitude of threat.

[WWWTT]

There've been studies that show white people proportionately use more illicit drugs, but are charged and incarcerated far less than blacks. That's because black people's communities are policed more, so the uniformed police statistics make it appear as though they're committing more crime because they're caught more and are more likely to go through the judicial system and far more likely to receive prison time than white people who commit the same crimes.

Nailed it pretty good here in this comment!

I also have read that many courts are far more lenient on whites which you briefly touch on in your comment.

WWWTT

[On Guard for Thee]

Which human rights do you think are being violated?

Freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, unlawful search and seizure as well as arrest....Hows that for a start.

[On Guard for Thee]

What you are reading is the Toronto Star's interpretation of what CSIS pulled from academic studies worldwide. What you do not get are definitions, either because CSIS didn't provide them, or more likely because the Star didn't want to report them. We saw something similar to this in an FBI report the PC types tried to use to suggest Muslim terrorism was really not much of a big deal in the US compared to other kinds of terrorism Only it turned out that the 'terrorist' incidents done by other groups tended to be things like burning down a shed, or keying a car, or spiking trees, which isn't quite the same thing as blowing up a building full of office workers.

So I will just reiterate my point: if CSIS is so inept should we bet allowing them such far reaching powers with noone looking over their shoulder.

[On Guard for Thee]

No, it's not. It's just that if some of you oh-so-precious politically correct types hear a Muslim blew up a store, recorded a video in advance saying he was blowing it up for Allah, yelled God is great as he blew it up, and had cheque stubs from ISIS they'd still say it had nothing to do with Muslim terrorism. he was probably on a sugar high or upset about a soccer game or drunk or insane or didn't get enough sleep that night.

There is this vast, desperate need by the politically correct to deny and repudiate any information linking Muslims to terrorism because PC types perceive them to be a minority and see it as their noble duty up there on that pedestal of righteousness to 'protect' all minorities.

I just want to protect my rights from the right wing tin hat people who get all jumpy over a couple of incidents they perceive as terrorism. Must be getting crowded under that bed.

[Keepitsimple]

I just want to protect my rights from the right wing tin hat people who get all jumpy over a couple of incidents they perceive as terrorism. Must be getting crowded under that bed.

There's no room - it's over-flowing with people who are terrified...terrified I say - of losing their rights.....

[On Guard for Thee]

There's no room - it's over-flowing with people who are terrified...terrified I say - of losing their rights.....

You have the cart before the horse again. The terrified people under the bed are those who are hoping a flawed law will protect the from a threat that has been blown completely out of proportion. The rest of dont like the taste of the kool aid Harper is serving.

[poochy]

You have the cart before the horse again. The terrified people under the bed are those who are hoping a flawed law will protect the from a threat that has been blown completely out of proportion. The rest of dont like the taste of the kool aid Harper is serving.

Assuming that at least some of the prevented attacks were real, say the train plot, if that had happened and 20 people were killed, would you change your mind? You and the rest constantly presume that no significant attack could or will occur, significant for you anyway, so what is your body count threshold? Derailed trains can and have killed many people, so if we do nothing and then something significant ( whatever that means to you) happens, would it even matter to you? Or would you be satisfied that you did the right thing for your version of your rights, always believing that more laws wouldn't have helped, that all of our laws are already juuuust right. Well Goldilocks, you don't know what laws are needed, and you don't get to decide that it's ok to put up with X deaths (your body count threshold - if that exists) in order to satisfy your personal sensibilities. The fallacy that the rest of us are just EVER SO SCARED is entirely pathetic, and speak volumes about the kind of person and people you all are.

Sorry to disappoint you, but im not losing any sleep over this, the odds of me personally being affected by any attack is quite small, as has been mentioned before, being struck by lightning is fortunately a higher risk, i dont worry much about that either, but I also don't fly fish in a thunderstorm. Of course some of you are also AFRAID we are and have been ruled by a fascist dictator for years, of course that is nonsense, but frightened people will say many crazy things. I dont know what laws we need, but there have been attacks, there have been others stopped, if we might be able to stop more without completely altering our lifestyle, we probably should, maybe this is the wrong law, maybe you are completely right about this law, but you go further than that, the threat is blown out of proportion. Well lets hope you are right about that too, but again, is there any point at which you would admit you were wrong, and number of bodies? It doesn't seem like it. Ideology first, reality second, o but the white supremacists...and we ask where.

Edited March 16, 2015 by poochy

[On Guard for Thee]

Assuming that at least some of the prevented attacks were real, say the train plot, if that had happened and 20 people were killed, would you change your mind? You and the rest constantly presume that no significant attack could or will occur, significant for you anyway, so what is your body count threshold? Derailed trains can and have killed many people, so if we do nothing and then something significant ( whatever that means to you) happens, would it even matter to you? Or would you be satisfied that you did the right thing for your version of your rights, always believing that more laws wouldn't have helped, that all of our laws are already juuuust right. Well Goldilocks, you don't know what laws are needed, and you don't get to decide that it's ok to put up with X deaths (your body count threshold - if that exists) in order to satisfy your personal sensibilities. The fallacy that the rest of us are just EVER SO SCARED is entirely pathetic, and speak volumes about the kind of person and people you all are.

Sorry to disappoint you, but im not losing any sleep over this, the odds of me personally being affected by any attack is quite small, as has been mentioned before, being struck by lightning is fortunately a higher risk, i dont worry much about that either, but I also don't fly fish in a thunderstorm. Of course some of you are also AFRAID we are and have been ruled by a fascist dictator for years, of course that is nonsense, but frightened people will say many crazy things. I dont know what laws we need, but there have been attacks, there have been others stopped, if we might be able to stop more without completely altering our lifestyle, we probably should, maybe this is the wrong law, maybe you are completely right about this law, but you go further than that, the threat is blown out of proportion. Well lets hope you are right about that too, but again, is there any point at which you would admit you were wrong, and number of bodies? It doesn't seem like it. Ideology first, reality second, o but the white supremacists...and we ask where.

3 people in a decade or so by what seem more ie just whackos than jihadi inspired terror plots, while I certainly dont mean to downplay those lives, doesnt really make me think we need to grasp for draconian laws all of a sudden. As has been stated countless times here already, the laws we have are sufficient.

[jacee]

Moose ... we need to fear moose more.

Moose patrols ... and intel.

Edited March 16, 2015 by jacee

[On Guard for Thee]

Moose ... we need to fear moose more.

Moose patrols ... and intel.

Lardy jayzuz bye, theres dose in Newfundland agrees totally wi dat.

Pardon my feeble attempt at humour, I lived on the rock for a few years, but I bet you are more likely to be killed in a moose accident than by a jihadi.

[Moonlight Graham]

I thought it was just an ammendment. My mistake.

I hope it passes so they can save my life tomorrow. Why should you be the only one to benefit?

You hope a bill passes that you just demonstrated you know very little about? Scary,

[Moonlight Graham]

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/03/15/csis-highlights-white-supremacist-threat-ahead-of-radical-islam.html

What is Ottawa doing about the threat from white supremacists and extreme right-wing ideologues? Combined they make up at least 25% of so-called "lone wolf" attacks and are a significant threat to the safety of Canadians. Meanwhile, Harper is intent on passing legislation to institute dress codes at ceremonies and highly intrusive secret police bills that undermine our fundamental rights. What is he doing about the right-wing extremists and white supremacists besides welcoming them into his ranks as MPs?

The stats are for attacks worldwide, and for lone gunmen, not organized attacks. What do global attack numbers have to do with a Canadian bill primarily aimed at preventing domestic terror? White supremacist and extreme right-wingers (ie: neo-nazis, fascists) are still a troubling phenomenon in Europe. Ukraine even has fascist political parties vying for power as we speak. Canada doesn't have a major problem with white supremacist attacks, or neo-nazis running down the halls of Parliament Hill with a gun. I'm not a supporter of Bill C-51, but IMO these stats aren't a very compelling argument against it. Show me stats on threats or attacks on Canada.

[Guest]

You hope a bill passes that you just demonstrated you know very little about? Scary,

What if I was to hope it didn't pass? Just as scary?

[On Guard for Thee]

Perhaps the people I am trying to convince didnt listen to her music anyway, but I am going to borrow a line from the great Joni Mitchell that I think is applicable which goes.....dont it always see to go that you dont know what youve got till its gone.

Maybe we ought to take a step back so as not to make that mistake

Edited March 16, 2015 by On Guard for Thee

[LemonPureLeaf]

Sounds like C51 will help stop these people too. Vote for C51!

[On Guard for Thee]

Sounds like C51 will help stop these people too. Vote for C51!

Any specifics or just we are just supposed to assume who...these people...are.

[jacee]

Police-reported hate crime in Canada, 2012

[jacee]

Lardy jayzuz bye, theres dose in Newfundland agrees totally wi dat.

Pardon my feeble attempt at humour, I lived on the rock for a few years, but I bet you are more likely to be killed in a moose accident than by a jihadi.

We need CSIS out there doing MOOSE intel !!

... catch the rangy ones before they ram your car!

Harper can still do the interrogations.

.

[nerve]

Atleast they are giving all Canadians a common enemy… them.

[Shady]

Freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, unlawful search and seizure as well as arrest....Hows that for a start.

How is it violating those human rights?