Argus Posted March 15, 2015 Report Share Posted March 15, 2015 Well, if you're measuring actual attacks we only have a few to go by. Again, it's on the same scale. It's not on the same bloody scale if there have been NO white supremacist terrorist incidents in Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 15, 2015 Report Share Posted March 15, 2015 If they did, it's all under the current guidelines. Which work, aside from needing more oversight and accountability. None of us benefit from this. Only those in power benefit from this. You don't, I do. That's 50/50 right there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 15, 2015 Report Share Posted March 15, 2015 It's not on the same bloody scale if there have been NO white supremacist terrorist incidents in Canada. I think it is. The security assessments that I've seen rate these groups as a threat. We've had bombings on a large scale in the U.S. The fact that a small attack happened recently doesn't push the threat onto a different scale than it is. We can be more rational about these things on here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 15, 2015 Report Share Posted March 15, 2015 I think it is. The security assessments that I've seen rate these groups as a threat. We've had bombings on a large scale in the U.S. The fact that a small attack happened recently doesn't push the threat onto a different scale than it is. We can be more rational about these things on here. There have been at least half a dozen major incidents involving Muslims. How many have there been involving White supremacists? A short list, please... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 15, 2015 Report Share Posted March 15, 2015 There have been at least half a dozen major incidents involving Muslims. How many have there been involving White supremacists? A short list, please... Since you're working with a list of incidents, why not publish the full list ? After all, I'm sure it's from an objective source right ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 15, 2015 Report Share Posted March 15, 2015 Since you're working with a list of incidents, why not publish the full list ? After all, I'm sure it's from an objective source right ? Are you going to say there haven't been a number of incidents of Muslim terrorism or planned terrorism in Canada? We've just had a trial for the guys who wanted to derail the train. We had two recent killings in Quebec and Ottawa. Another trial is underway in BC about two Muslims trying to blow people up on Canada day. We've also had several Ottawa Muslims arrested by police on terrorism charges, including one a block from my previous home. And do we need to mention the Toronto 18? Now suppose you find me a comparable list of white supremacist incidents, please and thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted March 15, 2015 Report Share Posted March 15, 2015 Since I still have not used my 10 free access to the Toronto Star I did check out what cybercoma referenced. The actual report by CSIS stated; 17% - Extreme right-wing and white supremacy. 15% - Islamic extremism. 13% Left-wing extremism and "black power" groups. 8% - Anti-abortion activism. 7% Nationalism/separation 40% - No clear ideological motivation. This certainly does not fit into the bemoaning of the racists and bigots. I see a lot of tap dancing trying to dispel these statistics - from that same group (CSIS) to whom we are going to give more power and little accountability. What I find interesting is the 40% who have no clear ideological motivation. That certainly undermines the use of the word "terrorist". How can you be a terrorist and make a terrorist attack if you "Have no clear ideological motivation"? Looks like CSIS is using any "attack" as a terrorist attack because it helps the allocation of budget. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 15, 2015 Report Share Posted March 15, 2015 (edited) I think CSIS are starting to look like racists and bigots. "White" supremacists? Really? Smacks of racism to me. Unless they self identify that way. Then I get it. Edited March 15, 2015 by bcsapper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 15, 2015 Report Share Posted March 15, 2015 Are you going to say there haven't been a number of incidents of Muslim terrorism or planned terrorism in Canada? You really appear to enjoy arguing from my side of the table. Now, if you'd just agree to my request. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 15, 2015 Report Share Posted March 15, 2015 Since I still have not used my 10 free access to the Toronto Star I did check out what cybercoma referenced. The actual report by CSIS stated; 17% - Extreme right-wing and white supremacy. 15% - Islamic extremism. 13% Left-wing extremism and "black power" groups. 8% - Anti-abortion activism. 7% Nationalism/separation 40% - No clear ideological motivation. Thanks, I'll just take this cite rather than wait for Argus to make up every conceivable argument I might have, followed by him shooting them down... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poochy Posted March 15, 2015 Report Share Posted March 15, 2015 I would also like to see the list of white supremacist attacks or prevented attacks in Canada, also, even if you could find those, which you won't, it's fairly obvious that something new has been happening in this country in recent history, it's pretty telling that some of you argue that the threat and reality of muslim terrorism that is obviously on the rise is somehow less so that white supremacist attacks that don't actually seem to exist. Since I still have not used my 10 free access to the Toronto Star I did check out what cybercoma referenced. The actual report by CSIS stated; 17% - Extreme right-wing and white supremacy. 15% - Islamic extremism. 13% Left-wing extremism and "black power" groups. 8% - Anti-abortion activism. 7% Nationalism/separation 40% - No clear ideological motivation. This certainly does not fit into the bemoaning of the racists and bigots. I see a lot of tap dancing trying to dispel these statistics - from that same group (CSIS) to whom we are going to give more power and little accountability. What I find interesting is the 40% who have no clear ideological motivation. That certainly undermines the use of the word "terrorist". How can you be a terrorist and make a terrorist attack if you "Have no clear ideological motivation"? Looks like CSIS is using any "attack" as a terrorist attack because it helps the allocation of budget. So if you read the news, and you can count, you are a racist and a bigot. Could you point out the white supremacist attacks that i missed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 15, 2015 Report Share Posted March 15, 2015 I would also like to see the list of white supremacist attacks or prevented attacks in Canada, Actual attacks are not the same of threats. If they were, then it would hardly be worth us putting the effort to counteract terrorism would it ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 15, 2015 Report Share Posted March 15, 2015 Well, it's a problem here - probably on the same scale as other fringe group terrorists right ? Probably? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 15, 2015 Report Share Posted March 15, 2015 Probably? Yes - risks are all about probability. Probability of attacks, for example. This is why people should support counterintelligence and security measures, even if there only have been a couple of attacks over the past few years. Some on here seem to want to count "plots" when it's Islamic terrorism but actual attacks when it's white supremacists.... It's about people not being able to look at issues, content and what have you objectively and put their politics aside. On another thread, for example, I asked how the terrorist issue could be seen as an issue for both major political parties and people just wanted to chime in about the content of the politics... It's no wonder that people are only interested in fighting and not actual policies given that we can't even talk objectively on here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 15, 2015 Report Share Posted March 15, 2015 Yes - risks are all about probability. Probability of attacks, for example. You go on and on about words like many and few, and you use probably? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 15, 2015 Report Share Posted March 15, 2015 Actual attacks are not the same of threats. Prevented attacks, not threats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 15, 2015 Report Share Posted March 15, 2015 You go on and on about words like many and few, and you use probably? That's a good point but I don't actually expect threat assessments to be able to provide hard numbers... it's risk mitigation. And as I have said, it's still clearly essential that these security measures stay in place. You may be able to tell that my point of view doesn't align with any one political party. You should try that, it's liberating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 15, 2015 Report Share Posted March 15, 2015 Prevented attacks, not threats. They're all threats... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted March 15, 2015 Report Share Posted March 15, 2015 Prevented attacks, not threats. Until it becomes an attack, its a threat. The more we hear from the pair that were planning the Canada day thing in Victoria, it seems doubtful these two dolts would have had the collective brain power to light a match to put to the fuse. But there are still the shrills who want to make it out as a jihadi conspiracy worth abandoning our rights over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 15, 2015 Report Share Posted March 15, 2015 They're all threats... Which would have become attacks, if left to their own devices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 15, 2015 Report Share Posted March 15, 2015 Until it becomes an attack, its a threat. Should we just let them become attacks, to satisfy your criteria? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 15, 2015 Report Share Posted March 15, 2015 That's a good point I'm glad you agree. You may be able to tell that my point of view doesn't align with any one political party. You should try that, it's liberating. Another bit of inappropriate behaviour from you. It's also funny considering the number of times that I have and do defend Chretien and Martin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted March 15, 2015 Report Share Posted March 15, 2015 The problem is who is going to protect Canadians from the Harper government and the powers it wants to give CSIS like the CIA has and we all know what they have done and is doing in the past! I've never seen Canadians disliking a government as the Harper government and IF he wins again, then there's something fishy going on just like the last time! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted March 15, 2015 Report Share Posted March 15, 2015 Should we just let them become attacks, to satisfy your criteria? Did this become an attack...no, it was shut down at whatever level of potential threat you want to call it, with existing laws. No C 51 required. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted March 15, 2015 Report Share Posted March 15, 2015 Right, because history starts again after 2001 or ... ? Anyway: We've had extreme right-wing groups... Marxist-type terror groups... in the 1980s. I guess the FLQ was a terrorist group back in the 70's but what I was getting at was the thread article itself being used in a Canadian context...... with an implication that White Supremacy was an more/equal worry today......and I see no evidence of that in Canada. Do you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.