CSIS highlights White Supremacist threats ahead of radical Islam

[On Guard for Thee]

Justin Bourque guns down 3 RCMP, but thats not terrorism. 3 people are arrested in Halifax for planning to attack and shoot as many people in as they can in a mall, but thats not terrorism, so sayeth the government in both cases. Why not...because neither case had any juhadi angle to it. And the Halifax case it turns out has a connection to white supremacy. Crazies come from all cultures, not just Islam it seems.

[Michael Hardner]

with an implication that White Supremacy was an more/equal worry today......and I see no evidence of that in Canada. Do you?

I don't by any means think that the risk is equal, no. Somebody else posted a list of risks on this thread I believe.

[Michael Hardner]

Which would have become attacks, if left to their own devices.

Well, *could* have. You can't predict the future after all.

[Big Guy]

I am not sure what would constitute an attack? Does it include local fisherman beating up on Vietnamese on the East Coast or beating up Chinese immigrants fishing on Lake Simcoe or defacing and spray painting mosques? How about trashing restaurants in Chinatown in Toronto? How about swearing and intimidating women dressed in Arab dress?

I guess these do not count. Maybe you have to kill somebody for it to be an attack.

But there have been an inordinate number of aboriginal women who have been killed and many more missing and presumed dead. Is that terrorism against native Canadians?

I wonder.

[GostHacked]

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.

Without the hard number, how does the government manage to justify more police/intelligence and convince us that there are terrorists? They must be able to quantify this in some fashion that would make sense of it all. But I have not really seen anything of that sort yet aside from Big Guys post. But even if you add it all together, you STILL don't get the level of terrorism taking place that the government says is taking place. So if terrorism overall is really minimal, then the specific threat of Islamic radical terrorism is even less.

Every day the government says these guys wanna kill us. Plays out like Chicken Little somewhat. The sky is falling, every single day. Gets tiring.

[Smallc]

Well, *could* have. You can't predict the future after all.

That's true. I'm going to though, use your word, and say...probably.

[bush_cheney2004]

.....But there have been an inordinate number of aboriginal women who have been killed and many more missing and presumed dead. Is that terrorism against native Canadians?

No...that is just the status quo for First Nations in Canada. Historical and continued subjugation of "aboriginals" is not "terrorism"...just ask the Queen.

[Michael Hardner]

Without the hard number, how does the government manage to justify more police/intelligence and convince us that there are terrorists?

They don't need to - we can all see the news.

[Guest]

I am not sure what would constitute an attack? Does it include local fisherman beating up on Vietnamese on the East Coast or beating up Chinese immigrants fishing on Lake Simcoe or defacing and spray painting mosques? How about trashing restaurants in Chinatown in Toronto? How about swearing and intimidating women dressed in Arab dress?

I guess these do not count. Maybe you have to kill somebody for it to be an attack.

But there have been an inordinate number of aboriginal women who have been killed and many more missing and presumed dead. Is that terrorism against native Canadians?

I wonder.

I don't think so. Terrorism generally has a goal in mind, and to that end, someone usually claims resposibility for an act.

As to your other points. They are well made. I can definitely see an expansion of C51 in the future to include surveillance methods that would prevent such attacks. I would support that.

[Shady]

I absolutely would still object to C-51 on the grounds that it's a violation of human rights to curtail extremely rare circumstances. It's too easy to exploit for abuse and offers little additional protection that we don't already have.

What human rights are being violated?

[The_Squid]

Should we just let them become attacks, to satisfy your criteria?

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?

[Shady]

Should we just let them become attacks, to satisfy your criteria?

Then his new conspiracy would be that the government is allowing attacks to take place to use as reasons for legislation. See, either way it's a conspiracy of some kind. All the bases are covered for any scenario.

[On Guard for Thee]

What human rights are being violated?

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

[Argus]

You really appear to enjoy arguing from my side of the table. Now, if you'd just agree to my request.

I said there had been at least half a dozen incidents I could think off offhand, and provided them.

I'm now awaiting your list of terrorist incidents involving white supremacists or an admission you were completely wrong.

[Argus]

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...

Still waiting for you or anyone else to provide those white supremacist incidents which happened in this country.

[Argus]

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 ?

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

I'm sure you have a list by now.

[Argus]

Some on here seem to want to count "plots" when it's Islamic terrorism but actual attacks when it's white supremacists....

You are simply weaseling around the fact you can't back up your statement. Go ahead and provide either attacks or plots which the polite short circuited. So far you've provided nothing whatsoever.

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.

Well, YOU certainly can't.

[Argus]

Justin Bourque guns down 3 RCMP, but thats not terrorism. 3 people are arrested in Halifax for planning to attack and shoot

as many people in as they can in a mall, but thats not terrorism, so sayeth the government in both cases. Why not...because

neither case had any juhadi angle to it.

No, because neither had any sort of political, ideological, religious or ethnic motivation to them.

And the Halifax case it turns out has a connection to white supremacy. Crazies come

from all cultures, not just Islam it seems.

The 'connection' to white supremacy seems to be that the girl involved once dated a guy who operated a white supremacist web site, tenuous at best.

[On Guard for Thee]

Still waiting for you or anyone else to provide those white supremacist incidents which happened in this country.

I guess if you think CSIS is so wrong in their estimates of the source of threats, then we best not give the any new powers.

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

[Argus]

I don't by any means think that the risk is equal, no. Somebody else posted a list of risks on this thread I believe.

You said:

Well, it's a problem here - probably on the same scale as other fringe group terrorists right ?

Are you changing your mind now?

[On Guard for Thee]

No, because neither had any sort of political, ideological, religious or ethnic motivation to them.

The 'connection' to white supremacy seems to be that the girl involved once dated a guy who operated a white supremacist web site, tenuous at best.

But tenuous is acceptable evidence when applied to Muslims.

[Argus]

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?

Why would you expect any other group to be a more likely threat given no other group has done anything in decades?

[Argus]

But tenuous is acceptable evidence when applied to Muslims.

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.

Edited March 15, 2015 by Argus

[The_Squid]

Why would you expect any other group to be a more likely threat given no other group has done anything in decades?

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.

[Argus]

I guess if you think CSIS is so wrong in their estimates of the source of threats, then we best not give the any new powers.

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

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.