Another Terrorist Attack in Canada

[Argus]

Being a little naive aren't you?

.

No. Just being ... sane.

Edited March 24, 2016 by Argus

[cybercoma]

Most of Canada's Muslims were born elsewhere, mostly in the middle east. So yes, in Canada.

So? You were born in Germany.

[WestCanMan]

Unlikely, but possible: FBI says 'Australian IS jihadist' is actually a Jewish American troll named Joshua Ryne Goldberg

Though when Christians are convicted of mass killings or terror attacks would it be appropriate to call for a ban on Christian, religious, white, or right wing immigrants?

Sure thing slick. All of these christian terror attacks are really starting to annoy me.

[WestCanMan]

In Canada?

Get a grip.

.

In the Liberal party even. Watch Elias Hezineh's (former liberal party organizer) video . And don't forget that our wonderful PM even supported an accomplished terrorist publicly. If you Google "pm trudeau supports a terrorist" it comes up.

That's in Canada.

CLICK HERE FOR VIDEO LINK

Edited March 25, 2016 by Michael Hardner
ADDED VIDEO LINK

[WestCanMan]

Trudeau and Dion simply said the term war is outdated when describing a fight against a terrorist group:

"If you use the terminology 'war,' in international law it will mean two armies with respecting rules and it's not the case at all," Dion said.

"You have terrorist groups that respect nothing. So we prefer to say that it's a fight."

http://www.lfpress.c...th-isis-trudeau

I appreciate the truth in that statement, but neglecting to use the word "war" will not circumvent the laws of the Geneva conventions. Canadian and allied soldiers will still be bound by the same rules that worked against them in Afghanistan and Yugo.

[Guest]

I appreciate the truth in that statement, but neglecting to use the word "war" will not circumvent the laws of the Geneva conventions. Canadian and allied soldiers will still be bound by the same rules that worked against them in Afghanistan and Yugo.

True, but I don't think the point of using a term other than war is to circumvent the Geneva convention.

[Argus]

True, but I don't think the point of using a term other than war is to circumvent the Geneva convention.

No, it's to reduce any public pressure for Canada to actually do anything.

[Guest]

Sure thing slick. All of these christian terror attacks are really starting to annoy me.

Since 9/11 more Americans have been killed by right wing/christian terrorism than Islamists. When Christians attack homosexuals, gay friendly businesses, abortion clinics, members of different sects, Jewish centres, etc. for reasons rooted in their religious or political beliefs why is that not considered terrorism? We tolerate the racist, violent talk and threats of right wing fascists on our own soil yet consider similar rantings by Islamists half a world away to be dangerous security threats.

Certainly, on a global scale the problem of Christian and Right Wing terrorism pales in comparison but failing to call a spade a spade is hypocritical and counter productive. Religion is a problem, not just Islam, but it is cultures that need to be reformed, here and abroad. People need to denounce terror and hate in all forms whether it be Islamic, Christian or emanating from the lips of our own right wing fascist political leaders.

[Queenmandy85]

We could eliminate the terrorists in Syria. Support Assad and Russia and go whole hog in carpet bombing all of the rebel areas in Syria and Iraq and put 2 million troops on the ground with a large permanent occupation force. Establish a colonial government and allow the Bathists to maintain law and order under the colonial office.

But that, like the dream of rebuilding the Canadian Forces, won't wash. People say they want a solution, but they don't want it enough to make the very serious sacrifices required.

We do not want to make the same mistakes as the Bush / Blair action made. This is not something you want to do on the cheap or the short term. Our so-called allies have a consistent knack of choosing the wrong sides. They supported the Nationalist Chinese against Mao, Batista against Castro, Diem against Ho, and any number of goofs against Saddam. The only exception to this run of stupidity was the Marshall Plan, and support for the USSR against Hitler.

The Americans should be getting closer to Russia, not picking fights. Putin is a democratically elected president. Why make an enemy out of him?

[Queenmandy85]

Since 9/11 more Americans have been killed by right wing/christian terrorism than Islamists. When Christians attack homosexuals, gay friendly businesses, abortion clinics, members of different sects, Jewish centres, etc. for reasons rooted in their religious or political beliefs why is that not considered terrorism? We tolerate the racist, violent talk and threats of right wing fascists on our own soil yet consider similar rantings by Islamists half a world away to be dangerous security threats.

Certainly, on a global scale the problem of Christian and Right Wing terrorism pales in comparison but failing to call a spade a spade is hypocritical and counter productive. Religion is a problem, not just Islam, but it is cultures that need to be reformed, here and abroad. People need to denounce terror and hate in all forms whether it be Islamic, Christian or emanating from the lips of our own right wing fascist political leaders.

Slick, you left out the Christian terrorists in the UK. They are in a bit of a lull for the moment, but they will be back. They killed more people than the 9/11 attacks.

[Guest]

We could eliminate the terrorists in Syria. Support Assad and Russia and go whole hog in carpet bombing all of the rebel areas in Syria and Iraq and put 2 million troops on the ground with a large permanent occupation force. Establish a colonial government and allow the Bathists to maintain law and order under the colonial office.

But that, like the dream of rebuilding the Canadian Forces, won't wash. People say they want a solution, but they don't want it enough to make the very serious sacrifices required.

We do not want to make the same mistakes as the Bush / Blair action made. This is not something you want to do on the cheap or the short term. Our so-called allies have a consistent knack of choosing the wrong sides. They supported the Nationalist Chinese against Mao, Batista against Castro, Diem against Ho, and any number of goofs against Saddam. The only exception to this run of stupidity was the Marshall Plan, and support for the USSR against Hitler.

The Americans should be getting closer to Russia, not picking fights. Putin is a democratically elected president. Why make an enemy out of him?

I think the real solution is reforming deficient cultures. We need to create grassroots demand for democracy, equality, freedom, human rights and universal humanist values. Organizations like Quilliam and Khudi are already doing this, they need to be supported and replicated. This process doesn't only need to take place in the ME, we need to be stamping out racism, hate, misogyny and the encroachment of religious views into secular law in the west as well. The Republican primaries may seem like a comical anachronism, but sadly they are all too real. Just because there are places and culture with more problems doesn't mean we should allow ours to backslide.

[Argus]

Since 9/11 more Americans have been killed by right wing/christian terrorism than Islamists. W

Let's see a list of the terrorist attacks.

[Guest]

Let's see a list of the terrorist attacks.

http://securitydata.newamerica.net/extremists/deadly-attacks.html

http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/10/16/3713318/doj-creates-new-post-to-focus-on-threats-from-rightwing-radicals-and-other-domestic-terrorists/

Edited March 25, 2016 by Guest

[Queenmandy85]

Let's see a list of the terrorist attacks.

For starters, 3700 people killed in bombings and shootings in the United Kingdom, by Roman Catholic terrorists.

Edited March 25, 2016 by Queenmandy85

[dre]

For starters, 3700 people killed in bombings and shootings in the United Kingdom, by Roman Catholic terrorists.

And another 200k or so killed by narco terrorists in Mexico.

Edited March 25, 2016 by dre

[Guest]

For starters, 3700 people killed in bombings and shootings in the United Kingdom, by Roman Catholic terrorists.

Their Roman Catholicism was incidental to their desire for a united Ireland. I do not believe they would have murdered all the Protestants in the country had they achieved it.

[SunnyWays]

Since 9/11 more Americans have been killed by right wing/christian terrorism than Islamists. When Christians attack homosexuals, gay friendly businesses, abortion clinics, members of different sects, Jewish centres, etc. for reasons rooted in their religious or political beliefs why is that not considered terrorism? We tolerate the racist, violent talk and threats of right wing fascists on our own soil yet consider similar rantings by Islamists half a world away to be dangerous security threats.

What the heck is your point? It's just silliness. By your own links, "only" 48 people have been killed by "right-wing" terrorism since 9/11 - that's over 15 years! That's in spite of the huge focus on Islamic terrorism to the almost complete exclusion of other terrorism. Perhaps if these groups you speak of tried a little harder and indiscriminately killed hundreds of innocent bystanders - perhaps then the media might run with the terrorism label a bit more, don't ya think? That huge Islamic focus has without a doubt prevented other 9/11 scenarios from being perpetrated and saved untold thousands of lives - and don't for a second think that needs some sort of "proof". ISIS and it's ilk would love nothing better than to regularly strike "at the heart of the infidel".

Edited March 25, 2016 by SunnyWays

[Queenmandy85]

Their Roman Catholicism was incidental to their desire for a united Ireland. I do not believe they would have murdered all the Protestants in the country had they achieved it.

I agree and Islam is incidental to ISIS desire for power in the Levant.

[Guest]

I agree and Islam is incidental to ISIS desire for power in the Levant.

I disagree with that. As far as I know the desire for a united Ireland did not involve a religious goal, the equivalent of an Islamic Caliphate. As far as I know the goal was strictly political.

Edited March 25, 2016 by bcsapper

[Argus]

http://securitydata.newamerica.net/extremists/deadly-attacks.html

http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/10/16/3713318/doj-creates-new-post-to-focus-on-threats-from-rightwing-radicals-and-other-domestic-terrorists/

This list attempts to equate losers who rob banks and get involved in violent domestic disputes with politically/religiously motivated terrorists.

Here's the difference. These violent losers would have run afoul of the law whether they were racists or white supremacists or not. It's like they tried to pick apart the ranks of criminals and loose cannons who became serial killers to find some who were racists, too. I won't deny that you can describe some of these people's actions as terrorist in nature, but for the most part terror was not their intent. That FEAR group might have become a terrorist group but they did not commit any terrorist incidents.

The real difference between them and the religiously inspired is that the danger from the latter is far greater in that what they seek to do is kill many, many random people. I don't see it likely that right wingers are going to set off bombs in streets, markets or shopping malls with the intent of just slaughtering dozens of people. They aren't going to try and blow up power plants or poison water supplies or blow up passenger planes or trains. If all we worried about with regard to Muslim terrorists was they might shoot some guy to steal his gun or rob a bank we'd be putting a lot fewer resources into stopping them. So I don't think you can say Americans are in more danger from right wing extremists than Muslim extremists.

[Argus]

For starters, 3700 people killed in bombings and shootings in the United Kingdom, by Roman Catholic terrorists.

That was a multi-century fight between natives and conquerors. The religious affiliation of the two was beside the point.

The Irish would have been killing the English, and vice versa, even if both were Protestants or Catholics.

[Army Guy]

Who are you quoting/replying to?

I was responding to Slick as those where his quotes that were highlighted.

Nor do the majority of Muslims.

Most of them fled here to be safe from the violent extremist minority.

Perhaps you can give us a list of Muslim countries where these type of practices do NOT take place, Muslim countries were it is illegal to stone or beat someone to death for crimes or suggested crimes, without as much as a trail, or court.....

The people in the videos I saw were going to the mosque to pray, they are average Muslims , a man comes out of these women's home, and shouts she has burned a Koran, the crowd gathers, they enter her home drag her out into the street and beaten to death......by the end of the tape their are thousands gathered around to take part or get a look, the young women is then set on fire, and left in the street to burn , after police arrive to disperse the crowd......These are not the extremist minority as you say....these are Average Muslims in Iran.....on their way to mosque to pray....

The other video is set in Afghanistan....where a women is stoned because she accused her husband of cheating.....

Other videos are from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Jordan, Oman, Palestine, UAE, and a few others.....all of the clearly show women being stoned or beaten to death.....and not ONE citizen tried to stop it......and in each case they're are hundreds of people there.....Including police or military ....They all have a common theme here this is not rare, but rather common practice.....it is engrained in their religious faith which controls every aspect of their life.....

And yet you brush it aside and say Absolute nonsense!.....Nonsense indeed and yet these video's are out there by the thousands , and they are very graphic so are removed in short order.....you don't have to believe me, just take a look ....tell me this is acts by a minority.....

You are close to hate speech against "the average Muslim citizen".

Then report it....or prove me wrong.....

There are a million Muslims in Canada.

Mostly they aren't even noticeable because they are just average Canadians.

So your telling me their is a switch you just turn it off at the border.....like entering Canada is some miracle cure for practicing Islam the most dangerous religion on the planet...

Yes that is why they came to Canada.

Can you respect that?

I can respect a lot of things...

[Army Guy]

Since 1948, 11 million Muslims have perished in warfare, and 90 % of those were killed by fellow muslims.....

[WestCanMan]

Since 9/11 more Americans have been killed by right wing/christian terrorism than Islamists. When Christians attack homosexuals, gay friendly businesses, abortion clinics, members of different sects, Jewish centres, etc. for reasons rooted in their religious or political beliefs why is that not considered terrorism?

How about some links slick?

[Guest]

...I won't deny that you can describe some of these people's actions as terrorist in nature, but for the most part terror was not their intent. That FEAR group might have become a terrorist group but they did not commit any terrorist incidents.

The real difference between them and the religiously inspired is that the danger from the latter is far greater in that what they seek to do is kill many, many random people. I don't see it likely that right wingers are going to set off bombs in streets, markets or shopping malls with the intent of just slaughtering dozens of people. They aren't going to try and blow up power plants or poison water supplies or blow up passenger planes or trains. If all we worried about with regard to Muslim terrorists was they might shoot some guy to steal his gun or rob a bank we'd be putting a lot fewer resources into stopping them. So I don't think you can say Americans are in more danger from right wing extremists than Muslim extremists.

The right wing and Christian attacks are generally out of anger and protest. I believe the intent to make a statement is the same. Though I agree that the risk of an angry Christian fundamentalist poisoning the water supply is remote, the risk to gatherings of minorities, Planned Parenthood clinics, atheist and other religious groups is not. My gut feeling is the likelihood of racial and religious ethics based attacks is on the rise in the US due to incitement from right wing leaders and speakers. I think the work of the Trumps, Cruzs, Coulters, Limbaughs, Bryan Fischers of the world are creating more anger and violence.

I agree that we are at a greater risk of a large scale attack from an Islamist group, but would say we are still more likely to be the victim of a domestic right wing or Christian terrorist. I have never denied that Islamists and Jihadists are currently a much bigger problem globally, mainly for Muslims. I do however, have an issue with terror in all forms and take issue with it being labelled a Muslim problem while we make excuses and apply different labels to the domestic variety. We need to reform all violent cultures, including aspects of our own, painting the issue as us vs them is unproductive and inaccurate. Christianity was once a violent and deadly force, but as cultures were reformed the violence was tempered. Democratic, humanist ethics can't be bombed into a culture, it has to be created with grassroots movements. This is starting to happen and needs to be supported.