Canada Plot Allegedly Involved PM Attack

[Johnny Utah]

Suspect Sought to Behead Prime Minister.

BreitBart.com

June 6, 2006

Excerpt:

Spectators and family members of some of the 17 Muslim men accused of plotting terror attacks in Canada were stunned Tuesday when they heard allegations of plans to storm Parliament, take hostages and behead the prime minister.

Authorities during a hearing at the Ontario Court of Justice further alleged that one of the suspects, Steven Vikash Chand, also plotted to take over media outlets, including Canadian Broadcasting Corp.

The details of the charges _ notably the purported plot to take political leaders hostage and behead them if Muslim prisoners were not freed in Afghanistan _ added a chilling dimension to a case that has led U.S. authorities to toughen security along the border and unsettled Canada's large Muslim community.

Police say they expect more arrests, and intelligence officers are probing whether 12 adults and five juveniles arrested over the weekend had any ties to Islamic terror cells in the United States and five nations in Europe and Asia.

Chand, a 25-year-old restaurant worker from Toronto, was one of 15 suspects who made brief court appearances Tuesday. They were held behind a glass enclosure, brought in as groups of four or five, chained together in ankle shackles and handcuffs.

Chand, bearded with shoulder-length hair, blew a kiss to supporters as he was led away as formal bail hearings for him and the 14 others were postponed until at least Monday.

"There's an allegation apparently that my client personally indicated that he wanted to behead the prime minister of Canada," said Chand's lawyer, Gary Batasar. "It's a very serious allegation. My client has said nothing about that."

Speaking outside the courthouse, Batasar said the charges were based on fear-mongering government officials.

Link

With more information being released it's becoming more clear of what was planned as not only did these 17 Terrorist suspects plan Terrorist attacks against Canada they planned to behead Canada's Prime Minister. That alone should be a wakeup call to Canadians of how dangerous and serious these Terrorists are. How long till the apologists start defending these 17 Terrorists suspects? I'm interested in their defense arguments as I already have an idea of what they will be, blaming Canada's role in Afghanistan, Israel and of course the United States..

The biggest question I have it what would drive them to even think of committing acts like this in Canada?

[AndrewL]

Suspect Sought to Behead Prime Minister.

BreitBart.com

June 6, 2006

Excerpt:

Spectators and family members of some of the 17 Muslim men accused of plotting terror attacks in Canada were stunned Tuesday when they heard allegations of plans to storm Parliament, take hostages and behead the prime minister.

Authorities during a hearing at the Ontario Court of Justice further alleged that one of the suspects, Steven Vikash Chand, also plotted to take over media outlets, including Canadian Broadcasting Corp.

The details of the charges _ notably the purported plot to take political leaders hostage and behead them if Muslim prisoners were not freed in Afghanistan _ added a chilling dimension to a case that has led U.S. authorities to toughen security along the border and unsettled Canada's large Muslim community.

Police say they expect more arrests, and intelligence officers are probing whether 12 adults and five juveniles arrested over the weekend had any ties to Islamic terror cells in the United States and five nations in Europe and Asia.

Chand, a 25-year-old restaurant worker from Toronto, was one of 15 suspects who made brief court appearances Tuesday. They were held behind a glass enclosure, brought in as groups of four or five, chained together in ankle shackles and handcuffs.

Chand, bearded with shoulder-length hair, blew a kiss to supporters as he was led away as formal bail hearings for him and the 14 others were postponed until at least Monday.

"There's an allegation apparently that my client personally indicated that he wanted to behead the prime minister of Canada," said Chand's lawyer, Gary Batasar. "It's a very serious allegation. My client has said nothing about that."

Speaking outside the courthouse, Batasar said the charges were based on fear-mongering government officials.

Link

With more information being released it's becoming more clear of what was planned as not only did these 17 Terrorist suspects plan Terrorist attacks against Canada they planned to behead Canada's Prime Minister. That alone should be a wakeup call to Canadians of how dangerous and serious these Terrorists are. How long till the apologists start defending these 17 Terrorists suspects? I'm interested in their defense arguments as I already have an idea of what they will be, blaming Canada's role in Afghanistan, Israel and of course the United States..

The biggest question I have it what would drive them to even think of committing acts like this in Canada?

I wont defend the would-be murdereers but to me it seems rather clear that war begets more war and rarely ever solves anything. If you want to go with the simpletom explanation for all this that they hate our values and freedoms than that is your decision. You can absorb all the propoganda statements that harper will spew about this as if they are at all meaningful, but they will not help us understand or solve the problems.

Andrew

[Black Dog]

That alone should be a wakeup call to Canadians of how dangerous and serious these Terrorists are.

Have you actually followed this story? To call these guys incompetent is to be too charitable.

[Johnny Utah]

That alone should be a wakeup call to Canadians of how dangerous and serious these Terrorists are.

Have you actually followed this story? To call these guys incompetent is to be too charitable.

Yeah I have, their age or their intelligence really doesn't matter as there's proof they were ready to carry out these acts of Terrorism. Terrorists don't have to be the brightest as long as their willing to committ..

I do believe these 17 Terrorist suspects were taking their orders from someone or a group higherup in the chain as it seems there's links to Britain..

[Argus]

I wont defend the would-be murdereers but to me it seems rather clear that war begets more war and rarely ever solves anything.

War, in fact, solves quite a few things, provided you win. War decided that South Korea would become a democracy while North Korea became the world's most evil regime. War decided Vietnam would unite under Communism. War decided the Nazis would not rule the world. Wars certainly can solve things when prosecuted vigorously.

As for "war begets war" that is about as simplistic a refrain as there is. OF COURSE when you launch a war on someone - as the Islamists did - it begets war, thus our response

If you want to go with the simpletom explanation for all this that they hate our values and freedoms than that is your decision. You can absorb all the propoganda statements that harper will spew about this as if they are at all meaningful, but they will not help us understand or solve the problems.

Andrew

And how do you plan on "understanding and solving" the problem of radical islamists who think anyone who worships differently is a subhuman?

[Riverwind]

As for "war begets war" that is about as simplistic a refrain as there is. OF COURSE when you launch a war on someone - as the Islamists did - it begets war, thus our response

The Islamists are a barely significant fringe group in Mulsim society. They seek to increase their support within Muslim society by provoking various western countries. Their plan is use the inevitable over reaction to terrorist attacks as a recruiting tool. So far they have succeeded beyond their wildiest dreams because the people in power in Washington think that a 'war on terror' will solve something.

When one side in a fight is overwhelming more powerful than the other, that side can afford to show restraint in the face of provocation. Such restraint will pay off in the long term, however, it takes some guts to stick with that approach when faced with an enemy with stop at nothing.

[Argus]

As for "war begets war" that is about as simplistic a refrain as there is. OF COURSE when you launch a war on someone - as the Islamists did - it begets war, thus our response

The Islamists are a barely significant fringe group in Mulsim society.

There is no evidence this is true. A poll taken among British Muslims showed as many as 40% wanted Sharia law introduced. I would not call that a fringe. No such polls have been taken in Canada, but I have no reason to believe the numbers would be significantly different, certainly not enough to place them into the 'fringe" category.

Further, Islamist parties are the main opposition in most Muslim countries. The opposition to the Saudi government, which is arguably Islamist in many ways itself, is even more Islamist. The opposition in Pakistan, Indonesia and Egypt comes from Islamists, not democrats. Islamists control Iran and Sudan. And Islamists have been growing in numbers and influence over the past decades, not shrinking.

[AndrewL]

War, in fact, solves quite a few things, provided you win. War decided that South Korea would become a democracy while North Korea became the world's most evil regime. War decided Vietnam would unite under Communism. War decided the Nazis would not rule the world. Wars certainly can solve things when prosecuted vigorously.

War has always just lead to another war. Lets take the most honorable and famous example of a 'just war' WWII and the defeat of fascism in Europe and Japan. This ultimately led to the use of Nuclear weapons and towards constant warfare for the last 60 years, most likely culminating in massive proliferation and mass destruction.

As for "war begets war" that is about as simplistic a refrain as there is. OF COURSE when you launch a war on someone - as the Islamists did - it begets war, thus our response

That not what i mean entirely. I mean that war is profitable, war always benefits a minority of people who have nothing to fear from war, and so war always feeds off itself. Deconstructinmg Iraq for instance allowed the US to hand out reconstruction contracts to their buddies like candy. Or look at the perceived success of war in Bosnia/Kosovo; that led directly to the hubris of George Bush heading into Iraq thinking they would love the death and destruction wrought by cowards in their jetfighters and bombers. The weapons industry loves war and it is not in their interest to wait too long between wars.

And how do you plan on "understanding and solving" the problem of radical islamists who think anyone who worships differently is a subhuman?

I don't claim to know the answer. But if we tell ourselves that the only reason they want to harm westerners is because of this we are way off the mark. If we pretend it has nothing to do with the long history of propping up dicators and partaking in terrorism ourselves (either through proxy or through collateral damage), then we our just delusional. Not canada so much as our neighbors are directly guilty of this, but our leaders in canada should have the courage to speak the truth. We are not the good noble people with no blood on our hands that statements like 'they hate our values' would seem to imply.

Andrew

[Argus]

War, in fact, solves quite a few things, provided you win. War decided that South Korea would become a democracy while North Korea became the world's most evil regime. War decided Vietnam would unite under Communism. War decided the Nazis would not rule the world. Wars certainly can solve things when prosecuted vigorously.

War has always just lead to another war. Lets take the most honorable and famous example of a 'just war' WWII and the defeat of fascism in Europe and Japan. This ultimately led to the use of Nuclear weapons and towards constant warfare for the last 60 years, most likely culminating in massive proliferation and mass destruction.

More precisely, WW2 settled the question, at least for some generations, of whether Western Europe would live under Fascism or not. It led to a new period of peace and cooperation in Western Europe. It ended the recurring wars there, and while there was a confrontational period involving the Soviet Union that ended peacefully, as well, freeing up Eastern Europe to join once again with the West in peace and prosperity. WW2 ended Japanese national facism, ended Japans desire to expand through military force, gave the Japanese a severe culture shock which dragged their cultural value system into the twentieth century.

As for "war begets war" that is about as simplistic a refrain as there is. OF COURSE when you launch a war on someone - as the Islamists did - it begets war, thus our response

That not what i mean entirely. I mean that war is profitable, war always benefits a minority of people who have nothing to fear from war, and so war always feeds off itself. Deconstructinmg Iraq for instance allowed the US to hand out reconstruction contracts to their buddies like candy. Or look at the perceived success of war in Bosnia/Kosovo; that led directly to the hubris of George Bush heading into Iraq thinking they would love the death and destruction wrought by cowards in their jetfighters and bombers. The weapons industry loves war and it is not in their interest to wait too long between wars.

Saying the "weapons industry" loves war is like saying the agricultural industry loves summer. I mean, why bother? But even if you cynically believe the politicians care only about themselves it should be patently obvious that war is not profitable for politicians in democracies. It does them precious little good in the only area they really care about - popularity. So while the armament industry might profit off the Iraq war I don't think the notion their profits had any influence on the decision of going to war has any credibility.

And how do you plan on "understanding and solving" the problem of radical islamists who think anyone who worships differently is a subhuman?

I don't claim to know the answer. But if we tell ourselves that the only reason they want to harm westerners is because of this we are way off the mark. If we pretend it has nothing to do with the long history of propping up dicators and partaking in terrorism ourselves (either through proxy or through collateral damage), then we our just delusional. Not canada so much as our neighbors are directly guilty of this, but our leaders in canada should have the courage to speak the truth. We are not the good noble people with no blood on our hands that statements like 'they hate our values' would seem to imply.

All nations act in their own interests, and always have. The Chinese are quite open about the fact they support Sudan and others in order to feed their own need for resources, especially oil. The Russians meddle all over the world. So do the Japanese. All strong nations do.

But I don't see it as reasonable to hold us to blame for the misery in the Muslim world. Our interference there has had a minimal influence on the lives of the average Muslim. We interfere mainly in support of stability so that our oil supplies are assured, and to keep Israel from being overrun. How does that affect the average Muslim in Libya, Egypt or Syria? Are you under the impression that absent western influence the Muslim world would be ruled by peace-loving democrats? Because it appears to me that most of the Muslim world, at least the Arab world, would be run by Theocracies, as in Iran and Sudan.

[Black Dog]

But I don't see it as reasonable to hold us to blame for the misery in the Muslim world. Our interference there has had a minimal influence on the lives of the average Muslim. We interfere mainly in support of stability so that our oil supplies are assured, and to keep Israel from being overrun. How does that affect the average Muslim in Libya, Egypt or Syria? Are you under the impression that absent western influence the Muslim world would be ruled by peace-loving democrats? Because it appears to me that most of the Muslim world, at least the Arab world, would be run by Theocracies, as in Iran and Sudan.

What happened to the secular nationalism that dominated Arab political thought in the post-war period? When did Islamism become the dominant opposition ideology and what is it in opposition to?

[Riverwind]

And Islamists have been growing in numbers and influence over the past decades, not shrinking.

I mis-used the term 'Islamist' - what I meant were the radical groups seek to harm people living in Western countries. We may find Islamist ideas repugnant but they are not threat to us (at least no more a threat than Chinese or Russian authorians).

[Argus]

But I don't see it as reasonable to hold us to blame for the misery in the Muslim world. Our interference there has had a minimal influence on the lives of the average Muslim. We interfere mainly in support of stability so that our oil supplies are assured, and to keep Israel from being overrun. How does that affect the average Muslim in Libya, Egypt or Syria? Are you under the impression that absent western influence the Muslim world would be ruled by peace-loving democrats? Because it appears to me that most of the Muslim world, at least the Arab world, would be run by Theocracies, as in Iran and Sudan.

What happened to the secular nationalism that dominated Arab political thought in the post-war period? When did Islamism become the dominant opposition ideology and what is it in opposition to?

It would take someone more intimately familiar with the internal politics of the middle-east over the last fifty years to answer that with more than guess work. I would speculate that much of this was diverted by Arab governments towards the "Us and them" conflict with the Israelis. Even though the Israeli conflict has zip to do with the well-being of most Arab nations or their peoples Arab governments have been quick to make use of it divert attention from their own failings, and to wrap themselves in the mantle of Arab nationalism for "defending" Arabs from the evil Israeli agressor. And since the Arab world can't admit that they have failed against this puny nation the widespread assumption is that it is the United States in particular, and the West in general standing behind Israel which has prevented the Arab world of ridding itself of this "evil agressor". This helped give rise to anti-Western sentiment, which has also been stoked by Arab governments. Those governments were also very quick to imprison any secular opponents but allowed Islamic zealotry to grow, believing that, as it was directed mainly at Israel, they could simply make use of it to aid their own legitimacy (being anti-Israeli as well). Saudi Arabia has had more to do with the growth of religious zealotry than any other nation, paying off Islamists and opening Islamist schools all across the world where students are taught only the most hateful and conservative elements of the Koran. It is from these schools that the Taliban came. It is from these schools that so many rabid imams and mullahs have come. And it is from these schools where so many terrorists have come.

[Argus]

And Islamists have been growing in numbers and influence over the past decades, not shrinking.

I mis-used the term 'Islamist' - what I meant were the radical groups seek to harm people living in Western countries. We may find Islamist ideas repugnant but they are not threat to us (at least no more a threat than Chinese or Russian authorians).

Whether they are a threat to us is debatable. Remember that, like the Bible, the Koran is filled with cruel and evil messages, particularly towards non-Muslims. The fundamentalist Islamists prefer to dwell on those particular passages, so an Islamist takeover of the Muslim world, guided by the principal that the only good infidel is a converted or dead infidel would not really be much in our interests.