Al-Qaeda Warns Canada to Quit Afghanistan

[scribblet]

Should we take this seriously and step up security, should we quit Afghanistan, I don't like giving in to terrorist threats.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/st...c3-6c79218d4d91

Al-Qaeda warns Canada

Quit Afghan mission or endure attack like 9/11, threat says

Stewart Bell, National Post Published: Saturday, October 28, 2006

OTTAWA - An al-Qaeda strategist has warned Canada to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan or face terrorist attacks similar to 9/11, Madrid and the London transit bombings.

The threat, attributed to a member of the al-Qaeda information and strategy committee, condemns Prime Minister Stephen Harper for refusing to pull out of Afghanistan.

It also refers to Canada's "fanatic adherence to Christianity" as well as its purported attempts to "damage the Muslims" and its support for the "Christian Crusade" against al-Qaeda.

"Despite the strong, increasing opposition to spread its forces in the fire of South Afghanistan, it seems that they will not learn the lesson easily," Hossam Abdul Raouf writes.

"They will either be forced to withdraw their forces or face an operation similar to New York, Madrid, London and their sisters, with the help of Allah."

The document, written in July, was obtained and translated by the SITE Institute, a U.S. non-profit group that monitors terrorist Web sites for clients, many of them in government.

It is the second reference in recent weeks to al-Qaeda singling out Canada because of its role in Afghanistan.

[margrace]

Should we take this seriously and step up security, should we quit Afghanistan, I don't like giving in to terrorist threats.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/st...c3-6c79218d4d91

Al-Qaeda warns Canada

Quit Afghan mission or endure attack like 9/11, threat says

Stewart Bell, National Post Published: Saturday, October 28, 2006

OTTAWA - An al-Qaeda strategist has warned Canada to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan or face terrorist attacks similar to 9/11, Madrid and the London transit bombings.

The threat, attributed to a member of the al-Qaeda information and strategy committee, condemns Prime Minister Stephen Harper for refusing to pull out of Afghanistan.

It also refers to Canada's "fanatic adherence to Christianity" as well as its purported attempts to "damage the Muslims" and its support for the "Christian Crusade" against al-Qaeda.

"Despite the strong, increasing opposition to spread its forces in the fire of South Afghanistan, it seems that they will not learn the lesson easily," Hossam Abdul Raouf writes.

"They will either be forced to withdraw their forces or face an operation similar to New York, Madrid, London and their sisters, with the help of Allah."

The document, written in July, was obtained and translated by the SITE Institute, a U.S. non-profit group that monitors terrorist Web sites for clients, many of them in government.

It is the second reference in recent weeks to al-Qaeda singling out Canada because of its role in Afghanistan.

What goes around comes around. Sounds very much like the crusades. The world hasn't changed much in 1000 years, we haven't leaned a thing.

wikipedia.org/wike/crusade Go back and do a bit of reading.

[August1991]

What goes around comes around. Sounds very much like the crusades. The world hasn't changed much in 1000 years, we haven't leaned a thing.

The world hasn't changed in 1000 years?

And you're typing that conclusion on a computer?

If western civilization had not defeated backward, medieval thinking, we would not have an Internet and so much else.

Margrace, whose side are you on?

[margrace]

What goes around comes around. Sounds very much like the crusades. The world hasn't changed much in 1000 years, we haven't leaned a thing.

The world hasn't changed in 1000 years?

And you're typing that conclusion on a computer?

If western civilization had not defeated backward, medieval thinking, we would not have an Internet and so much else.

Margrace, whose side are you on?

If you don't learn from history you will relive it.

[B. Max]

If you don't learn from history you will relive it.

What's the lesson.

[Argus]

Margrace, whose side are you on?

If you don't learn from history you will relive it.

The Taliban don't KNOW anything about history, nor care.

If you learn from history you learn that history is made up of those who build and those who destroy. We are the former, they are the latter.

Are you suggesting we abandon Afghanistan to them? That this is either proper or moral or wise?

[Higgly]

OTTAWA - An al-Qaeda strategist....

I read your post (but not the link). Who is the strategist? Some guy selling turnips in the market? A witty bon-vivant biking along the canal? A tipsy clubiste on an Elgin Saturday night? Enquiring minds want to know.

I would of course expect nothing less than the unvarnished truth from the National Post.

[scribblet]

OTTAWA - An al-Qaeda strategist....

I read your post (but not the link). Who is the strategist? Some guy selling turnips in the market? A witty bon-vivant biking along the canal? A tipsy clubiste on an Elgin Saturday night? Enquiring minds want to know.

I would of course expect nothing less than the unvarnished truth from the National Post.

Hardly, but if you didn't read it why comment, the article said that he was from the al-Qaeda information and strategy committee - did they all fall of the turnip truck yesterday?

As for learning from history and the Crusades, we are learning that there has been a revisionism with regard to the Crusades so if we look at it without the revisionism we can see that there is a similar pattern.

The Crusades as awful and barbaric as they were, on both sides, were in response to aggressive Muslim expansionism, they were not simply unprovoked attacks against a toleran Muslim society. The eastern crusades were defensive, a direct response to Muslim aggression, they were trying to defend the conquest of Christian lands and to liberate Jerusalem.

The world has changed a lot, particularly the Western world, maybe Margrace should go back and do a bit of reading.

[August1991]

The original threat dates from the summer. It is only being publicised now which gives reason to ponder:

The document, written in July, was obtained and translated by the SITE Institute, a U.S. non-profit group that monitors terrorist Web sites for clients, many of them in government.

As for learning from history and the Crusades, we are learning that there has been a revisionism with regard to the Crusades so if we look at it without the revisionism we can see that there is a similar pattern.

The Crusades as awful and barbaric as they were, on both sides, were in response to aggressive Muslim expansionism, they were not simply unprovoked attacks against a toleran Muslim society.

The Crusaders were hardly civilized people. They were backward and superstitious.

Over the past 1000 years, the West has developed an enviable civilization that has brought so much good to so many people. From Copernicus to Newton to Mozart to Einstein and from penicillin to the Mona Lisa.

This is not West vs East, or Crusaders vs. Muslims. This is the enlightenment against obscurantism.

In historical perspective, al-Qaeda is hardly a major threat. But the existence of nuclear weapons and the like make the threat of al-Qaeda much graver. 30 years ago, we could safely ignore such threats. Now we can't.

It is also troubling that so many in the West seem so resigned or so willing to give up on defending the very civilization which allows them their resignation.

[jbg]

In historical perspective, al-Qaeda is hardly a major threat. But the existence of nuclear weapons and the like make the threat of al-Qaeda much graver. 30 years ago, we could safely ignore such threats. Now we can't.

It is also troubling that so many in the West seem so resigned or so willing to give up on defending the very civilization which allows them their resignation.

I'm really beginning to come to the conclusion that any and all Wahabist mosque or teaching facility should be targeted, and their adult leaders terminated with extreme prejudice. Why should we give up the advances that make us comfortable, happy and prosperous for the sake of pre-medieval superstition and pre-adolescent beliefs about woman and life?

[Higgly]

Hardly, but if you didn't read it why comment, the article said that he was from the al-Qaeda information and strategy committee - did they all fall of the turnip truck yesterday?

OK. Then who was he?

If I didn't read it, why comment?

This is why...

I don't come here to read other people's research. I come here with my own research to debate other views of the world.

Read your own bloody sources and then explain them to the rest of us. If I doubt that you have quoted your source correctly, then I might read it. Otherwise I am busy enough trying to keep up with my own sources thank you very much.

It is your job to convince me that your sources and opinions are right.

This is a debate, not a civics class.

[Leafless]

Should we take this seriously and step up security, should we quit Afghanistan, I don't like giving in to terrorist threats.

These al-Qaeda threads are becoming a pain in the butt.

Read my lips----We are ALLOWING ISLAMIZATION and there is no one to BLAME but countries that allow Muslim immigration.

Al-Qaeda probably would not be saying what their saying relating to Canadians in Afghanistan if it were not for the success of many terrorist attacks instilling fear into countries of the world along with the fact of heavily Muslim populated European countries.

Canadians should not even be in Afghanistan due to the total inability to eliminate the al-Qaeda threat from countries that harbour Arab terrorist groups. Terrorist continual use the old terrorist manoeuvre of hiding and blending in with civilian populations to make their destruction impossible.

Like I said in another thread, if these countries do not actively pursue and destroy Arab Muslim terrorist groups, then countries of the world have no other alternative then to totally isolate these countries or destroy them.

[jefferiah]

Al-Qaeda uttered the threat not Afghanistan. Why should we listen to Al-Qaeda? Do they represent the people of Afghanistan?

[scribblet]

Hardly, but if you didn't read it why comment, the article said that he was from the al-Qaeda information and strategy committee - did they all fall of the turnip truck yesterday?

OK. Then who was he?

If I didn't read it, why comment?

This is why...

I don't come here to read other people's research. I come here with my own research to debate other views of the world.

Read your own bloody sources and then explain them to the rest of us. If I doubt that you have quoted your source correctly, then I might read it. Otherwise I am busy enough trying to keep up with my own sources thank you very much.

It is your job to convince me that your sources and opinions are right.

This is a debate, not a civics class.

Research is reading other people's writings and analysis, that was a source of information. Research is a collection of information - unless of course you subscribe to creative thinking 101 and make it up as you go along.

Have a great day.

[kimmy]

OK. Then who was he?

As the article mentioned, his name is "Hossam Abdul Raouf"

Does the name mean anything to you? No? Me neither. The description "an al-Qaeda strategist" is more informative. If you were skeptical of the description, perhaps you should indeed have read the article rather than dismissing it out of hand because it came from the National Post.

You suggested that the author probably got the information from random folks he met in downtown Ottawa, apparently because you don't consider the paper credible. You've thrown in your lot with the people who dismiss anything they see on CBC or CNN or the Toronto Star because they don't like the source. Outstanding.

Rita Katz, director of the SITE Institute, said not much was known about the author of the document, Hossam Abdul Raouf, except that he is described as a member of al-Qaeda's information and strategy committee and editor of the electronic periodical Vanguards of Kharasan.

"Abdul Raouf seems to be very knowledgeable in understanding the Western strategy, and in data mining, as demonstrated greatly in this publication," she said.

The real question here is, in fact, not how credible is the National Post, but how credible is this "SITE Institute"?

-k

[scribblet]

http://www.siteinstitute.org/iss.html

[Higgly]

As the article mentioned, his name is "Hossam Abdul Raouf"

Does the name mean anything to you? No?

You are making an assumption on my part. When did I grant you that right? Less Kimmy please.

You suggested that the author probably got the information from random folks he met in downtown Ottawa, apparently because you don't consider the paper credible. You've thrown in your lot with the people who dismiss anything they see on CBC or CNN or the Toronto Star because they don't like the source. Outstanding.

O come on now, aren't you stretching a bit?

Rita Katz, director of the SITE Institute, said not much was known about the author of the document....

The real question here is, in fact, not how credible is the National Post, but how credible is this "SITE Institute"?

or Rita Katz?

[kimmy]

As the article mentioned, his name is "Hossam Abdul Raouf"

Does the name mean anything to you? No?

You are making an assumption on my part. When did I grant you that right? Less Kimmy please.

Perhaps. Probably a very good assumption. Do you disagree? Did you recognize the name "Hossam Abdul Raouf" when you heard it? Did you think "Ahhh. The al-Qaeda analyst and editor of Vanguard of Kharasan magazine and al-Qaeda strategist"? Do you think others were likewise aware, or do you think maybe "al-Qaeda strategist" would have been a more informative description?

If I write a message in the future regarding Sayed Ali or Said Hussein, should I just take it for granted that you know who they are?

You suggested that the author probably got the information from random folks he met in downtown Ottawa, apparently because you don't consider the paper credible. You've thrown in your lot with the people who dismiss anything they see on CBC or CNN or the Toronto Star because they don't like the source. Outstanding.

O come on now, aren't you stretching a bit?

Not at all. Reread what you wrote and tell me how you can say you were doing anything other than scoffing at the article based on the paper it came from.

The real question here is, in fact, not how credible is the National Post, but how credible is this "SITE Institute"?

or Rita Katz?

Indeed.

-k