A few days ago, I sent the following to someone privately;
“Here’s a suggestion for those who “laugh” at the absurdity of a terror plot to behead a Prime Minister. Ask yourself what day-after press coverage would have ensued had US authorities aprehended the 19 responsible for 9-11, only to reveal their bizarre plot to take out, not only both towers of the WTC, but also the Pentagon and Capitol building.
There would have been a skit on Saturday Night Live.
Strategy Page expands on that theme – If the 911 Gang Were Caught, How Would It Be Reported?
Just thinking the exact same thing, esp. after reading a recent Chris Selley post: “Oh, these were just a bunch of moronic kids” and so forth. Nothing to see here, folks.
Very true. However, I have a little advantage in getting the files and knowing the truth behind such situations as a fully armed swat team being in Halton Family Court (made the National page of the Globe and Mail). It was all over an innocent figure of speech and according to lawyers involved was done to persaude the judge to find in favour of the CAS. After I became involved as a legal agent in the matter and was able to review the files (after a lot of obstructions the family lawyer had been unable to get through) the Swat team disappeared and the Muslim girl who was the subject of the family court hearing (CAS) was returned to her parent. Police and media (Paul Legall of the Hamilton Spectator was present in court when I raised the issue of the sexual assault at the request of the young girl and the Muslim dad`s heart condition that had been ignored by police and CAS when they did not notify him a fully armed SWAT team was inside the family court) ignored the girls claim of sexual assault by a social worker and a perjured affidavit that resulted in the huge expenditure of Halton police dollars over a figure of speech. We have a new Chief of Police in Halton and presently I am trying to get before the Police Services Board for a review of this matter and those like it where accountability and Rule of Law are simply not in the picture. Thus far there has been no rsponse from the Police Services Board despite my follow up.
The would have been 9/11 farse would be amusing if it wasn’t such a perfect template for the parallel press coverage and legal defense of those “broad strata of society” Mississauga 17, presently being
“tortured”……..
“That torture includes being kept in a room that’s lit 24 hours a day, being woken up every half-hour, being beaten by the guards, on and on and on,” said Galati, who represents Ahmad Mustafa Ghany, a 21-year-old health sciences graduate of McMaster University.
……and “beaten” in jail:
Twenty-year-old terror suspect Zakaria Amara was beaten by a guard after he giggled because he felt ticklish while being searched, alleged Kolinsky, who said the guard pinned his client to the ground, drilled his knuckle into the man’s cheek and said, “Is this funny?”
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1150149009497&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154
More troubling than the Left’s dismissal of terrorists whose plans are thwarted is their tendancy to justify the actions of terrorists after they’ve done the deed.
Consider that the fires were barely out at Ground Zero before Lefties everywhere — including our own disgusting PM (Cretin) — were casting blame squarely on Western nations, particularly the US. The liberal mantra, proven false in time, was that the terrorists were disenfranchised, poor, downtrodden Muslims seeking revenge on the wicked, oppressive West.
The liberal mantra, had the Toronto crew been successful, would have been the failure of social programs and cultural funding to make Muslims feel included. Heck, that’s the general refrain even now!
In short, minimization of a thwarted threat and excuses for an exacted threat are equally as deadly, for the perpetuate the same blindness to the real cause of terrorism: Islamic ideology.
“No story here, folks. Take your Soma tablet and move along.”
To some people the allegations do sound fantastic and illogical. The objectives and goals are exactly that and it makes the threats more plausible, not less as fantasy is a main motivator for Jihadis. Read Lee Harris’ essay on why Al-Queda and the Jihadi ideology is actually a fantasy ideology. It’s an article I’ve kept bookmarked for a while and it is a touchstone for understanding the people we’re up against.
Exactly, mark peters. The left refuses to acknowledge islamic fascism, which is a civilian based war against democracy.
And, our current criminal laws and system don’t have the ability to deal with a civilian-based war.
Anne Marsden – I don’t see the relevance of your case to this situation.
“our current criminal laws and system don’t have the ability to deal with a civilian-based war”
Now THAT is an interesting thought.
Gone to chew on it for a while…..
re: relevance – when justice dollars are being spent on Swat Teams in family courts and other situations where police/crown actions have not been within Rule of Law, as several of our audits have determined is the case there is less money available to use it to uphold the values we Canadians, regardless of our political views, religion or culture, hold precious. Our audits involve subjects with differing political views, different religions and different cultures. Crying wolf can be very dangerous as we all know and could well play no small part in the success that certain acts of terrorism have met with.
Sorry, Anne Marsden – I’m a bit dense today. Are you saying that BECAUSE a SWAT team was used in x-situations, THEN, this means that our ‘precious Canadian values’ were/are not able to be upheld?
First- what are these ‘precious Canadian values’?
Second – have you proven that the costs of the SWAT teams nullified or endangered the existence of these ‘previous values’?
Or, that the costs have played a part in ‘the success that certain acts of terrorism have met with’?
“Crying wolf can be very dangerous as we all know and could well play no small part in the success that certain acts of terrorism have met with.”
=========================
The only way that we will truly be able to stop crying wolf is when the wolf’s teeth are on our throats.
The wolf is in our lair. We’ve only found one lair. Just because they were puppies, do you honestly think that a pack isn’t already here? Where do you think the puppies came from, Immaculate Conception? They are wearing sheep suits, in our communities and in our schools.
Time to wake up, if you ever want to wake up again.
Relevance was I thought to the issue being discussed not relevance to a person’s position that cannot be changed regardless of the evidence produced.
markpeters – I presume you’ve read the excellent post on Sanctuary, by ‘eject, eject, eject.com’ provided by Kate.
In that post, we have a member of the military commenting on how Islamic fascism moved itself out of the rules of war, by their violation of those rules – such as the rule and sanctuary of the uniform. Instead, these men masquerade as civilians. Then, they violate the rule of surrender, for they pretend to surrender and wait for the military to accept that surrender and then, attack them. And, they violate the ‘sanctuary of mercy’, pretending to be shot and again, waiting for the military to move in to help them – and attack.
And, their cover as civilians but acting as a military, means that rather than protecting civilians, they involve civilians. The military has no means of knowing whether the man or woman walking towards them is a valid civilian or an islamic fascist.
Since the islamofascists have denied the rules of war, they are not dealt with as military (Gitmo). But, the only other means of dealing with them that we have available, is to treat them as criminals. But, are they?
A criminal is a civilian who breaks the laws of the society. So, stealing breaks our laws of ‘theft’.
But, an Islamic fascist is not breaking the laws of society as much as he is involved in acts to destroy the society by mass destruction and mass murder. We don’t have the laws, yet, to define such acts, to enable both our military and police to protect us from such acts.
So, when we accuse someone of plotting this mass destruction and murder, the left rushes in to defend the accused, using the terminology of ‘criminals’ – and asserting that they aren’t criminals. And we get the nonsense left assertions that the accused have been ‘tortured’, have been ‘isolated’ and blah blah.
Our ‘hate laws’ are irrelevant and ought to be scrapped, for emotions are subjective – and free speech is an important right. We don’t even have the ability to differentiate between free speech and dogma!
A criminal act is relatively simple; rob the bank and you are easily defined as criminal.
It gets murkier when the criminal acts are operated as a network of linked actions under a religious dogma (by ‘religious’ I mean emotionally sacred and beyond debate). Rob the taxpayers’ bank by laundering the money via a Save Canada by Purchasing Flags program, using many people and many contracts etc.
That’s islamofascism. It’s a networked activity, not a singular action. It operates under the ‘sacred umbrella’ of religion, the sacred umbrella of ‘victimhood’, ‘colonized’, ‘non-white’ and etc. Right there, it’s already difficult to investigate, define and prosecute. All those sacred umbrellas. All that networking.
And, we don’t have the legal definitions for these actions. We find it very difficult to deal with networked agendas that seek to destroy our society but use a civilian-based population, a religion-based population – rather than a military.
ET:
The “ability to deal with a civilian based war”.
Very good observation. Dealing with a problem is much easier when it is correctly defined!
So, like Markpeters, I’m gonna chew on that for awhile. But…
If it is indeed a civilian based war,(which is undeniably the fact) then the civilians become the combatants. And must fight the war on that in-your-face personal level. What is the solution to a terrorist shooting randomly into a crowd of civilians? The civilians must have the immediate option of shooting back. In other words Concealed Carry.
Watch the lefties’ and statists’ heads pop…
🙂
If the lefties can justify all the abortions performed in Canada ever year, a few hundred civilians sacrificed on the altar of multi-culturalism won’t even raise an eyebrow.
Can someone tell me what Canadian values are?
Do all Western societies have “Canadian values” as well?
Do any or all Eastern societies have Canadian values.
Is the difference between a belief and a value different for a politician?
Still chewing, but I am in agreement with Mad Mike on conceal carry… if the expectation is that law-abiding citizens must be legally able to combat an armed terrorist about to fire into a crowd.
A side note on that idea: how do you think the media and law enforcement would react *today* if someone illegally concealed a legally owned a handgun and double tapped a terrorist about to spray Maple Leafs ticket holders outside ACC, for example?
Who wants to be the first? 🙂 You know… take one for the team.
No, I don’t think that ‘concealed carry’ is the answer. I can accept ‘concealed carry’ for self-protection. But, I can’t accept ‘concealed carry’ for ad hoc decisions to protect others.
You know perfectly well what would happen; X-citizen shoots Y-citizen, and affirms that he ‘thought’ that Y was going to set off a terrorist bomb via his cell phone..and so on. Disastrous.
My questions concern how a state deals with threats to its identity as a democratic state and threats to its citizens by a post-state mode of warfare. The old mode had a specific part of the population clearly identified as military. Aggression was between states, by each side’s military.
Now, we have warfare carried out by a fake-military operating as civilians. They are not the army of a state. There is no formal declaration of war. There is no military. No states are involved as states, with nationalist agendas. Instead, we have a network of ideologically driven teams, who operate as private civilians.
And the war-actions are not against military targets but are mass murder of civilians. These mass murders are defined by the fascists as legitimate, because the civilian population is defined by the islamic fascists as ‘infidels’.
Their ideology is protected within the notion of ‘sacred’ because it is defined as a religion. The fact that it is really a social and political ideology whose agenda is to destroy democracy and establish a new caliphate is a fact that is removed from debate. Multiculturalism rejects debate about religious axioms.
If you debate religious axioms the left defines you as racist.
My view is to tell the left to ‘get lost in their stupidity’ and start to deal with the situation.
We have to realize that defining islamic fascists as criminals won’t solve the problem. They have, themselves, rejected the definition of them as military. So?
We have to deal with this new type of warfare that operates as a civilian force, engaged in the mass-murder of other civilians. It operates by a global ideology rather than from a central military set of Commanders and Generals.
So, we can’t investigate and charge these people by our criminal laws; these laws aren’t broad or deep enough for that. We have to revise our legal infrastructure to protect ourselves against a fascist civilian war. That means secret trials because a public trial would reveal other investigations and investigative details that would enable the islamic fascists to further their agendas. It means rapid tactics for deportation. It means secret investigations.
It means a great many things that, if we defined them as ‘criminals’, we could not do. Or, if we defined them as ‘military’, we could not do.
But – I can’t see any other way of dealing with this fascist war.
Anne, let me help you out.
It’s not relevant.
Apology in advance to Kate, I understand you wish personal debates taken off-line, but…
ET:
Let’s shift from the strategic to the tactical for a moment. Islamofascism can be compared to an internal disease of the body politic. This is then similar to a world-wide organised crime syndicate, whose motives are not as easy to understand as “crime for money”. Civilian police can usually deal with organised crime, because their motives provide the weapon. (follow the money, get a stronger vault, etc.) When the goal is random murder at the civilian level, it is akin to having thousands of mass serial killers ready to strike at any time. I agree, not solvable at the military level, and near impossible for traditional policing, too. We would need 10,000,000 police officers for 30,000,000 people. Not possible…
Or is it?
Concealed Carry has proven to be effective. Mistakes such as you have described generally do not happen, at least not more than would happen with regular police. What specific shoot/not shoot training has a police officer had that any competent civilian could not also master?
Lets maybe change the terminology, and call “Concealed Carry” licensees “Reserve Police”. Let regular citizens take the police firearms training courses, and create the legal framework to operate in.
Note that terrorist shootings in Isreal have all but disappeared since many Isreali citizens are now armed. The suicide bomber may also be at least detered, if he can’t be guaranteed total success by facing an armed and suspicious target…
We have Armed Forces Reserves serving everywhere now, and with great distinction. Maybe the same philosophy could work on the civilian side?
When an invisible disease enters the body, the white blood cells in the immediate area attack.
Or is that a poor analogy?
Thoughts?
(sorry again, Kate, if I have stretched the rules)
Mad Mike
Contrary to what a lot of folks think, in Texas you must have a valid reason to conceal although not to carry. It is also true that if you carry YOU are responsible for your actions.
And yes, if I had a chance I’d blow a terrorist to hell, provided of course all the criteria of a safe takedown (safe for all but the target)were met. Once again, responsibility is the operative word.
mad mike ..hmm
1) I’m going to assert that democracy is the only possible sociopolitical mode for a population in the multi-millions. It’s not a matter of choice. It’s a fact that a large population becomes a ‘complex adaptive system’ which means that it requires rapid innovative anticipatory strategies (RIAS) to deal with both local and non-local requirements. Only a democracy provides RIAS.
2)Islamic fascism is a sociopolitical mode that rejects RIAS because it rejects change. It is focused on Origins; the origin of belief and behaviour is defined as Pure. To change this purity is to defile it. Therefore, de facto, this system cannot support complex large population societies.
3) The Islamic world has been ‘asleep’ for many centuries, locked into its closed tribalism. Oil has ‘awakened’ it, but, it hasn’t become democratic but has degenerated into dictatorship as it tried to retain its Original Purity society and retain tribal powers. That’s the basis of Islamic fascism…which has exploded outward as the ME states try desperately to retain tribalism.
A basic tactic to retain tribalism is to destroy democracy not merely in the ME, but elsewhere, for it is ‘enticing’ to those who are enslaved by tribalism.
4)This fascism has spread into the west – much like a virus – as the Muslim population migrated from the ME – which had locked them out of any economic, political and social roles in their home countries.
BUT, these immigrants haven’t been able to participate in the new countries, for several reasons.
One is the Islam religion itself, which remains unreformed, medieval, anti-knowledge and unable to permit its followers to ‘be industrial’.
Two is multiculturalism, which locks them into isolate communities rather than forcing them to assimilate.
5)That’s the basic infrastructure. A fascist ideology, determined to remain in power in the ME; run by a religion that is functional only in the 7th c and hasn’t reformed. It has ‘morphed’ into a terrorist war, a war on civilians by civilians. How do we protect ourselves? I don’t accept your ‘carrying guns’ as enough of an answer.
6) Would your having a gun on any of the planes of 9/11 have saved the day? No – because the terrorists would have had guns also.
Would a gun have saved the London subway bombings? No, because no-one realized they were suicide bombers.
Madrid? Indonesia? etc etc.
7) I think we need several areas to focus on. One is the advancement of democracy in the ME. That is absolutely vital. That’s first and foremost.
Then, another is our own loud, clear adamant support of democracy. In other words, the left should ‘put up or shut up’. Their denigration of democracy, as they are protected by democracy, is disgusting. So, we have to speak up for democracy. Very loud. And not just slogans, but explain why we are in favour of it and why we are against tribalism and multiculturalism and fascism.
And, another is, we have to acknowledge that a civilian war, where mass murder by means of hidden bombs carried by civilians is considered a legitimate goal, requires a different type of national protection. We need more investigative capacities, more legal definitions of what a civilian may and may not do, legal definitions that a terrorist action is not the same as a criminal or military action and we require different laws, procedures and so on.
8) I see your ‘civilian militia’ working as ‘guardian angels’ in city streets against crime.
I don’t see them working in city streets against terrorism. We need high-tech, silent and secret investigations for that, we need a new set of laws for that, a new set of procedures.
???
ET:
“RIAS”. I like that, never heard it defined like that, but it’s obvious now that you point it out.
Sorry, sometimes I suffer from thinking faster than I’m typing, so let me go through your items;
1 thru 4:
Agree, and well defined. I intend to shamelessly plagiarize…
5 and 6: Not so fast. I set specific parameters in my argument about who I suggested would carry guns. The terrorists would not have had guns. They wouldn’t have passed the security screening to become Reserve Police. Further, note that El AL has not had a hijacking in decades. Why? Armed Isrealis aboard every flight. Note also there have been NO hijackings on western airlines since 9/11. (I think not only because of armed Air Marshalls, but also the “flight 93” effect would likely happen today…and the bad guys know it.)
7. Agree. Totally.
8. I think we need both, the “civilian militia” AND some type of new tools as you suggest. With, of course, the usual caveats you will hear from libertarians.
Another thought comes to mind WRT Reserve Police or civilian militia: One of our greatest problems in society is the lib/left devolution of personal responsibility to the State. This can only be emiliorated one person at a time. A large number of citizens being actively encouraged to take personal responsibility for their country by becoming a reserve police certainly wouldn’t hurt!
Funny, not too many leftist heads exploding here. Is there an Esbat on somewhere?
😉
mad mike – nice comments, I agree, essentially, with everything you’ve added.
The RIAS – well, I deal in information systems, in the physical, biological and social realms, and they are all complex adaptive networks, and all have to be able to anticipate varied future states and develop adaptive strategies or – else.
What is interesting is that the more complex the system is (more requirements for and more use of energy) the more the system requires strong anticipatory capacities and strong adaptive capacities. A simple system doesn’t require these capacities in any great measure.
As for the ‘no guns for terrorists’ – that’s OK for planes. You are right about that. But, illegal guns for terrorists in cities, on buses, on trains? There’s no way we can control that. And, the various strategies of mass civilian murders – with timed bombs, suicide bombings, truck bombs etc.. are still available to them.
I very much agree with your outline of the lib/left devolution of personal responsibility to the state. It’s moved them into a permaent state of immaturity, a refusal to take responsibility, an insistence on Others Taking Care of Me. So, yes, I agree with you – more citizens taking responsibility is important. Actually, that’s the basis of democracy.
It’s socialism (which is a mode of tribalism) that has outlawed personal responsibility. In socialism, the state makes all decisions; in tribalism, the tribal elders/leaders make all decisions.
Another thing that I think needs great attention, is our definitions and laws about terrorism, i.e., civilian rather than military actions against citizens and laws of a state. These have to be made clear. Our criminal laws don’t cover these actions and don’t protect us. We need new laws to empower our police, gov’t and military, to protect us against terrorism, in this case, against islamic fascism.
“It’s not relevant”
Thanks Kate
I couldn’t figure it’s relevance but it sure is incomprehensible.
Bet it would get a good grade if Johnny Raulston Saul or Norm Chomskisticks were doing the marking.
As you say, “illegal guns …There’s no way we can control that”
My point exactly. Proven over and over by our criminal element, let alone terrorists practicing with weapons in the Ontario cottage country.
So, admitting we can’t control illegal guns, which is very true, what’s the logical response? Legal guns in law-abiding hands. Removes “victim” from the equation…
I may be guilty of having too much faith in my fellow citizens, but I firmly believe the vast majority of Canadians are decent, law-abiding people who we have no need to fear if they’re armed.
Or am I too trusting?
Would it have look like the 93 bombing with the FBI supplying the explosives?
Did you know that more palestinien children died in attacks then all the israelis killed by suicide bombings?
Two more today died as they sat on their front steps, 6 and 7.
An armed Israeli citizenry makes sense. They live at ground zero, but unless suicide belted bombers become a daily fabric of our lives, I don’t see the advantage to an armed to the teeth citizenry here. I’m not saying that owning a gun is without merit. A plus, if you happen upon a jihadi with his thumb on a detonator, but that isn’t going to happen in reality.
One thing that we can do as civilians engaged in a civilian war is insist that electronic surveillance remain in place and enlarge its scope as an anti-terrorist strategy. We can also demand that jihad shilling imams be jailed or deported immediately. The First Amendment wasn’t meant as a suicide pact. We can insist that people from hostile and suspect countries/Islam not come here under any circumstances. We don’t owe them college degrees, a job, citizenship or a vacation at Disney World.
Trust me, after the first suicide bomber that detonates himself on the streets or a mall or there is a big hit to a public area, US citizens are going to dump real fast the party perceived as appeasers and all of the above will be demanded.
http://www.politicswatch.com/terror-june13-2006.htm
Tory MP Garth Turner says street racers are more dangerous.
I fail to see how Garth Turner ever got the blessing of the CPC to run as a Tory. The guy loves to hear his own voice. Must keep a scrap book of his MSM clippings. I’d say he was the village idiot but since the village elected him then…
Prophetic to be sure. I would add that, any good that, could have, come from the lessons of 9-11 has long since evaporated. I shudder to think what it? ll take for the nay-sayers to get it. Down to their toes empathy. Scratch that, It’ll always be the fault of Bush and Harper.
Garth Turner is a perfect fit for the Liberals. Do us all a favour and get it over with.
“I have been made victorious with terror” – Mohammad (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220)
Genisis 16: 10-12 – He (Ishmael) will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone’s hand against him, and he will live in hostility towards all his brothers.
Later verses say that Ishmael will father a great nation.
The terrorist mentality is genetic in Islam. Their love for violence may also result from an inferiority complex generated by Ishmael’s illigitimate birth, and together with his mother, being thrown out of the house – which of course Mohammadans revised (2500 years after the fact) in the Koran.
If there’s a sibling rivalry, it’s not between Christianity and Islam – which some people like to believe. It seems more likely a result of a generational rivalry between Abraham’s illigitimate son, Ishmael and his legitimate son, Isaac.
Anne Marsden (above) sounds like the same wacko who recently ran for Mayor of Burlington, ON.
Dear John, whoever you are, I have always been upfront with who I am, where I live, those who I seek to be accountable for the appropriate expenditure of our tax dollars etc. It leaves me wide open for attack from those who do not wish me to be successsful in obtaining accountability as they stand to lose too much. However, if I am not upfront, I do not deserve to get the elected office I seek (which is not Mayor of Burlington).