Canadian foiled massacre "not terrorism"

[Bowfinger]

Not true, no motive nor ideology has been mentioned -- just the mould for Islamic extremism has been alluded to having no role -- hence, no 'terrorism.'

A group getting together for "the sake of killing people?" Let's be honest -- without a motivating ideological and anguishing cause, groups of people don't plan and get together, particularly with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public, and cause death or serious bodily harm to persons by the use of violence,while targeting public/private property (a shopping mall in this case).

Indeed, you're still wrong. We get it. You wish to continue to play semantics to minimise publicly violent and extremist terrorist actions that were to be committed by an apparently united ideological group.

I have no idea what point you're trying to make here. I don't give a rat's ass about minimizing anything, nor do I care about Canadian politics. I'm simply using actual information to refute a dishonest OP who seems to view everything as proof of a giant Western conspiracy to demonize Islam. The facts are that the incident in Denmark has clear political implications while the incident in Canada does not. Both are awful, both are extreme, but only one meets the classic definition of terrorism.

Others that are quite incorrect are:

As I have supported, an act of terrorism does not require simple political and certainly not that of ethnic bigotry (terrorism involves 'in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause').

As Minister Peter McKay and conservative minders were quickly on hand for the dissemination of information to the press, it is quite likely that the RCMP were directed not to publicly classify this as terrorism. With a new security bill coming before parliament, the regular government spin and media orchestrations have ONLY stuck to the scrip of fearing 'Islamic Jihadism."

You are welcome to your opinions and your speculation. I am simply responding to the information as actually presented, as well as the accepted conversational definition of terrorism:

terrorism - the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal
​

Now, if you have evidence these guys were trying to achieve a political goal, we can talk. As it stands, however, all you've done is offer speculation that's unsupported by evidence.

 

[Victorian Gray]

I have no idea what point you're trying to make here. I don't give a rat's ass about minimizing anything, nor do I care about Canadian politics. I'm simply using actual information to refute a dishonest OP who seems to view everything as proof of a giant Western conspiracy to demonize Islam. The facts are that the incident in Denmark has clear political implications while the incident in Canada does not. Both are awful, both are extreme, but only one meets the classic definition of terrorism.





You are welcome to your opinions and your speculation. I am simply responding to the information as actually presented, as well as the accepted conversational definition of terrorism:

terrorism - the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal
​

Now, if you have evidence these guys were trying to achieve a political goal, we can talk. As it stands, however, all you've done is offer speculation that's unsupported by evidence.

What political goals do you think were being considered when these charges were laid? (in the US)

"A 9-year-old fourth grader with autism scribbled “Bone Thrat” on a bathroom wall. After evacuating the school, the local sheriff's department charged the boy with a felony: terroristic threats and acts.

http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/story/2...ar-old-autistic-child-with-making-bomb-threat

Student Facing Terroristic Threat Charges After Decorating High School Bathroom With Laughable 'Satanic' Graffiti

"School and law enforcement officials received information about graffiti on a bathroom stall at Brownsboro High School on Tuesday afternoon and investigated the matter. On Wednesday, the high school student was detained at the beginning of the school day and was questioned. The student was later charged with terrorist threat on a public entity, a third degree felony."

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...athroom-with-laughable-satanic-graffiti.shtml

And the list goes on.

EDIT: And one might ask why Justin Bourque wasn't charged with any type of terrorism charge for stalking and shooting 5 RCMP officers (killing 3):

"In the three-hour, videotaped statement, Bourque appears relaxed as he leans back in a chair and explains that he wanted to encourage people to rise up against the “soldiers” that defend federal institutions and protect the rich from the poor."

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/..._killings_calls_himself_arrogant_pissant.html

Sounds like admitted terrorism with a political agenda to me. And yet, no such charges. He was charged with three counts of first-degree murder and two counts of attempted murder.

So, you were explaining just how clear cut this whole terrorism thing is?

 

[Bowfinger]

What political goals do you think were being considered when these charges were laid?

"A 9-year-old fourth grader with autism scribbled “Bone Thrat” on a bathroom wall. After evacuating the school, the local sheriff's department charged the boy with a felony: terroristic threats and acts.

http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/story/2...ar-old-autistic-child-with-making-bomb-threat

Student Facing Terroristic Threat Charges After Decorating High School Bathroom With Laughable 'Satanic' Graffiti

"School and law enforcement officials received information about graffiti on a bathroom stall at Brownsboro High School on Tuesday afternoon and investigated the matter. On Wednesday, the high school student was detained at the beginning of the school day and was questioned. The student was later charged with terrorist threat on a public entity, a third degree felony."

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...athroom-with-laughable-satanic-graffiti.shtml

And the list goes on.

What political goals? Prosecutors trying to further their careers by abusing terrorism laws. Sadly, this isn't a new phenomenon. I'm not sure what that has to do with this thread, however.

 

[Victorian Gray]

What political goals? Prosecutors trying to further their careers by abusing terrorism laws. Sadly, this isn't a new phenomenon. I'm not sure what that has to do with this thread, however.

I added an edit that you might want to check.

 

[Bowfinger]

[ ... ]
So, you were explaining just how clear cut this whole terrorism thing is?

No, I wasn't, in spite of you and Whiskey16 trying to turn my comments into something they are not. I simply pointed out that the OP was being dishonest in misrepresenting the two incidents to fit his agenda. Based on the information provided, the Canadian incident lacks the political or ideological motivation that distinguishes terrorism from other forms of violence. The Denmark incident, in contrast, had clear suggestions of a terrorist motive. All the rest of the crap you two are tossing in don't change that.

Re. your edit example, I'll simply note it is another case of Canadian authorities declining to call an attack terrorism. You showed they are consistent, seemingly the opposite of your intent. (And yes, I agree, that example certainly has more justification for raising the specter of terrorism than the other Canadian example from the OP. Not my decision.) Your first two examples were both U.S. prosecutors -- abusing the laws, IMO -- who have nothing to do with Canada. Their actions are therefore irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[oobydoobydoo]

You know full well the koran is full of blessings to kill non-believers. That doesn't sound peaceful to me. We should all be glad there are very, very few "true muslims".

I suppose we should be glad there are very few "true christians" too then, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_violence

 

[Whiskey16]

I don't give a rat's ass about minimizing anything, nor do I care about Canadian politics.

Then, seriously, fuck off and don't bother barging in upon threads you have no interest in.

I'm simply using actual information to refute a dishonest OP....

I am with you against much of the OP, and alluded to such in my first post. Yet, in the framework of the current Canadian government's politicizing of terrorist acts, being foremost and present at yesterday's press conference denying terrorism, and recent publicity events only associating terrorism with Muslims, the OP is correct. Yet, Bowfinger, in your extremely deluded ignorance, you don't give a rats ass if you're out of line and wrong -- you don't give a shit about Canadian politics yet must chime in to argue innane semantics??!

The facts are that the incident in Denmark has clear political implications while the incident in Canada does not. Both are awful, both are extreme, but only one meets the classic definition of terrorism.

Myself and I hope most here don't care what you ignorantly feel and fabricate. You are flat out wrong as I supported that the acts or terrorism are not marginally confined and your erroneous semantics argument stands.

You are welcome to your opinions and your speculation. I am simply responding to the information as actually presented, as well as the accepted conversational definition of terrorism:

terrorism - the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal
​

Now, if you have evidence these guys were trying to achieve a political goal, we can talk. As it stands, however, all you've done is offer speculation that's unsupported by evidence.

Enjoying your basement rant based upon truly ignorant speculation?

Try to learn rather than go to extra lengths of retaining willful stupidity:

That said, here is Section 83.01 of the Canadian Criminal code concerning terrorism:

“terrorist activity” means

..

(b) an act or omission, in or outside Canada,

• (i) that is committed
  • (A) in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause, and
  • (B) in whole or in part with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public, with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act, whether the public or the person, government or organization is inside or outside Canada, and
• (ii) that intentionally
  • (A) causes death or serious bodily harm to a person by the use of violence,
  • (B) endangers a person’s life,
  • (C) causes a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or any segment of the public,
  • (D) causes substantial property damage, whether to public or private property, if causing such damage is likely to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to (C), or
  • (E) causes serious interference with or serious disruption of an essential service, facility or system, whether public or private, other than as a result of advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage of work that is not intended to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to (C),

and includes a conspiracy, attempt or threat to commit any such act or omission, or being an accessory after the fact or counselling in relation to any such act or omission, but, for greater certainty, does not include an act or omission that is committed during an armed conflict...

Yesterday's arrests in Halifax certainly do satisfy legal terms of 'terrorism.' I expect prosecutors to fully apply the law and avoid minimisation of the planned actions. It's just that for the feds, not having a 'Jihadist' at the centre does not play well with their bogeyman politics, therefore terrorism is only publicly reserved for such visible scapegoats.

As Columbine with that action as publicly violent retribution against bullying, this case can rationally as well have some ideological motive and symbolic cause that united multiple people together to plan and commit to a very public act of terrorist massacre at a shopping mall on St. Valentine's Day.

 

[Whiskey16]

I'll simply note it is another case of Canadian authorities declining to call an attack terrorism.

I thought you didn't care about politics I Canada? If you did, then you may understand why the frame of terrorism was avoided if not involving the current Islamic bogeyman.

 

[Blue_Max]

Makes me wonder if the Mullahs in my country are right: the war on terror is actually a war against Islam.

Anyone catch the significance of this quote? Time and time again we're told by muslims and apologists that only "peace" is being preached in mosques. Here's proof it's not.

It's very easy to hate and attack people you think are "out to get you".


Most of the world doesn't want to harm islam, but they also don't want to be forced to convert-or-die, don't want to live under brutal sharia law, or see their country's culture eliminated in favour of a restrictive, totalitarian islamic one.

 

[Bowfinger]

Then, seriously, fuck off and don't bother barging in upon threads you have no interest in.

Piss off, princess. Is English perhaps NOT your native language? That might explain why you're having so much trouble following the conversation.

I didn't post in this thread because it was about Canadian politics. I posted to refute the OP's dishonest misrepresentation of two attacks (one actual, one planned). You're the one who insisted on twisting my post into a broader discussion of Canadian politics. As I've now pointed out several times, that is completely beyond the scope of my comment. If you want to discuss Canadian politics, knock yourself out, but don't drag me into your rants.

I am with you against much of the OP, and alluded to such in my first post. Yet, in the framework of the current Canadian government's politicizing of terrorist acts, being foremost and present at yesterday's press conference denying terrorism, and recent publicity events only associating terrorism with Muslims, the OP is correct. Yet, Bowfinger, in your extremely deluded ignorance, you don't give a rats ass if you're out of line and wrong -- you don't give a shit about Canadian politics yet must chime in to argue innane semantics??!

The OP was wrong. That was my point. Everything else is your imagination.

Myself and I hope most here don't care what you ignorantly feel and fabricate. You are flat out wrong as I supported that the acts or terrorism are not marginally confined and your erroneous semantics argument stands.

Take it up with Merriam-Webster. I linked their definition. It does not match yours.

Enjoying your basement rant based upon truly ignorant speculation?

You're projecting, sweetie. You're the one speculating about the motives of various Canadian officials, pretending it is fact. I've simply addressed the actual information provided in the linked articles.

Try to learn rather than go to extra lengths of retaining willful stupidity:

That said, here is Section 83.01 of the Canadian Criminal code concerning terrorism:

Yesterday's arrests in Halifax certainly do satisfy legal terms of 'terrorism.' I expect prosecutors to fully apply the law and avoid minimisation of the planned actions. It's just that for the feds, not having a 'Jihadist' at the centre does not play well with their bogeyman politics, therefore terrorism is only publicly reserved for such visible scapegoats.

As I said, this isn't a court of law and I'm not challenging whether the planned attack might legally qualify as terrorism. (That's all you, speculating again.) As I said, my comment was aimed at the normal conversational definition of terrorism, and how the two incidents differed in that context. As I said, I'm not sure why this is so hard for you to grasp, unless it's that English deficiency I mentioned earlier.

As Columbine with that action as publicly violent retribution against bullying, this case can rationally as well have some ideological motive and symbolic cause that united multiple people together to plan and commit to a very public act of terrorist massacre at a shopping mall on St. Valentine's Day.

Interesting speculation. Get back to us once you have actual evidence of their purported cause. You may well be right, but you've done squat to show it. That's the difference between speculating (you, Green Bean) and discussing the information actually presented (me). If new information comes out, I'll be happy to adjust my position. You, on the other hand, sound like you've closed your mind regardless of any other evidence that may come out.

But that's enough. We're well past my interest in this story. Regardless of the trio's motives, I'm glad the attack was prevented. Buh bye.

 

[Whiskey16]

Everything else is your imagination.

Take it up with Merriam-Webster. I linked their definition. It does not match yours.

To exemplify your silly game of semantics, I'll remind you that I first directly first cited the applicable section of the Canadian Criminal Code.

Bowfinger, you are so argumentatively lame to think you trounced that with a Merriam-Webster dictionary retort? You must have been damned impressive debater in grade 6.

You're projecting, sweetie. You're the one speculating about the motives of various Canadian officials, pretending it is fact.

I fabricated nothing.]It is well known in Canada of what the ruling government is doing to whip up their base in an election year and justify new sweeping security powers. It's your failure for chiming into a Canadian discussion while being bloody ignorant of the current context of political events in Canada:

Government expands powers to prevent, disrupt terrorism in new bill (30 Jan 2015)

Sweeping new anti-terrorism legislation introduced by the federal government Friday would make it illegal to promote or advocate terror acts, a crime punishable by up to five years in prison.

It would allow security officials to block websites, and government agencies to share citizens’ personal information for the purpose of battling terrorism.

And it would include placing people on a no-fly list if they planned to travel abroad to join groups such as Islamic State, or ISIL.

The legislation, titled the Anti-terrorism Act 2015, is the most dramatic package of new laws since the Anti-terrorism Act of 2001, passed in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terror attacks against the United States.

..

But, speaking at a community centre north of Toronto, Prime Minister Stephen Harper defended the changes, saying that “jihadist terrorism” is the greatest threat the world faces.

“We cannot avoid the stark reality: jihadist terrorism is not a future possibility, it is a present reality,” Harper said. “Violent jihadism is not just a danger somewhere else – it seeks to harm us here in Canada, in our cities and in our neighbourhoods through horrific acts.”

“It would be a grave mistake to ignore their threats.”

..

Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney said the killing of a soldier in St-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Que., and the shootings on Oct. 22 in Ottawa, in which Cpl. Nathan Cirillo was killed, showed the government it needed to act.

“It was and still is a call for action,” Blaney said. “We then said we would not over-react, but we would not under-react.”

Wedge politics and to stir up their base against ONLY an Islamic bogeyman.

Despite more terrorist carnage having been achieved by the likes of Justin Bourque in the freeman cause, or more deaths adverted over the weekend against likely Columbine copycats, this government sticks to the message of the 'greatest terrorist threat' being that of 'Jihadists.' This weekend's events didn't fit their message of what the image of a terrorist is nor that new security powers are necessary to enable police and other security forces to already accomplish their mission.

Interesting speculation [Columbine copycats]. Get back to us once you have actual evidence of their purported cause. You may well be right, but you've done squat to show it.

From citations of legislated law to the statements of weekend press conferences involving the RCMP and the federal minister of Justice, I've supported all that I've said. Shall I continue?

Bowfinger, do you have the integrity to admit rather attributing vacant 'speculation' to myself, that you are in error and an argumentative failure:

CBC:

The 19–year–old found dead in connection with the potential mass shootings in Halifax has been identified as James Gamble, CBC News has confirmed.

Gamble left behind a blog filled with disturbing and dark images of death, shootings and references to the 1999 Columbine high school massacre in Colorado. It also has several references to Adolf Hitler and Nazis.

That's the difference between speculating (you, Green Bean) and discussing the information actually presented (me).

Keep up the delusions for your infallible wisdom and knowledge......

I've simply addressed the actual information provided in the linked articles.

You've done nothing of the sort. In blatant ignorance of the subject at hand you're digging a deeply foolish hole.

I suggest you beginning a better effort to learn, and particularly learn the practical limitations of picking internet sourced dictionary terms to stupidly argue semantics for not calling a spade a spade......

• As contextually defined in the Criminal Code of Canada, the acts of terrorism were prevented over the weekend.
• As per politics and of keeping on a message, the federal government again averted pronouncing terrorism as it was not politically helpful to them. If their any association to the bogeyman is involved, then the politicisation of events are enthusiastically hammed up for terrorism sourced fear mongering. For those of you in the USA, the Conservative Party of Canada hired some of the same political geniuses that found themselves out of work with the end of the previous Bush presidency......Much of the same playbook...

 

[The Green Bean]

Anyone catch the significance of this quote? Time and time again we're told by muslims and apologists that only "peace" is being preached in mosques. Here's proof it's not.

It's very easy to hate and attack people you think are "out to get you".


Most of the world doesn't want to harm islam, but they also don't want to be forced to convert-or-die, don't want to live under brutal sharia law, or see their country's culture eliminated in favour of a restrictive, totalitarian islamic one.

hah! We already face that. Terrorist groups in our country threaten those who do not follow their version of Islam. There have been three attacks on Shia mosques in the past month killing more than 40. So you don't get to preach what they want you to believe about Islam.

You fund the same people that want to kill me (and you). I hold my countrymen and government 70% responsible for the security situation we are facing. The rest is America ignoring the real threat: Saudi Arabia. They funnel billions of dollars into seminaries which teach students to kill anyone that does not follow their version of Islam. Did you know the American government has refused to call the Afghan Taliban terrorists?

America and the rest of the West claim to be under threat from the real victims of terrorism. The perception being created is that all Muslims are a threat. On top of that the West officially denies any bias despite racially profiling Muslims and only labeling attacks as terrorists when there is a "cultural motivation."

I am a frequent international traveler. I don't mind extra security checks if I am perceived to be a threat--after all Muslims have given the rest a bad name. BUT, I am not okay when I am purposely inconvenienced or worse--humiliated.

I flew into JFK in the summer of 2013. After the usual questions at the immigration counter, they took my into an interrogation room with 50 other brown people. Nobody was allowed to use a cell phone or even use the toilets. We just had to sit while officers were discussing why "they had to deal with these shit." They told us all to wait. And wait. And wait. After about four hours, they finally called out my name: asked me what I did, why I was there and how long I would stay. 30 seconds max. I had missed my bus and I was alone in NYC at 11PM with my wife. Why couldn't they have just asked those questions on the first go? If they needed to do a background check why didn't they do one when the issued a visa? Officers (presumably American) did a body search at the port of embarkation. If they knew I was coming why did they not to the necessary checks then? Why did they make me wait 5 hours in a cage? The rest of detainees were as humiliated and as upset as I was.

But I am a Pakistani. Maybe that was my fault. But my American friends have been stopped as well and one was even told "it's because of your religion." So yes, even if you don't want to accept it, the fact is there is a general bias against Muslims--at least in government offices. The rest of my trip was a pleasure. Americans are a great people--cheerful, helpful, trusting and fun. In fact, I would be more afraid to pray at a Saudi gas station than on the middle of the road in the US. I wonder how long that will last though. It seems as one day all Muslims will be looked down upon as Nazis of the new world.

 

[Omar F1]

I'm an agnostic, and I don't have a problem with Islam, and I don't consider it any more violent than any other religion. What has happened is that the countries/regions/areas where Islam dominates have been dominated by Empires and dictators for a really, really long time now.

Islam acts like a banner for rallying to overthrow Empire, or dictators. Unfortunately, there are plenty of people who will use it for other means, such as having power and privilege, or for carrying out their sociopathic desires.

The difference between Islam and Christianity, at least in the sense of it being used to get people to do bad things, is that the "west" changed after the 30 years war and the Treaty of Westphalia basically made "secular" government dominant in Europe.

Once secularism took hold and people weren't being tortured, disfigured, murdered, burned alive, etc, for their beliefs, people started to temper their religious beliefs and how much they would go out of their way to hurt other people for not believing in what they believe.

Islam still has to do that, to some extent. Islam hasn't really had its treaty of Westphalia, at least in the mid east proper.

One place you can see where Islam was tempered and where the politics today are pretty moderate, is Turkey. Ataturk was a really smart guy.

The whole arab/iranian/pakistani regions need an Ataturk-like figure. But before a new Ataturk can arise, the west needs to stop screwing around over there. For some reason, the west does actually believe that if we just drop enough bombs and bullets on people, that they'll adopt democracy.

Democracy is almost always internal, even if there are starts and stops and sputtering. The west just continues to drop bombs though, as if more death imposed by outsiders is going to fix things up.

I like to add a point and would like to tell you one thing, we do commit sins all over the day/year and we ask for God's forgiveness in each single day (the God is the most merciful, as mentioned in Quran). Yet, we try to keep the Islamic rules intact as much as we could, without permanent alteration. (you could say rules are meant to be broken, but the rules are available and could be applied depending on condition and other things)