Saturday, April 19, 2008

An Open Letter To An RCMP Terrorist Mole

I received many great comments about my last post about the Canadian Toronto 18 case and the potentially bogus sting operation that entrapped the suspects. The most interesting had to be one (purportedly) from the main paid RCMP/CSIS informant himself, Mubin Shaikh. He wrote:

"So how will your article read when the guilty ARE found as such?
How will your article read when you hear of the indifference to innocent life as it was promulgated by some?
Dont (sic) make the mistake the govt. did by assuming all were guilty. Dont (sic) make the mistake too many are making now by assuming all are innocent.
Stay tuned - this show is just gettin' started!

Peace

Mubin Shaikh"



Below is my response to Mr. Shaikh:


"To 'Mubin Shaikh' (If that really is you... I guess there's no way to know for sure. I'm going to respond in the hopes that it is really you),

I'd like to start by saying that I actually think you're brave coming out and speaking up about flaws in the case, for speaking out about your part in the sting, and for being honest about your history. The other mole has kept silent. I've seen you in interviews and you seem like a very likable guy - the kind of guy I could chill with at a Saturday BBQ. Having said that, I feel the same way about George Bush!

Listen, I can't pretend to know all the details - as usual the RCMP are secretive about the details of this case - and you're one of the few who does know a lot of them - perhaps most. I only know what I can dig up for myself.

First off, I am most definitely not making a mistake in "assuming all are innocent" - I have to assume all are innocent under the Canadian Charter of Rights. Anyone who does not is not being a true Canadian. It is up to the Crown to show that they are guilty, and until they do they are completely innocent in my books.

And perhaps you'll forgive my doubts about this case in the light of the fact that this is the third such Canadian mass arrest - the other two cases were thrown out of court COMPLETELY with stern judgments and
warnings from the bench against the tactics of RCMP, CSIS, and the Crown. As this case slowly falls apart, I expect no different.

As for the Toronto 18 case that you worked on, the RCMP and CSIS watched these guys for TWO YEARS and without a single chargeable offence occurring - until you two 'moles,' informants, whatever - came along. All of a sudden it's a fast track to fertilizer.

I find it disturbing that you would call this affair a "show," with these poor souls being kept in 23.5 hour-a-day solitary confinement. Remember, the ones just exonerated were kept in these conditions too.

As for how my, "article [will] read when [I] hear of the indifference to innocent life as it was promulgated by some..." You must understand, I do not care if any of these boys were saying scary things. People say scary things every day - even more so about hot topics like this "war on terror" and other political hot potatoes. Canada is a free country and I will fight to the death to allow anyone to say whatever they bloody-well please - no matter how scary or even depraved. It doesn't matter what these people allegedly said!

If you really stop and do your homework, Mr. Shaikh, you will soon see that, in all likelihood, there is NO Al-Qaeda. There is no 'terrorist threat.' Especially to Canada. Until Afghanistan, what did we ever do to them? If there is a threat, it's only because we're over there busting into innocent people's houses and killing or torturing them.

Please watch the excellently researched and accurately reported English documentary, "The Power of Nightmares," and rethink this whole line about Islamic terrorists coming for us in the night. This is not some indy, leftist propaganda piece - it is a report from mainstream English press and has been seen by millions.

You can find it here:
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=4933960062431353720

Keep in mind that if I had written similar articles about the previous two stings on the Pakistanis, I'd have been right. If I'd written one about the ones arrested in Florida - I'd have been right. If I'd written one about Maher Arar - I'd have been right. If I'd written one about Omar Khadr - I'd have been right. If I'd written one about the "liquid bombers" in London - I'd have been right. I could go on, but you get the picture.

You are right about one thing, though: Let's see how my article reads when all is said and done. But, remember, the question for you would be:

How will your life 'read,' having turned these people in, if none of them is found guilty?



PS: Even if they are found guilty - that doesn't mean they did anything wrong. It just means that they wouldn't have won the court case. Two different things - especially when charged under the Anti-Terror Act and already having been tried on TV!

PPS: Should I be scared now? If you are Mubin Shaikh and and you work for CSIS and you've seen my site, will I be reported to CSIS now as a home-grown terrorist? Under the Anti-Terror Act I suppose they could come for me now."

29 comments:

Penny said...

greetings disobedia!

I too have been blogging on the toronto 18 and had two comments left on my blog, from a person claiming to be Mubin Shaik.

One comment is very similar to the one you have responded to on your own blog:

you'll find the first one here:
http://pennyforyourthoughts2.blogspot.com/2008/03/toronto-18-terror-trial-which-was.html#comments

and then the second one, including and e-mail address here:
http://pennyforyourthoughts2.blogspot.com/2008/04/toronto-terror-trial-latest.html#comments


what to make of this? who knows? Is it Mubin Shaik? Well his e-mail is there if anyone wants to make contact with whomever, feel free!

btw: have you seen the grass roots style documentary on You Tube, there is lots of Mubin Shaik and more in that one!

It's called Unfair Dealing: The Toronto Homegrown Terror Threat.
I have found it very interesting.
If you missed it, check here on my blog for the link.
http://pennyforyourthoughts2.blogspot.com/2008/04/toronto-18-documentary.html#comments

btw: good response to 'Mubin'. It is good to always remember that everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Sincerely:
Penny

Enjneer said...

Wow!

Well, Penny, I guess you've had the honour too! He must Google his name all the time to find such small-time bloggers like us!

I saw that doc. While it's in dire need of some polish, it's a wonderfully informative doc. I sure feel for those kids.

Thanks for reading!

Lord Reptor said...

Thanks for covering this. Most enjoyable reading. What a strange job it must be, this informant mole gig. Probably seems exciting and illicit and fun, with occasional flashes of fear and horror .

Wonder what happens to 'Mubin' when the media attention fades away?

Promotion? Retraining? Sewed into a bag and tossed in the St. Laurence? Back to college?

Lord Reptor.

Lord Reptor said...

@Ejneer - I agree about the whole no-Qaeda deal - The Base is likely The Database used by core manipulators of the fool actors that populate the private-violence world stage.

Hopefully, whoever posted under 'Mubin' on your comments was at worst some spotty Ritalin victim working in a CSIS basement, and not anyone playing in the real case.
Even better, just some random freak who caught your story.

Still, you write well - maybe you'll get an interesting job offer from a shadowy figure if you keep rattling cages.

Or they might replace you with a trained actor who would stage your tragic death (not realizing that he himself would be disposed of later, hahahahaa!), after the real you has been interrogated with excellent drugs and then sewed, happily smiling and watching the pretty lights, into a bag and dumped in the river.

Hmmm - better keep a seam ripper hidden on your person at all times and practice resisting all the latest pharmaceuticals as much as possible...

Drooling and raving (something in that hotel coffee, man...)

Lord Reptor.

Mansour said...

I agree with your post entirely except for this one paragraph:
"[...] there is NO Al-Qaeda. There is no 'terrorist threat.' Especially to Canada. Until Afghanistan, what did we ever do to them? If there is a threat, it's only because we're over there busting into innocent people's houses and killing or torturing them."

This is inaccurate. Canada was designated a target by 'Al Qaeda' because of its close ties (specifically energy exports) to the US. This is well documented.
There *are* terrorist organizations in Canada, and they are very much active. However, Canada is seen by and large as simply a base to operate out of, as opposed to a target. The fact you are unaware of this is evidence to CSIS' professionalism.
On that point, I would like to remind you that the Afghan war is very much in Canada's national security interest. "What did they do to us?" May I also remind you that Canadians were also victims of the WTC attacks.

You are correct about the politics of fear. I have whole-hearted faith in our intelligence agencies' ability to protect us. Whatever the reason they decided to parade these 18 wannabes to the media for, they are still on top.

Penny said...

enjneer:

Indeed, 'mubin' must google his name, on a regular basis.

It looks like someone is in need of attention, wanting to stay in the spotlight,looking for glory, call it what you may.

which is likely suggestive of one reason, why he offered his 'services'.

Enjneer said...

Mansour:

You say I am correct about the "politics of fear..." What I am saying - just to be clear - is that fear is being used politically against us - non-existent threates are being paraded in front of us to cow us into accepting profitable (for them) wars and restrictions on personal freedoms. I'm quite clearly saying that.

So how can you have faith in our intelligence services? You are lost if you have faith in CSIS/CIA/FBI/RCMP. What does this Toronto 18 teach us?!? That we cannot trust them!!

As far as Afghanistan goes, Afghanistan did not attack us!!! Even if you believe the government bullshit, Al Qaeda attacked us! The Taliban, in an official communique to Washington, offered to extradite Bin Laden if the US would show their diplomats proof of his guilt!

This message was ignored by the US and its media. I bet you didn't even know about it.

And for Al Qaeda: Your proof that Al Qaeda exists is to state that it was "well documented" that Al Qaeda targeted us.
Of course it was well-documented! That is the whole point! Al Qaeda
is a ghost organisation - a front - a false-flag - a bogeyman. Fronts don't work if nobody hears about them. Bogeymen don't scare us if we're not aware of them.
If by, "well documented" you mean it was all over the news or it's in State Dept. press releases, well those prove nothing except my point.

And you say that I apparently do not know that Canada is "a base to operate out of" and that shows the effectiveness of CSIS's professionalism? I'm not even sure how to reply to this one...
CSIS was created out of public hearings which found that illegal activity and corruption was so rampant in the RCMP that they could not be trusted to run internal security. After four years, that same panel found that CSIS had not done anything different and was ordered to clean house again! I know better than most because my father was part of that house-cleaning. So don't try to tell me about CSIS and the RCMP!
No-one knows if CSIS has been cleaned up (which means it hasn't) and no-one knows how corrupt CSIS is.

You are aware that the CIA has lost lawsuits filed by people suing them over being incarcerated against their will in mental institutions (the biggest was in Montreal) and subjected to attempted brain-washing in the 50s? And this is the organisation you "trust?!"

Tell you what: you sit there with your "faith in our intelligence services" and I'll stay here in my "ignorance" and we'll see who's crying in 10 years' time when the Fuhrer arrives.

PS: Watch that friggin' video, The Power of Nightmares:
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=2798679275960015727
If you haven't seen this then there is nothing ot talk about until you learn your history a bit better.

Good day.

Enjneer said...

Reptor:

Yeah, you gotta wonder... I think he'll end up either virtually or literally in the sack in the river.
Many times I've tried to imagine what it's like on the "inside." And over and over I picture some poor fool, thinking all this time he's in with the big boys, having that moment of realisation when they off him - either kill him or set him up.

That these people can't see that this is so obviously going to happen makes me feel almost sorry for them. Almost.

Thanks for reading. Stay tuned.

Enjneer said...

Raptor II:

Thanks man. I've got two different brands of seam-ripper on me at all times, with a third at home for black-tie events.

Yeah, it's so funny to hear from people like mansour (Man -Sour?)... to hear how lost they are. I've talked to otherwise bright folks who actually think that Osama was in charge of the Taliban and ordered them to attack the WTC. I mean, what do you do with these folks? I try, but they just get angry.

THanks for reading and keep coming back. Your comments keep me on my toes!

Anonymous said...

You think that's bad. Stockwell day {Minister of Public Safety and a low life Conservative} just gave Israeli Mossad free range to go anywhere they want in Canada. It's nothing written on paper, so that was the first clue. Not too long after this little invite, a historic building in Quebec was burned down, so I wonder what else our little jewish friends may have in store for us. I'm not saying jews are responsible, but one must take note on things simply being coincidental and see who benefits more. Curse you to hell Israel if you dare spill any Canadian blood.

I know many are out there who think they have the masses in check, but sane heads always prevail.

tquigly said...

"...a very likable guy - the kind of guy I could chill with at a Saturday BBQ. ... I feel the same way about George Bush!"
You're joking, right? How could anyone label this hate-full, murderous warmongerer as "likable"? or want to spend one of life's precious seconds with this embarrassing twit of a preznit?

Enjneer said...

tquigly:

No I am not joking. There's a difference between a man and his political beliefs/actions. I've never met Shaikh, and, more to point (since you are the one judging him) nor have you.

I've seen multiple interviews with Shaikh and he seems fine. Says he's a partier... same thing with George Bush: I saw a movie made by a journalist following him on the campaign trail. All the journalists practically fell in love with him. Even the ones that hated his politics and thought they hate the man!

Now, I'm not saying I'm inviting Shaikh over to dinner any time soon. He's got blood on his hands and he's got to pay for that. But I'd talk to him - hear his story. After all, this whole thing was not his idea! He's working for someone. And people make mistakes. I get the feeling that Shaikh might be starting to realise the extent of his.

Part of breaking out of this polarised society includes breaking the bonds of judgment and stereotype that have been forced upon us - because that's half of what keeps us fighting - and to start really listening to each other and having dialogue.

Think about it: if we're to make a better world - better than this one we're complaining about, anyway - we're not going to just flip a button - we're going to have to really change some things.

People will have to truly be free to voice their opinions. And we'll really have to listen to them. We'll have to meet people before we judge them - instead of forcing them into narrowly defined "-ist" boxes, like, "terrorist," "anti-semite,"liberal," conservative," "feminist..."


I'm ready. Can you do it?

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry - which one of you was there with me when I saw what I did?

Hey, who brought the chirping crickets out here?!

Court is on - take notes and compare with what Unfair Dealing claims.

Cant wait to see the looks on your faces when you hear how FAR off the mark Mr. AbdelHaleem was.

Mubin Shaikh

Anonymous said...

Engineer:

"What does this Toronto 18 teach us?!? That we cannot trust them!!"
Actually, the fact that those 18 was the best the RCMP could come up with shows that, indeed, we can trust CSIS with security.

"I bet you didn't even know about it."
Wrong. Moving on...

"And for Al Qaeda: Your proof that Al Qaeda exists is to state that it was "well documented" that Al Qaeda targeted us."
Nope. When Zawahiri goes on video record explicitely naming Canada as a target, that is proof enough. Please, deny this.

"I know better than most because my father was part of that house-cleaning. So don't try to tell me about CSIS and the RCMP!"
Congratulations, you're a big boy now! I happen to know your daddy's boss. :)

"You are aware that the CIA has lost lawsuits filed by people suing them over being incarcerated against their will in mental institutions (the biggest was in Montreal) and subjected to attempted brain-washing in the 50s? And this is the organisation you "trust?!""
Show me where I said I trust the CIA. Putting words in my mouth doesn't decrease your ignorance.

PS: Get a life. You grill the crackhead informant for Googling his name and yet you reply to your own comments...

Anonymous said...

PPS: "Tell you what: you sit there with your "faith in our intelligence services" and I'll stay here in my "ignorance" and we'll see who's crying in 10 years' time when the Fuhrer arrives."

Look who's talking about the politics of fear... Hypocrite.

Anonymous said...

one thing's for sure: its all hearsay xcept from this shaik guy - everything else is uninformed media sources.

Enjneer said...

To the, "PS: Get a life" guy:

I don't even know where to start with you.

Who are you? You know the boss of CSIS? I can tell you are RCMP, CSIS or related to someone in the policing/security/military field. Because your 'arguments' use NO facts. Just the usual gut-based, personal attacks that come from someone who just WANTS to believe that the good ole RCMP couldn't POSSIBLY be lying to him (even though they've been caught lying over and over).
Or perhaps you're one of the people doing the lying...

I mean, who cares if "Zawahari" threatens Canada? My whole friggin' POINT is that Zawahari and Al-Qaeda and the Toronto 18 (sorry, 11 now) are straw men. They are illusions. So of course he's threatening Canada! We needed to pass the Anti-Terror Law! The government needed everyone scared so they would look to them for help and do what they said. READ the bloody article, buddy!

You sure are brave, posting anonymously and all. Wish I had guts like that.
Tell me, how else am I supposed to respond to asinine comments like yours if you post anonymously?!?! I'd be glad to debate with you one-on-one, if only you had the guts to leave contact info.

"Get a life?!?" Wow. That's a good one. Did my Daddy's boss teach you that line?

Go learn a few things about the world first. Watch "The Power of Nightmares." Read how CSIS was created precisely because the RCMP had become so corrupt that they could no longer function (one of their main rackets was framing innocent people).
Learn the truth, then come back and debate me. I will debate with you based on facts and truth alone. I refuse to engage in these pointless personal matches based entirely off of what you believe.

Good luck,

Enjneer

anarchore said...

Who lobbies for terror legistlation-- who controls the Canadian government and the RCMP/CSIS? The UberKikes of the Israel Lobby. It boggles the mind how much trouble Canada is in... everyone is so behind the curve, most people don't even know about The Lobby, fatal ignorance.

Anonymous said...

So how does your story read now sir with four bomb plotters pleading guilty and all?

Yeah, that's what I thought. MS

Enjneer said...

@MS:

My article reads the same. It's not the slightest uncommon to have many of the accused in a trumped-up court plead guilty. If they were guilty, why didn't they plead earlier? They've been in custody for a long, long time. With, undoubtedly, many plea offers and unimaginable pressure. Why now to plead guilty? Why only some of them? Why were so many others released? It just doesn't add up.

Their pleading guilty proves nothing, and, more importantly, does not disprove a single thing I had to say in my article.

The questions of entrapment, personal gain (and thus, conflict-of-interest) on the part of the moles, RCMP impropriety, all remain valid and unanswered.

It was these questions, and not the outcome of the legal proceedings, that wmade up the real issues: A) the erosion of our civil liberties and protections and B) lying by our government and police. These affect us all.

Court cases can go both ways, both just and unjust, and often the truth is never found. Our court system, with Bar lawyers and judges, is no indicator of the truth - just who can win an argument.

PS: if "MS" means Mubin Sheik, then I'm sure you are grasping at this latest straw to ease your guilty conscience. I don't mean that as an insult, it's just human nature.

-enjneer

Enjneer said...

@anarchore:

I know where you're coming from: it's all too easy to see Jewish names attached to ownership of banks, businesses, media, and other important entities. But let's not be fooled: these all answer to organisations that care not the slightest about religion (at least not ours).

This is NOT a "Jewish conspiracy." It is an elite conspiracy. Besides, the ones truly pulling the strings are more likely to hold the names of the ancient European aristocracy, not Jewish names.

Mubin Shaikh said...

It's not the slightest uncommon to have many of the accused in a trumped-up court plead guilty. If they were guilty, why didn't they plead earlier? They've been in custody for a long, long time. With, undoubtedly, many plea offers and unimaginable pressure. Why now to plead guilty?

MS: Because as you get closer to trial, the chances of you getting off also lessens. Now to plead guilty because there is no hope of fancy lawyering anymore to save them.

Why only some of them? Why were so many others released? It just doesn't add up.

MS: Actually, they were all arrested, some were released (not worth the effort) and the rest go on the trial - excluding those found guilty or still awaiting trial.

You said: The questions of entrapment, personal gain (and thus, conflict-of-interest) on the part of the moles, RCMP impropriety, all remain valid and unanswered.

Oh is that so?

No entrapment, judge rules in Canadian Toronto 18 case:

http://legalift.wordpress.com/2009/03/26/no-entrapment-judge-rules-in-canadian-toronto-18-case/

AND

http://www.thestar.com/article/607827

You were saying?

MS

Enjneer said...

@Mubin:

Hey Mubin,

Glad to see you back at Disobedia! Hope the years have been fair to you and yours.

We need both sides of the story to find the truth. All of your points are excellent ones. They are common-sensical and need to be addressed.

Firstly, we must both admit that our stances on why the accused would or would not plead guilty to crimes they may or may not have committed, are guesses. You don't know any more than I do, how or why these people are making the choices they have made.

While it makes sense that, as trial dates approach, the reality of a defendants position is clearer: that they may not be able to "lawyer" themselves out of court; it makes equal sense that they would plead guilty (to avoid a seemingly inevitable charge) as it does that they would plead not guilty to a crime they did not commit.
Neither of us can present any convincing evidence to back up our claims, thus our conclusions are opinions.

There are some issues we can deal with here though:

1) The judge ruled that there was no entrapment on ONE case. And one only. And the ruling is definitely just an opinion - and, IMHO, not a fair one at that.
We read in the ruling how you were "instructing" and "training" these kids. I don't care what a judge says, I did stupid stuff when I was 17, just to get acceptance! Why should this young man be any different?

2) Seven of the 18 have had their charges stayed. Going by the numbers, it is still apparent that there was sloppy, if not criminal, police work going on.
You dismiss these as "not worth the effort." Convenient.

3) Any single court hearing can go either way. Let me be clear: I do not look to the court cases to settle this matter. In fact, I have presumed that most of the defendants are going to be found guilty; there's too much at stake!

4) When stings of this questionable of a nature are allowed, under the aegis of the Anti-Terrorism Act (with its illegal wiretapping and surveillance), there are going to be innocent people going to jail.
All we can do is try to find the facts - which, as you'll notice in ALL of these "terror trials" are impossible to get.

I leave with one question:

Can you truly, objectively, state with all your heart, that these "Toronto 18" were, on their own, going to execute the Prime Minister and bomb Parliament WITHOUT the presence of you and the other "mole?" And that all you did was gather information and pass it along?

The little bit of info that we have does NOT point to this being the case, with the other mole buying the bomb materials and evidence of both of you actively and enthusiastically recruiting and encouraging these people to actively plan murder.

-Enjneer

PS: I want to reiterate that this debate is a political one. I do not know you and, from the interactions we've had so far, you seem like a great guy. I assume that you have done what you have done because you wanted to help and you believed you were. I wish you the best of luck.

Anonymous said...

How ya doin' sir? Yeah I hear what you're saying so let me try to respond as much as I am allowed to at this time:

Firstly, when it comes to the reasons why they plead guilty there could be a number of reasons: admittance of guilt + the fact that pre-trial custody will get you twice the time granted credit for. SO, if you commit an offence for which the sentence is 5 years, just do half of that in pre-trial and voila! your 5 years is now served. While you might think this has nothing to do with your article I disagree: everybody assumed this to be a false flag operation - assumed it to be a setup and that no, it just can't be a bunch of crazy Muslim kids are out there wanting havoc to come to your city. Don't fool yourself man - it's going on all over the world.

As for the entrapment and conflict of interest - you are right in that my being cleared of entrapment was regarding only ONE (youth who went on to trial). The remaining one's are yet to see their day in court so can't say anything on this. I believe the same verdict will come out if I am questioned again.

As for who pleads guilty - I reject your assertion that it is equally likely the not guilty would plead - because two of the 18 (whom I have said should not have been charged) are still maintaining their innocence and comprise 2 out of the 4 waiting for trial.

As for your numbered points:

Re. 1: I agree - the entrapment ruling applied only to the youth found guilty (1 of the 4 youth originally charged, the remaining 3 having had their charges stayed).

Re. 2: The 7 (3 youth and 4 adults) having their charges stayed does not prove "sloppy police work". It simply means that no reasonable prospect of conviction exists, whereby it is simply not worth it for the state from an economic point of view. It does NOT mean they are "not guilty" or "innocent" or "acquitted" nor that this is somehow convenient. Just the way the state does business. I don't like it one bit.

Re. 3: Whether you think they are going to be found guilty no matter what (because too much is at stake) is irrelevant: the fair thing for us to do is to say, "let the courts decide". We go down a slippery slope when WE start thinking ourselves judge & jury. Trust me: if they put it up to me - there would not have been 18 people charged.

Re. 4: I was not involved in any sting operation (you might be referring to the bomb plot component) and I certainly do not believe there was any "illegal wiretapping" going on (I'm in Canada not the U.S. hehe) because the rules are very strict. IF there was any illegalities, the courts would have spoken to it JUST like they told CSIS off when they withheld information about an informant. The courts (in Canada anyway) do not take kindly to being deceived by the security agencies - and rightfully so.

As to the question you have left me with, my answer is simple and strong: The plan was ALREADY drawn up BEFORE the moles were inserted. It is therefore, IMPOSSIBLE, that either of the agents could have goaded the accused into forming a plan - which they had not already made. THAT would be the very definition of entrapment and that is why I feel no such thing took place.

Here is what I am counting on: a trial to take place, as much of the truth to come out as possible - and (hopefully) the acquittal of a good man, who I trust will comment publicly when the time is right.

Thanks for the opportunity - I hope you understand that there is little I can say at this time but when I can - you can bet I will have quite a bit to say. :)

Take care and btw: I'm still waiting for that bbq invite!

Mubin Shaikh

Enjneer said...

I hear ya too. This is a mess, really. And I'm just so sad that it's going down in Canada.

I don't see much point in us going back and forth about what might happen in court. I'm perhaps guilty of leaning on that too much when I really have little faith in the modern, corrupt Bar court system.

Look, I'll get back to the heart(s) of the matter:

As you assure me, there are young Muslims out there right now plotting violent death and destruction against us.

But, I'm sorry, I just don't believe this. I believe you - that you've seen and heard some nasty stuff from some nasty people -
I'm totally willing to accept that there are probably many young Muslims, enraged over the treatment that their relgion gets in the media (I'm still trying to think of one Arab "good guy" in any Hollywood movie ever made!) and the plight of their brethren that talk a lot of sh*t.
But, as for an organised, imminent threat to Canada's security... I see none.
I mean, you wanna talk threats to Canada? I see an organised, imminent threat from those that are gutting the personal freedoms of Canadians to make a buck! Our 'leaders' are our biggest threat.

And, anticipating possible retorts, you can't tell me that the good ole RCMP is out there stopping every single plot before it comes to fruition. If they were, each successful operation would be trumpeted across the headlines just like the Toronto 18/Khadr/Momin Khawaja, et. al., were.

If there are indeed individuals/organisations out there plotting horrific terror against Canada, they must be the most inept, lazy, slowest and useless terrorists in the world (after Al Qaeda). Because nothing continues to happen! There's more of a threat of dying from, well... anything in Canada - seeing how there hasn't been even one single injury due to 'terrorism' in this country!

So what it boils down to to me is:
We are chasing ghosts. There is no threat to Canada - unless we continue this insane, imperial march of endless war against imagined enemies.
This march is costing us our civil liberties. No one minds yet, while they are rounding up brown-skinned, scary-looking Muslims. But these changes to the law to 'protect us' can, and will, be used against the rest of us very soon unless completely revoked.

As for the invite, tell you what: you let me know when you are 100% free to talk about the entire ordeal, and you and yours can hit my backyard with beers and steers on the BBQ for an afternoon of (completely off-the-record, natch) enlightenment for both of us, I'm sure.

-Enjneer

Anonymous said...

lol...natch!

Briefly: I am trying to understand what would make someone think it is just not real, this threat we call Islamist terrorism in Canada (or any other "Western" country). I just hope nothing truly bad happens. No, the RCMP can't watch everything (that would a bona fide police state) and no, they can't just come out and tell everyone who they stopped. There are reasons behind this far too subtle to dismiss away as ghosts. CSIS is engaged in prevention - in this society we live in, certain "information" does not meet the threshold of "evidence" - which is the only thing we accept in court.

So, I DO have quite a bit of faith in the system - yes, it screws up (more so than I would like) but it FAR better than anything else I have seen in the world.

Can I request the halal steer? the beer we'll talk about in person. :)

MS

Enjneer said...

@Mubin:

We have one issue hanging over our debate. Like a hangover.

But I am confident that, as two rational adults, we can work through this confusion to a logical, and thus, obvious understanding.

Lord knows, I can get (and have gotten) lost in the sheer scope and the sheer frustration of it all and can, at times, degenerate into an emotional, defensive stance. I beg your patience: the issues are complicated and peoples' lives are at stake.

Such degeneration never solves anything, though. And we need to stick to the unimpeachable facts if we are to ever come to an understanding. I will re-focus now on such unimpeachable facts.

The remaining issue, as I see it, is this:

Are there, or are there not, organised, persistent threats to Canadians' safety from Islamic (or any other kind of) 'terrorists?'

It is fair to say that all arguments that we could possibly have flow from this simple fact. If there is no such threat, there is no need for counter-terrorism measures and there is really nothing for us to discuss further.

So, that being the case:

For there to be an organised, persistent threat to Canadians of attack by Islamic "terrorists," there need to be organised, persistent attacks against Canadians by Islamic "terrorists!"

By any definition - conservative, Christian, Muslim, liberal... There have been NO 'terrorist' attacks of any kind on Canadian soil. Not one. So I have an equal chance, statistically, of dying from... anything else, right?

No amount of 'passion' or 'belief' is going to change this simple fact. Since no Canadians die every year from 'terrorist' attacks, any cause of death is more imminent to a Canadian annually. Thus, there is no terrorist threat to Canadians. (And 'potential attacks' don't count. We can make up any 'potential' that we want. We need events to prove an actual phenomenon).

Therefore, it is the obligation of anyone (you, apparently) that is trying to convince me otherwise to provide proof of their assertion. I have provided proof of my assertion (that there is no "terrorist" threat to Canada) by providing the statistic that there hasn't been one single, unprovoked 'terrorist' attack on a Canadian in Canada (arguably, anywhere).

In other words, it's your turn. It is on you to prove your clear allegation that Canada is under imminent threat from Islamic 'terror.'
(Which actually saddens me. As you might have noticed, I love a debate and the chance to prove my statements).

Beliefs, guesses, assumptions, dismissions, and personal insults won't, and don't, count (as in a properly-functioning court-of-law). ;)

And I am not copping out here. Provide your proof and I will then take my turn at it!
I look forward to settling this once and for all, so we can move on to the more complicated issues that stem from it.

-Enjneer

BBQ PS: For BBQs, I buy only Halal or Kosher beef. Too much sh*t in the corporate stuff to even try grilling it ... and Beer depends upon literal translation! ;)

Anonymous said...

Well, whether its proverbial crackers & honey or plain fruit juice, I have something for our shared hangover :)

I do not accept your test that to prove there is a persistent, organized threat it follows there must be persistent, organized attacks.

All its takes is ONE attack - even shoddily arranged - and all hell breaks loose. It would be disastrous for any modern state to calibrate their intelligence and police services based on an attack first and THEN the response.

Prevention should be the #1 goal because in cases of terrorist attacks, the cost of managing an attack (economically, socially, legally etc.) is FAR greater.

Therefore, when secret intelligence organizations disrupt and dismantle plots, the public seldom know because usually it is only made public when formal, criminal charges are laid (back to the "evidence" vs "intelligence" dilemma of court standards).

The reason why these things have to be done covertly is because court proceedings force things out into the open - things like identities of agents, techniques of information gathering and intelligence production etc. which (in my opinion) give bad people, ideas on how to counter those techniques. This in turn, restricts agencies from prevention - and then BOOM! Some home-made IED has just blown my kids' legs off because some people think we should give jihadi-wannabe's the benefit of the doubt? Not me. No way.

I leave you with this: IF there was no organized and persistent threat by Islamist terrorism - you tell me who all them wacko's were that I was dealing with all this time as a CSIS operator? I may have been a little "politically aggressive" in my day but some of those guys make me look like an altar boy.

From my own personal experience, I came too damn close to going over the edge and trust me - I had the contacts with organized, persistent types when I was only 18 years old.

Pray you never meet 'em - because they will not be so benevolent to you as you are with them.

In the end, let me admit this to you: I too, was very skeptical of govt. - until I saw with my own eyes what some people were up to.

Now then: halal/kosher is fine me - you're right about the corporate stuff: let's hope some genius nutbar doesn't figure out how to make a processed meat IED outta the mysterious ingredients! hehe

Cheers man - thanks for the laid back, chilled out discussion. :)

MS

Anonymous said...

FINALLY - the comprehensive coverage of the Toronto 18 case - complete with court exhibits and videos - which were covered by a publication ban for FOUR YEARS:

http://www3.thestar.com/static/toronto18/index.6.html