Canada Under Terrorist Attack- Breaking

Recommended Posts

Many interesting points. From my point of view I don't believe Americans hate Muslims, but probably fair to say they hate radicalized Muslims. I'd have to say for good reason as they have directly targeted US citizens often. Same works for who is killing innocent civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and so on... Do you think in the news in Iraq they praise the "allies". No. They call the americans terrorists, they call Nato terrorists.

As far as Iran being denied airplane parts, I'm not familiar with those details but would have to say their government is not friendly with the U.S., and quite a threat to U.S.interests in the region, so no airplane parts for you! And that is exactly the attitude that doesn't help anything. Put the shoes on your foot. If you couldn't get oil from the arabs, and you couldn't fly a plane to go somewhere or drive your car to a hospital for treatment, would you cop it on the chin and say how nice it is of the arabs to hold back oil form you? Yet you are perfectly happy to let them fly around in potentially unsafe planes.

Comparing terrorist attacks to those of mentally sick people isn't a fair comparison in my opinion. The fact is that ISIS, Al Qaida, and plenty others are carrying out their attacks and recruiting others in the name of Islam. They are sick, twisted perverts, but "Islam" is the commonality between them. I understand people are becoming radicalized at their local mosques in the states, Europe, and elsewhere. Can't the real Muslims, for lack of a better term, speak out louder and maybe turn some of these bad guys in? That was not my point. I was saying how can two people with mental problems be reported differently? You could report "Mentally disturbed man shoots soldier at war memorial" and then once oyu have gathered legitimate evidence show that he was influenced by fundamentalists. But no, the sensationalist media jumps to conclusions, then doesn't bother to go back and correct facts. How's the WMD search in Iraq going by the way?

I don't judge books by their cover and don't think all Muslims are threats, but I sure wish there was more involvement from the Muslim community in outing the radical elements that are hijacking their religion. It's hard to get involvement when the only thing the news is willing to show is the radical side, and the side that best suits you. Don't see any news reports in western media about civilian deaths in Iraq, or destruction of homes there or robbery of their national treasures. There is no objective reporting by the news. I'vehad it myself. Spoke to a newspaper about a fundamentalism for 10 minutes, and then the only thing the news paper reported was 10 words out of sequence in which I said it that potrayed something totally different to what was said. It's like the age old "why doesn't that homeless man just get a job" because it's so easy, because everyone is just willing to hire a homeless man.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 88
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Moving cartoon by Bruce MacKinnon. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This brings up the importance of having a plan & supplies at work that cover you in case... You are locked down at work.. Some snacks, your own secure water bottles, maybe a travel pillow and th

with respect, that is the stupidest thing i have heard for a very long time.

Reading some of the comments on this subject surprises me how much the fear of Islam runs deep in western societies.The issue as i see has nothing to do with religion or Islam wanting to destroy western civilization, a civilization Islam contributed a lot to.

The issue here is political , at the bottom of it is a struggle for power between two regional states, namely Iran, the Shi'ite power and Saudia Arabia which represent a form of exclusive islam (Wahabism) that does not accept variety and is not representative of the Sunni community.

The beliefs of the extremist factions such as IS is derived from that form of islam.IS and other groups were encouraged and aided by Saudia Arabia and Western governments to fight the rising influence of Iran after the invasion of Iraq as i mentioned in a previous post,a war that was based on a big lie as is well documented now.The majority of Muslim societies are bewildered at the policies of western governments,calling for democracy on one hand , and supporting repressive and corrupt regimes on the other.Many Muslims speak out against extremism and they are met with imprisonment and torture in their own countries, such news does not reach western audience , because governments in the west do not want to adversely affect their relations with local governments, we all remember the thirst for Oil. Anyway this is not the place to debate the politics of the Middle East, i hope this contributions clarifies little of the background to the dangerous events we are witnessing. Just one last point, for those who blame Islam for every thing bad that happens , please stop and count to ten,things are much more complicated than they seem to be.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill Mauer is also a liberal left political commentator who has normally defended Islam and mocked conservatives views and concerns. You can see if he is concerned. Even if it is 1% of a billion that's 10,000,000 radicals that support the collapse of western civilization and the destruction of it's people.

As a muslim, do I support terrorists? No. Do I support the allies presence in Iraq? No. Do I support the treatment of Russia at the moment? No. I have made these decisions based on information from a wide range of sources. And that is the problem. People making decisions from one source of information. Look at the whole picture, the extreme western view, the extreme eastern view, and everything in between. Everyone who has met me knows I am happy to talk about my religion to anyone. And everyone I consider a mate is happy to listen and understand.

Link to post
Share on other sites

JULY 15, 2014

The Blunders of Prince Bandar
Saudi Complicity in the Rise of ISIS

How far is Saudi Arabia complicit in the Isis takeover of much of northern Iraq, and is it stoking an escalating Sunni-Shia conflict across the Islamic world?

Some time before 9/11, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, once the powerful Saudi ambassador in Washington and head of Saudi intelligence until a few months ago, had a revealing and ominous conversation with the head of the British Secret Intelligence Service, MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove. Prince Bandar told him: “The time is not far off in the Middle East, Richard, when it will be literally ‘God help the Shia’. More than a billion Sunnis have simply had enough of them.”

The fatal moment predicted by Prince Bandar may now have come for many Shia, with Saudi Arabia playing an important role in bringing it about by supporting the anti-Shia jihad in Iraq and Syria. Since the capture of Mosul by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isis) on 10 June, Shia women and children have been killed in villages south of Kirkuk, and Shia air force cadets machine-gunned and buried in mass graves near Tikrit.

In Mosul, Shia shrines and mosques have been blown up, and in the nearby Shia Turkoman city of Tal Afar 4,000 houses have been taken over by Isis fighters as “spoils of war”. Simply to be identified as Shia or a related sect, such as the Alawites, in Sunni rebel-held parts of Iraq and Syria today, has become as dangerous as being a Jew was in Nazi-controlled parts of Europe in 1940.

There is no doubt about the accuracy of the quote by Prince Bandar, secretary-general of the Saudi National Security Council from 2005 and head of General Intelligence between 2012 and 2014, the crucial two years when al-Qa’ida-type jihadis took over the Sunni-armed opposition in Iraq and Syria. Speaking at the Royal United Services Institute last week, Dearlove, who headed MI6 from 1999 to 2004, emphasised the significance of Prince Bandar’s words, saying that they constituted “a chilling comment that I remember very well indeed”.

He does not doubt that substantial and sustained funding from private donors in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, to which the authorities may have turned a blind eye, has played a central role in the Isis surge into Sunni areas of Iraq. He said: “Such things simply do not happen spontaneously.” This sounds realistic since the tribal and communal leadership in Sunni majority provinces is much beholden to Saudi and Gulf paymasters, and would be unlikely to cooperate with Isis without their consent.

Dearlove’s explosive revelation about the prediction of a day of reckoning for the Shia by Prince Bandar, and the former head of MI6′s view that Saudi Arabia is involved in the Isis-led Sunni rebellion, has attracted surprisingly little attention. Coverage of Dearlove’s speech focused instead on his main theme that the threat from Isis to the West is being exaggerated because, unlike Bin Laden’s al-Qa’ida, it is absorbed in a new conflict that “is essentially Muslim on Muslim”. Unfortunately, Christians in areas captured by Isis are finding this is not true, as their churches are desecrated and they are forced to flee. A difference between al-Qa’ida and Isis is that the latter is much better organised; if it does attack Western targets the results are likely to be devastating.

The forecast by Prince Bandar, who was at the heart of Saudi security policy for more than three decades, that the 100 million Shia in the Middle East face disaster at the hands of the Sunni majority, will convince many Shia that they are the victims of a Saudi-led campaign to crush them. “The Shia in general are getting very frightened after what happened in northern Iraq,” said an Iraqi commentator, who did not want his name published. Shia see the threat as not only military but stemming from the expanded influence over mainstream Sunni Islam of Wahhabism, the puritanical and intolerant version of Islam espoused by Saudi Arabia that condemns Shia and other Islamic sects as non-Muslim apostates and polytheists.

Dearlove says that he has no inside knowledge obtained since he retired as head of MI6 10 years ago to become Master of Pembroke College in Cambridge. But, drawing on past experience, he sees Saudi strategic thinking as being shaped by two deep-seated beliefs or attitudes.

• First, they are convinced that there “can be no legitimate or admissible challenge to the Islamic purity of their Wahhabi credentials as guardians of Islam’s holiest shrines”.
• But, perhaps more significantly given the deepening Sunni-Shia confrontation, the Saudi belief that they possess a monopoly of Islamic truth leads them to be “deeply attracted towards any militancy which can effectively challenge Shia-dom”.

Western governments traditionally play down the connection between Saudi Arabia and its Wahhabist faith, on the one hand, and jihadism, whether of the variety espoused by Osama bin Laden and al-Qa’ida or by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s Isis. There is nothing conspiratorial or secret about these links: 15 out of 19 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, as was Bin Laden and most of the private donors who funded the operation.

The difference between al-Qa’ida and Isis can be overstated: when Bin Laden was killed by United States forces in 2011, al-Baghdadi released a statement eulogising him, and Isis pledged to launch 100 attacks in revenge for his death.

But there has always been a second theme to Saudi policy towards al-Qa’ida type jihadis, contradicting Prince Bandar’s approach and seeing jihadis as a mortal threat to the Kingdom. Dearlove illustrates this attitude by relating how, soon after 9/11, he visited the Saudi capital Riyadh with Tony Blair.

He remembers the then head of Saudi General Intelligence “literally shouting at me across his office: ’9/11 is a mere pinprick on the West. In the medium term, it is nothing more than a series of personal tragedies. What these terrorists want is to destroy the House of Saud and remake the Middle East.’” In the event, Saudi Arabia adopted both policies, encouraging the jihadis as a useful tool of Saudi anti-Shia influence abroad but suppressing them at home as a threat to the status quo. It is this dual policy that has fallen apart over the last year.

Saudi sympathy for anti-Shia “militancy” is identified in leaked US official documents. The then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wrote in December 2009 in a cable released by Wikileaks that “Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qa’ida, the Taliban, LeT [Lashkar-e-Taiba in Pakistan] and other terrorist groups.” She said that, in so far as Saudi Arabia did act against al-Qa’ida, it was as a domestic threat and not because of its activities abroad. This policy may now be changing with the dismissal of Prince Bandar as head of intelligence this year. But the change is very recent, still ambivalent and may be too late: it was only last week that a Saudi prince said he would no longer fund a satellite television station notorious for its anti-Shia bias based in Egypt.

The problem for the Saudis is that their attempts since Bandar lost his job to create an anti-Maliki and anti-Assad Sunni constituency which is simultaneously against al-Qa’ida and its clones have failed.

By seeking to weaken Maliki and Assad in the interest of a more moderate Sunni faction, Saudi Arabia and its allies are in practice playing into the hands of Isis which is swiftly gaining full control of the Sunni opposition in Syria and Iraq. In Mosul, as happened previously in its Syrian capital Raqqa, potential critics and opponents are disarmed, forced to swear allegiance to the new caliphate and killed if they resist.

The West may have to pay a price for its alliance with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies, which have always found Sunni jihadism more attractive than democracy. A striking example of double standards by the western powers was the Saudi-backed suppression of peaceful democratic protests by the Shia majority in Bahrain in March 2011. Some 1,500 Saudi troops were sent across the causeway to the island kingdom as the demonstrations were ended with great brutality and Shia mosques and shrines were destroyed.

An alibi used by the US and Britain is that the Sunni al-Khalifa royal family in Bahrain is pursuing dialogue and reform. But this excuse looked thin last week as Bahrain expelled a top US diplomat, the assistant secretary of state for human rights Tom Malinowksi, for meeting leaders of the main Shia opposition party al-Wifaq. Mr Malinowski tweeted that the Bahrain government’s action was “not about me but about undermining dialogue”.

Western powers and their regional allies have largely escaped criticism for their role in reigniting the war in Iraq.

Publicly and privately, they have blamed the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki for persecuting and marginalising the Sunni minority, so provoking them into supporting the Isis-led revolt. There is much truth in this, but it is by no means the whole story. Maliki did enough to enrage the Sunni, partly because he wanted to frighten Shia voters into supporting him in the 30 April election by claiming to be the Shia community’s protector against Sunni counter-revolution.

But for all his gargantuan mistakes, Maliki’s failings are not the reason why the Iraqi state is disintegrating. What destabilised Iraq from 2011 on was the revolt of the Sunni in Syria and the takeover of that revolt by jihadis, who were often sponsored by donors in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and United Arab Emirates. Again and again Iraqi politicians warned that by not seeking to close down the civil war in Syria, Western leaders were making it inevitable that the conflict in Iraq would restart. “I guess they just didn’t believe us and were fixated on getting rid of [President Bashar al-] Assad,” said an Iraqi leader in Baghdad last week.

Of course, US and British politicians and diplomats would argue that they were in no position to bring an end to the Syrian conflict. But this is misleading. By insisting that peace negotiations must be about the departure of Assad from power, something that was never going to happen since Assad held most of the cities in the country and his troops were advancing, the US and Britain made sure the war would continue.

The chief beneficiary is Isis which over the last two weeks has been mopping up the last opposition to its rule in eastern Syria. The Kurds in the north and the official al-Qa’ida representative, Jabhat al-Nusra, are faltering under the impact of Isis forces high in morale and using tanks and artillery captured from the Iraqi army. It is also, without the rest of the world taking notice, taking over many of the Syrian oil wells that it did not already control.

Saudi Arabia has created a Frankenstein’s monster over which it is rapidly losing control.

The same is true of its allies such as Turkey which has been a vital back-base for Isis and Jabhat al-Nusra by keeping the 510-mile-long Turkish-Syrian border open. As Kurdish-held border crossings fall to Isis, Turkey will find it has a new neighbour of extraordinary violence, and one deeply ungrateful for past favours from the Turkish intelligence service.

As for Saudi Arabia, it may come to regret its support for the Sunni revolts in Syria and Iraq as jihadi social media begins to speak of the House of Saud as its next target. It is the unnamed head of Saudi General Intelligence quoted by Dearlove after 9/11 who is turning out to have analysed the potential threat to Saudi Arabia correctly and not Prince Bandar, which may explain why the latter was sacked earlier this year.

Nor is this the only point on which Prince Bandar was dangerously mistaken. The rise of Isis is bad news for the Shia of Iraq but it is worse news for the Sunni whose leadership has been ceded to a pathologically bloodthirsty and intolerant movement, a sort of Islamic Khmer Rouge, which has no aim but war without end.

The Sunni caliphate rules a large, impoverished and isolated area from which people are fleeing. Several million Sunni in and around Baghdad are vulnerable to attack and 255 Sunni prisoners have already been massacred. In the long term, Isis cannot win, but its mix of fanaticism and good organisation makes it difficult to dislodge.

“God help the Shia,” said Prince Bandar, but, partly thanks to him, the shattered Sunni communities of Iraq and Syria may need divine help even more than the Shia.

PATRICK COCKBURN is the author of Muqtada: Muqtada Al-Sadr, the Shia Revival, and the Struggle for Iraq.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately the masses aren't being educated about "good" Muslims and radical Muslims, so the silence from the good is at their own peril I'm afraid.

"Muslims are not their brothers keepers..." well that is unfortunate and disappointing to hear. If I knew the truth about my "brothers" who were being miscast in the media and by society in general, I would like to think that I wouldn't remain tight lipped about it.

And if there was an undesireable element masquerading and hijacking my religion I would speak out against them as well

Things are going to get a hell of alot worse and ignorance is only going to stoke the flames, so my advice would be to speak up while you still can.

The concept of collective guilt for the actions of a few is not acceptable to me, that`s what I referring to. All I see is endless questions on why Muslims don't speak up. And if they do, it still appears it's not enough... on to more angering news for me....Canadian military must not wear uniforms except while going to work (on duty i presume)...this just tells me the Canada has completely lost....


Link to post
Share on other sites

To Ken,

I think you and I are on the same page for the most part.

I should exit this thread before it or I get out of hand:)

I'm going to machine some hastelloy x then go smoke a cigar with some yellow dope this afternoon. I hope everybody has a good Friday.


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a Muslim and distraught by these extreme radical converts with criminal backgrounds who commit heinous crimes!!

I am sickened by anyone killing an innocent person in the name of Islam or using any excuse actually.

It is terrorism.

Also more Muslims are killed by these self proclaimed Muslims worldwide than anyone else actually.

I and every single Muslim I know despises them. Every Muslim organization I know speaks out against it.


Not one news media publishes the condemnation by Muslims of these crimes commited by self proclaimed Muslims against innocent people!!!

It's frustrating when every single Muslim you know screams out against this but there is no one listening.

Thanks for listening.


  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The concept of collective guilt for the actions of a few is not acceptable to me, that`s what I referring to. All I see is endless questions on why Muslims don't speak up. And if they do, it still appears it's not enough... on to more angering news for me....Canadian military must not wear uniforms except while going to work (on duty i presume)...this just tells me the Canada has completely lost....

Who's talking about collective guilt?

I'm talking about taking a stand against the monsters that are hijacking your religion, as well as trying to educate the populations of the "democratic" nations in which Muslims are becoming an ever increasing part of.

I'm no apologist for the west and am against most of what we've done in the middle east, and I'm not afraid to say it. I understand why people turn to so called terrorist tactics, because they feel that it is the only means they have to fight back. The problem is that these terrorist attacks are having the exact opposite effect of what they are intended to achieve.

The more terrorist events we witness the more people stop giving a **** about "good/bad" Muslims, and buy more easily into the "evil Muslim" propaganda.

If you don't care about the battle for public opinion, based on some stubborn moral stance then I feel really afraid for Muslims everywhere, and for humanity in general.

This struggle (and potential global catastrophe) depends solely on winning the hearts and minds of non Muslims everywhere (rightly or wrongly). Every beheading or shooting of an innocent civilian that goes un-condemned only rallies more support for military action in the east.

I know this is a simplistic view of a very complicated issue but this is how I see things playing out from the perspective of the mostly semi ignorant, non Muslim masses (myself included). Once we've been convinced that Muslims on the whole are the enemy (which many have been)...then it's carte blanche for "western" military interests in the middle east, and I'm afraid condemnation for Muslims in "democratic" countries around the world.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"How's the WMD search in Iraq going by the way? "

Very good actually. Do a little research before you blindly believe what the liberal media feeds you.

I probably shouldn't have used that as an example. As far I know thousands of old chemical weapons were found with one or two crude nuclear devices... near Iran or something from memory. But if you have any information about their WMD programs, please share.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I fear is two things from these attacks that we see. From the World Trade center in the 90's, 911, the Boston Marathon and many other acts globally I wonder how long it will take for one of several negative things to happen. Moving muslims to interment camps and screening out potential threats for deportation/confinement, or strikes continue until citizens get fed up and start targeting all muslims and retaliate in the form of murder with extreme prejudice. De escalation from both sides would be ideal but I think we are beyond that now. Mistakes were made when imperialism carved up the middle east and further tensions were made with the establishment of the Jewish state of Israel. Controversy exists to this day about the conduct of Israel in it's actions and it's involvement with American politics. The US has also made poor choices in backing certain regimes from the Shaw of Iran to Saddam at one time to cause populations to hate us and cause them to curse the United States and wish death upon us for 30+ years. That mindset will not change overnight and the U.S. and it's allies have had over 10yrs of war in to really put a sour taste in our mouths. As Americans we always have hope for change and to see the better side of people and prefer not to achieve prosperity through conquest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The US has also made poor choices in backing certain regimes from the Shaw of Iran to Saddam

You raise an important question. Forgiveness is going to be a hard thing coming. Just with one single incident, above shows what a job there is. The British and US governments overthrew a democratically elected leader of Iran and put in place a dictator-The Shah of Iran all because the elected leader wouldn't essentially give away oil rights to western companies. Then our nations are surprised when the Iranian people rose up in revolution to overthrow the dictator.

But instead of trying to build bridges, our governments give chemical weapons to Saddam to use on the Iranians. A little left over he uses on the Kurds. A few years later Saddam is the enemy instead of the darling of the west, and we used chemical weapons against him (Depleted Uranium) which is to this day causing tens of thousands of horrendous birth defects in Iraqi newborns. Now potential chemical weapon stores is an excuse for military action by the West, where are the UN sanctions and ICC arrest warrants for our governments criminals? We've created a recruitment system for extremists by not holding ourselves to the standards we hold other nations to at gunpoint.

That one action is just one example on how the West has managed to again and again make endless enemies.

What gets me is its not even a few years of terrible misguided foreign policies, its decades upon decades of shocking decisions that hammer home to the average person in the middle east that West is nothing but a sociopathic, hypocritical tyrant that will pay you billions in military aid one year then arrange a military coup on you the next, then airstrike you the one after that. The year after they may stop if you host a military base for them.

I dont see how this perception of the west is ever going to change when its being engrained generation after generation

A culture has been created by our governments actions where a lot of people really hate the West, almost as much as their own leaders for co-operating with them. Even if the majority dont resort to violence, there is a huge amount of spite and resentfulness. Long term I don't see how that is going to change unless the people are given a real reason to not hate and begin to trust the West. What we're seeing now with modern extremism, actions and belief systems, is essentially a reaction to foreign policy. A reaction is only present to a problem, we need to stop causing problems in the middle east just to stop th reactions, before we even start to think about building bridges.

I'm a firm believer in the good of the average person, we need a way to get all the average people in the world to connect and stop the people who do not represent the average person from running our nations and making these extreme decisions (on both sides). Our leaders in all sections of life should be the best of of, how we've got to the point where were led by the worst of us, consistently is mind boggling.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Community Software by Invision Power Services, Inc.