Keeping Canadian Terror In Perspective

I cannot believe the crap that is coming out of the media right now, "behead the PM?" "military assault on parliment." HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!! You know what this sounds like, don't you? Mr pig fucking RCMP officer decides to go into a chat room and goad kids, way to go RCMP, are you ever smart. YOU MORONS!!!!! I cannot believe I pay your salaries with my tax dollars. Every single pig and CSIS moron involved in this case needs to be fired, now! What a waste of time and money. You wankers went into a chat room, set some kids up, for what? For an increase in your budget, how fucking pathetic, you Goddamn losers!

---
My freedom is more important than your great idea.
– Anonymous

I thought it was a brilliant article.

"The two subsequent attacks that did occur in the West, in Madrid in 2004 and in London last year, cost the lives of 245 people. And those attacks were both carried out by local people with no links to any “international terrorist network."

Yet another underreported fact. The British Judicial system found no conclusive proof the London Train bombings had any link to the mythical 'Al Queda'.

---
"I think it's important to always carry enough technology to restart civilization, should it be necessary." Mark Tilden

I think you're right about the kids being led into it. I mean most of them are still under 18 and they've been "monitered" for 2 years already. It seems to me the CSIS/RCMP used the same tactics on impressionable kids that pedophiles use. We all know how gullible and impressionable teenagers can be. I would not be in the least surprised to find it was the investigators who led the kids into this ("Hey, you know what we should really do? Blow up the whole fucking place! That would show them...blah blah blah"). What really surprises me is that it took these clowns two years to talk the kids into it. They probably had them "primed" for action and were only waiting for the right moment (we need more funding for anti-terrorism) to "set them off".

I hear one of those arrested wanted to behead Harper (Geeze; welcome to the club kid.) An entertaining thought occurs to me. If he had done it, I wonder how long Harper would have governed before anyone noticed?

Old Poop,
"I hear one of those arrested wanted to behead Harper (Geeze; welcome to the club kid.) An entertaining thought occurs to me. If he had done it, I wonder how long Harper would have governed before anyone noticed?"

Okay somebody HAD to say it, I wouldn't have said it quite so comically. I would have said that CSIS and the RCMP are once again proving that they are not working for the Canadian citizens.

Mr. 4Canada stated that with the allegations of storming parliament, taking over the CBC, and beheading Harper it was starting to sound more and more like a bunch of teenagers spouting off. I think he's right. If the RCMP and CSIS had been monitoring any number of everyday conversations that people have with regards to the incompetance and anger-provoking policies that Harper is following (and Bush), any one of us could have been taken into custody for similar remarks.





---
"And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music." Friedrich Nietzsche

He’s a syndicated columnist who regularly appears in the MSM! It’s true! I read his writings in the neo-con puppet publications like the Toronto Star and The Embassy! I see him sometimes on the CBC! How credible can he be? I can’t trust him! He’s part of the problem! <br />
<br />
[eyes darting, hushed whisper] He’s part of the mainstream media. <br />
<br />
Foreign Affairs Canada even has his bio on their website! <a href="http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/skelton/dyer_bio-en.asp">http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/skelton/dyer_bio-en.asp</a> <br />
<br />
How can we trust him? He is obviously in cahoots with BusHarper and his fascist cabal!<br />
<br />
Your ability to both cite and dismiss the MSM is breathtaking. Are your balaclavas on so tight you can’t see your own hypocrisy here? <br />
<br />
Awesome.

Let’s pretend that the “pigs” were right for a change. Let’s pretend that everything they are saying right now is pretty much accurate, and that these 17 did indeed have grand plans of terror. I know, I know, that’s not the truth, which is only known at this website,, but let’s just pretend for one second, OK? Humour me here.

Now, how would your post differ if indeed the “pigs” in this case got it right and thwarted an attack?

A second, pretend, question: Let’s pretend none of this happened. It’s June 7, and I’m in traffic outside the CSIS building. Then, KABOOM. I have died. The passenger in my car has also perished, as have roughly 75 innocent bystanders, and about 375 people in the building.

Finally tally is about, oh, I dunno, call it 450 of your countrymen dead.

Now, how would your post differ if this were the case?

“I mean most of them are still under 18”

Most? That would be wrong. Very wrong, actually. Have you read about the case at all? If so, the “facts” clearly didn’t stick. There are 17 people in custody. Five YO’s, and 12 adults, who are 19, 19, 20, 21, 21, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 30 and 43. Except for being totally wrong you were close though.

“I would not be in the least surprised to find it was the investigators who led the kids into this ("Hey, you know what we should really do? Blow up the whole fucking place! That would show them...blah blah blah"). What really surprises me is that it took these clowns two years to talk the kids into it.”

Quite the assumption, or string of assumptions! Tell me, do you have anything even remotely resembling a “fact” to substantiate these bold claims?

"Quite the assumption, or string of assumptions! Tell me, do you have anything even remotely resembling a “fact” to substantiate these bold claims?"

Of course not. As anyone can plainly see, they are not claims. I was merely trying to paint a plausible scenario at odds with the assumptions being made in the MSM.

I should not have said most of the suspects were under 18, however. I SHOULD have checked my facts before asserting that. Thanks for the correction. My point was that the suspects are obviously young and impressionable, which they are for the most part.

In an age of bought & paid for propaganda psyop hacks, Gwynne Dyer is like a breath of fresh air. He's one of the few great journalists left.

I don't know why the MSM still uses his stuff, unless he is their "token journalist" that probably allows them to argue that they still have a shred of credibility. Reading the papers, you notice that his columns stand out like diamonds in the rough; an intelligent opinion in a sea of propaganda and misinformation. Viewed from that standpoint, the MSM's use of his pieces is probably backfiring on them. Far from giving them a mask of impartiality and credibility, his columns show how bad and biased the rest of the crap is.

He IS one of the few great journalists left. Some will never comprehend the gulf between individual thinkers and paid mouthpieces. I've always had the utmost respect for his analysis.

"one of the few great journalists left" = agrees with my position.

The RCMP could be right Bino, it is certainly possible. And probability is what is under discussion. How likely is the story as it stands right now given the players, their reputations, the current political context etc. What are the odds? What's way more interesting than folks who will at least entertain alternate possibilities until the verdict is rendered, is the folks who unquestioning accept and defend the story in it's infancy from nothing more than banner headlines. Still hunting for WMD and hot on the trail of Osama are we? I,m wondering how so much media "FACT" has already aired about their intentions when the lawyers defending can't get any information from officials to run with. How does that happen? Are you naive enough to believe the RCMP are above reproach? Dirty tricks campaign ring a bell?

Well now let's look at an example Bino. Recently Gynne Dyer wrote an article denouncing the supposed nuclear threat posed by Iran and careful explained how proctecting the supremacy of the petro dollar was the true reason behind the proposed invasion of Iran. This is a position I agree with and respect with regards to having a high probability of being true. It differs with so many other voices in the MSM today about the proposed Attack on Iran. HMMMM what gives? Gwynne brings a long history in military analysis and experience to the table when he puts forward his analysis. Let's contrast his record with say a talking head on the evening news who reads off the teleprompter whatever RCMP, government official, police spokesperson quote that is feed to them.

“How likely is the story as it stands right now given the players, their reputations, the current political context etc. What are the odds?”

Can’t say, since neither of us know the story, do we?

What's way more interesting than folks who will at least entertain alternate possibilities until the verdict is rendered, is the folks who unquestioning accept and defend the story in it's infancy from nothing more than banner headlines.

Entertain alternate possibilities? Bwahahahaha! “Entertain”? BWAHAHAHAHA! This entire forum, with exception of Michael Scott and myself, has already declared it entrapment! A set up! A frame job! Have you read any of these posts? Have you?

“Entertain” does not equal “Assert”, by the way.

“Still hunting for WMD and hot on the trail of Osama are we?”

Are you talking to me? That was a lame barb. WTF do you know about my feelings on Iraq or Osama? WTF kinda stupid crap is that?

“I,m wondering how so much media "FACT" has already aired about their intentions when the lawyers defending can't get any information from officials to run with. How does that happen?”

Fact? Again, if you read something like the Star, the Globe & Mail, the Post, etc., you’ll see quite clearly the use of the word “alleged”. Over and over again. These are “allegations”. See, they, unlike you, have “sources”. Those “sources” tell them things. They “report” on those sources. They add the caveat “alleged” because nothing has yet to be “proven”.

“Are you naive enough to believe the RCMP are above reproach?”

No. Why would you think that? Where have I ever claimed as much? Are you so cynical and callous and delusional you can *only* believe, excuse me, I mean “entertain” (bwahaha!) these men were framed?

What happens if you’re proven wrong? How do you reconcile that?

See, I hope I’m proven wrong. I really do. I hope the whole thing is a colossal SNAFU and people lose their jobs over it.

That’s much easier for me to swallow than the thought of 17 people wanting to blow up portions of my family/city/province/country. Something nobody here is even acknowledging might be a reality. But based on what I’m reading on this forum, a blown up CBC and possibly parliament is a *good* thing. Certainly not near as bad as the “fascist”, “neocon” cabal running the show, huh.

What is most interesting to me, however, is that you replied to my post but didn’t even consider either of my two scenarios.

Why?