Jun 03 2006
The Al Qaeda Threat In Canada
I posted previously on the news that Al Qaeda veterans had discovered Canada as the preffered place to ‘retire’ to:
Canada’s spy agency says potential terrorists already reside in Canadian cities.The deputy director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service said Monday that there are many people currently living in Canada who fought with al-Qaeda during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.
And Jack Hooper says those same people have since trained in al-Qaeda terrorist training camps.
I was curious as to what the Canadian response might be to this. Powerline has some breaking news up this morning on this very subject from the Globe and Mail:
Police across the Greater Toronto Area launched counterterrorism raids yesterday, arresting at least eight people in a roundup expected to continue overnight and beyond.
“We anticipate more arrests, but not necessarily tonight,†an RCMP source said of the arrests, in what appeared to be the most concerted such sweep in Canada since the terrorist attacks in the United States on Sept. 11, 2001.
The Canadian Security Intelligence Service aided the RCMP and officers from Toronto, Peel and Durham in detaining the suspects, described by an undercover officer involved in the operation as “terrorists, the ones who hate the West.â€
The ethnicity of the group was not clear. A well- placed police source said they are Muslims, but not Arabs, and unconnected to anti-terrorism raids that occurred simultaneously in Britain yesterday.
I guess they had to move out quickly since the story had been ‘leaked’ in the earlier news article that the Canadian government was on to all these folks. Hopefully none of these thugs got away. Apparently they were preparing to attack Canada:
Intelligence sources allege the men were part of a terrorist cell, close to carrying out attacks on one or more Canadian targets.
Police seized chemicals used to make explosives and weapons.
“That’s the tool of choice for anybody who wants to cause damage,” a source who asked not to be named told The Canadian Press.
The suspects are either second-generation Canadians or recently immigrated to Canada with their families.
Sources claimed the men have no connection to al Qaeda, but were allegedly inspired by militant Islamic groups.
Why they think this would help their cause is beyond me. And I am not sure why anyone would buy into the idea they were not tied to, simply inspired by, Al Qaeda at this early stage. More here and here, and keep checking in on Neale News for updates.
Seixon –
Well, that’s (no prominent liberal blog has written a blog post)not what you said, exactly, on this thread, but you’re forgiven. And there are well over a hundred comments on Huff re: the story.
I imagine that a “prominent blog post” or two will be made before the weekend’s out. Give them some time to tear themselves away from the craps tables and the hookers (I’m assuming a large portion of the liberal blogging community (LBG) is already in Vegas, en route, or packing).
Re: the aQ (non-)link, you’re probably right, and that news, of course, is what is being reported by the media (as reported to them by the authorities).
– Regards (whether in denial or not)
Enforcement:
That comment was completely unnecessary. The idea that the only people in the country who want to protect us against terrorists are people who share your narrow view on immigration issues must mean that two thirds of the population want to be attacked. It is a silly argument and needlessly insulting. I have had two family members serve in Iraq and I don’t need any lectures from you on protecting this country.
It would be nice if we could compromise and move on but it seems that you are not interested in doing that.
And by the way no one is talking about complete amnesty and to be truthful I do not want law enforcement to waste resources rounding up all kinds of harmless people while these kinds of people, people who actually want to kill us are out there.
colin, what is the address for the counterterrorism blog, please and
thank you?
IVEHADIT:
Sorry about that. Here’s the address:
http://counterterrorismblog.org
Enforcement,
“no background check, all they would have to do is sign their own handwritten statement that they are one of the ‘good people’ and we would hand them their citizenship papers.”
A strawman. No one wants this.
You are assuming no screening will be done. How about third party references? Do you trust them? Even security clearances utilize them. How about a criminal record check? Doesn’t that prevent some of your worst fears?
Are you equally concerned about the northern border?
Can you recognize any good in immigrants and immigration?
TERRYE quoting you:
“That comment was completely unnecessary. The idea that the only people in the country who want to protect us against terrorists are people who share your narrow view on immigration issues must mean that two thirds of the population want to be attacked. It is a silly argument and needlessly insulting. I have had two family members serve in Iraq and I don’t need any lectures from you on protecting this country.”
I write a lot of comments, so don’t know which one you were referring to.
Just what is my “narrow view” of immigration?
“The idea that the only people in the country who want to protect us against terrorists are people who share your narrow view on immigration issues must mean that two thirds of the population want to be attacked.”
I have made no argument about protecting us from terrorists, you just jumped to that conclusion. If you will double check what YOU advocate, it is to make citizens of the illegal immigrants presently in the country, without exclusion. That includes the people that may or may not be terrorists. The fact is we don’t and won”t know until it’s too late. I’m gonna assume that you, like myself, do not want anyone to be attacked, so I assuming you were just being facetious.
So you have had two family members serve in Iraq, well thank them for me. But I notice you didn’t say anything about you. I will say that I am a Veteran and proud of it, and I volunteered. So don’t tell me about protecting the country. Why did you let your relatives carry your burden for you?
“It would be nice if we could compromise and move on but it seems that you are not interested in doing that.”
I am willing to compromise, get the fence up, stop the illegal flow completely, then do your part as long as that doesn’t involve blanket citizenship.
“And by the way no one is talking about complete amnesty”
OH YES YOU ARE
” and to be truthful I do not want law enforcement to waste resources rounding up all kinds of harmless people while these kinds of people, people who actually want to kill us are out there”
And you are implying that I do want this? Show me where I said anything about rounding up anyone. In fact, somewhere above I specifically said I didn’t want one dime spent on rounding up anyone. So stop just being selective and implying I’m saying something I’m not.
MACKER, see, this is where you come up short, you obviously don’t know what is in the Senate bill
“no background check, all they would have to do is sign their own handwritten statement that they are one of the ‘good people’ and we would hand them their citizenship papers.â€
A strawman. No one wants this.
This is EXACTLY what the Senate bill calls for.
This business about”less than two years will leave, 2 to 5 will bla, bla bla, over 5 will bla, bla, bla
You know what proof is required of when you came into the country. Now hold your breath, drum roll. Ta Da Your own signed statement. That is it, And now, get this. If anyone attempts to investigate your statement, they will be fired. This is in the bill and if you don’t know it, just let me know and I will go and copy and paste it for you. I assume you know how to look it up, tell you what, go look up that provision AND IF it says something different, paste it for me.
“You are assuming no screening will be done. ”
Assuming hell, it is SPECIFICALLY forbidden in the Senate bill.
“How about third party references? Do you trust them? ” I would if they were allowed, but they’re not. And you assumed they would be? LOL
“Even security clearances utilize them. How about a criminal record check?” And we would be running these checks thru? Mexico, Guatamala? I’m sure they would have complete records and would be happy to supply them. By the way, the way this is written is, if a criminal record check shows something, it may or may not be checked out AND get this, again, hold your breath, drum roll. Just because you have a criminal record does NOT mean you can be turned down.
There again, you’re assuming the Senate bill requires some of these things and I’m telling you that you do remember where ASSUME comes from.
“Doesn’t that prevent some of your worst fears?”
Yeah, I’ll really sleep better knowing that we have handed blanket amnesty to all the illegals that have come in without knowing zip about any of them.
Are you equally concerned about the northern border?
YES
Can you recognize any good in immigrants and immigration?
YES
Can you recognize any good in ILLEGAL immigrants and ILLEGAL immigration?
sure, it would help people like you to “feel good about yourself”
For Enforcement
Do me a favor, head over to Macrangers site and log in to the comments for his first article…the one on Haditha. Take on the fellow Frank who is slamming our military. He has them all but convicted and hanged.
You stated that you have served and while I am from a military family I have never been active duty so maybe you can do a better job than I defending our troops. Being surrounded by those who serve is not the same as boots on the ground, with that I do agree.
We may disagree on the immigration issue but I think for the most part, none of us like individuals who take shots at our men and women in uniform, especially when they do not even reside in the USA.
Have a pleasant night all.
Hey Macker, just went and picked one example, and believe me EVERY section, amendment, subsection, etc is 100% full of this kind of double talk:
Oh boy here it is, our ironclad protection:
`(C) WITHHOLDERS OF BIOMETRIC DATA- Any alien who knowingly fails to comply with a lawful request for biometric data under section 215(c) or 235(d) is inadmissible.’; and
This sounds good, we’re gonna ABSOLUTELY, BY GOD, require them to supply Biometric Data so we can positively identify them, oh yeah, read on
(2) in subsection (d), by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
`(2) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall determine whether a ground for inadmissibility exists with respect to an alien described in subparagraph (C) of subsection (a)(7) and may waive the application of such subparagraph for an individual alien or a class of aliens, at the discretion of the Secretary.’.
MAY WAIVE, MAY WAIVE the application of that subparagraph, so now we are NOT, BY GOD, gonna require it
Oh wait, thank goodness, there is a little more, ah so this must be where we’re gonna REQUIRE IT.
maybe here?
(e) Implementation- Section 7208 of the 9/11 Commission Implementation Act of 2004 (8 U.S.C. 1365b) is amended–
or here?
(1) in subsection (c), by adding at the end the following:
ok, surely this is it:
`(3) IMPLEMENTATION- In fully implementing the automated biometric entry and exit data system under this section, the Secretary is not required to comply
OH NO, NOT AGAIN, HE’S NOT REQUIRED TO COMPLY!! Darn I’m surprised.
with the requirements of chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code (commonly referred to as the Administrative Procedure Act) or any other law relating to rulemaking, information collection, or publication in the Federal Register.’; and
OR ANY OTHER LAW— OR INFORMATION COLLECTION.
Golly and here I thought somebody was looking out for us.
Now MACKER, I’m telling you, the WHOLE DAMN Senate bill is written this way, check it out.
Homegrown jihadists arrested in Toronto…
There is a considerable terrorist threat looming in Canada, and today, there’s been news of arrests made of some members. The Counterrorism Blog’s got a rundown of the news, and Pajamas Media and Michelle Malkin have more updates….
Enforcement:
You are too dense about this subject of immigration to even discuss it. I give up.
We had an entire family of hispanics wiped out in Indianaoplis. Seven people shot to death. They were good people who were active in their local parish. But hey they were wetbacks.
Enforcement:
You are too dense about this subject of immigration to even discuss it. I give up.
Left by Terrye on June 4th, 2006
TYPICAL LIBERAL, IF YOU CAN’T ARGUE THE FACTS, CALL THEM NAMES (DENSE) AND GIVE UP
We had an entire family of hispanics wiped out in Indianaoplis. Seven people shot to death. They were good people who were active in their local parish. But hey they were wetbacks.
Left by Terrye on June 4th, 2006
I resent your implication that I would be happy that these people were killed. I want no harm to befall anyone. Everyone is entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, each in their own country.
I’m sure these people were just leaving church.
TERRY, YOU SAID
“Enforcement:
You are too dense about this subject of immigration to even discuss it. I give up.
Left by Terrye on June 4th, 2006
I humbly accept your surrender,
signed Enforcement
“Enforcement”. you’re doing an excellent job at proving why, in general, single issue voters are the bottom feeders of American political life.
an SIV is almost by definition incapable of rational thought or argument.
And if you’re curious, it was the nasty slam about “I’m sure they were just leaving church”, which implies that the victims were somehow at fault (you know it does, that’s why you wrote it) that caused me to write off you and anything you may ever have to say on anything.
Left by WWS on June 4th, 2006
“Enforcementâ€. you’re doing an excellent job at proving why, in general, single issue voters are the bottom feeders of American political life.
an SIV is almost by definition incapable of rational thought or argument.
And if you’re curious, it was the nasty slam about “I’m sure they were just leaving churchâ€, which implies that the victims were somehow at fault (you know it does, that’s why you wrote it) that caused me to write off you and anything you may ever have to say on anything.
TYPICAL LIBERAL, IF YOU CAN’T ARGUE THE FACTS, CALL THEM NAMES (bottom feeders ) AND GIVE UP
You should read up, the Church comment came from someone above, I think TERRYE (sorry if I’m wrong) that said 99.9% of the “illegal immigrants are honest, hard working, church going people” and I was only taking him at his word and assumed this family was in that 99.9%
and this” which implies that the victims were somehow at fault (you know it does, that’s why you wrote it) that caused me to write off you and anything you may ever have to say on anything.”
is damn sure not true. False arguments are the tool of those that don’t have anything to say, (see yourself, there partner?)
Whoops slipped up there WWS, you didn’t read this did you?
Thanks, Colin.
And I saw this in an article I just read over at canada.com:
“With the exception of two men, who are aged 43 and 30, the alleged terrorists are all in their teens and early 20s.”
Could the older guys be the “senior jihadist veterans that you were talking about? I hope so.
So many do not realize what is happening around the world every day. Our great military, special ops and spy network are working overtime and I pray for them regularly. If we are not successful in this WOT then we won’t need to worry about “borders”-about which I am SICK TO DEATH OF TALKING/reading.
Thank you Colin.
Did you see where two of the men arrested in Canada were not teenagers or in their 20’s? I hope these were the “veterans” about which you posted!