Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Recommended Posts

There has been a bit of discussion lately about Canadian terrorists, particularly around whether we should allow dual-citizenship, stop letting in refugees, and/or be more selective about where Canada's immigrants come from.

CSIS released a report about Canadian terrorists and the results shatter a lot of the myths that are floating around the forum.

A Study of Radicalisation: The Making of Islamists Extremists in Canada Today.

The report tells us that terrorists in Canada mostly commit their acts of terror abroad, are almost always born in Canada, rarely are they immigrants, and never have they been refugees. The report goes on further to say that not only are they not immigrants, but they almost never come from marginalized groups and are typically fully integrated into Canada. In other words, they don't come from those immigrant enclaves that struggle or refuse to integrate into Canada. In fact, CSIS says these terrorists are usually "highly integrated into Canadian society."

MI5 also conducted a study in Britain that was released recently and found very similar results. MI5's study went further to say that "religious identity actually protects against violent radicalization," which flies in the face of generally accepted forum commentary.

What does this tell us at the end of the day?

Well, the experience of immigration, immigrant communities, and religion are almost never the source of terrorism here in Canada. People are not bringing extremist ideas with them here, despite popular belief to the contrary. Furthermore, the most religious are the least radicalized. The findings of CSIS (as well as MI5 and some American intelligence experts) has found that Islamic Extremists, who are religious by definition of course, are typically radicalized politically well before they adopt their extreme religion stance. In other words, there is no direct path from being deeply religious to becoming radicalized, rather it seems the radical become deeply religious.

What CSIS and others believe these terrorist activities are really about is political motives, territorial claims about securing the "land of Islam." These terrorist activities and their narratives seem to have more in common, at least according to CSIS, with the IRA and FLQ than with Muslim communities around the world.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 111
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Not sure how much you can really say based on that report, as large chunks of it including some of the most key sections are blanked out. The main conclusion of the study is that it is hard to pin down a specific profile for Canadian terrorists.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Muslim immigrants may not bring terrorist ideas with them, but some groups certainly import imams that preach jihad in the mosques. That's got to have an effect. The Council on American Islamic Relations, and it's Canadian counterpart, which at one time was a go to organization by the US govt says right on its website that its goal is to have the US (and Canada) become a Muslim state. They may not promote violence for that aim, but it's not a far jump for some people. And yes, some fundamentalist Christians have the same idea for a Christian state, much more so in the US, but do we really want to bring in more people with that mindset.

My impression of the Canadian young jihadis we've heard about is that they are social losers and this is a way for them to attain an identity and sense of status in their lives. Worldwide, in fact, the radicals mostly come from middle class backgrounds, rather than being poor and oppressed. It's middle class people who feel stymied in their lives for some reason and externalize that to a greater cause. I think this was true of radicals in the 60's as much as it is now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So no longer are the terrorists foreigners.

Of course not. We've welcome them into our midst, they've become citizens, and their children are native born Canadians, "well integrated" into Canadian society, who in some cases nonetheless bear more allegiance to "the land of Islam" than to Canada. And I'm sure there are native born Canadians of European origins who may become terrorists too. It's only one small step from being a "peace flotilla" activist fighting Israeli soldiers to partnering with Hamas and becoming a terrorist.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From this report, we should then be framing the public discussion around this as rooting out these networks world wide.

This means -

1. Promoting stability in countries that are at risk of falling to such groups.

2. Providing for domestic and international security measures to monitor networks.

What else ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Not sure how much you can really say based on that report, as large chunks of it including some of the most key sections are blanked out. The main conclusion of the study is that it is hard to pin down a specific profile for Canadian terrorists.

uhhh... the CSIS analysis on all known Canadian extremists:

... almost always native-born Canadians, rarely immigrants, and never refugees. They tend to have “a high level of academic achievement,” often a university degree, especially in “scientific, computer and engineering fields.”

Not only are they not immigrants, but they don’t tend to be found within “parallel society” immigrant enclaves. “None appeared to have been marginalized within Canadian society,” CSIS says, and the great majority appear “highly integrated into Canadian society.” And they aren’t radicalized by attending a mosque.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From this report, we should then be framing the public discussion around this as rooting out these networks world wide.

This means -

1. Promoting stability in countries that are at risk of falling to such groups.

Good luck with that. Take Egypt - promoting stability meant helping to prop up dictatorship that played a role in creating Islamic extremism that now is running the country. Pakistan, supporting a govt that supports the very terrorists we are fighting. Saudi Arabia - exporting the religious underpinning to jihad, right in Canada and the US by funding madrassas. I don't think we have a clue on how to promote stability in a positive way, and stability at any cost can come to have a pretty high price.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From this report, we should then be framing the public discussion around this as rooting out these networks world wide.

This means -

1. Promoting stability in countries that are at risk of falling to such groups.

I love this one, because we tried that. One recent example I will use is that Libya was stable before Canada/NATO helped destabilize Libya which has indeed fallen victim to such groups. We helped undermine a stable government to support a rag tag bunch of loosely affiliated terrorists groups that eventually took down Gaddafi. Now that a power vaccum has been created, Libya is still trying to get back to some quality of life now that cities have been battered by a 'civil war' in which we helped.

We can promote stability by trying to take care of our own here at home before we think of trying to 'help' others.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good luck with that.

Not sure if you have been following - but Harper recently supported France's initiative to restabilize Mali.

Take Egypt - promoting stability meant helping to prop up dictatorship that played a role in creating Islamic extremism that now is running the country.

Promoting stability no longer means propping up dictatorships in 2013. We have GW Bush to thank for that, by the way.

Pakistan, supporting a govt that supports the very terrorists we are fighting. Saudi Arabia - exporting the religious underpinning to jihad, right in Canada and the US by funding madrassas. I don't think we have a clue on how to promote stability in a positive way, and stability at any cost can come to have a pretty high price.

There are still Saudi Arabias and countries like that, but they are dying off.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if you have been following - but Harper recently supported France's initiative to restabilize Mali.

I do too, but don't hold much hope for a positive outcome. The "govt" lacks legitimacy, there isn't really anybody to hand over the keys to once order is restored. And the terrorists just melt away, only to reappear as soon as the French leave. I doubt if France or her allies have the stomach or the money to maintain a long term presence there. And even if they do, Nato has had a long term presence in Astan, and everybody knows as soon as they leave it will sink back to anarchy or Taliban control. Karzai, our boy, has no legitimacy either, and isn't exactly clean. Mali could easily go the way of Astan and just turn into a quagmire.
There are still Saudi Arabias and countries like that, but they are dying off.

Maybe, but SA does't look to ill yet, and it's really a one off in exporting jihad. But look at the countries of the Arab spring - not looking too good there. Edited by Canuckistani
Link to post
Share on other sites

I do too, but don't hold much hope for a positive outcome. The "govt" lacks legitimacy, there isn't really anybody to hand over the keys to once order is restored. And the terrorists just melt away, only to reappear as soon as the French leave. I doubt if France or her allies have the stomach or the money to maintain a long term presence there. And even if they do, Nato has had a long term presence in Astan, and everybody knows as soon as they leave it will sink back to anarchy or Taliban control. Karzai, our boy, has no legitimacy either, and isn't exactly clean. Mali could easily go the way of Astan and just turn into a quagmire.

Depends how they handle the situation in Mali. In Afghanistan NATO made numerous mistakes just like the mistakes that the US made in Iraq so if France and any AU/UN troops who deploy there learn from the mistakes made in Afghanistan and Iraq we can see serious change otherwise as you said it will repeat itself and there would just be another barely stable nation to worry about.

Maybe, but SA does't look to ill yet, and it's really a one off in exporting jihad. But look at the countries of the Arab spring - not looking too good there.

Look at Egypt though, I see it as a sign that they will not take that crap anymore since as soon as the government tried to get more power the people had a thing or two to say about it. Maybe stability is a long way off for them but I think they are making small steps in the right direction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at Egypt though, I see it as a sign that they will not take that crap anymore since as soon as the government tried to get more power the people had a thing or two to say about it. Maybe stability is a long way off for them but I think they are making small steps in the right direction.

The Islamists seem to be dominant, and if the people who resist them get too violent the army will step in and set up another dictatorship. Looks like it could go either way. I hope you're right and I'm wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would the statement that SOME countries are responsible for being the creators of "terrorists" by their actions within certain countries, be true? When 9/11 happen, I read an article that said that the word "communists" was being replaced by "terrorists", changing the enemy from Russia/China to the middle-East.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Canadian terrorist, in my opinion, are individual(s) that holds a Canadian passport while participating in terrorist-related activities.

I would define 'terrorist-related activities' as engaging in activities that can or may result in harm or death of others to further one's own belief or agenda.

I considered Hell Angels, and similar gangs to be terrorist organizations.

Edited by Sleipnir
Link to post
Share on other sites

Would the statement that SOME countries are responsible for being the creators of "terrorists" by their actions within certain countries, be true? When 9/11 happen, I read an article that said that the word "communists" was being replaced by "terrorists", changing the enemy from Russia/China to the middle-East.

You're reifying countries with this statement. Country is an abstract concept. A country doesn't actually do anything. Not to be pedantic. It's just not informative to think about these things this way. If we really want to understand terrorism, we ought to think a bit deeper about the what actually breeds terrorists. The CSIS study indicates that it's territorial. This is a good start, but what encourages them to become politically radical in the first place? This is more complicated to understand.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Derek L

What CSIS and others believe these terrorist activities are really about is political motives, territorial claims about securing the "land of Islam." These terrorist activities and their narratives seem to have more in common, at least according to CSIS, with the IRA and FLQ than with Muslim communities around the world.

Exactly, nobody 30 years ago suggested we should limit immigration from the likes of Germany or Ireland, just those that adhered to the Baader-Meinhof or Dail Eireann type political mindset……….I’m certain we can agree that characterizing a caste of people by the actions of a tiny minority is not a good thing from a philosophical point of view, yet we all are guilty of such actions………..Like terrorists, society as a whole is politically motivated, and if playing umbrage with a group of people helps further ones own political agenda……………….

One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter……Or to paraphrase Clausewitz, War, and in this case “asymmetric terrorism”, is the continuation of politics by other means........

Link to post
Share on other sites

We've welcome them into our midst, they've become citizens, and their children are native born Canadians, "well integrated" into Canadian society, who in some cases nonetheless bear more allegiance to "the land of Islam" than to Canada. And I'm sure there are native born Canadians of European origins who may become terrorists too. It's only one small step from being a "peace flotilla" activist fighting Israeli soldiers to partnering with Hamas and becoming a terrorist.

I agree. Allegiance to Canada is one of the primary reasons I do not support dual-citizenship. It's natural to have split allegiance if you're not native-born, but a further and more disturbing problem are the "home-grown terrorists". This is a reason why I support the promotion of Canadian nationalism through means such as much increased teaching of Canadian history in schools (and other venues, such as those great "A Part of our Heritage" commercials). The majority of Canadians know more about US history and politics than they do their own. Multicultural policies also pose a problem to allegiance. It really, really disturbs me the direction this country has taken the last few decades in eroding Canadian nationalism. How "well integrated into Canadian society" can these home-grown terrorists really be when they have more allegiance to ie: foreign Arab/Muslim land than their own? Clearly feelings of Arab/Muslim nationalism is much stronger within these people than Canadian nationalism.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. Allegiance to Canada is one of the primary reasons I do not support dual-citizenship. It's natural to have split allegiance if you're not native-born, but a further and more disturbing problem are the "home-grown terrorists". This is a reason why I support the promotion of Canadian nationalism through means such as much increased teaching of Canadian history in schools (and other venues, such as those great "A Part of our Heritage" commercials). The majority of Canadians know more about US history and politics than they do their own. Multicultural policies also pose a problem to allegiance. It really, really disturbs me the direction this country has taken the last few decades in eroding Canadian nationalism. How "well integrated into Canadian society" can these home-grown terrorists really be when they have more allegiance to ie: foreign Arab/Muslim land than their own? Clearly feelings of Arab/Muslim nationalism is much stronger within these people than Canadian nationalism.

Do you think people born here are innately more devoted to Canada? People born here don't necessarily have allegiance to this country. It's not a foreigner that was selling Navy intel to the Russians. In fact, I would hypothesize that people who become Canadian citizens are likely more dedicated to Canada, since they became citizens by choice, not by default.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. If there are no immigrant terrorists other than a waste of money and paper what is the deal? Yes my gosh the conservatives wasting paper? Look at the debt this ain't knew why not address the fact they have been debt spending for 7 years at the highest rate in Canadian history instead?

2. Will immigrants be offended to loose their citizenship if they shoot at the military or blow stuff up? Are all those immigrants who blow up governments stuff and random people going to not vote conservative anymore? Cause you know they must have loved the Conservative Party's platform before the loss of citizenship for commiting mass murder and terrorizing the public? Hell why come over here for citizenship just to go overseas again to wage war? Was the 5-7 years waiting for citizenship part of the great plan to get down to those attacks... 7 years of planning? and somehow Canadian citizenship as a dual national is the golden peice of pie that will allow one to succeed at their attack?

yes it is stupid, but it hasn't stopped the US from doing this for commiting a crime - no terrorism required.

Edited by shortlived
Link to post
Share on other sites

Both Islamic terrorists have attacked Israeli targets, and Israeli Mossad terrorists (using Canadian passports) carried out an assasination attack on a Muslim leader. I think Canada should be more careful more in this regards, and should stop backing Israel over using Canadian passports to carry out terrorist attacks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you think people born here are innately more devoted to Canada? People born here don't necessarily have allegiance to this country. It's not a foreigner that was selling Navy intel to the Russians. In fact, I would hypothesize that people who become Canadian citizens are likely more dedicated to Canada, since they became citizens by choice, not by default.

No I never said. I don't care where they any citizen was born, as long as you have primary allegiance to Canada over any other country.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just said to you that people with only Canadian citizenships don't necessarily have any more allegiance to this country. What makes you think people with dual-citizenship have less allegiance than the average Canadian? Nothing I've ever seen about this would even remotely suggest that. In fact, I doubt there's very much difference between those Canadian citizens with other citizenships and those without. Since evidently you seem to think enough of them are less loyal to Canada than others, do you have any researched evidence of this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Similar Content

    • By Virginia
      I was impressed that Ted Cruz voluntarily renounced his Canadian citizenship to show his dedication to representing the United States. I would admire Andrew Scheer if he did the equivalent thing, renouncing his American citizenship to show his dedication to Canada, since he is running for Prime Minister in a few months.
      This is actually MANDATORY to run for office in Australia, or even to hold citizenship at all in Japan. I think it is important that our political representatives, if not all our citizens, should show their dedication to representing our nation first, and not have backup plans to reside in other nations if things go wrong.
      The only way I could be wrong about this is if Andrew's dad (deacon James D. Scheer, who was born in the Bronx in New York) immigrated to Canada prior to turning 19, or if he renounced his citizenship prior to Andrew's birth in 1979. Andrew hasn't supplied any evidence either of these things happened (James' older brother died in the Bronx, so the family as a whole never left) so I believe it is reasonable to assume he holds American citizenship by birthright by default.
    • By sillywalker
      We the people of Canada DEMAND change in Government. 
          We the people of Canada demand that the government that belongs to us and to whom we lend our democratic power to lead this country and to sit in opposition, change the laws that govern the behaviour of those politicians that take the oath of office. 
         We are tired of the way that parties spend our hard-earned tax dollars on things that do not benefit this country. We are tired of the lies by all parties and we are tired of the personal agendas that you all bring into the house of commons instead of working toward the common goal of bettering this great nation. 
         We are tired of the ethics violations, the misappropriation of money that does not belong to you and the way you spend on other countries while here in Canada our own go without. We are tired of the way Canadians are left out in the cold as soon as you take office and the opposition all of a sudden becomes sanctimonious in the way they say they want to save us. We are tired of the Pandering politicians on all sides. We are tired of the insider trading. We are tired of the wealthy being the ones that you listen to and not us average Canadians because in fact most of you have never worked a solid day in your life. 
         We are Tired of the way that the people we elect as our Members of Parliament stop speaking for us the moment  they are told to tow the party line. We are tired of the way the country gets ignored because as soon as you take power and the house sits you then worry about the next election rather than worrying about us the people.  
         We demand change and we have some changes we want: 
         1.  We the people demand, not ask, that recall be brought into law. 
         2.  We the people demand that restricted parliamentary privilege be restricted to times that it is a benefit to the country not the politicians. 
         3.  We demand that under conditions that regular Canadians would lose their jobs that the same apply to politicians in the same fast manor. 
         4. We demand that if fired there is an end of your pension no if ands or buts. 
         5. We demand that any financial penalties that politicians receive be proportional to the wages they earn so as to sting them as we the citizens get stung. 
         6.We the people demand that when a politician ends his term that he not use political influence to enrich himself or family, if they do they are to be prosecuted. 
         7. We demand that all monies earned by the writing of books or speaking engagements by any serving politician or politician that has served (because they were only in that position to serve the country) should be paid to charity. 
         8. We demand that any politician caught deliberately lying to the citizens of this country be removed from office immediately. 
         9. We demand that any politician working against the people of this country be removed from office and if deemed serious enough be charged in a court of law. 
          These demands are put before you by citizens of all political parties, All genders and all races. 
       We the citizens of Canada have had enough of governments dividing the peoples and spending recklessly so as to force our taxes to a level that makes it hard to support our families. 
                              
       
       
    • By dialamah
      Kellie Leitch, and Argus, have promoted the idea that we should screen immigrants (and refugees) for Canadian Values.   I know there are a variety of opinions on what Canadian Values are, but for the purposes of this thread, let’s agree to focus on these four:

      Religious freedom
      Equality of women
      Equal rights for LGBT people
      Separation of religion and government.
      How would an effective screening system be developed?   What would it include?  Many companies use some form of personality or ‘culture’ testing to find the right fit for a position.  How effective are they, and could a “Canadian Values" screening test be developed from an already existing corporate test?

      For the screening test,  should an intolerant ‘attitude’ or belief be separated from a willingness to act on that belief, or are they one and the same? Should the economic worth of the applicant be considered so that someone who is more likely to create wealth in Canada is considered more ‘attractive’?  If an otherwise attractive applicant fails the screening test, but only by a little, should they be able to access some remedial course in Canadian Values and retake the test?  

      Would the goal be to screen all immigrants (or refugees), or just those from certain parts of the world?   Should immigrants and Canadians already living in Canada also be screened to develop a ‘baseline’ to which new arrivals can be compared?   Should the screening include temporary workers and students, or even vacationers?  
      What are some of the pitfalls of a 'values screening test'?   How could it be designed so that it couldn't be hacked or beaten, thus allowing applicants with un-Canadian values entry?

      These are the questions I’ve been asking myself as I participate (argue?) in the “Immigration of Religious Fanatics” thread, and I thought it might be interesting to discuss in a more objective manner to see if it does make sense or could be effectively implemented.    

    • By Biz Liz
      Whoever wins the election should charge all foreign visitors a $100 entrance tax per every month they remain in Canada unless and until they leave or become a resident. This money could then subsidize our school system which has been getting way too many budget cuts. Our kids need to come first. What say you all?
    • By Go.Leafs
      Canada has signed many international treaties that accept migration and immigration of all people to be a right and not a privilege. Almost all of our ancestors were immigrants. Yet now we look down upon today's immigrants and deny them the same opportunities our great grandparents had. I think this is a bit shameful and unethical.
      Even if they create a temporary tax burden, I think skilled and educated immigrants should be granted admission and given one year to prove themselves - sort of "probationary immigration" I guess I would call it. If after one year they cannot be self-sustaining and productive to society, and able to speak English or France, they can be shown the door. My guess is that 80% of these immigrants have value to Canada - even if it is taking the unwanted jobs the rest of us reject.
      Canada cannot grow to its maximum potential without more people. Just my opinion.
  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...