ForumGarden

Here is what happened as a result of Canadian Troops not being removed from Afghanastan....



Suspect accused of wanting to behead PM, lawyer claims

Last Updated Tue, 06 Jun 2006 13:33:33 EDT

CBC News

One of the suspects in an alleged bomb plot in Ontario is accused of wanting to storm Parliament, behead the prime minister and attack a number of sites, including the CBC building in Toronto, his lawyer says.



Gary Batasar, lawyer for Steven Vikash Chand, said he was given an eight-page synopsis of the allegations. (CBC)

Lawyer Gary Batasar, who represents Steven Chand, also known as Abdul Shakur, made the comments on Tuesday after a court appearance in Brampton, Ont., for 15 of 17 suspects arrested under Canada's Anti-terrorism Act on the weekend.

"My client's alleged to have been part of a plot to blow up Parliament Buildings in Canada, storm the CBC, take over the CBC, as well as, among other things, behead the prime minister," Batasar said.

Batasar said he was given an eight-page synopsis of the allegations, including storming Parliament, blowing up some of the buildings and taking politicians hostage to demand the withdrawal of Canadian troops in Afghanistan.

If the demands were not met, it is alleged, the hostages would be beheaded. The documents allege that Chand, 25, personally wanted to behead Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Police allege the accused ” 12 adults and five youths ” were inspired by al-Qaeda and planned to make bombs to attack targets in Ontario. None of the allegations has been proven in court.

Bail hearings postponed

Defence lawyers asked that the bail hearings be postponed, saying they did not had enough time to prepare and had not seen the evidence against their clients.

The judge granted their requests, rescheduling most of the bail hearings to June 12, and the suspects were remanded into custody.

The lawyers also complained about a number of restrictions placed on their clients. They are in solitary confinement, under 24-hour surveillance and have been denied access to family members.

Lawyer Donald McLeod said he and his colleagues have only been able to speak to their clients through Plexiglas and want private visits with them.

The defence lawyers also alleged that clients' rights were being violated because a guard in full riot gear was always present when a lawyer held a privileged conversation with a client.

They demanded the situation be changed or said they would go to court on June 12 to get a court order to be allowed to communicate with their clients in private.

Armed guards patrol courthouse

As many as 400 police officers and security officials were involved in the series of raids in southern Ontario that led to the arrests on June 2 and June 3, in the largest operation carried out under the Anti-terrorism Act.



Heavily armed police stand on guard on Tuesday outside the courthouse in Brampton, Ont. (CBC)

The suspects arrived at the courthouse on Tuesday in unmarked police vehicles, under the watchful eye of armed guards patrolling the area. They were led inside the courtroom shackled together in groups of four, wearing prison-issued white T-shirts and grey pants.

Security was tight but appeared somewhat scaled back compared with the first court appearance of the suspects on Saturday.

During that appearance, snipers could be seen on rooftops and heavily armed police officers were posted inside and outside the courtrooms.

Scores of media from both Canada and the United States lined up at the courthouse Tuesday to secure a spot inside. Family members of the suspects were met by throngs of reporters as they entered.

Charges against suspects

All the adult suspects face terrorism-related charges:

The 12 men have been charged with knowingly participating, directly or indirectly, in the activity of a terrorist group.

Those charges relate to activities in Mississauga, Ont., Toronto and the Township of Ramara, which is located about 150 kilometres north of Toronto.

On Monday, six of the men were also charged with planning to cause a deadly explosion.

Three of the suspects have been charged with importing firearms and prohibited ammunition, and supplying prohibited weapons.

Ten of the men are charged with engaging in terrorism-related training. Residents in Ramara reported hearing gunshots from an area where men were seen dressed in camouflage gear.

Diuretic wrote: Those alleged aims are quite spectacular. Some might say almost fantastic.


I agree, I mean I seriously can't imagin who could get close enough to the pm, never mind behead him, but hey it is a pocket of some radical group they have found.

Weren't these the guys accused of burning the churches?

OpenMind wrote: Weren't these the guys accused of burning the churches?


Whose churches??? Ours???

Diuretic wrote: I was thinking that myself. All this sounds, at first blush anyway, to be the product of fevered imaginations. I'm not saying the allegations aren't well founded, just that if these idiots thought they were going to succeed in their aims then they must have been on something prohibited by their own religion.

So they were going to attack the Parliament in Ottawa. Presumably at the same time they would also be attacking the CBC building in Toronto? What were they going to do - take over the bookshop there and replace all the CBC stock with copies of the Koran?


you make light of it. We have to take it seriously as the USA has accused us of houseing Terrorists, and funding Terrorists, so on those "allegations" Canada acts.

Now call me dense Di, I know you explained this in the past, .... you know a load about Canada because you have lived here in the past? Is that correct? Nothing funny I am just refreshing my brain.

Diuretic wrote: Never lived there minks.


ahhh so why the interest.

Layton OMG blessings all around we didn't vote him in as PM

Diuretic wrote: Personal connections in the past and present minks.

Layton - unfortunately unelectable, reminds me a lot of Tony Blair.

Bit more info on the case itself - looks like help was due to come from outside Canada, including, ironically, from inside the US



More here - http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/st ... 03,00.html


I guess we should not be surprised. It really is getting rather "nutty" out there.

Diuretic wrote: Sadly it's a logical result of bad foreign policy.


and blatant lack of respect and tolerance.

Diuretic wrote: By a tiny, irrational minority, yes. But in terms of cause and effect it's bad foreign policy that is the cause, no getting away from that, just as there's no getting away from the fact that there is a minority of complete nutters that are reacting irrationally to that policy.
extremists that take it all way over the top, a few bad apples make for a lousy crop.

incredible. not only are these madmen been excused - because it's due to 'bad foreign policy' - but yet again, it is somehow the United States fault. yes, it's always the US's fault. always. invariably. all bad things in the world ultimately lead the US. we do absolutely no good in the world. none. period.



good christ. let's just all bend over and let these insane zealots have their way, why don't we? that would make them calm down, wouldn't it? let's just let them forcibly turn the entire world into a caliphate, with delightful and spectacular daily beheadings of those recalcitrant infidels who won't swear their allegiance to allah.



brilliant. and i can't believe some are excusing their actions. so - we deserve whatever carnage they wreak, because of our 'bad foreign policies'? does that mean that when we have good foreign policies, they'll reward us? oh - the reward is that they won't brutalize us. what a fair trade!



although not speechless, i'm horrified.

Diuretic wrote: ....The failed foreign policy of the Bush Administration has given us all exactly the situations we're facing now........ the truth is right in front of you. One word - Iraq.


and here was me thinking that Iraq was the result of Bush's failing domestic policy - how silly.

Diuretic wrote: Iraq is in the Middle East and is therefore subject to foreign policy. Unless you're making the point that Iraq was a distractor for the Bush Administration's failed domestic policies? In which case I'd say that I don't think that was the case.

I tend to leave other countries' domestic policies alone, well, for the most part


I'd only ask where his popularity was headed before the war?

and when I'm being sensible, so do I.

Diuretic wrote: No need to get the hair-shirt out yet, but you might want to keep one on hand . Is it the fault of the US that this and other situations have arisen. Of course it is. The failed foreign policy of the Bush Administration has given us all exactly the situations we're facing now. I'll overlook the rest of the hyperbole though. Foreign policy is about national self-interest. The problem the US - and the rest of us have - is that the Bush Administration has cocked it up.


makes no sense, when followed up with:



That would be giving in.


so, what are you saying? the policy is failed, but don't stop because then we'd lose that which has failed already? if that's not what you're saying, then it would seem you're suggesting that the islamofascists need to be fought, because a worldwide caliphate is indeed their desire, along with the elimination of us infidels - by any means necessary. sooo.....again, we have madmen who hate us and want to destroy us, but it's *we* who are at fault for fighting to stop them. brilliant.





Don't be horrified, think rationally instead of in a foment of jingoism and the truth is right in front of you. One word - Iraq. That's it in a nutshell. That is the mistake the Bush Administration made, the single massive error that has resulted in all this misery for the rest of the world.


absurd. you remember the unprovoked attack on the united states on september 11, 2001? that was two years *before* iraq. and again - madmen plot to bomb the canadian government for fighting against islamofascism - but it's canada's (and of course by extension, the US) "fault", they brought it upon themselves by not giving in to the islamofascists.



masochism appears to be popular.

Bryn Mawr wrote: I'd only ask where his popularity was headed before the war?


his popularity was an order of magnitude *higher* before the war. so unless you're suggesting that he plotted to purposely lower his popularity, there's not much sense in this either.



thank goodness the presidency isn't beholden to public opinion polls. we'd have blow-dried pop singers leading our nations.

anastrophe wrote: his popularity was an order of magnitude *higher* before the war. so unless you're suggesting that he plotted to purposely lower his popularity, there's not much sense in this either.



thank goodness the presidency isn't beholden to public opinion polls. we'd have blow-dried pop singers leading our nations.


That the ploy failed doesn't mean it wasn't intended.

Pop singers don't have that sort of clout - but you'd have over the hill actors as mayor, govenor and president if that was the case.

Diuretic wrote: Oh, my fault - misread it.

There's no doubt that a successful war helps an incumbent head politician. If I remember rightly Thatcher was in strife until the Falklands War, that turned out to be successful and boosted her stocks so she won the election when she faced it, I believe the term is "Khaki Election".

I don't think that was the case with Bush though - but would of course stand corrected. I think Bush invaded because he was still quite popular at home and took a risk. "Mission Accomplished" and the comical swaggering across the flight deck in the Nomex suit come to mind as being the actions of someone who thought they were still on top of their game and could actually pull it off. Anyway, as I say, someone will come along and put me right on that.


You might well be right - 'tis late and I've been in an odd mood all day.

I think it's wonderful they caught them before they accomplished any terrorism. The papers here (I'm in the Toronto area) are full of fear based stories pumping up insecurity about our general safety. I think it's hogwash. I feel safer knowing that they were caught. The evidence involves explosive materials bought from undercover cops...so it's not an outrageous wrongful arrest. Also, the police switched the materials so the terrorists did not actually receive what they needed for the bombs in the first place.

Not that I really believe everything the media writes, but I feel pretty good about it all.

Diuretic wrote: anastrophe - rather than quote my bits, your bits and take everything apart bit by bit let me put my position.



Iraq is a disaster in terms of foreign policy, the unwarranted invasion and occupation of Iraq by the coalition of the willing has excited the interest and attention of a small number of Islamicists who wouldn't have given a rat's if there had been no invasion and occupation of Iraq.


patently and demonstrably false. or are you suggesting that the taliban, and al qaeda, came into being after iraq? that's an interesting bit of historical revisionism, considering they've been slaughtering innocent people for quite a long time before the iraq war.



'small number'?? you're aware of the massive, violent demonstrations throughout europe and the middle east over the 'blasphemous' cartoons published in a dutch newspaper? tens, hundreds of thousand demonstrated, often violently, and if not violently, then doing so with extremely brutally worded placards exclaiming their hatred for all that is western? these were not isolated. you think a small number want to rid the world of infidels? that they don't want to 'convert' western nations like france and britain unto the caliphate? they're doing it now!





The invasion and occupation of Iraq was not connected to the atrocities of 11th September except that it provided an excuse for the Bush Administration to invade and occupy Iraq.


perhaps not, however regime change was the stated policy of the US, and much of the european bloc, for a decade before we ousted saddam. that we had failed to oust him in the first gulf war was an egregious failure, which has been righted, finally.





The proper response to 11th September, the intrusion into Afghanistan to attempt to arrest bin Laden and AQ members, after a promising start, has now turned into another foreign policy disaster.


disaster? yes, indeed. women, allowed to walk outside without a full burkha, and being educated too! absolutely disastrous.





The Bush Administration is absolutely incompetent in its foreign policy, it has brought an order of misery to Iraq, Afghanistan and other places which couldn't have been imagined when Bush was put in the White House.


i would submit that the miseries falling upon the iraqi people now are a fraction of what they endured under saddam. the difference is that now when misery occurs, it's in the open, rather than entire populations being gassed into silence, and many tens of thousands brutalized, tortured, and murdered behind the outwardly quiet walls of abu ghraib, during saddams reign of terror.



are things better now? i can't say so. will they be better in the future? i hope so.





The Bush Administration has created the problems we face now, by virtue of its rank stupidity if not outright criminality in its foreign policy development and execution.


so, again, you blame the united states for the madmen who accumulated three tons of materials to build explosives to try to blow up canadian parliament. madmen who are also canadian citizens. who felt compelled to rain terror on canadians for canada's participation in iraq. the united states is to blame. canada, clearly, doesn't have it's own government and isn't a sovereign nation, and isn't responsible for it's own choices and problems - the US is.



i see perfectly.

On the blame issue. I think it is rather insulting to say that Canada didn't make up it's own mind to enter the war. We held out for some time. Though I don't agree with the choice, Canada most certainly is responsible for our own involvement.

It is good to remember that terrorists come in non Muslim form as well. I hope they also catch the next bunch of whackos who try to blow up an abortion clinic or some other such atrocity.



edit to add: by "insulting" I do not mean that anyone owes an apology. Let's not start that again.

From what I read about Harper's meeting with Bush in Mexico it wasn't as friendly as some would like to believe. Harper admits to using some colourful words, Bush made a comment about appreciating Harper's blunt honesty, Bush didn't seem to notice Harper's hand in a photo op handshake moment and their first solo meeting was put off to a later date.

The attitude of the police at the trial would be much different if something had blown up first. I say let them gloat and put on a show. If the evidence is insufficient they'll pay the price later.

Scrat wrote: Let the courts sort it out. I am not gonig to trust my judgement on it because I don't feel that I can trust anything that my government says or does. Period.


In Canada we don't have to worry about that anymore. Harper doesn't tell us anything. :wah:

God, I love that guy! (really. I do. no sarcasm) (I mean it. I voted conservative)

Quote:

The proper response to 11th September, the intrusion into Afghanistan to attempt to arrest bin Laden and AQ members, after a promising start, has now turned into another foreign policy disaster.

disaster? yes, indeed. women, allowed to walk outside without a full burkha, and being educated too! absolutely disastrous.


They could before the US helped the Taliban get in to power. Pre taliban two thirds of the teachers were women, they could also attend university and wear what they liked.

Like it or not the US helped turn a left wing secular state into a religious theocracy by backing a minority opposition group that was getting nowhere.

Diuretic wrote:

The proper response to 11th September, the intrusion into Afghanistan to attempt to arrest bin Laden and AQ members, after a promising start, has now turned into another foreign policy disaster.




This is where we disagree - the invasion of Afghanistan was not a proper response to the atrocity of 11th September - at no time did the Afghan government posess or control Osama Bin Laden to the extent that it could have acceeded to the US demands to hand him over.

If the combined might of the Coalition could not winkle him out of his hole in years, how can we blame the Afghans for not managing it in the months the Bush administration allowed them.

I'm starting to think this isn't about Canada anymore. Is it officially a changed topic now?

anastrophe wrote:

[quote=diuretic]

anastrophe - rather than quote my bits, your bits and take everything apart bit by bit let me put my position.



Iraq is a disaster in terms of foreign policy, the unwarranted invasion and occupation of Iraq by the coalition of the willing has excited the interest and attention of a small number of Islamicists who wouldn't have given a rat's if there had been no invasion and occupation of Iraq.
patently and demonstrably false. or are you suggesting that the taliban, and al qaeda, came into being after iraq? that's an interesting bit of historical revisionism, considering they've been slaughtering innocent people for quite a long time before the iraq war.



'small number'?? you're aware of the massive, violent demonstrations throughout europe and the middle east over the 'blasphemous' cartoons published in a dutch newspaper? tens, hundreds of thousand demonstrated, often violently, and if not violently, then doing so with extremely brutally worded placards exclaiming their hatred for all that is western? these were not isolated. you think a small number want to rid the world of infidels? that they don't want to 'convert' western nations like france and britain unto the caliphate? they're doing it now!


Firstly, the Taliban were never linked to the attacks of September 11th and, if they've been killing people for quite a long time it was with the active support of the USA (remember the Russian occupation?).



Secondly, the level of support for the terrorists is the major problem with, and result of, the Bush administration's foreign policy.

Immediately after 11th September, the vast majority of people worldwide, including a large majority of muslims, were appalled by what had happened. The al-qaeda organization consisted of a few hundred, or at most a very few thousand, individuals.



With the invasion of Afghanistan, the humiliation of the Coalition forces and the destruction of the society, any good will evaporated. With the invasion of Iraq, the underlying distrust and dislike turned to fear and hatred and active membership of al-qaeda rose to the tens of thousands with hundreds of thousands of supporters worldwide.



Yes, there was terrorism before 11th September, but not on the scale or with the support we're seeing now nor with the level of organization they are able to bring to it.



The way to fight terrorists is not to invade countries – you don't fight terror groups with battle tanks and air power, you use intelligence led surgery. Still less is it to demonise an entire section of the world's population – that just forces them to fight back if only for self protection.



The entire policy is wrong and is causing far, far more harm than could ever have been achieved by al-qaeda as it existed immediately after 11th September.

koan wrote: I'm starting to think this isn't about Canada anymore. Is it officially a changed topic now?


Oops - sorry.

but it's still about the fall out - and the causes of the incident in Canada

I hope.

Bryn Mawr wrote: Oops - sorry.

but it's still about the fall out - and the causes of the incident in Canada

I hope.


this wasn't just about Canada but ok

but my reason for posting it was to point out the sad state of affairs that these extremists are involved in and how they have such clouded views now and if every one sides with their (the extremists) enemy, everyone becomes the enemy of everyone else.

"I hate john smith, but because fred flintstone, billy brown, johan stein, and al tate are his buds I will hate and hurt them for not siding with me... "see what I mean, it has gone so very very over the top.

minks wrote:

"I hate john smith, but because fred flintstone, billy brown, johan stein, and al tate are his buds I will hate and hurt them for not siding with me... "see what I mean, it has gone so very very over the top.


Bad enough "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" which produces some very strange bedfellowes.

but yes, the logic is tortuous and seriously flawed.

Bryn Mawr wrote: Bad enough "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" which produces some very strange bedfellowes.

but yes, the logic is tortuous and seriously flawed.


and leads to ugly fallout and killings of those who are trying from the get go to make things "right" ... in a laymans term.

Diuretic wrote: Apologies if this extends the diversionary nature of the thread.

The invasion of Afghanistan was right and proper and damn good foreign policy while it was focused on getting bin Laden the murderer and his murderous gang. The Taleban government wasn't going to hand him over to the US for trial. They had every right to go and get him. Where it went terribly wrong was when someone thought "regime change" for Afghanistan was a good idea.



Canada is in the gun with these nutters simply because Canada is now involved in protecting the forced regime change in Afghanistan. If Canada's role had been limited to supporting the surgical law enforcement-style operation to get bin Laden and his mates and put them on trial for mutiple counts of murder then I don't believe the Islamicist nutters in Canada would have had enough time to work up some decent outrage.


As I said previously, the Afghan government did not have Bin Laden and therefore could not hand him over. Going in with guns blazing was not right and proper - Afghanistan is a soverign nation state and invasion is not legal at the best of times.

If a surgical law enforcement style operation had gone in, picked him up and left immediately then very few eyebrows would have been raised but that was never the intention.