Terrorists recruiting in Canada

a reply to: MALBOSIA

Well according to the article, he made claims he couldn't/wouldn't back up and was asked to resign for the sake of CSIS integrity.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

It's not only Christians who are against ISIS and want to see them out of commission. Muslims, atheists, pretty much everyone with good sense doesn't think we need to be turning a blind eye to a bunch of murdering fanatics at the current moment.

Putting one's fingers in one's ears and saying "la la la la la I can't hear you" does nothing at all to solve the existing issue. Although, I'm sure ISIS and their supporters would prefer it that way. Give them plenty of time to acquire all they wish to acquire first.

originally posted by: seabhac-rua

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: FlySolo

I support the MSM to stop messing with the heads of weak minds of easily manipulated people.

Sunni and shia tribes have been fighting each other forever and the MSM are claiming it as some new phenomena to create fear and anger within the western world. For some sinister purpose, who knows what.

Maybe there trying to scare us into believing we need more protection and need to have more rights taken from us. Or maybe there conditioning us to convince us we need to invade the ME again because of some primitive ancient waring tribes.

Either way, you guys have once again been hood winked by the MSM, People just never catch on. If it wasn't so sad how easily the masses can be manipulated it would just be hilarious.

Wake up people! Just for once think for yourselves, please!

While you do have a point about the MSM.

I also think you are incredibly naive on this subject.

My experience and opinions on this matter do come from the MSM, I don't watch TV and I don't read newspapers, and a lot of people are like me BTW.

I have sat in a restaurant and listened to 4 young Muslim guys chat candidly about cutting the heads of atheists at the next table. I have worked with several Muslim guys in the past, they were nice people and we had many many discussions about religion, the middle east, war etc. I speak to Muslim cab drivers all the time.

I am not against Muslim people, I don't like Islam as an ideology to be honest, but I don't like Catholicism either.

What is going on in Syria and Iraq is very real and not some concoction blown out of proportion by the MSM. There are Muslim people from my town fighting in Syria right now. The reasons they are gone there need to be addressed. The questions concerning whether they should be let back into my country need to be addressed. The questions of who, if anybody, talked them into going or facilitated their going needs to be addressed.

You need to wake up to the realities of what is happening as much as anybody else.

I meant to type "My experience and opinions on this matter do come not from the MSM"....duh.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: mobiusmale

If the media wasn't reporting it then you would just settle down and life would go on like normal, you would be none the wiser. If they are such a threat as you claim then how come they haven't attack us yet?

This whole thing has been purposely fabricated to scare the flock and allow the US government to start with air raids. Just wait, I guarantee there going use this fabrication as a justification to attack the ME.

Sorry to burst your war mongering bubble. But then again I'm sure that's what most of you fanatic christians want, a great holy war against the muslims, lol.

You can "lol" all you like.

You're not bursting any bubbles here, all you're doing is spouting naive rhetoric.

As far as you're concerned the members who don't agree with you on this thread are "warmongers" brainwashed by the MSM......how perceptive.

Did you even know that a couple of weeks ago the US began airstrikes on ISIS?

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

I will take that answer as a "yes", that you Do support ISIS, that since the poster specified "a yes/no answer" which you failed to give, sidestepping with irrelevant gibberish about religion, you must therefore support ISIS.

Regarding ISIS, the religious angle IS gibberish, intentionally misleading, since ISIS is not a religious entity, but a political one covered in a (very) thin veneer of religion. A "caliphate" is precisely the same as an "empire", a political unit rather than a religious one. Think of "The Holy Roman Empire" - the word "empire" is the operative one there, "Roman" just tells you which empire, and "Holy" is only thrown in to provide cover. The things they did and do are anything BUT holy, going by their own religious books, which is what gives the lie to the religious angle.

Same with ISIS and their alleged "Caliphate".

Thanks for coming out and letting us know where you really stand.

originally posted by: Fylgje
a reply to: TinfoilTP
There are also many who leave from America and Canada who fight for the IDF. I guess it's a sport to go murder people, then come back home to their normal life. Very sadistic, evil people. Kind of like the movie Hostel.

I'd like to take this opportunity to explain something to you.

I put my time in going overseas and fighting under foreign flags. Not ISIS, and damn sure not the IDF, but fighting is fighting. I went, and came back home, several times.

I did not "murder" anyone - no one at all. Neither in "sport" nor in anger.

It is NOT POSSIBLE to "come back home to their normal life" after that. Ever. Life is never "normal" again.

I do not expect you to understand that, at all. Better that you should get on with YOUR normal life, and let the rest of us fight our own demons if the need arises.

We already know that you're not going to.

We also know that someone HAS to.

originally posted by: dollukka
Some of those kids are money driven. ISIS pays up to 20 000 euros for these for joining in their war campaign.

ISIS is an extremely well-funded organization. The recruiters are professionals and are able to promise to young people large sums of money. War campaign can get up to 10-15 000. The terrorist organization, of course, pay for trips for young people. Few young people will realize that the war that has started will not easily be allowed out. Soldiers are like a gang - the gang will not let them get to grasp.

This is a translation of call for a help for the muslim kids which ISIS is recruiting from a business man who has somali background and lives in Finland. He wants this to stop.
LINK You will need a translator for this.

I don't doubt that for a minute - Arabs are big on payments of that type. The thing is that 20k euros, which comes out to around 25.8k USD today, is just not enough to bet your life on. I don't think that's monthly pay, or even yearly, but more like a "bonus" payment to buy you for the duration. By itself, it's just not enough... without some other motivations coming into play.

I've known very few people who were motivated by pure mercenary gain. Sure, it's been fairly said that "every man has his price", but those prices are almost always set, raised, and lowered by other motivations, usually ideological.

originally posted by: nenothtu
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

I will take that answer as a "yes", that you Do support ISIS, that since the poster specified "a yes/no answer" which you failed to give, sidestepping with irrelevant gibberish about religion, you must therefore support ISIS.

Regarding ISIS, the religious angle IS gibberish, intentionally misleading, since ISIS is not a religious entity, but a political one covered in a (very) thin veneer of religion. A "caliphate" is precisely the same as an "empire", a political unit rather than a religious one. Think of "The Holy Roman Empire" - the word "empire" is the operative one there, "Roman" just tells you which empire, and "Holy" is only thrown in to provide cover. The things they did and do are anything BUT holy, going by their own religious books, which is what gives the lie to the religious angle.

Same with ISIS and their alleged "Caliphate".

Thanks for coming out and letting us know where you really stand.

Muslims should be just like Christians in the United States, separate from the state. However, some can't remove the political ideology from Islam, because that's what it was founded for. How does one remove Sharia from Islam? To do so means you have to give up part of Islam. It is much better if they just said in their shahada that they confess Allah and then worship Allah in a religious sense. But because they have to include Mohammed in that, they are not only submitting themselves to Allah, but Mohammed as well.

That means submitting to Mohammed's political ideology. And that would be shirk if they didn't include Mohammed. But why do they live in that much fear?

We could groundpound ISIS to dust, but it won't change anything unless they remove the political ideology, because more people will come along and do the same thing. Sometimes I feel sorry for Muslims who try to be civilized, because they know that they have to include Mohammed just to not be killed by their neighbors.

No one makes the connection to why there are training camps. They are given paramilitary training. When a Christian group does that, they are called fringe groups and the FBI hounds them. Remember Ruby Ridge? They said that man was a terrorist and shot his family. I don't agree with everything about Ruby Ridge, but the FBI managed to stop him.

But the wonderful thing about living in the United States is that we can still be vocal about our disagreements with the government. As long as we don't use weapons against the government, we are fine. But that can't be said for most Middle Eastern countries. The Caliphate? The little freedom anyone has now over there, the strict enforcement of Sharia will wipe that out and they will never let each other live at all in any kind of peace.

There is no peace in subjugation and forced submission. If a system has that much force on a people that they constantly watch each other and report any activity that they feel is not right, then where is the peace in that?

a reply to: WarminIndy

It's really a pretty simple matter -you just ignore "their" sharia and follow your own. There is not just one sharia for all - it varies from sect to sect, from scholar to scholar, and many Muslims ignore sharia altogether. Not much different from Christianity - do Protestants follow Catholic religious law? Do they eat fish on Fridays, go to confession, and all that?

Islam wasn't founded as a political ideology -it was founded as a religion. Politics crept in over the years, and got steadily worse. It started when some of Mohammed's people, apparently afraid they were going to step on Allah's toes (as if!), started asking Mohammed about the minutiae of "right" and "wrong". Over time, it became every bit as legalistic as Judaism and Catholicism - both of which have their own alien political components to have to deal with.

What bothers me the most about the sharia is it's very legalism that entirely overshadows any spiritual component nowadays among it's adherents. There is a "ruling" on damned near ever little grainy facet of existence - several rulings, in fact, because there are so many Islamic scholars through time. Rulings on every single minute facet of sex. Rulings on the size of a mud puddle it's permissible to wash in before prayers. Rulings on this that, and the other minute detail of life, and many of those rulings often conflicting.

Sharia was not a part of Islam at it's inception - it was the cultural rules, which then crept into Islam over time, and were made worse by this "leader" or that making a "ruling" to his own benefit, and made worse by people afraid to piss off their deity insisting on a ruling on this, that, or the other minute detail of their existence. Essentially, most people could not make their own decisions and determine their own lives, they were afraid they might piss off their god because none of them knew that god, so and deferred to this scholar or that to do their thinking for them. Most of the rulings are cultural, and have not a damned thing to do with any religious matter - the "leaders" who make them couch them in religious language to make them more palatable, and the people who receive them eat them up so as not to upset their god and give him indigestion... that's why they ask for the rulings to begin with, because they have no idea how their god would handle a cultural matter.

Guess who benefits? it's not any deity, and it's not the people receiving the ruling...

So now we have Gomer's Boys on one extreme, whose sharia insists that they kill every living thing that doesn't think like they do politically, culturally, and ostensibly "religiously", and on the other extreme Muslims who follow no sharia at all other than what they glean out of the Qur'an themselves, who follow the spirit rather than the scholar, and make a genuine attempt to understand their deity.

It's not the sharia itself, it's the twisted interpretations and rulings of some, and the number of followers they may have. All Muslims revere Mohammed, but not all of them see him as merely a warlord.

At Ruby Ridge the FBI didn't merely "stop" Weaver, they set him up to begin with, then killed his dog, his son, and his wife... then settled their screw-up out of court for a buttload of money to try and cover their wrongs. I don't quite understand how Ruby Ridge came into a discussion of religious paramilitary training camps.

Sharia is not a part of the recruitment effort, either - that only comes later, after the recruit is hooked, when he is then fed a twisted version of sharia to benefit his handlers. The initial recruiting is done as any other - they find someone disaffected and marginalized (prisons are great recruiting grounds, and prisoners are recruited every day), give him a sense of "belonging" and "family" (the same tactic is used in street gang recruitment), and once he's hooked, they lower the boom, secure in the knowledge that he won't run away and leave his new "family", where he "belongs", in the lurch.

I know of a case in the midwest where a woman was recruited at a radical masjid, and even though other people, including Muslims, tried to get through to her and in essence "deprogram" her, they never got it done to my knowledge.

The grip of "belonging" was too strong, and she was afraid to lose that, since she had never known it before in her life.

nvm. sorry.

originally posted by: nenothtu
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

I will take that answer as a "yes", that you Do support ISIS, that since the poster specified "a yes/no answer" which you failed to give, sidestepping with irrelevant gibberish about religion, you must therefore support ISIS.

No worries mate, feel free to take it however you want. Playing manipulating word games won’t change my stance, which I have made perfectly clear.

Regarding ISIS, the religious angle IS gibberish, intentionally misleading, since ISIS is not a religious entity, but a political one covered in a (very) thin veneer of religion. A "caliphate" is precisely the same as an "empire", a political unit rather than a religious one.

I’d be very interested to see your credible source for the claim that the Islamic state of Iraq and levant isn’t a religious group, fighting for a religious cause. Or are you just talking gibberish in a desperate attempt to conceal the true damage religion in general has on humanity?

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: nenothtu
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

I will take that answer as a "yes", that you Do support ISIS, that since the poster specified "a yes/no answer" which you failed to give, sidestepping with irrelevant gibberish about religion, you must therefore support ISIS.

No worries mate, feel free to take it however you want. Playing manipulating word games won’t change my stance, which I have made perfectly clear.

Regarding ISIS, the religious angle IS gibberish, intentionally misleading, since ISIS is not a religious entity, but a political one covered in a (very) thin veneer of religion. A "caliphate" is precisely the same as an "empire", a political unit rather than a religious one.

I’d be very interested to see your credible source for the claim that the Islamic state of Iraq and levant isn’t a religious group, fighting for a religious cause. Or are you just talking gibberish in a desperate attempt to conceal the true damage religion in general has on humanity?

One word...Sharia.

Any more questions?

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

No worries mate, feel free to take it however you want. Playing manipulating word games won’t change my stance, which I have made perfectly clear.

Thank you for your permission to exercise my own mind...

... and when something is made "perfectly clear", it's, well, made perfectly clear, in unequivocal statements, not a word-play that dances around the issues and avoids a direct answer, which is what you have done here.

I’d be very interested to see your credible source for the claim that the Islamic state of Iraq and levant isn’t a religious group, fighting for a religious cause. Or are you just talking gibberish in a desperate attempt to conceal the true damage religion in general has on humanity?

First, I'm going to have to know what you would consider a "credible source". We could use your own mind as the source, if you are capable of logical thought - just ask yourself, are their goals religious, or political? Is a "state" a religious entity, or a political unit?

BTW, calling Gomer's Legions "The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" gives them more territory than they currently claim, even themselves. Are you in the habit of giving ground to the enemy at all times, or is this a special case?

originally posted by: mcChoodles

Why not start by kicking in your own door and leave the rest of us alone? People who advocate violence against violence should be the first to be violated.

They usually are the first to be violated - what do you think leads them to violent response to begin with?

What do you advocate as a response? Poking flowers into their gun barrels? Worked great in the sixties and at Kent State... so good luck with that!

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: mcChoodles

Why not start by kicking in your own door and leave the rest of us alone? People who advocate violence against violence should be the first to be violated.

They usually are the first to be violated - what do you think leads them to violent response to begin with?

What do you advocate as a response? Poking flowers into their gun barrels? Worked great in the sixties and at Kent State... so good luck with that!

Yes, let's see how they Coexist with Sharia and they become dhimmis, all they have to do is pay the jizyah tax and every time they see a Muslim, they have to lower their heads.

If people only really knew what Sharia says, if one is civilized they would toss the book in the fire. Reliance of the Traveler

I am sure that every member of Isis carries one of these around with them.

a reply to: nenothtu
Maybe you misunderstood me? I'm talking about Americans who have gone to Israel to fight for the IDF. The Americans who have gone to sign up with ISIL and fight for them. I thought Americans only fought for America, not some foreign master. Now, it appears that people from all over the world is choosing sides and going to fight for their side, then come home.

We already know that you're not going to

Sure. You know everyone and everything about them. You think you're the only one who has paid any dues. I remember. You've already bragged about this numerous times and put many people down. lol

originally posted by: Psynic
a reply to: CALGARIAN

But it's okay for Israel to recruit from Canada?

Large numbers of Jews from all around the world go to the ME to fight with the JDF.

After they've perpetrated war crimes against Palestinian children they are welcomed 'home' to vote in Canadian elections.

Does anyone else see the hypocrisy in this policy?

Quoted for truth. If it is just fine and dandy to go join one foreign army, and be allowed to come back, then it's hypocritical to condemn others for doing the same.

If it's fine for isreal to come recruit in our country, why not hamas or isis?

originally posted by: Fylgje
a reply to: nenothtu
Maybe you misunderstood me? I'm talking about Americans who have gone to Israel to fight for the IDF. The Americans who have gone to sign up with ISIL and fight for them. I thought Americans only fought for America, not some foreign master. Now, it appears that people from all over the world is choosing sides and going to fight for their side, then come home.

We already know that you're not going to

Sure. You know everyone and everything about them. You think you're the only one who has paid any dues. I remember. You've already bragged about this numerous times and put many people down. lol

It's called dual citizenship because we have that treaty with Israel. We also have the same dual citizenship with Ireland, and there have been some Americans who have gone there to fight with the IRA. I am sure Canada also offers dual citizenship with other nations as well.

Dual citizenship with Israel and the fact that Jewish people can be citizens of both and the law in Israel states that citizenship means that one must join the army, then why is that unreasonable? People come to the United States join our military as well.

Not all Jewish people go to Israel to join the army there, but they can if they want to. And most Jewish people have two birth certificates, one issued in the country they were born and one in Israel, through the rabbinical court.

a reply to: WarminIndy
You can be dual anything in canada, becoming a citizen, it is not required to renounce your previous citizenship. At least it didn't even bring it up a few years back when I got my canadian citizenship.

originally posted by: Fylgje
a reply to: nenothtu
Maybe you misunderstood me? I'm talking about Americans who have gone to Israel to fight for the IDF. The Americans who have gone to sign up with ISIL and fight for them. I thought Americans only fought for America, not some foreign master. Now, it appears that people from all over the world is choosing sides and going to fight for their side, then come home.

Since when have Americans only fought for America? Are you familiar with the Flying Tigers, as an example? The Lafayette Escadrille? Americans have been going to fight under foreign flags if the price was right since there has been an America. Before America was, then it was folks from other places going to fight under foreign flags. It's not a new concept. Second oldest profession, I hear.

You pick the wrong flag, however, one that is a declared enemy to America, and you run the risk of losing citizenship.

Or worse. The law is already on the books, but some unfathomable reason some dumbass congress critter has seen fit to introduce another one to try to get it on the books, too, covering pretty much the same thing as the one already there. My tax dollars at work, I suppose.

Sure. You know everyone and everything about them. You think you're the only one who has paid any dues. I remember. You've already bragged about this numerous times and put many people down. lol

Put you down? Not a bit of it. I'm sure that you're willing to fight for something - everyone has their boiling point - I just question what that something is, based upon your characterization of what constitutes "murder" in your previous post.

The long and the short of it is that neither the IDF nor Israel are declared enemies of America, but ISIS is - by it's own declaration. Going to fight for ISIS is treason at best, while the same thing cannot be said of going to fight for the IDF.

So there's your difference.