"Duped" into thinking he was only killing NATO forces, not UK civilians
His "high-profile" lawyer insists that his client "was duped by the extremists into believing the group intended to wage an attack on NATO-led forces in Afghanistan, rather than targeting civilians in the U.K." More telling is the fact that the word "Islam" does not even show up anywhere in this report. Rather, we are told that the accused followed a "unique brand of ideological hatred." What, pray tell, could that be?
"Khawaja guilty on some but not all terror charges," from CTA.CA, October 29 (thanks to Sounder):
An Ottawa software developer whom prosecutors accused of promoting a unique brand of ideological hatred has been found guilty of some terror-related charges against him, but not all.Momin Khawaja, the first person charged under Canada's Anti-Terrorism Act, faced seven charges in connection with a foiled U.K. bomb plot.
An Ottawa judge found him guilty on five counts of financing and facilitating terrorism and two Criminal Code offences related to building a remote-controlled detonator with the intent of causing an explosion.
However, the judge said the prosecution did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that Khawaja, 29, was aware his U.K. associates planned to bomb domestic targets using the so-called Hi-Fi Digimonster detonator he built.
As a result, the charges related to the detonator weren't counted as terrorism-related charges, said CTV's Rosemary Thompson, outside the courtroom.
"So he faces a very stiff sentence down the road but the one caveat in this is his lawyer did convince the judge that his client wasn't aware of plans to bomb a night club and shopping centre as this cell was planning to do," Thompson told CTV Newsnet.
Sentencing has been scheduled for Nov. 18.
Khawaja's high-profile Canadian lawyer, Lawrence Greenspon, has argued his client was duped by the extremists ["extremist" what, rock band?] into believing the group intended to wage an attack on NATO-led forces in Afghanistan, rather than targeting civilians in the U.K.
Crown Prosecutor David McKercher has pointed out that the British plotters bought and stockpiled a large quantity of fertilizer that could be used in a home-made bomb. He also said there was no chance Khawaja believed the plotters were going to carry the fertilizer into Afghanistan for use there, but that he knew they were planning to hit U.K. targets.
Evidence submitted in the case also indicated Khawaja met with people involved in the British plot to discuss remote-control technology, attended a terrorist training camp and that he supported the 9/11 terrorist bombings.
A shopping mall, night club, and electric and gas facilities were said to be on the group's list of U.K. targets.
Five of Khawaja's alleged co-conspirators were convicted in London last year and sentenced to life in prison.
Canadian media makes the New York Times look positively centrist.
"A unique brand of ideological hatred"?
Ha. You could almost put anything into that category.
Maybe the guy had a unique brand of ideological hatred against corn flakes?
I'm sure AM will be able to clear this one up. Come on down Abdullah!
In Canada, this guy will get 10 years, less double time already served. So he will be out in about 6 years. All this for conspiring to commit mass murder.
Boy, if looks could kill....
Another one going bye-bye.
Say what you like about the media, at least the courts get it right.
Gymgal: not in Australia (see Jihad Jack report).
"the accused followed a "unique brand of ideological hatred."
I quoted that line to the NewsTeam link at CTV.ca and said, "Oh, you mean Islam? Well, why didn't you just say so?"
LOL
Technically speaking attacking military troops is not terrorism, in-fact when those troops are occupiers it becomes morally and legally permitted, according to UN law.
Why the frown? Don't let a little jail time get you down, pal. Cheer up! Allah must have some rewards in Sex Heaven waiting for even a failure like yourself.
Duped is right, he was Duped into following after a false prophet & false god.
from the AFP article provided in a link from the ROP site:
"Khawaja was the first to be arrested under the act, and pleaded not guilty.
The devout Muslim was born in Canada of Pakistani immigrant parents and once worked as a computer expert at Canada's Foreign Affairs Department.
The prosecution had argued he sought out the fanatic group of British Muslims, also of Pakistani descent, and designed for them a remote detonator to set off a fertilizer bomb.
The detonator was found in Khawaja's Ottawa house along with an arsenal of guns during a police raid in 2004, the court heard.
The prosecution also laid out emails, and descriptions of video and wiretap surveillance that purportedly tied him to the bomb plot.
In one email sent from a Foreign Affairs computer, according to prosecutors, Khawaja discussed using a courier to send the detonator to his contacts in London.
In 2003, Khawaja also traveled to northern Pakistan for weapons training, and made his secondary residence in the country available to his new "bros."
Sentencing is set for November 18."
Note that this article makes the connection to Islam.
Thank you jowan. I am your nabi, nabi ZK (peace be upon me), and I thank you for reminding us that it is both morally and legally permitted for us to attack mohametans anywhere and everywhere, since all lands inhabited by the mohametans are occupied lands stolen by force from the rightful owners.
nabi ZK (pbum)
....death to islam....er mohametanism....
From article:...
"the accused followed a "unique brand of ideological hatred."
The perfect description of Islam.
At first I thought the article was about the infamous quasi apostate 'AM' who has been
informing RS and posters here of his own brand of unique ideological hatred, which is similar, but slightly different, than the Canadian case of
the happy man in the picture.
The difference is, that the happy man in the picture is not a quasi apostate windbag full of himself, but an actual terrorist.
The similarity is, they are both jihadists, both Allaholics, both Mohammadans, and both subscribe to a 'unique ideological hatred', we call Islam.
According to this judge, everything would have been just hunky dory if he were to just kill NATO Troops, Even if they were Canadian?
Canada is so PC it's enough to make your head explode-even without Islams help.
Perhaps CTA is ah...fearful...of some Human Rights Commission, or other.
(As ye sow, so shall ye reap.)
Allaholics I like that one duh_swami.
Would that clowns like this loser be all that we face from the totalitarian ideology which is Islam. Unfortunately, the more intelligent ideologues within the precious 'umma' know only too well that stealth jihad is the way to go to conquer the West. And the West continues to slumber as this more subtle jihad continues incrementally, inexorably.
"An Ottawa software developer..."
More evidence that "extremism" is caused by poverty, lack of education and chronic unemployment.
/sarc off
Technically speaking attacking military troops is not terrorism, in-fact when those troops are occupiers it becomes morally and legally permitted, according to UN law.
Posted by: jowen
--
Does this "logic" apply to the moslems running rampant in our Western lands?
They're robbing and killing people, raping women and just a general nuisance.
They act like occupiers.
What means are WE allowed to resort to to free ourselves of this garbage?
Jowen I agree with you. Not all Jihadist violence falls within the categorization of "terrorism". That's the problem with the term - it doesn't really get at the problem. The problem is the goal of the violence, and that is the restoration of the caliphate theocracy and the imposition of Sharia law.
Would that clowns like this loser be all that we face from the totalitarian ideology which is Islam. Unfortunately, the more intelligent ideologues within the precious 'umma' know only too well that stealth jihad is the way to go to conquer the West. And the West continues to slumber as this more subtle jihad continues incrementally, inexorably.
Posted by: Wellington
The way I see it the stealth jihadist appreciate the diversion provided by the violent jihadists. While people are paying attention to the violent jihad the stealth jihad flies in under the radar.
And the first comment is a cheap shot at Canada! Awesome! But Cornelius, before you act like such a complete moron, you might want to take a look at the National Post sometime. No other major paper in North American is as honest and as uncompromising in its treatment of Islam, and it's based in Toronto, Ontario.
Robert, any chance you could post a note at some point reminding people here that we're all on the same side in this fight? I'm really sick of coming here to read your great work and finding idiot Americans trashing Canada for being some kind of jihadi heaven. Especially when the U.S. gave the world the Iraqi idiocy, allowed Afghanistan to enshrine sharia in its constitution, and have permitted crazy Muslim Student Associations to basically take over most of the university campuses in the country.
Glass houses, stones, etc.
"Canadian media makes the New York Times look positively centrist." --Cornelius
I follow Canadian and American media regularly. This CTV article is consciously "PC" (for lack of a better term), in this case to the point of journalistic negligence, about identifying the ideological motives of the terrorist. However, this negligence does not approach the unabashed pro-Islamic propaganda published in the NY Times as a rule.
The Toronto Star is probably the closest major example that is similar to the NY Times in its treatment of Islam. The CBC also takes at least a moderately pro-Islamic propagandistic approach.
The CTV generally does not omit terms like Islamic, Islamist, etc., but is similar to most media in the western world at this time.
In Canada, the major media outlets that will use identifying terms like "Islam" "Muslims" Islamist" etc. in such reports include the National Post and Maclean's, and sometimes the Globe and Mail. Media in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and in the Atlantic provinces is generally less PC regarding Islam as compared to media in Ontario and Quebec.
OutOfAqaba,
Cornelius is certainly not a moron, though he may have erred in using the NY Times as a point of comparison.
Update: As of 7:10 PM Oct. 29 the linked CTV article above starts with this wording:
"A judge has ruled that Mohammad Momin Khawaja is a terrorist who sympathized with al Qaeda and constructed bombs..."
The editors (?) may believe they are addressing the identification problem by filling in the slot with "al-Qaeda." That is a common approach, and is not good enough in identifying the ideological motives of the terrorist.
theanti_Mo: I respectfully disagree with you. I think violent jihad must ordinarily be seen by the smarter true believer as the most likely of all ways that the West will oppose Islam with the most vigor. Besides, what makes you think that the stealth jihad would be less likely to fly under the radar were there little or no Islamic violence? Were that the case, numererous Western countries would probably INCEASE Muslim immigration and be even more accomodating to Mohammedans.
OutofAqaba: If Cornelius' point was that the Candian media is even more liberal than the American media, I agree with him. Besides, if you have bothered to read Cornelius' numerous comments here at JW, you would know he is no moron, even assuming you are correct in this particular instance, which I don't think you are.
I remember some twenty years ago when I was teaching there was a Candadian student in my class who brought in numerous newspaper clippings from a variety of Candian newspapers. Her point was to show me how disrespectful many Canadian editorials were to America and, in particular, to President Reagan (she herself felt embarrassed about these newspapers). I read them over and must say that to this day I remember being stunned by the extremely derisive and cheap commentary about my country and our President. I also remember remarking to the Canadian that compared to what I just read, The New York Times was downright polite to Reagan. Now, the NYT has gotten even worse over the past twenty years, but my sense of things is that, overall, the Canadian media is even more liberal than is its American counterpart. Just look at the CBC as an example.
More recently (some three years ago) another student of mine (this time an American) travelled that particular summer to Europe. He told me that he heard many negative things about America while he was on the other side of the pond, but that without a doubt the most negative comments he came across about America came from Canadian students he spoke with. Look, I wish Canada and Canadians well, but there is a definite sense here in America among millions of Americans that many Canadians and Canadian outlets have a deep seated animosity towards America and that most of such animus is rooted in jealously, ignorance, pettiness and stupidity. Nonetheless, I wish you and your country the best and do agree with you that Canada and America should work together to counter Islamic supremacism.
The Jihad is laughing because we are fighting each other rather than the terrorists among us.
Brothers! Sisters! Enough of the intramural scuffling! Americans and Canadians both value freedom, tolerance and an open search for truth. NONE of the three values I mentioned are present in the political entity that is Islam.
Infidels of the world unite! We have nothing to lose but our chains!
Seems to me I posted the original link to this story yesterday, on the Jihad Jack thread:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/023278.php
I do tend to agree with OutOfAqaba. Every time a story is published about islamism in Canada, the Canuck-bashers come out of the woodwork.
Wellington and tanstaafl are right too - we must fight together against islam. As long time posters know, I have always held the opinion that the United States is the best country in the world with which to share a continent. I hope Americans feel the same way about Canada.
OutOfAqaba...While you advocate for unity, you cause division, by referring to someone on your/our side as a moron.
Numerous times I read where posters here are in error about something, but I usually don't call them on it because they are correct about Islam, and in this context, that's all that counts.
I am not interested in debating people on my side because they are on my side, and I am on theirs.
I don't debate anyway, I prefer straight forward talk, swami style.
Cornelius is far from moronic...It would be better for the unity you desire if you refrain from such labeling.
Please take this as constructive criticism... :)
"Technically speaking attacking military troops is not terrorism, in-fact when those troops are occupiers it becomes morally and legally permitted, according to UN law."
What a dope you are, jowen.
1. The target of terrorists need not be civilians in order for the act to be considered terrorism.
2. We are not "occupiers" in either Iraq or Afghanistan. We went in after enemies who'd either attacked us first or showed their intent and some capability to do so.
3. The UN doesn't make law. And if they did, we don't have to follow it.
Stupid.
Who is behind the wheel? The guy appears dressed in light clothing but the driver has a head covering and is wearing black gloves.
The extreme PC and anti-Americanism comes overwhelmingly out of Ontario, Toronto in particular. Canada has become very liberal over the past 40 years whereby liberalism is even further left than the liberalism of 40 years ago. They hate war, no matter the reason, thus Bush and anyone standing up to defend themselves and Islamists are making good use of that. So, yes, in my view, 'Canada bashing' as claimed by some here is deserved because such rabid PC will surely end our culture. Unfortunately, you folks in America are next.
It is apparent the extreme left is gaining substantial ground in the USA. Just look at the events of the current election campaign, the associations of 'the one' and the rabid hateful actions of the left. I fear the USA will soon be on it's way to making up 40 years akin to the Canadian progressives starting on November 4, 2008.
Canada is not alone in this, we are simply ahead of the curve. We all must fight together or face fertilizing the ground for a new Islamic crop, unrestrained in it's ambitions which will not bode well for freedom or peace.
So go ahead, bash Canada, at least everyone will know what to look out for and understand the dire consequences heading our way.
undaunted...I think the problem about who's a terrorist and who's not, is due to the inability to actually define it.
My own definition of 'terrorism', is any attack, or threat of attack, by an individual or group,
against non combatants, in order to instill terror, to make religious, political, or financial gain, is terrorism.
For instance old time pirates, who are not usually seen as terrorists, terrorized coastal towns for financial gain.
Armed men attacking each other, are supposed to terrorize each other. Lethal intimidation is the name of the game... War is terror.
So who's a terrorist and who's not is tricky, which is why I like my definition...
Wellington,
Here's a (not so) short history lesson that might explain why there is the perceived tension between Canadians and the US - and who that perception is most likely coming from. The three historical events noted below set the stage for the tension, but, solely in my opinion, its continuation in the Canadian psyche has been propogated for other reasons that emerged from those historical events:
- Event #1: When Britain conquered the French territories now mostly known as the province of Quebec, the American Colonies were still a British holding. Due the the presence of a large number of French people living in the conquered area, the British made special legal concessions to them - ostensibly to prevent a civil uprising. Those concessions were referenced in the US Declaration of Independence in the point:
"For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies..." Thus, the French speaking peoples of what is now Canada, who liked the deal that the British set up for them, saw in this reference that they didn't have any allies in the colonies. The attacks on Quebec by Washington's army during the American Revolution in 1775 just cemented this view.
- Event #2: After the American Revolution large numbers of people that had supported the British rule of the Colonies in opposition to the American Revolution either chose to or were forced to (depending on whose accounts you read) leave those former colonies. Many of them ended up in what is now the province of Ontario and they brought with them negative views about the new country to their south. Those views were passed on to subsequent generations, as seems to happen in all of these situations.
- Why it continues: Over time, as Canada grew and secured more territory, the ruling and academic elites can from Ontario and Quebec. Both of these groups developed the "mythology" that defines who Canada is, and that "mythology" pulls heavily from the foundation of the experiences of both the French in Quebec and the Royalists in Ontario. People from this tradition have controlled and continue to control many of the media outlets and government positions (elected and unelected) at all levels of government in Canada - and especially within our educations institutions. Added to that mythology is the psychological need for Canadians to differentiate themselves from Americans for various reasons - some of them legitimate due to differing views on the world, and some of them due to nothing more than jealousy. Many in Canada never challenge those views because they become part of what it means to be "Canadian" - that is, "not American". Unfortunately, within Canada, this view is very widespread, and ebbs and flows depending on the perception of the alignment of the US Administration to "Canadian values" within the media - but fortunately it is usually mostly directed at the US Administration and usually NOT towards individual American citizens.
For what it's worth...
Active Listener
'I have always held the opinion that the United States is the best country in the world with which to share a continent. I hope Americans feel the same way about Canada.' posted by ImNoDhimmi.
This American does, most certainly.
And PMK, I wondered about the driver, too. At first, I thought "what an ugly woman" due to the head covering, but then realized it must be a security person. I mean, wouldn't this terrorist be in custody? Note how his seatbelt is above his right arm, implying he's handcuffed.
Canada like most other western countries (US included) is riddled with the cancer of political correctness perpetuated by a near total left wing media and academia. The jihadist's vanguard. Remember, Canada just re-elected a Conservative national government (well, by Canadian standards anyhow) and on Tuesday the US might just be making a hard left turn into the Twilight Zone.. I can understand Cornelius' sentiment though, since Canada has been well ahead of the States in its progressive attitudes. But, there is still a sizable segment of the population who are traditionally minded, and OutofAqaba is probably one of them. Most conservative Canadians argue constantly with their anti-American lefties, and sticking up for the States is usually job 1. Believe me. I think the anti-Jihadists should have their own umma, and leave boarders out of it. Oh yeah, and Cornelius is definitely no dummy.
"Canada: Islamic terrorist found guilty of "some" charges"
Khawaja was found guilty of 5 of the 7 charges against him. He was given a fair trial.
Your use of "some" seems like an attempt to demean the Canadian legal system which, unlike some countries' systems, does not pre determine guilt or innocence prior to the trail of an accused..
CTV may have been ultra-PC in its presentation of this story. On the other hand, the Globe and Mail, Canada's newspaper of record, used "jihadist" in both the headline and text of a column about the same event. Recall that reporters don't write the headlines to the articles they author.
Jihadist found guilty of terrorist crimes
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20081030.KHAWAJA30//TPStory/National
Swami; I was using this definition, from the FBI:
The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
The only problem with Canada is that it has the same type PC elitist crumbs in charge as does the US and Europe.
The silverware of the west is tarnished.
Remove the tarnish and the silver gleams like new.
There is nothing essentially wrong with Canada or the US, except the superimposition of tarnish.
Unfortunately for the US, Obama never heard of silver polish, so he won't remove any tarnish, he will add more. Americas, and Canada's shine may dim, but neither will go out...
Remove these tarnish enablers from power positions, and the lights will come back on...
undaunted...That definition is close to mine.
But I would add, that terrorism does not always include force or violence, but it always includes intimidation...And they left out the financial motivations...
Stipulated, sir.
Who is behind the wheel? The guy appears dressed in light clothing but the driver has a head covering and is wearing black gloves.
Posted by: PMK
To PMK, that's his wife. Gee those Muslim women are ugly.
Blanco,
Those must be the "bonds of marriage"?
Vee, thanks for the input. I went back to the picture and observed that only the driver's left hand was on the steering wheel. Security or law enforcement is probably it.
What threw me was the difference in clothing. The terrorist appears lightly dressed while the driver looks ready for a blizzard.
I don't know if it was just a bad picture but I think you can see whiskers around the mouth, so it's not likely to be a woman.
Wellington,
I appreciate your disagreement with my theory and would generally agree with you, however, we are not dealing with people who think logically. If the stealth jihadist were logical thinkers they would see for themselves how Sharia, and Islam in general, harm society. I am of the opinion that because violent jihad is not termed violent jihad, it is simply referred to as jihad, the mainstream public believes there is only one kind.
It seems to me that there is no real danger to the stealth jihad practitioners from the backlash created by their violent brethren. Example: Bombing after bombing in Islamic/Sharia governed countries or perpetrated by citizens of said countries. the West ignores it and continues to import these 7th century holdout barbarians. The Islamic imports bring along their 7th century ways and the citizens of the West allow the immigration to continue. The imports arent blowing things up, they must be ok. If the bombings stop, if the violent terrorism stops, people may start to examine more closely the stealth jihadist mannerisms and rhetoric. The stealth jihadis can stand up and say "we are not terrorists, we are no danger to you, the danger is that way". I would argue that while not violent, stealth jihad is a form of terrorism.
Sorry, but anyone who makes a blanket statement like that about the Canadian media IS a moron. I'm just sick of these pot shots being lobbed at Canada here, by people in a country going ga-ga right now over a Marxist, where Muslims have huge marches in NY right down Madison Avenue.
Momin Khawaja was born in Canada to Pakistani immigrants. Technically speaking, neither Pakistan or Canada is being occupied by the UK.
Unless there is (technically speaking, of course) another tie that binds him to Afghanistan that makes him feel justified in attacking those he feels "occupied" by. Whatever might that tie be, I wonder? The media should find out and just tell us what that tie is.
RE: Kinana of Khaybar
The media coverage of this incident definitely differs depending on where you are in Canada.
In Alberta, the Edmonton Journal had this to say:
"MUSLIM CANADIAN EVOLVES INTO HOLY WARRIOR"
Momin Khawaja remained silent throughout his 4 1/2 year case, but dozens of emails he wrote prior to his arrest reveal how and why this quiet Canadian, with a nice family, from a nice Ottawa suburb dedicated his life to terrorism and destroying the West. Using many of Khawaja's own words and thoughts, the Ottawa Citizen chronicles Khawaja's descent into jihad.
Here are a few more choice quotes from the article (capitals are my own and added for emphasis):
"Everyone seems to stare at him with each accusation as they persecute him for following what he believes is the RIGHTEOUS PATH OF ISLAM...
...worse, they mock and ignore Allah and the Prophet and plunder the wealth of the muslim nation, the Ummah...then he realized ISLAM'S ONLY DELIVERANCE IS JIHAD...
...he dreampt of being a soldier someday, inspired by the story of Ali Radi Allah Anhu, THE GREAT MUSLIM SOLDIER WHO CLEAVED THE JEWISH COMMANDER MARHAB IN HALF WITH A SINGLE BLOW FROM HIS SWORD during the Arabian battle of Khayber...
...[he bonded with other like-minded individuals] in cyberspace UNDER THE RADICAL SALAFI/WAHHABI INTREPRETATIONS OF ISLAM...
...When the U.S. and Britain invaded Iraq in 2003, [He] DECIDED THAT AMERICA AND BRITAIN MUST BE PUNISHED. THE ULTIMATE OBJECTIVE WAS TO RE-ESTABLISH AN ISLAMIC CALIPHATE AND INSTITUTE ISLAMIC SHARIA LAW..."
This is a copy from the Ottawa Citizen.
I read in in the Edmonton Journal.
I would say that it leaves little to the imagination in regards to drawing the connections between islam and the motivations of this terrorist.
Canada 1, Stealth Jihad 0
"My own definition of 'terrorism', is any attack, or threat of attack, by an individual or group,
against non combatants, in order to instill terror, to make religious, political, or financial gain, is terrorism. Posted by: duh_swami"
I think the folks who has hijacked our Finance system and crash-landed it are as much of terrorists as OBL.
What a twisted vehicle political correctness is. Those that support it believe that they are standing up for the oppressed of the world. In doing so they are quite prepared to support and, unwittingly or not, promote Islamist extremism. Surely if you believe in true equality you must condemn any group or individual that would oppress any other group. No matter what their reason.
Here's what gets me....the PC's that are mainly liberal lefties. They hate America, what's with that?? Even when their own democratic party gets in, they STILL hate America and call it down whenever the opportunity arises. What does it take to make them happy?? How can they live in a country they hate? Or, are they just rabble rousers?
the_antiMo: Thanks for your response. Well, you have a point that was well argued but I'm not certain you are correct. Perhaps neither of us are in the sense that Western elites would be just as clueless no matter what Muslims did. The best and the brightest can be such dopes at times.
I do believe, though, that the average Joe notices Islam more precisely because of the violence. No violence and then Islam is largely forgotten and the stealth jihad continues quietly. But I am in full agreement with you that any type of jihad is a form of terrorism. Hell, Islam is replete with terroristic elements whenever it doesn't get its way-----and even when it does. Islam is just awful. As I've written before here at JW, I suppose it was virtually inevitable that eventually a major religion would come along which was rotten. It did. It's called Islam.
Active Listener: Thanks for the analysis. It was thoughtful and, I believe, correct. Too bad so much bad blood exists. It's not logical, defensible or wise. The way I wish things were optimally is that Canada would appreciate having America as its southern neighbor (Canadians should ponder how far worse it would be, almost infinitely so, were it Mexico) and America would think the same way about its northern neighbor.
While America should never take Canada for granted, which America sometimes does, Canada in turn should realize that the great power in the world has obligations and responsibilities that ordinary states don't even have to really think about, let alone act upon. Best all around if both countries see they have much more in common than not-----especially in opposing the menace of Islamic supremacism. And I do remain conscious of the fact that many Canadians have a deep regard for America and are chagrined that Canadian elites get it wrong, as elites are wont to do on sundry matters no matter what country they are from. Thanks again for commenting.
PMK
The driver appears to be someone in law enforcement who is supposed to make sure that "ol brown eyes" gets where he is going without interruption.
Paul
thanks for the link to that Globe and Mail article. 'Jihadist' is definitely creeping into the lexicon.
The G & M piece read quite nicely as a companion to the article Raymond put up for discussion.
But what stood out for me, in the article you linked, and truly gave me the creeps, was not all the stuff about Khawaja's plans for explosions and mayhem.
It was the description of Khawaja's line of work.
"Mr. Khawaja, whose day job was to fix computers for Canada's Foreign Affairs Department...".
Now, surely intelligent non-Muslims employed anywhere in ANY department of the civil service of ANY of the free non-Muslim polities on this planet should take the information in that sentence, and the account of the trial and conviction of Mr Khawaja, to heart. It should make them wonder whether there may not be other Mr Khawajas scattered through those departments - others possibly less hotheaded, ideally placed to engage in all imaginable varieties of subtle sabotage (Mr Khawaja, being a romantic, wanted Big Bombs and Loud Bangs, and thus was he detected).
That vision of Mr Khawaja fixing computers for the Foreign Affairs Department, and the thought of what he may have had access to, and the infinite opportunities for sabotage doubtless available to him in his line of work, should inspire non-Muslim government employees to look very, very carefully, indeed with cold-eyed rational wariness, at ANY Muslim who is employed anywhere within their department - whether said Mohammedan is tea lady or janitor, or whether they are, like Mr Khawaja, fixing computers or engaged in any other kind of tech support that gives them access to god alone knows what, or whether they are behind a counter or flying a desk at any level of the bureaucracy.
"should inspire non-Muslim government employees to look very, very carefully, indeed with cold-eyed rational wariness, at ANY Muslim"
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy
The flying imams nipped that strategy in the bud with their lawsuits against any uppity dhimmi who should forget their place.
"Thank you jowan. I am your nabi, nabi ZK (peace be upon me), and I thank you for reminding us that it is both morally and legally permitted for us to attack mohametans anywhere and everywhere, since all lands inhabited by the mohametans are occupied lands stolen by force from the rightful owners."
nabi ZK (pbum)
Posted by: zonie kafir
Well the same can be said about America both white and latin south, Australia, South Africa etc, so whats your point. Europe was not always Christian, Christianity spread through Europe when powerful kings converted. Your ignorance is sublime.
"2. We are not "occupiers" in either Iraq or Afghanistan. We went in after enemies who'd either attacked us first or showed their intent and some capability to do so.
3. The UN doesn't make law. And if they did, we don't have to follow it.
Stupid.
Posted by: undaunted"
Ok, well none of the 9/11 vigilantes were Iraqi, some were Emirati and most were Saudis, but then again those two countries are already subservient to the USA. What capability did Iraq have to attack the USA? No WMDs, only missiles that can fly a few 100 miles.
UN does not make law, cool so when the world(read America and Western Europe), decides, without consulting Palestinians, that Israel should be founded on Palestine then WE do not have to accept it.
"Thank you jowan. I am your nabi, nabi ZK (peace be upon me), and I thank you for reminding us that it is both morally and legally permitted for us to attack mohametans anywhere and everywhere, since all lands inhabited by the mohametans are occupied lands stolen by force from the rightful owners."
nabi ZK (pbum)
Posted by: zonie kafir
Well the same can be said about America both white and latin south, Australia, South Africa etc, so whats your point. Europe was not always Christian, Christianity spread through Europe when powerful kings converted. Your ignorance is sublime.
"2. We are not "occupiers" in either Iraq or Afghanistan. We went in after enemies who'd either attacked us first or showed their intent and some capability to do so.
3. The UN doesn't make law. And if they did, we don't have to follow it.
Stupid.
Posted by: undaunted"
Ok, well none of the 9/11 vigilantes were Iraqi, some were Emirati and most were Saudis, but then again those two countries are already subservient to the USA. What capability did Iraq have to attack the USA? No WMDs, only missiles that can fly a few 100 miles.
UN does not make law, cool so when the world(read America and Western Europe), decides, without consulting Palestinians, that Israel should be founded on Palestine then WE do not have to accept it.
"Thank you jowan. I am your nabi, nabi ZK (peace be upon me), and I thank you for reminding us that it is both morally and legally permitted for us to attack mohametans anywhere and everywhere, since all lands inhabited by the mohametans are occupied lands stolen by force from the rightful owners."
nabi ZK (pbum)
Posted by: zonie kafir
Well the same can be said about America both white and latin south, Australia, South Africa etc, so whats your point. Europe was not always Christian, Christianity spread through Europe when powerful kings converted. Your ignorance is sublime.
"2. We are not "occupiers" in either Iraq or Afghanistan. We went in after enemies who'd either attacked us first or showed their intent and some capability to do so.
3. The UN doesn't make law. And if they did, we don't have to follow it.
Stupid.
Posted by: undaunted"
Ok, well none of the 9/11 vigilantes were Iraqi, some were Emirati and most were Saudis, but then again those two countries are already subservient to the USA. What capability did Iraq have to attack the USA? No WMDs, only missiles that can fly a few 100 miles.
UN does not make law, cool so when the world(read America and Western Europe), decides, without consulting Palestinians, that Israel should be founded on Palestine then WE do not have to accept it.
"Thank you jowan. I am your nabi, nabi ZK (peace be upon me), and I thank you for reminding us that it is both morally and legally permitted for us to attack mohametans anywhere and everywhere, since all lands inhabited by the mohametans are occupied lands stolen by force from the rightful owners."
nabi ZK (pbum)
Posted by: zonie kafir
Well the same can be said about America both white and latin south, Australia, South Africa etc, so whats your point. Europe was not always Christian, Christianity spread through Europe when powerful kings converted. Your ignorance is sublime.
"2. We are not "occupiers" in either Iraq or Afghanistan. We went in after enemies who'd either attacked us first or showed their intent and some capability to do so.
3. The UN doesn't make law. And if they did, we don't have to follow it.
Stupid.
Posted by: undaunted"
Ok, well none of the 9/11 vigilantes were Iraqi, some were Emirati and most were Saudis, but then again those two countries are already subservient to the USA. What capability did Iraq have to attack the USA? No WMDs, only missiles that can fly a few 100 miles.
UN does not make law, cool so when the world(read America and Western Europe), decides, without consulting Palestinians, that Israel should be founded on Palestine then WE do not have to accept it.
"Thank you jowan. I am your nabi, nabi ZK (peace be upon me), and I thank you for reminding us that it is both morally and legally permitted for us to attack mohametans anywhere and everywhere, since all lands inhabited by the mohametans are occupied lands stolen by force from the rightful owners."
nabi ZK (pbum)
Posted by: zonie kafir
Well the same can be said about America both white and latin south, Australia, South Africa etc, so whats your point. Europe was not always Christian, Christianity spread through Europe when powerful kings converted. Your ignorance is sublime.
"2. We are not "occupiers" in either Iraq or Afghanistan. We went in after enemies who'd either attacked us first or showed their intent and some capability to do so.
3. The UN doesn't make law. And if they did, we don't have to follow it.
Stupid.
Posted by: undaunted"
Ok, well none of the 9/11 vigilantes were Iraqi, some were Emirati and most were Saudis, but then again those two countries are already subservient to the USA. What capability did Iraq have to attack the USA? No WMDs, only missiles that can fly a few 100 miles.
UN does not make law, cool so when the world(read America and Western Europe), decides, without consulting Palestinians, that Israel should be founded on Palestine then WE do not have to accept it.
"Thank you jowan. I am your nabi, nabi ZK (peace be upon me), and I thank you for reminding us that it is both morally and legally permitted for us to attack mohametans anywhere and everywhere, since all lands inhabited by the mohametans are occupied lands stolen by force from the rightful owners."
nabi ZK (pbum)
Posted by: zonie kafir
Well the same can be said about America both white and latin south, Australia, South Africa etc, so whats your point. Europe was not always Christian, Christianity spread through Europe when powerful kings converted. Your ignorance is sublime.
"2. We are not "occupiers" in either Iraq or Afghanistan. We went in after enemies who'd either attacked us first or showed their intent and some capability to do so.
3. The UN doesn't make law. And if they did, we don't have to follow it.
Stupid.
Posted by: undaunted"
Ok, well none of the 9/11 vigilantes were Iraqi, some were Emirati and most were Saudis, but then again those two countries are already subservient to the USA. What capability did Iraq have to attack the USA? No WMDs, only missiles that can fly a few 100 miles.
UN does not make law, cool so when the world(read America and Western Europe), decides, without consulting Palestinians, that Israel should be founded on Palestine then WE do not have to accept it.
"Thank you jowan. I am your nabi, nabi ZK (peace be upon me), and I thank you for reminding us that it is both morally and legally permitted for us to attack mohametans anywhere and everywhere, since all lands inhabited by the mohametans are occupied lands stolen by force from the rightful owners."
nabi ZK (pbum)
Posted by: zonie kafir
Well the same can be said about America both white and latin south, Australia, South Africa etc, so whats your point. Europe was not always Christian, Christianity spread through Europe when powerful kings converted. Your ignorance is sublime.
"2. We are not "occupiers" in either Iraq or Afghanistan. We went in after enemies who'd either attacked us first or showed their intent and some capability to do so.
3. The UN doesn't make law. And if they did, we don't have to follow it.
Stupid.
Posted by: undaunted"
Ok, well none of the 9/11 vigilantes were Iraqi, some were Emirati and most were Saudis, but then again those two countries are already subservient to the USA. What capability did Iraq have to attack the USA? No WMDs, only missiles that can fly a few 100 miles.
UN does not make law, cool so when the world(read America and Western Europe), decides, without consulting Palestinians, that Israel should be founded on Palestine then WE do not have to accept it.
"Thank you jowan. I am your nabi, nabi ZK (peace be upon me), and I thank you for reminding us that it is both morally and legally permitted for us to attack mohametans anywhere and everywhere, since all lands inhabited by the mohametans are occupied lands stolen by force from the rightful owners."
nabi ZK (pbum)
Posted by: zonie kafir
Well the same can be said about America both white and latin south, Australia, South Africa etc, so whats your point. Europe was not always Christian, Christianity spread through Europe when powerful kings converted. Your ignorance is sublime.
"2. We are not "occupiers" in either Iraq or Afghanistan. We went in after enemies who'd either attacked us first or showed their intent and some capability to do so.
3. The UN doesn't make law. And if they did, we don't have to follow it.
Stupid.
Posted by: undaunted"
Ok, well none of the 9/11 vigilantes were Iraqi, some were Emirati and most were Saudis, but then again those two countries are already subservient to the USA. What capability did Iraq have to attack the USA? No WMDs, only missiles that can fly a few 100 miles.
UN does not make law, cool so when the world(read America and Western Europe), decides, without consulting Palestinians, that Israel should be founded on Palestine then WE do not have to accept it.
"Thank you jowan. I am your nabi, nabi ZK (peace be upon me), and I thank you for reminding us that it is both morally and legally permitted for us to attack mohametans anywhere and everywhere, since all lands inhabited by the mohametans are occupied lands stolen by force from the rightful owners."
nabi ZK (pbum)
Posted by: zonie kafir
Well the same can be said about America both white and latin south, Australia, South Africa etc, so whats your point. Europe was not always Christian, Christianity spread through Europe when powerful kings converted. Your ignorance is sublime.
"2. We are not "occupiers" in either Iraq or Afghanistan. We went in after enemies who'd either attacked us first or showed their intent and some capability to do so.
3. The UN doesn't make law. And if they did, we don't have to follow it.
Stupid.
Posted by: undaunted"
Ok, well none of the 9/11 vigilantes were Iraqi, some were Emirati and most were Saudis, but then again those two countries are already subservient to the USA. What capability did Iraq have to attack the USA? No WMDs, only missiles that can fly a few 100 miles.
UN does not make law, cool so when the world(read America and Western Europe), decides, without consulting Palestinians, that Israel should be founded on Palestine then WE do not have to accept it.
"Thank you jowan. I am your nabi, nabi ZK (peace be upon me), and I thank you for reminding us that it is both morally and legally permitted for us to attack mohametans anywhere and everywhere, since all lands inhabited by the mohametans are occupied lands stolen by force from the rightful owners."
nabi ZK (pbum)
Posted by: zonie kafir
Well the same can be said about America both white and latin south, Australia, South Africa etc, so whats your point. Europe was not always Christian, Christianity spread through Europe when powerful kings converted. Your ignorance is sublime.
"2. We are not "occupiers" in either Iraq or Afghanistan. We went in after enemies who'd either attacked us first or showed their intent and some capability to do so.
3. The UN doesn't make law. And if they did, we don't have to follow it.
Stupid.
Posted by: undaunted"
Ok, well none of the 9/11 vigilantes were Iraqi, some were Emirati and most were Saudis, but then again those two countries are already subservient to the USA. What capability did Iraq have to attack the USA? No WMDs, only missiles that can fly a few 100 miles.
UN does not make law, cool so when the world(read America and Western Europe), decides, without consulting Palestinians, that Israel should be founded on Palestine then WE do not have to accept it.
"Thank you jowan. I am your nabi, nabi ZK (peace be upon me), and I thank you for reminding us that it is both morally and legally permitted for us to attack mohametans anywhere and everywhere, since all lands inhabited by the mohametans are occupied lands stolen by force from the rightful owners."
nabi ZK (pbum)
Posted by: zonie kafir
Well the same can be said about America both white and latin south, Australia, South Africa etc, so whats your point. Europe was not always Christian, Christianity spread through Europe when powerful kings converted. Your ignorance is sublime.
"2. We are not "occupiers" in either Iraq or Afghanistan. We went in after enemies who'd either attacked us first or showed their intent and some capability to do so.
3. The UN doesn't make law. And if they did, we don't have to follow it.
Stupid.
Posted by: undaunted"
Ok, well none of the 9/11 vigilantes were Iraqi, some were Emirati and most were Saudis, but then again those two countries are already subservient to the USA. What capability did Iraq have to attack the USA? No WMDs, only missiles that can fly a few 100 miles.
UN does not make law, cool so when the world(read America and Western Europe), decides, without consulting Palestinians, that Israel should be founded on Palestine then WE do not have to accept it.
"Thank you jowan. I am your nabi, nabi ZK (peace be upon me), and I thank you for reminding us that it is both morally and legally permitted for us to attack mohametans anywhere and everywhere, since all lands inhabited by the mohametans are occupied lands stolen by force from the rightful owners."
nabi ZK (pbum)
Posted by: zonie kafir
Well the same can be said about America both white and latin south, Australia, South Africa etc, so whats your point. Europe was not always Christian, Christianity spread through Europe when powerful kings converted. Your ignorance is sublime.
"2. We are not "occupiers" in either Iraq or Afghanistan. We went in after enemies who'd either attacked us first or showed their intent and some capability to do so.
3. The UN doesn't make law. And if they did, we don't have to follow it.
Stupid.
Posted by: undaunted"
Ok, well none of the 9/11 vigilantes were Iraqi, some were Emirati and most were Saudis, but then again those two countries are already subservient to the USA. What capability did Iraq have to attack the USA? No WMDs, only missiles that can fly a few 100 miles.
UN does not make law, cool so when the world(read America and Western Europe), decides, without consulting Palestinians, that Israel should be founded on Palestine then WE do not have to accept it.
"Thank you jowan. I am your nabi, nabi ZK (peace be upon me), and I thank you for reminding us that it is both morally and legally permitted for us to attack mohametans anywhere and everywhere, since all lands inhabited by the mohametans are occupied lands stolen by force from the rightful owners."
nabi ZK (pbum)
Posted by: zonie kafir
Well the same can be said about America both white and latin south, Australia, South Africa etc, so whats your point. Europe was not always Christian, Christianity spread through Europe when powerful kings converted. Your ignorance is sublime.
"2. We are not "occupiers" in either Iraq or Afghanistan. We went in after enemies who'd either attacked us first or showed their intent and some capability to do so.
3. The UN doesn't make law. And if they did, we don't have to follow it.
Stupid.
Posted by: undaunted"
Ok, well none of the 9/11 vigilantes were Iraqi, some were Emirati and most were Saudis, but then again those two countries are already subservient to the USA. What capability did Iraq have to attack the USA? No WMDs, only missiles that can fly a few 100 miles.
UN does not make law, cool so when the world(read America and Western Europe), decides, without consulting Palestinians, that Israel should be founded on Palestine then WE do not have to accept it.
"Thank you jowan. I am your nabi, nabi ZK (peace be upon me), and I thank you for reminding us that it is both morally and legally permitted for us to attack mohametans anywhere and everywhere, since all lands inhabited by the mohametans are occupied lands stolen by force from the rightful owners."
nabi ZK (pbum)
Posted by: zonie kafir
Well the same can be said about America both white and latin south, Australia, South Africa etc, so whats your point. Europe was not always Christian, Christianity spread through Europe when powerful kings converted. Your ignorance is sublime.
"2. We are not "occupiers" in either Iraq or Afghanistan. We went in after enemies who'd either attacked us first or showed their intent and some capability to do so.
3. The UN doesn't make law. And if they did, we don't have to follow it.
Stupid.
Posted by: undaunted"
Ok, well none of the 9/11 vigilantes were Iraqi, some were Emirati and most were Saudis, but then again those two countries are already subservient to the USA. What capability did Iraq have to attack the USA? No WMDs, only missiles that can fly a few 100 miles.
UN does not make law, cool so when the world(read America and Western Europe), decides, without consulting Palestinians, that Israel should be founded on Palestine then WE do not have to accept it.
RE: Mr. Terrorist KHAWAJA
Nowhere in this post have I seen the word "Jewish"
except in the one posted by (Canada 1, Stealth Jihad} where he relates one of this terrorist,s dreams:= "he dreamt of being a soldier someday, inspired by the story of Ali Radi Allah Anhu, the great Muslim soldier who cleaved the Jewish Commander Marhab in half with a single blow from his sword during the battle of Khaymer."
Here is another Jewish name:= Mr. Lawrence Greenspon, the high profile lawyer who is defending this Jihadist terrorist who is truly a very lucky man as this defence lawyer is one of the best in this country. He could just as easily been found guilty on all charges instead, had he followed a different path.
As I am a resident of Ottawa, Canada, the capital of this country, I am wondering how this could be.
Now retired, I have worked in the Security Field throughout my career in different areas.
What I am wondering about is the fact that Muslims hate Jews, Christians and most other religions including myself as a Non-believer.
How does Khawaja endure being so close to a Jew?
Also, when the convicted terrorist is sentenced to a very long jail term soon, will they proclaim a Fatwa against this lawyer? Just wondering............
Shades of Salman Rushdie comes to mind.....