Saturday, June 03, 2006
The Maple Leaf Jihad
By now all newshounds have read about the massive Islamist terror plot detected and interdicted in Canada. Seventeen Muslim men and boys were arrested and charged, and authorities grabbed tons of explosive -- more than three times the amount used in Oklahoma City. Pajamas Media has a huge, link-rich round-up.
I have very little to add to the vast amount of commentary out in the 'sphere, but there are a few points worth making, or repeating.
First, we trust this puts to rest the idea that it is American policy that is at the roots of jihadi terrorism. With the exception of its small peacekeeping contingent in Afghanistan, Canada neither participates in nor supports the American policies to which the jihadis object. Canada is a target because it is a Western country that has admitted and shown great tolerance toward a significant Muslim community.
Second, the Muslim community knows who these men are, and its leaders are rallying around the young men caught with all that explosive:
Alvin Chand, a brother of suspect Steven Vikash Chand, said outside the courthouse that his brother was innocent and authorities "just want to show they're doing something."
"He's not a terrorist, come on. He's a Canadian citizen," Chand said. "The people that were arrested are good people, they go to the mosque, they go to school, go to college."
Also at the court hearing was Aly Hindy, an imam of an Islamic center that houses a school and a mosque and has been monitored by security agencies for years. He said he knows nine of the suspects and that Muslims once again were being falsely accused.
"It's not terrorism. It could be some criminal activity with a few guys, that's all," said Hindy. "We are the ones always accused. Somebody fakes a document and they are an international terrorist forging documents for al-Qaida."
If the Muslim community in the West wants to avoid being falsely accused, it should immediately rat out the terrorists in its midst. People know who the radicals are, or at least have strong suspicions. By failing to report what they know or suspect to the authorities, they are assuming the burden of the lives men such as these will take when they actually execute an attack.
Third, these men are home grown, responding not to al Qaeda's command and control but to its ideology. The enemy will proliferate until the underlying ideology is discredited, and that will take a long time.
Fourth, I have made the point several times that to the extent the concern is security against the jihad, conservatives are lobbying to build the wall along the wrong border. Canada has turned itself into a vector for this nation's most deadly enemies. We have to recognize that it is a lot easier to get across the Canadian border than the Mexican one, so if you are more worried about the violent destruction of Americans in jihadi terrorist attacks than tracking down Catholic farm workers, wall off the northern border first.
10 Comments:
By 
Final Historian, at
Sun Jun 04, 02:09:00 AM:
"Fourth, I have made the point several times that to the extent the concern is security against the jihad, conservatives are lobbying to build the wall along the wrong border. Canada has turned itself into a vector for this nation's most deadly enemies. We have to recognize that it is a lot easier to get across the Canadian border than the Mexican one, so if you are more worried about the violent destruction of Americans in jihadi terrorist attacks than tracking down Catholic farm workers, wall off the northern border first."
I take exceptiont to that. You see, it is easier for people to cross the Canadian border, while it is easier for goods to cross the Mexican border. While I worry about the jihadis myself, the passage of goods is what really worries me. I expect the Russian made nuke to be smuggled from Mexico or the Southern border, not the Northen one. Ultimately, that is the far more dangerous possibilty we must keep our eyes on.
By The Mechanical Eye, at
Sun Jun 04, 05:26:00 AM:
I expect the Russian made nuke to be smuggled from Mexico or the Southern border, not the Northen one. Ultimately, that is the far more dangerous possibilty we must keep our eyes on.
And yet all the evidence in front of you says otherwise.
Our only instinence of a terrorist smuggling a bomb against an American target was by way of Canada - to destroy the airport of Los Angeles during the millenium.
The Mexican border is no cake-walk - good men who wish only to earn a decent living for their families traverse the southern border and sometimes meet their deaths. The Canadian border is open to muslims by way of the Canadians' all-too-generous immigation policies, yet conservatives ignore that in favor of making ogres of Mexicans.
I undertand the porous border with Mexico is a concern - yet all the real, VIOLENT threats seem to come from Canada. One would hope that the conservative movement, who I subscribe to, would rather focus on terrorist threats from Islamicist extremists, rather than Latin laborers?
DU
By TigerHawk, at
Sun Jun 04, 07:46:00 AM:
To me, it seems self-evident that the Canadian border is easier to cross than the Mexican border. It's just that not that many Canadians want to sneak into the United States, so they don't try. FH, I have no idea where you get the idea that it is easier to sneak stuff across the Mexican border. A pleasure craft on the Great Lakes does the job in the North, with next to no chance of apprehension. Have you ever seen how many boats are out there on a sunny summer day?
The Mexican border seems "porous" because the stuff that is trying to get across is either cheap (drugs) or its people, who are released to try again if they are caught. I think if you have to get across on the first attempt, which would be the case with a bomb, the best border would be Canada's.
Now, you might then ask whether the bomb would be easier to get into Canada or Mexico, and I would guess Mexico. But there seems to be a more Westernized and scary Islamist base in Canada, and more people who might therefore be competent to manage it once it came in.
Also, I'm not sure it is all that hard to smuggle stuff into Canada, either. That Atlantic coast looks pretty undefended.
By cakreiz, at
Sun Jun 04, 09:22:00 AM:
Your third point is spot on, TH- quite real and discouraging. It will take decades, if not centuries, to marginalize and eradicate the radical Islamic impulse. The transformation must come from within the larger body of Islam, which is discouraging because Islam seems comparatively rigid and resistant to change. Further, the radical Islamic virus appears not to be subject to common antidotes. Capitalism's blue jeans and rock & roll attack on communism, for example, has little affect on Islam, which easily deflects it.
By 
, at
Sun Jun 04, 09:31:00 AM:
I hope you're being facetious about walling off your border with your closest friend and largest trading partner. I'm sure you agree that reinforcing the idea that the US has a 'them and us' attitude, which our idiot left wing loves to claim, is not a good idea.
Greater security for the US comes from effective interdiction in Canada (which the recent arrests hopefully indicate), a government more inclined to serious action (which we have recently elected) and strong cooperation between the security forces of both nations (which exist).
By the way, maybe our contribution to the West's war on terrorists is small by U.S. standards. But we do not have a"small peackeeping contingent" in Afghanistan. We have a significant number of Canadian combat troops directly engaging the Taliban in the Kandahar area, and we will be there, with you, for a long time.
By TigerHawk, at
Sun Jun 04, 09:49:00 AM:
Screetus, fair points.
I am not in favor of walling off the Canadian border. I have long thought that the "war on terror" justification for a wall on our southern border was specious, at best.
I also accept your criticism of my characterization of Canada's participation in Afghanistan. Yours is more accurate.
I will say, though, that I do not think that Canada is, in fact, our "closest friend." Perhaps Harper's government will signal a turning point, but I used to live in Canada (as a kid), my younger sister was born in Canada, do business in Canada, and see no evidence that it is America's "closest friend." Quite the contrary, I observe anti-Americanism almost everywhere. One catches far less of it in Australia, for example, and much more open and enthusiastic pro-Americanism.
Of course, proximity may breed contempt. If Oz were on our northern border, perhaps the typical citizen would feel otherwise.
By tm, at
Sun Jun 04, 12:55:00 PM:
Capitalism's blue jeans and rock & roll attack on communism, for example, has little affect on Islam, which easily deflects it.
I disagree with this. The ideology of al-Qaeda is reactionary; it's reacting against modernization, and the more Islamic society is modernized, the more frenetic the reaction. To borrow from Bush/Cheney, the frenzied activity of al-Qaeda is a sign that the modernization project is proceeding apace.
By Dawnfire82, at
Sun Jun 04, 02:28:00 PM:
The networks and institutions necessary for jihadis to smuggle a dirty bomb across the border exist in Mexico, not in Canada. Paying $500 to a coyote or a cartel to deliver a radioactive package into the remote Arizona desert is smarter and safer than trying to take one across a Canadian border crossing.
While it may be easier to physically cross the Canadian border over a body of water, Canada is a modern society with 1st rate law enforcement. It is harder to import or acquire materials for radiological or conventional booms without being noticed and then move it over border checkpoints.
Were I a jihadi boss, I'd move operatives through Canada as legally as possible, and move materials through Mexico or the Gulf Coast, and meet them in Dallas. There's no rule that says they can only do one or the other.
By Final Historian, at
Sun Jun 04, 02:47:00 PM:
Thank you Dawnfire, you made my point for me. Moving people through Canada might be easier, but I don't see it as easy to move a nuke into Canada as I do Mexico. I see the movement of the nuke into our neighbor as the most important period of that kind of movement, and Mexico seems to me to be the easier of the two to penetrate. Frankly, once they get it in Mexico I just don't see it being likely we could stop it from crossing our borders if they really try.
I support a wall on the southern border, but as much as to keep goods out as to keep people out. Of course, there always exists the possibility of terrorists in Canada whipping something up, probably chemical, with native resources there.
By cakreiz, at
Sun Jun 04, 07:50:00 PM:
jpe, you're right that radical Islam (and probably Islam generally) reacts to modernity. But it isn't inconsistent to see that technology modernity and conservative religious practices can operate on separate tracks. Wealthier ME areas (Saudia Arabia and Kuwait) maintain rigid religious conservatism (oppression of women and suppression of freedoms generally) while enjoying higher living standards. There is no necessary connection between them.
