Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper says "Islamicism biggest threat to Canada" & Tony Blair says "Iran is our Real Enemy"

It is refreshing to see that our northern border ally has too come to see the true threat facing humanity in the 21st century. It is also refreshing to see the visionary and bold former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom taking a clear stance against the illegal regime of the Islamic Republic - especially since he has strong influence with the Quartet - I am feeling more and more confident that the international community will soon stand more firmly with the Syrian people in assisting with their liberation and that this will trickle down to Iran when Iranians rise up en masse in approximately 2-years during their next round of fake Presidential elections when the people can use it as an excuse to spill in the streets - I have included both articles below:

TONY BLAIR: Iran Is Our Real Enemy

Adam Taylor | Sep. 9, 2011, 8:15 AM


In an interview with the Times of London  to commemorate the anniversary of 9/11, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair says that Iran is the real enemy.

He told the British paper:

“Regime change in Tehran would immediately make me significantly more optimistic about the whole of the region...”

“If Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons capability it would destabilize the region very, very badly.

“They continue to support groups that are engaged with terrorism and the forces of reaction. In Iraq one of the main problems has been the continued intervention of Iran and likewise in Afghanistan.”

Blair also said he approved of regime change in Syria. In his view, President Bashar Assad "has shown he is not capable of reform. His position is untenable. There is no process of change that leaves him intact.”

Harper says 'Islamicism' biggest threat to Canada

CBC – Tue, 6 Sep, 2011


In an exclusive interview with CBC News, Prime Minister Stephen Harper says the biggest security threat to Canada a decade after 9/11 is Islamic terrorism.

In a wide-ranging interview with CBC chief correspondent Peter Mansbridge that will air in its entirety on The National Thursday night, Harper says Canada is safer than it was on Sept. 11, 2001, when al-Qaeda attacked the U.S., but that "the major threat is still Islamicism."

"There are other threats out there, but that is the one that I can tell you occupies the security apparatus most regularly in terms of actual terrorist threats," Harper said.

Harper cautioned that terrorist threats can "come out of the blue" from a different source, such as the recent Norway attacks, where a lone gunman who hated Muslims killed 77 people.

But Harper said terrorism by Islamic radicals is still the top threat, though a "diffuse" one.

"When people think of Islamic terrorism, they think of Afghanistan, or maybe they think of some place in the Middle East, but the truth is that threat exists all over the world," he said, citing domestic terrorism in Nigeria.

The prime minister said home-grown Islamic radicals in Canada are "also something that we keep an eye on."

Harper said his government will bring back anti-terrorism clauses that were brought in in 2001 but were sunset in 2007 amid heated political debate.

There were two clauses at the heart of the debate:

One allowed police to arrest suspects without a warrant and detain them for three days without charges if police believed a terrorist act may have been committed.

The other allowed a judge to compel a witness to testify in secret about past associations or perhaps pending acts under penalty of going to jail if the witness didn't comply.

Neither clause was used by police or prosecutors in the five years before they expired.

In October 2006, a parliamentary committee recommended extending the two provisions.

The Conservatives put forward a proposal to keep the measures in place for three more years, but the three opposition parties united to defeat the proposal in February 2007 by a 159-124 vote.

The rest of the legislation remained in force.

When asked by Mansbridge if he would try to bring those laws back, Harper replied: "That is our plan."

"We think those measures are necessary. We think they've been useful," he said. "And as you know … they're applied rarely, but there are times where they're needed."

Views: 314

Comment by Arcus on September 10, 2011 at 1:20pm

@Unseen: The 'population takeover'-effect is a quite dangerous argument. 1st generation immigrants tended to have a substantially higher birth rate, the 2nd generation slightly higher, and the 3rd generation falling to the socio-economic average of the country. Assuming a population takeover tends to use current observations on future generations, though I am quite uncertain that it provides accurate conclusions.

Economic immigration was more or less stopped in the late 70ies and 80ies, and the influx of first generation immigrants has stopped to a trickle. The arranged marriages and 'wife-importation' remains an issue, but Denmark found a decent solution by not allowing marriages between Danes and non-Europeans until age 24.

The other method of arrival has been asylum seekers, lately from Iraq, Somalia, and Afghanistan in particular. The choice has tended to be a 'wait-and-see' and then there are the highly politicized 'sending-them-back' decisions being made. The numbers involved aren't that vast and is a temporary issue. However, those asylum seekers which end up with citizenship has proven to be particularly difficult to integrate.


The worst part about the debate is that many people want to keep melanin out and use the muslim argument as a guise. I welcome the melanin influx with open arms, but not the religion. I am looking forward to the day where Mosques are called cultural institutions instead.

Comment by Unseen on September 10, 2011 at 1:22pm

@Michael Klein   A group doesn't have to be a majority population to create havoc. Take our own (in the US) Tea Party for example. A minority party can be a king-maker through alliance and can impose its policies on the general public.


Of particular concern is the idea that when it comes to some matters, Islamists declare that they can't really enjoy religious freedom unless they can live under sharia law instead of civil law. This would be laughed out of town in the US, but the idea is being taken seriously in some quarters in Europe, the UK most notably, with the Archbishop of Canterbury appearing somewhat friendly to allowing some sharia into the system.


In the US, if you're Amish, you're free to practice your religion, but only if it doesn't come into conflict with civil law. I don't know about you, but I feel this is the way it should be.


The upshot is that Islam isn't a religion, it demands to be a complete way of life, which makes it incompatible with Western democracy.

Comment by Arcus on September 10, 2011 at 1:52pm

"You shouldn't mistake your fears for truths, it's a widely acknowledged bad source of information."

Complacency is neither a good source of info. Reality is not as rosy as you seem to believe, nor as bloody as others propose. Integration is more than opening doors, it's also about closing them and setting strict demands.

There are a few third generation new countrymen, often the 'black ghosts' - women in burqas locked inside home, beaten into submission, and acting as child bearing machines - which can't even speak Norwegian. They may never have set foot in a different country than Norway, yet speak Arabic only. Others form violent gangs and mafias which are near impossible for police to infiltrate. Those are the most disturbing facts on the ground.

Most of the information is positive, non-ethnic norwegians complete high school at much higher rates than ethnic norwegians, they tend to have higher average grades in sciences (tho lower in norwegian), have higher acceptance rates into universities, and many land in higher paying positions. Those are the rosy facts. They do not change the disturbing ones, but they provide hope.

Comment by Michael Klein on September 10, 2011 at 3:16pm


1) You mention Amish but say that islam is a complete way of life...

2) 6 party coalitions just to keep 1 party out of government are possible. Tea Party in europe could get into government but not necessarily. On the other hand, there are no national islamic parties of influence...the party of biblical literalists probably gets more votes

3) The only ones demanding sharia law are either complete nuts you get laughed out of town or 100 people demonstrating for it and meeting an islamic counterdemonstration of more than double the people.

Comment by Unseen on September 10, 2011 at 3:27pm

@Michael Klein  


1) You misquoted me. I said "Islam DEMANDS to be a way of life." In other words, they say that they aren't religiously free without being able to practice it, even if it conflicts with civil law. Those Muslims will always feel oppressed in a Western democratic society.


2) I never said it was presently the situation, although I'm sure it will occur to the Islamists eventually to leverage their minority vote to get what they want through negotiating alliances. While it's a movement within the Republican Party, the Tea Party functions like a third party. The same dynamics apply. It's a reminder why America shouldn't allow itself to lapse into 3-party+ politics.


3) That is now. You and I can only speculate about the future.

Comment by Arcus on September 10, 2011 at 3:36pm

Britain has 85 sharia courts: The astonishing spread of the Islamic...

There is also back-door introduction of sharia such as most of the meat being butchered to confirm to halal (it's barbaric), Islamic banking which demands it's own regulatory oversight (which is still a work-in-progress), Muslim led companies denying interest charges for late payment (a standard business practice), etc. 

Comment by Unseen on September 10, 2011 at 6:43pm

@Arcus   Well, the "melanin" argument doesn't hold much water here. My beloved roommate is Indian (the Eastern variety) and is quite a bit darker than most of us with European blood. If you're arguing that as greater economic success occurs birthrates will naturally go down, demographics isn't physics. That metals will expand when heated is a matter I don't have to cross my fingers and hope about, but when it comes to social matters there is no ironclad guarantee that the future will be like the past. Also, as we're seeing with the Taliban, a violent faction can have a hold on a country not justified by the democratic standard related to their proportion of the population.

Comment by Arcus on September 10, 2011 at 11:22pm

@Unseen: As long as people are secular, I don't care where they are from. I have a personal preference for Indians, their culture has much more to teach than it has to learn. My greatest wish is to do away with the artificial borders we surround ourselves with, though until extremism and xenophobia is properly addressed certain measures are required. 

In Europe we have been locked in a battle against extremist, authoritarian, demeaning, racist, hopeless, worthless, ignorant, and belittling ideologies since the birth of history.  Most of us are now secular and atheists, indeed only around 10-20% of Czechs (and around 30-40% of Norwegians) believe in a personal god. It's a long battle, best measured by the science of anthropology, but the tides of ignorance has always lost in the end.

That's where I live. The percentages are approx double what people my age represents... 

Comment by Unseen on September 11, 2011 at 12:11am

@Arcus   Good luck on getting rid of borders. They aren't entirely artificial as long as the different countries retain their preferences for their various languages and, well, cultures. Getting rid of political boundaries seems to me one of those laughers, like turning the world Vegan, that will never happen. If you're going to have a goal, why not have one that resides within the realm of possibility?

Comment by Albert Bakker on September 11, 2011 at 3:30am

I must agree with Unseen here. And it seems the anti-EU sentiments and even a revival of nationalism is only rising, while the reason why the EU in the first place is being forgotten.

There is no clear picture of what the EU should aspire to, no cultural unity, no shared language, no real binding common history over and above the sum of it's parts. It's a schizophrenic entity that thinks it is somebody else.


You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service