How Historic Was Todays Presidential Briefing Of The Canadian So Called Terrorist Attack

Why do people criticize Islam for the terrorists, when in fact militant Islamism is heavily influenced by Salafist ideology, and most of the victims of this terrorism are Muslims themselves?

Because the Salafist movement is part of Islam and other Islamic groups are unable or unwilling to prevent the terrorists acts perpetrated by their co-religionists. Anyway, not all Salafists are terrorists and not all Islamic terrorists are Salafists.The fact that most victims are Muslim don't make terrorist acts less pernicious. They are taking human lives.

If Canada were to be attacked right now, what would USA do?

So many great answers here but here is my take.There is absolutely no doubt were Canada invaded, the USA would stand shoulder to shoulder with the Canadian forces. It’s simply a good strategy because realistically an invasion of Canada would likely put a foreign power directly on the border of the USA.There are many deep differences between Canada and the USA but realistically there are no two countries on the planet who are better friends…Australia and New Zealand might be close. Many people have called Canada “America’s Little Brother” but I think Canada is more like the cousin who spent a little more time in Europe.Canada has a fantastic military and even though it might not be as large as many other countries, our military is among the best equipped and best trained in the world. Canadians are a surprisingly patriotic people and wouldn’t simply stand around and wait for our friends to come and rescue us. The general population would make things very, very difficult for any attacking power. Think “Red Dawn” but with the hockey. Canadians do not have the same number and types of guns that the average American has access to but Canada still ranks 13th in the world on the number of guns per person. Canadians are prolific hunters and any invading force would have to contend with both a well trained regular army and a large group of skilled hunters.The sheer size of our land mass, the terrain and the weather would make an invasion a truly daunting task. An invasion would need to take place in multiple locations, likely thousands of miles apart and would need to highly coordinated. Canada’s major population centers are spread across our border with the USA. The border is nearly 4000 miles, not including the Canada Alaska border, with most of the major Canadian population centers with in few hundred miles of the American border. This proximity to the US border would trigger a response automatically from our neighbours.Realistically, even before an invasion force hit the Canadian shore, they would face stiff resistance from both the Canadians and the Americans navy's. It would likely not become 100% apparent if this was an invasion of Canada or an invasion of the USA using Canada as a staging point and the US military wouldn’t wait to figure that out.

If Al Gore became President in 2000, what would the world be like today, assuming there is no 9/11 since Bush probably started it?

It’s possible that 9/11 wouldn’t never happened, but surely not the Iraq and the rest of Meddle East disaster. The plan for the invasion of Iraq existed well before the election of Bush and was part of the so called “PNAC”, project for a new century that was the plan of the “neocon”. They admittedly referred to a certain number of Countries as dangerous for the US, including Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Lybia, Egypt, Sudan, Yemen, Lebanon. The Bush administration resulted full of Neocon, that accordingly managed to advance their plan. As it regards the 9/11, we have to take into account the fact that the Clinton administration already didn’t take seriously actions against Bin Laden. You can see that through different documentation. Though, according to Richard Clarke, who wrote a book about that, as head of counter-terrorism, he repeatedly advised Condoleeza Rice about the dangerousness of Bin Laden and that something big was in preparation. The same thing was reported by the investigation of a FBI manager for counter-terrorism in Yemen called Patrick O’neill. You can see his story: by coincidence he went back home and after some controversies accepted a new very well paid job as head of security at WTC the 10th of september!

Was Nelson Mandela a terrorist?

This is Mandela's statement in the Rivonia Trial, Pretoria Supreme Court, April 1964:I must deal immediately and at some length with the question of  violence. Some of the things so far told to the Court are true and some  are untrue. I do not, however, deny that I planned sabotage. I did not  plan it in a spirit of recklessness, nor because I have any love of  violence. I planned it as a result of a calm and sober assessment of the  political situation that had arisen after many years of tyranny,  exploitation, and oppression of my people by the Whites.It is true that Mandela's and ANC's struggle in putting an end to apartheid was not non-violence. But here's a good reminder of why Mandela saw the needs to resort to violence.                      It is always the oppressor, not the oppressed, who dictates the form of struggle. If the oppressor uses  violence, the oppressed have no alternative but to respond violently. If  the state decided to use peaceful methods, the ANC would also use  peaceful means. ‘It is up to you… not us to renounce violence                                     - Mandela (Long Walk to Freedom, 1995)But then again, the question remains, was he a terrorist?What is a terrorist? Terrorism is a term that is always used to define violence against a certain group, which is, most of the times, the western authorities. I know this is something that will make me heavily critized, but it is true. Why do we never call the 'collateral damage' of civilians by American drones a terrorism act? Why do the wild shooters who shot and killed civilians in theater, schools, etc never get called a terrorist? I don't know. Double standards. Terrorism is a term for non-US Americans exercising violence on the western soil. US Americans, doing terrorizing acts..... well, that's another thing completely.So yes, when the apartheid government had close relationship with the west, and Mandela called to arms his brothers and sisters against that particular government and for the freedom of his race he got labeled terrorist.It is a politically loaded term intended to delegitimize an opposite party and these days, it does so very effectively.I hope that clears things up.

What role did our MARCOS commandos play during 26/11 attacks? Why did NSG have to be brought in when MARCOS are our most lethal SF?

Allright, so everybody tried their best to answer the question while some of them mentioned about the role of MARCOS and NSG and what probably couldve gone wrong and why the MARCOS who are more elite than the NSG for obvious reasons did not participate in the Operation after the arrival of NSG.The answer is after the arrival of NSG at the scene of crime, NSG Superiors were given the operational command by the govt and they wanted the MARCOS to operate under their command, which was not acceptable to the MARCOS superiors for obvious reasons of the superiority of their training and the Special Forces Status which is way above the NSG paygrade, which is although an elite unit itself but is only a Counter Terrorist/Hijacking Agency whereas MARCOS conducts diverse operations and unlike some people who have mentioned here that the MARCOS is not trained for counter terrorism operations they are very much trained in Close Quater Combat, Direct Action, Search and Rescue and Hostage Rescue and they are specialists just like NSG and are better than them. An anonymous person also went on to explain the inability of MARCOS to face terrorists citing their less experience in counter terror operations, lets just say he is ignorant and lacks the knowledge because MARCOS is very much active in Anti-insurgency operations in J&K however their operations being clandestine in nature just like that of PARA SF, the details never come out in public and that is the reason people like him want to believe that MARCOS have no combat experience whatsoever which is outright false.I can say this because i had a MARCOS Officer as an instructor at NAVAC Ezhimala who even participated in the intial phase of 26/11 and it was him who told us that the MARCOS couldve neutralised the terrorists on their own without the support of NSG, however the the govt decided to chose the legalities over quick action and then ended up giving the command to the NSG and the MARCOS reluctantly decided to make way for the NSG without getting embroiled in a political mess which was created.

Why the 9/11 attack could not be prevented?

End ALL The Wars & Police States, NOW !Make The U.S. Billionaires Pay TOTAL Reparations For ALL The Damage Done !9/11 Was: An Inside Job (by Americans (& Others?)); False Flag (Blamed On Arabs); & Big Lie (With Cover Up)By: the UNITING 9/11 Truth Movement in the Name of the People of the U.S. & World *U.S. Gov. 9/11 Official Conspiracy Theory [False Claims, Shocking Admissions + … ] YET U.S. Gov. 9/11 Official Conspiracy Theory (O.C.T.) REFUTED [ … Proven: Impossible, Even Ridiculous]A. PEOPLE (19 SPECIFIC MEN):1. MOTIVE:a. @ Muslim Religious Fanatic Wanted His 72 Virgins YET Drank, Drugged, Whored; Fast-Track Visas; ID’s Stolen; US: Insider Trading, Plunderb. They Wanted To Do Jihad & Hated Our Freedoms YET 3 Times, USAma Bin Laden:"I DIDN'T DO 9/11 !"; US Rich Wanted New Pearl Harborc. They Wanted To Do MAXIMUM Damage To The U.S. YET They Flew PAST Nuclear Power Plant; Skipped Pres. Bush; WTC – Insurance Scam $2. OPPORTUNITY:a. These Attacks Took The U.S. Completely By Surprise YET Japanese Kamikazes; Pres.: PDB; & Millions Saw TV: "Lone Gunman" WTC Attackb. They Succeeded Due To ”A Failure Of Imagination” YET U.S. Gov. Ran Many Anti-Terror Drills Both Before 9/11 & ON The Morning Of 9/11c. The U.S. Had Dozens Of ”Bureaucratic Failures” YET Impossible Odds Against So Many 1-Morning Failures; & NO Bureaucrats Punished3. MEANS:a. Small Arabs With Box-Cutters & Expert Piloting … YET They Couldn’t: Fly/Overcome ex-Military, BIG Pilots, Trained-To-Sacrifice-Their-Livesb. Outsmarted World’s Greatest Air Defense ($30B/Yr) YET It Was Pre-Planned Chaos & A U.S. Military "STAND DOWN" On 9/11; = INSIDE JOBc. There Was No Destruction Of Evidence Or Cover-Up YET Illegal Too-Fast Clean-Up; Delayed/Flawed (C)omission;MSM;=FALSE FLAG / BIG LIE ---------------The above lines ARE the top part of a brand new leaflet titled:"End ALL The Wars & Police States, NOW ! "It's format is to first list the O.C.T. (the US Gov 9/11 Official Conspiracy Theory)and then add the word "YET" followed by a refutation of the O.C.T.N.B. I know about everything about this leaflet because I am the original author. This is indicated on the last line of the Leaflet which reads:"ABSOLUTE PROOF; Promised But Never Given; & Most/All Of Their Claims = IMPOSSIBLE,Even RIDICULOUS. [*original: Pablo Novi 2016/08/22] "

Does Trump risk blame for an attack if he continues skipping security briefings?

In a word, yes. But not by his supporters. Trump proves that you can create your own reality (essentially a whole flood of lies) and, with enough repetition, have a sufficient number of followers believe.Bush and the Republican Party continue to prove this by asserting that 9/11 did not occur during the Bush administration; that the Presidential Daily Briefing Bush received while on vacation at his ranch before 9/11 was “"not specific enough” to indicate an attack and that al-Qaeda had never before mounted a terror attack in the USA.Repeat lies and conspiracy theories enough and you can get re-elected if you are Bush (even though he was selected and not elected by our Supreme Court) and, in the case of Trump, elected Despite historical unpopularity and an outright refusal to fit any of the norms of Presidential candidates.So, as long as the Trump reality distortion field is active, a significant plurality of voters will not blame him. Those who rely on facts will.