250 News - Your News, Your Views, Now

October 28, 2017 3:16 am

Manipulating the terror threat?

Friday, July 24, 2015 @ 3:45 AM

By Peter Ewart

Using the threat of terrorism to manipulate public opinion and bolster the power of the state has a long and sordid history. Unfortunately, at least in the short term, it can be a very effective tool of anti-democratic and dictatorial state authorities.

Hitler used these techniques to justify the invasion of Poland and other countries, as well as the crushing of rights within Germany. But there have been abundant examples in recent years, especially since 9/11, from politicians of various stripes.

For example, the Bush administration made false claims about Saddam Hussein’s supposed attempts to obtain nuclear material for dirty bombs, as well as other weapons of mass destruction. These claims were used to justify the bombing and invasion of Iraq which subsequently plunged the country and region into chaos and civil war.

Leading up to and after the Iraq invasion, the terror threat was repeatedly used for political purposes by White House officials. Former U.S. Homeland Security head Tom Ridge has admitted that he “was pressured by other members of President George W. Bush’s Cabinet to raise the nation’s terror alert level just before the 2004 presidential election” (1) (2).

In addition, it has been revealed that state authorities have been involved in various entrapment plots and other schemes to ramp up the terror threat (3). As constitutional law expert Jonathan Turley says, U.S. government officials “were trying to create an atmosphere of fear in which the American people would give them more power” (4).

Canada has its own history going back to the 1960s and before of security police engaging in dirty tricks and false flag events, even going so far as to burn down buildings and plant bombs in order to discredit opponents of the government. Much of this, of course, came up in the subsequent MacDonald Commission investigation.

More recently, many people feel that, in the wake of the “lone wolf” attacks on the Canadian soldier and reservist in Ottawa last Fall, the Conservative government has misused its power to push “anti-terror” legislation (Bill C-51) through Parliament which is anti-democratic, threatens the rights of all Canadians, and authorizes CSIS to break the law and commit dirty tricks.

On July 23, the CBC revealed the curious bit of information that Foreign Minister Rob Nicholson instructed bureaucrats in his ministry this Spring to produce a quota of three terrorism-related statements each week for him and his team to speak to. The news report goes on to say that this instruction comes “ahead of a fall election in which security and Canada’s response to terrorism are expected to be key issues” (5).

While one former bureaucrat said that “it is normal for the government of the day to ask civil servants for the information and materials it needs to promote and communicate its policies,” other former officials thought Nicholson’s request was quite unusual and downright odd.

Will the threat of terrorism be used to manipulate the upcoming Fall election campaign in Canada? Hopefully not. Hopefully, a clear-headed and rational discussion will be fostered. But, as past experience shows, we should be prepared for any eventuality.

Peter Ewart is a columnist and writer based in Prince George, British Columbia. He can be reached at: peter.ewart@shaw.ca


  • NBC News. “Ridge: I was pushed to raise terror alert.” August 20, 2009.
  • Chossudovsky, Michel. “Tom Ridge’s Mea Culpa: the Code Orange Terror Alerts were based on fake intelligence.” Global Research. May 12, 2005.
  • Greenwald, Jeff. “Why does the FBI have to manufacture its own plots if terrorism and ISIS are such grave threats?” The Intercept. February 26, 2015.
  • Washington’s Blog. “The Secret Visualization.” July 28, 2009.
  • Chevalier, Jennifer. “Bureaucrats told to provide Rob Nicholson 3 terrorism-related statements a week.” CBC News. July 22, 2015.


‘Hitler used these techniques to justify the invasion of Poland and other countries, as well as the crushing of rights within Germany. ‘ – generalize much? Not going to make this a history debate, but there was a heck of a lot going on in Germany, socially and economically, to justify an invasion into any country.. and he would have gotten the support regardless.

The conditions and participants in the next election are a terror threat!

ABH = Anybody But Harper.

Quoting Hitler is standard practice. It is not a good comparison in this case though.

Harper’s party elected him as its leader and the party was elected into power by a democratic vote.

Hitler on the other hand fed on the resentment and economic chaos brought about by the punitive terms of the Treaty of Versailles. Hitler was actually APPOINTED to lead by the president and the cabinet. His Nazi party never got enough votes to form a government before this happened. Sure enough, after having asked for and been given extraordinary powers he immediately banned all other parties and became a de facto dictator. In the next election he got 97% because all other parties had been banned.

However, often democratically elected leaders make a grab for power and rule with an iron fist.

In Canada we have our Canadian constitution and Charter of Rights which puts limits on what leaders can do and what they can not do! It is a good idea to keep an eye on things before they get out of hand. It requires people to become involved in and stay on top of politics by voting.

“On July 23, the CBC revealed the curious bit of information that Foreign Minister Rob Nicholson instructed bureaucrats in his ministry this Spring to produce a quota of three terrorism-related statements each week for him and his team to speak to.”

What does that say about our government who would use the same tactics on us as Hitler??

“Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death.” ~ Adolf Hitler

Think what you want! terrorism is a threat to Canadians. Those that think otherwise are mistaken. If you think we can just walk away from this, you’re wrong.

Wanna bet we can’t walk away from this? Just gotta have Harper and his puppet masters in the USA stop sticking their FN noses in everyone else’s business just for a start.

Bill C-51 is being challenged by two National Groups.

1. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association
2. The Canadian Journalists for Free Expression

These groups are asking Ontario’s Superior Court of Justice to hear their constitutional case against the federal anti-terrorism measures, commonly known as Bill C-51.

**I leave it to the court to make their own view and analysis of the bill. We’re pretty confident that this bill is there for the right reason, to protect Canadians, and that it will stand any challenge that it could face** stated Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney.

So there you have it. A controversial bill passed by a duly elected Government, that is now being challenged in a court of law, and if found wanting will be thrown out. Or approved.

This is how a democracy works, with all its warts and carbuncles.

Try to pull off a court challenge like this in Communist Russia, or China, and see how fast the Chinese Secret Service, or the KGB will be on your ass.

An interesting related perspective….

http: //theantimedia.org/5-confirmed-false-flag-operations/

It all starts off small, and then it grows with the ego of men in power.

If the bill infringes upon the Canadian Charter of Right and Freedoms then it is a very good idea to challenge it and remove/amend the sections that are in violation of the above.

Actually it is up to the Russians and Chinese to stand up for and fight for their own democratic and human rights. We stand up for ours!

Actually, Harper would not have to worry about a drafted legislation being struck down by the Courts if he listened to, and took heed of, expert advice before ramming Bill C-51 through parliament.

Former Liberal and Progressive Conservative Prime Ministers Jean Chretien, Paul Martin, Joe Clark, and John Turner; several retired Supreme Court Justices and Ministers of Justice; more than 100 Canadian law professors; The Canadian Bar Association representing over 30,000 lawyer in Canada; Privacy Commissioner Daniel Therrien along with every provincial territorial privacy commissioner in Canada except New Brunswick, etc. tried to provide constructive criticism and advice to the Harper Government before it was passed into law… the Harper Government ignored them all.

Comments for this article are closed.