• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

RCMP Charges CAF Members For Trying to Start Anti- Government Group- July 08/ 2025

Eaglelord17 said:
There is 100% a issue with radicalization of young men, that being said there is also a issue with the radicalization of young women as well.

There are plenty of young women out there who treat men not as equals but as lesser than who do not get called out on it (or alternatively are encouraged in it). Both sexes are generally being failed in being taught how to treat each other.

I am of the opinion that this 'resurgence' of garbage like Andrew Tate is more a reaction than the cause. As much as most people will spout off about equality and such, most aren't actually supporters of it.
Click to expand...
Sure but the “manosohere” influencer culture has normalized and promoted those beliefs.
 
Anthony Scaramucci (yes, that Anthony Scaramucci) and Scott Galloway (Prof G) have a podcast where they talk about the problems boys and young men. One of the issues they talk about is how they’re susceptible to influencers like the Tates who tell them how to be “masculine” because many boys don’t have real masculine role models.

It’s a really interesting podcast, and they talk about many different topics related to boys and young men. Anyone with young sons should listen to it.
 
RangerRay said:
Anthony Scaramucci (yes, that Anthony Scaramucci) and Scott Galloway (Prof G) have a podcast where they talk about the problems boys and young men. One of the issues they talk about is how they’re susceptible to influencers like the Tates who tell them how to be “masculine” because many boys don’t have real masculine role models.

It’s a really interesting podcast, and they talk about many different topics related to boys and young men. Anyone with young sons should listen to it.
Click to expand...
Young men look for meaning, belonging, and identity… Nothing new there. I don’t think there’s actually a ton of difference in the psychology of joining a military, joining a gang, joining a sports team, working a job as part of a cohesive team, or getting pulled into an extremist group. The difference in outcomes probably has a lot to do with the doors that are open to a young man, who’s stepping through and reaching out offering belonging, and what sort of set of beliefs they adopt. That last one in turn really hinges a lot on whether they already have a solid set of values that they were raised with, and whether those values are congruent with socioeconomic opportunity.

You raise a kid decently with good pro-social values, and show them open doors that let that kid achieve some sort of socioeconomic success that’s true to those values, you won’t usually have problems. But if they’re brought up bad, or if despite a good upbringing they keep finding the doors closed- they’ll keep looking til they find that alternative belonging. If someone offers them that conditional on adopting a new set of beliefs, and if their old set of beliefs hasn’t let them to success, there may be problems.

Arguably, we have more kids now hitting failures they aren’t prepared for and can’t overcome. Decent standards of living and employment are getting harder to achieve. I think we have more kids/young adults now who are vulnerable to being muckled on to by some shitty people pushing shitty beliefs.
 
I wonder if the "plan to seize land" was nothing more than these guys practicing writing orders.
 
Jarnhamar said:
I wonder if the "plan to seize land" was nothing more than these guys practicing writing orders.
Click to expand...
Doubtful… Terrorism charges are very difficult to get. Approval goes all the way up to the Director of Public Prosecutions or their deputy. They only happens after the regional federal crown have worked a file hard to make sure the grounds to charge and a reasonable likelihood of conviction are there.

For an investigation running at least a year and a half there’s probably a significant body of evidence. I think that prior to anything having been published for the media on this, the investigative team, senior management, crown, and RCMP’s strategic comms would all have been at the table.

I can’t wait to get the story on this, though sadly we’ll all have to…
 
^^
Call me a skeptic but anyone stupid enough to broadcast their extremist recruiting pitch on Instagram likely don't have a solid plan to seize anything more than an empty parking lot. The hair on fire by our media has reduced somewhat but I'm still convinced they are looking for Nazi level fascists instead of really dumb and aimless buffoons.

And the Crown Attorneys and the other tall foreheads are just as likely to be fallible as anyone and capable of being seduced by the "Big Score" and other group think issues.

Still, I advocate the nailing of these idjits to the cross as a form of "pour encourager les autres" to send a message to the anyone else in the CA, especially Colonels thinking of organizing a coup. ;)
 
FSTO said:
^^
Call me a skeptic but anyone stupid enough to broadcast their extremist recruiting pitch on Instagram likely don't have a solid plan to seize anything more than an empty parking lot. The hair on fire by our media has reduced somewhat but I'm still convinced they are looking for Nazi level fascists instead of really dumb and aimless buffoons.

And the Crown Attorneys and the other tall foreheads are just as likely to be fallible as anyone and capable of being seduced by the "Big Score" and other group think issues.

Still, I advocate the nailing of these idjits to the cross as a form of "pour encourager les autres" to send a message to the anyone else in the CA, especially Colonels thinking of organizing a coup. ;)
Click to expand...
My experience with crowns on major projects has not been like that… They tend, in my experience, to be very cautious and conservative in what charges they support going forward with. We’ll bring ten or twelve offences with all the elements met and they’ll grudgingly pick two or three.

A lot more files get examined and investigated as terrorism than ever go forward as such, and judges can and will push back on, for instance, warrant applications naming terrorism if they aren’t convinced the ideology underlying the offences is established. So there are a number of eyes along the way before terrorism charges are laid that ‘gut check’ an investigation. Not to say that charges don’t still go forward; but they may be for murder, or promotion of hatred, or weapons offences.

Now, terrorism charges don’t need to be a huge event or a sprawling and complex plot. Not everything is a Toronto 18 or a Project Samossa. An individual working alone can hit the threshold definition under s. 83.01 of the Criminal Code. Maybe this Quebec plot was reasonably advanced and complex, maybe it wasn’t. But for terrorism charges to have been laid, that wasn’t a unilateral decision by either police or by local crown.

FWIW. We’ll see the facts in time I’m sure.
 
FSTO said:
Don't you know that ALL Coups are led by Army Colonels?
Click to expand...
Sorta seems like peak coup rank? You probably have a general sense by then of where your senior career trajectory will be (if any), whether you’re looked upon fondly by those with the highest power, who around you can be relied upon, and if you have enough loyal troops to switch things up.

FSTO said:
I just of the opinion that a couple of disgruntled cpls and a CIC officer are that much of a threat to the nation.
Click to expand...

Oh, of course not- me either. You don’t have to be to catch terrorism charges.

I’d expect that any any periods of assessed increased risk they were probably being watched very closely, and that there was a team ready to make sure they had a bad day if they tried anything. If their efforts had gotten that close to fruition.
 
brihard said:
My experience with crowns on major projects has not been like that… They tend, in my experience, to be very cautious and conservative in what charges they support going forward with. We’ll bring ten or twelve offences with all the elements met and they’ll grudgingly pick two or three.

A lot more files get examined and investigated as terrorism than ever go forward as such, and judges can and will push back on, for instance, warrant applications naming terrorism if they aren’t convinced the ideology underlying the offences is established. So there are a number of eyes along the way before terrorism charges are laid that ‘gut check’ an investigation. Not to say that charges don’t still go forward; but they may be for murder, or promotion of hatred, or weapons offences.

Now, terrorism charges don’t need to be a huge event or a sprawling and complex plot. Not everything is a Toronto 18 or a Project Samossa. An individual working alone can hit the threshold definition under s. 83.01 of the Criminal Code. Maybe this Quebec plot was reasonably advanced and complex, maybe it wasn’t. But for terrorism charges to have been laid, that wasn’t a unilateral decision by either police or by local crown.

FWIW. We’ll see the facts in time I’m sure.
Click to expand...

It’s my impression that American prosecutors are itching for the Big Score and will prosecute any and all charges they feel they have enough evidence for a judge to find guilty beyond a a reasonable doubt. Seeing how some of their big cases explode on impact with a judge, sometimes I wonder how much they do even that much work.

Canadian prosecutors seem to be constantly looking at their caseload and asking “Eh, is this worth the squeeze?” If you give them evidence for 10 charges, they will choose one and then plead out anyways.
 
RangerRay said:
It’s my impression that American prosecutors are itching for the Big Score and will prosecute any and all charges they feel they have enough evidence for a judge to find guilty beyond a a reasonable doubt. Seeing how some of their big cases explode on impact with a judge, sometimes I wonder how much they do even that much work.

Canadian prosecutors seem to be constantly looking at their caseload and asking “Eh, is this worth the squeeze?” If you give them evidence for 10 charges, they will choose one and then plead out anyways.
Click to expand...
Many American prosecutors are elected and as such aren’t necessarily interested in the proper course of justice rather as being perceived as following it/doing what is popular.

It isn’t about right or wrong it’s about getting that big win to show why they should be reelected again no matter who gets railroaded in the process.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top