NationStates Jolt Archive

The CBC reported today that according to our own government, we are not properly prepared for a hypothetical terrorist attack that may or may not be looming on our horizon. Given that, I have a few questions. They are all just queries of opinion. I would like to know what you think on them.

1. Is it a concern, in light of all the other important issues facing us?

2. Do we "need to wake up to the possibility that they could be targets"?

3. Do you think we are prepared?

P.S.: It might be helpful if you mention whether you live in Canada or not when answering, so as to get a better picture of the local and international image of our country.

Not worried and wouldn't care if something was blown to bits.

With the recent failure of British security I wonder just how 'prepared' one can be.

i absolutely don't think we're as prepared as we could be. on the other hand, the two countries that did everything that's being suggested by people who want us more prepared are the US and UK, so it's pretty clear that no matter how "prepared" a country is, it could still happen. my view is that when we turn our lives upside down in the name of security, the terrorists win, so i suggests we move forward, continue building a just, open society and, in the event of a terrorist attack, deal with it in a sane, reasonable manner, the way we would deal with any other major problem.

...and yes, i live in canada.

Ignore the fear-mongerers. If it happens, it happens. It doesn't matter.

Yes, I live in Canada.

The CBC reported today that according to our own government, we are not properly prepared for a hypothetical terrorist attack that may or may not be looming on our horizon. Given that, I have a few questions. They are all just queries of opinion. I would like to know what you think on them.

1. Is it a concern, in light of all the other important issues facing us?

2. Do we "need to wake up to the possibility that they could be targets"?

3. Do you think we are prepared?

P.S.: It might be helpful if you mention whether you live in Canada or not when answering, so as to get a better picture of the local and international image of our country.

I dont think Canada has anything to worry about in the short term. Especially since it's being reported elsewhere that Canada is pretty much providing a safe haven for terrorist, they should be fairly free of attack as long as they do exactly as they are told. France doesnt seem to have too many problems with terrorism as long as they continue to provide assistence to them.
I'm from the US, and I don't think we are prepared for it, considering there is no way in hell bush is going to protect the borders as is his constitutional obligation, but that's the way it goes. We'll just prepare for the impact and the resulting hell storm to follow.

Liverbreath']I dont think Canada has anything to worry about in the short term. Especially since it's being reported elsewhere that Canada is pretty much providing a safe haven for terrorist, they should be fairly free of attack as long as they do exactly as they are told. France doesnt seem to have too many problems with terrorism as long as they continue to provide assistence to them.
I'm from the US, and I don't think we are prepared for it, considering there is no way in hell bush is going to protect the borders as is his constitutional obligation, but that's the way it goes. We'll just prepare for the impact and the resulting hell storm to follow.

sure, i'll take the bait. how, specifically, has france and canada "aided" terrorists?

sure, i'll take the bait. how, specifically, has france and canada "aided" terrorists?

That was a bad choice of words. I should have said allows them operate from there. I dont believe france has openly aided them since Saddam was taken down.

Liverbreath']I dont think Canada has anything to worry about in the short term. Especially since it's being reported elsewhere that Canada is pretty much providing a safe haven for terrorist, they should be fairly free of attack as long as they do exactly as they are told. France doesnt seem to have too many problems with terrorism as long as they continue to provide assistence to them.
I'm from the US, and I don't think we are prepared for it, considering there is no way in hell bush is going to protect the borders as is his constitutional obligation, but that's the way it goes. We'll just prepare for the impact and the resulting hell storm to follow.

being reported elsewhere? or just Fox news? Which is very Anti-Canadian( We can use 'anti' too!) Canada is no more a 'haven' then any other country.

We're currently aware of about 50 believed cells operating in Canada. It is unclear as to why the government is not taking action, but it could be for any number of reasons, including that we hope they will lead us to higher level terrorists or that we can't technically touch them because they have yet to commit a crime here.

Canada is in no way prepared for the chance of a terrorist strike. Canada has long been a peace-keeping country that has never oppressed people but rather has tried it's best to help others. It's true that Canada may be a target but to what purpose? The US came under attack for their actions in places such as the war in the early 90s when they helped out Kuwait. Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair recently stated he planned on helping the US with the invasion in Iraq I believe (Heard it on the news or it was in the newspaper, my apologies if I am wrong). That is, in my opinion, what has helped prompt the terrorist actions against them. Canada has done no such thing, and only sent troops to Afghanistan to keep up the friendship with the US. Even so, it was done reluctantly. I personally cannot see why a terrorist action would be launched against Canada. Even still, Canada would be hard-pressed to prepare against such an assault. If anything I stated was wrong, my apologies.

Yes, I live in Canada.

Liverbreath']That was a bad choice of words. I should have said allows them operate from there. I dont believe france has openly aided them since Saddam was taken down.

america, if i recall correctly, is having the same difficulty keeping track of/arresting terrorists that the rest of the world is having, and they have the benefit of the largest, best funded (some would use the word "bloated") military in the world, no domestic opposition to sweeping, civil rights limiting legislation and free reign to go wherever they want and do whatever they want through 90% of the world without anyone stopping them or even asking them to stop in anything louder than a timid whisper. why would canada, without these huge advantages, have an easier time finding and stopping terrorists?

I was just discussing this today with someone at work and the consensus was that Canada is just not that much of a big deal to Islamic Terrorists, after all we are a small country and simply don't pose much of a threat.We never fought in Iraq, we as a country don't think much of George Bush and his Middle East policies. The fact that we have such Liberal immigration policy,''practically nobody ever gets kicked out of this country'', we give money to anybody with a sob story, and to boot they are able to raise and launder money easily basically ensures that terrorists,if there are indeed any in the country at all ,are going to let sleeping dogs lie and not provoke by any kind of attack ,such security measures that are now being implemented in the U.S.A. We as a country simply don't consider security as high on the govermental agenda as health care,separatism, among others, just look at our armed forces for crying out loud! :mad:

We're currently aware of about 50 believed cells operating in Canada. It is unclear as to why the government is not taking action, but it could be for any number of reasons, including that we hope they will lead us to higher level terrorists or that we can't technically touch them because they have yet to commit a crime here.

I can't imagine myself. If it were the US I would say it was because they were probably bribing politicians to protect them, but I have little faith in my government these days. 50 cells huh? How big is a cell?

Personally I think the world treats Canada like some strange Neighbor that even though weird, is quite likable and will give the shirt off their back for you.

Though it's made fun of by others, I doubt any country hates Canada. There's mostly pity because Canada is so Close to the Evil United States.

Liverbreath']I can't imagine myself. If it were the US I would say it was because they were probably bribing politicians to protect them, but I have little faith in my government these days. 50 cells huh? How big is a cell?

Four or five people. Again, these are groups we believe to be cells. We don't know for certain that they are.

america, if i recall correctly, is having the same difficulty keeping track of/arresting terrorists that the rest of the world is having, and they have the benefit of the largest, best funded (some would use the word "bloated") military in the world, no domestic opposition to sweeping, civil rights limiting legislation and free reign to go wherever they want and do whatever they want through 90% of the world without anyone stopping them or even asking them to stop in anything louder than a timid whisper. why would canada, without these huge advantages, have an easier time finding and stopping terrorists?

Actually hundreds upon hundreds are aprehended thanks to the patriot act. As long as it is a temporary thing it has been a huge benefit. The problem is in this country the politicians for the last 50 years never let go of anything. Why would what the US does within it's borders have anything to do with what Canada does within theirs?

I don't believe preperation revolves around security measures; there will in any state short of Zamyatin's We be the capacity for circumventing those and commiting crimes, on whatever scale and with whatever ends in mind.

I believe the only real preperation one can have is to have your emergency services ready and capable of responding to an attack quickly and efficiently, in just the manner I am proud to say our own British services did. Security should be as good as possible without trampling on rights, and leads should always be pursued, but homeland security is an impossible thing to ensure for any nation.

I'm British, as I'm sure you could tell up there. EDIT: And without knowing Canada's planning, I actually don't know if they're prepared or not, I just wanted to chip in with my opinion on how preparedness can be achieved.

Liverbreath']Actually hundreds upon hundreds are aprehended thanks to the patriot act. As long as it is a temporary thing it has been a huge benefit. The problem is in this country the politicians for the last 50 years never let go of anything. Why would what the US does within it's borders have anything to do with what Canada does within theirs?

...i'm not judging america's system at all, you misunderstand. americans elect their own governments, and their governments pass laws that are, at least in theory, endorsed by the american people. that's no business of mine. i'm simply stating that, in spite of what i personally consider draconian security measures and an enormous military, terrorists continue to operate within americas boarders. therefore it seems unfair to claim that canada (or france, or span, or anyone else who didn't support iraq) is "aiding" terrorists because they also operate within ours.

...i'm not judging america's system at all, you misunderstand. americans elect their own governments, and their governments pass laws that are, at least in theory, endorsed by the american people. that's no business of mine. i'm simply stating that, in spite of what i personally consider draconian security measures and an enormous military, terrorists continue to operate within americas boarders. therefore it seems unfair to claim that canada (or france, or span, or anyone else who didn't support iraq) is "aiding" terrorists because they also operate within ours.

Actually I didn't think you were so much judging our system, I thought you were using the mistaken impression that our "draconian" security measures were totally ineffective and therefore it would be unreasonable for Canada to increase theirs. Unfortunately there are those who's purpose it serves to discredit any attempts to improve security here. Those saying that the Patriot act has done nothing and is a big imposition on our freedom are simply doing so for their own benefit. It actually has helped immeasurably. Again, I would not want to see them enacted on a permanent basis, but history does support a temporary sacrifice of freedom in this country during war time. At the present time our biggest weaknesses in security are our borders and none of the politicians wish to address it because they all think it benefits their side to leave them wide open. It is for this very reason I believe the attention is being placed on Canada's security. The politicians want to force Canada to improve their own security so they don't have to protect the borders. They know full well if we get hit again, Politicians on both sides will be going down and along with them several corporations paying for this open border garbage.

There is also the question of whether by "prepared" you are asking whether agencies like CSIS have systems in place to prevent the incident from being carried out, or are you asking whether our P.E.P. and E.R.T. teams and such are ready to respond to mass casualties, etc. after an incident has occurred. I suspect that a lot of the latter is going to vary from province to province, while the former is largely a federal matter. CSIS and the RCMP are integrated with international law enforcement and intelligence services (not that those services have been particularly clever so far at preventing attacks). Vancouver is in an earthquake zone and as such is likely a bit better prepared for mass casualties and such, since they have been training for disaster scenarios for awhile. If someone explodes a dirty bomb in downtown Moosejaw they may be less prepared (at a guess).

If someone explodes a dirty bomb in downtown Moosejaw they may be less prepared (at a guess).

...if somebody explodes a dirty bomb in downtown moosejaw the casualties will reach 2 million when people's heads spontaniously explode trying to wrap their head around why :D

...if somebody explodes a dirty bomb in downtown moosejaw the casualties will reach 2 million when people's heads spontaniously explode trying to wrap their head around why :D



there really wouldn't be any point in attacking Canada, if anything it would, even in the Arab/Muslim world, strip the attackers of their label of fighting in the name of Allah, and instead label them as terrorists going for as high a death count as possible (which is damn hard to do in Canada, esp. Moosejaw).

besides, the WTC and London attacks actually had a purpose behind them. Canada's really not the main force behind killing Iraqi civilians and haven't really been the main economic oppressors. there aren't really any targets like the WTC there, the biggest targets might be a maple syrup factory and the Hockey Hall of Fame.

if you want to take a look at "aiding and abetting" terrorists, look at Saudi Arabia.

the only preparations canada should really need to worry about (same really holds true anywhere) is swift damage control and response. anyone could bomb any building without being caught beforehand, so the best thing to do is minimize fatalities.

i have to say, being a brit living somewhat grudgingly in canada, one of the things i'm very proud of is the fact that civil liberties are so well protected, maybe not completely free of fiddling, but still, well protected in this country, and of course that means that there are going to be terrorists and ex-nazi's here, that's what happens when you have a society that can actually call itself somewhat free. the way to deal with terrorism is to treat it as an irritating itch, something that is annoying, and yes, is tragic, but not something to throw yourself into a whirlwind of rage and paranoia about. it's going to happen, that's the world we live in now. we should all just put it on the list of awful things that could happen to us as soon as we step out of the house. i could get run over, i could get bitten by a diseased mosquito, i could drop dead from a freak heart attack, i could get blown up, but there you go. when it's time, it's time. to paraphrase a rather famous playwright, it's what we do with the time that's given us. and limiting our civil freedoms and spending our lives as slaves to worry is a sure sign that the people that are doing this to innocent people have won. they have made their impact, they are changing things by killing.

and also, the liberal government already spends a lot of money, and so to concentrate more on security etc. would mean either higher taxes, which most people i know here would compain bitterly about, or take money out of other social systems, and frankly i think education, welfare and healthcare could always do with more money, and they are more important than trying to dodge the inevitable.

I hope you're not living here too grudgingly. Nice post.

Welcome.

It is true that America is very divided right now, but Canada is a friend of ours. We would not let anything happen to them if we could help it. If worst does come to worst the U.S. will be there to help any way that we can. You can never be 100% safe no matter what. Whether you skeptical of Bush's war on terror or not, he is trying to make the world safer, and everyone wants the world safer. The problem is we sometimes disagree about how to make the world safer.

there really wouldn't be any point in attacking Canada, if anything it would, even in the Arab/Muslim world, strip the attackers of their label of fighting in the name of Allah, and instead label them as terrorists going for as high a death count as possible (which is damn hard to do in Canada, esp. Moosejaw).

besides, the WTC and London attacks actually had a purpose behind them. Canada's really not the main force behind killing Iraqi civilians and haven't really been the main economic oppressors. there aren't really any targets like the WTC there, the biggest targets might be a maple syrup factory and the Hockey Hall of Fame.

if you want to take a look at "aiding and abetting" terrorists, look at Saudi Arabia.

the only preparations canada should really need to worry about (same really holds true anywhere) is swift damage control and response. anyone could bomb any building without being caught beforehand, so the best thing to do is minimize fatalities.

Actually there will be pleanty of reason for them to attack Canada, but that is down the road a way. For now, Canada is a staging ground where they can operate without interference and strengthen their migration until such time they have an effective voice in government, with a degree of leverage. Canadians will sleep through this time believing that since they don't bother anyone no one will bother them. Once they have been sufficiently assimilated, then the demands will begin. If or when Canadians stop capitualting then the threats and real attacks will begin. Like I said though, that is down the road. As long as Canadians remain passive and accept their fate however, there may never even be bloodshed. I believe according to muslims, Palestine was a completely bloodless conquest. Interesting though you no longer see any evidence of the greek desendents that lived there at the time.

Liverbreath']For now, Canada is a staging ground where they can operate without interference and strengthen their migration until such time they have an effective voice in government, with a degree of leverage.

...sure, i'll field this obvious question too. how, precicely, would al quaida gain themselves an "effective voice" in the canadian government?

Is it a concern, in light of all the other important issues facing us?


Of course it's a concern.


2. Do we "need to wake up to the possibility that they could be targets"?


We were already targets for the past three years. Osama named a list of targets..

England, United States, Aussies, Spain, and Canada.


3. Do you think we are prepared?


No, we are not. United States, the most powerful nation in the world, got hit by terrorists. London was recently hit by terrorists. Spain kneeled down to terrorists.

Unless Canada starts changing it's immigration system and improves security, which isn't even a big issue in Ontario, we are going to get attacked.


Canadians will sleep through this time believing that since they don't bother anyone no one will bother them.


Too bad that sometime soon, within a few months to a few years, they will soon realize that they cannot be a peaceful nation by sitting by the sidelines and booing at the world stage. All it takes is a few bombs in the TTC (Toronto Public Transportation) to set them straight.

It is true that America is very divided right now, but Canada is a friend of ours. We would not let anything happen to them if we could help it. If worst does come to worst the U.S. will be there to help any way that we can. You can never be 100% safe no matter what. Whether you skeptical of Bush's war on terror or not, he is trying to make the world safer, and everyone wants the world safer. The problem is we sometimes disagree about how to make the world safer.

I used to believe the same thing myself, but I am afraid that simply is not the case. Canada has clearly decided to go its own way, which of course is entirely up to them, but it is safe to say our relations with Canada have effectively been returned to levels previous to WWII.

besides, the WTC and London attacks actually had a purpose behind them. Canada's really not the main force behind killing Iraqi civilians and haven't really been the main economic oppressors. there aren't really any targets like the WTC there, the biggest targets might be a maple syrup factory and the Hockey Hall of Fame.


No, we are not involved with Iraq, but we did help the United States with Afghanistan. Enough reason for Al Queda to fuck us over.

They also have plenty of targets: TTC, Roger's Center, CN Tower, and Parliament. Plus there is that huge ass mall in BC.

...sure, i'll field this obvious question too. how, precicely, would al quaida gain themselves an "effective voice" in the canadian government?

Migration and assimilation is a very old and very effective technique used to invade an opponent. It is also one that many muslim endorse and in fact encourage. Why do you think the European muslim population has increased at such an astronomical rate? France's alone has doubled in just a few years. They opened the flood gates to immigration so they could continue their growth rate and at the same time the Arab world is telling their people that muslim ideology must be installed where ever they go. It is subtle, swift, yet silent and cost effective as hell. It requires only a bit of patience. :D

I believe the only real preperation one can have is to have your emergency services ready and capable of responding to an attack quickly and efficiently, in just the manner I am proud to say our own British services did. Security should be as good as possible without trampling on rights, and leads should always be pursued, but homeland security is an impossible thing to ensure for any nation.


Exactly! Our emergency services have always had emergency plans laid down, but in the years since 9/11 these have been upgraded! Even running disaster scenarios such as simulated chemical attacks!

Liverbreath']Migration and assimilation is a very old and very effective technique used to invade an opponent. It is also one that many muslim endorse and in fact encourage. Why do you think the European muslim population has increased at such an astronomical rate? France's alone has doubled in just a few years. They opened the flood gates to immigration so they could continue their growth rate and at the same time the Arab world is telling their people that muslim ideology must be installed where ever they go. It is subtle, swift, yet silent and cost effective as hell. It requires only a bit of patience. :D

...so the only way we can protect ourselves from al quaida is to prevent muslims from immigrating?

I feel that Canada will be safe, but I would question the securtiy for the 2010 Olypics. If a bomb went off in B.C. Place, over 60, 000 there are in the blast area. And you have 18, 000 across the street in GM Place...

I just wonder if we as a nation can handle an attack. As far as I can remember, the only terrorism we have had launched in Canada was Air India. (But I may be mistaken. Air India happened right after I was born...)

As you can tell I do live in Canada.

I feel that Canada will be safe, but I would question the securtiy for the 2010 Olypics. If a bomb went off in B.C. Place, over 60, 000 there are in the blast area. And you have 18, 000 across the street in GM Place...

...yeah, the olympics are going to be the trick, if at all, it'll likely happen there. but i'm sure the BC gov't has this in mind. there'll be plenty of EMT's, Firefighters etc to deal in case something untoward happens. hopefully...

You do realise that by posting the words

Hockey Hall of Fame

you have alerted CSIS of the possibility that you may be a terrorist...

I don't believe preperation revolves around security measures; there will in any state short of Zamyatin's We be the capacity for circumventing those and commiting crimes, on whatever scale and with whatever ends in mind.



Best literary reference I've seen on NS yet. IF anyone wants to learn how Orwell's 1984 was not as original as he is given credit for, read Zamiyatin.

BTW, I thought Britain's level of preparedeness was being credited for the fact that the attacks were so low tech and limited in scale. So one could argue that Canada would benefit from better preparedness, not in actually preventing terrorist attacks (which is exceptionally difficult to do) but in reducing the risk and the amount of harm.

Liverbreath']Those saying that the Patriot act has done nothing and is a big imposition on our freedom are simply doing so for their own benefit. It actually has helped immeasurably. Again, I would not want to see them enacted on a permanent basis, but history does support a temporary sacrifice of freedom in this country during war time.

Didn't Ben Franklin say something along the lines of "Those who would sacrifice a fundamental freedom for a little bit of security deserve neither freedom nor security?"

Liverbreath']Actually hundreds upon hundreds are aprehended thanks to the patriot act. As long as it is a temporary thing it has been a huge benefit. The problem is in this country the politicians for the last 50 years never let go of anything. Why would what the US does within it's borders have anything to do with what Canada does within theirs?
I absolutely have to comment on this....
Hundreds upon hundreds of aprehensions... and very few convictions alltogether. For some reason the number 27 comes to mind, but I believe many of those weren't even terrorism-related charges, just other stuff they found out while digging through the personal information of millions of people.

Don't let FOX News fool you.

Didn't Ben Franklin say something along the lines of "Those who would sacrifice a fundamental freedom for a little bit of security deserve neither freedom nor security?"

Yes he did and I believe him correct. We have lost no fundamental freedoms at all. Government has gained a few but as I said, as long as they are temorary and during war time there is a ton of historical justification for it. There are good men and women prepared and actually sacrificing much more than we at home are right now. It isn't asking too much to allow the government a bit more leway to do what they are bound by the constitution to do.

Canada City']Plus there is that huge ass mall in BC.

Perhaps you are referring to the West Edmonton Mall, in Alberta? Canada City, indeed...

Liverbreath']Yes he did and I believe him correct. We have lost no fundamental freedoms at all. Government has gained a few but as I said, as long as they are temorary and during war time there is a ton of historical justification for it. There are good men and women prepared and actually sacrificing much more than we at home are right now. It isn't asking too much to allow the government a bit more leway to do what they are bound by the constitution to do.

by "temporary and during wartime" do you mean for the duration of the iraq war, which rumsfeld has admitted could last as long as 12 years, or the duration of the "war on terror" which is so ill defined as to be potentially limitless?

Perhaps you are referring to the West Edmonton Mall, in Alberta? Canada City, indeed...

dude, i live near that mall half the year. if it blew up i'd be slain. but i wouldn't be in that horrible mall anymore. huh, i can't decide which is worse.....

...so the only way we can protect ourselves from al quaida is to prevent muslims from immigrating?

I would not say that is your only option. But I will say that whatever Canada decides to do if anything, one thing must be carefully managed immigration policies. If the doors are opened wide to any and all, the government will be overwhelmed in short order. Frankly, I dont care where you live, once the criteria is met to be eligible to run for elections there is nothing you can do to stop the tide, short of extreme methods.

I absolutely have to comment on this....
Hundreds upon hundreds of aprehensions... and very few convictions alltogether. For some reason the number 27 comes to mind, but I believe many of those weren't even terrorism-related charges, just other stuff they found out while digging through the personal information of millions of people.

Don't let FOX News fool you.

I might say that it is you that should not let government TV (CBC?) fool you. You do not have anything close to the facts.

by "temporary and during wartime" do you mean for the duration of the iraq war, which rumsfeld has admitted could last as long as 12 years, or the duration of the "war on terror" which is so ill defined as to be potentially limitless?

I was speaking of the time period our troops are deployed and in active and ongoing combat. There is no reason to believe that it could last as long as 12 years. The Iraqi government will have more than enough troops in a year or two at the most. It might take a bit longer to get them up to speed on advanced technologies and the like, but that is to be expected. I think he said 12 years because he was tired of liberals yelling liar every they open their mouths.

Liverbreath']I was speaking of the time period our troops are deployed and in active and ongoing combat. There is no reason to believe that it could last as long as 12 years. The Iraqi government will have more than enough troops in a year or two at the most. It might take a bit longer to get them up to speed on advanced technologies and the like, but that is to be expected. I think he said 12 years because he was tired of liberals yelling liar every they open their mouths.

...so what, he was lying to make it LOOK like the war was spiraling out of control to score cheap political points? because i don't see how a lie like that benefits him, to be frank.

...so what, he was lying to make it LOOK like the war was spiraling out of control to score cheap political points? because i don't see how a lie like that benefits him, to be frank.

I didn't actually listen to the interview first hand, but the parts I did hear was something to the effect that it could be 2 years 5 years or 12 years for the life of an insurgency. As I recall they were chastising him and trying to tie his prediction for how long it would take to defeat Saddam to how long the insurgency would last. Actually he didn't ever lie. The media just tried to make it look like he did, which they do all the time so it's old hat here.

Liverbreath']I didn't actually listen to the interview first hand, but the parts I did hear was something to the effect that it could be 2 years 5 years or 12 years for the life of an insurgency. As I recall they were chastising him and trying to tie his prediction for how long it would take to defeat Saddam to how long the insurgency would last. Actually he didn't ever lie. The media just tried to make it look like he did, which they do all the time so it's old hat here.

actually, i did watch that interview. he was being asked if he agreed with dick cheney's assesment that the insurgency was in it's "last throes" and his words were to the effect that no, it wasn't, and that it could be 10 years, 12 years, or a "generational commitment". i don't recall that he included 5 years in this list of possibilities, but i admit he may have.

and you were the one that implied that he said this fraudulently, so that liberals would shut up, not me.

I've thought much about this.

I *WANT* to be on a bus blown up by al queda. I *WANT* my burnt flesh to be shown on TV. I *WANT* to show the terrorists my grinning(not grimacing) face and hear my words telling people that I love the terrorists and they know not what they do, and show them how they won't scare me, they won't change me, they won't harm me, even as they flay the flesh from my bones.

actually, i did watch that interview. he was being asked if he agreed with dick cheney's assesment that the insurgency was in it's "last throes" and his words were to the effect that no, it wasn't, and that it could be 10 years, 12 years, or a "generational commitment". i don't recall that he included 5 years in this list of possibilities, but i admit he may have.

and you were the one that implied that he said this fraudulently, so that liberals would shut up, not me.

Oh I think whatever the conditions he did it to shut them up, but I dont consider it a matter of being an issue of fraud at all. I am not in any way an endorser of any one of those guys, nor any of their opponents. I just don't subscribe to the demonization they pull on each other all the time, and I have an especially strong distaste for the press in the US. Guess it comes from working in the field for as long as I did and hating it. (newspapers are 10 times worse than TV people)

I've thought much about this.

I *WANT* to be on a bus blown up by al queda. I *WANT* my burnt flesh to be shown on TV. I *WANT* to show the terrorists my grinning(not grimacing) face and hear my words telling people that I love the terrorists and they know not what they do, and show them how they won't scare me, they won't change me, they won't harm me, even as they flay the flesh from my bones.

see, i don't know that i'd have the presence of mind to do that with burnt flesh, but i admire the courage, and the sentiment *golf clap*

I am a Canadian. My blood is the same as the british who have shown such bravery and my grandfather who was given some of the most prestigious medals for his heroism in World War II.

I refuse to betray my blood. The terrorists are nothing. Let them hurt me. I will love them back, because they know not what they do.

Liverbreath']I might say that it is you that should not let government TV (CBC?) fool you. You do not have anything close to the facts.
Not really. And by the way, we have more channels than the CBC up here, including CNN (which I prefer).
In June of 2005, President Bush stated that there had been 400 arrests made through the terrorist-investigations via tha Patriot Act, of them, 200 were convicted, and of those, 39 on terrorist-related charges.

The CBC reported today that according to our own government, we are not properly prepared for a hypothetical terrorist attack that may or may not be looming on our horizon. Given that, I have a few questions. They are all just queries of opinion. I would like to know what you think on them.

1. Is it a concern, in light of all the other important issues facing us?

2. Do we "need to wake up to the possibility that they could be targets"?

3. Do you think we are prepared?

P.S.: It might be helpful if you mention whether you live in Canada or not when answering, so as to get a better picture of the local and international image of our country.
"I am Canadian!"

People honestly *wish* we were targets. They want to be included as one with the rest of the world, even in this. Seriously, if we become such a target it will be just from people asking for it.

We're currently aware of about 50 believed cells operating in Canada. It is unclear as to why the government is not taking action, but it could be for any number of reasons, including that we hope they will lead us to higher level terrorists or that we can't technically touch them because they have yet to commit a crime here.
Your hunch is right. When you take a cell out, another one will take its place and you will have accomplished nothing. By keeping them under scrutiny they can lead you to other cells and to people higher up in the hierarchy. Then you can dismantle the whole organization in one swift move.

They can always be charged with conspiracy to commit a crime or organized crime, but you have to consider the pros and cons of how and when to do it.

The CBC reported today that according to our own government, we are not properly prepared for a hypothetical terrorist attack that may or may not be looming on our horizon. Given that, I have a few questions. They are all just queries of opinion. I would like to know what you think on them.

no problem.

1. Is it a concern, in light of all the other important issues facing us?

It should be a concern. Canada does the same thing that Britain does. They allow everyone one with no questions asked. This sets up the possibility that extremists can get into the country and do some damage.

2. Do we "need to wake up to the possibility that they could be targets"?

Yes, Canada does need to wake up to the possibility that they are targets.

3. Do you think we are prepared?

Nope.

P.S.: It might be helpful if you mention whether you live in Canada or not when answering, so as to get a better picture of the local and international image of our country.

I don't live in Canada. You have severe problems that have been pointed out before. Start tightening up immigration and have plans of action for a possible terror attack and drill constently. That's the best to prepare for a terror attack.

Actually, I don't think Canada will be a target for several reasons:

1. Why would you bomb the CN Tower, when you can drive for a few hours and bomb Detroit instead?

2. We have an open immigration policy that allows people to come here and then send money back home easily. This may provide support for some terrorist networks, and therefore would act as a deterrent in a 'don't bite the hand that feeds' sort of way.

3. We didn't support the war in Iraq, and people in Afghanistan recognise the Maple Leaf from the bags of food rather than the emblems on tanks and fighter planes.

By the way, does anybody have a cite for the alleged 50 terrorist cells in Canada, or Bin Laden saying we are a target?

And for all the Merkins telling us what to do with our immigration policies (because we can't have the funny brown people taking all the government positions :rolleyes: ), you can STFU.

I cannot comment on how well we are doing at preventing terrorist attacks, but I think we should bolster the groups who would be responsible for dealing with such a crisis, IF it were to take place.

We have more important issues to deal with, like the omnipresent health-care debate, environmental issues, and our merkin 'friends' who unilaterally decide to place tariffs on goods flowing southwards across the free-trade border.

Call me overly-academic if you must, but I am all hung up on finding the roots to problems.

To me, it seems that the sort of terrorism we see in New York, Bali, Madrid, and London is a result of the pent-up anger at Western policies; particularly when it comes to taking sides in the Israel-Palestine conflict, but for lots of other reasons as well. Following on that line of thought, restricting immigration would be the worst thing we could do, as it would only serve to increase the tensions.

Personally, I am all for immigration, be it from the Middle East or anywhere else on the globe. The overwhelming majority of immigrants have nothing at all to do with the terrorists, just as the overwhelming majority of Muslims having nothing to do with them (Consider how many Christians are involved with the terrorism in Ireland as a similar illustration). To my mind, we are far more likely to avoid a terrorist attack by drawing closer to the Muslim world, not by trying to separate ourselves from it.

I know someone will whine about us letting in potential terrorists or allowing sleeper cells to grow. I challenge such people to tell me what terrorist attacks can be traced back to Canada. There's the FLQ, obviously... Air India, yes... The whole Millenium Bombing of the LAX- oh wait- we caught him before he did anything. Yes, I can certainly see why Canada is bearing such scrutiny as a "haven for the axis of evil".

Sorry if I seem full of hot air. It is my personal opinion that the terrorists win if their actions lead us to change our actions. If someone sets off a dirty bomb in Moosejaw I will be upset, since I have a friend who lives there. I will want those responsible brought to justice within the framework of Canadian law. I will NOT, however, wish for us to turn our country upside-down and sacrifice all those lovely liberties in an attempt to save those same ideals. The terrorists just detonate bombs and crash planes. It is we who destroy freedom.

Call me overly-academic if you must, but I am all hung up on finding the roots to problems.

To me, it seems that the sort of terrorism we see in New York, Bali, Madrid, and London is a result of the pent-up anger at Western policies; particularly when it comes to taking sides in the Israel-Palestine conflict, but for lots of other reasons as well. Following on that line of thought, restricting immigration would be the worst thing we could do, as it would only serve to increase the tensions.

Personally, I am all for immigration, be it from the Middle East or anywhere else on the globe. The overwhelming majority of immigrants have nothing at all to do with the terrorists, just as the overwhelming majority of Muslims having nothing to do with them (Consider how many Christians are involved with the terrorism in Ireland as a similar illustration). To my mind, we are far more likely to avoid a terrorist attack by drawing closer to the Muslim world, not by trying to separate ourselves from it.

I know someone will whine about us letting in potential terrorists or allowing sleeper cells to grow. I challenge such people to tell me what terrorist attacks can be traced back to Canada. There's the FLQ, obviously... Air India, yes... The whole Millenium Bombing of the LAX- oh wait- we caught him before he did anything. Yes, I can certainly see why Canada is bearing such scrutiny as a "haven for the axis of evil".

Sorry if I seem full of hot air. It is my personal opinion that the terrorists win if their actions lead us to change our actions. If someone sets off a dirty bomb in Moosejaw I will be upset, since I have a friend who lives there. I will want those responsible brought to justice within the framework of Canadian law. I will NOT, however, wish for us to turn our country upside-down and sacrifice all those lovely liberties in an attempt to save those same ideals. The terrorists just detonate bombs and crash planes. It is we who destroy freedom.

Very well put. And you're right. We stop a lot of things from happening before they happen up here. Cold weather keeps the brain fresh, no?

Very well put. And you're right. We stop a lot of things from happening before they happen up here. Cold weather keeps the brain fresh, no?

I think Shakespeare said it before I did (well, obviously); but it is my firm belief that crime rates increase directly with temperature.

...At least for some crimes. I heard once that statistically Canadians tend not to commit homicide, but love stealing cars.

ANYWAY... That was off-topic. My apologies.